HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCAgenda_92May18•
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
May 18, 1992
7:30 p.m.
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. ROLL CALL: Lee Barry Len Boche Ed Finegan
Marie Furton Steve Huso Carolyn Nestingen
Ken. Salzberg
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
D. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
E. REPORTS, REQUESTS, RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Request for a variance in §9-2.04[1](c) of the zoning
code for 1391 West Idaho
i~
2. Request for a variance in §9-4.01[4](c) of the zoning
code for 2099 Folwell Avenue
3. Review of preliminary plat for Rottlund Homes Development
4. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
FOR LOTS 3, 4, 5, AND 6 OF THE STRATFORD OFFICE PARK
SUBDIVISION
5. PUBLIC HEARING ON A ZONING AMENDMENT FROM B-1 LIMITED
BUSINESS TO R-4 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR LOTS 3 , 4 ,
5, AND 6 OF THE STRATFORD OFFICE PARK SUBDIVISION
6. PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT
PARKING IN THE UNIVERSITY GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD
7. Revisions of parking requirements in the University Grove
neighborhood
F. ADJOURN
•
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 27, 1992
7:00 P.M.
PRE-- SENT:
Lee Barry AB-~T_ ALSO PRESENT:
Len Boche Ken Salzberg Susan Ho t
Ed Finegan Y Administrator
Marie Furton Acting as Planner
Paul Ciernia, Council-
Steve Huso
Carolyn Nestingen member
Meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Lee Barr
The minutes of the March 30 y~ Chair.
as written. ~ 1992 meeting were unanimous)
Y approved
REPORTS RE UESTS RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Request for a
code for 2291 Hortance from §9-4.01(4)[C] of the zoning
Y Avenue in an R-1 zone.
his preq esty Porn a ~ 16e fo e Albrecht,
of variance presented to the commission
setback of 30 feet to construct a double the required front
existing single car garage and eliminate aan
garage on his property.
The proposed garage will replace a terrace and deck t
intrudes 16 feet into the 30 foot setback.
garage will be turned into livin s hat currently
The existing one-car
eliminated. g pace and the existing driveway
After some discussion, motion was made b
variance based on the followin Y Finegan to a
g criteria: pprove the
(a) Double garages are now standard for resi
property, Occasionally, variances are necessary
to meet this need on the urban lots developed in the
past.
(b) The proposed garage represents a continuation of
existing setback in the front yard.
an
Cc) There are examples of other similarly sited
in the nearby residential streetscape. garages
~d) Topography and landsca in
the double p g prohibits the extension of
garage to the east.
(e) Meets the standards for granting a variance.
. Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes of 4/27/92
Nestingen seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously.
2. Request for a variance from §9-2.04(2)[b] of the zoning code
for 1857 Fairview Avenue
Susan Thimsen, property owner, explained to the commission the
request of a 247 square foot variance from the 1,000 sq. foot
maximum. The request is necessary to put on a four season porch
addition of 486 sq. feet to their existing double garage of 621 sq.
feet. This would make the garage/porch accessory structure 1,107
sq, feet, 107 feet over the maximum allowed. The existance of -a
140 sq. foot utility shed made the .total request for a variance of
247 sq. feet over the 1,100 square feet.
The Thimsen's have one of the largest lots in Falcon Heights, with
a 106.5 ft. by 450 ft. or 47,925 square feet compared to a typical
6,150 sq. ft, lot in the Northome neighborhood. Therefore, the
amount of rear yard or open area filled up by the additional area
of the proposed four season porch will not significantly impact the
residential character of the rear yard. The proposed use is in
. keeping with the residential zoning of the property.
After discussion by commission, Nestingen moved for approval of
variance based on the following:
(a) The residential character of the addition is in keeping
with the residential character of the R-1 zone and
neighborhood.
(b) The four season porch will meet the family's living
requirements if it is 486 square feet but it will not
meet the family's needs at 226 square feet. _
(c) The variance of 247 sq. ft. of lot coverage by
accessory structures does not detract from the amount of
open space in the rear yard due to the large area of the
property. This lot along with a few other lots on
Fairview are unique to the city's lot size and shape.
The intent of the code is still effective.
Two conditions were placed on the variance: (1) that the space be
used for family living with some storage area and not allow the
space to be turned into an apartment or additional garage space and
(2) that the porch be set back 2 feet further from the north
sideyard than the existing garage.
• Boche seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimousl .
Y
PIIBLIC HEARING ON A REQIIEST FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A PLANNED
IINIT DEVELOPMENT FOR APPROXIMATELY 24 TOWNHOMES ON THE
APPROXIMATELY 3 1/2 ACRES NORTH OF CITY HALL IN THE STRATFORD AREA
BY ROTTLtJND HOMES .
Chair Barry called the public hearing on the request for
preliminary approval of a planned unit development for 24 townhomes
in the Stratford Area by Rottlund Homes for 4 four-unit buildings
and one eight-unit building. (see attachment A)
Presentations were made by three Rottlund Home representatives who
submitted their preliminary plans of the proposed development
including landscaping. A scaled down model of one of the townhomes
was also presented. It was brought to the commissions'
attention that there was a time deadline for preliminary approval
from the city and that was June 1, 1992. Questions were asked by
some of the commission members regarding the width of the proposed
road, energy standards, size of retaining walls and placement of
air conditioning units. There were no questions/comments from the
public.
City planner, John Uban, also addressed the commission relative to
the proposal with recommended modifications to the building
placement, roads and landscaping. (see attachments B,C)
Commissioner Finegan suggested that they re-name the development as
the suggested name "Maple Knolls" would be confusing with the
already named "Maple Knoll Street".
Nestingen made a motion that planning commission pass on to city
council a conceptual approval of the planned unit development
project subject to the planner and engineer's recommendations.
Huso seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with
the exception of Leonard Boche who abstained from the voting.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing at 8:30 P.M.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at
8:32 P.M.
r ~
LHAId ST.
~~
~~
~ i ~ ~ ~ ~~
IJ ~~
` F
s _~ e '~
- -~~~~
& ° ~,~J
0
,~
y ~~ Sc 2' [ry C e
~~ -' -_ ~
I~
~~
t'1
N
H
M
H
H
ro
r
7:
w
a
0
r
b
fT
rt
w
a
M
H
d
N
O
.n
N
M
H
~~
fl
~ ~ N
r
r
L ro
(p M
H
. ~ H
Y.
H
Z
Ll
z x ro ~i
E ~ i(/yc0
o
ro
O
m
b
r
y ., C
/
f
Z m
~
m A C ~
i ~^ ? U1
~ -mac m -I
D ~ N
-~
~ -~ m ~
<
z
-~ ~
-.~
m Z
~ Z
; A ;
_ ~ m
,
~ ~
f m
! i ~ Q
~i ~; o D
v D ~
Y
rt
~w
n
9
a
H
a
M
N
-~ ~ ~,.~.
r
v~ ~
~ F ~ ~
cs~ _ , ~
~ ~
t ~ ~
A
RO~ITL
HOMES
A DMSION OF
THE ROTTLUND COMPANY, INC.
MEMO AND TM
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
Susan Hoyt
FROM: Don Jensen, Land Development Manager ,~
Todd Stutz, Executive Vice President
DATE: Apri115, 1992
RE: Maple Knolls Courtyard Homes P.U.D.
The Rottlund Company is pleased to submit this 24 home subdivision for your review and approval. The project as
proposed consists of four 4 home buildings and one 8 home building with four different floor plans.
• The facades are fmished with new improved aluminum siding, soffits and trim which carry a 30 year warranty.
The use of this material minimizes future expenses of repainting wood for the homeowners association. The roof is
finished with a 20 year shingle and brick is utilized in several key locations such as around garage doors, front
doors, and at building facade changes where the plane of the building steps back at the end homes. (See sheet 4 of
5.) Each home entry is illuminated by small detail fixtures for ease of safety and address identification. Additional
25 shielded down cast fixtures will be installed where multiple common driveways meet along the main driveway.
End homes as proposed are 1,437 square feet (SF) with a two car garage. Homes have about 885 SF on the main
level along with the "Courtyard," and about 553 SF included in a second floor bedroom and loft. There are
bathrooms on both floors. (See sheet 5 of 5.) Interior homes are slightly smaller with 1409 SF proposed on two
floors.
The "Courtyard" is a new product type for The Rottlund Company and differs from the "Atrium" product in
Roseville through the use of loft space, although both homes are about the same square footage. This will be the
first location in the Twin Cities where the "Courtyard" will be built. Due to the construction and marketing of our
Concordia Meadows project in Roseville, we have accumulated a sizable list of interested homeowners. We are
excited about this project being sold out prior to the conclusion of construction, just as the Roseville project was.
The project is connected to Prior Avenue with two-way access and egress. The existing office sign will be removed
and replaced with one which identifies Maple Knolls. The existing parking lot for the offices will dead end on the
Rottlund parcel with a small turnout. Some of the existing walks for the office buildings will also remain on the
Rottlund parcel. Similar to the prior office proposal, a 24 foot drive serves the four 4 home structures along the
West boundary. An emergency access way does provide a loop road for fire or police emergencies. Buildings are
• generally located on an angle to magnetic north, in order to provide opportunities for passive solar gain to as many
homes as possible.
Phone 612-571-0304
Fax 612-571-1085
5201 East River Road #301
Fridley, MN 55421
~.- ~ +
•
Views out of the homes are generally oriented towazds as much open space as possible. Buffering the perimeter of
the project with a mix of evergreen and street trees along with shrub beds breaks up views of adjacent buildings
with blank facades. The plantings along the western boundary are intended to partially catch blowing snow and
soil from the University Agriculture fields. 122 trees aze currently proposed; an average of 5 per home.
Part of the "Courtyard" concept is the provision of a more private than typical outdoor patio azea. Shrub plantings
adjacent to the patio along with limited height wood fencing enhances the outdoor space. (See sheet 5 of 5.)
The current detention basin between the office buildings and the Rottlund homes poses a design opportunity and/or
a problem. Maintenance is currently minimal due to ownership concerns and a design idea not fully executed.
Currently, walks and small "cheek" walls intended for pedestrian bridges are not complete. The concept of a basin
holding water permanently will not be pursued by The Rottlund Company. The proposal currently proposed two
terrace walks of about 2 feet each. These aze visualized as possible gardening spaces for the residents or a more
formalized planting edge for the office to look at. At such time as our buyers aze determined (within three
months), a survey of their landscaping desires will determine the final use and design for the basin and retaining
wall area. The Rottlund Company prefers to design and install a usable solution that the homeowners prefer,
rather than predetermine a space that their homeowners association would rather not maintain.
Should the vacant office building be sold to a user in the neaz future which has a strong interest in detail
landscaping, their input could also be taken into consideration. An underground irrigation system will keep the
entire property effectively watered.
The drainage is primarily surface sheet drained to the center drainage basin or catch basins along the perimeter of
the access drives via curb and gutter. All storm water ultimately flows to the detention basin to the north for •
holding and discharge downstream.
Existing watermains and storm sewer lines are proposed to be modified at the southern end of the site due to
proposed building locations. Should pipe be able to be abondoned it will be, otherwise it may be removed, revised,
or disposed of. Existing fire hydrants occur at both the north and south end of the project site and are currently in
place.
The sanitary sewer penetrates each building along a common wall and is connected to the 8 inch main located in
Prior Avenue. Due to the back to back design and the use of condominium ownership, each home will not have
individually installed water and sewer. Gas, phone, cable, and electric utilities will be installed separately for each
home.
The Rottlund Company proposal for "Maple Knolls" offers a unique opportunity to create a small mixed use project
in Falcon Heights. With maximum structure height at about 28 feet above grade for the center of the 8 home
building, stepping down to about 16 feet at the end homes lowest point, a more pedestrian scale is maintained.
With over 5 trees per home and individual Courtyazd patio areas, indoor and outdoor use is encouraged. We
encourage your comments and look forward to your motion of approval.
GG ' Dili luc .
DJ/skh
DJMPKNLS.doc •
_,
•
PLANNING REPORT
DATE:
REVIEWED BY:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
ACTION REQUESTED:
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
Background
22 April 1992
C. John Uban
Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc.
Rottlund Homes
Prior Avenue
(North of City Hall)
Residential PUD
Preliminary Development Plan
Approval
Rottlund Homes is proposing a 24-unit townhouse development, to be called Maple Knolls, on the vacant
• land north of City Hall that is currently part of a Commercial PUD with two existing office buildings.
The proposed project consists of one 8-unit building and four 4-unit buildings on the 3.5-acre L-shaped
parcel.
The adjacent land uses are the City Hall and Fire Station to the south, Hewlett-Packard offices to the east,
single family to the north, and University of Minnesota agricultural fields to the west. Given the context,
the proposed land use is appropriate.
Zoning Ordinance References
The Ordinance allows Planned Unit Developments in order to provide flexibility and encourage creative
design. The piece of property in question would be difficult to develop under-standard zoning, and the
PUD is appropriate. The Ordinance also requires that:
1) The proposed PUD must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. An amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan to Medium Density Residential should be part of the Maple Knolls
PUD approval.
2) The allowable density in a PUD must conform to the zoning district in which it is located.
-The land is currently zoned B-1 with a Commercial PUD on it. A rezoning to R-4 as the
underlying zoning should also be part of the approval for Maple Knolls. The R-4 District allows
12 units/acre; Maple Knolls will be 6.9 units/acre.
3) A private road within a PUD must be platted as an outlot that meets or exceeds the
requirements for a similar public street in the City. With minor adjustments, the Maple Knolls
• plan should be able to accomplish this. There are other specific requirements in the Ordinance
concerning the relationship of the homeowners association and the City regarding the private
B
Maple Knolls PUD 4/22/92 Page 2
roadways that will need to be put into the covenants governing the project. We have not •
reviewed a copy of the proposed covenants yet.
Design Considerations
1) Overall, the buildings will be attractive and well-designed and would be a welcome addition
to the community. Rottlund has a good reputation and is building a project (of 112 units) in
Roseville, at Highway 36 and Dale Street. The units there are similar, but not identical, to the
ones proposed for Maple Knolls.
2) The buildings are placed on the site at various angles. While there may be situations where
this is warranted, we believe an arrangement that would line the buildings up more closely with
the right angles of the property lines would make just as much sense on this property and would
eliminate the condition where the outdoor patio area is as close as 5 feet to the roadway. There
is ample room on the site to keep this dimension at a minimum of 15 feet in all cases. At the very
least, aligning the buildings with consistent angles would be an improvement. The narrative
supplied by Rottlund indicates that the angled placement is to improve solar gain to as many units
as possible. In the design they propose, the northerly unit would receive practically no winter
sun at all, whereas if the buildings were aligned straight north and south, the northeast and
northwest units would receive at least some morning or some afternoon winter sun.
3) Parking for the project appears to be adequate. The Ordinance requires 2.5 spaces per unit,
and Maple Knolls will have 4 spaces per unit, excluding any parking on the private road. All
fourplex units have atwo-car garage and space for two more to park in the driveway. The 8-unit
building has two-car garages for the 4 corner units and one-car garages for the 4 interior units,
also with an equal number of spaces in the driveways. The plans note the possibility of parking •
on one side of the private road. We would recommend this only if the roadway were widened to
30 feet from the proposed 24-foot width.
4) Landscaping
The landscaped screening of drive and parking adjacent to Prior Avenue is generally adequate.
However, this could be enhanced with the addition of some shrub massing along the north edge
of drive and west edge of parking.
The landscaped screening/buffer along the eastern boundary appears to be generally adequate.
Screening along this boundary adjacent to the fire station, near the entrance to the project, will
lessen the impact of the fire station storage area. However, to adequately buffer this activity, the
City will have to clean up the storage yard and plant landscaping on the fire station property in
this area.
The landscaped screening/buffer along the southern boundary appears adequate.
The landscaped screening along the western boundaries needs additional overstory/evergreen
plantings along the walkway/emergency vehicle access to buffer the residential neighborhood
-across the low area to the west. The western boundary along the existing office development
needs additional evergreen and shrub plantings to adequately screen the offices and parking from
view.
The area along the northern boundary between the proposed development and the office complex
needs substantially more plantings. This area serves as the visual focal point for the existing
office development. The terraced walls should be heavily landscaped to enhance its functions as •
r
~ ~~ ~
•
O
W ~
0
0
Q
}
~ 1
~ t'~
o
U
W
Z
0
U
J
a.
LL
~`~Y
~~v
~~
W
C
Q
}
Q
U
O
w
a
a
~.
L~. )
r ~
Maple Knolls PUD 4/22/92
Page 3
• a buffer and focus area between different uses. In addition, the lower part of this area cowl
developed as an attractive, passive garden that could benefit both uses. d be
The remaining interior spaces appear to be adequately landscaped, except at the end of the
drives. Additional shrubs should be planted in these areas.
Plant materials and sizes are adequate.
5) An entry monument sign is proposed, but we have not seen plans for it yet
6) Site drainage will be handled by an interior ponding area shared with the existing office
buildings and by the ponding area at the north end of the site abutting the single-family
neighborhood. There does not appear to be a capacity problem for the runoff, so the design of
this interior area is more for aesthetics than engineering reasons. The City's engineer should
review the plans. Interlocking block retaining walls are suggested in this area, but Rottlund
indicates the design may change.
7) Emergency access will be provided to the north end of the private road by an access drive
from the office building parking lot immediately to the east. The plans show this access as sod
over a gravel base, which would be plowed in the winter. The Fire Marshal needs to review this
for compliance with appropriate regulations.
CONCLUSION:
. We believe the project will be a good one and, with modifications to the building placement, roads, and
landscaping as noted. The preliminary development plan needs further work as noted in the engineer's
report. We recommend that all of these items be further addressed by the developer before the plan is sent
to the City Council.
Items of Concern:
1. Building placement
2. Road design and fire and safety access
3. Drainage and utilities and soils
4. Complete homeowner documents
5. Amend zoning and comprehensive plan
6• Abstract and survey
Continue public hearing to resolve the above issues.
r~
c.
~ ~i~i~~i
Apr•;I21, iQ92
Pile No• 3~v~-0o1@-Qp
2 3 1992 CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Maier Stewart & Associates Inc.
Ms. S;;srtzt Hoyt
City Auminis'crator
City of F~cor. Heights
2-~?? :.area,:ta=; r .~~ie?i~:e 'r?est
Falr-on Heights, 1~IN 55113
RE: ROTTLUND HOMES MAPLE KNOLL DEVELOP~Kr;;7T
PL-ANN;i;j'J UNIT DEVE:,~JF',tiiENT RE~i'iETrd
Dear Ms. Hoyt:
AS rig"estad. we 'nave reaie>r~Pd t;:e abcV~ refL^er.CE~ ~ j• -ar.xe~n~.
offer the following cc_^.:merstu:.., =e.i.*T'1na?-y Gy,_;,_„y g__d
•
1. `r%~A prelim.inar•,~ drawing z:evfewed' w~s~ aatecl h,~~il 1:3,.;,992, and -prFlsas~-d ,
by Fzoneer En;ir.Feri:zg:.--
2. Z'he own_r of t2:E pre:imir.4rt~ craering is the Rottlund Company,
3. T:;e locat.~on of t:~zP proposed development is north of i:he Cii:y 'r'.all, wes~ of
Pricr Avenue. east of the University prolserty, a:~d so:zth of the a:nyle
iczMil~ ,: ~5:dential propet-ty a:1C existing plrnroc~ u~zt de;•a?op>ztent (:~tr•) ;~•
the nort.,.
4. The tot,,:,z a±ea of the vite is aprra~Kizaa`:ly 3.5 acre,
5. The site gas 23~.~ fset of frog=rage cn ?ublio ri ht-of-;a«
F~icvrz rici7hts rlan.ninn and Cevel:Jpment Coda r ,zips a :r4.-.i_7:~.~t:zio~ '';~-
feet of f.o :ta5e, g~ -
~. P.ccordi:zc to ~°ction ~?-lo.aJ5 sz3bdi=riiior~ 2 o.f ±: ~~ f~l~.nnirg «nd ;~:-.-~et~;~;^tant
C.c~:la• s.c, build;nc~ shah. be locate:i iii'teen !iS~ fwai frori t?~e ba^k of curs.
• -The proposed building loc:~ted in the southeast corner of the development
is located thirteen (? 3) feet tram the iaack of curb.
7. The ;~ui2n?~~~ti; separat'ior., «cco~--t3ing to :he Planning a:~d 'Jevelopz>?.ent Code,
must he .: znin -;zulr. o.L o:~o--half the 5;zm os tY_e btiild~n.~ heights ~~f the *.~,rc
. b~,~.ii~iings. -gar exazn.p.ie. if eac.re oi`..:he buil.3incr heights is 20 faet. the
bu.''u'zig rhoul3 bo °•.~t„92.r3Tj•.a b•f ?~ frn<-t. The hualdings in tha s~sz,th~ti~pst
corner of tiia devElo~rnerf`. ar: lVtatec. 26 feet 4part. 3uilding sep,rst?on
sraulc:, be ?eru.e~' in this lor:ac:on.
1959 SLOAN PLACE, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 612-774-6021
9800 SHELARD PARKWAY, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441 612-546-0432
Equal Opportunity Employer
c:
City of Falcon Heights
April 2l, 1992
Page two
g, A common open space is not provided for in the proposed development as
required by Section 9-16.03 subdivision 3.
9, It is our understanding that tkza road providing access to the development
is a private road. Section 9-16.05 subdivision 4 lists the requirements of a
private road.
p,, Ownership and maintenance by Homeowners Association
B, Road design mee*s city st4ndards.
C. Road right-of-way shall be plotted as an outlot in final plat.
D. Homeowners Association must establish formal written procedure for
petitioning community takeover of said road.
E. Establish assessment procedure
F. Easement must be granted to the City to use the road and road
right-of-way for public purpose including emergency vehicles,
public utilities and conveniences.
G, Private road will not connect two or more existing or proposed public
right-of-way. The private road only connects Prior Avenue in one
location. •
H. Private road shat not connect other PL'D without written approval.
The proposed plan does not connect the existing PUD to the North.
I. Homeowners Association must grant the community an option to
acquire full right-of-way of road prior to final approval. Purpose
would be to assure proper road maintenance and use should
maintenance efforts become ineffective.
10. The preliminary plan does not show the width of the road. The proposed
road measures approximately 2~ feet wide. The City standard for a
residential street width is 30 feet wide which would allow unrestricted
parking. The proposed plan would allow parking on one side of the street.
A typical parking lane is ° feet wide which would allow 16 feet for two way
traffic tc pass. This is e:ctremely narrow. Howe': nr, because of off street
parking, parking along the road should be infrequent and sporadically
spaced reducing the likelihood of two cars meeting next to a parked car.
il. A boundary survey of the Pr ~ feet beyond dee a opment ~ The follow'nged
surveyor showing property 1
must be shown on the survey:
A. Existing property lines and dimensions
B, Ownership of all parcels
C. Platting and easements
D. Street right-of-ways and dimensions
E. Buildings .
F. Utility lines and facilities including elevations and existing slope of
pipe
~ ,
•
City of Falcon Heights
April 21. 1992
Page three
12. The owner should provide Abstractors Certified Property Certificate
showing the na
mes and addresses of property owners within 350 feet of
outer boundaries of the
ro
t
p
per
y.
13. A topographic map must be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer or
Registered Land Surveyor coverin
the
ti
g
en
re development. There is a
note at the bottom of the preliminary plan that indicates proposed
elevations are based on existing data provided by the ow:~er.
14. The owner should provide soil and subsoil conditions from a certified Soils
Engineer such as American Engineerin
d T
g an
esting, Inc.
15. The owner must provide drainage calculations showing drainage patterns
.
amount of runoff draining to low points and amount of runoff being
conveyed by storm sewer system. No evaluation of the storm sewer and
drainage can be completed until the drainage calculations are provided
.
The amount of runoff that drains to the low point at the south end of the
• development may be a problem if the water rises high enough to flood the
building immediately west of Prior Avenue.
16. The watermain within the City of Falcon Heights is maintained by St. Paul
Water Utility. Therefore, all plans must be approved by St. Paul Water
Utility prior to watermain construction.
17. The existing watermain in the northwest corner of the proposed
development is under the proposed building. The watermain must be
removed and relocated in the street away from the building.
18. In relation to the third building north of the south- groperty line, the
existing six inch ductile iron pipe (DIP} watermain is located approximately
eight feet from the building and three feet from the same building's patio.
.This is extreme~.y close to the building and should be relocated into the
street. This will allow the watermain to be repaired if necessary.
19. The existing DIP watermain under the first building north of the south
property line should be removed and relocated as shown on preliminary
plan or as directed by St. Paul Water Utility.
20. No fire hydrants are shown on the preliminary plan. The Fire Marshall
should be contacted to determine the number of hydrants required.
Typically hydrants are spaced approximately 500 feet apart.
21. An existing 15 inch reinforced concrete storm sewer pipe is located along a
• line approximately 65 feet north of the south property line. The 15 inch
storm sewer pipe is located under two buildings and must be removed as
well as the ground filled in and thoroughly compacted.
•~ d -
City of Falcon Heights
April 21. 1992
Page four
22. The utilities, such as watermain. sanitary sewer, and storm sewer. are
shown in schematic form. However. not enough information. such as
ele~Jations. is given to determine if the proposed utility improvements are
acceptable.
If you have any questions regarding these comments or require further
information. please call.
Sincerely;
MAIER STEWART AND ASSOCIATES. INC.
William K. Westerberg, P.E.
WKW:plo •
MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 22, 1992
Baldwin convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT
Baldwin, Ciernia, Gehrz, Gibson Talbot and Jacobs. Also present
were Chenoweth and-Hoyt.
MINUTES OF 4/8/92 APPROVED
The Minutes of April 8, 1992 were approved by unanimous consent.
CONSENT AGENDA APPROVED
Council approved the following Consent Agenda by unanimous
consent
1. Disbursements:
a. General Disbursements through 4/14/92, $71,719.58
b. Payroll, 4/1/92 - 4/15/92, $11,633.12
2. Appointment of David R. Bowers to Human Rights
Commission, Term to Expire 12/31/94
3, Awarding the Tree Removal Contract for the 1992-93
Season to Thommes and Thomas
4. Scheduling a Special Meeting on 4/27/92 Following the
Planning Commission Meeting
5. Licenses
AUTHORIZATION TO OBTAIN BIDS FOR COMMUNITY PARK PLAY EQUIPMENT
~J
Carol Kreigler explained that replacement of the large play
equipment at the Community Park is included in the 1992 parks
capital improvement program. She stressed that replacement is
necessary as the equipment is 18 years old, is in violation of
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Guidelines and the
guidelines for the Americans with Disabilities Act. Following a
brief discussion Gehrz moved that staff be authorized to obtain
bids for the Community Park playground equipment project. Motion
carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH ROSEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR PURCHASE
OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AT BRIMHALL SCHOOL
Council reviewed the proposed agreement with Roseville School
District 623 for purchase of playground equipment at Brimhall
School. Ciernia suggested that the portion of the fourth
paragraph addressing use by Falcon Heights residents be reworded
to reflect that the improvements will make the. playground
attractive for Falcon Heights residents to use for recreational
purposes.
MINUTES
APRIL 22, 1992
PAGE 2
Gibson Talbot moved approval of the agreement as amended which
carried unanimously.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS NOTED
1. Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes of March 9,
1992 and April 13, 1992
2. Minutes of Solid Waste Commission dated April 2, 1992
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
Tom Baldwin, Mayor
• ATTEST:
~` ~ / 1/
f~
rley C1~Ienoweth, City Clerk
•
• Meeting Date: 5/18/92
Agenda Item: 1
ITEM: Request for a variance in section 9-2.04[1](c) of the
zoning code for 1391 West Idaho
SUBMITTED BY: Mr. Lee Barry, Property Owner
REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator acting as planner
EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION:
Mr. Barry is requesting a variance of two feet in the required
five foot west sideyard setback of five feet to construct a new
double garage in place of an existing single car garage (see
attachment A) The current garage is located four feet from the
west side lot line.
The variance is required to:
• To protect a flowering crab tree in the rear yard (If the
garage is moved two feet to the east it will require
removal or substantial trimming back of the tree).
• • To maintain as open a view as possible from the rear
windows of the dwelling.
If approved the garage will be located three feet from the west
side property line which is adjacent to a small garden area and
driveway on the neighbor's property. It should not interfere
with the visibility from the neighbor's home.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approving a two foot variance in the west
sideyard setback. The variance request meets the standards for
granting a variance (attachment B), specifically c, which will
allows for the enjoyment of property rights and g, which provides
for preservation of unique site characteristics - the tree and
view from the rear of the house.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Site plan for 1391 West Idaho
B - Standards for granting a variance
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve request for a two foot variance in section 9-2.04
• [1](c) of the zoning code in the west sideyard requirement
because it meets the conditions for granting a variance
specifically c and g.
~-~
ALLEY
Gou(.. DRivew~Y
ZO ~ --
~~
2 ~ ~ ~~r,~4
J
'3
N PROP ~,~ ;
N
GA RACE ~ N
/ ~ c°
N
' ~ OT " 13 '
g~OCK 4
~- ~Zloi'
I~~
J
~-
N ~ / / ;-
--~~ i"2o'- to" ,
~ ~
0
IRON -- -- IRON
SIDEWALK
W. IDAHO AVENUE
1391 W_ 1DAH0
F;~LCON HEIGHTS, MN. "~
55108 `
q- -~. ~ 3
Subdivision 1}. Standards for Granting of Variance. No variance shall
be granted unless the City Council shall make without qualification on
the basis of evidence presented at•the meeting the following findings:
a. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare;
b. That the granting of the variance will not substantially
diminish or impair property values or improvements in the area;
c. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights;
d. That the- variance will not impair an adequate supply of light
and air to ad~aeent property;
e. That the variance will not impair the orderlq use of the public
streets;
~ 3
f. That the variance will not increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety; -''~3
.;gig. Whether the shape, topographical condition or other similar
characteristic of the tract is such as to distinguish it -
substantially from all of the other properties in the zoning
district of which it is a part, or whether a particular hardship, as
distinguished from mere inconvenience to the owner, would result if
• the strict letter of the Chapter were carried out;
kh. Whether the variance is sought principally to increase financial
gain to the owner of the property, and to determine whether a
substantial hardship to the owner would result from a denial of the
variance;
i. Whether the conditions which give rise to the application for
the variance arose after the adoption of this Chapter of the Code of
the City of Falcon Heights or any amendment thereto which placed the
tract in a zoning district different Prom what it was under the
Chapter. In the consideration of this item,-the City shall make
diligent inquiry as to all changes in the property and shall refuse
to grant the variance iP the problem is one that can be solved
through a proper application of a conditional use permit or an
amendment of the Zoning code . Financial hardship shall not be a
basis for the granting of a variance when the owner purchased the
property in reliance on"a promise that a variance would be granted,
and the City shall dismiss the appeal if it shall appear that the
property was purchased on such reliance.
Subdivision 5. Conditions. The City may attach such conditions to
the gr2*~t of the variance as it shall determine will be necessary or
desirable to bring it within the purpose and intent of the Chapter. A
public record shall be maintained of such conditions.
i•
Meeting Date: 5/18/92
Agenda Item: 2
ITEM: Request for a variance in section 9-4.01 [4](c) of the
zoning code for 2099 Folwell Avenue
SUBMITTED BY: Ms. Barbara Shiels, Property-Owner
Mr. Frank Preese, Property Owner
REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator acting as planner
EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION:
Request:
Ms. Shiels and Mr. Preese are planning to build a new home on the
vacant lot at 2099 Folwell. They are requesting a variance in
the east sideyard requirement of five feet in order to try to
save an existing 20" caliper elm tree on the property. The
property owner did not request a specific distance for the
sideyard variance. After discussions with the city forester and
with Ms. Shiels, staff recommends a maximum variance of 1 1/2
feet from the required five feet be considered by the commission.
• The location of the structure on the trapezoidal lot make a
variance necessary for a small portion of the rear of the
structure (see attachment A). This is the deck area. And, if
the variance is approved, a portion of the deck will be 3 1/2 '
from the sideyard line.
Analysis:
As indicated in the site plan (attachment B), the house was
originally sited for 10' 3" from the east side lot line. This
sideyard is 5' 3" greater than required by the zoning code.
Therefore, without granting a variance the dwelling can be moved
5' 3" further to the east and 5' 3" away from the elm tree. With
a variance of 1 1/2' the tree will be 6'9 " away from the
proposed structure.
Will this distance adequately protect the tree? The city
forester explained that it is difficult to anticipate whether or
not a tree will be harmed by construction because root systems
vary. There are examples where street projects cut within a few
inches of a tree, yet the tree lives. However, she said a
distance of more than 5' will give the tree a good chance of
surviving. The additional distance of 1 1/2 will increase that
possibility as well as keep the tree limbs further away from the
proposed structure.
The property to the east which will be affected by the request is
a 25 foot strip controlled by a city easement. Although there
are no plans for using this easement, it is difficult to predict
• the future. The city may design a pedestrian path to connect the
neighborhood to the trail down the hill to the north of the
property (see attachment B). Or, if the University decides to
develop the property along the east end of Folwell (west of the
tennis courts) for single family lots, the easement may be used
as part of the future lots. Therefore, it is important to
maintain some distance between the new structure and the property
line. The 3 1/2' setback in the rear deck will allow the property
owners to put up shrubbery without intruding on the adjacent
property and keep an adequate distance from any new use on
adjacent properties in the future. It will also allow the
structure to be 6' 9" away from the existing elm tree.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends granting the 1 1/2 foot variance in the required
east sideyard of 5' for the rear 5' of the structure in order to
provide a maximum opportunity to save the tree and keep its
branches away from the structure. This recommendation is made
only because the siting of the structure on the trapezoidal lot
requires a reduction in the sideyard requirement on only a small
portion of the property. Staff would not recommend this variance
request if the entire sideyard would be only 3 1/2' because this
might become a problem if land use changes occur on the
neighboring property to the east in the future.
• ATTACHMENTS:
A. Property owner's statement
B. 1) Site plan for 2099 Folwell Avenue
2) Plat map of adjacent properties
ACTION REQUESTED:
Consider granting a 1 1/2 foot variance in section 9-4.01 [1](c)
of the zoning code because it meets the conditions for granting a
variance, specifically standard g related to the topographic
conditions of the property. Place the condition that the
variance be allowed for the rear 5 feet of the structure and that
the remaining portion of the structure must meet the setbacks in
the zoning code.
Z - f}
Request for Variance
Lot 1 Block 1 Auditor's Subdivision No 90 to St. Paul and the western 25 feet
of Lot D.
We seek a variance of the sideyard set back requirements on the east side of the lot in order to
attempt to save the large 20" diameter elm tree on the west side of the lot. This tree is located
approximately 10 feet inside the western border of the lot. Please refer to our survey of the lot,
which is Exhibit A of to this request, to see the location of the tree. Without a variance we
would have to remove the tree because it would be located within the southwest corner of the
garage foundation of the house we propose to build on the lot. See Exhibit B of this request
which is the Site Plan for the proposed house.
Waiving the sideyard set back requirement on the east side of the lot would enable us to shift the
house about 10 feet to the east. Based on information provided by City Forester Linda Trefoil,
the resulting distance between the tree and the garage foundation is likely to be sufficient, though
not guaranteed, to save the tree.
This request for a variance is compatible with the city's standards for granting a variance as set
forth in the zoning ordinance 9-15.03. Our lot is an unusual shape in that it narrows in width
from 106 feet in the south (front) to 73 feet in the north (back). The adjoining property owners
are City of Falcon Heights to the east, the University of Minnesota to the north and the
ch~ctel°residence to the west. The neighbors to the west would benefit from the tree being saved
and there appears to us to be no impairment to-the property of the city or the University that
would result from granting the variance. Finally, saving the tree would not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare but rather would promote it.
We therefore request that you grant the variance to the sideyard set back on the east side of the
lot.
~~
41~
D
I
/ ii .Y /may / «. I
~, - ~ ~~
2-~
O S t"t'E "1 ~ A~J
,'
r/,
/
//
r ~
l l ^° ;~ I I ~\~~\ ~
i ii l
/~ ~~~ t 4 /~ 111 I v i = ~~'- ! ; ~f r \ /~ ~ `` ~-~~ ~_ - "__
J ~ // ~.• I ~ --i I / 11 / ~ /
~l l l : A. ~ ~ `~~ _-- - - .
~ ,! !I~ - ~~ -~- -- ' L
' ~, ~~( _ i ~~/' ~~
r _ / r ~ ! E
' ;/ i~~ ~ '~~ ---
/~ % ~ / J/' / '~_ /
/ ~ ~-.
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ !~
/~~_ ~ / ! / I '~ i
l ''1%0. ~~~~~; / a~u~.'~ ~ p
r
''~ovc ~ `__,
~ ~
-~ ,
° i~ _
~'
I WI lW / Ce ~ l 1. (ILA I ~. o' 7 ~J' ~ _ _ ~~,',p~x~
Q O gyp/ /w I 4 ~/y.l ~~4.0• --~o.;,~- s
>EOj $O ~l l_ i ~ J I03 g' S • '~• • G i• i _ _ __ - _ -
~ \' ~yy ay qo• ~ \°Ny a 7 i
~V'~
1123.9? 170 \ ~qp ~ ~ d ~ 2.12 O~'.)
/~ / o ~O ~3' _ • 74.0' l9 ,
V M ~
jS.U• `'~`3 } 4 b 3 O so• al .~
M `'I
~" a 61.oz , ~ l 5~~ •~~ lI i`3d) cI X37) r~~w A ~ ~ 1 f I
7S.7u u y! 71. a~ 7e.~ eo 7j ~ J ~ M
u I~ m i ~ ts.ac X71 120.1 m ~ f I, _ .`~
• ( ' d A ~~ ~ 112,
-~ °~ °~ ''
C~y~ 3 ,:~ej ' ;iz; -I ~H; -i ice! _ (a,' o ¢ o . 3+~.
'3'15 93 ~! 72 78 ~ ~y 78 ' 78 (202 5
~ •
'~ ar t
1JT
11 v ~~ I
~~
- -- -" p
~~
N '
' ~
Meeting Date: 5/13/92
Agenda Item: 3
ITEM: Review of preliminary land use development (PUD) for
Rottlund Homes Development
SUBMITTED BY: Donald Jensen, Rottlund Homes
REVIEWED BY: John Uban, Consulting Planner
Bill Westerberg, City Engineer
Leo Lindig, Fire Chief
Terry Iverson, Fire Marshal
Susan Hoyt, City Administrator
EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION:
At its April 27, 1992 meeting, the planning commission held a
public hearing on the proposed 24 unit townhome development PUD
by Rottlund Homes. The commission passed a resolution supporting
the concept, but requested that some details with the site be
revised before preliminary PUD approval. These revisions are
completed for the commission's consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Memorandum for Rottlund 5/11/92
B. Series of plans
C. Consulting planner's report
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve preliminary PUD for 24 townhome development for
Rottlund Homes on lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Stratford
Office Park subdivision.
:J
-~
O~ITTLIJND
HOMES
A DMSION OF
THE ROTTLUND COMPANY, INC.
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
Susan Hoyt
FROM: Don Jensen, Land Development Manager
Todd Stutz, Executive Vice President
DATE: May 11, 1992
RE: Maple Knoll Courtyard Homes P.U.D.
The Rottlund Company is pleased to submit this 24 home subdivision for your review and approval. The project as
proposed consists of four (4) home buildings and (1) 8 home building with two different floor plans.
The facades are finished with shell ivory aluminum siding, white soffits and trim with "boathouse" accent color
• (similar to a slate blue) which carry a 30 year warranty. The use of this material minimizes future expenses of
repainting wood for the homeowners association. The roof is finished with a 20 year shingle and "driftwood"
brick, abrown/red color is utilized in several key locations such as around garage doors, front doors, and at
building facade changes where the plane of the building steps back on the end homes. (See sheet 6 of 7.) Each
home entry is illuminated by small detail fixtures for ease of safety and address identification. Additiona125 foot
tall shielded down cast "shcebox" lights will be installed where multiple common driveways meet along the main
driveway. (See Site Plan.)
End homes as proposed are 1,437 square feet (SF) with a two car garage. Homes have about 885 SF on the main
level along with the "Courtyard," and about 553 SF included in a second floor bedroom and loft. There are
bathrooms on both floors. (See sheet 7 of 7.) Interior homes are slightly smaller with 1409 SF proposed on two
floors.
The "Courtyard" is a new product type for The Rottlund Company and differs from the "Atrium" product in
Roseville through the use of loft space, although both homes are about the same interior square footage. This will
be the first location in the Twin Cities where the "Courtyard" will be built. Due to the construction and marketing
of our Concordia Meadows project in Roseville, we have accumulated a sizable list of interested homeowners. We
are excited and hopeful that this project will be sold out prior to the conclusion of construction, just as the Roseville
project was.
The name Maple Knoll was selected because the project is located on the same north-south line as Maple Knoll
Drive farther east. Naming the private drive Maple Court should remove any confusion about the project's location
• for directional purposes. The project is connected to Prior Avenue with two-way access and egress. The existing
office sign will be removed and replaced with one which identifies Maple Knoll. The existing parking lot for the
Phone 612-571-0304
Fax 612-571-1085
5201 East River Road #301
Fridley, MN 55421
offices will dead end prior to the Rottlund parcel with a small turnout. Some of the existing walks for the office
buildings will be tied into the Rottlund parcel. Similar to the prior office proposal, a 24 foot drive serves all of the
structures along the South and West boundary. An 8 foot emergency access way over a 20 foot wide compacted
base does provide a loop road for fire or police emergencies. Buildings have been reoriented per the previous
suggestions by the City consultant which allow for existing utilities and grades to be preserved as much as possible.
The revisions were reviewed with staff including the fire marshall on May 5th. All drives have standard
surmountable (angled) curbs serving the homes.
Snow storage is planned for the end of drives and along the property perimeter. No parking signs clarify where
guests and residents are supposed to park vehicles. Eight designated stalls are provided for guests in addition to
the possible short term guest parking which could occur along the outer perimeter of Maple Court.
Views out of the homes are generally oriented towards as much open space as possible. Buffering the perimeter of
the project with a mix of evergreen and street trees along with shrub beds breaks up views of adjacent buildings
with blank facades. The plantings along the western boundary are intended to partially catch blowing snow and
soil from the University Agriculture fields. 122 new trees are currently proposed; an average of 5 per home.
Additionally, we plan to spade a number of the existing volunteer cottonwood and aspen trees to the northwest
edge for screening and buffering purposes.
Part of the "Courtyard" concept is the provision of a more private than typical outdoor patio area. Shrub plantings
adjacent to the patio along with limited height fencing enhances the outdoor space. (See sheet 7 of 7.)
The current detention basin between the office buildings and the Rottlund homes poses a design opportunity and/or
a problem. Maintenance is currently minimal due to ownership concerns and a design idea not fully executed.
Currently, walks and small "cheek" walls intended for pedestrian bridges are not complete. The concept of a basin
holding water permanently will not be pursued by The Rottlund Company. The proposal currently includes a
terrace wall of about 3 feet in height. These are visualized as possible gardening spaces for the residents or a more
formalized planting edge for the office to look at. At such time as our buyers are determined (within three
months), a survey of their landscaping desires will assist us in determining the final design for pockets shown
above the retaining wall areas. The Rottlund Company prefers to design and install a solution that the
homeowners prefer, rather than predetermine a space that their homeowners association would rather not
maintain.
Should the vacant office building be sold to a user in the near future which has a strong interest in detail
landscaping, their input could also be taken into consideration. An underground irrigation system will keep the
entire property effectively watered.
The drainage is primarily surface sheet drained to catch basins along the perimeter of the access drives via curb
and gutter. All storm water ultimately flows to the detention basin to the north for holding and discharge
downstream. Engineering calculations are being created to verify the storm water generation. Plans have been
submitted to the appropriate water utility for approval.
Existing watermains and storm sewer lines are proposed to be modified at the southern end of the site due to
proposed building locations. Pipe will be removed as necessary and disposed of. Existing fire hydrants occur at
both the north and south end of the project site and are currently in place. An additional hydrant has been added
roughly midpoint along the western boundary.
. The sanitary sewer penetrates each building along a common wall and is connected to the 8 inch main located in
Prior Avenue. Due to the back to back design and the use of condominium ownership, each home will not have
individually installed water and sewer. Gas, phone, cable, and electric utilities will be installed separately for each
home.
The Rottlund Company proposal for "Maple Knoll" offers a unique opportunity to create a small mixed use project
in Falcon Heights. With maximum structure roof height of about 28 feet above grade for the center of the 8 home
building, stepping down to about 16 feet at the end homes lowest point, a more pedestrian scale is maintained.
With 5 trees per home and individual Courtyard patio areas, indoor and outdoor use is encouraged. Address signs
and mailboxes are shown to clarify the homes for delivery and guest purposes. We encourage your comments and
look forward to your motion of approval.
DJ/skh/sc
DJMPKNLS.doc
3-~~i~
C7
r~
L
~s •~
•~ -
i i
~~ ~
a
t~
~~
,s~
t
l;
t~ii~
•;3
~i!
~~
~!
v
r
m
O
n
O
c
D
a
0
N
N
~I
m
r
D
2
FY
~; in
~w a I i
I /
a3 ~ /
s / i
g ~ I /
F> Z ~
~4 I /
I
z /
I
€ ` /
s I
SF ~ /
a I/
'~ z
Y
I
~a " I
I I
I
J e
~~ ;J
V
i
S
0
m
m
0
I x
r
In
I -=i
I 'o
~ ~
------------I~~ --~-
I
I ® Ilil
)6.5 ~ P ®m ~~~ ~~~
i ~ ^ I T
i ,~~ ~a 6~s (n
M
~ ~ : ~t I ~
/ ~\ I , /4/
X ~ n
:~ ~ ,
~ 9
,e ~ `aa I I
1
a r~ .,..
~ I r~-y ~---------~,
~ '+.
I r-~° °~ '
s ~ r~ -------J ~
s I ~ ~
e I y
I ~ i , i
I
i
~ ~ o
3
R
mm i~d
s '~
RN
~
;
'_ ~ a ~~
~
~
'
8
F
a
gY
~ ~ ~
N
v
a
~ r
~ D
~
5 gs°~~s ~ : ;w
}
~~ 8
~
~~ ~
~
~
~
e
A
e
A 9
~
~
~
~
LF?~~:
~q,g;
_ ~ A"g
~
_
~Ka RF
^~ ~«
a~
~a ~
~' , ~
v
N
8~ ~
~~ ~
~~ Z
3-
•
u
A
9
m
Z
O
A
O
C
`s
O
N
m
N
a
s
z
0
n
s
v
m
v
A
I
i
i#
1
~~.
~~~
~`
i
i?3
~,
~;
i;~
;.'
~~ ~ R
~ }
~ r-
> g r-
'~ R
° ~r
~ v
~-
R
~ ~_
a v ~
a~
~r
Q
d
t
I ~
I ~
I //
I
I ~
I
I ,'
Y
I
I
X08
~~$ R
~ `i I
I s R a 8 1
~ ~' ~ j
I •1
I ~ 1
I 1 ~ I
I 1
W 1
{~~ c
V
i
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
------- - - _ _ -I-- - ---- ---I--------~-
I
I
I
I
I "~
I r
~ "p
M
I ^
9 ~ ~i I M
A y
~~~ I P
N yy>
Cae! I 1 M
v I e Y
a ~zQ I ~
i ~°1 ~O aa~ p ~ r
~~ ~~ ~ 1
'~' ~ ~ u=~oa +~
~~9 ~~~~~` d I p
y B
~`\I H ~
° I
A
II b 9 1
l~ y 9 ~
_ . _ __ _ _ ~A ~ I
_ .. q 4 ~
A
°~ a I
' ~I ------ • i aril I ~ Z7
~~ I 1 O.
~ ~ 1 I ; 1 ~ ; '~1
!\II1, ~x I h:q .=rte 1 NI
_ I
! ~~', r=mx [ ., ' 1
{11 `' C P I 1 i l l 1
it I 1 1 1 DI
1 ~ 1 1 1 I ~ 1
1 I 1 1 1 ~1
11 1 I ; 1 1 1 1
II 11 ~--------' i e I r Zi
II 1 I 1 i
it ~ 1 9 CI
~11p101Yf2==___=_'y1 ~. .- y_sd ~ _, r"i"ll
_ 1
'~ ~ , ~ ..Y. R, - i
IR
1 ~ 1
'~F~~ F R S'. I I ~ 1
!° ~ ~1 K ~
! :1 rr~
Ix Y
~ 1 1
~ l;, Y
1 1
i f ~ r- 1 1
' F 1
r r K L 1
F a 1 1
1 u r 8 1
~i. ~Y 9w. ~ a•
_^ __~ i Yy _ ~ 1
1 0 1 9 ,. ~ i
~ m
v ml
I
I
I
: : ~
g 9 =5151~~ $~~ n ` ~
;;a ~rn~i,~~
s ~ ~ x o
R u
$ ~ t, iFi
a" "C ^ Tn
~ ~ Z
N
8
w wm
~ A 0
~
~ m
I TJ
3: 59,§~ a =~a= ~
~~
$ 837 `i e S S'R8 I m
¢ a~a°gq
+ g'
~ ~ ~~ ~ c ~
=
Y vl
~
!e _
e 3 ~ N
l
_
3 ~ m r
~ n D
8 r1
N Z
I
I r
~. z i Cn
m ~ ~
_~.t ~
v_ __ __ was ~I
'
7 w ZI~O i w O
-~
i~~r ~ <
m
!a N
O ~ ~
. _ `
C S
i14 i ,7 m
;.! p ~ ~ ~
'; A
ii ~ 4
~is s ' ~ ~ 4
: ~
i}i
p a
1 ~
2
a
c ~
m
9 ~~
s
•
v
m
><
0
n
0
c
a
a
v
N
2
O
s
v
m
v
D
N
p I _I I~
a 9x yi
0 a6 ~a t 'R
_ °~ ~ ~~
~ ' "~
z - ~ (E ~e
a i
~ s
0
f
z
N
a
C
a
s
4
O
i s
m
m
-1
9
m
•1 9 .
-9 z
1
V o
~~
e =
' _ ~ i;a
i~ i
i ;i~ s
~~ ~ 9a.i 3
i' SqF
:C~ Y
.-- ~J
i.~j C
a = j~~ i
S~F
'=3
at:
a~~
~..
~f~
.aai
r~R
c-
ift~i'i~'E~!}i*ElirrC~`;x}° it_i~=igir?~!
i?i~e i~f's -~}i~i; R=ei;?`ri! xE~'~~5iii3i~
;i= ~-~ }:; 3r_iii°i- :~, i.• x:e:;xxi
i=° i3?+?fi.: 4'xe:ixisc_R !•~ !!~;°2l'i
.rt ~}i~~:rf; i!i°}~i='~i=3' rei c~ i=ei~x
fi^ ii~x~~~i' 'r _r"iieirxi~. a"e i~_ixe_}
ar! ! lip=~j= s~€l~ir~_i~~E ~~~ 77iie~+~i
x:: '~ 'lE=f` }Pi.~4~ Si°i s! l~rx°rx}_
-:i ;~ !. is ie ~ie=i f( x e } i
~~ s! 7y t_~ ri '1 i? i ex i[ i ~ i i
r, ': t ~ i
i F ~ :- Cj ~= ii i ~ f
0
A
m
D
~ Z
m
~
it-~ _
.'
~ Q
~ '! ~7
5- ~I '~- ix C
z
a
°
v N a ° r ~•
~='
~ ~ . ;
' r m m ~e~
'" ~ ~ D ~@ '
~ a
~ o
z ~
c~
; iq
~~ C
Z
v ~ _
'' - ~
r m ,
~ ~
m ~
. • ~: •.
~ :ay ~ r~
a G=¢ ~ ~
,~¢ I axi ~.
~i ~~~ ta. I i~ \
c I I I I
i a~s ~s
! ` STREET
a ~ ~ ^~ ~ ~ 3 ~~ i
's >! a 8 a
i~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ `( i
~a '~ x5 ~E i
',4 FFF €
~ ~ ~~ ~
~:
~:
3 -a(s
•
•
3 - ~~e 1
`~
_~
_-
~_;
,~,
'i~
~~}
j~~
;•t
-sipi
`i`!i
3is
~~
3
v
r
m
x
z
O
r
r
Cf
O
C
A
y
D
O
N
C
r
O
2
m
r
m
0
z
N
. '-._-__ ___~ ~ _____ _ ~ I _II
-__ ~' __I~~J
~ - _ -._
a - N '~ N I .' ~:f
o ~
....._. .. ..- I--~
0~ ._ _ _.:
V
•
•
.
~ ~ ..
9 ~
!
•~ ~~
'
'
Si •
~41~~a~~n~~'
• i
~.
I
`
t
J1.A. L~ I~
I~ ~ ~
2]i
i'c
° J
~ I I
;: Courtyard ,I ~ ~1 ; ; I I
i,i - Entry / J - -
di
l ._ Garage
~_` '
ii
•t< ~ Bedroom
!~ Living i +:s .r
I v n.e ca.r -~
I - ~
'
~
~
O n
I • \~ ~ o...r.b.
V:
.
i
Master ! ' ~ ' "' ~ I i i ~ ~~Balk ~:
Dining I .. I i ~ • ...
Bedroom I ' Kitchen -'- i i ~ I ---~
ob
O
~
pm
17x •/ -
oe .. f04 r( ~
.__
'
~ tx2 •1 .. .. ~
__..... -- .._. -_. _.. ____i .. ..~v j
S
SI /
Laundry W
(` ~ 1;.:'. - ~ Loft Storage
D
.
I asiey
= Bath' :. .
.
ae a
+ss .r
~ Q: _ '. ,-Mech.
__
Q L
Main Level Plan va-~ro- Upper Level Plan
"s m 868 sf b51.5 of
•a
°oo
~C-~i
S
yr
C
7~v
'
=~o INTERIOR UNIT 1409 sf
Y
.
_
s
c
m ,t°
.
n i•• q~~~~~l r'
c
f
1+' t
a~:
a ~
,
i
~4~
I
s '
p
O _.
rn Courtyard IX '
: Garage
rF
1ry
F droom ~
~ ~~
t ~, Be
m d
i
•~
c
v Living
z _
~
r
O !60 nl I -~
Ii I
~" ~
•
a
v ~~„ ~ Dining ', '
I
Kitchen - op.r.s.
~~
r
s wM~n.,.• :3oo:i ._- -- Loft
N
. .
II
~I
~ ~ Laundr ~ W n"
y~ Master Bedroom ~ Y •:.
I M`
I rs. a oressms:.. `::Bath .. _ ; D
~
-Mech' Storage
-" Q'
'
I
`~ Main Level Plan ,ia•.,•o° Upper Level Plan
E 884 of
553 of
V
a [.,tmon..nnu...w r•. a•+o~. sir rrt CORNER UNIT 1437 of
i.wac... n•. ron •cnu i«.""o,s
3-g~~
~^~~Z~
•
$~,
~1
i
ii
~';
{~'_
iii
!it
t
=~i
~jji:
1
a
m
x
2
O
n
C
D
9
V!
v
z
~_
D
V7
a
s
0
4
n
s
z
_, ,. _
I ~\ ~
~ I I
I I
-
~_
1 ~~ -_iL--~ -~ I I
~i~
I I
-I
i-._ --~ \ ~ I I
I V/~/rte- ~~~~~~~~
__ 1---_
/ I I
_
;
_ _ ~
_~~ ~~--__ ~ I
-
I/ /1/~//rte
~~
~
I I
_
_
\
~
T ~ ~
\ ~ -~ ~ =a~~~~~ ~ ~ I I
~
I
~
II /
~
\~\
~
III
`-
I /1
/ I
~\\
~~
I
'___~ I I
~~
1I III ~
111 P O N
~ I I 111 ---- --- ~~ ~\~Ijij j9i ,-
D ~ I l l l f
l (l / 1-------~-
1
\, 1
1 1 1 1 11 1 100 YR. Fi0o0 Elf l
/. 916.5 IIII 1111 I /
1\ 1
1 y
1 `~~~1j11
~~~~\~_ -__-__,___
~\`
___~ I I III ~
~_ __ IIII III II
=_~i/~/III
,;"
_ -=
4~
-_
\
-__ I
-
..-.+~.V = i I
I II \ ~ « j ~
~ ~
` ~ ~ ~ ~o~ I A
~_ Y h
y
) /~ 1 f
'l
I tl`\~~ `
~ ~//~ \ ~~\ ~ ~ f
~ /A ~~~ ~ I 1 g6f
^ ~~ ~ ~-~--f ~ ~
/
1 ~ ao\ ppe ~ ~ 1
~ / /
/ u q. p 0.,.i
~• ~ `'
11
111 ~ /
~~11 ~
a ll~, tiC
~~ _.'p... ^
\
`
~ ~
~' ~ 1
1
/ \~ ~
y~~ Y
` , q ~ ` 1
3 / ~
~\ ~\
~ r °I~I/[III
Y
~ //~"f ~______~ h_ a '
AY Y
7
~~
I
I,
el
~ I
In
i I JI
N ,x
s ;l.
V
i
a
~~~~-~ A,__<___
~r* --- „~
I ~ p
j l~
I
I
~ }Ye
I
1
a
a
e
i
/h
1
?~ i
;i
J;
Y
1
I
I
I
I _ `
I
I
~..
~;
-1
~e
DI
1-1-1 A
1'11
z'
1
CI
1
~q
1
t
i
1
X
d
n
Y
-~/ I
a /
li `
I s
leg"• i
$a~~o
a_S.~s
~ 8
FI ~~ \~\
~~~,i t
~aS
i \~i~'R~ ~~
\ },:
~ ie
1
5 -
a
~ ~E F-F
•~~
~\ ~~1
`\ ,
!
~
y. 1
q.
Past it'" brand'tax transmitter[ memo 76~'i ~ofpages ,
. PLANING REPORT
DATE: -
REVIEWED BY
APPI..ICANT:
LOCATION:
AG ITC?1V REQUESTED:
PLANNING CONSZDERA'TTONS:
Packer ound
15 May 1992 -_.._ _ -------..-~ --
CJohn Tlbaa
Daiiigren., Shardlow, and Uban, Inc.
Rottlnnd Homes
Prior Avenue
(North of City HaII)
Comprehensive plan Amendmetrt,
Rezaniag
The plan for the proposed project was reviewed at the last Plamiing Com;nissian meeting ~d was
continued to allow the developer to make some revisions and provide additional information. This
review will cover the issues related to amendir~ the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning the property
in compliance with the PUD requirements, In addition, the revised plans have been reviewed and
will be discussed brie€iy far compliance with the recommendations of the Planning Commission and
Staff_
ComDrehetLCive Plan Amendment
The currem Comprehensive Land. Use Guide Plandesignates this property for Limited. Busi~aess Use
{L$). This desi~ation is intended to allow service est~blishmer~s ~~ ~ governmental,
professional and general offices, banks and financial institutions. One of the sated objectives within
the Comprehensive Plan for CommerciallBusiness areas is to ensure m~ximt~m compatibility with
adjacent neighborhoods. The proposed medium density residential use is an apprapri~ substitute
for this area. Medium-density residential. uses provide desirable transidans between commercial and
office uses and low density residential neighborhaods_
The proposed project is also part of an g planned tmit development. 'fie Planned Unit
Development .Section of the City's ?oAia~ Ordinance allows the developer some $e~ilrty with
respect to the development standards is exchange for such anieniries as additional Tanric~pm~~
retainiBg walls, and consideration. of more creative desi~a solutions. These eIemeats have been
incorporated into the design. of the proposed project and have resulted is a development ttaat would,
many ways, be more compatible with the adjacent residential uses than those uses typically allowed
in limited business areas.
05/15;92 15:0 DSU, INC. [~~p2
• Maple SnoII Revisesi Plan Review 15 Icy lgg2 page ~
In addition, the Comprehensive PIan Iists as as objective tine desire bo m;,,;,ni~e land use and traffic
impa~s on ex;ctirg ~gbborhoods. The proposed project is consiste~ with this obtectives is two
ways. The first has been discussed in the previous paragraphs related to the trautioA between.
commercial and residual uses. The second is related to tra$~c flow. Tra#~ic from the project is
directed out to Larpenteur Avenue throw the existing business area and does not effect any
residential streams.
The proposed project appears to be consistent with the iateat of the Comprehensive Plan. and, merits
an amendment to Medium Density Residential. demon an the land use plan.
Rezoning
As discussed earlier, the proposed medium{iensity residual protect is part of as e~sting
commercial planned unit development. Since the proposed usa is not consistent with the final
development plan for the PT3D, the plan must be amended. According to the PUD section of the
Falcon Heijhts Zoning Qrdinance, the process far amending the final development plan for a PUD
:_~ thz same as that far a rezgnh3g. In addition, the PUD section requires the proposed use td be
consistent with the underlying zoning dc-r-~ct, 'Therefore, the subjecx property must be rezoned to a
district that would aIIow multi family residential use of a density equal to or greater than what is
rroposed_ ru. this c~.se the property should be rezoned to R~ Medium Density Residential.
• The issues related to rezoning are similar to those discuss
ed with respect to amending the
Comprehensive Plan i_e.; Is the proposed rezzaning consistern with existing and. planned
developments is fire suaounding neighborhood? Would there be army adverse traffic impacts as a
result of the proposed rezonin8 Are adequate public services avaflable to accommodate the type of
uses permitted within the proposed district? Generally, the project dues raise any Concerns with
respect to these questions.
Qne other issue that should be considered when review~g a request for a rezoning is what happens
if this developergoes away and this project does not get built. Does this rezoning make sense for the
community? Wh~e we believe this rezoning is appropriate, in this case, this issue iS somewhat
nullified by the fact that this property is part of a planned unit development. The PDD zoning gives
the City more control over the details of how the site is developed, regardless of who the developer
is_
PIan Revisions
The applicant bas made mpst of the revisions disazssed at the PIanning Commission meeting and in
the reports of the staff and consultants. The resulting plan is s ~~cxniiy improved. The orientation
of the buildings has been adjusted creates a more unified appearance and eliminates those areas
wizere the buiIdiacrs and patios were close to the roadway. In addition, the solar exposure has been
improved_ A glut drawing has also been provided that establishes an outiot for the private street as
• discussed in the reports. Whi~[e the width of the outiat (50 feet) does not meet the mix~iraum
standards for a public street as required by the ordinance, it does provide ample area to develop and
DSLi, IVC. C~OO3
Maple KnoIi Revised PL2in. Review 1~3 May ],gg~ gage ~
maintain tT~e roadway and the sanitary sewer and water lines that run adjacent to it.
Additional overstory trees have bees added on the north end of the site in an attempt to screen the
development from the residential area to the north. These trees are poplars that are to be
transplanted form elsewhere on the site. Due to the distance between the proposed project and the
homes td the north, these trees will. probably serve the purpose adegnateIy.
The previous planning report suggested additional landscaping betwe,-n the eXlSting office buildings
and the proposed mu1~ 'Iy ~_ No additions Izave bees made w the plantings in this area 7a
addition, ttie rem wa11- ~.1his area has been changed from a two level terraced waII bo a single
wall with a 3 tQ t slope coming down to it_ This design can be more susceptzble to f~ure,
depending on sods conditions, due to water flowing down the slope and in behind the wall. 'This is a
detail that can be discussed as the project moves forwazd.
No plans have as yet been submitted showing the design of the monument sign. ir-~;e
caiculatious have also nor been provided at this point.
The revised plans represent a siQrtif"icaat improvement for this project. We believe the project is
^~?~si5tent with the intent of the Comprehensive Pian and the Zoning prdinance and the requested.
amendment and rezoning are appropriate.
•
• Meeting Date: 5/13/92
Agenda Item 4
ITEM: Public hearing on an amendment to the comprehensive
plan for lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Stratford Office
Park Subdivision
SUBMITTED BY: Donald Jensen, Rottlund Homes
REVIEWED BY: John Uban, Consulting Planner
Susan Hoyt, City Administrator
EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION:
The city's comprehensive plan calls for limited business on the
property north of city hall. Limited business was an appropriate
designation for the proposed office park development. However,
land use demands did not support this designation. Therefore, it
is appropriate to change the comprehensive land use plan to
illustrate the medium density residential use of this property.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Comprehensive land use map
B. See consulting planner's report
• ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Hold public hearing.
2. Approve change in the comprehensive land use plan from
limited business to medium density residential.
4-~
a •'3nd'3lli1NVH c. a
J W
SA. t 3 - i Z ~. ~ ~~ N Q
i
It. '..xaa l _.,. W ap -
7 _ r S Q F-
u W ` Z
_ O ~ ~
~~••.. ~
t i ~ ,~ _ 222 ~ - --- -
t ,, ~ 1 ~ c ~ __ --
;. __
w__ , .:. .....
- .~
.._
ac ` s' _ _
,. E
,~
.~
.,
_ .~. _
~Nn Ns ~ I.
' _ -- -' - anv - --
... I -r -
L:
. _; ~:
. _
. . ~ :-
-----i ~ rc. _-- - -- ~..
. ~ -~
~ : .. - _
` -
.. _ _
_. _ ... ~
• _-_ _.
`.
--~- -- _.
__ ~ ~ --
- ~ :. I :. -
f
----s:.E : ~~ _ ~ __
. -_ ~ .. - -
` W ..........._~ ~ _ - -
.__ _: -
_. Q: m i S
.:
.., g{ a Z. ~ _ . _.
a ; ~ :~
G; s
7
1 :~ _ ~ .
J I 3
.....
............................................................. ._ ~ . t
` ~ - -.
,.
_.:. ,.. .... , .... Q ~ ,. us.
_.
-. '_ - ... - ~. r. ~ .
' "' ..a. _
sG~
_..
_ m C7 +w.. } r~ ...- a - _ ~ e
_ . ~ } ____ J - ,,,,E a ` ~ 4 '"'- ~ ! ~ t~ i ~~..
' ,...
.,><
' ~
~.
,'~ n ~ x Q ~ \j`_ air t r ~ .. ~~ .. :, ~. 3 _
:.
• ` `K
r
~ C 1 K .
.... ................ :.._ ....... .I~ -
..........
_._._..~ _ - - ~"jr- _ '3nvONVl3n310 °~i.i ~r .
1; .a` i
f ~ ~:. , f
.:
._..---i _: -~r _ -
-~~ =
~s
_ ~ •
- ~ ..; L Y
` . ' .~ .. .s .c ~n r ~~ t e ? o c Y
-__ ~ 7 ~ p _ ,•, •
7 y r I ~ g r • U o c • ~ a
... ....... ... .........: .. ~J U ~ 6 y = V N
c '^~p
3A1(NVHI~._ ~ : «o.s•n'w as ~ -- < ~ f v i Jm ~ i U O ' ``
Meeting Date: 5/18/92
Agenda Item 5
ITEM: Public hearing on a zoning amendment from B-1 limited
business to R-4 medium density residential for lots
3,4, 5, and 6 of the Stratford Office Park Subdivision
SUBMITTED BY: Mr. Donald Jensen, Rottlund Homes
REVIEWED BY: John Uban, Consulting Planner
Susan Hoyt, City Administrator
EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION:
The city's zoning code designated the property located on lots 3,
4, 5, and 6 of the Stratford Office Park Subdivision for B-1
limited business use. However, market conditions did not make
this use applicable and it is being planned for a residential
development, R-4. It is necessary to amend the zoning code from
B-1 to R-4 in order to keep the zoning code and land use
consistent, and to assure the on-going residential character of
the development.
ATTACHMENTS:
• A - Zoning map
B - See consulting planner's report
ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Hold public hearing
2. Approve zoning code amendment from B-1 to R-4 for lots
3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Stratford Office Park Subdivision
I~
5-~
w
a
(
~ _
1 -~ ~ W
Z ~
,
~_
a Z ~ ~
N
CRIIPM [
~ - ~
W H
J ~ ~
U Q Q
!--
Q ~ o- 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0
pD o o O
0
I UNVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
GOLF COURSE
P-1 R-1
•
U OF M
GOLF COURSE
R-1--~
MINN ~
COURSE p
m
0
N[[IMOUN
~~
b
° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W
~ ~
~'-1 -1 ~ E 'B
o a _Z
~ F' J
o_ _ ~ o o UNIVERSITY OF
o -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i
N~EwuE ' ____ . oaa
..~
COMMUNITY
o
°~
0
0 0
0 0
°
o 0 0
PARK AUTU o 0 0 0
° o 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SUMMER STREE 0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
UNIV OF MINN
o
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0
°
__~}'F(OR ATiE - o 0 0 ° o 0
0
o ° 0 0 0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
GARDEN AVE o 0 0
o ~
0 0
0
0
o
°
o
0 0 0
0
0 0
V7 ° o °
J ° o 0
~
~ J
W o
o
0
0
~ ~ ° o e
CITY HALL 8i
B
- 1
=
o
0
0
0 o
0
FIRE STATION
o ° °
B 0 0 0
o ° ' °
° °
o
o
e
~ o
o ~
I
°
C'~
MINNESOTA
Meeting Date: 5/18/92
Agenda Item: 6
• ITEM: Public hearing on a request for residential ermit
parking in the University Grove neighborhoodp
SUBMITTED BY: University Grove Homeowner's Association
REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator acting as planner
Randy Johnson, Roseville Police
Bill Westerberg, City Engineer
EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION:
The University Grove Homeowner's Association is requesting that
residential permit parking be adopted for the neighborhood so
residents with permits can leave a personal car on the street for
more than two hours between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through
Friday.
The city's parking policy requires that a residential permit
parking request be accompanied by a petition with 75$ of the
residents on the block front signing in favor of permit parking.
(This does not mean 75$ of the residents will buy a permit.) The
planner must submit a report addressing some key points on permit
parking. Signatures governing 76% of Grove homeowners petitioned
. for permit parking (not all petitioners will purchase a permit).
The block breakdown is included in the Grove Homeowner's request
(A). The city clerk confirmed that the signatures coincided with
the residents at the identified addresses.
The planner's report addresses the key points to consider in
approving residential permit parking as identified in the city's
parking policy (B). Some change in the overall parking scheme
within the University Grove neighborhood logically accompanies
this request. These will be considered separately from the
request for residential permit parking. However, the changes are
requested to assure consistency in parking signs throughout the
Grove neighborhood.
DISCLAIMER: The city administrator resides in the University
Grove neighborhood. Her household is not included in the Grove
numbers. She has a double driveway, double garage and owns only
one car. Therefore, she does not need a residential parking
permit at the time this report is made.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Request for residential permit parking
B - Section of the city's parking policy
C - Planner's Report
. ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Hold public hearing.
2. Consider request for permit parking.
G - ,A
•
University Grove Homeowners Association
2153 West Hoyt Avenue, Falcon Heights, Minnesota 55108
`~~
~`1 ~
March 6, 1992 V' ~ t
r
Susan Hoyt, Administrator
City of Falcon Heights
2077 Larpenteur Avenue West
Falcon Heights, Minnesota 55113
Dear Ms. Hoyt:
On behalf of the University Grove Homeowners Association, I am
forwarding the enclosed proposal for residential permit parking
in the Grave. The proposal includes a petition signed by 75
percent of the Grove households that would be affected by the
change. Also enclosed is the $100 fee for filing the petition.
We understand that, in response to the permit request, the City
will conduct a study of the overall parking situation in the
Grove. Enclosed is a list of four other parking changes the
residents would like to have considered in the course of that
study. These changes would resolve problems arising from the
Grove's street layout and proximity to the University while
making parking restrictions in the neighborhood more uniform and
easier to enforce.
Representatives of the Grove Association would be happy to
answer questions from City's staff, Planning Commission or
Council members regarding the permit proposal and other
recommendations. Please call me at 645-3167 if we can be of
assistance.- We look forward to your response.
We also want to thank the City for its timely action to resolve
the snow-related clearance problem at the east end of Folwell.
The use of temporary sign changes to solve a temporary problem
demonstrates both flexibility and responsiveness, which we very
much appreciate in our City government.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Lupton, President
University Grove Homeowners Association
RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING PROPOSAL
. Dniversity Grove Homeowners Association
March 1992
Introduction
The area of Falcon Heights known as the University Grove is a
neighborhood of 102 homes bordered on the east by the St. Paul
campus of the University of Minnesota, on the north by the Leo
Bolstad Golf Course and a city park, on the west by the City of
Lauderdale, and on the south by the St. Anthony Park
neighborhood of the City of St. Paul. {See attached map.)
Due to the proximity to the University of Minnesota and the
Luther Northwestern Theological Seminary, Grove streets have
restrictions limiting parking to two hours from 8:00 AM until
4:00 PM, Monday through Friday or throughout the week. An
exception is the intercampus bus route on Coffman Street and
Hoyt Avenue east of Coffman, on which no parking is permitted
during daytime hours.
These parking regulations have been effective in preventing
parking congestion on streets in the Grove but have also
resulted in inconvenience and expense to homeowners. The
neighborhoods bordering the Grove have addressed the needs of
their residents with residential permit parking. The St. Paul
streets ad,~acent to the Grove are posted for "1 Hour Parking,
8AM-5PM Weekdays Except by Permit," and the west side of Fulham
Street in Lauderdale is posted "Permit Parking Only."
When the University Grove Homeowners Association first
approached the City of Falcon Heights concerning this issue in
1988, there was neither an ordinance nor procedures for
establishing residential permit parking. Once the City took
action in =1991 to allow permit parking, the Grove Association
named a committee to obtain the necessary resident signatures
and submit this proposal.
Provosal
The residents of University Grove request that residential
permit. parking be allowed on Grove streets where parking is
currently permitted. Ninety (90) Grove homes are affected by
this request (excluding 12 homes on Hoyt Avenue east of Coffman
where daytime parking is not allowed because of the bus route.)
Of these, 68 (75.6%} have signed the attached petition. The
request of the petitioners is as follows:
1. Continue restrictions for non-residents as currently
posted.
- 1 -
2. Add "Except by Permit" or similar language to existing
signs that restrict parking during daytime hours.
3. Allow residents, if they choose, to purchase parking
permits from the City of Falcon Heights so their
vehicles may be parked on Grove streets during
restricted hours.
4. Continue to grant temporary parking permits to residents
for non-resident visitors on an occasional basis.
If the City parking ordinance permits, the petitioners recommend
that the Grove be treated as a unit and that the following
streets be posted for permit parking:
o Both sides of Folwell Avenue
o North side of Hoyt Avenue, west of Coffman
o East side of Fulham Street
o Both sides of Vincent, Narthrop and Burton Streets
This would provide uniform parking stipulations throughout most
of the neighborhood and make enforcement easier.
The attached map shows the signature response on the petition by
household and street. The response by street is as follows:
SIGNATURES/
STREET/AVENUE TOTAL HOMES* PERCENT*
• Folwell Avenue West of Coffman
North 15/18 83%
South 11/13 85%
Folwell Avenue East of Coffman
North 9/12 75%
South 12/12 100X
Hoyt Avenue West of Coffman
North 9/10 90°6
Fulham Street (East} 4/5 80°6
Vincent Street
West 2/7 29%
East 6/6 100%
Northrop Street
West 5/7 71%
East 3/5 60%
Burton Street
West 2/5 40%
East 3/4 75%
• * Homes on corner lots counted on both streets
- 2 -
i~ ~
3AV ~ dNVl3A3l~
0
N
tT
a
H
U
rti
i•
~-
W
Z
_cZ
G
v-
O
f.,~
~1.~
Z
O
O
M
O
O
~ R ~ ;~
~
a Q_
~ ~
W ~
y~ ~ ~
~
Z
S' ~
!
Z '~ ~ w
"' „ c
C y
! r
o a
~
~ 'W O
~
W
p
W
~
~
~ u
i ~
~ ~
~
W
~ F- ~
~ ~ ~ ~~ I
W W
~
_
Z
O
~ U
J
W ~
C'
~ ~ - ~ .~ a
:~ .
O w
a
a+ M Q ~ • ~ ---~
r^ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~
V ~ ~ ~
J
z _ _
H W
~ _ F~
a _ ~ N -~
0
H ~ o ~ _
x - .~ ~, ~_ .- ~ ~' Q
W y, Ill N
a ___
H ~,, ~9~ n
~ 93 N
z ~ .'
M O
A
a ~:. •
cn ~ a ~ N - -
W w
r
_ ~'~ 1
v
. ~ _` ~ ~
f
__.
N
- -, --
1S
` . ~,
_- ~t• r ~ yy
D (~ ~~
'~ ~
~'`' \` ` K
~D , ~ ~'
~~ F~
> N ~~
N ti ~~
N
.t P 3~~ ~
T
_ ~ . ~~~ ~
J - „ ~ •
W g ~
3 ~ i
o
~ e,~
_ _ ~ `~ \
~.,
.~
.. '•_
C
__ Ci
~ ~
w 'jS WttH~ft~
x ~~
,,
N •
NdWd~O~ '
~~~-~_
.~~,,
Nolane ._
~- ~__
i „ __~
A o
~~ N ~:
-~
t ~I
N ~
w N
r
d0aH1a0N
~~
-t ~ ~., .
E ~ ~~~ 4i
~~ Q
N
~ f
= N
Y
r o
s ~~ ,
:, x ~ :_ .
n
;;~ ~
NIA
1N3~
fl ' ° _.
B. RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS
1- Purpose/Policy
~~~
• a. Residential permit parking shall be pursued as a solution
_ to a par'~cing problem only when all other solutions
have been determined inadequate.
b. Residential districts congested because of heavy residential
and non-residential traffic and parking are eligible
to request residential permit parking. It is the puroose
of this policy to reduce the f'_•ow of corim~uter traffic
from year-round non-residential traffic from par;cing
in.an adjoining residential neighborhood1_to reduce
air pollution and other environmental effects of automobile
coc~mzutina; to enhance the quality of life in the residential
areas by reducing noises traffic hazards and litter;
to protect the residents from unreasonable burdens
in gaining access to their residences; to preserve
the character of the residential district; to promote
efficiency in maintaining the streets in a clean and
safe condition; to preserve the safety of children
and other pedestrians; and to promote traffic safety;
and to promote the puce, gced order, comfort, convenience
and welfare of the inhabitants of the City.
c. No residential parking permits shall guarantee any
permit holder of a designated parking space, but shall
• provide general parking subject to availability in
designated areas during the posted, specified times.
2. Procedures for Designating Residential Permit Parking Areas
a. Submitting a request
1) Petition
The designation of a residential permit parking
area shall be initiated by a petition filed with
the city staff stating that residents of a particular
residential area are encountering serious problems
because of excessive parking by persons who are
associated with nearby nonresidential uses. A
filing fee shall accompany every petition. The
fee is identified in chapter five of the city code.
2) Signatures
The petition must be signe-d by 75% of the ot~rners
of all residential structures in the area. One
resident per structure may sign. No signature
shall be valid where multiple residents ~.n a household
express disagreement on whether the area should
have residential permit parking. '
Any signer may withdraw his/her name by filing
a written request. If for any reason the number
of signers falls below 75~ prior to the public
hearing, the petition shall be deemed defective
• ~ and shall not be considered.- The person and/or
group responsible for submitting the petition will
be notified of this finding prior to the public
hearing.
(3) Minimum Size
The request for residential permit parting must
be a minimum of 600 linear feet or one block front.
b. Request Review Process
1) Staff Review
After receiving the petition, the city staff shall
assess the nature of the problems, if any, caused
by nonresidential parking in a residential area.
The city planner shall submit a report to the Planning
Commission. The report must include the following
information:
a. The need assessment for residential permit
• parking
b. The specific area petitioned for residential
permit-parking
c. The guidelines for who and how one rtay obtain
a residential parking permit
d_ The potential implications of such a parking
arrangement in the area
e. If the permit parking area is recoc;~:ended,
the report must also include:
(1) A recommended review period to evaluate
the residential permit parking district '
(2) The specific area recommended for residential
permit parking
2) Policy Review
The city planner shall submit the report with
its recommendation to the Planning Ccrarission.
A public hearing shall be held on the request..
The Planning commission shall submit a recommendation
. to the City Council. The City Council shall make •
the final decision. If the City Council designates
a residential permit parking district, the resolution
• shall state the need for the. district, the location,
hours (if applicable), streets to be posted permit
parking and the procedure for issuing permits
to eligible residents_
3. Permit Eli ibility and Fees
a. Resident Permits
• Residents living on streets designated in the residential
permit parking district may apply for a non-transferable
residential parking permit for each car owned or
leased, currently licensed and in operating condition
at the address. Anon-refundable annual residential
permit fee will be charged. The fee shall be identified
in chapter five of the city code. A false application
shall be grounds for denies]. of the residential permit.
b. Lost Permits
A duplicate permit may be obtained for-a fee, if
the application submits a notarized, written statement
to the City that the original permit was lost. The
fee shall be identified in chapter five of the city
cede.
c. Placement of Permit
Annual residential .parking permit stickers shall
be permanently affixed to the inside of the vehicle
in the lower rear corner of the left side window
closest to the rear of the vehicle.
• 4_ Review of an established district.
a. If antecedent conditions change and there is
a lack of permit demand, the district may be
reviewed and repealed.
•
~G
14 May 1992
• MEMO
TO: Planning Commissioners
FROM: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator acting as planner
RE: Review of the University Grove Homeowners Association
request for residential permit parking
I. INTRODUCTION
When the city designed and adopted its parking policy in
1990, the planning commission and council were sensitive to
the possible need for residential permit parking in
neighborhoods that experience alot of on-street parking as a
result of proximity to the University of Minnesota.
Therefore, the policy includes a section on how to provide
for residential permit parking. The following report
identifies the need for residential permit parking in the
University Grove Neighborhood.
II. NEED
A. Evidence of parkina/traffic from the university
The University Grove residential neighborhood is
adversely impacted from heavy non-residential traffic
associated with the University of Minnesota. The two
hour maximum parking limit from 8 AM to 4 PM Monday
through Friday eliminates long-term parking in the
neighborhood. In places that do not have the two hour
parking restrictions, the street is "parked up" by 7
AM. This was the case on the eastside of Coffman
Street by Grove Park prior to the two hour parking
restrictions going in place, and it remains the case on
Hoyt Avenue between Folwell and Cleveland. The
evidence concludes that without parking restrictions,
the neighborhood (particularly east of Coffman) would
experience significant, chronic parking from U of M
staff and students.
B. Adverse effects of universit related traffic and
parking
If the two hour parking limits were not posted the
adverse effect from university related parking would be
more apparent. The residential permit parking will
• allow residents who need to leave a personal car on the
street yet reduce the negative impact from non-
residential parking. This will keep the air pollution
and other negative environmental effects from non-
residential traffic and parking; it will reduce noise
and litter from cars parking in the neighborhood and it
will keep streets free for residents to have access to
their homes and driveways; and it will preserve the
safety of children.
C. Use by residents
Although 76~ of Grove residents requested the
designation of residential permit parking, residents do
not anticipate very much on-street parking during the
weekdays because many residents use their cars for work
or are able to keep their cars in their driveways
rather than on-the street. Police officer, Randy
Johnson, commented that very few cars are parked on
streets at anytime in the neighborhood. The limited
use of on-street parking at anytime is demonstrated by
observing parking on weekends and evenings after four,
when parking is not restricted. There are only a
handful of cars on the street unless a resident is
entertaining guests. Therefore, the on-street parking
will not create a "parked up" effect because permits
are only issued to cars registered to their homes and
only a few of those cars will be on the street.
The limited need for on-street parking means that the
• streets will be passable for emergency vehicles.
However, it will assist residents with single car
driveways and garages and two or three cars to shuffle.
III. DESIGNATED AREA
A. Request
The University Grove Homeowner's Association requested
that the following streets be designated for
residential permit parking:
• Folwell Avenue
• Hoyt Avenue west of Coffman (northside only in
Falcon Heights)
• Fulham Street (eastside only in Falcon Heights)
• Vincent Street
• Northrop Street
• Burton Street
• This technically includes three block fronts which do
not meet the 75% signature requirement.
• B. Recommendation
1. Permit parking
Staff recommends that all the streets requested
for permit parking be approved for permit parking
to make the designation consistent throughout the
area. This recommendation would have been made
even if the Grove Association had requested
designation only for the streets with over 75$ of
the signatures because it is logical to keep
parking consistent within the neighborhood. This
is a major concern of the police, who enforce the
restrictions. It is also logical to plan for the
need for permit parking in the future. It is
easier to include the entire neighborhood now
rather than charge another $100 fee and petition
when household composition changes and may require
permit parking.
2. Maintain "no parking" weekdays 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on
Hoyt Avenue east of Coffman.
This portion of the Grove requires continued "no
parking" during weekday hours because of bus
• traffic on Hoyt and Coffman.
3. "No Parking" enforcement on some corners
Due to potential visibility problems on some
corners, "no parking" enforcement and possibly
designations may be painted and/or posted on some
corners where visibility may be a problem. These
include:
* the nouthside of the intersection of Northrop
and Hoyt
* the curve on Fulham as it turns into Folwell
Rather than post signs, which clutter the
streetscape, enforcement of parking within 30 ft
of intersections, stop signs and 5 ft of driveways
should be the starting place. Signs may come
later.
IV. PERMIT ELIGIBILITY, AVAILABILITY AND COST
A. Who and what vehicles
• A resident may apply for a permit for a non-
transferable residential parking permit for each car
owned and operated by a resident at the address on the
street designated for residential permit parking. The
vehicle must be registered to that address. The permit
must be assigned to a specific vehicle.
B. Purchase from city hall
Annual non-transferable permits may be purchased from
city hall either over the telephone or in person during
business hours 7:30 AM to 5 PM weekdays.
The applicant must provide the license number of the
vehicle which will have the permit. The license number
will be checked for registration to that address.
The permit fees are:
$10 for first two permits
$20 for each permit beyond two
$ 5 for lost permit
C. Placement
The permit must be permanently placed in the lower left
side of the rear window.
D. Temporary parking permits
Temporary parking permits are available for $1 per
vehicle from city hall. Arrangements for large special
event temporary parking can be made at city hall.
V. REVIEW OF PERMIT PARKING DISTRICT
A review of the proposed permit parking district will be
made during its first year of operation to determine how
much it is being used and if any difficulties in enforcement
or access and visibility are resulting from this program.
•
•
Meeting Date: 5/18/92
Agenda Item: 7
ITEM: Revisions of parking requirements in the University
Grove Neighborhood
SUBMITTED BY: The University Grove Homeowner's Association
REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City administrator acting as planner
EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION:
Background:
When staff met with the police and residents about residential
permit parking, staff recommended that the Grove Association
request any changes necessary for better parking control and
. consistency throughout the neighborhood. The neighborhood's
request is attached (A).
Recommendation:
The staff makes the following recommendations that reflect this
request and additional considerations:
1. Change the two-hour parking on Folwell east of Coffman
from two hour parking to one hour parking due to the
substantial increase in non-resident parking on this
portion of Folwell after the signs were changed to two
hour parking almost two years ago. (Verified by staff
observation.)
2. Change all day parking to one hour parking on Hoyt east
of Folwell adjacent to tennis courts to coordinate with
the tennis court user's time limit and eliminate all
day parking.
3. Make signs read as simply and consistently as possible
which requires:
- replacing all two hour parking signs with signs
that read " TWO HOUR PARKING WEEKDAYS 8 AM TO 4 PM
• OR BY PERMIT" (if permit parking is approved)
because currently the north-south residential
streets do not limit the two hour parking to
• weekdays. It is unnecessary, inconvenient for
residents and confusing for the police to have
these restrictions apply to weekends.
4. Enforce parking regulations regarding proximity to
crosswalks, intersections and fire hydrants. If
chronic abuse accurs, sign these areas.
Special Note:
- at Hoyt and Northrop
Staff received comments about parking on Northrop.
If parking along Northrop is considered a safety
hazard, staff recommends that residents on
Northrup request that the city designate one or
both sides of Northrup with "no parking anytime"
because a car parked for one hour presents the
same safety hazard as one parked for four hours.
(Typically, parked cars slow traffic as in St.
Anthony Park.) However, if visibility is a
problem when any cars are parked the "no parking
anytime" solution is most suitable for this
street.
- on Fulham as it turns into Folwell
• - others as appropriate
5. Minimize the number of signs throughout the
neighborhood. This is an on-going effort to improve
neighborhood appearance throughout the city.
6. Have the city engineer evalute solutions to the through
traffic from Como to Larpenteur.
Cars tend to slow down when there are parked cars,
therefore, parking on a street can impact speed.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - University Grove Homeowners Association request
B - Maps of all proposed parking in neighborhood.
ACTION REQUESTED: Approve changes in parking designations.
•
Dniversity Grove Homeowners Association
RECOMMENDED PARgING RESTRICTION CHANGES
March 1992
~- ~
West Hov-t at Cleveland
Limit parking on the northeast end of West Hoyt near the
IIniversity tennis courts to 2 hours (or less) with no parking
allowed within 10-1v feet of Cleveland Avenue. This would:
provide short-term parking for non-residents consistent with the
intent of parking restrictions elsewhere in the neighborhood;
make these spaces more available to people using the tennis
courts; and prevent the obstructed view that currently creates a
hazard for those driving from Hoyt onto Cleveland Avenues.
Fulham.. Vincent & Northrop Streets
Change the signs on Fulham, Vincent, and Northrop Streets to _
limit parking between 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM on weekdays only (i.e,
add "Monday through Friday"}. The residents on these streets do
not feel that weekend restrictions are necessary, and the sign
change would make the parking restrictions on these streets
uniform with those on the adjoining sections of Hoyt and Folwell
Avenues, making enforcement easier.
Folwell Avenue East of Coffman
Limit parking on Folwell Avenue east of Coffman to 1 hour
between 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM, Monday - Friday. Parking on this
.~ section of Folwell was limited to 1 hour until the signs were
changed in 1990 or 1991. Since the change, daytime student
parking and the resulting street congestion have increased
significantly. Returning to the 1-hour limit would noticeably
ease the congestion.
General Safety
Prohibit parking within 10 feet or so of intersections, curves
or school bus stops if permitting parking in these areas would
obstruct visibility or vehicular clearance. This is a general
request for the City engineer(s) to evaluate the safety of on-
street parking in terms of the Grove's street layout and
terrain, and to .prohibit parking where it creates a hazardous
condition for drivers or pedestrians.
Residents cited the following as particular points of concern
because they are on what have become the "commuter routes"
through the Grove from Larpenteur Avenue to St. Anthony Park:
o The northwest corner of the Coffman & Folwell
intersection
o The curves on Northrop where it joins Folwell
o Northrop where it joins Hoyt
o The curve on Folwell where it joins Fulham
o The corner where HOYt & Fulham intersect
Other potential hazard areas cited are:
o The curves on Vincent where it joins Folwell
o The curve at the east end of Folwell
o School bus stops in the neighborhood