HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCAgenda_91Feb25
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
FEBRUARY 25, 1991
7:30 p.m.
A. CALL TO ORDER:
B. ROLL CALL: Lee Barry Leonard Boche Donna Daykin
John Duncan Edgar Finegan
Carolyn Nestingen Jan Gibson Talbot
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 28, 1991
D. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: January 23, 1991 (note: parking policy
garage ordinance)
E. REPORTS, REQUESTS, RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Report on the possible removal of pool halls and game
arcades as conditional uses in a B-2 zone [9-10.01
(2) (P) (q) J
2. Report on the proposed increase in planning related fees
3. Report on zoning code requirements for retroactive
• screening of existing businesses
4. Revised policies for comprehensive plan reflecting
comments at January 28, 1991 meeting
F. ADJOURN
C
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JANUARY 28, 1991
7 p.m.
Meeting was called to order 7:20 p.m. by Chairperson Boche
PRESENT:
Barry, Boche, Daykin, Finegan, Nestingen, Hoyt
Council Person Cernia
ABSENT:
Duncan, Gibson Talbot
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of December 17, 1990 meeting were unanimously approved
as written.
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES: January 9, 1991
Council approved the Planning Commission reappointment of Lee
Barry, three dear term expiring 12/31/93, and Ed Finegan, two
year term expiring 12/31/92.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 1991
• Leonard Boche was unanimously re-elected chairperson for 1991
and Lee Barry unanimously elected vice chair.
TERMINATION REPORT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR J.J.'S POOL &
GAME ARCADE 1544 Larpen eur Avenue Wes un er Sec ion 9-15.04
of the zoning c
Planner Hoyt gave a brief background report on the security
problems associated with J.J.'s Pool & Game Arcade over the
recent months. She reported that City Administrator Wiessner and
she had met with the owners, Mr. Joe Sacco and Mr. Jim Sacco, to
review their failure to meet conditions 3, 6, 9, & 10 as
stipulated in the original conditional use permit and to offer
possible solutions to the problems (see attachment 1).
Staff proposed three possible solutions. First, hire two
uniformed security guards in addition to the ,two employees to be
on duty during business hours; second, to remove the video games
leaving only the pool tables; and third, to close the business
by 8 p.m. since most fights/assaults occurred after this time.
At the meeting with city staff, the business owners explained
complying with these suggestions would make it financially
unfeasible to remain in business. They said they know they are
not meeting the conditions of the permit and are unable to
1
•
•
institute measures to do so. Therefore, city staff recommends
the termination of the conditional use permit.
Messrs. Joe and Jim Sacco, owners of J.J.'s Pool & Game Arcade,
appeared before the Commission. Mr. Joe Sacco explained that
hiring two uniformed security guards and closing earlier was
financially impossible for the business. He reported that 65
percent of their gross annual income came from the games so
removal of the games leaving only the pool tables was a
financial hardship. Mr. Sacco said despite efforts- to control
the patrons, violent incidents arose because assault crimes are
on the increase in the area due to gangs. When employees tried
to monitor the back door for exit use only, the patrons came
through adjacent businesses. The owners said they were unable
to institute measures to meet the conditions of the conditional
use permit.
Chairperson Boche thanked Messrs. Joe and Jim Sacco for coming
to the meeting and for their cooperation in reviewing the
permit.
Lee Barry moved to adopt the staff recommendation to the City
Council to terminate the conditional use permit for J.J.'s Pool
& Game Arcade at 1544 W. Larpenteur Avenue with the
understanding that the termination of the conditional use permit
would mean no game establishment could open at Northome without
• a new conditional use permit. It passed unanimously.
REPORT ON PROPOSED METHOD OF TERMINATING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
AS PART OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS
Planner Hoyt reported that she contacted City Attorney Tom Gedde
requesting a mechanism to discontinue a conditional use permit
granted for a use once the use is discontinued at the location.
He said that according to state statute and Falcon Heights City
Code, the conditional use permit goes with the property not the
specific business use regardless of when the business closes.
However, if the conditional use permit is granted because of a
concern about the activities associated with the use rather than
site development features, the City may include a condition
terminating the conditional use upon business closure or
transfer of ownership.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN AND POLICIES TO BE INCLUDED
IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH PLANNING CONSULTANT AND THE
PUBLIC
(See attachment 2, public attendance list.)
Fred Hoisington, Planning Consultant, briefly reviewed the
proposed comprehensive land use plan. He highlighted some
changes resulting since the community forum in November, 1990.
2
•
These changes included:
1) shift to limited business from multi-family residential
along the southside of Larpenteur, west of Snelling;
2) the removal of a collector street along Arlington
.through the state fairgrounds (due to conversations with
the University planner);
3) the removal of the neighborhood retail designation along
Lindig Street at Larpenteur Avenue.
City Planner, Susan Hoyt, identified significant policy changes.
These included:
1) Neighborhoods, Policy #6
Maintain the single-family character of the
existing residential neighborhoods and discourage
redevelopment that may be considered a change in
use unless irreversible blight can be demonstrated.
The additional phrase is to accommodate serious
blight adjacent to central commercial district
2) Commercial, Policy #9, the addition of the statement:
• Require that any redevelopment project that may
logically extend beyond the area already zoned for
commercial use have a straight boundary that
generally correlates with a public street line or
the rear lot lines of residences and take all of
the property to the project boundary. Further,
where such extension of a project takes place,
extraordinary setbacks and landscaping be required
to mitigate neighborhood impacts.
This was included to protect the surrounding residential
neighborhoods in the event that a redevelopment proposal
for the SE corner is proposed beyond the existing
commercial zone.
3) Economic Development, Policy #5
In the event that a portion of the State
Fairgrounds property becomes available or an
LRT station is located in the proximity of the
Snelling and Larpenteur intersection, allow
the entire area, but not a portion, of
Hollywood Court to be redeveloped with mixed
uses as part of the Snelling and Larpenteur
retail core.
3
•
r~
~~
This was done to address redevelopment if a substantial
change occurs in the surrounding land use.
4) Economic Development, Policy #1
Restrict developments throughout the City to
three stories or 35 feet in height.
This was retained to keep the overall low-rise profile
of the City and, if necessary, to use as a negotiating
tool for the southeast corner of Snelling and
Larpenteur.
Mr. Warren Peterson, 1373 Hoyt, questioned draft commercial
policy #6 relating to required buffering, screening, and
landscaping. He questioned how the determination of
"feasibility" is made regarding the buffering and screening
required between exi~sti~n commercial uses and residential areas.
Planner Hoyt explaine3 ftFiis was done on a case by case basis.
Chairman Boche replied more buffering requirements were placed
on new than on existing uses because existing land uses may need
to be termed a nuisance to require change. Councilman Cernia
stated that, even then, a nuisance that ideally requires
screening may be impossible due to space between the two
conflicting land uses. How to decide what is fair and on an
• equitable basis must go through due process. Chairman Boche
explained the difference between the planning process and an
ordinance is that an ordinance is enforceable through the
courts.
Mr. Mark Ascerno, 1871 Tatum, made three suggestions for
changes. The first was the intent of draft neighborhood policy
#4. He asked that it be more positively addressed by changing
it to read, an rou homes in residential districts should be
s aced not less an 1 2 mi e e ween omes. Secon , Mr.
Ascerno a so as a or c arification o t e phrase, "to
accommodate a 1990's lifestyle" He felt the term was
unnecessarily vague. Third, Mr. Ascerno asked that draft
Environment policy #8 include landscaping in existing
development as well as new development and redevelopment be
reviewed for landscaping for solar maximization. He also felt
that #10, "promote a curbside recycling program and encourage
on-site management of yard wastes" should include a statement
regarding encouraging recycling of yard wastes that do not lend
themselves to on-site recycling. Chairman Boche told Mr.
Ascerno that his comments would be taken under consideration.
Mrs. Elizabeth Close asked about burying overhead wires.
Planner Hoyt responded that Public Utilities draft policy #3
reads, "Require the burying of overhead utility lines in all
areas .wherever and whenever .feasible."
4
•
(~
Chairman Boche thanked all attending the public hearing for
their interest and input in the comprehensive plan.
Further discussion followed on the draft of the proposed polices
for the comprehensive plan. Mr. Hoisington stated it would take
about six weeks to prepare the entire draft document.
FOR INFORMATION ON THE POSSIBLE EXCLUSION OF (OR FURTHER
Under Chairman Boche's initiation, the Planning Commission
requested the staff to report on the possible exclusion of or
further restrictions on game arcades and/or pool halls as
conditional uses in the City's B-2 zone. This request was made
due to a series of problems with these uses.
Chairman Boche adjourned the meeting at 9 p.m.
Susan Hoy , Ci y P anner
Dee Swenson, Recor ing Secretary
•
l~'~L+~A~ivT' ~
'~"> ~ ~,~-~'~S
• (l.~~ FALCON HEIGHTS
2077 W. LARPENTEUR AVENUE FALCON HEIGHTS, MN 55113.5594 PHONE (612) 644-5050 FAX (612) 644-8675
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 21, 1990
TO: City Council
Planning Commission
FROM: Susan Hoyt, City Planner
RE: Report on the Proposed Termination of the Conditional
Use Permit for J.J.'s Pool and Game Arcade at 1544
W. Larpenteur Avenue
BACKGROUND
On February 8, 1989, the City Council granted a conditional use
permit to Messrs. Joe and Jim Sacco for the operation of a pool
and game arcade at 1544 West Larpenteur Avenue in a B-2
commercial zone. On August 9, 1989, the conditions of the
• permit were amended at the request of the business owners
(Attachment 2). J.J.'s Pool and Game Arcade has been operating
since May 15, 1989.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
Condition eleven requires the Planning Commission to routinely
review the business operation to assure its conformance to the
required conditions. On December 17, 1990, the Planning
Commission reviewed the J.J.'s Pool and Game Arcade conditional
use permit as part of a routine permit review. The Commission
determined that conditions three, six, nine and ten were not
being met as evidenced by the nine police calls relating to
assaults from January to mid-October,-1990 (Attachment 3). The
Planning Commission requested that City staff meet with the
owners of J.J.'s to determine how the business operation could
meet these conditions.
STAFF MEETING WITH J.J.'S OWNERS AND OPERATORS
On January 14, 1991, Jan Wiessner, City Administrator, and Susan
Hoyt, City Planner, met with Messrs. Joe and Jim Sacco, owners
and operators of J.J.'s Pool and Game Arcade, to review their
.failure to meet the following conditions:
7AEE CfI1' lLS~
HOME OF THE MINNESOTA STATE FAIR AND THE U OF M INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
~-
• CONDITION 3: The back door will be an exit only, conforming
to Fire Code.
CONDITION 6: The property owner will post on the exterior
of the premises "no loitering" and will
prevent any loitering in common areas within
the building or in the parkizlg areas and
sidewalks adjacent to the building.
CONDITION 9: Game room management will take all reasonable
action to expel intoxicated persons and will
allow no disorderly conduct on the premises,
parking areas and adjacent sidewalks.
CONDITION 10: Adequate adult supervision will be provided
until one-half hour after closing to ensure
that the health, safety and welfare and
existing community standards, of peace and
quiet are maintained. At Council's
discretion, additional supervisory and/or
security personnel may be required.
EVIDENCE OF VIOLATIONS
The Roseville police report indicated that patrons used the rear
exit (Condition 3). The report also indicated that patrons were
fighting inside as well as outside the business on the sidewalk
and in the parking lots (Conditions 6, 9, 10). Patrons also
removed the "No loitering" signs from the premises (Condition
6). The nine police calls to the business relating to fights
and assaults represent 47 percent of all assault related police
calls in the City during 1990. This clearly indicates a
disruption to the existing community standards of peace and
quiet (Condition 10).
Messrs. Joe and Jim Sacco indicated that during the first nine
months of operation there were no problems. However, during the
past year a small percentage of their patrons caused recurring
difficulties. The owners attempted to control these problems by
immediately evicting trouble-making patrons. However, they said
they cannot anticipate assaults and fights nor totally control
problems on property outside the business. The business owners
indicated that controlling the rear exit was impossible because
patrons entered J.J.'s establishment through the rear entrances
of the adjacent businesses, which was unpopular with the
adjoining business owners and defeated the purpose of
controlling the rear exit of J.J.'s.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
City staff proposed three solutions to assist the business
operations in meeting the required conditions. First, city
staff suggested hiring two uniformed security guards in addition
•
!~
to the two employees, one to control entering the rear of the
building exit and one to maintain order inside the facility.
These guards would be on duty during all business hours since
problems were reported weekdays and weekend afternoons and
evenings. Second, city staff suggested removing the video
games, leaving only pool tables, to reduce the attractiveness of
the business to loiterers. Third, city staff suggested closing.
the business by 8 p.m. since most assaults/fights happened after
8 p.m.
OWNERS' RESPONSE
The business owners responded to these suggestions by explaining
that hiring two uniformed security guards in addition to the one
or two employees on site would be financially impossible for the
operation. They also indicated that the space in the business
was limited, making removal of the video games and leaving only
pool tables financially unfeasible. Closing the business at 8
p.m. would also be too costly due to loss of most business. The
owners said they were unable to comply with these suggestions to
meet the conditions of the conditional use permit.
RECOMMENDATION
• After these discussions, city staff determined that the business
owners' failure to meet conditions three, six, nine, and ten at
J.J.s Pool and Game Arcade created a serious disruption in the
safety, peace and quiet in the community. The inability of the
business owners to financially implement any of the proposed
solutions to meet the conditions made it reasonable to pursue
the termination of the conditional use permit for J.J.'s Pool
and Game Arcade at .1544 West Larpenteur Avenue.
PROCEDURES FOR TERMINATION [9-15.04(5)] (Attachment 4)
The following steps are taken to terminate a conditional use
permit:
1. Deliverance of a civil summons to the business owner and the
property owner
2. Review before the Planning Commission
3. Revocation hearing before the City Council
4. Vote for termination of the conditional use permit by a
majority of the City Council
SH/ds
•
~ Q.c.a~. ~cs~ ~ ..gyn., -- q32 a., ti,.,~. Cc-~ ~
rQ.~...._ JS
~~ ~
~~~~ m~
~~~v
+~`~ ~
~<
~ ~~ ~
:. lyli 1(i e ~Ce~r~,o
•
1~11N U
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ~ f{~ ~ .~ `-
.._,,`
JANUARY 2 3 , 19 91
~~ _.. ,
Baldwin convened the meeting at 7:00 P.M.
Agenda Item D
. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT
Baldwin, Ciernia, Gehrz, Jacobs and Wallin. Also present were
Wiessner, Chenoweth, Gedde and Maurer.
MINUTES OF 1/9/91 APPROVED
The Minutes of January 9, 1991 were approved by unanimous
consent.
ADDENDA TO AGENDA
Council approved the addition of the following items to the
Policy Agenda: F-8, Amendment to 1666 Coffman Development
Agreement, and F-9, City Assistance to U.S. Military.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED
The following Consent Agenda Items were approved by unanimous
consent:
1. Disbursements:
a. General Disbursements through 1/23/91, $241,395.94
b. Payroll, 1/1/91 - 1/15/91, $12,111.11
2. 2. Reappointments to Human Rights Commission, Wayne Groff
and Rick Talbot, 3 year terms expiring 12/31/93
• 3. Mutual Aid Agreement .between Health One Transportation
Services ALS Ambulance Service and Falcon Heights Ambulance
BLS
4. Licenses. See Attached List.
PROPOSED PARKING POLICY AND PROCEDURES DISCUSSED
Ciernia explained that the Planning Commission had been directed
to study and draft a uniform parking policy to address resident's
requests for on-street parking or the restriction of the same.
Planner Susan Hoyt summarized the proposed
policy and procedures
as recommended by the Commission. Council discussed the document
at length and made a number of amendments. The proposed fee
schedule was reviewed and Council concurred that fees should be
discussed at a later date to allow time to determine if they are
commensurate with costs. The document as amended, and the fee
study will be placed on the next agenda. Gedde was directed to
draft an ordinance which would reference the policy in the City
Code.
Brenna Quebbemann, 1564 Fulham, asked Council for advice on a
parking problem, i.e., four cars, a one car garage, and a street
posted "2 hour parking". Baldwin replied that the new policy
should address the problem and a letter could be written to the
City requesting that the signs limiting parking be removed. He
• suggested Mrs Quebbemann also have her neighbors sign the letter.
1.111V U'1' C. A
JANUARY 23, 1991
PAGE 2
~~ ~~
ORDINANCE 0-91-2 ADOPTED RELATING TO GARAGE AND BOUTIQUE SALES
Susan Hoyt presented the proposed ordinance which would limit the
. number of garage and boutique sales to be held in residential
neighborhoods and explained the ordinance was a result of
complaints regarding sales which were held on a regular basis
annoying nearby neighbors. Council discussed the document and
amended portions of the language, after which Wallin moved
adoption of Ordinance 0-91-2 as corrected. Motion carried
unanimously.
_~ ORDINANCE 0-91-2
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9-4.01, SUBD. 3 PE~RMIT~TED
ACCESSORY USES AND SECTION 9-1.02 RULES ANA DEFINITIONS OF
THE CITY CODE RELATING TO GARAGE AND BOUTIQUE SALES
0~~
~~
~~
RESOLUTIONS R-91-3 AND R-91-4 ADOPTED RELATING TO 1991 STREET
IMPROVEMENTS (RESTRICTING PARKING ON ALBERT AND ARONA STREETS)
Maurer presented the proposed resolution and explained that
MN/DOT requires the adoption of the resolutions in order to
proceed with the plan review for the proposed Albert/Arona
Street improvements. Following Council's review and amendment
of some language in the resolutions, Jacobs moved adoption of
Resolutions R-91-3 and R-91-4. Motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION R-91-3
•
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON ARONA
STREET, CRAWFORD AVE, TO ROSELAWN AVE.
RESOLUTION R-91-4
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON ALBERT
STREET, LARPENTEUR AVE. TO GARDEN AVE.
•
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-91-5 RELATING TO 1991 STREET
IMPROVEMENTS (ADOPTING PLANS AND SPECS, AUTHORIZING ADVERTISING
FOR BIDS)
Maurer presented the proposed resolution and explained that it
allows adhering to the schedule but does not limit any of the
City options to make changes in the project. A discussion
ensued regarding the loss of MSA funds in light of the State's
present funding shortage and whether the amount designated for
the 1991 project would still be available. Maurer was of the
opinion that the money is there and committed to the individual
communities.
Gehrz requested that Council consider postponing the project one
year based on recent changes in the community and world. In
view of the cost of a war, the fact that the State has financial
problems and is requesting Cities to reduce costs, and the
impact on income of individuals, such as wage freezes, lay-offs,
etc.
PAGE 3
of ryl ~.. .i
it i~ ~.{ _ _ -~ -,
she felt it would not be prudent to continue with street
improvements at this time. She also commented on the fact that
she had had no requests from residents that the streets need to
• be done, but only from those who felt it was unnecessary.
Baldwin stressed the effect on the City's ability to bond if
street repair is postponed and many streets need construction at
the same time, and the fact that it may be the last time MSA
.funds will be available to help defray costs. Ciernia felt it
would be an advantage to obtain bids at this time in order to
have a true cost of the project. Wallin then"moved adoption of
Resolution R-91-5. Upon a vote being taken the following voted
in favor thereof: Baldwin, Ciernia, Jacobs and Wallin, and the
following voted against the same: Gehrz. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION R-91-5
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND
ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (1991 STREET IMPROVEMENTS)
CITY TO REQUEST SPEED STUDY ON LARPENTEUR AVENUE, FULHAM TO
CLEVELAND
Wiessner explained that in a letter dated December 21, 1990 (a
copy of which is on file in the City Office) , Ramsey County has
responded to the City's questions regarding speed on Larpenteur
Avenue from Cleveland to Fulham. The concern regarding speed
was originally brought to the City by Thor Kommedahl, a
concerned resident at 1666 Coffman. Following a brief
discussion, Council agreed to request that the County conduct a
• speed study on Larpenteur Avenue to determine if the speed limit
should be lowered. This decision was based on the fact that the
construction of 1666 Coffman has increased pedestrian crossings
as well as vehicular traffic accessing the condominiums.
RECYCLING CONTRACT DISCUSSION - ITEM DEFERRED TO 2/13/91 MEETING
Wiessner presented a tally sheet for three proposals seriously
considered by the Solid Waste Commission and explained the
complexity of comparing the estimated costs. Chenoweth outlined
the evaulatian method followed by the Commission and the
rationale behind their recommendation that the contract be
awarded to Knutson Services, Inc.
Tom Glander, President of SuperCycle, the City's present
recycling firm stressed their quality service the past few
years, extra services offered, relationship with multi-unit
owners/managers, the advantage of having a contracted market for
magazines, and requested that Council consider extending the'
current contract to allow time for negotations. Mr. Glander
also indicated that Knutson would be more costly due to
increased bin rental fees (30 gallon bins would require an
incrased number of bins), the possibility that the City would
find it necessary to pay for disposal of magazines and other
difficult to market items under the loss sharing provision, and
• possible liability if automobile batteries are collected. They
also felt the "per household" charge proposed by Knutson would
'~,_ .:.;
~~
' ~ MINUTES ° _ ~
JANUARY 2 3 , 19 91 ~`
PAGE 4
not encourage aggressive collection which increases tonnage,
• whereas, SuperCycle's "per ton" charge makes increasing tonnage
a priority. Mr. Glander also felt they should have been offered
an opportunity to be heard by the Solid Waste Commission.
Mark Heieren, representing Knutson Services, Inc., agreed that
the profit/loss sharing provision does include a risk, but
stressed that in their marketing he could see only positive
benefits to be shared. He felt that the "per ton" rate was not
in the best interest of the City as the goal~is to increase
participation and tonnage, and paying by the ton has a negative
impact. He also commented on the importance of keeping auto
batteries and motor oil out of the waste stream, and the fact
that those products have a positive value. In regard to a
negative value for magazines, he stressed that the City would be
informed of this fact and the cost prior to implementing the
program, but did not anticipate a negative value and could
almost assure there would be no negative value. Mr. Heieren also
stated that his firm uses 90 gallon containers for multi-unit
collection, not 30 gallon.
Baldwin agreed that SuperCycle has done an excellent job but
also commented on the fact that the Solid Waste Commission is
made up of bright, talented people, who have recommended a
change. He also mentioned the fact that SuperCyle had other
services available which were not offered to the City.
• Council discussed the expected budget problems created by the
State shortfall and the importance of obtaining revenues from
all sources available which the revenue sharing proposal would
address, however expressed concern that a negative value on
recyclables would negatively impact the City's funding, as would
greatly increased tonnage with the "per ton" proposal.
Following the discussion Staff was directed to contact
representatives of Knutson and SuperCycle and work out answers
to these concerns to the Commission's satisfaction. Baldwin
stressed that the Commission be made aware of the fact that
Council is not sending this recommendation back to them, but
there were same signif icant questions raised and the Council
wants the Commission to hear them and be satisfied with them.
He requested that representatives of the two firms make
arrangements to be available for the Commission Meeting on the
7th of February. The item will then be placed on the February
13th Council Agenda.
ADMINISTRATOR AUTHORIZED TO HIRE PART TIME TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES
Council considered a request from the City Administrator that
she be given the authority to hire and fire part time temporary
employees in order to expedite this procedure. Short term
hiring is frequently required, especially in the area of Public
Works and Parks and Recreation. Council agreed it seemed
• reasonable and authorized the Administrator to perform this duty
as requested.
• r
~~ ~ r i
y ~ :::~
MII•IUTES 19 91
JANUARY 23- TION PLAN
PAGE 5 ATION OF PROPOSED IDITEGRA
PRESENT I, nnann
ROSEVILLE SCHOOLS Teacher Y
Shelton and Elementary of the
er Ellen an explanation
School Board Memo brief video and endorsed the
ren presented a Council wholehearta voluntary
War lan. The City ursuing
proposed P chool Staffs in P endeavor-
School Board and an and offered to assist in the
desegregation P 6 AMENDING THE 1666 COFFMAN
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-g1-
AGREEMENT ended the amen~ent as
.DEVELOPMENT d recomm He explained
the resolution an finer of Titles. rior
Gedde presented County Exam and are necessary P
the Ramsey nature owed adoption
requested by es are technical in Jacobs m
that the Chang documents.
the condominiumarried unanimously.
t.o recording 6 which
of Resolution R.-91 R-g 1-6
RESOLUTION TION FOR
N pppROVING A CONDOMINIUM DECLARA
• A gESOLLJTIO
1666 COFFMAN Y pppROVED
CE TO U.S. MILITAR
RGENCY ASSISTAN been
CITY E~ artment has
Fire/Rescue DeP Department of
explained that the to the U•S• required as
Wiessner rovide assistance cilities are City's
requested to P edical fa and that the
the event local m East, e without- PaencY
Defense In the war in the Middle to sere City emerg
result of el have volunteered that the that
Fire/Rescue personn Wallin moved ulatiOn
discussion, .assist with the stip to the City•
After a brief or liability
be authoriZeficant cost
resourwill be no sign
there unanimously-
Motion carried
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS NOTED
ational items'
inform Tb.is
Council noted the following the Fairgrounds. lowing
ood and Hoyt °n to save on snowP
of Underw the Fairgrounds
1. Closing taken by for City and'
action was costs. ealth profile
and vandalism~s Financiaec ions for 1991
State Auditor Aid Prof Eng does not recommend
2• date on State ect ineer ~Mau,rer's letter
UP Avenue Proj time. in the City
3. gamline at this on file
reQuesting a variance
of explanation dated 1/1/91 is
19 91 and
Office • ~ Minutes of January 91_2
4. Commission Minutes= ission l and SWR- Minutes
a. .Solid Waste Comm Ad Hoc Meeting
Accompanying Resolutions ission
b. parks and Recreation Comm
of January 3 - 19 91
- ,.,~ ~.~
MINUTES
• JANUARY 23, 1991
PAGE 6
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M.
_ ~g_,Q r~ ~. C,y
~,~ #, r~
Tom Baldwin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shirley Chenoweth, City Clerk
L~
Meeting Date 2 25 91
Agenda Item E-1
•
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
.PLANNING COMMISSION
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Report on the possible removal of billiard or
poo a s an game arcades as conditional uses in a B-2 zone
SUBMITTED BY: Planning Commission
Susan Hoyt, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Planner
EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION:
As a result of the Planning Commission recommendation to revoke
the conditional use permit for J.J.'s Pool and Game Arcade, 1544
West Larpenteur Avenue, due to the owners/operators failure to
meet conditions relating to security, the Commission requested
staff to investigate the possibility of removing this use from
the list of conditional uses in a B-2 zone.
also generated from previous problems with This request was
in the same location. pool and game arcades
The attached report summarizes the planner's review of this
• request (Attachment 1). Draft ordinances from. Roseville and
Little Canada regulating the licensin of pool halls and/or game
arcades are attached for furt er in ormation.
ATTACHMENT 1 Planner's report dated February 19, 1991
ATTACHMENT 2 Draft Ordinance from Roseville
ATTACHMENT 3 Draft Ordinance from Little Canada
ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Discuss
2. Give staff direction on next step
•
•
n
Meeting Date 2 25 91
Agenda Item E-1
Attachment 1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 19, 1991
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Susan Hoyt, City Planner
RE: Possible removal of billiard/pool hall and/or game
arcades as conditional uses in a B-2 zone
BACKGROUND
Over the past decade pool halls and game arcade businesses
located in Northome shopping center periodically created
disruptions in community peace and security. Most recently the
City revoked the conditional use permit for J.J.'s Pool and Game
Arcade at 1544 West Larpenteur Avenue for failure to meet
conditions regarding security in the business and parking lot.
Prior to the opening of J.J.'s in 1989, some patrons at the
previous came room, Rock-A-Fellas, were so disruptive in the
rear parkins lot that several complaints were received from
residents living in single family homes adjacent to the
property. This history of disruption lead the Planning
Commission to request a review of the appropriateness of this
use in the City of Falcon Heights.
CONDITIONAL USE DESIGNATION
The recurring problems with pool halls and/or game arcades is
not universal. However, it is common. Therefore, this City
designates them as conditional rather than permitted uses in a
B-2 zone. The conditional use permit procedure allows the City
to analyze the appropriateness of the use for its site, to
require measures to assure its conformance to neighborhood and
community standards, and, in cases of well documented non-
compliance, to revoke the conditional use permit.
Similar and additional requirements may also be part of the
annual licensing procedure as indicated in Roseville's and
Little Canada's proposed ordinances (see Attachments 2 and 3).
(Note many of the licensing conditions are similar or identical
to those contained in the conditional use permit for J.J.'s.)
When considering an application for a conditional use permit,
the Planning Commission and City Council cannot deny the permit
because they do not like the business or the owner/operator.
However, these bodies can deny the permit if they find that it
does not meet the standards for granting a conditional use
permit, which can include site design and security requirements.
Furthermore, it is inappropriate to place unrealistic conditions
on an applicant for a conditional use permit. City Attorney,
1
Tom Gedde, said that it is better to remove the uses from the
code than to circumvent approval by putting on unworkable
conditions. For example, requiring a pool and game arcade to
• close at 8 p.m. or to be located 1,000 feet from a residential
neighborhood in Falcon Heights are impossible conditions for
applicants to meet. However, requiring a security plan and
private security personnel is not excessive for an applicant.
If the applicant cannot provide these, the permit can be denied.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
When considering whether or not to remove billiard/pool hall
and/or game arcades as conditional uses from the zoning code,
the Commission should ask two questions: Is it a desirable use?
And is this use in a B-2 zone compatible with other land uses in
the City?
QUESTIONS 1: Is a pool hall and/or game arcade a desirable
land use in the City?
Answering this question probably depends upon whether or not
the business can be operated without disrupting community
standards of peace and quiet and without excessive police
involvement. It also depends upon the Commission's opinion
of whether or not placing stringent conditions on these
businesses can insure this. Tom Alleva, Deputy Chief of the
Roseville Police, said there are some well-run, almost
problem-free pool hall businesses such as Lee's on Larpenteur
Avenue east of Hamline. However, he said that these
establishments enforce strict standards to retain security.
If the business patrons are controlled, these establishments
• can provide useful recreational space and activities for
their patrons, frequently teenage youths.
QUESTION 2: Is a pool hall and/or game arcade in a B-2
zone compatible with other land uses in the
City?
It is desirable to locate a pool hall and/or game arcade with
minimal impact on adjacent residential neighborhoods and
businesses and with high visibility for the police.
The following site criteria may assist with this:
1. Adequate parking in front of the establishment rather
than in the rear or in an adjacent lot may reduce the
tendency to "hot rod" and "hang out" and allow private
security people and the police to patrol better.
2. Control of business exits away from residential
neighborhoods so patrons do not leave the business and
create noise for residents.
3. Visible entrances and exits for observation by private
security personnel and patrolling police.
Without going into a site analysis of all B-2 zones in the City,
the following observations may be useful:
• Of the four major commercial corners in the City, Falcon
Center appears to meet these criteria more closely than the
Northome or Bullseye Corners due to its large front parking
lot, high visibility from Snelling Avenue and ability to
2
enter and exit without driving by residential homes.
However, the north parking lot is less visible and is
adjacent to residential homes. Controlling parking and
• exiting in the rear of Northome and Bullseye Center is more
difficult as is limiting driving on adjacent residential
streets (Arona and Crawford).
Some cities set a minimum distance for these uses from
residential zones to reduce the impact on
neighborhoods. (e.g. Roseville is proposing 1,000 feet.)
Given the close proximity of commercial and residential uses
in Falcon Heights, it would be nearly impossible to do this
since some parking activity associated with the business
would be adjacent to an R zone in any location.
ANSWERS:
If the answer to both questions is "yes", the use is
desirable and there are appropriate places for the use within
the City, then the uses should remain in the code. If the
answer is any combination of "yes" and "no", the uses should
be removed from the code either because they are undesirable
due to security problems and/or there are no appropriate
sites for these businesses in the City.
COMMISSION ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission may consider:
• 1. Removing one or both of the uses from the zoning code.
9-10.01(2)(p) - billiard/pool hall
9-10.01(2)(q) - game arcade
2. Making no changes, but requiring more stringent site
appropriateness and security measures as part of a
conditional use permit application as long as the
requirements do not preclude the business from all B-2
sites in the City. If more stringent site
appropriateness is desirable, this could be specified in
the code or done on a case-by-case basis.
3. Adding security and site conditions to the annual
municipal licensing procedure for pool and game arcades.
Unlike conditional use permits, these requirements go
specifically with the business, not the land. However,
in a City this size this may be adding a redundant layer
of controls.
•
3
02i15~1991 09 15 FROM CITY OF ROSEVILLE TO FALCON HEIGHTS
r~. e5 E- ~-.
A'f1y7,tt-.~-~T' Z
t
l.f~fLf ~~wa,~i
~w~~~
831. AMUSEt1HNm C~NTE~tS
811.0~,p. D8~`3NITTONS. For the purpose of this Chapter,
aeztain terms and words are defined as fo}.lows:
(A} l~musement Center. Any zoom, p~,ace, or area, open to
the public, 7.ocated within any buflding ar structuxe,
including, bat not limited to, a bar, xestaurant,
lounge, supper c3ub, or boWlinq establishment, the
purpose and use of which is to provide amusement or
entertainment through the operation of four {4} or
1'1'l4re d1YlUSEXt1E'nt deviCkS,
r
`~
4
{g} Amusement Device, Any electronic oz mechanica3
machine ar dev#,ce, which operates or may be operated
by the public by inserting a chin, coins, token, or
tokens, therein, which 3.s intended far entertainr~ent
or amusement, This definitfan includes, but is not
limited to, such devices as pinball machines, IabXe
shuffleboard games, table hockey and soccer games,
v~,deo games, matian picture machines, and alb, other
electronic and mechanical machines and devices, which
operate car are operated f'oK the entertainment or
amusement of the pub~.ic, Azt "amusement device" is
not a "gambling device" as defined by Minnesota
StaCutes.
iC} Operate. To conduct, manage, supervise, maintain or
keep.
811,024. LICHNSH RHQt1IRED. No person, firm Or
corporation shall operate an amusement center within the City of
Little Canada w3.thoat first having applies for and received an
amusement center Xicense as hereinafter provides. operation of
four «) or more a~ausement devices yin a lousiness establishment is
prohibited, unless the area aceupied by the amusement dev~,Ces is
1~,censed as an amusement center.
811.030. APPLICATION. 3~ach applicant for an amusement
center 1Scense shalx apply to the City Clerk upon such forms as are
pra~rided by the City end shall answer a31 questions and provide a13
information required on said application. The application shall
inCluse a description of the area within which the amusement
devices are to be ].orated.
811.040. LICENSE PEE. Amusement center licenses sha~.~. be
issued for one {1) year peri,ads to gtta3.ified applicants. The
annual license fee is Qrie Hundred DolZaxs (5104.00), and said fee
sham be paid at the time of making application. In the event saa,a
applicat3~on is rejected, the fula fie shalt be refunded,
$11,050. INS~lRANCE. The applicant far an amusement
center license shall pravfde the City with a Certificate of
Insurance evidencins~ liabi3,ity coverage in the amount df
S100,p00/5300,Qp4, with a provision that the City be head haXm3.ess.
Page 149
1,c~ cq~k~r~
f 811.060. kEVOCAxION. mhe Counc3.l may, after notice and
• hearing, zevoke any ~,icense issued under th~,s Chapter if the
1iCensee f s convicted of any. violation of an ordinance, state law,
or federal law xelat~,ng Go the use, sale or possession of
non-intoxicating liquor ox intoxicating liquvx, or use or
possession of gambling dev~.Ces, or Qf any violation of Dii.nnesota
Statutes, ChaPtez X17, as amended, 4C of any violation of Chapter
x202 of this Code. The conviction of a person, while an occupant
of the ~.icensed premises, of a violation of any of the above
desczf.be8 ordinances, state laws, or Federal Iaws shall also be
gxonnds fox revocation of the license. The violation of any
oonditfon of the ~.~,cense sha13 be grounds for revocation off` the
license.
ez~.o~o. CoND3Taor~s p~' z~rCENSS.
{A) No araasement center Xicense shall be issued by the
Council unless the applicar-t has demor-strated that
the piece to be licensed is pxaper3.y vent~.lated and
e~uiPPed with necessary toilets, washrooms, and
similar public facilities, and that the operation of
the place to be licensed will not be a public
nuisance or detximenta~. to public Safety, morals or
welfare
Nd amusement center shah be located within Sao feet
o~ any ptablic or private school.
{C} An adult manager, at least twenty-one t23) years of
age, shah, be ova the premises of an amusement center
during all hours of operation, The mattager~s primazy
duties shalX be the supervision of the use and
ope~;atiorl o~ amusement devices.
(D? Nq ammusement oenter rr~~ha~,l be operated between the
hours of ].2:00 midnight and 7:00 a.m. Amusement
Centers which operate in, con~tsnation witih a bar,
suppsz Club, tavezn, or similar facility, are exempti
from the closing requirement. ~n those situations
the closing time shah. be no late~c than the legally
established olosing time £oz said facility.
tE) The licensee and has employees at~d agents shall
adhere to the provisions Of the City Code relating to
minors. No licensee, nor his employees ar agents,
shall knowingly permit a minor to be present on the
,premises 3n violat~,on of curfew laws, nor knowingly
permit a person under the age of sixteen {16) years
to be Present on the premises when school is in
session unless on a va3id excused absence.
{~} An amusement center shall be deemed a public place,
as regulated by Litti~,e Canada City Code, Sect).ons
1202.Oi0, I2Q2.024, and i2Q2.03Q.
Page 110
02115.'1991 09:17 FROM CITY OF ROSEVILLE
• TO FALCON HEIGHTS P,07
iG) The .licensee of an amusement center shall, not pezrnxt
~.ntoxioated persons to remain on the premises.
tip) fihe amusement center and the premises ~.n which
amusement devices are located shall conform to al.I
bai3.ding and fire prerrentiorl codes of the City 4~
Little Canada. The building inspector or fire
inspector may enter said premises at any time during
normal business h0uzs, for the par ose of
said premises far f~.re haaards. p ~nspectfng
personnel of the City of Little Canada3shallfhavemt,he
right to enter said premises at any time during
normal, business hours, for the purpose of enforcement
of the terms of this chapter,
• tI) The Council may impose conditions upon the 33cer~se
pertaxnang to the hours oi' operation of the amusement
center and other conditions which will enable the
licensee to control the conduct of the occupants of
the amusement center.
833.Q~Q~ EXI$TTNG AA'IUSEMENT CENTERS.
operating an amusement center within the CS,ty shall co ply ewith
this Ordinance within thirty ~3Q) days of its e~~'ective date,
SII.090. PENAi,TTES. Ari
prov~,sion a~ this ord;Inance shai3. be Person who shall violate any
•• apart conviction thereof, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, ans,
than Five ~3trndred Dol,3ats ~Sgda.00) or by imprisonment for aote,rioe
of not more than ninety ~gQ) aaysr or both. p d
(54t2rce: Ord. 1371 Amended: prd, ~p2)
. •
Page lI3
•• 02i15~1991 09 13 FROM CITY OF ROSEUILLE TO FALCON HEIGHTS
_ .... ~.
• ~0& ~U~ LLC
~~~a--
CITY dF ROSEVILLE
AN ORDINANCE NO.
* * t * ~
P.02 E-_ ~
~--n~~~~t; 3
* se
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATYON dF AMUSEMENT
DEVICES AND GAME RC~MS ANI~ FURTHER PRdEfIBITING CER'Z`A,IN USES OF
LAND IN ALL ZONXL+?d DISTRICTS BY AMENDINCx TFiE CITY CODE OF THE
CITY OF ROSEVILLE.
The City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota,
does hereby oxdain_
I.
The CitX Cade of the City of RaseviXl.e, zs hereby
amended by adtling Section 5.220, to read as follows:
. Section 6.220. Prohibited Uses in a1.7. Zoning_
Districts,
Any use of land that is regulated by a licensing
procedure is prohibited in all districts unless a
license Yyas been issued pursuant to the City Code.
iI,
The City Code of the City of Roseville, is hereby
amended by amending in i.ts entirety, chapter i0g to read as
fol lows
I09. Amusement Devices & Game Rooms
Section, iQ9.4I0.Licenses Re wired.
~ -- -
No amusement device or game room s'~a3.1 be operated without
` the ownez ar operator first obtaining 8. ].zcense from tl~e
City of Roseville.
Section 109,02Q Definitions.
I. An "amusement device" ins a~a electronic or mechanical.
. game of skill or chance requiring the payment of money to
1
02i15f1991 09 14 FROM CITY OF ROSEVILLE
TO FALCON HEIGHTS p,03
•
(~0 C!~'f161U
C
•
~~JI Ll.f
pay or opezate xs not a "ga~nbl~ing ~d~evice" as defined by
Minnesota Statutes, and is licensed bx 'the City.
2- An "Amusement device Manager" is an adult employee of an
establishment oper~txag~amusement devices whose primary
duties are the supervision Qf the amusement devices,
3. A "game roam" is a business establishment, more than
fifty percent {SO$) of the gross receipts of which are
derived .from trie operation of amusement devices, has an
Amusement Device Manager an the premises during all hours of
operation, is Iicensed by the Czty, and has implemented a
security plan which has been approved by the Chief of
Police.
Section 109.030. ~ecial Requirements for Licea_ sing.
1. No license shall be granted after February 1, 1991 far
any game roam which:
(a) zs less than 1,004 feet from any residence;
(b) Is Less than 1,800 feet from any school building or
school yard,
(c) Is less than 1,000 feet fra-~ any park.
2- Game rooms which were licensed pzior to February 1, 1991
are exploded from the requirements set forth in paragraph 1
above, but are subject to all other restrictions set forth
in this Ohapter.
3, Each applicant for a license for a game room shall.
provide the Chief of police with a security plan designed to
maintain order and each applicant for each game xaom or
amusement device shad provide the Police Chief with the
names and addresses of the amusement device managers.
4_ Na alcoholic beverages (i.ncluding ~.2 beer ar wine) or
cantroZied substances without a prescz~iption shall be sold,
possessed ar cor:su~ed on the premises of the game room, the
camnton areas within the bui,iding, or the parking areas,
s
~- The property owner will post an the exterior of the
premises "loo Loitering" and wi].1 prevent any loitering
within the building or in the parking areas and sidewalk
adjacent to the building.
~- Any person who has been convicted of a felony, .~,
aontrvlZed substance abuse, ar gambling law violation within
the past fzve years i.s prah~ibxted from working as an
attendant at tYae game roam_
2
i
FROM CITY OF ROSEU
ILLE TO FALCON HEIGHTS
P . 04
...,...
~~~~~
7- The interior of the game room will be free o£
obstructions to visual supervision by attendants and will be
adequately lighted,
8, Game roam management will take ail reasonable action to
expel intoxicated persons and will allow nv disorderly
conduct on the premises, parking areas and adjacent
sidewalks,
9, Adult suprvi3zon to ensure that the health, safety.
welfare and existing community standards of peace and quiet
are maintained. At the police Chief's discretion,
additional supervisory and/or security Personne]. may be
required,
10, If the game room is to be located in a sho ~n center
the owner of the shopping center shall providepa.security
plan and may be rquired to
the parking and other provide additional security in
at the discretion of thebChxetrofsPo~ic~e snapping center,
Section 149.040. Additional Regulations.
Maintaining and operating an amusement device in a business
establishment is prohibited, except
l- Up.ta four (4) licensed amusement devices may be
maintained and operated in any business establishment in the
Gity. .
~' Game rooms may maintain and operate in excess of four
~4) amusement devices between the hours of 8:Op a,m, amd
10:00 p,m „ Sunday through Thursda
at 13:00 a,m, and ].2:p0 midnight, Fridaydandtsaturday.hours
~. Business esta'blishmants, other than gave rooms. may
maintain and operate fn excess of four (4j licensed .
amusement devices only upon the issuance of a
fifty Council, which permit may be denied b theeCitt by the
in its sole discretion, and which may Contain conditiansnc~I
such as a limitation on the number, type and hours o~
operation of the amusement devices,
air.
and after its
passage and publication,
~~
THIS O~AINANCE shall take effect and be in force from
3
Meeting Date 2 25 91
Agenda Item E-3
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Report on zoning code requirements for
re roac ive screening of existing businesses [9-14.01
(5) (b) (d) (e) ]
SUBMITTED BY: City Council
EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION:
At the October 24, 1990 City Council meeting the Council
referred the issue of when and how to apply the retroactive
screening requirements for existing businesses to the Planning
Commission for its recommendation. due to a full schedule of
comprehensive planning activities, the matter was not put on the
Planning Commission agenda.
It is now time to discuss this issue for two reasons. First, in
the larger picture, the comprehensive planning policies stress
the importance of retaining neighborhood quality. Maintaining
and improving the relationships between commercial and
residential land use within neighborhoods is key to this quality
issue. Second, on a narrower, but nevertheless, important
• point, is the concern of one resident about the impact of the
Hamline Auto Repair Shop on the adjacent residential .homes.
The attached report defines the retroactive screening issue and
its policy implications. At the meeting, staff would like to:
1. Summarize the impetus behind this discussion
2. Briefly review the report with slides to highlight the
broader implications of this ordinance
ATTACHMENT 1 - Section 9-14.01(5)(b)(d)(e)
ATTACHMENT 2 - Planner's Report
ATTACHMENT 3 - City Attorney's opinion on code enforcement
ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Review and discuss how to apply and/or revise this section of
the code to be used to accomplish its intent of retaining and
improving neighborhood quality.
This requires:
o Determining on what basis to enforce
o Determining if the Planning Commission should be
involved in screening discussions
o Determining if effective date should be removed from
ordinance
~~~ ATTACHMENT 1
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 9-~~.p~.
• c. Chemical insecticides or herbicides shall be stored, handled and
utilized as per the standards set forth by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency.
_t----~ Subdivision 5. Screening. (All existing uses shall comply with this
standard by January 1, 1989).
a. Screening shall be required in residential zones where:
1. Any off-street parking area contains more than four (4)
parking spaces and is within thirty (30) feet of residential
zone; and
2. Hhere the driveway to a parking area of more than six (b)
parking spaces is within five (5) feet of an adjoining
residential use or zone.
-~1 b. Where any business or industrial use (structure, parking or
storage) is adjacent to property zoned for residential use, that
business or industry shall provide screening along the boundary of
the residential property. Screening shall also be provided where a
business, parking lot, or industry is across the street from a
residential zone, but not on the side of a business or industry
considered to be the front.
• c. All exterior storage sh~'1 be screened. The exceptions are:
1. Merchandise being displayed for sale;
2. Materials and equipment currently used for construction on
the premises; and
3. Merchandise located on service station pump islands.
d. The screening required in this section shall consist oT earth
mounds, berms, or ground forms; fences and walls; landscaping (plant
materials) or landscaped fixtures (such as timbers) used in combina-
tion or singularly so as to block direct visual access o an o ec .
e. Required screening shall be as approved by the City Council. •
Existing land uses may be required to install screening if so
ordered by the City Council following public hearing.
86
t
v L 3 ATTACP,MENT 2
• CITY OF
FALCON HEIGHTS
2077 W. LARPENTEUR AVENUE FALCON HEIGHTS, MN 55113-5594 PHONE (612) 644-5050 FAX (612) 644-8675
TO: Jan Wiessner, City Administrator
FROM: Susan Hoyt City Planner
RE: The Retroactive Application of Rear and Sideyard Screening for Existing
Businesses
INTRODUCTION
Inevitably some residential neighborhoods are located next to non-residential
land uses. Sometimes there is a comfortable co-existence. Other times the
non-residential land use creates a visual and/or audial blight for adjacent
residents. Buffering or screening has become a standard practice to reduce
the impact on residential zones from adjacent transportation, industrial and
• commercial land uses. These man-made buffers can enhance the aesthetics of a
neighborhood by visually obscuring the non-residential use and diminishing the
noise. Site plans for proposed new developments routinely include setbacks and
screening prior to receiving project approval (e.g. SuperAmerica, Hewlett Packard).
However, retroactively requiring screening between land uses that have co-existed
for several years, even decades, raises two policy questions - (1) what
constitutes screening? and (2) when should existing businesses be required to
provide such screening? A number of constraints enter into making these decisions.
1. WHAT CONSTITUTES SCREENILIG?
First, it is necessary to set general guidelines for acceptable screening
between existing businesses and residential zones. This information will be
used to determine which businesses currently conform and which businesses do
not. It will also determine how non-conforming businesses may come into conformance.
(The City Council gives final approval to individual screening plans;
(see Attachment 1).)
According to the zoning code, the purpose of screening is to "block direct
visual access to an object" using fencing, landscaping and construction materials
singly or in combination (see Attachment 1). "Direct visual access" is vague.
It may be interpreted to mean that standing at ground level looking toward the
business, the view of the business is obscured by landscaping (e.g. the northside
of the Thatcher Clinic) or a six foot high cedar fence (e.g. Embers). Some
businesses have three to four foot high chain link fencing along rear property
lines (e.g. Falcon Center). This would not impair the site line from adjacent
• properties in height, density or visual appeal, so it would not meet this requirement.
HOME OF THE MINNESOTA STATE FAIR AND THE U OF M INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
neE mr ~ ~~~{{JJJ
1 ~
•
Page 2
Requiring future screening to meet the "block direct visual access" criterion
in the code may be important in defining what is appropriate screening and what
isn't. Encouraging businesses to spend money on fencing and/or landscaping to
meet the code, yet not provide anaesthetic visual screen, would be pointless.
An example of a well-done retroactive screening project appears in Figure 1
below. This Roseville single family homeowner buffered the residence from a busy
street with burming and landscaping. (Front yard screening like this is not
allowed in the Falcon Heights zoning code.)
r:
FIGURE 1
2. WEiEN SHOULD EXISTING BUSINESSES BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SCREENING?
According to the zoning code, all existing businesses either "shall conform"
as of January 1, 1989 or "may be asked by the City Council" to screen after a
public hearing (see Attachment 1). This may be done in two ways. The first
is on a complaint basis only. The second is in an overall screening code
enforcement program.
~~
• Page 3
Complaint Basis Only
If done on a complaint basis only, it may be argued that retroactive conformance
will necessarily occur only in cases where an uncomfortable business/
residential relationship exists. Complaints identify this discomfort. Clearly
this is a more manageable approach for the City, and may provide the desired
results. City Attorney Gedde explains that enforcement on a complaint basis
is done for reasons of practicality, and rarely, creates problems. However,
if possible, it is ideal to consistently and uniformly enforce the code
throughout the City (see Attachment 3).
Citywide Screening Code Enforcement Program
If done as a citywide screening code enforcement program, all businesses in the
city are potentially affected. It requires reviewing all properties, for their
compliance with acceptable screening practices, contacting the property owners
and working out the most reasonable screening solution for each individual site.
Some properties may be unable to be screened due to the location of the buildings
on the site. In these cases, the constraints must be clearly recorded or it
reduces the claim that this is an equitable code enforcement program.
• Factors to Consider
As in any policy decision, there are many constraints in making these decisions.
These include:
1. Existing fencing. Is existing fencing, like chain link acceptable
even if it doesn't act as a screen? Or must these property owners
replace the fencing with something that acts as a visual barrier.
If acceptable now, is it acceptable for proposed screening?
2. Existing screening. If the adjoining residential properties have
created rear and side yard screens through landscaping or fencing,
do these fulfill the code requirement even if the business did not
provide them?
3. Aesthetics. The most efficient, least expensive screening is
usually fencing. Therefore, it is important to decide if fencing
is an adequate solution to the screening requirement. Frequently six
foot high wood privacy fences are constructed as screening. These
are designed to take on an aged, weathered look. In landscaped
residential properties this aging often complements an existing deck,
garden, trees and lawn. However, in a commercial area, the presence
of a tall cedar fence in a heavily brick, stucco, concrete and asphalt
~ environment may look out of place.
•
.-
Page 4
4. Security. Obscuring views of businesses from adjacent residential
zones is generally positive. F3owever, in some cases it can
pose a security problem. Semiropaque or opaque screening to
the rear of a business may pose a security risk. Visible entrances
to the property are more easily patrolled by police cars.
5. Ingress/Egress. Access to a site for service, police and emergency
vehicles is vital. In most cases a fence along a property
line may not affect ingress and egress to the site. However,
this varies for each business use. For example, the delivery
doors for Bullseye nearly abut its rear lot line. It would
be .impossible to construct a landscaping or a fencing barrier
along the rear lot line without making deliveries impossible.
(Bullseye nay have been exempt from this screening requirement
during, the development review).
6. Business Retention and Expense. Cities are increasingly recognizing
the importance of retaining existing, compatible businesses.
• rather than stressing business attraction. Part of this process
involves a sensitivity to code enforcement issues. (It does
not mean rejecting code enforcement). Screening costs money.
For example, a homeowner recently had a six foot high, 50 ft.
treated cedar fence installed in his sideyard for $1,038.
A basic perimeter, chain link fence in a residential rear and
side yard costs between $1,000 and $1,500. #fiese are prices
based on installation in soil, not concrete or asphalt which
might be the case on commercial property. Attractive landscaping
is more expensive. With the perception of "hard times" ahead,
particularly for the retail sectorr the cost-benefit of enforcing
the code must be carefully considered.
7. Administration. Implementing an enforcement program requires
working closely with business and neighboring residential property
owners whether on a complaint basis or a citywide program.
Contacting property owners, explaining the requirements in
a non-threatening manner, evaluating the unique property needs
and working with property owners to come to the most reasonable
long term solution takes time.
CONCLUSION
The overall goal of providing screening or buffering between residential
and business zones is laudible. The retroactive enforcement of this
requirement in the zoning code may result in improved transitions between
• these two potentially conflicting land uses. However, there are a number
of constraints underlying this enforcement.
's' ~ _ ATTACHMIIVT 3
-` t., ~'
"~'" AUG 2z '90 14 05 JENSEN HT_CKEN GEDDE SCOTT,_P.A.
• JENSEN, HICKEN, GEDDE Fri SCOTT, P. A.
• ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
,ssocrt, EDM1VARD w.. j$.
GBDDH, ?IiOMAS A.
HICKEN, jBPfiHEY P.
Ha WARD, lt0$ERT A.
JENSEZ3, DAVID L.
MATTy;i:, PAUL F.
SCOTT, y(1CHAEL J.
300 ANOKA OFFICE CENTETt
2150 THIRD AV8NU8
ANOKA,'.~IINNESOTA bb303~2296
7£LEPHON£ (612) 421-4110
7ELECOYIBIt (812) 421-1044
August 22, 1990
OA COUNSBL
I~ADtEY, Cxwlri b5 S.
LLTTI3FF', BICF#1lBJ~ L.
~IOWSE, d. C&AIG
Ms. Susan Hoyt
Falcon Heights City Planner
City of Falcon Heights
2077 West Larpenteur Avenue
Falcon Heights, MN 55113-5594
RE: Screening Requirements
Dear Ms. Hoyt:
• I have your letter of August 24 wherein yQU raised certain
questions regarding Section 9-1Y.01 Subd. 5 of the Falcon
Heights City Code.
An auto repair shop is Iacated in a B-2 zone adjacent to a
residential neighborhood. You ask whether the City may se-
lectively engorce the screening requirements. As a practical
matter, municipalities often•enforce various Code provisions
' ~on a complaint basis, ratheJC than a"ctively seeking out viola-
tions and, generally speaking, this is not a problem.... How--:
ever, the best legal approach for' municipality`is to have~a
goal 4f enforcing all of its Code provisions. zf any existing
Code requirements ga beyond what, the City is comfortabhe en-
forcing, the best solution is to amend the Code. Otherwise,
it can be argued that the equal protection clause of the Con-
stitution is violated if the City picks and chooses violations
to pursue and intentionally igrlares others.
You also ask whether the City Council must approve alI screen-
ing arrangements required under this section of the Code. My
interpretation of Subd. 5 is that all screening must be ap-
proved by the Council and therefore wherever such screening is
required it would be appropriate for the owner to submit for
City approval a proposed screening plan. For new uses, this
issue could be dealt with when the conditional use permit or
• building permit is obtained. For existing uses which are not
in compliance, but where the owner is willing to submit a
plan, no public hearing is necessary. For existing uses where
y" , ~
• - ~ t.
AUG ZZ '90 14~D5 JENSEN HICKEN GEDDE SCOTT,_P.A.
• Ms. Susan Hoyt
Paqe 2
August 22, 1990
P.3i3
the owner is not cooperative, the City may initiate the pro
cess by scheduling a public hearing. Again, changes tv the
Code could be considered if the City is not comfortable with
these procedures.
Please call if you haves other questions.
You~,~~ruly,
HIjs~'~~ GEDDE & SCOTT, P.A.
~fiomas A. Gedde
Falcon Heights City Attorney
TAG/abq
cc: Janet R. Wiessner
•
a
_ ,-
~r
•
Meeting Date 2 25 91
Agenda Item E-4
C~
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Revised Policies for the Comprehensive Land
Use P an
SUBMITTED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Planner
EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION:
The most recent revision of the policies for the comprehensive
land use plan are attached for your information. The revision
reflects comments made at the January 28, 1991 Planning
Commission meeting.
ATTACHMENT 1 - Policies for Comprehensive Land Use Plan
ACTION REQUESTED: For your information
•
•
~ . ~~,~i
. ~'_ ~,!
~ a~ ~.
Q,~Q=~•
PROPOSED POLICIES FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN, 2000
NEIGHBORHOODS/HOUSING
OBJECTIVES:
1. To improve the quality, appearance and maintenance of
housing in neighborhoods.
2. To minimize land use and traffic intrusions that
adversely impact established neighborhoods.
3. To continue the well-maintained residential character
of existing neighborhoods.
POLICIES:
1. Adopt and enforce a housing code to assure the maintenance
of the existing housing stock.
2. Pursue and encourage housing rehabilitation programs.
3. Continue to make rental assistance available to residents
through the Metropolitan Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Section 8 Program.
4. Space group homes in residential districts
not less than 1/2 mile between homes.
5. Eliminate zoning code violations and nuisance conditions
that adversely affect neighborhoods.
6. Maintain the single-family character of the existing
residential neighborhoods and discourage redevelopment
that may be considered a change in use unless irreversible
blight can be demonstrated.
7. Allow the remodeling of existing residential structures
and accessory uses without adversely affecting the character
of the neighborhood or substantially reducing required
open space.
•
•
Page 2
NEIGHBORHOODS/HOUSING (Continued)
8. Enhance and upgrade the value of residential properties
through street maintenance and improvement
programs that complement the residential character
of neighborhoods.
9. Adopt on-street parking restrictions to control adverse
impacts from intense, non-residential parking on residential
streets.
10. Permit only compatible business uses adjacent to residential •
uses, and place special conditions upon business uses
to assure compatibility when appropriate.
11. Require the subdivision of existing lots on developed
blocks in residential areas to conform to other lots
within surrounding blocks. and to be accessed
in a similar manner.
12. Encourage the neighborhood watch program and other neighbor-
hood-organizations for communication and security.
13. Maintain the present mix of housing but consider
a variety of housing types and cost ranges if the University
of Minnesota properties north of Larpenteur Avenue
along Faireview become available.
C
r:
COMMERCIAL
OBJECTIVES:
Page 3
1. To allow an appropriate range of businesses that satisfy
the convenience goods and service needs of residents.
2. To insure maximum compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods.
3. To improve the image of the commercial area at
Snelling/Larpenteur.
4. To improve access, traffic circulation and on-site parking
for the commercial area at Snelling/Larpenteur.
5. To provide convenient parking in sufficient amounts to
meet parking demand.
POLICIES
• 1. Guide development toward existing neighborhood/convenience
commercial areas in clusters rather than in strip developments
along major streets.
2. Require sufficient parking but encourage shared parking
with other land uses to minimize hard surface
coverage and improve the visual appearance of parking
areas.
3. Promote attractive parking areas by requiring
landscaped traffic islands and setback areas.
4. Encourage and facilitate aesthetic improvements to
building facades, parking, signs, landscaping and lighting
throughout the Snelling/Larpenteur commercial area.
5. Encourage building and sign designs to be in scale
with the small town character of the City.
6. Maximize land use compatibility by requiring buffering,
screening and landscaping between new commercial uses
and residential areas, and wherever possible, between
existing commercial uses and residential uses to minimize
conflicts.
• 7. Allow only one community-scale retail center at
Snelling/Larpenteur.
•
Page 3(a)
COMMERCIAL (Continued)
8. Assist with the redevelopment of the southeast quadrant
of Snelling and Larpenteur Avenues if feasible.
9. Require that any redevelopment project that may logically
extend beyond the area already zoned for commercial use
have a straight boundary that generally correlates with
a public street line or the rear lot lines of residences
and take all of the property to the project boundary.
Furthers where such extension of a project takes place
extraordinary setbacks and landscaping be required to
mitigate neighborhood impacts.
•
C:
•
Page 4
STATE FAIRGROUNDS AND UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
OBJECTIVES:
1. To encourage the State Fairgrounds to remain in Falcon
Heights.
2. To encourage the University of Minnesota to retain its
agricultural research lands in Falcon Heights.
3. To continue to communicate and cooperate with the University
of Minnesota and State Fairground staff in planning consid-
erations. which include traffic and pedestrian circulation,
conflict avoidance with nearby business and residential
areas, visual appearance and drainage considerations.
• POLICIES:
1. Work with the University of Minnesota and the State
Fairground staff to keep informed of any significant
changes in long range development plans.
2. Encourage the University of Minnesota physical plant
to expand south of Larpenteur in areas adjacent to the
built campus rather than in the agricultural lands
and open space.
3. Regulate all non-university development/use of
University owned lands.
•
Page 5
COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
OBJECTIVES:
1. To assure maximum efficiency and economy in the delivery
of public services.
2.' To provide municipal services equitably to residents.
3. To provide adequate space for municipal administration
and related services.
4. To continue cooperation among the City and other govern-
mental units including the School Districts the County
and neighboring cities.
POLICIES:
1. Provide emergency service including polices fire
and rescue within a four minute response time to any
place served by the City.
2. Continue to replace and upgrade equipment as
necessary to maintain the present levels of local service.
3. Provide adequate police protection.
4. Provide adequate and efficient snow plowing service.
5. Provide meeting facilities for civic groups at City
Hall and the community park building.
6. Continue to evaluate options for the least duplicative
and most effective and efficient delivery of municipal
services .including direct services private contracts
and cooperative agreements with other governmental units.
7. Encourage Roseville Area Schools to keep Falcon Heights
Elementary School and Brimhall Elementary School open
and functioning as elementary schools.
•
•
•
Page 6
PARKS AND TRAILS
OBJECTIVES:
1. To develop a park system to serve both neighborhood
and community needs.
2. To provide adequate active and passive recreation programs
and facilities for community residents.
3. To provide an interconnected park and open space system
that provides pedestrian and bicycle linkages throughout
the City.
•
POLICIES:
1. Upgrade and improve existing parks.
2. Offer park/recreation programs to residents that complement
recreation programs available from surrounding cities
and the school districts and duplicate programs only
when necessary.
3. Cooperate with the University of Minnesota and the
State Fairgrounds in sharing recreation and open
space lands.
4. Acquire additional park land through the City's land
acquisition and park dedication program if the University
of Minnesota's agricultural land north of Larpenteur
along Fairview is sold and developed for residential
use.
5. Build trails as an integral part of upgrading
collector streets and minor arterial streets identified
on the land use plan except along Snelling Avenue.
•
•
Page 7
PUBLIC UTILITIES
OBJECTIVES:
1. To provide municipal services to all areas under the
jurisdiction of the City.
2. To-avoid unnecessary utility extensions to areas not
ready for development.
POLICIES:
1. Clean, repair and replace City sewer, and reduce inflow
and infiltration on a continuing basis as needed.
2. Approve new developments only when they are adequately
served by streets and public utilities in accordance
with accepted design standards.
3. Require the burying of overhead utility lines in all
areas wherever and whenever feasible.
4. Encourage separating storm and sanitary sewers on
the State Fairgrounds.
5. Prohibit the use of private waste water treatment
plants in the City.
•
•
Page 8 `
TRANSPORTATION
OBJECTIVES:
1. To promote safety on all streets.
2. To avoid unnecessary street congestion and the resulting
air pollution.
3.• To develop an efficient hierarchy of streets to move
larger volumes of traffic safely on relatively few through
streets and discourage high volumes of traffic on residential
streets.
4. To improve the quality of and increase the emphasis on
public transit, non-motorized and pedestrian travel.
• 5. To encourage planning and design that increases and complements
transit use.
6. To protect airspace.
POLICIES:
1. Coordinate all City street planning and design with
County, Metropolitan and State agencies.
2. Require adequately spaced driveways along arterial
streets when access cannot be limited to cross streets.
3. Maintain roadbeds, curb and gutter on City
streets.
4. Prevent parking on residential lots (other than driveways)
especially during State Fair activities.
5. Enhance the appearance and image of major roadway entry
points to the City.
6. Reduce overall travel demand by cooperating with the
University of Minnesota in developing a travel demand
• management (TDM) strategy and encourage programs that
provide alternatives to single-occupant automobiles.
7. Evaluate the need for and the location of transit
services in conjunction with surrounding communities.
•
Page 9
S. Coordinate public transit with all transit planning
and delivery agencies to improve transit services (MTC,
RTB, Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority).
9. Continue to coordinate with~the County Regional Rail-
road Authority in the planning and implementation of
LRT plans.
10. If LRT becomes a reality, locate it along .Snelling
Avenue with a transit station at Snelling/Larpenteur.
11. If LRT becomes a reality, minimize its impact on adjacent
properties on the LRT route.
12. Encourage high quality, compatible uses
that focus on before and after work activities
such as restaurants, dry cleaning, day care centers,
banks and convenience .shopping in an LRT station area. •
13. Require any major building redevelopment in an
LRT zone to minimize setbacks between roadways,
sidewalks and building entrances and to orient entrances
to LRT stations to attractively and easily accommodate
pedestrians.
14. Require that heliports comply with the licensing
requirements of MnDOT, the approach and altitude standards
established by the FAA and the noise standards established
by the MPCA as requirements of Conditional Use Permit
approval.
15. Require that no tall towers (obstructions over 500
feet tall) be built within the City.
•
•
Page 10
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
OBJECTIVES:
1. To conserve unique and essential natura3 resources.
2. To protect people and property from excessive noise,
pollution and natural hazards.
POLICIES:
1. Minimize runoff velocities from newly developed sites.
2. Require stormwater management and erosion control
plans for all new developments.
3. Encourage retention of precipitation as practicable
by providing additional storage either on-site or through
the construction of a comprehensive retention area with
new development or redevelopment.
4. Encourage the removal and replacement of diseased trees
on street right-of-ways.
5. Identify .and encourage preservation of trees in excess
of 50 years old, whenever possible.
6. Maintain wildlife populations.
7. Monitor air quality at Snelling/Larpenteur Avenues
and upgrade the intersection to assure that ambient pollution
levels are not substantially increased.
8. Consider solar access protection and the use of vegetation
to facilitate summer shading and winter solar gain when
reviewing plans for existing development, new development
and redevelopment.
9. Support a metropolitan-wide integrated waste management
program comprised of waste reduction, resource
recovery, recycling and limited landfilling.
10. Promote a curbside recycling program and encourage
on-site management and/or recycling of yard wastes.
11. Maintain open space views especially along the south
side of Larpenteur Avenue as a means to protect the urban/
• rural character of the City.
12. Encourage the protection of properties designated as
historically and architecturally significant by the
State Historical Society.
•
Page 11
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
OBJECTIVES:
1. To continue the limited growth of the ,City's tax base
by maintaining and upgrading the existing
housing stock, redeveloping blighted areas, rehabilitating
deteriorating buildings and properties, retaining businesses
and improving aesthetics.
2. To be prepared to address the development of University
of Minnesota lands north of Larpenteur Avenue and the
State Fairgrounds west of Snelling Avenue.
POLICIES:
1. Encourage growth in the tax base primarily through
upgraded and increasingly concentrated retail centers. •
2. Improve existing housing quality by adopting a regulatory
approach to housing maintenance.
3. Plan for the possible expansion of limited businesses
along the south side of Larpenteur, west of Snelling
Avenue as designated on the comprehensive land use plan.
4. In the event that a portion of the State Fairgrounds
. property becomes available for development over the life.
of the plan, allow mixed use development near the Snelling/
Larpenteur retail core that provides services to residents
and the University of Minnesota and the State Fairgrounds
users.
5. In the event that a portion of the State Fairgrounds
property becomes available or an LRT station is located
in the proximity of the Snelling and Larpenteur intersection,
allow the entire area, but not a portion, of Hollywood
Court to be redeveloped with mixed uses as part of the
Snelling and Larpenteur retail core.
6. In the event that the University of Minnesota lands north
of Larpenteur Avenue along Fairview Avenue, become available
for development over the life of the plan, allow neighborhood
related uses such as housing, parks, open space and neighbor-
hood scale commercial development. •
•
Page 11(a)
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (Continued)
7. In the event that the University of Minnesota lands north
of Larpenteur Avenue along Cleveland Avenue become available
for development over the life of the plan, allow expanded
limited business on the northeast corner of Cleveland
and Larpenteur Avenues in the area that is contiguous
to the area designated for limited business uses on the
comprehensive land use plan.
8. Carefully evaluate the City's potential financial
exposure and .seek guarantees from developers where public
financial assistance is to be provided in support of
redevelopment.
•
•
Page 12
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
1. Restrict developments throughout the City to three
stories or 35 feet in height.
2. Allow child day care facilities throughout the City.
3. Review ands if appropriates update the Comprehensive
Plan on an annual basis.
•
•