HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCAgenda_90May21MaetinR Date: 5/21/90
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS Age*+da Item: F-4
PLANNING COMMISSION
IT'EZS DESCRIPTION
UPDATE TO THE ZONING CODE
SUBKITTED BY: Susan Hoyt Taff, City Planner
SEVIENED BY:
II~LAIIATION/SnlQSARY (attach additional sheets as necessary):
Please update your zoning code by replacing existing pages with
the following updated ones.
ACTIdN 1ZQfTESTID:
Update code book.
,~ ,,,
;,
r
L
6/29/87
~leetinrt Date• 5/21/90
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS Agenda Item: F - 2
• PLANNING COMMISSION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
STAFF REPORT ON THE COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN
SIIBZiITTED BY: Susan Hoyt Taff, City Planner
EEVIEiTED BY:
B~LAI~IATIOP/SUl4SARY (attach additional sDeets as necessary):
on April 25, 1990 the City Council approved the hiring of the
Hoisington Group, Inc. to revise the City's Comprehensive Municipal
Plan. The Council included a section to review the Snelling and
Larpenteur commercial district in the contract as recommended by
the Planning Commission. The total cost is $16,300.
Staff Planner Susan Hoyt met with Fred Hoisington to begin setting
out tasks and a timetable for the project. The data collection
begins immediately. The neighborhood meetings are scheduled for
September and October to avoid summer vacation schedules and to
incorporate City survey data that maybe done this summer.
ACTIOiN 1EQtRSSID:
For your information.
r~ ` '
6/29/Bi
w
~ieetina Date• 5/21/90
Agenda Item: F-3
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
• PLANNING COMMISSION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
UPDATE ON THE SWIMMING POOL ORDINANCE
SIIB?iZTTID BY: City Council
xEVIEWED BY:
ERPLAIZATION/SUl4SARY (attach additional sheets as necessary):
At its April 25, 1990 meeting, the City Council reviewed the
swimming pool ordinance that was laid over from 1989. Some
changes are included in the proposed ordinance and the Council
will hold a final public hearing on the ordinance at its May 23,
1990 meeting.
ATTACHMENT 1 - PROPOSED SWIMMING POOL ORDINANCE
ACTIdli 1F,Q'ETLSTLD:
For your information.
. r- -'tom
t/ 4
6/29/87
Agenda Item F-3
Attachment 1
~48. -vim'-~=ttsrr~F~yr' ~~3~ s ~~} °TI"'1 •iVLL11lA ~ ~..
P,re€.er-~~-- ha ~s e-w a t e ~- ~ _, , Y L ~ ~ e-ate a-e`~ ed ~~-1-aE}--s ~uGr-e-z-c ~~a~-e---ar~t~r
• -cep-t-h-e-€--~t-a~a~~=~-=Tf~€ee~-
9-14.02. Subdivision_16_ Swimming Pools. (Definition No. 148) Private_
S_wimmi_ng_pools as regulated by this_section_are__defined_as any enclosure
designed, intended or used for the containment of water, whether constructed
aboveground level or below_ground_level_and-in excess of 18_inches in_depth or
1.00 square feet of_surface_area_ which is_designed,_intended_or-used_for_
---- --- ---- - - - ---- --- -- -- - -- -
swimming,_wading or_other_recreational use by_the_owner, family,_guest or
--------- ----------------- --------- -------
guests_of the property_owner_without payment_of fee_
A. Permit Required.
1. Permit. Ito swimming pool shall be constructed,
excavated or established in the City without first obtaining a
building permits ~'^
2. Application. An application for permit shall be
submitted to the building inspector which includes the type
and size of the pool, together with a site plan containing the
following information:
a. Plan s__Complete_plans_and_specifications for the
_- ---------------
construction of the pool.
• b_. 1- br,~ratin~ ~f-zcuzl~ - A_site_plan_s_howi_ng_t_he_
location of all existing_structures on the-bz~'di=~-lot
including house, garage, fenci.n~es .-o•r~~=er
;T~..~~smp~s; ,location of existing underground or
overhead wiring, utility easements, trees and
similar other significant improvements_or _natural
features,- location of structures on adjacent lots.
c.-h-.- The proposed location of pumps, filters, wiring,
elect_rical_sources, protective fencing, back flush and
drainage outlets, grading plans and finish elevation
around the pool.
3. Inspection. All wiring, installation of heating units,
grading, installation of pipe, or other construction shall be
subject to inspection and shall conform to the State Building
Code. (formerly 9-14.01 16.c. 8)
B. Minimum Setback Requirements.
• 1. Setback to Utility Lines. No Pool-s-shall-~-be located
within ten (10 ) feet (measured horizontally) -f~ex~-of
underground or overhead utility lines of all types.
2. Easements. No Poo]..s- shall -$e~~ be located within any
private or public utility, drainage, walkway or other
easement.
~j
3- Special Rules for Pools in Single Fa~'nily Residentia
Districts. 1
~= a- Rear Yard Set_bac__
located within ei ht k, ~~ N-°O-pO°l shall not be
g (8 ) feet of any rear lot line ~r
b- Side Yard Setback. _
within five NO Pool shall be located
(5) feet of any side lot-line ~~---
_c._Fr_on_t -Yard Se_tback.__
_ No Pool
within five {5) feet of any requsr-edlfbon~ocated
-- -- yard.
d- Setback
to Existing Structures_ No pool shall be
located within six (b) feet of-any principal structure
or-.t footing _~.~_
~= e-_ _Set_bac_k Requirements for Pool-Equipment,
Pool filter unit, Pump, heating unit and------- ~~ No
noise making mechanical equipment shall ber any other
~~- within twenty-five located-..a._~.
residential-structure on (25 ) feet -~~of any
closer than ei adjacent property and not
ght (8) feet to any lot line.
4_ Special Rules for Pools in two Famil
Districts or Multiple Famil Y Residential
Private swi~in Y Residential Districts.
g pools intended for and used by occupants and
guests of occupants of multiple family dwellings shall adh
to the following regulations: (formerly 9-14.01 Subd. 16.A
-~ a
_ No part of the water surface of the swimming
pool shall be closer than fifty (50) feet to any lot
line.
b_ No Pumps, f it ter
connection with the °r other apparatus used in
fifty (5O) feet to Pool shall be located closer than
any lot line.
~. Miscellaneous~~uirements.
~ = 1. Lia.bili~
construe d as to avoid hazard d All pools shall be
...~~_ a.,i__-
to adjacent ~ amage or considerable inconvenience
property owners
or propert r~-
~ = ? . The .-~~. pro p_~ owner shal 1 be 1 i a.b 1 e
business or private for damages to any
property caused during pool construction.
-~ 3- Drainage,
} r A11 back f 1 ushing ~•rata.~.~
~ ~~' Oz' pool drainage water shall be directed onto the
owner ` s-*-"' propert
not drain onto adjacentto approved public drainage ways, and shall
or other public draina private land- Drainage onto public streets
permit. ge ways shall require a conditional use
~'="'4 - Lighting- An •
toward the pool'and nototowardhadjacentVe Found shall be directed
Property-
96
~. 9. 4.Filling the Pool. Filling of pools from Fire Hyrdants
or other public facilities shall require the permission of the
appropriate 1eea1 city officials.
D. Protective Fencing.
. 7. 1. Height. Tke-sW1x~~1ag pools shall be completely
enclosed with four foot fencing which shall effectivel
prevent the entrance of children and be without external hand
or foot holds that would enable a child to climb over it.
Chain link fence may be used if o enings in the fabric do
not exceed two inches. Fencing of above ground pools shall not
be required if the pool sides meet the fence stipulations
above and it is provided with a removeable ladder a-een-
e1~~ab1e-€er~ee-a€-least-€~~e-f~~-€eet-}a-helgkt-ze-gee~eat
t~r~Kaffted-eatery-~e-~l~e-peal--a~ea-
2. Gates and Latches. ar~d-The fence openings shall leave-a
game be equipped with self-closing gates and self-latching
devices ~a1th. All the opendings shall be inaccessible to small
children and at least four (4) feet from ground level. In the
alternative, the perimeter of the yard including driveway
entrance may be fenced and enclosed. The opening between the
bottom of the fence and gates and the ground shall be no more
than four (4) inches.
3. Posts. All fence posts shall be placed no further than
eight (8) feet apart and be of decay or corrosion resistant
materials and shall be set in concrete bases or other
suitable method.
8---Al>~-~aleingT-}r~etallat}e~c-e€-heat}ag-tin}tsT-grad}egT
}astallat}en-a€-p}pe-e~-et}~e~-eenstreet}ea-shall=-lie-sel~~eet-te
}t~speet}enT-anal-shall-eea€e~~-to-tl~e-state-Be11d1ag-Fade-
f~e~lsed-fie-9-14.-91-st~bdl~}slee-l6-a-e-~}
4---Tke-€eeee-s1~a11-ire-eex~ple~ely-}r~stalled-be€e~e-€}111ag-eke
gee1:
4. Construction Fence. No person shall fill or caused to be
filled the newly constructed ool or a pool under construction
with water to a depth of more than eighteen (18) inches until
the Building Inspector authorizes the filling of the ool with
water. Such authorization shall be withheld until, as a
minimum, the permittee has com lately enclosed the swimming
pool with a construction fence. This requirement does not
.apply to above ground pools if the walls are at least four (4)
feet above grade. Said construction shall be:
(a) snow fence or similar design and securely anchored
in place.
(b) constructed with its base flush to the ground.
(c) At least four (4) feet in hei ht and have
supportive posts laced no more than eight (8) feet
• a art.
enclos
ermanent fence co
.. .+} ~ l 1 . ~ i _ i f_
letel
u11Q11 ..,~ a~-iilevea no later than ten ( 10 ) da s after the
Building Inspector authorizes the filling of the pool.
d) In place until a
.a
E: General Provisions:
f. 1, Accessory_Buildings, Unless included within the
swimming pool permit, a separate buildin
required for any pump house g Permit shall be~
~.,,„ , filter house, pool enclosure ~a
-~ or any other structure erected in conjunction with
swimming pool. Such structures shall conform to all
provisions. of the Building Code. Such structures shall also
conform to the setback requirements set forth in Section
9-14.02 B.above.
g. 2_ Alterations:-.-A}1 #e--changes, alterations or
improvements -s~~ ~-~~made to swimmin
structures - ~• g Pools or accessory
` ` --- ' ~ r
L L . 1
'=~r^~»~t other than routine maintenance-shall require a
permit. ----- ----------
•
98
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MAY 21, 1990
7:30 P.M.
A. CALL TO ORDER: 7;30 P.M.
~ ~.
B. ROLL CALL: Barry ~ Boche ~' Daykin ~ Duncan y;
Finegan Nestingen~_Gibson Talbo- t r
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 23, 1990
D. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: April 25, 1990
E. PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Public Hearing on a Request for a Conditional Use Permit
to Construct a Single FamiJ.y Home 26-1/2 Feet High at
1804 Lindig Street in an R-1 Zone.
F. REPORTS, REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Report from Parking Committee on the McAllister "No Parking"
Request at 1513 California Avenue
2. Staff Report on the Comprehensive Municipal Plan
3. Staff Update on the Swimming Pool Ordinance
4. Update to the Zoning Code
5. Staff Report on Planning Workshops and Conference
G. ADJOURN
f~6-~n~Ua z~~ c
•
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 23, 1990
Chairman Boche called the meeting to order at 7:25 P.M.
•
•
PRESENT
Barry, Boche, Daykin, Nestingen
was Council Liaison Ciernia and
and Gibson Talbot. Also present
City Planner Susan Hoyt Taff.
ABSENT
Duncan and Finegan.
MARCH 26, 1990 MINUTES APPROVED
Minutes were approved by unanimous consent.
PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A UTILITY SHED AT 1745 LINDIG
STREET IN AN R-1 ZONE
Bruce Zimmerman, 1745 Lindig, proposes to construct a utility
shed in his rear lot, five feet from the rear and side lot lines.
The structure will be barn style, 11 ft. x 12 ft. x 11 ft. 6
in. high, and painted tan to match his home. Planner Susan Hoyt
Taff reported that the structure and location meet the requirements
of the zoning code. The proposed shed requires a building permit.
Nestingen moved to approve the permitted accessory use permit
at 1745 Lindig. Motion carried unanimously.
PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A UTILITY SHED AT 1900 SIMPSON
STREET IN AN R-1 ZONE
Ronald Hagen, 1900 Simpson, proposes to construct an addition
to an existing utility shed. He was unaware of the requirement
for a permitted accessory use permit when he built the initial
structure so he is requesting the permit at this time. The storage
area is 6 feet wide by 11 feet long and 12 feet high, which meets
the size requirements of the zoning code. The bottom portion
of the shed is built against the cedar fence, which is more than
one foot from the rear and side lot lines and, therefore, meets
the location requirements of the zoning code. The structure
will be finished in rough cedar and left in its natural color
to match the fence. The structure does not require a building
permit.
Barry moved approval of the permitted accessory use permit, which
was approved unanimously.
PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A UTILITY SHED .AT 1892 HOLTON
IN AN R-1 ZONE
Gary Affolter, 1892 Holton, proposes to construct a utility shed
in his rear lot which will be 15 feet from his rear lot line
and 6 feet from the side lot line. The structure will be 8 feet
wide, 11 feet long and 11 feet high. It will be painted the
same color of the house. The size and location of the proposed
structure meet the zoning code. It does not require a building
permit.
Barry moved approval of the permitted accessory use permit, which
was .approved unanimously.
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 23, 1990
PAGE 2 •
PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A GAZEBO AT 2148 FOLWELL AVENUE
IN AN R-1 ZONE
Mr. Gordon Davis, 2148 Folwell, proposes to construct a detached
gazebo 12 feet x 15 feet x 12 feet high in his rear yard in place
of an existing deck which was removed. The gazebo will be made
of redwood posts with treated lumber, a fir floor, screens and
rolled roofing with a pattern. The gazebo will be 12' from the
principal structure, 30' from the rear lot line and 30' feet
from the east side lot line and 32' from the west side lot line.
The size and location of the gazebo meet the requirements of
the zoning code. He talked to his neighbors who voiced no objections.
A building permit is required for this type of structure.
Daykin moved approval of the permitted accessory use permit.
The motion was approved unanimously.
UPDATE ON THE PARKING COMMITTEE AND THE MCALLISTER REQUEST FOR
"NO PARKING"
Planner Hoyt Taff reported that the Parking Committee met and
made progress on drafting a city parking policy. With respect
to the McAllister request for "No Parking" on Arona, Planner
Taff will research the issue with city staff and prepare a report
for the May Planning Commission meeting. Councilmember Ciernia •
suggested the Roseville Police be asked to comment on safety
issues.
INTERVIEW PLANNING CONSULTANTS FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Randy Thoreson of Short, Elliot, Hendrickson; John Uban and Tim
Malloy of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban; and Fred Hoisington of
Hoisington Group Inc. made presentations on their proposals for
the comprehensive municipal plan update. A question and answer
period followed.
After the presentations, Commission members discussed the strengths
and weaknesses of each proposal. Daykin favored the Hoisington
Group because of the firm's experience, clearly thought out proposal
and ability to produce a good product. Barry suggested that
the Hoisington Group would give the city a fresh look but Dahlgren,
Shardlow and Uban's experience with the city would be an asset
in preparing the plan. Nestingen favored the Hoisington Group
due to the detailed citizen based process in the proposal. Talbot
also favored the Hoisington Group because the proposal exhibited
more substance, gave more attention to the process and suggested
looking at expanding the process to include more in-depth redevelopment
and Boche concluded that the Hoisington Group would look at the
city with "a fresh set of eyes" and give the concept a new look.
Barry requested that Mr. Hoisington be asked to include a more
detailed redevelopment and more in-depth citizen participation
element as options with the proposal. •
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• PAGE 2
APRIL 23, 1990
After further discussion, Daykin moved to accept the Hoisin
Group proposal and ask Cit
the Hoisington proposal to yincludetcommercial dedevelo m 9ton
more citizen involvement at an additional the option of expanding
p ent and
a definite amount of time that will be devoted to thelpro'ebtain
by the City Planner. The motion carried unanimously. ~
Chairman Boche announced that the recommendation will go befor
the City Council for its consideration on Wednesda
1990. e
y. April 25,
Chairman Boche declared the meeting adjourned at 9;33 p.M.
Submitted by:
•
Approved:
Katherine J. Zimmerman
Donna Daykin, Secretary
*' MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 25, 1990
• Baldwin convened .the meeting at 7:00 P.M.
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT
Baldwin, Ciernia, Gehrz, Jacobs and Wallin. Also present were
Wiesner and Chenoweth.
ADDENDA TO AGENDA
Council added the following items to the Consent Agenda: Request
for Waiver of Address Specific Licensing Requirement, Planning
Commission Minutes, and Authorization to Purchase Boulevard
Trees. Item F{10), Strategic Issue Study, was added to the
Policy Agenda.
MINUTES OF APRIL 11, 1990 APPROVED
The Minutes of April 11, 1990 were approved by unanimous
consent.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM REGARDING A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS
FOR PARK BUILDING MOVED TO POLICY AGENDA
The item regarding establishment of a construction management
process for the Community Park Building, was moved to the Policy
Agenda at Wallin's request.
• CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED
Council approved the following Consent Agenda Items by unanimous
consent:
1. Disbursements:
a. Disbursements through 4/25/90, $87,718.05
b. Payroll, 4/1/90-4/15/90, $11,052.75
2. Permitted Accessory Use Permit for a Utility Shed at
~eG~
3. 1795 Lindig St.
Permitted Accessory Use Permit for a Utility Shed at
r 1900 Simpson St.
Q«-~/j~ 4. Permitted Accessory Use Permit for a Utility Shed at
1892 Holton St.
5. Permitted Accessory Use Permit for a Gazebo at 2148
Folwell Ave.
6. Cancellation of Check #32851 issued 4/12/90 to Ramsey
County in the Amount of $64.00 for Conciliation Court
Fees
7. Approval of Community Park Building Change Orders
8. Licenses
9. Request from Dennis Hunt, Bullseye Golf, for Waiver of
Address Specific Licensing Requirement of the City Code
10. Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 1990
11. Authorization to Purchase 28 Replacement Boulevard
• Trees
MINUTES
APRIL 25, 1990 '~'
PAGE 2
SNELLING AVENUE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ITEM DEFERRED TO 5/23/90
The item relating to the City's financial obligation for the •
Snelling Avenue Project was deferred to the May 23rd meeting at
the request of the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
STAFF AND PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION TO SOLICIT
CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CERTAIN PARK AMENITIES
Jacobs expressed concern that groups were to be approached for
cash donations only when many service organizations might be
willing to provide labor such as assembling of picnic tables,
etc. Carol Kriegler, Parks and Recreation Director, agreed
there are some creative ways to obtain the needed items such as
volunteer labor and donation of used kitchen appliances.
Following the discussion, Council unanimously authorized Staff
and the Commission to proceed with soliciting contributions
including labor.
ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS FOR PARK
BUILDING (FROM CONSENT AGENDA)
Wiesner explained that during construction problems can arise
(such as the recent soil problem) and awaiting Council action in
approving necessary changes would delay the project. She
recommended that a Contingency Fund of $29,000 be established to
cover any unexpected costs and that the Administrator be
authorized to approve change orders. Wallin stated he felt
uncomfortable delegating this burden to staff when the Council
is accountable for these types of decisions. Following the
discussion Council agreed to establish a $29,000 Contingency
Fund and authorized Wiesner to approve changes not to exceed a
$3,000 aggregate.
CABLE TV PRESENTATION
After reviewing the history of the North Suburban Cable
Commission, Commission Attorney Tom Creighton explained th thye r~'
Commission and consultants have been working to negotia e ~;;M~+~
Cable TV North Central for acquisition of the public access r
programming. He indicated that negotiations are near c mple~~••~~
and the Commission will be recommending approval by the ten ~~ ~,~
member communities within the next one or two months. reighton
also presented a proposed resolution urging support f the
restoration of local regulatory authority over cable systems.
The resolution will be placed on the May 9th Consent Agenda.
POSTING OF SPRING LOAD LIMIT SIGNS TO BE DISCONTINUED
Wiessner explained that in the past the City has hired Ramsey
County Public Works to post load limit signs each spring at a
cost of approximately $1,000 per year, but permits are granted
to allow delivery of materials exceeding the limit (average of •
two per season). In view of the expense involved and
infrequency of use, Wallin moved to discontinue posting of load
A
L~
MINUTES
APRIL 25, 1990
PAGE 3
limit signs which carried unanimously. Contractors will be
notified of the weight restrictions by having the information on
Building Permit forms.
APPROVAL OF TIME LINE FOR 1991 STREET PROJECTS
Council approved the time line as prepared by the City Engineer,
after which Ciernia moved adoption of Resolution R-90-17
authorizing the engineer to prepare a preliminary report on the
improvements as indicated in Maurer's letter dated February 12,
1990. Motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION R-90-17
A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF REPORT ON IMPROVEMENTS
G01Mp
~+C~` ^_
HOISINGTON GROUP, INC. SELECTED TO UPDATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
City Planner Susan Hoyt Taff informed Council that the Planning,
Commission had interviewed three planning consultants on April ._
23rd and unanimously recommended hiring The Hoisington Group,
Inc. This recommendation was based on the firm's experience in~
land planning, their approach to preparation of the Plan, the
involvement of neighborhood groups, and that the firm might
bring a new perspective to Falcon Heights. Council reviewed the
addendum to the original proposal providing for a Redevelopmemnt
Plan Element, at a cost of $2,800 and an Expanded Citizen
Participation Program at a cost of $5,500. Wallin commented on ~~;~,~
the workshop held prior to the Council Meeting at which time
Decision Resources presented information on the possibility of
conducting a community survey. He was of the opinion that it.
would be useful to combine the Comprehsive Plan and a survey }~y
Decision Resources rather than contracting for the Expanded
Citizen Program. Following a discussion, Ciernia moved to
accept the proposal from the Hoisington Group for Basic Services
and the Redevelopment Plan Elememt at a cost of $16,300 such
amount to be funded from either the Contingency Fund or Cash
Reserve Fund. Motion carried unanimously. ~~
r
PROPOSED RESOLUTION REGARDING RAMSEY COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER
Baldwin presented Proposed Resolution R-90-18 and explained that
the Ramsey County League has recommended adoption of this
amended version. Gehrz moved adoption of the Resolution which
carried unanimously. r
;,,_•
RESOLUTION R-90-18
A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RAMSEY COUNTY HOME
RULE CHARTER YL
DISCUSSION - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SWIMMING POOL ORDINANCE
Carol Carlson explained that the had contacted both the
Department of Health and the State Building Code Department to
APRIL 25, 1990
PAGE 4
x
obtain information on height requirements for fencing of
swimming pools and had found that the Building Code does not
regulate height of fences as that is left to local regulation.
Council addressed items such as appropriate height, regulation
of above ground pools, and types of fencing which might
discourage climbing. Staff was directed to redraft the document
to reflect this discussion and to determine whether or not the
Planning Commission desires to hold another public hearing on
the item.
CITY HALL CLEAN UP - APRIL 26 AND 27
Wiessner explained that the original plan had been to request
permission to close City Hall for the two days to allow for
concentrated clean up by Staff. Gehrz had indicated that she
did not feel it would be appropriate to completely close the
office and the plan had been revised to leave the office open
and assign one staff member to conduct business as usual while
the others pursue clean up duties.
PROPOSAL THAT A STRATEGIC ISSUE STUDY BE CONDUCTED WITH CITY O~'
ROSEVILLE
nnin Workshop on Apr~l
Baldwin explained that at a Strategic Pla g ~-
21st, a discussion had been held regarding a possible combined
planning study with the City of Roseville. The purpose would ~e
to look at future goals, discuss mutual problems and determin
if it would be economically feasible to combine certain city
services. Council briefly discussed a proposed resolution
inviting the Roseville City Council to paovedladoetionaofothe
workshop to discuss the matter. Jacobs m P
resolution which carried unanimously. '
~ RESOLUTION R-90-19
A RESOLUTION PROPOSING A COMBINED WORKSHOP WITH THE
ROSEVILLE CITY COUNCIL TO EXPLORE AREAS OF MUTUTAL v
STRATEGIC INTEREST
. t
REMAINDER OF EAST SIDE OF COFFMAN TO BE POSTED "2 HOUR PARKI$T~'
` s
C
•
~~~~~
Gehrz explained that in the area by the Grove Park where there
is unrestricted parking the same 11 cars are parked there all
day requiring pedestrians to walk in the street. This practice
also makes parking impossible for persons wishing to use the
park. Following a brief discussion, Gehrz moved that "2 Hour
Parking, 8 A.M. - 4:00 P.M. Weekdays" be posted to be consistent
with the remainder of the street until such time as the Planning
Commission completes the Citywide parking plan. Motion carried
unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 P.M.
Tom Baldwin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shirley Chenoweth, Cityr Clerk
~leetinst Date• 5/21/90
CITY OF FALCON HEIGBTS Agenda Item: E- 1
PLANNING COMMISSION
ITE*i DESCRIPTION:
A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 26-1/2 FEET HIGH AT 1804 LINDIG
STREET IN AN R-1 ZONE
SUBMITTED BY: Felicia and Kevin Busch, Property Owners
BEVIEiJED BY: Susan Hoyt Taff, City Planner
~LAIdATION/SDl4SARY (attach additional sheets as nectssary):
The Busch's propose to construct a single family dwelling 26-1/2
feet high at 1804 Lindig Street in an R-1 zone. The zoning code
requires a maximum 25 foot tall structure in an R-1 zone unless
a taller structure is approved by a conditional use permit under
section 9-2.07 (1) (a) of the zoning code. Therefore, the Busch's
are requesting a conditional use permit for the construction
of their new home.
ATTACHMENT 1 - REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - BUSCH
RESIDENCE AT 1804 LINDIG STREET
ATTACHMENT 2 - ARCHITECTURAL SKETCH OF THE PROPOSED BUSCH
RESIDENCE AT 1804 LINDIG STREET
ATTACHMENT 3 - GENERAL AND SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT
ATTACHMENT 4 - PLANNER'S REPORT ON THE REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR 1804 LINDIG STREET
ACTZOp IZQtRSTID:
Recommend approval of the conditional use permit with the FINDING
that it meets all the general and specific requirements set out in
9-15.04, subdivision 3(a) of the zoning code, specifically 9-15.04,
subdivision 3(a)(11). Recommend placing the following condition
1. maintain the grade of the adjacent residential property
to the immediate south
6/29/87
AGENDA ITEM R-1
ATTACHMENT 1
April 10, 1990
• City of Falcon Heights
2077 West Larpenteur Avenue
Falcon Heights, MN 55113-5594
REQUEST FOR CONDITION USE PERMIT - BUSCH RESIDENCE, 1804 LINDIG ST.
OWNER'S STATEMENT
Having become familiar with the provisions set fort in Chapter 9-15.03 subdivisions
(1-6) in the Zoning Code of the City of Falcon Heights, we would like to request a
conditional use permit to allow the height for our single family residence in the one
family "R-1"zone to be 26-1/2 feet, measured from grade to peak.
Our request is that our proposed new home be allowed to be 26-1/2 feet high, which is
1-1/2' above the height specified in the code, but which is lower than other single
family homes in the immediate neighborhood and in the city at large.
• We offer the following reasons for our conditional use:
• We are very concerned with the aesthetics and appeal of our home and future
neighborhood. Kevin Busch is a recognized St. Paul architect, and the design
of this home is not only for our personal use, but to serve as an example of the
quality and integrity of work that his firm can provide.
• The roof shape, form and pitch are important components of the aesthetic and
architectural integrity of our proposed home. Reducing the pitch would
have a detrimental effect on the appeal of the home.
The lot on which we propose to build this home is not a typical or standard
size lot. It is more than double the width of many city lots, and is quite deep.
(96.38' x 182') A one and a half foot increase in height spread over this
amount of property would have negligible impact. It will also be 1-1/2 to 3-
1/2 feet shorter than the only adjacent home located at 1788 Lindig.
Reducing the height of the home that means the width must also be
decreased and we lose valuable IiVing space inside and this would create
second level rooms too small and not usable for their intended purpose. We
strongly desire a steep pitched roof, and the 1-1/2 foot difference significantly
compromises the interior sapce.
Although we respect the right of Falcon Heights to be different, surrounding
communities allow much more flexibility in height limitations. The City of •
Falcon Heights has the most restrictive limits compared to other communities
in the East half of the Twin City Metro area. Please see attached report of
community height codes.
• If newly built homes are not able to be of comparable type those that are
being constructed in adjacent communities they are placed at a competitive
disadvantage.
We are quite sensitive to the fact that there has been considerable controversy over
the development of the property surrounding the lot on which we plan to build.
Several current homes are not of the same standard as the older homes in the area
and has caused strife for both the city and the neighbors. We too regret that there has
been some compromise in the quality of the homes permitted.
We would like our request for a conditional use permit to be judgedlnn eneral n It isrour
and not to rekindle old grudges about development of the property ' g
hope that the council will see that our home obviously has no objectionable
characteristics, and in fact will improve the value of the neighborhood.
•
Respectful) submitted,
Kevin C. Busch, AIA
~~
Felicia Lucas Busch
r~
AGENDA ITEM E-1
ATTACHMENT 2
•
•
•
C~ - ~~ d~
Cam r,Llvi~ ~ W4 3
a. General and Special Recuirements: The Planning Commission and/or
Council shall consider to xhat erteat the applicant`s plan minimizes
possible adverse affects of the proposed conditional use, xhat
modifications to the plan and xhat conditions on approval could further
minimize the adverse effects of the proposed use. The following
development standards shall be considered general requirements for all
conditional use permits except s, hereinafter provided:
(1) She load area end setback requirements of the property
containing such a use or activity meet the minimums established for
the district.
(2) lihen abutting a residential use, the property shall be screened
and landsnaped.
(3) Slhere applicable, all Gity, county, state and federal laws,
regulations and ordinances shall be complied with and all necessary
permits secured.
(4) Signs shall not adversely impact adjoining or surrounding
residential uses.
(5) adequate off-road parking and loading shall De provided. Such
parking and loading shall be screened and landscaped from abutting
residential uses.
{6) dhe road nerving the use or activity must be of auffiaieat
design to accommodate the proposed use or activity, and such use or
activity shall not generate such additional extra traffia es to
create a nuisance or havard to existing traffic or to surrounding
land use.
(7) X11 access roads, drivexays, parking areas, and outside
storage, service, or sales areas shall be surfaced or grassed to
control dust and drainage.
(8) 111 open and outdoor storage, Bales and service areas shall be
screened from vier from public streets sad from abutting residential
uses or districts.
(9) 111 lighting shall be designed to prevent any direct source of
light being visible from adjacent residential areas or from the
public streets.
(10) The use or activity shall be prcperly drained to control
surface water runoff.
C-"-'~--
(11) The architectural appearance and functional plan of the
building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing
buildings or area es to cause impairment in property values or
constitute a blighting influence.
The proposed eater, sever sad other utilities shall be capable
of accommodating the proposed use.
(13) That the proposed use conforms to the comprehensive municipal
plan. Such a finding shall be based upon the following
considerations:
(a) That certain uses may not be considered appropriate
within the interior of residential neighborhoods because of
noise, traffic, or other conditions that would tend to affect
adversely the residential character of the neighborhood and
possible reduce property values. These uses are considered
appropriate only on the periphery of residential
neighborhoods, or under such conditions as the Planning
Commission may deem proper. The uses may represent "buffer"
uses for those areas lying between single family dwellings and
non-residential uses.
(b) That certaip uses are considered, a9 a rule, unsuitable
in Business Districts because of inherent business
characteristics (e.g. traffic, noise, glare), proximity to
residential areas, the tact that they tend not to serve nearby
residential areas, or may adversely affect nearby permitted
business uses.
(e) That pertain uses are considered generally unsuitable in
Industrial Districts, because of conditions Lhat xould tend to
discourage other industrial development in the vicinity.
These oonditloas include noise, vibrations, dust, glare,
ansightliaess or similar nuisances. Certain other industrial
land uses are considered generally inappropriate because they
represent under-utilization of land. This, in fora, means a
low taz return from lam that under fuller development xould
be aoatributing needed revenue to the community's tax base.
Such uses, however, may De considered as temporary uses.
(d) That certain temporary uses that are generally not
suitable within a particular honing district era potentially
suitable on a temporary basis. This may be due to the lack of
development oa existing property, to a short-term need (such
as highxay construction), or to a limited degree of adverse
effects, upon adjacent land use.
~,~.
•
•
•
May 15 , 1990 ~~,~~
~~'
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: SUSAN HOYT TAFF, CITY PLANNER
• RE: PLANNER'S REPORT OI'~ A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 26-1/2 FEET
TALL IN AN R-1 ZONE
....The request for a conditional use permit for the construction
of a single family dwelling 26-1/2 feet tall in an R-1 district
is allowed under section 9-2.07 (1) (a) of the zoning code.
As you know, a conditional use permit must be granted if all
general and special requirements governing conditional use permits
are met. Reviewing the criteria for the general and special
requirements governing conditional use permits, there is only
one criterion that requires attention in this application. This
is 9-15.04, subdivision 3 (a) (11):
The architectural appearance and functional plan of the
building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the
existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in
property values or constitute a blighting influence.
Evaluating this criterion for a conditional use permit requires
reviewing single family residential construction styles throughout
the City with particular attention to this neighborhood. A tour
of the City indicates that there are severa_1 examples of homes,
built at various times, that exceed 25 feet. In this particular
neighborhood on Lindig Street, a variety of one and two story
housing styles exist. According to the building plans, the house
• at 1788 Lindig Street to the immediate south of 1804 Lindig is
27 feet high. The house to the south of 1788 Lindig is approximately
24 feet tall, but is on a higher grade than 1788 Lindig, and,
therefore, appears to be about the same height as its neighboring
structure to the north.
Given the height of the homes immediately to the south of the
proposed structure and the presence of dwellings in other sections
of the City which exceed 25 feet, it can be concluded that the
additional foot and one-half (1-1/2) in height on this structure
will not be out of character in the neighborhood. And, therefore,
all criteria for the conditional use permit are met.
Mrs. Irene MacGregor, 1795 Fairview Avenue, who lives to the
northeast of this property, expressed concern over the height
of the structure because it might b]_ock sun from her home. She
was also concerned about the setback requirements for the new
house. I informed her that all setbacks would be met, and that
the proposed dwelling would not exceed neighboring houses in
height.
In summary, the application meets all the general and special
criteria governing conditional use permits, specifically 7.5.04,
subdivision 3(a)(11) regarding architectural conformance to the
neighborhood. Therefore, I recommend granting the permit subject
• to these findings and to the following condition:
1. That the new structure be built at the same grade
as the adjacent residential property to the immediate
south.
Meeting Date: 5/21/9C
Agtnda Itcm: F-1
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
• PLANNING COMMISSION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
REPORT FROM THE PARKING COMMITTEE ON THE MC ALLISTER "NO PARKING"
REQUEST ALONG THE EASTSIDE OF ARONA BETWEEN CALIFORNIA AND
LARPENTEUR
SIIBHITTED BY: Susan and Colin McAllister, 1513 California Avenue
BEVIEfdED BY: Parking Committee
Susan Hoyt Taff, City Planner
~LANATIOP/SUlQ~ARY (attach additional sheets as necessary):
At the March 23, 1990 Planning Commission meeting Ms. Susan
McAllister submitted a request for a "no parking" zone along the
eastside of Arona Street between California and Larpenteur Avenues
adjacent to the side yard of her home (Attachment 1).
The Planning Commission referred the item to the staff for
research and to the Parking Committee. A staff report is attached
for your review (Attachment 2). The Parking Committee will report
at the Planning Commission meeting.
ACTZdI~ ZL-Qt'~STID:
1. Review and discuss.
2. Recommend action.
6/29187
•
A ends Item F-1
Attachment 1
;~
March 1 b, 1990 - ~" ~ 12'"
To: City of Falcon Heights (Planning Commission; City Council)
From: Colin and Susan McAllister
1513 California Avenue West (NE corner of Calif and Arona)
Subject: Request for No Parking Zone on West Side of Residence
We have lived, very happily, at 1513 California for the past three years. We
would change very little with our situation here, but one aspect of life on this
corner is becoming unbearable. Hopefully, you will be able to help us with our
problem.
Immediately behind us (facing Larpenteur) is a series of apartments. We are
acquainted with the owner and some of the tenants, and find them to be very
nice people. However, some of the tenant cars, parked alongside of our •house
(the western side-- along Arona) are a real trouble to us. Our reasons for
requesting a "no parking zone" on this particular section of Arona (the only
section where "no parking" is not enforced, to our knowledge, in the immediate
area) are many and varied. Please allow us to explain.
First, in the past three years, we have worked very hard to raise the value of
our home, and thus the value of our Falcon Heights neighborhood. We have
succeeded, by three independent appraisals, in doing so-- by $30,000. But
having a used car lot outside our door really detracts from the appearance we
have tried to create.
Second, and more tangibly, we spend roughly X300 each year for flowers and
lawn maintenance. This includes general fertilizers, etc., plus a whole row of
salvia flowers along our fence each year. We are known in the neighborhood
for these flowers, and they mean alot to us. As well, Falcon Heights has planted
two mature trees on the Arona avenue, and we have planted two seedlings. The
damage done each year to our landscaping efforts is really perplexing. It ranges
from cigarette butts to glass in the grass (we have atwo-year old daughter who
is discovering the joys of walking barefoot) to trash in general. Not to mention
general trampling damage to the grass, and the loss of two seedlings and
numerous salvias last summer, alone. We are really trying hard to make an
ugly section of Arona (Northome) a little more pleasant, but it's a frustrating
effort.
Third, the nuisance of having cars parked along our house is annoying in every
season. In the winter months, snow plows often miss our driveway section of
the road altogether because the tenants have forgotten to move their cars off .
Arona. Each of the past three springs, I have manually swept up the gravel off
of Arona caused by car owners not moving their cars on the designated day for
the street sweeper. This costs me about two hours of my time, plus alot of
nasty swearing. Not to mention our rubbish pickup costs. Whatever the season,
the trash is really an eyesore-- people dump their ashtrays on our lawn or on
the street. There is a non-stop supply of food wrappers, pop cans, and glass.
Fourth, the parking of _cars near our driveway is really a danger to us. Often we
have had to manuver our way out of our driveway because the cars were
simply parked too close to our ezit. This is not only maddening, but also
severely limits our ability to view oncoming cars. We have often pulled out into
someone else's way because we were not able to see their approach from the
south. As well, our 10-year old Irish Setter was seriously hurt last autumn by a
car whose driver failed to see her dart out from between the parked cars on
Arona. We realize that a loose dog is obviously our fault as owners, but still, our
mistake could have been easily compounded by the problems of the parked
cars. And caused much more serious injuries-- to our dog and people in the car.
Fifth, the noise factor. Cars come and go all day and all night. With very loud
people, most of the time. I wish the drivers/passengers would come into our
home and put our two-year old back to sleep each time they awaken her with
their loud discussions! We recognize the fact that, on this corner, we can't
observe total silence, but we do live in asemi-residential neighborhood, at least,
and would appreciate others' observance of this fact.
I'm sorry that I have rambled on in this manner. But this means much to us.
We have worked for the past three years to improve our little corner of Falcon
Heights, and hope that its governing body will return the favor. I don't think
our request fora "no parking" zone is impractical. Often tenant cars park in the
back Northome lot, and so hopefully more long-term arrangements can be made
with Northome management. That lot is rarely more Lhan i 0 ~ full, except
perhaps for an hour or two on winter Saturday afternoons.
So, there you are. We thank you for your consideration of our request. We
enjoy living in Falcon Heights very much, and for your continual caring attitude.
Sorry for being such pestslll
Sincerely,
Colin and Susan McAllister •
(and Maddie) !~ ~~-~--51 ~3
Agenda Item F-1
Attachment 2
May.14, 1990
TO: PARKING COMMITTEE
FROM: SUSAN HOYT TAFF, CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT: MC ALLISTER "NO PARKING" REQUEST
BACRGROUND
On March 23, 1990, Ms. Susan McAllister, 1513 California, requested
the Planning Commission to consider posting a "no parking" zone
adjacent to her dwelling along the eastside of Arona Street between
California and Larpenteur. The request was made because cars
are parking on Arona alongside her home. Ms. McAllister reported
that the parked vehicles create a safety hazard when she backs
out of her driveway, and that the occupants of the vehicles leave
litter and harm the landscaping in her side yard. She reported
that the cars belong to the occupants of the apartment building
on the corner of Arona and Larpenteur.
The Planning Commission referred this item to the staff for research
and the Parking Committee for its consideration.
INFORMATION
Existing Parking Regu]_ations (See Figure 1)
* No parking on Arona between Hoyt and California (By Council
resolution in 1976 due to a state aid street.)
* No parking on the western one-half block of Larpenteur between
Arona and Pascal
* No parking on the west side of Arona alongside Northome Shopping
Center between California and Larpenteur
* No parking along the west side of Arona north of Larpenteur
(due to being a state aid street)
On-Site Report
Several drive-bys of the site indicated that from one to four
cars were parked an Arona alongside the McAllister property at
various times of the day. Some of these cars infringed on the
five feet of space adjacent to the driveway, which can create
a visibility problem for users of the McAllister driveway. Approximately
two to three cars were also parked adjacent to the apartment
building on the corner of Arona and Larpenteur. There were also
about four cars on the eastern side of the Northome Shopping
Center lot, possibly associated with the apartment building residents.
There are nine garages and no off-street, surfaced parking for
the ten-unit apartment building.
On drive-bys on Pascal and Arona, staff noticed that parking
was allowed adjacent to the single family dwellings located near
apartment buildings on Arona at the end of Crawford and at Larpenteur
and Pascal. However, there were not as many cars parked at these
dwellings because some paved off-street parking was available
behind the units, and because parking was allowed on Larpenteur
• in front of the Arona and Pascal building.
-2-
Police Report
The Roseville Police officers found no safety problems associated
with the existing parking arrangement on this block during their
drive-bys of the neighborhood.
Follow-Up
Staff spoke with the owner/manager of the apartment building
about tenant parking. The owner said there were currently twelve
cars associated with the ten units. -She also said that most
tenants did not rent the garage space, but preferred on-street
parking or parked in the Northome lot. She said no formal arrangements
exist with the owner of the Northome Shopping Center. She also
said that she knew of no complaints associated with residents
and guests parking in this lot or on the street.
As part of her request, Ms. McAllister suggested an arrangement
be made with the Northome owners to accommodate the apartment
parking demand. Since the apartment owners and residents are
not breaking any code requirements nor requesting any action
from the City, it is difficult to see on what grounds we could
require the owner of the apartments to work out an agreement
with the Northome owners. Such an agreement would probably lead
to a charge to the apartment owners and/or the elimination of
the casual parking arrangement now available to the apartment
dwellers.
Furthermore, in the past loitering and occasional vanda]_ism have
occurred in the Northome lot. Encouraging more cars in the lot,
especially overnight, might possib).y exacerbate this problem
by decreasing the visibility of the Northome lot for the police
patrolling the area. Therefore, the staff has not suggested
that the apartment owner/manager contact the owner of the Northome
Shopping Center about formalizing this parking arrangement.
Although the City encourages off-street parking with residential
units, it is difficult to encourage tenants to rent and use garages
when they may be awkward to access from the alley, and cost more
than the alternatives of parking on the street or in the Northome
lot. Perhaps reducing the on-street parking availability might
result in increased tenant use of garage space..
ALTERNATIVES
Given the information on the parking situation, the following
alternatives come to mind:
1. Make no changes.
~~ ,,
2. Post "no parking between signs f-~-~ie feet to the south of
the P~cAllister driveway and five-feet to-the north of the-furthest
edge of the alley. This will increase visibility when McAllister's
leave their driveway, thereby eliminating the safety hazard.
It will leave two to three parking spaces for apartment residents
adjacent to their residence. •
-3-
3. Post "no parking" signs from the alley south to California
along the eastside of Arona, thereby, eliminating all parking
adjacent to the McAllister home. This might result in 1) additional
cars in the Northome lot; and/or 2) using the parking garages
and/or 3) parking in front of the McAllister or neighbors homes
along California.
4. Switch the parking on this section of Arona to the westside
of the street between the driveway exits in the Northome lot
and make the eastside of Arona between California and Larpenteur
"no parking". Then no parking would exist by the apartments
or the McAllister home. This might reduce the amount of on-street
parking spaces, create a safety hazard due to right turns off
of Larpenteur or out of the shopping center onto Arona, and reduce
visibility into the Northome lot for the police patrols.
•
•
., , .
i~
I~c,~4L
~~
~pp
1"
b
~ n
~ Z
~_ ~~
~~
D I~
r'~IS~Ctb ~~~~'~~lS~r ~'iVb ~iark~,.~~~ ~~""`fi" ~'t~/- (S{~ [:c..li~-rr- .~
- !~ n t
~y~
~I
J