Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02_0625revCity of Falcon Heights Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 Chair Heideman called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. PRESENT: Ziebarth, Lageson, Heideman, Middleton, Harris, Lindstrom, Ryan. Also present were Peter Lindstrom, Council Liaison, Heather Worthington, City Administrator, Deb Jones, Zoning and Planning Coordinator, and Dan Cornejo, Planning Consultant ABSENT: Tracy, Maher MINUTES: The minutes for April 23 were approved with one correction: Ms. Middleton was listed as both present and absent; she was absent. PRESENTATION ON LOT COVERAGE Planning Consultant Dan Cornejo presented highlights of the draft memorandum sent to the Commission on June 19. In summarizing the background of the lot coverage issue and the discussion to date, he emphasized that, although the present discussion arose in Northome, the whole City is changing. The Commission needs to look toward the future. Residents' needs are changing. People have more vehicles; they need to store more things. The central issue is neighborhood character: "People don't just buy a house; they buy a neighborhood." Recent building up of lots has had an impact on neighborhood character. Storm water runoff is also an issue. Mr. Cornejo looked at three groups of issues: (1) Housing form, size and siting; (2) Environmental (trees, landscaping, water runoff, etc.); (3) Development review and enforcement. The sample properties were chosen from the most "built up" in each neighborhood. He reviewed the research done so far by himself and city staff and explained how the information was gathered. He explained the concept of Floor Area Ratio (FAR), which compares total livable space in a building (including upper floors) to the area of the lot. It does not include impervious coverage because it is intended to be a measure and control of bulk. It is usually used in tandem with lot coverage. He does not recommend the FAR approach, although it was one of several he considered. Mr. Cornejo then turned to his report of this date, the result of a meeting this morning with City Attorney Roger Knutson, City Administrator Heather Worthington and Zoning and Planning Coordinator Deb Jones. This review team confirmed the goal of finding a solution that (1) keeps the "outright" approval procedure for permits and (2) makes only the minimum changes necessary in the city code to achieve the desired result. At the request of Ms. Middleton, Mr. Cornejo affirmed that "lot coverage" in the context of this discussion means impervious coverage, that is, "everything not green." In response to a question from Mr. Lindstrom, he defined "outright" approval as the process where a permit can be obtained with only a review, usually by city staff, without engaging the Planning Commission or requiring hearings, etc. This is in contrast to, for instance, requiring a conditional use permit, a design review or variance. In conclusion, Mr. Cornejo recommends going to a new general provision for impervious lot coverage depending on the size of the lot. This would not entail creating new R-1 zones but would apply citywide to all present R-1 zones. As lots get bigger, permitted coverage would get smaller. This is a very conservative approach because it reflects the homes in the city as they are now. The June 25 memo distributed to the Commission included an example chart; the actual numbers could be worked on. This kind of approach requires only a text change in the code. The next step would be to work toward actual numbers by looking at all the (R-1) lots in the city and find the existing square footage for buildings and garages. Unfortunately we cannot calculate the actual paved surface, but we can estimate a reasonable allowance. DISCUSSION OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS A discussion followed. In response to a question from Ms. Ziebarth, Mr. Cornejo confirmed that the recommended change would affect impervious lot coverage only, not setback or height. What we are talking about doing is imposing lower limits in R-1 than the present 75%. The new limits would be a sliding scale based on lot size. Ms. Worthington said that this does not constitute as big a change as it seems because, for most residential lots, setback requirements already limit lot coverage to a percentage comparable to the new limits being considered. A few properties, in their present configuration, would exceed the new limits; they would be legally non-conforming. Ms. Harris asked what would be studied. Ms. Worthington said that Ms. Jones will look at all the lots in the city to chart lot sizes and estimated coverage. We will try to find natural breaks in the list to establish categories that fit what we have now and provide reasonable allowance to most individual properties for future additions. Ms. Middleton commented that this is different from what we have now, so analysis before any public hearing is critical. She asked why the sliding scale is recommended. Ms. Worthington replied that the City Attorney has pointed out that rezoning would be a much bigger job than the kind of text change recommended. The sliding scale is the simplest way to achieve the desired solution. Ms. Harris expressed approval for the lot size approach, giving her own neighborhood (called Maple Knoll in the report) as an example of a part of the city where lot sizes vary greatly. Ms. Worthington replied that this is another good reason not to re-zone by neighborhoods. We will try to find good break points so residents do not find themselves on the "cusp" of two categories. Ms. Heideman expressed a favorable impression of the FAR concept because of the bulk control. Maybe using FAR together with impervious coverage would give more freedom and minimize the extreme cases. Added bulk seems to be more disturbing to neighbors than added pavement. Ms. Ziebarth said we also need to recognize changing family needs. She is seeing expansion of houses on her block, but it has not changed the character of the neighborhood. She is not sure the Commission should get involved in design issues. If runoff is the issue, then lot coverage should be the approach; if the issue is neighborhood character, then include FAR. Ms. Worthington responded that we do have a lot of indirect control over FAR through our height limit, as well as our setbacks and required yards. Ms. Middleton requested an estimate of driveways to add to the figures we have now. She also asked Mr. Cornejo to outline typical trade-offs people would have to make, for instance, a deck now might limit a garage expansion later. Ms. Ziebarth added that it would be helpful to have sketches showing visual examples of what is typical now and what could occur with our present 75% coverage. In response to a question from Ms. Middleton, Ms. Jones explained that a map and chart included in the Commissioners' packets illustrate that St. Paul does use lot size as a factor in defining permitted side setback, although they do classify by defining separate zones. The Como neighborhood adjacent to Northome has smaller lots and larger allowable lot coverage (and different zoning) than the St. Anthony Park neighborhood adjacent to the Grove. Ms. Jones also explained a handout distributed to commissioners that charts a sample of the kind of structure data (from the county) that will be reviewed in the next part of the process. Estimated driveway areas will be added in. Mr. Cornejo said that Falcon Heights' lot coverage limit is "buried" in the section on setback encroachments. It may or may not belong there, but it should be easy to find. Ms. Worthington added that staff is reviewing the code for redundancies, contradictions and inconsistencies; this lot coverage effort is part of a larger project. Mr. Cornejo pointed out that the 75% lot coverage applies to commercial as well as residential property. We need to make sure the difference is clear. GARAGE PLACEMENT Another focus of the meeting this morning was garage placement. Mr. Cornejo said that the city code is "silent" about garage placement where there is no alley. His recommendation is to require a 12-foot separation between the garage and the house, which would bring zoning into line with the fire code. The Commission discussed this issue, pointing out numerous examples from their own neighborhoods. Ms. Worthington and Mr. Cornejo spoke about the need to get people to think long term about the character of their lots and what changes they might want to make in the future. UNIVERSITY GROVE AND FAIRVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD Mr. Cornejo also spoke about possibilities for the Fairview/Lindig/Tatum neighborhood and the University Grove. Both these areas merit future in-depth discussion because of their unique qualities. There was a brief discussion. The Grove already has some special conditions dependent on the lease. Ms. Harris again pointed out the diversity in the neighborhood west of Snelling, that it is more similar to the neighborhood west of Fairview than to the areas east of Snelling. Mr. Cornejo said he is not singling out these two residential areas for specific changes at this time, just recommending that the Commission anticipate special issues that may come up. Ms. Worthington affirmed that geographic divisions will not determine the lot coverage solution, and Mr. Cornejo repeated his present recommendation that all present R-1 areas would remain R-1 and lot coverage would scale by lot size; neighborhoods would not be lumped in together. DISCUSSION CONCLUSION Mr. Cornejo will come back to the Commission with a recommendation in July, even if there is no meeting. A public hearing could take place as early as August if the Commission approves. In addition, he suggests taking some first steps in considering a long term strategy for the Fairview neighborhood, perhaps a mail survey to residents or a meeting, and contacting the Grove residents to find out if they need the city help in their ongoing discussions of that neighborhood's character. In response to a question from Ms. Middleton, Ms. Worthington said that a moratorium (a possibility brought forth in the June 19 report) would be jumping the gun at this point. After some additional discussion, the Commissioners asked for the following: Some modeling with sketches of what different lot coverages would look like at different limits, including the typical existing coverage and showing setbacks. Analysis of existing lot coverage, using lots of record and existing setbacks. Using the existing rules a baseline, what would be the consequences of "pushing the limit?" Find good break points in lot sizes that could be used to establish the sliding scale. Ms. Worthington said a general debate the Commission needs to have is how much control the city (i.e. the Commission) wants to have over how much people can build and what the appearance is. There are some reasonable standards that a Planning Commission (and a city) can impose. Mr. Cornejo gave a final summing up of the issues that need to be balanced here. Cutting back on the 75% is certainly in order. In reply to a question from Mr. Lageson, Ms. Worthington confirmed that there is money in the city budget for the present study and planning process. Middleton moved, Ziebarth seconded, to accept the recommendations stated in the reports of June 19 and June 25. Motion passed unanimously. The Commission will meet again on July 23 to review the new data and the sample sketches. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mr. Lindstrom reported on the Falcon Heights United Church of Christ addition. A well-attended public meeting was held on May 13. The presentation was very good, and the project seems to be uncontroversial. Ms. Worthington reported that the informational meeting on the Southeast Corner redevelopment held on June 20 was attended by about 50 people. Major concerns are parking, traffic and tenant relocation. The city is not involved with the latter; the developer will deal with this. Ms. Middleton added that the residents north of Larpenteur seemed to be most concerned, but the developer did a great job of making the presentation and the residents were pleased in general. Ms. Heideman noted that Sherman & Associates and the City have been awarded a grant by MN HFA for $4.25 million. Ms. Worthington added that this money goes toward 25 "affordable" units out of a total of 120, these units being targeted toward low income working people. (Presently this does not include any units in the senior housing; those are all market rate, although additional funding could become available.) The issue of "affordable units" did not seem to be of concern to residents at the meeting, according to Ms. Middleton. In response to a question from Ms. Heideman, Ms. Worthington expressed "guarded optimism" about the viability of the project and said the grant had made it a reality. It is moving forward. Another community informational meeting will be held on July 18. Ms. Worthington reported on last night's community meeting to discuss possibilities for Curtiss Field. The park is flooded now due to recent rains. It needs dredging of the pond and long term re-landscaping. Two possible plans call for extending the park across the present Snelling service drive, but this would only happen if the SE Corner project goes through. The City would like to do both at the same time to realize some economies of scale on equipment, etc. Work could begin in June, 2003. There will be another meeting on Curtiss Field on Monday, June 22. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Deborah Jones Zoning and Planning Coordinator