Laserfiche WebLink
3. Neighborhood Association. In certain neighborhoods where building character and <br />aesthetics are highly valued, property owners could create their own covenants which may <br />specifically address housing design. While this means of addressing the property value <br />issue would not involve the City in establishing standards or reviewing proposals, it would <br />obviously leave the City's regulatory role at a low level since such covenants are enforced <br />privately. The negative aspect of this alternative is that full association membership would <br />likely be difficult to attain, since owners of vacant property may have little incentive to <br />sign on. Property owners who did not participate would not be subject to the covenants. <br />4. Preservation District. Where warranted, Cities have established a Heritage Preservation <br />Overlay District and applied it to a historically significant neighborhood(s). Such a district <br />would impose additional design related standards upon structures within its borders and <br />would require special approval of a Heritage Preservation Commission. This alternative <br />holds a disadvantage in that few historically significant structures /areas worthy of historic <br />designation are likely to be found among Little Canada's residential districts. In addition, <br />this alternative is highly complex, both in its establishment and its administration. <br />5. In -Fill Ordinance. The issue in Little Canada has been encountered numerous times by <br />the City of St. Paul. According to a representative of the City's Planning Department, this <br />issue prompted the preparation of a neighborhood "infill" study. That study resulted in <br />a recommended site plan review procedure for all single family homes intended to <br />maintain neighborhood character. Such measures have yet, however, to be implemented <br />by the City. A draft infill ordinance has been prepared and attached to this memorandum <br />for discussion purposes. To be noted is that such a requirement would apply only to <br />"infill" development and not all single family residential development. It is envisioned <br />that these requirements would be referenced in both the City's Zoning Ordinance and <br />Building Code. Again, the City would need to designate a board or person to prepare the <br />architectural review. However, this review may be less complex in that the established <br />"character" of a neighborhood is easier to identify than all possible architectural styles that <br />may be acceptable to the City. <br />6. Architectural Guidelines. Acknowledging that the imposition of aesthetic requirements <br />upon single family homes is considered subjective, the City may wish to establish a set <br />of architectural "guidelines" which would be applied to newly constructed buildings within <br />the City as a matter of policy. This process is significantly complex on the front end, <br />requiring a detailed study of the architecture which would be acceptable to the City, and <br />defining the City's rationale for acceptance or non - acceptance. Similar studies which we <br />have researched are typically 40 to 50 pages of text and graphics. <br />7. Building Relocation Requirements. In direct response to the building relocation proposal <br />which has promoted this investigation, the City may wish to amend the CUP conditions <br />applicable to building relocation requests to impose more specific design related <br />Page 29 <br />