Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/09/1991AGENDA MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JULY 9, 1991 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL MAPLEWOOD ROOM 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes a. June 11, 1991 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Communications 6. Unfinished Business a. 1990 - 1991 Annual Report 7. New Business a. Setbacks for single and double dwellings 8. Date of Next Meeting a. August 13, 1991 9. Adjournment HRAAGEND.MEM MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JUNE 11t 1991 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. ROLL CALL HRA Commissioners: Lorraine Fischer, Tom Connelly, Larry Whitcomb, Gary Pearson (present at 7:20 p.m.) City Staff: Ken Roberts APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Connelly moved to amend the agenda, moving item 7. a. for consideration next. Commissioner Whitcomb seconded Ayes--Fischer, Connelly, Whitcomb NEW BUSINESS Discussion of Certificate of Occupancy Programs and the Inspection of Rental Properties Ken Roberts presented the staff report and explained the three alternatives listed therein. Jim Embertson, Maplewood Fire Marshal, Duane Williams, Maplewood Deputy Fire Marshal, and Robert Wenger, Maplewood Environmental Health Officer were present at the meeting. Bob Wenger gave a presentation, explaining the kinds of complaints he receives on rental housing and the typical inspections he makes. Mr. Wenger said he does not think licensing would have much impact on rental housing property because he feels that there would not be any serious consequences to the owners other than losing their license. Jim Embertson and Duane Williams discussed the yearly life and safety inspections of rental buildings of three or more units which they make for the office of fire marshal. Past complaints and legal cases regarding rental properties were discussed. Commissioner Fischer suggested that it may benefit the city if the rental properties in the City which have continual or serious problems were handled through Ramsey County housing court, which has more experience and expertise with these HRA Minutes 6-11-91 -2- kinds of problems. The commission requested that Ken Roberts research the Ramsey County housing court system and report back to the HRA. Mr. Wenger said he would like to initiate a housing program for single dwellings, funded by tax-increment financing, to improve housing. This would be done by the City buying rundown houses, demolishing them and reselling the lots to developers. The commission asked staff to report back at the.July meeting on how many applications have been filed for truth-in-housing inspections. It was decided to reconsider this agenda item at the next meeting, in order to allow staff time to research information requested by the commission on truth-in- housing inspections. After reconsideration by the HRA, this item will then be submitted to the Council for consideration. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. April 9, 1991 Commissioner Connelly moved approval of the minutes of April 9, 1991, as submitted. Commissioner Whitcomb seconded Ayes--Fischer, Connelly, Pearson, Whitcomb 5. COMMUNICATIONS Staff reminded the commissioners of the appreciation dinner planned for June 29, 1991. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ae Federal Housing (HUD) Program Information and Ramsey County Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy The commission discussed local housing trends and the possibility of establishing a demolition program to eliminate problem housing and replace it with new housing, which would be an improvement for the neighborhood and Would bring in more tax dollars. Discussion followed on the cost of rundown housing to the community, such as increased police surveillance. HRA Minutes 6-11-91 -3- The commission directed staff to make revisions to the list for the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy and then submit this item to Council. b. 1990-1991 Annual Report Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The commissioners discussed their plans for Truth-in-Housing and the maintenance code updates and how much time should be devoted to these projects. They also suggested a meeting be scheduled with the seniors committee to discuss the Share-a-Home program and other issues of mutual interest. The commission requested staff make several changes to the annual report draft and resubmit it to the HRA for further consideration. The HRA requested that the front yard setback ordinance for single and double dwellings be placed on the next agenda for discussion. 8. DATE OF NEXT MEETING a. July 9, 1991 9. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:07 CITY OF 1830 E. COUNTY ROAD B APL WOOD MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA 55109 OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 612-770-4560 June 25, 1991 City Council Maplewood City Hall 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ANIx~JAL REPORT Following is the Maplewood Housing and Redevelopment Authority's Annual Report for the period 5larch 1990 through February 1991. It was a year that saw some long meetings and the resignation of Commission Dale Carlson to con- centrate on his City Council duties. With the appointment of Iori Tauer the HRA is once again at full membership. A list of the members and their attendance is on page 5. Hopefully, monthly meetings next year will cut meeting length. Program Participation During the year the City participated in three programs run by the Metro HRA (Exhibit B) and in four programs administered by local lenders (Exhibit C). A total of 596 units were aasisted through the rental programs, of which 313 were family and 283 were elderly occupied. While the number of existing section 8 units assis.ted decreased from 189 last year to 173, this is still higher than then 168 of the previous year. Under~ the loan programs, 44 Maplewood households received over $690,800. Housing and Planning Items Considered The HRA spent many long hours working on the Truth-in-Housing (T-I-H) Ordinance and the inspection forms for the program. We had lots of help and input from the St. Paul Realty Association and its members, who also put in long hours with us. We experienced the frustration of how to get disclosure not compliance, and had to face amendments to ad&tess items we thought we had covered. Oh well, we pioneers must be prepared to face adversity: In addi- tion, several meetings were spent working on the Housing Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. The meeting on group homes w~s most informative. Other Areas of Involvement Conmissioners Fischer and Carlson served on the Maplewood Seniors and Others with Special Needs Advisory Committee and on the }bme Share Task Force Commission. Commission Fischer is also representing ~,~plewood on the East Metro Senior Information and. Referral Advisory Committee. Equal Opportunity Employer 1990-91 HRA Annual Report Page 2 CURRENT AND E~MRGING CONCERNS The Truth-in-Housing 0rdinm~ne became effective January 1, 1991 and sun- sets in June of 1992. The HRA will be reviewing and mmking reconmendations about the T-I-H Ordinance before the sunset. After years of looking at senior housing needs, the HRA continues to be- lieve that support services are a necessary part of housing for seniors. While a wide variety of services are available from, an equally wide variety of sources--public, private, quasi private and informal--information on what's available and how to get it is not always readily available to those who need to know. ~hile others may be putting together a comprehensive directory of what is available throughout the region, there are still areas of concern that we could be looking at locally, and the inactivity of our ~plewood Seniors and Others with Special Living Needs Advisory for the past year is a cause of concern we feel should be addressed. Another area of concern is the condition of some rental properties in the City. Related to this is whether the City should have more control over rental properties, and if so, how to accomplish this. It might be done through a licensing program, requiring regular inspections, or having a certificate of occupancy program for rental properties. The HRA and City Council will be reviewing this in the coming year. A more traditional area of concern to an HRA is that of neighborhoods with deteriorating housing. As we have some areas of older housing which could deteriorate if owners do not care for them, the HRA will review the issue as appropriate, and consder possible solutions to less the problem. T~e b~tropolitan Council has recently adopted its task force report call- ing for a regional housing plan and will consider action on the report's recommendations in coming months (Exhibit G). It appears many of its concerns are already our concerns. We will follow this and incorporate reconmendations into our Housing Plan update and w~rk program as appropriate. The Share-a-Home Program in which we are a participating community has a 1991 budget of $22,974 which includes $9,987 from the Minnesota Housing Fi- nance Agency (~{FA), $11,487 from a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) from the county, and from fees collected. Because of extra CDBG funding we had no funding cost in 1991, but Maplewood's share in 1992 will be about $3,000 because the program will no longer receive CDBG funding. 1991-92 WORK PROGRAM 1. CONTINLM TO REVIEW ORDINANCE AND POLI CIF, S /HAT MAY AFFECT HOUSING Sponsor or review any necessary code or law revisions to address the problem areas in hosing for City residents. This will include reviewing the Truth-In-Housing Ordinance and any changes about the inspection of rental properties of a certificate of occupancy program. 2. CONTINUE TO PARTICIPATE IN N~TROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND FMFA PROGRAMS 1990-91 HRAAnnual Report Page 3 MONITOR SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PLANS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY HOUSING PlAN AND /}{E GUIDELINES FOR TAX-EXEMPT, TAX-INCRtlMENT AND COlV~ITY DE- VELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FINANCING 0 ~ INFORMED ON HAPPENINGS AND [MANGES THAT WILL INFLUENCE THE AVAIL- ABILITY OF LOW-TO-MODERATE COST HOUSING. This includes following the development of the Ramsey Coumty Comprehen- sive Housing Affordability Strategy plan (CHAS) which we will review and on which we will make recommendations to the City Council. 5. USE VARIOUS MEDIA TO IMPROVE PUWIC AWARENESS OF HOUSING ISSUES. Medi~ could include Maplewood in Motion, Mmpi,wood Review, St. Paul paper, sewer inserts, local access TV, etc. This should include information about housing programs and developments in the City. Maplewood in Motion could have items on T-I-H, housing maintenance codes, and one explaining what COn~TUission is/does. (Added suggestion of such an article on each city commission, possibly identifying current conm~issioners so citizens are more aware of role/opportunity of citizen involvement in city.) ENCOURAGE AND AID IN ~ PROVISION OF LIFE-CYCLE HOUSING, INCLUDING ALTERNATIVE HOUSING FOR OLDER ADULTS. Strive to develop a strategy for provision of various support services which enable the elderly to continue to live independently in a suburban city such as Maplewood. With assistance from East Metro Senior Advisory determine how Maple~ood can maintain an infornmtion and referral service to aid older adults in finding available services. Continue participa-. tion in the Older-Adult Home-Share program as an alternative to pre,tut, nursing home placement. Recommend necessary code, law or policy revisions which will make above possible. 0 HAVE A TOUR FOR HRA, COUNCIL AND INTERESTED PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS OF AREAS OF INTEREST OR CONCERN IN TH~ CITY. Classify each of the above as high, medium or low priority as time permits. Working With the Council In response to the concerns expressed earlier this month about the F~tPA money available to first-timehomebuyers, and the Participating Cities Program, staff was directed to find out how we missed the boat so completely in making our citizens aware of what was going on, or seeing if we could have been one of the Participating Cities. It appears information should have been available on the first program in February, which should have allowed us time to get it in~kple~ood in Motion. Unfortunately, no one will own up to seeing it, or the info on the .Participating Cities Program, so we can't tell whether we never got our mail, or it went astray. Staff has promised to be on top of this for next year, and has already expressed our concerns about timely infornmtion on both programs. Local lenders involved in this year's program are TCF and Mid-America. If we feel additional input or guidance from the Council is desirable, we will make a request for a. shirt-sleeve work session, or m~ke a presentation under the 'Visitor Presentation" item on your agenda. 1990-1991 HRA Annual Report Page 4 Also included with this report, as Exhibit F, is an item we thought might be of interest to you. This is a summary of rental housing developed with tax-exempt financing. This includes number of units, amount of the bond issue, fees paid to the City, and federal financing restrictions. LORRAINE FIS(/qER, (}{AIRPERSON Maplewood Housing and Redevelopment Authority Name Dale Carlson 1890 Barclay St. (55109) (Resigned) Thomas Connelly 1193 E. County Road B (55109) Lorraine Fischer 1812 N. Furness St. (55109) Gary Pearson 1209 Antelope Way (55119) Larry Whitcomb 518 E. County Road B (55117) HRA COMMISSIONERS Appointed 1/84, 3/88 1/84, 3/85, 7/90 4/75, 3/81, 3/86, 3/91 11/89 11/89 Term Expires 3/93 7/95 3/96 3/94 3/92 ATTENDANCE Carlson Connelly Fischer Pearson Whitcomb Meetinq 3-13-90 x x x x x 4-10-90 x x x x x 5-8-90 x x x x 6-12-90 x x x x x 11-14-90 x x x x x 12-11-90 Resigned x x x x 2-12-91 x x x x kr/anrepexA.mem me EXHIBIT B $CTIVE HOUSING PROGRAMS IN MAPLEWOOD Managed by the Metropolitan Council HRA ae Rehabilitation Loan Program - owner-occupied (funded by MHFA): Three deferred loans: Total of program was $16,535. Maximum loan amount per application: $9000. Households with an adjusted income of $8500 or less are eligible for this aid. This program offers deferred payment loans. The loan payment may deferred unless the borrower transfers the property within ten years of the loan date. If this occurs, the loan amount must be repaid to the MHFA, but without interest. The purpose of this loan program is to help eligible applicants repair their homes to correct deficiencies directly affecting safety, habitability, energy use or handicap accessibility. The maximum loan amount.per applicant is $9000. The State's data privacy act protects the locations of the loan recipients. Revolving Loan Program - Owner-occupied (funded by MHFA): One revolving loan: Total of program was $6236.24 Maximum loan amount per application: $9000. Households with an adjusted income of $15,000 or less are eligible for this aid. The program offers low- interest (3%) loans to eligible applicants that are unable to get rehabilitation funding aid from other sources. The purpose of this loan program is to help eligible applicants repair their homes to correct deficiencies directly affecting safety, habitability, energy use and handicap accessibility. The maximum loan amount available per applicant is $9000. The State's data privacy act protects the locations of the loan recipients. c. Section 8 Rental Subsidy Program (funded by HUD): Eligible tenants pay a maximum of 30% of their gross income toward the monthly rent payment. The difference between the rent that the tenant can afford and the total rent is the Section 8 paid to the landlord by HUD. In December 1990, 173 Maplewood households (35 senior and 138 family) were receiving rental help. See Exhibit C for more information about this program. 2. Manaqed by Local Lenders a. Home Improvement Loan Program (funded by MHFA): The MHFA made 5 loans for a total of $37,319 in 1990. Households with an adjusted annual income of $27,000 or less may be eligible for home improvement loans of up to $15,000. The MHFA determines the loan interest rates (3 - 9 percent) by the borrower's income. b. Home Energy Loan Program (funded by MHFA): The MHFA made 19 loans for a total of $62,806 in 1990. Homeowners may be eligible for loans at 8 7/8 percent interest rate. Under this program, loans of $1,000 to $5,000 are available for energy efficiencY related improvements only. There are no income limits. Co MHFA Single Family Mortgage Loan Program (funded by MHFA): The MHFA made 8 loans totalling $569,936 in 1990. This program is for first-time home buyers (FTHB). To qualify, an applicant's adjusted gross household income cannot exceed $37,500 for a new dwelling unit or $33,000 for an existing dwelling unit. The below- market interest rate mortgage money is available for the purchase of single-family units, townhomes, condominiums or existing duplexes. d. Homeownership Assistance Fund (HAF) (funded by MHFA): The MHFA made 8 HAF loans in 1990. Through this program, qualifying lower-income MHFA home mortgage recipients could receive downpayments and help with their monthly payments. Households must have an adjusted annual income of $26,000 or less for this program. kr\anrepexB.mem EXHIBIT C RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS Existing Units - Section Household Types Family Elderly Totals One Bedroom 29 14 43 Two Bedroom 83 21' 104 Three Bedroom 26 0 26 Four Bedroom 0 0 0 138 35 173 Of these 173 units, 149 are in multiple dwellings, 15 are in double dwellings and 9 are in single dwellings. Section 8 and Section 236 Family Units Archer Heights* Lundgren Maple Knolls Totals One Bedroom 30 - 3 33 Two Bedroom 55** 13 32 100 Three Bedroom 4*** 16 20 26 Handicapped - - 2 2 89 29 57 175 Elderly Units Archer Heights(l) Concordia Cottages(2) Totals Arms of Maplewood One Bedroom 64**** 124 20 208 Two Bedroom 40 40 (1) Archer Heights has 121 Section 8 units, 33 Section 236 units and 14 market rate units. Section $ and 236 rent and income guidelines are the same. (2) The Cottages of Maplewood has 31 lower and moderate income units (including 12 Section 8 Units). **There are also 8 market rate units. ***There are also 2 market rate units. ****There are also 4 market rate units. Section 8 and 236 Income and Rent Ceilings Household Size (Persons) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Maximum Annual Gross Family Income $15,750 $18,000 $20,250 $22,500 $24,300 $26,100 $27,000 $29,700 Unit Type One Bedroom Two Bedroom Three Bedroom Maximum Allowable Rent (Includes gas and electricity) $464/month $550/month $688/month In the metropolitan area, the Section $ program is available only to the very low income - 50% or less of the median income for the metropolitan area. kr/rental.mem EXHIBIT D HOUSING AND PLANNING PROPOSALS CONSIDERED Meeting Date 3-13-90 Item 1. Truth-in-housing Code and inspection forms 2. Housing plan update 4-10-90 Truth-in-housing Code and inspection forms 2. Housing plan update 5-8-90 Truth-in-housing Code and inspection forms 2. Housing plan update Tax-exempt financing for Maplewood Rental Townhouses 6-12-90 1. Housing Plan Update 2. HRA status report Commissioner Connelly reappointment 11-14-90 Revisions to the T-I-H Ordinance 2. HRAAnnual Report Two Houses on one lot ordinance amendment R-1S and R-2 zoning ordinance changes Action Taken Recommended changes Recommended changes Recommended changes Recommended changes Recommended changes Recommended changes Recommended approval Recommended approval Recommended keeping HRA Recommended approval Recommended approval Recommended adoption Recommended approval Discussed and tabled ]0 12-11-90 Minneapolis Housing Evaluators in Maplewood Inspection of Multiple Unit buildings Recommended no change Recommended all units 2-12-91 R-lS and R-2 zoning ordinance changes Presentation about Ramsey County Block Grants Group Home presentation Applicant interviews Recommended approval Recommended one person kr\anrepexD.mem I I I "'~. , I e,,I ~"~1 ,,.~ l, ~ I l' :[ I I I I I 0 0 m 0 12 Exhibit E 13 Exhibit F County/Metro.. Met Council adopts task., force.report calling for regiOna!' housing plan · A task force report recommend- ' of ho,u, sing'programs and limited ~g !hat the Metro olp__0_!!Lan Council funds, said CouncilMemberAl£red aeveiop a comprel~ens~v-"H~'~gional Babington-J'ohnson, co-chairman of housing plan, similar in scope to/ts the task force. region-wide plans for sewers and "In light of this ei~vironment, the lransportalion, hasbeen approvedby task force believes' a c~perative tile council. The report also recommends that the Sate Legi:~lalure appropriate more money to help provide lower. cost housing and save neighbor. hoods in the Twin Cities area from deleriorating. The Council will consider action on the report's recommendations in · coming months. The comprehensive'regional h.ousjng plan should identify the re- gion s overall housing needs and resources, and identify ways to bridge gaps between them, the Re. gional Housing Task Force report says. "The Twin Cities area has a di- verse .population with diverse needs, an aging housing stock., a multitude regional planning process is essential to adequately address' the many neec~ in our communities," he said. The task force ri~rt racom- Among these: ' ' mends that the Metro Council work . * Only about One-third of oov. with local governments to develop local housing plans th, at conform to?.n.~'-level hou.sehoids in the Twin cities .area receive_any help to pay for the reg~onalplan. .'." . ... ,, their housing. These families ~ Local plans should' ~ntain a ' earning $i0,000 or less ~ are pti- housing inventory to identify CUrrentmarily renters, and receive'dispro. and potential market.rate rental and ~__rtionately fe~er tax benefits than subsidized housint~ that is alfordable, homeowners. s.The.inven, tories should also identify in~te and multifamily housing, in- cluding group homes and homeless shelters. . Local plans should include rede. velopment plans for deteriorating neighborhoods. The plans should also identif~ existing and needed· !inkages between housing and serv. ices ~ such as transportation, day care and job training, the report says.' The task force made its racom. mendations after several months of study. The recommendations are tended to address housing issues that threaten the economic well-being of the region and many of its residents. · ' Many neighb~rhoeds -=-espe. cially in Minneapolis, St. Paul and .c. lo.~'i,n suburbs.~ ate. facing poten' rial aecgne and deterioration because the seven,county area's housing stock is aging. 14 Exhibit G TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Director of Community Development Code change: Single and Double Dwellings July 2, 1991 INTRODUCTION The City Council and Planning Commission requested that staff investigate several issues about the location of single and double dwelling homes on a lot. These included: Home orientation with the front of the house not facing the street. 2. Homes set further back than the adjacent homes. 3. Too much lot coverage and house size. BACKGROUND The City does not regulate home orientation, maximum setbacks or maximum house sizes. The City does limit the lot area that accessory buildings can cover, such as garages and sheds. The City also regulates minimum setbacks. The minimum front yard setback is 30 feet or whatever the predominant setback in the neighborhood is. The minimum side yard setback is at least ten feet on a habitable side and five feet on a nonhabitable side. The City also requires a rear yard setback of at least 20 percent of the lot depth. DISCUSSION We receive about two or three complaints a year on the placement or size of dwellings, similar to the examples in the introduction above. These complaints fall into three categories - home orientation on the lot, setbacks and lot coverage. Home orientation on the lot 96% of the new homes built in the last year faced the street. There have been a few problems though. The Council brought up the problem of a house not facing the street because of the home at 3069 Bellaire Avenue. (See the plan on page 8.) There are some unique building restrictions on this lot that prevented the usual home placement on it - the powerline easement and the City's pipeline setback requirement. Another example is the house at 1860 Sterling Street, owned by Mrs. Welch. This house faces the side lot line. (See'the maps on pages 9 and 10.) The builder thought a future street would be constructed in front of the house from Sterling Street. The street plans did not work out. The neighbors to the south, on the north side of Knoll Circle, have complained that the house intrudes on their privacy. Staff surveyed nineteen other suburbs about their site location requirements for single-dwellings. 0nly three of the nineteen cities require a house to face the street. Requiring that the house be parallel to the street may cause some problems. Some of the Councilmembers thought this was a problem when they saw the group home at 1362 Cope Avenue. This building would not fit on the lot if it was parallel to the street because of the lot's unusual shape. The house was slightly rotated to fit on the lot. (See the plan on page 15.) Builders of homes on corner lots may also have a problem. Homes on these lots have sometimes been placed at an angle to both streets. (Refer to the plan on page 18 as an example.) Another difficult situation is when the home is not rectangular or when a person wishes to set the garage at an angle to the rest of the house. The map on page 19 shows examples of this. The City could not allow such site designs if builders had to place homes parallel to the street. Since these homes have not caused any complaints, we have not included a requirement for a house to be parallel to a street. The attached ordinances require that the front of dwellings face the street, unless there is not an apparent front side. These ordinances also a house to rotate up to 30 degrees from the street line. Staff could approve a different orientation if any of several conditions are met. Homes set back further than the adjacent homes The City's front yard setback requirement is a minimum. A builder can construct a house further back if it does not go into the rear yard setback. We occasionally get a complaint that the house set further back detracts from the privacy of adjacent homes. The houses at 2616 Clarence Street and 882 Conner Court are examples of this. (See the maps on pages 11 - 12.) The attached ordinance (starting on page 20) requires that all homes be set back at least 30 feet, but not more than 35 feet, from the front property line. 81% of the homes built in the last year have a setback between 30 and 35 feet. Staff could approve a greater setback if any of several conditions are met. I have included the usual appeal procedures to the Design Review Board and Council. Too much lot coverage and house size The City regulates the minimum size of homes in the City. The City does not directly regulate the maximum size of homes. A person may build as large of a home as they wish if they meet all setbacks. A way to control the maximum size of homes is to have 2 a maximum lot coverage requirement. Setting a standard for a reasonable maximum lot coverage is difficult. A Staff survey of nineteen other cities showed that only four have a maximum lot coverage. Those cities use a maximum lot coverage for single dwellings of 30 to 35 percent. The group homes at 1362 Cope Avenue and 1685 Howard Street are the only complaints about this problem that I know of. (See the maps on pages 14 through 17.) These buildings have about 4,050 square feet of building coverage. The lot at 1362 Cope Avenue is the smallest lot of the five that the developers built these group homes on. It has about 13,495 square feet. The 4050-square-foot building covers 30 percent of this lot. This is shown on the site plan on page 15. The group homes would meet the lot coverage requirements used in other cities. Limiting the house size would limit its value. The City should encourage and not discourage higher value homes in a neighborhood. For these reasons, Staff is not recommending that the City adopt a maximum lot coverage standard. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the ordinance on page 20. Staff and the Planning Commission developed this ordinance. It does the following: 1. It would require builders to build these structures with: A 30 - 35 foot front yard setback or at the predominant front yard setback on that street. Staff could allow a greater setback if any of several conditions are met. The front of the dwelling facing the street· The home could be rotated up to 30 degrees from the front lot line without staff approval. Staff could allow a further rotation if any of several conditions are met. Corner lots are excluded. It would allow Staff to send any house plan to the Community Design Review Board if there is a question about meeting, the ordinance. It also would allow anyone to appeal Staff,s decision to the Board and eventually to the Council. go/memo25.mem (5.1) Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Location Map 3. Property Line/Zoning Map 4. Site Map (3069 Bellaire Avenue) 5. Property Line/Zoning Map (1860 Sterling Street) 7. 8. 9. 10. iii 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Site Plan (1860 Sterling Street) Property Line/Zoning Map Site Map (2616 Clarence Street) Property Line/Zoning Map (882 Conner Court) Property Line/Zoning Map (1362 Cope Avenue) Site Map (1362 Cope Avenue) Property Line/Zoning Map Site Map (1685 Howard Street) Site Map (1113 South Lakewood Drive) Site Map (1100 and 1190 Frank Court) Ordinance (staff recommendation) I -- 3069 BELLAIRE AVENUE~2o Ni °; NORTH SAINT PAUL ~288oN. 2 -- 2640N. ~2400 N. 4 J1685 HOWARD STREET NORTH SA/NT PAUL --2160 N. I 1860 STERLING STREET e 1920 N. 1680 N. I LOCATION MAP 5 Attachment 1 BEAM i. ak~ CO RD '~ KOHLMAN AV (I) CONNOR a~/ GERVAI~ PKWY AV 1362 COPE AVENUE LELANO (m) c~~ AV 2616 CLARENCE STREET VIKINg Knuckle He~d L oka RoA/Meo4 Jl LOCATION MAP 6 Attachment 2 GALL AVE (~.} ~ :~ ~RENNER AV, E 130 EAST BRENN£R · ~, AVE. 24 33 6 34. ,'~o, oz ~) I~0.0' I14 13 I0 (~) 3069 BELLAIRE AVENUE 7 Attachment 3 LEGAL DESCRIP  LOT 20, BLOCK 2 , RAMSEY COUNT' ~.- Jif -- ? ~ '(/~'~-~0 '"' FINISHF .... : ~ :-% . SITE MAP 3069 BELLAIRE N 8 Attachment 4 'flERNEY '-,,/MEADOW RIPLEY ' .,~ 2 .:~ ~ ~.,c. (4} Proposed Variance Proposed Lot Split Lines KNOLL c~.c PROPERTY LINE/ZONING MAP 1860 Sterling Street ~ Attachment 5 Proposed Variance ~°N8~41 '24'E II~e ef leulh 8;2 feet ef M! I/4 ef 8( I/4 Seetle~ N 88*41'74'1Z 363.09 ~50.08 ' I 83.05 150.04 -~ 150.OH S 88~41 180.04 Proposed Lot Split Lines SITE PLAN 1860 Sterling Street 10 Attachment 6 C 2615:~ (a 2609 ;.[::] c~-~/ (~) -- I .3~c. (.~,) b ~) ~ (~ ~ I~" ~'~' .-43 ac,. F g.33 ac. 2.30 ~.c.. -7~. PROPERTY LINE/ZONING MAP 2616 CLARENCE STREET N ll Attachment 7 ?l SITE MAP 2616 CLARENCE STREET 12 Attachment 8 O PALHI I CONNOR 2. 912 9 10 DEMONT,g ~o ~ AVE BROOKS ,o.oo PROPERTY LINE/ZONING MAP 13 Attachment 9 L /' ~1 "fl. ~ I II ,~, ' CORNER KICK SOCCER t,flo~_.(9) .~e ,~ l 6; :! m 1362 AVE. ~ S4 ]' 40 ,, ~ ~ - ,, ~ k # ,, ROAD PROPERTY LINE'ZONING MAP ' 14 Attachment I00 15 SITE MAP 1362 COPE AVENUE 15 Attachment 11 NDS · OF ., L[W~OD · 2ND ADD. ?..5O PROPERTY 1685 HOWARD STREET z ¢,-") '" ~..~ ~ .(:~ ?-St.O~ ' _°~ ,.7,,. ._~.~° ,.-~.~, ~ _.~° Z.~.-~ ~, - - ~oo - ~. %-~ ~'.,.. - ,. 9 · d ~ 1732 2 '- -~ ,1 I ' "~ '?-,;1709 .~ '7 ".. ,' (,~ z"&'3') ~'2 I, cqt?J,-f-' -'.- z.,~,$~.-..- LARPENTEUR AVENUE ST. PAUL LINE 16 / ZONING MAP Attachment 12 Ol lhe Norlh I.~', Lot I0 102/ ~3 .I SITE PLAN 1685 HOWARD STREET 17 Attachment 13 REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNF.~OTA 7601 - 73~d Avenue North 560-3093 lood liub Set .ration O~ly Surface Drainage s Proposed Elevation ~s Existin~ Elevation Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 ~uru~§ors ~l~rlt~tt~ Type of Building - Full Bas~nent --- I ZO.00 --- SITE MAP 1113 SOUTH LAKEWOOD DRIVE 18 Attachment 14 LOT 15 1100 FRANK CT. LOT 14 LOT 16 1190 FRANK CT. FRANK STREET SITE PLAN 19 Attachment 15 N ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ABOUT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND BUILDING LOCATIONS FOR SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLINGS THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Section 1. Section 25-65 is changed as follows: Sec. 25-65. Approval of plans. (a) The Director of Community Development shall review all plans for sinqle dwellinqs or minor construction. The City Council shall define minor construction by dollar valuations set by resolution from time to time. Before approving the plans, the Director must determine that the plans meet all City ordinances and policies, including the design standards in Section 25-70(b). The Director may send any sinqle dwellinq or minor construction to the Community Design Review Board. (b) Anyone may appeal the director's decision to the Community Design Review Board within fifteen (15) days after the director's decision. The Board's decision shall be final, unless someone appeals it to the City Council within fifteen (15) days after the Board's decision. (c) The Community Design Review Board shall review all other plans. The Board's decision shall be final, unless someone appeals it to the City Council within fifteen (15) days after the Board's decision. However, no person shall revise a plan that the City Council originally approved without their approval. Section 2. Section 25-66 (1) of the Design Review Board Ordinance is changed as follows: (1) To review all building plans, except single d~cllings proposals excluded from review under Section 25-65. Sign applications shall be reviewed as stated in Article III of Chapter 36. Section 3. Section 36-70 in the R-1 Residence District (single family) is changed as follows: Sec. 36-70. Front yards. - D~.t~t dwell ng shall have a front yard setback of at least thirty (30) feet, but not more than thirty-five (35) feet. in depth. Except that, if the majority of the dwellings on the same side of the same street and within three hundred and fifty (~'~vv, (350) feet of the lot to be k.g. ~ ~ ~ ~ built on have a predominant front yard setbac ~rcm ~..c s~rcc~ that ~- d~ff ..... t ~- ~ .... then all ~"~ --- 20 dwellings or additions on that lot ~ .... ~ ...... ~A~ ~A_~ move .... tk~t ~t~-t shall conform to that predominant setback_ · ~-~ a minimum. The Director of Community Development may allow a different setback if it would not adversely affect the drainage of surrounding properties and if any of the following conditions apply: The proposed setback would not affect the privacy of adjacent homes. The proposed setback would save significant natural features, as defined in Section 9-188. The proposed setback is necessary to meet City, State or Federal regulations, such as the pipeline setback or noise regulations. The proposed setback is necessary for energy-saving, health or safety reasons. The house is in a new development planned with larger setbacks. The City shall consider the front yard setback as a minimum for accessory buildings. The City may approve a ~ conditional use permit may ~ ~ ...... .... to construction ~ a buildinq addition~ ~ part thereof ...... into a minimum required setback. (Code 1965, 904.040; Ord. No. 576, 1, 1-14-85) Section 4. follows: Section 36-78 in the R-1 district is added as Sec. 36-78. Dwelling orientation on interior lots. The front of a dwelling on an interior lot shall face a public street and shall be allowed to be positioned up to a thirty (30) degree angle from the line of the street, unless the dwelling does not have an apparent front side. The front is generally the longer side of the building and has a front door. This section shall not apply to corner lots. The Director of Community Development may allow a different orientation if the proposed orientation would not adversely affect the drainage of surrounding properties and if any of the following conditions aDD1V: The proposed orientation would not affect the privacy of adjacent homes. The proposed orientation would save significant natural features, as defined in Section 9-188. The proposed orientation is necessary to meet City, State or Federal regulations, such as the pipeline setback or noise regulations. 4~ The proposed orientation is necessary for energy- savina, health or ~afetv Section 5. Section 36-81 in the RE Residence Estate District is changed as follows: Bec. 36-81. Permitted and conditional uses. Any permitted or conditional use permitted in an R-1 Residence District (single dwelling) is permitted in a R-E Residence Estate District. Such uses are subject to the R-1 regulations, except as stated in Sections 36-82 and 36-83. Section 6. Section 36-84.4 in the R-iS Small-Lot Single-Dwelling District is changed as follows: Sec.- 36-84.4. Front yards. Each lot dwelling shall have a front yard setback of at least not ics~ than thirty (30) feet, but not more than thirty- five (35) feet ~_ ~A_~ ~ ....... ~--AA~ Except that, ...... ~ ......... ~ ~..~ ....... if If ~'~" '=~' ...... ~ ...... j ity lli .... = ~., ~ .............. the ma or of the dwe ngs on the same side of the same street and within three hundred and fifty (350) feet of the 10t to be built on have a predominant front yard setback ~'--A-~ ~- =--- ~-~-- '~ =~ then all ~"~'~--- dwellinqs or additions on that lot thcrcafter erected, ~-~ -- novcd -- ~* -*-~-* shall conform to that predominant front yard setback. The Director of Community Development may allow a different setback if it would not adversely affect the drainage of surrounding properties and if any of the following conditions apply: The proposed setback would not affect the privacy of adjacent homes. The proposed setback would save significant natural. features, as defined in Section 9-188. The proposed setback is necessary to meet City, State or Federal regulations, such as the pipeline setback or noise regulations. 4~ The proposed setback is necessary for energy-saving, health or safety reasons. Se The house is in a new development planned with lar~er setbacks. The City shall consider the front yard setback as a minimum for accessory buildings. The City may approve a conditional use permit to construct a building addition, or part thereof, into a required setback. (Code 1965, 904.040; Ord. No. 576, 1, 1-14-85) Section 7. follows: Section 36-84.11 in the R-iS District is added as Bec. 36-84.11. Dwelling orientation. The front of a dwelling on an interior lot shall face a public street and shall be allowed to be positioned up to a thirty (30) degree angle from the line of the street, unless the dwelling does not have an apparent front side. The front is generally the longer side of the building and has a front door. This section shall not apply to corner lots. The Director of Community Development may allow a different orientation if the proposed orientation would not adversely affect the drainage of surrounding properties and if any of the following conditions aDD1V: The proposed orientation would not affect the privacy of adjacent homes. The proposed orientation would save significant natural features, as defined in Section 9-188. The proposed orientation is necessary to meet City, State or Federal regulations, such as the pipeline setback or noise regulations. 4~ The proposed orientation is necessary for energy- saving, health or safety reasons. Section 8. Section 36-89 in the R-2 Double Dwelling District is changed as follows: Seo. 36-89. Front yards. ....... ~ - dwelling shall have a Each l~t ~ ~- ~ " ~A~~_ _.~ ~- -~ ~ front yard setback of at least not ic=o than thirty (30) feet, but more than thirty-five (35) feet. ~- ~-~ =--~ ....... ~-~-~ ..... ~ Except that if ~" '=~ ...... ~ ....... = ~ ~- .... t~..~ the majority of the dwellingsh~"~ ....... ~ f .... t~- on the ...... ~ .... * front same side of the same street ~. ~ h~.~ - .... ' .... ~--~-~ ~= .... ~ ~-~- ~~~ .... ~=~ ~~ and within three hundred and fifty (200) (350) feet of the lot to be built on have a predominant front yard setback ~-~- ~A ~ ~ ~ ~- ~== .... ~ ~- ~-~" '~n~ ~--~ then all ~"~-- d lli .......... ............ z ~-, .... , ........ ~ we ngs or additions on that lot thcrcfcrc crcc~-~.__, _Itched- ~-- ........ -- --"-d ~..-- that -~---~ ..... ~ shall conform to that predominant setback The Director of community Development may allow a different setback if it would not adversely affect the drainage of surrounding properties and if any of the following conditions apply: 23 The proposed setback would not affect the privacy of adjacent homes. The propOsed setback would save significant natural features, as defined in Section 9-188. The proposed setback is necessary to meet City, State or Federal regulations, such as the pipeline setback or noise regulations. The proposed setback is necessary for energy-saving, health or safety reasons. Se The house is in a new development planned with larger setbacks. The City shall consider the front yard setback as a minimum for accessory buildings ~ .... ~ ~ ~ "~ .... differcnt ~~..--~-~' ~ ...... ~v~ ~..~- "-~.~..~ ~" ~...~ of --..~t I~ than fifty b.~Id~..~ l-~t~n. The City may approve a conditional use permit to construct a building addition, or part thereof, into a required setback· (Code 1965, 904.040; Ord. No. 576, 1, 1-14-85) Section 9. follows: Section 36-95 in the R-2 district is added as Sec. 36-95. Dwelling orientation. The front of a dwelling on an interior lot shall face a public street and shall be allowed to be positioned up to a thirty (30) degree angle from the line of the street, unless the dwelling does not have an apparent front side. The front is generally the longer side of the building and has a front door. This section shall not apply to corner lots. The Director of Community Development may allow a different orientation if the proposed orientation would not adversely affect the drainage of surrounding properties and if any of the following conditions apply: The proposed orientation would not affect the privacy of adjacent homes. The proposed orientation would save significant natural features, as defined in Section 9-188. The proposed orientation is necessary to meet City, State or Federal regulations, such as the pipeline setback or noise regulations. The proposed orientation is necessary for energy- saving, health or safety reasons. 24 Section 10. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage. Passed by the Maplewood City Council on , 1991. go\memoZS.ord 25 Planning Commission Minutes 7-1-91 b. Code Change: Single and Double Dwellings $ecretar7 01~on Draughted the ~taff report. The C0mmi~i0n~r~ compared the staff and Planning Commission versions of the draft ordinance and made modifications to combine these two versions into one revised ordinance to be submitted for approval to the City Council. Commissioner Rossbach moved approval of the ordinance regulating front yard setback requirements and building locations for single and double dwellings. Commissioner Martin seconded Ayes--Anitzberger, Axdahl, Frost, Gerke, Martin, Pearson, Rossbach Nays--Fischer The motion passed.