03-338Council File # 0��
Resolution #
Green Sheet # a�� 3 s 0
�i��
NESOTA
Presented By
Referred To
Committee: Date
3�
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE IRVINE AVENUE DEV�LOPMENT PLAN
AS AN ADDENDUM TO THE SAINT PAUL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
0
WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul is authorized under Miiuiesota Statutes, Section 462.353, to carry on
comprehensive municipal planning activities for guiding the future development and improvement of the city;
9 WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul, as a local government unit within the metropolitan area, is required under
10 Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.858, to prepare a comprehensive plan;
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
WFIEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Section 462355, to adopt or
amend a comprehensive plan or portion thereof after a recommendation by the Planning commission;
WHEREAS, the adopted citywide Land Use Plan provided for the adoption of azea plans as addenda to the
comprehensive plan;
18 WHEREAS, the City Council initiated an Irvine Avenue planning and zoning study by Councii File O1-1013 in
19 October 2001;
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
WI�REAS, the Irvine Avenue Development Plan was prepared by a community-based task force with
representatives from several neighborhood organizations, neighborhood residents and institutions, and the
Planning Commission;
Wf�REAS, the plan itself is short enough so that it does not need to be summarized for inclusion in the
Comprehensive Plan; the plan recommendations are documented and supported in appendices, which will be
kept on file but will not become part of the Comprehensive Plan;
Wf�REAS, the Irvine Avenue Development Plan was presented to the Planning Commission for review in
June 2002 and the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the plan together with the associated zoning
map changes and citywide zoning text amendments relating to development on steep slopes on August 9,
2002;
WHEREAS, a8er consideration of the plan submitted by the task force, the comments at the public hearing,
and the recommendations by City staff, the Planning Commission on October 11, 2002 recommended approval
of the plan except for the rezoning of parcels along Pleasant Avenue and with some refinements to the
03 -�3Y
37 citywide zoning tea-t amendments; and
38
39 WHEREAS, on date the City Council held a public hearing on the Irvine Averrue Development Plan
40 together with the zoning map changes and tea�t amendments and considered the testimony received;
41
42 NOW, TIIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Irvine Averzue Development Plan is hereby adopted as an
43 area plan addendum to the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan contingent on review by the Metropolitan Council.
44
45 BE IT FUR'I`IIER RESOLVED, that the Planning Administrator shall make minor adjustments on the zoning
46 map when new Irvine Avenue lots are split off the back of lazge Summit Avenue or Ramsey Street lots. Under
47 the zoning shown in the Irvine Avenue Development Plan, that part of lazge through lots lying within 150 feet
48 of the north side of Irvine Avenue is being rezoned to R-2, and on the south side of Irvine to R-3. These 150-
49 foot-deep zoning boundaries are azbitrary and should be adjusted administratively to match the actual lot lines
50 as new lots aze created.
51
52
53
54
55
56
Requested by Department of:
Plannin & Econom' Dev o t
� .
Approved by Financial Services
Adopted by Council: Date �,� �, a-��3
By:
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
�^ ^ Form Approved by City Attorney
By:
Approved by
By:
By:
b}
K.\Shazed�PED\SODERfiOL�v'u�eA�CC adoption resol¢ROn2-10-031Np2IDA-EEO Employa
'����/„��
DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCII.: DATE INTPIATED GREEN SHEET No.• 204358 3Y
PED 2/11/03 • 03'7
CONTACT PERSON & PHONE: � �iviTIALDATE II�I17Ai/DATE
Larry Soderholm (266-6575) IT� C� 2 DEPARTMENT DIlL s crrr couxcn,
ASSIGN 3 CTTY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK
MUST SE ON COUNCII, AGENDA BY (DATL� gQ7p,NCIAL SERV DIIZ. FAANCIAL SERVlACCfG
ASAP (Irvine Ave. moratorium set gpg�� 4 MAYOR(ORASST.) 1 SeanKershaw SU�
to eapire on 2/17/02.) Rovrnvc
oxnxsc
R.Pr.� a.� Y°o^� �N_"°�Y'
�` �„�y
TOTAL # OF SIGNATiJRE PAGES � CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
acriox x�uESCEn: Adoption of Irvine Aversue Devedopment Plan as an addendum to the comprehensive plan. (At
Council, adoption of the plan by resolution should be done together with adoption of an ordinance with a new
zoning map for Irvine Avenue and citywide zoning te�ct amendments relating to development on steep slopes.)
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) or Rejear (R) PERSONAL SERVJCE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
1. Has Utis person/firm ever worked under a conVxct forthis deparhuent?
A PLANNING CAMMISSION Yes No
CIB COMMII'1'EE 2. fias this person/fum ever been a city employee?
CIVILSERVICECOMIvIISSION Yes No
3. Does tltis person/fum possess a slcill not nmmally possessed by any cuaent city employee?
A Mayor Yes No
A PED Espl� aIl yes answers on separate sheet and adach to green sheet
. INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSiJE, OPPORTi71vITY (Who, W6at, WLen, Where, Why):
Due to complaints about ground water, traffic, pazking lot splits, over-building and street wash-outs, the City
Council in October 2001 initiated an Irvine Avenue planning study at the request of the CapitolRiver
CounciUDistrict 17.
ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
The Comprehensive Plan will have policies covering the Irvine Avenue issues and new regulations will be adopted
regarding zoning, parlflng, and steep slope development. A small azea plan task force, four district councils, and the
Planning Commission recommend adoption of the plan. ,�,�, ,�
i �. �.��:;r�..����a_.. �_..__.
: DISADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: - �
None �a :P �. `' .� ��`c'�S
: � .�
DISADV"ANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED:
E�sting problems will continue including tension between Irvine Avenue property owners and LIEP about what
development is pernutted. -• J
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION: $ 0 COST/REVENUE BUDGETED:
FUNDING SOURCE: ACI'IVITY NUNffiER: .
FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) �
�
K\Sliazed�PED\SODERHOLV�vmeAV�geauAee[-plan adopROrtwpd
FEB 14 2003
CITI' ATT0�31VEY'
p3 .338'
C;TI`Y OF SAIrIT PAUL 39oc,tyxatt Te7ephone: 6�1-2668570
RandyC.KeZZy,Mayos 1�WestKeZloggBoulevard FacsimiZe:6�1-228-8513
SaintPass(, MN 55102
February 12, 2003
Council President Bostrom and Members of the City Council
310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Council President Bostrom and Members of the Ciry Council:
I am pleased to transmit for your consideration the Irvine Avenue Development PZan and two related
zoning ordivances that have been recommended by the Plarniing Commission. The City Council nutiated
the plan in 2001. During 2002 a neighborhood-based small azea plan task force developed the plan,
together with zoning map changes and development standards for the steep slopes along Irvine Avenue.
The CiTy staff and the Plauuiug Commission decided that some of the proposed steep slope standards
would make sense for other steep slopes throughout the city and drafted these in a citywide zoning te�t
amendment. For these the Planning Commission notified the Eazly Notification System citywide. The
development standards for steep slopes received uniformly positive comments from the public.
Within the study area, downzonings to single-family were proposed by the task force. At the Plamiing
Conunission's hearing, five property owners objected to the rezonings. The Commission agreed with two
of them, whose properties fronted on Pleasant Avenue at the foot of the hillside, that single-family zoning
was overly restrictive. The Commission recommends leaving the Pleasant Avenue parcels RT-2 for
townhouses.
You will receive three greensheets on this project--one for adoption of the Irvine Avenue Development
Plan, a second for zoning changes within the Irvine Avenue study area, and a third for the cii}nvide steep
slope development standards. I support their adoption as recommended by the Planuiiig Commission. If
you have any questions or need additional information, please call Larry Soderholm (266-6575) of the PED
staff or Tom Beach (266-9086) of the LIEP sta£f.
Sin rely,
!C���'"`-ir "
Randy Kelly
Mayor
Enclosures
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
03 -338'
city of saint paul
planning commission resolution
file number o2_,s
date October ��, Zoo2
Irvine Avenue Development Plan and Zoning Amendments
WHEREAS, the City Council initiated the a small azea plan and zoning study for Irvine
Avenue in October 2001 by Council File # 01-1013;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the CapitolRiver Council created an Irvine Avenue
Planning Committee that met through the winter of 2001-2002 and developed a draft Irvine
Avenue Development Plan, which was reviewed at a general community meeting on March
19, 2002, and was then revised based on communiry input;
WHEREAS, the Irvine Avenue Development Plan contains a vision and policies for the study
area, proposed rezonings of property in the study area, and proposed citywide zoning text
amendments for development on steep slopes;
WFIEREAS, the draft plan was reviewed and supported by the CapitolRiver Council, the
Ramsey Hill Association, the West Seventh Federation, and the Summit Hill Association and
was submitted to the Planning Commission for review by the Ciry;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is authorized under Minnesota Statutes Section
462.355(2) and Chapter 107 of the Saint Paul Administrative Code to recommend to the
Mayor and City Council amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning code;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public heazing on the Irvine Avenue
Development Plan on August 9, 2002, notice of which was mailed to all property owners in
the study area and was published in the Pioneer Press on July 16, July 23, and July 30, 2002;
and
WHEREAS, the public testimony and staff recommendations were reviewed by the
Neighborhood and Current Planning Committee at two meetings and the committee
moved by Faricy
seconded by
in favor Unanimous
against
03 •33
Resolution on Irvine Avenue Plan
, 2000
Page Two
recommended two changes in the proposed rezonings for the study area along with refinements
in the citywide zoning text amendments;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Saint Paul Planning Commission fmds
that the Irvine Avenue Development Plan is consistent with the Saint Pau1 Comprehensive Plan
and other relevant city policies and recommends the adoption of the plan, not including the
appendices, by the City Council as an addendum to the comprehensive plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends adoption of the
zoning map revisions shown in the plan for property on Irvine Avenue and adoption of the zoning
teact amendments for development on steep slopes as shown in Appendix F by the City Council.
03 -33�
IRVINE AVENUE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A Small Area Plan
As approved by the Saint Paul Planning Commission
on October 11, 2002 and recommended to the City Council
For copies of this report or more information, please call
Larry Soderholm at the Dept. of Planning and Economic
Development, 651-266-6575, or e-mail
Carrr-v.snderizodrrua�ca..rtparrt ansaa�s
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
D 3 - 3'38'
IRVINE AVENUE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
(Plan as approved by the Planning Commission action on 10/11/02. c`_ `�*�
and additions show changes made by the Planning Commission from the public
hearing draft, which was the product of the Irvine Avenue Planning Committee.)
Addendum to the Com�rehensive Plan for Saint Paul
Recommended by the Planning Commission, October 11, 2002
Adopted by the City Council, (date)
This plan represents the community vision for the preservation the Irvine Avenue hiZZside and for
reasonable, Iimited development of Irvine and Plettsant Averzue properties. It appends to the
Comprehensive Plan. Key actions for Irvine Avenue are:
❑ Rezone vacant buildable areas to single family (except
Zots on Pleasant Avenue betrveen nursin2 home and Walnut stairs).
❑ Prevent the creation of lots that are too steep to build on.
❑ Require an engineering analysis of surface and ground water before constn{ction plans
are approved and require closer monitoring of the actual construction .
❑ Establish hillside development guidelines to be used by the City in reviewing site plans
for proposed construction.
❑ Require more off-street parking for new development.
❑ Improve communication between the neighborhood and the City about development
projects and enforcement.
The Irvine Avenue Plan covers the area from Suuunit Avenue on the north to I-35E on the south
and from Ramsey Street on the west to 7ames J. Hill mansion property on the east.
o� -33Y
caaw�s�on
Irvine Avenue should remain a low-density residential area due to the steep slopes and the narrow
roadway. Seen from a distance--for example, from the High Bridge--the Irvine Avenue hillside
should appear predominantly wooded with a few buIldings peaking through the trees. On top,
Summit Avenue rooflines should play with the tree-tops. Under the trees within the
neighborhood, Irvine Avenue should appeaz as a wooded lane punctuated by buildings and
retaining walls. Any new buildings should blend into the historic and natural character of the azea.
Gazage doors should be downplayed architecturally so that the street doesn't end up looking like
an alley. Constnxction should be engineered to take into account the stability and hydrology of
the slopes.
Specific Recommendations and Implementation Steps
Zoning Lots and Distrzcts
Most of Irvine Avenue is currently zoned RT-2 for fourplexes and townhouses because most of
the lots used to run all the way from Summit Avenue to Irvine. RT-2 is the proper zoning for
Summit Avenue, but unproper for Irvine. The Irvine hillside should be down-zoned to single
family because: (a) the roadway is too steep and narrow to handle more traffic; (b) there is hardly
any on-street parking; (c) development activity should be muumized on steep slopes where
erosion and water management are recurrent problems; and (d) the natural tree cover should be
retained for its beauty and for erosion control.
Amend the lot split regulations to prohibit the creation of any new lots where the existin�
building pad area is steeper than z518 percent ( � for
comparisoa Ramsev Street is ll en rcent) or where a driveway to the proposed house site
is impossible. However, lots snlits on Irvine Avenue will be nermitted where the e�stine
buildin� pad area is up to ZS ern cent provided that a buildine plan is submitted that meets
the hillside development euidelines.
2. Rezone houses and vacant land erc with access alon� Irvine Avenue from RT-2
(fourplexes and townhouses) to singte-family to reduce the lot coverage by buildings and
save more trees. The north side of Irvine a..0 «.� "..w� .��" Qi�,�4 ^z'oa Tn=va�e should be
rezoned to R-2, which requires a minimum lot area of 7,200 square feet per unit. The row
of houses on the south side of Irvine should be rezoned to R-3, which requires a minunum
lot area of 6,000 squaze feet per unit.
These rezonings, as shown on the proposed zoning map, should apply both to existing
Irvine Avenue lots and also to the 150 feet closest to Irvine of large lots that e�end
through from Summit Avenue or Ramsey Street. Where azbitrary zoning boundaries are
drawn 150 feet from Irvine, they will be adjusted automatically by the Plaiming
2
o� -33�'
Administrator to match the actual reaz lot lines as new Irvine Avenue lots are created.
(On these "through lots", the proposed zoning boundaries will be an exception to the
customary zoning practice of avoiding "split zoning"--i.e., more than one zoning
classification on a single parcel of land. But if the Irvine frontage is not rezoned, some
fourplexes and townhouses could be built along Irvine on ttuough lots with an e�sting
Summit Avenue residence on top. The cunent RT-2 zoning unlike single-family and
duplex zoning, allows more than one main building on a single zoning lot.)
#3. The multi-family properties on Irvine should be zoned as they are used, i.e., the "Lander
townhouses" at 275-285 Irvine should have RT-1 duplex zoning, and the Irvine Hill
Condominiums and the nursing home should remain RM-2.
34. flithatt�h The "nose IoY' at the hairpin turn (264-266-268 Irvine) �
, , ,
� - • __..L-- -- °-- ---- -° -" ' - _,
�iAivaai w �uc ia.iiu vu uic uvi �ir aiuc �i �uc � - -
should be ke t in its
current RT-2 zozring so that the develoner of the recentiv develooed double house can
build the third unit that was part of his orieinal condominium development plan This lot
can accommodate a third unit because the lot is over 18.000 square feet. has access from
Pleasant Avenue, and will cause no eroundwater or drainaee nroblems for other azcels.
5. The parcel on Pleasant Avenue just to the west of the Irvine Hill Condominiums should be
also be kept in its cunent RT-2
(fourplex/townhouse zonin because: it faces I-35E, it has ¢ood access from Pleasant
Avenue, which has on-street parkina: and it will cause no �roundwater or drainage
problems for other narcels. The front, buildable part of the lot is not very steep and most
of the trees are on the steep rear part.
For this propert� any future develonment shall be desiened to accommodate views from
the houses above on Irvine Avenue. New buIldin�s shall not significantly obstruct views
of the river vallev from the first floor (i.e._ street-levell rear windows ofthese houses
Vlew orotection shall be addressed in the City's site pian review nrocess
6. The two parcels on Pleasant Avenue adjouung the nursing home parking lot to the east aze
owned by the nursing home. The nursing home envisions its own future offices and
related nursing home facilities on the lot. This plan supports in concept the nursing
home's fixture use of the property and supports rezoning the two pazcels to RM-2, which
allows apartment buIldings and nursing homes, at such tune as the nursing home develops
\
�
,, �,,
\ .JS�
� r�0
\ 'r v
�' 0
7QJ
��� �f
,\
�
, �
�
� ww
� • ,\ N ((/�1
� \
� /` � � O O �
�G •, G \ N o a _
0�� Z t� � v, _
�7 SJ� S ` � N N ° o
� �' y� ,
�-. f0
� ��� ` y ' O y N
Y ��tiN O
� � � � O�
a�
� /� �e
r�
�b
��
�
N
�O
T
�
�
T
\/
�
_
� �
� �
.�
N d
� Y
W y
(n Y
� O
Q V w, ,
W
O �
a�
� Q
.a •(/�
� �
V/ �
�`
�U
�
� �
� a�
�1R\ � �V
VI �
LL _a
_
�C C � M
�C L
� G �
F A T � = N
� ��� � _
/' � 'R ' x °• E
�1 d d a> �= 'C
� � 01 O. C R
L C 7 7 �-
� Z (AtnoMa
� Z r- NN
O �
�'� N�?
� � N ��¢OC2
�
� ;
� � �
� , ;
�
��
\ � i
�
� �. .
� i
0
rn
m
�
0
>
a
�
N
N
d
ai
0
�
N
3
�
�
m
E
Q
>
Q
C
0
N
L
�
0
c
0
N
J
N
Q
O
N
.�
a� o
rn w
� �,
__
U �
z Q
w
0
�
U
O
�
N
>
0
a
.c
'o
CJ
�
O
N
�
c
c
0
N
m
S�.
a
�
0
d
N
N
WESTERN
� 3
o F
��
o 'a
N �
N �
� J
\ ••/
e '• '1
� •o
03 ,7 3d'
,\
�
��.
��
���
.�
x
.,
�
t� `�
.
i .
>
> �\
"L..._J �'\
�7 `\
�
l � i
t
� �� t
� �
�`
� � J l
m � 2
(
; N
N � .--, , �
��
\ ,
\
,�
ti
03-33�'
specific plans. But this plan does not support rezoning to RM-2 right now because, if the
nursing home e�;pansion does not come to fruition, the property should remain available
for fourplex or townhouse development under RT-2; it should not be zoned for a larger
apartment building.
(Figure B shows existing zoning and Figure C shows the proposed zoning.)
Parking
Due to the lack of on-street parking, more off-street pazking is necessary than for most
places in the city. For new construction, require two off-street pazking spaces per housing
unit that meet all zoning requirements for setback and paving. (This is more than the
citywide standard of 1.5 off-street parlang spaces.) In addition, require a guest parking
area for at least one additional vehicle per unit. Guest spaces could be provided on a
driveway; they would be exempt from setback requirements and could be paved with
gravel.
8. On-street parking should be controlled better by:
a. Putting up more signs where parking is currently restricted or prohibited,
b. Making the parking restrictions uniform on Pleasant Avenue from Ramsey Street
to the hairpin turn. (At present the pazking restrictions, due to the placement of
signs, appear to end at the Irvine Hill Condomnuums )
c. Area residents intend to initiate a residential permit parking district along Pleasant
Avenue, along sections of Irvine that have on-street pazking, and possibly on
Ramsey Street as well. As the hospital has grown and Xcel Arena patrons have
leamed where they can pazk for free, the neighborhood streets have turned into
pazking lots for employees and event goers. (Within residential permit parking
districts, residents can buy an annual pernut to park on the street; nonresidents are
prohibited from parking there.)
9. Traffic speeds need to be controlled on Irvine Avenue because the roadway is narrow with
houses close to the pavement and because pedestrians walk in the street. The problem is
greatest between the criss-cross and the hairpin turn where there are "straight-aways" on
both the upper and lower roadways. Public Works will do a speed study on these
segments and will discuss the results and engineering options with residents. It is possible
that the most feasible solutions may be citizen-nutiated traf�c calming techniques, for
example, those described in Streef Reclaiming by David Engwicht (New Society
Publishers, 1999). The neighborhood can request help from the Saint Paul Traffic
Cahning Alliance, a citizen organization that was recently funded by the McKnight
Foundation.
D3 -33$'
Hillside Design and :Development Guidetines
10. Hillside development guidelines for Irvine Avenue and Pleasant Avenue east of Ramsey
Street should be incorporated into the City's Zoning Code. The purposes of these
guidelines are to preserve Trvine Avenue's character as predominantly wooded and to
protect the geology of the hillside. Surface and ground water management, in particular,
have been the greatest source of neighborhood dissatisfaction; changing water movement
on any given lot may cause changes on other lots. Items "a" through "h" below are
mandatory standards for site plan review. Items "i" through "k" are advisory.
Mandatory D� Standards
a. An engineering report must be prepazed by a registered hydrological, geotecl�nical
or soils engineer and submitted to the City for review and approval 6efore any
grading or tree removal occurs. The engineering report must include:
1. An evaluation of existing conditions including slope stability, ground water,
and surface water. Testing should use techniques that minimize
disturbance to existing slopes and vegetation (for example, drilling cores
for soil samples rather than digging with a back hoe.)
2 Site-specific recommendations for construction. Recommendations will
depend on site conditions but may include construction of a cut-off trench
with drain tiles away from the building, installation of drain tiles at or under
the foundation, water-proofing and damp-proofing walls, poured concrete
foundations and sump pumps. (See Appendix C for information about
these and other techniques to mitigate the problems, and Appendix D for a
listing problems with past developments along Irvine Avenue.)
b. At least three on-site inspections must be conducted_ prior to grading, after
grading, and during installation of any special measures required to deal with slope
stability or water conditions. These inspections must be attended by City staff, the
builder and the engineer who prepared the report. The engineer must update the
report as needed to reflect any conditions observed during these inspections that
were not anticipated in the originai report. A copy of the updated report must be
submitted to the City. To ensure that the proiect is built accordine to the
approved plans. LIEP staff will require that a securitv aereement be submitted as
specified in Section 62.108 lg) of the Zomn�Code.
c. The height and scale of buildings shall fit within the tree canopy. (This guideline is
consistent with the height limits for the residential zoning districts: 30 feet in
single-family and duplex zones; 40 feet for townhouses or tluee- and four-unit
buildings; 50 feet for apartment buildings.)
d. Buildings shall be designed to fit into the hillside with minor or moderate
regrading; the hillside shall not be sigirificantly regraded to accommodate new
buIldings. There is no sim lp e wa �} to c�uantifythis standard. but its purpose is to
maintain the stabilitv of slopes and to save trees, while nreventing excessivelv tall
retainin¢ walls and unamactive troueh-shaped vards between buildines and
retainin� walls.
e. Vertical dimensions of buildings sha11 be emphasized over horizontal dimensions.
7
03-33p'
Mu1ti-story houses are encouraged; low, horizontal types of houses like ramblers
are prohibited.
f Garage doors shall be downplayed architecturally and front doors should be made
inviting and prominent. While it is aesthetically desirable to put garage doors
behind the front door or to the rear or the side of the house, these design
altematives can be nnpractical for steep lots without alleys and where pavement
aggravates run-offproblems.
g. Existing trees (but not buckthom) shall be preserved where possible. Irvine
Avenue itself should appear as a wooded lane. (See Figure D on the Figure-
Crround Relationship Between Trees and Building on the Irvine Avenue Hillside.)
Trees to be preserved should be protected during construction. New trees should
be planted to partially obscure parking lots and new hillside buildings.
h. New retaining walls shall be built of stone or masonry materials and shall be
designed to last. Retaining walls taller than four feet shall be constructed under
City pernut with frost footings as required by the State Building Code and shall be
engineered to retain lateral earth pressures consistent with the principles of soils
mechanics, and shall be detailed to min;m;ze hydrostatic pressures. On a case by
case basis, LIEP may relas these standards for retaining walls that serve minor
landscaping purposes.
Advisorv Desi�n Guidelines
Houses should have gable or hipped roofs with angles that respond to the slope of
the land.
j Houses should hazmonize with the natural environment through the choice of
exterior materials and colors. Exterior materials are regulated on the north side of
Irvine through the Heritage Preservation Commission; they are not regulated on
the south side of the street. The City does not regulate color.
k. Since view protection is important to everyone, there should be neighborly contact
and "negotiation" during the design stage of new construction or major
landscaping projects about its anticipated effects on other homes.
11. The properfy owners on the Irvine Avenue hillside should continue to work cooperatively
to eradicate buckthorn from the hillside. Common buckthorn is an exotic species that was
widely used for hedges in the fizst half of the twentieth century. It has spread widely in
parks and natural azeas, where it is crowding out native and desirable landscape species.
Nurseries haue been prohibited from selling it in Minnesota for several years. In the Irvine
medians where buckthom is growing between the buttressing stonework, the buckthorn
removal must be done without disiodging the stones or destabilizing the slope. Buckthorn
removal projects are already being done in other parts of the city, for example along
Mississippi River Blvd. and Linwood Pazk. Small grants from Parks and Recreation are
available in 2002 for volunteer buckthorn removal projects. It is unknown whether there
will be funding in future yea=s.
0
" 03-3�8'
Figure-Ground Relationship Between Trees and Buildings
on the lrvine Avenue HiUside
Tree-covered hiiiside.
Current siate of hiliside. Tree canopy
dominates with limited development.
Hillside with limited additional
development permitted by the Irvine
Avenue Plan. Tree canopy still
dominates.
Potenfial for hiliside without limifs on
development. Buildings dominate.
Figure D ;
.
.
:
__ __-- - -------------- - . . - -
_ -----_____ . . :.
- . __...,_,_.
03 -� 3�'
Historic Character
12. The north side of Irvine Avenue is within the Historic Hill District. The guidelines for the
historic district should include a policy on preserving Irvine Avenue's historic character as
a lane of homes and carriage houses, recognizing how distinct the street is &om most of
Ramsey Hill--e.g., irregular spacing of buildings; wide variation in setbacks from the
street; naturalistic landscaping anstead of lawns; and carriage houses facing the street.
City Communications and Enforcement
13. When construction takes place, communications among the City, community
organizations, and immediate residents should be improved. All parties need to be aware
of agreements made between a developer and the other parties. District councils and
other neighborhood representatives need to submit agreements that have been made with a
developer to the appropriate City body in writing so that the City is aware of them. The
City will incorporate the terms of these agreements in any City approvals to the extent
permitted by City regulations and policy. Developers must adhere to these agreements.
If any significant changes aze made to the plans that affect these agreements, the City wili
inform neighborhood representatives, send them a copy of the plan for their review and
give them adequate time to respond to the changes.
14. The City must enforce, to the full e�ctent possible, all of the conditions that it places on
developments during the review process. Appendis D lists the series of development
problems that occurred during the 1990s due to misunderstandings, inadequate
regulations, and/or lax enforcement.
❑ Adopt this plan for Irvine Avenue
❑ Amend the Zoning Code with regard to: pemussible lot splits on steep slopes; parking
standards on Irvine; and the hillside development guidelines in this plan, which include
standards for hydrology, slope stability, and visual character.
❑ Amend the zoning maps based on this plan
❑ Install more signs showing on-street parking restrictions
❑ Amend the Historic Hill District Guidelines to be more specific about Irvine Avenue
❑ When development is proposed, improve communications between the City, the
neighborhood, and the developer
❑ Enforce conditions that are attached to development approvals
K:VShared�Ped�SODEREiOL\IxvineAHixvu�eAVPIan-draft6.wpd 1�
03 -�3�'
Planning Commission Finding
The Plannine Commission finds that the Irvine Avemre Development Plan is consistent with the
Saint Paul Comprehensive PZan and other adopted Citv policies.
PlanningProcess
The Irvine Avenue Plan was prepazed in response to a request by the City Council in October
2001. The CapitolRiver Council and the Plamiing Commission jointly created an Irvine Avenue
Plarming Committee with representation from Irvine Avenue residents, Summit Avenue residents,
the College of the Visual Arts, which also hosted the committee meetings, and the fi� four
neighborhood organizations that surround Irvine Avenue (listed below.) The committee was co-
chaired by an Irvine Avenue resident and a Platming Commission member. It met six times
between November 2001 and April 2002, and held a neighborhood public meeting on its
prelimu�ary recommendations in March 2Q02.
The Plan and zoning amendments were supported by the following neighborhood organizations:
CapitolRiver Council on August 26, 2002
Ramsey Hill Association on August 9, 2002
West Seventh/Fort Road Federation on May 13, 2002
Summit Hill Association on July 25, 2002
Several appendices were prepazed to give more detail and more technical information in support
of the recommendations in the Irvine Avenue Development Plan. The appendices are available
from the Saint Paul Department of Planning and Economic Development, 25 W. Fourth Street,
Suite 1100, Saint Paul, MN 55102 or by calling Lazry Soderhoim, Planning Admuustrator, at
651-266-6575.
Appendix A: City Council Resolution Initiating Irvine Avenue Development Plan
Appendis B: Maps of Land Use, District Council Boundaries, City Council Ward Boundaries,
and the Historic Hill District
Appendix C: Geology and Hydrology of the Irvine Avenue Hillside and Mitigation Techniques
Appendv� D: List of Irvine Avenue Development Issues During the 1990s
Appendv� E: Hallside Protection Policy: Saint Paul and Cincinnati
Appendix H: Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
Appendix F: Membership of the Irvine Avenue Planning Committee
K:\SLazed�PWVSODEREiOLUrv'seANTmneAvPLm-dmtl6.wpd 11
b�-33S'
APPENDICES TO THE IRVINE AVENLiE DEVELOPVIENT PLAN
Several appendices were prepazed to give more detail and more technical information in support
of the recommendations in the Irvine Avenue Development Plan.
Paee
Appendia A: City Council Resolution Inifiating Irvine Avenue 13
Development Plan
Appendix B: Maps of Land Use, District Council Boundaries, City 15
Council Ward Boundary, and the Historic Hill District
Appendix C: Geology and Hydrology of the Irvine Avenue Hillside and 19
Mitigation Techniques
Appendix D: List of Irvine Avenue Development Issues During the 1990s 21
Appendix E: Hillside Protection Policy: Saint Paul and Cincinnati 23
Appendix F: Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
31
Appendix G: Membership of the Irvine Avenue Planning Committee 35
K:\SLared�Ped�SODERHOUIrvuieANirrineAvPlan-draft6.wpd 12
03-�3�
ORlG1NAL
.��i%, i� �
�
/ RESOLUTI
SAINT,�AUL
Presented By
Re£erred To
Council pile ,u, 0 �� ���`
Resolution �
n �_�
Gree. Sneet n ��'���
ESOTA
Committee: Date
�`
1
� IlVITIA'TION OF TRVINE AVENLTE ZONING STUDY
4
5 WHEIZEAS, under Minnesota Statutes Sections 462355 and 462.357 and under the Saint Pau1
6 Legislative Code Section 64.400, the City Council has the power to study areas in the city for the
7 purpose ofrefining the Comprehensive P1an and changin� the zoning ofproperiy;
8 .
9 WHEREAS, Irvine Avenue is an unusual street due to its bluff=side Iocation, split upper and lo�ver
10 roadways; narrow width, and isolation from the normal street grid; thus, the street has significant
11 Iimitations on the amount of traffic and parking it can accommodate;
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
WHEREAS, many of the lots on the upper side of Irvine Avenue have their primary frontages on
Summit Avenue and are lazge enough to subdivide, creating "rear" lots alon� the slopes af Irvine
Avenue. Currently such lots retain the multi-family zoning intended for buildings that would be in
scale with Su�nmit Avenue, but would not be in scale with the wooded lane of carriage houses that
Irvine Avenue has been historically; _
19 WHEREAS, the Irvine Avenue slopes contain several springs and goundwater seeps; thus, some o`
20 the recently buiit houses have experienced probfems with surface drainage and wet basements;
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
��f�REAS, the CapitolRiver Council on July 27, 200I, requested that the City do a zonin� study
of Irvine Avenue for an area bounded by Summit Avenue on the north, Ramsey- Street on the west
I-35E on south, and the 7ames 7. Hi11 mansion public stairway on the east (map attached);
NO�N, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council hereby requests tfiat the Saint Pau1
Planning Commission and staff &om PED and LIEP, with citizen participation, conduct an Irvine
Avenue Study for the area requested by the CapitolRiver Council and report recommendations on
development policies and zoning back to the City Council within six months from the adoption of
this resolution;
13
� 03 -���'
O�RIGlNAL = � � D,-,i
31 BE IT FURTf3BR RESOLVED, that, in the interim, until the Council has had an opporlunity to act
32 on new Ir�ine Avenue development regulations; the Council directs the City's zoning and site pian
33 review staffto interpret and enforce the current regulations strictly to avoid over-development that
34 would risk causing traffic, pazking, and drainage problems. "
35
36
37 . .
38
39
40
41
' 42
• 43
44
45
46
47 ' �
48 .
49
sa
si -
sz
53
54
55
56
57 '
58
59
- 60 �
61
62 _
Requested by Department of:
By:
Foxm Approved by_CiCV Attomey.
8�: � �✓r��-� �
Adoptioa Certified by Council Secretazy
` Aporoved,by diayar £or Submission Co Com'c-�
sy: �-
ppproved by Mayor: Date � ' BY'
ay: J A
S I ' "�� � {1�i��
� ,
14
Adopted by Council�: Daee �� T 00 \
6� -3�g
A�end� B: Irvine Avenue Mans
Existing Land Use Map
District Council Boundaries
City Council Ward Boundaries
Historic Hill District
K:�Sfiaced�Ped�50DERHOL\IrvineAv-AppendixB-Maps.wpd AA-ADAEEO&mploycr
iS
o� -���
A�endix C: Geology and Hydrology of the Irvine Avenue Hillside and
Mitigation Technic�ues
Irvine Avenue is located on a bluffwith a number of springs. These springs have caused problems
for developments on Irvine in the past. (See Append'vc D.) There aze engineering techniques that
can mitigate the impact of these springs for new development. However, they must be properly
designed and installed to be effective.
Why are there springs on Irvine Avenue?
A lazge area to the north of Irvine Avenue,
extending to I-94, is made up of an upper layer of
glacial sediment with a layer of Decorah Sha1e below
it. The glacial sediment absorbs rain water but the
Decorah Shale is unpermeable. So ground water Spri ng
that flows down through the layer of glacial
sediment is trapped once it reaches the top of the �
Decorah Shale. However, the Decorah Shale layer
slopes slightly to the south and so the trapped
ground wa#er flows slowly along the top to the
south.
,' �� . ,
•..�::❖;<.;;s.� -,
;��i`:. <�t`i.>•,......... -
�-.. :
When the layer ofDecorah Shale is exposed at the Irvine Avenue bliiffs the subsurface water that
has been traveling along the top of it is comes to the surface and a spring is formed.
What can be done to mitigate springs?
It is often hard to tell if a site has springs before it is disturbed so the first step for mitigation is to
conduct tests for ground water. These tests need to be done under the direction of a qualified
engineer and should use techniques that minunize disriubance of the existing grades and
vegetation. Based on the results of the test, a plan for dealing with ground water can be
developed.
The two main techniques for protecting a structure from ground water aze to divert water away
from the structure by installing drain tiles and to apply a waterproofing system to the below grade
surfaces of the structure. The diagrams below offer a brief explanation of these techniques but
they aze not intended to take the place of a site specific design by a qualified engineer.
Drain tiles. Drain tiles can installed to pick up
ground water flowing toward a structure and
divert it away from the struchue.
Drain tiles are typically installed on the outside of
the foundation . A layer of porous sand or gravel
is put down at the foundation. Then perforated
pipe is laid on top of this layer with the
perforations facing down. A four inch diameter
pipe is the size that would typically be used for a
single family house. After the pipe is laid, the area
19
a�verc grouna �,vacer
around houses.
azound the stmcture is backfilled with more
porous sand or gravel. The trench and the pipe
should be wrapped in filter fabric that allows water
tluough but keeps out sediment that could
eventually block the pipe. When this type of
system is properly designed and installed, ground
water flowing towards the structure follows the
path of least resistance through the sand or gravel
to the perforated pipe where it is carried away.
The water from the pipe should be directed to a
City storm sewer or to a sump pit. Day Iighting
the water can lead to problems with freezing in the
winter.
p � -33$'
' Granular fiil
' wrapped in
' � filter fabric
Foundation
� Slab
� �;4
�.
. . `�
Drain tile connected
to sewer or sump
In some situations, the drain tiles at the foundation may be supplemented by drain tile under the
floor siab or by drain tile installed away from the structure in a"cut-o�' trench.
Water-proofing. It is important that the below grade surfaces of the structure are free of
cracks where moisture can enter. In addition a physical barrier should be applied to keep ground
water from penetrafing the walls and floor. There are a number of materials and methods used for
this. Some of these are applied as a liquid and dry to form a water-tight membrane. There aze
also rigid systems that can be attached to the wails.
Ground —�� �
Wafer � !
�' � -' :.
`z�]
b3 -33i�
Appendix D: Irvine Avenue Development Tssues in the 1990s
A major issue for the Irvine Avenue neighborhood is compliance and follow-through by City staff
so that pro}ects are buitt as "negotiated" by the district council and(or as approved by the City
(site plan review staff, Heritage Preservation Commission, Planning Commission, Board of
Zoning Appeals, City Council). The putpose of this appendia� is to document the types of
problems and complaints that have arisen and that led to the call for an Irvine Avenue plan.
The Irvine Avenue Planning Committee discussed development problems at the following
locations:
264-266lrvine (Guptil double houses/nose lot)
Front doors switched from south to north sides of the structure after neighborhood review of
project. Change in driveway configuration from approved site plan. Certificate of Occupancy
issued before landscaping and construction debris removal were completed. Foundation walls
significantly altered from the approved building plans. Dispute between developer and townhouse
purchasers about whether moisture in the basements is normal or not; about performance of
association responsibilities during three-year association tumover period; about plan for a third
unit on the site.
275-285lrvine (Lcmder townhauses)
Spring behind 275 Irvine flows azound east side of house continuously, does not feed into storm
sewer, which ends a hundred feet down the street to the west, freezes so deep in winter that it
blocks driveway and seals the garage door shut. Drain tiles were improperly installed, do not
make continuous connections, and French drains get clogged with sediment. Following
neighborhood review and support for variances, the City staff granted historic design approval for
successively cheaper and simpler e�terior materials on each of the three buildings to reach down
to tazget market price points.
West side o� 97lrvine and bo#om of 302 Summit
Appazently another spring. Crroundwater drains continuously and the City has approved a lot split
at 302 Summit for an Irvine Avenue lot.
311 Irvine (French provincial house)
Water seeps continuously down the steep driveway, freezing in the winter and growing slippery
moss in the summer; driveway is sometnnes unusable; no on-street pazking.
K:VShared�PetPSODERHOUIrvineAv-AppendisD-D�Problems AA-ADA-&EO Favploya
ZL
03 -��
365lrvine /old carriage house)
Tall retaiuimg wall has wet weep holes tbat are continuously either icy or mossy
Behind 37� Irvine (otd carriage house up at Summit Ave. Ieve1)
Newly paued Irvine Ave. roadway was washed out below the tall retainiug wall.
378lrvine townhouses (newer townhouses iust offSummitAve.)
The reta ininb wall dowa to Irviue collapsed about three yeazs ago.
Irvine and Ramsev intersection
Drilling down to install a stop sign pole created a spring that washed a deep amount of sediment into 371
Ramsey (artist Clem Harper's house at the time).
Street wash-out and coZlapse
In the eazly sununer of 2002 the curb and part of the street washed out and collapsed on the upper segment
neaz 365 Irvine.
The task force mzmbers submitted additional complaints about Ciiy enforcement in neighborhoods that
they represent, especially in Ramsey Hill and along Grand Avenue; these examples were not included here
because they were outside the Irvine Avenue study area.
The Committee went on to identify number of types of breakdowns in the communications and
failures on the part of the City to meet neighborhood expectations, as follows:
• Changes from conceptual designs (neighborhood review) to final construction drawings
(City building pernuts).
• City inspection staff following basic code requirements without being aware of
agreements beriveen the neighbors and the developer, or even of conditions imposed by
City approval bodies.
• Developer wanting (needuig?) to cut construction costs to be profitable.
• Change orders by developer not that were not subject to City review.
• City goal to add housing units vs. neighborhood concern for quality and comparibility.
• City regulations inadequate for hillside development.
• Unforeseen conshuction problems after initial approval, need to revise plans.
• Lack of continuing communication between City and neighborhood after initial approval of
the development.
K:\SSared�Ped�SODFS2AOLUrvineAV-Appendixi7-DevPxoblems AAADA-EEOEmploya
ZZ
a3 -�3�'
Anuendix E: Hillside Protection Polic�
Saint Paul
The Land Use chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted by the City
Council in February 2002 supports the protection of steep slopes from over-development. Policy
72.2 states:
"The City, neighborhood organizations and environmental groups should reconnect
neighborhoods to the Mississippi River visually with natural landscaping along
ravine edges (Phalen Corridor, Trout Brook, Shepard Davern, Ayd Mill, etc.) and along
bluffs facing the river valley. Where feasible, surface water systems--ponds, wetlands,
and streams--should also be restored. [Emphasis added.]
Having green hillsides facing the river is fundamental to our sense of place--that is, of Saint Paul
as a Midwestern river city. Figure EE from the citywide Land Use Plan follows and shows the
major bluffs and hillsides around the city. None ofthem except for Irvine Avenue have
developable land with multifamily zoning. Almost all of them are zoned for single-family housing,
and usually in districts that require lazger lot sizes.
Cincixuiati
The Irvine Avenue Plamiing Committee looked for good examples of hillside development
guidelines from other cities. The best example came from Cincinnati, a city whose character is set
by the large hillsides that rise up on both sides of the Ohio River. For their metro azea they have a
regional Cincinnati Hillside Trust that works to protect the stability and beauty of all the river
bluffs, including preserving mid-slope greenbelts. They have design guidelines for urban
development along the tops and bottoms of the bluffs, where the slopes are not so steep, but they
work to keep the steeper, mid-slope areas natural and tree-covered. A few pages from the
Cincinnati Hillside Trust's 1991 report follow.
23
K:\SLazed�PedVSODERHOLUrtv�eAv-App �^•FT AA-ADA-&EObmployer
D -�'3Y�
n+Y'"w' ? 4 � 4 .. .,� �, - _ � a "{�w:Y
��� � � r� w g� � � . . :>.'+ ,
� � � i. '
j 6 ` v. I
� � •, � >� ss . ... .a.: <
. T � � � (�
E ..S .�'f�+ : F
�Y'Y: g 5 � �.: ... m �'� r ��f
. a _ = �... � 1 //
' S � 1YAl '� • f�" 'F/�
' h� � p} � � 4�_ � ' 'R� (///
�ry 3$ x. C ' � .`� Y � , �y W .\ ` / a /�//
� � �� � - v � � ��
t � � 1 � j
�g ^ �., T �. . � , 4�
i � ,�js. � T Tr Q' e .r� � 11 l�. ��
� .
� +m�a� .-s�,.Y $� : . �� `� '�°� . - —„�
_ N �v4sswcr . � Fq � ' �
�. " �F� t '��
� 1 .,� � � �: �..r; "-%/
; � : `�„: �. n .�z� r�"� .� j
�� �' � :. � Z ��� . J�' L.
}=' -. .� � - a�
� � ss �n u ° � �.. � i-�+
� � € � �-�• �� � � � �� c ^ � � � }��
• jy F
3NLL1i �,.. ^ / •'k (. . � �'F . S : �, j V / 1�
. 1 � �` - `�' � L d
} � -.:d� � O i
' � i�. � 3
. €"* ' : � "'� " . �'�^ `� a , y � \ 4�
ia 6 �
� �
�� ,� - A ; ' a� �. .. �...s � ; t ��y� R -- � 3 N N i
C: ' v— � �
. " " � ..'w�p+ . r �;�� m O r '°
�.'ws � � , .<, y �is aHC � N Z
^ �` u " � �� � � � «s,"�� C Q Q c
� �>, � �
� , . . ,. ; � � O O E
� `��. ' �s �s.
_ �,
r . �
Mx� - I�i ,� y' e� � CA Cfl R
,Y. .� � � � �' �°a § �' G� a
�� � ;. 3H��, � � ��� 4 � � � .� �
: �i �s &- � "� . - 9A �' I aj 3 � �'� w
. .� =r •�o? .' � �� � ,'v. �- �. M � O
� ° � � � N n d
, '.� x �
#': s , .. ;; . � rHO > £ . �
* � � ` �
` °*^. � �•-' - �.
y � ` T
.� � � ZS NH`i ` � •� � d
. Y .. $ ; ° � ,,� ', `
3
6 S' . i �a t'� ', '�`l N
;c�� ' s_ °.. . . � ♦
� �ti � 3t4 W�Dw[3 H .����,�r.�,r.�, � h.,
,. �� �
a c� . <� � � t � �; � .. �� .
s� ,� � ; ' � ,.,.: <�,: ;?� �
P
�L '.n 3�wna h aw�w � � � •�
�2 ��.? " x'. . 1� `
� � � 5 ,� "� .�a ..�.F�_. f �� ��'..
x :,
� 6 n , � " � _ . ,.
� ;� � . .
., . �'.. �I ° ��r.- � � --'�` �- .?.
t a � ^ [� &'.> � ��
^^s.�E. ' � iA�+ea �.. 3m . _Ft
1 . ' - S ¢ . E , .
� E , M ba»i t ' " � . . , . -�
� �" f
.. �� — 3 "' 3 +°� f �" T � : , e, �= ��'� l�
i Y.�i' . � 3n3 N µ O Y�3� W OS � . 'Y
If� p- .,'�� � � '..us ",� ai
C F "$ q ' ^ y t:.'�' �.�
X'E.,.,.,. ' �.; 3ww+34�'
�; .. ` i� .;� :�.=.
4= ��
r ,. � � � " f / �,
�
� ' �° ". �rj'yd�k �� 5Sk� ������� �E�,e � ���93u �.%'
�__ _ .. �.� � .-..
-. . ._. , a
76 24 City of Saint Paul
�
r
,
�:
�. � � �
. . . . .. � � . 1 '' � .
� A Hi6lside Pro�e�� �
3: Develqpr
Cincinnafi's'
..�� ,.,�,��u�- �, u�� .
e
gy for Greater Cincinnati:
�elines for Greater "
z,. •
�
';�
o� - �3�'
4. Guidelines Based on Visual
Preferences
Preserve mid-slope greenbelts
�
� .�
Suburban patterns
„
H orizontai buildings
Small mass buildings
Large mass buildings
Highrise buildings
Urban pattems .,-
�
Horizontal buildings
�
Large mass buildings
Small mass buildings
�-?�
� Fundamental guidelines Recommended guidelines
19
26
6�-�SY
uiGLi RISE
HOR¢D�AL MA55
- - e -- -- - - - ---
srnnu. Na.ss .
This chapter discusses what types ofi hillside development, in
what patterns and in what locations are most suitable. These
conclusions have been drawn from our visual preference study,
as described in the preceding chapter. In a few instances our
recommendations are also based in part on comments of study
participants, made while they were constructing on the
computer their images of ideal patterns of hillside development.
These comments usually were explanations of the reasons
underlying the subjects' design decisions or qualifications of
their preferences.
In this chapter, as in the ones that follow, our explanatory text is
interspersed with specific development guideli�es, which are
also included in the computer data base described in the
preceding chapter.
We summarize here a few fundamental points concerning the
approach and define severa! criticai terms. A detailed
compilation of the responses of those who participated in the
visual preference study can be found in Appendix A, along with a
complete explanation of the methodology employed.
The study was structured to examine four aspects of hillside
development. These are:
• Preferred types of buildings.
• Where buildings should be located on
the hilisides.
• How buildings should be grouped and
distributed.
• Preferred densities of development.
In the study four buifding types were presented to our
participants:
• Highrise or vertical
• Lowrise or horizontal
• Large mass
• Small single mass
-- Highrise buildings are defined as those taller than 50 feet and
__ �aec-E_Mnss __ � a base less than 50 feet in any horizontal dimension. These
are frequently tall apartment or condominium towers. Lowrise
or horizontal buildings are considered those lower than 50 feet
and with a long base axis relative to their height. Examples are
row housing and long walk-up apartment structures of two to
three floors. Large mass buildings are those of considerable
20
z�
�
05 -�3�t
bulk, visible from great distances, but not necessarily considered
to be highrise structures or primarily horizontal in character.
Examples might be hospitals and some types of schooi and
office buildings. Small single mass buildings are usually
residential types - either single family homes, duplexes or very
small apartment buildings.
(n order to distinguish different locations on the hiflsides where
buildings are placed, five horizontal zones were established.
These are:
• The upland flat or hilltop zone
• The rim edge
• The mid-slope or hill face
• The bottom edge
• The valiey bottom
As might be imagined, the upland flat area is the relatively level
land completely above the crest of the hill. The rim edge is that
transitional zone at the crest where the land becomes
progressively steeper. The mid-slope zone usually comprises
the broadest band of the hill - its steeper parts below the rim
edge down to the bottom edge, which is the zone of transition
to the valley 6ottom. The latter term, of course, refers to the
relatively flat land at the foot of the hill,
With respect to distribution of b�ildings, project participants
were presented with fhree choices: iso4ated singie structures,
rz�t scc,E r=�-""- - - - -
n� �
i � , �, �r,`� ;,r
eo,roM�� �l��l�
E""
-------------
VHtLEY80TTL7M -�
21
�
� -33Y
� 1�
clustered buildings, and structures distributed relatively evenly
throughout a hillside zone. These patterns might describe
arrangements of a single building type or more than one. Finally,
density was used as a relative term to describe, from a strictly
visual point of view, different degrees of saturation of the
hillsides with buildings.
Participants in the study were asked to indicate their reactions to
a series of images each showing development where these
variables were mixed in different ways. As previously explained,
the participants were also given an opportunity to construct on
the computer their images of the ideal pattern of development
on a hillside - in either an urban or a suburban setting.
Preserving the Mid-Slope Greenbelt
Perhaps the most powerful conclusion that can be drawn from
the visual preference study is the high value that virtually all
participants p{aced on preserving some open space on the
hilisides, regardless of the type, pattern or location of
development they preferred. The nature of open space
preferences varied considerably. Some participants were clearly
opposed to any development at all on portions of the hilisides.
Most showed a preference tor low density distributed or
clustered development with areas of green threaded through it
Regardless of these differences, however, their emphasis on
retention of a dominant green character on the hillsides seems
to relate to a common subconscious image of the region's
hillsides as a forested greenbelt. The panel of participants
included some city dwellers and some suburbanites. Yet in
constructing their idealized hiilsides, even those who seemed to
have a more urban outlook left better than 40% of their hillsides
green.
This image of largely green hillsides as the norm may be based
on the character of our hillsides now and, in turn, the reasons for
their appearance. The relative difficulty and expense of
developing hillside sites, as opposed to sites in the valley floor or
the "upland tlats" has historically resulted in a de facto hillside
greenbelt network threading itself throughout the region, even in
the more densely developed areas. This greenbeft generalfy
follows the "mid-slope" zone - the area below the hill crests and
above the bottom edges of the hilis. Only in recent years has
the saturation of deveiopment on flatter sites in urban areas and
the premium placed on view properties begun to change this
picture.
As a result of the strong unanimity of preferences concerning
open space on the hillsides, and based on the idealized images
22
29
03 •��
constructed by the participants, the following guideline seems
fundameniai. (Note: In this chapter and those which follow,
guidelines considered to be fundamentai are so noted and
presented in bold face.)
■ Guideline A (Fundamental)
Local communities should continue the historic
precedent of retaining a mid-slope belt of forested
open space on their hillsides.
As indicated above, in most cases the participants' preferences
for maintenance of the forest cover on the hillsides - and
especially in the mid-slope zone - did not exclude the possibility
of some degree of development. Taken as a whole, the
particular patterns of development most often preferred support
the following guidelines.
Guideline B
Local communities, even those in more central and
urban locations, should encourage patterns of hillside
development increasing in density toward the upland
flat and valley bottom zones of hillsides.
Guideline C
Where development is to occur in the mid-slope zone
of the hillsides, local communities should make efforts
to insure that a"mosaic" of development is nestled
into the forest cover, rather than completely
eliminating large areas of vegetation.
A
_�,l Y.� �-- �' �---
MID-SLOPE FpRES�'
Q
�-p�- ---- Q - Q-----
�I� ��
C
�� �
+A� ,Q� �' �R
� � �
' �, * � /A
A 'A' '� A '� �A
.
1
�I ' ♦ ' �
23
_ 30
43 -�38'
Draft as recommended by Planning
Commission 10/11/02
Annendix F• Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
The City zoning staff propose that the zoning recommendations in the Irvine Avenue
Development Plan be implemented t1u ough three types of amendments of the Zoning Code:
(1) Zoning map changes to single-family zoning districts.
(2) Citywide zoning te� amendments for the proposed hillside development standards
that would improve the City's regulation of steep slopes everywhere in the city.
About half of the Irvine Avenue hillside development proposals have general
applicability, and they are contained in the zoning amendmerns below.
(3) A specific reference in Zoning Code to the additional hillside development
standards for Irvine Avenue and Pleasant Avenue to ensure that they will not be
overlooked during the City's site plan review process. This is done in Section
62.108(g)(5) belo.w.
The following amendments to the Zoning Code aze proposed in the Irvine Avenue Development
Plan, in addition to the zoning map changes:
Citywide change to prevent the creatian of separate lots that are too steep to buidd on.
Sec. 67.304. Approval of lot splits and adjustments of common boundaries.
Lot splits and adjustments of common boundaries are pernutted without platting, provided
the following conditions are met:
Add a new condition "7" to the Zist.
� No lot shall be created where the buildingpad area for a grinci�al structure has a
has an e�sting slope steeper than eiehteen (18) percent or where a drivewaY
steeper than twenty1201 roercent is required to reach the buildin� site. A lot split
that creates a steeper lot ma ��be_a�nroved bv the planning administrator where the
steeper lot is specifically consistent with a neighborhood plan or redevelopment
project aporoved bv the citv council.
K'\Shved�Ped\SODFI2EIOUCopy of i[�v�eAv-AppendixF-ZoningAvt3�IdIDffieBF,&�i�ployer
31
b3 •�
Sec. 67.306. Planning administrator and board of zoning appeals approval.
Small amendment to add a re, ference to the new "7" above. Assigns responsibility for
var-iances to the board of zoning appeals.
(b) Where condition {�j-ar (3�61. or (71 of section 67.304 is not met, the board
of zoning appeals shall hold a public hearing to consider the variance from the
required condition....
Sec.67.508. Lots.
Thzs is an amendment to the subdivision regulations. Subdivisions are reviewed by the
City Council.
(d) Lots on slopes. Newly created lots must allow for a minimum setback for
development of forty (40) feet from the top of bluff lines as defined by the
comprehensive plan. Lot arrangement shall avoid,�viiorcverpassib�� the
placement of princi� structures on eighteeir{�8 slopes ar steeper than
eiehteen (181 nercent or a need for driveways steeper than twenty (20) oercent to
reach buildin�s, or the necessity to alter suek slopes stee�er than ei htg een (182 for
purposes of construction. The council may apnrove stee�er lots where the steener
lots are specificall�consistent with a nei�hborhood plan or redevelopment oroiect
annroved bv the council.
2. Citywzde hillside design standards for residenfial development
Sec. 62.108. Site plan review (ali districts)....
(a) A site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the plaTUring commission
[for}... -
(7) Any development on a slope of twelve (12) percent or greater.
� Review of residentiaJ develonment on steep slooes In reviewing residential
develo�ment on slopes of ereater than twelve (121 percent, the zonin�
administrator shall in addition to ¢eneral site plan standards above, consider the
followine requirements and standards:
� An en � eering report on slope stabilitv and hydrolo�v if the zonine
administrator determines that such a report is warranted based on the size
of the proposed development and an�record of soil aroundwater. and
erosion in the vicinitv Such report must be preroared by a re isg tered
hvdrolo 'cal, eotechnical or soils en 'g�neer.
K:�Sluied�Ped\SODEREiOUCopyofl�vineAV-AppendixF-Zo' ployer
2
32
03 -3 3Y
Before a gradine nemut will be issued the followin� elements of the
engineerin�oort must be submitted to the Citv and appioved:
(a) An evaluation of e�stine conditions includine slope stabilitv eround
water, and surface water. Testin� should use techniques that m;n;m;ze
disturbance to eacisting slopes and veeetation (for example, drilling cores
for soil sam�les rather than dig�ina_ with a back hoe.l
�b,l Site-specific recommendarions for constmction. Recommendations
will depend on site conditions but may include the use of drain tIles, water-
proofin walls noured concrete foundations and sum�pumns
(cl A schedule of inspections to be attended bv Citv statF the builder and
the eneineer who pre�azed the report As a m;n;m� inspections shall be
scheduled prior to rag ding after eradin� and durine installation of anv
special measures required to deal with slo� stabilitv or water conditions
Before anv additional buildin� pernuts will be issued a post-�radin�report
must be submitted and ap�roved by the City. This report must document
conditions after gradine, note an�problems or conditions that were not
anticipated or adequately addressed in the pre- r��portion of the
eneineering revort and make recommendations for solutions to anv
problems found.
� Buildines should be desiened to fit into the hillside without sienificant
shaved vazds between buildin�s and retainine walls Multi-storv buildings
aze encoura¢ed to reduce the size of the buildina footprint.
� E�stina trees shall be preserved where possible and shall be protected
durine construction New trees should be planted to partially obscure new
hillside buildines and pazking,
� Retainin¢ walls taller than four feet shall be constructed under Citv permit
with frost footin se as required bv the State Buildine Code and shall be
engineered to retain lateral earth pressures consistent with the principles of
soils mechanics, and shali be detailed to i7riirimize hvdrostatic oressures.
On a case � case basis, the zoning administrator may relax these standazds
for retauun¢ walls that serve minor landscapine purposes.
� On Irvine Avenue and on Pleasant Avenue between Ramsev Street and the
Walnut Street roublic stairwav. additional hillside desi�n standazds and
Quidelines applv as listed in the Irvine Avenue Development Plan of 2002.
Renumber existing paragraphs (g) and (h).
K:\Shared�PedVSODERHOL\CopyoflNmeAv-ApprndixF-Zo' ployer
33
��-�
3. Special off-street parking requirement for Irvine Avenue.
Sec. 62.103. Parking requirements.
(g) Pazldng requirements by use. Except as provided in section 60.573 [downtown
zones], the m;n;mum number of off-street pazking spaces by type of use shall be
determined in accordance with the following schedule:
Land Use - Residential Minimum Number of Parking Spaces
Single-family in R-LL zones 2.0 spaces per unit
Housine on Irvine Avenue 2.00 spaces per unit plus one (12 uest
oazkine area ep r unit
Single-family 1.5 spaces per unit
Two-family/duplex 1.5 spaces per unit
Low/mid-rise apartment 1.5 spaces per unit
High-rise apartment 1.5 spaces per unit
Condominium 1.5 spaces per unit
Sec. 62104 Off-street parking facility standards and design
Add new number "18":
18 For housine on Irvine Avenue, a�uest parkine space mav be vrovided on
the drivewav or elsewhere. If it is provided eisewhere, a�uest parkina area
is exempt from setback requirements for parking snaces and it mav be
surfaced with eravel.
K:\Shazed�Ped\SODERHOUCopyofIrvineAwAppendixF-Zonin ployer
0
34
D3-�3Y
Appendig G: Membership of the Irvine Avenue Planning Committee
Committee Members
Karen Avaloz, Co-chair, Irvine Avenue resident
Dan Coffeen, Irvine Avenue resident
Judith Dean, Summit Avenue resident
Dave Greig, Irvine Avenue resident
George 7ohnson, Co-chair, Saint Paul Planning Commission
Jim Keane, Ramsey Hill Association
Bazbara Leigh-Kaplan, realtor
John Lenertz, College of the Visual Arts
Betty Moran, West Seventh Federation
Ron Prokosch, Summit Avenue resident
Deborah Rathman, Summit Hill Associa6on
�
Tom Beach, Office of License, Inspection, and Environmental Protection (LIEP)
Mary Nelson, CapitolRiver Council
Larry Soderholm, Department of Planning and Economic Development
Technical Advisors
The committee thanks the following people for giving technical advice:
Terry Swor, American Engineering and Testing
Matt Swanson, Ramsey County Soil and Water Conservation District
John Mazcko, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Department
Tom Riddering, City Building Of�cial, LIEP
Amy Spong Heritage Preservation Specialist, LIEP
35
KiStiazed�Ped\SODERHOLUrvineAv AppendixG-ctemembership.wpAA-ADA-EEO Employer