09-1286Council File # 09- 1286
Green Sheet # 3086656
ORDINANCE
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented
by
/
a'�
1 An ordinance amending Leg. Code §60.103, Intent and purpose, §61.401, Site
2 plan, §61.402, Site plan review (all districts), §63.110, General design standards,
3 §63.310, Entrances and exits, §63.136, Paving, and §63.501, Accessory
4 buildings of the Zoning Code pertaining to design standards. �U�LISFJ�
5 T� courrciL o� T� ciTY o� sa�rrT rAUL noES o�anv ,�p� �¢ Z ���
6
7
Section I
8 That Legislative Code § 60.103, entitled "Intent and Purpose," is hereby amended by deleting the present
9 language under subsections (p), (q}, (r), and (s) and adding thereto new language by adding a new subdivision (t),
10 so as to read as follows:
11 Sec.6�.1�3. Intent and purpose.
12 This code is adopted by the City of Saint Paul for the following purposes:
13
14 (p)
15
16
conservation•
17 �9) T.. A..a :� `,�'� ...,.o ....`'..a.::....,, .^.�.�.i:; �..`'.:'....��"'.^a.�:'... :i�°.';,.�.o ..
.. Y� °° ��°To nrovide for the ada�tive reuse of
18 nonconformin� buildin¢s and structures and for the elimination of nonconforminQ uses of ]and;
19 (r) To
20 define the powers and duties of the administrative officers and bodies;
21 (s) T� Y:�::�� �: ^�-^°--' �F°^^:^^ °���°'° °°-' :*� „�° �° °°a a..«:��To provide penalties for violations ofthe
22 provisions of this code or any subsequent amendment thereto; and,
23 (t) To provide for a board of zonine apoeals and its oowers and duties.
24
25
Secrion 2
26 That Legislative Code Chapter 61 is hereby amended as follows:
27 Sec. 61.401. Site plan review ¢enerallv.
28 A site plan shall be submitted to and approved bv the zoninQ administrator before ^" ���s--`ro�� building
29 permits are issued for a!! new buildings or building expansions. Buildine permit apolications for new buildines or
30 building expansions shall be accompanied by a site plan, and buildinq elevations drawn ta scale and ������s
31 showing the following:
32 (3) The existing aod intended use of the zoning lot and of all such structures upon it, including, i�t for residential
33 uses areas, the number of dwelling units the building is intended to accommodate.
34 Sec. 61.402. Site plan review bv the plannine commission �w�:-�'°,�-:R;�.
35
09-1286
37 That Legislative Code Chapter 63 is hereby amended as follows:
38 Sec. 63.110. GeaeFal Buildine design standards.
39 , ,
40 .
41 ,
42 .... ..�.e_o ,.r«�.:..
43
44
45 , ,
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
..
(a�) A primary w"'� entrance° �^ °'�� of princioal structures shall r°°° "�� °�T°^� °'�°�:°�- �°'�':�
:A,...dA,.i.lo f«..«. �i... ,.t...,..� ..�.A be located within the front third of the structure� be delineated with elements
such as roof overhangs, recessed entries, landscaping, or similar design features; and have a direct pedestrian
connection to the street. In addition, for one- and two-family dwellin�s, a primarv entrance shall either: 1)
face an improved abutune street; or 2) be located off of a front porch, foyer, courtyard, or sirrulaz azchitectural
feature, a�d set back at least eight (81 feet from the side lot line.
L) For rincipal buildin�s excent indushial production processine storage public service and utilitv building,
above grade window and door onenines shall comprise at least fifteen (151 �ercent of the total azea of exterior
walls facin¢ a public street or sidewalk In addition for new principal residential buildines above erade
window and door openings shall comorise at least ten (10) nercent of the total azea of all exterior walls.
Windows in eaza¢e doors shall count as ooenines the azea of earaee doors themselves shall not count as
o enin s. For residential buildings, windows shall be clear or translucent. For nonresidential buildin�
windows may be clear, translucent, or opaque.
(c) In pedestrian-oriented commercial districts EgeAe�aK� characterized by storefront commercial buildings built
up to the up blic sidewalkj, new �iee �nncipal structures shall a�-EI�
o.,:ia;..T.. .,..,n ,,o ..,. ,.,�. o «,. «�.. .;a,.�. ,.n_ .. .. �� � tiave a masimum setback of fifteen (151 feet from a
commercial front lot line. (� At intersections, buildings shall "hold the corner; ' that is, have street facades a�
°°- "� °;�'�.� °,,.° �F within fifteen (15) feet of the lot line along both streets, or the site olan shall have
vertical structural elements that "hold the corner." A nrimarv entrance shall face a nrimary abuttine nublic
street.
69
70 �a� > ,
71
72 ,,.., ��a-. ,
73
74
7S Ri1i: �..�.a.l F�.. �.� ...11 ». . 6�roA t.. .:Ae o A.. ..A i:.,..l.:l:t. F..« C:. Fl
n Y �� Y r �; � ,
76 (d) Buildin¢ materials and architectura] treatmenu used on sides of buildines facinQ an abuttin�public street
77 should be similu to those used on piincipal facades.
78 (e) ,4}} The visibility of rooftop mechanical equipment shall be reduced throueh such means as location,
79 screenin e�, or inte afion into the roof desi ' ' °° -��`-'�� ^°"�° �°•-���
� En' �n :..,... ..... n,,... :u�.. yt�
80 a ,i;�°° ' I�[�€tri.r^i '_��__a�..« , .�.w.': �° �_.�...:� �y t::� �;:::�a::_,. _..U..n t�., ,,.,.,.. a r
81 �...,.,,��s. -- ---, .
09-1286
8Z ��........., i...il }.e �a� 1...../� .. .a:�r�..�e ,.t .. .,.i ,. 0 1...1F /lt/\ t � l.e;..l.r F�..... . F.....,,lo
83 . Screenin�s shall be of durable, permanent materials '°�� ��°'° o.•�� that aze
84 compatible with the primary building materials. Exterior mechanical equipment such as ductwork shall not be
85 located on primary building facades.
86 �f For piOp ertv with local historic site or district designation, compliance with applicable historic guidelines shall
87 be sufficient to meet the reauirements of this section.
88 a
89 ,. _ :.:.. ......:.:....� _ ,,.« ,.,...F,..._...: m..,.o .,,:� ,.,.,
:..'�.j...5. :"_......
90 �. . D .. b
91 .
92 a , ,
93 , ,
94 , .
95 Sec. 63.310. Entrances and exits.
96 Adequate entrances and exits to and from the pazking facility shall be provided by means of cleazly defined and
97 limited drives. The number of curb cuts shall be minimized. and shazed curb cuts for adiacent nazkinQ azeas are
98 encoura�ed When driveways no loneer lead to legal off-street nukinQ the drivewav and curb cut shall be removed
99 and Iandsca�Q and curbine shall be restored
100 Sec.63.316. Paving.
101 All pazk9ng spaces, driveways and off-street parking faciliues shall be paved with standard or pervious asphalt or
102 concrete, or with brick, concrete or stone ao vers• ^�'�°- a^-°'� a..°"°°° °. or e€ material compazable to the
103 adjacent street surfacing, in accordance with eEket specifications of the zoning administrator.-,
104 }�e�aue� within one (1) year of the date of the permit except as provided in section 61.402(e). For one-fanuly and
105 two-family dwellin�s, drivewaypavement may be limited to wheel tracks at least two (2) feet wide
106 For one-family throueh four-family dwellings, and for townhouses with eazage doors that face and front on a public
107 streeL driveways in front vards shall be no moie than twelve (12) feet in width except that a driveway mav be ugYo
108 four (4) feet wider than the sazaee door within 30 feet of the �a�e door The total amount o�avine for surface
109 pazkiuQ spaces for ona-familv and two-family dwellines shall not exceed fifteen (15) oercent of the lot azea or one
110 thousand (1000) sc�uare feet, whichever is less.
111 Sec. 63.501. Accessory bmldings and uses.
ll2 (b) Accessory buildings, structuies ox uses shall not be erected in oi established in a required yazd except a reaz
ll 3 yard. The followine addiuonal standards shall ap�ly to residential pazkine�
114 (1) Access to off�treet nazldne shall be from an abuttina improved allev when available except where it is
115 determined in the review of a site nlan application that there are circumstances unigue to the pronertv that
17 6 make this imnractical unreasonable ox harmful to the pnblic safety On comer lots access to oarldn� mav
117 be &om the side street.
118 (2) Off-street paxkin� suaces shall not be located within the front yard
119 U Garaees shall be set back from the front lot line at least as faz as the princioal structure (in the case of
120 aCtached eazaees this refers to the non-¢azage part of the structurel
121 (4) Exceot in t6e reu vard, earage doors that face a roublic street shall be no more than nine (91 feet in hei�
122 and shall not exceed sixty (60) percent of the width of the rn incipal structure facing the same street
123 � Passenger vehicles may be parked on an aporoved driveway in front or side yazds provided the�ateQ
124 � driveway t� leads to a legal parldng space.
09-1286
125 � On comer lots, accessory buildings, structures or uses shall be set back from the street a distance equal to that
126 required of the principal structure.
127
128
129
130
131
132
When an accessory buiiding, slructure or use is constructed in a rear yazd which adjoins a side yard or front
yazd, the accessory building, structure or use shall be set back from the interior lot line a distance equal to the
minun� side yazd required of the principal structure.
On all other lots, accessory buildings shall be set back at least three (3) feet from all interior lot ]ines, and
overhangs shall be set back at least one-third (1/3) the distance of the setback of the gazage wall or one (1) foot,
whichever is greater.
133 � This setback requirement from all interior lot lines for accessory buildings in rear yacds shall be waived when a
134 maintenance easement is recorded as to the afFected properties, when proof of such recorded easement is
135 provided at the time of application for a building permit and when the accessory building is located at least
136 three (3) feet from any building on an adjoining lot. The recording of the maintenance easement shall be
137 interpreted to mean that the following intents and purposes of this setback requuement are met:
138
139
140
141
142
(1) Adequate supply of sunlight and air to adjacent property;
(2) Sufficient space for maintenance of the building from the same lot; and
(3) Frevention of damage to adjoining property by fire or runoff from roofs.
A recorded common wall agreement is permitted in lieu of a maintenance easement if the accessory structure is
attached to an accessory structure on an adjoining lot
143 §63.501, renumber paragraphs (c) through (g) as pazagraphs (e) through (i).
I44
145
Section 4
146 This ordinance shall become effective thirry (30) days after its passage, approval, and publication.
PU6LISHED
JAN 14 101Q
Bostrom
Carter
Stazk
Thune
Adopted by Council: Date f-z
Adoption Certified by Council ecretary
BY� �ircll!�Jr9
Appro by a r: ate 4
BY� L
Requested by Depaztrnent of.
B �` � � u. �'G�
� �v�� �, � � � f zz.
Form Ap o b r City Attomey
By: �W • WlyY�
, ���:� � ��. � �� .,�,'��� ��. �. ;
�r
. _
� Green Sheet Green Sheet
d4-i28u
Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet
�
�
DepartmenflOfScelCouncil: Date Initiated:
PE _Planning&Economic 05NOV20�9 Green Sheet NO: 3086656
Development
Contact Person & Phone: DeoartmeM SerN To Person li ' ialiDa
Luis Pe2ira 0 ' & Emnomic Develo me Doma Drummond �� 6 p�
266-6591 . 1 '& Ecoaomic Develo m De armient DireMOr
�� 2 ' Attorne Peter Warner � � �'S ,
Must Be on Council genda by (Date): Number
18-NOV-09 }�� (Z/r' For 3 a or'sO�ce Ma or/Assistant �
Routing 4 oancil Sath Lan
Doe.Type:OR01NANCE Order 5 ' Clerk C5 Cleck �
E-Document Required: Y
DocumeMContact: LuisPereire ������
ContactPhone: 266-6591
Total # of Signature Pages �(Clip AII Locations for Signature) �� �' �3 "'
Action Requested:
Review and adopt the Plaoning Commission's cecommendation on design standards zoning amendments. In��'ct e'
ENS policy, the public hearing (3rd reading) must be scheduled for December 16, 2009. �° �\,' ��
*In accordance with the ENS policy, the public heating (3rd reading) must be scheduled for December 16, 2009.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): personal Service Contrects Must Answerthe Following Questions:
�_ Planning Commission �, Has ihis personffirm ever worked under a contract for fhis departmenY?
CIS Committee Yes Mo ,
Civil Service Commission 2. Has this persoNfirtn ever been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this personffirm passess a skill not normally possessed by any
curzent city employee? .
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and aNach to green sheet
Initiating Problem, issues, OppoRunity (Wkw, What, When, Where, 4Vhy): �
Council Resolution 09-63, passed by the City Council in 7anuary 2009, instructed the Pianning Commission to undertake and pzepaze
a fom�al study on oprions for design standards for regula6ng single- and two-family residenrial shuctures and make
recommendations to the Council on zoning amendments before the expiraflon of an interim ordinance that specified a set of interim
regilations (Council File 09-64).
Advanpges If Approved:
The Planning Commission's recommended set of ordinance amendments, informed by a robust series of discussions of its
Neighborhood Planning Committee as well as substanfial communiry testimony at public hearings on May 22, 2009 and June 5, 2009,
would be put in effect. The ordinance amendments would strengthen and clarify the City's building design standazds, particulazly
those that apply to one- and rivo-faznily dwellings.
Disadvantages If Approved:
None.
Oisadvanqges If NotApproved:
The interim ordinance (Council File 09-64) will expire in February 2010, and so if not adopted, the Planning Commission's
recommendation, which clarifies and shengthens citywide desigi standards as per Council Resolukon 09-63, wouid not be adopted.
Total Amount of
Transacfion: CosVRevenue Budgeted:
Funding Souree; f�� Activity Num6er. "
Financial Information: None. �
(F�cplain)
November 5, 2U09 4:00 PM Page 1
09-1286
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Chrrstopher B. Caleman,
October zg, zoo9
President Lantry and Members ofthe City Council
Room 3oo City Hall
z5 W. Kellogg Boulevard
Saint Paul, MN 55zoz
PLANPIING WMMISSION
�
Brian Atlon, Chob
25 {f'eatFouslhSdeet
SaintPaul, MNSSTG2
Telephone: 631-266-6700
Facsimile: 65I-228-3220
RE: Planning Commission recommendation on Design Standards Zoning Amendments
Dear President Lantry and members of the City Council:
The Pianning Commission has studied options for design standards for one- and two- family
dwellings, as you requested last winter. Our report and recommendations are attached.
The Planning Commission heid public hearings on draftdesign standards amendments to the
Zoning Code last May aa and lune 5. Our Neighborhood Planning Committee, which indudes
two architects and other members with considerable experience with neighborhood, zoning,
and design issues, worked on their response to public testimony on the draft design standards
overthe course ofseveral meetings during the summer and early fall. The Neighborhood
Planning Committee made their recommendations on the draft zoning code amendments to
the Planning Commission on October i6, zoog, and the Commission unanimously approved the
draft as recommended by the committee.
The design standards zoning amendments we are recommending retain key parts ofthe
interim design standards ordinance adopted bythe City Council last February:
e Require site plan reviewforone and two-family dwellings.
o Require a minimum percentage'of the area of exteriorwalls of principal buildings to be
comprised ofwindows and door openings, with a higher minimum standard for walls facing
astreet. Wearerecommendingextendingthisrequirementtoapplytothewallsofmost
commercial and institutional buildingsfacing the street, as well.
The proposed amendments also:
• Newly require principal structures to have a primary entrance within the frontthird of a
structure in addition to the requirement of a direct pedestrian connection to the street and
design elements that delineate the entrance Iocation.
o Newly require a primary entrance of one- and two-family residences to eitherface the
street or be located off of a front porch, foyer, courtyard, or similar architectura I feature
and be set back at least eightfeetfrom the side lot line.
e Modify a stanilard for rooftop equipment to provide some flexibility for options to reduce
the visibifity of rooftop equipment and avoid unreasonabiy restricting sofar panels.
09-1286
President Lantry and Members ofthe City Council
October �g, aoog
Page �
e Consolidate requirements for residential o`f-street parking, induding standards specific to
garages, into §63.5o1(b). Add a requirementthat access to residential off-street parking be
from an abutting improved alleywhen available, except where it is determined in the
review of a site plan application thatthere are circumstances unique to the propertythat
make this impractical, unreasonable, or harmful to the public safety. On corner lots, access
to parking is permitted from the side street.
e Revise §63.326 to permit pervious paving and brick, stone, or concrete pavers for driveways
and parking spaces; to limitthe total amount of paving for surface parking spaces for one-
and two-family dwellings to fifteen percent of the lot area or one thousand square feet,
whichever is less; and to allow paving for driveways for one- and two-family dwellings to be
li mited to the wheel tracks.
• Add a statement to §6o.so3, Intent and Purpose, ofthe Zoning Code to protect water
resources, improve water quality, and promote water conservation.
Testimonypresented atthe public hearing was critical ofambiguous and subjective language in
the design standards public hearing draft, particularly language about relating to the scale and
character of adjacent traditional buildings. Itwas characterized as "worse than useless;' an "I
know itwhen I see it" standard that will result in unpredictable, arbitrary, "because I say so"
enforcement and fruitless aesthetic debates; a potentially ambersome, costly, time-
consuming and adversarial standard to interpret and enforce. A neighborhood organization
representative recommended that the standards be revised to leave nothing open to
interPretation, so thatthey aren't interpreted differentlyfrom one case to another.
The design standards we are recommending remove ambiguous and subjective language. They
a'Iso make the requirementthat buildings at intersections in pedestrian-oriented commercial
districts "hold the corner" more objective and measurable by specifying a maximum z5 foot
setbackfrom both streets. In the draft approved by the Planning Commission, we have
attempted to make the standards clear, concise, reasonable, objective, easyto understand, and
efFicient to administer.
Thank you forthe opportunity to study this matter and present these recommendations to the
Council. Ifwe can be of furtherassistance, please do not hesitate to contact me or PED staff.
Sincerely, �
'�� ;>, f r.
Brian Alton
Chair
C: Mary Erickson, Councii Rasearch
Donna Drummond, PED
Allan Tofsten5on, PED
Luis Pereira, PED
Peter Warner, CAO
WendyLane, DSI
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EQUAL OPPORTUNiTYEMPLOYER
09-1286
city of saint paul .
planning commission resolution
file number 09-64
date October 16. 2009
Design Standards Zoning Amendments
WHEREAS, the City Council, on February 11, 2009, adopted an interim ordinance amending §
61.401, Site plan review generaliy, § 63.110, General design standards, and § 63.316, Paving,
imposing new site pian review and design standards on one- and two-family dwellings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also passed a resolution, Council File # 09-63, directing the Planning .
Commission to study and recommend options for design standards for one- and two-family
dwellings prior to expiration of the interim ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on Apri124, 2009, released draft design standards zoning
amendments for pubiic review, and set a public hearing for May 22 and June 5, 2009; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing notice was published pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 462.357,
Subd. 3, and mailed to the early notification Vist and other interested parties; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed design standard zoning amendments was conducted
by the Planning Commission on May 22 and June 5, 2009, at which all persons present were
811owed to testify, and
WHEREAS, a common theme of public hearing testimony was objection to ambiguity and
subjectivity in parts of the draft design standards; several individuals and groups testified that the
standards need to be clear, cohcise, objective, measurabl'e, and easy to understand and administer
so that nothing is open to interpretation and they aren't interpreted differently from.one case to
another; and
WHEREAS, another cornmon theme of public testimony was that the design standards should allow
architectural innovation, particularly as needed for more sustainable and "green" design, and that
the standards shou{d steer clear of fruitless aesthetic debates; and
WHEREAS, testimony by the District 2 and Distric4 6 Community Councils focused particularly on
the need for houses to have adequate windows and doors facing the street; and
WHEREAS, there was public testimony suggesting that the proposed new standards pertaining to
paving and residentiai parking be more logically located in sections of the code with existing
standards on these topics, rather than in the section on building design standards; and
WHEREAS, the Pianning Commission referred the proposed amendments to the Neighborhood
Planning Committee for consideration, review, of the public testimony, and recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the Neighborhood Planning Committee, on October 7, 2009, forwarded ifs
recommendation to fhe Planning Commission; and
moved by wen��
seconded by
i n favor �nan�mous
against
J' :�
File # 09-64
Planning Commission Resofution
Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the public testimony and the recommendations
of fhe Neighborhood Planning Committee;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, under the provisions of § 61.801 of the Zoning Code and
pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes § 462.357, that the Planning Commission
recommends to the City Council the following amendments ta Chapters 60, 61 and 63 of the Zoning
Code:
Sec.60.103. Intentand purpose.
This code is adopted by the City of Saint Paul for the foilowing purposes:
�P)
To protect water resources. improve water quality.
and oromote water conservation�
r„ a,.��., iM.. .J .J r�a �tie ,�,,,• •��...�:.,,, ,.sr.....� ..,� ti...+•..�TO DI'OVIde foi the
(q) -,��� �„�-�;:�rj-a;,a-�,n�° -�,..�..,,.a
(r}
ar����dr��ereteTo define the powers and duties of the administrative officers and bodies;
(s) ' To provide penalties for
violations of the provisions of this code or any subsequent amendment thereto; and,
(� To provide for a board of zoninq appeals and its powers and duties.
Sec. 61.401. Site plan review peneraliv.
€e� building permits are issued for aN new buildings or building expansions. Buildin�permit
applications for new buiidinqs or buildinq expansions shall be accompanied by a site plan and
buildina elevations drav✓n to scale and sqesifisafier+s showing the foliowing:
(3) The existing and intended use of the zoning lot and of alI such structures upon it including, 'tr�
for residential uses areas, the number of dwelling units the building is intended to
accommodate.
Sec, 61.402. Site pian review bv the plannina commission �^O�a:°��.
Sec. 63.110. General Buildinq design standards.
, �
09-1286
File # 09-64
Pianning Commission Resolution
Page 3 of 5
.�`±�.._. `. .�0..he_5 � nl �F' I.. .._,..�I n..{ he nl'nnic.i
(a�) A primary �t+ild'+ag entrance ^^ -�� ^°�° " �'"�^^° of qrincipal structures shall :^ ^ *�p
,..v,. Cn4rin ..L.�II L.v ..��.,.I., ..:� L.1., n.� :.1�ni'�..L.1., F...m ��,,. ..s.o�.� be loc2ted
� . .... .. . .. .,... . ...._ _.._......__"__
wi4hin the front third of the structure; be delineated with elements such as roof overhangs,
recessed entries, landscaping, or similar design features and have a direct pedestrian
connection to the street In addftion. for one- and two-familv dwellinqs a primarv enfrance
4ine.
�b) For principal buildinqs, except industrial. production qrocessing, storaqe public service and
utilitv buildinas above prade window and door openings shall comprise at least fifteen (151
percent of the total area of exterior walis facinp a public street or sidewalk. In addition for
new principal residential buildinas above prade window and door openinas shall comprise at
leasf ten (10) oercent of the total area of all exterior walls. Windows in paraae doors shall
count as openinas: the area of qaraqe doors themselves shall not count as openincas. For
residential buildings windows shall be clear or translucent. For nonresidential buildinas
windows mav be clear. translucent or opadue.
(c) In pedestrian-oriented commercial districts {�epeFalF� characterized by storefront commercial
buildings buiit up to the public sidewalkj, new eepsErt�sEiea rip ncipal
structures shall have a
maximum setback of fifteen (15) feet from a commercial front lot line. (� At intersections,
buildings shall "hold the corner," that is, have street facades �• ^� ^°�-'"^ °'�'°,^,�"-° ^' within
fifteen (151 feet of the lot line aiona both streets or the site plan shali have verkical structural
elements that "hold the corner." A orimarv entrance shall face a primarv abuttinq pubiic street.
(e) AI4 The visibilitv of rooftop mechanical equipment shali be reduced through such means as
location. screenin�lc ed or inteqration into the roof desiqn
.���y����,..� (t�5._BF��� R R ' � M II 4. ve .J M LM
PQ°�T'� '�"D7 � r'°�'°��9°*PT�� �nmrv�wr crtca
�
sireet- Screeninge shail be of durable, permanent materials {t��E�sk+d+Fl�-�wee�) that are
compatibie with the primary buiiding matariaVs. Exterior mechanical equipment such as
ductwork shall not be located on primary building facades.
1' :i
Flle # 09-64
Planning Commission Resolution
Page 4 of 5
(fl For nroqertv with local hisforic site or district desiqnation compliance with applicable historic
guidelines shall be sufficient to meet the requirements of this section.
. Betaskre�l
i'Ia2E�P� �.I. r....4'....I f�r I . ^ .. ^ .uE�. ^ ... .^.� .". .�'....", vi'� � .�iri.^..i�c.-i�.J s. � _��ar�ora :vu:..n ..v.,.. �rrv
j.�.....�.�.. vjJ v ��.�u��,u
��,�°�9�
Sec. 63.310. Entrances and exits.
Adequate entrances and exits to and from the parking facility shail be provided by means of clearly
defined and limited drives. The number of curb cuts shall be minimized. and shared curb cuts for
adjacent parkinq areas are encouraped When driveways no longer lead to Ieaal off-street parkinq,
the drivewav and curb cut shall be removed and fandscaping and curbina sha11 be testored
Sec.63.316. Paving.
All parking spaces, driveways and off-street parking facilities shall be paved with standard or
e p NIOUS asphait or concrete. or with brick, concrete or stone aavers
sw#asia� or e# material comparable to the adjacent street surfacing, in accordance with stbeF
s ecifications of the zonin administrator: ?�.. ��; �;a^-a;�� °��!� Y,. ��'
p g ,... s " � ,-w..... within one (1) year of
the date of the permit except as provided in section 61.402(e). For one-familv and two-familv
Sec. 63.501. Accessory buildings and uses.
(b) Accessory buildings, structures or uses shall not be erected in or established in'a required yard
except a rear yard. The foliowina additional standards shall aaplv to residentiaf parkinq•
(2) Off-street oarkinq spaces shali not be located within the front vard
1' :i
File # 09-64
Planning Commission Resolution
Page 5 of 5
L4) Except in the rear vard. qaraqe doors that face a public street sf�all be no more than nine
(9) feet in heiqht and shall not exceed sixtv (60) percenf of the width of the principal
structure facinp the same street.
� Passenger vehicles may be parked on an approved driveway in front or side yards
provided the•� ^•^ �^^^�°� ^^ ^^ ^^^•^�•^-� driveway #qa� leads to a legal parking space.
jc� On corner lots, accesso'ry buildings, structures or uses shall be set back from the street a
distance equal to that required of the principal struoture.
When an accessory building, structure or use is constructed in a rear yard which adjoins a side
yard or front yard, the accessory buiiding, sfructure or use shail be set back from the interior lot
line a distance equal to the minimum side yard required of the principal structure.
On aIl other lots, accessory buiidings shall be set back at least three (3) feet from ali interior lot
fines, and oyerhangs shait be set back at least one-third (1!3) the distance of the setback of the
garage wali or one (1) foot, whi chever is greater.
jd� This setback requirement from aii interior Iot lines for accessory buildings in rear yards shall be
waived when a maintenance easement is recorded as to the affected properties, when proof of
such recorded easement is provided at the time of appiication for a building permit and when
the accessory building is located at least three (3) feet from any building on an adjoining lot.
The recording of the maintenance easement shall be interpreted to mean that the following
intents and purposes of this setback requirement are met:
(1) Adequate supply of sunlight and air to adjacent property;
(2) Sufficient space for maintenance of the building from the same lot; and
(3) Prevention of damage to adjoining property by fire or runoff from roofs.
A recorded common wall agreement is permitted in lieu of a maintenance easement if the
accessory structure is attached to an accessory structure.on an adjoining lot.
§63.501, renumber paragraphs (c) through (g) as paragraphs (e) through (i).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission directs the Planning Administrator to
forward the Design Standards Zoning Amendments, appropriate documentation,' and this resolution
to the Mayor and City Council for their review and adoption.
09-1286
�x��RP�, �,f�a�o, p.c. �;�u�-Q�
Penelope Simison, PED staff, said that the plan covers a wide range of issues. There aze a lazge
number of policies in the summary that have to do with impiovemenu, such as streetscape
improvements and Aayden Aeights Library improvements. The plan also incozporates key
policies from previously adopted small azea plans. As with all district plan summaries, once
adopted it becomes pazt of the Comprehenslve Plan.
Chair AIton read the rules of procedure for the public hearing.
The following people spoke.
1. Mr. Chuck Repke, with the White Beaz Avenue Business Association and District 2
Community Council presented banana bread to celebrate the District 2 Plan. The bread
was hand-made by the White Beaz Avenue Queen Marina Jackson. Chair Alton thanked
her and Mr. Repke for the bread. Mr. Repke also wanted to mention one significant
concem about the plan. Ae noted the lack of recreation centers in the northeast quadrant
of District 2 and commented on the Pxosperity Heights Recieation Center. The recreation
building is ciosing and as of today's date theie is finding recommended by the CIB
Committee for the planning of a new recrcation center. This plan summary, based on
input from the Pazks department, does not menfion the iecreadon center. District 2's
issue of concern is there should be some language recommending that a faciliTy be kept
on that site. The GSty needs to be committed to having a building on that site.
MOTION: Commissioner Wencl moved to close the public hearing, leave the record open for
ivriEten testimony until4:30 p.m. on TYeesday, May 26, 2009, and to refer the malter b¢ck to the
Neighborhood Planning Committee for revrew and recommendalion. Commissioner Johnson
seconded the mo[ion. The motion carried unanimously on a voice 'vote.
� Residential Desien Standards Zonine Study — Item from the Neighborhood Planning Committee. �
(Luis Peretra, 65I/266-6591 andAllan Torslenson, 657/266-6579)
Chair Alton announced that the Saint Paul Planning Commissian is holding a pUblic hearing on
the Residential Design Standards Zoning Study. Notice of the public hearing was published in
the Legal Ledger on May I 1, 2009.
Luis Pereira, PSD staff, said that the citywide Eazly Nofification System noflce was not mailed
out in the 30 days prior to the public hearing, so today is the beginning of the public hearing and
it will continue to the next Planning Commission meeGng.
Luis Peieira gave a power point presentation on the proposed Residential Design Standazds. He
presented informa6on on the baekground of the proposed amendments, the City website and a
blog that has been created for comments on the infill design standards:
iiYto:/lwww stpaul..gov/index asp?NID-3000 and htto://stpanlhousedesivn.word,press.com
Commissioner Gordon said that it would be helpful to provide more specifics about the intent
behind what would be unique, practical and reasonable, and to give some examples so people
would have some idea of what the standards are.
Commissioner Barrera said that he did not see or heaz anything in relafion to sustainability,
azchitectural design and energy efficiency. He asked whether these issues have been looked at to
09-1286
see how it would affect the requirements.
Mr. Pereira said that other portions of the City's codes address these issues, including the
building and housing codes, which have recenfly been updated. Alsq there is the City's green
policy, currently under development, and some of that deals with sustainabIlity for residenflal
construc6on.
Mr. Pereira said the required percentage of window zrea is helow the required amount of
windows to meet building and energy codes. Getting some azchitects and designers to look at this
and identify issues where the wning code conflicts with the building and energy codes would be
helpful.
Commissioner Porter said she agzees with what Comrnissioner Bazrera said and her question has
to do with energy, If someone says there is an issue with the energy code, regazding how many
windows are being put in, is there an attempt to balance that or incorporate some of that language
in?
Ms: Wendy Lane, Department of Safety and Inspections staff, answered a quesuons about
conflicts with the building code. Ms. Lane said that there should not be any conflicts between the
recommended zoning standazds and the building code. One of the things tallced about was having
required minimum windows on the side facades of a building. But that was a concem because the
required setback for the side property line for fue rating changed in the newest version of the
building code. Instead, staff looked at the overall percentage of windows and there isn't any
conflict in the building code about that.
Commissioner Wud asked about infill houses. As new houses go in aze thece any stipulations or
requixements as to landscaping and type of vegetation that needs to 6e on site to pxevent erosion
and continue greening in the neighborhood? Are there any plans to include a secfion on
landscaping and the percentage or type of vegetaflon on a new construction infill site7
Mr. Pereira said there was discussion of this in amemo to the Neighborhood Committee. There
are some other areas in the zoning code t6at discuss landscaping and staff did not recommend
adding new language to what is there already. It is not a part af the recommended amendments.
Coaunissioner Scherder said that when someone is making this type of investrnent, single-family
new home construction in a single family residenflal area there is a high level of an�ciety
associated with that. There will be some give and take in the site plan review process; it is a
negotiated investment into a community. This is no[ black and white, so there must be a
recognition that this is going to take time and this is going to cost money.
Chair Alton read the rules of procedure for the public hearing.
The following people spoke.
1. Mr. Bob Roscoe, 1401 E. River Parkway, Mpls. MN 55414. Ae has a residenGal design
practice and has been anvolved in resideniial desi� in Mioneapolis ancl Saint Paul for
over 36 years. Mr. Roscoe said what works with these proposed xequirements is that they
do not impose extra consCruction cost to the average design of a new residen6al property
and do not promote conformity. On the offier hand it allows variety within a graceful
09-1286
�
framework. The urban chazacter of Saint Paul is such that garages on side fronts of
houses should be prohibited. Regazding the side enhy of a house, he thinks the
requirements need to be more specific. There should be a structural element on the side
of the house that gives some indication of where the primary entrance is. The primary
enhance shouid have a distioctive feazure. �
Mr. Roscoe noted that porches and accessibiliry have not been addressed. He commented
on section B(a) saying that it needs to be gready expanded. The language becomes
critical, because on one hand you want to be somewhat general but yet you need [o he
cleaz. He agrees with Commissioner Schertler's comment about training staff, which is
really important. Also staff needs to make sure these defini6ons aze really clear.
MOTION: Commissidner Wencl moved to continue the public hearing to Friday, June 5,
2009, leave the record open for written testimony, and then refer the matter back to the
Neighborhood P[¢nning Committee for review and recommendation. Commissioner Ward
seconded the motion. Tke motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
V. Zoning Committee
NEW BUSWESS
#09-060-431 Theodore and Elaine Kvasnick — Rezoning from B2 Commurrity Business to
TN2 Traditional Neighborhood. 2038 Mazshall Avenue between Cleveland and Wilder.
(Jash Williams, 657l266-6659)
MOTION: CommissionerMorton moved the Znning Comrnittee's recommendatian to approve
the rezoning. The motion carried unanimousty on a voice vote.
Coaunissioner Morton announced that the next meeting will be on May 28, 2009 and the agenda.
VI. Comprehensive Planning Comurittee
Central Corridor— Initiate Station Area Pianning For Aaznline, Victoria, and Western.
(Christzna Morrison, 6511266-6546 and dessica Rosenfeid, 65If266-5560)
MOTION: CommissionerBarrera moved the Comprehensive Planning Committee's
recommendation to approve the indtialion of station area plarznirxg for Ham&ne, Victoria arzd
Western stations. Commissioner 4Yard seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously
on ¢ voice vnte.
Off'-Street Pazking Rec�uuements — Recommendation to initiate a study.
(Merrin Cdapp-Smith, 651-266-6547)
MOTION: Cnmmissioner Wencl moved the Comprehensive Planning Committee's
recommendation to apprnve the resolulzan to initiate ¢n off streetparking requirements study.
Commissioner W¢rd seconded the motion. The rnotion carried unanimousZy on a voice vbte.
09-1286
`�. ,: <,-:.;; �-: _ . . :r _ . I
/�.��!`g_ ��5'aad '
: i ;::.,:: �::.-... . .: ": �
41JNiN�:�".^Mt3j[Gf.i.�_ . ,
"-P1�.�.`. ; �._.._ -
.�_;: , _
' .' ' .
_ __ -_ _ ' .. __ . . . ;
' - = • ' - ' I
IV. ', Pi7BLIC HEARINGS: Residential Desi¢n Standards Zoning Studv— A continuation i
from May 22, 2004, Planning Commission meeting. . ;
(Luis Pereirq 651/266-6591 andAllan Torstenson, 651/266-6579) �
�
Chair Alton announced that tt�e Saint Paul Piannin Commission is continuing a public hearing
from the May 22, 2009, Planning Commission meeting on the Residential Design Standazds
Zoning Study. Notice of the public hearing was published in the I.egal Ledger on May 11, 2009
and was mailed to the citywide Eazly Notificaflon System list and other inferested parties.
Chair Alton read the rules of procedure for the public hearing.
The foIlowing people spake,
1. Mr. Eric Lagerquist� 2016 Palace Avenue, SaintPaul, President of the American Insfitute of
Architects (AIA), St. Paul Chapter. Mr. Lagerquist submitted a letter from ATA St. Paul
summazizing comments they have received from their members. He noted that good design
is very subjective, and people ha�e vazied tastes. Ambiguity in the propased design standazds
leavas a lot to interpretation, which will be a ehallenge for the Plaunivg Commission in
enforcement of the standards. Their greatest concem is about how the ptoposed standards
will be interpreted and enforced, which could be a cumbersome, costly, time-consuming and
adversazial process. They aze also concemed about the potential impact of the praposed
design standazds on sustainability and "green" design. Creativity and innovafion in design
needs to be QK.
2. Ms. Kerry Antrim, District 6 Plauning Council, 213 Front Ave., Saint Paul. The bistrict 6
Planning Council supports the design 'sfandards. A few yeazs ago f5e Eastside and North End
had the "beige houses" with only one or two windows, About a month ago the Eastside
Review ran the headline, "Dude, Where's My Door?" about a house across fhe street from
North End Elementary. They are concemed about all the v3cant houses being tom down,
teaving small vacan4lots where new houses could be builf. They want to retain neighborhood
individuality. New houses need to compliment the individuality of the neighborhood.
District b has design guidelines they worked out with SPARC that wera adopted as addendum
to their azea plan summary in 2005, which should not be superseded.
3. Ms, Linda Jungwirth, 1111 Abell Street, Saint Paul. Ms. 7ungwirth is a member ofthe Tri
Area Block Club, which has submitted Vnitten comments. She noted thattheNorth End,
EasEside and Frogtown are the neighborhoods With the highest number of vacaut lots due Yo
teaz downs, and most vulnerable fo quick, cheap infitl housing. They need good, fight design
standards to protect tliem. She expressed concem about use of the word "should: ' Nofhing
should be left to interpretation. Not everything has to look the same, but deviation can be
addressed with vazianees. Tha standards wouid allow a sideway house if it is connected with
a wallcway. The standazds should be revised so that nofhing is open to interpretation, so that
they can't be interpreted differently from one case to anoEher.
4. Mr. Chuck iRepke, Districf 2 Community Council, 1961 Sherwood Ave„ Saint Paul. Mr.
Repke read and submitted a letter from the Disfrict 2 Community Covncil, which supports'the
2
09-1286
design standazds. They aze particulazly concemed about infill houses with no windows or
daors that face the street.
5. Mr. Kevin Flynn, AIA, LRED AP, EcoDEEP Architects, 2199 Pinefivrst Avenue, Saint Paul.
Mr: Flynn is President of the US Green Building Council, Mississippi Headwaters Chapter.
He submitted a written copy of lus tesEimony, which was distributed to Planning
Commissioner and is on file. Pazagraph (b) is particularly problematie. What do the words
"traditional" and "relate to" mean? Who decides? These seem to issues of style rafher than
of quality and performance in our design. There aze plenty of examples of poorly designed
"4aditional" buildings in the city. Pazagraph (b) could take away opporlunities to malce
houses more energy efficient and environmentally responsible, and reduce potential for
sustainable, high quality deaign. It could reduce ability tp properly orient buildings for
passive and acfive solaz design. It couid lead to increased building footprints and less
permeable surface, contributing to more stormwater discharge. We need to promota
creativily in addressing these issues rather than stifling it. He thanked the commi'ssion in '
advance for all the time fhey would spend reviewing their nonconfortning projects,
Commissioner Wazd asked how to use design standards to ensure desig� quality.
Mr. Flynn responded that we can't get quality design by blindly folloRnng a checklist about
roof Type or size of windows. Rather, this is a quesrion about how to review, evaluate, and
judge each project in light of its unique circumstances and needs. But there is limited staff
time.and expertise for holistic review of every building for aesthetics and quality ofdesign,
and ffistes differ.
Commisstoner Nelson asked quesfions regazding access to sunlight and the screening of
mechanical equipment.
Mr. Flynn said that access to solaz radia6on is very important in achieving sustainability and
that some cities provide protection of solar access. Iie atso stated that screening of some
types of inechanical equipment and trash areas is desirable, but that 6e believed other portions
of the zoning ordinance cover such screening.
6. Mr. MichaBl Roehr, 2346 Jnliet Avenue, Saint Paul, read and submitted a written copy of ]us
testimony, wIrich was distributed to Commissioners and is on-file. He objected to ambiguity
end Iack of objective metrics for assessing compliance, and skewed priorities, particulazly
with respect to pazagraph (b), which he characterized as worse than useless. It is an"I lmow
it when I see if' standard that wffl resuk in unpredictable, arbitrary, "because I say so"
enforcement, with obvious problems. Rather, we need c1eaz, concise, objective, measurable,
easy to undexstand and administer requirements. We should steer clear of &uifless aesthetic
debates. Our neighborhoodd should not be ireated as a quaint and static museum of house
styles, but rather as a living and evolving reflection of our changing needs and the way we
live.
MOTION: Coinmissioner Wencl mnved to close thepublic hearing, Zeave the �ecard open far
written tesiimony untiI 9:30 p.m, on Monday, June 8, 2009, and to refer the matter back to the
Neighbarhood Planning Comrreittee far review and recommendation: Cammzssioner YYard
secanded tke mation. The mntion carried unanimousZy on a voice vote.
09-1286
crrY oF s�uv�r PauL,
Christopher B. Cateman, Mayo>
Date:
To:
From:
October 8, 2009
Planning Commission
Neighborhood Planning Committee
PLANNING COM➢+IISSION
Brimt Alton, Chmr
2i Wut Fw�rh Sbeet
Sain[Paut,MN55102
Subject: Recommendations on Building Design Standards Zoning Amendments
Q
Zetepleone: 657-266-6700
Facsm:Je� 651-218-3220
Background
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Residential Design Standards zoning
amendments, on May 22 and June 5, 2009. One person spoke on the first date, and six people spoke on
the second date. Many were in support of the standards with some specific revisions, and others were in
opposition to specific parts of the standards. in addition, eleven letters and emails were received, mostly
in support of the standards but with some specific revisions.
This memo summarizes the issues raised and presents Neighborhood Planning Committee
recommendations for the Commission regarding proposed building design standards zoning
amendments.
Overview of public hearing testimony
The testimony focused on a number of issue areas:
• Variences
• Ambiguity, subjectivity, administrative cost, and architectural innovation
• GreeNsustainable design
+ Building facade/front door orientation, residentiai and commercial buildings
° Residential uses at the street levei and relationship to the street
• Screening of rooftop and mechanical equipment
• Location and provision of transit stops
• Parking and paving requirements
1. Variances
Sec. 63,110. General design standards,
The following design sfandards shali be used " , unless the applicanf can
demonstrafe that there are circumstances unique to the prope�fy that make compliance impracficat or
be suffcient to meet the reaurrements of this seciion.
Testimonv. The Tri-Area Block Club takes issue with the introduction language to §63.110, critiquing it for
09-1286
relying on terms that are very general and open to interpretation ("unique circumstances," "impractical,"
and "unreasonable"), and use of the word "should" in the text. They and others said that the standards
shouid be changed so they are clear, objective and measura6le so that nothing is open to interpretation
and they aren't interpreted differently from one case to another. Then the regular variance process can
be used as appropriate.
AIA-Saint Paul states that fhe City shouid "enthusiasticalfy review and reasonably consider" variances
when implementing fhese design standards, and that improvements to the health of a neighborhood or
property owner should be "special" considerations used when deciding when to grant variances.
Staff comment. § 61.601 required findings for variances are based on requirements in state statutes.
Neiqhborhood Plannina Committee recommendation. Remove the introduction language of §63.110
pertaining to "unique circumstances and compliance being "imp�actical or unreasonable" and move fhe
Iast line as follows:
2. Ambiguity, subjecfivity, administrative cost, and archifectural innovation
Sec. 63.910. General design standards.
(ba) New development skal! should re/ate to the design of adjacent traditiona/ bui/dings, where these
are p�esenf, ' .�tFSSaa-be Desian features such
as similarset6acks, sca facade divisions, rooftines, rhythm and p�oportions of openings,
building materiafs and cofors are oossible desi n techniaues to do this while altowinq desirak(e
Testimonv. Michelle Wail, owner and resident of the modem-design house at 1265 Stanford objects to
provisions in §63,110(b) that appear to dictate the pitch of rooflines, paint color, materials, and general
°style" of design in order for homes to "relate to the design of adjacent traditional buiidings." She says
that "modern is not a rejection to tradition..." and finds that when she sees new homes built in a traditional
siyfe, "something is off -- they seem cartoonish, fake and ... an insult to the beautfful homes around them
The solution to protecting the integrity of neighborhoods lies not in dictating the pitch of a roofline,
paint or materials selection, or general'style' of design; it is better to focus the discussion on issues of
quality construction, [andj . . . sustainability. . ."
AN AFFSRMATIVE ACTION EQUAL OPPORTIINITY EMPLOYER
(fl For properfv wiEh local hisforic site or dlstrict desiqnation compliance with applicab/e historic
puidelines shal! be sufficient to meet the requirements of fhis section.
Figure.l. Photosof12655tanfordAve,SaintPaul
09-1286
The St. Paul Chaptzr of the AIA (American Institute of Architects) writes that creativitylinnovation should
not be thwaRed [by design standardsj, as neighborhoods evolve constantly." Michael Roehr, an architect
and Saint Pau1 resident, said that the standards should °steer clear oF fru+tless aesthetic debates."
Several testified that use of fhe word °traditional" probiematic. Kevin Flynn of EcoDEEP said that
determining what is and what is not "traditional" is arbitrary and subjecfive. it seems to prescribe a
particular style of deveiopment; it's better to fiocus ihe standards on the quafity of construction instead. He
and Pefer Cadsen separately ask how the City will determine what "traditional" is.
Others similarly critique the standard for lacking a definition of "adjacenP' buildings, i.e. whether "adjacent"
includes buildings next door, across the street or alley, or down the block. Kevin Flynn quesfions what is
meant by new development "relating to" adjacent traditional buildings. While §63.110(b} might be read to
implicitly suggest that new development should have a design similar to that of existing older buildings in
an area, he said a new building might "relate to" existing older bulldings by being a"counterpoint of
design," i.e. purposely incorporating design elements that contrast completely with those of surrounding
buildings to achieve aesthetic diversity (or doing so for other reasons).
Kevin Flynn favors using the word "should" rather than "shail" in §63.110(b) because "shall" would lead to
"prescriptive requirements that may at times do more harm than good as it can stifle any form of creativity
and artful, thoughfful design response." Linda Jungwirth of the Tri-Area Block Club expressed concern
about use of the word "should," and about ambiguous and subjecfive language. She said the standards
should be revised so that nothing is left open to interpretation, so that they can't be interpreted differentiy
from ane case to another.
Michael Roehr said that § 63.110(b) is so ambiguous and subjective it is "worse than useless." It is an "I
know it when I see iP' standard that will result in unpredictable, arbitrary, "because I say so" enforcement.
AIA-Saint Paul expressed concern about how such an ambiguous and subjective standard would be
interpeeted and enforced, which could be a"cumbersome, costly, time-consuming, and adversarial
process." They also expressed concern about its impact on the architectural innovation needed for more
sustainable and "green" design.
Staff comment. The standards shauld be clear, concise, reasonable, objective, easy to understand, and
efficient to administer.
Neiohborhood Plannina Committee recommendation. Delete § 63.110(b).
Figure 2. An award•winning Highland Park home designed 6y Kevin Ftynn of EcoDEEP
09-1286
3. Greenlsustainable design
Testimonv. AIA-Saint Paul says that the design standards should not ignore The importance of
sustainebilify, and that tfiey should provide for use of alternative energy sources and sustainable
materials. Peter Carlsen says that the section on screening of rooftop equipment would appear to
psohibit altarnative energy sources like solar arrays or wind mills.
Renee Lepreau takes issue with §63.110(b) from a green building perspective, as it appears to require
nevr devetopment to use similar building makerials as adjacent traditional buildings. She argues that this
poses probiems for the green builderwho may choose more sustainable materials. Kevin Flynn agrees,
and adds that many traditional-sfyle buildings are not good environmental pertormers or energy effcient.
He worries that by following the standards — i.e., by relating to the features of traditional-style buildings, it
is possible that homebuilders will "lose a great many opportunities" to be responsible environmenfal
stewards in making homes and buifdings more energy efficient.
Renee Lepreau argues that language should be added to the design standards that would make it easier
to get a variance if a proposed home reduces the carbon footprint of the built environment or has an
environmentally-friendly design.
Staff comment. Section 60.103, Intent and purpose, of the Zoning Code includes the following:
(k) To promote the conservation of energy and the utilization of renewable energy resources.
Policy 3.19 of tbe Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan cal{s for a study on solar energy to
promote its use in systems across all types of land use:
3.99. Promote access fo sun(ighf for solar energy systems in new or rehabilitated residential, commercial,
and industrial developments to the extent possible. Prepare a study on tools, fechniques, and regulations
to facilitate increased usage of so(ar energy systems, either as standalone systems or as supplements to
conventionaienergysources, including, butnotlimifed to:
a. Orienfation of buildings, lots, and streets to capfure the maximum amount of sunlight,
b. Buildrng and site design, and fhe permissible levels of shading by structures and vegetation; and
c. Determination of minimum degree of so/ar access protection needed fo produce maximum amounf
of so/ar energy.
The Sfate Building Code is the main regulatory document that governs huilding materials. lt specifies that
municipalities cannot impose more restrictive standards on the use of particular building materials than
the State Building Code (including the Energy Code). This limits the extent to which the City's Zoning
Code can regulate the use of particular building materials.
With regard to potential missed opportunities for passive solar residential house design and the 15%
minimum window/door area requirement for the front of homes, 15% is a reasonable minimum. The need
for a requirement that houses have windows facing the street was the top concern highlighted in
testimony from the Disfrict 2 and District 6 Planning Councils. This can be done while employing a variety
of techniques to maximize the effectiveness of passive solar home designs, including appropriatety
located vegetation, window glazing and awnings.
Neiqhborhood Planninp Committee recommendation. Delete 63.110(b) as recommended in item #2
above, and add a new §63.110{b) that specifies common and separate window standards for residential
and nonresidential buiidings.
� For pnncipal �si�eatial bui(dinas.
09-1286
4. Building facade and fronf door orientation, residential and commercial buildings
ja�j Primary fiui(diag enfrances on �" ^^ •����''�'�'�^^s prinoipa! sfructures shall face the primary abuffing
public street e� v✓aNavay or be linked to that street by a clearly defrned and visrble v�alkway or
courtyard. Additional secondary entrances may be oriented to a secondary street or parking area.
Prima enfries shall be clearly visible and idenfifiable from the sfreet, and delineated wifh elemenfs
such as roofoverhangs, recessed entries, landscaping, or similar design features. Sides of
(c} !n pedestrian-orienfed commercial districts (generally characterized by storefront commerciai
buildings bui/t up to the p�blic sidewalkJ the fo/lowing standards for new seastrttstie+i rinci a/
structures shal! apply:
(?) @uildia�s Front setbacks shall relate to adiacent buildinps and be
�'astlsal no more than fifteen (15) feet.
(2) At intersections, bui/dings shall "hold the corner," that is, have street facades at or near the
sidewalks of both streets.
(3) The primarv entrance shall face the primarv abuttinq nublic sfreet and �t�il�ia�s-shaN have a
direct pedesfrian connecfion to the sfreet.
(4) Ale-b(aak Walls frontinq on a public sfreet sidewalks, or other
pub/re spaces such as a p/azas-{5)-@uildif�gs shalJ have window a+�d dsec openings_ €asiag-t�e
sEcse� Windows facing parkinglots are also encouraged
TesEimonv. Peter Carlsen suggests that the preposition in the first sentence of §63.110(a) be modified
from "on" to "into" or "of'. He testified that §63.110(a) should allow a side entrance to be the primary
entrance, as well as allow multifamily dweilings and condominium conversions to have doors not facing
the street.
Cadsen also notes that many buildings in pedestrian-oriented commercial districts have entrances that
face the parking, often on the side and rear of a building. He finds this reality inconsistent with
requirement for buiidings to "hold the corner" in §63.110(c), and submitted a"demonstration" of this
(Figure 3 below). in it, a traditional commercial buiiding located in a pedestrian-oriented districi on Selby
Avenue has two entrances that face the side lot line and the adjacent surtace parking lot.
i �
y - %u:::'::�;; ,
I W�jbtry '.�:-F :�+�'�•��c� �l— � �i9Enla:OtlWJ�NIII�rBan3
uaaV/Ttls `:];x`. -';,�` . gle<Ima6itt:MP'aPria.
Hf ° f ne — ` . — � ��eauFioM y. m_%�O�oCecrzeo?iq
- _-•.f:0i` vMert
tl
a� 9 ;;.;,, ;:.=,, �=�x , , �
� i �:� ; ;,: ° --- � _ � � �
N .y 5'F,, ,';'' '_
� - ( �
� � �: f
— > i I .
--- �'_------%
Seiby Avenue
Figure 3. Demonrtration plan su6mitted by Peter Carlsen
�� �1
Renee Lepreau notes that §63.110(a) and (e), the sections on primary facades and window requirements,
could "present difficulties to ... builders [who may] want to maximize the solar potential of their lot,"
confiicting with the existing street layout. She goes on to note thatjust because a homebuilder maywant
to minimize heat loss 6y providing fewer windows on the north side of a house that also faces a public
street, this doesn't mean that there has to be a blank wall to the street. She says that there are still plenry
of ways to capitalize o� passive solar opportunities "while sfitl presenting an attractive and interesting
iacacie to the public."
The Tri-Area Block Club notes that §63.110(a) still allows for "sideways" houses, and states that the
requirement for house orientation should be similar to the commercial requirement, as per §63.110(c)(3).
§63.110(c)�3) states lhat the primary entrance [for principal structures in pedestrian-oriented commercial
districts] shall face the primary abutting public.street.
Staff comment Peter Carlsen's suggested minor edit of the first sentence of §63.110(a) makes sense.
His statement that the side/rear enfries of commercial buildings facing parking lots in pedestrian-oriented
districts are functionally more important today than street-oriented entries does not lessen the importance
of providing the latter. In pedestrian-oriented commercial districts, it is still important for buildings to
provide a clsar path 4or a pedestrian to enter a building from the street to promote walkability, as well as
for those at intersections fo provide an entrance that "holds the corner." To minimize confusion, the
standard forthis should be revised to be more clear, objective, and measurabie.
The Tri-Area Block Ciub's suggestion that "the front entry of a house should be oriented toward the
primary street" does not take into account the many fine existing traditional homes that have side-oriented
entrances thaf are clearly visible and connected to the public street and sidewalk (see Figures 4 below).
Figures 4. Existing traditlonal houses in Saint Paul with entries that face the side lot ilne �
Neiqhborhood Plannina Gommittee recommendation.
Provide more specific, measurable, new standards in §63.110(a), including requirements for a primary
entrance of ail principal structures, as well as additional specific requirements for a primary entrance of
one- and iwo-family dweliings. In addition, remove Ianguage in this section that does not pertain to
building entrances (it is recommendetl to be moved to a separate section of §63.110 in item #5 befow).
L�) Al���imary �itdia� entrances ofa-alMewfbuildip�s principal structures shall #ase-tl�e pritt�ary
, 6e located wrthin the front third of the sfructure � eFb��-Nake�-te-tl�
�,,,^; •�.., ,r,. ..�a,z.,.
09-1286
Provide more specific, measurable, new standards in §63.110(c) by clarifying the meaning of "hofd the
corner,' as weli as allow for, at intersections, vertical structura� elements thaf "hold the corner' in lieu of
providing street facades within fifteen feet of the lot line along both streets.
(c) !n pedestrian-oriented commercial districts {geaeFally characferized by storefront commercia!
buildings bui/t up to fhe �u6lic sidewalk}� new �ea rip ncipa!
sfrucfures shall aaa�v (9) �tirJcJi�as � �r+�.s "�e.�' -s.".=.,-.o:m` ' '' f `"i ""'' `'^ 'S
commercial iront !ot line. {-�} At intersections, buildings shal! "hold the corner," that is, have street
facades within fiffeen (i5) feet of the !ot line alonp both streets. or the
.. .. . . . . , ,_ .._. ,,, _,_�., ----_„ ,.,, r�_ � _�._.__, .............
5. Residential uses at the street level and reiationship to the sfreet
Sec. 63.110. General design standards.
(d) Residenfia� uses af street levef sha(! general(y be sef back far enough f�om the sfreet to provrde a
�rivate yard area befween the public sidewalk and ths f�ont door. Landscaping, steps, porches,
grade changes, and fow ornamenfal fences or walls may be used to provide increased privacy and
livabilify for firsf floor units.
Testimonv. Peter Carisen notes that this would seem to prohibit some recent CBD townhouses, and asks
if this isn't better controlled with the setback requirements in the various zoning districts.
Staff comment. This is better controlled through the existing ciear, objeciive, measurable standards for
setbacks in individual zoning districts, which make this redundant. An ambiguous and subjecfive
standard like this adds confusion as to what the standards are.
Neiahborhood Planninq Committee recommendation. Remove §63.110(d), and replace it with the
foilowing language that was removed from the recommended edited §63.110(a) above:
(d) Buildina materials and archifecturai treatments used on sides of duildinas facina an abutfinp Aublic
street sho�ld be similar to those used on princiva! facades.
6. Screening of rooftop and mechanical equipment
(e) All rooRop equipment shal! be screened from view from adjacent streets, public rights-of-way and
adjacent properties. Rooftop equipment shall be screened by the building parapet, or shai! be
located out of view f�om fhe ground. (f this is infeasible, fhe eq�ipment sha116e grouped within a
single enclosure. This sfrucfure shall be set back a distance of one and one-half (9 %) times its
height from any primary facade f�onting a pubiic street. Screens shat! be of durable, permanent
materials (nof including wood) that are compafible with fhe primary buiiding materials. Exfsrior
mechanical equipment such as ducfwork shall not be IocaEed on primary building facades.
7estimonv. Merri Fromm suggests that ail equipment shouid be screened, notjust rooftop mechanical
09-1286
equipment, and that the locations of A/C condensers should be Iimited to "areas that minimize impact to
neighbors." ,
Pefer Carfsen critiques the placement of rooftop equipment screening regulation in §63.110, suggesting
that it is more appropriately located in §63.114 Visual screens. He also points out that simply painting
small rooftop units can be less visually inTrusive than providing a screen around them.
Kevin Flynn agrees that rooftop equipment should be screened wherever possible, but is concerned that
solar panels wili be considered rooftop equipment. Related to this, he says that building parapets will
likely "limit the size of the solar installation and/or produce shadows across the panels thereby rendering
them useless," which he notes as inconsistent with the CiEy's sustainability initiatives.
Staff comment. Section 63.106 of the Zoning Code already has provisions that allow for location of
HVAC units and other mechanical equipment as projections into required side and rear yards, and in non-
required front yards. If not aliowed in side and rear yards, there are few other piacas where mechanical
equipment can be focated.
Language pertaining to the location, screening and design of rooftop equipment does not fiE in §63.114,
Visual screens, which provides standards for fences, earth berms, and plant materials that go on the
ground "whenever a visual screen is required hy this code.°
There are options for minimizing the visuai impact of rooftop equipment that in some cases may be better
than visual screens. §63.110(e) should be revised to provide flexibility for other options and avoid
unreasonably restricting solar panels. §63.110(e) should also be revised to more c(early state the intent
of the section — to reduce the visibility of rooftop equipment from the street. The word "mechanical"
should also be inserted to apply this section to most rooftop equipment but not antennas, which are
separately specifically addressed in sections 65.310 — 65.313.
Neiphborhood Plannina Committee recommendation. Amend §63.110(e) as follows:
(e) AA The visrbilitv of rooftop mechanical #�eafiae-aadssetiae equipment shal! be reduced throuph such
Locafion and provision of transit stops
(g} If transit faci/ities ara needed to serve exisfing or proposed developmenf, p�ovisions shall 6e made,
where practrcal, for location of a bus stop or sheltered transit waiting area in a convenrent and
visible location.
estimon . Peter Carlsen wonders about the point of this provision, given that public transit is
accammodated in public right-of-way, planned for and operated by Metro Transit. He wonders if the Ciry
is now saying it is the responsibility and obligation of private property owners to facilitate and construct
public [ransit infrastructure.
Neiqhborhood Planninq Committee recommendation. Delete §63.110(g).
8. Parking & paving requirements
Sec. 63.110. General design standards.
(fl For residentia( parkina the folfowino sfandards sha// app/v:
j� Offstreet parkino spaces shall not be located wrthin a front vard or non-interior sitle vard.
Except in the rear vard paraaes that face and front on a pubftc street sha// be set back from
'�-tim . Screeni�s-shall be of durabie,
permanent materials {ns�iasWdi�g-wsad} that are compalible with the primary building materials.
Exterior mechanica/ equipmenE such as ductwork shal! not be located on primary building facades.
09-1286
fF�J
{3)
(h} The number of curb cufs shafl be minimized, and shared curb cuts tor adjacenf parkrng areas are
encou�aged.
Sec. 63.316. Paving.
AU parking spaces, driveways and off-street parking facilities shall be paved with asphalt or other durable,
dusf/ess surfacing, or e€ mate�ial comparable to the adjacent street surfacing� in accordance with other
specificafions of the zoning administrator. The parking area shall be paved wrthin one (1) year of the date
of the permit excepf as provided in sectron 69.402(e). The toEal amount of surface parkinq for one-familv
Testimonv. Peter Carlsen suggests that the language in §63.110(fJ be moved to §63.303, Parking
location, residentiaf, so that all requirements related to residential parking are in one logical place.
Similarly, he notes that §63.110Q is covered in §63.310. Entrances and exifs.
Peter Carlsen questions if the amendments to §63.316 that
limit the total amount of surface parking fot one- and two-
Pam+1y dwellings to 15 percent of fhe !ot area wiU al4ow
enough space for required parking spaces and driveways.
He wonders if the 15% maximum applies to both parking
spaces and driveways. If so, he doubts that it will be
possible to achieve this on lots with a driveway, no ailey,
and a parking pad in the backyard. See Figure 5.
Staff comment While §63.303 specifies the permitted
eq neral locations of residenfial parking, most of the
language in §63.110(fl(1) deals with setbacks of residential
parking, including garages and surface parking areas.
However, given that residential garages and parking are
accessory buildings and uses, it makes most sense to move
language from §63.110(fl j1) and (2), which address access
to and the permitted soecific location of residential parking,
to §63.501, Accessory buildings (and uses).
It makes sense Eo move language in §63.110(h) pertaining
to curb cufs to §63.310, Entrances and axits. It makes
sense to move §63.110(f�(3) pertaining to the width of
driveway pavement to §63.316. Paving.
Section 63.316 wuld be clarified by adding the word
"spaces" to clarify its intent that the 'f 5 percent fimit on the
amount of lot area devoted to surFace parking applies to the
spaces themselves, not fo driveways.
�
�
I
I
1E3'-0'
�
�/ . Except in the rear vard aaraae doors facinp a public
street shall be no more fhan nine (9) feet in heiqht.
F)gure 5. �emonstratton slte plan of
lotwith no allay (P. Carlsen)
09-1286
Neiahborhood Planninq Committee recommendation.
Consolidate requiremenfs about access to, and (ocation of, residential parking into one place
(§63.501 {b)). Also clarify that garages, not garage doors, shall be set back, and ciarify that cars parked
on d�iveways located in the side yard and leading to a Iegal parking space are permitted, as follows:
Sec, 63.501(b). Accessory buildings and uses.
(bJ Accessory buildings, structures or uses shall not be erecEed in or established in a requited yard
except a rear yard. The foUowinp additional sfandards shall apAlv to residential parkinq:
On corner lots access to parkinp in-the-rear� mav be from the side streef.
(2) eOff-street Aarkinp spaces shall not be (ocated within the front vard er-t�ea-tatexieFSide-va,�.
(3) Garaves shal! be set back from the front lot line at /east as far as the Arincipal structure (rn the
case of attached qaraqes this refers to the non-paraae part of the strucEute).
f� Passenger vehicles may be parked on an anproved drivewav in front or side yards provided
the� driveway�kaE /eads to a legal parking space.
� On corner lots, accessory burldings, structures or uses shall be set back from the sfreet a distance
equal to fhat required of fhe principal strucfure.
When an accessory buildrng, structure or use is consfructed in a rear yard which adjoins a side yard
or front yard, the accessory bu+lding, strucfure or use shall be set back from the interior lot tine a
disfance equal to the minimum side yard required of the principal structure.
On al/ other /ots, accessory build'mgs shali be set back at least fhree (3) feet from a/1 interior/ot lines,
and overhangs sha/f be sef back at leasf one-third (1f3} the distance of the setback of the garage
wall o�ane (1) foof, whicheveris greafer.
j� This setback requirement from all interior loE lines for accessory buildings in rear yards shall be
waived when a mainfenance easement is recorded as to the affected properties, when proof of such
recorded easemenf is provided at the time of application for a building permit and when the
accessory building is located at /east three (3) feet from any building on an adjoining lot The
recording of the maintenance easemenf shall be interpreted to mean that the fotlowing intents and
purposes of this setback requirement are met
(?) Adeqvate supply of sunlight and air to adjacent property,•
(2) Sufficient space for maintenance of the building from tire same lot, and
(3) Prevention of damage to adjoinrng prope�ty by fire or runoff firom roofs.
A recorded common wall agreement is permitted in lieu of a maintenance easement if the accessory
structure is affached to an accessory structure on an adjoining lot.
{In §63.501, renumber paragraphs (cj through (g) as paragraphs (e) through (ip.
Move (anguage in §63.110(h) to §63.310, Entrances and exits, and add lang�age to §63.310 to deal with
driveways and curb cuts that remain when fhey are no longer used, as foliows:
Sec. 63.310. Entrances and exits.
10
09-1286
Adequate entrances and exits to and fiom the parking facility shall be provided by means of clea�ly
defined and limited dnves. The number of curb cuts shall be minimized and sha�ed curb cuts for ac
Consolidate language about pavi�g for oif-street parking and driveways in §63.316, and provide
ciarification about what is permitted in terms of alternatives to standard paving techniques.
§63.316. Paving.
Ali parking spaces, driveways and off-street parking faci(ities shall be paved with sfandard or pervious
asphalt or concrete or with brick. concrete or stone aavers. or et
materral comparable fo the adjacent street surfacing� in accordance with et{�eF specifications of the zoning
administrator.-� within one (1) year of the date of the permit except as
provided in section 61.402(e). For one-family and two-familv dwellinqs drivewav pavement maV be
9. Intent and purpose of the Zoning Code
Sec. 6D.103. (ntent and purpose.
This code is adopted by the City of Saint Paul for the following purposes:
(a) ro promote and to protect the public health, safety, morals, aesthetics, economic viability and
genera! welfare of the community;
(bJ To implement the pofrcies of the comprehensive plan;
(c) To classify alI property in such mannar as to encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout
the city;
(d) To regulate the locafiop, construction, reconstruc6on, alteration and use of buildings, structures and
land,�
(e) To ensure adequate light, air, privacy and convenience of access to property,
(� To faci(itate the adequate provision of fransportation, wate� sewage disposal, education, recreation
and other public requirements
(g) To lessen congestion in the public streets 6y providing for off-street parkrng of motor vehicles and for
off-streef loading and unfoading of commercia! vehicles;
(h) To provide for safe and efficient circu(ation of ali modes of transportation, including transif, pedesfrian
and bicycle fraf(ic;
(i) To encourage a compafible mix of /and uses, af densities that support transit that ref(ect the scale,
character and urban design of Sainf Paul's existing traditional neighborhoods;
(j) To provide housing choice and housing aKordability;
(k) To promote the conseivation of energy and the utilization of renewable energy resources;
(!) To conserve and improve property values;
(m) To protecf all areas of the city from harmful encroachment by incompatiBle uses;
(n) To prevenf fha overcrowding of land and undue congesfion oP populafion;
il
I' :P
(o) To fix reasonable standards to which buildings, structures and uses shai! conform;
(p) To provide for the adaptive reuse of nonconforming buildings and strucfures and for the etimination
of nonconfo�ming uses of land,•
(q) To define the powers and dufies of the administrative o�cers and bodies;
(r) To provide pena/ties for viotafions of the provisions of this code or any subssquent amendment
thereto; and,
(s) To provide for a 6oard ofzoning appeals and its powers and duties.
Testimonv. While there were no specific comments made at the public hearing about the intent and
purpose section of the Zoning Code, there were several concerns expressed about the potential impact of
the proposed building design standards zoning amendments on the ability of homeowners, developers
and builders to follow best practices in green building and use innovative sustainable techniques.
Staff comment. Given the focus of the City's new Comprehensive Plan on sustainability, City staff is
engaging in a broad study of how the Zoning Code can be modified to facilitate green design and
building. As a part of this effort, updating the intent and purpose section will allow the City to reference
these goals when there are questions about a particular land use or zoning proposal that may be a more
innovative than what is allowed or envisioned by existing zoning regulations.
The Neighborhood Planning Committee noted that while there is existing language o� energy
conservation and promotion of renewabie energy in §60.103 (subsection (k)), there is nothing in the intent
section about the protection of water resources and promotion of water conservation.
Neiqhborhood Planninq Committee recommendation. Amend §60.103 as folloWS:
(p) To protect waterresources, improve water qualitv and promote waferconservation�
(q�} To provide fot the adaptive reuse of nonconforming buildtngs and structures and for the elimination
of nonconforming uses ofland,•
(r�) To define the powers and duties of the admrnistrafive otficers and bodies
(s�) To provide penalties for viofations of the provisions of this code or any subsequenE amendment
thereto; and,
(ts) To proNde for a board of zoning appeals and ifs powers and duties.
12
�' 1
St. Paul City-wide Design Standards
Neighborhood Planning Committee recommended amendmenfs, 10/7/04
Sec. 61.401. Site plan review eeneraily.
A site pIan shall be submitted to and apvroved by the zonin� administrator before �
agg�eas-� building permits aze issued for al� new buildings or building expansions_
BuIldin¢ permit anplications for new buildines or buildin¢ exoansions shall be accompanied by a
site plan and buildin¢ elevauons drawn to scale and -�^'.�sa��, showing the following:
(3) The e�sting and intended use of the zoning lot and of all such structures upon it, including,
� for residenrial uses areas, the number of dwelling units the building is intended to
accommodate.
Sec. 61.4�2. 5ite plan review � the plannin2 commission �°"�� a�s�ri�=�.
Sec. 63.110. Geae��rl Bnildine design standards.
� _ : : ._. _. .. ••:_-._ • . :. . .: . : :..: . ... . .
- - �=-
_ �� _ � _
(ab) A prunary �g entrance ^� �" r^�• �^�'a�^ � of �xincipal structures shall €aee-#�e
°*..°°�^� be located within the front third of the siructure; be delineated with elements
such as roof overhangs, Tecessed entries, landscaping, or similar desigx features; and have a
dixect �edestrian connection to the street. In addition, for one- and two-fasnilv dwellings, a
primarv entrance shall either: I) face an improved abuttin� street; or 2) be located off of a
front norch, fover, courtvard, or similar architectural feature, and set back at least ei t(8)
feet from the side lot line.
(b) For princival buildings, except industrial, production, nrocessing, storaee, public service
and n6litv buildines, above erade window and door onenin�s sha11 comnrise at least fifteen
f15) oercent of the total area of exterior walls facin�_nublic street or sidewalk. In
addition, for new nrincipal residential buildin¢s, above grade window and door openines
shall comprise at least ten (10) percent of the total area of all' exterior walls. Windows in
garage doors shall count as openin¢s: the azea of �ara�e doors themselves shall not count as
openanes. Fox residenflal buildines, windows shall be clear or translucent. For
nanresidential buildinas, windows mav be cleaz, translucent, or opaaue.
(c) In pedestrian-oriented commercial districts �geae�}I� characterized by storefront
commercial buildings built up to the un blic sidewalkj, new
Design Standazds Zoning Text Amendments 10-9-09 Page 1
09-1286
^^��^�ae;= orincipal struchues shall
�m� have a ma�cimum setback of fifteen (151 feet from a commercial front lot line.
{�j At intersections, buildings shall "hold the corner," that is, have street facades °a�,�
"�� °'�'�� within fifteen (I5� feet of the lot line alon� both streets, or the site plan
shaIl tiave vertical structural elements that "hold the corner " A nrimarv entrance shall face
a primazv abuttin¢ vublic street.
rni Tr �i.,»i, ....n� ..a..n w� ..e..».:.r,.a ,,, c ,e «w„ ....t,r,,. ,....ee« ..:ae.,,.,n,.. „� �n� ....,�,�'::�
l"-----r-----'--------�-r----"---�'----_ _..�z,.,.".
�� � Y.1 � f
/c\ A.:IA:«.... ..i.�tl 1..,. ,. '«A...,, n..A A....v .. � J:,..:.... r1.o ot.00t. :.:..(luxv C
� ) b
n,.i.:.,.. l,.f.... ..)..n e ..�A
Y '
• a e
..,.i...,. ........7.. 1...«....., ,.«.7 7..... .. e..� 1 l ..11., ... . 1... ,.e,7 s.. « .,:,7
>
�vA « ..«A 1:.,.1.:1;�., C� Q,.�t fl....« ,.«:4�
'm ^v'r uc.r.
(d) Building materials and architecfiral treatments used on sides of buildines facine an
abuttine public street should be similar to those used on principal facades.
(e) � The visibilitv of rooftop mechanical equipment shall be reduced t}uoush such means as
location, screeninge�. or inteeration into the roof desian �^-� ^.^ `�^"- °a:^^°"' °'^�°+s
....w�'��'^�-�'^��*.;-� 9a� a�d-ac�jasellt��A��'� n,.,,a,.� ., o.., ,.�,,.n �.o ,. �va�
}, '1.1:« .....s .._ ,.1...11 L.,. 1......+,.,] ....+ ..F.:e.. F..... 1.., .... .«,] TF+1.:.. ;.. :,.0 .,..:l.lo fl.�
r �r
� n......., ..F ...... ....,7 ....e 1...iF !t t/\ tj....����.:a,. 1.�:..1.� �...... ..«., ...«.«..»�. F���.7d f«....�:«�—$
` ' _- _ __ "' ___ __.__ �_._� . __ . _. _ . . .
�is-s�ee�: Screem'ngs shall be of durable, permanent materials �^�` • .. �^'"
that aze compatible with the primary building matexials. Exterior mechanical equipment
such as ductwork shall not be located on primarp building facades.
(fl For propertY with ]ocal historic site or district desienation, compliance with apnlicable
historic euidelines shall be sufficient to meet the rec�uirements of this section.
�:...�;,... ....��,.�..w.,,.:,..,� ,,.,..a:.:,........al�.�� �.a� a
� ,
f�i—�2�vumef ••• - r-ac^'��uC^°'^i�3f�' �'^i'S
Sec. 63.310. Entrances and e�ts.
Adequate entrances and exits to and from the pazking facility shall be provided by means of
cleaxly defined and limited drives. The numbex of curb cuts shall be mini�nized, and shared curb
cuts for adiacent narkine areas are encouraQed. When drivewavs no lonPer lead to lesai off-
street parkine, the drivewav and curb cut shall be removed and landscaoing and curbine shall be
sestoied.
Design S[andazds Zoaing Text Amendments 10-9-09 Page 2
r' �
Sec.63.316. Paving.
All parking spaces, driveways and off-street parking facilities shall be paved with standard or
e rvi0us asphalt ox concrete or with brick, concrete or stone pavers.
�g or e� material comparable to the adjacent street surfacing, in accordance with eEk€�
specifications of the zoning administrator.-, within one (1) year
of the date of the permit except as provided in section 61.402{e). For one-fanuly_�d two-familv
dwelliaes drivewav oavement mav be limited to wheel tracks at least two (21 feet wide.
For one-family tbsou¢h fottr-family dwellin¢s and for townhouses with ¢axa�e doors that face
and front on a�iblic street driveways in front yards shail be no more than twelve {121 feet in
width excerot that a driveway mav be up to four (4� feet wider than the ¢arage door within 30
feet of the eara¢e door The total amount of oavin¢ for surface uarkina sroaces for one-familv
and two-family dwellings shall not exceed fifteen (I51 percent of the lot area or one thousand
(1000) sauare feet, whichever is less.
Sec. 63.501. Accessory buildings and uses.
(b) Accessory buildings, structures ar uses shall not be erected in or established in a required
yard except a rear yard. The followin�additional standards shall ap�ly to residen6ai
azP Idn¢:
circumstances uniaue to the propertv that make this impracfical, unzeasonable, or
haimfid to the �ublic safetv On corner lots access to pazkine mav be from the side
steeet.
(2) Off-street arkin� spaces shall not be located within the front vard,
�31 Gu�aQes shall be set back from the front lot line at least as far as the orincipal structure
(in the case of attached eara¢es, this refers to the non-sara¢e part of the structure).
{41 Except in ihe rear �d,�araee doors that face apublic street shall be no more than nine
(9) feet in heieht and shall not exceed sixty_(602percent of the width of the principal
structure facino the same street.
� Passenger vehicles may be parked on an approved drivewav in front or side yards
provided die��'^^^+°a ^� °^ ^^--�^°� driveway � leads to a legal parking space.
� On coiner lots, accessory buildings, structures or uses shall be set back from the street a
distance equal to that required of the principal structure.
When an accessory building, struchixe or use is constructed in a rear yard which adjoins a
side yard or front yard, the accessory building, stnicture or use shall be set back from the
interior Lot line a distance equal to the minimum side yard requixed of the principal
structure.
On all other lots, accessory buildings shall be set back at least three (3} feet &om all interior
lot lines, and overhangs shall be set back at least one-third (1/3) the distance of the setback
ofthe garage wall or one (1) foot, wlvchever is greater.
� This setback requirement from all interior lot lines for accessory buildings in rear yards
shall be waived �vhen a maintenance easement is recorded as to the affected properkies,
Design Standards Zoning Text Amendments 10-9-09 Page 3
09-1286
i
when proof of such Tecorded easement is pxovided at the 6me of application for a building �
permit and when the accessory building is located at least three (3) feet from any building j
on an adjoining Iot The recording of the maintenance easement shal] be interpreted to mean
that the following intents and purposes of this setback requuement are met:
(1} Adequate supply of sunlight and air to adjacent property;
(2) Sufficient space for maintenance of the building from the same lot; and
(3) Prevenflon of damage to adjoining property by fire or runoff from roofs.
A. recorded common wall agreement is permitted in lieu of a maintenance easement if the
accessoiry shvcture is attached to an accessory structure on an adjoining lot.
§63.501, renumber paragraphs (c) through (g) as paragraphs (e) through (i).
Sec. 60.103. Intent and purpose.
This code is adopted by the Ciry of Saint Paul for the following purposes:
(a) To promote . . .
(p) To protect water resources. 'vnrorove water auality, and oromote water conservation;
(t�) To provide for the adaptive reuse of nonconforming buildings and struchares and for the
elimination of nonconforming uses of land;
(r� To define the powers and duties of the administrative officers and bodies;
{s�) To provide penalties for violations of the provisions of this code or any subsequent
amendment thereto; and,
�s) To pxovide fox a boaxd of zoning appeats and its powers and duties.
Design Standards Zoning Text Amendments 10-9-09 Page 4
09-1286
St. Paul Cify-wide Design Standards
Neighborhood Planning Committee recommended amendments, 10/7/09
[proposed language withouf strikeouts and underlines]
Sec. 61.401. Site plan review generally.
A site plan shall be submitted to and appioved by the zoning administrator befose building
pernuts are issued for new buildings or building expansions. Building pernut applications for
new buildings or building expansions shall be accompanied by a site plan and building elevations
drawn to scale and showing the follo�ving:
(3) The existing and intended use of the zoning lot and of all such structures upon it, including,
for residential uses, the munber of dwelling units the building is intended to accommodate.
Sec. 61.402. Site plan review by the planning commission.
Sec. 63.110. Building design standards.
(a) A primazy enirance of principal siructures shall be located cvithin the front third of the
structure; be delineated with elements such as roof overhangs, recessed entries,
landscaping, or similar design features; and have a direct pedestrian connection to the
sneet. In addition, for one- and two-family dwellings, a primazy entrance shall either: 1)
face an improved abuttis� street; or 2) be located off of a froni porch, foyer, courtyard, os
similar architectural feature, and set back at least eight (8) feet from the side lot line.
(b) For principal buildsngs, except industrial, production, processing, storage, public service
and utility buildings, above grade window and door openings shall comprise at least fifteen
(15) percent of the total area of exterior walls facing a public street or sidewalk. In
addition, for new principal residential buildings, above grade window and door openings
shall comprise at least ten (10) percent of the total area of all exteriar walls. Windows in
garage doars shall count as openings; the area of gazage doars themselves shall not count as
openings. For residential bttildings, windows shall be clear or translucent. For
nonresidential buildings, windows may be clear, translucent, or opaque.
(c) In pedestrian-oriented commercial districts charactexized by storefront commercial
buildings built up to the public sidewalk, new principal struchues shall have a maximum
setback of fifteen (15) fiet from a commercial front lot line. At intersections, biuldings
shall "hold the corner," that is, have street facades within fifteen (15) feet of the lot line
along 6oth streets, or the site plan shall have vertical struch�al elements that "hold the
comer." A primary entrance shall face a primary abutting public street.
(d) Building materials and architectural txeahnents used on sides of buiidings facing an
abutting public street should be similaz to those used on principal facades.
(e) The visibility of rooftop mechanical equipment shall be reduced through such means as
location, screening, or integration into the roof design. Screening shall be of durable,
permanent materiaJs that are compaflble with the primary building materials. E�erior
mechanical equipment such as ductwork shall not be located on primary building facades.
(� For property with local historic site or district designation, compliance with applicable
historic guidelines shall be sufficient to meet the requirements of this section.
Design Standards Zoning Text Amendments 10-9-09 Page 1
r' �
Sec, 63.310. Entrances and e�fs.
Adequate entrances and e�ts to and from the parking faciliry shall be provided by means of
ciearly defined and limited drives. The uumber of ctub cuts shail be minimized, and shared curb
cuts for adjacent parking areas are encouraged. When driveways no longer lead to legal off-
street pazking, the driveway and curb cut shall be removed and landscaping and curbing shall be
xestored.
Sec.63.316. Paving.
All parking spaces, driveways and off-street parking facilities shall be paved with standard or
pervious asphalt or concrete, or with brick, concrete or stone pavers, or material comparable to
the adjacent street surfacing, in accordance with specifications of the zoning administrator,
within one (1) year of the date of the permit except as provided in secrion 61.402(e). For one-
family and two-family dwellings, driveway pavement may be limited to wheel tracks at least two
(2) feet wide.
For one-family ttuough four-family dwellings, and Far townhouses with garage doors that face
and front on a public street, driveways in front yards shall be no more than twelve (12) feet in
width, except that a driveway may be up xo four (4) feet wider than the garage door within 30
feet of the gazage door. The total amount of paving for surface parking spaces for one-fanuly
and two-family dwellings shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the lot area or one thousand
(1000) square feet, whichever is less.
Sec. 63.501. Accessory bnildings and uses.
(b) Accessory buildings, structures or uses shall not be erected in or established in a required
yard except a rear yard. The following additional standards shall apply to zesidential
parking:
(1) Access to off=street parking shall be from an abutting unpzoved alley when available,
. except where it is determined in the review of a site plan application that there are
cucumstances unique to the property that make this impractical, unreasonable, or
harniful to the pu6lic safety. On cornex lots, access to parking may be from the side
streef.
(2} Off-street parking spaces shall not be located within the fxont yard.
(3) Gazages shall be set back from the front lot line at least as far as the principal structure
(in the case of attached garages, this refers to the non-garage part of the structure).
(4) Except in the reaz yard, garage doors that face a public street shall be no more than nine
(9) feet m height and shall not exceed sia�ty (60) percent of the width of the principal
stxuctuxe facing the same street.
(5) Passenger vehicles may be parked on an approved driveway in front or side yards
provided the driveway leads to a legal parking space.
(c) On corner lots, accessory buildings, structures or uses shall be set back from the street a
distance equal to that required of the principal struchue.
When an accessory building, structure or use is constructed in a rear yard which adjoins a
side yard or front yard, the accessory building, structure or use shall be set back from the
interior lot line a distance equal to the muumum side yazd required of the principal
Design Standazds Zoning Text Amendments 10-9-09 Page 2
09-1286
structure.
On all other lots, accessory buildings shall be set back at least three (3) feet from a11 interior
�ot lines, and overhangs shall be set back at least one-third (1/3) the distance of the setback
ofthe garage wail or one (I) foot, wlucbever is greater.
(d) This setback requirement from all interior lot lines for accessory buildings in rear yazds
shall be waived when a maintenance easement is recorded as to the affected properties,
when pxoof of such recorded easement is provided at the time of application for a building
permit and when the accessory building is located at least three (3) feet from any buIlding
on an adjoining lot. The recording of the maintenance easement shall be interpzeted to mean
that the following intents and purposes of this setback requirement aze met:
(1) Adeqnate supply of Simlight and air to adjacent properry;
(2) Sufficient space for maintenance of the building from the same lot; and
(3) Prevention of damage to adjoining property by fire or runoff from xoofs.
A recorded common wall agreement is perxnitted in lieu of a maintenance easement if the
accessory structure is attached to an accessory structure on an adjoining lot.
Sec. 60.103. Intent and purpose.
This code is adopted by the City of Saint Paul for the following purposes:
(a) To promote . . .
(p) To protect water resources, improve water quality, and promote water conservation;
Design Standards Zoning Teact Amendments 10-9-09 Page 3
09-1286
Pub9ie Comment Recorda
Residentiaf Design Standards Amendments
�. Minutes from the Planning Commission pubiic hearings, May zz, zoo9 and June 5, zoo9
z. Email from the Tri-Area Biock Cfub, 5/z5/o9
3. Letter from Therese Tremblay, resident of i467 Sargent Ave, 5/z9/o9
�}. Letter from Carlsen & Frank Architects, 6/z/o9
;. Email from Cheryl Fosdick, CF Design, 6/3(og
6. Email from Michelle Wall, resident of �z65 Stanford Ave, 6 j41o9
7. Letterfrom the District z Community Councfi, 6 /41 0 9'
F3. Letterfrom AIA-MN, Saint Paul Chapter, 6 /S�o9
��. Statement from Michael Roehr, architect & homeowner in St. Paul, 6/5Jo9
io. Notes Yo the Planning Commission, Kevin Flynn, EcoDEEP Architects, 615/
st. Email from Renee Lepreau, resident of i8i5 Ashland Ave, 6�SJo9
3z. Email from Merri Fromm, resident of �06 Wheeler St. S., 6/SJog
09-1286
�XtcR?� � S {�.C. r�;�.+a�es
Penelope Simison, PID staff, said that the plan covers a wide iange of issues. There aze a large
number of policies in the summazy that have to do with improvements, such as streetscape
improvements and FTayden Heights L'abrary improvements. The plan also incorporates key
policies from previously adopted small azea plans. As with a11 district plan summaries, once
adopted it becomes part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Alton read the rules of procedure for the public hearing.
The following people spoke.
1. Mr. Chuck Repke, with tt�e White Bear Avenue Business Association and Dis[rict 2
Community Council presented banana bread to celebrate the District 2 Plan. The bread
was hand-made by the White Beaz Avenue Queen Marina Jackson. Chair Alton thanked
her and Mr. Repke for the bread. Mr. Repke also wanted to menuon one significant
concem about the plan. He noted the lack of recreation centers in the northeast quadrant
of District 2 and commented on the Prospenry Heights Recreaflon Center. The recreation
building is closing and as of today's date there is finding recommended by the CIB
Committee for the planning of a new recrea6on center. This plan summary, based on
input fxom the Pazks department, does not mention the recreation center. District 2's
issue of concern is there should be some language recommending that a facility be kept
on that site. The City needs to be committed to having a building on that site.
MOTION: Cornmissioner Wencl moved to close the public heariatg, leave the record open for
written testimony unfil 4:30 p.m. on Tuesd¢y, May 26, 2009, and to refer the maKet back to the
Neighbarhood Pktnning Committee for review ared recommendarion. Commissroner Johnson
seconded the motion. The motinri carried unanimousZy on ¢ voice vote.
� Residential Design Standaxds Zonina Study — Item from the Neighborhood Planning Comtmittee. �
(LuisPereira, 65I/266-6591 andAldanTorstenson, 651l266-6579) � �
Chair Alton announced that the Saint Paul Planmng Commission is holding a public hearing on
the Residential Design Standazds Zoning Study. Notice of the public hearing was published in
the Legal Ledgex on May 11, 2009.
Luis Pereira, PED staff, said that the citywide Eazly Notificaflon System notice was not mailed
out in the 30 days prior to the public hearing, so today is the begimm�g of the public hearing and
it will convnue to the next Planning Commission meeting.
Luis Pereira gave a power point presenta8on on the proposed Residenrial Design Standards. He
presented informa6on on the background of the proposed amendments, the City website and a
blog that has been created for comments on the inflll design standards:
ht_pt •//�vww si�aul ¢ov/index asp�NID-3000 and http•llsfpaulhousedesign.wordpress.wm
Commissioner Gordon said that it would be helpfal to provide more specifics about the intent
behind what would be unique, practical and reasonable, and to give some examples so people
would have some idea of what the standazds are.
Commissioner Bazrera said that he did not see Qr hear anything in relation to sustainability,
azchitectural design and energy efficiency. He asked whether these issues have been looked af to
09-1286
see how it would affect the requirements.
Mr. Pereira said that other portions of tfle Ciry's codes address these issues, including the
building and housing codes, which have recently been updated. Alsq there is the City's green
policy, currendy under development, and some of that deals with sustainability for residen[ial
construction.
Mr. Pereira said the required percentage of window area is below the required amount of
windows to meet building and energy codes. Getting some azchitects and designers to look at this
and idendfy issues where the zoning code conflicts with the building and energy codes would be
helpful.
Commissioner Porter said she agrees with what Commissioner Barrera said and her question has
to do with energy. If someone says theie is an issue wiYh the energy code, iegazding how many
windows aze being put in, is there an attempt to balance that or incorporate some of that language
in?
Ms. Wendy Lane, Departmant of Safety and Inspeckions staff, answered a quesrions about
conflicts with the building code. Ms. Lane said that there should not be any conflicts between the
recommended zoning standuds and the building code. One of the things talked about was having
Tequired minimum windows on the side facades of a building. But that was a concern because the
reguired setback for the side property line for fire rating changed in the newest version of the
building code. Instead, staff looked at the overall percentage of windows and there isn't any
conflict in the building code about that.
Commissioner Ward asked about infill houses. As new houses go in are there any stipulaGons or
requirements as to landscaping and type of vegetauon that needs to be on site to ptevent erosion
and continue gceening in the neighboxhood? Are thexe any plans to include a section on
landscaping and the pereentage or type of vegetation on a new construcdon infill site?
Mr. Pereira said there was discussion of dus in a memo to the Neighborhood Committee. There
are some other azeas in the zoning code that discuss landscaping and staff did not recommend
adding new language to what is there already. It is not a part of the recommended amendments.
Commissionex Schertler said that when someone is making this type of investment, single-family
new home construction in a single family residen6al area there is a high level of anxiety
associated wifh that. Tfiere will be some give and take in the site plan review process; it is a
negoGated investment into a commnnity. This is not black and white, so there musE be a
recognifion that this is going to take time and this is going to cost money.
Chair Alton read the mles of procedwe for the public hearing.
The following people spoke.
l. Mr. Bob Roscoe, 1401 E. River Pazkway, Mpls. MN 55414. He has a residential design
practice and has been involved in residen6al design in Minneapolis and Saint Paul for
over 36 years. Mr. Roscoe said what works with these proposed requiremenu is that they
do not impose extra construcflon cost to the average design of a new residendal property
and do not promote conformity. On the other hand it allows variety within a graceful
09-1286
framework. 1`he utban character of Saint Paul is such that gazages on side fronts of
houses shoald be prohibited. Regarding the side enay of a house, he thinks the
requirements need to be more specific. There should be a structura] element on the side
of the house that gives some indication of where the primary entrance is. The primary
� entrance should have a distinctive feature.
Mr. Roscoe noted that porches and accessibility have not been addressed. He commented
on section B(a) saying that it needs to be gceatly expauded. The language becomes
critical, because on one hand you want to be somewhat general but yet you need to be
clear. He agrees with Commissioner Schertler's commem about trauung staff, which is
really important. Also staff needs to make sure these definitions are really clear.
MOTION: Commissioner Wencl moved to coretinue the public )aearing to Friday, June 5,
2009, Zeave the recovd open fot- written Eeslimorzy, and then refer the maKer back to the
Neighborhoad Plannzng Committee for revietv and recommendation. Cornmissioner Ward
seconded the motian. The molion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
V. Zoning Committee
NEW BUSINESS
#09-060-431 Theodore and Elaine Kvasnick — Rezoning from B2 Community Business to
TN2 Traditional Neighborhood. 2038 Mazshalt Avenue between Cieveland and Wilder.
(Josh Williams, 65l/266-6659)
bIOTION: Commissioner Morlon neoved the Zoning Committee's recommendation to approve
the rezoning. The motion carried unarzimously an a voice vote.
Commissioner Morton announced that the next meefing will be on May 28, 2009 and the agenda.
VI. Comprehensive Planning Committee
Central Comdor — Initiate Staflon Area Planning For Hasiline, Victoria, and Western.
(Christina Morrison, 651/266-6546 and Jessica Rosenfeld, 651/266-6560)
t`IOTION: Commissioner Barrera nzoved the Comprehensive Plarening Committee's
recommendation to approve the initiation of station area planning for Hamline, Victoria and
Western stativns. Commissioner Ward seconded tke motion. The motian carried unanimously
on a voice vode.
Off-Street Pazkin� Requirements — Recommendauon to initiate a study.
(Merrin C1app-Smith, 651-266-6547)
MOTION: Commissioner Wenc1 moved the Comprehensive Planning Committee's
recommendation to approve the resolution to inztiute an off street p¢rkiag requirenaents study.
Commissioner Ward seconded tke motion. The nantion carried unanimously on a vodce vote.
1' :�
IV. PUBLIC AEAI2TNGS: Residential Desien Standazds Zonine Sfudv—A continuation
.. from May 22, 2009, Planning Commission meeting. _
(Lurs Pereira, 651/266-5591 and AIZan Torsfenson, 651/266-6579)
Chair Alton announced that the Saint Paul Planning Commission is continui4g a public heazing
from the May 22, 2009, Planning Commission meeting on the Residential Design Standards
Zoning Study. Notice of the pubfic heazing was published in the Legal Ledger on May 11, 2009,
and was mailed to the citywide Early Notificafion $ystem list and other interested parties.
Chair Altoa read the rules of procedwe for the public hearing.
The following people spoke.
Mr. Eric Lagerquist, 2016 Palace Avenue, Saint Paul, President of the American Institute of
Architects (AIA), St. Paul Chapter. Mr. Lagerquist submitted a letter from AIA St, Paul
summaxizing comments they have received from their members. He noted that good design
is very subj ecrive, and people have varied tastes. Ambiguity in the praposed design standazds
leaves a lot to interpretation, which will be a challenge for the Planning Commission in
enforcement of the sfandazds. 'I'�eir greatest concern is about hoiv the proposed standards
will be lnterpreted and enforced, which could be a cumbersome, costly, time-consuming and
adversazial process. They aze a]so concerned about the potenrial impact of the, proposed
design standazds on sustainability and "green" design. Creativity and innovation in design
needs to he OK.
2. Ms, l�erry Antrim, District 6 Planning Council, 213 Front Ave, Saint Paul. The bishict 6
Planning Council supports the design standazds. A few years ago the Eastside and North End
had the "beige houses" with only one or two windows. About a month ago the Eastside
12eview ran the headline, "Dude, Where's My Door7" about a house across the street from
North End Elementary. They are concerned about all fhe vacant houses being torn down,
leaving small vacant lots where new houses could be built. They want to retain neighborhood
individuality. New houses need to compliment the individualify of the neighborhood.
District 6 has design guidelines they worked out with SPARC that were adopted as addendum
to their azea plan summary in 2005, which should not be superseded.
3. Ms. Linda Jungwirth, 1111 Abell Street, Saint Paul. Ms. Jungwirth is a member of the Tri
Area.Block Club, which has submitted viritten comments. She noted that the North End,
Eastside and Frogtown aze the neighborhoods with the highest num6er of vacant lots due to
tear downs, and raost wlnerable to quick, oheap infill housing. They need good, tight design
standards to protect them. She expressed concem about use of the word "should." Not6ing
should be left to interpreYation. Not everything has to iook the same, 6ut deviation can 6e
addressed with var3ances. The standards would allow a sideway house if it is connected with
a wallcway. The standards should be revised so that nothing is open fo interpretation, so that
they can't be intespreted diffetenYly from one case to another.
4, Mr. Chuck Repke, District 2 Community Council, 1961 Sherwood Ave., Saint Paul. Mr.
Repke read and submitted a letter from the Aistrict 2 Comsnunity Council, which supports'the
2
09-1286
design standazds. They are particulazIy concerned about infill houses with no windows or
doors that face the street. �
5. Mr. Kevin FIynn, AiA, LEED AP, EcoDEEP Architects, 2199 PinehursY Avenne, Saint Paul.
Mr. Flynn is President of the US Crreen Building Counc$, Mississippi Headwaters Chapter,
He submitted a written copy of his testimony, which was distr-ibuted to Planning
Commissioner and is on file. Pazagraph (b) is particularly problematic. What do the words
"traditional" and "relate to" mean? Who decides? These seem to issues of style rather than
of quality and performance in our design. There aze plenty of e�camples of poorly designed
"traditional" buildings in the city. Paza�aph (b) couId take away opportunities to make
houses more energy efficient and environmentally responsible, and reduca potential for
sustainable, high quality design. It could reduce ability to properly orient buildings for
passive and acrive solaz design. Tt could lead to increased buildang fooiprints and less
permeable surface, contributing to more stozmwatex dischazge. We need to promote
creativity in addressing these issues rather than stifling it. He thanked the commission in '
advance for all the rime they would spend reviewing their nonconforming projects.
Commissioner Ward asked how to use design standazds to ensure design quality.
Mr. Flynn responded that we can't get quality design by 619nd1y following a checklist about
roof type or size of windows. Rather, this is a question about how to review, evaluate, and
judge each projed_in light of its unique circumstances and needs. Butthere is limited staff
time and expertise for holistic review of every building for aesthetics and quality of'design,
and tastes differ.
Commissioner Nelson asked questions regazding access to sunlight and the screening of
mechanical equipment.
Mr. Flynn said that access to solaz radiation is very important in achieving sustainabilzty and
that some cities provide protection of solar access. He also stated that screening of some
types of inechanical eguipment and trash areas is desirable, but that he believed other portions
of the zoning ordinance cover such screening,
6. Mr. Michael Roehr, 2146 Suliet Avenue, Saint Paul, read and submitted a rvrirten copy of his
testimony, which was distrlbuted to Commissionexs and is on file. He objected to ambiguity
and lack of objective metrics for assessing compliance, and skewed priorities, particulazly
with respect to pazagraph (b), which he chazacterized as worse than useless. It is an"I Irnow
it when I see it" standard that will resuIt in unpredictable, arbiirary, "because I say so"
enforcement, with obvious problems. Rather, we need clear, concise, objecrive, measurable,
easy to understand and administer requirements. We should stear cleaz of &uitless aesthetic
debates. Our neighborhoads should not be treated as a quaint and static museum of house
styles, but rather as a]iving aud evolving reflection of our changmg needs and the way we
Iive.
MOTTON: Commissinner R'encl moved lo close the public hearing, leme the record open jor
written tesiimorry unti14:30g.m. on Monday, Tune 8, 2D09, aad to refer the maiter back to the
NeighborhoadPlanaing Committee for review and recomrasendation: Cammissianer Ward
seconded the moteon. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
'3
09-1286
Page I of 2
Luis Pereira - Residenfial Design Sfandards Public Comment F.
� �-������� �.�. , . - s� -°��� � -
From: "John Jungwirth"
To:
Date: 5/25/2009 8:36 PVI
Sub,ject: Residettrial Design Standards Public Comment
To: St. Paul Planning Commission
c/o Luis Pereira
From: Tr9 Area Block Club
cfo 1111 Abell Street
St. Paul, MN 55117
Re: Public Comment on the Proposed Residenrial Design Standards Ordivance
Amendments
Date: May 25, 2009
The Tri Area Block Club feels the need to submit comment since the "sideways" house located at 38 East Geranium
Avenue that prompted the maratorium is located within our block club boundaries. Infill housing can be either a
contribution or a detracrion to a neighborhood. In struggling neighborhoods such as ours in the North End, we must
ensure quality housing in order to stabilize and improve our housing stock. T"nis is particularly important in light of the
sniall lot sizes iu neighborhoods such as ours and a lack of uali� private inveshnent that would normally guarantee
well-built and attrac6ve homes. Comprehensive design standards are needed to ensure a better future for housing in ow
community. Without them, we get "sideways" houses with windowless/doorless walls facing the street.
Our comments are as follows:
Sec. 63.110. General design standards.
In the first paragraph, there should be a definition for the following terms: unique circumstances, impractical,
and unreasonable. 'I'hese are very general terms and open to interpreta5on.
(a). As written, this section still allows for "sideways" houses by including the words "or linked to that street by a
cleazly defined and visible walkway or courtyard" The requirement should be consistent with that for commercial
buildings written under (c) (3). The front entry of the house should be oriented toward the primary street — PERIOD.
(b). Keep the word "shall" rather than "should." Otherwise, this entire section is merely a suggesdon and as such,
accomplishes nothing. "Shall" means "must" and "should" means that "it might be nice if you did it" If the term
"shalP' is used, you can accommodate any deviation in the same manner that variances aze addressed by the City. This
would sfill allow for variety of design and a"good fiY' within a given neighborhood.
(e). This secfion is confusing and needs to be clarified. As written, the first senfence states, "for principal residenrial
buildings, above grade window and door openings shall comprise at least fifteen percent of the total area of exterior
walls facing a public street or sidewallc." The next sentence states, "for new principal residenfial buildings, above
grade window and door openings shall comprise at least ten percent of the total area of all exterior walls." The issues
needing clarification are:
• In secrion (e), only the second sentence says it is for "new" residential buildings. Does the first sentence also apply
to "new" buildings?
• Are above grade basement windows included in the total for percentage of window/doar openings?
file:l/C:�Documents and Settings\pereira�Local Settings\Temp�grpwise\4A1B014Amai1dpo310016B'70... 5/26/2009
o9-i2s6
Page 2 of 2
• Was the idea for this section essentially to have window/door openings in the front of the house comprising at least
15% of the total area of all exterior walls with the remaining three sides of the house each having openings
comprising at least 10% of the total area of all exterior walls? If so, it needs to be written more clearly. Tf that was
not the intention, then could a house have 1-2 sides with no window or doar openings?
Thank you foi allotiving us the opporNnity to comment on these standards.
--- Get FREE High Sneed Intemet from USFazni1 .�Net! ---
file:!/C:�Docwnents and Settings\pereira�I,ocal Settings\Temp\XPgtpwise\4A1B014Amai1dpo310016B70... 5/26/2009
09-1286
5/29/09
To Whom It May Concem:
My name is Therese Tremblay. I live at 1467 Sargent Avenue in the Mao-Grove
neighborhood. We purchased our house back in 1980 when we were just 23 years old.
We hought the house because it was full of light and we liked the neighbarhood.
IYs a small bungalow {950 sq. ft.) but it has many windows. We envisioned filling the
sun room with glants and enjoying the bright and cheecful ldtchenldining room. We did
just that unril the nei�bors built an addition to their house about 1'/z years ago.
The neighbor's house had four finished floors but apparently wasn't large enough to meet
their "needs". The neighbors told us that they were building a"small" addition that
wouldn't extend past the back of our house. The addition extends well beyond the back
of our house.
The roof line on the addition slopes toward the side of our house. So, at ]east a third of
the snow that used to blow from their roof to their back yard is now deposited in our
yard. Some of the snow actuatly blows off of their roof righf into our kitchen and dining
room windows. We have replacement windows without storms so the snow goes through
the screens and packs onto our windows. We need to remove it cvith a broom and then
open our windows to manually remove the snow with gloves on. The only consolation is
that in the spring the snow melts down the small hill to their house, which I believe
exacerbates the water problem in their basement.
The addition blocks the daylight from our kitchen and dining room. We have to turn the
lights on in the kitchen even on sunny days. The loss of light can be depressing
(especially in the winter). I feel lika I've been robbed but thexe's no way to replace the
loss without moving.
We wi11 not move. Unlike many people we live within our means. Our house has been
paid for since 2001. IY s our home, we've raised our family here, we Love St. Pau1 and
we're staying.
I realize that there is nottring you can do to improve our situation. However, I hope that
you consider the adj acent residents before allowing people to increase the foot print or
height of their house. The City web site says that St. Paul is "The most livable city in
America". Is this only true far the people that increase the tax base?
Thank-you for your consideration,
Therese Tremblay
9
m
0
c
° o
F
0
C
�
`o
n
m
N
3
v
�
'J j
O �
3 v
U
.r�-�
U
Q
Y
C
R
LL
�
o ; � �
_ Z O^�
- Wa R .e�
_ _ - o � -
i C
� � C � N 9 �
d 0 C` �y � C }
L � N`o c ' U'2 `S
� s2 .�_
c^
� Ec q ;
�O `�� �
pa V b
3= w,e`_c s o,.. 5
N � " � q � C N
O L V'S TT' CO�U`�
y O -
N � 9 y ;�'_° v'`
_ � u A =
r n �$ 9 T o a g
g m :a Qo a a-o
�
a V °°'" m Y �^ � '°
�a.➢ NL
3 m�L F' C u d O
.0 "�C � « O � O C
o=` a v`:' ����-
��`�am
•
a _ 'j � N q >
x �vs 3.n.'o
Z
�
O
U
Z
m ¢�
O 6 O
� �U
�
U
�
O
0
_ � u
�o �� a
'p � {
`g� e �
C U M O± U y�
q � z'v Q ? V
_ �3._ E
„-° g ° c " v
° � E z�?�
�'u�E 2,'_ m
� C
� o o � E
m-°�o-�nm�
? a �-°"°�`d
- � v � �
� V'� �$
_ �yo��
�` oe� �a A
�E �°moTi•C
V N v d j O.�
3 0 L = r � � �
' 9 o rt'� e�
c - c_ .nL 2 E
p's m c m E
��b�z�v�i
o d mY� a A� q
�'p V 9
'- C
� a N H � � a
o asc3
�.s�..i�Ea�v`
- V �
L V v � u�
ivcy6;oa
V.S c
ti
° ° E E m m � }
' � a.$'tEb m
�D O'J $ � s A p
y � �c�' o v .s�. -` m
ov�>Zc�Q
oay��gya
_ -, �,
`"> eo e.�°- E o . - °' y
°� o p�� o b a
E �
� 3 a O 9 U O s
m� a w q a� �
.` a-' . �� c �' ��`, n � v
� K � C O
`m2' 2 3
y �V c ���j
.c:=.5.�%$" eo
03_�,� �`
v��d,���'N o 0
� v � � � u P
�9 O �}� O in d
��'�@�CAyC
N
~ N rv m m� a, a
�;'�"€, cEo
��� �q v 3
_IJO Vc 1'i,.
M O
J j
Or C
o "-' a
ods
�O
�b
o'
O9 V
n�y
o N g
£�
Y_ V
OS
3 � �
_S�
a 9 y y
o E.� H
9
n o = �
�p - C
y > � N
�7i a U
�
� � o
..O �
� �
a '�9
c � �
`m �
=�im
g.r�
ppy L
° � N
t o �
a A
�ot
`oQ
OQ;
i ` g �
o � n
s v
��n
u
�dn
C �
-p U
0 3
� � u
> �
=as
p°- �8,
� ° u q
9 A V
: � v o
9 ��L
g._a
o ��', o
� o �
_��
� p O
�Yi�
�Q .
e
� y V
o C G
� o �
�;
�
m m
� �
N �
.c v
3=
�c��
a °^
c"-'
nnm
i n "}yn
O
o
=av
�3a
d ' c
_ y
° �= e
C'
O'� �
� � D
M D O a
�'" �
���
n
_ C �
t : q
'�an
O O
v y � N m
u
F V L 9 G.
2 � ' a° �'
S d
o a� a T
i b 3 °
a
V �. � 9
1° v v o
y
� os °`
9 c,�.�
� c o
R V.`. y� �
° c`oc�m
m � ? a
ovci
s � v ° �v �
` �
;a'�a>
8 „3s3
�
E � 3 3 E
C � � � b
ea�..a9a
o'
£ ' S„ � o ,`d�
¢ `�m �'-
s � D
c��
O .' V
�. c
E _
E d �
� o ;
N9y�
N a �
Yl q
V �' y
?ua
3 :., ;
r � `o -�
y$�
E �
� m
N � n
�'��w
03 R
� � �
� � �
��w
�
V
a
o�
�'E
i
v
o �
0 01
V « �
m a" €
�
_•���
6 Q' � ` C � `
i r � V �L v
2V�
c m n 3$ v 9
pL
J°'"vF;cc
��wm°o�
�S-CQF"
2�.n 3 a•-" i
co� yrv�
��._
�a o-y m
amRS£
.c� � v c u
r y? E F w
= p�o
o v
y0 A S q$ F O
c; ��2�
'ao� ��c
� � o �Q•-.�
a a v - O a
_ ,� o.c @ �
� a � "' ._ .
yao-3C^
EEwcb-o�'s�S
� av c .� �.- �
V � � � � j � C
¢E-Scm -
09-1286
� G
n -
u z
C n d
�n$
m o
° -^o
� A .
uY
T Ot
� � �
� c �
.��o
_ n n
���
.t.
a e 3
aoa
= g n
C
r ° E
o€N
�
m�p
A �
v�'i3v
Y �
v ;o
=o
� y
s
N
`o�
aa
a
'o °�
3 :,
mq
�'o
v �
¢v�
_ N
E a �
= m
; V _
„ o m
r q
q �
n �
m�`o
�a�
va�
m n
r o 8
Y
09-1286
d
0
i
N N
°e
`o E
o�
9 �
N �
� �
» Y�
n�
� o
l u - C
��
q A
0
G d
�
'J o
- _
�a� -a
�o.E
��v.�
� 0 5 `
^ •e �3 j� m_
d �
YV.�j�=�Cx
� � � d T `
o. a a_"�`' N N
v
= ��°,'��.�$
o ='
Nv °'q
J. O� V O Q
3y
_ b o �
` .5 ° $��' _ .°
n'yL�c°
-`o_.. c
v �g3.` o
.m v�m�
�,s�,�EEi.
O �aE
�° o � �
u9�" v � ° n � �
o ¢ °'m �'>�
'-.�� '
c £ " „
� � E 'o a � �
� ' u 5 v
�n `Ji a v� ,.
£ v �
d� A
� � c
c v•-.:v
' o p .°.° °" a
N � V � � O ).
d O � � j b
a o ,�
V O� C
'a'C�aR
T u'c'c„�c�y �
� ° � g e '��
t�NdST�
�� O N P E 3
6 d a q�= o
3a'n
.c E � i � h'�
M°oa.a
�i ` E � a • t �G
O � � O y 9
C d C f�J '�o `p �
%mE`c> �
o ` ro '�'_ rv
�zs vEo
n ` r _ o �
'�m�ry"d�="�
jSo a�� n >:
d
`v
C
� O
�
c � ¢¢d
Q c v =
�LL¢�
_ � a _
l�d
`Y
iVu�iv
u
'�
3
a.
G
�
�
�
2
C
09-1286
�
�
m
�'
D� m
�,
�
�I
�
� I
�
��.a_-.
a n � m
��^� !
�v�'° [
m'o �-m
3 � �
S
� � y N
� N � �
� w �
� m
���6W
.a��d
a � v n .�t'
Victoria Street � � T� �
I
N
o`
3
S
�
E �
a �
p` h
£ $
a a
��
�� t ��
c E i E 9 E�
o L E� e� d
� � � ` e �
m E 5 E a° 'v
� o � —
.°_ .`. y o 2 3
z c °m �
y � o S a
n � _ V � 9 E
3 a ° E �
3 a
A .`a � m � �
° �c� c ,`a� � i' o
� s p q 5 3 t
a = � g � o _ a
m � � � � � � a
$a= � a�s
r�p��=
c u a' � a 5
$
E
� '
.. 6
;�
v 3
. 3
�;3
,�,E'
� d :
3 =
� � m
�ft
3 � H
�;v
$ 3 >
a « �
'° < �'
a � 8
e�=a
��'
, B
g � y+e
E�
� r
� � e
� 5 N
E ^+ �
asp
c b E
� �
3 $�
E a
p �a
F +
o F
Y 4
3 �
Y m E
; Q �
<>�
� —
� E
� d
� � u
� a
a s"
¢ �� � �
V U
Y d o
e' '
o A : � § m
y � E « $ 9 °
f n � � W 3
��s���
c `o � � c
t a � d i
; � 'o y o'�
'� ' C ' � c'
ro � ' o o v
- Q 3 -
6 � f �
m 6 c z E
6 - r ; � Q
� 5 A 'E c
w E a � _
9 � fl s � �
E R Z t '� � 3
` dv�=
���q�s:
`� 3 �
Y L==
3 ` o �
t E �
_ � ; e
� O F � J
f a « F �
v v E p °
� E � 0 9
� a Y 3 .,
d� `°-
v � � 3
`'rx� a
c � p a'c
R a � � 5
E 9.s 7 $ o
� � � L �
v �' ° �i �{
��gm9
t $,.��`e'E
x ° � d
o E � ; r � 2
o a°rY � Y 3 v
� $ � 3 r G r
g � ` 9 � t Yf
` E i� $ t 3 .'.
o E 3 m "
k £ a ° y � 3 m
E d a a � m�
a:rQOyG
- e
a p a
3 � _ ` 3 5
$ o m o � d '&
:�
�v T no�
3 n �.. ..H
09-1286
1' :i
Page 1 of I
Luis Pereira - Meeting
:��___��-�-� -- -«�;��. - -°�.�� - �����-
From: MicheIle Wall
To:
Date: 6!4(2009 1031 P&T
Subject: Meeting
I am sorry that T won't be able to attend the meeting tomorrow after all (I don't think my 4-year old would add much to
the meeting).
If you are asked for input received from cirizens, you may tell them that although city councii members and ciry staff
may have heazd complaints about design/style about homes that do not "match" surrounding houses (like ours), we
regulazly, i.e. multiple Umes each week, have drivers/bikers/walkers stop to tell us how much they love our house
(most of whom live in the neighborhood). We had an overwhelming number of people out of the 750 or so who came
to see our home on the Minneapolis-St. Paul Home Tour in 2007 tell us how pleased they were to see something so
modern, orianal and well designed built in the neighborhood, People are no[ going to call to report a home that they
find appealing; they call only when something is out of their comfort zone that somehow they find distasteful. I can
imagine the first negarive reac6ons to the four square/Craftsman/Prairie sryle homes first conshucted from people
living in Victorians -- essenrially these were the first modern design homes and yet now they aze considered traditionaJ.
There is room fox both traditional and modem in a city that wants to be vibrant and dynamia Ntodem is not a rejecrion
to tradition. In fact, I find as I drive and see new homes built in a traditional style that something is off -- they seem
cartoonish, fake and (I find) an insult to the beautiful homes around them.
I sympathize with your committee members in addressing the concems of individuals who want somehow to "protecP'
the integrity of St. Paul neighborhoods. Aowever, I don't think the sohition lies in dictating the pitch of a roofline, paint
or materials selection, or general "sryle" of design. (If that discussion is open, I'fl like to voice my displeasure in Dutch
colonials, garish purple punt on a bungalow, and vinyl siding on 1920s and 1930s homes -- probably not a welcome
topic but one worthy of inclusion if "style" becomes a dominant theme.) Ultimately, I don't think St. Paul should or
even could go down this path. 4Vhy not focus the discussion on issues of quality construction, sustainabllity and good
design? Hardar, but probably more fruitFul.
My family has been in St. Paul for 99 yeazs, we lived in two homes we loved in the same (Macalester-Groveland)
neighborhood, and we consider our new, modern home to be a suitable addiflon to our neighhorhood. We aren't asking
everyone to love our home (we don't love every home in our neighborhood, either). But the city is not a place to
mandate narrow definitions of a home. There are already places like that (matchy-matchy where you can choose from
35 shades of beige for the exterior!), but that's not a place I'd ever want to call home.
If anyone on the committee would like to contact me personally (or even see our home), I would be happy to arrange a
time to do so.
Sincerely,
Michelle Wall
file:UC:�Documents and Settings\pereira�L,ocal Settings\Temp�grpwise\4A284B4'7maildpo310016B706... 6/8l2009
09-1286
�����
55��
2
�a�S.
� S
�����
b��
o`g
�e
�
� � � .�
� � a�
� ° m
�� g�
a �[ C �j
y � G P tJ N
g � u
� � o � � �
� � s � � a �e
y � � N m p z
[ u a � '' V �} � O
.G
�m g "gh� �° '3 �'"�'u
N N NA 5 e'j �y � O
� `r o' `� n' ',� a O'3 �
� T � 3 � � �
H c3aN�, x o H��3
b
�
N U
��W
��
vO.A
� � �
��s
m $ �
S'a'
T��
YO�'3
waA
3 0 -�
a ` 5
^on
a° ��
C {'
���
��L
3oa
s��
� .. t
�au
� o 0
a�
�o�
'� W �
� T y �
$'�y
a
� �
O d
�
�A
r
�� .
ek�
o��
.S
05�
���
➢ a �
� y >
O�
9'e
_�
� � �
� .� .g
u 3=
<�
� � tl
�
� A
�
$.9d
�� S
e�'
���
��.
� � ��
x A �
3 y
L o`o'LS v
��w
�
os;g
V � b
.� � v� a
.� q'O 'f
� d'if
S
se��
V �
S WA�
C1,$
9 �
�'o �a
� fi 6 �
.938e
�
�� Q
m=
� O �
v� U 1�
09-1286
��� ���������
?. So:'�ziY e'?he nmsr:�n ir<; tWe al 4v:�itcrJs
Date: Addressiag:
June 5, 2009 , Ciry of St. Paul Planning Commission
�� �.
a�ad�ys.o
a ee6+m'
�
Re: Amendments to Proposed General Design Standards
The review of [he Amendments to the General Design Standazds was brought to the attentlon of
the ]ocsl St. Paul AIA CSapter on May 28, 2009. A tequest for tesponse to the ptoposed
changes was forNarded to our members. The AIA would welcome the opportuniry for a moie
detailed analysis of the specific amendments provided moce time be allo[ted for review. The
following is a summarization of comments from our members throughout Minnesota.
• Creativity and innovation must uot be thwarted. There is a constant evolution of our
St. Paul neighborhoods due to creafive practices whather through design, material
usage, siting of abuilding, etc. This is what makes St. Paul a desirable communiTy in
which to resides and further invest and should not be compromised.
• Design Standazds often increase unnecessary fees for Owners due to the extensive
requirements of a submission for a Design Review Committee. This can be a
wmbersome process that can lead to costly and adversarial results for the public.
• For the implementarion of Design Standards such as these, Vaziances and Conditional
Use Permits should be enthusiastically reviewed and reasonably considered. Often
times, as found in our twin city, it is a sriuggle for a ciry to consider design work that
needs speciat considemfion meant onty to improve the hexlth of a neighborhood
environment as well as a the hea(th of a property owner.
• Sustainability and "greed' pmctices aze ignored within the design standazds. It is our
respousibiliry as Atchitects to piomote these practices and employ where reasonable.
Regarding the pcoposed amendmenfs in paztiwlar, ihe use of altemative energy sources
and sustainable materiats should be addcessed.
• If a committee for review of the design standards is implemented, how will tl�e
subjective nature of the requirements ba propedy aasessed on a cas�be�case basis?
Again, these are a summarizaGon of the general comments and concems brought to us by ovr
membera The AIA appreciates your consideration of the points and stands at the ready to be an
active parNer in yow exploralion of this critical issue of Design Standazds for Ihe City of Sf.
PaUI. "
Respecffuliy,
Eric Lagerquist, AIA
AIA SG Paui, P[esident
Meg}ian Kell Comell, ASA
ASA Sc Paul, Dicector
2i5 ;R<^.rk?t Stre,ot, Swte 5d
..iir�neaadis, MN 5540`rt52'i
'ieI81?-'_58-57I53 �ax'e4�-3:.�ki-i981
vr inn orn,
09-1286
s
�
�
B9
ag
��
��
my
N `� a5
eo��.��
m
�m �s
��s�a�
�m3_
€�m���
�s�
��
Et ���
q gao
9 ��Aa�
gg°� ���
��&
�`sAa�o
�
�� �
�� g
8 ��
�`c pjg�
�� ��
B �a
38 ��
a� �9
�� ��e
S �p�
�� ��
5��
�€ �q3
�� �-m
��' €�s
a_ ��-�
� �a�s
s° ���
3e a'
s�
sg
Ra
�8
as
�q
€�
�
`�z�
� ��de
� ����
09-1286
� o � � o
_ = Q g
Y � q $
� � _
'C z ° E
�
o Q � 'o m
`I ��ge
�It } d
� o o � c
� � � E
,;, 9 v �E
� d � m `a
b «
� � a � m
o a n v
s��s�
x3�a� �
5 o >
a�=
'o E E ` ` a
� E � E °-
_ a � 8
_ i � ..
a � h `_ r
��qp
_ v c � "o
>
� y � � il
:�°=3�6r
9 � E $ u � -
— 's;
a€�veS
3 � v � 6 b
B �� - ` �
� t � € e
� � i q � y
° ^ a m � � y
E ° oa d t'
a - � a . i
0
8
0
�
�
E
u
m
��
S ui
d�
❑ a
z �
c - �
�a
s d �� � a
.F. «'`c $„-
E '- o � �
A � � � n
c� a a � e
v � Z Z � 3
� ° 9 � C
V'i @C';p�r
=t 6r�
' a b A'
"
� � 9 E ° H
� � Y � �
� `o ; =
$ 0 i = ; c
"
o y � ' v y
� v g � ° �
E a _ ° E
$ n c ° �E u
£ ° 0
�$
i g
q = v E � L
n i m "
�=g =
3 �
c 2 .Y q
a
�a��
E - . °
_ q 3 n
` x e"
m �'e
`e1 ° c �",�,
C 9 `n 3
Y '0 3 0
syy�
� ' ' °
; � E s
�
B
�
�
3
k
' o E 'i c E
3 � v .E E T
.� � � > �
_m�9�`�°�
a � � � x ¢
�a
� � � m � E
° c l. v ` `o
s a Y a $ �
E '� t A V
ooy
t 3 8 E � �
E � a° _
3 c
E a 9 o E�
" y » m�
n a E � 'o E
_�iams
m� ,�Y _ E
m E n 3 '-
9 o V°'0 E a
xag
_ u 3 u E •�• a n
q� ti � o g r ��
Z� a a m t4 9 c
� � t °�' d
G � o � �°o -°' € C
a '� « �
� —"_vx�
'��%e�
d�i � a a d o cZ
o ` °[, A. E9 �5�
�tmoc�g�s
m d p � a
Q� v 1 g S o C E Y
�
�
3
�
3
��
a�
�
0 3
G' �
r
�
� E
E 3
i � 3
c a �
� 3 0
t E �
3 9 �
« o �p o
n 3 _ E
^ v a ° i
c'� 3'8 a � E F E �
'� n.��A o x
�a°"�'aaa
m3 v'�<�� a�t A
� } $ 5 � .� E '� � �
n��i E p c E
�� o o T L � 3 .c
;`vQ°'°�°°°o
° ; '� u � ° , 9 � E `li
Z s �} q a c
c fr y`o p o 3 c i E a
E ; n ;
� �=�i._ �-�. ���
va '° rox
.e 8 v� V � c�� E r
d ° y v` `� � M �_ d y
� .�. a y £ E o
' 3 E�� m s� C�� 2
� �4 £ « E .� � fl . .z
u }1
��'ad�y;d�vaa
y m
� 3
� c
c 8
E �
f a
�F
o�
°_ $ �
p 3 �
E � 3
i+` n a
E u
� `� o �
_ �
b ` o a
s = c �
L m N
�.°.
� � � 3
3 p ° a c
E o � E
- m � m
n"o
- E P
c � 8 E
<=a�
3 y � r
�__«
09-1286
b � e a s g E ti
� � x a x d _
2' 3 � 9 4 .. > E
�tE
E N � E `g ` ; � E
� v �.�. ° E a �
0
� � a � � $ � ; v
c 9 p-`o v m
< - a � v = ° ' �
9 o t E 3 9�� Y
u G y c E
� c � � € ; m _ _
� � a i 8 ,° `w
�
n=�v` '�s
a°a�a=
.� � `� � t �' $ �
— ._ � n ._ E s
� C
3 a 3 $ �
c '- ' 3 �
i F' ` `^ _
� e E � o
m 6 F s L
6 �� ; �
—s�"�
t � � E �
n E » c
N�g<5
s3
� a°' u9
m g � �b
E s ° � � �
t E ; u � a
o's..„�«n
� �
K
N� �
��e
�_�
'�' 3 a o
E � 9 g
���
a q
° $' 9 a
saEo
m � :
�"
g;
n.
<�
y �
c a
� � .
6 e .
o p .
o °
` o
ea
� � �.
� e
E � n
_ cl
�d� o'
a¢.,
e
r�
,Y
.Q
i;
,�
c e
E 6
rv o
e C
e E
e`=
��
� o
E E
3 e
o `�
�'
a �
�o
�Y
o �
3
v
�
v
3
3
�
r �
$
a�
� E
e °'
vb
a °1
09-1286
0
�-At <
v��Q m$
�v� �
�
nms m�
»��� °$
t_�u cmhm
- E E
¢
_ � q a
�� E i
� 2
� `r.. A a
�� � � �
m � E v g f�'�'
' c '
$ � mffi � o
0 ��°�,e m
fG<�U 6� �
ari
..�' °a'
a..=a � '
LLFO� UY ��
8
S
09-1286
Fram: Mersi Fromm <tromm@ntp.cc>
To: <Iuis.pereiraC�ci.stpaui.mn.us>
Dafe: 6/8/2005 421 PM
Subject: Residential Design Standards
Dear Mr. Pereira,
I would like to comment on the portion of the proposed design standards that
pertain to screening of inechanical equipment. I believe that the standards
should include aIl equipment, not just that equipment that is mounted on a
roaftop.
A recent addition and remodeling occurred iwo doors trom my home. As a pari
of the new construction a whole house air conditioner. was added. The
condenser for this system sits on the ground between the new addition and
the adjoining neighbors property. Not only is the condenser unsightly, it
generates a significant amount of noise. My neighbar has mentioned several
times how she hates the condenser and its location. Its operation disrupts
the quite enjoyment of a large screen porch with lovely views to a wooded
backyard. The noise from the mechanical unit is so disruptive, that the
porch can no longer be used as a sleeping porch in hot summer months.
Even better than screening, locations for mechanical units of this type
should be limited to areas that minimize impact to neighbors. The greatest
impact to views and noise should be placed upon the property that is
receiving the benetit of the equipment, not on neighboring properties.
Merri �romm
206 Wheeler St. S.
Saint Paul, MN 55105
651-206-8336