Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCMin_95Sep25MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • September 25, 1995 7:00 p.m. PRESENT ABSENT ALSO PRESENT Lee Barry Betty Wilcox Susan Hoyt, Administrator Wayne Groff Carla Asleson, Planner Alex Hanschen Paul Kuettel Wendy Treadwell Tom Brace (7:09 p.m.) Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the June 26, 1995 meeting were approved as presented. There were no planning commission meetings held in July or August. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Administrator Hoyt reviewed the city council minutes with the planning commission, noting . that the city will be working with Falcon Heights Elementary to develop better park facilities for the northeast quadrant of the city. INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONER The newest planning commissioner, Wayne Groff, was introduced to the other commissioners. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO CHAPTER 9-2.06 OF THE ZONING CODE FOR ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT AT 1710 ST. MARY'S STREET Planner Asleson explained that Dale Huff and Linda Fite of 1710 St. Mary's Street are requesting a variance to construct an eight foot high privacy fence along their rear property line. Without a variance, the zoning code allows fences up to six feet in height, which is a reasonable regulation for most properties in the city. The Huff/Fite property, however, is unique in that it abuts a commercial property/alley that is used for the loading of appliances and for refuse disposal. An adequate screen between the residential and commercial zones is therefore desired. The applicants have cited noise and visual unattractiveness of the commercial property as their hardship statements. The fence would run only along the rear line of the property and not along the northern or southern side lot lines. Letters were mailed to property owners abutting 1710 St. Mary's Street, explaining this request. Staff received a call expressing support for the variance from Marianne McNulty, 1700 St. Mary's Street. Ms. McNulty received a similar variance for her property in 1992 for reasons similar to those cited by Mr. Huff and Ms. Fite. • Commissioner Kuettel asked the applicants about the design of their fence. Mr. Huff explained that the fence would be of the same design as their neighbor to the south (1700 St. Mary's). A motion was made by Commissioner Treadwell to approve the resolution recommending approval of the variance to the city council. Seconded by Commissioner Hanschen and unanimously approved. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO CHAPTER 9-13.04 OF THE ZONING CODE TO PERMIT TWO ACCESS DRIVES TO THE PROPERTY AT 1386 W. IDAHO AVENUE Administrator Hoyt reported that Michael Zalk and Sissel Ilstad of 1386 W. Idaho Avenue have requested a variance to permit two access drives to the double, tandem garage that they propose to build on their property. Other than the dual access issue, the proposed garage meets all other conditions of the zoning code. The requested variance would allow the applicants to access their garage from both the street and from the alley (the property currently has street access to the existing single car garage). The new, double car garage could be built in a standard configuration with driveway access only from the street or only from the alley. This type of configuration would require much more paving and would reduce the amount of open space in the rear yard. Staff's review of this proposal included an analysis of whether this property is unique. The property in question is one of six properties in the city that has a detached garage entirely in its rear yard with access from the street rather than from the alley (there are an estimated 220 homes on interior lots with alley access to the garagel. Therefore, this property is uniquely situated because it does not have alley access for its detached garage in a neighborhood whose urban design standards are developed around the concept of rear access to accessory structures. These design standards are meant to maintain front yard landscaping along the • street. From that design standpoint, this property should be using alley access rather than driveway access. However, the driveway to the street was put into place many years ago and the applicants should not be denied the right to use the alley access that was intended for their property. The alley design of this neighborhood also reflects the intent of the current zoning code to maintain open spaces in residential areas, especially in rear yards. This particular garage configuration does maximize open space and prevents the need to remove a mature birch tree in the rear yard. Property owners abutting the subject property were notified about the proposed garage but did not contact staff with comments. Hoyt stated that the planning commission had two alternatives: • Deny the variance request because there is not a demonstrated hardship nor unique characteristic on this property that justifies approving a variance for more efficient access to the proposed garage; or • Approve the variance request because: al the property is uniquely situated as one of six properties that has a detached garage entirely in the rear yard with access from the street rather than the alley; b) the property is unique because it has the opportunity to utilize rear alley access to a rear yard accessory structure, which is what the alley was designed for; c) the proposal is consistent with the intent of the zoning code because it maximizes greenspace in the property's rear yard and protects the property's current configuration of open space and vegetation; and d) the proposal is consistent with the • intent of the original neighborhood design by utilizing alley access to a detached accessory structure in the rear yard with a driveway of no more than six feet in length, similar to other drives off of alleys in the neighborhood. Hoyt stated that staff recommends approval of the variance with two conditions: 1) that the garage remain in its proposed configuration in the rear 46 feet 138%) of the property and 2) that the driveway to the street be removed if there is no longer direct vehicle access from the street into the garage. She also noted that staff would not likely have recommended approval if the proposal had been to add street access to a garage that already had alley access, because street access should be discouraged whenever it is not already existing. Also, staff would not likely have recommend approval of a variance to add alley access to an existing attached garage with street access because this would involve adding another long driveway to the rear of the property which would be inconsistent with the goal of maintaining greenspace unless the property conditions were very unique. Michael Zalk, property owner, stated that he had no objections to the conditions on the variance proposed by staff. He also stated that he has explained his plans to his neighbors and they have voiced no objections. Furthermore, he stated that when the garage is built, it may be a bit smaller than the 15' x 40' garage shown on his application. It is his intent to keep the structure as small as possible while still being functional. Commissioner Brace asked about the proposed garage's setback from the alley. Administrator Hoyt responded that since the garage door would be parallel to the alley, a five foot setback is required to allow for vehicles to turn into the building. The Zalk/Ilstad proposal shows a six foot setback. Mr. Zalk commented that although he would have preferred a greater setback, he wanted to minimize the amount of paved and built space on his property. Commissioner Brace then asked for clarification on staff's recommendation to require removal of the existing driveway to the street. Administrator Hoyt explained that if a property owner • were to connect the proposed garage to the existing house and could not access the garage from the street, the driveway would have to be removed. The rationale for this decision is that if the driveway is not going to be used for garage access, it should be turned into greenspace to make the property consistent with others in the neighborhood. Motion was made by Commissioner Kuettel to approve the resolution recommending approval of the variance to the city council with the conditions as noted by staff. Seconded by Commissioner Brace and unanimously approved. REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS RELATED TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SNELLING AND LARPENTEUR AVENUE Administrator Hoyt told the commission that the city had hired a consultant to analyze the potential future uses of the southeast corner and make recommendations as to the future use of this property on topics such as design guidelines and how to make the property blend in with neighboring properties. The commission will be appraised of the consultant's recommendations in the coming months. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. • Carla Asleson, Planner and Recording Secretary