Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCMin_95Jun26• MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 26, 1995 7 p.m. PRESENT ABSENT ALSO PRESENT Lee Barry Tom Brace Susan Hoyt, Administrator Alex Henschen Paul Kuettel Carla Asleson, Planner Wendy Treadwell Ken Salzberg Sue Gehrz, Council Liaison Betty Wilcox (7:20) Due to lack of a quorum, the opening of the meeting was delayed. Hoyt reported on #7 (Deadlines for Planning Decision ... )on the agenda while waiting for the fourth commissioner to arrive. INFORMATION RELATED TO DEADLINES FOR PLANNING DECISION AND GENERAL LAND USE REGULATIONS. Hoyt said the 1995 legislative session adopted permit deadlines for municipalities that would require cities to notify applicants within 10 days if additional information is required and action within 60 days or notification if a delay is expected. She said the only impact this would have on Falcon Heights is that action must be taken on planning • requests such as variances and conditional use permits in a timely manner once the required information is submitted, and that having a quorum at each meeting is very important. A summary of land use controls prepared by the City of Minnetonka was provided to the commissioners for their information. With the arrival of the fourth commissioner, the meeting was called to order at 7:20 p.m. by Chair Barry. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the May 22, 1995 planning commission meeting were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING ALONG PORTIONS OF TATUM STREET Administrator Hoyt reported on the Tatum Street residents' request for permit parking. Back rg ound Following a request from a resident, Tatum Street was designated two hour parking between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday in December, 1994. All Tatum Street residents were invited to a meeting when this request was considered by the planning commission. At that time, residents and property owners were informed about the opportunity for permit parking if the parking restrictions created problems for their personal vehicles during the restricted hours. After parking restrictions were posted in • April and May, 1995, the city received two petitions requesting residential permit parking on portions of Tatum. • Planning Commission Meeting 6/26/95 Page 2 Policy Public streets are available for use by the general public. Allowing some residents to be exempt from the parking restrictions that apply to the general public requires a demonstration of need. First, the adjacent land uses generate more than usual residential traffic and second, the property owners require some relief from parking restrictions that are necessary because of automobile congestion in the neighborhood. In order to assure the city that there is a need for permit parking, a petition signed by 75% of the property owners in a minimum distance of one 600 foot block front(one side of street) must be initiated. The petition is submitted to the city with a $100 fee to cover the cost of processing the application. The request is reviewed by staff and a recommendation is made on the area to be designated for permit parking. If the city council approves residential permit parking, residents along the designated area may purchase annual permits at $10 each for the first two vehicles registered to their address and $20 for each additional vehicle. This fee is charged to cover the cost of processing the application including a license registration check, and having the officers enforce this parking arrangement for registered vehicles. • Petitions reauestin~ permit parkin In May, 1995, two petitions were received requesting residential permit parking on Tatum Street and were accompanied by the standard $100 fee to cover the costs. The $100 fee covered both petitions because the review and notification were done at the same time. Petition area #1: north of 1844 and 1894 Tatum Street to 1888 and 1920 Tatum Street (75%) was initiated by Gary & Jean Malzer of 1903 Tatum. Petition #2: south of 1971 and 1794 Tatum Street to 1739 and 1736 Tatum Street (82%) was initiated by Rick Elm of 1765 Tatum. Response to notices All Tatum Street property owners were notified of a public hearing on permit parking. As of June 26, 1995, no property owners had contacted the city about the hearing. In addition to sending the notice to petitioned areas, 27 property owners in the non- petitioned areas were requested to notify the city about their interest in permit parking by returning a stamped, addressed card. Ten responded with interest in residential permit parking; one responded neutrally if she did not have to pay for a permit; 4 responded that they had no interest in permit parking. When the petitions and response cards were tallied together, the results were as follows: • 61 % of the property owners expressed an interest in permit parking or signed a petition for permit parking on all of Tatum. • Planning Commission Meeting 6/26/95 Page 3 7% expressed a disinterest in permit parking 2% (1 owner) was neutral. 30% did not respond to the notice or did not sign the petition. The commission discussed alternatives available for residential permit parking which included: - posting the two areas within the street length that petitioned for permit parking; - posting the entire westside of the street and the eastside of Tatum north of 1844 Tatum Street and south of 1794 Tatum Street; - posting both sides of the street, north of 1728 and 1733; - post both sides of the entire street where 2 hour parking is posted. Chairperson Barry opened the public hearing at 7:40. Rick Elm, property owner, said that a majority of property owners have demonstrated • both a need and an interest in permit parking along the entire street and he respectfully requested the commission make a recommendation for this to be done. There being no one else wishing to be heard, the public hearing closed at 7:45. Treadwell moved to recommend to the city council that Tatum Street be designated for residential permit parking and to adopt the resolution approving the request for residential permit parking. Seconded by Hanschen and unanimously approved. RAC UEST FOR VARIANCE OF TWO FEET FROM THE REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK FOR 1865 N. HAMLINE AVENUE, CHAPTER 9-2.05 SUBD.2(a) Planner Asleson reported that Mr. Keith Mays, 1865 N. Hamline Avenue,is requesting a variance to construct a deck at a setback of three feet rather than the minimum of five feet from the interior side lot line. Chapter 9-2.05 subd.2(a) of the zoning code requires that decks be constructed at a setback of five feet from interior side and rear lot lines. The street setback minimum on corner lots is 20% of the lot width. She said these setback requirements are necessary to keep decks from being constructed too close to neighboring properties. • The Mays' property is located at the corner of Hamline and Ruggles Avenues. Asleson said that while the address is Hamline Avenue, the actual front entrance is located on Planning Commission Meeting • 6/26/95 Page 4 Ruggles Avenue. A variance was obtained when the house was constructed for a rear yard setback of 21' rather than the required 30' rear yard setback. Although the proposed deck would be on the side yard of the property it would actually be located to the rear of the front entrance. It would be 10 ft. wide and 20 ft. in length. An existing sliding glass door, which currently is unusable because it is about two feet from the ground, would be used for access with stairs being built down to the ground from the deck. The deck would be located 13 feet from the neighboring property owner's deck with no overlap between the proposed deck and the neighboring structure. Asleson said that alternatives had been considered for placement of the deck in another area of the house but barriers existed to prevent this. 1. To place the deck on the Hamline side (east) would mean building the deck in the "technical" front yard with access from a bedroom rather than the family room. This is not permitted except by variance. 2. To place the deck on the Ruggles side (south) would mean building the deck in • the "visual" front yard but access would again be from a bedroom unless a bow window was removed and the access would then be from the living room. This alternative would be permitted by the zoning code but would be visually unattractive. 3. Placing the deck on the west side of the house is possible and could be accessed off the family room but would require the applicant install a second door in the family room. 4. The deck could be placed in the current location and the width reduced to 8' rather than 10'. This would meet the side yard setback requirement but the owner indicated an 8' wide deck is too small for his needs. Asleson said there does not appear to be a reasonable alternative placement for the deck. A previous variance permitted this house to be built in an unusual configuration which leaves little or no buildable space on either the north (side yard) or west (rear yard) sides of the house. This could be interpreted as a hardship and be legitimate grounds for granting the variance. After a discussion by the commission, Henschen moved to approve the requested variance of two feet from Chapter 9-2.05 subd.2(a) of the zoning code by recommending the city council adopt a resolution that this property meets the standards for granting a • variance, specifically 9-15.03 subd.4(c); the amendment is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; 9-15.03 subd.4(g), that the property is • Planning Commission Meeting 6/26/95 Page 5 unique and that a hardship would result if the strict letter of the chapter were carried out; and with the condition that the deck not be converted into any type of covered interior living space, including but not limited to, three or four season porch or an addition to the house. Seconded by Wilcox and passed unanimously. UPDATE ON MEETINGS REGARDING THE LARPENTEUR AVENUE CONCEPT PLAN AND LARPENTEUR AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION Hoyt gave the commissioners a brief update on the Larpenteur Avenue reconstruction plans. She said on May 23 and 24, the urban planner/designer, Michael Schroeder and Fred Hoisington, the city engineer, and city administrator met with property owners in small group meetings to discuss streetscape plan and proposed sidewalks, turn lanes and parking. She mentioned she would keep the commission updated on the response to the plans. A summary of the reconstruction plans dated June, 1995 was provided to the commissioners. • Meeting adjourned at 8:05. Carla Asleson, City Planner Dee Swenson, Recording Secretary