HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCMin_94Mar28• MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 28, 1994
7 P.M.
PRESENT ABSENT
Tom Brace Kay Andrews
Lee Barry Wendy Treadwell
Paul Kuettel
Ken Salzberg
Lisa Lampi (arrived at 7:30)
ALSO PRESENT
Susan Hoyt, Administrator
Sam Jacobs, City Council Liaison
Phil Carlson, Planning Consultant
Meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairperson Barry.
Minutes of the February 28, 1994 we approved as written.
REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO CHAPTER 9-4.01 SUBDIVISION (4) OF
FIFTEEN FEET THREE INCHES (15'-3") TO THE REQUIRED THIRTY FOOT REAR
YEAR SETBACK, AND TO CHAPTER 9-2.04 SUBDIVISION 1(c) OF TWO FEET
THREE INCHES (2'3") TO THE REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK
• FOR 1775 ASBURY STREET.
Hoyt briefly reviewed the February 28 planning commission recommendation
regarding the request for a variance at 1775 Asbury by property owners, Mr.
and Mrs. Wiger. She said that the commission requested that the Wigers revise
their proposed construction plans by expanding their house into the sideyard
rather than further into the rearyard. This would require a less substantial
variance request than the one submitted.
Mrs. Wiger explained that no new plans were submitted because it would not
be financially feasible to expand into the sideyard and she understood that any
revisions should go in this direction. And they would like to have their original
variance request reexamined and approved.
The Olsons, of 1780 Snelling Drive, to the rear of 1775 Asbury, said they
objected because of the proximity to their rear yard and the possible invasion of
their privacy.
A discussion followed regarding the impact that the addition of a two story
home 14 feet from the rearyard would have on the adjacent property at 1780
N. Snelling Drive. The commission also discussed the fact that the Wiger
• property is not unusually small in area, that there are other blocks configured in
the same manner in Falcon Heights, and that there is space to expand into the
PC Minutes
3/28/94
Page 2
sideyard and, therefore, the request did not meet the standards for granting a
variance.
Salzberg moved to recommend that the city council deny the Wiger's request
for a variance to Chapter 9-4.01 Subd. 4 of 15' 3" to the required 30 foot
rearyard setback for the following reasons:
1. The property owner did not demonstrate a hardship in order to have a
variance granted.
2. Any past variances granted by the city, and any building or site
improvements that do not conform to the city's zoning code, do not
create a hardship for a property owner requesting a variance, and
therefore, are not a reason for granting a variance.
• Although there are some existing structures which encroach into the rear
yard further than the 30 foot rear yard setback along this block with the
shallow lots, the city records do not show that any variances were
granted for this purpose. No additions appear to be two stories in height.
Two building permits for rearyard additions were found in the files.
3. A property owner's preference for how the interior space is arranged in a
home or how the exterior of a home is designed are not identified as a
hardship standard for granting a variance. If a variance was the only way
to preserve the architectural or historical significance of a structure, this
might meet the standards for granting a variance.
The proposed addition of a two story attached garage to this two story
home will change the exterior appearance and symmetry of the structure.
4. A fence, even a six foot high fence, or a tall hedge, will not eliminate the
impact of a two story garage and house within fourteen feet of the
neighboring property to the west because the addition will be
substantially higher than the fence or landscaping.
5. The variance request does not meet the standards for granting a variance.
• Additional specific points in the discussion included that:
• PC Minutes
3/28/94
Page 3
• The property is not unusually small in area for Falcon Heights.
There are three blocks that are configured in this manner in the
city.
• There is an alternative method for constructing an addition to the
property that does not require a substantial variance.
• Any additional cost for constructing to the south of the property
instead of to the west of the property is not a reason for granting a
variance.
• The adjacent property value at 1780 North Snelling Drive might be
negatively affected by the addition of a two story home 14 feet
from its rearyard, which is also quite shallow. (The variance does
not require that a dollar amount to be assigned to a loss of property
value, but that it be based upon a commissioner's sense of whether
• or not 1780 North snelling would be more desirable, less desirable
or remain the same as a result of granting the variance for the
neighbor the east.l
Seconded by Kuettel and unanimously approved.
Hoyt told the Wigers this would be on the April 13 city council agenda and that
they were welcome to attend. She also told them they could reapply for a
variance at any time with a different set of plans.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Hoyt announced that Carla Asleson was hired to be the new administrative
assistant/planner. Carla is currently working for the City of Mounds View and
will start work here on April 18.
Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Susan Hoyt, Administrator
•
Dee Swenson, Recording Secretary