HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCAgenda_05Jul13
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
Regular Meeting of the City Council
City Hall
2077 West Larpenteur Avenue
AGENDA
July 13, 2005
i~
A. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM
B. ROLL CALL: GEHRZ KUETTEL LAMB
LINDSTROM TALBOT
WORTHINGTON
ATTORNEY ENGINEER
C. COMMUNITY FORUM:
D. PRESENTATIONS:
1. Group IV CERT graduates
2. Mike McLean, Metropolitan Mosquito Control District
E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 22, 2005 TAB 1
F. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None Scheduled
G. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. General Disbursements through July 6, 2005: $ 107,461.63
Payroll (6/15/05 - 6/30/05) $ 17,592.47
+480.36 TAB 2
H. POLICY AGENDA:
1. Variance requests for 1871 Larpenteur Avenue TAB 3
2. Proposed ordinance amending portions of Chapter 9 of the City TAB 4
Code regarding nonconformities
i•
FALCON HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
July 13, 2005
H. POLICY AGENDA: (continued)
•
I. REPORTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS:
J. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:
K. ADJOURN TO CAPITAL FUND BUDGET WORKSHOP
-2-
•
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
MINUTES
June 22, 2005
Mayor Gehrz convened the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 PM.
PRESENT: Mayor Sue Gehrz, Council members Laura Kuettel, Robert Lamb,
Peter Lindstrom and Richard Talbot
Also present: City Administrator Heather Worthington
and Mary Shea Kodluboy, Deputy Clerk
COMMUNITY FORUM: There was no commentary from the audience.
PRESENTATIONS: None Scheduled
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Gehrz moved that a correction be made on page 8, second
paragraph, third line--change the word big to block, and that the minutes be approved as
corrected. The motion was unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: None Scheduled
CONSENT AGENDA:
Kuettel moved approval of the Consent Agenda, as outlined below. The motion was
unanimously approved.
1. General Disbursements through June 16, 2005: $ 102,827.24
Payroll (6/01/05 - 6/15/05) $ 14,966.49
POLICY AGENDA:
Consideration of contract with E-Z Rec~g
Administrator Worthington said the city has had ayear-to-year contract with E-Z Recycling for
the past five years. In April, 2005, the Environment Commission recommended that the city try
to negotiate amulti-year contract with E-Z commencing in January, 2006. E-Z has had the city's
recycling contract since the city began recycling in the late 1980's. Staff receives less than one
complaint per month regarding E-Z. They have been responsive to customer concerns, follow up
with customers to answer questions, pick up missed collections, and improve their service on a
consistent basis. In discussions with E-Z it was determined that weekly pickups would cost
$2.10 per unit/per month, versus $1.55 per unit/per month for bi-weekly pickups, so E-Z and the
City agreed to a five-year contract, with pickups to be increased to bi-weekly or 26 times a year
• starting January 1, 2006.
FALCON HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -2-
June 22, 2005
Consideration of contract with E-Z Recyclin~ (continued)
Administrator Worthington described the provisions of the contract that were changed or updated
and they are outlined below:
1. Price: The City will pay $1.55 per unit/per month for single family recycling. This is 8 cents
higher than the city's current rate of $1.47, and will remain in place over the five-year period
of the contract. The City will pay $596.40 for multi-family buildings with 18 or more units.
The multi-family rate represents the current rate paid by the city.
2. Items to be collected: Residents will be able to recycle all of the items they are currently
recycling, including motor oil, batteries, glass, plastic, cans, paper and paperboard/cardboard.
They will also collect clothing.
3. Dual-stream collection: This contract updates language in the previous contract to be
consistent with current dual-stream collection practices. It retains the right of the city to have
oversight in any collection changes in the future.
4. Transfer of Interest: This clause protects the city's contractual interests in the event of a
transfer of ownership at E-Z, and requires the contractor to notify the city if a transfer of
ownership occurs. It also requires that the city grant approval for any subcontracting prior to
E-Z hiring subcontractors to provide recycling services.
Liquidated damages: The contract requires E-Z to pay the following liquidated damages for
service or contract violations:
1. Failure to respond to legitimate service complaints within 24 hours in a reasonable and
professional manner: $50 per incident.
2. Failure to collect properly notified missed collections: $250 per incident.
3. Failure to receive City written approval of changes to the "Two-Sort"
collection/processing system prior to implementing any such change: $1,000
The Environment Commission reviewed the contract and recommended the City Council
approve it. E-Z's president, Chris Reinhardt, also reviewed the contract and is prepared
to sign it. The City or E-Z can cancel this contract, with cause, by giving 60 days notice.
A brief discussion followed.
Lamb moved approval of the Agreement for Recycling Collection with E-Z Recycling, and that
the mayor and city administrator be authorized to sign the five year contract on behalf of the City
of Falcon Heights. The motion was unanimously approved.
•
z
FALCON HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -3-
June 22, 2005
Consideration of construction contract with the City of Roseville
Administrator Worthington said that in 2004, Ramsey County turned back Roselawn Avenue
to the cities of Falcon Heights and Roseville. The section of Roselawn Avenue between Hamline
Avenue and Snelling Avenue is in need of reconstruction. Staff from both cities met to discuss
the need to have this section of Roselawn reconstructed. The driving surface is badly
deteriorating, and the storm water drainage is inadequate, causing flooding in side yards along
the street. The proposed scope of this project may include: Reconstruction to meet municipal
state-aid street standards, construction of curbs and gutters, construction of storm sewers as
necessary, repair and/or replacement of other utilities as needed (water main, sanitary sewer),
and construction of a 6 foot wide sidewalk. The City of Roseville has indicated that the
engineering and contract administration services for this project can be handled by their staff
working with our staff as needed. Falcon Height's staff believes that this arrangement is the
most cost effective and human resource efficient arrangement to handle this project. The
first informational meeting with the public regarding this project was held on Tuesday,
June 21, 2005. A second informational meeting is being planned for September 2005, as well
as a neighborhood walk-thru meeting to be scheduled for October, 2005.
• Staff from both cities worked on the draft agreement, it was reviewed by the respective legal
counsels, and is being recommended for approval. The Roseville City Council approved the
agreement on Monday evening with a vote of 5-0 in favor.
A brief discussion followed.
Talbot moved that the Roselawn Avenue Street Reconstruction Agreement with the City
of Roseville be approved, with the grammatical changes recommended by Mayor Gehrz, and that
the mayor and city administrator be authorized to sign it on behalf of the City of Falcon Heights.
The motion was unanimously approved.
Consideration of mid-Year salary adjustment for the position of City Administrator
Mayor Gehrz said that in 2003, the city conducted a review of how the salaries and
responsibilities of all city staff positions compared with other metropolitan cities of similar sizes.
That review revealed that the City of Falcon Heights was paying salaries that were far below
comparable cities for two positions--the City Administrator and the Finance Director.
Mayor Gehrz said that as a result, the city council approved a goal and a plan to bring the salaries
for these two positions to 90% of the average of comparable cities by January 1, 2006. That goal
assumes that the employees in those positions have performed satisfactorily for five years. This
plan enabled the City to spread the needed increases across three years instead of making the
• adjustment in only one budget year.
3
FALCON HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES _4_
June 22, 2005
Consideration of mid-year salary adjustment for the position of City Administrator (continued)
Mayor Gehrz said the 90% of the average compensation for comparable cities adjusts for
geographic size, population, number of employees, and number of enterprise funds and utilities
operated by the city of Falcon Heights. Every three years, the City Administrator is responsible
for completing a scope and scale analysis for every full and part time position and making salary
adjustment recommendations to the City Council in accordance with personnel compensation
policies adopted by the City Council. The City Council is responsible for making compensation
adjustments for the position of City Administrator.
The analysis done in 2003 showed that the City was paying the City Administrator $14,312
less than the goal of 90% of the average salaries for the same position in comparable cities.
Spreading that amount across three years resulted in a planned annual increase of $4,771 for
2004, 2005, and 2006. The City Council did not include any inflationary or cost-of-living
increases that the City Administrators/Managers in other comparable cities received during those
three years. This error, combined with the salary increases in other comparable cities, results in
an inability to reach the 2006 goal.
The Stanton Group Survey Data for 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 for City Administrator/City
• Manager positions in comparable cities was used to determine the average salaries and the
annual inflation rates for those salaries. The cities used as comparables were: Little Canada,
Arden Hills, St. Anthony, Mahtomedi, Hugo, St. Paul Park, Wayzata, Bayport and Lauderdale.
She reviewed four options, outlined below, and the pros and cons for each one.
1. Eliminate the goal of bringing the salary for the position of City Administrator up to 90%
of the average of comparable cities by 2006.
2. Extend the time period for reaching that goal for an additional three years.
3. Make an interim salary adjustment in 2005 equal to the average inflation rate for
comparable cities for 2003 and 2004, and add the inflationary rate from the 2005 salary
survey data to the 2006 salary adjustment.
4. Add the entire salary gap in 2006.
She said the City has traditionally been conservative in budgeting and has tried to avoid large
increases in line items in the general operating budget. The preference has been to spread
necessary increases more evenly across fiscal years to reduce financial impact on the taxpayers.
This was the reason the Council adopted athree-year, rather than aone-year plan for salary
adjustments back in 2003.
She said her recommendation would be approval of Option 3 and implementation of the 2005
salary adjustments by adding prorated amounts to the remaining pay periods for 2005.
•
H
FALCON HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
June 22, 2005
-5-
Consideration of mid year salary adjustment for the position of City Administrator (continued)
A brief discussion followed.
Kuettel moved approval of a 2005 mid-year salary adjustment for the City Administrator in the
amount of $4,547, with the prorated amounts added to the remaining pay periods for 2005.
The motion was unanimously approved.
Request for ~proval of revisions to the Employment Agreement for the City
Administrator
Mayor Gehrz said she conducts an annual performance review of the City Administrator and
negotiates changes to the Employment Contract when necessary. Few changes have been made
to the original Employment Contract entered into by Heather Worthington and the City Council
in April, 2000. Following a very positive performance review, which included evaluations by all
City Council members and interviews with the Finance Director, Deputy Clerk, Planning and
Zoning Coordinator, and Director of Parks and Public Works, the Mayor is recommending that
the changes outlined below be made to the original Employment Contract. These changes are
agreeable to the City Administrator.
. 1. Change the language and format to be more appropriate to a legal contract.
2. Update the salary data in Section 4.
3. Remove references to specific organizations in the Professional Development section in
Section 11.
4. Remove the specific mileage reimbursement rate from Section 13 and replace it with
"shall be based upon federal mileage reimbursement rate" which usually changes
annually.
5. In Section 16, increase the severance pay from three months to four months,
add a provision that the city provide and pay for four months of insurance benefits
if the City Administrator is eligible for severance pay.
6. Remove the "just cause" referenced in Section 8 g in the original Employment
Agreement as one of the circumstances under which the City will have no obligation to
pay severance pay.
7. Remove the non-binding arbitration provision of Section 8 g in the original
Employment Agreement pertaining to the "just cause" basis for termination.
Nothing in this Agreement limits the City Council's right to terminate the services of the City
Administrator at any time, for any reason, subject only to the provisions of the Agreement and
statutory requirements. Nothing in the Agreement prevents the City Administrator from
resigning at any time.
A brief discussion followed.
•
S
FALCON HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
• June 22, 2005
-6-
Administrator (continued)
Lindstrom moved approval of the revised Employment Agreement between the City of Falcon
Heights and the City Administrator, with the changes recommended by Council member Kuettel.
The motion was unanimously approved.
Mayor Gehrz said this document represents guidelines ththe Cibe uThebe guide nes are embers,
council members, and citizens during public meetings in pl mouth and Hugo, and m
currently in use in several suburban cities, including Shoreview, y
other states. These guidelines should be included in the training manuals for commissioners,
and council members, and included in the administrative manual.
Kuettel moved approval of the public mb a d Lindstroem. Thetmot on was unanimously
recommended by Council members La
approved.
REPORTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Gehrz reminded the viewing audit n4 h liday. ilInstead, a workshop will be held
on Wednesday, July 6, because of the J y
in conjunction with one of the regular City Council muildin in Maplewo des veral years ago
ribbon cutting ceremony for the new suburban court b g
there was a strong move to eliminate the subur wntown St Paul Administrator Worthington
officers and residents to go to courthouse m do
and the City Council lobbied hard to retain the suburban att ndedh She thankedothe Falconission
sponsored a block party celebration and about 20 peOp rovided for that event. She reminded the
Heights businesses for the wonderful door prizes they p
viewing audience that on Saturday, July 2, there will be 50's event wasrvery sulc~essfulghts in the
At Home section of the Pioneer Press. The Back to th
The regular City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:15 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Shea Kodluboy
Deputy Clerk
•
6
CONSENT Gl
07/13/05
Disbursements and Payroll
ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY: Roland O.Olson, Finance Director
REVIEWED BY: Heather Worthington, City Administrator
EXPLANATION:
Summa
2005:
1. General Disbursements through __-~
2. Payroll (6/15/05 - 6/30/05)
•
ATTACHMENTS:
General Disbursements on pages ~_
Payroll on page __,~
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval
$ 17,592.47 + $480.36
•
DATE 07/06/05 TIME 02:07 CITY OF FALCON NEIGH COUNCIL REPORT PAGE
APPROVAL OF BILLS
PERIOD ENDING: 07-06-OS
CK# VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT. AMOUNT
---------- ------------------------ -------- - ---------
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 457 GEHRZ JUL/OS LEGISLAT 410.00
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 457 TALBOT JUL/OS LEGISLAT 270.00
LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWSPAPER LEGALS- VARIANCES LEGISLAT 8.10
*** TOTAL FOR DEPT 11 688.10
AMERICAN OFFICE PRODUCTS ENVELOPES, CUPS, PENS ADMINIST 331.30
CASH MAILERS ADMINIST 4.87
CASH POSTAGE & CERTI MAILINGS ADMINIST 47.03
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 457 WORTHINGTON JUL/O5 ADMINIST 250.00
MINNEAPOLIS PAPER COMPANY COPY/LASER PAPER ADMINIST 191.64
60825 PERA PERA 6/15-6/30 ADMINIST 1,605.88
*** TOTAL FOR DEPT 12 2,430.72
OLSON,ROLAND REIM:GFOA CONV EXP MEALS FINANCE 148.49
60818 SHERATON GUNTER HOTEL ROOM EXP GFOA CONVENTION FINANCE 402.44
*** TOTAL FOR DEPT 13 550.93
NORTH SUBURBAN COMM COMMS BLANK DVD'S COMMUNIC 250.60
CITY OF ROSEVILLE JUNE 2005 TECH SUPPORT COMMUNIC 725.00
CITY OF ROSEVILLE JUNE 2005 TELEPHONY COMMUNIC 436.66
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS,INC CELL PHONE COMMUNIC 13.79
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS,INC CELL PHONE COMMUNIC 13.79
*** TOTAL FOR DEPT 16 1,439.84
AMERICAN OFFICE PRODUCTS PL COMMISSION NAME PLATE PLANNING 95.85
CITY OF LITTLE CANADA 2ND QTR BLDG INSPECTIONS PLANNING 12,246.85
60819 MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE INS- JONES JULY/04 PLANNING 16.00
60826 PAKOY, GENE 2ND QTR MECHANICALS PLANNING 2,262.39
*** TOTAL FOR DEPT 17 14,621.09
AMERIPRIDE LINEN&APPAREL LINEN CLEANING FIRE FIG 59.55
BEARCOM BATTERY CHARGER FIRE FIG 26.75
BEARCOM RADIO REPAIR FIRE FIG 94.35
EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT RELIEF VALUE REPAIR #757 FIRE FIG 525.41
HINRICHS,RICH 2ND QTR FIRE HALL CLEAN FIRE FIG 325.00
KURHAJETZ, CLEM FOOD FOR LIVE BURN TNG FIRE FIG 70.23
OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY TANK RENTALS & DELIVERY FIRE FIG 101.77
RAMSEY CTY FIRE CHIEFS MEDICAL EXAMS, PHYS TEST FIRE FIG 75.00
ANOKA-HENNEPIN TECH COLLE FF1 CERT: DOUVIER, TESCH FIRE FIG 198.00
ANOKA-HENNEPIN TECH COLLE FF 2 FOR TESCH, DOUVIER FIRE FIG 500.00
*** TOTAL FOR DEPT 24 1,976.06
HOAG, GREG JUNE OS MILEAGE REIMBURS CITY HAL 70.68
BOARD OF WATER COMMISSNRS H2O CITY HAL 3.02
BOARD OF WATER COMMISSNRS S.S. CITY HAL 4.51
GRAINGER, W. W „ INC. HAND SOAP FOR DISPENSER CITY HAL 64.86
HINZE BUSINESS MACHINES IBM TYPEWRITER REPAIR CITY HAL 28.00
XCEL ENERGY ELEC CITY HAL 49.32
XCEL ENERGY ELEC CITY HAL 876.59
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS,INC CELL PHONE CITY HAL 41.07
*** TOTAL FOR DEPT 31 1,138.25
• CASH LIGHT BULB FOR TRK STREETS 2.65
8
DATE 07/06/05 TIME 02:07 CITY OF FALCON HEIGH COUNCIL REPORT PAGE 2
APPROVAL OF BILLS
PERIOD ENDING: 07-06-05
~K# VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION
DEPT. AMOUNT
--------------------- -------- -----------
CITY OF ST PAUL FUEL - MAY 05 STREETS
D-ROCK CENTER LANDSCAP
E BLACK DIRT 88.05
STREETS 22.37
XCEL ENERGY ELEC
STREETS 60.16
XCEL ENERGY ELEC
STREETS 34.30
XCEL ENERGY ELEC
STREETS 32,77
XCEL ENERGY ELEC
STREETS 8.75
XCEL ENERGY ELEC
STREETS 7.43
UNITED RENTALS BARRICADES: BACK TO 50 'S STREETS
99
UNITED RENTALS
ASPHALT PACKER RENTAL
STREETS .05
UNITED RENTALS
ASPHALT PACKER RENTAL
S 58.86
TREETS
73.29
*** TOTAL FOR DEPT 32
487. 68
S & S TREE SPECIALISTS IN DUTCH ELM-TREE REMOVAL TREE PRO 2
043
47
S & S TREE SPECIALISTS IN STORM TREE DAMAGE ,
.
S & S T TREE PRO 292.88
REE SPECIALISTS IN STORM TREE DAMAGE REMOV A T
REE PRO 702.90
*** TOTAL FOR DEPT 34 3,039. 25
ACTION IMPRINTS PW T-SHIRTS, SORE PRINT PARK & R
BOARD OF WATER COMMISSNRS H2O 160.00
BOARD OF WATER COMMISSNRS S.S PARK & R 0.65
CITY OF ST PAUL .
FUEL - MAY OS
PARK & R
0.69
PARK & R
88.05
HAR MAR LOCK & SVC CTR CONII~IPK DOOR REPAIR
PARK &
HAR MAR LOCK & SVC CTR
COMMPK DOOR REPAIR R 154.50
PARK & R 79.50
HAR MAR LOCK & SVC CTR COMMPK DOOR REPAIR PARK & R
HOME DEPOT CRC/GECF
WEED CONTROL SPRING
PARK 30.00
•
HOME DEPOT CRC/GECF & R
LARP AVE FLOWER BOX DIRT PARK & 48.09
HOME DEPOT CRC/GECF
WEED SPRAY & OIL R
98.09
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 45
7 TRETSVEN JUL/OS PARK & R 84.48
PARK & R 100.00
XCEL ENERGY ELEC
XCEL ENERGY PARK & R 21.93
ELEC PARK & R 307
95
SCHARBER & SONS MOWER BELT .
PARK & R 78.28
SCHARBER & SONS TRACTOR PARTS JD PARK & R
QWEST 192.50
PHONE PARK & R 110
84
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS,INC CELL PHONE .
PARK & R 15.93
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS,INC CELL PHONE
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS,INC CELL PHONE PARK & R 38.05
PARK & R 15.93
*** TOTAL FOR DEPT 41 1,625.46
ACTION IMPRINTS REC T-SHIRTS, SCR PRINT PARK PRO 1 998
65
60822 COTTER, BEVERLY REFUND: MOSES AZAD , .
AMERICAN OFFICE PRODUCTS
COLORED PAPER PARK PRO 30.00
PARK PRO 88.33
AMERICAN OFFICE PRODUCTS NAME BADGES
60821
HEYD
JULIE PARK PRO 24.40
, REFUND; SIGNY WEBER PARK PRO
60
00
60824 PAULSON, LAURA REFUND: 3 CHILD TIME-IN PARK .
60823
POPE
JODI PRO 36.00
, REFUND: MADDY WONG
PARK PRO
30
00
CASH
COOKING CLASS SUPPLIES
PARK PRO .
18
67
TARGET SCISSOR,TOWEL,BABY WIPES PARK PRO .
36.80
*** TOTAL FOR DEPT 50 2,322.85
E-Z RECYCLING, INC. JULY/OS RECYCLING SOLID WA 2,559.40
*** TOTAL FOR DEPT 56 2,559.40
AMERICAN OFFICE PRODUCTS CHAIR FOR LISA
GENERAL 303.85
q
DATE 07/06/05 TIME 02:07 CITY OF FALCON HEIGH COUNCIL REPORT PAGE 3
APPROVAL OF BILLS
PERIOD ENDING: 07-06-05
CK# VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT. AMOUNT
------- -----------
----- ------------------------- ------------------------ -
HEWLETT PACKARD P.W. COMPUTER MONITOR GENERAL 292.88
*** TOTAL FOR DEPT 63 596.73
60820 CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS FIRE TRUCK PROG PMT #1 FIRE & R 58,000.00
*** TOTAL FOR DEPT 64 58,000.00
TACHENY ROOFING/SIDING COMM PK ROOF REPAIR PUBLIC W 5,310.00
ST. CROIX RECREATION CO. GRILL FOR COMM PK PUBLIC W 215.60
*** TOTAL FOR DEPT 65 5,525.60
GENERAL REPAIR SERVICE LIFT STAT PUMP, ADAPT,DR SANITARY 10,326.24
XCEL ENERGY ELEC SANITARY 21.39
UNITED RENTALS F-250 JETTER SLEEVE SANITARY 19.69
*** TOTAL FOR DEPT 75 10,367.32
GREG CARSON SPORTS REC SPORTS EQUIPMENT LAWFUL G 39.92
GREG CARSON SPORTS BEAN BAGS FOR REC SPORTS LAWFUL G 52.43
*** TOTAL FOR DEPT 81 92.35
*** TOTAL FOR BANK O1 107,461.63
*** GRAND TOTAL *** 107,461.63
•
•
~O
?ERIOD END DATE 06/30/05 ****FILE UPDATED**** PAGE 1
SYSTEM DATE 06/29/05
C H E C K R E G I S T E R
~ECK CHECK EMPLOYEE NAME CHECK CHECK
PE DATE NUMBER NUMBER AMOUNT
COM 6 29 OS 6 SUSAN GEHRZ 50662 5.57
COM 6 29 OS 12 LAURA A. KUETTEL 50663 277.05
COM 6 29 OS 13 PETER C. LINDSTROM 50664 277.05
COM 6 29 OS 14 RICHARD P TALBOT JR 50665 7.05
COM 6 29 OS 15 ROBERT E LAMB 50666 277.05
COM 6 29 OS 34 CLEMENT KURHAJETZ 50667 303.54
COM 6 29 OS 40 KEVIN ANDERSON 50668 35.40
COM 6 29 OS 42 MICHAEL D CLARKIN 50669 108.52
COM 6 29 OS 66 ALFRED HERNANDEZ 50670 12.93
COM 6 29 OS 74 MARK J ALLEN 50671 138.52
COM 6 29 OS 85 DANIEL S JOHNSON-POWERS 50672 5.08'
COM 6 29 OS 91 RICHARD H HINRICHS 50.673 38.64
COM 6 29 OS 97 PATRICK GAFFNEY 50674 49.56
COM 6 29 OS 98 BRADLEY J. REZNY 50675 49.56
COM 6 29 OS 1003 HEATHER WORTHINGTON 50682 1884.42
COM 6 29 OS 1007 PATRICIA PHILLIPS 50683 649.51
COM 6 29 OS 1015 GREGORY R. HOAG 50684 1690.60
COM 6 29 OS 1016-LISA A. ANDERSON 50685 984.27
COM 6 29 OS 1030 MARY A. KODLUBOY 50686 1402.45
COM 6 29 OS 1033 DAVE TRETSVEN 50687 1218.52
COM 6 29 OS 1035 JOSEPH J. AUGER SR 50688 97.76
COM 6 29 OS 1038 DEBORAH K JONES 50689 635.66
COM 6 29 OS 1136 ROLAND 0 OLSON 50690 1492.89
COM 6 29 OS 1137 MARK C. HANSMEIER 50691 284.99
COM 6 29 OS 1140 ROBERT M PILGRIM 50692 306.14
OM 6 29 OS 1143 COLIN B CALLAHAN 50693 921.05
COM 6 29 OS 1178 PETER M FISCHER 50694 674.60
COM 6 29 OS 1188 NTCOLE S GRAHAM 50695 43.86
COM 6 29 OS 2009 ADAM C. BLEDSOE 50696 135.18
COM 6 29 O5 2011 CARSON M. MCEVOY 50697 119.59
COM 6 29 OS 2012 KIMBERLY A. KUHENS 50698 92.32
COM 6 29 OS 2013 KATIE JO KUEHNS 50699 393.10
COM 6 29 O5 2014 ROBERT H. DUIJNDAM 50700 87.27
COM 6 29 OS 2015 KEVIN M. COYNE 50701 149.80
COM 6 29 OS 2020 CLARE L. JENSEN 50702 168.08
COM 6 29 O5 2022 CARLA J. PINSKI 50703 202.55
COM 6 29 OS 2025 CHARLOTTE R. HOIUM 50704 78.61
COM 6 29 05 2051 EVAN PHENEGER 50705 147.76
COM 6 29 OS 2067 ALEXANDER A. CISNEROS 50706 490.52
COM 6 29 OS 2101 RACHEL E. PIKE 50707 105.34
COM 6 29 OS 2103 TIMOTHY J. DAMROW 50708 112.21
COM 6 29 OS 2104 ANN C. BROXTERMAN 50709 211.24
COM 6 29 OS 2106 CHRIS J. DAYKIN 50710 126.06
COM 6 29 OS 2107 KELSEY N. HOIUM 50711 106.68
COM 6 29 OS 2108 ANDY J. DAYKIN 50712 121.91
COM 6 29 OS 2110 JOSHUA A. BROWN 50713 121.90
COM 6 29 OS 2111 ERIN E. FINNEGAN 50714 248.42
COM 6 29 OS 2112 JASON L. WELDON 50715 435.19
COM 6 29 OS 2113 PHINEAS CLARK 50716 66.50
COMPUTER CHECKS 17592.47
MANUAL CHECKS .00
• NOTICES OF DEPOSIT .00
:RIOD END DATE 06/30/05 ****FILE UPDATED****
SYSTEM DATE 06/29/05
C H E C K R E G I S T E R
~CK CHECK EMPLOYEE NAME
E DATE NUMBER
****TOTALS****
1I J1
u
PAGE 2
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER AMOUNT
17592.47
'~
PERIOD END DATE 07/01/05 ****FILE UPDATED****
SYSTEM DATE 07/01/05
C H E C K R E G I S T E R
CHECK CHECK EMPLOYEE NAME
TYPE DATE N UMBER
COM 7 O1 OS 2046 ANDREA L. ROTHMAN
COM 7 O1 OS 2102 SIMON B. TOWNSEND
COM 7 O1 OS 2109 ALEXANDRA L. MEIER
COMPUTER CHECKS
MANUAL CHECKS
NOTICES OF DEPOSIT
****TOTALS****
•
PAGE 1
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER AMOUNT
50721 195.46
50722 107.13
50723 177.77
480.36
.00
.00
480.36
!3
•
ITEM: Variance requests for 1871 Larpenteur Avenue
SUBMITTED BY: Heather Worthington, City Administrator
POLICY Hl
7/13/05
REVIEWED BY: Falcon Heights Planning Commission
Deborah Jones, Planning and Zoning Coordinator
Dan Cornejo, Planning Consultant
Roger Knutson, City Attorney
EXPLANATION:
Background/History/Property Description:
1871 Larpenteur is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Larpenteur Avenue and
Lindig Street in Falcon Heights. The legal description is "South 215.125 feet of Lot 1, Block 1,
Lindig Addition." The parcel is 56.94 feet wide by 215.125 feet deep, with an area of 12,632.4
square feet. The property is zoned B-1 "Neighborhood Convenience District" and has been used
• for local commercial enterprises for at least 50 years, most recently as a coffee shop. The
The prospective purchasers of 1871 Larpenteur, Stanley and Carol Won, propose to create a new
restaurant business on the site. This is a legal use in a B-1 zone. In order to establish a viable
business, they propose to rehabilitate the existing structure and replace the greenhouse, which is
in very poor condition, with a new addition that would follow the east and west lines of the
existing building but extend farther to the rear (north). They also propose to redevelop the
remainder of the site with new parking lots and landscaping. In order to carry out this plan, they
have applied for seven related variances.
property is adjacent to residential property, R1 on the north and R-4 on the east, with R-4 (used
as R-1) across Lindig to the west and University owned public land across Larpenteur to the
south. The existing improvements consist of a principle structure originally built as a florist shop
with attached greenhouse, and two parking lots, one in front and one in the rear. The existing
structures are non-conforming with respect to setback.
Problem: The property is unique for a B-1 zoning designation.
The zoning restrictions would severely limit the development of the property, and impose
a hardship on any owner.
These variance requests have been made because of the unique conditions of the
property:
• 1. Narrowness of the lot (slightly less than 57 feet wide)
~~
2. Required setbacks are greater than the width of the lot
• 3. There is an existing structure that is legally non-conforming; it is reasonable that
the existing setbacks be maintained.
Variance Requests:
A. Category 1: Variances that will regularize the existing conditions on the site:
a. Lot Width: 33.03 feet (lot is 56.97 feet wide; 90 feet required)
b. Side setback-east side: 25 feet (5 feet existing; 30 feet required when property
abuts an "R" district.)
c. Side setback-west side: 30 feet (0 feet existing; 30 feet required when property
abuts a street)
B. Category 2: Variances that are requested to create a viable new business:
a. Parking space requirement: 6 parking spaces (18 provided; 24 required)
b. Parking space size: 8.6' x 18' provided where 9' x 20' feet is required. (Note that
the spaces in the front lot are the fu1120 foot length and the single required
handicapped parking space is fully conforming with respect to length, width and
setback.
c. Landscaping/Lot coverage: 2400 square feet (758 square feet provided, where
3158 square feet are required)
d. Rear yard setback (to the parking lot): 8 feet (12 feet provided, 20 required).
Note that the structure does not encroach into the required 20 foot setback, only
the parking lot.
• Analysis•
a. That the granting of the variance(s) will not be detrimental to the public welfare.
1. Side setbacks and lot width: Staff finds that these variances will not be detrimental to the
public welfare as they recognize existing conditions on the property and no prior detriment
has been shown to exist.
2. Parking, rear setback and landscaping: Staff finds that these variances will minimize any
future detriment to the public welfare. The proposed plan seeks to establish an optimum
balance between the community's interest in keeping as much parking on site as possible and
the need to maintain appropriate greenspace. Additional landscaping provided in the public
right of way will provide additional buffers around the business on the west and south.
b. That the granting of the variance(s) will not substantially diminish or impair property
values or improvements in the area.
1. Side setbacks and lot width: Staff finds that these variances will not substantially diminish or
impair property values as they recognize existing conditions on the property and no prior
impact on values has been shown to exist
2. Parking, rear setback and landscaping: Staff cannot predict whether these variances will
• substantially diminish or impair property values. It is a fact that allowing the site to
deteriorate would have a negative effect on property values. Placing a different business in
~~
the existing structure would not necessarily have a better impact; the last few such businesses
• have failed. Any owner proposing to establish a vital, successful business on this site would
need to make significant investments in upgrading the property and would need variances to
do so.
c. That the granting of the variance(s) is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights.
Staff finds that the granting of these variances is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights. In fact, under its present zoning, any use of this property at all would
require some combination of variances.
d. That the variances(s) will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property.
1. Side setbacks and lot width: Staff finds that these variances will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent properties, as these conditions already exist and have
not been shown to impair the supply of light and air to adjacent properties.
2. Parking, rear setback and landscaping: Staff finds that the variance will not impair an
adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent properties.
e. That the variance(s) will not impair the orderly use of the public streets;
• 1. Side setbacks and lot width: Staff finds that these variances will not impair the orderly use of
the public streets, as these conditions already exist and have not been shown to cause such
impairment.
2. Parking, rear setback and landscaping: Staff finds that the variances will not impair the
orderly use of the public streets. The prospective owners have made a good faith effort to
keep as much parking as possible on the site and to confine the traffic impact to the part of
Lindig that is immediately adjacent to the restaurant.
f. That the variance(s) will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety;
1. Side setbacks and lot width: Staff finds that these variances will not increase the danger of
fire or endanger the public safety, as these conditions already exist and have not been shown
to endanger public safety.
2. Parking, rear setback and landscaping: Staff finds that the variances will not increase the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety.
g. Whether the shape, topographical condition or other similar characteristic of the tract
is such as to distinguish it substantially from all of the other properties in the zoning
district of which it is a part, or whether a particular hardship, as distinguished from
mere inconvenience to the owner, would result if the strict letter of the Chapter were
carried out.
~~
This property, a legal lot of record, is distinguished from other B-1 properties in that the sum of
• the required side setbacks is greater than the total width of the property. This creates a particular
hardship for any owner if the strict letter of the Chapter is carried out because it renders the
property literally unusable for any permitted or conditional use defined for a B-1 parcel.
h. Whether the variance is sought principally to increase financial gain to the owner of the
property, and to determine whether a substantial hardship to the owner would result
from a denial of the variance.
Staff finds these variances are not sought principally to increase financial gain to the owner of
the property other than the ordinary gain from the running of a viable legal business. Staff finds
that substantial hardship would be imposed by denial of the variances on lot coverage and
parking. If the lot coverage requirement were enforced, a much greater variance on parking
would be needed and the overflow parking and traffic would spill into the neighborhood. The lot
is too small to accommodate all the required parking for this use, even if all landscaping were to
be eliminated. Either alternative would impose substantial hardship on the owner. Substantial
hardship would also be imposed by requiring an owner to set up business in the existing building
as this building is too small to accommodate this legal use, and parts of it do not meet the
requirements of the State building code.
i. Whether the conditions which give rise to the application for the variance arose after
the adoption of this Chapter of the Code of the City of Falcon Heights or any
amendment thereto which placed the tract in a zoning district different from what it
. was under the Chapter. In the consideration of this item, the City shall make diligent
inquiry as to all changes in the property and shall refuse to grant the variance if the
problem is one that can be solved through a proper application of a conditional use
permit or an amendment of the Zoning code. Financial hardship shall not be a basis for
the granting of a variance when the owner purchased the property in reliance on a
promise that a variance would be granted, and the City shall dismiss the appeal if it
shall appear that the property was purchased on such reliance.
Not applicable.
Comments from Residents: A public meeting was held on June 23 to give information about
the proposed new business at 1871 Larpenteur. Notes from that meeting are attached to this
report. The resident of 1708 Lindig, the adjacent property on the north, submitted a written
statement, which is also attached.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the first three variances for the following reasons:
• They formalize existing conditions on the site.
. Staff recommends approval of the remaining four variances for the following reasons:
!7
• They represent considerable thought and work directed toward establishing an optimum
balance between parking and landscaping to allow the business to succeed and, at the
same time, minimize impact of traffic and parking to residential property surrounding the
site.
• Staff made a thorough study of the issues and challenges facing any use of this property,
and concluded that for any viable, legal business, some combination of variances would
be necessary. Enforcing the letter of the chapter would impose insurmountable obstacles
and hardships to the legal use of this property in a B-1 Zone.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the first three variances
for the property. They voted 4 to 3 in favor of the remaining four variances with the condition
that the property owner secure an additional six off-site parking spaces.
Attachments
• Site Plan
• Concept Drawing
• Variance Application
• Consultant report on the original (modified)
. • Letter to property owners within 350 feet and to residents on Lindig Street, including a
copy of the legal notice
• Notes from the June 23, 2005 Neighborhood Meeting
• Written statement from resident, 1708 Lindig Street
• Written statement from resident, 1782 Lindig Street
• Written statement from owner, 1867 Larpenteur Avenue
• Original staff information from March Planning Commission meeting regarding 1871
Larpenteur
Action Requested:
• Discussion
• Approval of Resolution OS-09 approving the following requested variances listed on Page
2 of this staff report for a new Black Bamboo Restaurant at 1871 Larpenteur Avenue.
n
LJ
t0
i•
I•
i•
g
O
Wg ~
~
~~ Q ¢ ~
¢ W~o~~
~
~ W o¢
W
O
N ~
° Z
C
~ 0 ~F
-
W= Y~
~ $I
~ t o p
q~nt
a
O
l~f> N O N II m O
~ o
N W U W Z in
g~= Z
rn
~V ,^
V ~'
Z p
to ~
~
N~ 11 II W II
>
~ CD
_ ~ g
W
~
(~ W=~ ~
~ \QI I Z n°rw¢~ WQ, Z o
J~ =~c
°D
W
C~ ~ ~Z'n ~ of I ~ w~ ~a~¢
a ~ W ¢
¢ J
¢ cc a ~
a
Q ~ rO ~ w ~ oL J z ¢o xa~v
U ~ ~ ~
QMi _
~V ~ rJ
C~DL~L c~LL c~a~c~
Omf-mmOZ
H
~ a ® ®®®®®®
r Jd'
~_IZ
~
m~
¢W
LL
¢
m m~Sfq
.hA-
37N3d 3M11~A1072G 0-.! III$i
q \ ~ W
J
~
A-AZ
C !f
.7f1'AL~
~ $ j .m-.mL
y
t~
~
~
~
Q$Y
® ~ ~ ~1
~
(/j/lJ~~''
T
! g
U ' U
.0'.1R .0'AI ~ A
1'~le QQll1
~~•~at.
~~
J ~~
~I I ~ ~
- ~ I ~J
_ _ ~GV'9138 _ _ I O ~ I ~
I ~
- - - -L {- -
J
LWL
''r^
V/
''W^
VJ
O
1~
W
Z~
~-
N
T
•~
•
•
Q
Q
Q
_Z
W ~
~o
J N
W ~
Q
= W
_UZ
~~
1~
~> Z
Q~
~~
~~2
~Z~
~a2
~ Z
,~ ~ O
~~
~~~
~~
07:17p
@5!31/2@85 15:87 6S16d48b33
V /~
PAi8CF14RD1JARE
p.l
PAGE 83
~~ Ot!•!
~s
~6t~
~M M~r
+doAe~
wee d
!!ww
4~Qe1i1~p1!
Pleerr•- -- -- -_
a1w~ UM ~~~i/VOR ~
a w~~b01~'°
J1~w ~„~1w
0 valeeor p~p~
o aen~n,r~„~
~ '~ N~mj ~`0°~
~ ~aaNel
0
~ttaid
o ~~we
~ ~~~~~
o ae~~~ .
~ i~t# eAi die se ~
~w.e
~~
~e
nonoo ~
nd Tl=iT 30'LL OoozJZS/ZO
. Z00/Z00 ~j
Y~'3 CS ~ 6T 3132 SOOLITC/40
~'
•~ • •
COMMUNITY PLANNING + DESIGN
TO: Ms. Heather Worthington, City Administrator
Falcon Heights, Minnesota
FROM: Dan Cornejo, Principal
CORNEJO CONSULTING
DATE: June 24, 2005
RE: Site Plan Review
Black Bamboo Restaurant
1871 Larpenteur Avenue
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to review the June 6, 2005 Site Plan submittal by Michael A.
Medina AIA on behalf of Stanley and Carol Won to develop a new restaurant and an
accessory surface parking lot on a site located at 1871 Larpenteur Avenue, on the NE
corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Lindig Street.
• My review will focus primarily on the four areas of the Falcon Height City Code, Chia ter
9 -Planning and Development that apply to this site plan submittal:
^ PART 2: GENERAL PROVISIONS
• PART 8: B-1 NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE DISTRICT
^ PART 13: SPECIAL PROVISIONS
^ PART 14: DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site i s currently developed with a vacant former restaurant building with an attached
"greenhouse", and with surface parking on the north and south sides of the building.
The site is approximately 15,480 sq. ft. It is zoned "B-1"NEIGHBORHOOD
CONVENIENCE DISTRICT.
DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The applicant proposes to demolish the "greenhouse" portion of the existing building,
remodel the remaining portion to the east, and construct an L-shaped addition to the main
building extending 11 feet to the north and approximately 30 feet to the west. The new
building will tota12,548 sq. ft.
CORNEJ O CONSULTING - 1657 Saunders Avenue -Saint Paul, MN 55116-2430
P 651.699.1927 F 651.698.0212 E dancornejo@comcast.net
~~
• CODE REVIEW
PART 2: GENERAL PROVISIONS
9-2.05 Required Yards and Ouen Suace
Subdivision 2 (d) requires that "In no event shall off street parking, structures of any
type, buildings, or other improvements cover more than seventy-five percent (75%) of the
lot areas. In no event shall the landscaped portion of the lot be less than twenty-five
percent (25%) of the entire lot as a result of permitted encroachments."
For this site, the required landscaped portion should total at least 3, 870 sq. ft.
The site plan indicates approximately 2, 331 sq. ft. Given that this is such a small
site, strict application of this requirement may be unreasonable, and a variance
may be warranted.
PART 10: B-1 NEIGHBORHOOD CONVIENCE DISTRICT
9-10.01 of B-1 Neighborhood Convenience District
Subdivision 6 dealing with Lot Area, Height Lot Width and Yard RegUirements requires:
• a. Minimum Lot Area of 10,000 sq. ft.
b. Maximum Principal Building Height of 2 stories or 24 feet.
c. Minimum Lot Width of 90 feet.
d. Maximum Building/LTse Size of 5,000 square feet.
e. Minimum Building Yard Requirements:
(1) Front 30 feet
(2) Side 10 feet (30 feet when abutting residential property or a street)
(3) Rear 20 feet
£ Maximum Lot Coverage 75% (including the total area of roofs, driveways,
parking lots, sidewalks and similar impermeable surfaces).
This site plan meets requirements for Lot Area, Principal Building Height, Maximum
Building/Use Size, Front Yard, and Rear Yard. However, there are four deficiencies:
^ the Lot Width is deficient by approximatelyl8feety
^ the West Side Yard is deficient by 10 feet;
^ the East Side Yard is deficient by S feet; and
^ the Lot Coverage exceeds the maximum by approximately 2, 400 sq. ft.
PART 13: SPECIAL PROVISIONS
9-13.02 Permitted Signs in Each Zoning District
• CORNEJO CONSULTING - 1657 Saunders Avenue -Saint Paul, MN 55116-2430
P 651.699.1927 F 651.698.0212 E dancornejo@comcast.net 2
,23
• Subdivision 3. Business districts (B-1 and B-3)
This matter will be dealt with as part of the building permit review.
9-13.04 Off-street Parking and Loading
Subdivision 5 (c) dealing with size of parking spaces requires that spaces be a minimum
of nine (9) feet in width and twenty (20) feet in length. Spaces for the handicapped must
be at least twelve (12) feet in width and twenty (20) feet in length.
This site plan indicates that 12 of the regular parking spaces are only 8 ft. bin.
wide and 18 feet in length, and five of regular spaces, along the north property
line, are 8 ft. 6 in. wide and 17 feet in length. The one handicapped space is 13 ft.
bin. wide and 20 ft. deep. The regular parking spaces do not meet code
requirements; however, the handicapped space does meet code requirements..
Subdivision 6 dealing with the desis?n and maintenance ofoff-street parkin areas has
many specific provisions, most of which appeared to have been complied with.
However, the following provision appears to be not in compliance.
Subdivision 6 r. dealing with Off-street Parking Spaces Required, when referencing 16.
Restaurant and/or Cafeteria requires one (1) space per 2.50 seats.
• The applicant has indicated that the restaurant is designed for 60 seats. There
will be outdoor dining provision in the summer months; however no new seats
will be added for this purpose. Therefore, the required off-street parking spaces
for this restaurant are 24 spaces. The site plan indicates only 18 spaces.
My assessment of this situation is that this is very small existing site with very
little opportunity for a different parking arrangement or provision. I would ask
that the applicant consider a second curb cut for the rear parking area to provide
a little more maneuvering room. Also, the applicant could consider a reduction
in the number ofpatron seats in the restaurant building.
PART 14: DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Subdivision 5 dealing with Screening requires screening when a business is adjacent to
property zoned for residential use.
The front yard parking contains only five (S) parking spaces, but the site plan
provides for a low wall on the property line, as well as low planting of shrubs in
front of the wall. The site plan indicates low plantings to screen the rear yard
parking along the west and east property lines as well as trees along the north
property line. Also, the site plan indicates a new 6 ft. high fence to run along the
• CORNEJO CONSULTING - 1657 Saunders Avenue -Saint Paul, MN 55116-2430
P 651.699.1927 F 651.698.0212 E dancornejo@comcast.net
a~
entire east and north property lines, effectively screening the parking areas from
• the adjacent homes. The site plan is in compliance with this provision.
Subdivision 6 dealing with Landscaping requires that landscaping be provided and
maintained on all required front and side yards.
This site plan does provide landscaping on all yards, but in a deficient amount in
terms of total site area devoted to landscaping (see 9-2.05 above).
Subdivision 8 dealing with Lighting, Li htins; Fixtures and Glare will be reviewed as
part of the building permit application.
Subdivision 9 dealing with Traffic Control requires that the minimum distance for access
drives from a corner shall be no closer than twenty (20) feet from intersecting street right
of way lines.
The site plan indicates that the southernmost driveway will be located 30 feet
from the corner, which is in compliance. In addition, the two drives in the rear of
the lot are in compliance with code requirements for separation of driveways.
RECOMMENDATION
This site plan represents a good effort to accommodate a new restaurant and parking on
• an extremely small corner site with difficult access issues. However, revisions should be
considered with a view to creating a development that has a better balance between the
size of the building, number of patron seats, and parking/access layout. It appears that a
better resolution of these key components in a revised site plan would, nevertheless,
require a number of variances to achieve the most workable site plan:
a. Landscaping amount
b. Lot width
c. West side yard
d. East side yard
e. Lot coverage
f. Size of parking spaces
g. Number of parking spaces
• CORNEJO CONSULTING -1657 Saunders Avenue -Saint Paul, MN 55116-2430
4
P 651.699.1927 F 651.698.0212 E dancornejo@comcast.net
~~
~•
L_J
I
CITY OF
~A LC ®N 2077 W. Larpenteur Avenue
HEIGHTS F .
alcon Heights, MN 55113-5594
email: mail~ci.falcon-heights.mn.us
website: www.ci.falcon-heights.mn.us
3une 8, 2005
Dear Resident:
Phone - (651) 792-7600
Fax - (651) 792-7610
We would like to invite you to a community meeting regarding the possible construction
of a new restaurant in your neighborhood.
The property at 1871 Larpenteur (formerly the Garden View Cafe) is under contract for
sale to a couple who are interested in building a small, neighborhood restaurant on the
site. I have enclosed site plans and elevation drawings for this project. Because of the
layout and size of the site, several variances would be required for this project. The new
owners have met with city staff to discuss this project, and we asked them to meet with
the neighborhood to address any concerns or questions you may have prior to the public
hearing in late June.
Please look at the enclosed plans, and come to the meeting on Thursday, June 23rd,
at 6:30 p.m. here at City Hall. The new owners and city staff will be on hand to
listen to your concerns and questions.
If you are unable to attend the meeting, you can call or a-mail me with questions or
comments about the plan. I can be reached at 651 /792-7611 or via a-mail at
hworthinetonnci falcon-heights mn us
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on this project on Tuesday, June 28
at 7:00 p.m. You are also invited to attend this meeting, and a copy of the legal notice is
included in this mailing.
Warmest regards,
~I/ .
Heather Worthington
City Administrator
HOME OF THE MINNESOTA STATE FAIR AND THE U OF M INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE
~~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
~~
L`
CITY OF
FALCON E 2077 W. Larpenteur Avenue
I ~ ~ ~~ Falcon Hei hts M -
g N 55113 5594
email: mail~ci.falcon-heights.mn.us
website: www.ci.falcon-heights.mn.us
Phone - (651) 792-7600
Fax - (651) 792-7610
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
•
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Falcon Heights Planning Commission will
meet on June 28, 2005, at approximately 7:00 p.m. at Falcon Heights City Hall,
2077 Larpenteur Avenue West, Falcon Heights, Minnesota 551 13, to consider the
following variances: landscaping, lot width, required side yards, lot coverage,
size of parking spaces, number of parking spaces for property at 1871
Larpenteur Avenue, Falcon Heights, Minnesota, legally described as: the south
215 .125 feet of lot 1 block 1, Lindig Addition.
All persons who desire to speak on this issue are encouraged to attend
and will be given an opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Additional
information can be obtained by contacting the City of Falcon Heights at
(651) 792-7600.
Dated: June 9, 2005.
Heather Worthington, City dministrator/Clerk
City of Falcon Heights, Minnesota
HOME OF THE MINNESOTA STATE FAIR AND THE U OF M INSTITUTE OF AGRICUL: URE
~~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
~~
Notes from the June 23, 2005 Community Meeting
Variance Requests for 1871 Larpenteur Avenue, Black Bamboo Restaurant
• Members of the audience asked questions related to the ro osed site lan and the variance
p P p
requests for this project.
Below is a record of those questions, and the answers given, as well as general comments about
the project.
uestions:
Q. What will be the impact on property values?
A. The city does not have information on property value impacts from commercial uses
adjacent to residential uses; however, well-maintained, attractive property is probably a benefit
to surrounding property owners. From experiences on the SE Corner of Snelling and
Larpenteur, values right now are not being enhanced by this site.
Q. Concern about having on-street parking on both sides, which was an issue when permit
parking was petitioned. Emergency access is an issue. Would City consider restricting
parking to one side? What about the portion directly across the street next to the
"farmhouse", where the restaurant patrons are most likely to park?
A. Resident of that home does not use the street for parking; said it is OK with her. Apartment
residents like being able to park in front of their building occasionally.
Q. People still come up the street looking for an outlet to Roselawn, and they ignore the
"dead end" sign at the mouth of the street. Can we put a bigger "dead end" sign up?
A. The city will review the signs in that area, and try to accomplish a better sign plan for the
area that gives clear directions to motorists.
Q. Why have sidewalks?
A. Larpenteur Avenue already has sidewalks, and these will remain. If the property owner
wants to put in a sidewalk on the west side of the property, it would be in the right of way, and
would have to be approved by the city. However, it may be beneficial for the safety of their
customers walking from the parking in the rear to the front entrance. It would not extend north
of their property.
Q. What will the hours of operation be?
A. 10:00 a. m. to 9: 00 p. m., Monday through Thursday
10:00 a. m. to 10: 00 p. m., Friday and Saturday
Notes from Neighborhood Meeting on 1871 Larpenteur, June 23, 2006 Page 1 of 3
~~
Q. Does the site plan include handicapped parking?
• A. The site plan includes the required handicapped parking space, and it complies in terms of
size and location.
Q. What about the impact of patrons parking on the street? Will the city change the
permit parking requirements?
A. Yes, the city will work with residents to address on-street parking concerns, and identify ways
to amend the permit parking so as to accommodate resident access to on-street parking.
Q. How high is the building?
A. It is not much higher than the current structure. The building could be as high as 30 feet
from grade in a B-1 zoning area.
Q. Will the restaurant have a liquor license?
A. The owners are considering applying for a beer and wine license; there are no open liquor
licenses for the city at this time. The owners further stated that it is not their intention to operate
a bar at this location, but rather to offer their patrons a glass of wine or beer with their meal.
Q. What about odors from the exhaust fans? We are concerned about cooking odors in
the neighborhood. Is there a way to measure odors from exhaust fans?
• A. The owner, Stanle Won, ex lained that the ollowin will e
y p .f g b used to control odors:
1. Diffuser-with two filters
2. Ductwork-with a spray deodorizer feature
3. VentMaster hood that utilizes ultraviolet light to eliminate odors (which he uses in
one of the other restaurants he owns).
4. The city does not regulate exhaust fan fumes/odors; however, we can ask our building
department to get us some information about them.
Q. If this property owner gets variances for this site plan, could the site be used for fast
food or less desirable businesses in the future?
A. No, the site can not be used for fast food. The city cannot grant a variance for purposes of
use, and fast food uses are not allowed in B-1 zones. Therefore, the site could not be used for
fast food in the future.
Q. Where will employees park?
A. The owner is looking for alternatives, possibly will secure leased space at Twin Cities Co-op
Credit Union. Mr. Won is investigating this possibility at the city's urging.
.]
Notes from Neighborhood Meeting on 1871 Larpenteur, June 23, 2006 Page 2 of 3
Q. What about snow removal? Will they lose spaces to snow storage?
• A. The owner is responsible for removing snow from the site, and keeping all parking available,
just like other B-1 business owners throughout the city.
Q. What about the difficulty of turning off Larpenteur onto Lindig? Speed and density of
traffic with no dedicated right turn lane?
A. This is already an issue for residents. We welcome ideas that we can pass along to Ramsey
County. No provision was made for dedicated right turns along Larpenteur-only
dedicated/protected lefts.
Q. Bus line advantage, but crossing is very dangerous for pedestrians.
A. Again, any additional ttaff c controls, including painted crosswalk would be up to Ramsey
County. City can advocate.
Comments•
Resident thought he remembered an "agreement" that if the florist/greenhouse came down,
nothing new would be built.
• The Wons know of no such restriction on the deed.
• .City does not know of such an agreement; this is private property.
• • City cannot place restrictions of that sort on private property
"No Thru Traffic" could be painted on the street so that drivers know not to go North on Lindig.
"No Thru Traffic/Dead End" sign should be placed at the East end of the site, on Larpenteur
Avenue for Westbound traffic. A larger, more prominent sign is also needed on Lindig Avenue.
Owner of adjacent house on Larpenteur worried about impact on property values. He feels that
his property stands to have the most negative impact. His renter has expressed concern: bedroom
window 15 feet away from property line. Concern that City has "bent over backward" to
accommodate new owner and "make" the site commercial.
• Site IS commercial; this is the use for which it is zoned.
• City working with project that was proposed. Different kind of project, e.g. housing with
zoning change, would get the same careful consideration.
• Disposition of private property is up to the owner, within the bounds of the law.
• City staff gives the same consideration to each applicant. Staff also tries to work with
applicant to make sure that the plans conform to code as much as possible, and discourages
applicants from making variance requests when possible.
i•
Notes from Neighborhood Meeting on 1871 Larpenteur, June 23, 2006 Page 3 of 3
30
Re: Black Bamboo Restaurant, 1871 Larpenteur Avenue
. We own and live in the house at 1708 Lindig, the house at the back of 1871 Larpenteur. We will
be unable to attend the meeting on Thursday, June 23. We oppose putting a restaurant of this
size on this lot for the following reasons:
l .Off-street parking is not adequate.
2. There are a lot of odors from a restaurant.
3. There maybe noise late at night and early in the morning.
4. Bright lights to light the building and parking lot.
We have the following questions about these concerns:
1. 18 parking stalls are not enough for 60 patrons. How many employees will be working during
the busy time and where will they park?
2. What will be done to mitigate the cooking odors? How often will garbage be picked up?
3. What hours will the restaurant be open? Will these hours be controlled by the city or will they
be at the discretion of the restaurant management? Will there be any garbage pickup or delivers
• late at night or early in the morning?
4. Will the lights on the building and around the parking lot be positioned and aimed so they do
not shine on the neighboring houses?
Additional questions?
1. Will there be a patron entrance in the rear?
2. Will the restaurant have a-wine and beer license?
/ °~
~; ~.. ~'
,,% ~~'
~` ~~~ ~ .
Wayne and Shirley Wakefie /
C:
3t
June 28, 2005
. Ms. Heather Worthington
City Administrator
City of Falcon Heights, Minnesota
Dear Ms. Worthington:
I am in receipt of your letter dated June 8, 2005 regarding the proposed use of the property
located at 1871 Larpenteur. As I was unable to attend the June 23, 2005 meeting at City
Hall, and I will be unavailable to attend the Planning Commission meeting on June 28, 2005,
I wish to make my comments to you in this email communication. Please ensure that these
comments constitute a part of the official record upon which the city's decision will be made.
I have several concerns regarding the proposed use of the property located at 1871
Larpenteur. Among them are the following:
1) When the property was used as the Garden View Cafe, I was almost involved in two
traffic accidents, when on-street parking caused two different drivers to round the
corner both too fast and too wide. When parking limitations were imposed on the
street, this public safety issue literally vanished overnight.
I am now concerned that a requested variance for parking, if it is to approve a plan
with too little parking, would re-create this dangerous situation. Restaurant
customers parking on Lindig would not be a welcome addition to our street or a public
safety benefit.
2) I have dealt with many different types of restaurants in my business, and the cooking
odors emanating from certain types of restaurants with specialized cooking
requirements, including oriental restaurants, can be overpowering if they are not
required to install and maintain appropriate ventilation equipment. I would hope that
establishment and maintenance of appropriate air quality would be considered with
any permit application.
3) When we moved into this neighborhood, the subject property was used as aloes-volume
flower shop and garden nursery, and we made certain assumptions about the
continued use of this property. Among those was an assumption that certain things
about the property, including its future use, would inevitably change, but that the
essential character of the property would not. I now see in the public hearing notice
that the proposed use of this property would require not one, but six, variances. Thus,
it would be difficult to argue that the proposed use of the subject property is similar to
its past uses, and we are disappointed that our city officials would consider such
wholesale changes to the permitted use of a single commercial property in what is
essentially a residential area.
We are therefore not in favor of the proposed use of the subject property, and would not
willingly accept the proposed variances. Please ensure that these comments are
memorialized in the official record pertaining to the application for the subject property.
Sincerely,
John Reik
1782 Lindig Street
Falcon Heights, MN 55113
32
To: The Falcon Heights Planning Comission 6/27105
i From: Tom Quam (Co-owner)
Residence: 1867 Larpenteur Ave. W.
This memo is written in response to the application for remodeling and adding to the
existing building located at 187 Larpenteur just to the west of where my daughter Jady
lives. I attended an informational meeting at city hall last week describing the scope of
the project.
At the end of the meeting, I voiced my objection to the project . Out of all of the people
attending the meeting, my property will feel the impact of this proposal more so than any
other property. I believe it will have a negative impact on my property value for the
following reasons.
Smells will emit from the operation even though the owners have assured us the cooking
odors will be neutralized before being released into the air.
Noise will be a factor. The restaurant will be open until 10:00PM Friday and Sat. night.
Workers will probably leave 1 or 2 hours after that. My daughter's house is about 15 feet
from the existing building.Her renter has already voiced concern about the possibility of
the restaurant going in. (Bedroom windows are on the west side of the house.)
There will be very limited parking on the property. With 4 to 8 employees working at
any given point in time, they will be required to park off premise. During the meeting,
someone stated the owners may try to use parking facilities down the street at the credit
union. What if they don't attain approval? Or, initially are granted use of the lot, but in
the future approval is denied for some reason?
Lighting will be somewhat of a problem in the evening. There is a very high likeliehood
there will be a noise problem with car horns, noisy mufflers etc.
Based on my observations during the meeting, it appeared to me that the City staff had
bent over backwards to make this proposal work although, when I raised this issue, I was
assured they were not advocating the plan. Heather stated that normally, if there were
more than 2 variances required, it was very difficult to obtain city approval. She further
stated this proposal required 7 variances! The staff also explained that this property was
a difficult piece to develop because of size. I agree with that assessment however I must
ask the question, is that the city's problem?
r~
~~
33
Presently, we have a small problem. If you grant the expansion of this property, you are
laying the seeds of a larger problem in the future. Human nature makes us all optimistic
and the new owners seem to .have all of the ingredients for success. However, things
don't always work out the way we plan. What if the business is not successful? Then
will it take wine, beer or hard liquor to make it successful? The future planned building
will already be too large for the lot, what if future expansion is required to make it
successful?
In summary, the buyers have a good plan but the site is not suitable for this type of
operation. Granting a building permit will have a detrimental impact on my property and
on the neighborhood. Building codes are put in place to protect existing property owners.
I must ask that you deny the request to expand the existing building and further ask that
no business be allowed to operate past 8:00 PM any night of the week.
Tom Quam
tc~,-~/
i•
3`f
Planning Commission
6/22/04
Item 1
ITEM: Potential Redevelopment and Rezoning at 1871 Larpenteur
SUBMITTED BY: Deborah Jones, Planning and Zoning Coordinator
REVIEWED BY: Heather Worthington, City Administrator
EXPLANATION:
Summary: The owner of 1871 Larpenteur, site of the former Garden View Cafe, has placed
this property on the market. City Staff have received numerous calls from potential buyers,
several of which have raised the possibility of redeveloping the property as amulti-family
residential site. The property is currently zoned B-l, Neighborhood Convenience District. In
order to redevelop the property for residential use, it would have to be rezoned and the
comprehensive plan amended.
No application for rezoning has been received at this time. However, Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission prepare for the possibility by becoming familiar with the property and the
challenges it presents. If a redevelopment project is proposed, there will probably be several
public meetings and much public communication; the Planning Commission will play an active
part in the process. The purpose of this evening's workshop is to give Commissioners an
opportunity for some preparatory discussion about this property, the potential for redevelopment
and the possible impact on the neighborhood and the City's comprehensive plan.
Property Information:
• Description: 1871 Larpenteur is located on the north side of Larpenteur Avenue at the east
side of Lindig Street. The legal description is "South 215 125/1000 feet of Lot 1, Block 1,
Lindig Addition."
• Dimensions: 56.97 feet wide by 215.125 feet deep
• Area:.29 acre or 12,632.4 square feet.
• Improvements: The only structure on the property is a one-story building designed for use as
a retail store with an attached greenhouse. The building was constructed in 1952 and is 2,280
square feet, with a partial basement. The current owner remodeled the structure as a cafe.
There are two small parking lots, one in front and one in the rear. The remainder of the
property has been most recently used for a vegetable garden.
• History: Originally part of the Lindig farm property, 1871 Larpenteur was occupied for many
years by B&J Florist. In 1998 the owner retired and the property was sold. It was then
occupied by a succession of small businesses, of which the most recent was the Garden View
Cafe, which opened in 2002 and closed at the end of 2004.
• Neighborhood: The property is surrounded on three sides by residential zones. Along the
north side of Larpenteur Avenue, between Fairview and the Twin City Co-op property, all of
•
Planning Commission Workshop: 3/22/05 Page 1 of 2
35
the land is zoned R-4 (Medium Density Multi-Family Residential) with the exception of
1871 Larpenteur. North of properties adjacent to Larpenteur the land is R-1 (Single-Family
• Residential) all the way to Roselawn Avenue at the north edge of Falcon Heights. The south
side of Larpenteur is occupied by University of Minnesota fields.
Issues:
Increased demand for housing is expected in inner ring suburbs, including Falcon Heights.
According to the "City of Falcon Heights 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update" (1999),
"The city's zoning code requires 10, 000 square feet for a single family Zot and
has a maximum medium density of 12 units per acre. The city is developed at a
density that exceeds these current zoning code standards. It is likely that any
development or redevelopment proposal will be done as a planned unit
development and the desirable density will be determined at the time of the
proposal. "
Under existing density rules up to 3 residential units could be built on an R-41ot the size of 1871
Larpenteur. However, this property, being a corner lot adjacent to an R-1 zone, faces additional
constraints on setback, and individuals who have inquired about multi-family use have
mentioned interest in building at least 4 units. A PUD would almost certainly be required.
1871 Larpenteur presents some challenges to any future B-1 business use also.
• The location does not have easy access, due to heavy traffic on Larpenteur and Lindig being
a dead end street.
• Parking is limited, with awkward entry and exit. The present parking lots are nearly 20 years
old and in poor repair. The front parking lot is non-conforming. New parking lots would
have to conform to the code.
• For most permitted or conditional business uses, the property would probably require
significant investment to upgrade or even rebuild. Any new building would have to meet the
zoning requirements for B-1.
• The property is isolated from other businesses in Falcon Heights and separated from 75% of
the city's residents by distance and busy streets.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Portion of plat map, including 1871 Larpenteur
• Portion of the City zoning map
• Property, structure and street outline map from RCGISUG website
• 2003 aerial photo
• Photographs of 1871 Larpenteur
ACTION REQUESTED:
• • Discussion of options and possibilities for 1871 Larpenteur
Planning Commission Workshop: 3/22/05
Page 2 of 2
36
1871 Larpenteur: Additional Notes
March 22, 2005
• Inquiries so far have been of two kinds:
• Keep current type of use, i.e. B-1 business
o If no rebuilding or major remodelling, no zoning action required
o If rebuilding or remodelling >50%, would have to become conforming. This is
not possible without major variances. See below.
• Convert to housing
o Zoning change required
o PUD almost certainly required
What does it mean for this property to be conforming (as B-1)?
•
Mi
i
l Re wired Existin Comforms?
n
mum
ot area
Maxi
h
i 10,000 s .ft. 12,632 s . ft. yes
mum
e
t
Mi
i
l
id 2 stories or 24 ft One stor yes
n
mum
ot w
th 90 feet 56.97 ft no
Ma
i
b
ildi .
x
mum
u
ng size
Fro
t
tb
k 5000 s . ft. 2288 s . ft. yes
n
se
ac 30 feet ~ 45 ft. es
Side
tb
k y
se
ac
(east) 30 ft (adjacent to
residential lot) ~ 5 ft. no
Side s
tb
k j
e
ac
(west)
Rea
tb
k 30 ft (ad
acent to street) < 2 ft, no
r se
ac 20 feet ~ 122 ft es
Maxi
l . y
mum
ot coverage 75% ~ 7340 sq. ft.
or about 58% yes
1. Note that total width of lot is less than sum of required side setbacks. The lot is
completely unbuildable as B-1 without major variances!
U
Could asingle-family dwelling be built on this property without variances or a PUD?
(A zoning change would be required.)
From Falcon Heights City Code:
9-2.03 Lot Provisions
Subdivision 1. Lot Restrictions. A Zot of record existing upon the effective date of
this chapter which does not meet the requirements of this chapter as to area or width,
but which meets all other zoning ordinance requirements, may be utilized for single
family detached dwelling purposes provided it is zoned residential and the
measurements of such area or width are within sixty six and two thirds (66 2/3%)
percent of the requirements of this chapter, but said lot of record shall not be more
intensively developed unless combined with one (1) or more abutting lots or portions
thereof so as to create a lot meeting the requirements of this chapter. (Amended by
o~°dinance 99-OS)
37
1871 Larpenteur
• What does it mean for this property to be conforming (as B-1)?
Re wired Ezistin Comforms?
Minimum lot area 10,000 s .ft. 12,632 s . ft. es
Maximum hei ht 2 stories or 24 ft One story yes
Minimum lot width 90 feet 56.97 ft. no
Maximum buildin size 5000 s . ft. 2288 s . ft. yes
Front setback 30 feet ~ 45 ft. es
Side setback (east) 30 ft (adjacent to
residential lot) ~ 5 ft. no
Side setback (west) 30 ft adjacent to street) < 2 ft. no
Rear setback 20 feet ~ 122 ft. yes
Maximum lot coverage 75% ~ 7340 sq. ft.
or about 58% yes
1. Note that total width of lot is less than sum of required side setbacks. The lot is
completely unbuildable as B-1 without major variances!
r1
U
•
38
•
•
POLICY H2
7/13/05
ITEM: Proposed ordinance amending portions of Chapter 9 of the City Code
regarding nonconformities
SUBMITTED BY: Deborah Jones, Planning and Zoning Coordinator
REVIEWED BY: Heather Worthington, City Administrator
Summary: In Falcon Heights there are many structures that do not conform to all the
provisions of the City Code. Many of them were built before the relevant parts of the code were
adopted; some were allowed by variance. These properties are considered legally non-
conforming. Falcon Heights City Code presently places severe restrictions on how much
alteration, repair, restoration and improvement can be done with these structures. In some cases
owners have been unable to restore original architect-designed features that have aged beyond
normal maintenance.
In 2004, Minnesota law was changed to allow owners more flexibility in replacing and restoring
nonconforming structures. The new law also allows owners some additional options for
extending and adding on to nonconforming structures, as long as the degree of nonconformity is
not increased. In practice, Falcon Heights has already allowed such additions, most notably for
the exceptionally wide and shallow lots between Snelling and Asbury. The proposed ordinance
would bring the Falcon Heights code in line with state law. Staff recommends approval for the
following reasons:
• The proposed amendments would bring the Falcon Heights zoning code into line with the
new state law.
• Staff will be able to give administrative approval of permits for certain reasonable
restorations, improvements and additions without owners having to apply for variances.
• Owners ofnon-conforming homes with distinctive, original architectural features will be
able to do needed restoration without variances.
• Options for rebuilding or building additions on certain properties (for example, 1871
Larpenteur and the Snelling/Asbury blocks) will be greatly simplified.
The Planning Commission, at its regular meeting on
the ordinance amendment as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Proposed amendment to Chapter 9 on pages
• Existing text of Chapter 9 on pages
ACTION REQUESTED:
recommended approval of
'!
• Approve the ordinance amending portions of Chapter 9 of the City Code regarding
nonconformities
C
•
~0
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
• RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. OS-03
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9
OF THE FALCON HEIGHTS CITY CODE
CONCERNING NONCONFORMITIES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF FALCON HEIGHTS ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 9, Section 9-2.02, Subd. 1 of the Falcon Heights City Code is
amended to provide:
Nonconformities. Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of
land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under
this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration,
maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion, except as specifically
provided in this Chapter, unless:
• (1) the nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of
more than one year; or
2. any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of
greater than 50 percent of its market value, and no building permit has been
applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged. In this case, a
municipality may impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit in
order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property.
Any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a
conforming use or occupancy.
SECTION 2. Chapter 9, Section 9-2.02, Subd. 9(a) of the Falcon Heights City Code is
amended to read:
3. Conforming Use. A nonconforming building or structure for a conforming use may
be expanded provided that the expansion does not increase the nonconformity of the
building or structure and is in compliance with other code requirements.
SECTION 3. Chapter 9, Section 9-2.02, of the Falcon Heights City Code is amended by
deleting Subdivisions 2, 6, 7 and 8.
L~
~!
• SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced from and after its passage
and publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Falcon Heights this 8~' day of June, 2005.
Susan L. Gehrz, Mayor
ATTEST:
Heather M. Worthington,
City Administrator/Clerk
•
•
7~
• Existing Code on Noncompliance
Grey sections are to be amended; strike-through sections are to be deleted.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 9-2.01, 2.02
PART 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS
4. Non-Conforming Uses, Buildings and Structures
Subdivision 1. Preservation of Non-Conforrnin Uses. Except as hereinafter provided in
this Section, the lawful use of land or the lawful use of a building or structure existing on
the effective date of this Code or on the effective date of any amendment thereto may be
continued although such use does not conform to the provisions of this Code, except as
otherwise provided in this Section. Advertising signs located in the City shall be
removed by Oetober 1, 1985.
Cnhr~ivicinn '~ D +' F 11' -o X11, C,.1, + ,7 ,]
vaa vi 6~oiract~f2~
+M,,.+,,..o ~L,.,11 ,,,,t~?e-r~l~c~-e~-Hrrrn~E~ e'f~--i;re~ei~~9====Rrxxx>zrr~icziurrEe~e,~=e~zer~-r~3
• o :~ to ~11< F •+t, - 4 ~
r r s b~ •~ ~~~
~ J u
be~r~b ~ ^v+~ .;.-1' +1, + ,nl, .,.a.a;+; ., oo+~ .,11 +L, ~ r~t_'_ r_ ~_
p'~ uaaa~ vu
Subdivision 3. Unlawful Use, Buildings and Structures. No unlawful use of property
existing on the effective date of this Code nor any building or structure which is
unlawfully existing on such day shall be deemed anon-conforming use or a
non-conforming building or structure.
Subdivision 4. Permit Holders and Permit Ap licants. Any non-conforming structure
that is ready for or under construction on the effective date of this Code may be
completed and occupied in accordance with the requirements of any valid building permit
issued ^herefore prior to such effective date.
Subdivision 5. Change From One Non-Conforming Use to Another Anon-conforming
use may be changed only to a use permitted in the district in which it is located; except
that if no structural alterations are made, anon-conforming use of a building may be
changed to another non-conforming use of the same or a more restrictive classification,
and provided such change is approved by the City Council. Once changed to a
conforming use, no building or land shall be permitted to revert to anon-conforming use.
LJ
~{3
Anon-conforming use, all or partially conducted in a building or buildings, may be
changed to another non-conforming use only upon determination by the City Council,
after a public hearing, that the proposed new use will be no more detrimental to its
neighborhood and surroundings than is the use it is to replace and that there is no
conforming use available for the building or buildings. In determining relative
"detriment", the Planning Commission shall take into consideration, among other things,
traffic generated; nuisance characteristics, such as emission of noise, dust, and smoke;
fire hazard; and hours and manner of operation.
EI~-St
El ~f~F2-fi'F ~
~ a
'c
a
i ~
~ `l `l
~ f i~-
uxixuge
-vr
2~
r6~ c
7- r ,
, ,
~ ,
> > ,
0
~., ~.~., Yr~~ > >
~~;^~~~- A~r~e~r~-e€-use-~~~en-men-se~rfe~g--~se-e~ 1 a ~
>~ • 1 a • ~ + + ~. a ~r~er-I9d~rrea~Fess-e~erte-3F ~. ~u~'~ 1 a 1. • 1 a
• ~ ~ '• '
i~9i2-C-6i~~1}1f
~H}
-A ~
A ` ~
'1 + n
+
~ i
i
.
g
=„L,;,,L, o v +L,o l.,,ll~e~+ C
H~ ,
-~3
L
l..,,:
l f9~
t E
c
a-c
+„ zc
r~riv
craccmz
«o .,11 L. + c
u
trn,ccrvrrr
+' 11 11 F
~
r
r
~`''~~ ~ }
~u av, uii
7
n_tr_iin_tiir_n «.1 thw-u~~tl~arru
~~r 'F ,
+ +1,
1 +' ~+b,
~1' + 4 b,' L, '+
=s-~ee~i:ed--~-~er~ ese-
r~,«1.,..v.«o„+ ~,~ ~+..,-.,..o +.,«L
eTt~1Tj ~ ~
'C[' V CC
~ ,,,l,o,-o +l,o
•
i'PI'TI'
~.,~ b
y1rIG
+ 4' vir.~ .,
~
17'CC7rT.7'1 1T,L12 III~
+• F+1.,
~ ~ 4~ ^
'~'LQ~i't•Ylti
+ 11 a•
r a
r~~,,,;«v~ ~ „L, ,. ,..1.,..0.,,0,-,+
e
«.1 .,+L,v« ..
o
«1.,.,,
,«.,,,«
+,. „F L, +'+
+' F
Nruvvuavi ~
,.1
,-
.
,,,
.,-,
lli'1F1"'"'° o «+ «~
t i .,1..;«.. ~
+.-,,.,
+„«.,i '
.,1+„«„+: ,.«,. +,. +
4 .- L..:7.]:-,_
J
~
Y
5 ~=tted~~
E` ., ,.~
.,t+o... ,+;,,~-
~
h ~ 1.. a +
~ ~
p
~ S
r~.~Ec-
;~}g
~~
„1.~+.,«+;.,11.. .,11 ..~ L,' 1, ,1 ,1
1t~e ~
13fLEli
}
t
}~'
~
~
C
i c
~
~
l'
'
`
'
« F-
}T
s
d
F
F
-is
v cu
E
-
~xcr
rfE
pt
i3~
$-
~
«
~u~1i~E~1-i ^~.id h„ila; • b
- ~+,. ,.+„
~ b
o ~ 1„ .,+ ,7 + uuvr
•++ ,7 c~ +• n ~ n
~
a
~'•ihrli~.irj~~2rr~lzt
ina to i + u~+
'a ,1 ',1
,1 +L. 1
f
---- -~ ----- ----a -~ ---.__ _~_ J LV111Vr
I 1
y~
• Subdivision 9. Additions and Enlar ements
a. Permitted Use: Anon-conforming building or structure which is
non-conforming as to area, and is designed or intended for a permitted use, shall
not be added to or enlarged in any manner unle3s such additions or enlargements
are made to conform to all of the regulations of the district in which it is located,
except as permitted in Section 9-2.02, Subdivision 2, relating to interior side yard
or corner side yard setbacks. All non-conforming buildings or structures,
including all additions and enlargements shall conform to this Code.
b. Non-conformin Use: Anon-conforming building or structure designed or
intended for anon-conforming use may not be added to or enlarged structurally.
6. Land: The non-conforming use of land, not involving a building or structure, or in
connection with which any building or structure thereon is incidental or accessory to
the principal use of the land, shall not be expanded, intensified or extended beyond
the area it occupies.
Subdivision 10. Relocation of Building or Structure
Whenever an existing building is to be moved from its present location to a location
within the City of Falcon Heights, the person or business association proposing to move
• said structure should first comply with the following specific requirements:
a. File an application for a permit within 60 days of the moving date with the
Zoning Administrator providing the following information:
1. Location on which structure or building is being moved from;
2. Location within Falcon Heights to which the building or structure is
being moved;
3. Construction plans for the building, if available;
4. The site plan for the location in Falcon Heights upon which the
building or structure is going to be placed;
7. Plans and specs which shall include the foundation; exterior repairs and
improvements, including windows and doors; roofing, electrical and plumbing
modifications; heating systems; and any necessary interior reconstruction decorating,
all to be in accordance with applicable building codes and which shall indicate that
the structure once moved shall be in reasonable conformance with surrounding
property including but not limited to sodding, grading and planting.
y5
i b. Upon presentation of this application, deposit the fee as stipulated in Section 5-
14.07 of the code with the Zoning Administrator to defray costs incurred by the
city in processing the application, inspecting the building and doing whatever else
is necessary to determine whether the building conforms with or can be made to
conform with existing codes. If any portion of the escrow payment required is not
used, the amount remaining shall be returned to the petitioner following
satisfactory completion of item (d) following.
c. If the city requires an additional deposit to guarantee any street repairs that
may be required following the process of moving the building, deposit such
amount up to $1,000.00 with the Zoning Administrator. Any unused portion of
such deposit will be returned to the petitioner following satisfactory completion of
item (d) following:
d. Furnish a surety bond to the City in the amount of one and one-half times the
estimated costs of remodeling, refurbishing or otherwise constructing or
reconstructing such building in accordance with the plans and specifications and
the city's building code and such bond shall be further conditioned that work will
be completed within 90 days of issuance of the permit. The bond shall operate in
favor of the city and shall hold the city harmless from any loss or damage by
reason of improper or inadequate work performed by the holder of said license
• under the provisions of this code. In addition, the bond shall set forth that the site
will be cleaned up and that all rubbish, material, extra fill, dirt, debris and left
over materials shall be removed within 15 days after the building is moved on to
the site.
8. Deposit with the Zoning Administrator a copy of a certificate of insurance indicating
that the petitioner has sufficient insurance to protect the municipality and public from
any and all damage which may result either directly or indirectly from the moving of
said building.
Upon receipt of the application, the Zoning Administrator shall inform the building
inspector who shall inspect the building and be reimbursed for time and travel involved in
making such inspection.
The city engineer shall determine whether or not drainage of the new site is feasible and
available and in connection therewith may require any appurtenances or new installations
all of which shall be at petitioner's expense.
The city council shall review the application and grant the permit if all of the foregoing
requirements have been met and so long as the council is satisfied that:
9. The building is not too large to move without endangering persons or property in the
• city;
~~
2. The building is not in such a state of deterioration or disre air or is otherwise
P
structurally so unsafe that it could not be moved without endangering persons
and/or property in the city;
10. The building is not structurally unsafe or unfit for the purpose for which it is being
moved into the city.
Subdivision 11. Environmental. The city council may, from time to time, adopt by
resolution and reference various performance standards pertaining to the environment of
Falcon Heights. These may include, but are not necessarily limited to, various standards
and regulations contained in the Metropolitan Development Guide or as proposed by the
Metropolitan Council pertaining to on-site sewage disposal and treatment, protection of
air space navigation, wetlands, solar access protection and others.
The city council may require that existing uses on the date of adoption of this chapter
shall, within a reasonable length of time, comply with all performance standards, including
visual, following a public hearing on the matter.
yT