Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCAgenda_96Jun17• n LJ PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA June 17, 1996 7 p.m. ROLL CALL: Tom Brace _ Wayne Groff _ Alex Hanschen _ Paul Kuettel _ Irene Struck _ Wendy Treadwell _ Betty Wilcox Sue Gehrz 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May meeting was a workshop regarding Larpenteur Avenue; no formal minutes required. 3. Request for a variance of 11 feet from the required front yard setback for the construction of a wheelchair ramp at 1806 Pascal Street, Chapter 9-2.05 subd 2(a) 4. Consideration of repeal of the variance requirement for handicap accessible ramp. 5. Consideration of adopting a moratorium on antenna equipment placement. 6. Adjourn. • Planning Commission Meeting: 6/17/96 Item: 3 ITEM: Request for variance of eleven feet from the required front yard setback for the construction of a wheelchair ramp at 1806 Pascal Street, Chapter 9-2.05 subd. 2 (a) SUBMITTED BY: James and Lorraine Utne, Property Owners Kevin Dooley, KD Construction, Applicant for Property Owners REVIEWED BY: Carla Asleson, Administrative Assistant/Planner EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION: A. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE Mr. and Mrs. Utne, through their contractor, Mr. Dooley, are requesting a variance to construct a wheelchair ramp on their property. Chapter 9-2.05 subd, 2 (a) reads, in part, that "No...exposed ramps (wheelchair)... shall be less than five feet from a side or rear lot line, and if in a front yard, a variance shall be required." The variance is • being requested because the ramp is proposed for the front yard (the side and rear setbacks are met.) The ramp is proposed to be built at a 19' setback from the property Ime instead of the 30' front yard setback required. Mrs. Utne is recovering from paralysis and needs the ramp to get outside. With the ramp, her husband will be able to help her get out without additional assistance. See applicant's statement, attachment 1. B. EMERGENCY VARIANCE GRANTED The City Planner verbally granted a temporary variance for Mr. Dooley to begin construction due to the emergency hardship. It was decided that the intent of the Code, 9-1.01 (a) "to protect and promote the health, safety, and comfort of residents" covered this situation. Without the ramp, Mrs. Utne would not be able to leave the house in the event of a fire, even with her husband's assistance. C. COMMENTS FROM NEIGHBORS Letters regarding the proposed variance were delivered to the two abutting property owners. Falcon Heights United Church of Christ owns the property to the east of the Utne home; staff at the church have indicated that they don't anticipate having any objections to the variance. The owners of the property to the north have not contacted staff since the notification letters were delivered. • • D. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RAMP AND THE PROPERTY The proposed ramp is modular in design and is built without footings. Therefore, if the property owners would no longer need to use the ramp or if the property were sold to someone who did not need it, the ramp could be removed with a minimum of time and expense. It extends approximately fourteen feet from the house toward the street, where a concrete walk will connect the ramp to the street for loading/unloading purposes. The size and slope of the ramp were designed specifically to accommodate Mrs. Utne's medical limitations and the provisions of the Uniform Building Code. Staff and the applicant examined the possibility of having the ramp built in the back yard rather than in the front yard. The smaller size of the rear door and the interior layout of the home will not accommodate a wheelchair access point. E. ANALYSIS This variance may be granted only if the planning commission finds that it meets the criteria for granting a variance. Four of the criteria (that the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will not impair light and air to adjacent properties, will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety, and will not impair the use of public streets) appear to • be met without great analysis. The remaining four criteria are discussed below. That the granting of the variance will not substantially diminish or impair property values or improvements in the area. Staff knows of no impact on property values with respect to wheelchair ramps. The ramp has been designed to be orderly and professional looking in appearance. As for the value of the property itself, the ramp should not be an issue for the long-term value of the property since it is not permanently in the ground and can be removed by future property owners if desired. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; that a particular hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience to the owner, would result if the strict letter of the chapter were carried out; that the variance is not sought principally to increase financial gain of the owner and that a substantial hardship would result from the denial of the variance. Without the variance, Mrs. Utne will not be able to access her property without outside assistance. This situation creates an on-going health and safety hardship issue which goes beyond "mere inconvenience." The design and configuration of the house have made it necessary for the ramp to be built in the proposed location and constitute the property- related hardship in this case. The variance is not being sought principally for financial gain • and is necessary for the property owners to enjoy full use of their property. The requested • variance is the minimum needed to alleviate the hardship, since the ramp cannot be made smaller without sacrificing the safety of its intended user. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested variance due to the fact that the configuration of the home and property are such that the ramp cannot be placed elsewhere and is needed to protect the health and safety of the residents. The requested variance is he minimum needed to alleviate the hardship. However, staff also recommends that a condition be placed upon the variance that the ramp not be converted into any type of covered living space, such as a three- or four-season porch or an addition to the house. The present owners have no intent to do this but the provision in the variance would protect the city should the next owner wish to convert the ramp into another type of structure. G. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2. 3. • 4. 6. Statement from applicant Site plan Existing yard design Proposed ramp design Example of a wheelchair ramp Proposed Planning Commission Resolution 96-02 H. ACTION REQUESTED Recommend approval of a variance of eleven feet in the front yard setback by adopting Planning Commission Resolution 96-02, which specifies that this request meets the standards for granting a variance, specifically 9-15.03 subd. 4(c), that the amendment is necessary for the enjoyment of substantial property rights, and 9- 15.03 subd.4 (h), that a substantial hardship to the owner would result from the denial of the variance. L 0 (Applicant's Statement) Lorraine is a very beautiful, elderly woman recovering from paralysis on her right side. She is "impatiently waiting", in her own words, to get outside and enjoy the summer, as we all have been. The ramp would allow her husband to get her out of the house without any outside assistance. This ramp is temporary, no footings and built in compatible, portable sections, well engineered, professional looking, and it just happens that it is situated partially behind the trees in the front yard. Thank you very much for your considering this and hopefully for your cooperating with Lorraine's best interests. Kevin Dooley KD Construction n u • C~ has ca.,l.. • • • w (V = CV N - ~ r ~ ~ ~ v v D ~_ J _~, o ~~,-,. . ,,. i . , . e ~~ ==~ W C~ (V (~i ~ ~ ~ Q W Q ~ ~'~ ~ LL1 ~ W_ ~ u F- ~ > ? W ~~ ci+ ~O m Z~~ O ~ ¢4 ~ ~~~ ¢¢~ ~~O ~~~ M :~ ~ m ~ H¢° ° cn r v z v~ ~ ~O c`oQ~N'Z V2W ~ ¢ W ~ ~~°'=t~ O Ozz ~Z~ w ~ 2~pl4iW 0 z x ~.U i• ~J _~~ L Y~--nn wZ~O ~~~o in w ~ to `r'c~wC~ ~ ~ W x-!n~u, '~=UX n~cnw _a ~~ I I ~~ ~. I SOW i I ~ ~" w~~ I ~x~ ~ ~ I° ~ y i ~ O I .- w¢ l . ~~~w w~~ ~ w0~ ~ CD f V ~ ~--~ ._.! Q T W~Z LL; ~d Z~¢ p~~rJi~ ~I~F-w 1t. iA to CD I ~ ~ ,~-~ O ~° J I I ~ o ~~ ~w~~z i ` 6 ~ E~- ~OZmY2 _ I M ~ ,Qfl WO~~ I a ~ ~ D(~OQO Z I ~ ~ c n Z ~ ° ~ ~ Q ~~O~Y ~ m I~ , 1 ~ ` mX T wQ . C~ .l 1! U ~ ~ ~_ W h fL OW~jW JW ~lAQQQ~-G r- ~ J I cn ~ c~ ~ ~~ & ~ d d _ .... ~, co w `~ ~ W it ~~ ~ II I' , ~ - .r u 7 "" m w `i U N ~ ~ ~ ~ r. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O J to m C~ Q ww Z O ''N WL ~ ~ n T ~ 4 W 0 0 O~ - _ ti ~~~ ,,~.~,' i 'nom" Y ~~ ~ ~. ~ ... ~ %.. .: ~ l+rM.Y .. .. ~. ~. .. . .... ... • ~ ~ -~ a.~ a> >~ >, _ C tC ~ ~ > ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ cn O r~ ~ ~ ~ .+--~ U c+J a.> < ~ C U O~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ +.r ~ ~ 4J Cn C ~ ~ C /) ~ U ~ ~ O U C/7 U C ~ O O~ Q.. U C ~-' O _ U '~ > Cn ~ U cn ~ U O O ~ ~ ~ a.~ ~ OU OU O cCS O +~ .~ c~ C C c~ a~ ~ > O a~ ~ - O O i C ~ Cn N •- ~ OJ "'"' i O O ~ -C N ~ O O `~' .C +-r ~ O O O O O .~ ~ ~ ~ bS N O i .- .:r O v- O_ ,~ O ,--~ c~ - ~ ~ •~ to r--~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- Q- O Q. O 'O "'"~ O i ~ ~ ~ •Cn ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ CCS a a~ ~... ~ ~ c ~ ~ o X a. U W O Q ~.i .._ ~+ ~E~ i t. ~w' +. V ~~ r+. •,~ r~ ~.r .. .i' ~~,. A • ~ ~M ~` -~ ' • ~ - J - J - , P - 9, 9.9~, J- J- J', l ~- ~- 0 0 . No. 96-02 Date: 6/17/96 CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE FOR 1806 PASCAL STREET On June 17, 1996, the Falcon Heights planning commission recommended granting the following variance request for 1806 Pascal Street: Chapter 9-4.01 subd. 4 (c) requiring a thirty foot front yard setback in an R-1 zoning district. • A variance of eleven feet to allow a wheelchair ramp to be built at a front yard setback of nineteen feet where a minimum of thirty feet is required in the zoning code. The planning commission recommended approval of this variance with the following condition. That the ramp not be converted into any type of covered interior living space, including but not limited to, three- orfour-season porches or an addition to the house. The planning commission adopted the following findings for recommending the aranting of the variance at 1806 Pascal Street: a. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare; b. That the granting of the variance will not substantially diminish or impair property values or improvements in the area; c. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; • d. That the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. e. That the amended variance will not impair the orderly use of the public streets; That the variance will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety; g. That a particular hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience to the owner, would result if the strict letter of the chapter were carried out; h. That the variance is not sought principally to increase financial gain of the owner of the property and that a substantial hardship to the owner would result from a denial of the variance. • • Planning Commission Meeting: 6/17/96 Item: 4 ITEM: Consideration of repeal of variance requirement for handicap accessible ramps SUBMITTED BY: Carla Asleson, Administrative Assistant/Planner EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION: As seen in the previous planning case, the City of Falcon Heights requires that wheelchair ramps obtain a variance to be built in the front yard. This does not appear to be an appropriate way to handle wheelchair ramp requests. Ramps are often constructed on the spur of the moment following an accident or other medical situation. Without the ramp, the resident may not be able to get in or out of the house without assistance. This would constitute a health and safety problem should the resident need to escape the house in the event of an emergency. In other words, the resident has a personal hardship in being able to safely access his or her home. A personal hardship, however, does not justify the granting of a variance, which must be . based upon aproperty-related hardship. Given the need for these types of ramps for health and safety reasons, staff is recommending that the requirement for a front yard variance be dropped. However, because there are some aesthetic considerations at stake, it is recommended that the planner have development review over the design and materials used in the construction of the ramp. This approval would ensure that ramps are appropriately designed without requiring that the property owner prove a hardship associated with the property. The review process would be similar to that used for utility sheds, where the placement and design of the shed must be approved by the planner as being in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. ATTACHMENT: Proposed changes to Chapter 9-2.05 ACTION REQUESTED: • Discuss proposed changes • By motion, schedule a public hearing to consider the changes at the July 15, 1996 meeting. • • 9-2.05 Required Yards and Open Spaces 9-2.05 Subdivision 1. Existina: No yards, now or hereafter provided for a building existing on the effective date of this code shall subsequently be reduced below, or further reduced if already less than, the minimum yard requirements of this code for equivalent new construction in any zone. Subdivision 2. Permitted Encroachments on Required Yards The following shall be permitted encroachments into setback and height requirements except as restricted by other sections of this code. a. In any yards: posts, off street parking, flues, sills, pilasters, lintels, cornices, eaves (up to three (3) feet), gutters, awnings, open terraces, steps, sidewalks, essential services, stoops, or similar features provided they do not extend five (5) feet above the height of the principal structure or to a distance less than three (3) feet from any lot line nor less than one (1) foot from any existing or proposed driveway; yard lights and nameplate signs, trees, shrubs, plants; floodlights or other sources of light illuminating authorized illuminated signs, or light standards for illuminating parking areas, loading areas, or yard for safety and security reasons, provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right of way or adjacent residential property. Further no deck, e~esee~ ~~p~-{~„~Pe}c-~~T uncovered porch, or air conditioner, shall be less than five (5) feet from a side or rear yard line, and if in-~ the required front yard area, a variance shall be required. An exposed ramp wheelchair is a ermitted encroachment rovided that a setback of five feet in the side and rear and is met and the design and materials are approved by the Zonina Adminsitrator as_beina in harmony with the surrounding residential neighborhood Chimneys, flag poles and open fire escapes may not extend more than five (5) feet above the principal structure or three (3) feet from any lot line. • Planning Commission Meeting: 6/17/96 Item: 5 ITEM: Consideration of adopting a moratorium on antenna equipment placement SUBMITTED BY: Carla Asleson, Administrative Assistant/Planner EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION: Within the past year, the city has had a number of requests for information regarding the zoning requirements for antennas and telecommunications towers. The federal government recently auctioned off additional radio frequency space to telecommunications companies who wish to site new towers to service cellular phone and personal communications devices such as pagers. These devices can be as small as ten feet to as large as 200 feet in height. The city's regulations for antennas are somewhat vague and do not take into account the new types of technologies which have evolved in recent years. In order for staff to analyze the most effective and reasonable means of regulating antennas and towers, a moratorium on the establishment of new antennas and towers for the next three months would be appropriate. More information on this topic and an appropriate resolution will be brought to Monday's meeting. ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Planning Commission Resolution 96-03, recommending that a development moratorium on new antennas and towers be established to permit staff to study antenna location issues.