Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCAgenda_95Dec11r PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA -9a~#e- /~ // ~jr 7 p.m. ROLL CALL: Tom Brace _ Lee Barry _ Alex Hanschen _ Paul Kuettel _ Wendy Treadwell _ Betty Wilcox _ Ken Salzberg _ Sue Gehrz _ Wayne Groff _ 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 27, 1995 3. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES November 22, 1995 4. Request for a variance from Chapter 9-4.01 subd. 4(c1 to permit the construction of a double car garage with a front setback of 23 feet where a 30 foot setback is required at 1596 Northrop Street. 5. Adjourn City of Falcon Heights Memorandum DATE: 5 December 1995 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator RE: Attendance at planning commission meeting on December 11 For your information, I will not be in attendance at the December 11, 1995 meeting on the variance request for 1596 Northrop. I turned the request over to the city's planning consultant, Phil Carlson, to handle for the city. Questions that cannot be handled by Carla are being directed to Phil. • ENJOY THE HOLIDAYS! MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 27, 1995 7 p.m. PRESENT: Paul Kuettel Wendy Treadwell Lee Barry Betty Wilcox Wayne Groff ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Tom Brace Council liaison Sue Gehrz Alex Henschen Administrator Susan Hoyt The meeting was called to order at 7:01 PM by Acting Chair Paul Kuettel. Commissioner Treadwell moved to approve the minutes of the June 26, 1995 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Lee Barry arrived at 7:05 PM. The first item of business was an update on the comprehensive planning study being done with Hoisington/Koegler. Administrator Hoyt explained that the city's planning consultant is reviewing the way that the southeast corner and community business district are handled in the city's comprehensive plan so that the city is prepared for any future activity in that area. Hoyt said that in this regard, she and Fred Hoisington met with three developers and one property manager regarding options for the southeast corner of Snelling and Larpenteur. In sum, all parties interviewed felt that redevelopment would be desirable, but the financial constraints surrounding made it unlikely in the near future. The second item of business was a brief explanation of the city's participation in the Livable Communities Act which was passed by the legislature in 1995. Administrator Hoyt explained that the act was passed to encourage more affordable housing throughout the metropolitan area. She explained that Falcon Heights essentially meets the affordability benchmarks established by the Metropolitan Council, which is administering the act. Commissioner Kuettel asked why the city felt it should participate if it met the affordability criteria. Hoyt explained that it demonstrates a commitment to affordability throughout the metropolitan area and that legislatures will be taking note of cities that are willing to join this effort. She also explained that it is a one year commitment. The third item of business was a brief explanation of land use trends in the metropolitan area for the past three decades. Administrator Hoyt pointed out that Falcon Heights has seen little change in its land use configuration whereas Ramsey County and the metropolitan area as a whole are developing. The fourth item of business was a discussion of proposed changes to the zoning code that would clarify the code. Administrator Hoyt presented the first proposed change which was intended to guarantee that if a garage was remodeled into housing space, it would be replaced with a garage. After some discussion, commissioners agreed that this language made sense, but that the text should not require any minimum size of garage. The second proposed change was to limit vehicle access to garages to one side of the garage. However, after some discussion, commissioners decided that this was not a necessary change and that there may be some circumstances that warrant having vehicle access doors on two sides of a garage. The third proposed zoning code amendment dealt with not permitting new street access to properties that currently are accessed only from the alley. Administrator Hoyt explained that this is to maintain the urban design structure which was part of the original development of the city -with front yards that were uninterrupted by driveways and vehicles. The commission concurred with this recommendation. Other minor corrections included clarifications of parking restrictions, sign area and driveway surfacing requirements. The commission agreed to a public hearing on these proposed changes for the January meeting. The fifth and final item of business was scheduling a planning commission meeting on December 11, 1995 to hear a variance request. The regularly scheduled meeting falls on December 25. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 PM. Susan Hoyt, Administrator U CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 22, 1995 • Mayor Baldwin convened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. PRESENT Baldwin, Gehrz, Gibson Talbot, and Hustad. Also present were Hoyt and Asleson. ABSENT Jacobs. COMMUNITY FORUM There was no one wishing to take advantage of the community forum. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25, 1995 Minutes were approved by unanimous consent with a correction under "Information and Announcements". CONSENT AGENDA APPROVED Motion was made by Councilmember Gehrz to approve the consent agenda. Motion passed unanimously. 1. Disbursements 2. Licenses 3. Promotion of Public Works and Parks Superintendent to step three 4. Authorization to contract with Casserly Molzahn and Associates as tax increment financing advisors POLICY AGENDA PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CITY'S PERSONNEL POLICY Administrator Hoyt reviewed the staff recommendations regarding changes to the city's personnel policy. Many of the changes were made to clarify leaves with and without pay and to bring the policy into line with the Family Medical Leave Act. Other proposed changes included: allowing the administrator to make temporary, seasonal, and as-needed employment appointments; pro-rating all benefits to regular, part-time employees; the addition of a winter holiday (December 24), the elimination of merit pay; clarified educational assistance policy; and the elimination of severance pay. Hoyt explained that severance pay was being proposed to be eliminated since most employees leave city service to better their own situation and need not be further compensated by the city. If the council wished to award a bonus upon severance or retirement to a particularly good employee or wanted to compensate algid-off employee, they would still have that option on a case by case basis. The elimination of the severance pay policy is a benefit loss to current employees and might inadvertently City Council Minutes November 22, 1995 Page 2 penalize someone planning to leave the city very soon. If this is a concern, the council could phase out the severance benefit at a date in the near future, giving current employees an opportunity to use it. Councilmember Hustad asked how health care benefits would be pro-rated for part-time employees. Hoyt answered that any regular, part-time employee would be eligible to participate in the city's health benefits package but that the city's contribution would be pro-rated according to the number of hours designated for the position. For example, an employee working 10% time could buy into the same insurance package as a full-time employee, but the city's contribution to the premiums would only be 10% of that given to a full-time employee. Councilmember Hustad then proposed the elimination of the sick leave sell back policy. Hustad stated that the policy may inadvertently encourage people not to use their sick leave when they should stay home. Mayor Baldwin noted that his employer has a similar policy, which is meant to reduce the financial liability of sick leave payouts at termination. However, Baldwin stated, those problems are not as likely to be seen in a smaller organization. The council discussed the use of sick leave, noting that while some may have more need to use it (for sick children and family members, for example) sick leave should be seen as an insurance policy rather than as a matter of financial benefit. Councilmember Gehrz agreed with the idea of eliminating the sell back, but suggested that the policy not become effective until January 1, 1996 since there may be employees planning on selling back time this year. With respect to severance pay, the council agreed that it was not good policy to pay employees who are leaving the city as a routine matter. However, they did agree that it would be fair to give employees some advance notice of this benefit loss and not delete the severance pay clause until July 1, 1996. A motion was made by Councilmember Gibson Talbot to approve the revised personnel policy effective immediately, with the following exceptions: 1) the severance pay policy is to be eliminated effective July 1, 1996 and 2) the sick leave sell back policy is to be eliminated as of January 1, 1996. Motion passed unanimously. INFORMATION ON THE 1990 PROCESS FOR APPOINTMENT TO A VACANT COUNCIL SEAT Councilmember Gehrz was elected to the office of Mayor effective at the first meeting in 1996. Since there will be only two years remaining in her council term, the 1996 council must appoint a replacement to serve out the term (January 1996 to January 19981• Mayor Baldwin, who has been on the council for three other such appointments, described the process that was used the last time there was a vacancy. The council advertised the opening and invited all the applicants to give a five minute presentation at a public meeting and on television. The council then each voted anonymously for three candidates that they would be able to support. All names taken from the councilmembers were considered further and were invited back for a second interview. After the interviews, the City Council Minutes November 22, 1995 Page 3 • councilmembers were asked to anonymously vote for one candidate that they would support. The council then made their final decision from the final names submitted. The council will officially announce the opening and decide upon the particular process to be used once Mayor-Elect Gehrz takes office in 1996 and the seat is officially open. CITY INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmember Hustad encouraged the council to read the copy of the Weber-Brandl report included in the council's agenda packet. Administrator Hoyt announced that Mayor Baldwin will be honored at the Ramsey County League of Local Governments dinner on December 13. She also announced that RCLLG was changing their meeting date and time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:46 p.m. • Tom Baldwin, Mayor Carla Asleson Recording Secretary • City of Falcon Heights Planning Commission ITEM: Request for a variance from Chapter 9-4.01 subd. 4 (c) to permit the construction of a double car garage at a front setback of 23 feet where a 30 foot setback is required at 1596 Northrop Street SUBMITTED BY: Eric Schiffman and Karen Kloser, on behalf of the property owners REVIEWED BY: Phillip Carlson, AICP, City Planning Consultant INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS: (submitted by Carla Asleson) The applicants wish to receive a variance in order to build a double car garage at a front yard setback of 23 feet where 30 feet is required in the zoning code. This is a corner property, located on the southeast corner of Folwell Avenue and Northrop Street. The zoning code states that in the case of a corner lot, the front lot line is defined as the side which has the shortest dimension of public street. This means that, although this property has a Northrop address, it is the Folwell side of the lot that is considered the property's front yard. This case has been referred to Phillip Carlson, the city's planning consultant, for review and recommendation. Mr. Carlson's report is attached and he will be giving the presentation at the planning commission meeting. Because the unusual corner lot configuration of this site, it would be useful if the commissioners could drive by the property during daylight hours. This will help in being able to visualize the different proposed garage configurations as well as the existing front setbacks along Folwell Avenue. COMMENTS FROM NEIGHBORS: (submitted by Carla Asleson) As required, notice of this variance request was sent to the owners of the two properties abutting 1596 Northrop Street. 1588 Northrop Street. Mrs. Wark, one of the owners to the south of the property, called to indicate that she has no objections to the proposed variance, as building the garage on the Folwell side will not impact her property. She also commented that since this is a large corner lot, she felt that the proposed garage wouldn't look "funny" on the property. 2222 Folwell Avenue. Mrs. Menze, one of the property owners to the east of 1596 Northrop, commented that she was not against this property having a double car garage and that she was not against this particular variance. However, she had some concerns about the degree to which the garage is proposed to protrude onto Folwell Avenue, specifically that it might be visually unattractive as compared to others on the street. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Statement of variance request 2. Drawings of existing and proposed improvements (drawn by staff) . 3. Map of the Grove neighborhood and location of the property (note: this map was copied from the Grove neighborhood directory. Staff cannot be sure that it is to scale or that the house locations are perfectly accurate; however, they appear to be close. 4. Mr. Carlson's planning review and recommendation 5. Resolution recommending approval 612'-626-0138 Th1J CLINIC 5'?6 PO 3 DEC 01 ' '35 11:35 Brief Statement for Variance Request To: Carla A.sleson, City of Falcon Heights From: Eric Sc_hifFinan and Karen KIoser Re: ~ at IS96 Northrop Stream Date: November 30, 1995 As the potential future owners of a hame located at IS9~ Northrop St. in Falcon Heights, we are requesting a variance for a proposed addition to the e~asting structure. We currently have an option on the property ~ndiiioned solely an the grant of a variance. The home currently has cone-car attached garage and a small galley-design kitchen. The plan we are submitiing;, includes building an attached two-car garage and enlarging the kitchen to create a funetianal eat-i~tt azea utilizing 10' of the e~ai.sting garage space_ CI11is is the most feasible and cost-effective waY tp en1a~'ge fife kitchen since it can't be expanded in arty other direc#ion,} The outer 12' of the existing garage would be removed and a 2~' deep by 22 ~"'ide gage would be added to the house. A 2~' d~ adequate parking space for two ears and some stor P $e provides fine current s%ngle car garage ~ area which xs lacking in To preserve the Name`s unique exterior, we would architecturally~design the addition to blend with it. Because it is a mrrner lot, our plans wi11 actually . improve the appearance of th,e Folwell side of the home since the existing $~age is in disrepair, and its roof and upper deck are in need of replacement anyway LITe believe an attractively landscaped addiition with an enlarged kitchen will ox-ly add to the homers value. Because wee are in the process Qf purchasing the home, we do not currentl have the funds available However, we plan to finance this addition withi n five years. Therefore, we request that if a variance is year period. Tl~k you for po~xr consideration. granted, it be fora five- C7 • fiollS ~ ~XiS~il1~ ~. ~'~~- i ~~ ~ i ~~~~~a I '-- ~J ~ c j~l r~~ I I ~tv~nu.. l59/v /Northrop ~X~s~-'n9 f Pro~os~q~ C-~r~t~s ,/~ N sear= 'l~„ ~, {~ou~e. ion vLr-~ k~-~-crhen S~:~e~ ~rcposrd Ga~~e N M N 22! ~a~vte.ll Av~nu.2., 1 ~rn~ased CTar~e Ktcdti~ ~~vecd ,/i N S'96 /~/orjhi-oz~ :7 • s Z a Z ~---~/ v ~/ I ~~ I IS Nbhlj~0~ ,- ,~ ,, . ~ "f~ ~~ ~~ l._C L ~'~ =~~ -~ -_, DSiT, INC. 11042/414 • CON3[ILTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NQRTH SUITE 214 MINNfiAPOLIS, MN 55401 6t2.339~3340 PHONB 6I2.33~-Sb01 FAX City of Falcon Heights Planning Report DATE: December $, 1995 TO: Falcon Heights Planning Commission FRQNI: Philip Carlson, AICP, Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc, RE: Variance Application, 1596 Northrop (SchiffmanlKloser} INTRODUCTION • Dr. Eric Schiffman and his wife, Karen Kloser, have a purchase agreement to buy the single-family home at 1596 Northrop Street (at the corner with FoIweIC Street} in the C~Id Grove neighborhood. The house is awned now by the Ziebarths and has cone-car garage. Schiffman and Kloser want to be able to buikf a two-car garage sometime in the future, but the design they propose would encroach on the front yard (Folwell Street} setback, They report that the purchase agreement is contingent on approval from the City of a variance to construct atwo-car garage in accordance with the basic design they developed, and have applied to the City for a variance to the front yard setback to accomplish their garage project BACKGROUND The lot in question is a comer !ot whose short side fronts on Falwell (see attached sketch, Figure 1}. According to City Zoning Code definitions, this is the front yard and requires a 30-foot setback for buildings and attached garages. The lot varies in width from 53 feet at the south edge to about 89 feet at the widest point. The street side yard -facing Northrop - is required to-be at least 20% of the lot width, which means this stree# side yard setback also varies, from 1Q.6 feet to 18.8 feet. The rear setback is 3(} feet for an attached garage, 5 feet for a detached garage. 1 have not been able to verify exact lot dimensions (several map sources give conflicting numbers) but the numbers in question do not affect the conclusions about the variance request. Given this situation, a lot survey should be submitted before any building project is started. DSU, INC. C~j003lO10 Planning Reporf 9595 NorthroplSchiffman-Klc~ser ?2l8/g5 2 • The existing one-car garage is attached at the northeast corner of the house with the driveway and garage door facing out to Falwell Street. The applicants' pNan (attached sketch, Figure 2} is to use part of the existing garage and construct additional garage space to achieve a new 22' x 24' two-car garage. The south half of the garage would be remodeled internally to be part of the kitchen. ! have spoken with the applicants on the phone and met with Dr. Schiffman to review his plans and my recommendation. PLANNING C®NS1131=RATIONS Based on my understanding of conversations with the applicants, they have three wishes in this case: 9} To have atwo-car garage attached to the house 2) To expand the existing kitchen 3} To preserve the existing yard space and views to and from the house Many Karnes in Faleon Heights were built with one-car garages, but variances have been granted to alloy firvo-car garages, depending an the individual circumstances. Considering modern reliance an the automobile, adding a typical two-car garage {assume 22' x 24' in size} is not unreasonable. This approach is followed in many Twin Cities communities. The first consideration above is therefore a reasonable starting paint in discussing the variance request. The second issue above is created lay the applicants themselves and is not considered a necessity for this lot and house. We can certainly sympathize with their desire, and we encourage investment in properties, but it should not be considered a necessity. The third issue above has some bearing on the variance consideration, but this private benefit must be weighed against the overall public interest of establishing and maintaining a (rant yard setback to public streets. One consideration in the current yard situation is a large oak tree in the northwest corner of the iot which may be affected by the proposed plan or another plan. The applicant should proceed carefully with any building project that would affect the drip line of the tree. 'This can be done with careful planning, pruning, and careful treatment of the ground under the tree. The City has nine cxiteria under "Standards for Granting a Variance" in the caning Code. Before considering each of these standards, it would be helpful, I believe, to ask the basic question: can the desired result be achieved without needing a variance? The answer, 1 believe, is yes, it can. DSU> INC. OQ~JOID • E-~ a a a 0 v~ a a w a 0 p4 ~~ ~a _ - - i ~~~ rtr ~ r^ t 1 ~ ;~ I ~ I ~~~~ t I ~~ f } t ~ ---- ..- o~ 4 ~ - .-~ // fit" i ~r ~ ,-,. I" ~„~. ~~ cci a.~ O -.,. w w_ V t/J b4 .~ /r.~ W F+ Y iy~i /~ i '~ C31 v'i .--+ a ~~ nsu, iNC. ~ aa~roia Planning Report 9595 NorthroplSchiffman-Kloser 721"8/55 ,~ In this case, the resut# that the applicant and the City agree on is to provide a two-car garage. It is riot the City's job to design the project for the applicant, but if we are saying that the result can be achieved without a variance, it is reasonable to show haw this might be dane_ The atkached sketches, Figures 3, 4, 5 and G illustrate four ways to provide atwo-car garage on the lot without a substantial variance: Figure 3 - Concept A. This design consists of another one-car stall added to the north side of the house next to the existing garage, without encroaching on the setback. The stall is added perpendicular to the existing single garage stall, with its own driveway out to t~larthrop Street. White not the most elegant solution, it does accomplish the desired result, and is similar to another garage in this neighborhood fi which two cars enter the same garage from different sides, with different driveways. This second driveway would need a variance, which might be reasonable given the lot's large sire and corner location. There are also cases in the City where fin+o cars are parked end-to-end in a garage. Concept A would take up some yard space near the front door and ®ncroach on the drip line of the oak tree, but probably riot as much as the applicants' plan. Figure 4 -Concept B. This design adds an entirely new two-car garage on the north side of the house, comple#ety within the setbacks. Driveway aooess would be off of Alorthrop Street. I have suggested one way that access #o the house could be taken, through the existing front closet. I am certain there are other ways this could be done • too. A design like this one would use a larger portion of the existing yard on the north side of the lot. This would infringe an the views across the corner of the lot to and from the front of the house, which the applicarrfs would t~ce to avoid if poss~te. This plan would also impact the oak tree, perhaps about as much as the applicants' plan. Figure 5 -Concept G. Anew two-car garage could be added on the south side of the house as well. Because 1 am uncertain of lot dimensions, this solution might need a rear yard variance. This would be looked on more favorably than a front yard variance to a public street, however. This design would block use and view of the "back yard° - the south end of the lot ~ but again #his impact would need to be weighed against the public interest in preserving the front yard setback. Figure 6 -Concept D. Anew two-car detached garage could be built at the south edge of the lot as well. City Cade would require it to be at least 12 feet from the house to qualify as a detached accessory structure, but then it vueuld only need a 5-foot setback to the south tot line. This design would also block use and view of the back yard as noted above. Without going into too much detail we have shown that there are at least four different ways to reasonably get two cars on site-two of them without resorting to a variance, . the others needing a second driveway variance or a less onerous rear yard variance. 50 'x'612 337 5601 DSU, INC. ~I006/010 • ~"'{ r1 a w a 0 1 ~~.. • ~~ ~~~~~~~~ r- 1 __-- A O b4 L~ I-y ~Ri V ~+ }.r ++ L+ fl Z tiU G~ u~ .~- u a w 4 i I ~ „~ ~ as ~ ~ _ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ?' s ./' y t y~ /--c ./ ~ ~ I. ~ ~ y~ 'r i~~! ate, ~ "~ `--i ~~ 1 ~~ _'`~. ~~, ~~. ~~ nsU, iNC. ~ oazraio • • • E+ a w a 0 E+ a Q W t 4 \~ r ~, ~ i r ~ i i I q~ .7d ~~ ~ , ~cn- ~. x ' f~ ~. i ~ f i~ ___ ~~ 5~_ °.i r ~_~ ~~ ~ , __~~~~1 ~ Mf'r` ~~ ---_"' ""~ -_ i r-""_- ~ } ~ ~ 1 ' =~ ~ x U I ~ x~ ~j 114. _-.. r~~ a~+~ ~~• ~~ ~. ~ ~ ~~ ~ 2 ~~ 0 a~ ao 0 z t/'~ ~-+ b C7 3..~ .~qA yr,L I`- i !~ :~ 0 r. Q DSIT, INC. [~j 008/01D Planning Report ? 5981Vorthrop/Schitiman-Kloser t 21815 4 STANDARDS Ft3R GRANTING A VARIANGE have analyzed each of the criteria in Sec. 9-15.D3, Subd. 4 of the ,Zoning Gode (the standards for granting variances) in relation to the applicants' variance request. Following is my analysis; a. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare; I# is well established in planning law that community aesthetics are considered part of the "public welfare" that can be controlled by zoning regulations. The history of the OMId Grove neighbofiood with respect to variances is one of jeabusly guarding the front yard setback to protect the continuity of design along the public streets. Granting the variance would be detrimental to this part of the public welfare, 1 believe. b. That the granting of the varianct~ will not substantially diminish or impair property values or improvements in the area; This its a difficult cri#erion tQ quantify, but to the extent that surrounding properties adhere to the setbacks and rely on r~ighboring properties to do likewise, there could be some negative effect on property values by encroaching in the setback. c. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantia! property rights; We agree that having atwo-car garage is des~-able but may not be considered a `"substantial property right". We have also shown that there arse other ways to build a garage on site without needing a variance. Therefore, the variance is not necessary in order to get a two-car garage. The applicants believe that putting a garage in any location other than their plan would result ~ loss of enjoyment of some of their yard space and views. This is certainly true, but the question is how significant is this loss tassuming an attractive, compatible, we&built garage is constructed}, and does this outweigh the public's substantial interest in a consistent public street frontage? In my opinion, the enjoymenrt of unobstructed yard space is not a "substantial property right", nor is it a higher interest than the public interest in stnyet frontages. d. That the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; The requested variancxr would affect adjacent properties only very minimally in this regard, if at all. The adjacent property to the east has a front balcony whose views would be limited somewhat by the proposed garage. DSU, INC. C~]009t010 • Planning Report ? 59s 1Vorthrapf3chiffman-Kloser 1218f95 5 • e. That the variance will not impair the orderly use of the public streets; The variance request poses na direct impact on the use of the street by Vehicles or pedestrians firom an operations or safety standpoint. kt would impact somewhat the enjoyment of the public, street frontage created by normal front setbacks. f. That the variance will not increase the danger of fire or endanger public safety; There are na fre or safety issues evolved in the variance request_ g. Whether the shape, topographical condition or other similar characteristic of the tract is such as tt> distinguish it substantially from all of the other properties in the zoning district o! which it is a part, or whether a particular hardship, as distinguished from mere incomrenience to the owner, would result if the strict letter t>f the chapter were carried out; The property in question is not substantially different from other Tots in the Qld Grove neighborhood or other parts of Falcon Heights. In fact, it is larger in both dimensions than many surrounding lots and other lots in the R-1 District, There are no signi~Fcant • characteristics which create a hardship for the owner in meeting the zoning standards_ h. Whether the variance is sought priincipatly to increase financial gain to 'dte owner of the property, and to determine whether a substantial hardship to the owner would result from a denial of the variance; I do not believe the variance request would result in financial gain far the applicant, in fact at least one of the other design solutions would probably be less costly than the applican#s' plan. As noted previously, I also da not believe a substantial hardship exists in attempting to construct atwo-car garage an the site_ i. Whether the conditions which give rise to the application firer the variance arose after the adoption of this chapter of the code of the City of Falcon Heights or any amendment there#o 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 the balls for the granting of a variance when the owner purchased the properly in reliance an a promise #hat a variance would be granted, and the city shall dismiss the appeal if it shall appear that the property was purchased on such reliance. DSU, INC. D14~414 Planning Reporf 'f 588 NorfhroplSchif9`man-Kloser 7218185 6 i None of the conditions cited apply to this property_ The applicants in this case have proceeded properly: their purchase agreement is contingent on City approval of a variance far their desired plan, but the City is under no obligation to grant the variance. TIMING QF THE REQUEST The applicants have indicated that they may not build the garage for another five years if the variance is granted_ Sec. 9-15_fl3, Subd_ 3 of the Cade states that a variance terminates after one year unless the decision granting the variance states otherwise. Five years in my opinion is a long time to be tied to a variance decision, since site conditions and surrounding conditions could change. I would suggest granting a twv- year extension of the variance, which could then be renewed by a decision of the Planning Commission and Council far another year yr two at any time before the two years lapse. The renewal would be abased on a review and decision that conditions affecting the variance have not signif'icantty changed since the variance was granted. CONCE.USt~DN x. RECQMMENDATIt)N The applicants are hoping to purchase a home that has only a one-car garage and want to improve the property by building a fi+vo-car garage, if there were no reasonable way • to fit a two-car garage (or an addi#ional one-oar garage space} on the lot, the City would look more favorably an the minimum variance necessary to overcome this iimitatian. In the situation at 9,598 Northrop, there appear to be severe! reasonab~ alternatives to granting the variance to the front yard setback. The fact that attractive private yard space would betaken far a necessary two-car garage does not justify a variance. Taken to the extreme, one could argue that the lot would be even mare attractive if there were no house ar garage an it at all, and that all structures should be built in the setback area. But some sacrifices must be made tv achieve the expansion of personal space that the applicants want. to essence, the applicants are hoping to trade public space (the front yard setback to the street} for private space (their existing yard as it is}_ This is not a trade that is justified as in the public interest, nor is it supported by the zoning code s#andards. I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance tv the City Council. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance, the approval should be for a specific time (a year or two} and should be conditioned on an acaarate lot survey to verify dimensions and locations of existing and proposed site improvements. • ~4 ri~ ~~~ ". L CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS No. 95-07 Date: 12/1 1 /95 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION ---------------------------- - - --- ------------------------------------- RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE FOR 1596 NORTHROP STREET On December 1 1, 1995, the Falcon Heights planning commission recommended approval of the following variance for 1596 Northrop Street: Chapter 9-4 01 subd. 4 (c) which establishes a minimum front vard setback of 30 feet in an R - 1 zone. LJ A variance to allow the construction of a double car garage at a setback of 23 feet on the Folwell Avenue side of the lot. The plannina commission recommended approval of this variance with the following conditions 1. The approval of the variance is contingent upon the submission of lot survey to verify the dimensions and locations of existing and proposed site improvements prior to the issuance of a building permit. If the survey reveals information substantially different than what was submitted with the request, a building permit will not be issued and the applicant will need to reapply for the variance or alter the plans accordingly. The survey and proposed plans must also show that the required side yard setback of five feet is met and that no building or driveway will extend into the side setback or onto the adjoining property. 2. The variance shall be approved for two years from the date of issuance. It may be renewed for an additional year by the planning commission and city council at the request of the applicant and upon determination that conditions affecting the variance have not significantly changed. The plannina commission adopted the following findings for recommending the grantina of the variance at 1596 Northrop 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; f. 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. i~, No. 95-07 Date: 12/1 1 /95 CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS PLANNfNG COMMISSION RESOLUTION ------------------------------------ - - - - -------- RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A VARIANCE FOR 1596 NORTHROP STREET On December 11, 1995, the Falcon Heights planning commission recommended denial of the following variance for 1596 Northrop Street: Chapter 9-4.01 subd 4 (c) which establishes a minimum front vard setback of 30 feet in an R - 1 zone. • A variance to allow the construction of a double car garage at a setback of 23 feet on the Folwell Avenue side of the lot. The planning commission adopted the following findings for recommending the denial of the variance at 1596 Northrop Street: a That the granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public welfare; b. That the granting of the variance will diminish or impair property values or improvements in the area; c. That the granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; d. That a particular hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience to the owner, will not result if the strict letter of the chapter is carried out. ~ COMMISSIONERS: PLEASE DRIVE BY 1596 NORTHROP STREET (CORNER OF FOLWELL 8~ NORTHROP) DURING THE DAYLIGHT HOURS PRIOR TO MONDAY NIGHT'S MEETING. THE VARIANCE REQUEST ON TH E AGEN DA IS UNUSUAL AN D IT WILL HELP IF YOU'VE SEEN THE PROPERTY IN PERSON. THANKS. .7