HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCAgenda_95Sep25PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
9/25/95
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
June 26, 1995
3. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
4. Introduction of new planning commissioner, Wayne Groff
5. Request for a variance to Chapter 9-2.06 of the zoning code for additional
fence height at 1710 St. Mary's Street
6. Request for a variance to Chapter 9 § 13.04 Subd.6a of the zoning code to
permit two access drives to the property at 1386 Idaho Avenue
7. Review of comprehensive plan elements related to the southeast corner of
Snelling and Larpenteur Avenues
8. Adjourn
Agenda Item 2
• MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 26, 1995
7 p.m.
PRESENT ABSENT ALSO PRESENT
Lee Barry Tom Brace Susan Hoyt, Administrator
Alex Henschen Paul Kuettel Carla Asleson, Planner
Wendy Treadwell Ken Salzberg
Betty Wilcox (7:20)
Due to lack of a quorum, the opening of the meeting was delayed. Hoyt reported on #7
(Deadlines for Planning Decision ... )on the agenda while waiting for the fourth
commissioner to arrive.
INFORMATION RELATED TO DEADLINES FOR PLANNING DECISION AND GENERAL
LAND USE REGULATIONS.
Hoyt said the 1995 legislative session adopted permit deadlines for municipalities that
would require cities to notify applicants within 10 days if additional information is
required and action within 60 days or notification if a delay is expected. She said the
only impact this would have on Falcon Heights is that action must be taken on planning
• requests such as variances and conditional use permits in a timely manner once the
required information is submitted, and that having a quorum at each meeting is very
important. A summary of land use controls prepared by the City of Minnetonka was
provided to the commissioners for their information.
With the arrival of the fourth commissioner, the meeting was called to order at 7:20 p.m.
by Chair Barry.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the May 22, 1995 planning commission meeting were approved as written.
PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A RE UES FOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT
PARKING ALONG PORTIONS OF TATUM STREET
Administrator Hoyt reported on the Tatum Street residents' request for permit parking.
Background
Following a request from a resident, Tatum Street was designated two hour parking
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday in December, 1994. All Tatum Street
residents were invited to a meeting when this request was considered by the planning
commission. At that time, residents and property owners were informed about the
opportunity for permit parking if the parking restrictions created problems for their
personal vehicles during the restricted hours. After parking restrictions were posted in
. April and May, 1995, the city received two petitions requesting residential permit
parking on portions of Tatum.
• Planning Commission Meeting
6/26/95
Page 2
Policv
Public streets are available for use by the general public. Allowing some residents to be
exempt from the parking restrictions that apply to the general public requires a
demonstration of need. First, the adjacent land uses generate more than usual residential
traffic and second, the property owners require some relief from parking restrictions that
are .necessary because of automobile congestion in the neighborhood.
In order to assure the city that there is a need for permit parking, a petition signed by
75% of the property owners in a minimum distance of one 600 foot block front(one side
of street) must be initiated. The petition is submitted to the city with a $100 fee to cover
the cost of processing the application. The request is reviewed by staff and a
recommendation is made on the area to be designated for permit parking.
If the city council approves residential permit parking, residents along the designated
area may purchase annual permits at $10 each for the first two vehicles registered to
their address and $20 for each additional vehicle. This fee is charged to cover the cost
of processing the application including a license registration check, and having the
officers enforce this parking arrangement for registered vehicles.
• Petitions requesting permit parkin
In May, 1995, two petitions were received requesting residential permit parking on
Tatum Street and were accompanied by the standard $100 fee to cover the costs. The
$100 fee covered both petitions because the review and notification were done at the
same time.
Petition area #1: north of 1844 and 1894 Tatum Street to 1888 and 1920 Tatum Street
(75%) was initiated by Gary & Jean Malzer of 1903 Tatum. Petition #2: south of 1971
and 1794 Tatum Street to 1739 and 1736 Tatum Street (82%) was initiated by Rick Elm
of 1765 Tatum.
Response to notices
All Tatum Street property owners were notified of a public hearing on permit parking.
As of )une 26, 1995, no property owners had contacted the city about the hearing.
In addition to sending the notice to petitioned areas, 27 property owners in the non-
petitioned areas were requested to notify the city about their interest in permit parking
by returning a stamped, addressed card. Ten responded with interest in residential
permit parking; one responded neutrally if she did not have to pay for a permit; 4
responded that they had no interest in permit parking.
When the petitions and response cards were tallied together, the results were as follows:
• 61 % of the property owners expressed an interest in permit parking or signed a petition
for permit parking on all of Tatum.
• Planning Commission Meeting
6/26/95
Page 3
7% expressed a disinterest in permit parking
2% (1 owner) was neutral.
30% did not respond to the notice or did not sign the petition.
The commission discussed alternatives available for residential permit parking which
included:
- posting the two areas within the street length that petitioned for permit parking;
- posting the entire westside of the street and the eastside of Tatum north of 1844
Tatum Street and south of 1794 Tatum Street;
- posting both sides of the street, north of 1728 and 1733;
- post both sides of the entire street where 2 hour parking is posted.
Chairperson Barry opened the public hearing at 7:40.
Rick Elm, property owner, said that a majority of property owners have demonstrated
• both a need and an interest in permit parking along the entire street and he respectfully
requested the commission make a recommendation for this to be done. There being no
one else wishing to be heard, the public hearing closed at 7:45.
Treadwell moved to recommend to the city council that Tatum Street be designated for
residential permit parking and to adopt the resolution approving the request for
residential permit parking.
Seconded by Hanschen and unanimously approved.
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF TWO FEET FROM THE REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE
YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK FOR 1865 N HAMLINE
AVENUE, CHAPTER 9-2.05 SUBD.2(a)
Planner Asleson reported that Mr. Keith Mays, 1865 N. Hamline Avenue,is requesting a
variance to construct a deck at a setback of three feet rather than the minimum of five
feet from the interior side lot line. Chapter 9-2.05 subd.2(a) of the zoning code requires
that decks be constructed at a setback of five feet from interior side and rear lot lines.
The street setback minimum on corner lots is 20% of the lot width. She said these
setback requirements are necessary to keep decks from being constructed too close to
neighboring properties.
• The Mays' property is located at the corner of Hamline and Ruggles Avenues. Asleson
said that while the address is Hamline Avenue, the actual front entrance is located on
• Planning Commission Meeting
6/26/95
Page 4
Ruggles Avenue. A variance was obtained when the house was constructed for a rear
yard setback of 21' rather than the required 30' rear yard setback. Although the
proposed deck would be on the side yard of the property it would actually be located to
the rear of the front entrance. It would be 10 ft. wide and 20 ft. in length. An existing
sliding glass door, which currently is unusable because it is about two feet from the
ground, would be used for access with stairs being built down to the ground from the
deck. The deck would be located 13 feet from the neighboring property owner's deck
with no overlap between the proposed deck and the neighboring structure.
Planner Asleson said that alternatives had been considered for placement of the deck in
another area of the house but barriers existed to prevent this.
1. To place the deck on the Hamline side (east) would mean building the deck in
the "technical" front yard with access from a bedroom rather than the family
room. This is not permitted except by variance.
2. To place the deck on the Ruggles side (south) would mean building the deck in
• the "visual" front yard but access would again be from a bedroom unless a bow
window was removed and the access would then be from the living room. This
alternative would be permitted by the zoning code but would be visually
unattractive.
3. Placing the deck on the west side of the house is possible and could be accessed
off the family room but would require the applicant install a second door in the
family room.
4. The deck could be placed in the current location and the width reduced to 8'
rather than 10'. This would meet the side yard setback requirement but the
owner indicated an 8' wide deck is too small for his needs.
Asleson said there does not appear to be a reasonable alternative placement for the deck.
A previous variance permitted this house to be built in an unusual configuration which
leaves little or no buildable space on either the north (side yard) or west (rear yard) sides
of the house. This could be interpreted as a hardship and be legitimate grounds for
granting the variance.
After a discussion by the commission, Henschen moved to approve the requested
variance of two feet from Chapter 9-2.05 subd.2(a) of the zoning code by recommending
the city council adopt a resolution that this property meets the standards for granting a
• variance, specifically 9-15.03 subd.4(c); the amendment is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of substantial property rights; 9-15.03 subd.4(g), that the property is
• Planning Commission Meeting
6/26/95
Page 5
unique and that a hardship would result if the strict letter of the chapter were carried
out; and with the condition that the deck not be converted into any type of covered
interior living space, including but not limited to, three or four season porch or an
addition to the house.
Seconded by Wilcox and passed unanimously.
UPDATE ON MEETINGS REGARDING THE LARPENTEUR AVENUE CONCEPT PLAN
AND LARPENTEUR AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION
Hoyt gave the commissioners a brief update on the Larpenteur Avenue reconstruction
plans. She said on May 23 and 24, the urban planner/designer, Michael Schroeder and
Fred Hoisington, the city engineer, and city administrator met with property owners in
small group meetings to discuss streetscape plan and proposed sidewalks, turn lanes and
parking. She mentioned she would keep the commission updated on the response to the
plans. A summary of the reconstruction plans dated )une, 1995 was provided to the
commissioners.
• Meeting adjourned at 8:05.
Carla Asleson, City Planner
Dee Swenson, Recording Secretary
U
•
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES OF AUGUST 23, 1995
Mayor Baldwin convened the meeting at 7:07 p.m.
PRESENT
Agenda Item 3
Baldwin, Gehrz, Gibson Talbot and Jacobs. Also present were Hoyt, Asleson, and Rigdon.
ABSENT
Hustad (arrived at 7:14 p.m.)
COMMUNITY FORUM
There was no one wishing to take advantage of the community forum.
MINUTES OF JULY 26, 1995 AND AUGUST 3, 1995
Minutes were approved by unanimous consent with one typographical error corrected.
CONSENT AGENDA APPROVED
Mayor Baldwin requested that one consent agenda item, the awarding of the contract for
the new city hall roof, be considered as a policy item.
Councilmember Gehrz asked if the public works equipment proposed for purchase was a
budgeted capital item. Administrator Hoyt stated that it was not budgeted; the Public
Works Department found that they could do some of the street patching on their own and
have been renting equipment rather than hiring out the work to a contractor. It will save
money in the long run to buy this equipment than to rent it. The equipment will also be
used to groom the paths at Community Park.
Motion was made by Councilmember Gibson Talbot to approve the following consent
agenda. Motion passed unanimously.
1. Disbursements
2. Licenses
3. Approval of auditing firm for year ending
4. Approve payment number two for the
Frattalone Construction
5. Purchase of asphalt roller and tilt trailer
POLICY AGENDA
12/31 /95
1995 alley reconstruction project to
ACCEPT THE BID AND AWARD THE CONTRACT FOR REPLACING THE
CITY HALL ROOF
Consulting Architect Bill Hennemuth presented the bids received for the replacement of
the city hall roof and recommended that the low bidder, All Systems Roofing, be awarded
City Council Minutes
August 23, 1995
Page 2
•
the contract. He also recommended that an additional 54,000 be set aside for project
contingencies.
Councilmember Jacobs asked about the estimated life expectancy of the new roof.
Hennemuth said that the roof should last 15 to 20 years and that All Systems' contract
includes a ten year guarantee.
Motion was made by Councilmember Jacobs to accept the bid and award the contract for
the city hall roof to All Systems Roofing at a cost of 549,575 with an additional 54,000
in contingency funds authorized, to be used for change orders at the discretion of the city
administrator. Motion passed unanimously.
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTSIROSEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT AGREEMENT REGARDING
FALCON HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PLAYGROUND IMPROVEMENTS
Administrator Hoyt noted that this was the first of three items related to the purchasing
of playground equipment at Falcon Heights Elemerrtary School for school and
neighborhood park use. This item relates to an agreement between the school and the
city related to ownership of the equipment, responsibility for maintenance, and rules of
play and conduct at the site.
• Councilmember Gibson Talbot asked why the city will be doing some of the maintenance
on the school property. Administrator Hoyt answered that this is because the city is
initiating the equipment purchases for park as well as playground use.
Following discussion, a motion was made by Councilmember Hustad to approve the
agreement with School District 623 with the following amendments: 1) staff will
negotiate with district staff regarding the proposed 9:30 p.m. closing time and request
that it be changed to 10:00 (to have uniformity in all parks); 2) add the word "major" in
front of the word "maintenance" in point two; and 3) add an itemization of those items
that would revert back to the city in the event that the school sold the lot to another
party. Motion passed unanimously.
ACCEPTANCE OF FALCON HEIGHTS SCHOOL PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT PROPOSAL
Greg Schaefer, a member of the park and recreation commission task force that
recommended equipment for the school playground, presented the various proposals
submitted to the city. The playground task force met with city and school officials and
unanimously recommended that Flanagan Sales be awarded the contract for the
installation of Iron Mountain Forge equipment. The task force felt that this equipment
provided the most creative and age appropriate (4th to 6th grade) equipment for the
money allotted.
• Motion was made by Councilmember Gibson Talbot to award the play equipment contract
to Flanagan Sales at a cost of 524,995.00. Motion passed unanimously.
City Council Minutes
August 23, 1995
Page 3
•
AWARDING OF CONTRACT FOR FALCON HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
HARDCOURT CONSTRUCTION
Administrator Hoyt reviewed the hardcourt proposals received and noted that Aero
Asphalt, Inc. had provided the low bid. This hardcourt will house four height-adjustable
basketball standards.
Motion was made by Councilmember Gehrz to award the hardcourt construction contract
to Aero Asphalt, at a cost of 519,802.50. Motion passed unanimously.
CITY INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmember Hustad encouraged the continued recruitment and applications for the
"Keeping Connected" task force.
Councilmember Gibson Talbot announced the upcoming National Crime Prevention Week.
Mayor Baldwin reiterated for the viewing audience that the "Keeping Connected" group
should be thought of as a "thinking" group. It will not have a traditional focus because
the council wishes for citizens to establish its own concept of community and how to
• preserve and enhance it. Mayor Baldwin also announced that election filing dates for the
1995 city election were August 29 to September 12.
Councilmember Gehrz asked the viewing audience for volunteers willing to promote
Minnesota Chemical Health Week.
Administrator Hoyt noted the start of the Minnesota State Fair and the completion of the
alley and sealcoating projects. She also announced that the Falcon Heights Fire Cadet had
won first place at the "Ramsey County Challenge" and that Curtiss Field t-shirts were now
for sale at city hall.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned. at 7:25 p.m. Following adjournment, Administrator Hoyt and
Accountant Rigdon presented the council with the revised 1996 operating fund budget.
As requested by the council, staff increased the budget for the contingency fund to nearly
550,000. The council and staff then discussed proposed revisions to several items in the
city fee schedule. Finally, the council discussed possible revisions to the city's merit pay
policy. No decisions were made at this meeting; all items will return to the council at a
regular meeting for final resolution.
• i
\~
Carla Asleson
Recording Secretary
~ ~
/«
Tom Baldwin, Mayor
Agenda Item 5
• City of Falcon Heights
Planning Commission
September 25, 1995
ITEM: Request for a variance to Chapter 9-2.06 of the zoning code for
additional fence height at 1710 St. Mary's Street
SUBMITTED BY: Dale Huff and Linda Fite,. Property Owners
REVIEWED BY: Carla Asleson, Administrative Assistant/Planner
EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION:
Mr. Huff and Ms. Fite are requesting a variance to construct an eight foot fence along
their rear property line. The zoning code permits fences up to six feet high in rear and
side yards and three feet in the front yards. The request is being made to screen the
rear of the property from the adjacent commercial parking lot at Warner's Stellian.
The zoning code limits the height of fences to keep front yards open and to maintain
consistency in side and rear yards. A six foot high side and rear yard maximum is
ordinarily a reasonable regulation to maintain throughout the city. However, this
particular property abuts a commercial property that is used to for loading of
appliances and for refuse disposal. Therefore, an adequate screen or buffer between
the residential zone and the adjacent commercial use is desirable.
A fence height variance was granted in 1992 to the property to the south (1700 St.
Mary's Street- for similar reasons. The proposed fence at 1710 would continue the
line of the existing fence on the 1700 property. The eight foot fence would only run
along the rear of their property which borders Warner's Stellian and not along the
northern or southern side lot lines. While the approval of the previous variance does
not require approval of a variance for this property, Mr. Huff and Ms. Fite cite similar
hardship statements as the owners of the 1700 property, namely the noise and visual
unattractiveness associated with their proximity to commercial property.
This property is unique in that it borders a commercial property and the property
owner has shown a hardship associated with this location. An eight foot high fence
can be considered the minimum height needed to alleviate this hardship, as such a
height is needed to screen the property when people are using the rear yard.
LETTERS TO NEIGHBORS
Letters were sent to the three properties abutting 1710 St. Mary's Street. As of this
writing, no comments have been received regarding the proposed fence.
•
• RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends granting the variance of two feet from the maximum fence height
requirements to build an eight foot high fence along the ea-stern property line (rear lot
line) at 1710 St. Mary's Street. This recommendation. is made because the request
meets the conditions for granting a variance, primarily condition 9-15.03 (c), the
granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Site Plan
2. Proposed Resolution 95-05
ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Staff report
2. Questions from commissioners of staff
3. Questions to applicant
4. Discussion
. 5. If commission determines it appropriate, approve Resolution 95-05.
i•
m
..
C
m
U
m
c
.a
a
O
L
m
C '~
m 1.
U
W ea
C _
•a ~
7
N ~
_H
~X
-----~ W
Y
C
.C
.~ m
t U
U C
~ m
C "-
«.
H
--- X --
m
Q
n~
a`
O~
O
3m
m C
O `~
a
0
a
~~p Y
~ C
~ .C
~ t m
~ V C
~ m m
....
N ~
W ~ W.
~ /
O
O
3m
~ U
C C
w .~
?C
W
N M
4
~ ~ h
r M
N O
p ~ U
O L
.- f..
H b
~" b
o e
~r o
b
.,, a
~ U
n t
N..
Attachment ~1
.]
Q
~ ~
O ~
~ L
.c
C
f-+
Q
~_
Q
S~
G
Cn --
- - -- - - - - _ I ~ --. _. _
Attachment 5-2
No. 95-05
Date: 9/25/95
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
-------------------------------------
---------------------------
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE FOR 1710 ST.
MARY'S STREET
On September 25, 1995, the Falcon Heights planning commission recommended
granting the following variance for 1710 St. Mary's Street:
Chapter 9-2.06 subd.1 (f) (1) in the maximum fence height.
•
A variance of two feet of of fence height to allow an eight foot fence
to be built along the property's rear lot line where a six foot fence is
allowed by the zoning code.
_The plannina commission adopted the following findings for recommending the
granting of the variance at 1710 St Mary's 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;
would result from a denial of the variance.
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
r~
LJ
Agenda Item 6
• City of Falcon Heights
Planning Commission
September 25, 1995
ITEM: Request for a variance to Chapter 9 § 13.04 Subd. 6(a) of the
zoning code to permit two access drives to the property at 1386
Idaho Avenue
SUBMITTED BY: Mr. Michael Zalk, property owner
Ms. Sissel Ilstad, property owner
REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator
Carla Aselson, Planner
STAFF REPORT:
Request. Mr. Zalk is requesting a variance to Chapter 9 § 13.04 Subd. 6(a) of the
zoning code to permit two access drives to the double, tandem garage that he
proposes to build on his property to replace the existing single car garage. No other
variances are required for the construction of the proposed garage, which will be three
feet from the sidelot line, because the existing garage is currently located at the three
• foot setback.
Proposal. Mr. Zalk wants to replace an existing garage with a tandem, double garage
(cars end to end -rather than side by side). He wishes to provide access to the
garage from the existing front driveway as well as to create access from the rear alley
with a six foot drive. This would create the most efficient ingress and egress of the
two cars to the proposed garage because both would have immediate driveway
access.
Proposal's conformity to the existing code As Mr. Zalk points out in his letter, a
tandem garage will maintain the open space and an existing tree in his rear yard
whereas a standard double garage would not. The proposal for the tandem garage
already conforms to the zoning code and can be constructed without a variance.
However, Mr. Zalk wishes to have independent access for two cars to the garage.
This requires two entrances to the garage and, therefore, he is requesting the variance
to the zoning code.
In sum, the variance is being requested to maximize the access to the proposed
garage for two vehicles.
Question before the commission The commission must ask if there is a unique
characteristic with this property that creates a hardship and justifies granting a
• variance so the property owner can enjoy his full property rights.
Related information and analysis
• Desi n alternatives
9
This request was submitted by Mr. Zalk after he carefully considered the alternatives
available for creating a double garage as permitted in the zoning code. These
alternatives are:
1. Build a standard double garage using the current driveway.
2. Build a tandem garage using the current driveway.
3. Build a standard double garage or a tandem garage with alley access only and
remove the existing front driveway.
Comments from neighbors.
The neighboring property owners were notified of this request for a variance. As of
this writing, no comments have been received.
Existing tandem garages
There are examples of tandem garages in the city. There are two such garages in the
Grove neighborhood. These have only one access. However, they do not have the
. opportunity for a second access off an alley. Mr. Zalk indicated that there is a garage
with double access (street/alley) in the Northome neighborhood. This appears to have
been constructed some time ago and did not get a variance, if one had been required.
The existence of similar situations is not a reason to grant a variance.
Safety
The ingress and egress from both the alley and street would ease access to the garage
and may enhance safety on the property by reducing the exits and entrances along
the front drive into the street. However, the front drive on this lot is not unique in
length. There are many much longer driveways in the city that require backing in and
out. Therefore, this is not a unique safety hazard for this particular property.
Uniqueness of site configuration
The properties in the Northome neighborhood and those on other alleys on the
northside of Larpenteur were developed to access garages from the alleys. The
purpose for this urban design style is to maintain a visually consistent front open
space without detracting from front yards and fronts of residences with garages and
vehicles in driveways. It is also to keep garbage cans and service vehicles to the rear
of properties. These design elements have been considered aesthetically appealing
to many urban designers at different times.
2
In Northome most interior properties (corner lots are different) are accessed from the
• alley and the city encourages maintaining the design of .alley access in this area. The
zoning code has been revised to accommodate requests for double garages in the rear
lots with alley access.
The property under consideration is one of six properties in the Northome
neighborhood that has a detached garage entirely in its rear yard with driveway access
from the street rather than from the alley. There are fourteen attached garages with
driveway access from the street. Staff estimates that there are a total of 237 interior
lots off of alleys. Again, because of their configuration corner lots often have street
rather than alley access.
Therefore, this property is uniquely situated because it does not have alley access for
its detached garage. By far the majority of properties, especially those with detached
garages, already use alley access. Corner lots are not considered here because they
usually have access from the street.
Proposal's conformance to the intent of the zoning code.
The purpose of limiting access to one driveway in residential zones is 1) to protect
public safety by having only one driveway entrance onto a street from each lot and,
therefore, reduce the number of places traffic can enter and exit the street and 2) to
• minimize the amount of area that might be paved for driveways.
Mr. Zalk points out that the intent of his proposal is to maximize open space on his
property and to minimize paving a large area for garage and parking space. Clearly,
the design does maximize open space in the rear yard. The planned additional
driveway alley is six feet of pavement. The alternative proposals for double garages
that conform to the zoning code and provide easy accessibility to the garage from the
front or the rear of the yard would require eliminating more green space and removing
the tree in the rear yard. The second driveway access from this property would mean
additional vehicle trips down the alley, but it is unlikely these would create an
additional safety hazard.
Alternatives. There appear to be two alternatives to this request for a variance.
1. Deny the request because there is not a demonstrated hardship nor unique
characteristic on this property that justifies approving a variance for more
efficient access to the proposed garage.
2. Approve the request for a variance because:
a. The property is uniquely situated as one of six properties that has an
3
existing detached garage entirely in the rear yard with access from the
street rather than alley access.
b. The property is unique because it has the opportunity to utilize rear alley
access to a rear yard accessory structure, which is what the alley is
designed for.
c. The proposal is consistent with the intent of the zoning code because it
maximizes greenspace in the property's rear yard and protects the
property's current configuration of open space and vegetation.
d. The proposal is consistent with the intent of the original neighborhood
design by utilizing alley access to a detached accessory structure in the
rear yard with a driveway of no more than 6 feet in length, which is
similar to the length of other driveways off alleys throughout the
Northome neighborhood.
Staff recommendation. After careful analysis, staff recommends that the variance be
granted for the reasons explained under alternative number two above.
It is important to note that the staff would not recommend granting this variance
• based entirely on ease of access to a tandem garage. Staff would also be unlikely to
recommend granting a variance for adding street access when alley access already
existed because alley access should be encouraged in the neighborhood. Nor is it
likely that staff would recommend approving a variance if the request came for an
access from the alley to an attached garage that had street access and required more
than a six foot drive from the alley to the new garage because this would create two
long driveways on the property and be inconsistent with the neighborhood unless
conditions were very unique.
Conditions.
Staff also recommends that the variance be conditioned upon the following:
1) The garage remaining in the rear 46 feet (38%) of the property and in its
proposed configuration.
2) The driveway to the street must be removed if there is no longer direct access
from the street into the garage.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Site plan for 1386 Idaho
4
2. Photos of 1386 Idaho
• 3. Letter from applicant
4. Resolution recommending denying the request
5. Resolution recommending granting the request
ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Staff report
2. Questions from commissioners to staff
3. Questions to applicant
4. Discussion
5. Action
•
•
SITE MAP OF PROPOSED
GARAGE CONSTRUCTION
AT 1386 IDAHO AV. W.
Existing Gar
13.5' x 20'
Proposed Garage
(double bordered
line)
15' x 40'
i ~ ~~~
•
1380 Idaho
^
:~
September 12, 1995
c..~ Attachment 6-1
~ ,Ar-i~
T ~w~ - -
T
-Propose Driveway Alley
sion c
~N
-~r2~ .-;
y Birch Tree (trunk)
~~>~ Branch at 7' elevation
~,'
.'~r'
~%
~.
~' q ~.. ,
1386 Idaho
Existing Driveway
V~
N
N 1/4" = 3'
1
t-~- ,Sy'.--~', -~
IDAHO AVENUE WEST ~ ~'~ ~~ ~ ~~~.
® ~~D~oSC-i7 l~ i~.}t~E~t,
C~ ~~.~~~ ~.-
Z.~ k 2 ~{
~Qe ~- acc-es~'
Attach
PHOTOS OF 1386 IDAHO AVENUE, WEST
g.
,.
,.
.,~, _ ~ ~;u.~trr <, :G~ -~ ,-~~T,~°3Q AIZe~ toward North
- ;~ ~ ~ -,
__
~~
~ --_. .,
~__.
View from Idaho Avenue toward South
>.
View from Neighboring Property toward West
View from House at 1386 Idaho toward South
-2-
Attachment 6-3
Michael D. Zalk and Sissel H. I~stad
1386 Idaho Avenue West
Falcon Heights, Minnesota 55113
September 12, 1995
City of Falcon Heights
Planning Commission
City of Falcon Heights
2077 West Larpenteur Ave.
Falcon Heights, MN 55113-5594
Re: Request for Variance Permitting Dual Driveway Access; Proposed Garage at 1386
Idaho Avenue West
Dear Commissioners:
This letter is submitted in support of our application for a variance necessary to allow the
construction of a double tandem garage with dual driveway access at 1386 Idaho Avenue West. We
are informed that a tandem garage proposal with only one driveway access, either to the street or
the alley, would not require a variece.
The dual driveway access request arises out of the proposal for a double tandem garage
design, which enables a double garage on our property without removing or severely cutting back
a mature birch tree. The tree is centered appraaimately 29 feet from the eastern boundary of the
• property, with branches at a height of 7 feet as near as 23.5 feet to the eastern boundary. We
believe that this design is the only practical solution to preserving the tree in its present condition
while building a double garage.
The tandem garage design, however, is extremely unpractical if access is not permitted from
the existing driveway and the nearby alley. We believe that the code provision denying more than
one access in this unique case imposes a particular hardship, and as noted below, a less safe
situation for ingress and egress. This arrangement has worked well for one other house in our
neighborhood, at 1375 Idaho, where access to the driveway for a double tandem garage from both
street and alley was apparently allowed during original construction.
Permitting two access points to the driveway will permit safer exits from the garage itself,
by permitting vehicles to exit forward to the alley, rather than by backing 100 feet to the street as
is currently required. We understand that the purpose of the driveway access rule was principally
to limit the amount of paving, and we believe that our proposal does not violate this intent. The
driveway extension to the alley as proposed will travel only 6 feet, contributing only a small
additional amount of paving to the property.
Thank you for your consideration of this application.
Very truly ypurs
~~
i Michael D. Zalk
Attachment 6-4
No. 95-06
Date: 9/25/95
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
------------------------------ - - - - - -
- - - - - - -------------------
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A VARIANCE FOR 1386 W. IDAHO
AVENUE
On September 25, 1995, the Falcon Heights planning commission recommended
denial of the following variance for 1386 W. Idaho Avenue:
Chapter 9-13.04 subd 6 (a) which allows only one driveway access
for each one-family residential lot.
A variance to allow two driveway accesses (one from the alley and
one from the street) to aone-family residential lot.
• The tannin commission ado ted the followin findin for r
g ec~mmending the
denial of the variance at 1386 W. Idaho Avenue:
The applicant has not met all criteria for granting a variance, specifically:
a. 9-15.03 subd. 4(c), that the granting of the variance is necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and
b. 9-15.03 subd. 41g), that the shape, topographical condition or other
similar characteristic of the property is such as to distinguish it
substantially form all of the other properties in the zoning district of
which it is a part; and
c. 9-15.03 subd. 4(g) and (h), that a particular hardship, as distinguished
from mere inconvenience to the owner, would result if the strict letter
of the Chapter were carried out and a variance denied.
Attachment 6-5
• No. 95-06
Date: 9 25/95
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
-------------------------------- _
----------------
----------------------------- -
SOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE FOR 1386 W. IDAHO
AVENUE
On September 25, 1995, the Falcon Heights planning commission recommended
granting the following variance for 1386 W. Idaho Avenue:
Chapter 9-13 04 subd. 6 (a) which allows only one driveway access
for each one family residential lot.
A variance to allow two driveway accesses (one from the alley and
one from the street) to gone-family residential lot.
• The tannin commission recommended a rov
N al •f this variance with the
following conditions
1) The garage must remain in the rear 46 feet (38%) of the property and
in its proposed configuration.
2) The driveway to the street must be removed if there is no longer
direct access from the street into the garage.
The planning commission adopted the following findings for recommending the
granting of the variance at 1386 W Idaho Avenue:
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.
•
L~
Agenda Item 7
r'1
Planning Commission
Item 7
25 September 1995
DATE: 25 September
ITEM: Review of comprehensive plan elements related to the southeast corner
of Snelling and Larpenteur Avenues
SUBMITTED
BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator
EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION:
To assure that the city is prepared for any new development proposals or
opportunities that might evolve over the next decade, the city council contracted with
the Hoisington/Koegler Group to develop some basic design guidelines and future land
use types for southeast corner of Larpenteur and Snelling. These will be considered
as an amendment to the city's comprehensive plan.
•