Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCAgenda_95Jun26• • PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA June 26, 1995 ' 7 p.m. ROLL CALL: Tom Brace _ Lee Barry _ Alex Hanschen _ Paul Kuettel _ Wendy Treadwell _ Betty Wilcox _ Ken Salzberg _ Sue Gehrz 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 22, 1995 3. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 4. Public hearing and consideration of a request for residential permit parking along portions of Tatum Street 5. Request for variance of two feet from the required five foot side yard setback for the construction of a deck for 1865 N. Hemline Avenue, Chapter 9-2.05 subd. 2(a- 6. Update on meetings regarding the Larpenteur Avenue Concept Plan and Larpenteur Avenue reconstruction 7. Information related to deadlines for planning decisions and general land use regulations 8. Adjourn • • MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 22, 1995 PRESENT ABSENT ALSO PRESENT Lee Barry, Chair Tom Brace Susan Hoyt,Administrator Alex Hanschen Paul Kuettel Carla Asleson, Planner Wendy Treadwell Sue Gehrz, Council Liaison Betty Wilcox Ken Salzberg Meeting was called to order 7 p.m. by Chair Barry. Minutes of April 24, 1995 were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL SIGN AREA AT FALCON HEIGHTS UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, 1795 HOLTON Chair Lee Barry asked to be excused from participating in this request for a • conditional use permit as he is a past moderator and current treasurer of the Falcon Heights United Church of Christ. Commissioner Salzberg agreed to be the acting chair during this portion of the meeting. Planner Asleson described the Falcon Heights United Church of Christ's request for a conditional use permit to install a sign on the Garden Avenue street front. She said the proposed sign resembles a real estate sign with hooks to hang temporary signs for key events. The zoning code permits churches, schools, and other institutions located in an R-1 zone to have up to 50 sq. ft. of sign area. Due to apre-existing use, the church currently has approximately 83 sq. ft. of sign area and all requests for sign area above the permitted 50 sq. ft. require a conditional use permit. Asleson noted that letters, as required, had been mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the property. Four responded and after learning of the size and location of the sign had no objections. She stated that §9-15.04 subd. 31a)11 1) of the zoning code requires that the planning commission find that: "The architectural appearance and function plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values constitute a blighting influence" Mr. Bob Olsen, spokesperson for the church, said that this sign would eliminate • some of the need for temporary signs on the property which are more likely to • Planning Minutes 5/22/95 Page 2 cause a blighting influence. Initially, it will be used to display the church's logo and advertising for the Falcon Heights' indoor playroom when the playroom is in operation. Public hearing opened 7:10. There being no one wishing to be heard, closed at 7:11. After a brief discussion, Treadwell moved to recommend granting the conditional use permit with the following conditions attached: 1. The sign used shall not exceed 12 sq. ft. of area and shall maintain a clearance of 18" above the ground at all times. 2. The sign shall be kept in good repair. 3. Should this property cease to be used as a church or a school, the conditional use permit shall be null and void and the sign shall be removed if not in compliance with the sign requirements for the new use. • Seconded by Hanschen and passed unanimously with Barry abstaining. PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL BUILDING HEIGHTS AT 2129 W. LARPENTEUR AVENUE Planner Asleson explained that Mr. Greenberg and Ms. Kindschi are proposing a 32 foot high (grade to peak) addition to their existing home. The proposed roof line is consistent with the current pitch of the roof, and with the exception of the building's height, the addition meets all other requirements. Asleson said the zoning code allows single family homes in an R-1 zone to be a maximum of 25 feet in height (9-4.01 subd.4(a). All requests for additional height require a conditional use permit 19-2.07 subd.1). She said that a conditional use permit must be granted if the applicant can meet both general and special conditions governing the use as determined by the planning commission. In 1990 the applicants were granted a conditional use permit to operate a bed and breakfast facility out of their home. This request requires a second condition use permit because it is not related to the bed & breakfast facility. Mr. Tom Reinan, the project architect and the owner's representative, displayed a site plan for the proposed addition explaining how it would be in keeping with • the architectural style of the building. Asleson said the proposed addition to the code's maximum of 25 feet meets the zoning code requirement for a conditional • Planning Minutes 5/22/95 Page 3 use permit. All property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified, as required, and no calls were received. Public Hearing opened at 7:20. There being no one wishing to be heard the hearing closed at 7:21. After a brief discussion, Salzberg moved that the conditional use permit for the construction of a 32 foot high addition to the existing home be recommended for approval with the condition that it be constructed of building materials that match the existing structure. Seconded by Wilcox and passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE ADDITION OF THE DEFINITION OF "SIDEWALK SALE" TO THE ZONING CODE Asleson briefly reviewed the current zoning code relating to the outdoor sale of • merchandise in a B-3 zone as discussed at the April 24, 1995 planning meeting and the fact that what is missing from the code is an actual definition of the term, "sidewalk sale". She recommended the following definition to added to the zoning code: Sale -Sidewalk. The selling of goods by a business proprietor just outside of the public customer entrance of the proprietor's business where the merchandise sold outside is similar to what is ordinarily sold inside the abutting business and the sales are managed and operated by the abutting business proprietor. Asleson said this definition would clarify that: • The merchandise sold must be similar to what is sold inside the business. • The sidewalk sale must be conducted by the proprietor of the business, which would prevent the owners of a shopping center or individual proprietors from leasing sidewalk sale space to a vendor other than their existing businesses. • A business could not operate a sale in an adjoining parking lot or open area, except for the limited sale of their own merchandise when the business' customer entrance abuts such an area. • Public Hearing opened at 7:25 and closed at 7:26. • Planning Minutes 5/22/95 Page 4 Hanschen moved to recommend approval of the definition of the term "sidewalk sale" to the zoning code as defined by Asleson. Seconded by Salzberg and unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned 7:30. Carla Asleson, City Planner Dee Swenson, Recording Secretary • • CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Q.rr MINUTES OF MAY 24, 1995 • Mayor Baldwin convened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. PRESENT Baldwin, Gehrz, Gibson Talbot, Hustad, and Jacobs. Also present were Hoyt and Asleson. COMMUNITY FORUM There were no comments from the floor. MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 1995 AND MAY 10, 1995 Minutes were approved as presented by unanimous consent. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVED Administrator Hoyt noted that there was an additional item to be added to the consent agenda. There being no objections from members of the council'; item C-6 was added to the consent agenda. Motion was made by Councilmember Gibson Talbot to approve the following consent agenda. Motion carried unanimously. 1. Disbursements a. General disbursements through 5/18/95: S 102,172.83 b. Payroll, 5/1 /95 to 5/15/95: $11,490.51 2. Licenses 3. Approval of summer recreation program and park maintenance seasonal staffs 4. Cancellation of the June 14, 1995 council meeting 5. Awarding of bid for 1995 sealcoating improvements 6. Authorization to purchase a box scraper attachment for the public works department POLICY AGENDA ~^~ f'~ CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 95-18 REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF A ~~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL BUILDING HEIGHT AT 2129 W. `~/1n LARPENTEUR AVENUE '`/ Planner Asleson explained that Lawrence Greenberg and Carol Kindschi of 2129 W. Larpenteur Avenue are building an addition to their home and have requested a conditional use permit for seven feet of additional building height beyond the maximum • of 25 feet allowed in the zoning code. Their existing home is 35 feet high and the proposed addition would be 32 feet high. Asleson noted that this house is uniquely located in Falcon Heights. It is not part of a residential neighborhood but stands alone adjacent to the University of Minnesota golf City Council Minutes May 24, 1995 Page 2 • braFt course and Gibbs Farm. Therefore, the addition will not be dissimilar to other buildings in the area or cause a blighting influence. Furthermore, the proposed addition is in keeping with the architectural style of the existing building. A 25 foot high addition would be out of scale and would more closely resemble a garage than an addition to the principal structure. Mr. Tom Reinan, the architect on the project and representative for the applicants, noted that the 32 height is necessary in order to match the pitch of the existing building. He also stated that the addition would be constructed of materials to match the existing building. Motion was made by Councilmember Jacobs to approve Resolution 95-18, granting a conditional use permit for additional building height at 2129 W. Larpenteur Avenue. Motion passed unanimously. -~~~1'~'I CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 95-17 REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF A ~I1P' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL SIGN AREA AT 1795 HOLTON STREET Planner Asleson reported that Falcon Heights United Church of Christ has applied for a conditional use permit for additional sign area. The church is permitted 50 square feet of • sign area without a conditional use permit. Due to apre-existing use, the church already has over 80 square feet of sign on the property. The proposed sign would be approximately 12 square feet in area and would resemble a real estate sign, with hooks to hang metal signs. The church proposes to use the sign to highlight the Falcon Heights playroom and other church events, thus eliminating the need for temporary, non-durable signs. Since the sign closely resembles a real estate sign and would eliminate some potential blight from non-durable temporary signs, the request meetsthe zoning code's requirement that the sign not be dissimilar to the surrounding neighborhood and that it not be a blighting influence. Motion was made by Councilmember Hustad to approve Resolution 95-17, granting a conditional use permit for additional sign area at 1795 Holton Street. Motion passed unanimously. Asleson further noted that the church had requested that the S 165 in planning fees be waived, since the city's playroom will be advertised on the sign during part of the year. Mr. Warren West, representing the church, commented that the playroom is a very successful and desirable joint venture and that it is the opinion of the church council that the city should share in the costs of the playroom advertising. • Mayor Baldwin stated that he is uncomfortable with waiving planning fees outright, but would be open to the idea of the city purchasing some of the sign space or the cost of the sign. After discussion among the council, it was determined that the church should pay the entire conditional use permit processing fee, but that the city would cover its share of the cost of the sign. City Council Minutes May 24, 1995 Page 3 • DraFt Motion was made by Councilmember Hustad to pay Falcon Heights United Church of Christ 595 for the city's share of the cost of the indoor playroom sign. Motion passed unanimously. ~~1~~ONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 95-04, ADDING THE TERM "SIDEWALK SALE" TO ~ THE DEFINITIONS SECTION OF THE ZONING CODE ~~ Administrator Hoyt explained that staff had recommended that the term "sidewalk sale" be added to the definitions section of the zoning code. Outdoor sales of merchandise are permitted in B - 3 zones only in conjunction with sidewalk sales, and the term needs to be clearly defined. The planning commission has reviewed the proposed definition and recommended its adoption Mayor Baldwin voiced his concern about sidewalk sales potentially taking up parking spaces in shopping center areas, forcing shoppers to park on the streets in residential neighborhoods. Hoyt replied that the planning commission did not expect that most property owners would do this, but conceded that it was a valid concern. Councilmember Gehrz noted that other events in the city can impact residential parking to a greater degree, and sidewalk sales only occur twice per year. Baldwin stated that he would be • comfortable with the definition as recommended by the planning commission; if there are parking problems, the definition can be revisited. Motion was made by Councilmember Jacobs to adopt Ordinance 95-04, adding the term "sidewalk sale" to the definitions section of the zoning code. Motion passed unanimously. REQUEST TO PURCHASE AND INSTALL REPLACEMENT STREET LIGHTS FOR FOLWELL AVENUE EAST OF COFFMAN STREET Administrator Hoyt reported that several of the city-owned street lights in the Grove neighborhood need replacing, as the parts to repair them are not available. Four options are available to the city for replacement including: 1) replace the five lights with the same lights as located to the west of Coffman at the same intervals currently located (total cost: 510,028); 2) replace the five lights with 25' high aluminum poles and a shoebox light to keep the same height as existing lights and the same light intensity (total cost: 517,153); 31 replace the five. lights with seven of the same type of light as those west of Coffman (total cost: 510,928); and 4) ask N.S.P. to redesign the placement of the lights on both sides of Folwell (total cost estimate not available until design is completed). Councilmember Gehrz stated that this issue is important to many Grove residents. The current lights are in need of replacement. The noted that the current lighting is very bright and that there may not be enough light if the existing lights are replaced with the lower- level type of light like those west of Coffman. She asked about the feasibility of adding • seven lights to this area. Administrator Hoyt stated that N.S.P. would need to determine where the new lights would be positioned if seven lights would be installed instead of five. N.S.P. has minimum City Council Minutes May 24, 1995 Page 4 ~~~ • distances and physical constraints to consider when redesigning street light locations, so the new light would not necessarily be placed in the same locations. Councilmember Gehrz proposed that staff discuss the potential new locations with the residents of the neighborhood before proceeding with installation. Councilmember Hustad asked how the city would proceed if there were some homeowners in disagreement over the new locations. Mayor Baldwin commented that the issue could be brought back to 'the council if there is no consensus among the residents and the Grove Association. Motion was made by Councilmember Gehrz to authorize the purchase and installation of up to seven new streetlights in the Grove neighborhood, pending discussions with N.S.P. and solicitation- of comments from affected residents. Motion passed unanimously. CITY INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Baldwin reported on the parade and Arbor Day program at Falcon Heights Elementary School. He also noted, for the benefit of the viewing public, that the University of Minnesota Wildlife Rehabilitation Institute is available to advise the public on how to deal with sick or wounded wild animals. • Administrator Hoyt noted that another successful citywide garage sale had been held the previous weekend with no complaints from the public despite large numbers of people coming through town for the sales. She also reported that the fire/rescue department had held a successful rescue open house and mass casualty incident drill the previous week. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:01 p.m. Tom Baldwin, Mayor Carla Asleson Recording Secretary H City of Falcon Heights Planning Commission MEETING. DATE;. 2fi June 1995 AGENDA. ITEM: ITE11~1: Public. hearing and- consideration of a rec}uest far residential permit parking along portions of Tatum Street S11BM1TTED B1X~ Tatum Street property avvrlers in petitioned areas for residential permit parking RE~llE1NED BY: Susan Hayt, City Administrator (repgrting} Carla Asleson, Administrative Assistant/Planner EXPLANATlO N/D ESCRI PTI O N The city received tuna petitions for residential permit parking. on Tatum street. Please. see the attached- memorandum for a descri~tian~ analysis and recommendation an this request. • ATTACHMENTS: A -Memorandum from. administrators. dated 23 June 1995 B - Maly of Tatum. Street C - Example of information distributed to Tatum Street residents D - Petitions E - Resolution ACTIQN REQl1ESTED: • Staff Keport • Questions from. commissioners • Op€n public hearing Receive- comments • Close- public- hearing • Discussion. among- commissioners • Act an resolution establishing. residential- permit parking on Tatum Street City of Falcon Heights Memorandum Date: 23 June 1995 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers Planning Commissioners FROM: Susan Hoyt, City Administrato RE: Report on the request for residential permit parking along portions of Tatum Street A. Background. Two hour parking restrictions on weekdays. On December 7, 1994 the city council designated Tatum Street for two hour parking between 8 AM and 4 PM, Monday through Friday. This designation was recommended by the planning commission after receiving a written request from a Tatum Street resident, Mr. Chrun, who saw increasing levels of automobile traffic resulting from long-term parking along Tatum Street. All Tatum Street residents were invited to the meeting when this request was considered by the commission. • Information related to permit parking. Prior to the approval of these specific two hour parking restrictions, Tatum Street was unrestricted parking north from approximately 1791 and 1794 Tatum Street. At the time the parking restrictions were discussed, residents and property owners were informed about the opportunity to pursue residential permit parking if the parking restrictions created problems for their personal vehicles during the restricted hours. Temporary permits and parking bags to cover the parking signs are available for entertaining and contractors' vehicles. Request for permit parking. The city posted the parking restrictions in April, 1995. In May, 1995 the city received two petitions requesting residential permit parking on portions of Tatum Street. The specifics of the request are discussed later in this report. B. Policv. Need. Public streets are available for use by the general public. The use of public streets for travel and for parking is not restricted to those property owners along that street. Allowing some parties, in this case residents, to be exempt from the parking restrictions that apply to the public in general requires • 1 • a demonstration of need. First, need that the adjacent land uses (the university) generate more than the usual traffic associated with a residential area and, thereby, create more pollution which detracts from the neighborhood. Second, need that the property owners require some relief from the parking restrictions that are necessary to relieve the potential blight from automobile congestion in the neighborhood. Petition. In order to assure the city that there is a need for permit parking, the policy requires that residential permit parking be initiated by a petition of property owners. In Falcon Heights, the petition must be signed by 75% of the property owners in a minimum distance of one 600 foot block front (one side of street). The city of St. Paul requires 60% of property owners to sign. Staff review. Once -the petition is submitted to the city with the S 100 fee to cover the cost of processing the application, the staff notifies the petitioners of the upcoming public hearing and publishes a notice. The staff also reviews the request and makes a recommendation on the request and the area to be designated for permit parking. The area considered is, at a minimum, the area petitioned. However, the recommendation may include additional area if it creates a more consistent, understandable and enforceable parking ordinance. Implementation/Permits. If the city council approves residential permit parking • in an area, residents along the designated area only may purchase an annual permit for S10 for a vehicle registered to their address. (S10 for first two permits; $20 for third). No one is required to purchase a permit. The fee is charged to cover the cost of processing the application including a license registration check. It also covers some of the additional, but not measured, costs of having the officers enforce this special parking arrangement for designated property owners. Experience. In 1990 the city adopted permit parking in the Grove neighborhood. Out of 102 households there are 7 households (7%) that currently hold a parking permit. No problems are associated with this policy. C. Petitions requesting permit parking. Area petitioned. In May, 1995 the city received two petitions for residential permit parking on Tatum Street. The petitions were accompanied by a S 100 fee to cover the costs. The S 100 fee covered both petitions because the staff review and notification were done at the same time. The areas that property owners petitioned met the 600 foot block front requirement. These included: • 2 • Petition Area # 1: north of 1844 and 1894 Tatum Street to 1888 and 1920 Tatum Street (75%) (3 of the 16 property owners did not sign the petition - no reason was submitted with the petition.) Petition Area # 2: south of 1791 and 1794 Tatum Street to 1739 and 1736 Tatum Street (82%) (2 of the 3 property owners not signing were out of town or absentee owners and could not be reached by the petitioner. ) D. Response to notices. From petitioners. Staff notified all Tatum Street property owners of the public hearing on permit parking. As of this writing no property owners in the petitioned areas contacted the staff about the hearing. From non-petitioners. Since residential permit parking would potentially affect • all Tatum Street residents and possibly be desired by more than the petitioned areas, the staff felt it was appropriate to consider the street as a whole rather than the petitioned areas only. Therefore, in addition to sending the notice to the petitioned areas, staff notified property owners in the non-petitioned areas with a bright flier and a stamped, addressed card requesting that the property owners notify the city about their interest in permit parking. As of this writing, the 10 of the 27 property owners responded with interest in residential permit parking; 1 property owner responded neutrally as long as she did not have to pay for a permit; and 4 property owners stated they had no interest in permit parking. Three of the four property owners expressing a disinterest in residential permit parking explained that they felt the parking restrictions were working well and that there was no need to have anyone park for more than two hours on the street, M - F, 8 AM to 4 PM because residents' driveways should be adequate. Mr. Chrun, who initiated the two hour parking restriction study, was one of these individuals. E. Analysis. When residential permit parking is requested, staff is required to verify the petitions as well as to analyze the need for permit parking. The staff is also • 3 • requested to recommend an area for designation that is understandable and enforceable. Traffic. Tatum Street's proximity to the university and location between Larpenteur and Roselawn Avenues makes the residential neighborhood subject to increased levels of traffic and parking along the public street. This has a potentially negative impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood. Potential permit Areas. When considering the area to be designated for permit parking, it is useful to look at the pattern of property owners that expressed an interest in permit parking. Residential permit parking requires a minimum of one block front (one side of the street) of 600 feet for designation for permit parking. Westside of Tatum: 70% of the property owners responded favorably to the notice or signed the petition regarding residential permit parking. 13% of the property owners responded that they had no interest in permit parking. • 1 7% of the property owners did not respond to city notice or sign the petition (1 property was unoccupied). Eastside of Tatum: 52% of the property owners responded favorably to the notice or signed the petition for permit parking. 3% (1 owner) responded neutrally to the notice. 45% did not respond to the notice or sign the petition. (These percentages do not include the dance studio on the corner of Larpenteur and Tatum. The studio has several off-street parking places and no parking on the street.) All of Tatum: 61 % of the property owners expressed an interest in permit parking or signed a petition for permit parking. 7% expressed a disinterest in permit parking. • 2% (1 owner) was neutral. 4 • 30% did not respond to the notice or did not sign the petition. (1 out of town; 2 known absentee) Some alternatives for residential permit parking designation: #1 Post the two areas within the street length that petitioned for permit parking. # 2 Post the entire westside of the street and the eastside of Tatum north of 1844 Tatum Street and South of 1794 Tatum Street. # 3 Post both sides of the street, north of 1728 and 1733 (The area to the south of 1728 and 1733 was previously 2 hour parking, M-F, 8 AM - 4 PM prior to December, 1994.) #4 Post both sides of the entire street where 2 hour parking is posted. Staff recommendation. . To make residential permit parking understandable and defensible for enforcement purposes, the designation should be as consistent along the street as possible. Therefore, staff recommends posting the entire length of the street on both sides (#4) for residential permit parking, where there is currently 2 hour parking, M - F 8 AM to 4 PM, for the following reasons: • There is a demonstrated need and interest in permit parking by more than a majority of the property owners along the street. As of this writing, 61 % of property owners went to the effort of recording their interest in the permit. • Parking signs typically say "except by permit" under the two hour, M - F, 8 AM to 4 PM. It would be easiest if all the signs read the same for enforcement and ease of understanding. • The city's experience with residential permit parking demonstrates that it does not create alot of vehicles in the street for extended periods of time (7 households out of 102 use it in the Grove). Therefore, it is unlikely that residential permit parking will be used except by households that require a vehicle in the street parked by their home. When parking was unrestricted on the majority of Tatum Street (north of 1781 and 1786), there was very little on-street parking from residents along the • 5 • .street during these weekday hours. • The posting would preclude the necessity of property owners submitting additional petitions with additional fees when it became necessary for property owners to have the permit parking. Life cycles of neighborhoods change. Currently some residents' driveways may easily accommodate their family's vehicles for the time- being. However, as residents change and families change, a need for residential permit parking may emerge. For example, single homeowners or those with young children frequently do not need to parkin the street. However, families with high school or 'live-at-home' adult children may require additional parking. The third alternative, posting north of 1733 and 1728 Tatum, would not inconvenience anyone to the staff's knowledge since the property owners did not respond to the notice. These residents/property owners are accustomed to the 2 hour parking restrictions, which have been in that location for some time. However, once the availability of the parking is made known, they may find it desirable. If the commission recommended the third alternative, 69% of the property owners in this posted area would have expressed a need for residential permit parking • compared to 61 % under alternative #4. • 6 TATUM STREET RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING STUDY JUNE 23, 1995 C • CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 26, 1995 TIME: On or after 7:05 p.m. PLACE: City Hall, 2077 W. Larpenteur Avenue, Falcon Heights, Minnesota PURPOSE: To consider the request for residential permit parking on all or part of Tatum Street The purpose of residential permit parking is to allow residents the opportunity to purchase permits for their own vehicles registered to their address to park on Tatum Street for more than the limited term parking. This means that a resident with a permit on his/her car would be able to park for more than two hours from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Currently, residents are subject to the same posted parking regulations as the general public. • The current permit cost is S 10.00/vehicle for the first two vehicles and S20/vehicle for each additional permit. Resident permits could not be purchased for non-resident vehicles. Temporary permits would continue to be available for purchase to accommodate out-of-town guests, building contractors, and others who would occasionally need on-street parking for a limited time. _ YES, Pam in favorofthe establishmentof residential permitparking on. Tatum, Street.. I am the~propertyowner and' understand. that permit, parking would' allow residents. the option- `of purchasing parking permits for their personal- vehicles only_ NO, I am against the establishment of residential permit parking because Signature .Name _ Address Phone Please mail back to City Hall no later than June 21, 1995. Thank you for your time. ,~ ue~ Sent io oux+ers tn non- 'pe*+ra~ed arras. YOCtR INPI.IT IS NEEDED BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING! Before requests for residential permit parking are considered, a petition signed by affected property owners must be submitted. City staff have received the appropriate petitions for two 600 foot sections of Tatum Street; however, your particular property is not represented on either of the petitions. If there is an appropriate level of interest, staff may recommend that residential permit parking privileges be extended to all Tatum Street residents, not just to those in the two requested sections. However, before such a recommendation can be made, we need to determine the level of interest. Please return the enclosed postcard, indicating your opinion on this issue, before June 21, 1995. Residential permit parking would give you the option of purchasing a permit to park your personal vehicle on Tatum during the day without regard to posted time limits. It would not obligate you to do so. If you have questions regarding this request, please contact Carla Asleson at 644-5050. -p • PETITON FOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING We, the owners of property on Tatum Street, have been experiencing difficulty with heavy non-residential traffic and parking on our street that is being controlled by two hour parking (Monday through Friday). However, this arrangement creates problems for residents who need to park on the street for extended hours during the day. Therefore, we petition the city for residential permit parking on the fallowing section of street: From /'76/~~yK ~/7~~FSf~ to /739~1ys~~i7,~G~oSf~ ,both sides of the street. Residential permit parking would allow residents with permits to park on the street without regard to posted two-hour parking signs. We understand that there would be a yearly fee to obtain an optional residential parking permit (currently S 10 for first two vehicles and $20 for each additional vehicle). Residents who can park on the street within the two hour daytime limits would not be required to buy a residential parking permit. • Note: Only one owner (not occupant) per residential structure may sign the petition. No signature shall be valid where multiple owners of a dwelling disagree on whether the area should be posted for residential permit parking. Name Address Day Phone Number 176 '' ~ ~--~ , ~7 n /~ 1 ~---..-- -- -- yy- S a 32 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ __ ~ ~~{~ 7S6 0 _ ~~h l I ~ ~-g~~~~ i 1 ____ _,~--_ ___.- ~.~ T-r_ _..~___-~_ _~_--- - i .~,~ , yo b ~~ ~ j ~r~ ST ~s 3~i~ ~ ~t~-O `~~ ~` PETITON FOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING We, the owners of property on Tatum Street, have been experiencing difficulty with heavy non-residential traffic and parking on our street that is being controlled by two hour parking (Monday through Friday). However, this arrangement creates problems for residents who need to park on the street for extended hours during the day. Therefore, we petition the city for residential permit parking on the following section of street: From / gD~ T~ic~-„ (w.~>to ~' ~ ~ ,both sides of the street. Residential permit parking would allow residents with permits to park on the street without regard to posted two-hour parking signs. We understand that there would be a yearly fee to obtain an optional residential parking permit (currently $10 for first two vehicles and S20 for each additional vehicle). Residents who can park on the street within the two hour daytime limits would not be required to buy a residential parking permit. Note: Only one owner (not occupant) per residential structure may sign the petition. No signature shall be valid where multiple owners of a dwelling disagree on whether the area should be posted for residential permit parking. Name Address Dav Phone Number ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ .~~r> ~~;o ,~~, 1_ ~ ~~~~~-~~t~~~~ ~! jj ~ /~~s ~~~~ f 0~ /~ ~ ~-t~-yy v may, ~, ~ ; , ~~~.Y ~ ~~~J /8 ,~~ o a ~, 7 ,, ~, .n. ...-. lv ~~ -4~ `~~~ G; ctrl- ~S-~ 7 ~~- Q~b~ G a ~~ ~- ~ ~ f ~ ~~'~~ 4 ~y _~ s 9 ~ ~~, dpi S G~-Z - ZZIZ • n U ~.~` F • No. 95-03 Date: 6/26/95 CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING ON TATUM STREET WHEREAS, the city has a parking policy in place which sets forth regulations and procedures for establishing residential permit parking; and WHEREAS, residents on Tatum Street have experienced ongoing problems with non-residential traffic and parking associated with the University of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, through the years various types of signs to limit parking have been placed in the area in an attempt to alleviate the parking problem which also limits • parking by area residents, and creates confusion for residents and police; WHEREAS, property owners have presented a request for residential permit parking in accordance with the city's residential parking permit policy; and WHEREAS, the planning commission, following their public hearing, makes the following findings: (1) The residential neighborhood is adversely impacted from heavy non- residential traffic associated with the University of Minnesota which, without parking restrictions, would create significant, chronic parking from the U of M staff and students and associated blight from automobile traffic. (2) Residential permit parking will allow residents to leave a personal car on the street when needed, yet reduce the negative impact from non- . residential parking such as air pollution, noise and litter. (3) Residential permit parking will keep streets free for residents to have access to their homes and driveways and will preserve the safety of children. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based on the identified needs and conclusions, the planning commission of the City of Falcon Heights recommends to the city council that Tatum Street be designated for residential permit parking. 5 • City of Falcon Heights Planning Commission June 26, 1995 ITEM: 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) SUBMITTED BY: Keith Mays, property owner REVIEWED BY: Carla Asleson, Planner (report) Susan Hoyt, City Administrator EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION: ¢. A. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE 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. B. BACKGROUND 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 (on corner lots, the street side setback minimum is 20% of the lot width. Decks are not permitted in the front yard without a variance. The side and rear setback requirements are necessary to keep living space from being constructed too closely to abutting properties. Therefore, both decks and house additions are required to have an interior side yard setback of at least five feet. C. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPERTY AND HOUSE This property is a corner lot located at the corner of Hamline and Ruggles Avenues. It is unusual in that while the address and front lot line (the shortest lot frontage) are located on Hamline Avenue, the actual front entrance and garage are located on Ruggles Avenue (see Attachment 1, site plan. In 1983, when this house was first constructed, a variance was obtained to build the home with a rear yard setback of 21', where a 30' rear yard setback would ordinarily be required. i • The location of the proposed deck is located on the north side of the property. This is technically the side yard of the property but is actually located to the rear of the front entrance. There is an existing sliding glass door that would be used for access. Currently, to use this door as an exit, one must jump out of the house about two feet down. The applicant proposes to build a deck with stairs in order to be able to use this door for exit purposes and to serve as outdoor living space. The proposed deck would measure ten feet wide by twenty feet in length. With a three foot setback from the property line, it would be located 13 feet from the neighboring property owner's deck. There would be no overlap between the proposed deck and the house on the neighboring property. D. COMMENTS FROM NEIGHBORS Letters regarding the proposed deck were sent to abutting property owners regarding the variance request. As of this writing, no comments about the proposed deck have been received. E. APPLICANT'S OPTIONS FOR DECK PLACEMENT • When considering a variance request, the planning commission should determine if reasonable alternatives to the variance exist. The following barriers exist to placement in other areas of the property (refer to attachment 2 for a drawing of the house's floor plan): a. To place the deck to the east of the house (Hamline side) would mean building the deck in the "technical" front yard, with access to the deck from one of the bedrooms rather than from the family room or common area. This is not permitted except by variance. b. To place the deck in the side yard to the south of the house (Ruggles side) would mean building the deck in the "visual" front yard, where the garage and front house entry are located. Again, access would need to be gained from one of the bedrooms or by removing the front bow window and accessing the deck from the living room. This would be permitted by the zoning code (because it would meet the side yard setback) but it would be would visually unattractive. c. To place the deck to the west of the house might be possible, with access off of the family room. This too would require a variance to encroach further into the property's rear yard setback, which is already at 21' rather than at 30'. It would also require that the applicant install a second door in his family room. • d. The deck could be placed in its current location and its width reduced to eight feet rather than ten feet. This would meet the five foot side yard setback requirement. This option has been discussed with the applicant and he has indicated that an eight foot wide deck is not large enough to accommodate his needs. F. ANALYSIS The size of the proposed deck, 10' x 20' and 200 square feet, is modest. The decks built in the city this year have ranged in area from 144 square feet to 702 square feet. More importantly, none were narrower than 12 feet in width. In order to meet the setback requirements, the applicant would need to reduce the width of his deck to eight feet (alternative 4, above). In addition, 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 the property owners with almost no buildable space on either the north (side yard) or west (rear yard) sides of the house. This could be interpreted as a hardship on the applicant and would be legitimate grounds for granting the variance. This assumes that it is reasonable to have a deck rather than an exit area only. • As mentioned earlier, the side and rear setback requirements for decks are in place to prevent living space from moving too close to abutting properties. While there would be about 13' between the proposed deck and the neighboring structure, the neighboring property may someday wish to add on to his home or deck and would be permitted a five foot setback. This would leave eight feet between two properties. G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested variance due to the unique configuration of the home, the reasonable deck dimensions, and the fact that no reasonable alternative building location exists on the property. The home's unique configuration on the property is not due to circumstances created by the property owner, and the two foot variance is the minimum needed to alleviate this hardship. Finally, granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. However, staff also recommends that a condition be placed upon the variance that the deck not be converted into any type of covered interior living space, such as three- orfour-season porches or an addition to the house itself. This will keep the use of the deck limited to outdoor, recreation-type activities and will not allow it to turn into living space in the future. • • H. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Plan 2. Interior floor plan of house 3. Location of property 4. Standards for granting a variance 5. Proposed resolution I. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the requested variance of two feet from chapter 9-2.05 subd. 2 (a) of the zoning code by adopting a resolution (attachment 5) that this property meets the standards for granting a variance (attachment 4-, specifically 9-15.03 subd. 4 (c), that the amendment is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights and 9-15.03 subd. 4 Ig), that the property is unique and that a hardship would result if the strict letter of the chapter were carried out. • • • ~ Y1 Ltd r~ ~ f ~ L~ ~ 1 v~,1~ ,~_ z ~--- 7. ~.1 G~ ~L i i ~ ~~ r _~ ~ o C ~ p~ m ~ _.__. _ " ~ a +I m ~ o •-- ~ w ~ s -.. ;~ cn ~ t !'1 ~ ~ ~=-,UI ~.~,L ~,1~i Lb;Z~N ..O/;5.._-- --x,2-,7------ - ~ ~ ~ '' ~, ~~ _ ~ ~ ^ - ~cl! ~ N (~ ~ I i - t.._ ti~l ...~ (. to ~ - ~ r h p~ ' - i ~ a m ~ / 1 N ~ A ap c t ~i ' ~ .Y ~1 -~ ,~ ~ a h~ i h 1 _ ~ ~1i 1 ~_ 1 N ~ -;-~, ~_ _ o - __? _ - a z -- , ~, ~ J~ z - - W i ~ N = v - - --~ -- -I, p - - _._ _.. ~. I ,_ .~ L i 2 i~ :~ - -- - ---}-~- F ~' --- -. -. ~ * ~ 1-- I I, _ t_ t b C o ' ~ ~ ~ ... ;_ ~ I ~ I > _.., 1 I-- .~. ~ . _ ~ ._~. M \ 1- ' '~ , w `,1 ~ n o , •,1 ~ ~\ W -- - < N~ F m; ~ N (r -- ,-; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~n '~ ~ ~ ~ I v i I i. Kct~-ti, Mays 3. ~~ ROSELAWN ~s-~~~~e=~~~~~~~~~~~~s~ ~' ° ° ° o o e ° ° ° ° o , o 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 o ~ o ° ° 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 o o N o o h o o y o ° F- o_ ° N° o' N o - o Z o J o o Z o o N o o Z o Z° °~ o Q o ° ~° o Q o_ o p O ~ O y O O J O- O W O o J o O m Q Q _ ° J 3 aRUGGIES AV E, o w e a o Q o 0 0 ' 0 o RUGGLES AVE. ' o 0 0 0 ° A O O O O O ° O O ° O O O O O ~ , O O O ° O °-- O O O ' O O O O O O_ ,r _° o ° o a o 0 0 ~ a o 0 0 0 0 °_ ~ 0 0 0 o a o o ° o ~ 0 0' 0 0 0 0 ' ° o 0 0 0 ° o w K..a o ARDEN AV E_ ~ 0 O ~ ~ O O ~ ~ O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c 000 LARPENTEUR AVE. 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 IDAHO AVE. 0 0 0 o F= N 0 0 ~ 0 o Q 0 o W m O ' O 'J O O Q O O O ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 O ~O~O 0 0 O O I o• e e o;e o.• e• e e 0 0 o e e a o~oio 0 o e i e e e o o~oloio~olo e e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ° O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ° o 0 0 0 i W Q W _Z J Q ~ I 0 0~0 0 0 0; O I i 0 0 0 O O D~00' I . ~ ~ ' • o e e'o o e ~e'o ~ I .I o e i o e i e o e e e o o , ' I • • o ~e'o'• • •'e o,e I ~~ r 0 0~0 0 • • Subdivision 4. Standards for Granting of Variance. No variance shall be granted unless the City Council shall make without qualification on the basis of evidence presented at the meeting the following findings: 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 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. 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; 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; 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. Subdivision 5. Conditions. The City may attach such conditions to the grant of the variance as it shall determine will be necessary or desirable to bring it within the • purpose and intent of the Chapter. A public record shall be maintained of such conditions. r ~~ • No. 95-04 Date: 6/26/95 CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE FOR 1865 N. HAMLINE AVENUE On June 26, 1995, the Falcon Heights planning commission recommended granting the following variance request for 1865 N. Hamline Avenue: Chapter 9-2.05 subd. 2(a) in the reauired interior side yard setback for a deck on an R-1 lot. A variance of two feet to allow a deck to be built at an interior side • setback of three feet where a minimum of five feet is required in the zoning code. The planning commission recommended approval of this variance with the following condition: That the deck not be converted into any type of covered interior living space, including but not limited to, three- or four-season porches or an addition to the house. The planning commission adopted the following findings for recommending the granting of the variance at 1857 N. Fairview 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. • • City of Falcon Heights Planning Commission MEETING QATE: 26 June 1995 AGENDA. ITEM: ITEM: Update on meetings. regarding the Larpenteur Avenue Concept Plan and Larpenteur Avenue reconstruction BUBI1~4lTTED BY: Susan Hayti City Administrator EXPLAIVATIONlDESCRI PTION: In May 23 and May 24 the city's urban planner/design. team,. Michael Schroeder and Fred. Haisington, the city engineer and the city administrator met with property owners and interested. parties. about the proposed reconstruction on Larpenteur Avenue. These were small group meetings. that included- a description of the streetscape plan as well as a discussion of proposed improve-menu like sideYvalks, turn lanes and parking, A video tape of the streetscape plan uuas made available to- all parties. The video- was played. on cable channel 1 fi for three uYeeks. • Staff will update the. commission. an the response to these.. plans. ATTACHMENTS: A -Summary of Larpenteur Avenue. reconstruction dated Jur}er 1995 • 8<Il3N~ ~ x:9;5 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LARPENTEUR AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS BACKGROUND • County road project will include the reconstruction from Dale Street on the east almost to Highway 280 on the west. • Four cities are involved including Falcon Heights, Roseville, Lauderdale and St. Paul. • Anticipated start date is the construction seasons of 1997 and 1998; the project will be phased without the entire street disrupted over two year period. • Access during construction for business owners, residents and State Fair users will be addressed by the county as the project comes closer to actuality and the schedule can be detailed. • Financing will be a combination of federal funding, county state aid funds, city assessments, capital funds and any grants available to'rthe city. • KEY ELEMENTS IN THE PROPOSED ROADWAY DESIGN IN FALCON HEIGHTS FROM HAMLINE AVENUE TO FULHAM STREET • Continues to be the main east/west thoroughfare in the city. • Constructed of concrete. • Protected left turn lanes. • Typical roadway width is 74 to 78 feet from curb to curb that is reconstructed within the current right-of -way. (The current roadway is about 71 feet from curb to curb.) It will vary where on-street parking is required. • Bike travel space on shoulders. Four foot concrete shoulders with an additional two feet of concrete between the shoulder and the curb will create a six foot wide lane for bicycle travel. • Pedestrian pathways (sidewalkst are planned along Larpenteur on at least one side of the street; which side may vary depending upon the abutting land uses that create the most pedestrian traffic and, therefore, require the most safety. The current plans include sidewalks on two sides of the street east of Snelling • Avenue. Sidewalk locations are still being studied. . • Responsibility for new pathway (sidewalk) maintenance will be discussed. It may be done by the city in combination with private and public property owners and according to a snow removal policy adopted at the time the road is reconstructed and the paths installed. • Elimination of drainage ditches with the installation of stormwater drainage facilities. • New traffic signal at Gortner Street to be installed. • Streetlights at Prior Avenue, in the commercial district and possibly elsewhere after some further analysis. • "Left turn on green" signals fnot just on a left-turn arrow) at Cleveland and Fairview traffic signals. • Emergency vehicle access signals at the Prior and Larpenteur intersection. • Relocation of the access to the golf course driving ran4e to join Coffman Street to the south. • Consideration of an underpass for pedestrians and golf course users by the • University of Minnesota Golf Course near Coffman Street. • Driveways are planned to continue direct access to street. Left and right turn access to the parking lot of the apartments on the west side of Fry Street is proposed. • On-street parking is still being studied. Plans currently include on-street parking by some apartment buildings. Current plans eliminate most on-street parking. KEY ELEMENTS IN THE PROPOSED STREETSCAPE PLAN • Community identification, beautification and business district enhancements are part of the proposed streetscape design. The project provides the city with an opportunity not only to make necessary public safety, traffic and drainage improvements along Larpenteur, but also to use urban design techniques to enhance the community's identity and to improve the Snelling and Larpenteur business district. • Proposed streetscape design includes additions( trees along the street to complement the current landscaping patterns including an emphasis on an agrarian and horticultural theme. It proposes glass identification signs at city • entrances and at the Snelling/Larpenteur business district that reflect the history of florists/nurseries along Larpenteur. There are key identifying • elements at the State Fair. And, there is additional landscaping and lighting to create a more "pedestrian" friendly intersection at the Snelling and Larpenteur Avenue intersection. • General improvement in the urban landscape. The proposed streetscape plan includes burying the wires in the Snelling and Larpenteur Business District only. Any activity in this area would also work on eliminating some of the less visually desirable elements at the intersection such as the barricades and control boxes on the southeast corner of Snelling Drive. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RAISED BY MAY 23/24 MEETING PARTICIPANTS (Does not include all comments that were recorded.) • Sidewalks. Where will they be located? Why are they desirable? Can they be continuous on one side of the street for ease of access rather than going from side to side? How will they be maintained given the volume of snow on Larpenteur? Will they bring pedestrians closer to my home? Who will use them? • On-street parking, particularly east of Snelling Avenue. Will any on-street parking be available? If so, where and how will it fit in with other • improvements? • Landscaping along the fields. Will the proposed landscaping along the fields interrupt the field activities or negatively affect experimental plots? Will it interfere with some of the open views from abutting properties? • Access for agricultural vehicles to the fields. Will the traffic signal and intersection at Fairview and Larpenteur be able to be coordinated for access to the fields off of Fairview Avenue? • Proposed underpass at Coffman. Will the underpass be open to pedestrians for more than the golf season because there is a bus stop across the street? How will security be assured in an underpass? • Creating a 'business friendly' business district. How will landscaping be selected and placed to enhance the visibility and desirability of the businesses not to hide them? Are there better ways to make the Snelling and Larpenteur more open for customers and more pedestrian friendly than currently proposed? • streetscape design compatibility with neighboring land uses. Can private landscaping design be coordinated with the streetscape design as it proceeds? • State Fair plans. How much flexibility is there in the proposed plan for some minor changes in the State Fair street access? • Lightinc,L Has additional or different lighting outside the business district been • studied? THE CITY'S STREET ASSESSMENT POLICY • The city council reviews the city's assessment policv with each new project. This will occur after the project is further underway. • The current assessment policv assesses for all road reconstruction at the following rate: - residential property at 40% the cost of constructing a residential equivalent street section. (This was 524/front foot 1993.) - commercial property at 66% the cost of constructing a .commercial equivalent street section. (No recent cost example available.) - tax -exempt property at 100% the cost of constructing a street section. (This was 560/front foot in 1993.) - stormwater drainage is assessed. (50.063/square foot in 1993) • - pathways (sidewalks) with citywide benefit are not assessed to the abutting property owners. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT • Call the city engineer, Terry Maurer, at 644-4389. • Call the county proiect engineer, Dan Soler, at 482-5209. • City of Falcon Heights Planning Commission MEETING. DATE:. 26 June 1995 AGENDA. ITEM: ITEMS Information related to deadlines. far- planning decisions and general land use- regulations SiUl3MITTED BY: Susan Hayt, City Administrator EXPLANATION~DESCt~IPTION: Permit deadlines. The '955 legislative-session- adopted permit deadlines far municipalities. This piece of legislation- requires cities to notify applicants fog a{~p-licatians if they require additional information vuithin '10 days. of receivinr~ tk~e application. It requires fiction within 60 days or notification. that there wiU be a-delay in action far a specific reason within the 60 days. • This will probably not have an enormous impact on Falcon Heigkrts becausq there is no development activity. Hovuever, it will. require that action be taken on Klanning rec}uests-such. as variances .and- conditional use. permits within. a timely fashion once-the reouired information is submitted .The- city has. clearly identified the information. required. in its application process. As-alwaysT it also means that having aquorum- is important. Land use-controls sum~nar~ The attached summary. of land. use- controls- pxepared by Desyl Peterson, attorney for the- City of Iulinnetonka,- may provide you with-a useful summary of land use regulations- and their applicability Over the past-five-years the cammissign has vuoxketi on the comprehensive plan., sigpificant zoning amendments- as well as variances and conditional use permits. ATTACHMENT: A -Land Ilse Law Basicsr aesyl Pete~sanr City of l~innetankar .lone,. 1995 • • LAND USE LAW BASICS BY DESYL L. PETERSON MINNETONKA CITY ATTORNEY 14600 MINNETONKA BOULEVARD MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55345 JUNE 1995 "Update for Elected Official Wednesday, June 14 -- 2:30 p~ Lake Superior Ballroom, Section K (Desyl Peterson) • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page • I. Authority for Land Use Regulation ................ 1 ........... II. State Law Preemption .................... 1 ............... A. Group Homes ................... 1 .................. B. Day Care Centers .................................. 1 III. Comprehensive Plans ..................... 2 ............... A. Adoption ................~................ 2 ....... B. Effect ..................... . 2 . ................... IV. Moratoriums ..................... 3 ..................... A. Adoption ..................... 3 ................... B Time of Adoption . .................................. 3 V. Zoning Code ................... 3 ....................... ;• A. Variances ..................... 3 .................. B. Permitted, Accessory, and Conditional Uses ................ 5 C. Non-Conforming Uses ............... 5 ................ D Rezonings . ....................................... 6 VI. Subdivision Regulations ................. 7 ................. A. General Matters ................. 8 .................. B Dedications and Exacti . ons ......... .................. 8 VII. Judicial Review .................... 9 .................... A. The Record for Court Review .......................... 9 B. Standard of Review ................. 9 ................ C. City Council Findin s 10 g ............................... VIII. The "Takings" Issue ................... 10 ................. A. Federal Cases .................................... 10 B. State Cases ................ 1 1 ..................... ENDNOTES ...... 12 • ........................................ • LAND USE LAW BASICS AUTHORITY FOR LAND USE REGULATION. The Municipal Land Planning Act, Minn. Stat. § §462.351 - 462.365, provides the authority for land use regulations. The law creates a single, uniform procedure which applies to all cities. Land use ordinances must comply both in substance and in procedure with the state law. II. STATE LAW PREEMPTION. ` The state law preempts city action in certain areas. A. Group Homes. 1. Astate-licensed group home serving six or fewer persons is automatically a permitted single-family residential use. • 2. Astate-licensed group home serving from 7 through 16 people is a permitted multifamily residential use. It can be the subject of a conditional use permit to assure property maintenance and operation. The conditions must not be more restrictive than other conditional uses in the same zones, unless the additional conditions are necessary for the health and safety of the group home residents. B. Day Care Centers. 1. A licensed day care center serving 12 or fewer and a licensed group family day care center serving 14 or fewer are permitted single-family residential uses. 2. A licensed day care center serving from 13 through 16 people is a permitted multifamily residential use, which may be a conditional use under the same circumstances outlined above for group homes. • 1 III. COMPREHENSIVE PLANS. A. Adoption. • 1. Outside the seven-county metropolitan area, a comprehensive plan is not required. However, one must be adopted before adopting or amending a zoning ordinance.' 2. In the seven-county metropolitan area, cities are also subject to the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act.2 Each local government unit is required to adopt a comprehensive plan which must be approved by the Metropolitan Council. These plans must be in compliance with Metropolitan Council plans for transportation, parks, and sanitary sewers. 3. Under the metropolitan act, the local government must not adopt land use controls which are in conflict with the comprehensive plan.3 B. Effect. 1. If the comprehensive plan conflicts with the actual zoning ordinance, the zoning ordinance supersedes the plan.4 2. The comprehensive plan provides policies and guidelines for evaluating • land use applications. 3. A rezoning request can be denied if it would violate the comprehensive plan.5 4. Denial of a rezoning to a use which is consistent with the comprehensive plan is presumed to be arbitrary, but this presumption can be overcome by a showing of valid rational reasons.s 5. A conditional use permit can also be denied if it conflicts with the comprehensive plan, but only if consistency with the plan is listed as one of the standards that must be met.' 6. Access to sanitary sewers may be denied if not in compliance with the plans 2 • • IV. MORATORIUMS. A. Adoption. 1. Before adopting or amending the comprehensive plan or any land use regulation, a city may adopt a moratorium to restrict or prohibit development in the interim.9 2. A moratorium may last up to 2% years. During this time, the city must be conducting studies or scheduling hearings to consider the adoption or amendment. 3. A moratorium may affect all or only a portion of the city. 4. A moratorium does not deny the property owner all economically viable use of the property and does not constitute a "taking" of the property on that basis.10 B. Time of Adoption. • 1. Some cases have given effect to moratoriums that were adopted after an application was submitted." 2. Other cases have not recognized moratoriums adopted after an application was submitted.'Z 3. The differences between the cases are hard to distinguish. It appears, however, that if the moratorium is adopted to look at a broad issue and not just to stop one application, it is more likely to be given effect. V. ZONING CODE. The state law sets forth the procedure for adopting and amending the zoning code. The zoning code generally has two components: text containing standards and requirements, and zoning designations for individual properties. A. Variances. 1. Variances from the zoning standards can be granted only if "their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under • consideration."13 3 2. "Undue hardship" means: • - The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, - The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, - The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality, and - Economic considerations alone will not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance.14 3. The first part of the definition does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant may show that it would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance. "Practical difficulties" may justify a variance, including functional and aesthetic concerns.'s 4. The applicant has a heavier burden to establish the need for a variance • than a conditional use permit because a variance allows something which is otherwise prohibited by the ordinance.16 5. A variance cannot be granted for a use which is not permitted in the applicable zoning district." 6. A variance to allow construction on a substandard lot is not required when the lot had been in common ownership with an adjacent substandard lot. This is true even if the lot. has been sold.1e 7. When the property owner knew or should have known at the time of purchase that the use was prohibited by the zoning ordinance, the hardship was created by the landowner, and no variance should be granted.t9 8. A prior erroneous application of the zoning ordinance cannot be used to require a city to grant a variance.20 9. Economic reasons are not a basis for a variance.2t 4 • • 10. Ana licant cannot rel n ' pp y o similar variances granted more than a year before.z2 B. Permitted, Accessory, and Conditional Uses. 1. Permitted uses are allowed as of right. - Failure to issue a building permit for a permitted use is generally regarded as arbitrary and unlawful.23 - However, if the zoning of the property is changed after an arbitrary denial of a building permit so that the new zoning prohibits the use, the city's action will be upheld.sa 2. Accessorv uses are subordinate and related to a permitted use. If the ordinance language contains appropriate language, an accessory use cannot be allowed alone on a property without a principal, permitted use.25 3. Conditional uses are allowed if they meet the standards contained in • the ordinance. - If the application meets the standards, it must be approved. - Inconsistency with the comprehensive plan can only be used to deny the permit if the comprehensive plan is specifically listed as one of the standards to be met.zs - The courts will scrutinize the denial of a conditional use permit more closely than the denial of a rezoning or variance because a conditional use is one permitted by the ordinance and the issue is simply whether the standards have been met.27 - Variances to the standards may be granted under the same guidelines discussed above. - A conditional use permit attaches to the property and not to the applicant. It remains in effect as long as the conditions are met.28 C. Non-Conforming Uses. 1. When a zoning district is created, certain existing uses may not be • allowed in that district. They must be allowed to continue, however, because the owner has property rights which must be recognized. 5 2. The zoning ordinance may prohibit them from expanding, intensifying, • or being rebuilt. These kinds of restrictions increase the likelihood that the non-conforming uses will be eliminated over time.29 3. A city may grant a variance to these kind of restrictions to allow expansion; this does not constitute a variance to allow a use not otherwise permitted under the ordinance.ao 4. Construction of a building to house operations which were formerly outside is an unlawful expansion.31 5. The zoning ordinance can also require that anon-conforming use status is lost if it has ceased operation for one year. The city does not have to prove that the owner actually abandoned the use. The property owner may show, however, that it did not intend to abandon the property or that the cessation was beyond its control.s2 6. New requirements, such as setbacks, cannot be applied to non- conforming uses.ss 7. Non-conforming uses may be phased out over a period of time which recognizes the useful life of the operation and the extra value from being a monopoly. This is called amortization.34 It has principally • been used to require the removal of non-conforming billboards, although such removal of billboards without compensation has been prohibited by state law.ss D. Rezonings. 1. The city has the authority to grant changes in the land-use designation of a property. These changes generally occur when either the landowner requests a rezoning or the city chooses on its own to change the zoning. 2. Rezoning is a legislative function which requires the establishment of policy. Therefore, courts will give greater deference to the city's decision. As long as the council's action was reasonable, with a rational basis, the action will be upheld.36 The burden is on the challenger to show that the council's action was not reasonable or that it constituted a "taking" of the property.37 3. The original zoning is presumed to be correct and relatively permanent. A rezoning must be justified by a mistake in the original C 6 • zonin or a char a in the character of the nei hborhood to such an 9 9 9 extent that no reasonable use of the property can be made.38 4. A rezoning may be denied because it would violate the comprehensive plan.ss 5. Not every rezoning which is consistent with the comprehensive plan must be approved. Where the existing zoning is also consistent with the plan, a rezoning may be denied.ao 6. The refusal to rezone to a use consistent with the comprehensive plan is simply evidence that the action may be arbitrary. Even if the existing zoning is not consistent with the plan, the city can overcome this evidence of arbitrariness by presenting evidence supporting rational reasons for the denial.a' 7. Traffic concerns, which are supported by facts in the record, is a reasonable basis for denying a rezoning.az 8. When considering a rezoning request, the city council may consider • the potential impact from the zoning requested, not the particular proposal.as 9. A downzoning of property to a less intense and less valuable zoning designator will be overturned if the rezoning does not substantially advance legitimate public interests or denies an owner economically viable use of the property. The court will also examine the economic impact on the property, the extent to which the rezoning has interfered with investment backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action.aa 10. Spot zoning of property will be overturned if it creates a small island of non-conforming use within a larger zoned district and dramatically reduces the value of either the rezoned land or the surrounding land.as VI. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. The state law authorizes cities to adopt regulations governing the subdivision of land. These will generally contain standards for the size of lots and the locations and configuration of public streets. C_J 7 A. General Matters. 1. The cit must either a • y pprove or disapprove a plat within 120 days after receiving a complete application, unless the applicant agrees to an extension. If this deadline is not met, the plat is deemed preliminarily approved.as 2. The city cannot require significant changes to a plat after preliminary approval. The applicant has the right to final approval within 60 days after preliminary approval if the applicant has complied with all conditions attached to the preliminary approval, either through performance or an agreement assuring performance.a' 3. For one year after preliminary approval and two years after final approval, no change in city regulations can affect a subdivision.48 4. Variances may be granted to the subdivision requirements based on the standards contained in the ordinance. These can be different standards from those used for zoning variances.49 5. Denial of a plat which meets all of the subdivision requirements is arbitary and will be overturned.so 6. The developer cannot challenge the conditions attached to a plat after • the plat has been recorded.51 B. Dedications and Exactions. 1. State law allows the city to require a "reasonable portion" of a subdivision for public streets, utilities, stormwater drainage and holding ponds. In addition, the city can require either a "reasonable portion" of the subdivision or the cash equivalent for parks, trails, wetlands, or open space.s2 2. Dedications of land are upheld if there is a reasonable relationship between the subdivision and the city's need for the land. The city must show the land is needed to meet a demand which it would not otherwise experience without the influx of people coming to this subdivision or a group of subdivisions,sa 3. A flat 10% requirement has also been upheld as long as landowners can challenge the percentage requirement on a case by case basis. 8 • • 4. The need for a county road which served local traffic (even though the subdivision was not allowed direct access to the road) might have a sufficient relationship to the local traffic, of which the subdivision was a part, to support the dedication requirement.ea 5. The recent United States Supreme Court decision of Dolan v. City of Tigard55 requires that the government prove the validity of its exaction requirements. The government must prove a "rough proportionality", that the "required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development." This appears to be the same as the "reasonable relationship" test used by the Minnesota Supreme Court. 6. Further, the Do/an case requires an individualized determination that there is a rough proportionality in each case. This raises serious doubt about whether cities may use a standard park dedication fee. ~/l~. JUDICIAL REVIEW. A. The Record for Court Review. • 1. If the city has made findings contemporaneously with its action and there is an accurate verbatim transcript of the proceedings, the record of the proceedings before the city council is likely to be clear and complete. In that case, the judge should review the city record without the need for additional evidence at trial.ss 2. The parties may submit additional evidence to the judge, but only if it relates to issues considered by the council and only if there were good reasons why it was not presented to the council.57 3. Cities should at least tape record their meetings and provide adequate opportunity for the interested parties to speak and comment on the evidence presented. By doing so, the parties will be able to avoid the costs of a trial. The case can be decided on a motion for summary judgment, based on the record. B. Standard of Review. The standard for reviewing all land use decisions is whether the council's action was reasonable, based on rational reasons.58 • 9 C. City Council Findings. • 1. If the council does not state the reasons for its action on the record, there is a presumption that the council's action is arbitrary and unreasonable.59 2. If there are no findings by the council, this shifts the burden to the city to show that its action was reasonable.60 This means the added cost of a trial. 3. Findings that are adopted within a reasonable time are acceptable. For example, findings adopted at the next council meeting are appropriates' If it is a complex matter, additional time may be necessary. 4. The findings must be legally sufficient and factually supported.62 Not all of the findings must meet this test, as long as one does.ss 5. Neighborhood opposition alone is not a legally sufficient reason for denial of an application.64 Such opposition may be considered, however.ss Nltl. THE °TAKINGS" ISSUE. Landowners have increasingly challenged city land use regulations on the basis that the city's action constitutes a "taking" of their property. This is based on the constitutional prohibition against the government taking property without just compensation. In the land use context, this is called a "regulatory taking" because the government is not physically taking the property for its own use. A. Federal Cases. The United States Supreme Court has issued a number of opinions in recent years which have attempted to define when a "taking" occurs. The following summarizes some of the principles from these opinions: 1. The regulation must be reasonably necessary to accomplish a legitimate government purpose.ss 2. There must be an "essential nexus" f a connection or relationship) between the condition imposed by the government and the burden which the development would cause. If the application can be denied, then a condition can be imposed which serves the same public purpose as that which would support a denial of the applications' For 10 • example, if a subdivision meets all ordinance standards except one, the council could deny the application or it could grant a variance. If it approves the variance, it can impose conditions only related to that variance, not to any other impacts from the development. 3. Even if there is a legitimate public purpose, if the regulation denies the owner all economically beneficial or productive use of land, there is a taking.68 This is called a "categorical taking." 4. An exception to a categorical taking exists when the regulation prohibits something which would have been prohibited by the state's property or nuisance laws.69 This is a very narrow exception which is not likely to be used very extensively. 5. The government must prove the validity of its requirements for dedicating land or easements. The government must prove a "rough proportionality", that the "required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact o.f the proposed development. "70 6. The government must make an individualized determination that there • is a rough proportionality in each case. This raises serious doubt about whether cities may use a flat percentage fee or dollar amount for park dedication fees." 7. If there has been a taking, the government must pay for the damages incurred by the landowner during the time that the unconstitutional regulation was in effect.72 B. State Cases. 1. In deciding whether there has been a denial of all economically viable use of the property, the court must look at the entire bundle of property rights. Therefore, denial of development for atwo-year period does not deny all economically viable use because the property could be developed both before and after the moratorium.73 2. Even if there is a substantial governmental purpose and there is still some economically viable use of the property, there may be a "taking." The court will look at (a) the economic impact of the regulation, (b) the extent to which the regulation interferred with investment-backed expectations, and (c) the character of the regulation.74 • 11 ENDNOTES 1. Minn. Stat. §462.357, Subd. 2. 2. Minn. Stat. § §473.851 - 473.871. 3. Minn. Stat. §473.865, Subd. 2. 4. Minn. Stat. § §462.357, Subd. 2; 473.858, Subd.1. 5. Kehr v. City of Roseville, 426 N.W.2d 233 (Minn.App.1988); Amoco Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 395 N.W.2d 1 15 (Minn.App.19861. 6. Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 66 (Minn.1984). 7. BBY Investors, v. City of Maplewood, 467 N.W.2d 631 (Minn.App.1991); Amoco Oil v. City of Minneapolis, 395 N.W.2d 1 15 (Minn.App.1986). 8. Hay v. City of Andover, 436 N.W.2d 800 (Minn.App.1989). 9. Minn. Stat. §462.355, Subd. 4. c: 10. Woodbury Place Partners v. City of Woodbury, 492 N.W.2d 258 (Minn.App.1992). • 1 1. Almquist v. Town of Marshan, 308 Minn. 52, 245 N.W.2d 819 (1976); TPW, Inc. v. City of New Hope, 388 N.W.2d 390 (Minn.App.1986); Carl Bolander & Sons v. City of Minneapolis, 378 N.W.2d 826 (Minn.App.1985). 12. Chase v. City of Minneapolis, 401 N.W.2d 408 (1981); Medical Services, Inc. v. City of Savage. 487 N.W.2d 263 (Minn.App. 1992). 13. Minn. Stat. §462.357, Subd. 6(2). 14. /d. 15. Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Moorhead, 446 N.W.2d 917 (Minn.App.1989). 16. Luger v. City of Burnsville, 295 N.W.2d 609 (Minn.1980). 17. Minn. Stat. §462.357, Subd.6(2). 18. Dedering v. Johnson, 307 Minn. 313, 239 N.W.2d 913 (Minn.1976); Tuckner v. Township of May, 419 N.W.2d 836 (Minn.App.1988). 12 • • 19. Hedlund v. City of Maplewood, 366 N.W.2d 624 (Minn.Ap .1985). P 20. Matter of Johnson, 404 N.W.2d 298 (Minn.App.1987); Cast/e Design & Development Co, lnc. v. City of Lake E/mo, 396 N.W.2d 578 (Minn.App.19861. 21. TPW, lnc. v. City of New Hope, 388 N.W.2d 390 (Minn.App.1986). 22. Castle Design & Development Co. v. City of Lake E/mo, 396 N.W.2d 578 (Minn. App.1986). 23. Chase v. City of Minneapolis, 401 N.W.2d 408 (Minn.1981). 24. Rose Cliff Landscape Nursery v. City of Rosemount, 467 N.W.2d 641 (Minn.App.1991). 25. Stodo/a v. City of Orono, 1994 WL 272900 (Minn.App.1994) (unpublished opinion). 26. Amoco OlI v. City of Minneapolis, 395 N.W.2d 1 15 (Minn.App.1986). 27. Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409 (Minn.1981); Zylka v. City of • Crystal, 283 Minn. 192, 167 N.W.2d 45 (1969). 28. Minn. Stat. §462.3595. 29. County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 203 N.W.2d 323 (1972). 30. /n re Kenney, 374 N.W.2d 271 (Minn.1985). 31. County of Freeborn, supra. 32. County of lsanti v. Peterson, 469 N.W.2d 467 (Minn.App.1991). 33. SLS Partnership v. City of Apple Valley, 51 1 N.W.2d 738 ~Minn.1994). 34. Naege% Outdoor Advertising Company of Minnesota, lnc. v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492, 162 N.W.2d 206 (1968). 35. Minn. Stat. § 173.17 (4). 36. Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409 (Minn.1981). 37. Amcon Corp v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 66 (Minn.1984). 38. Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326, 220 N.W.2d 256 • (Minn.1974). 13 39. Kehr v. City of Roseville, 426 N.W.2d 233 (Minn.App.1988); Amoco Oil Co. v. • City of Minneapolis, 395 N.W.2d 1 15 (Minn.App.1986). 40. Freundshuh v. City of B/aine, 385 N.W.2d 6 (Minn.App.1986). 41. R. A. Putnam & Associates, lnc. v. City of Mendota Heights, 510 N.W.2d 264 (Minn.App.1994). 42. St. Croix Deve/opment, lnc. v. City of App/e Val/ey, 446 N.W.2d 392 (Minn.App.1989). 43. Id. 44. Paranto Brothers v. City of New Brighton, 425 N.W.2d 585 (Minn.App.1988). 45. State by Rochester Association of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885 (Minn.1978). 46. Minn. Stat. §462.358, Subd. 3b. 47. /d. 48. Minn. Stat. §462.358, Subd. 3c. 49. Minn. Stat. §462.358, Subd 6. 50. National Capital Corp. v. Village of lever Grove Heights, 301 Minn. 335, 222 b N.W.2d 550 (1974); Good Value Homes, lnc. v. City of Eagan, 410 N.W.2d 345 (Minn.App. 1987). 51. Crystal Green v. City of Crystal, 421 N.W.2d 19 (Minn.App.19881. 52. Minn. Stat. §462.358, Subd 2b. 53. Collis v. City of Bloomington, 310 Minn. 5, 246 N.W.2d 19 (1976). 54. Middlemist v. City of Plymouth, 387 N.W.2d 190 (Minn.App.19861. 55. 114 S. Ct. 2309 (1994). 56. Swanson v. City of Bloomington, 421 N.W.2d 307 (Minn.1988). 57. /d. 58. Hone v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409 (Minn.1981). 59. Zylka v. City of Crystal, 283 Minn. 192, 167 N.W.2d 45, (1969). 14 `• • 60. Kehr v. Cit of Rosevill Y e, 426 N.W.2d 233 (Minn.App.1988). 61. R. A. Putnam & Associates, lnc. v. City of Mendota Heights, 510 N.W.2d 264 (Minn.App.1994). 62. C. R. Investments, Inc. v. Village of Shoreview, 304 N.W.2d 320 (Minn.1981). 63. TPW, Inc, v. City of New Hope, 388 N.W.2d 390 (Minn.App.1986). 64. Northwestern Col%ge v. City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W. 2d 865 (Minn. 1979). 65. Swanson v. City of B/oomington, 421 N.W.2d 307 (Minn.1988). 66. Penn Central Transportation Co. v.~New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 127 (1978). 67. Nolan v. California Coastal Commission, 438 U.S. 825 (1987). 68. Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 260 (19801. 69. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112 S.Ct. 2886 (1992). 70. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1 14 S. Ct. 2309 (1994). 71. /d. 72. First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987). 73. Woodbury Place Partners v. City of Woodbury, 492 N.W.2d 258 (Minn.App.1992). 74. Parranto Brothers v. City of New Brighton, 425 N.W.2d 585 (Minn.App.1988). 15