Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCAgenda_94Aug22_Canceled • • PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA August 22, 1994 7 p.m. ROLL CALL: Kay Andrews _ Tom Brace _ Lee Barry _ Wendy Treadwell Paul Kuettel _ Lisa Lampi _ Ken Salzberg _ 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 25, 1994 3. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 3, 1994 4. 5. 6. Review of proposed amendments to the zoning code Chapter 9, § 2.04 Subd. 1(c) and (d) Chapter 9, §8.01 Subd. 6 Chapter 9, §9.01 Subd. 6 Chapter 9, § 10.01 Subd. 6 _ Announcements ADJOURN i • MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 25, 1994 7 p.m. PRESENT ABSENT ALSO PRESENT Tom Brace Kay Andrews Susan Hoyt, Administrator Lee Barry Lisa Lampi Carla Asleson, Planner Wendy Treadwell Paul Kuettel Ken Salzberg Meeting was called to order at 7:01 by chairperson Barry. Minutes of the April 25 and May 23, 1994 were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ZONING CODE CHANGES RELATED TO DETACHED GARAGES. Hoyt reported on possible code changes regarding the height and setback of detached garages in Chapter 9, §2.04 Subd.l.(c)(d); §8.01 Subd.6; §9.01 Subd.6; §10.01, Subd. 6. Chairperson Barry opened the public hearing at 7:40. There being no one wishing to be heard, the public hearing was closed at 7:41. The commission reviewed and discussed the proposed changes that were reported by Hoyt and agreed that in 9-2.04(c), paragraph 2 should be changed to read: Garages in a residential district may be located not less than five feet from an interior side or rear lot l i ne unless Inc-~-~z-~~ ~ 1 ~ -' t~~-~-~ w~,r-~-~r~~~ ...~ ..~~._. ~....~, ~.., ......J.......ii.,,. ..~aa uii~.Y, mica ~-.~a~e~rr~-~a~~~e~dee~e e~e~~ awe--~~e--a~-~e~-~v~~~ ~.~u ~a~Lb~e-~9 e~e~e~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ne-~e e~~-o~~e~e~~e ei~-i~e~-~e~~e-{~TC~e~~ J--fli~'}"v~e~F~eir'a-z="r~v~'--rti'rc-vrre~6vL-~zac e~ea~~~-se~~e-}~}- t L~ • The commission added ., The commission then recommended bringing the proposed changes back to the August planning commission meeting for further study. UPDATE ON LARPENTEUR AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT Hoyt said Ramsey County is to begin the reconstruction of Larpenteur Avenue in 1997. Protected turn lanes will be created and the city will construct sidewalks along portions of the street now without sidewalks. The city has hired the Hoisington/Koegler Group for streetscape planning because Larpenteur is a significant traffic corridor into the city and presents opportunities for planning. • Meeting was adjourned at 8 p.m. Carla Asleson, City Planner Dee Swenson, Recording Secretary • • CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 3, 1994 I Mayor Baldwin convened the meeting at 6:36 p.m. PRESENT Baldwin, Gehrz, Hustad, and Jacobs. Also present were Hoyt, Asleson, Kelly, and Filla. ABSENT Gibson Talbot. COMMUNITY FORUM There were no comments from the floor. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS Mayor Baldwin presented a recognition plaque to Mr. Tom Kelly, who resigned as Finance Director on July 29th. The Council thanked Mr. Kelly for his five years of service and wished him well at his new position in White Bear Township. MINUTES OF JULY 13, 1994 A correction was made to the minutes to indicate on page one the presence of Councilmember Gehrz. Minutes were approved unanimously as amended. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVED Council approved the following consent agenda by unanimous consent: 1. Disbursements a. General disbursements through 7/21/94, $81,721.25 b. General disbursements through 7/28/94, $17,898.72 c. Payroll, 7/1/94 to 7/15/94, $14,123.31 d. Payroll, 7/16/94 to 7/31/94, $16,684.32 2. Licenses 3. Purchase of Universal Tripod and Harness which also includes Retrieval Rope 4. Purchase of two heart defibrillators with associated equipment 5. Repair of Fire Truck 757 6. Accept resignation of Tom Kelly, Finance Director 7. Hiring of a temporary accountant through Accountemps until a permanent cit accountant is hired 8. Approval of contract for landscape planning services with the Hoisington Koegler Group 9. Request that the city continue support of the RSVP program 10. Designation of streets to be posted "No Parking" and "Permit Parking Oniy" during the State Fair 11. Acceptance of the Minnesota Urban and Community Forestry Challenge Grant for $4,000.00 Page 2 City Council Minutes August 3, 1994 • POLICY AGENDA PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE CITY'S CODE REGARDING TOBACCO LICENSING AND SALES OF TOBACCO TO MINORS, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 1.03, SUBD. D AND CHAPTER 5, SECTION 4.01 SUBD. (A), BUSINESS LICENSE FEES Mayor Baldwin outlined the proposed ordinance regarding an increase in tobacco licensing fees and penalties to salespersons and vendors that sell tobacco products to minors. City Attorney Filla stated that he believed the ordinance, as presented, was practical and enforceable. Mr. Ken Balma, representing Super America, asked 1) will the underage buyers of the tobacco be penalized under this ordinance; 2) what is the timeline of the increasing penalties; and 3) has the city considered any form of "positive motivators" or rewards for passing compliance checks? Super America has its own compliance training program and have found about a 50~ compliance rate metro- wide. Mr. Balma contended that, sooner or later, someone at the Falcon Heights store will be penalized. Mayor Baldwin responded that penalties are cumulative within a 12 • month time frame. As for rewards for passing checks, the city can't financially reward clerks or vendors, but may have the resources to post signage at sites where checks have been successful. License fees are set to recover only the costs associated with regulating a business; they are not excess revenue to the city. As for minors, the city will have knowledge only of those minors used in compliance checks. Councilmember Hustad asked why Super America has such a high failure rate in its own compliance checks. Mr. Balma cited the high employee turnover rate and the desire of clerks to avoid conflict as the primary reasons. Mr. Martin Hill, representing Tom Thumb, explained his store's training policy regarding tobacco and alcohol sales to minors. He asserted that the proposed license fee and penalties would be a burden on retailers who are already trying to regulate themselves. He stated his belief that fines should instead be placed upon the minor buying the product, not the clerk selling it. Finally, Mr. Hill implied that this local regulation might drive his business out of Falcon Heights. Councilmember Gehrz asked Mr. Hill to describe the problems in his current training program, as Tom Thumb has failed compliance checks in Falcon Heights. Mr. Hill asserted that he does a good job of training, but that there is only so much he can do. The retail • public is often offended by requests for age identification. Councilmember Hustad asked how much revenue Tom Thumb would lose in a five day cigarette suspension. Mr. Hill answered that the loss would be several thousand dollars each day, plus the loss of future Page 3 City Council Minutes August 3, 1994 • sales from people who cannot rely upon Tom Thumb to supply their cigarettes. Mayor Baldwin stated that the city's job is to license businesses and the sale of tobacco, not to oversee the actions of store clerks or purchasers. This ordinance is not unique to Falcon Heights and is not even the strictest ordinance in the area. Alan Bradshaw, representing Falcon Heights Amoco, also stated that he tries very hard to train his employees not to sell to minors. He suggested that store employees be required to sign a letter stating that they won't sell cigarettes to minors and have that letter on file at City Hall. When an illegal sale takes place, it can be shown that the employee was at fault, not the license holder. He also suggested that the City send personalized "congratulations" letters to those clerks that pass compliance checks. Mr. Bradshaw further stated that he would support a license fee increase if the fees would go toward education and uniform training purposes instead of compliance checks. Police do not stop minors for cigarette possession and yet have the time to do compliance • checks. Fines on businesses will not solve the underlying social problems associated with underage tobacco use. Mayor Baldwin explained that he understands the issues of peer pressure and how a young clerk might not want to deal with confrontation at the counter. However, he also explained that the city's compliance checks do not involve any coercion at all and do not involve the use of fake identification. When a youth compliance checker is told he cannot buy cigarettes due to age, the youth is instructed to simply walk away. Councilmember Hustad noted that, with the change of police provider in January 1995, there will be an officer in the city limits 24 hours each day. The idea of having police monitor youth tobacco usage is a realistic possibility. Motion by Councilmember Jacobs to approve the ordinance as presented, with one addition including language providing for license revocation in the event that a vendor with a suspended license continues to sell tobacco products. Motion passed unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmember Hustad passed out information from the Minnesota State Planning agency on public sector payroll. costs versus private • sector costs. Administrator Hoyt reported on three successful events of the previous week: National Night Out, Teen Night Out, and the Ice Cream Social. Thanks were extended to the many volunteers who Page 4 City Council Minutes August 3, 1994 coordinated these events. Hoy departing Finance Director Kelly ADJOURNMENT t also extended best wishes to from herself and the city staff. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Carla Asleson Recording Secretary Tom Baldwin, Mayor • • MEETING DATE: 22 AUGUST 1994 ITEM: REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE CHAPTER 9 SECTION 2.04 SUBDIVISION 1 (C) AND (D) CHAPTER 9 SECTION 8.01 SUBDIVISION 6 CHAPTER 9 SECTION 9.01 SUBDIVISION 6 CHAPTER 9 SECTION 9.10 SUBDIVISION 6 EXPLANATION AND DESCRIPTION: The commission has been discussing clarifying the section of the zoning code dealing with garages and requiring a limit on garage height for the past four meetings. At the last meeting the commission held a public hearing on the proposed changes, then made some final revisions. The proposed changes and revisions are attached as well as an explanation sheet from last month's agenda summarizing the purpose and proposed changes. • ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt and recommend changes to the city council • ,. `1~q tl~-cr+~ u ~/.~ M,EPT(NG DATE. 25 JUL1~ .1:994 IE~PLANATIC3N ANl~ DESCRIP,Ti'~N: At the May 20, 1994 planning commission meeting, the planning commission members who were present, followed up on an Aprit discussion held by the commission regarding the height and setback of detached garages in the city code. After reviewing the materials for the meeting, the commission informally (due to a lack of quorum) suggested that the staff prepare possible code changes for a public ~~~rii.g a~ the next meeting. The proposed amendments to the zoning code are attached. In sum, they capture the roiiowing criteria: 9-2.04 (c) Placement of a garage on an alley • Changes the phrase "located in the rear 20% of the lot" to "the rear 28 feet of the lot", which captures the same idea for a Northome neighborhood lot, but is easier to understand. • Clarifies that the vehicular access door is perpendicular to the alley Placement of a detached garage that has access off the public street (not off an alley) (Useful in the northeast quadrant) • Permits the structure to be built at the same sideyard setback as the existing garage, but not less than two feet, if the existing garage is two feet or more from sideyard line and if the new garage is proposed to be a minimum of five feet to the rear of the principal structure on the adjoining property that is closest to the garage. (This prevents a garage from being right next to the principal structure on an adjoining lot. n U • 9-2.04 (d) Height of detached accessory building shall not exceed • a maximum of 18 feet in height from grade to peak if the roof has a minimal pitch of 4 foot (horizontal) to 1 foot (vertical) • a maximum of 12 feet in height from grade to peak if the roof has a pitch that is less than 4 foot (horizontal) to 1 foot (vertical) A review of recent garage permits and a survey of garage heights in the city suggest that this does not restrict people from building the garages that are currently permitted and being constructed. 9 - 8.01; 9.01; 10.01 Subdivision 6 Add that the height of an accessory buildings is subject to section 9 - 2.04 (d) of the city code. • ATTACF-#MENTSj A -Proposed code changes B -Staff report from May 20, 1994 meeting ACTIC3N REQUESTEN~` 1. Staff report on proposed changes 2. Open public hearing 3. Close public hearing 4. Discussion of proposed changes 5. Revisions and recommendation to staff I~ LJ • 9-2.04 Accessory Buildings and Structures Subdivision 1. General a. No accessory building shall be constructed on a lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building or land use to which it is accessory. b. An accessory building shall be considered as an integral part of the principal building if it is located less than twelve (12) feet from the principal building with respect to firewall and other requirements of the building code. (Amended by Ordinance 0-90-O1, January 10, 1990.) c. Accessory buildings, other than garages, in a residential district may be located not less than five feet from an interior side or rear lot line unless the accessory structure is located in the rear twenty percent of the lot, in which case they can be located not less than one foot from the interior side or rear lot line (overhangs may not extend into the one foot side or rear yard setback). Garages in a residential district may be located not less • than five feet from an interior side or rear lot line unless ~-~t~~e-~l~-~ee~~ea-ice t~e~eert---~~~g~~~-o= ~~re-~-ems)-~~~~ ~ ~ ~ .. .. , , ~~rd--~3~~~e~n FV~=~~~yt-~.e~-e-air--be-sc e~eel~o~ie~~ra~--ere-€e~ ii-f~'m--a=iZir~ei~t93~-33. ~E-ei°~e&i°-~'v~rrne~-v'oFCZZ~zcszi } ~en~--i-~rt e t-~e~re~e e~-s~€de-e~~~r~-s ems ee~~}- 1I ~ u :.;:.;;;>;;:«.;;:.;:::<.;;;::«<;;:««:>::>:«<::<:::::>:«<::<:>:<:»>::» :<::»»»::: • The corner side yard setback for accessory buildings, including garages, shall adhere to the setback requirement for principal buildings as described in Section 9-4.01, Subd. 4(b) (20% of the lot width). The rear yard and interior side yard setbacks shall be those required for garages and accessory buildings on interior lots. Lots smaller than 75 feet wide shall have a minimum corner side yard setback requirement less than 15 feet. Garages on these lots may be located closer than 15 feet from the corner side lot line if the vehicular • access door does not face the side street. In no case shall a garage or other accessory building be located within the corner side yard. (Amended by Ordinance 0-89-12, 7/26/89) See Figure 1. e. Accessory buildings in the business and industry • districts shall be located any place to the rear of the principal building, subject to the Building Code, and the fire zone regulations. • f. No detached garages or other accessory buildings shall be located nearer to the front lot line than the principal building on that lot with the exception of an attached garage in an R-1 zone. (Amended by Ordinance 0-90-O1, January 10, 1990.) g. No accessory building in a business or industrial district shall exceed the height of the principal building except by conditional use permit. h. An accessory building in the business or industrial districts may be located within the rear yard setback, provided that the lot is not a through lot and said accessory building does not occupy more than 25% of the required rear yard. An accessory building shall be a part of the principal building if it is located less than twelve (12) feet from the principal building. No accessory building shall be located less than ten feet from a rear lot line. i. Utility structures and other similar buildings for the storage of domestic supplies; such structures shall conform to the following standards in Residential Districts: • 1. All structures shall require a building permit. (Amended by Ordinance 0-91-13, November 27, 1991) 2. All such structures shall be secure from wind displacement. 3. The area of such buildings shall not be less than thirty-five (35) square feet. Only one such building shall be permitted per lot and permitted only within the single family districts. 4. The height of detached building shall not exceed twelve (12) feet. If attached, the structure shall not exceed the height of the principal building. 5. Exterior colors or materials matching the principal structure or earthen tones shall be utilized. No door or other access opening in a utility structure shall exceed twenty-eight (28) square feet in area. j . One accessory structure for compost not to cover more than twenty-five (25) square feet in area and five (5) feet in height in the rear yard. A compost structure • that meets this requirement, 9-2.04, Subdivision 1(c) and 9-4.01, Subdivision 3(k) does not require a Permitted Accessory Use Permit. A larger composting structure • requires a Permitted Accessory Use. (Adopted by Ordinance 0-89-16, November 8, 1989. • • Subdivision 6. Lot Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. a. Minimum Lot Area 10,000 square feet • Ordinance 0-94-05 3/23/94 amends Chapter 9-8.01 (B-1) lExcept as provided by 9-2.07 of this code. ZExcept where otherwise noted in Section 9-8.01, Subd. 2j. 330 feet if abutting a street or "R" District 4Including the total area of roofs, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks and similar impermeable surfaces. 63 • Subdivision 6. Lot Area, Height, Width and Yard Requirements.l Ordinance 0-94-05 3/23/94 amends Chapter 9-9.01 (B-2) 1Subject to exception under P.U.D. Chapter 9, Section 16. ZExcept as provided by 9-2.07 of this code; 3 stories or 35 feet maximum allowed by C.U.P. or P.U.D. 330 feet if abutting a street or "R" District 4Including the total area of roofs, driveways, parking lots, • sidewalks and similar impermeable surfaces. 66 (ii) The used merchandise which is sold on the premises must be acquired by the owner of the principal use only on a "trade-in" basis from customers trading in used merchandise at the time they purchase new merchandise of the same general type. (iii) The portion of used merchandise on the premises may not, at any time, occupy more than ten percent of the sales area of the premises. Subdivision 5. Other requirements. All uses shall, in addition to all-other requirements comply with the following standards: a. No bars on doors or .windows during business hours. b. No automatic interior or exterior security lock doors that require requesting entry or exit during business hours. c. No exterior storage of merchandise. d. No exterior sales of merchandise except twice a year for three days at a time as a sidewalk sale. Subdivision 6. Building Height and Yard Requirements a. Maximum s~~€~€ Building Height - 3 stories or ;;::.;::.;:.;;;:.: ::::.::::.::::::::::: : 35 ft .1 b . Minimum Bui~.~dng Yard~~~~Requrements ~i (1) Front 30 ft. (2) Side 20 ft.2 (3) Rear 20 ft.3 c. Maximum lot coverage 75%a Ordinance 0-94-05 3/23/94 amends Chapter 9-10.01 (B-3) lExcept as provided for in 9-2.07. 230 feet if abutting a street and 40 feet if abutting an "R" District. No side yard shall be required for a party wall subject to 9-2.05. 310 feet if abutting an alley. aThis requirement shall only apply to sites that abut an "R" district to provide sufficient land .area for buffering, landscaping and screening. Coverage may be increased by the city if a permanent screen or buffer, other than a wooden fence, is constructed which provides 100% year around opacity for adjacent residential areas after approval by the city • council and review by the planning commission. 71