Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCAgenda_94Apr25PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA • April 25, 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 March 28, 1994 3. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 4. Consideration for a request for a variance to Chapter 9-2.06 of five feet from the maximum fence height at 1703 st. Mary's Street 5. Discussion of a study related to size and placement of residential garages. 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS • 7. ADJOURN MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 28, 1994 7 P.M. PRESENT ABSENT Tom Brace Kay Andrews Lee Barry Wendy Treadwell Paul Kuettel Ken Salzberg Lisa Lampi (arrived at 7:30) ALSO PRESENT Susan Hoyt, Administrator Sam Jacobs, City Council Liaison Phil Carlson, Planning Consultant Meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairperson Barry. Minutes of the February 28, 1994 we approved as written. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO CHAPTER 9-4.01 SUBDIVISION (4- OF FIFTEEN FEET THREE INCHES (15'-3") TO THE REQUIRED THIRTY FOOT REAR YEAR SETBACK, AND TO CHAPTER 9-2.04 SUBDIVISION 1(c) OF TWO FEET THREE INCHES (2'3") TO THE REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK • FOR 1775 ASBURY STREET. Hoyt briefly reviewed the February 28 planning commission recommendation regarding the request for a variance at 1775 Asbury by property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Wiger. She said that the commission requested that the Wigers revise their proposed construction plans by expanding their house into the sideyard rather than further into the rearyard. This would require a less substantial variance request than the one submitted. Mrs. Wiger explained that no new plans were submitted because it would not be financially feasible to expand into the sideyard and she understood that any revisions should go in this direction. And they would like to have their original variance request reexamined and approved. The Olsons, of 1780 Snelling Drive, to the rear of 1775 Asbury, said they objected because of the proximity to their rear yard and the possible invasion of their privacy. A discussion followed regarding the impact that the addition of a two story home 14 feet from the rearyard would have on the .adjacent property at 1780 N. Snelling Drive. The commission also discussed the fact that the Wiger • property is not unusually small in area, that there are other blocks configured in the same manner in Falcon Heights, and that there is space to expand into the • PC Minutes 3/28/94 Page 2 sideyard and, therefore, the request did not meet the standards for granting a variance. Salzberg moved to recommend that the city council deny the Wiger's request for a variance to Chapter 9-4.01 Subd. 4 of 15' 3" to the required 30 foot rearyard setback because the request did not meet the standards for granting a variance, and because there is space to expand to the south of the house that would not require a substantial rearyard variance, and also to deny the variance request to Chapter 9-2.04 Subd. 1(c) of 2' 3" to the required. 5' sideyard setback for the construction of the garage because this is an integral part of the overall remodeling plans. Seconded by Kuettel and unanimously approved. • Hoyt told the Wigers this would be on the April 13 city council agenda and that they were welcome to attend. She also told them they could reapply for a variance at any time with a different set of plans. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Hoyt announced that Carla Asleson was hired to be the new administrative assistant/planner. Carla is currently working for the City of Mounds View and will start work here on April 18. Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Susan. Hoyt, Administrator Dee Swenson, Recording Secretary y • City of Falcon Heights Planning Commission 25 April 1994 ITEM: Consideration for a request for a variance to Chapter 9-2.06 of five feet from the maximum fence height at 1703 St. Mary's Street. SUBMITTED BY: Bobby Ray Thomas, property owner REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Carla Asleson, Administrative Assistant/Planner EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION Mr. Bobby Ray Thomas is requesting a variance from maximum fence height requirements. Mr. Thomas would like to erect an eight foot high fence along the entire length of his southern property line. City Code allows a only three foot fence in the front of a principal structure and a six foot fence in the rear, making a variance of two and five feet necessary. • The property in question is located adjacent to a commercial property, Buck's Unpainted Furniture and near Ciatti's restaurant. Mr. Thomas has cited several problems with his property's proximity to such commercial uses. Two dumpsters from Buck's are located very near the house; Mr. Thomas states that although Buck's makes. a real effort to keep the property clean, there are still problems with flying debris and visual attractiveness. Mr. Thomas also claims that pedestrians continually use his property as a shortcut to Buck's and to Ciatti's, creating privacy difficulties. According to Mr. Thomas, the variance is needed because a three foot fence in the front yard and a six foot fence in the rear yard will not be high enough to visually screen his property from Buck's (particularly the dumpsters} and from the pedestrian traffic. The zoning code requires that a buffer exist between adjacent properties when one lot is zoned for residential use and the other for commercial use. Until last year, the property was landscaped to meet this requirement. However, the shrubs that were serving as the buffer have since died and have been removed. No neighbors have responded to the notice of variance as of this writing. Recommendation: • It is reasonable to grant this variance as the higher fence will decrease the impact of the adjacent commercial property, particularly the problems associated with the two garbage dumpsters. • Attachments: A. Proposed Resolution B. Site Plan Action Requested: Approve the variance by adopting a resolution that this property meets that attached standards for granting of a variance, specifically 9- 15.03 Subdivision 4 (C) that the amendment is necessary for the enjoyment of property rights. • • • ATTACHMENT /~~~ No. CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N R E S O L U T I O N Date: 4 5 94 RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR 1703 ST. MARY'S STREET On April 25, 1994, the Falcon Heights planning commission recommended granting the following variance requested for 1703 St. Mary's Street: Chapter 9, ~2 06 in the fence height, maximum A variance of 2 feet in the rear and side yards and of 5 feet in the front yard for a fence to be built along the • southern property line. The olanninq commission adooted the following findings for recommending the granting of the variance at 1703 St Mary's Htr~et: a. That the amendment to the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare; b. That the amendment to the variance will not substantially diminish or impair property values or improvements in the area; c. That the amendment to the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; d. That the amended 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; and f. That the amended variance will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. 6 U ~~ ~ 41 A ~ ~'I ~ ~ .. 1 ~ 2~ ~. ~~ 2~ ~. • (. • STANDARDS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE 9-15.03 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 p;~eservation and enjoyment of substantial property X'~ghts; 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 distingu~_sh 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 .-~.quiry as to all changes in the property and shaJ.~ 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. • City of Falcon Heights Memorandum DATE: 25 April 1994 T0: Planning Commission FROM: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Carla Asleson, Administrative Assistant/Planner RE: Study related to size and placement of residential garages Baclfc~rour~cl Below are the current zoning code regulations for garages: Allowable Size: Garages cannot occupy more than 40~ of the rear yard or be larger than 1,000 square feet in area. Maximum size is dependent upon lot width and is calculated according to the following formula: • 40$ x 30 ft required rear yard x lot width. Please note that the "typical" garage size in Falcon Heights is 24' x 24', or 576 square feet. Allowable Height: Cannot exceed the height of the house. Lot Coverage Maximum: No more than 75$ of the lot can be covered by the principal structure, accessory building(s), decks, and driveways. Required Setbacks: Attached Garage: 30' front yard; 5' side yard (3' with maintenance agreement) and 30' rear yard. Detached Garage Not on an Alley: 5' side and rear yard setbacks. If on a corner lot., setbacks are 20~ of the lot width. Front setback must equal setback of the house. If on a corner Detached Garage on an Alley: 5' side and rear yard setbacks, unless: 1) entire structure is in the rear 20~ of the iot; 2) structure is adjacent to the alley; and 3)structure is oriented so that the vehicular door does not face the alley. If these conditions are met, • the side and rear setback requirement is 1'. If on a corner lot, the street side setback requirement is 20$ of the lot width. Front setback must equal setback of the house. • U Points of Consid~sration 1). Placement Requirements for Detached Garages on Alleys As noted previously, detached garages placed on alleys and in the rear 20$ of the lot are subject only to a 1' side and rear setback requirement. This "20$ Rule" was intended to allow homes in the northeast portion of the City to build a 24' wide garage. Since this was the original intention, and for the sake of simplicity, staff recommends that this portion of the code be reworded to allow a 1' setback only when the structure is located completely in the rear 25 feet of the lot. 2). Side and Rear Yard Setbacks for Detached Garages Again, this portion of the code was written with the northeast corner of the City and the Northome neighborhood in mind. Existing garages, many of which are not completely in the rear 20$ of the yard, are built 2' to 3' off of the lot lines. Reconstruction of these garages requires the issuance of a variance. Staff recommends that this be changed. 3). Maximum Garage Size Allowed Using the formula in the existing code, for every l0' increase in lot width, there is an increase in 120 square feet of allowable garage area. "Standard" Garage 576 sq ft 24' x 24' Code Permits By Lot Width 50' wide lot 600 sq ft 24' x 25' n/a 60' wide lot 720 sq ft 24' x 30' 20$ increase 70' wide lot 840 sq ft 24' x 35' 17$ increase 80' wide lot 960 sq ft 24' x 40' 15~ increase Staff has no recommendation pertaining to this point, but brings the matter before the Commission as a discussion item. A comparison of garage requirements in other metro cities will be brought to the meeting on Monday for your review and consideration.