Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCAgenda_94Mar28PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA March 28, 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 February 28, 1994 3. Request for a variance to Chapter 9-4.01 Subdivision (4) of fifteen feet three inches (15'-3") to the required thirty foot rear yard 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 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS 5. ADJOURN r~ U MINUTES . REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 28, 1994 7 P.M. PRESENT ABSENT ALSO PRESENT Tom Brace Kay Andrews Susan Hoyt, Administrator Wendy Treadwell Lee Barry Peter Bachman, Attorney Paul Kuettel Lisa Lampi Sam Jacobs,' City Council Liaison Ken Salzberg Meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. by Salzberg in the absence of Chairperson Barry. Minutes of the January 24 meeting were 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 YARD SETBACK, AND TO CHAPTER 9-2.04 SUBDIVISION 11c1 OF TWO FEET THREE INCHES (2'-3") TO THE REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR 1775 ASBURY STREET. Administrator Hoyt explained that Mr. & Mrs. Theodore Wiger would like to remodel their home and garage at 1775 Asbury Street. The Wiger lot is 96' wide and 75' deep with a square footage of 7,545.. Because the lot is shallow, a variance- in the thirty foot rearyard setback is required for the proposed construction. Hoyt said three neighboring property owners have responded. The property owners at 1780 N. Snelling Drive expressed concern that a two story addition 14 feet from their property line will infringe on the privacy of their rear year and will have a negative impact on the resale value of their home and so they would oppose granting of the variance. The resident at 1789 Asbury said that without additional information on the exterior house plans she could neither support nor object to the variance request at this time. The property owner at 1770 N. Snelling Drive indicated the variance request does not affect him because his property is not contiguous to the Wigers and, therefore, he has no objection to it. Hoyt introduced Mr. Phil Carlson, City Planning Consultant, who had reviewed the variance request. Mr. Carlson explained that the variance is requested by the Wigers in order to accommodate expansion plans for the kitchen, living room, dining room, and upstairs bedrooms and they believe it necessary to extend west, encroaching on the rear yard, instead of south into an available lot area.. A side • yard setback variance is also requested to replace the existing 18' wide garage to accommodate a new two story 22' wide garage. • Mr. Carlson showed an aerial photo of the Wiger lot. The lot is below the minimum size requirement for the R-1 district. He said the width is adequate but the depth is less than typical or desirable and that such anon-conforming lot may not be more intensively developed. The photo showed there are many shallow lots on the block between Asbury and North Snelling Drive similar to the Wiger lot. He said the ordinance standards in §9-2.02 Subd.8(b) allow alterations, additions, or enlargement of non-conforming uses as long as all other standards (including setbacks) are adhered to. Mr. Carlson stated that since both the house and garage need setback variances, the proposed project does not meet this standard. Mr. Carlson explained that there is room to expand to the south of the house without needing a substantial variance. He felt that because the rear yards on this block are already shallow and the houses close together, that to allow an encroachment other than a garage would set a negative precedent. Also, Mr. Wiger would need to demonstrate that he cannot meet the ordinance standard without causing a hardship. It has not been shown that expanding the house to the south where a limited variance would be needed would create a hardship, so Mr. Carlson felt a rear yard variance is not justified. However, the side yard variance request for the garage is necessary to avoid a hardship because an adequate size garage would be considered a necessity. Mr. Wiger, property owner, brought plans for the commission to review showing both the original and the expansion plans. He said that expanding to the south is not an option because the house is a colonial style home and cannot be expanded without making it look "added on". Also, he explained, their side yard is used for recreation and they do not want to lose any of it. He said that if they expanded to the south, a good share of the house would have to be gutted, so to keep it within a reasonable price range and not lose side yard space, expanding to the west made more sense. Mr. Wiger explained the second story on the garage will be used for storage of airplane parts that are currently in a rental hanger. Neighboring property owner, Glen Olson of 1780 Snelling Drive, said that he would like to have the variance denied because the Olsons have a small back yard that is landscaped so he and his wife can enjoy some seclusion, especially from Snelling Avenue. He said if the variance were to be granted they would lose this seclusion. Mrs. Helms of 1789 Asbury was also present and expressed concern about the size and appearance of the proposed addition. Commissioner Salzberg asked Mr. Wiger if he would be agreeable to having the variance discussion continued to the March meeting thus giving him some time to investigate the feasibility of expanding to the south. Mr. Wiger said yes, if was necessary. C, After a brief discussion, Commissioner Brace moved to continue the item to the • March meeting to allow the applicant time to develop and refine alternative plans that would need little or no variance, and to continue discussions with city staff. Seconded by Commissioner Kuettel and unanimously passed. A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BASEMENT STORAGE OF APPROVED ITEMS AT 1533 TO 1559 WEST LARPENTEUR AVENUE, BULLSEYE SHOPPING CENTER [CHAPTER 9-10.01, SUBDIVISION 21b) OF THE ZONING CODE] Acting Chair Salzberg opened the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. There being no one wishing to be heard closed the hearing at 8:08 p.m. Hoyt briefly went through the proposed conditions for granting the conditional use permit. Because the commission had previously reviewed this request, they felt no further discussion was necessary and moved to recommend to the city council that the conditional use permit be granted with the following conditions attached: 1. That the shopping center continue to be in compliance with the current Minnesota Uniform Fire Code as it applies to structures of this age and construction including maintenance of sprinkler systems, storage of materials, access and other items identified in the fire code. 2. That loading and unloading of storage materials be done in a timely manner to minimize any obstructions in the alley. This loading .and unloading should be between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays and 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturdays to minimize disruptions to neighboring property .owners. 3. That all storage items be light ordinary hazard class and shall not contain mixtures of other hazardous classes, specifically not including items gasoline, oil, batteries, tires and gasoline fired engines and other items considered hazardous by the fire marshal. 4. That no smoking signs be installed and visible in the storage area. 5. That no storage shall a. be over six feet high or within eighteen inches of a fire sprinkler head; b. be within thirty inches of mechanical and electrical flame sources c. reduce the access aisle from 44 inches to make it easy for fire personnel to move about in the space 6. That any stored items not specifically identified in the light hazard class be . reviewed by the fire marshal and approved by the city administrator. 7. That an evacuation plan with proposed storage areas be submitted to the fire • marshal for review and approved by the city administrator. Seconded by Treadwell and unanimously approved. ACTION ON ITEMS RELATED TO THE INTERIM DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM INCLUDING A PUBLIC HEARING ON 11 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 1991 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN BUSINESS SECTION; 2) PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S ZONING CODE • 9-1.02 DEFINITIONS SECTION • 908.01,9.01 AND 10.01 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS RELATED TO PURPOSE AND INTENT STATEMENTS, PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL AND ACCESSORY USES AND ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 3) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERIM DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM 5-5.01 FINDINGS AND PURPOSE, 5.02 APPLICABILITY AND 5.04 TERM Salzberg opened the public hearing at 8:12. There being no one wishing to be heard the public hearing closed at 8:13. • After discussing all of the proposed amendments, a recommendation was made to change 9-10.01 Subd. 2 (h) to read, Financial institutions with hours open to the public no earlier than 8 a.m. and no later than 6 p.m. An automatic teller machine may operate 24 hours a day. Treadwell moved to adopt the proposed amendment to the comprehensive land use plan, the city's zoning code with the recommended change in 9-10.01 Subd.21h) (hours of operation of financial institution) adopt all items related to the interim development moratorium as reviewed, and to schedule a workshop for March 9, 1994 with the city council to go over the entire package with them. Seconded by Brace and passed unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 8:40 Susan Hoyt, Administrator • Dee Swenson, Recording Secretary ITEM 3 • City of Falcon Heights Planning Commission 28 March 1994 ITEM: Consideration for a request for a variance to Chapter 9 - 4.01 Subdivision 4 of fifteen feet three inches (15' 3") to the required thirty foot rear yard 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 SUBMITTED BY: Theodore Wiger, property owner REVIEWED BY: Phil Carlson, AICP, planning consultant Susan Hoyt, City Administrator ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM FEBRUARY 28, 1994 MEETING: Commission suggestion. The planning commission deferred the decision on the request for a variance for a sideyard and rearyard setback as requested by Mr. • Wiger until the March 28, 1994 meeting in order to permit the property owner, Mr. Wiger, to revise his proposed construction plans to require a less substantial variance request than the one presented to the commission (see minutes and attachment 1). Communication with Mr. Wiger. On March 1, 1994 Mr. Wiger stopped by city hall to ask what his next step should be regarding the variance request. Staff explained that the commission suggested that he revise his plans so he does not require a substantial rear yard variance. Staff asked that plans be submitted by March 18 so they could be reviewed prior to the agenda being prepared for the planning commission meeting. This was followed up with a letter (attachment 2-. After Phil Carlson further researched the city's non-conforming use requirements as they apply to existing setbacks, Phil confirmed that Mr. Wiger would need a variance even if he maintained the current rear and front yard setback because they are at 28 feet rather the required 30 feet (attachment 3). (A non-conforming sideyard setback does not need a variance.) Staff informed Mr. Wiger of this by letter on March 9, 1994 (attachment 4). Although Mr. Wiger stopped by city hall for information on city setback requirements for all types of uses (garages, driveways, fences, additions) in early March, as of this writing staff has not received plans nor heard from Mr. Wiger • about his plans. Page 2 • 28 March 1994 Communication with Mr. Olson. Mr. Olson continues to express his objection to the proposed two story addition which would be within 14 feet of his rear property line. Review of standards for granting a variance. As the attached staff report states this request does not meet the standards for granting a variance (green sheet) because there is space to the south of the house for the addition that would not require a substantial rear yard variance. When considering this request, please note that: 1. The property owner must demonstrate a hardship in order to have a variance granted by the city. 2. Any past variances granted by the city, and any building or site improvements that do not conform to the city's zoning code, do not create a hardship for a property owner requesting a variance, and therefore, are not a • reason for granting a variance to a property owner. Although there are some existing structures which encroach into the rear yard further than the 30 foot rear yard setback along this block with the shallow lots, the city records do not show that any variances were granted for this purpose. Two building permits for rear yard additions were found in the files. 3. A property owner's preference for how the interior space is arranged in a home or how the exterior of a home is designed are not identified as a hardship standard for granting a variance. If a variance was the only way to preserve the architectural or historical significance of a structure, this might meet the standards for granting a variance. The proposed addition of a two story attached garage to this two story home will change the exterior appearance and symmetry of the structure. 4. A fence, even a six foot high fence or a tall hedge, will not eliminate the impact of a two story garage and house within fourteen feet of the neighboring property to the west because the addition will be substantially higher than the fence or landscaping. ~-- City of Falcon Heights • Planning Commission Meeting date: 28 February 1994 Agenda item: 4 ITEM: Request for a variance to Chapter 9 -4.01 Subdivision (4) of fifteen feet three inches (15'-3")to the required thirty foot rear yard setback, and to Chapter 9-2..04 Subdivision 1(c) of two feet three inches (2'-3") to thee required five foot side yard setback for 1775 Asbury Street SUBMITTED BY: Theodore Wiger, property owner REVIEWED BY: Philip Carlson, AICP, City Planning Consultant INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS: About six weeks ago Mr. Wiger spoke to the city's building official about plans for an addition to his home. The building official asked him to bring in a site plan with the proposed location of the new garage and addition to his home to see how it conformed to the zoning code. Mr. Wiger did so in mid-February. After reviewing the site plan it became clear that Mr. Wiger needed a variance in the sideyard for his proposed garage and in his rearyard for the addition to his home. Mr. Wiger's lot is 96 feet wide and 75 feet deep with a total square footage of 7,545 • square feet. The area of the lot is not unusual for Falcon Heights residential lots. However, the lot is narrower than many lots, which are often 120 or more feet deep. Therefore, a variance in the thirty foot rearyard setback is required for the proposed construction. Neighboring property owners ~ 78(} N Snelling D~w~ Dr. and Mrs. Olsen, the property owners at 1780 North Snelling. Drive, to the west and rear of the Wiger. home on Asbury, expressed an understanding of why a larger home would be desirable for the Wiger family. However, they have two concerns about how it would affect their property. They fear that the two story addition will be slightly over fourteen feet from their property line and will infringe on their privacy in their rear yard, which is not very large. They stated that they cannot use their sideyard because it is very noisy from the traffic along Snelling Avenue. They are concerned about the resale value of their home with a structure 14 feet from their rear lot line. ;:1:;789;::4stury ,tz~;et The property owner expressed support for the improvement to the property because she fears that property will not be improved and may deteriorate if it isn't upgraded. >~~~7C~ N Snelling Qr~u This property is not contiguous to Mr. Wiger's property. It is to the southwest of the Wiger property. Mr. Zappa said that the variance request does not affect him and, therefore, he has no objection to it. He supports improvements to the homes in the neighborhood. Planning Commission • Date:2/28l'94 Agenda Item= ITEM = Request for variances to §9-4.oi Subd. 4~c) of fifteen feet three inches {15'~"} to the required tfhi~ - ~?3neto the~aqubed five foot ~ ~ yard ubd. 1 {c) of two feet three me ( } setback fer 1775 Asbury Street. SUBMITTED 81(: Theodore Wiger, property owner REVIEUyEa BY: Philip Carlson, AIGP, City Planning Consultant EXPLANATIONIDESG RIPTION Mr. Wiger is requesting variances tote ~~ seYand a ne and o double ~ ~ inThe r to construct atwo-story addrt~on to addtion and garage are shown an the attached aid aflane~n egrated bu', ding ~ro1e~- separate variance requests, although they are fa They will be discussed together in this report, but there are two separate staff recommendations, and the Planning Commission should make separate recommendations on the two requests. The rear yard setback variance is requested ~n order to accommodate exp ~~ bepleves it far the kitchen, living roam, dining room, and upstairs bed~ra nstead of south into the is necessary to extend west, encroaching on the rear y • available lot area on the south side of the house.~The e,dreplac theCexisting $ feat requested to accommodate a new 22-foot wide g 9 9 wide garage, which is in poor shape and too narrow by today's standards. Stafif Analysts: • The Wiger lot is below the minimum size requirement for the R-1 Distric:t_ The lot is 79'x96', or about 7,545 sr~uare feet in size; the ordinance mini~aul ~~ desirab e. Sq~e #eet. The width is adequate, but the depth is Tess than typi The ordinance statQS, in §~-~-of the ots on the blk betwe nlAsbury and North re intensively developed". Many Snelling Drive are of similar dimensions aS the Wiger lat. they are • Even though the existing lot and house are non-confiorming as to area, conforming in their use, and the orc~inanca standards in §9-2.92, Subd_ 8{b} and 9[a} apply. These standards allow alterations, additions, or enlargement of non-conforming uses as long as elf other standards including setbacks} are adhered tv. The proposed project lees not meet #his test, since both the house end garage need setback variances. 02/23/94 17:23 ~'BI2 S37 5601 DSD', INC. ~ 003/005 WlgerlVariances 212~19~ 2 • • • The existing house is only Slightly non-cortformirtig with respect to the front and rear setbacks, bath of which are about 28 feet now, compared to 30 feet required by ordinance. Many of the homes on the block between Asbury and Snelling are in the same Situ2~#ion and have front and rear setbacks slightly bass than the 38 feet required, but aEl appear to be at least 25 feet. None are as small as the 14'-~" sett~aek requested by the applicarrts here. The nearby corner houses on Garden Street face perpendicular to the side streets and are separated by about 10 feet. But this is a side yard condition. not a rear yard. s The existing detached garage conforms to the required setbacks. It is Sept basic w6'-9' and 8'-7" from the side and rear yards respectively. The required setback for both side and rear is 5 feet. The "rear 2fl°fu" rule from §9-2.fl4 Subd. 1(c}, which would albw a 1 foot setback, does not apply here- It only applies if there is an allay at the rear of the lot. • The proposed project will rBSuft in the fioAowing: 1 } The rear setback for the house will be reduced from 28'-T' down to 14'-7", requiring a substantial variance imm the required 30 feet. The proposed addition is two stories tail, which makes the situation even mare intrusive. 2} The side setback for the nEw garage will be reduced from 6'-9' to 2'-9", also requiring a variance, but a small one, from the required 5 feet. 3} The rear setback for the new garage will be reduced from 8'-7" to 5'-T' - no variance needed. 4} The front setback for the house will not change - na variance needed. • Many of the lots on this block are of similar size to the 1Niger bt and face the same constraints: adequate width, but less than adequate depth or area_ Some lots in the area have been combined ar rearranged to make larger lots, including the neighboring lot at 1789 Asbury. Even on the smaller lots, the homes and garages in the immediate vicinity appearto follow a common pattern: homes suet back almost 90 fee# both front and rear, garages set back 5 feet side and rear ~ Even though the Wiger lot is small, there is room tp expand on the south side of the house without needing a substantial variance. The applicants have chosen instead to expand to the west, into the rear yard. While the existing house may pose soma difficulties in expanding to the south, this has to be weighed against the public interest in encroaching into the setback areas. The rear yams on this block are already shallow and the houses seem very close to one another. To allow an encroachment other than a garage would break the pattern that exists in these rear yards, and sat a negative precedent. • 02/23!94 17;23 $61E 337 5601 DSU, INC. r~004/005 wigerNariances 2/28194 3 • Although same area residents have indicated they do not object to the project and • encourage property improvements, there have been objections raised by some neighbors aver the encroachment into the rear yard, especially since the yards are tight now, and the proposed addrtian and garage are both two stories tail. Conclusion The cr'r#eria for considering variances in §9-15.03 Subd. 4 include consideration of the effect on property values and whether th®re is a hardship with the It~t in question ber:ause it is substantially different from other properties in the same zoning district. In our opinion, the significant encroachment on the rear yard would have a negative efliect on surround+ng properties, and we find that there are neighboring lots of similar size and shape which have not encroached tin the rear yards. The rear yard variance request is due to decisions by the owner and not to something inherent in the property, Also, the applicant needs to demonstrate that he cannot meet the ordnance standard without causing a hardship. It has not been shown that expanding the house td the south (where no variancrr would be needed) would create s hardship. The rear yard variance, therefore, is not justified. If expansion to the south is considered, there is as much lot area available Qn the side as there is for the praposed addition to the rear. In other words, there would be no penalty in square. footage for choosing to go south instead of west The attached sketch, Available Lot Area, shows that the proposed addition covers about 5~6 square feet of lot, when:as the available lot area to the South within the setbacks is almost 600 square feet There is also addrtional lot area within the setbacks to the north of the existing house -about 150 • square feet -that could be used as well.. The applicant says he has considered these options, but we are not convinced that a design professional has exhausted all the possibilities_ In our experience, the difficufiies cited by the applicant can usually be overcome by an experienced designee The side yard variance request far the garage is necessary to avoid a hardship, we believe, because a. two-mar garage of adequate width and depth can be considered a necessity in today's world. The effect on the side yard is less than the effect on the existing house if the new garage were to be located further south toward the house. The side yard variance, therefore, is justified. ATTACHMENTS: A -Location Map B -Property Owna~'s Statement C -Site Plan D -Available Lot Area • 02/23/94 17:24 'x'612 33T 56p1 DSU, INC. WigerNarlanc~s 2128!94 ~ Staff Recommendation and Action Requ+~stad: • The Planning Commission has several aptians: 1) Approve boat the rear and side setback variances as requested bl/ the applicanrt. 2) Qeny both variance requests. 3) Approve the side setback variance for the garage, and deny the rear setback variance forihe addition. Q.j Corrtinue the item to the fv9arch meeting to allow the applicant time to d®veiop and refine attemativt~ plans that would need little or no variance, $nd to continue diSCUSSionS with City Staff. We recommend the fourth option and urge the applicant to work with design professionals who can advise him on the feasibility of expansion plans that would make use of the available lot area to the south and north of the existing house, where a substantial variance would not be necessary. C r: O2f1$f94 11:52 X612 5a7 5601 • i• f ~ a 1 0 DSII, INC. Location Map: HARVEST • N t''°~`~ STATES ~- ~v )r. . ` +1 J ~ E:wt .. }.;. d C Q J d a O ~ARi 0 0 a a O O W o v p ~ o o ~ o o ~ o W o ~ o v ~ ° d o o ~ 0 0 ~ C'7 ~ o o ,~ ~ ~ ~RA~ ~' - ;a000oo 0o e W tIi LARf ~~ p O O ~A1.1 Qoe ~ oosfoll. Attachment . OPf18f94 11:52 '~BI2 397 5601 DSU, .INC. • r: C7 ~ 006/011 ~ ~~ ~ ~ A#~a~hmet~# ~ ~ G. ~~~~ G~~~~. ._ .....-- _.. . ~. ~~- ~~ Q ~ ~~'~c, -,~...~ ate- ..,~~-~- ~' ,~ ~~ ,~ ~~ ,, ~ ~~ f j 1 ~ / J ,02/18/94 11:52 '8'612 ~3T 5601 DSU, INC. ~ 007/011 • _ _ ... ~ ~~--. ~ s~~- ~ ~ ~ _ ~ _ . ~~ ~. ~~ e ~ ~ !/~'' 1~'?~~~~~ ~Y ~ ~ l ~~~~ ~ ~~ • ~~ ~ w . .~.~- ~, ,~ ,, .. ~.CU~i1Zwo / dw~. ~~ c.' ~ ~. r.J~~~r~ ~~'~g~~ 02/18/94 Y1:5~ t~612 337 5681 i• ~~~; 3~1'~ j~-' = 5~ s~.~ F~r~[' . ~~~~ ~ ~~ Wr~irN s~; rE~,r~.: 27' kZZ' ~ 591E sa~~~ DSII, INC. ~ ooa/oll _ AttachmQnt A t \ - I .\\'\ - ~ • 7Hou~~~ ~rrro~t : •_ • _ ~ ,. ~v~ilabl~ Lit ~xea 2 • ~ FALCON HEIGHTS 2077 W. LARPENTEUR AVENUE FALCON HEIGHTS, MN 55113-5594 PHONE (612) 644.5050 FAX (612) 644-8675 1 March 1994 Mr. Ted Wiger 1775 Asbury Street Falcon Heights, Minnesota 55113 Dear Mr. Wiger: Thanks for stopping in this morning as a follow-up to last night's planning commission meeting last night. As I explained, I understood that the planning commission postponed the decision on your variance request until March 28, 1994 so that you • would have time to revisit your remodeling plans and to draw some that do not require the rear yard variance. The next planning. commission meeting is scheduled for March 28, .1994. Please provide us with your revised plans by March 18 so they can be reviewed. If your new plans do not require a variance in either the side yard or the rear yard setback, you do not have to go before the planning commission for their review. Please call me if you have any questions about this process. Sincerely,. Susan Hoyt City Administrator HOME OF THE MINNESOTA STATE FAIR AND THE U OF M INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE tu¢cmcsa PRINTEDONRECYCLEDPAPER 3 ~' '^ .~~ ~ !\ ~ 1!e- CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE IJORTH SUITE 310 MINNEAPOLIS. 7V-'iN »IO) ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ 612~339~3300 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 3, 1994 TO: Susan Hoyt, City of Falcon Heights FROM: Phil Cazlson; Dahlgren, Shazdlow, and Uban, Inc. RE: Wiger Variance/Front Setback, 1775 Asbury Street Related to our discussion about Mr. Wiger's variance application, it should be clear that even an addition to the south side that extends the existing front and rear edges of the house would need a • variance, although a justifiable one in my opinion. The existing front setback of the house is 28'-0" and the existing reaz setback is 28'-7", both less than the 30' required by ordinance. I referred in my previous planning report (first page, last paragraph) to §9-2.02, Subd. 8(b) and 9(a), which require anon-conforming house such as the Wigers' to meet all standards if it is to be enlarged. As you mentioned, the only exceptions aze for interior side yazd and corner side yard setbacks. We were concentrating on the reaz setback since that was the focus of his proposal, but the same standard applies to the front setback. I implied this in the last line of the planning report, urging the applicant to expand south where a "substantial" variance would not be needed (as opposed to no variance). Therefore, even if Mr. Wiger expands as I had suggested in my sketch, he must apply for a variance to both the front and rear setbacks. I believe it would impose a "particular hardship" on Mr. Wiger to require him to meet the 30' front and rear setbacks, instead of extending the house flush with the existing setbacks. Meeting the 30' setbacks would create an awkward jog in the front and rear edges of the house, creating difficulties for construction. It would also create an aesthetic concern considering the design of the existing house, and it would impose a hazsher standazd on Mr. Wiger's use of the property, compared to the many neighbors in the azea who enjoy similar front setbacks of slightly less than 30 feet, due to the vary shallow lots on these blocks between Asbury and North Snelling Drive. CITY OF FALCON HEIGHT,. 2077 W. LARPENTEUR AVENUE FALCON HEIGHTS, MN 55113.5594 PHONE (612) 644-5050 FAX (612) 644-8675 9 March 1994 Mr. Ted Wiger 1775 Asbury Street Falcon Heights, Minnesota 55113 Dear Mr. Wiger: After you and I discussed your request for a variance last week, I asked Phil Carlson, the city's consulting planner, whether a variance would be required in your front and rearyard setback if you expanded to the southside of your home rather than to the • rear because your current house does not meet the thirty foot front and rearyard setbacks. Phil said that any addition to the side of your home would require a variance in the front and rearyard setbacks from the 30 feet to 28 feet. He explained that this request for an addition to the side of your home would not be a substantial variance because it is consistent with the placement of the current house on the site. Requiring you to meet the 30 foot setbacks, instead of extending the house flush with the current dwelling at a 28 foot setback, would create an awkward jog in the front and rear edges of a proposed addition. Please call me if you have any questions about this. Sincerely, Susan Hoyt City: Admiristrator • HOME OF THE MINNESOTA STATE FAIR AND THE U OF M INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 'rxtE arv tx~ 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; G• That the granting of the variance is necessary/ for the pk~eservation and enjoyment of substantial property nights; 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 sha?_~ 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. Page 3 28 March 1994 Staff recommendation: Deny the request for a variance including the request for the sideyard variance for the construction of the garage since this appears to be an integral part of the overall remodeling plans as currently proposed. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Reconsider the variance request. (It is not necessary to have a complete staff report nor to repeat all the information presented at the February 28, 1994 planning commission meeting. Staff recommends that the commission briefly review the request and discuss whether it meets the standards for granting a variance.) 2. Recommend that the city council deny the request for a variance at its April 13 meeting.