Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCAgenda_93Mar22PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA March 22, 1993 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Kay Andrews Lee Barry Len Boche Steve Huso Paul Kuettel Lisa Lampi Ken Salzberg 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of January 25, 1993 minutes Approval of February 22, 1993 minutes 3. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 4. Request for a variance in §9-2.01 of the zoning code for fence height 5. Proposed clarifications to the sign ordinance to addresss temporary commercial signs and displays not constituting signs 6. Proposed deletion of §9-2.15[304](e) of the zoning code relating to building permit fees code revisions i i l 7. zon ng a Update on the commerc 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS/INFORMATION 9. ADJOURN i~ MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 22, 1993 7:30 p.m. PRESENT ABSENT ALSO PRESENT Kay Andrews Len Boche Paul Ciernia, Council Liaison Lee Barry, Chair Susan Hoyt, Administrator/Planner Steve Huso Brian Standing, Intern Planner Paul Kuettel Fred Hoisington, Consultant Lisa Lampi Ken Salzberg Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Lee Barry, Chair. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF THE UNIVERSITY GROVE SUBDIVISION NUMBER 2 AND REQUEST FOR VARIANCES_FROM 9- 17.04 SUBDIVISION 2 AND SUBDIVISION 4 OF THE ZONING CODE Lee Barry, Chair, opened the public hearing at 7:35. Brian Standing, planning intern, reported on the University's request for a preliminary and final plat of University Grove Subd #2 to conform to Auditor's Subd. 90. These lots were originally platted in Auditor Subd. No. 90. An error was made in 1990 with the recording of Registered Land Survey for 1666 Coffman which included the area as one large tract. This automatically eliminated the established lot lines and right of ways in a portion of Auditor's Subdivision No. 90. Standing explained that the purpose of the proposed plat is to re-establish the original lot lines eliminated by the 1666 Coffman plat. He said this would not change the commonly understood property boundaries. The University also requested variances from the subdivision regulations. Folwell Avenue has an existing 50 ft. right-of-way which is consistent with Auditors Subd. No. 90. Section 9-17.04 Subd. 2 of the code requires that minor and collector streets maintain a minimum right-of-way of 60 feet. The University is requesting a 10 ft. variance to allow for the existing 50 ft. right-of -way . Section 17.04 Subd. 4 of the code requires 10 foot drainage and utility easements along all lotlines. The University requested a variance to allow no such easements along the platted lots of this subdivision. Public hearing closed at 7:55. After some discussion by the commission, Kuettel moved to grant the variances on the findings that: • a. the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare; b. the granting of the variance will not substantially diminish or impair property values or improvements in the area; c. the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights by re-establishing previous property lines and right of ways; d. the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; e. the variance will not impair the orderly use of the public streets.; f. the variance will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety; g. the legal boundary history of the tract is such that strict adherence to the letter of the chapter would result in undue hardship to the owner. Huso seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Salzberg moved to approve the preliminary and final plat for University Grove Subdivision 2. Seconded by Huso and unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING ON RE UEST FOR ANTEURIAVENUE UBULLSEYETCENTER SATELLITE DISH AT 1547 W. LARPE Public Hearing opened at 8:10. Brian Standing, planning intern, explained Edward D. Jones, an investment consultant firm with headquarters in St. Louis, plans to open an office in Bullseye Plaza at 1547 Larpenteur Avenue and has requested a conditional use permit to allow for the installation of a six foot diameter satellite dish antenna on the exterior rear wall of the building. The zoning for a B-2 district lists broadcast and telecommunications facilities as a conditional use. Kevin Alm, office manager, said the nature of the work requires uninterrupted computer and communications links with the firm's headquarters and with market information systems around the world. He stated his office cannot function without it. Tim Hilger, representing the property owner, American Family Insurance, explained the lease agreement between the property owner and the tenant addressed the location (rear recessed portion of the building) and mounting of the dish (exterior rear wall of the building abutting the alley) to protect the Bullseye Center from any damage the dish might cause. • Mr. Standing said that property Center had been notified. None mentioned Mr. Jim Warner, owner visibility of the dish and was Snelling Avenue. Public Hearing closed at 8:25. owners within 350 feet of the objected. Administrator Hoyt of Falcon Center inquired on told it would not be visible from Discussion by the commissioners followed. Hoyt explained that a conditional use permit goes with the property, not the business and may be revoked if conditions are not met. Salzberg said that if all requirements were met for a CUP, it would be difficult to deny issuing one. All members unanimously agreed that if they recommended granting a CUP and that if an installation of a satellite dish should be requested by another business in the Center, it would require another C.U.P. and be independently evaluated. Salzberg moved that the conditional use permit be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The antenna mounting hardware must be designed and installed to withstand wind speeds at least as high as the design standards for the antenna itself; 2. The antenna and all mounting hardware must be maintained in a safe and operable condition, and; 3. That no portion of the antenna may directly overhang the alley. Motion seconded by Lampi and unanimously approved. INTRODUCTION OF THE PROPOSED REVISION IN THE COMMERCIAL ZONES Brian Standing, Planning Intern, explained that the city's comprehensive plan adopted in 1991 called for some revisions in the city's commercial zones to eliminate some unusual zones, B-lA and E-B, and to establish a neighborhood commercial zone. Fred Hoisington, Consulting Planner, presented proposed changes which would include creating B-3, neighborhood business district, eliminating B-1A, which is a limited business district, and repealing EB, existing business district. Mr. Hoisington reviewed a draft of the proposed changes in the commercial zoning code. He was asked if any of these proposed changes would create a burden on existing businesses and he replied the intent is not to do that. Discussion followed. B-2 - Central Business District PART 9 - 9-10.01 B-2, subd. 2, Part t. Personal service establishments should be changed to include massage parlors and saunas for health purposes but should exclude adult use facilities. k. Video arcades should be subject to the same . conditions as a pool hall. Mr. Hoisington was asked to define Adult Uses and Adult Use Establishments. He agreed this should be done. Pro osed B-3 Nei hborhood Convenience Business District 9-11.01 Subd 2 f. Florist. Ms. Joyce Gimmetead of B & J Floral mentioned that her business had been re-zoned twice before. Ms. Gimmestad pointed out that B & J Floral was originally classified as a legal con-conforming use in a residential district. She said that she had petitioned the city to include B & J Floral as a permitted use in an E-B zone, and indicated that she did not wish to return to a legal, non-conforming use. Ms. Gimmestad expressed concern about her ability to rebuild her business establishment if it were more than 50% destroyed. Mr. Hoisington suggested that zoning B & J floral as a Neighborhood Business (B-3) District would allow florists as a permitted use. Mr. Hoisington noted that. although this option would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the city could preclude expansion of the B-3 zone because the comprehensive plan did not include it. Ms. Gimmestad indicated that this alternative would be acceptable to her. The proposed B-3 district includes the existing auto service station as a conditional use. Steve Horazdovsky of Hamline Hoyt Auto Service said that he would prefer to operate his business with no restrictions or conditions. Mr. Horazdovsky also expressed concern about his ability to sell his business in the future. Administrator Hoyt explained that Hamline Hoyt currently operates as a legal non-conforming use, and that the city has never required a conditional use permit for the business. Mr. Hoisington explained that the proposed ordinance as originally written would not have accommodated auto repair anywhere in the city. He also noted that the proposed B-3 ordinance was re-written to permit auto repair as a conditional use, with Hamline Hoyt specifically in mind. Mr. Hoisington asked the commission to direct any further concerns and changes they might have to Administrator Hoyt and she will keep him informed. Meeting adjourned 9:45 p.m. • MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 25, 1993 7:30 p.m. PRESENT ALSO PRESENT Kay Andrews Lisa Lampi Peter Bachman, City Attorney Lee Barry Ken Salzberg Paul Ciernia, Council Liaison Len Boche Susan Hoyt, Administrator/Planner Steve Huso Paul Kuettel Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Lee Barry, Chair. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the October 26, 1992 planning commission meeting were approved as written. RE UEST FOR ALL NECESSARY VARIANCES FOR A GARAGE AT 1433 WEST IDAHO IN CHAPTER 9 SECTION 2 04 SUBD 1(c); CHAPTER 9t SECTION 2 04 SUBD 2(b); CHAPTER 9 SECTION 4 01 SUBD 5(e) A. BACKGROUND Administrator Hoyt reported that Mr. Tom Brace and Mrs. Gunta ~' Brace, property owners of 1433 W. Idaho, are applying for all necessary variances for a nearly completed 988 sq. ft. garage. She explained the circumstances surrounding this request are unique because a building permit was issued for the garage construction on October 23, 1992. Construction proceeded until an adjoining property owner questioned the size of the garage and the city then determined the building did not conform to at least two sections of the zoning code and a permit should not have been issued. A stop work order was verbally issued on November 18, 1992 and a written order on November 25, 1992. No work was done on the garage after November 18, 1992. B. VARIANCES REQUIRED FOR EXISTING GARAGE 1. Side and rear yard setback variance - Chpt 9 $2.04 Subd.l(c) The garage has a one-foot rear yard setback and a two-foot side yard setback. Because the garage is not located entirely within the rear 20% of the lot but in the rear 31% of the lot, a five- foot rear yard and a five-foot sideyard setback are required. 2. Rear yard lot coverage Chpt 9 62 04 Subd. 2(b) This section requires that detached accessory buildings shall not occupy more than 40% of the area of a required rear yard and not exceed 1,000 sq. ft. The required rearyard is 30 lot width is 50 ft. so the required rear yard is 40~ and maximum coverage of a detached accessory sq. ft. The garage in question is 988 sq. ft. or required rear yard. feet and the 1,500 sq. ft x structure 600 65~ of the 3. Maximum number of off street parking spaces for a dwelling unit Chpt 9, Q4 O1, Subd. 5(e) No more than four parking spaces are permitted for each dwelling unit. This property has a minimum of five off-street parking places - four in the new garage and one in an existing, attached garage. C. ALTERNATIVES Administrator Hoyt and Peter Bachman, city attorney, determined there were three alternative actions for the commission to consider: 1) grant .all necessary variances for the garage as built at 988 sq. ft and lift the stop work .order. Reasonable and enforceable conditions may be attached to the variance to ensure compliance to the code and to ameliorate the impact of the variance on adjacent properties; 2) deny all variances and require the garage to be down-sized to 600 sq. ft. S 3) grant the variances necessary to downsize the garage to 780 sq. ft. and offer to pay the Braces the costs of downsizing the garage. D. PROPERTY OWNERS STATEMENT Mr. Brace addressed the commission. He said in June, 1992, he inquired about building a four car garage and received the zoning code information for garages. He determined that he would build a 988 sq. ft. garage because it did not exceed the 1,000 sq. ft. maximum in 9-2.04(1)(c) and (2)(b). He talked with David Kriesel, city building official, and was told he did not need a variance and received the required permits from the city prior to starting construction. He then went ahead with the project. He also explained that two inspections were made by the building official prior to the stop work order. Mr. Brace felt the language in the code was very confusing as to rear yard coverage. He had measured the depth of his entire rear yard, taking into consideration setbacks, eaves, etc. The city building official told him his calculations were correct. Mr Brace stated that as part of this application for a variance, he personally circulated a petition among his neighbors and asked • them to sign stating they did not object to the garage and knew that it was oversized. Signatures from owners of seven properties along the alley appeared on the petition. Mr. & Mrs. King, 1427 W. Idaho, did not sign the petition. Mr. & Mrs. Callahan at 1437 Idaho signed the petition. He removed the existing two car garage (board by board - 22 x 26 ft.) and began construction of the new garage. He said that he would not have removed the existing garage if he had not been able to construct the new garage. To date, he has spent $10,000. If he must downsize the garage to 780 ft., a contractor gave him an estimate that it would cost $9,400. He added that he had consistently kept his neighbors informed of his plans for the garage. Mr. Brace submitted a report from R.M. Parranto & Associates, Inc. showing that his garage plans would increase the property value, and this property would be an asset to this block and neighborhood, not a detriment. E. NEIGHBORS' COMMENTS Mrs. King, 1427 W. Idaho, spoke against granting the variances and asked that the garage be downsized or removed because she felt the surrounding properties would be devalued. She submitted a report from Appraisal Research Associates, Ltd stating that after viewing the King property and the adjacent owner's new garage, that the King property has "suffered a loss of at least 5% of its value and possibly more". She said that it was very important to enforce city codes to maintain property values. Ms. Lynnanne Warren, 1426 W. California, was in attendance and said she felt Mr. Brace has a right to do what he sees fit with his property. He has improved it considerably and she had no objection to the oversized garage. Another neighbor, Mr. Bruce Callahan, 1437 W. Idaho said Mr. Brace has kept all neighbors very informed and that he signed the petition in support of Tom Brace, but was concerned about any property devaluation that might result from the structure. F. DISCUSSION BY COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Salzberg asked why Mr. Brace couldn't complete the garage without any variances being granted. City attorney, Peter Bachman, said the garage would become a non-conforming use and any resident could sue the city to try to get the city to enforce its code. Also, if it was destroyed for any reason, the non- conforming garage could not be rebuilt back to the same size. • ' Discussion followed. Commissioner Boche asked if the garage was downsized to 780 sq. feet would Mr. Brace remove the additional length from the northside or the southside of the garage. Mr. Brace responded that he assumed that Mrs. King would prefer that the additional length came off the southside of the garage. Commission Barry said that to bring the garage closer to the way it was originally configured on the site would require taking the additional length off the northside of the structure. Mr. Brace confirmed that the south wall of the new garage was in the semWallcwasoonesfoot closerwtolthe eastoandgthree•feetecloser garag to the westside property lines. Commissioner Salzberg said that he would like to discuss the issue as though a variance was being requested prior to the construction of the garage. He said that given the variance for the 760 a°varganceefor the7780ssgldfoot garagelatb1433cWestd to approve Idaho. Commissioner Boche asked if the commission could legally grant the variances for the garage with the conflicting information . from the two appraisers. Attorney Bachman responded that the commission could do that with appropriate findings. Commissioner Boche stated that the worst of the three alternatives was a compromise - downsizing the garage to 780 sq. feet. He said that the commission should either enforce the code or admit a mistake and that not a great deal more of the backyard was consumed by the new garage. This did not mean that he liked the garage, but he found the middle alternative the least attractive position. Commissioner Kuettel said that as a new commissioner he spent hours reviewing the materials and driving by the garage at various times. He said that had a request for a variance come up prior to the construction, he would not approve it. However, this was after the fact of a city error which made a tremendous difference, and that he agreed with Mr. Boche that the middle alternative was the worst one. He suggested approving two of the three variances, but possibly conditioning the use of the attached garage as part of the approval. Chairperson Barry said that he differed from Commissioners Boche and Kuettel, that he felt the middle alternative, downsizing to 780 ft was appropriate. He agreed that the non-conforming garage was not Mr. Brace's fault. He said looking at the city as a • a whole and to following Commissioner Salzberg's approach to review the variance application as though it had not been built and no mistakes had been made. Commissioner Barry said given the prior history of what the city accommodated in this area for the same sort of things that Mr. Brace wanted to do, a 780 sq. foot garage was reasonable. He added (not as a legal opinion) that from his experience litigating real estate values with the County of Hennepin that it is not unusual to have two very different appraisals. Commissioner Salzberg reiterated his support for the 780 sq. foot garage alternative by saying that if the structure continues to stand it harms the city and if it doesn't it harms the homeowner. One way to solve the problem is to pay the homeowner for damages incurred and to make the structure smaller. .And, he said he could have supported a variance for 780 sq. feet had it come before the commission prior to any construction. Commissioner Boche said that the same number of variances were necessary for 780 sq. feet as the 988 sq. feet. Commissioner Kuettel said that if granting .these variances set a precedent, it was probably that the city would be much more careful granting building permits for garages. Commission Huso said that he supported the 780 sq. foot garage alternative because it was only 25% rather than 50% over the code allowance for area than the 988 sq. foot version. He concurred with Mr. Kuettel about the damages to Mr. Brace and felt that Mr. Brace should be compensated for these. Commissioner Andrews said she favored the 980 sq. foot garage for many of Mr. Boche's reasons. She said she thought going to 780 sq. feet and 600 sq. feet would only enrage this property owner. Commissioner Salzberg asked the city attorney again about letting the structure stand without granting a variance. Attorney Bachman explained that this option had been discussed with the Braces but that it would not have the finality that would come from the other options presented by staff. Whereas a variance was a legal decision on the property. If the intent of letting the garage stand and not granting variances was not to have it rebuilt if it was 50% destroyed, the commission could grant the variances and condition them that this structure not be rebuilt if there is 500 or more damage to the structure. Commissioner Lampi said that there were conflicting appraisal reports and that she supported variances for the 988 sq. foot existing garage because the garage was not completed and it had been a city error. • Chairperson Barry asked for a motion. Commissioner Boche moved granting all three variances for the 988 sq. foot garage. Commissioner Kuettel seconded it. Commission Boche said that he recommended the proposed findings. Chairperson Barry asked if there was further discussion. Commissioner Huso said that the 780 sq. foot is the best way to handle it because it was a finding of fact that "there is not a reduction in economic value of adjoining neighbors" concerned him. He said there might be a reduction in property values and to the Callahan property. Commissioner Boche said that he would recommend the findings except #9. Number nine reads, "there is substantial and conflicting evidence in the record regarding whether the variance will substantially diminish or impair property values or improvements in the area. The city has reviewed this evidence carefully and finds the granting of the variance will not substantially diminish or impair property values or improvements in the area." Commissioner Huso asked Attorney Bachman if adopting all findings was necessary. Attorney Bachman stated that some findings should bgemsaid thatl relevant points (identified in the city code 15). findings need not be beyond a reasonable doubt but should reflect the commissioners' viewpoint. Commissioner Boche withdrew his motion and wanted the matter to be laid over until the next meeting after the council was asked to hire an appraiser to appraise property values that might be affected in the neighborhood. Chairperson Barry said that this would require four or five appraisals at a substantial expenditure by the city and that getting a consensus would be difficult. Following more discussion on the usefulness of appraisals, Chair Barry declined to withdraw the motion. Commissioner Boche asked that the motion be withdrawn without finding #9• Chair Barry agreed to do so. C. Boche moved to lay the matter over until the city had an s appraisal on whether the other five surrounding property values were affected. The motion died for lack of a second. C. Kuettel moved to grant all variances as needed for the 988 sq. foot garage based upon the findings. C. Lampi seconded the motion. C. Salzberg asked that the condition that the structure not be rebuilt if it were over 50% destroyed be added. Discussion on this specific condition followed. Mr. Brace was asked if he would hold the city harmless from any damages if he was granted the variances. He said he could not respond to that question because he was only prepared to seek assurances for thier four car garage. Chairperson Barry asked for further discussion. C. Boche asked for a roll call vote. C. Andrews aye C. Barry nay C. Boche aye C. C. Huso Kuettel nay aye C. Lampi aye C. Salzberg nay Chair Barry stated that the necessary variances for a 988 sq. foot garage passed by a 4 to 3 vote based upon stated findings. And that the. planning commission would be recommending the granting of the variances to the city council. A motion was made to extend the planning commission meeting beyond 10 p.m. Unanimously approved. RE4UEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A VARIANCE AT 2097 FOLWELL AVENUE In May, 1992, the planning commission approved a variance for a sideyard setback for a proposed new home at 2097 Folwell. This variance granted a 1 1/2 foot variance in the eastside lot line for the northeastern rear five feet of the structure. A surveyor on the job called attention to the fact that the required sideyard setback is not 5 feet on this property, but 20% of the lot width (21', 4") because the property abuts an existing public right-of-way. The five foot setback requirement is for property abutting residential property. • ' The commission was asked to amend the previously granted variance to 17 feet, 10 inches from the eastside property line of the northeastern five feet of the structure and a maximum of 16 feet, 4 inches from the eastside property line for the remainder of the structure. Boche moved and Andrews seconded to amend the variance as requested as it meets all the criteria for granting a variance. Unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. • • a ~~ 1- " ~,. MINUTES ~`'r ~~~~ ,, „ ;-: REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ~%~ ''' MARCH 10, 1993 ' • Mayor Baldwin convened the meeting at 7:03 P.M. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT Baldwin, Ciernia, Gehrz, Gibson Talbot and Jacobs. Also present were Bachman, Hoyt, Maurer, and Phillips. ABSENT Chenoweth RECOGNITION OF NANCY WICKHEM Mayor Baldwin recognized resident Nancy Wickhem for her efforts in implementing the Neighborhood Crime Watch program in her neighborhood which area covers approximately 300 homes. Baldwin read the Resolution of Commendation and presented Ms. Wickhem~with a plaque. MINUTES OF 2/10/93 APPROVED Council approved the Minutes of February 10, 1993 by unanimous consent. ITEM C-6 MOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA TO POLICY AGENDA A request by Mr. and Mrs. King for waiver of fees for a variance request and building permit was moved from the Consent Agenda to the Policy Agenda. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVED Council approved the following Consent Agenda by unanimous consent: 1. Disbursements (a) General Disbursements through 3/2/93, $21,018.66 (b) Payroll, 2/15/93-2/28/93, $12,122.46 2. Awarding of contract for 1993 street sweeping 3. Resignation of Maurine Venters from Human Rights Commission and appointment of Daniel Tait to complete the term 4. Authorizing execution of the recycling contract with E-Z Recycling, Inc. 5. Approval of traffic signal for Fairview and Larpenteur Avenues intersection 6. Licenses • b ~ R~ P•' ~1 ~ ~ l' ~~9 PUBLIC HEARING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 1547 LARPENTEUR • AVENUE Mayor Baldwin opened the Public Hearing at 7:12 P.M. Councilmember Ciernia explained that the investment consultant firm, Edward D. Jones & Co. had requested a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 6-foot diameter satellite dish antenna on the exterior rear wall of the building. A brief discussion followed. On recommendation of the planning commission, Ciernia moved adoption of Resolution R-93-15 granting approval subject to conditions set forth in the conditional use permit. Motion carried unanimously. There being no others wishing to be heard, Mayor Baldwin closed the hearing at 7:17 P.M. RESOLUTION R-93-15 RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 1547 LARPENTEUR AVENUE PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED 1993 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Mayor Baldwin opened the Public Hearing at 7:18 P.M. • City Engineer Terry Maurer presented a slide presentation of the street project history, what improvements are recommended in both the Grove area and Falcon Woods, what the estimated costs are and explained that the council reduced the assessment from 50~ to 40% for residential property with frontage abutting a street which is reconstructed. Bituminous overlay projects shall be assessed to the abutting property on a lot basis. Pathways designated on the city's pathway plan are considered to be city-wide benefit and are funded by the city. Maurer also stated that about 85% of the Grove sidewalks will be replaced. There will be an additional sidewalk added along Hoyt Avenue as requested by residents at the neighborhood meeting. In the Falcon Woods area, an additional hydrant will be included, additional storm sewer deleted and a concrete valley gutter installed instead. The plans have been revised so portions of Summer Street will have an overlay and curb and gutter rather than being reconstructed. C. M. STOWE, 1954.. Autumn, indicated he still does not see the: need for complete reconstruction or curbs in the Falcon Woods area, has other things that he would prefer to spend his money on, and requests council not to approve the project. • ~"~,,, ~:," ~ ~ ,• BRENNA K. QUEBBEO sNrel five to the Gr vee pr of ect Ward to ask the following quests Q: Is there more cost with watermain replacement? p,: Cost of watermain replacement is city funded and not assessed to homeowner. \ Q: Will driveways be repaired from sidewalk to the street? Is that part of the project? A: Yes Q: When will Hoyt Avenue be repaired? A: Since there is joint ownership of Hoyt Avenue in the Grove between Falcon Heights and the City of St. Paul, it is not entirely up to Falcon Heights to decide. It does not seem to be a high priority of the City of St. Paul. Q: How are sidewalks assessed? A: Sidewalks are projected toobewall not be asse/ssed forothesside you live on a corner lot, y yard, only the front footage. Q: Any chance the assessment might go up? - A: It is possible. The bids have not been taken yet. That information should be available at the next hearing. There being no others wishing to be heard, Mayor Baldwin closed the hearings at 7:55 P.M. • ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT Councilmember Ciernia moved to adopt Resolution R-93-16 ordering the improvement and the motion passed unanimously. R-93-16 RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS Councilmember Gehrz inquired about the underground wiring for street lights on certain boulevards in the Grove area and whether this wiring was going to be moved. Maurer indicated that it would be moved by NSP along the curb to facilitate boulevard tree plantings. Maurer also indicated that three trees along Coffman between Folwell and Hoyt would have to be removed because of the proposed pathway. Councilemember Gehrz moved that the resolution approving the plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids be adopted. Motion passed unanimously. ~~ R-93-17 A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING THE ADVERTISEMENT .FOR BIDS PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR UNIVERSITY GROVE SUBDIVISION NUMBER 2 AND ASSOCIATED VARIANCES. Cha ter 9 Section 17.04 Subdivision 2 and Subdivision 4 Administrator Hoyt asked planning intern Brian Standing to explain the planning commission's recommendation to approve the preliminary and final plat of University Grove Subdivision #2 and variances to Section 9-17.04, Subdivisions 2 and 4 of the subdivision code to allow the plat to conform to Auditor's Subdivision 90. Standing said the plat was to correct an error made by the University when 1666 Coffman was platted. The legal description used for 1666 accidentally deleted several lot lines to the south. Two variances were requested from the subdivision ordinance. The variances eliminated the drainage easement and 60 foot right of way along Folwell which was consistent with the Auditor's Subdivision 90. The affected area includes the 2100 block of Folwell Avenue and the 2100 block of Hoyt Avenue. Councilmember Ciernia moved approval of R-93-18(a) as recommended by the planning commission. .Motion carried unanimously. Councilmember Gibson Talbot moved to approve R-93-18(b) as recommended by planning commission. Motion carried unanimously. R-93-18 (a) .RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES FOR UNIVERSITY GROVE SUBDIVISION NUMBER 2 Cha ter 9 Section 17.04 Subd. 2 and 4 R-93-18(b) RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF UNIVERSITY GROVE SUBDIVISION #2 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR SALE OF BONDS FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Dave Maroney of Ehlers and Associates presented information on the sale of bonds to finance the construction of the 1993 street improvements in the city. He suggested council consider authorizing and advertising the sale of bonds to take advantage of favorable current market conditions. After brief discussion, Councilmember Jacobs moved adoption of R-93-19 and motion carried unanimously. R-93-19 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF NOT TO EXCEED $1,075,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1993 • <;~ ~~ ~ ; : ~ ,F ~.. CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACT FOR DESIGN OF AUDIO/VIDEO UPGRADES Administrator Hoyt informed council of the meeting with Bill Bruce relative to a contract with Mr. Bruce for designing the video and audio service for the city. The contract with Mr. Bruce is for $1,550 for providing technical expertise and oversight for the equipment, his review of specifications and overseeingadine installation of the work. Council discussed the need for upg g the video/audio system and Councilmember Gehrz moved to accept the contract with Mr. Bruce. Motion carried unanimously. REQUEST BY MR. AND MRS. KING FOR WAIVER OF FEES FOR VARIANCE REQUEST AND BUILDING PERMIT Mr. and Mrs. King asked for a waiver of the fee for a variance they are requesting. The waiver is being requested because the Kings feel that it was the city's error in issuing a building permit prior to granting the necessary variances for a neighboring garage. Councilmember Gehrz stated that the $45.00 variance fee was to cover city costs only and could be waived given the circumstances. Mayor Baldwin said the council approved the variance for the garage and that city policy of charging for a variance should be followed. After a lengthy discussion and agreeing that this is a unique situation and is not to be viewed as a precedent, Councilmember Gehrz moved to waive the variance request in this specific situation and the following voted in favor of the motion, • Councilmember Ciernia and Councilmember Gibson Talbot. Baldwin and Jacobs voted against the same. Motion carried. The building permit fee was not waived. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS NOTED Solid Waste Commission Minutes of 2/4/93 Solid Waste Commission Minutes of 1/7/93 ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:50 P.M. Tom Baldwin, Mayor Patricia Phillips, Secretary • Date: 22 March 1993 Agenda Item: 4 • . ITEM: Request for a variance in Section 9 - 2.06 of the zoning code for fence height SUBMITTED BY: Mr. and Mrs. King, 1427 West Idaho REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator ITEM DESCRIPTION: Mr. and Mrs. King are requesting a variance of two feet in the maximum fence height allowed in the rear and side yards of their residential property. Background In the letter explaining their request fora variance, the Kings explain that the garage on the adjoining property to the west, 1433 West Idaho, is large and, therefore, replacing their current five foot fence with an eight foot fence is desirable to further obstruct the view of the garage (see A and B). The request is made for all side and rear yard fences for consistency on their property. The top two feet of the proposed eight foot fence would be open lattice work rather than solid wood. • The garage at 1433 West Idaho is longer than a "standard" garage. The additional length of the garage is to the north toward the alley on the property. The garage does not exceed the current height limitations in the zoning code. Related requests before the Commission In the past three years the planning commission granted two variances and denied one variance for fence height above the maximum allowed in the code. 1. A variance request for an eight foot high fence along the south side yard and rear yard of a property adjacent to Ciatti's and Falcon Center was granted because of the unique setting of this residential property directly on the alley and parking area serving these commercial structures (see C). (The fence has not been constructed to date.) 2. A variance request for an eight foot high fence along the 24 foot west wall of a deck was granted to screen a deck from the adjoining property (see D). The deck was located directly across from the neighboring property owner's bedroom window. The property owner constructed a six foot high fence on the remainder of the property. • 3. A variance request for a nine foot high fence in the front yard (maximum allowed is three feet) was denied for a property on Hamline Avenue. The commission • recommended that the property owner continue to buffer his property from commercial property across the street with a landscape screen. Comments from neighbors The property owner at 1433 West Idaho, Mr. Brace, said that he had no objections to the proposal as long as the fence is constructed on or adjacent to the King's property line. He said that when he was constructing his garage, he found the survey stake on the west side of his property, then measured 50 feet to the east to determine the location of his east side property line. This measurement revealed that the existing King fence is about 2 to 4 inches over the property line between the Kings and Braces. Mr. Brace said that he doesn't mind this now, but if a new fence is installed the property line should be determined. (The city requests that property owners determine the location of their property line by finding stakes or hiring a certified land survey. Any variance should include this as a condition.) staff report The city's code allowing for a six foot high fence is adequate in • most situations. The intent of restricting fences to this height is to avoid a tunnel effect .between properties and to keep some consistent open space. Staff cannot determine if the eight foot high fence will more adequately screen the rear 15 feet of the Brace garage from the King property or not. The rear 15 feet is the additional length that makes this garage different from the previous one on the King property. It doesn't appear that the additional three feet in fence height will screen the height of the garage, which meets the zoning code. There is no expressed need to screen the east side of the King property with an eight foot fence. Possible alternatives: 1. Approve the variance for an eight foot fence as requested. 2. Approve the variance for an eight foot fence on the west side and rear west side of the King property to screen the neighbor's garage. as described by the Kings. 3. To deny the variance because there is no benefit from the eight foot fence in screening the adjacent property or there are alternatives to an eight foot fence. L • Recommendation: Staff recommends that alternative two or three be considered by the commission. Alternative two: If the commission finds that: 1, there is a need for additional visual screening of the adjacent garage to the west of the King property; 2. and that an eight foot high fence rather than a six foot high fence or landscape screening is necessary to provide adequate screening; then there is reason to approve a variance on this side of the property. If these two findings cannot be made, then no variance in fence height should be granted. The Kings do not express a need for additional visual screening on the east side of their property. Therefore, there is no reason to vary from the zoning code and grant a variance for an eight foot high fence on this portion of the property. Making the fence height consistent around the King property would • suggest that all newly constructed fences on adjoining properties should be granted variances for eight feet in height to be consistent with the King's fence. Alternative three: If the commission finds that: 1. there is not a need for additional visual screening or 2, that a landscape screen of eight feet or more will meet the property owners' need then the variance should be denied. ATTACHMENTS: A - Letter from Mrs. and Mrs. King, 1427 West Idaho B --Site plan of proposed fence C - Diagram.of variance granted for 1530 Iowa D - Diagram of variance granted for 1700 St. Mary's A February 2, 1993 • Enclosed is application, explanation, and site plan to raise the existing five foot fence to eight feet. The area in yellow is now fenced at five feet around the rear yard, three feet between houses to east and west and continuing to within three feet of public sidewalk (the required set back). To put our fence in scale and attempt to minimize the 4-car garage at 1433 Idaho and to alleviate somewhat, if possible, possible loss of property values, we propose the following. 1. Remove east and west rear fences and reinstall them between the houses not to extend beyond the house or into the front yard. 2. Replace this fence that has been removed with a six foot fence which would have a visually pleasing two foot lattice top, for a total height of eight feet -all fencing to match existing white maintenance-free vinyl. 3. To take the existing three foot fence between the houses (that would be replaced with the new rear fencing) and join to the front three foot fencing extending across the front of property, ending on each side of my sidewalk (three foot set back from public walk). A four foot brick pillar would be installed at end of this fencing by my sidewalk with brass lamps on each post for a visually pleasing entrance to the house. In referring to subdivision 4 (Standards for Granting a Variance), the following statements are true: a. It will not be detrimental to public welfare. b. It will not diminish or impair property values in the area. c. It is necessary for us to preserve and enjoy the substantial rights of our garden (which has been photographed by a nursery for a magazine publication). d. It will not impair supply of light and air to adjacent property. e. It will not impair use of public streets. f. It will not endanger public safety. g. The five garages at 1427 certainly distinguish it from all other properties. This fence is unique but very beautiful as there are substantial plantings and trees that incorporate the fencing to the property. Fencing is also the same material used in a $10,000 replacement of all windows to the house that was done two years ago. • h. The fence does increase my property value and could result in financial loss (because of the garage that is such a "monstrosity" and so "ridiculous" fora 5-car garage on a 50-foot lot. This is a direct quote of a Board member at the meeting of the Board when they granted variances to leave the 4-car garage stand. 1 f~i~-utu ~' y i• ,~ ~-t S ' 5'~~!° i• ~J ~-,,. ---- ~r f' ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~°~ ~, r G' Gt-+--~.~ ~ , ~~ ~ . I ter' y`'~ ~-~ ~ ~~~ i i ~I i € I- ` ~' /~_ 3' c •1 Request for Variance 1700 St. Marys -Lot 15 The Crossroads Owners: Phil Steklenslci and Marianne McNulty Reason for requested variance: We request a variance to Section 9-2.06 ence of Falcon Heights' Planning and Development regulations. We request an increase in the allowable fence height from six (6) feet to eight (8) feet. We would like the eight foot fence to reduce the excessive noise generated by delivery trucks and employees of Warner's Stellian and. Ciatti's in the private " alley that borders the east and south borders of our property (see attached lot drawing). The proposed fence will be constructed of Western red cedar and have an identical appearance on both sides (set attached fence drawing). We believe that a wooden fence eight felt tall will not be detrimental to the public health, " safety, or welfare of residents of Falcon Heights and that this variance will not in any way adversely affect the purpose and the intent of the city's comprehensive guide plan or zoning code. Shopping Center ~~ L ~~ r Private Alley "{ :_ .i ~ Proposed wood fence Existing guard rail F- ~ xisting chainlink fence Ciatti's 7700 St. Marys Lot 75 The Crossroads i St. Marys Ave. ~- {~.ovrarti L 8 feet ~s 8 fe f • I I i I~ I~ a~ Imo' a~ i ~' 0 Ia- I i I I I I I t I I I 2 --~ ~ ~ 1.-Z~ • Date: 3/22/93 Agenda item: S ITEM: Proposed clarifications to the sign ordinance to address temporary commercial signs and .displays not constituting signs SUBMITTED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION: From time to time the city gets requests for temporary commercial signs and 'displays not constituting signs', usually inflated balloons. The city's sign code does not clearly identify when anal how these should be permitted. In the past the city staff approved temporary commercial signs for a period of up to three weeks and had the council approve inflated devices. However, the policy is unclear and has led to problems, especially during the State Fair. Two years ago, an inflated balloon above a store in Bullseye collapsed due to a power brown- • out. The balloon collapsed onto electrical wires and started a fire. During the Fair the Snelling/Larpenteur intersection already has alot of distractions and traffic accidents, the addition of inflated balloons may add to that hazard, even if there are no brown-outs. It is unclear that these types of businesses benefit from the traffic on the way to the Fair. Staff recommends that Falcon Heights adopt the same restrictions that the neighboring communities of Shoreview and Roseville have regarding temporary commercial signs and 'displays not constituting signs'. It also recommends that aerial search lights be deleted as a temporary use due to the close proximity of residential and commercial land uses in the city. Recommendation: Existina• 9-13.03 [11] Displays not constituting signs. Animal displays, pieces of sculpture, fountains, aerial search lights or other displays or features which direct attention to an object product, place, activity, person, institution, organization or business yet not defined herein as such or commonly considered a sign, shall comply requirements of Section 9-13.03. Be revised to_: 9-13.02 [11] Tem~orar~ commercial signs and dis~lays not constituting signs. Banners, pennants, whirling devices, balloons, animal displays, pieces of sculpture, fountains, lights, or other displays or features which direct attention to an object, product, place, activity, person, institution, business are not permitted in any zone except in a business zone for business grand openings or special civic events. One temporary sign and/or 'one display not constituting a sign' may be granted to a specific business or shopping center for these events. No more than one temporary sign and one 'display not constituting a sign' may be granted for a shopping center or building at one time. On such occasions, a temporary sign permit for up to three consecutive days may be issued by the city. The permit will be granted under the condition that any hazards are addressed and that all requirements in Section 9 -13.01 are met. ACTION REQUESTED: Discuss the proposed amendments and schedule a public hearing on the proposed changes in the zoning code, if desirable. • • • Date: 3/22/93 Agenda item: 6 ITEM: Proposed .deletion of Section 9-2.15 [304J(e) of the zoning code relating to building permit fees SUBMITTED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION: The zoning code includes a provision for allocating building permit fees which is no longer applicable for two reasons. 1. It allocates 25~ of the plan check fee to the building official. The city currently contracts with the building official for a set rate ($500/month) which is a consistent, cost-effective way to fund this position. The city provided a percentage of the Rottlund plan check fees to the inspector because the project exceeded his contract expectations. . 2. It provides for reimbursement to the fire department budget for any plan reviews that it does. The fire marshal and fire chief are the personnel doing the reviews. The fire marshal is a full-time city employee. The time spent on any plan reviews is a cost incurred by the city and covered through salary expenditures. If the fire department budget requires more funding as a result of this, it is addressed in the overall city budget. All revenues received by the city are receipted for the city as a whole. Although the staff analyzes the sources for revenue, with the exception of some special revenue and/or enterprise funds which have a fee for service, the city's revenues are not credited to individual departments within the city. For example, the planning fees received from the U of M for its plat change ($500) are not credited to the planning budget. The city's overall budget is designed to provide a variety of services within the revenue constraints of the city. ACTION REQUESTED: Discuss and schedule public hearing on the deletion of 9-15.03 [304] e of the zoning code regarding the allocation of building permit fees. °I _ z, as LcX! STI/~(r, 304(e). Allocation of Building Permit Fees The Building Inspector shall be paid as his fee for • services rendered 25 percent of any plan checking fee. The Fire Department shall be reimbursed for all actual time involved with plan checking not to exceed 25 percent of any plan checking fee. Any portion of the 25 percent not expended by the Fire Department shall be credited to the Fire Department Capital Improvement Fund. The remaining portion of the permit/plan check fees shall be retained by the city. • • Date: 3/22/93 Agenda item: 7 ITEM: Update on the commercial zoning code revisions SUBMITTED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION: Staff will give the commission an update on the commercial zoning code revisions and discuss a possible timetable for their completion.