HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCAgenda_93Feb22PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
February 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
Minutes of the January 25 meeting are being reviewed by the
attorney
3. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
4. 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
5. Request for a conditional use permit for a satellite dish at
1547 W. Larpenteur Avenue, Bullseye Center
6. Introduction of the proposed revision in the commercial zones
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS
8. ADJOURN
•
~, ..x ,.
MINUTES
• REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 10, 1993
Baldwin convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT
Baldwin, Ciernia, Gehrz, Gibson Talbot and Jacobs. Also present
were Chenoweth and-Hoyt.
MINUTES OF 1/27/93 APPROVED
Council approved the Minutes of January 27, 1993 by unanimous
consent.
RECOGNITION OF JUDY SABEAN AND NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH CAPTAINS
Baldwin explained that Falcon Heights has been the first city in
Minnesota to achieve 100% coverage in a "Neighborhood Crime
Watch" program and that much of the credit for this achievement
is due to the hard work of Judy Sabean, Neighborhood Watch
Coordinator. Baldwin presented Ms. Sabean with a city pin and
read the Resolution of Commendation.
RESOLUTION R-93-11
• A RESOLUTION COMMENDING VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR JUDY SABEAN
AND ALL THE NEIGHBORHOOD BLOCKWORKERS FOR THEIR DEDICATION
TO A SUCCESSFUL NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH PROGRAM
ITEM C-4 MOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA TO POLICY AGENDA
Ciernia requested that Item C-4, Request for Reimbursement of
Costs from Mr. and Mrs. King, 1427 W. Idaho, be removed from the
Consent Agenda and placed on the Policy Agenda for discussion.
Council concurred.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Council approved the following Consent Agenda by unanimous
consent:
1. Disbursements
a. General Disbursements through 2%04/93,
$1,135,468.19
b. Payroll, 1/15/93 - 1/31/93, $11,504.90
2. Awarding the tree pruning contract for 1993 to S„ & S.
Tree Specialists
3. Awarding tree removal and emergency pruning contract to
S. & S. Tree Specialists
4. Adoption of Resolution R-93-12 Proclaiming the week of
March 7-14, 1993 as "Volunteers of America Week" in
Falcon Heights
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 10, 1993
PAGE 2
5.
6.
~ a : ~ ~ ~ ~'
4''k al ~ y ~, ~
y
Approving donation of 1972 sewer router to the City of
Hugo for parts Inc. #2001,
Licenses: Mr. Movies #1099, E-Z Recycling,
and Kath Heating & A/C #2000
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED 1993 STREET IMPROVEMENTS SCHEDULED
Jacobs moved adoption of Resolution R-93-13 scheduling the
improvement hearing on the proposed 1993 street improvment
project for March 10, 1993 on or about 7:00 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.
RESOLUTION R-93-13
A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON IMPROVMENT ON THE
MATTER OF THE 1993 STREET IMPROVEMENTS
•
AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT SERVICES FOR AUDIO-VISUAL DESIGN AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Hoyt explained that staff is working toward improvement of the
audio/visual equipment and are also looking at new cameras as the
present ones are aging. Staff has met with Bill Bruce, cable
coordinator for Little Canada and he is willing to contract with
Falcon Heights at a price of $35.00 per hour, or a set fee, to
design and write specifications for the city's needs. Following
a brief discussion Council authorized staff to contract with Mr.
Bruce for up to 20 hours. If additional time is needed the
matter will again be presented to Council for discussion.
DENIAL OF REQUEST FROM MR. AND MRS. KING, 1427 W. IDAHO FOR
COPYING COSTS
Ciernia commented on the fact that some of Mr. and Mrs. King's
costs were incurred due to the city's error in issuing a building
permit for the oversized garage at 1433 W. Idaho, and that
perhaps, the property owners could be reimbursed for the materals
prepared for Council and the Planning Commission. Baldwin
explained that it is not unusual for people to incur expenses
when presenting information to the Council and Commissions. He
stressed that the city simply does not let individuals spend tax
money, that it would be against city policy. Gibson Talbot
indicated she felt it was an unfortunate situation but she would
be uncomfortable with reimbursement, esepcially when the city
would have provided the copies for Plannning Commission and'"
Council had it been requested.
Baldwin called for a motion to reimburse the Kings. No motion
followed. Request denied.
r1
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 10, 1993
PAGE 3
~ t,
={ q e
VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION EVENT SCHEDULED FOR 3/18/93, 7-9 P.M.
Council briefly discussed what type of event should be held to
recognize the city's volunteers. It was decided to hold the
event, which will include a brief program and refreshements, in
the council chambers on March 18, 1993, 7 - 9 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m.
Tom Baldwin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shirley Chenoweth, City Clerk
a
•
ITEM: Public Heap
University
SUBMITTED BY: -Susan
REVIEWED BY: Susan
Brian
Frank
EXPLANATION/SUMMARY:
Meeting Date: 2/22/93
Agenda Item: 4
^ing on the preliminary and final plat for
Grove Subdivision Number 2
Carlson Weinberg, University of Minnesota
Hoyt, City Administrator
Standing, City Planner
Kriz, Consulting Engineer
The University of Minnesota is requesting a preliminary and final
plat of University Grove Subdivision #2 to conform to Auditor's
Subdivision 90, which was superseded by a later plat at the time
1666 Coffman was developed. The affected area includes the 2100
block of Folwell Avenue and the 2100 block of Hoyt Avenue. The
plat will legally re-establish lot lines eliminated by the 1666
Coffman plat, and will not change commonly understood property
boundaries.
The University is also requesting a variances from the
subdivision regulations. Section 9-17.04 Subdivision 2 of the
subdivision ordinance requires that minor and collector streets
• maintain a minimum right-of-way of 60 feet. The University is
requesting a 10 foot variance for Folwell Avenue to allow for the
existing 50 foot right of way.
Section 9-17.04 Subdvision 4 of the subdivision ordinance
requires 10 foot drainage and utility easements along all lot
lines. The University is requesting a variance to allow no such
easements along the re-platted lots. The conditions of both
variances are consistent with Auditor's Subdivision 90, which
pre-dates the enactment of these particular requirements.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Diagram of proposed plat
B. Engineer's report dated February 8, 1993
C. Resolution for variances
ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Hold public hearing
2. Approve 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.
3. Approve the preliminary and final plat for University Grove
• Subdivision 2.
r `~
t'.
He
~in~~i
February 8, 1993
File: 330-030-53
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Maier Stewart & Associates Inc.
Ms. Susan Hoyt
City Administrator
City of Falcon Heights
2077 Larpenteur Avenue West
Falcon Heights, MN 55113
RE: PLAT REVIEW FOR UNIVERSITY GROVr:
SUBDIVISION NO. 2
Dear Ms. Hoyt:
We have reviewed the proposed plat of University Grove Subdivision No. 2, which consists
of 12 lots located along Hoyt Avenue and Folwell Avenue, just east of Coffman Street. These
lots were originally platted in Auditor Subdivision No. 90 and built in the early 1960's. An
error was made in 1990 with the recording of Registered Land Survey No. 484. This
Registered Land Survey included the area over these lots as one large Tract D. This
• automatically eliminated the lot lines as established in Auditor Subdivision No. 90 and created
a title problem for all the property owners. The purpose of the proposed plat of University
Grove Subdivision No. 2 is to re-establish the original. lot lines. Our review comments are
as follows:
^ The plat we reviewed was dated December 21, 1992, and prepared by Egan, Field, &
I~lowak, Inc., Surveyors.
^ Lot configuration and dimensions are consistent with the original lot lines in Auditors
Subdivision No. 90.
^ By the current City ordinance, 10.00 foot drainage and utility easements are required
along all lot lines. However, there are no easements on any of the adjacent lots to this
subdivision. If the easements are not to be required, this should be done by a variance
to the subdivision. I/ ~ lZ_
^ Folwell Avenue is being dedicated as a 50.00 foot right-of--way, which is consistent with
Auditors Subdivision No. 90, but is required to be 60.00 feet by ordinance. A ~ariance
for this subdivision is required for the reduced right-of--way width. ~ 'fi ~~
• I 1959 SLOAN PLACE, SUITE 200, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 612-774-6021
9800 SHELARD PARKWAY, SUITE 102, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441 612-546-0432 • Equal Opporiuniry Employer
Ms. Susan Hoyt
February 8, 1993
Page. Two
^ Lot 2, Block 5 is a lazge open azea and should be labeled as an outlot instead of a lot.
This preserves the lot as anon-buildable status. ~
We recommend approval of the proposed plat of University Grove Subdivision No. 2, based
on the above comments.
Yours truly,
MAIER STEWART & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Frank S. Kriz, R.L.S.
FSK:tp
aiaoso~.r~n
•
•
y- c
DRAFT RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCE
• FOR UNIVERSITY GROVE SUBDIVISION NUMBER 2
On February 22, 1993 the Falcon Heights planning commission
recommended the following variances for University Grove
Subdivision Number 2, consisting of 2151, 2161, 2173, 2148, 2154,
2160 & 2170 Folwell Avenue and 2141, 2147 & 2153 Hoyt Avenue, for
approval by the city council:
Minor 6 collector street right of way. Chapter 9, Section
17.04 Subdivision 2.
A variance of 10 feet for Folwell Avenue to permit a 50 foot
right of way.
Drainage & utility easements. Chapter 9 Section 17.04,
Subdivision 4.
•
A variance to allow no drainage or utility easements along
the platted lots of this subdivision.
in the variances for Universit Grove Subdivision Num er
a. That the variance will not be detrimental to the public
welfare;
b. That the granting of the variance will not
substantially diminish or impair property values or
improvements in the area;
c. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights by re-establishing previous property lines and
right of ways;
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. That 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.
•
PROPOSED=
I
_ I
J I SO
e
W
•I
2
o I
. I
e
~• I
W
~.
~`o~= ~.
M
f I
o I
e
r
z
i
r I
o~
UNIVERSITY GROVE SUBUiviSi~
i ~ I ~
OWN[R; I r'.'.
I t/NIYCR S17Y •• I
I OF
L . ..! I MINN(SO }A
.;•.:~
k v
`, .
~~
as f-:T:~~_
t~?? : ~'
~... ~ ~~qE~%y ~ X3.00 t
`~ s` ~; [NIA 2 ", ~ ~s.oo ~
PF'~t ~._' No. iI~NQ C>
,.~. I a+ ins :+a WE'D., 3 ,_ , ~s,oo" ~~
fy
,
..7w
' N ~~ ~' ~ _
: j
V
~
/O
i I
/`)
~:
(.!
e
:'
;'
N
a
1 ~,~
~ __
~
'~ O Z i
~0
Y N. a
r10 ~ ` _! ~
~
Y ~.
:
~ W
=
~
t '
: I 2
S
t W
e
I
~ h ~1
~ N$ A
~
-y
W 1 ^
t
+". ~
I i
> I
f
h
Y _
O • I V.
i
I ,_
! r ( t_5
z
3
e
_ ~ AO
~fN1M N.!$ nfeSne
.--"' rs0.u ~~~-
•-.lerAt•sr[.
., H ~ i
line of NM NE't of /M N.E Y4 a Sen. ZO
~T _
`
n
C~ 1 ~~
I ~
2~
3 =
H ~
7 I
.
i
~
i
Yj R
~ ~W
J= I
r t.%
WP
2
~ e t•/ U
/ t /
Nom` ~
d .
~ :~
~
J
.
.4r /'
~~
r
~ '0
{•., r
Y i3~ ~+ I tit'
~
.~ a e
IJ
3
_
~ ~
~, c,
N
i
(~~
`~ ~ ~j ~ A
~
O~
J R
s )a7Z JB'
F. I 2
,
' ~ F
r
I
~
r
Gf ~
;_
. o ~
,tee Q?Q~~ o
~Nfr _
j ~~~
~ ~Yb ~~.~,
0
w
-~ T --~ r:
T _~ 1 ER! OWNIRt 1 pWM[M 0[~ OWN Ilt Mnrin Ws1s~ ~WNIR: ~ --
OWR[RI rnree [M;~I Oeewwer I ~arM Arwell I (teNle W1r/ I Dari/ 1 ~ [ I AINn UMI • I
IIt1'^'w/ I Newry A/siI
I.
i ~~~
I e e
~_~ •Y z
F =~
I ~o U ~
~ •~ >
. '-
i e
.~ e
~ I ~
v ~ r~ t
r ~
I , 1,
0
~L y o
••
I
0
?
Q
a
n ~
t,
,a ~ _
•
Meeting Date: 2/22/93
Agenda Item: S
ITEM: Request forda ofnthelzoningscoderfor 1547rLarpenteur
10.01 [2] ( )
Avenue.
SUBMITTED BY: Mr. Kevin Alm, Edward D. Jones & Co.
REVIEWED BY: Tim Hilger, representing property owner
Brian Standing, Administrative Intern acting as
planner.
EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION:
Request:
Edward D. Jones & Co., an investment consultant firm, plans to
open an office in Bullseye Plaza at 1547 Larpenteur Avenue. Mr.
Alm, the office manager, has 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.
Analysis:
. The nature of Jones & Co.'s work requires uninterrupted computer
and communications links with the firm's headquarters in St.
Louis and with market information systems around the world.
Jones & Co. has designed its system entirely around satellite
transmission. The zoning code for a B-2 district lists broadcast
and telecommunications facilities as a conditional use.
As indicated in the site plan, the antenna would be mounted to
the exterior rear wall of the building, abutting an alley. The
antenna would protrude from the roof line by 6 1/2 feet, and
would be mounted in a recessed area of the building, 14 feet from
the alley right of way. According to the manufacturer, the
antenna would weigh 383 pounds and is designed to survive a
maximum wind speed of 125 m.p.h.
Staff have visited the location to determine potential visual
impacts on the surrounding area. The alley abuts the rear of 6
residential lots on Crawford Avenue. The antenna should not be
visible at all from 1522, 1526 or 1532 Crawford, due to the angle
of view or to obscuring garages. The view from 1538, directly
opposite the proposed antenna location, is completely obscured by
a row of tall evergreens. 1540 Crawford, to the northwest, is
partially screened by a garage and two large deciduous trees;
foliage should entirely obscure the antenna in the summer. From
1546 Crawford, a garage and the neighboring trees should restrict
the view of the antenna to the extreme southwestern corner of the
• lot.
Agenda Item 5
Page 2
2/22/93
• Because of the location of the antenna on the rear recessed
portion of the building, it will not be visible from Larpenteur
or Snelling Avenues, or from the Bullseye Plaza parking lot. The
primary visual impact would appear to be from the alley itself
and from the rear Embers parking lot.
Approximately 20 feet to the east of the antenna site is an
exposed electrical conduit that protrudes roughly 6 to 7 feet
from the Champion roof line. The visual impact of the proposed
antenna should be no worse than this unattractive existing
structure, and may actually help screen the conduit from the
west.
The lease agreement between property owner and the tenant
addresses the location and mounting of the dish to protect the
Bullseye Center from any damage the dish might cause.
Staff notified property owners within 350 feet of the Center
about the proposed dish. As of this writing, Mr. Jim Warner,
Jr., owner of Falcon Center, made the only inquiry. He was told
it would not be visible from Snelling Avenue.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends granting the conditional use permit, subject to
• the following conditions:
• no more than one such antenna may be installed per
building;
• 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;
• the antenna and all mounting hardware must be
maintained in a safe and operable condition, and;
• no portion of the antenna may directly overhang the
alley.
A conditional use permit goes with the property, not the
business. It may be revoked if conditions are not met.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Applicant's statement
B. Site plan for 1547 Larpenteur with adjacent properties
ACTION REQUESTED:
• Consider granting a conditional use permit under section 9-10.01
[2] (d) of the zoning code because the antenna is a permitted
conditional use, and because it will not adversely affect the
health, safety, convenience, comfort or welfare of the occupants
of surrounding lands. Adopt recommended conditions.
•
G
;' Edward D. Jones & Co.
Member New York Stock Exchange, Inc. and Securities Investor Protection Corporation
To: Susan Hoyt
City Administrator
City of Falcon Heights
Fr: Kevin Alm ~ ,,
Investment Representative, Edward D. Jones & Co
Re: Satellite Communications System
Edward D. Jones & Co.
Dear Susan:
I have ut to ether a summary of the relevant issues pertaining to
Per our conversation earlier today, p g
the installation of a satellite receiving antenna (dish) at the location described below.
SITE LOCATION:
Address: Bullseye Plaza
1547 W. Larpenteur Ave, Unit 7
Falcon Heights, MN
SA
February 10, 1993
PLACEMENT OF RECEIVER:
The dish will be mounted at roof level, on a mounting pole attached to the back of the
building. Specifically, on the outside wall of the common area between units 6 & 7 (see site plan,.
attached). m
So th
SPECIFICATIONS OF RECEIVER:
Wall Mount (Proposed Mounting)
- Height above parapet
-Antenna reflector width
- Weight of system
- Maximum survival wind speed
6.5 feet
6 feet (1.8 meters)
383 pounds
125 mph
~~
•
•
E-'-- p
z
P
A
___ _ t
I
I~ ~
rn
~
~
3
z °'
.
rn
r ~
m ~
~,
i
C ~
r ~,
r
f77 _
I.I
' I_.I
:I, .
?.:'
G
~i
Q~
2 ~ o
A O ^' `~
4` Z v
5 ~
'{ZI
m
L
2
.c~
..
~~
n
9
5`
2 ( C
L
O
W
lT
W
N
v,
N
s
v,
N
~L
o m
n '~
P
O q
P
a 2
i '^
A
T
N
'V
•
~- ~
~ ~
z C
~
c ~
r,
1 ~
"'C
z
~ ~
a~ 3 s
2
cn
t
s
~ ~
o
.~
3~
~y ~
W
W
~~
cr
W
W
N
N
~ -~
~~
~:J N
N
s
~~~ ~
N
N
N
N
ao
,,
Q
~~
oa
~~
oa
~z
M
N
s
r
(1 0 ^~
`1 ~ Z v
°c ~,
-~ Z
Z
~-
1'~
r
m
-t
3
rn
7°'
v -~
0
~ 1
0
n ~
Z
r
Z
~~
n
~'1
C
Meeting Date: 2/22/93
. Agenda Item 6
ITEM: Introduction of the proposed revisions in the
commercial zones
SUBMITTED BY: Fred Hoisington, Planning Consultant
REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator
Brian Standing, Planning Intern
EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION:
In 1991 the city adopted a comprehensive plan. The plan called
for some revisions in the city's commercial zones, primarily to
eliminate some unusual zones, like B-lA and E-B, and to establish
a neighborhood commercial zone.
Consulting planner, Fred Hoisington, will present the preliminary
work on the commercial zone changes. He prepared the attached
portions of the zoning code for discussion (Attachment A).
Please refer to your zoning code book (grey loose-leaf) for the
existing codes.
All commercial property owners in the city were notified of the
• proposed changes and sent preliminary drafts of these sections of
the code. Fred Hoisington and the staff invited all commercial
property owners to attend a meeting to discuss these changes.
Mr. Horazdovsky, of Hoyt-Hamline Auto Repair, Mr. Ladner and Mr.
Whermann of Northome and Ms. Gimmestad of B & J .Floral attended
the discussion session.
This is for discussion.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Commercial portion of .the zoning map
B - Draft of proposed commercial zoning code changes
ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Introduction by Fred Hoisington
2. Discussion
3 Possible timetable for changes
~1
0
0
o~
~o ao
~o~
~J
:o.
~ ~ ~'<~ <: •i: i
;G D
~ _ _
~ `~ y
1 _
~ ~ _ _
1 ~ _
1 .
1
1 ~ _ -
1 .
_~~
~~~f.R~IjO(INi
°~~y~Tll T I'
m ~SIMPS[
O
a ~
LD-LJ1J1~11~1LLLJ
m
T~J--L-I--I--L-~11J ~ ~
.~.
°~ ~ P
eAIB RT T.a HO
• ~ e ~ LTO
~'
SHELDI
I ~~ I~ ~~5
.. ~~
DRAFT
•
9-8.01 "B-1" Limited Business District
Subdivision 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the Limited
Business District is to provide for a variety of limited business,
~ service, employment and institutional uses which are freestanding
in nature, require larger sites and are or can be made to be
compatible with adjacent land uses. Except where specifically
listed, Limited Business Districts are not intended to accommodate
retail or wholesale businesses.
Subdivision 2. Permitted Uses. No structure or land shall be used
except for the following uses:
a. Banks and financial institutions, except drive-ins.
b. Medical offices and clinics.
c. Offices, business and professional.
d. Publicly owned and operated buildings and uses provided
there shall be no outdoor storage of equipment or trucks
• exceeding a capacity of one and one-half (1 1/2) tons, materials
or supplies.
Subdivision 3. Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted
subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit (CUP):
a. Bank drive-in facilities.
b. Churches.
c. Colleges and academies.
d. Child Care facilities and nursery schools subject to licensing
by the State of Minnesota.
e. Funeral homes and mortuaries.
f. Garden supply stores.
g. Hospitals for human care, nursing homes, rest homes and
retirement homes.
h. Limited fabricating and processing of a product in
. conjunction with any permitted use when such products are
wholly processed within a building and such use is deemed
appropriate and consistent with the character of the district
and environs. Where such uses consist of more than one
~ principal building, plans for such development shall be
submitted as a Planned Unit Development as regulated in Part
16.
i. Historical buildings, museums, art institutes, galleries,
playhouses.
j. Multi-family housing as regulated in an "R" District.
k. Private clubs and lodges not operated for a profit.
1. Radio and television studios.
m. Research centers and laboratories.
n. Schools or studios for dance, music, art, photography or
• interior design.
o. Veterinary clinics.
PART 9. "B-1-A" LIMITED BUSINESS AND PROCESSING DISTRICT (repeal)
9-10.01 "B-2" Central Business District
Subdivision 1. Purpose and Intent. This district is intended to
apply only to the four quadrants of the Larpenteur and Snelling
intersection. It is a diversified district that is primarily intended
to allow retail, business services, office and public uses which are
integral parts of a shopping center or are clustered to function as
an integrated center where parking can be shared. With the
exception of limited wholesale and custom manufacturing
establishments, this district is primarily for retail uses which sell
goods and services directly to the consumer.
Subdivision 2. Permitted Uses. No structure or land shall be used
except for the following uses (SIC =Standard Industrial
• Classifications from the Office of Management and Budget, SIC
Manual, 1987):
zl is ~~3
a. Auto supply stores (SIC 553).
•
b. Apparel and accessory stores (SIC 56).
c. Beauty and barbershops (SIC 723 & 724).
d. Computer programming and data processing services (SIC
737).
e. Diaper and laundry services provided not more than six
employees are employed on the premises at one time (SIC
7219).
f. Eating and drinking establishments (SIC 58).
g. Finance, insurance and real estate establishments (SIC 60-
67).
h. Food stores (SIC 54).
i. General merchandise stores (SIC 53).
j. Home furnishing and equipment stores (SIC 57).
k. Hotels and motels (SIC 701).
1. Laundry (family), Laundromat and dry cleaning
establishments (SIC 7211 & 7215).
m. Mailing, reproduction, commercial art, photography and
stenographic services (SIC 733).
n. Medical offices and clinics (SIC 801-804).
o. Miscellaneous retail establishments (SIC 59) except fuel
dealers (SIC 598), adult use stores and pawnshops.
p. Motion picture theaters (SIC 783).
q. Offices, business and professional.
• r. Office and art supply stores, retail.
z~~~~~
s. Paint and wallpaper stores, retail (SIC 523).
•
t. Personal service establishments (SIC 729).
u. Physical fitness facilities (SIC 7991).
v. Printing and duplicating shops provided not more than six
employees are employed on the premises at one time (SIC
7334).
w. Public and essential service uses.
x. Radio and television broadcasting and cable television
studios (SIC 483 & 484}.
y. Schools and studios for art, photography (SIC 722), dance
(SIC 791), music and interior design.
z. Video rental stores (SIC 784).
Subdivision 3. Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted
• subject to the issuance of a CUP.
a. Adult uses including bookstores, motion picture theaters,
motion picture rental, massage parlors, bathhouse/sauna
facilities, health/sport clubs, novelty businesses, modeling
studios, and similar adult use establishments subject to the
following conditions. The use shall:
1. Be no nearer a residence than 200 feet,
2. Have no rear entry except for required emergency access,
3. Have no customer parking at the rear of the building,
4. Have no doors on video viewing booths,
5. Have no display of sexual activity, sexually explicit
material or paraphernalia visible by the public from the
exterior of the building,
•
Z) JS~~~
6. Be limited in operation to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 11:00
• p.m., and
7. Have signage which is generic in nature and identifies
only the type of business being conducted.
b. Animal grooming and pet stores provided there shall be no
boarding of animals on the site.
c. Car washes which are incidental to the principal use and
meet the standards of Section 9-14 (17).
d. Child care and nursery school facilities subject to licensing
by the State of Minnesota.
e. Charitable gambling establishments subject to the following:
1.
2.
• f. Custom manufacturing of hand made goods that are sold on
the premises provided the manufacturing operation is
incidental to a wholesale or retail operation.
g. Drive-in establishments subject to the performance
standards Section 9-14 (17) of this code.
h. Motor fuel stations subject to the performance standards as
specified in Section 9-14 (14) of this code.
i. Multi-family housing by Planned Unit Development.
j. Pool and billiard halls subject to the following:
1. The operation of such establishments shall not negatively
impact the reasonable peace and quiet of surrounding
residential areas.
2. Hours of operation shall be limited to 10:00 a.m. to 12:00
midnight. All applicable curfews will be enforced on the
• premises.
vl~sl~~
. 3. Implementation of a security plan, which must be
approved by the local law enforcement official, will be
required. The security plan shall include provisions for the
following; adequate security lighting, controlling loitering
~ and any disorderly behavior within the building, in the
parking lot or anywhere else on the premises; prohibiting
the sale, use or possession of alcohol or any other controlled
substance without a prescription.
4. Rear door will serve as an emergency exit only.
5. Adequate supervision will be required including a
minimum of two adult employees on the premises during all
hours of operation until closing. Additional supervisory
and/or security personnel may be required at the City
Council's discretion.
6. No person shall establish, maintain or operate an
amusement establishment as defined in this ordinance
without a license issued by the City.
. 7. Compliance with all other applicable provisions of the
Falcon Heights City ordinances shall be required.
8. Other conditions, as deemed appropriate by the City
Council, may be applied in response to site specific
conditions at the time the Conditional Use Permit is issued.
Violation of any of the above stated conditions or any other
conditions included as part of the approved Conditional Use
Permit shall be deemed ample grounds for revocation of the
permit.
9. The Conditional Use Permit shall terminate upon a change
in amusement establishment ownership and/or the closing
of the amusement establishment.
k. Video arcades (SIC 7993) subject to the following:
1.
2.
C,
~~1~1~3
v
• 1. Wholesale sales of small hand made goods that are produced
on the premises.
Subdivision 4. Permitted Accessory Uses.
~ Subdivision 5. Height and Yard Requirements.
Subdivision 6. Additional Requirements. For all permitted and
conditional uses in the B-2 District at least 50% of the street
frontage of the building shall be see-through glass which is
unobstructed by signage or other covering.
9-11.01 "B-3" Neighborhood Convenience Business District
Subdivision 1. PurQose and Intent. The purpose of these districts
is to provide for small scale consumer goods stores and limited
service establishments which deal directly with the customer by
whom the goods and services are consumed. They are primarily
intended to serve the surrounding neighborhood rather than the
entire community.
• Subdivision 2. Permitted Uses. No structure or land shall be used
except for the following uses:
a. Barber shops.
b. Beauty shops.
c. Convenience grocery stores excluding motor fuel facilities.
d. Drug stores/pharmacies.
e. Dry cleaners and laundry pickup stations including
incidental pressing and repair.
f. Florists.
g. Laundromats - self serve.
h. Medical and dental clinics.
i•
21~s~y3
i. Offices, business and professional.
,s
j. Other small consumer goods shops (not repair or services)
having a maximum floor area of 1,000 square feet which sell
food, apparel and a variety of small specialty shopping goods
including establishments such as sporting goods, book,
stationary,. jewelry, camera, novelty and optical stores.
Subdivision 3. Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted
subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit (CUP):
a. Automobile repair establishments (SIC 753) subject to the
following:
1. The use is existing as of the date of adoption of this
amendment,
2. The structure and use shall not be expanded without City
Council approval,
3. Any change in use shall be to the same or another B-3
permitted or conditional use,
4. No more than five (5) cars shall be parked outdoors
overnight at any one time,
5. There shall be no outdoor storage of supplies, materials
or trash, and
6. Parking areas shall be screened from view from
residential areas to a minimum height of six (6) feet by a
year around 80% opaque landscaped or masonry buffer.
b. Child Care facilities and nursery schools subject to licensing
by the State of Minnesota.
c. Motor fuel stations as an integral part of a convenience
store.
9-11.01 "EB" Existing Business District (repeal)
•
2I «~~3
6-B
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
SUNIIKARY OF PROPOSED COMMERCIAL ZONING CHANGES
General:
• Purpose and intent statements have been added to
describe in general terms the overall character of the
area and the types of uses permitted.
• Land use descriptions have been modified to conform to
federal Standard Industrial Classifications.
B-1 Limited Business District:
• Does not include radio and television receiving and
transmitting devices as a conditional use.
B-lA Limited Business and Processing District: (repeal)
B-2 Central Business District:
• Standard Industrial Classification codes have been
included in the descriptions of permitted and
conditional uses.
• Adds finance, insurance & real estate establishments,
hotels & motels, motion picture theaters, personal
service establishments and physical fitness facilities
as permitted uses.
• Does not include appliance, heating & plumbing
service, pet shops, garden supply, multi-family
residences, or wholesale operations as permitted uses.
• Adds adult use, pet shops, animal grooming, child care
& nursery school, charitable gambling, custom hand-
made manufacturing and multi-family residences as
conditional uses.
• Adds glass storefront requirements.
• Excludes pawn shops from permitted retail uses.
B-3 Neighborhood Business District: (new district)
• «~ FALCON HEIGHTS
2077 W. LARPENTEUR AVENUE FALCON HEIGHTS, MN 55113-5594 PHONE (612) 644-5050 FAX (612) 644-8675
19 February 1993
MEMO
TO: Planning Commissioners
FROM: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator
RE: Follow-up to 1433 West Idaho variances
On January 27, 1993 the city council approved all variances for
the garage at 1433 West Idaho. This was the recommendation from
the planning commission.
The attached letter was delivered to the city from Mr.and Mrs.
King for distribution to the city council and planning
commission.
~,
HOME OF THE MINNESOTA STATE FAIR AND TFiE U OF M INSTITUTE OF A.rRICULTURE
PRINT;;D GN ^.=CYCLED PAPER
7RF.E CIIY f'SA ~,
February 2~, 1993
• TO: Residents of the 1400 Block
South Side of California Avenue
North Side of Idaho Avenue
RE: Garage at 1433 Idaho Avenue
Dear Neighbor:
Responding to several phone calls, we thought others would be concerned who perhaps did not see the live TV coverage
of the hour and a half meeting of the city council on January 25, which was run in its entirety six or seven times during
the following days.
The problem first arose when it was observed the slab of concrete covered far more of the rear yard than code provided
for. Not until the garage was nearly completed did the full impact of its size and height become very apparent.
WE CONVEYED OUR CONCERNS TO THE CITY WHO STATED THEY HAD MADE A MISTAKE IN ISSUING THE
PERMIT, AND ASTOP-WORK ORDER WAS ISSUED.
On Monday, January 25, we met with the Planning Commission. Mr. Brace, the property owner, spoke at length, indicating
he demolished a 10-year old double garage and he would not have taken this action to gain only a 3-car garage. It was
a 4-car garage he wanted. He stated he had acted in good faith and was at that time unaware of the mistake made by
the city in issuing a permit for an illegal 4-car garage.
Mrs. King addressed the legality of building such a structure without first obtaining the proper variances. Further concerns
were expressed regarding:
• 1. Potential loss of property values -particularly to the owners of the adjacent east and west properties and
the property directly across the alley, and some loss to all property owners in the block, particularly those
in direct line-of-sight of the structure.
2. Destruction of the character of the neighborhood with this grossly out-of-scale building which is some 980
square feet compared to the 1 and 2-car garages with 600 square feet (or less which are within code).
3. The future possibility of a new owner of this 2-bedroom home with its total of 5 garages (4 in the rear; one
in the front) seeing an opportunity to conduct an auto repair or some other business activity and/or a place
to permanently park a large motor home, boat, etc., on the extensive concrete driveway is a threat, further
devaluing the property values and downgrading the neighborhood's appearance.
4. We are setting precedent which could lead to the courts if one person is permitted a 4-car garage and
another person is denied the same privilege.
The Commission considered three alternatives:
1. Grant the variances and lift the stop-work order. The variances needed were:
a. Change the percentage of rear yard required to be left open .
b. Change side yard setback from required five feet for this size structure to onefoot.
c. Change the code allowing 4 cars parked on a property to 5 or more.
• Note: The 4-car garage plus the 1-car front garage allows parking for 10 cars on the property -
potentially creating a parking lot in this residential neighborhood.
2. Downsize the garage -still requiring variances.
3. ~ Demolish the structure - go back to square one for a garage within the 600 foot code and in keeping with
the other 1 and 2-car garages in the area. There is one 3-car garage, a variance granted to a previous
owner -which at the time lt was built should have been contested; lt is far less obtrusive than the 4-car
garage. Mr. Brace could then seek reimbursement for his costs from the City's errors and omissions
• insurance carrier.
It must be noted the Commission stated that a permit fora 4-car garage would never have been granted if no garage was
on the property. Since Mr. Brace was destroying a garage, there in effect was no aaracte on the property; a fact either
overlooked or misunderstood by the Commission.
The Planning Commission voted 4 to 3 to recommend to the Council alternative 1. This, in their opinion, would create the
least financial hardship and inconvenience to Mr. Brace.
The following Wednesday, the City Council met to consider the Planning Commissions's recommendations. Mr. Brace and
Mrs. IGng spoke briefly and comments of neighbors present were addressed.
"An owner should be allowed to do whatever he wished to do on his own arooerty"
There would be no need for codes or laws under such an assumption. Codes protect other owners'
property values and the appearance of the neighborhood is preserved. We need to be good neighbors
and consider the welfare of others.
They had no objections to the 3-car garage across the alley.
Originally, a 1-car garage on the property across the alley was in view. When the garage was extended
to a 3-car garage, the new section was behind the garage across the alley and did not obstruct their view.
3. A neighbor expressed his extreme disoleasure with the city for "dropping the ball."
4. A council member stated that the 8 people who originally signed the petition indicating they did not
• disapprove of the structure might be unwilling to sign lt again when considering the financial impact to
their properties.
When properties are sold, price is determined by comparables in the area - to devalue several houses in
a block reduces the resale value of all properties and makes properties more difficult to sell.
THIS WAS THE KEY ISSUE TO PROTECTING NOT JUST OUR PROPERTY VALUE BUT THOSE OF
OUR NEIGHBORS!
5. A council member addressed Mr. Brace stating the garage was a "monstrosity" and to put a 4-car garage
on a 50-foot lot was "ridiculous."
Discussions closed - a vote was called.
Stating the city was at fault -had made a serious mistake, that they were embarrassed and "holding their noses," they voted
to grant the variances needed and to lift the stop-work order. Attached to the ruling is a provision that should the structure
be destroyed by 50% or more (regardless of the reason for the destruction), lt could not be rebuilt.
Note: This attached provision by the council makes lt very clear that a 4-car garage on small lots is not
acceptable.
City officials stated that Mrs. Kng had taught them a lesson and assurance was given that extreme diligence would be
exercised to avoid a repeat of their mistake which created hardships, both in stress, time and expense for all parties.
AS RESIDENTS OF FALCON HEIGHTS, WE MUST DEMAND OUR CITY OFFICIALS ADHERE TO CODES AND BE
• AWARE AT ALL TIMES OF THEIR DUTY TO PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES AND MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE THE
CHARACTER OF FALCON HEIGHTS.
Assurance was given that future requests for permits to construct 3 or 4-car garages would not be approved. To ensure
that future council members do not violate this trust, we are requesting by separate letter a change in the code to this
effect. This change would become a matter of record.
• Mr. Brace and I never reduced this problem to a personal one. Mr. Brace is a friend to all of us and remains so. It is
unfortunate that the city made a serious mistake which caused this unique problem. We can be confident that Mr. Brace
will do everything possible to the structure and to landscaping to visually downsize the appearance of the garage for the
welfare of his neighbors and the community of Falcon Heights.
Sincerely,
Mr. and Mrs. Ray IGng
1427 Idaho Avenue West
•
(612) 636-2565
U
APPRAISAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, LTD.
STEVENSON-EDWARDS & ASSOCIATES
2310 County Road D • New Brighton, Minnesota 55112 -- ,
FAX: (612) 633-0394 -,, (612) 633-0779
" ~ December 3, 1992
communrrv where trxe uses of 1 nd ncc~mv a runt;
~----_.,,_ g~~~ at is, owes are rr
one area, commercial infer, and ;nc;nstri,~l in another. Where this a of
zoning is maintained, you achieve orderly development and you o preserve _
v ues. _. . _ .. :: .
As a part of zoning, there are various restrictions that apply to each of these uses.
These restrictions include lot size, access to public roads; budding size and height
limitations, setback requirements, etc. These restrictions all have purposes, some
deal with safety, others with road maintenance, access to utilities and other factors.
When these requirements are met, they not only accomplish the above factors, but
they also maintain property values. Tide reverse rs also true; that is, if individual
properties are for some reason vut i$'a situation which makes them out o~-"'
YivYcluw tuay uc auverse~yd~ereQ f-----~
In your particular situation, the adjacent property owner to the west constructed a
garage that is substantially larger than the zoning code allows and, as I understand
:y has bccn built without a variance issued by the city. After vie
and the adiacen~ owner's new ~ara.~e_ it is annarent that t tc oaraue_ by itc size hac
by the community, in this case Falcon Heig
not occur, since property values will suffer.
I have not made an apprasial of your 1
property has suffered a loss of at least
--~ / results fr m a eas o ac ors w e
~ 7mm~rt ~n~, o ,~,r, r o+,,.... +...
nd the result is uiconsis ent ~ the
zonin co e. a has to e t en
tom re sure that these situations do
y, but it would appear that your
its value and ossibl more. This loss
ect oss in terms o e adiacen`-`-'
over
the average. - ---
_--~:~-
~~ _ '~
-
. ~ ~ ~, eso cease- c~.
•