Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCAgenda_93Jan25PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA January 25, 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. INTRODUCTION OF PLANNING COMMISSIONERS 3. SELECTION OF CIiAIR 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. Request for all necessary variance(s) for a garage at 1433 West Idaho submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Brace, property owners 6. Request for an amendment to a variance at 2099 Folwell Avenue 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS/INFORMATION 8. ADJOURN • MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 26, 1992 7:30 PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Lee Barry Len Boche Paul Cernia, Council Liaison Ken Salzberg Steve Huso Susan Hoyt, Administrator/ Kay Andrews Carolyn Nestingen Planner Meeting was called to order at 7:35 by Lee Barry, Chair. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Because there was no quorum, approval of minutes will be postponed to the November 23 meeting. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF FOUR FEET IN THE SIDEYARD SETBACK OF ~9-2 04 L1] (c) AT 1494 IOWA STREET Property owner, William L. Huebsch, asked the commission to approve a variance request to build a garage with the eave being within one foot of his west lot line instead of the variance of three feet previously granted in 1983. Because this garage was never built, and because the code now allows garages to be constructed within one foot of the side lot line if it is within the rear 20~ of the lot and the access door faces away from the alley, Mr. Huebsch is requesting a new variance. The additional two feet is needed in order to maintain the maximum landscaped yard on a fifty foot wide lot. The location of the new garage would parallel the neighbor's garage leaving a space of four feet between the garages. This area is not useful and maintenance would not be a problem as the eaves of the garages would be a few feet from each other. The neighbors, Lois Forsblad and JoAnn Ferazzi, at 1498 W. Iowa sent a written statement to the commission saying they do not object to the granting of this variance. After some discussion, Ken Salzberg, moved to recommend to the council to grant the variance in order to allow the property owner 66 square feet of landscaped and open area for the maximum enjoyment of the property rights (condition c for granting a variance). Seconded by Kay Andrews. Approved by those present. Because there was not a quorum, a recommendation was made by Lee Barry to put this on the full agenda at the council meeting rather than the consent agenda. Commissioner Huso was consulted by telephone earlier in the day by staff. He had no objection to the proposal at that time. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50. • Susan Hoyt, Administrator Dee Swenson, Recording Secretary Meeting Date: 1/25/93 . Agenda Item: 5 ITEM: Request for all necessary variance(s) for a garage at 1433 West Idaho in: Chapter 9, Section 2.04, Subdivision 1(c) Chapter 9, Section 2.04, Subdivision 2(b) Chapter 9, Section 4.01, Subdivision 5(e) SUBMITTED BY: Mr. Tom Brace, property owner Mrs. Gunta Brace, property owner REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Peter Bachman, City Attorney EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION: The property owners began the construction of a garage 988 square feet in area and two feet from the west property line. The contractor obtained a building permit prior to starting construction. After construction was nearly completed, the city stopped work on the garage when it was found to be in noncompliance with the city's zoning code. In order to complete the garage and make it legal, the property owners are requesting that all necessary variances be approved for the project. The planning commission recommendations will be forwarded to the city council for final action on January 27, 1993. Please drive by the garage along the alley on the northside of Idaho. ATTACHMENTS: • Staff report dated 1/21/93 and attachments PROCEDURE AND ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Staff report and questions 2. Presentations/Comments/Questions 3. Discuss options 4. Motion for action • Draft and adopt findings • Attach conditions (if necessary and appropriate) • ~~~) FALCON HEIGHTS 2077 W. LARPENTEUR AVENUE FALCON HEIGHTS, MN 55113-5594 PHONE (612) 644-5050 FAX (612) sa4-abi~ REPORT ON REQUEST FOR NECESSARY VARIANCES FOR 1433 WEST IDAHO January 21, 1993 I INTRODUCTION II BACKGROUND A. Building permit B. Non-conformance C. Stop work order D. Determining need for a variance III REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE A. Applicable sections of the zoning code B. Summary of property owner's statement IV ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A. Adjacent garages B. Visibility of garage from neighboring property owners C. Notification and response from neighboring property owners V ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION A. Variances as requested B. Deny any variances C. Variances for a 780 square foot garage VI FINDINGS FOR DISCUSSION (Prepared by city attorney) A. In General B. In support of variances for the garage as built (988 square feet) C. In support of granting variances necessary to downsize garage to 780 square feet D. Proposed findings to deny variances VII CONCLUSION HOME OF THE MINNESOTA STATE FAIR AND THE U OF M INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE P3!N.=DCN"ECYCLEDPAPEP TREE f.TIY ~'U ~ ~ FALCON HEIGHTS __- 2077 W. LARPENTEUR AVENUE FALCON HEIGHTS, MN 55113.5594 PHONE (612) 644-5050 FAX (612) 644-8675 20 January 1993 MEMO TO: Mayor and Councilmembers Planning Commission FROM: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator RE: Staff report on the request for all necessary a variance(s) for a garage at 1433 West Idaho I. INTRODUCTION Mr. Tom Brace and Mrs. Gunta Brace, the property owners, of 1433 West Idaho, are applying for all necessary variances for a nearly completed 988 square foot garage. The circumstances surrounding this request are unique because a building permit was issued for the garage construction, and the construction proceeded until the city determined that the building did not conform to the zoning code. This report outlines 1) the factual background leading to this request, 2) the property owners' reasons for the request, 3) additional information relevant to the request, 4) alternative actions to consider as requested and 5) legal requirements and findings. II. BACKGROUND A. Building permit On September 28, 1992 the building official approved a building permit to the property owner, Mr. Tom Brace, for the construction of a 988 square foot garage, two feet from the west property line and one foot from the rear lot line, to be constructed in the configuration in attachment A. The permit was issued on October 23, 1992. 1 HOME OF THE MINNESOTA STATE FAIR AND THE U OF M INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE T=D CN FECYCLED PAPER 7REE ffIY 1SA • B. Non-conformance On November 16, 1992 the neighbor at 1427 West Idaho asked the city staff if the garage conformed to the city's zoning code. After reviewing the building plans and site plan for the garage, staff determined that the garage did not conform to at least two sections of the city's code governing detached accessory structures. The applicable sections of the code are identified in Part III of this report. C. Stop work order On November 17, 1992 staff told the property owner and the contractor to stop work on the garage until the situation. coul"d be resolved. The property owner and contractor complied with this verbal order. A written order was delivered to the property owner and contractor on November 25, 1992. No work has been done on the garage since November 17, 1992. D. Determining need for a variance Initially staff talked to the adjoining property owners, Mrs. King at 1427 West Idaho and Mr. Callahan at 1437 West Idaho, to determine if they objected to the garage, and if . there were ways to ameliorate any objections to the non- conforming structure without further action. Staff also met with Mr. Brace to discuss the circumstances of the situation. No solution was reached. At this time, the city attorney determined that the appropriate procedure to follow under these circumstances was for the property owner, Mr. Brace, to apply for a variance to the zoning code to accommodate the non- conforming garage. On November 30, 1992 the administrator and city attorney discussed the situation with Mr. Brace and his attorney. Mr. Brace agreed to proceed with a request for a variance for the structure as it is now configured. He and his attorney also understood that the variance might not be granted by the planning commission and city council for the structure as configured. Mr. Brace agreed to provide cost estimates for down-sizing the garage to a smaller square footage as an alternative to the current configuration, and as an alternative to a structure that totally conformed to the zoning code. Mr. Brace understood that providing this information would not indicate that down-sizing the garage was a desirable alternative to him. • III. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE . A. Applicable sections of the zoning code On January 14, 1993 Mr. Brace (on behalf of Mrs. Gunta Brace and himself, property owners) requested a variance from all necessary sections of the zoning code. The city attorney reviewed the zoning code to determine the specific sections of the code that require a variance. These are: 1. Side and rear yard setback variance. Chapter 9 Section 2.04, subdivision 1(c). The garage has a one-foot rear yard setback and a two-foot side yard setback. If the garage were located entirely within the rear 20% of the lot with the entrance off the alley, a one-foot rear and side yard setback would be sufficient. However, the garage is not located entirely within the rear 20% of the lot but in the rear 31% of the lot. Therefore, a five-foot rear yard and a five-foot sideyard setback are required. 2. Rear yard lot coverage. Chapter 9 Section 2.04, Subdivision 2(b). This section requires that detached accessory buildings shall not occupy more than 40~ of the area of a required rear yard and shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. Under Chapter 9, Section 4.01, subdivision 4(c), a 30 foot rear yard is • required. The lot width is 50 feet, making the size of the required rear yard 1,500 square feet and the maximum coverage of detached accessory structures 600 square feet. The garage is 988 square feet or 65~ of the required rear yard. 3. Maximum number of off-street parkin spaces for a dwelling unit. Chapter 9, Section 4.01, subdivision 5(e). Under this section, no more than four parking spaces are permitted for each dwelling unit, and at least one of the parking spaces must be enclosed. This property has a minimum of five off- street parking places - four in the new garage and one in an existing, attached garage. The garage conforms to the height requirements and lot coverage of built structures and paved area requirements in the zoning code. B. Summary of property owner's statement (Attachment B) Mr. Brace is requesting all necessary variances for a 988 square foot four-car garage. The garage is in addition to a one-car, attached garage on the westside of the house. Mr. • Brace plans to convert this one-car garage into an addition to the house at some future time. It is currently used as a garage. Mr. Brace received the required permits for this garage from the city prior to starting construction. He removed an existing two-car garage in order to build the four-car garage. Mr. Brace states that he would not have undertaken the expense and difficulty of building a three-car garage (rather than a four-car garage) in place of the existing two-car garage because he wants four enclosed spaces for his vehicles. Prior to construction, Mr. Brace spoke with his neighboring property owners about the garage and its configuration, attempting to address their concerns in the design of the garage and driveway. According to Mr. Brace, the demolition of the old garage and the new construction have cost him $10,000 to date, and will total $12,000 to $15,000 upon completion. (Demolition cost of the old structure is not itemized in this total.) Mr. Brace's contractor provided him an estimate of $9,400 to down-size the garage to 780 square feet. (Attachment C). IV. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION t A. Adjacent garages The standard garage currently being constructed in the city is typically 24 feet by 24 feet or 576 square feet. The zoning code allows for a 600 square foot garage (25 ft. by 24 ft.) garage on a 50 foot lot in the Northome neighborhood. Garage sizes vary near this property (Attachment D). The garage at 1437 West Idaho to the west of this property (the Callahan garage), is a small, single car garage. The garage at 1427 West Idaho to the east of the property (the King garage) is 768 square feet (24 ft. X 32 ft.). The previous property owners of 1427 West Idaho received a variance for the garage in 1982. The garages along the alley, directly to the north of 1433 West Idaho, are double garages estimated between 484 square feet (22 ft. X 22 ft.) and 576 square feet (24 ft. by 24 ft.). B. Visibility of garage from neighboring properties. The garage is most visible from the property at 1437 West Idaho (Callahan) because the length (38 feet) of the garage is longer than the standard double garage (24 feet) and because it is two feet from this west side property line. • The garage is also visible from 1427 West Idaho. It is 22 ro erty line. feet from the east p P The visual impact on the properties to the north of 1433 West Idaho (along the alley) is diminished due to distance and the location of their own garages along the alley. C. Notification and response from neighboring property owners The city notified five property owners regarding the request for a variance. These were the two adjacent property owners and three property owners on the northside of the alley. The property owners at 1427 West Idaho, Mr. and1Mo~s~o thel originally questioned the size of the gareXeressed her stop work order. Mrs. King has verbally P frustration with the structur~ot°.dedeaswritten statement three occasions. The Kings p with their concerns to the planning commission on 11/23/92 16 93 (Attachment E). Mrs. King considers and again on 1/ / erty value. On the current garage to detract from her Commissioners with an January 19, 1993 she provided planning Ltd. appraiser's opinion from Appraisal Research Associates, that states the King property has suffered a loss of at least 5 percent of its value (Attachment F). ro ert owners at 1437 West Idaho, Mr. and The adjacent p p Y Mrs. Callahan, did not contact the city about the size o the garage. (Mr. Callahan had the building inspector make sure that a property stake was not covered during construction.) When the administrator ta11992thehsaidbthat the non-conforming garage on November 18, he had no problem withth~imeeighbor. He did not express any further opinion at tha As part of Mr. Brace's application for a variance, Mr. Brace etition that he personally circulated among his submitted a p it "are neighbors. The petition states that those signing and the aware that the detached gesent configuration•of the garage" undersigned accept the p (Attachment G). The petition lists signatures from °Thess of seven properties along the alley (Attachment D). signatures of Mr•,tion.rsMrcaand MrsatKing7ate1427dWest appear on the pets etition. Idaho did not sign the p As of this writing, no property owners notified of the commission meeting on January 25, 1993 contacted planning who requested city staff with the exception of Mrs. King planning commissioners' addresses. . 5 • V. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION p,. Grant all necessary variances for the of 988 square feet and lift the stop garage as built work order 1. Necessar variances and ossible conditions • All necessary variances may be granted for the current configuration of the garage and driveway. This requires a variance of four feet in the required rearyard and three feet in the requgectiond2y04a setback of five feet. (Chaptcode. And it requires a Subdivision 1(c) of the city ) variance in the lot coverage of detached aardssorr600 structures from 40~ of the required rear y square feet to 65~ of the required rear yard or 988 square feet. (Chapter 9, Subdivision 2.04, Section 2(b) of the city code.) A third variance in the number of off-street parking places from a maximum of four to five or more may be required (Chapter 9, Section 4.01, Subdivision 5(e) of the city code.) Conditions may be attached to a variance to ensure compliance to the code and to ertiesratThese conditions the variance on adjacent prop must be reasonable and enforceable. It is not advisable to grant a variance with conditasnsermitted diminish the use~olthespropertypownerty ( p in an R-1 zone) 2. City Attornev's Opinion The city attorney's opinion is that the city has authority to grant these variances only if all standards and criteria for a variance in the city's ordinance are met. There is one standard that section particular concern. City ordinance chapter 9, 15.03, subdivision 4(b) provides that a variance may be granted only if "the granting of the variance will not substantially diminish or impair property values or improvements in the area". As of the time of writing of this memorandum, the city is in receipt of a letter dated December 3, 1992, addressed to Mrs. Helen King raisal Research Associates, Ltd. and signed by from App Certified Federal General William H. Cushman, MAI, Appraiser. The letter opines "after viewing your property and the adjacent owner's new garage, it is apparent that this garage, by its size, has reduces the value of your property and probably the property to the I have not made an appraisal of your west. ear that your property has property, but it would app • 6 suffered a loss of at least 5~ of its value and possibly more. • ~ s on a variance must be supported by The city s finding substantial evidence~in the recothissev dencehcannotebe referenced appraiser s opinion, evidence ignored. If there is no controverto nt (the Braces' submitted into the record on this Pintend to submit a attorneys have indicated that they ualified real controverting opinion from a so inion as to the lack of property appraiser), mere layro erty value would not be diminution or impairment of p P ercent or enough to overcome the roiertyevalue.f1The question for greater diminution in p P the city would be whether such a ogmthetapplicable "substantial" within the meaning Onl if the city finds that there is no ordinance. y it grant the variances. substantial diminution may ro erty value question If other expert opinion on the p P weigh the is introduced into the record, the city may as a fact finder, determine for itself evidence and, evidence in the record) (based on the conflicting etent whether or not there is ci~ubfindsiabasedlon compin property value. If the Y evidence, that there is no substantial dthengrace or impairment of property values caused by arage, then it is my view that the other standrodriate • g of a variance can be met (with app P the granting court would likely uphold the findings) and a reviewing city's granting of the variances. all variances and require the garage to be down- g. Deny sized to 600 square feet and make no offer to pa costs. 1, Denial of variances The request for a variance may be denied. Treduceuthe require the property owner tuarebfeettorlless. size of the garage to 600 sq 2, Cit Attorney's opinion would be The city attorney's opinion is that the city the braces and that legal research indicates sued by outcome of the suit would be a that the most likely rohibited from finding by the court that the city is and ordering the requiring the garage to be downsized, city to lift the stop work order if the city does not cover the cost of reasonable damages. • 7 F/zz 153 C. Grant the variances necessary to downsize the garage to 780 square feet and offer to pay the Braces the costs of downsizing the garage 1. Necessary variances All necessary variances may be granted to allow the property owner to build a smaller garage, but one that is larger than provided for in the zoning code and is consistent with the neighbor's garage area at 1427 West Idaho. The 780 square foot was selected because the garage may be structurally reduced to this size. This requires a variance of four feet in the rearyard setback and three feet in the sideyard setback because the structure is within the rear 25~ rather than rear 20~ of the property (Chapter 9, Section 2.04, Subdivision 1(c)). And it requires a variance in the 40% of required rear yard coverage (600 square feet) by detached accessory structures because the structure would cover 52~ (780 square feet) of the required rear yard (Chapter 9, Section 2.04, Subdivision 2(b). It also requires a variance in the number of off street parking places. (Chapter 9, Section 4.01, Subdivision 5 (e) of the city code. ) • 2. City Attorney's Opinion The Braces have submitted a contractor's estimate indicating that it would cost $9,400 to downsize the garage to 780 square feet. Because the garage on the neighboring property is 768 square feet, it is the city attorney's view that it would be very difficult to demonstrate that a 780 square foot garage results in a substantial diminution or impairment of property values in the area. Thus, with appropriate findings, it is the city attorney's view that the granting of a variance for a 780 square foot garage would probably be upheld by a court. According to the city insurer, the city's errors and omissions insurance will cover a reasonable cost of downsizing the garage. There is a $2,500 deductible on this policy paid by the city. It is unknown whether this solution would be acceptable to the Braces. It would be a particularly undesirable outcome for the city if the city granted the variances for a 780 square foot garage and paid the Braces for downsizing, only to be sued later by the Braces for claimed additional damages. It is appropriate for the city to inquire of the Braces whether they are willing • g to agree to waive any clams for alleged additional damages as a condition of the city granting the variances and paying for the downsizing. If so, and the city chooses to purse this option, a short settlement agreement could be executed by the Braces prior to the city taking final action. VI. PROPOSED FINDINGS FOR DISCUSSION (Prepared by city attorney) A. In General State statute specifies the standards and criteria pursuant to which a city may grant a variance from its zoning ordinances. In addition, a city may, by ordinance, adopt additional standards and criteria which must be met for the granting of a variance. The proposed findings which follow are based on the necessary standards and criteria in both state statute and city ordinance. The planning commission and city council are, of course, free to modify the findings or add additional findings. In addition, the city may impose conditions on the granting of a variance to ensure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. B. in support of variances for the garage as built (988 square feet) • 1. On October 23, 1992, the city building official issued a building permit for the construction of a 988 square foot garage at 1433 West Idaho. 2. In good faith reliance on the building permit, the owners of the property (Tom and Gunta Brace) contracted for and commenced construction of the 988 square foot garage. The foundation was poured and all structural work was nearly complete or complete by November 17, 1992. 3. On November 16, 1992, the city received an inquiry from a neighbor asking if the garage conformed to zoning requirements. Upon review by the city administrator, it was discovered that the garage violated the city's zoning ordinances regarding required setbacks, lot coverage and maximum number of parking spaces, and that the building permit has be mistakenly issued by the city's building official. 4. On November 17, 1992, the city issued a stop work order on the garage. 5. Under the unique facts of this case involving the mistaken issuance of a building permit, the good faith reliance thereon by the property owner, and substantial • 9 completion of the garage prior to discovery of the mistake, • the Braces' property, including the garage, cannot be put to a reasonable use without the granting of variances. Under these circumstances, use of the rear yard for a four-car garage is reasonable. 6. The mistaken issuance of the building permit is a circumstance which is unique to the property and not created by the property owner. 7. The 988 square foot garage is larger than other garages in the neighborhood; however, the regulations prohibit the use of the garage for commercial purposes and the garage in no way alters the essential residential character of the locality. 8. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare and is in accordance with other variances for oversized garages which have been granted in the area. Offsite visual impacts from the garage are minimal. 9. 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 that the granting of the variance will not • substantially diminish or impair property values or improvements in the area. 10. The property owners have demolished an existing two-car garage and expended considerable funds and resources to construct a four-car garage in reliance upon a mistakenly- issued building permit. Under these circumstances, the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 11. The garage complies with zoning height requirements and does not impair an adequate supply of lights and air to adjacent property. 12. The variance will not impair the orderly use of the public streets. 13. The variance will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. 14. If the variance were not granted, a particular hardship would result to the property owners because of the owners' justifiable reliance on the mistakenly-issued building permit. 10 15. The variance will result in no financial gain to the property owner, but will serve only to minimize a financial loss. 16. Denial of the variance would result in substantial hardship to the property owner, both in terms of potential financial losses and in terms of loss of enclosed parking, particularly during the 1993 winter season. C. In support of granting variances necessary to downsize garage to 780 square feet 1. On October 23, 1992, the city's building official issued a building permit for the construction of a 988 square foot garage at 1433 West Idaho. 2. In good faith reliance on the building permit, the owners of the property (Tom and Gunta Brace) contracted for and commenced construction of the 988 square foot garage. The foundation was poured and all structural work was nearly complete or complete by November 17, 1992. 3. On November 16, 1992, the city received an inquiry from a neighbor asking if the garage conformed to zoning requirements. Upon review by the city administrator, it was discovered that the garage violated the city's zoning • ordinances regarding required setbacks, lot coverage and maximum number of parking spaces, and that the building permit had been mistakenly issued by the city's building official. 4. On November 17, 1992, the city issued a stop work order on the garage. 5. The equities which would favor granting variances to complete construction of the 988 square foot garage are primarily the economic expenditures by the Braces. These economic interests are outweighed by the public interest in consistent enforcement of zoning regulations, the prevention of buildings which are out of scale with surroundings, and the continuing administrative burdens of ensuring that such a large accessory structure is not used for non-residential purposes. However, the city finds that the equities favor granting variances for a 780 square foot garage. 6. Under the unique facts of this case involving the mistaken issuance of a building permit, the good faith reliance thereon by the property owner, substantial completion of the garage prior to discovery of the mistake, and the existence of a 768 square foot garage on the adjacent property, use of the property for a 780 square foot garage is reasonable. 11 7. The mistaken issuance of circumstance which is unique by the property owner. the building permit is a to the property and not created 8. A 780 square foot garage is only slightly larger than other garages in the neighborhood and in no way alters the essential residential character of the locality. 9. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare and is in accordance with other variances for oversized garages which have been granted in the area. Offsite visual impacts from a 780 square foot garage would be minimal. 10. The granting of a variance to permit a 780 square foot garage will not substantially diminish or impair property values or improvement in the area. A 780 square foot garage is similar in size to the existing garage on adjacent property. 11. The property owners have demolished an existing two-car garage and expended considerable funds and resources to construct a larger garage in reliance upon a mistakenly- issued building permit. Under these circumstances, the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. • 12. A 780 square foot garage would be required to comply with zoning height requirements and would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. 13. The variance will not impair the orderly use of the public streets. 14. The variance will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. 15. If the variance were not granted, a particular hardship would result to the property owners because of the owners' justifiable reliance on the mistakenly-issued building permit. 16. The variance will result in no financial gain to the property owner. 17. Denial of the variance would result in substantial hardship to the property owner, both in terms of potential financial losses and in terms of loss of enclosed parking, particularly during the 1993 winter season. • 12 D. Prouosed findings to deny variances . 1. A variance is not necessary for the property to be put to a reasonable use under current zoning regulations. The property owner currently has an attached one-car garage and current regulations would allow the construction of a 600 square foot detached garage in the rear year, which is a reasonable accessory use in connection with residential property. 2. The property has no unique geographical characteristics to justify the granting of a variance, and the plight of the property owner is due to the property owner's failure to obtain and/or read the city's zoning regulations. 3. A 988 square foot garage is out of character with the size of other garages in the city, and will alter the essential character of the locality. 4. The granting of variances would impair neighboring property owners' values by at least five percent, which is a substantial diminution or impairment of property values and improvements in the area. 5. No particular hardship would result to the property owner if the zoning code is strictly enforced. Financial • losses and inconvenience to the property owner may occur if the variances are denied; however, these financial losses and inconveniences t not offset the harm to the neighborhood that would result if the variances were granted. 6. The equities which would favor granting variances to complete construction of the 988 square foot garage are primarily the economic expenditures by the Braces. These economic interests are outweighed by the public interest in consistent enforcement of zoning regulations, the prevention of buildings which are out of scale with surroundings, and the continuing administrative burdens of ensuring that such a large accessory structure is not used for non-residential purposes. VII. CONCLUSION The planning commission is charged with recommending the approval or denial of the variance request, or recommending an alternate variance to the city council with findings and necessary conditions. The council will hear the request at its January 27, 1993 on or about 7:00 PM. Council action on a variance is final. 13 ~'~Z-`'-/9 3 • ATTACHMENTS A. Site Plan - 1433 West Idaho B. Property Owner's Statement - 1/14/93 C. Cost Estimate to Reduce Garage Area D. Plan with Adjacent Garages E. Neighboring Property Owner's Statement - 11/23/92 F. Appraiser's opinion - Appraisers Research Associates, 12/3/92 G. Petition Submitted by Property Owner H. Letter to City Attorney from Property Owner's Attorney with Findings for Granting a Variance I. Chapter 9, Section 13.07 of the City Code (use of garage in an R-1 zone) • i• i %• wz~ i Z 4~~ ~~ct~ O M N 193 ~+~~-yam , so ~'v~ ~ ~~ ~ ~1 • ~ clr~tN•~ ~ X33 ;.~~ ~' ~ 6_ ~)':~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~,,~ ~ cue,,~~ ~«~t' ~j,~P~:s,~-v G~ ~ y~~ ~y,r, ~'~-~ Y~'-~ 3 err 7 ~2v~C.P. y~ ~: ~.~~ ~~i 142` 4Z7 ----._ i• 8. January 14, 1993 Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Falcon Heights 2077 West Larpenteur Falcon Heights, MN 55113-5594 Dear Ms. Hoyt: May this letter serve as my request for all necessary variances for my existing separate garage located at 1433 Idaho Avenue West (Northome Lot 18, Block 3). A brief review of the developments that led to this variance request may be helpful. In June of 1992, I requested that the city send me all applicable requirements relating to constructing afree-standing garage on my property to replace the garage already located there. I am an antique vehicle hobbyist. I wanted additional space to work on the vehicles and to consolidate storage. I currently have vehicles stored in several spaces, which causes additional expense. In addition, my wife and I own two vehicles. My daughter also has a vehicle. Since I am the state fire marshal and must visit fire scenes, I have a work vehicle. This vehicle must be garaged to assure that it starts. The additional garage is necessary to keep these vehicles off the street. The city sent me the required materials and had a "post-it" note on it which stated, "this will probably confuse you even more." After reviewing the documentation, I called the city building official, Mr. David Kriesel, and went over the various applicable requirements with him. At that time, we both agreed that I could construct a garage of 988 square feet. After receiving several bids, I contracted with Clark Builders for demolition of the existing garage and construction of the 988 square foot garage. Clark Builders applied for all necessary permits from the City of Falcon Heights. The City's review of the permit applications took approximately two weeks. The City granted the permits necessary for construction of the 988 square foot garage. The existing garage was demolished and construction of the new garage commenced.. Mr. Kriesel inspected the construction at least twice, at the time the building foundation was formed and after the concrete was poured. The slab and accompanying driveway was poured, construction commenced and the building was framed, siding was placed on three sides, it was roofed and one of two garage doors was hung. .Before construction, I attempted to inform my neighbors of my intent and modified my original design to facilitate Mrs. Helen King, my immediate neighbor to the east. As construction proceeded, Mrs. King apparently became concerned. She asked me whether I had obtained proper permits. Shortly after that conversation, I was then informed by the City that in fact an error had been made in granting the original building permit. 'The City issued a stop work Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Page 2 order, even though the structure is substantially complete. Efforts were undertaken to mollify Mrs. King through the use of lighting, landscaping, and other efforts. These were to no avail. Several of my neighbors have signed a statement approving construction of the four car garage. In addition, several of my neighbors, including Mrs. King, already have oversized garages. The garage does not intrude into the alley, nor impair access to my or any other property. Throughout this process, the city staff has been most helpful and cooperative in attempting to resolve this issue. I have been informed by the City that this process could result in approval of the existing structure, down sizing of this structure to a garage approximately the size of Mrs. King's, or in fact down sizing to 600 square feet. I removed a totally good two car garage based on the premise that I could construct a four car garage. Demolition and construction to date have cost approximately $10,000.00. If finished, the four car garage will cost approximately $12,000.00 (not including interior finishing). It did not and does not make economic sense to go through the expense that I have incurred to date to add one more stall, i.e. a third car which would result from adown-sizing. While reducing a four car garage to a three car garage sounds relatively simple, there are a number of construction difficulties such as pouring new footings, removing an interior wall, to name a few that makes this undertaking expensive. My builder estimates that it will cost an additional $9,400.00 to "down-size" the garage. I am submitting the neighbor's statements with this application. I have already submitted plans showing the location of the building and topography when the building permits were approved. I will have additional materials to present at the planning commission meeting scheduled for January 25, and the subsequent city council meeting of the 27th. I am requesting a variance to permit completion of the substantially completed four car garage. I sincerely believe that the original error in granting me permits was compounded a number of times and was not brought to my attention until the basic exterior structure was completed. I have been a resident of Falcon Heights since June 1, 1991, and have already spent $27,000.00 on my home doing necessary upgrades. The garage, when totally finished, will represent an expenditure of $15,000.00 - $16,000.00. I believe myself to be a conscientious, concerned property owner who is attempting to add to the value of our residence and maintain the quality of life found in this community. Sincerely, Thomas R. Brace • l:: L.FiI~~;!<:: I~;iJ:ii_Di=FS H!`dU Fii=h•!U.CtEI EF;L:, i• S-I-. F'r,UL , h1I hai 1. X51 t=ia=i . TELEF'HOhlE b~}ti-JJB 7 ~UBt-iI~TTEry 1-C:1: I`1r-. T!-comas Brace ~~ F, ~aT~• f~z~~1,'!C-:~S~ 1~•~::L l~J. Idaii3 Fl:`e. a ~. 1._ r` Falcon Heights Minn Same TELEF'HO!•aE; llle ar-e p.l eas=3d to pre_.ant to a the Tel .1 o:vi n ,-c•. ~-: ~ yo g p~ C~~~:~.. Tor- the a~or-k: ;you have r-equested: f)cwr~ si ~ e 2: ~:_'•.C:f ' Garage to ?S ' ;( ~i_i ' 'Ttie c•~or-E:: tc i.ncl.ude the Toll.-owing (-~1 1 n`ce~s•~ar-y demol i ti c•n and r~mo~~i ng of u_.,abi ~~ rnateri a1 F=r-arr:iriq iri o;= 16 Tt. door- opening rc ~ i rig and Lb trus_.=~~ C! itt i ng of slab and installing new thi c!•;ened curb fcoti ng Removal ~f slab and driveway Install .new blocF:: curb Removal of center wall and curb Rebuild end wall Instal 1 new saff i t and fasci a Reside three =ides ~f ^araae e:; tend si de:•aal }:: • Back:Till removed concrete area and sod E tenij conduit from hcu~e f;:r gas and el ectri c Repair r•ocTiri~ Co,r,pensat i on for sp~~+c i al or-der garai~e door- ~- _,.:. A11 of the abo~.e stated work:, Tncl}.dinp .a7.1 labor and n~ai_erials can be done for-. onl}~ ..................~'~~•~'iii,r~r.i l=ai ti-~ 1 /~' clown and the hal an~_e d? ~e cn corr:pl r:t i on _- The contr-t3c~tor- i~~ re_tponsit~le tof- ~=~.'.1 rieccF=_~+r. cor~str-~~cti on 1 i abi l i ty i nsurarice. '~i=~~~~y J. Glark: We accept the a6o•ve stated pr-opo<~a:l end .:~greN t~ tl-.e terms and conditions • T Lh.I~I:~ ..................... . . . ............ BLiT~~~ ......... , . • :~G ~ z o.8a se ~ t2o.88~ ._.. '- T ~ `fit-~-n1 ~t,~~- -. ~~ ~o ~~ ^~ V Z ~ ~. ~ ~ `T~b S C~~E . ~~.- y DES ~[cT"' S-tttLJ C ~~~ ~A 2~ S~v1~ Si ~ F~"~T a ~ G ~-G~e_ i~ . £. C~ January 16, 1993 -~. ~.~ . 1G~~ Members of the Planning Commission City of Falcon Heights Dear Members; To give each of you ample time before the meeting on Monday, January 25, to study the problem of the garage in question, we have enclosed pertinent correspondence to date. We hope each of you will find the time, not just for a drive-by, but to actually walk into both adjoining yards (to the east & the west) so you may observe the full impact of this way out-of-code building. We will have photos of our garden in summer available at the meeting - and you will also be able on your visit to see the long high bare wall the Callahans face. A drive by the front of the property will show you the 5th garage. Mr William Cushman of Appraisal Research Associates calls for "Falcon Heights to make sure such situations do not occur since property values will suffer." A permit or variance to allow this building to remain in its present size is a license to steal from the adjoining property owners. To insist that the garage be downsized is not unreasonable and as the city has insurance to cover the costs for its admitted mistake. Any deductible that would not be covered should come from city funds. A grant for a variance for a 4-car garage sets a precedent for future requests for such a garage - we cannot say one person can do it, and another cannot. This is discrimination and could lead to lawsuits. To allow 5 garage stalls on a 50 ft. lot is unacceptable. There would be room to park 4 cars in the new garage, 4 cars on that driveway, a car in the front garage, a car on the front driveway, and 3 or 4 cars on the street in front of the house - or a possible total of 14 cars parked in and around a 50 ft. lot in residential Falcon Heights. Even with all the garages available the Callahans are subjected to a car always parked on the front driveway in view of his living and dining room windows and his summer porch. • - k -~ A new owner in the future might very well buy such a property because he could park campers, trailers, boats, motorcycles destroying the quality of the residential area. With so much facilities available he may even want to repair vehicles or bring groups of motorcyclists into the area, resulting in noise and congestion and destroying the quality that has made Falcon Heights so desirable. The city's responsibility is to correct its mistake and to be very diligent in the future protecting the rights of the majority and the welfare of all of Falcon Heights. The codes were established many years ago for very good reasons. It is unfortunate in this nation that we are either unwilling or unable to enforce codes and rules. There is no acceptable reason not to continue to abide by the codes and rules. Sincerely, Mr & Mrs Ray King 1427 Idaho Ave West Falcon Heights, MN (641-0892) ~ ~--- i ~t - ~ • • ,~ .~ ~yl ~ ~ l~' (nhj (R'te'- _ . '~~ 2.'~ ~ `~ 2. 0 ~ ~~.~ J ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ mod) ~~//'~ ,~l ,,, ~{, ~t~~~~„yu vet ~ . c~/i.Ci `~ '['''~y^- , ;'1~' _"`~7 ~ /~ ~ ~' 1, 7 ~ ~ ~ ~! ~ ~~ iC.~..i / ~j7/L 6 'W ~C'~C.~i~~_.E%C-C--s. n~ ~ J7`/ ~ LL.G[ ~i. ~ J _/ ~! CK ~~. /...I-si- ~ ' ~~~ ~..t-~ /.L-+~ f~ ;~ / ~ ` C ~' Cam' ff- ~~ tii~~:•.~{-~. `cam ~~ ~'~~,~__.~~',~:~~~ /~ ~/LPL-G ~ G~IC.C~"'~' '~/~" ',..~~ ~~~1~ /~,~/ _ CL~CLL.,~-., - `"--E""r - `r', ~ Caw l~~L.~~."~' Y72.~ ~ ~ ~~r ~C~-GG ~~ ~ `^ " " " j ,1 ~ ~ ~ L ~ L~"-~--L ~,. /~~Ll.~o-~'n~ ~ ,~C./T L~~~cL/~~ L?,C rc-t'~',r~L_'svC ~ .~ ~u~~ ~ e :~ ~~.~t21.'1~.~.~c,.~rrc~.~„c~s,,~ C / ~~u~ ~ ,-c~e~-e.~-e~cticv" .~~~-~~ ~ /.~ ~ G~z~, f Ge.,~t~ y-e , ./.. ~Ji~a_.~ .~ f` c, u.~,e.~/ ~ !~~ ~c~ .z~ec~l~~ ~~ O / '."~ ~~ ~~ ~`'~ cc. e~=--rn C Z.~ ci-,; -~~ ~-~-~ /r7iS • // ~ '-2-e.~c,c_e,.r~ ~ . - ~ ~~~~-c:s/ ~. 4 mot? Y~~,[-C-GC . ~~L~I" L~''~'~-(~ C-~C~,l~~ ~~ / ~~l Q" ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~`-- ` ~~~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ " ~ A ~ J /,~..^~ -E-~~.~~' ~-BLS-DL- 'Ci^ .C. • jj __ ~' (~ , ~~ ~~LL C~C~~t,7i [!' f/ 1,~~ r-~ `'6•t..t~t,~.~~ Gc~i,....c .~~..~-~.~... ~t.-vac ~-4:., ~ ''~-~ ~. ' ,~4 -1 ~-c.~-cy/ ~~ v ~~~ ivy-e.: ,~...z~ ~ ~ ~C /";,aa Ns2.~ ~.2-n~~...~~~c"1'.~ :~-Ci..J , ._y ~ e~scL' .~-k.`--~J ~ ~~ ~~ / ~, ~R.i11.Gr/J ~[.cL~~ C~Lc-1`cc~1r ~~ ~C i`l~c~ /~`~-~C~~ LGC~ ~/oL~~t,~ ~Z.~LL.r~-u~~/l~ i~ /~ ~ G; /LG~-~-cc~~C~ : ~~~-~' ~~-i=~-zn~ ~c:f%;z. ~-:~.(c~r~.':_,.L: ~--~ ' ~`,~ --~-~ -L _ / p~ ~ ~ ~- ~~^=~. qL /~-~l~ ~ ~-L:1~L.::r~; ~t..---c.c,!vC Cam' /rzr~-~~:-u..~. ~-~' ~~ / d ;I < ,; -3- pp ~~ ~~ ~~ ~-~- ~~~ ~i'L r `-~'•"~'~---(~'~~~(,~~~-""~~ Cam.?~ ~/ /~ ~ " ~~ J'~ ~ ~...z~, 7r c.~ Q~..E' ~'-LK~-~~ `7~-~--cucEC-Q `~-c~,,,~(~".z~.. ~ ~C~ ~.~. (~Z-„~ Ct~-~,.aL~ CC-. ~~~ t.s.~;-Ci ~ ~fc~2-c~,..rz ~ . -~`"..3 -~-t/ ~~//~~u ~ .'Yz£'1't~ri.st/Q /~t~„~,_,~~c-~ / ...~ ~" 71~ ~ / _ ~ G-Cx-C~:c c~.,^,i ' _~ Gam., ~.~; ,-z-~--~._ca:~e,. v ~, - - a- ~~.J ,,,~ /~/~ .fir % c~_. s ~--,t, ~~.. ~--~~--~~/ °..-u ~ ~-c~~-~,~~ ~-~,--,~-C; `~`~C~- c~-c.tip-r.~i.h.st/l~~'tic.E~~~-~'~z/ .gyp c~--Y~ ! ~/ ~ - i~~,~-,emu?y ~ / ~. ~~~~ ~ ~.~-~~. ~ ~ _c ~~ ~' !1-~-~ /~h-~~ ~--~-t-f-f/ f ~ ~ ~~~~ /~-C.~/ ~ ~~~~.~' ~ ~~L.f_.~lJ D~-~ J.L;~i,,,~, / .-c,c"-GV~l.(~i.-Cc`~~:". -e~Z.c.~ J Cihl C,C~.~ti/~z. d-~~ L- ~~ c ~ ~~ z cc__ v~,Q ~ ~--~. tee.. / .e - J -wQ/ /3~~~ c~-~- L' z~r~ 'Z.~.~-ti`-~~. ,Lti~-~i,~ ~c~ ~-,~i-c„-,~ ....Z.c~ ~ ~-^r~~ ~~42e-~v~ ~C-C.~. 7~-u,~-Q~ 2..v~-r.~~,.~4~_.;., ~,icc~ ~~h.C...P~''-ci ,emu, _ ~~ .~~.,'~ i~'-u-~°--~ ~~~. --~~.,~L~u~zL~ ~_ ~Y -<-~_ ~~. iw ~'~ /.~ituC~...~'~ ~~~-¢1 .~,-tom-.~ ~`{-~-~ ~-G ~--l~-c.a~^~ %~t::_;.~; ~lt-C_ „~ .~' Q~.L ~ r~/ _ ~.. _~ !~C-~t~' ter. C~ Ali ~YC.L<~ ~~ rl ~ ~~~~ fv-~'- :' /.C~~.-, ~ Gt,.:fJ ;ice( ~i~~=<'`.~'~;, ~` ~CQ~l ~ `v~<i.~ ~'--1~~~^/...~_! C'~-~- "- / / 6/ice"y _ ~.' LcZ ~-t'~ .~iL~-C---c ~ ~f. ~r ~'-~t, j ~~ ~,~~ ~, ~. . ~/~-^-~' ~ C~e-~-ems''-, f'L-~c.~•t.~ ~~ :.7, ~.~ . ~/~n-C~ : Gam. ~""~~vu~(~LC'~~ =CG ''~'P''~y' `Z.t." ~-~' ~2~~ ~,~C.~ GL Clh,e ~GC~ ~G-~~ .C~ G~-C_.Z,i-~ 'Z Cam. J ~' t ~.E~/.~~,~,~ <L'c.l~ . ~~ f ~ ~~~ mil, ~ _ ~(~yL ...~ _~~~.. ('-Cic.- ..%~.GU~~~C~c~.C ~-!`{~-i4./ ~~~ ~`"`~~'''~ - -- c /, /; ~'~;,~ ~~.~`~i Sze C~u~ ~' ~,~ ~ -n7 ~~ ~- :ten- ~~--~ ~ , n -, v ! j ~--/ / -~l,L~~ / c~ GC~-sT ~ 'lf~ % /~- ~ 'e.G~L~ ~~-l._e.G' i°/ ~C.l-C~~ ~/l~t_.~~~=~-~L^-t12-O ~~ ~~I'VY~~i.CG~r~.[~/ ~ .~-G.C~i. ,,ty~, r ~i1~~-C..Ci ^f~ ~,'L..e+~ R,c-cc.a-~I~~ ` J ` ,/ ~~ L~-G'-~~/L~~T ./- ups .'~C; ~-C~G'ZCJ CC.~.GL /~ v ~ _ i ,r-> ~l i j ~ r ~-. G:.f.-~G'~t~(/ L'(/L~ ~..C~ ~ ~ f -~-e~` ~L'c'~'~ _~L'~`'r~,v~i'--n_ ~i-t.C_,..~ /~ ~` /'"u~~ ~ ~-ECG--[t~'L-Lehi--' ~' ~ .~(//~~ C"~{`t-Lir~; ~~'~G~ • /~ ;~ ~ ~ -...f'--f ,c.~ ~, ,, y -- -e , ~-z.. n _ ,( ~ -~ • -- !J.'_ ~~~ / fl/,.,e ~~~. ~~, ~ ~` L;~C.2L/L..Q~/ u-f..G~v C-~~ ~(.,<e~' G~.~-Fhb ~~ ~~ - ` f ~L ,-~%.C~ . mac. ~'r2t.-s-~Q~-4,,s .~C--~-C.,~/~c.0 l-G~-cc.-iii r~ ~'~~'~c.c~ l~G~[."L~ C-~G'~ ~ 0'-~i'L~L ~ ~-G~C~'T~-G C..i ~, CC....GG j~ l l,~u~ . ,!/~-L{,, ~ `7i~-/v~~L~w~ ~ ~i ~' Sji --'"`L-`c..rC.. ~-s'-IZ..E~ ~~.s~J '~LtX.E ~ ~ . ~ .~ i ~ e. ~. // ,~~ rte, /~ ,~ ~~~ .~ V ' ~` ~ t ~~~~v i C r~ • • _ ~ .~.~ r - - -. f \.~,.• ! ;, ,~~ ~~'. 1 ~ • ___ ` . J • • • F. APPRAISAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, LTD. STEVENSON-EDWARDS & ASSOCIATES . 2310 County Road D New Brighton, Minnesota 55112 (612) 636-2565 FAX: (612) 633-0394 December 3, 1992 Mrs. Helen King 1427 Idaho Avenue Falcon Heights, Minnesota 55108 Re: Setback encroachments, adjacent owner's garage Dear Mrs. King: (612) 633-0779 One of the reasons for zoning property is to maintain orderly development in a community where like uses of land occupy a contiguous area. That is, homes are in one area, commercial in another, and industrial in another. Where this type of zoning is maintained, you achieve orderly development and you also preserve values. 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, building 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. The reverse ~s also true; that is, if individual properties are for some reason put in a situation which makes them out of compliance with zoning requirements, the property out of compliance and adjacent properties maybe adversely affected. In your particular situation, the adjacent property owner to the west constructed a ~azage that is substantially lazger than the zoning code allows and, as I understand :t, has bcea built without a variance ivsued by the city. After vie ~ .and the adjacent owner's new gaze, ~is_aUDarent that s ~azaee, by its size, has ~educ~ tFie value of your prouerty and nroi~ably the ~ronertv~o the west. e reason ~ that the garage rs too ig or the lot, and the result is inconsistent with the neighborhood development as overned by the zoning code. Care has to be taken by the community, in this case Falcon Heights, to make sure that these situations do not occur, since property values will suffer. I have not made an apprasial of your property, but it would appear that your property has suffered a loss of at least 5% of its value and ossibl more. Th~s_ loss_ results from a~ e f o ac ors w c aze a ect oss in terms o e adjacent zoning violation and the mar eting time, w c most e y wo e increase over the average. ~ k•y r Mrs. Helen King December 3, 1992 • Page 2 I.et me know if you require an appraisal of the property or any other assistance. Sincerely, ~~-~._.t~~r/ William H. Cushman, MAI Certified Federal General Appraiser Minnesota License #4001 ci38 • ~_ ,~._. /~ ~ .r • We are aware that the detached garage at 1433 Idaho Avenue West 1s over sized as a result of an alleged ereoml~n the part of the City of Falcon Heights in granting a building p Notwithstanding this situation, we the undersigned accept the present configuration of the garage. Name : ~~ll~C~ ~cl Address : ~~~'~ (~ ~-, Name: ;~ ~~ ~/ Address: /~3,2 ~2J- LL--~ C~~ Name : ~~_ Cam. r~ Address : 1 ck ~'} V.1 . ~. ~°~O~ . ~.~~ ~ti ~ Name :1` ' ~ ~ ~~ Address :~ y3 ~ ~' ~'~~~`~ Name : rV-u K C ~ s!~ ~ R.~ ~ i ~~ ~ 2 "Z,_ Name: ~0~~ l'~ Address : .~ C~u. h a Address: J ~( ~(7 LC ~ `~ • ~ • ~ ~ y 3 ~ /~/V SS 1 O ,` C ~ ~~ ~~y, • G z ,c Name: Name: Address: Addres ~~ Z!o W . ~~ ~~,.~°?~ /I-tin/ 551 Name: ,dam W. ~a~t~ • eSS: li{3(, f~c-l;~Y~1C`~•,~.trl6sT e: ~..~ ~E,YD21c.~s o~ . Address : ~ f z3 !.~ . -tPa•~6 G/f Gt.~.d !,~ Ts, ~,rl, SS/Ogj ~• N e: KI~1e, m ~ ~%~c~ Address: /~f/Z (,U_~Q~D~IJc. ~f. fk.CC./ m ~c1 SS/ 3 Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: / o.+~ ~ 5 ~ e~-1~vT~F Address: /~f I? W • zd~~ ~'"e :~l~c•-~ ~ S t ~N S~ / o t` ~~ Y Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Name: Address: Address: SAL.1 TERf1At1 t SIEFFgt2hfAK PAGE.004 6123°2408 P.03 Peter 8. Bachman, Esq. l'ttge 2 .~ January 19, 1993 i• ji') Z'hi~t the variance will rot increase the de~s1g8r df fire or endanger tAe public s~a£ety because it is located in aubatantially the same location as the previous two--car garx~ge; {q) That t! part3.cular hardship mould result to the owner if a variance were riot granttd and the strict letter of the ardxnance carried out, since th* owner acted in reliance on the ability to cons't.xuet the structure in dezaolishing the previous garage and constructing the substantially com~sletsd fourycar garage after the City of Falcon Heights had granted building permits allowing construction; (h) The variance is not sought principal3:y for the financial gain of the Qwner, but to prevent a substantial. hardship incurred by the owner in reliance vr~ the City's actions; and ji) The problem for which a varianoe is Bought caru~at be ~vlved through a condjtibnal use permit or amendment of the zoning cede. The or~mer did mat purchase the property in ralianca~ on a proseise that a variance would be granted, but would suffer a substantial, financial hardship fvr expenditures ~rhich are unigxie to the project and not otherwise useable. ~n addition' to the sr~yaer case, I also bt].ieve the ~*eguitable ~estoppe3." Line of cases. see ate a City q~ £den Pram a v. T.idr ~, 4.03 N.W.2d 25Z (Minn. Xpp. 1987) have some appliCabi.lity to this situation. nori~Cgnformi~q. I note that in your !?ecea~ber 9, 399 3~etter, you fnd~.cate that it is our position that if optfolt 3 ar 4 as outlined in the Letter atte ~Oe~'t., ~a bel.fev~ the city Mould be liable for damages for which thi City fs liable if option 1 were Chosen. The value of the Psepexty almost caz~tainly deGliae if the garage were classified as Please contact me with your thtrughts on the proposed find#.ngs. very tru,3y s, ~1. ,• f ~au3, W_ F Wing Attors~ay at LaW .] PWF/sob cc: Tom Sraee (via facsi~aile transmission) JRN 19 '33 13=21 6123452908 PACE. ~~ ' ~ O~ 9-13.07 Private Automobile Repair and Reconditioning. Private automobile repair may be conducted in residential zones subject to the following conditions. Subdivision 1. Definitions. As used herein: a. "Minor Repair" means common maintenance including oil and filter change; battery or tire change; mounting of tires on rims; auto tune-up; replacing car lights, anti-freeze, hoses, thermostats, manifolds and pipes. b. "Major Repair" means rebuilding, overhauling, or reconditioning of engines, motor vehicles or trailers including body, frame or fender straightening or repair, painting, and vehicle cleaning by steam or automatic car washing devices. subdivision 2. Vehicle Registration. Automobiles on which repair work is done must be registered to the owner or occupant of the property. Subdivision 3. Location of Repair Work. In R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 residential districts minor repair work may be done in a private garage, a garage attached to a dwelling unit, or on an improved driveway surface; and major repair work may be done in a private garage, a garage attached to the dwelling unit, or, if a permit is obtained from the city zoning administrator, on an improved driveway surface. In an R-4 zone, the location of major and minor repair work shall also be governed by regulations of the property owner. Subdivision '!. Hours. Except as herein provided, major and minor repair work may be conducted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Subdivision 5. Permit. Where an automobile repair permit is required, an application shall be made on forms provided by the city zoning administrator. Automobile repair permit shall expire ten (10) days after issuance unless extended for five (5) additional days by the city zoning administrator. Further extensions shall require approval of the city council. Subdivision 6. Nuisance. I repair work be conducted in a unreasonable disturbance for near-by property. • n no event shall major or minor manner that creates an the_owners of adjacent or ..i... Meeting Date: 1/25/93 'S Agenda Item: 6 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Amendment to variance in Section 9-4.01[4](b) of the zoning code for 2099 Folwell Avenue SUBMITTED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION On May 18, 1992,the planning commission approved a variance for a sideyard setback for a proposed new home at 2099 Folwell Avenue. The variance granted a 1 1/2 foot variance in the east side lot line for the northeastern rear five feet of the structure in order to save an existing elm tree. The remainder of the structure met or exceeded the required five foot setback in the zoning code. The adjacent city easement property is currently vacant, and may in the future be used as a pedestrian way between the Grove neighborhood and the path at the bottom of the hill (see attachment A, map) . In 1970 the city dedicated 25 ft. of the right of way easement to the University of Minnesota to add to this property. To date the structure has not been constructed. The surveyor on the job called to the staff's attention that the required sideyard • setback is not 5 feet on this property, but 20 percent of the lot width (or in this case, 21 ft., 4 in.) because the property abuts an existing public right of way, (Chapter 9, Section 4, Subdivision 4(b) of the city code). The five foot setback requirement is for property abutting residential property (Chapter 9 Section 4.01, Subdivision 4(c) of the zoning code.) Therefore, the planning commission is 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. (See attachment B, site plan.) ATTACHMENTS: A - Report from May 18, 1992 B - Diagram C - Standards for granting a variance D - Proposed resolution ACTION REQUESTED: Amend the variance granted on May 27, 1992 for 2099 Folwell Avenue for an eastside yard setback of 17 feet, 10 inches for the northeastern five feet of the structure and for a maximum of 16 feet, 4 inches from the east side property line for the remainder • of the structure. Findings: It meets the criteria for granting a variance specifically #g 6-C. ~v- Meeting Date: 5/18/92 Agenda Item: 2 ITEM: Request for a variance in section 9-4.01 [4](c) of the zoning code for 2099 Folwell Avenue SUBMITTED BY: Ms. Barbara Shiels, Property Owner Mr. Frank Preese, Property Owner REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator acting as planner EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION: Request: Ms. Shiels and Mr. Preese are planning to build a new home on the vacant lot at 2099 Folwell. They are requesting a variance in the east sideyard requirement of five feet in order to try to save an existing 20" caliper elm tree on the property. The property owner did not request a specific distance for the sideyard variance. After discussions with the city forester and with Ms. Shiels, staff recommends a maximum variance of 1 1/2 feet from the required five feet be considered by the commission. The location of the structure on the trapezoidal lot make a variance necessary for a small portion of the rear of the structure (see attachment A). This is the deck area. And, if the variance is approved, a portion of the deck will be 3 1/2 ' from the sideyard line. Analysis: As indicated in the site plan (attachment B), the house was originally sited for 10' 3" from the east side lot line. This sideyard is 5' 3" greater than required by the zoning code. Therefore, without granting a variance the dwelling can be moved 5' 3" further to the east and 5' 3" away from the elm tree. With a variance of 1 1/2' the tree will be 6'9 " away from the proposed structure. Will this distance adequately protect the tree? The city forester explained that it is difficult to anticipate whether or not a tree will be harmed by construction because root systems vary. There are examples where street projects cut within a few inches of a tree, yet the tree lives. However, she said a distance of more than 5' will give the tree a good chance of surviving. The additional distance of 1 1/2 ' will increase that possibility as well as keep the tree limbs further away from the proposed structure. The property to the east which will be affected by the request is • a 25 foot strip controlled by a city easement. Although there are no plans for using this easement, it is difficult to predict ,- the future. The city may design a pedestrian path to connect the ~ neighborhood to the trail down the hill to the north of the • property (see attachment B). Or, if the University decides to develop the property along the east end of Folwell (west of the tennis courts) for single family lots, the easement may be used as part of the future lots. Therefore, it is important to maintain some distance between the new structure and the property line. The 3 1/2' setback in the rear deck will allow the property owners to put up shrubbery without intruding on the adjacent property and keep an adequate distance from any new use on adjacent properties in the future. It will also allow the structure to be 6' 9" away from the existing elm tree. Recommendation: Staff recommends granting the 1 1/2 foot variance in the required east sideyard of 5' for the rear 5' of the structure in order to provide a maximum opportunity to save the tree and keep its branches away from the structure. This recommendation is made only because the siting of the structure on the trapezoidal lot requires a reduction in the sideyard requirement on only a small portion of the property. Staff would not recommend this variance request if the entire sideyard would be only 3 1/2' because this might become a problem if land use changes occur on the neighboring property to the east in the future. ATTACHMENTS: • A. Property owner's statement B. 1) Site plan for 2099 Folwell Avenue 2) Plat map of adjacent properties ACTION REQUESTED: Consider granting a 1 1/2 foot variance in section 9-4.01 [1](c) of the. zoning code because it meets the conditions for granting a variance,.specifically standard g related to the topographic conditions of the property. Place the condition that the variance be allowed for the rear 5 feet of the structure and that the remaining portion of the structure must meet the setbacks in the zoning code. Request for Variance Lot 1 Block 1 Auditor's Subdivision No 90 to St. Paul and the western 25 feet of Lot D. We seek a variance of the sideyard set back requirements on the east side of the lot in order to attempt to save the large 20" diameter elm tree on the west side of the lot. This tree is located approximately 10 feet inside the western border of the lot. Please refer to our survey of the lot, which is Exhibit A of to this request, to see the location of the tree. Without a variance we would have to remove the tree because it would be located within the southwest corner of the garage foundation of the house we propose to build on the lot. See Exhibit B of this request which is the Site Plan for the proposed house. Waiving the sideyard set back requirement on the east side of the lot would enable us to shift the house about 10 feet to the east. Based on information provided by City Forester Linda Trefoil, the resulting distance between the tree and the garage foundation is likely to be sufficient, though not guaranteed, to save the tree. This request for a variance is compatible with the city's standards for granting a variance as set forth in the zoning ordinance 9-15.03. Our lot is an unusual shape in that it narrows in width from 106 feet in the south (front) to 73 feet in the north (back). The adjoining property owners are the City of Falcon Heights to the east, the University of Minnesota to the north and the ch®cteleresidence to the west. The neighbors to the west would benefit from the tree being saved and there appears to us to be no impairment to the property of the city or the University that would result from granting the variance. Finally, saving the tree would not be detrimental to the p, public health, safety or welfare but rather would promote it. We therefore request that you grant the variance to the sideyard set back on the east side of the lot. • • 1 • ' O 1 >;~~ ~ , I S~~LA~ ~- N / elm ~/ e / It 4ID 11 I ~' I~l l ~ ``````~ ,l l s ~ 11 " ~^;~ l 1 j` ' ! _~~ - -~ ! I `~ r - l ~• / it i } ~•-,~.. ' ;~ g ,~ ~ _ ; ~l it i~ ,l _ is: =' l ~ __-~-~ Rj"'--a y `-_ ~ ri i , ~ ~ / ~ :_E ~ a `,`1_ r ~' 'F /`i l~/,•/:~ ~~~_ /r •~` I I, a r' l.. '`~ ` \;o- 11 •. ~pc,~-- -, - _ i8o~ , ~,r, ~ - 8;~/ ~~ ,~/O /; 1,90~~ J 'gyp `~~. ~ ~ ~ ___ .nm wu~. ~...._ -O ~_ "/ ~ ~ e/~i~'S /~ 74.0• ~~, I ~ --- ~pO`•~ ,r W (' r7 a _ _- • r ~ i` ` /`' 4. U / V e/ O ~ ~, ~ N ``Z ` 7 j 23.97 ay}. ° ° i u' ` S c7 v d ~ eo• i M ~ 3s. h (3}'I ,v/ of 2 tl9. ii 0 ~ a l x~~ v~6t a 7t. G 7~~G7 807/•-% i3.:) ~~ (37,' a'~-~ ~ ~ ( ! ! a o 79. ~7r m •.~ ,`~ • of 9J ~~ e e ', ~ 3. y 7 v 8 n 9 vl 10 ~I 11 ~ , '~2 •,~ ~r a~ ~ ~ ~ ; i *j ~ Q •: asp , k -+ CH. - i ~l - /31, ~ P O ' ~' `AA a i 5 9 72 I 78 ~ ~tl l 78 '~ 78 (3a! p ~ ! ~~ ~ 12 oz 5125 ;31.1 _LCT G 1021 47~~~ _p ~~ I . .~ »a_ ~~ I `O N' ~ ~ i 5~.~`I~1~175 ~~-- Gtr-~~"Tl tiffs' ~ Vii ,~ N ~ ~ ~ _ G Subdivision 4. Standards for Granting of Variance. No ~'j.(~3 variance shall be granted unless the City Council shall make without qualification on the basis of evidence presented at the meeting the following findings: a. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare; b. That the granting of the variance will not substantially diminish or impair property values or improvements in the area; c. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; 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 distinguish 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 inquiry as to all changes in the property and shall 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. 6-D U PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT RESOLUTION ON FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE AT 2099 FOLWELL January 25, 1993 WHEREAS, on January 25, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the application to amend a variance in section 9-4.01 [4] (c) of the zoning code for 2099 Folwell Avenue, approved by the council on May 27, 1992; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes without qualification on the basis of the evidence presented at the meeting the following findings: a. That the amendment to the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare; b. That the amendment to the variance will not substantially diminish or impair property values or improvements in the area; • c. That the amendment to the the preservation and enjoyment rights; d. That the amended variance supply of light and air to adj. e. That the amended variance use of the public streets; f. That the amended variance of fire or endanger the public variance is necessary for of substantial property will not impair an adequate Scent property; will not impair the orderly will not increase the danger safety; and g. That the unique shape of the tract, together with its location adjacent to an unused public right-of-way is such that a strict adherence to the letter of the Chapter would preclude the preservation of a large existing elm tree on the tract. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends that the variance granted on May 27, 1992 for 2099 Folwell Avenue be amended to an eastside yard setback of 17 feet, 10 inches for the northeastern five feet of the structure and for a maximum of 16 feet, 4 inches from the east side of the property line for the remainder of the structure.