HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCAgenda_92Oct26PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
•~ October 26, 1992
7:30
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. ROLL CALL: Lee Barry Len Boche Steve Huso
Carolyn Nestingen Ken Salzberg Kay Andrews
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
D. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
E. REPORTS, REQUESTS, RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Request for a variance of four feet in the sideyard
setback of §9-2.04[1](c) at 1494 Iowa Street
F. ADJOURN
•
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 28, 1992
7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT:
.Lee Barry Brian Standing, Intern
Len Boche Susan Hoyt, Administrator,
Steve Huso acting as planner
Carolyn Nestingen
Ken Salzberg
Meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Lee Barry, Chair.
Minutes of the July 27, 1992 meeting were unanimously approved as
publi"shed. Incorrect spelling of a councilmember's name was
noted.
REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE IN ~9-4 O1[4](c) OF THE ZONING CODE THE
SIDEYARD SETBACK AT 1603 NORTHROP STREET
Property owners Andy .and Carolyn .Collins asked the commission to
approve a request for a variance of 2.32 feet in the sideyard
setback requirement to construct an attached two car garage by
. adding an additional 14 feet of width to the existing 11.95 foot
garage. The variance is needed because the northwest corner of
the garage addition will come within 2.68 feet of the adjacent
sideyard property line rather than within the 5 feet required by
the zoning code. A variance is needed only for the rear 10 feet
of the structure due to the pie shape of the lot.
A neighbor, Pat O'Leary,- stated he and his wife did not object to
the granting of a variance for this addition.
After some discussion, Carolyn Nestingen moved to approve the
addition based on the following criteria:
• It's a reasonable way to accommodate the off-street
parking and storage space provided by a 2 1/2 car
garage.
• Over the past two years the city revised the zoning
code to accommodate garages with 576 sq. ft. of storage
area on the city's smallest lots, and, therefore, it is
reasonable to grant additional area.
• The shape of the lot requires a smaller setback in the
rear to make the addition possible.
• The proposed addition does not adversely impact the
neighboring property owner's property.
The request meets the conditions for granting a
variance, specifically property enjoyment and shape of •
lot.
Salzberg seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously.
RE UEST TO CONTRACT WITH THE HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP TO REVIEW
AND REVISE THE CITY'S BUSINESS ZONES
At the request of the planning commission, the Hoisington Koegler
Group submitted a proposal to assist the city with the updating
of its zoning ordinance to bring it into compliance with the
comprehensive plan specifically regarding commercial districts.
The amount for carrying out this proposal would be no more than
$2,000. Hoyt noted there are funds in the city's 1992 planning
budget to cover the cost of this project.
After a brief discussion on the city's satisfaction with the
Hoisington Koegler Group's guidance on the new comprehensive plan
completed in November, 1991, Boche moved to recommend the hiring
of the Hoisington Koegler Group to review and revise the city's
business zones as recommended in the city's comprehensive land
use plan. The motion was seconded by Nestingen and approved
unanimously.
REVIEW AND APPROVE THE PROPOSED 1993 FIVE YEAR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) •
After review and brief discussion, the commission approved the
adoption of the city's proposed 5 year capital improvement plan
(1993-1997).
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:35.
Susan Hoyt, Administrator
Dee Swenson, Recording Secretary
MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 1992
Baldwin convened the meeting at 7:05 p.m.
PRESENT
Baldwin, Gehrz,'Gibson Talbot and Jacobs. Also present were
Chenoweth and Hoyt.
ABSENT
Ciernia.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF 9/23/92
Council approved the Minutes of September 23, 1992 by unanimous
consent.
CONSENT AGENDA APPROVED
Council approved the following Consent Agenda by unanimous
consent :
• 1. Disbursements
a. General Disbursements through 10/7/92, $125,982.45
b. Payroll 9/16/92 - 9/30/91, $11,054.42
2. Appointment of Kay Z. Andrews to the Planning
Commission to complete the term of Ed Finegan (term
expires 12/31/92)
3. Approval of a 2.33 ft. sideyard setback request from
Andrew and Carolyn Collins, 1603 Northrop, to allow
construction of a two car garage
4. Authorization to purchase a rotary broom for public
works tractor from Scharber and Sons at a cost of
$2,725.00
5. Adoption of Resolution R-92-40 unreserving certain fund
balances (Idaho/Spelling park .building reserve,
$69,500.00)
6. Adoption of Resolution R-92-41 transferring funds
7. Licenses: Northwestern Service, #0987 and Black
Top Driveway, #0986
ADDENDUM TO POLICY AGENDA
Council ,approved the addition of Item P-7, Proposal for rental~of
sewer fetter to the City of Lauderdale, to the Policy Agenda
PUBLIC HEARING ON DELINQUENT UTILITY CHARGES
• Baldwin opened the hearing at 7:10 p.m. and explained the purpose
MINUTES
OCTOBER 14, 1992
PAGE 2
of the hearing. There being no one in attendance wishing to be
heard the hearing was closed at 7:11 p.m. Gehrz moved adoption
of Resolution R-92-42 which carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION R-92-42
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
FOR DELINQUENT UTILITY CHARGES
PUBLIC HEARING ON DELINQUENT DISEASED TREE REMOVAL CHARGES
Baldwin opened the hearing at 7:15 p.m. and presented a brief
history of the city's diseased tree removal policy and the
necessity of making changes in the policy over the years. He
explained that it is unknown who planted many of the trees, and
some of the trees which property owners believed to be on the
city boulevards actually were on private property. He commented
on the confusion created by these plantings leading to the
adoption of Resolution R-85-41. This resolution stipulated that
after September 1, 1987 the city would no longer participate in
any removal cost for the remaining 20 private trees which had
been previously assumed to be public.
Mr. Roger Pittelkow, 1853 Pascal St., was in attendance to
protest the proposed assessment against his property for removal
of a diseased elm tree on his property in 1991. Mr. Pittelkow
had been notified to remove the diseased tree and did not, the
city had the tree removed, billed the property owner and
implemented the assessment procedure as the bill was not paid.'
Mr. Pittlekow objected to the city requesting he pay for removal
as the city had paid for removal of neighboring trees in past
years. Baldwin explained that the city had removed some of
these trees prior to being aware of their location on private
property and prior to the resolution adopted in 1985. A
discussion followed regarding whether or not is was appropriate
to have the Pittleklow property and five neighboring properties
surveyed and the. estimated cost of such surveys. Baldwin
stressed that if the property is surveyed and the bulk of the
tree is on city property the city would pay the cost, otherwise
it would be the property owner's responsibility.
There being no others in attendance wishing to be heard Baldwin
closed the hearing at 7:35 p.m.
Jacobs moved that the properties at 1859, 1853 and 1847 Pascal be
surveyed. A discussion ensued regarding whether or not
information to be obtained by surveying neighboring properties
should have any impact on the Pittlekow's property and possible
•
MINUTES
OCTOBER 14, 1992
• PAGE 3
unnecessary use of city funds to satisfy curiosity. Following
this discussion it was agreed that the public works foreman and
forester will meet with Mr. Pittelkow and attempt to locate the
property stakes on the Pittelkow property to make an absolute
determination on whether or not the tree is on private or public
property. If the stakes cannot be located the property will be
surveyed. Jacobs withdrew his motion.
ADA GRIEVANCE POLICY ADOPTED
Council reviewed the latest draft of the ADA grievance policy,
and made some corrections. Jacobs moved adoption of the policy
as corrected which carried unanimously.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION R-92-43 REQUESTING TURNBACK OF A PORTION OF
SNELLING AVENUE
Council briefly discussed the proposed resolution which requests
that MN/DOT expedite the turnback to the city a portion of the
west Snelling service road adjacent to the AMOCO station.. The
city' lease with AMOCO for use of the service road for site
improvements is already in effect. Council approved Resolution
R-92-43 by unanimous consent.
RESOLUTION R-92-43
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE TURNBACK OF A PORTION OF
T.H. 51 (SHELLING AVENUE) RIGHT-OF-WAY
GUIDELINES FOR CITY CONTRIBUTIONS APPROVED
Baldwin reviewed the proposed guidelines to be used to evaluate
eligible requests for city contributions after which Council
approved the same by unanimous consent.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION R-92-44 SUPPORTING A VARIANCE IN MSA RULES
Hoyt explained that Ramsey County has been discussing the
possible turnback of some current county roads to city
jurisdiction. The proposed resolution requests that if county
mileage is turned back to the city, that MSA provide the city
additional mileage to assist in funding maintenace of these
streets. Following a brief discussion Gehrz moved adoption of
Resolution R-92-44 which carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION R-92-44
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO MUNICIPAL STATE AID MILEAGE
• FOR TURNBACK OF RAMSEY COUNTY ROADS
MINUTES
OCTOBER 14, 1992
PAGE 4
AUTHORIZATION TO HIRE HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP TO REVIEW AND
REVISE THE CITY'S BUSINESS ZONES IN CONJUNCTION WITH
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Hoyt explained that the city's new comprehensive plan which was
prepared under the guidance of the Hoisington Group, included
recommendations regarding review and possible revisions to the
city's business zones. Staff recommended the hiring of the
Hoisington Koegler Group to complete this task at a cost not to
exceed $2,000.00. Gibson Talbot moved approval of the hiring as
proposed which carried unanimously.
AUTHORIZATION FOR SOLID WASTE COMMISSION TO PREPARE RFP FOR SOLE
SOURCE RECYCLING
Solid Waste Commissioner John Hustad reviewed the commission's
recommendation that the city remain with sole source recycling
rather than an integrated system, and that the commission develop
the RFP for recycling services. At Baldwin's request Jacobs
presented the commission's findings regarding the disadvantages
of an integrated system as follows: 1) some haulers indicated
they would not collect batteries and oil, 2) more traffic created
by each hauler running two separate trucks on Fridays. 3) haulers
made it clear there would be no reduction in fee for reyclers, 4)
extremely cumbersome for staff to work with seven haulers to •
obtain stats as required by Ramsey County, and 5) haulers would
estimate tonnage as it would be mixed with collection from other
communities. Jacobs moved that the commission be authorized to
prepare the RFP for Council consideration. Motion carried
unanimously.
UPDATE ON LEGAL COUNSEL INFORMATION
Council noted the update prepared by the City Administrator.
The matter will be discussed at the October 28th meeting.
AUTHORIZATION TO RENT CITY'S SEWER JETTER TO LAUDERDALE
Hoyt explained that the City of Lauderdale is interested in
renting the sewer fetter and presented a draft proposal for the
rental. This proposal would include a per hour rental fee-for
the machine and labor cost for one temporary Falcon Heights
employee who is experienced in the use of the machine and would
be working on the project. Some concern was expressed regarding
•
MINUTES
OCTOBER 14, 1992
. PAGE 5
city liability and Hoyt explained that the attorney is reviewing
the matter. Gibson Talbot moved approval of the proposal for
sewer fetter rental contingent upon approval by the city
attorney. Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m.
ATTEST:
•
Tom Baldwin, Mayor
Shirley Chenoweth, City Clerk
r~
U
• PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 1
Item: Request for a variance of four feet in the sideyard
setback of section 9 - 2.04 [1] (c) at 1494 Iowa Street
Submitted by: Mr. William L. Huebsch, Property Owner
Reviewed by: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator acting as planner
summary:
Background
In 1983 Mr. Huebsch was granted a variance of 2 feet in the west
sideyard setback, to construct a garage 3 feet from the westside
property line. However, the garage was never constructed. When
Mr. Huebsch came in to get the building permit this fall, he
inquired about the possibility of moving the garage even closer
than the three feet to the side lot line because the code now
allows garages to be constructed within one foot of the side lot
line if it meets the following two conditions:
1) It is within the rear 20~ of the lot
2) The access door faces away from the alley
. Mr. Huebsch's proposed garage does not meet these requirements,
but he would still like to keep the eave of the new garage one
foot from the side lot line.
Purpose
Mr. Huebsch is making the request for the additional two feet in
order to maintain the maximum landscaped yard on a fifty foot
wide lot. The closer the garage is to the side lot line, the
larger the. landscaped area will remain in his yard. There is a
garden and lawn to the east of the proposed garage. There is
also a tree to the northeast of the existing garage which may be
more likely to live if the garage is two feet to the west because
fewer roots will be disturbed. However, there is no
guarantee the tree can be saved under either alternative.
Finally, he is making the request because the location of the new
garage will parallel the neighbor's garage, which was built in
the-past few years. The area between the two garages is not
used.
Analysis
The proposal to move the eave of the new garage within one foot
of the side lot line instead of the previously granted variance
for three feet will provide Mr. Huebsch with a two foot strip (66
. square feet) of additional green space and garden. This type of
space is a valuable commodity in an urban residential
neighborhood and the city's zoning code tries to balance the need
• for larger garages with the need for maintaining open space. In
this situation,the neighbors' garage will be parallel to the
applicant's garage and the space in-between the two garages (6
feet without the new variance and four feet with it) is not
useful. The neighbor's view is not impacted by the proposed
new location.
To date the neighbor has not contacted the city about the
proposal. Mr. Huebsch plans to speak to the neighbors before the
commission meeting.
The only concern about this proposal from the staff perspective
is future maintenance on the two adjacent garages. However,
since city code accommodates garages one foot from the side lot
line in the rear 20$ of the property, which means the eaves of
two neighboring garages could be two feet from each other,
maintenance should not be a reason to deny this request.
Recommendation
Staff recommends granting this variance if the neighbors' do not
express an objection. The reason for granting the variance is to
allow the property owner the additional 66 square feet of
landscaped and open area for the maximum enjoyment of property
• rights (condition c). This recommendation is contingent upon the
argument that the neighbors'. garage is parallel to this garage
and it will not impair the neighboring property owners' view.
The request meets all the other conditions for granting a
variance.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Site plan
2. Request from Mr. Huebsch
3. Conditions for granting a variance
•
;_ .
~....
,,,, L„n
`~.
~- , .~=
~~~~~ _
~, ,
.~
,~
;,~
:,~
~_ ~
~ ~
~-- `at ~, ~ .~I
~ 6d~'~
•
•
•
October 19, 1992
~~v~
~~
~~
To: The Falcon Heights Planning Commission
From: William L. Huebsch
1494 W. Iowa Ave.
Falcon Heights, Minnesota 55108
Re: Request for a variance
Please grant a variance so that I might build a garage within
one foot of my west lot line in accordance with the
accompanying plan.
Granting the variance will provide the following advantages
for me:
1. maximum remaining
already very small because
which my wife likes to use
plants.
2. a much better vies
deck in that there will be
rear yard through which to
alley.
usable back yard area which is
of the 50 foot wide lot size, and
for growing flowers and other
a out of my rear windows and from my
a greater width of unobstructed
view the surrounding area and
3. minimized root damage to a large maple tree in my
rear yard which will have roots in the yard, but not between
my garage and the lot line which is currently covered by
asphalt.
Granting the variance will provide little inconvenience or
problems for my neighbor adjacent which the garage will be
built for the following reasons.
1. the neighbors garage is built directly beside the
garage that is currently on my lot and beside the location in
which I hope to build my new garage, so that the only effect
of granting this variance will be to narrow the little used
asphalt covered space between the adjacent garages.
2. the neighbors view at present on my side of their lot
line is the adjacent end of their garage and the adjacent end
of my garage. This view will not be significantly changed by
decreasing the spacing between the garage I hope to build and
my neighbors garage.
3. the neighbors adjacent which I hope to build the
garage have told me that they have no objection to me building
closer to the lot line than my present location.
/a) = / "~
~- ~~. ~3 ~
Subdivision ~}. Standards for Granting of 9ariance. No variance shall I
be gr acted unless the City Council shall make without qualification on
• the basis of evidence presented at•the meeting the following fzndings:
a. That the gram ing 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
~^1 reservation and en o
p ~ yment of substantial property rights;
d. That the variance will not impair an adequate supply of Lght
and air to adjacent property;
e. That the variance will not impair the orderly use of the pub lie
streets;
f. That the variance will not increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety; •~•~3~
.;'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;
kh. 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 Prom what it was under the
Chapter. In the consideration of this item, the City shall make
diligent inquiry as to all changes in the prnperty and shall refuse
to grant the variance iP 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.
Subdivision 5. Conditions. The City may attach such conditions to
the grant of the variance as it shall determine will be necessary or
desirable to bring it within the purpose and intent of the Chapter. g
public record shall be maintained of such conditions.
•