Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCAgenda_90Aug27PLEASE NOTE THE MEETING BEGINS AT 7 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA August 27, 1990 7 p.m. i• i• A. CALL TO ORDER: 7 p.m. B. ROLL CALL: Barry Boche Daykin Duncan Finegan Nestingen Gibson Talbot C. APPROVAL OF MINIITES: July 23, 1990 D. CITY COUNCIL MINQTES: July 25, 1990 E. REQUESTS, REPORTS, RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Request for a permitted accessory use permit for a utility shed at 1924 Asbury in an R-1 zone submitted by Mr. Swanson, property owner. 2. Request for a variance from section 13.02 (3) (c) (4) of the zoning code regarding the maximum area of a business sign in a B-2 zone for Falcon Heights Pharmacy of 1707 Snelling Avenue North in a B-2 zone, submitted by Mr. Lowell Anderson, store owner. 3. Request for a variance from section 9-2.04(2) (d) of the zoning code regarding the rear yard setback on a through lot, and 9- 13.04(6)(a), regarding driveway access, for the construction of a double garage at 1586 Burton Street in an R-1 zone, submitted by Ms. Boss and Mr. Riggs, property owners. 4. Report on planning activities over the past year by the city planner, Susan Hoyt. 5. Update and discussion of the comprehensive planning process by Mr. Fred Hoisington, planning consultant. 6. Discussion of the proposed City of Falcon Heights, draft parking policy. F. ADJOURN REMINDER Neighborhood Meetings: September 17, 1990 - 7 p.m. east side of Snelling September 23, 1990 - 7 p.m. west side of Snelling Please invite friends and neighbors. MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 23, 1990 7:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Boche. PRESENT: Barry, Boche, Duncan, Finegan, Westingen, Gibson Talbot, City Council Member Paul Cernia City-Planner Susan Hoyt ABS-E-NT Daykin APPROf7AL-- - E3F -MINUTES Minutes of the June 25, 1990 minutes were unanimously approved as written. Ps- RE¢UE~= ---~'RONf--M&.- - -LOU-FS- -~-Ay 1i~3- -FOR --~ ~AR~ P~FCE---Fi~OM--- ssE~~'-FAM_.__~}- 2:8-4-{3)-{e}--0~--mHE--SON-ING -£ODE--TO--CONS'RT3CT-~-GARA£E--AT--X4-63- WEST CAL-3 F6RNlA . • City Planner Hoyt briefed the commission on Mr. Payin's request for a 5 foot variance from the corner sideyard setback of 15 feet to construct a new garage 10 feet from the corner sideyard property line. This will replace a deteriorating existing garage that is 6 feet from the corner sideyard property line. Planner Hoyt explained that unique hardships for granting this variance are 1) the garage access cannot be located 15 feet back from the corner side property line because of a large maple tree behind the garage; 2) the garage access cannot be located on the west side of the property because of the large maple tree behind the existing garage; and 3) the garage access cannot be located onto the alley -.because of an N.S.P. gasline release valve where the driveway would located. She also explained that the large tree and the gasline release valve met the following conditions for granting a variance, 15.03 (4) (c) for the enjoyment of the property and 15.03 (4) (g) unique characteristics of the site. Mr. Payin, property owner of 1463 California, said the garage would be 22 feet x 22 feet, and that both the exterior paint and roof design would match the house. The commission voted unanimously to grant the variance because of the conditions stated above. 1 UidTlb-- POWELIr -A~EIdUE -TEJ-RAI~ SOUTH -TOWARD HOYT.- The Roseville police requested this parking change to maintain consistency in parking regulations within the University Grove neighborhood and, thus, make them easier to enforce. This is a timely request because the public works department plans to replace illegible signs. in this neighborhood this year. Planner Hoyt stated residents were asked to contact her if they disapproved of this change; no one contacted her. The commission unanimously approved of the change in parking restrictions. INTRODUCTI{iN- OF -THE -DRAFT - OF - fiHE -CI T_Y- -OF-- FALCON- -HE3~HfiS --PA~2I~Ii~IG POEM CY . Commissioner Barry thanked Finegan, Daykin, and Planner Hoyt for their time and hard work in drafting this policy. He stated the committee was trying to establish a parking policy that would be consistent throughout the City, but still be fairly flexible to meet individual parking situations. The residential parking permit section of the draft was discussed. Chairperson Boche stated that this is the one area of the policy which should have very rigid rules because if there should be problems, it would most likely be in this section. Councilman Paul Ciernia suggested it be emphasized that all avenues of residential parking have been explored and the residential parking permit is the last resort. He also asked that the fact that Hollywood Court residents had permits during the state fair be added. Chairperson Boche suggested these two changes be put into the policy and it be brought back to the next meeting. UPDA-TE- {SAT- -THE - COMPREHER1SIyE- -Pf~ANN-I1dG- -PROCESS Planner Hoyt reported the comprehensive planning process is moving along rapidly. She stated Fred Hoisington, consultant, has asked to be given approximately 1 1/2 hour at the August 27 planning commission meeting to present his preliminary findings and discuss the strategy for neighborhood meetings. He would like one neighborhood meeting in September and one in October with invitations and postcards being sent out and a notice placed in FOCUS. After discussion by the Commission, it was decided .the meeting would be held on Monday evening, September 24 following the planning commission meeting. The planning commission meeting time would be changed to start at 7 p.m. with the neighborhood meeting to commence at 8 p.m. Planner Hoyt will discuss an October date with Consultant Hoisington. A - REQUEST- Fair-A--~A~ A~EE- FROM SECmIOAt - 9-4 : ~l - -(4 3 -{ c } --O-F--~fHE--~$ATINF CODE- T H~ - ~R$N3'~Aiti3-S-E T-BA£it ~ - AND- - S EEq' I~i~ --9-2--.-0 4-- E-I ~ -E-e }----6E - - THE 4'HE -A- • • 2 Mr. Tennyson proposes to construct an addition to a single car ~• garage to make it into a double garage. In order to do so, a variance of 6 feet in the frontyard setback requirement of 30 feet is necessary and a second variance of 5 inches in the sideyard setback requirement is also necessary. Planner Hoyt briefed the commission on her discussions with Mr. Tennyson's son, Rob, and her memorandum regarding his request stating the trapezoidal shape of the lot makes it difficult to construct a garage without infringing on the interior sideyard setback. The planner felt the request for the sideyard .variance makes sense due to the angle of the line. However, she felt the 6 foot variance from the 30 f oot frontyard setback may set a precedent for reducing frontyard requirements throughout the neighborhood and city. Mr. Rob Tennyson presented a second plan (attachment 1) before the commission. This plan required a 2 foot 8 inch variance in the frontyard and a 2 foot 2 inch variance in the interior sideyard setback. This plan significantly minimized the required variance in the frontyard. After a lengthy discussion, where the commission reviewed the alternatives, as well as the alternative of increasing the sideyard variance even more, which Mr. Rob Tennyson and Planner Hoyt said would bring the structure almost to the property line and too close to the neighboring dwelling for fire safety. Commissioner Barry moved to approve the variances requested for Plan B due to the unique trapezoidal shape of the lot, which is criteria 15.03 (4) (g) of the conditions for granting a variance (attachment 2). The motion was unanimously accepted. PZ3B~f£-_.-HBARING Ff~R--Aid----A~idDMENT--T(}--SECTION 9-2.0-4-E~-}{8~---f~F--THB ZOATING-- -COf3~- ~N - -REGARD- - g'0- -BOA'-_ EO~&AGE-- E}F__ _.DB'PAC-H£~D---A£-EE~SE3Ry S'FRIFC-T~REB Planner Hoyt stated that the proposed revision to section 9-2.04 (2) (b) which reads, "Area: Detached accessory buildings shall not occupy more than 35 percent of the area of the existing rear yard and shall be no more than 1,000 sq. ft." would allow too much area for detached accessory structure on smaller lots, and that the "existing" rear yard might be reduced after the accessory buildings were constructed. Therefore, it was suggested to return to the recommendation made to the commission last month which reads: "Area: Detached accessory buildings shall not occupy more than 40 percent of the area of a required rear yard; and shall not exceed a total of 1,-000 sq. ft." ' 3 The public hearing was closed by Chairperson Boche. • Discussion followed. A motion was made and unanimously passed to accept section 9-2.04(2)(c) which reads: "Area: Detached accessory buildings shall not occupy more that 40 percent of the area of a required rear yard; and shall not exceed a total of 1,000 sq. ft." 3-~E-£REAM SOCIAL Chairperson Boche thanked commissioners for volunteering to serve at the ice cream social Thursday, July 26, 1990. BULirSEY-E {JPDATE Planner Hoyt reported that Bullseye Shopping Center is going through foreclosure proceedings. The real .estate property management agent anticipates leasing to a liquor store tenant, and that court action will soon lead to the formal moving of Bullseye Golf, Yogurt and the Silver Screen. E3T HE-R The condition of the City boulevards was discussed. The meeting adjourned at 9 :10 p.m. Dee Swenson,~Recording Secretary Susan Hoyt, City Planner 4 r~ CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION • Meeting Date 8-27-90 Agenda Item E.~1 ITEM DESCRIPTION: A request for a permitted accessory use permit for a utility shed at 1824 Asbury in an R-1 zone. SDBMITTED BY: Mr. Swanson, property owner REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Planner E%PLANATION/DESCRIPTION-. Mr. Swanson proposes to construct a utility shed, 8 ft. x 8 ft. x 7 ft. tall in his rear yard. The shed will be 5 ft. from the side lot line, 12 ft. from the rear of his dwelling and approximately 29 ft. from the rear lot line. It will be painted cream color with a dark roof to match the housed The structure meets all the requirements in section 9-2 .04(1)(C) and (i) of the zoning code. It does not require a building permit. __ _ _ __ . _ - ACTION REQIIESTED : y ~ ;_i , 1. Approval. ~. 1 5'~' A/ t- a~TDi2R ~'~' ~a~z.lf ~ r~~ ~ . Z I,ys6~ J "`- Dam~t i~~~ • _' ~, -< z' , - ~ - - _ IT' r / ~ ._-- -- - L- __ o cam' S i`~ .~. ~~~ _ ~.. -. _ .G . :. _. ,~ . I _ _. _ _ ~ . . . ~~~ _ -~ ~ i ~. ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~~ _.. i , _ ~ _f _~. i .._~ ~ __~ ~.. - ~ _ _- l - --. • Meeting Date 8-27-90 Agenda Item E-2 '^ CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM DESCRIPTION; A request for a variance from Section 9- 13.02-(3) (c) (4) of the zoning code regarding the maximum area of a business sign in a B-2 zone, for Falcon Heights Pharmacy at 1707 Snelling Avenue. SIIBMITTED BY; Mr. Lowell Anderson, store owner REVIEW$D BY: Susan Hoyt, City Planner EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION: Mr. Lowell Anderson proposes to replace his existing business sign with a sign of similar square footage, 123.75 square feet (attachment 1). The new sign exceeds the 75 square foot maximum business sign allowed in a B-2 zone under section 9-13.02 (3) (c) (4) of the zoning code. Mr. Anderson requests the variance in the application of the si n code due to the unique circumstances described in attachment 2. Briefly, these are: 1) conformity with the adjacent sign of Design Modern Interiors 2) necessity of capturing. the attention of motorists on Snelling to the regional medical supply nature of the business 3) necessity of competing with the large AMOCO sign in the corner of the shopping center 4) necessity of replacing the outmoded current sign to eliminate the inefficient energy use of neon and to eliminate the large word, "DRUGS" ATTACHMENT 1 - Illustration of proposed sign ATTACHMENT 2 - Letter from Mr. Lowell dated 8/14/90 ATTACHMENT 3 - Planner's report and request for a variance from section 9-13.02 (3) (c) (4) ATTACHMENT 4 - Standards for granting a variance ACTION REQIIESTED: 1. Review and discuss • 2. Approval, if commission finds it meets the unique circumstances criterion. M E~,vr~c- z~---~ ~~Z~ ~~ ~ P ~rt~-~+=~,L~r prey ee 3o7e WTr' ~I~~ae~ DIJC b icIC 4^O~^d ~ ;,A. OMCS I ~A I ~(oe` d ~~^ ~e W M•Ts o. n:.m Y,a.d roda OC~I ~JC OC~~J i~'~ G°~~laG°~~QC~~ LQC~1D ~tlC D~C~La[~ ~~ppL~~ vErcil. _~AYOUr od:uF.v~i~.Msic-~-- I 3,9•. ({ed "''WA:fe o,. tl:nC r~ ~~ U~ ~rence Signs, Inc. "`•'' ""' /kaL2~O,q ~v- E-Z f~'C~ LtFMEti1'r 2 WATA U G A C O R P. • 1 707 NORTH SNELLING AVENUE ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55 1 1 3 6 1 2-646-4555 14 ~uc7~sst 1~9e's !"ls. Susan 3-3oyt City F`I annex City of Falcon Heights ~C~~'7 t~. Larpente~tr (venue Re: Request fez. ht~~ ari ante f;e~m sa gn ordi ranee f er Fa;. `on q-;e~ g;~t Fhat macy, ~~~.~+I 1"V: ~i::?Z l ii~g H4.F~' Dear ;M;s . Hoyt Falcon Hei gists F°na-macy ~;i sties to ep3 ace the si ern i oca teC on its #ront #ir-e-;n;al l . Thi= sign +rras originall yj placed t3~:ere wl-sen the pharmacy moved fr-um the scLstheast comer of tie intersection in about 19~~. • The ~r~ :a i:?Sed Si tin 1 S '_'.~} ' ~='•1 L ' r~" --- i _L . ?,c.! SCt i_1 a."c^ ~ G~ L.. e'v'~i a 'f i"S~iiaty.~"i th.L S ci,c;Si~iS ~~"32 St aSiLaP'~ ~Ciiiitu i e i i.~e i':irs'%7~ i ~c43~d`c~, ~dt~ bel i e~; e the var i ance to be justifiable, based on the f sal l ca~i ng cons2 d~ra~ OnS: The sign is about ?7 years old, and reflects the style cf the Korean war era. The present sign's predominant feature is the word "DRUBS", spelled out in neon. It has recently become es~fident that this is beconsing offensive to some me~sl:~ers of the community. eg. "Daddy, if drays are bad wt;y does that store sell them'?" The pharmacy has been developing a strong regional presence _ in the area of home health. eg. durable medical equipment, ostomy, diabetic, urologic and enteral. nutrition. The present . sign does not reflect this fact. Although the pharrrsacy port i can o-f our practice i s, and wi I I remain, local in emphasis; the home health area is a regional talmost Twin City wide3 business. Our Signage needs to be able tQ _ be seen, read and comprehended, by the out of neighborhood patient driving on Snelling Rvenue. The #ront wall of the pharmacy is 165' from the curb of 1=he southbound Sane of Snelling. It is abr3ut ~~C~' #rotr. the northbound lane. Further, the uiew of the pharmacy is partia3ly biocRed by the Standard Oil building and signage_ This is especially true for a rsorthbound car, stopped at the intersection with Larpenteur. Therefore, a smaller sign woui~! not provide the identification necessary. The proposed sign would bring our sign into conformity with those of Design Modern interior, and Warner`s Stellians. In attempting to provide a degree of consistency with our neighbors we are using the sae~e sign company, Lawrence Signs, that did Qt (JENi~4 ~'j~M. E- L ATTYk GH ~~ ~ • I3esig~~ !`+Icdern Interiors. Llttr proposed sign is the same same as that c3-~ I?ti;I, and somewhat sr~al ier than darner 's ~te13. i an. The proposed si g,^, jai I ue 1 i t r~i th o;;~artz ha i cgen 1 amps ; providing a simi:r3r nat~ht tame ap?earanoe t0 the other signs. Luartz halogen 1ar;:ps are also more energy efficient than are neon. I~. Ioo,.irg forward to a satisfaotory rase' utiat~ to this Matter, i am rRady to prov'bde any further xrformatao,t that you, the Com~Fission or the Council might find necessary- • • Meeting Date8-27-90 Agenda. Item E-2 '~ Attachment •3 MEMORANDIIM: TO: Planning Commission FROM: Susan Hoyt, City Planner RE: Report on the Request for a Variance from Section 9- 13.02 (3) (c) (4) of the Zoning Code for Falcon Heights Pharmacy at 1707 Snelling Avenue In his letter, Mr. Anderson clearly delineates the unique circumstances governing his request for a variance from 75 sq. ft. to 123.75 sq. ft. for a business sign in a B-2 zone. In order for the commission to assess the uniqueness and possible hardship created by the applying code, it may be useful to reiterate the purpose of the sign code. First, it is to eliminate unsightly, offensive signs, especially billboards on top of buildings such as at Northome, and projecting signs. Second, the sign code is designed to promote consistency in the number and size of signs within a business zone without impairing recognition of the businesses. The purpose of a sign code is not to create nearly • identical signs throughout the business zone. (Occasionally, shopping centers do this within a center.) The following elaborates on the unique characteristics stated by Mr. Anderson. 1) Setback Reviewing this request in the context of other shopping centers in the B-2 zone along Larpenteur and Snelling, it is apparent that Falcon Center has a much larger setback from the main thoroughfare than the Bullseye Center and some of the Northome Center (see Figure 1). Unlike Bullseye, Falcon Center does not have a pylon sign identifying all its businesses. And the AMOCO station and sign are a visual detraction f rom the center. This is why Tile International has a roof sign. Therefore, signs are less visible from Falcon Center stores to drivers on the adjacent thoroughfare. 2) Business Area It is a basic planning concept that certain types of businesses appeal to a larger geographic area than others. In other words, people are willing to go farther for a special purchase. Some of the businesses in Falcon Center meet this criterion. For example, people may drive for several miles to price an appliance at Warner/Stellians or to purchase a piece of furniture at Design Modern Interiors, whereas they will travel very few miles to take out a pizza or rent a - video. Falcon Pharmacy is joining the businesses with a 1 • larger geographic focus by expanding its medical supply clientele. These types of businesses require clearly identifiable and visible signs because people unfamiliar with the area may be looking for the business. 3) Consistency The proposed Falcon Pharmacy sign maintains the intent of the sign code by being designed in consistency with its neighboring business, Design Modern Interiors. It is also similar in proportion and style to other Falcon Center signs. It does not cover up any unique architectural features on the building. After viewing several shopping centers with setbacks like Falcon Center in other communities, it became apparent that the businesses in Falcon Center might be adequately marked with signs that conform to the code. This would require having all the signs in the center re-designed using letter styles, colors and lighting to highlight the businesses. The new signs would need to be large enough to clearly identify the unique businesses, and to compete with the AMOCO corner. Any major sign changes like this are expensive, and must be initiated by all the business owners. Without an overall change in the shopping center signs, the proposed sign maintains the style, consistency and similarity with the other businesses, specifically, Design Modern Interiors. • In summary, there appears to be unique circumstances governing the sign selection by Mr. Anderson to promote the Falcon Heights Pharmacy and Medical Supply business, which may render his request for a variance in the maximum sign area reasonable (see Attachment 4 - Standards for Granting a Variance). 2 I _ PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 9-.15.03 ~rj'p3 STANDARDS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE Subdivision ~. Standards for Granting of Vary ance. No variance shall be granted unless the City Council shall make without qualification on the basis of evidence presented at the meeting the following findings: j/ 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; That the variance will not impair an adequate supply of Lght ~. and air to adjacent property; That the variance will not impair the orderly use of the public s reefs; ~~/. That the variance will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety; ~ • kig. ~Tdhether 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. Tiihether 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~oonditions which give rise to the application for the variance arose after the adoption of this Chapter of the Code of the City of-Falcon $eights or any .amendment thereto which placed the tract in a coning 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~it the problem is one that can be solved through a proper application of a~eonditional use permit-or an amendment of the Zoning.~code.•~•Finaacial hardship shall not be a basis for the granting of a~variaace when the owner purchased the property in reliance ou a promise that a variance would be granted, _ and the City shall dismiss the appeal if it shall appear that the property way pu~•chased 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. A pub].ie record shall be maintained of such conditions. • Meeting date 8-27-90 Agenda Item E-4 CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planner's report on planning activities over the past year. SIIBMITTED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Planner E%PLANATION/DESCRIPTION: I delivered a brief overview of planning activities and perspective at the last city council workshop. I felt it would be useful for the planning commission to have a similar review. PLANNER'S REPORT - OVERVIEW 1. MAKING PROCEDURES THOROUGH, CONSISTENT, UNDERSTANDABLE, AND WELL DOCUMENTED • planing requests - conditional use permits, variances • • plan review - zoning code • planning commission agendas, meetings, minutes 2. PROVIDING INFORMATION ON PLANNING ISSUES • specific - conditional use permits, variances, permitted accessory uses • general - transportation, light rail transport, development proposals 3. BECOMING FAMILIAR WITH THE ZONING CODE, IDENTIFYING PROBLEMS AND AMENDING THOSE THAT NEED IMMEDIATE ATTENTION • day to day calls • building activity • zoning code changes 4. CREATING A WORKABLE PARKING POLICY • procedures to address problems • continuity and flexibility in solutions 5. ADDRESSING THE CITY'S FUTURE THROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING • development • • revitalization • neighborhood quality - visual appeal/housing quality • CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date 8-27-90 Agenda Item E-5-: "' ITEM DESCRIPTION: Update and discussion of the comprehensive planning process by Mr. Fred Hoisington, Planning Consultant SIIBMITTED BY: Fred Hoisington, Consulting Planner Susan Hoyt, City Planner E%PLANATION/DESCRIPTION: Mr. Hoisington will present some of his preliminary planning information and analysis to the commission as well as discuss the upcoming neighborhood meetings. September 17, 1990 - 7 p.m. - East of Snelling September 24, 1990 - 7 p.m. - West of Snelling November 8, 1990 - 7 p.m. - East of Snelling November 13, 1990 - 7 p.m. - West of Snelling • ACTION REQIIESTED: For your information . Meeting Date 8-27-90 Agenda Item E~6 ~~ CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM DESCRIT PTION: Discussion of the draft City of Falcon Heights Parking Policy prepared by the parking committee, dated July 12 SUBMITTED BY: Parking Committee REVIEWED BY: Parking Committee Susan Hoyt, City Planner Jan Wiessner, City Administrator Shirley Chenoweth, City Clerk Ron Savarda, Roseville Police EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION: The attached draft parking policy includes the addition of an additional point under residential permit parking, page 4. • The permits for Hollywood Court residents during the state fair were not included because they do not relate to parking, but to street access to the neighborhood. Please keep your copy of this policy. ATTACHMENT 1 - Draft City of Falcon Heights Parking Policy dated July 12, 1990 ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Review and discussion of draft document Meeting Date 8-27-90 Agenda Item E CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Request for a variance from section 9-2.04 2 (d) of the zoning code, regarding the rear yard setback on a through lot, and 9-13.04(6)(a), regarding driveway access, for the construction of a double garage at 1586 Burton Street in an R-1 zone. Si~BMITTED BY: Ms. Pauline Boss and Mr. Dudley Riggs REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Planner E%PLANATION/DESCRIPTION: Ms. Pauline Boss and Mr. Dudley Riggs propose to remodel their home. A portion of this remodeling involves making the existing single car garage into a study/guest room and creating a new double car garage (see attachment 1). The house is situated on a through lot. A variance from the 30 foot rear yard requirement on a through lot is necessary for the project. The current structure is 17 feet from the property line; the proposed garage will be 5 fee t from the 1 ine . • As the letter from Mr. Winston Close, project architect, states, there are unique characteristics governing this site: (see attachments 2 & 3) 1) The buildings along Burton are situated to conform to the angle of the sideyard of 2190 Folwell to the north of their property and, therefore, a sideyard. setback is really what exists. 2) The proposed setback is in close conformance with adjacent properties of 10 ft. or less to the north and 9 ft. to the south. 3) The unique topography, a hillside and several pines, plus the location of neighboring homes make this plan the least intrusive one. ATTACHMENT 1 - Garage design and plat ATTACHMENT 2 - Letter from Architect Close dated 8/12/90. ATTACHMENT 3 - Site plan for 1586 Burton ATTACHMENT 4 - Planner's report ACTION REQIIESTED: 1. Review and discuss 2. Approval, if commission finds it meets the unique characteristics criterion. f!(rt~ ~q~. ~ 3 • ~,~0. ~~ ~ ~~~~f z EliZABETH & WINSTON CLOSE • ARCHITECTS 3101 E. FRANKLIN AVE. MEMBER MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 5540b A.I.A. TEL . FEDERAL 9- 0 9 7 9 ~ ~~ t I .L ~,~ ~ " ¢,~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~,I~-x ' 8 s r~ c 10' ~a ~-Z. , I.:c~..~ ,~.,,r.~., a.G~~ ~~ ' n~ ~ ~- ~ , i Q.o~,w,, !~ E~.. tt,.;~..~ h,.o.r„c,,,,. ~ 1 sT8 r~.,,~a.,., , ~~ 0 ~6-ex~..Jq -l='~ F -3 Hw~~ 2 "s. • ELIZABETH 8 WINSTON CLOSE ARCHITECTS 3101 E. FRANKLIN A4E. MEMBER MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55406 A.Q.A. TEL . FEDERAL 9 -0 9 7 9 u //~~ / ~ _ 1 l....;,t2..'-d.o.. ~.,,..~- ~ tw- .~-~.2,E- r) -~-,c.a. tti.e-•.~s- c-~-, ~t c... nom,- , () .t a~. ~~-~-~-d~ c~.t,c~to.-e G~ru.~r-~ ttt-~e.l-. ~-+~a c~ Lt? "~~ ~ f~~ 3 • r: I I ~ ~ IS~ y I1rf ? ~ x° ~ ' ~ r ~ ~ ~ o I +y d' ~ . . ~1 4 ~1 1 I W '~~ ~ ~ Iii' ~~ 1 ` ~ ~ ~ ~ , 1 ~ ~..., ___ '' - _. ..... ' „- i i !~ ~~` ~ ~ ~„ ~~ ,o i I ~ x . i i -i ~ '-1- 1 1 ~ . i ~ ~ A ~- --___~-1 T ?; ~ ti, -~____ ~ 1._.._ , ;. . -___ __ _ _ _____ __..__ . ' ~ I i;,~ ~ ,- ~ 1 1 1 ~ ~ . • ~ ' 1 # ~1'!~ ~ ~ ~•~. ~ ' i ,_ ~ ~~. I r ~ `C"~2~-J~ £ O . ~i i m 1 ~+l i ~• L Meeting Date 8-27-90 Agenda Item E-3 Attachment 4 MEMORANDUM: TO: Planning Commission FROM: Susan Hoyt, City Planner RE: Request for a variance from section 9-2.04(2)(d) and 9- 13.04 (6) (a) of the zoning code for 1586 Burton After viewing the site at 1586 Burton and discussing the project plans and alternatives with Mr. Close, the project architect, the following points may be reiterated from Mr. Close's letter: 1) Rear yard/side yard As Mr. Close states in his letter, the existing 17 ft. rear yard is actually designed to conform to the side yard of the house at 2190 Burton. If this was actually defined as a side yard, the setback would meet the required 5 ft. Neighboring property setbacks are 9 ft. for 1578 Burton and probably less than 10 ft. for 2190 Burton. 2) Description of the site and neighboring views The proposed plan is significantly less disruptive to the topography, landscape and the neighbors' views than if the garage were placed in either sideyard, which would not require a variance. 3) Driveway access The zoning code limits single family homes to one access drive. In part, this is to prevent paving over a large area to get "circle drives". This unusual two access plan does not propose to pave a large area, but to provide two single car accessways 5 feet long. Because each accommodates only one car, there should not be a safety problem, and the entrances are carefully worked into the design of the garage. In summary, this request for two variances may satisfy the criterion for a unique site; and their approval may not jeopardize the intent of the zoning code nor the visual character of the streetscape and neighborhood.