Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCAgenda_90Jul23 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA j JULY 2 3 , 19'0 7:30 p.m. A. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 P.M. B. ROLL CALL: Barry_ Boche Daykin Duncan Finegan Nestingen Gibson Talbot- C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 25, 1990 D. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: June 27, 1990 ` (Mr. Lammers, 1697 N. Hamline Avenue, withdrew his request for a variance for an eight foot high fence along his front property line). E. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. A public hearing on a request for an amendment to section 9-2.04 (2) (b) of the zoning code in regard to lot coverage of detached accessory structures. F. REPORTS, REQUESTS, RECONIlKENDATIONS: 1. Request for a variance from section 9-2.04 (1) (c) of the zoning code, the corner sideyard setback, by Mr. Louis Payin of 1463 West California in order to construct a garage. 2. Request for a change in parking restrictions along Folwell Avenue east of Coffman until Folwell`turns south to Hoyt to, "two hour parking 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. except weekends and holidays." 3. Introduction of the draft City of Falcon Heights Parking Policy by the parking committee of the planning commission. 4. Update on the comprehensive planning process. 5. Request for a variance from section 9-4.01 (4) (c) of the zoning code, the frontyard setback, and section 9-2.04 (1)(c) of the zoning code, the interior sideyard setback, by Mr. Wes Tennyson of 1935 Summer Street in order to construct an addition to a garage. G. .ADJOURN • Agenda Item C MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 25, 1990 7:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order at 7:35 by Chairperson Boche. PRESENT: Barry, Boche, Daykin, Duncan, Finegan Gibson Talbot, City Planner Susan Hoyt ABSENT: Nestington APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the May 21, 1990 meeting were unanimously approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING ON REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A PET GROOMING AND BOARDING BUSINESS AT 1660 SNELLING AVENUE NORTH, THE NORTHOME SHOPPING CENTER, IN A B-2 ZONE Ms. Roberta Madison proposes to operate a pet grooming and limited pet boarding business at 1660 Snelling Avenue North in the Northome • Shopping Center in a B-2 zone. Section 9-10.01 subdivision 2, requires a conditional use permit for the pet boarding portion of the business. Planner Hoyt briefed the commission on her memorandum regarding Ms. Madison's request. She explained that a veterinary clinic was previously granted a conditional use permit at this location. The zoning code clearly prohibits an exclusively pet boarding facility with outdoor cages and kennels. A maximum of 10 animals would be boarded at one time. The Hennepin County humane society enf orcement officer informed her that al l persons operating such a business must meet the Minnesota laws governing animal welfare in Chapter 343 of Minnesota State Statutes. There are no specific limits on the size of the facility and the number of animals housed. Any complaints about the operation would be followed up by the Ramsey County humane society enforcement officer. She recommended the approval of the conditional use permit because the request meets all the requirements for a conditional use permit in section 15.04, sub division 3(a) of the zoning code. The following conditions were suggested: 1. Boarding shall be a secondary business with a maximum of ten animals. 2. All animal welfare laws in Chapter 343 of the Minnesota State • Statues shall be adhered to. 1 3. A clean environment shall be maintained inside and outside the facility with sanitary disposal of all wastes. 4. All business shall be kept within the building with no outside cages, kennels or exercising of animals. 5. The status of the operation shall be reviewed within one year after approval . A brief discussion followed with members of the commission asking Ms. Madison the following questions: Question: How would the businesses on either side of the proposed facility be affected by noise from the pet grooming business? Answer: There is a hairdressing business on one side and formerly a video store was one the other side but is now vacant. There are four to five inch firewalls between each unit which effectively block out noise. Question: What about odor? Answer: All wastes would be cleaned up immediately and the area cleaned with Chlorox bleach with effectively eliminates all odor and germs. Question: If no animals are allowed outside, how do you plan to exercise the animals you would be boarding? Answer: I plan to install a portable kennel inside. Question: How long would any animals being boarded be allowed to • s tay? Answer: Usually over a weekend. An absolute maximum would be two weeks. The public hearing was closed by Chairperson Boche. Finegan moved to approve the conditional use permit with the exception that the status of the operation be reviewed within six months rather than one year. The motion was unanimously accepted. A request from Mr. Robert Stangel for a permitted accessory use permit for a utility shed at 1777 Arona in an R-1 zone Planner Hoyt reviewed information contained in her report regarding size of setback and color of the utility shed.. The commission agreed all requirements of the zoning code 9-2.04 (1) (c) and 9- 2.04 (1)(i) have been met and unanimously agreed a permitted accessory use permit be granted. A request-from Mr. Jim Lammers-for a variance from sections 9 2.46 subdivision 1 (b) and 1 (f} (~} -of the-zoning-code for 1697 N.--Hamline Avenue -in- -an ~-1 zone. Mr. Lammers, property owner and resident of 1697 North Hamline Avenue requested a variance from 9-2.06 1 (b) and 9-2.06 1 (f) (5) of the zoning code to allow him to construct an eight foot high fence along his front property line and along the entire south side lot line. This variance is necessary because 9-2.06 1(b) limits the height of all fences to six feet and 9-2.06 Subdivision 1 (f) (5) 2 restricts fences to three feet in height within the front yard setback. In order to qualify for a variance, the property owner must demonstrate that there is a uniqueness and hardship to the use of this property compared to other properties in the same zone (R-1) to justify departing from the normal requirement of the zoning code. Mr. Lammers identified two hardships to the commission. 1) noise from the traffic along Hamline Avenue, and 2) visual blight from adjacent and directly opposite commercial land uses. Mr. Lammers stated his house forms the barrier between the commercial land uses at the intersection of Larpenteur and Hamline Avenues. When he moved into his home in 1971, he planted a hedge to block the view of Baber Auto. The hedge is now 90 percent dead on the south side of the property adjacent to the Thatcher Clinic and dying along the front of the property. Because the house was built with a higher than average foundation, an eight foot high fence is necessary to effectively block out visibility of commercial property of Tires Plus and Baber Auto and to serve as a barrier to noise and the increasing traffic volumes on Hamline and Larpenteur. Furthermore, Mr. Lammers said a hedge is not a good sound barrier nor visual buffer during the winter. Therefore, he would like to install an 8 foot fence made of cedar split logs fit snuggly together. He might cover it with Virginia Creeper vines . • Chairperson Boche asked if a unique hardship to this property unlike other properties in R-1 zones exists and, if so, how? Mr. Lammers stated looking out the windows of his home at a commercial auto repair shop with a parking lot in front with long term parking was visual blight. Planner Hoyt reviewed her report of the variance request. She stated that because 1697 North Hamline is 1) not unique due to noise from traffic since several other homes in the city are located on busy streets, 2) not unique due to the location adjacent to a commercial property as there are several properties that are adjacent to commercial uses (Bullseye, Northome, Super America), and 3) that it might be considered unique because it is directly across from a commercial service with vehicles always parked outside. Chairperson Boche reminded everyone that in granting a variance all standards must be met (attachment 1). Planner Hoyt explained that a six foot fence along the south side lot line would be in keeping with the zoning code which requires a barrier between adjacent commercial parking places and R-1 zones . She also said that if the Thatcher Clinic owners installed a six foot fence along the clinic's rear lot line, a variance would not be needed; only a building permit. Mr. Lammers stated that he intended to have Dr. Thatcher construct the fence and he withdrew • his request for a variance for an eight foot fence along the south r side lot line. Discussion continued on the request for a variance to construct an eight foot high fence along the front property line. Chairperson Boche clarified that an eight foot hedge on the property line was in conformance with the code. Commissioners discussed whether or not it met the criteria for granting a variance (attachment 1) . Mrs. Frances L. Glendenning, the resident at 1357 West Larpenteur, introduced herself as an interested neighbor. She said that several residential properties overlooked commercial property and 1 i s tened to traffic from thei r homes . She said she looked onto the Super America station and heard the traffic on Larpenteur. Commissioner Daykin suggested that st (g) were not met. Commissioner Barry a sound barrier would set a precedent busy streets. Several commissioners blight from the commercial property unique -hard-ship since several other adjacent to or across from commercial andards 9-15.034 (b) , (c) and paid constructing a fence as for all residents living on suggested that the visual from a residence was not a properties in the city are properties. The commission unanimously voted to deny the variance request because it did not meet all the standards for granting a variance, in particular because it was not necessary for the enjoyment of the property, and because it was not a unique condition to 1697 North Hamline but found throughout the city in R-1 zones. Rev-iew of section 9-2.04 subdivision 2 (b) lot coverage of- detached accessory- buildings Planner Hoyt asked the commission to reconsider Section 9-2.04 subdivision 2(b) of the zoning code which states that detached accessory buildings shall not occupy more than 35 percent of the area of a required rear yard. She recommended changing it to 40 percent as it formerly was. Discussion followed. Chairperson Boche stated the problem is using the word "required" instead of "actual". A maximum area coverage of 1,000 square feet was suggested to control the area of attached accessory structures on wider lots. Commissioner Finegan made a motion that the 9-2.04 2(b) of the zoning code be changed to read, detached accessory buildings shall not occupy more than 35 percent of the area of rear yard. • The motion carried unanimously. A public hearing will be held at the July meeting. Press Coverage-of Falcon Heights/Roseville-Study Planner Hoyt called the commission's attention to recent articles on the study of merging services with Rosedale. Update- ten- -147-7 Hoyt -A~renue The property was burned a year ago. It remains in poor condition. 4 City staff is investigating how to deal with getting the structure torn down or repaired. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55. DeLoris J. Swenson, Recording Secretary Susan Hoyt Taff, City Planner • • 5 ~~~ ti~ ~~ MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ' ~ JUNE 27, 1990 Baldwin convened the meeting at 7:00 P.M. PRESENT Baldwin, Gehrz and Wallin. Also present were Wiessner and Chenoweth. ABSENT Ciernia and Jacobs. ADDENDUM TO POLICY AGENDA Council added Item F(7), Scheduling a Workshop with Roseville City Council, which was inadvertently omitted when typing the Agenda. MINUTES OF MAY 23, 1990 APPROVED The Minutes of May 23, 1990 were approved by unanimous consent. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Council approved the following Consent Agenda Items by unanimous consent: • 1. Disbursements: a. General Disbursements through 6/27/90, $79,822.51 b. Payroll, 6/1/90 - 6/15/90, 512,930.17 2. Resolution R-90-25 Granting a Conditional Use Permit to Operate a Pet Grooming and Pet Boarding Business at 1600 N._Snelling, Northome Shopping Center in a B-2 District ..~ 3. Approval of a Permitted Accessory Use Allowing Robert Stanal, 1777 Arona St., to Construct a ut~~iry,_g~~ding 4. Solid Waste Commission Minutes of June 7, 1990 5. Scheduling of a Public Hearing for August 22, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. Regarding Organized Refuse Collection 6. Authorization to Purchase a "Sno-Way" plow for the 1990 Public Works Truck at a Price of $2,199.00 7. Appointment of Seasonal Employees to the Parks and Recreation Department 8. Licenses (See Attached List) APPROVAL OF TRANSFER OF CABLE TV COMMUNITY PROGRAMMING FUNCTION FROM CABLE TV NORTH CENTRAL TO CITIES Tom Creighton, Attorney for the North Suburban Cable Commission, explained that an acceptable agreement has been negotiated between the Commission and Cable TV North Cental, and that six of the ten participating cities have already approved the transfer. Wallin who serves as the Falcon Heights • representative on the Commission, stated he would endorse approval of the transfer. Following a brief discussion, Wallin moved, and Gehrz seconded adoption of the two resolutions- required for approval of the transfer. Motion carried unanimously. b MINUTES JUNE 27, 1990 PAGE 2 RESOLUTION R-90-26 • A RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING COMMUNITY TELEVISION PROGRAMMING RESPONSIBILITIES FROM GROUP W CABLE OF THE NORTH SUBURBS, INC., d/b/a CABLE TV NORTH CENTRAL RESOL~7TION R-90-27 A RESOLUITION AMENDING BY SUBSTITUTION THE NORTH SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF A CABLE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM PARK BUILDING UPDATE Wiessner explained that the construction of the new building is going smoothly, however, there is a problem with obtaining the windows desired and it could delay the completion unless another type is approved. Council discussed whether or not they should delay the project to obtain the special vandalism proof windows, and if it might be possible to postpone the dedication scheduled for July 26, 1990. AMM REQUEST FOR INCREASED DUES TO HIRE ADDITIONAL STAFF DEFERRRED TO 7/25/90 MEETING Council discussed a letter from the Association of Metropolitan • Municipalites requesting that the City consider supporting the hiring of an additional staff person which would increase dues 20 to 25~. The purpose of the additional staffing would be to provide more effective lobbying at the Legislature. Following the discussion Council agreed more information was needed in order to make a decision, and directed staff to arrange for the AMM Staff to make a presentation at the July 25th meeting. INVITATION TO JOIN THE SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY DEFERRED TO 7/25/90 The invitation to join the SRA, an organization which monitors rate matters of suburban utilities, was deferred. A Councilmember will attend the SRA meeting on July 17th and report back at the July 25th Meeting. CITY TO PARTICIPATE IN GUINNESS WORLD RECORD "GET WELL CARD" PROJECT Wiessner presented a letter requesting the City consider participating in a project to help a seven year old boy who has a brain tumor, to achieve his goal to have an entry in the GUINNESS BOOK OF RECORDS for the largest number of "Get Well Cards" ever received by an individual. Council agreed it was a worthwhile project and approved a proposed list of organizations/businesses to be contacted asking that they also participate. Council then adopted Resolution R-90-28 which will be sent to Craig Shergold at his home in England. Cable TV viewers were also urged to send cards. MINUTES ' JUNE 27, 1990 PAGE 3 • RESOLUTION R-90-28 A RESOLUTION WISHING CRAIG SHERGOLD SUCCESS IN HIS GUINNESS WORLD RECORD "GET WELL CARD" PROJECT DISCUSSION REGARDING MTC BUS SHELTER LOCATIONS AND ADVERTISING SIGNS ON BUS SHELTERS AND BENCHES Wiessner explained that the Metropolitan Transit Commission would like the City's input on possible locations for shelters. After the City provides possible locations MTC will check ridership to see if a shelter is warranted. Council discussed several possible locations which will be forwarded to the MTC. A discussion was held regarding advertising signs on bus benches and shelters. At present City Code prohibits advertising signs but it has never been enforced, and several signs are in place at this time. Staff was directed to check into possible franchise agreements which would provide the City with some , revenue for placement of such signs. WORKSHOP MEETING WITH ROSEVILLE CITY COUNCIL SCHEDULED FOR 7/12/90 Council scheduled a joint workshop with the Roseville City Council for July 12, 1990 at 7:00 P.M. at the Falcon Heights City Hall. The purpose of the workshop is to study mutually beneficial cooperative opportunities for the two cities. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 P.M. Tom Baldwin, Mayor ATTEST: Shirley Chenoweth, City Clerk • • Meeting Date 7/23/90 Agenda Item E-1 CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM DESCRIPTION: A public hearing on proposed code revision to 9-2.04 (2)(b) - Lot Coverage of Detached Accessory Buildings. SIIBMITTED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Planner EXPLANATION/SUMMARY: Strictly applying section 9-2.04 (2)(b) of the zoning code Area: Detached accessory buildings shall not occupy more than 35 percent of the area of a required rear yard. is creating problems for new garages in the Northome neighborhood. Applying 35 percent of the required rear yard to these 50 ft. lots prohibits the construction of what are currently considered • standard two or two and one-half garages. Therefore, the planning commission proposed revising this section of the code to read: Area: Detached accessory buildings shall not occupy more than 35 percent of the area of the existing rear yard, and shall not exceed a total of 1,000 sq. ft. After reviewing this recommendation, the planner's report dated July 16, 1990, identifies possible problems with this change (attachment 1). ATTACHMENT 1 - Planner's Report dated July 16, 1990 ATTACHMENT 2 - Figures 1 and 2 illustrating lot coverage ATTACHMENT 3 - Planner's Report dated June 25, 1990 ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Hold public hearing (including staff comments) . 2. Discuss proposed changes. 3. Adopt final changes. • • AGENDA ITEM E-1 ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: July 16, 1990 MEMORANDIIM: TO: Planning Commission FROM: Susan Hoyt, City Planner RE: Proposed Code Revision to 9-2.04 (2)(b) - Lot Coverage of Detached Accessory Buildings. The proposed amendment to lot coverage of detached accessory structures reads: Area: Detached accessory buildings shall not occupy more than 35~ of the area of an existing rear yard, and shall not exceed a total of 1,000 sq. ft. The intent of this revision was to allow homes in the Northome neighborhood to construct standard two and one-half car garages approximately 528 to 576 sq. ft. in size on the 50 ft. wide lots (attachment 3). This neighborhood is particularly affected by this section of the code because most garages are detached accessory buildings along the alleys. However, after reviewing this proposed revision, I find that the use of the term "existing" rather than "required" rear yard may accommodate larger structures and greater lot coverage than is desirable. Applying the proposed code revision to an average existing rear year of 50 ft. measured from the rear of the residence to the rear property line (attachment 2), the following lot coverage would be allowed: 50 ft. wide x 50 ft. deep x .35 percentage = 875 sq. ft. of lot coverage This would mean a person could potentially build an accessory building(s) 25 ft. x 35 ft. or 875 sq. ft. on these lots. This is 58 percent of the required rear year. This substantially exceeds the lot coverage needed to build a 24 ft. x 24 ft. garage, which is a very large, but reasonably sized residential garage (attachment 2, figure 1). Furthermore, allowing this large lot coverage may be undesirable for the following reasons: 1. The existing rear yard may be reduced in size due to an addition after the detached accessory structures are constructed. It is only the required rear year that is guaranteed free from residential additions (attachment . 2, figure 1). 1 • 2. Even the required rear yard may be encroached upon by sidewalks, patios, decks and driveways as well as detached accessory buildings. For example, in the Northome neighborhood driveway access to detached garages routinely takes up part of the required rear yard. 3. Surveying the rear of residences in the Northome neighborhood suggests that 50 ft. deep rear lots with detached garages do not provide much visual open space. Allowing much larger lot coverage of the rear yard than already exists would almost eliminate an open green space in rear yards. 4. Section 2.05 (2)(d) of the zoning code limits the area of lots covered by structures and built or finished surfaces (e.g. driveways) to 75 percent of the lot. This requirement is almost entirely met by the required front yard in the Northome neighborhood. And, therefore, does not affect rear yard lot coverage. This makes section 9-2.04 (2)(b) important in controlling rear yard open space. It appears that the best way to accomplish the objective of allowing for larger garages on the 50 ft. wide lots, while maintaining open space in the rear yards, is to reconsider the proposed language and use "40 percent of the required" rather than "35 percent of the existing" rear yard. Forty percent of the required rear yard is 600 sq, ft. Remember that a planner interprets and explains the code to property owners when plans are proposed and, therefore, confusion can be avoided in the application of this terminology. 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. 2 ~ , J„~ , ~, .-- u,. ~uclne.~- G~CC.e,Ss ~s~ fYUC~u~ S0~ F~~.~h~ '~ear~ ~a • ~ZC~lo aF t~{-3 24'6" 25~o O'{~ = 1537•$' ~~, -~ 3b' 4U~ Ytstfli•a~ 53' ui lZ3 ~ tc~~- ~ ~ -1 38 ~iY2d r `JG~rc~, • 35 ~o QF E1u st.~ RQO~ ~«..~ r 9"lssb 3S ~ K 25 • Tug a•~!. wz.- i-,at-~ ca•~ c~a•-wee = 5 ? ifl~ 2~{ x2.4 • ~2a r 1 ~2a r L..o-t•' L ice; 2 'SO' --~ DATE: 6/25/90 MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning Commission FROM: Susan Hoyt Taff, City Planner Meeting Date 7/23/90 Agenda Item E-3 Attachment 3 RE: Planner's Report on the Review of Lot Coverage of Detached Accessory Buildings Lots in the Northome neighborhood are small compared to others in the City, 50 ft. x 123 ft. It is not desirable to cover the entire rear yard with a detached garage or a variety of detached accessory buildings. However, it does not seem reasonable to severely restrict these property owners from building garages large enough to store vehicles, bicycles, mowers and snow blowers which might create a storage problem or require the need for a utility shed in addition to their garage at some future date. Strictly applying Section 9-2.04 Subdivision 2(b) of the zoning code Area. Detached accessory buildings shall not occupy more than 35% of the area of a required rear yard. is creating problems for new garages in the Northome neighborhood. Applying the 35% of the required rear yard to • these 50 foot lots prohibits the construction of what are currently considered standard double or two and one-half car garages. • Example: .35 x 50 ft. (lot x 30 ft. (required = 525 sq. ft. width) rear yd.) New standard double or two and one-half car garages are usually: 22 x 24 = 528 sq. ft. OR 24 x 24 = 576 sq. ft. Therefore, under the 35% lot coverage requirement a standard double or two and one-half car garage is not buildable on a 50 ft. lot. Since the code requirement was previously 40% (until July, 1989) and since this was not enforced, there are several examples of garages these sizes in the Northome neighborhood. After consulting with Tim Malloy, the planner who assisted the Commission with the residential setback revisions a year ago, it appeared that increasing the lot coverage percentage to 40$ would accommodate the garage sizes described above, yet not allow rear yards to be totally covered with detached accessory buildings. . 1 e .40 x 50 ft. (lot x 30 ft. (required = 600 sq. ft. • width) rear yd.) In order to contain the area for detached accessory structures on significantly wider lots (e.g. 100 ft. lots on Fairview), Tim suggested we put a 1,000 square foot maximum coverage on all lots in the City. Incorporating these changes, the new section 9-2.04 2(b) would read: Area: Detached accessory buildings shall not occupy more than forty percent (40~) of the area of a required rear yard; and shall not exceed 1,000 sq. ft. • • 2 Meeting Date 7/23/90 • Agenda Item F-1 CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Request for a variance from section 9-2.04 (1)(c) of the zoning code, the corner sideyard setback, by Mr. Louis Payin of 1463 West California in order to construct a garage. SIIBMITTED BY: Mr. Louis Payin, property owner, 1463 W. California REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Planner E%PLANATION/DESCRIPTION: Mr. Louis Payin of 1463 West California is requesting a variance from section 9-2.04 (1)(c} of the zoning code in order to construct a new garage to replace a deteriorating existing garage on his lot. The zoning code requires the garage to be located 15 ft. from the corner sideyard property line, if the access door is onto the side street (attachment 1). Mr. Payin's existing garage accesses onto the side street, Pascal, and is 6 ft. from the corner side property line. He proposes to construct his new garage 10 feet from the corner sideyard property line. • The following unique hardships were given regarding the need for a variance: 1. The garage access cannot be located 15 ft. back from the corner side property line because of the large maple tree behind the garage which the property owner does not want to sacrif ice (attachment 2 ) . 2. The garage access cannot be located on the west side of the property because of a large maple tree behind the existing garage which the property owner does not want to sacrifice. (attachment 2). 3. The garage access cannot be located onto the alley because of a gasline release valve several feet high on the property line where the driveway would be located (attachment 2). These conditions appear to meet the standards for granting a variance in section 9-15,03(4) (attachment 3). Due to the existence of a large tree and the large gasline release valve conditions 15.03 (4) (c) for the enjoyment of the property and 15.03 (4)(g) unique characteristics of the site may apply. ACTION REQIIESTED: 1. Review and discuss. • 2. Recommend approval. (Resolution must state reasons for approving or denying the variance). PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 9-2.0~ c. Accessory buildings, other than garages, in a ^esi.~ential district may be located not less than five feet from an interior side ~or rear lot line unless the accessory structure is located in the rear twenty percent of the lot, in which .case they can be located not less than one foot from the interior side or rear lot line (overhangs may not extend into the one foot side or rear yard setback). Garages in a residential district may be located not Less than five feet from an interior side or rear lot Line unless they are (1) located in the rear twenty percent of tze lot, (2) adjacent to an alley, and (3) oriented such that the vehicular access door does not face the alley in which case they can be located not less ,than one foot frcm an interior side or rear lot line (overhangs may not extend into the one foot side or rear yard setback). The corner side yard setback for accessory buildings, including garages, shall adhere to the setback requirement for principal buildings as des c.^ibed in Section 9-4.Oi, Subd. 4(b) (20~ of the lot width). The rear yard and interior side yard setbacks shall be ~~~~,~/' tycse requ.=^ed for garages and accessory buildings on interior ~ ~..1 ``~~ ~ UL ~(Jv lots. Lots sna'_ler tha: 75 fe~e,~- aide shall have a n=n~um corner Gara3_s oa these i~ fact th ° ~ i . an s_de yard setbacti req~reWent ~ ..ss lots ~y be Located closer than 1: fact frog the corner side lot line if t:e vehicular access door aces not face t:e s_de street. Tn no case shah a ~ sae or other accesscry bu=1d?ng he located with_n • 4:e corer s_~e yard. (Amended by Crc_nance 0-3G-12, 7~25~89) Sea r~.gure ~.• d. :Io accesscry building ir. a r°sideatial district shall e_YCeed t'ce height of the principal building. e, Accessory buildings in the business and industry districts shall be located any place to the rear of the principal building, subject to the Building Code, and the fi..^e zone regulat;ons. f. vo detached ga.: ages or other accessory building shall be located nearer the front lot line than the principal building on that Iot. g. No accessory building in a business or industrial district shall exceed the height of the principal building except by conditional use permit. h. An accessory building in the business or industrial districts may be located within -the rear yard setback, provided that the lot is not a through lot and said accessory building does not occupy more than 25~ of the required rear yard. An accessory building shall be a part of the principal building if it is located less than twelve (12) feet from the principal building. No accessory building shall be located less than ten feet from a rear lot line. • 29 `~.w` ~r V ~~~~~~~~~~ NAME ~ V~~ (~ ADDRESS /U(~3 C ~~t , ,co,z ~J ~r4 A~ ~ CITY LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT BLOCK: ADDITION: LOT SIZE: X HOUSE SIZE: ~ SQ. FT CROSS STREETS AND DIRECTION ~` /t- rte-c-~f-~i.cEnT Z PLOT PLAN a ? I ~ " i ~ i-. ..- , { jj ! I - ~ - ~ { m,_._~ .~ ~-- _. r ~ ~ _ i ',fi t _ S S f ~ . ._ ~ _. _. - e ~ E € _ l a ~ ~ a i _ I ¢ _ } a ~ i i y j ' ~ 4 n ~ ` ~ J ! ~ ~ ~ ~_ t - ~ t '. ` 3 9 ~ , ~- ~ f a ~ 6 o # d ? f 1 f t {~ ~ 9 ~ 9 ~ $~ CS i ~ { d ~ ~ ~ ~ ? 1 L; l,~.r, ~ ! ~ ~ j f J j ~ 3 z ~ 7 S ; 4 / ~U k } 7 T , a s ~ f i ~ _ ~ ~ = ' , ~ d ~ i ~ f ~ 1 ~ ~ e I ~ ~ f I - ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ < ~ _ ! ` (. ! \ .~ ~~ I ~ '~ T i ~ ~ ~ f a j 1 i i, ~ i 4 ~ r ~ ~ S ~ F ; ~3 3 _ 3 x i I ~ ~ t 4 c ~ ~ ~ •,~C I'c ~ ~ t ~ f ~ ~ ~ , ~ I i ~ i ! t ~ ~ _ ~ N._, 3~ ~ . i 1I ~ . g Z 4 ,. 1" •~ 5 ~ ~ f ~~~ _ 1. t.-~. . ? ~ r . ~ ~ ; .. I _ _ ,.. . , . , ~- ,__ f ~ ~ ~ ' { ~ r ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ... I ~ ~ . , r . .... ~ . i ~ . ~ ~ .. _ '. ~ !, ~ ~ . :... ' ~ ~ ~ ~ i I - x ~ . . } ' 1 , ~ l i { ~ I f.. ~ ~ i ~ i f 1 i.... l i ~ ~ ' ~ ~ t 1 ~ ~ I .. i . ~ - ._ ~ { i ~ ~ I ~ # .. ~ I ~ .. i ~ I ~ i ~ i a i f r ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ .. ._~ ~ ~ ~. • M • ' PLANNING AND DEVELOPI~4T5.03~ 3 . Subdivision ~F. Standards for Granting of Yarn ante. •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: a. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare; b. That the granting of the variance will not substanti311y diminish or impair property values or improvements in the area; `'~' That the granting of the variance is necessary for the eservation 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; i• f. That the variance will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety; ig. ~Nhether the shape, topographical condition or other similar aracteristie 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. iThether 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 wauld result 1~om a denial of the. variance; i. iThether 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 property and shall refuse to grant the-variance if the problem is one that can be solved through a proper application of a eonditional•use permit-or an amendment of the Zoniag•code.••Finaacial hardship shall not be a basis for the granting of a-iariance 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 gra.~t of the variance as it shall-determine will be necessary or desirable to bring it within the purpose sad intent of the Chapter. A public record shall be maintained of such conditions. - ~ I r~ Meeting Date 7/23/90 Agenda Item F-2 CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Change from "one-hour parking 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. except weekends and holidays" to "two hour parking 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. except weekends and holidays" along Folwell Avenue east of Coffman until Fowell Avenue turns south toward Hoyt. SUBMITTED BY: Roseville Police Department Public Works Department REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Planner E%PLANATION/DESCRIPTION: In order to maintain consistency in parking regulations and make them easier to enforce, the Roseville Police requested that parking restrictions be changed from "one-hour parking 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. except weekends and holidays" to "two hour parking except weekends and holidays" along Folwell Avenue east of Coffman until Folwell turns south toward Hoyt. This is a timely request since the public works department plans to replace illegible signs in the University Grove neighborhood this year. Surveying the parking situation in the area, there does not appear to by any difference in the effect of the two different parking restrictions. Furthermore, in May the president of the University Grove Homeowners Association, Norman Kerr, notified homeowners along Folwell, and suggested they call or write the city planner with coanments or questions about the proposal. To date, no homeowners have contacted the city regarding this matter. The desire to make parking restrictions more consistent throughout the city is one of the goals in the draft parking policy prepared by the parking committee. ATTACHMENT 1. Map of Folwell Avenue parking restrictions ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Review and discuss. 2. Recommend approval r 1 U " ' r • i ~~ y/ y I I 'r~ 4 :, .' ~ UNIV OF MINN. (j-p ~ W}d 21 ~ " w I ~ I - I ,= s. ., ty's< ~~r e.-i119~1 Y4 ~~1~12~• 5 •1+ -M- .•e. .V ..,.LS ~. u.•f.N - •> .i i. ~ w~ L ' 7 2 1 I ~( ~ - i 1 •..1 S .1 4 „ -jam ~ - I I . ~'s: It•« ~: Ai.-~LSw' G.1 >.y., f .. ~. ~ p Ial l iN ~ RJR r~ I J - -. t • » w y i>f i :.% 1!,' (L'1I v wy6s ~-ao_y 9•w- ~ ' ~ b S•' 1 ~~ 9`/~~i. 'i.D~ u II L! I (•zl °~^ 12 t5 mot' x ~Y B el ~~~-n{a i ;a ~,gj[t .,p ^/t'9 .3~~ _s .a ?.' rtii, ~.db c Cati (s1);:/ ~iaa ~ 'cw1 Ste`"_y-a~/ S~'nd->/ lrMi $ufF: , '.>- L. .. ~ u ~ ~ _m _ ~W'N'1 emu.- ~'- _ C>« rnc~L r .~zl.z~~n UI~N } `i° pie iu: a $) ~°. I[s« ~ (.a: _= S G.i ~1 - 4 2 A ~L 2a V 3~ L ~ 1.z O 12113 n •~.~ 11- '~~_ ti_-- ~-~~ Rd Z i~. ~' ~ IU-~) iii >i t -6~ ! : mss- Szc. j I LtK 16 ~ Il i K L- Wl ~ CW I ~y y P •1 115 (i1 Oi. ~ ~s)~.. $1 h'!~ p°1i a~P' Ise ~ __ °ISS '~ 1 ~ss'> w» - . e I. »az •" ,tc.l U W ~ ~~Sn-r~ ~~ ~ N~litR+~-tl~~a • ~~ --.-z?~~= - -t'= ---=r-~4a+` EST- -- - -- - - -~~`- - - I I 1 ~ (:.~~ eac~; o ~,, ( d '' 5j V: t' i~~ ~ . 5 o a.~. _ ,S•.N N > ~4 _ D4r N F ' 1~ ' .~,~6.1 ~ ~ ~~ c1 I f rt.~ ~~ CS) !, I to .611 /): •:L: QI Tp. ~/i. 14u ' ° 1 >~> ~~ .I T'I;i ~, )r,'G •11 liu/ a _~. !HJ /(:el ~.:~ ~ l rl;,~ i irl r~ ~ loi •3x: i~. c ° , ~~ s 1!// ~ , OHO;, 4?•~..1" s. e, _~~, Jam. ~ a • I 1. fit,' ]!.A + , .«. ~, °' _ I 's' . °~ rl of r. !I / . M I CR>II n I af.°_. 1a t 7 ._ / :f fe'>I ~'i..> ~1 (»1 ° ~O lsll ~! •19. I C'.1 j ,.~ ~ (s3 a y e'n ~ ~ s I ~ ~ ~e ( LL .. . ~~~,~~ sew. T'-~° - ~~'w' - .. . ~a,,,~ 0 /1~ - t-~ur- I ~~i,%~ ND tau,, ~ -~ ~/e e-k des U • MeetingDate7l23f90 Agenda Item- F-3- CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM-DESCRIPTION: Introduction of the draft City of Falcon Heights Parking Policy prepared by the parking committee, dated July 12, 1990. SUBMITTED BY: Parking Commit tee REVIEWED-BY: Parking Committee Susan Hoyt, City Planner Jan Wiessner, City Administrator Shirley Chenoweth, City Clerk 'Ron Savarda, Roseville Police EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION: After a lengthy process the parking committee prepared the attached document for the planning commission's review and comment. The purpose of the document is to set out policies and procedures for handling parking questions, changes and problems as they arise in . the city. ATTACHMENT 1. Draft City of Falcon Heights Parking Policy dated July 12, 1990 ACTION- REQLTE-STED 1. Introduction of document for consideration. • ~ . 1 ~ M • CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date 7 /23/90 Agenda Item F-4- ITEM-DESCRIPTION: Update on the Comprehensive Planning Process SUBMITTED-BY: Susan Hoyt, City Planner REE72-EWER BY : EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION: The comprehensive planning update is moving rapidly along. The city planner is in the process of collecting data for the plan. Fred Hoisington, the consultant, is nearly completed with the land use mapping and is reviewing some of the city's documents and data. Fred Hoisington plans to be on the planning commission agenda for August 27, where he will present some preliminary findings, seek information from commissioners and discuss the strategy for the neighborhood meetings this September. • ACTION REQUESTED: For your information. t • • Meeting Date 7/23/90 Agenda Item F-5 Item: Request for a variance for 1935 Summer St. from section 9- 4.01 (4) (c), the f rontyard setback requirement, and 9-2.04 (1) (c), the interior sideyard setback requirement, of the zoning code in order to construct an addition to a garage. Submitted by: Mr. Wes Tennyson, property owner of 1935 Summer St. Reviewed by: Susan Hoyt, City Planner Explanation/Description: Mr. Tennyson proposes to construct an addition to a single car garage to make it into a double garage. In order to do so according to the attached plans (attachment 1} , a variance of 6 ft.in the frontyard setback requirement of 30 feet is necessary (section 9-4.01 (4) (c) (attachment ~ 2) . A second variance of 5 inches in the sideyard setback requirement is also necessary (section 9-2.04 (1) (c) attachment 3) . Mr. Tennyson's son explained the garage addition is necessary because they have four cars associated with the house and parking is a problem. Also, the pie-shaped configuration of the lot makes it difficult to construct a garage without infringing on the • interior sideyard setback. Mr. Tennyson submitted a signed form from the neighbors indicating they had no objections to the proposed plans (attachment 4). Letters to neighbors were also sent from the city. The planner reviewed the request applying the standards for granting a variance section 9-15.03 (4) of the zoning code (attachment 5). In brief, the request for the sideyard variance makes sense due to the angle of the pie-shape lot line (criteria g). However, the variance from the frontyard setback may set a precedent for reducing frontyard requirements throughout the neighborhood and city. In the long run, this may reduce property values (criteria b} since frontyard setbacks visually add to the open space and aesthetic consistency in the city. Furthermore, the addition to the garage in this configuration does not seem critical to the property owner's enjoyment of the property (criteria c). Action: 1. Review and discuss criteria 2. Approve or deny. U ~~ ~-- ~~ U ~ I ~ , I "z ~ ~ , s ~ Z r -~'~ i x ~ i `~ ~ d. ~ i ~~ ~ ~ • V, GI ~ i1 ~i A~ ~~ ~ 7 _ i ~' J~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ O y ~ ~ p Q' y ~ ` ~ ~ W ~' ~~ .1 C' o ~-- ~ ~, ~ - ~ ~ 'T oQ., a ~ ~ a , ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~~ I i _l1~ s Y+ ~ t ~ W -s ~/ m N~ -? s c~ 1s:s~ N y t~ 1n S ` ~ '. - s~.9a~..z` Z PLA1~iNING AND DEVELOPMENT 9-x.01 i. accessory buildings other than detached private garages as regulated herein. The design and placement of the accessory buildings must be approved by the City Council as being in harmony with the surrounding residential neighborhood after review and recommendation by the Planning Commission. j. Buildings tQmporar?.~y lccated for purposes of constructing on the premises for a period not to exceed the time necessary for such construction (approved by zoning administrator). Subdivision ~. Lot Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. a. No structure or building shall exceed two (2) stories or twenty-five (25) feet in height above ground level, whichever is lesser in height, except as provided in section 9-2.07 of this Chapter. b. aside yard abutting a street shall be at least 20 percent of the width of the lot. c. The following minimum re~uir~..rents shall be cbserved subject to ~7 the additional regi:ireme^ts, esceptinns and nodif_cations as set forth in this section and section 9-2.03- .rent ~ide Sear Lot a^ea Lot n?dth °ard °ard Yard • 10 ,1i0V SQ. ft. ~j~t iit~r_Or lOt ~`jt ~t 3Q1 a0t corner Flexibility may be provided by al'_owing the side yard to be dec.^eased to a minimua of three f net i. a ~ntenance easement is recorded on the deeds of all affected propert'_es. (No fences or significant landscaping could be installed in the easement areas.} (Amended by Ordinance 0-89-12, 7/26/89) Subdivision 5. Off-Street Parking and Loading. a. Regulation of off-street parking and loading spaces is this Code is to alleviate or prevent congestion of the public right-of-way and to promote the safety and general welfare of the public by establishing minimum requirements for off-street parking, loading and unloading from motor vehicles in accordance with the utilization of the various parcels of land and structures. • ~0 ~C.~t' 3 PLANNIAJG AND DEVELOPMENT 9-2.0~ • ~~~ c. Accessory buildings, other tLan garages, in a ;~.=si~enti=? distr_ict,_may be located not less than five feet from an interior side or rear lot line unless the accessory structure is located in the rear twenty percent of the lot, in which case they can be located not less than one foot from the interior side or rear lot line (overhangs may not extend into the one foot side or rear yard setback) . Gana es in a residential district may be located not Less than five -~ feet from an interior side or rear lot line unless they are (I) located in the rear wen y percent of the Iot, (2) adjacent to an alley, and (3) oriented such that the vehicular access door does not face the alley in which case they can be located not less than one foot from an interior side or rear lot line (overhangs may not extend into the one foot side or rear yard setback). The corner side yard setback for accessory buildings, including garages, shall adhere to the setback requirement for principal buildings as des c.^ibed in Section 9-4.Oi, Subd. 4(b) (20A of t2~e lot kidth). The rear yard and interior side yard setbacks shall be thcse r°qu=red for garages ar_d accessory buildings on interior lots. Lots sma_ler than. 75 fefet wide shall have a minimum corner side yard setback refit== emP.nti~eSS than 15 feet. Garag°s on these lOt3 ~y be .i orated c? oser tha: 1~ fe°t :hem `,.he corner side lot . line if the veh_cular access door aces not face the side street. T_ no case shall a gar3be cr other accesscry building be located with_n tie corner s_de yard. (3.:~ended by Crdinaace 0-39-12, 7/25!89) See Figure ~. d. Yo accesscry building ir_ a residential district shall e_YCeed the height of the principal building. e. Accessory buildings ih the business and industry cLstricts shall be located any place to the rear of the principal building, subject to the Building Code, and the fire.zoae regulations. f. ;Jo detached garages or other accessory building shall be located neare.T the front lot line than the principal building on that Iot. g. No accessory building is a business or industrial district shall exceed the height of the principal building except by conditional use permit. h. An accessory building in the business or industrial districts may be located within the rear yard setback, provided that the lot is not a through lot and said accessory building does not occupy more than 25: of the required rear yard. An accessory building shall be a part of the principal building if it is located less than twelve (12) feet Prom the principal building. No accessory building • shall be located less than ten feet from a rear lot line. 29 FP.OM: W. W. TENNYSON 1935 SUMMER STREET FALCON HEIGHTS, MN., 55113 JULY 17, 1990 TO FALCON HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION: Y1E HAVE CONSULTED OUR NEIGHBORS ON OUR PLANS FOR AN ADDING ON TO OUP. EXISTING GARAGE. DUE TO THE DIAGONAL LOT LINE A SMALL CORNER OF THE BACK OF THE GARAGE ADDITION WILL BE LESS THAN THE REQUIRED SET-BACK FOR THE EXISTING FALCON HEIGHTS BUILDING CODE. THE E~iISTING GARAGE AND THE EXTENSION OF THE GARAGE P1ILL ALSO BE EXTENDED TOTrdARD THE STREET APPROXIMATELY 6' FROM THE PRESENT LOCATION. SIGNATURE OF NEIGHBOR NEXT TO PURPOSED ADD-ON: 'J ~-. ; ~.. if • ` _ ~ ~ .. ADDRESS: >~~S _~ ~f • - _, A L~ M PLANNING AND DEYELQPMENT 9-15.03 Subdivision ~}. Standards for Granting of Pari: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: 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 tha danger oP fire or endanger the public safety; keg. ~ihether 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. iThether 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. Bhether the conditions which give rise to the application for the variance arose after the adoption of this Chapter of the Cade of the City of~Falcon Heights 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 if the problem is one that can be solved through a proper application of a conditional-use permit-or an saendmeat 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 att h such conditions to the grz*~t 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 tic record shall be maintained of such conditions. • D RAF T THE CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS PARKING POLICY AND PROCIDURES • Prepared by the Parking Committee A Subcommittee of the Planning Commission JULY 12, 1990 • • , APPENDIX ONE Parking Fees to Add to Chapter Five of the City Code 1. Temporary Permits ~ $10.00/event 2. Filing Fee for Petition for Residential Permit Parking $25.00 3. Annual Residential Parking Permits $25.00 4. Lost Residential Parking Permits $10.00 • n U C, TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Parking Policies 1 A. General .................................... 1 B. Specific .................................. 1 II. Procedures for Handling Parking Problems 1 A. Origination ................................1 B. Identification .............................1 C. Evaluation .................................2 • III. Parking Restrictions .3 A. Posted Parking Restrictions ................3 B. Residential Permit Parking ..................4 C. Exceptions .................................7 D. Enforcement .................................7 I. PARKING POLICIES • A. GENERAL The City's parking philosophy is to provide a safe, orderly, and, when possible, convenient parking environment for residents, trade and visitors within the city, while keeping the streets primarily for safe and efficient traffic flow. B. SPECIFIC 1. Maintain the streets primarily for safe and efficient traffic flow. 2. Maintain the residential character of the City's neighborhoods and the 'small-scale' or 'village' character of the overall City by attempting to alleviate parking conflicts between residential neighborhoods and non-residential uses when they appear; and by utilizing complementaLy new parking facilities when they are necessary. 3. Encourage property owners to accommodate parking demands generated by the property by enforcing the parking requirements in the zoning code and working with property owners, residents and/or proprietors when parking problems develop. This is particularly important when redevelopment and new development occur. • 4. Cover the cost of parking administration and enforcement by charging fees to the individuals for these services, whenever possible. 5. Adopt temporary parking restrictions when necessary to accommodate the Minnesota State Fair and other special circumstances. 6. Consider a variety of on street and off street parking solutions to parking problems including posting restrictions, permit parking, shared parking, parking lots, parking ramps, and re-routing traffic. 7. Select the most efficient and the least disruptive solution to a parking problem. II. PROCED~JRES FOR HANDLING PARKING PROBLEMS A. ORIGINATION Parking problems arise when parking demands conflict with fixed amounts of available on and off street parking to produce an unsafe and/or inconvenient parking situation. • B. IDENTIFICATION Parking problems come to the attention of the City when: 1. A city official reports a safety problem and/or inconvenience problem. 2. A resident(s), proprietor(s) and/or a property owner(s) reports a safety and/or an inconveniece problem. • -2- C. EVALUATION 1. Problem: A possible immediate threat to public safety: a. The appropriate city staff shall immediately research the reported parking situation. The city staff must visit the site and assess the parking conditions at various times of the day as well as collect other useful information including state and county rules governing the street(s) in question. The city planner shall prepare a written report on the nature and severity of the reported parking. problem and alternative solutions for the city administrator as soon as possible but no more than five working days after the reported problem. b. If the parking situation is determined to be a threat to pub7.ic safety, the city administrator must take the necessary action to alleviate the dangerous situation. A report of the steps taken shall be made to the Planning Commission and the City Council at their earliest meeting dates. Any revisions in the action taken may be made at this time. • 2. Problem: A possible, but_not immediate, threat to public safety and/or inconvenience to residents, businesses, and/or institutions: a. If notice of the parking problem arose from a city official, city staff shall research the reported parking problem. Staff shall visit the site, assess the parking conditions at various times of the day and collect other useful information including state and county rules governing the streets in question. The staff shall also determine whether the problem area is .limited to the area specified in the complaint or broader in scope. b. If notice of the parking problem arose from a resident(s), proprietor(s) and/or property owner(s) complaint, the city staff sha_11 request a formal written request be submitted to the City defining the nature of the problem, the affected area and, whenever possible, the names of other affected property owners in agreement with the problem. The city staff shall research the reported parking problem. Staff shall visit the site, assess the parking conditions at various times of the day and collect other useful information including state and county rules governing the streets in question. If appropriate, residents and/or property owners in the affected area • shall be contacted for their opinion about the existence and/or extent of the parking problem. The staff shall also determine whether the problem area is limited to the area specified in the complaint or is broader in scope. • -3- c. If staff research suggests that the City needs to take action to alleviate the parking situation, the city planner shall make a report with the proposed alternatives to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation. The Planning Commission recommendation and staff report will go to the City Council for final action. d. If staff research suggests that the City does not need to take action to alleviate the parking situation, the city planner shall report the state of the request at the next Planning Commission and City Council meetings. III. PARKING A. POSTED PARKING RESTRICTIONS 1. Posting parking restrictions on streets may be used to control on-street parking problems in specific areas for various • lengths of time. When such a solution is proposed, the affect on nearby streets must be taken into account. 2. Restrictions shall contain as few conditions as possible so they are easily understood and enforced. 3. Restrictions adopted to alleviate a specific parking problem shall be as consistent as possible in a neighborhood and throughout the City. 4. On-street posted signs may include: a) "No Parking Anytime" No parking anytime" is to be used when parking at anytime of day or night is a safety threat to the public or a chronic inconvenience to residents and/or property owners. b) Parking for a specified period of time Signs restricting parking for a specified period of time shall be used to control traffic turnover for commercial areas and prevent the inconvenience to residents of long-term parking in residential neighborhoods near businesses and institutions. These may include "15 • Minute Parking", "Two Hour Parking from 8:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. except weekends and holidays. -4- c) "No Parking" for a specified distance Signs restricting parking useful to eliminate safet and stop signs. Examples signs", "no parking here t to here". B. RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS 1. Purpose/Policy L J for a specified distance are y hazards near alleys, driveways include: "no parking between o corner" , "no parking corner a. Residential districts congested because of heavy residential and/or non-residential traffic and parking are eligible to request residential permit parking. It is the purpose of this policy to reduce the flow of commuter traffic from year-round, non-residential traffic due to parking into an adjoining residential neighborhood; to reduce air pollution and other environmental effects of automobile commuting; to enhance the quality of life in the residential areas by reducing noise, traffic hazards and litter; to protect the residents from unreasonable burdens in gaining access to their residences; to preserve the character of the residential district; to promote efficiency in maintaining the streets in a clean and safe condition; to preserve the safety of children and other pedestrians; and to promote traffic safety; and to promote the peace, good order, comfort, convenience and welfare of the. inhabitants of the City. b. No residential parking permits shall guarantee any permit holder of a designated parking space, but shall provide general parking .subject to availability in designated areas during the posted, specified times. 2. Procedures for Designating Residential Permit Parking Areas a. Submitting a Request 1) Petition The designation of a residential permit parking area shall be initiated by a petition filed with • the city staff stating that residents of a particular residential area are encountering serious problems because of excessive parking by persons who are associated with nearby nonresidential uses. A filing fee shall accompany every petition. The fee is identified in chapter five of the city code. -5- 2) Signatures The petition must be signed by 75~ of the owners of all residential structures in the area. One resident per structure may sign. No signature shall be valid where multiple residents in a household express disagreement on whether the area should have residential permit parking. Any signer may withdraw his/her name by filing a written request. If for any reason the number of signers falls below 75~ prior to the public hearing, the petition shall be deemed defective and shall not be considered. The person and/or group responsible for submitting the petition will be notified of this finding prior to the public hearing. 3) Minimum Size The request for residential permit parking must cover a minimum of 600 linear feet or a single block face, whichever is less. . b. Request Review Process 1) Staff Review After receiving the petition, the city staff shall assess the nature of the problems, if any, caused by nonresidential parking in a residential area. The city planner shall submit a report to the Planning Commission. The report must include the following information. a. The need assessment for residential permit parking b. The specific area petitioned for residential permit parking c. The guidelines for who and how one may obtain a residential parking permit d. The potential implications of such a parking arrangement in the area e. If the permit parking area is recommended, the report must also include: (1) A recommended review period to evaluate the residential permit parking district (2) The specific area recommended for residential permit parking -6- 2) Policy Review The city planner shall submit the report with its recommendation to the Planning Commission. A public hearing shall be held on the request. The Planning commission shall submit a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council shall make the final decision. If the City Council designates a residential permit parking district, the resolution shall state the need for the district, the location, hours (if applicable), streets to be posted permit parking and the procedure for issuing permits to eligible residents. 3. Permit Eligibility and Fees a. Resident Permits Residents living on streets designated in the residential permit parking district may apply for a non-transferable residential parking permit for each car owned or leased, currently licensed and in operating condition . at the address. Anon=refundable annual residential permit fee will be charged. The fee shall be identified in chapter five of the city code. A false application shall be grounds for denial of the residential permit. b. Lost Permits A duplicate permit may be obtained for a fee, if the applicant submits a notarized, written statement to the City that the original permit was lost. The fee shall be identified in chapter five of the city code. c. Placement of Permit Annual residential parking permit stickers shall be permanently affixed to the inside of the vehicle behind the rear view mirror. C. EXCEPTIONS 1. Emergency Vehicles Emergency vehicles are exempt from posted parking restrictions when responding to an emergency. 2. Snow Emergencies After a two inch snowfall, no on street parking is allowed until the street is plowed to its full. width. -7- 3. State Fair Parking a. Temporary "no parking" signs shall be posted on streets designated by the City Council during the Minnesota State Fair. b. Temporary parking permits shall be issued to residents of designated apartment buildings along streets designated "permit parking only" by the City Council during the Minnesota State Fair. 4. Temporary Parking Permits a. Temporary parking permits shall be issued for the following reasons: 1. For construction and service vehicles necessary for performing work on a property • 2. For special event parking or visitor parking in a residentia_t permit parking district 3. For visitor parking in a residential permit parking district b. A temporary parking permit shall be issued for a minimum of one day and a maximum of two weeks. The applicant shaJ_1 identify the purpose for the permit and the length of time required for the temporary parking permit. c. A temporary parking permit. shall be placed over the post holding the rear view mirror or in some other conspicuous spot inside the front windshield of the vehicle where it is visible to law enforcement personnel. d. A temporary parking arrangement using a bag over a sign to cover up the parking restrictions shall be issued for one to three days. The applicant shall identify the purpose for the bag(s) and the length of time required for this temporary parking arrangement. The bag(s) shall be returned by the person using it. e. Temporary parking permit fees are designated in chapter five of the city code. D. ENFORCEMENT Penalties for violating the City's parking restrictions are defined in chapter seven of the city code.