Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCAgenda_90Jun25~, C PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA JUNE 25,1990 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: May 21, 1990 D. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: May 23, 1990 E. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Public hearing on a request for a conditional use permit to operate a pet grooming and pet boarding business at 1600 Snelling Avenue North, the Northome Shopping Center, in a B-2 zone F. REPORTS, REQUESTS, RECOML~NDATIONS: 1. Request for a permitted accessory use permit for a utility shed at 1777 Arona in an R-1 zone 2. Request for a variance from sections 9-2.06 subdivision 1 (b) and 1 (f) (5) of the zoning code for 1697 N. Hamline Avenue in an R-1 zone 3. Review of section 9-2.04 subdivision 2 (b) lot coverage of detached accessory buildings 4. Press coverage of the Falcon Heights/Roseville study of merging services 5. Update on 1477 Hoyt Avenue 6. Progress report on the comprehensive plan G. ADJOIIRN T ,~. MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • MAY 21, 1990 Chairman Boche called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. PRESENT • Barry, Boche, Daykin, Duncan, Nestingen and Gibson Talbot. Also present was Council Liaison Ciernia and Planner Susan Hoyt Taff. ABSENT Finegan. APRIL 23, 1990 MINUTES APPROVED Minutes were approved by unanimous consent. PUBLIC HEARING ON REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 26-1/2 FEET HIGH AT 1804 LINDIG STREET IN AN R-1 ZONE Felicia and Kevin Busch, Property Owners, propose to construct a single family dwelling 26-1/2 feet high at _1804 Lindig Street in an R-1 zone. The zoning code requires a maximum 25 foot tall structure in an R-1 zone unless a taller structure is approved by a conditional use permit; therefore, such a permit is being requested. ~__. -~' Chairman Boche opened the Public Hearing at 7:35 P.M. Planner Susan Hoyt Taff reviewed her May 15, 1990 memorandum. She indicated that in reviewing the criteria for the general and special requirements. governing conditional use permits, there was only one criterion that required attention (section 9-15.04, subdivision 3 (a)(11). In evaluating such criterion, she surveyed properties within the City and found several examples of homes that exceed the 25 foot requirement. In this neighborhood along Lindig Street, the adjacent house to the south is 27 feet high. Therefore, the proposed house would be in keeping with the surrounding structures. In summary, the application meets all the general and special. criteria governing conditional use permits regarding architectural conformance to the neighborhood and recommended granting the permit subject to the following condition: that the new structure be built at the same grade as the adjacent residential property to the immediate south. Mrs. Irene MacGregor, 1795 North Fairview, in a telephone conversation as well as by letter dated May 16, 1990 voiced her objection to such approval due to the fact that such construction may block sunlight to her home as well as to a future home in the lot to the north of 1804 Lindig. __~ MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 21, 1990 PAGE 2 Mr. Donald McVey, 1788 Lindig, had no objection to the height of the oroDOSed G}'Y77 of tiro Ms. Sarah Lund, 1805 Lindig, also had no objection to the height. Chairman Boche closed the Public Hearing at 7:42 P.M. Nestingen moved to approve the conditional use permit with the condition that the new structure be built at the same grade as the adjacent residential property to the immediate south . The motion carried unanimously. Report from the Parking Committee on the Mc Allister "No Parking" Request Along the Eastside of Arona Between California and Larpenteur Planner Susan Hoyt Taff reviewed information contained in her memorandum dated May 14, 1990 as well as the four proposed alternatives to the parking situation. (See Attachment 1.) Barry said that the Parking Committee reviewed the situation and it recommended that "no parking" signs be posted fifteen (15) feet to the south of the McAllister driveway and fifteen (15) feet to the north of the furthest edge of the alley. This would increase visibility when McAllister's leave their driveway, thereby, eliminating the safety hazard. It would leave two to three parking spaces for apartment r~asidents adjacent to their residence, and would cause the least disruption to the current situation. Discussion regarding the other possible alternatives proceeded. Commissioners discussed how to encourage apartment residents to use the garages--specifically whether or not alternative three, the "no parking" along the entire one-half block on the eastside of Arona by 1513 California would encourage this.' Barry then moved adoption of the Parking Committee recommendation with a review in October to determine whether the action taken solved some of the parking problems experienced by the McAllisters. Upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor thereof: Barry, Boche, Gibson Talbot and Daykin, and the following voted against the same: Duncan and Nestingten. Motion carried. Staff Report on the Com rehensive Municipal Plan Staff Planner Susan Hoyt Taff met with Fred Hoisington to begin setting out tasks and timetables for the Comprehensive Plan update. She advised that data collection and meetings with agency people. would begin immediately with the neighborhood meetings scheduled for September and October. • • r1 U MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 21, 1990 PAGE 3 Update on the Swimming Pool Ordinance Staff Planner Susan Hoyt Taff reviewed the swimming pool ordinance, which was laid over from 1989. The City Council suggested two revisions--a four foot rather than a six foot fence and no temporary fencing during the filling of above ground pool. They will hold their final public hearing on the ordinance on May 23, 1990. The entire Commission and Planning Staff thanked Recording Secretary, Kitty Zimmerman, for her many years of servile working for the Commission. She will be missed. Chairman Boche declared the meeting adjourned at 8:38 P.M_ Submitted by: Katherine J. ittf erman •~ Approved: Donna Daykin, Secretary •~ ,] • • MINUTES ~~-~-N~~ 2-~~ ~ REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 23, 1990 Baldwin convened the meeting at 7:0.0 P.M. ~. . .ALL MEMBERS PRESENT ~f Baldwin, Ciernia, Gehrz, Jacobs and Wallin. Also present were Gedde, Maurer, Wiessner and Chenoweth. MINUTES OF MAY 9, 1990 APPROVED The Minutes of May 9, 1990 were approved by unanimous consent ADDENDA TO CONSENT AGENDA: Council added the following items to the Consent Agenda: Municipal License for Coiffure DuChien, Planning Commission Minutes of May 21 and a Resolution Commending Norma Fusco. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Council approved the following-Consent Agenda Items by unanimous consent: 1. Disbursements: a. General Disbursements through 5/23/90, $76,036.97 b. Payroll, 5/1/90 - 5/15/90, $11,761.99 2. Cancellation of Check #23874 issued 4/26/90 to Emergency Medical Products for $43.68 (Duplicate Check) 3. Resolution R-90-21 Granting A Conditional Use Permit to Kevin Busch to Construct a Dwelling 26 1/2 Feet High at 1804 Lindig St. 4. Parks and Recreation Minutes of 4/9/90 5. Appointment of Deborah Weiland to Parks & Recreation Commission, Term to Expire 12/31/90 6. Licenses 7. Resolution R-90-22 Awarding the 1990 Sealcoating Bid to Astech Corporation at a Price of $28,122.00 8. Appointment of Seasonal Employees to Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments 9. Appointment of Deloris Swenson to Full-Time Secretary Position 10. Planning Commission Minutes of 5/21/90 11. Resolution R-90-22a Commending Norma Fusco for 21 Years of Service to the Community DISCUSSION - AGREEMENT WITH MN DOT FOR 1987 SNELLING AVE. CONSTRUCTION Mike Christiansen of the Minnesota Department of Transportation reviewed past correspondence, discussions, and action taken relating to the Snelling Avenue Improvement Project. Baldwin and Ciernia stressed that at early discussions MN DOT had assured residents that there would be no charge to the City for the street improvements, the City had operated on that basis, and was questioning the present charge for street construction. Christiansen explained that the street costs amounting to a little over $11,000, are for items connected with the City's MINUTES MAY 23, 1990 PAGE 2 • water installation, storm drainage, driveway repair and connections to City streets, and that the City is not being charged for the roadway, curb and gutter. Following the discussion, it was agreed that there had been a misunderstanding in intrepreting the charges and that the total amount now in dispute is $13,000. The City Engineer with work with MN DOT in an attempt to remedy the situation. DRAINAGE PROBLEM AT IOWA AVE. AND PASCAL ST. Maurer explained that Bob Fry, the homeowner at 1457 W. Iowa, had registered complaints regarding the drainage problem on the street by his residence. Maurer agreed that there is a problem which could easily be solved but would be relatively expensive if done as a separate project. He recommended postponing any work until it can be made a part of a larger project such as the proposed 1991 street improvements. Council discussed the matter after which it was decided to include the repair with the first future construction project. Maurer will explain the situation to Mr. Fry. PARK BUILDING UPDATE Dick Friemuth, Buetow and Associates, provided a progress report on the new park building construction and indicated the contractor is confident it will be finishea on schedule. • DISCUSSION - WATER CONNECTION COSTS FOR PARK BUILDING Wiessner explained that there has been much confusion surrounding the water connection costs and that there are two separate issues involved; costs attributed to the increase from a 4" to a 6" line for the sprinkler system, and costs directly due to connection to the St. Paul system. Friemuth stated the specifications did include water connection costs, however bidders were unable to get prices from St. Paul and for that reason, the the bids did not include this item. Many bidders did make note of this fact; however, Jefferson Construction did not acknowledge that fact that water connection costs were not included in their bid, and it was assumed that the cost was included. Friemuth assured Council that all prospective bidders were provided with an addendum making it clear that the bid must address water connection. Letters from Jefferson Construction (5/18/90) and Buetow & Associates (5/21/90) relating to the matter were discussed, after which Maurer suggested that one solution Council might consider--to pay the actual price for St. Paul's charges, approximately $3,000, and not pay the amount listed for the contractor's overhead, profit, etc. Following a thorough discussion, Jacobs moved that the City be responsible for payment of the cost of 53,017 for increasing the size of the line from 4" to 6". Upon a vote being taken the following voted • in favor thereof: Gehrz, Jacobs and Wallin, and the following voted against the same: Baldwin and Ciernia. Motion carried. MINUTES MAY 23, 1990 PAGE 3 REQUEST FOR "NO PARKING" ON EAST SIDE OF ARONA, CALIFORNIA TO LARPENTEUR • Ciernia explained that on March 23rd the Planning Commission. discussed a request from Susan McAllister, 1513 W. California, that the east side of Arona, Larpenteur to California, be posted "No Parking". The McAllisters have encountered problems with littering and damage to their landscaping by drivers of the parked vehicles, and trouble in making a safe exit from their driveway due to such vehicles. A majority of the drivers are believed to be residents of the apartment building at Larpenteur and Arona where garages are available but are apparently unused due to the_ rental charge and inconvenience of accessing the garages. Council discussed the alternatives presented in the City Planner's memo of May 14, 1990 and the recommendation made by the Planning Commission, after which Ciernia moved that "No Parking" signs be posted~f teen eet to e souk owe ~,~~ISr`Cv • McAllister riveway and fifteen feet to the north of the I-~ hI~ furtherest edge of the allev as recommended by the Planning -{~, Commission. Motion carried unanimously. Staff was erected to ~ri~~M work with t ~ e apartment owner o a emp s~~-~-tion to the tenants parking problem. USE OF ALCOHOL IN CITY PARKS PROHIBITED As requested by Council at a previous meeting, City Attorney Gedde informed that he had researched the concern that the City • would have increased liability by continuing the issuance of permits for use of beer in the parks, and has determined the City would not increase liaibility by allowing consumption in the parks. Baldwin explained that there have been discussions of two opposing ideas, one--that parks are not an appropriate • place for consumption of alcohol and two--the park is a peoples' park and may be an appropriate place. Council discussed the fact the Parks and Recreation Commission have consistently opposed the use of alcohol in the parks, that there is no monitoring to prohibit use by minors; many residents are opposed to alcohol in the parks, whether or not prohibiting use would be legislating against those who do not break the law; and there are already State Statutes and City Ordinances which may be enforced to punish violators. Following the discussion, Gehrz moved that Ordinance 0-90-6 be adopted and that proper signage be prominently displayed at the park stating that alcohol is prohibited. Upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor thereof: Gehrz, Jacobs and Wallin, and the following voted against the same: Baldwin and Ciernia. Motion carried. ORDINANCE 0-90-6 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-4.01, SUBDIVISION 4(e) PROHIBITING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN ANY CITY PARR • MORATORIUM DECLARED ON ISSUANCE OF BEER PERMITS Council declared an immediate moratorium on issuance of any permits for use of alcohol in the parks. ,. ~ MINUTES MAY 23, 1990 PAGE 4 REQUEST FOR EMT-I TRAINING FOR RESCUE WORKERS DEFERRED AWAITING RESULTS OF RESCUE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS • Rescue Captain Ray Brown presented information on the cost of the proposed training to upgrade Rescue Squad Members from EMT to EMT-I status, and a request for authorization to solicit training funds from the Falcon Heights/Lauderdale Lions Club. Council discussed whether or not the training would be beneficial to the community, and questioned the true cost, such as retraining to ma in tan the EMT-I level, the projected use required to cover increased costs while still maintaining competitive ambulance fees, and whether or not the Rescue Task Force would support it. Council referred the matter to the Rescue Task Force for discussion and requested answers to the questions regarding ongoing costs. APPROVAL OF 1989 AUDIT REPORT Council approved the Audit Report for the year ending December 31, 1989 as presented by Dick Ellsworth of George M. Hansen Company, P.A. RESOLUTIONS REGARDING 1666 COFFMAN TORRENS PROCEEDING Gedde explained there are some problems with titles to the property and both the residents of 1666 Coffman and the mortgage companies are becoming uneasy. He .then presented Proposed • Resolution R-90-23 approving the deeds on the property and approving the development Agreement on which formal action is required for title purposes. He also presented proposed Resolution R-90-24 approving an agreement between the City and the University of Minnesota relating to a utility easement and amending the legal description on the lease for University Grove Park. Gedde assured Council the Resolution will not change the boundaries of the existing park land. Jacobs moved adoption of both resolutions which carried unanimously. RESOLUTION R-90-23 A RESOLUTION APPROVING DOCUMENTS REGARDING. 1666 COFFMAN (DEEDS AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT) RESOLUTION R-90-24 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT REGARDING EASEMENTS AND APPROVING AGREEMENT AMENDING AND RESTATING LEASE FOR UNIVERSITY GROVE PARR PROPERTY CELEBRATE DRUG FREE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM - RED RIBBON CAMPAIGN • Gehrz, speaking on behalf of the Drug Free Committee, requested permission to tie red ribbons on City street and No Parking signs, and to authorize using the City Hall address for mailing donations.to the project. Council approved both requests. MINUTES MAY 23, 1990 PAGE 5 CANCELLATION OF JUNE 13, 1990 COUNCIL MEETING Council cancelled the June 13,1990 meeting due to the fact that • three Councilmembers will be attending the League of Minnesota Cities Conference in Duluth at that time. WORKSHOP SCHEDULED TO DISCUSS COMMUNITY SURVEY Baldwin suggested Council consider authorizing staff to hire Decision Resources to conduct a Community Survey as discussed at the April 25th meeting, and to schedule a subsequent workshop to discuss the survey. Following a brief discussion, Council scheduled a Workshop for June 6, 1990 at 6:00 P.M. to discuss possible survey questions and whether or not the survey would be cost effective. ADMINISTRATOR'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE APPROVED Wiessner informed Council that she has received a four week Bush Leadership Fellowship which would involve a total leave of 16 work days, and requested that she be granted a leave of absence for that period of time. Ciernia moved that the leave of absence be granted and that the City contribute up to $1,200 toward the cost. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE 0-90-'~ RELATING TO SWIMMING POOLS • Baldwin opened the Public Hearing at 10:20 P.M. and noted that the hearing notice was published in the May 16, 1990 Focus Newspaper. There being no one wishing to be heard, the hearing was closed at 10:21 P.M. Council briefly discussed the latest draft of the proposed Ordinance and after making one change relating to chain link fences, Wallin moved adoption of Ordinance 0-90-7. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE 0-90-7 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 9-14.01, SUBDIVISION 16 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO SWIMMING POOLS ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Tom Baldwin, Mayor ATTEST: Shirley Chenoweth, City Clerk ~O~FUg~ L , t~` ~~ ~.~ PET GROOMING SALON P=~t~ 2 ~ ~tRCiS si ~.~ g o • c N z ° ~~~o~ CI-q~ !1i _, Roo ~'~9 c~9~.s S"~,s`" ~"/ _ ~ .~--~, 0 a x~ Z- ~s N K~t~u~,~ ~ 4 t t ~ . ~ C- ,~~. ~-- -. c~ ~-~S,y . ~:,~~ i .._._. _ '~~%C~ I.oUNQi ~P . 4 ~~~~ ~ E,E~~ i~ ~ ~. .~u.En~/'r ~ ~~ ~ ~:~ ~ • ^~ ~-~~ ~ 1 - ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ ~~ ~G~ _ _, /_ ~ / (/ ~. Cc~-~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ,~ e~ ~ ~ r CJ ~_ ~' /~-~ t1,c,CM~ ct, ~9t~ ~o i'~i.m'Is-~ Gt~a~~~- ~--•` rte.. w ~J/~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~_ Ct- ~t-a-as~i • - ; • Meeting Date,6/25/90 Agenda Item -~~- CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION • • ITEM DESCRIPT--ION: A Request for a Permitted Accessory Use Permit for a Utility Shed at 1777 Arona in an R-1 zone SUBMITTED BY: Mr. Robert Stange, Property Owner REVIEWED BY; Susan Hoyt Taff, City Planner E%PZ,ANATION/SU1~IlriARY (attach addition sheets as necessary) : Mr. Stange plans to construct a utility shed in his rear lot one foot from his fence along his rear property line and several feet from his side lot lines. The structure will'be 8 ft. tall by 12 ft. wide by 8 ft. long and will be stained with a natural finish. The structure and its location meet the requirements of the zoning code 9-2.04 (1) (c) and 9-2.04 (1) (i). The structure requires a building permit because it exceeds 90 square feet. Mr. Stange cannot attend the Planning Commission meeting due to a previous commitment. ACTION--RE¢i~ESTED 1. Review and discuss 2. Approval C J Meeting Date 6/25/90 Agenda Item F-2 CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION C ITE1~4-i~ESCRI-PTI-0N: Request for a variance from Section 9-2.06 Subdivision 1 (b) and 1 (f) (5) of the zoning code for 1697 N. Hamline Avenue in an R-1 zone. SUBMITTED BY: Mr. Jim Lammers, property owner REVIEWED-$Y: Susan Hoyt Taff, City Planner EXPLANATION,/SUI~IlKARY (attach additional sheets as necessary) Mr. Lammers, property owner and resident of 1697 North Hamline Avenue, is requesting a variance from Section 9-2.06 1(b) and 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. The 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) 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 property to justify departing from the normal requirements of the zoning code. ATTACHMENT 1 9-2.06 Subdivision 1 (b) and 1 (f) (5) Regarding Fences ATTACHMENT 2 Letter from Mr. Lammers ATTACHMENT 3 Site Plan for 1697 N. Hamline ATTACHMENT 4 Photo of Babers~"rire Plus ATTACHMENT 5 Planner's Report on Request for a Variance at 1697 N. Hamline ATTACHMENT 6 9-15.03 Subdivision 4 Standards for Granting a Variance 'FED 1. Review and discuss 2. Approving or deny with FINDINGS • ~- ~ ~ Z PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 9-2.06, 2.07 ~}; f 1„ 9-2.06 Fences Subdivision 1. Fences may be allowed in any zone and are subject to •. the following: a. All fences shall be kept in good repair, painted, trimmed and well maintained. In the event a front yard fence is adjacent to and parallel with the front lot line (or side lot line on the street side of a corner lot), such fence shall be set-back at least one (1) foot from the street R/W or property line. b. Solid walls in excess of six (6) feet above adjacent Rround _ _. grades shall be prohibited. c. That side of the fence considered to be the face (finished side as opposed to structural supports) shall face abutting property. d. All fences shall require a building permit in addition to any other required permits. e. No fences shall be permitted on public rights-of-way. f. Fences may be vermitted along property lines subject to the fo~_lowing: 1. Fences may be placed along property Lines provided no physical damage of any kind results to abutting property. • 2. Fences in commercial and industrial districts may be erected on the lot Line to a height of six (6) feet plus two (2) feet fora security (barbed wire or other). arm. 3. ~r'here the property Line is aot clearly defined, a certificate of survey may be required by the Zoning Administrator to establish the property line. 4. Fences located within the side and rear yard non-buildable setback areas beginning at the rear building Line and fences located withia the buildable area of a lot shall not exceed six (6) feet is height from finished grade. ~ ~ In residential districts, ao fence along or within th front non-buildable setback area shall be is excess of thirty-six (~6) inches in heiaht._ 9-2.07 EeiAht Limitations Subdivision 1. Limitations Any structural height exceeding the following limits may be permitted ;, 32 provk Years' ~.. t am~ G{~~sp~! I C~~ l~G~~NNINt~ ~~yhno~ -~ U G~INIG ~~~f Ml~ ~ -- --~ }fbC~~hl I~-i~vl U N-E Pic ~~ ~ Z ,4-st~ft~~C' 3. lq~' ~ ~ a .._ . , .~ . •~ . ~ .~ ~ E 'i ~. ~s- - , ~ ~ . i 0 .~ ~.. IV15~' '~1~~5 ~~ ~ ~ ~ - i ~~ ~' f~ ~- ~ ~ ~ tie -- Site Plan I ~~1 f ,~C~rrr~,~ ~~ 'F2 ~~~~~ ~ -__ -_ . i~" -' I ..1~~ ~~ . ' p -._._ ;. -: ~r~ f a 1 ~- y - ~ y'..,,, t ~3 :. ~ ~ _ ~ ~~'~ ~''1v , . Meeting Date 6-/2/90 Agenda Item E-1 CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM-DESCRIPTION: A public hearing on a request for a conditional use permit for a pet grooming and limited pet boarding business at 1660 'Snelling Avenue North in the Northome Shopping Center in a B-2 zone. SUBMITTED BY: Ms. Roberta Madison, Proprietor, on behalf of property owner, Mr. Steve Cheney. REVIEWED $Y: Susan Hoyt, City Planner EXPLANATION/SITMMARY: (attach additional sheets as .necessary) Ms. Roberta Madison is requesting a conditional use permit 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. . The space was previously used by a veterinary clinic which was granted a conditional use permit. The new use requires a new conditional use permit because it falls under 9-10.01 Subdivision 2 - other retail uses of a similar nature. This use is similar to a veterinary clinic (9-10.01 Subdivision 2(n) because it provides animal care. The conditional use permit is necessary for the pet boarding portion of the business. ATTACHMENT 1 Proprietor's Description and Plan ATTACHMENT 2 Planner's Report on a Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Pet Grooming and Limited Pet Boarding Business. ACTION---REQIIESTED 1. Review and discuss. 2. Recommend approval of the pet grooming and pet boarding business with recommended conditions in Planner's Report (Attachment 2). • AGENDA ITEM F-2 ATTACHMENT 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Susan Hoyt Taff, City Planner RE: Planner's Report on the Request for a Variance from Section 9-2.06 (1) (b) AND (1) (f) (5) of the Zoning Code at 1697 North Hamline Avenue in an R-1 Zone INTRODUCTION Mr. Lammers is requesting a variance from Section 9-2.06 (1) (b) and (1)(f)(5) of the zoning code to allow him to construct a permanent eight foot high fence along his front property line and along his entire south side lot line. The proposed fence will replace a dying hedge on his property. The variance is necessary because fences are restricted to six feet in height in the side and rear yards, and to three feet in height in the front yard. To be granted a variance, the petitioner must prove to the Planning Commission and the City Council that the existing zoning code • creates a unique hardship to this property that is not found in other parts of the City in an R-1 zone. The Planning Commission and the City Council must FIND that all standards for granting a variance, 9-15.03 Subdivision 4, are met to grant a variance (see Attachment 6). UNIQUENESS AND HARDSHIP Mr. Lammers identifies two hardships that impinge on his enjoyment of his property (see Attachment 2). 1. Noise from the traffic along Hamline Avenue 2. Visual blight from the adjacent and directly opposite commercial land uses (see Attachment 4). The Commission is charged with determining the validity and uniqueness of these hardships to this particular property compared to other properties in the R-1 zones. In regard to the first hardship, traffic along Hamline, there are several examples of residences in the R-1 zone that experience the noise from traffic along Hamline Avenue, Larpenteur Avenue, Snelling Avenue and, to a lesser extent, Roselawn. Therefore, this does not appear to be a unique hardship to this property owner. And the variance would be inappropriately granted for this hardship. • 1 F-2 In regard to the second hardship, the visual blight from the • adjacent and directly opposite commercial land uses, 1697 N. Hamline is located DIRECTLY across from a commercial auto repair shop with a parking lot in the front of the repair shop. The parking lot is used to park vehicles being serviced. There are only a few other residential properties in an R-1 zone located across the street from a commercial establishment, (those across from the dry cleaner on Larpenteur come to mind) ; none have so much long-term parking. There are several residential properties in an R-1 zone located adjacent to commercial uses (e.g. Ciatti's and the homes behind Bullseye Plaza). Under our current zoning code a barrier is required between commercial establishments with parking lots within 30 feet of an R-1 zone. This barrier might be a six foot high fence. Therefore, the proposed fence along the entire south side lot line, which is the rear property line of the Thatcher Clinic, is in keeping with the intent of the zoning code, if restricted to six •feet. Nevertheless, it requires a variance. However, the proposed fencing along the front lot line to reduce vision across the street is not in keeping with the intent of the code, which is designed to maintain open, barrier-free front yard setbacks for visual continuity throughout the City. However, 1697 North Hamline is the only property DIRECTLY across from a commercial service with vehicles always parked outside. Therefore, it might be considered a unique case. FTNI~TNC'~S If the Planning Commission finds that this criterion of adjacent and opposite commercial land uses is unique to 1697 North Hamline, and if it finds that a hedge is not an adequate barrier, and if it finds that all the conditions for granting a variance are met, it may grant a variance from 9-2.06 1(f)(5) which limits a fence to three feet high within the front yard set back. There appears to be no justification for an eight foot fence, which exceeds all fence heights by two feet even when barriers are required by the zoning code. CONDITIONS To retain the intent of the zoning code and consistency throughout the R-1 zone in the City, if this variance is granted, the following conditions are recommended for your consideration: 1. Restrict the fence to six feet in height. (A hedge can grow beyond 6 feet if the owner desires). 2. Require the fence parallel to the front lot line to be at least twenty feet from the front lot line. • 2 ~, F-2 (The house is 42 feet from the front lot line). This condition will: a) decrease visibility from the residence without requiring a higher fence b) keep 20 ft. of the required front yard (30 ft. ) free of barriers as the code intended for visual continuity throughout the City in R-1 zones c) be consistent with the few examples of front yard barriers in yards in the City d) allow the property owner to plant a hedge along the front lot line to achieve a taller barrier at some future date. MOTION Finally, the Commission must incorporate its FINDINGS for a variance into the motion when it grants or denies this variance. • • 3 AGENDA ITEM F-2 ATTACHMENT 6 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 9-.15.03 C.'~ - ~rj, p'3 STANDARDS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE • Subdivision ~. Standards for Granting of Yarn 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 ea~oyment 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 public streets; f. That the variance will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety; kig. ~iJhether the shape, topographical condition or other similar . characteristic of the tract is such as to distinguish it - substantially from aII 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. iihether the variance is sought principally to increase financial .gain to the owner of the property,-and to determine whether a aubstaatial hardship to the owner would result from a denial of the. . variance; . i. iihether 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 Heights or any-amendment thereto which placed the tract is 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 is 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 oP the Zoning-code.-~•Finaacial hardship shall not be a basis for xhe granting of a-variance when the o~rner 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. A • public record shall be maintained of such conditions. - • Meeting Date 6/25/90 Agenda Item F-3 CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM-DESCRIPTION: Review of Section 9-2.04 Subdivision 2(b) - Lot Coverage of Detached Accessory Buildings. SIIBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt Taff, City Planner Susan Hoyt Taff, City Planner Tim Malloy, Consulting Planner EXPLANATION/SUMMARY: 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. Therefore, revising this portion of the zoning code appears useful. ATTACHMENT 1 Planner's Report on Lot Coverage of Detached Accessory Buildings BCTI-ON~ -REQIIESTED 1. Review and discuss 2. If desirable, schedule public hearing on proposed change. • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Susan Hoyt Taff, City Planner 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 .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. • • r1 U Meeting Date 6/25/90 Agenda I tem F-4 - - CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Press coverage of the Falcon Heights/Roseville Study of Merging Services. SUBMITTED-BY: Susan Hoyt Taff, City Planner RDVIEWED-BY: EXPLANATIONfSUrIlKARY (attach additional sheets as necessary): Please note the attached Star Tribune and Pioneer Press articles regarding the proposed study of Falcon Heights and Roseville merging services. ATTACHMENT 1 Star Tribune Article ATTACHMENT 2 St. Paul Pioneer Press article. ACTION- -REQIIE'STED For your information ~~ ,~ f e7 I T I 1 aa ?7•~ .N. I M ed ~~ ,~4 a b a m ~°~~de •°S~~ ~° N ,.. ONy hCL ~'~ ~ •yEo~oe° ~;2~° °~ . ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G: N . V ~ w ~• ~~d ~ U ,~ O b0 ~ N ~ y N ~ .D b ~p O y~ '~ ^..d O D U to N ~ bed ~y ~ ~ O O.+UC ~'"" U 00 O a ~ d00 a>i p fl'.UG ed u r oyUO U O N ~~ ~~ ~ , C C"~~ y'N O~ c~ a Ow .u .G ... ae .., "" .GONCV'~ 3~ ~~c ~U ~ > ~~Z`a Gn b .O N ~+ r N y pp .~ ed 131 ld H ~~ > V OD N .+ I e+ a~Ou7 R+ lr C1 to CGF`~ H ti N O .CN ~ H ~ ~'a y 3 _ ~ ~ o ~ ab °' '° ~ o ° . • ~ ~3owo o +•~~~o w ~ ~bR~ ~ d f ~G O U U ~ r OD N R t ii t?0 ed pp N . . ~ e i O ~ O „ E_ 3C L+ • E• Ned u n C n ~. ~ , "' G .L OD y . O .o «+ N y . cd O w+ .. 3 v~ 0 3 ~° = ~ _ ~'.c ~ 3 G:.5 3 • iii ~" ~~ co r .~ o 0 ?I ~ N \ ~ o N c1 ~ ~ 1=- ~ ^~ b G G C c N b~~ u " 1. P: O •~ a~ _ 1- V >. u„ O~~ N y t1 N .C O O vii 1/'1 4... ~ N f+ 'b 1.. .~~+ N ~ ~ LO ~ ~ 4J bG0.0 ° O ~ ~~~.~ °~ ° ~ o u a~°i ~ 3 U N N •~ ° N ~ ~ O ~ ~ •V lc. ~'O ~y ~ xoca ~ o"'.'-a..~ ^GO 30 3~.~„•e~o c .c eo - N ~ ~ e0 O eu C ti~ T •~• OC1 ~ 1 ~. L .+ Gyp ~ `'..• ~a(~~cc p`"U" ~ v ;b~c~;°' ~~ ma..° ~ N a,o O oD.~ V ~ ~ G O ~ -- G ,O CS ~ Gy.~ ° .y °' ~ >. 1~., IN. C p°p~ N =_ ~ ~ ~ O R > O '~O~ ~ M I"~ G= ^•in ~li,a3. ev~o°~' c ~ >t N ~ N O..~.. 4..~ O .d cd U ed LL N y dJ X {~ ... H N O • ° ° ~O ~ • r. Vi eV 'Ly ed '~-~ ° co O O u .^. ~ c`~cy~ °030.0 > r~1 C. tV '«..r. N y h G T.~ ~ :3 •u O G b G:..: G ^. d • N ed •~Eow G ~ Gy o •~'.-• d U3oce- y H O ~~~3~ .N.:+ ey C OV O "~+ ~ ~ T G.~ Ob «+ p •y oo.~ v w o o N „ ~ J •N -a~ .~ N a .« r~i H ~ -, .b vi I .O ~ y .. °v~ob •a ..E ._, °' p,~ N N T ~ c'N N .~C. '... fd ~n.o •~ ~ oo•-~ 3 C °~'b3 ~~°yw fd ° ~ .., G' v5 OD O ~ Y y p ~ G: yNVe- caAO Gy ~ o u. ,,, o ~evh3 NN .+ Cy U N ~ •a^ L ed O "' O .•~... 3 ed ~ Z~ 30 Y a~,~ N cad~~ L ZaXiws ~o~ O. ~ ~~C ~ >I y i,1. u ~ ~ ~ H a 03.6iOC U ° F. ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ [r, •C4?OH N N Obs cV q C b N ~ • •." N :: ° ~ 3 3 y U N VJ a~ b 3 'O a > s u ~CC> ~ ~+ •[•Q~~ 3 00 .. C~ ~~': O ~ r %3 u.beU c O °'~ is ab y O 3 N•T~ ~ .Y •~'~,~ UT. .~ U ed •N+'d ~ O ~ pp 'J e~~a o N Nw N ~ y •ti •fA N ~ >I N F v .'Gl _°. A POr. U cd N.'d 7 O~ y.~ A N IU,,.CpL~ OfAb~Up. a~ °•~•C. c ~ O y'~•o ., •Y N N C dp b •~ Obi H '~.O •~ G." c1d„ 0~0 G1LO7C OT^OO$~ 'b .C taD In a) O ci'~ E aUi ~ U cGd v~i.~,p ~ p' cd O;d q C .y+ 1 .O l.. td ? N U N'Vl ~~~~~ ~~.cedG~[ "' °-cb ~t°'~ EoE C~«+~~ •; edGN~~+G ~ o ~~ ~~ ~ a ~~ W• Ir ~" R ~. 4! 'OQ 7 ~ +~ p h .~ O ld d~ S mom "' E~o `~:~.+a O ~ ~ cQO. ~ bD0 w Q c++ 9 .~~ •O ~ ~ .5 `~ 'a' `~ c, tip pyby°b`Cy°~ O O~^ O~ O VJ t1C M •G1 Qa NOy.p~ ~~~ ~ >.d a ~ :~ y '> >°,c o vi a, C .0 ~ + g _~ ,r, ~ N D+ ~ NM C .0.w+ y .-. 'v ~-+ A '^•• '~ w d +-+ N w'i C a'g 3 o p y~`~y yZw,~ ~ F. w .~-. c ~ CI dD: .0 G '~ Ds ~' ~ C v GL O w ,~ •~•+ d ~V. N cq c++7 „"' ,~+ C O y y ~ C O E~ iy y c~ :..+ y 0y R~ ~ ~~° cpC 0:: c c c ~ u ~~ N... `. g ~ .° .a v r o o' ~ one ~o •~ y ~ ~ v ai is .o . w w q r. ,,.,.~ ~ c p N aD ~ O ,~ m ~ •Cl ~ O N y U 0++~ ODROO p 0.~y E O y •~. ?L 's:. C g V +q+ .~ 40. '~ ~ j/ .c tC 'rte' Q y '^ ~ R ... C ro ''rv~C .a ~ p w C O th ~ p y O O~ `.3• c• o ~.a a, ~e a~ p- ~~ ltl•r ca L ~+ a~i eca~ w .a v° aU.°~~~ a~i ai E~°v~ y ~/1 ld ~ 'C ~ '~ ta, o tq ^ ~ p .°+ ~~ y C~~~ 00::+ p p c ~'°Q q E d ~~;,~~pp ~ °a ~ ai V 0. O 0+ y E+ y .~ ~.+~ A B p 'C w p ~ ~ O ~' ~ Fr R. 'q ~ ~ O y . O . d w F v1 ~ CL~~ E px.~+'~ p E ~ ~'n c~c~~ ~ ~ O o p i G 61 .G Ora F ~ U Rt p ~..~ ~ CV N~ y U .y. 't7 C~ F°. y y a s • o ~ ~ a 8.~x ~ 4 ;~ ~ . o~ c c y N 6) ~ O Q ~ FY ~. y o ~ ~ y ~ .D ~ ~ R 'b ~ p cti ~ m ~ ~ ~ :~ °+ o ~ 2 o v y y ~~ aB g . M C ~ '~ ~ tN0 ~..' y ~, f~ y t'Gd pp'> U y G X31 r~ N N C O ° V 0 O .O ~ . y~ ^ d CO .r i ~ .7 •O + ~ ° w G U .~. G ..y.w. .~ TO g~ g N .. !. - _ y Gy~~~s'., OOuOR~'/ayt~0_ w0.+.-ViVdO~ A, y ~y .n a - ca ,~ y ~. V/ -' ~ ~~ G7 Sri ~~ ~TJ~ y O U ~- i~~ ~0 ~ V~- y V +-' cti O O f.. c0 .V. cq ~~ - - .-~ 0 Z: ~~'Rpp•~o c°~ ao~~ ~ ~ ai~yi"~ E~ ~- U ~/ Z s°..'arE'o`~,~a~cva>cvr~.aEi~= aoiyc.~ ~ M~+y U~ Q ~ ca t~ ~: .-~ ~ Ca B'G.+ E U°l ~ a~i ~ c.~ ° E A ep d $ Q. a7O i ~, ~W !yp d'~ "~7 ,f~ s:r '>.E~~ Q~~"o~'8~~~ .~ Ds d G.+~ ~Tr R': ^~ L VJ a~-~.1"~•d0uNi3•~v eo O- b ~ cY• c y ~x~~ E~s~ ~ ~ p yin O ~ y c Ol G O n ~o- o ~ > cn .d . ~ caw °~w ~ ~a~ ~~° v= w NCO O +x-~'U~ fii~ O ~"" `~ O O N O E c tD ++ y w G1'r d4 y fir' w ~ O O y 3 C cd • , Qo ai.-° vd~ Eoo~ ~°~ ~~ ~~ ~ y 1 ~~ a C ^ .. ~y ° a ( . ., ao a 3 N- . .c a d N ti0 y ~ ,, _ C t0 ' .-1. . O rOi~ C 7 O p~ '^"' C. v ~~. c0 V ~ d "" y •p ~ cd O W ~~"c=~v d a-Y =0 ~,~ E.a O :°x...,x - --- -~ , Y i °! -1'. .. O ~ ~ - " ~ tlJ w - - ~~~ ' ~ Z . . ,t v Q ' p i V O G7 .~ ~ ~~.~ o G7 ." •. . 0 O QQ u!-.. .. ~ ~ O ty t~..t O ~ ~ w O ! ~ a~i v, ° ~- 3'°aa °' N +Y ~'1 ...1 ~ > ~ ~ V L. ~ - pp o~~A-~Or ~~. VO~~_ d 00 y - _ CP ypi '. ,. y O p. O V n cO O R. R ~ O_-.. ~ o:~awf: ~ ~'~ -.r ~ B; O 0. 'D N e0 ~- vOi ra d.