HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCAgenda_05Jun28~~C.~'
• City of Falcon Heights
Planning Commission
City Hall
2077 W. Larpenteur Avenue
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
A. CALL TO ORDER: 7 p.m.
B. ROLL CALL: Tracy Lukermann Harris Lageson
Heideman DeLeo Ryan Rodich
Mercer-Taylor Council Liaison Lindstrom
• City Administrator Worthington Staff Liaison Jones
City Attorney Jamnik
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 24, 2005
D. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance requests for 1871 Larpenteur Avenue
E. AGENDA ITEM:
1. Consideration of variance requests for 1871 Larpenteur Avenue
2. Discussion of proposed code amendment on noncompliance (laid over from the
May meeting)
F. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
G. ADJOURN
• City of Falcon Heights
Planning Commission
City Hall
2077 W. Larpenteur Avenue
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
A. CALL TO ORDER: 7 p.m.
B. ROLL CALL: Tracy Lukermann Harris Lageson
Heideman DeLeo Ryan Rodich
Mercer-Taylor Council Liaison Lindstrom
• City Administrator Worthington Staff Liaison Jones
City Attorney Jamnik
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 24, 2005
D. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance requests for 1871 Larpenteur Avenue
E. AGENDA ITEM:
1. Discussion of proposed code amendment on noncompliance (laid over from the
May meeting)
F. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
G. ADJOURN
City of Falcon Heights
• Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 2005
PRESENT: Commissioners Lukermann, Harris, Lageson, Ryan, Council Liaison Lindstrom.
Also present were City Administrator Heather Worthington and Staff Liaison Deb Jones.
ABSENT: Heideman, DeLeo (with notice), Tracy. Commissioner Ziebarth tendered her
resignation before the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. The Commission roster being at seven
members, a quorum was present.
MINUTES: The minutes for February, 2005, and March, 2005, were approved.
PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Ordinance Amending Portions of Chapter 9 of the City
Code Concerning Nonconformities
Commissioner Ryan, Planning Commission Chair, opened the public hearing. Zoning and
Planning Coordinator Deb Jones summarized the staff report as an introduction. Falcon
Heights presently places severe restrictions on how much alteration, repair, restoration and
improvement can be done to structures that do not conform to City Code. The Falcon Heights
provisions are inconsistent with new Minnesota statute, passed in August, 2004. New
• wording proposed by the City Attorney would bring the Falcon Heights zoning ordinance into
line with State law. The change would give owners of some nonconforming structures the
opportunity to make improvements, restoration and even, in some cases, additions, without
bringing the structures into full compliance with the code or getting a variance. Staff
recommends approval of the new ordinance.
Commissioner Harris asked what it means to not increase the nonconformity, with reference
to a variance on Asbury granted last year. Jones explained that, for instance, if the house is
too close to the property line on the west but has room on the north or south, the owner could
extend the house in those directions as long as the structure was not extending it in the
direction of the nonconformity, to the west, and as long as an additional nonconformity was
not introduced. In the case of the Asbury variance there was a new nonconformity with
respect to lot coverage, so that owner would need a variance in any case for the addition that
was proposed.
Commissioner Harris also asked about the "use" and "occupancy" wording used in the
proposed amendment. Would subsequent owners be required to make the property conform?
Ms. Jones described the distinction between a nonconforming structure and nonconforming
use. In the ensuing discussion, Commissioners expressed a desire for some clarification on
this distinction and other issues of wording in the proposed amendment. City Administrator
Worthington told Commissioners that if a use is nonconforming, for instance, if the use came
into being before the present legal uses were defined in the code, the City could not make the
• owner give up that use, as long as the use was not expanded. She also recommended that the
Commission get the clarification needed before taking a vote.
City of Falcon Heights -Planning Commission Meeting of May 24, 2005 -Page 1 of 2
Richard Rodich, 1341 Idaho, came to the podium to introduce himself. He is the new member
of the Planning Commission; his appointment will take effect at the June meeting.
• As there were no other individuals wishing to speak to the Commission, the public hearing
was closed.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Ryan said that he also has some questions about the wording and outlined his
concerns. Other Commissioners voiced similar concerns; a discussion followed. It was
moved and seconded that this item be continued to the June meeting. Motion passed.
INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Councilmember Lindstrom informed the Commission that the Council has chosen a
codification firm to undertake the recodification of the Falcon Heights City Code. Ms. Jones
added that Municipal Code Corporation is the chosen company and that the whole code will
be reviewed, not just the zoning chapter. The final product will be in electronic form that will
be searchable, and it will be available on the web. The project is expected to take about a
year. Lindstrom commented that it will be great for citizens to have direct access to the
document.
• Commissioner Lageson encouraged City residents to consider biking to work during the good
weather this spring and summer, or to use other alternate transportation. It is healthy and will
help the environment. Mr. Lageson bikes from his home to downtown St. Paul via Maryland.
He said quite a few people bike to either Minneapolis or St. Paul downtown to work.
Commissioner Lukermann asked whether the proposed code amendment discussed earlier
would have any impact on properties such as 1871 Larpenteur and whether a PUD would still
be needed. Administrator Worthington answered that a PUD gives the City a bit more
flexibility and allows some relaxation of zoning provisions on a particular site. It does require
rezoning. The City Code does contain an ordinance that lays out the procedure and conditions
for a PUD.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m.
Respectfu~ll/Jy submitted,
~~d~~~t~i ~ j~~tPQ . .
Deborah Jones, Staff Liaison
•
City of Falcon Heights -Planning Commission Meeting of May 24, 2005 -Page 2 of 2
• ITEM 1
6/28/05
ITEM: Variance requests for the Black Bamboo Restaurant, 1871 Larpenteur
Avenue
SUBMITTED BY: Deborah Jones, Zoning and Planning Coordinator
REVIEWED BY: Heather Worthington, City Administrator
Roger Knutson, City Attorney
EXPLANATION:
Background/History/Property Description:
1871 Larpenteur is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Larpenteur Avenue and
Lindig Street in Falcon Heights. The legal description is "South 215.125 feet of Lot 1, Block 1,
Lindig Addition." The parcel is 56.94 feet wide by 215.125 feet deep, with an area of 12,632.4
square feet. The property is zoned B-1 "Neighborhood Convenience District" and has been used
for local commercial enterprises for at least 50 years, most recently as a coffee shop. The
property is adjacent to residential property, R1 on the north and R-4 on the east, with R-4 (used
as R-1) across Lindig to the west and University owned public -land across Larpenteur to the
• south. The existing improvements consist of a principle structure originally built as a florist shop
with attached greenhouse, and two parking lots, one in front and one in the rear. The existing
structures are non-conforming with respect to setback.
The prospective purchasers of 1871 Larpenteur, Stanley and Carol Won, propose to create a new
restaurant business on the site. This is a legal use in a B-1 zone. In order to establish a viable
business, they propose to rehabilitate the existing structure and replace the greenhouse, which is
in very poor condition, with a new addition that would follow the east and west lines of the
existing building but extend farther to the rear (north). They also propose to redevelop the
remainder of the site with new parking lots and landscaping. In order to carry out this plan, they
have applied for seven related variances.
Problem: The property is unique for a B-1 zoning designation.
• The zoning restrictions would severely limit the development of the property, and impose
a hardship on any owner.
• These variance requests have been made because of the unique conditions of the
property:
1. Narrowness of the lot (slightly less than 57 feet wide)
2. Required setbacks are greater than the width of the lot
3. There is an existing structure that is legally non-conforming; it is reasonable that
• the existing setbacks be maintained.
Staff Report: 1871 Larpenteur Variances June 28, 2005 Page 1 of 5
Variance Requests:
• A. Category 1: Variances that will regularize the existing conditions on the site:
a. Lot Width: 33.03 feet (lot is 56.97 feet wide; 90 feet required)
b. Side setback-east side: 25 feet (5 feet existing; 30 feet required when property
abuts an "R" district.)
c. Side setback-west side: 30 feet (0 feet existing; 30 feet required when property
abuts a street)
B. Category 2: Variances that are requested to create a viable new business:
a. Parking space requirement: 6 parking spaces (18 provided; 24 required)
b. Parking space size: 8.6' x 18' provided where 9' x 20' feet is required. (Note that
the spaces in the front lot are the full 20 foot length and the single required
handicapped parking space is fully conforming with respect to length, width and
setback.
c. Landscaping/Lot coverage: 2400 square feet (758 square feet provided, where
3158 square feet are required)
d. Rear yard setback (to the parking lot): 8 feet (12 feet provided, 20 required).
Note that the structure does not encroach into the required 20 foot setback, only
the parking lot.
Analysis•
• a. That the granting of the variance(s) will not be detrimental to the public welfare.
1. Side setbacks and lot width: Staff finds that these variances will not be detrimental to the
public welfare as they recognize existing conditions on the property and no prior detriment
has been shown to exist.
2. Parking, rear setback and landscaping: Staff finds that these variances will minimize any
future detriment to the public welfare. The proposed plan seeks to establish an optimum
balance between the community's interest in keeping as much parking on site as possible and
the need to maintain appropriate greenspace. Additional landscaping provided in the public
right of way will provide additional buffers around the business on the west and south.
b. That the granting of the variance(s) will not substantially diminish or impair property
values or improvements in the area.
1. Side setbacks and lot width: Staff finds that these variances will not substantially diminish or
impair property values as they recognize existing conditions on the property and no prior
impact on values has been shown to exist
2. Parking, rear setback and landscaping: Staff cannot predict whether these variances will
substantially diminish or impair property values. It is a fact that allowing the site to
deteriorate would have a negative effect on property values. Placing a different business in
the existing structure would not necessarily have a better impact; the last few such businesses
have failed. Any owner proposing to establish a vital, successful business on this site would
•
Staff Report:,1871 Larpenteur Variances June 28, 2005 Page 2 of 5
need to make significant investments in upgrading the property and would need variances to
. do so.
c. That the granting of the variance(s) is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights.
Staff finds that the granting of these variances is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights. In fact, under its present zoning, any use of this property at all would
require some combination of variances.
d. That the variances(s) will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property.
1. Side setbacks and lot width: Staff finds that these variances will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent properties, as these conditions already exist and have
not been shown to impair the supply of light and air to adjacent properties.
2. Parking, rear setback and landscaping.• Staff finds that the variance will not impair an
adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent properties.
e. That the variance(s) will not impair the orderly use of the public streets;
1. Side setbacks and lot width: Staff finds that these variances will not impair the orderly use of
the public streets, as these conditions already exist and have not been shown to cause such
• impairment.
2. Parking, rear setback and landscaping: Staff finds that the variances will not impair the
orderly use of the public streets. The prospective owners have made a good faith effort to
keep as much parking as possible on the site and to confine the traffic impact to the part of
Lindig that is immediately adjacent to the restaurant.
f. That the variance(s) will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety;
1. Side setbacks and lot width: Staff finds that these variances will not increase the danger of
fire or endanger the public safety, as these conditions already exist and have not been shown
to endanger public safety.
2. Parking, rear setback and landscaping: Staff finds that the variances will not increase the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety.
g. Whether the shape, topographical condition or other similar characteristic of the tract
is such as to distinguish it substantially from all of the other properties in the zoning
district of which it is a part, or whether a particular hardship, as distinguished from
mere inconvenience to the owner, would result if the strict letter of the Chapter were
carried out.
This property, a legal lot of record, is distinguished from other B-1 properties in that the sum of
the required side setbacks is greater than the total width of the property. This creates a particular
•
Staff Report: 1871 Larpenteur Variances June 28, 2005 Page 3 of 5
hardship for any owner if the strict letter of the Chapter is carried out because it renders the
• property literally unusable for any permitted or conditional use defined for a B-1 parcel.
h. Whether the variance is sought principally to increase financial gain to the owner of the
property, and to determine whether a substantial hardship to the owner would result
from a denial of the variance.
Staff finds these variances are not sought principally to increase financial gain to the owner of
the property other than the ordinary gain from the running of a viable legal business. Staff finds
that substantial hardship would be imposed by denial of the variances on lot coverage and
parking. If the lot coverage requirement were enforced, a much greater variance on parking
would be needed and the overflow parking and traffic would spill into the neighborhood. The lot
is too small to accommodate all the required parking for this use, even if all landscaping were to
be eliminated. Either alternative would impose substantial hardship on the owner. Substantial
hardship would also be imposed by requiring an owner to set up business in the existing building
as this building is too small to accommodate this legal use, and parts of it do not meet the
requirements of the State building code.
i. Whether the conditions which give rise to the application for the variance arose after the
adoption of this Chapter of the Code of the City of Falcon Heights or any amendment
thereto which placed the tract in a zoning district different from what it was under the
Chapter. In the consideration of this item, the City shall make diligent inquiry as to all
changes in the property and shall refuse to grant the variance if the problem is one that can
• be solved through a proper application of a conditional use permit or an amendment of the
Zoning code. Financial hardship shall not be a basis for the granting of a variance when
the owner purchased the property in reliance on a promise that a variance would be
granted, and the City shall dismiss the appeal if it shall appear that the property was
purchased on such reliance.
Not applicable.
Comments from Residents: A public meeting was held on June 23 to give information about
the proposed new business at 1871 Larpenteur. Notes from that meeting are attached to this
report. The resident of 1708 Lindig, the adjacent property on the north, submitted a written
statement, which is also attached.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the first three variances for the following reasons:
• They formalize existing conditions on the site.
Staff recommends approval of the remaining four variances for the following reasons:
•
Staff Report: 1871 Larpenteur Variances June 28, 2005 Page 4 of 5
• They represent considerable thought and work directed toward establishing an optimum
• balance between parking and landscaping to allow the business to succeed and, at the
same time, minimize impact of traffic and parking to residential property surrounding the
site.
• Staff made a thorough study of the issues and challenges facing any use of this property,
and concluded that for any viable, legal business, some combination of variances would
be necessary. Enforcing the letter of the chapter would impose insurmountable obstacles
and hardships to the legal use of this property in a B-1 Zone.
Attachments•
• Site Plan
• Concept Drawing
• Variance Application
• Consultant report on the original (modified)
• Letter to property owners within 350 feet and to residents on Lindig Street, including a
copy of the legal notice and the original preliminary site plan/elevation drawing.
• Notes from the June 23, 2005 Neighborhood Meeting
• Written statement from resident, 1708 Lindig Street
• Original staff information from March Planning Commission meeting regarding 1871
Larpenteur
Action Requested:
• Discussion
Open Public Hearing
Recommend approval of Resolution OS- to the City Council, approving the following
requested variances listed on Page 2 of this staff report for a new Black Bamboo
Restaurant at 1871 Larpenteur Avenue.
Staff Report: 1871 Larpenteur Variances June 28, 2005 Page 5 of 5
Q
•
•
J N
W ~
= W
U_Z
~~
Q
Q
_Z
Wa
~o
W
~Q~
~~
~_
~Q Z ~
~2
Z
„~ ~ O
~~~
z ~
~ ~~ g ~~
O ~ W V1 I- -I LL LL W O
O..- ~F. ...f.~. j .K4 I ~ fJJ VI S..~~y.
!+Y~ F gg QQ ~Y
~LLI ~- Z y ~ l ~ u]
~~ ~Z~ Q~.Z ~i i ~ ~u a~~~~
sue, ~+ `~~- CG ~i ~~ I ~ ~p. =w,a¢¢
ii ~'t/ ~ X W
~ ~1- r--r m QL1 z - ~ c9u"'. ~n~~o.
~ c- Jd'N~oZZ F
mLLmm~~~
as
Q ~ ~-
z ~''~~(n
pF' QWo
~ a ~ ~ ~
g
=JAW
~ Z
~ ~~
~ Q ~ Q J
Q C°a~=
~
_U
~ ~
~j
T - _ -r U
F~
~O
_ _ _
. - - - - - ~ ~. _ w
c~
~~ F
L
(n n
X ~
W
Michael A. Medina A.f.A.
• Architect
1618 Hague Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55104
June 6, 2005
City of Falcon Heights
Planning commission
2077 W. Larpenteur Ave.
Falcon Heights, MN. 55113-5594
Enclosed are site plans and an image sketch of proposed use of property located at 1871
Larpenteur Ave.
Stanley. and Carol Won are currently negotiating to purchase the above property. They plan to
rebuild-afld remodel~around the e~cisting building foot print for a propceed restaurant. They are
planningan 11'-0" expansion to the north of the existing structure.
In-order to.maximize.the.site for parking they would request a variance of the required 30 `-0°
set-back at the north side of the property.
They. would Jike to reconfigure the parking at the south end of the property by closing the entry
o#-LarpeFltuer Ave and move -the -parking .to the south side of the lot. A variance is also
requested-because of the 30'-0' set-back.
Mr. and,Mrs. Won are looking forward to bringing a design that will enhance the neighborhood
and- rflake it a -nice place to be in -the area. The krnr wall and landscaping will soften the space
between the restaurant, street and the residence.
Michael.A.. Medina A.I.A.
Copy:
Stanley & Carol Won
. May 31 05 07:17p
• 85!37!2885 15:~T- 6S16Q48533-
Maw !f qi its
~Iir"' Irby ~
M~ ~f1~rO~r _~+ Q
p.l
Pli~E 83
orb t
+~~Mr~w ....~..._... ~ _._...._
r+~.~.A)rYr~li~~ Nr~.r~rNq
~Yr~t~MrleMiR+~
•
0 ~~~ ^
a MA~+wwFOi.~1r~c-
O ~
Q OInM~rrtfl^el~il
o ^r^+~~o,e4 ..
0
D VrpMf t~
O Lta1l
~ ~'Nww~r
o an~rRr^-~
•~w.~we~r ~w.+~t ~. a w~rrr e.w~fa r
~o~i iisaR ~~. ~,~-«w.~
~~
• !NIlN~ Zr/, tl=2i 88L 100~!/i!/!~
aoarroo~i
yv~ rs:tii ani sooz~icisv
. •- • • e
COMMUNITY PLANNING + DESIGN
TO: Ms. Heather Worthington, City Administrator
Falcon Heights, Minnesota
FROM: Dan Cornejo, Principal
CORNEJO CONSULTING
DATE: June 24, 2005
RE: Site Plan Review
Black Bamboo Restaurant
1871 Larpenteur Avenue
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to review the June 6, 2005 Site Plan submittal by Michael A.
Medina AIA on behalf of Stanley and Carol Won to develop a new restaurant and an
accessory surface parking lot on a site located at 1871 Larpenteur Avenue, on the NE
corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Lindig Street.
My review will focus primarily on the four areas of the Falcon Height City Code, Chapter
9 -Planning and Development that apply to this site plan submittal:
^ PART 2: GENERAL PROVISIONS
^ PART 8: B-1 NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE DISTRICT
^ PART 13: SPECIAL PROVISIONS
^ PART 14: DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is currently developed with a vacant former restaurant building with an attached
"greenhouse", and with surface parking on the north and south sides of the building.
The site is approximately 15,480 sq. ft. It is zoned "B-1"NEIGHBORHOOD
CONVENIENCE DISTRICT.
DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The applicant proposes to demolish the "greenhouse" portion of the existing building,
remodel the remaining portion to the east, and construct an L-shaped addition to the main
building extending 11 feet to the north and approximately 30 feet to the west. The new
• building will tota12,548 sq. ft.
CORNEJO CONSULTING - 1657 Saunders Avenue -Saint Paul, MN 55116-2430
P 651.699.1927 F 651.698.0212 E dancornejo@comcast.net
• CODE REVIEW
PART 2: GENERAL PROVISIONS
9-2.05 Required Yards and Open Space
Subdivision 2 (d) requires that "In no event shall off street parking, structures of any
type, buildings, or other improvements cover more than seventy-five percent (75%) of the
lot areas. In no event shall the landscaped portion of the lot be less than twenty-five
percent (25%) of the entire lot as a result of permitted encroachments."
For this site, the required landscaped portion should total at least 3, 870 sq. ft.
The site plan indicates approximately 2, 331 sq. ft. Given that this is such a small
site, strict application of this requirement may be unreasonable, and a variance
may be warranted.
PART 10: B-1 NEIGHBORHOOD CONVIENCE DISTRICT
9-10.01 of B-1 Neighborhood Convenience District
Subdivision 6 dealing with Lot Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements requires:
• a. Minimum Lot Area of 10,000 sq. ft.
b. Maximum Principal Building Height of 2 stories or 24 feet.
c. Minimum Lot Width of 90 feet.
d. Maximum Building/Use Size of 5,000 square feet.
e. Minimum Building Yard Requirements:
(1) Front 30 feet
(2) Side 10 feet (30 feet when abutting residential property or a street)
(3) Rear 20 feet
f. Maximum Lot Coverage 75% (including the total area of roofs, driveways,
parking lots, sidewalks and similar impermeable surfaces).
This site plan meets requirements for Lot Area, Principal Building Height, Maximum
Building/Use Size, Front Yard, and Rear Yard. However, there are four deficiencies:
^ the Lot Width is deficient by approximatelyl8feety
^ the West Side Yard is deficient by 10 feet;
^ the East Side Yard is deficient by S feet; and
^ the Lot Coverage exceeds the maximum by approximately 2, 400 sq. ft.
PART 13: SPECIAL PROVISIONS
9-13.02 Permitted Suns in Each Zoning District
CORNEJO CONSULTING - 1657 Saunders Avenue -Saint Paul, MN 55116-2430 2
P 651.699.1927 F 651.698.0212 E dancornejo@comcast.net
• Subdivision 3. Business districts (B-1 and B-3)
This matter will be dealt with as part of the building permit review.
9-13.04 Off-street Parking and Loading
Subdivision 5 (c) dealing with size of parking spaces requires that spaces be a minimum
of nine (9) feet in width and twenty (20) feet in length. Spaces for the handicapped must
be at least twelve (12) feet in width and twenty (20) feet in length.
This site plan indicates that 12 of the regular parking spaces are only 8 ft. bin.
wide and 18 feet in length, and five of regular spaces, along the north property
line, are 8 ft. 6 in. wide and 17 feet in length. The one handicapped space is 13 ft.
bin. wide and 20 ft. deep. The regular parking spaces do not meet code
requirements; however, the handicapped space does meet code requirements..
Subdivision 6 dealing with the design and maintenance ofoff-street parking areas has
many specific provisions, most of which appeared to have been complied with.
However, the following provision appears to be not in compliance.
Subdivision 6 r. dealing with Off-street Parking Spaces Required, when referencing 16.
• Restaurant and/or Cafeteria requires one (1) space per 2.50 seats.
The applicant has indicated that the restaurant is designed for 60 seats. There
will be outdoor dining provision in the summer months; however no new seats
will be added for this purpose. Therefore, the required off-street parking spaces
for this restaurant are 24 spaces. The site plan indicates only 18 spaces.
My assessment of this situation is that this is very small existing site with very
little opportunity for a different parking arrangement or provision. 1 would ask
that the applicant consider a second curb cut for the rear parking area to provide
a little more maneuvering room. Also, the applicant could consider a reduction
in the number of patron seats in the restaurant building.
PART 14: DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Subdivision 5 dealing with Screening requires screening when a business is adjacent to
property zoned for residential use.
The front yard parking contains only five (S) parking spaces, but the site plan
provides for a low wall on the property line, as well as low planting of shrubs in
front of the wall. The site plan indicates low plantings to screen the rear yard
parking along the west and east property lines as well as trees along the north
property line. Also, the site plan indicates a new 6 ft. high fence to run along the
CORNEJO CONSULTING - 1657 Saunders Avenue -Saint Paul, MN 55116-2430
P 651.699.1927 F 651.698.0212 E dancornejo@comcast.net
entire east and north property lines, effectively screening the parking areas from
the adjacent homes. The site plan is in compliance with this provision.
Subdivision 6 dealing with Landscaping requires that landscaping be provided and
maintained on all required front and side yards.
This site plan does provide landscaping on all yards, but in a deficient amount in
terms of total site area devoted to landscaping (see 9-2.05 above).
Subdivision 8 dealing with Lighting, Lighting Fixtures, and Glare will be reviewed as
part of the building permit application.
Subdivision 9 dealing with Traffic Control requires that the minimum distance for access
drives from a corner shall be no closer than twenty (20) feet from intersecting street right
of way lines.
The site plan indicates that the southernmost driveway will be located 30 feet
from the corner, which is in compliance. In addition, the two drives in the rear of
the lot are in compliance with code requirements for separation of driveways.
RECOMMENDATION
• This site plan represents a good effort to accommodate a new restaurant and parking on
an extremely small corner site with difficult access issues. However, revisions should be
considered with a view to creating a development that has a better balance between the
size of the building, number of patron seats, and parking/access layout. It appears that a
better resolution of these key components in a revised site plan would, nevertheless,
require a number of variances to achieve the most workable site plan:
a. Landscaping amount
b. Lot width
c. West side yard
d. East side yard
e. Lot coverage
£ Size of parking spaces
g. Number of parking spaces
•
CORNEJO CONSULTING - 1657 Saunders Avenue -Saint Paul, MN 55116-2430 4
P 651.699.1927 F 651.698.0212 E dancornejo@comcast.net
•C
CITY OF
FALCON H E ! G H TS 2077 W. Larpenteur Avenue
Falcon Heights, MN 55113-5594
email: mail~ci.falcon-heights.mn.us
website: www.ci.falcon-heights.mn.us
June 8, 2005
c:
•
Dear Resident:
Phone - (651) 792-7600
Fax - (651) 792-7610
We would Like to invite you to a community meeting regazding the possible construction
of a new restaurant in your neighborhood.
The property at 1871 Larpenteur (formerly the Garden View Cafe) is under contract for
sale to a couple who are interested in building a small, neighborhood restaurant on the
site. I have enclosed site plans and elevation drawings for this project. Because of the
layout and size of the site, several variances would be required for this project. The new
owners have met with city staff to discuss this project, and we asked them to meet with
the neighborhood to address any concerns or questions you may have prior to the public
hearing in late June.
Please look at the enclosed plans, and come to the meeting on Thursday, June 23rd,
at 6:30 p.m. here at City Hall. The new owners and city staff will be on hand to
listen to your concerns and questions.
If you aze unable to attend the meeting, you can call or a-mail me with questions or
comments about the plan. I can be reached at 651/792-7611 or via a-mail at
hworkhin onnu,ci.falcon-heights.mn.us
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on this project on Tuesday, June 28
at 7:00 p.m. You are also invited to attend this meeting, and a copy of the legal notice is
included in this mailing.
Warmest regards,
G~~mJ
Heather Worthington
City Administrator
HOME OF THE MINNESOTA STATE FAIR AND THE U OF M INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE
(~~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY C)F
• ~~ ~~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Falco QHeights, MNn55113v5594
email: maiiC~tci.falcon-heights.mn.us Phone - (651} 792-7600
wef3site~ ~cticec~i~atooa-haights.mn~s_ Fax - (651} 792-7610
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Falcon Heights Planning Commission will
meet on June 28, 2005, at approximately 7:00 p.m. at Falcon Heights City Hall,
2077 Larpenteur Avenue West, Falcon Heights, Minnesota 55113, to consider the
following variances: landscaping, lot width, required side yards, iot coverage,
. size of parking spaces, number of parking spaces for property at 1871
Larpenteur Avenue, Falcon Heights, Minnesota, legally described as: the south
215 .125 feet of lot 1 block 1, Lindig Addition.
All persons who desire to speak on this issue are encouraged to attend
and will be given an opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Additional
information can be obtained by contacting the City of Falcon Heights at
(651 j 792-7600.
Q.ated: June 9, 2005.
Heather Worthington, City dministrator/Clerk
City of. Ealcon Heights, Minnesota
•
HOME OF THE MINNESOTA STATE FAiR AND THE U OF M INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE
/'~~,
PRINTED DN RECYCLED PAPER
Notes from the June 23, 2005 Community Meeting
• Variance Requests for 1871 Larpenteur Avenue, Black Bamboo Restaurant
Members of the audience asked questions related to the proposed site plan and the variance
requests for this project.
Below is a record of those questions, and the answers given, as well as general comments about
the project.
uestions•
Q. What will be the impact on property values?
A. The city does not have information on property value impacts from commercial uses
adjacent to residential uses; however, well-maintained, attractive property is probably a benefit
to surrounding property owners. From experiences on the SE Corner of Snelling and
Larpenteur, values right now are not being enhanced by this site.
Q. Concern about having on-street parking on both sides, which was an issue when permit
parking was petitioned. Emergency access is an issue. Would City consider restricting
parking to one side? What about the portion directly across the street next to the
"farmhouse", where the restaurant patrons are most likely to park?
• A. Resident of that home does not use the street for parking; said it is OK with her. Apartment
residents like being able to park in front of their building occasionally.
Q. People still come up the street looking for an outlet to Roselawn, and they ignore the
"dead end" sign at the mouth of the street. Can we put a bigger "dead end" sign up?
A. The city will review the signs in that area, and try to accomplish a better sign plan for the
area that gives clear directions to motorists.
Q. Why have sidewalks?
A. Larpenteur Avenue already has sidewalks, and these will remain. If the property owner
wants to put in a sidewalk on the west side of the property, it would be in the right of way, and
would have to be approved by the city. However, it may be beneficial for the safety of their
customers walking from the parking in the rear to the front entrance. It would not extend north
of their property.
Q. What will the hours of operation be?
A. 10:00 a. m. to 9: 00 p. m., Monday through Thursday
10:00 a. m. to 10:00 p. m., Friday and Saturday
•
Notes from Neighborhood Meeting on 1871 Larpenteur, June 23, 2006 Page 1 of 3
Q. Does the site plan include handicapped parking?
• A. The site plan includes the required handicapped parking space, and it complies in terms of
size and location.
Q. What about the impact of patrons parking on the street? Will the city change the
permit parking requirements?
A. Yes, the city will work with residents to address on-street parking concerns, and identify ways
to amend the permit parking so as to accommodate resident access to on-street parking.
Q. How high is the building?
A. It is not much higher than the current structure. The building could be as high as 30 feet
from grade in a B-1 zoning area.
Q. Will the restaurant have a liquor license?
A. The owners are considering applying for a beer and wine license; there are no open liquor
licenses for the city at this time. The owners further stated that it is not their intention to operate
a bar at this location, but rather to offer their patrons a glass of wine or beer with their meal.
Q. What about odors from the exhaust fans? We are concerned about cooking odors in
• the neighborhood. Is there a way to measure odors from exhaust fans?
A. The owner, Stanley Won, explained that the following will be used to control odors:
1. Diffuser-with two filters
2. Ductwork-with a spray deodorizer feature
3. VentMaster hood that utilizes ultraviolet light to eliminate odors (which he uses in
one of the other restaurants he owns).
4. The city does not regulate exhaust fan fumes/odors; however, we can ask our building
department to get us some information about them.
Q. If this property owner gets variances for this site plan, could the site be used for fast
food or less desirable businesses in the future?
A. No, the site can not be used for fast food. The city cannot grant a variance for purposes of
use, and fast food uses are not allowed in B-1 zones. Therefore, the site could not be used for
fast food in the future.
Q. Where will employees park?
A. The owner is looking for alternatives, possibly will secure leased space at Twin Cities Co-op
Credit Union. Mr. Won is investigating this possibility at the city's urging.
r:
Notes from Neighborhood Meeting on 1871 Larpenteur, June 23, 2006 Page 2 of 3
Q. What about snow removal? Will they lose spaces to snow storage?
A. The owner is responsible for removing snow from the site, and keeping all parking available,
just like other B-1 business owners throughout the city.
Q. What about the difficulty of turning off Larpenteur onto Lindig? Speed and density of
traffic with no dedicated right turn lane?
A. This is already an issue for residents. We welcome ideas that we can pass along to Ramsey
County. No provision was made for dedicated right turns along Larpenteur-only
dedicated/protected lefts.
Q. Bus line advantage, but crossing is very dangerous for pedestrians.
A. Again, any additional traffic controls, including painted crosswalk would be up to Ramsey
County. City can advocate.
Comments•
Resident thought he remembered an "agreement" that if the florist/greenhouse came down,
nothing new would be built.
• The Wons know of no such restriction on the deed.
• • City does not know of such an agreement; this is private property.
• City cannot place restrictions of that sort on private property
"No Thru Traffic" could be painted on the street so that drivers know not to go North on Lindig.
"No Thru Traffic/Dead End" sign should be placed at the East end of the site, on Larpenteur
Avenue for Westbound traffic. A larger, more prominent sign is also needed on Lindig Avenue.
Owner of adjacent house on Larpenteur worried about impact on property values. He feels that
his property stands to have the most negative impact. His renter has expressed concern: bedroom
window 15 feet away from property line. Concern that City has "bent over backward" to
accommodate new owner and "make" the site commercial.
• Site IS commercial; this is the use for which it is zoned.
• City working with project that was proposed. Different kind of project, e.g. housing with
zoning change, would get the same careful consideration.
• Disposition of private property is up to the owner, within the bounds of the law.
• City staff gives the same consideration to each applicant. Staff also tries to work with
applicant to make sure that the plans conform to code as much as possible, and discourages
applicants from making variance requests when possible.
Notes from Neighborhood Meeting on 1871 Larpenteur, June 23, 2006 Page 3 of 3
Re: Black Bamboo Restaurant, 1871 Larpenteur Avenue
• We own and live in the house at 1708 Lindig, the house at the back of 1871 Larpenteur. We will
be unable to attend the meeting on Thursday, June 23. We oppose putting a restaurant of this
size on this lot for the following reasons:
l .Off-street parking is not adequate.
2. There are a lot of odors from a restaurant.
3. There may be noise late at night and early in the morning.
4. Bright lights to light the building and parking lot.
We have the following questions about these concerns:
1. 18 parking stalls are not enough for 60 patrons. How many employees will be working during
the busy time and where will they park?
2. What will be done to mitigate the cooking odors? How often will garbage be picked up?
3. What hours will the restaurant be open? Will these hours be controlled by the city or will they
• be at the discretion of the restaurant management? Will there be any garbage pickup or delivers
late at night or early in the morning?
4. Will the lights on the building and around the parking lot be positioned and aimed so they do
not shine on the neighboring houses?
Additional questions?
1. Will there be a patron entrance in the rear?
2. Will the restaurant have a wine and beer license?
Wayne and Shirley Wakefield
•
Planning Commission
• 3/22/04
Item 1
ITEM: Potential Redevelopment and Rezoning at 1871 Larpenteur
SUBMITTED BY: Deborah Jones, Planning and Zoning Coordinator
REVIEWED BY: Heather Worthington, City Administrator
EXPLANATION:
Summary: The owner of 1871 Larpenteur, site of the former Garden View Cafe, has placed
this property on the market. City Staff have received numerous calls from potential buyers,
several of which have raised the possibility of redeveloping the property as amulti-family
residential site. The property is currently zoned B-1, Neighborhood Convenience District. In
order to redevelop the property for residential use, it would have to be rezoned and the
comprehensive plan amended.
No application for rezoning has been received at this time. However, Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission prepare for the possibility by becoming familiar with the property and the
challenges it presents. If a redevelopment project is proposed, there will probably be several
public meetings and much public communication; the Planning Commission will play an active
part in the process. The purpose of this evening's workshop is to give Commissioners an
• opportunity for some preparatory discussion about this property, the potential for redevelopment
and the possible impact on the neighborhood and the City's comprehensive plan.
Property Information:
• Description: 1871 Larpenteur is located on the north side of Larpenteur Avenue at the east
side of Lindig Street. The legal description is "South 215 125/1000 feet of Lot 1, Block 1,
Lindig Addition."
• Dimensions: 56.97 feet wide by 215.125 feet deep
• Area:.29 acre or 12,632.4 square feet.
• Improvements: The only structure on the property is a one-story building designed for use as
a retail store with an attached greenhouse. The building was constructed in 1952 and is 2,280
square feet, with a partial basement. The current owner remodeled the structure as a cafe.
There are two small parking lots, one in front and one in the rear. The remainder of the
property has been most recently used for a vegetable garden.
• History: Originally part of the Lindig farm property, 1871 Larpenteur was occupied for many
years by B&J Florist. In 1998 the owner retired and the property was sold. It was then
occupied by a succession of small businesses, of which the most recent was the Garden View
Cafe, which opened in 2002 and closed at the end of 2004.
• Neighborhood: The property is surrounded on three sides by residential zones. Along the
• north side of Larpenteur Avenue, between Fairview and the Twin City Co-op property, all of
Planning Commission Workshop: 3/22/05 Page 1 of 2
the land is zoned R-4 (Medium Density Multi-Family Residential) with the exception of
• 1871 Larpenteur. North of properties adjacent to Larpenteur the land is R-1 (Single-Family
Residential) all the way to Roselawn Avenue at the north edge of Falcon Heights. The south
side of Larpenteur is occupied by University of Minnesota fields.
Issues:
Increased demand for housing is expected in inner ring suburbs, including Falcon Heights.
According to the "City of Falcon Heights 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update" (1999),
"The city's zoning code requires 10, 000 square feet for a single family lot and
has a maximum medium density of 12 units per acre. The city is developed at a
density that exceeds these current zoning code standards. It is likely that any
development or redevelopment proposal will be done as a planned unit
development and the desirable density will be determined at the time of the
proposal. "
Under existing density rules up to 3 residential units could be built on an R-41ot the size of 1871
Larpenteur. However, this property, being a corner lot adjacent to an R-1 zone, faces additional
constraints on setback, and individuals who have inquired about multi-family use have
mentioned interest in building at least 4 units. A PUD would almost certainly be required.
1871 Larpenteur presents some challenges to any future B-1 business use also.
• The location does not have easy access, due to heavy traffic on Larpenteur and Lindig being
a dead end street.
• • Parking is limited, with awkward entry and exit. The present parking lots are nearly 20 years
old and in poor repair. The front parking lot is non-conforming. New parking lots would
have to conform to the code.
• For most permitted or conditional business uses, the property would probably require
significant investment to upgrade or even rebuild. Any new building would have to meet the
zoning requirements for B-1.
• The property is isolated from other businesses in Falcon Heights and separated from 75% of
the city's residents by distance and busy streets.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Portion of plat map, including 1871 Larpenteur
• Portion of the City zoning map
• Property, structure and street outline map from RCGISUG website
• 2003 aerial photo
• Photographs of 1871 Larpenteur
ACTION REQUESTED:
• • Discussion of options and possibilities for 1871 Larpenteur
Planning Commission Workshop: 3/22/05 Page 2 of 2
1871 Larpenteur: Additional Notes
March 22, 2005
Inquiries so far have been of two kinds:
• Keep current type of use, i.e. B-1 business
o If no rebuilding or major remodelling, no zoning action required
o If rebuilding or remodelling >50%, would have to become conforming. This is
not possible without major variances. See below.
• Convert to housing
o Zoning change required
o PUD almost certainly required
What does it mean for this property to be conforming (as B-1)?
Re uired Existin Comforms?
Minimum lot area 10,000 s .ft. 12,632 sq. ft. yes
Maximum height 2 stories or 24 ft One story es
Minimum lot width 90 feet 56.97 ft. no
Maximum building size 5000 sq. ft. 2288 sq. ft. yes
Front setback 30 feet ~ 45 ft. es
Side setback (east) 30 ft (adjacent to
residential lot) ~ 5 ft. no
Side setback (west) 30 ft (adjacent to street) < 2 ft. no
Rear setback 20 feet ~ 122 ft. yes
Maximum lot coverage 75% ~ 7340 sq. ft.
or about 58% yes
1. Note that total width of lot is less than sum of required side setbacks. The lot is
completely unbuildable as B-1 without major variances!
Could asingle-family dwelling be built on this property without variances or a PUD?
(A zoning change would be required.)
From Falcon Heights City Code:
9-2.03 Lot Provisions
Subdivision 1. Lot Restrictions. A lot of record existing upon the effective date of
this chapter which does not meet the requirements of this chapter as to area or width,
but which meets all other zoning ordinance requirements, may be utilized for single
family detached dwelling purposes provided it is zoned residential and the
measurements of such area or width are within sixty six and two thirds (66 2/3%)
percent of the requirements of this chapter, but said lot of record shall not be more
intensively developed unless combined with one (1) or more abutting lots or portions
thereof so as to create a lot meeting the requirements of this chapter. (Amended by
ordinance 99-OS)
• The minimum width of a corner lot under this provision would be 60 feet. This lot is just
short of that width; therefore, it does not qualify and would require at least that one
• variance, as well as rezoning.
• The setbacks for asingle-family dwelling would be 30 feet front and back, 5 feet east and
15 feet west.
• The maximum lot coverage for single-family property of this size is 30% or 3789.6 sq. ft.
What about a duplex? Would this use fit, if the property were rezoned residential?
Since a 2-family building is a "more intense" use than 1-family, the exception above
would not apply and the lot would need to be combined with adjacent property to build a
duplex. The alternative is a PUD.
• The lot does exceed the minimum area required (12,500 sq. ft.).
• A duplex would not have to meet the 30% lot coverage limit; it would be covered by the
75% limit.
What about townhomes or amulti-family building? What factors would indicate the
need for a PUD?
• • A lot width of 90 feet is required. This lot is less than 60 feet wide. See the excerpt
abover from 9-2.03. City Code requires combination with an adjoining lot in order to use
more intensively than single-family residence.
• Required setbacks in R-3 and R-4 are 30 feet on a street and 20 feet on the side abutting a
single family residence, which leaves too narrow a buildable envelope without some kind
of zoning adjustment, such as a PUD (The property on the east, although zoned R-4, is
used as asingle-family residence. If the R-3 setback rule is applied, the setback is 10 feet
or half the height of the building, which ever is greater.)
• The number of dwelling units could not exceed 12 per acre (in R-4). This lot is .29 acre,
which would permit 3 units.
• The 75% lot coverage limit would apply. This means a maximum of 9474 square feet
would be available for all structures, parking lots, driveways, sidewalks, etc.
• Amulti-family building would have to meet the parking requirements of 2 parking spaces
per unit, plus setbacks, screening, access, lighting, etc. for parking lots and driveways.
•
• Planning Commission
6/28/05
Item 2
ITEM: Proposed Ordinance Amending Portions of Chapter 9 of the City Code
Concerning Nonconformities
SUBMITTED BY: Deborah Jones, Planning and Zoning Coordinator
REVIEWED BY: Heather Worthington, City Administrator
Summary: In Falcon Heights there are many structures that do not conform to all the
provisions of the City Code. Many of them were built before the relevant parts of the code were
adopted; some were allowed by variance. These properties are considered legally non-
conforming. Falcon Heights City Code presently places severe restrictions on how much
alteration, repair, restoration and improvement can be done with these structures. In some cases
owners have been unable to restore original architect-designed features that have aged beyond
normal maintenance.
In 2004, Minnesota law was changed to allow owners more flexibility in replacing and restoring
nonconforming structures. The new law also allows owners some additional options for
extending and adding on to nonconforming structures, as long as the degree of nonconformity is
not increased. In practice, Falcon Heights has already allowed such additions, most notably for
the exceptionally wide and shallow lots between Snelling and Asbury.
The proposed ordinance would bring Falcon Heights code in line with state law. Staff
recommends approval for the following reasons
• The proposed amendments would bring the Falcon Heights zoning code into line with the
new state law.
• Staff will be able to give administrative approval of permits for certain reasonable
restorations, improvements and additions without the owners having to apply for variances.
• Owners ofnon-conforming homes with distinctive, original architectural features will be able
to do needed restoration without variances.
• Options for rebuilding or building additions on certain properties (for example, 1871
Larpenteur and the Snelling/Asburybiocks) will be greatly simplified.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Proposed amendment to Chapter 9
• Existing text of Chapter 9
• Public notice of hearing on the proposed amendment
ACTION REQUESTED:
• Recommend approval of the ordinance to the City Council.
Staff Report on Proposed Ordinance Amending City Code on Nonconformity Pa e 1 of 1
Falcon Heights Planning Commission -May 24, 2005 g
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.OS-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9
OF THE FALCON HEIGHTS CITY CODE
CONCERNING NONCONFORMITIES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF FALCON HEIGHTS ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 9, Section 9-2.02, Subd. 1 of the Falcon Heights City Code is
amended to provide:
Nonconformities. Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of
land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under
this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration,
maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion, except as specifically
provided in this Chapter, unless:
(1) the nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of
more than one year; or
(2) any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the
extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value, and no building permit has
been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged. In this case, a
municipality may impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit in order to
mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property.
Any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a
conforming use or occupancy.
SECTION 2. Chapter 9, Section 9-2.02, Subd. 9(a) of the Falcon Heights City Code is
amended to read:
a. Conforming Use. A nonconforming building or structure for a
conforming use may be expanded provided that the expansion does not increase the
nonconformity of the building or structure and is in compliance with other code
requirements.
SECTION 3. Chapter 9, Section 9-2.02, of the Falcon Heights City Code is amended by
deleting Subdivisions 2, 6, 7 and 8.
•
i i go22
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced from and after its passage
and publication.
PASSED by the City Council of Falcon Heights this day of , 2005.
Susan L. Gehrz, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ayes-
Heather M. Worthington,
City Administrator/Clerk Nays-
LJ
•
i i go22 2