HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCAgenda_05Aug23City of Falcon Heights
Planning Commission
City Hall
2077 W. Larpenteur Avenue
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
A. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 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: June 28, 2005
D. .PUBLIC HEARING: Variance requests for 1800 N. Albert Street
E. AGENDA ITEM:
1. Consideration of variance requests for l 800 N. Albert Street
F. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
G. ADJOURN
•
City of Falcon Heights
Planning Commission
City Hall
2077 W. Larpenteur Avenue
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
A. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 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: June 28, 2005
D. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance requests for 1800 N. Albert Street
E. AGENDA ITEM:
1. Consideration of variance requests for 1800 N. Albert Street
F. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
G. ADJOURN
CITY OF
FALCON HEIGHT 2077 W Larpenteur Avenue
S Falcon Heights, MN 55113-5594
email: mailC~3ci.falcon-heights.mn.us
website: www.ci.falcon-heights.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
To: Members of the Planning Commission
CC: Heather Worthington, City Administrator;
Peter Lindstrom, Council Liaison
From: Deb Jones, Staff Liaison
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting on August 23, 2005
Date: August 16, 2005
Phone - (651) 644-5050
Fax - (651) 644-8675
Please notify Staff as soon as possible if you will not be able to attend the meeting of
the Planning Commission next Tuesday, August 23. There is a public hearing on
• variances applied for by the owner of 1800 N. Albert Street. We will need a quorum in
order to vote a recommendation to the City Council.
The packet for the variance is enclosed, including the staff findings. There is no formal
Staff recommendation, but we think this case will be fairly straightforward for you.
Please contact Staff if you have any questions or need any clarification. It is likely I
will be out of the office Friday, August 19, and Monday, August 22, but Heather will be
able to address any issues you bring up before the meeting, and I will be in the office on
Tuesday.
During the information and announcement portion of the meeting, we plan to give you
updates on the Black Bamboo restaurant and the new Falcon Square apartments.
See you Tuesday evening!
HOME OF THE MINNESOTA STATE FAIR AND THE U OF M INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE
~~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
•
MEMORANDUM
To: Members of the Planning Commission
CC: Heather Worthington, City Administrator;
Peter Lindstrom, Council Liaison
From: Deb Jones, Staff Liaison
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting on August 23, 2005
Date: August 16, 2005
Please notify Staff as soon as possible if you will not be able to attend the meeting of
the Planning Commission next Tuesday, August 23. There is a public hearing on
• variances applied for by the owner of 1800 N. Albert Street. We will need a quorum in
order to vote a recommendation to the City Council.
The packet for the variance is enclosed, including the staff findings. There is no formal
Staff recommendation, but we think this case will be fairly straightforward for you.
Please contact Staff if you have any questions or need any clarification. It is likely I
will be out of the office Friday, August 19, and Monday, August 22, but Heather will be
able to address any issues you bring up before the meeting, and I will be in the office on
Tuesday.
During the information and announcement portion of the meeting, we plan to give you
updates on the Black Bamboo restaurant and the new Falcon Square apartments.
See you Tuesday evening!
•
City of Falcon Heights
Planning Commission Minutes
• June 28, 2005
PRESENT: Commissioners DeLeo, Rodich, Heideman, Ryan, Lageson, Lukermann,
Mercer-Taylor, Council Liaison Lindstrom. Also present were City Attorney Joel Jamnik,
City Administrator Heather Worthington and Staff Liaison Deb Jones.
ABSENT: Tracy and Harris (with notice)
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. The Chair welcomed the new Commissioners.
MINUTES: The minutes for May, 2005, were approved.
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance Requests for 1871 Larpenteur Avenue
Commissioner Ryan, Planning Commission Chair, opened the public hearing. Zoning and
Planning Coordinator Jones gave a summary of the case with an on-screen presentation. A
new owner seeks to restore and expand the existing structure to house a restaurant, to
construct new parking lots, and to create new landscaping. A restaurant is a legal permitted
use in B-1, which is the zone designation of this property. 1871 Larpenteur has been used for
commercial purposes for at least half a century. The property presents unique challenges
because it is extremely narrow. The present building is nonconforming with regard to side
setback.
• The application is for seven variances. Three of the variances recognize and formalize the
existing conditions on the property, that is, the nonconformity of setback and lot width. The
other four variances represent the prospective new owner's best effort to design a new
restaurant that maximizes off street parking while preserving some landscaping. A
community meeting was held on May 23 to present the restaurant proposal to the
neighborhood and to hear residents' comments and concerns.
Tom Quam, co-owner of 1867 Larpenteur (immediately east of 1871 Larpenteur) came to the
podium to speak. 1867 Larpenteur is occupied by Mr. Quam's daughter, the other owner. He
says that his property will feel more impact than others, and he expects a negative impact on
the value due to smells, noise, business hours, parking and lighting. In his opinion the City
has "bent over backward" to make the property something that it is not and plant the seeds for
bigger problems later. He submitted a written statement to this effect and asked that the
variance request be denied.
Charles Johnson of 1718 Lindig told the Commission he thought that the purpose of
redevelopment is to become more compliant with the code; this is going the other way.
Parking is already an issue on Lindig. People will be turning into Lindig to park there. He is
also concerned about the proposed wall along the front of the property, that it might impose a
visibility problem. He is also concerned about the height of the building, which looks in the
architect's concept to be taller than the 15 feet stated.
n
U
City of Falcon Heights -Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2005 -Page 1 of 5
Wayne Wakefield, 1708 Lindig (immediately north of 1871 Larpenteur) said he had some of
the same concerns as the two previous speakers. He also has concerns about garbage pickup
and supply delivery at early hours of the morning. He asked that no expansion of hours be
permitted beyond those stated. If a beer and wine license is granted, he requested that dram
shop laws be enforced.
Bill Cunningham, 1764 Lindig, spoke in favor of the project. He feels an attractive modern
restaurant would be a benefit to the neighborhood. The property is already a restaurant, so
that is not an issue. He feels it would be better to have a modern, attractive, successful
restaurant rather than a dilapidated one.
Roxanne Johnson, 1718 Lindig, stated that she also opposes the restaurant for the same
reasons given by her husband (Charles Johnson, who spoke earlier). She pointed out that the
substandard lot at the north end of Lindig, at the cul-de-sac, was turned into City open space,
and she suggested that the City do the same with 1871 Larpenteur.
Marilyn Gates, 1865 Larpenteur, the first house east of Mr. Quam's property. She wanted to
know if there will be take-out. (Yes.) She wanted to speak in favor of the proposal. In over
20 years of residence she has seen many businesses come and go and thinks the present
proposal is one of the best she has seen and offers the best chance of success. She feels that
the odors from the restaurant will not be any worse than what comes from the barns at the
University. She bought her property in full awareness that the corner was zoned for business
and was prepared to accept that. She cited problems over the years with the apartment
building to the east of her property, problems that have also come and gone. "Nothing is
• 100%," she said; there is always some gamble when you own a home next to differently
zoned property. She also pointed out that there is impact of noise and light from the State Fair
and other activities, over which the residents have no control.
Mr. Wakefield came to the podium again to add that he agrees that the proposal is a good one;
he just wishes the lot was not so small.
As there were no other individuals wishing to speak to the Commission, the public hearing
was closed at 7:40 p.m..
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Lukermann raised a question of procedure, whether the variances would be
considered separately in turn or all together. Mr. Ryan said he thought it would be easier to
go down the list for the discussion, then entertain a motion at the end.
Commissioner Ryan asked about the public space request of Mrs. Johnson. City
Administrator Worthington replied that the piece of land at the north end of Lindig, the mini-
park, was acquired by the City in order to build a storm sewer underneath the surface. The
sewer is too close to the surface to allow any building on the lot, so it is used by the City as
utility space.
• In response to a question from Commissioner Lageson, Ms. Worthington confirmed that all of
Lindig is a permit parking zone, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
City of Falcon Heights -Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2005 -Page 2 of 5
Commissioner Lukermann asked if the proposed front wall is a retaining wall and asked how
high it would be. Ms. Worthington replied that the wall is not part of the variance request; it
is part of the concept drawing at this stage. The wall will be reviewed by both the City and
County and can be changed to meet relevant requirements. It functions as a visual separation
between the parking lot and the sidewalk.
In response to a question from Mr. Ryan, Ms. Worthington confirmed that the proposed
building does not approach the height limit for B-1. Alighting plan has not yet been
submitted; the City will require the business to comply with the lighting restrictions that apply
to a business adjacent to residential properties. The restaurant will also be required to comply
with noise and odor restrictions in the State uniform building code.
In response to question from Mr. Lageson, Ms. Worthington replied that the parking
requirement (1 space to 2.5 seats) is particular to the Falcon Heights code and more restrictive
than in some other cities. Requirements vary widely from city to city. Staff met with the
architect and prospective owner to work out the maximum number of parking spaces that
could be reasonably accommodated. With up to six on-street parking spaces adjacent to the
property (which cannot be counted), the parking needs can almost be accommodated. Staff
also researched the parking space size and found that the reduced parking space size asked for
in one of the variances is consistent with the size required in other cities, St. Paul for example.
Mr. Ryan asked if the lot was established prior to the current code. Ms. Worthington
confirmed that the lot was a lot of record prior to adoption of the current zoning code.
• Ms. Lukermann moved, De Leo seconded, that the variances in the first category (recognizing
existing conditions) be recommended for approval. There was no discussion. Motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Ryan asked for Commissioner comments on the other four variances. Commissioner
Rodich raised the idea of getting more parking onto the site by allowing the parking lot to
encroach onto the Lindig right-of--way on the west side of the lot. Parking could be a real
concern if the restaurant is very successful; more on-site parking would be an advantage. Ms.
Worthington answered that the Staff very much appreciated the suggestions submitted by Mr.
Rodich. She pointed out that Mr. Rodich's plan would also encroach into the east setback an
additional 2.5 feet (a variance that has not been applied for), as well as into the city right of
way on the west. Staff felt that it was important to respect the required setbacks as much as
possible and find an optimum balance between parking and landscaping. The architect
reworked the parking plan several times; the City's consultant Dan Cornejo also worked on
the plan. Staff feels that the plan, as presented, is the best compromise at this time. Further
work can be done to refine the plan, provided the variance is passed on the number of parking
spaces.
In response to a question from Mr. Lageson Ms. Worthington stated that angled parking posed
additional problems and, in fact, a loss of on-site parking if the setbacks are observed and the
required loading area is provided.
C:
City of Falcon Heights -Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2005 -Page 3 of 5
Ms. Lukermann asked if it could be required that employees must park off-site, leaving all 18
parking spaces for customers. City Attorney Jamnik stated that the Commission could attach
a condition to approval of the variances, if it seems reasonable.
Mr. Lageson pointed out that if the restaurant seating could be reduced to 45, there would be
enough parking. He asked if that would be economically viable. Carol Won, one of the
prospective owners, replied that based on the monetary investment required and expected
turnover, the business needs to seat 60 to be successful.
Mr. Lageson wondered if the restaurant could add a second floor either to the restaurant or to
the parking. Ms. Jones replied that a parking ramp is not a legal accessory use in B-1 and
would be a "dauntingly expensive" solution to the problem. Ms. Worthington added the
comment that fire lane requirements would rule out having parking right up next to the
building. She stated that Mr. and Mrs. Won have contacted Twin City Coop about the
possibility of renting parking for their employees at the credit union. Stanley Won, the other
prospective restaurant owner, confirmed that he is negotiating with the credit union to arrange
employee and overflow parking.
In response to a question from Mr. Ryan, Ms. Worthington said that the initial proposal was
fora 90 seat restaurant. During preliminary discussions with Staff, this was reduced to the
60-seat capacity. She added that the owner would be required to have snow removed entirely
from the lot so as not to lose any parking in winter.
Council member Lindstrom asked if parking could be added in front of the building. Ms.
• Worthington replied that the front line of the building is determined by the existing building,
which will be added on to. The five front parking spaces are already as close as possible to
the right of way. In response to a question from Commissioner Mercer-Taylor, Ms.
Worthington said that the present restaurant had fewer parking spaces because of the pylon
sign that will be taken down.
Commissioner Lukermann moved that the four variances in the second category be approved
with the condition that parking places, off street and off site, will be arranged for employee
parking. The motion was seconded.
There was some discussion on whether a specific number of extra spaces should be specified
and whether those spaces could be designated for employees. It was pointed out by both Ms.
Worthington and the architect, Mr. Medina, that parking requirements do not make a
distinction between client/customer and employee parking. Ms. Lukermann amended the
motion to specify 6 additional parking spaces, without limiting those to employee use. (In
other words the additional six spaces could be used by employees or customers.) There was
considerable additional discussion on all the ramifications of the proposed condition to the
variances. Mr. Jamnik confirmed that the terms and conditions of the variance would apply to
all future owners; future owners would have to come back to the City and apply for
modification if the future use changes.
The Commissioners discussed the issue of enforcing the condition. Ms. Worthington said it
• would be a simple matter to require the owner to prove that additional parking is arranged as
part of the annual licensing process. Mr. Rodich again raise the possibility of extending
City of Falcon Heights -Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2005 -Page 4 of 5
parking into the public right of way. Ms. Worthington said that action would require an
additional action by the Commission, a new publishing of notice and another public hearing.
Mr. Ryan reviewed the motion. The final version of the motion was to recommend approval
of the remaining four variances with the condition that 6 additional off-site, off-street parking
spaces be arranged by the property owner. The question was called and motion carried 4 to
3 (Heideman, Ryan and Lageson opposed).
Staff Liaison Jones reminded the audience that this matter goes to the City Council for a final
decision in August.
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING NON-CONFORMITY
Ms. Jones introduced Joel Jamnik from the City Attorney's office to address the
Commission's questions regarding a proposed amendment the the City Code concerning
nonconformities, tabled from the May meeting. Mr. Jamnik offered a brief statement of
background information on the proposed changes and explained the difference between the
old language and the new language. The new provision is more succinctly stated than the old
but essentially the same except for the addition of a rebuilding provision in the event of
destruction by fire.
In response to a question from Mr. Lageson, repeating a concern brought up by Commissioner
Harris in May, Mr. Jamnik said that final paragraph in Section 1 applies to both
subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the second paragraph, whichever one applies. In other words, if the
• nonconformity is discontinued or abandoned for more than a year, then the subsequent use or
occupancy must conform; also, if the property is destroyed by fire and the rebuild provisions
are not met, then the subsequent use or occupancy must conform. Mr. Jamnik commented
that City Attorney Roger Knutson's restatement of the concept is, in fact, "quite elegant."
Commissioner Lageson moved that the amendment be approved, Ms. Lukermann seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mr. Lageson reminded the Commission and the audience that the Ice Cream Social is coming
up this Thursday.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~
Deborah Jo es, Staff Liaison
•
City of Falcon Heights -Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2005 -Page 5 of 5
Planning Commission
• 8/23/05
ITEM: Variance requests for the 1800 N. Albert Street
SUBMITTED BY: Deborah Jones, Zoning and Planning Coordinator
REVIEWED BY: Heather Worthington, City Administrator
Roger Knutson, City Attorney
EXPLANATION:
Background/History/Property Description:
1800 North Albert Street is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Garden Avenue
and Albert Street in Falcon Heights. The legal description is "North 68 58/100 feet of the west
half of Lot 1, Larpenteur Villas." The original plat was recorded in 1925. The parcel is 68.58
feet wide by 295.4 feet deep, with an area of 20,473.2 square feet. The property is zoned R-1
"Single Family Residential". The property is unusual in that it is one of the series of double
deep lots on Albert and Hamline, south of Garden and north of Larpenteur. These properties are
at least twice as large as other properties in the neighborhood. 1800 Albert is the second largest
of these double lots and one of only two that are on a corner. The property is surrounded by R-1
• properties on the east, south and west; an elementary school occupies the land across Garden to
the north.
The existing structures are a home and a detached double garage. The detached garage is non-
conforming with respect to the required setback from the Garden Avenue right of way, being
under 7 feet from the right of way where a setback of 15 feet is required. The existing garage is
also very close to the house, less than 2 feet, according to the 2003 aerial photograph. Under the
City lot coverage ordinance, this property is allowed 4,940 square feet of impervious covering.
The owner of 1800 North Albert has applied for two variances to build a new garage. He wishes
to demolish the existing double garage and build a new 24' x 38' garage with space for three cars
and a workshop, set 10 feet east of the house. The 38' dimension would face north onto Garden
with driveway access from Garden. The proposed height is under the legal maximum of 18 feet
from grade.
• The proposed new garage is at the same setback as the existing garage, requiring a variance
of 8.5 feet on setback from the right of way. According to the City Attorney, the new
ordinance on non-conformity does not remove the need for a variance in this case because
the proposed structure increases the amount of encroachment into the required side yard.
• The proposed new driveway from Garden is 31 feet wide in order to give access to the three
bays of the garage. This would require a variance of 7 feet on driveway width because the
maximum allowed is 24 feet. Maximum driveway width under City Code is determined by
the length of street frontage; this property is eligible for the 24 foot absolute maximum.
•
Staff Report: 1800 N. Albert Variances August 23, 2005 Page 1 of 4
• A lot coverage variance is not required in this case, in spite of the large size of the proposed
garage. 1800 Albert is one of the few properties in the city that is large enough to accommodate
a three car garage, or larger, and, as a corner property with the option of side street access, the
area of the driveway is not an issue with respect to lot coverage. Due to its size, this property is
also one of the few lots in Falcon Heights that can accommodate the allowed maximum 1000
square feet, total, of detached accessory structures. (Most properties have additional constraints
of lot coverage and setback which impose much smaller limits.) The proposed garage is 912
square feet, and there are no other detached accessory structures on the property, so the
maximum would not be exceeded.
Analysis•
a. That the granting of the variance(s) will not be detrimental to the public welfare.
Staff finds that the granting of the variance will be no more detrimental to the public welfare
than the existing conditions. Vehicles parked on the driveway presently do encroach into the
public right of way and will continue to encroach into the public right of way if the setback
variance is granted.
b. That the granting of the variance(s) will not substantially diminish or impair property
values or improvements in the area.
• Staff finds that the granting of the variances will not substantially diminish or impair property
values or improvements in the area.
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 not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights. The size and configuration of this property would
allow many options for the replacement and relocation of a larger-than-average garage without
any need for variances. Options have been discussed with the property owner.
d. That the variances(s) will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property.
Staff finds that the granting of these variances would not impair an adequate supply of light and
air to adjacent properties.
e. That the variance(s) will not impair the orderly use of the public streets;
Staff finds that the variances will not impair the orderly use of the public streets any more than
the existing configuration. Vehicles parked on the driveway presently do encroach into the
public right of way and will continue to encroach into the public right of way if the setback
variance is granted.
•
Staff Report: 1800 N. Albert Variances August 23, 2005 Page 2 of 4
• f. That the variance(s) will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety;
Staff finds that the variances will not increase the danger of fire.
Staff finds that the variances will not endanger public safety any more than the existing
conditions. See findings a. and e. above.
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 is distinguished from other properties in the area because of its large size and
corner location. However, Staff finds that these distinguishing characteristics do not pose a
hardship. These characteristics offer the owner alternatives to replacing his garage that are not
available to owners of smaller properties without side street access. The property is also
distinguished by its location immediately across the street from an elementary school.
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.
Staff finds that no substantial hardship would result from denial of the variances because the
owner could build the new garage farther from the house, set back sufficiently from the street so
that (a) no setback variance would be needed and (b) a regulation width driveway could be built
with a wider apron in front of the garage, making a driveway width variance unnecessary. The
lot is almost 300 feet deep; all of the depth is accessible from Garden Avenue. Many choices are
available to this owner which meet all provisions of the City Code and leave plenty of yard space
for the enjoyment of the residents.
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.
•
Staff Report: 1800 N. Albert Variances August 23, 2005
Page 3 of 4
Comments from Residents: Mailed notice of the hearing for the variances was sent to owners
of properties within 350 feet of 1800 N. Albert. As of August 16, no written comments had been
received. One neighbor mentioned verbally that he is concerned by possible safety hazards
posed by parking cars on the right of way portion of the existing driveway.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff makes no formal recommendation in this case and defers to the Planning Commission to
make a recommendation to Council on the basis of the findings given above.
Attachments•
• Site Plan
• Site map from Ramsey County GIS
• 2003 aerial photo of the property
• Variance application
• Applicant's statement attached to the application
• Letter to property owners within 350 feet
• Legal notice of the variance hearing
Actions Requested:
• • Discussion
• Open Public Hearing
• After the close of the hearing, discuss the variances
• Vote on a recommendation to the City Council
•
Staff Report: 1800 N. Albert Variances August 23, 2005 Page 4 of 4
City of f=alcon Heights
Planning Application
Action Requested By:
~ooz ti o inn
~,~ ~dn„~-,- a „,i a~~
Name of Property Owner ~ ~~ ~v~
Phone (h) (~ 5 I - ~ ~I ~ - 1~ I ~5 (w) (~ 1 2- ~ ~ ~- 1 ~ ~q
Address of Property Owner I ~ y p /v. q. j f~ ~- rt r ~,, ~ r do ~~aT=
Name of Applicant (if different)
Address
Property Involved:
Address
Legal Description _
Phone
Property Identification Number (PIN)
Present Use of Property (check one):
~ Single Family Dwelling
o Duplex/Two Family Dwelling
• o Multi Family Complex
o Business/Commercial
o Government/Institutional
o Vacant Land
ACtlon Requested (NON-REFUNDABLE):
q Variance ($100.00)
o Conditional Use Permit ($165.00)
o Rezoning ($500.00)
o Lot Split ($250.00)
o Site Plan Review ($100.00)
o Other (Please Specify)
Brief Summary of Request (applicant may submit letter to Planning Commission with
details of request):
~.. ,. n C`
..~! ~
1 certify that all s a e ents on this application are true and correct:
~___-.-~
Sign ure of Property Dwner (regruired) Signature of Applicant (if applicable)
S:\FORMS\BLDG PERMIT RPTG FORMS\PLANNING APPLICATION.doc 3/5/2003
To: Falcon Heights Planning Committee
• From: Todd Thun
Re: Request for Garage Variance
August 2, 2005
On July 14, 2005 I submitted an application for a building permit for a garage. The
request was returned unapproved for three reasons:
The application showed the garage eight feet away from the house; under my new
application I have moved the garage two feet east to meet the ten foot
requirement;
The initial application showed a total height of 19 feet, one foot higher than city
requirements; my new application provides for a total height of 18 feet or less,
based upon a roof pitch of 8/12.
The initial application called for a garage with dimensions of 24' by 38' for a total
square footage of 912 square feet; the application was turned down because under
the present formula, the square footage cannot exceed 822 square feet. I was
subsequently informed that this decision was incorrect and that my allowable lot
coverage is 4,980 feet. At this time I am planning a garage with dimensions of
24' by 40'.
• ~ So, the original three problems have been addressed.
However, I have been advised that my plan violates the 15' set back requirement, and
that I would also have to comply with a 23' limit on driveway width.
My plan calls for the new garage to be 16 feet from the street curb of Garden St. Under
existing regulations, the set back requirement is 15 feet from the lot line. The first 10 feet
from the curb are public right of way, so the lot line starts 10 feet in from the curb. The
property line is marked by a chain link fence. Thus, the regulation requires that the new
garage be 25' off the street.
My existing garage is 16' off the street and I propose that the new garage also be 16' off
the street.
The first floor of my house has only one view of our deep back yard-through a six foot
patio door. As you can see from the enclosed photos and site, complying with the
existing regulation would cause the garage to be placed so that it blocks about 80 percent
of the view of the back yard looking straight ahead out the patio door. Only a small
portion of the south end of the yard would be viewable.
The second variance I am requesting concerns relief from the 23 foot driveway width.
This limit would essentially eliminate any usable driveway to the third garage stall.
•
While other properties can overcome this limit by flaring out the driveway as the drive
way approaches the garage, the proximity of my garage to the road does not permit this.
In support of these requests, I'd like to make the following points.
• This is a fairly unique lot in Falcon Heights, since it is double length but fairly
narrow (68.58' wide by 295.40' deep), it's on a street corner, and the garage side
of the house does not face any residential properties, only the elementary school.
The only other house on my block facing garden will be several hundred feet east
of my garage.
• Most of the residential properties along Garden are older garages built fairly close
to the street. The proposed garage will not conflict with the overall appearance of
the street.
• The new garage will be no closer to the street than the older garage.
• It has been suggested that I could simply move the new garage to the east, deeper
into to back yard to lessen the sight line impact. This is not feasible for two
reasons. First, the view of the remaining back yard would still be blocked.
Second, two large existing trees would require the placement of the garage about
100' from my house door. This simply is not feasible given inclement weather.
• The new garage will be more attractive than the existing garage and it will
improve the property value of this lot.
I am planning to build a new, larger three car garage for three reasons. First, the existing
garage is 22' x 22'; it is very crowded for two cars, lawn mower, bikes, etc. The new
• garage would allow a car area of 24'x24'.
Second, the third stall will be used for a hobby woodworking shop 16'x24'. At the
present time, my workshop is in my basement. Moving it to the garage will allow more
storage in the house and more space for the workshop.
Finally, we will use attic storage trusses for storage in the roof of the garage.
Thank you.
i•
•
•
l _'
~~
0
0
u
,> w
w
c
v o
N
i - C ~
O ,~
~, C Q
O
~
4j w
'. ~
y
~~- m ,O
O
~
O
q
U y d
~ b
O ~~.. w
O d C
•.+ w ~
~
. ^.
..~.
FLw v
O
d
~
~
d
m~ O
V
d o O
1 ol
~ V1
F'C
C
RS O
N
~ O y
~ ~
~ .`~
~ yy
O d
~
r~ ~ OD'b
~
VJ S ..C. O
~~ ~ '7 ~ N
~
=y b OD
N 1~.
~
~
O
o ~
H yb
U E ~
~ ~~~
~ ~ ~
~
O ~
~y~~ ~
~ j ~„~
~ V O
VV
rl '"~U
qo
~
p.~w
Ego
'Owl
' N,DN
~O ~ r-.
U ~ m
+
:.._....____ _..... ~ a
T~Q
~q~..
{'
- ~'
__ ~ U
it
I
' ~ 1 ~
~ ~
N
~ ~
I h
.
~~ ii
~ a~a
~ ' ~
~
I ~ ~~
~ I ~ ~ F ~~
~" O N
~~
~
~ ~ ~
~ h d
Q
^
O
'
~ U
~ ~
t
W
~
es
~
3; ~'
i vi
V
1
?.
Q
:7
C
•
CITY OF
FA LC Q N H .EIGHT 2077 W. Larpenteur Avenue
S Falcon Heights, MN 55113-5594
email: mail~ci.falcon-heights.mn.us
website: www.ci.falcon-heights.mn.us
Phone - (651) 792-7600
Fax - (651) 792-7610
August 9, 2005
Dear Property Owner:
•
The owner of 1800 Albert Street has requested a two variances from city code in order to build a
new garage, replacing an existing garage.
l . A variance of 8.5 feet on the north side setback (Garden Avenue side). The city code
requires a setback of 20% of the lot width (or I S feet for a property less than 75 feet wide)
from the side property line when the side abuts a public right of way. The owner wishes to
build a new garage at a setback of 6.5 feet, the same as the existing, non-conforming garage.
On this portion of Garden, private property begins about 10 feet in from the curb.
2. A variance of 7 feet on the driveway width. The city code defines a maximum driveway
opening width according to the length of the street frontage. This property is eligible for the
maximum 24 foot width. The owner wishes to have a 31 foot wide driveway opening.
A public hearing on these variances will be held on the date stated below, at the August meeting
of the City Planning Commission..A copy of the published legal notice is enclosed.
Tuesday, August 23, 2002
7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
We encourage you to attend the hearing to share with the Commission any comments or
concerns you may have on this matter. Please ca11651-792-7613 if you if you have any
questions or wish to have your comments recorded before the meeting. You may also send
written comments to me at City Hall or by email to djones@ci.falcon-heights.mn.us.
Thank you,
~~~~7~0
Deborah Jones
Zoning and Planning Coordinator
•
HOME OF THE MINNESOTA STATE FAIR AND THE U OF M INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE
~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
• PUBLIC FIEARING NO'T'ICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Falcon Heights Planning :Commission will
meet on Tuesday, August 23, 2005, at approximately 7:00 p.m. at Falcon Heights City Hall,
2077 Larpenteur Avenue West, Falcon Heights, Minnesota 55113, to consider a variance of 8.5
feet on the north side setback and a variance of 7 feet on driveway width for property located at
1800 N. Albert Street, Falcon Heights, Minnesota, legally described as:
N 68 58/100 Ft of the W 1/2 Of Lot 1
• All persons who desire to speak on this issue are encouraged to attend and will be given
an opporturlity to be heard at this meeting. Additional information can be obtained by contacting
the City of Falcon Heights at (651) 792-7600.
Dated: August 4, 2005.
Bather M. Worthington, City A 'strator/Clerk
City of Falcon Heights, Minnesota
•
119949v01
~,
.~
i~
~, a ~
°' .~ ~ c ~'+ i o
~ ~, Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
~~„ ~ .' r ti c X~ a 2 in w
b o
N
' ~ ~
_~, _.. O
~~ y .w.._Y _~~, ~ .--..... ,.. ... I
0
' ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ b
f s
~_,,
r -- ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~~~ __ b ~~
~..:.z
~ ~r, ~ ~ a
`r~ ~ ~ mb
__...
r O tUi
_ ~ ~ ~ ra ~
~_ _ -~ _ ~ ` w ,~
Z r-.
~~ ti ( ~~~~
s
s
~ , `~~ ~
i•
~ ' ~~o
i ... U
e _.. ,. .... ~_ ~ L .. _ ~ Ir
~~w
_ ,~ o
~_ r- _ ~.
i 1 i ~ [t{([ ~ 4 ^ O~
' ~~
1 ~
r
E I ; ~ ~~
t
~ ' 4 ~ ~ :~ U
'~ N
1 E r ~ 'UO
~ ~ r
i
_N
~ ~ ~ N
~3J G N
._ __
III _~.~__~ _ ~ ~
m
~ .~ O
' { I e0
r' ~' I A .C y
~ ed C U
1 ~ j I ~ ~
3 - N ~ ~
~ ~ 1 }}' y G
r t ~ U p
{ ( I owU
~ a ~ o
E I I ~ w
w
t
.. ~ ~ ~ ~bo
1 __~ ~ ~ i ? ( ~CwN
----.. _.--- __. _~. _ ~ ~ ,b
o ~.
{ v m
i ~ ~ ~ ~y~
~ ~ ~; i ( .~~.-
__... , ..~ ~~_ _ e. _ ~~,;~
F
K:
..
{
_ ~~
r ~ ` '' ~- I I __ - ~ __ i~ ~ ~_ - - -~-- .~ H
r roo
~.
~ ~
s
~ ~ _ ~ ,: ,;
' T
~~ I i ~ ~
_ r
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ o
R! U O
i ~ ~- WAN
' y .--.
i ~ ~ ~b~
' ~ ~ ~
ti ---~ ~ A Q
1 '~ I i