HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCMin_89Nov6MINUTES
• REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 6, 1989
Vice Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.
PRESENT
Barry, Boche, Duncan, Finegan, Grittner and Nestingen. Also present
was Council Liaison Wallin and City Planner Susan Hoyt Taff.
ABSENT
Black, Carroll (written comments submitted), Daykin.
OCTOBER 2, 1989 MINUTES APPROVED
Duncan moved, seconded by Barry, approval of the October 2, 1989
Minutes as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE PERMIT REQUEST FROM WILLIAM BROWN, 1808
ASBURY
William Brown, 1808 Asbury, requested a Permitted Accessory Use
Permit to remove a brick/stone fireplace and construct in its place
a utility shed located in the rear of his lot. This utility shed
will be constructed within setback restrictions, placed in an unobtrusive
location in the rear of his lot on a cement slab, have wood paneled
exterior and be 8' long by 8' wide by 7' high. After a discussion,
Duncan moved, seconded by Nestingen approval of the Permitted Accessory
Use Permit. The motion carried unanimously.
PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE PERMIT REQUEST BY THE ROSEVILLE SCHOOL
DISTRICT AT FALCON HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Gary Ruud, a Falcon Heights Elementary School parent, presented
a plan to build a 8' by 8' utility shed to house aluminum cans
that the school collects as a fundraising tool to purchase playground
equipment. After a discussion on location, construction materials
and the use of corrugated steel for roofing material, Barry moved,
seconded by Nestingen that the Permitted Accessory Use Permit Request
be approved with the condition that the roof be painted a dark
color in the spring of 1990. The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED COMPOSTING ORDINANCE, 9-4.01, SUBDIVISION
9-4.01, SUBDIVISION 3 k AND 9-2.04, SUBDIVISION l k
Finegan opened the Public Hearing at 7:50 P.M. and presented the
Affidavit of Publication.
Richard Wenkel, 1825 Fairview, asked whether the proposed composting
ordinance would affect his placing leaves in a temporary storage
area to be plowed into the ground in the spring. Wallin replied
that it was not the intent of the City to intrude on the practices
of its citizens but provide a way to accomplish these kinds of
items in a consistent manner.
• Daykin arrived at 8:00 P.M.
The Public Hearing was closed at 8:10 P.M.
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 6, 1989
• PAGE 2
Further discussion on the wording changes requested by the
Solid Waste Commission and the fact that they are planning to write
their own composting brochure followed. After more discussion
on yard waste collection, the Commission moved to another agenda
item.
PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FROM GARY AFFOLTER, 1892 HOLTON
Mr. Affolter, 1892 Holton, requested a Permitted Accessory Use
Permit to construct a shed attached to his garage for storage of
his boat during the winter months. He distributed his application
for Consideration of Planning Request Form with attachments describing
location and type of construction. Discussion ensued whether or
not the structure constitutes a shed or a garage addition and,
therefore, whether the Permitted Accessory Use Permit was necessary.
Planner Hoyt Taff agreed that the structure initially appears to
be an addition to an existing garage. However, she interpreted
it as a storage shed because it did not fit the definition of a
garage, it has a separate entrance and it is built specifically
for storing a boat. Therefore, a Permitted Accessory Use Permit
as well as a building permit, due to its size, is required. Barry
moved, seconded by Daykin, to approve the Permitted Accessory Use
Permit as requested based upon the description contained in his
October 31, 1989 Application for Consideration of Planning Request
and attachments; that a building permit would be required and should
• be taken out forthwith; and work on such structure be completed
within a year. A vote was taken. The following voted in favor
thereof: Barry, Daykin, Duncan, Finegan, Grittner and Nestingen
and the following voted against: Boche. (Boche was of the opinion
that a precedent would be set by approving a structure which is
attached to the garage as a Permitted Accessory Use.) The motion
carried.
DEFINITIONS OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE ZONING CODE, 9-1.02(1)
and 9-2.04, SUBDIVISION 2 b
Staff Planner Susan Hoyt Taff reviewed changes which would clarify
portions of the Zoning Code which are illogical, confusing and/or
contradictory relating to accessory structures. She recommended
exempting attached garages in an R-1 Zone from the Code requirement
that the accessory use not extend beyond the front of the principal
structure (9-2.04, Subdivision 1(f ). She described several examples
of this construction currently within the City. She suggested
a size limitation such as a four car garage be considered. Discussion
on these points followed. Boche moved the lay the item over but
the motion died for the lack of a second.
Black arrived at 8:33 P.M.
After further discussion on whether the Commission wanted to address
this issue at this time or request further staff clarification,
• Finegan moved (he relinquished the Chair to Black) seconded by
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 6, 1989
PAGE 3
Boche to again lay the item over. After a vote was taken, the
following voted in favor thereof: Finegan and Boche, and the following
voted against the same: Barryr Black, Daykin, Duncan, and Critter.
Motion failed. Then Finegan moved, seconded by Grittner to approve
the idea of exempting attached garages in R-1 Zones from the requirement
in Section 9-2.04, Subdivision 1(f). Motion carried unanimously.
Grittner was of the opinion that the size of an attached garage
located in the front of the house should be limited to 50 percent
of the front footage of the home. Staff was directed to further
research the issue and present further data and recommendations
to the Commission.
A second contradictory definition of accessory structure was clarified.
Daykin moved, seconded by Finegan, to delete the words "and this
Code" from Section 9-2.04, Subdivision 1(b) of the Zoning Code.
The motion carried unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 5-14.04 OF THE CITY CODE TO CHARGE A RECORDING
FEE FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, VARIANCES AND REZONING INITIATED
BY PROPERTY OWNERS
• Planner Susan Hoyt Taff reviewed the fee schedule in Section 5-14.04
and suggested that charges be added for the recording of variances
and conditional use permmits on parcels of land so that the the
State is assured that the City is fulfilling its statutory obligations;
it would minimize the delay between granting and recording; and
it would avoid spending administrative time checking on whether
or not they were recorded. Discussion ensued as to how the City
assures such recording is done and what fee is adequate. Boche
moved, seconded by Barry, that a minimum $30.00 fee be charged
for recording variances and conditional uses plus additional charges
for the recording when the fee is greater; and that staff investigate
whether the City is charging adequate fees for the rezoning, variance,
and conditional use requests. The motion carried unanimously.
UNIVERSITY GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMONS AND LOTS 7 AND 14, WHICH
ACT AS A COMMONS
In response to an inquiry
moved to recommend to the
Neighborhood Commons Area
of University Grove. The
unanimously.
from the University of Minnesota, Boche
City Council that it not purchase the
and Lots 7 and 14, which act as a Commons,
motion was seconded by Barry and approved
CITY EASEMENT ON THE EXTENSION OF FOLWELL AVENUE IN AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION
NUMBER 90 IN THE UNIVERSITY GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD
Discussion ensued on whether the easement would be needed for street
• extension, whether it would be needed as a connection for the proposed
bicycle/pedestrian trail as proposed in the Park and Recreation
Plan and whether it should be given with no charge to the University.
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 6, 1989
• PAGE 4
Boche moved, seconded by Barry, that the Planning Commission support
the City Council in their negotiations with the University of Minnesota
to give up only 25 feet of the easement, which would increase the
size of the lot to 12,090.60 if in doing so it would be of benefit
to the City of Falcon Heights. The motion carried unanimously.
PROFESSIONAL VENTURES INCORPORATED (PVI) PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LARPENTEUR AND SNELLING AVENUES
Planner Susan Hoyt Taff updated the Commissioners on the proposal
by Professional Ventures, Inc. for the construction of a 65,000
square foot one-story commercial space for the southeast corner
of Larpenteur and Snelling. The item was on the City Council agenda
for November 8th but is being withdrawn at the request of the Developers.
She will keep the Commissioners updated.
APPROPRIATE MANNER OF CONDUCTING HEARINGS ON LAND USE ISSUES
Commissioners noted the summary on procedures to be used when conducting
hearings on land use issues.
Chairman Black declared the meeting adjourned at 9:38 P.M.
•
r ~
Approved : ..eC/
Edgar inegan, S retary
Submitted by:
i ..
Katherine J. Zi man
•
~'
~~^3
REVIEWING DEFINITIONS OF ACCESSORY STR \~
9-1.02, Subdivision 2. Definitions.
1. Accessory Building. A subordinate building or a portion
of the min build'irg, which is located on the same lot
as the main building and the purpose of which is clearly
incidental to that of the principal building.
This definition of an accessory structure inclnt)es attached garages as
an accessory building in all zones because attad~ed garages are clearly
a subordinate use of the principal building. Nren combined with the
following Code sections:
9-2.04 Accessory Buildings and Structures. Subdivision 1. General.
e. Accessory buildings in the busit~ees and industry districts
shall be located any place to the rear of the principal
building, subject to the Building Gbde, and the fire
zone regulations.
f. No detached garages or other aopa+seocy building shall
be located nearer to the front 2t~t tine than
the principal building on that tot.
Applying 9-2.04, Subdivision 1(e) the Code restricts attached garages
in business and industry districts to the rear of the principal structure.
This is desirable. Truck traffic is less visible. And a business facade
is more attractive than a garage on the main thora~ghfare.
However, under 9-2.04, Subdivision 1(f) no attached garages in any district
can be placed in front of the principal structure, even when all setbacks
are maintained. Given the fact that Falcon Woods has number of homes
built with the attached garages in front of the principal structure and
that it is a fairly common building style, it might be useful to exempt
attached garages in residential zones from this requirement. In order
to avoid huge garages when setbacks are easily poet, I propose limiting
the size of the garage to a four car garage.
A second definition of accessory structure apQears in the Code.
9-2.04 Accessory Buildings and Structures ~bdivision 1. General.
(b) An accessory building shall be considered as an integral
part of the principal building if it is located Tess than twelve (12)
feet from the principal building with respect to firewall and other
requirements of the Building Code and this Oode_
As it stands, this portion of the Code allows any accessory structure
within twelve (12) feet of the principal structure to be considered part
of the principal structure. It was originally ietended to assure that
an accessory structure close to the principal structure meets the Fire
Code and Uniform Building Code. However, the addition of "and this C1ode"
creates the following problems: it conflicts with the other definition
of accessory structure, and, it potentially allows all accessory structures
within twelve (12) feet of the principal building to be defined as the
principal structure, and subject to rules governing principal rather than
accessory structures. Using this definition, an accessory building could
go in front of a principal structure. I recamend eliminating "and this
Oode" for clarification.
• " r'r~
{„~.
NOV 0~
•
~.:.~. .
'j
' 89 15 ~ 2 ~' ~F&A
Td: Commieeian :members and staff
FROM: Anne Carroll~/
YtF: Comments on 11/~l8S PC meeting pad~cet
DATE: 1Z/3/88
P.2
As I unfortunately oermot attend the 1116 meeting, below are my comments and
questions.
1. Mirn~tes: Black snit Carroll came late but were not absent.
Z. Stcaeage shea8 i-n The PC may wish to glue some consideration to
changing the :review .procedures for storage sheds to include a co~~sideration of
whether the "Qe" of the shed is in harmony with the rxting
neighborhood.. 1'Ms his come up before as an issue, and while I would not want
the PC to try to tai a design review board, the red barn type sheds are just not
appropriate in . neighborhoods, and ~milar Bost alternatives are available. Yt
continues to trouble me that we re'v'iew all these sheds but don't seem to have a
very clear sense Of what we're to watch for.
3. F-1,2: See commextt$ above. Presumably we can approve the current requests
subject to the PC's comments, changes, etc.
4. ~'-3: See comments above. This one sounds a bit ill-~anceived...I trust the
application will be complete for the PC's review. Clearly it must meet code, but
_ _ tl:fs kind of situation increases my need for some design review guidelines.
~~__
5. F- 4:
. See comments above regarding storage sheds.
e arding definition of accessory building: I Find this confusing, e.g., what
a t a fully enclosed, year-rozuid front or back entryway/porch? That would
- em to meet the definition, too, but I wouldn't call it an accessory building.
I understand t#ie -need to cover attached garages, but this doesn't yet work.
What do other attics use?
r .Regarding S-istte a/f: Makes sense to exempt garages in residential zones. I
` don't object to a 4,car garage limitation, but is that the best way of
~ ~ handling thi~t? Isn't the real issue huge accessoa~y structures? I would think
V / this could be far, already is) bandied better in reference to all accessory
structures rather than just residential garages.
. Regarding ~a~ this Code": Sous logical, except your explanation refers to
a "Fire Code". If that is different from the t~BC, it would woxk better to
refer to it-e UBC arxi arty other. applicable codes.
6. F s:
Are these Qora~rarable/fair compared to 1) other cities, and 2) the actual
"coat" of tht time/labor/materials, etc., required to deal with these
processes?
. Recording fee: Y agree that we must do some to ensure these get
• recorded in a timely fashion teveryr city has this same problem!}, I question
whether we can legalty take that responsibility from the land owner and then
charge them far doing it for them, Might see what Lee thinks, or ask Tom
Gedde.
r~
.~ ;~
.• ~`NOV 03 '89 15~ 28 CF&A ~ ~ ~
t} P.3
i•
~.~
7. Grrove commoazs:
. As everything in the Grove is up 4n the air right now, i think the only
reasonable to do ie table this for whatever the proper procedure is). I
vicenild call/write the U and ask them to resubmit a formal request when they
have a ~posal~
what about the islands? hat's their current status, and probable future?
a s, t we should probably be Prepared to address
them with the common .areas when the time eataes.
8. City, easement in Grove: t'm not very clear on this, t...questions: Could we
relinquish the easement as part of a trade with the U far a future easement (ar
other mechanism which allows access), if requested by the City, directly east of
the current easement (through the currentlfuture space), to allow future
access tp the proposed waIlcrway?
9. Compost orcTinance: Yf the PC arni CC approve, I w suggest we actively
notify all FH residents and give them whatever gui+c~lihes we have -- let's not
have this "hit the fan" in the spring...
Er~d of ARC's comments on l1/6/89 agenda.
•