Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02_0827revCity of Falcon Heights Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2002 Acting Chair Maher called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Lageson, DeLeo, Maher, Middleton, Ziebarth, Lageson, Ryan. Also present were Peter Lindstrom, Council Liaison, Deb Jones, Zoning and Planning Coordinator, Tom Scott, representing the City Attorney, and Dan Cornejo, Planning Consultant ABSENT: Heideman, Harris, Tracy MINUTES: The minutes for June 25, 2002, were approved. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE IN FRONT SETBACK AT 1941 SUMMER STREET A variance of 12 feet, 8 inches, in front setback is requested by Joel and Linda Black of 1941 Summer Street to construct an addition to their attached garage. The staff report finds that this property is unique in that the house is placed diagonally on the lot in such a way that no meaningful addition is possible without encroaching into setback. The existing house already encroaches 4.6 feet; an additional 8 feet is requested. The proposed addition is the least non-conforming of any possible garage expansion on this property. Mr. and Mrs. Black were present, also several of their neighbors. In the discussion, Commissioner Middleton asked for and received clarification of the setback requirements for corner lots. She also raised the issue of whether or not a two-car garage is enough of a necessity to make the lack of one a sufficient hardship for a variance. Ms. Jones agreed that this issue is the "fulcrum" of the case. If the Commission sees it as a necessity, then the lack is a hardship; otherwise, it is not. However, most properties in the city can accommodate a two-car garage without a variance; this property cannot. Will Tennyson of 1935 Summer spoke and gave his approval of the project, saying it will enhance property values in the neighborhood. Manley Olson of 1974 Summer also expressed approval on aesthetic grounds, that the neighborhood is more attractive when cars are stored inside. Ms. Jones said she had heard from three other neighbors by telephone, all giving their approval. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the variance (Resolution 02-15) to the City Council. The Council will take up the matter on September 11. PRESENTATION ON LOT COVERAGE Dan Cornejo began the presentation of his new report by reviewing the developments up to the June 25 meeting. He presented two maps of the city's R-1 zones. The first shows existing impervious lot coverage including actual footprint of house and garage plus an estimated driveway. The second shows the coverage that would be allowed if new limits were imposed based on four categories of lot area, ranging from 40% for the smallest lots to 15% for the largest. Commissioner Heideman had noticed and pointed out to staff before the meeting that the square feet of coverage under the proposal would be much less for properties at the low end of each category than for properties at the high end of the next lower category. Therefore, Mr. Cornejo recommends setting a "floor" amount of square footage for each of category except the one for the smallest lots. Therefore, the recommended impervious lot coverage allowances would be as follows: Lot Area (s.f.) Over 34000 15800 to 34000 7370 to 15800 Up to 7370  Maximum Lot Coverage 6800 s.f. or 0.15, whichever is greater 4740 s.f. or 0.20, whichever is greater 2948 s.f. or 0.30, whichever is greater 0.40   Commissioner Middleton asked how the breaks were chosen. Mr. Cornejo answered that they were selected by looking at the list of all R-1 lots in the city, in order by area, and choosing good gaps where the lines could be drawn so few properties would be close to the cusp. Most properties in the city would have room to make some additions; a handful would be non-conforming as they are. Mr. Cornejo also spoke briefly about the sample site plans distributed to the commissioners before the meeting showing a comparison of typical existing lot coverage, expansion to the proposed new limit, and the sort of thing that would happen if each lot had the 75% coverage now allowed by the code. The last scenario, he pointed out, is outrageous and certainly one that was never intended for residential property in the city. Mr. Cornejo then took up the second recommendation in his report, the proposal to require a minimum of 12 feet separation between a detached garage and the rearmost portion of the main structure. Commissioner Ziebarth asked what would happen if a breezeway were built between a house and a previously detached garage. Would the garage now be considered attached? Ms. Jones said that Commissioner Heideman had raised exactly the same question in a phone call earlier in the day and felt that she would like more time for the Commission to think about and discuss this issue. Mr. Scott said that in order to make a detached garage into an attached garage, the setback requirements for the principle structure would have to be met. Ms. Jones said that the code defines a single structure as having a common floor area. Commissioner Lageson raised some questions regarding ramps and other structures for wheelchair access. Could an exception be made for those? Ms. Jones explained that ramps are considered permitted encroachments into setback, provided certain conditions are met, but the city code does not address the issue of a wheelchair ramp relative to defining separation of structures. Commissioner Ziebarth asked if the Commission could accept one of the recommendations and hold the other for further discussion. Mr. Cornejo confirmed that they are not tied together as a package deal. Several of the commissioners asked for some cleaning up of the language of the first proposal, although they expressed approval for the concept and generally felt that they did not need to see the new wording as long as it maintains the meaning as stated in the report and amended this evening. Commissioner DeLeo then asked if the Commission is looking at having two hearings if more discussion is needed on the garage separation proposal. The consensus was that the Commission would like to have further discussion on the second concept but only one hearing, after a decision is made on the second concept. Lageson moved, Ziebarth seconded, that the Commission approve the first proposal (lot coverage) as amended. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, 6 in favor, 1 opposed. Lageson moved, Ryan seconded, that the second proposal be tabled until the next meeting for further discussion. There was no further discussion. The motion carried unanimously. For the next meeting the Commissioners requested clarification from the staff on detached vs. attached structures. They will take up specifically the issues of breezeways and wheelchair ramps in the discussion of garage separation. Commissioner Maher suggested that the city consider waiving the variance fee for cases in which a variance is needed to construct a handicap access ramp. The other commissioners seemed in favor of this idea. Ms. Jones said the staff could take the matter up with the City Attorney if the commissioners want to pursue this. She also pointed out that nearly all such ramps can be approved outright for a permit with no variance needed. If not, the staff works with the homeowner to try to come up with an alternative that does not require a variance. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: Commissioner Middleton expressed an interest in the forum being presented by the City of Richfield on "Inner Ring Suburbs" on September 9. Information on the forum was distributed to commissioners in their packets before the meeting. Ms. Jones took a count of those interested in attending. Ms. Jones distributed copies of an article, "Garages: Not Just for Cars Anymore," from the August issue of Zoning News, monthly newsletter of the American Planning Association. Clearly, this issue of garage size and lot coverage is one that is being faced by communities across the country! Commissioner Lageson asked if anything further has been done on the development of a strategy for studying development in the Fairview neighborhood or working with the University on the future of the Grove. Answer: not yet. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 8:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Deborah Jones Zoning and Planning Coordinator