Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes05_0628City 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. 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. 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. A lighting 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. 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 for a 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 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 Jones, Staff Liaison