HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes06_0725City of Falcon Heights
Planning Commission Minutes
July 25, 2006
PRESENT: Commissioners Lageson, Rodich, Ryan, Tracy, Mercer-Taylor, Council Liaison Kuettel, City Attorney Andrea Poehler, Staff Liaison Jones.
ABSENT: Lukermann, DeLeo
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by acting chair Beth Mercer-Taylor in the absence of the Commission Ryan, who arrived a few minutes later.
MINUTES: The minutes for May 23, 2006, were approved.
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance Request for 1564 Burton Street
Zoning and Planning Coordinator Jones presented the staff report. 1564 Burton Street is located at the south end of the narrow block between Coffman and Burton, Folwell and Hoyt in the
University Grove neighborhood. The property is one of only three residential lots in the city with three street frontages, in this case, front, south side and rear. The dwelling, a
modern frame house originally designed by Ralph Rapson, is set at an angle on the lot, with a tuck-under garage facing Burton. At some time in the past the original lot was significantly
reduced in area to allow the extension of Coffman Street from Folwell to Hoyt. The principle structure encroaches into setback on both the Burton (west/front) and Coffman (east/rear)
sides. The owner is presently building an addition onto the north side of the house where there is a limited amount of buildable space.
The applicant wishes to build an enclosed three-season porch, 14 feet wide and 10 feet deep, on the front of the house cantilevered over an existing patio adjacent to the lower-level
front entry. The proposed porch would encroach an additional 5.5 feet into the required front yard beyond the existing encroachment of 8 feet at the southwest corner of the house.
The area of the encroachment is already occupied by the patio, a significant architectural feature. The owner believes that the porch was part of the original design of the house,
although it was never built. The existence of a sliding glass door opening from the living room on the upper level directly over the patio appears to support this claim.
The staff findings of fact indicate that no detriment or impairment would result from granting the variance. The applicant’s property is severely restricted as to buildable area because
of the three street frontages. The staff found that that hardship would result if the letter of the chapter were carried out and recommended approval.
Commissioner Mercer-Taylor asked if the addition has gone through the additional University Grove approval process. Ms. Jones said the owner would address that.
Commissioner Ryan opened the public hearing.
Todd Hegg, applicant, of 1564 Burton, came to the podium and verified that he has applied for University Grove approval. In answer to a question from Commissioner Tracy he said that
the addition will be supported by two metal posts. They would be set just outside of the retaining wall in order to permit new footings to be poured.
There being no one else who wished to speak, the hearing was closed.
DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Variance at 1564 Burton
A brief discussion followed. Commissioner Ryan said that it is necessary to acknowledge that there are ways to address the window hazard issue without a variance, but he still feels
it is reasonable to approve of the request. There were some questions and discussion about the original lines of the lot and the complicated platting of the University Grove, which
is complicated. The property in question may have lost 10 to 40 feet of the original back yard.
Lageson moved, Tracy seconded, that the Commission recommend approval of the variance. There was no additional discussion. Motion passed unanimously.
The final decision will go to the City Council in August.
PUBLIC HEARING: Recodification of the City’s Zoning Code
Before the hearing was opened Ms. Jones said that the draft of the chapter has been available on the City website and at the front desk for people to read. She said that the recodification
is essentially a reorganization and “intense editing” of the chapter we already have, bringing it up to date with all the new ordinances that have been passed over the last thirteen
years and bringing it into line with state statute. No significant policy changes are anticipated in this process.
Commissioner Lageson asked if the required notice of the hearing was published. Ms. Jones said that was her understanding.
Commissioner Ryan opened the public hearing.
Wendy Noble of 1539 Crawford Avenue brought to the Commissioners’ attention a copy of the published notice of the hearing in the Roseville Review.
There being no one else who wished to speak, the hearing was closed.
Discussion on Recodification Draft
Commissioners had some questions about how to pick out the changes. Ms. Jones pointed out the formatting indicates which old text has been deleted (strike-through) or added (underline).
There was further discussion on procedure. Ms. Mercer-Taylor said that her understanding is that new ordinances that are passed during this process don’t need to be incorporated until
after recodification. Ms. Jones said that is true. She added that when the Planning Commission began reviewing the zoning chapter two years ago in preparation for recodification Staff
had probably been too ambitious in including potential policy changes, not realizing that merely reorganizing and updating the existing code would be such a large task. Now, with work
in progress, it makes more sense to deal with policy changes separately, is being done “in parallel” with the drive-through issue. However, if there items that the Planning Commission
wants to include in this process, they can certainly make a recommendation.
In response to a question from Commissioner Rodich, Jones confirmed that all of the other chapters of the draft are being reviewed by the Council, which will hold a separate hearing
on the entire code eventually. She pointed out that, although the zoning chapter is number 113, every existing chapter is followed by at least three “empty” chapters held in reserve
for future ordinances.
Commissioner Rodich said he felt unprepared to make a recommendation this evening and asked if it be possible to take more time. Jones said it would probably delay it from the Council’s
last August
meeting to the first September meeting. Councilmember Kuettel pointed out that the Commission has already had two months to work on this and should move ahead.
Commissioner Ryan brought up the alternate variance language that was offered by Ms. Poehler last month and suggested that it be added in before approval. Several commissioners said
they thought the new wording made the variance standards much clearer both for commissioners and for the public. Ms. Poehler said she found this language in the Lakeville code, which
seemed to be the clearest. It could easily be fit into the draft. The suggested definitions for “undue hardship” and “variance” would be inserted into the definition section.
There were questions about deletions in the variance section. Ms. Poehler thought they were eliminated to reflect actual procedures and because they repeat provisions that are made
elsewhere, but that will be checked.
Mr. Lageson asked for clarification on the definition of domestic pets. This needs to be cross-referenced with the chapter on animals. He also asked about incorporating a definition
of drive-throughs. Ms. Jones said that is part of a separate process, but it could be combined if the timing works out; otherwise it will be part of the first supplement. Mr. Lageson
also noted a needed addition to the definition of firearms.
Mr. Ryan said he felt the Commission was not prepared to make a recommendation this evening, but if commissioners could turn in all their notes and concerns in advance of the next meeting
so the work can be finished up next month. Ms. Mercer-Taylor said that the Commissioners should set themselves a deadline. August 11, a Friday, was suggested. Ms. Jones said that
the original received from Municipal Code is in PDF format; they have asked for changes to be made on one master paper copy.
Councilmember Kuettel brought up the issue of permeable pavements, a new technology, which the Commission has touched on before. According the City Attorney no city allows this yet,
and it has implications both for stormwater runoff policy and lot coverage policy. The consensus was that this is more of the kind of complex policy change that should be done later,
possibly as part of the comprehensive planning.
The deadline for comments and concerns was moved to 8 a.m. on Monday, August 14. An email reminder will be sent by staff.
The Commission voted to approve a motion by Mr. Lageson that the recodification be tabled until August.
INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Councilmember Kuettel reported on the Council’s July 12 action on drive-throughs and summarized the elements of the proposed new ordinance. The vote was 3 – 2, with the two dissenting
council members in favor of outright prohibition of drive-throughs. This matter will now come back to the Planning Commission in August for a formal hearing and official recommendation.
Mr. Lageson asked why the matter did not come to the Planning Commission first. Ms. Jones replied that the original interim ordinance came from the Council and the study was initiated
by the Council, so this has been a Council project up to now. The final report of the consultant will be made available on the City website. The consultant recommended prohibition
of all drive-throughs but the Council chose to support a less restrictive option.
Mr. Lageson reminded all that the Ice Cream Social is this coming Thursday night at Community Park at 6:00 p.m.
Ms. Mercer-Taylor announced that she is participating in HourCar, a “car share” system which allows people to reserve and use a common car and possibly eliminate a second care. It is
working out well. She and her family have found it convenient and economical.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Deborah Jones, Staff Liaison