Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes08_0422City of Falcon Heights Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2008 PRESENT: Commissioners Hasegawa, Lukermann, Rodich, Watkins. Also present were City Attorney Joel Jamnik and Staff Liaison Deb Jones. ABSENT with notice: Commissioners Anderson, Noble and Salzberg, Council Liaison Kuettel A quorum being present, the meeting was called to order by Chairman Watkins at 7:04 p.m. The minutes of the March 25, 2008, meeting were approved. PUBLIC HEARING: Vacation of Walk 4 Prior to the opening of the hearing, staff liaison Jones presented the background of this case. Walk 4 is a 12 foot by 152 foot strip of city owned land between 1742 and 1748 Tatum. For at least 20 years Walk 4 has been used by the owners of the adjoining properties as part of their yards, although the land was never vacated to those properties. A fence runs down the middle of the strip, which ends at the rear property line of 1745 Lindig to the east. The owner of 1742 Tatum, Choong-Sihn Youn, petitioned the city to vacate the land. As his neighbor at 1748 Tatum declined to participate in the petition or share associated costs, Mr. Youn’s petition asked that the entire 12 foot width be added to his property. Staff found no record of any utility easement or other easement on Walk 4 and no evidence of the city having an interest in retaining the land for public purposes. The Chair opened the hearing. The first speaker was Choong-Sihn Youn, 1742 Tatum, the applicant. Mr. Youn said he and his family moved to their present home in 1984, never imagining they would be there so long. However, they really love the neighborhood and now that their children are grown, he and his wife wish to make alterations to their house to make it more comfortable. In preliminary discussions with city staff about options, including the expansion of the attached garage, he was made aware for the first time of the existence of Walk 4, which meant his property line was not where he thought it was, greatly limiting his options for remodeling his home. After receiving additional information from city staff and the city attorney, he approached his neighbor on the other side of Walk 4 about petitioning the city to vacate Walk 4. When his neighbor declined to be involved, he decided to apply to the city alone and ask for the full width of Walk 4. The next speaker was Mr. Leroy Martin, 1748 Tatum street. Mr. Martin expressed his opposition to the petition and does not see any reason for the city to change the status quo. He was concerned about the existing fence and pointed out that it couldn’t have been properly permitted if the land was not supposed to be part of the adjoining lots. He said the lack of a permit should be investigated. What would happen if the fence was not at the half way point? Mr. Florian Lauer, 1736 Tatum, was the next speaker. He cited an earlier walkway vacation further north on Tatum. There being no one else who wished to speak, the hearing was closed. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: The commissioners began their discussion with a request to city attorney Jamnik for his advice. Mr. Jamnik informed the commissioners that the sole purpose of their present discussion was to make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether the City has any interest in retaining ownership of Walk 4. Beyond that the fence and location of the property line becomes a private property matter. The commission’s sole focus is the public interest. In view of that recommendation, Commissioner Lukermann moved for the purpose of discussion that the Commission find that there is no further public interest in Walk 4. After some additional discussion, the motion passed unanimously. The matter will now go to the City Council. CITY COUNCIL MORATORIUM ON PERMITS FOR CERTAIN SIGNS Staff Liaison Jones provided an introduction to Commissioners and the viewing audience. On March 12, the City Council passed an interim ordinance temporarily prohibiting the issuance of permits for certain kinds of signs using new technology, including dynamic display designs and electronic graphic display signs and other similar signs. The Planning Commission has been directed to study the issue and come up with a recommendation for the City Council before the moratorium expires on September 10. Jones out lined the expected timetable and said that two public comment sessions have been scheduled for the May and June meetings of the Planning Commission. Tonight is an introduction to the issue and an opportunity for commissioners to ask questions of the city attorney and staff. Commissioner Rodich asked if any present signs in the city fall into the categories covered by the moratorium. Jones said that the only changeable sign is a time and temperature strip at the credit union building, but that sign is being rebuilt and may to include that display in the future. Also, the two service station signs change the prices, but these signs are not considered to be in the categories covered in the moratorium. Commissioner Hasegawa asked if any other signs are grandfathered into our current code. Jones said there could be some but they would be very old, and signs are replaced often enough that it is unlikely there are more than a few. The roof sign for The Source Comics and Games is nonconforming. In response to another question from the commissioner she confirmed that city sign codes do not apply to the State Fair and the university campus. Commissioners had several questions for the city attorney Jamnik regarding the city’s potential exposure to legal challenge if different levels of restriction were imposed, from making the moratorium permanent (a complete prohibition) to restrictions based on zoning districts. Mr. Jamnik said it might be possible to construct an argument that a complete prohibition would restrict free speech unduly. In fact he knows of no city that has a total ban on these signs, nor has he seen a city ordinance challenged. Although his answer is speculative, he said, he felt making the moratorium permanent would place the city at risk of challenge and having the ordinance overturned, because the moratorium is so restrictive. He said that not only traffic safety can inform and support a city’s regulation of this matter but also protection of the “peace and quiet” of residential zones with classic “time, place, and manner” restrictions that are content neutral. Such restrictions could address, for instance, the brightness of signs, or their proximity to residential property. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. to a short workshop. Respectfully submitted, Deborah Jones, Staff Liaison WORKSHOP: The Commissioners met briefly after the adjournment of the formal meeting to ask more questions of the city attorney, begin informal discussion of the issue and formulate research requests for staff. Commissioners asked for sample ordinances from other cities which have already addressed this issue in their codes.