HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCAgenda_93Jan27 City of Falcon Heights
Regular Meeting of the City Council
January 27, 1993
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER: 7 p.m.
II. BALDWIN CIERNIA GEHRZ GIBSON TALBOT
JACOBS CHENOWETH HOYT ATTORNEY ENGINEER
III. COMMUNITY FORUM
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 13, 1993
V. PUBLIC HEARING: None
VI. CONSENT AGENDA:
C -1. Disbursements
(a) General Disbursements through 1/21/93, $268,260.92
(b) Payroll, 1/1/93 to 1/15/93, $12,738.67
C -2. Licenses
C -3. Purchase of snowblower for park maintenance
C -4. Personnel Actions for 1993
C -5. Amendment to variance in Section 9 4.01[4](b)
of the zoning code for 2099 Folwell Avenue
VII. POLICY AGENDA:
P -1. Request for all necessary variance(s) for a garage at
1433 West Idaho
VIII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:
I -1. Parks and Recreation Minutes of January 11, 1993
IX. ADJOURNMENT
WORKSHOP
W -1. Update and discussion on the proposed 1993 Street Improvement
Projects.
*pro
ni� Gp'
�ANL r� i
MINUTES 441 _jk
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 13, 1993
Baldwin convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT
Baldwin, Ciernia, Gehrz, and Jacobs. Also present were Bachman,
Chenoweth and Hoyt.
ABSENT
Gibson Talbot.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 1992
Council approved the Minutes of December 9, 1992 by unanimous
consent.
CONSENT ITEM C -2, COUNCIL STANDING RULES, MOVED TO POLICY AGENDA
Council moved Item C -2, City Council Standing Rules, from the
consent agenda to the policy agenda as requested by Ciernia.
CONSENT AGENDA APPROVED
The following Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous consent:
1. Resolution R -93 -1 designating North Star State Bank as
official depository for 1993
2. Designation of The Focus as official newspaper for 1993
3. Ratification of Settlement Agreement with Commercial
State Bank
4. Designation of contractual consultants. and inspectors
for 1993
5. Approval of contract for civil legal services with
Leonard, Street and Deinard
6. Approval of contract for legal services for prosecution
with Peterson, Frain and Bergman
7. Authorization to contract for Karate instruction services
for city's recreation program
8. Resignation of David Wickhem from the Parks and
Recreation Commission and appointment of Marcia M.
Sundquist to complete the term which expires 12/31/94
9. Commission re- appointments (see attached list)
10. Appointment of Bryon Anthony Schultz to Fire
Department
11. Approval of management education course for city
administrator
12. Authorizing $100.00 contribution to Dispute Resolution
Center
13. Establishment of a community development fund
14. Licenses (see attached list)
I
s 'c
MINUTES
JANUARY 13, 1993
PAGE 2
PUBLIC HEARING ON ISSUANCE OF G.O. TIF REFUNDING BONDS
Baldwin opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. He explained that
with the high interest rates on bonds previously issued for Tax
Increment Districts 1 -2 (Coffman project) and 2 -1 (Bullseye
project) and the low interest rates at present, the city's
financial consultant has recommended proceeding with the refunding.
There being no one in attendance wishing to be heard Baldwin closed
the hearing at 7:11 p.m.
Fiscal Consultant David Mahoney informed Council that the bond sale
would be scheduled for January 27, 1993. Following a brief
discussion Gehrz moved adoption of Resolution R -93 -2 which carried
unanimously.
RESOLUTION R -93 -02
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF $1,200,000
G. O. TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS OF 1993
COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS FOR 1993 PRESENTED
Baldwin presented the slate of assignments for 1993. Gehrz stated
that she can no longer serve as the representative to the Chamber
of Commerce due to her work schedule and that Hoyt has agreed to
serve in that position. The assignment roster will be corrected to
reflect this change.
CITY TO CONTRACT WITH E -Z RECYCLING FOR RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING
SERVICES EFFECTIVE MARCH 1, 1993
Jacobs explained that five proposals for recycling services had
been considered by the Solid Waste Commission at their January 7,
1993 meeting. At that meeting presentations were made by
representatives of three of the firms who submitted proposals,
E -Z Recycling, Knutson Services, Inc. and SuperCycle, Inc.
Jacobs summarized the Commission's deliberations which led to the
recommendation that the city contract with E -Z Recycling efffective
March 1, 1993. This decision was based on price, items to be
collected, and satisfactory references.
Following Jacob's summary, presentations were made to Council by
Mark Heieren, Knutson Services, Chris Rheinhart, E- Z Recycling,
and Nancy Healy, SuperCycle. Council thoroughly discussed costs
and services offered by the three firms. Ciernia indicated he
would like to see the city consider a more inclusive program
collecting as many products as possible and also questioned
changing from the present firm who has provided dependable service.
Baldwin commented on the fact that it is always difficult to leave
a good service, but the Solid Waste Commission has done its work,
fY r
MINUTES
JANUARY 13, 1993
PAGE 3
made a recommendation, and has proven to make sound recommendations
in the past.
Solid Waste Commissioners Laura Kuettel and Martin McCleery were
in attendance to support the commission's decision. Ms. Kuettel
commented that the firm's proposed charge is the lowest, they have
over 5 years experience, and good references. Mr. McCleery
indicated for would like (preferably everything)
collected for recyclin (p Y however cost has to
be considered.
After further deliberation by Council, Jacobs moved that based on
the findings and recommendation of the Solid Waste Commission, the
city enter into a one year contract with E -Z Recycling effective
March 1, 1993 with a provision to extend the contract if agreed
upon by both parties. Upon a vote being taken, the following
voted in favor thereof: Baldwin, Gehrz and Jacobs and the
following voted against the same: Ciernia. Motion carried.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO REIMBURSE COSTS OF THE PROPOSED
LARPENTEUR AVE. PROJECT FROM G. O. BONDS
Hoyt explained that the federal government requires cities to
declare their intent to reimburse expenditures from tax exempt debt
sold after March 2, 1993 and that the proposed resolution will
allow the city to pay for Larpenteur Avenue project costs that
precede the project if deemed necessary. Ciernia moved adoption of
Resolution R -93 -3 which carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION R -93 -3
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE CITY SHARE OF THE
LARPENTEUR AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT BY
RAMSEY COUNTY DECLARING INTENT OF CITY TO
REIMBURSE COSTS WITH TAX EXEMPT DEBT
APPROVAL OF PREMISES PERMIT FOR CHARITABLE GAMBLING OPERATION FOR
ROSEVILLE AREA YOUTH HOCKEY ASSN. AT FALCON LANES, 1550 W.
LARPENTEUR AVE.
Hoyt reviewed the application from the Roseville Area Youth Hockey
Association to conduct a pull -tab operation at Falcon Lanes, 1550
W. Larpenteur, and explained that the application does meet
criteria stipulated in the city code.
The applicant, Lee Borash, presented information on the
organization's operation and distribution of the funds. Roseville
Deputy Chie of Police Tom Aeva explained that the police
department d oes routine checks on ll the operation every other month.
Following a brief discussion Ciernia moved adoption of Res
MINUTES
JANUARY 13, 1993
PAGE 4
RESOLUTION R -93 -4
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PREMISES PERMIT FOR THE
ROSEVILLE AREA HOCKEY ASSOCIATION'S PULL -TAB
OPERATION AT FALCON LANES, 1550 W. LARPENTEUR
PROPOSED RESOLUTION DESIGNATING UNBUDGETED LGA AND EQUALIZATION AID
REVENUE
Hoyt explained that the city will receive an additional $14,569 in
revenue due to the accrual of more sales tax revenue than
anticipated in the local government trust fund and it is now
appropriate to designate the use of this unbudgeted revenue. Gehrz
moved adoption of Resolution R -93 -5 which carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION R -93 -5
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING UNANTICIPATED 1992
LGA /EQUALIZATION AID FOR PROPERTY TAX RELIEF
FALCON HEIGHTS /ROSEVILLE STUDY UPDATE
Hoyt commented on the letter from Roseville's City Manager
indicating that Roseville has a continued interest in discussing
possible benefits of cooperation or consolidation, however no
timetable has been established.
CITY COUNCIL STANDING RULES AMENDED
Ciernia moved that Item 7 on Page 4 of the Standing Rules requiring
a roll call vote be deleted since Council no longer follows this
procedure. Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m.
Tom Baldwin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shirley Chenoweth, City Clerk
Consent Consent Consent Consent Consent Consent C�nseflt Consent
Meeting Date: 1/27/93
Agenda Item: C
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Disbursements
SUBMITTED BY: Tom Kelly, City Accountant
EXPLANATION/SUMMARY:
(a) General Disbursements through 1/21/93, $268,260.92
(b) Payroll, 1/1/93 to 1/15/93, $12,738.67
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval
0.0.0.0.04-01:1101i1.01#11100#0,0*11046*:00011006i0hillaiifiiiAtlehhiiiiilleigiiiii
CHECI-, DATE 01J01/92 10 01.121/93 PAGE 1
SYSTEM DATE 01/21/93
TIME 10:25 CHECK REGISTER
1
1 BANK CHECK VENDOR NAME CHECK CHECK-
2 1 DATE NUMBER NUMBER AMOUNT
1
3
4 1
51 01 01 08 93 5139 Hi-IMLINE UNIVERSITY 27580 M 780.00
6 01 11 93 5139 HAMLINE UNIVERSITY 27581 M 35.00
01 21 93 129 Ar&T 27585 ft
8 01 21 93 250 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO. 27566 R 104.09
191 01 21 93 275 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK 27587 R 103483.75
110 01 21 93 329 ARROWHEAD EMS ASSOCIATION ------8M7V3---Ft 30 00
)111 01 21 93 400 ASSOC. OF METRO. MUNI 27589 R 1613.00
12 01 21 93 800 BROWNING IND. 27590 R 138.45
13 01 21 93 886BEAR IONS, INC 2/591 R 4969: 5
)14 01 21 93 950 BOARD OF WATER COMMISI ON 27592 R 160.00
15 01 21 93 1002 THE BREHM GROUP 27593 R 63.75
16 01 21 93 3116 CTTI LENS LE.AWUE ce. /b94--R no. 00
117 01 21 93 3150 COLONIAL INSURANCE
27595 R 305.25
18 01 21 93 4050 FACILITY SYSTEMS 27596 R 25.43
19 01 93 405 f 1 I Hi 11.JUKb d Its' ft 6887
)20 01 21 93 4086 FIRE MARSH 27598 AL ASSOC. OF MN 4- R ..S
21 01 21 93 4095 FIRST TRUST 27599 R 49985.00
22 01 d J06 I M 1.- 6.7T8
)23 01 21 93 5060 GARMENT GRAPHICS INC. 27601 R 181.36
24 01 21 93 5090 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD 27602 R 5.15
0T 5119 GOVERNMNT-FTNANLL U}1 dfb0,6 H 250.700
y26 01 21 93 5135 HARVEST STATES COOP. 27604 R 5.00
27 01 21 93 5170 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP 27605 R 450.00
28 01 21 517:3 1:401. I DAY I NN-------DDLTJTT-4- d (6T R 14175
)29 01 21 93 5174 HONEYWELL PROTECTION SERV 27607 R 90.00
30 01 21 93 5200 1CMA RETIREMENT TRUST 457 27608 R 50.00
31 01 2 5201 'CNA DISTRIBUTE:fig-CENTER.-- 27609 R 4850
01 21 93 5270 IVERSON, TERRY 27610 R 35.52
1
33 01 21 93 5300 JANKE, KATHLEEN 27611 R 80.00
341 01 21 93 5345 JENSEN H rCREN--GEDDE--SCDTT--- ..---=T2-R 3565: 00
136 01 21 93 5379 KNUTSON SERVICES. INC 27613 R 2414.85
01 21 93 5400 KRIEGLER, CAROL 27614 R 15.00
331 01 2F.3 5403 DAVI D W KR rESEL IN. 276 1 5 R' 50000
)3s 01 21 93
1 5665 METRO. WASTE CONTROL COMM 27616 R 48540.00
39 01 21 93 5685 MIDWEST BUSINESS PRODUCTS 27617 R 84.30
I
40, 01 21 '33 5742 MN CONWAY-FTRE-87-SAFETY 27618 R 4
i
/41 01 21 93 5757 DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER 27619 R 100.00
421 01 21 93 5758 DEE SWENSON 27620 R 46.54
01 21 93 5760 M I NNESOTA -GFOA 27621 R 15 00
11441 01 21 93 5770 MN MAYORS ASSOC. 27622 R 10.00
451, 01 21 93 5786 MN RECREATION/PARK ASSOC. 27623 R 60.00
461 01 21 93 5796 MINNESO1A STATE ThE-ASURER-276274--R- 1 16F1:08
)47 01 21 93 5870 NSP 27625 R 3003.60
48 01 21 93 5970 NORTH STAR STATE BANK 27626 R 3059.32
49' 01 21 5994 YUUM g 27627R 503200
_,1so 01 21 93 6065 OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY 27628 R 29.43
si 01 21 93 6074 PER 27629 R 1159.80
521 01 21 6075 PERP1 27630-R 36;00
)1 531 01 21 93 6115 PIONEER PRESS 27631 R 16.00
541 01 21 93 6116 PI PE SERVICE CORPORATION 27632 R 3437.55
155 01 21 93 61 i Y 27633 R 1104: 31
....)56 01 21 93 6248 RMAA 27634 R 10.00
01 21 93 6290 CITY OF ROSEVILLE 27635 R 21512.00
r CHECK DATE 01/01/93 TO 01/21/93 PAGE 2
SYSTEM DATE 01/21/93
TIME 1025 CHECK REGISTER
Ili BANK CHECK VENDOR NAME CHECK CHECK-
2 DATE NUMBER NUMBER AMOUNT
1
01 21 93 6320 SACC 27636 R --'4. 00
1 6
01 21 93 6386 S 5 TREE SPECIHLISTS IN 27637 R 168.19
I 7 01 6 LAND 27638 ra.00
8 01 21 93 6475 STATE CHEMICAL MANU. 27639 R 84.44
01 21 93 6 478 STATE FIRE SCHOOL STC 27640 R
9 27642 R 100.00
10 1 01 21 93 6525-SUB-ORBTIN-RARDwARE 2/6 R 237
01 21 93 6547 SWEET COMPUTER SERVICES
L 101.18
1 1 1 2' 01 21 93 6580 T.R.F. SUPPLY 27643 R 83.48
13 'Id 6600-TAFFT-STIS-4W-HOY1 27644 K d00
0
}14 01 ''.1. 93 6680 TOLL COMP 27645 R 47
ANY .43
15 01 21 93 6930 U.S. POSTMASTER 27646 R 1450.00
16 d 9..i 6 .5 s' 'b NNESUIA 27647 6000
17
01 21 96 6945 USWEST COMMUNICATIONS 27648 R 470.98
18 01 21 93 10010 BRODERICK, BERNARD 27649 R 6.46
5 11 8 -AT-SgUAN 27650 1528743
01 ='1 93 90003 MANLEY OLSON 27651 R 45.00
01 21 93 90004 BECKY TRACY 27652 R 14.00
22 ui 21 9. 1*00b SAtt-Y-DARtTNG 27653'
,23
124'
I
25
1
26 **TOTAL REGULAR CHECKS** 267445.92
27 **TOTAL MANUAL CHECKS*** 815.00
2E. **TOTAL CHECKS***--- .00
i 291 ******GRAND TOTALS****** 268260.92
36
31
)32
33
34
35'
I
136
Cu 1
1 71
38
1
391
40
42
43
J 441
I
45 1
461
4
47,
481
49,
J o
511
52
53
541
55
j 56'
PERIOD END DATE 01/15/93 1
PAGE
93 **�ILE NOT UPDATED**
SYSTEM DATE 01/15/93 C H E C K R E G I S T E R
NUMBER AMOUNT
TYPE DATE NUMBER
0 1 15 93 31 T ROSS 20935 ovv^ 20934 111.25
0 1 15 93 32 BROWN, RAYMOND
7 0 1 15 93 34 KuRHAJETz, CLEMENT 20937 1
1111211 0 1 15 93 40 ANDERSON, KEVI1'..1 20941 167.68
16 0 1 15 93 47 HEROLD, NATHANIEL 20946 150. J1
122 0 1 15 93 53 McNABB, KEVIN 2090a
:3 0 1 15 93 55 OLSON, JOSEPH E. 20953 1:56.51
0 1 15 93 57 SCHAEFER, RICHARD f:-' 60
231 0 1 15 93 60 IVERSON, TERRY D. 20958 22.75
i' 291 0 1 15 93 61 DENNIS G. LEMAY 20959 28.46
32 '0 1 15 93 1003 ivER80N. TERRY 20960 886.23
34 0 1 15 93 1005 KRIEGLER, CAROL 2096e 56e. 63
35 0 1 15 93 1006 MORGAN, JAY 20963 822.28
,F-- 1,36 0 1 15 93 1007 PHILLIPS, PATRICIA 20964 700.05
38 0 1 15 93 1009 WRIGHT, VINCENT 20966 849
40 0 1 15 93 1033 TRETSVEN, DAVE 20968 d78.4i:I
41 0 1 15 93 1052 JEFF P KAPHING 20969 196.22
42 0 1 15 93 1053 LIEF! HAN 20970 165.86
'43 1 1' 93 1076 PATRICK 3. DrININGER 20972 171.11
_1461 0 1 15 93 1078 MICHAEL R SHIER 20974 335.47
'481 0
0 1 15 93
1 15 93 1079 FREDERICK H SMITH
1080 LASSER BRADLEY D. 20975
20976 66.95
49', 0 I 15 93 1081 f:1NDY STEPtiANI 20977 107.69
521
1541
Meeting Date: 1/27/93
Agenda Item: C
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Licenses
SUBMITTED BY: Shirley Chenoweth, City Clerk
CORPORATE
Advanced Cleaning #1086
Ann's Tailoring #1083
Buck's Unpainted Furniture #1088
DeLange Dancers Studio, Inc. #1098
Do It Yourself Upholstery #1085
Falcon Heights Pharmacy #1082
Hewett Packard #1084
Image Premastering #1087
John R. Benepe, DDS #1090
David L. Wasson, Graphic Design #1089
REFUSE HAULERS
Ben Oehrlein Sons Daughter, Inc. #1091
DeMars Signs #1093
SignArt #1092
MECHANICAL
A- Aarons #1095
Air Conditioning Associates, Inc. #1094
Thermex Corporation #1097
Wenzel Heating A/C #1096
t Cooed Consent Co lovi-
Date:
Agenda Item: C-3
OF FALCON HEIGHTS
CITY TION
FOR CpUNCIL CONSIDER maintenance
REQ UEST for par male
e of s nowblo wer
Purcha Forema
DESCRIP Public WorKs
DES C1erK
ITEM Wright city
Vince en oweth►
SUBMITTED BY' Shirley Ch
Y:
ATION /SCR as follows:
EXPLAN Pry
Were received CCt
Three quotes 1103---g $1,063.94
Ve��
26"
Snapp 1,331.
Beisswenger's Hardwar 28"
Toro 1,049.
Hardwre 27"
Hamline John Deere
Scharber Sons purchased
a 27" Deere snowblower se will be Paid
John
Staff recommends that F unding for this p
and Sons. Improvement Fund.
from the 19 er
from the 1993 Parks C Imp
This was a planned CIP expenditure.
Meeting Date: 1/27/93
Agenda Item: C -3
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Purchase of snowblower for park maintenance
SUBMITTED BY: Vince Wright, Public Works Foreman
Shirley Chenoweth, City Clerk
EXPLANATION /SUMMARY:
Three quotes were received as follows:
Vendor Make Cut Price
Beisswenger's Hardware Snapper 26" $1,063.94
Hamline Hardwre Toro 28" 1,331.25
Scharber Sons John Deere 27" 1,049.03
Staff recommends that a 27" John Deere snowblower be purchased
from Scharber and Sons. Funding for this purchase will be paid
from the 1993 Parks Capital Improvement Fund.
This was a planned CIP expenditure.
ACTION REQUESTED: Authorization to purchase a 27" John Deere
snowblower from Scharber Sons at a price
of $1,049.03 from the 1993 park capital
improvement fund.
000$ent::::::Consenv:iContentoietingenvi:iConsent:::::::i:ConunViConsenVeonseni
:Consent ns Consent o
Meeting Date: 1/27/93
Agenda Item: C -4
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Personnel Actions for 1993
SUBMITTED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator
EXPLANATION /SUMMARY: The administrator completed performance
reviews for employees. The attached personnel actions are
proposed for 1993. Key points:
(1) Adjustment in base salary for public works foreman
to come into closer conformance with similar
positions in similar sized, metro area cities.
(2) Promotion for city accountant to finance director
due to substantially expanded job responsibilities.
(3) Position title change to Park and Recreation Director
from Recreation and Community Service Director to
better describe actual job.
(4) Salary adjustment for city forester
The budget adequately covers these personnel changes.
ATTACHMENT:
A. Proposed personnel actions for 1993
ACTION REQUESTED: Approve proposed 1993 personnel action
Attachment A
PROPOSED PERSONNEL ACTIONS FOR 1993
1. Change in step schedule for public works foreman.
18 mos. 5 year 10 year
Monthly Step #1 Step #2 Step #3 Step #4 Step #5
(1993)
Previous $2089 $2206 $2323 $2401 $2478
($25,069)
New $2165 $2286 $2405 $2485 $2565
($25,980) 1 o4y
To bring into closer conformance to other similar positions with similar duties
in similar sized, metro area cities which is $26,600 (average minimum '92).
The proposed is $25,980 minimum. This is consistent with salary for city clerk
and fire marshal. (Past city practice provides a 5% increment between steps
of (1 and 2) (2 and 3) and a 3% increase between (3 and 4) and (4 and 5).
All other employees are in line with Stanton Survey comparables calculated
by the administrator.
2. Change in position from city accountant to finance director.
18 mos. 5 year 10 year
Monthly Step #1 Step #2 Step #3 Step #4 Step #5
Finance $2883 $3047 $3206 $3302 $3401
Director ($34,600) C3` 5Wr)
3 I k0o 1°1S2 C L P w rn+ AA r)
City $2239 $2364 $2488 $2572 $2655
Accountant($26,868)
This is a promotion due to substantially expanded job responsibilities as
described in the attached job description. The salary is consistent
with similar positions and responsibilities in similar -sized metro area cities
based on the 1992 Stanton Survey with a 3% cost of living increase for 1993.
The administrator proposes starting Tom Kelly at Step #2 since he has been
here five years and has done much of the work. A probation period isn't
warranted.
3. Change in job title.
From Recreation and Community Services Director to Parks and Recreation
Director due to the type of work actually done by the person in this position
which includes park improvement and facility planning and implementation; and
has not focused on community services beyond park and recreation opportunities
and outreach.
No salary adjustment is necessary for this position.
Page 2
4. Change in Forester's salary.
Increase from $12.50 to $14.00 /hour to keep more consistent with other
specialty salaries in the range permitted ($10.00 to $15.00) and closer to
other city foresters' salaries. (Shoreview pays $17.50 /hour, New Brighton
pays $19 /hour but larger cities tend to pay more and may have different
training levels.) The current city forester has worked for the city since 1988
and last pay increase was in 1991.
5. Other Changes.
Cost of living increase of 3% as approved with budget.
Merit on a case -by -case basis as deemed appropriate and assigned by
administrator.
POSITION DESCRIPTION OF FINANCE DIRECTOR
1. Maintain general ledger and subsidiary accounts.
Specific Tasks:
Operating control over receipts, expenditures
Post entries, reconciles and balances accounts
Prepares vouchers and checks for approval and payment
Records and assigns receipts to appropriate funds and
accounts
Prepares routine financial statements and reports
Prepares information for auditor, administration, and
council (especially for financial report)
Keep a balance of all city obligations at any one time
2. Investing city funds.
3. Assists with preparation of annual budget.
Specific Tasks:
Provides department heads with past and current expenditure,
budget and CIP information.
Collects, reviews draft budgets
Meets with administrator to develop budget figure after
policy established by council
Revises budget format
Prepares final budget document and related reports
4. Maintains city insurance policies.
Specific Tasks:
Keep all records
Review all insurance records and policies and revise as
necessary
Report to insurance company when necessary
Meet with insurance agent on risk management and respond to
requests
Page 2
Position Description of Finance Director
Maintain city's conformance to risk management laws and
practices including workers' comp
Participate in special risk management training
5. Maintains payroll and personnel pay and leave records.
Specific Tasks:
Prepares payroll and payroll checks
Maintains records of personnel leave, FICA, PERA,
withholding tax and similar reports
Administrates employee benefit program, including informing
employees of available benefits and monitoring the usage
of such benefits
6. Acts as purchasing agent.
Specific Tasks:
Review all purchasing requests
7. Prepare quarterly utility billings.
Specific Tasks:
Post all billings and receipts to computer accounts
Balance all accounts
Answer questions regarding billing
Provide for the assessment of delinquent utility accounts
8. Coordinates computer /office machine use with computer
consultant and office staff. (Fax, Copier, Micro Computers,
Audio /Visual Equipment, Telephone, Answering Machine)
9. Prepares a variety of routine and specific reports requested by
county, state and federal government.
10. Prepare annual finance departmental budget.
Page 3
Position Description of Finance Director
New Areas of Responsibility
11. Prepares monthly and quarterly reports to administrator.
Specific Tasks:
Monthly highlights of key revenue /expenditure items
Quarterly report as set format, narrative, graphs
12. Provide with information on financial topics as requested by
the administrator.
13. Be informed of trends in property values, state policy, TIF
projects and determine how they might affect Falcon Heights.
Specific Tasks: (New to job description)
Learn about property tax system
Note shifts in revenue
Calculate impact of tax levies
14. Provide financial advising services to Lauderdale (as
identified in contract). (New to job description)
15. Work with staff, administrator, financial adviser and council
on long -range financial planning (New to job description)
Specific Tasks:
Inventory revenue
Project revenue
Survey need
Project need expenditures
Develop capital plan
FD.001
POSITION DESCRIPTION OF PARK AND RECREATION DIRECTOR
1. Develop an on- going, year -round recreation program.
Specific Tasks:
Coordinate, plan and implement a comprehensive recreation
program based on community need
4. 2. Manage and develop recreation facilities. (new to job
description)
Specific. Tasks:
Work with public works, administrator, commission and
council to develop a long -term plan for the parks and
open spaces
Develop a long -range financial plan for park facilities and
open spaces
Organize a regularly scheduled inspection /maintenance
program
Seek outside funding sources for park development
Staff the park and recreation commission as it discusses
this
3. Administer and staff the recreation and communication programs.
Specific Tasks:
Hire, supervise and evaluate all recreation
Provide training and orientation for all staff and
volunteers
Develop and maintain good communication about programming
and staffing with other city employees
4. Staff the park and recreation commission.
Specific Tasks:
Attend meetings
Provide oral and written information as needed and /or
requested
Report to council on plans and programs
5. Prepare the park and recreation budget.
PR -001
Meeting Date: 1/27/93
Agenda Item: C -5
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Amendment to variance in Section 9 4.01[4](b) of
the zoning code for 2099 Folwell Avenue
SUBMITTED BY: Planning Commission
Susan Hoyt, City Administrator
EXPLANATION /DESCRIPTION
On May 18, 1992,the planning commission approved a variance for a
sideyard setback for a proposed new home at 2099 Folwell Avenue.
The variance granted a 1 1/2 foot variance in the east side lot
line for the northeastern rear five feet of the structure in order
to save an existing elm tree. The remainder of the structure met
or exceeded the required five foot setback in the zoning code.
The adjacent city easement property is currently vacant, and may in
the future be used as a pedestrian way between the Grove
neighborhood and the path at the bottom of the hill (see attachment
A, map) In 1970 the city dedicated 25 ft. of the right of way
easement to the University of Minnesota to add to this property.
To date the structure has not been constructed. The surveyor on
the job called to the staff's attention that the required sideyard
setback is not 5 feet on this property, but 20 percent of the lot
width (or in this case, 21 ft., 4 in.) because the property abuts
an existing public right -of -way, (Chapter 9, Section 4, Subdivision
4(b) of the city code). The five foot setback requirement is for
property abutting residential property (Chapter 9 Section 4.01,
Subdivision 4(c) of the zoning code.)
Therefore, the city council is asked to amend the previously
granted variance to 17 feet, 10 inches from the eastside property
line of the northeastern five feet of the structure and a maximum
of 16 feet, 4 inches from the eastside property line for the
remainder of the structure. (See attachment B, site plan.)
ATTACHMENTS:
A Report from May 18, 1992
B Diagram
C Standards for granting a variance
D Proposed Resolution
ACTION REQUESTED:
Amend the variance granted on May 27, 1992 for 2099 Folwell Avenue
for an eastside yard setback of 17 feet, 10 inches for the
northeastern five feet of the structure and for a maximum of 16
feet, 4 inches from the east side property line for the remainder
of the structure. Findings: It meets the criteria for granting a
variance specifically #g 6 -C.
n
Meeting Date: 5/18/92
Agenda Item: 2
ITEM: Request for a variance in section 9 -4.01 4
zoning code for 2099 Folwell Avenue ](c) of the
SUBMITTED BY: Ms. Barbara Shiels, Property Owner
Mr. Frank Preese, Property Owner
REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator acting as planner
EXPL ANATION /DESCRIPTION:
Request:
Ms. Shiels and Mr. Preese are planning to build a new home on the
vacant lot at 2099 Folwell. They are requesting a variance in
the east sideyard requirement of five feet in order to try to
save an existing 20" caliper elm tree on the property. The
property owner did not request a specific distance for the
sideyard variance. After discussions with the city forester and
with Ms. Shiels, staff recommends a maximum variance of 1 1/2
feet from the required five feet be considered by the commission.
The location of the structure on the trapezoidal lot make a
variance necessary for a small portion of the rear of the
structure (see attachment A). This is the deck area. And, if
the variance is approved, a portion of the deck will be 3 1/2
from the sideyard line.
Analysis:
As indicated in the site plan (attachment B), the house was
originally sited for 10' 3" from the east side lot line. This
sideyard is 5' 3" greater than required by the zoning code.
Therefore, without granting a variance the dwelling can be moved
5' 3" further to the east and 5' 3" away from the elm tree. With
a variance of 1 1/2' the tree will be 6'9 away from the
proposed structure.
Will this distance adequately protect the tree? The city
forester explained that it is difficult to anticipate whether or
not a tree will be harmed by construction because root systems
vary. There are examples where street projects cut within a few
inches of a tree, yet the tree lives. However, she said a
distance of more than 5' will give the tree a good chance of
surviving. The additional distance of 1 1/2 will increase that
possibility as well as keep the tree limbs further away from the
proposed structure.
The property to the east which will be affected by the request is
a 25 foot strip controlled by a city easement. Although there
are no plans for using this easement, it is difficult to predict
the future. The city may design a pedestrian path to connect the
neighborhood to the trail down the hill to the north of the
property (see attachment B). Or, if the University decides to
develop the property along the east end of Folwell (west of the
tennis courts) for single family lots, the easement may be used
as part of the future lots. Therefore, it is important to
maintain some distance between the new structure and the property
line. The 3 1/2' setback in the rear deck will allow the property
owners to put up shrubbery without intruding on the adjacent
property and keep an adequate distance from any new use on
adjacent properties in the future. It will also allow the
structure to be 6' 9" away from the existing elm tree.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends granting the 1 1/2 foot variance in the required
east sideyard of 5' for the rear 5' of the structure in order to
provide a maximum opportunity to save the tree and keep its
branches away from the structure. This recommendation is made
only because the siting of the structure on the trapezoidal lot
requires a reduction in the sideyard requirement on only a small
portion of the property. Staff would not recommend this variance
request if the entire sideyard would be only 3 1/2' because this
might become a problem if land use changes occur on the
neighboring property to the east in the future.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Property owner's statement
B. 1) Site plan for 2099 Folwell Avenue
2) Plat map of adjacent properties
ACTION REQUESTED:
Consider granting a 1 1/2 foot variance in section 9 -4.01 (1](c)
of the zoning code because it meets the conditions for granting a
variance,.specifically standard g related to the topographic
conditions of the property. Place the condition that the
variance be allowed for the rear 5 feet of the structure and that
the remaining portion of the structure must meet the setbacks in
the zoning code.
Request for Variance
Lot 1 Block 1 Auditor's Subdivision No 90 to St. Paul and the western 2
of Lot D. 25 feet
We seek a variance of the sideyard set back requirements on the east side of the lot in order to
attempt to save the large 20" diameter elm tree on the west side of the lot. This tree is located
approximately 10 feet inside the western border of the lot. Please refer to our survey of the lot,
which is Exhibit A of to this request, to see the location of the tree. Without a variance we
would have to remove the tree because it would be located within the southwest corner of the
garage foundation of the house we propose to build on the lot. See Exhibit B of this request
which is the Site Plan for the proposed house.
Waiving the sideyard set back requirement on the east side of the lot would enable us to shift the
house about 10 feet to the east. Based on information provided by City Forester Linda Trefoil,
the resulting distance between the tree and the garage foundation is likely to be sufficient, though
not guaranteed, to save the tree.
This request for a variance is compatible with the city's standards for granting a variance as set
forth in the zoning ordinance 9-15.03. Our lot is an unusual shape in that it narrows in width
from 106 feet in the south (front) to 73 feet in the north (back). The adjoining property owners
a City of Falcon Heights to the east, the University of Minnesota to the north and the
Schoctel°residence to the west. The neighbors to the west would benefit from the tree being saved
and there appears to us to be no impairment to the property of the city or the University
would result from granting the variance. Finally, saving the tree would not be detrimetal to the
public health, safety or welfare but
rather would promote it.
We therefore request that you grant the variance to the sideyard set back on the east side of the
lot.
2 O9 1.4.1 o L..t.J'ELL.-
1
1
1: I 1
1
1 1
w
r-
i
Z ---......Ths' 1
I 2
I ir--- 1 i
i
t
1 g ---7----
1 --4- _LI
'1 /I F.3 7- 5----____
„..,A
ti f ;0.! 1
i ii----;
E i,,, r ti.:
.i. c
7. ti 1 r i,
T
1 I
R
ii f, i i k E I:
i s.., 1 r..4.---_____,..,,,,.: r, A
r :'3- i
1 1:_
-r----___ 1 1 ...1
1 II 1 I i I A r
f II I 1 -6 I.: p;
1 1
1 i I:I:
F.
b
1 4 i ii
I
I
I :.1 1.: i
s.,.. a 7 i• ,i s i
1 .1 t
'1
.11 i
A
r
I r —i77.„:. v r
i /1 I i r-:Z: I a -"If: -4 .5 1: r
;7 1
F
I 1 „is' —1_
1 I I fr e I 1
1 I I
I
L.
-----.J
I
II 1 -.1 I 1 0 1 1
1 -,_,_1 1 r 1
1,0'
1 i i;
I 7" .1. v. "3 1 11 1
---.:2, 4
i r .e.Neplo•••.%
i
..6.-_. i 1 r eg r at‘ r
Til
ens Nub le lig -4111114.• i
Liv—i—
I I li I
,1 $0
1 80• 0. AAA_ e ,14 1(
2
a i.3 i 0, .....s,
4
4 c x 7 i 0
QP"
1 74
I =-'22'
L i e 1 3 S (1.3)
1 I 4 i 1 65y• ep ..7• 1 .7,
to• i J
r te ti r ,i•
c,;. I
va „so
i t G ss---1---- 7
5 s e 4 o
,..5.„
i 1
7 2
z c,'• .P. 5\ cr A i 73
a' 441 1.
c:i
s
so.
7; :115
ss
to (4" 4 'IA: .7/
0
4 4 Ga 7 7 32 7 CL 5:-8'
G7
7570 2 6; 7; a 4 i
/I 4 a 7 4 24,. so Ts
*3 7 'eckic:
i
7 ;t Et :1 3
..1 ti, 10 1 1 1 1 2 12 jr. kj 4_
f 1 1
(L4 2 .:4.., 1 ;4-4 0- 1,4., (.3 1 0 (38:1_ pi,I 3 4.5 a 72 715 13 1 7a 7 a t 1111 2 oa KSIZS 1
.....),1 1
.s, LO T C th
1021 47 Ayr
—mem= 1.111.
.0
AVE q
1..,, 1
N
1
__.___-....-,.mm.■■■•=N=I■■■■■■NMIMMMI
►7S �OtZ Tl u ,A VF�di A G
Subdivision 4. Standards for Granting of Variance. No
1z5 33 variance shall be granted unless the City Council shall
make without qualification on the basis of evidence
presented at the meeting the following findings:
a. That the granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public welfare;
b. That the granting of the variance will not
substantially diminish or impair property values or
improvements in the area;
c. That the granting of the variance is necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights;
d. That the variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to adjacent property;
e. That the variance will not impair the orderly use
of the public streets;
f. That the variance will not increase the danger of
fire or endanger the public safety;
g. Whether the shape, topographical condition or other
similar characteristic of the tract is such as to
distinguish it substantially from all of the other
properties in the zoning district of which it is a
part, or whether a particular hardship, as
distinguished from mere inconvenience to the owner,
would result if the strict letter of the Chapter were
carried out;
h. Whether the variance is sought principally to
increase financial gain to the owner of the property,
and to determine whether a substantial hardship to the
owner would result from a denial of the variance;
i. Whether the conditions which give rise to the
application for the variance arose after the adoption
of this Chapter of the Code of the City of Falcon
Heights or any amendment thereto which placed the tract
in a zoning district different from what it was under
the Chapter. In the consideration of this item, the
City shall make diligent inquiry as to all changes in
the property and shall refuse to grant the variance if
the problem is one that can be solved through a proper
application of a conditional use permit or an amendment
of the Zoning code. Financial hardship shall not be a
basis for the granting of a variance when the owner
purchased the property in reliance on a promise that a
variance would be granted, and the City shall dismiss
the appeal if it shall appear that the property was
purchased on such reliance.
No. R -93-
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
C O U N C I L R E S O L U T I O N
Date: Jan. 27, 1993
RESOLUTION AMENDING VARIANCE FOR 2099 FOLWELL AVENUE
WHEREAS, on January 25, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the
application to amend a variance in section 9 -4.01 [4] (c) of the zoning code
for 2099 Folwell Avenue, approved by the council on May 27, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes without qualification on the basis of
the evidence presented at the meeting the following findings:
a. That the amendment to the variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare;
b. That the amendment to the variance will not substantially diminish
or impair property values or improvements in the area;
c. That the amendment to the variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights;
d. That the amended variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to adjacent property;
e. That the amended variance will not impair the orderly use of the
public streets;
f. That the amended variance will not increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety; and
g. That the unique shape of the tract, together with its location
adjacent to an unused public right -of -way is such that a strict
adherence to the letter of the Chapter would preclude the preservation
of a large existing elm tree on the tract.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council recommends that the variance
granted on May 27, 1992 for 2099 Folwell Avenue be amended to an eastside
yard setback of 17 feet, 10 inches for the northeastern five feet of the
structure and for a maximum of 16 feet, 4 inches from the east side of the
property line for the remainder of the structure.
Moved by Approved by
BALDWIN
Mayor
CIERNIA In Favor Date
GEHRZ
JACOBS Against
GIBSON TALBOT
Attested by
City Clerk
::i:::::ii ::i:::::::::ii: i::: li ::::i::i:::iii:::• .::::::5: ii::ii::i' :'.i `!f::i:::::i:::::> i:: <::::::r: :C: i ;:::::i
Meeting Date: 1/27/93
Agenda Item: P -1
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Request for all necessary variance(s) for a
garage at 1433 West Idaho
SUBMITTED BY: Mr. Tom Brace, property owner
Mrs. Gunta Brace, property owner
REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission
Susan Hoyt, City Administrator
Peter Bachman, City Attorney
EXPLANATION /SUMMARY:
The property owners began the construction of a garage 988 square
feet in area and two feet from the west property line. The
contractor obtained a building permit prior to starting
construction. After construction was nearly completed, the city
stopped work on the garage when it was found to be in
noncompliance with the city's zoning code.
In order to complete the garage and make it legal, the property
owners are requesting that all necessary variances be approved
for the project.
The planning commission recommendations will be forwarded to the
city council for final action on January 27, 1993.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff report dated 1/21/93 and attachments
ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Staff report on planning commission recommendation
2. Act on variance request
i %G:% i Si �::<:2:::: ti:i: ;4: i:: <:;:i:::::::;::: ::.>:>;>:.;:;iiii' :r;;;4;;5;;:::.'
o CITY OF
FALCON HEIGHTS
2077 W. LARPENTEUR AVENUE FALCON HEIGHTS, MN 55113 -5594 PHONE (612) 644 -5050 FAX (612) 644 -8675
REPORT ON REQUEST FOR NECESSARY VARIANCES FOR 1433 WEST IDAHO
January 21, 1993
I INTRODUCTION
II BACKGROUND
A. Building permit
B. Non conformance
C. Stop work order
D. Determining need for a variance
III REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE
A. Applicable sections of the zoning code
B. Summary of property owner's statement
IV ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A. Adjacent garages
B. Visibility of garage from neighboring property
owners
C. Notification and response from neighboring
property owners
V ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
A. Variances as requested
B. Deny any variances
C. Variances for a 780 square foot garage
VI FINDINGS FOR DISCUSSION (Prepared by city attorney)
A. In General
B. In support of variances for the garage as
built (988 square feet)
C. In support of granting variances necessary
to downsize garage to 780 square feet
D. Proposed findings to deny variances
VII CONCLUSION
@I) HOME OF THE MINNESOTA STATE FAIR AND THE U OF M INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE
MEP m i A
CV E YCLLD PATER
CITY OF
FALCON
HEIGHTS
2077 W. LARPENTEUR AVENUE FALCON HEIGHTS, MN 55113 -5594 PHONE (612) 644 -5050 FAX (612) 644 -8675
20 January 1993
MEMO
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
Planning Commission
FROM: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator
RE: Staff report on the request for all necessary a
variance(s) for a garage at 1433 West Idaho
I. INTRODUCTION
Mr. Tom Brace and Mrs. Gunta Brace, the property owners of 1433
West Idaho, are applying for all necessary variances for a nearly
completed 988 square foot garage. The circumstances surrounding
this request are unique because a building permit was issued for
the garage construction, and the construction proceeded until the
city determined that the building did not conform to the zoning
code. This report outlines 1) the factual background leading to
this request, 2) the property owners' reasons for the request, 3)
additional information relevant to the request, 4) alternative
actions to consider as requested and 5) legal requirements and
findings.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Building permit
On September 28, 1992 the building official approved a
building permit to the property owner, Mr. Tom Brace, for
the construction of a 988 square foot garage, two feet from
the west property line and one foot from the rear lot line,
to be constructed in the configuration in attachment A. The
permit was issued on October 23, 1992.
1
HOME OF THE MINNESOTA STATE FAIR AND THE U OF M INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE
PAPR
rnFtcm,.�
B. Non conformance
On November 16, 1992 the neighbor at 1427 West Idaho asked
the city staff if the garage conformed to the city's zoning
code. After reviewing the building plans and site plan for
the garage, staff determined that the garage did not conform
to at least two sections of the city's code governing
detached accessory structures. The applicable sections of
the code are identified in Part III of this report.
C. Stop work order
On November 17, 1992 staff told the property owner and the
contractor to stop work on the garage until the situation
could be resolved. The property owner and contractor
complied with this verbal order. A written order was
delivered to the property owner and contractor on November
25, 1992. No work has been done on the garage since
November 17, 1992.
D. Determining need for a variance
Initially staff talked to the adjoining property owners,
Mrs. King at 1427 West Idaho and Mr. Callahan at 1437 West
Idaho, to determine if they objected to the garage, and if
there were ways to ameliorate any objections to the non-
conforming structure without further action. Staff also met
with Mr. Brace to discuss the circumstances of the
situation. No solution was reached.
At this time, the city attorney determined that the
appropriate procedure to follow under these circumstances
was for the property owner, Mr. Brace, to apply for a
variance to the zoning code to accommodate the non
conforming garage.
On November 30, 1992 the administrator and city attorney
discussed the situation with Mr. Brace and his attorney.
Mr. Brace agreed to proceed with a request for a variance
for the structure as it is now configured. He and his
attorney also understood that the variance might not be
granted by the planning commission and city council for the
structure as configured. Mr. Brace agreed to provide cost
estimates for down sizing the garage to a smaller square
footage as an alternative to the current configuration, and
as an alternative to a structure that totally conformed to
the zoning code. Mr. Brace understood that providing this
information would not indicate that down sizing the garage
was a desirable alternative to him.
2
III. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE
A. Applicable sections of the zoning code
On January 14, 1993 Mr. Brace (on behalf of Mrs. Gunta Brace
and himself, property owners) requested a variance from all
necessary sections of the zoning code. The city attorney
reviewed the zoning code to determine the specific sections
of the code that require a variance. These are:
1. Side and rear yard setback variance.
Chapter 9 Section 2.04, subdivision 1(c). The garage
has a one -foot rear yard setback and a two -foot side
yard setback. If the garage were located entirely
within the rear 20% of the lot with the entrance off
the alley, a one -foot rear and side yard setback would
be sufficient. However, the garage is not located
entirely within the rear 20% of the lot but in the rear
31% of the lot. Therefore, a five -foot rear yard and a
five -foot sideyard setback are required.
2. Rear yard lot coverage. Chapter 9
Section 2.04, Subdivision 2(b). This section requires
that detached accessory buildings shall not occupy more
than 40% of the area of a required rear yard and shall
not exceed 1,000 square feet. Under Chapter 9, Section
4.01, subdivision 4(c), a 30 foot rear yard is
required. The lot width is 50 feet, making the size of
the required rear yard 1,500 square feet and the
maximum coverage of detached accessory structures 600
square feet. The garage is 988 square feet or 65% of
the required rear yard.
3. Maximum number of off street parking
spaces for a dwelling unit. Chapter 9, Section 4.01,
subdivision 5(e). Under this section, no more than
four parking spaces are permitted for each dwelling
unit, and at least one of the parking spaces must be
enclosed. This property has a minimum of five off
street parking places four in the new garage and one
in an existing, attached garage.
The garage conforms to the height requirements and lot
coverage of built structures and paved area requirements in
the zoning code.
B. Summary of property owner's statement (Attachment B)
Mr. Brace is requesting all necessary variances for a 988
square foot four -car garage. The garage is in addition to a
one -car, attached garage on the westside of the house. Mr.
3
Brace plans to convert this one -car garage into an addition to
the house at some future time. It is currently used as a garage.
Mr. Brace received the required permits for this garage from
the city prior to starting construction. He removed an
existing two -car garage in order to build the four -car
garage. Mr. Brace states that he would not have undertaken
the expense and difficulty of building a three -car garage
(rather than a four -car garage) in place of the existing
two -car garage because he wants four enclosed spaces for his
vehicles.
Prior to construction, Mr. Brace spoke with his neighboring
property owners about the garage and its configuration,
attempting to address their concerns in the design of the
garage and driveway.
According to Mr. Brace, the demolition of the old garage and
the new construction have cost him $10,000 to date, and will
total $12,000 to $15,000 upon completion. (Demolition cost
of the old structure is not itemized in this total.) Mr.
Brace's contractor provided him an estimate of $9,400 to
down -size the garage to 780 square feet. (Attachment C).
IV. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A. Adjacent garages
The standard garage currently being constructed in the city
is typically 24 feet by 24 feet or 576 square feet. The
zoning code allows for a 600 square foot garage (25 ft. by
24 ft.) garage on a 50 foot lot in the Northome
neighborhood. Garage sizes vary near this property
(Attachment D). The garage at 1437 West Idaho to the west
of this property (the Callahan garage), is a small, single
car garage. The garage at 1427 West Idaho to the east of
the property (the King garage) is 768 square feet (24 ft. X
32 ft.). The previous property owners of 1427 West Idaho
received a variance for the garage in 1982. The garages
along the alley, directly to the north of 1433 West Idaho,
are double garages estimated between 484 square feet (22 ft.
X 22 ft.) and 576 square feet (24 ft. by 24 ft.).
B. Visibility of garage from neighboring properties.
The garage is most visible from the property at 1437 West
Idaho (Callahan) because the length (38 feet) of the garage
is longer than the standard double garage (24 feet) and
because it is two feet from this west side property line.
4
The garage is also visible from 1427 West Idaho. It is 22
feet from the east property line.
The visual impact on the properties to the north of 1433
West Idaho (along the alley) is diminished due to distance
and the location of their own garages along the alley.
C. Notification and response from neighboring property
owners
The city notified five property owners regarding the request
for a variance. These were the two adjacent property owners
and three property owners on the northside of the alley.
The property owners at 1427 West Idaho, Mr. and Mrs. King,
originally questioned the size of the garage prior to the
stop work order. Mrs. King has verbally expressed her
frustration with the structure to the staff on at least
three occasions. The Kings provided a written statement
with their concerns to the planning commission on 11/23/92
and again on 1/16/93 (Attachment E). Mrs. King considers
the current garage to detract from her property value. On
January 19, 1993 she provided planning commissioners with an
appraiser's opinion from Appraisal Research Associates, Ltd.
that states the King property has suffered a loss of at
least 5 percent of its value (Attachment F).
The adjacent property owners at 1437 West Idaho, Mr. and
Mrs. Callahan, did not contact the city about the size of
the garage. (Mr. Callahan had the building inspector make
sure that a property stake was not covered during
construction.) When the administrator talked to him about
the non conforming garage on November 18, 1992 he said that
he had no problem with his neighbor. He did not express any
further opinion at that time.
As part of Mr. Brace's application for a variance, Mr. Brace
submitted a petition that he personally circulated among his
neighbors. The petition states that those signing it "are
aware that the detached garage is oversized and the
undersigned accept the present configuration of the garage"
(Attachment G). The petition lists signatures from owners
of seven properties along the alley (Attachment D). The
signatures of Mr. and Mrs. Callahan at 1437 West Idaho
appear on the petition. Mr. and Mrs. King at 1427 West
Idaho did not sign the petition.
As of this writing, no property owners notified of the
planning commission meeting on January 25, 1993 contacted
city staff with the exception of Mrs. King who requested
planning commissioners' addresses.
5
V. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
A. Grant all necessary variances for the garage as built
of 988 square feet and lift the stop work order
1. Necessary variances and possible conditions
All necessary variances may be granted for the current
configuration of the garage and driveway. This
requires a variance of four feet in the required
rearyard and three feet in the required sideyard
setback of five feet. (Chapter 9, Section 2.04,
Subdivision 1(c) of the city code.) And it requires a
variance in the lot coverage of detached accessory
structures from 40% of the required rear yard or 600
square feet to 65% of the required rear yard or 988
square feet. (Chapter 9, Subdivision 2.04, Section
2(b) of the city code.) A third variance in the number
of off street parking places from a maximum of four to
five or more may be required (Chapter 9, Section 4.01,
Subdivision 5(e) of the city code.)
Conditions may be attached to a variance to ensure
compliance to the code and to ameliorate the impact of
the variance on adjacent properties. These conditions
must be reasonable and enforceable. It is not
advisable to grant a variance with conditions that
diminish the usefulness of the property (as permitted
in an R -1 zone) to the property owner.
2. City Attorney's Opinion
The city attorney's opinion is that the city has
authority to grant these variances only if all
standards and criteria for a variance in the city's
ordinance are met. There is one standard that causes
particular concern. City ordinance chapter 9, section
15.03, subdivision 4(b) provides that a variance may be
granted only if "the granting of the variance will not
substantially diminish or impair property values or
improvements in the area As of the time of writing
of this memorandum, the city is in receipt of a letter
dated December 3, 1992, addressed to Mrs. Helen King
from Appraisal Research Associates, Ltd. and signed by
William H. Cushman, MAI, Certified Federal General
Appraiser. The letter opines "after viewing your
property and the adjacent owner's new garage, it is
apparent that this garage, by its size, has reduces the
value of your property and probably the property to the
west. I have not made an appraisal of your
property, but it would appear that your property has
6
suffered a loss of at least 5% of its value and
possibly more."
The city's findings on a variance must be supported by
substantial evidence in the record, such as the above
referenced appraiser's opinion, this evidence cannot be
ignored. If there is no controverting evidence
submitted into the record on this point (the Braces'
attorneys have indicated that they intend to submit a
controverting opinion from a similarly qualified real
property appraiser), mere lay opinion as to the lack of
diminution or impairment of property value would not be
enough to overcome the evidence of a five percent or
greater diminution in property value. The question for
the city would be whether such a diminution is
"substantial" within the meaning of the applicable
ordinance. Only if the city finds that there is no
substantial diminution may it grant the variances.
If other expert opinion on the property value question
is introduced into the record, the city may weigh the
evidence and, as a fact finder, determine for itself
(based on the conflicting evidence in the record)
whether or not there is a substantial diminution in
property value. If the city finds, based on competent
evidence, that there is no substantial diminution or
impairment of property values caused by the Brace
garage, then it is my view that the other standards for
the granting of a variance can be met (with appropriate
findings) and a reviewing court would likely uphold the
city's granting of the variances.
B. Deny all variances and require the garage to be down
sized to 600 square feet and make no offer to pay
costs.
1. Denial of variances
The request for a variance may be denied. This would
require the property owner to substantially reduce the
size of the garage to 600 square feet or less.
2. City Attorney's opinion
The city attorney's opinion is that the city would be
sued by the braces and that legal research indicates
that the most likely outcome of the suit would be a
finding by the court that the city is prohibited from
requiring the garage to be downsized, and ordering the
city to lift the stop work order if the city does not
cover the cost of reasonable damages.
7
C. Grant the variances necessary to downsize the garage to
780 square feet and offer to pay the Braces the costs
of downsizing the garage
1. Necessary variances
All necessary variances may be granted to allow the
property owner to build a smaller garage, but one that
is larger than provided for in the zoning code and is
consistent with the neighbor's garage area at 1427 West
Idaho. The 780 square foot was selected because the
garage may be structurally reduced to this size. This
requires a variance of four feet in the rearyard
setback and three feet in the sideyard setback because
the structure is within the rear 25% rather than rear
20% of the property (Chapter 9, Section 2.04,
Subdivision 1(c)). And it requires a variance in the
40% of required rear yard coverage (600 square feet) by
detached accessory structures because the structure
would cover 52% (780 square feet) of the required rear
yard (Chapter 9, Section 2.04, Subdivision 2(b). It
also requires a variance in the number of off street
parking places. (Chapter 9, Section 4.01, Subdivision
5(e) of the city code.)
2. City Attorney's Opinion
The Braces have submitted a contractor's estimate
indicating that it would cost $9,400 to downsize the
garage to 780 square feet. Because the garage on the
neighboring property is 768 square feet, it is the city
attorney's view that it would be very difficult to
demonstrate that a 780 square foot garage results in a
substantial diminution or impairment of property values
in the area. Thus, with appropriate findings, it is
the city attorney's view that the granting of a
variance for a 780 square foot garage would probably be
upheld by a court.
According to the city insurer, the city's errors and
omissions insurance will cover a reasonable cost of
downsizing the garage. There is a $2,500 deductible on
this policy paid by the city.
It is unknown whether this solution would be acceptable
to the Braces. It would be a particularly undesirable
outcome for the city if the city granted the variances
for a 780 square foot garage and paid the Braces for
downsizing, only to be sued later by the Braces for
claimed additional damages. It is appropriate for the
city to inquire of the Braces whether they are willing
8
to agree to waive any clams for alleged additional
damages as a condition of the city granting the
variances and paying for the downsizing. If so, and
the city chooses to purse this option, a short
settlement agreement could be executed by the Braces
prior to the city taking final action.
VI. PROPOSED FINDINGS FOR DISCUSSION (Prepared by city attorney)
A. In General
State statute specifies the standards and criteria pursuant
to which a city may grant a variance from its zoning
ordinances. In addition, a city may, by ordinance, adopt
additional standards and criteria which must be met for the
granting of a variance. The proposed findings which follow
are based on the necessary standards and criteria in both
state statute and city ordinance. The planning commission
and city council are, of course, free to modify the findings
or add additional findings. In addition, the city may
impose conditions on the granting of a variance to ensure
compliance and to protect adjacent properties.
B. In support of variances for the garage as built (988
square feet)
1. On October 23, 1992, the city building official issued
a building permit for the construction of a 988 square foot
garage at 1433 West Idaho.
2. In good faith reliance on the building permit, the
owners of the property (Tom and Gunta Brace) contracted for
and commenced construction of the 988 square foot garage.
The foundation was poured and all structural work was nearly
complete or complete by November 17, 1992.
3. On November 16, 1992, the city received an inquiry from
a neighbor asking if the garage conformed to zoning
requirements. Upon review by the city administrator, it was
discovered that the garage violated the city's zoning
ordinances regarding required setbacks, lot coverage and
maximum number of parking spaces, and that the building
permit has be mistakenly issued by the city's building
official.
4. On November 17, 1992, the city issued a stop work order
on the garage.
5. Under the unique facts of this case involving the
mistaken issuance of a building permit, the good faith
reliance thereon by the property owner, and substantial
9
completion of the garage prior to discovery of the mistake,
the Braces' property, including the garage, cannot be put to
a reasonable use without the granting of variances. Under
these circumstances, use of the rear yard for a four -car
garage is reasonable.
6. The mistaken issuance of the building permit is a
circumstance which is unique to the property and not created
by the property owner.
7. The 988 square foot garage is larger than other garages
in the neighborhood; however, the regulations prohibit the
use of the garage for commercial purposes and the garage in
no way alters the essential residential character of the
locality.
8. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare and is in accordance with other variances for
oversized garages which have been granted in the area.
Offsite visual impacts from the garage are minimal.
9. There is substantial and conflicting evidence in the
record regarding whether the variance will substantially
diminish or impair property values or improvements in the
area. The city has reviewed this evidence carefully and
finds that the granting of the variance will not
substantially diminish or impair property values or
improvements in the area.
10. The property owners have demolished an existing two -car
garage and expended considerable funds and resources to
construct a four -car garage in reliance upon a mistakenly
issued building permit. Under these circumstances, the
granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights.
11. The garage complies with zoning height requirements and
does not impair an adequate supply of lights and air to
adjacent property.
12. The variance will not impair the orderly use of the
public streets.
13. The variance will not increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety.
14. If the variance were not granted, a particular hardship
would result to the property owners because of the owners'
justifiable reliance on the mistakenly- issued building
permit.
10
15. The variance will result in no financial gain to the
property owner, but will serve only to minimize a financial
loss.
16. Denial of the variance would result in substantial
hardship to the property owner, both in terms of potential
financial losses and in terms of loss of enclosed parking,
particularly during the 1993 winter season.
C. In support of granting variances necessary to downsize
garage to 780 square feet
1. On October 23, 1992, the city's building official
issued a building permit for the construction of a 988
square foot garage at 1433 West Idaho.
2. In good faith reliance on the building permit, the
owners of the property (Tom and Gunta Brace) contracted for
and commenced construction of the 988 square foot garage.
The foundation was poured and all structural work was nearly
complete or complete by November 17, 1992.
3. On November 16, 1992, the city received an inquiry from
a neighbor asking if the garage conformed to zoning
requirements. Upon review by the city administrator, it was
discovered that the garage violated the city's zoning
ordinances regarding required setbacks, lot coverage and
maximum number of parking spaces, and that the building
permit had been mistakenly issued by the city's building
official.
4. On November 17, 1992, the city issued a stop work order
on the garage.
5. The equities which would favor granting variances to
complete construction of the 988 square foot garage are
primarily the economic expenditures by the Braces. These
economic interests are outweighed by the public interest in
consistent enforcement of zoning regulations, the prevention
of buildings which are out of scale with surroundings, and
the continuing administrative burdens of ensuring that such
a large accessory structure is not used for non residential
purposes. However, the city finds that the equities favor
granting variances for a 780 square foot garage.
6. Under the unique facts of this case involving the
mistaken issuance of a building permit, the good faith
reliance thereon by the property owner, substantial
completion of the garage prior to discovery of the mistake,
and the existence of a 768 square foot garage on the
adjacent property, use of the property for a 780 square foot
garage is reasonable.
11
7. The mistaken issuance of the building permit is a
circumstance which is unique to the property and not created
by the property owner.
8. A 780 square foot garage is only slightly larger than
other garages in the neighborhood and in no way alters the
essential residential character of the locality.
9. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare and is in accordance with other variances for
oversized garages which have been granted in the area.
Offsite visual impacts from a 780 square foot garage would
be minimal.
10. The granting of a variance to permit a 780 square foot
garage will not substantially diminish or impair property
values or improvement in the area. A 780 square foot garage
is similar in size to the existing garage on adjacent
property.
11. The property owners have demolished an existing two -car
garage and expended considerable funds and resources to
construct a larger garage in reliance upon a mistakenly
issued building permit. Under these circumstances, the
granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights.
12. A 780 square foot garage would be required to comply
with zoning height requirements and would not impair an
adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property.
13. The variance will not impair the orderly use of the
public streets.
14. The variance will not increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety.
15. If the variance were not granted, a particular hardship
would result to the property owners because of the owners'
justifiable reliance on the mistakenly- issued building
permit.
16. The variance will result in no financial gain to the
property owner.
17. Denial of the variance would result in substantial
hardship to the property owner, both in terms of potential
financial losses and in terms of loss of enclosed parking,
particularly during the 1993 winter season.
12
D. Proposed findings to deny variances
1. A variance is not necessary for the property to be put
to a reasonable use under current zoning regulations. The
property owner currently has an attached one -car garage and
current regulations would allow the construction of a 600
square foot detached garage in the rear year, which is a
reasonable accessory use in connection with residential
property.
2. The property has no unique geographical characteristics
to justify the granting of a variance, and the plight of the
property owner is due to the property owner's failure to
obtain and /or read the city's zoning regulations.
3. A 988 square foot garage is out of character with the
size of other garages in the city, and will alter the
essential character of the locality.
4. The granting of variances would impair neighboring
property owners' values by at least five percent, which is a
substantial diminution or impairment of property values and
improvements in the area.
5. No particular hardship would result to the property
owner if the zoning code is strictly enforced. Financial
losses and inconvenience to the property owner may occur if
the variances are denied; however, these financial losses
and inconveniences t not offset the harm to the neighborhood
that would result if the variances were granted.
6. The equities which would favor granting variances to
complete construction of the 988 square foot garage are
primarily the economic expenditures by the Braces. These
economic interests are outweighed by the public interest in
consistent enforcement of zoning regulations, the prevention
of buildings which are out of scale with surroundings, and
the continuing administrative burdens of ensuring that such
a large accessory structure is not used for non residential
purposes.
VII. CONCLUSION
The planning commission is charged with
recommending the approval or denial of the variance request, or
recommending an alternate variance to the city council with
findings and necessary conditions. The council will hear the
request at its January 27, 1993 on or about 7:00 PM. Council
action on a variance is final.
13
ATTACHMENTS
A. Site Plan 1433 West Idaho
B. Property Owner's Statement 1/14/93
C. Cost Estimate to Reduce Garage Area
D. Plan with Adjacent Garages
E. Neighboring Property Owner's Statement 11/23/92
F. Appraiser's opinion Appraisers Research Associates,
12/3/92
G. Petition Submitted by Property Owner
H. Letter to City Attorney from Property Owner's Attorney with
Findings for Granting a Variance
I. Chapter 9, Section 13.07 of the City Code (use of garage in
an R -1 zone)
X '17-> 1-':). r
j 3 W• a.uI
so l
't t
../7.7 6� cu.(' p2 c✓I
i l
IA'A,,,„ b" t.' ad
l
ter s5 k...---:-
i x
v t f ZYr 7
`o `lei s
y
F 9 7
z�'
V7
9££ sci
N, 142 w�/ .6 e-44. 4...
01.x) w
r bl
1/ T I.
0.
Z1
B.
January 14, 1993
Susan Hoyt, City Administrator
Falcon Heights
2077 West Larpenteur
Falcon Heights, MN 55113 -5594
Dear Ms. Hoyt:
May this letter serve as my request for all necessary variances for my existing
separate garage located at 1433 Idaho Avenue West (Northome Lot 18, Block 3).
A brief review of the developments that led to this variance request may be helpful.
In June of 1992, I requested that the city send me all applicable requirements relating to
constructing a free standing garage on my property to replace the garage already located
there. I am an antique vehicle hobbyist. I wanted additional space to work on the
vehicles and to consolidate storage. I currently have vehicles stored in several spaces,
which causes additional expense. In addition, my wife and I own two vehicles. My
daughter also has a vehicle. Since I am the state fire marshal and must visit fire scenes, I
have a work vehicle. This vehicle must be garaged to assure that it starts. The additional
garage is necessary to keep these vehicles off the street.
The city sent me the required materials and had a "post -it" note on it which stated,
"this will probably confuse you even more." After reviewing the documentation, I called
the city building official, Mr. David Kriesel, and went over the various applicable
requirements with him. At that time, we both agreed that I could construct a garage of
988 square feet.
After receiving several bids, I contracted with Clark Builders for demolition of the
existing garage and construction of the 988 square foot garage. Clark Builders applied for
all necessary permits from the City of Falcon Heights. The City's review of the permit
applications took approximately two weeks. The City granted the permits necessary for
construction of the 988 square foot garage. The existing garage was demolished and
construction of the new garage commenced. Mr. Kriesel inspected the construction at least
twice, at the time the building foundation was formed and after the concrete was poured.
The slab and accompanying driveway was poured, construction commenced and the
building was framed, siding was placed on three sides, it was roofed and one of two
garage doors was hung.
Before construction, I attempted to inform my neighbors of my intent and modified
my original design to facilitate Mrs. Helen King, my immediate neighbor to the east. As
construction proceeded, Mrs. King apparently became concerned. She asked me whether I
had obtained proper permits.
Shortly after that conversation, I was then informed by the City that in fact an error
had been made in granting the original building permit. The City issued a stop work
Susan Hoyt, City Administrator
Page 2
order, even though the structure is substantially complete. Efforts were undertaken to
mollify Mrs. King through the use of lighting, landscaping, and other efforts. These were
to no avail. Several of my neighbors have signed a statement approving construction of
the four car garage. In addition, several of my neighbors, including Mrs. King, already
have oversized garages. The garage does not intrude into the alley, nor impair access to
my or any other property.
Throughout this process, the city staff has been most helpful and cooperative in
attempting to resolve this issue. I have been informed by the City that this process could
result in approval of the existing structure, down sizing of this structure to a garage
approximately the size of Mrs. King's, or in fact down sizing to 600 square feet.
I removed a totally good two car garage based on the premise that I could construct
a four car garage. Demolition and construction to date have cost approximately
$10,000.00. If finished, the four car garage will cost approximately $12,000.00 (not
including interior finishing). It did not and does not make economic sense to go through
the expense that I have incurred to date to add one more stall, i.e. a third car which would
result from a down sizing. While reducing a four car garage to a three car garage sounds
relatively simple, there are a number of construction difficulties such as pouring new
footings, removing an interior wall, to name a few that makes this undertaking expensive.
My builder estimates that it will cost an additional $9,400.00 to "down- size" the garage.
I am submitting the neighbor's statements with this application. I have already
submitted plans showing the location of the building and topography when the building
permits were approved. I will have additional materials to present at the planning
commission meeting scheduled for January 25, and the subsequent city council meeting of
the 27th. I am requesting a variance to permit completion of the substantially completed
four car garage. I sincerely believe that the original error in granting me permits was
compounded a number of times and was not brought to my attention until the basic
exterior structure was completed. I have been a resident of Falcon Heights since June 1,
1991, and have already spent $27,000.00 on my home doing necessary upgrades. The
garage, when totally finished, will represent an expenditure of $15,000.00 $16,000.00. I
believe myself to be a conscientious, concerned property owner who is attempting to add
to the value of our residence and maintain the quality of life found in this community.
Sincerely,
Thomas R. Brace
r7
CLARK BUILDERS AND REMODB-ERS
1341 W. IDAHO AVE
ST. PAUL, MINN. 55108
TELEPHONE 646-5589
SUBMITTED TO: Mr. Thomas Brace DATE:
ADDRESS: 1431 W. Idaho Ave. WORK PERFORMED
Falcon Heights Minn Same AT:
TELEPHONE:
We are pleased
for the work present to you the following proposal
you o� h ave requested:
Down size 26' X38' Garage to 26' X 30'
The work to include the following
All necessary demolition and removing of usable material
Framing in of 16 ft' door opening
Removal of roofing and 4 trusses
Cutting of slab and installing new thickened curb footing
Removal of slab and driveway
Install .new block curb
Removal of cent
er wall and curb
Rebuild end wall
t Install new soffit and fascia
Reside three ee sides of garage
extend sidewalk
Backfill removed concrete area and sod
Extend conduit from house for gas and electric
Repair roofing
Compensation for special order garage door
All f the
o e a�ove stated work, lncluding all labor and
materials can be done for. only $9400.00
With 1/2 down and the balance due on completion
The contractor is responsible for all neccesary
construction liability insurance-
Resp ly Submitted:
.-ey O. Clark
We accept the above stated proposal and agree to the
terms and conditions
SIGNED DATE
`PLA-1.) 11.-okr- 1;)
PrI-1:_V
PAS CA L- SlYLCE
1 5 f•-') Cyz-_-
6 0
0 I Z 0- 8 8 i a 120.88'
LA tr
C4
....r
1 i's•1
t.r7 -it...
Cr)
Cn 0
cp si.
0
_.t. cy,
.0 IA 0 1 V)
L
t
1
T 4
0 'I -4 1- 1 •--1 CD VI 0
73;
0
2. o
7
r 7::
....t- 2_,• c_N Z
—45 t-/ h.: -40 tu
ril
cy
2_
i
6% *...i. z... (0
0 r-t
Z- 0 1
1\161 11
S.C,AL,
r iv
i)rvacc.1 ti
,t
.p N r
o
ieoci
00 E'S /4 C7r Z41
V 0
l• C tz)e. qA9...-c) TeT4<-..
s• N.) .I:.
i
0 SI knNer) Pc."rrl• a y
T- 0 "F'
......,.*2-.4.:_;"=,.._I .::4. ..,.-.-..,::::1- -_s+
:;#:e-42e 7*; 1 2 tt ..".i, 1
i.,'' .i: r AZ,. 6
r... ,--....,-Q---/-47 A' Ar1 '1-..,=
1,,t IV -..z. ,L
---u ,A--- t ..---,-i:!.- .E
January 16, 1993
-b.. A& )G l ys
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Falcon Heights
Dear Members;
To give each of you ample time before the meeting on Monday,
January 25, to study the problem of the garage in question, we
have enclosed pertinent correspondence to date.
We hope each of you will find the time, not just for a drive -by,
but to actually walk into both adjoining yards (to the east the
west) so you may observe the full impact of this way out -of -code
building.
We will have photos of our garden in summer available at the
meeting and you will also be able on your visit to see the long
high bare wall the Callahans face. A drive by the front of the
property will show you the 5th garage. Mr William Cushman of
Appraisal Research Associates calls for "Falcon Heights to make
sure such situations do not occur since property values will
suffer."
A permit or variance to allow this building to remain in its
present size is a license to steal from the adjoining property
owners. To insist that the garage be downsized is not
unreasonable and as the city has insurance to cover the costs for
its admitted mistake. Any deductible that would not be covered
should come from city funds.
A grant for a variance for a 4 -car garage sets a precedent for
future requests for such a garage we cannot say one person can
do it, and another cannot. This is discrimination and could lead
to lawsuits.
To allow 5 garage stalls on a 50 ft. lot is unacceptable. There
would be room to park 4 cars in the new garage, 4 cars on that
driveway, a car in the front garage, a car on the front driveway,
and 3 or 4 cars on the street in front of the house or a
possible total of 14 cars parked in and around a 50 ft. lot in
residential Falcon Heights. Even with all the garages available
the Callahans are subjected to a car always parked on the front
driveway in view of his living and dining room windows and his
summer porch.
A new owner in the future might very well buy such a property
because he could park campers, trailers, boats, motorcycles
destroying the quality of the residential area. With so much
facilities available he may even want to repair vehicles or bring
groups of motorcyclists into the area, resulting in noise and
congestion and destroying the quality that has made Falcon
Heights so desirable.
The city's responsibility is to correct its mistake and to be
very diligent in the future protecting the rights of the majority
and the welfare of all of Falcon Heights. The codes were
established many years ago for very good reasons.
it is unfortunate in this nation that we are either unwilling or
unable to enforce codes and rules. There is no acceptable reason
not to continue to abide by the codes and rules.
Sincerely,
Mr Mrs Ray King
1427 Idaho Ave West
Falcon Heights, MN
(641 -0892)
r
/ham,, p to `il2?/?2
i y -7 (.7___ E.
mod)
d)
6
L t e /cc-Lc...0-n I� o.� c� c� -/•33
tom/ 1v U e A f ,�c,z' ("�s aL,..
l' ---6 2-
t- c r� u `,v -�C�G L �Z fir^ L,� L- 6 el 0 -c-
1 0---vy E i 2 "LL--.....--i14...e. z-a-z--
Y ./A-0/.-e Z --e-k
j ,,r- zzi, y 4
l�v x f
v j`fi ry •V+, It-g -6 2li C"Y� -ez -Z��" L ft �GG2
OA �Y
/1 �L A Z
L C 1 Ci c .0 7--2-A--/ C lC J
a r- 9
�-i, fit: �.,c c,-L, 4
ice
bow 1`
2}::,, .0 ,Q,_
4/ /-4.. 10..a...,,:x_cf_e. (-7 4 74-e
ti 6.a-r, C'A t A 4. -r, a 9 i •4 7. 41
C f .ttl- Cam e
/.....;24_,,_ opit it. et...1%--4--'7 -4,::, 41 L L a.. Ap7_,44_, '9 /-4 c,P-1.(-8,i e ti _.,,b_4_, •Are 0 /61.„„ei..n.z,,,-51:r.„...;:--e-
AZ C wit `'(f,L, -,t tt -"-Z"
c y C u�..C� o' er -j% la,:le,;_e_7-1
�C�G�� �'-C z tL C j t� ---e. L C 1 -A-A .7
774 r/�� A L
q
42t:-4---e--e--.4'. 9 LG� �2.C./ C..tA•fi GCS- C-- x.L�' J iZ C/ V.(_,....1! t-e---7—i .."4"-/ L 1-7
ei. .t „,tiN• J `J LI
-G G �`-!��'C', G• J :7----51',-,--.6--'7--,. a. Vi c./ ",:7
1 _a 7 tL ,mss /-C ter_.
4 4..�.
L, r�/L. /rtwz E c N
c /'---.1 /-e -4 i-L2 L:6,..
ti p., --J Y,e:)
Cc- ¢ac�c.�� /�zU r is ��u .0 t e7-� J z p u�� cL,
e �.2�._lc_c.e..c_
CC c=-2'--;-1 C�a�{ e_.1 mac. ,--zLc.-2-7-z.;_s
_..t /--e-A-- d 0 A-, /1 a.____„,„,,,,,.//
p er, 2. 7 .ec;-�- ed e- ,..6_ c 6. )�C� t--X .t�..ei f e.-- e z,z cam.- L,�
,.,,fib -�f ti f/
1 1 c i 7],,,)z-t li 7 ,c/ 71— '12G�— 17., L/L /,—t' `t1 --n_eL .ui 6-
z
2 j. .,L, t t�ti< -c cJ_- �-1-/ Zi t" .--,-._e.-,i) ,a,./-- ,a- eik-e-- ee,---),/,---,',, /--4 e 2
24 Vim(_.
[.C��`wC„•.i -�z. -c.0 ice° c.�t
7-+ L' e. ui zs/
-t
i2A-0 1 2- (--c.c-z-e_ a-171-W1-J--
7 ,4, .,4 ci ft•i-)-, 4- c.„446,, ...y..,,ej 7",_-,_,(1 ,..(7 Ir g :i-- V
1 v_J mac- -4_, ..cz.. z- Y -2-4 j 7- -c-. /C e,,e -c
J
ate
z.4 GC 1, e. 44_,.....a... Z et i`.e, W .F_ �c4TC� `-c c.c. -f✓l
C( Vi, 4 7--.1* =CZ1 fir— l� =^s, •'fit c-. .Z c1.,
-p ✓V --nom' C';�- q. U-.
r G
1"u'�t -2_` %Cfz %J .�,-JK� ./-,%:7-.5.,.- !1�.�« �--r fr
-J� 1tit
3—
4",_. tt-i-/-e-4--,,- 7 e-/ '',-k-2-4-4-1.-y-Zi 1 s- r
3 .3/61.-e•L/' Ac...s-•E/4-<.--e"-- z z, 6e)--"
ILe.,_ G
0 7� 76 /1,..,___ to O/
GL,C C.{ L- 4/� -1L/ =C/,/.l%e ML 0 E" f r i` t_+Z/ 7� Q T�
a e tee.
c« l `1 `ci /•L -ep. -e L. C «cam by
a x17( v /�Z1�i!� L C fl-sr, 71/.lc 4./ {/L'`EvL
7.--A,41._,Z.4M, ZA--e--1:14-1'f---" 4.2 _-/—c.) i�',..A... 1(.4-.0.1/ -L 1 /._.c. -1--e, -e-' d' 2` -i-V V (__c,
Y -cv `'J �-c. e7t l-.t,, e -!Y _1= -ems -c---. /1.77/L<__, 4, x✓
C c
C.-Cw J
Ooh .�•�i fr /1L
(-t ,,C e,t-.uc. .'ht -7 i1' c e-i� g •mac.. .,c s,,,� �e
42A-4,4.6.4 i �.t-cl e/ mac., j `'T A Q-s�Cr
c cc. t 2 4 --x 0,<-�l 4.--K k ...D-IC-C,
-9 1L- s.e(L. tc ee- Ai L.e 2: 7 4:- -E---r.,-1--- fG �-c
7` _h' 0-vw 4 2,,- GLZ. 7-z2 04 -e -/2- TrLc_ -c
rY G,v -f4 "-e. ��c�L <a C.�Lcr -r-c -cam. Z-
e_c_ ti ch��€.10-7-7-^,12,
./te
i L Gib✓ s Lam. /w� 2.- -GL r 1
-'/-21L __,Z
i .Cam° `7(....e_ Z. �`��_y i., G%L«- -e.'
I 1 /1
/3 L,,,_ e• .,Lc.&--e-c el: 'i L i(i=:-• -}L1-- 7
C-e i f e• -,-g J.,' ---L- J -24t-C cz
-1,--L.
4.... 4._ 6.e....e.../-J2Z__.-"Ile, e-L-,,,_,
l_
ca
a.-I ,--e-e"-
0,...c.426 P--- ex---I-C., -e--e--;- 4, ..-t-:-.•
c----(-<--Le
77_-
V:-- 7 22 /teLrre '-e r e--- r 4C1
4 2.e..../
--7il--"7'i (---71---
e -i -c--, c -e--e-4.- rt--ez-e-z-zt.
C 1 i -e 2
(„cz ,--„,,t 7, ,A3(7_, ,64
`zLc..2" P E-ie---:----_
7/•-) a---c-, t-,-,: e- 4 2 --j 7 X -74(----e--e /4—c_ e- i t ez
A4
f_ j ,y --e ,/c--) Zt/
ece.--c-o-rt
7 ,,.--fr... 7 --(i..4,...,67, 4.,„." ,t-k.., ,-,-y,i .-;_,..,..„p.
e
.26 _j_.c.,,.... 4,,
z e a
.,f. y (----24-47-4-7:2$_„./:- Z-Ct 41.4 Q. 4 1...C. e Z d•-, Ce.,....-
Crl-4 e /j A l e L e 1 r
e A. I/ eca
7 c 4--y--,..44, --L------/ s• e_.k, -2-/s-c_ ---Zczc'-' ...-",..j c.).... _Ial, i p•
Ot...-2,.-- z. ac LI a-c. 1-(-4-C e- .7
ze/vz._ d—c-e•-c.-0/.. c"--"=-- 1--' a...-zt./ /t--4-e--
7,: e t jz e<_. 4 1 4
‘....A
et-c.c.f_. d Z-'---/
..:itz L e 7-ft•--6-4 4 'e--0/..- --(---e- -/Le•--.---c.-;/--c Z...--(_e__, 1
a_l_z,,- y
e/ h
,7—,: ---c.c
2 I% J---/
1 2 2 xt-(eei 1/ i2 e ./7t-e----1 ...1‹
e, r i_c_
A l Q--e-AA-g_ CL ,i :i e&.. A,,,-L.tXL-e-i-t__;----,<./ -/--e
.----h c-a-Lx.--a.--(..„ „t,/,,___„ (Le b de t 71-La-dr, e:".._,c7z-
x--)-) ctr:// e--cc- z-e-<J I ,/c-e■ore-k&ic.L14. 14
CleaQ. 0 --(-0 e--e-e_- 0.--L c'
c_ez., .,4_, 2)1-> 2r--c--,..
ez:,,„„„t ICE., Xrc-A,2,, ,z ./Cit:e.-, .-7-ys_ct_}...Ze_. /--ez---"..-_,' I./
'7214
61L4 JZ1 7
d.-- s- 4--/ 4.--c. /11 -":<___:-.4_._,0-4-,C.,, ."6.4.az--i-v
0
i t.g,i 9 ri- eiz..., ‘e-vr. e(-r-cz y- ---c-:et--fr-e-
0_..,... V ,t.-•...4;-"
V
i------
c
/2-Zez a
2
Z?4 _5 .s i c'
c
(64/-c5•9'
fr IV
3
Xi
i
r c_"
:4 •'••mow
-17.1.1.774 s s :s
t
r -,..,„_.,s..:,....
ido. r i
Primill- -------------:2=:
r' :11..., µ...d w '.a4�►s•,� �ra.� I s
is _�'T l l a Ilk y
I.
il .?.:1.`:7-.
4,
1- ASV r„ 3 fr 4
i :ate i s 4 14
1 f/ 1'. 4 t•' ,v fi r, w,'t•
t A X p i a 4 y x�� Ts 40 s
mm t 1 .a r- :R T N .,4'.a 11 Lit I f� �l s r i Y a,....„ �T r s 1 mow—
t T
1`'t k
C 1
a
t {n i
�`y,ty� t 1. T
1
d
.Ir 5
f:.../..,.. 4,
i
c N., t- 4 T'-e r- ''`tc.
••••k k-- ...1%..-..-.. _AP,
4... T v
J
I $1.
;•1. 0•;•- ,;;Y••
•‘.8,..H
iv pi .4
"':dit• I
Alli•.
'.7.
7: 2,7 .4if
,00
Il k•-....
4,
1! e_ 11# 14/37
ft.
f
.4.7.. I
.74 :7 i fr::-..1. VI f
t.,.
L.
a
A
f
..V I r.-- t•
.r.e.- f
11-
il 1
l i t V
••---.----71111;. _s II.. a 't Aritil
r
AP •:,e,..
Illiii'...
4 V
.t v,..
I,
*O.
I
-0....,.,„ 1:•'•r••••e. =;1.. 4..c.,, ",f-4 4 i* 1 .41. 1
1
i.e ---..-:..,,,.....,-:__._Istr,u1-.-._, (tie-.
0
-Il t 11 74
got 7
1 ir _4(
‘i 7 4i.,:,......
_......4
.4 .s 1_,."--.-:10 :"41-:.-- lows :..i
toi ler
5--....,,:„. ..ersi. v:'
14 7....-* 4 .pyi.,..-, c 4? !2„,./s.,-,-- ..t....-;
c ,1-.: 11, '7
Av 7. -_•-z,.- Ji t 1
4 -I
Y C
i r .v.:„., .-40.11
r :„......„_,_..,s. ,r..,..._ -1
.1.......
il
1 4' •-ir
'-i.• t•
ti 44-i.:. li 1 1 1 "i-
-1-.. ..07, ty, .1'f,,," .94
.-..,,_,:gr.r. ...e.
1 481.1" -A '4
It..10
„-...4-.."..1,
i 's. •r•": 7 1-- .t ir
4 1"
..,--4. t....... L.. 6 ge-
4. 7
"71 4•••:',"
6 4 1 /0 y..0'. V tgr i t o
4 li r-
ay .7:,3 r••••
4 1 imt :i 1; 7- -rt......
-;---4r-.... t
4 ::1,,:_ IN, 7) 4:. 1:7.77 1 1C. V r,-?..,
...i. f.„-.. i ik„-..,.. 4 -.:".`4
r il 41 At
1 ..*1 A 4 ;44,1- 4 i
"1/ ..4 i s 41 7y....... i:'.': i.-..;. .larr" tv;.i)._, ill-. A---.:-...1_,.-,.•.„--,,,.,:-.-.4:-.,,,-:-,,,,,:7
,t e ek--..;,
4 -')i .•=1:.,- '7-‘... :'3....11110W:t
Z4:4.'-:.:;;; 1' -;7
AV: '6.-: ::-:::..74'. ,V.
I rre:rts- L4t.•••AL .‘..e.lari...:::,...-; .•-•e• 17
t i y it- 11 •=t e, .......F 6,-... c ..7, t. .N. :A:4- Lea' ..re
••1 aZ,
I' fe ...4, t ,....\:;';',-.7.-., ii •..7. .z.' ..v.,...,? r. N..
N.' Aj.S.',..e.PX". •-teir.' %,••••••'`..."1:14.%•16.*
...II l •r 4---
'I it.ffa .b. kt■ •?r..e
.4* y!',
c ...4...;?.f.-Le•k:•;‘.,:,•:-."'..". .f,.„.N.N%.. gii,. i ..t 4:4,•5..:.-..- :f-4., :-.-tc- ;1 1,::A*f 4)(i•
ile*-,- 4!-!;' II a 2, ..tr„........, ..A...•,:• e z- 7 --1
11,... .1.`.!-N- ki.ie-`?-•
-..A 1
4,-17_7 l le.c• N!
i ,,,,.,...,...t.....*,., --..t .4.--.9. t .f----7-- ,,...i
s•''•v NI"R`i .....i494: zr.-• .11 -1r 'f;
‘r- ...0 e'
1= ....se': ...fitt yr., ,..(tAt ..:14 r 1 t '4'." 4-
.1- ....A7.1.: 41V:4_•1 4 e...„„ y, i;
=4. 7 4. 4 ii"."••■4 1 1 I •j- Ir Zi ..A 1 I- re A
C-- 4..
r' 4,,- `%I.*':- 0; fki
4...A it .41-'e! II:. -1 F-t4 al ''A 4 4
t ...A..-.;,..- .f ,Ic l
1 11, ir .4.- 4'." ,7:-.:',•21.-2.-''..t1
i 7 4 r\ 0 lt,iti: 5....„--(;,'
..744-Fr 1 '.1.-,-;;;;-. ,y
Wt._ ..t_. NI riel-..6±. •0;• t.
t
r .:r...r..„,...4„.1.•,..,..
:•-..74,5„,:.•,••„..:,_.011„....•......,.„,.7„,....,_,,,...•:„.„.„:•
4,_..••.._:,:•.4.•,•,, v• Al.a.,",. -NV,. Ir
-4: r1,4 v.. „it:4;r 5;k:':...:..g.zi...,?, ii:4 7
1 1.!It ''''Ot x --.),0 -...-1
-.4.:i...•::: ,-;.T.4 -1
...e. ,,,..4,,,... 1 AI J 7., r, Ar..
'it s 'it :V" 1714tiel 1 -r -7 F ''.:=5:::'-:;••''----:--"..1'.
1 -',....1... -•7 .z.,.,,■-^17.t. •-k •Ar(...
i' •r•-•.,,, 4..i ,f••:;. ...7 44
tp,
4 a ttir: .4 ,,...•frat•.-.%-... lr s
'.,,T. 44.1X-14; 4 -.31(lc:‘,; ri -J. i$1- ..-bil.'": y!..„;.17„,.....-!--,:::•-:7,."-;,:-:---t-f;,- i--
k. .......iki_.„, --e- ...it 4,.._:: l■ 'r
..s..c -,....r c•
4 ....".:14-*WIL-4,:ii--•.•',-,* 4- Ftiljk- s.il
1- f.<4 t..• t"= 1•.-,
f F.. 7, :liNL k- 4.7,74.-.4.-4*--.. A' C- `4•"3 -11 .-,..4 1:t
:st-Issi,k• 7 '4
i.....t.f.:,..- 7- X 7::.'22.":
,4, k
.7.: 4,ge-:.„ 4 7:
i:
.,44, pa i ..14,.: ir k r•---.-. 1.i :i e...
V.".. w
v: -1. :a. ii
-1. 4- 2 7 e'll, b--.S-f-••••••:‘ 744.1.- ...t.
q v ------ti.•,,,ff- -4 '''Z'I-:'. 7 .1.';',.r.,..%-' 7•, .1 i- ••z
„4 114.
.2-;,. I d ..-1
It t N 1 4r
o r
•.-.z.. -7:' 4 .7•0:-.-A. -:r '1'••••_:"
74 S -,7,1 :fl i i, ;,-,"14-1,.:- :7 :-'1 1 1 Zi. Y•.- i- 1-,. f.*
,,,r.,-.,-,..:-...4 ik r• i'f. sl X-t...
X.a.re•-..=7,74 e p. iv .7 .!..-.4i;:;=.....i.•.--*•.,-.,- ------'-.1.0'
_VI .4.1. .4:7.. .1.4..--=.:`--eL ,F,
-‘,,,,4,- ii.;;.77% 4 f 1- -_.#1..: -..'1, :7 r 1 i ir
Ilczt`..4:--e- :..E. -.1 .-,i-",..-- .24 `..t. ....V•4- 1 iPs e•
3 fi'--.....1,...-:::.i...':,..•---;-':, a. l.t .r."7 i ti.47, .1- "'Jit.''''•;.-.
0-4---:4-=;,t '1.: f; 5'= ki -.7 17 .:W- :-...-.-.,---;;;,-,ii:.7....-,...,....e_4:-.rz.----:.K•<,--kr7-.<<----•-•,;F
ir-.1 -i-i... ..li „,..,..,N:__,A. f f„,,
i
..„:„...7.. i -_'.1-1 ..z:•: .7.7:
_.I. ...;1 ,vk
._..t
:,..x.,------.;:.;.:„-..:,-,....,•.---,..---...-1'_:.--- 4.•-1 --..:•-;:.r'.1.73.1t'••<%1
,c
:_:7__ ...••••t•-•' A
i .::::...!,:..f.
7 0 i 1, -ai.f..:1,-.- i.--...
'§i t
;2 I i"..
F 221*': .wis-.-7,-....v z
-z 1
i".- I i 4 adik• 4.,
a m T t
1 •::•$:•°1„....-i-• 1 k f- a- i 16. sew 1 t 3 t V Wit -A -V
7
S It 7 t 'a• r w ale r 44
Vi el
Y 'a
::a ,y a ��J $a ��Z` J f t ti •ii •r. .4" 7J I r 4 t'K: 441,,.•
s i a I. `.ice' ...it i f dii te a:
lir f Al te r 4
1 idle a te
Via, TT i 7 j'� `_,;F• ~rA` f' k J
.r.:-
A +-'t r oo t' f '=t•�, j y
s. K/
a r o i.�= y. �l ,.._4..._ s''- cN A-
Lt, i yr 1 •rT s a r f s-
i i
F 4•J i
•a 1 r' :rte' c --r 1 3 E.- 4 i I .A r _rte M..i..
F.
APPRAISAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, LTD. 4 E1111
STEVENSON- EDWARDS ASSOCIATES
2310 County Road D New Brighton, Minnesota 55112
(612) 636 -2565 FAX: (612) 633 -0394 (612) 633 -077
December 3, 1992
Mrs. Helen King
1427 Idaho Avenue
Falcon Heights, Minnesota 55108
Re: Setback encroachments, adjacent owner's garage
Dear Mrs. King:
One of the reasons for zoning property is to maintain orderly development in a
community where like uses of land occupy a contiguous area. That is, homes are in
one area, commercial in another, and industrial in another. Where this type of
zoning is maintained, you achieve orderly development and you also preserve
values.
As a part of zoning, there are various restrictions that apply to each of these uses.
These restrictions include lot size, access to public roads, building size and height
limitations, setback requirements, etc. These restrictions all have purposes, some
deal with safety, others with road maintenance, access to utilities and other factors.
When these requirements are met, they not only accomplish the above factors, but
they also maintain property values. The reverse is also true; that is, if individual
properties are for some reason put in a situation which makes them out of
compliance with zoning requirements, the property out of compliance and adjacent
properties may be adversely affected.
In your particular situation, the adjacent property owner to the west constructed a
garage that is substantially larger than the zoning code allows and, as I understand
has been built without a valiance issued by the city. After viewing_y it prnpelly
d the adjacent owner's new t ara t e it is a s arent that�t 'is t ara• e b its size has
educe e value of our ro e and ro abl the ro erty to the west. e
reason is at e garage is too ig or e ot, and the result is inconsistent with the
neighborhood development as governed by the zoning code. Care has to be taken
by the community, in this case Falcon Heights, to make sure that these situations do
not occur, since property values will suffer.
I have not made an apprasial of your property, but it would appear that your
property has suffered a loss of at least 5% of its value and ossibl more. This loss
results from a�leasttwo tactors which are a direct loss in terms o e adjacen t
zoning violation and the marketing time which most ely would be increased over
the average.
7
Mrs. Helen King
December 3, 1992
Page 2
Let me know if you require an appraisal of the property or any other assistance.
Sincerely,
William H. Cushman, MAI
Certified Federal General Appraiser
Minnesota License #4001638
f�S
G
We are aware that the detached garage at 1433 Idaho Avenue West is
over sized as a result of an alleged error on the part of the City of
Falcon Heights in granting a building permit.
Notwithstanding this situation, we the undersigned accept the
present configuration of the garage.
L o C
ac
C CC\ Y�- Name 3 C� r
Address: ()j a-c n Address: IA Lk j. a-ck°-�
ik_c•,_.._(
Name: /vim= L 72 4, )242- Name: J sYJ
Address: /�3,2e?J•' C_L E^'� Address:, a G'�.e'^�
Name: ri K c i S Ai R‹ k 1-.6,..,,A 1 2 Z Name: 60 bC ri
cz fl. lrtctc- seu1` rt. i
a
Address: c(c(3 L C G`�o W Address 1 v3 _T' dct. h l Ve MA) s S 1 O
p F--(6,-);--- He, i7Ar 65-100 �cL�GCn H `J 7), Name:
Name:
o� b Address:
Addres l� 3 W. !sue
J 5YL /1J'N 5 1.off
dam W. L I N Name:
Name:
ess: t c{3C9 t:cY c` ,ve.. ossC Address:
c-o-coo t3ict -t-, 1 4-0 ssioe
I P
e: L..C. ftE/VP/C /c.if--Sog Name:
Address:
Address: 4fZ3 tv, .Zpa,c/6
Gif- 4 ,r/ Tf, ,f4,d, CC /O$
g K e-, m c (//)17(4.. Name: o.+'` Of 5 M d
Address /q/ W_T Qi y01't16. Address: /41 W S N S� 10
Z 1-4-t 1
fk.c(../, /7-) A) 537 S r+� y
q(Q �C�,�J
Name:
Name: Address:
Address:
Name:
Name: Address:
Address:
Name:
Name: Address:
Address:
•eJc FROM ONE SEVEN ONE ZERO
Sad. I TERMRN a SIEFFERMAN €122492908 Pf�vE 003
i
SAUTER -M N fib SIEFFER.MA.N
ATTOKNcy3 AT LA
SUrn 1000 wcalmsrAx CENTER EAST
EUb 3ZCON) AV ?JUE 3otjTM
RTttiA);) w snLrsxrx a r M� MmisotA 55402
ROrD L SF.*lTL a{ N. 1R. TE (PHONE 612) 33 v-J499
PAUL a, FJ1C
fAx (at 349-n08
JEFFRF7 w. TTONE
of cotm a
Iutzs v.. AAR;KON
DAR7tYi k Pl Nom; January 19, 1993 PAnNT c ,v
GNiGi +aAUACG ZEL.A2rJ J. MANXMAN
MICriAEI D. MGT/MAN
Pete H. Bachman, Rsg. VGA F C .3 �,E TRA �i2881011
(6i�1 313-1657
Leonard, Street and Deinard
Professional Association and RrOv4hR MAID
130 South Fifth Street
Suite 2300
Minneapolis, MN 55402
RE: Tom Brace: Variance at 1433 W. Idaho, Falcon Heights,
Minnesota 55108; Our Office file No 9212F -2o1
Dear Mr. Bachman:
Z am writing to outline our suggested findings which support
granting �tne variance prc�pvrsril submitted to the city of Falcon
Heights by Mr_ Brace:
tai Granting the variance still not be detrimental to the .publi c
welfare, because several variances for over -sized garages have
been granted in the area;
(b) Granting the variance will not substantially diminish or
impair property values or improvements in the area because
several variances for over -sized garages have been granted in
•the .area;
(c) Granting the •variance is necessary to preserve
substantial property rights ,since t a he previously existf g two-
Gar garage was demolished in reliance on the ability to
replace it with the substantially completed four -car garage
now .standing;
(d) The variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and
air to adjacent property since the substantially completed
four -car garage is located in substantially the same location
as the previous two -car garage;
(i) The variance will not impair orderly use of public streets;
JAN 19 '93 i3: 20 5 '23 4 3230e PAGE.Okr
,JmIA r: d 1-k011 ONE SEVEN ONE ZERO
SALITERMAN i 5IEFFERMAk
61234'5 r.ez
peter E. Bachman, Esq. rage 2
January 19, 1993
(f) That the variance will rat increase the danger df fire or
endanger the public safety because it is located in
substantially the same location as the previous two --car
garage;
(g) That a. particular hardship would result to the owner if a
variance were not granted and the strict letter of the
ordinance carried out, since the owner acted in reliance on
the ability to construct the structure in demolishing the
previous garage and constructing the substantially completed
four -car garage after the City of Falcon Heights had granted
building permits allowing construction;
(h) The variance is not sought principally for the financial gain
of the owner, but to prevent a substantial hardship incurred
by the owner in reliance on the City's actions; and
(1) The problem for which a variance is sought cannot be solved
through a conditional use permit or amendment of the zoning
code. The owner did not purchase the property in reliance on
a promise that a variance would b$ granted, but would suffer
a substantial financial hardship for expenditures which are
unique to the project and not otherwise useable.
In addition'to the Snyder case, 2 also believe the 'requitable
estoppel" line of cases. See §tatp City of £Qen Prairi
L#.enke, 403 N.W.26 252 (Minn. £pp. 1987) have some applicability to
this situation.
I note that in your December 9, 2992 letter, you indicate that it
is our position that if option 3 or 4 as outlined in the letter are
chasers, We believe the City would be liable for damages for which
the City is liable if option 2 were chosen. The value of the
Property almost certainly decline if the garage were classified as
non-conforming.
Please contact me with your thoughts on the proposed findings.
Very truly s
4
Paul W. F ning
Attorney at Law
PWF /sab
cc: Tom Brace (via facsimile transmission)
JAN 19 '93 13.21 6123492909 PAGE.P
-13.07
9 -13.07 Private Automobile Repair and Reconditioning. Private
automobile repair may be conducted in residential
zones subject to the following conditions.
Subdivision 1. Definitions. As used herein:
a. "Minor Repair" means common maintenance including
oil and filter change; battery or tire change; mounting
of tires on rims; auto tune -up; replacing car lights,
anti- freeze, hoses, thermostats, manifolds and pipes.
b. "Major Repair" means rebuilding, overhauling, or
reconditioning of engines, motor vehicles or trailers
including body, frame or fender straightening or
repair, painting, and vehicle cleaning by steam or
automatic car washing devices.
Subdivision 2. Vehicle Registration. Automobiles on which
repair work is done must be registered to the owner or
occupant of the property.
Subdivision 3. Location of Repair Work. In R -1, R -2, R -3,
and R -4 residential districts minor repair work may be done
in a private garage, a garage attached to a dwelling unit,
or on an improved driveway surface; and major repair work
may be done in a private garage, a garage attached to the
dwelling unit, or, if a permit is obtained from the city
zoning administrator, on an improved driveway surface. In
an R -4 zone, the location of major and minor repair work
shall also be governed by regulations of the property
owner.
Subdivision 4. Hours. Except as herein provided, major
and minor repair work may be conducted between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
Subdivision 5. Pe__ Where an automobile repair permit
required, an application shall be made on forms provided
by the city zoning administrator. Automobile repair permit
shall expire ten (10) days after issuance unless extended
for five (5) additional days by the city zoning
administrator. Further extensions shall require approval
of the city council.
Subdivision 6. Nuisance. In no event shall major or minor
repair work be conducted in a manner that creates an
unreasonable disturbance for the owners of adjacent or
near -by property.
(7
Meeting Date: 1/27/93
Agenda Item: I -1
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Minutes
SUBMITTED BY: Parks and Recreation Commission
EXPLANATION /SUMMARY:
(a) Minutes of the January 11, 1993 meeting.
ACTION REQUESTED:
v :v:�i is ii:::::::::. :iiii ii' A.c::::::::. ^i: i:::::: s::::: iii:': R.... ..::::::::v;;;
r :::::iiir> y y .i ;;:5 ?i:iriir:�i: ::::::£::5:::
r t ::r i i a &rn
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
1/11/93
Members present: Lloyd Jacobson, Morris Nicholson, Marcia Sundquist,
Jyneen Thatcher, Carol Weisberg; and Carol Kreigler, Parks Director.
Minutes from December meeting were approved, moved by Carol W. and
Morris.
1) Marcia Sundquist was introduced as our new Commission member. She is
a resident of 1666 Coffman, and has previously lived in University
Grove. Carol W. gave a brief explanation of the Grove Park planning
efforts, with Marcia indicating a willingness to participate on the task
force.
2) Dead of Winter Inspirational Event: The 2nd annual "Dead of Winter
Inspirational Event" is scheduled for 2:00- 5:OOPM on Sunday, Feb. 7,
1993. Similar activities to last year will be scheduled, depending on
weather conditions. These include treasure hunts (both with clues and
an open search for prize eggs), races, snow sculpting contest, open
skating and refreshments with socializing inside the park building.
Prizes will be given, similar to last year, such as certificates for
program participation and candy. Carol K. will try to get some of the
youth activity leaders to help out. She will also look into getting
music for the skating party.
Publicity will be through the Parks and Rec newsletter distributed
through the schools, as well as in the Focus and Roseville Sun. In
addition, Marcia will note it in the 1666 Coffman newsletter, and a
flyer will be included with the survey which is being sent to the F.H.
School neighborhood.
Commission members should be there around 1:30 to help set up.
3) Falcon Heights School: Carol K. has met with the F.H. School
facilities committee regarding our survey. Ellen Blank (school
principal) and the District Community Ed. personnel approve of it. But
the architects expressed some concern over the wording of some
statements and questions. They apparently feel that these statements
may be interpreted as promising certain elements. These statements,
however, were taken directly from the bond issue which was approved in
September 1992, and referred to elements such as gymnasium, site work,
life safety and energy improvements. The Commission felt these
statements should remain in the survey, and reaffirmed their interest in
developing recreational opportunities at the school location.
The survey will be mailed to all residences in the northeast
quadrant of the city the Falcon Heights School neighborhood and will
include a return (unstamped) envelope. We will request they be returned
by the last week in January, in time to be used for the school schematic
design.
4) Carol W. announced that the first Grove Park task force meeting will
be held on Monday, January 25, 1993, 7 -8:30 PM at City Hall.
Meeting adjourned at 8:15.
Ai-en Thatc er, Secretary, Parks and Recreation Commission
Meeting Date: 1/27/93
Agenda Item: W -1
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Update and discussion on the proposed 1993
Street Improvement Projects
SUBMITTED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator
Terry Maurer, City Engineer
EXPLANATION /SUMMARY: The city engineer and administrator met
with property owners in the Grove and Falcon Woods neighborhood
on January 21, 1993 to discuss specific issues.
It's time for the council to:
1. Get an update on the projects
2. Talk about the city assessment policy
3. Talk about sewer, sidewalk and water projects
associated with the project.
ATTACHMENT:
A. Letter from city engineer project update, Jan. 5, '93.
B. Letter from city engineer re: water lines, Dec. 22, '92.
ACTION REQUESTED: Discuss the proposed 1993 street projects
t, v
b
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Maier Stewart Associates Inc.
January 5, 1993
File: 330 028 -20
Ms. Susan Hoyt
City Administrator
City of Falcon Heights
2077 Larpenteur Avenue
Falcon Heights, MN 55113
RE: 1993 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Dear Ms. Hoyt:
We are approximately 60 percent complete with the plans for the above referenced project.
The following is a list of the major issues that have arisen during the preparation of the plans
and specifications:
1. We have contacted Mr. Emil Brandt of the Metro Council to check on the status of the
request for funding on the bicycle and pedestrian pathway along Larpenteur Avenue and
Coffman Street. The Transportation Advisory Board has not recommended the Falcon
Heights pathway for funding to the Metro Council. It is not official yet but, according
to Mr. Brandt, the Metro Council usually goes along with the recommendation.
Therefore, because Larpenteur Avenue is proposed to be reconstructed and the funding
from Metro Council is not available, we are recommending that the pathway along
Larpenteur Avenue be constructed during the Larpenteur Avenue Street Construction
project.
2. We have met with Ms. Carol Kriegler, Park and Recreation Director for the City of
Falcon Heights, regarding the pathway along the east side of Coffman Street.
The pathway will be six feet wide from Hoyt Avenue to Larpenteur Avenue.
Typically, in the Grove Area, the sidewalk has a grass boulevard area between
the curb and the sidewalk. To reduce the amount of easement acquisition and
tree removal, the pathway will be placed against the back of the curb.
To install the pathway, as we have proposed, will require the removal of three
large pine trees on Coffman Street in the middle of the block between Hoyt and
Folwell. There are bushes and other small pine trees behind the ones proposed
to be removed, that will provide screening from the road.
1959 SLOAN PLACE, SUITE 200, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 612- 774 -6021
9800 SHELARD PARKWAY, SUITE 102, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441 612 546 -0432 Equal Opportunity Employer
028- 0505.jan
Ms. Susan Hoyt
January 5, 1993
Page Two
In other areas along the proposed pathway, overhanging branches will have to be
trimmed to provide six feet of clearance over the pathway.
Ms. Kriegler informed us that the park is scheduled for some renovations in
1993, so the pathway should fit into the proposed park renovation. As part of the
park upgrade, a small unheated shelter would be installed. An idea was to use
the structure as a bus stop and a shelter for the park. We are not certain that the
i .4 1:01; r
shelter can be placed so that it will serve both roles effectively.
If
o The proposed pathway along Coffman Street adjacent to the small park will
require the removal of the trees and brush. Ms. Kriegler agrees that most of the
trees and brush in this area are not in good condition and should be removed.
We will contact Ms. Linda Treeful, the City Forester, to determine if there are
any trees in this area that should be saved.
Ms. Kriegler indicated that Mr. Vince Wright has a difficult time maintaining this
area due to the brush and the steep slope. By removing the trees and brush in
this area will allow the slope from the proposed pathway to be decreased. As
directed by Ms. Kriegler, we have contacted Mr. Scott Midness of Barton
Aschman to discuss the preliminary plan for the park that was completed a few
years ago and any landscaping ideas for along the pathway. According to Mr.
Midness, trees and bushes can be placed on the slope from the pathway to the
park area. He is not sure what type but they can be planted after the pathway is
constructed.
Ms. Kriegler also suggested putting a ramp or pathway down the slope to the
park from the proposed pathway along Coffman at the south end of the park.
3. We have measured the sidewalk in the Grove Area, including Hoyt Avenue and Folwell
Avenue east of Coffman Street, and classified the condition of the sidewalk as good, fair,
or poor:
Good sidewalk is concrete that is relatively new and has no exposed aggregate.
10% of existing sidewalk is in good condition.
Fair sidewalk is concrete that has exposed aggregate but no cracking. 27% of
existing sidewalk is in fair condition.
l
Poor sidewalk is concrete that has cracks, heaved up around trees, or faulted with
adjacent panels. 63 of existing sidewalk is in poor condition.
i,1 r
028- 0505.jan
Ms. Susan Hoyt
January 5, 1993
Page Three
We would propose, as a minimum, to have the fair and poor sidewalk replaced five feet
wide. This width may not match the existing width of the good sidewalk, but when the
good sidewalk is replaced in the future, the width can be reduced to five feet. Some of
the sidewalk classified as being in good condition in a driveway may have to be replaced
if the sidewalk does not match the driveway apron during construction.
_0%,.) We will need to discuss this whole issue further when the assessments on this project are
discussed with the City Council.
t
4. As you are aware, the sanitary sewer and th; storm s w on the project have been
televised. The video tape and report indicate that there are a number of sanitary sewer
(it' and storm sewer pipe sections that are damaged with radial and longitudinal cracks that
co have caused the pipe to fracture and small pieces to be removed. We have noted the
location of these problem areas and would recommend that the damaged pipe be replaced
in these areas in conjunction with the street construction project.
5. WGe sent you a letter dated December 22, 1992, to recommend that the watermain in the
4 1
Grove Area not be replaced. 50 (0 31.1 J4 c1 lQpt Ct A.o
l vl tf
6. On Northrup Street, the existing centerline grade is approximately 13 We have tried
to reduce this extremely steep grade but found that reducing the centerline slope would st
ite damage or require the removal of some large trees and would not match the existing duo4
driveway and yards. Therefore, our street design will approximately match the existing 4.
curb Wwygi.
7. As requested from the informational meeting, we have examined the option of installing
;Of concrete curb and gutter on Prior Avenue and Summer Street without removing the entire M,
pavement section. We believe that the concrete curb and gutter can be installed to match
the existing driveways and yards. The alternative will require an overlay of the existing
pavement and possibly the removal of some pavement at intersections to match street
ti/V1( grades and existing concrete curb and gutter to get proper drainage.
8. The residents in the Falcon Woods Area suggested at the informational hearing that we
meet with a small group of residents to discuss the street construction project. A couple
of questions we have are:
When would you like to have the meeting?
Who will contact the residents and which residents should be contacted?
We have set a tentative date for the meeting of January 20, 1993.
028- 0505.jan
Ms. Susan Hoyt
January 5, 1993
Page Four
9. At the informational meeting, the resident who lives at 1603 Northrup requested that we
examine the possibility of reducing the size of the island at the Northrup and Folwell
Avenue intersection. According to Mrs. Coffins, it is difficult to get in and out of the
driveway. We have examined the width of the street between the island and the opposite
curb, and it is the same width as the other streets in the area. However, when we looked
at the turner radii of a passenger car turning left from westbound Folwell Avenue to the
driveway, the vehicle would cut across the corner of the island. Therefore, we are
proposing to cut off approximately 5 feet of the western corner of the island. This will
provide easier access into the driveway from westbound Folwell Avenue.
If you have any questions or require further information, please call.
Sincerely,
MAIER STEWART ASSOCIATES, INC.
William K. Westerberg, P.E.
WKW:tp
028- 0505.;an
7
1141V1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Maier Stewart Associates Inc.
December 22, 1992
V d 32
File: 330 028 -20
Ms. Susan Hoyt
City Administrator
City of Falcon Heights
2077 Larpenteur Avenue West
Falcon Heights, MN 55413
RE: 1993 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WATERMAIN
Dear Ms. Hoyt:
As you are aware, it was recommended in the feasibility study that the City of Falcon Heights
remove and replace the 6 -inch watermain along Folwell Avenue from Fulham Street to Northrup
Street, Northrup Street from Hoyt Avenue to Folwell Avenue, and Burton Street from Hoyt
Avenue to Folwell Avenue. This recommendation was based on a deficiency rating by the St.
Paul Water Utility.
Since the feasibility study, we have investigated the watermain issues further. We have obtained
information from St. Paul Water Utility that lists the location and date of the main breaks in the
City for the last ten years and the condition of the watermain. The information indicates that
two watermain breaks have in each of the three areas where the watermain is proposed
to be replaced, and some of the breaks have occurred within 10 feet of each other. The
condition of the watermain on Folwell Avenue and Burton Street was listed as good, whereas
the condition of the watermain on Northrup Street was listed as being in fair condition.
We have also talked with Mr. Bruce Irish, Assistant City Engineer with the City of Maplewood,
and Mr. Philip Stefaniak, Public Works Director with the City of West St. Paul, regarding their
agreements with St. Paul Water Utility and how they fund capital improvements on watermain
reconstruction. These communities have the same basic agreement with the Water Utility as
Falcon Heights. When a street reconstruction project is initiated in these two Cities, they review
the watermain break information provided by St. Paul Water Utility and determines if the
watermain should be replaced. The decision is not necessarily based on the suggested maximum
frequency of breaks as determined by the Water Utility. If the watermain is determined to be
replaced, the City funds the cost to replace the watermain. Neither City has ever gotten the St.
Paul Water Utility to participate in the cost of replacement.
1959 SLOAN PLACE, SUITE 200, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 612 774 -6021
9800 SHELARD PARKWAY, SUITE 102, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441 612 546 -0432 Equal Opportunity Employer
Ms. Susan Hoyt
December 22, 1992
Page Two
It is our recommendation that the watermain in the three sections of the Grove Area not be
replaced. In our opinion, two watermain breaks in each section in ten years is not a high
frequency of breaks. With a low frequency of breaks, even if the watermain is replaced in
conjunction with the street project, it likely will not substantially reduce the risk of future
watermain breaks because a watermain break may occur even if the main is in good condition.
An example of this was during the 1991 Street Improvement projects. On Maple Knoll Drive
where it begins to turn north, the watermain was inspected by St. Paul Water Utility when it was
exposed during the storm sewer construction and determined to be in good condition; therefore,
it was not replaced. Six months later the street was dug up in this location to repair a watermain
break.
We will continue to investigate any services that are made of lead and would propose to have
them replaced as part of this project.
If you have any questions or require further information, please call.
Sincerely,
MAIER STEWART ASSOCIATES, INC.
W V• .1 711= 4
William K. Westerberg, P.E.
WKW:tp
028- izm.aec