05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 9, 2019 • Ramsey County has indicated approval in concept for creation of two access points along Keller Parkway. This preliminary feedback suggests that access could be created that would meet code requirements. The current configuration seeks a variance that is necessitated by the landowner. • City staff finds that the proposed plan does not demonstrate sufficient space for snow storage that could be maintained entirely on the lots created specifically in the front yard areas without discharging onto'the neighboring properties. • The threshold for providing supporting justification on the environmental impacts to the shoreline has not been satisfied. The preference to leave the area undisturbed by the homeowner is not just cause for granting approval. • A preferred home design or features of the home are economic factors that alone shall not constitute practical difficulties. Motion seconded by Kwapick. Motion carried 6 — 0. Johnson abstained. The Associate Planner stated.that variance #2 that the applicant is seeking is in regards to Lot 3. She explained that since there is the potential for a lot or lots created off of Keller Parkway, variance #2 includes a request for a reduced side yard setback to allow the existing driveway for 675 Keller Parkway to remain as is because they would not meet the side yard paving or curb cut setbacks. She noted that this design would then necessitate the use of a driveway easement over Lot 2 which would not be code compliant. The Associate Planner explained that city staff has reviewed several variations of how a lot split may occur on 675 Keller Parkway. She stated that in almost all of those concept plans in which three lots would be proposed with access via Keller Parkway, Mr. Yargici has shown the driveway easement over Lot 2. She stated that City Staff recommends denial of variance request #2 for reduced side yard setback for paving ,or a curb cut. Kwapick clarified that this variance is only dealing with the existing driveway location that encroaches into Lot 2. Schwalbach clarified that if the Planning Commission denied this request based on this proposal, the applicant could come back with a new site plan and new information to support the variance request. Schwalbach moved denial of the Variance for reduced side yard paving and curb cut setbacks based on the following findings of fact: - 11 -