Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-01-1992 • PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 1, 1992 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 The Mounds View Planning Commission was 1. Call To Order called to order by Chair Mountin at 7:39 p.m. on Wednesday, April 1, 1992 . MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Nelson, 2 . Roll Call Peterson, Ruggles, Stevenson, and Chair Mountin. Commissioners Burgers, Colleen, and Miller had excused absences . ALSO PRESENT: Planner Harrington and Recording Secretary Asleson. Motion/Second: Nelson/Peterson to 3. Approval of • approve the minutes of February 19 and Minutes: March 4, 1992 . February 19 and March 4, 1992 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried There were no resident requests or 4 . Resident comments from the floor. Requests and Comments from the Floor Planner Harrington outlined Planning 5 . Consideration Case No. 335-91, request of Everest of Resolution Development for a Major Subdivision at No. 334-92 2375 Highway 10. He indicated that Regarding Major Resolution No. 334-92 had been drafted Subdivsion per Commission direction at their March Request of 18, 1992 Agenda Session. Tim Nelson, Everest representing Everest Development, Development at indicated that he was willing to answer 2375 Highway 10 any questions of the Commission. Chair Mountin noted for the minutes that she would have preferred dedication of right-of-way rather than the creation of • an outlot, because the City has more control in a right-of-way situation. • Mounds View Planning Commission April 1, 1992 Regular Meeting Page 2 Motion/Second: Stevenson/Nelson to adopt Resolution No. 334-92, recommending approval of a major subdivsion for Everest Development at 2375 Highway 10 . 5 ayes 0 nay Motion Carried Planner Harrington updated the Comm- 6 . Consideration ission on the progress made on plans for of Resolution parking at the proposed Twin City School No. 335-92, of Pet Grooming, 2840 Highway 10. The Regarding City Attorney had been contacted regard- Conditional Use ing the number of spaces needed and he Permit for Pet determined that since the school would Grooming be a new use for the building, it would Facility, Twin need to provide for 18 parking spaces, City School of the number required by the current code. Pet Grooming, 2840 Highway 10 The applicant, Mary Bourke, showed the Commission a parking plan that she felt • would provide the required spaces . Planner Harrington noted that some of the spaces that were shown wouldn't be acceptable to the Fire Department. Because the building is not set up with a sprinkler system, Fire Code requires that 24 feet of the outside of the park- ing lot be kept clear for fire vehicles. The Commission then discussed several possible solutions to the applicant's •i emma, •u none wou • mee a con.- itions of the present code. Chair Mountin commented that the parking area available is really too small for the amount of parking needed and that the property owner may have to acquire or use property from adjoining lots in order to get enough parking space for the building. She also stated that when the use changes on a building, the city must bring the property up to code. • Ms . Bourke stated that she didn't see why she would need 18 parking spots, as Mounds View Planning Commission April 1, 1992 Regular Meeting Page 3 most of her customers don't park for all that long; they drop off their pets in the morning and pick them up at night. Chair Mountin again stated that when a use changes, the city must use current code standards. She also stated that with the grooming staff and nine to ten students parking each day, there would not be much room left for any cars. The Commissioners expressed their desire for the business to stay in the city, and made suggestions about other proper- ties that the applicant might rent. Chair Mountin asked the applicant how • much time she had to make a decision regarding this property. The applicant indicated that she would like to speak with the property owner to see if a • solution can be found to the parking problem before looking elsewhere. Motion/Second: Stevenson/Peterson to table Resolution No. 335-92, with the option of calling to order at the Agenda Session April 15, 1992 to take action on the matter. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Planner Harrington outlined the next 7 . Consideration case, Planning Case No. 334-92, variance of Resolution request of Mac-May Homes. The applicant No. 336-92, is asking to construct a home at 2673 Regarding Var- Sherwood Road with a side yard setback iance Request of five feet where a ten foot setback is of Mac-May required and with a front yard setback Homes at 2673 of 30.5 feet where a setback of 58 feet Sherwood Road is required. When the lot was sub- divided and platted in 1986, the City Council required that the home have a 58 foot front setback to keep the home in line with the three homes to the east. In 1991, the Planning Commission denied a variance request similar to this one, • but the City Council overturned that • Mounds View Planning Commission April 1, 1992 Regular Meeting Page 4 ruling on appeal. However, the devel- oper never built the house and now needs a new variance. Steven May, representing the applicant, showed the Commission pictures of the proposed house. He explained that the building would meet setback requirements for the garage, since garages can be five feet from the lot line, but that he would need variances for the front and side yard requirements in order to build on the lot. Chair Mountin asked Mr. May to explain his hardship, as in order to process a variance, the applicant must prove, among other things, that there would be "undue hardship" if asked to adhere to current building requirements . • Mr. May stated that there is a 25 foot drainage easement on the eastern edge of the property, making the buildable part of the lot only 40 feet wide. Mr. May stated that he has built many houses in this area and cannot remember being able to build a house on such a narrow lot. Commissioner Peterson felt that, unfor- tunately, this lot was probably over- looked when it was platted. However, the owner did accept the way that the property was platted and should have to build within the requirements stated at the time of platting. Mr. May stated that he has purchased the property, although Charles Cook is still the fee owner. Charles Cook was the person who accepted the platting, not Mac-May Homes . Mr. May said again that, if he built within current building requirements, no one would buy the home because it would be so small. Planner Harrington clarified that one of • the reasons that the Planning Commission • Mounds View Planning Commission April 1, 1992 Regular Meeting Page 5 denied this variance request in 1991 was because Mr. Cook had accepted the plat with the attached building restrictions. Chair Mountin stated that she felt that the easement was a practical difficulty, but that there was no undue hardship on the applicant, because the house design could be changed to work within setback requirements . Commissioner Stevenson asked why the house couldn't be built at a 58 foot setback. Mr. May replied that he wanted to keep the house in line with most other homes in Mounds View. Planner Harrington clarified that the house could be built with a 58 foot • front setback. The current design could not be built without a side yard variance, however. General discussion ensued regarding the possibility of vacating some of the easement so as to build the house further to the east, making the side variance unnecessary. Planner Harrington indicated that he could consult with the City Engineer on this, but that it probably would not be water detention area nearby. Commissioner Ruggles asked the applicant if he would build on the lot if he had to adhere to a 58 foot setback. Mr. May stated that while the house would still fit on the lot, it would not be an ideal situation. He then asked if hardship must be proven in order to get a variance. Chair Mountin explained that the • Planning Commission must see evidence of • Mounds View Planning Commission April 1, 1992 Regular Meeting Page 6 hardship in order to grant a variance, but the City Council can grant one without it. Commissioner Peterson informed the Commission that Jerry Ruhland, 8121 Red Oak Court, had contacted him regarding this matter. Mr. Ruhland, who lives at 8121 Red Oak Court (which adjoins the subject property to the west) told Commissioner Peterson that he is "adamantly opposed to living quarters five feet from (my) property line. (I) moved to Mounds View, in part, because the houses are not so close together. " Planner Harrington also indicated that Mr. Ruhland had called City Hall and voiced the same opinion. The applicant stated that because he is on a building schedule, he would like • the Commission to rule on the case and if voted against, he would have time to appeal to the City Council. If the Council denied the variance, he would then pursue the issue of easement vacation. Motion/Second: Mountin/Stevenson to deny the variance request of Mac-May Homes for a five foot side yard variance and a 27 .5 foot front yard variance at 2673 Sherwood Road. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Chair Mountin noted for the minutes that she feels that the selection of house design is what is driving the need for this variance, rather than a hardship. The house could be made to fit the property rather than making the property fit the house. Planner Harrington informed the 8. Staff Report Commission that a new house was being built at 8206 Groveland Road and that 410 the owners will be living in the old • Mounds View Planning Commission April 1, 1992 Regular Meeting Page 7 house until the new one is completed. In addition, he noted that minor mod- ifications were being made to the parking plan at the new Saturn facility, due to a Council request for more parking. These items were told to the Commission as a matter of advisement. Planner Harrington also showed the Commission that he had received a letter from Jeff Roos, representative for Harstad Companies, regarding their development request application. In the letter, Mr. Roos stated that Mr. Harstad had decided to proceed with the app- lication as presented and wished to have Planning Commission comment made at their next regular meeting. General discussion ensued among the Commiss- ioners regarding outstanding issues on the case and proposed timetables for • action on the case. The attendance at the March 18, 1992 9 . Report of Chair Agenda Session included Commissioners Colleen, Miller, Nelson, Peterson, Ruggles, Stevenson, and Chair Mountin. Commissioner Burgers had an excused absence. There being no further business before 10 . Adjournment the Commission, Chair Mountin adjourned the meeting at 9:23 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, i�. • 1/7 Paul Harrington City Planner • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 334-92 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MAJOR SUBDIVISION FOR EVEREST DEVELOPMENT, APPROXIMATELY 2375 HIGHWAY 10, PLANNING CASE NO. 335-91 WHEREAS, Everest Development has requested approval of a major subdivision for the properties located at approximately 2375 Highway 10, legally known as: EX SWLY 150 FT PART OF SW 1/4 OF NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 NELY OF STH 10/62 IN SEC 8 TN 30 RN 23 SUBJ TO RD THE E 160 8/10 FT OF PART OF SW 1/4 NELY OF HWY IN SEC 8 TN 30 RN 23 EX N 33 FT FOR CO RD H2 PART OF NW 1/4 OF NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 NELY OF L PAR WITH AND 150 FT NELY FROM CL OF STH 10/62 IN SEC 8 TN 30 RN 23 • PART OF SW 1/4 OF NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 NELY OF L PAR WITH & 150 FT NELY FROM CL OF STH 10/62 (SUBJ TO RD & ESMTS) IN SEC 8 TN 30 RN 23 WHEREAS, the plot is shown on Attachment A and dated March 18, 1992; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant's request for a major subdivision (that includes two [2] lots and one [1] outlot) and found that it is in conformance with all applicable sections of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Outlot A as indicated on the Plat has been provided for the potential extension of Jackson Drive. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Mounds View recommends approval of the major subdivision request by Everest Development contingent upon the following: 1. The Applicant provide the City with appropriate title abstracts for each lot and outlot and record these abstracts with Ramsey County. • Planning Commission • Resolution No. 334-92 Page Two of Two 2 . The Applicant enters into a Development Agreement with the City to ensure that Outlot A is utilized as right- of-way or that it is jointly developed with Lot 2, Block 1. 3 . The Park Dedication requirements are satisfactorily met. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 1st day of April, 1992 . ATTEST: Chai m� 0 . (SEAL) 411 Planner MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION 111 RESOLUTION NO. 336-92 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING SETBACK VARIANCE REQUESTS BY MAC MAY HOMES, INC. , 2673 SHERWOOD ROAD, PLANNING CASE NO. 344-92 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Mac May Homes, Inc. for variances to construct a single family dwelling at a five foot (5' ) side yard setback where a ten foot (10' ) setback is required by Municipal Code and a thirty foot six inch (30'6") front yard setback where a fifty eight foot (58') setback is required by a previous planning action; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the criteria used to evaluate all variance requests; and WHEREAS, the applicant has presented a hardship statement to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions • of this code would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the hardships that exist on the lot were self-created by the developer at the time of platting; and WHEREAS, granting the variance would not confer special privileges on the applicant that are not enjoyed by other property owners in the same district; and necessary to alleviate the hardship. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission denies the variance requests of Mac May Homes, Inc. for a five foot (5' ) variance into the side yard setback and a twenty seven foot six inch (27'6") variance into the front yard setback. Adopted this 1st day of Apri. 1992. ATTEST: 4 t"- 21///t---- c-. 7- Cha i 1.n, (SEAL) ' Planner