Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-02-1998 PC • PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 2, 1998 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order Chairperson Peterson called the Mounds View Planning Commission regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Brasaemle, Brooks, Miller, Obert(7:30), and Stevenson. Members absent: Council Liaison Koopmeiners Also present: Community Development Director Jopke; Associate Planner Ericson; and Recorder Stacy Caton(for Dave Hix). 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizens'requests or comments on items not on the agenda for consideration. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 531-98, Consideration of Resolution No. 554-98, a 2 Resolution Recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Accessory Building, 2185 Pinewood Drive, Tammy Bellamy Planning Case No. 533-98, Consideration of Resolution No. 556-98, a 3 Resolution Approving a Variance Request for a Sidewalk, 5249 Greenfield, Timothy White Planning Case No. 534-98, Consideration of Resolution No. 557-98, a 6 Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an 111/ Oversized Garage, 2442 Hillview Road, David Kramer • Mounds View Planning Commission September 2, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 2 4. Approval of Minutes A. July 15, 1998 MOTION/SECOND: BrasaemleBrooks to approve the July 15, 1998 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes as submitted. Ayes- 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 5. Planning Case No. 531-98 2185 Pinewood Drive Consideration of Resolution No. 554-98, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional use Permit for an Oversized Accessory Building. Applicant: Tammy Bellamy I The applicant was present. Associate Ericson gave his report as follows: The applicant has requested permission to construct a 1,008 square foot garage to replace her existing single-stall garage. At the August 19, 1998 Planning Commission meeting the Commission debated both sides of this case, concerned about the disproportion of the garage in relation to the house. The Commission determined that the benefits of the new garage, such as storage of vehicles and yard cquipmcnt, outwcighed the garage's size issue. Staff was recommending that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 554-98, with stipulations and amendments as deemed necessary, and send the application on to the City Council for their consideration. Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for their consideration of the issue. Stevenson expressed his concern with Stipulation No. 3: "The garage shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional • use permit shall become null and void." He asked if the language of the Resolution and • Mounds View Planning Commission September 2, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 3 stipulation was adequate to prevent a business from starting up in the garage. Ericson stated the City Code does allow for businesses in a garage or a house, with conditions as follows: 1. There cannot be any visible activities to the street 2. There cannot be any exterior storage 3. There cannot be more than two vehicles parked on or off the premises, directly resulting from the business He added he didn't think a stipulation could be attached to the Resolution stating that a business could not be operated out of the garage. Miller asked for clarification on the discussed privacy fence. Ericson told the Commission the privacy fence, according to the plans submitted at the August Planning Commission meeting, would start ten feet back from where the garage would be built, running in line with and tieing into the existing privacy fence corner. • Peterson opened the floor to the public. No comments were considered from the public. The floor was returned to the Commission. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller to approve Resolution 554-98, A Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Accessory Building, located at 2185 Pinewood Drive, Tammy Bellamy, applicant. Ayes- 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried 6. Planning Case No. 533-98 5249 Greenfield Avenue Consideration of Resolution No. 556-98, A Resolution Approving a Variance Request for a Sidewalk. Applicant: Timothy White • The applicant was present. • Mounds View Planning Commission September 2, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 4 Associate Ericson gave his report as follows: The applicant was requesting a variance from the required two-foot side yard setback established for decks, terraces or sidewalks. Mr. White has constructed a sidewalk, constructed of green-treated lumber, along his garage located at 5249 Greenfield. The new sidewalk, which accesses a shed in the rear yard, replaced a railroad-tie walkway that had fallen into disrepair. The property alongside the garage slopes down, requiring that the sidewalk be supported by footings. The sidewalk is approximately four feet wide and is within inches of a chain link fence that separates the subject property from the property to the north. In addition to the garage, there is an above-ground pool surrounded by patio and landscaping, all of which is enclosed by a five-foot tall privacy fence. The shed is outside of this fenced-in area. Section 1104.01, Subd. 5, regarding encroachments: "Terraces, steps, decks, stoops or similar features; provided they do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure or to a distance less than two feet(2') from any lot line." The sidewalk as it exists now does encroach on the above condition. There is no apparent 111 hardship as required by the City Code. The applicant did do the construction without getting a permit from the City. A permit is required for this type of construction. There have been no calls for or against the application. Staff recommended denial of the application based on the fact that the sidewalk was installed without a permit, and there is no obvious hardship as required by City Code. Peterson returned the floor to the Commission and asked the applicant for his report. Timothy White, applicant, gave two reasons for wanting the walkway: 1. Safety of the lot, ease of mowing the yard 2. Easy access to the back yard area where the shed and yard maintenance equipment is kept. He stated he didn't realize a building permit was required. His only excuse was ignorance, he added. The fence located near the walkway is set in five to six inches from the property line. White did canvas his neighbors on Greenfield and none of the people contacted voiced opposition to the walkway. Stevenson asked if the structure had the proper footings. • Mounds View Planning Commission September 2, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 5 White stated the structure did not have footings. Brooks asked if a gravel walkway would work. Mrs. White told the Commission a gravel walkway would make it harder to move snowblowers, etc., and the gravel would be sloped creating a dangerous situation. Brasaemle asked if there were utility easements on the affected property line. Mr. White stated there were no utility easements on the north property line. He added, if he was not granted the variance he would cut the walkway back to the two foot requirement. Stevenson stated his main concern was the hazard created by the open space in between the side of the walkway and the fence. He added if the variance request is denied, the City should require the walkway to be cut back and have some type of safety rail on the fence side of the walkway. • Peterson stated there are some conflicts in the City ordinance that need to be resolved, i.e., allowing a one-foot set back for driveways and a two-foot setback for sidewalks. He explained to the Whites that if the Planning Commission denies the request they could appeal the decision to the City Council for their consideration, so the issue would not be dead at this meeting. Brooks suggested tabling the issue for two weeks to give staff the time they need to draft a resolution for approval. Brasaemle suggested modifying the ordinance so the setbacks of driveways and sidewalks are the same. Doing this would eliminate the need for the variance that is being requested, he added. Brasaemle told the Commission the slope at the property line and safety considerations would be the hardships. MOTION/SECOND: Brooks/Miller to table Resolution 556-98, a Resolution Approving a Variance Request for a Sidewalk, 5249 Greenfield, Timothy White, until the September 16, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. The Commission directed staff to draft a resolution approving the variance with the hardships as discussed at this meeting. Ayes - 5 Nays - 1(Obert) Motion carried • Mounds View Planning Commission September 2, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 6 Obert stated he didn't buy the safety argument. He stated a gravel walkway would be just as safe, if not safer. 7. Planning Case No. 534-98 2442 Hillview Road Consideration of Resolution No. 557-98, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage. Applicant: David Kramer Associate Ericson told the Commission that Planning Case No. 534-98 had been withdrawn and there would be no consideration of this case. The owners intent was to add 14' on to the existing garage, which would have put the garage at 960 square feet. It was decided to extend the garage out only 13', making the total square footage of the garage under the 952 square foot maximum. Thus, the need for a Conditional Use permit was alleviated. i 8. Consideration of Resolution No. 559-98, a Resolution Recommending to the City Council Appointment of a New Planning Commission Member Director Jopke gave his report as follows: The Commission, at its last meeting, interviewed four candidates who had applied for the open Planning Commission seat. The City Council is asking that the Planning Commission pass Resolution 559-98, a Resolution Recommending to the City Council Appointment of - - - . . ..• MOTION/SECOND: Obert/Stevenson to recommend to the City Council the appointment of Gregory Johnson to fill the Planning Commission seat vacated by Marshall Johnston, with the term of the position expiring December 31, 1999. Peterson asked for an update on applicants being considered by the Economic Development Commission(EDC). Jopke told the Commission that Sean Walther and Wendy Marty had been appointed to the EDC. • Brasaemle stated that Sean Walthers had stated his first choice of Commissions was the • Mounds View Planning Commission September 2, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 7 Plannning Commission. Due to the fact that he (Walthers) had been chosen for the EDC, Brasaemle stated he would be in favor of the nomination of Greg Johnson to fill the Planning Commission seat vacated by Marshall Johnston. VOTE: Ayes- 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried 9. Staff Reports/Information Items Associate Ericson stated the Mounds View Matter/Mounds View News Letter is now on the internet. They are also part of the City of Mounds View's web site. Jopke reminded the Commission members that there are two special work sessions scheduled for the Comprehensive Plan Update process. They were listed as: 1. September 23, 1998 - 7:00 p.m., City Hall 2. October 14, 1998 - 7:00 p.m., City Hall • 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports Stevenson told the Commission the Park and Recreation Commission had voted that Wood Crest would no longer be a park. In fact, the Park and Recreation Commission is suggesting, by request of the City, that Wood Crest Park be used as a mitigated wetland for the parking lot at the New Community Center. Designs for the wetland and addition of trails at the Wood Crest site are being developed. Future details in regards to the Wood Crest wetland development will be forwarded when they are available. Peterson stated his concern that the west end of the City had very limited park facilities. 11. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:32 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) sp ctfuly s omitted, 'ck Jopke • Community Development Director • Planning Comm. Mtg September 2, 1998 Please Sign In ! Name Address Phone # Item of Interest: 'lawn/ -z(vcRi ---)ck -5q e„, eversid-e(k p(3-0,7,e • • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 554-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OVERSIZED GARAGE AT 2185 PINEWOOD DRIVE . REQUESTED BY TAMMY BELLAMY; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 531-98 WHEREAS, Tammy Bellamy has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,008 square foot garage on property located at 2185 Pinewood Drive; and, WHEREAS, 2185 Pinewood drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as followed: Lot 32, Block 8, Pinewood Terrace No 3 Ramsey County,Minnesota WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, up to 1,264 square feet of garage/accessory building on one lot; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Location Map d. Existing and Proposed Site Plans e. Area"Building Footprint" Diagram WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the dimensional requirements in Chapter 1104 the Zoning Code for this proposal have been met; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that possible adverse effects have been considered in its recommendation, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 1.e.: 1. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to • improve the quality,appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property,2185 Pinewood Drive,low-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Resolution 554-98 September 2, 1998 Page 2 2. The Geographical Area Involved. 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area The subject parcel is of the same size or larger than most of the lots within a two block radius. The building footprint diagram clearly shows that in this area of the City,there already appears to be garages as large as what is proposed at 2185 Pinewood Drive,some of which larger than their principal structures,again as would be the case at 2185 Pinewood Drive. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. There is no reason to believe that a 1,008 square-foot garage would negatively impact the property values of the subject property or those adjacent to it. The case could be made that with ample storage space within the garage,there would be fewer vehicles parked outside and less clutter about the property. This type of transformation could result in a positive effect to the neighboring properties. 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. The applicant has multiple vehicles and owns and operates a race car as a hobby,and has a car hauler upon which to transport the vehicle. The car hauler does not currently fit into the existing garage, and thus is kept outside in full view of the neighborhood and vehicles passing by on County Road I. Constructing the garage as proposed would allow the car hauler and the race car to be stored inside. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b.: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks,schools,streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads,drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The construction of an oversized garage will not create a greater impact on existing public facilities or services,on utilities or access roads,nor will it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. The increase in runoff from the larger structure is not significant and will not affect the drainage system. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. • The placement of the garage would be such that the bulk of the structure would be hidden from street view and shielded by mature trees in front and privacy fences on either side. This will provide adequate screening, and will preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. Planning Commission Resolution 554-98 • September 2, 1998 Page 3 (4) The use,in the opinion of the City Council,is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Garages are typical uses in residential areas,and allow for storage of vehicles and other equipment. Having this garage will allow for the property owner to store vehicles, a car hauler and a race car in the garage instead of out in the open. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow a 1,008 square-foot garage at 2185 Pinewood Drive with the following stipulations: 1. The conditional use permit shall be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval, and a receipt of such recording shall be provided to the City of Mounds View. 2. The garage shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform building 410 appearance with the house. 3. The garage shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall become null and void. 4. No other sheds or accessory buildings shall be allowed on this lot. 5. The driveway leading to the garage shall be improved with a permanent surface material of either concrete or asphalt in conjunction with the construction of the garage. If occupancy of the garage is to occur prior to the driveway's improvement, the applicant shall submit a letter or credit or performance bond in an amount equivalent to the valuation of the work yet to be completed, as estimated by the Community Development Director. 6. Upon the completion of the garage, exterior storage of materials and other items as outlined in Section 607.03 of the Mounds View Nuisance Code shall cease to exist. 7. All vehicles parked at the property shall be parked either upon the driveway's improved surface or within the garage. At not time shall a vehicle be allowed to park upon the grass or off of the improved surface. Any violations of this shall result in the issuance of Ramsey County Court Citations. 8. The applicant shall install a section of privacy fence between the garage and the west • property line, tying into the existing privacy fence installed by the adjacent property owner. Planning Commission Resolution 554-98 • September 2, 1998 Page 4 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 2nd day of September, 1998. Jerry Piteon, Chairperson ATTEST: J i Rick Jopke, Co unity Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V\DE VCAS ES\531-98\5 54-98 PC.RES I • II MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 559-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF GREG JOHNSON TO THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission acts as an advisory commission to the Cit Council on matters that relate to residential, commercial, industrial development and redevelopment, zoning and comprehensive planning; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is composed of seven Mounds View residents; and WHEREAS, Chapter 401.02, Subd. 1, entitled Membership: Terms, states that the Commission "shall consist of not less than seven (7) nor more than nine (9) members from the resident population of Mounds View..."; and IIIWHEREAS, with a recent resignation of one of its members, the Planning Commission currently has only six (6) members; and WHEREAS, the City Council has requested the Planning Commision to review and interview the applicants and to make a recommendation to the City Council based on their review. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council appointment of Greg Johnson to the Mounds View Planning Commission with the term to expire December 31, 1999. Adopted this 2nd day of September, 1998. A.7i4 .--- Pe Jerry so , Chairman ATTEST: r 16-4/k- ..._ ck Jopke, Co unity Development Director (SEAL) 0 N:\DATA\USERS\BARBB\SHARE\KEEP-IT\WPDOCS\R.ESO.PC\VACANCY.WPD