Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-16-1998 PC • PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA Special Meeting September 16, 1998 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10,Mounds View,MN 55112 1. Call to Order Chairperson Peterson called the Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Brasaemle, Brooks, Johnson, Miller, and Obert. Members absent: Commissioner Stevenson(excused) and Council Liaison Koopmeiners. • Also present: Community Development Director Rick Jopke;Planning Associate Jim Ericson; and Recorder Dave Hix. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 533-98, Consideration of resolution No. 556-98, a 2 Resolution Approving a Variance Request for a Sidewalk, 5249 Greenfield Avenue, Timothy White Planning Case No. 536-98, Consideration of Resolution No. 560-9R a 3 Resolution Approving a Variance Request to Allow a Joint Use Parking and Access Arrangement between the Businesses and a Zero-Foot Parking Setback, 2200 &2214 Highway 10 (Mermaid and Perkins, respectively), Daniel Hall, representing the Mermaid Planning Case No. 535-98, Consideration of Resolution No. 558-98, a 4 Resolution Approving a Variance to Allow for two Curb Cuts, 8111 Eastwood Road, Michael Tobias • • PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 September 16, 1998 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizens' requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 4. Planning Case No. 533-98 Property Involved: 5249 Greenfield Avenue Consideration of Resolution No. 556-98, A Resolution Approving a variance Request for a Sidewalk. Applicant: Timothy White The applicant, Timothy White, was present. Associate Ericson gave his report as follows: The applicant was back before the Planning Commission a second time after his original request • had been tabled. At the September 2, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, significant discussion was held regarding the merits of this case as well as the interpretation of the language in the Code relating to setbacks. Because of many factors (possible hardships), such as the slope of the land north of the garage, safety considerations and lack of access elsewhere on the lot, the Planning Commission acted to table the request to enable staff to draft both approval and denial versions of the resolution. Staff was recommending that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution 556-98, a Resolution Approving a Variance for Timothy White of 5249 Greenfield Avenue, to allow for a reduced side-yard setback for a deck-like sidewalk. Chairperson Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for questions of staff. Miller suggested the following amendment to the Resolution: Add to the first WHEREAS the descriptive notes that Ericson had included in Section(a)under the staff report Analysis. She also suggested adding verbiage that stated leveling of the sidewalk on the north side of the garage was not possible due to exposure of the garage footings. Obert stated the hardships that were being discussed were really not hardships but conditions that were brought on by the property owner. He voiced his opposition to the stated hardships and expressed his concern that the City was allowing too many variances for work that had been done without first applying for the proper work permits. • PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 September 16, 1998 MOTION/SECOND: Brooks/Miller to approve Resolution No. 556-98, A Resolution Approving a Variance Request for a Sidewalk, as amended, 5249 Greenfield Avenue, Timothy White. VOTE: Ayes- 6 Nays- 0 Motion carried. 5. Planning Case No. 536-98 Property Involved: 2200 & 2214 Highway 10 (Mermaid and Perkins, respectively). Consideration of resolution No. 560-98, a Resolution Approving a Variance Request to Allow a Joint Use Parking and Access Arrangement between the Businesses and a Zero-Foot Parking Lot Setback. Applicant: Daniel Hall, representing the Mermaid The applicant, Daniel Hall, was present. Associate Ericson gave his report as follows: • The applicant was requesting a variance from the required five-foot setback established for parking lots in a business district. The parking lot for the Mermaid has been expanded and resurfaced in accordance with the development plans submitted to and approved by the City on May 11, 1998. It was discovered after the fact that the development plans were in error(off by approximately seven feet), such that the parking lot north of the building as constructed encroaches into the required side-yard setback and in one area crosses the property line onto the Perkins property. To compensate the Perkins property, the Mermaid has opened a secondary access drive between the two businesses, complementing the existing joint access This access will serve to improve circulation between the sites and to improve the safety of Mermaid patrons by diverting Perkins traffic to the rear of the Mermaid. In addition, representatives from both properties have entered into a joint use agreement, such that both properties are protected in the event either use or ownership should change. The City will require that a cross-access and shared parking easement be filed with Ramsey County to legitimize the arrangement. This document is being drafted by the City Attorney. Staff was recommending approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 560-98, a Resolution Approving a Variance for a Zero-Foot Setback for a Parking Lot, on Properties Located at 2200 & 2214 highway 10. • Chairperson Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for questions of staff. • PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 September 16, 1998 Miller asked if the island between the two parking lots would remain. Dan Hall, told the Commission the island would remain "as is." Obert recommended adding that final approval be contingent upon execution, and recordation of the easement document. MOTION/SECOND: ObertBrasaemle to approve Resolution No. 560-98, a Resolution Approving a Variance Request to Allow a Joint Use Parking and Access Arrangement between the Businesses and a Zero-Foot Parking Lot Setback, as amended, for 2200 & 2214 Highway 10, Daniel Hall representing the Mermaid. VOTE: Ayes - 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried 6. Planning Case No. 535-98 Property Involved: 8111 Eastwood Road • Consideration of Resolution No. 558-98, a Resolution approving a Variance to Allow for two Curb Cuts. Applicant: Michael Tobias The applicant, Michael Tobias, was not present. Associate Ericson gave his report as follows: The applicant was requesting a variance from the Code requirement that states a single-family property shall be limited to only one curb cut. Earlier this year, the applic• i a• • • a • I• permit to resurface his driveway, which had access onto both Sherwood Road and Eastwood Road. At that time staff indicated that a building permit could not be approved due to the nonconforming nature of the driveway, unless the access to Sherwood Road was removed. The applicant agreed and the permit was issued. Subsequent reinspection of the property showed that both access points remained, both having been improved contrary to the permit. The applicant was notified in writing that they had two alternatives to resolve the situation: 1. Remove the driveway access to Sherwood Road 2. Apply for and receive a variance • The applicant chose to apply for a variance in order to maintain the driveway in its present condition. • PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 September 16, 1998 To understand the predominance of the type of driveway configuration present at 8111 Eastwood Road, staff surveyed corner properties north of Hillview between Groveland and Long Lake Road. There are 54 corner lots in this area, of which ten(18.5 percent) have multiple curb cuts. In comparison, the percentage of all residential properties with more than one curb cut is less than one percent. Corner properties present unique safety issues, with as many as four distinct paths of traffic to monitor while backing out of the driveway. Some corner lots, because of tree cover, shrubs and other plantings, have limited visibility thereby increasing the safety risk. The applicant hired an asphalt company to do the required driveway demolition and reconstruction work. The contractor read and was aware of the City's request that the curb cut onto Sherwood Road was to be removed. It was the opinion of staff that the contractor made an error in not removing the curb cut as requested by the City and also written into the work contract that the Tobias family had with the contractor. Staff gave no recommendation but offered the Planning Commission "Option A" and "Option D" of Resolution No. 558-98, Approval or Denial respectively. Chairperson Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for questions of staff. • A discussion was held in regards to what constituted maintenance and what constituted reconstruction. The Code allows "improvement" of existing conditions as long as they are not "expanded." It was the consensus of the Commission that the contractor was aware that the Sherwood Road curb cut was to be removed and that the new work would include a turn around area in place of the old driveway, per the drawing, specified dimensions and quoted prices for the work. Obert stated there was no hardship to justify the variance. He added, the problem that the property owner now faces was brought on by an error made by the contractor and the contractor is the one who should be responsible for correcting the error, with no charge to the home owner. MOTION/SECOND: Brasaemle/Miller to approve Resolution No. 558-98 "Option D"Denial of a Variance for Two Curb Cuts, as amended, 8111 Eastwood Road, Michael Tobias. VOTE: Ayes - 6 Nays- 0 Motion carried 7. Staff Reports/Information Items A. Highway 10 Design Theme • Director Jopke gave his report as follows: • PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 September 16, 1998 A visual presentation was made using concept plans that had been developed by the Hoisington Koegler Group, the City's design consultant with input from various Commission and City staff personnel. The Consultant had used the Theme "Woods and Wetland." This theme does use components of the "Mainstreet" theme which used neighborhood roads to bring the community to the "main corridor." The Council has asked the staff to draft a design implementation report as well as explore potential funding for the project's $3 million plus budget. Staff is recommending that the Highway 10 Corridor Project be included in the City's Comprehensive Plan Update. B. Theater Project Update Director Jopke gave his report as follows: A Development Agreement has been executed with Anthony Properties. The City and the Developer have agreed to "work together" to solve any traffic problems that may result from opening of the theater before the signalized intersection at Highway 10 and Edgewood Road is ready. SEH has been given authorization to complete the final design for this signalized • intersection, which will also service the City's New Community Center. One or two of the office buildings that are part of the development may be built on a "spec" basis. Plans and specification for these buildings will be forth coming from the developer earlier in the fall. C. Mermaid Hotel/Banquet Facility Update Director Jopke gave his report as follows: September 28, 1998 is the target date for the Development Agreement on this project As part of this Development Agreement the City would provide $1.7 million in TIF assistance to the developer. These funds would cover site improvements and acquisition of the land, other than the Rent-All site on the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H. The City would be solely responsible for acquiring the Rent-All site and relocating the business, a sum of approximately $550,000. Staff is currently in the application process for a Minnesota Department of Trade and Development grant which will, if successfully awarded, offset some of the costs of this project. Metro Transit has also expressed very strong interest in developing the Rent-All site as a possible Park&Ride. If this project goes forward there is a potential that the Metro Transit will share in some if not a large portion of the funds necessary to complete the project. • D. Greenfield Ponds Tax Forfeit Properties • PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 September 16, 1998 Associate Ericson gave his report as follows: Ramsey County has notified the City of the availability of tax forfeited properties. There are three properties that are located within the Greenfield Pond Subdivision, the Harstad Subdivision. The properties were identified as Outlot A(the entire wetland area), Outlot B and Lot 3 which are located on the unimproved Edgewood Drive. The City currently has a drainage easement over the entirety of the wetland, Outlot A and B and part of Lot 3. Staff was asking the Commission for its opinion in regards to the City purchasing any or all of the properties. A second option would be to acquire a $200 "Use Deed" from the County which would give the City exclusive rights to utilize the property for a specific purpose, i.e., drainage. Lot 3, with extensive soils corrections is the only buildable lot. Obert stated the property should be left available for private development. Peterson stated the "Use Deed" would be the best option. Ericson stated staff would verify that there is no need for the property in terms of additional drainage, mitigation, or for any other reason. If the City does not have a need for the properties • then a recommendation to "pass" on the properties will be forwarded to the Council. 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports No reports were considered. 9. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting There being no further business before the Planning Commission Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:45. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director • • Planning Comm. Mtg September 16, 1998 Please Sign In ! Name Address Phone # Item of Interest: ittk- td (7)-024 /(Ake, .),Y -47, 44- e/ Ig4:0 22ca /41-614e-cAe( 1b M f. 7 `( -) 4" • • • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION , RESOLUTION NO. 556-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED TWO-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A SIDEWALK LOCATED AT 5249 GREENFIELD AVENUE; PLANNING CASE NO. 533-98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Timothy White to permit a sidewalk within the two-foot sideyard setback at his home located at 5249 Greenfield Road; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District and is legally described as: Lot 15, Block 2, Eigenheer Second Addition WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with this request: • 1. Planning Application 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Site Plan WHEREAS, the sidewalk for which this variance is requested by the applicant has already been constructed, replacing a sidewalk that had been present in excess of twenty years; and, WHEREAS, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control, in that the land laying between the garage and the adjoining property is lsoped and that the shed, which faces north toward the adjoining property, is located outside of the enclosed pool area, access to which is gained most conveniently from alongside the north side of the garage; and, WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that the slope of the land laying between the garage and the adjoining property necessitates that some type of walkway be constructed to access the garden area and shed to the rear of the garage; and, • WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant in that the grade of the land is somewhat inhibitive for access without a leveling of the Planning Commission Resolution 556-98 IIP September 2, 1998 Page 2 grade, which is not possible without exposing the footings of the garage and possibly interupting the flow of drainage from the property; and, WHEREAS, the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship, in that because the setback is only two feet for a sidewalk and the fence (presumably) is not on the property line, the variance requested is minimal--probably one foot to one and a half feet; and, WHEREAS, granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that other property owners have unobstructed access to the area between their garage and property line; and, WHEREAS, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone in that the the City Code allows driveways--a more intensive use--to be located within one foot of a property line; and, WHEREAS, the variance would not not impair an adequate supply of light and air to • adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood in that a sidewalk would have no impact upon property values, supply of light or air, and may even decrease the risk to public safety. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the variance request of Timothy White, to allow a sidewalk within the two-foot sideyard setback at 5249 Greenfield Avenue. Adopted this 16th day of September, 1998 Jerry Pe erson, Chairman ATTEST RICK Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL • N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V\DE VCAS ES\533-98\556-98A.RES V MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. 558-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR TWO CURB-CUTS AT 8111 EASTWOOD ROAD, A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNED BY MICHAEL TOBIAS; PLANNING CASE NO. 535-98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Michael Tobias to allow for two curb cuts at his property, located at 8111 Eastwood Road; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Subject to Sherwood and Eastwood Roads, The East 215 Feet of the West 1799 Feet of the South 200 Feet of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6, Township 30, Range 23 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated • with this request: 1. Planning Application 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Site Plan 5. Letter from Building Inspector,dated 7/28/98 6. Corner Parcel Inventory WHEREAS, the applicant applied for and received Building Permit no. 98095 to repave his driveway, on the condition that the access to Sherwood Road be removed; and, WHEREAS, inspections after the work was completed showed that the access to Sherwood Road had not been permanently removed, but instead had been replaced, violating the terms of the permit; and, WHEREAS, a variance to the provisions of the Zoning Code may be issued by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of the property owner's land; and, • WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that there is no undue hardship or practical difficulties associated with this property which would warrant approving a variance, based upon the following evidence: Planning Commission Resolution 558-98 Tobias Driveway Variance 8111 Eastwood Road • September 16, 1998 Page 2 (1) More than eighty percent of the corner lots in this section of the City have only one curb cut, and, (2) There are no physical obstructions, such as a bend in the road, trees, bushes or shrubs, that would restrict visibility to and from the property, and, (3) There is ample room on the property to have a turn-around, or"T" extension to the main drive to enable vehicles to exit the property in forward motion rather than in reverse. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals denies the variance to allow two curb cuts at 8111 Eastwood Road and directs the property owner to remove the access to Sherwood Road in accordance with the letter sent to the property owner dated 7/28/98. Adopted this 16th day of September, 1998. • Jerry Pet s� orf!Chairman ATTEST (7L Rick Jopke, Co nity Development Director SEAL N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DE VCASES\535-98\558-98 D.RES • • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 560-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A ZERO-FOOT SIDE YARD PARKING LOT SETBACK FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2200 - 2214 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. 536-98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Daniel Hall, representing the Mermaid, and Charles Herbst, representing the Perkins property, to allow a joint-use parking lot which overlaps the common property line between the Mermaid, located at 2200 Highway 10, and Perkins, located at 2214 Highway 10; and, WHEREAS, these properties are zoned B-3, Highway Business District and have the following property identification numbers (PINs): Mermaid: 08-30-23-43-0006 08-30-23-43-0007 • 08-30-23-43-0008 Perkins: 08-30-23-41-0010 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with this request: 1. Planning Application 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Site Plan/Survey 5. Joint Use Agreement WHEREAS, the parking lot for which this variance is requested has already been constructed in accordance with the development plans approved by the City Council on May 11, 1998 in Resolution 5236; and, WHEREAS, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control, in that the plans prepared for the Mermaid expansion • and adopted by the City Council were in error; and, Planning Commission Resolution 560-98 September 16, 1998 • Page 2 WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that the parking is required to be installed in accordance with the development agreement and that the City Code does allow for joint parking and off-site parking arrangements; and, WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant in that the site plans were drafted by outside consultants, upon whose expertise and abilities the applicant and City entrusted; and, WHEREAS, granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that other properties within the City have combined parking lots and joint parking arrangements; and, WHEREAS, the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship, in that the minimum required width for two aisles of parking with an access drive in between is sixty feet, which is what was shown on the original development plans. The variance requested will allow for the sixty feet to be installed according to the plans approved by the City 1111 Council; and, WHEREAS, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other properties in the same zone in that both circulation and safety between and within the two properties would improve while parking can be sufficiently expanded to meet the requirements as outlined by the City Code; and, WHEREAS, the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood in that the joint parking and access would alleviate congestion, improve public safety and improve parking on both sites. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the variance request of Daniel Hall and Charles Herbst, to allow a zero-foot setback for a joint use parking lot between the Mermaid, located at 2200 Highway 10, and Perkins, located at 2214 Highway 10, with the following condition: 1. The applicants shall execute and arrange to have recorded with Ramsey County the reciprocal parking easement document as drafted by the City Attorney. • Adopted this 16th day of September, 1998 Planning Commission Resolution 560-98 September 16, 1998 • Page 3 Jerry teon, Chairman ATTEST Rick Jopke, Co unity Development Director SEAL N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES1536-981560-98A.RES •