Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-21-1999 PC PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW • RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 21, 1999 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p.m., April 21, 1999. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Braathen, Hegland, Johnson, Kaden, Laube, and Miller. Members Absent: Commissioner Stevenson with prior notice. Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Rick Jopke, Council Liaison Roger Stigney, and Recorder Carla Wirth. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 552-99, 2091 Terrace Drive, Gerald Miller, Property Owner Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution 578-99, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an 1,040 square-foot Over-Sized Garage 2 Planning Case No. 551-99, 2814 Bronson Drive, Andrea MacRannolds, Property Owner Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution 577-99, a Resolution Recommending Denial of a Conditional Use Permit Request for a Residential Dog Kennel 4 Planning Case No. 550-99, 5302 Raymond Avenue, Don Norris, Property Owner Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution 574-99, a Resolution Approving a Variance Request to Allow a Five-Foot Building Setback for Living Space Expansion 10 Staff Reports/Items of Information 13 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 14 • Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 2 • 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda No citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda were considered. 4. Approval of Minutes A. March 17, 1999 MOTION/SECOND: Berke/Hegland to approve the March 17, 1999 meeting minutes as presented. Ayes - 8 Nays - 0 The motion carried. 5. Planning Case No. 552-99 [Public Hearing] Property Involved: 2091 Terrace Drive Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution 578-99, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an 1,040 square-foot Over-Sized Garage • Applicant: Gerald Miller, Property Owner The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant, Gerald Miller, is requesting a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a 1,040 square-foot garage at 2091 Terrace Drive which is located north of County Road I near the eastern border of the City. The property, an interior lot, is approximately 13,050 square feet. . e . A • -- . . . 5 I" 555 $ • 1" • .i h the detached garage situated behind the house. The house, at approximately 926 square feet, is presently larger than the existing two-stall garage, which is 506 square feet. The applicant will be removing the present garage to make room for thenew one. There is an 80 square foot (8 x 10) shed behind the existing garage which is set far enough back so as not to be in the way of the proposed garage. A CUP is required, in this case, due to the size of the proposed garage. The size of the proposed garage would be 1,040 square feet, which is not much larger than the house. While it would be larger, there would not exist the "imbalance" which has been present in the last few over-sized garage CUP requests. The applicant proposes to construct an addition to the rear of the house in the following year which would again make the house bigger than the garage. The proposed . location of the garage does not interfere with the future expansion plans nor the existence of a shed in the back yard. Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 All of the dimensional criteria associated with this request--setbacks, spacing between buildings, width of proposed garage, and numbers of doors--satisfy the requirements as stated in Chapter 1104 of the Zoning Code. The proposed garage is about 91 feet from the front property line, 43 feet from the rear property line, and is set back from the side of the property by about seven feet. Taking into consideration the size of the shed, the total amount of accessory building coverage on the lot would be 1,120 square feet, or 14.6 percent of the rear yard area. Were the applicant to replace the existing shed with the largest allowable without a CUP, the coverage would rise to 16.4 percent, which is still less than the maximum accessory building coverage of twenty percent. Ericson reviewed the five CUP criteria as contained in the City Code, Section 1125.01, Subd. 1 and staff's analysis. He indicated this proposal appears to satisfy the adverse effects criteria. Ericson advised that staff has not received any adverse feedback from neighboring residents regarding this request. He then reviewed the criteria contained in Section 1125.01, Subd. 3b, for granting a CUP and staff's analysis of each. He stated staff believes that the adverse effects of this development proposal are minimal and are far out-weighed by the benefits. Staff also believes that it is desirable from a community perspective to have property owners improve their properties with building expansions since the properties are then usually kept in better order with more inside storage being provided and may trigger other properties to do the same. Ericson stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 578-99, a resolution recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 1,040 square foot garage at 2091 Terrace Drive, requested by Gerald Miller. He reviewed the standard stipulations as contained within the Code pertaining to oversized garages related to the use of the structure, uniform exterior appearance, parking of vehicles on improved surfaces or within the garage, and the indication the existing shed may have to be removed to maintain the minimum six-foot setback distances. Gerald Miller, applicant, stated he had nothing to add to the staff report. Chair Peterson opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Commissioner Miller inquired regarding the location of the small shed. Ericson advised it is just behind the garage, on the west side of the property. Miller asked if enough space will be allotted to maintain a six-foot separation. Ericson stated it appears there will be but staff will check to assure it is provided when the building permit application is received. Miller asked if there will be a door at the back of the garage. Mr. Miller stated he is planning to have a single-sized garage door on the back of the garage. Miller stated the house is stucco and asked if the garage will also be stucco. Mr. Miller advised that it will be vinyl sided and used primarily for storage, not a home occupation business. Hearing no further pubic input, Chair Peterson closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. • Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Laube to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 578-99, a resolution recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an oversized garage at 2091 Terrace Drive, Mounds View Planning Case No. 552-99. Miller requested the correction of several minor typographical errors. Ericson stated these corrections will be made. Ayes - 8 Nays - 0 The motion carried. 6. Planning Case No. 551-99 [Public Hearing] Property Involved: 2814 Bronson Drive Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution 577-99, a Resolution Recommending Denial of a Conditional Use Permit Request for a Residential Dog Kennel Applicant: Andrea MacRannolds, Property Owner The applicant's son was present. Planning�g Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant, Andrea MacRannolds of 2841 Bronson Drive, is applying for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a residential dog kennel, a Code requirement for property owners with three or four dogs. One of the licensing requirements is that the property owner shall obtain signatures of approval from more than 50 percent of the residents within 500 feet of the property proposing the kennel. The applicant was sent a map showing those properties within 500 feet along with a corresponding list of property owners/taxpayers. earlier this year but was pulled from the agendas when it was learned that: 1) the applicant was out of state and 2) she had not satisfied the minimum requirement for signatures needed for the petition related to this request. Staff sent the applicant a letter indicating its intent to exercise its right for an additional 60 days with which to make a decision regarding this case. Ericson reported that he just received the petition from the applicant's son before the meeting tonight and has been unable to verify the signatures. Ericson reviewed the four incidents involving dogs at this address as indicated by the Police Department. On November 30, 1992, a male Rottweiler was removed from the property after it had reportedly attacked someone; on October 10, 1994, the applicant was issued Administrative Offenses for having two dogs (Rottweilers) without a license, both of which had been running loose through the neighborhood; • On March 19, 1998, a dog was removed from the subject property for not having a dog license; and on December 1, 1998, the applicant was issued a Citation for having more than two dogs at Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 her property. Ericson clarified that the applicant has indicated that she called the police department to remove the dog. Ericson explained that because of the 120 day deadline--May 8, 1999--the Planning Commission needs to act on this request so that the City Council can take final action on April 26, 1999, the last regular meeting before the deadline. He explained that the effect of not acting on the application is to have the application automatically approved. Ericson stated that in consideration of the incidents involving dogs at this address and negative comments from the neighborhood, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 577-99, a resolution recommending denial of a CUP for a dog kennel for Andrea MacRannolds, located at 2841 Bronson Drive. He advised that the applicant was unable to attend the meeting but her son is in attendance tonight to answer questions of the Planning Commission. Also, several residents are present who may wish to address this application. David MacRannolds, the applicant's son, stated his opinion that it should not matter what type of dog was involved in the attack and staffs report should not have indicated it involved a Rottweiler. He stated they have lived at this location for ten years and everyone who has a dog knows that things happen. He explained that a bad dog from a bad breeder happens but that is • only one incident in ten years. Mr. MacRannolds stated that a lot of people believe his mother is asking for a dog kennel to be built on the property but they are indoor dogs and a kennel will not be built. He stated they currently have three large dogs and one dog that is smaller than a cat. Chair Peterson opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. Phil Johnson, 7474 Groveland Road, stated that he is confused about the petition and whether 50 percent actually signed their approval of this request. Ericson explained staff just receive the petition before the meeting tonight so they have been unable to verify the number and accuracy of the signatures. Mr. Johnson stated a number of neighborhood residents are present tonight and none were aware there was a petition. He stated if they had been aware, none would have signed it. Chair Peterson explained the procedure for this type of petition. Mr. MacRannolds stated there are 30 to 31 signatures on the petition and 29 signatures were required to obtain 50 percent. Mr. Johnson stated he would think the immediate neighbors who live adjacent to the property should have been asked about the petition. Constance Larson, 2833 Bronson Drive, said she signed the petition with understanding that the • applicant would be fined $100 per dog if they didn't sign the petition. She stated they do not mind the dogs but do object to the smell since the yard is not cleaned up. Ms. Larson explained Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 that they moved into the house during the winter when the smell was not an issue but it is now an issue. Mr. MacRannolds stated they are working to resolve that problem and clean up the yard. Ms. Larson stated she did express her concern about the smell to the applicant several days ago and agrees they are making an effort to clean up the yard. Gerald Sullivan, 2832 Bronson Drive, asked how many dogs there currently are. Mr. MacRannolds restated they have three large dogs and one small dog. Mr. Sullivan stated the applicant already has the dogs and is now tying to retroactively get the permit. He suggested this may be why some signed the petition, to prevent the applicant from being fined. Patricia Johnson, 7474 Groveland Road, stated the dogs do occasionally get out and the Rottweiler has followed her while she walking and continued to follow her until David MacRannolds called the dog back. She stated this occurred last summer and she does not think 41) the dogs are very friendly. there are four dogs Bettington, 7560 Groveland Road, stated now and due to the smell it is hard for him to work in his back yard. Also, he advised the dogs are quite noisy and this is not a new problem but has been on-going. Mr. Bettington stated that since this situation has existed for a while, he does not think the situation will change so he supports denial John Winiecki, 7575 Groveland Road, stated he also supports denial due to a concern about safety for his grandchildren and desire to ride bicycle and walk in the neighborhood. He advised that one dog is a Great Dane and another is a Rottweiler. Mr. Winiecki stated he was leaning against the fence and one of the dogs growled at him. He advised the current fence is a short fence for dogs of this size. Mr. MacRannolds stated he did indicate three large dogs and one small dog and the vet clinic would be able to verify the wellness and mental soundness of his dogs. He stated that any dog will bark at someone walking by or teasing them. Mr. MacRannolds stated the fence is constructed to Code for dogs. Mary Bettington, 7560 Groveland Road, stated she would like to speak to the height of the fence since it is not as high as would keep a Great Dane or German Shepard in the yard. She noted that leaves and snow pile up alongside the fence which allow them to easily get over the fence. She stated she cannot enjoy her own back yard swing or walk in her back yard without 4110 the dogs barking at her. Ms. Bettington stated she doubts most people could get the dogs to stop should they get out. Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 7 The applicant was asked if they were indoor or outdoor dogs. Mr. MacRannolds stated they let the dogs outside to go to the bathroom and the Great Dane and German Shepard are puppies so they do like to run. Mr. MacRannolds explained that there is an area where the fence is by a hill but it could be rectified with a higher fence. He stated his opinion that some people assume Rottweilers are a bad dog because of the bad press coverage they get and people forget the good things about them. Commissioner Kaden asked how old the dogs are. Mr. MacRannolds stated the Rottweiler is seven years old and past her average life span, the Shih-Tzu is four years old and will live about 12 years, the Great Dane is 14 months old, and the German Shepard is a year and one-half to two years old. Mr. MacRannolds explained that his mother is at her lake property for about six months out of the year and usually takes two of the dogs with her, leaving only two at the residence. Ericson advised that staff forwarded this resolution to the City Attorney who commented that Minnesota State Statutes classify Rottweilers as a"dangerous animal." He explained that while this particular Rottweiler may be a gentle dog near the end of its life span, he reiterated that the Statute does classify it as a"dangerous animal." Commissioner Kaden asked what happens if the application is denied and if the applicant can reapply if the conditions improve. Ericson stated the Code requires a two-month period before making reapplication so if denied by the Council they would have to remove two of the dogs and can then reapply in several months. Kaden asked what happens if the request is denied and they do not remove two dogs. Ericson stated the Animal Control Officer would enforce the Code by forcefully removing two of the dogs. Commissioner Johnson asked if there is a Code pertaining to the height of a fence for dogs. Ericson stated there is not. Commissioner Hegland asked how long the applicant is given to comply. Ericson explained the violation was cited in December and an agreement reached that they would make application so the timeframe to comply is now. Ericson stated if the application is not approved by the Council, they will need to immediately comply since there is no grace period and they have already received a period of four months including a 60-day extension. A resident stated that the fence will gain nothing except to keep the dogs in on one side of the • yard but it will not keep the stench out. He stated the neighbors cannot enjoy their own back yard during the summer because of these dogs. Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 • Mr. Johnson stated that the smell is not a problem with his lot but the barking is a problem and there is no fence in the front yard. He stated that he does not think there should be four dogs in a residential neighborhood and noted that one dog has already chased his wife when she was out for a walk. Chair Peterson explained that these applications occur due to a complaint from a neighbor or the dog owner becomes aware of the need for a license. When the application is made, complaints are researched and, generally, the only problem that is usually found is one of barking. He noted that complaints of dogs running at-large and odor have not been common complaints but if found the recommendation is for denial with the Council making the final determination. Chair Peterson explained the Planning Commission will have to consider all of the input and make a recommendation to the Council. Mr. MacRannolds asked if the petition of signatures is also considered. Chair Peterson explained that since staff has not been able to verify the location of the signatures and number, it cannot be approved on that basis alone. He stated that prior to Council consideration, this petition could be verified by staff to see if this requirement is met. 111 Mr. Sullivan stated the petition cannot be given weight since it appears it was obtained by telling people that they would be fined if they didn't obtain "X" number of signatures. He stated that he believes the petition should not carry any weight. Mr. MacRannolds stated the fine may have been mentioned to a couple of people but the more recent signatures on the second page were not told of a fine. Commissioner Miller noted that some of the names on the petition have no house number, only a street name. Mr. Johnson stated that he is an immediate neighbor and didn't even see the petition. Chair Peterson noted that one address on the petition is outside of the distance criteria but some of the others are fairly close to the home, some immediately adjacent. He asked if there is a requirement on the language used on such a petition. Ericson stated that staff typically prepares the petition and provides it to the applicant to use during the signature gathering process. He stated that a petition was drafted for and given to this applicant but may have been misplaced. Ericson reviewed the typical language used and stated the petition presented tonight is not in the form drafted by City staff. Chair Peterson stated since it is not in the form of petition usually used by the City and not yet verified, he does not believe the petition can be considered tonight. • Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 S Mr. MacRannolds requested a copy of the meeting minutes for his mother's review. Chair Peterson stated a copy of the meeting minutes will be made available. Ericson added that the meeting video will be replayed later this week. Hearing no additional pubic input, Chair Peterson closed the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. Commissioner Laube noted that 120 days were provided to gather signatures but just tonight, at the last minute, the petition was received so it could not be verified which makes it tough for the Planning Commissioners to consider it tonight, especially in view of other public input received. He asked how the Commission can be assured the clean up of the grounds will also be continued and not done at the last minute. With regard to the delay in submitting the petition until tonight, Mr. MacRannolds explained that his mother gathered the signatures on the first page and then had to leave and travel out of state for a family emergency so she was gone for several months. He advised she was also limited by recent surgeries so she worked on gathering signatures as she was able. Commissioner Kaden stated that he does not want the applicant to think the Commission is anti- dog and he even owns a large dog that is half Rottweiler. But, he also believes in responsible • ownership which includes having dogs under control at all times. He stated when his dog is out of the yard, it is always on a leash. He stated if someone pays $80,000 to $100,000 for a house they should be able to enjoy their property and not have to smell dog waste or hear barking all of the time. He stated this is not a problem in his neighborhood even though most residents are dog owners. Kaden stated it bothers him that he may have to vote in such a way that results in two dogs being removed but, due to neighborhood concern, he does not see what else he can do. Mr. MacRannolds stated he believes a lot of the problems or complaints could have been alleviated long ago if there was communication between neighbors. He noted that the new neighbor has told them about the odor problem and they have tried to address that situation to maks it bcttcr. He stated the other neighbors have never approached him about a complaint. Chair Peterson stated that some of this involves common sense and it is not the responsibility of neighbors to complain before responsible ownership results. Ms. Larson stated they just moved in and want to get along with their neighbors and don't want to offend their neighbors. She stated that last week she talked with them and said she didn't want to call the police but to talk with them first. She stated they are erecting a fence five feet farther from the current fence but her concern is that even though the fence is being built, will they clean up the yard to eliminate the odor problems. She stated she shares the concern expressed by Commissioner Kaden about two dogs being removed from the property but she wants to be Sassured the clean up will continue. Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 10 • Mr. MacRannolds stated that there is about 30 feet between the new fence to the neighbors. He stated he has started to clean up the yard and landscape that side of the yard to put grass back in and have the trees grow. He stated he also wants to improve the condition of the yard and landscaping. MOTION/SECOND: Braathen/Berke to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 577-99, a resolution recommending denial of a conditional use permit to allow for a dog kennel for Andrea MacRannolds, 2841 Bronson Drive, Mounds View Planning Case No. 547-99. Chair Peterson restated that the criteria for the petition has not been met tonight since the information has not been verified by City staff. He stated that based on the public input, that is reason enough for denial in his opinion. Ericson stated that staff will review and verify the signatures and ask the City Attorney whether the petition meets the City's standard to address the possible misrepresentation of the facts. This information will be presented to the Council prior to their consideration. Mr. Johnson asked if the neighbors in opposition can also submit a petition for consideration. • Chair Peterson explained that general petitions are informational in nature for the Council and would be considered, but are not binding. Ayes - 8 Nays - 0 The motion carried. Mr. Bettington requested a copy of the petition that was circulated by the petitioner. Ericson provided a copy of the petition to him. 7. Planning Case No. 550-99 Property Involved: 5302 Raymond Avenue Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution 574-99, a Resolution Approving a Variance Request to Allow a Five-Foot Building Setback for Living Space Expansion Applicant: Don Norris, Property Owner The applicant was not present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: At the last regular meeting held by the Planning Commission on April 7, 1999, staff presented a • report and request for a variance to be approved at 5302 Raymond Avenue. The applicant, Don Norris, wishes to construct a living space addition behind a garage that is being built onto his home. The living space would be constructed at the same setback as the garage. Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 11 The Planning Commission agreed that the improvement would be a benefit to the home and would serve to make the property more habitable and to increase the value of the property, as well as possibly prompting others nearby to invest in their own properties. Because of the narrow lot width and the fact that the lot supports two dwellings, building expansion becomes difficult. Staff has examined the criteria upon which variance applications are to be judged and found that in all instances, a case can be made which supports the granting of a variance in this circumstance. There do not appear to be any negative impacts resulting from this addition, the living space would be located behind a planned garage addition, and would be buffered from the property to the north by an attached garage. The dwelling unit to the south, attached to Mr. Norris' unit, would not be impacted by this addition as it is separated by a common addition on the back side of the building. Ericson stated that given the supporting criteria, lack of negative impacts, and the resulting increased livability of the property, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 574-99, a resolution approving a variance to allow a building expansion with a five- foot setback from the north property line of 5302 Raymond Avenue, as requested by Don Norris. 11111 Ericson advised that the applicant was unable to attend but did call him this morning to ask if there were any unresolved issues. He stated there are no outstanding issues nor negative comments received since the last meeting. Commissioner Miller stated that she has been agonizing over this decision She stated she sees this can be an improvement to the property but there are seven criteria that must be followed to grant a variance and she is bothered by two. Specifically, the criteria indicates that by the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title, it would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. Miller noted that the applicant could build a different configuration and still maintain a ten-foot separation. She stated the criteria also requires that the special conditions or circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. Miller stated she understands the good intent but the variance says to grant the circumstances cannot be the result of actions of the applicant. Ericson stated staff, in reviewing the application, felt the actions are not the result of the property owner since the properties were platted many years ago and the way the twinhomes were configured on the lot did not lend to further expansion. He stated he understands Commissioner Miller's concerns but feels the hardship goes back further than the ownership of this applicant. Commissioner Hegland stated the Codes the City now follows are based on new construction techniques and requirements and the City is imposing those on existing properties that were built long ago, which is the function of redevelopment. He stated he believes this has created a • hardship for this particular property so he supports approval. Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 12 • Commissioner Kaden asked if the hardship was created by whoever platted the lot and constructed the twinhome. Ericson stated the original design of this subdivision may not have been fully thought out to allow for the construction of garages or any future expansion. He noted the Codes at the time of construction may have been different. From staffs perspective, they felt the situation and circumstance was not created by the property owner himself but, rather, the person who platted and designed the twinhomes. Ericson noted the design of new twinhomes utilize the land much better and provide for living space and building area. Commissioner Miller asked if there will be future problems with requests for five-foot setbacks. Ericson stated this is one of the criteria that needs to be considered, how many properties this would apply to. He stated this row of twinhomes face a similar situation but staff weighed that consideration being raised and felt whether a precedent was being set or not, a similar variance request would be looked at in the same way. Commissioner Braathen asked if this is creating a hardship for the adjacent property should they want a mirror development. Ericson stated he does not think it would impact or limit the adjoining property's ability to expand. He noted the unit to the north does have a garage on the south side of the lot. Chair Peterson reviewed the configuration of the unit on the lot and noted the great limitation presented. He agreed with Ericson that the hardship occurred with the original platting and design of the units. Chair Peterson stated the Commission must consider whether this request will result in a benefit to the City and the neighborhood. Commissioner Berke stated he believes this will be an improvement to the property and, as a Planning Commission, they should support the redevelopment of older buildings. He commented they may need to be more sensitive to this type of situation arising in the future. He stated his support for approval. Commissioner Miller noted the variance criteria were not developed by the City. Commissioner Berke noted that this property was planned in the 1950s and 1960s and the City is trying to impose today's standards. He stated you need to make some allowances and not place a hardship on owners who want to improve their property. Chair Peterson noted that a variance, by it's very definition, addresses unique situations so he weights that issue as well. He stated he agrees with comments made that with a redevelopment situation of less than ideal conditions, it needs to be considered while assuring a precedent is not set that will cause future problems. He suggested that the proposed resolution mention the uniqueness of this particular lot. . Ericson stated if a similar application is made and it becomes an issue where more variance requests are being made, then maybe the Code should be reviewed to see if it should be changed Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 13 to be more conducive of redevelopment and reutilization of properties. He noted that if the Code is amended, there would be no hardship because it would be allowed and not need a variance. Chair Peterson stated if a Code amendment is considered, it would have to be carefully written to assure setback distances are maintained. In this case, he stated he sees no other alternatives and believes it would be unreasonable to refuse to allow the property owner to expand. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Kaden to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 574-99, a resolution approving a variance to allow the required five-foot side yard setback for principal structure living space located at 5302 Raymond Avenue, Mounds View Planning Case No. 550- 99. Commissioner Miller requested a correction to the fourth WHEREAS on Page 2 of the resolution to eliminate one of the words "not" from the first line. She restated that she does not believe the criteria have all been met so she will vote against. Chair Peterson requested that additional qualifying language be added to the resolution to clarify the unique situation. Ericson suggested that staff strengthen the language to indicate that • alternatives to expansion are very limited. inas follows: "In that the lot is only100 feet wide and supports two Ericson suggested wording pp building units, and given the context of the building design which makes building expansion overly restrictive." Hegland/Kaden agreed with these friendly amendments to the motion. Ayes - 7 Nays - 1 The motion carried. 8. Staff Reports /Items of Information A. Review of Council Actions Community Development Director Jopke updated the Planning Commission regarding recent Council and EDA discussions on a proposed TIF office/warehouse development and continuing discussion regarding that project. He stated that depending on the next EDA discussion, that development may or may not move forward. Jopke reviewed the survey which was recently conducted regarding the disposition of a remnant parcel that will be created when Edgewood is realigned. He noted the responses received with the clear majority supporting the City to keep it and do nothing with it or use it for a storm water 411 pond. Jopke advised that the Council was concerned with the low number of responses and asked staff to get more citizen input from an over-all community survey. Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 14 • Jopke advised of the development interest in this remnant parcel and options that could be considered. Jopke inquired regarding the Commission's impression of the GTS Seminar. Commissioner Laube stated he attended two seminars and found the first more useful than the second which was somewhat unorganized. Commissioner Miller stated she will be attending next week and will report after that date. B. Update regarding KinderCare Variance Ericson explained that at the last meeting, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution granting a variance to KinderCare for a sign. At that meeting, a question was raised whether they paid the appropriate fee for the application. Ericson reported that while the meeting packet indicated they paid $100, they actually paid the appropriate amount of$250. C. Ramsey County Tax Forfeit Auction • Ericson announced the Ramsey County tax forfeit land auction on April 29, 1999, and reported on the vacant parcel abutting Edgewood that will be auctioned on that date. He explained there was some developer interest in that parcel. Ericson reported that the Council would be holding the public hearing and first reading of Ordinance No. 629, an ordinance amending Chapter 401 of the Municipal Code pertaining to the Planning Commission. 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Commissioner Laube requested an update on the golf course billboard proposal. Jopke stated the billboard issue was discussed with the Council at the work session. Jopke stated that he thinks it would be difficult for the City to satisfy the hardship requirement so he recommended the Council look at a Code amendment to allow billboards under certain conditions rather than trying to demonstrate a hardship to receive a variance. Council Liaison Stigney explained there was a request to make a commitment to place billboard but that was rejected until the Planning Commission provides a recommendation. No other reports were considered. 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 15 • (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, ric,, ,,,_ ) fki ,i - ,, cs , Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Carla Wirth TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 0 0 Planning Comm. Mtg April 21, 1999 Please Sign In ! Name Address Phone # Item of Interest: e-711W /lbs' 7 / , /3/' 7/-76 s-;zc57i and 4a01)--) rlZ2 - `1LL3 0 6.ce Aid 55/ - q9 1:;/4/7-e-t4ct c7r-ege-A--ek C12-0-e!"-e4enk vir, OPiqL r►�, / too I e rn v Q. (s, / eCie e c 1g r--A rri/ 44y X": 111 S MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 574-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED TEN-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE LIVING SPACE LOCATED AT 5302 RAYMOND AVENUE; PLANNING CASE NO. 550-99. WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Don Norris to permit a living space building expansion within the ten-foot sideyard setback at his home located at 5302 Raymond Avenue; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential District and is legally described as: Lot 12, Block 1,Norseman 1st Addition Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with this request: 1. Planning Application 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Site Plans 5. Staff Report for Planning Commission Action WHEREAS, the living space expansion for which this variance is sought will be constructed up to within five feet of the north property line of said property; and, J.1 ! • • a. • - .• . • 8. 8 .. . 8 - li . m • • 1- 1 • • ■ . 1 1 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 lot is only 100 feet wide and supports two dwelling units, given the contextof the building's design which makes alternative expansion overly confining, the effect of which places restrictions on the ability to expand living space; 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 a building _ expansion for living space is a common and beneficial addition to a home; and, • WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant in that the width of the lot and configuration of the home makes additional expansion difficult; and, • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 577-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A DOG KENNEL FOR ANDREA MACRANNOLDS, 2841 BRONSON DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 547-99 • WHEREAS, Andrea MacRannolds has applied for a conditional use permit for a residential dog kennel at her property located at 2841 Bronson Drive, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as followed: West'/ of Lot 14 Spring Lake Park Knolls Addition Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, three to four dogs at a single-family residence; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. 500-Foot Radius Map 4. License Application Form 5. Petition(incomplete) 6. Letter to the Applicant,dated 2/8/99 7. Letter to the Applicant,dated 3/4/99 8. Staff Report for Planning Commission Action WHEREAS, in order for the City Council to grant a conditional use permit for a residential dog kennel, all of the licensing requirements shall be satisfied; and • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 578-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN OVERSIZED GARAGE AT 2091 TERRACE DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 552-99 Whereas, Gerald Miller has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,080 square-foot garage on property located at 2091 Terrace Drive, zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as follows: Lot 29, Block 2, Pinewood Terrace County of Ramsey WHEREAS, there is currently a 506 square-foot garage and an 80 square-foot shed on this lot; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, up to 1,400 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. Site Plan d. Area Map with Building Footprints e. Staff Report • WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the dimensional requirements as stated in Chapter 1104 the Zoning Code for this proposal have been met; and, Planning Commission Resolution 578-99 April 21, 1999 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 and detached accessory outbuildings are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for the storage of vehicles and yard and garden equipment. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow for a 1,040 square-foot garage 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 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. 3. The garage shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform building appearance with the house, which is to mean the garage shall at a minimum be painted with the same color-scheme as the home. 4. All vehicles parked at the property shall be parked either upon the driveway's improved surface or within the garage. At no time shall a vehicle be allowed to park upon the grass or off of the improved surface. 5. The existing shed on the lot shall be moved if necessary to maintain a minimum six-foot setback from the garage. 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 21st day of April, 1999. pp Jerry Peter on, Chairperson ATTEST: • . Rick Jopke, Comm ty Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\552-99\578-99PC.RES