Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-19-1999 PC PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 19, 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., May 19, 1999. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Braathen, Hegland, Kaden, and Miller. Members Absent: Commissioners Johnson, Laube and Stevenson with prior notice. Also Present: Community Development Director Rick Jopke, Planning Associate Jim Ericson, • and Recorders Carla Wirth and Trish Pearson. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 553-99, 7386 Parkview Terrace, Mike & Sandy Leon, 2 Property Owner, Consideration of a variance request for a reduced side yard setback for a three-season porch Staff Reports/Items of Information 7 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 9 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. April 21, 1999 • Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 2 Commissioner Miller stated that the minutes had been reviewed at the last meeting, and a few very minor corrections had been made. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Hegland to approve the April 21, 1999 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes— 6 Nays—0 The motion carried. 5. Planning Case No. 553-99 [Public Hearing] Property Involved: 7386 Parkview Terrace Consideration of a variance request for a reduced side yard setback for a three-season porch Applicant: Mike & Sandy Leon The applicant was present. 1111 Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicants,Mike and Sandy Leon, are requesting a variance from the required ten-foot side yard setback established for principal buildings and living space therein. They would like to replace an existing 10 x 12 square foot deck with a three-season porch of the same size in the same location. The deck, which has existed since the construction of the house, is five feet from the north side of the property. Decks require a minimum two foot side yard setback. The subject property is located in the Silver Lake Woods single family home development at the northeast corner of County Road H2 and Silver Lake Road. The home, which faces east, is one of many in this development that have a street at the front (Parkview Terrace) and back (Silver Lake Road) of the property. The lot size of this property is only 9,150 square feet. Ericson noted for the Planning Commission to act favorably on a variance application, the Planning Commission must find a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property which makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or even restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria as set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. He noted the Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. Ericson noted this lot was approved in 1985 as part of the Silver Lake Woods Second Addition • subdivision and in conjunction with the Silver Lake Woods Planned Unit Development (PUD) agreement. While density bonuses and reductions in frontage requirements were given to the Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 3 development to allow for substandard lots, no mention is made in the documentation about allowance for reduced setbacks. Ericson reviewed the seven criteria which must be considered and stated that after much analysis, it appears to staff that in this case there is no hardship, unless the Planning Commission were to take into consideration that the lot area is substandard. (The lot is 75 feet wide by 122 feet deep, for an area of 9,150 square feet, substantially less than the required 11,000 square feet required.) Yet the width of the property, at 75 feet, does comply with the Code, and it is a matter of property width, not depth or area, which is basis for this variance. Ericson outlined the criteria as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances 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. Ericson stated that he could not discern any exceptional circumstances applicable to this . property. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. Ericson stated that although literal interpretation of the Code would not prohibit the property owner from constructing a porch, it could only be 7 feet in depth. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Ericson stated that the variance request is the result of the applicant's desire to construct a three-season porch. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Ericson stated that three-season porches are allowed in this district, but not all property owners have room to accommodate them. He stated that this is a desirable improvement, and that in the past, the Planning Commission has approved variances to allow for living space conditions. He stated that staff should determine whether or not this particular property met the same criteria as past properties. Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 410 Regular Meeting Page 4 e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. Ericson stated that this would be the minimum variance required to alleviate this hardship. He reiterated that if the porch were constructed observing the proper setbacks, it would only be 7 feet in depth, which, he stated, would not be enough area for a porch. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Ericson stated that the purpose of the Code was to maintain a `separation of uses.' He stated that the existing deck has a setback of 5 feet and that the applicant wishes to construct the three-season porch at the same setback. He noted, however, that a three-season porch could be viewed as a more intensive use of the space. g. The proposed variance will 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. Ericson stated that he did not believe that a porch at the reduced side yard setback would deprive other residents of the right to air and sunlight. Ericson stated that the criteria lend themselves to subjective thought and requested the Planning Commission review them to determine whether or not a hardship exists. Ericson stated that staff had directed the required mailing to all residents within 350 feet of the subject property, and had received no response. He stated that he had received a letter from a neighbor with adjacent property directly north of the applicant, who stated that they approved the proposed construction. Chair Peterson opened the Public Hearing at 7:10 p.m. Peter Murlowski, a representative of TimberCraft Remodeling the applicant's contractor, stated that the applicant had planned on constructing a porch on the property since purchasing it in 1981. He stated that since the deck was already there, the applicant had assumed he could build a porch in the same area. Murlowski stated that when he and the applicant discovered that the proposed porch would not be in compliance with the City Code, they looked at other options for placement of the porch. He stated that placing the porch at the rear of the home would require the elimination of one • of the two bedrooms located there. Due to inadequate front yard setback, as well as aesthetics, the Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 411 Regular Meeting Page 5 porch could not be constructed on the front of the property, and a garage is located on the opposite side of the structure which would prohibit placement there. Mr. Murlowski stated that in 1996 a variance had been granted for the same purpose to a neighbor located directly across the street from the applicant's property. Commissioner Braathen stated that he had driven by the applicant's property and could see that the placement of the original deck lent itself to the construction of a porch. He stated that he had no objection to approving the request for a variance. Commissioner Miller asked if the proposed deck would be trellised. Mr. Murlowski stated that the applicant had planned on siding the porch in continuum with the rest of the structure. Commissioner Hegland asked if the subject property was zoned R2. Community Development Director Jopke stated that some of the homes in this district were zoned R2, although they are single family homes, and the requirements to meet the criteria are the same as those in R1 zoned properties. He stated that originally, all the properties were zoned R2, but in 1985 there was a re-subdivision of • some of the properties in order to accommodate more single family homes. Commissioner Hegland stated that the property in question was zoned R1, and that the variance which was previously granted pertained to R2 zoned property. He asked if there were changes in the Code regarding setbacks for twin-homes. He asked for clarification regarding the difference between single family homes and twin-homes. Ericson stated that a twin-home is defined as two dwelling units as opposed to a single family home. He stated that the side, front, and rear setbacks remain the same in either case. Commissioner Hegland asked if the lot size was substandard. Ericson stated that the lot size was substandard. He stated the PUD document pertaining to the Silver Lake Woods development had addressed the changes in the Code requirements, and had provided for a 5 percent increase in structure density, but he was unable to find any documentation supporting reduced setbacks. Chair Peterson noted that a property owner was granted a variance for a three-season porch on a side-yard on the east side of the development in the early 1990's. Commissioner Miller stated that the lot size is less than the 11,000 square feet normally required, and asked if this had been reviewed to determine if it could be considered an `exceptional circumstance' as set forth in the first criteria. Ericson stated that they were really only looking at the width of the lot which meets the requirement, 4110 but he had examined the matter of lot size and believed it could be considered an applicable hardship. Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 6 Chair Peterson stated that the Surveyor's Certificate indicated there was space behind the garage on the west side and asked what was located there. Ericson stated that there was a bedroom and laundry room in back of the garage which would make that area inaccessible. He reiterated that the south side of the home was also inaccessible and the front did not have the required setback. Chair Peterson stated that this situation would apply to other houses, and they would require the same consideration. Mr. Murlowski stated that this was true, however, the precedent had been set with the first variance that was granted. Commissioner Miller asked from what point the setback was determined when the porch was to be constructed above ground level. Mr. Murlowski stated that it would be measured from the outside wall. • Commissioner Kaden asked in regard to the criteria, if the special circumstances did not result from the actions of the applicant. Mr. Murlowski stated that at this time it was the desire of the homeowner, not a necessity, but that it may be necessary from the standpoint that they may require expansion to remain in the residence. He stated that the house was already 100 percent finished, and if they could not expand, they may have to move. Mike Leon, the applicant, added that his children were now teenagers and they had waited for this opportunity to add on to their home. He stated that they needed more room to accommodate their growing family and that they did not wish to move. Commissioner Braathen stated that the hardship was created in 1985 when the City allowed re- subdivision of the property. He stated that he supports granting the variance. Commissioner Hegland agreed. He stated, however, that he had concerns about setting a precedent and the possibility of creating a situation that may impose upon the neighbors. Chair Peterson stated that the matter was just up for consideration and there was no clear direction for staff. He stated that he did not believe there would be a negative impact on the neighbors to the north or otherwise, and added that he thought this would be a desirable improvement. He stated that the placement of the structure on the lot did not allow for expansion, and that this lot was not unique within this neighborhood. • Mr. Murlowski stated that a typical twin-home has a split entry with a patio door and deck off the back. Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 Mr. Leon explained that he believed his property was unique in that all the other homes in the neighborhood had a patio slab in the back which allowed for further expansion. Chair Peterson stated that he had driven by the property and had noticed the fence. He asked if it would be removed. Mr. Leon stated that his fence located in the sideyard would be removed. Commissioner Miller asked how they would address Item "c" of the criteria 'the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.' Ericson stated that they could maintain a hardship in this case based solely upon the fact that the house was situated on the lot creating a 10 foot setback for the garage. He stated that the garage required only a 5 foot setback, which would have provided the required space for expansion. He stated that the placement of the structure on the lot was not the fault of the applicant. Commissioner Miller stated that if all the criteria were met, she would support a resolution granting approval of the variance. • Chair Peterson stated that they had recently approved a 5 foot variance on a smaller home, but viewed that differently as that was for a bedroom which is considered living space. Commissioner Hegland stated that the applicant had purchased the home the way that it was. He stated, however, that home buyers are not always aware of the City's requirements regarding variances and setbacks, etc. Mr. Murlowski reiterated that the applicant assumed that since the deck was in place when he purchased the home, he could construct a porch in the same area. Chair Peterson stated that he was thankful the applicant had come before the Commission before constructing the porch. He stated that they needed to formally address the hardship issues that satisfied the criteria. He suggested staff be directed to conduct further research and submit a resolution for consideration at the next meeting scheduled for June 2, 1999. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Peterson closed the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m. Consensus was reached to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving a variance for a reduced side- yard setback to allow for the construction of a three-season porch five feet from the side property line. • 6. Staff Reports /Items of Information Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 8 A. Billboard Update Community Development Director Jopke gave an update regarding the issue of billboards in the community. He stated that he believed that a Code amendment was the most appropriate way to approach the issue. He stated that he had been directed by the Planning Commission to conduct further research into the State requirements for a permit and had learned that the State would only grant a permit in commercial or industrial zoning districts and that they would not issue a permit in a situation where re-zoning was done strictly for the purpose of allowing billboards. He stated that the State also requires permits for billboards along State and Federal highways. He stated that he had spoken to a consultant who informed him that a permit had been previously granted in the Twin Cities to allow for a billboard on a golf course within an institutional type of zoning. He stated that this indicated a precedent had been set. Jopke stated he spoke to Mike Cronin who suggested there were several issues to be considered, one being whether or not CRP is the proper zoning for the golf course. Secondly, that the Code issues regarding signage in a CRP or PF districts need to be reviewed. He stated that at the present time, no signage is permitted in these districts but they do exist, and this matter should be addressed as part of the overall discussion. Jopke stated that other questions regarding revenue projections were • discussed with Mike Hammerschmidt who believed that the first time revenue would be approximately $12-24,000 per year per billboard, depending upon the provider as well as factors such as the location of the billboard. Chair Peterson stated that he had observed vacant billboards and asked if they generated revenue. Jopke stated that he was uncertain. He confirmed that any revenue generated from the signs would have to be used to retire the bonds of the golf course and could not be directed to the General Fund. • -• • _ ••• •• - h- h.• ••k-n with the Communit Develo•ment Directors of the cities of Shoreview and Arden Hills who informed him that their requirements prohibited construction of new billboards. He stated that, at this point, he had not been able to determine when the Ordinance had been put into effect, and he could find no discussion which addressed the billboard issue in the Focus 2000 meeting materials. Commissioner Braathen stated that the issues should be defined and resolved before further discussion and requested that the Commission not "shut the door" on the billboard issue. He stated that he had observed very few vacant billboards, and if they are vacant, it was because they were in poor locations. He stated that Mr. Hammerschmidt was researching locations that would be appropriate for billboards. He requested that the Work Sessions be rescheduled to not meet on M Wednesdays so that he would have the opportunity to attend. He suggested the first direction would be to change the current CRP zoning to make the golf course in compliance. Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 9 Commissioner Hegland stated that the Planning Commission should determine if there would be enough revenue generated from the billboards to justify further consideration. Chair Peterson stated that they should address the issues of desirability versus economics. He stated that the type of signs that should be allowed in a PF district are identification signs, and billboards might not be appropriate. He stated that he had received only negative response from the community regarding billboards. He stated that there were a number of roadblocks to overcome regarding the State requirements, and asked if there was a way around the State's stance regarding re-zoning. Jopke stated that he believed this could be overcome, but whether to approach the issue from the standpoint of usage or re-zoning need further discussion in order to draw a conclusion. He stated that he would continue to investigate the State requirements, and conduct further research. B. Previous Council Action Community Development Director Jopke stated that the Council gave second reading and adopted Ordinance 629 which provides consistent language and an appointment policy for expired and un- expired terms of the Planning Commission. 410 Jopke stated that the theater is open and the Council had discussed a number of items that remained incomplete. He stated a temporary Certificate of Occupancy had been issued since there are still some minor issues and landscaping which need to be completed. Jopke reported that Building N is moving forward but he is uncertain whether or not they have signed tenants yet. Jopke reported that the Realife Cooperative is under way. He stated that Anthony Properties Management, Inc. is currently going through the bidding process, and hope to have the first office building along County Road H7 under construction in July He stated that they are confident that they will find tenants once the building is constructed, and they are considering construction of a retail/restaurant project next to the theater. Planning Associate Ericson stated that Saturday, May 22, is the Mounds View Spring Clean-Up Day and informed the community that they could drop off items of discard at the Public Works garage. Ericson reported that he had taken an extended tour of the theater. He stated that it was a"first class viewing situation," and remarked that the sound quality was excellent. 7. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports • Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 10 Commissioner Kaden reported that he had attended the basic zoning workshop on April 29, 1999, found it to be informative, and thought it was a worthwhile seminar. Kaden stated that he attended the meeting at the State Capital along with City Administrator Whiting and Mayor Coughlin. He stated that there were currently two Bills being considered. One Bill prohibited the airport from constructing longer runways than it currently has without legislative approval. He stated that currently only MAC approval is required. He stated that if that Bill failed, the second Bill would cease construction of the runway for up to one year. He stated that the airport could still go through the planning process until the Legislature had time to consider it. He stated that he had learned that the Governor would pass the Bills, which were sponsored by Senator Steve Novak and House Representative Barb Haake. Chair Peterson stated that the City has had a problem with airport noise for many years, and considered this an opportunity to control the airport's further expansion. He stated that he had received much negative input from the community of Mounds View in regard to the problem of airport noise. Kaden stated that the official position of the City Council is that they are against extended runways, but there was nothing in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the airport. Chair Peterson stated that in one of the previous updates Council had indicated that the City was to remain aware of the situation at the airport, but that there was little language regarding it in the Comprehensive Plan. He asked if there was any language in the current draft which addressed the airport. Jopke stated that there was not. He agreed, however, that in light of current litigation, there should be. He stated that he had not drafted anything at this point but plans to after conferring with the City Attorney regarding the appropriate language. Kaden stated that the Metropolitan Airports Commission was in favor of expanding three minor airports in the State, including the airport located in Blaine. He stated they may not wish to expand the smaller airports if they consider the possibility of future construction of an airport 60 to 100 miles from the Twin City Airport to accommodate UPS and freight deliveries. Kaden stated that it had been suggested that he meet with the State Planning Commissioner to attempt to gain his support, and requested input from the Mounds View Planning Commission to be put forward during that meeting. Chair Peterson stated that at one time he had lived next to the airport in Blaine, prior to jet travel there, and at that time there was a problem with excessive noise. He stated that expansion would worsen the situation for the residents and asked if the City of Blaine was in favor of airport expansion. Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 11 Kaden stated that they had not sent a representative to the meeting, but he believed that the Blaine City Council was in favor of expansion. Chair Peterson stated that residents north of the golf course would suffer a negative impact from expansion of the airport, and suggested that they may wish to become more vocal in regard to the issue. He stated that there were prior considerations for looking at the North Metro area for airport expansion since the Crystal airport was landlocked which prohibited expansion, and the St. Paul airport was subject to flooding problems. He stated that he could understand the viewpoint of expanding a cargo type airport in the northern suburbs because there was nothing else available. Kaden stated that a requirement for larger aircraft is 5000 feet of runway. He stated that once the runway is 5000 feet, planes of the next larger class could not be excluded. Commissioner Hegland expressed concern that the airport may turn into a UPS airport. He asked if there were any strategies in place to unite the surrounding cities in opposing the expansion. Jopke stated that City Administrator Whiting and City Attorney Long had been meeting with other City Administrators to discuss the issue, and that efforts were being made. • Chair Peterson stated that several years ago, a representative of the Metropolitan Council had attended a Council meeting and gave an overview of their role in these types of issues. He stated that it would be a good idea to invite a representative of the Metropolitan Council to participate in the discussion. Hegland asked what the official stance of the other cities was. Jopke stated that Circle Pines attended the meeting in support of expansion but the other cities had no official stand at this point. Chair Peterson suggested that Duane McCarty may be interested in participating in the discussion, but had a limited role at this point. He stated that Mayor Coughlin had taken a leadership role and it was suggested that the community of Mounds View may be interested in organizing a committee to address the issue. He invited members of the community to come forward. Kaden stated that it appeared the City of Mounds View had taken a leadership role regarding the airport expansion. He stated that he would be pleased to participate in the committee. He added that five representatives of the Metropolitan Airport Commission were being considered for re- appointment, and that may be beneficial. Hegland requested an update on the planned construction of a warehouse project on the Onan property. He asked if the adjacent Mounds View residents had been properly notified. 4110 0Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 12 Ericson stated that there was a failure to notify the residents which was due to an honest oversight on the part of the City of Fridley, and that they would be notified in the future. He stated that they had held an open house at the Onan property for the residents along Parkview Drive and the residents that are south on County Road H in Fridley,where they had been shown the plans for the proposed construction of a 4,000 square foot office project. He stated that there is a concern regarding the possible generation of truck traffic at the access drive on County Road H. He stated that Onan indicated they will take steps to direct traffic onto Old Central Road. He stated that the architects are working on a landscaping plan to provide a buffer, and are considering the options of fencing or possibly an evergreen screen. He stated that as soon as the plan is presented to the City of Fridley, the City of Mounds View and the residents would be notified. No other reports were considered. 8. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. 11/ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, 4 --jovke______, Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\PCMIN\1999\05-19-99.WPD 11) •lanning Comm. Mtg Date: HAV 19 99 Please Sign In ! Name Address Phone # Item of Interest: `r-t/146 (23)-gz,i/ g 7"ef 'j' 7RO 7 7 Cys Mo Ss 3- ?9 • •