Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-06-1999 PC PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 6, 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 8.00 p.m., October 6, 1999. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Hegland, Johnson, Kaden, Laube, and Miller. Members Absent: Commissioner Stevenson, with prior notice; Commissioner Braathen, Leave of Absence. • Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Rick Jopke, Council Liaison Roger Stigney, and Recorder Trish Pearson. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 570-99, 2075 & 2081 Hillview Road. Consideration of Resolution 591-99, a resolution approving a variance request to allow for a one-foot garage setback. Jeff Johnson, Applicant. 2 Planning Case No. 571-99, 8270 Eastwood Road, Consideration of Resolution 595-99, a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit for an oversized shed. Alan & Tammy Doroff, Applicant. 3 Discuss options for amending the City Code to allow for driveways wider than 35 feet. 5 Staff Reports/Items of Information 9 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 14 • Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 2 • 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 4. Approval of Minutes A. September 1, 1999 Council Liaison Stigney requested a correction to the minutes to indicate his presence at the September 1 meeting. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Berke to approve the August 18, 1999 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes— 7 Nays— 0 The motion carried. 5. Planning Case No. 570-99 Property Involved: 2075 & 2081 Hillview Road Consideration of Resolution 591-99, a resolution approving a variance request to allow for a one-foot garage setback. • Applicant: Jeff Johnson The applicant was not present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant is requesting a reduced sideyard setback to allow for two garages to be located at 2075 and 2081 Hillview Road. The subject properties are located on the eastern edge of the City, in an area comprised of a number of four-plex dwelling units and a manufactured home park. The two like to construct a three-stall garage on each property, separated by one foot from their adjoining property line, which would require a variance from the five-foot setback requirement. Planning Associate Ericson stated this item was before the Planning Commission at their last meeting on September 15, 1999, at which time, there was discussion regarding a possible hardship. Staff believes that a hardship exists at this location, in that the slope of the property to the rear, and an expansive easement located in that area of the property prohibits construction, as well as the placement of the buildings on the lot. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has reviewed the seven criteria presented for establishing a hardship to allow for a variance, and it appears that a variance can be granted based upon • hardship and practical difficulties of the subject property. He explained the topography of the Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 . property creates a situation that makes development where setback requirements could be met very difficult. In addition, the placement of the buildings on the lots does not allow enough room for a five-foot separation, and the property owner did not create the situation, but is simply attempting to improve the property. Planning Associate Ericson stated that based upon the review of the criteria, the applicant's presentation at the prior meeting, and the Planning Commission's direction, staff has drafted Resolution 591-99, which approves the one-foot sideyard setback for the applicant. He explained that the approval is contingent upon the applicant filing the resolution with Ramsey County and submitting a revised site plan, which indicates the location of the garage that would be allowed with the one-foot setback. Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant has indicated he does not expect to commence construction of the project during the current building season, therefore, the item can be tabled, however, staff believes that there are no unresolved issues at this point. He stated staff is recommending approval of Resolution 591-99. Chair Peterson inquired if the existing asphalt would be replaced in the same locations. Ericson commented he would not expect this to be the case, however, staff does not yet have a site plan that shows the dimensions and location of the drive areas. He explained that a problem does exist at the site in that there is a telephone pole located on the property line, which makes the ingress • and egress of the property somewhat difficult. He advised staff will review the revised site plan and any proposal to redo the asphalt, to ensure that it complies with the City Code. He added this matter would be brought back before the Commission if there were issues with the driveway and parking area, and this would be considered separately from the garage issue. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Laube. To Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 591-99, a Resolution Approving a Variance From Section 1104.01, Subdivision 4, of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Setbacks to Allow For a Reduced Sideyard Setback for Garages at 2075 and 2081 Hillview Road; Mounds View Planning Case No. 570-99. Ayes— 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 6. Planning Case No. 571-99 Property Involved: 8270 Eastwood Road Consideration of Resolution 595-99, a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit for an oversized shed. Applicant: Alan & Tammy Doroff • The applicant was present. Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 • Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicants, Alan and Tammy Doroff, have applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 384 square-foot shed in the backyard of their home located at 8270 Eastwood Road. The proposed shed would be located behind an in-ground swimming pool on the subject property. Planning Associate Ericson explained that staff does not typically see requests for such a large shed, and it was clear that the matter would require very close scrutiny. He stated staff has examined the matter very closely both in terms of the general criteria for a conditional use permit for an oversized shed, as well as the adverse effects. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has been to the property, which is a larger lot, almost half an acre, and the majority of the lots in the surrounding area are the same size. He explained that because the applicant's have an in-ground swimming pool, the property is enclosed by an eight- foot wood privacy fence, which offers complete screening of the backyard area from the adjacent neighbors, and staff had taken this into consideration upon reviewing the specific and general criteria. He noted that all of the dimensional requirements for this type of request are met, in terms of setbacks and rear yard coverage for accessory structures. He explained, although the proposed shed is to be 384 square feet, it would only take up 6 percent of the backyard area, and the Code requires that accessory buildings cover no more than 20 percent of the backyard area. He added that the total area of all accessory buildings on the property is 864 square feet, which • includes the existing 480 square-foot, two-car garage. Planning Associate Ericson stated the specific requirements for this type of use, and the general requirements presented for any conditional use permit request appear to be met. The adverse affects of this use were examined in terms of the screening that is provided with the fence, and the fact that the proposed shed would not be visible to the neighboring properties. He added that this use would not change the composition of the property or the neighborhood, and would only serve to create additional storage space to the property, which currently only utilizes a very small metal shed, and a small two car garage. Planning Associate Ericson stated it does not appear that there are any adverse impacts presented with this proposal, other than the size of the structure. He explained, however, the shed would not be utilized for vehicle storage, or any type of business, but strictly as a storage shed of similar design and construction as a shed which presently exists on a neighboring property. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has drafted Resolution 595-99, a resolution recommending approval of the conditional use permit to the City Council. Commissioner Miller inquired if the shed would be the same size as the shed located immediately to the north of the applicant's property. Alan Doroff, the applicant stated the shed would be a slightly larger than his neighbor's, however, • it would be the same height. Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 4110 Commissioner Miller inquired if the last sentence of Page 3 of the Resolution should end with the word "typical," and the phrase"arguably uniform in appearance" be omitted. Ericson stated staff would delete the words following the word "typical." Commissioner Miller further inquired if language should be included on Page 4, Item 3 of the resolution to indicate that the existing shed would be removed. Ericson stated that a building permit would not be issued unless the existing shed was removed. Commissioner Miller inquired if there was a time frame for the removal of the existing shed. Ericson pointed out that it would be necessary for the applicant to remove the existing shed prior to constructing the proposed structure, as it is to be constructed in the same location. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Kaden. To Approve Resolution No. 595-99, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow For an Oversized Shed for Alan and Tammy Doroff, 8270 Eastwood Road, Mounds View Planning Case No. 571-99, as amended. Ayes— 7 Nays— 0 The motion carried. Planning Associate Ericson stated this item would be before the Council for a public hearing at the October 25, 1999 City Council meeting. • 7. Discuss options for amending the City Code to allow for driveways wider than 35 feet. Planning Associate Ericson stated at the September 1, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, a resident of the City had approached the Commission to request a variance to allow for a 44-foot driveway. The City Code currently prohibits a driveway in excess of 35 feet. He stated staff was directed to conduct research in this regard, and after surveying a number of neighboring communities, determined that Mounds View's requirements are on the more restrictive end of the spectrum in terms of the maximum width of driveways and curb cuts. • •. - •- e - - � - • ♦ -- - .• ; --- • -■ • : • i -- . -- , and only one other city, Arden Hills, requires a curb cut that narrow. Other communities require between 24 and 28 feet, and the city of Blaine allows 30 feet at the street. He explained that most of the communities surveyed did not have a requirement in terms of the width driveways. Some communities restrict the width of driveways in relation to a percentage of lot width, one community requires the driveway be no wider than the garage, and another community requires that the impervious surface coverage of the lot can not exceed 40 percent. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff is requesting direction to revise the City's 35-foot width requirement, to reflect more current times in which three-car garages are the norm. He explained that the Code was written during a time when single car garages were the standard, and it does 1111 not appear unreasonable to staff to amend the Code to allow for wider driveways. He stated staff has proposed language which indicates "the lot width, driveways or parking areas shall not exceed Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 ithirty-five feet, or the width of the garage plus and additional ten feet, whichever is greater." He pointed out this would provide that residents with a single car garage can still have a 35-foot driveway, however, a three-stall garage can have a width of the garage, plus ten feet. He commented this appears to be very similar to what is allowed in other cities, with the exception that there would still be a limitation on the amount of driveway a resident could have, and it would not provide a blanket allowance on the width of the driveway. He explained the City would prefer to strike a balance between that and a restrictive driveway width. Planning Associate Ericson stated if the Commission so desires, staff can draft an ordinance that would reflect this type of change, or a similar change, in the event that the additional ten-foot width is not sufficient. He noted this matter was open for discussion, and if there were other means to accomplish this consideration, they can be discussed as well. Commissioner Laube commented that the ten-foot width could accommodate a semi-trailer. Commissioner Johnson noted, however, room would still be required to open doors and walk around the vehicle, which, if eight feet wide, would require having to walk along the curb or grass on the side of the driveway. He stated he would be in favor of a twelve-foot additional width. He added that being able to park a vehicle farther away from the building might be better from a fire and safety standpoint. • Commissioner Hegland stated he was in favor of the city of Shoreview's requirement that the impervious surface does not exceed 40 percent coverage of the lot, and did not see a need to be more specific than that. He commented that the City was attempting to control the amount of impervious surface and the curb cut with the current restrictions. He noted that there are varied types of homes within the community, and a rule that would be tied to the width of the garage would be overly restrictive, and would not solve any problems. Commissioner Kaden noted that a drawback to allowing lot coverage of 40 percent impervious surface would be in areas comprised of large lots, which could potentially pave half of their front yards. Commissioner Hegland noted they could limit the amount of impervious surface. Commissioner Johnson added they could indicate 12 fcct, or 40 percent impervious surface. Planning Associate Ericson stated that a problem might exist for both residents and staff, in terms of calculating a 40 percent impervious surface requirement. Commissioner Kaden added that this might also constitute a hardship for smaller lots, in that the structures upon it are also considered impervious surface, and this would not leave very much area within the lot for the driveway. Ericson stated this could occur, and could potentially result in a driveway that is smaller than that which is presently allowed by the Code. Commissioner Laube stated he was in favor of allowing the driveway to be the width of the garage, with additional footage to the side, which would provide uniformity. i Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 Commissioner Hegland advised that all the lots within the City are not the same. He stated that the City Code should not be restrictive, but should cover the goals of the Code, which is more important than attempting to indicate a specific criteria, which would require judging each situation on a case by case basis. He reiterated that the goals of the Code are impervious surface and curb cuts. He added most of the lots that are wide, are also deep, and would require extra impervious surface simply to reach the garage. Chair Peterson stated the City has a large variety of lots, and it would be difficult to set a standard that would fit all of them. He stated he had concerns regarding a 40 percent impervious surface lot coverage requirement, in terms of the larger lots. Commissioner Johnson noted some of these larger lots could potentially have a half-acre of asphalt. Commissioner Hegland reiterated that a maximum limit could be set, related to the standard lot size. He explained he would like to find a means that would prevent each request from having to be judged on an individual basis. Commissioner Miller stated this matter had come forward primarily because parking is prohibited on City streets, and people require additional parking space. She inquired if staffs proposal was to extend the additional 10 or 12-foot width at the garage to the curb cut, and then reduce the entire width to 22 feet. Ericson explained this has always been the case, in that a resident could have a 35-foot driveway to the property line, however, at some point between the property line and the curb, the width of the driveway must be reduced to 22 feet. He added that a resident could potentially install a 35-foot wide driveway to the property line, however, it was unlikely that a resident would wish to do so, in light of the additional expense. Commissioner Miller inquired regarding the normal width of a driveway for a three-stall garage. Ericson stated this would be 34, 35 or 36 feet, adding that most driveways taper toward the street. Commissioner Kaden asked how often the Planning Commission had considered variances for driveways within the past few years. Ericson stated this did not occur very often. Chair Peterson added that it was more often a case of driveways being too close to the property line, rather than the a variance for the actual width of the driveway. Commissioner Miller commented that a specific width, with additional width available, would be easier to administrate than a requirement based upon the percentage of impervious surface upon a lot. Chair Peterson noted in some long established neighborhoods, the residents are not aware of the exact location of their property lines. He stated that calculating a requirement based upon the percentage of impervious surface of a lot would place quite a burden upon staff. He explained that the impervious surface includes the structures on the site, and there are other measurements that would be required in order to determine the size allowed for the driveway. He stated the • reason for the current maximum 35-foot width requirement was to keep the impervious surface Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 • under control, and this appeared to be one of the goals in the language proposed by staff. He stated he was in favor of the proposal as staff has suggested, with an additional width of 10 or 12 feet. Commissioner Johnson noted that basing the requirement upon the percentage of impervious surface might indicate to some parties that they could create a very large parking area, and this might present a goal for them to request the maximum percentage. Commissioner Hegland stated the 35-foot requirement would not prevent this. He explained that many lots, if utilizing the 35 feet plus an additional 10 to 12 feet, would approach the maximum coverage anyway, as the City does not limit the length of the driveway. Commissioner Johnson inquired if this type of requirement would be limited to the width of the garage. Commissioner Hegland explained that a garage could be three stalls wide, or 35 feet, and with another 10 feet, the driveway would comprise over half of the frontage of the lot. Commissioner Miller stated she was in favor of 35 feet or the width of the garage, plus an additional 10 feet, whichever is greater. Chair Peterson stated for the parking of a boat or a vehicle on an infrequent basis, 10 feet would be sufficient, however, on a regular basis, it presents an access problem. Commissioner Laube added that if there is an eave on the garage, any good sized vehicle would present a problem as well. He explained that an eave would take up 12-18 inches, and a recreational vehicle, 10 feet wide, would have to park up to the eave in order to remain upon the blacktop, and this situation would require 12 feet. Chair Peterson stated he was comfortable with 35 feet or the width of the garage, plus 12 feet, whichever is greater. Commissioner Hegland asked if the Commission was to discuss a revision to the current curb cut requirement. Chair Peterson stated in relation to the other communities, the City's requirement regarding curb cuts was also on the restrictive side. Commissioner Miller asked Planning Associate Ericson if the matter of curb cuts had presented a problem in the past. Ericson explained that staff had seen a greater amount of requests for variance from the 22-foot curb cut, than they had for driveways in excess of 35 feet. Chair Peterson noted a previous case in which a driveway was installed, and after the fact, a request was made for a wider curb cut, however, no hardship could be found, and a portion of the asphalt had to be removed. He commented in other cases there actually was a need determined for a variance from the curb cut requirement. Planning Associate Ericson suggested staff could draft an ordinance that contemplates adding the Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 411 discussed language, and bring it back before the Planning Commission for future discussion. He added at that time, the Commission could consider whether or not they desired to examine the curb cut. He noted there were other issues in the Zoning Code which required resolution, which will be coming before the Council, and this might be an appropriate time to review other issues which need to be addressed or made consistent with the Code. He explained that staff could include a clause in the ordinance that addresses the curb cut requirement, if so desired, however, the matter does not necessarily require resolution at this time. Commissioner Laube commented that the question of curb cuts could manifest itself in terms of some smaller lots, for example, a newer house with a three-stall garage that is closer to the street. He explained that a 35 five-foot garage, with a 35-foot driveway, tapering to 22 feet at the street, might not allow enough room to access the third stall of the garage. He stated a larger curb cut would allow the property owner to angle the driveway down, and provide easier access. He stated there were a few places that this may be a problem, particularly in situations where a structure is cleared from a lot, to allow for a new, larger home. Ericson stated staff could approach the Public Works Department to determine if there are any issues that they have seen in terms of the curb cut, and the Commission could discuss the matter further at their next meeting. Chair Peterson commented that allowing a wider driveway at the curb might result in a situation where a resident would have to place larger amounts of snow on either side, and the snowplow would then have to push the snow back into the driveway. Commissioner Hegland stated this would be self-correcting. He noted this was not an issue of abuse issue, but rather a matter of practicality, and it appeared that if a twelve-foot additional width was allowed at the garage, it would make sense to have twice the curb cut as well. Chair Peterson pointed out that an area of impervious surface located in the middle of the property would provide more opportunity for stormwater runoff to soak into the lawn, however, a wide driveway at the curb would allow the runoff to go into the street. He commented that this might be an argument against extending the curb cut. He noted staff's survey indicated that a maximum 24-foot curb cut requirement was the most common among the other communities. Ericson stated staff had sufficient direction to proceed with this matter. 8. Staff Reports /Items of Information A. Theater Fence Community Development Director Jopke reported on the fence located at the theater property, which was the subject of discussion at the last two Planning Commission meetings. He provided the Commission with a letter from Anthony Properties indicating that they were withdrawing their Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 10 • request to move the fence, and will provide a fence connecting the buildings as indicated in the existing Planned Unit Development document. B. Comprehensive Plan meeting schedule Community Development Director Jopke stated the Commission was requested to schedule study sessions for their review of the City's Comprehensive Plan. He noted the first draft of the overall Comprehensive Plan is almost complete, and at this point, the entire document is open for discussion, to insure it reflects what the Commission believes should be a plan for the community. He suggested the Planning Commission consider the Wednesdays in October for scheduling the study sessions. Commissioner Miller stated she would be out of town on October 27, and would not be available for that meeting. Commissioner Kaden inquired if there were any significant changes to the draft plan, and if there would be sufficient time to review the document prior to the first meeting. Jopke explained the Commissioners would probably receive a hand-delivered copy the following Monday, however, it would likely require more than one meeting to review the draft, and the Commission could take as much time as necessary for their review to insure they feel comfortable with the document. Chair Peterson asked if the preliminary maps would be available in time for the first of the study sessions. Jopke stated he was uncertain, however, the GIS consultant had indicated he was presently putting the final touches on the maps. He commented he had not seen the maps to date, and he believed they would be very good, however, he may need to make some changes prior to their completion. MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Kaden. To Schedule Two Special Meetings to Discuss the Comprehensive Plan for October 13 and October 27, 1999, from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Ayes— 7 Nays — 0 The motion carried. Community Development Director Jopke inquired if the Planning Commission thought the meetings should be televised. Chair Peterson inquired if there was a problem with the broadcast of the cable during certain times. Jopke stated he would have to look into this matter. He added that the meeting on October 27 would conflict with the Parks and Recreation meeting. Commissioner Hegland noted that this was just a review of the Comprehensive Plan, not the final version, and televising this review might not be necessary. Community Development Director Jopke advised that there be a least one informational forum to 1111 present the plan to the community, and a more formal public hearing following that, therefore Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 11 • there would be ample opportunity to gain public input. Community Development Director Jopke reported he and Planning Associate Ericson had attended the State Planning Conference the previous Thursday and Friday in Bloomington. He commented that one of the sessions he had attended was a panel of Planning Commission members from a variety of different communities, and during that session, a question was raised regarding how staff could assist the Commissions in performing their very difficult job, and what could be done better. He noted that the Chair of the Eagan Planning Commission, an attorney with the League of Minnesota Cities, had indicated that staff should only provide factual information, and that recommendations by staff are unnecessary. Chair Peterson commented over the past several years the Planning Commission has received more complete and useful information than ever before, and in his perspective, staff has done a great job for the Planning Commission. Commissioner Miller stated the information staff provides is very helpful, particularly in terms of the references to the Code, which provides the Commissioners do not have to spend their valuable time researching these matters. She remarked it must be a very time consuming process to gather this information, however, it is very helpful when there are references to areas in the Code that are pertinent to the issues. Chair Peterson noted the Commission is subject to deadlines and timetables set by the Legislature, and generally have only one meeting in which to determine each case. He explained for the more clear cut cases, not having a staff recommendation., and therefore a resolution to consider, would substantially slow down the process. Commissioner Johnson pointed out there were times when staff requested the Commission's recommendation. He stated, and he had no problem with staff recommending one direction or another, and providing the reasons for their recommendation. He noted the Commission always adds their stipulations, and staff's recommendation of approval does not indicate that a case is approved as presented. Chair Peterson stated although it has been implied that if staff gives a recommendation for a specific issue, the Planning Commission will simply "rubber stamp" it, this is simply is not true. He noted, in many cases, initial information pointed in one direction, however, further review clarified the necessity to go in another direction. He stated he treated the staff recommendation as another item of information, and did not consider it in any way mandated. Commissioner Laube stated that staffs recommendation provides the Commission with staffs thoughts, and how they are researching their information, which assist in directing the Commission. He explained that the Commission does not deal with many of these issues on a daily basis, and without staffs recommendation the Commission would be required to spend 411 much time attempting to find the direction in which to proceed. He explained he has not always agreed with staffs recommendations, and there have been some very serious discussions while Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 12 worked through the issues. He commented that he believed the Commission has always done a very thorough job with every issue that has come before them, and he would like to keep staffs recommendations. Commissioner Hegland stated he could not imagine a situation in which staff provided a positive recommendation that would be contested. He stated the only cases this might apply to, would be those with negative recommendations, and this was not often the case. He explained the general concept is to attempt to find a way to approve the majority of the requests, with some exceptions. Commissioner Kaden pointed out that if there were some reason pursuant to the City Code that a particular case can not be approved, staff would provide a recommendation that the Commission not approve it, and other cases are either recommended for approval or left with no recommendation from staff. He stated staff's recommendations were more helpful than harmful. He added that the Commission does not "rubber stamp" staffs recommendation. Commissioner Berke stated he considered the information provided by staff to be almost vital to his work as a new Commissioner. He explained this assists him in making more logical decisions, rather than spending his time researching all of the details. Chair Peterson commented that in the past, the Commission brought their Code books and would look up the ordinances during the meeting in order to determine the requirements, and most of the cases required more time and discussion at the Commission level than they presently do. He remarked that the Commission could not do their business without the information provided by staff, in the time allowed. He expressed his appreciation to Community Development Director Jopke, Planning Associate Ericson, and the entire staff. C. Previous Council Actions Community Development Director Jopke reported on previous Council action from their meeting on September 27. He noted discussion regarding the Mermaid Project, which is presently attempting to acquire property for their development. He explained they have come to an agreement with two of the four properties under consideration, however, the Lampert site does not wish to move, and is requesting a higher price for this property. He commented that this property was the proposed site of the Mermaid's stormwater holding pond, therefore, they were examining other options to handle the stormwater. He explained that staff would authorize SEH to study this issue. Community Development Director Jopke stated a joint meeting between the EDC and EDA would be held on October 21, 1990, to discuss Tax Increment Financing, in terms of how it has been utilized, and to determine if the current policies are still appropriate. He stated the Planning Commission is requested to attend this meeting. Community Development Director Jopke stated the Council upheld the Planning Commission's 11110 recommendation and approved the conditional use permit request for an oversized garage at 8011 Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 13 4110 Sunnyside Road. He added they approved the second reading and adopted Ordinance 639, and ordinance which clarifies the uses within the R-4 and R-5 Zoning District. Community Development Director Jopke stated at the Council Work Session on October 24, discussion was held regarding the remnant parcel located next to City Hall, and an adjacent property, which Told Real Estate has expressed an interest in developing for a Walgreen's Drugstore. There is an alternate proposal that would utilize a triangle of the City property, and would require the vacation of the old right-of-way for Edgewood Drive. He commented that Told is still considering donating seven acres of wetland to the City, which is comprised of some high ground on the east end of the property. He explained that the Council has requested the Parks and Recreation Commission to provide their input on this matter, and they will consider this and conduct a comprehensive study of the area as a whole, at their meeting on October 27. Community Development Director Jopke reported that Economic Development Coordinator, Kevin Carroll has accepted a position as the City Administrator for the city of Carver, and his last day with the City of Mounds View will be October 15. He commented it will be sad to see him go, and wished him the best of luck. D. Upcoming Planning Cases • Planning Associate Ericson stated that Ordinance 640 amends Chapter 902 of the City Code, regarding street openings, and includes language pertaining to rights-of-way. He noted the City has passed a right-of-way ordinance that addresses utilities, undergrounding and things of that nature found in the right-of-way, in the comprehensive ordinance. He explained that Ordinance 640 removes language that is now addressed in the right-of-way ordinance. He stated in conjunction with Ordinance 640, there was a request to include language to address non- conforming driveways, which basically indicates that any non-conforming driveway is allowed to be reconstructed, or re-paved in the same fashion or manner that it currently exists, unless there is an evident public safety concern. He explained that if a building permit is denied because of such a concern, the resident can appeal the denial to the City Council. He stated this matter would be before the City Council for consideration at their meeting on October 1 I. He added there would be an ordinance that amends the Zoning Code, as the inclusion of language pertaining to the driveways requires additional corresponding language to the Zoning Code to provide that these are consistent. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Development Review for MSP Real Estate, for an assisted living facility would be before the Planning Commission at their next meeting, as well as an application for a drive-through coffee hut on the Mermaid property. 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Report Council Liaison Stigney reported that the franchise fee for NSP gas and electric was discussed at the previous Council Work Session. He stated the majority of the Council is in favor of raising the franchise fee, and there is a consensus to increase the fee from two percent to a maximum rate of 4 Tanning Comm. Mfg Date: 'c; Please Sign In ! Name Address Phone # Item of Interest: Lel,0 DOR F67 5 70 sh ce) c. • • • P PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 591-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 1104.01, SUBD. 4, OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO SETBACKS TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCED SIDEYARD SETBACK FOR GARAGES AT 2075 AND 2081 HILLVIEW ROAD ; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 570-99 WHEREAS, Jeff Johnson of 2081 Hillview Road has applied for a variance to allow for a 40 one-foot sideyard setback for proposed garages at 2075 Hillview Road and 2081 Hillview Road; and, WHEREAS, 2075 Hillview Road (PIN# 05-30-23-41-0011) is property zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential, legally described as follows: The west 103 feet of the east 414 feet of the north 160 feet of the south 193 feet of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 5, Township 30,Range 23 Ramsey County,Minnesota WHEREAS, 2081 Hillview Road (PIN# 05-30-23-41-0005) is property zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential, legally described as follows. The west 103 feet of the east 517 feet of the north 160 feet of the south 193 feet of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 5,Township 30,Range 23 Ramsey County,Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 1111 4. Proposed Site Plan 5. Staff Report Resolution 591-99 Johnson Variance 0 October 6, 1999 Page 2 WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by . unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's control; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held Wednesday, September 15, 1999, with regard to this variance request; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient hardship with regard to the properties located at 2075 Hillview Road and 2081 Hillview Road to warrant the approval of a variance to Jeff Johnson for the construction of garages one-foot from the common property line between the two parcels, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: • 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to 2075 and 2081 Hillview Road which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity in that the..amount of slope at the back of the property makes development prohibitively difficult. 2. 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 in that multi-car garages are desired in this district and serve as a physical improvement to properties. 3. The variance request is the result of factors over.which the applicant has had no control. In addition to the topography, the buildings were constructed in such a way as to restrict the available area that can be utilized for the location of garage structures. 4. Granting a variance to allow a one-foot sideyard setback would allow the applicant to provide three garage stalls for each building where there are no garages currently. 5. The Planning Commission finds that the requested one-foot setback is the minimum variance that would alleviate the applicant's hardship. 6. The purpose of the variance provision in the Code is to give relief to property owners • seeking to improve their properties yet are unable to do so because of zoning code requirements and factors beyond their control. Granting this variance for a reduced Resolution 591-99 Johnson Variance October 6, 1999 Page 3 sideyard setback would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. 7. Two three-car garages located behind the four-plexes at 2075 and 2081 Hillview Road would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission approves the variance request for a reduced sideyard setback for two garage structures to be constructed one foot from the common property line between 2075 and 2081 Hillview Road, contingent upon: 1. The applicant submitting a revised survey-quality site plan showing the garages with a one-foot sideyard setback, a fence connecting the front and back of the garages, and all other pertinent dimensional and structural information. 2. The applicant arranging to have recorded with Ramsey County this resolution of approval and provide proof of such recordation to the City within 60 days of the • date of approval, or this variance shall be rendered null and void. Adopted this 6th day of October, 1999 Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\570-99\591-99PC.RES • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 595-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN OVERSIZED SHED FOR ALAN AND TAMMY DOROFF, 8270 EASTWOOD ROAD,MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 571-99 WHEREAS, Alan and Tammy Doroff have applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 384 square-foot shed on property they own, located at 8270 Eastwood Road, zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as followed: Lot 3, Block 2, East Oaks, Ramsey County,Minnesota WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows by conditional use sheds up to 400 square feet in area and no more than 1,400 square feet total accessory building space 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. Location Map f. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the dimensional requirements as stated WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that possible adverse effects have been considered in its recommendation, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 1.e.: 1. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 8270 Eastwood Road, low-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Geographical Area Involved. Planning Commission Resolution 595-99 October 6, 1999 • Page 2 4. The Character ofthe SurroundingArea Almost every Iot in this area of Mounds View is the same size as the subject property. Many of the homes in the immediate area have a similar split-entry design and have attached two-car garages. Many of the homes have sheds in addition to their garages. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. It is not believed that the construction of the shed, even one so large as is proposed by the applicants, would depreciate the neighborhood. The shed would be completely screened except for the peak, which might be visible from the adjacent properties. The shed would allow the applicants to store all of their pool equipment, yard equipment and other common items in one structure without taking away any room in the garage. S. The demonstrated need for such a use. The existing garage is a small, two-car garage of only 480 square feet. While expanding the garage to the rear is feasible, this option would take up well-utilized backyard space next to the home. The applicants desire to construct the shed behind the pool in a less-used part of the yard to minimize the impact of adding 384 square-feet of accessory building space. • WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the general criteria for approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b.: (I) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The addition of a storage shed, even one as large as that proposed, would not create a greater impact on existing public facilities or services, on utilities or access roads, nor would it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The location of the shed behind the home and garage would hide it from general public view. Because of the tall fence surrounding the backyard area, the shed itself would be screened even from the adjoining properties as well. The shed would have a barn-like • design, similar to one on an adjacent property, and would neither be incompatible with nor detrimental to this district. Planning Commission Resolution 595-99 October 6, 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. Sheds and out-buildings are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for the storage of yard and garden equipment . Having this shed will allow the property owners to replace a dilapidated metal shed and to store items currently left outside within a secure and protected structure. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the specific cup requirements as specified in Section 1106.04, Subdivision 7: a. The accessory building must conform with Section 1103.06 of this Title and subdivision 1106.03(l) of this Title. This section of the Code dictates where in the yard an accessory building can be located. The proposed shed would be located in the rear yard, which is the only place a shed can be 110 located according to the Code. b. The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one lot cannot exceed one thousand four hundred(1,400) square feet. The area of the garage (480 square feet) and the proposed shed (384 square feet) totals 864 square feet, well within the 1,400 maximum allowance. c. The accessory building shall not exceed four hundred(400) square feet. The proposed shed would be 384 square feet. d. The building must be a permanent structure. The shed would be a wood-framed structure mounted upon a concrete pad. It is considered permanent. e. The building shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the dwelling unit. The appearance of the shed will be different from the house, in that it will be a finished wood exterior having a barn-like design. The fact that most sheds are of a finished-wood construction makes this all the more typical. • Planning Commission Resolution 595-99 October 6, 1999 ID Page 4 f. Should the use for which the permit was granted be changed, the permit shall be subject to reconsideration, revocation or other action regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title. The applicants indicate that this shed would be used strictly for storage, and that no activities would be proposed for the structure other than storage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: 1. The conditional use permit shall be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval, and proof of such recording shall be provided to the City of Mounds View. 2. The shed 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. No other sheds or accessory buildings, other than the existing garage shall be allowed on this lot. 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 6th day of October, 1999. Jen y Peter n, Chairperson • ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\571-99\595-99PC.RES