Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-20-1991 10 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 1991 7:30 P.M. AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: January 2, 1991 (Enclosed) February 6, 1991 (Enclosed) 2. Consideration of Variance Request by Continental Development, 2673 Sherwood Road, Planning Case No. 321-91 3. Consideration of Variance and Conditional Use Permit Requests by John Engberg, 3030 County Road J, Planning Case No. 304-90 4. Review Comprehensive Plan Update ********************************************* ****************** APPLICANTS: YOUR AT1'tNDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 784-3055 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. **************************************************************** ! d P PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting ADOU January 2, 1991 F Mounds View City Hall :.> y , . 401 H1 v r_x..>.. ghway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 The Mounds View Planning Commission was called to 1. Call to Order order by Chair Mountin at 7:32 p.m. on Wednesday, January 2, 1991. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Colleen, Jones, 2 . Roll Call Miller, Peterson, Zollner and Chair Mountin. Commissioner Burgers had an excused absence. ALSO PRESENT: Planning Technician Harrington and Councilmember Wuori. Motion/Second: Zollner/Jones to approve the November 3. Approval of 7, 1990 minutes as presented. Minutes: November 7, 1990 • ayes 0 nays Motion Carried There were no residents requests or comments from the 4. Residents floor. Requests and Comments From The Floor Resolution No. 304-91 was reviewed by the Planning 5 . Consideration Commission. It was noted that a change was made to of Resolution the resolution to include review of regular agenda No. 304-91 items at their agenda meeting be a minimum of two Regarding weeks prior to the regular meeting. Meeting and Timeline Dates Motion/Second: Miller/Colleen to approve Resolution for 1991 No. 304-91, establishing meeting and timeline submission dates for 1991. 6 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried It was noted that Mr. John Engberg was present and 6 . Consideration that he had received a copy of the proposed of Resolution olution and agenda in the mail. It was also noted No. 305-91 pi . t the Planning Commission had reviewed this re- Regarding quest at their last agenda session. Variance v UNAPPROVED . Mounds View Planning Commission January 2, 1991 Regular Meeting Page Two III Motion/Second: Jones/Peterson to approve Resolution Request by John No. 305-91, denying the variance request by John Engberg, 3030 Engberg, 3030 County Road J, to allow 1,644 square County Road J, feet of accessory building area where only 1,264 Planning Case square feet is allowed by Mounds View Municipal Code, No. 305-91 Planning Case No. 304-90. 6 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried It was explained to Mr. Engberg that he had the option to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council and that a public hearing would be scheduled. Mr. Engberg informed the Planning Commission that he intended to appeal the decision. It was noted that Mr. Greg Johnson was present and 7. Consideration that he had received a copy of the proposed of Resolution resolution and agenda in the mail. It was also noted No. 306-91 that this request was discussed at length at the Regarding previous agenda session. Rezoning Request by The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Greg Johnson, resolution. Planning Technician Harrington noted 2865 Hwy. 10, that the Comprehensive Plan's designation of the Planning Case 111 property is medium density residential. No. 320-90 Motion/Second: Miller/Jones to approve Resolution No. 306-91, recommending denial of the rezoning request from R-O to B-3 for Greg Johnson, 2865 Highway 10, Planning Case No. 320-90 . 6 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried It was explained to Mr. Johnson that he could appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City . Council and that a public hearing would be scheduled. Mr. Johnson expressed his desire to appeal the decision and informed the Planning Commission that his attorney has prepared a presentation to be provided to the City Council at the hearing. It was noted that Ms . Barb Depew was present and that 8 . Consideration she had received a copy of the agenda in the mail. A of Resolution copy of the proposed resolution was distributed at No. 307-91 the meeting. Regarding Major Subdivision The Planning Commission reviewed proposed Resolution Request by No. 307-91 making one minor change. Planning Wayne & Barb411 Technician Harrington advised that a revised Depew, 2601/ Certificate of Survey for the property would be 2617 Sherwood, - • . ppR DMounds View Planning Commission January 2, 1991 Regular Meeting Page Three needed showing utility easements and potential right- Planning Case of-way property for the extension of Greenwood Drive. No. 319-90 Motion/Second: Miller/Jones to approve Resolution No. 307-91, recommending approval of the major subdivision request by Wayne and Barb Depew, 2601 and 2617 Sherwood Road, Planning Case No. 319-90. 6 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Mr. Tim Nelson of Everest Development, representing 9 . Consideration Tyson Trucking, was present to discuss this proposal. of Resolution He indicated that this request was discussed at No. 308-91 length at the last Planning Commission Agenda Regarding Final Session. Site Plan Review by Mr. Nelson referred to this proposal as the "third Everest Dev. , phase" of the project. He reported 4825 Mustang to the Planning Commission on the parking situation. Circle, He pointed out that additional parking is available Planning Case if, in the future, the use of the property would No. 266-89 change. He also explained that Ramsey County Parks d Open Space had concerns regarding the landscape Wan and the tree loss that would be experienced as a result of the project. It was specified that two- thirds of the trees would remain and one-third would be lost. Mr. Nelson addressed this issue reporting that the lost trees, which consisted of Cottonwood, Aspen and Willow, would be replaced with a similar species . He also stated that the intensity of the plan was found to be satisfactory to the City Forester. Mr. Nelson further explained the visibility of the project from adjacent properties and affirmed that adequate screening would be. provided. H& indicated that the landscaping on Mustang Drive and around the parking area would be the same as specified on the site plan for the truck expansion. Mr. Nelson summarized by indicating that representatives from Twin City Testing would be on- site during the project to supervise the disposal of any hazardous construction materials . It was stated that soil borings taken on the property would reveal any contaminants that exist. Motion/Second: Jones/Miller to adopted Resolution 308-91, recommending approval of the final site .n design submitted by Everest Development, 4825 Mustang Circle, Planning Case No. 266-89 . 6 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried LI , , - V . Mounds View Planning Commission January 2, 1991 Regular Meeting Page Four !II There was no Staff report. 10. Staff Report Chair Mountin welcomed the new recording secretary. 11. Report of Chair The attendees at the December 19, 1990 agenda session were Commissioners Zoilner, Jones, Burgers, Peterson, and Miller. It was noted that Commissioner Colleen and Chair Mountin had excused absences. Chair Mountin expressed some concerns regarding the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission discussed development alternatives for properties along Highway 10, north of Silver Lake Road. Mr. Harrington was asked to provide information at the next agenda meeting regarding the feasibility of special needs housing in the area and its conformance to the Comprehensive Plan. There being no further business before the Planning 12 . Adjournment Commission, Chair Mountin adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. III Respectfully submitted, Paul Harrington Planning Technician • riON UNAP ikP PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting February 6, 1991 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 The Mounds View Planning Commission was called to 1. Call to Order order by Chair Mountin at 7:33 p.m. on Wednesday, February 6, 1991. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Jones, Burgers, 2 . Roll Call Miller, Peterson and Chair Mountin. Commissioners Zollner and Colleen had excused absences . ALSO PRESENT: Councilmember Blanchard and Planning Technician Harrington. Chair Mountin asked if a copy of the revised January 3 . Approval of 2, 1991, minutes were available for review. Planning Minutes: 'chnician Harrington stated that the revisions to January 2, 1991 e minutes had been made and that he had seen a copy. Chair Mountin requested that in the future, a copy of the revised minutes be included in the packet. Planning Technician Harrington stated that the revised minutes would be included in the next meeting packet and suggested that action could be taken at the March 6, 1991, meeting. Motion/Second: Jones/Peterson to table approval o the January 2, 1991, minutes until the March 6, 1991, meeting. 5 ayes 0 nays There were no residents requests or comments from the 4 . Residents floor. Requests and Comments From The Floor There was no Staff report. 5 . Staff Report LINAPPRI \ ED Mounds View Planning Commission February 6, 1991 Regular Meeting Page Two Chair Mountin asked that it be noted that Dick Krier, 6. Report of representing REM, Inc. , made a presentation to the Chair Planning Commission at the January 16, 1991, Agenda Session. Mr. Brier's company specializes in the construction and management of senior housing. Mr. Krier emphasized the different services his company's housing provides and the benefits it can have to the senior community. It was noted that the attendees at the January 16, 1991, Agenda Session were Commissioners Jones, Miller, Zollner, Colleen, Peterson and Chair Mountin. Also present were Councilmembers Blanchard and Rickaby and Planning Technician Harrington. There being no further business before the Planning 7 . Adjournment Commission, Chair Mountin adjourned the meeting at 7:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, . Paul Harrington Planning Technician r R MEMORANDUM 111 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING TECHNICIAN HARRINGTON DATE: February 14, 1991 SUBJECT: VARIANCE, 2673 SHERWOOD ROAD CHUCK COOK Mr. Chuck Cook has requested a variance to allow the construction of a single family home at 2673 Sherwood Road, legally known as Lot 16, Block 1, Red Oak Park, with a front yard setback of 30 feet where a 58 foot setback is required by a previous planning action In the Fall of 1986, Mr. Cook received approval of a major subdivision for what is currently Red Oak Park. At the time of approval for that plat, stipulations covering setback requirements for certain lots within the subdivision were included in City Council Resolution No. 2120. Specifically, Lot 410 16 was to have a front yard setback of 58 feet. This stipulation was intended to keep a principal structure located on the property in line with three(3) homes to the immediate East of the subject property which all had front yard setbacks of - approximately 58 feet. In addition to the aforementioned front yard setback requirement, a 25 foot drainage easement is located along the Eastern property line. This easement, along with the required building setback on the West property line, severely limit the width of the buildable area on the lot. As a result of these limitations, the location of a home on the property with an orientation towards Sherwood Road becomes quite difficult. I have included copies of the site plan, elevations, floor plan, plat and City Council resolution for your review. If there is any additional information you need, please do not hesitate to call. i • f z CONTINENTAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 12093 ILEX STREET COON RAPIDS, MN 55433 February 8, 1991 City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Re: Front set back variance Dear Planning and Zoning Commission: • This is a request for variance to allow a 30 foot front yard set back for a new house to be built on Lot 16 of Red Oak Park. Enclosed you will find: 1) A reduced copy of the original preliminary plat of Red Oak Park. 2) A lot survey of lot 16 showing the placement of the 411 proposed new house, as well as the easements and set backs. 3) A copy of the plat showing lot 16. 4) The proposed house plan for lot 16. When I originally platted this property in April of 1986, a condition of the plat approval was a 58 foot front yard set back for lot 16. This set back was required as a means to try to align the new house in lots 15 and 16 of the plat with the set backs of the existing homes on the adjoining property. At the time, this requirement did not concern me. Now, after four years, it has proven very difficult to design and sell a home on lot 16 with its very restrictive building set backs. Lot 16 is 75 feet wide. There is a 25 foot storm sewer easement on the east side of the lot. On the west side, the building set back requirements are 5 feet for the garage and 10 feet for the house. This reduces the maximum house width to 40 feet . With a 58 foot front set back and a 30 foot rear set back, the maximum depth of the house and garage is also reduced down to 58 feet. With these set back limitations, I have not been able to sell a conventionally designed home on this lot. Lots 2, 3 and 4 all have homes which were built with a 30 foot set back from Sherwood Road. Lots 5 through 15 all have new homes which were built with 30 foot front yard set backs from Red Oak Court. The home directly across Sherwood Road from lot 16, located on the southwest corner of Sherwood Road and Sunnyside Road, is built approximately 16 feet from its front property line. The house on the southeast corner of this intersection is built with a 29 foot front set back. As you can see, there is much inconsistency in these set backs. I now have an opportunity to build a very nice home on lot 16, but this requires a variance from the 58 foot set back imposed at plat approval. I do not feel that reducing this set back to 30 feet will have a detrimental effect on any adjoining property owners. The new home buyers are Steve and Linda Peterson, who are presently residents of Mounds View. They have joined this application with me. A quick drive by the property and viewing the varied set backs will give a perspective to this request. Feel free to call me if you have any questions, 757-7568. • Respectfully, Charles S. Cook, President Continental Development Corporation enclosures • -41.-..s` RESOLUTION NO. 2120 • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION REGARDING PLANNING CASE NO. 184-86 , RED OAK PARK MAJOR SUBDIVISION (kED OAK DRIVE AND SHERWOOD ROAD) WHEREAS, Mr. Chuck Cook has requested City approval of a major subdivision; and WHEREAS, the request is to subdivide the property into 16 lots and to g:ant a drainage easement for a detention pond over a portion of lots 8, 9 and 10 ; and WHEREAS, the preliminary plat satisfies all City Code requirements including Chapters 40 , 42, 48 , 49.. 49A and State statutes; and WHEREAS , the development will be reviewed and approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) prior to construction; and WHEREAS, there is no wetland or flood plain located on the subdivisiosn; and III WHEREAS, an informational meeting was held on January 29, 1986; and WHEREAS, Lot 2 shall have a sideyard setback of 44 feet; and WHEREAS, Lot Nos. 1, 15 and 16 shall have front yard setback of 44 feet, 58 feet and 58 feet, respectively; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves the request by Chuck Cook to subdivide the land as presented in the drawings received by the City on September • 25, 1986 , contingent upon approval from Rice Creek Watershed District and entering into a development agreement. dopted this 27st day of October, 198a<. r ATTEST: Ma •r (SEAL) z. 411 / A - Cleric,rAd anis ratoc-' ( 7 RESOLUTION NO. 2153 411 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF RED OAK PARK AND APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 86-78 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the preliminary plat for the subdivision and has recommended approval to the City Council on October 1, 1986, by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 174-86 ; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the preliminary plat and has given conceptual approval on October 27, 1986, by adopting Resolution No. 2120 ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Mounds View approves the final plat for Red Oak Park contingent on approval from Rice Creek Watershed District. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council authorizes its Clerk-Administrator and Mayor to execute Development Agreement No. 86-78 . Adopted this 26th day of January, 1987. 41101 ATTEST: 4000" -mr M= •o (SEAL) ^ ' ClekA•minist ato, 41,UNURitlAN Main 011ice 57t 6068 ��NOINRI6RINQ 6875 Highway No. G5 N.E. ' I NC. Minneapolis.Minnesota 55432 MISouth 01114e 8906510 Civil 11 dlunitipol Engineering•Soil Teasing•/,and Surveying•Lend Planning 1101 Cliff Road �® Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 Certificate of Survey for CONTINENTAL DEV: CORP. •• =757- ?S6-? .L►esi- 75.00 -.*---'41-;\ Irrn u, 7 25 in /o' _ 1 i r o� N N tod .9 v o \O Mo� Q,_ O --_ N ? Scale : I " = 30` _. _ . .-- 15 tT J = O Q / '--7 _. . cb I W 0 \ -....."\\N.......,........4.M / Zs d , /\\- :,:....L 75.00 Eas+ Nto N 5 her wood _ Road LOT lCc. , BLOCK 1 , RED OAFS PAR iii o Denofes iron monument Bearings ,shown are assumed Denotes drainage and ui-i.li±y easement Subject +o corse men+$ Rsey �^ yY I hereby certify that this is a true and c I representation of a survey of th.Qbovnda i,, of the above described land, and of the location of , 1 buildings, they on, and ail visib a encroachments, if any, from or on said land. As surveyed by me this? lda of f Y �u �Y A.D. 198 ' SUdURaA d v. INC. f F CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING APPLICATION e, N7'4/ E- A/f4/ pea EIcorrCox, Date 2 - 7 ' 9.f NPP ANT: Name /209 7 X S'? Cao t/ /f o',aic/r, /yv Phone 7 5-7- 7 ser /i7NI $ 7`Eve d Gi:vd., /9eTE`re ren/. . ._ Address F-/ 7 7 rJe,o r.o,v7` �/,' d' Ca t,x 7- , ft9 i/, 7 -7 F5-2 Interest in Property (Check Appropriate Blank) : X Owner of Record Lessee, Operator, Manager Contractor for Deed Owner Agreement to Purchase Other (Explain) Documentary evidence of applicant' s interest in the property may be required before final City action on this request. PROPERTY: Address/General Location X73 .S/�ctr,P J d o di freas4 I Z-41-. ,'j / ed 0i9* PivA Legal Owner: Name/Address dn,✓7`,.N e ,✓75r / j'Fv /,"f,,, 6.4/ Present Use (Check Appropriate Blank) : X Undevel oped/Vacant Let Apartment Single Family Dwell ing - Business Esabl ishment Dupl ex Dwell my - Industrial Establ ishment i Multiple Dwell my (3-6 units) Other (expl ain) Property Classification: Abstract Torrens REQUEST: (Explain) `Q I hereby decl are that the above statements are true. [�'�� S. '¢ali (signature) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: TOTAL BASE *(Base Fees are Non-Refundabl e) DEPOSIT FEES Subdivision , Major $250 ($150) TOTAL FEES PAID /RS"-t)-4) Subdivision , Minor $100 ($75) Date Paid Rezoning $100 ($50) Receipt Number a9 Conditional Use $100 ($50) Variance $75 ($50) '76—•6r2, Code Appeal $100 ($50) Park Fund Dedication /ration Permit $150 ($50) Date Paid Pg. Review $100 ($50) Receipt Number Other ($50) PLANNING SIGN $ 50 Addt'l Fees Paid Date Paid Receipt Number 4lJoJ • r .., • \ \ / \ N. ... ,-, - • ... _ . _ . // 1--in 0 . . •-.1-...-- .. ?" 1 , I 0 .__.. lz, . f < ----' Il 00 Lo o o Ai _ IVA • 0 Si/ , .. „ , 1 t,. /\--- - ----.- 4' -\-- . J.. IV v I I 1 i I I 1 9 !" . 1 I ...,' . I 1 t .. i 4111) Cl.) L..... .• 1111•11•1111 „,...„sztlikt#4,-• ..,__ s U c121 �` Q` " • I J� ,, 75” CM= 1 01/ ceco LI! C) pi CD 0 I• ...... .w, i 771 --1 1,,.." r:-.1 1a" l/r /I\ ` , a II / t 'S... IN II I ��% �fi F----Ii.- 4 �rr(- ,may _'� • 4` -`�� �►!�Sb 4 .1111: `:• . f f III �;< .'1,4f ==;.��s.:..... ill 111111 + = rr"^�� A� 3'IwlL�ll li r °• 5 �r♦;ir6 `i� .k rir .N=_ �.- " II'�I :ill r I�II'�E_. G 4. '•' J�0. a I I111111111i{I ' 1t 1 i* *,*--Iii (1,11..1 III 1 :v.` h of i ~ ,t' 7Ijq�i, :.Ill 4r J•c t �,= ��� �,1I!, II I,/;.`" i �`' t� lll'Illlllllj[ 7r�I I,'�II 111k ; f S, f �C fit` �� f _ -Amezv 1.1'11 i,.,,pg.IiI+_�_ ° �»L; t'yk�l� `�`: ` ►�� t ��II.JII fgt[ ,�.,,...s` 1111,:11:11t6111:11.14..17,11:141,,L.!;;-,1,4,i,;,ilii,k2I'; ,�\\y. �a< �� ! A 1' f`t`•111111111. ,,,���( t c i"�'���• (l]III'bllifll'IfIM I 1 f f 1 gilA Cr 4 >� r,. II r!i,•,��--�1 <'l�i� IIIAIi I `11 E 1'1111 i ., c Q y''° `, /+ sh'il II �,r r > �:,utt'if`''� m ' ^:t s,� • illi: 1:111 1{1111 • i ?<� }�.F +' S e l Ili:: / ! `,4, fir, �3i`�t•F /g� .1' J I ''jll it Ih '.,".;,',7.4 \(t,. �j O NT�.., 1 I1� >•! Lgili •"i - k ',ii I.III sill 3 _ SN,,;,.�f Y/4 ill i cr ti IA `.r I I \ } I Q �/ J�Ih �' 1— k--,.:.......,,„, I `�_ 'ui, ,. •'C+ I �I 11 * Q /,• '401111%,11111.:*I ��ll ,../.:. w y �, t_:111.:11. 111' ��� w i� • S .J I 1!II IUIiY4Yy,. I'i AI,Tr i ? W tie 1ii 11!1 LJJ ,,,,,,e`,,,, ' iii!':{ lIIII1�' \I � I r..❑oma I• ''''C4:' '' ;{,11111 ivif.11 it0,• ''1111 �I L .EBB �c x �I!;II • I LI y IX00❑ r"`t �.�. . it i I 1111'y1 ,n,\ ,;,...---e'''• ''-''''':',..;.:'� Il II ❑O z. y c k' 11II �I : (f 1 FTf :Lill .... }..� 1111'11 i� illll4I111E 'i.' \I 1 e •a r 11 IIIf 1 11111111. • -fix S 11114 [� ii t! ! 1111{I .!l Wip, .S. tpa ! Y f N'° '��' I 11,11111/N _ .y,„.11 l I } i5�lifik '<f 4 'Ill I '(I; ,I, r ...,.,„.,:: .... <C siM: 1, oao I f .: ., �e 1 tl. 1 fl 1 I goy .ri ..�. . _ .' ILI ,, II��������; kt ' 7 1r z y. I.aoa [° 11��*�!I!'IIII' ,,,.i,.: �ffi Fy; • "F• yy e •El�I aan 'f.,:.. �r y ;1 .kf Ftyy_C ' i411l1,41/1 : ' . .. � _5-� �,I�:�;Ced�41'4. ,ii.a.te w x%34 yl' J I ( •it r.. �r4 1: _I} I'.� � ? - Continental Development Corp. , 2673 Sherwood Road, Planning Case No. 321-91 BLAINE N ca # 1 71 : .. • .._::.. ... ,.. a ‘1,, , 0 , .00 cc . -; !: ...: :i 4*' BLAINE a.< , i Am4, ...... ... -- . ......11 im- iii --12-4-----31 BEIM 11111 WAD . . C..0z OR! C4N, 44111 nvpzi a. in 1 ----__Iti--!, If I y7 ), 1 ; 2 i I a 0 1 CsA== •::::•:::::•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:,:•:•:::::•:•:::::::: ::::::•:•:•:•::::::.:.:;.:3::::::•:'• v ' 4111Itilb z ;.,cN Lfit'lli--7 (.m, Pair1000 I0,00L i g MOM VIM/Wag Pi ajkl WWII 1 ai> . ISIMIL faspen g V 4 III RO Lualt7r2 : P ANC w . 1 I =111 ' FCC 1 IMO -I • 1 I -17 1 , _ 1 113 L : I ! 1 4'Jewry ty cc . 0 ... . PRIL—ON 0 .-2 -J 0 t] Gi-g- 65555 ; \ : _. ,,,,,, ...x.r El • -40- 1 A 4.24 4-. .—I i W i WI ° NEW BRIGHTON / , City of 1 Amour wit 1 ,v,,,..".„, v-,,,,,„_ _, mown uAt ill Ramsey County, Minnesota il" \ A MITA.1 lel 1 STREET MAP t k , - -2-8-90 REV. 2-14-90 3 MEMORANDUM • TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING TECHNICIAN HARRINGTON 01 DATE: February 14, 1991 SUBJECT: 3030 COUNTY ROAD J, JOHN ENGBERG At the January 28, 1991 City Council meeting, staff was directed to meet with Mr. John Engberg in an attempt to rectify the situation involving his property and the structures located thereon. On February 6, City Engineer Ric Minetor and I met with Mr. Engberg to explore potential courses of action. At this time, Mr. Engberg has submitted an application for a conditional use permit and a variance. The applicant is requesting to utilize 307 square feet of what is now the attached garage for accessory building. The remaining 412 square feet would be used as a seasonal porch/living area. A 0 floor plan is attached for you review. The Mounds View Municipal Code allows up to 400 square feet of accessory building area with a conditional use permit. The applicant has indicated verbally to staff that he would be willing to disable the overhead garage door on the "porch" side of the building and, that the accessory building area would only be used for non-vehicle storage(as per City Code) . Additionally, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the 900 square foot garage that is currently in the rear yard of the property to remain. City Code allows one( 1) garage, up to 864 square feet in size, per dwelling unit in an R-1 zone district. The applicant is requesting a variance for the 36 additional square feet. Staff is seeking Planning Commission direction in this matter. .. . _ --1-- ..._, ,, • I— >___ , d' N. r 0 - o V) (A ( ) 1.3 W ISI ( ) 12Iq 1=1 aN C--) ( ) w . Cr Crz W > 0) [ n .9-,9I Q n • _____----2 rx n 0 o I— 1 I LJ b Q _ LDCfY C3 Q C) Z W O U OG Li Li cL o ISI Ni n clq � o I ISI CD V-I "irluso-1s CL S { _L 1----- .9-.17 - .0-.9I 1 MEMORANDUM !II TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING TECHNICIAN HARRINGTON DATE: February 14, 1991 SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Please be prepared to discuss pages 32 - 59 of the Comprehensive Plan update at Wednesday evenings ' meeting. These pages comprise Chapter 4 of the update, dealing with the City development framework. • • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION' RESOLUTION NO. 309-91 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 411COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCE REQUEST BY CONTINENTAL DEVELOPMENT FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK, 2673 SHERWOOD ROAD, PLANNING CASE NO. 321-91 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request by Continental Development for a variance to allow the construction of a single family residence into the front yard setback; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the hardships that exist on the lot were self-created by the applicant at the time of platting; and WHEREAS, a 58 foot front yard setback is required for the lot by a previous planning action; and WHEREAS, a 25 foot drainage easement is located along the east property line; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and taken into consideration the applicant's hardship statement as required for a variance request; and 1 IIIWHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the criteria for granting a variance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that alternatives to a variance do exist. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission denies the request of Continental Development to construct a single family residence 28 feet into the front yard setback. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant has the right to appeal to the Mounds View City Council as allowed for in Section 40 .26, Subdivisions (e) and (f) , of the Mounds View of the Mounds View Municipal Code. 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 March, 1991. ATTEST: Chairman (SEAL) Planning Technician