Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-21-1991 • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 1991 7:30 P.M. AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: March 6, (Enclosed) 2 Review Comprehensive Plan Update t • • PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 111 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Pi n vROV - DtiRegular Meeting March 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 :38 p.m. on Wednesday, March 6, 1991. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Colleen, Peterson, 2 . Roll Call Zollner, and Chair Mountin. Commissioners Burgers, and Miller had excused absences . Commissioner Jones had an unexcused absence. ALSO PRESENT: Councilmember Blanchard, Planner Harrington, and City Attorney Barney. Motion/Second: Zoilner/Colleen to approve the 3 . Approval of January 2, 1991 and February 6, 1991 minutes as Minutes : Oresented. January 2 and February 6, 1991 4 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. 309-91 was reviewed by the Planning 5 . Consideration Commission. Planner Harrington explained the two of Resolution points of concerns regarding this case; a 58 foot No. 309-91 front yard setback is required for the lot by a Regarding previous planning action and a 25 foot drainage g g easement that is located along the east property Request by Continental Mr. Charles Cook, representing Continental DevelShmrwo, 2673 herwod Development, stated that at the last meeting it was Road,SPlanning requested that Staff contact the City Attorney for Case No. 321-91 his opinion of the legality of City Council wsolution No. 2120 which specifies a 58 foot front rd setback for Lot 16 of Red Oak Park. xv Mounds View Planning Commiss o y El) March 6, 1991 Regular Meetingig �p 6 Page Two • Attorney Karney stated that past Council action indicated that the 58 foot setback that is required is valid, and according to Chapter 40. 05(a)of the Code, this request cannot be granted. He also indicated that his interpretation of "block" is, houses that are adjacent, not on a different street. Attorney Karney reiterated that the meaning of "block" needs to be defined; possibly adjacent developed lots within the same street, from intersection to intersection, and having the same front yard orientation. Mr. Cook presented a layout of the Red Oak Park subdivision to Attorney Barney. Mr. Cook then quoted Chapter 40 .05 (C) (a) of the Zoning Code as saying, "where adjacent structures within the same block have front yard setbacks different from those required, the front yard setback shall be within the range of the setbacks of the adjacent structure. If there is only one adjacent structure, the front yard setback shall be within the range of the required setback of • 30 feet and the setback of the adjacent structure.- In no case shall the front yard be less than thirty feet" . The Planning Commission further discussed the interpretation of this section of the Code. The setbacks of the adjacent lots on Sherwood Road and Red Oak Court were also discussed. Attorney Karney again pointed out that past Council action is valid, but questioned if the hardship was self-created. Commissioner Peterson stated that he did not see a problem with the 30 foot setback, however, the Planning Commission had to do what was legal and right. Mr. Cook asked the Planning Commission if a variance was the only means that could be used to obtain a reduced setback. Chair Mountin replied that at this time a variance would be the only vehicle, however, he has the right to appeal to the City Council in the event he is not satisfied with the Planning Commission's decision. The Planning Commission then indicated to Mr. Cook 411 that after the appeal, he could request a Code Appeal. The procedures for a Code Appeal were then discussed. A Mounds View Planning Commiss o " h d a J `> s DMarch 6, 1991 Regular Meeting j r `'"�� � � Page Three 111 The Planning Commission discussed both the positive and negative effects that a Code change could have on all properties in the City, not just the property in question. The Planning Commission inquired as to how many houses were adjacent to the subject property to the east and what were their setbacks . Planner Harrington indicated that the three houses to the east of this proposal were all at 58 feet. Commissioner Peterson reiterated that the definition of "block" needs to be interpreted in this particular case. He also indicated that the adjacent house to the east of the property in question is at 58 feet and is the only house there to fit this definition as it currently is written. Commissioner Zollner indicated that she felt the problem was self-created and the Planning Commission cannot reverse the resolution already passed by the City Council. Aiklanner Harrington again explained to the applicant "plat he could appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council in the event he is not satisfied with the Planning Commission's decision. Motion/Second: Zollner/Colleen to approve Resolution No. 309-91 denying the variance request by Continental Development for a front yard setback at 2673 Sherwood Road, Planning Case No. 321-91. 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried It was noted that the applicant, Mr. John Engberg, 6 . Consideration was not present. of Resolution Nos . 310-91 and The Planning Commission reviewed Resolution Nos . 311-91 310-91 and 311-91. Regarding Variance and Planner Harrington explained that Mr. Engberg is CUP Requests by requesting a conditional use permit to allow 307 John Engberg, square feet of accessory building where Mounds View 3030 Co. Rd. J, Code allows up to 400 square feet with a conditional Planning Case use permit. He also explained that Mr. Engberg is No. 304-90 also requesting a variance to allow 900 square feet 111 H TTOVED Mounds View Planning Commi n j March 6, 1991 Regular Meeting Page Four of garage area where only 864 square feet is allowed by Code. Planner Harrington indicated that the :. previous variance appeal by the applicant was denied by the Council at which time the Council directed Staff to work with the applicant in order to bring the structures into compliance with City Code. Planner Harrington stated that he researched past actions of the Planning Commission and found no record of a conditional use permit being denied if it met regulations set forth in the City Code. Chair Mountin expressed that the Planning Commission's practice is to approve all conditional use permit requests if zoning is proper and conditions of the City Code are met. Attorney Karney addressed the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the attaching of conditions to the approved conditional use permit. He further stated that the attaching of these conditions is justified and legal. It was noted that a building permit was not obtained • for the detached 900 square foot building. Motion/Second: Zollner/Peterson to approve Resolution No. 310-91 recommending approval of the request by John Engberg for a conditional use permit to allow an oversized accessory building on his property and approval of Resolution No. 311-91 denying the variance request by Mr. Engberg to allow a 900 square foot garage where an 864 square foot garage is allowed by Code, 3030 County Road J, Planning Case No. 304-90 . 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Attorney Karney was thanked for attending the meeting. Chair Mountin requested that notification of the Planning Commission's action be sent to Mr. Engberg and that the alternatives be explained. Planner Harrington indicated that a meeting is 7 . Staff Report scheduled for Saturday, March 9th from 9 :00 to 10:30 410 a.m. to review the Comprehensive Plan Update. ' Y IR Mounds View Planning Commis i March 6, 1991 Regular Meeting PROVE Page Five •hair Mountin noted that a meeting was held on March 8 . Report of Chair 2nd to review the Comprehensive Plan Update. She requested that notification of future meetings be posted outside the council chambers at City Hall. It was noted that the attendees at the February 20, 1991, Agenda Session were Commissioners Colleen, Peterson, Burgers and Chair Mountin. Commissioners Miller, Zollner and Jones had excused absences . There being no further business before the Planning 9 . Adjournment Commission, Chair Mountin adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, • Paul Harrington Planner MEMORANDUM • TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PAUL HARRINGTON, PLANNING TECHNICIAN ' DATE: March 14, 1991 SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN We are scheduled to meet Saturday March 16, 1991 from 9 to 10:30 a.m. Please be prepared to discuss district narratives 1, 2 and 3. If you will be unable to attend, please contact Barb Benesch before 4 :30 p.m. on Friday March 15 . S