Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-16-1998 44±11111111. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1998 7:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO ME PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Planning Case No. 533-98 Property Involved: 5249 Greenfield Avenue Consideration of Resolution No. 556-98, a Resolution Approving a Variance Request for a Sidewalk Applicant: Timothy White • 5. Planning Case No. 536-98 Property Involved: 2200 &2214 Highway 10 (Mermaid and Perkins, respectively) Consideration of Resolution No. 560-98, a Resolution Approving a Variance Request to Allow a Joint Use Parking and Access Arrangement between the Businesses and a Zero-Foot Parking Lot Setback.. Applicant: Daniel Hall, representing the Mermaid 6. Planning Case No. 535-98 Property Involved: 8111 Eastwood Road Consideration of Resolution No 558-98, a Resolution Approving a Variance to Allow for two Curb-Cuts. Applicant: Micaeh Tobias 7. Staff Reports/Information Items a. Highway 10 Design Theme b. Theater project Update c. Greenfield Ponds Tax Forfeit Properties 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 9. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS • REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) • AGENDA MEETING AGENDA 1. Review of Minutes: a. August19, 1998 (Special) b. September 2, 1998 (Regular) N:\DATA\GRGUPS\CGMDE W'LANCGMM\PCAGENDA\1998\09-16-98.AGN • S • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: September 16, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 533-98 Applicant: Timothy White Request: The applicant is requesting a reduced side yard setback to allow for a Sidewalk alongside his garage. Location: 5249 Greenfield Avenue PIN No. 08-30-23-31-0021 Zoning/Land Use: R-1, Single Family Residential/ single family home Applicable Regulations: • Section 1104.01, Subd. 5, regarding encroachments: "Terraces, steps, decks, stoops or similar features; provided they do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure or to a distance less than two feet (2') from any lot line." Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its review of variances. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Site Plan Resolution 556-98 Background: The applicant is requesting a variance from the required two-foot side yard setback established for decks, terraces or sidewalks. He has constructed an sidewalk alongside his garage located at 5249 Greenfield. The new sidewalk, which accesses a shed in the rear yard, replaced a walkway of railroad ties that had been present for twenty years, but had fallen into disrepair. The property alongside the garage slopes down, requiring that the sidewalk be supported by footings. The sidewalk is approximately four feet wide and is within inches of a chain link fence that separates the subject property from the property to the north. In addition to the garage, there is an above- ground pool surrounded by patio and landscaping, all of which is enclosed by a five-foot tall privacy fence. The shed is outside of this fenced-in area. White Variance Planning Case No. 533-98 • September 2, 1998 Page 2 Analysis: At the last Planning Commission meeting, significant discussion was held regarding the merits of this case as well as the interpretation of the language in the Code regarding setbacks. Because of many factors, such as the slope of the land north of the garage, safety considerations and lack of access elsewhere on the lot, the Planning Commission acted to table the request to enable staff to draft both approval and denial versions of the resolution. a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the properties 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. The factors which could be construed as extraordinary relating to this request include the slope of the land laying between the garage and the adjoining property and the fact that the shed is located outside of the enclosed pool area, which takes up a majority of the backyard. The shed faces north, toward the adjoining property. Access to the shed then is gained most conveniently from alongside the north side of the garage. Because of the slope, the sidewalk had to be supported by footings to be level. • 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. If the variance request was denied, the applicant would either need to remove the sidewalk completely from alongside the shed, which would be a hardship given a sidewalk has existed in this location for more than twenty years, or cut the sidewalk back a foot. In so doing, a gap would be left between the sidewalk and the chain-link fence which is on the applicant's property. It was felt that this gap would pose a considerable safety risk due to the height of the fence and slope of the land. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The slope of the land in this aea is the primary basis for the variance request, a condition over which the applicant has no control. • 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. White Variance Planning Case No. 533-98 • September 2, 1998 Page 3 The allowed setback for garages within the City is five feet, and many garages are constructed at this setback. All property owners are allowed to use this five-foot area, which many utilize for access to the rear of a property. Thus, granting the variance 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. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. Given that the setback is only two feet for a sidewalk, and the fence (presumably) is not on the property line, the variance requested is minimal--probably one foot to one and a half feet. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Because driveways are allowed to within one foot of a property line (with the permission • of the adjacent property owner) it can be reasonably expected that a sidewalk should be subjected to a similar setback. Granting a variance to allow this would not be detrimental to the purpose of the Code. 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 If the variance were to be granted, it would not impair any neighboring properties' supply of light or air, it would not create any additional traffic impact nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. There would be no impact to property values. According to the City Code, all of the preceding criteria shall be satisfied in order to justify the granting of a variance. As pointed out in the above responses, a hardship can be shown to exist, which would allow for the granting of a variance. • White Variance Planning Case No. 533-98 411 September 2, 1998 Page 4 Recommendation: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 556-98, a resolution approving a variance for Timothy White of 5249 Greenfield Avenue, to allow for a reduced side yard setback for a deck-like sidewalk. James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V\DE VCASES\533-98\VAR-PC2.RPT • • ( i . i • ''' ill.!��= COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ;[ ç 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 'lit, -Itri-r„tsen`"`Q' 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information Name of Applicant i I rn QWCy W h , id 1;75 Telephone 2,77- 24/79 Address / . S 2 41 q rL lr % :-ith,e - -- _Fax - / MM ss - 1i Interest in Property(check appropriate box) X • Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee,Operator,Manager a Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other(explain) - Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. • Property Description/Proposal - � `/�j Air Address or General Location Syq 6tee.ri4i' c lee. /'�'"6V-M� g/14.1W9E;fe,4eser 0; Legal Description •g/ , 14heek- 5$edKI Ail1 t e Lel-/S,$4 t 4-:1 Property Identification#(PIN#) ©6 SO3 31 i C 21 g i #of Acres ;�3 1 /V6i- t�.,,�( ��{ eT Current Zoning R../ ,` _ r K Q Sok/liw'GSr�l�i 1 �' �. S,cc`Th„ g, - Type of Application i6ll/17SAlt ?11, ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250 ❑ Rezoning $250/acne, min 5250 max$1500 Aale 9e 23 . ❑ Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit* ❑ Minor Subdivision $200 ❑ Planned Unit Development(PUD) . - Refer to rezoning fees ❑ PUD Amendment _ $350 O Conditional Use Permit R-1, R-2$75;all others$250 VarianceR-1, R-2 5100 all others$250 ❑ Code Appeal $100 ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan $I25/acre;min$125 max$750 O Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2$150;all others$200 ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit R-1,R-2 S25;all others$100 ❑ Floodplain Permit $200 ❑ Other • *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty(30)days after consideration of the application is completed. ' ' Please complete the reverse side of this application. • City of Mounds View,MN I: . Development Application Page 2 • Present Use of Property a Undeveloped/Vacant X Single Family Dwelling C Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ Other(explain) Property Classification X Abstract ❑ Torrens Description of Proposal 0 2. (r . .y .• --. / - r' -I' ' f/ bit c k 4x t ."0,,/,,, , . 1,0 y` j eiIP iv,kr e.7> izso/. iuet.ifirQyd 7�y ; ff �idr'�7Arr17 Nr* ms.,/, T�1�t,7 /7.- s--l /yilr e Y}.rt 1C_ /17-- I/I" /fT I/I" Qr 41/.J �,l, BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION.I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PRO VIDEDIS TRUE AND Signature of Applicant 2�,r r-2�%/ (moi/.i,22�-/ Name of Applicant(typed/printed) tv"i,_.11 t/ bt)' L./ /' . • Signature of Property Owner Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) 7—Tin Q 4' /12 4/`j/' Address of Owner A 41' e fP)174W1 AYP, gDzed.S. J 1 /4/l/ SS'/l2- Phone Number of Owner 64:2 ' ,g y— ,9.. 'I 71 Date of Submittal 4 FQR FICE USE ONLY 7 _ .. . Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Pl;inning Case No. S33. Ai, 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: Account# Check# Receipt# Application: 100•0e tOJ-34=' - 7 -2 t r) i,5-I Park Dedication: Deposits: • Other: Total: N:1DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\FORMS\DEVAPP.FOR I/gg 124, PF1 _ N N CITY HALL 5395 5394 539 �rn rEci 5386 538 p N 5394 gm; 5380 5381 Y ,y�, `_ 5372 537 i 4"0 MU eu era: 53E - AU �=144 Eel= 535 . S 2 5337 JO NisiL ii& Q� X30 5331 • ,tom s 5323 32 • S� � `��� 5317 S�, S� 5309 Co?� 6 5298 5301 M. R-2 1., Aloft s�98?A1 8 5295 9-3 Z U 5287 B— ._.� 52791. i n' i t wagN N N N N N e '14 5260 5297 E c �� �. f .„„,,)„,„!, 5267 5287 9-3 `1' ry�A 5261 0 _ 0-3 5250 ITM 52505255 5260 5277 ME! ISEa 5292 5309 : 5294 R-4 • — N '2 4o 4/ ' v In in N "IlliC`l►r ti - Perla 5238 v v v v a a 52•• ice. .� imuNCE N N N N N� N N N _• �� ....r: 5237 CLEARMEW AVE 28- . a, M 5270 5279 527• 1 �'a 5226 5231 4110011111 N N N N N N N 5260 5269 526.114 ~' .• :' 260 �• O 5220 ,c� co r7 r rn Ln259 5250 ti� ,� • ,o .n '.../ N 0 S _ 525. 525• 525• N N N N N N N 5240 �j `� �� ' � 52 • � ,52 •5249 5240� � N LANE o go 2 m o el m 5230 5239 z 523.523• 5230121M 5230 ti ,vg/. cm N N N Wars N N N N N N N , 4J•52205229 w� 522• 522• 5220 N � - 5206 520 0 , m a rs - N 5210 5219 C-7 521• `�+�10 521 5210 520• 520 N N N N N N N N ••0 520' -1 520.15200 5209 5200 n 515 WOODALE DP ca c 513 514• 5150 5155 5180 N 51 a ` N c 513 "=•`:*-7:•:.:::::.'" 5141 5144 5185 I NC 512: - 513 5140 5175 d 5170 5179 EDGEWOOD 5120 - - 512 W 5160 5169 JR. HIGH Z 511 5136 5165 5150 5159 SCHOOL 51.. .".":::•:•:•:•:•:-:;•::::•:: 511 4 5128 5155 5140 5149 , 5109 Z 5120 5145 rsi N o 5130 5139 I •• N N N N 5101 — 5108i5135 p 5101 5101 8 • Zoning Map Planning Case 533-98 Applicant: Timothy White NO' Location: 5249 Greenfield Avenue El- BB MI irint. I-774 MEW CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW E•„=r.,7,LIA7.14"""""""""MI--- - --""""EE IMTkets.._ LOCATION MAP IIl -,2. :. m Nth: NIIIIMos ir •..t ,o__..,r.. rr---§ 0:1111111111111; lit-PIPE elligEN" 41.11F"11 .7:04 3.Tle 40iiii .or. :,.....,.... 1,...,..... — PasINI%,v:ei ill ::::::::::::!!!!!::::::::: • . Num .............,„ m,/".. .............. ... ..............t um......mu Applicant: Timothy White == tali•A 4.111 = - '''d= Property: 5249 Greenfield Avenue -8- - -- . 11:4-4•0.11 =ii-.. I122 Mek•' 1 Iliv- •"5Wii.H7-r::u1m.m1i11lMimil: RequestVariance 14 IIIIIIIEll RE ...2511NULIE4.T,,;‘671111 imillum...-.== PLANNING CASE NO. 533-98 11110mm -........---5m,'"'"4 i,Iii t, miiiir -, i LE.e.2.111 MN; MINIUM • I&Iwallicr 1:—.52-16-4111111MIMMIMIN liEn mires° 7---i-ma rim. ma Eli to , 1 , I jai Ilril '\ W .... ,..... as 5249 Greenfield Avenue = Properties Within 350' La49 Greenfield Avenue I .. 1 IN ,,/N, -,, -. . i r--7 1 i 111 , , ! I iiicH , i .._.,. r..____.1 / !mama capal 7 I--1 1 1 ir , 4 _„N-, malt a ____H 5 lit ',--, ,c N. 71,711 co2CCO . 1 1 1 ,-,,,,,=-.... , , N . I ; ! i CCLW3 I ,A9 iI , IT1 --j---1 ' - --:-_..---.tt. .,:,,, , -- , - ---' Wil 1 —Ji. :-.-'-Fz.'t;'''14:':7' (--.._/\ 0 '„ ,..,,---- - ....----, I i ; I ' 1 I ; I ! I 1 i 1 , ...-:; ; ..,-„, :, F. ,:. 1--1 ,,--, t 1 1 . . ,,,,, ,.--,,,,,. 1 __ . .,. .'ff: I_H--1,--- '' 1, rz/ 7 , - • ' 1 I ( i I . , :,,:n•;7; F ...- t_.___,, ,____. ! , ,>.,,, I i ! 1 ] H 1 I H 1 r 1 -,ETZ...r z:::',2!: ' ' ' — V . , --k• 111 . ' 11 '•--, 1-7 1 i i 1 1 '--7,'.--""-,.., ••'''''''*••''•••` 1=:::-:,, , , '•',,, ...- --- 7 I-S i .-- •-- 1- 1--1 Min 1 \ \ I i__j —I 1 ' I \ —,...1721 , i___1 ,,___j_..4 no . . \ r- --, , : : 1--1 i_--1 ms. 1 • \\I ---H ' I I 1---' i 1 1 ,--i i--!--1 t Edgewood School --I i 1 , 1 1 1 . 1 , , ,.. . ----! , ----- , , 1 1 I , • , I 1-1 I r 1---' 1 1 1 tr 4_..1 !•!.:=1 {, ! ,..._. '' • I 1 ,'---.-—, \- 1---.--, .- : . i__,1___: --,--I ',.. I j H 1 ri--, , ! , • i_____: ,_—_, ,, i 1 , , . , ,__,._j L , ,___i_i .. r , I 1 -- - -----; 1 1 -.., • GA•DEN Locked Gate SHED • GARAGE Lock d Gate HOUSE • Driveway • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 556-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED TWO-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A SIDEWALK LOCATED AT 5249 GREENFIELD AVENUE; PLANNING CASE NO. 533-98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Timothy White to permit a sidewalk within the two-foot sideyard setback at his home located at 5249 Greenfield Road; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District and is legally described as: Lot 15, Block 2, Eigenheer Second Addition WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with this request: • 1. Planning Application 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Site Plan WHEREAS, the sidewalk for which this variance is requested by the applicant has already been constructed, replacing a sidewalk that had been present in excess of twenty years; and, WHEREAS, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do 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. WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that the slope of the land laying between the garage and the adjoining property necessitates that some type of walkway be constructed to access the garden area and shed to the rear of the garage; and, WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant in that the grade of the land is somewhat inhibitive for access without a leveling of the • grade (which could disrupt drainage) or installation of a sidewalk; and, • Planning Commission Resolution 556-98 September 2, 1998 Page 2 WHEREAS, granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that other property owners have unobstructed access to the area between their garage and property line; and, WHEREAS, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone in that the the City Code allows driveways--a more intensive use--to be located within one foot of a property line; and, WHEREAS, the variance would 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 in that a sidewalk would have no impact upon property values, supply of light or air, and may even decrease the risk to public safety. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the variance request of Timothy White, • to allow a sidewalk within the two-foot sideyard setback at 5249 Greenfield Avenue. Adopted this 2nd day of September, 1998 Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST Rick Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V\DE VCASES\533-98\556-98A.RES • • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: September 16, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 536-98 Applicant: Daniel Hall & Charles Herbst Request: The applicants are requesting a zero-foot parking lot setback to allow for a joint-use parking lot between the Mermaid and Perkins restaurants. Location: 2200 - 2214 Highway 10 PIN Nos. Mermaid: 08-30-23-43-0006, 08-30-23-43-0007, 08-30-23-43-0008 Perkins: 08-30-23-41-0010 • Zoning/Land Use: B-3, Highway Business District/Bowling & Entertainment Center, Restaurant Applicable Regulations: Section 1104.01, Subd. 4c(2)(b): Parking lots shall maintain a five-foot setback from the side and rear property lines. Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its review of variances. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Site Plan Joint Use Agreement Resolution 560-98 Background: The applicants are requesting a variance from the required five-foot setback established for parking lots in a business district. The parking lot for the Mermaid has been expanded and resurfaced in • accordance with the development plans submitted to and approved by the City on May 11, 1998. It was discovered after the fact that the development plans were in error, such that the parking lot north of the building encroaches into the required sideyard setback and in one area crosses the property line onto the Perkins property. Mermaid / Perkins Parking Lot Variance Planning Case No. 536-98 • September 16, 1998 Page 2 Analysis: To compensate the Perkins property, the Mermaid has opened a secondary access drive between the two businesses, complementing the existing joint access. This access should serve to increase circulation between the sites and to improve the safety of Mermaid patrons by diverting Perkins traffic to the rear of the Mermaid. In addition, representatives from both properties have entered into a joint use agreement, such that both properties are protected in the event either use or ownership should change. In addition, the City will require that a cross-access and shared parking easement be filed with Ramsey County to legitimize the arrangement. This document is being drafted by the City Attorney and should be available to the Commission and applicants prior to the meeting. According to Section 1125.02 of the City Code, the following seven criteria need to be satisfied in order for a variance to be justified. Economic factors alone do not justify variance and the property owner cannot be responsible for the action or condition that necessitates the approval of a variance. The criteria, with responses, are as follows: 1 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. - The development plans prepared for the Mermaid expansion and adopted by the City Council were in error, resulting in the parking lot being constructed over the five-foot setback and onto the adjacent property. 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. The parking is required to be installed in accordance with the development agreement and the parking requirements as imposed by the City Code, which apply for all uses within the City. 3. Special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The site plans were drafted by outside consultants, upon whose expertise and abilities the applicant and City had entrusted and believed to be accurate. 4. Granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant a special privilege that a is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Other properties within the City have combined parking lots and joint accesses. Planning Commission Resolution 560-98 • September 2, 1998 Page 3 5. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. The minimum required width for two aisles of parking with an access drive in between them is sixty feet, which is what was shown on the original development plans. The variance requested will allow for the sixty feet to be installed according to the plans approved by the City Council. 6. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other properties in the same zone. Both circulation and safety between and within the two properties would improve while parking can be sufficiently expanded to meet the requirements as outlined by the City Code 7. The variance would 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. • The joint parking and access would improve congestion, improve public safety and improve parking on both sites. Recommendation: Approve Planning Commission Resolution 560-98, a resolution approving a variance for a zero- foot setback for a parking lot, on properties located at 2200 - 2214 Highway 10. • James Ericson, Planning Associate NADATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DE VCASES\536-98\VARIANCE.RPT • , .--77'i.1.7. CUM i--=' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIOqa jiff,:; 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 5511 X41.'-Partatoi'Q' 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form • Applicant Information / Name of Applicant /"t -#''M C tZ Y/ ci e_• Telephone t'12--/ 7(C4- 73 ) Address _. _. _ Z2oo10 Fax fO!Z 78V-0107 - - -- -- ----------- - - Po (A,,/ds U ea) /-fn �11Z • Interest in Property(check appropriate box) Owner of ProContract for Deed Owner .. -- -- C party .-. _,... - - � tI _ ❑ - Lessee,Operator,Manager -. _ - .❑ Agreement to Purchase ❑ ._ _ Other(explain) Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The .property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal Address of General Location .-0 0 1LLLIAV V . ) U III _Legal Description - �9 Property Identification#(PiN -----og---3 O--',A2— 4e.3 -o a 0-7 -=-00 o 31 000(.9 f 001 0 - #of Acres . . • ._ : Current Zoning - - . 6 —% ?) , „c _ 'ig4.4 L _ J motif Type of Application C Comprehensive Plan Amendment 5250 ❑ Rezoning 5250/acre; min$250 max 51500 ❑ Major Subdivision $250+5250 deposit* c Minor Subdivision $200 ❑ Planned Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees ❑ PUD Amendment $350 ❑ ..::-.al Use Permit R-1, R-2$75;all others$250 Variance - R-1, R-2$100 all oth � 0 one •PPeal $100 ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan • •$125/acre;min$125 max$750 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2$150;all others$200 ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit R-I,R-2$25;all others$100 ❑ Floodplain Permit $200 ❑ Other *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices.materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, • research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty(30)days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View. MN ' Development Application Page 2 • Present Use of Property ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant - ❑ Single Family Dwelling 0 Duplex/Two Family Dwelling 0 Multi-family Dwelling Fs Business/Commercial Establishment 0 Industrial Establishment 0 Other(explain) Property Classification 0 Abstract 0 Torrens Description of Proposal I ,_), 1-,6,,,.« .f' ' BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BE ' OF MY.,•'._- _ :44, KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PRO I.ED IS TRUE AND ACC • 'TE. -_ _ . .. .w__ Signature of Applicant pZ / AIAlr 4k-4r Name of Applicant(typed/printed) 13'W EL L. IAL/, riMillir ' ' -t N_:::::,,,,.._ ,,,1 4 ..., Signature of Property Owner -1 I ,-orirAPPr 1° Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) - '` 1(L L. Aise (_ 1"' ' ! k e P6,_ $-,13 Address of Owner _ . '2-2•00--u_- t�G (0 _ _ '`'Al — ICICCII\ 1.1 ttw- ._ rua,.InM SUu(:&) nm,..) Phone Number of Owner - -)Ti..)39) - 7V 11 ":6'F 5, FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal -I - Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. 3 r.- 01 $ 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: Account# Check# Receipt# Application: ,SO. O V )DO ^ 3 q-o 3 "471 6 9 5'9739 Park Dedication: Deposits: • Other. Total: N:'DATA\GROUPS1COMDEV\FORMS\DEVAPP.FOR 1/98 • 4.24 ....- „.. ........ N N N N e..i N i4 ••.:4 C71 N '1... 5330 5329 5330 532" ...; \..•/.41*.':CZ't 5',16 5323 5324 PARK 0 5324 5323 E.mamria 531: 1..., 6 5317 PF 5316 531°t IMMEI --..' 535301. ..,, PIIPPE".• - \ 5309 , -. 5308 5307d 5308 . 5 ant 414t0, 4-4.41tt._ 528 5301 5.302 53M 5300 5299 5300 rat mi F t' 3 52'• m 31-:529 5295 F, CT3i Ic74 E iii F.' 0 .41 Ft "c7; :c.3, 2'----; 2 5294 52" ffE9REE b1+11 0 4.10 5287 C. N C.4 N N gN N N N N N N C7i N N 5288 5287 528. Z 3 13- . 111 :i a ..,0) 11111111 o o I,/ N C4 N 5275 287 N N 55.rv" ,i,c). 263 5299 im."1111112"4.. • 1111P° 2 1..- C i 1 PUD 5230 :::.::::.-4:.?: 5251 1-al > < 528* BMW cv cv "::::7::::..:::;:::-. 527' OE 5269 Onlity.t• 260 ,„ IMMItt Nitwit Eg iSce W000ALE N c4 N 5200 •-• 0 0 DR 525* c N N N 52055201 524' IDEMBIEW =tag, 5240 to• -Y1 ‘Wr )- o ll 523.LT-EMCEE Mg= Ifil z 0 5229 CM IMEIM ER Mt • '7 _N.-1 /4 3 a ,:r 4. irm 521'Cr,IECE •111,,5210102, ME 42 "V5150 52,• Man= 5200 5209 5200 10 % I0 0••0 • I. r1.• I gi gi Pi CZ gi •c5 EDGEWOOD 1)- 43 ,1> JR. HIGH 1. Al•- SCHOOL ........_ 11111111, • PUD ffefigilis 0 1001 I I. \ i , ,,„ •. .. 0 ik VW") 0144 \CP .•...::::.-.r.• ... *:..-.:, 1•• CRE13( i*,.......,,44 . re) I \444........... p 01 <a cv ,..,-•,...;Mg, as:, 03'n **f.-jirl'' 7- .:. tAl N N c.• - ..'". CO • - RDN 8-3 . 0 IIIIIIII \ < CC u..1 Z Illir CRP 1\ _ .. c _ .. .,..... 4111114,,. 1 ••.• w.r1 "•'; R-5 ... . A '1111••:11.01VIZLI,11111111_16,1 . • TOWNS EDGE TERRACE ..+.... --* MOBILE HOME PARK . 416 sik I • , .,,, _ 4) Zoning Map Planning Case 536-98 Applicant: Dan Hall / Mermaid N ii) Location: 2200 - 2214 Highway 10 I,III...=_-_ _ CITY OF MOUNVS VIEW • F= •� rLOCATION __= = =_=- MAP is=y1 ""--.=e l-�.:i...--- �etel)M�,1IdIIEi: .:?.. f—_.- ---:Ir"""' _� -11_a ____ _ .11�. ;*rte 'i' -==�,..",z2-=.2:--11.-ti= = i ^e=_=-_ *.: Applicant: Mermaid ��Ilil ili,v t=i = Property: 2200 Highway 10/ I_=y, �,,___- .��.. 2214 Highway10 :��'=fSi!''" ' -_ b. Request: Variance (parking) =-_ ='-3..;,; r-- \��` = = ii PLANNING CASE NO. 536-98 �.7..• �� �IIIIIIIIII `IIIIIIImI t ':r FAY - mII 4',1-i .IN_h_IT� �j��'_'?1111 -jwow ,Ara� ;mss 1116 so 'I.I_ciiii i w _I=�_::illll. 1-:'-1--. '=r_'�:: III � •�11{07,1118 ,5.',1 i l;, Illn •`�, I ' 2200 & 2214 Highway 10 N '• Properties Within 350' S Mermaid/Perkins Site I I 1 1 sit-,- r. 11114‘all R=7"!la a *NO . hal _........._ M q fi,. IIA igholl, IN '. G� ... — ..- T - Ill _ 1 111111_ `�a ' ■■ _............ 'ui111 ,e' —+ .. ............(... =1 'Ng" am uuu-uu.� -� ... - ita ''' I M - Di ---- _ -_ Nil 4C5/i g-n r', ,'' '2",3,1x" H. i • '�.a .. i� g _-I • 1---- -- I1 • AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT (Agreement) is made between CHARLES HERBST, as Personal Representative of the Estate of ELEANOR HERBST, Deceased, who was at the time of her death a single person (Herbst) and MOUNDS VISTA, INC. a Minnesota corporation (Mounds Vista) and dated September , 1998. WHEREAS: A. Herbst is the owner in fee simple of that certain tract and parcel of land located • in the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota and legally described as follows, to-wit: Lot 1, Block 1, Herbst Enterprises, Ramsey County, Minnesota (hereinafter the Herbst Tract); and, B. Mounds Vista is the owner in fee simple of that certain tract and parcel of land located in the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota and legally described as follows, to-wit: See attached Exhibit A (hereinafter the Mounds Vista Tract); and, C. The Herbst Tract and the Mounds Vista Tract are adjacent to one another and the parties are mutually desirous of describing an arrangement under which access to and from the respective parcels will be provided and certain encroachments permitted, all upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. • • NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt in sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree: 1. Access. Herbst and Mounds Vista jointly agree that they will, subject to the terms of this Agreement, permit access from one tract to the other for the convenience of their guests, patrons, invitees and employees, said access to be located along their common property line as depicted on the attached Exhibit "B". 2. Parking. The parties agree that during the term of this Agreement they will permit their respective guests, invitees, employees and patrons to park upon the property of the other in the areas designated for parking on their respective tracts. 3. Encroachments. Herbst grants to Mounds Vista a limited license to permit encroachment of certain parking improvements upon the Herbst Tract and to allow Mounds Vista to create parking spaces which are immediately adjacent to the common property line. 4. Term. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon give thirty (30) days prior written notice. Upon termination, any driveway access and/or curb cuts may be removed, closed or obstructed and all encroachments which have been made by Mounds Vista upon the Herbst Tract shall be removed by Mounds Vista within 60 days following • termination of this Agreement. 5. Notices. All notices permitted are required to be given under the terms of this Agreement shall be mailed to the parties at the addresses set forth below, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, said notice to be effective upon receipt: Charles Herbst Personal Representative of the Estate of Eleanor Herbst 2299 County Road H Moundsview, MN 55112 Mounds Vista, Inc. c/o Mermaid 2200 Highway 10, Moundsview, MN 55112 Either party may change the address or party to which notices shall or may be sent by giving notice thereof to the other in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. • 6. Merger. This Agreement supersedes all prior understandings between the • parties with respect to the matters discussed in this Agreement and this Agreement may only be modified or amended by a writing signed by both of the parties. 7. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and respective heirs, successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunder caused their presence to be made the day and year first written above. MOUNDS VISTA, INC. /X41(By: Charles Herbst Its: n - Personal Representative of the Estate of Eleanor Herbst S STATE OF MINNESOTA ) : ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument waacicnowledged before me this of l9qYby i L•Hilo I the - c i h c , ;-of Mounds Vista, Inc., a Minnesota corporation on behalf of the corporation. L-4 • t . r f111r•P1�. • NViwY PUOL VAINNEKTA ' ANOKA COUNTY ""s' My Commission Expires Jan.31,2000 S - lir��frlir�rrrs�fr� • 3 • STATE OF MINNESOTA ) . ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this.✓n•�ay of r 19'7X by Charles Herbst, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Eleanor Herbst, Deceased who was at the time of her death a single person and to me known to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument as his free act and deed. ' 41` / L---yT1� Notary Public / // GI nA NO iwy�OKAUC-nAIHoIESpTp "`• My Cummisslon COUNTY THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: • Chris H. Berndt WARCHOL, BERNDT & HAJEK, P.A. 3433 Broadway Street N. E. Suite 110 Minneapolis,MN 55413 (612) 331-4211 190501.AGM • 4 EXHIBIT A . Tract A That part of the East 546.75 feet of the South 715.1 feet of the SW'/ of the SE'/. of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23 in Ramsey County, Minnesota Iying Southwesterly of the Southwesterly right of way line of U.S. Highway No. 10 as it is now laid out and travelled and lying Northerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the West line of the East 546.75 feet of said SW'/4 of the SE'/. distant 445.25 feet North of the South line of said SW1/4 of the SE% as measured along said West line of the East 546.75 feet thereof; thence North 86°52'52" East (assumed bearing of the West line of East 546.75 feet of said SW'/4 of the SE% is North 0°47'11" West) and to the Southwesterly right of way line of said U. S. Highway No. 10 and except that part of the following described property included in the above described tract: Commencing at a point on the South line of the SE'/4 of the SE% of said Section 8 distant 897.5 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence North 35°07' West (assumed bearing of West on said South line) a distance of 392.7 feet to the center line of County Road H; thence South 54°53' West along said center line, a distance of 145.0 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 54°53' West 120.0 feet; thence North 35°07' West 252.0 feet; thence North 54°53' East, 190.0 feet to the Southwesterly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 10; thence South 35°07' East along said Southwesterly right of way line 200.0 feet; thence South 54°53' S West along said right of way line 70.0 feet; thence South 35°07' East along said right of way line 52.0 feet to the point of beginning. S LOCATION SURVEY For: The MERMAID- - ; 'i, of • Property Line and adjoining parking `'z between The Mermaid and Perkins in Mounds View, Minnesota PERKINS I V. 92.0 ' V . i �Gy I Nr �,1 1. • ' • .. 4- >O /North Lot Line la DUSTING CONCRETE CURB :,• Z ti \\. di - m 1N c1-* n \— .,%••-•• _ 1• •••1 -ANKING LOT "•` .J i 1 ! f a —58±41 , 1653 - :: THE MERMAID 4. ; i ;wanoN �. ' — I r. fj le 1"= 60' Job No. 98491LS Drwg By BAO ereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my E. G. RuID 4 SONS, INC direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws LAND StJR1/EYORS of the State of Minnesota E. G. RUD & SONS, INC E.SISO LEXINGTON AVNO. .., -e- / CIRCLE PINES, MINNESOTA a-ia 9R 980 550I4-3625 TEL. 186-5556 Date Registration No • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. 560-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A ZERO-FOOT SIDE YARD PARKING LOT SETBACK FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2200 - 2214 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. 533-98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Daniel Hall, representing the Mermaid, and Charles Herbst, representing the Perkins property, to allow a joint-use parking lot which overlaps the common property line between the Mermaid, located at 2200 Highway 10, and Perkins, located at 2214 Highway 10; and, WHEREAS, this properties are zoned B-3, Highway Business District and have the following property identification numbers (PINs): Mermaid: 08-30-23-43-0006 08-30-23-43-0007 • 08-30-23-43-0008 Perkins: 08-30-23-41-0010 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with this request: 1. Planning Application 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Site Plan/Survey 5. Joint Use Agreement WHEREAS, the parking lot for which this variance is requested has already been constructed in accordance with the development plans approved by the City Council on May 11, 1998 in Resolution 5236; and, WHEREAS, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do 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, in that the plans prepared for the Mermaid expansion and adopted by the City Council were in error. i • Planning Commission Resolution 560-98 September 2, 1998 • Page 2 WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that the parking is required to be installed in accordance with the development agreement and that the City Code does allow for joint parking and off-site parking arrangements; and, WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant in that the site plans were drafted by outside consultants, upon whose expertise and abilities the applicant and City entrusted; and, WHEREAS, granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that other properties within the City have combined parking lots and joint parking arrangements; and, WHEREAS, the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship, in that the minimum required width for two aisles of parking with an access drive in between is sixty feet, which is what was shown on the original development plans. The variance requested will allow for the sixty feet to be installed according to the plans approved by the City Council; and, • WHEREAS, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other properties in the same zone in that both circulation and safety between and within the two properties would improve while parking can be sufficiently expanded to meet the requirements as outlined by the City Code; and, WHEREAS, the variance would 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 in that the joint parking and access would improve congestion, improve public safety and improve parking on both sites. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the variance request of Daniel Hall and Charles Herbst, to allow a zero-foot setback for a joint use parking lot between the Mermaid, located at 2200 Highway 10, and Perkins, located at 2214 Highway 10. Adopted this 16th day of September, 1998 Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST Rick Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: September 16, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 53 5-98 Applicant: Michael Tobias Request: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for two curb-cuts at his residence at the northeast corner of Eastwood Road and Sherwood Road. Location: 8111 Eastwood Road PIN Nos. 06-30-23-14-0009 Zoning/Land Use: R-1, Single-Family Residential/ Single-family residence Applicable Regulations: • Section 1121.09, Subd 5e, which states that"Single-family uses shall be limited to one curb cut access per property unless, upon application for a variance of this restriction, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals finds that it is in the interest of public safety to waive such." Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its review of variances. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Location Map Letter to Applicant, dated 7/28/98 Area Curb-cut Survey Resolution 558-98 Background: The applicant is requesting a variance from the Code requirement that states a single-family property shall be limited to only one curb cut. Earlier this year, the applicant took out a building permit to resurface his driveway, which had access onto both Sherwood Road and Eastwood Road. • At the time, staff indicated that a building permit could not be approved due to the non-conforming nature of the driveway, unless the access to Sherwood Road was removed. The applicant agreed and the permit was issued. Subsequent reinspection of the property showed that both access points remained, both having been improved contrary to the permit. The Building Inspector sent the l Tobias Driveway Variance Planning Case No. 535-98 • September 16, 1998 Page 2 applicant a letter in which two choices were indicated--either remove the driveway access to Sherwood Road or apply for and receive a variance. The applicant has chosen to apply for a variance in order to maintain the driveway in its present condition. Analysis: To understand the prevalence of the type of driveway configuration present at 8111 Eastwood Road, Staff surveyed corner properties north of Hillview between Groveland and Long Lake Road. There are 54 corner lots in this area, of which ten (18.5 percent) have multiple curb-cuts. (Refer to the attached corner parcel inventory.) In comparison, the percentage of all residential properties with more than one curb cut is less than one percent. The case can be made that corner properties present unique safety issues, with as many as four distinct paths of traffic to monitor while backing out of the driveway. Some corner lots, because of tree-cover, shrubs and other plantings, have limited visibility thereby increasing the safety risk. The City Code indicates in Section 1121.09 Subdivision 5e that for the Planning Commission to waive the requirement limiting a property to one curb cut, it can do so in the interest of public safety. Staff is unsure if that requirement supersedes the criteria for granting a variance, as found • in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Code. Because of this, all of the criteria will be examined, which are as follows: 1 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. The fact that this property is a corner lot, while not exceptional or unusual, does present some safety considerations over which the property has little control. 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. As indicated above, twenty percent of the corner lots within the general area of the subject property have multiple curb cuts. Requiring the applicant to remove one curb cut would deprive him of a use that many other corner lots enjoy. When compared against all residential properties, no deprivation would exist, as the number of all residential properties with multiple curb cuts is less than one percent. 3. Special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. • The applicant did not cause the non-conforming use, but has perpetuated its use and has improved upon the driveway in violation of the City Code. Planning Commission Resolution 560-98 • September 2, 1998 Page 3 4. Granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Depending upon how you categorize the property, it can be thought that a special privilege would be conferred on the applicant that is typically denied to other residential properties. Among corner lots, the variance would not be conferring a special privilege to the applicant. 5. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Adding the second curb cut is the minimum variance possible to alleviate the hardship of living on a corner lot. 6. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other properties in the same zone. Assuming that corner lots are different from typical residential lots due to the increased risk to public safety--that of the residents of the property and other motorists passing by • the property--granting the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Code as public safety would take precedence. 7. The variance would 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. Allowing for a variance to maintain the two curb cuts can only benefit the public safety. In addition, approval would not increase any congestion or impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties. Clearly, it can be shown that there is a legitimate public safety basis upon which to approve a variance to allow two curb cuts at 8111 Eastwood Road. Whether or not the criteria support approval of a variance in this situation is a matter of interpretation. Recommendation: Given the ambiguous nature of Section 1121.09, Subd, 5e, Staff is presenting the Planning Commissions with two versions of Planning Commission Resolution 558-98, one approving the variance request and the other denying the request. • James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\535-98\TOBIAS.RPT _ .-mow '`/`mu'` COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT f�,,�, DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION • ��''"` 2401 Highway 10, Mounds Yew MN 55112 -_ � f'-r�►"'`"tee 612-717.4020 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form _____ Applicant Information Name of Applicant M W 4 •1li .> . Telephone z-? Address • I1 • i f -, . . e -�_,. _----��. `-' - . Interest p. . -r ,. __,._,_..,..-,s,„_ . „ ._. - �. --..::&:,......,,,,:..„--,_,-,.:,: -.-- in Property(check appropriate box) •, Owner of Property: _ T... _ rzr.--Q Cy. -Co,}}aCt y v Lessees Operator;Manager r . . Q . 0 Other(explain) Agreement to Purchase: _o:....:-.7'' z, Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the ownergivingconsent to the filing of this application. The _ --.-property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted► -: . . _ . .,. . . .. .-_-- • Property Description/Pro a! ~• poa _ (1 n,� Address or General Location _ 9111 - skwa '* X NI EC oi` �� PI r Legal-Description — t ` r _ t° r .•,, vtYi.,��.._ :•::. .: _ . . >i„:, ,# tom IdeIIiCfic8Lton#'(P �ir SSr. ... °n. m �rutr'�i44.l"-s15l'3t 2+V [t�s4: 7.4:1 + i J'� ` r ` f#ofAcres - :. :-. -. - - . =w; - :;ti . Current Zoning - Re de . -7-:-.3.•••:, t Type of Application ?------'1-- i-:7•,;.-.7.'...-_-::/=.; -.._._ '..`• . ^r __ o Comprehersive Plan Amendm enL nt-.� S250 " - a Rezoning 5250/acre; min$250 max SI500 - Q Major Subdivision - 5250+S250 deposit* a Minor Subdivision $200 a Planned Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees o PUD Amendment 5350 Q Conditional Use Permit �' R-1, R-2 S75;all others$250 - Variance --_ __ 'tile R-I, R-Z 51.00 all others$250 Code Appeal :_._ a . . .. a : 5100 Develop Review/Site Plan SI25/acre;min S 125 max 5750 0 Wetland Alteration Permit • R-I,R-2 S150;all others$200 0 Wetland Buffer Permit - others`�-. R-i R-2 S25•all 5100 - .. Q Floodplain Permit ..._ - - $200 ' Other *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, III research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty(30)days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. - City of Mounds View, MN Development Application Page 2 Present Use of Property 0 Undeveloped/Vacant Single Family Dwelling • Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ' C Multi-family Dwelling ° Business/Commercial Establishment C Industrial Establishment ° Other(explain) Property Classification Abstract tI Torrens Description of• •posal I /Ail /, .►';(.i L.. I ' ► Al • "" l Cady ' .�1A. A. dA' . .� fi 0 BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TR:7 A CURATE. Signature of Applicant �� Name of Applicant(typed/printed) /�� ys, ( S / . Signature of Property Owner • Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) M/CV,L $. 'MS/OS Address of Owner .--de/// -- l i.e 440//215- W y✓ ;OA/ 5ZS71'2 'Phone Number of Owner 3 32--? , 7p- 74,1g FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal P'-‘01", -c1 ' Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. 53 5 - 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: Account# Check# Receipt# Application: 0/0 O /00"3' Q S.:AO/o S9(,'7 CI' Park Dedication: Deposits: Other • Total: N:1DAT.A1GROUPS1COMD EV1FO RMS\DE VAPP.FO R 1/98 i8315 8321 o�uu ts�ua 8330 �-- 8300) 8303 I 8310 � 8305 8310 Q � � 8305 8290 8295 88228700 8290 } 8291 8290 O 8285 _ 8290 8295 8310 8285 8280 8287 8280 Z 8281 8280 vF-s 8273 8280 0 8273 AR DAN N IN N IN 8275 8270 Q 8281 8270 8271 8270 O 8300 PARK 8265 8260 8273 8260 8261 8260 _8265 8260 W 8267 ';ARK • N 8255 8250 8287 8250 8251 8250 8255 8250 w 8255 8280 8283 IX n r` rn' 88882322400950001 240 8261 8240 8241 8242 M n 8260 N N N N 8230 8255 N. N .N N N N 5231 t0 5232 N N N 8250 8271 AVE 8247 8 I I v 1O o 8 N 1' 2 8239 ei cNo N N N 8220 � 8230 N N N N N N N cv N N N N 8210 8211 8205 8225 5224 — co N. 01 .4. 3200 8184 8193 8217 N NN N 8212 8180 8185 .. DR 6 8206 8205 08 v -0 ( cv o t 8175 t0 �<� 8160 8171 8200 r 00 rsNr, N�j m 'N. N N N c`' 814E 814E 5165 0, 0 8165 • 8150 II 8155 a.d+is 8145 c8142 N 813455 ,�0_ cp �,s' / 8140 8145 8140 8135 '_ r 8/A�`ri 8141 :� 8132 8125 8130 . 813 _ 8121 03 N N N N N N N N 8120 .121 N N N N N N N N ':1 : N N N N [8100 8101 ' RW00D Tr— to v w CO d' '* 8099 CO t tOi LO 8086 8085 tv— “ N ;4,- 80CC 80 8081 N N 8088 8075 ,' N N _8085 N N Ir N 084 8085 _! Q 5066 8071 . .8 8071 .072 8072 8070 8071 8071 O 8071 __ 8075 ` 8060 80 9 8050 ' 8053 8C60 - 8(.50 8060 046 d-- 8045 1 8040 8042 8045 8052 8051 8044 8045 I 8046 8041 036 8039 8032 8033 8040 8035 8032 8031 8038 • 026 8025 8028 Y 8035 3016 8015 Oa 8025 8018 8021 8022 8019 8030 8011 8000 - 8005 8016 8009 8006 8000 8001 8010 8011 5000 _ 990 Y 7985 8004 7981 79900 7981 7990 0 7989 7996 O✓ 7993 7990 7977 I ,,7975 7970 7979 7980 7969 7980 7979 7980 Q 7985 7970 960( 7965 7960 Q 7959 7970 7965 7966 7969 7960 7961 7964 7975 95 7955 7956 Ett44 7949 7954 7959 7950 w 7951 7954— 7955 7940 7945 7946 7927 H I LLV I EW ; 334 7950 7933 7930 7935 7930 7917 7940 PARK 7945 932 to N ' 7901 ? rn ,n 6 74 r 1 g rpl7900 7901 N:�g00 N N N 7900 7901 INiiii7900 N N 111 t N ROAD PF N I t`+}. HILLVIEW <D a0 ca 45-,137- p cD'. Q 7891 N N 7880 7895 I N N 7890 7885 N N 7864 786 N i N 78667867 7870 7869 7858 7876 Z 7885 7853 :-2 7877 7854 7851 7860 7865 7852 w co CIN 7870 (I) 7841 ) 7863 7842 7850 7855 7846 g �� �1O 7830 Q 7841 7840 7835 7840 7829 O7817 . ^+ 'E....3:9_3��8 7851 7820 3 7815 7790 7815 I 7800 7809 750 ti^�� ^0 ,�•• 7810 Q 0 7805 ( 7780 7801 „1`t' �� �1 ,,,,,,,W 7809 1 7770 2 7801 I 7760 7797 • Zoning Map Planning Case 535-98 Applicant: Michael Tobias Location: 8111 Eastwood Road 1V- 1 ?1 III 0 aim CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 1121:,..1„,,,,..,„,,,_.,..„...,...I., I,. LOCATION MAP is h_—.::,;�___�: t.. jam._ __ ',y=-....,...+----1.--.4� -===:_ arr;:°'� Applicant Michael . � -:=� _ --=L■L i... Tobias ;:,-._' ,_ _:-- . _ Prop 8111 Iiliiir ;p•, .. � = _ ; ! ,•,, ;;;;, ,;,,,, arty: Eastwood Road wait =. :A"%_ L : � ,, " ;__....,,„.„,: Request: Variance ter. a ■ - ...\I „_.= :tI ►:;;:�,�i -411, 1,--7.! i PLANNING CASE NO. 535-98 -=I =Illllllllllllf .1111,iiIII1: . •I IIIIIIIIIIIII: hii "IIIllliltli�lll '_ nuna��1`I __ I i 1-(ami •�. - _d'_r111P...or, . . = : ,.,.,:. - `'. 1. iff......ivw , Pit-,:f4.,';‘,.. .4.,..'.1..1::„.0) 8111 Eastwood Road Iril Ci-.4D im: Properties Within 350 Feet . 8111 Eastwood Road I 11EittifinMM imMINI To 1 imam= . EMEMOSIE MEW loom EMBEIZENI Mau .............. ::::::::::::::::::: ft mum iffigtomm is— ..... t t ” rt111t1>1 �� tom® min 7:7\ . OMEN ERNE .:;:;IiiMiTir ® to .:::.....:::::::..: I - M. -• -....... EiE ®�nan i� ...... ::a:i::::i::i:: - r �� Ili ....; .... .. ...... ...... - Ulla_ ... ilii ®, ® nm 1 l® t M ® t .. jgazin_ �, — Alms ttt tt ®� 47h t it....emea....-ititit�mitmEws .. . ....--51.ffran ,..... _ ......- „mot= .. .„,y . EMIMERE. '91 RUM . ' SEE MEI EBNIENEME Mm :::: in El= EOM ENO Elang::„...mh itliq ..........1,,,„,i!,:, ®wig OI iSE E� ®� ...I tt11t1r� nog � • W A I .v. 3 0 0 (u - o 0) V% Z N„ 0 z v +v o •r � 0 `,3 `V Imo_ 0 }/O0'07fes_' Sb3 • - 6 OF • Ill©UDS Phone: (612) 717-4000 "• gE W Fax: (612) 784-3462 '0r ers• Partne<s- July 28, 1998 Mike Tobias 8111 Eastwood Road Mounds View,MN 55112 RE: Permit#98095 Asphalt Driveway Replacement • Dear Mr. Tobias: You recently obtained a permit for replacing the driveway on your property. During the permit review process you were informed that the City code restricts the number of curb cuts allowing street access to residential properties to only one access. You questioned and objected to this requirement based upon the fact that the driveway had existed for some time with access to both Eastwood Road and Sherwood Road. You were told that the driveway constituted a nonconforming condition and the status of the nonconforming condition could remain as long as the driveway be maintained in its existing state. However, because the existing asphalt was removed and the nonconforming condition was abated the ability to maintain the nonconforming status was no longer possible. The permit was issued under the condition.that the access to Sherwood Road would not be reinstalled. A subsequent inspection of the property has revealed that both previously existing accesses have been reinstalled. This situation creates a nonconforming condition that, because of the removal of the previous nonconforming condition, is a violation of Municipal Code. Your choices at this time, are 1) remove the portion of asphalt that connects the street to the property line that creates one of the accesses or 2)apply for and receive a variance that will allow you to continue the nonconforming condition. I am enclosing an application for you to use to • request a variance if you should choose to. The variance process is handled by Planning Associate Jim Ericson. He can be reached at 717-4022. J crrrf0 wir- 7TT `�• aq� i-'ic, wav 10 • Mounts ViPry r•�1�, ,''� SS"'�- :_._..� ^^ • Mike Tobias July 28, 1998 Page 2 of 2 To bring closure to this matter please either remove the above mentioned asphalt or submit the application for the variance request within ten days from the date of this letter. If you should have questions regarding this matter, please call me at 717-4024. Sincerely, CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW Rick'arson Building Official • cc Rick Jopke, Community Development Director • • L • = isimmp N U u cc O W CuiJ -J LL .. N V N ao 2 L O L z � / 2 � o UI— O p E a) awa a a) -'- 0 v) coo \ ci) •1y •eo_ ame-i uo l IN 1111111111111 i p ` .. a ••• , v.... 1 m 1 1 1 1 I r MI 1 V *.• V ... . , , )10:4 c i 4 47 c a) peon apisi(uuns —,c � cit as c o b O _ > dni_V 3teU NdH 1.1111111111111 111 1 1� NI I i• L I ■ 111...I � 11 _____,___ ......01..- -7 / „ MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ) . RESOLUTION NO. 558-98 ( o PTI o N "A " CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR TWO CURB-CUTS AT A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8111 EASTWOOD ROAD; PLANNING CASE NO. 535-98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Michael Tobias, to allow for two curb cuts at his property, located at 8111 Eastwood Road; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Subject to Sherwood and Eastwood Roads, The East 215 Feet of the West 1799 Feet of the South 200 Feet of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6, Township 30, Range 23 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated • with this request: 1. Planning Application 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Site Plan 5. Letter from Building Inspector,dated 7/28/98 6. Corner Parcel Inventory WHEREAS, the existence of the driveway, for which this variance is requested, predates the enactment of Ordinance No. 288, which among other things, limits a single-family residential property to only one curb cut; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, may waive the requirement to limit a single-family residential property in the interest of public safety; and, WHEREAS, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do 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, in that the property is a corner lot and is thus subject to additional public safety concerns; and, • Planning Commission Resolution 558-98 September 2, 1998 Page 2 WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that nearly twenty percent of the corner lots surrounding the subject property have two curb cuts; and, WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant in that the driveway's existence predates the enactment of the Ordinance which p[rohibits two curb cuts; and, WHEREAS, granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that other corner lots within the City have two curb cuts; and, WHEREAS, the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship, in that adding the second curb cut is the minimum variance possible to alleviate the hardship of living on a corner lot; and, WHEREAS, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other properties in the same zone in that maintaining the public safety does not conflict with the City Code; and, • WHEREAS, the variance would 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 in that approving the variance for a second curb cut at this location would lessen the endangerment to public safety. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the variance to allow two curb cuts at 8111 Eastwood Road as requested by Michael Tobias. Adopted this 16th day of September, 1998. Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST Rick Jopke, Community Development Director • SEAL N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMD EV\DE VCASES\535-98\558-98A.RES MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 558-98 ( oPT+ o i.► " o " ) • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR TWO CURB-CUTS AT 8111 EASTWOOD ROAD, A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNED BY MICHAEL TOBIAS; PLANNING CASE NO. 535-98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Michael Tobias to allow for two curb cuts at his property, located at 8111 Eastwood Road; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Subject to Sherwood and Eastwood Roads, The East 215 Feet of the West 1799 Feet of the South 200 Feet of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6, Township 30, Range 23 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with this request: • 1. Planning Application 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Site Plan 5. Letter from Building Inspector,dated 7/28/98 6. Corner Parcel Inventory WHEREAS, the applicant applied for and received Building Permit no. 98095 to repave his driveway, on the condition that the access to Sherwood Road be removed; and, WHEREAS, inspections after the work was completed showed that the access had not be removed, but instead had been improved, violating the terms of the permit; and, WHEREAS, a variance to the provisions of the Zoning Code may be issued by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of the property owner's land; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that there is no undue hardship or practical difficulties associated with this property which would warrant approving a variance, based upon the following evidence: • Planning Commission Resolution 558-98 Tobias Driveway Variance 8111 Eastwood Road • September 16, 1998 Page 2 (1) More than eighty percent of the corner lots in this section of the City have only one curb cut, and, (2) There are no physical obstructions, such as a bend in the road, trees, bushes or shrubs, that would restrict visibility to and from the property, and, (3) There is ample room on the property to have a turn-around, or"T" extension to the main drive to enable vehicles to exit the property in forward motion rather than in reverse. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals denies the variance to allow two curb cuts at 8111 Eastwood Road and directs the property owner to remove the access to Sherwood Road in accordance with the letter sent to the property owner dated 7/28/98. Adopted this 16th day of September, 1998. Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST Rick Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DE VCASES\535-98\558-98D.RES • f ID PROCEEDINGS OF '1'H2; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION '1'111; CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Meeting Au_ust 19, 1998 Mounds V City Hall 2401 Highway 10, rnds ; iew,MN 55112 " 3=3 1. Call to Order Chairperson Peterson called the Mounds View Plannin_� .s•••,;'t" special me:1g � ' at 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call "K Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Commis g c rasaeY m ; Miler, Obert, and Stevenson. tz., Members absent: Council Liaison Koop ers " Also present: Community Develop irect e ' 'ck Jop "; Associate Planner Jim Ericson; and Recorder Dave Hix. Index to ^s Page Planning -98, of Resolution 554-98, a Resolution 2 Recommendin•' of a il9 se Permit for an Oversized Accessory B ewooa1.)`'ve, Tammy Bellamy Planni w ase No. 532- enation of Resolution 555-98, a Resolution 4 z `ya�2 L1`L. Rec. g. ending Approv.<iia ' a evelopment Review Request, 2400 County Road I, S «; O FOODS iz,c.n•ALiquests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda �.x5=a.yK EL, .l i Ther.":yr o citizens' requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 4. Approval of Minutes • A. July 1, 1998 (Regular) PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 • August 19, 1998 MOTION/SECOND: Brasaemle/Stevenson to approve the July 1, 1998 Planning Commission regular meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes- 6 Nays- 0 • ` Motion carried • Hsre, 2„ ff , 5. 2a: Planning Case No. 531-98 2185 Pinewood Drive Consideration of Resolution No. 554-98, a Resolution ' a _ • pproval of a Conditional Use Permit for and Oversized Accessory Building. Applicant: Tammy Bellamy The applicant, Tammy Bellamy, was pres-J P. Associate Ericson gave his report . 3',Vaws: „2. • Currently there is a small, one • a-half � resid, &- and a detached single-car garage on the corner lo located at 21 ' ood D cy Street. The applicant was requesting perinissio,,t10,(1•4 struct • are foo',4 ' garage, 24 feet wide by 42 feet deep, to be located e the - feet from the west property line. The garage would be set back further ,•pertufil,00 se. The applicant had requested a similar CUP in 1997, but chose to - reque _ ion could be taken by the City Council. At past Pl. ng oii 'ssio ' •,d City Council meetings, the issue of building a proportional relatio 'p requirement\ $.. . house and garage had been discussed. Those discussions led to th- doption of Ordin• g �„� I, which in this case, would not impact the applicant's request ,2 ,,. be e Ordinance 620 "Lles into effect September 4, 1998. f ill: R Jr4,gad determines,,Jia rear yard is large enough to satisfy the 20 percent rear yard coverage :.t ,; The e :'=""ion then became: "Is the proposed garage too large for the site and the e this concern the following uses were listed for the garage: 1. Create adequate storage space for the resident's vehicles and yard appliances 2. Create storage space for resident's car hauler The use of privacy fencing by the Bellamys and their adjoining neighbor will screen the garage • from view at the street. • PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 August 19, 1998 An 80-foot-long driveway would be part of the improvement and would be constructed of concrete. As a condition of granting the CUP, it was stated that the driveway improvement take place within a three-month-time period. An additional requirement imposed by ap. : 'ng this CUP would be to further screen the proposed garage by m� • the we'eans of erecti• . pri fence parallel garage to Pinewood Drive between the and the property line , _> Staffs concern was that the garage(1,008 s . ft.)was ou �� 'iro ortio• =Y _# �� - of the ho ( , q P (682 sq. ft.). The width of the garage from the street vi,o, howeve e sty + Si" 'igg to that of the house. "The bulk of the garage will not b f n fro R¢ .fi,a street. u° `' om a community perspective to have property owners impr• I roperties with g• ce the properties are then usually kept in better order," Ericson " f , It was staffs recommendation to have the Planning Co ' ssio 1!,i to prepare a resolution recommending to the City Council appro a„ denial o "t� � ;'tional Use Permit application, requested by Tammy Bellamy, 218 9h , � �t. rive. Chairperson Peterson returned the floor te Co i # `• $$ •ns and comments of the • applicant. Tammy Bellamy, 2185 Pinewoo•4 =, tote`e Co on she had let her 1997 CUP application expire because she hg #-come of fig #: with her neighbor over the matter, and she was not ble to take the k(,Q• 'd time • -.4 t attend meetings in regards to the applicatio« neighb e put up � � "pence to screen their property from the Bellam • • g * The : 8 A e also guaranteed to their neighbors that there will be no work been• $ fir.::-',ON ce car €• 8 on their own, stored in the garage. Stevenson ex. -; inTcern • ds to what would happen to the property if its current owner dec.. Tf o seal ; };'e gara:e, if allowed, would be attractive for somebody wanting to open a z 'smess and opL ,2$ ` };:= the garage. This use would not be a permitted use for the neig a$ rhood. ellamy stated if could get the garage approved, she would be staying in Mounds View ellamy statedK ad future remodeling plans for the house, too. s; •••=.4,`3. iii<;." e would like to include as part of the Resolution that privacy fencing be in <. . •equately screen the building. Obert stated if the property was in such a condition that a privacy fence was required to hide it from view that he would be opposed to this type development. He stated his concern that the • City would be setting a dangerous precedent for the development of other oversized and out of proportion garages in the community. T PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 • August 19, 1998 Peterson countered by saying he would be in favor of the project because it would allow the Bellamys to keep a cleaner yard and they would have a place to store their vehicles and yard equipment. The expansion of the garage would encourage the home owner to add = to their house, he added. Brooks stated the precedent for the garage size had alread { set ' • !_ 3 .ge developments in the neighborhood. She stated she woul �� n favor o ;F3444,4,- CUP to encourage the upgrading of the Bellamys'property. = Brasaemle agreed that the precedent had already been s,-44€ ellamys'neighbo e stated he didn't want to see the City try to prevent its restgt `.' having hobbies such as auto racing, by not allowing them to store things like car haul ; s on their private properties. Brasaemle stated he did have problems wi -z` e sizes=;' ` ``w • age as compared to the size of the house and what would happen to the pro•rq�; in the fu l •ai. ;,��'g ellamys decided to sell the property. The positives, however, wer- 4t �d,.Ogx • the neg.£ e stated. Peterson called for a "straw poll" to give a dire. . E fug repare a resolution denying the request or approving the request. result . ,::a stra s i . 1 as as follows: • Obert Denial Stevenson Approval stipu ans) Peter on Apprez re k n Bra'" Uncle &�_ • Ericson told the w. ° epare a resolution to recommend approval for the Commissi. onsid- . his tt . s ne '`meeting scheduled for September 2, 1998. ' . 6.14/ Pfit:: ing Case No. 53 8 ounty Road ,z ation o < . .lution No. 555-98, Recommending a Resolution Approval of a : ew Request Ai W .: - 'SCO FOODS The applicant, SYSCO FOODS, was present. Associate Ericson gave his report as follows: • • PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 August 19, 1998 SYSCO FOODS has applied for a development review to expand their existing facility by 106,000 square feet of building space and 152,500 square feet of parking space. The building addition will increase the amount of freezer space, cooler space, dry goods space, and office sp. � Other facets of the addition will include an expansion of the access driveway g to the rear of the building, relocation of the will-call area, construction of a.ditional ; :. ng at the r4�� northeast corner of the site and additional truck parking al• i `- we � • g - property. t i S`Shi.4s 2;: At the time of the original SYSCO development, 1988, . site was 4_ nee •I: build-out. Because of revised standards and other dr.• requi ents, a ne district permit will be required. The applicant has indic = ';i 0, "`s permit is inp . •. oil reports are also a requirement of the City. SYSCO was requesting some of the driveway setbac ,;'- redu3�.,.o-setback status. Staff expressed some concern in regards to this request b a - of the • gip lose proximity to the neighboring wetland to the east (the City of M.ti �� t A� operty)2 : •UD which the development is part of allows for deviations g ack r- rements. Staff recommended that the access drive maint. $� mini g ` , ,.�.�, $�ck along the property's • entire eastern edge. This would result i e drive 'le bent s `` ed to 40 feet in one area unless it could be shifted to the wes , mpens. .. g distanq-- •' Parking stalls for cars would inc from a 444 ck parking would increase from 51 stalls to 104 tails. The acc- •� >e servic££ ; g; is proposed to be widened to 50, which will-better,•'• s odate, ,go, truck tr. access is currently 50 feet wide where it interse . e . myR. m ;G� ows to •my 25 feet along the east side (wetland) of the property. • sw ii�f ` ,;`c Y�«bww While not a cot .ia - • s prod a intersection of Xylite Street and County Road J(with • • • ••e _• • a•• - •• 9 • � - e ��• � _ traffic '8$ al. Mounds Vis . _e, RamseyCounty, Anoka Countyand SYSCO are sharingin �...��� tY� the 0.,- of this improve xk S recommended a!, of Planning Commission Resolution No. 555-98, a Resolution • i ending to th ty Council approval of a development review for the SYSCO FOODS nM. o . • locate• i 400 County Road I, with stipulations as noted in the staff report dated 0,470 %ni'" g' •ments as needed. Chairperson Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for questions and comments. 111 Several members of the Commission expressed concern that snowplowing of the parking lots and driveways would introduce possible pollutants into the wetland on the east side of the facility. PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 • August 19, 1998 Peterson asked the applicant how they intended to meet staffs recommendation that the east side drive have a minimum ten-foot setback. John Trumble, Setter Leech and Lindstrom, project architects, stated t• 0-f. rive aisle and zero setback, as requested in the development review, was fel to be th-' • G•c situation for the facilities operation and requested the Commission to co$ 9 this -,47014,56,144f �g ' ..+ this request only. SYSCO has calculated dimensions needed for the s i '' of its vi = $� 4� ees, and truck drivers and the dimensions requested on the plan i k$ ' ated the � ies achieve these safety dimensions. Obert suggested a container wall on the east side drivew• Y - that no pollutants entered into the wetland from the SYSCO facility. ` s z<; Mr. Trumble stated there were aesthetic issues as � operate. hat would not allow this type of structure. Miller asked how many new employees w $ be adg s planned expansion. ;,:; • Mr. Trumble stated an additional -ople, •0 450 0, would be added as a result of the expansion. Stevenson st ted he would •. or of e i g, G ,Ostipulation requiring a ten-foot setback as recouune • • � staff to �• .•date th $• �' . s dimensional requests (50-foot-access- drivewa • i..t are • 0 safety needs of SYSCO's visitor, employees, and truck drivers. ; Brasaemle ask • . i opose• "• storage would be and if the original PUD had requireme or snoii,q., e`n_:: Mr. ` mble stated p. a` r ces are sacrificed so that snow storage can be accommodated.•Eric-•n stated there is .cis specific requirement in the PUD for snow storage other than the issue $: •ressed and a . be stated by the developer. �.$ r.40 the recourse would be for a property owner pushing snow into a protected wet •1�, a r Jopke stated it would be an issue for the City's Code enforcement and the violation would subject the perpetrator to fines. MOTION/SECOND: Obert/Brasaemle to approve Resolution No. 555-98, a Resolution • • PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 August 19, 1998 Recommending Approval of a Development Review Request by SYSCO FOODS, striking the reference to the ten-foot setback requirement in the first stipulation of the Resolution. Chairperson Peterson opened the floor for discussion of the motion. , • >dy Ericson stated a lighting plan had not been submitted. Th <b 'cant > � � o„,squired to submit g g P .: , a lighting plan for review before any permits were issued Zi")'"'' e projec f K • VOTE: Ayes- 6 Nays - 0 • Motion carried 7. Staff Reports/Information Items ” y, It was the consensus of the Commission to mov. C, Update b `;arding Mermaid Bowling Center Expansion, to the Agenda S 4on. af5:- ft �f • •• A. Discussion Regarding Compre;ensive P n Topke asked the Commission to c•;¢ r andommend 0 re dates and times for "Special Work Sessions" for the Compre , .. ve Pl. ,3P date P ss. It was the sus of t a, ff €§'ssion to 4{0'41t4 e following dates and times for these meetin• 1. Septe '98, 7:'7:PiVaMI,ifi Hall 2. Octobe p.m. Hall 3. No ser Dae g e to a announced B. A: := T I iscussion Reg.' }WV''ecommendation to Expand Planning Commission to Nine Members ^' ® told the Co -ssion that the City Council had asked the Planning Commission for a 4 -ndatio .1077ding the possibility expanding the Planning Commission to its allowable • 3': 1 embers to allow more participation. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Commission membership should remain at seven people. An increased number of people on the Commission was viewed as being nonproductive and could affect attendance at Planning Commission meetings. Ericson told the Commission a that the Council would be informed of the Commission's PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 4 August 19, 1998 sentiments through distribution of the minutes to the Council. Jopke told the Commission that the question has also been raised about whether t ' anning Commission meetings should be televised on Mounds View's cable ch. 4`~, >" Ck` It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that tele he P }g# ‘ ssion meetings was an opportunity to better inform citizens ab.,$, city bush � 'mmission members were personally not comfortable being on tele It``.n, they s4 ed t sriltiOAtt, ng Planning Commission meetings on a trial basis. k �� 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' R No reports were considered. 9. Adjournment MOTION/SECOND: Peterson/Miller to .. surn th '_ _ •bion There being no further business bd. e Pl. i Co bion Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:38 p.m. (The me-,ti, £ edict- � � f# to the Agenda Session) Respect P ed, Rick Jopk Comm g Developme g :< kg} ig • • PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 2, 1998 Mound -w City Hall 2401 Highway 10, k,q.,4 ndl R"ew, MN 55112 1. Call to Order Chairperson Peterson called the Mounds View ng sif "ssion re_ F- ,_ to order at 7:00 p.m. ............................. ............................. ........ .................. ............................... ............................ 2. Roll Call Members present: Chairperson Peterson, e'“, q . Toners :rooks, Miler, Obert(7:30), and Stevenson. Members absent: Council Liaiso •opmei { s Also present: Community ' '•pmen . ` ector J.0 e; Associate Planner Ericson; and Recorder Stacy Caton (fo • h: s Hix) 3. Cit s' Requests . . ;w I mmen ''ot on the Agenda o cit ;_-. s or comments on items not on the agenda for con � � .. Index to v.. mutes \ Page Planning Case No. 531-' Vii, sideration of Resolution No. 554-98, a 2 R- tion Recommend} _ approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an ized Accessory T. Tiding, 2185 Pinewood Drive, Tammy Bellamy ' tak5 ase 3-98, Consideration of Resolution No. 556-98, a 3 w ;t4stiffiig,"Aiving a Variance Request for a Sidewalk, 5249 Greenfield, Tim e Planning Case No. 534-98, Consideration of Resolution No. 557-98, a 6 • Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage, 2442 Hillview Road, David Kramer I Mounds View Planning Commission September 2, 1998 • Regular Meeting Page 2 4. Approval of Minutes A. July 15, 1998 MOTION/SECOND: Brasaemle/Brooks to approve the July, 5, 1998 Commission Special Meeting Minutes as submitted. Ayes- 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 5. Planning Case No. 531-98 2185 Pinewood Drive 1 .. Consideration of Resolution No. 554-98, a ' 1. 8 8+endin. pproval of a Conditional use Permit for and Oversized Accessory B I.`.ing. Applicant: Tammy Bellamy The applicant was prese - A ;� e Erics' report Th- y # las req` 3 g s ssion to construct a 1,008 square foot garage to replace her exi -stall g gws 1 he August 19, 1998 Planning Commission meeting the Co , $ ..,41-4 both si.', f this case, concerned about the disproportion of the g• re ouse. The Commission determined that the benefits of the new age, such as •,-0,,Q : ehicles and yard equipment, outweighed the garage's size ssue. 47 Staff was reco # ending that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 554-98, with stipulat 0``and amendments as deemed necessary, and send the application on to , Ci ,�1 cit for their consideration. rah $x$'' We' on returned the floor to the Commission for their consideration of the issue. Stevenson expressed his concern with Stipulation No. 3: "The garage shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional • use permit shall become null and void." He asked if the language of the Resolution and • Mounds View Planning Commission September 2, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 3 stipulation was adequate to prevent a business from starting up in the garage. Ericson stated the City Code does allow for businesses in a garage or a house, with conditions as follows: 1. There cannot be any visible activities to the stre 2. There cannot be any exterior storag- 3. There cannot be more than two ves parked 4 #`? �_� #, •remises, directly resulting from the busine He added he didn't think a stipulation could be the Resolution '"' _•tf at a business could not be operated out of the garage. Miller asked for clarification on the discussed •R° acy Ericson told the Commission the priva• k-:' 3 � gi rding to `. s submitted at the August Planning Commission meet • •u • � 3e € eet bay om where the garage would be built, running in line wit. " d tleln• o f l£r o ,f, privacy fence corner. • Peterson opened the floor toy •ublic. . P �_ No comments were cons • d fro public e floor was returned to the Co 's ssion. U • • k'< .LK 1P• St 4�a{ �� 3._, er to approve Resolution 554-98, A Resolution Recommert$ e )• , val o al Use Permit for an Oversized Accessory Building, located at 21. • E ;s •d Dn f. /�$f$a Bellamy, applicant. • yes ays - 0 Mot 0. g carried } = Cas 33-98 t iVn!venue Co • ..�• of Resolution No. 556-98, A Resolution Approving a Variance Request for a Sidewalk. Applicant: Timothy White 1111 The applicant was present. Mounds View Planning Commission September 2, 1998 • Regular Meeting Page 4 Associate Ericson gave his report as follows: The applicant was requesting a variance from the required two-foot side y. • setback established for decks, terraces or sidewalks. Mr. White has cons. -cted ewalk, constructed of green-treed lumber, along his garage 1.sated at -' ..enfield. The new sidewalk, which accesses a shed in the rear yard, r Q5.• • a r 1-Ole alkway that had fallen into disrepair. The property alongside the • � _e slopesr. • g that the sidewalk be supported by footings. The sidew. ter: approxi ly f. - . e an• within inches of a chain link fence that separates,1;, suble• Propertyfr• ' � /0•;j` to � : the north. In addition to the garage, there is an `�• vi,--?!..40nd pool surrou g��a patio and landscaping, all of which is enclosed by a five $ _ ., , 'vacy fence. The shed is outside of this fenced-in area. Section 1104.01, Subd. 5, regarding encroa • = T.•ts: "Te , decks, stoops or similar features; provided they do not e •,• r � �� � u, a heigli : ground floor level of the principal structure or to a distanc y2£ � #_ < (2') ll' any lot line." The sidewalk as it exists now d. encroa ,iwi n the kvis.T `•ndition. There is no apparent hardship as required by the `odey • applica •id do the construction without • getting a permit from the • pe s `is requir ; 'or this type of construction. Ther- have been no r or ation. eco $ � . 'al of e application based on the fact that the sidewalk was inst.inst•liat'kvillijkout ape ere is no obvious hardship as required by City Code. Peters ' $ a floo1 Commission and asked the applicant for his report. mothy Whit:r #1 �f_, gave two reasons for wanting the walkway: 1. S ty of the lot, ease of mowing the yard 2. '.y access to the back yard area where the shed and yard maintenance quipment is kept. e didn't realize a building permit was required. His only excuse was ignorance, lgo';:ed.ed. The fence located near the walkway is set in five to six inches from the property line. White did canvas his neighbors on Greenfield and none of the people contacted voiced opposition to the walkway. Stevenson asked if the structure had the proper footings. • • Mounds View Planning Commission September 2, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 5 White stated the structure did not have footings. Brooks asked if a gravel walkway would work. Mrs. White told the Commission a gravel walkway w uld m . r to move snowblowers, etc., and the gravel would be sloppe. olita ing a sem situation. Brasaemle asked if there were utility easements .6 the affe. 4 prop 3 Wc. Mr. White stated there were no utility easemem. • orth property lin- dded, if he was not granted the variance he would cut the , v :a- >ack to the two foot requirement. Stevenson stated his main concern was the . created )1i'(;-.1i\5,- space in between the side of the walkway and the fenceff . � a e variani` 4'uest is denied, the City should require the walkway to be cu �� $_, a ffi s e typ . . safety rail on the fence side of the walkway. • Peterson stated there are so _ ,.• Y �z ' nflict " the City ,; durance that need to be resolved, i.e., allowing a one-foot s ,g z for • r ways • • two-foot setback for sidewalks. He explained to the Whites t 3 . the P ng Co a a3'ssion denies the request they could appe• the decision m ity Cou eca, 'consideration, so the issue would not be d-a 's meet Br' c ted t• •f' `R4:tg. . e for two weeks to give staff the time they need to draft a resonial. >�sa C B 'mle s . K. •difying the ordinance so the setbacks of driveways and sidewalks the same. s"• ff ould eliminate the need for the variance that is being requested, ig.. r.:;... e added. Brasa., rsq °d the Commission the slope at the property line and safety considerations ld •e the hardships. IN/SECO P ':rooks/Miller to table Resolution 556-98, a Resolution Approving a es LI ffi a Sidewalk, 5249 Greenfield, Timothy White, until the September 16, 1998 R � �� � ., . . , ion meeting. The Commission directs staff to draft a Resolution approving the van: q ? the hardships as discussed at this meeting. Ayes - 5 Nays- 1(Obert) • Motion carried Mounds View Planning Commission September 2, 1998 io Regular Meeting Page 6 Obert stated he didn't buy the safety argument. He stated a gravel walkway would be just as safe, if not safer. 7. Planning Case No. 534-98 2442 Hillview Road Consideration of Resolution No. 557-98, a Resolution ' 2v•=mend' s spr.,R �m � +nd• •; 'al Use Permit for an Oversized Garage. Applicant: David Kramer Associate Ericson told the Commission that P .` 'ngF -4-98 had been withdrawn and there would be no conside £ this cas a� ers intent was to add 14' on to the existing garage, whic =��SIN :� ut the g ;.; at 960 square feet. It was decided to extend the garage o �` G£�_ ��w e to $ quare footage of the garage under the 952 square foot .£=:y" um .(> a '••r a Conditional Use permit was alleviated. • 8. Consideration of Resol 14n n No. ' : x Si` ution Recommending to the City Cou it Appoint „ 1p-, New ' f fV 'I,mission Member ke as follows: The Co $3 #� .f. .t its LL., ;ag;, "krsf_ interviewed four candidates who had applied for the open ' `, , o- �. ssion _. The City Council is asking that the Planning Commission Resolution Recommending to the City Council Appointment of ew Planningo,,t i,7,,. t'i n Member. The term would expire December 31, 1999. u kr • • k[ • 0PStevenson to recommend to the City Council the appointment of ry Johnson to Ii e Planning Commission seat vacated by Marshall Johnston, with the _744, the positio :fi•ring December 31, 1999. ° asked for an update on applicants being considered by the Economic opment Commission(EDC). Jopke told the Commission that Sean Wolter and Wendy Marty had been appointed to the EDC. Brasaemle stated that Sean Wolters had stated his first choice of Commissions was the • Mounds View Planning Commission September 2, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 7 Plannning Commission. Due to the fact that he(Wolters) had been chosen for the EDC, Brasaemle stated he would be in favor of the nomination of Greg Johnson to fill the Planning Commission seat vacated by Marshall Johnston. VOTE: Ayes - 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried 9. Staff Reports/Information Items Associate Ericson stated the Mounds View Ma View News Letter is now on the internet. They are also part of the City of M. eb site. Jopke reminded the Commission members <0 -re are iA ork sessions scheduled for the Comprehensive Plan 8• IF ,-, s. They sted as: 1. September23, 199: • :00 p.88 ,'5a,==, 2. October 14, 199: • :00 p., City ''f'; 11 k 10. Chairperson and Planni • mis �v; •ers' Red _' Stev son told the '�=y $,i ssion th `_'•.r= =.(. p Q Y-creation Commission had voted that W' k est wo 0=It.s ber be a Qom', ki . 8 f .ct, the Park and Recreation Commission is 4•-iwr-h 9,by re• wt,:t.#k} 141,8( City, tha "ood Crest Park be used as a mitigated wetland for lot at` 1(« E { immunity Center. Designs for the wetland and addition of troff f ', .od Cr ' 1) k r eing developed. Future details in regards to the • Wood 0� devel.71, Ft will be forwarded when they are available. !;e"erson state• '} iigT :r that the west end of the City had very limited park facilities. 11 • Adjournment td genda Session N " There being , _ rther business before the Planning Commission Chairperson Peterson M • ourn-e s `meeting at 8:32 p.m. k i •, •• (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, • Rick Jopke Community Development Director Mounds View Planning Commission September 2, 1998 io Regular Meeting Page 8 A\DATA USERS\BARBB\SHARE -mWPDOCS\COMEV\PLANNINO TE»0»&9.p G • m< : , ‘, �. „ ��z S