Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-15-2013PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 15, 2013 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for May 15, 2013 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Elofson, Rundle, Schiltgen, Stevenson and Smith. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Carvelli-Yu and Love. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 VR2013-001. Consideration of a Variance for Reduced Side and 2 Rear Yard Setbacks CU2013-002. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an 3 Oversized Garage Discuss City Code Updates for Renewable Energy Systems 4 3. Approval of Minutes April 17, 2013. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Smith/Commissioner Rundle. To approve the Minutes of the April 17, 2013 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases May 15, 2013 Page 2 A. VR2013-001 Consideration of a Variance for Reduced Side and Rear Yard Setbacks Applicant: Richard & Laurol Boik, property owners Address: 8385 Groveland Court Planning Associate Heller indicated Richard and Laurol Boik were requesting a variance to the side and rear yards to allow for an addition to their home at 8385 Groveland Court. The addition would encroach two feet into the required 10 -foot side yard setback and 4-6 inches into the existing 25 -foot rear yard setback. The Boik's want to build a 16' x 26' addition with a covered porch, bedroom and bathroom on the side of their house for Laurol's mother who has recently moved in. Associate Heller explained the Boik's have a multi-level home at the end of a cul-de-sac. She indicated the lot was shallow and the current rear yard setback was 25 feet instead of the City Code required 30 feet. The Boik family had a variance in place currently for their rear yard setback. It was her opinion there was enough space on the lot for the addition and there would still be more than 30 feet between the Boik home and adjacent home. Associate Heller commented that as with any variance application, the Planning Commission would have to see a demonstrated practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. Staff reviewed the variance criteria in detail and requested the Commission hold a public hearing and take action on the variance request. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. Chair Stevenson asked if the exterior building materials on the addition would match the exterior of the current home. Laurol Boik, 8385 Groveland Court, stated the materials would be the same. Chair Stevenson questioned what type of trees would be removed from their lot. Ms. Boik stated one oak tree would be lost with the addition. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 15, 2013 Page 3 Commissioner Rundle questioned if any comments were received from the neighbors. Associate Heller indicated the property owner to the north was in the audience and fully supported the addition. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolution 979-13, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance for Reduced Side and Rear Yard Setbacks; Planning Case No. VR2013-001. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. B. CU2013-002 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage Applicant: Allen Hambleton, property owner Address: 8478 Long Lake Road Planning Associate Heller commented the applicant, Allen Hambleton, was requesting approval of a conditional use permit to construct an oversize detached garage on his property at 8478 Long Lake Road. The applicant wants to build a new 22' x 56' detached garage behind the existing detached garage. It was noted any building larger than 952 square feet must get City approval through the conditional use permitting process. Associate Heller explained City Code limits backyard building coverage to 20% of the yard area and this garage would use approximately 8% of the backyard area. She indicated the total accessory building square feet with the existing garage and the new garage would be 1,783 square feet, which is below the maximum of 1,800 square feet limit. The roof shall match or be similar to the character and style of the roof of the principal structure. Since the house has a very steep roof, the new garage roof pitch should be similar to the existing detached garage. Associate Heller reviewed the request in further detail and recommended the Commission approve the conditional use permit. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned what type of driving surface would lead back to the new garage. Allen Hambleton, 8478 Long Lake Road, indicated he has received estimates for both blacktop and concrete driveways. Chair Stevenson asked if the garage had to be 56' in length. Mr. Hambleton explained he was making the request as he had the space on his lot and had many items to store indoors. He stated he could go shorter, but already had a 26' boat and 24' trailer that would be placed in the garage. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Smith inquired how the building would be sided. May 15, 2013 Page 4 Mr. Hambleton stated he was proposing to have a steel -sided building that would match the color of the home. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned if the garage would be able to be seen from the street. Associate Heller stated the second garage would not likely be seen from the street. Commissioner Schiltgen did not oppose to the size of the garage but requested the siding match the existing home color. Commissioner Smith asked if the adjacent property owners had privacy fences. Mr. Hambleton stated there was not a fence on his property in place at this time, but he was considering adding a privacy fence in the rear yard to screen the garage from the neighbors. He did not oppose this requirement. Chair Stevenson suggested a privacy fence be required to provide a buffer on the west property line. The Commission agreed with this recommendation. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 980-13, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage; Planning Case No. CU2013-002. Chair Stevenson recommended the Resolution add a condition that would require a privacy fence on the west property line. In addition, the Commission requested another condition be added requiring an improved hard surface be installed to service the new garage within 6 months of the garage being completed. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 6. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss City Code Updates for Renewable Energy Systems Planning Associate Heller indicated Brian Ross with CR Planning was present this evening to discuss grant funding available for City Code updates that would incorporate solar and renewable energy. Brian Ross, CR Planning, discussed the Minnesota Solar Challenge in detail with the Commission. He noted this was part of a national program called the Rooftop Challenge. The Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 15, 2013 Page 5 goal was to make solar energy competitive with other energy sources by 2020 in order to create a self-sustaining solar energy market. Mr. Ross explained another goal was to get solar energy cost down to $1 per watt. He noted the cost of solar panels has dropped considerably in the last 20 years. Barriers to solar energy were discussed in detail. He stated local government code and permitting processes were key in moving solar energy forward. The capacity of solar radiation in Minnesota was reviewed along with how it varied by time of day, seasons, local landscape and through weather patterns. Mr. Ross further defined how a space could be used as a solar resource. Solar technologies available in Minnesota were then discussed. He noted there were building integrated systems, along with roof -mounted and ground mounted systems available. He encouraged Mounds View to remember that solar energy was a renewable energy and belongs in the Comprehensive Plan. He noted solar energy was becoming more cost competitive and people will want to take advantage of this. For this reason, communities need to plan accordingly and make decisions on how and where solar installations are done. Mr. Ross discussed federal and state laws regarding solar energy. He indicated the best way to regulate solar development within the City was at a local level. He then reviewed the City of Roseville's Comprehensive Plan regarding the use of solar energy. He encouraged Mounds View to create solar energy best practices at a zoning level. A model ordinance with best zoning practices was then discussed in detail with the Commission. Mr. Ross thanked the Commission for their time this evening and asked for comments or questions. Chair Stevenson questioned how many communities were currently prepared for solar energy development. Mr. Ross indicated as part of the Solar Challenge he was working with 20 communities at this time. Prior to that, he had only worked with Minneapolis and St. Paul. He understood solar energy to be a new technology and encouraged Mounds View to update their Code to assist with potential future solar development. Associate Heller asked if wind energy was becoming popular in the metro area. Mr. Ross indicated wind energy was not as popular in an urban setting because it really doesn't work well in the city. He stated the primary issue with wind energy is that typically unless the turbine is at least 200 feet away from anything, it is useless and the turbine does not move. There are also problems with them using more energy than they make and noise. Associate Heller questioned if any communities were not allowing wind energy systems. Mr. Ross commented this was happening as wind resources were more limited. He indicated he had a model wind ordinance available if the City was interested in reviewing this language. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 15, 2013 Page 6 Council Member Meehlhause inquired if any neighboring communities to Mounds View were addressing solar energy. Mr. Ross stated he has spoken with representatives from Shoreview and several other members attended his recent workshop, but he was not working with any adjoining communities at this time. Chair Stevenson thanked Mr. Ross for this presentation this evening. Associate Heller encouraged the Commission to review the information presented this evening as the City will need to consider how to address solar and wind energy use code amendments for the City of Mounds View. 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. June 5, 2013 B. June 19, 2013 8. Review Minutes: A. May 1, 2013 The Commission discussed the May 1, 2013 meeting minutes and noted several changes. 9. Staff Updates A. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases. She noted the City Council approved the purchase agreement for the Robert's Sports Bar property on Monday evening. The site would hopefully be combined with two adjacent parcels and be redeveloped. She commented the Northwood Industries and North Metro Motors CUP's were approved by the Council on Monday. 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Commissioner Elofson questioned how the Coventry Senior Living development was progressing. Associate Heller indicated the Council extended the Final Plat again on Monday evening and Coventry was working to finalize the financing and construction plans. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Smith asked if the dental office would move forward. May 15, 2013 Page 7 Associate Heller explained their purchase agreement had been extended, and it appears that financing is still being finalized and the City fully supported the request. Chair Stevenson recommended the PUD language for the County Highway 10 corridor be reviewed and amended by the Commission given the new potential for redevelopment in the City. Associate Heller noted this would come before the Commission in June. 11. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, C/))(- c Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.