Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-03-2006 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 3, 2006 Spring Lake Park City Hall 1301 – 81st Avenue NE, Spring Lake Park, MN 55432 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. May 3, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, Scotch, and Stevenson Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson Economic Development Coordinator Beckman Planning Associate Heller ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case VR2006-001. Consideration of a Variance request for a garage height, 8478 Long Lake Road, Dan and Diane Balk 2 ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes March 15, 2006. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Scotch. To approve the Minutes of the March 15, 2006 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission May 3, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case VR2006-001. Consideration of a Variance for Garage Height, 8478 Long Lake Road, Dan and Diane Balk Community Development Director Ericson explained that the applicants, Don and Diane Balk, reside at 8478 Long Lake Road and own the vacant lot adjacent to the west at the corner of Long Lake Road (formerly County Road J) and Sunnyside Road. The Balks would like to build a new home on the vacant lot and sell their old home. A conditional use permit was granted to allow for a garage footprint of 1,062 square feet to allow the Balks to park their recreational vehicle inside the garage. Without the extra depth needed for the RV (an additional nine feet) the garage would not necessitate a CUP. Director Ericson stated because of how the garage is intended to be used, additional clearance would be needed to allow the RV to enter the garage. A standard height garage opening would be insufficient, which has prompted the request for a variance. Director Ericson explained for a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Director Ericson read the variance considerations and stated exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property, which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity. While the lot itself meets all minimum requirements, being a corner lot there are additional setbacks that limit the areas in which the RV could be parked outside. Director Ericson explained the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties. While the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, the applicants desire to park their RV inside the garage not only for aesthetic reasons but also for security. Director Ericson stated special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Ownership of an RV does prompt the request, the special conditions could be argued to be more “community” driven from the standpoint of visibility and aesthetics. Director Ericson stated granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege. Every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and livability of their home. The Planning Commission has approved similar height variances in the past for oversize vehicles. Mounds View Planning Commission May 3, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson explained the variance requested is the minimum variance, which would alleviate the hardship. Granting the two-foot variance to allow the RV to be parked inside the garage would not be materially detrimental to the purpose and intent of the zoning code. Director Ericson stated 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. Staff felt there would be minimal impact to the neighborhood or surrounding properties. Chair Stevenson stated two of their concerns generally are the alteration of the norm, being the extra high door and the resale value. He noted he did not see that in this case. Another concern is that when the City grants a variance, they may get a flood of applications because of the type of variance granted. He stated he did not think the Commission would have a flood of applications for extra high garages. If they do, they have a sketch of how the garage will fit into the home. Commissioner Miller wondered if there will be a dividing wall between the two garages. Mr. Balk thought they needed to put in two upright posts to hold up the roof but there will not be a wall. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. No one wished to address the Commission Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Zwirn. To approve Resolution 831-06, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance for a seventeen foot tall garage at 8495 Sunnyside Road; Mounds View Planning Case No. VA06-001. Commissioner Miller requested one correction under the second “whereas” in the resolution, Subdivision 1 the “b” should be deleted. Director Ericson indicated he would review this and correct it, if needed. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity Update on County Road J Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated the project itself is approximately $24 million in cost. There are three funding sources, $5 million from the redevelopment funds, $14 million from a bio-sciences fund and the third funding source is $5 million in trunk highway Mounds View Planning Commission May 3, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ funds. In general terms, the trunk highway funds will be used for the bridge area and the other funds will be used for widening the road. Mr. Backman indicated that in January, SEH was 95 percent complete with design plans for County Road J. The State government approved revised legislation for County Road J on March 13th and Governor Pawlenty approved it on March 14, 2006. The City Council executed the release of easements with Ramsey County. He explained there will be some land acquisition in the process. Mr. Backman noted on the map where the land will be acquired and where intersections and signal lights will be added. There will be several dedicated turning lanes and several mitigation ponds added in the project. Some homes will be relocated and two businesses may or may not be relocated. They are in the process of negotiations. Mr. Backman indicated that the Ramsey County Board gave approval of the construction with Lunda Construction, who was the low bidder. Work is scheduled to begin this month. The bridge will be torn down and County Road J will be closed for approximately nine months. He noted he has been meeting with the businesses affected regarding alternative accesses. Chair Stevenson asked why the purchases of parcels will be mainly to the north. Mr. Backman explained to the south side of County Road J there is a major pipeline and several other utilities to the south. A cost benefit analysis was done and it was found to be more feasible to buy the properties to the north, shift the road slightly to the north, and widen the road. Commissioner Miller stated she was curious about County Road I coming onto 35W and asked if anything is going to be done in that area. Mr. Backman advised there will be two phases in this project. There is a second project proposed to study the aspects of realigning the intersection with County Road J. Mr. Backman explained that it was very costly and may be looked at for improvements in 2011. Mr. Ericson stated he did not know when County Road I would be addressed but Shoreview was opposed to closing it. Mr. Backman stated there was now County support for a sound wall on Highway 10 and 35W. He explained the goal is to have County Road J completed by September 2007. He noted this will correspond with Medtronic moving people in at that time. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. May 17, 2006 at New Brighton City Hall B. Jun 7, 2006 at Mounds View City Hall ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session Mounds View Planning Commission May 3, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Sue Osbeck TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.