Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-20-2006 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 20, 2006 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order Acting Chair Miller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., September 20, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Acting Chair Miller; Commissioners Hegland, Scotch, and Meehlhause Absent and Excused: Chair Stevenson, Commissioners Hull and Zwirn Also Present: Community Development Director Jim Ericson Planning Associate Heidi Heller ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page VR2006-008: Consideration of a Variance for a Driveway Setback 2 Applicant: Mitch & Alison Ford Address: 8378 Groveland Road CU2006-008: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized 9 Garage Applicant: Cory Mathiowetz Address: 2925 County Road H2 Acting Chair Miller asked for any additional items to be added. 3. Approval of Minutes A. July 5, 2006. B. July 19, 2006. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Scotch /Commissioner Hegland, to approve the Minutes of the July 5, 2006 regular Planning Commission meeting as written. Mounds View Planning Commission September 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 ______________________________________________________________________________ Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Scotch /Commissioner Hegland, to approve the Minutes of the July 19, 2006 regular Planning Commission meeting with corrections. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. VR2006-008: Consideration of a Variance for a Driveway Setback; Applicant: Mitch & Alison Ford; location 8378 Groveland Road. Planning Associate Heller presented a consideration for a driveway setback variance from Mitch and Alison Ford, 8378 Groveland Road. Planning Associate Heller reported the applicants built a new garage in 2003 and the driveway to the garage in the spring of 2004. She stated the driveway was constructed without a permit, however, at that time the City code had been amended to allow a setback of up to one foot with a letter from the neighbor stating their approval, which the Fords did receive. The driveway was installed in the spring of 2004, with no setback from the property line. Planning Associate Heller stated the code was again amended in September 2004 to the current five-foot setback requirement. Planning Associate Heller mentioned Staff received a call concerning the Ford’s driveway and went to the property to investigate. She stated the Fords were instructed to bring the driveway into compliance or apply for a variance. Planning Associate Heller mentioned, as with any variance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to the property owner. She explained the Code clearly states a hardship exists when all seven criteria are met. Planning Associate Heller stated there are no extraordinary circumstances, which apply to this property. She explained the house is 12 feet from the north property line, which does limit the amount of room to fit a vehicle past the house. She stated by following the one-foot setback, an eleven-foot wide driveway should be wide enough for most vehicles to get by next to the house. Planning Associate Heller stated the literal interpretation would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district. She indicated the applicants are responsible for the condition resulting in the required application for a permit. Planning Associate Heller Mounds View Planning Commission September 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ______________________________________________________________________________ stated if the Fords had applied for a permit, they would have been told they could not have a zero setback. She informed the Commission that granting the variance would confer special privilege in that other property owners are not allowed to build within the required setbacks. Planning Associate Heller indicated since the driveway is already in place, the variance requested is the minimum that would be necessary. Planning Associate Heller stated, given the circumstances, granting the variance may not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this title, however, granting the variance could send a message to residents that it is acceptable to ignore zoning codes by seeking approval through the variance process after the fact. Planning Associate Heller reported the driveway would not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjoining property. Commissioner Hegland asked if it was an asphalt driveway. Planning Associate Heller replied it was. Acting Chair Miller opened the Public Hearing at 7:08 p.m. Mitch and Alison Ford, 8378 Groveland Road approached the podium and addressed the Commission. Mr. Ford stated they have had a gravel drive along the house up to the property line for many years. He stated when they applied for the building permit for the garage, they indicated they planned to build a garage and a driveway. The Fords presented a copy of the building application for the Commission’s review. Mr. Ford stated he uses the new garage for his hobby of rebuilding vehicles and needed the driveway to drive large vehicles to the back of the property and parking in the garage. Mr. Ford reported somewhere an error was made and pointed out to the Commission they have now received their driveway permit. Mrs. Ford addressed each of the seven criteria. On criteria number one, Mrs. Ford stated their lot dimensions are typical relative to other properties in the area. She mentioned they had land available to build a detached garage in the back yard. On criteria number two, Mrs. Ford stated when they applied for a permit to build the garage and driveway they were asked if they would be driving through the existing garage to get to the new one. She stated they replied they would construct a driveway on the north side of the house to the new garage. She reported no mention was made about a required permit or variance; only a permission letter from the neighbors to the north would be required. Mrs. Ford referred to criteria number three, stating since receiving the letter from the City of Mounds View indicating they needed to apply for a permit or variance, they have noticed many driveways throughout the City paved up to the property line. Mr. Ford presented a group of pictures of other driveways in the area. Mrs. Ford continued by stating a building has been in the back of the property since before the house was built by the Ford family in 1968 with a gravel driveway to access the building. Mrs. Ford stated they worked with the City since the beginning of the garage project, with Staff making notations and recommendations on their drawings on August 18, 2003. She stated they had, in good faith, gone forward with their plans. Mounds View Planning Commission September 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 ______________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Ford mentioned they built the garage late in the year, and consequently there was no time to black top the driveway until spring. He stated they have stored many cars in the building for years as the City code states cars without a license cannot be parked on the property. Mrs. Ford continued to criteria number four restating they have seen and photographed multiple properties in the City of Mounds View that have the same variance as they are requesting. On criteria number five, Mrs. Ford mentioned if they are required to remove some of the asphalt, they would still use the space between the properties to the north to access the garage and back yard area. She stated they would need to fill the space with gravel, which will cause problems with trying to keep the rocks out of the grass, deterring unsightly weeds and airborne gravel when removing snow. At this time Mr. Ford displayed photos of their driveway. Commissioner Scotch asked about water runoff. Mrs. Ford replied they had the driveway graded so all run off goes into their yard. She stated the beautiful landscaping in the yard included a large strip of gravel that holds the water runoff. Mr. Ford stated they want to make the home look nice and have improved the property. He displayed photos of how the property looked before they made improvements. Commissioner Scotch asked Mr. Ford what type of trucks he brought onto the property. Mr. Ford replied they have a truck and trailer and occasionally have tow trucks hauling in vehicles. Commissioner Scotch asked if the Fords are running a business out of the garage. Mr. Ford stated absolutely not; it is his hobby only. Mrs. Ford continued by addressing criteria number six, stating the improvements to the driveway surface improved the aesthetics of the property, thereby increasing the value of their home as well as the property of homes in the area. On criteria number seven, Mrs. Ford responded the purpose of 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. Commissioner Hegland asked if a final inspection had been done. Mrs. Ford stated the final inspection had not been done because they just found out they needed to get the permit and the variance. She reported the garage had received the final inspection and the driveway was in place at that time. Commissioner Hegland responded he meant the garage project because as he saw it, they applied for both at the same time. Mr. and Mrs. Ford stated yes they had. Mounds View Planning Commission September 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ______________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Jim Ericson addressed the point of the permit. He stated the permits are separate items; while it is very clear they show a driveway on the plan, there was not a separate application for the driveway. He stated Staff must be very clear with applicants that separate driveway permit is required. Director Ericson mentioned Staff had started stamping applications to decrease confusion. Commissioner Hegland asked if the application is different than the one with the signature. Director Ericson replied yes the application for a driveway is separate. Mr. Ford asked why they were instructed to get the neighbor’s signature and not that they needed a separate permit. Director Ericson replied Staff would not have indicated they would need the consent of the neighbor if they had not already stated they needed a permit. Director Ericson stated it is possible Staff did not clearly articulate the requirements. He stated what he could say is a permit was required but not obtained, although they were aware something needed to be done that was not done. Commissioner Hegland asked why they did not get an application for the driveway at the same time. He stated he sees no indication they attempted to hide anything. Commissioner Hegland stated this is an issue of faulty communication. Mr. Ford stated they want to make a nice place for themselves; Mounds View is a wonderful place to live with great neighbors. He stated they have had issues with the neighbor since they moved in. He mentioned they have tried to accommodate them, but a few months ago he caught them throwing doggy poo onto their property. Mr. Ford stated the neighbor continues to stay on a vendetta to cause them problems. He said there would not be an issue currently if this neighbor were not causing problems. He said he wishes them no ill will but would like it to stop. Commissioner Hegland asked if the driveway was in place when the final inspection was done and signed off. Mrs. Ford stated it was. Mr. Dave Auge, 8401 Groveland Road addressed the Commission in support of the Fords. He stated he had known Mr. Ford since 1985. He commented the yard was a guy’s yard before he married Alison; the yard now looks beautiful. He indicated the blacktop has made a big improvement as the old driveway was muddy after rain. He also stated it had been an on going battle to keep it nice because without black top weeds would grow. Mr. Pat Novak, 8371 Knollwood Drive, addressed the Commission and stated he is a neighbor to the back of the Ford property. He stated he had lived in his home and had known Mr. Ford since 1968. He said the building in the back and a driveway were there when they moved in. Mr. Mounds View Planning Commission September 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 ______________________________________________________________________________ Novak said the property is much improved since Mitch settled down; it would be a shame to have to remove the asphalt. Commissioner Scotch asked if the fence goes to the back of the property and who the fence belongs to. Mr. Ford responded the fence belonged to the neighbor and extends to the back of the neighbor’s lot. He stated his lot is about 15 feet longer than the neighbor’s lot. Acting Chair Miller noticed the chain link fence had been removed and a wood fence put in by the neighbor. Mr. Curt Hauser, 8346 Groveland, reported he just moved to the neighborhood in January 2006. He stated the Ford’s yard looks like a park. Mr. Hauser mentioned he is a building inspector and most Cities allow driveways up to the property line. He stated removing the asphalt would ruin the look of the property. Commissioner Scotch disagreed with Mr. Hauser’s statement about other cities allowing driveways up to a property line. Mr. Noel Wareham, 8365 Groveland, stated he has lived in his home for 10 years and commented the Ford property is certainly a much nicer looking place since they made improvements. He stated the driveway looks very natural; taking it out would mean cutting into the footings of the neighboring fence. Mr. Mike Read, 2208 Lois Dr., stated he has known Mr. Ford since high school. He stated if the driveway were cut down to eleven feet, it would not be wide enough to miss the overhang on the house. He also mentioned the yard looked very nice. Mr. Dan Mueller, 8343 Groveland, stated Mr. Ford’s property was a pig pen before Alison moved in. He stated the previous gravel drive was always muddy when it rained. He agreed the property looks very nice. Mr. Ford stated he cut the corner overhang off the garage attached to the house so he could get some larger vehicles to the back. He reported some trailers are 24 feet long attached to 22 foot trucks; it is very narrow and tight but it works. He reported he hit the neighbor’s fence twice and paid for repairs. Commissioner Scotch asked for the square footage of the garages. Mr. Ford replied the back garage is 952 square feet and the attached garage is 840 square feet. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if this would set precedence on driveway variances. Mounds View Planning Commission September 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ______________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland stated each case is treated as a separate case and no precedence would be set. Commissioner Scotch asked Staff if they foresaw a future detriment to leaving the driveway. Planning Associate Heller replied the only issue would be where the property line is actually located and this is why Staff wanted to get away from the one foot setback. She mentioned property markers for most homes are long gone. Commissioner Hegland stated the asphalt is not a permanent surface and it would only last 10-15 years; it could be brought up to code at the time it needed to be replaced. He stated the Fords came to the City and thought they had done what they were asked to do. Commissioner Hegland stated he would be in favor of granting the variance. Acting Chair Miller stated the Commission could approve, deny or table the variance, and suggested tabling the decision until the October 4th meeting when the entire Commission was in attendance. Commissioner Scotch replied she agreed with Commissioner Hegland. She mentioned the property is well groomed, not hurting anyone, and the water run off is controlled. She stated it is in place, has not hindered anything, and the City could be at fault for not giving clear directions. Acting Chair Miller stated the neighbor’s fence hides the driveway and they do not see it. Commissioner Hegland stated the City had not required property surveys to define property lines and this is not in dispute. Commissioner Scotch stated the cost to remove a foot would be quite a bit. Acting Chair Miller looked at the property and stated she agreed with the request. Community Development Director Ericson stated there are no resolutions before the Planning Commission. He explained this is a case where there was not a clear cut recommendation Staff could make. He mentioned, as the Planning Commission is well aware, it must abide by the hardship criteria. Director Ericson stated the codes in the ordinance are there for a reason, but there are provisions for a variance and an opportunity for applicants like the Fords to come before the Commission. He indicated that perhaps the Commission should determine what the hardship is and be able to articulate it. He recommended the Commission continue the public hearing, since it had not been closed, at the October 4, 2006 meeting. He expressed if the Planning Commission wanted to approve this, they must have a clear cut hardship defined. He also recommended the Fords come back with a clearly stated hardship and present it to the Commission at the next meeting. Commissioner Hegland argued the Fords did not create this problem and were under the impression they were following the rules. Mounds View Planning Commission September 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 ______________________________________________________________________________ Acting Chair Miller stated it is a matter of following the rules. Community Development Director Ericson explained the hardship criteria are out of State statutes and a hardship that would justify a variance from what the code says. He stated the basis to approve the variance must indicate that following the code would create a practical difficulty for the applicant. Director Ericson explained the City must be able to justify the variance. Commissioner Scotch asked Mr. Ford for the width of the driveway. Mr. Ford responded it is 12 feet wide. He also stated the garage is six feet off the property line. Mrs. Ford stated she went to the Mounds View website and looked at City variances and appeals 1125.02 and sub-title 02 about undue hardship and pointed out line two states “or practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of the property owners land.” She stated she felt they would have difficulty in the use of their property if they were required to shorten the width of the driveway by one foot. Mr. Ford displayed pictures of other driveways. Acting Chair stated it was unnecessary to look at the photos. She asked the Commission if this should be tabled. Commissioner Hegland stated the Planning Commission needed to give Staff direction to draft a resolution to grant the variance. Mrs. Ford mentioned to the Commission they have been extremely stressed since they came back from vacation and read the letter from the City. She stated she could not begin to describe the energy and emotion expended over the issue. She stated they would like it resolved so the stress could go away. She expressed to extend it again when all four Commissioners appear to agree on approval, would continue the stress they have experienced. Acting Chair Miller replied it was not a matter of what the neighbors think, but it has given them pause to consider the comments. She stated there is no resolution to act on tonight and the Commission is asking Staff to write a resolution to vote on it. She told the Fords it would be voted on the first Wednesday of October. Mr. Ford stated Director Ericson told him he would recommend it be approved. Community Development Director Ericson stated they must do their research and when he visited the property, he felt the same way as the Planning Commissioners in that it did not make sense to tear out a foot of asphalt and replace it with gravel. He explained that whatever direction the Planning Commission decided to proceed, it must be sure what is approved could be supported. Mounds View Planning Commission September 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 9 ______________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch asked if the resolution could state that due to the hardship identified as part of the criteria, that in the future when the driveway needed to be replaced, it would recover the foot. Commissioner Hegland stated it should state it is not grandfathered in the future. Community Development Director Ericson replied he hesitates to put something like this in because the code could change allowing a zero foot setback. Mr. Dan Mueller, 8343 Groveland, appeared before the Commission again and stated, as a long time resident of Mounds View, if someone builds something and the inspector approves it, and later someone challenges it, how far back could this go. He stated since City staff had come out and said it was fine, they should not even have had to be here tonight. Commissioner Scotch explained there is no proof of what happened three years ago, therefore, the Commission must go forward and try to correct it. Commissioner Hegland stated this is only a housecleaning issue. He explained the Ford’s are out of compliance without the proper paperwork; the Planning Commission is trying to create the paperwork needed. The public hearing is held over to the October 4, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. B. CU2006-008: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage; Applicant: Cory Mathiowetz; located at 2925 County Road H2 Planning Associate Heller summarized the request for consideration of a conditional use permit for an oversized garage located at 2925 County Road H2. She reported the applicant would demolish the current 224 square foot garage and build a new 24 foot by 48 foot garage that would comply with the five foot setback. Planning Associate Heller reported the plot plan submitted indicates a garage area in excess of 952 square feet allowed without a conditional use permit. She explained the area has fairly large lots of nearly an acre in size indicating enough property to support the oversized garage exists. Acting Chair Miller asked how far the house was from the property line. Planning Associate Heller stated she did not have the number but she was sure it was at least 20 feet. She indicated there is currently room for a driveway to go along side the garage. Planning Associate Heller stated the new garage would be an improvement to the property and the neighborhood and would not be out of character in this area. She stated the area is mostly a single-family neighborhood with large, deep lots. She stated the garage would be located behind the house so it would not be noticeable from the street and would not change the current look of house. Planning Associate Heller reported all zoning and code issue are satisfied with the request. She reported Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Mounds View Planning Commission September 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 10 ______________________________________________________________________________ Acting Chair Miller asked the applicant for comments. Mr. Cory Mathiowetz, 2925 County Road H2, stated the current garage is set right on the property line and the new garage would be in compliance with the five foot setback. He stated the garage would be used to store vehicles and equipment. He mention his house is only 950 square feet and needs the extra storage space. Commissioner Scotch pointed out a tree would need to be taken down. Mr. Mathiowetz stated that was correct. Commissioner Scotch asked Mr. Mathiowetz when he planed to do start the project. Mr. Mathiowetz replied he would start immediately after City Council approval. Commissioner Hegland asked what he would be doing for a driveway. Mr. Mathiowetz replied there is no driveway currently, but he plans to have a concrete drive. Commissioner Scotch asked if the garage siding would match the house. Mr. Mathiowetz replied it would have vinyl siding and eventually a stone front like the house. Commissioner Scotch asked how long he has lived in the home. Mr. Mathiowetz replied since August 14, 2006. He stated he grew up in Mounds View and just moved back. Acting Chair Miller asked about his plan to add onto the house. Mr. Mathiowetz replied eventually he would add on the other side of the house, and this is why he did not want to build the garage on that side. Commissioner Meehlhause commented the Planning Commission continuously approves these types of requests, so perhaps the code should be changed to allow for larger garages so these do not need to be brought forward by Staff. Commissioner Scotch replied the Commission should continue to review each one since not all the garages will necessarily fit in. Community Development Director Ericson replied if the Code were amended to allow for more square footage, residents would continue to request larger and larger size garages. He stated the size of garages increased up to 1800 square feet over the years. He stated Commissioner Meehlhause made a valid comment because it is something where a streamline review could be Mounds View Planning Commission September 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 11 ______________________________________________________________________________ done. He stated he would like to make it easier for the applicant, the Planning Commission and the City Council. Commissioner Meehlhause mentioned he did not see what the issue was if it is all in one building. Acting Chair Miller commented it was to see if it met code requirements. Acting Chair Miller made a slight correction to the resolution language. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Hegland/Commissioner Meehlhause, To Approve Resolution 850-06 Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for a 1,152 Square Foot Garage at 2925 County Road H2; Planning Case Number CU2006-008. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Acting Chair Miller stated this would go to the City Council on October 9, 2006. 6. Other Planning Activity None 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. October 4, 2006 B. October 18, 2006 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Acting Chair Miller adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Dianna Wise TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.