Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-01-2005 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 1, 2005 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. June 1, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, Scotch, and Stevenson Absent and Excused: Commissioner Zwirn. Also Present: Planner Prososki ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case VR2005-005. Public Hearing and Consideration of a 2 Variance Request to Reduce the Front Yard Setback to Nineteen Feet for the Construction of a Garage Addition at 5131 Greenwood Drive Applicant: Keith Vasilakes _______________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes April 6, 2005. MOTION/SECOND: Hull/Meehlhause. To approve the Minutes of the April 6, 2005 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes –6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _______________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission June 1, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case VR2005-005. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance Request to Reduce the Front Yard Setback to Nineteen Feet for the Construction of a Garage Addition at 5131 Greenwood Drive. Applicant: Keith Vasilakes Planner Prososki reported that the applicant is proposing to construct a garage addition in front of the existing attached garage, which would place it nineteen feet from the front property line. She stated the Mounds View Zoning Code requires a minimum front setback of thirty feet for buildings, however there is also a provision in the Code that requires that buildings not encroach into the prevailing setback for the block on which the property is located. She indicated the prevailing setback for this particular block of Greenwood Drive is thirty-five feet. Planner Prososki indicated that Staff discussed other options with the applicant, including building a detached garage in the backyard or extending the attached garage to the rear, however the applicant has stated he prefers to pursue the option proposed. She reviewed the variance considerations outlined in the Staff report, noting Staff is not aware of any extraordinary circumstances that apply to this property. She added the back yard is large enough to accommodate an additional garage. Planner Prososki advised that if this variance request is approved, the applicant will need to apply for a conditional use permit for an oversized garage. She stated a conditional use permit is required for any accessory building that has an area exceeding 952 square feet, and the garage as proposed would have an area of 1,029 square feet. She indicated that the Commission can take one of three actions related to the request: deny the requested variance, approve the variance as requested, or table the request. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. Alvin Dahlberg, 5107 Greenwood Drive, stated that he and the applicant have been friendly neighbors for many years. He indicated that he feels adding fifteen feet to the front of Mr. Vasilakes’ garage would detract from the appearance of the neighborhood. He noted he spoke with a realtor who agreed. He stated no other houses on the block have a garage stretching in front of the property, and most of the homes have a recessed garage such as he does. He questioned why the additional garage could not be built in the backyard. Mr. Dahlberg stated that he spoke with Mr. Vasilakes earlier concerning this option, and was told it would interfere with a three-season porch in the backyard. He indicated that in spite of this he would be opposed to a variance being granted. Keith Vasilakes, 5131 Greenwood Drive, indicated he believes the garage would add character to the property, and would provide him with additional garage space that he very much needs. He stated he would prefer to add a stall on the side of his existing garage, but he is too close to the property line. He indicated that if he were to build in the back it would obscure the view from his three-season porch. He stated if the variance is not granted he probably would not build at all, and would have to continue to park his car in the driveway. He indicated he would like to do Mounds View Planning Commission June 1, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ several improvements to the front of his property, including putting up new lights and re-doing the driveway, and would like to add the extra space at the same time. Chair Stevenson noted that on the application Mr. Vasilakes mentioned wanting to store other vehicles, probably things that would not go in and out on a daily basis. Mr. Vasilakes indicated that was correct. Chair Stevenson stated the City likes to have people store their things inside as it beautifies the city; however, they also have to look at the other houses on the block. He indicated that from an aerial view it is obvious that no one else on the block has a structure that sticks out in front, and he believes it would be an eyesore to the neighborhood. He noted that at the same time he would like to provide a way for Mr. Vasilakes to store his vehicles. Mr. Dahlberg noted that he bought his property in 1966 and had a single-car garage, but wanted a double-car garage. He stated he had to get a variance to built three-feet from the lot line, and wondered if this would be an option for Mr. Vasilakes. Planner Prososki noted that the existing garage is only 10 feet from the property line now, so even reducing the setback requirement there would not be enough space to add another stall. Commissioner Hegland asked for clarification on what the front-yard setback is in this area. Planner Prososki responded that the prevailing setback for this neighborhood is 35 feet. She explained that the property line begins fifteen feet from the street and the house is 35 feet from the property line. Mr. Vasilakes stated the idea of going to the side is not appealing to him because it is the only access he has to his back yard, noting there are big pine trees on the other side of the property. Commissioner Meehlhause asked what would prevent the construction of a detached garage in the backyard. Mr. Vasilakes indicated his wife is not in favor of that option. Commissioner Hegland indicated that he believes there are other options that would allow the applicant to meet the code. Commissioner Hull suggested Mr. Vasilakes add a small amount to the front of the existing garage and the remainder of the needed space to the back, commenting that it would preserve some of the view from the three-season porch. Planner Prososki indicated there is only two feet available in front of the garage to the prevailing setback. Commissioner Scotch indicated that aesthetically a new garage could be five to seven feet further in front and look okay in relation to the neighborhood; however the requested sixteen feet added to the front is too much. Mr. Vasilakes commented that he has seen a lot of houses in Mounds View with a garage in front, with a porch and walkway along the side of the garage. Commissioner Meehlhause noted that in those cases the garage was likely aligned with the fronts of the other houses in that area. Mounds View Planning Commission June 1, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Vasilakes stated that having everything aligned is a matter of personal preference, and personally he does not like the cookie cutter look. Chair Stevenson indicated he would agree extending the garage a few feet in front would be okay, but this request is too much. Commissioner Hegland agreed that adding some to the front and the rest to the back would be the best option. Commissioner Scotch concurred. Mr. Vasilakes stated doing so would still obscure the view from the three-season porch. Commissioner Miller stated that they cannot forget the criteria that they as the Planning Commission have to uphold. She indicated there are seven findings of fact, and she does not believe this application has satisfied that criteria. Chair Stevenson agreed, stating he has a problem with a variance to this degree. Chair Stevenson stated he believes the application will have to be re-worked, as from the Planning Commission standpoint they cannot allow a garage that comes this far into the setback. He suggested Staff work with the applicant on options of either extending the garage to the side or splitting the requested addition between the front and back to reduce the variance needed, or both. Commissioner Hegland asked if the Planning Commission could say that they would support allowing a thirty-foot front yard setback, as he would hate to see the applicant re-work the request and still be turned down. Chair Stevenson indicated it would depend on how the plans were laid out and how the roof line would be changed, but he would not be immediately opposed to allowing a thirty-foot front setback. He stated he believes the Planning Commission has allowed this deviation from the prevailing setback at times. Commissioner Hegland stated he would also be in favor of allowing that amount of variance, as did Commissioners Meehlhause and Scotch. Chair Stevenson noted the applicant could withdraw his application and re-submit it, or the Planning Commission could deny the request. Mr. Vasilakes noted he would prefer to withdraw the request. Chair Stevenson stated the Planning Commission would need to table the request for two weeks, during which time the applicant would need to withdraw the request in writing. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Scotch. To table Planning Case No. VR2005-005 to the June 15, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Ayes –6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Planner Prososki noted Staff received a letter today from Integra Homes requesting that their application for development of twenty-one townhomes be tabled. She indicated she did send a letter to Integra Homes last week informing them the City would take the extra 60 days, which extends the deadline for action to August 10th. _________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission June 1, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: June 15, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:28 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Karen Bucklen TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.