Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-06-2005 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 6, 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. July 6, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, Scotch, and Stevenson Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case VR2005-005. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance Request to Reduce the Side Yard Setback to Zero Feet to Allow for a Garage Addition. 2 Planning Case VR2005-007. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance for a Reduced Front Yard Setback for a Living Space Addition. 4 Planning Case PA2005-001. Review of a Request for a PUD Amendment Associated with Lot 2, Block 2, City Hall Addition (Walgreens PUD), from Restaurant to Office. 7 Planning Case PD2005-001. Consideration of the General Concept Plan for a Proposed Residential Planned Unit Development. 9 _____________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission July 6, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes June 1, 2005. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Miller. To approve the Minutes of the June 1, 2005 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes –7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case VR2005-005. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance Request to Reduce the Side Yard Setback to Zero Feet to Allow for a Garage Addition. Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the staff report indicating the applicant, Keith Vasilakes, is proposing to construct an addition to his existing attached garage at 5131 Greenwood Drive. He stated the applicant previously appeared before the Planning Commission on June 1, 2005, seeking a variance to encroach 16 feet into the front setback. At that time, the Commission expressed concerns that the request was excessive and it was tabled to allow the applicant an opportunity to redesign the garage expansion plans to be more code compliant. Director Ericson stated the redesigned garage addition would extend an additional ten feet to the north, up to the north property line; therefore, there would be a zero-foot setback. He noted the Commission has never approved a zero-foot setback. He stated that for the request to be approved, there needs to be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property. He noted the Planning Commission has reviewed the set of specified criteria required and has determined this criteria has not been satisfied. Director Ericson noted the Planning Commission received a letter from a neighbor opposing the zero-foot setback approval. He recommended to the Planning Commission to deny the variance as requested. He concluded that there is no opportunity to table the issue again for redesign due to the 60 days nearing an end. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Keith Vasilakes, 5131 Greenwood Drive, stated he proposed this solution because he believed this was similar to what was brought up at the June 1, 2005 meeting. Mr. Vasilakes stated he did not realize there was a zero-foot setback “problem”, and noted that he could get by with a two- foot setback if approved. Mounds View Planning Commission July 6, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson stated the Planning Commission has never thought a zero-foot setback was acceptable. He explained if a neighbor sells their property and has it surveyed by professionals and when all is said and done your building is over the property line, that neighbor could make you tear it down. He reiterated the Commission would not ever agree to a zero-foot setback, although the Commission has approved a one or two-foot setback from the property line. Mr. Vasilakes stated he was not aware that zero-foot setbacks were not allowed. Commissioner Hegland asked if there would be overhang on the building addition. He stated with a zero-foot setback the overhang would be in the neighbor’s property, noting that the foundation line counts. Mr. Vasilakes replied the addition would have overhang to match the rest of the building but stated he would not want the overhang to be in the neighbor’s yard. Commissioner Zwirn stated in looking at the house layout and lot size parameters it offers some confines to deal with. He asked if the applicant was open to placing a garage in the back. He also asked if the reason for expanding to the lot line is for positioning of another car. He concluded he could appreciate the request due to very restrictive confines. Mr. Vasilakes responded that he has a park-like backyard and if he put up a building there he would have a large wall, which would materially devalue the house. He noted he has three cars and two cycles and that the daily car is outside and ugly. He stated putting the third car in the back yard is not worth it because to park it he would have to drive around the side or the back of the house. Chair Stevenson asked if there was 10 feet to the property line. He noted the property has a 24- foot double garage, and asked if a triple garage would be adequate. He stated he can buy a seven-foot garage door, and one more foot on the side would give him eight feet, which he would be happy with. Commissioner Zwirn stated it is not practical to get a car in that small footage. He noted fitting the car in would be tight. Mr. Vasilakes replied he measured his third vehicle and it is less than eight feet. He noted if he moved the extra would probably be considered a boat garage because it is big enough for that. Commissioner Scotch asked if the addition extended the garage to 32 feet would it be sufficient for three cars and approved by the Commission as a two-foot setback. Mr. Vasilakes replied he was okay with that. Char Stevenson stated a two-foot setback is not before the Commission and asked if the applicant has time to revise the request. Commissioner Hegland asked if the applicant is offering to revise the project to a two-foot setback. Director Ericson stated the revision could be done as long as they were making progress quickly. He noted the issue is that the Commission would still need to address all of the hardship criteria. Mounds View Planning Commission July 6, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ He noted he is not sure all of the criteria would be satisfied even with a two-foot setback. While he noted that the house is positioned closer to the north line; and therefore there is less space in which to expand the garage, the applicant does have a two-car garage there already. Chair Stevenson wondered if there was an easement between lots. He stated the applicant might not be able to build. He noted the hardship issue is a problem and admitted he likes to see owners beautify their property but he sees too many alternatives to allow the resolution to proceed. He concluded other than the building being in the sightline from the four season porch, it could be built in back. Commissioner Miller stated the applicant already has a double-car garage and believes the Commission should deny the variance. Commissioner Hegland stated in the last meeting it was agreed the Commission would consider a front setback allowing leniency due to the rule for housing already existing, and asked if that could still be considered. He noted the applicant has options in back. Commissioner Scotch asked how much footage there was from front to back. Mr. Vasilakes stated there is 132 feet from front to back and the house is 35 feet back and 24 feet wide. He commented the Commission should terminate the resolution request because it is not progressing. He stated he was hoping to get more assistance from Staff to make the project work, that is why he submitted the zero-foot setback request. He noted maybe he should have requested a two-foot setback. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Hegland. To deny Resolution 797-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance Request to Reduce the Side Yard Setback to Zero Feet to Allow for a Garage Addition; Planning Case No. VR2005-005. Ayes –7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case VR2005-007. Consideration of a Variance for a Reduced Front Yard Setback for a Living Space Addition. Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the staff report indicating the applicants, Nathan and Kendra Miller, are proposing to construct an addition to their home located at 2340 Knoll Drive. He stated the property was constructed in 1965 and the house is situated facing the street but does not line up parallel with any property lines. Director Ericson stated the applicant is proposing to construct a fifteen-foot addition to the existing house which would encroach further into the front setback. This addition would allow for expansion of the living area. He stated that for approval of the request there needs to be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property. He noted to the Mounds View Planning Commission July 6, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Planning Commission that staff has reviewed the set of specified criteria required and believes the lot is not typical due to its configuration; therefore, this criteria has been satisfied. Director Ericson noted the Planning Commission has not received any letters from neighbors opposing the reduced front yard setback approval. He explained that staff supports the request but did not prepare a resolution because the applicants had not provided the exact dimension needed for the variance. Subsequent to drafting the report, the applicants were able to provide the necessary dimensions and as a result, staff was able to prepare the resolution. Commissioner Miller asked if it were a side yard setback how much variance would there be. She noted in reviewing the pictures it is hard to see which is what yard part. Director Ericson stated 10 feet is the side yard setback, and this plan would comply with such a setback. He stated the Commission needs to interpret and make a determination on lots like this. He noted there is no rear yard and that the southwest corner of the lot would be the side yard. Commissioner Hegland asked if the property, measured from the easement to the edge of the house is currently 30 feet. He stated although the applicants are requesting to make a 15-foot addition that does not mean there is 15 feet left. He asked what is the actual number. Director Ericson noted it is probably 20 feet, measured out. He noted in discussing this with the applicants it measured more than 15 feet, maybe 20 feet. Commissioner Zwirn stated in reviewing the aerial shots provided, the other side of the house appears on the lot line, and asked if there was a variance requested at the time of construction. Director Ericson indicated no variances had been granted for this home, which was constructed in 1965. It is more likely that the lot lines do not match perfectly with the aerial image and that some distortion may be present. Commissioner Hegland agreed the street picture confirms that the lot lines do not match exactly. Director Ericson stated all actual lot lines are accurate, but not necessarily to the aerial image. There is one layer on top of another; therefore, the given angle may not match up. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. Nathan Miller, 2340 Knoll Drive, stated Director Ericson mentioned they are looking to expand their living space. He stated in interpreting the lot as the front or as a side, they took the worst- case scenario – as the front lot. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the proposed addition roofline is consistent with the existing. Mr. Miller replied yes. Commissioner Hegland asked what is the square footage of the expansion. Mr. Miller replied the main floor is 500 square feet. He noted the motivation to expand the living space is because this space is currently 9 feet by 22 feet, it is long and narrow. He noted the main floor expansion is mirrored with the basement but the upstairs will be different. He stated if the living room were Mounds View Planning Commission July 6, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ expanded 15 feet the new dimensions would be 22 feet by 24 feet wide. He noted the house overhangs the foundation in back which gives the two additional feet (24 feet by 24 feet). Commissioner Zwirn asked if he was proposing to add on straight out. He also asked if the applicant had considered angling the expansion to have a more consistent front setback. Mr. Miller replied yes to both, however, noted that adding on at an angle was determined to be ineffective due to the internal layout. He noted the addition would maintain the existing roofline. He stated the shed that is there would be removed. Commissioner Hegland noted the house is a two story and asked if the addition would be a two- story as well. Mr. Miller replied no, the cost is too high. Commissioner Miller stated she thought the location of the house and dimensions of the lot makes it a problem to do anything with the property. She noted she could see where they need to go into a variance because the side yard is not much of a variance and she does not think it is a front yard. Chair Stevenson stated the side yard does not need a variance if it is over 10 feet. Commissioner Hegland asked if there was any chance the City would want to widen the street in the future. Director Ericson replied no. Commissioner Meehlhause stated the criteria meets the hardship. Commissioner Miller asked if the applicant was asking for a 15-foot variance on the side yard. Chair Stevenson stated it is the front yard, unless they were to determine that side of the lot to be a side rather than front. Director Ericson stated that since the applicants have paid fees and the public hearing meeting has been published calling this a variance, it would be a 15-foot setback variance. He noted that in a couple years, he does not want there to be a different opinion. He noted this would eliminate any conforming /non-conforming issues. Chair Stevenson asked if the Commission could adopt the resolution without having been in the packet. Director Ericson stated they could. Commissioner Hegland stated because the exact number is not known the resolution should say the Commission is approving a 15-foot extension of building and whatever is left is approved. Chair Stevenson requested a “no greater than” be entered into the resolution. He noted this would state exactly the variance. Director Ericson stated it would say something like “hereby approve the front setback with a variance not to exceed 15 feet.” He noted the site plan is attached to the resolution and details the extension, but noted he can change the wording to “15- foot expansion”. He noted the wording would also be changed on Exhibit A. Mounds View Planning Commission July 6, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Meehlhause. To approve Resolution 800-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance for a Reduced Front Yard Setback for a Living Space Addition; Planning Case No. VR2005-007. Ayes –7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Planning Case PA2005-001. Review of a Request for a PUD Amendment Associated with Lot 2, Block 2, City Hall Addition (Walgreens PUD), from Restaurant to Office. Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the staff report indicating the applicant, Dr. Greg Belting of Silverview Chiropractic Center, had applied for an amendment to the Walgreeens PUD with respect to the allowed land uses for the vacant lot behind Walgreens. Director Ericson explained that efforts to develop Parcel A, behind Walgreens, have been ongoing since its creation yet development has not occurred despite the efforts of the owners, the realtors, and City staff. Limited visibility from County Road 10 and the oddly configured lot has prevented this site from being developed as a restaurant. Director Ericson stated Dr. Belting is proposing to construct an 8,000 square foot building likely similar to the site plan attached in the Staff report. He noted the setback originally approved was 30 feet which was consistent with the original building footprints however a reduction like that on the site plan, would be in keeping with the original intent of the PUD. Director Ericson noted this plan would serve as a better use for the property given the surrounding properties, i.e. the Walgreens pharmacy next door. He recommended to the Planning Commission to approve the PUD amendment as requested. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Commissioner Miller stated she noticed the PUD goes back 4 ½ years; it appears nothing has been happening and it is time something does. Director Ericson stated it was not for a lack of trying. He noted there have been many leads; however, developers say the visibility is just not there for a restaurant. He noted if the parcel was used as an office it becomes more of a destination and is not as important to have full frontage on County Road 10. Commissioner Hegland asked what type of medical business is proposed. Dr. Belting stated it would be a chiropractic center. He also stated he is the owner/operator of his company and a portion of the building would be for his business. He stated there would be one or two tenants renting the other portion of the building. Mounds View Planning Commission July 6, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch asked what type of business the tenants would be in. Dr. Belting stated he was looking at an office-type condo concept, whereby the tenants would be medical or other business- type professionals. He noted he has been at Silverview Plaza for 17 years with no problems. Chair Stevenson stated he does not see a problem with amending the PUD. He stated all the Commission would be doing this evening is adding the use of office with restaurant. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the property has been sold. Director Ericson stated there is a pending purchase agreement with Dr. Belting. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the purchase agreement does not go through is there problems with adding office. He also asked about overcrowding. Chair Stevenson stated he understood the concern. He asked if there is anything in place to prevent this type of situation. Director Ericson stated language could be added to the resolution to tie it to this project. He noted a time frame on approval, i.e. commenced within 6 months could also be added. He concluded this would give the applicant time to prepare a site plan. Dr. Belting stated they were approximately 90-120 days out for the plan. Commissioner Scotch stated six months would be plenty. Director Ericson stated he would add a three-month window with an extension possible if there are delays, with the request. He noted this would allow Staff to see if the project was moving forward. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Scotch/Zwirn. To approve Resolution 799-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Request for a PUD Amendment Associated with Lot 2, Block 2, City Hall Addition (Walgreens PUD), from Restaurant to Office; Planning Case No. PA2005- 001. Director Ericson stated the public hearing with the City Council would be scheduled for July 25, 2005. Ayes –7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Planning Case PD2005-001. Consideration of the General Concept Plan for a Proposed Residential Planned Unit Development. Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the staff report indicating the applicant, Ron Lillestrand, representing Integra Homes, is applying for approval of a general concept plan to construct 21 townhouse units at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10. Mounds View Planning Commission July 6, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson stated the proposed development area has a mixed zoning designation. Integra Homes previously submitted a request to rezone the property to Medium Density Residential; however, the Commission, after reviewing, voted to deny. He noted the PUD allows for 22 town homes; however, building 21 town homes would be intense for the acreage and create privacy issues. Director Ericson noted several property owners have contacted Staff to voice concerns about the proposed development. Action on the request was tabled to allow Integra more time to address the neighbors’ concerns and submit a modified site plan. He indicated that no plan revisions were provided and the deadline for action is approaching. As such, he recommended to the Planning Commission to deny the proposal as requested. Commissioner Miller asked if Integra Homes could go directly to Council with a site plan. Director Ericson stated if it was the same site plan or reasonably similar to what the Planning Commision had reviewed, then yes, they could bring it to Council. He noted while it is an option, if the site plans are different, he would prefer the Planning Commission hear it first. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To approve Resolution 796-05, a Resolution Recommending Denial of a General Concept Plan for a Proposed Residential Planned Unit Development; Planning Case No. PD2005-001. Ayes –6 Nays – 1 (Zwirn) Motion carried. Commissioner Zwirn stated he was opposed. He noted he had concerns that when the project first started, the Commission gave direction to the applicants and they seemed to fulfill those. Then they proposed the concept plan that is now before the Commission. He stated he was not here to defend the applicants but he feels they were not given enough direction. _____________________________________________________________________________ 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: July 20, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:04 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Mounds View Planning Commission July 6, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Cheryl Felix TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.