Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-02-2003 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 2, 2003 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., April 2, 2003. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Stevenson, Hegland, Song, Zwirn, Miller, Scotch and Johnson Members Absent: None. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. VR03-002 2 Applicant: Hamilton Creek, Scott & Gretchen Davis Planning Case No. SP-115-03 8 Discuss No Parking on Greenfield Avenue Planning Case No. DE03-001 9 Applicant: Greg Johnson Planning Case No. SP-114-03 10 Discussion of Text Amendment to Code for Pawnshops ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes a. February 19, 2003 b. March 5, 2003 Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Hegland. To Approve the Planning Commission Minutes for February 19, 2003, and March 5, 2003 as Presented. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request for a Variance at 7741 Long Lake Road Community Development Director Ericson provided an explanation of the history surrounding the variance request indicating that the City had made an error when it issued the building permit and now the structure is 11 feet into the “prevailing” setback. He further explained that the structure is made of concrete and there would be a large cost associated with removing the concrete and moving the structure back the 11 feet to meet the setback requirement. Director Ericson indicated he had gone through the seven required hardship criteria in his Staff report and commented that it could be argued that there is a hardship not caused by the developer in this situation. He then said that granting this variance would mean that the Commission would also need to address the total square footage of the garage and shed, which together exceed the maximum of 1800 square feet. Director Ericson indicated that Staff feels badly that this error occurred and said that if the additional setback requirement had been caught the developer has indicated that it would not have been a problem to move the entire structure back the 11 feet. He then said that while Staff does feel badly about the incident, he is not sure if staff’s error alone justifies a variance. Commissioner Johnson asked how many variances have been granted for accessory structures over the 1800 square feet. Director Ericson indicated that the City has not granted any variances for over the 1800 square feet. Director Ericson commented that he does not see an issue with a conditional use permit request for an oversize garage but does see an issue with approving a variance for 2000 square feet versus the 1800 square feet allowed by the City’s Code. He then commented that the City, in essence, approved the size when the building permit was approved and said that if this variance is approved the Commission would need to seriously consider approving the other variance request. Commissioner Johnson asked where the shed is located. Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson indicated it was located in the northeast corner of the property at the rear of the lot. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the shed was concrete as well. Director Ericson indicated that it was not. He then said that denial of the variance could result in financial implications for the City due to the error. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the structure could be changed now that the error was found. Director Ericson indicated that the wall of the garage could be moved back 11 feet but that would require new footings and forms at great expense to the developer and property owner. Commissioner Hegland asked for a cost estimate for moving the structure back. Commissioner Miller referenced page 3 of the Staff report and asked who makes the requirement that errors be corrected. Director Ericson indicated that the requirement is from the International Building Codes that states if an error is made, corrections have to be made. He then said this is a severe case in that it would be very costly to move the structure. Commissioner Miller commented that the homes on Long Lake Road are all set back farther and this home being forward of those homes causes a distraction. Chair Stevenson asked how far along the shed was. Director Ericson indicated that the shed is completed. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. Neal Zinser from Hamilton Creek indicated the homeowner was willing to expand the living space into the garage to bring the size of the garage into compliance with the City’s Code. He then said that the problem is not as simple as moving the house back 11 feet as the entire structure is made of concrete and all of that concrete would need to be removed and disposed of and he would have to start over with an estimated cost to do so of $75,000. Mr. Zinser indicated he and the home owners have a desire to work with the City and the neighbors and would not have had a problem moving the structure back if the setback was caught prior to the installation of the concrete. Commissioner Hegland asked what the cost would be for the homeowners to turn the extra garage space into living space. Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Zinser indicated the cost for doing so would be approximately $10,000 to $15,000. Commissioner Miller commented that $75,000 seems like a lot to move a structure 11 feet. Mr. Zinser explained that because the entire thing is made of concrete all of the existing concrete has to be removed and he has to start completely over so the costs include removal, disposal, and redoing it in the right location. Commissioner Hegland asked for an estimate on the costs to construct the home not including the lot. Mr. Zinser said he estimates the home to cost approximately $340,000. Commissioner Johnson indicated he has an issue with granting a variance to the 1800 square feet of garage space but would be okay with granting the variance for the setback. Chair Stevenson indicated the homeowners have agreed to convert the extra garage space to living space eliminating the need for a variance on that matter. Director Ericson agreed that the issues with the garage are removed if the space is used for living space. He then said that he would revise the Resolution to indicate that the garage square footage would need to be brought into compliance. Bob Moore of 7777 Long Lake Road indicated he thinks it looks bad to have the structure forward of the other homes. Don Rossbach of 7740 Long Lake Road indicated that the home seemed close to the property lines and asked whether the side setbacks were met. Chair Stevenson indicated that the side setbacks are met. Mr. Rossbach said he feels that $75,000 seems high for moving the structure back and said that the house sticks out and it detracts from the look of the street. Chair Stevenson asked how far back the homes are. A Resident indicated that the homes are 48 to 50 feet back. Terry Hiye of 7750 Long Lake Road commented that it seems the developer would need to change the doors on the garage to convert to living space due to the way it is oriented. He then said that he is surprised that City Staff did not notice this before things got this far along in the process as it is clear that the home sticks out beyond the others on the street. Scott Davis, the property owner of 7741 Long Lake Road, indicated that the home has a wraparound porch eliminating the need to change the garage doors. Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Hiye indicated that it seems to be a quality structure but he is surprised that the garage was built in the back. Chair Stevenson indicated that the structure in the back is a shed and it will not house cars. Torri Johnson of 7730 Long Lake Road indicated she was concerned that the structure meets the City’s Codes as well as aesthetics but has decided that the difference in setbacks provides character to the neighborhood. She then said her only real concern is that there is a safety issue since the structure is forward of the others and blocks the line of sight down the street. She also expressed concern for the underground utilities, especially the pipeline, and asked Staff to look into whether there are any special setback requirements from the pipeline. Director Ericson agreed to look into any potential issues with the pipeline. Mr. Zinser indicated that someone from Lot 2 had been given information from the City that the setback is 30 feet. He then said that a 40-foot setback for that lot would dramatically affect the size of the house on the corner lot. He further commented that they want to work with the neighbors and comply with City requests but this error would be too costly to rectify as there are 12-inch thick concrete walls. Scott Davis indicated this was a very unfortunate situation and told the neighbors he had hoped to meet them under less ominous circumstances and in no way wants to alienate them. He then said that he and his wife are willing to assume the costs of enlarging the living space in order to resolve the oversize garage issue. Mr. Davis explained that the reason the shed is in the back is because he is a carpenter and has a lot of woodworking equipment and the shed was to provide a woodworking shop for him. He further indicated that the house is located where it is in an attempt to keep the neighbors from looking at the back half of his house instead of grass and trees but he would have been willing to move it back had he known about the setback. Mr. Davis indicated he appreciated the safety concern of the neighbors but said that before the trees were taken out for construction you could not see down the street. The Commission asked Staff to look into the pipeline issue. Commissioner Zwirn commented that if this variance came before the Commission prior to construction there is no way it would be approved and he does not feel it is proper to approve this after the fact. He then said that it is unfortunate that the City made a mistake but the structure is very imposing and there is an opportunity to rectify the situation rather than modifying the rules to allow it to continue. He further commented that this home affects what happens on Lots 2 and 3. Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Johnson said he is not willing to risk the City having to pay $75,000 to solve the problem. He then said that in no other cities do they require new developments to match the prevailing setbacks. Commissioner Scotch asked how this happened and then said she does not feel the developer or homeowner should pay a penalty when it was a City error. Mr. Zwirn commented that this is very similar to the Mezzenga property and there are ongoing issues with that property due to a questionable variance that allowed the development to proceed. Commissioner Johnson commented that in many cases the hardship criteria are questionable and subjective and he does see a hardship in this case. The Commissioners discussed other circumstances that were similar to this one that were allowed. Commissioner Zwirn asked whether the City Attorney has looked at the wording of the International Building Code that even if it is an error by the City, the situation must be rectified and whether that is open to interpretation. Director Ericson commented that everything is open to interpretation when you are an attorney. He then said that it is probably a defensible position but the costs associated with the litigation may not warrant doing so. Commissioner Miller indicated she felt the Commission should find that no hardship exists as she does not feel the criteria are met. She then said that the Commission is bound by the hardship requirements but the Council is not and she would like to deny the variance and let them appeal to Council where Council could allow it if so desired. Director Ericson commented that often times there is subjectivity involved with the hardship criteria. He then said he agreed with Commissioner Zwirn that if this had been asked for ahead of time it probably would have been denied and asked whether the error itself warrants the hardship for the developer. He then said that, litigation possibilities not withstanding, he feels that there is a hardship in this case. Commissioner Hegland commented that it is not as simple as whether the Commission would have approved this if asked for ahead of time, as the facts are the building is there and it is cost prohibitive to move it. Commissioner Zwirn commented that he questions the integrity of this body if it does not make sure that the criteria are met when granting variances. Commissioner Hegland commented that justifiable criterion is that the building codes are for new construction and this is reconstruction and the codes do not necessarily fit. He further Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ commented that the error was made, the building is already there, the costs to move it back are cost prohibitive, and he feels the Commission needs to consider allowing the variance. Commissioner Hegland said he did not feel it would be appropriate to monetarily penalize the developer and homeowner for an error by the City and he feels that as long as the homeowner is willing to assume the costs for adding additional living space so that the Commission is not being asked for a variance for extra garage space he would have no problem approving the setback variance. Commissioner Johnson commented that the Commission has given variances for new houses in existing neighborhoods on lots that would have been too small for building on. One of the neighbors indicated that the home is more noticeable and sticks forward of the other homes but he does not feel the homeowner or developer should have to pay that high a price to move it. He then said he is not opposed to the variance. Commissioner Miller commented that the Commission is not to consider economics when determining hardship. Director Ericson indicated that economics alone should not be the sole consideration. One of the neighbors indicated that granting this variance means that a variance would be needed for Lot 2. Mr. Zinser indicated he wanted to work with the neighbors and then said that moving the home back on Lot 2 would mean that the house on Lot 3, the corner lot, would be only 24 feet wide but he has plans to construct it at that size and will need to wait to see how things progress to see whether he needs to come before the Commission for a variance or not. Chair Stevenson asked Staff to read the Resolution. Commissioner Zwirn commented that this is Lot 1 and there is the potential that Mr. Zinser would be asking the City for consideration on Lots 2 and 3. Mr. Zinser said the possibility exists but he is planning a 24 feet wide house on Lot 3 at this time and cannot say definitively whether he would be before the Commission on one or both of the lots for a variance. Commissioner Zwirn commented that this would come before the Commission two more times. He then said he would like Staff to review the surveys. Director Ericson read the now therefore sections of the Resolution. He then commented that Staff received the surveys for both Lots 1 and 2 at the same time and Lot 2 shows a setback of 41 feet but Lot 1 shows 30 feet. Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Zinser explained that the house on Lot 2 was shown back at 41 feet because the purchaser had asked that it be located there to avoid damage to as many mature oak trees on the lot as possible. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. The Commission asked whether Mr. Zinser and the homeowners were aware of the requirement that if the home is destroyed it has to be rebuilt at the proper setback. Mr. Zinser and the homeowner indicated they were aware of the requirement and had no issue with it. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Song. To Approve Resolution 722-03 a Resolution Approving an 11 Foot Front Setback at 7741 Long Lake Road as Amended. Ayes – 6 Nays – 1(Zwirn) Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Discuss Proposed No Parking Request on Greenfield Avenue Community Development Director Ericson reviewed with the Commission the discussion from the Council meeting concerning the recommendation to post Greenfield Avenue no parking and asked for direction from the Commission as to how they wished to proceed on the matter. Director Ericson indicated he had gone out to the site and measured and that it is possible to park three cars from 30 feet back from the stop sign and keep them in front of the property involved. A fourth car could be added but not contained entirely in front of the business. Director Ericson asked whether the Commission wanted to amend its recommendation to allow three or four cars to park in front of the business and then post no parking from that point to 350 feet or reaffirm its previous recommendation of no parking. Commissioner Zwirn indicated that each and every time Mr. Farrell has mentioned working with the City the caveat has been that he would expand the parking lot as long as the City did not prohibit parking on the street. He then asked whether expanding the driveway to allow vertical parking would be allowed. Director Ericson indicated that the City’s Code would not allow that but said it is a possibility provided there is a safe drive aisle. Chair Stevenson expressed concern for fire truck access. Director Ericson indicated that the fire department prefers 24-foot drive aisles but there are some at 18 feet within the City. He then said the fire department would need to review any proposed site plan. Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland asked why the Commission would want to reconsider the “no parking” recmmendation. He then said that Mr. Farrell has not offered any alternative parking solution for off site parking as asked by the Commission and he does not want to change the recommendation. Commissioner Scotch agreed. Commissioner Johnson agreed and said that commons sense should have dictated that the parking was not adequate for Mr. Farrell’s plans for the building. Commissioner Zwirn indicated he had spoken at the Council meeting and said he was shocked that Council Members had not done their homework and did not know about the issues. He then asked if Mr. Farrell intended to come to this meeting to discuss the matter. Director Ericson indicated he was notified of the meeting but was unable to attend. There was consent among Commission Members to reaffirm their previous recommendation to post Greenfield Avenue no parking. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Consideration of a Development Review Request to Expand the Business Located at 2865 County Highway 10 Community Development Director Ericson explained the development request for the Commission indicating that a 780 square foot addition is sought. He then said that given the depth of the lot it is unlikely that the neighboring properties would even notice the expansion and the expansion would give the applicant additional work space inside. He further commented that the applicant intends to dress up the front of the garage with a brick treatment. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Zwirn. To Approve Resolution 723-03, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Development Review to Expand the Business Located at 2865 County Highway 10. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Commissioner Johnson abstained from voting on this matter. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Discuss and Review of Proposed Code Amendments to Regulate the Siting and Licensure of Pawn Shops in Mounds View Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Staff had done a lot of research into the pawnshop ordinance and then reviewed the proposed changes with the Commission. He then Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ indicated the police department had reviewed the ordinance and made several recommendations. They are concerned that the fees charged will not actually cover the cost of Staff time. Commissioner Hegland said he does not think the transaction fees will cover the administrative costs to oversee the business. Director Ericson indicated the police department had recommended that the licensing fee be raised from $2,500 to $5,000 to ensure that the City covers its costs and the investigation fee be raised to $750.00. Commissioner Hegland indicated he would like to see the bonding amount doubled from $5,000 to $10,000. Director Ericson indicated that the Ordinance would allow pawnshops only in B4 zoning districts as a permitted use. Commissioner Hegland asked whether Staff had inserted language to regulate how close pawnshops could be located to each other. Director Ericson indicated that location information is located in the licensing requirements portion of the Ordinance and noted the spacing is 1,000 feet. Director Ericson reviewed Ordinance 712 with the Commission indicating that the police department had asked that consignment not be allowed as it would be difficult for the department to track as consignments are not a reportable transaction. The police department also had an issue with bulk purchases of new and used merchandise so the Ordinance was amended to allow for bulk purchases only from an established business with a permanent place of business. Director Ericson indicated that the Ordinance would require the pawnshop to be on the automated system as well as containing many requirements for pawning articles. Commissioner Hegland asked whether the list of requirements for pawning articles would be posted at the business. Director Ericson indicated if it was not already in the Ordinance it could be added. He then reviewed the general license requirements with the Commission indicating that video and/or photographs must be taken of those pawning items as well as of any items without a serial number. Director Ericson indicated the police department had asked that the hold be lengthened to 90 days rather than 60 days, the hours of operation be changed to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and that firearms be prohibited. Commissioner Hegland asked Staff to look into whether gambling needed to be addressed in the Ordinance. Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson noted that other cities restrict cash checking facilities within the pawnshop ordinance and indicated that could be added later, if necessary. He then said that Staff would make the recommended changes and provide ordinances for review at the next meeting. Mr. Przetycki indicated he did not have any issues with the proposed changes but asked the Commission to consider allowing the hold to remain at 60 days rather than the 90 days. Commissioner Hegland indicated that Staff would need to research and provide a recommendation on the transaction fees. _____________________________________________________________________________ 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: April 16, 2003 ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.