Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-02-2001 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 2, 2001 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., May 2, 2001. _______________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Hegland, Stevenson, Miller, Johnson, Kaden, Cerny, Zwirn, and Scotch. Members Excused: None. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson. _______________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. VR01-003 2 Applicant: Charles Harsch Location: 5148 Rainbow Lane Planning Case No. VR01-004 5 Applicant: Clifford Bratz Location: 5287 Jackson Drive Planning Case No. VR01-002 6 Applicant: Dan Gondek Location: 5455 Adams Street Planning Case No. MI01-001 & VA01-001 6 Applicant: Steve Redfield Location: 8360 Spring Lake Road and 8360 Pleasant View Drive Staff Reports/Items of Information 7 Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports 8 _______________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission May 2, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes a. April 4, 2001 MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Kaden. To Approve the April 4, 2001, Meeting Minutes as Presented. Ayes – 8 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no resident comments on items not on the agenda. ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case No. VR01-003 Community Development Director Ericson noted this was a public hearing and discussion concerning a variance request by Charles Harsch of 5148 Rainbow Lane for a setback variance to allow for a living space addition above the garage. Director Ericson explained Mr. Harsch would like build an addition totaling 660 square feet which will be two bedrooms and a bathroom with a deck off the back. Director Ericson noted the Harsch property is 91 feet wide and the house is one and a half (1 ½) stories now. He then noted that the proposed addition would be eight feet from the property line. Director Ericson indicated that for the variance to be approved the applicant needs to establish that a hardship exists and meet the seven criteria required by state law and City code. Director Ericson indicated the first criteria is that exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity. He indicated that Staff feels a conventional expansion off the back or south side of the home would result in the loss of mature oak trees. He then noted it has been the policy of the City to save mature trees whenever possible. Director Ericson indicated the second criteria is that the literal interpretation of the provisions of the code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. He then indicated that the Planning Commission encourages residents to expand and improve upon their properties whenever possible. He further indicated that the proposed expansion would not increase the footprint of the home and would preserve existing trees. Director Ericson indicated the third criteria is that the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. He then indicated that the presence of the trees, the insufficient setback to the south, the internal floor plan and layout of the rooms, and existing deck are not conditions for which the applicant is responsible. Mounds View Planning Commission May 2, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson indicated the fourth criteria is that granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the Code to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. He then indicated that the type of variance requested is common and that all requests are judged on their own merits. He further indicated that Staff did not feel that approval of this variance would be a special privilege. Director Ericson indicated the fifth criteria is that the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship and noted that economic conditions alone are not to be considered a hardship. He then indicated that it is the opinion of Staff that the variance requested is the minimum variance to alleviate the hardship. Director Ericson indicated the sixth criteria is that the variance would not be detrimental to the purpose of the Code or to other property in the same zone. He then indicated that Staff does not consider the variance to be materially detrimental to the intent of the zoning code or to adjoining properties. Director Ericson indicated the seventh criteria is that the 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. He then indicated that he did not feel the proposed variance would result in any loss of light or air to the adjacent property or add any congestion to the public streets. Director Ericson explained that given the criteria and Staff’s review of those criteria that Staff feels the variance is warranted and recommends that the Planning Commission, after holding public hearing and discussion, either direct Staff to draft a resolution of denial or approve Resolution 654-01 as provided which approves the variance for the eight (8) foot setback at 5148 Rainbow Lane. Chairperson Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Charles Harsch of 5148 Rainbow Lane provided the Commission with a copy of a letter of approval from his neighbor to the north and then offered to answer any questions the Commission had. Commissioner Zwirn inquired as to the height of the addition. Mr. Harsch indicated the addition would be 17 feet high measuring from the ground to the top of the roof. He then explained that he and his wife need another room on the upper level for the second child they are expecting. Commissioner Zwirn questioned whether the condition of the trees had been checked to ensure that they are alive and well. Mr. Harsch indicated that the trees were all alive last fall and have been trimmed and well cared for. Mounds View Planning Commission May 2, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Miller asked if there would be windows on the north side of the addition. Mr. Harsch explained he had decided not to place windows on the north side to help with privacy for his neighbor to the north. He explained that the reason the window in front was offset from center was because of the design for the master bedroom closet. He then noted the window was moved to make it look better from the outside which meant the closet had to be redesigned to a smaller size. Commissioner Kaden asked whether the addition extended over the garage Mr. Harsch indicated the addition is cantilevered one and a half (1 ½) feet in the front and four (4) feet out the back. Commissioner Hegland asked what the current square footage of the home was. Mr. Harsch indicated the current square footage was 2400 square feet. Commissioner Zwirn asked Mr. Harsch’s builder if it would be possible to use some of the new structural materials available to support the addition and keep it in line with the ten (10) foot setback. The builder indicated that a large girder truss is necessary to support the addition which would make a portion of the garage unusable. Chairperson Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Cerny/Zwirn. To Approve Resolution 654-01, a Resolution Approving a Variance to Allow for an Eight Foot Setback for a Living Space Addition at 5148 Rainbow Lane. Commissioner Miller noted there was no language in the Resolution requiring the applicant to apply for a building permit and conform to the uniform building code and asked that the language be added. Director Ericson added the requested language to the Resolution. Ayes – 8 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case No. VR01-004 Community Development Director Ericson noted this is a variance request from Clifford Bratz to reconstruct a three-season porch addition. He noted the porch was destroyed last winter due to snow accumulation that crushed it. He then noted that when Mr. Bratz applied for a building permit it was determined that he did not meet the front setback requirement. Commissioner Miller questioned whether a corner property had two front yards per City code. Mounds View Planning Commission May 2, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson indicated that any property side that abuts a street is considered a front yard. Director Ericson indicated all the criteria were the same for this request and all needed to be met. He noted Staff feels there is a hardship because if the porch had not been damaged beyond 50% Mr. Bratz would have been allowed to rebuild it. He then indicated Staff had drafted Resolution 655-01 approving the twenty-six (26) foot front yard setback to rebuild the porch addition. Chairperson Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Chairperson Stevenson indicated that the sight lines are not an issue with this property so he feels the variance is warranted. Commissioner Miller noted that due to the elevation of the property the porch does not seem to pose a problem. Chairperson Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Kaden. To Approve Resolution 655-01, a Resolution Approving a Variance to Allow for a Twenty-Six Foot Front Yard Setback for a Three Season Porch Addition at 5287 Jackson Drive. Commissioner Kaden noted he had stopped at the property to look at the location for the proposed porch and had spoken to the property owner who indicated she had considered moving the porch back to meet the setback but learned that the electrical service and air conditioning would need to be moved which would be quite involved. Ayes – 8 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Planning Case No. VR01-002 Community Development Director Ericson noted this matter was a variance request from the last meeting for a reduced side yard setback to construct a home addition. He noted the applicant had spoken at the last meeting and there was significant discussion on the merits of the case. He then noted a letter was received from the property owner to the north in support of the home owner's efforts to improve their property. Director Ericson indicated that the exceptional circumstances involve the location of the house on the lot, and the internal layout of rooms that prohibits adding on in any other place. Director Ericson indicated he felt this request is the minimum variance to alleviate the hardship and would not impose any adverse effects upon parks or schools in terms of what was talked about at the last meeting. Mounds View Planning Commission May 2, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Hegland. To Approve Resolution 653-01, a Resolution Approving a Variance to Allow for a Seven Foot Setback for a Living Space Addition at 5455 Adams Street. Ayes – 8 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Planning Case MI01-001 & VA01-001 Community Development Director Ericson noted this case is a minor subdivision of two properties. The first property is on Pleasant View Drive and the second one is on Spring Lake Road. He then noted the applicant had also filed for a request to vacate the excess right of way. Director Ericson indicated there had been significant discussion on the matter and Staff feels that this is a good subdivision and would be a good addition to the area. Commissioner Johnson asked who paid the assessment for city sewer and water. Director Ericson indicated he was not sure but would look into the matter. Commissioner Kaden questioned whether any of the right of way should be retained by the City for future road reconstruction purposes. Director Ericson indicated there is additional right of way on either side of the pavement on all City streets to allow for future road construction. Chairperson Stevenson asked if the new lot number would be needed in order to proceed. Director Ericson indicated the engineering department would assign the address at the time the permit is issued. Director Ericson indicated that the Certificate of Survey is not the final document as a Registered Land Survey has been requested by Ramsey County. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To Approve Resolution 652-01, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision of 8360 Pleasant View Drive and 8360 Spring Lake Road. Ayes – 8 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Director Ericson indicated this matter would be on the City Council work session agenda for May 7, 2001 and would then be on Council’s agenda for May 14, 2001 and May 28, 2001. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission May 2, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ 9. Staff Reports a. Previous Council Action Community Development Director Ericson reported that Council had set a public hearing to review the Sign Code for May 14, 2001. Director Ericson noted the Pinewood case was approved by Council. Director Ericson reported he had received a telephone call letting him know that a lot of trees were cut down to the north of Pinewood Elementary. He noted that eleven (11) trees were cut down. He explained that Ms. Gay from Perkins and Will had misspoken at the last meeting when she indicated that no trees would be lost on the site. He then apologized for the oversight and indicated the eleven trees were shown on the plan as being removed but when Ms. Gay indicated no trees would be lost he had taken her at her word. He further noted he would be sending out a letter to residents to explain the situation. Director Ericson reported the first meeting of the Pinewood Safety Committee is scheduled for this week and Director Ericson stated he would keep the Commission updated as to the progress of the Committee. Chairperson Stevenson questioned whether the City Forester could have moved the trees that were cut down. Director Ericson explained that all of the trees to the south and a few to the west were taken out to be relocated but said the older trees were impossible to move and had to be cut down. Director Ericson reported that Council had approved an abatement at the Mounds View Mobile Home Park on Kingsway. He indicated there had been many nuisance problems with the property and the home was unsafe for habitation. He then noted the property owner would be served with a notice of violation and the notice of abatement. Director Ericson noted that code enforcement would be talked about at the Council work session as Staff is looking for direction on how best to focus its time and efforts. He then noted that Council would also discuss changes to the nuisance code to make it easier to administer to keep the City attractive and safe. b. Board and Commission Appreciation Dinner Director Ericson noted the Board and Commission appreciation dinner is May 3, 2001. ________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission May 2, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports Commissioner Kaden questioned whether speaking to property owners when out reviewing the properties of the cases before the Planning Commission was a violation of the rules of the Commission. Director Ericson stated he did not feel there would be a conflict of interest and recommended that Commissioner Kaden state for the record during the discussion phase of the case that he had spoken to the property owner while reviewing the property. Director Ericson reported he had extended an offer to a planner for the planning associate position and stated that Council is expected to call to order at the work session and approve the hiring of Jim Atkinson. He then noted that, if approved, Mr. Atkinson would start on June 4, 2001. Director Ericson then gave a brief overview of several items he is currently working on that will be before the Commission. _______________________________________________________________________ 11. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:00 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.