Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-07-12 PC MinutesPROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ,~~ CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW r i RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA A regular meeting of the Mounds 4tew Planning Comnission was called to ordeP by Acting Chairman Fedor at 7:34 PM on July 12, 1978 at the Mounds View City Nal7, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, Minnesota 55112, Members Present: Acting Chairman Fedor Commission Member 4lanchard Ccmmission Member Burmeister Comnission Member Foss Commission Member Glazer Comnission Member Quan A1so Present; Counciimember Baumgartner Bullding and Zoning Official Rose Acting Chairman Fedor stated the ninutes of the June 28, 1978 meeting were approved as read. MINOR SUBOIVISION REQUEST Of JOHN KOI.LOUGE - 2816 SHERNDOD RCRD .~Official Rose reported that the appllcant I~as requested to divide his property lnto ~ two parcels A and B where "A" is, the east half of the west 150 feet of the east '~-~300 feet of Lot 64, Audttors Subdivision No. 89, subfect to easements of record, if any, and where "B" is, the west half of the west 150 feet of the eas+ 300 feet of Lot 64, ~uditors Subdivision no. 89, sub,~ect to easements of record, if any. Official Rose reported tnat the existing and proposed zoning is designated as R-1, single family, and the applicant intends the tat to be used for single family. 7he house and garage on proposed Parcel D meet setback requiremements, but the garage on Parcel A does not meet setback requirements, being appraximately 4' froni the property line. For approvai of the 1ot with a 75' frontage, the garage on Parcel "A" must ue removed unless a pennit for a singl~ family house is requested without a garage and the garage is relocated 5' from the property line. 8oth parcels meet area requirements, and water and sewe~~ are available to both parcels. Gommission Member Quan asked if there was any access to the garage. Gfficial Rose replied that the building is actua7ly an oversized accessory building which is classified as a garage because of its size. He added that it has a slab fowldation, and is an existing non-conforming use. Mr. Kallodge Sr. stated that he would move the garage if he had to. Official Rose asked how soon construction wos planned to begln. Mr. Kollodge Jr. stated that he would be building on the lot and that he woutd have to apply for a loan first, before he would know when canstruction would start. He added that he would like to use the garage in the interi+~m, for stora3e and such, and that he did not plan on building a garage with his new home to ~tai^t with. ! ~cting Chairman Fedor asked if the subdivision could b~ approved with the garage teft ~" on the ~ot as it was ,~ust to be an interiwn use. Official Rose rep7led that it was the perrogative of the Planning Cortmission and City Council to approve it but pointed uut that the ardinance change was written to a17ow the narrower lots but that all setback requirements w~re to be m~t. July 12, 1978 ~. i' Page 2 ~1l11~Commission Member Foss potntzd out that the 1ot meets a11 requirements and the huildlny - ~vould be temporary, Comnission Plember Burmeister replied that they could not be sure how temporary it was going to be, as it could be two weeks or several months. She added that the ordinance was changed to a11ow the smal7er lot size, and they should not be over lenient. Comnission Member Foss stated he would 11ke to see the appiicant 6e aEte to use the bulYding for storage without relocating it. Comnission Me.nb~r Burmeister replied that she could not see the hardship invoTved. Acting Chairman fedor askeA if the applicant planned to take down the shed once he was issued a huilding perniit for a garage, and if so, how long that would be. Mr. Koitodge Jr. repiied that it wouid not be longer than one year. Acting C4airnian Fedor stated he felt it would be a waste of money to have to move the building one fioo1:. CommlSSion Member Foss asked if a time period could be set 4or the removai of the garage. Comnission Member Glazer pointed out that a variance would be required to a71ow the interium use. Acting Chaiimar Fedor asked iP a time iimit couid 6e enforced for the garage, OfPicial Rose replied that Staff feels it wauld real1y weaken the ordinance change which had ~ust 6een passed. Commission Mc-m6er Quan asked what had been done in tha past. Officta7 Rose replied that they usually require the applicant to remove the butldina in its entirety. j~Commission Member Burmeister stated she did not feel the decision shou7d be based on money. She added that concern had been expressed when the ordinance change was writtan that the setback requirements be mec, and they should follow the ordinance. MSP (Glazer-Foss) to recomriend to,the Council that they approve the minor subdivlsinn request of John Kollodge at 2416 Sherwood Drive for a minor su6division uf one 1ot inCo two, the west 15G feet of the east 300 feet of I.ot 64, Auditors Su6division N~. 89, Ramsey County, idinnesota, and that Mr. Kotlodgc be granted a variance on the side yard setback for the garage thet is Tocated on Parcei A, a variance of 1', With the stipulation that the structure 6e removed folluwing one year after the bullding permtt is issued, 5 ayes 1 n~y Comnission Member Burmeister stated she had voted against the motion as the ordinance ? was changed to a11ow 150' 1~t subdlvisions, provided everything on the tots met all ~, requirements, inciuding set bac~:s. She added she did not feel the Planning Commissinn should give 1n, even if it was ,~ust Yor 1'. i MINOR SUBDIVISION REpUEST QF ELLEN FIEGE - 8250 KNOLL(~000 DRIVe ;i ,~ Cortmission Member Foss excused himself due to a confiict of interest on the subdiv9sion request. ~ Official RosE reported that the appL'c~~nt has requested to divide part of Lot 34 and 35, Au~ttors Subdiv!sion No, 89, into parcels A and 8, where parcel A is tBe north 90 feet ~of the south i27 Peet oP lot 35 except the west 218 Peet thereof, puditors Subdivision No. 89, Ramsey County, Minnesota, sub,~ect te Knollwood Drive and easements of record, if any, and parcel D is the south 127 feet of L~L 35 except the north 90 feet, except the west 218 feet thereof and also the north 103 feet o4 Lot 34, except the west 218 feet th?reof, Auditors Subdivision No. 89, Ramsey Caunty, ~dinnesota, subJect to Ardan q-,y July 12, 1978 Page 3 p~Avenue and Knollwood Drive and easements of record, if any. l 7 Officlal Rose rep~rted that onty 90 feet are given for the corner lot, while 100 feet are required, but both lots meet area requtrements and havn water and sewer available. The xoning plan denotes R-1 designation. Offtcial Rose recormended that the appllcaat change the plan and develop the interiar 1ot to an 80 foot width, which would a11ow 100 feet for the corner lot, and thus require no variances. Dick Marrow introduced himself as the attorney for Mrs. Fiege and asked for a few minutes to call his client and see if stie would agree to moving the lot lines. MSP (Giazer-Blanchard} to tabte the item to allow time for a phone call ta the appticant. 5 ayes ' YARIANCE REQUES7 - HARSTAO-TUDD CONSTRUCTION - 8385 GROVELAND COUR7 Official Rose reported that the applicant has placed footings for a house to be located 25' from the rear lot 'line, and has requestad a 5' variance, as the reyuire~ setback is 30'. Official Rose stated that the zoning is R-1 si~.gle family, and the setback requirement fqr both front and rear yards 1s a minimum 30' in R-1 districts. The home located to the east of the lot, with the same rear lot 11ne, is tocated 34' off the lot 11ne, and the house requesting the variance is located 35' from the front pro- purty tine and 25' from the rear. The total setback beCween the two hanes would be 59', with 60' requir~d, Official Ro,e added that the lot is only 90' deep. f~~Officiai Rose explained thati the code violat9on was fuund at thc time of the footing ti+-~'nsppctionoand was a result of the applicant mislrterpreting the ordinance, tM nkinq that a 35' front setback was required. He added that a hardship for aaproval must be stated. Officie] Rose a]so explained that most of the lots-in the deve7opment are very deap, and all ~he other houses are sa~ back 36'. Mr. Todd stated that 1t was a misinterpretation on their part of how iarge a setback was required. Commiss9on Member Foss re~ained the meeting at thi5 time. Comnission Member Quan asked if the 7ot meets the square fuotage requlrement. Ufficial Rose replied that it does. Camnission Member Glaxer pointed out that if the house was required to be moved forward, 't would not be in conformity with the front yard setback of the other hanes in the area. MSP (Glazer-BTanchard) ta grant the varlance request of Harstad-Todd Construction, at 8385 Groveland Court, to al7ow a variance of 5' on hhe setback of the rear property iine. This variance 1s granted because there does nat seem to be any practical alter- natives, since if the structure were moved to allow the 3tl' setback, the house would be auC of 71ne with the front yard setbacks of the rest of the hanes ia ths development. 6 ayes ' "~ ~omnission Member Quan stated he had noticed an erosian problem, sucb as turned up ~~~;iirt, which he would like to see addr~essed. Commission Member Burmeister ssked what type of erosinn it was and where. Commisaion Mem4er quan ctarifled that it was potential erosipn, since the turned up dirt could wash in the street during a rain. i ~uly 12, 1978 Page 4 /~ Officiai Rose expiaired that a certain amount would be washed away with a~iy construction, i l,anQ Chat Ehe contractor has had a greder out twice and is maintaining the area, and is required to clean up the area upon completicn of the home. MINOR SUBDIVISION REQUEST OF ELLEN fIEGE - 8250 KNOLLWOOD ORIVE Commission Member Foss excused himself aga~n, MSP (Burmeister-elanchard) to take the issue from the tabte. 6 ayes Mr. Marrow stated that he would iike to amend thelr application to have the corner lot be 100' and the interior 1ot 80', MSP (Burmeister-quan) to recomnend approva7 to the Council of tlie minor su6divisian request of E11en Fiega., 8250 Knollwuod Drive, with the corner lot, Parcel B, to be 100' x 210', and Parcet A be 80' x 210'. The subdiW sioi~ is subJer,t to uti'iity easements. 5 ayes Comnission (4ember Giazer asked if the applicant would have to submit revised draw- ings. Official Rose replied t•hat new drawings woutd have to be submitted and would go to the Council for their approvai. Comnission Member Poss re~oined the meeting. ~ Official Rose reported that the applicant has an existing driveway located 1' uff of his east property line, and has requested approva7 to extend that drlvewa~y to his rear yard whara he is building an unattached gerage. The addttional driveway would be betwaen 1' and 5' from the property line, becaming greater as it extends riortH to the gara9e. Official Rose explained that the hane was originally placed on the lot such that an attached garage could not be butit and meet setback requirements, since it is 13' off the east property line and 10.' off the west tine. The existing driveway is 1' from the east property iine, and is epprnximate7y one year old, The coAe requires a minimum 5' setback. Official Rose stated that the driveway should be a minimum of 10' wide and shouid not be against the home due to the incStne grade, and that a hardship must be steted if the Planning Ccmnission reco~nends approval. He also pointed out thet code requires p1acement~ of homes to provide for future placement of a garage. Commission Member Burmeister asked if ~r. McCann had come in to request a variance when he originally put the driveway in. Mr. McCann repiied that he had not, as he had spoken to Lhe building inapector at thet time, WaT7y Skiba, who tald him that he did not need a varia.nce as long as he got written permission fran hi5 neighbnr. tdr. McCann stated that he got the permission from his neighbor and put the driveway in, but luter ended up in court w7th his neighbor, who didn't like the driveway. He stated that Mr. Skiba fiad toTd him to theri take *he dr~veway out, but that he had ratalned a lawyer ~~~d won the case in court. Official RosE added that Mr. McCann should h~ve come befure t the Planning Caronission before he put his driveway in, but hadn'ti since the buildiny ~~•~lnspector had told him it wasn't necessary, Officie7 Rose stated tl~at he is naw requiring Mr. McCann to cwne trafore the Planning Comnission for a variance for the extension of that driveway, and that the Planning Camnission wiil be considering ~ust the ext,ension of the drtveway and not tf~e original driveway. auiy iz, i9~e Page 5 Comnission Mem~er Burmeistor asksd t9 the driveway woutd be moved in at aii, away from ~the property line. ~4ficial Rose replled that it couidn't, due to the incllne of the lot and piacement oP the tiome and gerage. Acting Chairman Fedar asked if wr9tten parmission would again be required from the neighbor. Official kose repllod that it wouldn't. He atso explained that the neighbor next dooc~ had moved, and that the Planning Commission and City Councii would be review- ing the variance request. Cormiission Member Quan stated he had seen an oid car in the driveway and wanted to know if iC was being used or ~ust siCling there. Mr. McCann replled that ha is not using it presently and is wait ng for permission to extend ths driveway so he cen put it inside the garage. Cammission Member quan asked fiow the water would drain. Official Rose replled that nypli~ant w111 be required to meke certain the runoff stays on h1s own lot, MSP (Burmeister-GTazerj ".o grant che variance request of Dennis McCann, 2215 eronson Drive, for a driveway extension to where an unattached yarage w511 be buiit. The additiona7 driveway wi11 be between 1' and 5'.from the property line, 6ecuming greater as it extends north to Che garage. Because of the exisCiny driveway locatio~, Mr. McCann is compelled to build this driveway with Yhis type of Tayout. 6 ayes NEXT AGENDA AND PNEVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION "+~./ Offlcial Rose reported that the Councll had approved Pro,~ect 1978-4, which is the construction of a cul-de-sac and Mustang Lane, and that Pro,{ects 1978-5 and 1910-5A ware denled. lie added that the Mounds View Square had also been denied, due to pro~ects 1978-6 and 5A being denied. Officiai Rasa reported that the CounciT had approved the deve7opment agreement for the si:e cf Mour.d~ Vi?w tndustriai park N2, and the Ken S,~odir, subdivision, Norse and Ri~Ser addition, and a resolution reducing the speed iimii, m} ':_.r~y Road fi~ fro~ ?O mph to 30 mph. Officiai Rose reported thaC the Counci] had ~pproved in concept :wo industrial develop- ment proposals request tax exempt mortgages, and that Attnrney Meyers witl be we~~iewing their financiAl backgrounds, Official Rose reported that the request of B& R Liquor to stay open to 10 PM on Prfday nights, beginning August 1, 1978 had been approved hy the Gouncll, as weli as the ordinance regarding industria7 strengths. Officlal ku~e reported that Seven-ESeven would be at the next Planning Comniss;on meeting. He added that he would be out of town for that meeting but would have either the City Administrator or an associate from Midwest Pianning attend the meeting. MSP (BU~meister-Foss) to adfourn the meeting at 8:45 AM. 1 j Respectfully submitted, ~.~ Pamela Case Recording Secreta~~y 6 ayes