The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1980-05-07 PC Minutes~ ' pROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA ~ Regular Meetinq May 7, 1980 Mounds View City Ha11 2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds W ew, MN 56112 --~°--^--°°-°-°----°°-°°-------°---°--°-°-------~--------°--°-°--°- Tha MoUnds View Planning Commission was ca11e~ 1. CALL TO ORDER to order at 7:30 p.m. on May 7, 1980, by Chelrperson Mountin. Members Present; Chairperson Mountin; Comnission 2. ROLL CALL emFf-C-iers- c arthy, Skiba, Burmeister, Haake, Fedor Also Present: Duilding and 2oning Official Rose Members Absent: Glazer, Goebel, Warren ?he Planning Commission accepted the April 2, 1940 minutes as submitted. CORRECTIONS: Haake asked that the following sentence be included in Che second paragraph of the k4 agenda item-Review of Draft Park Comprehen- (^, sive Plan Study: "Haake made note that the =,,,~/ seraration of bike and walkirtg trails or Che elimination of bicycles for safecy.reusons in each af the park.sites be addressed." Chatl^~rerson Mountin asked that the spelling af her name in N1 agenda item-Call to Order ' be carrected. The Planning Comnission accepted ihe April 16, 1980 roinutes as amended. Official Rose presented Mr. Johnson°s r~equest to the ~lanning Comnission. Mr. Johnson is proposing to convert his exlsting garage to a family room and build a new garage fronting the oid. The setback to the property line would be 40' but it would extend in'front of hoth ad~acent iot structures. Official Rose indicated that Code Section 40,05 Subd. C, requires a minimum front yard setback of 3D'. Mr. Johnson's proposal would extend this ou+ an additional 24'. Hardship must atso be stated to meet the 1^equirements of A0.24 Subd. D. 3. APPROVA~. OF APftIL 2, 1980 MINUTES 4, APPROVAL OF APRIL 16, 1980 MINIiiES 5. VARIANCE (FRONT YARD SETBACK)I FROM THOMAS J. JOHNSON, 8025 REp-0AK DRYVE CASE: 52-80 l otaff is recommending to the Commission that they ~~e/follaw through with the ariginal inCent of Ordinsnca 293 revislon of this section af ccde. (40.d5 Subd.C). ~ MOUNDS UIEW PLANNINO COMMISSION RF.GULAR MEETIN4 PAGE 2 May 7, 1980 ~-r sDiscussion; (~' eurmeister-Is there any reason you can't bu~l~on'~he.back of the house4 Jahnson-I need the double garage and it 'js n~possible to bu11d on the existing garage site. Haake-There is nn obvious protrusion 1n ~-proposed structura and 1t doeso't seem to be in the spirit of the code requiring a hardship statement for such a request. Johnson-There are two houses to the north u-fi o`u~'-structure that would match the setback we are proposing, " Mc_C~zrthy Hnw is your neighbor's house on 8634 situated to your lot? Johnson-His garage is on'the south end o~'Ti~s house so we are garage to garage. , Chairperson Mountin noted that it was necessary to determine the interpretation ' of Che code and its tntent ~nd that strict ~ interpretatiom.of the code seemed tc limit ' applying the code fairly to ail ~^esidents. After further disaussion, the fol7owing motions wePe fiade: , Naake made a motion to deny the variance for Mr. Thomas J. Johnson's 1^equest, (8025 Red Oak ~rive) for variance of a front yard setback to his house that would crea:e a protrusion in the structure of his current house. The addi:ional 24' wouid make his front yard setback' only 40~ when the ad~acent structures to hishause for setbacks are 62' and 65'. TM s motion re,~ects his request because it is not in the spirit of Code Section 40.05 Subd. C.~. Burmeister seconded the motion. (3) qyes-Haake, McCarthy, Burmeister (3) Nays•~Skiba, Fedor, Mountln Nays: Skiba: Doesn't see any probiems in the 'disE'ahce between the proposed garege and the ad~acent structw~e. It wculd be approxi- -. mateiy 51' from the neighboring structures. ~/ ~ ~ ,, ~ ' ;.2 ~ ;' . '~ ' 'F , , ' . . :r .,_ ,;:i , ~ . ~ t~ ,,,,,, ,, , ,,; ,, ,„ s , ,.,, . . . . ...,. . . ,. . , ,a~:,.: ~ .._.. • MAUNDS V1EW PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3 ----°--^-^.-_°°-----------------F------..-. ANays; (continued) / ) Fedor; Nis interpretation of the Code wauTd a11ow the addition because he feels it woutd be within the range of the buildings 1n the same block. Mountin; Ner interpretatlon of the Code would aTiow'~he setDack of 42' to be w~thin confor- mance of the Code that allows a setback range of 30' to the maxlmum setbcck af ad,~acent struct~~res. The motion failed for• lack of na,~arity. Fedor made a motion tc ta61e this pra~osal untii the next meeting whan more Comnissianers would be present. SkSba seconded it. Ayes-3 Ndy-3 The motion faited for ]ack of ma,~orlty. ~~Maunti~ made a motion that Mr. 7homas J. Johnson's ~~.Jrequest (8025 Red Oak Drive) for variance be forwarded to Council and request an interpretation of their lritent 1n Code Section 40.05 Subd. C. A. +1cCarthy seconded the motion. MOTiON FAIIS. P,M)TION FAILS. REOUTAR MEHTING May 7, 1980 --'--°°--~----° Ayes-G Nays-1 (BUrmeisCer-Wou1d like ali of the Comnissioners to give their inter- MOTION CARRIES: pretation of the Code before referring tMs ta Councii). Discussion: The Cqmmission was unable to reach a~eci~on on Che «ppllcants request because of a split of interpretation. OfficiaT Rose ~resented Mr. Gimpel's request to the Pianning Ccrtmission. Mr. Gimpel is proposing to remodel his existing garage to a fam7ly room and add an unattached gerage in front of the existing structure. Tbe setback of the new garage wouid be 22.7 which requlrNS a variance. Rose reminded the Commission thaC Code S<ctlon 40.05 Suhd. C requires a 30' sptback. The appllcant intends to pTace his ~nattached garage 8' fran tiis existing structure, Attachment af the new structure woutd gain 8'. Variance requlre;nents can be found in Sectfon 40,24. 6. tiARIANCE (FRO fROM DONALD WOOD DRIVE ~,,,,:, , . I,: . . MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Page 4 May 7, 1980 .. ---°----°°.___•--------------°----°--~--------------°--------^ ---------------° ~iscussion: ..,- ~G_i~m ,e~l-His proposed 54' setback on his AzfsFfng structure would be the same amount of setback as his neighbor. His ~h_a~rds~hi statement is that he needs the ~di~na space a new garage woald afford and tE wouid 6e difficult to build the exlsting garage into the house inorder to match the roof lines. ~ Officiai Rose-Indicated it would Ee feasible ~' add to the present house and restructure the roof 11nes. Rose reminded Mr. Gimpel tha1: the Commission had io addrnss ihe minimum <_etbacl; requirements and not che aesthetic quality of the proposed structure. Haake-No comnent. Skiba-Fee1s it would,be acceptab1e. Burmeister-Reminded Comnission and the audience ~iat-~ie cost of the proposa] to the oWner could not tie~a consideration in the seCback requirement even though it was a valid personal concern. 5he also noted that since tM s structurE is on a car~ier, it would be less than is required on a corner structure. McCartfi -Agrees it can be attached to the presen ouse. hbuntln-•Sees no hardship ather than a problem o g a3ing or architectural aesthetics. Feels that a 30' setback should be closely adhered to as possible. Fedor-Recal]ed no time when a variance was setbackd to anyone to bUild closer then a 30' Burmeister made a mation to deny the request from Donald R. G1mpel (7500 Knollwood Orive) for a front yard variance of 7.3 feet by attacMnc~ ibe ~arage to the existing struc- ture. Ne could come within the code and he has not shown a hardship as to why he can not atCach that garage and tcme Nithin the code ~f the 30' setback requirement, Haake second~d it. ~ Ayes-5 Nays-0 pbstain - Skiba (No comnent) The motion was carried. , „ , , . 1 MOTION CARRIES. i t ~ 9 i r, , ;~ ~ MOUNnS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RE~ULAR MEETING ~ Page 5 May 7, 1980 ri:, ------------^-------'-----°--'-°----------------~--^~--"---------•-----------~-°-•- r. Gimpel questioned the procedure of allowing e ,- esident to ~ay the E50,00 n~n-refundable fee when the varlance coutd be denied, Chairperson Mountln explained that applicatioa for and payment of 550~00 did not automatically guarantee approvai of the veriance. A variance requires a statement of herd- ship and, Chatrperson Mountin explained, a state- ment of hardship 1ncTuded: any action that the person in no way caused unta themself, i.e, action caused by e government, act o£ Oad, ar some paPti- cular topographical feature. Chairper•son ilourotin inform~d Mr.Gimpel that nis recourse to this desial for variance was to appeal to the City Council for a hearing, 9urmeistar madP a motion to nccept tha goats and policies dr~aft copy dated May 1, 1900, and refer tM s draft copy to City Councit, City Comntssioners, Fire/Police, Department Heads, league of Women Voters, and three counter copies and request a co~er letter be included indicating a response requested on recortmendations by June 15, 1980. McCarthy seconded tfie ~+iation. ~''~~ Ayes-6 ~' Nays-0 The motion was carried. Chairpel•son Mountin asked'if there were any written comnPnts +.o turn in to the Council regawding these procedure packets.. Naake-No. Skiba-No. Surmeister-No. NcCarthy-No. Fedar-No. ' Mountin stated the Commissioners a~d staff concur on the time lines, ~, Chairperson Mountin indicated the Commissioner B. ZERO LOT IINE CONCEPT Goebel had requested the Comnission to address th9s issue. 8urmeister made a motion to consider the zero lot line concept and requested staff to prepare a modei ordinance on double bunc~alows. Skiba seconded the motion. Ayes-G -.,, Nays-0 1 Ir./~'he motian was carried. M07ION CARRIES. ~. COMPREHEN5IVE PLAN UPDATE-GOALS AND POLICIES URAFT DATED F~Y 1, 1980 . MOTION CARflIES. ,~ ~.:,. ,,:;.. ~ MOUNDS VIEW PLANNIN(i COhTiI5SI0N Regular MeetlnB Mny 7, 1980 Page 6 °-° ..................°.°.°°--- • ----~-°°----°-...----°°°-°- - --°--°°°°- ed ai rb e t sli a s ~ g F~REQNRD~ING~WETLANbAPRESERVATION nform e to d k would they that ~ayor H~~~ton d 9 m District. Watershe Creek ef Rice Councilmember forstund reponted: 10. REVIEW OF PAST COUNCII ACTIONS -7here wi11 be a publlc hearing for ~ Wo1fP and Associates on May 27, 1980 ~ -There will be a public hearing on Baypnrt I Acres on May 12, 1980 , i, -Dynemic Developers issue has been referred back to Cuuncil I ' ~ McGarthy made a motion, seconded by Fedor ' i 11. ADJOURt~MENT ;, I to ad~onrn ehe meetSng. , Ayes-6 ~ ' ~ Nays-0 ~ i The motian was carried. The meeting ad~ourned ?`~ .., at 9:35 PM. , , ~ pectfully submitted, Ref ~ ~ , t ~ ,, ~~ ~ „ . , ; ,~ :, ,. , ' ; . ,~ ; . t ,... - Steven A: Rose ,, BWlding;and Tone Offlcial _ _ _. ,:: _. , , ~, , ;,, Jret , , ; ' ~ „ , ` ' ~~ ~ ~ - ' ; `, , , ;, „ _: ~ ~ . ,; ,, , ~ ,: ; ' ' " ! ~ , , _ ~ < ~ _ ' ,~ -. i. , ~~ I , , , ~ .... . , ,,,_.a..~... .. ,~:~....,~ .,..,.:.,,_....... .. ._:.._..._ ~.M~..,:: , .~.. .,,,.t...:...,..M....,,.. ., .. , ._......w,