Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-20-2000 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting December 20, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p.m., December 20, 2000. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Hegland, Johnson, Miller, Stevenson, and Cerny. Members Excused: Kaden and Berke. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. VR00-008 2 Property Involved: 7764 Greenwood Drive Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance Request to Allow a Garage Addition with A Zero-foot Side-yard Setback Applicant: John Wilson Consideration of Resolution 643-00, a Resolution Recommending 6 City Council Approval of Revised Ordinance 672 Regarding Home Occupations Consideration of Resolution 644-00, a Resolution Setting the Meeting 7 Dates for the Planning Commission in 2001 Staff Reports / Items of Information 7 Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports 8 Mounds View Planning Commission December 20, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 3. Citizen’s Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 4. Approval of Minutes A. November 15, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To approve the November 15, 2000 Meeting Minutes as presented. Ayes – 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 5. Planning Case No. VR00-008 Property Involved: 7764 Greenwood Drive Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance Request to Allow a Garage Addition with a Zero-foot Side-yard Setback. Applicant: John Wilson Community Development Director Ericson explained Mr. Wilson has requested a variance to permit a garage addition (lean-to) built onto the side of his garage up to the north side property line. The structure has already been constructed without a permit. Staff became aware of this issue in May after neighbors called to complain about the lean-to. The Building Inspector visited the property and sent a letter to Mr. Wilson on June 8, 2000 indicating that a building permit had not been obtained and that the construction was in violation of Code requirements. Community Development Director Ericson further explained Mr. Wilson contacted Staff after receiving the letter and was told that he would either need to remove the garage addition or apply for a variance. Staff did not hear back from Mr. Wilson and left additional voice mail messages for him. Staff heard from Mr. Wilson on September 5, 2000. Community Development Director Ericson sent Mr. Wilson a letter that day indicating a variance would be necessary in order to be allowed to keep the structure. Two months later Staff had not yet received an application and sent a letter to Mr. Wilson indicating that unless the variance application was received by December 1, 2000 a Ramsey County Court Citation would be issued in his name. Staff received the application on November 20, 2000. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that in order for the Planning Commission to grant a variance the applicant must meet seven criteria, which he listed as follows: Mounds View Planning Commission December 20, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 The first criteria is that exceptional or extraordinary circumstances would apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. Staff determined there were no extraordinary circumstances which apply to this property. The second criteria is that the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. Staff does not believe the literal interpretation of the Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district. The third criteria is that the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Staff believes the applicant is clearly responsible for the conditions which have prompted him to apply for a variance. Had the applicant applied for a building permit prior to doing the work, he would have been told the addition would be in violation of the Zoning Code. The fourth criteria is that granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Staff believes that granting this variance would confer upon the applicant a special privilege due to the fact that other property owners would not have been allowed to build within the five-foot setback. The fifth criteria is that the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. Staff indicated because the structure is already in place, the variance requested is the minimum that would be necessary to maintain the structure. The sixth criteria is that the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Staff, having considered the circumstances, feels strongly that granting the variance request would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title. In addition, granting the variance would set a dangerous precedent, sending a message to residents that it is acceptable to disregard the building code and zoning code requirements by seeking approval through the variance process. The last criteria identified is that the proposed variance would 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 values within the neighborhood. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that while staff does not believe the structure impairs an adequate supply of light or air to the adjoining property, if left in place, stormwater runoff could become a problem to the adjoining property. It could also be argued, he stated, that the adjoining property’s value could be impacted by the structure located up to the property line. Mounds View Planning Commission December 20, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 Community Development Director Ericson indicated after reviewing the seven criteria and the details of this variance request that Staff has determined the criteria have not been satisfied and recommended the Planning Commission deny the variance request. Chairperson Peterson opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Mr. Wilson, 7764 Greenwood Drive, the applicant, addressed the Commission and apologized for not obtaining the proper permit before commencing building of the structure. He then indicated he does have a need for storage and would like to keep the structure if at all possible. Commissioner Miller inquired as to whether the lean-to had sides. Mr. Wilson indicated it had a roof and support pillars. Jim Buckley, 7770 Greenwood Drive, addressed the Commission and indicated he is Mr. Wilson’s next door neighbor whose property line the structure is up to. He indicated he and Mr. Wilson spoke concerning the structure and that he has no problem allowing the structure to remain. He indicated he does not believe it detracts from his property in any way. He also addressed the comment of stormwater runoff from the structure falling onto his property indicating the elevation of his property was higher than that of Mr. Wilson’s so there would not be an issue with runoff. Mr. Buckley then told the Commission he was not pleased that an unidentified woman claiming to work for the City pulled into his driveway to look at the structure. This woman told his wife the City had received an anonymous complaint concerning the structure and she was there to look into it. Mr. Buckley said he was sure that this was how the whole process got started. He then indicated he did not appreciate the anonymous complaint stating “a person should be able to face their accuser.” Commissioner Johnson inquired as to how close to the property line structures on Mr. Buckley’s property were. Community Development Director Ericson deferred to Mr. Buckley who indicated his garage sat back a bit on the property and was approximately 25 feet off the property line. Mr. Wilson noted he believed the lean-to to be one foot off the property line not right up to the property line. Chairperson Peterson explained the Planning Commission is bound by state statute to strictly apply the criteria listed for granting a variance. Unless an extraordinary reason can be shown to allow for the variance the Planning Commission is not allowed by state law to grant the variance. While the opinion of the next door neighbor does play a role, it is a minor role as state law governs the process. Mounds View Planning Commission December 20, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 Commissioner Hegland noted the reason behind requiring permits is to eliminate these types of issues. Commissioner Stevenson indicated he looked at the variance request as if it had been requested prior to having the structure in place. He does not believe the request meets the criteria and finds no way the Planning Commission can grant the variance. Commissioner Johnson stated he does not remember a time during his term on the Planning Commission when a zero setback variance has been granted. Commissioner Miller stated if the applicant had come in for a permit he would have been told such a structure would not be allowed by code unless the applicant applied for a variance. At that time, the criteria would have been looked at and as there is no hardship a permit would not have been granted. Mr. Wilson inquired as to whom he could speak to in an attempt to bring the structure into compliance with City Code. Chairperson Peterson indicated there is an appeal process that would allow him to appeal to Council for approval of the variance. Mr. Wilson indicated he had considered building a shed but decided a lean-to was more practical. Commissioner Stevenson inquired as to how close to the property line the wall of the garage was. Mr. Wilson indicated the garage wall was approximately 10 to 12 feet from the property line. Chairperson Peterson echoed the sentiment of the other Commissioners indicating if the Planning Commission cannot find a practical way to meet the requirements then a variance cannot be granted. Commissioner Miller noted a typographical error in the Resolution and requested it be corrected. Commissioner Stevenson recommended that Mr. Wilson should bring pictures of the structure to the Council meeting if he intends to appeal to Council for granting the variance. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Miller. To Approve Resolution 645-00, a Resolution Denying the Variance Request of John Wilson to Allow a Garage Addition up to the Property Line and Requiring that the Addition be Removed within Thirty (30) Days. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion Carried. Mounds View Planning Commission December 20, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 Chairperson Peterson told Mr. Wilson he would be able to appeal the variance request to Council if he wished. Community Development Director Ericson asked Mr. Wilson to notify him as to whether he wished to appear before Council on January 8, 2001 so that it could be added to the agenda. 6. Consideration of Resolution 643-00, a Resolution Recommending City Council Adoption of Revised Ordinance 672 Regarding Home Occupations Community Development Director Ericson addressed the Planning Commission and indicated this ordinance had been discussed at previous meetings and a recommendation sent on to Council for approval. Council sent the Ordinance back to the Planning Commission for discussion as to whether the City should allow non-resident employees at home-based businesses. After considerable public input and discussion amongst the Commission members it was determined that the City should not allow non-resident employees at home-based businesses. Therefore, the only significant, non-housekeeping change to Ordinance 672 is the change to disallow on-street parking for home-based businesses. Off-street parking will be unlimited provided vehicles are parked in accordance with applicable codes. On-street parking would not be allowed. Commissioner Miller inquired as to whether the parking change to the ordinance would negatively impact apartment dwellers or residents of the City’s mobile home parks. Community Development Director Ericson indicated he did not believe the change concerning parking would negatively impact apartment dwellers or residents of the City’s mobile home parks as the lease with a resident’s landlord would govern allowed parking and the streets in the mobile home parks are private and would fall under the requirements for off-street parking. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Stevenson. To Approve Resolution 643-00, a Resolution Recommending City Council Adoption of Revised Ordinance 672 Regarding Home Occupations. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 7. Consideration of Resolution 644-00, a Resolution Setting the Meeting Dates for the Planning Commission in 2001. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that at the end of each year Staff presents to the Planning Commission a Resolution setting the meeting dates for the coming year. The meeting dates will be the first and third Wednesdays of the month with the exception of July as the 4th of July is the first Wednesday. Community Development Director Ericson inquired as to Mounds View Planning Commission December 20, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 whether the Commission wanted to set another meeting date for July or wait to see if workload would permit having just the one meeting in July. Consent was reached by the Planning Commission to wait to see if workload permitted having just one meeting in July. Commissioner Stevenson noted November 21, 2001 was the day before Thanksgiving and expressed concern for having a meeting on that day. Consent was reached by the Planning Commission not to meet on November 21, 2001. There will be only one meeting in November unless workload requires a second meeting be scheduled. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Cerny. To Approve Resolution 644-00, a Resolution Setting the Meeting Dates for the Planning Commission in 2001. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 8. Staff Reports/Items of Information A. Mezzenga Application Staff has received an application from Mr. Mezzenga concerning the Greenfield property. Staff has the application and the Planning Commission is welcome to review it during the agenda session. B. Network Liquors, 2345 County Road H2 Community Development Director Ericson told the Commission the City learned the Network Liquors property was in foreclosure. The bank holding the Sheriff’s Certificate is interested in selling the Certificate to the City and the EDA has authorized Staff to purchase the Sheriff’s Certificate from the bank. The property owner is provided a redemption period to repay the amounts due including interest. In the event the property owner is able to pay the amounts due including interest prior to the expiration of the redemption period, the City will not lose money as it will earn interest. In the event the property owner is not able to pay the amounts due including interest the City would receive title to the property. 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports Chairperson Peterson reported his term on the Planning Commission expires at the end of the year and he will not be reapplying to serve on the Commission. He stated he has enjoyed serving the City for the past ten years but has decided to devote more time to his family. Mounds View Planning Commission December 20, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 Community Development Director Ericson thanked Chairperson Peterson for his contributions to the City over the last ten years saying the City would miss him. 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 7:54 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.