Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-06-2017 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA September 6, 2017 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business A. Oath of Office 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2017-001: PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution VR2017-17: Approval of a Variance to allow a 3.5’ side yard setback for a driveway for property located at 5211 Sunnyside Rd 6. Other Planning Activity A. (none) 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 8. Approval of Minutes: August 16, 2017 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 Wednesday, October 4, 2017 10. Meeting Conclusion Item No: ___5A Meeting Date: September 6, 2017 Type of Business: Planning Case VR2017-001 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, City Planner / Supervisor Item Title/Subject: PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 1077-17: Approval of a Variance to allow a 3.5’ side yard setback for a driveway for property located at 5211 Sunnyside Rd Introduction The applicant, Tracy Henry, is requesting a Variance to reduce the side yard setback from 5’ to 3.5’, to install a driveway beside a garage. This driveway will be used to store an RV trailer. Discussion The property includes a house with an attached two-car garage. The garage (excluding roof eve) is approximately 15’ from the side yard property line. The applicant’s intent is to have a driveway wide enough to park the RV without hitting the roof eves, thus, the driveway would be 10’ wide, beyond the roof eve. The minimum side yard setback for a driveway is 5’.1 The maximum width of a driveway is 35’ or the width of the garage plus 12’, whichever is greater.2 The proposed driveway will be 28’ wide. Since 2008, there have been eleven similar variance requests to reduce the side yard setback for a residential driveway, all of which were approved. Analysis The property is zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential, and is guided Single-Family Detached Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. The criteria for granting a Variance is listed below, and addressed in the attached Resolution: 1 City Code, Section 1104.01, Subd 4(b)(1) (Driveways) 2 City Code, Section 1121.09, Subd 1(b) Planning Case VR2017-001 September 6, 2017 Page 2 City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 2 (Criteria for Granting Variances) a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. b. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not const itute practical difficulties. g. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize t he effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to bet ter carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. To summarize the Findings in the attached Resolution, the request to decrease the side yard setback from 5’ to 3.5’, to allow a parking area for an RV, is reasonable in Staff’s opinion. The storage of an RV on an improved surface (e.g. concrete, asphalt, pavers, or gravel) is a permitted use (criteria a). An alternative to the variance is: (1) for the RV to be parked on the driveway within the front yard (currently), or (2) to be parked in the rear yard. Parking the RV in the rear yard would be difficult because of topography (criteria d). Summary The applicant is requesting a Variance to reduce the side yard setback from 5’ to 3.5’ to allow a driveway to be located beside a garage, to be used to park an RV trailer. A Public Hearing notice was published in the August 25, 2017 Mounds View-New Brighton Sun Focus, and mailed to property owners within 350’ of the subject property (49 properties). Staff’s Recommendation It is Staff’s opinion that the requested variance is reasonable, and recommends approval of Resolution 1077-17, approving a Variance to reduce the side yard setback from 5’ to 3.5’ for a driveway. Planning Case VR2017-001 September 6, 2017 Page 3 Recommendation The Planning Commission is requested to consider the following options, including conducting a Public Hearing for the Variance request: 1. Resolution 1077-17, recommending approval the Variance is attached, if the Commission chooses this action. A 2/3’s majority vote (5 of 7) is required to approve a Variance.3 2. The Planning Commission may choose to deny the Variance. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of the 60-day requirements (Deadline: Oct 13, 2017) the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Jon Sevald, AICP City Planner / Supervisor Attachments 1. Applicant’s Narrative 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Map 4. Site Photos 5. Resolution 1077-17 3 City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 1(b) (Organization and Meetings) Planning Case VR2017-001 September 6, 2017 Page 4 Applicant’s Narrative Planning Case VR2017-001 September 6, 2017 Page 5 Applicant’s Narrative Planning Case VR2017-001 September 6, 2017 Page 6 Zoning Map Planning Case VR2017-001 September 6, 2017 Page 7 Aerial Photo Planning Case VR2017-001 September 6, 2017 Page 8 Site Photos Figure 1: 5211 Sunnyside Rd (driveway addition to be left of garage) Figure 2: Driveway to be 3.5' from side property line. Tape Measure is set at 3.5' from neighbor's fence. RESOLUTION 1077-17 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM FIVE FEET TO THREE FEET – SIX INCHES, FOR A DRIVEWAY TO BE LOCATED ON PROPERTY AT 5211 SUNNYSIDE ROAD; PLANNING CASE VR2017-001 WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1104.01, Subd 4(b)(1), requires that driveways have a minimum side yard setback of 5’ within the R-1 Single-Family Residential district; and, WHEREAS, the applicant, Tracy Henry, has applied for a Variance to reduce this setback to 3.5’, for a driveway on property at 5211 Sunnyside Rd, legally described as: PID: 07-30-23-42-0045 Lot 31, Block 1 of Red Oak Estates WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 402.01 establishes a Board of Adjustments and Appeals, consisting of all appointed members of the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 2 establishes criteria for granting of a variance, stating a “variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exists:” (Findings in italics) a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. Findings: The requested variance is in harmony with the City of Mounds View Municipal Code. b. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Findings: The requested variance is not addressed within the Comprehensive Plan. Resolution 1077-17 Page 2 c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. Findings: The requested variance is a reasonable use of the property. The intent of the variance is to allow an RV to be parked beside the garage. The garage (excluding roof eves) is set back 15’ from the side property line. The variance, reducing the setback from 5’ to 3.5’ will allow storage of the RV with a proper height clearance to avoid hitting the roof eves. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Findings: Unique circumstances include terraced topography within the backyard, providing difficulty if a parking pad were placed there for an RV. If placed in the backyard, the RV would still need to be accessed through the south side yard (e.g. side yard driveway), presenting the same problem of encroaching into the 5’ setback to avoid hitting the garage roof eves. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Findings: The requested variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The adjacent home at 5205 Sunnyside Rd, includes a parking area within the north side yard, adjacent to the subject property. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Findings: The requested variance is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty. The proposed driveway will be 10’ wide. g. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Findings: Not Applicable. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on September 6, 2017, noticing all property owners within 350’ of the subject property, and publishing notice in the Mounds View – New Brighton Sun Focus on August 25, 2017; and, Resolution 1077-17 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, based upon the above findings the information and documents regarding the requested variance, the Staff Report, and testimony of the applicant, and in consideration of public testimony, the Planning Commission does hereby approve a variance, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a Zoning Permit to construct the driveway within one-year of the date of approval of this variance, or this variance shall become void, in compliance with Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 5 (Lapse of Variance or Appeal). Adopted this 6th day of September, 2017 _________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: _________________________ Jon Sevald, City Planner/Supervisor (SEAL) - DRAFT - PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting August 16, 2017 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Mounds View Blvd, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for August 16, 2017. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners French, Klander, Klebsch, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Planner Jon Sevald, City Administrator Jim Ericson, Mayor Carol Mueller, Council Member Gary Meehlhause and Council Member Bill Bergeron. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page MU2017-001 MWF Properties Development Review 1 Approval of Minutes 7 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Special Order of Business None. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases Mounds View Planning Commission August 16, 2017 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ A. MU2017-001: MWF Properties, LLC: Resolution 1076-17, Recommending approval of a Development Review of “Boulevard”, a 60-unit apartment building, generally located at the NW corner of Mounds View Boulevard and Groveland Road Planner Sevald stated MWF Properties, requests approval of a Development Review for a 60- unit apartment building to be located at the northwest corner of Mounds View Boulevard and Groveland Road. A Development Review is required for construction activity in which a principal building is increased in size by more than 10%, or more than 10,000 square feet (excludes single-family and two-family dwellings). In this case, the proposed 60-unit apartment building will be 25,000 square feet in size. The property is zoned R-4 High Density Residential, is within the County Road 10 Corridor Overlay District, and is guided as Mixed Use Planned Unit Development in the Comprehensive Plan. Planner Sevald reviewed the history of this request and explained the Planning Commission tabled action on this item at their last meeting. He provided further comment on the traffic study that was completed and offered answers to the questions that were raised about the project. He noted the City has 60 days to review this project with an option to extend this 60 days to 120 days, which the City has done. At this time, the project review deadline is October 13th. Staff requested the Commission discuss and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Development Review. Chair Stevenson requested further information on the proposed fence. Chris Stokka, MWF Properties, reviewed the location of the proposed fence with the Commission. He stated he fully supported the Commission requiring MWF to extend the fence to the edge of the house at 8020 Groveland Rd. Chair Stevenson recommended this fence be a condition for approval. Commissioner Love asked the applicant to describe the ownership of the various parcels. Mr. Stokka reviewed the location of each parcel along with the current property owner. Commissioner Klebsch questioned how much TIF would be requested for this project. Mr. Stokka explained he would be requesting a 15-year TIF note and stated the amount would be roughly $550,000. He indicated a portion of the TIF proceeds would be used to expand the trail. Commissioner Klebsch requested further information on why this site was selected given the fact numerous concerns have been raised regarding traffic. She asked if the developer had considered developing the corner of Mounds View Boulevard and County Road H2. Mr. Stokka reviewed the Minnesota Housing parameters that directed him to this location. He noted the landowners were willing to sell and the property was guided for the proposed use. Mounds View Planning Commission August 16, 2017 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Klebsch believed the applicant had a solid application for a workforce housing development, but explained she remained unmoved and could not support the request at its present location. Commissioner Klander inquired if the Planning Commission received a letter from Ramsey County. Planner Sevald stated that the City did receive comments from Ramsey County, and are summarized in the Commissioner’s packet, but that this letter was not included in the packet. Commissioner Klander understood the County suggested that the traffic study be updated to include movements at Groveland Road and County Highway 10. Planner Sevald stated this was the case. Commissioner Klander suggested further work be done on the traffic study as recommended by the County. Mr. Stokka stated this recommendation was made by the County before its review of the traffic study that was completed by MWF. Commissioner French questioned how much affordable housing the City of Mounds View had at this time. Planner Sevald commented the City was in good shape. He noted Mounds View was being requested to guide for 27 additional affordable housing units by the Metropolitan Council within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Further discussion ensued regarding the rental rates for the proposed workforce housing. Mr. Stokka reported Mounds View has no vacancies in their affordable housing units, which shows the City has a demand for this product. He commented that four of the units would be offered to residents with disabilities and would have lower income requirements. Commissioner Klebsch requested further information on the comments staff has received from the public regarding the proposed project. Planner Sevald stated the majority of the concerns that have been raised by residents focused on traffic concerns. Commissioner Schiltgen understood change was hard for everyone. He requested the applicant provide the Commission with information on the MWF housing development in New Brighton. Mr. Stokka explained the New Brighton project was a 50% low-income limit, which was a lower standard than MWF is proposing for Mounds View. Commissioner Schiltgen believed that the project in New Brighton was very well done and while there may have been some apprehension at first, the development had not become a crime concern for the community. Commissioner Klebsch stated she visited the MWF development in New Brighton and believed this was a well-done, beautiful property. She commented she supported affordable housing, but feared the proposed site was not a good fit given the numerous traffic concerns and lack of walkability to local amenities. Chair Stevenson noted the walk to public transportation was only two blocks from the proposed site. Mounds View Planning Commission August 16, 2017 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson opened the discussion to the public. Dan Mueller, 8343 Groveland Road, commented on the traffic concerns and high speed of vehicles along Groveland Road. He believed the proposed development would greatly complicate an already difficult situation. He stated he had little faith in the results of the traffic study. He feared the extra burden on Groveland Road would negatively impact the homeowners that live along this roadway. He expressed frustration that the development was originally presented as workforce housing to now being affordable housing. Mr. Stokka provided the Commission with a definition for workforce housing and stated sometimes the term affordable housing is used interchangeably. He reported the housing was meant for working class residents with low to moderate income. He discussed the background and criminal background checks that were completed on all residents. Commissioner Klebsch asked if MWF would continue to own and manage the property after it was developed. Mr. Stokka explained MWF would retain ownership and management of the property. Matt Oquist, 8408 Groveland Road, stated his main concern with this project was traffic. He discussed how Groveland Road has narrowed and explained that this change did not assist in reducing the speed of traffic. He feared how an additional 399 vehicle trips per day would impact this roadway. He explained he wanted to keep this roadway nice going into the future. For this reason, he recommended another site be considered for the proposed workforce housing. Commissioner Klebsch agreed traffic was a concern for the proposed housing project. She questioned how Mr. Oquist would feel about having a shopping/commercial complex on this corner with increased traffic. Mr. Oquist stated this was a landlocked property that previously had access on Mounds View Boulevard. He commented on how the neighbors would now be impacted due to the fact the City was proposing to combine the parcels with the small parcel that abuts Groveland Road. All of the traffic from this development would now flow onto Groveland Road. He believed that there were other options to consider that would lessen the traffic impact on the surrounding property owners, such as a townhome development. Commissioner Schiltgen requested further information on the TIF dollars. City Administrator Ericson explained the TIF discussion was not part of the Planning Commission’s consideration. He indicated he did not know what the final dollar amount would be and noted nothing has been approved by the City Council. He then described how TIF dollars were utilized by a developer over the life of the TIF district. He discussed the expenses that were eligible for TIF funding. Celena Monn, 2357 Sherwood Road, stated she attended the Council meeting on Monday and was just learning about this project. She appreciated the Commission’s concerns regarding traffic and questioned if this location would support the proposed apartment complex and associated traffic. She believed that Mounds View was doing its part and has already provided a sufficient level of affordable housing. Mounds View Planning Commission August 16, 2017 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolution 1076-17, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Development Review; Planning Case No. MU2017-001. Planner Sevald reviewed the conditions for approval in detail with the Commission. Commissioner Klebsch stated she would not be offering her support to the plan. She recommended it be noted the fencing around the play area was to keep children safe from passing traffic and the adjacent stormwater basin. Commissioner Love indicated she would not be offering her support for the plan either. She expressed concern with the proposed location and traffic concerns. She questioned if the applicant had any concerns with the proposed conditions. Mr. Stokka stated he had discussed all of these items already with the City and would be speaking with his engineer regarding the stormwater basin. Commissioner Klander explained he would not be supporting the request due to the number of unanswered questions he had regarding the traffic study. He commented on how this project has been bouncing back and forth between the Planning Commission and City Council and suggested the item be forwarded to the City Council without a recommendation. Chair Stevenson stated his first choice would not be to have affordable housing on this site. However, these properties have remained undeveloped for quite some time. Commissioner Schiltgen explained he was moving out of the City and noted this development would not impact him personally. However, with that being said, he believed the proposed housing was a great option for moderate income residents that would potentially purchase homes within the community in the future. For this reason, he would be offering his support for the request. Ayes – 3 Nays – 4 (French, Klander, Klebsch and Love) Motion failed. Commissioner French explained he had concerns with the high levels of traffic that would be generated by this project, along with the concentration of affordable housing on the site. Commissioner Klander stated he had concerns with traffic that have not been fully addressed by the County. Commissioner Klebsch encouraged the Council to keep an open mind on affordable housing. She indicated she would like to see more affordable housing in Mounds View and understood the City was in good standing with the Metropolitan Council regarding this issue. She encouraged the developer to reconsider this development at the corner of Mounds View Boulevard and County Road H2. Mounds View Planning Commission August 16, 2017 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Love stated she objected to this development based on the location and the concentration of affordable housing. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner French/Commissioner Love. To deny Resolution 1076-17, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Development Review; Planning Case No. MU2017-001. Ayes – 4 Nays – 3 (Rundle, Schiltgen and Stevenson) Motion carried. Commissioner Klebsch thanked the developer for his patience with the City and the Planning Commission. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity Planner Sevald discussed upcoming planning cases with the Commission. B. Staff Updates Planner Sevald provided the Commission with an update from staff. He thanked Commissioner Schiltgen for his service to the City of Mounds View and presented him with a Resolution of Appreciation from the City Council. Commissioner Schiltgen stated it had been an honor to serve the City of Mounds View. Planner Sevald explained the City Council would be appointing a Planning Commissioner at their next Council meeting in order to have this seat filled for the September 6th meeting. Commissioner Klebsch asked if the City would be taking applications for the open seat. City Administrator Ericson explained the City Council would be appointing an individual that previously applied for the position and was overlooked. C. Council Updates Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He thanked Commissioner Schiltgen for his years of service on the Planning Commission. He explained the Council had selected two Interim City Administrator candidates to interview. Mounds View Planning Commission August 16, 2017 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Mayor Mueller thanked the Commissioners for their service to the City. She commented on the executive search the Council would be conducting for the City Administrator position and noted this would be a six- to eight-month process. She explained an Interim City Administrator would assist during this time. D. Planning Commissioner Reports Chair Stevenson and Commissioner Klebsch thanked Commissioner Schiltgen for his service to the community on the Planning Commission. 8. Approval of Minutes July 19, 2017. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Rundle. To approve the Minutes of the July 19, 2017 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. August 2, 2017. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Rundle. To approve the Minutes of the August 2, 2017 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, September 6, 2017 B. Wednesday, September 20, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:46 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Mounds View Planning Commission August 16, 2017 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Jon Sevald Planner Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.