Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-07-2016UV • PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA September 7, 2016 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business (none) 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. Consider Resolution 1055-16, a resolution approving a Variance for a 30' front yard setback at 7790 Eastwood Rd; Planning Case VR2016-04 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: July 20, 2016 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, September 21, 2016 B. Wednesday, October 5, 2016 10. Meeting Conclusion Item No: 5A Meeting Date: Sept 7, 2016 J Mo JS VEW Type of Business: Planning Case VR2016-04 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Item Title/Subject: Consider Resolution 1055-16, a resolution approving a Variance for a 30' front yard setback at 7790 Eastwood Rd; Planning Case VR2016-04 Introduction The applicant (Value Homes, LLC) is requesting a Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 54' to 30' to construct a single-family home at 7790 Eastwood Rd. The minimum front yard setback in the R-1 district is 30' unless homes on the same side of the street have a greater setback (54' in this case). The request is due to the hardship of a private drainage easement reducing the buildable area of the lot. Discussion The property at 7800 Eastwood Rd was subdivided into two lots in March, 2016. The north lot includes an existing home, and the south lot is the subject property (7790 Eastwood Rd). After the subdivision was approved, the developer conducted a Title Search, which revealed two private easements: (1) a 10' wide sidewalk easement in the SE corner of the lot; and (2) a 30' wide surface drainage & storm water easement along the south property line. The two easements are for the adjacent property, Silver Lake Commons apartments. As part of Silver Lake Common's Development Review in 1997, the City required the apartment owner to obtain a drainage easement from 7800 Eastwood Rd. At that time, there was concern that expansion of the apartments would negatively affect the natural drainage flow from properties north of the apartments (1940 aerial photo suggests a drainage ditch flowed through these properties). An easement was obtained, but a storm water retention pond was never constructed within the easement, nor was a sidewalk. Prior to the Title Search, neither the developer nor the current property owner (Value Homes) knew about the easements. Due to the private drainage easement and the 54' front yard building setback requirement, the buildable area of the lot is significantly reduced. Planning Case VR2016-04 September 7, 2016 Page 2 Analysis City Code, Title 1100, Chapter 1104, Section 1104.01, Subdivision 3(a): Yard Requirements; Where principal buildings in existence on lots within the same block on the same side of the street have front yard setbacks different from those required, the minimum front yard setback for any new principal buildings shall be the minimum front yard setback in existence for any one lot. In no case shall the front yard setback be less than thirty feet (309. For purposes of this subsection a, a block shall be defined as that group of lots lying along a street between the two closest intersecting streets, except that where the length of the street frontage between the two intersecting streets is greater than fourteen hundred feet (1, 400), the block shall be the lots within six hundred and fifty feet (650) on either side of the lot in question, or to an intersecting street whichever is less. Homes on this side of the street are set back between about 54' and 60'. The adjacent home (7800 Eastwood Rd) is set back 59'. If the Variance were approved, the proposed home may look inconsistent because of the shallower front yard, but the 30' front yard setback would be consistent with minimum requirements elsewhere in the R-1 District. City Code, Title 1100, Chapter 1125, Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 includes the seven criteria for granting Variances. A Variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist: 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. Planning Case VR2016-04 September 7, 2016 Page 3 f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute 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 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. Staff's analysis of the seven criteria is listed in Resolution 1055-16. In summary, the practical difficulty (criteria c & d) is that the private 30' wide drainage easement significantly reduces the buildable area of the lot. The private easement was created by an agreement between the adjacent Silver Lake Commons Apartments owner (MSP Real Estate) and the previous owner of the subject property (Mary Larson) in 1997 in response to the City's approval of a Site Plan Review for the expansion of the apartments. If the Variance is approved, the front yard setback would be reduced from 54' to 30'. The proposed home would have a front yard depth about half that of other homes on the same side of the street (criteria e), but would still comply with the minimum 30' front yard setback found elsewhere in the R-1 District (criteria f). Other options are for the owner to choose an alternative floor plan that would fit within the lot's buildable area. The buildable area as -is measures approximately 64' wide X 58' deep, and is triangularly shaped. After the developer (Kayak Properties) of the 2016 subdivision conducted the Title Search revealing the easement, the developer contacted the owners of Silver Lake Commons Apartments (Mounds View Family Housing), requesting that they vacate the private easement, which they chose not to do. Public Comments A Public Hearing Notice was published in the New Brighton / Mounds View Sun Focus on August 19, 2016, and mailed to property owners within 350' of the subject property. Staff received an email from a resident opposed to the Variance because the proposed home with a reduced setback would look out of place, and because the existing wooded front yard blocks noise and lights from properties along Mounds View Blvd (Co Rd 10). Planning Case VR2016-04 September 7, 2016 Page 4 Summary The applicant is requesting a Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 54' to 30', to construct a new home. The property includes a 30'X 172' private drainage easement along the south property line. The lot's buildable area is limited due to the private drainage easement and larger front yard building setback. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Variance contingent upon complying with the conditions in Resolution 1055-16. It is Staff's opinion that the Variance request is reasonable considering that the location of the private drainage easement greatly reduces the buildable area of the lot. The Planning Commission is requested to consider the following options: 1. Resolution 1055-16, approving the Variance is attached if the Commission chooses this action. 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: September 23, 2016) the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photo of Neighborhood with front yard building setbacks (approximate to roofline) 3. Site Photos 4. Email from Lon Stigney, 7841 Eastwood Rd 5. Resolution 1055-16 6. Applicant's Narrative (with Certificate of Survey) Planning Case VR2016-04 September 7, 2016 Page 5 Zoning Map RVrw co 8 7891N N , 17880 r6 Z 7885 7866 !0 :37877 - - 7854 7863 7842 78300 7851 O 782 �,gj 7F11 7800 R_4 soh LEGEND 5 7890 7867 7870 7351 7860 B-3 7850 7841 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL B-4 7840 ;• • 5 7790 7809 7770 7801 7764 7767 7760 7761 7750 7755 7730 7745 7710 CRP CONSERVANCY, RECREATION & PRESERVATION 7715 * AREAS NOT LABELED ARE R-1 DISTRICTS N N A • R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL S-2 LIMITED BUSINESS R-2 SINGLE & TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL B-3 HIGHWAY BUSINESS R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL B-4 REGIONAL BUSINESS R-4 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL I-1 INDUSTRIAL R-5 MOBILE HOME PF PUBLIC FACILITIES R-0 RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT B-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS CRP CONSERVANCY, RECREATION & PRESERVATION * AREAS NOT LABELED ARE R-1 DISTRICTS Planning Case VR2016-04 September 7, 2016 Page 6 Aerial Photo of Neighborhood with front yard building setbacks (approximate to roofline) , � IV r i 7801' Planning Case VR2016-04 September 7, 2016 Page 7 Site Photos Figure 1: Eastwood Rd, looking south from 7800 Eastwood Rd (fence at right). Red line is approximately in front of subject property, 7790 Eastwood Rd (8-29-2016) Figure 2: Eastwood Rd looking north. Red line is approximate front of subject property, 7790 Eastwood Rd. (8-29-2016) Value Home,--. Property Management v Renovation .11806 Abercleer Si k7Y, -Suite 1.00, Blaine, F\/! l 55447 Lela: (612) 4-31-7841 Office: (763) 205-0056 July 22, 2016 Property: 7790 Eastwood Road, Mounds View, Mfg 55112 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A Variance for the Minimum 30' Front setback in the R-1 District is required due to a private easement in order to build a very modest Split Level Home with a 38' 8" wide and 23' 8" long Foundation. As stated in the email attached; the seller of this lot has made every effort to get the owner of the neighboring Apartment building to vacate the unused private easement however they will not cooperate. As stated by Jon Sevald in the email attached; if a variance were approved to allow a 30' setback, the house would fit without encroaching into the easement. This variance meets the criteria of the attached ordinance 1125.02 Subd. 2. a - g. The following supporting documentation is attached: 1) Copy of the Certificate of Survey Highlighting the part of the home which encroaches into the private easement due to the 55' front setback. 2) Copy of the Blueprints 3) Email Chain with the seller's (Terry Buchanan — Kayak Properties) full explanation describing his efforts to vacate the private easement & Jon Sevald's (AICP, Planner, City of Mounds View) explanation of the Variance Application process. 4) Copy of the City of Mounds View Ordinance Highlighting 1125.02 Subd. 2. a. — g. Sincerely, Eric 011estad Value Homes LLC Chief Executive Manager �� LI �IJ ��J 1( LI L'� O I� CJ CJLiLJE IJ PROPERTY ADDRESS: #haoc EASTWOOD ROAD, MOUNDS V�EW, MN FOR: EI'ic ®Ilesfoid P.I.D.-#06-30-23-44-???? • X; 11 e \b s % I I w q1U? N \�oGF q11 U\ : T a 1 0 910 6 n 11� i + W 911.0 % X0] J1 d,� 0 0 �E \ c� a x GF Eoc n' yA oP /\N8$.151 LgjiO : 0110 ..• Z / O. �E00 I 0 11-1r� — — 910'9_X — 1f) 910• '� �. �. -, ..- 9j0 q — — — X—I 5 • •9�p 0 % 1GG�T O I 48.00 . mak' • I 9� } ;.'.,o Driveway TO' O I )SID. m 911'.-I .` o I- Proposed w . I 2 -73' 9i0.4I d g10?.o 911.6 91,0 .91p5 TG % 4----r---------- 9ogX `�-_ � I ,� r-- w W I 912 .., _ 124 00 +'%•� FEin 812RCP-5\V 1------- 55 ----- -- 1-L�-1 911? .....�.....,;y: 'PS(�•P \ I 910 0""', %911.6 \ i 9 1AHj0'q)1A I � L 2 F � RIA1=91 D.0 00 ��� \YfA� O \ : I INV.=899.1 I oo3s \F�oo� :\ I �. \ � � \ I r o9rF� \,SIDS I O is ° --------------------- L-_ T x911 Z>>26 I NEED TO STAKE HOUSE I �° 2; VERIFY DRIVEIVAY ON Npl'1SE TO 1 NORTH I I \ ^� 5-- ---- 66 ---------- 3) --- ----3) NEED To VERIFY 30' EASWENT ; f \• I o I TO SOUTH HAS SEEN VACATED) I 1 0 SIDEWALK EAS 0 30 DOCr N0. 11726g6PER-_ AO `��\ 910.`-+ 06 9pEN06`v0 ( IN FEET)` / on NUT FIRE V IRON 4AR yr 1 inch = 30ft. ��, (0.7' EAST) 4 I 1p6 �• a 91281 I .9 .6 NORTH , / I I � NOTES j I — Field survey conducted on xxxxx - BEARING'S SHOWN ARE ON ASSUMED DATUM. - CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY HOUSE DIMENSIONS, AND SEWER AND BASEMENT DEPTHS. ����� - FINISHED GRADE 10 FEET FROM PROPOSED BUILDING SHALL BE 0.5 FEET LOWER THAN THE FINISHED GRADE AT THE C892. DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION. BUILDING. X1011,2 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. - FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS ARE TO FINISHED SURFACE DENOTES DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE. WITH TURF ESTABLISHMENT. N DENOTES METAL SPIKE - DRIVEWAYS ARE SHOWN FOR GRAPHIC PURPOSES ONLY. 0 DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND FINAL DRIVEWAY DESIGN AND LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR - CITY TO VERIFY ALL BUILDINGS ELEVATIONS AND SETBACKS. - This survey was prepared without the benefit of titlework. *5 course lookout* Easement, appurtenances and encumbrances may exist in PROPOSED ELEVATIONS addition to those shown hereon. This survey is subject to GARAGE FLOOR = 912.1 revision upon receipt of a title insurance commitment or TOP OF BLOCK = 912.5 attorneys title opinion. LOWEST FLOOR = 909.3 EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIMON That part of Lot 77, SPRING LAKE PARK HILL VIEW, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lies southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 77; thence South 00 degrees 40 minutes 10 seconds East (assumed bearing) along the east line of said Lot 77 a distance of 113.58 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described, said point to be hereinafter referred to as "Point A"; thence South 88 degrees 21 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 178.65 feet to the southwesterly line of said Lot 77 and said line there terminating. Subject to an easement for public drainage and utility purposes over, under and across the north 5.00 feet, the east 10.00 feet, and the southwesterly 10.00 feet of the above described property. And subject to an easement for drainage and utility purposes over, under and across that part of the above described property which lies westerly of east 114.04 feet thereof. hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I Ulfl U duly Registefed Land - -v"or under the laws of the State of f763 CRE LAND SURVEYING Minnesota. �� 8 @ri 811Ci � Citi tf � _ • , oo. I I I y 45s 2�7 acrelandsurve�a' gmall.com Date:Mav xx, 2016 Reg. No. 44125 JOB #16294HS 1t) 1' j2 13 14 15 I6 17 18 w ,10 111 112 11] ,14 115 ,Ifi 117 11a `I° 120 C1\Users\Eric\DneDrlve\CAD-1D\16294hs-MndsVty-Erlc\dwg\16294hs-MndsVw-Erlc.dlrg 5/14/2016 9+29+51 AM CDT I '`►�/� a ..ice �a a `, r° `r ► _tea i .L a��� /��_ �_ �—ice a�=r • j�... J - - e �4 ,�: �` . i►a--��I;�• :�.'� rte; �� 1� �1 �I ill �I� I' VIII •` t Gia .�� st .- %•■■.� 1< -. I�l� —_ -_.-dam- ■\e • w. ■�, � 11111111 — I_slle_IIs_Ilel �� �\\,� F�b''y �, NM Eli \ ISI ISI I�II�I — — — — ■�■� / �I.1 ■:i: ���� VIII I I.. .A" iii --- I�I ISI ISI ISI ,'1 :•■:��� ; �i! � I�I ISI ISI ISI It III %�� ✓ ' � 'li�� �i�l �" • __-- i�I -11111 �' I I �, ��-�' '► �� ��� . HOME PLANNING ,-•` VALUE HOMES PLAW O. _ CENTRAL AVENUE NE MINNESOTA, a ') •. 'r Mounds View, MN 55112 PATE: 005/10/216 I U a. 7Z I SPRING LAKE PARK LUMBER BILDING 612-481-7841 eric@valuehomesmn.com Value HomesPr•o• & Renovation 1.1806 Aheideen Sl NE, Suite :LOC), Blaine, N01 55449 Cell: (612) 481-7841 Office: (763) 205-0056 July 28, 2016 Property: 7790 Eastwood Road, Mounds View, MN 55112 To Whom it may concern. My name is Eric 011estad. I am the owner of Value Homes LLC. Value Homes specializes in acquiring lots and building single family homes on those lots to be sold as finished new construction homes in the Twin Cities Metro Area. Here are some of the projects we have completed in the last few years: 3973 Hayes St NE, Columbia Heights 4320 Madison St NE, Columbia Heights 45225 th St NE, Columbia Heights 3830 Noble Ave N. Robbinsdale 13573212 th Ave NW, Elk River 1731 169th Ave NE, Ham Lake 6812 Aldrich Ave N, Brooklyn Center 10712 Kyle Ave N, Brooklyn Park 10718 Kyle Ave N, Brooklyn Park 3701 Buchanan St NE, Columbia Heights 3705 Buchanan St NE, Columbia Heights 16386 Inca St NW, Andover 1016 42'/ Ave NE, Columbia Heights 8857 Baltimore St NE, Blaine 2081 Palm St, Lino Lakes 1100 Vera St N, Champlin purchased the lot at 7790 Eastwood Rd, Mounds View with the intention of building a modest Bi -Level Split home and selling it as a completed new construction Single Family Residence. I have repeated this particular home plan many times with great results. It offers home buyers the ability to purchase a 4 bedroom, 2 bath, attached 2 car garage High Efficiency home with Premium Building Materials and finishes at an affordable price. Some of the features of the home are Triple Pane Windows, Poured Concrete Foundation, High Efficiency Furnace, DuraStrand Subfloors, Radon Mitigation System & Sump Pump Included, Gas Stove, Gas Water r1ear.er, Gay Dryer nuurcup, Hrr w /A Ir cxcnarrger, De-riurnrdlner and a vented I'Aicrowave. Before I purchased the lot I was told by the seller that there was an unused 30' easement that would not affect the building of the home as the easement would be vacated. The seller of this lot has made every effort to get the owner of the neighboring Apartment building to vacate the unused private easement however they will not cooperate. As stated by Jon Sevald in the email attached; if a variance were approved to allow a 30' setback, the house would fit without encroaching into the easement. The following is an explanation on why this variance meets the criteria of the attached ordinance 1125.02 Subd. 2. a — g: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Response - This variance is definitely in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title as this will be a Residential Single Family Home. b. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Response - This variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan as this new home will give new people or a new family the opportunity to become new citizens of Mounds View and offer them the ability to get involved in the community helping Mounds View reach many of its goals. This home will drastically improve the appearance of the community by turning a vacant lot into a beautiful new residence with a brand new Single Family Home. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Response — Due to the unused private easement a modest single family home will not fit on the lot unless a variance for the minimum 30' front setback is granted. 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. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Response —This property is a unique Triangle Shape. The circumstance is one of a kind in Mounds View as there is an unused private 30' Easement along the south lot line. Approving this variance will not only make it possible for a modest single family home to be built on this lot; it will also drastically improve the backyard giving the new home owner a much safer area for outdoor activities versus the front yard along Eastwood Road. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Response —The variance is not altering the essential character of the neighborhood as it is only improving the character of the neighborhood by allowing a nice new home to be built on the lot. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Response — As noted in the attached Certificate of Survey; allowing the 30' front setback would allow the home to be moved 25' closer to the front lot line towards Eastwood Road which would be the minimum amount of room needed so that the new home does not encroach into the unused private easement. 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. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Response — I believe that the impact created by the variance is a positive impact and a benefit to the neighborhood. Sincerely, Eric 011estad Value Homes LLC Chief Executive Manager From: Stigney, Lon To: Jon Sevald Subject: VR2016-004 Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 3:41:57 PM Dear Jon, My home address is 7841 Eastwood Road which falls within the 350 feet of this proposed variance. Me and my wife are against this proposal for a variety of reasons. First we would hate to see the buffer of trees that are there presently be removed for they deaden the noise from highway 10 and also block the lights from the nearby housing project. But the main reason is that we believe that this variance for this project would be way to cramped between the two existing properties and way out of place of the present street view that now exists. The code that is in place is there for this very reason. It should not be tweaked to help a particular party who subdivided a parcel of property in the hopes that the city would change the code for their own financial gain down the road. We ourselves own a double property lot like others here in Mounds View. Because of this the city has a nice wooded feel too it that makes Mounds View an very enjoyable place to live. We believe this variance would open the door for others to do the same. Especially outside builders or a new property owner who would just want to make a quick buck by selling of odd acreages and attempting to squeeze other houses in other deemed inappropriate areas. Sincerely, Lon Stigney TR Director Cornerstone Assisted Living & Memory Care 3750 Lawndale Lane N I Plymouth, MN 55446 763.550.0333 fax: 763.390.1888 eIim car CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential client information. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you're not the addressee or the employee or agent responsible to deliver this e-mail to its intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, distribution, disclosure, copying or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Elite Care, Inc. Providing Senior Housing and Healthcare in the Spirit of Christ's Love MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1055-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 30 -FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A NEW HOME AT 7790 EASTWOOD RD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2016-04 WHEREAS, property owner, Value Homes, LLC, has applied for a variance to allow a house to encroach approximately 24' into the required 54' front yard setback at 7790 Eastwood Rd; and, WHEREAS, 7790 Eastwood Rd is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: That part of Lot 77, SPRING LAKE PARK HILL VIEW, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lies southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 77; thence South 00 degrees 40 minutes 10 seconds East (assumed bearing) along the east line of said Lot 77 a distance of 113.58 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described, said point to be hereafter referred to as "Point A", thence South 88 degrees 21 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 178.65 feet to the southwesterly line of said Lot 77 and said line there terminating. Subject to an easement for public drainage and utility purposes over, under and across the north 5.00 feet, the east 10.00 feet, and the southwesterly 10.00 feet of the above described property. And subject to an easement for drainage and utility purposes over, under and across that part of the above described property which lies westerly of east 114.04 feet thereof. PIN: 06-30-23-44-0077 WHEREAS, City Code Title 1100, Chapter 1104, Section 1104.01, Subdivision 3(a) states; Where principal buildings in existence on lots within the same block on the same side of the street have front yard setbacks different from those required, the minimum front yard setback for any new principal buildings shall be the minimum front yard setback in existence for any one lot. In no case shall the front yard setback be less than thirty feet (30). For purposes of this subsection a, a block Resolution 1055-16 September 7, 2016 Page 2 shall be defined as that group of lots lying along a street between the two closest intersecting streets, except that where the length of the street frontage between the two intersecting streets is greater than fourteen hundred feet (1,400), the block shall be the lots within six hundred and fifty feet (650) on either side of the lot in question, or to an intersecting street whichever is less. WHEREAS, the 7700 block of Eastwood Rd is approximately 1,400' in length, and the principle building on the same block and same side of the street with the smallest front yard setback measures approximately 54' (7880 Eastwood Rd, based on 1991 building plan, Permit #91-218), and thus the minimum front yard setback for all lots on the west side of this block, including the subject property, is 54'; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Views 3. Site Photos 4. Staff Report 5. Applicant's Narrative and Certificate of Survey 6. Resident Comments WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's control; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing regarding this request on September 7, 2016; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria that must be satisfied in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 7790 Eastwood Rd, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 1055-16 September 7, 2016 Page 3 1. The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code regarding front yard building setbacks is to provide a sense of privacy and separation between the building and the public right-of-way. The proposed home to be located on the subject property will maintain a 30' front yard setback, consistent with minimum standards elsewhere in the R-1 district. 2. The Variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (2010); Goal 4.. "Encourage residential infill and redevelopment that supports the City's housing goals and maintains residential character." The parent property (7800 Eastwood Rd) was subdivided into two lots in March 2016, creating the subject property (7790 Eastwood Rd), with the intent of constructing a new home. 3. The applicant (Value Homes, LLC) proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner for a single-family residence. 4. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from circumstances over which the property owner had no control. The current property owner (Value Homes) and immediate past owner/developer (Kayak Properties) were not aware of the private 30' wide drainage easement at the time the property was subdivided in 2016. The private drainage easement is unique to this property. 5. The Variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback from 54' to 30' will result in a front yard half the depth as others on the west side of Eastwood Rd. However, a reduced setback will allow construction of a vacant lot for a new single-family home, maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood. 6. The Variance request is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties created by the private 30' wide drainage easement. The Applicant's Narrative includes a Certificate of Survey, dated "May XX, 2016", which shows a proposed home encroaching 26' feet into the private easement (24' foundation + 2' overhang). A Variance reducing the front yard setback from 54' to 30' will still leave a 2' encroachment into the private easement, thus, the home plan will need to be adjusted to avoid any encroachment into this easement. 7. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary. Such conditions are included below: The applicant (Value Homes, LLC) shall clearly disclose to the purchaser of the to -be constructed home that there exists two private easements alnnn the eni ith ciriP varri nrnnPrty IMP fnr• (1) a 1(1' WirlP _qirlP\nialk (nnr No. 1172686); and (2) a 30' wide drainage area (Doc. No. 1172687). Resolution 1036-15 September 7, 2016 Page 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the Variance request of Value Homes, LLC, for a reduced front yard setback from 54' to 30' at the property located at 7790 Eastwood Rd, subject to the following: The applicant (Value Homes, LLC) shall clearly disclose to the purchaser of the to -be constructed home that there exists two private easements along the south side yard property line for; (1) a 10' wide sidewalk (Doc. No. 1172686); and (2) a 30' wide drainage area (Doc. No. 1172687). 2. If within one year after granting the variance, the work as permitted by the variance has not begun, then such unless an extension of time has been by the Planning Commission. Such applicant in writing, and submitted tc expiration of the original variance. Adopted this 7t" day of September, 2016. ATTEST: (SEAL) variance shall become null and void requested by the applicant and granted extension shall be requested by the the City at least 30 days before the Gary Stevenson, Chairperson James Ericson, City Administrator L"ROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 20, 2016 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for July 20, 2016. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners French, Klander, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen and Stevenson Absent and Excused: Commissioner Klebsch Also Present- Planner Jon Sevald and Council Member Gary Meehlhause Index to Minutes Page Resolution 1054-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a Text 2 Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code Chapters 1102, 1103 And 1106 relating to Accessory Dwelling Units Approval of Minutes 4 3. Special Order of Business None. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular MeetingPage 2 July 20, 2016 5. Planning Cases A. Consider Resolution 1055-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a Text Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Chapters 1102, 1103, and 1106 relating to Accessory Dwelling Units. Planner Sevald requested the Council consider a text amendment to the City's Municipal Code regarding accessory dwelling units. He provided comment on the discussion held at the Planning Commission meeting on July 6th regarding this topic and noted staff had revised the code per their discussion. It was noted an accessory use would be permitted if located within a single- family residential home and would be a conditional use if made an addition to an existing home or would be placed within/above a garage or accessory structure. The proposed licensing procedure that would be followed by the City was discussed. Staff reviewed the text amendment in further detail with the Commission and recommended approval. Chair Stevenson questioned how staff would define "most of the year". Planner Sevald reported that a home was considered homesteaded if the homeowners lived on the property for six months and one day. Commissioner Schiltgen discussed the dwelling license fees. Planner Sevald reviewed the proposed fees and reductions that would be offered to trained property owners. Commissioner Klander requested comment from staff on how the accessory unit could not be viewed as a separate dwelling. Planner Sevald discussed this language further and noted accessory units were to match the primary home architecturally. He provided further comment on how external accessory units would be reviewed by staff. Commissioner Klander recommended this language be removed from the text amendment in order to remove any confusion. Planner Sevald requested the language remain as is as this would require all future accessory units to match the primary home. Chair Stevenson supported the language as recommended by staff. Commissioner Rundle commented on the number of garages the Commission has approved that could support an apartment on the second level. Commissioner Klander suggested the language be altered to read the dwelling unit shall have the appearance of one property. Commissioner French understood Commissioner Klander's concerns. Further discussion ensued regarding an ADU's dependence on the primary structure. Chair Stevenson suggested the language be amended to read the site shall be one unified property. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 20, 2016 Page 3 Commissioner Klander supported this recommendation. He wanted to see the exterior design and the hardscape of an ADU match the primary structure. City Administrator Ericson commented on the intent of the language. He suggested the language under Item D be amended to read accessory dwelling units shall be consistent with the primary structure yet shall be subordinate to the principle structure. The Commission supported this recommendation. Commissioner Love asked if an 18 -foot garage height was too limiting. She did not want to see garages with flat roofs and suggested the maximum roof height be increased in order to allow ADU's within the second story of a garage. Chair Stevenson reviewed the City's current height restrictions for garages. He believed that garages in excess of 20 feet were not consistent with Mounds View neighborhoods. Commissioner Schiltgen did not anticipate that ADU's would be a very large issue in the City of Mounds View. He stated he did not have a detached garage, but if he could, he would want it to be taller than 18 feet. He asked if the City could consider a variance to the 18 -foot height limit. Chair Stevenson questioned how the City could make exceptions, considering the fact that a number of garages have been approved at the 18 -foot height limit. He recommended that the rules remain the same and that residents make requests above and beyond 18 -feet through the variance procedure. Planner Sevald reviewed the variance approval process noting a resident would have to show a practical difficulty. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner French. To approve Resolution 1054-16, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Text Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Chapters 1102, 1103, and 1106 relating to Accessory Dwelling Units, as amended above. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 6. Other Planning Activity None. 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity Planner Sevald Mated he had no pending planning Vases. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting B. Staff Updates July 20, 2016 Page 4 Planner Sevald provided the Commission with an update from staff. He explained a number of residents have been asking for further information on County Road I. It was noted this project would be completed in August. He reviewed the estimated water usage of a number of area microbreweries in response to a question asked by the Commission during the July 6th Planning Commission meeting. C. Council Updates Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He reported the City Council opted out of the State legislation regarding family health care dwellings due to code enforcement concerns. He appreciated the work the Commission was doing on the accessory dwelling unit Ordinance text amendment. He indicated the Council approved an environmental assessment of the Public Works Facility and additional funding for the 2016 sanitary sewer rehabilitation project. Lastly, he noted the Council approved the installation of cable for security cameras at City Hall. D. Planning Commissioner Reports Commissioner Love commented on the City's Comprehensive Plan update. She stated she was interested in learning how Mounds View was becoming more diverse. She reviewed information from the school district on the numerous languages being spoken in the community's homes. She believed there was a serious concern with the mental health issues that the public schools were having to deal with. 8. Approval of Minutes July 6, 2016. Commissioner Love requested a change on Page 4 asking that the word detached be removed from her comment. Chair Stevenson requested a change on Page 6 noting he offered congratulations to Commissioner Klebsch on behalf of the Commission. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Love. To approve the Minutes of the July 6, 2016 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Y. Next r1aIlI1I LUiIlII111s1oi1 V1CCtlIlg. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting A. Wednesday, August 3, 2016 B. August 17, 2016 10. Adjournment July 20, 2016 Page 5 There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald Planner Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.