Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-19-2016 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA October 19, 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 1057-16, approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized garage; and (Public Hearing) consider Resolution 1058-16 a Variance to the side yard setback at 7715 Eastwood Rd; Planning Case MU2016-002 B. Resolution 1059-16, Review of a Preliminary Administrative Variance at 7801 Eastwood Rd; Planning Case AV2016-001 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: October 5, 2016 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, November 2, 2016 B. Wednesday, November 16, 2016 10. Meeting Conclusion Item No: ___5A Meeting Date: Oct 19, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case MU2016-002 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Item Title/Subject: Consider Resolution 1057-16, approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized garage; and (Public Hearing) consider Resolution 1058-16, a Variance to the side yard setback at 7715 Eastwood Rd; Planning Case MU2016-002 Introduction The applicant, Cindy Brown, has applied for a building permit to add a second floor onto the home and an addition onto the existing two-car attached garage. The garage addition will exceed the maximum size permitted for an accessory building, unless a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is approved 1. Additionally, the existing garage is setback 4’-6” from the side yard property line, whereas a minimum of 5’ is required. The proposed garage addition would continue this 6” encroachment, requiring a Variance. Variances are approved/denied by the Planning Commission. Conditional Use Permits are reviewed by the Planning Commission, and approved/denied by the City Council Analysis: Conditional Use Permit Maximum Existing Proposed Attached Garage 952 sq ft 667 sq ft 1,227 sq ft Detached Garage 308 308 Detached Shed 98 98 TOTAL 1,800 sq ft 1,073 sq ft 1,633 sq ft The following criteria 2 shall be considered, when applicable: 1. The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. 1 City Code, Section 1106.03, Subd 1(c) 2 City Code, Section 1125.01, Subd 3 Planning Case MU2016-002 October 19, 2019 Page 2 2. The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. 3. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. 4. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. 5. The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. 6. The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 7. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. 8. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Analysis: Variance Required Existing Proposed Front yard setback: 30’ 75’ 51’ North side yard setback: 5’ garage 4’-6” garage 4’-6” garage 10’ house N/A 10’ house South side yard setback 30’ house about 15’ * about 15’ * Rear yard setback 30’ about 124’ about 124’ * The existing home is set back about 15’ from the south side yard property line, whereas 30’ is required for a corner lot. Because the second floor addition will not further encroach into the setback than what is existing, a Variance is not required for the second floor addition. Between this property and Co Rd I is a 25’ wide St. Paul waterworks right-of-way. The home is about 40’ from the Co Rd I right-of-way. The Planning Commission may grant a Variance only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist 3: 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. 3 City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 2 Planning Case MU2016-002 October 19, 2019 Page 3 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 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 how the requested Conditional Use Permit and Variance comply with the City Code, may be found in the attached Resolutions. Summary The applicant has requested (1) a Conditional Use Permit for a 1,227 sq ft oversized garage; and (2) a Variance to allow the garage addition to encroach 6” into the side yard setback. A Public Hearing notice was published in the New Brighton-Mounds View Sun Focus on Sept 30, 2016, and mailed to property owners within 350’ of the subject property. Recommendation Staff recommends Resolution 1057-16, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit, and Resolution 1058-16 approving the Variance. It is Staff’s opinion that the Conditional Use Permit request is consistent with the City Code. Further, it is Staff’s opinion that the practical difficulty supporting the Variance is that a previous owner constructed the attached garage 6” too close to the side yard property line. If the garage addition were to continue this 6” encroachment, it would not negatively affect the neighborhood’s character, considering the existing attached garage has had this encroachment since its construction in 1975. The Planning Commission is requested to consider the following options, including conducting a Public Hearing for the Variance request: Planning Case MU2016-002 October 19, 2019 Page 4 1. Resolution 1057-16, recommending approval the Conditional Use Permit is attached, if the Commission chooses this action. Resolution 1058-16 approving the Variance is attached, if the Commission chooses this action. 2. The Planning Commission may choose to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit; and/or deny the Variance. If the Commission chooses these options, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial(s). 3. Table the request(s). 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: Nov 27, 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. Applicant’s Narrative 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Map 4. Site Photos 6. Resolution 1057-16 (Conditional Use Permit) 7. Resolution 1058-16 (Variance) Planning Case MU2016-002 October 19, 2019 Page 5 Applicant’s Narrative Planning Case MU2016-002 October 19, 2019 Page 6 Applicant’s Narrative Planning Case MU2016-002 October 19, 2019 Page 7 Applicant’s Narrative Planning Case MU2016-002 October 19, 2019 Page 8 Zoning Map Planning Case MU2016-002 October 19, 2019 Page 9 Aerial Map Planning Case MU2016-002 October 19, 2019 Page 10 Site Photos Figure 1: 7715 Eastwood Rd. Proposed garage addition would be in front of existing garage (Sept 22, 2016) Figure 2: 7715 Eastwood Rd, stake is north side yard property line (Sept 22, 2016) RESOLUTION No. 1057-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING TO EXCEED 952 SQ FT IN AREA FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7715 EASTWOOD RD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE MU2016-002 WHEREAS, property owners Cynthia Brown and Terry Brown have requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an addition onto the attached garage, such that the combined area would be 1,227 sq ft in area. The property is located at 7715 Eastwood Rd, Mounds View, MN, legally described as: Lot 49 of Spring Lake Park Hill View PID: 06-30-23-44-0029 WHEREAS, the above-described lands are zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential, and designated Detached Single-Family Residential in the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code, Section 1106.03, Subd 1(c) prohibits any accessory building in an R-1 District from exceeding 952 sq ft in area, except by Conditional Use Permit; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code, Section 1106.03, Subd 1(a) permits every R-1 zoned property improved with a single-family dwelling, a maximum of 1,800 sq ft of combined accessory building area. The property will have accessory buildings with a combined area of 1,633 sq ft, including the attached garage addition; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Applicant’s Narrative 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Map 4. Site Photos WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission Finds that the request complies with the Mounds View City Code Section 1106.04, Subd 6 regarding Accessory Buildings exceeding 952 sq ft in area; and, Resolution 1057-16 October 19, 2016 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council will hold an advertised Public Hearing on October 24, 2016 for the Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.01, Subd 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the City Council is to review a standard set of criteria when considering a Conditional Use Permit, including making Findings; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.01, Subd 3(b) are satisfied and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. The oversized attached garage will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. 2. The oversized attached garage will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. 3. The oversized garage and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. 4. The oversized garage, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. 5. The oversized garage is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. 6. The oversized garage is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 7. The oversized garage will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. 8. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission does herby recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Building in excess of 952 sq ft in area, submitted by property owners Cynthia Brown and Terry Brown, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit for the garage addition, and shall construct the garage according to Building Code, and consistent with plans dated Sept 20, 2016. 2. The garage shall not be used for commercial purposes, living space or other uses not allowed within the R-1 Single-Family Residential district or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted; the Conditional Use Permit shall be considered null and void. Resolution 1057-16 October 19, 2016 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 19th day of October, 2016. __________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) RESOLUTION No. 1058-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED GARAGE TO BE SET BACK FOUR FEET – SIX INCHES FROM THE SIDE YARD PROPERTY LINE, WHEREAS FIVE FEET IS REQUIRED, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7715 EASTWOOD RD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE MU2016-002 WHEREAS, property owners Cynthia Brown and Terry Brown have proposed an addition onto an existing attached garage which currently encroaches six inches into the side yard setback. The garage addition would continue this encroachment. The property is located at 7715 Eastwood Rd, Mounds View, MN, legally described as: Lot 49 of Spring Lake Park Hill View PID: 06-30-23-44-0029 WHEREAS, the above-described lands are zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential, and designated Detached Single-Family Residential in the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code, Section 1104.01, Subd 4(b) requires accessory buildings to maintain a minimum five foot setback from side yard property lines; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Applicants’ Narrative 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Map 4. Site Photos 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 impose 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 an advertised public hearing regarding this request on October 19, 2016; and, Resolution 1058-16 October 19, 2016 Page 2 WHEREAS, according to the Mounds View City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 2, 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; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subd 2 of the Mounds View City Code are satisfied, and finds there to be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 7715 Eastwood Rd, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Code. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan: Goal 2: Maintain and upgrade the existing housing stock of the City Policies: b. Use housing projects to promote economic development and tax base expansion. Goal 4: Encourage residential infill and redevelopment that supports the City’s housing goals and maintains residential character. 3. The applicants propose to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the City Code. 4. 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 the Mounds View City Code has had no control. The unique circumstances are that the attached garage was constructed in 1975 by a previous owner (Permit # 75- 266), and located 4’-6” from the side yard property line. 5. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 6. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. 7. The Planning Commission may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by the City Code 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. Such conditions shall include: Resolution 1058-16 October 19, 2016 Page 3 a. The applicant shall obtain a building permit for the garage addition, and shall construct the garage according to Building Code, and consistent with plans dated Sept 20, 2016. Adopted this 19th day of October, 2016. __________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: ___5B Meeting Date: Oct 19, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case AV2016-001 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Item Title/Subject: Resolution 1059-16, Review of a Preliminary Administrative Variance at 7801 Eastwood Rd; Planning Case AV16-001 Introduction The applicant, Chad Born of Born Construction, has applied for an Administrative Variance to construct a 5’ X 5’ covered front stoop (porch) for property located at 7801 Eastwood Rd. The stoop is to replace an existing concrete stoop (no roof), and will be set back 40’ from the front property line, whereas a minimum 45’ is required. Discussion An Administrative Variance may be granted by the Community Development Director (City Administrator) if the property is zoned R-1 or R-2, and the request is: (1) within 25% of minimum City Code requirements and does not result in a setback of less than 5’; or (2) the request is related to a pre-existing non-conforming driveway. Additionally, the Administrative Variance request must comply with the seven criteria for granting a Variance, as stipulated in City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 2 (see attached Resolution #1059-16). The City Code allows the Community Development Director to “preliminarily” approve an Administrative Variance, providing notice to adjacent property owners, and upon review by the Planning Commission. A Public Hearing is not required. Administrative Variances are relatively rare. The last case was in 2008. Analysis The property is zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential. Within the R-1 District, the minimum front yard setback is 30’, unless homes on the same side of the street have a greater setback, then the minimum setback shall be equal to the hom e with the smallest front yard setback 1. According to Ramsey County aerial photos (2015), homes on this side of the street are setback approximately 45’ – 77’, thus the minimum front yard building setback on this side of the street is 45’. The Administrative Variance request is to allow a 40’ setback. This setback requirement is not applicable to non-covered stoops, in which the stoop does not exceed the height of the ground floor of the home (excluding handrails).2 1 City Code, Section 1104.01, Subd 3(a) 2 City Code, Section 1104.02, Subd 5(c) Planning Case VA2016-001 October 19, 2019 Page 2 An Administrative Variance may be granted for an encroachment up to 25% of City Code requirements 3. Twenty-five percent of 45’ is 11’-4”. The request is for a 5’ encroachment, thus, the request is consistent with City Code. Notice of this meeting was mailed to the seven adjacent property owners, as required by City Code.4 Summary The applicant requests to replace the concrete stoop (stairs) with a 5’ X 5’ covered stoop (front porch), which would encroach 5’ into the front yard setback. The home is set back about 45’ from the front property line, and is the nearest home to the edge of the right-of- way, thus the minimum setback on this block, and on this side of Eastwood Rd is 45’. Recommendation Staff recommends review of the Administrative Variance contingent upon complying with the conditions in Resolution 1059-16. The Planning Commission is requested to consider the following options: 1. Resolution 1059-16, approving the review of the Administrative Variance is attached if the Commission chooses this action. 2. The Planning Commission may choose to deny the Administrative Variance. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff would direct the applicant to apply for a formal Variance. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments 1. Site Photos 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Map 4. Resolution 1059-16 3 City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 6(a)(1) 4 City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 6(b) Planning Case VA2016-001 October 19, 2019 Page 3 Site Photo Figure 1: 7801 Eastwood Rd (Oct 4, 2016) Figure 2: Porch (stoop) detail, submitted by contractor Planning Case VA2016-001 October 19, 2019 Page 4 Zoning Map Planning Case VA2016-001 October 19, 2019 Page 5 Aerial Map MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1059-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FORTY FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A COVERED STOOP AT 7801 EASTWOOD RD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE AV2016-01 WHEREAS, the applicant, Chad Born (Born Carpentry, LLC), on behalf of property owners, Erica Edgeton and Chad Edgeton, has applied for an Administrative Variance to allow a covered stoop to encroach 5’ into the required 45’ front yard setback at 7801 Eastwood Rd; and, WHEREAS, 7801 Eastwood Rd is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Lot 52, of Spring Lake Park Hill View PIN: 06-30-23-44-0034 WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code, 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 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 principal building on the same block and same side of the street with the smallest front yard setback measures approximately 45’ (7801 Eastwood Rd, based on 2015 Ramsey County aerial photo), and thus the minimum front yard setback for all lots on the east side of this block, including the subject property, is 45’; and, WHEREAS, the proposed covered front stoop would encroach 5’ into the required 45’ front yard setback; and, Resolution 1059-16 October 19, 2016 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 6 permits the Community Development Director (City Administrator) to approve an Administrative Variance if the subject property is zoned R-1 or R-2; and the variance is within 25% of the required setback, and not less than 5’ from a property line; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-1, and the proposed 5’ setback encroachment is 11% of the minimum 45’ front yard setback; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the City of Mounds View City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 6(b), the Community Development Director has reviewed the variance request, and finds that it is consistent with the variance criteria listed in the City Code Section 1125.02, Subd 2: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Code. b. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan: Goal 2: Maintain and upgrade the existing housing stock of the City Policies: b. Use housing projects to promote economic development and tax base expansion. Goal 4: Encourage residential infill and redevelopment that supports the City’s housing goals and maintains residential character. c. The applicant’s proposed covered front stoop is a reasonable use of the property, not permitted by the City Code because of the front yard setback encroachment. 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. The home was built in 1962, and is set back closer to the street than other homes on the same side of the block. If other homes had been built at the minimum required 30’ front yard setback, the greater 45’ setback would not be applicable, and a variance for the covered stoop would not be necessary. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The addition of the covered front stoop onto the home will enhance the character of the home, and the neighborhood. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The 5’ X 5’ covered front stoop is not excessively large. Resolution 1059-16 October 19, 2016 Page 3 g. The Planning Commission 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. Such conditions shall include: 1. The applicants shall construct the covered stoop according to Building Code (Permit 2016-00722), and consistent with drawings presented in the Staff Report. WHEREAS, in accordance with the City of Mounds View City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 6(b), notice of the Planning Commission’s review of this Administrative Variance was mailed to seven adjacent property owners of the subject property on Oct 4, 2016; 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the Administrative Variance request, and agrees with Staff’s findings and approval of the Administrative Variance subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall construct the covered stoop according to Building Code (Permit 2016-00722), and consistent with drawings presented in the Staff Report. 2. If within one year after granting the Administrative Variance, the work as permitted by the variance has not begun, then such variance shall become null and void unless an extension of time has been requested by the applicant and granted by the Planning Commission. Such extension shall be requested by the applicant in writing, and submitted to the City at least 30 days before the expiration of the original variance. Resolution 1059-16 October 19, 2016 Page 4 Adopted this 19th day of October, 2016. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) -DRAFT- PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 5, 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 October 5, 2016. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners French, Klander, Klebsch, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Planner Jon Sevald and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page VR2016-04 Variance Request for a 30’ Front Yard Setback 1 Approval of Minutes 5 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Special Order of Business None. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases -DRAFT- A. (Continued) Consider Resolution 1055-16, a Resolution approving/denying a Variance for a 30’ front yard setback at 7790 Eastwood Road; Planning Case VR2016-04 Planner Sevald stated 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 Road. 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 developable area of the lot. The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on September 7, 2016, and continued the Hearing to September 21, 2016, taking no action. Planner Sevald explained the property at 7800 Eastwood Road 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 Road). 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. Planner Sevald indicated 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 Road. 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. Planner Sevald reported prior to the Title Search, neither the developer nor the current property owner (Value Homes) knew about the easements. For a Minor Subdivision, a Title Search is not required prior to plat approval, but prior to recording the plat at Ramsey County (City Code, Section 1202.01, Subd 2(b). Due to the private drainage easement and the 54’ front yard building setback requirement, the developable area of the lot is significantly reduced. 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 developable area of the lot. Chair Stevenson saw no reason to hold another Public Hearing given the fact there were no neighbors in attendance. Chair Stevenson recalled the concerns of the neighbors as discussed at the previous meetings and reviewed the shape of the subject lot noting the easements on site. He requested staff review the developable area of the lot. Planner Sevald outlined the developable area on the survey, and reviewed it with the Planning Commission. -DRAFT- Chair Stevenson expressed concern with the fact the developer was proposing to build a rental unit if the variance was not approved. He suggested that if a home was built on this property that it be more in synch with the surrounding properties and not be a rental. Commissioner Love asked if the proposed home would be two levels. Erik Ollestad, Value Homes, LLC, discussed the home he was proposing to build on the property at 7790 Eastwood Road. He commented on the trees that would be lost. It was noted the house would be in alignment with the setback requirements, however the garage would not be. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned if the private easement has been discussed between the property owner and the adjacent property. Mr. Ollestad did not anticipate this issue would be resolved with the adjacent property owner. Commissioner Klebsch stated her concerns were still the same and had not been addressed. She appreciated a buffer of trees would remain in place, but did not understand why there was only two ways to build on this lot. She believed there were more options for the site. For this reason, she would not support the variance request. Mr. Ollestad expressed frustration with the way the Planning Commission had managed his request and was disappointed with the fact that he has had to come back to three meetings in order for the Commission to make a decision on his request. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 1055-16, a Resolution Approving of a Variance to Allow a 30-Foot Front Yard Setback for a New Home at 7790 Eastwood Road; Planning Case No. VR2016-04. Commissioner Klander asked why the developer was not aware of the easement on the site. Planner Sevald described the differences between a major and minor subdivision and explained the developer was not required to complete a title search prior to plat approval, but prior to the plat being recorded. Commissioner Klander questioned when the drainage easement was put in place. Planner Sevald reported this took place in 1997. He noted this was a private easement between two property owners. Commissioner Love believed it was unfortunate the developer did not find out about the easement until after purchasing the property. Ayes – 4 Nays – 3 (French, Klebsch, Love) Motion failed. Planner Sevald requested comments, for the record, from those that opposed the Variance. Commissioner Love believed the Variance did not meet Letter E stating the essential character of the neighborhood would be impacted by the proposed variance. Commissioner Klebsch added that Letter F was not being met either. -DRAFT- Commissioner French believed that a smaller home would fit on the site and found no hardship with the property. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity Planner Sevald discussed upcoming planning cases. B. Staff Updates Planner Sevald provided the Commission with a handout on Roberts Rules of Order and affordable housing requirements. Commissioner Klebsch thanked staff for the information. She appreciated how staff provided information on affordable housing on a regional level. C. Council Updates Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He commented on the City’s water quality and its treatment plants. He discussed the recent meeting held by the Charter Commission and noted the Council has been working on the 2017 budget and tax levy. He explained the Council approved an EDA and HRA tax levy for 2017. He was pleased to report the City would be receiving two sound walls in conjunction with the I-35W MnPASS project. He discussed the recent candidate forum. Council Member Meehlhause encouraged everyone to visit the Festival in the Park Craft Fair at the Community Center on Sunday, October 9th. He invited the public to attend the Mounds View Lion’s Annual Spaghetti Dinner at the VFW in Spring Lake Park on Thursday, October 13th from 4:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. He indicated the Mounds View Lions would be holding a Waffle Breakfast on Saturday, October 29th at the Community Center from 8:30 to 11:30 a.m. and invited families to stick around to attend the Fall Family Festival. D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 8. Approval of Minutes -DRAFT- September 21, 2016. Commissioner Klander requested the applicant’s last name be spelled corrected. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Klebsch. To approve the Minutes of the September 21, 2016 regular Planning Commission meetings as amended. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, October 19, 2016 B. Wednesday, November 2, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:56 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald Planner Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.