Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-20-2015 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA May 20, 2015 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 1a. Special Order of Business: Elect Vice-Chair 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: April 15, 2015 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2015-002 Variance Request to Allow a Driveway Curb Cut to Exceed 24 Feet Wide Applicant: Robert Horbul Address: 8382 Knollwood Drive B. VR2015-003 Variance Request to Allow a Driveway with a 2-foot Setback Applicant: James Anderson Address: 7930 Sunnyside Road C. VR2015-004 Variance Request to Allow a Garage with a 3-foot Setback Applicant: Michael & Andrea Shoup Address: 8330 Groveland Road 6. Other Planning Activity None 7. Review Minutes: A. May 6, 2015 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, June 3, 2015 B. Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10. Adjourn UPDATED 5-20-2015 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 6, 2015 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 May 6, 2015. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Elofson, Kieffer, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Birken. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Special Order of Business A. Oath of Office for Commissioner Therese Kieffer Planning Associate Heller administered the Oath of Office to newly appointed Planning Commissioner Therese Kieffer. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 2 Discuss Proposed Code Amendment for Christmas Tree Sales 2 Discuss Proposed Code Amendment for Temporary Outdoor Food Sales 3 Code Amendment for Religious Institutions Language 4 _____________________________________________________________________________ 4. Approval of Minutes March 18, 2015. Mounds View Planning Commission May 6, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the Minutes of the March 18, 2015 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 5. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Cases None. _____________________________________________________________________________ 7. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss Proposed Code Amendment for Christmas Tree Sales Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that there has been a Christmas tree sales business operating in Mounds View on commercial properties for many years. Staff recently researched what 12 other metro cities require for Christmas tree sales. All of the cities allow Christmas tree sales and none requires a conditional use permit for this use. All the cities simply require an annual permit or license, and most allow the applications to be approved by city staff (3 cities required the City Council to approve the license or permit). Associate Heller recommends that the City Code be amended to better accommodate Christmas tree sale businesses. Since this is a business that only operates for approximately 30 days each year, staff feels that requiring a conditional use permit is unnecessary. Staff suggests that the City Code be amended to add Christmas Tree Sales as a new business license type to Title 500, Business License Regulations, and simply require an annual business license for this type of business. The City Council will determine what the annual fee should be, but staff suggests it be the same as the 1-month permit fee for peddlers/transient merchants/solicitors, which is currently $204.00. Staff requested feedback from the Commission on the proposed code amendment. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Love/Commissioner Elofson. To approve Resolution No. 1025-15, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Amendment to Title 500 of the Mounds View City Code to Add Christmas Tree Sales as a New Business License; Special Planning Case No. 196-15. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission May 6, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ B. Discuss Proposed Code Amendment for Temporary Outdoor Food Sales Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that a food truck has been operating in Mounds View business parking lots for the last two summers, but they were switching locations every 10 days in order to comply with the zoning code time limit. The county food truck license is applicable for 21 days in the same location so it became confusing for them to comply with both sets of rules and time limits. Currently if a merchant wants to have temporary outdoor sales for more than 10 days, a conditional use permit is required for each location where the sales would occur. Associate Heller recommends that the Zoning Code be amended to better accommodate temporary outdoor food sales, and to be consistent with state and county food truck permit timelines. The food truck has been successful in Mounds View and a code amendment would make it easier for them to operate here. Staff suggests that the code amendment be specific to temporary outdoor food sales rather than any type of sales so that we don’t get other types of vendors selling in parking lots for long periods of time. Staff requested feedback from the Commission on the proposed code amendment. Chair Stevenson asked how the food truck was going to not take up parking spaces. Associate Heller reported that parking has not been a concern from the current locations the food truck has chosen to park. She explained that if parking became a concern, staff would address this issue. Commissioner Love questioned how staff counted the consecutive days. Associate Heller indicated the code would allow for outdoor food sales to be located on a site for no more than 21 consecutive days. Commissioner Kieffer discussed the Ramsey County food truck requirements. She questioned if the City should add the Minnesota Department of Health rules and regulations into the City’s code. Associate Heller discussed the City’s current permitting process and understood that the City does not approve any temporary food sales permits without a valid license from the County Health Department. She commented that the City could make adjustments to the code if concerns were to arise. Chair Stevenson supported the proposed code amendment and believed it was in the City’s best interest to regulate temporary outdoor food sales. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Kieffer. To approve Resolution No. 1024-15, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Amendment to Title 1100, Chapter 1112 of the Mounds View Zoning Code to Add Requirements for Temporary Outdoor Food Sales; Special Planning Case No. 195-15. Mounds View Planning Commission May 6, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ C. Code Amendment for Religious Institutions Language Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that the City Attorney suggested that the City Code be amended to remove language pertaining to religious institutions. In several areas of the Zoning Code where religious institutions are described as a use, the language also includes “such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues.” The City Attorney recommends that this list of examples be removed so that the Code isn’t inadvertently excluding a type of religious institution that isn’t on this list. There are also a couple places in the code where only the word “church” is used, so the amendment also includes changing church to religious institution. Staff requested the Commission review the proposed code amendment. MOTION/SECOND: Chair Stevenson/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution No. 1026-15, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Amendment to Title 1000 and 1100 of the Mounds View City Code to Review Language Pertaining to Religious Institutions; Special Planning Case No. 197-15. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Review Minutes: A. April 15, 2015 The Commission discussed the April 15, 2015 meeting minutes. 9. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Heller explained the Commission would be reviewing three variance requests at the May 20th meeting. B. Staff Updates Planning Associate Heller provided the Commission with an update from staff. She discussed the minor changes that were made to the Columbaria code amendment. She reported that the City hired a new Public Works Director and he would begin working on June 1st. The 2015 street improvement project would begin next week. Mounds View Planning Commission May 6, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Council Updates Councilmember Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He thanked Commissioner Kieffer for her willingness to serve on the Planning Commission. He discussed the goals of the Council for 2015, noting the Police Department’s relationship with the community was being addressed by both the City and the County. He reviewed a recent discussion that was held with Community Partners for Youth (CPY). It was noted the Council was discussing the potential of allowing residents to have chickens. He explained the Council was current reviewing the five-year capital improvements plan. He reported that the Council was going to consider City-wide garbage collection. C. Planning Commissioner Reports Commissioner Love wanted to see the City work on enhancing relations between the Police Department and Mounds View residents. She presented the Commission with a handout and discussed the options available from the Topsfield Organization. She believed that Mounds View would benefit from holding community engagement conversations. She explained that she discussed this matter with Police Chief Kinney and inquired if the Planning Commission was supportive of this program. Planning Associate Heller suggested that this initiative not be solely from the Planning Commission either. She recommended that this be a resident led initiative with the support of the City. Councilmember Meehlhause was in favor of the Mounds View volunteer organization pursuing this initiative further. He suggested Commissioner Love speak further with Assistant City Administrator Crane regarding this initiative. Associate Heller indicated she would email the full document to the Commissioners to review further. The Commissioners could then consider how to move forward and implement the initiative. Chair Stevenson stated the Bel Rae would have a Ribbon Cutting Ceremony on Monday, May 11th at 4:00 p.m. He invited the entire Planning Commission to attend this event. 10. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, May 20, 2015 B. Wednesday, June 3, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission May 6, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ 11. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA May 20, 2015 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: April 15, 2015 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2015-002 Variance Request to Allow a Driveway Curb Cut to Exceed 24 Feet Wide Applicant: Robert Horbul Address: 8382 Knollwood Drive B. VR2015-003 Variance Request to Allow a Driveway with a 2-foot Setback Applicant: James Anderson Address: 7930 Sunnyside Road C. VR2015-004 Variance Request to Allow a Garage with a 3-foot Setback Applicant: Michael & Andrea Shoup Address: 8330 Groveland Road 6. Other Planning Activity None 7. Review Minutes: A. May 6, 2015 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, June 3, 2015 B. Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10. Adjourn Item No: 5A Meeting Date: May 20, 2015 Type of Business: Planning Case City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing - Consideration of a Variance to Allow a Driveway Curb Cut to Exceed 24 Feet at 8382 Knollwood Drive; Planning Case VR2015-002 Introduction: The applicant, Robert Horbul, is requesting approval of a variance to allow the driveway curb cut to exceed 24-feet at his property at 8382 Knollwood Drive. The applicant’s entire driveway, including the curb cut, is currently 34 feet wide. This property is on a street that is being reconstructed this year. As the streets have been reconstructed, the City is installing the new curb cut aprons so that they comply with the Zoning Code requirements. The new aprons are installed with a 5-foot setback and a maximum of 24 feet wide. The applicant’s existing concrete driveway was installed 34 feet wide in 1977 when the house was built and has remained this way ever since. It does comply with the required side yard setback. City staff sent the applicant a letter stating that his driveway was non-conforming, and that the new apron would be installed 24 feet wide instead of matching to his existing width. The Zoning Code allows driveway curb cuts for single family homes to be a maximum of 24 feet wide, so the applicant has requested a variance for a curb cut to exceed the allowed width. Discusssion: There was no zoning permit issued when the driveway was installed, and there was no variance granted allowing the driveway to be 34 feet wide. Had the builder applied for a permit, he would have been informed that the driveway was not allowed to be 34 feet wide at the street. The driveway itself can be wider – it’s only the curb cut opening that is limited to 24 feet. When Knollwood Drive is completed, the applicant wants his new driveway apron to be installed 34 feet wide. The Zoning Code states that the Planning Commission may issue a variance to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of the property owner’s land. This is true for all variance requests. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. 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 these regulations. The zoning code limits driveway openings for traffic safety reasons, and for neighborhood aesthetics. Staff feels that limiting the applicant to a 24 foot wide curb cut would not be depriving him of something commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. 8382 Knollwood Drive Variance Report May 20, 2015 Page 2 b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not address this specific of an issue, but traffic safety and management is an important function for the City. By limiting the curb cut width, less vehicles can be parked next each other near the street which improves visibility when exiting out of a driveway and the streets are safer. Keeping driveway openings smaller, and consistent in size betters the aesthetics of the neighborhood. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The driveway is the same width as the 3-car garage. The applicant is requesting to keep the curb cut 34 feet wide for easier access to all three garage stalls. 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. There are no unique circumstances that apply to this property. The applicant did not build this house or install the driveway. He purchased the house with the existing driveway in 1989. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant’s neighborhood consists of larger sized lots. The driveway would remain as it has since 1977 and would not change the 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. The 10-foot variance is the minimum variance needed in order for the driveway apron to remain the same width as the rest of the driveway. 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. Staff has no suggestions for conditions for the variance request. The Planning Commission may add conditions as they see applicable. Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, this application requires a public hearing. Staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of the applicant’s property and a notice was published in the Sun Focus newspaper on Friday, May 8, 2015. Staff has not received any comments or questions as of May 15, 2015. 7930 Sunnyside Road Variance Report May 20, 2015 Page 3 Recommendation: After taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission may take any of the following actions below related to the requests. Staff recommends denial of this variance. 1. Deny the variance as requested. Staff has prepared Resolution 1027-15 that denies the variance if the Commission chooses this action. 2. Choose to approve the variance. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff would need direction from the Planning Commission to prepare a resolution of approval with findings of fact to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide that there is need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Narrative from applicant 4. Photo 5. Resolution 1027-15 Zoning Map * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential N N Aerial View 34 feet wide Narrative from Applicant Narrative from Applicant Con’t Photos View of front of property The entire driveway is 34 feet wide – the street asphalt and the apron have been removed for reconstruction MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1027-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR A CURB CUT TO EXCEED 24-FEET WIDE AT 8382 KNOLLWOOD DRIVE; PLANNING CASE VR2015-002 WHEREAS, the applicant, Robert Horbul, property owner of 8382 Knollwood Drive, has applied for a variance to allow the curb cut on his property to be 34 feet wide; and, WHEREAS, 8382 Knollwood Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Lot 7, Block2, Gustafson’s Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN: 06-30-23-21-0095 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Staff Report 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 May 20, 2015; 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, of which all 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 all of the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are not satisfied, and finds there not to be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 8382 Knollwood Drive, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 1027-15 Page 2 1. Section 1121.09 Subdivision 5b of the Zoning Code states that single-family lots shall be limited to one 24-foot wide curb cut per property. There are no issues with this property that would cause the owner to need a wider curb cut. Limiting the applicant to a 24 foot wide curb cut would not be depriving him of something commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. 2. The Comprehensive Plan supports good traffic management for safer vehicle movements on streets. Limiting the width of access points onto a street is one of the ways that the City accomplishes this. Keeping curb cut widths consistent helps with neighborhood aesthetics. 3. Curb cuts for single-family homes that exceed 24 feet are rare and not desired by the City for safety and aesthetic reasons. 4. There are no unique circumstances for this property. The applicant wants to keep the wider curb cut for easier access to the garage. 5. The other single-family properties in the neighborhood with curb cuts that exceed 24 feet will also be corrected when the new aprons are installed, and granting the variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code or to other property in the R-1, Single-Family Residential zoning district. 6. Allowing the 34 foot wide curb cut is the minimum variance possible to alleviate what the applicant has stated is his difficulty in needing a curb cut 10 feet wider than what the Zoning Code allows. 7. There are no conditions recommended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, denies the variance request of Robert Horbul, property owner of 8382 Knollwood Drive, to allow a 34 foot wide curb cut on his property. Adopted this 20th day of May, 2015. ________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: May 20, 2015 Type of Business: Planning Case City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing - Consideration of a Variance for a Reduced Driveway Setback at 7930 Sunnyside Road; Planning Case VR2015-003 Introduction: The applicant, James Anderson, is requesting approval of a variance for a reduced driveway setback on his property at 7930 Sunnyside Road. The applicant’s driveway runs next to the house to access the detached garage which is behind the house. The applicant is replacing the entire driveway and is requesting that it be allowed to stay in the same location, which has a 2- foot setback. The Zoning Code requires a 5-foot setback, so the applicant has requested a variance for a reduced driveway setback. Discusssion: The 11-foot wide driveway currently runs next to the house in order to access the detached garage behind the house. The applicant is in the process of replacing the entire driveway. In order to have enough room to drive next to the house, the applicant would like the driveway to remain at 11 feet wide with a 2-foot setback. The Zoning Code states that the Planning Commission may issue a variance to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of the property owner’s land. This is true for all variance requests. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. 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 these regulations. The zoning code requires minimum driveway setbacks for aesthetics and to provide separation and some sense of privacy between neighbors. Mounds View has many older homes that had detached garages added after the home was built. These garages were typically placed behind the house because there wasn’t enough room next to the house. Now years later when the driveways need to be replaced, they don’t meet the current zoning code, but there often isn’t an option to bring the driveway into compliance and still maintain its usability. b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not specify setback criteria, but it does support improvements to properties. 7930 Sunnyside Road Variance Report May 20, 2015 Page 2 c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The property owner’s detached garage is behind the house and used for space to park vehicles inside and for storage. The applicant is requesting to keep the driveway that is just wide enough to be able to safely drive past the house. The entire length of the driveway would have the 2 foot setback so that it’s a straight driveway leading to the garage. 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. This house was originally built in 1953 with an attached garage. In 1971, the owner remodeled the single-car attached garage into a family room, and the following year built the existing two-car detached garage behind the house. At that time, the Village of Mounds View allowed the driveway to be installed with the reduced setback with the neighboring property owner’s consent. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant’s neighborhood consists of larger sized lots. The new concrete driveway will be a nice improvement to the property and would only improve the look of the property from the street. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The 3-foot variance is the minimum variance needed in order to have a driveway wide enough to safely drive past the house. 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. Staff has no suggestions for conditions for the variance request. The Planning Commission may add conditions as they see applicable. Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, this application requires a public hearing. Staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of the applicant’s property and a notice was published in the Sun Focus newspaper on Friday, May 8, 2015. Staff has not received any comments or questions as of May 15, 2015. 7930 Sunnyside Road Variance Report May 20, 2015 Page 3 Recommendation: After taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission may take any of the following actions below related to the requests. Staff recommends approval of this variance. 1. Approval of the Variance as requested. Staff has prepared Resolution 1028-15 that approves the variance if the Commission chooses this action. 2. Choose to deny the variance. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff would need direction from the Planning Commission to prepare a resolution of denial with findings of fact to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide that there is need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Views 3. Narrative from applicant 4. Photos 5. Site Plan 6. Resolution 1028-15 Zoning Map * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential N County Road 10 Yellow lines outline the new driveway location N Aerial View Driveway is 11 feet wide next to the house Garage Narrative from Applicant Photos View of front of property New driveway location – will match existing 18 foot apron width Driveway would be in same location with 2 foot setback New driveway would have same 2 foot side yard setback Driveway is 11 feet wide next to the house Site Plan MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1028-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A THREE-FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A DRIVEWAY AT 7930 SUNNYSIDE ROAD ; PLANNING CASE VR2015-003 WHEREAS, property owner James Anderson, has applied for a three-foot (3’) setback variance to allow the driveway that leads around the house to the garage in the backyard to have a reduced setback; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 7930 Sunnyside Road is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: South ½ of Lot 102, Spring Lake Park Hill View, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN: 06-30-23-42-0042 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Staff Report WHEREAS, Section 1104.01 Subd. 4c(1a) of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that driveways shall be set back at least five feet (5’); and, WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow a driveway to have a two (2) foot setback; and, 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 May 20, 2015; 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, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. Resolution 1028-15 Page 2 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 7930 Sunnyside Road, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding setbacks is to create physical separation between driveways for aesthetics and a sense of privacy for the property owners. The new driveway will be in the same location as it has been for over 40 years. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is improving the property. 3. The applicant is requesting this variance because the driveway will run past the house that only has a setback of 13 feet, and in order to have a 11 foot wide drive aisle past the house, the driveway setback will be 2 feet. 4. This property has had a detached garage with the existing driveway location for 40 years. The driveway location was approved when it was installed in 1972, and the applicant wants to be able to maintain a useable driveway width since it runs right next to the house. 5. There will be little change to the existing character of the neighborhood since the driveway will be in the same location. The new driveway will be an improvement to the neighborhood. 6. The 3-foot variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s practical difficulty since that is what the zoning code requires for driveway setbacks. 7. The Planning Commission may impose conditions upon the premises as may be necessary to comply with city standards and to minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of James Anderson, owner of 7930 Sunnyside Road, to allow a driveway to have a two (2) foot setback. Adopted this 20th day of May, 2015. ________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: ________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 5C Meeting Date: May 20, 2015 Type of Business: Planning Case City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing - Consideration of a Variance for a Reduced Garage Setback at 8330 Groveland Road; Planning Case VR2015-004 Introduction: The applicants, Michael and Andrea Shoup, are requesting approval of a variance for a reduced garage setback on their property at 8330 Groveland Road. The applicant’s purchased this property in August 2014 and a month later the detached garage burned down. The applicants are in the process of building a new detached garage, and would like to rebuild the garage next to the house instead of in the backyard where it was. The proposed detached garage is 24’ x 24’ with a 5 foot walkway between the house and garage. This proposal would put the garage about 3 feet from the side property line. The Zoning Code requires a 5 foot side and rear setback for accessory buildings, so the applicants have requested a variance for a reduced garage setback. Discusssion: The previous detached garage was in the backyard and there is also an in-ground swimming pool behind the house, which left very little open grass area in the backyard. The applicants are building a new garage and would like to make the property more livable by placing the garage next to the house. This would give the family better access to the garage and open up half of the backyard for grassed play area. They would like to leave a 5 foot walkway between the house and garage so there is enough room to go between the front and back yards. The garage would then have a 3 foot setback from the south property line. The property that is directly adjacent to the new garage is a 1.55 acre City-owned parcel that is almost entirely wetland. The Zoning Code states that the Planning Commission may issue a variance to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of the property owner’s land. This is true for all variance requests. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. 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 these regulations. The zoning code requires minimum building setbacks for aesthetics and to provide separation and some sense of privacy between neighbors. Years ago it was common to build a detached garage in the backyard after the home was built. Homes are now built with attached garages and open backyards are important spaces for families. The variance will allow the property to become more practical and livable for residents. 8330 Groveland Road Variance Report May 20, 2015 Page 2 b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not specify setback criteria, but it does support improvements to properties. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The applicants are requesting to place the garage next to the house, which is a location that works better for the family, and makes the property more usable and updated. 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. This house was originally built in 1959 and was placed about 130 feet back from the street. The detached garage was added in 1973 and the swimming pool was installed in 2000, which essentially took up most of the remaining backyard area. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant’s neighborhood consists of half-acre sized lots, and the applicant’s house has wooded area screening the front yard. The new garage will be a nice improvement to the property and would not be very visible from the street. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The 2-foot variance is the minimum variance needed in order to have a 2-car garage and a walkway space between the house and garage wide enough to be usable. 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. A wetland buffer permit will be required with the building permit. The Planning Commission may add other conditions as they see applicable. Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, this application requires a public hearing. Staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of the applicant’s property and a notice was published in the Sun Focus newspaper on Friday, May 8, 2015. Staff has received one comment in support of the variance request as of May 15, 2015. 8330 Groveland Road Variance Report May 20, 2015 Page 3 Recommendation: After taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission may take any of the following actions below related to the requests. Staff recommends approval of this variance. 1. Approval of the Variance as requested. Staff has prepared Resolution 1029-15 that approves the variance if the Commission chooses this action. 2. Choose to deny the variance. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff would need direction from the Planning Commission to prepare a resolution of denial with findings of fact to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide that there is need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Views 3. Site Plan 4. Narrative from applicant 5. Photos 6. Comment from neighbor 7. Resolution 1029-15 Zoning Map * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential N Yellow lines outline the new driveway location N Aerial View Proposed New garage location 1.55 acre City-owned parcel Previous garage Site Plan Application for Variance for 8330 Groveland Road, Mounds View Mn 55112 Property Owners: Andrea & Michael Shoup Description of Proposal: We are seeking to rebuild a detached garage that was lost to a fire in September of 2014. The goal is to rebuild a 24 x 24 detached garage on the south side of the house. Design elements would be consistent with our house, inclusive of a 4/12 pitch, siding to match house and shakes across the front gable. Aerial maps show our lot dimensions to be a 100 feet wide. With 5 foot setbacks from the property line, we would be unable to construct the garage in the remaining space and maintain a 5 foot setback. Therefore, we are seeking a variance to allow us to build with a 3-4 foot setback from our property line, which borders the wetland. A white privacy gate would be installed between the garage and the house, with a 5 foot wide paver walkway installed between garage and house. An existing shed and basketball hoop would be demolished and sod would be laid to the rear of the house where the old garage was. *Rational for Variance Request* Since we have the opportunity to rebuild our garage, we would like to move it forward to be flush with the house in order to allow us to accomplish three things. a. Installation of a privacy fence. We have an in-ground pool in the back yard that upon purchasing the home in August of 2014, was not fully-enclosed/fenced. In order to meet city compliance codes and insurance demands upon moving in, we installed a 4 foot chain link fence that extended from the garage, underneath the deck, and up to our house (6 foot was not an option because it had to fit under our deck). This was the only way to entirely secure the pool, given the current garage/deck/house landscaping structures in place. Moving the garage up would allow us to remove the 4 foot chain link fence and replace it with a 6 foot gate that we feel makes our home and community safer for not only our family, but also for those with children in the neighborhood. We have already discovered that our 4 year old, and neighbor children, can easily scale the 4 foot fence, which doesn’t provide for a secure buffer to our pool. b. Turnaround space in driveway. There seems to be a fair amount of traffic on Groveland Road in part due to through traffic from County J and highway 10. In addition, there are frequently pedestrians walking/biking in front of our house. With the previous location of the garage, we had to back our vehicles out of the driveway, which was very difficult due to given the heavy foliage at the end of the driveway due to the wetland and as well as landscaping in our yard. If able to move the garage forward, we would be able to better utilize a parking pad in front of the new garage for a turnaround area. Currently, this space is not easily accessible for a turnaround space because of a shed structure that was placed there by the previous owner (note: this shed is approximately 1 foot from the property line). This shed would be demolished during the rebuild. c. The vast majority of our “backyard” is currently taken up by the previous garage, pool, fire pit, and large shed, all of which were built by the previous owners. Moving the garage up would allow us to have a fenced in back yard for our kids to play safety in, and have enough room to construct a swing set. Currently there isn’t enough room to bring in a swing set. Narrative from Applicant 2. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. The variance will allow for us to complete the rebuild process in a way that is increases safety for our community. 3. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Urban Design Goal: “The City will strive to improve the appearance of the community, maintain compatible land uses and encourage a sensitive integration among activities, man-made facilities and the natural environment” We maintain that bringing the garage forward will improve the appearance of our dwelling, and thus the overall feel of our neighborhood/community. We understand that thoughtful consideration must be given to the preservation of natural environments, such as the wetland our home borders. The new garage plan we are proposing in no way compromises the integrity of the wetland and would instead, shift traffic flow to the walkway between our house and garage, away from the wetland. There was no division otherwise between our property and the wetland with the previous garage placement. 4. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. We will use our garage in a reasonable manner. 5. 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 enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the action of the applicant. See Rational for Request. 6. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The character of the neighborhood would remain unchanged as a result of moving the garage forward, but would rather enhance the aesthetics of the property and create a safer community by having our pool fully protected with a privacy fence, as well as increased visibility for driving onto Groveland. 7. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. We’ve designed the placement of garage to be 3-4 feet from our property line (exact placement will be better determined once shed is removed), which would allow for us to build a standard 24 x 24 garage. Narrative from Applicant Con’t Photos View of front of 8330 Groveland Road from street Shed has 0-1 foot setback (it’s angled slightly). New garage would have 3-4 foot setback New garage would be 5 feet away from the house – existing shed would be removed Swimming pool Previous garage was on this concrete area View of backyard of 8330 Groveland Road Comment from Neighbor MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1029-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A TWO FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE AT 8330 GROVELAND ROAD ; PLANNING CASE VR2015-004 WHEREAS, property owners, Michael and Andrea Shoup, have applied for a two foot (2’) setback variance to allow a garage to have a 3-foot setback from the south property line; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 8330 Groveland Road is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Auditor’s Subdivision No. 89, Subject to Roads and Easements, Except the West 211.60 feet of the South 100 Feet of Lot 43, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN: 06-30-23-21-0058 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Staff Report WHEREAS, Section 1104.01 Subd. 4a(1) of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that accessory buildings shall be set back at least five feet (5’); and, WHEREAS, the applicants have applied for a variance to allow a garage to have a three (3) foot setback; and, 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 May 20, 2015; 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, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. Resolution 1029-15 Page 2 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 8330 Groveland Road, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding setbacks is to create physical separation between garages for safety, aesthetics and a sense of privacy for the property owners. The new garage will not be next any residential properties as it is directly adjacent to a large parcel that is a city-owned wetland area. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is improving the property. 3. The applicant is requesting this variance because the garage will be next to the house, and in order to have a wide enough walkway between the house and garage, the garage setback will be 3 feet. 4. This property has a very large front setback, and there was very little open grass area in the backyard with the old garage and pool taking up most of the backyard. This variance will make the property more livable. 5. There will be no change to the existing character of the neighborhood since the garage will not be very visible from the street. The new garage will be an improvement to the neighborhood. 6. The 2 foot variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s practical difficulty since that is what the zoning code requires for garage setbacks. 7. The Planning Commission may impose conditions upon the premises as may be necessary to comply with city standards and to minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of Michael and Andrea Shoup, owners of 8330 Groveland Road, to allow a garage to have a three (3) foot setback. Adopted this 20th day of May, 2015. ________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: ________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL)