Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-21-2011 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA September 21, 2011 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: July 6, 2011 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. VR 2011-007 Variance Request to Allow a Second Curb Cut and Driveway in an R-1, Single Family Residential District Address: 6939 Pleasant View Drive Applicant: Lois Lestina 6. Other Planning Activity None 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. October 5, 2011 B. October 19, 2011 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. July 20, 2011 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 20, 2011 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Meehlhause at 7:02 p.m. for July 20, 2011. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Miller, and Schiltgen. Absent and Excused: Chairperson Stevenson; Commissioners Rundle and Smith. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 VR2011-006. Consideration of a Variance for a Reduced Rear Yard Setback 2 Code Amendment for Chapter 1121.09 3 City Code & Zoning Code Amendments for Variance 3 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes June 1, 2011. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Miller. To approve the Minutes of the June 1, 2011 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission July 20, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. VR2011-006 Consideration of a Variance for a Reduced Rear Yard Setback at 8088 Sunnyside Road Planning Associate Heller indicated the applicants, Gordy and Cynthia Druvenga, at 8088 Sunnyside Road are requesting a rear yard setback variance to allow for an addition to the back of their house. The property layout was unique in that the lot depth was 146 feet but this block of Sunnyside has large front setbacks since all the other lots are 85 feet deeper. This large front setback left the backyard only 42 feet deep. The homeowners want to build a 14’ x 28’ addition to the rear of the house. Mr. Druvenga has spoken to the adjacent property owner to the west and the neighbor submitted a letter in support of the variance. City staff reviewed the variance approval guidelines with the Commission and recommended approval of a variance allowing for up to a four-foot encroachment into the required 30-foot rear yard setback. Commissioner Miller questioned what the addition to the home would add. Associate Heller stated the homeowner would add a family room, laundry room on the main floor and a deck to the rear of the house. She further reviewed the site plan with the Commission. Gordy Druvenga, 8088 Sunnyside Road, explained he has lived at his property for 22+ years. He enjoys the neighborhood and the proposed addition would allow him to remain in the property through retirement. Mr. Druvenga requested the Commission support the four-foot variance. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if any utility lines would be affected by the construction to the rear of the property. Mr. Druvenga stated the overhead power lines are not in the way of an addition, but underground sewer or water pipes may need to be dealt with depending on where they connect to the house. Vice Chair Meehlhause opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. There were no comments from the public. Vice Chair Meehlhause closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned the timeframe the applicant had to build before the variance would expire. Associate Heller indicated the variance would expire in one year, but the homeowner could request an extension before the one year expires. Mounds View Planning Commission July 20, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolution 945-11, a Resolution Approving of a Four Foot Variance or Twenty-Six Foot Rear Yard Setback at 8088 Sunnyside Road; Planning Case No. VR2011-006. Commissioner Miller clarified a grammatical correction to be made to the Resolution. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Code Amendment for Chapter 1121.09 Associate Heller stated this was the formal action for the detached parking code amendment as discussed at a previous Planning Commission meeting. This would add language to the code stating that a detached parking area that is used frequently, it must be serviced by an improved driveway connected to the primary driveway. Staff recommended the Commission approve the Resolution as presented. Vice Chair Meehlhause read the Resolution revisions aloud for the record. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Miller. To approve Resolution 946-11, Approving to an Amendment to City Code Chapter 1121.09, to Address Accessing Detached Parking Areas. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. B. City Code & Zoning Code Amendments for Variances Associate Heller informed the Commission that the proposed changes to the City Code regarding variances were in response to the recent State code language changes. She indicated the variance language in the State code has removed the word hardship and replaced it with “practical difficulty.” With this change, the Mounds View City Code will be consistent with the updated State language. The City Attorney submitted these proposed changes and City Staff recommends approval of the Code amendments. Vice Chair Meehlhause opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. There were no comments from the public. Vice Chair Meehlhause closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned if most cities were revising their variance language to coincide with the State’s language. Mounds View Planning Commission July 20, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Associate Heller stated this was the case. Vice Chair Meehlhause indicated he felt the new language was easier to understand. Commissioner Miller asked how administrative variances were handled. Associate Heller indicated administrative variances are simpler and do not require a public hearing, although only a few cases will qualify for an administrative variance. Instead of a public hearing, only immediately adjacent property owners are notified of the request and the Planning Commission reviews the request. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Miller. To approve Resolution 947-11, A Resolution Recommending Amendments to the City Code to Address Variances. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. August 3, 2011 B. August 17, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chair Meehlhause adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Associate Planner Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: September 21, 2011 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Variance to allow a Second Curb Cut and Driveway at 6939 Pleasant View Drive; Planning Case VR11-007 Introduction: The applicant, Lois Lestina, property owner of 6939 Pleasant View Drive, is requesting a variance to allow a second curb cut and driveway to remain on her property. The City Code allows one curb cut on each R-1, Single Family Residential zoned property without a variance. Discussion: The house at 6939 Pleasant View Drive was built in 1940, and Lois Lestina has lived here for over 35 years. The property is 100 feet wide and 450 feet deep, but the rear half of the property is mostly wetland and not easily accessible due to a steep hill. The house was built about fifteen feet from the south property line, and originally had a small garage behind the house that was likely built on the south property line. The original driveway is very close to the south property line so that it could run next to the house and access the garage in the rear yard. In 1993, the Lestinas removed the old garage, and built a new two-car garage on the other side of the house, ten feet from the north property line and 26-feet away from the house. They also installed a second gravel driveway leading to the new garage. As with many of the roads in Mounds View, the street had no curbs, so residents could easily move or add curb cuts and driveways. The Lestinas continued to use both driveways until 2010 when Pleasant View Drive was reconstructed and curbs were added. Early in 2010, the Public Works Department mailed property owner, Lois Lestina, a letter, stating that her property had two driveways and that she must contact the City if she wants to keep the second curb cut. Ms. Lestina did not contact the City before the street was reconstructed, and as a result, only one curb cut was installed on the driveway that leads to the garage and she lost access to the south driveway. Ms. Lestina has applied for a variance because she wants to be able to use the south driveway again. That driveway leads right up to the house, and she has physical limitations that make it difficult for her to get around, particularly in the winter. The north driveway does not come nearly as close to the house and is not as convenient. The Zoning Code states that “single-family uses shall be limited to one curb cut access per property unless, upon application for a variance of this restriction, the Planning Commission finds that it is in the interest of public safety to waive such” (Chapter 1121.09 Subd. 5e). City Staff has informed Ms. Lestina that if the Planning Commission were to approve a variance for the second curb cut, she would have one-year to install a hard surface driveway and new curb cut that meets the required five-foot setback. Lestina 2nd Driveway Variance Report September 21, 2011 Page 2 For the Planning Commission to act favorably toward this application, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. 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. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property, which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The only thing exceptional or unusual about this property is that the house, original garage and driveway were all placed on the far south side of the property. In order for the property owner to build a new garage that had better vehicle access and met setback requirements, it had to be put on the north side of the house. Even if the new garage had been placed closer to the house, the original driveway really would not have been able to be utilized to access this garage (there would have only been one curb cut then). b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. While it is true that some lots do have two curb cuts, there are not many of them, especially on interior lots. It is more common to have two curb cuts on a corner lot. It is even less common to see properties with two completely separate driveways. Staff feels that limiting the applicant to one curb cut would not be depriving her of something commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant may not be responsible for the placement of the house and original driveway, but she owned the property when the existing garage and north driveway were built, and was responsible for where they were placed. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Even considering that other lots have two curb cuts, staff believes that granting this variance would be a conference of special privilege to the applicant that would typically be denied to other residential properties. Lestina 2nd Driveway Variance Report September 21, 2011 Page 3 e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. Adding the second curb cut is the minimum variance possible to alleviate what the applicant has stated is her hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Granting the variance request may or may not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The second curb cut and driveway would not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjoining properties. 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 Thursday, September 8, 2011. Recommendation: Staff recommends holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and the public. The Commission may take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. An approval version of Resolution 948-11 is attached for action if the Commission so chooses. 2. Deny the requested variance. A denial version of Resolution 948-11 is attached for action if the Commission so chooses. 3. Table the request. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide there is a need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Respectfully Submitted By, Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photos 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Resolution 948-11 (Approval & Denial versions) Heidi Heller Planning Associate ZONING MAP N F R I D L E Y H NEW BRIGHTON * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View South driveway (1940 Original) Garage The aerial photos were taken in 2008, before this street was reconstructed. Original garage location House North driveway 6939 Pleasant View Drive Photographic Documentation Garage and north driveway House and south driveway This driveway is hard to see now (it runs next to the fence) because of the small amount of gravel and grass growth due to lack of use for the past year, and new sod was put in the boulevard after the street was completed. APPROVAL VERSION MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 948-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A SECOND CURB CUT AND DRIVEWAY AT 6939 PLEASANT VIEW DRIVE; PLANNING CASE VR2011-007 WHEREAS, the applicant, Lois Lestina, property owner of 6939 Pleasant View Drive, has applied for a variance to allow a second curb cut and driveway on her property; and, WHEREAS, 6939 Pleasant View Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family REsidential, and is legally described as follows: Knollwood Park, Lot 73, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 07-30-23-33-0029 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 September 21, 2011; 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 the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient hardship with regard to the property located at 6939 Pleasant View Drive, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 948-11 Page 2 1. Circumstances apply to this property in that the house and original driveway were placed at the far south side of the property in 1940, and this driveway has existed and been used since that time. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would limit the applicant’s ability to park a vehicle very close to the house. 3. The applicant had no control over the placement of the house and original garage and driveway. 4. Granting this variance would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege in that there are other properties in the city that have two curb cuts. The two curb cuts that were on the property from 1993 to 2010 would have continued to exist today if the applicant’s street wasn’t reconstructed in 2010. 5. The second curb cut and driveway is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s hardship. 6. Granting a variance to allow a second curb cut and driveway would not be detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code, in that non-conforming uses may continue to exist. The two curb cuts and driveways existed for 18 years and did not appear to cause any adverse impacts. 7. Granting the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjoining properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of Lois Lestina, property owner of 6939 Pleasant View Drive, to allow a second curb cut and driveway to remain on the south side of the property, subject to the following: 1. The south driveway must have a hard surface and new curb cut installed within one year of the date of this approval. Adopted this 21st day of September, 2011. _________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: __________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL VERSION RESOLUTION NO. 948-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR A SECOND CURB CUT AND DRIVEWAY AT 6939 PLEASANT VIEW DRIVE; PLANNING CASE VR2011-007 WHEREAS, the applicant, Lois Lestina, property owner of 6939 Pleasant View Drive, has applied for a variance to allow a second curb cut and driveway on her property; and, WHEREAS, 6939 Pleasant View Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family REsidential, and is legally described as follows: Knollwood Park, Lot 73, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 07-30-23-33-0029 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 5. Zoning Map 6. Aerial View 7. Photographic Documentation 8. 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 September 21, 2011; 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 hardship with regard to the property located at 6939 Pleasant View Drive, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 948-11 Page 2 1. The only exceptional circumstances that apply to this property is that the house and original driveway were placed at the far south side of the property in 1940. The property is otherwise unexceptional with no special conditions or limitations to its use. 2. Section 1121.09 Subdivision 5e of the Zoning Code states that single-family lots shall be limited to one curb cut per property unless it is in the interest of public safety to waive such. There are no public safety issues with this property that would cause the owner to need two curb cuts. 3. The applicant had no control over the placement of the house and original garage and driveway, but has since built the existing garage and north driveway. The 26- foot distance between the house and north driveway is the result of the applicant. 4. Granting this variance would confer upon the applicant a special privilege not typically enjoyed by others in the same zoning district. 5. Granting a variance for a second curb cut would be detrimental to the purpose of the Title as there appears to be little or no hardship associated with the request. The applicant could easily expand the north driveway to bring it closer to the house. 6. 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. 7. Granting the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjoining properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, denies the variance request of Lois Lestina, property owner of 6939 Pleasant View Drive, to allow a second curb cut and driveway to remain on the south side of the property. Adopted this 21st day of September, 2011. _________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: __________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL)