Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-16-2009 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA December 16, 2009 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. October 7, 2009 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 minutes.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2009-003: Variance Request to Allow a Zero Foot Driveway Setback at “The Station” Car Wash Location: 2280 County Road I Applicant: Leon Theis, property owner 6. Other Planning Activity A. 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule B. Renumber three resolutions 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. January 6, 2010 B. January 20, 2010 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. November 18, 2009 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 November 18, 2009 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. November 18, 2009. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chair Stevenson; Commissioners Lang, Miller, and Walsh-Kaczmarek and Rundle. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Cramblit and Meehlhause. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller, Community Development Director Ken Roberts. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Lot Combination – 2 lots on NE corner of Greenwood and County Rd H 2 Rezoning of 3 residential properties from R-2, Single and Two Family to R-1, Single Family 3 Review Planning Commission Applications 3 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes August 19, 2009 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek/Commissioner Lang. To approve the minutes of the August 19, 2009 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission November 18, 2009 Regular Meeting Page 2 ____________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. LC 2009-001: Lot Combination – 2 lots on NE corner of Greenwood and County Road H: Applicant Steve Ordahl, Ordahl Family Trust Planning Associate Heller stated that Steve Ordahl, representing property owner, Ordahl Family Trust, applied to combine two adjacent vacant lots located at the northeast corner of Greenwood Drive and County Road H. She indicated that Mr. Ordahl grew up in the house just north of these lots and the family sold the home in February of 2008. The family did not own the smaller of the vacant lots until recently, but bought it to combine with the vacant parcel they did own in order to create a better lot for resale. Mr. Ordahl applied for a similar subdivision in 2008 for the same two lots, along with their former house lot, but the new owner of the house did not complete her requirements so the approval expired. The City Council had decided on a $1,000 park dedication fee for Mr. Ordahl’s previous subdivision request, which he paid in October 2008. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek questioned why the parcels are divided they way they are with one being unbuildable. Steve Ordahl, applicant, indicated the two parcels had been like that for as long as he could remember, and the smaller one had been owned by someone else. The Ordahl family purchased the small parcel in 2008, and would like to combine the two vacant lots. Commissioner Miller questioned the second whereas on the resolution relating to the “third party”. Planning Associate Heller indicated that this refers to the last planning request since it involves the same lots. When the Ordahls sold their mother’s house, which was adjacent to these two vacant lots, they agreed to add 20 feet of the vacant lots onto the lot in order for the new owner to be able to expand the garage. The new property owner of the house had some requirements to fulfill as part of the subdivision, but did not complete them. MOTION/SECOND: Chair Stevenson/Commissioner Lang. Resolution 913-09 Recommending Approval of a lot combination of two adjoining lots, requested by the Ordahl Family Trust, Planning Case No. LC2009-001. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Planning Associate Heller indicated that this item would be heard by the City Council on December 14th. Mounds View Planning Commission November 18, 2009 Regular Meeting Page 3 ____________________________________________________________________________ B. SP169-09: Rezoning of 3 residential properties from R-2, Single & Two Family to R-1 Single Family. (2760 Wooddale Drive, 7301 Park View Drive, and 7441 Park View Drive) Planning Associate Heller stated this proposed rezoning has been initiated by staff after completing the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. She indicated in reviewing the land use and zoning maps, it was discovered that there are three residential properties in the city that currently have an R-2, Single and Two Family Residential zoning designation, even though single family homes were built on these lots and the owners continue to use them as single family homes. The Comprehensive Plan designates these three properties, along with all of the surrounding properties, as low density residential. The properties are all located in neighborhoods that the City has zoned entirely R-1, Single Family Residential. She indicated that in order to have these properties’ zoning be consistent with their actual use and with the Comprehensive Plan, staff is proposing to rezone them to R-1. Currently with the R-2 zoning, any of these properties could legally convert into a duplex, and rezoning the properties to R-1 would prevent any future use changes.. She indicated letters were sent to the property owners notifying them of the rezoning proposal and staff had not heard from any of the homeowners. She indicated the property values should not be impacted. MOTION/SECOND: Chair Walsh-Kaczmarek/Commissioner Lang. Resolution 914-09 Recommending Approval of Rezoning 7301 Park View Drive, 7441 Park View Terrace and 2760 Woodale Drive from R-2, Single & Two-Family Residential to R-1, Single-Family Residential. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review Planning Commission Applications Planning Associate Heller stated there are three Planning Commission members’ terms up at the end of this year. She indicated the City advertised for the vacancies with applications due on October 30, 2009. Staff received four applications. They are Keith Cramblit, Paul Schiltgen, Holly Smith and Julianne Love. She indicated two of the applicants were here this evening. Paul Schiltgren, applicant, indicated that he had applied for the Planning Commission last year. He stated he has resided in Mounds View for 2 ½ years and would like to get more involved in the community. He stated he felt he could contribute a lot to the Planning Commission. He indicated he works with municipalities in his current job and felt this would help him with the Planning Commission. Chair Stevenson questioned his occupation and wondered if he traveled a lot. Mounds View Planning Commission November 18, 2009 Regular Meeting Page 4 ____________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Schiltgren indicated he does not travel for his job as his work is done over the phone. Julianne Love, applicant, indicated she has lived in Mounds View for a total of 33 years. She was born in Mounds View, moved away and then moved back to her childhood home in 1999 to care for her aging mother. She indicated she has a lot of ideas for the City of Mounds View and is looking for a way that she can bring these ideas to fruition. She indicated she met with Jim Ericson, City Administrator, and he suggested applying for the Planning Commission. She stated she had areas of interest like water as a resource. Community Development Director Roberts handed out ballots for the Commission members to vote. He collected the ballots from the five Planning Commissioners in attendance, and counted their votes along with the votes from the two absent Planning Commissioners who had voted via email. The Commissioners were to vote for three applicants. Director Roberts announced that the three candidates who received the most votes were: Keith Cramblit, Paul Schiltgen and Holly Smith. He indicated that staff would pass the Planning Commission’s candidate recommendations on to the City Council. The Council would make all the official commission appointments on December 14, 2009. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. December 2, 2009 B. December 16, 2009 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:42 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Ken Roberts Community Development Director Transcribed by: Barbara Suciu TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: December 16, 2009 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 request to allow the car wash entrance driveway to have a zero foot setback at The Station, 2280 County Road I; Planning Case VR2009-003 Introduction: The applicant, Leon Theis, owner of The Station at 2280 County Road I, is requesting a variance to permit the entrance driveway at his new car wash to have a zero-foot setback from the west property line. In August 2009, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a development review for a new car wash at The Station. When the architect brought in the site plan drawing, staff reviewed it and noticed that the entrance driveway only had a very small setback from the west property line – the line that runs between the car wash and the neighbor, the Alano Society’s, garage. Staff brought this to the architect’s attention, and he changed the setback amount to the required five feet on the site plan. The Planning Commission and City Council then approved this corrected site plan. When the car wash was almost complete, it was brought to city staff’s attention that the contractor has installed the entrance driveway all the way up to the Alano Society’s garage. The garage has a five-foot setback from the property line, which means that the driveway was five feet over the property line. It appears that the contractor may have been confused about where the property line actually was since it jogs around the Alano Society’s garage, and decided that it would look better, and make access to the car wash easier, if the driveway just went all the way to the garage (rather than leaving a strip of grass or landscaping). After city staff contacted Mr. Theis about the issue, he applied for a variance, and within a few days, had removed the five feet of the driveway that was on the Alano Society’s property. The driveway currently has a zero-foot setback from the property line. If the driveway were to have the required five-foot setback, it would be very difficult for vehicles to enter the car wash. Due to this, the applicant is requesting that the entrance driveway remain where it is, with a zero-foot setback. City Code requires that all driveways be at least five feet from the property line (without City approval of a variance). Discussion: 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: The Station Driveway Variance Report December 16, 2009 Page 2 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. An extraordinary circumstance that applies to this property is that the west property line is not straight as the line jogs around a garage on the adjoining property. This jog cuts out the southwestern corner of the property, creating an odd shaped parcel. The Station’s property, along with the two adjoining properties (Alano Society and Fedor’s Market), have been in place for many years and have some unique characteristics; mainly that the three parcels are completely paved as one continuous lot with no curbing or separation features except along County Road I. 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. The literal interpretation would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district, as most other property owners do not have odd-shaped parcels. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant may not be completely responsible for the condition that has prompted him to apply for a variance. It appears that there could have been a communication issue about the change in the setback on the site plan, or the designer of the car wash may not have been measured the property correctly when designing the car wash. 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. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that most property owners do not have to work with an odd shaped parcel. In addition, property owners have the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and livability of their property. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The variance requested is the minimum that would be necessary in order for the entrance driveway to be long enough for vehicles to be able to enter the car wash. The Station Driveway Variance Report December 16, 2009 Page 3 f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Given the circumstances, granting the variance request 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 driveway will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjoining properties. Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, this request necessitated a public hearing. Staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of the applicant’s property and staff had a notice published in the Sun Focus newspaper. Staff has been in contact with the board of directors from the Alano Society several times, and they are fine with the driveway as it is now, with a zero-foot setback. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commissioners go to The Station and look at the new car was and driveway before the meeting on December 16. After 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. Resolution 920-09 is attached for action if the Commission so chooses. 2. Deny the requested variance. The Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings appropriate to support the denial. 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. Attachments: 1. Approved Site Plan for new car wash 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Photo 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Resolution 920-09 Heidi Heller Planning Associate SITE PLAN As submitted by architect Setback was changed when staff pointed out the incorrect setback distance ZONING MAP * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential N Aerial View car wash Photographic Documentation Neighbor Alano Society garage New car wash The edge of the concrete driveway currently has a zero-foot setback from the property line. The garage has a 5-foot setback. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 920-09 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A ZERO-FOOT DRIVEWAY SETBACK FOR THE CAR WASH ENTRANCE AT THE STATION, 2280 COUNTY ROAD I; PLANNING CASE VR2009-003 WHEREAS, the applicant, Leon Theis, owner of The Station, 2280 County Road I, has applied for a variance to allow for his new car wash entrance driveway to have a zero-foot setback from the property line; and, WHEREAS, 2280 County Road I is zoned B-2, Limited Business, and is legally described as follows: That part of Lot 1, Block 4, Spring Lake Park Highlands, lying east of the west 54 feet; That part of Lot 2, Block 4, Spring Lake Park Highlands, lying east of the west 54 feet and north of the south 49 feet; That part of the south 49 feet of Lot 2, Block 4, Spring Lake Park Highlands, lying east of the west 70 feet. Ramsey County, Minnesota. Subject to a drainage and utility easement over the north 10 feet thereof, and over the east 10 feet thereof, and over the south 5 feet thereof. PIN 083023120088 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Approved Site Plan 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial View 4. Photographic Documentation 5. 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 December 16, 2008; and, Resolution 920-09 Page 2 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 2280 County Road I, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. Circumstances apply to this property in that the west property line is not straight since there is a garage on the adjoining property around which the property line jogs. This jog cuts out the southwestern corner of the property, creating an odd shaped parcel. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would limit the applicant’s ability to have an adequate length entrance driveway into the car wash. 3. The applicant had no control over the placement of the garage, or the actions of the people he hired to design and build the car wash. 4. Granting this variance would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege in that the odd lot shape due to the neighbor’s garage is a pre-existing condition. 5. The zero (0) foot variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s hardship. 6. Granting a variance to allow for a driveway with a zero-foot setback would not be detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code, in that the area between the car wash and the neighbor’s garage is almost completely taken up by the driveway. Whether or not there is 5 feet of rock or 10 feet of rock between the edge of the driveway and the garage would not make much difference as this area is not used by the neighboring property owner. The car wash has opened with the zero-foot setback and it is causing no adverse impacts. 7. Granting the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjoining property. Resolution 920-09 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of Leon Theis, owner of The Station, to allow the car wash entrance driveway to have a zero-foot setback from the west property line. Adopted this 16th day of December, 2009. ________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: _________________________________________ Kenneth Roberts, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 6A Meeting Date: December 16, 2009 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Subject: Consideration of Resolution 919-09, a Resolution Establishing the Planning Commission’s 2010 Meeting Schedule. Introduction: The Planning Commission establishes its meeting schedule each year by resolution. Discussion: The meeting schedule proposed for 2010 represents the usual first and third Wednesday of every month. None of the regularly scheduled meetings fall on a holiday. Recommendation: Discuss the proposed meeting schedule and Approve Resolution 919-09, a resolution establishing the 2010 meeting schedule of the Planning Commission. The schedule attached has been drafted with all of the meetings falling on the first and third Wednesdays. The proposed schedule may be amended based on Commission direction. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Heidi Heller Planning Associate MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 919-09 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE 2010 MEETING SCHEDULE OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission intends to hold two regular meetings per month during the year 2010; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission will meet on the first and third Wednesdays of each month, or as amended; and, WHEREAS, the schedule of meeting dates shall be established and posted to provide an orderly system for use by the Planning Commission, staff and general public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Exhibit 1, attached hereto, is the Planning Commission’s official meeting schedule for the year 2010. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that if the Planning Commission is required to or desires to hold special or emergency meetings, such meetings will be held in accordance with State law, Code requirements and Commission Bylaws. Adopted this 16th day of December, 2009. ____________________________________ Gary Stevenson Chairperson ATTEST ____________________________________ Kenneth Roberts Community Development Director (SEAL) EXHIBIT 1. 2010 MEETING SCHEDULE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 6 January 20 February 3 February 17 March 3 March 17 April 7 April 21 May 5 May 19 June 2 June 16 July 7 July 21 August 4 August 18 September 1 September 15 October 6 October 20 November 3 November 17 December 1 December 15 Item No: 6B Meeting Date: December 16, 2009 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Resolution 918-09 Renumbering Three Incorrectly Numbered Resolutions Introduction: Earlier this year, three resolutions were presented to the Planning Commission for consideration that were numbered with numbers that were already used. The City Attorney advises that when this situation occurs, the City should adopt a resolution to renumber the affected resolutions. Discussion: The three resolutions which need to be changed are listed in the table below, noted first by the incorrect number and followed by the revised number: Original Number Revised Number Resolution Description Adoption Date 899-09 915-09 Recommend approval of a revised preliminary plat for the Mermaid, 2200 Highway 10, Planning Case MA2009-001 2-4-09 901-09 916-09 Recommend approval of code amendments about accessory buildings 6-17-09 902-09 917-09 Recommending approval of a code amendment to remove the R-O zoning district 6-17-09 The resolutions themselves will be footnoted to indicate the resolution number originally approved as. Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 918-09 revising the adopted resolution numbers for resolutions originally approved as Resolutions 899-09, 901-09 and 902-09 renaming them to be Resolutions 915- 09, 916-09 and 917-09 respectively. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 918-09 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RENUMBERING OF THREE INCORRECTLY NUMBERED RESOLUTIONS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted three resolutions at the February 4, 2009 and April 15, 2009 Planning Commission meetings which were incorrectly numbered; and, WHEREAS, the City Attorney recommends adopting this Resolution 918-09 to officially renumber the three affected resolutions; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby authorize renumbering the three resolutions identified below as indicated. Original Number Revised Number Resolution Description Adoption Date 899-09 915-09 Recommend approval of a revised preliminary plat for the Mermaid, 2200 Highway 10, Planning Case MA2009-001 2-4-09 901-09 916-09 Recommend approval of code amendments about accessory buildings 4-15-09 902-09 917-09 Recommending approval of a code amendment to remove the R-O zoning district 4-15-09 Adopted this 16th day of December, 2009. __________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: __________________________________________ Kenneth Roberts, Community Development Director (seal)