Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-03-2006 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA May 3, 2006 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. March 15, 2006 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already Present on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2006-001: Consideration of a Variance request for a garage height Applicant: Dan & Diane Balk Address: 8478 Long Lake Road 6. Other Planning Activity A. None 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. May 17, 2006 at New Brighton City Hall B. June 7, 2006 at Mounds View City Hall 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. April 19, 2006 2. Staff Reports a. County Road J Reconstruction b. April 24, 2006 City Council Meeting c. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion *NOTE LOCATION* SPRING LAKE PARK CITY HALL 1301 – 81ST Avenue NE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 19, 2006 New Brighton City Hall 803 Old Highway 8 NW, New Brighton, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. April 19, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, Scotch, and Stevenson Absent and Excused: Commissioner Zwirn. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson and Planning Associate Heller ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case CU2006-002. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for an Over-size Garage, 8495 Sunnyside Road Don and Diane Balk 2 Planning Case CU2000-0004, Reconsideration of an Expired Conditional Use Permit for an Over-size Garage, 2832 Woodale Drive Tom Stampfle 3 _______________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes February 15, 2006. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Meehlhause. To approve the Minutes of the February 15, 2006 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission April 19, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 _______________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5A. Planning Case CU2006-002. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for an Over-size garage at 8495 Sunnyside Road, Don and Diane Balk. Community Development Director Ericson informed the Commission that the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit for an oversize garage on a vacant lot adjacent to their home at 8495 Sunnyside Road. He indicated that the reason they want an oversize garage is because they want to store their recreational vehicle in there otherwise it would be a standard size garage. The garage size would be 1,062 square feet. Director Ericson showed the site plan to the Commission indicating the garage will have a unified look with the house. There will be some wooded area preserved with this. Staff has checked whether the potential appearance this garage would be out of character with the area and found it would not look to be out of character having a three-car garage. Director Ericson stated the applicants have shown the use is justified and the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code and will not cause any traffic hazard or distraction such as parking an RV outside might do. Commissioner Stevenson stated one of their main concerns about oversize garages are that they would be used for business purposes. They do appreciate staff and the applicant providing the drawings. He did not see that this would encourage someone setting up a business in the future should the house be sold. He indicated he was satisfied with the drawings and they have done an adequate job of showing this would not be a business. Commissioner Miller wondered what the width of the driveway would be. Director Ericson indicated the driveway would be 35 feet wide and taper down to 24 feet as it approached the street. A separate permit would be required for the driveway. Commissioner Miller indicated a correction was needed on the resolution since this was not a reapproval. Director Ericson stated that was correct. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Miller. To approve Resolution 830-06, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Don and Diane Balk for the construction of a 1,062 square foot garage at 8495 Sunnyside Road. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission April 19, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 _______________________________________________________________________ 5B. Planning Case CU2000-004. Consideration of an Expired Conditional Use Permit for an Over-size Garage, 2832 Woodale Drive, Tom Stampfle. Community Development Director Ericson informed the Commission that the applicant is requesting a re-approval of a conditional use permit to construct a 1,248 square foot garage. The CUP expired after one year due to a lack of use. Director Ericson stated the garage would be attached to the house by a breezeway. The backyard is very wooded. The new garage would be attached to the existing garage and does not appear to be out of place. Commissioner Miller wondered if the one-year expiration was after the Planning Commission or City Council approval. Director Ericson indicated it would be after the City Council approved it. He noted he could add this to the information for clarification. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Meehlhause. To Approve Resolution 829-06, a Resolution Reaffirming a Recommendation of Approval for a Conditional Use Permit for an Over-Sized Garage at 2832 Woodale Drive. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review City Code related to retaining walls and fences Community Development Director Ericson stated the City Council would like the Planning Commission to have some discussion related to retaining walls and fences. He noted the Amundsens’ pointed this out to the Staff because they felt some wording in the code needed to be clarified. The City Council thought this should be reviewed for proposed language if an amendment was needed. Director Ericson stated the only mention of retaining wall in the code is in Section 1103.08, Subd. 1, where it addresses grade change or separations. He noted they contacted cities adjoining Mounds View to find out how they deal with fences and retaining walls and that information is included in the staff report. Director Ericson stated the other issue related to fences is whether or not there should be a setback for retaining walls and fences. Many of the cities they contacted did not have setback requirements except for Vadnais Heights, who had a setback if it was a privacy fence, and Blaine, who had a setback if they were six feet in height. The only problem with setbacks is if there are fences back-to-back, there may be alleyways between them that may not be properly maintained. Director Ericson noted the City requires a five-foot fence surrounding swimming pools. Mounds View Planning Commission April 19, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 _______________________________________________________________________ Mrs. Valerie Amundsen stated since they have come to the Planning Commission they have done more research. She indicated they have looked into the code issue regarding structures like this. She did not think there should be setbacks for fences. The purpose of fences is to define property lines and to have them slightly offset does that. She indicated they would recommend that the Planning Commission follow the code they already have in place along with added features. She thought they should look at the structure that has been built to determine if it was in compliance with the code. Mrs. Amundsen thought the City should have the ability to have setbacks and exceptions, and people would request variances on a case-by-case basis before the Planning Commission. She stated by doing this, the City leaves themselves open to all of the things that people come up with and can decide on them individually. She does not imply that retaining walls be allowed on property lines like fences. She stated in the code, anything that is not defined, is defined by the Minnesota Building Code. Mr. Brian Amundsen stated on the Harstad property along County Road H2 where they are doing all of the grading, there was a concern about an extremely high retaining wall built next to a fence. He wondered if the code should have something in it regarding the height of a retaining wall and that there should be a railing installed for liability reasons. Mr. Amundsen stated within the code they have restrictions, which talk about uses that are not allowed. They do have some catch all phrases. Chair Stevenson stated there is not a setback requirement for fences but they cannot be on the property line. He felt this was a good requirement. He felt the way they had the code written regarding fences was correct and that terraces were addressed properly in the code. Commissioner Hegland asked how tall was the retaining wall of the Amundsen’s neighbor. Director Ericson indicated the retaining wall itself is 23 inches or less and the posts are slightly higher than that. The neighbor indicated he would be willing to cut those back to the same height as the wall. Commissioner Scotch thought Mr. Amundsen’s concern was with the liability. She thought it would be the neighbor’s responsibility as long as the Amundsens were in compliance with the code. Chair Stevenson stated he was not willing to setback retaining walls. Commissioner Hegland stated he agreed and thought the property owner of the retaining wall should be able to enjoy their property just like a fence owner. Commissioner Hegland did not think the City should restrict a resident on their property. Mr. Amundsen thought the City was working against their current code regarding retaining walls. The code can be managed however the Council approves it. Mounds View Planning Commission April 19, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 _______________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson stated the matter before the Planning Commission is not for the Amundsen case but for clarification on retaining walls, terraces and fences. He stated the other matter is they need to define what a retaining wall is. This is an opportunity, if the Planning Commission feels it is worthwhile, to look at the definition of a retaining wall and determine if it should be setback. The City is comfortable with how they have been applying the code. They will be getting a determination from the City Attorney on April 24, 2006 regarding this. The only mention of retaining walls is in the fence section of the code. Chair Stevenson stated if they are going to define retaining walls he would like to discuss how other cities define it. Commissioner Hegland indicated he did not see a reason why they should require a railing along a retaining wall. Chair Stevenson thought it was a safety issue. He would like to not restrict retaining walls and does not want a setback for them, but thinks they should be off the property line like fences. Director Ericson thought a fence on top of a retaining wall might be helpful on a public retaining wall but he did not think it was necessary on a private retaining wall. Director Ericson proposed the chapter heading should read: Fencing, Screening, Retaining Walls and Landscaping. He stated retaining walls could be defined within the Landscaping sections and then include subdivision six titled “Retaining Walls” with the fact that it may read similar to the location “a fence or retaining wall shall be installed on the property line but not directly on the property line”. He stated staff will come up with some language and bring it back for discussion. Commissioner Hegland wondered if they wanted to change the fence height requirement to the State requirement of four feet. Director Ericson did not think there was a height issue with residents so he did not think the Commission should change it. Commissioner Hull wondered if they had many situations with a retaining wall and a fence. Director Ericson stated there were a few but not many. Mrs. Amundsen wondered if they needed to define terraces also. Chair Stevenson did not think they needed to do this because a landscaping terrace is an encroachment to the home. He thought a terrace was considered a patio. Mrs. Amundsen thought her definition of a terrace was different than the Planning Commission definition. Director Ericson thought they could define a terrace. Where it differentiates from a patio is the use. It all depends on what the use is. He stated he would not have a problem with adding a definition but did not think it was needed at this time. Chair Stevenson thought what they have in the Code for a terrace was adequate. Commissioner Miller thought they needed to have a definition for a terrace along with a retaining wall. Chair Mounds View Planning Commission April 19, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 _______________________________________________________________________ Stevenson thought it would be an encroachment to a house and would not be connected to a retaining wall definition. This would be similar to a patio or deck. Commissioner Hegland thought they were getting into an area that will be hard to differentiate between a terrace and landscaping. He suggested they do not define a terrace because it will make everything more difficult. Chair Stevenson did not think they could address the surface issue of a terrace. Commissioner Hegland wondered what the difference would be between a patio and terrace. Chair Stevenson stated he was not opposed to leaving the code the way it is for terraces. Chair Stevenson stated if they are going to define a terrace they needed to equate it to a use such as a seating area. He thought this may be what is needed. Director Ericson questioned at what point is it a terrace or not. Commissioner Meehlhause thought Circle Pines defined a terrace well. Director Ericson noted the Mounds View code was similar to Circle Pines. _____________________________________________________________________________ B. Discuss Economic Development funding priorities and philosophy Community Development Director Ericson stated the EDA is looking at Tax Increment Financing in the City to determine what level of spending would be appropriate for what items. They have a high rate of TIF in Mounds View. The majority of their industrial area is in a TIF District. The City Council is looking at the various options. One consideration is whether they want to maximize the increment collected over the course of the remaining life of the District, which will be 2015. If looking toward the future, they project that the City would collect approximately $14.6 million in unobligated TIF that can be utilized for City projects. Director Ericson reviewed the programs the TIF dollars would support. Director Ericson stated one of the options is to do nothing and capture the maximum amount possible but there is reluctance to do this because there is an impact to residents in doing so. There is a possibility of scaling back the amount of TIF collected which in turn lowers their percent and turns the dollars back to the general fund. That could be done a number of ways. They could either decertify the District as a whole; District 3 is a good district to do that. Another option is selective desertification. The existing three Districts are election A for fiscal disparities. This could be changed so it is completely election B or half election B, which would lower the amount of TIF collected and lower the percentage of tax base captured. Director Ericson reviewed potential funding projects for TIF. He stated the amount of expenditures that have been identified for potential funding via collected tax increment revenues totals approximately $37 million, which far exceeds the projected $14.6 million on non-obligated pooled increment to be collected through 2015. Mounds View Planning Commission April 19, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 _______________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson thought of everything listed, the Planning Commission should discuss the last page to see what the Commissioners thought of each of the funding items. He wanted to know what the Planning Commission’s priorities were. Commissioner Miller asked if the owners of the proposed environmental processing center had been looking for TIF funding with the Skyline Motel area. Director Ericson stated they were not. Commissioner Scotch asked on which of the projects listed would the City be able to use TIF funds. Director Ericson indicated they could use TIF funds on all of them but probably not to full capacity. Commissioner Hegland stated the question is if this area can be redeveloped with TIF funds. He stated the Skyline Motel will be redeveloped whether or not they use TIF funds. Chair Stevenson thought Moundsview Square would be a higher priority along with Silverview Plaza because they are deteriorating the fastest. Director Ericson stated that there will be redevelopment along the County 10 corridor. Commissioner Scotch stated street and utility replacement has to be a priority. She stated by the time they start taking in TIF money, they will have to be making improvements. Director Ericson stated they still have three TIF districts, from which they can collect money. Priorities of the Commission for the Commercial/Industrial area are: Moundsview Square, Silverview Plaza and County Road 10. Commissioner Hegland stated this is about the Comprehensive Plan and what the housing should be in the City. They have talked about this in the past but have an unbalanced housing stock in the City. Commissioner Scotch thought they needed to improve their City because if the stadium goes in to the north, Mounds View will be a stopping area. Commissioner Hegland stated the businesses are the issue with him and they have a limited business base in the City. Chair Stevenson thought their biggest priority was the County Road 10 corridor and to build up the businesses. The Commission did not feel there was a priority in the residential development and redevelopment section. Commissioner Scotch stated she would like to see Spring Lake on the list because it has been deteriorating over the years. She would like to work again on the joint task force agreement to get the lake cleaned up and preserved. Mounds View Planning Commission April 19, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 _______________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Meehlhause thought they needed to go forward with the street replacement program in the City. Commissioner Meehlhause thought Silver Lake Pond needed to be taken care of also because there is a trail around it. Commissioner Hegland did not know if redeveloping the Moundsview Square area into retail again was a good idea because it could be redeveloped into something else. Commissioner Hull did not think they needed any more vacant business buildings in the City. He stated there is already one on County Road 10 and Long Lake Road. Consensus of the Commission was to use TIF funds to try to redevelop some of the commercial areas along with the County Road 10 corridor. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: May 3, 2006 at Spring Lake Park City Hall May 17, 2006 at New Brighton City Hall ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Sue Osbeck TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: May 3, 2006 Type of Business: Action City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Variance for a Garage Height Exceeding Allowances at 8495 Sunnyside Road Introduction: The applicants, Don and Diane Balk, reside at 8478 Long Lake Road and own the vacant lot adjacent to the west at the corner of Long Lake Road (formerly County Road J) and Sunnyside Road. The Balks would like to build a new home on the vacant lot and sell their old home. A conditional use permit was granted to allow for a garage footprint of 1,062 square feet to allow the Balks to park their recreational vehicle inside the garage. (The maximum size for a garage without a CUP is 952 square feet.) Without the extra depth needed for the RV (an additional nine feet) the garage would not necessitate a CUP. Because of how the garage is intended to be used, additional clearance would be needed to allow the RV to enter the garage. A standard height garage opening would be insufficient, which has prompted the request for a variance. Discussion: Section 1106.03, Subdivision 1, lists the requirements for accessory buildings in a residential district. Subdivision 1b indicates that “accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen feet (15’) in height”. Height is measured from the base of the garage to the midpoint of the roof truss which allows for some variability with roof pitches Garages with less pitch may have slightly taller side walls. In the case of the Balk’s proposed garage, the sidewall height would be 14 feet with a garage door opening of thirteen feet, which would accommodate a vehicle requiring a twelve-foot clearance. According to the plans submitted, this would result in the garage being 17 feet tall, two feet taller than what is permitted without a variance. The Balks contend that while it would be desirable to have the RV parked inside from an aesthetic standpoint, there are maintenance and security reasons along with setback and visibility issues that would support and justify interior storage of the RV. Variance Considerations: For a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission, in this case) 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 criteria are as follows: Balk Variance Report May 3, 2006 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. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and the Balks desire to construct a new home with an oversized garage on the corner lot. While the lot itself meets all minimum requirements, being a corner lot there are additional setbacks which limit the areas in which the RV could be parked outside. 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 the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, the applicants desire to park their RV inside the garage not only for aesthetic reasons but also for security, maintenance issues and so as to not otherwise obstruct visibility on this corner lot. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. While the Balks’ ownership of an RV does prompt the request, the special conditions could be argued to be more ”community” driven from the standpoint of visibility and aesthetics. d. That granting the variance requested would 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 every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and livability of their home. Many improvements benefit the neighborhood in a broader sense. While each request has to stand on its own merits and satisfy hardship requirements, the Planning Commission has approved similar height variances in the past for oversize vehicles. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The applicants assert that the additional two-feet of garage height would be minimally sufficient to permit the parking of the RV inside the garage. Balk Variance Report May 3, 2006 Page 3 f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Granting the two-foot variance to allow the RV to be parked inside the garage would not be materially detrimental to the purpose and intent of the zoning code. 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. While the Balks’ garage would be taller than an average garage, the living space that would be constructed would be a full two stories and would stand six feet above the peak of the garage. The garage would be attached to the house. The proposed variance would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects. Public Notice The City Code requires that a public hearing be held regarding variances. Staff sent notices to properties within 350 feet of the subject property and published the notice in the Bulletin Newspaper. Other than a phone call from the neighbor immediately to the south who expressed some concern about the size of the building, no comments or feedback have been received. Summary The applicants are seeking approval of a variance to increase the height of their proposed garage from the maximum allowed 15 feet to 17 feet to allow for the parking of a recreational vehicle inside the garage. It would seem apparent after reviewing the hardship criteria that the request has some merit. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold the public hearing and take testimony from the applicants, neighbors and residents and staff. Staff believes that the variance request minimally satisfies the hardship criteria however the determination is admittedly a subjective one. The Planning Commission will need to consider all of the issues and facts regarding the request. If viewed positively, the request may be approved by adoption of Resolution 831-06. If the Commission does not believe the hardship criteria are satisfied, a resolution of denial would need to be drafted with findings of fact identified in support of the denial. Respectfully submitted, _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Zoning Map 8495 Sunnyside Road Front Elevation Location Map Photographic Documentation Looking west, through the vacant lot toward the Balk house at 8478 Long Lake Road. Looking south through the vacant lot toward 8485 Sunnyside Road MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 831-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A SEVENTEEN FOOT TALL GARAGE AT 8495 SUNNYSIDE ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. VA06-001 WHEREAS, the applicants, Don and Diane Balk, have requested approval of a variance to construct a seventeen foot tall garage associated with a new home at 8495 Sunnyside Road, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, Balk’s Addition Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code in Section 1106.03 Subdivision 1bhas established the maximum height of an accessory building or garage to be no more than fifteen feet; and, WHEREAS, the applicants desire a taller garage to accommodate the parking of their recreation vehicle inside the third stall of the proposed garage; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Zoning Map b. Planning Application c. Front Elevations d. Photographic Documentation e. Location Map f. Staff Report NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the request: 1. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and the applicants desire to construct a new home with an oversized garage on the corner lot. While the lot itself meets all minimum requirements, being a corner lot there are additional setbacks which limit the areas in which the RV could be parked outside. Resolution 831-06 Page 2 2. The applicants desire to park their RV inside the garage not only for aesthetic reasons but also for security, maintenance issues and so as to not otherwise obstruct visibility on this corner lot. 3. While the Balks’ ownership of an RV does prompt the request, the special conditions could be construed to be more ”community” driven from the standpoint of visibility and aesthetics. 4. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and livability of their home. Many improvements benefit the neighborhood in a broader sense. 5. The applicants assert that the additional two-feet of garage height would be minimally sufficient to permit the parking of the RV inside the garage. 6. Granting the two-foot variance to allow the RV to be parked inside the garage would not be materially detrimental to the purpose and intent of the zoning code. 7. While the Balks’ garage would be taller than an average garage, the requested variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties 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. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, finding that the hardship criteria have been satisfied, approves the variance for a seventeen foot (17’) tall garage, two feet (2’) in excess of what is permitted by Code, at 8495 Sunnyside Road, subject to the following: 1. The variance shall become null and void if the work for which the variance was granted is not completed within one year from the date of approval unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the Planning Commission. Adopted this 3rd day of May, 2006. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL)