Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-04-2006 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA October 4, 2006 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. August 2, 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. VR2006-008: Continuation -Consideration of a Variance request for a driveway setback Applicant: Mitch & Alison Ford Address: 8378 Groveland Road B. CU2006-009 :Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for storage of flammable liquids Applicant: 7T’s Management, LLC (Tyson Companies) Address: 4815 Mustang Circle 6. Other Planning Activity A. Accessory Building Codes & Requirements Discussion 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. October 18, 2006 B. November 1, 2006 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. September 20, 2006 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 September 20, 2006 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order Acting Chair Miller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., September 20, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Acting Chair Miller; Commissioners Hegland, Scotch, and Meehlhause Absent and Excused: Chair Stevenson, Commissioners Hull and Zwirn Also Present: Community Development Director Jim Ericson Planning Associate Heidi Heller ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page VR2006-008: Consideration of a Variance for a Driveway Setback 2 Applicant: Mitch & Alison Ford Address: 8378 Groveland Road CU2006-008: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized 9 Garage Applicant: Cory Mathiowetz Address: 2925 County Road H2 Acting Chair Miller asked for any additional items to be added. 3. Approval of Minutes A. July 5, 2006. B. July 19, 2006. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Scotch /Commissioner Hegland, to approve the Minutes of the July 5, 2006 regular Planning Commission meeting as written. Mounds View Planning Commission September 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 ______________________________________________________________________________ Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Scotch /Commissioner Hegland, to approve the Minutes of the July 19, 2006 regular Planning Commission meeting with corrections. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. VR2006-008: Consideration of a Variance for a Driveway Setback; Applicant: Mitch & Alison Ford; location 8378 Groveland Road. Planning Associate Heller presented a consideration for a driveway setback variance from Mitch and Alison Ford, 8378 Groveland Road. Planning Associate Heller reported the applicants built a new garage in 2003 and the driveway to the garage in the spring of 2004. She stated the driveway was constructed without a permit, however, at that time the City code had been amended to allow a setback of up to one foot with a letter from the neighbor stating their approval, which the Fords did receive. The driveway was installed in the spring of 2004, with no setback from the property line. Planning Associate Heller stated the code was again amended in September 2004 to the current five-foot setback requirement. Planning Associate Heller mentioned Staff received a call concerning the Ford’s driveway and went to the property to investigate. She stated the Fords were instructed to bring the driveway into compliance or apply for a variance. Planning Associate Heller mentioned, as with any variance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, 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 the property owner. She explained the Code clearly states a hardship exists when all seven criteria are met. Planning Associate Heller stated there are no extraordinary circumstances, which apply to this property. She explained the house is 12 feet from the north property line, which does limit the amount of room to fit a vehicle past the house. She stated by following the one-foot setback, an eleven-foot wide driveway should be wide enough for most vehicles to get by next to the house. Planning Associate Heller stated the literal interpretation would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district. She indicated the applicants are responsible for the condition resulting in the required application for a permit. Planning Associate Heller Mounds View Planning Commission September 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ______________________________________________________________________________ stated if the Fords had applied for a permit, they would have been told they could not have a zero setback. She informed the Commission that granting the variance would confer special privilege in that other property owners are not allowed to build within the required setbacks. Planning Associate Heller indicated since the driveway is already in place, the variance requested is the minimum that would be necessary. Planning Associate Heller stated, given the circumstances, granting the variance may not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this title, however, granting the variance could send a message to residents that it is acceptable to ignore zoning codes by seeking approval through the variance process after the fact. Planning Associate Heller reported the driveway would not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjoining property. Commissioner Hegland asked if it was an asphalt driveway. Planning Associate Heller replied it was. Acting Chair Miller opened the Public Hearing at 7:08 p.m. Mitch and Alison Ford, 8378 Groveland Road approached the podium and addressed the Commission. Mr. Ford stated they have had a gravel drive along the house up to the property line for many years. He stated when they applied for the building permit for the garage, they indicated they planned to build a garage and a driveway. The Fords presented a copy of the building application for the Commission’s review. Mr. Ford stated he uses the new garage for his hobby of rebuilding vehicles and needed the driveway to drive large vehicles to the back of the property and parking in the garage. Mr. Ford reported somewhere an error was made and pointed out to the Commission they have now received their driveway permit. Mrs. Ford addressed each of the seven criteria. On criteria number one, Mrs. Ford stated their lot dimensions are typical relative to other properties in the area. She mentioned they had land available to build a detached garage in the back yard. On criteria number two, Mrs. Ford stated when they applied for a permit to build the garage and driveway they were asked if they would be driving through the existing garage to get to the new one. She stated they replied they would construct a driveway on the north side of the house to the new garage. She reported no mention was made about a required permit or variance; only a permission letter from the neighbors to the north would be required. Mrs. Ford referred to criteria number three, stating since receiving the letter from the City of Mounds View indicating they needed to apply for a permit or variance, they have noticed many driveways throughout the City paved up to the property line. Mr. Ford presented a group of pictures of other driveways in the area. Mrs. Ford continued by stating a building has been in the back of the property since before the house was built by the Ford family in 1968 with a gravel driveway to access the building. Mrs. Ford stated they worked with the City since the beginning of the garage project, with Staff making notations and recommendations on their drawings on August 18, 2003. She stated they had, in good faith, gone forward with their plans. Mounds View Planning Commission September 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 ______________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Ford mentioned they built the garage late in the year, and consequently there was no time to black top the driveway until spring. He stated they have stored many cars in the building for years as the City code states cars without a license cannot be parked on the property. Mrs. Ford continued to criteria number four restating they have seen and photographed multiple properties in the City of Mounds View that have the same variance as they are requesting. On criteria number five, Mrs. Ford mentioned if they are required to remove some of the asphalt, they would still use the space between the properties to the north to access the garage and back yard area. She stated they would need to fill the space with gravel, which will cause problems with trying to keep the rocks out of the grass, deterring unsightly weeds and airborne gravel when removing snow. At this time Mr. Ford displayed photos of their driveway. Commissioner Scotch asked about water runoff. Mrs. Ford replied they had the driveway graded so all run off goes into their yard. She stated the beautiful landscaping in the yard included a large strip of gravel that holds the water runoff. Mr. Ford stated they want to make the home look nice and have improved the property. He displayed photos of how the property looked before they made improvements. Commissioner Scotch asked Mr. Ford what type of trucks he brought onto the property. Mr. Ford replied they have a truck and trailer and occasionally have tow trucks hauling in vehicles. Commissioner Scotch asked if the Fords are running a business out of the garage. Mr. Ford stated absolutely not; it is his hobby only. Mrs. Ford continued by addressing criteria number six, stating the improvements to the driveway surface improved the aesthetics of the property, thereby increasing the value of their home as well as the property of homes in the area. On criteria number seven, Mrs. Ford responded the purpose of the variance would 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. Commissioner Hegland asked if a final inspection had been done. Mrs. Ford stated the final inspection had not been done because they just found out they needed to get the permit and the variance. She reported the garage had received the final inspection and the driveway was in place at that time. Commissioner Hegland responded he meant the garage project because as he saw it, they applied for both at the same time. Mr. and Mrs. Ford stated yes they had. Mounds View Planning Commission September 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ______________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Jim Ericson addressed the point of the permit. He stated the permits are separate items; while it is very clear they show a driveway on the plan, there was not a separate application for the driveway. He stated Staff must be very clear with applicants that separate driveway permit is required. Director Ericson mentioned Staff had started stamping applications to decrease confusion. Commissioner Hegland asked if the application is different than the one with the signature. Director Ericson replied yes the application for a driveway is separate. Mr. Ford asked why they were instructed to get the neighbor’s signature and not that they needed a separate permit. Director Ericson replied Staff would not have indicated they would need the consent of the neighbor if they had not already stated they needed a permit. Director Ericson stated it is possible Staff did not clearly articulate the requirements. He stated what he could say is a permit was required but not obtained, although they were aware something needed to be done that was not done. Commissioner Hegland asked why they did not get an application for the driveway at the same time. He stated he sees no indication they attempted to hide anything. Commissioner Hegland stated this is an issue of faulty communication. Mr. Ford stated they want to make a nice place for themselves; Mounds View is a wonderful place to live with great neighbors. He stated they have had issues with the neighbor since they moved in. He mentioned they have tried to accommodate them, but a few months ago he caught them throwing doggy poo onto their property. Mr. Ford stated the neighbor continues to stay on a vendetta to cause them problems. He said there would not be an issue currently if this neighbor were not causing problems. He said he wishes them no ill will but would like it to stop. Commissioner Hegland asked if the driveway was in place when the final inspection was done and signed off. Mrs. Ford stated it was. Mr. Dave Auge, 8401 Groveland Road addressed the Commission in support of the Fords. He stated he had known Mr. Ford since 1985. He commented the yard was a guy’s yard before he married Alison; the yard now looks beautiful. He indicated the blacktop has made a big improvement as the old driveway was muddy after rain. He also stated it had been an on going battle to keep it nice because without black top weeds would grow. Mr. Pat Novak, 8371 Knollwood Drive, addressed the Commission and stated he is a neighbor to the back of the Ford property. He stated he had lived in his home and had known Mr. Ford since 1968. He said the building in the back and a driveway were there when they moved in. Mr. Mounds View Planning Commission September 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 ______________________________________________________________________________ Novak said the property is much improved since Mitch settled down; it would be a shame to have to remove the asphalt. Commissioner Scotch asked if the fence goes to the back of the property and who the fence belongs to. Mr. Ford responded the fence belonged to the neighbor and extends to the back of the neighbor’s lot. He stated his lot is about 15 feet longer than the neighbor’s lot. Acting Chair Miller noticed the chain link fence had been removed and a wood fence put in by the neighbor. Mr. Curt Hauser, 8346 Groveland, reported he just moved to the neighborhood in January 2006. He stated the Ford’s yard looks like a park. Mr. Hauser mentioned he is a building inspector and most Cities allow driveways up to the property line. He stated removing the asphalt would ruin the look of the property. Commissioner Scotch disagreed with Mr. Hauser’s statement about other cities allowing driveways up to a property line. Mr. Noel Wareham, 8365 Groveland, stated he has live in his home for 10 years and commented the Ford property is certainly a much nicer looking place since they made improvements. He stated the driveway looks very natural; taking it out would mean cutting into the footings of the neighboring fence. Mr. Mike Read, 2208 Lois Dr., stated he has known Mr. Ford since high school. He stated if the driveway were cut down to eleven feet, it would not be wide enough to miss the overhang on the house. He also mentioned the yard looked very nice. Mr. Dan Mueller, 8343 Groveland, stated Mr. Ford’s property was a pig pen before Alison moved in. He stated the previous gravel drive was always muddy when it rained. He agreed the property looks very nice. Mr. Ford stated he cut the corner overhang off the garage attached to the house so he could get some larger vehicles to the back. He reported some trailers are 24 feet long attached to 22 foot trucks; it is very narrow and tight but it works. He reported he hit the neighbor’s fence twice and paid for repairs. Commissioner Scotch asked for the square footage of the garages. Mr. Ford replied the back garage is 952 square feet and the attached garage is 840 square feet. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if this would set precedence on driveway variances. Mounds View Planning Commission September 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ______________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland stated each case is treated as a separate case and no precedence would be set. Commissioner Scotch asked Staff if they foresaw a future detriment to leaving the driveway. Planning Associate Heller replied the only issue would be where the property line is actually located and this is why Staff wanted to get away from the one foot setback. She mentioned property markers for most homes are long gone. Commissioner Hegland stated the asphalt is not a permanent surface and it would only last 10-15 years; it could be brought up to code at the time it needed to be replaced. He stated the Fords came to the City and thought they had done what they were asked to do. Commissioner Hegland stated he would be in favor of granting the variance. Acting Chair Miller stated the Commission could approve, deny or table the variance, and suggested tabling the decision until the October 4th meeting when the entire Commission was in attendance. Commissioner Scotch replied she agreed with Commissioner Hegland. She mentioned the property is well groomed, not hurting anyone, and the water run off is controlled. She stated it is in place, has not hindered anything, and the City could be at fault for not giving clear directions. Acting Chair Miller stated the neighbor’s fence hides the driveway and they do not see it. Commissioner Hegland stated the City had not required property surveys to define property lines and this is not in dispute. Commissioner Scotch stated the cost to remove a foot would be quite a bit. Acting Chair Miller looked at the property and stated she agreed with the request. Community Development Director Ericson stated there are no resolutions before the Planning Commission. He explained this is a case where there was not a clear cut recommendation Staff could make. He mentioned, as the Planning Commission is well aware, it must abide by the hardship criteria. Director Ericson stated the codes in the ordinance are there for a reason, but there are provisions for a variance and an opportunity for applicants like the Fords to come before the Commission. He indicated that perhaps the Commission should determine what the hardship is and be able to articulate it. He recommended the Commission continue the public hearing, since it had not been closed, at the October 4, 2006 meeting. He expressed if the Planning Commission wanted to approve this, they must have a clear cut hardship defined. He also recommended the Fords come back with a clearly stated hardship and present it to the Commission at the next meeting. Commissioner Hegland argued the Fords did not create this problem and were under the impression they were following the rules. Mounds View Planning Commission September 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 ______________________________________________________________________________ Acting Chair Miller stated it is a matter of following the rules. Community Development Director Ericson explained the hardship criteria are out of State statutes and a hardship that would justify a variance from what the code says. He stated the basis to approve the variance must indicate that following the code would create a practical difficulty for the applicant. Director Ericson explained the City must be able to justify the variance. Commissioner Scotch asked Mr. Ford for the width of the driveway. Mr. Ford responded it is 12 feet wide. He also stated the garage is six feet off the property line. Mrs. Ford stated she went to the Mounds View website and looked at City variances and appeals 1125.02 and sub-title 02 about undue hardship and pointed out line two states “or practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of the property owners land.” She stated she felt they would have difficulty in the use of their property if they were required to shorten the width of the driveway by one foot. Mr. Ford displayed pictures of other driveways. Acting Chair stated it was unnecessary to look at the photos. She asked the Commission if this should be tabled. Commissioner Hegland stated the Planning Commission needed to give Staff direction to draft a resolution to grant the variance. Mrs. Ford mentioned to the Commission they have been extremely stressed since they came back from vacation and reading the letter from the City. She stated she could not begin to describe the energy and emotion expended over the issue. She stated they would like it resolved so the stress could go away. She expressed to extend it again when all four Commissioners appear to agree on approval, would continue the stress they have experienced. Acting Chair Miller replied it was not a matter of what the neighbors think, but it has given them pause to consider the comments. She stated there is no resolution to act on tonight and the Commission is asking Staff to write a resolution to vote on it. She told the Fords it would be voted on the first Wednesday of October. Mr. Ford stated Director Ericson told him he would recommend it be approved. Community Development Director Ericson stated they must do their research and when he visited the property, he felt the same way as the Planning Commissioners in that it did not make sense to tear out a foot of asphalt and replace it with gravel. He explained that whatever direction the Planning Commission decided to proceed, it must be sure what is approved could be supported. Mounds View Planning Commission September 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 9 ______________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch asked if the resolution could state that due to the hardship identified as part of the criteria, that in the future when the driveway needed to be replaced, it would recover the foot. Commissioner Hegland stated it should state it is not grandfathered in the future. Community Development Director Ericson replied he hesitates to put something like this in because the code could change allowing a zero foot setback. Mr. Dan Mueller, 8343 Groveland, appeared before the Commission again and stated, as a long time resident of Mounds View, if someone builds something and the inspector approves it, and later someone challenges it, how far back could this go. He stated since City staff had come out and said it was fine they should not even been here tonight. Commissioner Scotch explained there is no proof of what happened three years ago, therefore, the Commission must go forward and try to correct it. Commissioner Hegland stated this is only a housecleaning issue. He explained the Ford’s are out of compliance without the proper paperwork; the Planning Commission is trying to create the paperwork needed. The public hearing is held over to the October 4, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. B. CU2006-008: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage; Applicant: Cory Mathiowetz; located at 2925 County Road H2 Planning Associate Heller summarized the request for consideration of a conditional use permit for an oversized garage located at 2925 County Road H2. She reported the applicant would demolish the current 224 square foot garage and build a new 24 foot by 48 foot garage that would comply with the five foot setback. Planning Associate Heller reported the plot plan submitted indicates a garage area in excess of 952 square feet allowed without a conditional use permit. She explained the area has fairly large lots of nearly an acre in size indicating enough property to support the oversized garage exists. Acting Chair Miller asked how far the house was from the property line. Planning Associate Heller stated she did not have the number but she was sure it was at least 20 feet. She indicated there is currently room for a driveway to go along side the garage. Planning Associate Heller stated the new garage would be an improvement to the property and the neighborhood and would not be out of character in this area. She stated the area is mostly a single-family neighborhood with large, deep lots. She stated the garage would be located behind the house so it would not be noticeable from the street and would not change the current look of house. Planning Associate Heller reported all zoning and code issue are satisfied with the request. She reported Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Mounds View Planning Commission September 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 10 ______________________________________________________________________________ Acting Chair Miller asked the applicant for comments. Mr. Cory Mathiowetz, 2925 County Road H2, stated the current garage is set right on the property line and the new garage would be in compliance with the five foot setback. He stated the garage would be used to store vehicles and equipment. He mention his house is only 950 square feet and needs the extra storage space. Commissioner Scotch pointed out a tree would need to be taken down. Mr. Mathiowetz stated that was correct. Commissioner Scotch asked Mr. Mathiowetz when he planed to do start the project. Mr. Mathiowetz replied he would start immediately after City Council approval. Commissioner Hegland asked what he would be doing for a driveway. Mr. Mathiowetz replied there is no driveway currently, but he plans to have a concrete drive. Commissioner Scotch asked if the garage siding would match the house. Mr. Mathiowetz replied it would have vinyl siding and eventually a stone front like the house. Commissioner Scotch asked how long he has lived in the home. Mr. Mathiowetz replied since August 14, 2006. He stated he grew up in Mounds View and just moved back. Acting Chair Miller asked about his plan to add onto the house. Mr. Mathiowetz replied eventually he would add on the other side of the house, and this is why he did not want to build the garage on that side. Commissioner Meehlhause commented the Planning Commission continuously approves these types of requests, so perhaps the code should be changed to allow for larger garages so these do not need to be brought forward by Staff. Commissioner Scotch replied the Commission should continue to review each one since not all the garages will necessarily fit in. Community Development Director Ericson replied if the Code were amended to allow for more square footage, residents would continue to request larger and larger size garages. He stated the size of garages increased up to 1800 square feet over the years. He stated Commissioner Meehlhause made a valid comment because it is something where a streamline review could be Mounds View Planning Commission September 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 11 ______________________________________________________________________________ done. He stated he would like to make it easier for the applicant, the Planning Commission and the City Council. Commissioner Meehlhause mentioned he did not see what the issue was if it is all in one building. Acting Director Miller commented it was to see if it met code requirements. Acting Director Miller made corrections to the resolution verbiage. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Hegland/Commissioner Meehlhause, To Approve Resolution 850-06 Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for a 1,152 Square Foot Garage at 2925 County Road H2; Planning Case Number CU2006-008. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Acting Chair Miller stated this would go to the City Council on October 9, 2006. 6. Other Planning Activity None 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. October 4, 2006 B. October 18, 2006 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Acting Chair Miller adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Dianna Wise TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: October 4, 2006 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate o setback from the Introduction: Mitch & Alison Ford, are requesting a variance to permit a driveway with no etback from the property line. The driveway was constructed in the spring of 2004 without a rly 2004 in order to expand e driveway to the new garage in the rear yard. From 2000 to September of 2004, the City lanning Commission meeting, the Fords indicated that there has lways been a gravel driveway next to the house that lead to the rear yard since Mitch’s iance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a . Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply Item Title/Subject: CONTINUATION: Consideration of a Variance Request to allow for a Driveway with n Property Line at 8378 Groveland Road; Planning Case VR2006-008 The applicants, s permit, after a new detached garage was built behind the house. Staff became aware of the driveway with no setback recently after receiving a complaint. The Ford’s were sent a letter on July 25, 2006, indicating that a permit had not been obtained for the driveway construction and that the driveway was in violation of City Code setback requirements. The options given to them were to either cut back the driveway to bring it into compliance or apply for a variance, along with applying for a zoning permit for the driveway construction. Attached to that letter were planning and zoning applications. The Fords met with staff and said the driveway was installed in ea th Code had allowed driveways to be set back one foot from property lines, if the owner received a letter of agreement from the immediate neighbor. The Ford’s did get a letter from their neighbor, Eric Severson, dated August 2003, but incorrectly installed the driveway with no setback rather than the allowed one-foot setback. The Fords decided to apply for a variance on August 18, 2006 since the driveway is already constructed and has been in place for over two years. They have also now received a permit, after the fact, for the driveway construction. At the September 20th P a parents built the house in 1968. Discussion: As with any var a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. 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. A written statement was included with the application. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a Ford Variance Staff Report Page 2 generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or to the shape or topography of perty. The house is only set back 12 feet from the north property line, which b. pplicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of interpretation would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed rs in the district, but may limit the applicants’ ability to access their second c. pecial conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. ants did not install this driveway originally. There has been a gravel driveway along the property line leading to the backyard since the house was built in d. uested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings e might confer upon the applicant a special privilege in that other property owners are not allowed to build within the required setback. e. te the ardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. inimum that would be necessary. f. materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. g the variance request may not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title. However, the driveway is a pre-existing . The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. There are no extraordinary circumstances that apply this pro does limit the amount of room in which to fit a vehicle past the house. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the a this Title. The literal by othe garage. That the s The applic 1968. Although had the applicants applied for a zoning permit prior to doing the asphalt work, they would have been told that the zero driveway setback would be in violation of the Zoning Code. That granting the variance req in the same district. Granting this varianc That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would allevia h Because the driveway is already in place, the variance requested is the m The variance would not be Given the circumstances, grantin condition and does not appear to be causing adverse impacts. Ford Variance Staff Report Page 3 g property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the supply of light or air to the adjoining roperties, nor increase congestion on streets or endanger the public safety of the Public Hearing: sted variance, this request necessitated a public hearing. Notices were ailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the Fords’ property. Staff received two letters y from staff, the applicants and neighbors at the September 20, 2006 eeting, the Commission directed staff to draft a resolution of approval for the next meeting. stimony from staff, the applicant and affected eighbors, the Commission may take one of the following actions related to the request: chooses this action. 2. ariance. The Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings appropriate to support the denial. 3. efore a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request 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 p neighborhood. As with any reque m from neighbors prior to the September 20th meeting, and six neighbors spoke at the public hearing in favor of allowing the driveway to remain as is. Recommendation: After hearing testimon m The Commissioners decided to table the variance request until the October 4, 2006 meeting when there would be a resolution to act on. After continuing the public hearing and taking te n 1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 851-06 is attached if the Commission Deny the requested v Table the request. If additional information is needed b until such information has been provided. Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: tion 1. Applica 2. Letter of Setback Agreement from Neighbor, Eric Severson m Applicants, Mitch & Alison Ford (2003) ocumentation 3. Statements fro 4. Comment Letter from Neighbor 5. Plot Plan 6. Zoning Map 7. Aerial Photo 8. Photographic D 9. Resolution 851-06 Letter of agreement from neighbor – Eric Severson Statement from Applicants September 8, 2006 To the City of Mounds View: Mitch & Alison Ford, 8378 Groveland Road are requesting a variance for our driveway to allow us to keep the asphalt surface as it currently is, to the property line. Previous to having this improved surface we had always parked along the side of the attached garage. This area was covered with gravel. Because of this type of surface we experienced issues around keeping the rocks out of the grass, both our grass and the neighbor’s to the north of our property. This especially became an issue when we were removing snow from the area, which we still need to do, as this is the driveway to our detached garage in the back. When we had gravel there, we had issues with weeds growing in the area, which did not look very attractive. The lines of the driveway were not clean, as they are now. When we started this project the neighbor adjacent to the property line signed a letter authorizing us to place the driveway closer to his property than the limit set by the city regulations. When we built the garage we applied for and were given a permit for the garage and we thought, the driveway we had drawn out on our project plan. We had an outside company come in the fall and grade the area to slope towards our backyard as our neighbor to the north asked us to do, so the rain and snow melt would not run onto his property. We did this at an extra expense to ourselves. The area was prepared with gravel and we drove on it for the rest of the fall, winter and spring until the asphalt company was able to bring their equipment onto residential streets. During this period our neighbor to the north did make comments to us about the gravel ending up in his yard and he was looking forward to us completing the driveway. We have had this asphalt driveway for almost 3 years now. If we were to remove the asphalt to one foot of the property line, as the ordinance indicates, we would need to put something in the space and be back to having the issues of the rock not staying where it should. Removing the asphalt would not make the property look better; in fact it would take away from the beautiful landscaping we have done throughout the property. Sincerely, Mitch & Alison Ford 2nd Statement from the Fords Received 9-20-06 Page 1 2nd Statement from the Fords Received 9-20-06 Page 2 2nd Statement from the Fords Received 9-20-06 Page 3 Letter from Neighbor ZONING MAP * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View (2003) 8378 Groveland Rd New garage is outlined behind house – driveway runs next to house to the rear garage Photographic Documentation Photographic Documentation Fence recently installed by the neighbor Item No: 5B Meeting Date: October 4, 2006 Type of Business: Action City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate ermit for the 25 Mustang Circle; troduction: or this case is 7T’s Management, which owns one of the lots upon which y is situated. They are requesting approval of a conditional use permit to rtner with Ferrellgas as part of their expansion project. errellgas sells propane gas and the site would have four above ground storage tanks, along 04 of the Zoning Code conditionally allows storage of flammable liquids as a onditional use in Industrial districts. The applicant is proposing to have four main above Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Conditional Use P storage of flammable liquids at 48 Planning Case No. CU2006-009 In The applicant f yson CompanT allow for the storage of flammable liquids on their property located at 4825 Mustang Circle. The site is zoned “Industrial” and currently encompasses four lots for a total of approximately 20 acres. The applicant is currently working with Ferrellgas in New Brighton to relocate their business onto the southern part of their property. Currently Ferrellgas is located at 1430 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, in the northwest quadrant area that is being redeveloped, and the city would like to relocate them. Tyson Company would like to pa F with two smaller buildings, similar to their current site. Tyson Company currently has a Conditional Use Permit in order to allow for a motor freight terminal. An amendment to the current Conditional Use Permit is required in order to allow for the storage of flammable liquids in an Industrial zoned district. Discussion: Section 1116. c ground propane tanks and will construct two smaller buildings, approximately 1,500 square feet and 1,800 square feet, for office space, storage, and a dock for cylinder filling. CUP Considerations: se Permit application, Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address any potential adverse effects which With every Conditional U include, but are not limited to; relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area, traffic, adequate utilities and access roads and the demonstrated need for such a use. Each of these potential adverse effects is reviewed and addressed on the following page. Tyson CUP Staff Report Page 2 Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan encourages the expansion of existing businesses and introduction of new businesses within Mounds View. 4825 Mustang Circle and all the surrounding properties are designated as light or heavy industrial on the Future Land Use Map and the proposed propane gas facility would not be inconsistent with the Comp Plan. The Geographical Area Involved: The proposed business would be located on Mustang C in the center of the Mounds View Industrial Park. The proposed propane gas ircle, business would not necessarily be out of place for this industrial area, and the size of the property would accommodate the proposal. Tyson Company owns four parcels totaling approximately 20 acres. The lot that Ferrellgas would be located on is the most southern one, which is 10 acres in size. Ferrellgas would occupy about half of that lot. Depreciation: The proposed propane gas facility may not necessarily be visually attractive, but this particular part of Tyson’s property is not easily visible. It would be hard to see even from Mustang Drive or Circle, since it would be tucked behind FedTech’s building. The business would be bordered by Fedtech, BelAir Excavating, Ramsey County Park open space, and Tyson’s new building. This site is currently open space and would have remained that except for the planned railroad spur that would go north across the lot. Ferrellgas apparently also has need for a rail spur and would share it with Tyson and BelAir. The Character of the Surrounding Area: This part of the City is mostly an Industrial area. There is a manufactured home community at the north end of the entire Tyson property, however, a natural vegetative buffer separates the properties. All other properties surrounding the subject property are zoned Industrial or are park open space. Access to Ferrellgas would be off Mustang Drive/Circle, but would have about a 450 foot driveway. The proposed propane gas facility would not necessarily be out of character in this area. Traffic: Ferrellgas would operate five trucks out of this facility, and each truck typically makes ble six trips per day. They do also have will call customers that would come to the facility to fill portable tanks. The facility would be open from 7:00am to 5:00pm. This area already has high truck traffic due to the existing businesses in the industrial park, so additional traffic to this new business would probably not be noticeable. Adequate utilities and access roads are availa : The water and sewer lines that currently serves the property should have adequate capacity to provide for this improvement. Ferrellgas would not be a large user of either water or sewer. The site is located right off Old Highway 8 which has good access to nearby highways and freeways. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use: Ferrellgas needs to relocate from their current in existence since 1939 and is the nation’s leading retail propane location in New Brighton, and with Tyson working on their new building and bringing rail onto their site, an opportunity to partner together arose. Tyson would also benefit in that by leasing a portion of their land to Ferrellgas, it would help offset the construction costs for the railroad track and site work. Ferrellgas has been company. They serve all 50 states, Canada and Puerto Rico. They have been a good business for many years in New Brighton. Summary: Ty Pa son CUP Staff Report ge 3 7T’s Management, is requesting approval to relocate Ferrellgas to their property. The Zoning ode conditionally allows for this type of use in an Industrial district. Ferrellgas would have the above analysis, Staff feels that the proposal adequately satisfies the conditional se criteria and may not necessarily adversely affect the surrounding area. C four to eight employees on site (more employees during the winter), along with a few truck drivers. Based on u Public Input: This meeting is not a public hearing, but one will be held when this case goes the City Council. Prior to this Planning Commission meeting, staff has mailed letters to the from staff and the applicant, the Commission can take one of the llowing actions related to the request: al use permit. Resolution 852-06 is attached if the Commission selects this option. 2. al use permit. If the Planning Commission selects this option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution recommending denial with 3. request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request Re to neighboring businesses on Mustang Drive and Circle to notify them of the proposed project. Recommendations: After taking testimony fo 1. Recommend approval of the condition Recommend denial of the condition findings of fact appropriate to support the recommendation. If the Commission chooses to act on this option, Staff will provide the resolution to the Commission at the next meeting. Table the until such information has been provided. spectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map ture Land Use Map 2-06 3. Aerial View 4. Comp Plan Fu 5. Resolution 85 6. Site plans – separate attachment Tyson Lot 3 Tyson Lot 2 Tyson Lot 1 Tyson Lot 4 Zoning Map Aerial View New building Access driveway for Ferrellgas Approximate land area that Ferrellgas would occupy Rail spur ↑ N Current Ferrellgas site in New Brighton 1430 Old Highway 8 4 main large above ground tanks Comp Plan Map MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 852-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR STORAGE OF FLAMMABLE LIQUIDS AT 4815 MUSTANG CIRCLE; PLANNING CASE NO. CU2006-009 WHEREAS, 7T’s Management, LLC. has applied for a conditional use permit to allow for storage of flammable liquids; and, WHEREAS, the subject properties, located at 4815 Mustang Circle, is zoned I-1, Industrial, and is legally described as follows: Mounds View Industrial Park No. 3, Subject to Easements; Lot 7, Block 1 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code allows storage of flammable liquids as a conditional use in Industrial districts; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Staff Report 2. Application 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial View 5. Comp Plan Future Land Use Map 6. Proposed Site Plans NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request: 1. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages new business in Mounds View. 2. The proposed retail propane gas facility would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved and the size of the subject property which is able to accommodate the facility. 3. The proposed retail propane gas facility would not depreciate the surrounding area. 4. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed business. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the retail propane gas facility, with conditions as follows: 1. The applicant shall consolidate parcels, if such action is required by the City Attorney. 2. The applicant shall apply for a Development Review prior to construction of the facility. 3. Rice Creek Watershed District shall review for potential stormwater management impacts. 4. The applicant shall provide the City, upon request, a plan demonstrating safety guidelines in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, or any other governing bodies for above- ground propane storage. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 4P th P day of October, 2006. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 6A Meeting Date: October 4, 2006 Type of Business: Discussion City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Review Codes and Regulations Pertaining to Accessory Buildings Introduction: At the September 25, 2006 City Council meeting, residents from the Lois Drive cul-de-sac neighborhood expressed their concerns to the Council regarding large detached second garages which had recently been constructed on neighboring lots. The residents asked the City Council to re-examine the codes relating to the garages and accessory buildings and approve changes to (1) restrict the size, number and height of such buildings, (2) involve the neighbors in ALL such building permit decisions, and (3) establish clear design review guidelines for such buildings. (A comprehensive list of recommendations submitted by Mary Jo Vershay and Mike cardinal is attached for the Commission’s review.) In response to the resident input, the City Council has asked the Planning Commission to initiate a review of the related codes and regulations and to make a determination as to whether amendments should be considered. An Accessory Building is defined by the City Code as a subordinate building which is located on the same lot on which the main building is situated and which is reasonably necessary and incidental to the conduct of the primary use of such building or main use. Examples of accessory buildings include garages, tool houses, carports, sheds and similar outbuildings for storage of domestic supply and noncommercial recreational equipment, whether attached or detached. Discussion: The City of Mounds View regulates the construction of accessory buildings through its adoption of the Minnesota State Building Code, otherwise known as the International Building Code (IBC) and through local land use and zoning control ordinances as promulgated in Title 1100 of the Municipal Code, referred to as the Zoning Code. The State Building Code governs the construction, reconstruction, alteration, and repair of buildings and other structures to which the code is applicable. According to the Department of Building Codes and Standards, the State Code is intended to provide basic and uniform performance standards, establish reasonable safeguards for health, safety, welfare, comfort, and security of the residents of this state and provide for the use of modern methods, devices, materials, and techniques which will in part tend to lower construction costs. The construction of buildings should be permitted at the least possible cost consistent with recognized standards of health and safety. The State Code however does not regulate a building’s size, location or design as these are controls exercised by local zoning authorities. Accessory Building Report October 4, 2006 Page 2 The Zoning Code for the City of Mounds View, as it relates to the allowances for accessory buildings, has undergone many changes in the last ten years. All amendments have been approved by the City Council after a public hearing and at the recommendation of the Planning Commission, often at the request and urging of residents seeking to expand garage and shed allowances. The most recent amendment was adopted by the City Council in 2002 after a recommendation from the Planning Commission which ultimately increased the maximum total square footage for accessory buildings on a residential lot from 1400 to 1800 square feet. The following represent the zoning regulations pertaining to accessory buildings in Mounds View as articulated in Sections 1106.03 and 1106.04 of the Zoning Code: Maximum size of a garage / shed by right: 952 square feet Maximum size of a garage / shed w/ CUP: 1,800 square feet* Maximum height of a garage / shed: 15 feet** Minimum setback to side and rear property lines: 5 feet Minimum setback from other structures: 3 feet Maximum number of accessory buildings: three Maximum combined square footage of all accessory buildings: 1,800 square feet Maximum width of a garage exceeding 952 square feet: 35 feet Maximum rear yard coverage percentage: 20 percent Other requirements pertaining to accessory buildings include the following: • Attached garages must conform to the front and rear setback requirements for the principle structure. • Accessory buildings shall have a weather resistant, treated or finished exterior. Structures composed of tubular metal and canvas or exposed plywood, particle board or similar materials shall not be permitted. • If any accessory building is to be utilized for the storage of frequently-used vehicles, it shall be serviced by an improved driveway so as to control dust, drainage and erosion, according to the requirements as set forth in Section 902.05 of this Code. • Accessory buildings exceeding 952 square feet shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the dwelling unit. • Accessory buildings exceeding 952 square feet shall be permanent structures. ____________________________________ * Section 1125 of the Zoning Code articulates the requirements associated with the issuance of a conditional use permit (CUP). A duly noticed public hearing shall be conducted in association with any CUP request and adverse impacts shall be considered. ** To take into consideration the variety of rooflines, truss design and pitch, the height of an accessory building is measured from the floor to the midpoint of the truss. In most cases, this results in an actual height to the roof peak in excess of 15 feet. Accessory Building Report October 4, 2006 Page 3 Since the year 2000, the City has approved fourteen conditional use permits (CUPs) for over sized accessory buildings. (Refer to the table below.) All fourteen garages exceeded 1,000 square feet, the average area being 1,123 square feet. Only two of the approved garages were in excess of 1,400 square feet. During the same time period, only two over-sized garage requests were denied, that for a proposed 48-foot wide garage at 2208 Lois Drive and a 1,620 square foot garage at 8135 Long Lake Road. As a result of the denied CUP and Variance, the property owner of 2208 Lois Drive chose instead to construct a large detached accessory building in his rear yard consistent with Code allowances. Address Garage area requested (in square feet) Approval Date 2832 Woodale Dr 1,248 May 2000 (reapproved in May 2006 2251 Oakwood 1,150 May 2000 8368 Groveland Rd 1,218 August 2001 7988 Edgewood Dr 1,344 May 2003 5220 Edgewood Dr 1,148 June 2003 7850 Spring Lake Rd 1,110 October 2003 2208 Lois Dr 1,152 June 2004 (denied) 7806 Gloria Circle 1,125 July 2004 5343 Clifton 1,032 March 2005 7965 Fairchild 1,440 April 2005 7069 Pleasant View 1,082 September 2005 8495 Sunnyside 1,062 April 2006 8382 Knollwood 1,604 May 2006 5308 St. Stephen 1,104 May 2006 8135 Long Lake Road 1,620 July 2006 (denied) 2932 Woodale Drive 1,176 August 2006 There have been many other inquiries for oversize garages this year, and a couple of the new homes built in the last year have had the plans submitted with garages larger than 952 square feet. All of these residents decreased the garage size because they did not want to go through the lengthy CUP process and/or pay the application fee. As we have seen lately, residents often have more than two cars and one or more recreational vehicles (e.g., boats, ATVs, motorcycles, RVs) and they desire workshop space in addition. Residents are more conscious about keeping their neighborhoods looking nice and want to be able to store their additional vehicles inside rather than outdoors in the elements and in full view of passersby. During the same seven-year period beginning in 2000, the City issued 160 building and zoning permits for the construction of garages and sheds less than or equal to 952 square feet. (A zoning permit rather than a building permit is required for accessory buildings smaller than 120 square feet.) Clearly the vast majority of accessory building permits issued are for those 952 square feet and less. Accessory Building Report October 4, 2006 Page 4 The City Code does not require public notification for the issuance of a permit to construct accessory buildings less than or equal to 952 square feet. Only those garage requests in excess of 952 square feet trigger a public review process. Neither does the City Code require a notification process for new home construction. Public notification occurs in conjunction with major subdivisions, conditional use permits, variances, vacations, Comp plan amendments, Zoning Code amendments and rezoning requests. While not required, public notification is usually conducted for all minor subdivisions and development review requests as well. Attached to this report is a table illustrating the results of a survey taken of neighboring and nearby communities as to what their respective cities allow for accessory buildings. It can be seen that Mounds View’s allowances tend to be more generous than other communities to the extent that we have been told the reason some people have moved to Mounds View is to benefit from larger and multiple garages and storage buildings. Design Requirements: Neither the Zoning Code nor the Building Code regulate or require design guidelines for accessory buildings less than or equal to 952 square feet. Only the size, height and setbacks of the building are controlled. In an effort to prohibit substandard and temporary buildings, the Code was amended to introduce certain restrictions but actual design guidelines are absent from the Zoning Code. It is only when the structure exceeds 952 square feet that the structure is required to exhibit a uniform design and appearance with the dwelling unit. The City of Mounds View requires that all commercial, industrial and residential construction and expansions to existing construction be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council for code compliance and design features. There are three “exceptions” to this all- encompassing review requirement, however, which are as follows: a. Single or two (2) family dwelling units; b. Accessory structures that meet the requirements of the applicable zoning district; c. Construction activity that increases the gross square footage of the principal building by less than ten percent (10%), provided the area of expansion does not exceed ten thousand (10,000) square feet. While the City Code requires that such a review be conducted (Section 1006.06), there are no specific guidelines or requirements which articulate design, building materials, landscaping, style, color or other building characteristics. For the most part, the absence of such requirements has not proven problematic as most developer / builders are willing to incorporate requested design modifications (such as extent of brick or other building materials, landscape plantings, rooflines, sign design, etc.) to their development plans. The lack of adopted guidelines does however put the City in a disadvantageous position in the event the developer challenges a requested design modification (for instance, if the City were to require an all-brick building.) All that being said, it remains the case that there are no design guidelines for the majority of accessory buildings constructed in the City and presently no requirement to review them if there were. Accessory Building Report October 4, 2006 Page 5 Questions: 1. After four years of “experience” with the increased accessory building allowances, is there a need to re-examine the allowances and perhaps adopt more stringent controls regarding the size, height and number of such accessory buildings? 2. If so, should the City Council establish a committee of residents, appointed and elected individuals to determine the most appropriate changes? 3. Should the City adopt design guidelines for ALL accessory buildings rather than just those in excess of 952 square feet? 4. Should neighbors receive notification of permit applications and/or should a public hearing be required for proposed buildings 952 square feet and less before permits are issued? 5. Are there other recommendations suggested by residents Vershay and Cardinal that should be explored in greater detail? 6. Are there any other issues that should be addressed regarding accessory buildings not already discussed herein? Recommendation: Please review the City Code requirements regarding accessory buildings and the attached photos. It might be helpful for the Commissioners to individually tour the Lois Drive cul-de- sac to get a first-hand LOOK of the types of garages and the sizes of garages that can be constructed without any public review or conditional use permit. While these issues affect all residential property owners in the City, the residents of the Lois Drive cul-de-sac seem to be uniquely impacted by the generous allowances. Ultimately, staff would like the Planning Commission to forward a recommendation to the City Council for their consideration. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Photographic Documentation 2. Recommendations submitted by Mary Jo Vershay and Mike Cardinal 3. Municipal Survey concerning Accessory Buildings 4. Oversized Garage Map (since 2000) Photographic Documentation View of 792 square foot, three-car detached garage in backyard of 2200 Lois Drive. View of same three-car, 792 square foot detached garage behind two and a half car detached garage alongside house at 2200 Lois Drive. Total accessory building square footage = 1,662 View of the 936 square foot, detached two-story two-car garage in the backyard of 2208 Lois Drive. There is a 528 square foot, two-car garage attached to the house for a total square footage of 1,464. 952 square foot detached two-car garage located in the backyard of the Ford residence at 8378 Groveland Rd. There is an 840 square foot two-car garage attached to the home. Total garage area = 1,792 square feet.