Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-06-2005 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 6, 2005 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: a. June 1, 2005 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. VR2005-005: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance Request to Reduce the Side Yard Setback to Zero Feet to Allow for a Garage Addition. Applicant: Keith Vasilakes Address: 5131 Greenwood Drive b. VR2005-007: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance for a Reduced Front Yard Setback for a Living Space Addition Applicant: Nathan and Kendra Miller Address: 2340 Knoll Drive c. PA2005-001: Review of a Request for a PUD Amendment Associated with Lot 2, Block 2, City Hall Addition (Walgreens PUD), from Restaurant to Office. Applicant: Dr. Greg Belting Address: 2395 County Road 10 d. PD2005-001: Consideration of the General Concept Plan for a Proposed Residential Planned Unit Development Applicant: Integra Homes Address: 2901 & 2925 County Road 10 6. Next Planning Commission Meeting: July 20, 2005 7. Adjourn to Agenda Session Mounds View Planning Commission Agenda Session July 6, 2005 1. Review Minutes: a. May 4, 2005 b. June 1, 2005 c. June 15, 2005 2. Staff Reports a. Harstad Red Oak Estates Update b. Snyders Development Update c. Medtronic / Golf Course Update d. Planning Associate Recruitment Update e. Other Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion Item No: 5b Meeting Date: July 6, 2005 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request for a Variance to Reduce the Front Yard Setback to Allow for the Construction of a Living Space Addition at 2340 Knoll Drive; Planning Case VR2005-007 Introduction: The applicants, Nathan and Kendra Miller, are proposing to construct an addition to their home located at 2340 Knoll Drive. The proposed addition would expand the existing home to the southeast by fifteen feet. 2340 Knoll Drive is a wedge shaped lot with an expansive frontage and little backyard space. Constructed in 1965, the house is situated facing the street but does not line up parallel with any property lines, as can be seen on the attached aerial views. The applicants have submitted a statement describing their proposal and addressing the hardship criteria. Discussion: Setback requirements are addressed in Section 1104.01 of the Zoning Code. Each zoning district is listed with the corresponding front, side and rear setbacks. In an R-1, Single Family Residential district, the typical building setbacks are as follows: Front, thirty (30) feet; Side, ten (10) feet; and Rear, thirty (30) feet. For the lot located at 2340 Knoll Drive, there is a long, curving street frontage which causes there to be an excessive front setback. The house was constructed in an attempt to face the street; however in so doing, the home does not line up with the side lot lines. From the aerial view, it appears that the rear of the existing garage is either on or close to the property line, while the home itself encroaches into the front setback on the west side of the lot. The applicant is proposing to construct a fifteen-foot addition to the existing house which would encroach further into the front setback. Upon completion, the home would be set back approximately 9 feet from the front property line yet buffered from public view by a stand of mature evergreens. 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 the case of Mounds View) 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: Miller Variance Request July 6, 2005 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 subject property is a wedge shaped, irregularly configured parcel. Because of the irregular shape, the house is not parallel to any lot line and encroaches into the side and front setbacks. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, in that the irregular shape of the lot unduly limits possibilities for living space expansion. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The home was constructed in 1965 and was constructed on the lot providing for maximum street exposure which severely limited expansion possibilities. 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 denied to others in the same district in that the irregularity of the lot poses practical difficulties not present in other lots. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. While it is certainly possible to construct an addition less than fifteen feet wide, the utility of a more narrow addition would not make the expansion worthwhile. The variance requested would be the minimum to satisfy the hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The variance would not be detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to the adjoining properties. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed garage addition would not result in any of the above adverse effects. Miller Variance Request July 6, 2005 Page 3 Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. While staff supports approval of this request, no resolution has been prepared to effectuate an approval. The applicants will need to submit a detailed site plan showing the proposed expansion and all distances to property lines. Because of the extent of the encroachment, staff would recommend that a professional boundary survey be conducted to determine with certainty the extent of the variance requested. In lieu of a survey prepared by a certified land surveyor, staff would accept a detailed, to-scale site plan prepared by the applicants. 2. Deny the request given that the home already encroaches into the front setback. To consider this option, the Commission will need to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial with findings of fact to support the denial. 3. Table the request to allow the applicants the opportunity to arrange for a survey or to prepare a detailed, to-scale site plan showing the proposed addition and the resulting property setbacks. Respectfully submitted, James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Application 2. Letter from Applicant 3. Zoning Map 4. Location Map 5. Aerial Views Zoning Map Aerial View Aerial View With Front Setback 30 Ft Proposed Expansion Proposed Addition Item No: 5c Meeting Date: July 6, 2005 Type of Business: Review Item City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Discussion and Review of a Proposed Amendment to the “Walgreens” Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Allow “Office” as a Land Use in Addition to a “Restaurant” Use. Planning Case PA2005-001 Introduction: Dr. Greg Belting of Silverview Chiropractic Center (currently located at 2552 County Road 10) has applied for an amendment to the Walgreens PUD with respect to the allowed land uses for the vacant lot behind Walgreens. Dr. Belting is requesting that the PUD be amended to allow for an office use. If the City were to approve the amendment, he would plan on constructing an 8,000 square foot building for himself and one or two other tenants. Discussion: The City originally approved the Walgreens PUD in August of 2000 with the Walgreens building constructed the following year. Efforts to market the undeveloped Parcel A (the parcel designated for restaurant usage) behind Walgreens have been ongoing since its creation yet development has not occurred despite the efforts of the owners, the realtors and City staff. Feedback from prospects and other contacts indicate that the site is too hidden by the Walgreens building. Limited visibility from County Road 10 and the oddly configured lot has prevented this site to be developed as a restaurant, as originally intended by the PUD. This request is similar to the situation with the Theater PUD and the lot at the corner of Long Lake Road and County Road 10. Originally designated as a restaurant use, after years of unsuccessful attempts to lure a restaurant use, the owners requested an amendment to allow office usage in light of the inability to develop the triangular lot. The City Council approved the PUD amendment for LandCor in May of 2003. With the amendment, Dr. Belting proposes an 8,000 square foot building likely similar to the attached site plan. (If the PUD amendment is approved, the applicant will need to submit an application for a development review.) The site plan shows a single story building which would be situated against the back of the lot so that the back of the building fronts the wetland area rather than the Community Center. While this provides better utilization of the land, a secondary amendment to the PUD would be required to allow for a reduced building setback. The setback originally approved was 30 feet which was consistent with the original building footprints however a reduction, such as what’s shown on the draft site plan, would be in keeping with the original intent of the PUD. PUD Amendment Report July 6, 2005 Page 2 Amendment Process: An amendment to a Planned Unit Developments is processed as would an amendment to an approved Conditional Use Permit, which is to say that the procedural requirements of Section 1125 of the Zoning Code would be followed. Section 1125 requires that the City review the request, taking into consideration any and all potential adverse effects of the proposed amendment. 1. Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. Mounds View’s adopted Comprehensive Plan identifies the Walgreens PUD site as a Community Commercial PUD. All of the approved uses are consistent within this future land use designation. The proposed office use on the undeveloped parcel would be just as consistent with the Comp Plan as would the PUD approved restaurant use. 2. The geographical area involved. The parcel is a five-sided polygon with minimal street frontage on Edgewood Drive. To the north of the parcel is the Community Center, to the west is City Hall, to the east is the wetland and open space area, and to the south is the Walgreens store. The site is adjacent to County Road 10, the City’s primary commercial corridor, and has a County Road 10 address. Rice Creek Watershed District approved the development and stormwater ponds were constructed to handle full site build out, which includes the subject parcel. 3. Neighborhood Impact. As mentioned earlier in this report, the original planned use for this particular parcel was a restaurant. A restaurant would generate more traffic and would have a greater demand for parking than would an office use. While there’s no denial that a restaurant would be preferred, an office use would have less of an impact to the Edgewood Drive / County Road 10 intersection and would be less likely to generate later evening disturbances. 4. The character of the surrounding area. The proposed office building would not be out of place and would bring development and tax base to the site. 5. The demonstrated need for such use. Residents continually comment that it would be nice to have another sit-down type of restaurant in the City. (There are many restaurant options in Mounds View, however most are of the “Fast food” variety.) The other most wanted uses residents tend to identify are grocery, hardware and medical. While the primary tenant would be Silverview Chiropractic Center, already a Mounds View business, perhaps other medical office type uses would lease the extra space. It appears that amending the PUD to allow for an office use would have no adverse impacts and would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff supports the amendment and the potential development of an 8,000 square foot office building on the site. PUD Amendment Report July 6, 2005 Page 3 Recommendation: The Commission can take one of the following actions related to the PUD Amendment request: 1. Recommend approval of the PUD Amendment as requested. Resolution 799-05 is attached for your consideration if you should choose this option. 2. Recommend denial of the request. To consider this option, the Commission will need to direct staff to prepare a resolution of with findings to support the denial recommendation. 3. Table action on the request. This option would be appropriate if the Commission should need additional information or more input before a decision can be made. Respectfully submitted, James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Application 2. Letter from Applicant 3. Zoning Map 4. Site Plan 5. Aerial Views 6. Original Walgreens PUD Document Zoning Map Proposed Site Map Aerial View MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 799-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE WALGREENS PUD AGREEMENT BY ADDING “OFFICE” AS AN ALLOWED USE ON LOT 2, BLOCK 2, MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL ADDITION (Parcel 2); MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE PA2005-001 WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council approved the Walgreens Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement on August 14, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the approved uses for the Walgreens PUD included a Drug Store, a Restaurant and passive open space and recreation uses; and, WHEREAS, the lot located at 2395 County Road 10, legally described as Lot 2, Block 2; Mounds View City Hall Addition, was approved by the Council for a Restaurant use; and, WHEREAS, having been unable to develop the property with a restaurant, a developer wishes to amend the PUD Agreement by adding “office” as an allowed use for the site; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this request and has examined the potential adverse effects that could result from such an amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following finding of fact related to this request: 1. The lot in question, 2395 County Road 10, described by the PUD Agreement as Parcel “2,” is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and the only allowed use for the site is a restaurant. 2. Parcel 2 remains vacant and as such a developer has requested an amendment to the PUD to allow for an office building to be constructed on the site. 3. The Future Land Use Map from the City’s Comprehensive Plan designates this area as a Community Commercial Planned Unit Development which is consistent with the zoning of the site. 4. The property at 2395 County Road 10 is within the City’s primary commercial corridor and as such either a restaurant or an office building would be a fitting development. Resolution 799-05 Page 2 5. The property is an irregularly shaped lot, bordered to the north by the Community Center, to the west by Edgewood Drive and City Hall, to the south Walgreens, and to the east a wooded wetland. The construction of an office building would have no depreciatory affects upon the surrounding area. 6. The original intent of the PUD will be preserved in that the same architectural requirements and development standards would prevail for this lot, regardless of whether developed as a restaurant or office building. 7. The construction of an office building on this lot would have potentially less of an impact to the Edgewood drive / County Road 10 intersection than would a restaurant. 8. There do not appear to be any adverse effects associated with this proposed amendment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings of fact, does hereby recommend that the Walgreens Planned Unit Development (PUD) be amended such that the use “Office” be added to those uses expressly permitted on Lot 2, Block 2, Mounds View City Hall Addition. 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 6th day of July, 2005. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 5D Meeting Date: July 6, 2005 Type of Business: Commission Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Review and Consideration of the General Concept Plan for a Proposed Residential Planned Unit Development at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10; Planning Case PD2005-001 Introduction: Ron Lillestrand, representing Integra Homes, has applied for approval of a general concept plan to construct twenty-one (21) townhouse units at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10. The proposed development would also include a portion of the rear yard of 8060 Groveland Road. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the request on May 4, 2005 and many residents attended to voice opposition to the density, usage, circulation and configuration of the project. The Planning Commission too expressed some of the same concerns. On May 18, 2005, the applicant requested that action on the PUD be tabled to allow revisions be made to the plan in response to the expressed concerns. On June 1, 2005, a representative for the applicant requested further tabling so that they could continue to assess the neighbors’ concerns and consider potential plan modifications. As a result of the tabling requests, staff sent the applicant a letter indicating that the City was extending the deadline for action another 60 days. The new deadline for action is August 10, 2005. To meet this deadline, the Planning Commission needs to take action on July 6, 2005 to allow enough time for the City Council to consider the request prior to the deadline expiration. Review of Proposal: The proposed development area is located on County Road 10 and has a mixed zoning designation. The property at 2901 County Road 10 is zoned B-3, Highway Business and is currently vacant. 2925 County Road 10 and the rear yard of 8060 Groveland Road are currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. 2925 County Road 10 has an existing single family home that would be demolished if the development were to move forward. Integra Homes is requesting a Residential PUD, in which they are proposing to construct twenty-one (21) townhouse units. Residential PUDs require a minimum of a three (3) acre site. The proposed development site has an area of 3.01 acres. Although the property would be zoned PUD if approved, the use would be consistent with an R-3, Medium Density Residential district. R-3 districts allow townhouses up to six units. The Comprehensive Plan designates the future use of these parcels as Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MU-PUD). Integra Homes previously submitted a rezoning request for 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 to rezone the property to R-3, Medium Density Residential in order to allow for townhouses to be constructed on the property. The Planning Commission considered the request and voted to deny the rezoning based on the fact that the proposed development area did not have the three acres required for a PUD and that the development would divide the block, such that land on either side of the development could not be developed as a planned unit development. Integra Homes PUD Report July 6, 2005 Page 2 General Concept Plan Review: The Planning Commission has been provided with a site plan date-stamped April 13, 2005 for the proposed expansion. The applicant has also provided a colored rendering of the site. The total area of the proposed PUD is 3.01 acres, which satisfies the 3-acre minimum requirement for residential PUD. The site includes the property at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the rear yard area of 8060 Groveland Road, which is being divided through a minor subdivision. In order to approve the PUD request, the Commission must review two criteria. The first is that the request be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The second consideration is whether the proposal would be detrimental to the neighborhood or adversely impact the adjoining properties. Regarding the first criteria, the proposed development contains the residential aspect of the mixed use, but does not have a commercial component. That fact alone does not invalidate the request, however the City will need to determine if the proposal meets the “intent” of the Comprehensive Plan and if the remaining area could be developed to achieve the desired mix. Concerning the second of the criteria, that the development not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood, it would seem evident that any development on the site would impact the neighborhood, be it residential or commercial. The proposal does alter the nature of the area and creates privacy issues for the residents that will be adjacent to the project area. The City needs to determine if the proposed development makes sense and “fits” into the surrounding neighborhood. Development Issues: Density: The applicant is proposing twenty-one (21) units on 3.01 acres. Section 1104.02 of the Zoning Code requires 6,500 square feet per unit for townhouses. 3.01 acres equates to 131,116 square feet, which would allow for 20 units. Section 1120.03 of the Zoning Code allows a 10% density bonus for Residential PUDs, which would mean that this site could potentially support up to twenty-two units. Staff feels that 21 units is too intense a development for this neighborhood. Parking: The Zoning Code requires two covered and one uncovered stalls per dwelling unit townhomes. The proposal satisfies this requirement by providing two garage stalls and two driveway stalls per unit. Because the roadways are only twenty-five feet wide, they will need to be posted as “No Parking” and no visitor parking is shown on the site plan. While not a Code requirement, Staff would recommend that an area be designated for visitor parking. Access and Circulation: The proposed site plan indicates one access point on County Road 10. The proposed development would have private streets with a width of twenty-five feet, which is the minimum width requirement for private streets within a PUD. The site plan shows a roundabout near the center of the site, with a street continuing north and a street continuing to the east. The streets are adequately sized for emergency vehicles to navigate. Integra Homes PUD Report July 6, 2005 Page 3 Access and Circulation: Many residents and some members of the Planning Commission have expressed some concern about there being only one access into the project. Other residents (living on Grove land Road) expressed opposition to a second access routing additional traffic onto their street. The applicants reviewed all options and determined that alternative secondary access points were not possible. From a traffic management and public safety perspective, there are no issues with one access point serving 21 dwelling units. Additional Planning Requests: If the proposed development receives approval of the general concept plan, it will move to the development stage of the PUD, at which time the applicant will also apply for a major subdivision and development review. The final stage of the PUD process is the administrative approval. Public Comment: Several property owners contacted Staff to voice concerns about the proposed development. Some residents felt that the development was too intense for the area it would be occupying. Two residents commented that they felt the layout is poor and causes privacy issues, specifically because several of the units would be facing the existing neighbor’s backyards. In most developments, the front of the home does not face the backyard of another. In order to remedy this, the applicant could consider making all the townhouse units face the north/south street, which would eliminate the issue for the most part. In addition, some residents voiced a concern regarding the loss of trees and the need for screening of some type between the new development and the existing neighborhood. One neighbor stated that he would prefer a privacy fence as screening. In addition, some neighbors commented that they felt County Road 10 should be developed with commercial uses instead of residential, as it is the main business district in the City. Recommendation: Discuss the general concept plan for the proposed development. No revisions or modifications to the Integra PUD were provided to staff for review and the deadline for action is approaching. Because of the concerns raised at the May 4, 2005 public hearing and due to the issues raised by the Commission, staff is recommending the Commission adopt a resolution recommending denial of the Integra General Concept PUD proposal. Resolution 796-05 is available for the Commission’s action. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Zoning Map Proposed Site Plan MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 796-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT 21 TOWNHOUSE UNITS AT 2925 AND 2901 COUNTY ROAD 10 AND THE REAR YARD OF 8060 GROVELAND ROAD; PLANNING CASE PD05-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, Integra Homes, has applied for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and has requested approval of the PUD general concept plan to construct 21 townhouse units at 2925 and 2901 County Road 10 and the rear yard of 8060 Groveland Road. The properties are legally described as: Lot 8, Block 3, Sherwood Estates; and, Subject To Highway; The Following; Part Of Lot 32 Description Beginning On Easterly Lot 32 100 Feet South Of Northwest Corner Lot 50 Thence South On Said Line To Northeast Line Of Highway Thence Northwest On Highway 32 Feet Thence Northeast To Beginning Also, Except Northwesterly Triangular Part Measured 7 Feet On Northerly & 100 Feet On Easterly Line Said Triangle; All Of Lot 50, and the West 271.10 Feet of the South 135 Feet of Lot 47, all in Auditor’s Subdivision No. 89. WHEREAS, 2925 County Road 10 and 8060 Groveland Road are currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and 2901 County Road 10 is zoned B-3, Highway Business; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Application 2. Letter from Applicant 3. Zoning Map 4. Location Map 5. Proposed Site Plan 6. Staff Report WHEREAS, a public hearing notice was published in the official City newspaper on April 20, 2005, and notices mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject properties; and, Resolution 796-05 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this request on Wednesday, May 4, 2005; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed Chapter 1120 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to planned unit developments; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the land use component of the Comprehensive Plan relative to this request; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the site plans date-stamped April 13, 2005, relative to this request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the possible adverse effects of this general concept plan, as required by the Mounds View Zoning Code: 1. The current zoning of the lots is R-1, Single Family Residential and B-3, Highway Business. The requested zoning of the lots is PUD, Planned Unit Development. 2. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the parcels proposed to be included in the residential PUD are designated Mixed-Use PUD on the Future Land Use map. 3. The plan as proposed would adversely affect adjacent property owners by compromising privacy and substantially increased densities. 4. The proposed density, while not inconsistent with the Code requirements for a 3- acre parcel, is too intense for the surrounding area and does not fit the character of the existing neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above findings, the information and documents regarding the general concept plan for the PUD, the report drafted by staff and the testimony of the applicant, and in consideration of the public testimony given at the public hearing, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of the general concept plan approval request made by Integra Homes. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 6th day of July, 2005. _________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairman Attest: _________________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (Seal) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 4, 2005 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. May 4, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, Scotch, and Stevenson Absent and Excused: None Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson and Planning Associate Prososki ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case PD2005-001. Public Hearing and Consideration of the General Concept Plan for a Proposed Residential Planned Unit Development at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 Applicant: Integra Homes 2 _______________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission May 4, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case PD2005-001. Public Hearing and Consideration of the General Concept Plan for a Proposed Residential Planned Unit Development at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 Planning Associate Prososki explained that Ron Lillestrand, representing Integra Homes, is requesting City approval of a general concept plan to construct 21 townhouse units at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10. The proposed development would also include a portion of the rear yard of 8060 Groveland Road. Planning Associate Prososki advised that the general concept plan is the first stage of the planned unit development process. The advantage to this stage is that the developer is allowed to bring a general site plan for City review and consideration without the need to have all of the other components prepared. If the City approves the concept plan, the developer would then submit additional detailed information for City consideration, which is referred to as the development stage of the PUD. Planner Prososki indicated that the biggest thing to look at is the relationship to the Comprehensive Plan and this is designated as mixed use PUD with a mix of residential and commercial uses. She asked the Commission to consider if this proposed development would fit into the area or cause a negative impact. Planner Prososki indicated that the Code requires 6,500 square feet of land area per unit plus 10 percent density bonus for a PUD and they are planning for 21 units. City Code would allow up to 22 units. She said that the setbacks are listed in the Staff report and briefly reviewed those for the Commission as well as the parking requirements indicating that the proposal does satisfy the parking requirements. Planner Prososki indicated that the plan would need to be amended to include visitor parking as the streets are too narrow to accommodate on street parking. She said that the roundabout in the center of the development is sized adequately for emergency vehicles and noted that this development would increase the traffic on County Road 10 but not enough to cause any real issues. Planner Prososki indicated that the City would need better details for the building types, landscaping, drainage, trailways, snow storage, signage and buffering should this plan proceed. She also indicated that should this plan move forward there would need to be a development review as well as a major subdivision. Planner Prososki indicated that Staff received many public comments concerning this proposal. One of which is that this is too intense for the area. She said that some residents felt that the layout was poor and that it caused privacy issues as well as concern for loss of trees, the need for screening and privacy fences. She further commented that two residents felt that County Road 10 should be developed with commercial uses. Mounds View Planning Commission May 4, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Planner Prososki explained that Staff developed an alternative plan to address some issues of the neighbors but the applicant did not support the alternative plan. Planner Prososki pointed out that the Staff proposal is a loss of 3 units and reorients the buildings so that all units would be facing in and not facing into backyards and allows for additional buffering. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the Applicant has agreed to address the front of the units looking into existing backyards. Planner Prososki indicated there are things that can be done but where there are two story units looking into backyards even a privacy fence would not work. She then said that this is a concept plan and can be changed but she is not sure how far the applicant is willing to modify the plan. Commissioner Meehlhause commented that the City has had issues in the past with private streets and asked why this development proposes them. Planner Prososki indicated that if the private streets are not maintained properly they can cause issues but a public street requires 60 feet of right of way and there is not room to do a public street. Chair Stevenson asked if there are concerns with the fire department with not having an emergency exit. Planner Prososki indicated she would need to check with the fire marshal. Commissioner Miller asked how many townhomes can be together per City Code. Planner Prososki indicated that if this is zoned PUD that would be consistent with an R3 district of medium density and that district does allow townhomes up to 6 units. Chair Stevenson asked how much of this property would have to be rezoned to meet R3. Planner Prososki explained that a PUD is a rezoning and it is consistent with R3. She then said that right now one of the parcels is B3 and the other two are R1 so they all need to be rezoned to PUD. She further explained that there would need to be a major subdivision because it is not one parcel right now. Commissioner Miller asked what happens with to the Comprehensive Plan and future design to have the area as a mixed use PUD with business fronting on Highway 10. Planner Prososki indicated that in the mixed-use designation the Comprehensive Plan states that it would be a mixture of commercial and residential uses. Mounds View Planning Commission May 4, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson commented that in 2003 when a similar project was proposed, a major issue was not just the fact that the earlier proposal contained less than 3 acre minimum, but that it was removing the middle section of a future PUD that went from Steve’s Appliance all the way to the residential homes on the other side of the gas station. He noted the proposal before the Planning Commission tonight is not that much different, other than having more property in the back and does not take into consideration that the idea was to have a mixed use PUD for the entire block. He said that if this were to be approved, it would narrow the scope of the Comprehensive Plan, and that the Commission needs to discuss whether the City wants to accept a smaller project, which would prevent achievement of the goal of a mixed use PUD for the area. Brian Bourassa from MFRA Engineering, representing Integra Homes, addressed the Commission and explained they have been working on this project for a few years. He also said that the private street is an issue because they do not have the room for the required 60 foot right of way for public streets, but they did meet with the fire department on emergency access and agreed to do a turn around for the main entrance and also talked about the potential for sprinkling the units but they have not committed to doing so. Mr. Bourassa indicated that they met with Staff concerning the type of development after realizing that with the required setbacks from a commercial development to a residential property makes the B3 zoned parcel not very usable for a commercial development but they did look at a mixed use PUD. Mr. Bourassa indicated that the proposed development is less dense than would be allowed by Code. He then reviewed the Staff plan and noted that they like their plan better as it provides for more green space and more of a buffer from Highway 10. He further commented that they feel their plan works better aesthetically as well as from an engineering standpoint for drainage. Mr. Bourassa indicated that they are willing to do some screening and/or privacy fences to enhance privacy and are willing to meet with residents privately to discuss what each would like to see for screening. He suggested flexibility with rear yard setbacks within the PUD to squeeze the buffer and allow ample room for backyards and allow a little more buffer and greater room for privacy fencing and plantings. Mr. Bourassa indicated that they would be open to working on neighboring properties to do landscaping and screening if residents are interested but they would not push that. Commissioner Zwirn asked how the developer plans to accommodate visitor parking. Mr. Bourassa explained that they are considering the entrance road on the west side or west of lot 10 for additional parking as well as making the entrance street wider to allow for on street parking. Commissioner Hegland asked if there is a snow removal plan. Mounds View Planning Commission May 4, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Bourassa indicated there is no formal snow removal plan as that would go along with the landscape and lawn maintenance plan. Commissioner Zwirn asked about adding a secondary access. Mr. Bourassa indicated 8060 Groveland is a nice house and there is no option for going past it out to Groveland Road for another access point. Commissioner Zwirn asked whether eliminating one townhome would allow for the secondary access. Mr. Bourassa indicated that Groveland and Sherwood are the access possibilities and those are developed parcels. Commissioner Miller asked about a provision for garbage. Mr. Bourassa indicated they envision that it would be a requirement of the association that everyone has garbage service and each resident would have their own container but one hauler would be allowed. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. Cindy Johnson of 2865 NE County 10 and 7980 Groveland Road said she strongly opposes the townhomes going in. She said that her husband fought this proposal two years ago and she will continue to fight it now that he is gone to ensure the value of their property. She further commented that the biggest issue is that it does not follow the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Johnson commented that the tax base would be better if left commercial and it would be in the best interest of the City because to allow this plan, the City would have to downzone a portion of the property from B1 to R3, which would cause loss of tax base. She then said that she does not like the idea of only one access nor does she like that six of the proposed townhomes would look directly into her backyard and are two story homes which means a privacy fence would not be tall enough. Ms. Johnson indicated that she found that the City paid $12,000 to remove the gas station and to clean up the property next door to make it more appealing for commercial development. She further commented that putting this in the middle of the proposed PUD limits the chances on either side that the area can be developed as commercial property. Chair Stevenson noted that Ms. Johnson had provided a letter to the Commission outlining her points. Mark Schnor of 2949 Highway 10 addressed the Commission and said that he agrees the developer did not do his homework for this project and if you put townhomes in that area he Mounds View Planning Commission May 4, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ questions what they will do to the houses in the area. He added that he was not approached about being bought out and wonders why. He further commented that this is commercial but if you put the townhomes in there you cannot get another business in there unless you take out some houses. Mr. Schnor indicated he does not like that there is only one access to the development. He further stated that he does not think this will work because he is right in the middle of this and would rather have a drainage ditch than townhomes. Cindy Johnson clarified that they were not formally approached to bebought out but a realtor brought over a card and gave it to her son a month after her husband passed away and told him to have his mother call when she is ready to sell. Stan Meyer of 2812 Sherwood said he would strongly oppose any development taking out the house and putting a road there because that is not an acceptable alternative and there should be no access onto Sherwood Place. He added that there is already enough traffic on Groveland and asked the Commission if they would be willing to state in writing there would never be a development with access onto Groveland. Chair Stevenson indicated that this is a concept plan and the access points would be discussed if the developer comes with an actual plan for approval. He further clarified that the City cannot state that they would never put an access point in that location at some point. Mr. Meyer indicated he is against the whole project. Grace Thomas of 8040 Groveland Road indicated she is very concerned with the obvious potential of putting an access road out to Groveland Road. She said that she understands the developers wish to pack as much as possible onto a parcel for monetary purposes but that does not make sense for the neighborhood. Ms. Thomas indicated that she understands they are not proposing an access at this time but she wanted to make sure the City knows the residents have fought to keep access off of Groveland Road as they have a lot of traffic and they have tried to keep it single family homes and fought to do so. She then said that they have little enforcement with traffic issues to lower speed on Groveland Road. Ms. Thomas indicated that packing this many people into that small a space with one access point concerns her. Fred Peterson of 2825 Sherwood Road said he is strongly opposed to going out to Groveland as they use it for a racetrack now and he knows they are going 50 plus miles per hour. He said this plan does not make sense and it should have another access into this development in a different location but not out at Groveland. Mounds View Planning Commission May 4, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Fern Arvidson of 2833 Sherwood Road said she is opposed to this as it is too much for the area. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Commissioner Zwirn indicated that the developer has done some work to purchase more property to obtain the necessary three acres for the PUD but, after hearing the testimony of the neighbors, they have all talked about the access situation and that is the primary concern is for traffic flow and to make this viable he thinks the developer needs to address an additional access or eliminate some of the housing to appease the community and address the concerns about privacy with the way the townhomes are laid out so they are not looking into peoples’ backyards. He added that he thinks this would be a good development in this area but it needs to have another access. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the developer is amenable to addressing those issues. Mr. Bourassa indicated they are willing to work on the privacy issues and can meet with City Staff and/or neighbors individually. He said that with respect to the access issues what he heard is for a potential access onto Groveland through that lot on 8060 but they are not proposing that. Commissioner Zwirn asked if there is a way to work this so there is an additional access. The developer indicated the only access that he could see would be on Groveland. Commissioner Scotch commented that this is difficult because if you put commercial on Highway 10 a lot of people do not want commercial backed up to residential. She believes there is too much for this site and maybe there could be some other options. Mr. Bourassa indicated the original plan considered commercial on that piece in the SE corner of the parcel but with the required setbacks the potential for commercial development is the size of a twin home and after working with Staff on this they thought a residential PUD would be more amenable. Commissioner Scotch suggested removing some townhomes to make more space on the inside of the development and suggested looking at some type of access on the other side of the pond. Chair Stevenson said he does not see how this is in conjunction with plans for the Comprehensive Plan that the City has had all along. Commissioner Miller agreed that this would really shut off any other possible commercial developments along Highway 10 and some of the residents have indicated that going back to the original plan having commercial along Highway 10 would not happen if this plan were to go through. Mounds View Planning Commission May 4, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Ron Lillestrand, the developer, said they made an attempt to buy the Johnson property to the right and his real estate people were going back and forth with offers and the price on that property all the way to the corner and back a couple of houses was more than he could afford to pay. He added that it is his understanding that if they had three acres they could do a PUD and that is why he went this route and now he hears comments that the City and residents would like to have this whole thing from the corner commercial. Chair Stevenson asked whether the developer approached others for purchasing property. Mr. Lillestrand indicated he had not done so recently but unless the price goes down from what it was he could not make this work, as it is not economically feasible. He asked how he could use the property he has without purchasing more. Commissioner Scotch suggested fewer units and commented that he could make as much money and get the dollars out of the development. Mr. Lillestrand indicated he is willing to work with anybody on this but if it is not economically feasible he cannot do it. Commissioner Scotch suggested using the front as commercial and the rest as residential. Mr. Lillestrand said the idea of having everything commercial for the City would be the best and that they would go back to the drawing board and come back with an amended plan. He inquired if the Johnson property would qualify for a PUD. Chair Stevenson indicated that the Johnson property would be short of the requirement as well and that is why the City is suggesting this be done as a whole piece. Planner Prososki explained that a commercial PUD would require five acres. Chair Stevenson suggested the developer enter into discussions with other property owners and City Staff. Mr. Lillestrand indicated that it may be difficult to get all the property owners to agree to do this at one time. Planner Prososki asked for direction on this matter. Chair Stevenson indicated the Commission would like to see a Resolution recommending denial for the proposed plan. He acknowledged that the developer has agreed to review the plan and provide an amended one. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission May 4, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Next Planning Commission Meeting: May 18, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:06 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 1, 2005 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. June 1, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, Scotch, and Stevenson Absent and Excused: Commissioner Zwirn. Also Present: Planner Prososki ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case VR2005-005. Public Hearing and Consideration of a 2 Variance Request to Reduce the Front Yard Setback to Nineteen Feet for the Construction of a Garage Addition at 5131 Greenwood Drive Applicant: Keith Vasilakes _______________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes April 6, 2005. MOTION/SECOND: Hull/Meehlhause. To approve the Minutes of the April 6, 2005 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes –6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _______________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission June 1, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case VR2005-005. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance Request to Reduce the Front Yard Setback to Nineteen Feet for the Construction of a Garage Addition at 5131 Greenwood Drive. Applicant: Keith Vasilakes Planner Prososki reported that the applicant is proposing to construct a garage addition in front of the existing attached garage, which would place it nineteen feet from the front property line. She stated the Mounds View Zoning Code requires a minimum front setback of thirty feet for buildings, however there is also a provision in the Code that requires that buildings not encroach into the prevailing setback for the block on which the property is located. She indicated the prevailing setback for this particular block of Greenwood Drive is thirty-five feet. Planner Prososki indicated that Staff discussed other options with the applicant, including building a detached garage in the backyard or extending the attached garage to the rear, however the applicant has stated he prefers to pursue the option proposed. She reviewed the variance considerations outlined in the Staff report, noting Staff is not aware of any extraordinary circumstances that apply to this property. She added the back yard is large enough to accommodate an additional garage. Planner Prososki advised that if this variance request is approved, the applicant will need to apply for a conditional use permit for an oversized garage. She stated a conditional use permit is required for any accessory building that has an area exceeding 952 square feet, and the garage as proposed would have an area of 1,029 square feet. She indicated that the Commission can take one of three actions related to the request: deny the requested variance, approve the variance as requested, or table the request. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. Alvin Dahlberg, 5107 Greenwood Drive, stated that he and the applicant have been friendly neighbors for many years. He indicated that he feels adding fifteen feet to the front of Mr. Vasilakes’ garage would detract from the appearance of the neighborhood. He noted he spoke with a realtor who agreed. He stated no other houses on the block have a garage stretching in front of the property, and most of the homes have a recessed garage such as he does. He questioned why the additional garage could not be built in the backyard. Mr. Dahlberg stated that he spoke with Mr. Vasilakes earlier concerning this option, and was told it would interfere with a three-season porch in the backyard. He indicated that in spite of this he would be opposed to a variance being granted. Keith Vasilakes, 5131 Greenwood Drive, indicated he believes the garage would add character to the property, and would provide him with additional garage space that he very much needs. He stated he would prefer to add a stall on the side of his existing garage, but he is too close to the property line. He indicated that if he were to build in the back it would obscure the view from his three-season porch. He stated if the variance is not granted he probably would not build at all, and would have to continue to park his car in the driveway. He indicated he would like to do Mounds View Planning Commission June 1, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ several improvements to the front of his property, including putting up new lights and re-doing the driveway, and would like to add the extra space at the same time. Chair Stevenson noted that on the application Mr. Vasilakes mentioned wanting to store other vehicles, probably things that would not go in and out on a daily basis. Mr. Vasilakes indicated that was correct. Chair Stevenson stated the City likes to have people store their things inside as it beautifies the city; however, they also have to look at the other houses on the block. He indicated that from an aerial view it is obvious that no one else on the block has a structure that sticks out in front, and he believes it would be an eyesore to the neighborhood. He noted that at the same time he would like to provide a way for Mr. Vasilakes to store his vehicles. Mr. Dahlberg noted that he bought his property in 1966 and had a single-car garage, but wanted a double-car garage. He stated he had to get a variance to built three-feet from the lot line, and wondered if this would be an option for Mr. Vasilakes. Planner Prososki noted that the existing garage is only 10 feet from the property line now, so even reducing the setback requirement there would not be enough space to add another stall. Commissioner Hegland asked for clarification on what the front-yard setback is in this area. Planner Prososki responded that the prevailing setback for this neighborhood is 35 feet. She explained that the property line begins fifteen feet from the street and the house is 35 feet from the property line. Mr. Vasilakes stated the idea of going to the side is not appealing to him because it is the only access he has to his back yard, noting there are big pine trees on the other side of the property. Commissioner Meehlhause asked what would prevent the construction of a detached garage in the backyard. Mr. Vasilakes indicated his wife is not in favor of that option. Commissioner Hegland indicated that he believes there are other options that would allow the applicant to meet the code. Commissioner Hull suggested Mr. Vasilakes add a small amount to the front of the existing garage and the remainder of the needed space to the back, commenting that it would preserve some of the view from the three-season porch. Planner Prososki indicated there is only two feet available in front of the garage to the prevailing setback. Commissioner Scotch indicated that aesthetically a new garage could be five to seven feet further in front and look okay in relation to the neighborhood; however the requested sixteen feet added to the front is too much. Mr. Vasilakes commented that he has seen a lot of houses in Mounds View with a garage in front, with a porch and walkway along the side of the garage. Commissioner Meehlhause noted that in those cases the garage was likely aligned with the fronts of the other houses in that area. Mounds View Planning Commission June 1, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Vasilakes stated that having everything aligned is a matter of personal preference, and personally he does not like the cookie cutter look. Chair Stevenson indicated he would agree extending the garage a few feet in front would be okay, but this request is too much. Commissioner Hegland agreed that adding some to the front and the rest to the back would be the best option. Commissioner Scotch concurred. Mr. Vasilakes stated doing so would still obscure the view from the three-season porch. Commissioner Miller stated that they cannot forget the criteria that they as the Planning Commission have to uphold. She indicated there are seven findings of fact, and she does not believe this application has satisfied that criteria. Chair Stevenson agreed, stating he has a problem with a variance to this degree. Chair Stevenson stated he believes the application will have to be re-worked, as from the Planning Commission standpoint they cannot allow a garage that comes this far into the setback. He suggested Staff work with the applicant on options of either extending the garage to the side or splitting the requested addition between the front and back to reduce the variance needed, or both. Commissioner Hegland asked if the Planning Commission could say that they would support allowing a thirty-foot front yard setback, as he would hate to see the applicant re-work the request and still be turned down. Chair Stevenson indicated it would depend on how the plans were laid out and how the roof line would be changed, but he would not be immediately opposed to allowing a thirty-foot front setback. He stated he believes the Planning Commission has allowed this deviation from the prevailing setback at times. Commissioner Hegland stated he would also be in favor of allowing that amount of variance, as did Commissioners Meehlhause and Scotch. Chair Stevenson noted the applicant could withdraw his application and re-submit it, or the Planning Commission could deny the request. Mr. Vasilakes noted he would prefer to withdraw the request. Chair Stevenson stated the Planning Commission would need to table the request for two weeks, during which time the applicant would need to withdraw the request in writing. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Scotch. To table Planning Case No. VR2005-005 to the June 15, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Ayes –6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Planner Prososki noted Staff received a letter today from Integra Homes requesting that their application for development of twenty-one townhomes be tabled. She indicated she did send a letter to Integra Homes last week informing them the City would take the extra 60 days, which extends the deadline for action to August 10th. _________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission June 1, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: June 15, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:28 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Karen Bucklen TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 15, 2005 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:02 p.m. June 15, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, Scotch, and Stevenson Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case VR2005-006. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance Request for a Fence in a Front-Yard Taller than Permitted by Code at 5290 Pinewood Court Applicant: Shawn and Stephanie Young 2 _______________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes May 18, 2005. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Miller. To approve the Minutes of the May 18, 2005 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission June 15, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case VR2005-006. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance Request for a Fence in a Front Yard Taller than Permitted by Code at 5290 Pinewood Court. Applicant: Shawn and Stephanie Young Community Development Director Ericson explained that the applicants, Shawn and Stephanie Young, are requesting a variance to replace an existing non-conforming fence in the front yard of their property located at 5290 Pinewood Court. He advised the Young’s home is a corner lot, and therefore has two lot frontages. He stated the Zoning Code indicates that no fence in front of the front line of a building may exceed four feet in height. He indicated the applicants would like to replace the existing six-foot tall privacy fence, which acts as a buffer and screen from County Road H2. Director Ericson stated the property is a corner lot, which is not in itself unique, however the unique circumstance is that the fence currently exists. He advised the property is on a busy roadway across the street from commercial and industrial uses, which is another unique factor to consider. He stated the applicants have a nicely landscaped backyard protected by the existing privacy fence. He indicated to locate the fence any closer to the home would result in lost backyard area to which the applicants have been historically accustomed to using. Director Ericson advised that for this variance to be approved, as with any variance request, there needs to be demonstrated substantial hardship or practical difficulties associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. He reviewed the variance criteria and Staff’s findings. He explained that the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances are that the fence currently exists and is in need of replacement, and is necessary for continued privacy and screening that that the special conditions or circumstances did not result from the actions of the applicant, since the fence existed when they purchased the property and appears to have been there for many years. He added that City Staff can find no previous variance request for the fence, and it is possible it was constructed at the time the home was built. He continued by saying that granting of the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege and that the variance requested is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship and would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this property or to other property in the same zone. He stated that the lot to the east backs up to this property, and there is no property on the side yard that would be affected. He added that the lot to the east was granted a variance for an addition, so there is history as to the unique circumstances of these two similar properties and that the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property. Community Development Director Ericson stated Staff sent notices to property ownerrs within 350 feet, and the only comment received in opposition was from a resident on Spring Lake Road who is opposed to fences in front yards in general. He indicated after holding the public hearing, Mounds View Planning Commission June 15, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ the Commission can approve the variance as requested, deny the requested variance, or table the request. Chair Stevenson noted a home on Spring Lake Road would not be within 350 feet of this property. Community Development Director Ericson agreed, indicating it shows that people do read the notices published in the newspaper and consider the issues going on in their community. Chair Stevenson asked if there was any attempt made to speak with the neighbors besides the sending of notices. Community Development Director Ericson stated he is not aware of any other attempts. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Commissioner Miller asked if the fence would be similar to what currently exists. Shawn Young, 5290 Pinewood Drive, stated currently the fence has lattice on the top two feet. He indicated the fence will be made of solid cedar from top to bottom. He stated he could consider a different style if necessary. He noted there would be space between the boards rather than a solid fence, and he chose the design because he thought he could construct it himself and it would look nice from the road. Commissioner Miller asked if posts could be located on the road side of the fence. Community Development Director Ericson indicated posts could be visible from the road, but if there is a good side to the fence, it has to be facing out and visible from the street side. He indicated an exception could be if you use staggered boards, where some are on each side of the main post frame. He stated he has seen the fence proposed by the applicants and believes the design will look good from the street. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the fence would be placed in the same location as the current fence. Mr. Young indicated they will be tying it back to the house, which requires a new 30-foot section; however, the 50-foot section replaces the fence currently erected. He stated the 120-foot section mentioned on their application currently exists. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the applicants would be constructing the fence themselves, and if they had a timeframe in mind. Mr. Young stated they would do the construction and hoped to complete it as soon as possible. Chair Stevenson asked if there was a limit on how long a Mounds View permit was valid. Community Development Director Ericson stated generally permits are good for 180 days; however, they do grant an extension if work is ongoing. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission June 15, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Heglund. To approve Resolution 798-05, a Resolution Approving a Variance to Allow for a Six Foot Tall Fence in the Front Yard of 5290 Pinewood Court, Planning Case VR2005-006. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Next Planning Commission Meeting: July 6, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:18 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Karen Bucklen TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.