Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-2003 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION February 19, 2003 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approve Minutes: None to approve 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 5. Planning Cases VR03-001 Consideration of Resolution No. 719-03 Denying a Variance to Allow a Reduction in the Number of Parking Spaces Required for a Six-Unit Multiple Dwelling Rental Property Location: 2075 Hillview Road Applicant: Thuy Thi Bui & Jamey Viger 6. Planning Case TX03-001 Consideration of a Text Amendment Request Regarding Zoning Code Chapter 1111 Relating to the R-O Zoning District Location: 2865 Highway 10 Applicant: Greg Johnson 7. Planning Case MI03-001 Consideration of a Zero Lot Line Subdivision Request Location: 7656 Silver Lake Road Applicant: RM Michaels Construction, Inc. APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 763-717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. 8. Next Planning Commission Meeting: March 5, 2003 9. Adjournment to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes from January 22, 2003 and February 5, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting 2. Staff Reports 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\Planning Commission\PC Agendas\2003\02-19-03 PC Agenda.doc PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting January 22, 2003 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., January 22, 2003. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Stevenson, Scotch, Zwirn, Miller, Johnson and Song. Members Absent: Hegland (excused) Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Discussion of Parking on Greenfield Avenue 2 ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes a. December 18, 2002 MOTION/SECOND: Approval was moved and seconded. To Approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission for December 18, 2002 as Presented. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. __________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission January 22, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Continued Discussion on Restricting Parking along Greenfield Avenue Community Development Director Ericson provided an update on the parking situation along Greenfield Avenue indicating that, after the matter was brought to the attention of the Commission, Officer Broos was asked to observe the area. He then explained that Officer Brose had observed the area and recommended posting a sign no parking here to corner just north of the access point for the multifamily housing. He also indicated that it would be possible to recommend posting the entire east side of Greenfield as no parking but that may be excessive. Director Ericson indicated that at the last meeting the property owner had conveyed to him a willingness to expand the parking lot. He then indicated there is 28 feet of green space between the parking lot and Greenfield and adding one parking stall on either side would work but adding a second stall on either side would encroach into the right-of-way by 7 feet. He further commented that it would be an option but the property owner would need to apply for a variance to amend the previously granted variance to a zero foot setback as well as execute a limited use agreement to control use of the right-of-way. Director Ericson indicated the limited use agreement would protect the City from bearing the cost of removing and replacing the driveway should it become necessary to access utilities that may be in that right-of-way. He also indicated that one benefit of the variance amendment is that the Commission could require a development agreement that would give the City control of the site, which it currently does not have. He then said there have been issues at the site that could have been addressed by a development agreement had one been completed required for this development. Director Ericson indicated that one of the drawbacks of the variance is that in order to grant a variance the hardship requirements would need to be met and Staff does not feel that the situation can meet the criteria to prove a hardship. He also indicated that there would be an impact to the green space if the parking were expanded that would detract from the residential appearance that is there now. Director Ericson indicated the City has not received an application for a variance amendment but the property owner has expressed a willingness to do so. He then indicated he had asked the public works department to comment on any potential issues with using the right-of-way but public works has declined to comment pending receipt of an application. He further commented that there is a water main in the general area that would need to be located. Director Ericson indicated a resolution for consideration had been drafted restricting parking from the corner to just north of the northern most access to Greenfield Estates. Commissioner Johnson asked if adding the two stalls would push the parking into the right-of- way. Director Ericson indicated the variance previously granted allows them a 10 foot setback and adding the two stalls would make it a two-foot setback. Mounds View Planning Commission January 22, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Miller asked if the original variance was for the number of stalls. Director Ericson indicated the variance was for the setback. Commissioner Miller asked why there was not a development agreement originally. Director Ericson indicated he was not sure why a development agreement was not required but said, in retrospect, one should have been done but they typically were not done for smaller developments and this development was perceived as a small development. He then indicated that all commercial developments now require a development agreement. Commissioner Zwirn asked why the address for the building is 2402 County Road I when it faces Greenfield. Director Ericson indicated the property owner requested the County Road I address and is allowed to do so as the property is on the corner of Greenfield and County Road I. Chair Stevenson said he feels there should be a number of feet listed in the resolution to make it clear for Council that the Commission was considering 75 feet or just north of the apartments. Director Ericson indicated that Staff would need to establish a reference point for where the 75 feet begins. Commissioner Miller indicated she thought the Officer referenced 75 feet back from County Road I. Director Ericson indicated that parking is not allowed 30 feet back from the intersection already. Commissioner Scotch expressed concern that posting no parking to 75 feet would just push the parking farther down the block. Commissioner Johnson indicated he would rather see the parking stalls added and approval of a two-foot variance before restricting parking but, if the issue is not resolved, he is not against posting the whole east side of Greenfield no parking. Commissioner Miller said she did not think it would be fair to the residents to mark the whole street no parking. Director Ericson clarified that the City does not have the power to force the property owner to apply for the variance and expand the parking lot. He then said that posting the street no parking would force the property owner to work to resolve the parking issue by applying for the variance to expand the parking lot. Mounds View Planning Commission January 22, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch asked how many parking stalls are required by the City’s Code for this size building. Director Ericson indicated that a building of this type on any other site would require 20 spaces but 15 spaces was approved for this location. Commissioner Scotch commented that there is plenty of parking two blocks away at Mounds View Square. Director Ericson indicated that posting the street no parking requires a public hearing before Council and residents can provide comment on the proposed parking restrictions. Commissioner Miller indicated she has seen parking in the area where parking is not allowed. Director Ericson indicated that enforcement of the no parking restriction would become a police issue. Commissioner Zwirn indicated he brought this issue to the Commission because there is a substantial problem. He then said that, in his estimation, there are 6 to 8 cars parking on the street three to four days per week and this Resolution does not go far enough to solve the problem as the driveways are south of where the parking restriction stops so there would still be an issue coming and going from both his driveway and his neighbor’s driveway. Commissioner Zwirn indicated he has discussed the matter with his neighbors and they agree that restricting parking to the middle of the block would move the issue to an area where there are no driveways affected. He then said he has been trying to deal with this issue with a property owner who is not willing to address the problems. Commissioner Zwirn commented that all week there were two garbage cans in the handicapped parking stall with overflowing garbage. He then said that the only way to resolve this is to put no parking on the east side of Greenfield to the middle of the block where neighbors feel comfortable with it and force the property owner to bring a variance request to the Commission to resolve his parking problem. Commissioner Zwirn commented that there are issues with coming and going from this property due to having a business located in a residential area. He then said that Mr. Farrell is a businessman and he should have come to the Commission to resolve the parking issue. He further commented that the issue has subsided some since this has been brought to the attention of the property owner but it is not resolved and the only way to deal with it is to adopt a resolution for no parking on the east side of Greenfield a sufficient distance to make it safe for the residents and require Mr. Farrell to come to the Commission with a variance request. He also said that adding four stalls on the property would look terrible and he would be against that but would consider adding two stalls. Mounds View Planning Commission January 22, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn indicated that residents fought to have the west side of Greenfield posted no parking to deal with overflow parking issues from the apartments. He then said that there is a bus stop across from his driveway where children board the bus and the area is too congested and not safe. Director Ericson offered to have Staff measure the distance of the proposal by Commissioner Zwirn to locate the no parking sign in the middle of the block but estimated it to be approximately 300 feet from the corner. Chair Stevenson indicated he would prefer to table the resolution to allow Staff more time to research the distances for the Commission to review. Director Ericson indicated he would have the temporary inspector go out and look at the area and mark the County half section map that would be reproduced for the next meeting. He also indicated he would mark on the map the location of the driveways for consideration. Chair Stevenson indicated he would not be at the next meeting due to a vacation. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Next Planning Commission Meeting: February 5, 2003 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:37 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 February 5, 2003 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Acting Chair Miller at 7:00 p.m., February 5, 2003. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Scotch, Zwirn, Miller, Johnson and Song. Members Absent: Hegland (excused), Stevenson (excused) Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case VR03-001 2 ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes a. January 8, 2003 MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Johnson. To Approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission for January 8, 2003 as Presented. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. __________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission February 5, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case VR03-001 Community Development Director Ericson indicated the applicant had requested a variance from the parking requirements as the applicant plans to expand the four-plex by constructing two additional units in the basement. The property is zoned R-3 and a six-unit building would be allowed in an R-3 zoning district, however, there is not enough parking on-site to satisfy the zoning code requirements. Director Ericson explained that the City Code requires 2.5 parking stalls per dwelling unit and one of those stalls needs to be a garage stall. He then indicated that this property does have two garage stalls and 10 surface stalls and noted that to meet the City’s Code requirements the applicant would need to have 6 garage stalls and 9 surface stalls. Director Ericson indicated that many of the other four-plexes in the area have no garage stalls and in looking at the property there appears to be sufficient room to expand the parking lot along the east side of the building. Acting Chair Miller asked if there were three garage stalls. Director Ericson indicated that one stall is being used for the garbage dumpster as an enclosed dumpster is required. Director Ericson reminded the Commission that there are seven criteria that need to be considered and noted that all criteria must be satisfied in order to justify the approval of a variance. He then briefly reviewed those criteria with the Commission. Director Ericson indicated that Staff had reviewed all the criteria and made the determination that hardship could not be met and the variance should be denied. He then indicated that, if the property owner were to come to the City with a plan to provide additional parking, it may then be appropriate to consider granting a variance from the garage stall requirements. Director Ericson indicated this meeting had been noticed as a public hearing and residents were notified. He then indicated he had received two calls, one from Colonial Village and the representative indicated that they would not be in favor of the expansion if the parking requirements could not be met and the other call was from a neighbor calling for further information who did not provide Staff with an opinion on the matter. Director Ericson indicated one of the property owners was in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions. He then indicated that the Commission could either deny based on the fact that the hardship requirements had not been met or postpone action and allow time for the applicants to consider further parking accommodations. The public hearing was opened at 7:05 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission February 5, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Jamey Viger of 2955 Bunker Lake Boulevard, Ham Lake, indicated he would be amenable to looking into adding further parking to the site. He then said there are only four cars in the building but that does not mean there could not be more so he has no issue with doing a survey and working on more parking. Commissioner Johnson asked if residents pay extra rent to have a garage stall. Mr. Viger indicated that one of the garage stalls was being used as storage and one had a vehicle inside. Acting Chair Miller asked if there was any way at all of adding garage space. Mr. Viger indicated the back of the property slopes a lot and indicated he was not sure if it would be possible. Commissioner Zwirn asked what would happen to the trees if parking were added in front of the building. Mr. Viger indicated that at least one tree would be lost. Commissioner Johnson asked if it would be possible to remove the existing garage and construct the six stall garage farther back on the property. Mr. Viger indicated the slope begins right behind the garage. Commissioner Zwirn asked for the distance between the corner of the building and the corner of the garage. Mr. Viger estimated the distance to be about 10 feet. Mr. Viger asked if he could remove trees to accommodate parking. Director Ericson indicated the property owner was allowed to cut trees down but the City would like to keep them if at all possible. Mr. Viger indicated he would plant a new tree if it is necessary to remove a tree for the parking. Warren Hertenstein, 2102 Hillview Road, indicated he has lived across the street for 52 years and for many years the apartments were unsightly with junk accumulating and police and ambulance vehicles visiting regularly. He then said that, in recent years, the place has been cleaned up and he appreciates that. He further commented that he is concerned with adding more density to the area because there are parking issues already. He also commented that he is concerned that there would be no lawn or landscaping if parking were allowed in front of the building. Mounds View Planning Commission February 5, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Hertenstein, 2102 Hillview Road, indicated he is concerned about the traffic up and down the street. He then commented that there have been instances of vehicles traveling at speeds of up to 50 m.p.h. down their street. He also commented that the previous owner, Jeff Johnson, had made nice improvements to the buildings but there have been issues in the past and he does not want to see the potential issues intensified by adding two more units. He further commented that allowing this expansion sets the stage for requests from the other four-plexes in the area and he does not think the area can handle the added density. Mr. Hertenstein indicated there is a problem with parking when the lots are plowed and two days ago he could not get his mail because there was a car parked right in front of his mailbox. He then commented that there used to be 2-hour parking signs along the street but those were removed. Brent Bedbury of 2096 Hillview indicated he has issues with not being able to mow his lawn or get his mail due to parking related problems. Lou Bedbury of 2084 Hillview indicated people are parking out in the street already and she does not see how the City could allow further density, more people, and more cars in the area. Ms. Bedbury indicated they have been putting up with junk for years from the apartments and she does not want the density increased. She then said that she does not want to look out her window and see parking in front of the building. Commissioner Scotch recommended residents bring the parking issues to the City for assistance with resolving the matter. Ms. Bedbury indicated she has been to City Hall concerning the deterioration of some of the units and they have fixed this one up but she does not want additional units and does not want to look out her window and see cars when they were promised years ago that the building would be landscaped. Commissioner Scotch indicated that allowing additional parking on site would assist with reducing the parking on the street. Mr. Viger indicated that his building only has four cars and he has 12 parking spaces. He then indicated that he was not aware of any parking issues but offered to post a sign and speak to his tenants. Darlene Hertenstein, 2102 Hillview Road, indicated she has never seen a vehicle use the garages at the apartments and she thinks they are just used for storage. She also commented that she thinks you have to pay extra to have a garage. Acting Chair Miller indicated she was concerned that approving a variance for less parking would cause the other four-plexes in the area to come to the City asking for the same accommodation. Mounds View Planning Commission February 5, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Johnson indicated that the previous property owner had checked into the number of units he could have and that is why the building was remodeled as it was. He then said he does not think a variance would be appropriate in this case. Commissioner Zwirn indicated he understood why the applicant wished to expand the building but indicated from an aesthetic standpoint he would side with the residents that it would be unsightly to look out your window and see vehicles parking in front of the building. He also indicated he was concerned that approval of this parking variance would mean the City would be obligated to grant parking variances to the other four-plexes and the area cannot accommodate that type of density and traffic. He further commented that allowing this would detract from the property value of the neighboring properties due to congestion, aesthetics, and increased traffic and he cannot see how this would blend in well with the existing community. Mr. Viger asked if his project could proceed if he were able to provide the garage stalls. Commissioner Johnson indicated he would need to provide 6 garage stalls and 9 surface stalls. Mr. Viger indicated his intent was to provide handicapped accessible units as the building lends itself to that due to the walkout. Director Ericson indicated the options would be to either direct Staff to draft a resolution of denial, approval, or hold off on action to allow time to explore the parking options. Commissioner Johnson recommended a resolution for denial with the main reason being that there is no hardship and if this one is allowed then all eight will want the same accommodation. The Commission directed Staff to draft a resolution to deny the variance. Director Ericson indicated the next meeting would be February 19, 2003 and the Commission would consider a resolution denying the variance request. He then clarified that the project could move forward if the applicant is able to provide enough parking to satisfy the parking requirements of the City’s Code. Ms. Bedbury indicated there are little kids on that street and she cannot see where they can meet the parking. She also said she does not want the increased traffic in the area. Director Ericson indicated Staff could inform residents as to whether the project is proceeding and asked that interested residents provide their name and address. Ms. Bedbury asked if residents could bring a petition to stop the project. Director Ericson indicated that the residents would be within their rights to protest the project by petition but explained that, if the project meets the requirements of the City’s Code, it would be difficult to prohibit the expansion. Mounds View Planning Commission February 5, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Ms. Bedbury asked why they could put parking in front of a building and a resident could not park in front of their house. Director Ericson explained that parking is allowed in front of a building in an R-3 zoning district. He then indicated Staff would research whether there were landscaping promises made when the buildings were originally constructed. Commissioner Scotch recommended that the neighbors discussing the parking issues with the property owner. The public hearing was closed at 7:45 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Consideration of a Request to Restrict Parking Along the East Side of Greenfield Avenue South of County Road I. Community Development Director Ericson provided a brief history and update on the parking situation along Greenfield Avenue. He then asked the Commission to consider four no parking scenarios, one for no parking from 150 feet to corner, one for no parking from 300 feet to corner, one for no parking 350 feet to corner, and one for no parking 500 feet to corner. Acting Chair Miller indicated that at noon she had driven down Greenfield and could not believe all the cars parked along it all the way down to Bronson Drive. She then asked if it would be possible to add a time limit to the no parking sign. Director Ericson indicated that the Commission has the option of listing a time for the no parking. Acting Chair Miller indicated she does not like Option D as she does not want to punish residents in the apartment buildings. Director Ericson recommended Option B and asked whether no parking from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. would alleviate the parking situation. Commissioner Zwirn indicated he would like to see the restriction until 6:00 p.m. as that is when there is a dramatic drop off in traffic. He then indicated that he has discussed the matter with the neighbors and no one likes Option A. He further commented that he would like to see either Option B or Option C because he feels that the property owner needs to be sent a message and be forced to come to the City with an alternative to the parking problem. Commissioner Zwirn provided the Commission with pictures of the parking and traffic problems along Greenfield during the recent snowstorm. He then said that getting the no parking signs back far enough will force the property owner to act. Mounds View Planning Commission February 5, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Acting Chair Miller suggested limiting the no parking from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Zwirn indicated that Option C would be ideal as it is south of 7656 Greenfield’s driveway. He then asked if signs could be posted along the length of the no parking area rather than just at the corner. Commissioner Johnson indicated he would like to see the restriction be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. so that residents are not punished. Commissioner Zwirn indicated that there have been some issues with traffic on Saturday mornings but the property owner has not been there long enough to determine whether weekends will be an ongoing issue. Commissioner Song indicated she felt the residents should have the right to determine what time the parking is restricted. There was consent to recommend restricting parking 350 feet back from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Johnson. To Approve Resolution 718-03, a Resolution Recommending Installation of a “No Parking from Here to Corner” Sign on the East Side of Greenfield Avenue for Public Safety Purposes. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Review and Discussion of Planning Commission Bylaws MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Zwirn. To Reapprove the Planning Commission Bylaws Without any Changes. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Next Planning Commission Meeting: February 19, 2003 ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Acting Chair Miller adjourned the meeting at 8:09 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Mounds View Planning Commission February 5, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: February 19, 2003 Title: CONSIDER RESOLUTION 719-03, A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE IN THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO A PROPOSED EXPANSION OF A FOUR-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURE TO A SIX-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURE Introduction: The property owner of 2075 Hillview Road has requested a permit to expand her four-plex by constructing two additional units in the basement of the four-unit building. The property is zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential. In terms of density, both a four-plex and a six-unit building would be appropriate for this district. However, there is not enough parking on-site to satisfy the zoning requirements for a six-unit building which has prompted the property owner to request a variance. Discussion: The Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this request at their last meeting on February 5, 2003. Residents from the area testified that the fourplex should not be expanded and that a variance should not be granted as there would be the potential for parking problems above and beyond what they’re already experiencing. The Planning Commission directed staff to draft a resolution to deny the request based on the consensus that there was no discernable hardship to warrant approval. Chapter 1121 of the Zoning Code requires that multi-family housing developments provide a minimum of 2 ½ parking stalls per unit. The requirements further state that at least one garage space shall be provided for each dwelling unit, which would be included in the 2½ stall total requirement. Currently there are twelve stalls on the site, of which only two are used as garage stalls. (A third garage stall is being used as the garbage dumpster enclosure.) To expand the number of dwelling units in the building, there would need to be a total of 15 stalls, six of which garage spaces. The variance requested is to maintain the present parking capacity at 12 with only the two garages. Variance Considerations: For a variance to be approved, there needs to be demonstrated hardship or practical difficulties associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission) 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: Item # 5 a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The property is zoned R-3 and is improved with a four unit residential dwelling. The property is similar to the other four-unit dwellings in this area of the City. The lot is not irregularly shaped and as such there appears to be no extraordinary circumstances relating to the property or the request. 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 subject property appears similar to the majority of R-3 zoned properties in this area. The literal interpretation of the provisions found in the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, in that no other property owner is seeking to increase density by expanding to a six unit residential dwelling. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The four-plexes in this area may have been constructed prior to the enactment of the zoning code provision which requires garage stalls for each unit. To that end, the property is considered a legal, non-conforming use. Increasing the density, however, is an action of the property owner. 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 confer upon the property owner a special privilege that would be denied other property owners. To expand one’s property, one must have adequate parking to meet the increased demand. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The variance requested is twofold—a reduction in the number of garage stalls and a reduction in the total number of parking stalls provided. Because it appears as though additional parking could be added to the site, the variance requested is not the minimum to alleviate the hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Granting a variance to allow the expansion of the structure from a four unit building to a six unit building without a corresponding increase in the parking capacity of the site would be detrimental to the intent of the zoning code and would potentially adversely impact the surrounding 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 variance would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects with the exception of a possible increase in congestion on Hillview Road. Recommendation: Adopt the attached Resolution 719-03, denying the applicant’s request for a variance from the City’s parking requirements, due to a lack of demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property. James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Site Plan 2. Photographic Documentation 3. Resolution 719-03 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\Development Cases\VR03-001 (Bui)\Parking Variance - Feb 5, 2003.doc Site Plan (No scale indicated) Photographic Documentation: (Looking north, east side of building. Trees are on subject property.) (Looking north, parking lot, garages and west side of property.) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 719-03 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR A PROPOSED MULTIPLE DWELLING EXPANSION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2075 HILLVIEW ROAD; PLANNING CASE NO. VR03-001 WHEREAS, The applicant, Thuy Thi Bui, has applied for a variance from the minimum parking requirement for a multiple-family dwelling; and, WHEREAS, The applicant is proposing to expand the existing four-unit dwelling to a six-unit dwelling; and WHEREAS, the property is zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential, which allows a six- unit dwelling; and WHEREAS, The City Code requires 1.5 parking spaces per unit plus 1 garage space per unit; and, WHEREAS, The property currently has 12 parking spaces, of which only 2 are garage spaces; and WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following finding of facts related to this request: 1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary conditions relating to this request or to the property. 2. The literal interpretation of the Zoning Code, Chapter 1121, Parking Requirements, does not deny the applicant rights commonly enjoyed by other R-3 properties. 3. The applicant, by virtue of the desire to expand the building, has caused the conditions which necessitate the variance request. 4. Granting the variance would confer upon the applicant a special privilege not enjoyed by others in this zoning district. 5. Granting the variance would be detrimental to the neighborhood in that parking problems already present would be exacerbated. Resolution 719-03 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above identified finding of facts, does hereby deny the variance requested for a reduction in the parking requirements associated with the expansion of the four plex located at 2075 Hillview Road. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission that the applicant shall be notified of the right to appeal this denial to the City Council. The appeal shall be submitted in writing within 10 business days of the adoption of this Resolution. Adopted this 19th day of February 2003. __________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: __________________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: February 19, 2003 Title: Consideration of a Text Amendment Request Regarding Chapter 1111 of the Zoning Code Relating to the R-O Zoning District -- Planning Case TX03-001 Introduction: The property owner residing and operating a business at 2865 County Highway 10 has requested an amendment to Chapter 1111 of the Zoning Code relating to the maximum allowed square footage of an accessory building. The Code indicates that accessory uses within an R-O district are regulated as they are in the R-4 zoning district, which is the same for an R-3 district, and so on. In the single family district, an accessory building may not exceed 952 square feet without a conditional use permit and that the total square footage of all accessory use space shall not exceed 1,800 square feet. Discussion: The property owner asserts that the zoning requirements relating to the size of his garage, which is essentially his place of business, are too restrictive and not in keeping with the intent of the Residential Office district. According to the Zoning Code, the purpose of the district is as follows: The purpose of the R-0, Residential Office District is to provide for high-density residential use and for the transition in land use from residential to low intensity business allowing for the intermixing of such uses. The intent is to allow for a more dense development, with or without a commercial component. In other words, this district is a true “mixed use” district. Given that commercial and residential uses are is allowed on the site at the same time, one could argue that there are in effect two principal uses. As such, the garage area should not be considered accessory but rather principal, and should not be subject to the accessory garage requirements as articulated in the single-family residential district. There are a number of approaches that could be taken to resolve this situation, ranging from doing nothing (if the determination is such that no changes should be made) or to completely rewrite the district requirements. Staff recommends a simple addition to the permitted use section to include the following language: • All permitted uses allowed in a B-2 District • Automotive Accessory Installation Operations While staff is not comfortable with the language relating to high density residential and density bonuses (refer to the attachment), we are not inclined to make any changes relating to this section of the Code. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map indicates the property located at 2865 County Highway 10 should be developed as a mixed use planned unit development, which is to say that both commercial and residential uses would be permitted. Thus, the proposed Code revisions would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Item # 6 R-O Text Amendment Feb 19, 2003 Page 2 The intended result of this change would be to eliminate a requirement to satisfy the maximum square footage requirements of a garage in a single-family district. The property owner would then be allowed to expand the size of his business in accordance with the requirements of Section 1006.06 of the Building Code (development controls) which states, among other things, that expansions exceeding 10 % would need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the request and the proposed changes, and direct staff to draft a resolution either in support of or in opposition to the proposed changes. If there is support for a revision, the Commission can direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance for Council consideration. James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Chapter 1111 of the Mounds View Zoning Code N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\Development Cases\Tx03-001 (R-O Revision)\PC Report - Feb 19, 2003.doc Zoning Map Applicant’s Property 1111.01 1111.04 CHAPTER 1111 R-0, RESIDENTIAL-OFFICE DISTRICT SECTION: 1111.01: Purpose 1111.02: Permitted Uses 1111.03: Accessory Uses 1111.04: Conditional Uses 1111.01: PURPOSE: The purpose of the R-0, Residential Office District is to provide for high density residential use and for the transition in land use from residential to low intensity business allowing for the intermixing of such uses. (1988 Code §40.15) 1111.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in an R-0 District: All permitted uses allowed in an R-4 District. Club or lodge without the serving of food or beverage. (1988 Code §40.15) 1111.03: ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in an R-0 District: All permitted accessory uses as allowed in an R-4 District. (1988 Code §40.15) 1111.04: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an R-0 District (requiring a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title): Subd. 1. All conditional uses, subject to the same conditions, as allowed in an R-4 District. Subd. 2. Apartment density bonus. A maximum of ten percent (10%) reduction in square feet of lot area per unit for multiple family dwellings of ten (10) units or more as required in Section 1104.02 of this Title based upon the following bonus features and square foot reduction: 1111.04 1111.04 (Rev. 1/97) Bonus Feature a. Type two construction b. Elevator serving each floor c. Two-thirds (2/3) of the required fee free parking underground or within the principal structure (not including attached or detached garages). d. Indoor recreation and social rooms equal to twenty five (25) square feet per unit or seven hundred fifty (750) square feet total, whichever is greater. e. Major outdoor recreational facilities, such as swimming pools, tennis courts or similar facilities requiring a substantial investment equaling at a minimum five percent (5%) of the construction cost of the principal structure. Square Foot Reduction Per Unit 100 square feet 50 square feet 150 square feet 50 square feet 20 square feet Subd. 3. Medical offices and clinics, dental offices and clinics, professional offices and commercial (leased) offices (limited to appraisers, architects, attorneys, certified public accountants, clergymen, dentists, engineers, manufacturers' representatives, physicians, real estate agents and other similar uses which require no delivery of storage of merchandise and are service oriented with no retail sale of goods on the premises) and funeral homes and mortuaries; provided, that: a. The site and related parking and service entrances are served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. b. Adequate off-street parking is provided in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this Title. c. Adequate off-street loading is provided in compliance with Chapter 1122 of this Title. d. Vehicular entrances to parking or service areas shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement. e. When abutting an R-1, R-2 or R-3 District, a buffer area with screening and landscaping in compliance with subdivision 1103.08(6) of this Title shall be provided. f. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code 1. g. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. 1 See Chapter 1008 of this Code. Subd. 4. Retail commercial activities; provided, that: a. Merchandise is sold at retail. b. The retail activity is located within a structure whose principal use is not commercial sales. c. The retail activity shall not occupy more than fifteen percent (15%) of the gross floor area of the building. d. The retail activity is not located within a structure whose principal use is residential. e. No directly or indirectly illuminated sign or signs in excess of ten (10) square feet identifying the name of the business shall be visible from the outside of the building. f. No signs or posters of any type advertising products for sale shall be visible from the outside of the building. g. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. Subd. 5. Buildings combining residential and nonresidential uses allowed in this District; provided, that: a. Residential and nonresidential uses shall not be contained on the same floor. b. The residential and nonresidential uses shall not conflict in any manner. c. The residential building standards as outlined in this Chapter are met. d. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. (1988 Code §40.15) Item 7 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: February 19, 2003 Title: DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION REQUEST OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7656 SILVER LAKE ROAD (MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE MI03-001) Introduction Rose Osbourne, representing the applicant RM Michaels Construction Inc., is requesting approval of a minor subdivision to convert the lot at 7656 Silver Lake Road into a zero-lot line subdivision. The lot was previously subdivided and rezoned to R-2, Single and Two Family Residential, last year by Terry Martinson, the previous property owner. Minor subdivisions are those divisions of land less than two acres in size in which only one additional lot is created. Minor subdivisions do not require a public hearing and in contrast to a major subdivision, a certificate of survey rather than a plat is all that is needed to record the change with Ramsey County. The applicant has submitted the required certificate of survey which describes the proposed subdivision. Discussion The lot has 132 feet of frontage on Silver Lake Road, 32 more feet that the minimum required. As shown on the attached site plan, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the parcel horizontally into to two equal halves of 66 feet. A twinhome would be built on the property straddling the lot line as shown on the attached Certificate of Survey. Both lots created by the subdivision would conform to the minimum lot size requirements and setbacks as established in the zoning code. Easements are shown on the survey—these are easements that have already been dedicated from the previous subdivision. No further dedication of easements is necessary. Park Dedication. This subdivision is subject to a park dedication fee even though a park dedication of $2,110 was paid for this subdivision in 2002. The City Code requires that any time a subdivision occurs on land having previously paid a park dedication fee, the original fee shall be deducted from the present park dedication fee calculation. In essence, the applicant will be responsible for the difference between what was paid in 2002 and 5% of the 2003 land value as established by the Ramsey County Assessors office. Staff has not yet contacted Ramsey County as to the 2003 land value, however that would be established prior to Council action. Recording Requirements. If the certificate of survey is approved by the Council, the subdivider shall, within sixty (60) days, record a deed conforming to the terms of the Council’s approval of the subdivision with Ramsey County, and within ten (10) days of recording, the subdivider shall furnish the City with a reproducible copy of the deed showing evidence of the recording; otherwise, the approval of the Minor Subdivision Report March 6, 2002 Page 2 subdivision shall be void, and the Clerk-Administrator shall so notify the County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles. No building permit shall be issued for construction on a parcel created by such minor subdivision until evidence of recording has been submitted. The City Attorney will review the Certificate of Survey and any documentation needed to record the subdivision with Ramsey County. Deed Restrictions. According to Subdivision 1107.03 of the Mounds View Zoning Code, deeds associated with zero lot line subdivided parcels shall have certain restrictions added to the deed that protect what happens in the event of damage or destruction. The restrictions are as follows: a. If one dwelling unit is burned or destroyed, it shall be reconstructed in a uniform appearance. b. If both dwelling units are burned or destroyed, minimum lot widths shall then prevail as for single-family homes. c. A double dwelling unit may be rebuilt meeting the original conditions of this Title. d. A uniform exterior appearance, in terms of color, design and maintenance shall be maintained. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution 720-03, a Resolution recommending approval of a minor subdivision (zero-lot line) of 7656 Silver Lake Road as requested by RM Michaels Construction Inc., with stipulations noted as follows: 1. Each resulting dwelling unit shall have separate utility services 2. Deeds shall have restrictions as addressed in Subd. 1107.03 of the Mounds View Zoning Code 3. Deeds shall be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of Council approval 4. Each resulting dwelling unit shall meet existing building codes 5. The builder shall obtain access permits from Ramsey County prior to work commencing on the site James Ericson Community Development Director 763-717-4021 Attachments: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Certificate of Survey 4. Resolution 720-03 Certificate of Survey Zoning Map * All lots zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential, unless otherwise indicated. Subject Property MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 720-03 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZERO-LOT LINE MINOR SUBDIVISION OF 7656 SILVER LAKE ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MI03-001 WHEREAS, Rose Osbourne, representing the applicant RM Michaels Construction, Inc., has requested approval of a zero-lot line minor subdivision of 7656 Silver Lake Road, zoned R-2, Single and Two-Family Residential, legally-described as follows: The east 205.10 feet of Lot 3, Spring Lake Park Knolls Addition Ramsey County State of Minnesota WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Certificate of Survey dated 1-23-03 for the above described property; and, WHEREAS, the proposed Certificate of Survey has been forwarded to the City Attorney for review; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant’s request for a minor subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, and 1202 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4, a park dedication fee shall be applicable with this subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, having found that the proposed subdivision satisfies City subdivision and zoning code requirements, the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the minor subdivision of 7656 Silver Lake Road requested by Rose Osbourne, representing RM Michaels Construction, Inc., subject to the following requirements: 1. Prior to the City affixing its seal on the deeds, the applicant shall be responsible for submitting the required park dedication fee. 2. The deeds shall bear the following restrictions: a. If one dwelling unit is burned or destroyed, it shall be reconstructed in a uniform appearance. b. If both dwelling units are burned or destroyed, minimum lot widths shall then prevail as for single-family homes. c. A double dwelling unit may be rebuilt meeting the original conditions of this Title. d. A uniform exterior appearance, in terms of color, design and maintenance shall be maintained. Resolution 720-03 Page 2 3. The applicant shall record the deeds with Ramsey County not later than 60 days beyond City Council approval. Failure to do so shall render subdivision approval null and void. The applicant shall submit proof of recordation to the City of Mounds View. No building permits shall be issued until proof of recordation is provided. 4. Each dwelling unit shall have separate utility services. The applicant shall submit a utility plan to the Public Works Department before requesting permits. 5. Each resulting dwelling unit shall meet existing building codes. 6. The builder shall obtain access permits from Ramsey County prior to work commencing on the site. BE IT FURTHER 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 19th day of February, 2002. __________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: __________________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL)