Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-16-2003 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION July 16, 2003 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approve Minutes: June 18, 2003 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 Case VR03-005 Consideration of Resolution No. 733-03 Approving a Variance to Allow a Reduced Front Yard Setback to Construct an Addition Location: 2229 County Road H2 Applicant: Joan Bosard 6. Planning Case MI03-002 Consideration of Resolution No.734-03 Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision Location: 8430 Knollwood Drive Applicant: George R. Grone 7. Special Planning Case SP-114-03 Discuss proposed modifications to Proposed Ordinance 711, an Ordinance Relating to the Zoning of Pawnshops 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: August 6, 2003 9. Adjournment to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: July 2, 2003 2. Staff Reports 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports N:\Data\Groups\Comdev\Planning Commission\PC Agendas\2003\07-16-03 PC Agenda.doc Item No: 5 Meeting Date: July 16, 2003 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Interim City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance to Allow a Reduced Front Yard Setback for a Building Addition 2229 County Road H2. Introduction: Joan Bosard, property owner of 2229 County Road H2, has requested a variance to construct an expansion to her home which would be six feet closer to the street than the existing building. All of the homes fronting County Road H2 on this block are set back the same distance—approximately 75 feet from the curb or approximately 50 feet from the property line. 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 setbacks are as follows: Front, 30 feet; Side, 10 feet; and Rear, 30 feet. It is footnoted in the Code that sheds and garages, attached or detached, can have side and rear setbacks of 5 feet. (No accessory building can be located in a front yard unless it is attached to the principal structure, and even then the minimum set back is thirty feet.) The front yard setback is further footnoted to address the issue of “prevailing setbacks”, articulated as follows: “Where principal buildings in existence on lots within the same block on the same side of the street have front yard setbacks different from those required, the minimum front yard setback for any new principal buildings shall be the minimum front yard setback in existence for any one lot. In no case shall the front yard setback be less than thirty feet (30').” The home at 2229 County Road H2 is set back approximately 50 feet from the front property line, as are all the other homes on this block, which means the prevailing setback is 50 feet. No home or part thereof shall encroach into the prevailing setback except by variance. Variance Considerations: For a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission, in this case) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows: Setback Variance Report 2229 County Road H2 July 16, 2003 Page 2 a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The property is zoned R-1 and the property owner is seeking a building permit to expand the first level of the home by about 300 square feet and construct an upper level expansion of about 1,100 square feet. The lot is not irregularly shaped and at 23,520 square feet is more than double the size of a standard lot. Other than the deep front setback, there is nothing extraordinary about this property. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. While the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, because the home (and all others on the block) is set back where it is, expansion and reinvestment is perhaps more difficult. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The special conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant. d. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and livability of their home. Many improvements benefit the neighborhood in a broad sense in that the reinvestment often triggers similar reinvestment in adjacent properties and at the minimum motivates property owners to take a greater sense of pride in property ownership. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The property owner asserts in her letter dated June 19, 2003 that the six foot expansion into the front setback is the minimum variance to alleviate the hardship. Anything less than six feet would be impractical and would not add enough space to the living room to justify the expense. Anything more than a six foot expansion, while perhaps desired, would be in excess of the minimum space needed by Ms. Bosard. Setback Variance Report 2229 County Road H2 July 16, 2003 Page 3 f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Granting a variance to allow the expansion to encroach six feet into the front setback would not be materially detrimental to the purpose and intent of the zoning code given the large front setback. There have been no objections raised up to this point and the six-foot encroachment would not be noticeable from the street and would not appear inconsistent with the adjoining homes. 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. Summary: All of the criteria, as indicated above, need to be satisfied to justify the granting the variance. In addition to Staff’s review of the criteria, Ms. Bosard has provided the Planning Commission with a detailed letter addressing the hardship criteria along with a set of building plans that would be submitted if the variance were approved. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the property owner and affected neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 733-03 is attached for the Commission’s approval if that is the chosen course of action. 2. Deny the requested variance. To move forward with this option, the Commission should move to direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of the 60-day rule, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible however to avoid an inadvertent approval. _____________________________________ James Ericson Interim City Clerk/Administrator Zoning Map Mounds View Business Park Site Plan Shaded area represents proposed expansion 6-foot expansion necessitating the variance request MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 733-03 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AT 2229 COUNTY ROAD H2; PLANNING CASE NO. VR03-005 WHEREAS, the applicant, Joan Bosard, has applied for a variance from the minimum front yard building setback for a single-family dwelling at 2229 County Road H2; and, WHEREAS, Section 1104.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the minimum front setback for a principal building is 30 feet unless the prevailing setback for existing structures exceeds 30 feet, in which case the prevailing set back IS the minimum setback; and, WHEREAS, Ms. Bosard is requesting to expand her home by 300 square feet on the first floor and 1,100 square feet on the upper story with an addition that encroaches six feet into the front setback; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a building permit for the expansion; 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. The exceptional or extraordinary conditions relating to the variance request is that the homes on this block are set back in excess of 50 feet from the front property line. 2. The literal interpretation of the Zoning Code would restrict the property owner’s ability to expand and improve upon the layout and functionality of the home. 3. The applicant has not caused the condition which prompted the variance request. 4. Granting the variance would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege. 5. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. 6. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. 7. The variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above identified finding of facts, does hereby approve the variance requested for a 44-foot front yard building setback to allow for a building expansion at 2229 County Road H2. Adopted this 16th day of July 2003. ____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson, Interim City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 6 Meeting Date: July 16, 2003 Type of Business: Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Acting City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision of 8430 Knollwood Drive; Planning Case MI03-002 Introduction: George and Patricia Grone, property owners of the 1.28-acre lot located at 8430 Groveland Road, have requested a minor subdivision of their property. The subdivision would create one large lot immediately south of their existing home. A minor subdivision is a division of land less than two acres in area in which only one additional lot is created. The lot is zoned R-1, Single Family residential and the minimum lot size is 11,000. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low density residential. The property owners have submitted an outdated Registered Land Survey (RLS) which had been created for an earlier subdivision that never took place. The RLS is provided to the Planning Commission for reference purposes only—a new RLS or Certificate of Survey will need to be provided to approve the subdivision. Discussion: The Grone property is 55,700 square feet, or, 1.28 acres. There is 276.25 feet of frontage on Knollwood Drive and the lot could potentially be split into three lots. The proposed subdivision however would create only one large lot south of the Grone’s home. The new lot would be 37,125 square feet, leaving 18,575 square feet for the improved lot. The area south of the Grone’s home is not maintained and is covered with dense growth and mature trees. The proposed lot would satisfy all minimum zoning requirements for a single-family residential lot. Once the RLS or Certificate of Survey is received, staff will forward copies to the engineering technician, public works director and City Attorney for their review. The City Attorney will also need to do a title commitment to ensure all parties having an interest in the property are represented on the subdivision documents. Park Dedication Requirements. Every subdivision of land is subject to park dedication requirements. Because the subdivision is less than 2 acres in area, the fee is 5% of the land’s market value, less the value of the land where the house sits. Rather than require an appraisal for every subdivision, staff typically uses the assessment valuations available through Ramsey County. Unfortunately, Staff was unable to verify through the Ramsey County Assessment Office what the land value is for the whole parcel. The value, once known, will be divided by the total number of square feet to arrive at a per-square-foot value which would then be multiplied by 37,125. Staff anticipates a value in excess of $50,000 which would translate into a park dedication fee of at least $2,500. This fee would need to be paid prior to the City stamping the new deeds for recordation. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission approve resolution 734-03, a resolution recommending approval of a minor subdivision of 8430 Knollwood Drive , with stipulations. _____________________________________ James Ericson Interim City Clerk/Administrator Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Proposed Subdivision Map 5. Unrecorded RLS 6. Resolution 734-03 Zoning Map New Lot MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 734-03 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF 8340 KNOLLWOOD DRIVE REQUESTED BY GEORGE AND PATRICIA GRONE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MI03-002 WHEREAS, George and Patricia Grone have requested approval of a minor subdivision of 8340 Knollwood Drive, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally-described as follows: Lot 38, Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, Ramsey County, Minnesota, except a 184 foot strip along the northern-most line; also except that part described as follows: Commencing at the North west corner of said Lot 38; thence Southerly along the West line of said Lot 38 a distance of 184 feet to the point of beginning of the description; thence Easterly along a line parallel to the North line of said Lot 38 a distance of 234.1 feet; thence Southerly along a line parallel to the West line of said Lot 38 a distance of 191 feet; thence Westerly along a line parallel to the North line of said Lot 38 a distance of 234.1 feet to the West line of said Lot 38; thence Northerly along the said West line of Lot 38 to the point of beginning; and also except that part described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Lot 38: thence Southerly along the West line of said Lot 38 a distance of 375 feet to the point of beginning; thence Easterly along a line parallel to the North line of said Lot 38 a distance of 211 feet; thence Southerly along a -line parallel to the West line of said Lot 38 to the South line of said Lot 38; thence Westerly along the Southerly line of Lot 38 a distance of 211 feet to the West line of Lot 38; thence Northerly along the West line of Lot 38 to the point of beginning. Subject to a 5 foot strip easement along the rear line for public utility use, such as setting of poles, stringing of wires, trimming or removing trees if necessary for line clearance and laying of underground conduits. WHEREAS, the applicants propose to subdivide the 180.75 feet of their lot to create a buildable lot fronting Knollwood Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicants’ 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, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant’s request for a minor subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4, a park dedication fee equivalent to 5% of the market value of the new lot is applicable; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the minor subdivision of 8430 Knollwood Drive subject to the following stipulations: Resolution 734-03 Page 2 1. The applicants shall submit a Certificate of Survey or a Registered Land Survey Prior to the City Council approving this subdivision. 2. The applicants shall arrange to have a Title Commitment drafted and submitted prior to the approval of the subdivision by the City Council. 3. The applicants shall submit the required park dedication fee prior to the City approving the deeds for recordation. 4. The certificate of survey or RLS shall indicate all easements present dedicated in addition to those easements that are necessary, which are as follows: Front and rear lot lines: 10 feet; side lot lines, 5 feet. The Certificate of survey or RLS shall have text which states, “Separate drainage and utility easement documents over the proposed easement areas have been executed and recorded with Ramsey County.” 5. The Certificate of Survey or the RLS shall indicate the footprint of the existing home on 8430 Knollwood Drive so as to ensure proper setbacks are to be maintained with the new subdivision. 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 16th day of July, 2003. __________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ______________________________________ James Ericson, Interim City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 7 Meeting Date: July 16, 2003 Type of Business: Discussion City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Acting City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Discuss Modifications to Proposed Ordinance 711, an Ordinance Relating to the Zoning of Pawnshops Introduction: The City Council adopted an Interim ordinance on February 27, 2003, which directed the Planning Commission to review the licensing and zoning implications related to pawnshops and to recommend applicable provisions. The Planning Commission discussed this issue at meetings in March, April and May of this year, reviewing State statues, ordinances from adjoining communities and ordinances from communities where pawnshops currently operate. The Commission also heard testimony from representatives of the Mounds View Police Department who did research on their own, discussing the potential impacts of a pawnshop with other police departments. After significant discussion and input from interested parties including residents and tenants from Moundsview Square, the Commission adopted a resolution forwarding two ordinances on to the City Council for their consideration. Background: The City Council has reviewed the proposed ordinances (the ordinance to regulate the zoning and the ordinance regulating the licensing) and they would like to explore the overlay concept further and have asked for feedback toward that end. Additionally, the Council would consider opening the overlay district up to other uses beyond Pawnshops, uses such as “Adult” uses, tattoo shops, piercing establishments, gun shops, check cashing facilities, etc. Discussion: The City Council held a public hearing on May 12, 2003 at which time public comment was accepted. The Council chose to delay action until they had an opportunity to discuss the proposed ordinances further at the next worksession, June 2, 2003. At the worksession, the Council discussed the possibility of creating an overlay zoning district that would allow for a pawnshop outside of the central business district of the City. Two potential overlays were identified—either north of Highway 10 or south of County Road H in the Mustang Drive/Circle industrial area. To establish an overlay district, all that would be needed is to revise proposed Ordinance 711 to reflect the creation of the new “Pawn Overlay District” with associated supporting language. Because there was not a clear consensus on which of the two overlay areas would be more appropriate and because the Council would like to include other uses in the overlay, the Planning Commission should review the possibilities and provide a recommendation to the City Council Recommendation: Review and discuss the two potential overlay districts and consider the types of uses that might be appropriate (if any) to include with Pawnshops. _____________________________________ James Ericson Interim City Clerk/Administrator Attachments: 1. List of adult uses, per City Code 2. Map of proposed Overlay Districts Attachment 1. Adult Use Definitions (Chapter 513) Subd. 2. Adult Establishment. A business engaged in any of the following activities or which utilizes any of the following business procedures or practices: a. A business that is conducted exclusively for the patronage of adults and as to which minors are specifically excluded from patronage, either by operation of law or by the owners of such business, except any business licensed under Chapters 501, 502, 503, and 514 of the Mounds View City Code; b. Any business that has (1) at least thirty percent (30%) of its inventory, stock and trade or publicly displayed merchandise, or (2) at least thirty percent (30%) of the floor area of the business (not including storerooms, stock areas, bathrooms, basements or any portion of the business not open to the public) devoted to items, merchandise or other materials distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on material depicting, exposing, describing, discussing or relating to specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas; or c. Any adult use as defined in subdivision 3 of this Section. Subd. 3. Adult Use. An adult use is any of the activities and businesses described below: a. Adult Body Painting Studio: An establishment or business which provides the service of applying paint or other substance, whether transparent or non-transparent, to the body of a patron when such person is nude. b. Adult Bookstore: An establishment or business used for the barter, rental or sale of items consisting of printed matter, pictures, slides, records, audio tape, videotape, or motion picture film if such business is not open to the public generally but only to one or more classes of the public, excluding any minor by reason of age, or if (1) at least thirty percent (30%) of the inventory, stock and trade or publicly displayed merchandise, or (2) at least thirty percent (30%) of the floor area of the business (not including storerooms, stock areas, bathrooms, basements or any portion of the business not open to the public) is devoted to items, merchandise or other material distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on the depiction or description of "specified sexual activities" or " specified anatomical areas." c. Adult Cabaret: A business or establishment that provides dancing or other live entertainment to patrons if the dancing and live entertainment is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on the presentation, display, depiction of matter that seeks to evoke, arouse or excite the patrons' sexual or erotic feelings or desire. d. Adult Companionship Establishment: A business or establishment that excludes minors by reason of age, and which provides the service of engaging in or listening to conversation, talk or discussion between an employee of the establishment and a customer, if such service is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas." e. Adult Conversation/Rap Parlor: A business or establishment that excludes minors by reason of age, and which provides the services of engaging in or listening to conversation, talk, or discussion, if such service is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas." f. Adult Health/Sport Club: A health/sport club which excludes minors by reason of age, if such club is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas." g. Adult Hotel or Motel: A hotel or motel from which minors are specifically excluded from patronage and where material is presented which is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on matter depicting, describing or relating to "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas." h. Adult Massage Parlor, Health Club: A massage parlor or health club which restricts minors by reason of age, and which provides the services of massage, if such service is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas." i. Adult Mini-Motion Picture Theater: A business or establishment with a capacity for less than 50 persons used for presenting material if such material is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on matter depicting, describing or relating to "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas." j. Adult Modeling Studio: A business or establishment that provides customers figure models who are so provided with the intent of providing sexual stimulation or sexual gratification to such customers and who engage in "specified sexual activities" or display "specified anatomical areas" while being observed, painted, painted upon, sketched, drawn, sculptured, photographed, or otherwise depicted by such customers. k. Adult Motion Picture Arcade: Any place to which the public is permitted or invited where coin or slug-operated or electronically, electrically or mechanically controlled or operated still or motion picture machines, projectors or other image-producing devices are maintained to show images to five or fewer persons per machine at any one time, and where the images so displayed are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on depicting or describing "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas." l. Adult Motion Picture Theater: A motion picture theater with a capacity of fifty (50) or more persons used for presenting material if such theater as a prevailing practice excludes minors by reason of age or if such material is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas" for observation by patrons. m. Adult Novelty Business: A business which has (1) at least thirty percent (30%) of its inventory, stock and trade or publicly displayed merchandise, or (2) at least thirty percent (30%) of the floor area of the business (not including, storerooms, stock areas, bathrooms, basement or any portion of the business not open to the public) devoted to items, merchandise or other material or devices which stimulate human genitals or devices which are designed for sexual stimulation. n. Adult Sauna: A sauna which excludes minors by reason of age, and which provides a steam bath or heat bathing room used for the purpose of bathing, relaxation, or reducing, utilizing steam or hot air as a cleaning, relaxing or reducing agent, if the service provided by the sauna is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas." o. Adult Steam Room/Bathhouse Facility: A building or portion of a building used for providing a steam bath or heat bathing room used for the purpose of pleasure, bathing, relaxation, or reducing, utilizing steam or hot air as a cleaning, relaxing or reducing agent if such building or portion of a building restricts minors by reason of age and if the service provided by the steam room/bathhouse facility is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas." Proposed Overlay Districts Overlay 1: North of Highway 10 Overlay 2: Mustang Drive / Mustang Circle Overlay 2 Overlay 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 2, 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 7:00 p.m., July 2, 2003. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Song, Miller, Stevenson, Zwirn, Scotch, Hegland and Johnson Members Absent: None. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case VR03-004 2 Location: 2402 County Road I ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes a. June 4, 2003 MOTION/SECOND: Johhson/Miller. To Approve the Planning Commission Minutes for June 4, 2003 as Presented. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda Mr. Grone of 8430 Knollwood Drive indicated he had been told that the next planning meeting was tonight and that he should bring his paperwork filled out to the meeting. Mounds View Planning Commission July 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson indicated that an application for a subdivision to be heard by the Planning Commission needs to be turned in to Staff for processing before it is placed on the agenda. He then said that there is usually a three week lead time between when the application is turned in and when it is heard by the Commission. Mr. Grone indicated that he was not aware of the requirements and was told to come to this meeting. Community Development Coordinator Ericson indicated he would meet with Mr. and Mrs. Grone after the meeting to discuss the application and explain the process. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Consideration of a Variance Request for a Reduced Parking Lot Setback at 2402 County Road I. Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the request with the Commission and provided a brief history of the property in question. He then indicated that Mr. Farrell had indicated that he would attend the meeting but is not present. There was no public comment concerning the matter. Commissioner Johnson asked whether the garbage issue would be dealt with in this Resolution. Director Ericson indicated that Mr. Farrell had made an application to Council to amend the approval Resolution that required the garbage to be kept inside. He then said that the Commission could make a recommendation to Council if it felt that the garbage should remain inside. Commissioner Johnson commented that the garbage being outside is an enforcement issue and asked whether it has been enforced. Director Ericson indicated that Mr. Farrell has been talked to about the garbage and said a ticket had been issued for the fence. Commissioner Zwirn indicated that Staff has written letters and contacted Mr. Farrell and he has created an acrimonious relationship by denying and ignoring letters and discussions and not coming to meetings and he just puts it off to I did not know. He then said that Mr. Farrell is in the business of reading contracts but he throws his hands up and says he is innocent because he did not know. Commissioner Zwirn asked for an update on the enforcement of the timelines provided in Mr. Ericson’s letter to Mr. Farrell. Director Ericson indicated a ticket was issued to Mr. Farrell. Mounds View Planning Commission July 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn asked when. Director Ericson indicated that the ticket was issued over the weekend and was sent over in Monday’s mail. Commissioner Zwirn asked what happens next. Director Ericson indicated that Mr. Farrell does not feel he should put up the other end fence and, if the City Council does not amend the previous Resolution of approval the matter will end up in the court system. Commissioner Zwirn commented that he did not appreciate someone coming into the City and telling the City that they are not going to comply and forcing the City to go to court. Director Ericson agreed Mr. Farrell is not being cooperative. Commissioner Zwirn indicated that by not listening to the conditions and abiding by them he is telling the City he will not comply and making the City go to court. He then asked if the City has to go to court or if he does as the neighbor to the south. Director Ericson indicated that when someone chooses not to comply with an enforcement issue then City is forced to go to court. Commissioner Zwirn asked if it was the City’s intent to pursue this. Director Ericson indicated that the City is required to pursue it. Commissioner Zwirn commented that approving this variance would mean there would only be a two-foot boulevard on Greenfield. Director Ericson clarified that there would be a two-foot setback but there is still 17 feet of greenspace prior to the pavement Commissioner Zwirn indicated there is not that much space and suggested someone go out there with a tape and measure it. Commissioner Miller commented that Mr. Farrell indicates he wants to work with the City but did not show up at this meeting and asked why. Commissioner Zwirn indicated that he says he wants to be a good neighbor but his actions do not show that to be true. Mounds View Planning Commission July 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland indicated he did not think the Commission should consider this request when he is in violation on other issues and he does not think this variance would help the parking situation. Commissioner Johnson asked whether Mr. Farrell has the right to apply for something else if he is in violation on the fence and the trash. Director Ericson indicated that he has the right to apply. Commissioner Hegland commented that the issue is whether Mr. Farrell created this situation and he thinks he did. Commissioner Johnson indicated that he felt that before granting anything Mr. Farrell should come into compliance with the other items. Chair Stevenson indicated the Commission has the right to not issue the variance with the reason being that he is not complying with the City. He then said he would consider the variance if Mr. Farrell was in compliance with the other issues. Commissioner Scotch indicated that Mr. Farrell applied for the permit so he is addressing this portion of the issue. Director Ericson indicated that Mr. Farrell has requested modification to the resolution regarding the garbage issue as he wants to build a garbage enclosure to store garbage at the rear of the property. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Hegland. To Deny Approval of Resolution 732-03, a Resolution Approving a Variance for a Reduced Front-Yard Parking Setback of 2-Feet at 2402 County Road I. Ayes – 6 Nays – 1(Scotch) Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Next Planning Commission Meeting: July 16, 2003 ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission July 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:20 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.