Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-2003 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION September 17, 2003 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approve Minutes: August 20, 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 VR03-008 (Public Hearing) Consider Request for a Front-Yard Setback Variance at 2434 Hillview Road Applicants: Rebecca and Lance Bainville APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 763-717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. 6. Next Planning Commission Meeting: 7. Adjournment to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: September 3, 2003 2. Staff Reports: 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports \\Trout\CommDev\Planning Commission\PC Agendas\2003\09-17-03 PC Agenda.doc PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 3, 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., September 3, 2003. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Scotch, Hegland, Song, Zwirn, and Johnson Members Absent: Stevenson (excused) Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Special Planning Case SP-118-03 2 Rezone of PF Zoning Districts Special Planning Case SP-114-03 3 Consider Resolution 737 Recommending Revisions to Proposed Ordinance 711, Pawnshops _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes a. July 16, 2003 MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Zwirn. To Approve the Planning Commission Minutes for July 16, 2003 as Presented. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission September 3, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Consider Resolution 736-03 Recommending Rezoning of All Parcels within the PF, Public Facility Zoning District. Special Planning Case SP-118-03. Community Development Director Ericson indicated this was to be a continued discussion concerning the rezoning of all parcels within the PF zoning district. He then indicated that there are 17 parcels owned by the City with that zoning designation and reviewed the previous discussions with the Commission, Council and City Attorney leading up to the proposal that the parcels be rezoned to be more consistent the with typical zoning practice of zoning based on use not owner. Director Ericson indicated there is one major change in this packet and that is the proposed rezoning of the golf course. He indicated that, after discussing the matter with the City Attorney, the golf course was changed to a rezone to industrial rather than commercial. He then handed out a revised map for review showing the changes noting that the well locations were changed to reflect a rezone to single-family residential rather than industrial. Director Ericson indicated that the golf course use is only allowed in the PF zoning district so an amendment to the text of the Code would be required to make golf courses an allowed use in the I-1 zoning district. Director Ericson explained that the City would need to review its zoning map and future land use map as well as looking at compatible zoning districts in the near future. Acting Chair Miller asked if it would be necessary to amend the Comprehensive Plan sent to the Metropolitan Council. Director Ericson indicated that the Comprehensive Plan does need to be reviewed in terms of the future land use map and recommended the City review the Comprehensive Plan in 2004 for any required amendments. Commissioner Hegland asked whether it would be necessary to purge any other areas of the Code for the PF designation. Director Ericson indicated he thought it would be appropriate to delete that chapter and replace it with the new POD or pawn overlay district. Commissioner Zwirn asked if there were any negative tax effects of doing this. Director Ericson indicated there were not. He then said that the City Attorney has reviewed the proposal and finds no negative consequences with rezoning the PF districts. Mounds View Planning Commission September 3, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Johnson. To Approve Resolution 736-03, a Resolution Recommending the Rezoning of All Parcels Within the PF, Public Facility Zoning District. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Consider Resolution 737, a Resolution Recommending Revisions to Draft Ordinance 711 Relating to the Zoning of Pawnshops in the City of Mounds View. Special Planning Case SP-114-03 Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the City Council had asked that the Planning Commission discuss the issue of overlay zoning for the pawnshop and other adult oriented businesses and provided an update on the previous discussions. Director Ericson indicated this would be a continued discussion regarding pawnshops in the City of Mounds View with the Commission needing to make a recommendation as to which overlay district to recommend to the Council. Director Ericson indicated the second item in question is whether it would be appropriate to include other land uses in the overlay district. He then said that the Planning Commission has indicated that it does not feel that creating a red light district within the City is a good idea and the City Attorney has agreed. Acting Chair Miller asked Staff to explain an overlay district. Director Ericson explained that an overlay district is a geographical district defined by property lines or streets that is another layer of allowed use within a zoning district but does not change the zoning of the parcels it sits on top of. Acting Chair Miller asked whether all the regulations recommended by the Commission would still apply to the pawnshop. Director Ericson indicated that they would. Acting Chair Miller asked if anyone had heard reaction from the businesses located within the proposed overlay district. Director Ericson indicated that there would be a public hearing for taking public comment on the proposed district. Commissioner Zwirn asked whether the City has fulfilled its obligation by providing an overlay district within which a pawnshop could locate. Mounds View Planning Commission September 3, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson indicated that as long as there is suitable acreage available for a pawnshop to locate the City has fulfilled its obligation and is not responsible for whether or not there is space for purchase or rent within that district. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Song. To Approve Resolution 737-03, a Resolution Recommending Revisions to Draft Ordinance 711 Relating to the Zoning of Pawnshops within the City of Mounds View. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: September 17, 2003 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Acting Chair Miller adjourned the meeting at 7:29 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. Item No: 5 Meeting Date: September 17, 2003 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance to Allow a Reduced Front Yard Setback for a Roof Extension at 2434 Hillview Road; Planning Case VR03-008 Introduction: Rebecca and Lance Bainville, property owners of 2434 Hillview Road, have requested a variance to construct a roof extension off the front of their home to cover a permitted deck addition six feet closer to the street than the existing building. All of the homes fronting Hillview Road on this block are set back approximately the same distance—30 feet from the property line. The variance requested is four feet. 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 noted that sheds and garages, attached or detached, can have side and rear setbacks of 5 feet. The Code also addresses the issue of “prevailing setbacks,” however that is not applicable in this case. The applicants obtained a building permit to construct a deck off the front of their home within the front setback. A deck is considered an allowable encroachment into a front setback, provided it does not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure. The deck extends six feet into the front yard. Awnings, eves and other roof extensions are also allowed as an encroachment, however they are limited to no more than a two-foot encroachment. Thus, the extent of the variance requested is four feet. 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 2434 Hillview Road September 17, 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 owners would like to construct a roof extension to cover a recent deck addition on the front of their house. They are limited, however, in that their home and the homes adjacent to them were constructed at the minimum 30-foot setback. The lot is not irregularly shaped however it is substandard in size at 10,600 square feet. (The minimum sized lot in the City is 11,000 square feet.) A substandard lot size often presents limitations that a typical home-owner would not have deal with. 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 of the set back and substandard lot size, expansion and reinvestment becomes more of challenge. 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 owners assert that the six-foot roof extension (necessitating the four-foot variance) is the minimum variance to alleviate the hardship. Anything less than six feet would be impractical and would not cover the deck. Setback Variance Report 2434 Hillview Road September 17, 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 the four-foot variance to allow the roof extension to encroach six feet into the front setback would not be materially detrimental to the purpose and intent of the zoning code. There have been no objections raised up to this point and the six-foot encroachment would be imperceptible 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. Staff would take the position that the hardship criteria can be justified and that the resulting improvement would be a benefit to the subject property as well as to the neighborhood. While past practice should not justify future requests, the Commission did approve a similar front yard roof encroachment variance for Habitat for Humanity in 1997 for the property located at 5377 Quincy Street. In that case, the Planning Commission approved a six-foot roof extension to cover the entryway of the home. 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 738-03 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 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 60-day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible however to avoid an inadvertent approval. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Zoning Map HILLVIEW ROAD MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 738-03 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A FOUR-FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIX-FOOT ROOF EXTENSION INTO THE FRONT-YARD SETBACK AT 2434 HILLVIEW ROAD; PLANNING CASE NO. VR03-008 WHEREAS, the applicants, Rebecca and Lance Baneville, have applied for a four- foot variance to allow a six-foot roof extension encroaching into the front-yard setback at 2434 Hillview Road; 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, Section 1104.01, Subd. 5a of the Zoning Code lists features such as awnings, eves, gutters and cornices which are allowed to encroach within the required setbacks, so long as said features do not project more than two feet into a yard; and, WHEREAS, the applicants have requested a variance to construct a six-foot roof extension to cover a deck off the front of their home; and, WHEREAS, the applicants have 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 subject property is substandard in size which has causes limitations as to how the property can be improved. 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 four-foot variance request to allow a six-foot roof extension to cover the deck attached to the front of the applicant’s home at 2434 Hillview Road, subject to the following restriction: 1. The applicants or any successor owners of the subject property shall not enclose the deck or otherwise construct an enclosure where the deck is currently located. This variance approves ONLY the roof extension. Adopted this 17th day of September, 2003. ____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL)