Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-10-2019 PC Packet PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 10, 2019 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business A. (none) 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. Public Hearing; Resolution 1102-19, Approval of a Variance to allow the combined square footage of accessory buildings in a rear yard to exceed 20%; and Variance to reduce the front yard setback for a detached garage, for property at 2832 Sherwood Rd (Planning Case VR2019-001). B. Resolution 1104-19, Review of an Administrative Variance to reduce the side yard setback from 5’ to 3’ for a driveway, for property located at 8405 Red Oak Dr (Planning Case AV2019-001). 6. Other Planning Activity A. (none) 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 8. Approval of Minutes: A. June 19, 2019 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, July 17, 2019 B. Wednesday, August 7, 2019 10. Meeting Conclusion Item No: ___05A Meeting Date: July 10, 2019 Type of Business: Planning Case VR2019-001 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing; Resolution 1102-19, Approval of a Variance to allow the combined square footage of accessory buildings in a rear yard to exceed 20%; and Variance to reduce the front yard setback for a detached garage, for property at 2832 Sherwood Rd (Planning Case VR2019-001). Introduction The Applicant, Marsha Anderson, is proposing to build a two-car garage and breezeway to connect the house and garage. No garage exists currently. Discussion The property is located at the southeast corner of Sherwood Road and Groveland Road, subject to having two front yards. The lot is non-conforming because its size (9,470 sq ft) is less than the 12,500 sq ft required under the current City Code for a corner lot. The house is non- conforming because it is set back about 22’ from the Groveland Road property line, whereas a minimum 30’ is required. The City Code 1 allows up to 20% of a rear yard to consist of Accessory Buildings. The proposed garage and breezeway are accessory buildings, and together will be 25%. The proposed 24’ X 28’ garage will be located in the rear yard. The front of the garage will be set back 22’, the same as the house, requiring a Variance to reduce the setback from 30’ to 22’. Analysis Maximum Permitted Existing Proposed Rear Yard Area 3,120 sq ft 3,120 sq ft Existing Shed 100 sq ft 0 sq ft Proposed Garage 0 672 sq ft (22%) Proposed Breezeway 0 108 sq ft (3%) TOTAL Accessory Buildings 624 sq ft (20%) 100 sq ft (3%) 780 sq ft (25%) The applicant is requesting to round up, to 800 sq ft (26%) in accessory building area. 1 City Code, Section 1106.03, Subdivision 1(d); “The combined square footage of accessory buildings in a rear yard shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the rear yard.” Item 05A Page 2 of 11 The existing shed will be removed, once the garage is built. The existing deck on the side of the house is located in a front yard, and does not count toward the maximum accessory building area permitted in a rear yard. City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 2 establishes the criteria for granting a Variance. Staff’s detailed analysis is included in the Resolution. In summary, it is reasonable for every home in an R-1 district to have at least a two-car garage.2 Additionally, it is reasonable for the proposed garage to match the setback of the existing house. If the garage had a 30’ setback, it would decrease the usable area of the rear yard lawn. In 2015, the Commission approved a similar Variance on a corner lot, in which a proposed detached garage would match the setback of the house (20’) (Planning Case VR2015-008). Summary The applicant wishes to build a two-car garage and breezeway (Accessory Buildings), consisting of 26% in area of the rear yard, whereas 20% is the maximum permitted. The proposed garage will be set back the same as the house (22’), whereas a minimum of 30’ is required. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Variances. The Planning Commission is requested to consider the following options, including conducting a Public Hearing for the Variance requests. A 2/3’s vote of the Commission (5 of 7 members) is required to approve or deny a Variance.3 1. Approve Resolution 1102-19, approving the Variance. 2. Deny the requested Variance. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff would need to be directed 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 requirements (Deadline: August 4, 2019 4) the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. 2 City Code, Section 1106.02, Subd 1(b); “Every dwelling house hereafter erected shall be so located on the lot so that at least a two (2) car garage, either attached or detached, can be located on said lot.” 3 City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 4(f); “A variance of this Zoning Code or the granting of an appeal shall be by two-thirds (2/3) vote of the full Planning and Zoning Commission serving as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals.” 4 Email from Marsha Anderson to Jon Sevald, June 4, 2019, confirming modification of Application, adding second Variance request (reduced building setback). Item 05A Page 3 of 11 Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Jon Sevald, AICP Community Development Director Attachments 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Map 3. Site Photos 4. Site Plan 5. Resolution 1102-19 Item 05A Page 4 of 11 Zoning Map Item 05A Page 5 of 11 Aerial Photo Item 05A Page 6 of 11 Site Photos 2832 Sherwood Rd, view looking east from Groveland Rd (June 26, 2019) 2832 Sherwood Rd, view looking northeast from Groveland Rd (June 26, 2019). Item 05A Page 7 of 11 Site Plan Item 05A Page 8 of 11 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1102-19 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARINACE TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM COMBINED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN A REAR YARD, FROM 20% TO 26% (up to 800 sq ft) FOR A GARAGE AND BREEZEWAY; AND A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 30’ TO 22’ FOR A GARAGE, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2832 SHERWOOD ROAD WHEREAS, the applicant, Marsha Anderson, is requesting two Variances to construct a garage and breezeway (both are accessory buildings), on property located at 2832 Sherwood Road, legally described as: PID: 06-30-23-31-0020 SUBJ TO RDS AND EX E 379 1/10 FT THE N 1/2 OF LOT 64; AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 89 WHEREAS, the property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential, and guided Single- Family Detached in the Comprehensive Plan (2008); and, WHEREAS, the proposed garage measures 28’ X 24’ (672 sq ft), and proposed breezeway will measure up to 128 sq ft (800 sq ft, combined); and, WHEREAS, City Code, Section 1106.03, Subd 1(d) states; “The combined square footage of accessory buildings in a rear yard shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the rear yard.” Per Ramsey County GIS mapping, the rear yard measures approximately 3,120 sq ft in area (20% = 624 sq ft). The proposed garage and breezeway = 26% in area of the rear yard, necessitating a Variance; and, WHEREAS, City Code, Section 1104.01, Subd 4(a)(1)(b) regarding Minimum Setbacks for Accessory Buildings, states; “side: five feet (5’) except the minimum setback shall be thirty feet (30’) from any lot line abutting a public street.” The proposed garage will have an equal setback as the house, from Groveland Road. Per Ramsey County GIS mapping, the house is estimated to be set back 22’ from the property line. A Variance is necessary to reduce the side yard building setback from 30’ to 22’; and, WHEREAS, City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 2 establishes the following criteria for granting a Variance (findings in italics): a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. Item 05A Page 9 of 11 Finding: It is the intent of this Title (City Code) that within the R-1 district, every lot with a dwelling be permitted to have at least a two-car garage. The house was constructed in 1956 without a garage. Mounds View City Code, Section 1106.02, Subdivision 1(b) states; “Every dwelling house hereafter erected [August 14, 2000] shall be so located on the lot so that at least a two (2) car garage, either attached or detached, can be located on said lot”. b. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The property is guided “Single Family Detached” [Residential]. Garages are not specifically addressed by the Comprehensive Plan (2008). The Variance relates to the following: Residential Goal 1: Preserve the identity and maintain and improve the quality and appearance of existing neighborhoods. Finding: The proposed garage and breezeway improve the property, and the appearance of the neighborhood. Goal 3: Encourage a creative approach to the use of land and related residential development. Policy c. The City will encourage the upgrade and expansion of homes by providing flexible standards that address the unique circumstances of expanding existing single dwellings. Finding: The proposed two-car garage is an upgrade from the existing 10’ X 10’ shed, and is integral to the use of the property. Approval of this Variance provides “flexible standards” addressing unique circumstances of this non- conforming lot (due to its small lot size). c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. Finding: The proposed two-car garage and breezeway are a reasonable use of the property. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Finding: Within the R-1 zoning district, the minimum lot size for a corner lot is 12,500 sq ft. The subject property is 9,470 sq ft and is a non-conforming Item 05A Page 10 of 11 lot, contributing to a rear yard area that severely restricts the maximum area of accessory buildings that could be built. If not to exceed 20% of the rear yard area, then 624 sq ft is the maximum accessory building area permitted. The proposed two-car garage is 672 sq ft in area, and proposed breezeway is up to 128 sq ft in area (800 sq ft total, or 26% of the rear yard area). e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed garage and breezeway will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Finding: The proposed 24’ X 28’ two-car garage is a reasonable size, as is the 128 sq ft breezeway. g. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. WHEREAS, A Public Hearing notice was dully published in the June 26, 2019 edition of the New Brighton/Mounds View Bulletin, and mailed to property owners within 350’ of the subject property; and, WHEREAS, A Public Hearing was held by the Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission on July 10, 2019; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission, based upon the above findings, the staff report, and in consideration of public testimony, approves a Variance to allow a garage and breezeway (Accessory Buildings), not to exceed 800 sq ft in combined area (26% of rear yard), and to reduce the side (front) yard setback from 30’ to 22’, such that the garage setback matches that of the house, located on property at 2832 Sherwood Road, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit for the garage and breezeway, within one- year of the date of this Resolution (no later than July 10, 2020), unless requesting an extension at least 30-days prior to this deadline, or approval of this Variance shall become void, consistent with City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 5 (Lapse of Variance or Appeal). 2. The existing shed shall be removed prior to the City approving the Final Inspection of the garage. Item 05A Page 11 of 11 Adopted this 10th day of July, 2019 ______________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair Attest: ______________________________ Jon Sevald, Community Development Director (Seal) Item No: ___05B Meeting Date: July 10, 2019 Type of Business: Planning Case AV2019-001 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Resolution 1104-19, Review of an Administrative Variance to reduce the side yard setback from 5’ to 3’ for a driveway, for property located at 8405 Red Oak Dr (Planning Case AV2019-001). Introduction The Applicant, Tim Rodgers has requested, and the Community Development Director has approved, an Administrative Variance to reduce the side yard setback from 5’ to 3’ for a driveway, subject to no objections from adjacent neighbors, and review by the Planning Commission. Discussion In June 2019, the applicant applied for a Zoning Permit to replace a dirt driveway, original to the house (1941). The request included a 0’ setback to match an existing concrete driveway in front of the garage (installed without a permit). The dirt driveway meandered some, but is generally within 1’ of the property line. The permit was approved, pending compliance with a 5’ side yard setback, and provided options to apply for a Variance for a 0’ setback, or an Administrative Variance for a 3’ setback. In June, the applicant installed the driveway with a 5’ setback, and intends to widen it further, pending approval of this variance. Analysis Driveways shall have a minimum side yard setback of 5’.1 In 2009, as part of the Area A street reconstruction project, the City installed a one-car wide driveway apron with a 3’ side yard setback 2 to match that of the existing dirt driveway. Administrative Variances may be “preliminarily” approved by the Community Development Director, provided that the property is zoned R-1 or R-2, and (1) the variance to a setback is within 25% of the minimum required, and not less than 5’ from a property line; or (2) is related to a pre-existing, non-conforming driveway or curb cut. After an Administrative Variance is preliminarily approved, the City shall notify adjacent property owners at least ten days prior to the Planning Commission’s review of the Administrative Variance (no Public hearing is required). If neighbors or the Planning Commission disagree with the Preliminary Approval, then the request is denied, and the applicant may apply for a “formal” Variance request through the normal public hearing process.3 1 City Code, Section 1104.01, Subd 4(b)1 (Driveways) 2 The applicant provided measurement, based on finding the SW property pin, and measuring where the NW pin should be, adjacent to the driveway (NW pin not found). 3 City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 6 (Administrative Variance Process) Item 05B Page 2 of 10 The criteria for granting a Variance, and Staff’s recommended Findings are included in the Resolution. In summary, because the City installed a driveway apron with a 3’ setback, it is reasonable that the new driveway match this setback. Summary The applicant has replaced a non-conforming dirt driveway with a 0’ side yard setback, with a conforming concrete driveway with a 5’ setback, and has requested an Administrative Variance to reduce the setback from 5’ to 3’. The Community Development Director has granted Preliminary Approval of the request, subject to review by the Planning Commission, and notice to the adjacent neighbors. Notice was provided to the adjacent neighbors on June 28, 2019. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 1103-19, Final Approval of an Administrative Variance. 1. Approve Resolution 1103-19,a review of the Administrative Variance. 2. Deny the requested Administrative Variance. If the Commission chooses this option, the Applicant has the option to apply for a standard Variance. 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 requirements (Deadline: August 16, 2019) the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Jon Sevald, AICP Community Development Director Attachments 1. Applicant’s Narrative 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Map 4. Site Photos 5. Resolution 1103-19 Item 05B Page 3 of 10 Applicant’s Narrative Item 05B Page 4 of 10 Zoning Map Item 05B Page 5 of 10 Aerial Photo Item 05B Page 6 of 10 Site Photos 8405 Red Oak Dr (Before). Spray paint (solid line) is approximate property line, with doted line 5’ setback, measured by applicant (photo June 13, 2019) 8405 Red Oak Dr (After), with 5' side yard setback (Photo June 26, 2019). Item 05B Page 7 of 10 8405 Red Oak Dr, view of driveway/parking pad encroaching into 5' side yard setback (Photo June 26, 2019). Item 05B Page 8 of 10 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1103-19 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION REVIEWING THE APPROVAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 5’ TO 3’ FOR A DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8405 RED OAK DRIVE WHEREAS, the applicant, Tim Rodgers, is requesting an Administrative Variance to reduce the side yard setback from 5’ to 3’ for a driveway on property located at 8405 Red Oak Drive, legally described as: PID: 06-30-23-12-0034 SUBJ TO RD & ESMTS & EX E 264 FT; THE N 81 FT OF S 2511 FT OF E 528 FT OF W 1056 FT OF NE 1/4 OF SEC 6 TN 30 RN 23 WHEREAS, the property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential, and guided Single- Family Detached in the Comprehensive Plan (2008); and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code, Section 1104.01, Subdivision 4(b)(1) states; “Driveways shall have a minimum setback of five feet (5’) from any lot line”…; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View City Code, Section 1125.02, Subdivision 6 allows property owners to request an Administrative Variance, provided that the property is zoned R-1 or R-2, and either of the following is applicable: 1. The request concerns setbacks; the variance amount is within twenty-five percent (25%) of code requirements; and approval of the variance does not result in a setback of less than five feet (5’); 2. The request is related to a pre-existing, non-conforming driveway or curb cut. WHEREAS, the property is zoned R-1, and the request is related to a pre-existing, non- conforming driveway. The applicant replaced a pre-existing dirt driveway that was non- conforming because of its encroachment into the side yard setback, and because of its unimproved material; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director reviewed the request, comparing it to the criteria for granting of a Variance, and provided notice of Preliminary Approval to adjacent property owners; and, Item 05B Page 9 of 10 WHEREAS, City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 2 establishes the following criteria for granting a Variance (findings in italics): a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. Finding: The Variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Code. b. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The property is guided “Single Family Detached” [Residential]. Driveways are not specifically addressed by the Comprehensive Plan (2008). The Variance relates to the following: Residential Goal 1: Preserve the identity and maintain and improve the quality and appearance of existing neighborhoods. Finding: The proposed driveway will improve the quality and appearance of the neighborhood. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. Finding: The proposed 3’ driveway setback is reasonable, and will match the setback of the existing driveway apron. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Finding: The pre-existing dirt driveway serviced the house, built in 1941. The driveway was located adjacent to the north side yard property line. In 2009, the City installed a concrete driveway apron, with a 3’ side yard setback with the intent of matching the existing (2009) driveway opening while complying with City Code requirements as much as practical. The Unique circumstance is the location of the pre-existing driveway (1941), and the 3’ setback of the pre-existing (2009) driveway apron. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Finding: The Variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Finding: The Variance request is the minimum variance, alleviating the practical difficulties. Item 05B Page 10 of 10 g. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission, based upon the above findings, the staff report, and in consideration of public testimony, Agrees with the Administrative Approval of the Variance request to reduce the side yard setback from 5’ to 3’, with the following conditions: 1. The property owner shall remove that portion of the driveway (near the garage) which encroaches less than 3’ from the side yard property line, within 60 days (September 10, 2019). Adopted this 10th day of July, 2019 ______________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair Attest: ______________________________ Jon Sevald, Community Development Director (Seal) DRAFT PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 19, 2019 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Mounds View Boulevard, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Rundle at 7:00 p.m. for June 19, 2019. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Farmer, French, Klander, Nelson, and Rundle. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Monn and Stevenson. Also Present: Community Development Director Jon Sevald. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Resolution 1101-19, Approval of a Variance to Reduce Side Yard Setbacks 2 Resolution 1097-19, Recommending Approval of Ordinance 958 3 Resolution 1098-19, Recommending Approval of Ordinance 959 4 Resolution 1099-19, Recommending Approval of a Residential PUD and 4 Development Review for a Multi-Family Dwelling Resolution 1100-19, Recommending Approval of the Preliminary Plat 6 Approval of Minutes 7 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Special Order of Business None. Mounds View Planning Commission June 19, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. Resolution 1101-19, Approval of a Variance to Reduce the Side Yard Setback for a Driveway for the property located at 2296 Terrace Drive (Planning Case VR2019-002) Community Development Director Sevald stated Ron O’Connell is proposing to replace his driveway, widening it to an existing retaining wall. The backside of the wall is located on or near the property line. The driveway would be set back about one foot, where as a minimum 5’ is required. He noted the neighbor was supportive of the requested variance. Staff provided further comment on the request, recommended the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and deny the variance as requested, or approve the requested one-foot setback. Commissioner Nelson asked if there were any buildings adjacent to the property line. Ron O’Connell, 2296 Terrace Drive, explained this property line had trees, bushes and shrubs. Commissioner Nelson questioned if the retaining wall was located on the property line. Mr. O’Connell reported the retaining wall was three or four feet off the property line. Commissioner Klander asked if the City had setback requirements for retaining walls. Community Development Director Sevald reported the City did not have any setback requirements in place for retaining walls, and are reviewed on a case by case basis. Vice Chair Rundle inquired if the applicant would be changing the driveway apron. Mr. O’Connell explained he would not be altering the driveway apron. Commissioner Farmer requested further information regarding the unique circumstances surrounding this request. Community Development Director Sevald stated it was reasonable for homeowners to have a two-car wide driveway that was 16 feet wide. He noted the applicant has a paved 15-foot-wide driveway. He explained it was reasonable for the City to want to preserve mature trees. He reported the City did not have the benefit of a survey for this property. He commented on the right-of-way measurements that were completed when the road was reconstructed. He anticipated the property line was along the back of the retaining wall. Commissioner Farmer questioned why the City had setback requirements in place. Community Development Director Sevald explained with driveways it was to provide a green strip between driveways and the property line. He explained this portion of land was also to be used for snow storage during the winter months. He stated he would like to see this driveway have a three-foot Mounds View Planning Commission June 19, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ setback to have it line up with the driveway apron. However, he noted the applicant would have to agree with this recommendation. Vice Chair Rundle requested the applicant speak to the history of the driveway. Mr. O’Connell discussed the history of his driveway and its location/placement. Commissioner Nelson stated he did not object to the applicant running asphalt or concrete over a space he was already using as a driveway. He supported the Planning Commission reviewing driveway setbacks at a future meeting. Community Development Director Sevald reported this could be done. Vice Chair Rundle indicated Mr. O’Connell has had Class 5 beside his driveway for years and he saw no reason why t he City could not approve a variance to reduce the side yard setback. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Klander/Commissioner Nelson. To approve Resolution 1101-19, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance to Reduce the Side Yard Setback for a Driveway for the property located at 2296 Terrace Drive; Planning Case VR2019-002. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ B. Resolution 1097-19, Recommending Approval of Ordinance 958, an Amendment to the Zoning Map Rezoning 2390, 2394 Mounds View Boulevard and 2400 County Road H2 from B-3 Highway Business, to PUD Planned Unit Development (Planning Case MU19-001) Community Development Director Sevald explained INH Properties is proposing to develop a 128-unit apartment building at the south corner of Mounds View Boulevard and County Road H2. The project involves multiple planning applications including a request to rezone the applicable properties from B-3 Highway Business to PUD Planned Unit Development. Staff provided further comment on the 128-unit apartment complex and recommended the Planning Commission approve the rezoning as requested. Commissioner Farmer asked when staff would have the narrative completed for this Planning Case. Community Development Director Sevald reported he would have this completed prior to the City Council reviewing this item. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Farmer/Commissioner Klander. To approve Resolution 1097-19, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Zoning Map Amendment; Planning Case MU19-001. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission June 19, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ C. Resolution 1098-19, Recommending Approval of Ordinance 959, an Amendment to City Code Section 1104.02 relating to Minimum Floor Area per Dwelling Unit (Planning Case MU19-001) Community Development Director Sevald stated INH Properties is proposing to develop a 128- unit apartment building at the south corner of Mounds View Boulevard and County Road H2. The project involves multiple planning applications including a request to amend the City Code to allow Studio Apartments. He discussed the allowed square footage and the proposed change. Staff provided further comment on the proposed City Code amendment with respect to minimum floor area per dwelling unit and recommended the Planning Commission approve the Ordinance amendment as requested. Commissioner Nelson questioned how many of the units would be studio apartments. Jim Illies, INH, explained there would be a mix of one bedroom and studio apartments and noted he was proposing to have eight studio apartments. He commented some neighboring communities were allowing studio apartments to be 450 square feet in size. He noted his studio apartments would be 562 square feet in size. Commissioner Farmer stated City Code does not recognize studio apartments at this time. Community Development Director Sevald reported this was the case. Commissioner Nelson asked if the City had any information from neighboring communities regarding their studio apartment requirements. Community Development Director Sevald stated he did not have this information. Mr. Illies discussed a similar apartment in Blaine and noted its studio units were 450 square feet in size. He discussed how modern apartment complexes were developing with smaller apartment sizes due to the increased amenities being offered within the building. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner French. To approve Resolution 1098-19, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the City Code Amendment; Planning Case No. MU19-001. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ D. Resolution 1099-19, Recommending Approval of a Residential Planned Unit Development and Development Review for a Multi-Family Dwelling to be located at 2390, 2394 Mounds View Boulevard and 2400 County Road H2 (Planning Case MU19-001) Community Development Director Sevald stated INH Properties is proposing to develop a 128- unit apartment building at the south corner of Mounds View Boulevard and County Road H2. The project involves multiple planning applications including a request for a CUP for a PUD, and a Development Review. It was noted the Comprehensive Plan guides this property for Mounds View Planning Commission June 19, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Mixed Use PUD. He discussed how the development would impact the School District and noted the street closures that were being considered. Staff commented further on the proposed PUD and recommended the Planning Commission approve the CUP and Development Review as requested. Corey Gerads, Alliance Building, discussed the shoebox lighting that would be installed within the development. He explained the lighting could be adjusted to ensure there was not light spilling form the property onto adjacent properties. Community Development Director Sevald discussed a letter received from Planning Commissioner Monn. He explained Commissioner Monn had concerns with the fact the apartments were meeting the bare minimums. In addition, she was concerned with the fact this project was not being developed as a mixed use development. Commissioner Farmer explained a mixed use developments required population and occurs over time. Community Development Director Sevald reported this was the case. He commented on a few mixed use projects within first-ring suburbs, but that there are none along County Road 10, from Mounds View until downtown Anoka. Jim Illies commented on the modern amenities that would be provided within the apartment complex, compared to those noted in Commissioner Monn’s letter. He explained most of his renters prefer to have an outlet in their kitchen islands which means they could not be moveable. He indicated a garden space was not being planned, nor was a pool. He reported a guest suite was not being designated at this time, but could be considered in the future. He provided further comment on the energy efficiency within the units. He discussed the keyless security system that would be in place for the building. Commissioner Nelson commented on the proposed parking spaces. He noted the applicant was proposing to have 261 spaces when the City required 320. He asked if the property would have adequate parking for tenants and guests. Community Development Director Sevald reviewed the proposed parking within the development and noted there was also on-street parking available adjacent to the apartment building. Jim Illies reported he manages thousands of apartment units and noted the 2:1 parking ratio was very common. He stated he did not anticipate this property would have any problems with parking. Commissioner Nelson asked if the property would have management available onsite. Jim Illies reported this was the case, noting full time staff would be located in the building, along with a full-time maintenance person. Commissioner Nelson questioned how long the applicant would have to maintain the trees and landscaping. Community Development Director Sevald reported the City would require the applicant to maintain the trees and landscaping for the first year. Jim Illies explained he wanted the site heavily landscaped. Mounds View Planning Commission June 19, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Nelson asked what the Fire Department had to say about the proposed hammerhead. Community Development Director Sevald commented the Fire Department supported the proposal. Commissioner Nelson requested the applicant install a decorative dog fence and not a cyclone fence. Mr. Illies stated he would agree to this. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Farmer. To approve Resolution 1099-19, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the CUP and Development Review; Planning Case No. MU19-001. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ E. Resolution 1100-19, Recommending Approval of the Preliminary Plat of Crossroad Pointe, a Major Subdivision, located at 2390, 2394 Mounds View Boulevard, and 2400 County Road H2 (Planning Case MU19-001) Community Development Director Sevald stated that INH Properties is proposing to develop a 128-unit apartment building at the south corner of Mounds View Boulevard and County Road H2. The project involves multiple planning applications including a request for Preliminary Plat approval. He noted this project consisted of three lots that would be combined into one lot. Staff commented further on the Crossroad Pointe project and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Nelson/Commissioner Klander. To approve Resolution 1100-19, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Preliminary Plat; Planning Case No. MU19-001. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity Community Dev elopment Director Sevald discussed upcoming planning cases that would be reviewed by the Commission on July 10th. Mounds View Planning Commission June 19, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ B. Staff Updates Community Development Director Sevald provided the Commission with an update from staff noting the Boulevard apartment complex was fully under construction. He commented the Skyline Motel was purchased by the City for redevelopment. He anticipated this property would be burned down in mid-July and would be redeveloped into a hotel. C. Council Updates None. D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 8. Approval of Minutes April 17, 2019. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner French/Commissioner Nelson. To approve the Minutes of the April 17, 2019 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, July 10, 2019 B. Wednesday, July 17, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chair Rundle adjourned the meeting at 8:36 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald Community Development Director Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.