Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-07-2019 PC Packet PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA August 7, 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. Resolution 1105-19 , Consideration of a Variance to allow a Second Driveway at 2809 Bronson Drive (Planning Case VR2019-003) 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. July 17, 2019 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, August 21, 2019 B. Wednesday, September 4 , 2019 10. Meeting Conclusion Item No: ___05A Meeting Date: Aug 7, 2019 Type of Business: Planning Case VR2019 -003 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing, Resolution 1105-19, Approval of a Variance to allow a Second Driveway at 2809 Bronson Drive (Planning Case VR2019-003) Introduction The Applicants, Jason and Deborah Lanz, own the property at 2809 Bronson Drive, consisting of a single-family home and detached garage. Mr. Lanze proposes to build a second garage and driveway, requiring a Variance for the second driveway. The intent of keeping the first driveway is to allow a family member with mobility challenges to park close to the door. A 2/3’s majority vote (5 of 7) is required to approve a Variance.1 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on this item on July 17th. After a 4-2 vote to Approve the Variance Failed, the Planning Commission tabled this item to allow an opportunity for the full Commission to comment. Discussion Any garage, if to be used to store frequently-used vehicles, must be served by an improved driveway.2 Single-Family homes are allowed one driveway per property, unless a Variance is approved “in the interest of public safety.”3 The existing garage is 20’ X 20’ (400 sq ft). The proposed second garage is 26’ X 36’ (936 sq ft), for a combined 1,336 sq ft. The City Code allows up to three Accessory Buildings with a combined 1,800 sq ft. The maximum size of any one Accessory Buillding, is 952 sq ft, unless a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is approved.4 The proposed garage is within size limits. One alternative to a Variance is to locate the new garage elsewhere on the lot (e.g. backyard) such that it is accessible by the existing driveway, or to replace or expand the existing garage. A second alternative is to approve the Variance under a condition that the existing (west) driveway be removed when no longer necessary, e.g. when its use does not meet the criteria of “in the interest of public safety.” This would be difficult to enforce. 1 City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 1(b) (Organization and Meetings) 2 City Code, Section 1106.03, Subd 1(h) (Accessory Buildings). Section 1121.09, subd 7(a) (Surfacing) 3 City Code, Section 1121.09, Subd 5(e) (Curb Cuts and Driveway Openings) 4 City Code, Section 1106.04, Subd 6 (Accessory Building exceeding 952 sq ft) Item 05A Page 2 of 8 Similar Planning Cases; Planning Case Address Action Summary VR2011-007 6939 Pleasant View Dr Denied Applicant removed garage on south side of house, and built new garage and unimproved driveway on north side. After street was reconstructed, applicant applied for Variance to allow second curb cut at original (unimproved) driveway, due to mobility limitations. PC denied for multiple reasons, including that the distance between house and new garage was result of the Applicant’s decision, and found no Hardship. VR2013-001 7900 Greenfield Ave Approved Variance approved for second driveway in 1994 due to mobility challenges, with condition that it be removed in ten years, or upon sale. House was sold, but driveway not removed. During street reconstruction, City was to remove second driveway access. Applicant requested to keep second driveway due to mobility challenges of current owner. VR2014-004 7800 Groveland Rd Approved (PC Denial overturned by CC) Applicant applied for second driveway to serve second garage. Planning Commission Denied, finding no “public safety” reason to support request, and no unique circumstances of property. Applicant appealed, and the City Council overturned the Denial (e.g. approved the Variance). Analysis A Variance may be granted by the Planning Commission only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist:5 a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. b. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. 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. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 5 City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 2 (Criteria for Granting a Variance) Item 05A Page 3 of 8 f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. 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. The intent of the City Code is to allow a second driveway if when “in the interest of public safety”. This reasoning can be unique to the property (e.g. avoid backing onto a busy road), and/or unique to the resident (e.g. proximity from driveway to home). In this case, it is the later. Summary The Applicant is proposing to build a second garage to be located in the east side yard, and is requesting a Variance to allow the existing driveway (second driveway) to remain, whereas the City Code limits single-family homes to one driveway. A Public Hearing was held on July 17, 2019. The City received and email and phone call from two neighbors (adjacent and across the street) who are supportive of the Variance. Recommendation Staff does not have a recommendation. It is Staff’s opinion that there is nothing unique about the property to warrant a second driveway. There may be unique circumstances related to the home’s residents to warrant a second driveway, but, this determination should be made by the Planning Commission based on the Applicant’s testimony. The Planning Commission is requested to consider the following options: 1. Resolution 1105-19, approving the Variance to allow a second driveway. It takes 5 of 7 votes to approve a Variance. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff recommends requiring a $3,250 escrow, which is the estimated cost of removing the concrete apron and restoring the curb ($2,000), plus 5% compound interest over ten years. 2. Resolution 1105-19, denying the Variance to allow a second driveway. It takes a majority of the Commission in attendance to deny a 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 23, 2019), the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. If the Commission takes no action (e.g. motion to approve fails because there is less than 5 votes), the Variance is denied, and the Applicant may appeal to the City Council. Item 05A Page 4 of 8 Respectfully submitted, _____________________ Jon Sevald, AICP Community Development Director Attachments 1. Applicant’s Narrative and Site Plan 2. Aerial Photo 3. Site Photos 4. Resolution 1105 -19, Approving Variance for Second Driveway 5. Resolution 1105-19, Denying Variance for Second Driveway Item 05A Page 5 of 8 Applicant’s Narrative and Site Plan Item 05A Page 6 of 8 Aerial Photo Item 05A Page 7 of 8 Site Photos 2809 Bronson Drive, existing (west) driveway (photo July 8, 2019). 2809 Bronson Drive, proposed garage and second driveway in (east) side yard (photo July 8, 2019). Item 05A Page 8 of 8 2809 Bronson Drive, photo taken from NE corner of backyard, looking south (Photo Aug 1, 2019). MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1105-19 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A SECOND DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2809 BRONSON DRIVE (PLANNING CASE VR2019-003) WHEREAS , the applicants; Jason and Deborah Lanz, propose to build a second garage and second driveway on property located at 2809 Bronson Drive, legally described as: PID: 07-30 -23 -24-0068 EX N 225 FT; LOT 11 of SPRING LAKE PARK KNOLLS WHEREAS , the property is zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential, and guided Single- Family Detached in the Comprehensive Plan (2008). The City Code, Section 1121.09, subdivision 5(e) limits Single-Family uses to one curb cut access per property unless, upon application for a Variance of this restriction, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals finds that it is in the interest of public safety to waive such; and, WHEREAS , the Applicants’ Mother In-Law resides in the home, and has limited mobility. The intent of keeping the first (west) driveway is to allow the Mother In-Law to park on the driveway closest to the home’s side door. The close proximity, is in the interest of public safety; 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. 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 Variance is related to the following: Resolution 1105-19 Page 2 of 3 Residential 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. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. Finding: Retaining the second driveway is reasonable if temporary, and if to be removed once its need by a resident with limited mobility, is no longer necessary. 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: There are no unique circumstances to the property. There are unique circumstances to the property’s residents who have limited mobility. Allowing the Applicants to construct a second garage and driveway (east), while allowing the west driveway to remain, provides short proximity to the home’s side door entrance, and therefore is in the interest of public safety. 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. 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, Approves the request for a Second Driveway, with the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall remove the first (west) driveway (that portion within the front yard) within one year of the date that its resident with limited mobility, no longer resides on the property. Resolution 1105-19 Page 3 of 3 2. The property owner shall provide a $3,250 escrow to the City for the removal of the driveway apron and curb replacement. The City may hold this escrow in a non-interest bearing account, and refund it to the Applicant only when the Applicant removes the west curb-cut and apron, and restores the curb to City standards. 3. The property owner shall construct the second (east) driveway within one year of the date of this Variance, in compliance of City Code, Section 1125.02, Sub 5 (Lapse of Variance). Adopted this 7h day of August, 2019 ______________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair Attest: ______________________________ Jon Sevald, Community Development Director (Seal) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1105-19 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR A SECOND DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2809 BRONSON DRIVE (PLANNING CASE VR2019-003) WHEREAS , the applicants; Jason and Deborah Lanz, propose to build a second garage and second driveway on property located at 2809 Bronson Drive, legally described as: PID: 07-30 -23 -24-0068 EX N 225 FT; LOT 11 of SPRING LAKE PARK KNOLLS WHEREAS , the property is zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential, and guided Single- Family Detached in the Comprehensive Plan (2008). The City Code, Section 1121.09, subdivision 5(e) limits Single-Family uses to one curb cut access per property unless, upon application for a Variance of this restriction, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals finds that it is in the interest of public safety to waive such; and, WHEREAS , the Applicants’ Mother In-Law resides in the home, and has limited mobility. The intent of keeping the first (west) driveway is to allow the Mother In-Law to park on the driveway closest to the home’s side door; 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. Finding: The Variance is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Code. The intent is for every single-family home to have one driveway, not two driveways. b. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The Variance is related to the following: Resolution 1105-19 Page 2 of 3 Residential 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. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. Finding: It is unusual for a single-family home in Mounds View to have two driveways, and more unusual for a non-corner lot, or a lot not on a busy road, to have two driveways. The proposed second driveway is unreasonable. 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: There are no unique circumstances to the property. The home has three entrances. It is the Planning Commission’s opinion that the Applicant has not exhausted all options for locating the proposed garage and driveway such that it may provide ease of access into the house, without the need to keep the original (first) driveway. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Finding: The character of the neighborhood includes single-family homes with one driveway. The proposed second driveway is inconsistent with this character. 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. 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 , the Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission held a dully noticed Public Hearing on July 17, 2019; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, based upon the above findings, Resolution 1105-19 Page 3 of 3 the staff report, and in consideration of public testimony, Denies th e request for a Second Driveway. Adopted this 7th day of August, 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 July 17, 2019 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Mounds View Boulevard, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for July 17 , 2019. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Farmer, Klander, Monn, Nelson, Rundle, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner French. Also Present: Community Development Director Jon Sevald and Council Member Bill Bergeron. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page VR2019-003 Approval of a Variance to Allow a Second Driveway 1 Approval of Minutes 5 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Special Order of Business None. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. Public Hearing: Resolution 1105-19, Approval of a Variance to allow a Second Driveway at 2809 Bronson Drive (Planning Case VR2019-003) Mounds View Planning Commission July 17, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Sevald stated the applicant is proposing to build a second garage to be located in the east side yard, and is requesting a Variance to allow the existing driveway (second driveway) to remain, whereas the City Code limits single-family homes to one driveway. A Public Hearing Notice was published in the July 3, 2019 edition of the New Brighton-Mounds View Bulletin, and mailed to property owners within 350’ of the subject property. Staff provided further comment on the request, recommending that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and consider the Variance. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. Commissioner Monn asked why the second garage was being requested. She questioned if the applicant could build a garage larger than the home. Jason Lanz, 2809 Bronson Drive, explained he has four vehicles and he would like to have more space for his vehicles, as well as having additional storage space. He reported his Mother in-law moved into his home and he would like to keep a parking space for her directly adjacent to the home. Community Development Director Sevald explained residents were allowed to have up to three accessory structures on their property and the total square footage could not exceed 1800 square feet, noting no single accessory structure could exceed 952 square feet. Commissioner Monn inquired how tall the garage would be. Mr. Lanz reported the garage would be just under 18 feet. Commiss ioner Monn asked if the garage exterior would match the home. Mr. Lanz stated this was the case noting twin dormers would be added to the garage to match the house. Commissioner Monn questioned if the trees in the side yard would be impacted. Mr. Lanz explained the driveway would be placed in between the two oak trees. Commissioner Nelson requested further information on the raised pad area. Mr. Lanz stated this area used to be an underground pool and was now being used for storage of snowmobiels. He explained he was looking forward to installing the proposed garage as it would allow him to have more space in his backyard. Commissioner Monn inquired if the garage would be connected to the house. Mr. Lanz reported the garage would not be connected. Commissioner Rundle explained he did not object to the second driveway request noting the applicant had a lot of space in his yard for a second garage. Commissioner Nelson stated he understood the reasons behind wanting a second garage. However, he questioned if an additional garage could be added without the variance request. He Mounds View Planning Commission July 17, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ noted the extra garage could be added directly behind the house, while providing the mother-in- law with a parking space close to the home without requiring a second driveway. He commented he could not support the variance as requested. Chair Stevenson requested further information regarding the assurance or escrow that would be in place that the second driveway would go away at some point in the future. Community Development Director Sevald explained if a condition for approval would be for the City to collect an escrow that would provide for the replacement of the curb and apron when the need for the second driveway was no longer there. He commented further on the staff report and the history of previous variance requests. Chair Stevenson asked if the applicant had explored placing the second garage behind the house, or adding onto the existing garage. Mr. Lanz stated he did not want to tear down the existing garage. He commented he would lose all of his backyard if the garage were placed in this location. In addition, he would still have a single width drive, which led to a great deal of shifting vehicles around with his mother-in-law now living with him. Chair Stevenson questioned if the driveway could be made wider. Mr. Lanz indicated this would not be possible because it was already right on the property line and the concrete goes right up to the house. Commissioner Nelson stated he was struggling with the reasons why to approve the variance request when there were other solutions available for the garage placement. Commissioner Klander inquired what the escrow replacement amount would be. Community Development Director Sevald reported this had not yet been identified by staff, but estimated it would be between $1,000 and $2,000. Commissioner Klander stated he was sympathetic to the applicant and stated he would support having funds set aside in escrow to have the curbing replaced at some point in the future. Commissioner Nelson questioned how the second garage would be accessed if the curb and apron were removed in the future. Community Development Director Sevald stated the garage would be limited to storage once the curb and apron were removed. Commissio ner Monn indicated she agreed with Commissioner Nelson and she did not believe additional greenspace should be disturbed when the garage could be placed behind the house or added onto the existing garage. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Klander. To approve Resolution 1105-19, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance to allow a Second Driveway at 2809 Bronson Drive; Planning Case No. VR2019-003. Mounds View Planning Commission July 17, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Sevald reported this item would require a super majority (5 votes) of the Commission in order to be approved. Ayes – 4 Nays – 2 (Monn & Nelson) Motion failed. Community Development Director Sevald recommended the Commission make a motion to table or deny the variance. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Nelson. To approve Resolution 1105-19, a Resolution Recommending Denial of a Variance to allow a Second Driveway at 2809 Bronson Drive; Planning Case No. VR2019-003. Commissioner Klander stated he would not be voting to deny the request because he believed this was a reasonable request. MOTION/SECOND: Chair Stevenson/Commissioner Rundle. To Table Action on a Variance to allow a Second Driveway at 2809 Bronson Drive; Planning Case No. VR2019-003 to allow for more Commission members to be present. Ayes – 4 Nays – 2 (Monn & Nelson) Motion carried. Community Development Director Sevald explained this item would come back to the Commission for reconsideration on Wednesday, August 7th. Commissioner Farmer stated he would not be able to attend the August 7th meeting. He noted he supported the variance request because he believed it was a safety issue given the fact the existing driveway only provided single car access. Commissioner Rundle explained he could support the request because the home was located so close to the property line, had a very narrow driveway, and because the applicant had space on the side yard for a second garage. Further discussion ensued regarding the driveway and garage plac ement. Commissioner Klander stated he did not support a drive way running along the front of the house to the new garage. He supported money being placed in escrow and that the second driveway be removed within one year after the applicant’s mother -in-law was no longer living in the home. Chair Stevenson reported this item would be revisited on Wednesday, August 7th. ____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity None. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission July 17, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity Community Development Director Sevald discussed upcoming planning cases with the Commission. B. Staff Updates Community Development Director Sevald reported he had no updates at this time. C. Council Updates Council Member Bergeron explained the Council has not met since the last Commission meeting. D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 8. Approval of Minutes July 10, 2019. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Farmer. To approve the Minutes of the July 10 , 2019 regular Planning Commission meetings as presented. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, August 7, 2019 B. Wednesday, August 21, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission July 17, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald Community Development Director Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.