Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-04-2019 PC Packet PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA September 4, 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 1106-19, Consideration of a Variance to reduce the side yard setback from 5’ to 3’ for a driveway, for property located at 8405 Red Oak Drive (Planning Case VR2019-004). 6. Other Planning Activity A. Boulevard Apartments – Discussion of Screening 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity B. Council Updates C. Planning Commissioner Reports 8. Approval of Minutes: A. August 7, 2019 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, September 18, 2019 B. Wednesday, October 2, 2019 10. Meeting Conclusion Item No: ___05A Meeting Date: Sep 4 , 2019 Type of Business: Planning Case VR2019 -004 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing: Resolution 1106-19, Consideration of a Variance to reduce the side yard setback from 5’ to 3’ for a driveway, for property located at 8405 Red Oak Drive (Planning Case VR2019-004). Introduction The Applicant, Tim Rodgers, is requesting a Variance to reduce the side yard setback for a driveway, from 5, to 3’. Discussion 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 setback1 to match that of the existing dirt driveway original to the house (1941). In June 2019, the applicant applied for a Zoning Permit to replace the dirt driveway. The request included a 0’ setback to match an existing concrete driveway (parking pad) in front of the garage (installed without a permit by the previous owner). The dirt driveway meandered some, but was generally within 1’ of the property line. The permit was approved, pending compliance with a 5’ setback, and provided options to apply for a Variance for a 0’ setback; or an Administrative Variance for a 3’ setback.2 In June, the applicant installed the driveway with a 5’ setback at the front, and a 3’ setback at the parking pad, and applied for an Administrative Variance. The Administrative Variance was preliminarily approved by the Community Development Director, conditioned upon no objections from adjacent property owners, and upon final review by the Planning Commission. The Commission considered the case at its July 10, 2019 meeting, voting 4 -1 to approve the review of the Administrative Variance. Because a super majority is required (5 of 7 Commissioners), the Motion failed, and the Administrative Variance was Denied. Upon denial, the Applicant had the option to apply for a regular Variance, and has done so. Analysis Driveways shall have a minimum side yard setback of 5’.3 Upon Staff’s review of similar cases since 2008, the Commission has approved 17 similar Variances, and has denied none. In June 1 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). 2 City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 6 (Administrative Variance). An Administrative Variance may be applied when; (1) the request is within 25% of code requirements, and does not result in a setback of less than 5’; or (2) the request is related to a pre-existing non-conforming driveway or curb cut. 3 City Code, Section 1104.01, Subd 4(b)1 (Driveways) Item 05A Page 2 of 9 2019, the Commission requested that Staff work on an amendment to reduce the 5’ setback requirement. It is Staff’s intent to incorporate this into its update of the Zoning Code (larger undertaking). 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. An alternative to a Variance is for the Applicant to remove a large tree, allowing an expansion of the driveway toward the house. Without a survey, and based only on aerial photos, the tree is approximately 15’ from the property line. If to be compliant with the 5’ setback, a 10’ driveway width would be very narrow. Please note that the application is for a 3’ setback, and does not address the existing parking pad, which appears to have a 0’ setback, and may encroach into the neighbor’s yard. The Resolution as written, would require the Applicant to remove that portion of the parking pad, to comply with a 3’ setback. Summary The Applicant installed a driveway with a 5’ setback in the front, and a 3’ setback in the rear, and is requesting a Variance to allow it to remain with a 3’ setback. A Public Hearing Notice was published in the New Brighton -Mounds View Bulletin on August 22, 2019, and mailed to neighboring property owners within 350’. Strategic Plan Strategy/Goal: N/A Financial Impact: N/A Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 1106-09, Approving a Variance to reduce the side yard from 5’ to 3’. Staff requests that the Commission conduct a Public Hearing, and consider the following options: 1. Approve Resolution 1106-19, Approving the Variance. 2. Deny Resolution 1106-19, with Findings 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 requirement (Deadline: October 15, 2019) the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Item 05A Page 3 of 9 A 2/3rd vote of the Commission (5 of 7 members) is required to approve a Variance.4 Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Jon Sevald, AICP Community Development Director Attachments 1. Applicant’s Narrative 2. Site Plan 3. Site Photos 4. Resolution 1103-19 4 City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 4(f) (Procedures) Item 05A Page 4 of 9 Applicant’s Narrative Item 05A Page 5 of 9 Site Plan Item 05A Page 6 of 9 Site Photos 8405 Red Oak Drive (photo August 29, 2019). 8405 Red Oak Drive. The parking pad is in the foreground. If Ramsey County aerial photos are accurate, the pad is approximately on the property line (photo August 29, 2019). Item 05A Page 7 of 9 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1106-19 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 5’ TO 3’ FOR A DRIVEAY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8405 RED OAK DRIVE WHEREAS , the applicant, Tim Rodgers, is requesting a 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 Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on September 4, 20109; 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 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. Item 05A Page 8 of 9 Finding: The identity of the neighborhood includes many mature trees along Red Oak Drive, and within yards. The property includes a mature oak tree located between the driveway and home. If not for the variance, the tree would likely need to be removed to allow a sufficiently wide driveway (one car wide). 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. It is reasonable for the driveway setback to match that of the driveway apron setback. 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 acting as the Board of Adjustment, based upon the above Findings, the staff report, and in consideration of public testimony, Approves of the Variance request to reduce the side yard setback from 5’ to 3’, with the following conditions: Item 05A Page 9 of 9 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 (November 4, 2019). 2. The property owner shall remove that portion of the retaining wall within the Red Oak Drive Right-of -Way within 60 days (November 4, 2019). 3. The applicant shall obtain a Zoning Permit if to expand the driveway, within one-year of the date of approval of this Variance, o r this variance sha ll become void, in compliance with Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 5 (Lapse of Variance or Appeal). Adopted this 4th day of September, 2019 ______________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair Attest: ______________________________ Jon Sevald, Community Development Director (Seal) Item No : 06A Meeting Date: Sep 4 , 2019 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Discussion – Boulevard Apartments Screening Discussion: The Boulevard Apartments is being constructed at the corner of Mounds View Boulevard and Groveland Road, and is nearing completion. As part of the approved Development Review1, a 6’ cedar privacy fence is to be installed along the eastern property line with the intent of providing screening for homes along Groveland Road. The fence was a topic of discussion by the Planning Commission (August 16, 2017). A portion of the eastern property line is heavily wooded. Many trees will need to be removed in order to install the fence. Because the parking lot is at a higher elevation than the eastern property line, the fence would provide minimal screening compared to if the trees remained as- is. There are two alternatives: 1. Locate the fence on the west side of the woods (e.g. do not follow the property line). Doing so, preserves the woods as-is. The fence would act as a deterrent to trespass. 2. The Developer to meet with adjacent property owners, and mutually agree on the type of screening to be installed , likely a combination of fencing in open areas, and trees/shrubs in more wooded areas. With Development Reviews, Staff has some leeway to interpret what is and is not consistent with the approved plans. In this case, how things look on paper and how they look in person are entirely different, thus, Staff is requesting guidance from the Planning Commission. Recommendation: Staff recommends Alternative Two; for the Developer and the adjacent property owners (8020, 8040, 8060, 8080 Groveland Road, and 2925 Mounds View Boulevard) to mutually agree where a fence and/or additional trees (or tree-sized shrubs) should be planted for screening. It is Staff’s preference that any change to the Site Plan be handled administratively, meaning, the Development Review (Resolution 8778) would not be formally amended. Respectfully submitted Jon Sevald, AICP Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS Site Photos 1 Resolution 8778 (Development Review); Condition 1: “The applicant, MWF Properties, LLC, shall construct the project consistent with the December 1, 2017 plan set, inclusive of "Boulevard Mounds View, Minnesota Issued for: City Resubmittal ", dated December 1, 2017, and architectural plans, dated November 8, 2017.” The December 1, 2017 plan set identifies a 6’ tall cedar fence to be installed along the shared property lines of 8020, 8030, and 8040 Groveland Road. Item 06A Page 2 of 4 The Mounds View Vision A Thriving Desirable Community Site Photos View from storm water infiltration basin, looking north at the side yard of 8020 Groveland Road. The Site Plan identifies a 6’ cedar fence to be installed along the side yard (dashed line is approximate property line) (photo Aug 30, 2019). View from 3rd floor, east corner unit, looking NE at the back yard of 8020 Groveland Road (dashed line is approximate property line) (photo Aug 30, 2019). Item 06A Page 3 of 4 The Mounds View Vision A Thriving Desirable Community View from 3rd floor, west corner unit, looking east toward the back yards of 8030/8040 Groveland Road (photo Aug 30, 2019). View from 3rd floor, west co rner unit, looking NE toward backyard of 8060 Groveland Road (dashed line is approximate property line) (photo Aug 30, 2019). Item 06A Page 4 of 4 The Mounds View Vision A Thriving Desirable Community View from NW property corner shared with 8060 Groveland Road (dashed line is approximate property line) (photo Aug 30, 2019). DRAFT PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting August 7, 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 August 7, 2019. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Klander, Monn, Nelson, Rundle, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioners French and Farmer. Also Present: Community Development Director Jon Sevald and Council Member Bill Bergeron. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Resolution 1105-19 Consideration of a Variance to allow a Second 2 Driveway at 2809 Bronson Drive Approval of Minutes 6 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Special Order of Business None. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. Resolution 1105-19, Consideration of a Variance to allow a Second Driveway at 2809 Bronson Drive (Planning Case VR2019-003) Community Development Director Sevald stated the applicants, Jason and Deborah Lanz, own the property at 2809 Bronson Drive, consisting of a single-family home and detached garage. Mr. Lanz 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. It was noted a 2/3’s majority vote of the Commissioners (5 of 7) is required to approve a Variance. 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 a n opportunity for the full Commission to comment. Staff does not have a recommendation on this Planning Case. It is Staff’s opinion that there is nothing unique about the property to warrant a second driveway. There may be unique circumstances related t o 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. Commissioner Monn asked how many feet were between the proposed garage and the property line. Community Development Director Sevald explained there would be eight feet and noted the minimum setback was five feet. Commissioner Monn questioned if the property had been recently surveyed. J ason Lanz, 2809 Bronson Drive, reported he knew roughly where the stakes were for his property. Commissioner Monn inquired if the applicant would be installing another concrete driveway. Mr. Lanz indicated he was not proposing to install any concrete in the back yard. Chair Stevenson asked if the applicant had retho ught the plans to include the second driveway. Mr. Lanz stated the only thoughts he had was to keep the original driveway in place and to have a driveway run in front of his house to the second garage. He explained he was not interested in placing a driveway through his rear yard. He indicated there was no easy solution in order to meet the needs of his mother-in-law and the needs of his family. Chair Stevenson requested staff review the City requirements if the variance were approved for the second driveway. Community Development Director Sevald explained the applicant would be required to remove the second driveway entrance when the mother -in-law was no longer living at the home while also placing $3,250 in escrow. In addition, the applicant would have to construct the second driveway within one year. Commissioner Nelson stated he was very conflicted with this request. He anticipated it would be difficult for the City to enforce these requirements. He commented there may be other solutions available to the applicant that would not require a variance. He indicated he did not want to set a precedent if this request were approved. He stated at this time he would not be able to support the variance for a second driveway. Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Klander indicated the request could be viewed as a temporary solution for the homeowners. He anticipated the second driveway would not be in place 20 to 30 years down the road. He reported the City would have an escrow in place to ensure the second curb cut was replaced. He commented further on the importance of accessibility for residents. He noted he could support the request before the Commission. Chair Stevenson asked if a time limit could be put in place to require staff or the Planning Commission to revisit the is sue. Commissioner Monn stated she would want more than just the escrow in place given the tremendous loss of green space that would occur on this property. She wanted to see a stipulation put in place to require the applicant to return the second drive way to greenspace after the mother-in-law was no longer living in the home. Chair Stevenson supported this recommendation and questioned if the Commission could put a time limit on the second curb cut. Mr. Lanz stated he supported having to provide the City with an escrow, but he believed the amount was too high. He indicated he could support the City putting a time limit on the second curb cut in order to assess if it was still needed. He explained he would not keep the second driveway in place after his mother-in-law was no longer living in the home and would therefore remove the concrete in order to create more greenspace. Community Development Director Sevald reported the curb replacement was estimated to cost $2,000. The escrow would add a 5% co mpounded interest over ten years, equaling $3,250. Mr. Lanz stated he was more comfortable with the escrow amount being $2,000. Commissioner Nelson encouraged the applicant to approach the City in a timely manner when the second curb cut was no longer needed. The Commission supported setting a two-year time limit on the second curb cut, or such a time when it was no longer needed. Mr. Lanz commented further on the uniqueness of his property and situation and encouraged the Commission to consider his case separately from potential future requests. Chair Stevenson suggested two stipulations be put in place if the variance were approved to require all of the driveway in front of the house to be removed and returned to greenspace after the second curb cut was no longer needed and that the property be revisited by staff every two years, to see if the second driveway was still needed. He recommended the front driveway be removed within one year of the apron being removed. Community Development Director Sevald stated the Commission could add these stipulations to the Resolution. Community Development Director Sevald asked if the Commission wanted to reduce the escrow amount from $3,250 to $2,000. Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson suggested the amount be lowered and that the amount be revisited in two years. Community Development Director Sevald recommended the escrow amount be set at this time and not be increased in the future. Commissioner Klander commented he supported the escrow amount being lowered to $2,000. Commissioner Nelson asked if the driveway situation would have to be fixed prior to the home being sold. He suggested this be made a stipulation for approval. Community Development Director Sevald reported variances run with the property and not the prope rty owner. He discussed the process the City could follow to remove the second curb cut in the future if the property were sold. Community Development Director Sevald reviewed the Resolution noting the following conditions as proposed by the Commission: 1. Every two years staff will confirm with the property owner that the individual with mobility challenges still resides on the property. 2. The applicant shall remove the first (west) driveway, that portion within the front yard, within one year of the date the resident with mobility challenges no longer resides on the property. 3. The property owner will provide the City with a $2,000 escrow for removal of the driveway apron and to replace the curb. The City may hold this escrow in a non-interest bearing account and will refund it to the applicant only when the applicant removes the west driveway and restores it to greenspace. 4. The property owner shall construct the east (second) driveway within one year after the date of the variance in compliance with City Code. Chair Stevenson stated he supported the proposed conditions. Commissioner Nelson indicated he supported the conditions as listed by staff. Commissioner Monn stated she would still like to see the new garage placed next to the existing garage. She did not believe the new garage location was proper or ethical. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Klander. To approve Resolution 1105-19, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance as amended for a Second Driveway at 2809 Bronson Drive; Planning Case No. VR2019-003. Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Monn opposed) Community Development Director Sevald reported the variance did not pass because a super majority vote of the Commission was required to approve the variance. Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Commission Monn stated she had concerns with restoration of the first driveway. Community Development Director Sevald indicated the driveway and apron would have to be restored to greenspace once removed. Commissioner Monn commented with this item now clarified she could su pport the request. Commissioner Klander suggested Commissioner Monn make a motion to reconsider the Resolution. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Monn/Commissioner Rundle. To reconsider Resolution 1105-19, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance as amended by conditions for a Second Driveway at 2809 Bronson Drive; Planning Case No. VR2019 -003 and also requiring the applicant to restore the west driveway and apron to greenspace. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 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 provided the Commission with an update from staff. He explained the City was currently in the mandatory six-month review period for the Comprehensive Plan. He indicated the goal would be to have the Comprehensive Plan back to the City in November for final approval. Commissioner Monn stated she supported local high school students being involved in City government. C. Council Updates Council Member Bergeron provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He explained the Council discussed CCTV, charitable gambling in the community, the fire department budget, rain gardens and rental licenses at a recent worksession meeting. H e reported the YMCA’s Youth in Government would be contacted this fall to see if there was Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ interest in serving on the City’s Commissions. He noted the Skyline Motel would be burned later this month. He was happy to report the splash pad opened last Frida y. He thanked all residents who participated in National Night Out on Tuesday, August 6 th. D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 8. Approval of Minutes July 17, 2019. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Nelson/Chair Stevenson. To approve the Minutes of the July 17, 2019 regular Planning Commission meetings as presented. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, August 21, 2019 B. Wednesday, September 4, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:14 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald Community Development Director Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.