The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-09-07 PC Packet PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA September 7, 2022 – 6:30 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 1151-22; Variance to height of an Accessory Building, 5048 Greenwood Drive 6. Other Planning Activity A. 7. Approval of Minutes: August 17, 2022 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, September 21, 2022 (canceled) B. Wednesday, October 5, 2022 10. Adjournment The Mounds View Vision A Thriving Desirable Community Item No: 05A Meeting Date: Sep 7, 2022 Type of Business Planning Case Planning Case VR2022-002 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 1151-22; Variance to height of an Accessory Building, 5048 Greenwood Drive Introduction: The applicant proposes to build a 24’ X 24’ detached garage, 18’-6” in height, whereas the City Code has a height restriction of 18’.1 Discussion: The property is located at 5048 Greenwood Drive; northwest corner of Greenwood Drive and County Road H. Within the R-1 district, each property is permitted one driveway2. The Home’s driveway is on Greenwood Drive. Access to the new garage may be via County Road H, but it cannot have a second driveway (can drive over grass). Therefore, use of this garage cannot be for vehicles used on a regular basis.3 The garage is intended for a pop-up camper and lawnmower. The proposed garage shall have a roof pitch similar in character and style of the roof of the house.4 The house has a 6/12 and 5/12 roof pitch. The proposed garage will have an 8/12 roof pitch, and will accommodate an attic with a 6’-6” ceiling. Analysis: Variances may be approved by the Planning Commission, only if meeting criteria5: (1) The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter; (2) The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; (3) The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter or the city code; (4) 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 chapter 1 City Code §160.056(C)(6); Area and Building Size Regulations; Height Limitations. The height of any accessory building or structure shall not exceed 18 feet or that of the principal structure, whichever is less. 2 City Code §160.388(5); Stall, Aisle and Driveway Design; Curb cuts and driveway openings; Single-family uses and zero lot line subdivided lots shall be limited 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. 3 City Code §160.087(8) Accessory Uses; If any accessory building is to be utilized for the storage of frequently- used vehicles, it shall be serviced by an improved driveway so as to control dust, drainage and erosion, according to the requirements as set forth in §152.999 of this code of ordinances. 4 City Code §160.087(9) Accessory Uses; The roof of all accessory buildings (excluding carports) exceeding 250 square feet in size shall: (a) Match or be similar to the character and style of the roof of the principal structure; and (b) Have a pitch or slope of at least 2-12. 5 City Code §160.466(B); Criteria for Granting Variances Item 05A Page 2 of 7 The Mounds View Vision A Thriving Desirable Community has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; (5) The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; (6) The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties Strategic Plan Strategy/Goal: Continue BR&E program, maximize utilization of development space and current list of available sites, encourage landowners to maintain their properties, & consider residential development. Financial Impact: N/A Recommendation: Staff does not have a recommendation. In Staff’s opinion, the application meets all criteria but #4 (unique circumstances). The garage roof pitch can be reduced. On the other hand, it is unlikely that anyone will notice that the garage is 6” taller than allowed without a Variance (e.g. does it matter?). In the Resolutions, the 6” Variance has been rounded to 1’. Attached are Resolutions for Approval, and Denial. Note: the aerial photo suggests that the applicant’s fence is on the neighbor’s property. The applicant will need to locate property pins or have the property surveyed prior to construction. Additionally, the garage cannot be located within an easement. A Public Hearing notice was published in the Shoreview Press on August 16, 2022, and mailed to property owners within 350’. Staff received calls from two residents (same household) opposed to the Variance due in principle that variances should not be granted to anyone. Exceeding what is permitted may have a negative impact on property values. Respectfully, Jon Sevald, AICP Community Development Director ATTACHED: Aerial Photo Site Plan Floor Plan & Elevation Photos Resolution 1151-22 (Approval) Resolution 1151-22 (Denial) Application Application Complete 60-Days 120-Days Variance Aug 8, 2022 Aug 19, 2022 Oct 19, 2022 Dec 19, 2022 Item 05A Page 3 of 7 The Mounds View Vision A Thriving Desirable Community Aerial Photo Item 05A Page 4 of 7 The Mounds View Vision A Thriving Desirable Community Site Plan Item 05A Page 5 of 7 The Mounds View Vision A Thriving Desirable Community Floor Plan & Elevation Item 05A Page 6 of 7 The Mounds View Vision A Thriving Desirable Community Photos 5048 Greenwood Drive, looking northwest along Co Rd H (photo August 29, 2022) 5048 Greenwood Drive, looking north from Co Rd H into backyard (photo August 29, 2022) Item 05A Page 7 of 7 The Mounds View Vision A Thriving Desirable Community 5048 Greenwood Drive (backyard), looking east-northeast (photo by applicant) 5048 Greenwood Drive (backyard), looking north (photo provided by applicant) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1151-22 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ACCESSORY BUILDING HEIGHT, FROM 18-FEET TO 19-FEET, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5048 GREENWOOD DRIVE (Planning Case VR2022-002) WHEREAS , the applicant, John Ellis, has applied for a Variance to increase the maximum Accessory Building height, from 18’ to 18’-6”, on property located at 5048 Greenwood Drive, legally described as: PID: 07-30 -23 -44-0117 That part of the South ½ of the South ½ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 7, Township 30 North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Section 7; thence North 10 rods; thence West 16 rods; thence South 10 rods; thence East 16 rods to point of beginning, except the east 152.24 feet thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situated in Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS , The Mounds View City Code §160.087(A)(2) states that Accessory Buildings shall not exceed 18’ in height, or that of the principal structure, whichever is less; and, WHEREAS , the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on September 7, 2022. A Public Hearing notice was published in the Shoreview Press on August 16, 2022, and mailed to property owners within 350’ of the subject property; and, WHEREAS , a variance to the provisions of Chapter 160 (Zoning) may be issued by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, or in the case of an administrative variance, by the Director of Community Development as explained in §160.470 of this chapter, to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the code imposes practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of property owner’s land. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. No variances shall be granted that would allow any use that is not allowed in the zoning district in which the subject property is located; and, WHEREAS , A variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist (Findings in italics); 1. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter; Resolution 1151-22 Page 2 of 3 Finding: The proposed Accessory Building is a permitted use, but for the height exceeding 18’. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; Finding: The variance to Accessory Building height is not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter or the city code. Finding: The proposed Accessory Building height (19’) is reasonable. 4. 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 chapter has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Finding: The home was built in 2012 with a roof pitch of 5/12, and 6/12 according to building plans. The proposed detached garage will have a roof pitch of 8/12. The Unique circumstance is the desire for the detached garage to be similar in character to the house (e.g. gable roof with a similar roof pitch). 5. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; Finding: The 19’ tall Accessory Building will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The garage will be similar in height to what “could” be built elsewhere in th e neighborhood. 6. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties Finding: The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. 7. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefitted by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this chapter or to reduce or minimize the effect of the 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 Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, based upon the above Findings, the Staff Report, and in consideration of public testimony, APPROVEDS a Variance to increase the maximum height of Resolution 1151-22 Page 3 of 3 an Accessory Building, from 18’ to 19’ (the requested 18’-6” is rounded up to the nearest foot), on property located at 5048 Greenwood Drive, with the following conditions; 1. The Accessory Building (garage) shall comply with all Building and Zoning codes (e.g. shall not be located in an easement, and shall comply with minimum setbacks). 2. The Applicant shall obtain a Building Permit within one year of the date of this Variance unless an extension is granted, or approval of this Variance shall become null and void, consistent with Mounds View City Code §160.469 Lapse of Variance or Appeal). Adopted this 7th day of September, 2022. Gary Rundle, Chair Attest: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director (Seal) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1151-22 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ACCESSORY BUILDING HEIGHT, FROM 18-FEET TO 19-FEET, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5048 GREENWOOD DRIVE (Planning Case VR2022-002) WHEREAS , the applicant, John Ellis, has applied for a Variance to increase the maximum Accessory Building height, from 18’ to 18’-6”, on property located at 5048 Greenwood Drive, legally described as: PID: 07-30-23-44-0117 That part of the South ½ of the South ½ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 7, Township 30 North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Section 7; thence North 10 rods; thence West 16 rods; thence South 10 rods; thence East 16 rods to point of beginning, except the east 152.24 feet thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situated in Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS , The Mounds View City Code §160.087(A)(2) states that Accessory Buildings shall not exceed 18’ in height, or that of the principal structure, whichever is less; and, WHEREAS , the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on September 7, 2022. A Public Hearing notice was published in the Shoreview Press on August 16, 2022, and mailed to property owners within 350’ of the subject property; and, WHEREAS , a variance to the provisions of Chapter 160 (Zoning) may be issued by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, or in the case of an administrative variance, by the Director of Community Development as explained in §160.470 of this chapter, to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the code imposes practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of property owner’s land. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. No variances shall be granted that would allow any use that is not allowed in the zoning district in which the subject property is located; and, WHEREAS , A variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist (Findings in italics); 1. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter; Resolution 1151-22 Page 2 of 3 Finding: The proposed Accessory Building is a permitted use, but for the height exceeding 18’. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; Finding: The variance to Accessory Building height is not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter or the city code. Finding: The proposed Accessory Building height (19’) is reasonable. 4. 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 chapter has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Finding: There are no unique circumstances. The proposed Accessory Building (detached garage) includes an 8/12 roof pitch with the intent of accommodating an attic with a 6’-6” interior height. An 18’ building height can be obtained by changing the roof trusses to a shallower pitch, resulting in decreasing the planned attic interior height. The MN Building Code has no height requirements for garage attics. 5. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; Finding: The 19’ tall Accessory Building will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The garage will be similar in height to what “could” be built elsewhere in the neighborhood. 6. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties Finding: The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. 7. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefitted by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this chapter or to reduce or minimize the effect of the 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 Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, based upon the above Findings, the Staff Report, and in Resolution 1151-22 Page 3 of 3 consideration of public testimony, DENIES a Variance to increase the maximum height of an Accessory Building, from 18’ to 19’ (the requested 18’-6” is rounded up to the nearest foot), on property located at 5048 Greenwood Drive. Adopted this 7th day of September, 2022. Gary Rundle, 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 August 3, 2022 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Mounds View Boulevard, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Rundle at 6:30 p.m. for August 3, 2022. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Curtis, Farmer, Munson, Nelson, Rundle, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner French. Also Present: Community Development Director Jon Sevald, Mayor Carol Mueller, Council Member Gary Meehlhause, Council Member Al Hull, City Administrator Nyle Zikmund, and Assistant City Administrator Brian Beeman. Index to Minutes Page Long Lake Cove Discussion 2 YardHomes Discussion 3 Multi-Family Residential Zoning Discussion 4 Approval of Minutes 5 3. Special Order of Business None. Mounds View Planning Commission August 3, 2022 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. Mounds View Planning Commission August 3, 2022 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. Long Lake Cove Discussion Community Development Director Sevald stated a plat application has been submitted for Long Lake Cove; 7700 Long Lake Road (NW corner of Long Lake Road & County Road I), to include eight townhome units (two 2-unit buildings, and one 4-unit building). A Sketch Plan (7 units) was reviewed by the City Council at its March 7, 2022 Work Session. The Council’s consensus was to proceed with the development application, and to amend the City Code as necessary to maximize the number of units that could fit on the lot. The plans are not ready for action by the Planning Commission. However, since the Commission is meeting, this is an opportunity to provide preliminary comments/recommendations for the developer’s benefit. Ford Wagner, 610 Larpenteur Avenue East in St. Paul, introduced himself to the Commission and explained he was available for comments or questions regarding Long Lake Cove. Commissioner Farmer asked if this project had to be a PUD in order to move forward. Community Development Director Sevald reported this was the case, in order to get the requested number of units. Commissioner Farmer questioned why the City had a three acre minimum for PUD’s. Community Development Director Sevald commented it was originally five acres and the standard was reduced to three acres. He explained the City should consider reducing it to one acre or zero -acres. Commissioner Stevenson suggested the City set the minimum for PUD’s to one acre. The consensus of the Commission is to support setting the minimum lot size for PUD’s to one acre. Commissioner Nelson suggested the density per acre for this project be no higher than eight units per acre. Commissioner Stevenson stated he could support up to ten units per acre. The consensus of the Commission was to support up to ten units per acre for the single-family attached zoning district. Commissioner Munson requested the trees on this lot be protected as much as possible. Mr. Wagner stated this would be his intention. He commented further on how he would be working to create a development that blended in with the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Curtis questioned if the townhouses would have decks or patio areas. Community Development Director Sevald reported the Commission would have to further consider this because decks would encroach into an easement. Mounds View Planning Commission August 3, 2022 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Munson stated she appreciated how the end units were being maximized. She anticipated these would be very desirable units for future tenants. Further discussion ensued regarding the size of the yards for the proposed townhomes. Community Development Director Sevald thanked the Commission for their input and noted these plans would come back to the Planning Commission at a future meeting. 6. Other Planning Activity A. Yard Homes Discussion Community Development Director Sevald stated YardHomes is a manufacturer of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), based in New Brighton. YardHomes requested to provide a presentation to the City Council, who redirected them to the Planning Commission with the intent of a joint - discussion. Nicole Deemer, YardHomes representative, introduced herself and her company’s product to the Commission. She explained YardHomes creates accessory dwelling units (ADU’s) also known as granny flats or tiny homes. She reviewed a PowerPoint presentation with the Commission and commented on the number of communities that allowed ADU’s. She exp lained YardHomes had a display room in New Brighton. She commented on the solar panels that can be installed on the ADU’s noting the units were very energy efficient. She discussed several different villages that YardHomes was working on for seniors and vets and described how intergenerational living was becoming more common in Minnesota. She invited the Commission to visit the YardHomes showroom and to further consider adopting an ADU ordinance. Commissioner Farmer asked how expense it was to hook an ADU up to City sewer. Ms. Deemer explained her units were typically $160,000 and this included the cost of the sewer hookup. Commissioner Curtis requested further information regarding the communities that are being built in Minnesota. Ms. Deemer discussed the senior ADU community that was being constructed in Zumbrota and Faribault. She noted she was also working on a veterans village in St. Paul. She explained how the ADU’s have been a positive transition space for veterans struggling with PTSD. Commissioner Nelson questioned if a common space or community room would be included in each of the ADU communities. Ms. Deemer stated this was being proposed. Commissioner Nelson believed the proposed ADU’s provided the City with a number of unique opportunitie s for additional housing in the community. Mounds View Planning Commission August 3, 2022 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Farmer commented on how valuable the school district is to Mounds View and he appreciated how ADU’s would provide more vitality to the community. He stated it will be very interesting to see how ADU’s impact property values over time. Commissioner Curtis discussed how his block was turning over from elderly to young families. He anticipated that there was a need for additional housing options for aging seniors. The consensus of the Commission was to direct staff to draft an ADU ordinance. In addition, the Commission agreed to visit YardHomes on Wednesday, August 17 at 6:30 p.m. B. Multi-Family Residential Zoning Discussion Community Development Director Sevald asked the Commission if twin homes and/or townhomes should be permitted in Single Family neighborhoods. If yes, options are to rezone from R -1 to R-2 (standard practice), or allow two family or multi-family dwellings in the R-1 district as a permitted use (e.g. Minneapolis permits three-unit homes anywhere single-family homes are permitted). There are a number of lots in the R-1 district that are vacant, or double lots, or large but not large enough to subdivide. Periodically, staff receive inquiries if these lots can have a twinhome (duplex) or townhome, or apartment. However, there are several examples where lots are zoned for two-family homes fronting streets in single-family neighborhoods. The general intent of zoning is to separate non-compatible land uses. This separation of zones serves “to protect the public health, safety, and welfare”, but arguably segregates different types of families and households. Commissioner Nelson stated this was an interesting concept noting the Commission was being asked what to allow people to build on their property. Chair Rundle commented on how developers would not propose to build units that were not going to sell. Further discussion ensued regarding the rising price of homes in the metro area and how there was a growing need for single level homes. Commissioner Farmer questioned if it was common to rezone from R-1 to R-2. Community Development Director Sevald stated this has occurred in the past but was not very common. He stated if a rezoning were to occur each project would be considered on a case by case basis. Commissioner Stevenson reported the last R-2 property in Mounds View was the Johnson property and this property had been developed [into Boulevard Apartments]. Chair Rundle stated he would support twinhomes in the R-1 zoning district. Mounds View Planning Commission August 3, 2022 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Approval of Minutes April 20, 2022. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Curtis/Commissioner Munson. To approve the Minutes of the April 20, 2022 regular Planning Commission meetings as presented. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 8. 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. C. Council Updates Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He explained the Council had discussed the Town Hall meeting and due to poor attendance and the amount of staff time involved in planning this event, the Council would be discontinuing this event for the time being. He reported the City received the potential Community Center analysis from CSL and noted the Council would be discussing the study further at the September worksession meeting. He indicated the Council was in the midst of discussing the 2023 budget. He commented further on a report the Council had received from the SBM Interim Fire Chief. It was noted the Council closed on the sale of the Skyline Motel property and work had begun on the new MWF development. The themes for the Council’s strategic plan through 2025 was discussed. D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, August 17, 2022 – Tour of YardHomes B. Wednesday, September 7, 2022 Mounds View Planning Commission August 3, 2022 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Rundle adjourned the meeting at 8:26 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald Community Development Director Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther Minute Maker Secretarial