Loading...
1/13/2021 - Planning Commission - Regular - AgendasSPRING PARK onLake ;uinnrron,a • :► FEWWAY909-M, WWAX113011 CITY OF SPRING PARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA JANUARY 13, 2021— 6:00 PM SPRING PARK CITY HALL S. APPROVAL OF MINT JTFS a. November 18, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes b. December 16, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes 6. C'ONSTDFR ATION/DTSC'I JSSION ITEMS a. 3872 Northern Ave Variance Application i. Staff Presentation ii. Public Hearing iii. Discussion iv. Recommendation 99WONVA WIN [WAT4 11610M 8. MISCELLANEOUS a. Chair/Acting Chair Assignments nw.1191191BRIOUVAI s SPRING PARK On Lake 9Wnnetonka 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL CITY OF SPRING PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Hoffman, Mason, Avalos, Kaczanowski — Present Homan - Excused 4. ADOPT AGENDA NOVEMBER 18, 2020 — 6:00 PM SPRING PARK CITY HALL Motion to adopt agenda — M/Kaczanowski, S/Mason, All votes in favor. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. CONSIDERATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS a. 3822 Northern Avenue Variance i. Staff Presentation City Planner Al Brixius presents the variance request, stating that the critical issue under review is the lot width requirement of the City's zoning code. Brixius notes that the proposed lot split would create two lots with a width of roughly 49.5 feet and that the minimum required lot width of the code is 50 feet. Brixius comments that other than the lot width variance, all other standards would be met for the site including setbacks and that the proposed development would significantly enhance the existing conditions. ii. Public Hearing Motion made to open the public hearing at 6:15 pm — M/Kaczanowski, S/Mason, All votes in favor Motion made to close the public hearing at 6:15 pm with no comments from the public — M/Mason, S/Kaczanowski, All votes in favor iii. Discussion Commissioner Avalos remarked that he felt the City should be encouraging property owners to maintain larger lots instead of splitting them due to the prevalence of small lots already existing throughout the community. Hoffman agreed that larger lots are desirable, but noted that in this case the split lots will be just under the standard lot size of the City's code and that more importantly, the structures will meet all of the required setbacks, which he felt was a positive for the City. iv. Recommendation Motion made to recommend the variance application to the City Council for approval — M/Mason, S/Avalos, All votes in favor. 7. COMMUNICATIONS 8. MISCELLANEOUS 9. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn — M/Mason, S/Avalos, All votes in favor. SPRING PARK On Lake Minnetonka 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL CITY OF SPRING PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 16, 2020 — 6:00 PM SPRING PARK CITY HALL Present: Hoffman, Kaczanowski, Avalos, Mason Remote: Homan 4. ADOPT AGENDA Motion to adopt the agenda — M/Mason, S/Kaczanowski, All votes in favor. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. CONSIDERATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS a. 3946 Shoreline Drive Rezoning Staff Presentation City Planner Al Brixius introduced two discussion items for consideration and noted that the rezoning option would be the more far-reaching of the two options as it would establish the ability for a complete commercial redevelopment of the property at a future time. Brixius noted that alternatively, the interim use permit would require the property to continue to function as a residential lot, with the exception that the property would be allowed to operate a short- term rental as long as the conditions of the permit were met. Brixius also commented that the interim use permit gives the City a high degree of control regarding what is allowed to take place on the lot, as well as a process for revoking the permit if conditions of the permit are not met. ii. Public Hearing Motion made to open the public hearing at 6:17 pm — M/Avalos, S/Kaczanowski, All votes in favor. Ed Driscoll of 4012 Shoreline Drive, Eric Scar of 4016 Shoreline Drive, Eric Shaiman of the Mist Apartments, Gabriel Welker of Mound, and Christine Sherman of 3926 Del Otero all spoke in support of allowing Anton to continue short-term rental operations due to the high quality of management that Anton performs, and the additional economic impact that the community receives when visitors stay at the property and suppor local businesses. Mike Mason of 3950 Del Otero commented that there have been some notable events that have occurred at the property that have led to conflicts in the neighborhood and that some properties are more directly affected by the rental activities than others. Mason also pointed out that short-term rental was never a legal use in Spring Park. Motion made to close the public hearing at 7:08 pm — M/Avalos, S/Kaczanowski, All votes in favor. iii. Discussion Avalos asked Brixius if lodging would be allowed if the lot was rezoned commercial. Brixius noted that lodging is a legal permitted use for commercially zoned properties in Spring Park. Hoffman commented that if the property was rezoned that the lot could then potentially be sold and redeveloped as strictly a commercial site and that the City would have little ability to prevent that from happening. iv. Recommendation Motion made to recommend rezoning 3946 Shorelin Drive from R-1 to C-1 — M/Hoffman, S/Kaczanowski, All votes against. b. City Code Amendment - Interim Use Permit i. Staff Presentation ii. Public Hearing Motion made to open the public hearing at 7:13 pm — M/Avalos, S/Hoffman, All votes in favor. Motion made to close the public hearing at 7:14 pm — M/Avalos, S/Mason, All votes in favor. iii. Discussion iv. Recommendation Motion made to recommend approval of a code amendment to allow for interim use permits for short-term rentals — M/Hoffman, S/Avalos; Avalos, Kaczanowski, Homan in favor; Mason and Hoffman against. Motion passed 3-2. Motion made to recommend approval of interim use permit specifically for 3946 Shoreline Drive with modification of initial term from two years to one year — M/Hoffman, S/Avalos; Avalos, Kaczanowski, Homan in favor; Mason and Hoffman against. Motion passed 3-2. 7. COMMUNICATIONS 8. MISCELLANEOUS 9. ADJOURNMENT Motion made to adjourn the meeting at 7:43 pm — M/Avalos, S/Mason, All votes in favor. NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231 .2555 Facsimile: 763.231 .2561 planners anacplanning.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Dan Tolsma FROM: Alan Brixius / Daniel Elder DATE: January 4, 2021 RE: Spring Park — Variance request — Side yard setback; 3872 Northern Ave FILE NO: 175.01 — 20.11 PI D: 1711723330087 BACKGROUND: Ethan Kindseth of Alma Homes is applying on behalf of Sam & Rachel McNellis and is seeking a variance from the R-1 district side yard setback requirements for the single- family property located at 3872 Northern Ave. The variance is needed to remove the existing blighted single-family home and build a new single-family home with an attached garage. The property is located within an R-1, Single -Family and Two -Family Residential District. Attached for reference: Exhibit A: Applicant Narrative Exhibit B: Aerial Image Exhibit C: Current Building Exhibit D: Site Survey Exhibit E: Site Plan Exhibit F: Building Plans ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Existing Site Challenges As illustrated in Exhibit B this property is in a neighborhood of the city that presents a number of challenges due to the physical characteristics of the lots and adjacent streets and how it was originally platted. The applicant's lot area of 7,359 sq. ft. falls below the required lot area of 10,000 sq. ft. required in R-1 districts, and the 41.52 ft lot width does not meet the 50 foot lot width requirements. The house on the lot has fallen into a deteriorated condition that impacts the adjoining properties. The condition of the home requires its total removal rather than rehabilitation or renovation. This current request provides an opportunity for the removal of a blighted house and the private redevelopment of this lot. Setbacks and Lot Requirements: The following table outlines the R-1 District standards for lot area and setbacks compared against the existing conditions on the lot in question: R-1 District Existing Proposed: Compliant: Code: Conditions: Lot Requirements: Lot Area 10,000 sq. ft. 7,359 sq. ft. N / A No *Existing Single- Condition Family* Lot Width 50 ft. 41.52 ft. N / A No *Existing Condition Lot Coverage 30 percent 916 sq. ft. 2,100 sq. ft. Yes 12.45% 28.55% Setback Requirements: Existing Proposed Complaint Right -of -Way 30 ft. 30 ft 30 ft Yes Setback (approx.) Side Yard 10 ft. 11.9 ft. 7.9 ft. No Setback east Side Yard 10 ft. 9.7 ft. 7.5 No Setback west The table above shows the required amount of setback that a structure must meet in R- 1 districts, compared to the anticipated amount of setback that will be left after the construction of the home. The new home requires variances from the required side setback for both the west & east lot lines. VARIANCE REVIEW CRITERIA Section 42-165 of the Spring Park ordinance states that the purpose for establishing a variance process is to provide: Variances from the literal provisions of the chapter in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration not resulting from the actions of an individual, and where it is demonstrated that such variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the chapter. OA (a) In considering any request for a variance and in taking subsequent action, planning commission and the city council, serving as the board of adjustment and appeals, shall make a finding of fact that the granting of such variance will not: (1) Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. Staff Comment: The proposed construction that is taking place will not impact the supply of light and air to adjacent properties. (2) Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets. Staff Comment: The proposed use of the lot continues to be a permitted single-family detached home. The construction of a new home with an attached garage is not expected to increase traffic in the immediate area. (3) Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. Staff Comment: The redevelopment of the single family home will remove an unsafe and blight building. This effort will improve on public safety in the area and protect home values. (4) Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing to remove a blighted single- family home and construct a new home. The applicant's proposal will not diminish or impair property values and will only increase the values within the neighborhood. (5) Violate the intent and purpose of the city comprehensive plan. Staff Comment: This redevelopment project is consistent with the Spring Park 2040 Comprehensive Plan which states: Goal 3 "Encourage the private redevelopment of substandard, obsolete, or blighted properties. " The redevelopment of the property will allow for the removal of a blighted single-family home. This will provide a new home within the city, remove a hazardous condition, and protect the property values within the neighborhood. (b) A variance from the requirements of this chapter shall be permitted only when; the requested variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance 3 Finding: The construction a single-family detached home with an attached garage is a permitted use in an R-1 district within the City of Spring Park as stated in section 42-276 of the City code. The proposed single family home is a reasonable use of the property based on the zoning and adjoining land uses. Without variance the lot would lose the reasonable use of the lot. (c) No variance shall be granted that would allow any use that is not permitted in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. Finding: A house with an attached garage is an allowed uses in an R-1 district within the City of Spring Park as stated in section 42-276 of the City code. (d) A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance without a variance. Finding: The size and width of the parcel creates numerous challenges in the construction of a home without requiring a variance for the lot setbacks. The current property contains a blighted home which has non -conforming side -yard setbacks. The proposal is replacing the home with a new home which will improve the neighborhood. (e) Practical difficulties with this variance request are not solely related to economic considerations. Finding: The practical difficulties outlined in this report demonstrate that the variance request is not based solely on the economic consideration. The proposed variance will facilitate a redevelopment project needed to remove a blighted building and improve neighborhood conditions. RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing this application, staff has measured the variance request against the Spring Park's Code of Ordinances, as well as Minnesota State Statute 462.357 regarding Land Use Variances. Both documents require the City to make a finding that the variance allows for the reasonable use of the lot and that the variance is needed to overcome existing practical difficulties unique to the property. Based on the findings outlined in the report, staff finds that the proposed variance offers reasonable use of the property, and that practical difficulties unique to the property exist to warrant variance considerations. Based on this report's variance findings, staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a variance from the side yard setback requirements for the property at 3872 Northern Avenue with the following conditions. 1. Construction will not deviate from the site plan submitted to the City on 12/18/20 as part of the variance application. The approved side yard building setbacks 2 shall not be less than 7.5 feet from the side lot line. Eaves and stoops may encroach into the side yard setback provided they meet the zoning standards for permitted encroachments. Any change to the dimensions of the addition would be subject to a separate review. 2. Applicant shall submit a grading and drainage plan with the building permit. The house shall have gutters and downspouts to direct roof drainage away from adjoining properties. Any sump or drain tile outlets shall direct drainage away from adjoining lots. The grading and drainage plan must be approved by the City Engineer. 3. Hard cover associated with the new house and lot improvements shall not exceed 30% of the lot area. CC: Scott Qualle Ethan Kindseth Sam & Rachal McNellis 5 This is an extremely small lot. We are seeking to construct a new home with attached garage. The existing setback requirements put considerable constraint on this in light of the narrow lot lines. We are asking the City for an exception to the current 10' side yard setback requirements. This variance request is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Chapter and also consistent with the comprehensive plan. We believe that this approved variance would greatly improve the essential character of the locality and be an additional catalyst to increasing home values for the neighborhood. We are seeking a variance request for decreased side yard setback lines for the construction of a new home with attached garage. We are requesting 7'6" and 5"0" respectively on the side yard setbacks. Exhibit A • s i , v . jf w � ♦i r • ,. +. .+' •i tj' elk '.^' .� . . r - , - • . �w � . . 1 1 P r • W • AMP _,� !r•w�'-...__ ,.- f kr.'?, f•f .'fir � ��, ' -.:. :j '� , .y `�: •, fir- �,• �: ' e�' :,zfl RP 1<,A A Exhibit D ■ SURVEY LEGEND 1-1 Dl�l 1.1 1=1T xoo .I� 'IT _'l."T 'T � I=Z .1 L. T-1 I IE TT' Ux ZOO= T� Z=­ Z:m.1 =.—E �T r R N­ *l­ 11 ID TYPE OF SURVEY SPRING P K P So =7 i SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. SPRING PREPARED FOR PW— PARK, MINNESOTA ALMA HOMES, LLC I I r� a N IS� � � NYi'z9 ;1•E ' � v - sue, <+id 3 Iw llYi;N, v._ f1�a.!CT .. Ja .O, _ wi we. xw } ar-ene f x. P ribR��.�a / ,�.Yrrr,ar_ea,�a.rw•_r,RTn n r.er.r..wm...wwm..rY�a�..rrr.Yr•r.xr.�rw.s.....Y�ww.c�r xr x.lrnp„a wrwrx arwmrMena w�,rsann.W e.rrwelraw.MYaDNvm T VY'+MywP `risbemrWr w.�.Weem4a�..rOmrWw4Y,M.�y�.r.,Ya,a ,r w1y"_ lwtiwrw �r..w Ya Ae. Y.xrYrr.P r�r...ww:w:. e��.."wre� :wo'"r.Y�x,o�,o`a.r�,. �`..: :«,x�•wr...arr�we �L�eYt■R•ewf hr��BPb,m rr�i rM n v l�me� Yr 1�i, v. a� �eY I � I � rdn.ewaerlwur I�x Mery Yb°ew m. T ! R ! o T • .i�.r ■ 6�ir■+Yrm�M■ �� SURVEY LEGM riY!■�•tl ®c • x D D ® III ..x m Z of ® WD xwD D Exhibit E o xm ■ — — D PLACEMENT PROPOSED ELEVA—NS AND V ■ SKETCH ONLY GRADES DEPEND FIELD ON INFO --ON AND MAY CNANGe ® E3 ro o- e•�, x°v C m DDv�.c p• xEnu�D D,rscx ec, muywwmwY./ns,�nwPp.aym.mYgrv,r.Yiswwim..yiyr TYP:111 11 ,mYm cu,ena ���rewwr,p,la i,■waw�`i ee ••+A....bbrlllssY �.Y fll NO. _ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY m[oo,D •`°"rr'°! - $ SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. SPRING FOR REVIEW BY CLIENT -- -- - PREPARED FOR: ZZ t 2/1 silo 1R■S!M lOIO■1Y 'N.YUTA e•L!6■e p6l,n•a■p ,. PARK, MINNESOTA ALMA HOMES, LLC d. •s ram SQUARE F(N)TAGIi 8\SFNF.ST: \/t FIILSF Fl-k W SF SIX'IINFIFL M: I.WISF TMMAF: M9SF NN'Ni1ST"%' 1105F PLAN RECISIONS i 1. I?-114411-t:10.11lN:F. J. ]. a 9. 19. PlMlpl l FRONT ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION j•iQ� ZZ z ?G G/� C z z ILP-11 11H0= I I x BACKI?LI?b'/VrION _ LEFT ELEVATION Exhibit F SHIFT a gat#' r W UL L. 1' COPYRIGHT 2020 ALMA HOMES loF2 SQUARE. FOOTACE —Yl.-9 fifil RF ,V_"FI AwIR: IM SF TOT.{I.SF. &NSF .A IGi' QW F[RIVFIATRIK: 140SF PIAN RMSIONS 1. 2. 1. fi. A. 9. w. L 3 ucmcmor �-un� �..nm RROQ1 W IARMIMR®[OOY.S r �A RY w NALLYT ❑ o � � W IQOIROON [t(�1F SFOM 0 � lI: ®-. W� z ti . Iin n'fw+w.nocuwi:Pw�p OFR2 ■ �® MAIN LEVEL UPPER LEVEL d' Exhibit F SHEET COPYRIGHT 2020 ALMA HOMES 2 OF 2 PUBLIC HEARING City of Spring Park Planning Commission Meeting: January 13, 2021 Name Address �c 2Z4 ( �- vn) L 11�ve W' hV - 5D Mm9mDd u