03-27-2002 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

size and may be prohibited. The Report's suggestion in Exhibit D and elsewhere that accessory structures which fall within the 1,500 square foot limit are "oversized" is simply contrary to the Code. The City regulates the issues of overcrowding and compatibility by limiting the total combined square footage of accessory garage structures, the ratio of the square footage to the rear yard area and set backs requirements. The City's Code does not establish any definition or standard of "oversized garage" which allows the City to prevent accessory buildings which fall within the ratios, limits and setback requirements of Section 903,020 of the Zoning Code. The Report also attempts to support its definition of `oversized garage" by reference to "neighborhood scale and character" or "property scale and character." These factors may not be considered in whether to grant a CUP for an accessory building under the Little Canada Zoning Code. The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that "where a zoning ordinance specifies standards for the approval of a special use permit which an applicant has fully complied with, a denial of the permit is arbitrary as a matter of law. Metro 500 Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park, 211 N.W.2d 358, 361 (Minn. 1973). The control of uses within a zone must bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare. Metro 500, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park, 211 N. W.2d at 363. Mere "aesthetic concerns" of neighboring landowners do not constitute a sufficient basis for denying a CUP. Luger v. City of Burnsville, 295 N. W.2d 609, 612 -613 (Minn, 1980). Neither is the mere aesthetic concern of a consultant which may agree with some of that opposition a basis for such denial. It is clear from the Report that "oversized garage" merely reflect its author's subjective aesthetic bias. The consultant's subjective "aesthetic concerns" are not a basis for denying a CUP for an accessory building under the Little Canada Zoning Code. Whether the Mentes proposed accessory garage is "oversized" so as to warrant denial of the CUP can only be based upon the standards of the accessory garage ordinance, Little Canada Zoning Code Section 903.020. Since the Mentes structure meets all Code requirements, the City Council must approve the CUP as recommended by the Planning Commission. B. City Staff Lacked Authority to Retain Consultant at Expense of Applicants Without Consent of Applicants Mr. and Mrs. Mentes object to the retention of Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. as outside experts by City Staff without their consent and at their expense to comment on the CUP. Little Canada Zoning Code 921.010 Item D provides: The Planning Commission and City staff shall have the authority to request additional information from the applicant concerning operational factors or to retain expert testimony with the consent and at the expense of the applicant concerning operational factors. said information to be declared necessary to establish performance conditions in relation to all pertinent sections of this Ordinance.(emphasis added). This section only authorizes the City staff to retain outside experts consultants with the consent of the applicant and then only to comment upon "operational factors." Expert testimony" does not mean 4