06-21-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Kaluziak stated granting the variance would have no effect upon the public. Approval of this variance does not conflict with any state regulations. Courts have found that an area variance poses a lesser threat to the integrity of the zoning scheme than those of use variances. Mr. Kaluziak pointed out the primary objectives of area zoning are to promote uniformity of development, lot size, building configuration and building size. Mr. Slabiak’s property has special conditions and uniqueness that distinguish it from others in the area including oversized lot area, the underdeveloped area to the east, existing vegetative cover and unusual lot dimensions. The property has a unique setting in its environment. In October, 2005, the City rezoned the nearby 72- acre Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course land from “Recreational” to “Business” without prior inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. The sale of this land was done to allow Medtronic, Inc. to construct a 1,200,000 square foot campus. The City determined this rezoning created no adverse effect and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed variance is not inconsistent with the spirit of the ordinance, as it would provide a more uniform density within the R-1 zones in Mounds View. Also, the Planning Commission stated the intent of the 1,800 square foot limit on accessory structures was intended to prohibit commercial vehicle maintenance in residential areas. The proposed structure will not have a driveway and will not be used for vehicle maintenance. Mr. Kaluziak affirmed, in this case, there may not be a clear relationship between the purpose of the existing zoning ordinance and the specific regulation. He notes that the Slabiak lot is 2.7 times the minimum lot sized required by local zoning ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed structure would actually provide a more uniform density of R-1 zoned lots within the city as described by the Comprehensive Plan and the majority of other R-1 residences in the City. Mr. Kaluziak pointed out that zoning ordinances must be reasonable, not arbitrary and must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the regulations. The proposed building would meet the maximum 20 percent area of rear yard provisions. The Commission has agreed that the “combined square footage requirements in the Code do not take into consideration larger yards such as the Slabiaks’. Twenty percent of the Slabiaks’ back yard is approximately 3900 square feet. Commissioner Hegland asked Mr. Kaluziak if this request is not approved, would a two-story building be built to meet the existing footprint? Mr. Kaluziak said this is not an option, as a two- story building would create structural and access issues. Acting Chair Miller asked a question on the supplemental information under paragraph 3 – “the proposed structure will conform to all existing codes with the exception of its width” and “additionally there are several covenants proposed which would prevent any future incompatible uses.” Mr. Kaluziak referred the Commissioners to paragraph 8, identifying proposed measures to minimize any potential adverse effects. These include, but are not limited to: