2021-02-03 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Mounds View Vision A Thriving Desirable Community Item No: 06D Meeting Date: Feb 3, 2021 Type of Business: Other Planning Case: N/A City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Discussion – Tulien v. City of Minneapolis (case law) Discussion: In January, 2021, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled against the City of Minneapolis in its approval 1 of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Variances for an apartment building. The Court’s decision hinged on the Planning Commission’s lack of Findings in support of the project. Attached, is a memo from the City Attorney with more details, but Staff would like to emphasis a couple of points: In the Court’s opinion, the City erred on two items: 1. Variances are to be approved when the City makes Findings of “practical difficulties” that are unique to the property, and not created by the property owner. In this case, the Planning Commission’s Findings were that the City Code is the Practical Difficulty, which is not unique to the property, but applies city-wide. 2. Conditional Use Permits (CUP) are to be approved when the City makes Findings based on a list of criteria. The CUP was to allow a building taller than four stories. During the Public Hearing, a neighbor objected to the proposed six stories (would cast shadow on their yard). The Findings for approval included a generic statement, similar to; The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the vicinity. The Appeals Court found no record in the Findings, nor in the meeting minutes, that the Commission considered the neighbor’s objections, thus the Finding was not supported. Points that Staff would like to make: • Make good Findings. If there is a good project which is not supported by the City Code, it would be more appropriate to change the Code, than to grant a Variance with poor Findings. • When there is public opposition, the PC should acknowledge the public’s concerns, whether that be in the minutes, or in its Findings. 1 Applications: (1) Rezoning from R5 Multi-Family to OR2 High Density Office Residence; (2) CUP to increase building height from four stories (56’), to six stories (73’); (3) Variance to increase the maximum floor area ratio from 3.0 to 4.0; (4) Variance to increase the maximum impervious surface coverage from 85% to 87%; (5) Variance to increase the maximum lot coverage from 70% to 82 percent%; (6) Variance to reduce the minimum loading requirement from one small space to zero; (7) Variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback abutting 26th Street W from 19.7’ to 1’; Variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback abutting Blaisdell Avenue from 33.5’ to 1’; (8) Variance to reduce the minimum rear yard setback along the west property line from 15’ to 5’; (9) Site Plan review for a new mixed-use building with 146 dwelling units and a ground- floor office space of approximately 600 square feet. PC FINDING for Variance to minimum loading setback: “As it relates to practical difficulty, these [variances] relate to the intensity of development, location of the building. There are practical difficulties associated with the current zoning code. I think whether it's the R5 or OR2 district, it's difficult to fit a contemporary building on a site like this or elsewhere in the city and meet all of those [zoning] standards.”