Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-02-1996 PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 2, 1996 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 The Mounds View Planning Commission was 1. Call to Order called to order by Chair Peterson at 7:04 p.m. on October 2, 1996. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Miller, 2. Roll Call Brooks, Stevenson, Obert and Chair Peterson. (Commissioner Brasaemle arrived late and Commissioner Johnston had an excused absence.) ALSO PRESENT: Community Development • Director Sheldon, Planning Associate Ericson and Recording Secretary Benesch. Community Development Director Sheldon 3. Approval of Minutes: went over the corrections that were made to the September 4 and September 4, 1996, minutes that were noted at September 18, 1996 the last meetingThe following corrections were noted for the September 18, 1996, minutes: 1) second paragraph, page 5, 1) should read " that they opposed the plan, in a resolution for approval, would be inappropriate....; 2) page 6, second paragraph, should read. "He requested, in the interest of saving time, that comments..., 3) Evangelist is spelled wrong, 4) page 8, fourth paragraph, fifth line from the bottom should read, "....of wheel chairs.", and 5) page 14, the first motion should read 3 nays, not ayes and the second paragraph should read, "Motion/Second:..." Motion/Second: Stevenson/Miller to approve • the minutes of September 4, 1996, as amended Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 2 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Motion/Second: Peterson/Brooks to approve the minutes of September 18, 1996, as amended. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried There were no resident requests or comments 4. Resident Requests and from the floor. Comments from the Floor Community Development Director Sheldon 5. Consideration of explained the request from Ronald Gardner for Planning Case No. a variance in the rear setback. She explained 478-96 Regarding the that the normal requirement would be 30 feet Variance Request of and the request is to allow the setback to be Ronald L. Gardner, 8480 reduced to 10 feet from the rear property line to Pleasant View Drive, allow the construction of a three-season porch. Planning Case No. She further explained that the porch would be 457-96 replacing the existing deck that was in the same location at 8480 Pleasant View Drive. Director Sheldon continued by saying that Staff has taken the criteria for granting variances and noted where she felt the Commission could make appropriate findings to approve this case which is Staffs recommendation. This information was in the proposed resolution of approval which had been provided to the Commission. Director Sheldon summarized the main points from the resolution as follows: the lot is irregular in shape because it is at the end of a cul-de-sac and as a result the house is pushed further to the rear; because of the interior floor plan of the home and the fact that there is an existing sliding glass door on the second floor, there does not appear to be any other practical • location for the three-season porch. She further explained that the house on the Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 3 neighboring property to the north is off-set to the opposite side of the lot so there is no house right across the property line and there are trees that screen this improvement from the neighbor. Director Sheldon informed the Commission that the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Ronald Gardner, were present. Motion/Second: Stevenson/Miller to approve Resolution No. 478-96 approving a variance granting a reduction in the rear setback requirement from 30 feet to 10 feet for construction of a three-season porch at 8480 Pleasant View Drive, Planning Case No. 457-96, as amended. • Commissioner Miller was concerned about the fifth paragraph being redundant from the fourth but Director Sheldon explained that the resolution follows the criteria outlined for variances. It was decided by the Commission to leave the resolution as is. Chair Peterson recommended that the title of the resolution be changed to include, "resolution approving a variance granting a reduction...." 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Chair Peterson informed the applicant that their case had now been approved and the next step would be to obtain a building permit. Community Development Director Sheldon 6. Consideration of addressed the Commission explaining that this Resolution No. 479-96 request is for a variance in the building setback Regarding the Variance requirement between two structures on the Request of Vic& Son property located at 7090 Knollwood Drive. She Construction, on behalf . further explained that the structures involved of Terry and Anne were a residence and a detached garage and Jacobson, 7090 Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 4 noted that the required setback is six feet and Knollwood Drive, the applicant is requesting three feet (this has Planning Case No. been rounded off from the 3'4" requested). She 458-96 continued by saying that the applicant has added an enclosed entry way at the back door which is existing and the direction of the stairway within the enclosure is towards the garage and because of those factors, in means that the structure does get closer than six feet. It was Staffs feeling, especially since the two structures do not overlap and that a hardship would be incurred by having to redesign the house and move the rear entrance, that this variance was justified. It was Staffs recommendation that this request could be approved. Director Sheldon noted that a diagram had been provided to the Planning Commission. She continued by saying that a resolution has been provided to the Planning Commission that outlines the findings and the facts that apply to those findings and suggested that the title be changed to include "..a variance granting...". She noted the contingency contained in the resolution which is that prior to final inspection and approval of the building addition that the proper work is done on the walls of the garage to fireproof it to meet building code requirements. Director Sheldon informed the Planning Commission that the applicant, Scott McCulloch from Vic & Son, was present. The following corrections were noted in the resolution: 1) the first paragraph, third line, should read, "....to allow a reduction...", 2) the seventh paragraph, first line, should read "...the granting of the variance...", 3) the seventh paragraph, second line, should read, "...to owners of other lands...", 4) the second page, • third paragraph, second line, should read, "...on behalf of Terry..." and 5) the same paragraph, Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 5 third line should read, "....three feet between the corners of the principal..." Motion/Second: Brooks/Miller to approve Resolution No. 479-96 approving a variance granting a reduction in the setback requirement from six feet to three feet between the corners of principal building and an accessory garage building to allow the construction of an enclosed rear entrance for the residence at 7090 Knollwood Drive, Planning Case No. 458-96, as amended. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Commissioner Stevenson addressed the applicant and requested that it be noted in the minutes that the applicant had proceeded with . construction and then requested the variance after the fact. Director Sheldon explained to the Planning 7. Consideration of Commission that the next case was a request Resolution No. 482-96 to construct a concrete parking area within one Regarding the Variance foot of the side property line. She continued by Request of John R. saying that the City Code does allow for Manning, 7755 Spring temporary parking areas within one foot of the Lake Road, Planning side property line with permission from the Case No. 459-96 adjacent neighbor but in this case the applicant is requesting a different material which is not defined as temporary and has been unable to get the permission from the adjacent property owner. She continued by saying that the staff report outlines the reasons why Staff is recommending denial of this request. She reminded the Commission that this case had been discussed at length at their last meeting. She believed that the key issue in this case was that the original allowance for parking lots at one foot was added to the Code with certain Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 6 limitations and with a specific requirement that the neighbor grant permission and that the property has sufficient room to add area for parking without having to use the area between five foot and one foot. She continued by saying that it is questionable whether there is a hardship in this case and there are alternatives available to the property owner. A resolution had been prepared that denies the request and again suggested that the title be modified to include, "...a request for a variance for a concrete...". Director Sheldon informed the Commission that the applicant, Mr. John Manning, was present. She noted that she did talk to the Police Department about whether is was possible to get a special permit for parking on Spring Lake Road and the Chief said that it is a possibility if there is a special event where there are a number of guests and that the property owner could ask for a special permit for parking on the street and she also learned that there are plans to widen Spring Lake Road in 1998 and the width would make it easier to use it for temporary parking. (Commissioner Brasaemle arrived at 7:30 p.m.) Commissioner Brooks asked the applicant why he could not add to the driveway in the other direction. Mr. Manning explained that he is trying to clean up the property. There are so many pine trees in the area that he would like to add on to the driveway because it is difficult to grow grass in that area. He also explained that he cannot park on the street ever, day or night. • Chair Peterson inquired as to how a parking permit is obtained and whether or not it needs Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 7 to be a "special event". Director Sheldon replied that her impression is that it would be events such as an anniversary party, birthday party or an open house, etc. Chair Peterson asked whether or not Mr. Manning is required to explain to the Police Department a reason for wanting a parking permit. Director Sheldon didn't think so, but thought that if it would be a frequent request, the Police Department may start to question it because the street is narrow in that area. Commissioner Obert briefly talked about the parking restriction but noted that he does not see a hardship in this case because he believes there are other way to clean up the property and added there are numerous kinds of plant material that will thrive under these • shady conditions. Chair Peterson added that he has the same situation in his yard and that the pine needles work great as a mulch. The applicant then brought up that the neighbor's trees were hanging in his yard and was there anything that he could do about it. Chair Peterson inquired as to whether or not he had asked the neighbor to trim them back. Mr. Manning replied that the neighbor does not take care of that end of the property. Chair Peterson informed the applicant that if the Planning Commission denies this request, it does not mean that he cannot put a driveway in. Director Sheldon noted that he can install a driveway without a variance up to five feet from the property line. The applicant was concerned that if he installed gravel, that the neighbor could still complain about it. Commissioner Obert replied that the Code is specific in stating that there is a five foot limit unless he can get approval from the neighbor. Director Sheldon S added that concrete or gravel could be installed, but only up to five feet from the Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 . Regular Meeting Page 8 property line. Director Sheldon showed the Planning Commission pictures of the property. Chair Peterson again mentioned to the applicant that there are other alternatives to maintaining the shaded areas of his property. Mr. Manning informed the Commission that the neighbor's house is eighty feet away, they have at least 100 pine trees, and you can't hear or see him and that she didn't even know who he was when he went to the door to get permission. Ruth White, the adjoining neighbor at 2917 County Road I, addressed the Planning Commission and indicated that she is the only one affected by this request. She informed the • Commission that Mr. Manning already has a big driveway and there are always numerous cars parked there and that he parks up against her fence. She was not quite sure what he now has for a parking surface there. She indicated that her fence is not on the property line and she believed he could even be parking on her property since he parks right up to the fence. She indicated that her property is a big vacant lot and that at some time this lot could be sold and someone else would be living there. She further explained that she objects and thinks the driveway should be five feet from the line. She agreed that he does have a need for extended parking but thinks that gravel could be used. She would like consideration used for the people in the future who will be purchasing the lot and building a home. Commissioner Brasaemle confirmed a comment from Ms. White regarding the use of • gravel and wondered if she would object to having it put to one foot from the property line. Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 9 She replied she does not object to gravel, she just does not want anything permanent such as concrete. Chair Peterson indicated that if the applicant is willing to drop his request for concrete he could get permission from the adjacent property owner to install gravel. Director Sheldon wanted to make sure that Ms. White understood that the Code allows for gravel to be placed up to one foot for parking purposes with permission and asked her if that is the permission she is willing to grant the applicant. Ms. White replied that yes, it is the permission, but wanted to make sure that the applicant is aware of where the property line is when installing the gravel and added that the fence is not on her property line but approximately six • inches from the line. Chair Peterson asked if either Ms. White or Mr. Manning knew where the property line is. Both thought that the property line was six inches further west from Ms. White's fence. Mr. Manning confirmed that without a variance and with just a permit he could put gravel up to one foot from the property line. Director Sheldon again added, yes, with a letter of permission from Ms. White. Commissioner Stevenson said that they would Applicant Withdrew be removing this item for consideration at this Request point since the applicant is withdrawing his request. Ms. Sheldon at this time asked the applicant if he was withdrawing his request or if he would like the Commission to act on it. It was explained that if the Planning Commission denied his request he could appeal to the City Council. Mr. Manning withdrew his request and was informed that his request for gravel up to • one foot from the lot line, with a letter of permission from Ms. White, would be handled Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 10 in the office by the Community Development Department. Chair Peterson informed Ms. White that this is an informal process and once this is established the parking area will stay on the property and that the new owner of the property should be informed of this agreement. He suggested that the details of the letter be worked out as soon as possible so that Mr. Manning could proceed with his building permit for the driveway. Commissioner Miller asked if the City had a standard form that could be used. Ms. Sheldon replied that we don't right now but it is something that could be created. Director Sheldon began the discussion by 8. Discussion of Proposed • explaining this ordinance amendment was Ordinance No. 590 started in conjunction with the request for a Regarding the Revision church development at 3025 County Road H. of Parking Lot Setbacks The adjacent property owner has proposed a and Revision of Code amendment that would require at least 15 Minimum Lots Size feet between parking lots for churches and Requirements for Non- commercial uses when those parking lots are Residential Uses next to residential property. She explained that when Staff began drafting the ordinance to bring it before the Planning Commission, additional items were included. She reminded the Commission that at their last meeting, the Commission asked if Staff could prepare at least one version of the ordinance that narrowed it back down to the original request and then a version that had the other items so that if the Planning Commission felt that the longer ordinance needed more review, the Planning Commission would be able to take the original request and move it forward. She noted that the City attorney had decided the sixty-day rule which limits the length of time a case can wait for decision, applies to this request. She indicated that she had notified Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 11 the Moons, who are the applicants in this case, that with a sixty-day extension of the rule, a decision is needed from the Planning Commission regarding their recommendation either at this meeting or the next meeting on October 9th so that this item can get to City Council in time to still stay within the 120 days time limit. Ms. Sheldon suggested that they look at the proposed ordinance page by page to point out what is in the basic ordinance and what additional things are in the longer ordinance and if the Planning Commission could provide her with feedback as they go along. She commented that if the Planning Commission felt comfortable, they could vote this evening or bring it back to the Planning Commission at the October 9 meeting. • At this time the Director Sheldon and the Planning Commission discussed extensively the proposed Ordinance No. 590 relating to setbacks for parking lots, driveways, and principal and accessory building; minimum lot area for non-residential uses listed as conditional use in residential district; and continued use of nonconforming parking lots for non-residential conditional uses in residential districts. Director Sheldon started off by indicating that in our current ordinance in the section on setbacks, the chart shown in the proposed resolution is also in our current ordinance, but it is not clear whether it applies to just principle buildings or all types of buildings and in later sections of the Code, specific references are made to accessory buildings. Director Sheldon explained that in the longer version of the resolution she is trying to define what a principle building is and then have a chart S which lists the setbacks that apply to principal buildings. The sections that follow state • Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 12 setbacks that apply to accessory structures and parking lots. Extensive discussion regarding the changes proposed to the Zoning Code took place at this time. Ms. Sheldon indicated that these changes are being proposed in order to better clarify the Code and make it easier to apply. The section regarding parking areas, would keep the current ordinance allowance for parking lots at five feet away from the property line, except for temporary, which can go within one foot with permission from the adjacent property owner when the parking areas are for residences. For non-residential uses the • proposed ordinance indicates that churches, day care centers, nursing homes, etc. can go to five feet except where the adjacent property is zoned for residential use. If that is the case, if the site with the non-residential use is 2-1/2 acres or less it must be 20 feet, and if it is more than 2-1/2 acres it must be 30 feet. Parking areas in existence prior to the date of this ordinance can be considered non-conforming. She continued by addressing parking areas in business districts and indicated that front is 30 feet, side and rear is five feet except where the land on the other side of the line is in a residential district it will be 20 or 30 feet as noted in the chart. Ms. Sheldon then addressed industrial districts, and noted that the 40 feet requirement came from the chart and the 20-30 feet came from the Moons request. Reminding the Commission that the applicant's request was 15 feet and the Planning Commission's was 20 to 30 feet. Ms. Sheldon went on to discuss requirements for lot sizes. She indicated that the proposed • Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 13 ordinance includes non-residential uses in an R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 or R-5 District listed as conditional uses such as nursing homes, churches, etc., except for governmental and public utility buildings and structures needed for public health, safety and welfare, which shall be a minimum of one acre and she noted that this was not Dan Moon's request, but was her suggestion and reminded the Planning Commission that they felt they should leave it in. The last section that was discussed was non-conforming continuance of use which says that if you have a parking lot that does not now • meet the setbacks, you can keep using it, restripe or resurface, etc. (which does include grinding it up and relaying it) and keep it the same size. . At this time the Planning Commission thanked Ms. Sheldon for taking the time to clarify some of the confusing sections of the Code and bringing them to the Planning Commission for discussion. Director Sheldon went on to discuss the item 9. Staff Report regarding the liaison relationship to City Council and requested the Planning Commission's feelings regarding this issue. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that a member of the City Council should be present at all Planning Commission meetings to report on the activity of the Commission because they feel the Commission goes into more depth and detail and that the Council should be apprised of those details and "digging work" that is involved. The Commission also felt that if there are liaisons, there should be fair treatment of the Commissions. Commissioner Stevenson noted that he has been on the Parks and Recreation Commission for almost ten years and a Council Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 14 member liaison has been present at almost every meeting. They further discussed which meeting would be more crucial for the council liaison to attend, the agenda or regular meeting. The Planning Commission felt that the items are discussed in more detail at the agenda meeting and no minutes are taken at this meeting. Director Sheldon informed the Commission that she had a discussion with Attorney Bob Long regarding a member of the Planning Commission reporting to Council on the kind of business that the Planning Commission does. She saw a problem with the City Council getting reports on development cases that are outside the public hearing held by the City Council. She felt the Planning Commission's work is different • from the other Commissions noting that there is a definite procedure that takes it from the Planning Commission to the Council and that there are hearing provisions to protect the neighbors and property owners. She added that Attorney Long thought that it was a point that needed to be clarified with the Council. Commissioner Brooks brought up a comment about the City Council receiving minutes and it was noted that the City Council does receive a copy of the approved Planning Commission minutes. Commissioner Obert commented that he felt the work done by the Planning Commission is the "fabric" of the City and that they also lay the ground work for the City and is very concerned that a Council member does not come to the meetings because not all things that go on at the Planning Commission can be recorded on paper. • • Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 15 Commissioner Brasaemle felt that if a Council member is not willing to come to both the agenda and regular meetings, he believes that it should be the agenda session that they attend. Chair Peterson commented that on more than one occasion when he attended City Council meetings, the Council liaison or staff member as well as himself had to defend the actions of the Planning Commission against the misrepresentations of the applicant so he believes the involvement of the Council liaison is very important. Director Sheldon added that perhaps as a supplement to the Council liaison, a member of the Planning Commission, on a rotating basis, • could go to the Council meeting when cases are being discussed to comment on the key issues and concerns of the Planning Commission. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that a member of the Commission attend those meetings where their items are being discussed. At this time Ms. Sheldon reviewed a memo that she drafted regarding the desire for closer communications between the Council and other Commissions. This concern was expressed by the Chairman of the Economic Development Commission at the September 30th City Council work session. It was suggested that the Planning Commission receive minutes from each of the other Commissions and it was agreed that they would try this to see if it is helpful. The next item discussed was the idea of having • an annual or biannual meeting between the City Council and each commission to discuss Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 16 goals and objectives and that perhaps the meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council could be combined with the EDC because of the overlapping areas of interest. The Planning Commission also discussed touring the City to look at project sites and the general condition of the City and it was agreed that touring would be done on an "as needed" basis. Director Sheldon indicated that she would write up these comments for Planning Commission review at the next meeting, and if acceptable to the Commission it would be sent on to the City Council. (Commissioner Brooks left at 9:30 p.m.) • At this time, Director Sheldon, introduced our new Planning Associate, Jim Ericson, and indicated that he will certainly play a big part in working on cases and coming before the Planning Commission and she noted that she had given each Commission member a copy of his resume. Commissioner Miller expressed her concern with what was going on with the grey building behind Fina and a large semi-type trailer that was parked next to it. Director Sheldon indicated that she would check into the situation. At this time Director Sheldon distributed a publication entitled, "Planning Commission Journal", and indicated the department has gotten a one-year subscription for the Planning Commission to try. • Members present at the September 18, 1996, 10. Chair and Planning agenda session/special meeting included Commission Reports • Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 17 Commissioners Miller, Johnston, Stevenson, Brooks, Brasaemle, Obert and Chair Peterson. The Planning Commission at this time also expressed their concern with the limited coverage of the City of Mounds View in both the Focus and the New Brighton Bulletin. Commissioner Stevenson inquired as to whether or not Staff had provided proper legal notice of the meeting date change from their regularly scheduled agenda meeting on October 16th to October 9th. Director Sheldon indicated that she will check into it. There being no further business before the 11. Adjournment Planning Commission, Chair Peterson 111/ adjourned the meeting at 9:47 p.m. Respectfully y submitted, PIMAILL SW-101-47L-- Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director • • Pig X101 NMMI rO M�r1 ►�I� 6),/,? ,vx-,e yy g Ph L q5 4,U7` 1//Ew aii vt.- illo v43 s Ui Et,} -3-47/17 Ann,n77S 5 ' 5pr,A5 4_4 e / cl- 1V(vkr,e'sv':ew Me 1)9 A*) "'X/ "pq sso cu// Pzs�0`-c�5t- /J�ee,OsX /00,)o- C)/deS1. /a•/, � OiV.3 % 7?N, • • • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 478-96 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A REDUCTION IN THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM 30 FEET TO 10 FEET FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE SEASON PORCH AT 8480 PLEASANT VIEW DRIVE; PLANNING CASE NO. 457-96 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Ronald L. Gardner to allow a 10 foot rear setback where 30 feet is required for the construction of a three season porch at 8480 Pleasant View Drive; and, WHEREAS, this property is in the R-1 single family residential district and is located on a cul-de-sac which causes the lot to be irregular in shape; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the criteria used to evaluate variance requests; and, • WHEREAS, the applicant presented a hardship statement to the Planning Commission stating that the lot is irregular in shape which has caused the house to be constructed closer to the rear lot line than is typical and which makes it difficult to add improvements to the rear of the house; and that three season porches are a typical improvement in this neighborhood and allowing for the porch to be built would not be granting a special privilege; and, WHEREAS, the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to this property in that the lot is irregular in shape, and required that the house be built closer to the rear lot line than is typical for this district; and, WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that three season porches are a typical improvement in this neighborhood and elsewhere in the R-1 single family residential district; and WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant in that the proposed location of the porch is necessitated by the location of the existing house, the existing sliding glass door, and the floor plan for the dining room where the porch will attach to the house; and, WHEREAS, granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same • district in that three season porches are a typical improvement for single family residences; and, • Planning Commission Resolution 478-96 October 2, 1996 Page 2 WHEREAS, the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship in that the existing residence is located 22 feet from the rear property line, and the applicant is requesting to replace an existing 12 foot wide deck with the three season porch, which will also be 12 feet wide. This width is the minimum amount needed to allow the porch to be functional. WHEREAS, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone in that the porch will be located in an area which is at least 60 feet from the nearest side property line, and is at the opposite end of the common property line shared with the neighbor to the north, from the location of the northern neighbor's house. The porch will be screened from the northern neighbor's property by trees. WHEREAS, the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood in that there is adequate screening and distance between the porch and adjacent residences. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the variance request of Ronald L. Gardner for a reduction in the rear setback requirement from 30 feet to 10 feet for construction of a three season porch at 8480 Pleasant View Drive. Adopted this 2nd day of October, 1996. Jerry :1.ter v.n, Chairman ATTEST Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 479-96 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE GRANTING A REDUCTION IN THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM SIX FEET TO THREE FEET BETWEEN THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING AND AN ACCESSORY GARAGE BUILDING TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ENCLOSED REAR ENTRANCE FOR THE RESIDENCE AT 7090 KNOLLWOOD DRIVE; PLANNING CASE NO. 458-96 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals has reviewed the request of Vic & Son Construction, filed on behalf of Terry and Anne Jacobson, to allow a reduction in the setback requirement from six feet to three feet between the principal building and an accessory garage to allow construction of an enclosed rear entrance for the residence at 7090 Knollwood Drive; and, WHEREAS, the property is located in the R-1 single family residential district; and, • WHEREAS, the applicant has presented a hardship statement to the Planning Commission stating a desire to continue use of the existing rear entrance without changing all the exterior landscaping and walks; and, WHEREAS, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to this property given the location of the existing residence, the existing accessory garage, and the location of the rear door from the residence, which limit options for providing an enclosed rear entrance which will provide weather protection. WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that the addition of a protected entrance is a common improvement for homes in the R-1 district. WHEREAS, the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant in that the enclosed rear entrance is being added to a residence where both the residence and garage exist, and the dimension between them is fixed. The location of the rear door is also fixed, and is positioned such that the enclosure encroaches into the required setback. WHEREAS, the granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that an enclosed entrance is a common improvement on single family homes. • WHEREAS, the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship in that the enclosure is only as wide as a typical stairway which serves the rear entrance. • Planning Commission Resolution No. 479-96 October 2, 1996 Page 2 WHEREAS, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone in that the enclosed entrance has no effect on adjacent properties. With compliance with the contingency stated in this resolution, health and safety will be protected. WHEREAS, the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood in that the location of the rear entrance and the garage is such that the two buildings do not overlap and the minimum dimension of three feet is corner to corner. There is 7 feet 8 inches between the garage and the residence otherwise. The addition of the enclosed rear entrance will not contribute to congestion on public streets. With compliance with the contingency stated in this resolution, safety from fire is addressed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission approves the variance request from Vic& Son Construction, on behalf of Terry and Anne Jacobson, for a reduction in the setback requirement from six feet to three feet between the corners of the principal building and an accessory garage building at 7090 Knollwood Drive, • subject to the following contingency: 1. Prior to final inspection and approval of the building addition at 7090 Knollwood Drive, The property owner shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 1000 of the Mounds View Municipal Code for fireproofing the walls of the garage, to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. Adopted this 2nd day of October, 1996. Jerry P erson, Chairman ATTEST: ( Aut,L4.4-y ______, Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director • (SEAL) . (CASE WITHDRAWN) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.482-96 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A CONCRETE PARKING AREA WITHIN ONE FOOT OF A SIDE PROPERTY LINE AT 7755 SPRING LAKE ROAD; PLANNING CASE NO. 459-96 WHEREAS,the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals has reviewed the request of John R. Manning to build a concrete parking area within one foot of a side property line where five feet is required on property located at 7755 Spring Lake Road; and, WHEREAS,the property is located in the R-1 single family residential district; and, WHEREAS,the applicant has presented a hardship statement to the Planning Commission citing the difficulties caused by the parking restrictions on Spring Lake Road,the need for more guest parking, and the problems keeping a lawn growing in the area proposed for the parking area because it is shaded by pine trees on the adjacent property owner's lot; and, WHEREAS, the allowance for parking areas within one foot of a property line was added to the Zoning Code when the City imposed parking restrictions on all City streets; and, WHEREAS, considerable thought was given to the conditions under which such parking areas would be approved; and, WHEREAS,the Zoning Code specifically states that these parking areas are to be constructed using temporary materials which are defined as brick or concrete pavers, gravel construction or asphalt construction, and that no concrete surfacing is to be used; and, WHEREAS,the Zoning Code specifically states that a property owner proposing a parking area within one foot of a property line shall obtain the permission of the adjacent property owner; and, WHEREAS,the applicant is proposing a concrete parking area and has been unable to get permission of the adjacent property owner; and, •