Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-18-1999 PC • PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting August 18, 1999 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson Miller at 7:06 p.m., August 18, 1999. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Acting Chairperson Miller, Commissioners Berke, Braathen, Hegland, Kaden, and Laube. Members Absent: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Johnson and Stevenson, with prior notice. Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Rick Jopke, Council Member Roger Stigney, and Recorder Trish Pearson. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 566-99, 2809 Woodale Drive. Consideration of Resolution No. 590-99, a resolution recommending denial of a conditional use permit for a garage expansion. Tim Skeate, Applicant. 2 Planning Case No. 559-99, 2670 County Road I. Consideration of a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit for an assisted living senior residential facility; a rezoning ordinance (Ordinance 631); and an ordinance amending the Zoning Code pertaining to conditional uses within the R-4 zoning district. MSP Real Estate, Applicant. 3 Staff Reports/Items of Information 8 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 9 • 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. Mounds View Planning Commission August 18, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 2 4. Approval of Minutes A. July 21, 1999 MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Kaden to approve the July 21, 1999 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes—6 Nays— 0 The motion carried. 5. Planning Case No. 566-99 Property Involved: 2809 Woodale Drive Consideration of Resolution 590-99, a resolution recommending denial of a conditional use permit for a garage expansion. Applicant: Tim Skeate. The applicant was not present. • Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: This applicant has requested a conditional use permit for an expanded garage to be located at 2809 Woodale Drive. The applicant has proposed to increase the size of the existing garage from 720 square feet to 1,296 square feet. Ericson stated, at their last meeting, the Planning Commission and staff had discussed that the house, at 400 square feet, would be substantially smaller than the proposed garage. Ericson stated the proposed 1,296 square-foot garage would, in fact, be three times larger than the house. He stated the Planning Commission and City Council have in the past, been very concerned about this type of imbalance. He stated a garage is intended to be an accessory structure to service .1. I "- . �, • .. • : • -: . - : "- : ::- - •. . 0, .. requirement that a garage be smaller than the house, a garage of this size, were it to be built, would appear out of place and obtrusive. Ericson stated staff and the Planning Commission reviewed the adverse effects associated with this request, and have determined that the proposed expansion would be substantially out of character with the neighborhood, could cause blight upon the neighborhood, and would tend to depreciate the area in which it is located. Ericson stated, in light of the findings associated with the adverse effects and general conditional use 111 permit criteria, the Planning Commission, at its last meeting on August 4, 1999, directed staff to prepare Resolution 590-99, a resolution recommending denial of the conditional use permit request. Mounds View Planning Commission August 18, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 Acting Chair Miller inquired if staff had discussed the resolution recommending denial of the request with the applicant. Ericson stated staff has been in contact with the applicant, who is aware that the request faces a recommendation of denial by the Planning Commission. MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Berke. To Approve Resolution No. 590-99, a Resolution Recommending Denial of a Conditional Use Permit For an Oversized Garage at 2809 Woodale Drive; Mounds View Planning Case No. 552-99. Ayes— 5 Nays— 1 (Hegland) The motion carried. Commissioner Hegland stated he did not think the Planning Commission should discourage people from improving their property, and he believed this to be an improvement. 6. Planning Case No. 559-99 Property Involved: 2670 County Road I Consideration of Resolution 584-99, a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit for an assisted living senior residential facility; a rezoning ordinance (Ordinance 631); and an • ordinance amending the Zoning Code pertaining to conditional uses within the R-4 Zoning District. Applicant: MSP Real Estate The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The Planning Commission has discussed this request at several previous meetings. Ericson stated Resolution 584-99 was the result of those many meetings and their discussions, as well as the information provided by members of the Commission, staff and the applicant. • . -I - - ..- - • - .• _ ; approval of the conditional use permit, and adoption of an ordinance approving the rezoning of the property from B-2, Limited Business, to R-4, High Density Residential. He stated another component of the resolution is the recommendation to adopt an ordinance that clarifies the language in Section 1109.04 of the City Code, as it pertains to nursing homes and other similar group housing uses within the R-4 district. He stated this ordinance includes an additional stipulation that the parking for these types of uses shall be examined, and rather than basing this requirement upon that set forth in the City Code, the requirement may be increased depending upon the level and intensity of service being provided. • Ericson stated the applicant has provided a revised site plan, which indicates both entrances to the property to be located on Mounds View Drive. He stated staff has indicated to the applicant that this would probably not be a good situation for people exiting the property onto Mounds View Drive, in Mounds View Planning Commission August 18, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 111 terms of the lack of visibility due to its close proximity to the intersection with County Road I. He stated staff recommended the site plan be revised to provide an exit only onto County Road I, as previously discussed. He stated that this revision to the site plan might also result in additional parking spaces. Ericson stated the present site plan indicates a total of twenty-six parking stalls, which translates to slightly more than one stall for every two beds. He stated the City Code requires four stalls plus one stall per every three beds, which translates to 22 stalls for the proposed 48-unit facility. He stated it was possible that additional parking spaces could be provided, and be indicated as proof of parking on the site plan, if necessary. He explained, however, a more intense scrutiny of the parking issues could be addressed and during the Development Review process. Ericson stated the applicant had obtained a letter of permission from the owners of Silver View Plaza, indicating they would allow overflow parking onto their parking lot. He stated, upon providing a 48- hour notice, the applicant would be allowed to utilize the rear area of their parking lot, when necessary. He stated this was a vital component to resolving the parking issues during past discussions. He provided the Commission with a letter from residents on Lake Court Drive who had expressed their concerns that the parking be adequate, and not cause any overflow parking onto the surrounding residential areas. He stated he believed these concerns were shared by all those involved. • Ericson stated Section 3 of the proposed zoning ordinance indicates "The Mounds View City Council does hereby stipulate that in the event the development being proposed by MSP Real Estate does not come to fruition, within one year of this ordinance's adoption (or sooner, upon written notification of the applicant), the Council will act to reinstate the property's original B-2 zoning classification." He stated the City Attorney had indicated he would like the opportunity to review this section to ensure it does not force the City Council to take any action that it may not wish to. Ericson explained this section might remain in the ordinance tentatively, or be amended in a manner which does not force the Council to take action,but maintains the intent of the language. He stated the City Attorney would review this language to be certain it is in proper legal form. Ericson stated the conditions set forth in the City Code and Zoning Code for this type of use are all addressed and met satisfactorily. He stated if the Commission desired to include further rnnditinns regarding the operation of the facility, they could be addressed at this time, and forwarded to the City Council. Acting Chair Miller opened the floor for public input. Council Liaison Stigney inquired if there would be any walking access provided for those people utilizing the overflow parking at the adjacent shopping center. Ericson stated he was uncertain, and inquired if there was a sidewalk along that side of Mounds View Drive. Commissioner Laube stated that there was not. He stated this question had come forward during a previous meeting, in terms of whether or not a sidewalk would be constructed along Mounds View Drive for residents who S might wish to walk around the building. Mounds View Planning Commission August 18, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 Mike Lewis, representative of MSP Real Estate, stated the only existing sidewalk was internal, along the driveway and County Road I, and they had not contemplated a sidewalk for the area along Mounds View Drive. He stated there was no existing sidewalk access to Silver View Plaza, and as they would be crossing over the SuperAmerica property to access this parking lot, they would not be able to create a sidewalk in that area. He noted they believed the overflow parking would only be utilized two or three times a year. Ericson stated this matter could be investigated further during the site plan review. He stated if there was sufficient room in the right-of-way, it might be possible to create a section of sidewalk to accommodate the pedestrian traffic. He stated there could be a sidewalk segment to the property line, at the south end of the site, where the access of the parking lot enters Mounds View Drive. He explained, however, the applicant had no control over the Kraus-Anderson property, and could not construct a sidewalk at that location. Commissioner Laube inquired if a sidewalk could be constructed around the building, to provide a walking path for the residents, so they would not have to walk in the parking lot or cross the street if they desired to take a walk. Ericson stated the site plan indicated a section of sidewalk along the front of the building, which although not circular, would provide for some walking activity. He stated these issues could be addressed, and he was certain the applicant would not be averse to adding a • sidewalk on their property, if it was possible. Mr. Lewis stated this was correct, and that at this time, they had simply not progressed to this point with the site plan. Ericson inquired regarding the number of parking stalls provided on the original site plan. Mr. Lewis stated there were 24 parking stalls, with an additional nine, identified as proof of parking. He stated if they were to utilize the original plan, they would increase the parking spaces to 33 stalls. Ericson stated the Commission could stipulate the applicant provide a revised site plan for Council review, which would indicate the exit from the property located on County Road I, as was originally proposed, as well as indicate the parking, and the proof of parking available. He stated that a clause could be added to the conditional use permit that the proof of parking would be constructed at the request of the City, in the event that there are problems meeting the demands of the parking. Commissioner Laube stated some cities required one parking stall for each member of the maximum amount of staff on the busiest shift, in addition to the three beds-to-one stall ratio, which, in this case, would be 31 parking stalls. He stated he liked this idea. He stated we did not have many nursing homes in the City, and he believed the ordinance should include parking for both staff and residents in its requirement. He stated he would prefer to see this requirement included in the ordinance at this time, instead of the proof of parking. Commissioner Hegland stated the he agreed. He stated it would be much easier to do this prior to the occurrence of a problem, and requested the requirement of 31 stalls be indicated in the resolution. 4110 Ericson inquired if Commissioner Laube was requesting the ordinance indicate this requirement. Commissioner Laube clarified he would like to see an amendment to the ordinance indicating the requirement for parking would be one stall for every three beds, as well as one space for each staff Mounds View Planning Commission August 18, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 • member, on the maximum shift. Ericson stated that Item I of Ordinance 639 discusses the parking requirements. He stated, rather than the parking requirement be subject to the Council's discretion, as presently indicated, the requested amendment could be made to this item. Ericson noted the parking requirements would be subject to review under the conditional use permit. Commissioner Laube stated if the requirement was indicated in the ordinance, it would provide a standard for these types of uses in the future. Acting Chair Miller stated this requirement did not take visitor parking into consideration. Ericson stated the visitor parking was represented within the stall to bed ratio. Council Liaison Stigney stated that some rooms could have more than one bed, and inquired if this had been taken into consideration in terms of the parking requirements. He noted the applicant had indicated some of the rooms might contain more than one bed. Ericson stated that the requirement should be based upon the number of beds, as this would also be the requirement for other facilities, which might have several beds per room. Ericson inquired if there were any further questions regarding Ordinance 631, pertaining to the rezoning of the property. Acting Chair Miller inquired if the language of the ordinance could be amended to state "The Council may act..." Commissioner Kaden inquired if the language could be • amended after the Commission took action on the ordinance. Ericson stated it could. He added the Planning Commission could indicate that Section 3 of the ordinance "may be amended prior to Council adoption," in the resolution recommending approval. Acting Chair Miller explained the Council might wish to make additional changes to Ordinance 631, as it was subject to their action. Ericson stated the resolution could also include a stipulation which states, "Now therefore, be it further resolved that prior to action by the City Council, the applicant will submit a revised site plan which shows the access onto County Road I, and the number of parking stalls that the Commission has indicated as appropriate." Carol Golden, 2749 Lake Court Drive, inquired how the applicant would control the entering and exiting to the property. Mr. Lewis stated they would probably utilize a sign, which indicates no entry property. Mr. Lewis stated there would be sufficient room for this, at the southwest corner of the parking lot. Cam Obert, 8315 Greenwood Drive, inquired regarding the proposed rezoning from B-2 to R-4, and if there had been any consideration to the small amount of zoned business space left within the City. He stated, as they were all aware, commercial zoning generates more tax dollars for the City, which would provide relief to the property owners. He inquired regarding the difference in tax generation, in terms of an R-4 use, and a typical B-2 business. He stated they should make the City attractive for businesses to come in, operate, and be successful. He noted the impending revision to the • Comprehensive Plan, and stated he considered the rezoning of property to be a very serious matter. Mounds View Planning Commission August 18, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 Ericson stated the tax generation capabilities of this project, as opposed to a typical B-2 district use, had been discussed at a previous meeting of the Planning Commission. He stated it was determined, through discussion with the Ramsey County Assessor's office that a commercial use would be taxed at a rate of 2.8 percent up to $150,000 of its valuation, and after $150,000, it would be taxed at 3.8 percent. He stated the County considers the proposed use to be a commercial use, however, because it caters to the needs of the elderly, and elderly housing, the tax rate would be 2.8 percent for the first $150,000 valuation, and would retain the 2.8 tax rate after that point. Ericson stated staff was unable to find many comparable examples of B-2 uses in the area, however, it was believed that the proposed project, at a 1.5 million dollar valuation, would probably outweigh some types of commercial uses which would probably consist of a showroom or sales area. He stated the valuation of the proposed facility would likely exceed other uses which would be found in a B-2 Zoning District. He stated while it may be taxed at a lower rate beyond the $150,000 valuation, it was likely the proposed facility could generate more tax income in the long run, than a commercial use. Ericson stated that the lack of commercial space within the City was certainly a consideration and a concern. He stated there are, however, some sites, which have remained vacant for many years, and the Commission had taken this into consideration. He stated the subject site has been vacant for a long period of time. He stated the developer has attempted to market the subject property for quite some time, and no other proposals have been brought before the City. Acting Chair Miller stated that another issue which had been considered was the need for this type of facility within the City. MOTION/SECOND: Berke/Braathen. To Approve Resolution 584-99, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Rezoning Request and Code Amendment Associated with a Proposed Assisted Living Senior Residential Facility to Be Located at 2670 County Road I; Planning Case No. 559-99, as Amended to Include a Stipulation which States "Now Be It Further Resolved that Prior to Action by the City Council, the Applicant Will Submit a Revised Site Plan which Shows the Access Onto County Road I, and 31 Parking Stalls." Ayes— 6 Nays—0 The motion carried. Planning Associate Ericson stated the public hearing of this matter had been scheduled for the August 23, 1999, City Council Meeting. 7. Staff Reports /Items of Information A. Previous Council Action 411 Community Development Director Jopke provided the Planning Commission with an update of the billboard issue. He stated he was still waiting for final word and opinion from the City Attorney Mounds View Planning Commission August 18, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 regarding the issues previously discussed. He stated one of the issues related to whether or not there were deed restrictions. He stated he had heard there would not be any deed restrictions, however, he had not received anything in writing or directly from the City Attorney in this regard. Jopke stated another issue was the possibility that a spot-zoning situation might arise, and that he had not heard the results of that research, as yet. He stated he would bring this information forward to the Commission, as soon as he received a formal written opinion from the City Attorney. Planning Associate Ericson reported on City Council action from their August 9, 1999 meeting. He stated the City was involved in the process of selling a parcel located at 6991 Pleasant View Drive. He stated the City had purchased that property for participation in the Housing Replacement Program. He stated the highest bidder for the property was Marquis Builders, Inc., however, they had lost their purchaser, and were unable to proceed. He stated the EDA had acted to offer the property to the next highest bidder, Vista Construction, and the EDA approved that item. He stated the bids were very close, and the newly proposed house would be larger than that previously proposed by Marquis. Ericson stated that Thrifty Car Rental, which had received approval for their busines on July 26, 1999, had requested the City Council revise the conditional use permit. He stated the applicant had 4110 taken issue with a stipulation prohibiting trucks on the lot, and had requested the Council reconsider this stipulation. He stated the Council had denied that request, maintaining the prohibition of trucks, recreational vehicles, or trailers at that location. He stated the applicant has since indicated that they would abide by this stipulation, and would commence the operation of their business at 2975 Highway 10. B. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Ericson stated the public hearing for a variance request for a wider than allowed driveway on Red Oak Drive had been scheduled for the next meeting of the Planning Commission. C. Planning Commissioners Journal Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission had been provided copies of the latest edition of the Planning Commissioners Journal, which has an article about citizen surveys, including recommendations regarding what constitutes a good survey. He stated this was a helpful article and magazine for informational purposes. He stated that in addition, the Planning Commission had also been provided with a copy of the previous City Council minutes for their review, and that staff would continue to provide these minutes, in the future. 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports • Acting Chair Miller stated Commissioner Braathen had presented the Planning Commission with a letter requesting an excused leave from the Planning Commission in order to take care of business Mounds View Planning Commission August 18, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 41111 matters. Planning Associate Ericson stated he thought this matter could be addressed at the next meeting of the Planning Commission, when Chairperson Peterson would be present. No other reports were considered. 9. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Acting Chair Miller adjourned the meeting at 7:54 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director • Transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Planning Comm. Mfg Date: '_. I 8 - 7(1 Please Sign In ! Name Address Phone # Item of Interest: n -,,tou (r'j7 c f7 3 /nn ;f`? MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMNIISSION . RESOLUTION NO. 584-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, REZONING REQUEST AND CODE AMENDMENT ASSOCIATED WITH A PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING SENIOR RESIDENTIAL FACILITY TO BE LOCATED AT 2670 COUNTY ROAD I; PLANNING CASE NO. 559-99. WHEREAS, MSP Real Estate has applied for a conditional use permit to allow for an assisted living senior residential facility at 2670 County Road I; and, WHEREAS, such a facility would necessitate a rezoning of the property from Limited Business Commercial(B-2) to High Density Residential (R-4), a request for which has been made 40 by the applicant; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as follows: Tract 'A", Registered Land Survey 414 Ramsey County, State of Minnesota WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Location Map d. Site Plan e. Staff Report f. Staff Parking Analysis Memo, dated 8/3/99 g. Letter from M & E Realty, Property Owner, dated 5/24/99 h. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map WHEREAS,the rezoning request would be consistent with the comprehensive plan, which identifies this land as Mixed Use Planned Unit Development; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission has considered the specific criteria for assisted living facilities as they appear in Section 1109.04, Subdivision 2 and find that they are met; and, Planning Commission Resolution No. 584-99 August 18, 1999 Page 3 (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The use would be consistent with the R-4 zoning district, which allows for assisted living facilities with a conditional use permit. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area of the City as Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, which indicates an anticipation for a variety of uses. An assisted living facility would be consistent with this designation and would also address a goal to offer a wide range of housing alternatives to a variety of population segments. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. It is not expected that this use would create or generate substantial levels of traffic. As such, it would not be expected that this use would cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. All of the infrastructure serving this site are installed and provided--no additional infrastructure will be needed to accommodate this use. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Approve a Conditional Use Permit for an assisted living senior residential facility at 2670 County Road I, with stipulations. 2. Adopt Ordinance 631, an ordinance rezoning the property located at 2670 County Road I from B-2, Limited Business Commercial, to R-4, High Density Residential, with a clause indicating that in the event this project does not go forward, the previous zoning will be reinstated by means of a subsequent rezoning action. 3. Adopt Ordinance 639, an ordinance amending and clarifying Section 1109.04, Subdivision 110 2 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to conditional uses within the R-4, High Density Residential zoning district. i MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 590-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OVERSIZED GARAGE AT 2809 WOODALE DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 552-99 Whereas, Tim Skeate has applied for a conditional use permit to allow a 1,296 square- foot garage on property located at 2809 Woodale Drive, zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as follows: Lot 12, Except the North 250 Feet, Knollwood Park County of Ramsey WHEREAS, there is currently an existing 720 square-foot garage on this property and a 400 square-foot home on this lot; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, up to 1,400 square feet of garagelaccessory building space on one lot; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plan d. Location Map e. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings in relation to Section 1125.01 Subdivision. 1.e, of the Mounds View Zoning Code, regarding the possible adverse effects of this proposal: Planning Commission Resolution 590-99 August 18, 1999 Page 2 1. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 2809 Woodale Drive, as high-density residential. The existing use is not compatible with the land use designation,yet this will be corrected with the updated comprehensive plan. Garages and other types of accessory structures--like sheds and tool buildings--are allowed and even expected in this district,yet a garage that is triple the size of the house would be inconsistent with the second residential goal, which states: "Preserve the identity and improve the quality and appearance of residential neighborhoods. " Allowing a garage that is three times as large as the house would create an obtrusive structural imbalance and could likely detract from the aesthetic appearances of the neighborhood This proposal does conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. • 2. The Geographical Area Involved. 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area In this area of Mounds View, most of the lots are as large or larger than the subject property. There is a good mix of architecture present in the neighborhood, with some of • the houses being older and some newer. The subject home, however, is significantly smaller than those in the immediate area. While many homes in this area have large garages, they do not appear out of place because the houses are larger as well. While a larger garage could be physically accommodated on the subject property, it would not be proportionally consistent with the house. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. It can be generally assumed that adding to the existing garage would have a positive impact on the value of the subject property. It is not known whether a garage three times larger than the home would have a negative monetary impact upon the neighborhood, even though it may be physically obtrusive. 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. The existing garage--at 720 square feet--is considered fairly typical by today's standards. • While it does not have access for three vehicles, there is ample work area and supplemental storage space beyond that space needed for the vehicles. However with multi-car families being the norm rather than the exception, demonstrating the need for additional garage space becomes less of an issue. WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the general criteria of approval for conditional use permits, as stated in Section 1125.01 Subdivision 3.b. of the Mounds View Zoning Code, can not fully be satisfied. These criteria and responses are as follows: 1. The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. 7. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. Planning Commission Resolution 590-99 • August 18, 1999 Page 3 8. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Adding on to a small garage would not create a greater impact on existing public facilities,parks, schools or services, on utilities or access roads, nor would it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. 2. The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. 3. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. Because the house to the east is set back further from the street than the house and garage at 2809 Woodale Drive, any expansion to the subject garage would be fully visible to people on both Woodale Drive and Silver Lake Road, in addition to the abutting property owners. There would be little if any screening of the proposed 54 foot long garage, the appearance of which would likely have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties - . 4. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. 5. The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. 6. The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Garages and detached accessory outbuildings are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for the storage of vehicles and yard and garden equipment. A garage expansion in and of itself would be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code, although the Code stipulates that any time a proposed garage or garage expansion becomes larger than the house, City review in the form of a conditional use permit is required The intent of this provision is grounded in the concern that a garage should not excessively dominate the property or create a proportional imbalance. • NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, after reviewing the documents associated with this proposal, the possible adverse effects and criteria for CUP approval, does hereby recommend denial of the conditional use permit for a 1,296 square-foot garage due to the existence of adverse effects resulting from the expanded garage and the finding that the general criteria for approval cannot be satisfied. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Planning Commission Resolution 590-99 0 August 18, 1999 Page 4 Adopted this 18th day of August, 1999. y'n Miller, Acting Chairperson ATTEST: ikaS k_________ Rick Jopke, Counity Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\566-99\590-99PC.RES •