Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-02-1996 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 1996 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Review and Approval of Minutes: September 18, 1996(Enclosed) 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING,PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM,AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 5. Planning Case No. 457-96 NOTICE DONE 8480 Pleasant View Drive Ronald L. Gardner Request for a variance to allow an encroachment to within 10 feet of the rear property line when a 30 foot rear setback is required,to replace a deck with a three-season porch. StaffRecommendation:Approve 6. Planning Case No. 458-96 NOTICE DONE 7090 Knollwood Drive Vic& Son Construction • Request for a variance to allow a house addition within six feet of an existing garage. StaffRecommendation:Approve with contingencies 7. Planning Case No. 459-96 NOTICE DONE 7755 Spring Lake Road John R. Manning Request for a variance to allow construction of a concrete driveway at one foot from the side property line where five feet is required. StaffRecommendation: Deny 8. Planning Case No. SP-008-96 • Revision of parking lot setbacks between residential and churches and commercial uses • Revision is minimum lot size for churches and commercial uses in residential zone districts where such uses are allowed by conditional use permit StaffRecommendation:Approve * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 784-3055 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Agenda Continued Planning Commission Agenda October 2, 1996 41111 Page 2 12. Staff Report 13. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 14. Adjournment • • UNAPPROVED • PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 1110 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Meeting September 18, 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 7:14 p.m. on September 18, 1996. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners 2. Roll Call Johnston, Miller, Brooks, Stevenson, Brasaemle and Chair Peterson. (Commissioner Obert arrived late.) ALSO PRESENT: Community Development Director Sheldon and Recording Secretary • Benesch. Community Development Director Sheldon 3. Consideration of reviewed the request from the Mounds View Resolution No.477-96 Economic Development Authority for a Regarding Variance reduction in the required width for a corner lot. Request by Mounds She explained that the required width is 100 View Economic feet and the request is for the lot to be 80 feet Development Authority, for the property at 8265 Spring Lake Road. 8265 Spring Lake Road, She continued by stating that the applicant has Planning Case No. applied to the Planning Commission by letter 455-96 outlining their reasons they feel there is a hardship in this case and she presented the summarized information to the Planning Commission in a report. She explained that the most significant items from the variance criteria have to do with the lot being platted in 1939 at its current width and added that there is no additional unplatted or vacant land on that block that could be purchased to add to this lot to widen it. Director Sheldon noted there is • sufficient land within the lot to create a UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission September 18, 1996 • Special Meeting Page 2 buildable area for a single family home, and if the variance is not granted this lot would be held vacant because they would be unable to • get a building permit. She concluded by recommending that the request be approved based on the fact that it is not actions on the part of the applicant that has caused the problem and unless the variance is granted they will not be able to use the lot for its typical purpose in an R-1 district and that they ought to be able to build a single family home on their property. Director Sheldon noted that a resolution had been prepared approving this variance request and indicated that Jennifer Bergman, representing the Mounds View Economic Development Authority, was present. It was noted by Director Sheldon that the purpose of this request is to demolish the • existing house and construct a new one as part of the City's Housing Replacement Program and to market the lot. Chair Peterson stated that this item was discussed at their previous agenda meeting. Motion/Second: Stevenson/Brasaemle to adopt Resolution No. 477-96 approving a lot width variance request by the Mounds View Economic Development Authority for 8265 Spring Lake Road, Planning Case No. 455-96. Corrections to the resolution were noted: last paragraph, first page "develop" should read development and the Planning Case number should be added to the title. 6 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Community Development Director Sheldon 4. Public Hearing • reviewed the request from Stahl Construction Regarding the Request UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission September 18, 1996 . Special Meeting Page 3 • Co., on behalf of the New Apostolic Church, for of Stahl Construction, on a conditional use permit and development behalf of the New review for the development of a church facility Apostolic Church, for the on property located at 3025 County Road H. Construction of a church She noted that this item has been before the at 3025 County Road H, Planning Commission at several previous Planning Case No. meetings. She continued by saying that the 452-96 original application included a request for a front setback variance, and as noted in the report to the Planning Commission, the request for a variance has been withdrawn and the present plan before them does not require a variance because the applicant has requested that Pleasant View Drive be designated as the front of the lot as opposed to County Road H. She pointed out that the Zoning Code states that the shortest dimension of a corner lot should be used as the front unless they are even dimensions on both roads. If this is the case, the applicant could designate which one would be used as the front. Since this property will be developed from scratch, the Pleasant View Drive frontage would be the frontage that qualifies according to the Zoning Code. With that in mind, Stahl Construction is proposing the building 35' from Pleasant View Drive which is the requirement and 30' from County Road H which is the requirement for a side lot line on a corner. Director Sheldon noted that residents in the area were notified of a public hearing for the variance because the City did not have the new plan prior to the notice being sent out. The other two parts of the application have to do with the conditional use permit and the development review, and at this time, Ms. Sheldon went over a diagram of the lot and proposed structure to explain changes in the request that have occurred since the last meeting. She also mentioned that the City received a letter from the Fire Department • questioning whether or not there was enough maneuvering room for fire trucks in the newly UNAPPROVED • Mounds View Planning Commission September 18, 1996 • Special Meeting Page 4 designed parking lot, and two letters were received from the applicant on the seating capacity confirming that they are requesting 115 seats in the building. She also noted that the City has received a number of phone calls from residents in the neighborhood (she has received three, the Clerk-Administrator has also received at least two, and some of the Council members have also received phone calls) in opposition of this request. (It was mentioned at this time that a sign up sheet was being circulated and any persons in attendance were asked to sign in). Director Sheldon proceeded to explain the changes in the new plan, including the parking plan in detail. She mentioned that just this evening she received word from Mr. Bill Diem • of Stahl Construction that a modification in the parking design will be presented which moves the driveway over to allow for the maneuvering of emergency vehicles. Ms. Sheldon explained that in the report she had gone step by step through the criteria and felt that there were a couple of areas where the criteria was not met: the character of the development and whether it fits into the character of the neighborhood, noting that the • proposed structure will be a story and a half with the wall heights being 13-16 feet and, if adding in the roof, will go from 26.5 to 29 feet in height. She added that typically a home in this neighborhood is one story (in the range of 15-16 in height) and the footprint is 2,054 square feet which is typically larger than the average home. The other issue involved the amount of buffering and it was noted that the Code does not specifically address this issue and what is "adequate" buffering for this • request. She added that staff has looked, as a UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission September 18, 1996 • Special Meeting Page 5 way to judge the adequacy of the buffer, at other church sites in Mounds View and found that the narrowest buffer is 14' and the typical buffer is around 29' to 30'. This particular application has buffers of 10', 15' and a portion in the center at 24' and she further explained that the most critical areas to the adjacent property owners are the narrowest, and this site would have the narrowest buffers in the community for a church. It is also on the smallest site at '/ acre. The next smallest site for a church is 1- 1,4 acres. Staffs view is that the criteria related to buffering and compatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood cannot be met. At this time Director Sheldon explained the proposed resolutions regarding this request. • Resolution No. 475-96 is for denial of the conditional use permit. Ms. Sheldon recommended to the Planning Commission that some further changes need to be made in the resolution from the one in the packet. She provided the Planning Commission with a handout showing these changes. According to the information received at 4:00 p.m. from the Fire Department, there was not enough maneuvering room on the site for emergency vehicles so this information was added to the findings in the resolution for approval (480-96). The changes included: 1) dropping any reference to the Fire Department's opinion because putting in a statement that they propose the plan, in a resolution for approval, would be in appropriate, 2) correcting the building square footage, 3) adding a reference to the other drawings submitted by the applicant, and 4) adding a sign at the Pleasant View Drive driveway which wouild say "exit only" because this driveway is so narrow. • UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission September 18, 1996 Special Meeting Page 6 IP For the development review package, the first resolution is recommending denial if the conditional use permit is not issued because you would not be able to get to the next step of approving the design layout. She added that the only change to this resolution is to add in the drawings. The changes to the last resolution which would recommend approval of the development review included dropping the sentence having to do with the fire department, adding the drawings, and adding an "exit only" sign. (Commissioner Obert arrived at 7:40 p.m.) Chair Peterson explained that it was a public hearing and that they would be opening the meeting up for questions and comments from the residents and assured those persons who • have already attended the meetings and have made comments that the Commission would definitely take those comments into consideration. He requested, for time sake, that comments or remarks not be repeated. If there were new remarks or if anyone new was present, they would welcome any comments they had. Mr. Bill Diem of Stahl Construction addressed • the Planning Commission. (Donald Kratt, Evangelist for the Minnesota area New Apostlic Church, and Pam Kratt were also present.) Mr. Diem indicated that he has been in contact with the Fire Marshall regarding the issue of the entrance. Mr. Diem, at this time, went over the provisions of the floor plan which he received in his office at 3:00 that afternoon. He addressed the number of pews and how much space would be needed up front in the case of a funeral. He indicated that final plans would be prepared for the City Council. After reviewing • the plans with the Fire Marshall, the applicant UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission September 18, 1996 • Special Meeting Page 7 is proposing to shift the entrance on County Road H 15 feet to the west to allow better emergency vehicle access which he indicated would be acceptable by the Fire Marshall. He indicated that the landscape plan has been revised and that there are some comments in the resolution for approval that address the issues regarding type of plantings. Mr. Diem explained that this proposal is 42.5 percent green space which is documented through his engineering firm and that if you add in the green space all the way to the curb area, to the south and to the west, the green space would increase to 52.1 percent, and added that the area of the building is nine percent. He continued by comparing the churches in the community, noting that the Cross of Glory is on . a lot with 68,737 square feet and that the building is a multi-use building with activities other than church services going on at the same time. He added that the building is 8,000 square feet which is four times larger than the proposed facility and occupies 11 percent of the site. The lot is only 3.2 times larger and has 50 parking stalls which barely meets the requirements. He continued by adding that Church Upon the Rock has a building square footage of 10,400 with total usable square footage of 22,546 square feet. He added that the building is 5 times larger than the one they are presenting and occupies 14 percent of the property and that the lot is only 3.4 times larger and has 41 parking stalls based on their seating capacity. He added that based on the seating capacity that was given to him by the minister, the church is short one-third of their parking. He also informed the Commission that he was in contact with Mr. Kent Smith and Ms. Sue Barkwell of Ramsey County to address the issue of property value. They researched as far back as they could and found no request or UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission September 18, 1996 Special Meeting Page 8 • complaint on value reduction to property where properties abut churches already built or in where churches are proposed. Commissioner Brooks asked Mr. Diem if they had looked at other properties. Mr. Diem replied that they had looked extensively at other properties that were available or vacant, either they were not for sale or they required extensive soil corrections. Steve Borden, 3009 County Road H, asked if there would be a cement wall on the east side of the 10 foot buffer zone. Mr. Diem explained that no, there would not be a cement wall and that it would be strictly landscaping. Rochelle Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive, indicated that she was still a little confused with • the parking, the pews and how they come up with the parking requirement. She was also concerned about handicapped persons attending the services who placed their wheel • chairs behind the pews and they should be counted to ensure adequate parking for the church and felt that most people in wheel chairs do drive. Mr. Diem replied that there is the metro mobility service available that drops the people off at the church and picks them up. Director Sheldon indicated the if it is the Planning Commission's feeling that more parking spaces are needed, they should estimate the number of places that the area behind the pews represents and devise parking at four to one. She also expressed, that in her experience, she didn't think that the entire area behind the pews would be used for a solid row a wheel chairs. She suggested perhaps one additional space be assigned to that aisle area. Mr. Diem stated that the need for parking for the handicapped individuals is addressed by the handicapped stalls in the parking lot. UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission September 18, 1996 • Special Meeting Page 9 Commissioner Brasaemle expressed that he did not think that the issue is whether or not there is handicapped parking stalls because they are required, but rather the total number of parking spaces for the site. Director Sheldon explained that what it may come down to is whether the Planning Commission wants to take the total required based on seating and keep the handicap spaces separate when determining if the total number required has been met. Or does the Planning Commission want to count the handicapped parking stalls toward the total? Commissioner Miller commented that a handicapped person who has a sticker or tag does not necessarily mean they are in a wheel chair and may be sitting in the pews. Chair Peterson noted that it has been the Planning Commission's practice to count the handicapped spaces toward the total required. Victoria Otis-Dretsch, 6928 Pleasant View Drive, indicated that she was not able to attend any of the other meetings but did want to express her concerns about accommodating for future growth. Mr. Diem briefly explained the church's situation on growth and indicated that this issue was addressed at a previous meeting. Doris Friedland, 2925 County Road H, wanted to know how many families were part of the church's existing congregation. Mr. Diem indicated that he did not have the list with him but he believed the number of families to be around 24 and indicated that the average size family is around four persons. Ms. Sheldon explained that the ratio for parking is linked to seating capacity and that it is figured two different ways: if you have fixed seating . (theater type seats) there is one for every four seats and if you have bench-style pews you UNAPPROVED • Mounds View Planning Commission September 18, 1996 Special Meeting Page 10 take the length of the pew and divide it by 22 inches to get a seat and then take that number and divide it by four. Director Sheldon expressed that the way the Code is written, the plan has enough parking. Commissioner Stevenson inquired as to the maximum height of the steeple. Mr. Diem replied that the steeple height varies with the size of the building. Ms. Sheldon measured the plans and indicated the steeple to be 41.5 feet above the grade. Commissioner Miller asked if it were a request for a single family home would there be restrictions on how large they could build the house? Director Sheldon indicated that the Zoning Code does not have a coverage limit, but we do have setback requirements. Commission Miller indicated that it could be conceivable that a home could be quite a bit larger than the church proposal. Mike Egger, 6952 Pleasant View Drive, had concerns on what the property is zoned and it was explained that it is zoned residential and that the R-1 district allows churches with approval of a conditional use permit. He also expressed concerns with traffic. Bill Mellon, 6953 Pleasant View Drive, inquired about the fire department issue, and had concerns with the driveway width and the parking lot. Director Sheldon briefly went over the parking plan and how it relates to emergency vehicle access. Dan Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive, expressed his concern about how close the proposed parking lot would be to his property and the effects this would have on the value of his home. He also expressed that he believes • this is a gross overdevelopment of the property. • • UNAPPROVED • Mounds View Planning Commission September 18, 1996 • Special Meeting Page 11 • Steve Borden, 3009 County Road H, expressed that he would like the Planning Commission to go along with what City Staff is recommending, that the building is too large and too tall (the steeple), the parking lot is too large for this half acre block, and that the development is grossly oversized for their neighborhood which is green and wooded and he would like to keep it that way. June Eikvar, 6986 Pleasant View Drive, expressed her concern about on-street parking and special events such as weddings and funerals that will be held at the church and was also concerned about the blind intersection coming out of Pleasant View Drive south- bound, looking at County Road H. She was also concerned about the enforcement of fire codes and the issue of snow plowing. Commissioner Brasaemle inquired that in light of the changes, is it Staff is position to still recommend denial, and Director Sheldon indicated, yes. Dan Griffen, 2965 County Road H, who lives directly across from the proposed entrance of the parking lot asked if the plan was to cut down all of the existing trees to create the parking lot. Director Sheldon reviewed the landscaping plan and indicated that 6 of the 12 trees proposed to be cleared are 20" oak trees. Chair Peterson explained that the Planning Commission will be making a recommendation to the City Council who would take final action on the request. Chair Peterson closed the public hearing at 8:38 p.m. Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Brooks to approve • Resolution No. 475-96 recommending denial of the conditional use permit request for the New UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission September 18, 1996 • Special Meeting Page 12 Apostolic Church to construct a church facility at 3025 County Road H, as amended. Director • Sheldon suggested to take the changes proposed in the hand-out and drop the first item. related to the Fire Department since the applicant had proposed a way to solve the emergencyaccess problem. Lynn Widseth, 3001 County Road H, wanted to know if the Planning Commission recommends denial and it goes to City Council, what will they do with the information? Chair Peterson replied by saying that one of the Planning Commission's main jobs is to make sure that all issues are explored. Director Sheldon also replied by saying that the City Council receives a staff report along with the Planning . Commission's recommendation and a public hearing will be held by the City Council and • they will then make their decision. Commission Brasaemle explained that this decision has nothing to do with the church, its membership or his feelings toward the church. He was recommending denial because of lot size and the fact that the he believes it to be an overdevelopment of the lot that is designated R-1, low density use and he concurs with Staffs recommendation that the height and size of the building do not fit the surrounding area. He also expressed that he shares the concerns with the surrounding property owners regarding the parking lot and its effect on property values, but stated that he understands property values tend not to decrease when there is a church built in a neighborhood. He stated that the parking lot adds an extraordinary circumstance, and that if this were a one acre lot and there were more buffer, he would have no problem with the request. UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission September 18, 1996 • Special Meeting Page 13 Commissioner Brooks was concerned with how the church fits in with the character of the surrounding area. Commissioner Miller stated that she would have to go against this denial because some of the items are fairly subjective and she questioned what is adequate and added that what is adequate for one person may not be adequate for another. She believes that this is a situation where people like things the way they are and don't what to change, but she feels if a property belongs to someone they should have the opportunity to use that property. She believes that the applicant has gone through the criteria and they have met the parking requirements and added more buffering than the Code requires. • Commissioner Johnston stated he believes that it is too intense of a use for the lot and would have no problem with a smaller church. Commissioner Obert disagreed with the denial on the basis that the applicant has done everything that the City has asked of them and believes that they have actually become more accommodating. He felt there has been some precedent already set in Mounds View as far as the property of other churches. He believes something else can be done yet to modify the buffering issue and suggested that more research be done. Commissioner Stevenson does not want people driving into Mounds View asking how did they ever allow a church development like that in Mounds View? He believes there is enough things here that will definitely make him vote for denial of the request. • UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission September 18, 1996 • Special Meeting Page 14 Chair Peterson admitted that this has not been an easy case for him to decide and he would like to think of what is best for the City, the neighborhood, and what the rights are of the applicant, and how much have they been willing to change to comply. He is a somewhat concerned about the lot size and the size of the parking lot, but he believes that many things have been done to make it match our Code and he does not believe it to be a terrible thing for the neighborhood. 4 ayes 3 ayes Motion Carried Motion/Carried: Brasaemle/Brooks to adopt Resolution No. 476-96 recommending denial of the development review request for the New Apostolic Church at 3025 County Road H. Commissioner Brasaemle indicated that • basically you cannot approve the development review if you do not approve the conditional use permit. Commissioner Brasaemle amended the motion to include the items from the Staff handout. The amendments were approved by the seconder. 4 ayes 3 nays Motion Carried Community Development Director Sheldon informed the Commission and citizens that they will be asking the Council to set the hearing for this case at their next meeting on September 23rd. She informed the residents that those who received a previous notice regarding this case would receive a notice regarding the City Council public hearing and indicated that it is sent to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. • UNAPPROVED Mounds View Planning Commission September 18, 1996 a Special Meeting Page 15 There being no further business before the 5. Adjournment Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. • Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sheldon Community Devleopment Director • • Item #5 REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: October 2, 1996 Staff Report by: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Planning Case 457-96 File No.: Request: The applicant is requesting a 20 foot variance from the 30 foot setback requirement to allow construction of a three season porch 10 feet from the rear property line. Petitioner: Ronald Gardner Location: 8480 Pleasant View Drive PIN No. 06-30-23-22-0072 Zoning/Land Use: The property is currently zoned R-1 Single Family Residential Applicable Regulations: • Section 1004.01, Subd 3., requires a 30 foot rear yard setback. Section 1125.02 states the criteria for review of variances as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the properties which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. d. That 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. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. • f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Planning Case No. 457-96: 8480 Pleasant View Drive • October 2, 1996 Page 2 g. 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. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such restrictions and conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Plot Plan Floorplan Hardship Statement Resolution 478-96 Background: The applicant is requesting a variance to replace an existing deck with a three-season porch on his property at 8480 Pleasant View Drive. The property is located on a cul-de- . sac; therefore, the lot is an irregular shape and restricted the placement of the home at the time of construction. The house was built in 1977, and is located 22 feet from the rear property line. The applicant has indicated in his letter that the setback requirements at the time were different. Staff has researched the Zoning Code and found that the rear setback requirement was 20 feet in 1960, and was changed to the current 30 feet in 1970. We understand that Mr. Gardner was the owner of the property when the house was built and did receive a building permit for construction of the house. The certificate of survey from 1977 shows the house in its present location. We do not know why the house was allowed to be built at 22 feet. The porch would replace a deck which was outside sliding glass doors from the dining room in the Gardners' home. The applicant has provided the City with floor plans for the house. (A copy of this area is attached.) They have indicated that there is no other practical way to arrange the doorway from the dining room except to the rear yard. The applicant has submitted a hardship statement regarding his request. Mr. Gardner has stated that he does have an irregular shaped lot which requires that the house be pushed backward toward the rear property line, and makes it difficult to add any improvements on the rear of the house. He notes that many of the neighbors have three-season porches, so allowing the variance would not grant a special privilege. Without the variance, he would be deprived of an improvement which many of his neighbors enjoy. He indicates that the porch would be screened from his neighbor's property by existing trees. • • Planning Case No. 457-96: 8480 Pleasant View Drive October 2, 1996 Page 4 Analysis/Recommendation: The lot in question is pie shaped because of the cul-de-sac, and does present practical difficulties in locating the house on the lot. The property owner desires to convert the area which has been used for a deck to a three season porch. The deck has been removed but served a sliding glass door on the upper level of the house. The house is split level in design and therefore the door is approximately 10 feet above grade. It is the applicant's desire to use the existing design of the house, the arrangement of the dining room and the location of the sliding glass door in adding the porch to the house. If no improvements are made, the sliding glass door will open into space. The Zoning Code allows decks off the main level of the house to encroach to within two feet of the property line (Section 1104.01 Subd 5.c.) Three season porches, which are enclosed structures, are not given this same allowance and must comply with the building setback. The change proposed by the applicant from a deck to a three season porch means different rules that apply, and a variance is required. The three season porch would be 10 feet from the rear property line, with the bottom edge • 10 above grade. The applicant has indicated that they will be enclosing the area between the deck and the ground level to make it more attractive but not to finish it as a useable room. The neighbor's house is on the opposite side of the lot from where the porch would be located. The porch will be facing the open side yard on the abutting property and will be screened by trees. The porch will be approximately 60 feet from the nearest side property line. Staff Recommendation: Adopt the attached 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. cc: Ronald L. Gardner, 8480 Pleasant View Drive, Mounds View MN 55112 1111 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING APPLICATION APPLICANT: 404//kA L ._ 6z.ARD.t/ER Phone 721,-7.51F •ADDRESS: R92o 1;2E1154A/1 U/Eci ye we ( i ot.,vds U/F'w /)1,✓ S'S j/ )-- Street Address, City, State, and Zip Code • . Interest in Property (check appropriate box): • 1g Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other (explain) Documentary.evidence of applicant's interest in the praaany may be required before final City aeon of this request PROPERTY INVOLVED: • Address/General Location $y 'O P2EASRNT Y1Eu DAliE Moot/ds V/E w Legal Description or Property Identification Number 1A/ii/TE OAK ESTATES 7N/RD ID. # OG 3023 2?. 0072. / LOT /D .131..K / Legal Owner: Name/Address RONALD L. G.A R DA/ER 8yso PLE/9S11Av7' View ARtv6 fl1 oovds V/Ew /1 Al Present Use (check appropriate box): - ❑ Undeveloped vacant Single Family Dwelling . ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling .. ❑ Multi-Family (No. of Units ) ❑ Eusiness/Commercal Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) • Property Classincation: 2' Abstract 0 Torrens RECUEST: '-fizAC_c, Ex S TING.. /Zi 6 Dtcck tr./ i-/TAR 'FE SEASONS PoRc , x _ 0e//1 -/ 1 Ca ) (Js ./iliga AEI 140 J .���iaAi *Reese note: Appiicant may be responsible for accitional fees associated with the review of this request. I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE AEOVE STATEMENT ARE TRUE t / ,c. Signature .,ir .. ,. ,._� inellw,.. ire,._ __ ,. irgro ,.,._,.�„_i. Sig ersriesinintriemirlreirwleirtr $200/acre.minimum$200.maximum $1,000 Paris Fund Dedication Fee R-1 to R-2-S75..a others 5200 Owe Paid anal Use Permit R-1 ti R-2-S75.ail others=00 Receipt Number Cade Appeal $75 Deveioo.;Site Plan Review 5100/ac:e.minimum 100.maximum $500 Total Fees Paid # 7.S" Minor Subdivision $150 Oars Paid Maier Suodivision 8-; .�/ S2V0 pias SZ_0 deposit Receipt Number � l_i2 i Ill C;.mo. ?!an Amendment SZCO Wetland Alteration Permit $50 oius deposit determines by Staff Additional Fee Paid Wetland Sutter Permit S10 Cate Paid Planning Sign S50 Receipt Number PUO $350 PUD Amendment 5150 Dare of final act,.on APPROVED 0 DENIED = TAEUD Dare Y- 2.2- 9b Planning Case No. q 5 7- q CO Admin.Account No. r /)4 1 1 1 . _ B L A -s, -e — " — j - • . -- • • ___ • • —NORTH—COUNTY nco04 N ` • no 849 r N 349C 8499 I 8490 /m 849 n n 8494 : 9 rf": 8494 N N N �^ • 848' 8485 8484 8489 8480 ! MI N 8490 84134 8462 �r 8477 8480 8479 8470 8485 8484 8 \ 8461 G 8489 8474 8469 8460 8465 8470 846 8475 8474 •84 : 8457 00 8454 8461 8460 8463 8456 8461 84601 845 8456 8465 8470 ' 3464 8454 Pi 4T1-4 E NE 8455 8450 8459 8450 8455 8440 8441 a 8455 8454 8• 8442 8449 8440 8445 8444 8432 8444 8443 8444 C • 8434 8431 8436 8425 8430Lij 8439 8438 8431 a 8431 I 84 . 8421 8430 • 8424 8434 8435 8434 p 8429 8432 8419 8425 8425 8424 841 8411 8421 8423 8426 8400 8415 8420 ea 8418 8419 j 8415 8414 I • 8402 O 8401 I 8419 8420 8409 8392 8401 8406 8405 8404 1 8392 839 8408 8407 8410 '8415 8414 8401 ,., 8384 n 2 8389 8400 8379 8390 8394 8403 8390 8389 84081 8409 8408 939 m 8378 8384 c. • 8386 8387 8380 8.391 • 840E 8391 8.388 C� ' 837"a 8379 830 8373 8370 8380 8385 8387 8382 8381 8378 537 y n 8366 83651 8372 8360 � � PI 8370; 8371 8374 8383 8372 8371 8368 CC 8369 m m 8360 8335 8368 8350 8368 8371 8368 8351 ( 8346 8365 8354 8.345 8364 8345 8340 ��/ 8360 8360 8359 8347 8360 83µ 8351 1 8346 8340 8331 8330 L._L_ 8350 8333 83551 8340 83581 8341 8343 8342 8325 8312 8315 8320 Q 40 8335 83.34 8339 8334' 8345 8338 O 8335 8332 8315 8300 8303 8310 1. • 8330 8335 8325 8330 3 8333 8330 8333 8322 8305 8290 8295 _ 8290�, 8320 8325 8315 8322 Z 8321 8325 8300 5 8285 8280 8287 820 ` 8316 I CI- 8310 8315 8311 8308 Y 831 ��� t 8275 8270 C 8281 8270 u 8300 8305 8312 8297 8298 8301 GROVELAND 8285 820 z 8273 8260 8284 8285 8290 8289 8280 8285 PARK 8255 8250 8267 8250 1820 8275 - 8281 • 8250 82511PF m 7410. -18240 8261 8240 W • 8270 8265 8230 8241 N N N N N, N N 8230 8255 N 8270 8265 .--. ARRAN AVE 8260 8255 8248 i:; h = Nm m m O J ' ® . o. ::. mIm1m n O s •O N F. N8220 Y I 8250 ,. c: N N N -•-- N l''''N N N N N N N N 8210 8211 pi. y • 8240 P • 8233 8228 01 8245 8206 8227 8213 8202 40 VI � ' 320( 4.4 - 8210 8217 8198 8205 _ N N N N 5 8191 8192 n 82031 8208 DR o '� - 8177 8200 Z •• }N N- °� N�of f 8175 (:. 12.A 81 • 8180 8175 8160` I N cmv 8200 iN N N N N�814E 81 65 ! 'D 7 8155 9 • -'Z`12.811 8160 ,^� a 8148 O N SIA PORT O 1 8145 8�`PO C (A� 8117 8161 w N N ;: M 12 51 o 0 8142 8 1- • 903 N N w .R. 8138 N N N N N W �,. - 8135 a1, ••' Pt.ACE 2:g6S 8132 8141 0 8127 8t25�8130 813 \\� _ - W -- rn N o 811 n of n w of n w a v7 n �. \ N w w A N — O O (O u) Nf N !� cc X. 6131 M N N • 8106 N N N N N N N N , N N N N1a12O 121N CI 8111 1 �N J▪. \ 81 n n o vi Y + ^ om 7 m L \\ 80 CO CO N N m _� N N 8080ct 8081 N N 8088 el n \\ N co N 8060 8065 8084 8085 8070 8071 8066 8040— 8075 800 8059 8050 > N • 8-31 R—'O18030 8046 8046 8046 8040 8042 80368025 8039 8032 • \\'r 8020 8025 8016 80158026 028 8025 1 8018 ' \ r 8000 8005 8015 8009 8006 ' \ 7980 8005 z 7990 g7985 ( 8004 7981 7990 c (i) I ... Vicinity Map: 457-96 I CM 8480 Pleasant View Drive N N t` Applicant: Ronald L. Gardner • r�. So�T ' / RyRo PCFsArfi V�Ew Dkitit_ 0 1 1 %. FRONT i)A I \\\ ! - a I • 1.7,... \I Z2 \ EAST 4.. 0v' cy \ )6j I li 1 / I / Qti' 9" 1 ! I gams,. / -J 1 ' I PRO POSED / STRvCTuRE I • 12 I I I 12 ' BAK L '/1R11 ell '6.i P.,--r---3:- a,._1" cLe.....,) , . • . • . . - .. . , • - . • z - 1 LThl I flaire_prga4. -- ‘ i% X. I )0 ••' & L,14.0!_,WDW -_>_,‘ 1 Ziert3D714t4PL_ ..--.-- -J All II 4 fi 1 I I . i • . 11-u • - 0! i \ - " '-'.. -1:14*149-- 11 . . . -111-hki------- zr.floNe._erit. 0, ALA.EtwA.. .. .. _ Re- ' --.- --rt. • -•a i tg- L.. ...,. N rp' --' la - /71.46,244, I . \ ler:1j :AD I---- Z:-•, zw_g_a.../ .1 • —\ Ot• — :D.ININ/C-...-..• - , :III - 11511,•ect. .va.8,.t.f.A.ei, I4 V ye1T tv"M ' ''_ . apsc,Jfar !' _ ___,FAFTZP, __•_• • r• __:_- tiv4 :27-fAad..-------------=-- ---';' ‘-,i."-- z---- -. j_sti• --------,--, - . 4 ‘1 .1%-- p 711-(A414:1--- 4,, . .4%. - - / 1 tp4 . _._ _... i 14:9357it• ' 4..1 0 . • I HP 1:42:- _1- l '.• ' - I t4 111111 frs/ss c.zrith 3 pi = -,.... ... ...,. .../ WIIIII ,....." .. — . —,. aiektplecq: -- it „. . L.. —I- it-:--i i-m-w,- . -,. 1 ri \ 1DR 11211114 ;1 ‘ 10 0 f 11111110M:- ' me.... I? ' .a mnitid 1E4=21_1. . \ .045Emcclii: LtIC 77,0 ' : —s 7'. e,, 1=7014----..-7.,--',' .:..' . 7."*".r"'`-''''-' -. - . - .7- / 1 ill 1 1 . __t-L,--:. 1:! 7.L VI -... _-....._":" 1 1 . _ .._,...L.„ •,..,_..,.. i .113,.‘ I 1 1--- • I -. i . 1.1.1- \ -,, 1' •''' , I '2\ ; --- ,, _/ \A I, •-• . ' . 1 I i --9. : .,-----Te...-4. --.- - - ,- -, ,:-...- II . . . '1-- -7 7- • ., . ; it ___ I I•Ill . A"/ Mil- ''' 1 \ 1 t., - = ...p.:1•*. . - ,-•- /- \ ,. --1 -1R71/Iali - - ' . 1 - - I - ---- - t • . ' -:t 1 a -ill pl'atc)v2.._ r.i 4 4 IN I taligCVS/1•-• it g 1 1...... ............ 1=0=Ps•' 4• ii,- ' i la , I ..., , ......______:. .,_ __.,_ -__ .....__ ..._.:., ..... A, ,..-\\ li C5 1 ...0'... - ' -tyl" rusivit* 1E5aavi. 11 • • , -.3 • v..? 4, •N , 1 -z= / t \ . 1; -ficyor.0,* f; C..: _........v- 4..t. .-z•-.:., / d feez24,. ,. \ • . . . , Siff rxr.__ : / •i ---. ..7..i \ : ,., . -I 1 .! , v \ • -- ' - 1 \\ 'f--? . ..ii= I - , 1 1,0.-0 I - , , . • .. ,.. ', -.-- • 1 \ II-0‘ ii.. _.• 1 . 1\— , r2 ____ ., s ____ ____ -- ..r. , z.t...---- • ; 411 1 I Ct) / ----...=1.1---,---.. ........4,...===m...-.....„.it------=-:-...:..f,!...:* \t- 3... 1 ., j. et II 1 , ..,Iti • 8480 Pleasant View Drive Mounds View, MN 55112 September 8, 1996 ?- • Ms. Pamela Sheldon A ; 199 i Community Development Director C� 5 T ; City of Mounds View Cce��@ "` 2401 Highway 10 llaUods � d Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 W / Re: Planning Case 457-96 ----- - Thank you for informing me that my application for a variance to construct a three-season porch is tentatively scheduled for September 18. I am happy to provide the additional information requested in your September 4 letter to explain how I feel I meet the criteria in the Zoning Code. I believe a variance should be granted to allow me to construct a three- season porch in the same location ascan existing deck. The following circumstances, cited in the Criteria for Approval of Variances, will impose an undue hardship, as well as practical difficulties, to me and my family in the future use and enjoyment of our home and property. a. The size and shape of my lot is quite different from other properties in the vicinity. My lot is of an irregular size which does not have the required rear property line set-hack. At the time my home was built in 1977, the zoning codes were different than they; are today. I was allowed to build my home, with a deck, with a shorter rear property line setback. As the zoning codes are written today, I would have practical difficulties with • construction of anything that I would do at the rear of my property, including replacing an existing deck. b.' My family and I would be deprived of the rights commonly enjoyed by our neighbors--the enjoyment of a three-season porch such as many of my neighbors now enjoy. c. The lack of the required rear property line setback does not result from my own actions, but rather from the zoning codes that were in existence when I purchased the lot and built my home and the irregular shape of the lot. I chose the lot because I found it a pleasant location and did not - - - -='• -. '_ "••• • - •' - W4' •-come a •e iment to future plans. d. Granting this variance will not allow me any special privileges as many of my neighbors have three-season porches and/or large decks. e. I assure you that should this variance be granted, it would be the minimum variance allowed to construct the three-season porch. No further encroachment, other than that required, would be requested. This is not a matter of economic hardship, but rather the hardship of not being able to enjoy a portion of our home and property. III ' • Ms. Pamela Sheldon September 8, 1996 Page Two • f. I can see no reason why the approval of the variance would in any way be materially detrimental to the purpose of the zoning code or to other property in the same zone. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or - -air to the adjacent property. The porch would be barely visible to the neighbors directly behind my property, and only then through an existing row of mature trees and across their very deep backyards, making it almost invisible to the neighboring home owners. Since the porch is at the rear of my home, away from the street, no congestion would occur. There would be no increase in the danger of fire or public safety since the proposed porch is well away from the neighboring homes. Having a well designed and well built porch would only add to the property values within the neighborhood, .:.not diminish or impair them. In closing, I appreciate the Planning Commission taking my request for a variance into consideration. I trust that I have provided you with clear and accurate information as to why I feel that a denial of my request-would create an undue hardship, as well as a ,practical difficulty, in the future use and enjoyment of my home and property. Shouldl you desire further information or clarification, please feel free to contact me. • Sincerely, Ronald L. Gardner • 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 Peterson, Chairman ATTEST Pamela Sheldon, • Community Development Director • • Item #6 4 REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: October 2, 1996 Staff Report by: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director 9Y-. Planning Case 458-96 File No.: Request: The applicant is requesting a variance in the building setback between a residence and a detached garage from the required six feet to three feet Petitioner: Vic& Son Construction on behalf of property owners Terry and Anne Jacobson Location: 7090 Knollwood Drive PIN No. 07-30-23-34-0012 Zoning Land Use: The property is currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential 41110 Applicable Regulations: Section 1106.03, Subd lc., requires accessory buildings to be six feet (6') or more from any other building or structure on the same lot. Section 503.3 of the Uniform Building Code states that for the purpose of determining the required wall and opening protection, buildings on the same property shall be assumed to have a property line between them. When a new building is erected on the same property as an existing building, the distances from the assumed property line is used to determine if walls in either the existing or the new building must be fire rated. For single family homes and detached garages, walls within 3 feet of the assumed property line must be fire rated. Section 1125.02 states the criteria for review of variances as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the properties which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. . b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. 1111 c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Planning Case No. 458-96: 7090 Knollwood Drive October 2, 19964110 Page 2 d. That 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. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. g. 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. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such restrictions and conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map 41)Diagram showing relationship of buildings (approximated from aerial photos) Construction Drawings (reduced) Diagram showing dimensions between buildings Hardship Statement Resolution 479-96 Background: The applicant hired Vic & Son Construction to construct a second story addition and a rear entrance to their home to protect the back door from weather. It consists of an enclosed landing and flight of steps. There is an existing garage behind the house which was not shown on the building plans. The rear entrance has been constructed and is located within 3 feet 4 inches of the garage. Staff discovered the problem with the distance between the rear entrance and the garage when inspecting the construction. The garage was not shown on the building plans. Section 1106.03 Subd. 1.c. requires accessory buildings to be at least six feet from any other building or structure on the same lot. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the rear entrance to be less than the six foot requirement of the Zoning Code. • 4 Planning Case No. 458-96: 7090 Knollwood Drive 0 October 2, 1996 Page 3 Analysis/ Recommendation: • The rear entrance was placed in the only logical location available given the location of the back door. The steps are directed toward the garage rather than away from the garage, and provide easier access than if the flight of steps were reversed. The distance from the . corner or the rear entrance to the corner of the garage is 3 feet 4 inches. The two buildings do not actually overlap. The garage is 7 feet 8 inches from the back wall of the house (see attached diagram). The Building Code requires that if the entrance remains, either the wall of the entrance or the wall of the garage must be fire rated. Adding 5/8" sheetrock to the walls of the garage is sufficient to meet the requirement. Staff Recommendation: Adopt the attached resolution approving a reduction in the setback requirement from six feet to three feet between the principal residence and an accessory garage building to allow construction of an enclosed rear entrance for the residence at 7090 Knollwood Drive; Planning Case No. 458-96. 0 cc: Vic& Son Construction, 10020 Olive St. NW, Coon Rapids, MN 55433 Terry& Anne Jacobson, 7090 Knollwood Drive, Mounds View, MN 55112 • -' •••••• ++•�+ .4-A-1. U.L IO•� ayVr ...Ill Ur AT TUU /UU3 1) CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW l PLANNING APPLICATION APPLICANT: Li / C_el, SQ n ('O k17, Ph.. one 7 Clf t� 7 Y/// 1111 ADDRESS: r 0 . Q 4, Street Address, City, State, and ZZp Cade �� • A ' • 4 53-1,1:?__ Interest in Property (check appropriate box): ❑ Owner at Property ❑ Contract far Deed Cwner • ❑ Lamm), Operator, Manager "i. Agreement to Purchase ,/ Omar(explain) ( 1r1 "l life-/Q V- pocurneny dseoe of apoiproperly..in the properly T, required before Mei City amen at tllie request - � • PROPERTY INVOLVED: Address/Genera( Logon_ 7/9 qQ kpi/7 i/ lt, e - �D " Legal Description or Property 1(a'cation Number i ... . .', moi. 4 �,,;, Legal Owner. Name/Address 7e,- �� � o�z o a.3 0.O)�}. Ahh•c CTctfl,, ecnAt____ Present Use (check appropriate box): Q UndevelopedJYacarrt 21 Single Family CwelGng III . . . • (No. at Unds ) Q BUsiness/Commer fat Establishment Q Indusaial Establishment Q Other (ems . Propeny Classification: ❑ Abstract O Terrane REQUEST: . L°_ "-e ,r t / k Le Y / l� S D74•+ . `, ../A OI eta,it' dkdMlrjAWfflrllrOt. r .Alr-'- .vsissswiJrliale-W` /)L /c i • A • _ _• ritififir ease nota: Applicant - b responsible fdr�acditionajfess associated •- aw at this request I HEIEEY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE ST,ATE4.4eiT ARE TRUE -4 �.. 2d . • SSignatureRezo -��d.•.��� i1t Cf Venoms 9 SZO Mom;n SZOo.+n�rayn 51.000 'Perk Fund Qa ion Fee 14.1 b 1;1-2-VS.di caws SZ00 Oieb Pe;d Canal nd Use Permit R•i Ai 14-2-t75.ail wham SZDo Ree Number Cade Appeal $75 oeaizo.ats Plan Realties 3100/acre.minimum 100.rnmstxass S503 Tabes Fess Paid 00 Valor Subdivision Owe Paint r$t�01Mi90A - Comp. Pie i Amendment 3=P 3250 deposit Receipt Number c077 Wedend aeareion Permit $$o plus deposit determined by Sat Addttlorar Fee Paid Wetland Soifer Permit Sr 0 Owe Paid • Panning Sign = Rcapt Number P0 1 PUO Amarsdnsent $150 Oce of Erol aiclon APPRCVEQ Q ceNIEO c TAaL I,.. Oase j- ?f7-' P,es„i„g Case No. 445-5 —g c.P Admin.Account No. n 1 - - I •310 7545 75500 7545 7560 vvV N -`� • 11 7525 7538 W 7546 Y 7515 .004 PF gn n n n 750' N N7500 N •coN N r 5 co 0 N o p, BRONSON DRIVE "N I Io 0 0 0 0 7474 7489 I N ` 7490 7485 N m _ I n n n n n 49 N °0 ......... 7465 7474 7471 747 N 15 7457 BRONSON .:.:**:.*:':.:::...:....:-...1.-- 0 15 7462 454 7456 ,BRONSON I 7447 7448 7445 R-Z 7452 1 7451 m o0 7444 .7...'-'::::;.::::-;,--::*::::':'":'. - _ / N N N11§k� 1 ��R jo .. • La 7415 7442 7425 7430 7435 7434 0 p 7409 74401 _1. �EYJ I 7415 7406 7405 7412 7405 7408 •. �' ®® •• C7 g Z 7395 7400 _ I 7375 7380 N 7381 7382 7390 En �11� 7350 7365 7360 7375 ga : H . a. F. 7365 '- 82:::::4741111111E1111111111 -� � � • 7347 7344 7350 7325 7344 7373 ` - �_ — 732C 7327 ; r) 7344 :.•:::::::::::4::::::::- L.11 - t 1 a n n n a 7337 n •n ti al - 737325 5 N N 7338 ��.y6'1 • •' _ n N o n N - 0 0 .t... n n 4i u1 it; =MN 1 0 0 0 n 0 m m m m m m m m o m 7310 �� 2 j ■�7 1 n n n n n n N N N N N 7315 N N N N_ • R i R-2 n N m O r n N ZI O O .r N 00 7295kit t' M N _ 0 0 0 0 0 m m m m m m mco o m m m 288 B-� ^ N r.4 �� SZ [ n n n n n N N N N N N N N• N N N .- — �•18 ®� 52 • 280 .18 En= 52 _ 5260 Ix r 7234 7237 7250 0 �� 5254 -Q _ E � �_�-� 7226 7225 72 • r "--.1 .—L 7200 7215 719• 111F 82122 ( 11:111 5236 523 -- � 7188 7191 R-4 5230 523 52: :: 151 7172 778• 451701516 5224 52: .1? 7150 ® — , 0 m _n n N m O 8 ,; r w n O n n m N 171 N N I N N N N W 51 ®m 5c2 n n WOOD• DR ., 5206® SS • p N N N 7100 709 co N co CO 709C 16215161 5200 5205 52 woo0ALE D• s2o, L CI ♦ N n ' 7094 pO 0 cum 51 n 082 n %""•- t. .:- 7070 5143 5140 5 7095 `\ ' IES ---� 7074 Z�r 7060 5139 ®51 5 �--- 7072 7069 060' 7063 n m m R-2 5133 W� 7054 "+ o m: 4!> t r N N NKQ CRET 5t6�OOoDCREST $ Z ( Pf�RK579 ,51 .' N N N N 0' PF N 5107 5100 5101 5. • 7006 r 701 W�i� ® m :ey �c 6986c O' !� 509 5091 092) a EE •• �F- 5c 69'� 2940 � m m 508615085/3 0861085 �:•t•r•r Sc N I N 69 0 697 -::1i:ln9ia:'.L. F, 6960 5084 079 5080)5079 �}•�:• 5C co co• 6952 6953`. , N 0 6950 6951 50721 5071 0721 5071 CZ= 5• 6942 n 6939 , N N 6946 6945 6940 50661065 5066 5065 Ciii.06 5_ I 506015059 8 50601 059 {y�...�•� 5_ ur 6928 6929 N N G 692-LI 0, f n N O O 5054150536 50�5053 y�j. • 5c O .6900 O O 1, �..� N N ..:���!� �I 0 r N N N N NH N �� 5046 5045 504-.5045 =� • m 5• N E 111 LEGEND Vicinity Map: 458-96 7090 Knollwood Drive P. ZONING DISTRICTS Applicant: Vic & Sm, ir - nn C700'3 [1001] C100'] C100'3 • 1-1 cn C.;.) 410 u C2C 4 0 0 U.) C75'3 garage l - I house [100'] C100'] C75/] =25. Scale: 1" = 50 feet 7090 Knollwood Drive Planning Case No. 458-96 1110 Approximate locations based on aerial photographs Him. torn 1r(Ml nrMl • Vd 0-744 tic'el iii, fro 01/4b tt0 0970 v CI= 0 3 � i -Aare), _ _ _ _ _ _ • UliliEik____. .........._____...._ / y = II d ZZ r 3 z cc, y I '" ° 2 IIS°� C7 R // . 3 • ..(1.441,0.• —' .0 . /12;.}b I• V . • \ f %° x 60 O N rwt+/ J r s v Tr Li i 11 ll • , • -, L .. •:. • 7c.Y • r . ""•- "--7,,,......,1-7—•—•."-. -7\L= I z 90 Knollwood. Drive :17. • • 7:1- . Rear Entrance •• onstruction Drawings- for„ 2nd Floor Addition & ''• 1fear Entrance - • ` - -'Planning. Case No. 458-96. to i house ///////�;//// it' ////////�'//,// /////.// '/ i' %// ////////// ;7/////////// L t / 7... 4J rear entrance a, ai w 718" Ln 1 111 314" y 1 Jk 11 feet ///. / / t."7/;, storage • l room 1111 .,;,),, ,. , /.,,,,,,,,,,4 ,, /, . ,,,,:;:,,,,, , _ ,, garage & storage area ;/ / // ice/ /, .:j Planning Case No. 458-96 7090 Knollwood Drive Dimensions between buildings , -- grilato �8JX�_�l�'«» . - � '--' . lla _ o • U�\ ' Otthilind 444r_t_ta-tanekz_AILRU-____tn_ a_16_1(VitILLIkkUaloit_ta-firtin4___ 210042_51.) 41 " tit 01_ ii_114-641iLaPpLQuWil_ YVIAte-g-, b I al FlO.Cp. ___Iltafig_ft_lit__LtigLat_efrijadAl.SiCial. . / / -- -- --- --- • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 479-96 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING 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 all 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, 111 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 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 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. 479-96 410 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 on Terry and Anne Jacobson, for a reduction in the setback requirement from six feet to three feet between 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 Peterson, Chairman ATTEST: Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director (SEAL) 410 Item #7 REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: October 2, 1996 Staff Report by: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Planning Case 457-96 File No.: Request: The applicant is requesting a variance to extend the current concrete driveway to 1 foot of the side property line. Petitioner: John R. Manning Location: 7755 Spring Lake Road PIN No. 06-30-23-33-0008 Zoning/Land Use: The property is currently zoned R-1 Single Family Residential Applicable Regulations: Section 1004.01, Subd 4., requires a 5 foot setback from any lot line. This section of the Code states that a temporary parking surfaces may be within 5 feet (5')but not less than 1 foot (1') from any lot line with permission from the adjacent property owner. Section 1121.09, Subd. 7, defines temporary surfacing of off-street parking as brick or concrete pavers, gravel construction or asphalt construction. It states that no concrete surfacing shall be allowed for temporary surfaces. Section 1125.02 states the criteria for review of variances as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the properties which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. d. That 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. Planning Case No. 459-96: 7755 Spring Lake Road October 2, 1996 Page 2 e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. • g. 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. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such restrictions and conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Plot Plan Hardship Statement Resolution 482-96 Background: The applicant is requesting a variance to extend his concrete driveway within 1 foot of the side property line. He lists several reasons why he feels a variance is appropriate in his hardship statement. The area between his existing driveway and the property line is too. shaded to grow grass because of pine trees on his neighbor's property. The area is an eyesore and requires some kind of surfacing. His property fronts on Spring Lake Road where parking is prohibited. He wants to expand the existing driveway to provide parking for guests. Guest parking has been a problem and requires ferrying people from parking elsewhere in the neighborhood or from the park. The pine trees on the adjacent property provide a buffer. According to the plot plan provided by the applicant, the neighbor's house is 80 feet from the side property line. Staff requested Mr. Manning to contact his neighbor as to whether they would give permission for a parking area within one foot of the property line. Mr. Manning was not able to get written permission. Therefore his request is two-fold: • to reduce the setback from property lines to parking areas regardless of whether the neighbor gives written permission • to allow the surfacing to be concrete rather than temporary material • • • Planning Case No.459-96: 7755 Spring Lake Road October 2, 1996 Page 3 Analysis/ Recommendation: The strict application of the Zoning Code (Section 1121.09, Subd. 7) would only allow the expansion of a parking area on Mr. Manning's property to within one foot of the side property line if: • the surfacing were temporary(brick or concrete pavers, asphalt construction or gravel construction), and • his neighbor gives written permission Mr. Manning desires to use concrete since his existing driveway in the area which would be extended is also concrete. The portion of the driveway which crosses Spring Lake Road right-of-way is asphalt (see plot plan). Variance Criteria (1125.02 Sub. 2) The applicant has provided a letter addressing each of the criteria for granting variances. In summary, the variance procedure is available to address situations where the normal application of the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. Allowing Mr. Manning to expand his parking area would address the hardship created by the parking restrictions on Spring Lake Road and the problems caused by the area along his side property line being shaded. This difficulty caused by parking restrictions is not unique to this property, however. Mr. Manning has the ability to add 6 additional feet in width (to five feet from the property line) using concrete without special permission from the City. He could add additional width on the north side of the driveway. The problems with his lawn could be addressed through a different type of landscaping. Allowing parking areas within one foot was added to the ordinance when parking was restricted on Mounds View streets. Particular thought was given to limiting such parking areas to only temporary surfacing and with permission of the neighboring property. When parking areas are placed within one foot of a property line, there is very little ability to provide buffering between the parking area and the neighbor. The requirement to obtain written permission from the neighboring property owner recognizes that parking areas that close may have an impact on the neighbor. Granting this variance would run counter to the very purpose for the Code requirement. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the attached resolution denying a request for a concrete parking area within • one foot of a side property line at 7755 Spring Lake Road. cc: John R. Manning, 7755 Spring Lake Road, Mounds View, MN 55112 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING APPLICATION APPLICANT:_ .r ci r7/,-) Phone 7LgL- zS 0 ADDRESS 7 - . Street Ad•ress, ity, State, and Zip Code • Interest in Property (check appropriate box): • Af Owner of Property U Contras for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager Q Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other (explain) . Documentary evidence of applicant's interest in the property may be required before final Cay action of this request PROPERTY INVOLVED. Address/General Location OCeLegal Description or Property Identincation Number �,o�-ayr See---/--,3° a 3 - 33-coo 7-U/F's 3� mart e a3 skb•�C � Legal Owner: / J �' -t-e R r✓ --t•17<7 N •ga �+•of s- �gInst j e• Name/Xddress . . - ., ' ., wui 7� - 5- - - � - .. L/o ce A . 4 A - • i Present Use (check appropriate box): ❑ UndevelopedNecant Single Family Dwelling • 0 Duplex/Two Family Dwelling . . -_--_._ Multi-Family (No. of Units ) • Q Business/Commercial Establishment • Q Industrial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) Property Classification: Q Abstract Torrens RE•DUEST: --TA4--(-- a Varr ;0nce_ t,� `� r a? ea o _ v �� S� Z Ga n u S� - cI - __ ....i���i.r.r .ERZ A - .- - Atfa % t -17 'P!ease note: AppiRant may be responsible for acoitional fees associated with the r- few of this request. I HERE3Y DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT ARE TRUE / Signa - - Rezoni s=■:_tr • Cd/acre.minimum$200.maximum 51.000 Park Fund Dedication Fee R-1 to rR-2-S75.ail athers=00 Oats Paid wnartionai Use Permit R-1 to A-2-S5.ail others 52C0 75 Receipt Number Coda Appeal $ OeveiooJSite Plan Review S100/acre.minimum 100.maximum SZCOTota! Fees P 75` - Minor Suooivision S150 aid n S2 A c Dara Paid q•„4, _`1'W Major Subdivisioplus 5250 seoasit Receipt Number Sa S - • Camp. ?!an Amendment SZCO • Wetland Alteration Permit S50 plus deocsrt datermineo by Staff Additional Fee Paid Wetland Surfer Permit S10 Panning Sign SE0 Cate Paid PUDE Receipt Number PUD Amendment 3150 Oats at final action Dam q5- APPROVED C OENIEL - T:,BL Planning Case No. 414 5 q `i co ,__-- - ., I ' y"' --..-_,7-...7. r.7------ <. .. \ B N N N I�� ®iNatO.6 1ri IN 1 N�: !CR!NINq i.-e, �IN IN, 1N 1N1812 _._ .\\ � z \ • . . •\ IIIIIIIIIIIMI :1 (gr.' N N ID li n 18080 I-I 180as 80 ` \ 8060 8065 8084 8070 8071 8066 8071 1 f 5 I• -.--- \ • 8o40 ' 8073 8060 e059 i 8050 8055 • t_L_ \ \�yil8046 8036 802580250 I 8042 8045 \ 8020 8025 8026 8028 8039 8032 8033 ( f \� 8016 sols 8025 sots 8011 l \� :• soos I soon=Boos 8016 8009 8006 r - � ' 7990. 7985 8004 7981 7990 0 7981 lJ I a ' _ .. 79:.';7975 7970, 7979 I 7980 7969 - 'Y + • 11 H Q n 7960 7965 7960 OG 7959 7970 7965 I I o N 79 • 7955 7956¢ 7949 7954 7959 a °' 7934 7933 7950 7940 7945 ! . 1 plit 7932 7930 7935 n n -r � a n �w L.•• 7897 N O • 70 N N N 1 7900 7901 7900 H I N n 1 �0IIM/lai •►�� O ;PI _ Er N HILLVIE'N 78351 7890 7887 �r n0. �•m n �I:T 7861 n 78911 `s I. 7820.... 7825 7j880 7879 I� � T o Nr taj ''�"' 781• 7815 7870 7865 7x35 I :pi 7878 7885 m 9-2 z ''•y 7805! 7860 7851 7850 7821 N �� 7870 7877 4 o H • n 7850 . 7841OEM 7801 til �B 7863 • �L. ,�,�I���,. 77914tz7851 7 . 3 R-446. 4: 3 _.;�- ts% — • ` ` �:£' <:::,.... 7821 a m 1778 7781 7 rt. • i:i'' f' _ - Z.:":::...-:•:•7-,. 7769 77a TE.:....:,* ...,,-..F.:.,..` • • •• , 77597770B-2 .... ..._......-•-... ' ...,_,--= , 021111111111 #191:1 ., • __ f ��,,il(1"1.1� 7729 < ork ti . . . :IS►* 772-="� 7723 EST = 7801 43 • L.SPrillg:".:4-....-a•T WV .... -:. ....._... ... . _ Y!± hElli77,1 N ..t — I t I 7692 is •7 n 769. 7665 N 7890 PUD ^ m r. • N a O� �I N ... p 7680 Q 7669 7670 7563 . w N w N n N o [.. Oa7670 7665 In n n n ,s 7660 ] �. 7655 7666 7647 7• giiii 1111111, 7' • er}.- _l�A ^ 2_, 'I 762 7629 I 7620 7625 7620 itu 11111111111111= 7627 7600 7819 7600 7601 a D: 7585 7594 S��- f� VIEW 1 IC 7581 111E 7581ERN 7579 7588 ^ a I 7555 75• 7585 7x5.0 7565 75: 0 7565 PARK s N , N n o I 7546 7555 3 7555 7572 �� m NIla �� 7545 a I I 7525 7545 755.0 7545 7860 _ 7550 NIII 41 .:4- 0trt on:. �N n 01,11[ a ;46- 7538 Y 7 Y 7515 �; PF N NrN/p t1 n n n I n 750 n Ica`I 75ao N I I I m I o n_°�\-;.Z wl N N N • m C•- N tw BRONSON DRIVE n, 3 I�- m a N _ �I mg -N �•!!i ' of I n f o 0 0 7474 . 7489 I c7, 1 ' 7490 n • w n nI nI1111: EL o n a0o m I 7465 7474 495 N N A:o 7457 1 .. _........-... VI • I5 7462 7454 BRONSONre& - I74x7 7448 7445 R-Z 7452 ; m m 90 17444ati -G:::,?------ }.- _ _ _ — o 1 . 7425 ( 7130 7435 I 7434 7415 17442 nl 42 < Z. � _ '1 7415 ( _ t 'cc j 74os0 740$ I 7412 I Vicinity Map: 459-96 7385 7405 • I 73Bo c 7381 I 7382 Ea i 7755 Spring Lake Road 'r AADIlcant: .Tnhn 17 u i r. . • aVOEJ 3N}J•8S0 ,.:41;;;Hhi;r asnau oiuusoca" , ;:i1:?;;;I:111:. 0 i �' . .111;:1:i'; ' I ,; September 4, 1996 fl City of Moundsview Re: 7755 Spring Lake Road Zoning Code Varience Request The code that limits concrete paving to within 5 feet of a property line seems to be restrictive for these unusual circumstances: 1. A line of 50 Pine trees. on the rear of the adjacent property is an on going problem. This long line of trees dwarf the property line, and hang over a fence, shading the entire South side of 7755 Spring Lake Road. Maintainance on this side isnever ending due to the long needles they produce and the weeds that they encourage. Grass has been planted in this area numerous times but fails to grow because of the pine needles and continual shade. The area has been taken over by unmaintained weed growth on the neighboring side along the fence. 2. The code seems more applicable to properties adjacent (side-by-side) each other rather than where a side property line meets a rear property line. 3. The Pine trees along the property line have reached a mature state with an average height of 20 to 30 feet tall. The trees have been causing the above listed problems for many years. 4. The boulivard in front of 7755 Spring Lake Road has been designated as a No Parking Zone and has been a continual parking problem when guests visit. Having 2 additional parking spaces on the driveway at 7755 Spring Lake Road will make it convenient and safe for guest vehicles. 5. An off set of 1 foot from the property line would make this project practicle and also clean up the property which has been an eyesore for many years. 6. This additional parking area has been suggested by other home owners living along the portion of Spring Lake Road where the No Parking Zone has been designated. 7. Concrete pavement, to match the exsisting driveway, will only improve the property along this line and will relieve an ongoing parking problem. Sincerly, • John Manning MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. 482-96 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST FOR 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, • 110 Planning Commission Resolution 482-96 October 2, 1996 Page 2 WHEREAS, this variance request fails to meet the following criteria for granting a variance as stated in Section 1125.02 of the Zoning Code. 1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances which apply to this property which do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity in that all of the properties fronting on Spring Lake Road in this area have the same parking restrictions; and, • 2. The granting of the variance would confer on the applicant a special privilege in that he would be allowed to build a parking area within one foot of the side property line without the consent of the neighboring property owner. The requirement for permission was included when the allowance for such parking areas was added to the Zoning Code, and is a key provision which recognizes the possible impact on neighboring properties and protects the public welfare. 3. Other alternatives are available to the applicant for providing additional guest parking on his property without needing a variance. There are 11 feet 6 inches between the existing driveway and the side lot line, allowing for six feet of parking • area to be added to the driveway within the required five foot setback. The applicant could also add to the north side of the driveway. The variance requested is not the minimum needed. 4. The variance will be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code and to other property in the same zone in that the Code provisions specifically and intentionally requires permission from the adjacent property owner, and such permission has not been given. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby deny the variance req - . . .n rete .arkin• area within one foot of a side property line at 7755 Spring Lake Road. Adopted this 2nd day of October, 1996. Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director (SEAL) • PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Subject: Late Packet Item: Ordinance on Parking Lot Setback Additional Agenda Item Date: October 1, 1996 Ordinance on Parking Lot Setbacks: I would like to apologize to the Planning Commission for how late you are receiving the staff report on Item#8 on your meeting agenda for October 2. I had planned to prepare this report on the weekend and deliver it, but was not able to do so because of illness. As is noted in the report, I will be glad to review the two ordinances which accompany the report at your meeting and how they differ at the meeting, in case you do not have the time to review them in detail. Based on the 60-day rule, you do not need to take action on this item until October 9, but it would require you having a quorum and calling to order at that • meeting. Additional Item: At the City Council study session on September 30, the subject of Council liaisons was discussed. The chairman of the Economic Development Commission was at the meeting and expressed a desire for closer communication between the City Council and the EDC. Several ideas for improving communication between the City Council and all of the commissions were discussed including the following: • Have the chairman, or a member appointed by the Commission, report on the activity of the Commission each month at a regular Council meeting. This information would then be • •-: . : •- Q - - . • . . . CO . . _• _._ • _ .t • . .- .:. ..'''••� _ would have more visibility, and citizens would be better informed on what the commissions do. • Have the minutes from each of the commissions available to the other commissions. • Have an annual or biannual meeting between the City Council and each commission to discuss goals and objectives for the work of the Commission, and to allow time for discussion of issues. Perhaps the meeting with Planning Commission and City Council should be combined with the EDC because of overlapping areas of interest. • Item #8 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Subject: Setbacks for Parking Lots for Non-Residential Uses Planning Case No. SP-008-96 Date: October 1, 1996 Meeting on October 2, 1996 Issue • Mr. Danny D. Moon, a property owner in Mounds View, has requested the Zoning Code be amended to require a minimum 15 foot setback between parking lots and property lines, when the parking lots are for churches or any commercial uses, when these uses abut residential uses. At your last meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposed ordinance on this issue. The • proposed ordinance also included a minimum lot size requirement for churches and commercial uses, and a number of clean-up items. The City Attorney has advised that it is best to proceed as if the 60-day rule applies to this request. Staff has notified Mr. Moon that the City is extending the time period for review of his request for an additional 60 days, or a total of 120 days from the date of submittal. The Planning Commission needs to act on Mr. Moon's request by October 9 in order for staff to have enough time to place this request before City Council for action. At your last meeting, the Planning Commission requested an ordinance be drafted which addressed Mr. Moon's specific reque : •e •= : . •:. e ••••••••11111. lot size requirement for churches and commercial uses. • Discussion Staff has prepared two ordinances for the Planning Commission's review. Draft#4 is a barebones proposal which adds Mr. Moon's request to our existing Code, and a one acre minimum lot size for churches and any commercial uses in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 districts. Draft#4 includes no cleanup items, and more or less relies on the way the existing Code is organized. Staff feels that there are some problems with this approach and would urge the Planning Commission to consider . Draft #3. Mounds View Planning Commission • Page 2 October 1, 1996 Draft#3 includes Mr. Moon's request, and also includes some reorganization of Code provisions and some clean up items which staff feels are important to our administration of the Code. Given the short time frame available to the Planning Commission for review of these two ordinances, staff is prepared to go over them in detail at your meeting on October 2. cc: Dan Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive, Mounds View MN 55112 By FAX: 783-1853 • • • ORDINANCE NO. 590 (Draft#4) CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA • AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO SETBACKS FOR PARKING LOTS, DRIVEWAYS,AND PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS; MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES LISTED AS CONDITIONAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; TIlE CONTINUED USE OF NONCONFORMING PARKING LOTS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND AMENDING TITLE 1100, SECTIONS 1102.01, 1104.01, 1104.02, 1106.04, 1121.09, 1121.11,AND 1123. 02 THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 1104.01 Subd. 3. Is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 3. Setbacks: The setback distances listed in the table below apply to principal and accessory buildings, except as otherwise provided for accessory buildings and conditional uses in specific zoning districts. All setback distances shown,-as listed • in the table below, shall be measured from the appropriate lot line. The lettered footnotes correspond to Section 1104.01 Subd. 3. a., b., c., and d. Setbacks for parking areas and loading docks shall be as noted in 1104.01 Subd. d. and in Sections 1121.09. Subd. 11 and 1121.11. Subd. 3. Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard District' Minimum Minimum When Abuts Minimum When Abuts Residential Residential R-1 • 30 a. 10 b. 30 R-2 30 a. 10 b. 30 R-3 30 . 10 c. 20 c. 30 40 R-4 30 20 c. 20 c."" 30 50 R_5 --As required under Chapter 1110.05 of this Title-- R-O 30 20 c. 20 c. 30 50 B-1 30 d. 10 c. 20 c. 20 30 B-2 30 d. 10 c. 20 c. 20 30 B-3 30 d. 10 c. 20 c. 20 40 • B-4 30 d. 10 c. 30 30 40 I-1 40 d. 20 c. 40 40 40 'Lettered footnotes in this table correspond to Section 1104.01 Subd. 3.A.,b.,c.,and d. Ordinance No. 590 Draft#4 Page 2 PUD --As required under Chapter 1120 of this Title-- a. Where adjacent structures within the same block have front yard setbacks different from those required, the front yard setback shall be within the range of the setbacks of the adjacent structures. If there is only one adjacent structure, the front yard setback shall be within the range of the required setback of thirty feet (30') and the setback of the adjacent structure. In no case shall the front yard be less than thirty feet (30'). b. . Not less than thirty feet (30') from the lot line if lot is on corner, and on interior lines, a five foot (5') setback on the garage side for the garage structure is allowed. c. Not less than thirty feet (30')from lot line if lot is on corner. d. Vehicle parking or loading docks shall not be located within the minimum required setback. Section 2. Section 1106.04 Subd 1. are hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 1. Public or semi-public recreational buildings and neighborhood or community centers, public and private educational institutions limited to elementary,junior high and senior high schools and religious institutions, such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues; provided, that: a. Front yard depths shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). b. Side yards shall be no less than thirty feet (30'). c. Minimum lot area shall be one (1) acre. cd. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting or directly across a public street to the principal use in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this Title and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. d-e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where applicable by Chapter 1122 of this Title. e:f. The provisions of subdivision Section 1125.01(1-) Subd. 1.e. of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. Section 3. Section 1107.05 Subd. 2. is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 2. Day care, group nursery; provided, that: a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered and removed daily. • b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty feet (30'). Ordinance No. 590 Draft #4 • Page 3 c. Minimum lot area shall be one(1) acre. c d. No less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child shall be provided and that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions as may be specified by the City Council. the. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this Title. z:f. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in. compliance with Chapter 1122 of this Title. . fg. The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. Th. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. Section 4, Section 1109.04. Subd. 2. and Subd. 3. is hereby amended to read as follows: • Subd. 2. Nursing homes and similar group housing but not including hospitals, sanitariums or similar institutions; provided, that: a. Side yards double the minimum requirements established for this District and are screened in compliance with Section 1003.08 of this Title. b. Minimum lot area shall be one (1) acre. irc. Only the rear yard shall be used for play or recreational area. Said area shall be fenced and controlled and screened in compliance with Section 1003.08 of this Title. c7d. The site shal 'e serve. .y an arten. or co ector street o su' dent capacity to accommodate traffic which will be generated. the. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code. e-f. All State laws and statutes governing such use are strictly adhered to, and all required operating permits are secured. fg. One off-street loading space in compliance with Chapter 1122 of this Title • is provided. g-h. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and • satisfactorily met. Ordinance No. 590 Draft#4 Page 4 S Subd. 3. Parking facilities for adjacent commercial or multiple dwelling establishments; • provided that: a. Such parking is in excess of that required on the lot upon which the principal use is located. b. Where the parking facilities are located on a lot abutting property in a residential district, the setback between the parking facility and the common property line shall comply with the provisions stated in Section 1121.11 Subd. 3. b-c. Applicable conditions of Chapter 1121 of this Title are satisfactorily met and fully complied with. rd. When parking is the principal use, adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with subdivision 1103.08(6) of this Title. &e. The site of the principal use and its related parking is served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. e f. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and . satisfactorily met. Section 5. Section 1121.09 Subd. 11 is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 11. Curbing and Landscaping: Except for single-family, two-family and townhouses, all open off-street parking shall have a perimeter curb barrier around the entire parking lot; said curb barrier shall not be closer than five feet (5')to any lot line, except as provided in Section 1104.01 Subd. 3.d. and 1121.11 Subd. 3. • Grass, plantings or surfacing materials shall be provided in all areas bordering the parking area. Section 6. Section 1121.11 Subd. 3 is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 3. Accessory off-street parking shall be not less than five feet (5') from any lot line, except as provided in Section 1104.01 Subd. 3.d. and where parking lots which serve churches or any commercial uses are located on property abutting property in a residential district, the setback for the parking lot from the common property line shall be as follows: a. Where the site size occupied by such church or commercial use is two and one-half(2.5) acres or less, setbacks for parking lots shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20') the common property line. b. Where the site size occupied by such church or commercial use is more than two and one-half(2.5) acres, setbacks for parking lots shall be a . minimum of thirty (30') from the common property line. Ordinance No. 590 Draft#4 Page 5 Section 5. Section 1123.02 Subd. 1 is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 1. Continuance of Use: () General: Any structure or use lawfully existing prior to a revision to this Code or a change in a zoning district designation which makes the structure or use nonconforming shall not be enlarged but may be continued at the size and in the manner of operation existing upon such date, except as hereinafter specified or subsequently amended. (b) Parking Areas for Churches or Commercial Uses Abutting Residential Districts: • Parking areas for churches or commercial uses in existence as of , and having,setbacks which are non-conforming with respect to setback requirements stated in Section 1121.11 Subd. 3.a. and 3.b., may continue in use and may be reconstructed using setbacks allowed by the Zoning Code in effect at the time of construction. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1996. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of • , 1996. Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: Chuck Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert Long, City Attorney • ORDINANCE NO. 590 (Draft#3) • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO SETBACKS FOR PARKING LOTS, DRIVEWAYS,AND PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS; MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES LISTED AS CONDITIONAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; THE CONTINUED USE OF NONCONFORMING PARKING LOTS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND AMENDING TITLE 1100, . SECTIONS 1102.01, 1104.01, 1104.02, 1106.04, 1121.09, 1121.11,AND 1123. 02 THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: Section L Section 1102.01 is hereby amended to add a new Subd. 88. "Principal Building" as stated below, and the subsequent subdivisions in this section are to be renumbered accordingly. Subd. 88. Principal Building: The main or primary building containing the principal use of • a property as distinguished from an accessory building. Section 2. Section 1104.01 Subd. 3. Is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 3. Setbacks for Principal Buildings: The setback distances listed in the table below apply to principal buildings, except as otherwise provided for conditional uses in specific zoning districts. All setback distances shown, as listed in-the table below, shall be measured from the appropriate lot line. The lettered footnotes correspond to Section 1104.01 Subd. 3. a., b., c., and d. Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard District' Minimum Minimum When Abuts Minimum When Abuts Residential Residential R-1 30 a. 10 b. 30 R-2 30 a. 10 b. 30 R-3 30 10 c. 20 c. 30 40 R-4 30 20 c. 20 c. 30 50 RR=5 --As required under Chapter 1110.05 of this Title-- R-O 30 20 c. 20 c. 30 50 B-1 30± 10 c. 20 c. 20 30 B-2 30 d- 10 c. 20 c. 20 30 'Lettered footnotes in this table correspond to Section 1104.01 Subd. 3.A.,b.,c.,and d. Ordinance No. 590 Draft#3 Page 2 i B-3 30 d- 10 c. 20 c. 20 40 B-4 30i:17 10 c. 30 30 40 I-1 40 d 20 c. 40 40 40 PUD --As required under Chapter 1120 of this Title-- a. Where principal buildings on lots within the same block on the same side of the street have front yard setbacks different from those required, the front yard setback shall be . .. • structures the minimum setback in existence for any one lot. if thereis-onfrone . - . .. , . ., ■ .. ., . •• t . • .. . setback of thirty-feet(30') and the setback of the adjacent structure- In no case shall the front yard be less than thirty feet (30'). For purposes of this subsection a., a block shall be defined as that group of lots lying along a street between the two closest streets which intersect at approximately right angles to this street, except that where the length of the street frontage between the two intersecting.streets is greater than fourteen hundred (1400) feet, the block shall be the lots within six hundred and fifty(650) feet on either side of the lot in question. b. Not less than thirty feet (30') from the lot line if lot is on corner. ;and-on-interior lines, a five foot (5') setback on the garage side fur-the garage structure isallowed. The side setback may be reduced to five feet (5') between an interior side lot line and that side of a principal building which is constructed as a garage. • c. Not less than thirty feet (30') from lot line if lot is on corner. .. .• - 1 I. •1 _ . ... : III . • . • • - . ,. I -.. . setback- Section 3. Section 1104.01 Subd. 4. Is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd--4--Bucatiion to Driveway: Driveway surfaces shall be-not lessthanfive feet(5') fiom any lot line, except where said driveway provides access to a public strut. •• . - , • . - .. . - . II - • • •• - .• • • .. . surfaces may be within five feet (5') but not !ebb than one foot (l') num any lot liii . The combined-width of temprnraryp. • . . . •• .•. • . . thirty five feet (3.5'). Subd. 4. Setbacks for Accessory Buildings, Driveways and Parking Areas a. Accessory Buildings (detached from a principal building): (1) R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5 and R-O: ( ) front: no accessory building shall be located between the front line of the principal building and the front lot line (b) side: five feet (5') except the minimum setback shall be 30' from any lot line abutting a public street Ordinance No. 590 Draft#3 • Page 3 rear: five feet (5') (2) •All other districts: same as principal building b. Driveways: Driveway surfaces shall have a minimum setback of five feet (5') from all lot lines, except driveways shall be permitted to cross a required setback area in order to establish access between the lot and a public street. Where a driveway would encroach into an easement, the property owner shall obtain approval for an encroachment permit if required by the appropriate authority prior to construction of the driveway. Drive aisles and driveways which are within the boundaries of a parking area shall conform to the setbacks required for parking areas. c. Parking Areas: a) R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-O: (a) residential uses: five feet (5'), except temporary parking areas shall be permitted with a setback of one foot (1') provided the owner(s) of the abutting lot(s) indicates his/her permission on a form acceptable to the City. Where a temporary parking area would encroach into an easement, the property owner shall obtain approval for an encroachment permit if required by the appropriate authority prior to construction of the driveway. The combined width of parking • and driveway surfaces shall not exceed thirty five feet (35'). (Ord. 524, 2-22-93) Surfacing of temporary parking areas shall be in accordance with Section 1121.09 Subd. 7. non-residential uses five feet (5') except where non-residential uses abut property in a residential district, the setback for parking areas from the common property line shall be as follows: 111. for sites having two and one-half (2.5 ) acres or less: twenty feet (20') N. or sites aving more t an two an. one- a . acres: thirty feet (30') Parking areas in existence as , and which do not conform to the provisions of this subsection, may continue subject to the provisions of Section 1123.02 Subd. 1(b). (2) B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 (parking areas and loading docks): (a) front: 30 feet (b) side and rear: 5 feet, except where a non-residential use abuts a property in a residential district, the setback for parking areas from • the common property line shall be as stated in Section 1104.04 Subd. 4.c.l.b. Ordinance No. 590 Draft#3 • Page 5 (4) I-1 (parking areas and loading docks): (a) front: 40 feet (b) side and rear: 5 feet, except where a non-residential use abuts a • property in a residential district, the setback for parking areas from the common property line shall be as stated in Section 1104.04 Subd. 4.c.1.b. Section 4. Section 1104.02 Subd. 2. is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 2. Lot Areas Dimensions: Lot dimensions width and area shall not be less than the following: a. Width (1) R-1 interior lot 75 feet (2) R-1 corner lot, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-O 100 feet b. 'Square-Feet Minimum Lot Area (1) Computations for lot area shall not include land beyond a depth of • one hundred fifty feet (150') on lots having less than one hundred foot (100') frontage. (2) Lots greater than one hundred foot (100') frontage may use depths not exceeding one and one-half(1-1/2)times the frontage in computing lot area. (3) Minimum lot size area requirement shall be as stated in the table below. The lot area per dwelling unit requirements for townhouses, condominiums, planned unit developments and multiple family developments shall be calculated on the basis of the total area in the project and as controlled by an individual and/or joint ownership: • Ordinance No. 590 Draft#3 • Page 6 District/Type of Lott Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Area fin square feet) Per Dwelling Unit(3) (in square feet) R-1 Interior 11,000 11,000(no more than one unit per lot regardless of lot size) R-1 Corner Lot 12,500 12,500(no more than one unit per lot regardless of lot size) R-1,R-2,R-3,R-4,R-5 43,560(1 acre) Non-residential uses listed as conditional uses,except for governmental and public utility buildings and • structures necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of the community R-2,R-3 -12,500 for lot developed with single- 12,500 Duplexes,Townhouses family detached dwelling; - 12,500 for each half of divided lot developed with two-family dwelling; -25,000 for undivided lot developed with • two-family dwelling RR=4 single family detached: 11,000 Townhouses, Condominiums, two-family: 6,250 Planned Unit Developments,, townhouse: 6,500 Multiple Family(4) multiple family: 2,500 II=1 43,560(1 acre) B-1, B-2,B-3,B-4 no minimum:must allow for setbacks and parking requirements to be met (a) R-1 inturiur lot 11,000 square fit (L) . R-1 cosier lot, R-2, R-3 12,500 square fcct (4) Lot mea per dwelling unit. (The hit arca per dwelling unit ..' - - e . •• 1 .. , . . . 1 1. • . . 011 -. . I . - . I. - . . - .1 . . -. . - P. . - • • • . -. I • • .S . • • - . . • ., . • ... .. . . . •• '.. (a) Single Family 11,000 square feet (L) Two-Family •, : ... • 2 Numbered footnotes in this tablecorrespond to Section 1104.02 Subd. 2.b.(3)and(4). • Ordinance No. 590 Draft#3 • Page 7 (c) Townhuuse 6,500 square fctt • •• (5)(4) Usable Open Space: Each multiple-family dwelling site shall contain at least six hundred twenty five(625) square feet of usable open space as defined by subdivision 1102.02(109) of this Code for each dwelling unit contained therein. Section 5. Section 1121.09 Subd. 11 is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 11. Curbing and Landscaping: Except for single-family, two-family and townhouses.(in developments of six units or less), all open off-street parking shall have a perimeter curb barrier around the entire parking lot_ , .'• • . ... • than five feel (5')to any lot line. The location of this curb barrier shall comply with the setback requirements for parking areas stated in Section 1104.01 Subd. 4. Grass, plantings or surfacing materials shall be provided in all areas bordering the parking area. Section 6. Section 1121.11 Subd. 3 is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 3. Accessory off-street parking . • - . • - • . shall comply with the required minimum setbacks as stated in Section 1104.01 Subd. 4. • Section 7. Section 1123.02 Subd. 1 is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 1. Continuance of Use: (a) General: Any structure or use lawfully existing prior to a revision to this Code or a change in a zoning district designation which makes the structure or use nonconforming shall not be enlarged but may be continued at the size and in the manner of operation existing upon such date, except as hereinafter specified or subsequently amended. (b) Parking Areas for Non-Residential Uses, Allowed by Conditional Use Permit, in the R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-5 Districts: Parking areas in existence as of and having setbacks which are non-conforming with respect to setback requirements stated in Section 1104.01 Subd. 4, may continue in use and may be resurfaced and restriped, and potholes and curbing may be repaired. Parking lots or portions of parking lots which are reconstructed by the removal of the parking surface to the subgrade shall be brought into conformance with the setback requirements in Section 1104.01 Subd. 4. • Ordinance No. 590 Draft#3 • Page 8 Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1996. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1996. Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: Chuck Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: • Robert Long, City Attorney •