Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-02-1998 • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. 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 4. Approval of Minutes: a. July 15, 1998 5. Planning Case No. 531-98 Property Involved: 2185 Pinewood Drive 411Consideration of Resolution No. 554-98, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Accessory Building Applicant: Tammy Bellamy 6. Planning Case No. 533-98 Property Involved: 5249 Greenfield Avenue Consideration of Resolution No. 556-98, a Resolution Approving a Variance Request for a Sidewalk Applicant: Timothy White 7. Planning Case No. 534-98 Property Involved: 2442 Hillview Road Consideration of Resolution N. -4 : . t • '. l . .. .. _,. . . . . . ._ of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage Applicant: David Kramer 8. Consideration of Resolution No. 559-98, a Resolution Recommending to the City Council Appointment of a New Planning Commission Member 9. Staff Reports/Information Items 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 10. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting • *** * ********* * ************* ** *** ** ****** APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 717-4000 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. * * * * ** **** **** ************ *** * * **** *** * NADATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\PCAGENDA\1998\09-02-98.AGN r . REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: September 2, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 533-98 Applicant: Timothy White Request: The applicant is requesting a reduced side yard setback to allow for a Sidewalk alongside his garage. Location: 5249 Greenfield Avenue PIN No. 08-30-23-31-0021 Zoning/Land Use: R-1, Single Family Residential/ single family home Applicable Regulations: • Section 1104.01, Subd. 5, regarding encroachments: "Terraces, steps, decks, stoops or similar features; provided they do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure or to a distance less than two feet (2') from any lot line." Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its review of variances. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Site Plan Resolution 556-98 Background: The applicant is requesting a variance from the required two-foot side yard setback established for decks, terraces or sidewalks. He has constructed an sidewalk alongside his garage located at 5249 Greenfield. The new sidewalk, which accesses a shed in the rear yard, replaced a walkway of railroad ties that had been present for twenty years, but had fallen into disrepair. The property alongside the garage slopes down, requiring that the sidewalk be supported by footings. The sidewalk is approximately four feet wide and is within inches of a chain link fence that separates the subject property from the property to the north. In addition to the garage, there is an above- ground pool surrounded by patio and landscaping, all of which is enclosed by a five-foot tall • privacy fence. The shed is outside of this fenced-in area. White Variance Planning Case No. 533-98 September 2, 1998 • Page 2 Analysis: For the Planning Commission to grant a variance, it must examine the criteria established in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code, which relates to hardships. Specifically, a variance may only be granted in those cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner. The individual criteria, with responses, are 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. The factors which could be construed as extraordinary relating to this request include the slope of the land laying between the garage and the adjoining property and the fact that the shed is located outside of the enclosed pool area, which takes up a majority of the backyard. The shed faces north, toward the adjoining property. Access to the shed then is gained most conveniently from alongside the north side of the garage. Because of the slope, the sidewalk had to be supported by footings to be level. A gravel walking path, however, would not be subject to a building permit or the setback requirement. 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. The applicant is faced with two options if a variance is not granted. Either the sidewalk would need to be cut back approximately two feet to meet the setback requirement or it would need to be removed, with access gained by another means, although not necessarily in a different location. The applicant could also reinstall the same type of walkway that had been present prior to the newly-constructed sidewalk. Given this information, the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would not 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. While the applicant cannot be held responsible for the slope of the land, the variance is requested because he did not obtain a building permit, and consequently installed the walkway structure over the setback. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special • privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. White Variance Planning Case No. 533-98 September 2, 1998 • Page 3 The allowed setback for garages within the City is five feet, and many garages are constructed at this setback. Were any property owner to apply for a building permit to build a sidewalk within that five-foot area, they would be denied the permit if the sidewalk encroached closer than two feet to the property line. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. Given that the setback is only two feet for a sidewalk, and the fence (presumably) is not on the property line, the variance requested is minimal--probably one foot to one and a half feet. However, should the setback be enforced, there is no hardship to having a three- foot wide sidewalk. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The basis for this.Code provision is to promote a separation between properties. Allowing • sidewalk within inches of a neighboring property does not fit with the intent of the Code. 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 Were the variance to be granted, it would not impair any neighboring properties' supply of light or air, it would not create any additional traffic impact nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. There would be no impact to property values. According to the City Code, all of the preceding criteria shall be satisfied in order to justify the granting of a variance. As pointed out in the above responses, a hardship does not exist in this situation. If denied, the applicant can still have a walkway, albeit three feet instead of four. Or, if the applicant would so choose, the area could be leveled with landscape timbers or railroad ties to access the full width between the garage and property line, and install gravel without necessitating a building permit or variance. • A variance should not be granted simply because the work has already been completed White Variance Planning Case No. 533-98 September 2, 1998 • Page 4 Recommendation: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 556-98, a resolution denying a variance for Timothy White of 5249 Greenfield Avenue, to allow for a reduced side yard setback for a deck-like sidewalk. CJ 6 w ER-4-J-A James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V\DE VCASES\533-98\VAR-PC.RPT • • • r 1 .... . 1l>>='EZ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION • LEX R� 2401 Highway 10,Mounds View MN 55112 .e �L..r,7 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information Name of Applicant f I #110 y k1 `[)Il (�.. Telephone/0,`?set.- ;4177 Address s-a zif frt`eitz taf ., 6 E - - { Fax -. .� /ulce‘u s riee,e:f 41/1/. 5 )f 2 • Interest in Property(check appropriate box) yX Owner of Property o Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee,Operator,Manager o Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other(explain) - Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. • Property Description/Proposal „,.., /�j Address or General Location ) iii frteerdl io �lj 1l f', #(444 ge*/if/PA.e#/9E i 64 e'er;I- 1 Legal Description 4 4 Jl / 7T q Property Identification#(PIN#) VD S SO 3 31 c7O2 l q #of Acres 4‘//31'for16fe! 17 A dT Current Zoning ,_ e Satagiclir// • StEri tr St) Type of Application 5250 r WI S Pt t p ?OA ❑ Comprehensive PIan Amendment o Rezoning $250/acre, min$250 max$1500 A a n qC 23 . o - $250+5250 deposit* ❑ Minor Subdivision $200 • o Planned Unit Development(PUD) • Refer to rezoning fees ❑ PUD Amendment $350 ❑ Conditional Use Permit R-1, R-2$75;all others$250 y Variance _ R-1, R-2$100 all others$250 ❑ Code Appeal $100 ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan $125/acre;min$125 max$750 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2 5150;all others$200 ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit R-1,R-2$25;all others$100 ❑ Floodplain Permit $200 ❑ Other • *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded _.. fu to the applicant within thirty(30)days after consideration of the application is completed. ' ' ' ” ' ' Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View,MN l Development Application Page 2 Present Use of Property1111 ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant ;( Single Family Dwelling ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ Other(explain) Property Classification Abstract 0 Torrens Description of Proposal O 2 e GO At /r �4A4/ ce / ,ems tea//6,,e, 1 tc c e.4 1,0 yes: /etc‘st/ �upc.• f,� d 'j e -tf0 , 1,0rA tom / /1-oH/ Irf e//P./l xhrepi /7. �y//� �' � S/!, �ff.�_.141, f/fT X1114' ©r o 4/ • BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION.I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.THE INFORMATION PROVIDED'IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Signature of Applicant � %`'` /� Name of Applicant(typed/printed) Ivy ! /N / Gt.), �✓ Ti G • Signature of Property Owner1111 Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) 7741-41)Y-t7 h2 /1///177'= Address of Owner .Sf`,'Z 4.1 /Np211 i'7/J A y'Y, /i'<f�G'i?C!l //l�!!/, ,t/fes .S.'„//• z Phone Number of Owner 6t2 `'RCE USE ONLY Date of Submittal Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. S3 3— qfto 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: Account# � Check# Receipt# Application: 10 0.0e ?0 J-3 4 u,�C i" 7 7 I _� d,5 t Cr Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: • Total: N:\DATXGROUPS\COMDEV\FORM[S'DEVAPP.FOR 1198 PF 1--- , N 1:6N CITY HALL 55339!�5,� 5394 539 55,32•941., 394 m 5386 538 O .:41 z. res N 5380 5381 Y ,, Abaft- I ACV MIMI ti IIIP' 0 "al CU �EM 53E 1 ttaV �� 535 B- 14 5344 5345 'Zt3 4144 6 5337. Mb 10 0 5331 • •,��vQ 5323 32 - S� 5317 444,1 ,gwr `S� 6:1'0715309 5298 5301 M R-2 ,o° $ 529s pi B-3 Z U 5287 8— ®®'UU O. CO N 4 in Nam 5 O 5279 01 cc) N a , a d' V' -.1- • N N N N N N r` NI 5273 5260 5297 g �4 iy a 5256 ma 5267 5287' B-3 ti� 5261 5277 9-3 5250 en 5250 5255 5260 M� ��Q 5292 5309 5284 R-41. • 5238 v v v a 52•• smoli � . , CLEARVIEW N N AVE Ili 290 5289'" "2 (4/ '• ••• CN4 FA �2i'��. 5237 � �= 5226 5231 N N 5270 5279 CLL: 46,1 .• �. 260 N N N N 5260 5269 EA\ , ,�� '72112,1.1.5.0.5222380172 �" 5220��! � .5 �''`rrr n 2 2 2 , 5250 5259 Mit Ih� 5250 ti gm KIER N N N N N N 52 • ', • 5240 5240 ,if N o LANE .o o d- ap 5230 5239! • 5230 5230 ti tiry0� -i-ii N N N N 5213 N N N ' N g N 1 W 5220 5229 • O 5220 5220 5206 IX 1 5207 ^ co m 0 - ' N Z 5210 5219 C., • - •:5210 521• 5210 a. 5200 Ask 5201 NN N N N N. N N r .:•0 520' ....y j ••I15200 5209 5200 5 t W000ALE i 5138 5149 5150 5155 9180 518 aoo � 5132 5141 5144 5185 N (CU: : 5126 :.l 34 5140 5175 G 5170 5179 EDGEWOOD 5120 :' 5125 La 5136 51655160 5169 JR. HIGH 4 5 .....'j 5117x 5128 5155 5150 5159 SCHOOL 5109 Z 514.0 5149 ,n ,� .. 0 0 5120 5145 • Ct_ 5130 5139 t14 N N N N 5101 5108 5135 0 510 510118 ►----i r, i v l n l7 ----I --- Zoning Map Planning Case 533-98 Applicant: Timothy White Location: 5249 Greenfield Avenue ntigri. ...,_ p -11.=9 7-][ / t:_:.=5.: --, .V., .-==- ..-Ea' =.1.F.:: E-F.-,:4-7, \ s.•, CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW Fme 11# 1g21,1-.11:1411111i LOCATION MAP Iis o .4......i.... ,,,,,,,.... .::... au:: RIM— 1 1111;411_.....f•IIIREEI „,,,,s„,::,...,,,, .,.....,_, .0"6.:Itlf,21..,,,,,,,.....rig:giFill"" n! — -7-- 91. 44 Ell•-.• 1.11 .7, = El , - -: ir .04 4 ',ill 1W, --In 11,,g amt., RAYA'44,••nu:::::titnii 1011 11*-7., NI ge.t! z. -I 01:ilium Applicant: Timothy White IINiiimimmiqii Property: 5249 Greenfield Avenue - ii :WHIM% Request: Variance -''4 glit,-,:::: i .p" MI111111111 ' 11111111111111:1 iffitEjf;WU: -= IIIIIIE 1 MI MINIUM BE MIrillit,4 T. PLANNING CASE NO. 533-98 Elm.. -_.....-iii 1 :::. fit'WM/ 111111 :-:11111: lqr 11100mm 4-oiliiit; I : - mmi,m-s Ii. P, 1 i•° I • IrivI r- ::,...:::::.,-,...., 5249 Greenfield Avenue Properties Within 350' LL249 Greenfield Avenue I / . 111;1 „ „ , , , , , r !---,-1 , , i N ‘ /N I i/ N„ .,/N,,, N '.>Y iNK - , , , , , „ ! ii I '''' ' . 1 ' , :' .I . ! 1 i IN • ',. Y YTh_-- I I I I I I I I I • 1 i I IL i -,--i ELME CTZTD CMal ( 2,.___11-4 II I 1111 I . • =111 ? _1 i ! .111. i I _„ , .,‘ 1.„. i )7- ' • , , , _ ...... ______. _ , --_,- ..„,„„.. ,_, _j_____,, , .1,,,,,,- „:,...- ,....„....,.,-. ,E.-_,.__, .-, 70 , . • , . . .„..,......,. .,...,_ 11,. .....i , —. • / ,,.., '''.- . '::' 1 ,.'',..%'- 1 , , 1 I I 1 I I . I ......,,,,,, I— '- ', , ' 1, ,. i 11 i I I ......-1 I . 1. *1 mM,,,5,5' .1....,%,',4% '''.''''''''''''''''' , ..."' —'. , ..*. ..-.a..••••••••• I ......1 Ely,: ,-;75 2., ..--;.'7; 1____;_,r-- _— , I1---1 .----- • I H \ 1--- ;---- 1---:--1, Ili 1._._i 1 i 1 m I ,' ' 1 1 ' 1 1 , Ed9ewood Schoo 1 . A 71117111 , , ... ____ . , . , I , 1 1 • HLT— , 1 1 1 'I---' 7-1-1 -1 t h L___K-1 i 1 7-1 [ , . , — . .--:----- —1-1 I ET / • 1—j i II 1 , c.---- ' ....--; '—' Ii . -1-- MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. 556-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED TWO-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A SIDEWALK LOCATED AT 5249 GREENFIELD AVENUE; PLANNING CASE NO. 533-98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Timothy White to permit a sidewalk within the two-foot sideyard setback at his home located at 5249 Greenfield Road; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District and is legally described as: Lot 15, Block 2, Eigenheer Second Addition WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with this request: • 1. Planning Application 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map WHEREAS, the sidewalk for which this variance is requested by the applicant has already been constructed, without a building permit; and, WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that the sidewalk could be made narrower to meet the required setback; and, WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do result from the actions of the applicant in that had the applicant requested a building permit, the proposed location of home is necessitated by the lot dimensions and setbacks; and, WHEREAS, granting the variance requested would confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that other owners have been denied permits to construct sidewalks, decks or other like objects within the required two-foot buffer; and, WHEREAS, the variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to • other property in the same zone in that the intent of the setback is to preserve and maintain a separation between properties and the structures thereon. Planning Commission Resolution 556-98 September 2, 1998 • Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals denies the variance request of Timothy White, to allow a sidewalk within the two-foot sideyard setback at 5249 Greenfield Avenue. Adopted this 2nd day of September, 1998 Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST Rick Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL • N:\DATA\G ROUPS\CO M DE V\DE VCAS ES\533-98\5 56-98.RES • PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Subject: Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution No. 554-98, a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow for an oversized garage at 2185 Pinewood Drive, as requested by Tammy Bellamy. Planning Case No. 531-98 Date: Meeting of September 2, 1998 Background: At your last meeting on August 19, 1998, staff introduced for discussion Planning Case No. 531- 98, the Conditional Use Permit for an over-sized garage at 2185 Pinewood Drive requested by • property owner Tammy Bellamy. The request, as the Commission may recall, was to erect a 1,008 square-foot garage replacing the existing single-stall garage present on the site. The Commission debated both sides of this case, concerned about the disproportion of the garage in relation to the house yet recognizing the fact that a larger garage could be used to store vehicles and trailers that currently remain parked on the property outside. While a consensus was not reached on the issue, a majority felt that a resolution should be drafted that recommends to the City Council approval of this CUP request. Please review the attached resolution which recommends approval of the CUP subject to specific stipulations. Recommendation: Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 554-98, a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of this CUP request, with stipulations and amendments as deemed necessary. James Ericson, Planning Associate • N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\531-98\2185PINE.PC2 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. 554-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OVERSIZED GARAGE AT 2185 PINEWOOD DRIVE REQUESTED BY TAMMY BELLAMY; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 531-98 WHEREAS, Tammy Bellamy has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,008 square foot garage on property located at 2185 Pinewood Drive; and, WHEREAS, 2185 Pinewood drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as followed: Lot 32, Block 8, Pinewood Terrace No 3 Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, up to . 1,264 square feet of garage/accessory building on one lot; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Location Map d. Existing and Proposed Site Plans e. Area"Building Footprint" Diagram WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the dimensional requirements in Chapter 1104 the Zoning Code for this proposal have been met; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that possible adverse effects have been considered in its recommendation, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. l.e.: 1. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. . The Comprehensive Plan designates this property,2185 Pinewood Drive,low-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Resolution 554-98 September 2, 1998 • Page 2 2. The Geographical Area Involved 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area The subject parcel is of the same size or larger than most of the lots within a two block radius. The building footprint diagram clearly shows that in this area of the City, there already appears to be garages as large as what is proposed at 2185 Pinewood Drive,some of which larger than their principal structures, again as would be the case at 2185 Pinewood Drive. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. There is no reason to believe that a 1,008 square-foot garage would negatively impact the property values of the subject property or those adjacent to it. The case could be made that with ample storage space within the garage,there would be fewer vehicles parked outside and less clutter about the property. This type of transformation could result in a positive effect to the neighboring properties. 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. The applicant has multiple vehicles and owns and operates a race car as a hobby, and has a car hauler upon which to transport the vehicle. The car hauler does not currently fit into the existing garage, and • thus is kept outside in full view of the neighborhood and vehicles passing by on County Road I. Constructing the garage as proposed would allow the car hauler and the race car to be stored inside. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b.: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks,schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads,drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The construction of an oversized garage will not create a greater impact on existing public facilities or services, on utilities or access roads,nor will it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. The increase in runoff from the larger structure is not significant and will not affect the drainage system. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The placement of the garage would be such that the bulk of the structure would be hidden from street • view and shielded by mature trees in front and privacy fences on either side. This will provide adequate screening, and will preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. Planning Commission Resolution 554-98 September 2, 1998 Page 3 • (4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council,is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Garages are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for storage of vehicles and other equipment. Having this garage will allow for the property owner to store vehicles,a car hauler and a race car in the garage instead of out in the open. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow a 1,008 square-foot garage at 2185 Pinewood Drive with the following stipulations: 1. The conditional use permit shall be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval, and a receipt of such recording shall be provided to the City of Mounds View. 2. The garage shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform building appearance with the house. . 3. The garage shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall become null and void. 4. No other sheds or accessory buildings shall be allowed on this lot. 5. The driveway leading to the garage shall be improved with a permanent surface material of either concrete or asphalt in conjunction with the construction of the garage. If occupancy of the garage is to occur prior to the driveway's improvement, the applicant shall submit a letter or credit or performance bond in an amount Community Development Director. 6. Upon the completion of the garage, exterior storage of materials and other items as outlined in Section 607.03 of the Mounds View Nuisance Code shall cease to exist. 7. All vehicles parked at the property shall be parked either upon the driveway's improved surface or within the garage. At not time shall a vehicle be allowed to park upon the grass or off of the improved surface. Any violations of this shall result in the issuance of Ramsey County Court Citations. 8. The applicant shall install a section of privacy fence between the garage and the west property line, tying into the existing privacy fence installed by the adjacent property . owner. Planning Commission Resolution 554-98 September 2, 1998 Page 4 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 2nd day of September, 1998. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\531-98\554-98PC.RES S S • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 559-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF TO THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission acts as an advisory commission to the Cit Council on matters that relate to residential, commercial, industrial development and redevelopment, zoning and comprehensive planning; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is composed of seven Mounds View residents; and WHEREAS, Chapter 401.02, Subd. 1, entitled Membership; Terms, states that the Commission "shall consist of not less than seven (7) nor more than nine (9) members from the resident population of Mounds View..."; and • WHEREAS, with a recent resignation of one of its members, the Planning Commission currently has only six (6) members; and WHEREAS, the City Council has requested the Planning Commision to review and interview the applicants and to make a recommendation to the City Council based on their review. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council appointment of to the Mounds View Planning Commission with the term to expire December 31, Adopted this 2nd day of September, 1998. Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\USERS\BARBS\SHARE\KEEP-IT\WPDOCS\RESO.PC\VACANCY.WPD