HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-21-1999 Jam&
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
April 21, 1999
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
4. Approve Minutes:
a. March 17, 1999
CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING,PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM,
AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES
5. Planning Case No. 552-99 Public Hearing 7:00 p.m.
Property Involved: 2091 Terrace Drive
Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution 578-99, a Resolution
Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an 1,040 square-foot
Over-Sized Garage .
• Applicant: Gerald Miller, Property Owner
6. Planning Case No. 551-99 Public Hearing 7:05 p.m.
Property Involved: 2814 Bronson Drive.
Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution 577-99, a Resolution
Recommending Denial of a Conditional Use Permit Request for a Residential Dog
Kennel.
Applicant: Andrea MacRannolds, Property Owner
7. Planning Case No. 550-99
Property Involved: 5302 Raymond Avenue.
Consideration of a Planning Commission Resolution 574-99, a Resolution
Approving a Variance Request to Allow a Five-Foot Building Setback for Living
Space Expansion.
Applicant: Don Norris, Property Owner
8. Staff Reports/Items of Information
a Review of Council Actions
b. Update regarding Kindercare Variance
c. Ramsey County Tax Forfeit Auction
9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports
10. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting
(Immediately Following Regular Meeting)
* * * * * * *** ** * ** * * ** ** * * * ** ** * * * ** * * * * * * * *
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS
REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU.
* * ** * * * * * ** * * * * * * ** * * *** ** ** *** * * ** * * **
AGENDA SESSION
AGENDA
1. Review Minutes -- April 7, 1999
2. Discussion regarding Comprehensive Plan Transportation Component
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\PCAGENDA\1999\4-21-99.REG
S
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
•
Meeting Date: April 21, 1999
Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Planning Case No.: 547-99
Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Dog Kennel
Petitioner: Andrea MacRannolds
Location: 2841 Bronson Drive
PIN Nos. 073023240002
Zoning/Land Use: R-1, Single-Family Residential/ Single Family Home
Applicable Regulations:
• Municipal Code Section 701.03, Subdivisions 1, 3, and 15, regarding the licensing of dogs
and operation of kennels.
• Municipal Code Section 1106.04, Subdivision 3, which requires a conditional use permit
for residential dog kennels in an R-1, Single Family Residential district.
111 Municipal Code Section 1125.01, Subdivision 3b, which identifies the criteria to be used
for granting a conditional use permit.
Attachments: 1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. 500 Foot Map
4. License Application Form
5. Petition
6. Letter to the Applicant,dated 2/8/99
7. Letter to the Applicant,dated 3/4/99
8. Resolution No. 5 77-99
Background:
The applicant, Andrea MacRannolds of 2841 Bronson Drive, is applying for a conditional use
permit for a residential dog kennel, a Code requirement for property owners with three or four
dogs. One of the licensing requirements is that the property owner shall obtain signatures of
approval from more than 50 percent of the residents within 500 feet of the property proposing the
kennel. The applicant was sent a map showing those properties within 500 feet along with a
corresponding list of property owners/taxpayers.
This item had been scheduled for a public hearing with the Planning Commission and City Council
earlier this year but was pulled from the agendas when it was learned that (1)the applicant was
• out of state and (2) she had not satisfied the minimum requirement for signatures needed for the
petition related to this request. Staff sent the applicant a letter(attached) indicating its intent to
exercise its right for an additional 60 days with which to make a decision regarding this case.
MacRannolds CUP
April 21, 1999
Page 2 •
As of the date this report was drafted (April 15, 1999)the applicant had not yet submitted the
required signatures for this application, although she had left a voice mail message indicating that
she was working on getting the rest of the signatures. Because of the 120 day deadline--May 8,
1999--the Planning Commission needs to act on this request at its April 17th meeting so that the
City Council can take final action on April 26, 1999, the last regular meeting before the deadline.
Analysis:
Licensing Requirements: There are two critical requirements for a residential dog kennel license
to be approved. The first is that the applicant shall obtain signatures of approval from at least fifty
percent of the property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. In this case, there are 57
properties that either fall within or are partially within a 500-foot radius of 2841 Bronson Drive,
which means that at a minimum, 29 of the property owners would need to sign a petition in favor
of the kennel application. The applicant has thus far collected signatures approving of the kennel
request from six(6) property owners.
The other requirement is that the City Council would need to approve a conditional use permit for
this request. As with any conditional use permit, there are standards and requirements that need
to be addressed that concern the possible impacts of this use to the immediate area and
community as a whole. The individual requirements will be addressed in the next section of this •
report.
Public Safety Review: Staff has inquired with the Police Department regarding any calls or
complaints associated with dogs at Ms. MacRannold's home. Since 1992, there have been four
incidents involving dogs:
o On November 30, 1992, a male Rottweiler was removed from the property after it had
reportedly attacked someone.
o On October 10, 1994, the applicant was issued Administrative Offenses for having two
dogs (Rottweilers) without a license, both of which had been running loose through the
neighborhood.
o On March 19, 1998, a dog was removed from the subject property for not having a dog
license.
o On December 1, 1998, the applicant was issued a Citation for having more than two dogs
at her property.
Adverse Effects: As with all variance and conditional use permit requests, the Planning
Commission is charged with examining the possible adverse effects of the proposal. The City •
Code, in Section 1125.01, Subdivision 1, identifies five factors to be addressed. They are as
follows, with responses in italics:
MacRannolds CUP
April21, 1999
• Page 3
1. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan.
Since the Comprehensive Plan does not address or even refer to dog ownership, it can be
asserted that--in terms of the comp plan--there is not adverse effect.
2. The geographical area involved.
The area surrounding the subject property is zoned for and supports residential uses.
Dog ownership is a common feature in residential districts and as such, it would appear
that this request would not be inconsistent with this geographical area.
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
It is not inconceivable to assume that property values may be affected by this request, in
that with dog ownership comes added responsibilities and maintenance, not to mention
the possibility of barking dogs and dogs running loose in the neighborhood. To add to
this possibility is the fact that there have been problems associated with dogs at this
address.
4. The character of the surrounding area.
• Most of the homes in this area of the City are located on larger, deep lots with plenty of
yard space for accessory buildings, homes, children, and pets. The character of the
surrounding area would not be affected by this request.
5. The demonstrated need for such a use.
This factor does not necessarily apply in this case as dog ownership cannot be construed
as a response to satisfy some unmet need While clinical studies have shown there to be
many positive health effects for those people who own pets, in terms of a "community
nee , ' •• .•I • e.
6. Public Safety.
As has been pointed out in the report already, the possible adverse effect which may
cause the most impact to the neighborhood and surrounding community is the threat to
public safety. There have been four incidents logged with the Police Department since
1992, one involving an attack by a Rottweiler.
CUP Criteria: The following are the criteria that are listed in Section 1125.01, Subdivision 3 of
• the Municipal Code, pertaining to Conditional Use Permits, with responses addressing each in
italics:
MacRannolds CUP
April 21, 1999
Page 4 •
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.
Dog ownership, in and of itself, should not impose any burden to public facilities.
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.
The subject property's yard is fenced in, providing an adequate separation from adjoining
properties.
3. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon
adjacent residential properties.
There are no plans to construct any type of structure in conjunction with this application,
Ms. MacRannolds has indicated to staff that the dogs she has are "indoor"dogs.
4. The use is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use.
Dog ownership is a common feature in residential developments,yet in terms of •
satisfying a need of the City, this criteria does not readily apply.
5. The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
The zoning code allows for dog ownership by right so long as there are two or fewer dogs
on the premises. Owning three or four dogs is allowed as a conditional use.
6. The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Dog ownership is not addressed in the comprehensive plan,yet can be considered to be
not inconsistent with the plan.
7. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
This criteria may apply in the event that the dogs got free and ran loose and caused a
traffic mishap.
8. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be
provided.
This criteria probably does not apply in this case as dog ownership typically does not •
create the need for additional facilities.
MacRannolds CUP
April 21, 1999
• Page 5
Recommendation:
In consideration of the lack of necessary signatures and the incidents involving dogs at this
address, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 577-99, a
resolution recommending denial of a conditional use permit for a dog kennel for Andrea
MacRannolds, located at 22841 Bronson Drive.
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\547-99\KENNEL.PC 1
•
•
Mi.ii?%% . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
•
?"'''�" 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112
p'e 'ti.PartneriilQ
612-717-4020
612-784-3462 -FAX
Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form
Applicant Information �/p�A41i//4Ld5TeIephone rQ /p� —7,c s�/T 0 ,s
Address vy,-`e,il'L 'D ffl_1( I) rm Fax
ivt ice /rids' Z1/' etiJ
In rest in Property(check appropriate box)
zy�` Owner of Property 0 Contract for Deed Owner
❑ Lessee,Operator,Manager 0 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.
Propertyption/Proposai
Gene
Address or General Location A r" ,// .1 rd r) .c 6 xiV lb v---N •
`�'
Legal Description , /(
Property Identification#(PIN#) 0 7 'C .3 OZ OOC)0
#of Acres �
Current Zoning <c1^ I /11 , L e- F i i z
)/
Type of Application
o Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250
❑ Rezoning $250/acre; min$250 max$1500
O Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit*
O Minor Subdivision $200
❑ Planned Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees
❑ PUD Amendment $350
CP Conditional Use Permi�� R-1, R-2$75;all others$250
❑ Variance R-1, R-2$100 all others$250
O Code Appeal $100
❑ Develop Review/Site Plan $125/acre;min$125 max$750
❑ Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2$150;all others$200
❑ Wetland Buffer Permit R-1,R-2$25;all others$100
❑ Floodplain Permit $200
O Other
*Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, III
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
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
Development Application Page 2
Present Use of Property
• ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant Single Family Dwelling
❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling 0 Multi-family Dwelling
❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment
❑ Other(explain)
Property Classification 0 Abstract 0 Torrens
Description of Proposale. e 4—. l�_
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 1e_
Nameof Applicant(typed/printed) G j Iv Aft./ p L
rGNamSignature of Property Owner . ,22Are-
Name
e of Property Owner(typed/printed)
Address of Owner.
Phone Number of Owner 7 -
************************************************************************************************
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date of Submittal '1 - - q
Date of Acceptance l - - "I 9 Assigned to: "�-
Planning Case No. 541-'11 60-day Limit 2 cl l20-day limit 5- S -
Fees Paid: Account# Check.# Receipt#
Application: ? c'14 D 4
Park Dedication:
Deposits:
Other: _
• Total:
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\FORMS\DEVAPP.FOR 1/98
1...::::•:-: :.:•:•:: ::- : M: ':•;;;• :-: -SN- cv •,-. • .. --
776 7769 7780
m.b
. , . r
:.:1::.:•:!•::::::::.:::'.:::..:::.•::::.::....::'!".::1:;:.:::::-::.:::'.:::..:::1:::.::.!..:::!::1:::.•:;:•::::::-:::'•:',:':::.:,.: °:::.:.:.• • 7775 7758 7759 7770 II
. . .... .... __.„ . ....___
y.,:,;.;...-:.-.......v_.:.:_7, • i 7748 7749 7768 7767
•
0
3,":":':Ifff ::::'-';',:":";:::.•':':':%-"':.%•:''"':•:•''...-.:::•:.:•:,::::::•:•:.':":•'<;:p7Y.::i::i. 7738 7739 7729 eill <
ii7J.A... 7801
:i..: g •.:.:.:.:::..:::;.,:,:;.::::.:.:.;.:.:;:,:,:,:::,:•:::::.:.;;;;;,:,:,:.:::.:.:•;:;.:.:.:..;:,:::::•1 7755 7.728 g 7729 7728 7723
I.................:1.::: .:]_X-..::.;:'•1::,'•:'•: :•:::: :1::,':::: ....'''''-' -1 B-2
:::::a--::::ri::::tyg:'::::::::::::::::::;d::::i-y:6:::::•.- r, 7718 8 7719 7718 7715 la 772$
771 I
`.,:,:.;•:-::.-:.:•:..:.::::::::::.-F-!..:•.,:::;::,:.:'' -..:::::,:•:;.,',.;;;-:-:-. :•:•.•:.K...::',..:::': • gl 7710
:.::::::::::f::::::::::::±.:::::.::::.:::,§,::::::-.::_:::::::::,:..::'..Y;;.•::..-.:::Y.:::::X:E.:::::::.:-.::_:::::::'1' • 7709 7710 7711 7701
' C --------- ... -
":;:::::::::::ff::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::.Z:;f4:::;:t:::,>::- •
/ 1 03 7686 7685 1 78921 7685 C`i 776U)
.4-.......,.... ...
Cri Ct
7670 7663
W 768 i
• .....---"".0 N 7680 0 7669 768$: w
I C•1 NI- ED I)C)
0 0 0 0 766C 64C: 7675
N') ro 7655 7670 7665
7666, 7647 7660 7653
In In 7644
. 7630 7633 7664 7629 7634. 7635
I 7624
1 7629 7620 7625 7626
764 ,
i
7627 7600 7619
.7600 7601
w 7611 SILVEF
> 7664-, 7585 7594
Ce ' 7581 7580 7575 , SI
p 7581 7584 7579.------iM- Marhi
PAI
7564 7565 8 rin5 758'
I 7555 7556 • - Z In R-2 Lace
7555 7555 7572
7546 W 7555 1 7552
: 7545 755',0 .
7545 7560 41,: -':- 7550
7515 (7)
7545
I 7525 7538 1.0 MM. PF
csico Nco c, NOD 6 flia?,52 mazi7540 :.
1 --ar- PI r-• '.... <
I r.,) <- I -J : 0
• o a o
re) r) to 7501 No) c,16- 751
7530
BRONSONb" • 7522
\
7485 l'o;')
7489 co
m ) , 7490
501V
' 7474 .. .,.,........! ., 1,11
,
7465 111 7471
I7457 r...I .-ONSON , ....y.....,-..
15 — 7 462-
- isimit co .......
I 7447 7448 7445 - -- 74527444 W glik. '•"•'
tv
: 7425 7436 7435 w 7415 .
7 -j'i- > .tx•I
C4 CO 1
7409 AIN mow 7440 el
7415 7406 , 7405 7412 7405 111101.10MINia
!'I
.4- 77
0 L 1
• Z/ , ,... -7-39-5:- ----- - •• 1. 1
' :-.
• 7385 7380 67 t 30 I 7382 On alliP I rclz 1
I 7375 0 1 man7390
Egn Fl•DG
7350 7365 7360
i_ 7365 HU 7350
Z
7325 7340
7340
,„< 7347 551Zr;VII c'
14.1
732C -difia .7 in FAMED 736. r
-J —
0_ WM RI F 7338 A'bcgl'if)01114•••
7337 le) 0 r, co
I F. g El 'rci. § § ici)) ccni ; 8 § Mini 2 Fo3 ka 7310 A)
os, rm.
pr, .--) .0 re) NI 1.1 N N N CNI CNI
. • „.N.... R72
• . .
Zoning Map Planning Case 547-99
Applicant: Andrea MacRannolds N Q 7
Location: 2841 Bronson Drive
(poi • . 136J ._, . . m{J�. I
111
- - •35-- * *- --24-- • -I-9-"/-� ` it 11 `�
0'f) N L�) - at')CO �'• i- • t �' -•1 I. •
CO I�
fi1 1 .
I
sr- tq • i
(6.3) co. - 0,0) • r� as)/0
�! -`ab� in � 5 � - i
1
1
b C G34•a: w%:. I E%2 :42a¢.. . AO -
. . .(Z*1. �• -1 `-.mss
'. 33 (51) = • 1- --. -2:6- - -1•VO - ..3 - - . boa o) (9) oat . -1 .
G � ' oo i
O o a(*).-- - _ -- ...zor, . . 1
2ar•4r is
• • • ••(oz) w. r•. Ds�+N ss;nX - a •
1 to @a) .. (�,;).•0 7 ID A41 L E Yt P
7 • 32 6).= ' J - '2-7_ .-.. 1B_.._ # • : ► •�.6 (�3) .
1
a, '���) lz1) r . : (la) 5.49 'a
u 0 � C4� • . • 8 o I �
0.5).(31 Z • -' -- • - - - o I-. - -
_` 4nwevelles1i�
e - -. . --2e- 15 �') 24:3.4 �s>. 07 �:
Mia 41.( . i i W'-1 Dart: '. 01
Q.••• _amil 9 a Cca) a (-so) a �\
: 1 Z.
goe.G -.4•r - �(69)Zo8. 3 . °1I ` 1
M 1 i ' Q8) (I7)• < 1'04,3 /o4.3 104.3 104.3 4`1 A
7) 30 .. 044) !9 (4-s). 1s4 t' to -\
�.._ 1 - ! '""1 ° 6w x ' 47
t- - _: GC, g; -r��r. 0.3 • - -.r I .15 •('±z.�.� 111 N ` AOC
' 3 --DRIVE .. : -,1 >.-41.-/. ✓' ./, \
I9.:6 • 114 x"'-79- too 13 C2 II 10 �'
56 102. ) m I m' Q 0) 98
�� (se) (59 c ,S t 1031 , a •�. et ^-^ �=:.i 9 .a, \\
1 --13? -- ('Z0 ! . 0o) �R •--- -
✓ `-- Imo- �T- 12.0 --" V.- .o N 30 w
V 041 '42 a •• • C4) (3) CEJ () 1.1-1 N
1 (.25x, 101 m to of 10 0I. m 44 109.3 1043 • • .3 104.3 (.� . 130141 .
\. (8) w Oa) I (2� - . {3RONSO ;' . D'RIVE4 Q „ . .0
> > Cas) 20, 2
---•- �6Z) 052 051( ) ►+23.6 IZo +1;g1' -t�A- '� �� Rad
_ _ o 1 OI I •CSo) 90'I 150. ,1-
i
1
' 0,69at. b t@0 (53) w 42ac. I 542.0 , (9) I.04- ��s) . 'o (4a)0 '
•I a0
re Cie: 137 -18? =.; �IL'L1fi♦ tl F.- r l-e'' •'
1f.9 -o :9
av ' o
-� 4 m 1i, 8'.(4)o: 1 11 1 ,ft •.
5 99 - - : =.x:.• 1.21 120 • 119118 ; •• . C). %
1 -10° •
7 .r5� Gars 'µ •11174
-.$ 140 1
e t r. $ IPA RK
co Com)
98 � ) 107 ozd•a6�
in (i ) a11(51) 0,.
(r.. r(�) a74,f . .h )E34 `:MO '-%. 120 MO . ' a IN.43 �,
I - -P375.4 i 2\ � 378.4 • - (54)
1
97 1 #^ �- 10 8 i: ��117 (,M.) ' ^10 r-
,
r.
4.4
1 Inch=200 Feet
2 '/2 Inches= 500 Feet
1111
500-Foot Radius Map Planning Case 547-99
Applicant: Andrea McRannolds
Location: 2841 Bronson Drive 1V- 1 )1
Cur OF
WKS
Phone: (612)717-4011
O L5 vU Fax: (612)784-3462
Ar
S
dress Partne's\''Q
February 8, 1999 •
•
Andrea McRannolds
2841 Bronson Drive
Mounds View, MN 55112
•
RE: Planning Case No. 547-99
Residential Dog Kennel Conditional Use Permit
Dear Ms. McRannolds:
•
I spoke with your son last week regarding your application for a conditional use permit for a
residential dog kennel. There appears to be some confusion as to what needs to be done, which is •
why I am sending this letter to you.
First, you will need to obtain signatures of support from at least 50 percent of the residents living
within 500 feet of your property. According to the map that was provided to you--a copy of
which I am enclosing--there are 50 such properties (an earlier letter indicating 58 properties was
in error) which means you will need at least 26 signatures on the form you were provided. Please
forward to me a copy of this petition as soon as it is completed.
After having received this petition of support, the City will schedule a meeting with the Planning
Commission and then a public hearing with the City Council. You cannot have the dog kennel
license without the City Council's approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
Because of this delay in processing your request, the City is informing you of its intent to exercise
its right to an additional 60 days by which it can make a decision. Although you can expect a
decision as soon as possible, the deadline for Council action will be May 8, 1999.
Please call me with any questions you may.have. I can be reached at 612-717-4022.
Sincerely,
rh
E -
James Ericson •
Planning Associate •
•
• #1
PRINTED WITH 2401 Highway 10•Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 to
• SOVINKTM mcYcied WDer
Equal Opportunity Employer
art O
CUPIDS CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
;� 2401 HIGHWAY 10
MOUNDS VIEW,MN 55112
• e„,„,„•Partnego.
LICENSE APPLICATION FORM
Date of Application %� / 9 9d
$ iness Name a26/4.14..d 771) a.,--rvkt-4-erg /
Phone 723- ge.
-Business Address , 9f/ /94 C )
Owners/Corporate Officers/Associates/Partners(name and title:)
cif /cid-(--;-&41
Have you ever had a license revoked? 26 Ifes attach explanation.
xplanation.
References: Cities where previously or currently license for same activity(name of City and
year(s)licensed)
•
Applications for the following licenses must complete the applicable section on the reverse side
of this form:
•
► Bowling Alleys ► Gasoline Stations
► Automobile Sales ► Kennels
► Cigarette and Tobacco ► Restaurants
► Dance Halls
I hereby certify that information provided on this application is true and hereby correct and
understand any misrepresentation made herein may be ground for denial of this application.
Applicants's Full Name 41T-e/l/) 1//r,e /11141- ! /7/ Q 4d f
/ (Please print)
Date of Birth 6i / A C*/
Applicant's Signature a ? ��'(JLF "772
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
LICENSE APPLICATION FORM
PAGE TWO •
Bowling Alleys Only:
Number of Lanes
Dance Halls Only:
How long in operation at given address
Gasoline Stations Only:
Number of pumps
Number and capacity of gasoline storage tanks
Cigarette and Tobacco Product:
Over the Counter Sales
Vending (number of machines)
Restaurants Only:
Occupancy Load
- - Number of Hours open per day
714
Kennels Only: .�✓ �
Check one: Commercial
Residential 1/
Number of Dogs 7`' � h�' 'd'a) 7
ata
Number of Cats &
OFFICE USE ONLY
Receipt Number Date Fee
New Police Chief: Approval
Renewal Denied
Council Approval .
•
) /9 ?
, ,
07,&
• obAA5 . 4
g 27/ s_h_e_it
trN,• : ytaP> tA ettrL, 1 S -7 14)11i/A L.(UV:
(,)
•
\\ t,efx& \\\)A\m4
• n-LotA_ .:;a Tyr
X77-v•4 Shee.01- ?`-1/0 Kvtot(uidul
ufyrA,t_te, Zza-rt_ Bronson Or,
/9ACE-e(--6L. 4e/ 5'1 .3 .ejt.o„-ae-pz-et
•
e/A,c.24C4-e-
/ 003.-A3, 9 61
de..7 .(tcp
-It- 78c• 3
7 /71
•
7 g
CM OF
OM[�DS •
Phone: (612)717-400
Q wv Fax: (612)784-3462
A
~e'ress Partneo'(%�QS
March 4, 1999
Andrea McRannolds
2841 Bronson Drive
Mounds View, MN 55112
RE: CUP for Residential Dog Kennel and'License
Dear Ms. McRannolds: •
I have received your letter dated February 28, in which you raise some questions regarding your
application for a residential dog kennel conditional use permit. I will respond to each of your
questions and then present you with two options as to how we can proceed with your request.
The conditional use permit process is a requirement of the dog kennel license. I was assured that •
you were sent all of the forms for this application and made aware of the requirements. For your
reference, I am enclosing a page from our City Code regarding kennels licenses, which indicates
that applicants need to apply for a conditional use permit and obtain signatures from more than
fifty percent of all registered land-owners within 500 feet of the subject property. Thus, even
though there is no "house" at the City pump station property, as a property within 500 feet of
yours, it was counted.
As you can see from the map I created showing the 500-foot radius, there are 57 properties within
• .. .' .i •'• • - ' - •' m-.A A. ou will need to :ain a minimum of 29 si: atures.
(On an earlier map, the number of parcels were fewer as it did not take into account the new
townhomes on Silver Lake Road.) The list of signatures you provided to us, a copy of which I
am returning to you, indicates only six signatures.
Your presence at public meetings for your conditional use permit is not mandatory, though it is
certainly recommended, especially if the Planning Commission or Council has any questions
regarding the request. If you will be out of town and cannot appear before either group, your
application will still be processed and you will be notified as to the result.
As to the age and size of the dogs, as long as you have more than two dogs, you are required to
have a conditional use permit for a residential dog kennel. .I realize that these are indoor dogs and
that no kennel structure will be constructed outside, however this is immaterial in that a permit is •
required regardless. If the City Council votes to deny your conditional use permit request, you
will need to give up two of the dogs.
411
J PRINTED WITH 2401 Highway 10• Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 +U
• INK ira recycled paper
Eauai Opportunity Employer
r7
Letter to Andrea McRannolds
• March 4, 1999
Page 2
There are two options regarding your application at this point. We can proceed with it"as is" and
seek action from the Council, or you may ask--in writing--to withdraw your application. If we
proceed with the application now, it will be denied due to the lack of signatures supporting the
request. If you withdraw the application, you will be forced to give up two dogs immediately.
The$75 permit fee which you have already paid is not refundable, however if you did withdraw
your application, I would allow you to reapply for the same request at no charge if within six
months of the request to withdraw.
The deadline for action on your request is May 8th, thus the Council will need to act upon the
request no later than April 26, which means the Planning Commission will need to make their
recommendation to the Council no later than April 21st. Unless you tell me otherwise, I will
publish the necessary notices in the newspaper for public hearings on these referenced dates.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call or write.
Sincerely,
James Ericson
Planning Associate
encl.
cc: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
•
•
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 577-99
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW FOR A DOG KENNEL FOR ANDREA MACRANNOLDS,
2841 BRONSON DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 547-99
WHEREAS, Andrea MacRannolds has applied for a conditional use permit for a
residential dog kennel at her property located at 2841 Bronson Drive, property zoned R-1, Single •
Family Residential, legally described as followed:
West'/2 of Lot 14
Spring Lake Park Knolls Addition
Ramsey County,Minnesota
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, three
to four dogs at a single-family residence; and
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following
documents regarding this proposal:
• 1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. 500-Foot Radius Map
4. License Application Form
5. Petition(incomplete)
6. Letter to the Applicant,dated 2/8/99
7. Letter to the Applicant,dated 3/4/99
8. Staff Report for Planning Commission Action
WHEREAS, in order for the City Council to grant a conditional use permit for a •
residential dog kennel, all of the licensing requirements shall be satisfied; and
Resolution 577-99
MacRannolds CUP
• April 21, 1999
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the required petition is insufficient for a
lack of signatures; and,
WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.01, Subdivision le, the Planning Commission is
to examine the possible adverse effects of this use upon the neighborhood and community; and,
WHEREAS, a background check with the Police Department revealed four dog-related
incidents, one of which involved an attack upon a person; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that there is sufficient reason to consider that
the general health, safety, well-being and welfare of the community may be comprised by the
granting of this conditional use permit request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends to the City Council denial of this conditional use permit request.
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 21st day of April, 1999.
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\547-99\577-99D.RES
•
{
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
• Meeting Date: April 21, 1999
Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Planning Case No.: 552-99
Request: Conditional Use Permit for a 1,040 Square-Foot Garage
Petitioner: Gerald Miller
Location: 2091 Terrace Drive
• PIN No. 05-30-23-44-0054
Zoning/Land Use: R-1, Single Family Residential/ Single Family Dwelling
Applicable Regulations:
1104.01. Subd. 4: Accessory buildings detached from principal building shall have a setback of 5 feet.
Accessory buildings shall not be allowed in the front yard.
1106.03, Subd. 1: No garage shall exceed 952 square feet except by CUP; the combined square
footage for all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more than 20% of the rear yard.
1111 1106.04. Subd.6: The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one lot cannot exceed
1,400 square feet, the garage width cannot exceed 35 feet nor allow for more than three vehicle
accesses.
1125.01, Sub. 1 e: This section lists possible adverse effects that the Planning Commission shall
consider in making its recommendation.
1125.01. Sub. 3b: This section lists possible additional criteria by CUP requests shall be judged.
Attachments: Planning Application
Zoning Map
Site Plans
Structure Map
Resolution 578-99
Background:
2091 Terrace Drive is located north of County Road I near the eastern border of the City. The
property--an interior lot--is approximately 13,050 square feet. The house is set back
approximately 49 feet toward the middle of the lot, with the detached garage situated behind the
house. The house, at approximately 926 square feet, is presently larger than the existing two-stall
garage, which is 506 square feet. The applicant will be removing the present garage to make
. room for the new one. There is an eighty square foot (8 x 10) shed behind the existing garage
which is set far enough back so as not to be in the way of the proposed garage.
F
+r
t
Miller CUP Request
2081 Terrace Drive
April 21, 1999 •
Page 2
Analysis:
A Conditional Use Permit is required, in this case, due to the size of the proposed garage. The
size of the proposed garage would be 1,040 square feet, which is not much larger than the house.
While it would be larger, there would not exist the"imbalance" which has been present in the last
few over-sized garage CUP requests. The applicant proposes to construct an addition to the rear
of the house in the following year which would again make the house bigger than the garage. The
proposed location of the garage does not interfere with the future expansion plans nor the
existence of a shed in the back yard.
Dimensional Criteria
All of the dimensional criteria associated with this request--setbacks, spacing between buildings,
width of proposed garage, and numbers of doors--satisfy the requirements as stated in Chapter
1104 of the Zoning Code. The proposed garage is about 91 feet from the front property line, 43
feet from the rear property line and is setback from the side of the property by about seven feet.
Taking into consideration the size of the shed, the total amount of accessory building coverage on
the lot would be 1,120 square feet, or 14.6 percent of the rear yard area. Were the applicant to
replace the existing shed with the largest allowable without a CUP, the coverage would rise to •
16.4 percent, which is still less than the maximum accessory building coverage of twenty percent.
Adverse Effects and CUP Criteria
The City Code, in Section 1125.01, Subd. 1 states that the Planning Commission shall examine
the possible adverse effects of a conditional use permit request prior to making a
recommendation. The following represent those items explicitly stated in the Code:
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, 2091
Terrace Drive, as low-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The Geographical Area Involved.
4. The Character of the Surrounding Area
In this area of Mounds View, most of the lots are of a similar size. The homes are all of a
similar style architecture and were built around the same time. Many of the homes in the
immediate area have larger garages, most of which are detached as in this proposal. A
Miller CUP Request
2081 Terrace Drive
• April 21, 1999
Page 3
larger garage on the subject property would not appear out of place.
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
Replacing the existing garage with a new, larger garage will have an immediate positive
impact on the value of the subject property, and may actually increase the perceived values
of the homes surrounding 2109 Terrace Drive. At 1,040 square feet, set back from the
street as far as it is, this garage addition would not depreciate the surrounding area in any
way.
5. The demonstrated need for such a use.
The existing garage--while a two stall garage-- is considered fairly small by today's standards.
A 22-foot deep garage cannot even accommodate many vehicle models, such as extended
minivans and SUVs.
This proposal appears to satisfy the adverse effects criteria. Also in Section 1125.01, the Planning
Commission is to examine the criteria for granting a conditional use permit, which are outlined in
Section 1125.01, Sub 3b:
• (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.
Replacing a small garage with one larger, even one as large as is being requested, would
not create a greater impact on existing public facilities, parks, schools or services, on
utilities or access roads, nor would it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets.
(2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and
there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land.
(3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon
adjacent residential properties.
Because the house is set back further than is typical, and because the garage is situated
behind the house, there would be substantial public screening from this accessory
structure. In terms of its relationship with the two adjoining properties, the garage is
separated from the property to the east by the distance of the width of the backyard, the
property to the west is neither separated by physical distance or screening, yet it already is
• accustomed to a garage in this location and as such may not be impacted by the larger
Miller CUP Request
2081 Terrace Drive
April 21, 1999 •
Page 4
garage.
(4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of
the City and to the existing land use.
(5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
(6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Garages and detached accessory outbuildings are typical uses in residential areas, and
allow for the storage of vehicles and yard and garden equipment.
Staff believes that the adverse affects of this development proposal are minimal and are far out-
weighed by the benefits. Staff also believes that it is desirable from a community perspective to
have property owners improve their properties with building expansions since the properties are
then usually kept in better order and may trigger other properties to do the same.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 578-99, a resolution •
recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 1,040 square foot garage at 2091
Terrace Drive, requested by Gerald Miller.
, 1
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\552-99\MILLER.PC1
•
F CF
S`YY i �i t;iu'
1
[flfl . f.O COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
• 1.
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
`f+�' 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View.MN 55112
°Q1'4-Partners"'Q' 612-717-4020
612-784-3462 -FAX
Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form
Applicant Information �/
Name of Applicant t�� rm r f i' r Telephone 62/2--717-/67,96
Address ZL I/ 7 764c- D2. Fax
/1lav 1 Si/r4-J oma , "5---//2 -Interest in Property(check appropriate box)
Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner
o Lessee,Operator,Manager 0 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
41) Address or General Location Z 0 5 / /E'/1 iggC,8- �2.
Legal Description
Property Identification#(PIN#)
#of Acres /�
Current Zoning IC 6 /Drat)Tic.--(
Type of Application
o Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250
❑ Rezoning $250/acre; min$250 max$1500
❑ Major Subdivision $250+$250 d-.osit*
o Minor Subdivision $200
❑ Planned Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees
4 PUD Amendment $350
Conditional Use Permit R-1, R-. others$250
❑ Variance R-1, R-2 I I all others$250
❑ Code Appeal $100
❑ Develop Review/Site Plan $125/acre;min$125 max$750
❑ Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2$150;all others$200
o Wetland Buffer Permit ® R-1,R-2$25;all others$100
❑ Floodplain Permit ��b)
$200
O 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
to the applicant within thirty(30)days after consideration of the application is completed.
Please complete the reverse side of this application.
a
City of Mounds View,MN
Development Application Page 2
Present Use of Property •
❑ Undeveloped/Vacant Single Family Dwelling
❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling 0 Multi-family Dwelling
❑ Business/Commercial Establishment 0 Industrial Establishment
❑ Other(explain)
Property Classification 0 Abstract 0 Torrens
Description of Proposal A/ --' 69 ;,,, Z6 � X'/O
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) 6cie4t.,0 fr l ( l er
Signature of Property Owner A �(
Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) c›-e4t.,4 m` (Ce% 4111
Address of Owner 7_c3 `r I Tea►'1 t g- (2
Phone Number of Owner (Qk 2-/ 1 -(G5
************************************************************************************************
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date of Submittal - S -
Date of Acceptance Assigned to:
Planning Case No. S - P7 ? 60-day Limit 120-day limit
Fees Paid: Account# Check# Receipt#
Application: 0.5-- 00 1,1 n 3 a VC? / S '�
Park Dedication:
Deposits:
Other: •
Total:
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\FORMS\DEVAPP.FOR 1/98
N��� N N N 2233 g 1 .........1....-
CD
� c, 5691. V
D: �� ��� R-5 J
c0 . . to o` oC 5681in
CAM M N N :i'iifl� _lil
. co - N N N N N N
N N N N N N 5671
{.l�9:i:
5661 COLONIAL VILLAGE
—3 MOBILE HOME PARK LJJ
co co NI- r0) S) N - o 0 0_ 0 0_ n Orn COhN
N N N N N N N N N r RJ O O 0 0 0 CO .O
N N N N N N N N Nkb' N N N N N N N N 0 ^ /
HILLVIEW . .... . ......... .. . ..... I ( r
d CO t) O V C0 CO O C0 O N d C0 CO N t0 C0 0
N CO O d• c0 O
N 2 2 8 4 ) N N O O rn ao M M N • _O rn CA C0 N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N OAKWOOD N N N N N N N N N N N N
r rn _ PARK I O
N N N nnn.
N ^ M 5590 07 M I� O •-
N N N N N O CO PF `� M M N - CI)0 0 CO
O O O O
OAKWOOD N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
egOUNE/11111"111 g g p tb Nd
M N,',ID
O t0 O N OO O tdC: O
M _ 0000
NNNNNINNNNNN N N N N
cA gang/Ifisagg /(. J
P
NCD 2 M N
M M Q - O IO
0 tn
-
TERRgCE 141 1 11 NNN
NN.
I
_ cc NI gWOHNNtt0 0 N O CO O NONIco Cto sO OOi p co I\ •
NI
1NEEIRI r � � O O p O
U NN N N NNN
:WOOD •OR
3 to N rn M N CA M N W •
N co La'4- CO CO 0 to d M M N O
t0 CO O
to In d• M M N " N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N,
• v N "N N N N N N
v N N N N N N N N
I
°° 5511 5512 5511
N 5505 •
54975472 5503 E 5504 5499 PINEWOOD
111
p_i51 5493 5494 5493 SCHOOL
y I
5485 5486 5485 5500
5479 R—Z PO •
5473 5468 5475 5478 5475
1467 5464 5463 5466 5467 Q
5463
%.1;c5,
5459
5455Ct
0Pk"
5456544•GP `"Ir
� 5453 y
5447 0 '� '�S� 5447 4. #' ,�� W I
5441 s 5439 n (0 CO tInn r) �' Z .
5433 �`�, 5433 N N N N N ,•�'
N
5425 `SA 5425 BELLE LN
5421 542• 5419 '�
N N N N N
5415 5414 M - N in o 0 5413 r) Ig N „ Y
N N N N N N ¢ M ,-
•
5405 5406 N N N N N N 5405 NNNNN NN •., <
DRIVE ` a •
nlNlcnlnlnil Ni- I N I 0 101lit
7
Zoning Map Planning Case 552-99
Applicant: Gerald Miller N4
Location: 2091 TerraceDrive
Proposed Site Plan
• 2091 Terrace Driv�
• Gerald Miller
. April 16, 1999
r..1101 401 M . - .
I.
re°P SsD ae;vJ
1 1
1' .2Ae4c1 Gq 1 . .
' .z(p'X'/U'
I. .
1 • � .
.1 . .
sl •
f .
1 .
1ECa-5�aL7-"' '%' — -
To B6 RdMw D
23'X z'2- zA,
• • • 0
iz•
, . •
1
. „, ..
. .
. .
,,,,,,,,_,,v, „Just"- . . .
•V3' - ._...__...- )1:," . •
ai%L'
•
•
I .
�o • •
.
• • .
•
• •
• • Nook.
,
Structure Map -- 2091 Terrace Drive
0
Oakwood Park
m
I
I �atkV
Oakwood Drive
ate , e1
m 11
>,
d
CI ®im ,• ' s ,�
III Terrace Drive
p i o� ;v 0 I
• a ".
P
/
Pinewood Drive
County Road I i
\,::,. CPinewood
\ 7, Elementary I:4)
Planning Case No. 552-99
III Applicant: Gerald Miller
Property: 2091 Terrace Dr.
Date: April 21, 1999
•
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 578-99
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW FOR AN OVERSIZED GARAGE AT 2091 TERRACE DRIVE;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 552-99
Whereas, Gerald Miller has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,080 •
square-foot garage on property located at 2091 Terrace Drive, zoned R-1, Single Family
Residential, legally described as followed:
Lot 29, Block 2, Pinewood Terrace
County of Ramsey
WHEREAS, there is currently a 506 square-foot garage and an 80 square-foot shed on
this lot; and,
_ r._ -, . : _. .;._ _.. - , . ..". .. . .- ...'t, upto
1,400 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. Site Plan
d. Area Map with Building Footprints
e. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the dimensional requirements as stated •
in Chapter 1104 the Zoning Code for this proposal have been met; and,
Planning Commission Resolution 578-99
April 21, 1999
• Page 2
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. 1.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, 2091 Terrace Drive, as low-density
residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
2,4. The Geographical Area Involved&the Character of the Surrounding Area.
In this area ofMounds View, most of the homes and lots are of the a similar design and size, many
of which have garages as large or larger than that of 2091 Terrace Drive.More than half of the
garages in this area are detached from the principal structure. A larger garage on the subject
property would not appear out of place.
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
Constructing a larger garage than what is currently existing will have an immediate positive impact
on the property value for the subject property. It is not conceivable that this garage addition would
depreciate the surrounding area in any way.
• 5. The demonstrated need for such a use.
The existing garage is small by today's standard and for the needs of the property owner.
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 Aderinate ntilities,_access roads,draina'- and necessary facilities have been or will he provided
Constructing a larger garage would not create a greater impact on existing public facilities,parks,
schools or services, on utilities or access roads, nor would it create an increase in traffic on
adjacent streets.
2. The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will
be no deterrence to development of vacant land.
3. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent
residential properties.
Because the house is set back approximately 50 feet from the street and because the garage would
• be located behind the house, the garage would be substantially screened from public view. The
garage would be located toward the west side of the lot, thereby providing a separation of distance
between it and the property to the east. The property to the west, with no screening, is already
accustomed to having a garage at this location.
Planning Commission Resolution 578-99
April 21, 1999
Page3 •
4. The use,in the opinion of the City Council,is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to
the existing land use.
5. The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in
which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
6. The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Garages and detached accessory outbuildings are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for
the storage of vehicles and yard and garden equipment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow for a 1,040 square-foot garage 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 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.
3. The garage shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform building •
appearance with the house, which is to mean the garage shall at a minimum be
painted with the same color-scheme as the home.
4. All vehicles parked at the property shall be parked either upon the driveway's
improved surface or within the garage. At no time shall a vehicle be allowed to park
upon the grass or off of the improved surface.
5. The existing shed on the lot shall be moved if necessary to maintain a
minimum six-foot setback from the garage.
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 21st day of April, 1999.
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Rick Jopke, Community Development Director •
(SEAL)
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\546-99\571-99PC.RES
•
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Subject: Variance Request, Planning Case No. 550-99
Applicant: Don Norris, 5302 Raymond Avenue
Date: Meeting of April 21, 1999
Background:
At the last regular meeting held by the Planning Commission(April 7, 1999), staff presented a
report and request for a variance to be approved at 5302 Raymond Avenue. The applicant, Don
Norris, wishes to construct a living space addition behind a garage that is being built onto his
home. The living space would be constructed at the same setback as the garage.
The Planning Commission agreed that the improvement would be a benefit to the home and
would serve to make the property more habitable and to increase the value of the property, as
II/ well as possibly prompting others nearby to invest in their own properties. Because of the narrow
lot width and the fact that the lot supports two dwellings, building expansion becomes difficult.
Analysis:
Staff has examined the criteria upon which variance applications are to be judged and found that
in all instances, a case can be made which supports the granting of a variance in this circumstance.
There do not appear to be any negative impacts resulting from this addition, the living space
would be located behind a planned garage addition, and would be buffered from the property to
the north by an attached garage. The dwelling unit to the south, attached to Mr. Norris' unit,
would not be impacted by this addition as it is separated by a common addition on the back side
of the building.
Recommendation:
Given the supporting criteria, lack of negative impacts and the resulting increased livability of the
property, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve attached Resolution 574-99, a
resolution approving a variance to allow a building expansion with a five-foot setback from the
north property line of 5302 Raymond Avenue, as requested by Don Norris.
• James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\550-99\NORRIS.PC2
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION •
RESOLUTION NO. 574-99
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED TEN-FOOT SIDE
YARD SETBACK FOR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE LIVING SPACE
LOCATED AT 5302 RAYMOND AVENUE; PLANNING CASE NO. 550-99.
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Don
Norris to permit a living space building expansion within the ten-foot sideyard setback at his home
located at 5302 Raymond Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, this property is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential District and is
legally described as:
Lot 12, Block 1, Norseman 1st Addition
Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated
with this request: •
1. Planning Application
2. Location Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Site Plans
5. Staff Report for Planning Commission Action
WHEREAS, the living space expansion for which this variance is sought will be
constructed up to within five feet of the north property line of said property; and,
WHEREAS, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do apply to the property 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, in that the lot is only 100 feet wide and supports two
dwelling units, the effect of which places restrictions on the ability to expand living space; 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 a building
expansion for living space is a common and beneficial addition to a home; and,
WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant in that the width of the lot and configuration of the home makes additional expansion •
difficult; and,
Planning Commission Resolution 574-99
Norris Variance
April 21, 1999
Page 2
WHEREAS, the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the
hardship, in that maintaining a five-foot setback keeps the expansion flush with the proposed
garage addition; and,
WHEREAS, granting the variance requested would not 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 property owners in this district would also be encouraged to improve their
properties with garages and additional living space; and,
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 addition provides for additional living space and
will serve to increase the value of the home, and possibly the values of those surrounding the
home; and,
WHEREAS, the variance would not 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 living space addition will increase the value of the home by
adding two bedrooms and allow for the expansion of the family room area on the main floor. The
bedrooms will serve only those people already living within the structure which would not
increase congestion on public streets or increase the danger of fire or restrict light and air to the
adjacent properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission
acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the variance request of Don Norris, to
allow a living space expansion with a five-foot setback from the north property line at 5302
Raymond Avenue.
Adopted this 21st day of April, 1998
Jerry Peterson, Chairman
ATTEST
Rick Jopke,
Community Development Director
SEAL
• N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\550-99\574-99ARES
}
1
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
• RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
April 7, 1999
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10,Mounds V'..,MN 55112
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterso 7:00 p.4.7, pril` , :; '�'
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioner,,'. . gland, Johnson, Kaden,
Laube, Miller, and Stevenson. ,
Members Absent: Commissioner Berke with p ' t <:>
Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Erics.. , Coun , 1 1 1::'ewers(?), Golf
Superintendent John Hamrnerschmidt; air' ecord Carla & ,. '
0 .''
Index to Minutes Page
Planning ,',.
„ •. 550-9 § , .ymond ^ I on Norris, Property Owner,
Conside . ` arianc= >• . allow a ve-foot building setback
for living sp 44 ,on 2
Planning Cas-,E,' 91 Hi- .:ay 10, KinderCare (Jones Sign Company, Inc.),
t
Consider. e of a va . n. -" : -st to install a 16-foot tall, 48 square-foot advertising
sign o it property fakiWitiqz,k,fa ay 10 5
P1. t• g Case No. 551-6.v 7:05 Gloria Circle, Dorothee Dietrich, Property Owner,
4 Lderation of a va ; e request to allow a detached, two-stall garage in the front
the subject . p'3erty 8
' • . ' < �ridges Golf Course Sign Plan 10
Staff Reports/Items of Information 14
Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 14
0
4
Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 2
•
3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda.
1)
4. Approval of Minutes
A. February 17, 1999
qivet
Miller asked what date should appear on the February 1 if 999, and .:;: :rch ' ; - ` eetinw
minutes to indicate approval. Ericson stated the dates h>`' been . ected sot 1 ..' ict.
•
MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Kaden to approve the F . .it� _ 1999 meeting minutes as
corrected.
Ayes - 8 Nays - •on° carried.
•5. Planning Case No. 550-99 g '. , eeting]
Property Involved: 5302 Raymond e �"w.
Consideration of a Variance Requ�4>4�.�Allow = ive-Foo ilding Setback for Living Space •
Expansion
Applicant: Don Norris, Pro. er
•.��,:• asp,:>�,
The applica 0sent. <='f
•
•crI 414-
Chair Peterso ev;i5ita blic h: '' �'at 7:10 p.m.
Ericso 've the staff ".a
lows:
Th. : plicant, Don No is requesting a variance from the required ten-foot side yard setback
e i R i shed for princip. ildings and living space therein. He plans on constructing an attached,
r4§, ,I1 wide garags twinhome, located at 5302 Raymond Avenue. (He owns both sides,
H7y:
g . t the . nit.) In conjunction with this construction, he would like to add a two-
s • p' :S .; •ehind the garage, which would maintain the same proposed setback--five feetasgarage. Currently there is no garage present, and the square footage for this half
of the twinhome is about 540 square feet. The garage expansion, which would be allowed
unconditionally, is proposed at 368 square feet.
The subject property is one of several side-by-side twin homes that were built in the mid-1960s on
the east side of Raymond Avenue. Allof the lots are 100 feet wide which leaves little room for •
expansion possibilities. The applicant has already expanded out the back of the house, creating
Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 3
•
additional living space, and has constructed a deck and a below-ground pool, which prohibits any
further expansion in this area.
Ericson noted the seven criteria established for consideration of a variance which p, ,4es a
hardship, noting a variance may only be granted in those cases where the .de i:.p.ses undue
hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner. Erics. indicatsMiko ardship may
exist in this case since the lot itself is 100 feet wide and sha 1,1 two ofitOrtik by-side duplex).
He advised the applicant has added onto the back side of i winhome • ,, d pool als. ''_
„�J W
exist. The size of the dwelling is 540 square feet which c s not pr. - a to M.r ac
Thus the request for a side yard setback for a bedroom - cons• ted in con$`' -.a.. e
garage. Ericson explained the intent of the Code to mai . - separation bet ` = ` -nse
uses. . w<;
Ericson cited the criteria which needs to be met and ind ted t 3:01;1
W;,.9,41 taff believes there is a
sg
legitimate indication of hardship but whether suffiici a. _rant a :nder consideration
tonight. Staff recommended the Planning Co ffi ff, ss those‘10i,:- .nd then direct staff to
either draft a resolution to grant, or draft a r-° isif-$,;.i - 4e vari. ;de request.
•Ericson advised staff received only one '-k` ent . r sen. e required notices to
properties within 350 feet. The co !,0:tir was fry ` the pro._. y owner across the street, who
1111 maintained that the subject prope „.!;S e of, nicest o ` e block and he was in favor of
allowing the expansion as propos Ericso meted th nning Commission can either direct
staff to prep.,e a resolution g . 4;ing the • s' t• est or denying the variance request.
Don No olkintk.nt, staff" $ $ ,. nothing:add to staffs presentation.
Commissioner';. § e. $ loos,
L '. ked i ther structure within five feet of the property line.
Ericson explai attac - the twinhome but staff believes an adequate buffer
exists.
s
Co ow,sioner Kaden re e site plan drawing and asked if much of the bedroom is
•
att. ` - ' ,d to the home anit is accessible from the house. Ericson stated he is unsure of the
a i t of feet providi he connection but estimated it to be four feet.
f •sex 1 s will be a regular bedroom and the connection area is wide enough for a
�� � p • � g
Commissioner Miller asked if an outdoor access will be provided. Mr. Norris stated there will be
a sliding glass door providing access from the bedroom to the deck.
Chair Peterson asked the applicant if he owns other units in this neighborhood. Mr. Norris stated
• he does not but has talked to that landowner who asked how much room would remain between
the garages. He advised there will be 14 feet of separation so the landlord did not object to
Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 4 •
granting of the variance request.
Chair Peterson stated he is glad to see these types of improvements being made to the dwellings.
pe
Mr. Norris stated they hope others will follow suit and improve their prorty.
Miller stated she viewed the property and understands how e improvement.
However, the Planning Commission is charged with having , . t-termi ,;.. 1the criteria
exists to grant a variance. q;
z,3 dy, :
Commissioner Stevenson stated this reminds him of a p y o .i:hterwood Rai
arae was constructed. He agreed the PlanningCo '^'-. ar ed with u h'•' $` e Code
garage g tea:_ , g P
unless the seven criteria are met. He stated he reads into '. that it would be allowed and,
in his judgement, he believes the criteria have been met s = *, ?$•rtthe variance request.
Commissioner Hegland stated whenever you improv -xisting W t makes it
exceptional and extraordinary due to the existin• g # . hyou flee. ' o rk within. He stated
he believes that consideration is applicable will It in a definite
improvement. Hegland stated his support r the
P g PP
ft
Chair Peterson asked for an indicati.. `a. ether +:9':
should .irected to prepare a resolution of
or denial. ,.. •approval
Commissione Johnson state. 4 pports t « . ..,62.frice it will result in an improvement to the
property. is
F
C01111111.SS10,410.4n con
Chair Peterso ,;43:0c11:1,),,- also it is important to assure the seven criteria are met and
he believe '" s . t. - met. a stated he believes some leniency is appropriate when
the con•cration is wit development rather than a new development. He stated he
belie
this project will � '. lkp• a benefit without harmful effects to the neighborhood.
C ssioner Laube s d he is wiling to vote for approval but questions whether the shed will
a fined. Mr. No:; T`advised that the shed was recently moved to the renter's side of the
tillttrqh
C•' g..j .`.. aden stated he believes the benefits of this project will outweigh the concerns so
he will vote for approval.
Chair Peterson explained that if the strict criteria are not followed, it results in establishing a
precedent that could be cited during future considerations. He explained that with garage size
variances, several Code changes have been made as well so the Planning Commission has to •
consider whether this is a routine situation or a unique situation.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 7 1999
Regular Meeting Page 5
III
Chair Peterson opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m.
Hearing no pubic input, Chair Peterson closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m.
Chair Peterson stated it appears there is unanimous consent among the *sin •irect staff to
prepare a resolution approving Planning Case No. 550-99, 531,2 Raym• °<:. tie, for a reduced
side yard setback variance to allow for the construction of 1 t paC"AraDna eet of the side
property line. '.
> ` .
i
6. Planning Case No. 549-99 :z:�' ;.:� 8 ic Meeting]
Properties Involved: 2791 Highway 10 ~
Consideration of a Variance Request to Install a 16-Fo• all, 4 >. oot Advertising Sign
on Their Property Facing Highway 10
Applicant: KinderCare (Jones Sign Company, I '
V
Planning Associate Ericson gave the sta VA eport a, allows.
III .,,,;,
The applicant, Jones Sign Compa : _ ,. rep =nting th 'nderCare Learning Center, is
requesting a variance from the Si v:, ode to . w for -,nstallation of a pylon advertising sign
at KinderCar located at 27•.• way 10 TAi `e". y, even though it supports a commercial
use, is zo mit" . mediuff�t' - resident.: g S •asis for this zoning is that day care facilities
such as `' trig were -i=!1,0:41,4„ allowe. in commercial districts. This restriction was
eliminated ,sing o , - 595 in 1997, which allowed as conditional uses day care
facilities in all $ •s and ins �' t , ;;`
4, 'ng districts. Were the property zoned commercial, it
could have u.,, , .$ 1 ` eet o •fined permanent signage. The current proposal would
add a 16- • � a , A: -: ` • 11•t pylon sign to the existing 36 square-foot wall sign. Together
the am,: ,,,,e'
of signage i.p $ .low the maximum allowed 100 square feet.
nv
•
E ion stated if the pro
a ywere zoned appropriately for a day care, they would be allowed to
h '4a ignage in the an”i`
t being requested. This is the basis for staff's determination that a
'$ ; '• exists. He each of the seven criteria established for consideration of a variance and
v; .:l sis •,,, «� criteria. He noted that a variance may only be granted in those cases
' l� &• poses undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner.
a..
Ericson indicated that a hardship clearly exists in this case. He advised that staff sent out public
hearing notices to all properties within 350 feet of the KinderCare property. Of the 19 properties
affected, only 12 are developed residentially. All of the others are developed commercially with
the exception of Church on the Rock and a vacant parcel on the south side of Highway 10. Staff
IIIhas received a call from Western Bank indicated they do not support the variance request.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 6
•
Ericson stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 575-99
approving a variance from Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code pertaining to signage to allow a
permanent, freestanding pylon sign at 2791 Highway 10, KinderCare Learning Center.
Chair Peterson opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m.
Charles Durand, Holiday Stationstore, 2744 Highway 10, , , if tW "r a KinderCare
sign or a sign that will be used to advertise other activitie °' cson ad • -' $ y advertise
KinderCare, not other activities. tM
Commissioner Stevenson noted the size of the sign is fo` >: ,,. ,:,f welve feet. He" ': .. ,1-i"'at the
Highway 10 right-of-way is a total of 200 from side-to-strattg ,ould bequite close to the
KinderCare fence. Ericson stated he is not sure of the e r:77-11iV,`,: i:rn's\,..-'$ the property line.
Stevenson noted if the proposed trailways are constp, they wr $ 8 >s be located quite
close to the fence line. Ericson stated the sign s- g to 15 fe. , the property line,
which should place the sign outside of the tr. �?
Commissioner Miller noted one of the o• ctions ry WelitilIfis the size of the sign so,
perhaps, they do not know the actua of the n.
Commissioner Kaden noted the r-'• `'ential zoiit g and . d if this will establish an adverse
precedent. 'cson stated t s e only d' gff • ercial operation in a residential district
that he is .. s•f. Fro 4.54113W ! rspecti g no danger of establishing a precedent.
Kaden ask 7 •perty g a.time, been zoned commercial. Ericson stated he believes
it has always •vatigiatt,<;esiden
Commissi. a << m ` - oul se rezoned. Ericson stated it could be.
e),
Co ' sioner Johnson aA �:Y§out the tax impact should this property be rezoned as
co• p ercial. Ericson st. • t e applicant did not set out to derive any special tax benefit and, in
f. : e City establishe e zoning district.
a'oner enquired regarding the hours the sign would be lit. Stevenson stated this
t shed light and appears to be a light from within the sign.
Chair Peterson noted the sign material is not very translucent so he doubts there would be any
illumination reaching the ground.
Commissioner Kaden asked if any nearby residents commented on the lighting. Ericson stated no
comments were received. •
Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 7
Chair Peterson stated he is unaware of the City setting hours of operation for such a sign.
Commissioner Stevenson stated lighting times are usually only restricted if a ground-mounted
spotlight illuminates a pylon-type of sign.
Commissioner Hegland asked why a variance was requested r. her tha •. g. Ericson
stated the applicant submitted a building permit unaware th.. . gn w $ `5 allowed. He
explained that a variance application costs less and is mor •edient t • 'Vii $ $>• which
involves the adoption of an ordinance which requires a mum of City m $$-eti
Hegland stated it appears the problem is that KinderCargo'" w. $+ting to run a co $ .
business on residentially-zoned property. He stated it seems ` •propriate to rezone the
property to the actual use.
Ericson suggested this issue be addressed while the i$ •rehensiv:41441%,-,ng considered.
Commissioner Miller noted a day care can b $' --irotssvN,vntiai d:erty. Ericson stated
that is correct and the property would not .d to
Chair Peterson noted at the time of .s ction, ere was s a ternative so it may be a little
• :,
harsh to force a rezoning at this pq $ jtime. stated i.t� ay be more appropriate to consider a
rezoning during discussion of th- _:s prehe& e. air e PlanPeterson commented on the
importance o signage for a •` $��-rcial bu ;'�;� �:$,t,ated his support to consider the variance
request.
nrt 51%Commissio aske $N,': .e to this property is proposed in the future
Com rehensiv: •
Commissi a.='n :Joh:. his eipy of the Comprehensive Plan and advised it is identified
as Co nity Comme ;5•
°
tr
He< >k g no additional p i`put, Chair Peterson closed the public hearing at 7:39 p.m.
,' •ssioner Laub- 4ted he would want to be assured the placement of this signage does not
$ th pla $` t of the trailway. Ericson advised that the trailway would not need to
$ $ roe$ • e setback.
Commissioner Stevenson stated this is correct and when the highway is turned back some of the
100 feet will be brought in closer by means of the trailway, narrowing the current image of
Highway 10. He stated his concerns are well addressed that the sign will not result in a conflict
with the trailway.
110 Chair Peterson concurred.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 8 •
Commissioner Kaden stated since KinderCare was not allowed a commercial district initially, he
would consider that to be a hardship.
Chair Peterson noted that without the variance, this commercial use would be deni,-;,0 dem,-;,0he privilege
of signage enjoyed by other commercial uses.
Commissioner Stevenson addressed one of the concerns ex' -d by - ank related to
safety of the sign placement. He reviewed the last WHE'„ '' as cont.'$µ 4 ' ,„oposed
resolution and stated it is part of staff's responsibility, as,g elates to• plaatgo' `' .ssu °
would not endanger public safety.
Chair Peterson noted the existing wall sign will be remov:Mt arded so the final square
footage will remain below the allowable square footage. `: ` ed that the building sign
will be replaced by another sign.
MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller to adop . p •mmissi. S • ution 575-99, a
resolution approving a variance from Chapte i:`'. ,$m " `tz cipal :;•e pertaining to signage
to allow a permanent, freestanding pylon sift' 279� . '`r derCare Learning Center,
Planning Case No. 549-99.
Ayes - 7 .ys - 1 ohnson) The motion carried. •
Commissione Johnson state,;$•-:;;•ted ag•' : :« .. st due to the price of the variance and
indication' R-1/R- •ere bene a commercial use without paying the price.
Commission` . on su AKet,,IAKe Commission inquire regarding the tax impact should the
property be re ;4 4"`.•mmer ° >,
Chair Pete,-,,enit= b,was .de in the cost of the variance and asked staff to research
.• . . - . .teriTiVi •• •• : • ..s'• e . • •. . I - -4 •a he meetingsninutes.
PlanningC: o. 551-99 Public Meeting]
'<.� � g]
rc 7805 Gloria Circle
C of a Variance Request to Allow a Detached, Two-Stall Garage in the Front Yard of
the Subject property.
Applicant: Dorothee Dietrich, Property Owner
Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: •
Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999
. Regular Meeting Page 9
The applicant, Dorothee Dietrich, is requesting approval to build a garage within the established
front setback of her property, which is located at 7805 Gloria Circle. This lot is one of the few
lots in the City which border Spring Lake, the City's only natural lake. The Zoning Code
prohibits the construction of a garage or any accessory building in the front yard o
property. The front yard, as is defined by the Code, is that area between - fro• `x e of the
principal structure (house) and the front property line.
Ericson advised it is proposed to turn the existing attache eFt gle famil A:fraiorAtt,iving spac
However, if the Code requirements were followed to a", it would, -'ce t tj60 e
house and lake. He explained that because homes on la.e4,ts ar .ically orie'""idtraY e
lake, many communities offer a provision for allowing a}'4,7,n7ir'ween the home:to street,
as it would be undesirable to construct the garage between;t e and the lake. There are six
lots in the City where this becomes an issue, and 7805 G,,,1 4 T:. -. •ne of those lots.
He reviewed his analysis of other city's codes and t . -Yen criteri. - M • for consideration
of a variance, noting a variance may only be gray = ff •� cases w # `e Code imposes
undue hardship or practical difficulties to the n . ricso •icated staff believes that
pplicant's request.
a case can be made for the existence of a . •t�slup w���" -m� � � ��: .
However, because it is not clear that all • he crit-I can • ff- e undue hardship requirement
may not be satisfied. Ericson noted s. ater fe. . re is imps: ant to this property.
Ericson reviewed the Code provi • follow f4t y the Gig<, of Roseville and explained that while
there are pro=•sions in place, t,, •t t buil, R `l•R „, . n and location of accessory buildings
�' ' d remain in an undeveloped state to protect
within the g� Y . area, th- ��-that thin: ��
and pre.`<-, : •acte• Y�:,` . `.^ure. In i ations where the Code does not anticipate a given
situation o s _ applies ` ,•c property for reasons of undue hardship or through
practical diffic : a. _` are t -.. •f action to remedy the situation: the property owner
can request a v. ". •uest a ,a dment to the City Code. Ericson advised that amending
the Code • •e d o: f '`'1' the e'ent that a mistake was made in the Code's original
• • • 0€ • • • i b 4fl .• • • • 1•• •• I • 1 . . • • • •••I. • •. •• •
beca . changing comm 'Wards over time warrant such a change. Because there are only
six.;$ 0perties in the City ch this condition would apply, amending the Code would not be
a Ohs nate.
erson o• • the public hearing at 7:56 p.m.
D i ; s H.: rich, 7805 Gloria Circle, applicant, advised that the impervious blacktop area of
about 50 feet by 25 feet will be removed and the garage built in that location, resulting in less
impervious surface than currently exists.
Commissioner Stevenson asked if the actual garage placement will be considered. Ericson stated
• when the building permit is considered, if the variance is approved, staff will assure the garage
placement meets the stated requirements including the setback distances of a Single Family
Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 10
Residential District.
Stevenson stated it may meet setbacks but his concern is that it might be an unsightly structure
located in the front yard area. Ms. Dietrich stated there are 15 oak trees in her yarca which is
why she prefers to use this particular blacktopped area.
Commissioner Miller stated the"front" of the house is obvitiip.,the b . 0 louse. She
stated this is a beautiful area overlooking the lake and it . .a be spoil-y 4, �'� -,garage be
located in the rear yard behind the house.
Commissioner Stevenson agreed that with lake property � of the house (w `' s the
lake) is actually considered to be the front.
There being no additional public input, Chair Peterson ditised th4 '>.0 ,-'ring at 8:02 p.m.
Ericson stated staff recommends that the Planni .wags , °'on appr. $: olution 576-99
approving a variance from Section 1104.01, .. City C , to allow for the
construction of a garage between the hour-02'‘d stre: • 1;V:441 ':` ircle, subject to
maintaining the property setbacks for a • ncipal s J %ture."
Commissioner Kaden asked if any ere r,4-`ived fromreighboringfrom properties. Ericson 110
advised that staff sent out public ire ng not:,,A to all ! p+ernes within 350 feet of 7805 Gloria
Circle. Of th- 28 notices se 04 p one ph''$ "9 :g -nt was received. The caller was
concerned,< � _
setbackLaw,Tw was noliarrin theory to the requested variance.
Kaden stat-1. $ 'refers t =��. < q • o be located between the house and roadway rather than
between the h M"Xs 5 e. elieves this is common practice with lake properties.
Kaden noted o 4 'KK.$ bors -irly large-sized white shed between the house and
roadway. ., e f ^ •.; ent to he park has a garage between the house and roadway.
gif•
Chaff fs-terson stated it . ate:. : precedent has already been established with lake lots to locate
gas s between the ho a a roadway.
i ON/SECOND son/Braathen to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 576-99, a
,A1115;*, appro 'f =. variance from Section 1104.01, Subd. 4a(1) of the City Code, to allow for
t 4 v t , a garage between the house and street at 7805 Gloria Circle, subject to
m. property setbacks for a principal structure.
Ayes- 8 Nays- 0 The motion carried.
Ericson requested the addition of an agenda item to consider a request of Superintendent John •
Hammerschmidt, golf course, to talk about signage at the golf course and on City property. The
Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 11
III
Planning Commission agreed with this request to add: Presentation of Bridges Golf Course Sign
Plan.
Superintendent Hammerschmidt explained the City Council had directed him to pu the
possibility of billboards. He stated he does not like the view of billboard N.-!P°'-m.
om ' courses but
understands the merit of looking for alternate income sources. He expl.N .- m. a past, signs
advertised"golf course coming" which were removed with '$tent • - �g ignage
• e was a.1.-,:s:;`1,H==: M �
advertising the course and hours of operation. However, he starte•
looking at the option of offering businesses naming right 'ith the bess • g,, ,.
Hammerschmidt stated they did erect an entry sign but •\ ll anent ry marker''., g �: ' 'ch
could cost up to $10,000. He advised he has been appr• .someone interes t . ¢ecting
billboards, which would be an income source, and after ni • ,� _ them it was determined that
if signs were a possibility, the golf course property woul. k:. . •tion and provide the best
exposure for the vendor. Also, signs i • ,_n that location c.�` d be 1. .. o improve the
appearance.
Hammerschmidt reviewed the nine proposed .- . ° ,.�g•: . at are ,. sily accessible. He noted
two additional locations that could be used n
t are . .a s� , ammerschmidt commented
on each of these locations and why they k: being sides� xa : en offered to answer
II
questions. '
,sF„,„,,
,,,,:,:,,, „„...., .„,
Commissioner Braathen asked wgg i-'sites wi . be th- •st valuable and least hindrance or
viewable fro the golf cour -`. < erscff ..s a reasonable option would be to issue
RFPs so vim' ` can be i d. He e <$;' ,. •cations in the wooded area may be best but
it is di' ` ; 1, er at . g
' g : e state• •nce more information is obtained, the proposed
sites coul• ; , . ; ,. that .mmerschmidt suggested that these sites be reviewed
w
periodically :g • $ eing rerriiSrai <eep the signs.
. fix?
Commissio.$ eg` a has seen discussion about not allowing any new billboard signs
.�gfl
in Mou . iew.
Co gam" ssioner Kaden no '• t e placement of some locations near residential properties and asked
if „ igns would be p1 .-d directly adjacent to the freeway wall to prevent lights from shining
i: .- residential ar . Hammerschmidt stated he agrees with this concern and advised that the
.4, k 6 gtifie�d o• •:g: ap are very rough.
A °� resenting Eller Media, stated the signs have to be off the freeway right-of-way and thn
ey are recommending the size of 14 high by 48 long with all metal construction.
Hammerschmidt stated he has received some calls of concern. He advised that the City can
control content of the signs.
0 Commissioner Braathen stated he approached the Mayor about the possibility of allowing signage
Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 12
Ill
to provide income for the City. He stated the City would have a lot of control over sign content
and he hopes the City would use funds for more than just the golf course. He stated he has signs
on his building downtown and knows they are a good source of income.
Hammerschmidt reviewed the standing City policy which already regulattzsigny ent. He
stated the minimum income received by the City would be $1,100 per s c tk month. He advised
that the bond regulations may indicate that any income gen - at th 1 , e needs to stay
with the golf course but that could be researched. as .
't'-- -,-,14iei''
Braathen pointed out that another need is to provide ad seme •r the gol 'c
Hammerschmidt stated this is correct and noted this inc - ,,,, requires no cap ;- ay.
Commissioner Miller asked if federal funds were used wi ( 4 ° tion of the highway.
Hammerschmidt advised a State permit is required but trot a fe; ...R,iirA`'t
Michael Cronin, representing Eller Media, advi ; a', ate and'-',°:,,,,,,,'4i. permit needs to be
obtained and maximum guidelines are establi . .. : :..<.:. ; • •erty g.-eds to be zoned for
commercial or industrial uses.
Chair Peterson stated he considers b'. • ;.rds as : ight bu `ere may be some situations where 1111 they are not as obtrusive. He stat "as a % er the la `hing he wants to see is a large
advertisement billboard. Chair p,,,-,-r.' on sta at wh.e advertising the course, smaller
monument si s are usually - • ther tha g . a Q ` a oard.
Hame .. , dvised'`. .tions w re the billboard would aid in blocking golf balls
from madjac ` g .� . Cha ,g. b.3•sked if a motorist has been hit by a golf ball.
Hammerschmi• ;��' : .vehicle .: g 't and this is a concern. He reviewed how liability is
determined in c:
• . . •• u • •• • . -•
the c• se is so full of go s ¢ t this is probably not an issue. He pointed out that the face of
the .Iboard will face th! :ee ay, not the golf course, and they will be placed into the wooded
a '. , here possible, a•: r andscaped. Hammerschmidt stated the policy can contain recourse
ojiri,,,i an objectiona• sign be placed.
� " s4 ed their experience with these concerns and assured the Commission they can
Ps
be... . h4474azi •y prohibiting the advertisement of any age-restricted goods, political issues, etc.
He stated if they are told to remove a billboard, it is done within three days. Mr. Cronin
suggested that one person within the City have the authority to request the sign be removed. He
advised this may impact the "richness" of the bids but would provide protection. Mr. Cronin
stated the actual sign structure could also be reconsidered.
Mr. Dean explained the signg needs to highenough so it can be read from the freeway. Mr. Cronin III
P
Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 13
1111
stated they are usually at least 14 feet off the ground which allows a ten-foot ladder to be in place
without ready access from the ground. He stated another option is to place the sign directly on
the ground with a lattice bottom. Mr. Cronin stated they understand they are guests and are
concerned with addressing all issues.
Chair Peterson stated if signs area roved he would be veryocal sho `,0»=V-'need to be
PP �,
removed. Hammerschmidt stated he shares that concern b -ves a' '`::i -' ept can be
reached, if approved.
Hammerschmidt stated the next step will be to apply fort submit
Then it can be debated by the Planning Commission. _!_
Commissioner Laube stated that he would like to see thet� `rit. we style and size being
proposed when the application is submitted.
.
Mr. Dean explained the signs are very site speci '' cult to : ": 'a sign that would
work in all locations. Mr. Cronin stated if th.- -r- 44.3ev,. ::.ded theid, they will be able to
provide more design details when the sites identi
Hammerschmidt suggested he prepa :kis igger 1. 'out with .otos of the site that could be
• presented to provide a more clear ® �: �' the .. Also a r oposal could be submitted with
several vendors making a present on of whul ey wo erect.
Commission k her stat,v,W,4: nning Cdatt,,F
has been addressing how to prevent
.
billboara tering i. s_:�. ..`:aew and nowthey are being asked to consider multiple
locations ' te.
Y
Commissioner:< g ted if a ;v,, he sites are approved, having pictures or video of the
•
site would t e $ to as o ress impacts to surrounding areas. Hammerschmidt agreed
and sta.z e placeme R .. on the map are very preliminary in nature. He suggested that
pictu .'se created of co ,A _enerated signs on these sites.
CO;;. 'ssioner Miller s j.\d her support for Hammerschmidt's suggestion to rank the sites and
. dude a sunset Wt vision for the billboards.
$� enson asked if the Planning Commission is being asked to make a general
co `� g ement. Ericson stated there are several elements related to capacity. He advised
there is a current Code requirement to allow no more signs along the freeway unless advertising
the use on the property. Therefore, a variance or a Code amendment would need to be
considered to make it allowable. Ericson stated in the CRP District, it is possible for someone to
propose a development plan. He suggested the Code limitation be addressed as well as the
IPsignage issue within the CRP District and approval of a development plan.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 14 •
Stevenson noted that O'Neil is not being allowed a"for rent" sign along the highway. Ericson
stated it was never zoned CRP and is currently a PUD.
Stevenson asked if the Commission is expected to set the tone for allowable signa_ Ericson
stated the current Sign Code needs to be updated and is a priority for thi ^ear.
Commissioner Kaden asked how adjacent residents and the = •f the "` `�" $ will provide
input. Hammerschmidt stated if a variance is needed, not ', ion will b`- $. the publi
hearing. He suggested staff provide visual aids to help t s ommissi 'fin t �. ` .r g.•tion
Ericson stated whether or not this requires a variance pr xis ith a public hea xi :"dents
will be notified in several ways including published and ni:gO -, web page, cable television,
and the bulletin board.
Chair Peterson stated if billboard signs are approved:,„ ould su > &�g a temporary
situation with a sunset date established. He stat ,.ond covalso requires that any
funding generated must stay with the golf co : idt st• Ihe will research that
issue and provide the information to the C• ssio
8. Staff Reports/Items of Inf±, + tion '
A. Review of Councie
„ > u ns -- 2/99 an.05/99 •
„,
,„.
Ericson upda ed the Planning • ssion >' m � .. ent Council action to approve the Linders
condition. - +ermit (C � ' ' -,ad : :. a 'process initiated at the Planning
Commis ffi$ as th. _ . \;,the mos appropriate action since it does not expire as long
as certain :> ..r ig e met.
B. �' S Ad _ + Zoning Seminar-- 4/1/99
• I ..• . • � A
I • - . • - _ s •nced oning Seminar which he
atten'.�• on April 1, 199�s;µf• ated an amazing amount of inform'ation was provided to
pap
ants includingpe est court actions relating to CUPs which cannot have a time limit.
�
E 41•n stated informa s$ was also provided on sign codes and temporary permit uses. He
aged Commis„,,V ers to attend this seminar when made available again.
' ' 0" in and Planning Commissioners Reports
No reports were considered.
10. Adjournment
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned •
the meeting at 9:03 p.m.
(The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session)
Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 1999
III
Regular Meeting Page 15
Respectfully submitted,
Rick Jopke
Community Development Director
Transcribed by: ,,
z
Carla Wirth •hi.ItIi!t!I<
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. `
N:\DATA\USERS\BARBB\SHARE\KEEP-IT\WPDO '` . ES\1999\04-0 = : gi
• '
` az ,
,
k
E
3:
s'>