Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-10-07 PC Minutes~ PROCEEDINa3 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ) CITX OF MOUNDU VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 7, 1981 Mounde View City Hall 2401 Hwy. 10, Mounde View,MN 55112 ------------------^------~-~-------------°-------------~------~------- The Monnde View Planning CoromiseLon was callad 1. Call to Order to order hy Chairpereon Mountin at 7:35 PM on October 7, 1981. MEMRERS PRESENT: Commiesione::•e And~reon, 2, Roll Call cl.art y, arren and Miller, and Chair.pareon Mountin. Ie wae noted Chat Co~mniaeioner Br~ske wae sSa~nt. ALSQ PRESENT: Councilmamber Eorelund and Sui »Idi g an~ Zoning Official Roee. ;SoCion~Second: MeCarthy/Warren to appreve 3., App'roval of Minuzea: e e-Ti'3 peem~er 2, 1981 minutes as preeenEad. SepCembar 2, 1981 ~~ ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Thore were ~o reaidenta requoata or co~nents 4. Reeidente Requeste from tha Eloor, and Cc+mmente from the Floor Chairpereon Mauntin reporeed ehat ttte Planni.n$ 5. Harald H. Hjelle Co~iaeion had seviewed and denied Nir, R~e11e e Property Involved: requeet st an earlier data, end the applicant 5161 Red Oak Drive hae eince reduced the drivewey width, but the Variance Request (9ide plan otherwise remaine the same. Yard Setback) Sing1e Family; Case 96-81 Mr. Hjelle etated he wae aeking for two variancee, asideyard eetback ta convert hie present garage to a fsmily room, and a variance to bui13 a new varage, placing it onl;~ one-half the required dieteace back from the xoad, There wae d3scuesion amung the Comraiesioners, w2th the pointe being made that the plan had been re,jected previouslp because of the place- ment of the garage, with euggestions being made `o the applicant of how he could place i.t and ~t require a variance, that if it waa pleced ose to the fence, it would block leae light to the house. Mr. HjRlle replied that there wao no reaeon whq ha could not plac~ the garage further hack, other than he would prefer not to. x' Mounda Viaw Planning Cowniseion Octobez 7, 1981 ? Reguler Meating Pxga Two ~ --------^-----------------------------------------------------••----------- r ~airperson Mountin etated that when the Planning Cotmniesion diecuased the requeet at the firet hearing, and again at their laet agenda eeseion, thay had talkad about the intent of tha coda, and while thay feel tha convareion of the garage into a family room ie well within ehe intent oF the code, the 30' setback ie for eaEety reaaona. 5he added that they had directad Staf£ to prepare a resolution, and read the proposed resolue4on, adding Minneaota Statute 394.27, Su6. 7, Mr. H~elle stated ha did not agree wiGh tha eafety saneidaratione, Chairperson Mountin explaitted the inten~ of the coda ie to prot¢ct end that there xre trade-offe in remodoling. Thera was considerable diacueeion amonQ the Cammiaeionere regarding the languege of the resolu- tion and whather the County definition of a hard- ehip ahould be usad. Motion Second; McCarthy/Warren to adopt Resolu- t on o. - 1, with tha addltion of Minnesota ~,~^6)tatute 394.27, Sub. 7. ~-~5 ayee 0 nays Motion Carried Offiaial Roee reported that thia was the firat 6. Kraus-Andezeon, Tr.c, phase of the final etage of the PUD approval, Property Involved: and reviewed the propoaed plaa, County Road I Development Proposal Terr Foater of Kraus-Andereon added that y , (Office Building - the buildinge were pla~ed ae they were due 20,000 Sq. Ft.) to the eoil conditions. B-2 Dietrict Case 95-81 There was diecuseion among tha Commiseioners regarding the propoeed plan, with the queations being rais:d if any wetlands would fall in the parking lot, if the buildinge aould be ehifted at ell to al,low for more parking epacee, what the buildinge would be used for, whether all the parking apaces were aatually needed or if additional landscapin~ could be put in, whether it wae poeeible to not tar all the parking spacea at thia time and edd them later iP needed, if a m~re porous parking eurface could be ueed, how doep the ponding arex would be, end whether the intent o.f ~Qtnt parking is being met. l~fi.c~al Roea responded that the Kraus-Ander- eon development doee not Eall into the moriCOrium ee it was bafore ehe Ciey bafore the moritorium wae impoead, Mr, Foeter , Mounde View Planning Gommieeion Octobdr 7, 1981 Regular Meating Pg88 T~'eA -------------------------------------^------------------------------------ ~eepnnded that they had tried five or six ways of placing the buildinge, but due to soil canditione, tka propooed plsa uppcaro to bs the beet that the buildings would be pro- feeeiona~ ofEice epace, that they wonld run into ~problems if they tr3ad to use other mater~ale for paving the parking areae, and the holditag pond would ba 3-4' deep. Chairperson Mounti.n pollad Che Commiesioners to eee if they f~1C the lntant of ~oint parking wae being met. It wae the r concenaus that it was, an~ Chat the parking apacee are largar Chan mosC comnunities, and that they ahould look at having eome apacee marked for emaller cara, and thereby pick up eoma addi- tional epacee. Chairpereon Mountis6 read Reeolur_ion No. 39-81. Motion S~cond: Miller/Andereo~ to adopt eeo ut an o. 39-81. 5 ayee 0 naye r'"~ I fficial Rnse rev3ewe3 the planning consi- deratione of the proposed remadeling. Ray Duggan, of Amoco Oil, etated that they would be rebuilding the entire structure, and everything would be replaced. He anewered the Co~tieeione queeti.ons ragaxding eervice baya and coffee earvice by atating that there would not be a aexvice bsy at thia time and whilc they woul.d have a emall area to sell convenience iteme, ie would not include cuFfee or other prepared convenience itemo to go. Counr,ilmember Foelund stated she liked the planting schedule, using wild flowera and eo forth. Chairperson Mo~sntin etgted that Staff had grepared Resolution No. ~8-81 and read the reeolution. Motion Second: Andarsan/McCarthq,to adope eea ut on o. 38-81. ~ ayee 0 nays ......:, . . . _ _,,.... k~~it~..,~~...:.... ,.. ~ Motion Carried /unoco Oil Compan~ Property Involved: 2155 Highway Avenue Development Proposal (Remodel Gasalina Sales Facili,ty) B-3 District Conditional Uee Permit Caae 97-81 Motion Carried ., ... . . , ,. . ,,~ .. ..... . ,..,..,.,,. 1 Mounds View Planning Commieei,on October 7, 1981 Regulex Meek~ng Pege ~our ^-------------------°---------------------------^------------------~------ ~fficial Rose repozted thar, Staff had racaived a building permit application laet week from Mr. Pearson and hie contractor, Mr. Day, and that whila the Building Code wvuld allow tha 5~' eetback between the propoeed new addition and exieting garage, the 2oning Code requirae a 6' mininum, whicn tha applicant would be 6" ahort of ineeeing. Chairperson Mountin aeked what the hardehip would be. bir. Day replied that the Peareon e need more living room and dining room epace, and the propoeed addition ie Che oniy feaaible way of doing it. 'Phe Commiseiottexe disoueeed tha requeat, asking what the size of the lot ie, whether the addition cuuld be attuched to the garage, or a breazaway put in, whY a 5' addiCi~n wart requested, rather than a b'6' additian. Mr, Pearson replied that the lot is 98' wide by 160' deep. Ofticial Roee addad that if the addikion waa attached to the Aaraga, they would ose the windows and lighL-, and if a breezeway re attached, iC would require frost footinge e pat in on the garc~ge. Mr, Ds,y. added that the 5' addition wae derived from taking into consideration the furnitur~ eize, such as tne dining rcom table, and ao forth, with 5' being the minimum that would work. Mr. Pearson edded theC they had originally planned for a 6' addition, but felt iC would be too cloae T.o the garage. Chairpereon Mountin reviewed what is needed to find a hardehip. She als~ aeked whaL• eubetantial compliance meant. Official Rose replied Chat it muet be taken individually, and the 6" muet oe eoneidexed ae to how it relates to the intent of tfie code, There wae coneiderable diacuesioa among the Gommiaeionere regarding the definition af a hardship and whether a hardahip was being presented by the applicant. Chairman Mountin read propoeed Resolution No, 40-81, atat3ng that whexeae the owner of 2565 She•rwood Road, Robert Pearson, and Day`e Remode~ing, 2701 County Road H, have requseted a variance of 6" between the new hou~e eddition d exiating garage, and whereas the Planning ~msisaion has reviewed the variance re~~sest to accomodate a 5' addition to the existing houee with only a 5'6" separator, and whereas the State Building Code requires a minimuc~ of 3' 8, Robert Peareon - Jim Day, Praperty Involved - 2565 Sherwood Road, Variance Requeet (3eeback Between Structurae) Caee 98-8I ~ ~ Mounda View Elanning Ccmmiseion Octobor 7, 1981 Regu1$r ~eet~n8 Page F~Ve --------------° °------------------------° °------------°---------------- ~ui].ding eeparatian, and ChQ Municipal Loning Code rsquirea a 6' aeparation, and whar~ae the Planning Commiesion finde that granCin~ a 6" variance fox the remodal,ing doos not impare the itt~ent of the code and being in keeping with the epirit of tha code, now tharefnre be it reeolved that the Planning Commiseion grante a 6" variance for tha property ~ocated at 2565 Sharwood Road. Motion/Second: McCarthy/Andaraon to adopt Reeo ut on o. 40-81, 5 ayee 0 nays Councilmember b'oralund reported that the Council had hed a special meeting on October 5 for Che 1~82 budget, and kiad certified iesuance of the bond for Silver Lake Woods improvemente. Motion Carried Discuea Paet Council Action and Next Agenda i ~ i Official Raee passed out the proposed 1982 Ylanning Commieeion schedule. ( hairperaon Mountin eta~ed that they ~ou2d eed to set up a special Saturday work sesaion to catch up on the code review, and that a date could be see at the nexr aganda meeting, Chairperson Mountin reported that the Met Council 6ad approved a development alter- native for Anoka Airport as reco~ended by the Metropolitan Airports Commisaion, wtth the alternative including parailel runway~, a propoeed inetrument landing syatem and an air traffic contYOl ~o~er. Chaizperaon Mountin reporeed that the re- scheduled agenda eseaion £or September 9 had been cancaLled. She reported that Commisaionera Anderaon, Breske, Miller, hereelf, Mayor MeCarty and Councilmember Forelund had attended the Met Council workshop on hou~ing held at the Sheraton Inn NW on September 16. Chairp~reon Mountin reported that the attendees of the September 30 work seasion ~ re Official Roae, Co~nissioners McCarthy, ~iller, Andexson and hereelf, 10. Chairman'e Report u~a,,. , Mounds Viaw Planning Commieeion Octobar 7, 1981 Regular Meeting Pg68 S~ ----------^-----------------°--~-------------------------------°-~~------ otion Second~ McCarChy/Miller to adjourn 11. Ad~nurnment „ e mee'~ing at 9:49 PM. 5 ayee 0 nays' Motion Carriad Respectfully eubmitted, Steven A. Rose ° Building and 7.oning Offiaial , , i ' , ,' ;, - I . . ~,,. , ~ , , ,y ;~ G ~ i , r, , t i1 'Fr} ` ~ ~ ~ I ... . ' A _ ~ _ - ,. .... ~ ~ .: . 't \rv l H• ~ P .. ~. .. ~ ~i3 ~~ ... . . ~. . . ~ ~.. . _ ' . , ~ ~y ~, i.l . . ~ ' ' ~,.( ' . . i ~~ ' / r'• ) ~ , ~~4 ~ ~l ~ 1 ~~' A~; i~. t ~'',~gi'V i ' ~^"~6 ` ti i ~ ~ ~ ~: i i l ~, f ~ 4~i3 p 4 i+- ~ ~ ~i ~i. t S~ ~ i ~~~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 3Z ~' d ~~, 4 4 ~ ~(V j t~W 1 t VI ~ ' i. ~ ~j%~S l4 +'~ 3 Y 3 Y C~ F S - ' . ~. ~ ~ T't' 1 1~PS ., ry .'t s ~ s a + . 4h~ r ~ , s ~ , , ~ ~ ; ' ,~ r ~ ~ i, ~ s t i Yf ~ i r . S ~i 3 ~ t ~ i 1?~ ! 1 ~te,. t r •.~. ~ ~ .I.. G}y T f ~~~Px FS>~ti' lV~~ e P ' f / k ~I1,. . ~ ~ ' ~ rP'~ ~ ~ i . f ~ ~. t S~4 e ': ~ 4 , . . ~ri.~ SP 1 Y~4 Y ~y ~U a ` ~' ~ s ~ s ~ a r i. ~ ~ ? i 7 r c r : i P~t ~ t ~,~ l cn .r ~ ~7~IY 1 ~ .. +J ~ -~ et' :~ ~i,~ ~ y , fr ~ y } 9.. ~ ~ t~ YF 1. s 4 PS] t 1 k {~~ ~~Y ~I 1v 1~, ' i~. ' .. : f ~ • . .: ~ ' ~ 1 . I M1 ~.~ ~ " .i - "n ~ ' x `i.n ~ on.f~ ri~j d ~' t . . 3 , 4 ~~ , - r. ( ~ , ~n ~.~ ,.. ~l , .. ~',. r r y '~~~.n1 i ~} ~ ' • . ' . ~ . ., . ~ ., ~ ' : r ~ , -!r , ~ l..,.~ M1 : ,, r - ' ~ . e.n:~,' e . ,; r . r _ t ` '~ ' F ~r j~a' ~ - ~ ~ j ~ ",r J . - ~ j ~ ~~ y ~ . :a ~' h ' f . ~ ~ a - = q xF , ~~ l e ~ Y', t ' ~ ~ ~ `, i ~ ~ ~1 . f l.~= ~:~i. t r ~ . i = f X~n,i { ~ ~' , ~ z ~.i: , i; ,.~~ ~ , ' , , . , t ~. , ' ' , ..,i . _: .~ . .. . ~ : i. .~e ~ ., , ~ , '~ .~ ,. ~ .. ~ ~ ~ i . ~ , . : , , . . :I : r .. .... . ~ ,. ., , __ ~. . .: . .~ ~ „ ,. , , _.. . ., 1 . ~~) } , ~. : . .. ; ..,, ' '~. ' ~ 1 . ~ ' .i . , , 'i . . ~ o '. .. , ' :: ~ • ~ ~ . ~ . .t ~." , ~' •:/ .. ~ ., ,. ... ~i • ~ , . ~ .r ~ I , , .._'. .._. . .. t_; .. . . .,,. ' . ..:... ..:. i..~ ' .~,~ ., 'rl .. ~ . ...:+...~.....~... ...u~twrwua~W~rtxnrt..tlw.a..er~n. a, ..e~x:~rvsiu:w~'.+iYren~ii~ariA~YytRi~Y.~rve.+:.~.:.e . tiM+.xri~.,ii~s4 ~.tt.Yi..>.A:'~1. c- ~.•N.r. '.. v•A.y'•,.•r•: 2 + ` . . . . ~ . . : ._ __ _._.._.~~ ~ 6l0UND5 VICW PLANNING COMMIS5ION RESOLUTION N0. 37-81 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COONTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESULUTION REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON CASE 96-81~ VARIANCE REQUESTS FOK 5161 RED OAH DRIVG WHEREAS, the owner of 5161 Red Oak Drive, fiarold ti. I~Ijelle, has requeatad two variancesr and WHERF.AS, one varl.ance is the request to remodel an existing qarage facility with an eight (8) foot ser,back from a side property line to livable s~ace which requires a minimum ten (10) foot aetUack to a aide property linej and WH~REAS, the second varianco request is to locate a new garage Eronting a atreet 15 feet from the boulevard line while tho required setback ia a minimum of 30 feett and WN&REAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission is bound to review- ~nq varianr.e requests using the M~unds View Municipal Code and State tatutas as the requirements to base their decisions; and WFtEREAS, the Mounda View Municipal Coda staten: ~ , 40.24, Subdivinion D ~ In consider3.ng all requeat for a vasiance or appaal., and in taking subaequent acL•ion, the City staff, City Council und the Plannitig Commission nerving as the eoard of Adjus*_ment and AppEa].s ahall make a finding of fact that the proposed acti.on will not: (1) Impair an adequate aup~ly of. light and air to adjacent property. (2) Unrea~onablx increase the congestion in the public street. (3) Increase the 3anqer of fire or end'anger the public safeCy. (4) tlnreasonably diminish or impair establisned property values within the neighboihood, or in any other way be contrary to the i.ritent of this Code. further thats ~ 40.2~1, Subdiviaion E The Planning Commioaion serving as the Doard of Adjustment and Appeals shall, after receiving the written records RESOL~U'1'ION NU. 37-b1 Page 2 ~~ and recommandations of the City staff, make a Einding of fact and decide upon requests for a var~anca by approving or denying tha same, in part or in whole, where it ie alleged by thQ appl.icant that a non-economic hardship in the reaeonable use o£ a sgecific parcel of property exiata. A hardehip that by some reason oE narrowness, shallowneaA or shape of a specific parcel of property or a lot exiating end o£ record upon the effective date of this Code or that by reason of exceptional Copographic or watar condition3 of a speqi£ic parcel of land or lut, the strict application of the term~ of the Code would result in excepCional diffi- culti.es when utilizing tha parce7. or lol• i^ a manner custom° ai•y ar~d legally per:nissable within the district in which said lot or parcel i3 located, ur would create undue hardship upon tha owner oE such lot or parcel that the ownar o£ another lot or parcal within the same district woul~l noL have iP he were to develop hia lot or parcel in a manner proposed by the appellant. Should the Doard Find that the conditions outlined heretofore apply to the proposed lot or parcel, the Board may grant a variance from the sY.rict application of this Code so aa to relieve cuch difficulties or hardahipa to the degree conaidered reasonable, provided auch rel.ief. may be qranted without impairing the intent of this Zoning Code. andJ WHEREAS, tha Minneaota Statutes atate: 462.357, Subdivision 5 Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the Soard of Appeals and Adjustments may be taken by any affected parson upon compllance with any reasonable conditiona imposed by the zonfng ordinance. The Board of Appeals and Adjustmants has the following powerc with respect to the xoning ordinance: (1) Tq hear and decide appeals where it is alleged thnt there is nn error in any o:der, requirement, decision, ar deter,mination made by an administrative oEficer in the etiforcement of the zoning ordinance. (2) Tn hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances whera their strict enforce- ' ment would c~~use undue hardship because of c!rcumstances . unique ta the individual progerty under consideration, and ' to 9rant such vaciances nnly when it ie demonatxated thal: such actionrt will ba in keeping with the spitit an~i intent of the ordlnance. Unduo harclship includes, but is not ,...~, limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar ~ enec'gy syetems. Variances shall be granted for earth ahelhered construction as defined in Section 116FI.02, Sub- diviaion 3, when in harmony with the ordinance. Tho Board ~:,;; . . „ RESOLUTION NO. 37-81 Yage 3 ~ of Appeals and Adjuetmenta or the govarninq body as the case may ba, may not permit as a vuriance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for proper- ty 1n tha zone where the afEected peraon's land i~ l~cated. Tha board or governing 6ody as the cnoe may be, may permit as a variance the temporary uae of one family dwelling as a two family twelling. The board or governinq body as the case may be may impose con•- ditiona in the qranting of variances to ~nsure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. further that: 394.27, Subdivision 7 The Soax•d of A3justment shall have the exolusi.ve power to order the issuance of variances from the terms of any official c.ontrol including restrictiona placed on nonconformities. Variances ahall only be permitted when Lhey are in harmony with the general purpo:,as and intent of the offic~al control in cases when there are practical diff.icultios or particular hardship in the ~ way of carrying out the strict lekter of any official control, and when the terms of t•he variance are consis- tent with the comprehensive plan. "Ftardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the ~roperty in question cannot ae put ta a reasonable use i£ used ~nder the conditions allowed by the official con- trolej the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner; and the variahce, if granted, will not alter the es:+=ntial character of the locali.ty. Economic conaiderations alone ahall not cor.stitute a hardship iP a reasonable use for the property exists under the terma of lhe ordinance. Variancea aha11 be granted for earth eheltered conatruc- tinn aa da£ined in Section 11GN.02, Subdivision 3, when i.n harmony with the ofEicial controls. No varianca may be granted 'chat would alluw any use t:.hat is prohibited in L•ha zon.ing district in which the subject propcrty is located. The Doard of Adjustment ma,y impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure complience and to protact adjacent properties and the public interest. The .~oard of j Adjustment may consider the inability to use solar energy . syetems a"hardship" in the granting of variances. nnd; WHERGnS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the ~'')he variance request for the remodeling of a garage use to a livable ~rea use with only an eight (8) foot ~etback and found that granting p,~ ., ,. „ RESOLUTION N0. 37-81 Page 4 .' ~<,/ such a two (2) foot variance for the remodeling would not impair the intent of the Coda and be in keeping with rhe spirit of the Codet and WHEREAS, ehe Mounds View Planning Commiasion has roviewed the request foz a Eifreen (15) foot aetback variance for a new gurage while thir*_y (30) feet ia required by Mounds View Municipal Codo and Eound that granting the variance would potentially endanger tha public and not be in keapiny with the spirit qf tha CodeJ and WHEREAS, the owner of 5161 Red Oak Dtive doea have other alter- natives to relocate the new garaga which is typical o£ how other lots have and can develop tn meet City setback requirementa; NI~W, THL•'REFORG, BE IT RESOLVED thar the Mounde View Planninq Commission grants a two (2) foot setback (aiqht (8) fee*. given, ten (10) requirodj varianoe for the remodelinq of a garage use ta a livable use at 5161 Red Oak Driva; ~BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that i:he Alounds VieW Planning Commission denies the requeat for a fifteen (1'S) foot variance ifiEteen (15) qiven, thirty (30) required) Eor a new garaga aetback a 5161 Red Oak Drive. ~ Adopted thia 7th day of October, 1981. ATTEST: / , ~ /1 . A ___......... ,. _..,..,..,......,._._,,.,...-:,,.,;~,,___-,~._„_~..,..._..-:~,.,..-.:....,. . MOUNDS VICW FLANNING COMMIS3ION `"~ R~SOLUTION N0. 38-81 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNE80TA RESOLUTION APPROVINl3 D&VELOPMFNT PROP05AL OF AMOCO OIL COMPANY TO ACMObEL THGIR , 2155 NIGHWAY AVENUE FACSLITY, PLANNING CASE 97-81 WHEREAS, 'che Applicant, Amoco Oil Company, has requested to remociel the 2155 Highway Avenue facilityr and ' WHEREAS~ the site plan aubm!tted meets minimum Code requfre- ments for the naw facility proposedj and FiHEREAS, tha'Applicant has also submitted a tandscaping plan whioh is found to be aoceptable to tlie elanning Commission~, NOW, THBREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds Viaw P].ahning Cummiasion recommends appraval of the D'evelopment proposal as sub- ~ micted and the granting of ~ continued Conditional Use Permit for gaeolina sales. Rdopted this 7th day of October, 1981. ~ i~ , r~ a:.,,,..:. ~„< >~,~s, ' .,.., ,. a .. -.,. ~~z,r, , . . .. ..., , .. .,R.:~: 3~ ~ .,..,. ,,,. .. _.... ..... ,,, .,.,.. , ,.. ,.,,. . MOUND5 VIrW PLANNING COMMISSION R~SOLUTION N0. J9-~1 ~R~=" ~CSTY OF MOUNDS VIEW ~ COUNTY OF RAM6EY . STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A DEVELOPMGNT PROPOSAL rOR OFF'ICE HUILDINGS FROM KRAUS-ANUERSON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, CASE 95-81 WHEREASI the Applicant, Kraus-Anderson/D1 5 E Realty, applying for a Mi.xed Planned Unit Developrrent, have reaeived Devalopment Stage Approvalj and WHF.REAS, the Applicant has subm.ittad a site plan for twc5 (2) offioe bulidings, each 19,868 square feet; and kHEREAS, the site plan meets all minimum zoning requirements of Mounda View Codes and follows the direction of the nlanned Unit Development Stage Approvalj and SJH~REAS, the Appl.icant, before the issuance oE a permit. L•ur construction shown on the site pian~ shovld submit, oomplete or recel.ve ~ the followinq: 1) Submit Final Plat for recording (Silver Lake Woods) 2) Rezoning of the parcel from I-1 to D-2. 3) Submit a Planned Unit Development Pinal Stage Plan (can '~9 staged) . 4) Lettinq of Improvemenk Project A1-2 for start of Publia Improvement construation. 5) Receive site plan approval from City Gnqineer. NOW, THEREEORE,~BE IT RESOLVEU that the Mounda Vi~w Planning Commisaion racommends approval Df the Development proposal and aite plan as snbmitted with the above conditions being completed prior to building permit issuance. Adoptad this 7th day of October, 1981. ATTEST: (SEAL) „R'a , ~ v..~:.,.:~a~.... ~ YRti... . ~ a, .- Yi .,• ~ MOUNDB VlEW PLANNING COMMIBSIODI HESOLUTION NO~. 40-81 ~ CITY OF MOUNDS VTEF~1 COUNTY OF RAM9EY ~ STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLGTION APPROVING THE VARTANCE REQUEST FOR ROHEAT PEARSON AT 2565 SHEAWOOD ROAD (CASE 98-B1) WHEREAS, tha owner of 2565 Sherwood Road, Robert Pearnon~ propoaas to construct an addition to his homej and WNERGAS, the additior, request is propasod to come within a diatance of 5.5 feet of.an exiatinq detached garagej and ~ WHEREAG~ the City 2oning Code requires a 6 fooC sr~tback between buildinqsj and WHEREAS, the Building Code adopted by the City of Mouuds View would allow a 3 fuot aetback betwaen the garages and houae usej and WHEREAS, the Mounds b'iew Planning Commission Einds that the hardahip statement submitted by the owner is in keepinq with the epirit ok the Code, thue not i,mpairing itj NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT 1tESOLVEb that the Mounds Viow Planning Comnise~.on approves the request for p 6 inch vaxiance for requirad aetback between atructures at 2565 Sherwaod Road. s AAopted this~2nd day of December, 1981. ATTESTs (SEAL) .~TM, ,,;s;; ~ ;. ~,. ,..