Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Resolution 595-99 . . . MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 595-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN OVERSIZED SHED FOR ALAN AND TAMMY DOROFF, 8270 EASTWOOD ROAD, MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 571-99 WHEREAS, Alan and Tammy Doroff have applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 384 square-foot shed on property they own, located at 8270 Eastwood Road, zoned R-l, Single Family Residential, legally described as followed: Lot 3, Block 2, East Oaks, RlImsey County, Minnesotll WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows by conditional use sheds up to 400 square feet in area and no more than 1,400 square feet total accessory building space 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. Location Map f. 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, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that possible adverse effects have been considered in its recommendation, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. l.e.. 1. Relationship with the C~omprehensive Plall. 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, 8270 Eastwood Road, low-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Geographical Area Involved . . . Planning Conunission Resolution 595-99 October 6, 1999 Page 2 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area Almost every lot in this area of Mounds View is the same size as the subject property. Many of the homes in the immediate area have a similar split-entry design and have attached two-car garages. Many of the homes have sheds in addition to their garages. 3. Whether such use wil/ tend to or actually depreciate the area inl1!hich it is proposed It is not believed that the construction of the shed, even one so large as is proposed by the applicants, would depreciate the neighborhood. The shed would be completely screened except for the peak, which might be visible from the adjacent properties. The shed would allow the applicants to store all of their pool equipment, yard equipment and other common items in one structure without taking away any room in the garage. 5. the demonstrated needfor such a use. The existing garage is a small, two-car garage of only 480 square feet. While expanding the garage to the rear is feasible, this option would take up well-utilized backyard space next to the home. The applicants desire to construct the shed behind the pool in a less-used part of the yard to minimize the impact of adding 384 square-feet of accessory building space. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the general criteria for approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1125.0 I Subd. 3. b.: (1) the use wil/not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other publicfacilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (7) The use wil/not cause Irq/fic hazards' or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessaryfacilities have heen or \1Jill he provided The addition of a storage shed, even one as large as that proposed, would not create a greater impact on existing public facilities or services, on utilities or access roads, nor would it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. (2) The use will he sufficiently compatihle or separated hy distance or screeningji'om adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes wil/not he depreciated in value and there wil/ he no deterrence to development qfvacant land (3) the structure and site shall have an appearance that wil/not hal'e all adverse effecl upon adjacent residential properties. The location of the shed behind the home and garage would hide it from general public view. Because of the tall fence surrounding the backyard area, the shed itself would be screened even from the adjoining properties as well. The shed would have a barn-like design, similar to one on an adjacent property, and would neither be incompatible with nor detrimental to this district. . . . Planning Conuuission Resolution 595-99 October 6, ] 999 Page 3 (-I) The use, in the opinion (~fthe City Council, is reasonahly 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 p1l1poses qfthe zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. (6) Ihe use is not in C01!/lict 1vith the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Sheds and out-buildings are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for the storage of yard and garden equipment. Having this shed will allow the property owners to replace a dilapidated metal shed and to store items currently left outside within a secure and protected structure. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the specific cup requirements as specified in Section 1106.04, Subdivision 7: a. The access01Y building must c01!form with Section 1103.06 of this Title and subdil'ision1106.03(1) (~fthis Title. This section of the Code dictates where in the yard an accessory building can be located. The proposed shed would be located in the rear yard, which is the only place a shed can be located according to the Code. h. Ihe comhined square footage of all accessory buildings 011 one lot cannot exceed one thousand four hundred (1, -100) square feet. The area of the garage (480 square feet) and the proposed shed (384 square feet) totals 864 square feet, well within the 1,400 maximum allowance. c. The acce....s01y huilding shall not exceedfour hundred (-100) square feet. The proposed shed would be 384 square feet. d. The building must be a permanent structure. The shed would be a wood-framed structure mounted upon a concrete pad. It is considered permanent. e. The huilding shall he designed and maintained to provide a un{form appearance with the dwelling unit. The appearance of the shed will be different from the house, in that it will be a finished wood exterior having a barn-like design. The fact that most sheds are of a finished-wood construction makes this all the more typical. . . . Planning Commission Resolution 595-99 October 6, 1999 Page 4 f Shollld the lise/or which the permit was bTranted he changed. the permit shall he sll~ject to reconsideration, revocation or other action regulated hy Section 1125.01 qf this Title. The applicants indicate that this shed would be used strictly for storage, and that no activities would be proposed for the structure other than storage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: 1. The conditional use permit shall be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval, and proof of such recording shall be provided to the City of Mounds View. 2. The shed 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. No other sheds or accessory buildings, other than the existing garage shall be allowed on this lot. 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 6th day of October, 1999. ~Ip.~ JeffY Peters n, Chairperson ATTEST. (SEAL) N ;\)),\ TA\(JROlTi'S\Cm.IDEV'DEVCASES\57] -9l)\595-99I'C.RES