Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19-2015 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA August 19, 2015 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business A. Oath of Office for Commissioner Justin Klander 4. Approval of Minutes June 17, 2015 5. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 6. Planning Cases A. VR2015-006 Variance to Allow a 6-foot Fence in a Front Yard Applicant: Bobby & Kara Dahlberg Address: 5107 Greenwood Drive B. CU2015-001 Conditional Use Permit for a 1,176 Square Foot Oversize Garage VR2015-005 Variance for a Garage that Exceeds 35 Feet Wide Applicant: Curt Olson Address: 5405 Quincy Street 7. Other Planning Activity A. None 8. Review Minutes A. August 5, 2015 9. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 10. Next Planning Commission Meetings A. Wednesday, September 2, 2015 B. Wednesday, September 16, 2015 11. Adjourn PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting August 5, 2015 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for August 5, 2015. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Birken, Kieffer, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Elofson. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 Review Planning Commissioner Applications 2 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes June 3, 2015. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Birken/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the Minutes of the June 3, 2015 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission August 5, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases None. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review Planning Commissioner Applications Planning Associate Heller reported Commissioner Jessica Birken is resigning from the Planning Commission. The remaining time of Jessica’s three-year term needs to be filled. The City advertised the vacancy, with applications due on July 31, 2015. Staff received two applications, one from Justin Klander and the other from Gary Quick. She requested the Commission review the applications and conduct a ballot vote. She reported the results of the vote will be the recommendation that the Planning Commission submits to the City Council, who could make an official appointment on August 10, 2015 After completing the ballot vote there was a tie. Chair Stevenson suggested that this recommendation be passed along to the City Council as is given the fact the final decision remained with the Council. Commissioner Birken suggested staff to speak with the candidates encouraging each to attend the next City Council meeting. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Review Minutes: A. June 17, 2015 The Commission discussed the June 17, 2015 meeting minutes. No changes were made. 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases. B. Staff Updates Planning Associate Heller provided the Commission with an update from staff. She noted the Festival in the Park would be held on Saturday, August 22nd. She reported that the BioLife building was now complete. She explained that chickens and ducks were now allowed in the Mounds View Planning Commission August 5, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ City of Mounds View and discussed the City’s new annual licensing procedure. She provided comment on a recent apartment tour the Council, Commission members and staff took. Commissioner Schiltgen explained he also attended the tour. Chair Stevenson stated that the biggest concern for the Crossroad Pointe property was how to address underground parking. Further discussion ensued regarding the tour along with the 5 Central apartment complex in Osseo, Minnesota. Commissioner Love was in favor of having some retail mixed into the Crossroad Pointe site. She was impressed by the 5 Central property in Osseo. C. Council Updates Planning Associate Heller provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. She discussed the preliminary plans for County Road H and TCAAP. She reported the County Road H bridge over I-35W would be reconstructed to manage the higher level of traffic. D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, August 19, 2015 B. Wednesday, September 2, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:29 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 6A Meeting Date: August 19, 2015 Type of Business: Planning Case City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of a Variance to Allow a Six-Foot Tall Fence in the Front Yard of 5107 Greenwood Drive; Planning Case VR2015-006 Introduction: The applicants, Bobby and Kara Dahlberg, are requesting a variance to install a 6-foot tall fence in the “second front yard” of their corner lot located at 5107 Greenwood Drive. The property is located at the northwest corner of Greenwood Drive and Woodcrest Drive. Since two streets border corner lots, they have two front yards. As such, the City Code requirement for front yard applies to two sides of the property, which means that corner lots to have additional limitations. The Zoning Code indicates that no fence in front of the front line of a building in a residential district may exceed four feet in height. The applicants recently purchased this house and would prefer to have a 6-foot tall wood fence for screening and safety for their kids and pets from Woodcrest Drive, and thus has applied for the variance. Discussion: According to the Municipal Code, Section 1103.08, Subdivision 3, fences of a height greater than 48 inches (4 feet) are not allowed in the front yard of a property without a variance. The Zoning Code also establishes a sight triangle that limits all obstructions within the area at the corner of intersections, measured thirty (30) feet from the point where the property lines meet at the intersection of two streets. The proposed fence would not be located within the sight triangle. Variance Considerations: For the City to approve this variance, as with any variance request, there needs to be demonstrated practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. The City has set these criteria in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria and a staff comment about each are as follows: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. The property at 5107 Greenwood Drive is a corner lot, which is not in itself unique; however, the applicant seeks permission to have a 6-foot tall fence for the purpose of privacy and screening from busy Woodcrest Drive. Woodcrest is the only through east- west street for this large residential area of the City and has quite a bit of traffic, particularly during morning and evening rush hour times as motorists use it to avoid the busier county roads. The taller fence would provide privacy and security for this property. 5107 Greenwood Variance Report August 19, 2015 Page 2 b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan supports improvements to properties. The applicant, owning a corner lot, is at a disadvantage to improve the property as other homeowners might because the property has two front yards. Every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and livability of their property. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The applicant cannot control the fact that their property is a corner lot with two front setbacks. The corner lots are much more restricted by the City Code and many times the resident’s use and privacy of the property is limited because of these restrictions. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that most property owners do not have to work with these setback constraints. The City has approved similar variances for taller fences in front yard areas of corner lots that are along busier streets. When the applicant’s house was built, the builder placed it close to the north end of the property in order to give more separation from County Road H. The house has a 15 foot side setback on the north side and approximately a 65 foot setback from the south property line. A big portion of this home’s backyard is considered the front yard according to the City Code. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed fence will be setback about 16 feet from the edge of the Woodcrest pavement so it should not impact sight lines, include the view for vehicles going south from Greenwood Drive and turning onto Woodcrest. There are other homes in the neighborhood that have been granted variances for 6-foot tall fences in their front yards due to how busy a few of the streets are. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The two foot variance is the minimum variance needed since the Zoning Code limits front yard fence heights to four feet. 5107 Greenwood Variance Report August 19, 2015 Page 3 g. The Planning Commission may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood, and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Staff does not have any suggested conditions. Based upon the review of the above criteria, it appears to staff that the requested variance does satisfy the practical difficulty threshold. Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, a public hearing is required. City staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of 5107 Greenwood Drive. On August 7, 2015, Staff talked to Bob Everett at 2600 Woodcrest who said he was in favor of this request. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and any neighbors, the Commission should take one of the following actions: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 1034-15 is attached for the Commission’s approval if they so choose. 2. Deny the requested variance. To move forward with this option, the Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If the Commission needs more information before making a decision or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can table the request until they are provided such information. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photo 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Corner Lot Fence Diagram 5. Resolution 1034-15 ZONING MAP County Road H County Road H2 * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential N Aerial View COUNTY ROAD I Per City Code- only the RED line area can have a fence more than 4-feet tall without a variance. The YELLOW lines are where the applicant is requesting a variance to install a 6-foot tall privacy fence. The pink property lines were not lined up correctly on this aerial view. The red & yellow lines show the correct location of where the new 6 foot fence would be placed. N Aerial View N Photographic Documentation The new 6-foot fence would replace the existing 4-foot chain-link fence, and extend up to the front corner of the house Woodcrest Dr Applicant’s house 5107 Greenwood Dr 16’ from edge of street to fence City Code Permitted Fence Location for Corner Lots This is the applicant’s 2 sides of street frontage = 2 front yard s Greenwood Drive Woodcrest Drive This is an example of another 6-foot fence on a corner lot in the neighborhood. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1034-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A SIX-FOOT TALL FENCE IN THE SOUTH FRONT YARD OF 5107 GREENWOOD DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2015-006 WHEREAS, the applicants, Bobby & Kara Dahlberg, have applied for a variance to allow a six-foot tall fence in the south front yard of their property at 5107 Greenwood Drive; and, WHEREAS, 5107 Greenwood Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as follows: Lot 6, Block 2, Clint’s Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota 07-30-23-44-0018 WHEREAS, Section 1103.08 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the maximum height of a fence in a front yard four feet (4’); and, WHEREAS, the applicants have applied for a variance to allow a six foot (6’) fence in the front yard abutting Woodcrest Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents about this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photo 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Staff Report WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday, September 18, 2013, about this variance request; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria that must be satisfied in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings related to this request: Resolution 1034-15 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 5107 Greenwood Drive, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding limited fence heights in front yards is to not close off the front of the property from the visual openness of the street, but yet still allow a fence for safety and some sense of privacy for the property owners. This becomes difficult is on corner lots, particularly lots that front a busy street, where the property owners really want the privacy due to the high traffic along one of their front yards. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is improving the property. 3. The applicant is requesting this variance because the front yard height limitations would preclude having a fence tall enough to provide security, screening and buffering from busy Woodcrest Drive. 4. The unique feature of this property is that it is a corner lot which creates two front yards, and the house was built close to the north side of the lot so the south front yard is large. 5. There are other properties in the neighborhood that have a 6-foot tall fence in the front yard and have not changed the existing neighborhood character or caused visibility problems for traffic. 6. The 2-foot variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s practical difficulty since the Zoning Code limits front yard fence heights to four feet. 7. The Planning Commission may impose conditions upon the premises as may be necessary to comply with city standards and to minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, does hereby approve the variance request for a six-foot tall fence in the south front yard of 5107 Greenwood Drive. Adopted this 19th day of August, 2015. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 6B Meeting Date: August 19, 2015 Type of Business: Planning Case City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for an Oversized Garage at 5405 Quincy Street; Planning Cases CU2015-001 and VR2015-005 Introduction: The applicant, property owner Curt Olson, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit and variance to construct an oversize attached garage on his property at 5405 Quincy Street. The applicant is going to demolish the existing damaged 22’ x 22’ (484 square feet) detached garage and build a new 28’ x 42’ detached garage (1,176 square feet) in the same location. The applicant has submitted plans for a garage larger and wider than what the City Code allows as a permitted use. The City limits the size of accessory buildings, whether attached or detached from the house, to a maximum of 952 square feet. Any building larger than 952 square feet must get City approval of a conditional use permit. The garage the applicant is proposing would be 1,176 square feet. The Code also limits the width of garages that exceed 952 square feet to no more than 35 feet. The proposed garage would be 42 feet wide. Requirements: Section 1106.03, Subd. 1: This part of the Code limits the height of an accessory building, the number of accessory buildings, the backyard coverage ratio of accessory buildings and specifies roof style and pitch. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for garages exceeding 952 square feet. Section 1106.04, Subd. 6: This part of the Code enumerates the conditions for garages exceeding 952 square feet. The garage must be permanent, be uniform in appearance with the home, not exceed 35 feet in width, and not exceed 1,800 square feet of total accessory building area on the lot. Section 1125.01, Subd. 1: The Planning Commission is required to review the possible adverse effects of the requested conditional use. Discussion: The request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct the 1,176 square foot garage satisfies the requirements as stated in Section 1106.03 and 1106.04, Subdivision 6 of the Mounds View Zoning Code. The proposed garage would meet all City setback, height and accessory building coverage requirements. The applicants’ property is 0.29 acres (75’ x 188’). The City Code limits backyard building coverage to 20% of the yard area. The new garage would cover approximately 12.5% of the backyard area. 5405 Quincy Street CUP & VR Request August 19, 2015 Page 2 The City Code also specifies that the roof for all accessory buildings exceeding 250 square feet, shall match or be similar to the character and style of the roof of the principal structure, and have a pitch or slope of at least 2-12, but no steeper than 12-12. CUP Considerations: Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address any potential adverse effects of a conditional use that include, but are not limited to, the relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use. Staff has addressed each of these potential adverse effects below. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as low-density residential, as well as the surrounding area. The Comp Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. W ith this project, the applicant would be creating more garage space for storage. Such additional storage would be a benefit to the property and to the neighborhood. The Geographical Area Involved. The applicants’ home is located on the corner of Quincy Street and Bronson Drive, in a single-family residential neighborhood with a lot of trees. The house faces Quincy Street, but the garage accesses Bronson Drive. Depreciation. The proposed garage would benefit the subject property both in a practical sense by providing additional on site, indoor parking and storage, as well as in an economic sense, as the addition would increase the “value” of the property. Increased property values are a benefit to everyone. The Character of the Surrounding Area. The applicants neighborhood is entirely single-family residential. The homes in this area are a variety of styles with a lot of wooded areas, and the lot sizes vary. Because of the layout of the property and the garage facing the wide side of the lot, the new garage would be 42 feet wide facing the street and 28 feet deep. This isn’t a typical layout of garages, but it doesn’t seem that it would be out of place. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant is proposing a 1,176 square foot garage that would allow for more indoor storage, along with vehicle parking. Variance Discusssion The applicant’s property is a corner lot that is 75’ x 188’. The Zoning Code requires corner lot dimensions to be a minimum of 100’ x 100’ so this is a non-conforming lot. The garage has to be placed on the lot accessing the side street, Bronson Drive, because the lot isn’t wide enough for a garage and the house to face Quincy Street. Most oversize garages could be placed on the lot with the narrower side as the front, but since this lot is only 75 feet wide, there isn’t enough room for the garage to meet the front and rear setbacks if it were placed with the 28 foot side as the front (facing Bronson). 5405 Quincy Street CUP & VR Request August 19, 2015 Page 3 The Zoning Code states that the Planning Commission may issue a variance to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of the property owner’s land. This is true for all variance requests. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. A variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. The zoning code has a maximum width for oversize garages (over 952 square feet) for aesthetics, but does not have a width limit for garages that are less than 952 square feet. The property owner would place the garage with the narrower side as the front if it would fit on the lot. b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not specify criteria for building size or aesthetics, but it does support improvements to properties. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The property owner must replace the damaged garage, and needs more garage space to park vehicles and for storage. The garage itself is allowed as a conditional use, it only has to be turned sideways in order to meet setback requirements. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Typically a large garage will always be placed on the lot with the narrower side as the front. Since this is a corner lot, and it does not meet the required minimum dimensions of at least 100 feet by 100 feet, it makes it difficult to place accessory structures on the property and meet all City Code requirements. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant’s neighborhood consists of a variety of lot sizes and is quite wooded. The new garage will be wider facing Bronson Drive than the existing garage, and only a few feet of the garage will be visible from the Quincy Street side. 5405 Quincy Street CUP & VR Request August 19, 2015 Page 4 f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The 7 foot variance is the minimum variance needed since the Zoning Code limits oversize garage width to 35 feet. g. The Planning Commission may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood, and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Staff has no suggestions for conditions for the variance request. The Planning Commission may add conditions as they see applicable. Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, this application requires a public hearing. Staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of the applicant’s property and a notice was published in the Sun Focus newspaper. Staff received a phone call on August 7, 2015 from the property owners at 2210 Bronson Drive who stated that they were in support of this new garage. Recommendation: After taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission may take any of the following actions below related to the requests. Staff recommends approval of this conditional use permit and variance. 1. Recommend approval of the CUP as requested. Staff has prepared Resolution 1032-15 that approves the conditional use permit if the Commission chooses this action. 2. Approval of the Variance as requested. Staff has prepared Resolution 1033-15 that approves the variance if the Commission chooses this action. 3. Choose to deny the conditional use permit or variance. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff would need direction from the Planning Commission to prepare a resolution of denial with findings of fact to support the denial. 4. Table one or both of the requests. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide that there is need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. 5405 Quincy Street CUP & VR Request August 19, 2015 Page 5 Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Views 3. Photos 4. Resolution 1032-15 (Conditional Use Permit) 5. Resolution 1033-15 (Variance) Zoning Map * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential County Road I N Bronson PROPOSED GARAGE 42’ W x 28’ L N Aerial View Quincy Street House Aerial View Photos View of front of house View of Bronson Drive side of the property - New garage would be approximately the same width as existing garage and the shed (red arrow) Quincy Street Bronson Drive May be able to see a few feet of the new garage behind the house Photos View of Bronson Drive side of the property at southwest corner, looking northeast Bronson Drive House MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1032-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A 1,176 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE AT 5405 QUINCY STREET; PLANNING CASE CU2015-001 WHEREAS, property owner, Curt Olson, has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,176 square foot garage; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 5405 Quincy Street, is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: South 75 Feet of Lot 12, Block 1, Spring Lake Park Highlands, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN: 08-30-23-12-0016 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,800 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the proposed garage would be 1,176 square feet, thus requiring City approval of a conditional use permit; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Site plan 4. Photographic documentation 5. Staff Report NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request: 1. The proposed oversized 1,176 square foot garage satisfies the zoning requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code. 2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. Resolution 1032-15 Page 2 3. The proposed garage would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved. 4. The proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood. 5. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed oversized garage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the 1,176 square foot garage, with conditions as follows: 1. The garage shall not be used for commercial purposes, living space or other uses not allowed within the R-1 Single-Family Residential district or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted; the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. 2. The new garage shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the existing house. 3. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) shall become null and void if the work for which the CUP was granted is not completed within one year from the date of approval unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the City Council. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 19th day of August, 2015. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1033-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A SEVEN (7) FOOT GARAGE WIDTH VARIANCE FOR AN OVERSIZE GARAGE AT 5405 QUINCY STREET; PLANNING CASE VR2015-005 WHEREAS, property owner Curt Olson, has applied for a seven (7) foot oversize garage width variance to allow the garage to be 42 feet wide; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 5405 Quincy Street is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: South 75 Feet of Lot 12, Block 1, Spring Lake Park Highlands, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN: 08-30-23-12-0016 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Staff Report WHEREAS, Section 1106.04 Subd. 6d of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that for accessory buildings exceeding 952 square feet, the width of the building cannot exceed 35 feet; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow a 1,176 square foot garage to be 42 feet wide; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing regarding this request on August 19, 2015; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. Resolution 1033-15 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 5405 Quincy Street, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding garage width for oversize garages is for aesthetics in order to minimize the amount of the building visible, and to keep the look of the garage from the street as normal size as possible. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is improving the property and adding more indoor storage. 3. The applicant is requesting this variance because the property is a corner lot that does not meet the minimum 100 foot x 100 foot dimensions. The lot is only 75 feet wide and a garage must access the side street and must be placed with the wider side as the front since the lot isn’t deep enough for a longer garage to meet setbacks. 4. The unique feature of this property is that it is a corner lot that is narrower than the City Code requires, which only allows an oversize garage to be placed with the wider side as the front. 5. There will be little change to the existing character of the neighborhood since the rear of the lot has large trees which will help screen the garage. 6. The 7-foot variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s practical difficulty since that is what the zoning code limits for garage widths. 7. The Planning Commission may impose conditions upon the premises as may be necessary to comply with city standards and to minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of Curt Olson, property owner of 5405 Quincy Street, to allow a 42-foot wide oversize garage. Adopted this 19th day of August, 2015. ________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: ________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Mounds View Planning Commission Oath of Office I, Justin Klander, do solemnly swear, to support the Constitution of the United States, and of this state, and to discharge faithfully the duties, devolving upon me as a Planning Commission member of the City of Mounds View, to the best of my judgment and ability. ____________________________________ Justin Klander ____________________________________ Date Witness: ____________________________________ Heidi Heller Planning Associate