Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-02-2015 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA September 2, 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 August 5, 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. VR2015-007 Variance to Allow a 4-foot Encroachment into the Front Yard Applicant: Jerome Buchanan Address: 5231 Irondale Road 7. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss a Code Amendment to Allow Fences Taller Than 4-Feet in Front Yards of Corner Lots 8. Review Minutes A. August 19, 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 16, 2015 B. Wednesday, October 7, 2015 11. Adjourn PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting August 19, 2015 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Schiltgen at 7:01 p.m. for August 19, 2015. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Elofson, Kieffer, Love, Rundle, and Schiltgen. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Stevenson and Klander (excused). Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Special Order of Business A. Oath of Office for Commissioner Justin Klander This item was postponed to the September 2, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 VR2015-006 Variance to Allow a 6-Foot Fence in a Front Yard 2 CU2015-001 Conditional Use Permit for a 1,176 Square Foot 3 Oversize Garage VR2015-005 Variance for a Garage that Exceeds 35 Feet Wide _____________________________________________________________________________ 4. Approval of Minutes June 17, 2015. Mounds View Planning Commission August 19, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Elofson. To approve the Minutes of the June 17, 2015 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 5. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 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 Planning Associate Heller indicated 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 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. Associate Heller stated 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. Staff recommended the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and approve the variance as requested. Vice Chair Schiltgen opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Vice Chair Schiltgen questioned if the applicants would be installing a wood fence. Bob Dahlberg, 5107 Greenwood Drive, explained he moved into his home four months ago and would be professionally installing a cedar wooden fence. Commissioner Elofson supported the variance request. Mounds View Planning Commission August 19, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Love was in favor of the City rewriting the City Code to allow taller fences as this would eliminate the variance request process. Associate Heller supported this recommendation and stated it would be added to next meeting agenda for discussion. Vice Chair Schiltgen closed the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Kieffer. To approve Resolution 1034-15, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance to Allow for a Six-Foot Tall Fence in the South Front Yard of 5107 Greenwood Drive; Planning Case No. VR2015-006. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 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 Planning Associate Heller indicated 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. Associate Heller reported 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. Staff discussed the request further and recommended approval of the variance and conditional use permit. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Elofson questioned why the applicant was requesting a 42’ wide garage. Curt Olson, 5405 Quincy Street, explained that this would allow him to have two 16’ wide garage doors. He reported the garage would only be used for storage and would not house a business. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission August 19, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Elofson/Commissioner Love. To approve Resolution 1032-15, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a 1,176 Square-Foot Garage at 5405 Quincy Street; Planning Case No. CU2015-001. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Kieffer. To approve Resolution 1033-15, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Seven (7) Foot Garage Width Variance for an Oversize Garage at 5405 Quincy Street; Planning Case No. VR2015-005. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 7. Other Planning Activity None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Review Minutes: A. August 5, 2015 The Commission discussed the August 5, 2015 meeting minutes. 9. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases noting the Commission would be meeting on September 2, 2015. B. Staff Updates Planning Associate Heller provided the Commission with an update from staff. She encouraged all to participate in Festival in the Park on Saturday, August 22, 2015. C. Council Updates Councilmember Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He discussed the plans for County Road H and TCAAP, noting County Road H would be reconstructed and two roundabouts would be installed. Mounds View Planning Commission August 19, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 10. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, September 2, 2015 B. Wednesday, September 16, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________ 11. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chair Schiltgen adjourned the meeting at 7:38 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 6A Meeting Date: September 2, 2015 Type of Business: Public Hearing 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 Reduced Front Yard Setback for a Roof Extension at 5231 Irondale Road; Planning Case VR2015-007 Introduction: Jerome Buchanan, property owner of 5231 Irondale Road, has requested a variance to construct a roof extension off the front of his home to cover the front steps four feet closer to the street than the existing building. All of the homes fronting Irondale Road on this block are set back the same distance—30 feet from the property line. The variance requested is to encroach four feet into the front setback. Discussion: Setback requirements are addressed in Section 1104.01 of the Zoning Code. Each zoning district is listed with the corresponding front, side and rear setbacks. In an R-1, Single Family Residential district, the typical setbacks are as follows: Front, 30 feet; Side, 10 feet; and Rear, 30 feet. It is noted that sheds and garages, attached or detached, can have side and rear setbacks of 5 feet. The applicant wants to build a 12-foot wide by 4-feet deep roof to cover the front steps. A front stoop or deck is considered an allowable encroachment into a front setback, provided it does not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure. The steps extend four feet into the front yard. Awnings, eves and other roof extensions are also allowed as an encroachment, however they are limited to no more than a two-foot encroachment. Thus, the variance of an additional two feet is requested. 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 5231 Irondale Road is a minimum size lot, and the applicant would like to add a 4-foot roof extension to cover the front entry for the purpose of protecting the doorway from weather and eliminating the water, and ultimately ice, that comes off the roof and builds up on the front steps. The property owner is limited, however, in that their home and the homes adjacent to them were constructed at the minimum 30-foot setback. 5231 Irondale Variance Report September 2, 2015 Page 2 b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan supports improvements to properties. The applicant, owning a smaller lot, is at a disadvantage to improve the property as other homeowners might because the house was placed with the minimum front setback. 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 only wants to improve the look of the house and to stop the water and ice from pouring onto the front steps which causes safety issues. Because of the smaller lot and minimum setback, expansion and reinvestment becomes more of a challenge. 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. The circumstances are not a result of actions by the property owner. The house is a rambler style and the front half of the roofline slopes towards the front yard, so all the water and snow runs off the roof right in front of the front door and onto the steps. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that many property owners do not have to work with these setback constraints. The City has approved similar variances to allow roof extensions for covered front stoops to encroach into front setbacks. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed roof extension should add curb appeal to the house, which would benefit the neighborhood. 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 minimum front setback is 30 feet and allows only a two-foot encroachment. Anything less than a 4-foot roof extension will not keep the water and ice completely off of the front steps. 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 suggests that a condition be added to give a deadline for the completion of this project, such as 1-year from the date of permit issuance. There have been concerns from neighbors that exterior construction projects on this property are not completed in a timely manner. 5231 Irondale Variance Report September 2, 2015 Page 3 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 5231 Irondale Road. Staff has received two emails from neighbors stating that they are in favor of improvements to the property and have no issues with the requested roof extension, but are concerned with how long exterior projects at this property are left uncompleted, and the condition of the yard. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the property owner and affected neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 1035-15 is attached for the Commission’s approval if that is the chosen course of action. 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 additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, 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 however to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully Submitted By, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photo 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Site Plan 5. Photo of an Example of the Proposed Roof Extension 6. Proposed Site Plan 7. Public Hearing Comments Received by Email 8. Resolution 1035-15 Zoning Map Aerial View New attached garage addition Aerial View All of the homes on the applicant’s block of Irondale Road have the same front setback Photographic Documentation Front of 5231 Irondale Road Roof extension would cover the front door The 4-foot roof extension would cover the front steps that protrude 4 feet out from the house The 4-foot roof extension would cover the front steps that protrude 4 feet out from the house Looking south across the front house line Looking north across the front house line Photo of Example of Applicant’s Proposed Roof Extension Proposed Site Plan Public Hearing Comments Received by Email COMMENT #1 Hi Heidi, We received the Notice of Public Hearing regarding the property at 5231 Irondale Road, reference wanting to build a 12’ wide X 4’ deep roof over the front steps of the residence. I have some questions and wondered if you can answer them for me. 1. Will the structure over the front steps of the residence be a pitched structure? 2. Will it be equally proportioned over the door/step area? 3. Will there be a timeframe to complete the structure? And what is that? This residence currently has a unfinished attached garage, unfinished roof/siding on the attached garage – which has been sitting this way for almost two years. I understand whatever permit he originally had has now expired. One contractor has quit working for the owner of 5231 Irondale Rd. And currently it doesn’t look like there is any contractor involved. My concern is that any future projects approved by the City of Mounds View for 5231 will also never be finished. For 20 years the owner of 5231 has not completed any work to completion on that house. This house has become an “eye sore”. When it rains the owner puts 4 X 8 sheets of plywood up against the front of his house so water does not get into the basement. The landscaping in the front of the house is well below grade which causes water to leak in the basement. The owner has also been spraying “roundup” on the grass areas alongside his garage. So now there is nothing there but awful looking soil that is saturated with the chemical “roundup”. We don’t want to continue to have this house under construction and never finished, it makes the whole neighborhood look bad. I am unable to attend the hearing but would appreciate any information you would be able to provide me. Thanks. ________________________________________________________________ COMMENT #2 Hello Heidi and the Mounds View Planning Commission, I hope this email finds you well. I received the Public Hearing notice of the variance request for 5231 Irondale Road regarding reduced front yard setback so a roof can be added over the front steps. First, we are thrilled that Mr. Buchanan wants to make improvements to his home. The addition of the roof line will add significant "curb appeal" and add to his property value. I do have a concern however about the existing construction project at the property that is in process. A connected garage addition was added to the house and has been sitting unfinished for well over 12 months (even over the winter). No siding or shingles have been added and it's been in a very "rough state" for a while now. There is concern that this next project will also enter a perpetual state of construction build. I would like to see the variance approved, with the following conditions. 1. That the first garage project be shingled, sided with doors and windows prior to this variance being granted. 2. If the requested variance is tied to the garage project, like a new roof being added to the remainder of the house, then I would like the variance granted with a complete project timeline deadline included as a stipulation of the variance. I am looking forward to the seeing the completed project but there is concern in the neighborhood that the unfinished condition and length of the project is becoming a neighborhood eyesore. Thank You for your consideration of this request. Cindy Carvelli-Yu MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1035-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A TWO-FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FOUR-FOOT ROOF EXTENSION INTO THE FRONT-YARD SETBACK AT 5231 IRONDALE ROAD; PLANNING CASE NO. VR2015-007 WHEREAS, the applicant, Jerome Buchanan, has applied for a two-foot variance to allow a four-foot roof extension encroaching into the front-yard setback at 5231Irondale Road; and, WHEREAS, Section 1104.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the minimum front setback for a principal building is 30 feet unless the prevailing setback for existing structures exceeds 30 feet, in which case the prevailing set back IS the minimum setback; and, WHEREAS, Section 1104.01, Subd. 5a of the Zoning Code lists features such as awnings, eves, gutters and cornices which are allowed to encroach within the required setbacks, so long as said features do not project more than two feet into a yard; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a variance to construct a four-foot roof extension to cover the front steps off the front of his home; 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following finding of facts related to this request: 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding setbacks is to create physical separation between homes for aesthetics and give a consistent look to the neighborhood. The requested reduced front yard setback will be minimal and not impede on any neighbor’s privacy. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is improving the property by adding curb appeal and making the front entry safer and more usable. 3. The applicant is requesting this variance to prevent water and snow from coming off of the roof right in front of the main entry and onto the steps causing safety issues. Resolution 1035-15 Page 2 4. The home on this property has a roofline that slopes towards the front yard and a short roof overhang, which allows snow and ice to build up on the front steps. 5. The roof extension would add curb appeal to the home, so there could be a benefit to the existing character of the neighborhood. 6. The 2-foot front yard setback variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s practical difficulty and be able to cover the front steps. 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 FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above identified finding of facts, does hereby approve the two- foot variance request to allow a four-foot roof extension to cover the steps attached to the front of the applicant’s home at 5231 Irondale Road, subject to the following restriction: 1. The roof extension must be completed within 1 year from the date of the permit being issued. Adopted this 2nd day of September, 2015. ____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 7A Meeting Date: September 2, 2015 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Discuss Proposed Code Amendment for Fences Discussion: The Planning Commission has received, and approved, several variances over the last few years allowing a 6-foot or 8-foot fence in the second front yard of corner lots. Commissioners have mentioned that maybe the zoning code should be amended to allow for these taller fences since they are always approved. Another variance request for a 6-foot fence was approved at the last Planning Commission meeting on August 19, 2015, and at that time, again it was mentioned that there should be discussion to amend the code. The Commissioners in attendance all agreed, and asked staff to add this code amendment discussion to the next meeting agenda. The Zoning Code allows fences up to 4-feet tall in any part of a property. Fences that are taller than 4-feet are only allowed behind the front line of the house (the Zoning Code allows fences up to 8-feet tall). Properties that are on corners have two front yards and therefore are much more limited in where they can put a taller fence. Property owners want the taller fences for privacy and safety, and the Planning Commission has been very understanding of this and approved every fence height variance request. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and discuss the information, and provide staff with direction about the proposed amendment. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. City Code Chapter 1103.08: Fencing, Screening and Landscaping 2. Diagram showing allowed fence height locations Existing Zoning Code regulations 1103.08: FENCING, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING: Subd. 1. Height: No fence shall exceed eight feet (8') in height, and in the case of grade separation, such as the division of properties by a retaining wall, the height shall be determined on the basis of measurement from the average point between the highest and lowest grade. Subd. 2. Intersections: No fences, structures or planting of trees or shrubs shall be permitted within thirty feet (30') of any corner formed by the intersection of street property lines or the right of way of a railway intersecting a street, except properly constructed chain link fences. Such chain link fences shall not exceed forty eight inches (48") in height from the grade level at the lot line and shall have openings in the wire mesh of not less than one and five-eighths inches (1-5/8") nor more than two and one-fourth inches (2-1/4"). Such fences may follow the lot line to the lot corner. The thirty feet (30') restriction noted above shall consist of the triangle formed by connecting the two (2) points on intersecting lot lines that are each thirty feet (30') from the lot corner. Subd. 3. Location: a. Except as provided in subdivision 2 above, fences not to exceed forty eight inches (48") in height may be located on any part of a lot. Fences not to exceed ninety six inches (96") in height may be erected on any part of a lot behind the front line of the principal building. The City Council may require or approve fencing up to ninety six inches (96") in height in a front yard to satisfy a buffer or screening condition of a development review or conditional use permit. (Ord. 658, 8-14-00) b. A fence or retaining wall shall be installed on the applicant's property. The fence or retaining wall shall not be installed directly over the property line but shall not otherwise be subject to a setback requirement. (Ord. 773, 8-14-06). City Code Permitted Fence Location for Corner Lots MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1035-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A TWO-FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FOUR-FOOT ROOF EXTENSION INTO THE FRONT-YARD SETBACK AT 5231 IRONDALE ROAD; PLANNING CASE NO. VR2015-007 WHEREAS, the applicant, Jerome Buchanan, has applied for a two-foot variance to allow a four-foot roof extension encroaching into the front-yard setback at 5231Irondale Road; and, WHEREAS, Section 1104.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the minimum front setback for a principal building is 30 feet unless the prevailing setback for existing structures exceeds 30 feet, in which case the prevailing set back IS the minimum setback; and, WHEREAS, Section 1104.01, Subd. 5a of the Zoning Code lists features such as awnings, eves, gutters and cornices which are allowed to encroach within the required setbacks, so long as said features do not project more than two feet into a yard; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a variance to construct a four-foot roof extension to cover the front steps off the front of his home; 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following finding of facts related to this request: 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding setbacks is to create physical separation between homes for aesthetics and give a consistent look to the neighborhood. The requested reduced front yard setback will be minimal and not impede on any neighbor’s privacy. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is improving the property by adding curb appeal and making the front entry safer and more usable. 3. The applicant is requesting this variance to prevent water and snow from coming off of the roof right in front of the main entry and onto the steps causing safety issues. Resolution 1035-15 Page 2 4. The home on this property has a roofline that slopes towards the front yard and a short roof overhang, which allows snow and ice to build up on the front steps. 5. The roof extension would add curb appeal to the home, so there could be a benefit to the existing character of the neighborhood. 6. The 2-foot front yard setback variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s practical difficulty and be able to cover the front steps. 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 FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above identified finding of facts, does hereby approve the two- foot variance request to allow a four-foot roof extension to cover the steps attached to the front of the applicant’s home at 5231 Irondale Road, subject to the following restriction: 1. The roof extension must be completed within 1 year from the date of the permit being issued. Adopted this 2nd day of September, 2015. ____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL)