Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-06-2013 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA November 6, 2013 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: October 2, 2013 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speak ing, give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2013-008 Variance Request to Allow Reduced Parking Lot Setbacks Address: 2832 County Road 10 Applicant: Naoufel Soussi, Tires N’ More B. VR2013-007 Variance Request to Allow an Addition to Encroach into the Front Yard Setback Address: 5420 Adams Street Applicant: Flint Homes, Blaine, MN 6. Other Planning Activity None 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, November 20, 2013 B. Wednesday, December 4, 2013 8. Review Minutes: A. October 16, 2013 9. Staff Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner’s Reports 11. Meeting Conclusion PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 16, 2013 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for October 16, 2013. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Elofson, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Carvelli-Yu. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 MI2013-001 Minor Subdivision to Adjust a Common Lot Line 2 CU2013-005 Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage 2 Proposed Sign Code Amendments 3 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes September 18, 2013. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Love. To approve the Minutes of the September 18, 2013 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission October 16, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. MI2013-001 Minor Subdivision to Adjust a Common Lot Line Applicant: John Engberg Address: 3030 & 3032 County Road J Planning Associate Heller indicated John Engberg, owner of 3030 County Road J, has applied for a minor subdivision to adjust the lot line between his property and his late mother’s property next door at 3032 County Road J. The lot line change is not for development purposes or to create any additional lots, but simply an extra 1,020 square feet of backyard area for the applicant. The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Survey that shows the property line change. The property at 3032 County Road J is now owned by the children of Mary Engberg and they have agreed to this subdivision. She reviewed a proposed easement as well. Associate Heller reviewed the request in further detail. She noted the City Attorney was reviewing the survey and staff recommended the Planning Commission approve the minor subdivision. Chair Stevenson requested further information on the proposed easement. Associate Heller stated the easement would allow Mr. Engberg continued access the underground pipes he installed in the rear of the 3032 County Road J property after it is sold. John Engberg, 3030 County Road J, explained the water pipes assist with the water runoff in his backyard and the 3032 County Road J yard. Commissioner Schiltgen asked if the 3032 County Road J property would be sold. Mr. Engberg explained the property was being prepared to be put on the market. MOTION/SECOND: Chair Stevenson/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 991-13, a Resolution Approving the Minor Subdivision of 3030 County Road J, owned by John Engberg, and 3032 County Road J, owned by the Family of Mary Engberg; Planning Case No. MI2013- 001. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission October 16, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ B. CU2013-005 Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage Applicant: Ryan Carlisle & Sarah Lange Address: 8280 Eastwood Road Planning Associate Heller indicated the applicants, property owner Sarah Lange and Ryan Carlisle, are requesting approval of a conditional use permit to construct an oversize attached garage on their property at 8280 Eastwood Road. The applicants want to demolish the existing 22’ x 21’-8” (476 square feet) garage and build a new 22’ x 50’ attached garage (1,100 square feet). Associate Heller explained the applicants have submitted plans for a garage larger than what the City Code allows without a planning action. 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 applicants indicated that they want the extra space to store a boat and classic cars, among other things. Associate Heller reviewed the conditional use permit considerations with the Planning Commission in detail. Staff recommended the Commission approve the CUP as requested. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned why the applicant was requesting an expanded garage. Ryan Carlisle, 8280 Eastwood Road, explained the current garage was added after the home was built and is in poor condition. The roofline is very low so some vehicles don’t fit inside now. He commented the new garage would be raised to match the house’s roofline. Chair Stevenson indicated the tree in the rear yard would screen the garage from the neighbors. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolution 992-13, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 8280 Eastwood Road; Planning Case No. CU2013-005. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review Proposed Sign Code Amendments Planning Associate Heller stated the Commission has started focusing on creating a PUD Overlay District for the Highway 10 corridor. This has involved discussions on the general development to enhance the visual appeal of the corridor. One idea has been to change the style and height allowances of the signage in the corridor to monument style sings, and to reduce the 15 foot setback amount. Mounds View Planning Commission October 16, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Associate Heller explained the Commission discussed the sign code changes at the last few meetings and was in favor of amending the sign code rather than only having specific requirements for the corridor. Staff reviewed the proposed sign code amendments in detail and recommended the Commission discuss and approve the code amendment. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Cramblit. To approve Resolution 993-13, a Resolution Amending the Sign Code. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. November 6, 2013 B. November 20, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Review Minutes: A. October 2, 2013 The Commission discussed the October 2, 2013 meeting minutes. 9. Staff Updates A. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases. She noted the Robert’s and Taiko’s lots were seeded and the silt fences would be coming down once the grass was established. She noted Area G of the Street Improvement Project would begin next spring and the planning was beginning this fall. She explained there were five new homes built in Mounds View this year. She was pleased to report that Apple Tree Dental closed on their property today and would begin renovations on their building soon. 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Chair Stevenson questioned how many foreclosures the City had at this time. Associate Heller explained that foreclosures were decreasing in the Mounds View which was a great sign as homes were turning around more quickly and less were going into foreclosure at all. 11. Adjournment Mounds View Planning Commission October 16, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:34 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: September 6, 2013 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Variance request to allow reduced parking lot setbacks at Tires N’ More, 2832 County Road 10; Planning Case VR2013-008 Introduction: The applicant, Naoufel Soussi, owner of Tires N’ More at 2832 County Road 10, will be installing a new parking lot with curbing, and is requesting variances for reduced parking lot setbacks on three sides of the property. The previous owners of the building had originally intended to redevelop the property along with the CVS development and was working with Velmeir (the CVS developer) on improving the parking lot and sharing the County Road 10 driveway access . The applicant’s rear parking lot was removed by Velmeir in anticipation of reconstruction that would be done with CVS’s parking lot. The previous owner did not sign off on the plans, so Velmeir did not complete the 2832 County Road 10 building’s parking lot and it remains uncompleted. Discussion: Mr. Soussi purchased the property at 2832 County Road 10 and is using the existing building that was built in 1965. This property does not have its own access to County Road 10 and must share access driveways with the adjoining properties. There are driveway and parking easements in place with both the Simon’s building at 2840 County Road 10 and the CVS Pharmacy property at 2800 County Road 10. The Tires N’ More building is not sitting parallel to County Road 10, so because of this and the angle of the front property line, the front parking lot is small and not safe to have more than one vehicle maneuvering in the front parking lot at a time. Instead, the applicant primarily uses the CVS County Road 10 driveway for access to his business. The building currently has asphalt only in the front and along the west side of the building, and both of these areas are paved up to the property line. The applicant has requested a 5 foot setback for the front parking lot, which would match the 5 foot parking lot setbacks at CVS (they were granted variances for reduced parking lot setbacks). When Velmeir installed the CVS parking lot, they also paved and installed curb in the easement area on the southeast side of the Tires N’ More property that CVS is using. Mr. Soussi will be leaving this curb as is. The required and requested parking lot setbacks for this property are: Required Requested Front: 30 feet 5 feet West: 20 feet* 0 feet (for about half of the lot, then it will be 20 feet). East: 5 feet 0 feet Rear: 5 feet Will meet 5 foot setback requirement *Commercial parking lot setback requirements are larger when abutting residential properties Tires N’ More Parking Lot Variances Report November 6, 2013 Page 2 For the Planning Commission to act favorably toward this application, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. 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. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. The zoning code requires driveway and parking setbacks for aesthetics and to provide separation and some sense of privacy and security between businesses and neighbors. The zoning code primarily deals with aesthetics and size limitations, not safety. When older, existing buildings need improvements, such as expansions or parking lots, it is often difficult to meet current code requirements. b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. While the Comprehensive Plan does not specify design criteria for properties, it does support improvements to and the maintenance of properties. The installation of a new parking lot will be a large improvement to this property. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The applicant is asking for the reduced parking lot setbacks in order to be able to access his property and to limit the traffic in the front parking lot for safety reasons. 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 unique feature of this property is that the north property line is angled, the building does not sit parallel to County Road 10 and is located closer to the front of the lot, making the front parking lot very small and difficult to maneuver through. The building does not have its own access to County Road 10 and must use the two adjoining properties’ access driveways. The building has side setbacks of about 14 feet (west side) and 32 feet (east side), which leave limited room to access the rear parking lot. The applicant purchased the property as-is and is not responsible for the conditions that have prompted him to apply for a variance. Tires N’ More Parking Lot Variances Report November 6, 2013 Page 3 e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The access driveways from the adjoining parcels have been as is for many years, and there is currently asphalt in the front parking lot up to the property line, so there will be no change to the existing character of the neighborhood. Instead it will be a big improvement to this property and 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 requested variances are the minimum that would be necessary in order for the applicant to be able to access his property and the rear parking lot. 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. 1. Tires N’ More owners should make all possible efforts to prevent their customers and employees from using the CVS access to Silver Lake Road. The property owner of 2800 County Road 10 does not give permission for the applicant to use of any more of their property than what is specified in the easement documents. 2. A sign must be installed at the access drive between Tires N’ More and CVS to direct Tires N’ More customers and employees that are leaving the property, to “exit left only” to direct them towards County Road 10 rather than behind the CVS building. This sign must be installed either by the completion of the parking lot, or by April 1, 2014, whichever occurs first. 3. The entire parking lot must be installed by September 1, 2014. The City Council granted an extension of the original deadline that was stated in the conditional use permit to operate the business (Resolution 7984). Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, a public hearing is required. 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. In September 2012, when Mr. Soussi first applied for this variance, Staff had been in contact with the attorney representing JK & SK Mn, LLC, the property owner of 2800 County Road 10 (CVS does not own the land). They do not want Tires N’ More using any of their property that is not included in the easement agreements. A letter describing the current request was sent to the property owner of 2800 County Road 10, along with the public hearing notices mailed. As of November 1, 2013, staff has not received any comments. Tires N’ More Parking Lot Variances Report September 5, 2012 Page 4 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commissioners take testimony from staff and the applicant and open the public hearing. After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and the public, the Commission may take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 995-13 is attached for action if the Commission so chooses. 2. Deny the requested variance. The Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide there is a need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Site Plan for parking lot 2. Property & building layout 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial Photos 5. Resolution 995-13 TRAFFIC FLOW TO TIRES N’ MORE SITE Front setback request = 5 feet PARKING LOT SITE PLAN East Side setback request = 0 feet Front West Side setback request = 0 feet Existing asphalt **Rear west side and south sides will comply with the required setbacks Existing curb that will remain ZONING MAP * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential N CVS ABC Liquor /vacant Aerial View Tires N’ More Aerial View CVS Pharmacy Tires N’ More Existing curb that will remain CVS ABC Liquor MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 995-13 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR REDUCED PARKING LOT SETBACKS AT TIRES N’ MORE, 2832 COUNTY ROAD 10; PLANNING CASE VR2013-008 WHEREAS, the applicant, Naoufel Soussi, owner of Tires N’ More, 2832 County Road 10, has applied for a variance to allow the parking lot to have reduced setbacks from the north, east and west property lines; and, WHEREAS, 2832 County Road 10 is zoned B-3, Highway Business, and is legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Velmeir CVS Addition PIN: 06-30-23-34-0086 and 06-30-23-34-0089 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Site Plan 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial View 4. Staff Report 5. Photographic Documentation WHEREAS, Section 1104.01 Subd. 4c(2a and 2b) of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that parking lots in B-3 zoned districts shall be set back thirty (30) feet from the front, and five feet (5’) from the side and rear, except where a non-residential use abuts a property in a residential district the setback is twenty (20) feet; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow the parking lot to have a five foot (5’) setback on the front, zero (0) setback on the east side, and zero (0) setback on the north half of the west side; 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, Resolution 995-13 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing regarding this request on November 6, 2013; 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 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 2832 County Road 10, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding setbacks is to create physical separation between buildings and parking areas for aesthetics and a sense of privacy for the property owners. The requested reduced setbacks are very similar to what has existed for many years on this property. 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 of the way the building is sitting on the property and the lack of access which forces this property to share adjoining properties access drives. 4. The unique feature of this property is that the north property line is angled, the building does not sit parallel to County Road 10 and is located closer to the front of the lot, making the front parking lot very small and difficult to maneuver through. The building does not have its own access to County Road 10 and must use the adjoining properties’ access driveways. The building has side setbacks of about 14 feet (west side) and 32 feet (east side), which leave limited room to access the rear parking lot. 5. The new parking lot will have similar or larger setbacks than the previous parking lot did, so there will be no change to the existing character of the neighborhood. 6. The variances requested are the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s practical difficulty since that is what the zoning code requires for parking lot setbacks. 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. Resolution 995-13 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of Naoufel Soussi, owner of Tires N’ More, at 2832 County Road 10, to allow the parking lot to have a five foot (5’) setback on the front, a zero (0) setback on the east side, and a zero (0) setback on the north half of the west side. Adopted this 6th day of November, 2013. _________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: __________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: November 6, 2013 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Variance Request to allow Reduced Front Yard Setback at 5420 Adams Street; Planning Case VR2013-007 Introduction: The property owner, Flint Homes, represented by Justin and Marina Flint, are requesting a variance to permit an addition to their house at 5420 Adams Street to encroach eight feet into the prevailing 40-foot front yard setback. The Flints want to build a 10’ wide x 8’ deep entry on the front of their house in order to install an interior staircase. The City Code requires houses and garages to have a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet or the prevailing setback on the block, which is 40-feet on the Adams Street block. Discussion: 5420 Adams Street was originally a 768 square foot, one-story house with no basement, built in 1949. In 2006, the previous property owners raised the house and installed a daylight basement (partially below grade), but did not build stairs inside the house. The only way to access the basement is through an exterior door on the back of the house, and access to the upstairs is from decks on the front and rear of the home that are approximately 7 feet off the ground. The remodeling was never completed and the house was eventually vacated. The house was recently purchased by Flint Homes, who will be finishing the construction started by the previous owners several years ago. The Flints want to add a small entry to the front of the home that is 10 feet wide by 8 feet deep in order to lower the front door several feet, and to make space inside the house to add a staircase (it would become a “split-entry” style house). This entry would be the about the same size as the deck that is currently on the front of the house. Variance Criteria Review: As with any variance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a 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 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. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. The zoning code requires minimum building setbacks for aesthetics and to provide separation and some sense of privacy between neighbors. Front minimum setbacks also create symmetry along the streetscape when all the homes are setback the same. The 5420 Adams Variance Request November 6, 2013 Staff Report Page 2 City Code does not require houses to have the same setback as the other homes; it just cannot be closer to the street, so most the streets do end up having varying front setbacks. This entry addition would give the house a 32 foot front setback, which is still more than the minimum 30 foot front setback. b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan supports improvements to properties, and certainly encourages home improvements and making houses more livable. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The applicants want to add a front entry to the house in order to add an interior staircase so the basement can be accessed inside like a typical home. This improvement will also bring the front door much closer to the ground so it looks normal. 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 unique circumstances which apply to this property are that a basement was added to the home but no interior stairs constructed. The house is small, so adding stairs inside the house without the extra front entry space would reduce the livability of the home. The applicants purchased the home as-is, and did not create the problem. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The 8-foot front setback variance requested is the minimum that would be necessary in order to add the desired front entry space and interior staircase and make the exterior house style more aesthetically pleasing. The existing deck extends out 8 feet so the small entry would not be much different than what is already there. And it would improve the exterior appearance of the house since it looks odd with the front door so high off the ground. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In order to have enough square footage for the intent of the entry addition, the 8-foot front yard setback variance is the minimum variance needed. 5420 Adams Variance Request November 6, 2013 Staff Report 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. The applicant must apply for all required building permits for the remodeling of this house. Public Hearing: As with any variance application, a public hearing is required. Notices were mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the applicant’s properties. As of November 1, 2013, Staff has not received any comments. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission may take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 994-13 is attached for action if the Commission so chooses. 2. Deny the requested variance. The Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings 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. Respectfully Submitted By, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photo 3. Proposed Layout Plan 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Resolution 994-13 * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential N ZONING MAP Aerial View of 5420 Adams Street House Garage Erickson Road Adams St. New entry would extend forward the same distance as the existing deck Prevailing 40 foot front setback on this block Adams St. Erickson Road Existing upstairs layout of home with new front entry and staircase Addition New front entry addition and staircase Living Room Kitchen/Eating area Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Photographic Documentation 5420 Adams Street Front of house Deck extends out 8 feet MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 994-13 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FRONT ENTRY ADDITION TO ENCROACH 8-FEET INTO THE PREVAILING 40-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK AT 5420 ADAMS STREET; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2013-007 WHEREAS, property owner, Flint Homes, has applied for a variance to allow a front entry addition to encroach 8 feet into the prevailing 40-foot front yard setback at 5420 Adams Street; and, WHEREAS , 5420 Adams Street is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as follows: Spring Lake Park Highlands, Except the South 10 feet and Except the Northerly 50 feet of Lot 16, Block 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN: 08-30-23-12-0026 WHEREAS , the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Proposed Site and Addition Plans 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Views 4. Photographic Documentation 5. 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 duly-noticed public hearing regarding this request on November 6, 2013; 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 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 5420 Adams Street, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Res. 979-13 Page 2 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding setbacks is to create physical separation between homes for aesthetics and a sense of privacy for the property owners. The requested reduced front yard setback will still be larger than the minimum 30 foot setback. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is improving the property and making it a more livable house. 3. The applicant is requesting this variance because of the lack of an interior staircase, and in order to make the home livable, there should be interior access to the basement. 4. The unique feature of this property is that there is an added a basement without an interior staircase, and the existing layout and size of the home makes it difficult to add a staircase inside the home. 5. The current house has a deck leading to the front door that extends 8 feet out from the house and is at least 10 feet wide. The new entrance addition would be about the same size, so there will be very little change to the existing character of the neighborhood. 6. The 8-foot front yard setback variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s practical difficulty and give enough interior space to add a staircase. 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 Flint Homes, to allow an 8-foot encroachment into the prevailing 40-foot front yard setback at 5420 Adams Street subject to the following: If within one year after granting the variance, the work as permitted by the variance has not been completed, then such variance shall be come null and void unless an extension of time has been requested by the applicant and granted by the Planning Commission. Such extension shall be requested by the applicant in writing, and submitted to the City at least 30 days before the expiration of the original variance. Adopted this 6th day of November, 2013. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL)