Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-20-2011 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 20, 2011 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: June 1, 2011 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2011-006 Variance for a Reduced Rear Yard Setback Address: 8088 Sunnyside Road Applicant: Gordon & Cynthia Druvenga 6. Other Planning Activity A. Code Amendment for Chapter 1121.09 B. City Code & Zoning Code Amendments for Variances 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. August 3, 2011 B. August 17, 2011 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. July 6, 2011 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 6, 2011 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. on July 6, 2011. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Miller, Rundle, Schiltgen, Stevenson and Smith. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 CM2011-001. Consideration of an Outdoor Storage Conditional Use 2 Permit Amendment Discuss Proposed Driveway and Parking Area City Code Amendments 3 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes May 18, 2011. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the Minutes of the May 18, 2011 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission July 6, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. CM2011-001 Consideration of an Outdoor Storage Conditional Use Permit Amendment Address: 2159 Mustang Drive Applicant: Bauer Welding, Doug Bauer, owner Planning Associate Heller explained that Doug Bauer, owner of Bauer Welding & Metal Fabrication was requesting approval of an amendment to an existing conditional use permit (CUP). In August 2004, a conditional use permit was approved to allow outdoor storage on this property. The applicant constructed a 50’ x 80’ paved area on the north side of the building. One of the conditions of the CUP approval was that the gravel driveway leading from the parking lot to the storage area be improved with a hard surface within three years. City staff administratively approved two-year extensions in 2007 and 2009, but informed Mr. Bauer that he would need to amend the CUP after the last extension expired. Mr. Bauer has now requested the condition that the driveway be improved with a hard surface be removed from his CUP. Doug Bauer, Bauer Welding & Metal Fabrication, explained to the Commission the materials fabricated in his shop and the type of things that are stored outside. He indicated that he still hopes to expand the building and remove the outdoor storage area and driveway in the future. Chair Stevenson questioned if a certain type of gravel had to be placed on the driveway as it was located in an industrial zone. Planning Associate Heller noted that the City Code requires a minimum of a Class 2 gravel be used for outdoor storage areas. Bauer Welding constructed the driveway with the appropriate type of material. Staff had no objections with the driveway remaining as is, and has not received any complaints since it was added over six years ago. Commissioner Cramblit was in favor of allowing the driveway to remain gravel as this would allow for easier expansion of the site in the future. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Meehlhause/Commissioner Cramblit. To approve Resolution 944-11, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to remove the requirement of installing a permanent improved surface on the outdoor storage area driveway at Bauer Welding & Metal Fabrication at 2159 Mustang Drive; Planning Case No. CM2011-001. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission July 6, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss Proposed Driveway and Parking Area City Code Amendments Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that permits for replacement driveways or driveway expansions are one of the most common permits issued every year, and parking off an improved surface is one of the most common code enforcement problems. The Planning Commission discussed the current City Code requirements for driveways and parking areas at the May 18th meeting. Staff presented a code amendment to the Commission. Chair Stevenson questioned if a gravel area could be added adjacent to a hard surface. Associate Heller stated that up to 300 square feet of gravel area can be added adjacent to a driveway if it has a five foot setback. Recreational vehicles were not the majority of the City’s parking concerns. The Commission was in favor of the recommended code amendment and asked that staff bring it back for formal action. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. July 20, 2011 B. August 3, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Associate Planner Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: July 20, 2011 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 Variance Request to allow for a Reduced Rear Yard Setback at 8088 Sunnyside Road; Planning Case VR2011-006 Introduction: The property owners, Gordy and Cynthia Druvenga, are requesting a variance to permit an addition to their house at 8088 Sunnyside Road to encroach two feet into the required 30- foot rear yard setback. The Druvengas want to build a 14’ x 28’ addition with a family room and main floor laundry on the back of their house. Discussion: The Druvenga’s house is a rambler style built in 1952 on the southwest corner of Sunnyside Road and Sherwood Road. All of the lots on this block of Sunnyside are 231 feet deep except for the applicant’s lot, which is 146 feet deep. Because of the deeper lots, all the homes, including the applicant’s, were built with large front setbacks of about 76 feet (city code requires a minimum 30 foot front setback). 8088 Sunnyside was then subdivided and the rear 85 feet used to create a lot fronting Sherwood Road (this house was built in 1964). Because of the lot split, the applicant’s property has a much smaller backyard than the rest of the homes on the block. The Druvengas bought their house in 1988 and like the neighborhood, but want more space. Rather than move to a larger house, they are choosing to expand their existing home with a new family room and main floor laundry. The current layout of the house is such that it only makes sense to put the addition on the back of the house. Since this property only has a 42 foot deep backyard, there is not much room to expand the house and still meet the setback requirement. The applicant’s backyard is adjacent to the west neighbor’s garage, the south neighbor’s garage and two sheds, and Sherwood Road. A row of tall bushes screens the Druvenga’s backyard from Sherwood Road. 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: Planning Case VR2011-006 July 20, 2011 Staff Report Page 2 a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The extraordinary circumstances which apply to this property are that a 76 foot front setback is much larger than normal, and this lot is 85 feet shorter in depth than the rest of the lots on the block, yet has the same deep front setback. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district, as most other properties do not have this large of a front setback causing the backyard to be only 42 feet deep. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicants are not responsible for the conditions which have prompted them to apply for a variance. The applicant’s purchased the property after the house was built and the property subdivided. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Granting this variance would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege in that most other property owners could easily build additions on the rear of their homes and meet the 30 foot rear setback requirement. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The two-foot variance requested is the minimum that would be necessary in order to add the desired square footage and features to the house. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Given the circumstances, granting the variance request may not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title. Planning Case VR2011-006 July 20, 2011 Staff Report Page 3 g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The rear addition would not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjoining properties. 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. 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 945-11 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 Site Plans 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Resolution 945-11 N ZONING MAP Highway 10 * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View of 8088 Sunnyside Road Aerial View of 8088 Sunnyside Road 8088 Site Plan for 8088 Sunnyside Road Addition NSHERWOOD ROAD S U N N Y S I D E R O A D Addition Plan for 8088 Sunnyside Road MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 945-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A TWENTY EIGHT FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK AT 8088 SUNNYSIDE ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2011-006 WHEREAS, property owners, Gordon and Cynthia Druvenga, have applied for a variance to allow a house addition to encroach two feet into the required 30 foot rear yard setback at 8088 Sunnyside Road; and, WHEREAS, 8088 Sunnyside Road is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as follows: Spring Lake Park Hill View, Except the West 85 feet of Lot 96, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 06-30-23-42-0015 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 July 20, 2011; 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 hardship with regard to the property located at 8088 Sunnyside Road, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Res. 945-11 Page 2 1. Circumstances apply to this property in that the house was built on the lot in 1952 with a deep front setback, and the rear of the lot was then split off. The house placement and subdivision makes it difficult to any add living space to the house and meet required setbacks without a variance. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would limit the applicants’ ability to expand their house. 3. The applicants did not build this house or subdivide the lot, and intend only to substantially improve the property. 4. Granting this variance would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege in that where the house was built on the lot and the size of the property are pre-existing conditions. 5. The two (2) foot variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicants’ practical difficulty. 6. Granting a variance to allow for a house addition with a two-foot rear setback would not be detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code in that few properties have a larger front yard than back yard. 7. Granting the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjoining properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of Gordon and Cynthia Druvenga, to allow a living space addition to have a 28-foot rear setback at 8088 Sunnyside Road 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 20th day of July, 2011. _____________________________________ Gary Meehlhause, Vice-Chair ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 6A Meeting Date: July 20, 2011 Type of Business: Action City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Proposed Code Amendment – Chapter 1121.09 Introduction: After the discussion about driveways and parking areas at the May 18 and July 6, 2011 Planning Commission meetings, staff has prepared a city code amendment for the Commission to review and take action on. Discussion: Staff requests that the Planning Commission see the attached resolution to review the proposed language change. The change is indicated by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text. Recommendation: The Planning Commission should review the proposed zoning code amendment and recommend changes or act on attached Resolution 946-11. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 946-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 1121.09 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE TO ADDRESS ACCESSING DETACHED PARKING AREAS WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that a requirement for accessing detached parking areas frequently be specifically addressed in Chapter 1121.09 Subd. 7 of the Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Chapter 1121.09 Subd. 7 of the Mounds View Zoning Code by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text as follows: Chapter 1121.09 Subd. 7. Surfacing: All areas, as allowed in subdivision 1104.01(4) of this Title, to be utilized for parking space and driveways shall be surfaced with a permanent improved surface material as defined in Section 1102.02 of this Chapter, suitable to control dust, drainage and erosion, meeting the requirements of Section 902.03 of this Code except as follows: A gravel surface material meeting the specifications of Section 902.03, subdivision 5 of this Code may be used for parking areas in an R-1 or R-2 District not to exceed three hundred (300) square feet or, if to be used as a parking surface for an RV, the minimum area that would encompass the wheel-base area of one (1) recreational vehicle. If any parking area detached from the driveway is utilized for frequently used vehicles, it shall be serviced by an improved driveway that connects to, and is accessed only by, the primary driveway. Plans for surfacing and drainage of driveways and stalls for five (5) or more vehicles shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review, and the final drainage plan must receive the Director of Public Works/City Engineer's written approval. WHEREAS, amending the Zoning Code to address accessing detached parking areas will serve to clarify the zoning requirements; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that an amendment to the City Code is warranted and justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of an amendment to Chapter 1121.09 Subd. 7 of the Mounds View Zoning Code to address accessing detached parking areas as defined herein. Resolution 946-11 Page 2 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 20th day of July, 2011. _____________________________________ Gary Meehlhause, Vice-Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 6B Meeting Date: July 20, 2011 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Proposed Code Amendments for Variance Language Introduction: In May 2011, Governor Dayton signed the state code changes made by the Minnesota Legislature about the wording used for variances. The Mounds View City Attorney has recommended that the City amend the City Code and Zoning Code to be consistent with the state language. Discussion: During the 2011 Legislative Session, a proposal to change state code language regarding variances was proposed by the League of Minnesota Cities and supported by many cities in Minnesota. These changes were proposed after a ruling about a variance case was made by the Minnesota Supreme Court. A few years ago, the City of Minnetonka approved a variance and an opposing neighbor sued the city. The lower courts all ruled in favor of the City of Minnetonka. The neighbor was adamantly against the variance and appealed the case all the way to the Minnesota State Supreme Court. The Supreme Court made a surprising ruling stating that the City was in error and should not have approved the variance based on the literal interpretation of the variance language. The Supreme Court specifically referred to the meaning of the word “hardship.” The primary change to the variance language is removing the word “hardship,” and replacing it with “practical difficulty.” Staff requests that the Planning Commission see the attached draft ordinance to review the proposed language change. The changes are indicated by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text. Recommendation: The Planning Commission should review the proposed City Code and Zoning Code amendments, take testimony from staff and hold the public hearing. Resolution 947-11 is attached for the Commission to take action on. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 947-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 1100, CHAPTERS 1102 AND 1125 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE AND AMENDING TITLE 1000, CHAPTER 1008 AND TITLE 1200, CHAPTER 1205 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE REGARDING VARIANCES WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that the Mounds View City Code and Zoning Code language for variances be amended to be consistent with the 2011 adopted state code variance language; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Chapters 1102 and 1125 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Chapter 1008 and 1205 of the Mounds View City Code by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text as follows: Title 1100, Chapter 1102, Section 1102.02, subdivision 124 of the Mounds View Zoning Code: Subd. 124. VARIANCE. The waiving by Board action of the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship practical difficulties because of physical unique circumstances unique related to the individual property under consideration. Title 1100, Chapter 1125, Section 1125.02, subdivisions 2 and 6 of the Mounds View Zoning Code: Subd. 2. Criteria for Granting Variances: A variance to the provisions of the Zoning Code may be issued by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, or in the case of an administrative variance, by the Director of Community Development as explained in Section 1125.02, subdivision 6, to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of the property owner’s land. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. No use variances may shall be issued granted that would allow any use that is not allowed in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. A variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the properties which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. Res 947-11 Page 2 b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. 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. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such restrictions and 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. Subd. 6. Administrative Variance Process: a. Types: Property owners seeking relief from the Zoning Code may request an administrative variance, provided that the property is zoned R-1 or R-2 and either of the following is applicable: (1) The request concerns setbacks; the variance amount is within twenty-five percent (25%) of code requirements; and approval of the variance does not result in a setback of less than five feet (5’); and Res 947-11 Page 3 (2) tThe request is related to a pre-existing, non-conforming driveway or curb cut. b. Review Procedures: The Director of Community Development will review administrative variance requests. In order to be approved, the variance request must meet the hardship criteria as stated in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2. If hardship is evident all of the criteria are met and approval is granted, the adjacent property owners must be notified by mail of the preliminary approval and allowed ten (10) days to respond to the decision. Absent any opposition from adjacent property owners, the Planning Commission shall review the administrative variance request at the following regularly scheduled meeting. c. Denial and Appeals: If the Director chooses to deny a request, or if either the adjacent neighbors or the Planning Commission disagrees with administrative approval of a variance request, the request is denied administratively and the applicant may choose to request a formal variance from the Planning Commission. d. Fees: Administrative variance fees are set according to the fee schedule adopted by City Council resolution. Title 1000, Chapter 1008, Section 1108.16, subdivision 1 of the Mounds View City Code: Subd. 1. A variance to the provisions of Chapter 1008 may be considered by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner. Applications shall be submitted and reviewed in the same manner as indicated in Chapter 1125 of the Mounds View Zoning Code. Title 1200, Chapter 1205, Section 1205.02 of the Mounds City Code: 1205.02: VARIANCES: The Council may grant a variance of these subdivision regulations in any particular case where the subdivider can show that, by reason of exceptional topography or other physical conditions unique circumstances relating to a specific lot, the strict compliance with these regulations could cause an exceptional and undue imposes unusual hardship on the enjoyment of a substantial property right; provided, such relief may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without impairing the intent and purpose of this Chapter. to the subdivider in the use of his or her land. Unusual hardship includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. A variance may be granted only if the Council finds that all of the following circumstances exist: Subd. 1. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. Res 947-11 Page 4 Subd. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 3. The subdivider proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by these regulations or the City Zoning Ordinance. Subd. 4. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally 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 these regulations has had no control. That the unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Subd. 5. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Subd. 6. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the unusual hardship. Economic conditions alone do not constitute unusual hardship. Subd. 7. The Council may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by the variance, as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this section 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. WHEREAS, amending the Zoning Code and City Code to be consistent with state code will serve to clarify the zoning requirements; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that amendments to the Zoning Code and City Code are warranted and justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of amendments to Chapters 1102 and 1125 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Chapter 1008 and 1205 of the Mounds View City Code as defined herein. 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 20th day of July, 2011. _____________________________________ Gary Meehlhause, Vice-Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL)