Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07-2010 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 7, 2010 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. May 19, 2010 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. Act on Resolution 927-10, Denying a Variance for Reduced Lot Width in a Wetland District at Longview Estates; Planning Case VR2010-002 B. CU2010-003 and VR2010-003: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage and Variance for Reduced Side Yard Setback for a Garage Applicant: Richard Wyatt Address: 7515 Knollwood Drive 6. Other Planning Activity None 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. July 21, 2010 B. August 4, 2010 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. June 16, 2010 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 June 16, 2010 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. June 16, 2010. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Miller, Rundle, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Schiltgen and Smith. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller and Community Development Director Ken Roberts ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page VR2010-002 Consideration of a Variance for Reduced Lot Widths in a Wetland District 2 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes May 5, 2010 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Miller. To approve the minutes of the May 5, 2010 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 2010 Regular Meeting Page 2 ____________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. VR2010-002 Consideration of a Variance for Reduced Lot Widths in a Wetland District Applicant: Eichi, Inc. represented by Paul Harstad Planning Associate Heller stated the applicant and property owner, Eichi, Inc. wants to subdivide a 7.14 acre parcel into single-family lots that would all front Longview Drive. This property is located in a wetland district. The City requires properties in wetland districts to be a minimum of 125 feet wide and 20,000 square feet in area. These standards are larger than the lot size requirements for properties in non-wetland districts. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for reduced lot widths in order to subdivide the frontage on Longview Drive into 10 lots. Without the variance, the owner could subdivide the property into a maximum of eight lots fronting Longview Drive. She stated the city has wetland zoning regulations with density standards that include minimum lot size, minimum lot width, and building setbacks. This is the fourth request by the applicant for a subdivision of this parcel. The City denied the first two proposals but the City approved the last request for a 15-lot subdivision in 2003. This approval has since expired because the applicant did not complete the final plat process. She stated the new subdivision with the variance request would only have driveways along Longview Drive. The applicant has received approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District for the current plan. She stated with any variance request the applicant needs to demonstrate substantial hardship or practical difficulties associated with the property. The property is located entirely on a wetland district, the applicant could not control that it is a wetland district, granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege, and approval of this variance request would not be materially detrimental to the code or other property in the area. Chair Stevenson asked when the variance was approved in 2003 how many lots were along Longview Drive and how many were on Silver Lake Road Planning Associate Heller stated there were eight lots on Longview and seven lots on Silver Lake Road with the 2003 plan. Chair Stevenson asked if there has been a hydrology study of the impact of putting eight to ten single family homes on the wetland. Paul Harstad, applicant, stated the watershed district is strongly concerned with the water quality of the wetland. He indicated with the new plan it is very beneficial to have houses only on one side. The new proposal does not have a storm water holding pond. The new plan has biofiltration basins instead. This design would filter the water running off driveways and would push it through engineered soil. He added soil borings were performed in the early 1970’s, and should be adequate with the biofiltration basins. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. Dave Tillman, 5166 Longview Drive, stated there are ordinances in place for a reason and as city representatives these ordinances should be upheld. Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 2010 Regular Meeting Page 3 ____________________________________________________________________________ Ann Tillmann, 5166 Longview Drive, questioned if there was an approval from Rice Creek Watershed and questioned if the approval from the watershed should have been obtained before coming to the City of Mounds View. She stated her concerns for the quality of the water on the wetland. Planning Associate Heller stated Rice Creek Watershed District has made the determination that the approval can be an administrative approval instead of a board approval because the board determined that there has not been any substantial changes from the 2003 plan. She stated the City typically processes the planning application concurrently with the watershed district process. Amy Hermanek, 2760 Wooddale, stated she has concerns for the impact on the neighborhood with the additional traffic. She indicated she would like to hear the criteria for the hardship. Justin Johnson, 5178 Longview Drive, stated his concerns about the impact of the existing homes and the impact of filling the front side of the wetland with homes. Michael Pugh, 5164 Longview Drive, stated he has lived in his house since January 2010 and assumed this land was owned by the City and suggested that the City possibly buy this parcel to maintain the natural look. Community Development Director Ken Roberts, stated the City is in no financial position to purchase this land. He added that the applicant would have to come back to the Planning Commission with a subdivision request along with many engineering reports to be reviewed and confirmed by city staff. Chair Stevenson asked for the history on why the city requires the expanded width requirement for the wetland area. Director Roberts stated the larger lots have less impact on the wetland than smaller lots. Commissioner Miller questioned why in 1966 there were ten water and sewer hook-ups installed. Director Roberts indicated that staff has researched the records from 1966 and there is no indication why there were ten water and sewer hook-ups installed. Commissioner Meehlhause stated with the new development the tax income could increase the tax base for the City of Mounds View. Commissioner Cramblit questioned if any other anti-flooding technique was included in the proposed plans. Mr. Harstad stated they would set the building elevations as part of the development plans. He stated the design is to drain the water run-off to the lowest point of the development. This basic idea would be implemented with the grading palns. Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 2010 Regular Meeting Page 4 ____________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Cramblit asked if the new houses would be elevated higher than the existing homes. Mr. Harstad stated that currently the water currently drains down Longview Drive to a manhole on Longview Drive. He added that the City will not allow new development to adversely affect a neighboring properties. He also added the biofiltration basin was a suggestion from the watershed district. He stated this is the most desirable solution for drainage. There would be one of these basins for every two lots of the new development. Chair Stevenson stated he is having a problem with the hardship criteria and does not feel comfortable setting precedents with the proposed variance. Mr. Harstad stated his family has owned this property for a very long. He added he is asking for a variance for lot width and not lot size. He added he felt this is a fair request and the concerns regarding granting the variance is related to hardship. This new plan is better for the public safety of Mounds View. The original approval was for 15 lots on this land and the new plan has only 10 lots. Ann Tillmann, stated she is concerned about the impact of their property as well as the wetland area. She added that she understands that there will be homes built on this parcel someday but she felt she wanted these to be built the right way. Public hearing closed at 8:33 pm MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Miller. Denying Resolution 927- 10 for a Variance to Allow for Reduced Lot Widths for New Lots in a Wetland District for the Longview Estates Property; Planning Case VR2010-002 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. July 7, 2010 B. July 21, 2010 ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 2010 Regular Meeting Page 5 ____________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Ken Roberts Community Development Director Transcribed by: Barbara Suciu TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: July 7, 2010 Type of Business: Action City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Act on Resolution 927-10, Denying a Variance for Reduced Lot Sizes in a Wetland District at Longview Estates; Planning Case VR2010-0003 On Wednesday, June 16, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a variance request by property owner, Eichi, Inc. represented by Paul Harstad. The applicant wants to subdivide a 7.14-acre parcel into single-family lots that would all front Longview Drive. This property is located in a wetland district, and the City requires properties in wetland districts to be a minimum of 125 feet wide and 20,000 square feet in area. Mr. Harstad requested a variance to allow for reduced lot widths in order to subdivide the frontage on Longview Drive into 10 lots. On June 16, 2010, the Planning Commission voted to deny Mr. Harstad’s variance request, and they directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial. As such, staff presents Resolution 927-10, denying the variance, to the Planning Commission for action. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Resolution 927-10 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 927-10 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR REDUCED LOT WIDTHS WITHIN A WETLAND DISTRICT FOR THE LONGVIEW ESTATES PROPERTY; PLANNING CASE VR2010-002 WHEREAS, the applicant, Eichi, Inc. represented by Paul Harstad, applied to the City for a variance to allow for reduced lot widths for new lots in a wetland district; and, WHEREAS, the proposal would have eight of the ten single family lots in the proposed Longview Estates subdivision with reduced lot widths; and, WHEREAS, the location of the proposed subdivision is south of County Road H2 and east of Silver Lake Road; and, WHEREAS, the City has zoned the property known as Longview Estates R-1, Single Family Residential, and it is legally described as follows: Lot 4, Block 1, Mueller Addition Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 07-30-23-42-0066 WHEREAS, all the proposed lots would be in a wetland district; and, WHEREAS, Section 1010.07 Subd. 3a(2) of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the minimum lot width within a wetland district is 125 feet as measured at the building setback line; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to allow for reduced lot widths (varying widths from 90 feet to 112.67 feet) for eight lots to subdivide the property to into ten single-family residential lots; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents about this proposal: 1. Narrative from Applicant 2. Zoning Map 3. Wetland Map 4. Aerial Photo 5. Site plan, date stamped May 20, 2010 6. Staff Report Resolution 927-10 Page 2 WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday, June 16, 2010, about this variance request; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria that must be satisfied in order for the City to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact related to the hardship criteria identified in Section 1125.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code: 1. The proposed lots would be located within in a wetland district. 2. While the proposed lots meet the subdivision requirements of Chapter 1202, the lots do not meet the requirements of Chapter 1010 that regulate subdivisions within a wetland zoning district. 3. The minimum lot width for within a wetland zoning district is 125 feet. 4. The parcel is substantially covered by wetlands, which is neither exceptional nor extraordinary given the number of wetlands within the City. 5. The literal interpretation of the Code would not deprive Eichi, Inc. of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that the parcel could support a subdivision of up to eight parcels fronting Longview Drive that could meet all City subdivision requirements. 6. Granting a variance in this case would confer a special privilege not enjoyed by other property owners in that there does not appear to be a sufficient hardship to warrant approval of the variance. 7. The variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title in that the purpose of controlling development density is to minimize the detrimental effects of urbanization on the wildlife habitats, water quality enhancement, recreational and aesthetic values of wetlands. 8. The applicant has not met or satisfied the hardship criteria as identified in Section 1125.02 of the Mounds View City Code. Resolution 927-10 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon its review of the hardship criteria, testimony presented at the public hearing and the identified findings of fact, does hereby deny the variance request for reduced lot widths in a wetland district associated with a subdivision of the property known as Longview Estates. Adopted this 16th day of June, 2010. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ Kenneth Roberts, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: July 7, 2010 Type of Business: Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for an Oversized Garage with a Reduced Side Yard Setback at 7515 Knollwood Drive; Planning Cases CU2010-003 and VR2010-003 Introduction: The applicant, Richard Wyatt, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit and variance to construct an oversized garage with a reduced side yard setback on his property at 7515 Knollwood Drive. The applicant plans to demolish his current attached garage and construct a new larger attached garage. The current garage is a single car size that is 14’ wide x 24’ deep (336 square feet), with a 12 foot side yard setback. The applicant wants to build a new double car wide 24’ x 60’ garage with the side yard setback of about two feet. The site plan submitted shows a garage area in excess of what the City allows without a conditional use permit. Accessory buildings, attached or detached, are limited to 952 square feet. Anything larger than 952 square feet must go through a conditional use permit application process. The garage proposed for 7515 Knollwood would be 1,440 square feet plus an 8’x16’ attached covered patio. The applicant indicates that he wants to have a two-car garage so he can park his vehicles indoors, and have the extra garage depth for a workshop. A 24-foot wide garage is a standard width, but that size would place the garage within two feet of the side property line. The city code requires a five-foot setback for accessory buildings without a variance. CUP Requirements: Section 1106.03, Subd. 1: This part of the Code limits the height of an accessory building, the number of accessory buildings and the backyard coverage ratio of accessory buildings. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for garages exceeding 952 square feet. Section 1106.04, Subd. 6: This part of the Code enumerates the conditions for garages exceeding 952 square feet, which are that the garage be permanent, be uniform in appearance with the home, not exceed 35 feet in width, and not exceed 1,800 square feet of total accessory building area on the lot. Section 1125.01, Subd. 1: The Planning Commission is required to review the possible adverse effects of the requested conditional use. CUP Discussion: The request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct the 1,440 square foot garage satisfies the requirements as stated in Section 1106.03 and 1106.04, Subdivision 6 of the Mounds View Zoning Code. All dimensional requirements are satisfied with this request. With the new larger garage, covered patio and one shed, the total accessory building square footage would be 1,784 and the backyard coverage ratio would be around 4%. Wyatt CUP and Variance Request July 7, 2010 Page 2 The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 7515 Knollwood Drive, as low- density residential. CUP Considerations: Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address any potential adverse effects that include, but are not limited to, relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use. Staff addresses each of these potential adverse effects below. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. As previously stated, the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. In this case, the owner wants to build an entirely new garage that should be a benefit to the neighborhood. The Geographical Area Involved. The home is located on Knollwood Drive. Since the additional space for the garage would be in the back, the building will still appear to be a regular two-car size garage from the street. In this case, the proposed oversized garage would not be noticeable or out of place in the neighborhood. This garage should not negatively affect any neighboring properties. Depreciation. The proposed garage would benefit the subject property both in a practical sense by providing additional on site, indoor parking and storage, as well as in an economic sense, as the construction would increase the “value” of the property. Increased property values are of course a benefit to everyone. The Character of the Surrounding Area. This portion of Knollwood Drive is entirely residential. The homes in this area are a variety of styles and ages and most have around half-acre size lots. The proposed garage would not be out of character in this area since the proposed garage would be behind the house and the extra depth would not be seen from the street. This property is 228 feet deep, so the new garage should not affect any neighbors to the rear. The garage is on the south side of the house, but would not be directly next to a neighboring house. The applicant’s property is the last house on Knollwood, so the adjacent neighbors to the south are on Bronson and their backyards abut 7515 Knollwood. The neighboring properties also have vegetation that screens Mr. Wyatt’s property from their sight. The new garage width would be a two-car garage instead of a single-car garage, but overall it would not change the current front look of the house. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant is proposing a 24’x60’ garage that would allow for parking two vehicles inside, a workshop and storage space for the applicant’s hobby. The applicant would be removing the shed behind the garage with the construction of the new garage. Wyatt CUP and Variance Request July 7, 2010 Page 3 Variance Discussion: As with any variance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, 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. 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. 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 that apply to this property are that the house was built with only a single car garage and was placed slightly off-center on the lot - further to the south. Adding a second stall to the garage while meeting the five-foot side yard setback would be very difficult to do on this lot. 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 not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district, as most other property owners are able to have at least a two-car garage on their property. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant is not responsible for the conditions that have prompted him to apply for a variance. Mr. Wyatt purchased the property after the house was built. 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 other property owners are able to have two car wide garages. 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 requested is the minimum that would be necessary in order to have a garage wide enough for two cars. A 24-foot wide garage is a standard size, and this width would allow the roof pitch to stay the same, which matches the house. Wyatt CUP and Variance Request July 7, 2010 Page 4 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. 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 garage will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjoining properties. Public Hearing: As with any variance request, this request required a public hearing. City staff mailed notices were to all property owners within 350 feet of the applicant’s property. Staff has received two phone calls from residents concerned about the applicant running a motorcycle business and noise. Staff spoke to the applicant and he does not run a business, nor does he plan to start one. The motorcycle restoration he does is strictly a hobby, and he only has vintage motorcycles, which do not have the loud exhaust pipes. Recommendation: City staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit and variance as requested. 1. Resolutions 928-10 and 929-10, approving the conditional use permit and variance are attached if the Commission chooses this action. 2. The Planning Commission may choose to deny either the conditional use permit or variance. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff would need direction from the Commission to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If the Commission needs additional information before they make 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. Because of 60-day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Views 3. Statement from Applicant 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Resolution 928-10 Conditional Use Permit 6. Resolution 929-10 Variance Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Zoning Map I * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View Aerial View Approximate placement of new garage & patio Statement from Applicant Photographic Documentation Front view of 7515 Knollwood New garage would have same front setback as old garage Side yard where garage would be expanded into Backyard Garage would come into the backyard to about here. Shed behind garage would be removed. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 928-10 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A 1,440 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE AT 7515 KNOLLWOOD DRIVE; PLANNING CASE CU2010-003 WHEREAS, property owner Richard Wyatt has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,440 square foot garage; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 7515 Knollwood Drive, is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: South ½ of Lot 28, Spring Lake Park Knolls, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 07-30-23-21-0043 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,800 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the proposed garage would be 1,440 square feet, thus requiring City approval of a conditional use permit; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Zoning Map b. Aerial Views c. Statement from Applicant d. Photographic Documentation e. Staff Report NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request: 1. The proposed oversized 1,440 square foot garage satisfies the dimensional requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code. 2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. 3. The proposed garage would not be out of place given the design of the garage and the character and geography of the surrounding area involved. Resolution 928-10 Page 2 4. The proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood. 5. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed oversized garage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the 1,440 square foot garage, with conditions as follows: 1. The garage shall not be used for commercial purposes, living space or other uses not allowed within the R-1 Single-Family Residential district or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted; the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. 2. The new garage shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the existing house. 3. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) shall become null and void if the work for which the CUP was granted is not completed within one year from the date of approval unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the City Council. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 7th day of July, 2010. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: _____________________________________ Kenneth Roberts, Community Development Director (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 929-10 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A TWO-FOOT GARAGE SETBACK AT 7515 KNOLLWOOD DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2010-003 WHEREAS, the applicant, Richard Wyatt, has applied for a variance to allow for a garage with a two-foot setback from the property line of his property located at 7515 Knollwood Drive; and, WHEREAS, 7515 Knollwood Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: South ½ of Lot 28, Spring Lake Park Knolls, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 07-30-23-21-0043 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Views 3. Statement from Applicant 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 7 2010; 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 7515 Knollwood Drive, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 929-10 Page 2 1. The exceptional or extraordinary conditions relating to the variance request is that the house was constructed closer to the south property line, which causes limitations as to how the garage can be improved. 2. The literal interpretation of the Zoning Code would restrict the property owner’s ability to expand and improve upon the layout and functionality of the home. 3. The owner is requesting the variance due to the house placement, a factor over which the applicant had no control. 4. Granting a variance to allow for the two-foot side yard setback would allow the applicant to have a two-car garage in order to park his vehicles indoors, resulting in a better appearance for the neighborhood. 5. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owners a special privilege denied to others in the same district due to the unique nature of the existing condition present on the site. 6. The two-foot setback is the minimum variance that would alleviate the applicant’s hardship. 7. The construction of the new garage would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code or to other property in the R-1, Single-Family Residential zoning district. 8. A two-foot setback would not impair the supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it diminish property values, increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of Richard Wyatt, 7515 Knollwood Drive, to allow for a garage with a two-foot setback from the south property line. Adopted this 7th day of July, 2010. ______________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _______________________________________ Kenneth Roberts, Community Development Director (SEAL)