HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-02-2006
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
August 2, 2006 -- 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes:
A. None
4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not
Already Present on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and
address for the minutes.)
5. Planning Cases
A. CU06-007: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage
Applicant: Brian & Laura Krystofiak
Address: 2932 Woodale Drive
B. VR06-006: Continuation Consideration of a Front Building and Parking Setback
Variance Request for Tyson Company at 4825 Mustang Circle
Applicant: D&A Development
Address: 4825 Mustang Circle
6. Other Planning Activity
A. Final Review of Ordinance 773 Regarding Fences and Retaining Walls
B. TIF spending recommendations
7. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. August 16, 2006
B. September 6, 2006
8. Adjourn to Agenda Session
Agenda Session
1. Review Minutes:
a. July 5, 2006
b. July 19, 2006
2. Staff Reports
a. Upcoming Planning Cases
3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports
4. Meeting Conclusion
Item No: 5A
Meeting Date: August 2, 2006
Type of Business: Commission 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 for an
Oversized Garage at 2932 Woodale Drive;
Planning Case No. CU2006-007
Introduction:
The applicants, Brian and Laura Krystofiak, are requesting approval of a conditional use
permit to construct an oversized garage on their property at 2932 Woodale Drive. The
current garage will be demolished and a new larger detached garage would be constructed in
the same location. Their current garage size is 22.3’x22.3’ (approximately 497 square feet).
The plot plan submitted indicates a garage area in excess of what is allowed without a
conditional use permit. Accessory buildings, attached or detached, are limited to 952 square
feet. Anything beyond 952 square feet must go through a conditional use permit application
process. The garage proposed for 2932 Woodale Drive would be 28’x42’ (1,176 square
feet). The applicants indicate that they would like the larger garage for storage since they do
not have any other accessory buildings.
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.
Discussion:
The request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct the 1,176 square foot garage satisfies
the requirements as stated in Section 1106.03 and 1106.04, Subdivision 6 of the Mounds
View Zoning Code. All setback and dimensional requirements would be satisfied with this
request. With the new garage, the backyard coverage ratio would be approximately 9.7%,
much less than the maximum of 20% coverage.
Krystofiak CUP Request
August 2, 2006
Page 2
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas
so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential
property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 2932 Woodale 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 which 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. Each of these potential
adverse effects is addressed below.
Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. As previously stated, the Comprehensive Plan
encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the
quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general.
An entirely new garage will be constructed and will be a benefit to the neighborhood.
The Geographical Area Involved. The home is located on Woodale Drive. Since the garage
will be oversize mainly by being deeper than a regular garage, the building will still appear to
be a normal two car 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 affect the
neighboring properties much. It would block the view across the backyards from the neighbors
to the east and west.
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. Woodale Drive is strictly residential with all of the
homes on this street were constructed in the early 1950’s. The proposed garage would not be
out of character in this area since the bulk of the garage will be hidden from view of the street.
The new garage width would be the same as it is now, so it would not change the current front
look of the house.
The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant is proposing a 24’x46’ garage which
would allow for parking more than two vehicles inside and/or storage space since there are no
other accessory buildings on the property. The applicant would like to park a third vehicle
inside and can only do that by making the garage deeper since his lot is not wide enough to
add an additional garage stall on the side. Due to the depth required for a vehicle, the garage
requires a conditional use permit.
Summary:
All zoning and code issues are satisfied with this request.
Krystofiak CUP Request
August 2, 2006
Page 3
Recommendations:
After taking testimony from staff and the property owner, the Commission can take one of the
following actions related to the request:
1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit. Resolution 849-06 is attached for the
Planning Commission’s consideration if that is the action chosen.
2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit. If the Planning Commission selects this
option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact
appropriate to support the denial.
3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered
or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request
until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the
Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid
an inadvertent approval.
Respectfully submitted,
Heidi Heller
Planning Associate
Attachments:
1. Planning Application
2. Plot Plan
3. Zoning Map
4. Aerial View
5. Photographic Documentation
6. Resolution 849-06
Plot
Plan
The new garage would be in the same location as the current garage.
Zoning Map
Properties not bearing a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential
Aerial View
Photographic Documentation
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 849-06
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW FOR A 1,176 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE AT 2932 WOODALE DRIVE;
PLANNING CASE NO CU2006-007
WHEREAS, property owners, Brian and Laura Krystofiak, have applied for a
conditional use permit to construct a 1,176 square foot garage; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 2932 Woodale Drive, is zoned R-1,
Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows:
The westerly 90 feet of the easterly 340 feet of Lots 89 and
90, Knollwood Park, Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess
of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,800
square feet; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed garage would be 1,176 square feet, thus necessitating
application of a conditional use permit; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
1. Planning Application
2. Plot Plan
3. Zoning Map
4. Aerial View
5. Photographic Documentation
6. Staff Report
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit
request:
1. The proposed oversized 1,176 square foot garage satisfies the 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 so as 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.
4. The proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood.
5. The applicants have sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed
oversized garage.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the 1,176 square foot
garage, with conditions as follows:
1. The garage shall not be used for commercial purposes, living space or other
uses not allowed within the R-1 Single-Family Residential district or by the Zoning
Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted; the conditional use
permit shall be considered null and void.
2. The garage expansion 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 2nd day of August 2006.
_____________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
James Ericson,
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
Item No: 5B
Meeting Date: August 2, 2006
Type of Business: Public Hearing
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Continuation- Consideration of a Request for a Variance
Parking Setback at
Introduction:
D&A Development, owner of Tyson Company, is proposing to expand their
cility at 4825 Mustang Circle by adding a 120,000 square foot building. This report is
al for Tyson Company. They
re proposing to construct an additional 120,000 square foot building on their property and
ally impossible to hire
enough truck drivers. Because of this, Tyson is finding it necessary to explore other routes in
rements are addressed in Section 1104.01, Subd 4 of the Zoning Code.
dustrially zoned properties are required to maintain a forty-foot front setback for structures
to Reduce the Front Building and
Tyson Company Located at 4825 Mustang Circle;
Planning Case VR2006-006
The applicant,
fa
modified from the previous staff report in that Tyson has resubmitted plans that have both the
northeast and southeast corners of the building being ten (10) feet from the front property
lines and the parking lot being setback between 5 feet and 12.97 feet. They have also added
parking on the south side of the new building, as was suggested at the previous Planning
Commission meeting. 4825 Mustang Circle comprises four lots, which total approximately 20
acres and is zoned I-1, Industrial. The Zoning Code requires a forty (40) foot front setback
for buildings and parking areas located in Industrial districts.
This variance request is part of a large facility expansion propos
a
add a railroad track spur from the tracks in New Brighton up into the new building. This
property has significant wetlands on the west side of the property, which connect to Long
Lake and the regional park. All the stormwater from the area drains into this wetland. The
proposed new building, the future expansion space, and rail spur do not encroach into the
wetlands, but do appear to encroach some into the floodplain area.
Tyson, along with many other trucking companies, are finding it virtu
order to continue moving freight. Belair in New Brighton would also like to have rail access.
They have come to an agreement with Tyson that will allow the tracks to cross their property
and onto Tyson’s property, where this spur would end.
Discussion:
Setback requi
In
and parking areas. Industrial side and rear parking setbacks are five feet, or more if it abuts
a residential use. The applicant is requesting a thirty (30) foot variance from the front
building setback, and a thirty-five (35) foot variance from the front parking setback
requirement. They are proposing to locate the southeast and northeast corners of the
building ten feet from the property line, and the parking lot up to five (5) feet from the lot line.
The building and parking lot are pushed this close to the property line due to the large size of
the building and because of the wetlands that are along the west side of this property. Tyson
Company has indicated that they need to have a large enough amount of square footage in
the new building in order for the expansion to be financially feasible for them.
As shown on the attached site plan, the applicant would like to construct approximately a
20,000 square foot building and a railroad track that would come onto their property from
ing much more building square footage, their parking requirements will increase
ignificantly. Section 1121.13 of the Code would require that this site provide 381 parking
onsiderations:
d, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical
ifficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly
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,
not necessarily irregularly shaped, although a large piece
of the property is wetland area and much lower ground, which does limit the space that
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.
nt
of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, in that most properties do not
1
the south, then turn east where the tracks would enter the building. With their current
proposal, there would be room for five rail cars to load and unload inside the building. They
would also add an additional parking lot in front of the building and on the south side of the
building.
Due to add
s
spaces, based on the size of the buildings and the uses on the property. Currently, the site
has 126 spaces, which is 22 spaces less than the required number. The Code states that
parking requirements may also be determined based on employee count, although the actual
required number of spaces is supposed to be the greater of the two determined numbers.
The required number, if based on employee count, would be only 44 spaces. At most, after
the expansion, Tyson may have up to about 72 employees. The actual parking space count
that will be allowed would be decided during the development review. Even though Tyson
may not need the large amount of parking spaces, the Planning Commission does need to
keep in mind what could happen if a different business were to move into the building
someday.
Variance C
For a variance to be approve
d
burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning
Commission, in this case) 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 criteria are as follows:
a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective
date hereof have had no control.
The property is very large and
can be utilized.
The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code may deprive the applica
have wetlands, or at least nowhere near as much on their property.
c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.
e amount of space available due to the wetlands present. The special conditions in
d. That granting the variance requested would 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.
to others in the same district. Although there have been many variance requests for
e. That the variances requested are the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship.
Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship.
r the building setback and the
thirty-five (35) foot variance for the parking lot is the minimum amount that would allow
f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other
property in the same zone.
trimental to the purpose of this Title unless it is determined that
nough of a hardship is present to justify a ten (10) foot building setback and five (5)
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
sed building and parking lot expansion should not result in any of the above-
cited adverse effects. It will need to be determined whether or not the rerouted storm
The applicant is proposing an extremely large building on a site that has limitations on
th
this situation are the result of the applicant’s proposal of a 120,000 square foot building
that will hold five rail cars.
Granting the variance would confer upon the property owner a special privilege denied
reduced building and parking setbacks, there are very rare cases in which there are
such extraordinary circumstances that it would justify such large variances (setbacks
would be reduced by 75% and 88%). Although, due to the amount of wetlands on the
property, the Planning Commission may feel there could be justification to this request.
The applicants state that the thirty (30) foot variance fo
them to have the size building needed and add additional parking spaces.
The variance may be de
e
foot parking lot setback. Due to the size of this property, it is hard to justify these
severely reduced setbacks.
endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
The propo
water drainage would be adequate and not create drainage problems for the area.
Recommendation:
taff has prepared both approval and denial resolutions for the Planning Commission to
some
Staff has suggested to Mr. Hailey, Tyson’s engineer, that he change the parking spaces
er
After taking testimony from staff and the applicant, the Commission can take one of the
1. Approve the variance as requested or approve an amended variance. Resolution 848-06
. Deny the requested variance. Resolution 848-06 Option B has been drafted denying the
3 Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered
Respectfully submitted,
S
consider. The Planning Commission can make amendments to the resolutions as they
feel is suitable, or the Commission may not feel it is appropriate to approve these
variances at all. This proposal is for an extremely large building on a site that has
limitations. The Planning Commission should keep in mind that these plans are showing
the applicant’s first choice scenario - the largest building that would physically fit on this
site and being able to fit the five rail cars they want inside the building.
from parallel parking to angle parking since more spaces would fit in that way. Another
suggestion to him was to cut off the northeast corner of the building and continue the
angle. Any modification of this suggestion would give this corner of the building a larg
setback.
following actions related to the request:
Option A is attached for approval as is or with amendments. The approval would be
contingent upon approval of a development review, approval of the drainage plan from
the Public Works department, and approval from Rice Creek Watershed District.
2
variance request.
.
or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request
until such information has been provided. The City has submitted their request for an
additional 60 days for this application due to the complexity of the project, but the
Commission should still act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible in order to
be able to continue moving through all the planning requests associated with this
proposal.
Heidi Heller
ociate
ttachments:
on
om Applicant
Documentation
848-06
Planning Ass
A
1. Applicati
2. Information fr
3. Zoning Map
4. Aerial Map
5. Photographic
6. Site Plan
7. Resolution
Information from Applicant
The variance requested in number 1 is no longer necessary as they shifted the building
in order to comply with the setbacks. This request was for the future expansion of the
current building.
The front setbacks for both building and parking areas in industrial districts is 40 feet.
The applicant is incorrect in stating otherwise in numbers 2 and 3.
Zoning Map
Wetland Boundary
↑
N
Aerial Map
10 foot setback to corner of bldg
Approx.
Proposed bldg
10 foot setback to corner of bldg
Parking area on south side of building
– 5 foot setback per city code
Rail spur
5 foot setback – north end
Parking area
12 97 foot setback –south end
The applicant states that the buildings cannot be any closer together. The placement of
the new building on the site plan is the minimum needed in order to still be able to allow
semi trucks to be able to back in to the south side of the current building and the north
side of the new building.
Photographic Documentation
Due to the size of this site, it was very hard to photograph and be able to really get a sense of
what it is like. Planning Commissioners may want to visit the area prior to the meeting.
Trailwood Transportation is a Tyson Company. The sign in the picture below is in front of a
parking lot, which is where the new building would go.
Looking north along Mustang Circle at
Tyson’s current building
Current building –
SE corner
Looking west – along
south side of bldg
Option A
Approval MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 848-06
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT BUILDING
SETBACKS TO TEN FEET AND THE PARKING SETBACK TO FIVE FEET AT
TYSON COMPANY LOCATED AT 4825 MUSTANG CIRCLE;
PLANNING CASE VR2006-006
WHEREAS, the applicant, D&A Development, has applied for a variance to
reduce the front building setbacks to ten feet and the parking area setback to five feet at
Tyson Company, located at 4825 Mustang Circle; and,
WHEREAS, 4825 Mustang Circle is zoned I-1, Industrial and comprises four
separate lots which are legally described as:
Mounds View Industrial Park, No. 3, Block 1, Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7
(Lots 5, 6, and 7 Subject to Easements)
WHEREAS, Section 1104.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the
minimum front setback for buildings and parking lots in Industrial districts is forty (40)
feet; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting front building setbacks to locate the building
ten (10) feet from the front property line, and a parking setback variance to locate the
parking area five (5) feet from the front property line; and,
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the following materials relating
to this request:
1. Application
2. Information from the Applicant
3. Zoning Map
4. Aerial Map
5. Photographic Documentation
6. Site Plan
7. 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 variance on Wednesday, July 19, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which
all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission
makes the following finding of facts related to this request:
1. The exceptional or extraordinary conditions that apply to this property are the
amount of wetlands and low land that occupy this site, which limits the
buildable space available.
2. The literal interpretation of the Zoning Code would restrict the applicant’s
ability to construct an additional building that would meet their business
needs.
3. The variance is requested due to the wetland area and topography of the
property, factors over which the applicant had no control.
4. Granting the variance would not confer a special privilege denied to other
property owners in the same district due to the unique nature of the existing
conditions on the site.
5. The thirty (30) foot front building setback and five (5) foot front parking
setback are the minimum variances that would alleviate the applicants’
hardship.
6. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning
Code or to other properties in the I-1, Industrial zoning district.
7. The reduced front setbacks would not impair the supply of light or increase
congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public
safety or diminish property values.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning
Commission, based upon its review of the documentation, testimony presented at the
public hearing, and the identified findings of fact, does hereby approve the variance request
to reduce the front building setbacks to ten (10) feet, and the parking area setback to five
(5) feet at Tyson Company located at 4825 Mustang Circle.
Adopted this 2nd day of August, 2006.
_____________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
Option B
Denial MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 848-06
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT BUILDING SETBACK
TO TEN FEET AND THE PARKING SETBACK TO FIVE FEET AT TYSON COMPANY
LOCATED AT 4825 MUSTANG CIRCLE; PLANNING CASE VR2006-006
WHEREAS, the applicant, D&A Development, has applied for a variance to
reduce the front building setback to ten feet and the parking area setback to five (5) feet
at Tyson Company, located at 4825 Mustang Circle; and,
WHEREAS, 4825 Mustang Circle is zoned I-1, Industrial and comprises four
separate lots which are legally described as:
Mounds View Industrial Park, No. 3, Block 1, Lots 4-7
(Lots 5, 6, and 7 Subject to Easements)
WHEREAS, Section 1104.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the
minimum front setback for buildings and parking lots in Industrial districts is forty (40)
feet; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a front building setback to locate the building
ten (10) feet from the front property line, and a parking setback variance to locate the
parking area five (5) feet from the front property line; and,
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the following materials relating
to this request:
8. Application
9. Letter from the Applicant
10. Zoning Map
11. Aerial Map
12. Site Plan
13. Photographic Documentation
14. 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 variance on Wednesday, July 19, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which
all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission
makes the following finding of facts related to this request:
8. This is a very large site that is not irregularly shaped. The exceptional
circumstances that are on the property would not prevent the applicant from
being able to do any expansion.
9. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would not deprive the
applicant the ability to construct an additional building.
10. The applicant is proposing to construct a 120,000 square foot building.
11. The property is neither exceptional nor extraordinary in regards to shape or
size.
12. 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.
13. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title
in that there does not appear to be a sufficient hardship to warrant approval
of the variance.
14. The hardship criteria as identified in Section 1125.02 have not been satisfied.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning
Commission, based upon its review of the documentation, testimony presented at the
public hearing, and the identified findings of fact, does hereby deny the variance request to
reduce the front building setback to ten feet and the parking area setback to five feet at
Tyson Company located at 4825 Mustang Circle.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission that
the applicant shall be notified of the right to appeal this denial to the City Council. The
appeal shall be submitted in writing within 10 business days of the adoption of this
Resolution.
Adopted this 2nd day of August, 2006.
_____________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
Item No: 6A
Meeting Date: August 2, 2006
Type of Business: Review
Administrator Review: ______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Final Review of Ordinance No. 773, an Ordinance
Amending Chapters 1102 and 1103 of the Mounds
View Zoning Code Relating to Fences, Retaining Walls
and Landscaping
Introduction:
The City Council asked the Planning Commission to examine the Zoning Code relative to
fences, retaining walls and terraces, and to provide a recommendation as to potential Code
amendments, if any are deemed appropriate. On April 19, 2006, Staff provided the
Commission with detailed information and examples of how other communities define fences,
retaining walls and terraces and provided the Commission with a variety of Code excerpts,
handouts and requirements from our neighboring nearby communities for reference. Also
included for information purposes were photos depicting fences, retaining walls and terraces.
The Planning Commission reviewed the sections of Mounds View’s code relating to fences,
terraces and retaining walls. As a result of that discussion, staff was directed to prepare an
amendment to the Code to define retaining walls and to provide for language that would clarify
retaining wall setbacks. At this same meeting, the Commission chose to leave the language
pertaining to fences and terraces relatively unchanged. The Planning Commission adopted a
resolution on May 17, 2006 which recommended such an amendment for the City Council’s
consideration. The City Council considered the first reading of the proposed ordinance on
June 12, 2006 which was approved with little discussion. At the June 26 meeting to consider
the second reading and adoption of the ordinance, Brian and Valerie Amundsen asked the
Council to consider extensive changes and modification which they felt were necessary to
address unresolved safety concerns associated with the proposed ordinance. The Council
took the Amundsen’s suggested changes under advisement and tabled action on the second
reading to allow staff an opportunity to review the changes with the City Attorney and the
Planning Commission. Staff met with the City Attorney who indicated the City’s ordinance
could stand on its own without incorporating any subsequent changes suggested by the
Amundsens.
Discussion:
At this meeting, the Planning Commission should review the proposed changes one by one
and determine whether any are worthy of inclusion.
Ord 773 Report
August 2, 2006
Page 2
Proposed Changes:
1) Setback requirement: Community Development Department "review" for safety and clearance of
retaining walls built or replaced next to existing structures. This is related to not making a neighbors
fence suddenly non-functional for privacy or safety, and the head room clearance of eaves, electrical
wiring or other structure to be compromised as a result of new retaining walls next to homes with
overhead electrical or CATV
Staff response: It is difficult to envision a situation in which a retaining wall would
somehow compromise safety relative to overhead utilities. We presently do not conduct
any such “pre-inspection” for fences or accessory buildings and do not see the need to
start doing so for proposed retaining walls. As for a retaining wall proposed next to an
existing privacy fence, staff remains in opposition to requiring a setback for a retaining
wall in these situations.
2) Safety requirement of railing (and or lighting) for retaining walls over two feet high when installed
at division of property or in the public easement. The thought here was to prevent the case of litigation
because a neighbor builds a wall in the easement and someone walks off it injuring themselves on the
neighbors property. We require steps for anything over 10" on a deck to ground, so is it too much to
require railing for retaining walls in the public easement? I know the issue Greg Lee has, but check
with Scott on City liability if the city builds the retaining wall and the home walks off, or falls off
while riding their mower because no railing or safety restraint was built.
Staff response: Although it may make sense in some situations, Staff does not support
an automatic requirement for railings to be installed with any retaining wall over two feet
dividing private property. If the retaining wall is used to support an elevated patio or
terrace, a railing would be required if it were elevated 30 inches or more above grade.
(Steps are not a requirement for any height deck. What IS required is a railing for decks
that are 30 inches or more off the ground.) Regarding retaining walls constructed on
public land, it may make sense in some situations to incorporate a railing for safety
purposes however staff would be opposed to making this an automatic requirement as
there may be situations where a railing would not be necessary or desirable.
3) Max height limits for retaining walls not over four feet in height placed in easement areas, line of
sight and curbside relationships. This again related to fences can't be over a certain height in front of
the primary building (exception for tuck under garages)
Staff Response: The Code already protects against sight-line obstructions at a street
corner which would apply equally to a retaining wall. As for other front yard retaining
walls, while it is not often the case here in Mounds View, there may be lots which have
a steep front yard slope which could be improved by the installation of retaining wall.
Benefits of such a wall are erosion control, improved lawn maintenance as well as
aesthetics. If the proposed retaining wall does not alter the existing prevailing grade,
staff does not feel such a wall would be a problem. If grading were involved, staff
would review the plans beforehand to assess impacts. All such walls would need to be
on the owners property and not in the right of way, thus a wall would likely be 10 to 20
feet from the roadway.
Ord 773 Report
August 2, 2006
Page 3
4) Building permit requirement for any height retaining wall placed next to a primary structure *egress
or safety exit *(ex. basement windows (the ones qualified as egress not the ranch flip ups), tuck-under
garage next driveways, cellar/basement doors which are built down to provide egress, and any
retaining wall which is more than four feet high and intended to keep back the earth for the explicit
purpose of acting as a safety exit for the occupants of the building or home.
Staff Response: The Minnesota State Building Code regulates what does and does not
necessitate a building permit. The City cannot require a building permit for something
that is not already outlined as such in the Minnesota code. The Code already requires
that a building permit be obtained for retaining walls four feet or more in height,
regardless of their location or their purpose. The City goes a step further by requiring a
zoning permit for retaining walls two feet in height but not more than four feet. No
permit is required for a wall less than two feet in height.
5) Also, as a suggestion, we suggest changing "no setback" to a 6 inch setback be required, since that
eliminates the thought that a wall can be built directly on the line? I know the permit suggest not
building a fence on the line, but why not use the ordinance to clarify that issue now.
Staff Response: The Code as proposed already explicitly indicates that a fence or
retaining wall may not be constructed on the lot line. It reads as follows:
“A fence or retaining wall shall be installed on the applicant's property. The
fence or retaining wall shall not be installed directly over the property line but
shall not otherwise be subject to a setback requirement.”
Staff feels this language adequately conveys the message that a fence or retaining wall
may not be constructed or erected on a lot line.
6) The only other issue is has occurred over the last five years (first incident reviewed by Planning
Commission was in 2001) is some home owners have built retaining walls between property line and a
garage with the intent to park a vehicle on the space, I'm wondering if that specific situation should be
restricted by a notice that such retaining wall landing shall be planted with grass within month and is
prohibited from the parking of vehicles, recreational vehicles, trailers, accessory buildings and (other
appropriate language consistent with setback requirements) of the city code.
Staff Response: The construction of a retaining wall, in and of itself, would not trigger
issuance of notices relating to other codes or requirements which may or may not apply.
On the other hand, if it seems clear that the intent of the wall is to create a surface
upon which vehicles could or would be parked (ie, alongside a garage) the applicant will
be informed of the appropriate setback requirements. Likewise, if the retaining wall
were to be constructed in association with a deck or patio, staff would inform the
applicant about the setback, however the retaining wall in either case is not subject to
the setback; the setback applies to the parking pad, deck or patio. Regarding the
question of planting grass within a month, the City Code presently requires that
disturbed areas be revegetated within six months after project completion, weather
depending. One month, while desirable, may be too restrictive a time frame.
Ord 773 Report
August 2, 2006
Page 4
7) The following is excerpted from what Valerie Amundsen read Monday, June 26, 2006 at the City
Council meeting:
“Regarding section 1103.08 subd. 3, item b: The ordinance suggests that there be no setback
requirement for retaining walls. I would suggest however, that the following wording be added after
the words “but shall not otherwise be subject to a setback requirement"…UNLESS THE SAID
RETAINING WALL WILL BE DIRECTLY NEXT TO AN EXISTING FENCE SPECIFICALLY
INSTALLED TO MEET THE BUILDING CODE REQUIRING A MINIMUM 5 FOOT HIGH FENCE
AROUND A SWIMMING POOL”
Staff Response: Staff has discussed this point with both the Planning Commission and
City Council, and neither body supported such a requirement. While the intent of the
suggested change is understood, Staff, the City Attorney, the Planning Commission and
Council felt it was not appropriate to restrict what one property owner could do with his
or her lot because of what a neighbor has already done. In this case, because
Neighbor “A” has a swimming pool, it would not seem fair or appropriate to impose or
subject more restrictive setback requirements onto Neighbor “B”, who does not have a
swimming pool. The responsibility for maintaining the minimum fence height and
security requirements should always rest with the property owner with the pool.
Summary:
While we thank the Amundsens for their suggestions and appreciate their level of
involvement throughout this process, Staff and the City Attorney do not feel any of the
suggested changes are warranted or desired at this time.
Recommendation:
After review and consideration of the suggestions, if the Commission determines that no
changes are necessary, staff will bring the original ordinance back to the City Council for
reconsideration at their meeting on August 14th. If the Commission believes some
modifications are in order, staff will prepare a resolution incorporating such changes and
have it available for your action on August 16 with final ordinance action before the City
Council on August 28th.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
ORDINANCE SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 773
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW
BY AMENDING CHAPTERS 1102 and 1103 RELATING TO FENCES,
RETAINING WALLS AND LANDSCAPING
On _______________, the Mounds View City Council adopted an ordinance which amends
Chapters 1102 and 1103 of the Zoning Code relating to fences, landscaping and retaining
walls. The amendment adds definitions to the Zoning Code pertaining to landscaping and
retaining walls, clarifies the locations which retaining walls and fences can be sited on a
property and adds a section that prohibits certain types of fencing materials such as barbed
wire, razor wire, electric fences or other fences that could pose a public safety hazard.
The full and complete text of this ordinance along with a supplemental map is on file at the
office of the Clerk Administrator and is posted in its entirety on the City’s website, located at
www.ci.mounds-view.mn.us/ords/773.pdf.
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator
ORDINANCE NO. 773
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 1102 AND 1103 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW
ZONING CODE RELATING TO FENCES, RETAINING WALLS AND LANDSCAPING
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 1102.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to
“Definitions” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined:
1102.02: DEFINITIONS: The following words and terms, wherever they occur in
this Code, shall be defined as follows:
Subd. 58.5. LANDSCAPING: The aesthetic and physical improvement of land by the
addition of berms, trees, shrubs, ground cover, crushed rock, wood chips,
retaining walls and other functional, ornamental or decorative features.
Subd. 100.5. RETANING WALL: A wall or structure constructed of stone, concrete, wood,
or other materials, used to retain soil, as a slope transition, or edge of a planting area.
SECTION 2. Section 1103.08 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to “Fencing
Screening and Landscaping” is hereby amended with the proposed additions
underlined:
1103.08: FENCING, RETAINING WALLS, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING:
Subd. 1. Height: No fence shall exceed eight feet (8') in height, and in the case of grade
separation, such as the division of properties by a retaining wall, the height shall be
determined on the basis of measurement from the average point between the highest and
lowest grade.
Subd. 2. Intersections: No fences, structures or planting of trees or shrubs shall be permitted within
thirty feet (30') of any corner formed by the intersection of street property lines or the right of
way of a railway intersecting a street, except properly constructed chain link fences. Such
chain link fences shall not exceed forty eight inches (48") in height from the grade level at the
lot line and shall have openings in the wire mesh of not less than one and five-eighths inches
(1-5/8") nor more than two and one-fourth inches (2-1/4"). Such fences may follow the lot line
to the lot corner. The thirty feet (30') restriction noted above shall consist of the triangle
formed by connecting the two (2) points on intersecting lot lines that are each thirty feet (30')
from the lot corner.
Ordinance 773
Page 2
Subd. 3. Location:
a. Except as provided in subdivision 2 above, fences not to exceed forty eight inches (48") in
height may be located on any part of a lot. Fences not to exceed ninety six inches (96") in
height may be erected on any part of a lot behind the front line of the principal building. The
City Council may require or approve fencing up to ninety six inches (96") in height in a front
yard to satisfy a buffer or screening condition of a development review or conditional use
permit. (Ord. 658, 8-14-00)
b. A fence or retaining wall shall be installed on the applicant's property. The fence or
retaining wall shall not be installed directly over the property line but shall not otherwise be
subject to a setback requirement.
Subd. 4. Landscaping Required: In all zoning districts, the lot area remaining after providing for off-
street parking, off-street loading, sidewalks, driveway, building site and/or other requirements
shall be planted and maintained in grass, sodding, shrubs or other acceptable vegetation or
treatment generally used in landscaping.
Subd. 5. Surface of Fences: Any fence shall be so constructed that the surface facing adjoining
properties or public rights of way shall be of finished construction.
Subd. 6. Required Screening: The fencing and screening required by this Title shall be subject to
subdivisions 1 through 5 hereof and shall consist of either a fence or a green belt planting
strip the height of which shall be sufficient to adequately shield the activity from the abutting
properties.
a. A green belt planting strip shall consist of evergreen ground cover and shall be of sufficient
width and density to provide an effective screen. This planting strip shall contain no
structures or other use. Such planting strips shall not be less than eight feet (8') in height.
Earth mounding or berms may be used but shall be limited to an average of five feet (5') of
the height of the required screen. The planting plan and type of shrub shall require the
approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission based upon a recommendation of the
Director of Public Works/City Engineer and Building Inspector.
b. A required screening fence shall be constructed of masonry, brick, wood or steel. Such
fence shall provide a solid screening effect and not exceed eight feet (8') in height or be less
than six feet (6') in height. The design and materials used in constructing a required
screening fence shall be subject to the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission
based upon a recommendation by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and Building
Inspector.
c. Ground cover shall be established within one (1) year following issuance of the building
permit. Ground cover material shall be of such type as to control erosion. (1988 Code
§40.04)
Subd. 7. Prohibited Materials:
a. Barbed wire, razor wire or other materials which could cause bodily harm shall be
prohibited, and no fence or property shall be wired and designed to conduct and emit an
electrical charge, except as allowed for below.
Ordinance 773
Page 3
b. Exceptions: Facilities providing essential services or municipal and
governmental services may erect barbed wire, or other materials having a similar
deterrence, upon notice to properties within 350 feet and upon approval of the City
Council.
SECTION 3. This ordinance is effective 30 days after its publication.
First Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 12th day of June, 2006.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this ____ day of ____, 2006.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Item No: 6B
Meeting Date: August 2, 2006
Type of Business: Discussion
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Review and Discuss Possible Expenditures Utilizing
Pooled Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Funds
Introduction:
The Economic Development Authority (the EDA) has requested that the Planning
Commission review a list of potential economic development, housing and infrastructure
projects and provide some feedback to the EDA as to priorities for utilizing present and future
pooled tax increment financing (TIF) revenues.
Discussion:
This review and discussion is intended to provide some recommendations to the EDA as to
where the Planning Commission fells the TIF dollars would be best spent. Attached is a list
of projects in three general categories which include economic development projects,
housing development projects and infrastructure projects. Other projects may be identified
by the Commission which are not specifically addressed on the checklist.
Recommendation:
Please review the projects and check off those which you feel are worthy of funding. Your
responses will be tabulated and compiled into a recommendation to the EDA. Aaron
Backman will be working with the Commission on this item as I will be out of the office the
week beginning July 31.
If you have any questions regarding this item prior to the meeting, feel free to call Aaron at
763-717-4029 or send him an e-mail at aaron.backman@ci.mounds-vierw.mn.us.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. TIF Priorities Checklist