Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-20-2006 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA September 20, 2006 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. July 5, 2006 B. July 19, 2006 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. VR2006-008: Consideration of a Variance request for a driveway setback Applicant: Mitch & Alison Ford Address: 8378 Groveland Road B. CU2006-008 :Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage Applicant: Cory Mathiowetz Address: 2925 County Road H2 6. Other Planning Activity A. None 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. October 4, 2006 B. October 18, 2006 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. August 2, 2006 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 August 2, 2006 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 _____________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order Chair Stevenson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. August 2, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chair Stevenson; Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, Scotch. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller Economic Development Coordinator Aaron Backman ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page A. CU06-007: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage 2 Applicant: Brian & Laura Krystofiak Address: 2932 Woodale Drive B. VR06-006: Continuation Consideration of a Front Building 3 and Parking Setback Variance Request for Tyson Company at 4825 Mustang Circle Applicant: D&A Development Address: 4825 Mustang Circle ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes - None 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda - None. Mounds View Planning Commission August 2, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. CU06-007: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage Applicant: Brian & Laura Krystofiak Address: 2932 Woodale Drive Planning Associate Heller presented a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new garage at 2932 Woodale Drive. She stated the applicants, Brian and Laura Krystofiak, would demolish the old garage to build a new larger detached garage on the same site. Planning Associate Heller reported the applicants would use the garage for storage, as there are no additional storage buildings or sheds on the property. She reported the applicants are proposing a 28’ x 42’ garage, and called the Commission’s attention to their packet of information with copies of the site survey, showing the proposed footprint. Planning Associate Heller indicated the applicants are still working on the design of the garage but that it would match the style of the home. Planning Associate Heller emphasized the Zoning Code requiring the Planning Commission to review and address any potential adverse effects as a result of the rebuild. She stated the Comprehensive Plan encourages development and maintenance of residential areas. Planning Associate Heller indicated this new garage would be in a well-maintained neighborhood on Woodale Drive. Planning Associate Heller stated this is an entirely residential neighborhood. She expressed that the new garage would look like a normal two-car garage from the front, but may block the neighbors views across the backyards. Planning Associate Heller stated the new garage would increase the applicants’ property value and would not decrease the value of any property in the neighborhood. Planning Associate Heller indicated the garage would not be out of character and pointed out other recently approved larger garages in this neighborhood. Ms. Heller restated the applicants would use the 28’x42’ garage for storage space and parking their vehicles. Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission the applicants were available for questions. She also stated the proposed resolution recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit is attached for action by the Planning Commission. Chair Stevenson requested the proposed height of the garage. Planning Associate Heller reported the applicant is working on some design features and may come back to the Commission for a height variance to include upper storage in the garage. She stated the applicants are trying to stay within the 15-foot requirement. Brian Krystofiak, 2932 Woodale Drive, stated that he would like to have upper level storage in the garage which is why they may need to go taller. He stated that he would like to be able to park his van inside and that he cannot do that now because the garage is too small. Chair Stevenson pointed out he is curious about the height given the garage has such a large footprint. He indicated the new garage plan is only six feet wider than the current garage. Mounds View Planning Commission August 2, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Miller stated the plan seems to hit all required criteria. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the garage would be for storage only and not for potential living or business space. Ms. Heller replied that was correct. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Hegland/Commissioner Scotch, to approve resolution 849- 06 recommending approval of a conditional use permit to allow for a 1,176 square foot garage at 2932 Woodale Drive; Planning Case CU2006-007 Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Commissioner Miller suggested a grammatical change to the resolution. Chair Stevenson stated the variance would include a statement indicating the garage would not be used for additional living space or commercial purposes. Commissioner Miller required the variance state this garage would be designed and maintained for a uniform appearance with the house. __________________________________________________________________________ B. VR06-006: Continuation Consideration of a Front Building and a Parking Setback Variance Request for Tyson Company at 4825 Mustang Circle. Applicant: D&A Development Address: 4825 Mustang Circle Planning Associate Heller presented a continuation from the last Planning Commission meeting; a request for a front building and parking setback variance for the Tyson Company located in the Mounds View Industrial Park. She stated Tyson came back with some new plans. Planning Associate Heller pointed to the site plan displayed for reference. Planning Associate Heller stated Tyson’s first plan proposed a 120,000 square foot building on their property; the revised plan proposes 109,128 square feet. Planning Associate Heller stated Tyson would also add a railroad track spur from the tracks in New Brighten into the new building. She reported Tyson would be able to fit five rail cars inside the new building. Planning Associate Heller reported Tyson indicated, because there are problems hiring enough truck drivers, they are moving back to rail to transport goods. She reported Tyson would move their St. Paul site and employees to Mounds View if the rail project works. Planning Associate Heller indicated Tyson added additional parking and reduced the variance amount they are asking for. She drew the Commissions attention to the site plan where she pointed out the current building locations, wetlands, wooded area, and parking lots. Planning Associate Heller moved to the proposed site plan pointing out plans for the new building, setbacks and added parking areas. She indicated both building corners now have a ten foot Mounds View Planning Commission August 2, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ setback. She also pointed out the required 40-foot corner setback and the 20-foot parking setback locations. Planning Associate Heller stated for a variance to be approved, a hardship must be shown. Planning Associate Heller remarked this is a very large property, over 20 acres in size, where wetlands limit the location and size of the proposed building. She stated the literal interpretation of the Zoning Code may deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, in that most properties do not have, or have less, wetlands on their property. Planning Associate Heller stated special conditions or circumstances are a result from the actions of the applicant due to the building size that they want. She reported granting the variance may confer on the applicant special privileges denied to other property owners in the same district. Planning Associate Heller stated the variances requested are the minimum required to alleviate the hardship and economic conditions alone are not considered a hardship. She stated the variance may not be materially detrimental to the purpose or to other properties in the same zone. Planning Associate Heller verified the proposed variance would not impair adequate light and air supply to neighboring properties. Commissioner Miller asked which part of the building was made smaller. Planning Associate Heller, using the new site plan display, pointed out the cut down area to the east and south areas of the building. Chair Stevenson asked if Staff felt there would be adequate parking if another business were to move into this building. Planning Associate Heller said parking stalls are based on the size of the building. She pointed out large buildings do not always have a large number of employees. She indicated Tyson is trying to build as much parking as possible. She stated Tyson currently has about 150 spaces, which is more than Tyson needs, but less than what is required by code. Planning Associate Heller pointed out on the proposed site plan where additional parking spaces could go if needed. Chair Stevenson asked if Staff is comfortable with the parking plan given the purpose of Tyson. Planning Associate Heller stated for a warehouse type business, parking is probably adequate given that warehouse businesses typically do not have a lot of employees. But the Planning Commission does need to consider parking if Tyson were to leave. Commissioner Scotch indicated along Mustang the building appears to be in line with the building next door. Planning Associate Heller stated she drew it in as a reference and that the location is not accurate on the site plan. She stated Tyson’s building would be very close to the street and would stand out. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if Tyson was at the end of the street. Planning Associate Heller indicated they were and pointed out on the site plan where to enter Tyson and the location of other businesses. Mounds View Planning Commission August 2, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson indicated the railroad track runs close along Mustang. Planning Associate Heller agreed and pointed out the location of the tracks. Commissioner Scotch asked how wide the parking area on the south side would be. Planning Associate Heller stated it would be about 35 feet wide with a five-foot setback from the property line. Commissioner Miller asked where employees would park personal vehicles while out with the trucks. Planning Associate Heller stated most of the employees work daytime hours in the office. She also indicated many of the drivers do not necessarily live here but drive in from other states. Mr. Tellers, Tyson Company, reported they currently have about ten over the road drivers that may park a vehicle at their site. He does not believe there are problems with parking. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the new building would be a two-story building. Mr. Tellers stated it would not. He indicated he would like to explore the possibility of a mezzanine over the rail dock. Chair Stevenson asked how many properties the rail would go through. Mr. Tellers stated only Bellair. Chair Stevenson asked if Bellair would make use of the spur also. Mr. Tellers indicated they would. Commissioner Miller asked how long rail cars are in the building before they are unloaded and removed. Mr. Tellers replied they are unloaded within 24 hours to eliminate cars backing up and additional rail charges. Commissioner Miller asked if the cars, once unloaded, are loaded with other items and taken away. Mr. Tellers stated it depends on their customers. He indicated they have mostly in-bound freight on the rail cars. The freight is generally then sent out by truck. Commissioner Scotch asked if they handle flammable items. Mr. Tellers stated they do not. He reported handling mostly canned goods, milk powder, bagged salt, paper, and such products. He explained they have customers that pick these commodities up. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the front of the building along Mustang Circle would be one story. Mr. Tellers stated it would. Commissioner Zwirn asked if there would be enough room in the front parking lot for plowing. Mr. Thomas Hailey, MLS Engineering, replied, with the 20-foot drive and 10-foot wide parking stalls, there would be more than enough room to adequately plow and allow for fire trucks. Commissioner Miller asked where the flood plain was located. Mr. Hailey pointed out the wetland boundaries to the north on the site plan, and said the flood plain boundary is fairly close to the wetland boundary. Mounds View Planning Commission August 2, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Miller stated the wetland seems lower than the rest of the property. Mr. Hailey replied there is a significant drop. Commissioner Miller stated the Staff report indicated encroachment into the flood plain and asked how that fits into the city code. Planning Associate Heller stated Staff mainly deals with the wetlands, but with flood plains, staff will make sure the planned building elevations are where they should be. She indicated the statement in the Staff report was a response from Rice Creek indicating that the plans looked to be encroaching into the wetlands. Commissioner Zwirn stated he can appreciate the economics of the decisions on the size of the building, but there are criteria the Commission must go by. He cannot see where the criteria on variances would be met. He indicated he would like to see a building design more in compliance with Code. Commissioner Hegland indicated he would like to see more consideration for future use. He stated there is enough parking for Tyson employees today, but if Tyson leaves, the parking needs for other businesses might be limited. He indicated he would like to see what the parking would be with and without the truck parking element. Planning Associate Heller indicated the parking ratio is 1 parking space for every 500 square feet in the building. Commissioner Miller stated she would like the site plan to show proof of potential parking spaces for future needs. Chair Stevenson agreed with Commissioner Miller and would also request the proof of parking possibilities for the future. Commissioner Hegland agreed and would like to see proof of parking plan for future needs, as there are currently less than half the required spaces for the proposed building size. Commissioner Miller pointed out the variance request is quite a variation from what Code says. She also sees the problems and is not sure how willing she is to give on the variance. Commissioner Scotch asked if the rail would come into the building. Planning Associate Heller pointed to the location on the proposed site map, and indicated the cars would be completely inside the building. Commissioner Scotch stated she had no problem with it. Commissioner Meehlhause remarked the Commission talks about the need to be consistent in its rulings. He gave an example of denying a similar request along Old Highway 8. Mounds View Planning Commission August 2, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch reminded everyone that request was along a main thoroughfare and this request is located in a cul-de-sac. She stated this is a tough one but believes the Commission needs to move ahead on economic development. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Scotch/Commissioner Hall to approve resolution 848-06 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. Ayes – 4 Nays – 3 Motion carried. Commissioner Miller pointed out changes to the numbers would need to be made in the resolution. Chair Stevenson added he would like to have the applicant show proof of parking at the development review, and the resolution to state the actual square footage of the proposed building. Planning Associate Heller indicated all changes would be made. 6. Other Planning Activity A. Final Review of Ordinance 773 Regarding Fences and Retaining Walls Planning Associate Heller reported a few months ago the Planning Commission looked at changing the Zoning Code to add additional language related to fences, terraces and retaining walls. She stated the Planning Commission made recommendations that went into a new ordinance and then in front of the City Council for first and second readings. Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission of seven additional suggestions made at the Council meeting. She reported the Council requested the Planning Commission review the additional suggestions and decide if any should be added. Planning Associate Heller stated Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the added suggestions and included them in the staff report exactly how they were submitted and wrote a response to each. Ms. Heller reported Staff and the City Attorney believe the ordinance is fine as written, but the Council did want the Commission to review the suggestions and make comments. Commissioner Miller made reference to the proposed changes and the reference to require screening. Planning Associate Heller indicted this was in reference to when screening would be required, and what would be acceptable to be used as screening. Commissioner Hegland asked about the reference to barbed wire, and why the city or governmental units would be allowed to use barbed wire. He asked why should the city be Mounds View Planning Commission August 2, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ allowed to use it if no one else could. Planning Associate Heller stated that staff added barbed wire so it could not be used since the current code does not specify. Commissioner Hegland believes, regarding barbed wire, the Ordinance is trying to cover something that already exists. Planning Associate Heller made note of the discussion and said she would pass on this comment. Planning Associate Heller read and the Planning Commission discussed each of the seven suggestions. She began with the Community Development Department doing a review of retaining walls being built next to existing structures. The code currently has no setback requirements for retaining walls but that the fence, retaining wall or terrace must be on the owner’s property and not on the property line. Planning Associate Heller read the next suggestion of requiring railings or lighting on retaining walls over two feet high. The suggestion stated the maximum height for a retaining wall should not be over four feet when placed on easements, lines of sight and curbs. Planning Associate Heller stated that retaining walls must not run to the curb since then they would not be inside the property line. She stated there are currently line of sight rules for fences. Planning Associate Heller read the suggestion that a building permit be required for retaining walls next to egress windows or safety exits, tuck-under garages or cellar doors. Planning Associate Heller stated the City could not require a building permit for something that is already outlined as such in the Minnesota State Building Code. Planning Associate Heller did state Staff does ask to see site plans indicating where the retaining wall would be built. Planning Associate Heller stated the next suggestion was to change the “no setback” requirement to a six-inch setback. Chair Stevenson indicated the City had numerous discussions on the six-inch setback along property lines. Planning Associate Heller stated a requirement that retaining walls must be on the property already exists. Planning Associate Heller reported the next suggestion concerned property owners who build a retaining wall between the property line and a garage with the intent of parking a vehicle in this area. The recommendation was made that the area be planted with grass within one month and to prohibit parking on this space. Chair Stevenson stated the City has not seen a lot of problems with this. Planning Associate Heller reported the final suggestion was an addition to section 1103.09, subd. 3, item b. “unless the said retaining wall be directly next to an existing fence specifically installed to meet the building code requiring a minimum five foot high fence around a swimming Mounds View Planning Commission August 2, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ pool.” Ms. Heller indicated that both staff and the city attorney feel that what is written in the ordinances is acceptable. Planning Associate Heller reported she would bring the statements from the Commission forward to the City Council. B. TIF spending recommendations Economic Development Coordinator Aaron Backman, reported the Economic Development Authority (EDA) requests the Planning Commission review a list of potential economic development, housing and infrastructure projects and provide feedback and recommendations as to where TIF dollars could be best spent. Coordinator Backman explained the list of projects was separated into three categories: Economic Development Projects, Housing Development Projects, and Infrastructure Projects. Coordinator Backman indicated the Commission could also identify projects not included on the current list. Coordinator Backman discussed the items under each category on the list and gave examples of eligible projects under each category. Coordinator Backman explained housing projects in general, must benefit low and moderate-income individuals. He further explained economic development projects are historical projects that have happened or are going on today. He stated housing development and infrastructure projects are future oriented. Coordinator Backman asked the Commission to individually checkmark the projects they felt should be funded. He stated the responses would be tabulated and compiled into a recommendation for the EDA. Commissioner Hegland asked Coordinator Backman for any indication of the impact on any of the choices. Coordinator Backman replied he believed the City Council had a good idea of what the priorities are, but would take into consideration recommendations from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hegland expressed he does not understand why a cost benefit analysis was not done on the list. He feels it is dangerous to not do a cost benefit analysis along with this list. Coordinator Backman replied the danger with a cost benefit analysis in this case, is they do not know what the associated costs would be in the future. He stated he is merely trying to illicit a preferred focus from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Scotch asked about water, sewer, and other projects and if Coordinator Backman is talking about fixing these things. Coordinator Backman indicated TIF dollars could be used for this. Mounds View Planning Commission August 2, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland stated this is basically a wish list. He indicated he does not feel there is enough information provided on all the areas to make a good decision. Commissioner Meehlhause clarified what Coordinator Backman is asking for. He stated Coordinator Backman would like to know if the Planning Commission wants TIF dollars to be used for the items listed. He indicated that perhaps the Commission is reading too much into the list. The Commissioners should complete the list and turn them in to Planning Associate Heller by Monday, August 7. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. August 16, 2006. B. September 6, 2006 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:22 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Dianna Wise TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: September 20, 2006 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate the Property Line at troduction: Mitch & Alison Ford, are requesting a variance to permit a driveway with no etback from the property line. The driveway was constructed in the spring of 2004 without a rly 2004 in order to expand e driveway to the new garage in the rear yard. From 2000 to September of 2004, the City iance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a ly to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or There are no extraordinary circumstances which apply to this property. The house Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Variance Request to allow for a Driveway with no setback from 8378 Groveland Road; Planning Case VR2006-008 In The applicants, s permit, after a new detached garage was built behind the house. Staff became aware of the driveway with no setback recently after receiving a complaint. The Ford’s were sent a letter on July 25, 2006, indicating that a permit had not been obtained for the driveway construction and that the driveway was in violation of City Code setback requirements. The options given to them were to either cut back the driveway to bring it into compliance or apply for a variance, along with applying for a zoning permit for the driveway construction. Attached to that letter were planning and zoning applications. The Fords met with staff and said the driveway was installed in ea th Code had allowed driveways to be set back one foot from property lines, if the owner received a letter of agreement from the immediate neighbor. The Ford’s did get a letter from their neighbor, Eric Severson, dated August 2003, but incorrectly installed the driveway with no setback rather than the allowed one foot setback. The Fords decided to apply for a variance on August 18, 2006 since the driveway is already constructed and has been in place for over two years. They have also now received a permit, after the fact, for the driveway construction. Discussion: As with any var 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. A written statement was included with the application. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances app shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. set back 12 feet from the north property line, which limits the amount of room in b. al 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 interpretation would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed rs in the district. c. ns or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. nt is clearly responsible for the conditions which have prompted him to apply for a variance. Had the applicants applied for a zoning permit prior to doing the d. iance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings e would confer upon the applicant a special privilege in that other property owners are not allowed to build within the required setback. e. te the ardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. inimum that would be necessary. f. materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. g the variance request may not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title. However, granting the variance could be g. nt property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the supply of light or air to the adjoining roperty. is which to fit a vehicle past the house. Although by following the one foot setback, an 11 foot wide driveway should be wide enough for most vehicles to fit next to the house. The liter this Title. The literal by othe That the special conditio The applica work, they would have been told that the zero driveway setback would be in violation of the Zoning Code. That granting the var in the same district. Granting this varianc That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would allevia h Because the driveway is already in place, the variance requested is the m The variance would not be Given the circumstances, grantin sending a message to residents that it is acceptable to ignore the zoning code requirements by seeking approval through the variance process after the fact. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjace danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The driveway will not impair an adequate p Public Hearing: sted variance, this request necessitated a public hearing. Notices were ailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the Fords’ property. ic hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected eighbors, the Commission may take one of the following actions related to the request: n should direct staff to draft a resolution of approval with findings of hardship appropriate to 2. riance. The Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings appropriate to support the denial. 3. efore a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request As with any reque m Recommendation: After holding the publ n 1. Approve the variance as requested. To move forward with this option, the Commissio support the approval. Deny the requested va Table the request. If additional information is needed b until such information has been provided. Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: tion 2. Letter of support from neighbor Applicants, Mitch & Alison Ford (2003) ocumentation 1. Applica 3. Statement from 4. Plot Plan 5. Zoning Map 6. Aerial Photo 7. Photographic D Letter of agreement from neighbor – Eric Severson Statement from Applicants September 8, 2006 To the City of Mounds View: Mitch & Alison Ford, 8378 Groveland Road are requesting a variance for our driveway to allow us to keep the asphalt surface as it currently is, to the property line. Previous to having this improved surface we had always parked along the side of the attached garage. This area was covered with gravel. Because of this type of surface we experienced issues around keeping the rocks out of the grass, both our grass and the neighbor’s to the north of our property. This especially became an issue when we were removing snow from the area, which we still need to do, as this is the driveway to our detached garage in the back. When we had gravel there, we had issues with weeds growing in the area, which did not look very attractive. The lines of the driveway were not clean, as they are now. When we started this project the neighbor adjacent to the property line signed a letter authorizing us to place the driveway closer to his property than the limit set by the city regulations. When we built the garage we applied for and were given a permit for the garage and we thought, the driveway we had drawn out on our project plan. We had an outside company come in the fall and grade the area to slope towards our backyard as our neighbor to the north asked us to do, so the rain and snow melt would not run onto his property. We did this at an extra expense to ourselves. The area was prepared with gravel and we drove on it for the rest of the fall, winter and spring until the asphalt company was able to bring their equipment onto residential streets. During this period our neighbor to the north did make comments to us about the gravel ending up in his yard and he was looking forward to us completing the driveway. We have had this asphalt driveway for almost 3 years now. If we were to remove the asphalt to one foot of the property line, as the ordinance indicates, we would need to put something in the space and be back to having the issues of the rock not staying where it should. Removing the asphalt would not make the property look better; in fact it would take away from the beautiful landscaping we have done throughout the property. Sincerely, Mitch & Alison Ford ZONING MAP * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View (2003) 8378 Groveland Rd New garage is outlined behind house – driveway runs next to house to the rear garage Photographic Documentation Photographic Documentation Fence recently installed by the neighbor Item No: 5B Meeting Date: September 20, 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 2925 County Road H2; Planning Case No. CU2006-008 Introduction: The applicant, Cory Mathiowetz, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to construct an oversized garage on his property at 2925 County Road H2. The current garage will be demolished and a new larger detached garage would be constructed. The current garage size is 14’x16’ (224 square feet) and was built almost on the property line. The applicant would like to build a new 24’x48’ garage that would become code compliant with the required five foot setback. 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 2925 County Road H2 would be 1,152 square feet. The applicant indicates that he would like the extra depth for storage. 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 1,152 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 larger garage, the backyard coverage ratio would be around 4%. Mathiowetz CUP Request September 20, 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, 2925 County Road H2, 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 County Road H2. Since the additional space for the garage will 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 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 County Road H2 is mainly residential, with a mix of some twinhomes nearby, along with Messiah Lutheran Church. The homes in this area are a variety of styles and ages and most have very large lots. The proposed garage would not be out of character in this area since the garage is behind the house and the extra depth would not be seen from the street. This property is about 365 feet deep, so the new garage should not affect any neighbors. The new garage width would be a two car garage instead of a one 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’x48’ 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. Summary: All zoning and code issues are satisfied with this request. Mathiowetz CUP Request September 20, 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 850-06 is attached if the Commission chooses this action. 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 850-06 Plot Plan 2925 County Road H2 Lot Size 106’x365’ 0.89 Acre Current garage 14’x16’ New Garage 24’x48’ 5’ setback Not to Scale House Zoning Map Messiah Lutheran Church Properties not bearing a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Lot size is 0.89 acres Approximately 106’ x 365’ Aerial View Photographic Documentation Garage Existing Garage Backyard MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 850-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A 1,152 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE AT 2925 COUNTY ROAD H2; PLANNING CASE NO CU2006-008 WHEREAS, property owner Cory Mathiowetz has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,152 square foot garage; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 2925 County Road H2, is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Spring Lake Park Knolls, Ramsey County, Minnesota, Lot 92 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 1,152 square feet, thus necessitating application of a conditional use permit; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Plot Plan c. Zoning Map d. Aerial View e. Photographic Documentation f. 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 1,152 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. Resolution 850-06 Page 2 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 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 1,152 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 20th day of September 2006. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL)