Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-2006 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 4, 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. October 4, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chair Stevenson; Commissioners Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, Miller, and Zwirn Absent and Excused: Commissioner Scotch Also Present: Community Development Director Jim Ericson Planning Associate Heidi Heller ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page VR2006-008: Confirmation - Consideration of a Variance Request for a 2 Driveway Setback. Applicant: Mitch and Alison Ford Address: 8378 Groveland Road VR2006-009: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Storage of Flammable 7 Liquids. Applicant: 7T’s Management, LLC (Tyson Company) Address: 4815 Mustang Circle Accessory Building Codes & Requirements Discussion 12 Chair Stevenson asked if there were any additional items to be added. 3. Approve Minutes A. August 2, 2006 Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Zwirn /Commissioner Miler, to approve the Minutes of the August 2, 2006 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. VR2006-008: Continuation - Consideration of a Variance request for a driveway setback. Applicant: Mitch and Alison Ford, 8378 Groveland Road Planning Associate Heller summarized the continuance of the Planning Commission meeting from September 20, 2006, where neighbors spoke on behalf of the Fords and photos of the property were viewed. She explained the Fords are requesting a variance to permit a driveway with no setback from the property line. She reported the Fords built a garage in 2003 and that a driveway was installed the following spring without a permit. Planning Associate Heller reported Staff received a complaint referring to the zero-setback of the driveway. She indicated the Fords were given the option to either cut back the driveway one foot to bring it into compliance or apply for a variance for the zero-setback driveway. Planning Associate Heller stated the Fords indicated that a driveway next to the house leading to the rear yard had been there for many years. Planning Associate Heller stated from 2000 to September 2004, City Code allowed one-foot driveway setbacks if the owner received a letter of agreement from the immediate neighbor. Planning Associate Heller reported the Fords obtained a letter from Mr. Eric Severson, but incorrectly installed the driveway with a zero setback. Planning Associate Heller stated the hardship criteria was discussed at length during the September 20th meeting resulting in the Planning Commission directing Staff to draft a resolution of approval for consideration at the October 4, 2006 meeting. Staff has since received a letter from an attorney on the Fords behalf Planning Associate Heller explained that if the variance was approved, there had been some concern about the driveway being on or over the property line. Planning Associate Heller stated it is the responsibility of the property owners to determine the location of their property lines. She stated the City is not liable for property line disputes. She stated the public hearing was held over from September 20, 2006 to the October 4, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, therefore this is a continuance of the public hearing. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson inquired about City liability if the Planning Commission approved the variance. His concern is if the driveway does cross the property line and by granting the variance, would the city be liable for any action taken by the neighbor. Planning Associate Heller replied that the City does not require surveys when work is being done, and that she spoke to the City Attorney who indicated that the City is not responsible for determining where property lines are and it is up to the applicant to construct within their property boundary. She stated, according to the City Attorney, it would be a civil matter if a property line dispute ensued. Commissioner Zwirn reported he received the letter from Ms. Barb Benesch, Community Development Administrative Assistant in response to the letter from the Fords attorney. He asked, in looking at the letter and the application, what was the reason the driveway was not listed under special conditions or the other specified areas on the application. Planning Associate Heller stated this is the application that came in for the garage. She stated when Administrative Assistant Benesch accepted the application, she looked at it as a garage permit only. Commissioner Zwirn stated the application included the driveway also and the letter alludes to the fact Ms. Benesch had some recollection as to how close the driveway was to the property line. Planning Associate Heller stated she could not speak to what happened at that time. Commissioner Hegland asked how the issue came to the City’s attention. Planning Associate Heller replied that Mr. Jeremiah Anderson, Housing Inspector, received a call about the driveway being on the property line. Chair Stevenson asked who installed the fence. Planning Associate Heller replied the neighbor had installed it. Chair Stevenson asked if the fence was on the paved part and had a property survey been done. Ms. Kari Willis, 8388 Groveland Road, stated she had a survey done in April 2006 so they would assure the fence was put within their property boundaries. She stated a professional fence installation company installed the fence according to zoning codes. Ms. Willis stated the driveway blacktop had to be chipped out to set the footings which are entirely within their property. She stressed they made sure the fence was well within the property line. Chair Stevenson asked Ms. Willis if they had the property staked out along the property line. Commissioner Hegland asked how far the stakes were located from the fence and where the driveway was in relation to the stakes. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Ms. Willis replied the stakes were within a couple of inches of the fence. Mr. Eric Severson, 8388 Groveland Road, explained Midway Fence required a survey before they would touch the existing chain link fence as the blacktop was around the existing footings and protruding through the existing fence. Commissioner Hegland asked when the fence was installed. Ms. Willis replied the end of May 2006 and shortly afterward they moved the chain link fence from the back of the yard to the front of the wood fence, which they did themselves using the survey stakes. Mr. Severson stated the fencing company did the damage to the blacktop. Ms. Willis stated she made the call to Housing Inspector Anderson after the survey was done which showed the blacktop encroaching onto their property. She stated they are concerned about property value and legal liability stemming from the blacktop coming onto their property. Commissioner Hegland asked how much of the driveway is on their property. Ms. Willis replied it is up to 10 inches and varies along the length of the property. Ms. Willis stated the blacktop currently under the new privacy fence was through the old chain link fence prior to installing the new fence. She said they had to dig out the footings from under the blacktop. Commissioner Zwirn asked to see the photos that Ms. Willis had previously submitted to staff. He then referred to the letter from Ms. Willis that alluded to the representation of the signature on the letter of authorization dated August 23, 2003. Commissioner Zwirn asked how she came to that statement. Mr. Severson replied he asked to see the original, as he was not provided a copy at the time he signed it. He questioned the wording above his signature. Planning Associate Heller stated she did not have an original copy of the authorization letter. The Fords stated they were asked to submit the original to the City. Community Development Director Ericson explained Staff would typically put whatever was provided to the City in the property file and it would be kept indefinitely. He stated if an original submitted was submitted, the City should have it. He could not say whether or not the City had an original. Commissioner Hegland asked where the copy the Planning Commission received was acquired. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Planning Associate Heller stated it was made from a copy the Fords had at the time of the variance application. Chair Stevenson stated he is not sure how in all fairness the Commission could approve something that is a total infringement on the neighboring property. He explained that whether or not verbal or written authorization was received, no one gave permission to pave up to ten inches over the property line. Ms. Carole Isakson, attorney with Kalina, Wills, Gisvold & Clark, 6160 Summit Drive, Suite 560, Minneapolis, addressed the commission on behalf of the Fords. She pointed out the Fords paved an existing driveway that had been there since 1988. She pointed out the neighbor sat on this for three years. She stated the driveway is not over the property line. She pointed out there is no survey of the Ford property. Commissioner Hegland stated if there is no survey from the Fords, there is no property line established and this is why there is a one-foot setback. Chair Stevenson stressed, for the Commission to grant a zero-setback, it would never do so without a survey. He insisted there was a one-foot requirement since driveways and fences are typically not exactly straight, and can meander back and forth. He emphasized the Commission would not approve it without an official survey showing the driveway was within their property boundary. He declared the Commission would not grant this variance without a survey. Chair Stevenson stated if the Fords want to do a survey and bring this back to the Commission that would be fine. Commissioner Zwirn asked Mr. Ford, at the time he covered the driveway with blacktop, if there was a fence along the property. Mr. Ford responded there was. Ms. Isakson pointed out the issue of Adverse Possession and a Doctrine of Practical Location where two properties have always treated a line as a line, even if a survey comes in and states the line was at some other location, the courts would treat it as the line. Commissioner Zwirn commented the survey is not the primary factor the Planning Commission had to deal with; if a line is an existing line and had been treated as a line, Minnesota has a philosophy it is the line and Mr. Ford has every right to treat it as such. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if someone else were to purchase the property, would he or she be a victim of the invisible agreement. Ms. Isakson replied they would not be a victim, it is not invisible and the Doctrine of Physical Location is generally a fence. Chair Stevenson asked why the Fords went ahead and blacktopped the driveway within one foot when City Code had never allowed it. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ The Fords replied they were under the impression they had permission to do what they had done. Chair Stevenson stated the Fords clearly encroached on the neighbor's property and he could not approve the variance request. Commissioner Miller responded one thing to consider is the rock driveway that had been up to the fence since 1988. Chair Stevenson restated the driveway could not be paved up to the fence. Ms. Isakson replied the Fords believed they were working with the City, as Ms. Benesch told them all they needed was a letter of approval from the neighbors. She stated the Fords had done their best to comply with what they were told. Commissioner Zwirn stated Staff gave the Fords direction and the Commission needs to give them an opportunity to express themselves. Mr. Ford showed photos of the back of the neighbor’s yard and of their back yard. He stated the neighbor's photos made it look as if the dark area were blacktop when in fact it is black dirt. He pointed out the surveyor’s stake is 42 feet behind where the driveway is. He stated this is not encroaching. He stated his driveway does not go anywhere onto their property where they mow. Commissioner Zwirn asked if at the time the blacktopping was done if the original fence was there. Mr. Ford stated a fence had been there for many years. Chair Stevenson pointed out the neighbors cement fence footings and asked if the Fords had a problem with it. Mr. Ford said no as that would be petty. Commissioner Miller stated when the Planning Commission discussed this at the September 20th meeting they asked if the Fords would be required to cut out 12 inches of the driveway, what would they do with the space. She said the Planning Commission instructed Staff to draft a resolution to approve it, but to wait until the Commissioners absent from the September 20 meeting were there to discuss it. Chair Stevenson stated he did not have a problem instructing the Fords to dig it up. He mentioned he did have a problem granting a zero setback. He stated nobody deserves a zero setback variance and he did not see in good conscience how it could be approved. Chair Stevenson stated the practicality of why there is a one-foot setback is so these types of disputes do not happen. He declared property lines are not set unless they are surveyed. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Ms. Isakson replied this is a situation where the Fords are coming to the Planning Commission after the fact in which the City played a great role. She stated there are so many practical considerations that did make it a unique situation and the City bears some responsibility in this. She reported the Fords put a lot of money and work into this and worked with the City all along. Chair Stevenson stressed he wanted to be assured if this were granted, the City would not be liable. Ms. Isakson replied the City would have some liability if it were not granted. She stated everyone is trying to do what is best and given the situation, there are unique reasons to grant the variance. Community Development Director Ericson stated there are many good points made on both sides. He stated if the variance were denied, what would be put in the place of the blacktop removed. He stated it would not look as nice and might cause problems for both parties. Director Ericson expressed it is very clear there was some miscommunication and based on the Commission meeting on September 20th, Staff was requested to draft a resolution of approval for up to the property line. He stated if Ms. Willis and Mr. Severson said it encroaches onto their property, this is a civil matter. He agreed if it were brought to the Planning Commission before the driveway was put in, it would probably have been denied. He clarified the Planning Commission’s approval would be to allow the driveway to remain at a zero-setback, and not a negative setback. Chair Stevenson encouraged the Fords not to pursue any issue with the placement of the posts, as the Planning Commission would be quite liberally granting this variance if it were approved. He also stated if the variance is granted, both neighbors should go home and consider themselves fortunate. Commissioner Zwirn recommended the following statement be added to the variance: “by granting this variance the City is hereby held harmless from any future litigation and it should not be construed the City endorses a zero-setback.” MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Miller/Commissioner Zwirn, to approve Resolution 851-06 approving a variance for a zero-foot driveway setback at 8378 Groveland Road; Planning Case VR2006-008, with additional comments. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Abstain 2 (Stevenson and Meehlhause) Motion carried. B. VR2006-009: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for storage of flammable Liquids. Applicant: 7T’s Management, LLC (Tyson Companies), 4815 Mustang Circle. Planning Associate Heller summarized a request for a conditional use permit for the storage of flammable liquids at 4715 Mustang Circle. She stated this is actually an amendment to the current conditional use permit the Tyson Company has allowing for a motor freight terminal on the property. She stated Tyson is proposing to move Ferrellgas onto the property. She indicated she brought a site plan for the Planning Commission’s reference. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Planning Associate Heller stated Tyson Company would like to partner with Ferrellgas as part of their expansion project. She explained Ferrellgas is currently located at 1430 Old Highway 8, New Brighton. Planning Associate Heller indicated the current location is an area being redeveloped and the City of New Brighton would like Ferrellgas to relocate. She explained Ferrellgas sells propane gas and the site on the Tyson property would include four large above ground storage tanks, two smaller buildings for office space and storage, and a dock for cylinder filling. Planning Associate Heller explained an amendment to the current Conditional Use Permit is required in order to allow storage of flammable liquids in an industrial zoned district. Planning Associate Heller presented a drawing of the site and pointed out the location of the new buildings, Mustang Drive, where the rail would come in, and the site Ferrellgas would occupy. She stated some underground storage for ponding would be needed. Commissioner Miller asked if there could be more than one business on the property. Planning Associate Heller replied there could be and Tyson would more than likely lease the property to Ferrellgas. She explained Typson currently has four lots that would eventually be turned into one lot as part of the expansion project. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the driveway would be a two-lane or single lane. Planning Associate Heller replied it could be approximately 30 feet wide, which is enough for two cars to pass. Commissioner Miller asked about parking for the employees. Planning Associate Heller replied the buildings would be 1500 and 1800 square feet with only four to eight employees. She pointed out where the proposed parking lot would be located and where the wetlands exist. Chair Stevenson asked if the trucks were the large propane type trucks. Planning Associate Heller replied that was correct. Commissioner Meehlhause asked where the driveway would be in relation to the property line. Planning Associate Heller replied when they get into the setbacks they have 50 feet available. She reported there would be a development review required before this was built. Chair Stevenson asked if Staff had discussed the concerns expressed by Fedtech. Planning Associate Heller replied Community Development Director Ericson and Economic Development Coordinator Aaron Backman have spoken with Fedtech, and it did not sound like Tyson had spoken to Fedtech yet. She stated the concerns had not been addressed but would be in the future. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson explained the concern was for employees breathing in noxious smells that would be given off by the propane tanks. Planning Associate Heller explained Staff made phone calls and found the Fire Code and Fire Department would be the regulating body because the tanks are not over a certain size and propane evaporates if it spills and does not impact the soil or water. Commissioner Hegland asked if Ferrellgas planned to have smaller cylinders outside as they currently do. Planning Associate Heller replied yes. Chair Stevenson asked if it would be set up similar to the current Ferrellgas set up. Planning Associate Heller stated it would be similar for the most part. Chair Stevens asked if any incidents had been reported. Planning Associate Heller replied staff has called to ask and was told there have been none. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if New Brighton had made any offers for relocation. Planning Associate Heller replied she did not know. Commissioner Zwirn referred to the letter from Fedtech and stated his concern with the movement and vibration from the railcars. He indicated it could have a negative impact on the type of work Fedtech did and requested this be addressed. Planning Associate Heller replied she was informed there would be little to no vibration as the train would be moving so slowly by the time it reached Tyson’s property. She also stated the distance from the Fedtech building to the track would be 65 feet from the north side of the building to where the train would be inside the Tyson building, and 100 feet from the northwest corner and even farther from the west side of the Fedtech building. She stated more research would be done on how far the vibrations would go. Commissioner Miller asked if Fedtech was concerned when Tyson previously talked about the rail. Mr. Dale Tellers, Tyson Company, 4825 Mustang Circle, addressed the Commission and stated he talked to the rail companies who said an option is a welded track with fewer seams to minimize the bouncing. Mr. Eric Chalmers and Mr. Dave Fox, Fedtech, 4763 Mustang Circle, addressed the Commission and stated Economic Development Coordinator Backman had downplayed their need to be at the Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ first meeting concerning the rail. Mr. Chalmers indicated New Brighten is pushing their less desirable businesses to Mounds View. He indicated their precision cutting machines are bolted to the ground and the rail could impact the quality of the work they do. Mr. Fox stated the Tyson property behind them is on an old landfill and the quality of the soil may not be good. Mr. Chalmers remarked when they built their building they had to use pilings because the ground was not stable. He stated they have over 100 employees plus the employees of the other businesses and the mobile home park that would not want the smells. Commissioner Zwirn asked if Fedtech is equipped with air recycling. Mr. Chalmers replied they were not nor did they have air conditioning. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Chalmers to point out where their business is located and how far it would be from the proposed Ferrellgas building. Mr. Fox pointed out Fedtech’s location and stated it would probably be at least 80 feet to the lot line. Mr. Chalmers assumed the tanks would be backed up to their fence. He also pointed out his driveway and employee parking with traffic movement. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the site slopes towards the back. Mr. Chalmers stated it plateaus and then drops off as the property goes south and then in to the wetlands. He asked where the propane would pool if it spilled. Commissioner Hegland stated it would evaporate. Community Development Director Ericson suggested Staff coordinate a meeting between the property owners and Ferrellgas and then do a site visit to the current Ferrellgas location to determine if a smell exists. He also suggested Ferrellgas describe their safety plan. He stated he was amazed by how few regulations there were on propane. Chair Stevenson asked Community Development Director Ericson how much time he thought this would take as he agrees there should be a meeting with property owners and Ferrellgas. Mr. Doug Gross, Ferrellgas, addressed the Commission and reported there is no smell associated with propane. He stated if a repair is needed, the fire department is called and flare stacks are lit to burn off the gas; they do not vent into the air. Mr. Gross stated he has been with Ferrellgas since 1972 and they have always tried to be good neighbors. He mentioned there are systems in place to ensure they do not vent the propane into the air. He stated environmental issues are minimal and there would be no ground contamination as propane vaporizes into the air with no Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ impact. Mr. Gross explained a process of continuous inspections for all aspects of use, storage, and maintenance are in place. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Gross why Ferrellgas is looking for a new location. Mr. Gross replied New Brighten wanted the property for townhomes. Commissioner Hegland asked how many portable cylinders would be kept out and how many are filled daily. Mr. Gross stated about 200 cylinders are filled daily at the New Brighten site and there are about 200 one hundred pound cylinders used as needed during the winter. He indicated these are empty cylinders that are filled as needed. Commissioner Zwirn asked if Ferrellgas would change from a satellite site when it moved. Mr. Gross stated it is his understanding it would remain the same with about four employees. Commissioner Zwirn asked what the new buildings at the new site would be used for. Mr. Gross replied the 1800 square foot building would be used for storing supplies and the smaller building would be used as a small office. Commissioner Miller asked if cylinders would be available for gas grills and such. Mr. Gross stated there would be some, however their regular customers mainly consist of construction type businesses. Commissioner Zwirn asked Planning Associate Heller how long it would take to set up a meeting and site visit. Planning Associate Heller replied it could be done before the next Planning Commission meeting on October 18, 2006. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Zwirn/Commissioner Meehlhause, to table a decision on Resolution 852-06, a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit to allow for storage of flammable liquids at 4815 Mustang Circle; Planning Case CU2006-009, to the October 18, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 12 ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Accessory Building Codes and Requirements Discussion. Community Development Director Ericson reported a large number of residents appeared before the City Council on September 25, 2006 to express their concerns regarding large detached garages and accessory buildings. He pointed out City Council requested the Planning Commission examine the code and make a recommendation as to whether an amendment should be considered. Community Development Director Ericson explained the trend has been for larger garage and shed sizes. He mentioned the most recent amendment was adopted by the City Council in 2002 after a recommendation from the Planning Commission to increase the maximum total square footage for accessory buildings on a residential lot from 1400 to 1800 square feet. Director Ericson stated there is other criteria such as a building could not be more than 20 percent of the total property, maximum height and width requirements, and a variety of other requirements. He stated one of the items the code does not address is that of design. Community Development Director Ericson read the questions proposed for consideration by the Planning Commission. He stated Staff needs direction from the Planning Commission for a recommendation to take back to the City Council. Chair Stevenson asked Community Development Director Ericson to explain how the Planning Commission came to consensus four years ago on the 1800 total square feet. He stated it was more involved at the time and explained why the changes were made. He indicated the Planning Commission did not look at design at that time. Commissioner Miller stated at that time they discussed the percent of the rear yard that could be used for accessory buildings and that it must match the house. Community Development Director Ericson explained that for the most part the design requirements were only addressed for buildings in excess of 950 square feet. He stated smaller sheds generally did not need to match the house. Commissioner Hegland asked if the City received complaints about this issue and what the complaints were. Community Development Director Ericson replied over the last six months calls had increased. He explained most of the calls came from residents on the Lois Drive cul-de-sac. He mentioned there is a density issue in this area. Director Ericson stated the complaints were based on the magnitude of density in the back yards that block site lines to parks or natural areas. He said height limitations are extended also. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 13 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Miller stated residents request larger garages for storage of boats and ATVs so they are not stored in the yard. Community Development Director Ericson replied changes since the 1950s and the 1960s progressed toward larger garages. He mentioned the coverage percentage was lowered in 2002 from 25 percent to 20 percent of the back yard that could be covered in accessory buildings. Commissioner Hegland indicated there is not enough information to make a recommendation at this time and suggested information gathering be done and then decide where to go from there. Commissioner Hegland reported, as a point of reference, the increased square footage was to encourage people to improve their property. He mentioned previous limitations were quite restrictive and this is an improvement over the way it was. He believes the increased square footage has had a positive impact on Mounds View. The public hearing was opened at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Tim Holm, 2200 Lois Drive, stated he owned one of the garages in question. He asked the Planning Commission to look at lot size and how they compare to surrounding communities and at how these communities determine what to allow or limit relative to accessory buildings. He stated he had no concerns with the way they are but believes the design issue could be looked at. Mr. Holm explained how he built his garage to fit in with the design of the surrounding property and made every effort to stay within the letter of the code. Mrs. Mary Jo Verschay, 2203 Lois Drive, noted these are not complaints. She stressed she would like the Planning Commission to establish a citizens committee to research this. Mrs. Verschay stated in the last two years Lois Drive had changed because of the buildings. She asked if the 20 percent included concrete for driveways. She stressed the rules and laws of the code should be for everyone. Mrs. Verschay stated she became involved because she was thinking about the domino effect that happens. She referred to the Xcel Energy transformer on her property and the problems it had caused her. She stated there should be some discussion on how the decisions impact the entire neighborhood. She mentioned she travels extensively throughout the state and pointed out she does not see large accessory buildings around the state like the ones in her neighborhood. She believes her property value has been reduced. Mrs. Kathy Piche, 2204 Lois Drive, mentioned she is the neighbor between the two large buildings. She expressed she believes as a citizen, she has the right to know that her environment would be impacted by the code. Mrs. Piche stated she felt the value of her property had decreased because the size of the buildings have affected the neighborhood negatively. She is concerned the codes have allowed the changes to occur that devalued the property. Mr. Mike Read, 2208 Lois Drive, reported he has the white building in the pictures. He stated the building was constructed because of complaints of vehicles in his yard. Mr. Read said he had applied for a variance and CUP in the past to expand his attached garage but was denied, so he built the current building, which is allowed by code. He stated he does not believe larger garages are an eyesore. He mentioned he plans to do extensive landscaping next summer and invited the Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 14 ________________________________________________________________________ Planning Commission to visit his property. Mr. Read stated he also stuck strictly to the code. He indicated he would use the story and a half building to store small business items, a small office, and overflow from the house. Commissioner Zwirn asked Mr. Read if he incurred additional expense because of the denial of the initial request. Mr. Reed replied the extra costs were due to the footings he put in, but this made the building stronger. Chair Stevenson asked how much taller than the house this building is. Mr. Reed replied he was not sure. Mr. Mitch Ford, 8378 Groveland Road, commented he would like to leave the code the way it is. He stressed he would like everyone to have the opportunity to improve their property. Mr. Ford stated he saw no reason to take this opportunity away from residents. Mr. Ford complemented Staff for the good job they do. He asked Community Development Director Ericson how many number of complaints he is getting compared to the number of people in Mounds View. Community Development Director Ericson replied to the extent they have been contacted and it is the responsibility of Staff to bring them to the attention of the Planning Commission. Chair Stevenson complemented Mr. Ford on his garage style choice. Chair Stevenson asked the Planning Commission members what they would like to do. Commissioner Zwirn replied he is all for less government intervention. He stated the comments from residents have been towards design mostly. He did not think the code should be more restrictive and would like to look at lot sizes and more flexibility. Commissioner Miller mentioned the possibility for lot splits on the larger lots and the problems caused if a garage is set in the middle of the lot. Commissioner Zwirn replied it would be the responsibility of the property owners if they do that. Commissioner Hull stated he saw no problem with a task force. Chair Stevenson explained there are some requirements to coordinate with the design of the house for storage facilities greater than 952 square feet. He stated the square footage is not in question but the design of buildings less than 952 square feet. Commissioner Meehlhause stated he would rather see someone build a second garage than one of the 9x10 buildings from the home improvement businesses. He asked about the height requirements. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 15 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson replied the 2002 code change stated the garage could not be any larger than the footprint of the house except by conditional use permit. He stated this proved to be problematic in enforcement and it required a great deal of work in determining exactly what the footprint size was. He stated that requirement was removed from the code but a design standard never made it into the code. Commissioner Miller asked Mrs. Verschay if she was referring to a development or a lot split relative to her recommendation to seek input from the neighbors about proposed new construction in the neighborhood prior to approval, Mrs. Verschay replied she felt somewhat beat up, but stressed she was at the meeting for the people who did not want large buildings. She stressed it would be useful for neighbors to have more input as to what is approved. She mentioned she wanted to know who to talk to about the information. She stated she wanted the Planning Commission to have the opportunity to understand the impact large buildings have on a neighborhood. Commissioner Meehlhause asked Mrs. Verschay if she was against second garages. Mrs. Verschay replied she was not, however, the Planning Commission should look at the impact these large garages have on a neighborhood. Commissioner Zwirn addressed Mrs. Verschay and commented she should not feel like she is getting beat up; she is just practicing her citizen’s rights. He asked if she received a public notice of the actions on the garages. Mrs. Verschay stated they were told the garages were approved according to City code. Commissioner Zwirn clarified he heard the issue is with height. He asked Mrs. Verschay if there is a design issue also. Commissioner Zwirn asked if she is looking more towards a consistent design element. Mrs. Verschay replied she objects to the size rather than design. She stated she is not looking for a consistent design, but asked that a task force or committee look at it. Mrs. Verschay stated she is concerned with garages more than one story high and with the size. Commissioner Zwirn commented a gentleman with a very large lot wanted to build a larger one- story garage and was denied. He asked Mrs. Verschay how she would have wanted the Planning Commission to handle this request. Mrs. Verschay replied she thought denying it was a good decision. Commissioner Hegland asked if she had someone next door who wanted to add something to his or her property did she feel she had the right to say she opposed it. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 16 ________________________________________________________________________ Mrs. Verschay stated she did not have that right and this is why she wanted to have a discussion on other considerations. The public hearing was closed at 9:22. Chair Stevenson asked the Commission what the next step was. Commissioner Hegland said there are different issues, for example, should the Commission look at height and design issues. He stated if a committee were set up the Planning Commission would get lots of information to sort through. Commissioner Hegland mentioned enforcement issues also exist; for example, is the code too restrictive. Chair Stevenson stated the Commission should have the code in front of them and look at the 2002 changes to see what the restrictions are and reevaluate them after the regular Planning Commission meeting. The decision was made to study the code and make recommendations at the October 18, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. October 18, 2006. B. November 1, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 9:28 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. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 17 ________________________________________________________________________ Item No: 5A Meeting Date: October 18, 2006 Type of Business: Commission Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision of 8409 and 8413 Groveland Road; Planning Case MI06-001 Introduction: Tony & Cherie Hoffman are property owners of adjacent lots located at 8409 and 8413 Groveland Road. The two lots are a combined 33,105 square feet (3/4ths of an acre) one of which is improved with a home constructed in 1994 and the other improved with a detached accessory building remaining from a minor subdivision approved in 2003. The proposed subdivision is essentially a lot line adjustment—no new lots will be created. The requested adjustment would shift the common lot line between 8409 and 8413 Groveland Road five feet further south onto 8409 Groveland. (Both lots are owned by the Hoffmans.) The applicants have submitted a certificate of survey which shows the original lot line and proposed lot line between Parcels A and B. Parcel C is no longer owned by the Hoffmans and is not affected by this subdivision request. The basis for the request is due to the fact that the Hoffmans would like to construct a new home on the “vacant” lot and their proposed floor plan necessitates an additional five feet of space to satisfy setback requirements. Discussion: A minor subdivision is ordinarily a division of land less than two acres in area in which no more than one additional lot is created. Lot line adjustments such as the request submitted by the Hoffmans are also considered a Minor Subdivision if the area involves less than two acres. The lots are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and the Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low density residential. The minimum lot width for interior residential parcels is 75 feet and the minimum lot area is 11,000 square feet. Blow is a table which shows the dimensions for Parcels A and B before and as a result of the proposed adjustment: Area / Width Before Area / Width After Parcel A 16,988.4 / 80 feet 15,996.8 / 75 feet Parcel B 16,117.2 / 75 feet 17,059.2 / 80 feet The existing garage on Parcel B is scheduled for demolition in November of this year. Park Dedication Requirements. Subdivisions of land are subject to park dedication requirements. The Hoffmans paid a park dedication fee in 2003 as a condition of minor subdivision approval, consistent with Chapter 1204 of the City Code. No further or additional park dedication fee would be necessary. Hoffman Subdivision Report Oct 18, 2006 Page 2 Easements. With every subdivision of land, the City requires that drainage and utility easements be dedicated around the perimeter of the lot. A new five-foot easement area on either side of the new lot line will be dedicated as shown on the submitted certificate of survey. Public Notice. No public notice is required for a minor subdivision, however staff typically alerts the residents regardless when a new lot is to be created. In this case, because there will be no change or impact to any neighboring property owner, notices were determined unnecessary. Summary. The proposed lot line adjustment repositions a lot line established in 2003 to allow for additional setback flexibility on Parcel B. No new lots will be created as a result of this subdivision and all minimum requirements and Code issues are satisfied with this request. Recommendation: Because the lot line adjustment satisfies all code requirements, Staff is recommending approval of Resolution 852-06, a resolution approving a minor subdivision between 8409 and 8413 Groveland Road, with stipulations. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Map 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Certificate of Survey 6. Resolution 852-06 Zoning Map Aerial Map Photographic Documentation From this vantage point, you can see the existing homes at 8419 Groveland Road (left) and 8409 Groveland Road (right). The vacant lot, 8413 Groveland Road, is situated between the two homes. The driveway shown serves 8419 Groveland Road with the detached garage obscured by tree cover. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 852-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION (LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT) BETWEEN 8409 AND 8413 GROVELAND ROAD REQUESTED BY TONY AND CHERYL HOFFMAN; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MI06-001 WHEREAS, Property owners Tony and Cheryl Hoffman (the Applicants) have requested approval of a minor subdivision of contiguous lots located at 8409 Groveland Road and 8413 Groveland Road, properties zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally- described as follows: The South 75 feet of the North 150 feet Lot 1, Block 1, Dalberg’s Sunnyside Estates and The South 80 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Dalberg’s Sunnyside Estates WHEREAS, the Applicants propose to shift the common lot line between 8409 and 8413 Groveland Road south five (5) feet to create an 80-foot wide buildable lot (Parcel B) fronting Groveland Road; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Applicants’ request for a minor subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, and 1202 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Applicants’ request for a minor subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, as a result of an approved subdivision in 2003, the applicants have already paid a park dedication fee in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4 of the Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the minor subdivision (lot line adjustment) of 8409 and 8413 Groveland Road subject to the following stipulations: 1. The Applicants arrange to have the Certificate of Survey revised as follows: a. Remove the shed as shown between Parcels B and C. b. Add the following notation to the garage structure on Parcel B: “To be demolished.” c. Remove “Proposed Split Line” notation from Parcel C. d. Remove “Proposed Drainage and Utility Easement” notation from Parcel C. Resolution 852-06 Page 2 2. The Applicants shall arrange to have a Title Commitment prepared and submitted prior to the approval of the subdivision by the City Council. 3. The Applicants shall remove the existing garage from 8413 Groveland Road within one year from the date of Council approval. BE IT FURTHER 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 18th day of October, 2006. __________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ______________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 6A Meeting Date: October 4, 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 Codes and Regulations Pertaining to Accessory Buildings Introduction: At the October 4, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, the issue of accessory building rules and regulations was considered with testimony provided by both supporters of large garages and those concerned about the size of garages that can presently be constructed in the City. The Planning Commission essentially devoted the meeting to taking testimony and concluded by requesting that Staff provide the City Code requirements for review at the next meeting. Discussion: The following represents a summary of the zoning regulations pertaining to accessory buildings in Mounds View as articulated in Sections 1106.03 and 1106.04 of the Zoning Code: Maximum size of a garage / shed by right: 952 square feet Maximum size of a garage / shed w/ CUP: 1,800 square feet Maximum height of a garage / shed: 15 feet Minimum setback to side and rear property lines: 5 feet Minimum setback from other structures: 3 feet Maximum number of accessory buildings: three Maximum combined square footage of all accessory buildings: 1,800 square feet Maximum width of a garage exceeding 952 square feet: 35 feet Maximum rear yard coverage percentage: 20 percent Other requirements pertaining to accessory buildings include the following: • Attached garages must conform to the front and rear setback requirements for the principle structure. • Accessory buildings shall have a weather resistant, treated or finished exterior. Structures composed of tubular metal and canvas or exposed plywood, particle board or similar materials shall not be permitted. • If any accessory building is to be utilized for the storage of frequently-used vehicles, it shall be serviced by an improved driveway so as to control dust, drainage and erosion, according to the requirements as set forth in Section 902.05 of this Code. • Accessory buildings exceeding 952 square feet shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the dwelling unit. • Accessory buildings exceeding 952 square feet shall be permanent structures. Accessory Building Report October 18, 2006 Page 2 Attached to this report is a table illustrating the results of a survey taken of neighboring and nearby communities as to what their respective cities allow for accessory buildings. It can be seen that Mounds View’s allowances tend to be more generous than other communities to the extent that we have been told the reason some people have moved to Mounds View is to benefit from larger and multiple garages and storage buildings. Design Requirements: The Zoning Code and Building Code do not regulate or require design guidelines for accessory buildings less than or equal to 952 square feet. Only the size, height and setbacks of the building are controlled. In an effort to prohibit substandard and temporary buildings, the Code was amended to introduce certain basic restrictions but actual design guidelines are absent from the Zoning Code. It is only when the structure exceeds 952 square feet that the structure is required to exhibit a uniform design and appearance with the dwelling unit. Questions: 1. After four years of “experience” with the increased accessory building allowances, is there a need to re-examine the allowances and perhaps adopt more stringent controls regarding the size, height and number of such accessory buildings? 2. If so, should the City Council establish a committee of residents, appointed and elected individuals to determine the most appropriate changes? 3. Should the City adopt design guidelines for ALL accessory buildings rather than just those in excess of 952 square feet? Recommendation: Please review the attached City Code requirements regarding accessory buildings. After discussing the regulations in open forum, staff is hopeful some of the above questions can be addressed via a recommendation to the City Council. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director City of Mounds View 1103.04 1103.06 Subd. 4. Violation Declared Nuisance: Violation of this standard shall constitute a private nuisance, and any owner or occupant whose solar energy system is shaded because of such violation so that performance of the system is impaired may have in tort for the damages sustained thereby and may have such nuisance abated. (1988 Code §40.04) 1103.05: WIND GENERATOR SYSTEMS: Subd. 1. Height: The height of a wind generator system shall not exceed thirty feet (30') above the height of the principal structure. Subd. 2. Anchorage: Anchorage of the system's tower shall not be located within ten feet (10') of the property line. Subd. 3. Protection from Climbing: The tower or support for the system shall be of climbproof design or protected by fencing. Subd. 4. Compliance with Other Laws: Location and height must be in accordance with all other governing jurisdictions and laws as they exist and are amended. Subd. 5. Noise: The system shall have a silent operation and be subject to the requirements of Chapter 604, Nuisances, of this Code. Subd. 6. Plans and Specifications: All systems will require plans, specifications and a site plan approved by a registered engineer or architect if deemed necessary by the City. (1988 Code §40.04) 1103.06: ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES AND EQUIPMENT: Subd. 1. Connection to Principal Building: An accessory building shall be considered an integral part of the principal building if it is connected to the principal building by a covered passageway. Subd. 2. Location in Yards: a. No accessory building, other than a garage, shall be erected or located within any required yard other than the rear yard. (1988 Code §40.04) b. Accessory uses or equipment must be located in the rear yard, except those expressly allowed in side yards in subdivision 1104.01(5) of this Title. (Ord. 453, 2-27-89) City of Mounds View 1106.01 1106.02 (Rev. 8/00) CHAPTER 1106 R-1, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SECTION: 1106.01: Purpose 1106.02: Permitted Uses 1106.03: Accessory Uses 1106.04: Conditional Uses 1106.01: PURPOSE: The purpose of the R-1, Single-Family District is to provide for low density single-family detached residential dwelling units and directly related, complementary uses. (1988 Code §40.10) 1106.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in an R-1 District: Subd. 1. Single-family detached dwellings. (Ord. 575, 7-15-96) a. Each applicant for a building permit to construct any dwellings shall be required to provide off-street parking spaces for at least two (2) automobiles per family in addition to any garage spaces to be used. (Ord. 664, 8-14-00) b. Every dwelling house hereafter erected shall be so located on the lot so that at least a two (2) car garage, either attached or detached, can be located on said lot. (Ord. 664, 8-14-00) c. No permit shall be issued for the construction of a residential dwelling unless the driveway servicing the property is to be improved with a permanent surfacing material so as to control dust, drainage and erosion, according to the requirements as set forth in Section 902.05 of this Code, except that the property owner may provide a signed, notarized statement in which the property owner agrees to improve the driveway in conjunction with the desired construction activities or within six (6) months of the commencement of such activities, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. For the purposes of this Title, permanent surfacing materials are defined as concrete, asphalt or brick. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98; Ord. 664, 8-14-00) Subd. 2. Permitted single-family uses allowed under Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357, subdivision 7, as follows: City of Mounds View 1106.02 1106.03 (Rev. 3/02) a. A state licensed residential facility serving six (6) or fewer persons, except as provided in subdivision 3 of this Section 1106.02; (Ord. 596, 3-10-97) b. A licensed day care facility serving twelve (12) or fewer persons; c. A group family day care facility licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9501.0445 to serve fourteen (14) or fewer children; d. Residential facilities whose primary purpose is to treat juveniles who have violated criminal statutes relating to sex offenses or have been adjudicated delinquent on the basis of conduct in violation of criminal statutes relating to sex offenses shall not be considered a permitted use. (Ord. 575, 7-15-96) Subd. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision 2.a. herein, foster family homes as defined in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 9545, Section 9545.0010, subp. 7, which relate to the Department of Human Services and group homes and group foster homes as defined in Department of Correction Rules, extracted from Minnesota Rules, Chapter 2925, Section 2925.0100, subp. 9, shall be allowed as permitted uses to serve not more than eight (8) children per home, not including the foster family's own children. (Ord. 575, 7-15-96; Ord. 596, 3-10-97) Subd. 4. Essential services. (Ord. 575, 7-15-96) Subd. 5. Public parks and playgrounds. (Ord. 575, 7-15-96) 1106.03: ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in an R-1 District: (1988 Code §40.10) Subd. 1. Accessory Buildings: Accessory buildings, which for these purposes shall include garages, tool houses, carports, sheds and similar buildings for storage of domestic supply and noncommercial recreational equipment, whether attached or detached. (Ord. 664, 8-14- 00) a. Every R-1 zoned property improved with a single-family dwelling is allowed a maximum of one-thousand eight hundred (1,800) square feet of combined accessory building area, subject to the requirements noted herein. (Ord. 664, 8-14-00; Ord. 693, 3-25-02) b. Accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen feet (15') in height, shall be five feet (5') or more from all lots lines of adjoining lots and shall be three feet (3') or more from any other building or structure on the same lot. Attached garages must conform to the front and rear setback requirements for the principle structure, and the side yard setback shall be at least five feet (5'). (Ord. 664, 8-14-00) City of Mounds View 1106.03 1106.03 (Rev. 8/00) c. No accessory building in an R-1 District shall exceed nine hundred fifty-two (952) square feet in area, except by conditional use permit. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98; Ord. 664, 8-14-00) d. The combined square footage of accessory buildings in a rear yard shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the rear yard. (Ord. 442, 7-11-88; Ord. 620, 7-27-98; Ord. 664, 8- 14-00) e. An outdoor living room or patio shall not be used for storage of automobiles or trucks. (Ord. 664-8-14-00) f. No permit shall be issued for the construction of more than three (3) accessory buildings in any R-1 District. One (1) of the three (3) permits must be for a garage. (Ord. 664, 8-14- 00) g. Accessory buildings shall have a weather resistant, treated or finished exterior. Structures composed of tubular metal and canvas or exposed plywood, particle board or similar materials shall not be permitted. (Ord. 664, 8-14-00) h. If any accessory building is to be utilized for the storage of frequently-used vehicles, it shall be serviced by an improved driveway so as to control dust, drainage and erosion, according to the requirements as set forth in Section 902.05 of this Code. (Ord. 664, 8-14- 00) Subd. 2. Outdoor, Uncovered Parking Spaces: (Ord. 664, 8-14-00) a. Parking spaces for residential vehicles as regulated by Section 607.06, Chapter 802 and Chapter 1121 of the Municipal Code. (Ord. 664, 8-14-00) b. RV Storage: Storage of recreational vehicles and equipment leased or owned by the resident as regulated by Chapter 802 of this Municipal Code. (Ord. 664, 8-14-00) Subd. 3. Home Occupations: The regulation of home occupations within residential structures is intended to ensure that the occupational use is clearly accessory or secondary to the principal dwelling use and that compatibility with surrounding residential uses is maintained. No home occupation shall be allowed which: (Ord. 664, 8-14-00) a. Involves employees other than persons residing on the premises; b. Involves alteration or construction features not customarily found in dwellings; City of Mounds View 1106.03 1106.04 (Rev. 1/01) c. Has an exterior display or sign in excess of one (1) square foot. Such sign, for identification purposes only, shall be located on either the principal structure or garage. Any sign existing prior to December 29, 1972, shall not be enlarged but may be continued at the size and location upon such date, except as hereinafter specified or subsequently amended. Any sign erected after December 29, 1972, but prior to the effective date hereof shall come into compliance herewith by April 1, 1983; (Ord. 672, 1-22-01) d. Involves exterior storage of equipment or materials; e. Generates any on-street parking. All vehicles associated with a home occupation shall be parked off-street and in compliance with the City's parking requirements; (Ord. 672, 1-22- 01) f. Results in violation of the provisions of Chapter 607, Nuisances, of the Municipal Code; and (Ord. 664, 8-14-00) g. Involves activity visible from the public streets. Subd. 4. Noncommercial Greenhouses and Conservatories: Subd. 5. Recreational Facilities: Swimming pools, patios, decks, gazebos, swing sets, play systems and play houses, outdoor living rooms, tennis courts and other recreational facilities which are operated for the enjoyment and convenience of the residents of the principal use and their guests. Such facilities shall be set back five feet (5') or more from a property line, except swimming pools, which shall be set back ten feet (10') or more from a property line. (Ord. 664, 8-14-00) Subd. 6. Boarding: Boarding or renting of rooms to not more than one (1) person. Subd. 7. Other Uses: Other allowed uses incidental to the dwelling unit, including but not limited to: clothes lines and poles; lawn and garden ornaments and other landscaping features; and pet house, facility or kennel. A pet house, facility or kennel shall be set back five feet (5') or more from a property line. (1988 Code §40.10) (Ord. 664, 8-14-00) 1106.04: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an R-1 District (requiring a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title): Subd. 1. Public or semi-public recreational buildings and neighborhood or community centers, public and private educational institutions limited to elementary, junior high and senior high schools and religious institutions, such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues; provided, that: City of Mounds View 1106.04 1106.04 (Rev. 1/01) a. Front yard depths shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). b. Side yards shall be no less than thirty feet (30'). c. Minimum lot area shall be no less than one (1) acre, or as provided in Section 1104.02, subdivision 2b(3). (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) d. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. e. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting or directly across a public street to the principal use in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this Title and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. f. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where applicable by Chapter 1122 of this Title. g. The provisions of Section 1125.01, subdivision 1e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) Subd. 2. Governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of the community; provided, that: a. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained and required setbacks and side yard requirements are met. b. Equipment is completely enclosed in a permanent structure with no outside storage. c. Adequate screening from neighboring uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. d. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. Subd. 3. Residential planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 1120 of this Title. Subd. 4. Residential dog/cat kennel. Subd. 5. Model homes. (1988 Code §40.10) Subd. 6. Accessory building exceeding nine hundred fifty two (952) square feet. (Ord. 620, 7-27- 98; Ord. 664, 8-14-00) City of Mounds View 1106.04 1106.04 (Rev. 9/02) a. The accessory building must conform with Section 1103.06 and subdivision 1106.03(l) of this Title. b. The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one (1) lot cannot exceed one thousand eight hundred (1,800) square feet. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98; Ord. 701, 9-9-02) c. The building shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the dwelling unit. d. The width of the building cannot exceed thirty five feet (35'). (Ord. 664, 8-14-00) e. The building shall be a permanent structure. (Ord. 664, 8-14-00) f. Should the use for which the permit was granted be changed, the permit shall be subject to reconsideration, revocation or other action regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title. (Ord. 664, 8-14-00) Subd. 7. Wireless telecommunications towers and antennae subject to the provisions established in Chapter 1124 of the Zoning Code. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97; Ord. 664, 8-14-00) City of Mounds View 1125.01 1125.01 CHAPTER 1125 ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT SECTION: 1125.01: Amendments and Conditional Uses 1125.02: Variances and Appeals 1125.03: Certificate of Occupancy 1125.04: Fees 1125.05: Enforcement of Provisions 1125.06: Penalties 1125.01: AMENDMENTS AND CONDITIONAL USES: Subd. 1. Procedure: a. Request for Amendments: Request for amendments of this Title, the Official Zoning Map or conditional use permits, as provided within this Title, shall be filed with the City Clerk-Administrator on an official application form. Such application shall also be accompanied by ten (10) copies of detailed written and graphic materials fully explaining the proposed change, development or use. The City Clerk-Administrator shall refer said application, along with all related information, to the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration and a report and recommendation to the City Council. b. Planning and Zoning Commission Consideration: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the request at its next regular meeting unless the filing date falls within fifteen (15) days of said meeting, in which case, the request would be placed on the agenda and considered at the regular meeting following the next regular meeting. The City Clerk-Administrator shall refer said application, along with all related information, to the City Planning and Zoning Commission at least ten (10) days prior to the regular meeting. c. Appearance by Applicant: The applicant or a representative thereof shall appear before the Planning and Zoning Commission in order to answer questions concerning the proposed amendment or conditional use. City of Mounds View 1125.01 1125.01 d. Report and Recommendation: The amendment or conditional use application shall be referred to the City staff for a report and recommendation to be presented to the Commission. A preliminary draft to the City staff's report and recommendations shall be given to the City Planning and Zoning Commission at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting at which said report and recommendations are to be presented. The final report and recommendations of the City staff are to be entered in and made part of the permanent written record of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. e. Adverse Effects: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment or conditional use. Its judgment shall be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved. (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (4) The character of the surrounding area. (5) The demonstrated need for such use. f. Additional Information: The Planning and Zoning Commission and City staff shall have the authority to request additional information from the applicant concerning operational factors or to retain expert testimony with the consent and at the expense of the applicant concerning operational factors, said information to be declared necessary to establish performance conditions in relation to all pertinent sections of this Title. g. Finding of Fact: (1) The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make a finding of fact and recommend such actions or conditions relating to the request as it deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Title. Such recommendation shall be in writing and accompanied by the report and recommendation of the City staff. (2) The City Council shall not grant a conditional use permit until it has received a report and recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City staff or until sixty (60) days after the first regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at which the request was considered. City of Mounds View 1125.01 1125.01 h. City Council Agenda: Upon receiving the report and recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City staff, the City Council shall place the report and recommendation on the agenda for the next regular meeting. Such reports and recommendations shall be entered in and made part of the permanent written record of the City Council meeting. i. Public Hearing: Upon receiving the report and recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City staff, the City Council shall hold a public hearing in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357, subdivision 3 and shall make a recorded finding of fact and shall impose any conditions it considers necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. j. Four-Fifths Vote: Amendments of this Title, the Official Zoning Map or Four a conditional use permit shall require passage by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the full City Council. k. Notification of Decision: The City Clerk-Administrator shall notify the applicant of the Council's decision, in writing. Subd. 2. Initiation of Amendments: The City Council or Planning and Zoning Commission may, upon its own motion, initiate a request to amend this Title or the Official Zoning Map. Any person owning real estate within the City may initiate a request to amend this Title or the Official Zoning Map as it affects the real estate owned by said person. Subd. 3. Conditional Use Permit: a. Purpose: The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide the City with a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety. b. Criteria for Granting Conditional Use Permits: In granting a conditional use permit, the City Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan and upon the health, safety and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. Among other things, the City Council shall make the following findings where applicable: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. City of Mounds View 1125.01 1125.01 (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. (4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. c. Additional Conditions: In permitting a new conditional use or the alteration of an existing conditional use, the City Council may impose, in addition to these standards and requirements expressly specified by this Title, additional conditions which the City Council considers necessary to protect the best interest of the surrounding area or the community as a whole. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Increasing the required lot size or yard dimension. (2) Limiting the height, size or location of buildings. (3) Controlling the location and number of vehicle access points. (4) Increasing the street width. (5) Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces. (6) Limiting the number, size, location or lighting of signs. (7) Requiring diking, fencing, screening, landscaping or other facilities to protect adjacent and nearby property. (8) Designating sites for open space. d. Records Kept: The Zoning Administrator shall maintain a record of all conditional use permits issued, including information on the use, location and conditions imposed by the City Council, time limits, review dates and such other information as may be appropriate. City of Mounds View 1125.01 1125.01 e. Reconsideration: Whenever an application for a conditional use permit has been considered and denied by the City Council, a similar application for a conditional use permit affecting substantially the same property shall not be considered again by the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council for at least six (6) months from the date of its denial and a subsequent application affecting substantially the same property shall likewise not be considered again by the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council for an additional six (6) months from the date of the second denial unless a decision to reconsider such matter is made by not less than four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. f. Lapse of Conditional Use Permit by Nonuse: Whenever, within one year after granting a conditional use permit, the work as permitted by the permit shall not have been completed, then such permit shall become null and void unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the City Council. Such extension shall be requested, in writing, and filed with the City Clerk-Administrator at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the original conditional use permit. There shall be no charge for the filing of such petition. The request for extension shall state facts showing a good faith attempt to complete the work permitted in the conditional use permit. Such petition shall be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation and to the City Council for a decision. g. Performance Bond: (1) Upon approval of a conditional use permit, the City shall be provided with a surety bond, cash escrow, certificate of deposit, securities or cash deposit prior to the issuing of building permits or initiation of work on the proposed improvements or development. Said security shall guarantee conformance and compliance with the conditions of the conditional use permit and the Code of the City. (2) The security shall be in the amount of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer's or City Building Inspector's estimated costs of labor and materials for the proposed improvements or development. Said project can be handled in stages upon the discretion of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and Building Inspector. (3) The City shall hold the security until completion of the proposed improvements or development and a certificate of occupancy indicating compliance with the conditional use permit and codes of the City has been issued by the City Building Inspector. (4) Failure to comply with the conditions of the conditional use permit and/or the codes of the City shall result in forfeiture of the security. (1988 Code §40.25; 1993 Code) City of Mounds View 1125.02 1125.02 (Rev. 2/04) 1125.02: VARIANCES AND APPEALS: Subd. 1. Board of Adjustment1: a. Composition: The Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall consist of all members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. All members shall serve without compensation. b. Organization and Meetings: The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may elect a chairman from among its appointed members for a term of one (1) year, and the Board may create and fill such other offices as it may determine. The Board shall meet by order of its chairman, after notice, whenever an appeal has been properly presented to it. A two-thirds (2/3) vote of a properly convened Board meeting shall be required to grant the relief sought in the appeal. c. Records: All written reports and recommendations to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals from the City staff shall be entered in and made part of the permanent written record of the Board's meeting. Subd. 2. Criteria for Granting Variances: A variance to the provisions of the Zoning Code may be issued by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, or in the case of an administrative variance, by the Director of Community Development as explained in Section 1125.02, subdivision 6, to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of property owner's land. No use variances may be issued. A variance may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist: (Amended, Ord. 725, 2-9-04) a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the properties which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. 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. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. 1 See also Chapter 402 of this Code. City of Mounds View 1125.02 1125.02 (Rev. 2/04) d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such restrictions and conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. Subd. 3. Appeals: If the Board acts in favor of the appellant, it, thereupon, shall issue an order to the administrative official involved setting forth the terms and conditions adopted. Said order shall be signed by the chairman and the City Clerk-Administrator or secretary of the Board. If the Board denies the applicant's relief, the applicant, within sixty (60) days from the decision of the Board, may appeal to the City Council for the relief sought. Subd. 4. Procedures: a. Requests for a variance or appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk-Administrator on an official application form. Such application shall be accompanied by a fee as outlined in Section 1125.04 of this Chapter. This fee shall not be refunded. Such application shall also be accompanied by ten (10) copies of detailed written and graphic materials necessary for the explanation of the request. b. Upon receiving said application, the City Clerk-Administrator shall refer the application, along with all related information, to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and City staff. c. After receiving the City staff's report and recommendations concerning a request for variance or an appeal, the Planning and Zoning Commission, serving as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, may set a date and hold a hearing on said request. The Board shall hear such persons as wish to be heard, either in person or by agent or attorney. Notice of any such hearing shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days before the date of hearing to the person who filed the appeal or request, to all owners of property, according to the City assessment records, within three hundred fifty feet (350') of the property to which the variance relates. City of Mounds View 1125.02 1125.03 (Rev. 1/05) d. Failure of property owner to receive notice shall not invalidate any such proceedings as set forth within this Title. e. The Planning and Zoning Commission, serving as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, shall make a finding of fact and shall decide whether to approve or deny a request for a variance or an appeal within thirty (30) days after the public hearing on said request. f. A variance of this Zoning Code or the granting of an appeal shall be by two-thirds (2/3) vote of the full Planning and Zoning Commission serving as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. g. The City Clerk-Administrator shall notify the originator of the variance request or appeal of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals decision in writing. Subd. 5. Lapse of Variance or Appeal: Whenever, within one year after granting a variance or appeal, the work as permitted by the variance or appeal shall not have been completed, then such variance or appeal shall become null and void unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, such extension shall be requested, in writing, and filed with the City Clerk-Administrator at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the original variance or appeal. There shall be no charge for the filing of such petition. The request for extension shall state facts, showing a good faith attempt to complete the work permitted in the variance or appeal. (1988 Code §40.26) Subd. 6. Administrative Variance Process: (Added, Ord. 725, 2-9-04) a. Types: Property owners seeking relief from the Zoning Code may request an administrative variance, provided that the property is zoned R-1 or R-2 and either of the following is applicable: (Added, Ord. 725, 2-9-04; Amended, Ord. 756, 1-24-05) (1) The request concerns setbacks; the variance amount is within twenty-five percent (25%) of code requirements; and approval of the variance does not result in a setback of less than five feet (5’); and (Added, Ord. 725, 2-9-04; Amended, Ord. 752, 9-13-04; Ord. 756, 1-24-05) (2) the request is related to a pre-existing, non-conforming driveway or curb cut. (Added, Ord. 752, 9-13-04; Amended, Ord. 756, 1-24-05) City of Mounds View 1125.02 1125.03 (Rev. 2/04) b. Review Procedures: The Director of Community Development will review administrative variance requests. In order to be approved, the variance request must meet the hardship criteria as stated in Section 1125.2, Subdivision 2. If hardship is evident and approval is granted, the adjacent property owners must be notified by mail of the preliminary approval and allowed ten (10) days to respond to the decision. Absent any opposition from adjacent property owners, the Planning Commission shall review the administrative variance request at the following regularly scheduled meeting. (Ord. 725, 2- 9-04) c. Denial and Appeals: If the Director chooses to deny a request, or if either the adjacent neighbors or the Planning Commission disagrees with administrative approval of a variance request, the request is denied administratively and the applicant may choose to request a formal variance from the Planning Commission. (Ord. 725, 2-9-04) d. Fees: Administrative variances fees are set according to the fee schedule adopted by City Council resolution. (Ord. 725, 2-9-04) 1125.03: CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: Subd. 1. Application: A certificate of occupancy shall be obtained before: a. Any building hereafter erected or structurally altered is occupied or used. b. The use of any such building is altered. Subd. 2. Procedure: a. A certificate of occupancy shall be issued after the Building Inspector has found that the erection or alteration of such building or part thereof has been completed in conformity with the provisions of this Title and all applicable building codes1. b. Pending the issuance of such a certificate, the Building Inspector may issue a temporary certificate of occupancy for a period not exceeding six (6) months during the completion of the erection or alteration of such building. Such temporary certificate shall be issued only upon submission of satisfactory assurance to the Building Inspector that the erection or alteration work shall be completed within six (6) months. The temporary certificate shall not be construed as in any way altering the respective rights, duties or obligations of the owners or of the City relating to the use or the occupancy of the premises or any other matter except under such restrictions and provisions as will adequately insure the safety of the occupants. 1 See Title 1000 of this Code. City of Mounds View 1125.02 1125.03 (Rev. 2/04) Subd. 3. Building Permits: Applications for any kind of building permit shall contain such information as may be deemed necessary for the proper enforcement of the Code. The Building Inspector shall issue the building permit only after determining that the building plans, together with the application, comply with the terms of this Title. (1988 Code §40.27) 1125.04: FEES: Subd. 1. Base Fee: To defray administrative and other costs of processing applications for rezoning, variances or conditional use permits, a nonrefundable base fee shall be paid at the time an application is filed with the City. The minimum base fee shall be established by resolution approved by the City Council. Subd. 2. Deposit: a. An additional deposit shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant time spent in review, research or preparation of material for said application in excess of the base fee. The applicant shall be given an estimate of these costs in excess of the base fee and shall deposit such amount with the City. An additional deposit shall be paid whenever the City Clerk-Administrator determines that additional costs will be incurred beyond those initially estimated. No action on the application shall be taken by the City until such fees and deposits have been paid as required. b. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days after consideration of the application is completed. Whenever an application is withdrawn prior to referral to the Planning and Zoning Commission, a refund shall be made of any portion of the deposit that has not been so spent or encumbered. c. No building permit or activity, for which purpose said application is intended, may be issued or allowed until an additional cost over and above the deposits has been paid. (1988 Code §40.28) 1125.05: ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS: This Title shall be administered and enforced by the City Clerk-Administrator or a designee as approved by the City Council, who is hereby designated as the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator may institute in the name of the City any appropriate actions or proceedings against a violator as provided by statute, Charter or Code. (1988 Code §40.29) City of Mounds View 1125.05 1125.06 (Rev. 2/04) 1125.06: PENALTIES: Any person who violates any provision of the Code shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined as provided in Section 104.01 of this Code. Each day a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense. (1988 Code §40.29; 1993 Code)