Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-06-2005 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION April 6, 2005 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approve Minutes: March 2, 2005 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already Present on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 5. Planning Case CU05-002 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Residential Dog Kennel at 8370 Pleasant View Drive Applicant: Elizabeth Stoltz 6. Planning Case CU05-003 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an Oversized Garage at 7965 Fairchild Avenue Applicants: Rebecca Witz-Ross and Brian Ross APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 763-717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: April 20, 2005 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: March 16, 2005 2. Staff Reports 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting March 16, 2005 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. March 16, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Hull, and Stevenson Absent and Excused: Commissioners Meehlhause and Scotch. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case CU05-001. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit 2 (CUP) for an oversized garage at 5343 Clifton Drive Planning Case DE05-001. Consideration of a Concept Plan for Hotel Expansion at The Mermaid located at 2200 County Road 10 3 _______________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes February 2 and 16, 2005. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Zwirn. To approve the Minutes of the February 2 and 16, 2005 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission March 16, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Special Order of Business: Oath of Office for New Appointment. Community Development Director Ericson administered the oath of office to Al Hull, the new Planning Commission member who was appointed to a three-year term, and the Commission welcomed him. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case CU05-001. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an oversized garage at 5343 Clifton Drive. Community Development Director Ericson informed the Commission that the applicants were not able to be present at the meeting, but that Bill Siercks, the applicant’s father, was present to answer any questions. Director Ericson stated the applicants propose to construct a 457 square foot addition onto the existing 576 square foot garage to create a garage that has an area of 1,032 square feet. He explained that a Conditional Use Permit is required for garages exceeding 952 square feet. He stated that the applicants initially were requesting to build a larger garage, but it had been determined that it would have been too large for the back yard, so they had scaled down the size of the proposed addition. He informed the Commission that the request for the Conditional Use Permit to construct the 1,032 square foot garage satisfies the requirements as stated in Section 1106.03 and 1106.04, Subdivision 6 of the Mounds View Zoning Code. Director Ericson stated that the proposed garage addition would be set back five feet from the south property line and at least seven feet from the rear property line, and that Section 1104.01 requires a five foot setback, which the proposed garage satisfies. There is an existing shed that, along with the garage, would cover 19.8% of the rear yard area, which satisfies the Code. He also went through the CUP considerations as listed in the staff report and how they were all consistent with the Code. Director Ericson stated that notice was sent to property owners within 350 feet, and that no calls had been received, but that one letter opposing the request had been received from someone on Raymond Avenue, and that letter had been included in the Commission’s packet. Director Ericson recommended approval of the conditional use permit with stipulations and advised that Resolution 788-05 was attached if the Commission selected that option. Commissioner Miller asked if the garage would be 19’ by 24’, and Mr. Siercks answered that it would be. Mr. Siercks also stated it would probably be more like 12 feet away from the neighbors property rather than seven feet. Commissioner Miller asked if the shed would remain, and Mr. Siercks stated that it would. Mounds View Planning Commission March 16, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson asked if the long trailer would be housed in the garage, and Mr. Siercks answered that the trailer couldn’t possibly fit in the garage. Mr. Siercks stated that the race cars would be in the rear of the garage, and the private cars would be in the front of the garage. There would be no wall separating them. Mr. Siercks stated that this is the minimum they would need to fit the four vehicles in the garage. Commissioner Miller asked whether it was against Code to keep the trailer at the property, and Mr. Siercks stated that it is not. Commissioner Zwirn stated that a concern had been raised regarding noise, and he asked whether the garages were going to be insulated. Mr. Siercks stated that they would be, which would reduce noise. Commissioner Zwirn asked whether Mr. Sierck’s son would be doing any outside repair work, and Mr. Siercks stated that he would not. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Hull. To approve Resolution 788-05 as corrected above, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for a 1,032 Square Foot Garage at 5343 Clifton Drive; Planning Case No. CU2005-001. Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Director Ericson stated that the next step would be the public hearing at the first regular City Council meeting in April. _____________________________________________________________________________ 7. Planning Case DE05-001. Consideration of a Concept Plan for a Hotel Expansion at The Mermaid located at 2200 County Road 10. Director Ericson indicated Mr. Hall is proposing an 81 room expansion to the South of the existing hotel, with an additional 24 rooms possible. He stated this is simply a concept plan and does not include any grading, drainage, utilities, or landscaping, which would come at a later point. Director Ericson pointed out there are two issues associated with this concept plan, which are the parking spaces and the setback. He stated there are presently 825 parking stalls on the site and that the hotel expansion would eliminate 50 parking stalls. However, last year the nightclub closed and was converted into additional conference/banquet space, which eliminated the highest nighttime demand for parking, and there is excess parking available. Mr. Hall currently leases part of the parking lot to Metro Transit as an overflow for the Park and Ride lot on County Road H, and this arrangement could be terminated upon construction of the hotel addition. He stated that Staff was confident that the site could support the hotel expansion without further expansion of the parking lot; however, it may be beneficial to have a parking consultant conduct an assessment for confirmation prior to formal development review plan adoption. He had checked on the price of such an assessment, which is around $2,000. Mounds View Planning Commission March 16, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland asked whether he had checked with the Northland Inn regarding what their parking ratio was. Director Ericson stated that he had not, but that would be a good idea to do so, as well as to check with other establishments that had a mixed use such as the Mermaid. Regarding the setback, the PUD for the Mermaid site allows for a principle structure setback of 50 feet, where what is normally allowed is 30 feet. The reason it was established at 50 feet was because no one had anticipated there would be additional expansion to the site. He stated the proposed setback is from 12 to 30 feet, so at one end of the building it would satisfy the 30-foot setback, but at the other end where County Road H starts curving it would be down to 12 feet. He stated there have been discussions about updating the Zoning Code because it was adopted in the 1970’s, and there have also been discussions about bringing buildings closer to the County Road 10 corridor rather than moving them back. He stated that because the PUD offers flexibility in what can be allowed, Staff would not be opposed to the proposed reduced building setback. Commissioner Miller asked how many spots were being leased for the Park and Ride. Mr. Hall stated it was between 60 and 70. He stated that his highest use for the parking lot is at night, and the parking for the Park and Ride is done at 5:00 or 5:30 p.m. He stated the contract with Park and Ride is year to year, and he wouldn’t mind giving it up if he needed to. Mr. Hall stated he has never seen the Banquet Center parking more than three quarters full at any time. He stated that on their very busiest day ever, with 14 banquets going on at once, there were still 100 spots open in back and 100 spots open in front. Chair Stevenson stated his concern was that the back lot would get the most pressure from the 105-room hotel expansion. Mr. Hall stated he had never seen a car parked in the first 20 or 30 stalls that parallel County Road H. Chair Stevenson asked what the total amount of lost parking was due to the expansion, and Mr. Hall answered that it is 51 spaces. Director Ericson stated he had not mentioned in his report that there is also an area where perhaps 20-25 stalls could be striped west of the bowling center. Mr. Hall stated he also has some shared parking north of the Mermaid with the carpet store, etc. Commissioner Hegland stated his concern is that the business is in a transition stage of focusing more on banquets, and he would like to get a point of reference from the Northland Inn and perhaps others on what their parking ratio is. Mr. Hall pointed out that the same people staying in the hotel would be the ones attending the banquets, so there wouldn’t be more cars. He stated that 100 spots have been freed up by the nightclub closing. Chair Stevenson stated they could always pass this Resolution with the idea that if they found out later that the parking wouldn’t be sufficient, they could stop the project at another point. Mounds View Planning Commission March 16, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland stated he didn’t expect the parking would be an issue, but he would like a point of reference to confirm it. Chair Stevenson asked whether this project was time sensitive, and Mr. Hall indicated that it was. Commissioner Miller pointed out that the Resolution states in part, “Approval of this general concept plan does not constitute approval nor obligate approval of the subsequent development stage plan review for the hotel expansion,” so that would not obligate them in the future. Commissioner Zwirn stated he had no problem with the parking issue, but several people had approached him with issues regarding where the expansion is proposed to be placed and issues regarding noise. He stated there was also an issue regarding why the expansion wasn’t proposed to be attached to the existing hotel. He asked why he wasn’t putting it where the membrane is located. Mr. Hall stated he couldn’t put it by the membrane because the Fire Code requires access all the way around the membrane. Commissioner Zwirn asked why he couldn’t put it in the back parking lot. Mr. Hall stated that had actually been the first design he had brought to his architect, but his architect had said that it wouldn’t work. Commissioner Zwirn stated he would like to see that rather than hear it. Mr. Hall stated he would have 50 to 60 feet of grass, trees, and shrubs after this expansion, whereas now he only has a very narrow path of grass in front of the hotel. Chair Stevenson stated that Staff would check into whether 800 parking stalls would be sufficient. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Hegland. To approve Resolution 789-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Concept Plan for a 105-Room Addition to The Mermaid Americinn Hotel Facility Located at 2200 County Road 10; Planning Case No. DE05-011. Commissioner Zwirn asked for clarification since he objected to the layout of this expansion. Director Ericson stated that this Resolution simply approved the Concept Plan for 105 rooms, and it may be that things would be changed around by the time it got back to the Planning Commission for Site Plan Review. Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission March 16, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: April 6, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Sheree Theobald TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5 Meeting Date: April 6, 2005 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Kristin Prososki, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Dog Kennel at 8370 Pleasant View Drive; Planning Case No. CU2005-002 Introduction: The applicant, Elizabeth Stoltz, is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for a residential kennel at 8370 Pleasant View Drive, which is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The applicant is proposing to keep three German Shepard dogs as pets. Discussion: Section 1106.04 of the Zoning Code conditionally allows residential dog kennels in Single Family Residential districts. The applicant is proposing to keep two female German Shepard dogs and one male German Shepard dog on the property. The Municipal Code requires that residents obtain a residential kennel license if they will be keeping more than two dogs that are more than six months old on the property. A residential kennel license will permit the resident to have up to four dogs. One of the conditions of the residential kennel license is that the applicant must submit a petition signed by at least 50% of the property owners within 500 feet of the applicant’s property stating that they agree with the establishment of the kennel. The signatures must be submitted prior to City Council review and the applicant has indicated that the signatures will be submitted at the April 6, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant is planning to enclose the backyard with a five (5) foot tall fence. A privacy fence will be constructed on the east (front) side, on the north side (to match up with an existing privacy fence) and half way on the south side of the property. A black chain link fence will be installed on the west (back) side and the back half of the south line. There is currently a small fenced area in the yard and an existing kennel in the yard. The applicant has three German Shepard dogs; one male and two females. All three dogs are neutered/spayed. The applicant has indicated that the dogs are “inside” dogs most of the day. The dogs are only let outside when the applicant is home and are not outside from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.. The applicant has indicated that the dogs have not been trained to be aggressive guard dogs and have only received behavioral training. Staff contacted the Mounds View Police Department and requested any complaints or reports filed regarding animals at the subject property. There is one complaint on file with the Police Department for 8370 Pleasant View Drive. On March 5, 2005, the Police Department received a complaint about barking dogs at the residence. Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 2 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 listed below. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal to keep three dogs on the property would not be inconsistent with the Comp Plan. The Geographical Area Involved. The applicant’s property is located on Pleasant View Drive. The area of the lot is slightly more than three-quarters of an acre. The size of the property would accommodate the proposed kennel. Depreciation. The applicant has had one complaint made to the Police Department about the dogs on her property. The proposed kennel would probably not decrease the value of the surrounding properties, however, if the dogs bark excessively, it would decrease the neighbors’ enjoyment of their own property. The Character of the Surrounding Area. This part of the City is strictly a single-family residential area. Keeping dogs as pets is a common practice. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant has indicated that the need is because she would like to keep her three dogs. Public Comment: Staff received many phone calls, letters and in-person visits by neighboring property owners. The neighbors have concerns about allowing the applicant to keep three dogs, specifically because they indicate that the dogs bark excessively. In addition, some of the neighbors indicate that there are already several dogs in the neighborhood and that “more is not merrier…just louder” (see attached letter). Finally, the neighbors are concerned that allowing this applicant to have three dogs would set a precedence, which would make it harder for the City to deny other potential applicants in the area, should they choose to apply for a residential kennel. Some of the neighbors have concerns about the barking and the loss of enjoyment of their property, but are reluctant to force the applicant to sell or give away one of her pets. They asked if it was possible to limit the conditional use permit to these specific dogs in order to allow the applicant to keep these three pets, but to make sure that she didn’t continuously have three dogs. Although this seems like a good compromise, conditional use permits run with the property and cannot be limited to these three specific dogs. Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 3 Staff received letters from two residents who were opposed to the City allowing the residential kennel because they were concerned about having a dog breeding business in the neighborhood and felt that they did not have enough information about the request. Staff contacted the residents to explain that in this case, the applicant would only be keeping pets and would not be breeding the dogs and Staff gave them more specific information regarding the request. The residents then indicated that they have no problems with the applicant keeping pets and stated that they no longer object to the request. The original letters are on file in the Community Development Department, but were not included in this report, as the letters do not reflect the current opinion of the two neighbors. Recommendations: Attached to this report are two versions of Resolution 790-05. One version recommends approval of the conditional use permit request and the other recommends denial. Staff does not typically attach two resolutions, however, this request is somewhat more complex than a typical conditional use permit request and seems to warrant attaching two versions of the resolution. After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit, with the conditions noted. Resolution 790-05 (approval) is attached if the Commission selects this option. 2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit. Resolution 790-05 (denial) is attached if the Commission selects this option. 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, Kristin Prososki Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Application 2. Letter from the Applicant 3. Zoning Map 4. Location Map 5. Photographic Documentation 6. Letter from Neighboring Properties 7. Resolution 790-05 (Approval) 8. Resolution 790-05 (Denial) Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 4 Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 5 Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 6 Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 7 Zoning Map Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 8 Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 9 Photographic Documentation Backyard Area Existing Kennel Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 10 Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 11 Map Submitted with Letter (shaded properties are opposed to request) Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 12 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 790-05 (Approval) CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL DOG KENNEL AT 8370 PLEASANT VIEW DRIVE; PLANNING CASE NO. CU2005-002 WHEREAS, Elizabeth Stoltz has applied for a conditional use permit for a residential dog kennel; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 8370 Pleasant View Drive, is zoned R- 1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 2 Pleasant Acres WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows residential dog kennels in Single Family Residential districts; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Letter from the Applicant c. Zoning Map d. Location Map e. Letter from Neighboring Properties f. Photographic Documentation g. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the conditional use permit request on Wednesday, April 6, 2005. 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 request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan. Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 13 2. The size of the subject property is able to accommodate three dogs. The rear yard will be fully fenced, which will prevent the dogs from entering neighboring properties. 3. There has been only one complaint regarding dogs at the subject property. The proposal to keep three dogs should not depreciate the surrounding area. 4. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed residential kennel. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for a residential dog kennel, with conditions as follows: 1. No more than three dogs over the age of six months shall be allowed on the property. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for paying an annual license fee upon approval of this permit and again every year thereafter. 3. The applicant shall maintain the yard and kennel area in a clean, quiet orderly and sanitary condition. 4. The City Council, at its discretion, may review this conditional use permit at any time in the future if the need to do so arises. 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 6th day of April, 2005. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 14 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 790-05 (Denial) CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL DOG KENNEL AT 8370 PLEASANT VIEW DRIVE; PLANNING CASE NO. CU2005-002 WHEREAS, Elizabeth Stoltz has applied for a conditional use permit for a residential dog kennel; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 8370 Pleasant View Drive, is zoned R- 1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 2 Pleasant Acres WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows residential dog kennels in Single Family Residential districts; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Letter from the Applicant c. Zoning Map d. Location Map e. Letter from Neighboring Properties f. Photographic Documentation g. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the conditional use permit request on Wednesday, April 6, 2005. 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 request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan. Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 15 2. The size of the subject property is able to accommodate three dogs, however, the dogs bark excessively, which causes a nuisance to the neighboring properties. 3. There has been one complaint regarding the dogs and many neighbors have expressed concern about the dogs and the excessive barking. Excessive barking can cause the neighbors a loss of enjoyment of their own property. 4. The applicant has demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed residential kennel, however, it would cause a negative impact on the neighboring properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends denial of the conditional use permit for a residential dog kennel. 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 6th day of April, 2005. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 6 Meeting Date: April 6, 2005 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Kristin Prososki, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 7965 Fairchild Avenue; Planning Case No. CU2005-003 Introduction: The applicants, Rebecca Witz-Ross and Brian Ross, are requesting approval of a conditional use permit to construct an oversized detached garage at 7965 Fairchild Avenue. The applicants indicate that they would removed the existing 576 square foot detached garage and construct a 1,440 square foot detached garage, which would be an increase of 864 square feet of garage area. 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 1,440 square foot garage satisfies the requirements as stated in Section 1106.03 and 1106.04, Subdivision 6 of the Mounds View Zoning Code. The applicants are planning to construct a new garage that would be located in the same general location, but would extend to the back and side of where the existing garage is currently located. The proposed garage would be set back five (5) feet from the side (north) property line and twelve and a half (12.5) feet from the rear (east) property line. Section 1104.01 requires a five (5) foot setback, which the proposed garage satisfies. 7965 Fairchild Avenue CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 2 In addition to the proposed garage, there is an existing shed on the property. The applicants are planning to remove the existing shed. The proposed garage would then be the only accessory structure on the property. The proposed garage would have an area of 1,440 square feet, which would make up 17.6% of the rear yard area. This satisfies the Code, as the Code allows the combined square footage of accessory structures to be up to 20% of the rear yard area. 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, 7965 Fairchild Avenue, 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. 7965 Fairchild Avenue is designated as low-density residential and the proposed garage expansion would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Geographical Area Involved. The applicants’ home is located on Fairchild Avenue. The proposed oversized garage would not be out of place for this area and the size of the applicants’ lot would accommodate the larger garage. Depreciation. The proposed garage would benefit the subject property both in a practical sense by providing additional on site, indoor parking and storage area and in an economic sense, as the addition would increase the “value” of the property. Increased property values are of course a benefit to everyone. The Character of the Surrounding Area. This part of the City is strictly residential; strictly single family dwellings. Most of the homes were constructed between 1940 and 1970. Several properties in the area have completed garage expansions to allow for additional storage. The proposed garage would not be out of character in this area. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicants have found that a larger garage is necessary for their storage needs. In addition, the applicants have experienced vandalism to their belongings and would like to store things inside the garage to keep them out of sight. The applicants own two vehicles and two trailers as well as a boat. The added garage space would be a substantial improvement for the applicants and would have a positive impact on the neighborhood, as some or all of the vehicles, trailers and boat could be stored in the garage. 7965 Fairchild Avenue CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 3 Code Consistency Subdivision 6 of Section 1106.04 lists the conditions under which a conditional use permit can be issued. These are as follows: 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. 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'). e. The building shall be a permanent structure. 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 Code. The conditions in Section 1106.04 (listed above) have been satisfied with this request. Section 1103.06 refers to the location of accessory buildings in side and rear yards. The proposed garage satisfies this requirement. Section 1106.03 refers to specific standards such as height, area, setbacks, coverage ratios, use requirements, total number of accessory buildings allowed and exterior siding requirements, all of which are satisfied with this request. Public Comment: Two neighboring property owners contacted Staff regarding this request. One of the neighbors asked to see the proposed site plan and stated that he thought the expansion would be beneficial, as the items that are now stored outside could then be stored inside. The other neighbor is opposed to the request and submitted a letter stating the reasons for opposition (see attached), which mostly center on a concern that the garage might be used for a business. The applicants have stated that the garage will be used for storage of vehicles, trailers and a boat and will not be used to operate a home business. Recommendations: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the property owners and affected neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit. Resolution 791-05 is attached if the Commission selects this option. 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. If the Commission chooses to act on this option, Staff will provide the resolution to the Commission at the next meeting on April 20, 2005. 7965 Fairchild Avenue CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 4 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, Kristin Prososki Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Proposed Site Plan 5. Proposed Elevations 6. Photographic Documentation 7. Letter of Opposition from Neighbor 8. Resolution 791-05 7965 Fairchild Avenue CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 5 7965 Fairchild Avenue CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 6 7965 Fairchild Avenue CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 7 Zoning Map 7965 Fairchild Avenue CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 8 7965 Fairchild Avenue CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 9 Proposed Site Plan 7965 Fairchild Avenue CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 10 Proposed Elevations 7965 Fairchild Avenue CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 11 7965 Fairchild Avenue CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 12 7965 Fairchild Avenue CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 13 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 791-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A 1,440 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE AT 7965 FAIRCHILD; PLANNING CASE NO CU2005-003 WHEREAS, property owners Rebecca Witz-Ross and Brian Ross have applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,440 square foot garage; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 7965 Fairchild Avenue, is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Spring Lake Park Hillview Except South 80 feet, Lot 133 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,800 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the proposed garage would be 1,440 square feet, thus necessitating application of a conditional use permit; and, WHEREAS , the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Location Map d. Site Plan e. Photographic Documentation f. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the conditional use permit request on Wednesday, April 6, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request: 7965 Fairchild Avenue CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 14 1. The proposed oversized 1,440 square foot garage satisfies the dimensional requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code. 2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. 3. The proposed garage would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved. 4. The proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood. 5. The applicants have sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed oversized garage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the 1,440 square foot garage, with conditions as follows: 1. The garage shall not be used for commercial purposes, living space or other uses not allowed within the R-1 Single-Family Residential district or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted; the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. 2. The garage expansion shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the existing house. 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 6th day of April, 2005. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL)