Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-01-2005 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION June 1, 2005 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approve Minutes: April 6, 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 VR2005-005 Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance Request to Reduce the Front Yard Setback to Nineteen Feet for the Construction of a Garage Addition at 5131 Greenwood Drive Applicant: Keith Vasilakes APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 763-717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. 6. Next Planning Commission Meeting: June 15, 2005 7. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: May 18, 2005 2. Staff Reports 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports Item No: 5 Meeting Date: June 1, 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 Request for a Variance to Reduce the Front Yard Setback to Nineteen Feet for the Construction of a Garage Addition at 5131 Greenwood Drive; Planning Case VR2005-005 Introduction: The applicant, Keith Vasilakes, is proposing to construct an addition to his existing attached garage at 5131 Greenwood Drive. The proposed garage addition would be located in front (east) of the existing attached garage and would be located nineteen (19) feet from the front property line. The applicant is requesting to encroach sixteen (16) feet into the prevailing setback of thirty-five (35) feet. The Mounds View Zoning Code requires a minimum front setback of thirty (30) feet for buildings, however, there is also a provision in the Code that requires that buildings not encroach into the prevailing setback for the block on which the property is located. The prevailing setback for this particular block of Greenwood Drive is thirty-five (35) feet. Discussion: Setback requirements are addressed in Section 1104.01 of the Zoning Code. Each zoning district is listed with the corresponding front, side and rear setbacks. In an R-1, Single Family Residential district, the typical building setbacks are as follows: Front, thirty (30) feet; Side, ten (10) feet; and Rear, thirty (30) feet. It is noted that sheds and garages, attached or detached, can have side and rear setbacks of five (5) feet. The Code also addresses the issue of “prevailing setbacks,” which is the case on the east lot line of this property. The Code states that, “Where principal buildings in existence on lots within the same block on the same side of the street have front yard setbacks different from those required, the minimum front yard setback for any new principal buildings shall be the minimum front yard setback in existence for any one lot. In no case shall the front yard setback be less than thirty feet (30').” The prevailing setback on the east lot line, which parallels Greenwood Drive, has been determined to be thirty-five (35) feet. The bigger issue in this case is that the proposed addition would not only encroach into the prevailing setback, but also into the minimum front yard setback of thirty (30) feet. 5131 Greenwood Drive Variance Request June 1, 2005 Page 2 The applicant is proposing to construct a garage addition to the front of the existing attached garage. The garage addition would extend sixteen (16) feet past the front of the house. As proposed, the garage addition would be nineteen (19) feet from the front property line. In other words, the applicant is requesting a sixteen (16) foot variance from the prevailing setback, which in this case also means an eleven (11) foot variance from the thirty (30) foot minimum setback requirement. The proposed garage would meet all other setback requirements. Staff pointed out other possible options for additional garage space, such as adding a garage to the backyard, however, the applicant feels that this is the best possible solution to meet his storage needs. Variance Considerations: For a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission, in this case) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The property has an area of 13,068 square feet and has 100 feet of street frontage. This lot exceeds the minimum lot requirements for a single family lot. Staff is not aware of any extraordinary circumstances that apply to this property. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, unless a hardship is proven. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. It must first be determined that a special condition or circumstance exists. d. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Granting the variance would confer upon the property owner a special privilege denied to others (with similarly sized parcels) in the same district. 5131 Greenwood Drive Variance Request June 1, 2005 Page 3 e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. Constructing an addition that extends sixteen (16) feet beyond the front of the house is probably the minimum variance for a front addition, however, there are other options for additional garage space, such as adding a detached garage in the backyard. The detached garage could be accessed by adding an overhead door to the back of the existing garage and using it to drive through to the back yard. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The variance may be detrimental to the purpose of this Title unless it is determined that a hardship is present. 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 proposed garage expansion should not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects. Additional Requests: If this variance request is approved, the applicant will need to apply for a conditional use permit for an oversized garage. A conditional use permit is required for any accessory building that has an area exceeding 952 square feet. The garage as proposed would have an area of 1,029 square feet. Recommendation: 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. Deny the requested variance. Resolution 797-05 is attached for the Commission’s approval if that is the chosen course of action. 2. Approve the variance as requested. To move forward with this option, the Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of approval with findings of fact appropriate to support the approval. 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. 5131 Greenwood Drive Variance Request June 1, 2005 Page 4 Respectfully submitted, Kristin Prososki Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Application 2. Letter from Applicant 3. Zoning Map 4. Location Map 5. Existing Site Plan 6. Proposed Site Plan 7. Aerial View of Greenwood Drive 8. Aerial Photograph 9. Photographic Documentation 10. Resolution 797-05 5131 Greenwood Drive Variance Request June 1, 2005 Page 5 5131 Greenwood Drive Variance Request June 1, 2005 Page 6 5131 Greenwood Drive Variance Request June 1, 2005 Page 7 5131 Greenwood Drive Variance Request June 1, 2005 Page 8 5131 Greenwood Drive Variance Request June 1, 2005 Page 9 Zoning Map 5131 Greenwood Drive Variance Request June 1, 2005 Page 10 5131 Greenwood Drive Variance Request June 1, 2005 Page 11 Existing Site Plan Note: The house is setback 50 feet from the edge of the street; however, the property line begins approximately 15 feet from the edge of the street. The house is actually setback 35 feet from the front property line 5131 Greenwood Drive Variance Request June 1, 2005 Page 12 Proposed Site Plan Note: The proposed garage addition would be setback 34 feet from the edge of the street; however, the property line begins approximately 15 feet from the edge of the street. The proposed garage addition would actually be setback 19 feet from the front property line. 5131 Greenwood Drive Variance Request June 1, 2005 Page 13 Aerial View of Greenwood Drive Proposed Garage Addition 5131 Greenwood Drive Variance Request June 1, 2005 Page 14 Aerial Photo of 5131 Greenwood Drive 5131 Greenwood Drive Variance Request June 1, 2005 Page 15 Photographic Documentation 5131 Greenwood Drive Variance Request June 1, 2005 Page 16 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 797-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO NINETEEN FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION AT 5131 GREENWOOD DRIVE; PLANNING CASE VR2005-005 WHEREAS, the applicant, Keith Vasilakes, has applied for a variance to reduce the front yard setback to nineteen feet at 5131 Greenwood Drive; and, WHEREAS, 5131 Greenwood Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and is legally described as: Lot 4, Block 2 Clint’s Addition WHEREAS, Section 1104.01 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the minimum front yard setback for buildings in Single Family Residential districts is thirty (30) feet; and, WHEREAS, the prevailing setback for the 5100 block of Greenwood Drive is thirty-five (35) feet; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a front yard setback variance to construct a garage addition nineteen (19) feet from the front property line; and, WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the following materials relating to this request: 1. Application 2. Letter from the Applicant 3. Zoning Map 4. Location Map 5. Existing Site Plan 6. Proposed Site Plan 7. Aerial Photograph 8. Photographic Documentation 9. Staff Report 5131 Greenwood Drive Variance Request June 1, 2005 Page 17 WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding this variance on Wednesday, June 1, 2005; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following finding of facts related to this request: 1. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. 2. The prevailing front yard setback for the 5100 block of Greenwood Drive is thirty-five feet. In addition, the Zoning Code requires a minimum front yard setback of thirty feet. 3. The applicant is requesting to reduce the front yard setback to nineteen feet. 4. The property is neither exceptional nor extraordinary in regards to shape or size. 5. Granting a variance in this case would confer a special privilege not enjoyed by other property owners in that there does not appear to be a sufficient hardship to warrant approval of the variance. 6. The variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title in that there does not appear to be a sufficient hardship to warrant approval of the variance. 7. The hardship criteria as identified in Section 1125.02 have not been satisfied. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon its review of the documentation, testimony presented at the public hearing, and the identified findings of fact, does hereby deny the request for a sixteen-foot variance from the prevailing front setback of thirty-five feet at 5131 Greenwood Drive. 5131 Greenwood Drive Variance Request June 1, 2005 Page 18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission that the applicant shall be notified of the right to appeal this denial to the City Council. The appeal shall be submitted in writing within 10 business days of the adoption of this Resolution. Adopted this 1st day of June, 2005. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL)