Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-19-2005 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA October 19, 2005 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. September 21, 2005 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already Present on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2005-013 Variance request for a driveway extension/parking area and lean-to garage addition within 1 foot of the property line. Applicant: Daniel Kelner Address: 8036 Fairchild Avenue 6. Other Planning Activity A. None 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. November 16, 2005 at New Brighton City Hall 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. October 5, 2005 2. Staff Reports a. October 10, 2005 City Council Meeting b. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion *NOTE LOCATION* NEW BRIGHTON CITY HALL 803 Old Highway 8 NW PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 5, 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. October 5, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, Scotch, and Stevenson Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson, Planning Associate Heller, City Attorney Riggs ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Cases MA2005-002 and PD2005-002. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat Review, Rezoning and Development Stage Plan Review Associated with the Medtronic CRM Project. 02 ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes September 7, 2005. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Scotch. To approve the Minutes of the September 7, 2005 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Review of Commission Roles and Responsibilities. Community Development Director Ericson stated during the last meeting questions were raised regarding the Commission’s responsibilities. He added Scott Riggs, City Attorney, is present tonight to clarify responsibilities and answer any questions. Mr. Riggs handed out a few different pieces of pertinent information. He reviewed the handout and memorandum indicating the Commission is an advisory body to City Council and reviews items such as zoning and plats and recommends final approval to Council; these items do not include fiscal issues such as TIF. Commissioner Hegland stated a month ago the Commission had to make a determination that a TIF Plan was consistent with the comp plan, yet they were unsure if it met the criteria meant to judge it by, and asked how that should have been considered. Mr. Riggs replied yes. He added when reviewing a plan it should be decided if the proposed project and plan fit within the requirements or confines of the comp plan, regardless of dollars or financing. Commissioner Scotch stated she disagrees and read some language from Minnesota Statutes. She added if a plan involves economic development why wouldn’t the Commission want to know about dollars. Mr. Riggs replied the comp plan has been adopted and now the Commission is applying it. He added fiscal implications are not there for the Commission to analyze. Commissioner Scotch referenced a book she received at the beginning of her term. She added she feels up to this point she has made good decisions, has the right to her own opinion, and in making decisions the whole picture needs to be looked at. Commissioner Zwirn stated sometimes the Commission is not given all the facts. Commissioner Scotch asked why a contract is being signed without a PUD in place. Mr. Riggs replied the developer is going through the planning process at this time. He added the City is following the process it has used in the past; there has been no deviation from policy or process. Commissioner Scotch questioned Mr. Riggs’ information. She added she would however take the provided information into consideration for the agenda item tonight. Mr. Riggs replied he is providing applicable laws and does not know the specifics of what has previously been discussed regarding Medtronic. Commissioner Scotch stated since he is the City attorney he should be familiar with the issues that are before the City. She added many citizens feel Council did not do a good job on the Medtronic project. Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland asked for confirmation that the comp plan is what the Commission is gauging projects on. He noted his prior question was if the TIF a plan was in compliance with the comp plan, because they did not have that information. Mr. Riggs replied that the TIF plan and the project it would support would be consistent with comp plan, reiterating that the Commission is not involved in any budgetary of the City. Commissioner Stevenson thanked Mr. Riggs for clarifying a few issues. Commissioner Miller stated the handouts are very helpful. Mr. Riggs replied that was the intent. He added he is open to questions in the future. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Cases MA2005-002 and PD2005-002. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat Review, Rezoning and Development Stage Plan Review Associated with the Medtronic CRM Project. Commissioner Stevenson asked for clarification regarding the fact that one resolution was drafted for several items. He added that while each item is clearly broken down within the resolution, usually there are separate resolutions. Director Ericson replied that in the past different actions have been presented in separate resolutions; however, for this one it is not necessary because the Commission would be recommending approval or denial to Council as a whole. Commissioner Stevenson asked for a general consensus from the commission on the grouping of the actions into one Resolution and, upon receiving, stated the items will be acted on together. Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the staff report indicating the applicant, Medtronic, Inc., is requesting approval of the preliminary plat and development stage plans of the Medtronic PUD. The approved development, which has not changed, is a multi-phased project totaling 1,500,000 square feet in four connected, east-west oriented buildings. He reviewed the three different phases in terms of buildings, parking, and square footage. Director Ericson referenced the PUD noting only one wetland in the project area will be impacted. The judicial ditch will be realigned away from the building to alongside Highway 10 in a wider, more natural, meandering channel. Two new stormwater ponds will be created and an existing pond expanded to accommodate the run off on site. Director Ericson referenced the preliminary plat noting there are four lots, an outlot, and a possible sixth lot which would encompass the first phase parking ramp north of the phase 1 buildings. The City must consider a rezoning of the project area from the existing Light Industrial (l-1) designation to Planned Unit Development (PUD), which would be consistent with the comp plan. Director Ericson stated there are no compelling adverse effects associated with this project. He requested the Planning Commission review and consider the development stage plan, the CRM Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ preliminary plat, and approval of a rezoning from l-1 to PUD. He passed out a summary plan for the reconstruction of County Road J, which would handle future traffic volumes. Commissioner Miller referenced the resolution where it states “subject to the following conditions” and asked who checks those. Director Ericson replied either Staff reviews code or it is reflected on the preliminary plat. Commissioner Stevenson asked if on page 1, the first Whereas, does the resolution address Phase1 only (820,000 square feet). Director Ericson replied it should reflect the 1.5 million square feet instead of just the first phase and will be amended. He added if there are no changes to the site plan as presented tonight, Medtronic would not need to come back for further approval for phase 2 and phase 3, as the request is for master plan approval for the entire project. Commissioner Stevenson suggested on page 2, item 10, a map should be included to show traffic and timing. He also asked if traffic improvements to County Road J would be completed by September 2007, noting if the state pulls the improvement money, County Road J could not support the additional traffic. Director Ericson replied Staff can address this in the resolution, as a requirement, that transportation requirements have been completed. He suggested it be added to the resolution on page 3, item 4. Commissioner Scotch asked if County Road J coincides with phase 1. Director Ericson replied improvements to County Road J would be completed before phase 1 is done so when Medtronic opens the transportation system will have been completed. Commissioner Miller asked what is the time frame for improvements on County Road J. Director Ericson replied he understands the consultant is on track and improvements should be done by September 2007, providing no unanticipated delays are encountered. Commissioner Hull asked why Medtronic has a PUD instead of an L-1. Director Ericson replied the primary reason is that it offers flexibility on what can be granted on the site; a PUD district allows for clustering of buildings to preserve green space. Commissioner Scotch asked what is directly across the road from phase 1. Director Ericson replied directly south is open space, on the south side, at approximately 400 feet, is housing, then SYSCO to the west and other industrial and office properties to the north. Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated there are no buildings like this in the City. He noted he could understand if the PUD was 15 years ago but the City is at the end of its development. He stated it looks like a gateway into the upper north area. He commended the Commission on their concern and detailed discussion regarding this issue. Commissioner Stevenson replied the PUD allows this type of building structure and the desire is to preserve green space and natural areas. Commissioner Hegland stated during the last meeting there were concerns with the cost of adding utilities under Highway 10 and the issue of bringing on another City well that is currently Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ not in service. He added if the proposed cost estimate to provide utilities to the site is higher, what would be the City’s recourse. Director Ericson replied the utility lines under Highway 10 were proposed in early City plans. He added Council is going to authorize a feasibility report to get a true cost of providing utilities to the site. Engineers estimated the cost at $800,000 which would be shared between Medtronic and the City according to provisions in the development agreement. Commissioner Stevenson stated no matter if the utilities go under Highway 10, or what is found in the feasibility study, this will not make a difference to the resolution this evening. Director Ericson replied that is correct. Commissioner Stevenson asked if the City needs Well #4 to supply adequate water supply to the Medtronic buildings. Greg Lee, Public Works Director, replied no, bringing Well # 4 back on line is not contingent upon Medtronic. He referenced a report from 1978, which included recommendation to bring Well # 4 back on line, and a 2001 City feasibility report with the same recommendation. Commissioner Scotch asked why it is recommended to bring the well back on line. Mr. Lee replied the well would add more depth and safety to the water system, and provide “backup” if another well went off line. Commissioner Hegland asked how much excess capacity there is. Mr. Lee replied during peak demands it is barely met; however, they could take a higher capacity well off peak control, use a back up generator, or bring Well #4 back on line. He added the Public Works Department will be presenting a proposal regarding this at a later date. Commissioner Miller asked what it would cost to bring Well # 4 back on line. Mr. Lee replied approximately $450,000 and a pipe to the treatment line. Commissioner Scotch asked about the condition of the pipes, noting some may be old and in need of replacement in the future. Mr. Lee replied the City is trying to initiate a rehabilitation program and regenerate the systems. Commissioner Hegland asked how much would this project impact the system presently. Mr. Lee replied based on current data from the AUAR, at full build out, about 120,000 gallons a day or 8.6 percent additional water supply. He added the City was always planning to use this land and from a public works perspective it fits the comp plan well. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the City is in financial trouble. He also asked if Council was intimately involved in negotiating with Medtronic. Director Ericson replied the City is not in financial trouble and the Council was actually involved in the negotiation. Commissioner Zwirn stated he is shocked by the poor position Staff and the Council and legal representatives have put the taxpayers. He noted he has the rights and responsibility to question Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ all aspects of this project. He stated he has several unresolved questions pertaining to the purchase agreement. Commissioner Zwirn referenced the purchase agreement, page 16, subd. 2, stating phase 1 will be developed with TIF money, and phases 2 and 3 will not be started until there are TIF districts set up and TIF dollars allocated. He added on page 8, subd. F, it states using TIF is essential under the agreement, which again states no phase 2 or 3 unless the City and governing authorities provide TIF. Director Ericson replied there is nothing to prevent Medtronic from starting phase 2 or 3 with or without TIF dollars and they have the ability to approach Council with this request. Commissioner Zwirn referenced the purchase agreement, page 17, subd. 3, stating if the developer desires they can make changes in construction plans, submit them for City approval, and they shall be deemed approved unless rejected. He added onus is on the City to respond within 15 days; otherwise they are construed to be approved. Commissioner Zwirn referenced the purchase agreement stating there are missing definitions in Sections E and H. He added on page 19, first paragraph, reimbursement of funds if the developer fails to meet obligations for phases 2 and 3 are not specifically outlined. He noted on page 20, TIF funds would be used for the acquisition of property in Blaine, and stated he thought this was not supposed to be available. Director Ericson replied according to the agreement, expenses occurring in Mounds View would be reimbursed first, before any reimbursement would be provided for expenses in Blaine. Commissioner Zwirn referenced the purchase agreement, page 21, paragraph F, stating the developer understands they will repay the City for qualified costs and any others should stand alone. He asked about the 25-year TIF plan. Director Ericson replied if the development requests additional financial services a new development agreement is necessary. He added he cannot address the 25-year TIF plan. Commissioner Zwirn referenced the purchase agreement, page 23, section C, stating the goals for the City are to maintain minimum improvements for at least five years. Director Ericson replied this may be legal requirement and is not part of the issue the Commission is addressing tonight. Commissioner Zwirn referenced the purchase agreement, page 29, paragraph A, stating prior to the certificate of completion the developer needs to perform obligations to minimum improvements under the agreement. He asked if this says once phases 1, 2, and 3 are completed, if the developer chooses they have the right to sublease the development of property as long as they maintain ownership. Director Ericson replied he is unsure without taking a moment to review the agreement. Commissioner Stevenson stated the purchase agreement issues are not relevant to the issue before the Commission tonight. Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Hegland. To approve Resolution 815-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Preliminary Plat Review, Rezoning and Development Stage Plan Review Associated with the Medtronic CRM Project as amended; Planning Cases No. MA2005- 002 and PD2005-002. Commissioner Stevenson asked for a consensus regarding the reading of the resolution. The Commission agreed to have Staff read the resolution. Director Ericson read the resolution, noting the amendments to include, page 1, the first Whereas, 820,000 will be changed to 1,500,000; page 2, item 9 “of” is changed to “or”; page 2, item 10, Exhibit B, transportation improvements, will be added; page 2, item F, will be added to outline that transportation improvements noted in Exhibit B will be completed before a certificate of occupancy is issued. Ayes – 5 Nays – 2 (Zwirn, Scotch) Motion carried. Commissioner Zwirn and Commissioner Scotch indicated their positions are well documented. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Next Planning Commission Meeting: October 19, 2005 at New Brighton City Hall ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Cheryl Felix TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: A Meeting Date: October 19, 2005 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Variance Request to allow for a Driveway/Parking Area Extension and Garage Lean-to within 1 foot of the Property Line (1 foot setback) at 8036 Fairchild Avenue; Planning Case VR2005-013 Introduction: The applicant, Dan Kelner, is requesting a variance to permit a driveway/parking area extension along the side of the garage with a lean-to covering it built onto the side of his garage within 1 (one) foot of the south side property line. Most of the lean-to structure has already been constructed and the concrete extension is completed, both without a permit. Staff became aware of the structure recently by noticing the new construction while driving by the property. Mr. Kelner was sent a letter on September 20, indicating that building and zoning permits had not been obtained and that the construction was in violation of Code requirements. Attached to that letter were planning and zoning applications. Mr. Kelner stopped construction and applied for a variance on September 25, 2005. Discussion: As with any variance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. (The applicant was given a list of the criteria and was encouraged to submit a written response to demonstrate his hardship. A written statement was included with the application.) The individual criteria, with responses, 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. There are no extraordinary circumstances which 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 would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant is clearly responsible for the conditions which have prompted him to apply for a variance. Had the applicant applied for a building permit prior to doing the work, he would have been told that the driveway extension and garage lean-to addition would be in violation of the Zoning Code. 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. Granting this variance would confer upon the applicant a special privilege in that other property owners are not allowed to build within the five foot setback. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. Because the structure is already in place, the variance requested is the minimum that would be necessary to maintain the structure. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Given the circumstances, staff feels that granting the variance request would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title. In addition, granting the variance would be sending a message to residents that it is acceptable to ignore the building code and zoning code requirements by seeking approval through the variance process. 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. While the addition would not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjoining property, if left in place, stormwater runoff would most likely drain onto the adjoining property. It could be argued that the adjoining property’s value could be impacted by the structure located within one foot of the property line. After reviewing the criteria and the details of the variance request, staff believes that the criteria are not satisfied and thus the request should be denied. Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, this request necessitated a public hearing. Notices were mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the Kelner’s property. A letter of support was given to staff from the neighbor directly to the south at 8026 Fairchild (directly next to the addition). No other public comment was received. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission may take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Deny the requested variance. Resolution 818-05 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 hardship 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. Staff recommends the Commission to approve Resolution 818-05, a resolution denying the variance request of Daniel Kelner to have a driveway/parking area extension and garage lean-to addition within one foot of the property line and requiring the property owner to remove the structure within 30 days of the date of denial. Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Aerial Photo (2003) 5. Existing Site Plan 6. Statement from Daniel Kelner 7. Letter of support from neighbor 8. Photographic Documentation 9. Resolution 818-05 ZONING MAP * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Properties within 350 feet of 8036 Fairchild Avenue that have been notified for the public hearing. Aerial View (2003) 8036 Fairchild Ave. Photographic Documentation Driveway/parking area concrete extension running along the side of garage Lean-to garage addition – new roof extending over the concrete driveway extension Photographic Documentation Lean-to garage roof addition covering a concrete driveway extension Photographic Documentation Driveway widened to accommodate the parking area along the side of the garage MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 818-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FROM CHAPTER 1104 OF THE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO BUILDING SETBACKS, REQUESTED BY DANIEL KELNER, 8036 FAIRCHILD AVENUE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2005-013 WHEREAS, The applicant, Daniel Kelner, has applied for a variance to allow for a driveway/parking area extension and lean-to addition to his garage located within one foot of the south property line of his property located at 8036 Fairchild Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the City Code, in Section 1104.01, Subd. 4b, states that attached garages and accessory structures in a residential district shall be set back five feet from property lines; and, WHEREAS, 8036 Fairchild Avenue is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 89 (MV) N 73 FT OF S 219 FT OF E 1/2 OF N 2/3 OF LOT 63 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Letter to Resident 4. Written Statement from Property Owner 5. Letter from Neighbor 6. Staff Report WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this request on October 19, 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 finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are not satisfied and finds there to be insufficient hardship with regard to the property located at 8036 Fairchild Avenue, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances related to the property located at 8036 Fairchild Avenue. The lot meets and exceeds all minimum zoning requirements, is rectangular without any slope or any topographical deviations. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Code. 3. Without an evident hardship tied to the property itself, it would be inappropriate to grant a variance to allow for a driveway extension and lean-to garage addition with only one foot setback from the property line and would set a precedent for other property owners. 4. Granting a variance to allow for an addition with a one foot setback from the property line would be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code in that buildings are not allowed closer than five feet to a property line. 5. By building the structure without a building permit, the applicant has caused the conditions which require approval of the variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, denies the variance request of Daniel Kelner, 8036 Fairchild Avenue, to allow for a driveway extension and lean-to garage addition with a one foot setback from the property line. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ADDITIONALLY RESOLVED, the Planning Commission does hereby require that the driveway extension and lean-to garage addition be removed at the property owner’s expense within 30 days of the date of this denial. 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 19th day of October, 2005. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 818-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FROM CHAPTER 1104 OF THE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO BUILDING SETBACKS, REQUESTED BY DANIEL KELNER, 8036 FAIRCHILD AVENUE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2005-013 WHEREAS, The applicant, Daniel Kelner, has applied for a variance to allow for a driveway/parking area extension and lean-to addition to his garage located within one foot of the south property line of his property located at 8036 Fairchild Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the City Code, in Section 1104.01, Subd. 4b, states that attached garages and accessory structures in a residential district shall be set back five feet from property lines; and, WHEREAS, 8036 Fairchild Avenue is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 89 (MV) N 73 FT OF S 219 FT OF E 1/2 OF N 2/3 OF LOT 63 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Letter to Resident 4. Written Statement from Property Owner 5. Letter from Neighbor 6. Staff Report WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this request on October 19, 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 finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are not satisfied and finds there to be insufficient hardship with regard to the property located at 8036 Fairchild Avenue, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances related to the property located at 8036 Fairchild Avenue. The lot meets and exceeds all minimum zoning requirements, is rectangular without any slope or any topographical deviations. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Code. 3. Without an evident hardship tied to the property itself, it would be inappropriate to grant a variance to allow for a driveway extension and lean-to garage addition with only one foot setback from the property line and would set a precedent for other property owners. 4. Granting a variance to allow for an addition with a one foot setback from the property line would be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code in that buildings are not allowed closer than five feet to a property line. 5. By building the structure without a building permit, the applicant has caused the conditions which require approval of the variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, denies the variance request of Daniel Kelner, 8036 Fairchild Avenue, to allow for a driveway extension and lean-to garage addition with a one foot setback from the property line. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ADDITIONALLY RESOLVED, the Planning Commission does hereby require that the driveway extension and lean-to garage addition be removed at the property owner’s expense within 30 days of the date of this denial. 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 19th day of October, 2005. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL)