Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-15-2003 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION October 15, 2003 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approve Minutes: September 17, 2003 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 5. Planning Case CU03-004; VR03-009 Public Hearing to Consider a Variance and Conditional Use Permit Request to Expand a Garage at 7850 Spring Lake Road – Resolution 741-03 Applicants: Joel and Linda Whitbeck 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: November 5, 2003 7. Adjournment to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: October 1, 2003 2. Staff Reports: 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports \\Trout\CommDev\Planning Commission\PC Agendas\2003\10-01-03 PC Agenda.doc Item No: 5 Meeting Date: October 15, 2003 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: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance and Conditional Use Permit to Expand a Garage at 7850 Spring Lake Road Planning Case Nos. CU03-004 & VR03-009 Introduction: Property owners Joel and Linda Whitbeck are requesting approval of a variance and a conditional use permit to expand their garage at 7850 Spring Lake Road. The applicants indicate that the existing garage is too small to meet their needs and that they would like to expand upon it by adding a third stall and a workshop off the back. The proposed width of the expanded garage would be 40 feet, five feet in excess of what is allowed by City Code. The subject lot is a larger sized lot--37,462 square feet—with 112 feet of frontage on Spring Lake Road. Part of the lot extends into Spring Lake. The home is a slab-on-grade construction which means there is no basement, furthering the need for an expanded garage. Photographs of the lot and the garage are attached for the Commission’s review. 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 garage 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. Section 1125.02, Subd. 2: This part of the Code identifies the criteria that shall be used to establish hardship related to variance requests. Discussion: The request for a Conditional Use Permit to expand the 720 square foot garage by an additional 390 square feet satisfies the requirements as stated in Section 1106.03 and 1106.04, Subdivision 6 of the Mounds View Zoning Code with the exception of the proposed width of the building which, at 40 feet, exceeds the maximum allowed by five feet. The applicants have claimed a hardship and are requesting a variance to permit the 40-foot wide garage. Whitbeck PC Report October 15, 2003 Page 2 The existing two-car garage is located at the northwest corner of the lot and is partially hidden from the road by the house. The current setback is approximately 6 feet form the north lot line and 16 feet to the west lot line. A third stall would be added on the south side of the garage, which would not be visible form the street. (The third stall addition would not encroach into any required setback.) If the additional third stall were the only expansion proposed, the garage would be 960 square feet. If the addition were only 8 square feet less (e.g., 39.66 x 24 instead of 40 x 24) a conditional use permit would not be required and the garage could be constructed without any planning action. However, the Whitbecks are adding a secondary addition of 150 square feet attached behind the garage which brings the total area up to 1,110 square feet. The proposed expansion on the backside of the garage would bring the garage 10 feet closer to the west line but still within the setback limits. 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, 7850 Spring Lake Road, as low-density residential. The lot is larger than most lots and one of only seven homes that have direct access to Spring Lake. Most of the homes in this area were built with single or small two stall garages, which by today’s standards are under-sized for the typical multi-vehicle family. A variance is required for this request because the garage would exceed 35 feet in width. If the area of the garage were 952 square feet or less, there would be no limit on the width. While there are no explicit width limits for garages less than 952 square feet, there are practical limits due to minimum garage depths. The rationale for limiting a garage width is based solely on aesthetics. Previous Commissions and Councils have h eld that by limiting the width of a garage, the garage cannot dwarf the home or be the dominant feature on the lot. While one can argue and disagree about what is or is not aesthetically pleasing, garages tend to be devoid of any interesting architectural features and lacking in character. Limiting their width helps preserve the ideal of the home being the dominant feature rather than the garage. To further the goal of minimizing the visual impact of garages on a lot, the Commission may want to consider granting “width bonuses” for side loaded garages, garages located in rear yards or for garages that are otherwise shielded or concealed from public view, such as the Whitbecks’ garage. Variance Considerations: For a variance to be considered favorably, the burden is on the applicant 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: 1. 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. Whitbeck PC Report October 15, 2003 Page 3 2. 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. 3. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. 4. 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. 5. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. 6. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. 7. 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. Hardship Analysis The applicants submitted a statement as to their hardship, which is included as follows: “Linda and I have several reasons for wanting to add on to our garage as in our submitted plans. The first and foremost is that our house has no basement for storage or workspace area. We have three vehicles, so we would like the garage space to enclose all of our vehicles and the additional space [5 feet] on the end would be to house my tools and shop. We have a mature Oak tree behind the garage that if we were to shorten the garage by five feet t his would also move the attached shed five feet closer to that tree and might put the tree at risk from the construction or the grading. The garage sits at the rear of the lot and even at its present size the view of it from the street is partly covered up by the house. The addition is being added to the side behind the house, therefore the visible presence of the garage will not be be changed as seen from the street side.” Staff has reviewed the seven “hardship criteria” identified in Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code and responds to each as follows: 1. As to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, staff would agree with the applicants that the absence of a basement certainly establishes the need for additional garage space. Adding a third stall to t he garage makes sense and the only way to do this, because of how the garage was constructed, is to add ten feet on to the south side. The factor which can be described as the defining practical difficulty is that the applicants have sufficient room for t he expansion however are limited to adding only five feet because the existing garage is already 30 feet wide—the minimum needed for a new garage stall is ten feet. Whitbeck PC Report October 15, 2003 Page 4 2. As to the literal interpretation, staff would simply point out that were the Whitbecks not adding on to the back of the garage, they could build the expansion at the desired width without the need for a variance because garages 952 square feet or less do not have width limitations other than practical limitations. The secondary addition on the backside of the garage is unrelated to the variance request because it does not increase the width of the garage however because it adds “area” to the garage in excess of 952 square feet, a variance becomes necessary. The intent of the width limitation is to minimize the visual impact of a garage—in this case, the expanded garage would satisfy the spirit and intent of the requirement, thus the literal interpretation creates an unnecessary hardship. 3. The special circumstances or conditions do not result form the applicants in that the Whitbecks are simply attempting to compensate for their home’s lack of a basement by adding onto the garage. In addition, the Whitbecks drafted the garage expansion plans s o as to preserve a mature Oak tree behind the garage. 4. Granting the variance would not confer upon the applicants any special privilege in that the variance would not be required were it not for the secondary addition which does not increase the garage width. The Whitbecks’ situation is quite unique in this regard. 5. The requested five-foot variance is the minimum amount necessary to alleviate the Whitbecks’ hardship. Economic conditions do not enter into the need for a variance in this case. 6. T he variance requested would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Code or to other properties in the vicinity. As stated above, the spirit and intent of the Code is preserved and the garage expansion should not impact adjoining property owners in any way. 7. Granting the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, would not increase the congestion of the public streets, would not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety and would not diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Summary: based on the above analysis and the applicants’ response, Staff believes there is sufficient cause to establish hardship and practical difficulty to warrant approval of the variance. 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 on the next page. Whitbeck PC Report October 15, 2003 Page 5 Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. As stated on Page 2 of this report, 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. 7850 Spring L ake Road is designated as low-density residential and the proposed garage expansion would not be inconsistent with the Comp Plan. The Geographical Area Involved. The Whitbecks’ home is located on Spring Lake Road, one house removed from Spring Lake. The Whitbecks’ backyard does however have access to the lake. The proposed garage expansion would not be out of place for this area and the size of the Whitbecks’ lot would easily accommodate the expanded garage. From the street, the expansion would not be apparent and would not impact the adjoining properties. Depreciation. The garage expansion would benefit the subject property both in a practical sense by providing additional on site and indoor parking of a vehicle currently stored outside 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. There is a mix of older and newer homes, some on larger lots while others on smaller subdivided lots. One common thread is that all of the homes in this area re well maintained and most exceed the median Mounds View home value. The presence of Spring Lake adds an inherent physical and aesthetic value to the neighborhood. The expanded garage would not be out of character in this area. The demonstrated need for such a use. The Whitbecks have indicated that their need is two- fold; they have three cars and a two-car garage, and they do not have a basement. The added garage space would be a substantial improvement for the Whitbecks. 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. Whitbeck PC Report October 15, 2003 Page 6 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. All of the requirements addressed above would be satisfied with the exception of the width requirement. Recommendations: 1. Variance Request. Upon review of the hardship criteria in City Code and considering the Whitbecks’ statement of hardship, staff feels the standards have been met and justification exists to warrant approval of the variance. Resolution 741-03 has been prepared for your action if the Commission concurs with Staff’s recommendation. If the Commission feels the hardship criteria have not been satisfied, staff should be directed to prepare a resolution of denial with appropriate findings of fact. 2. Conditional Use Permit Request. Upon review of the City Code requirements for accessory buildings and conditional uses, this request appears to satisfy all criteria, assuming a variance is approved for the garage width. The resolution approving the variance also recommends approval of the CUP, with stipulations. If the variance is not approved, the CUP cannot be recommended forward for approval. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Application 2. Site Plan 3. Zoning Map 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Resolution 741-03 Site Plan N Spring Lake Area of Proposed Expansion Zoning Map * Properties not indicated with a particular zoning designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. Photographic Documentation View of the garage looking to the north from the subject property backyard. The shed behind the garage would be removed. View of the property looking west toward house and existing garage. Note how part of the garage is obscured by the home—the expansion would not be visible from the street. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 741-03 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A 40-FOOT WIDE GARAGE AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN EXPANDED 1,110 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE AT 7850 SPRING LAKE ROAD ; PLANNING CASE NOs. CU03-003 & VR03-009 WHEREAS , property owners Joel and Linda Whitbeck have applied for a variance and a conditional use permit to expand their existing 720 square foot garage by an additional 390 square feet for a finished total of 1,110 square feet; and, WHEREAS , the Whitbeck property, located at 7850 Spring Lake Road, is zoned R-1, Single Family residential, and is legally described as follows: The South 451.21 Feet of Lot 23, Auditors Subdivision No. 89, except the East 137.0 Feet of the South 339.21 thereof; Ramsey County, Minnesota 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 Mounds View Zoning Code restricts the width of oversized garages to 35 feet or less; and, WHEREAS , the proposed expanded garage would be 1,110 square feet, thus necessitating application of a conditional use permit; and, WHEREAS, the proposed garage would be 40 feet in width, five feet beyond that which is allowed for an oversized garage, necessitating application of a variance; and, Resolution 741-03 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Proposed Site Plan d. Location Map e. Photographic documentation f. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the variance and conditional use permit requests on Wednesday, October 15, 2003. 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. Other than the width, the proposed oversized 1,110 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; and, 3. The proposed garage would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved and the size of the subject property which is able to accommodate such a structure; and, 4. The proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood. 5. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed oversized garage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the variance request: 1. Relating to exceptional circumstances, the applicants have sufficient room for the expansion however are limited by the Code to adding only five feet because the existing garage is already 30 feet wide—the minimum needed for a new garage stall is ten feet. 2. The intent of the width limitation is to minimize the visual impact of a garage—in this case, the expanded garage would satisfy the spirit and intent of the requirement, thus the literal interpretation creates an unnecessary hardship. Resolution 741-03 Page 3 3. The special circumstances or conditions do not result form the applicants in that the Whitbecks are simply attempting to compensate for their home’s lack of a basement by adding onto the garage. In addition, the Whitbecks drafted the garage expansion plans so as to preserve a mature Oak tree behind the garage. 4. Granting the variance would not confer upon the applicants any special privilege in that the variance would not be required were it not for the secondary addition which does not increase the garage width. The Whitbecks’ situation is unique in this regard. 5. The requested five-foot variance is the minimum amount necessary to alleviate the Whitbecks’ hardship. Economic conditions do not enter into the need for a variance in this case. 6. The variance requested would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Code or to other properties in the vicinity. As stated above, the spirit and intent of the Code is preserved and the garage expansion should not impact adjoining property owners in any way. 7. Granting the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, would not increase the congestion of the public streets, would not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety and would not diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission unconditionally approves the requested variance for a 40-foot wide garage and recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the 1,110 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 garage. BE IT FURTHER 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 15th day of October, 2003. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Dev. Director (SEAL) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 1, 2003 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Acting Chair Miller at 7:00 p.m., October 1, 2003. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Johnson, Miller, Scotch, Hegland, and Song. Members Absent: Stevenson and Zwirn (excused) Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case MI03-003 2 Minor Subdivision Location: 8419/8409 Groveland Road Applicant: Tony and Cheryl Hoffman Planning Case MI03-004 3 Minor Subdivision Location: 7886 Sunnyside Road Applicant: Wendy and Michael Pedginski Owner: Donald Forslund _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes a. September 3, 2003 MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Scotch. To Approve the Planning Commission Minutes for September 3, 2003 as Presented. Mounds View Planning Commission October 1, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ____________________________________________________________________________ 5. Review and Recommendation of a Minor Subdivision of Properties Located at 8409 and 8419 Groveland Road. Community Development Director Ericson indicated the applicant has requested approval of a minor subdivision of 8409 and 8419 Groveland Road. He then indicated that Staff had reviewed all the zoning code requirements and everything appears to be in order. Director Ericson indicated that the shed is located where the lot line is proposed to be so it will need to be removed. He also indicated that the garage would be located on the newly created lot and the City’s Code does not allow a garage without a house so that would need to be removed, demolished or the City would need to make a special accommodation for a limited amount of time to allow for the construction of a house to go with the garage. Director Ericson indicated that minor subdivisions do not require a public hearing but Staff did notify those property owners adjacent to the subject property. He then indicated that easements for drainage and utility would need to be dedicated to the City and added to the survey. Director Ericson indicated that there is a healthy tree cover and this is a beautiful lot but it appears there is room within the interior of the lot to construct a home without disturbing too many trees. Director Ericson indicated that all of the subdivision requirements have been met and Staff recommends approval with stipulations. He then reviewed the stipulations attached to the recommendation of approval. Acting Chair Miller asked what the property owner intended to do with the shed. Director Ericson indicated that it was his understanding that the shed would be removed. Acting Chair Miller asked that removal of the shed be added to the Resolution. Mr. Hoffman of 8409 Groveland Road indicated he would like to keep the garage where it is but he does not plan on building on the lot for a long time. He then said that he has been looking into moving the garage and can do so. Mounds View Planning Commission October 1, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ The Commission indicated that the garage would need to be moved or demolished if the property owner is not going to build in the immediate future. Mr. Hoffman agreed to make arrangements to move the garage. The Commission agreed to grant the property owner one year to move the garage and asked that the shed and garage removal be added to the Resolution. Mr. Hoffman indicated he had considered tearing down the home and building a new one in its place and asked whether the City has any options for helping with the demolition. Mr. Ericson indicated the City has assisted property owners with demolition assistance through the housing replacement program. He then said there are two options one is the City purchasing the property demolishing the home and reselling the property to a developer. The second is to offer demolition assistance to the existing homeowner. He then indicated he would meet with the property owner to discuss the requirements of the program. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Hegland. To Approve Resolution 739-03, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision of 8409 and 8419 Groveland Road Requested by Tony and Cheryl Hoffman as Amended. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Director Ericson indicated this matter would be on Council’s agenda for October 13, 2003. ____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Review and Recommendation of a Minor Subdivision of 7886 Sunnyside Road Community Development Director Ericson indicated the applicants have requested a minor subdivision of 7886 Sunnyside Road. He then indicated that Staff has reviewed all the requirements of the Code and this requests meets the requirements. Director Ericson indicated that Staff notified properties adjacent to 7886 Sunnyside indicating a subdivision was pending and did not receive any phone calls and have heard of no issues with the request. Director Ericson indicated that the lot has very nice mature trees and asked that the applicants take whatever caution is necessary to preserve as many of those mature trees as possible. He then indicated that Staff recommends approval and reviewed the stipulations attached to the Resolution recommending approval. Director Ericson indicated that there would need to be drainage and utility easements granted to the City and added to the survey. Acting Chair Miller asked when the applicants plan to build on the lot. Mounds View Planning Commission October 1, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ The Pedginskis indicated they would build on the lot in the spring. Acting Chair Miller asked them to save as many of the big trees as possible. The Pedginskis indicated that they would. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Scotch. To Approve Resolution 740-03, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision of 7886 Sunnyside Road. Commissioner Song asked what the minimum size of the lot in that area is. Director Ericson indicated the minimum lot size is 11,000 square feet on an interior lot and 12,500 for a corner lot. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Director Ericson indicated this matter would be on the agenda for October 13, 2003. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: October 15, 2003 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Acting Chair Miller adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.