5.a Resolution 03-07-17-__ Rodsjo CUP and Variance docxCITY OF SCANDIA, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 03-07-17-01
DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR
21090 OLINDA TRAIL NORTH
WHEREAS, Susan Rodsjo has made an application for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Multifamily Residential Development and a Variance from the parking requirements for that
proposed use at 21090 Olinda Trail North; and
WHEREAS, the property is legally described as follows:
SCANDIA LT 1, BLK 1, EXC N 30 FT THEREOF AND LT 2 SD BLK BEING N 28
FT THEREOF SUBJ TO EASE, Scandia, Washington County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request for the Conditional Use
Permit and Variance at a duly noticed Public Hearing on March 7, 2017; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SCANDIA, WASHINGTON COUNTY,
MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the request for the Conditional Use Permit
for a Multifamily Residential Development and Variance from the parking requirements for the
proposed use, based on the following findings:
Findings for the Conditional Use Permit
1. The proposed multifamily use in the Village is generally consistent with the land use
goals and policies in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Adequate public facilities including
fire and police services are available to serve the proposed use, and it will not impact the
City's capital improvement plan. However, the applicant has not determined whether
public waste water services will be required for this use, or if private waste water services
will be used and have the capacity to serve the proposed use. The Comprehensive Plan
states that community sewer systems are anticipated to serve the small lot sizes in the
Village Area so applicant should evaluate this option in order to be consistent with the
policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The approval of the CUP includes conditions that require that the applicant provide
adequate sewer, water, and fire suppression services for the proposed use. If those
conditions are met, the use will not be detrimental to or endanger public health or safety.
However, the applicant has not determined whether either public or on-site septic system
Resolution No.: 03-07-17-01
Page 2 of 3
services will be provided for the use, if existing public or private systems are adequate to
serve the use, or if a new system will be needed.
The use may benefit the public welfare by providing affordable housing in the Village to
meet a need identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The use will add one housing unit in a building that includes another existing housing
unit. The exterior of the building and use of the site will not be changed to accommodate
the proposed use, and therefore the use will not impact scenic views.
The applicant proposed that the use be permitted to use on -street parking to satisfy the
parking requirements for a multifamily use. The use of on -street parking on a continuous
basis for this residential use may negatively impact public facilities and other uses in the
village by affecting snow removal and by occupying public parking that is intended to
serve all of the uses in the Village. It will not meet the performance standard for
multifamily residential development that requires two parking spaces and that one of the
spaces be enclosed. The evaluation of the variance request determined that the request
does not meet the criteria for a variance from the parking requirement, and that the
applicant has not demonstrated that practical difficulties exist that do not allow her to
meet the ordinance requirement for off-street parking.
4. The addition of one multifamily property within the existing building will not prevent the
development or improvement of surrounding properties.
5. The performance standards for the multi -family residential use require that the use must
meet the on-site septic requirements, the standards for provision of safe drinking water
and fire suppression, and the parking standards for the multifamily residential use. Since
the applicant has not determined how on-site sewer services will be provided for the
proposed use, it cannot be determined whether that performance standard can be met. The
applicant's proposed parking for the use does not meet the performance standard in the
ordinance or the criteria for approval of a variance from the requirements.
Findinks for the Variance Request
The Comprehensive Plan and Development Code support multi -family residential uses in
the VMU A Zoning District. The Plan says that multi -family uses help the City to
achieve its goal to diversify housing options for younger families, seniors, and singles.
The proposed variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan. However, the proposed use and parking are not consistent with the
intent of the Development Code that multifamily residential developments must provide
on-site parking that meets the Code requirement for 2 spaces, including one enclosed
space, for each dwelling unit.
2. Multi -family residences are permitted, and therefore reasonable, uses in the VMU A
District. There are also other reasonable uses for the property, including a variety of
Resolution No.: 03-07-17-01
Page 3 of 3
commercial and office uses. The proposed use is reasonable under the conditions
allowed by the Development Code.
3. The landowner has not demonstrated that there are practical difficulties that prevent her
from providing parking that meets the Code requirement for this use on the parcel where
it would be located. The parcel survey identifies an easement that would permit access to
the rear of the parcel, and the area behind the building appears to have sufficient space to
meet the parking requirement.
4. The alterations needed to the structure to accommodate the new use will not change the
exterior of the building, and the building currently includes a rental unit. However,
permitting permanent on -street parking for a residential use would alter the character of
the area. All residential uses in the area currently provide off-street parking. Granting
the variance for on -street parking would alter the essential character of the area.
5. The landowner has not demonstrated that there are practical difficulties that prevent her
from providing parking that meets the Code requirement for this use on the parcel where
it would be located. The request may be based largely on economic factors.
6. The proposed variance from the parking requirements will not impair the supply of light
or air to adjacent properties, will not increase congestion, endanger the public, or
substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood.
7. Granting the variance from the parking requirement for multifamily residential
development is not the minimum action needed to eliminate the practical difficulty. It
may be possible to provide parking using the existing access and space at the rear of the
building, or by obtaining a deed or long-term lease for parking on a nearby parcel.
8. The variance is not related to a need for direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
Adopted by the Scandia Planning Commission this 7th day of March, 2017.
Dan Squyres, Chair
ATTEST:
Neil Soltis, Administrator/Clerk