Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCMin_90Jun25Agenda Item C MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 25, 1990 7 :30 p.m. Meeting was called to order at 7:35 by Chairperson Boche. PRESENT: Barry, Boche, Daykin, Duncan, Finegan Gibson Talbot, City Planner Susan Hoyt ABSENT: Nestington APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the May 21, 1990 meeting were unanimously approved as written. pUBLIC HEARING ON REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A-PET- GROOMING AND BOARDING BUSINESS AT-1660 SNELLING AV-ENUE-NORTH, THE-NORTHOME SHOPPING-CENTER, IN A B-2-ZONE Ms. Roberta Madison proposes to operate a pet grooming and limited pet boarding business at 1660 Snelling Avenue North in the Northome • Shopping Center in a B-2 zone. Section 9-10.01 subdivision 2, requires a conditional use permit for the pet boarding portion of the business. Planner Hoyt briefed the commission on her memorandum regarding Ms. Madison's request. She explained that a veterinary clinic was previously granted a conditional use permit at this location. The zoning code clearly prohibits an exclusively pet boarding facility with outdoor cages and kennels. A maximum of 10 animals would be boarded at one time. The Hennepin County humane society enforcement officer informed her that all persons operating such a business must meet the Minnesota laws governing animal welfare in Chapter 343 of Minnesota State Statutes. There are no specific limits on the size of the facility and the number of animals housed. Any complaints about the operation would be followed up by the Ramsey County humane society enforcement officer. She recommended the approval of the conditional use permit because the request meets all the requirements for a conditional use permit in section 15.04, subdivision 3(a) of the zoning code. The following conditions were suggested: 1. Boarding shall be a secondary business with a maximum of ten animals. 2. All animal welfare laws in Chapter 343 of the Minnesota State Statues shall be adhered to. • 3. A clean environment shall be maintained inside and outside the facility with sanitary disposal of all wastes. 4. All business shall be kept within the building with no outside cages, kennels or exercising of animals. 5. The status of the operation shall be reviewed within one year after approval. A brief discussion followed with members of the commission asking Ms. Madison the following questions: Question: How would the businesses on either side of the proposed facility be affected by noise from the pet grooming business? Answer: There is a hairdressing business on one side and formerly a video store was one the other side but is now vacant. There are four to five inch firewalls between each unit which effectively block out noise. Question: What about odor? Answer: All wastes would be cleaned up immediately and the area cleaned with Chlorox bleach with effectively eliminates all odor and germs. Question: If no animals are allowed outside, how do you plan to exercise the animals you would be boarding? Answer: I plan to install a portable kennel inside. Question: How long would any animals being boarded be allowed to • stay? Answer: Usually over a weekend. An absolute maximum would be twc weeks. The public hearing was closed by Chairperson Boche. Finegan moved to approve the conditional use permit with the exception that the status of the operation be reviewed within six months rather than one year. The motion was unanimously accepted. A request from Mr. Robert Stangel fora permitted accessory- use --- permt for a-utility shed-at 1777 Arona in an R- zone-. Planner Hoyt reviewed information contained in her report regarding size of setback and color of the utility shed.. The commission agreed all requirements of the zoning code 9-2.04 (1) (c) and 9- 2.04 (1)(i) have been met and unanimously agreed a permitted accessory use permit be granted. A request-from Mr. Jim Lammers-for a variance from sect-ions 9-2.46 s-ubdivSion 1 (b) and 1 (f} (~-} of the zooming code-for 1697 N-.--Hamline Avenue in- -an iz-1 z-one . Mr. Lammers, property owner and resident of 1697 North Hamline Avenue requested a variance from 9-2.06 1 (b) and 9-2.06 1 (f) (5) of the zoning code to allow him to construct an eight foot high fence along his front property line and along the entire south side lot line. This variance is necessary because 9-2.06 1(b) limits the height of all fences to six feet and 9-2.06 Subdivision 1 (f) (5) • 2 restricts fences to three feet in height within the front yard • setback. In order to qualify for a variance, the property owner must demonstrate that there is a uniqueness and hardship to the use of this property compared to other properties in the same zone (R-1) to justify departing from the normal requirement of the zoning code. Mr. Lammers identified two hardships to the commission. 1) noise from the traffic along Hamline Avenue, and 2) visual blight from adjacent and directly opposite commercial land uses. Mr. Lammers stated his house forms the barrier between the commercial land uses at the intersection of Larpenteur and Hamline Avenues. When he moved into his home in 1971, he planted a hedge to block the view of Baber Auto. The hedge is now 90 percent dead on the south side of the property adjacent to the Thatcher Clinic and dying along the front of the property. Because the house was built with a higher than average foundation, an eight foot high fence is necessary to effectively block out visibility of commercial property of Tires Plus and Baber Auto and to serve as a barrier to noise and the increasing traffic volumes on Hamline and Larpenteur. Furthermore, Mr. Lammers said a hedge is not a good sound barrier nor visual buffer during the winter. Therefore, he would like to install an 8 foot fence made of cedar split logs fit snuggly together. He might cover it with Virginia Creeper vines. • Chairperson Boche asked if a unique hardship to this property unlike other properties in R-1 zones exists and, if so, how? Mr. Lammers stated looking out the windows of his home at a commercial auto repair shop with a parking lot in front with long term parking was visual blight. Planner Hoyt reviewed her report of the variance request. She stated that because 1697 North Hamline is 1) not unique due to noise from traffic since several other homes in the city are located on busy streets, 2 ) not unique due to the location adjacent to a commercial property as there are several properties that are adjacent to commercial uses (Bullseye, Northome, Super America), and 3) that it might be considered unique because it is directl-y across from a commercial service with vehicles always parked outside. Chairperson Boche reminded everyone that in granting a variance a13 standards must be met (attachment 1). Planner Hoyt explained that a six foot fence along the south side lot line would be in keeping with the zoning code which requires a barrier between adjacent commercial parking places and R-1 zones . She also said that if the Thatcher Clinic owners installed a six foot fence along the clinic's rear lot line, a variance would not be needed; only a building permit. Mr. Lammers stated that he intended to have Dr. Thatcher construct the fence and he withdrew his request for a variance for an eight foot fence along the south • 3 • • side lot line. Discussion continued on the request for a variance to construct an eight foot high fence along the front property line. Chairperson Boche clarified that an eight foot hedge on the property line was in conformance with the code. Commissioners discussed whether or not it met the criteria for granting a variance (attachment 1). Mrs. Frances L. Glendenning, the resident at 1357 West Larpenteur, introduced herself as an interested neighbor. She said that several residential properties overlooked commercial property and listened to traffic from their homes. She said she looked onto the Super America station and heard the traffic on Larpenteur. Commissioner Daykin suggested that st (g) were not met. Commissioner Barry a sound barrier would set a precedent busy streets. Several commissioners blight from the commercial property unique- hard-ship since several other adjacent to or across from commercial andards 9-15.034 (b) , (c) and maid constructing a fence as for all residents living on suggested that the visual from a residence was not a properties in the city are properties. The commission unanimously voted to deny the variance request because it did not meet all the standards for granting a variance, in particular because it was not necessary for the enj oyment of the property, and because it was not a unique condition to 1697 North Hamline but found throughout the city in R-1 zones. a~eessory- bul-lding~ Planner Hoyt asked the commission to reconsider Section 9-2.04 subdivision 2(b) of the zoning code which states that detached accessory buildings shall not occupy more than 35 percent of the area of a required rear yard. She recommended changing it to 40 percent as it formerly was. Discussion followed. Chairperson Boche stated the problem is using the word "required" instead of "actual". A maximum area coverage of 1,000 square feet was suggested to control the area of attached accessory structures on wider lots. Commissioner Finegan made a motion that the 9-2.04 2(b) of the zoning code be changed to read, Rear-iew--of section. 9-2.04 subdvisian 2 (b) lot- cov detached accessory buildings shall not occupy more than 35 percent of the area of rear yard. • The motion carried unanimously. A public hearing will be held at the July meeting. Press Overage- of F-alcnn He.ghtsJRoseville Study Planner Hoyt called the commission's attention to recent articles on the study of merging services with Rosedale. Update- -©n _147-7 Hoyt Avenue The property was burned a year ago. It remains in poor condition. 4 of- cletaehed City staff is investigating how to deal with getting the structure • torn down or repaired. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55. - _. _ _ _ - . `-C _ DeLori J. Sw son Recording Secretary Susan Hoyt Taff, City Planner • 5