Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-09-09 MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA JULY 9, 2009 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of Little Canada, Minnesota was held on the 9th day of July, 2009 in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. Chair Dan Knudsen called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and the following members of the Planning Commission were present at roll call: PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Dan Knudsen Mr. Scott Barraclough Mr. Tom Duray Mr. Michael Everson Mr. Tom Fischer ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Jon Ball Mr. Chuck Pechmann Mr. Steve Grittman, City Planner Mr. Kevin Helander, Cable TV Ms. Kathy Glanzer, City Clerk MINUTES The June 11, 2009 Planning Commission meeting minutes were approved as submitted. PUD PERMIT- Knudsen pointed out that action was tabled on the PUD Permit application 3151 COUNTRY for 3151 Country Drive at the June Planning Commission meeting at the DRIVE - request of Mary Fasching. At that meeting Fasching indicated that she COSTANZO would be working with her renters and coming up with a revised site plan. That amended plan was submitted late this afternoon. Mary Fasching appeared before the Conunission, along with her attorney Ken Schivone. Fasching reported that she met with her renters and the tree contractor will be vacating the property. She reviewed the amended site plan, noting that she eliminated the proposed outdoor storage along the fence line adjacent to Ryan Drive, but is asking for an outdoor storage area on the southwest corner of the property. Fasching reported that she would screen the easterly building, but would need some time to do so. MINUT)JS PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 9, 2009 Fasching noted the difficulties with this property given its shape, it is a corner lot, and the buildings back up to the property line. She noted that the Code does not allow outdoor storage beyond the front building lines. Fasching again indicated that the tree business will be gone, and that MN Asphalt will continue to occupy the westerly building and Meisen Roofing will occupy the easterly building. Once the tree company leaves the property, a lot of equipment will leave with them. Fasching noted that she has shown 20 parking spots on the property, and City staff is recommending 26. Fasching indicated that 20 parking spots are adequate for their needs, but pointed out that she could add 6 additional spots along the fence adjacent to Ryan Drive. Knudsen asked if there were ever doors on the easterly structure. Fasching reported that she has owned the property for 19 years, and there were never any doors on it. Fasching also pointed out that the dumpster for the property is located out front. Knudsen indicated that the dumpster will need to be screened. Duray suggested au outdoor storage area between the two buildings. Fasching replied that that is the plan, but noted that there is need for more outdoor storage than that. Knudsen expressed concern with the additional outdoor storage area proposed for the southwest corner of the property, and asked how that storage area would be defined and contained. His concern was that the boundaries of the area would creep over time. Fasching suggested that a barrier or screening could be added to enclose this outdoor storage area. Knudsen stated that outdoor storage in front of the building is a problem, and noted the work that the City has done in trying to clean up the area and manage outdoor storage. Duray indicated that he drove by the site and there was a large truck, conveyer, and gravel on the property. Barraclough noted that the truck was gone this evening, but the conveyer and gravel remains. Fasching was unsure who this equipment and material belonged to, but would find out. Duray asked if Fasching had the ability to add the six parking spots recommended by City staff. Fasching reported that she could add the spots near the gate in the fence along Ryan Drive. -2- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 9, 2009 Knudsen asked for a review of the differences from the original plan submitted and the plan received today. Pasching replied that the difference is the elimination of the outdoor storage along the fence. Pasching reported that she is still requesting an outdoor storage area in the southwest corner of the site. The City Planner noted that outdoor storage regulations were amended last year, and staff's report applies those new regulations to this proposal. 'fhe new Code sets up a series of conditions related to outdoor storage and its screening. The Planner pointed out that outdoor storage is not allowed in front of the building line toward the street. As a result, the outdoor storage proposed in the southwest corner of the property would not be allowed. Duray asked about the option of complying with the existing PUD Permit for this property and whether that permit provided for outdoor storage in front of the building. The City Planner indicated that he was not sure there was a specific Code prohibition on outdoor storage in front of the building for this property, but noted the 1999 Site Plan which indicates outdoor storage areas adjacent to the buildings. That site plan also includes plan notes from the previous Code F,nforcement Officer, and there is no indication that outdoor storage was allowed beyond the front of the building. 'The Planner indicated that the property is currently not in compliance with the existing PUD Permit or with the new outdoor storage regulations. Knudsen pointed out the need to become compliant with one or the other. The P1am~er noted that if the property were in compliance with its existing permit, it would exist as a legal non-conforming use. The alternate is to change the site plan and come into compliance with the new outdoor storage regulations. The applicant is seeking a new PUD Permit, but asking for more flexibility than allowed under the new outdoor storage regulations, i.e. outdoor storage in the southwest corner of the property. Knudsen pointed out that the Code Dnforcement Officer has laid out two options in her June 3, 2009 report. The first option is for denial of the application and enforcement of the existing PUD Permit for the property. The second option is for approval of a revised PUD Permit which complies with the new outdoor storage requirements. Pasching suggested that the only advantage to amending the cw•rent PIJD Permit would be to add the outdoor storage area at the southwest corner of the property. Knudsen stated that he would not support that given all the work the city has done relative to outdoor storage regulations. Those regulations prohibit outdoor storage on front of the building. Duray pointed out the need to treat all businesses equally, and allowing outdoor storage in front of the building for the property would open the issue up to other properties. -3- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 9, 2009 Fasching stated that she would be willing to by to keep outdoor storage behind the front building lines, but was concerned that this would not be enough area. Fasching asked for a compromise that would allow more outdoor storage. She asked that consideration be given to the sire and configuration of the property as well as building location. Duray noted that there is a lot of equipment and materials on the property that appears to be unusable. He felt that removal of these items would provide for a great deal more usable outdoor storage space. Duray also suggested that additional time be granted to give Fasching time to comply with the outdoor storage regulations. Barraclough agreed that there is a lot of stuff on this property that looks like it has been sitting there for years. Barraclough indicated that there is no support for outdoor storage in front of the buildings, and also acknowledged the amount of work the City has put into the outdoor storage regulations. Barraclough stated that it is unfortunate that the property has the unusual dimensions that it has. Barraclough felt a good inventory were taken, Fasching might be surprised at how much could be taken out of the property making room to store the needed equipment and materials properly. Fasching asked if outdoor storage would be allowed on the east side of the easterly building. The City Planner noted that this area is considered to be in front of the building, thus would not be allowed. However, the area could he used for parking. The Planner pointed out that corner lots are much more restrictive and difficult to work with from an outdoor storage standpoint. Fasching asked if the additional parking spaces would be allowed adjacent to the fence. The Planner replied that they would be. Fasching stated that she would try to bring the property into compliance, but would need some time to do so. The Planner noted that staff is recommending a 90-day time period to achieve compliance. Fasching asked for a longer time period than 90 days. Fasching asked about vehicles over 12,000 lbs. The Planner indicated that vehicles under 12,000 lbs. can be parked in the parking lot and are not considered storage. Vehicles 12,000 lbs. are considered outdoor storage and must be stored within the outdoor storage areas. Barraclough noted that the vehicles would not have to be in the outdoor storage areas during the course of their use during the day. However, would have to be stored in the outdoor storage areas overnight and on weekends. -4- MINUTES ,PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 9, 2009 Fasching was unsure of whether she should proceed with an amended PUD Permit or if she should bring the property into compliance with the current PUD Permit. The City Planner indicated that that is her option, and suggested she discuss the issue with the City Council on July 22"`~ or work with City staff on the matter prior to the Council meeting. Mr. Duray recommended approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Permit for outdoor storage consisting generally of contractor equipment and materials for 3151 Country Drive, Costanzo/Fasching property, conditioned that the property comply with the City's current outdoor storage standards and allowing the property owner until November 30, 2009 to bring this property into compliance with those standards, and indicating that if compliance is not achieved by November 30, 2009, the PUD Permit request is hereby denied. Motion seconded by Everson. Motion carried 5 - 0. TEXT Mr. Dave 'Thoelke, representing Little Canada Mini-Storage and Ed AMENDMENT Jablonski, appeared before the Commission requesting approval of a & CUP - Text Amendment allowing amanager/caretaker apartment for self- 2617 PARK storage facilities by Conditional Use Permit as well as a Conditional STREET - Use Permit for the use acid occupancy of a manager/caretaker apartment LITTLE at the Little Canada Mini-Storage facility located at 2617 Park Street. CANADA The property in question is zoned General Business (B-3) District. MINI-STORAGE Thoelke noted that the request is being made so that the existing manager/caretaker apartment at the mini-storage can continue to be occupied by Mr. Jablonski. Knudsen asked how long the apartment has been in place. Ed Jablonski reported that he has occupied the apartment for three years. IIe guessed that the apartment has been in place since the early 1980's given that there are building permits from 1985 in the property file for improvements to the apartment. 'Thoelke stated that judging from the appearance of the apartment, it has existed for many years. Knudsen asked why a resident caretaker was needed at the mini-storage. Thoelke replied that the resident caretaker was needed for emergency situations and for security. Knudsen suggested that employees patrolling the property could provide security at the mini-storage versus an employee living on site. -5- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION .JULY 9, 2009 Thoelke noted that the on-site apartment provides a place for a Little Canada resident to live, a friendly atmosphere at the mini-storage, and that the apartment also serves as the mini-storage office. Knudsen asked if the office was open during evening hours. Thoelke replied that it was not. Duray asked the reason the zoning approval request for the apartment was triggered. Jablonski reported that the Fire Marshal came to do an inspection and upon noticing the apartment, reported that the residential use was not allowed. The Fire Marshal indicated that he would have 60 days to vacate the apartment. Jablonski indicated that the apartment use has existed for over 20 years. He also reported that in 1985 building permits were issued for a hot water heater and two sinks. Thoelke indicated that the County has the property listed as residential non-homestead as well as a commercial use. 'I•hoelke indicated that the apartment has been a paa•t of the community for many years and is of low impact. Knudsen asked about the status of the mini-storage use relative to the B-3 District. "I'he City Planner indicated that mini-storage is not an allowed use in the B-3 District, but noted that the Little Canada Mini-Storage is a legally non-conforming use. It was noted that if the Text Amendment is approved, mini-storage would be added as a B-3 use. Additionally, a caretaker apartment in amini-storage would be added as a conditional use. Thoelke stated that mini-storage is not inconsistent with the spirit of the B- 3District. Duray disagreed, and indicated that his biggest concern with the proposal is opening up the B-3 District to the mini-storage use. Jablonski suggested that the City consider mini-storage proposals and caretaker apartment requests on a case-by-case basis, noting that the Little Canada Mini-Storage with the caretaker apartment has been in existence for many years. 1/verson asked the appropriate zoning for a miui-storage. The City Planner replied that the Business-Warehouse aid Industrial Districts would be the appropriate zoning districts for this use. Thoelke indicated that the B-W District does not specifically list mini-storage as an allowed use. The Planner noted that it would fall under the warehousing use. Fischer asked if there was any way to allow the caretaker apartment without expanding the B-3 District uses. The Planner noted that the mini- storage can continue to exist as a legal non-conforming use, but residential use would have to be abandoned. -6- MINUT);S PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 9, 2009 Knudsen stated his opposition to opening the B-3 District to the mini- storage use, and indicated that it is unfortunate that there is someone living on the property. Mark Schultz, 2610 Park Street, indicated that he lives across the street from the mini-storage, and reported that he has no problem with the apartment use since Mr. Jablonski has lived there. Schultz thought the apartment was added in the 1980's when the old house that was on the property burned down. Schultz stated that his concern with the apartment is when another tenant moves into it. Schultz also pointed out the Frattalone property along Park Street and was concerned that another request would be made for a caretaker apartment. Schultz stated that he was surprised when he got the notice as he thought the apartment was legally established. With reference to the building permits that were issued, however, Schultz noted that the apartment was the office for the mini-storage, and it would not have been unusual for replace a water heater or do plumbing work in an office of this nature. Schultz was concerned that allowing the caretaker apartment would result in additional uses of this nature, and he was concerned with the resulting impact on his property. Schultz noted that the mini-storage property is not well-cared for, pointing out the curled roof shingles, poor driveway condition, and umnowed grass. Schultz stated that he recently had his property appraised, and felt the condition of the mini-storage negatively impacted his property. Schultz again stated that he had no issues with Mr. Jablonski, but felt that the ownership of the mini-storage should be present this evening to discuss this proposal. Schultz felt that Mr. Jablonski was caught in the middle. Thoelke stated that they were not in a position to discuss the condition of the property. Thoelke stated that there was a misunderstanding about the scope of the issue, and he thought that one caretaker apartment would be of limited impact and do no harm. Duray asked about denying the "Text Amendment and allowing Mr. Jablonski to stay for a period of time. The City Planner indicated that the Commission could make a recommendation on what it feels the appropriate amount of time would be to allow Mr. Jablonski to stay. It will then be at the City Council's discretion as to how long the property owner will have to bring the property into compliance. 7- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 9, 2009 Knudsen felt that the Text Amendment should be denied rather than open up B-3 to the mini-storage use. Knudsen stated that he was sympathetic to the situation and was inclined to offer a period of time to discontinue the apartment use. Knudsen recommended denial of the Text Amendment allowing a manager/caretaker apartment for self storage facilities by Conditional use Permit as well as the Conditional Use Permit for the use and occupancy of a manager/caretaker apartment at the Little Canada Mini-Storage facility located at 2617 Park Street and recommending that the property owner have until December 31, 2009 to eliminate the caretaker apartment use and bring the property use into compliance. Motion seconded by Fischer. Motion carried 5 - 0. PUll PERMIT - The City Planner reported that Marilyn Montreux is requesting ati 2968 RICE extension of a Planned Unit Development Permit allowing the interim use STREET - of commercial property located at 2968 Rice Sheet for a private auto MONTREUX repair hobbyist. 'This permit was originally issued for one year in February of 2007, and granted a one year extension in April of 2008. Monheux is requesting that the Interim LJse Permit be extended until such time as the property is sold. "The Planner reported that City staff has had no complaints relative to the use of this property and indicated that there are no existing nuisance violations on the site. The City Planner noted that this particular property is part of a larger redevelopment area, and noted the challenges involved in assembling the properties for redevelopment, especially in the current economy. The Planner reviewed the Code Enforcement Officer's July 1, 2009 report relative to the request, noting that the Code Enforcement Officer is recommending an extension of five years or until the property is sold, whichever is sooner. Annual inspections would also be conducted to ensure that the property is in compliance with the code. Staff felt that a cap should be placed on the use so that there is not an unlimited expectation on its continuance. Mr. Barraclough recommended approval of the Planned Unit Development Permit allowing an interim use of commercial properly for a private auto repair hobbyist requested by Marilyn Montreux for property at 2968 Rice Street, subject to compliance with the recommendations of the Code Enforcement Officer as outlined in her report dated July 1, 2009 -8- MINUTrS PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 9, 2009 capping the interim use to five years, or until the property is sold, whichever occurs first. Motion seconded by Duray. Motion carried 5 - 0. ADJOURN Barraclough recommended that the meeting be adjourned. Motion seconded by Duray Motion carried 5 - 0. 'I"here being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. 9-