Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-02-1988 PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 411 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 2, 1988 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 The Mounds View Planning Commission was called to 1 . Call to order by Chairman Mountin at 7:34 PM on Wednesday, Order November 2, 1988. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Alman, Burgers, Dian, 2. Roll Call Miller, Saunders, Zollner and Chairman Mountin. ALSO PRESENT: City Planner Herman and Councilmember Wuori . Motion/Second: Zollner/Burgers to approve the 3. Approval of October 5, 1988 minutes as presented. Minutes: October 5, 1988 7 ayes 0 nays • Motion Carried There were no residents requests or comments from 4. Residents Re- the floor. quests and Comments from the Floor City Planner Herman reported she had spoken with the 5. Consideration Fire Department, and they are taking the first step of Resolution to inquire about the underground gas tanks. The tanks No. 236-88, are not registered with the PCA and should hP_ rf the CUP, Steve ' s tanks are not being used, the owner may agree to Appliance, having them removed. If he does not agree to that, 2841 Highway 10 it will take longer to be resolved. Motion/Second: Burgers/Zollner to adopt Resolution No. 236-88, recommending approval of a conditional use permit to allow for outside display and sales for Steve ' s Appliance, 2841 Highway 10, Planning Case No. 251-88. 7 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried • It was noted the applicant, Roger Pass was present. 6. Consideration of Resolution City Planner Herman reported she had checked back No. 239-88, through City records and the land was platted in Variance Request 1941, but unfortunately the plat shows the lots in by Roger Pass, 2344 Laport Dr. Mounds View Planning Commission November 2, 1988 Regular Meeting Page Two • the area to be 125 ' wide, and in going through the files she could find no indication of it being subdivided. Motion/Second: Dian/Alman to adopt Resolution No. 239-88, approving the variance request by Roger Pass, 2344 Laport Drive, Planning Case No. 252-88. 7 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Donald Jensen, Development Coordinator for Public 7. Consideration Storage, Inc. , showed the location of their proposed of Resolution development on an aerial map, and reviewed the No. 238-88, zoning map for that area of the City. He stated Public Storage they believe their use meets the B-2 zoning, and Inc. , Planning they were directed to petition for a PUD. He reviewed Case No. 254-88 the marketing goal of Public Storage, Inc. , and how they feel their proposal fits into the requirements of the Code. Mr. Jensen presented artists renderings of the pro- posed development, noting they were still early in the planning process and could still make changes in design or layout that may be required by the • Planning Commission. Chairman Mountin explained the issue before the Planning Commission is the variance issue, and they must look to see if the need for a variance is caused by some previous action on the property, and look further to see if there is a uniqueness of the property that would result in a hardship. They must also look for reasonable alternatives to using the site, and if they are present, they would invalidate the hardship issue. She also stated that in granting a variance, it weakens the City's ability to enforce the Code. Chairman Mountin explained 5 acres is required for a PUD, and this proposal has 4.1 acres available after the right of ways. Without a PUD, they would only be able to have one building per lot. Michael Black, of James R. Hill, Inc. , asked the Planning Commission to keep in mind the process of how they got there originally, that this industry is growing and changing and the ordinance does not really address it. Public Storage, Inc. has done marketing studies which greatly show they should be in the area of the City they are requesting, and he feels the hardship issue is very technical, and he • asked that they consider the use, which he does not feel is out of character for the neighborhood, and is a good use for the property and the zoning. Mr. Black noted that if this development is not approved, no PUD would be approved for that site, and he asked that they consider the character of the neighborhood Mounds View Planning Commission November 2, 1988 Regular Meeting Page Three • in considering the variance. Chairman Mountin stated there were two ways to deal with this, either work with the ordinance in place or do a Code appeal, which would involve starting from scratch and rewriting the zoning ordinance, which could take up to a year or more to do. She added the Planning Commission knows the Code, as it is currently written, is causing difficulties in certain areas and they have lost some good developments because of it. She added a PUD would be the most advantageous approach to development, and the City has had fairly good success in using PUD ' s. Mr. Black stated he did not want to lose focus on the land issue, because there is not enough property for a PUD, which would cause it to be denied. He stated he feels there is some support by the Planning Commission, and he would like to be able to go to the Council with that. Mr. Black added they could approach the property owner to the north and attempt to purchase .9 acres, which would involve the water works easement. He pointed out, however, the development layout would not change as they could not build on the easement, so they would 0 not be adding anything. Chairman Mountin pointed out the planned use is not covered by the Code, and she polled the Commissioners on their thoughts. Commissioner Burgers stated he had recently observed many storage facilities in the east and found them to be primarily in industrial areas. He added that he does not have much of a problem with the proposal if they obtained the additional acreage needed. Commissioner Zollner stated she could not favor granting the variance as there is no hardship. She also stated she does not agree with putting it in B-2 zoning, as while this proposal may be attractive looking, they could also get unappealing ones and it would be difficult to deny those on the basis of their looks. Commissioner Alman stated in going through the Code, she feels the industrial zoning is best suited for this use, but this is low impact and does look nice, so she would not have a problem if the 5 acres was available. Commissiner Dian stated the design is attractive, but it looks industrial and does not belong in B-2. Mounds View Planning Commission November 2, 1988 Regular Meeting Page Four 411 Commissioner Miller stated the proposal does not look like typical storage, and while this looks nice, there would still be a problem in keeping others out. The Planning Commission is charged with up- holding the Code and should. She added that as far as theB-2 zoning, she sees how it could fit in there, but questioned what would happen with other proposals. Commissioner Saunders stated he has a problem with both the variance and the zoning, and he feels it fits better into B-4 or I-1 . He added that while they have done a very nice job, it is not what he looks for in B-2. They need to be placed somewhere, and the issue must be addressed. Mr. Jensen stated he feels they could serve the people of the City best in this proposed location. Mr. Black stated the agenda item is the variance request and he would like the Planning Commission to take action on that at this time. He added he appreciates the time the Planning Commission has taken, and they would like to be able to move on to the Council level with their request. • City Planner Herman advised that in addition to the variance issue, the vacation of the right of way may have impact on the property to the north, as the owner of that property is considering using that as access to his property. Another issue to consider is the PUD designation with one resi- dential unit, and whether that is really the intent of a mixed use PUD. She also pointed out that there may be another mii'ii storage proposal that was turned down due to the district' s zoning and a precedent may have been set. Motion/Second: Burgers/Saunders to adopt Resolu- tion No. 238-88, denying a variance request for Public Storage, Inc. , Lot 1, Block 9, and a portion of Lot 1, Block 10, Silver Lake Woods, Planning Case No. 254-88. 7 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Tore'. Wistrom, of Kraus Anderson, asked how many other undeveloped properties in the City above five acres could be classified for a PUD. City Planner Herman explained there is not a lot • of vacant land in the City, but any type of redevelopment that would have 5 acres could fall into that category. Mounds View Planning Commission November 2, 1988 Regular Meeting Page Five • Chairman Mountin thanked the developer for the presentation and the quality of materials, and their openness with the Planning Commision. Mr. Wistrom asked if the Kraus Anderson property along Highway 10 between Silver View Plaza and Wildwood Manor would be appropriate for this development. Chairman Mountin replied most likely not, as it also is B-2. She explained they should present a formal letter of appeal to the City, at which time they will be scheduled to appear before the City Council, most likely during the last two weeks of November. City Planner Herman reviewed the proposed resolution 8. Consideration for SYSCO/Continental Minnesota and reviewed the of Resolution parking space requirement calculations. No. 237-88, PUD Concept Dick Koppie, of Westwood Professional Services, Plan Approval reviewed the site plan and locations for the planned for SYSCO/ parking. He advised he had met with the Fire Continental Department a few weeks ago and their only issue was Minnesota, 40 for fire service, and he is working with them on the Planning Case water service from County Road J or across Highway 10. No. 253-88 Chairman Mountin asked that some consideration be given to identifying some place that emergency vehicles could jump the curb in an emergency situation, as there is only one access to the development. Motion/Second: Miller/Dian to adopt Resolution No. 239-88, recommending approval of the concept plan for SYSCO/Continental Minnesota, Planning Case No. 253-88. 7 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried City Planner Herman had no staff report. 9. Staff Report The attendees at the October 19 agenda session were 10. Chairman' s Commissioners Alman, Burgers, Dian, Miller, Zollner Report and Chairman Mountin, and City Planner Herman and Councilmember Wuori . • Chairman Mountin adjourned the meeting at 9:01 PM. 11. Adjournment Respe tfully submitted, Kimberly Herman City Planner MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 236-88 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR OUTSIDE DISPLAY AND SALES FOR STEVE'S APPLIANCE, 2841 HIGHWAY 10, PLANNING CASE NO. 251-88 WHEREAS, Steve ' s Appliance, 2841 Highway 10, has requested a conditional use permit to allow for outside display and sales of items on his property; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View Municipal Code, Chapter 40. 18, Subd. D(5) , provides for open or outdoor sales as a principal or accessory use by conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant 's request for a conditional use permit and determines that it is in conformance with the Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of a conditional use permit to allow for outdoor display and sales at Steve's . Appliance, 2841 Highway 10, legally know as : Auditor ' s Subdivision No. 89 Subject to Road, Part Northeasterly of Highway of Lot 62 contingent upon the following: 1. Outside services, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to thirty (30 ) percent of the gross floor area of the principal use. 2. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting "R" district in compliance with Section 40.04, Subd. H of this Code. 3. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right- of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Section 40. 04, Subd. I, of this Code. 4. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. 5. The open or outdoor service, sale or rental use, does not take up parking space as required for conformity to this Code. RESOLUTION NO. 236-88 PAGE TWO • 6. The conditional use permit shall be filed with Ramsey County for recording on the title` of the subject property. 7 . The property displayed for sales purposes must be germaine to the sales of the principle use. 8. The fence must be repaired or replaced and maintained to provide adequate screening from the adjacent residential properties. 9. The portion of the lot not occupied by the building or outdoor sales area must be clear of appliances and other miscellaneous materials. 10. Any refrigerators or freezers displayed must be locked or the doors removed. 11. Violation of the listed conditions (1 through 10 ) will invalidate this permit. BE IT FURTHER 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 2nd day of November , 1988. ATTEST: W . Chairm (SEAL) ((// 4------:---"/ CL1 , City Planner • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 237-88 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR SYSCO/CONTINENTAL MINNESOTA, PLANNING CASE NO. 253-88 WHEREAS, Ryan Construction has requested general concept approval to construct an office/warehouse building with the following: Office - 35, 000 S.F. Warehouse - 209,000 S.F. Accessory Structure - 6, 400 S.F. with expansion potential of: Office - 23, 040 S.F. Warehouse - 178, 000 S.F. at the site bounded by T.H. 6/10, I-35W and County Road J; and WHEREAS, the Developer has requested a planned unit development review process; and WHEREAS, construction of this development, as requested, requires the following approvals : 1. General Concept Plan 2. Development Stage 3. Final Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the staff report and information submitted by the applicant which includes the following: 1. Site plan dated October 24, 1988 2. Proposed PUD for CFS, Mounds View, Minnesota, dated October 5, 1988 3. Memo to City Planner regarding parking dated October 24, 1988 4. Traffic Impact Study by Westwood Professional Services received October 17, 1988. WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a project that meets the requirements of City Code Chapter 40. 24, Subd. C(2 ) , commercial or industrial planned unit development; and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided the information required by Chapter 40. 24, Subd. E(1) , general concept stage; and RESOLUTION NO. 237 -88 PAGE TWO • WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Concept Plan taking into consideration Chapter 40. 24, Subd D(2 ) ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approves the density level illustrated in the plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approves the on-site circulation, there being no public streets or pedestrianways proposed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approves the location and extent of the public spaces proposed; acknowledging that it is the intent of SYSCO/Continental Minnesota to donate the wetland areas of the site to the City of Mounds View for park land or conservancy subject to final negotiation; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approves the land use proposed and recognizes it is appropriate given the site zoning and is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recognizes the timing of the project and approves the schedule dependent upon the • developer meeting the needed approvals; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has not fully reviewed the issues regarding the wetland alteration permit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is awaiting a recommendation regarding the requested wetland alteration permit from City Staff and consultants; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission would like to clarify that this resolution does not include any recommendation on the alteration permit and, therefore, the approval is contingent upon the alteration permit being approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission states some concern over the parking proposal for the site and that this detail should be reviewed more carefully. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Mounds View recommends that the area in question be rezoned to PUD and the Concept Plan be approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is recognized that this recommendation is contingent upon the developer addressing the wetland issues associated with this proposal and receiving the • proper permits from the Council; RESOLUTION NO. 237-88 PAGE THREE • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends a more thorough review of the adequacy of the proposed parking spaces and the feasibility of putting parking in the northwest corner of the site. BE IT 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 2nd day of November, 1988 ATTEST: Chairm (SEAL) ////7 - • City Planner • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 238-88 • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCE REQUEST FOR PUBLIC STORAGE, INC. , LOT 1, BLOCK 9, AND A PORTION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 10, SILVER LAKE WOODS, PLANNING CASE NO. 254-88 WHEREAS, Public Storage, Inc . has requested a variance from the 5 acre minimum project size for a PUD; and WHEREAS, Public Storage, Inc. has additionally requested rezoning to a PUD, major subdivision of the properties, and development review of their project proposal; and WHEREAS, Chapter 40. 26, Subd. D, of the Municipal Code states the criteria which must be met for granting a variance; and WHEREAS, City Staff and Planning Commission have reviewed the proposed development; and WHEREAS, there are no existing extraordinary circumstances as presented which apply to the property which do not apply to • other properties in the same zone; and WHEREAS, the special conditions or circumstances result from the actions of the applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission denies the request by Public Storage, Inc. for a variance from the minimum lot size in a PUD zone. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission denies the rezoning of the property to PUD, the subdivision of the property, and rejects the development proposal because of the above variance denial. Adopted this 2nd day of November, 1988. ATTEST: �. -Q * / - CY�r a (SEAL) ten/ • City Planner MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 239-88 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCE REQUEST BY ROGER D. PASS, PLANNING CASE NO. 252-88 WHEREAS, Mr . Pass has requested a variance for the property legally known as Laport Meadows, west one-half of Lot 4, Block 6, from the 75 foot lot width requirement; and WHEREAS, Mr. Pass would like to build upon the lot, although the •lot width is only 62.5 feet; and WHEREAS, The lot seems to have been platted in 1941 before the Zoning Code requirement; and WHEREAS, the granting of the variance does not confer a privilege to the owner which is not enjoyed by other residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission grants a 12.5 foot variance for the property 40 legally known as Laport Meadows, west one-half of Lot 4, Block 6, from the buildable lot width requirement of 75 feet contingent upon the proposed home meeting all setback requirements of Chapter 40. Adopted this 2nd day of November, 1988. ATTEST: a� Chai mar (SEAL) City P anner •