Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-07-1990 PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting March 7, 1990 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 The Mounds View Planning Commission was called to 1 . Call to order by Chair Mountin at 7:33 PM on Wednesday, Order March 7, 1990. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Burgers, Colleen, 2 . Attendance Dian, Miller, Zollner and Chair Mountin. It was noted Commissioner Jones had an excused absence. ALSO PRESENT: City Planner Hren. Motion/Second: Zoliner/Dian to approve the January 3. Approval of 3, 1990 minutes as presented. Minutes: • January 3, 1990 6 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Jerry Linke, no address given, stated he was repre- 4. Residents senting Kraus Anderson, owners of Silver View Plaza, Requests and and requested the Planning Commission give considera- Comments from tion tonight of the request for a pet grooming school the Floor in the shopping center, which would require a condi- tional use permit. He explained a lease had been signed, and that extra soundproofing would be added, and the space will have negative air pressure. The school will do on-site training for grooming, and he introduced Linda Healey, one of the owners of the school . The Planning Commission agreed to add this request to the end of the agenda, for discussion. City Planner Hren noted the proposed resolution does 5. Consideration not address the time of the meetings. It was dis- of Resolution cussed and agreed to leave the meeting starting time No. 279-90 at 7: 30, and include that in the resolution. Motion/Second: Miller/Burgers to adopt Resolution No. 279-90, establishing meeting dates and timeline 411 submission dates for 1990, and waive the reading. 6 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Mounds View Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Regular Meeting Page Two • Chair Mountin clarified that the Planning Commission 6. Consideration does not have the authority to order a refund, but can of Planning only recommend to the Council that a refund be issued. Fees Refund Request by Motion/Second: Burgers/Zollner to recommend to the Charles Eystad Council that the planning fee be refunded to Charles Eystad, 5343 Raymond Avenue, Planning Case No. 289-90. 6 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Chair Mountin explained the applicant withdrew his request after discussing it at a recent agenda session, as it was not feasible, and Staff had not worked on it yet. Chair Mountin explained this had been reviewed with 7 . Consideration the Planning Commission by Clerk/Administrator Pauley of Resolution at the last agenda session. No. 280-90 Ms. Hren explained Everest Development had applied for tax increment financing for Phase 3, and the Council is not willing to give additional tax incre- ment financing to Everest and the City will use the funds instead for other projects they would like • done. The boundaries of the district, however, do need to be extended. Motion/Second: Burgers/Colleen to approve Reso- lution No. 280-90 finding the City' s adoption of modified boundaries to Development District No. 2 and the adoption of the modified tax increment financing plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 Modification No. 2 to be consistent with the Compre- hensive Plan of the City of Mounds View, and waive the reading. 6 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Ms . Hren explained this item had been discussed at 8. Consideration the last agenda session, and additional information of Memo Regard- has since been submitted, including the sign plan, ing CUP Request which appears to be in order and in conformance with by Phillips 66, the sign code. The applicant is to have a hardship 2525 Highway 10 statement available to present this evening . Ms. Hren recommended the Planning Commission consider the variance request first. John Bakus, representing Phillips 66, stated they are requesting a variance to allow access to the • site from Long Lake Road, as the code calls for curb cuts no less than 50 ' from the street, and the proposed curb cut would be 22 ' from Bronson Drive. The lot line on Long Lake Road is only Mounds View Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Regular Meeting Page Three • slightly over 100 ' , so it would be impossible to have an access on Long Lake Road and meet the Code requirements. The applicant feels there are extra- ordinary circumstances due to the shape of the lot. Mr. Bakus stated one of the examples given in the Code for granting a variance is that the configura- tion of the lot is unique and prevents compliance with the Code. Mr. Bakus noted all other service stations along Highway 10 in Mounds View at intersections have a second access through the side road which intersects with Highway 10, and if Phillips 66 is denied access, they will be put in inferior circumstances. They have received a permit of approval from Ramsey County, which Mr. Bakus presented to the Planning Commission. Westwood Professional Services was retained to conduct a traffic study. Mr. Bakus presented their report to the Planning Commission and reviewed the findings. He also requested that all items submitted with the application for variance be included in the record. Chair Mountin stated a Bronson Drive curb cut has 411 been recommended by the City Engineer, and that would meet the Code requirements, and while that option has been strongly recommended by the Planning Commission to the applicant, the applicant prefers to have their access on Long Lake Road. Chair Mountin stated one of the measurements the Planning Commission often uses in consideration of a variance request is whether or not there is a reasonable alternative. It was discussed among the Commission whether the hardship statement presented by the applicant should be forwarded to the City Attorney for his opinion. It was questioned why the applicant prefers Long Lake Road over Bronson Drive for an access. Mr. Bakus explained it was for ease of access, which is one of the most important factors in a customer ' s decision to stop. He explained con- sumer choice is not often logical, and he feels this is a very important consideration in granting the variance. Commissioner Burgers noted it would appear the • variance would be for convenience, rather than address a safety issue. Mounds View Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Regular Meeting Page Four . Mr. Bakus replied it would serve to put this station in an equal position with all the other stations along Highway 10. Commissioner Dian questioned the reliability of traffic counts which were done for one day only, since traffic studies usually consist of several days observation, with the results averaged. Chair Mountin noted the study is based on present opera- tion but does take into consideration future operation. She added this site does afford an alternate solution, and they would not be denying use of the property to the applicant by requiring him to comply with City Code. Mr. Bakus stated the Amoco station at County Road H and Highway 10 has three or four curb cuts which do not comply with Code, and all they are asking for is to be treated the same and have the same exceptions made for them. Chair Mountin replied that whatever that issue was in the early 80 ' s at Amoco is not the issue before the Planning Commission now, and they are dealing with a new site plan and developer, and the issues • to be addressed tonight are what is the hardship statement, and how to deal with the application in a fair manner and follow the requirements of the City Code. Mr. Bakus stated that to change the access to Bronson Drive would reduce the car wash stacking, and would also present a problem with the tanker trucks being able to get out onto Bronson. Commissioner Dian questioned what the turning radius is that is required for the trucks. Chair Mountin asked that the question be referred to the City Engineer. She also polled the Commissioners for a reading on where the Planning Commission stands on this variance request . Commissioner Dian stated that based on the recommenda- tions made previously for the exit to be on Bronson Drive and based on the fact that it appears there is space to allow trucks to turn onto Bronson, and her feeling that not having an exit and entrance on Long Lake Rd. isn't a hardship, along with her concern for safety hazards, being too close to the stop light, she is opposed to granting the variance. • The owner of the Phillips 66 station stated he had been there for 26 years and has never had an accident there, with people going out onto Long Lake Road. Mounds View Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Regular Meeting Page Five IIICommissioner Zollner stated she shares many of the concerns raised by Commissioner Dian, but also questioned what the impact would be on Bronson Drive as that road is very narrow, and she recommended that issue be addressed, as well as if the stacking requirements could be met if the exit was onto, Bronson. She stated there appears to be reasonable alternatives to a curb cut on Long Lake Road, so at this time she cannot support, granting a variance. Commissioner Miller stated there are many pros and cons, but noted a 30 ' variance is a large variance. She added they could still have the use of their property without the cut onto Long Lake Road, and she did not know how many fewer customers would use the facility if the cut was on Bronson Drive. She also noted the stacking of the cars is an important consideration. Commissioner Burgers stated he does not see a lot of problems with the exit on Long Lake Road, as there has been an unofficial exit there for many years. However, it would be in conflict with the Code, and in order to approve the variance, it would need a true hardship, and he has not seen (. one displayed. He added they need to consider the impact if a variance is not granted, on Bronson Drive, as it is a very narrow road, and there may possibly be a greater negative effect of not grant- ing a variance. He stated he would like both the City Attorney and City Engineer to review this request. Commissioner Burgers stated he hoped there was a way to do something. Ms. Hren noted that when Long Lake Road is upgraded in 1991, the City could possibly work with the County to get Bronson Drive upgraded at the same time. Mr. Bakus stated he could not understand why a totally different set of standards is being applied to the request of Phillips 66, versus Amoco. He added they have cooperated fully with all requests and have incurred costs far in excess of what they normally incur in other cities. "' Chair Mountin directed Staff to consult with the City Engineer, requesting from him a statement on the stacking, and whether the site offers adequate stacking for the car wash if the access is on Mounds View Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Regular Meeting Page Six 411 Bronson Drive, as well as give a statement on the load feasibility of Bronson Drive for delivery trucks, and if the turning radius is adequate, and the impact of low volume versus high volume traffic on Bronson. Also, Staff should indicate to the City Attorney that the Planning Commission does not find a hard- ship in the statement that has been presented, and request the Attorney review the applicant ' s hard- ship statement to see whether he would recommended finding for or against the request. The Planning Commission would recommend finding against and would like to know if the City Attorney supports that. The information should be returned by the next agenda session, on March 21 . Staff should also prepare a resolution that both approves and denies the variance request, with a conclusion of a finding of hardship or lack of hardship. The Planning Commission will call to order at the March 21 agenda session to take action, so that the applicant is not delayed further. The applicant should plan to be present, as the Planning Commission will not call to order if an applicant is not present. Mr. Bakus stated he is concerned in the wording of • the conditional use permit about having the 24 hour operation reviewed after one year. Chair Mountin explained that is standard for all 24 hour operations in the City, and it has not been revoked for any business so far. Mr. Linke stated the request for the pet grooming 9. oondonn off CCondittional school would need to go through the conditional use Use Permit permit process. The business will be similar to the for Pet vet clinic. Grooming School Ms. Hren reviewed the conditions that must be addressed in granting a conditional use permit. Ms. Healey explained they will be selling mainly grooming supplies and pet supplies, as well as doing training for grooming of pets. She also reviewed their proposed hours of operation. She also noted this is a national accredited vocational school . Ms. Hren reviewed the list of uses allowed under the zoning. It was suggested that retail services 0 be added under B-2. Mounds View Planning Commission March 7, 1990 IIIRegular Meeting Page Seven Chair Mountin requested that Staff continue to research the zoning for retail services or vocational uses. It was recommended that a classification of pet grooming school be added. It was agreed that once Staff has completed the requested research., a resolution should be prepared and the Planning Commission will take action on it on March 21 at the agenda session. It was also noted the applicant or a representative should be present at that meeting. The resolution should include requiring negative air pressure, soundproofing, a separate ventilation system, picking up outdoor litter, hours of opera- tion and so forth. The attendees at the February 21 Agenda Session were: Commissioners Miller, Zollner, Dias, Chair Mountin, Councilmember Wuori and City Planner Hren. There being no further business before the Planning 10. Adjournment • Commission, Chair Mountin adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m. Reectfully submitted, Z1,6_76 J,1/---- Michelle Hren City Planner 111 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION 410 RESOLUTION NO. 280-90 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION FINDING THE CITY'S ADOPTION OF MODIFIED BOUNDARIES TO DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 AND THE ADOPTION OF THE MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1 MODIFICATION NO. 2 TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW WHEREAS, the City's adoption of modified boundaries to Development District No. 2 and the adoption of the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 within Development District No. 2 have been submitted to the Mounds View Planning Commission pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469 . 124 to 469 . 134, as amended and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469 . 174 to 469 . 179; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed boundary modification and proposed Modification No. 2 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan to determine the consistency of the Plans to the Comprehensive Plan of the • City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Mounds View determines that the Plans are consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 7th day of March, 1990 . ATTEST: Chairman (SEAL) City Planner