Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-03-1996 PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 3, 1996 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 The Mounds View Planning Commission was 1. Call to Order called to order by Chair Peterson at 7:05 p.m. on April 3, 1996. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners 2. Roll Call Johnston, Miller, Stevenson, and Chair Peterson. ALSO PRESENT: Acting Community Development Director Pruitt and Recording Secretary Benesch. • Motion/Second: Stevenson/Johnston to 3. Approval of Minutes: approve the minutes of March 6, 1996, as March 6, 1996 amended. 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried There were no resident requests or comments 4. Resident Requests from the floor. and Comments Dick Whitney of Northside Christian School 5. Consideration of was present. Resolution No. 441-96 Regarding Acting Community Development Director Pruitt Request for a reminded the Commission that the applicant is Conditional Use requesting an extension of a conditional use Permit Extension, permit for a temporary structure at 7901 Red 7901 Red Oak Drive, Oak Drive. Acting Director Pruitt continued by Planning Case informing the Commission that the applicant 436-95 had provided her with a proposal of two options that would be viable for them. The first option being that Church Upon the Rock would put Mounds View Planning Commission April 3, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 2 their temporary structure up for sale and at the same time request a permit to build a new storage facility. If the temporary structure would not sell by June of 1996, they would request a permit to continue using the temporary structure for classrooms for the remainder of the school year with the intention not to request another extension. The second option would be to put the temporary structure up for sale and again request a permit to build a new storage facility. The temporary structure would then be used for storage only and if it did not sell by June an extension would be requested to continue using the facility for storage for no longer than one year with the intention not to request another extension. • It was noted that the proposed storage facility would require a conditional use permit and the applicant would need to "start from scratch". The Planning Commission inquired if the applicant withdrew their current application and then submitted an application for a conditional use permit could their money be refunded? Acting Director Pruitt informed the Commission that it would be their decision. The Planning Commission continued to discuss the options proposed by the applicant. Acting Director Pruitt reminded the Commission that the last conditional use permit contained a sunset clause that expires the end of June, 1996. They discussed that perhaps if the structure does not sell by the end of this time, the applicant could come back in and request another six-month extension. The Commission further discussed the conditional use permit • and that the applicant would need to submit some type of security to assure that the existing Mounds View Planning Commission April 3, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 3 structure would be removed after the new storage facility was constructed. The applicant withdrew his application. Application Withdrawn The applicant, Rich Wolens and his son, Troy 6. Consideration of Wolens, were present. Acting Director Pruitt Resolution No. 443- explained that the applicant was requesting a 96 Regarding development review to allow the placement of Development Review an accessory building to store bicycles. She and Resolution No. noted that the application also requires a 446-96 Regarding a variance from the required setbacks. Acting Variance Request for Director Pruitt explained the hardship of the Richard Wolens, applicant stating that Mounds View Drive 2661 County Road I, (which runs along the west side of the property) Planning Case No. is not a through-street. The Code states that 437-96 because the property is on a corner (County Road I and Mounds View Drive), he must meet • the required 30' setback from both property lines. The applicant is requesting to be set back 12 feet from County Road I and 10 feet from Mounds View Drive. It was also noted that a 20 foot setback is required from the rear property line. It was also mentioned that the exterior of the new structure would be the same as the existing building. Mr. Wolens explained to the Planning Commission that he has always tried to make the site aesthetically pleasing. Acting Director Pruitt informed the Commission that she had discussed with Former Interim Administrator Harrington that since the area for the proposed building already has an impervious surface, a storm water drainage plan would not be necessary. It was mentioned that another curb cut to Mounds View Drive may be installed. It was also noted that the parking available is adequate for the site. Mounds View Planning Commission April 3, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 4 Mr. Wolens proceeded to address the Planning Commission, presenting to them a site plan of the area. Mr. Wolens also noted at this time that can lighting will be placed along the outside of the building and there would be windows on the front of the building with lighted "Schwinn" signs in the window. The Planning Commission requested that Public Works Director Mike Ulrich be informed about the location of the proposed curb cut and that plantings may want to be required per City Forester Rick Wriskey. Motion/Second: Johnston/Miller to approve Resolution No. 446-96 approving a corner lot setback and rear yard setback variance for Richard Wolens, 2661 County Road I, with the following addition: "Whereas, the applicant has • presented a hardship statement to the Planning Commission due to the irregular shape of the property and that Mounds View Drive will never be a thru-street due to the waterworks easement and adjoining wetlands property." 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Motion/Second: Stevenson/Peterson to approve Resolution No. 443-96 recommending approval of a development review for an accessory building at 2661 County Road I with the following additions: 1) Site plan dated February 14, 1996, and received April 2, 1996, henceforth known as Exhibit 1: and 2) ....Planning Commission recommends approval of the development review proposal contingent upon the following: 1111 a. Upon completion of the possible curb cut off Mounds View Drive, landscaping Mounds View Planning Commission April 3, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 5 along Mounds View Drive will be upgraded based on the City Forester's recommendation. 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Acting Director Pruitt informed the applicant that this item would go before the City Council at their April 8th meeting for final action of the site/development review. The applicants, Tom Manke and Leon Theis, 7. Consideration of were present. Resolution No. 444- 96 Regarding Acting Community Development Director Pruitt Variance Request of reminded the Planning Commission that this Fina, 2280 County item was discussed at the last Planning Road I, Planning Commission work session. She briefly Case No. 438-96 • explained that following the last Planning Commission meeting she asked Interim City Administrator Harrington about two concerns raised by the Commission. She explained that Mr. Harrington does not feel the canopy should be classified as a separate structure since many other gas stations within the City have these types of canopies. In addition, Mr. Harrington did not feel that a storm water run- off plan is required since the proposed area for the canopy is already an impervious surface and that the canopy and gutter system may actually improve the flow of the storm water run-off rather than create problems. The applicant noted that this is a Pollution Control Agency (PCA) project and that final approval by the PCA will be given the middle of May. He noted that six soil borings were taken and all were successful and it was determined that the soil would be conducive to this type of 1111 system. Mounds View Planning Commission April 3, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 6 The Planning Commission was concerned about the proposed canopy encroaching on the tanning salon next door. At this time, the proposed site plan was further discussed by the applicant and the Planning Commission. It was suggested by the Planning Commission that further research be conducted on whether or not the proposed canopy is considered an encroachment of the required setbacks. It was also suggested that other similar properties be researched and compared to this request. The Planning Commission indicated to the applicant that they could possibly call to order in two weeks at their agenda meeting. Motion/Second: Miller/Stevenson to table this item until the following meeting in which the • Planning Commission calls to order. 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Acting Community Development Director Pruitt 8. Consideration of briefly review Ordinance No. 574 regulating Resolution No. 445- adult establishments, premises conducive to 96 Supporting the high risk sexual conduct by adding and Adult Use Code amending chapters of the Municipal Code. The Planning Commission raised three concerns regarding the Planning Commission resolution in support of this ordinance: 1. The lack of the issue within the ordinance addressing absentee landlords which have been shown to be tied to organized crime. 2. Studies have shown that adult establishments which allow more than one use • have more detrimental impacts than establishments with only one use. The Mounds View Planning Commission April 3, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 7 prohibition of more than one use in adult establishments is not addressed in the ordinance. 3. Studies have shown that negative impacts diminish significantly if located more than three blocks away from an adult use. How does 500' from protected uses relate to diminishing negative impacts? Motion/Second: Miller/Stevenson to approve Resolution No. 445-96 recommending Ordinance No. 574; an ordinance regulating adult establishments, premises conducive to high risk sexual conduct, by adding Chapters 512 and 607 and amending Chapters 1113 and 1116 of the Mounds View City Code. This approval would be contingent upon the concerns addressed in these minutes being • brought before the City Council and attorney. 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Acting Director Pruitt informed the Planning 9. Staff Report Commission that regular Planning Commission meetings will be video taped because of recommendations received by Attorney Karen Cole, Shareholder in the Minneapolis Ofl•ice of Popham and Haik. This information was received at the GIS workshop she attended entitled, "Beyond the Basics of Planning and Zoning". She also mentioned that the format of our Staff Report form will be revised to contain a "checklist" of items to be examined to assure that all aspects of planning applications are addressed during the review process. • Acting Director Pruitt mentioned that the City Council would be presenting former Planning Mounds View Planning Commission April 3, 1996 IPRegular Meeting Page 8 Commissioners Ruggles, Nelson, and Colleen with resolutions of appreciation at their next regular meeting on April 8, 1996. Chair Peterson reported that members present 10. Report of Chair at the March 20, 1996, agenda session included Commissioners Miller, Johnston, Stevenson, and Chair Peterson. There being no further business before the 11. Adjournment Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Pruitt Acting Community Development Director • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. 443-96 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING, 2661 COUNTY ROAD I, PLANNING CASE NO. 437-96 WHEREAS, Richard Wolens has requested City approval to construct an accessory structure at 2661 County Road I in the City of Mounds View; and WHEREAS, the development, as proposed, requires development approval; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1) Site Plan Dated February 14, 1996, and received April 02, 1996, Henceforth Known as Exhibit 1; and . WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the development proposal is in conformance with the requirements of Chapters 1006 and 1100 for development review. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the development review proposal, contingent upon the following: 1) Upon completion of the possible curb cut off of Mounds View Drive, landscaping along Mounds View Drive will be upgraded based on the City Forester's recommendation. 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 3rd day of April, 1996. ATTEST; Chairper n (SEAL) � • Pl nni Associate • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 445-96 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 574, AN ORDINANCE REGULATING ADULT ESTABLISHMENTS, PREMISES CONDUCIVE TO HIGH RISK SEXUAL CONDUCT, ADDING CHAPTERS 512 AND 607 AND AMENDING CHAPTERS 1113 AND 1116 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed studies on the impacts of adult establishments in communities; and WHEREAS, those impacts include increased crime rates, lower property values, increased transiency, neighborhood blight and potential health risks; and WHEREAS, based on studies and findings, the Planning Commission concludes; adult establishments have adverse secondary impacts of the types set forth; and • WHEREAS, the adverse impacts caused by adult establishments tends to ----- diminish if adult establishments are governed by locational requirements, licensing requirements and health requirements; and WHEREAS, it is not the intent to prohibit adult establishments from having a reasonable opportunity to locate in the City; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357, allows the City to adopt regulations to promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the public health, safety, morals and general welfare will be promoted by the City adopting regulations governing adult establishments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the adoption of Ordinance No. 574, an ordinance regulating Adult Establishments, Premises Conducive to High Risk Sexual Conduct, a draft of which is being attached to this resolution, contingent upon the following: 1. The City Attorney and City Council address the following three concerns raised by the Planning Commission with Ordinance No. 574: • a. Studies have shown that absentee landlords have been linked to • PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 445-96 PAGE TWO OF TWO higher crime, however, there is no provisions addressing absentee landlords within the Ordinance. b. Studies have shown that adult establishments which allow more than one use have more detrimental impacts than establishments providing only one use. The prohibition of more than one use in adult establishments is not addressed within the Ordinance. c. Studies have shown that negative impacts diminish significantly at three blocks or more away from an adult use establishment. The Planning Commission would like further information on how the provision of not allowing adult establishments within 500 feet of any protected uses relates to diminishing negative impacts. Adopted this 3rd day of April, 1996. • ATTEST: R � Chairpers (SEAL) zg:;; Acting'Community Devel pment Director • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 446-96 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A CORNER LOT SETBACK AND REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST BY RICHARD WOLENS, 2661 COUNTY ROAD I, PLANNING CASE NO. 437-96 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request by Richard Wolens for a variance to allow the construction of an accessory storage building into the comer lot setback where a thirty foot setback is required, and a rear yard setback where a twenty foot side yard setback is required by Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the criteria used when evaluating all variance requests; and WHEREAS, the applicant has presented a,hardship statement to the Planning Commission that Mounds View Drive will never be a thru-street due to the waterworks easement and adjoining wetlands property and the irregular shape of the property; and WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this code deprives the • applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Code; and WHEREAS, the special conditions of the property do not result from the actions of the applicant; and WHEREAS, granting the variance would not confer special privileges on the applicant that are not enjoyed by other property owners in the same district; and WHEREAS, the variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission approves the variance request of Richard Wolens for a ten foot (10') variance into the rear yard setback and a twenty foot(20') setback into the corner lot setback. Adopted this 3rd day of April, 1996. ATTEST: Chaff ersdJ rp (SEAL) • Planng Agsociate J