Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19-1998 PC • PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Meeting August 19, 1998 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order Chairperson Peterson called the Mounds View Planning Commission special meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Brasaemle, Brooks, Miller, Obert, and Stevenson. Members absent: Council Liaison Koopmeiners Also present: Community Development Director Rick Jopke; Associate Planner Jim Ericson; and Recorder Dave Hix. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 531-98, Consideration of Resolution 554-98, a Resolution 2 Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Accessory Building, 2185 Pinewood Drive, Tammy Bellamy Planning Case No. _32-98, Consideration of Resolution 555-98, a Resolution 4 Recommending Approval of a Development Review Request, 2400 County Road I, SYSCO FOODS 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizens' requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 4. Approval of Minutes A. July 1, 1998 (Regular) 4IP PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 August 19, 1998 MOTION/SECOND: Brasaemle/Stevenson to approve the July 1, 1998 Planning Commission regular meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes- 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried 5. Planning Case No. 531-98 2185 Pinewood Drive Consideration of Resolution No. 554-98, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Accessory Building. Applicant: Tammy Bellamy The applicant, Tammy Bellamy, was present. • Associate Ericson gave his report as follows: Currently there is a small, one and one-half story residence and a detached single-car garage on the corner lot located at 2185 Pinewood Drive and Quincy Street. The applicant was requesting permission to construct a 1,008 square foot detached garage, 24 feet wide by 42 feet deep, to be located 13 feet from the house and 13 feet from the west property line. The garage would be set back further on the property than the house. The applicant had requested a similar CUP in 1997, but chose to withdraw her request before action could be taken by the City Council. At past Planning Commission and City Council meetings, the issue of building a proportional relationship requirement between a house and garage had been discussed. Those discussions led to the adoption of Ordinance 620, which in this case, would not impact the applicant's request because Ordinance 620 goes into effect September 4, 1998. Staff had determined the rear yard is large enough to satisfy the 20 percent rear yard coverage limitation. The question then became: "Is the proposed garage too large for the site and the home?" To balance this concern the following uses were listed for the garage: 1. Create adequate storage space for the resident's vehicles and yard appliances 2. Create storage space for resident's car hauler The use of privacy fencing by the Bellamys and their adjoining neighbor will screen the garage from view at the street. • PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 August 19, 1998 An 80-foot-long driveway would be part of the improvement and would be constructed of concrete. As a condition of granting the CUP, it was stated that the driveway improvement take place within a three-month-time period. An additional requirement imposed by approving this CUP would be to further screen the proposed garage by means of erecting a privacy fence parallel to Pinewood Drive between the garage and the property line to the west. Staffs concern was that the garage(1,008 sq. ft.)was out of proportion with the size of the house (682 sq. ft.). The width of the garage from the street view, however, was stated as being similar to that of the house. "The bulk of the garage will not be seen from the street. It is desirable from a community perspective to have property owners improve their properties with garages since the properties are then usually kept in better order," Ericson stated. It was staffs recommendation to have the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a resolution recommending to the City Council approval or denial of this Conditional Use Permit application, requested by Tammy Bellamy, 2185 Pinewood Drive. Chairperson Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for questions and comments of the applicant. Tammy Bellamy, 2185 Pinewood Drive, told the Commission she had let her 1997 CUP application expire because she had become tired of fighting with her neighbor over the matter, and she was not able to take the required time off of work to attend meetings in regards to the application. The neighbor has now put up a privacy fence to screen their property from the Bellamy property. The Bellamys have also guaranteed to their neighbors that there will be no work being done on race cars, other than on their own, stored in the garage. Stevenson expressed his concern in regards to what would happen to the property if its current owner decided to sell. The large garage, if allowed, would be attractive for somebody wanting to open a business and operate it from the garage. This use would not be a permitted use for the neighborhood. Ms. Bellamy stated if she could get the garage approved, she would be staying in Mounds View Ms. Bellamy stated she had future remodeling plans for the house, too. Stevenson stated he would like to include as part of the Resolution that privacy fencing be installed to adequately screen the building. Obert stated if the property was in such a condition that a privacy fence was required to hide it from view that he would be opposed to this type development. He stated his concern that the City would be setting a dangerous precedent for the development of other oversized and out of proportion garages in the community. PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 August 19, 1998 Peterson countered by saying he would be in favor of the project because it would allow the Bellamys to keep a cleaner yard and they would have a place to store their vehicles and yard equipment. The expansion of the garage would encourage the home owner to add on to their house, he added. Brooks stated the precedent for the garage size had already been set by other garage developments in the neighborhood. She stated she would be in favor of granting the CUP to encourage the upgrading of Bellamy's property. Brasaemle agreed that the precedent had already been set in Bellamy's neighborhood. He stated he didn't want to see the City try to prevent its residents from having hobbies such as auto racing, by not allowing them to store things like car haulers and race cars on their private properties. Brasaemle stated he did have problems with the size of the garage as compared to the size of the house and what would happen to the property in the future if the Bellamys decided to sell the property. The positives, however, were outweighing the negatives, he stated. Peterson called for a "straw poll" to give staff a direction whether to prepare a resolution denying the request or approving the request. The result of the straw poll was as follows: Obert Denial Stevenson Approval (with stipulations) Peterson Approval Miller Approval Brooks Approval Brasaemle Undecided Ericson told the Commission he would prepare a resolution to recommend approval for the Commission's consideration at its next meeting scheduled for September 2, 1998. 6. Planning Case No. 532-98 2400 County Road J Consideration of Resolution No. 555-98, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Development Review Request Applicant: SYSCO FOODS The applicant, SYSCO FOODS, was present. • Associate Ericson gave his report as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 August 19, 1998 SYSCO FOODS has applied for a development review to expand their existing facility by 106,000 square feet of building space and 152,500 square feet of parking space. The building addition will increase the amount of freezer space, cooler space, dry goods space, and office space. Other facets of the addition will include an expansion of the access driveway leading back to the rear of the building, relocation of the will-call area, construction of additional auto parking at the northeast corner of the site and additional truck parking along the west side of the property. At the time of the original SYSCO development, 1988, the site was engineered for the maximum build-out. Because of revised standards and other drainage requirements, a new watershed district permit will be required. The applicant has indicated that this permit is in process. Soil reports are also a requirement of the City. SYSCO was requesting some of the driveway setbacks be reduced to a zero-setback status. Staff expressed some concern in regards to this request because of the driveway's close proximity to the neighboring wetland to the east(the City of Mounds View property). The PUD which the development is part of allows for deviations from the City's setback requirements. Staff recommended that the access drive maintain a minimum ten-foot setback along the property's entire eastern edge. This would result in the drive aisle being narrowed to 40 feet in one area unless it could be shifted to the west a compensating distance. Parking stalls for cars would increase from 362 to 444. Truck parking would increase from 51 stalls to 104 stalls. The access drive servicing the facility is proposed to be widened to 50, which will better accommodate two-way truck traffic. The access is currently 50 feet wide where it intersects with County Road J, but narrows to only 25 feet along the east side(wetland) of the property. While not a component of this project, the intersection of Xylite Street and County Road J(with the SYSCO access being the fourth leg of the intersection)will be improved with a full-movement traffic signal. Mounds View, Blaine, Ramsey County, Anoka County and SYSCO are sharing in the cost of this improvement. Staff recommended approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 555-98, a Resolution recommending to the City Council approval of a development review for the SYSCO FOODS operation located at 2400 County Road J, with stipulations as noted in the staff report dated 8/19/98 and amendments as needed. Chairperson Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for questions and comments. Several members of the Commission expressed concern that snowplowing of the parking lots and driveways would introduce possible pollutants into the wetland on the east side of the facility. PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 August 19, 1998 Peterson asked the applicant how they intended to meet staffs recommendation that the east side drive have a minimum ten-foot setback. John Trumble, Setter Leech and Lindstrom, project architects, stated the 50-foot drive aisle and zero setback, as requested in the development review, was felt to be the ideal traffic situation for the facilities operation and requested the Commission to consider this request and this request only. SYSCO has calculated dimensions needed for the safety of its visitors, employees, and truck drivers and the dimensions requested on the plan indicated the studies that were done to achieve these safety dimensions. Obert suggested a container wall on the east side driveway to ensure that no pollutants entered into the wetland from the SYSCO facility. Mr. Trumble stated there were aesthetic issues as well as operational issues that would not allow this type of structure. Miller asked how many new employees would be added with SYSCO's planned expansion. • Mr. Trumble stated an additional 100 people, from 450 to 550, would be added as a result of the expansion. Stevenson stated he would be in favor of eliminating the stipulation requiring a ten-foot setback as recommended by staff to accommodate the applicant's dimensional requests(50-foot-access- driveway width)that are based on the safety needs of SYSCO's visitor, employees, and truck drivers. Brasaemle asked what the proposed snow storage would be and if the original PUD had requirements for snow storage. Mr. Trumble stated parking spaces are sacrificed so that snow storage can be accommodated. Ericson stated there is no specific requirement in the PUD for snow storage other than the issue be addressed and a plan be stated by the developer. Obert asked what the recourse would be for a property owner pushing snow into a protected wetland. Jopke stated it would be an issue for the City's Code enforcement and the violation would subject the perpetrator to fines. SMOTION/SECOND: Obert/Brasaemle to approve Resolution No. 555-98, a Resolution PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 August 19, 1998 Recommending Approval of a Development Review Request by SYSCO FOODS, striking the reference to the ten-foot setback requirement in the first stipulation of the Resolution. Chairperson Peterson opened the floor for discussion of the motion. Ericson stated a lighting plan had not been submitted. The applicant would be required to submit a lighting plan for review before any permits were issued for the project. VOTE: Ayes- 6 Nays- 0 Motion carried 7. Staff Reports/Information Items It was the consensus of the Commission to move Item No. 7C, Update Regarding Mermaid Bowling Center Expansion, to the Agenda Session. A. Discussion Regarding Comprehensive Plan • Jopke asked the Commission to consider and recommend future dates and times for "Special Work Sessions" for the Comprehensive Plan Update Process. It was the consensus of the Commission to establish the following dates and times for these meetings. 1. September 23, 1998, 7:00 p.m., City Hall 2. October 14, 1998, 7:00 p.m., City Hall 3. November-Date and time to be announced B. Discussion Regarding Recommendation to Expand Planning Commission to Nine Members Jopke told the Commission that the City Council had asked the Planning Commission for a recommendation regarding the possibility expanding the Planning Commission to its allowable maximum of nine members to allow more participation. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Commission membership should remain at seven people. An increased number of people on the Commission was viewed as being nonproductive and could affect attendance at Planning Commission meetings. • Ericson told the Commission that the Council would be informed of the Commission's sentiments PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 August 19, 1998 through distribution of the minutes to the Council. Jopke told the Commission that the question has also been raised about whether the Planning Commission meetings should be televised on Mounds View's cable channel. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that televising the Planning Commission meetings was an opportunity to better inform citizens about City business. While Commission members were personally not comfortable being on television, they agreed to try televising the Planning Commission meetings on a trial basis. 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports No reports were considered. 9. Adjournment MOTION/SECOND: Peterson/Miller to adjourn the meeting. There being no further business before the Planning Commission Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:38 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, v 1 Rick Jopke Community Development Director • i Planning Comm. Mtg August 19, 1998 Please Sign In ! Name Address Phone # Item of Interest: ' ),--eiie)//ok -.y,5 EC' Pr'',"/ itEt"l ream/ot.140i 4 1# PX— Sly A}>jca '( t i \-4 ' / -' 2 - , CC r ; ?1 2. OtN & -3 Pk-7C 6 ' *z' ' s'i;if.s.co (//t7,4-- .6yy,„oty . ,y, I/h- 56q-102.__ iliceP.,4V/Redif 7:/t,„1 0 a 6 dh-vro,z/ - 7.7/7 ‘-va'i,.7- f 20., 4 t\-) ?2 ;41-0--t,-/E-c� 1,9,- 0/01c, Pda 6A9ov/RA Rat, 7F-6-16>9 !d-z /.v7-6R wit./ MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 555-98 • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE SYSCO FOODS FACILITY, 2400 COUNTY ROAD J; PLANNING CASE NO. 532-98 WHEREAS, Sysco Foods has requested City approval to expand its facility at 2400 County Road J, property zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 2, SYSCO Addition WHEREAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a development review be conducted for all commercial and industrial development within the City; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application,dated 3/5/98 • 2. Zoning and Location Map 3. Site Plans,dated July 20 and August 14, 1998 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the site plans dated 7/20/98 and 8/14/98 conform to the requirements of Chapter 1120, Planned Unit Developments District, with revisions as noted in the stipulations; and, WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reviewed the proposed drainage plans and find them in conformance to watershed and local water management plan requirements. • • . • Commission recommends approval to the City Council of a development review for Sysco Foods to expand their food distribution and warehouse facility as shown on site plans dated 7/20/98 and 8/14/98 subject to the following stipulations: 1. The site plans shall be revised to show all building dimensions and all building, parking lot and driveway setbacks. 2 Before any permits are issued for this development, the applicant shall obtain a Rice Creek Watershed District permit and enter into a development agreement with the City. • Planning Commission Resolution 555-98 Sysco Foods Expansion • August 19, 1998 Page 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 19th day of August, 1998 LL Jerry Peter n, �"iairperson ATTEST: i Rick Jopke, Commu ,ty Development Director SEAL N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V\DE VCASES\532-9815 55-98PC.RES I