Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15-1999 PC PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 15, 1999 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:01 p.m., September 15, 1999. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Hegland, Johnson, Kaden, Laube, Stevenson, and Miller. Members Absent: Commissioner Braathen, Leave of Absence. Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Rick Jopke, . Economic Development Coordinator Kevin Carroll, Council Liaison Stigney, and Recorder Trish Pearson. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 570-99, 2075 & 2081 Hillview Road. Consideration of A variance request to allow for a zero-foot garage setback. Jeff Johnson, Applicant. 2 Planning Case No. 569-99, 8011 Sunnyside Road. Consideration of Resolution 594-99, a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit for an oversized garage. Donald Mackeben, Applicant. 6 Staff Reports/Items of Information 8 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 15 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda • There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 2 111 4. Approval of Minutes A. August 18, 1999 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller to approve the August 18, 1999 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes— 8 Nays— 0 The motion carried. 5. Planning Case No. 570-99 Property Involved: 2075 & 2081 Hillview Road Consideration of variance request to allow for a zero-foot garage setback. Applicant: Jeff Johnson The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: i The applicant, owner of two contiguous properties on Hillview Road, each improved with four-unit multi-family structures, had desired to construct a six-stall garage structure between the two buildings to service both buildings. The applicant, since taking over ownership of these two properties, has invested considerable expense in rehabbing the buildings and making upgrades and improvements. The addition of a garage structure would without question be beneficial to the property, to its residents, and to the immediate area. Planning Associate Ericson explained, if the variance request were to be approved, deed restrictions would need to be filed, which would apply to the garage structures in the event of fire, or if one or both of the properties were to be sold in the future. He noted, upon review of the City Attorney, this approach, although possible, may not be the most appropriate in this situation. Planning Associate Ericson stated another possible option for this type of structure would be to require that the applicant join, or"combine" the two parcels into one parcel. He stated the applicant has indicated he would be willing to join the properties in lieu of requesting a variance, however, there are two separate mortgage holders for these properties, and from this standpoint, this approach might not be possible. He explained, in light of this, the applicant has revised his request to allow a setback of one-foot for both garage structures, which would result in two separate three-stall garage structures on each side, separated one-foot from the property line of each structure. He noted there would be two feet between the buildings to allow for mowing and access to the rear of the properties. Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 410 Planning Associate Ericson commented that a five-foot setback would not be possible in this situation. He referred to the site plan, which indicated that a five-foot setback would push the garage so far over behind the buildings that one of the garage stalls would be very difficult to access. He added that a five-foot setback would not allow for access to the garbage dumpster enclosure located at the rear of one of the buildings. Planning Associate Ericson explained that staff believes there is some hardship presented to allow for this in that the land at the rear of the fourplexes slopes downward toward the Colonial Village Mobile Home Park, and it would be difficult to set the garages back any further. He explained that the two four-plexes and the slope of the land dictate the location of the garage structures. He added that the garages, if separated by five feet on each side, would make the end garage stall almost inaccessible to a vehicle. Planning Associate Ericson explained staff had thought the lot-combination approach would be possible, however, as it appears that this is not an option, there is no resolution before the Planning Commission, at this time. He requested the Planning Commission discuss this matter, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for consideration at the next meeting. Jeff Johnson, the applicant, stated that the back 25 feet of his property is subject to drainage easement, and a large sewer pipe is located underground, which further prevents the location of the structures to the rear of the property by the use of fill, which might otherwise be an option. i Warren Hertenstein, 2102 Hillview Road, stated he lived across the street from the applicant's property, and had lived at that location since 1950. He commented the neighborhood had encountered many difficulties with the subject property, prior to Mr. Johnson's ownership. He commented that Mr. Johnson had improved the neighborhood and he was in favor of this and any other project Mr. Johnson would care to propose. Commissioner Stevenson inquired regarding the security of the property, in terms of the two-foot section between the buildings. Mr. Johnson indicated he could place a fence between the front and rear of the building. He added he would also put cement in that area, with drainage toward the back of the building. Commissioner Laube inquired regarding the Fire Marshall's recommendation for two feet between structures. Ericson stated there have been instances in the past, where a structure is located closer than is allowed pursuant to the Fire Code, which requires a six-foot setback from other structures. He explained in these events, the Fire Marshall has indicated a firewall be constructed on both sides of the structure, to inhibit the spread of fire from one structure to the other. He stated he was not certain regarding the specific requirements, whether this be some type of firewall, or sheet rock that is thicker than standard, however, this has been allowed. Commissioner Laube explained that his primary concern was in regard to eaves of the roof, which swould place the structures closer together at this point. Mr. Johnson explained that he would be Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 iconstructing the buildings of stucco, and there would be a two-foot separation to the top of the building, with only an inch overhang on each end. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff could consult the Fire Marshall to determine if there are specific remedies for these situations when buildings are in such close proximity to each other. Commissioner Laube noted a firewall could be installed, however, the ceiling of the garage would also require sheet rock, in order to prevent fire from jumping to the roof and spreading to the other side. Planning Associate Ericson stated he was aware of the code for apartment structures, which utilize a 40 to 50 garage stall structure, in that every so many stalls, a fire wall is constructed. He explained this could be done, and was simply a matter of ensuring it was done in compliance with the Code. Commissioner Miller stated there would be three stalls available in each garage structure, and two four-plexes. She inquired how the applicant would decide who would utilize the garage stalls. Mr. Johnson explained the use would be determined on a"first come, first serve" basis. He noted, not everyone in his building has a vehicle. Commissioner Miller inquired regarding additional parking for visitors. Mr. Johnson stated the . addition of the garage structures would provide additional parking space, as six vehicles would be parked within the garages, and through angling the parking area somewhat, he did not foresee the loss of more than one of the existing parking stalls. Commissioner Berke inquired if there would be a problem in terms of the roof, and ice or snow going from one roof to the wall of the other structure. Mr. Johnson explained there would not be, as the slope of the roof would direct ice and snow to the front and rear of the buildings. Chairperson Peterson inquired regarding the general Code requirements for garages in this area, in terms of setbacks, and the zoning of the property. Ericson clarified the requirement is a five foot setback from the property line. Chairperson Peterson stated therefore, the present consideration was to allow for a four-foot variance on each side. Ericson stated this was correct. Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the spacing between the buildings. Ericson stated there is 71 feet between the two buildings. Chairperson Peterson inquired if this represented 37 feet on the side of one structure, and the 34 feet on the side of the other structure. Ericson stated this was correct. He explained the reason they could not provide the full ten feet between the structures is because this would leave no room for access to the garbage dumpster enclosure. • Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 Commissioner Kaden stated the water and snow would be directed to the front and back of the structures, and inquired if this might result in a problem for the mobile home community at the rear of the property. Mr. Johnson stated it would not, as it would be run off the back of the buildings into the drainage easement. He added the land slopes downward in this area, however, it slopes back up the other side, and it would be very unlikely to fill this area with enough water to reach the top of the hill at the rear of the property. Ericson added there would be 55 feet between the rear of the proposed garage and the property line. Chairperson Peterson inquired if there were tax consequences for combining two parcels. Ericson stated he believed that there were, and this would result in tax savings to the property owner. Commissioner Johnson stated this was correct, and would benefit the property owner. Commissioner Stevenson noted the four-foot variance request was not presently before the Commission for action. Ericson stated this was correct, as staff was not aware until this moment that the lot combination would not be a viable alternative. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the matter should be formally tabled. Ericson stated this could be done, however, staff only required direction regarding what type of resolution the Commission would like staff to draft. He explained if the Planning Commission finds there is sufficient hardship, staff will draft a resolution of approval, and if not, a resolution denying the request for variance would 111 be prepared. Commissioner Miller commented she would like to see this matter go forward. Commissioner Johnson agreed. He added, in light of Mr. Hertenstein's comments, and the awards presented to Mr. Johnson by the Economic Development Commission for his efforts with the fourplexes, he believed the applicant deserves this. Chairperson Peterson commented the improvements Mr. Johnson has made are good, and he believed the proposal was appropriate. He noted there would be minimal disruption or negative impact with this proposal and, as long as the Fire Code requirements are met, this was a very good plan. Commissioner Kaden stated he viewed this as an improvement as well, as long as the Fire Code requirements are met. Commissioner Johnson noted the matter of the fence between the two-foot section of the buildings. Ericson stated this stipulation could be added to the resolution. MOTION/SECOND: Berke/Johnson. To Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution Approving a Four-Foot Variance Request to Allow for a One-foot setback to Construct Two Three-Stall Garages to Service two Fourplexes at 2075 and 2081 Hillview Road, Stipulating that a Fence be Constructed Between the Structures for Security Purposes. Ayes— 8 Nays—0 Motion carried. 4110 Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 • 6. Planning Case No. 569-99 Property Involved: 8011 Sunnyside Road Consideration of Resolution 594-99, a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit for an oversized garage. Applicant: Donald Mackeben The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct an addition to his garage at 8011 Sunnyside Road. The existing garage is 720 square feet and does not presently require a Conditional Use permit, however, the applicant proposes to construct a 320 square foot addition to the rear of the garage, to be used for a workshop/hobby area. He stated this would create a garage 1,040 square feet in size, and would therefore require a Conditional Use Permit. Planning Associate Ericson stated the exiting house, at approximately 1,400 square feet, is larger than the garage, even after the proposed expansion. He noted the proposed addition would be located to • the rear of the garage, and would not be visible from the street, or from two of the adjoining properties. He noted it would be visible from the property to the south, where it would be seven feet from the property line. He stated there is a 125-foot space between the addition, and the property located to the rear, and 100 feet or more to the property line to the north. He stated in terms of screening and spacing, the proposal meets the requirements. He added the size of the garage is well within the Code requirements, would not be larger than the house, and does not create extra stalls, so there would not be any additional traffic going in and out of the structure. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has reviewed the general Conditional Use criteria, and these have all been addressed and satisfied. He explained, in light of this, staff has drafted a resolution, Resolution 594-99, which recommends to the City Council the approval of this Conditional Use Permit request. Commissioner Miller stated she had driven by the property, and was not able to determine the aspects of the proposal based upon what she had seen. She requested clarification. Donald Mackeben, the applicant explained he was in the process of demolishing the existing garage. He noted three to four years prior, snow had caused the garage roof to cave somewhat. He commented the garage needed new siding and garage doors, and when he obtained estimates to replace the siding, doors and roof, he determined it would be less expensive to take down the old garage, and rebuild. He explained the garage would be constructed on the same slab, exactly as it had been, with the exception of a 6-12 pitch, rather than a 4-12 pitch on the roof, to prevent the • previous problem from reoccurring. Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 Mr. Mackeben stated the addition to the back of the garage would not be noticeable from the street, or from the neighbor's house at the rear of the property. He commented that, other than the storage of lawn mowers, he was not certain how he would utilize the addition, however, he was scheduled to retire soon, and may use that area for miscellaneous hobbies. He stated he was not interested in mechanic or heavy carpentry work, and this would not turn into a situation that might become a part- time job in his yard, or anything of that nature. He stated he believed the addition would be a definite asset to the neighborhood and to his property. Mr. Mackeben stated the proposed addition would be an area approximately four feet wide by twenty feet long, and would not be much larger than that allowed by the Code. He explained the rooflines would match the rest of the house. Commissioner Laube inquired if the applicant would have to remove a tree located in back of the garage. Mr. Mackeben stated he would, adding that he would prefer not to do this, however, there were many more oak trees on the property. He expressed his appreciation to the Commissioners for taking the time to drive by the property and view the site, adding that this showed interest on their part. Chairperson Peterson noted a two-foot jog in the proposed placement of this addition, which indicates the garage setback five feet from the property line, angling back two feet. Mr. Mackeben stated this was in consideration of aesthetics. He explained this would prevent the appearance of one • long line, and there was no other reason for doing this. He explained, the addition would be 20 feet long, and the existing garage is 24 feet, therefore, the entire line would go back 44 feet into the property as a straight line. He stated he felt if this line was indented, the structure would be more attractive. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the roofline of the addition would match the roofline of the garage. Mr. Mackeben stated he believed it would, however, they may lower it a foot, depending upon the contractor's recommendation, in terms of what would look best. Chairperson Peterson commented he had also driven by the property. He inquired if the applicant would be adding on to the slab at the same grade. Mr. Mackebcn stated this was correct. Commissioner Miller inquired if there would be doors on the addition. Mr. Mackeben stated there would be doors on the front and back of the addition, to provide a drive through in the backyard, to allow for access of his boat and lawnmowers. Chairperson Peterson stated the proposal appeared to be very good, and he could not see any problems with it. Commissioner Kaden stated he could see no reason the proposal should not go forward. He stated he had driven by the property and thought it would be attractive. He added he did not think it would be visible at all from the street, particularly with the proposed jog. Mr. Mackeben stated this was correct, adding it would not be visible to the neighboring properties either. He reiterated he believed it would improve the property. He commented he had personally Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 Scontacted all of the neighbors on his street, and they have indicated they are in favor of the proposal. He stated, had this not been the case, he would not have pursued it. MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Miller. To Approve Resolution 594-99, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for an Oversized Garage at 8011 Sunnyside Road; Mound View Planning Case No. 569-99. Ayes— 8 Nays—0 The motion carried. Planning Associate Ericson stated this item would be considered at the October 27, 1999 meeting of the City Council. 7. Staff Reports /Items of Information A. Update regarding change in location of screen fence at the Anthony Properties/O'Neil PUD (Theater Project.) Community Development Director Jopke updated the Commission regarding the issue of the screen fence at the Theater Project. He stated this issue was discussed at the last meeting of the Planning 1110 Commission, and at that time, staff was directed to obtain a legal opinion and review the files in more detail, to clarify the fence requirement. Community Development Director Jopke stated he had reviewed the files, Planning Commission and City Council minutes, resolutions and PUD agreements, and could find nothing that specifically required a continuous fence. He stated he had forwarded those documents to the City Attorney's office for review, and the City Attorney has indicated, from a legal standpoint, a fence connecting the buildings is the only requirement presented. He noted if the developer wishes to provide a continuous fence and locate it six feet into the buffer area around the buildings, it would require an amendment to the approved PUD development stage plan. He explained this would entail formal review by the Planning Comission and City Council. Community Development Director Jopke commented he had attempted to contact Wendell Smith, representative of the developer, however had not been able to speak with him at this time. He requested the Planing Commission discuss this matter, and direct staff in regard to whether or not they concur that, if the developer chose to connect the buildings with a fence, they would be in compliance, and the matter would not require the additional approvals. He stated the other issue to consider is the potential amendment to the PUD agreement, should the developer wish to move the fence behind the building. Chairperson Peterson inquired if staff and the City Attorney's conclusions were the same as the Planning Commission's determination at the prior meeting. Jopke stated this was correct. Chair Peterson inquired if staff had received any input from the residents immediately to the south of the Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 • property. Jopke stated they had not. He noted, however, the residents had only been contacted in this regard by the developer. Chair Peterson stated it appeared to be unwise to reopen the entire Development Review process for this matter. Jopke stated staff could direct this question to the developer, in light of the new information, and determine how he would like to proceed. He noted another issue discussed at the prior meeting was that staff should work closely with the developer in regard to the location of the air-conditioning units, and insure they are screened and do not generate a noise problem for the neighborhood. Commissioner Hegland stated there had appeared to be a general impression that there was a requirement for a continuous fence. He inquired if this matter is required to be addressed with a formal action. Chair Peterson agreed this was the general impression brought forward. He stated the Planning Commission did not have a clear answer in this regard. Jopke commented this may have been a matter of semantics, in that there was discussion of continuous screening of the Theater Project parking lot and activities that occur at the site, and it might be easy to conclude that the screening be a fence, versus buildings and a fence. He stated the important issue was that the parking lot be screened from the neighborhood. The buildings in fact provide a major portion of that requirement, and with the fence between buildings, the developers are technically providing a continuous screen. Commissioner Miller noted that much emphasis had been placed on the fence, rather than the fact that there would be three offices at the location. Jopke stated it was clear that it was appropriate to construct the fence prior to the construction of the building in order to provide the screening, however, now that the building is constructed, it provides that function. Chair Peterson commented another item for consideration was to determine the appropriate review process for minor changes to a PUD. He stated it appeared there should be some simple level of process for very minor changes, and determination regarding which changes are minor and which are not. Community Development Director Jopke stated this was correct. He added they have obtained the opinion of the City Attorney in regard to the fence requirement at the Theater Project, however, there was also a necessity to clarify the process in the ordinance, for future PUDs. He stated he would be working with the City Attorney's office to draft appropriate language in this regard, and bring that forward to the Planning Commission at a future meeting. B. Discussion of Economic Development section of the Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Coordinator Kevin Carroll stated in contrast to the mandatory work the Planning Commission is conducting in regard to the Comprehensive Plan, the Economic Development Section is referred to by the Metropolitan Council as an optional plan. He added that many of the • cities that have submitted their Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council have not included Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 10 • an Economic Development section. He noted, however, a number of months ago, he had decided as the primary staff person to the Economic Development Commission, that this would be appropriate from a planning standpoint, as it would assist them in their consideration of the economic development in the City of Mounds View. He explained that if the Economic Development Commission could agree upon some general priorities, they could go from the general to the specific, and use that information to help craft their work plans. Economic Development Coordinator Carroll stated the Metropolitan Council and other Planning organizations had set forth a recommended format for Economic Development sections, which included seven or eight different parts. He commented that some of these parts appeared to be too specific, and for that reason, they were deleted, and some of the titles and captions of the recommended format were changed. He stated the Economic Development Commission had determined to approach this section as a document that would closely reflect what they believe the City should do in terms of economic development, and `this resulted in many of the statements contained in the first part of the document, "Community Economic Goals." Economic Development Coordinator Carroll explained that the next section of the document "Priorities for Economic Development Decisions," was debated in regard to whether or not they should list the priorities in order. He noted, as this would be a difficult and time-consuming process, it was recommended that they utilize bullet points. The stated section provides a list of the Economic 4111 Development Commission's highest priorities, collectively. "Resources to Support Development Coordinator Carroll stated the third section, Economic Development" is a list of the present assets and resources of the City that would assist or promote Economic Development. Economic Development Coordinator Carroll stated the last section of the document, "Economic Development Challenges," was highly debated among the Economic Development Commission members. He noted several viewpoints had come forward, however, the ultimate consensus was to provide recognition of the present state of economic development within the City. He explained that this section pertains to the current proposals, and was included in order to make the document more proac ive, an• o in•ica - • - ••• ` , ' - . , - _ - - - - •- , -- - • Development Commission plans to constructively address these issues. Economic Development Coordinator Carroll commented that the Economic Development Commission had spent seven to eight monthly meetings discussing the Economic Section, and the document presently before the Planning Commission is the best culmination of those efforts. Commissioner Miller pointed out there were several references to Highway 10 contained in the document, which required clarification. Coordinator Carroll stated there appeared to be some confusion regarding this road. He stated in earlier drafts they had referred to the road as US Highway 10, which it was at one time, then they had • references to County Road 10 or County 10, and had decided to omit those. He stated "Highway Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 11 . 10" was somewhat generic at present, and it would be helpful if the County and City could agree upon what the road will be called. He stated in his opinion, it would ultimately be called County Highway 10. He noted the document would go through several processes of review by the Economic Development Authority, the City Council and other bodies. He explained, at the point it is submitted to the Metropolitan Council, and they can be certain of what the road will be called, it can be amended appropriately. Commissioner Kaden noted the signage of I-35W had been changed to indicate that the road was County 10. Economic Development Coordinator Carroll stated there would probably be no harm in adding the word"County" before the references to Highway 10, and if that changes in the future, it can be amended at that time. Commissioner Berke stated it appeared the document pertains primarily to the development of businesses. He inquired if there were any ideas brought forward regarding what they would do in the future in terms of the residential development and the development of Mounds View as a whole. Economic Development Coordinator Carroll stated this was another topic of debate at the Economic Development Commission level. He stated two viewpoints were brought forward, one was that his position, Economic Development Coordinator should deal exclusively with business and industry. He stated another viewpoint was that anything that contributes to the economy of the community is economic development. He explained they had attempted to strike a balance in this regard. He pointed out that the second and third paragraphs on Page 1 of the document contain references to residential housing. Commissioner Berke stated he had noticed this, however, the rest of the document appears to address business, and not residential development. Commissioner Laube commented he would like to see more mention of residential development in the section, rather than just business. He noted Tax Increment Financing and other funding sources were in consideration for residential development, as well as the fact that much of the property in Mounds View is already developed as business. He stated they should attempt to redevelop some of the areas, however, they should still attempt to develop the residential areas of the City. Commissioner Berke commented the city of Richfield appeared to be doing much in both residential and business areas, and inquired if the City of Mounds View had similar plans, or was only going to pursue the business development. Economic Development Coordinator Carroll pointed out that this document was a Comprehensive Plan update, and there are other portions of the Comprehensive Plan, which would pertain specifically to housing issues. He commented that former Building Inspector Steve Dorgan had done some work in this regard, and at one point, provided the Economic Development Commission members with a draft of the housing component of the Comprehensive Plan. • Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 12 . Economic Development Coordinator Carroll stated it was necessary for the Economic Development Commission to determine what their work should be. He explained that in his opinion, and the opinion of a majority of the Economic Development Commission members, they exist not so much to advise the City with regard to residential development, but primarily with the business and industry component, and as this was their purview, it should be reflected in the Economic Development section of the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested if the issue of housing was going to be addressed in the Comprehensive Update, it should be addressed by the Planning Commission, based upon staff's research regarding the City's short and long term residential plans. He added if they were to consider including more of the residential housing issues, this might necessitate changing this section to "Economic and Housing Development Section," and would require they start at the beginning, to determine how much housing development should be incorporated into the document. Economic Development Coordinator Carroll stated he believed there would be a fair amount of housing information in the final Comprehensive Guide Plan update, but the question was where should this information originate. He acknowledged that this was an important topic. Commissioner Berke stated he had brought this forward in light of Tax Increment Financing, and concerns among the residents that it assists the City with their development, but does not necessarily reduce the tax base for the residents. He explained that by increasing the residential development and redevelopment, they are actually providing tax relief to the residents, in that they are producing higher • property taxes, which is of benefit to the residents. Community Development Director Jopke stated ultimately they would have to look at the Comprehensive plan in its entirety, to determine how it reflects the goals and needs of the community. He added he believed it would address this issue. He explained the Housing section addresses the housing issues of the community, and if there are areas that should be emphasized, this can be done, and consolidated into the Plan. Commissioner Hegland inquired if the Comprehensive Plan would weigh the issues of residential versus business and industrial development. He stated he was concerned in that there is a list of the Economic Development Commission's priorities for development, but there are also priorities for residential development, and how would they balance these pi iorities in cost versus benefit analysis to the City. Community Development Director Jopke stated this was a good point. He explained that typically, the Comprehensive Plan is divided into sections, and each of those sections address the goals presented for the City. Commissioner Laube added this document was one division of the Comprehensive Plan, however, it is the entire economic development section, and the Comprehensive Plan and zoning of the City sets the goals. He explained that this section would indicate that economic development is strictly business development, unless some other area of the Comprehensive plan addresses the issue of • residential housing, which is important in the balance of the development of the City as a whole. He Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 13 • added that this document otherwise sets the priorities presented therein, as the priority in the hierarchy. Community Development Director Jopke explained the Comprehensive Plan does not set a hierarchy, it simply indicates what the goals, objectives, and policy are in these specific areas. He noted the Land Use Plan, which sets an overall tone for land use, however, there are other individual sections that the Council looks to, regarding specific projects and ways to implement them. Commissioner Berke inquired if this was Community Development Director Jopke's experience with other cities. Community Development Director Jopke stated it was, however, this did not mean that the issue did not merit clarification. Commissioner Stevenson stated the way that it is presented in the Comprehensive Plan, and the information it contains, he did not see where this document makes any statement that economic development has any priority. Economic Development Coordinator Carroll stated the Economic Development Commission had not intended the document to appear this way. He explained the final Comprehensive Plan update would address many different issues, adding that if it makes reference to constructing a water tower or improving a park,this would not imply that this should take priority over all other things. He stated • the fact that the Economic Development Commission has a section does not imply that it takes priority. He noted it is for the City Council and the Economic Development Authority to decide how the money is allocated. He reiterated this document was intended as a general guide in regard to what the Economic Development Commission believes should be done. He pointed out the document will be submitted to the Economic Development Authority and the City Council for review, and they may decide to change it, however, the Economic Development Commission has done its part as an advisory body. Commissioner Miller stated she was quite impressed with the document. She stated it was not lengthy, however, it contained much information. Kevin Caroll had done a very good job in preparing this document and commended them on their efforts. Chairperson Peterson stated this was a very good and concise statement of what needed to be done, and should be viewed in the context of the whole Comprehensive Plan. He added that further referencing of the residential issues contained within the document would clarify the issue of residential development. Economic Development Coordinator Carroll stated that there could be internal cross-referencing to the residential development issues within the document. Chairperson Peterson stated that certain areas within the City will need assistance in terms of • redevelopment, and this document provides some good guidelines for helping that along. Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 14 • C. Previous Council Actions Community Director Jopke reported on previous Council action from their meeting on September 13. He stated the Council held First Reading of Ordinance 639, which pertains to conditional uses within the R-4 and R-5 Zoning Districts. He noted there was approval of a Wetland Buffer Permit for the property located at 6991 Pleasant View Drive, which was purchased by the City for the Housing Replacement Program. He stated the Council approved a resolution denying the Wetland Alteration Permit for Oakwood Land Development. He added there was Second Reading and adoption of the Ordinance to rezone 2670 County Road I, from B-2 to R-4 for the MSP senior residential assisted living development, as well as the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for that request. Community Development Director Jopke reported that the Council gave First Reading approval and conducted the public hearing for the ordinance to create signage standards in the PF and CRP Zoning District. He explained he had discussed this matter with the City Attorney, who expressed some concern regarding the language pertaining to signage relating to the specific activity at the site, and was uncertain how this language might affect the billboard aspect, if the City were to move forward in that regard. He stated, however, they have concluded that these are two separate issues, moving along two separate paths. Community Development Director Jopke commented he had discussed the potential spot zoning • issue with the City Attorney, in terms of allowing billboards of City property. He explained this might raise a concern among private landowners that they do not have the same benefit as the City in terms of revenue generation. He stated he had forwarded a copy of the draft ordinance to the City Attorney who would be reviewing it and providing an opinion in this regard. Community Development Director Jopke stated the City Attorney had concluded there is no restriction in the deed, which would prohibit billboards at the golf course. He explained the deed indicates that what goes on the property must have a public purpose, and billboards would have a public purpose in terms of revenue generation and debt reduction at the golf course. He stated the City Attorney is comfortable that this could be defined as a public purpose. D. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Ericson stated at the next meeting of the Planning Commission, there would be consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an oversized shed, as well as an application from MSP Real Estate for a Site Plan Review for the assisted living facility at 2670 County Road I. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission would begin to see a number of ordinances, some which clarify the Zoning Code, as they attempt to work through some of the issues presented. He added that once the Comprehensive Plan has been forwarded to the City Council, staff will begin to review the Sign Code, in entirety, and it is hoped that the issues will be addressed during the winter, after the Commissioner's caseloads have decreased. Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 15 41111 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Report Commissioner Stevenson reported that he had received a publication from Ramsey County, "Friends of St. Paul and Ramsey County Parks,"which briefly addresses the billboards within Ramsey County. He stated the article indicates that neighboring communities, either have a moratorium in place, or ban billboards. He suggested the Commission keep in mind that these communities are not allowing additional billboards, during their contemplation of the billboard issues. No other reports were considered. 9. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:06 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, • Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\PCMIN\1999\09-15-99.WPD MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. 594-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY • STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN OVERSIZED GARAGE AT 8011 SUNNYSIDE ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 569-99 Whereas, Donald Mackeben has applied for a conditional use permit to allow for a 1,040 square-foot garage on property located at 8011 Sunnyside Road, zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as follows: Lot 92, Spring Lake Park Hillview, Ramsey County, State of Minnesota WHEREAS, there is currently a 720 square-foot garage on this lot; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, up to 1,400 square feet of garage/accessory building space on one lot; and 4110 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plan d. Location Map e. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the dimensional requirements as stated in Chapter 1104 the Zoning Code for this proposal have been met; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that possible adverse effects have been considered in its recommendation, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 1.e.: 1. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 8011 Sunnyside Road, as low-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Resolution 594-99 September 15, 1999 Page 2 411) 2. The Geographical Area Involved. 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area In this area of Mounds View, most of the lots are more narrow than the subject property, though all are just as deep. The homes are generally of a similar style architecture and were built around the same time. A larger garage on the subject property would not appear out of place, as there is adequate screening, a substantial sized lot and larger home on the property. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Adding to the existing garage will have an immediate positive impact on the value of the subject property. At 1,040 square feet, set back from the street as far as it is, this garage addition probably would not depreciate the surrounding area in any way. 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. The applicant has stated that he would like to use this area for hobbies and a work shop. In creating this space, there would be ample room to do crafts or woodworking, instead of taking up space in the existing garage or in the basement. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b.: • 1. The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. 7. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. 8. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Adding on to the garage would not create a greater impact on existing public facilities, parks, schools or services, on utilities or access roads, nor would it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. 2. The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. 3. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. Because the house is set back further than is typical, and because the addition would be situated behind the garage, there would be substantial public screening from this accessory structure. 4. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the 11) 5. City and to the existing land use. The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. Planning Commission Resolution 594-99 September 15, 1999 Page 3 ill6. The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Garages and detached accessory outbuildings are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for the storage of vehicles and yard and garden equipment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of a conditional use permit to allow for a 1,040 square-foot garage with the following stipulations: 1. The conditional use permit shall be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval, and a receipt of such recording shall be provided to the City of Mounds View. 2. The garage shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall become null and void. 3. The garage addition shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform building appearance with the existing garage. 4. All vehicles parked at the property shall be parked either upon the driveway's improved III surface or within the garage. At no time shall a vehicle be allowed to park upon the grass or off of the improved surface. 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 15th day of September, 1999. Jerry Peter n, C airperson ATTEST: Uz.-cam Rick Jopke, Comu t my Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V\DE VCAS ES\569-99\594-99 PC.RES