Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-15-1999
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • September 15, 1999 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING,PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM,AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND DDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Approve Minutes: a. August 18, 1999 5. Planning Case No.570-99 Property Involved: 2075 &2081 Hillview Road Consideration of a variance request to allow for a zero-foot garage setback Applicant: Jeff Johnson 6. Planning Case No. 569-99 • Property Involved: 8011 Sunnyside Road Consideration of Resolution 594-99, a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use for an oversized garage. Applicant: Donald Mackeben 7. Staff Reports/Items of Information a. Update regarding change in location of screen fence at the Anthony Properties/O'Neil PUD(Theater Project.) b. Discussion of Economic Development section of the Comprehensive Plan c. Previous Council Actions d. Upcoming-Planning-Cases 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 9. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * • s AGENDA SESSION AGENDA 1. Review Minutes -- September 1, 1999 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\PCAGENDA\1999\9-15-99.REG ill • • 4 REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION • Meeting Date: September 15, 1999 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 570-99 Applicant: Jeff Johnson Request: The applicant is seeking a variance for a zero-foot setback to construct a six-stall garage to service the two four-plexes he owns. Location: 2075 & 2081 Hillview Road PIN Nos. 05-30-23-41-0011 & 005-30-23-41-0005 Zoning/Land Use: R-3, Medium Density Residential Applicable Regulations: 1104.01, Subd. 4: Accessory buildings detached from principal building shall have a side-yard setback of five feet. Accessory buildings shall not be allowed in the front yard. • Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site Plan 5. County Lot Combination Form Background: The-applicant, o w contiguous properties on rfiillview Road, each improved with four- unit multi-family structures, wishes to construct a six-stall garage structure between the two buildings to service both buildings. The problem with this request is (1) the structure would cross a property line, and (2) if approved, what would happen at some point in the future if one of the properties were sold. 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. Analysis: Addressing the first issue of a structure"straddling" a lot line, so to speak, one can look at Section • Johnson Variance Application 2075 &2081 Hillview Road September 11, 1999 Page 2 1107.03 of the Zoning Code, pertaining to zero lot line subdivisions. While not the same thing, the manner by which a zero lot line subdivision would be similar to how the applicant's request could be handled. Under Subdivision 4 of that Section, certain deed restrictions are listed which would need to be filed upon both properties, which are as follows: a. If one dwelling unit is burned or destroyed, it shall be reconstructed in a uniform appearance. b. If both dwelling units are burned or destroyed, minimum lot widths shall then prevail as for single-family homes. c. A double dwelling unit may be re-built meeting the original conditions of this Title. d. A uniform exterior appearance, in terms of color, design and maintenance shall be maintained For the applicant's request, if a variance 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 of or both or the properties were to be sold in the future. In speaking with the City Attorney, however, it was concluded that this approach--albeit possible--may not be the most appropriate in this situation. • The other possible option to allow for this type of structure would be to require that the applicant join, or"combine", the two parcels into one parcel. This process is fairly straightforward, and only requires that the taxes payable for the current year be paid. There is no County fee to join parcels. This process has been used in the past without any problems, and can be seen on the Mermaid Site, the Silver Lake Commons multi-family complex, as well as other multi-lot parcels. While in most cases it would be preferable to replat the parcels to make one"platted" lot,joining the applicant's two parcels would not appear to cause any problems and would alleviate any issues resulting from property lines or the future sale of the property. (Once the properties are joined, they could only be "un-joined" by_ eans-af-a-minor-subdivision hich the Planning Commission_and_CoiInca would need to approve.) Staff has spoken to the applicant, who has indicated that he would be willing to join the properties in lieu of requesting a variance. A copy of the lot combination application is attached for your reference. Once joined, there would be no reason the applicant could not proceed with his plans for the garage construction. Staff would recommend, however, that the City Code, in Section 1202.10 pertaining to land subdivisions be amended to explicitly allow for such combinations. The Subdivision Code does not contemplate simple combinations, only subdivisions. The City Attorney has suggested the following italicized and underlined words be added: 1202.10: LAND DIVISION OR COMBINATION PROCEDURE: In any case where the 41° • Johnson Variance Application 2075 &2081 Hillview Road September 11, 1999 • Page 3 division or combination of a parcel or parcels of land into one or more lots or parcels for the purpose of transfer of ownership or building development does not come within the definition of subdivision, as defined by this Title, a certified survey and description of such land division or combination shall be filed with the Clerk-Administrator who shall submit copies of such division or combination to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Director of Public Works/City Engineer. No building permit shall be issued until said description has been approved by the Council. Staff feels this change to the Code is necessary in any event, as this issue has come up in the past and combinations have occurred with the City's verbal approval. Recommendation: If the applicant is so willing and the combination successful, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission take no action on this request as Mr. Johnson would then withdraw his application from consideration. C:LAtius-a • James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\570-99\TOHNSON.RPT • CITY OF OU OO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTME4110 -s DEVELOPMENT APPLICATI onr: 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 O.pu, -gyp -ParrnelS ' 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form 4 Applicant Information Name of Applicant r n1/ S(� /LI Telephone 7 g /1 Address go l? f , -t (l O 1r► J`.G� Fax 4 L,rtd Ut ct�✓ • Interest in Property(check appropriate box) Owner of Property 0 Contract for Deed Owner O Lessee,Operator,Manager 0 Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other(explain) Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal 7 � � � �� � L Address or General Location 26 L' U'ii e J P- 10 Legal Description Se e S C ( "Z. Pro Identification# PIN# C O O'1 I '0t-a C's 3O -- PAY ( ) 5 3 a-3 / fl � #of Acres Current Zoning R 3 Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250 ❑ Rezoning $250/acre; min$250 max$1500 ❑ Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit* ❑ Minor Subdivision $200 ❑ Planned Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees ❑ PUD Amendment $350 ❑ Conditional Use Permit R-1, R-2$75;all others$250 Variance R-1, R-2$100 all others$250 ❑ Code Appeal $100 ' ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan $125/acre;min$125 max$750 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2$150;all others$200 ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit R-I,R-2$25;all others$100 ❑ Floodplain Permit $200 ❑ Other *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, • research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty(30)days atter consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View,MN Page 2 Development Application • Present Use of Property ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant 0 Single Family Dwelling ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling X Multi-family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment 0 Industrial Establishment ❑ Other(explain) Property Classification a Abstract 0 Torrens Description of Proposal () L 1,z BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS I' AND ACCURATE Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant(typed/printed) Qs,C.F1 ney"."1/441"-\-'Y .r Ji n, S. Signature of Property Owner j#1.- • Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) Address of Owner e)-.� fjiLG ; X. a Phone Number of Owner n 6 6 6- or- *** -_***************** FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal ¶J"1 Assigned to: Date of Acceptance Asssignlimit Planning Case No. 3-7 C ,_ ? 60-day Limit 120-day Fees Paid: Account# Check# Receipt# Application: 0-.5 O loo 311(0.1., �� ) 0 5 Park Dedication: Deposits: • Other: Total: 1/98 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\FORMS\DEVAPP.FOR -"n44*6''".....,.,„,,,f:: ...........................07 . • 6,2 0 • CRP 5751 soutRe _ . . 5741 PARK '` I t- E"<0 c, `� 5731 a W. N N N N Nt N f 1 5721 . . e DR t is i c''1.-\ {ri N ' n 224A '' ig o„ ~,% 5711 R.4 c4\`� ' . 2237 N N N .2200 5701 'J 0.•14:\ .i r N co t IO N 2233 --'^ 5691 } ,� �"r��`ick N: N _ '--3,--0,„„i• R-5 0.��e� D ok. ro` 5681 i Qcx �t:�l O vk Ni Nt N i N N N /' iC1 •_..� • & to N•N N N�N,N 'N N 5671 _ T , • 4 0 t.N ►� ri-'7��'.ui ��, � 5661 .1-7'. C'• ONIAL VILLAGE a��`� i _3 M'�BILE H� „ 'K M. • •y A ~ G. 1t)-eF to I tet to N M N O O p p §- I r'+- trait n N i N N 1 N N N N N N N �- O O /p' paci V iNtNiN'NININ NIN N N N N N '04 i..01 N HILLVIEW o )' O " : o4 00 opt tO; O O eh`O- OjNt d rico • 't0 COEo)N o o *1t0 o - '1 N - N NN II4. M; N NI1-IN 010). 0M aN r3 - 0 Otto otN. J' N '• N NIN NiN! N; N Nt NgN NIe— r ..- .- -1— O O OIO p4--1-----1--- i N € N NfN NjN N; N N( NIN N;N' N OAKWOOD N N N N N NIN NIN N __.� I 1, PARK i ;. : 1 i 0 co h- N. 0.— — tin 1. O i In f _ .. 7--"---r—I l' JIN N N NiNfO aIMIN )N a-}th a M 4590ICD to OAKW0ODINNSN N N NIN,N1NINI ` ;N NININ io .oer t0 ao o . jJ • DR 41N N 1 CC CO N N L �c4 P') N et• eF t tO;t0 i 04 COICO 1 N I tO 103 101 N tO 3 iO 4'N N N ; N N N N N#N Ni NpN N I- N • I17 .4. ") M!N 1�1O ... , 0 r 1t N f 3 .- t ,..("4".... I '— O O O O )-1-0.-711-;M I N N N N N N N N.N N N.`N NIN N t ty N - .;N , NIN NN N N M -NDN )� { F _ 1 k\-1 0,1t N N•N tN (O <A l M In to N. 0)t M t, to M N. 0) II- t) N. •- U) # ,- , - i N N N N f\ 0 to to d M M N •- r O 10) 01 00 €f�,!� c0 O t to RR N N a •I' •- .- * n - ' •- 2 s O O O 1 O O )`co 0 i^ Iop '1r TE ACE N N IN N N N1N,N N N ,N1 Ni NIN N:NIN jt0 j NN itNV N N N � } NNENt* 40 DR - r..a.-.-.. Vii....'":!, 01{ N I O 8 et et't0 i OD`N t0 00 N't0 to O N t0 01 -41,01?, ' M 1 td :O) .- _.__4 _d N N N N o0 1� t0 If) uJ M M.N , .-i O O) pfCOa n t0 i n CO^' N:N t0 It) -10 .0 #I } N N N r .- .- F1 .- . r r I.- .- .- N 0 O O O e O V N ; N- NJN N NJ IM N V.N N N N N N NIN N N N N N NN N,t .. , 1N N NNN70) tN N r /"-- Z � I,_.�. ...- # 1 f PINEWOOD oR - N 04/P4 Fe- •'u) ' yy p N Ot O to 01 i O M 0 e- M,1` .- 3 in ••N .- I I tO In 2 e} M M N .- r Oiiiiiii711 /i,rfN N •-N t t I • Zoning Map Planning Case 570-99 Applicant: Johnson Variance Request Location: 2075 & 2081 Hillview Road N4 7 City of Mounds View Location Map • 1- -, III I 1 � � litirj ? IIII � A 1 111 _ ft`_ I G I III I — I �� - ��► Vtakt , . 2075 Hillview Road ;��1mil�►eem �' 2081 Hillview Road 1 I I 11111 I 1i 1111111111 I 11 1 •i 1 I __ ■�1 111 H ii* 1111111 Ens .� . ■ 1 1 ,�:,z".?. - mei y >. � . 111111�� X11 �� - �iir�� I il111i: �111�l� I ...do, ""� iiiiiii� �.. t .� �11: nrn-im� ■ ■111 - _m 1.1 ____ ,al I i� rat iiMEN MIMI MEM HW,O\ P. . . !; .I () ■ " g.': ' :]„if ., Jeffrey N. Johnson _11L Y ' .� �_�1--- 2075 and 2081 Hillview Road 77�I==11117 i i:.111111-=,...--,„T -� 1 ' ===11= /�-=+ _ """ Variance (Zero Foot Setback) ._ 1,11:_ . _� ®®= ;- n� , IIIII. �,o_nullllr:l:9...in=1„. .nnnnw: _:.:.�.. 1I 9I:= imm 111 Plannin. Case No. 570-99 lIl E:-..-- gi Ei i II 'se 1 OW 111111111 BG Illlll 1 :moi LP III 1111111111111111 - �\ SIUItINUIIIIIIIII 11",111,1'1''111 n...... -�■_ �_ nmuwunw mac. '°'.'' — _-1:` -� 2075 & 2081 Hillview Road QIP-' r�,.;�' . _ - F,._1 IIII(. =:: A.� \� on_=_nn w:rr Properties Within 350' E"U 1....a. - - ■1111111111 ..7._: 1 -===g-,- �Ij,=MI111111111 1i�i61l E-1q: 11 q3!=11111111111111 ,1IIiIIIIIIi pi utlil =1"0111Nin" IIDIII ;;.; /.1i1 �7-:um wgl1r111 1 11111 k. �� II...VIII MMJI ' SIM .III ri d i-1117_ f) • 111:11 11 iL VP': 0 7 1 T vi (----- di ,z)ci . _t1 ...._____ t.1..i a c:: .. ___ , % . , - i , , Li i I 77;1 (9 f .itl i I (4 1 . ht•- 40 I I . - 4111 I -i • I \A H . .---- . . C...) 0 i ''' - ------, .-- • . . 0 • PROPERTY RECO 3A AND RETE 50 KELLOGG BLVD W SUITE 824 3T PAUL MINNESOTA 55102-1624 REQUEST FOR COMB/NAT/ON OF CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES • DIRECTOR OF PROPERTY RECORDS & REVENUE SUITE 824 50 KELLOGG BLVD. W. ST. PAUL, MN. 55102-1696 DATE: IMPORTANT NOTICE TO TAXPAYER: +PINS must be in SAME Taxing,Tax Increment & Watershed Dis- tricts. +Owners (listed on tax statements) MUST be the same in order to combine property. +Property will NOT be combined if there are delinquent taxes or current taxes on any parcel. +Property purchased by CONTRACT FOR DEED "WILL NOT" be combined unless both the FEE OWNER and the CONTRACT PURCHASER sign. I, the FEE OWNER of the Real Estate identified by the following code numbers agree that the property identified below may be combined into one description for tax purposes only: Signed: Code Numbers (PIN) • I, the CONTRACT PURCHASER of the Real Estate identified by the following code numbers request that the same be combined into one description for tax purposes only: Signed: Code Numbers (PIN) The new description is to be effective for taxes payable in the year . [MUST BE FILED BEFORE 12/31 TO AFFECT FOLLOWING YEARS TAX] . IIS FUTURX-TAX—STATEMENTS TO: NAME: ADDRESS: ZIP+4 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: CIRCLE ONE CHECK OWNERSHIP/DELINQ. TAXES APPROVED DENIED PUBLIC SERVICE CHECK CURRENT TAXES APPROVED DENIED JUDY BOLLMANN [FOLLOW-UP AND COLLECTION] • CHECK HOMESTEAD APPROVED DENIED HOMESTEAD STAFF • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: September 15, 1999 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 569-99 Applicant: Donald Mackeben Request: Conditional Use Permit for an over-sized garage Location: 8011 Sunnyside Road PIN Nos. 06-30-23-42-0008 Zoning/Land Use: R-1, Single Family Residential Applicable Regulations: 1104.01. Subd. 4: Accessory buildings detached from principal building shall have a setback of 5 feet. Accessory buildings shall not be allowed in the front yard. 1106.03. Subd. 1: No garage shall exceed 952 square feet except by CUP; the combined square • footage for all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more than 20% of the rear yard. 1106.04. Subd.6: The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one lot cannot exceed 1,400 square feet, the garage width cannot exceed 35 feet nor allow for more than three vehicle accesses. 1125.01. Sub. le: This section lists possible adverse effects that the Planning Commission shall consider in making its recommendation. 1125.01. Sub. 3b: This section lists possible additional criteria by CUP requests shall be judged. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Location Map Site Plan Resolution 594-99 Background: 8011 Sunnyside Road is located north of Highway 10 mid-block between Hillview and Sherwood Roads. The area of the subject property--an interior lot--is approximately 38,115 square feet, nearly an acre. The house is set back approximately 85 feet from the street, with the detached • garage situated alongside the home on the south side of the property. The house, at approximately 1,400 square feet, is presently larger than the existing two-stall garage, which is • Mackeben CUP Request 8011 Sunnyside Road September 15, 1999 Page2 • 720 square feet. The applicant proposes to construct a 320 square-foot addition to the rear of the garage to be used for a workshop /hobby area., bringing the total proposed square-footage of the garage to 1,040 square.feet. A Conditional Use Permit is required because the expansion are would result in a garage larger than 952 square feet. Analysis: Dimensional Criteria All of the dimensional criteria associated with this request--setbacks, spacing between buildings, width of the garage and expansion, and the numbers of doors--satisfy the requirements as stated in Chapter 1104 of the Zoning Code. The proposed expansion would be about constructed at the rear of the garage, hidden from public view. The existing garage is set back from the south property line by five feet, while the expansion would be seven feet from the south lot line, 125 feet from the rear lot line, and over 1215 feet from the north lot line, as shown in the site plan provided by the applicant. The garage and proposed addition would comprise less than five percent of the rear yard area. The maximum coverage allowed is 20 percent. Adverse Effects and CUP Criteria • The City Code, in Section 1125.01, Subd. 1 states that the Planning Commission shall examine the possible adverse effects of a conditional use permit request prior to making a recommendation. The following represent those items explicitly stated in the Code: 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. 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 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. • Mackeben CUP Request 8011 Sunnyside Road September 15, 1999 • Page 3 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. This proposal appears to satisfy the adverse effects criteria. Also in Section 1125.01, the Planning Commission is to examine the criteria for granting a conditional use permit, which are outlined in Section 1125.01, Sub 3b: (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 City and to the existing land use. (5) 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. (6) 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. Mackeben CUP Request 8011 Sunnyside Road September 15, 1999 Page 4 • Staff believes that the adverse affects of this development proposal are minimal and are far out- weighed by the benefits. Staff also believes that it is desirable from a community perspective to have property owners improve their properties with building expansions since the properties are then usually kept in better order and may trigger other properties to do the same. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 594-99, a resolution recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 1,040 square foot garage at 8011 Sunnyside Road, as requested by Donald Mackeben. James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCAS ES\569-99\MACKEBEN.PCI • 1110 m,. i;n• u X12:• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION • 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 -Partne(sti4' 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information Name of Applicant PP A/ C1/4 5 13 z.-:"AlTelephone 7 g c9) Address. d // 6''1,/N N'y S J R'l> Fax 1\l/) w'A/OS' 1.1 e 1v /7it( ''s11 � Interest in Property(check appropriate box) Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner o Lessee,Operator,Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other(explain) Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal • Address or General Location g // cS 1/A/H'y c5-7 ,t ) Legal Description ,�L-P 1_ I 02-- Property LProperty Identification#(PIN#) O Li? 3 o x311 'D `f ^ooO r if Acres ' N G G ' 5 L L v(11.t.� Current Zoning 12., to S • • Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250 ❑ Rezoning $250/acre; min$250 max$1500 ❑ Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit* ❑ Minor Subdivision $200 a Planned Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees ❑- PUD Amendment $350 S. Conditional Use Permit R-1, R-2$75;all others$250 ❑ Variance R-1, R-2$100 all others$250 ❑ Code Appeal $100 ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan $125/acre;min$125 max$750 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2$150;all others$200 ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit R-1,R-2$25;all others$100 a Floodplain Permit $200 ❑ Other ip *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty(30)days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View,MN Page 2 Development Application Present Use of Property III ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant Single Family Dwelling ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ Other(explain) Property Classification 0 Abstract Torrens Descriptionf of Proposal A-D b Z' I a , T iN� ���'xi�S Cil JV c /114A e c yAz R eu T gAizsA f.L I-r r',S .'r}i7P c/ h, d'4.-T1 d/+r 1-/Y((' en-1.p}4. BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I�1�DEACCLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AN Signature of Applicant -4° T /6 7. -- P0-1-"2-‹ Name of Applicant(typed/printed) -7 .---- ir Signature of Property Owner �` " Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) 0 2 A(. -1) ' A14 c/C a )1 eft' III Address of Owner S e // 5— /i//tfy 57`1' c RI) iffe) VA/PS �/` E 11Ate Phone Number of Owner 7 g Y' s- 0 *********************************************************** FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal 5.--1 3- a Assigned to: Date of Acceptance 60-da Limit 120-day limit Planning Case No. Y Fees Paid: Check# Receipt#Account# Application: 10o:361.-71 Cf ,366, ��9 00 q Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: • Total: 1/98 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\FORMS\DEVAPP.FO R 2 LION � .,.,._. 8175 -_ t . .b� / 8160 8171 �w- • 1 _ N € N N 'N 814= 8165 _ w °3 f� - _ 8150 8165 i • j f 814 $145 ,'b ` , >� 8145� ....,-i !t 8135 0 � 8140 E �.,-- ` 8i ase 8141 ? { 8125 8130 813_4?--Ir -j•-- 1 �'"'"H 1 - } � n1 rn 1in 4) ' "' ` t• to * ' * 8111 o o tnE. 3 1t ug rA . d' a ‘ M N S 1101 IH N N ! $12� 12N NN i N . _ H RWOOD co co to l I I `r° o t 8099 1 n 5 �.,, N N €8080 0: 8081 N N 8068 • 8075 N N -- N N 8085 80$5( �.._ 8070 8071 8066 : 8068 8071 771. 4 . 8071 "w., 8075 8060 8059 80 ' 8055 .;+60 8065 045 --I - ww •42 8045 1 8• -2 8051 8044 804: 6 .w..�.-_.._ 8040 8039 ."_`"".'� .. " 8025 -- "` 8032 8033 80• • ^8035� 8032 8031 6 _ 8028 ..- - _�� `j w . 8022 8015 --p'8025 8018 ,8011, 8000 8021 � w_ 801 of 8005 80168009�` 8006 j ii" _ 8011 8000 8001 ) 7_985 8004 7981 7990 © 7981 _ 799 CI 79_89 7996 Er 799: 7975- 7970 7979 '80 7.969_...) 79 _7979 , y7980 c5 798; y 219.75_ 797 _w-ww.. . i 7965 7960 7959 79 7965 7960 796' _7960_. - �. 7966 7969 Y7955� 7956 7949 795.4 7959 _ -� ,7950 795' • 7940 7945.7946 7927 ' 7940 4 7933 7950 7930 7935 7930 7917 2 ^ .�_._ ,.- ---r-6--- rn •._.--.,._ N i E._...._.. 7901 L-1 I N N 7900 7901 7900 N 1 N 1 N 1 7900 7901 . I NG ' 7900 N HILLVIEW ROAD �°;\'�? 7886 p 7891 m ' co €7880 78951 N N 7890 7885 1,,,/ N .. N 1 N ._w w _ ...,.w.r...a..w._... _„_, ..,w _ " 7870 7869 4, 7876 Z 7885 7866 7867 w�. www�...0 / 2 _D 7877 7854 _7_85_1_ 7860 7865 i �� 7870 co _-. .w�. ..." . _ .. O• OfAb y ry^ • > 7863 7842 7841 -„7850 785 ry -T \.:5* ".,,, 7.?„,",, ' __. .. 7830 8 ._ 7840 783; � :Y ?� ,� 7851 �-w--- 0 781 �. 7 3 F____7.8_20 7815 7790 / rte >'8 . 7810 0 1 $ 780: '� �`t; 7809 7770 7801 �, r�'` o �� 7800 w__._.. ..... - z 7801 '``` ,�, et, B_2 h R-4 , , 7801 ._ _..7764 w 7751 PUD o°` 'V h'` 7767 M 1 _7760 6 7741 Zoning Map Planning Case 569-99 7 Applicant: Mackeben CUP Request Location: 8011 Sunnyside Road „IR �' City of Mounds View • Location Map _, w. II IfrrtFlt t 1I i rI 11=I I i H : i ■w■■ �� � I1I - � ' IlIiIIII ;t _ _ = �--- 1111111/ - ajilr —I I _F0 ► i — rri 1 - . Eillita T r us§ •11111111 AST II— �. k.s �a:IF.,.: Yta, A3,�v sS£1 s£,s. - • I£tr s 3 tt£t =,IRII 'I1”L' Er- zf�,r.4a;:: 33 3r 311t �N��'i __ � Nom ; ��n m ?. 8011 Sunnyside Road_ 2 r■,.� € i t��.„ 2 th� `1 i I I; rniu@,,„.. ..ij ■1 MI r .1 116_111415c 1A1 i .\,&• -.44-41 - . ...... _ ,..., _ . ...... , - . 1-,Tg- • ...., ....... kribh-: i __ 1'") 111117_ _R—Al VILI FEV1-1 71 Eli _-= _ "_===_�_ ' Don Mackeben ___: _mu M _- _I-i.. --=� 8011 Sunnyside Road - EN ii MI:== X110 4.(' { c--�1=`viii i.-1,......_.. . 74 1 ® Conditional Use Permit (Oversized Garage) _� 11„,,/,,,,,,-,--,.....,-_--...m. j'_- ons, _ .,_ _ Planning Case No. 569-99 ___iiii:i. ,i ii ■Ai uu. uluul 1i� innuw uunuuu =-- 11 1111 111111111111111 _Il+- .ii-E-.. .-- iiiiii111I111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi Illm1\ =;.2E'♦ ` ____ .111; �T' 4,:i I _ !=�__II. .1•1 8011 Sunnyside Road • .,...4.4r„._ .-71,111. ='1 ",'(�=11111 :=Ii lusila::: 'x :•'.11 ��=__1111111111111;" . ` -Properties Within 350' ___ Mumuul 'MIN 11111i- -, ► ail,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111-1„ II(111 1 ";__ililliE 111 rim ■■�� _rim l- _.. _ r_=aueIN 1111 F. -- Q 1. o `� -.. 1 • Si • ►. f 1 1 . • V 0 C''''‘ 1 ,, I _ ri . , _ - . I J . .. . • . , . 3 ". 1 • 74 0 C4%-r,`-e ._ . . C.'Xit`r./..)"Y . . 5' \ Y.. 1--.4 . A. -- 36, -----. ..f_--....---a g- . \� 3d'_---- { . ... • t!!S . . s'r9/ ,, s/,-. RibI 0 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 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding 1111 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 110 Page2 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 largerhome 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 110 City and to the existing land use. 5. 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 • 6. 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 the 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 surface or within the garage. At no time shall a vehicle be allowed to park upon the grass 11111 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 Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DE VCASES\569-99\594-99PC.RES • PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission, From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Subject: Economic Development Section of the Comprehensive Plan Date: September 10, 1999 BACKGROUND: At the September 1, 1999 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission was given a copy of the economic development section of the comprehensive plan that was developed by the Economic Development Commission. Kevin Carroll will be present to discuss the document with the Planning Commission. Please bring your copy of the document with you to the meeting. REQUESTED ACTION: Discuss the document and ask any questions that you may have.No formal action is required at this time. This section will be incorporated into the overall comprehensive plan document that will be presented to the Planning Commission at a future meeting. 4111P 1111 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\9-15-99b.doc • PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission, From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Subject: Request to Change Screen Fence Location at the Anthony Properties/O'Neil Project Date: September 10, 1999 BACKGROUND: At the September 1, 1999 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission discussed a request from Anthony Properties concerning the possibility of moving the screen fence along the south side of the property 6 feet to the west into the buffer area. As staff indicated at the meeting there was a question what was on the approved plan. Staff indicated that the approved plan seemed to indicate that the fence only had to be between the office buildings. The Planning Commission directed staff to further research the matter, discuss the matter with the City Attorney and report back to Planning Commission. I have reviewed the files, Planning Commission minutes, and City Council minutes and have not go found anything new that would specifically require a continuous fence. I have sent copies of materials to the City Attorney's office and will report any opinions issued to the Planning Commission at the September 15t meeting. REQUESTED ACTION: It is requested that the Planning Commission determine what additional review process and action should happen. The Planning Commission could also recommend that staff be directed to draft code amendments for future consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. • N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\9-15-99.doc A PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION 0 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 1, 1999 ,..k, Mounds Niew City Hall , :r 2401 Highway 10, IVraunds Aew, MN 55112 4 aalako AM .11611SIP\, 1. Call to Order N4:0101**,,.', 4i:,,,,,F No., :40110**, 0 jEy- .Ar te,4000.4, .0, .„.S,,,&.; The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Petersc9147:0An., Septembe oinv, ariv4k.' 2. Roll Call .;:'111,110, AO' Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioner-'':erke, ':::eit;.,:ng9hnson, Kaden, Laube, Miller, and Stevenson. .00,1:NO," ..walW 400000:',..* Members Absent: Commissioner Braathen, " mitf prick4e kti4 11 Ar gi•VINFOPUO? • k Also Present: Planning Associate Jim EF,Won, Community Popment Director Rick Jop e, and Recorder Trish Pearson. III gm Ay itio* 0.. ,,,,e Community Development Directkaopke st CourtgitLiaison Stigney would not be present for .epi the meetinANg, lowever, he Jkl!i::- viewing*4.. ::1,144edings on tape. L 4Litiba ,eaw,tN:„Q",, 4114VE4 om,voivii*,:„ 1POPftem, Index to MilifiteCN :'"IIMM Page .4itip ;.iViAm. ,7",,..„'w • — • • • Planning Cas- „ 4,e::,.;0::#,!2:z0P59 ReckDak Drive. consideration of a variance .,a:t.: request t9.4IoW for a4pfAde dnveway. John Henning, Applicant. 2 av / ImpT.:,::,. Sta'4!:tports Items of lu 4 ii.iatton 8 ' Z:' ing . AW 0 74 a erson and Plan :ig Commissioners Report 24 ag ammem.,, 1MINNIR0400440' MILICIIMPOr m„....,&: -1 , 3q . :.---,A izens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 0 t Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 2 • 4. Approval of Minutes A. August 4, 1999 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller to approve the May 19, 1999 meeting minas corrected. Ai% 41P Ayes— 8 Nays—0 & Thi«. t7:n carried. 5. Planning Case No. 568-99 Nrst:.' t _..:` : Property Involved: 8359 Red Oak Drive `' , " Consideration.of a variance request to allow for a 44-foot' ipi' ; :dri -way. Applicant: John Henning 4 ,N,,,,-:z .. k.: VOW The applicant was present. `< ><:. 40 Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff1:1- AW ort asfollows: f,` ° ' or sxiar .: The applicant, John Henning, properter at 8: Red OaDrive, has requested that the Planning 0 NOVW AV Commission approve a variance f r, a drive._. ay nine feet wider than is allowed by Code. The maximum width for a driveway is 3.4 feet. The Th011f.tlicAritiOshes to add a nine-foot wide parking pad alongside the arage, which._ot*provide access s ' es the driveway to increase to a width of 44 feet. Th way, howeve a ..rows to 1 e t s it approaches the street. Vitilifii Ericson state d th :>s ;ject proper ":»t loc. ted north of Ardan Avenue, between Ardan Avenue and County Road iN;;,,iiAtAlgd theo e www:.as built this year, and the applicant is in the process of completing the : _ ; 14: w and lan d sca ing, and the driveway was the last project undertaken. He stated, at t 6,time Mr. t&fnttmitted his application for the driveway, he was told that the Code proid•' . , .- •• a .•- 1: . hat-point,he applied . koiti C4' k i Eli son stated staff has reviewed the seven criteria presented for examination in granting a variance, it.;t:•er toestablish a hardship or extraordinary circumstance that would warrant the granting of such a: ;, :T. He pro de"a brief overview of the criteria, and stated that staff was not able to discern e ` a •0 ir Ed hardship in this case. EriCait `">ated the applicant has a three-car garage, which cannot be expanded any further due to setbacks and the width of the house, nor can it be expanded to the rear, therefore, it is as large as it can be on the subject lot. He stated, in this regard, staff understands the applicant's position, in that it would be nice to have a parking space along the side of the garage, so as not to block one of the three access doors to the garage. He stated, however, this would require creating a driveway that is larger than that allowed by the Code. 0 Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 • Ericson stated the applicant has after the fact, installed the driveway. He stated that when the permit was applied for,the grading for the driveway had already been completed, and the applicant was not aware of the Code provision. He stated a retaining wall was installed along the side of the property line, and the driveway was to be located one foot from the north property line. :Ie stated the neighboring property owner, Mr. Norbert Moe, has indicated through correspondence that he does not object to the driveway location in that close proximity to his propert. iftaker Ericson stated the issue to be determined is whether or :not there cAtallabbardship for the applicant, to warrant granting a variance. He stated regardless of the deter" .'_"a ion,the matter.has brought to light another issue regarding whether or not the ode is appropriate t i aati�. He stated it is currently standard practice that homes have thr'�:—�.ar garages, and the' i en very clear in its desire to have all vehicles parked upon improv='"d's.>laces. He stated, in tlis£rgard, this proposal would be a positive improvement, however, it doi4r _et the Code requirement. Ericson stated one of the recommendations staff has brought to the>>Pla Commission is to direct staffto draft a resolution of approval of the variance i icate some :i hardship in this case. He stated another option would be to direct staff o >a i o ution of denial based on the fact that no hardshi can be found. He stated another option wo a '>ta�ble -present action, and review the Code requirement of 35 feet, and consider a Code Amendmentenactment to allow for wider driveway. He stated the Planning Commission maiwish, basedf `pon their discussion, to act upon the applicant's request, and regardless:othe deci ti in this particular case, further review the Code • in this regard. .:. John Hennin&8359 Red Q e,the ap"lice. >.t, tined he questioned why he was in violation of the City o *, -Ie exp explained; ' lriveway �; ter than 35 feet, however, he did not realize this would ca 0.. �� te> nviolation :O ated his ara e was 36 feet wide, which is a standard width for ": �' g g a three-car g. _>::,g ' is not a -3o r iz d,garage. He stated he made the driveway nine feet wider ': 4.__r`4::: n oand explained that he had narrowed the on the side. Ike ,, reto the scte<4pau of his property, p driveway to 1$4£1 t, andfttefore it was comprised of less square footage than if he had construct;int t 3 5 feet kla to the street. .0 Aitioa:Nr Mr.. " •nning stated the Obitiifidicates the restriction of the blacktop area in the yard, to limit the n 100 of vehicles parke. pon it, and to prevent an impact to the neighborhood and environment, • A6 excessive blackte:p%urface. He stated he had less blacktop surface than that which is allowed t Code. 110,e4,0"4 ed this was an attractive improvement, which does not deteriorate the p9„1:,.2,9,2,g1nA0,,iyiThanner. He stated he did not believe he was in violation of the Code, however, ift 3r... commission determined otherwise, he would request a variance be granted. Mr. Henning stated the reason he had constructed his driveway to a 14 foot width at the street, was in consideration of three large trees at the front of his property, which he did not desire to lose. He stated, if not for these trees, a 35-foot width to the street would have been very satisfactory to him. • He stated this was not possible unless the trees were removed. Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 • Chairperson Peterson stated, in terms of legalities, there was a Code issue present. Mr. Henning stated he was a Code Official for 15 years in the City of Minneapolis. He stated there is the letter of the Code, and then there is the Code. He stated he did not meet the letter of the Code, however, he actually did meet the definition of the Code. He stated he had less square feet, and has,impacted the environment less, by the manner in which he had constructed his driveway than he,,gruld have had he constructed a 35 foot wide rectangular driveway. He stated his driveway;was more attractive, it serves his purpose more satisfactorily, and he has left the tree. 4n his yax '` Commissioner Stevenson stated the applicant's design was.#06attractivePloneustatipwas did not e these types of issues comingmi before the Planning Co ssion, mer the fa is ;tstat the contractor, prior to performing the construction, has beforel im all:>of the City eatOIROments. He stated the 35-foot width requirement was in place at tht 4004 house was constrttcted, and the driveway was not "grandfathered" in. He stated he had a conffiAt inkconflict regard, and noted all designs might not be so attractive. . N. "k'Atir . cm Mr. Henningstated if he had left the nine-foot pad as:..4>> `r el surfacewould have been acceptable in terms of the Code, however, if he placed a: lato:: opi concrete` rface upon it, he was in violation of the Code. He stated he believed thet5lacktell a mn rou_ ent. He stated, according to the City Code, he would have been Ate to cox tra411§1t driveway to the street, and construct a 16-foot wide Y' section at some point, or a 40,141t driveway, and would not be in violation of the Code. He stated a .:ravel surface>would no: =he in violation, however, the blacktop 0 surface was, and he thought this di' ` ot mak- nse. >i Chairperson ':eterson re uest'=�':.clarificatio; "r#t drivewa width requirement at the street, as allowed " •de. Er i oso a 'd the Cb; e'Offtdes that driveways be no wider than 22 feet at the stree . :e ;:t. ;;, howev :::'pplicant was correct in that he could have brought the 35-foot drivewayalt he ro ` ; ,i'so Jong as it narrowed to 22 feet at the street right-of-way. He stated that the ;.d riveway.0aWpt uirement does take into consideration those areas with a�ViGoilY�+3�r�b:\�?�f` :h4;E;::fi:".�:_:.: gravel surface' l <;explain the City Code indicates a maximum 35-foot width, which requirementencompass t_ e driveway and parking areas, therefore, even if the present addition was grave .a •T. :r:E. wider than allowed-by-the-Co* -. ::'enning stated he agr -d this might be the case, if they defined this addition as a driveway, and i :'::: gravel, however, could call it a storage area, a patio area, and it would be acceptable. He r- a ed he did not eel he was in violation of the Code. He stated he had violated the letter of the •tI i.. -ve,: E:t e had not violated the actual definition of the Code. voltialeikAI Conte''° o -r Kaden inquired if the applicant was aware of the Code requirement prior to laying the blacktop on the pad. Mr. Henning stated he was. He explained that his reason for doing so was to maintain his placement upon the asphalt layer's list. He stated if had he not proceeded at that time, he would not have been able to install the blacktop until the following spring, and desired to start his lawn this fall. He stated he took the risk that the Planning Commission would not approve the project, and could hardly comprehend that it would not be approved. He stated if it was not 0 Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 • approved, he would rectify the situation, and would make the area into something else. He stated he would work with the Planning Commission to take care of the matter. He stated he agreed that he should not have commenced the project prior to its approval, however, he was pressed for time, and desired to complete the project. Commissioner Miller inquired,in light of the pad's location at the side of t'e* ara_ .e `would it still be defined as a driveway. Ericson stated it would not be, but rather log," parking area. He Q..�4:a Fl.:k ;...Cx �. referred to the site plan, and explained if the driveway wer < be measut of the garage and there were no asphalt, gravel, or rock material from thearage over,andoKig aved ar!oito the side of the garage and back, it would be acceptable. `noted, h.o ever, the4`` ould..;the be accessed over grass at some point, and there was no way :> and„ of including that'area as Part of the width of the driveway. He stated he would not perso all that area a driveway' ;Lie stated it was more of a parking area, however, the Code does state, > at ing area and driveway can not exceed 35 feet." ' -txt Commissioner Berke stated he did not believe thea c t should have:<'<:r c eded with the project, when he was aware that it was not acceptable:however, the Comfit ' ion is charged with the responsibility to see that the City grows and dovelop t He stated the`applicants was a very nice house. He stated there would be similar issues in.reg aar f o MAr garages in the future, and possibly, rather than utilizing a variance procedure to=letermi imilar issues, they could amend the Code to encompass the square footage* f two opff three-caa ` arages. OW Chairperson Peterson stated thea° :;amination of Code endments require the comparison of the re uirement f nei hborin com..'' unities. 'sate e believed the two issues that generated the q F�;.� g �:�.. t�:�M::;f < :� larger numberfvariances<:or r:._ :vests, have` '"e f 'issues of parking and garages. He stated they should c : t ....<ex:,.o review:v t >:t o in regard to these matters, and as standards change, the requiremen 'd::ion are tared}<,to meet the standards. He inquired regarding the code requirements ocomttie H ;.. . v :,i Ericson stale+, in his aider.stridng the city of Roseville does not have any width requirements, for d: - .1'1'and he believed ,also true of other communities. He stated there was a spectrum of r-4i arements, in this re ar nd he was not certain at what level the City of Mounds View fit into tha ectrum. :0: .ssioner Steven inquired if the city of Roseville based their driveway requirements upon the ,. ' : . •o. unity Development Director Jopke stated Roseville's code requirements were 1311**„ : ;kited in regard to the width of the driveway at the right-of-way. He stated, beyond the 'ial8t4ay, and upon the private property there were no restrictions. He stated the present proposal would be allowed in the city of Roseville. Chairperson Peterson stated it appeared there was an additional issue, in regard to the close proximity of the paved area to the lot line of the subject property. Ericson stated this was correct, however, • the letter from the owner of the neighboring property satisfies this requirement. He explained further Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 that the City Code had been amended to allow the driveway up to one foot from the property line without the need for a variance. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the city of Roseville or any other communities had any restrictions in regard to the proximity of pavement to the lot line. Jopke stated the city of Roseville cUd, however, the problem in Roseville was that many of the driveways were developed prior to their current standard, a five-foot setback, which is the standard in many communities. katated that Roseville set up an administrative variance process in order to deal with this. stated this done at a time when Roseville was in the process of a major street reconstruction palocifigiox4Rd the policy decision was that the city would install the curb cuts to meet the ordinance standard,ockkaaridrty owner desired to maintain their existing situation, they would go through this administrative variance AN,:agr process. He stated variances were typically granted for sydaztgAtions. "1"4,49mmz: Jopke stated the city of Roseville had discussed amending their rode that time, however, the Council decided that the administrative variance process woultiptOrd'Op, record of where the driveways were located, and chose to pursue that g104$ instead. He there is a typical standard in regard to the distance of pavement tgottillijrattOd in Rosevirs case, there were many variances granted to allow pavement to be closer than ftegOik 4taK 401c,bzmay .1" NklIC:Tlar Chairperson Peterson inquired regarding"height#the retaining Wall located on the north side of the subject property. Mr. Henning stated it "gin to 24 itches in height. Chairperson Peterson stated it appeared the retaining wallWld he necessary in light of the placement of the garage next to the lot line. Mr. Henning stated this was correct. lie the lot required a large amount of fill, and he didRalkplan to construct the parking area in light of its opportune location. He statedgtkeway ati0.6t:e04§,.six feet.qoaltitiot line, and at a curb further into the property he is onff,:i5DUi:Ae lot liIikt4**ed he attempted to meet the Code wherever he was able, and thought 141"titkway. VIM:11N* Isow0,4",, Ngaii,"%mv witiew "per Commission:FUlgootyd regarding the location of the curve in the driveway. Mr. Henning stated thi twenty feet driveway. Commissioner Miller stated she had driven past the ."1:Now,vmt, pre: - . cl-c-ommen r 7 - • .'te-nice. She-stated-she-particularly liked-the-way-the ,wignpor driv-,,'*was curved around the and that it gave the property character. Mr. Henning thanked Co issioner Miller for her comment. He stated he had attempted to do the best he could, which aught would be ageptable. Afir ISVP441,!; **stated so many lots in Mounds View are not only deep but also wide in certain aT41-zat9(60 -t- ation could come forward again in the future, particularly as homes and garages are" in_, arger. He stated, in light of this, further review of the City Code was merited. Commissioner Johnson agreed. He stated the garages are being upgraded to the larger sizes, and a very massive garage could be constructed along the front of a house, which instead of having a 30- foot driveway, if paved to the garage, could actually be 42 feet wide. He stated if a conditional use permit was issued for a 1,400 square foot garage, it could be 42 feet wide by approximately 30 feet deep. He stated if the 42 feet happened to be in the front of the structure, the homeowner might Mounds View PlanningCommission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 • desire to pave the driveway to the width of the garage. Commissioner Laube noted that were some lots in the City that could accommodate this. Chairperson Peterson stated, he was in favor of larger garages, as lot size permits, rather than storage sheds for the storage of items. He stated he believed garage space was better all; ound for this purpose. He stated however, he would not like to see more impervious surfac .th tis necessary, and theproblems with run off. He stated this could result in a vim.,. from t: .of simply garages, with houses peeking out here and there. He stated he was also aleOffraninittlyggifaiewing the Code, and the requirements of surroundingcommunities re a. e n drivewayt ides 'o see what °'s commonly done, and what would make sense. " .,o.: ":x " lta Ale Commissioner Berke inquired how the applicant would be'al ect .::should the Planning:€ ommission A'3c,i'4C,3�."�?�. desire to look into the Code. Ericson stated Mr. Henning cl ` : ep his driveway as it exists, for the time being. He stated staff would review the Codehitxiay time line. He stated if „wow mat, more time was required, given the public hearings, research, and meetings ith the Commission and the Council, thea applicant could also sign a waiver:.that uld allo " aive his right to get a pp ......,..::::.>::r<: � � g decision within that time frame. He stated if dee t e as><...mended, d after the fact, made his driveway permissible, there would be no need] or a variance,sa d the.request would be voided. "` ����` ': ` ��<�;N�'��#'tom. Commissioner Miller stated she would like to proceedin th`i mt anner. She stated according to the • Code there is no hardship that the c d'etermi: . Mr. Hkmmng inquired regarding the definition of a hardship. Commissioner Stevenson p ry =s'tatedfi �xampleOuld be an unusual lot size, which would restrict a property owner from impd : rring his erty. Commissioner Miller stated there were seven criteria that •:.resented for ng i ... . ah a Commiss 1`'..A<s�:e noted ` At request for variance,.in which a family desired to construct an addition torthouseloser to a<lot i e is an what was allowed. He stated, due to the placement of the house on the:' . an normal lot,,they would have had to construct a hallway between two bedrooms in •r: : ;ti �«::.e deck orporch at the back of the house. He noted the house was also construct n an unusualHe stated this was considered a hardship. Mr. Henning stated the only h >_:::. :::.s:;::;.,. '�'� �- a �,< �>>_:buld be the loss of his_trees_lncatf'r1 in the front of his y. • C a a erson Peterson stag he also agreed that the applicant's design was attractive. He stated the • ,:t.01!on was, as more evelopment occurs, what is a reasonable size for a driveway. jy kms: sl A. t teas the consensus of the Commission, staff could research the matter, in terms :' o • t t ` uirements, and provide information regarding the different ways a code amendment cou • ae.aec•mplished, if so desired. He stated the research might indicate that there is no need for a code amendment, in which case, the Commission could take action upon the current request. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Kaden, to Table the Request for a Variance to Allow a 44-foot Wide Driveway, and Direct Staffto Research Driveway Width Requirements Utilized by Other Cities, and • Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 • to Review the City Code in Regard to the Driveway Requirements and Possible Amendments, and Bring the Matter Forward to the Planning Commission at a Future Meeting. Ayes– 8 Nays–0 The motion carried. Commissioner Kaden inquired if the trees had not been present, would the aicantave constructed a 35-foot wide driveway to the property line. Mr. Henning stated he would been very satisfied to have a 35-foot wide driveway to the street, and the tree = ere the resort° 't lis design, whi .. does restrict the size of his driveway considerably. Commissioner KadenloattlitheKaden did not lie m t in whic ;:> e mit">< =F<<: :>t; • yved to see the occurrence, common within new develop enl< ,, h..;:e ry t�,tl`�_ � :.,��,�x�;...;;- from the site. It*, .. ��'1st <#x M ) h4 view Commissioner Miller noted another issue to be considered was'that the City Code had been amended to allow driveways to be closer than five feet from the prpgettYkkAggiiiftstatedproperty this was not always the case. > «< New 6. Staff Reports /Items of Informati(, : %zF_' A. Discussion concerningthan a t<i,locatio ` of'`screen fence at the Anthony Properties/O'Neil pat :r Pro ect Community Development Direct0,6pke statedrthis item was to discuss the potential change in the fence locat': at the Anthony t 'roperties•Neil` ` ':€eater Project. He stated there was much discussio :v a .:vg the big011grkthe development from the adjacent residential properties located across '0/ ; : i . ki H-2.1%gf#4.0s part of the approved plan, there were provisions requiring a 50-foot wiote,vgAtio,well asly..=-fo >=mood screen fence, in addition to the three office buildings which were to bOTOcted aloh ` fsouth side. Jopke st <. <� the fence 't #e...located at the 50-foot buffer line, and the plan that was approved hr" ''`fTice buildings-to ti-nuous scrcenin -wall—Hc stat-ed indicat :<stilt fence coi�neele{l�lix � g the •`12:Veloper construct ; a:> ntinuous screen fence in that area, prior to the construction of the o' ;t:3Y.uildings, as this was a phased development. He stated that the developer has indicated they . 17.; Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 - Regular Meeting Page 9 III Jopke stated the first issue is the impact of this particular proposal. He stated the developer could just connect the buildings with the fence, and technically meet the plan, which would represent no change to the approved development stage plan. He stated there would be windows in the office building looking out toward the residential neighborhood, and this would not provide the solid screen, especially during the wintertime, when the leaves are off the trees, that the neighborhood might desire. He stated it appears the provision of a continuous fence that jogs aitituld the buildings would provide a better screen for that neighborhood. He stated it should be dOntningcr what effect would this have on the 50-foot buffer area. 4.1W ireilEALL. ,.:4-#' taf op- `<iit**,:oww, ,1,63V. Jopke stated the City Forester has reviewed the developer',-,.! roposalutipd has intogsksgEtptisal did not pose any great impact to the buffer area. He statedthat some trees, g100.010 tree, which would need to be removed in order to proceed. He stated tikdeveloper has agetizillo replace any of these trees, over four inches in diameter, with two for lost. He stated it appeared there would be little impact upon the buffer area in this re,atoiwittpp sal could in fact, provide additional, more substantial trees than those that currently exist. illient6, Of& NiMPO. Jopke stated the Planning Commission had been.prtimdataliftipemorandet,from Council Members .,rpormemsemb,:.. .:,*::•$., Lynn Thomason and Rob Marty, which indicated their concerns rewarding or not there would be sufficient room in this area for bike paths and other pedestrian at the time the road is Sy .A, Nemall.tp-- reconstructed in the future. „AT it .,...:.pis ,..o 0 Jopke stated he and Planning Associate Ericson taken measurements at the site, and found that 44, 4-rp there is a 33-foot right-of-way on the north sicl.kgoupd,bad H-2, adjacent to the site, in addition to the 50-foot buffer between the and tliiii00#90>of the fence. He stated the buffer area was maintaingin.guired by the development stage plans. He stated there was a 43-foot right-ofattiwilksoutliligtit the road. He stated depending upon the final design of County Road 11-2,latiOjitikbe sufficient golfor a pedestrian pathway, if that were part of the plan for ---mion.00, this road. easourat, Inv Ait''''. #5111aPAIN -1r . Jopke stated another cia#001.,Ate determined was the process utilized by which this change should - _ take 1.?4-0. He stated titr t ; .i,or change, which could be approved by a recommendation from X the ' • g Commission WiWity Council, and a determination regarding the type of public forum ,w le de .0c1. He stated the developer has spoken with the property owners along County Road H-2, in r01. 1 to the proposal, and some have indicated they were agreeable, three indicated they were 6.,:RoEs ctsgq :7,.d, and two were imavailable for comment, at that time. 111*441k. 440, Istrtok."-ogoor. . ivoilpaSopPranning Commission might desire to set a public hearing regarding this matter, and notOiNteileighbors. lie stated at this time, staff had not notified the property owners. He stated staff was seeking direction from the Planning Commission regarding which process to utilize. He stated Wendell Smith, representative of the developer, was present to answer questions regarding the proposal. 1110 Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 10 • Commissioner Berke stated the original zoning of the property was R-2 and B-1, and this had been changed. Jopke stated this was correct. He explained the zoning had been changed to Planned Unit Development to allow for this development. Commissioner Berke inquired if the original setback requirement for the buffer was `0 feet. Jopke stated he was not present during the preliminary discussion of the project and was uncertain, however, he was aware that the approved plans required a 500pot bugorimgle logook Commissioner Berke inquired if the architect's original design included a:c ntinu s ence along. be buffer, and if this proposal was the result of a mistakeyin that plan Jopleq#Amojtothe development stage plan and the final plan consisted of fe: sconn...•cted to the buill.i g e:stated this was what was presented to the City and approved. AStanak Commissioner Berke inquired if noise level testing had beenirettimmt4etermine the effect of the air conditioners in the closer proximity to County Road I-1=2. Jopk&Agatiliis had not been done, to his knowledge. . ste:� : NO Aggiumgasoph ;Sr Wendell Smith, representative of AnthonyPropert y tat d :he-current proposal was due to a mistake for which he took full responsibility. He aftgtelt4trogoPttemptedstated to construct a very attractive building for the City. He staved he had convin fW Anthony to construct a more elaborate type of building, which would` tend in :ell with the'Theater building, in light of the many people who would be going past twitosthe on a. ly basis..ge stated he had become involved in the design of the building to make it of only altheticallyzieealing, but also functional from an office oltiv use standpoi He stated, howe'<er, the fe 4 ti overlooked. ,�_:„ �>: a nom' MarlaMik "gilt."' Mr. Smit s developmentw4ftdeveibilvittiMpgt through the approval process, and no one caught the fence including the' ui di :>inspecta :w ;Maxed the matter came to their attention when the building b -0y F � f f.".. contractor began} : o truction; e_ :ted the fence was taken down, and he examined the site e`n ' constructed. He stated he noticed the existingpole, and its relation to when the footi�tl ' �<l�etrlg>:... the back o h'e buildnigVogdailiged the fence was too close to the building. He stated he inquired how t •. d-happened,a i ding-contr-actoc-i-ndicated-his-w--a-s-the-deign—and-if-it-presented a problem they would nigtthe fence back and no one would notice the difference. He stated, ho er, that this woulot be proper. stated the reaso `he went to the neighbors regarding the fence was to be proactive. He stated l er"Thomason indicated this should be considered a petition, however, he did not CVT;;; itron. He stated he had gone to the neighbors to make them aware of what was happening the site, and that he had made a mistake regarding the fence. He stated his intent was not to take anything away from the buffer area. Mr. Smith stated that no large trees would be removed from the buffer area. He stated there was a small tree, approximately two inches wide, which may need to be removed. He stated he had spoken with the City Forester regarding the affect of the relocation of the fence upon the buffer zone. He • Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 11 • stated the City Forester indicated this proposal would be beneficial, in light of the oak trees in the area. He stated he had taken down ten trees during the last seven months due to oak wilt disease, and the City Forester has recommended they plant other species of trees, which are conducive to growing in the shade, and are not susceptible to the diseases present in the area. He stated there was one large tree in the area that they might be able to work around, and they were will ng to do that. He stated the landscaping buffer begins approximately six to eight feet from he rem of the buildings, and they were not proposing to remove any landscape of cons quenceint t tea. had referred to:i"'ustrial t ..e4'a < diti :.ers howeve Mr. Smith stated Council Member Marty ndtype �.>: .,_ , units. <>e indicated:>the size`-'` `=<`e buil.din was they would be utilizing residential air conditioning :..,..::..::; o. 10,000 square feet, and the number of units required OW depend upon the number rigibOxivitenants occupying the building. ... ;"x.'_:a Mr. Smith stated they desired as much space in the back olAle built ,a .possible, as this sells space. He stated the fence would only be moved behind the buildings,'= Z ence on the sides of the buildings would remain the same. yh °' <`n. t ``'� oul and to thisproject, on time, Smith stated they had done everything th$01 theft o l ince if not ahead of time. He stated they had go to greagpx0:001.00rm traffic studies. He stated there had been much discussion regarding the p tential excessive traffic in the neighborhood, pedestrian traffic over yards, and the.<;s ,ewing ofw ash throughout the area. He stated the people in the neighborhood he had spoken w tygod sated positive re Pion to the development, and that these situations have not occurred. Of Atik,„410 ,014, 4.11-6„6: fallENDP Mr. Smittvgaw,ithe int*Oditiqt,HighwacnOribt yet completed. He stated the contractor has indicatea>. _ e in section G r p be operational the following day, to accommodate the traffic traveling alorim io rt gt10, to >nterse tion, and he believed this would further reduce the traffic. IWO&. 141111,00 Mr. Smith staledt e.archit t had t had the fence in mind when he designed the building. He stated he had h‘attemaeliatallhe best way to rectify the situation. He stated they had not requested an_y_c•,d4s_since_tt wa . •• • -• - .ted this was the first time the had come bac request a change, and it vas due to a mistake he had made.- He stated he did not want to give in .. atmosphere of felregarding what may happen in the future. He stated this was his reason tnt to the neighb : to discuss the situation. St.mit ..,§0410 e had attempted to contact Council Member Thomason. He stated Council :. .> do had indicated that she was very opposed to the petition. He stated this was simply his attempt-to show the Commission that there were people who were satisfied with the manner in which the project was proceeding. He stated he had not twisted anyone's arm. He stated the Commission may desire to take another survey, and that would be fine. He reiterated that he was simply attempting to be proactive. • Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 12 III Mr. Smith stated there had been numerous neighborhood meetings, and discussion with the Planning Commission and City Council in regard to the buffer zone. He stated the buffer zone was amended to the current 50-foot requirement, based upon five or six different plans for the location of the buildings. He stated they were requesting the ability to move the fence back slightly,just behind the buildings, and no other place. „:,:for 4114,Apoo' Chairperson Peterson stated one issue was the placement of: he air conditioners, and one' of the ' 'x Rev:'::�:.�3%y><' `,'�::?.. memorandums indicated these were pad mounted, residential tyle air conditioners, to be install directlyagainst the buildings. Mr. Smith stated there would be eight to ten`inche ''b`e t een the u is and the building to allow for evaporation. F" `a ` '`"" "' Commissioner Hegland inquired if the air conditioners were-rt e.,A reason for the screen fence. Mr. Smith stated this was correct, as well as to provide some b f r from the visibility of the windows behind the building. Commissioner Hegland inquired if omii4 ith would prefer to look out the windows at the fence, or the landscape buffer. Mr. Smith Mated lie'` € t . rifer to remove the fence completely, if he could. He explained if he was an ofbc se: he would at r look at the landscaped P buffer area. He noted however, they had made ma.clOttatilat,to include inolOgglie fence. Commissioner Hegland stated he was o the unde anding s ;t l�e original plan indicated the buildings would be up to the buffer lineand there*ould ol ,te `ence between the buildings. He inquired if the fence was to cover TIN e air conditionersf r Smith stated one of the reasons the residents wanted the fence originallas to pride a vishield between the residential area and III the property line. He stated at that=>time the f ce was::di .ussed, the building was not constructed, and the residents desired a visual, ":trier between e p skin lot and the lights. He stated the office >. .a g g buildingwouldadd to the:£buffer; of onlyfrom t ;e noise standpoint, but also in regard to. the light. He stated `<e e a l ested h lig eels g CountyRoad H-2, and determined it does impact the '��F: '� :t.... li..dee alongP neighborhood :. < . Commissione e'� ` tate e.agree t at the developer's petition was not valid. He stated, in light of the controversysuiu '><the development, a neutral partyshould have performed it. Co :: ssioner Hegland tat d#the fence was also to provide a shield of the view of the trash en .,ta ures from County Road H-2. Jopke stated the plan indicates the fence between the buildings, .4 k.- fence on each egg% shield in that location. ::;:gin. %.,:4:7' `'.signer, to ;enson stated he thought the area would be much more attractive to the residents t t hefence Commissioner Kaden stated the developer should discuss this matter with the residst determine what they would like to see in this area. Commissioner Miller stated she had driven by the property and could barely see the building. She stated the trees in the buffer would shield the fence from visibility. Mr. Smith noted that during the wintertime, when the leaves are off of the trees, the building would become more visible. 110 Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 13 IIII Commissioner Kaden stated that the future redevelopment of County Road H-2 might result in the loss of a portion of the buffer zone. Chairperson Peterson stated Mr. Smith was correct in that there was very little difference in the appearance of the building as that indicated on the plans. He inquired if the rear of thebbuilding was also as proposed. Mr. Smith stated they had upgraded it a bit. _ _ _ Chairperson Peterson stated he had originally been concerned regard<tt t in° £suer and the types of trees it contained, and particularly the health of the trees:.rHe stated:_ e"_h`a _ ime looking t the property, and had found that so many of the oak treks were already sick an ld, be ne within five years. Mr. Smith stated that the area had contained4n enormous am runt`i' rbage, which required removal, and it was utilized as a meeting p c or teenagers. He stab womt was not a park area, and since the completion of the project they haveaha relpove several trees which have died,for safety reasons. He stated they have a very good working wataititieibuship with the City Forester in regard to the maintenance of the buffer area. V' lirjrata Chairperson Peterson stated one of the purposesAc c as to pre erpedestrian cut-through, and this would be accomplished if the fence is,. fated behind 4.ehilidgftbuildigg., or connects the buildings. Mr. Smith stated he agreed. Chairperson<rPeterson s`tated< e did na find the appearance from the back of the building to be objectionable. He stated;:tat givenlve choice, he would prefer to look at Ill 'wou trees than buildings, however, betwee 'trees, hild rather look at the buildings than the fence. ;,:. s He stated he could not speak fe� ll 'reside><� �, but he.�Ossumed they might come to the same conclusion. Aer 4 ;< hi ` diCommiss . r: evensoxsatd.�:athe s ��o1estran traffic through this area was the major concern :q :€ner Mill at his was correct. Commissioner Stevenson stated another issue `z'�t>t was the shl , ba e c ' aWthis would not be lost if the fence were maintained between the buildings. .,`es ti he •did notvre 'a •stipulation that the fence be continuous. He stated the developer mi _ :t= ed to theldegree he thought. ,.•u.Q.; • '- - •. ."'=''0 4 :k:' :, -• one . .. •.•• . ••_ . •n in_• fen - however, it may have only been in the original plan> d he was uncertain if this requirement was stipulated in the revised pl..Commissioner Kagan stated he had taken a look at the property, and it appeared to him that p o4:f the building is 4lzeady behind the fence post, which marks the buffer area, by a foot or two. AW it 3 a.. ed if this is t ase,the developer would probably have no option. He stated, it appeared by a; ,, r e,con action was already past the fence line. Mr. Smith stated he was uncertain. He ": I<i`t'the fence post was located just behind the building. Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding the measurements taken by Community Development Director Jopke and Planning Associate Ericson. Jopke stated they had determined the area from the center of the road to the fence post at the Edgewood Drive entrance to be approximately 84 feet, which would indicated a 33 foot right-of-way, with an approximate 50-foot buffer area. III Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 14 • Commissioner Kaden inquired if the Department of Public Works had made any indications regarding the plans for redeveloping the road in the future. Jopke stated not to his knowledge. Chairperson Peterson inquired if County Road H-2 was being considered for turnback. Jopke stated it had already been turned back. Chairperson Peterson noted that there were funds available for the reconstruction. Jopke stated this was correct. Chairperson Peterson stated the width of the road therefore, was controlled by the City. Jopke stated this was correct, and the roadway would o th ough the planning and redevelopment process being developed by the City Cou�n '1 based.: =' ecommendations of ASP the Streets Policies Committee. <>::<<,»>=<j:><<:~.>:>:»::::. ,> Chairperson Peterson inquired if there would be a 33-fact right-of way on the .tinsidek 'the property, and 43 feet on the south. Jopke stated this was:correct. <Chairperson Peterson i quired if this distance was consistent across the entire area. Jop *st ted the width jogs n the middle. Chairperson Peterson stated generally, when a road is recotrd,;the jogs are straightened out. Mr. Smith stated the residents he had spoken with had indicated t :uould like to see a sidewalk along the north side, due to the pedestrian traffic, and cb'ncerns forlafiti* dank VoNNOw Commissioner Stevenson suggested that the Plantgsion provi`de_a recommendation to the City Council regarding the public hearings, th a stat`eme :t_'itat*thewere agreeable to the fence between the buildings. He stated he did nOt'think the Com tss one uld come to a consensus that there was ever the intention to have a continuous*Ace beltte offices. Ar� Chairperson Peterson stated he belie: d"the actual continuous fence requirement was intended only 110 until the buildings were constructs t`Commis t ner Stevenson stated he believed the fence was also required for urity reasons" 1 ,`'.,. issioner o *.on tated this was correct, and to provide shielding from the ku i area. He t to < :e had a pit in regard to the continuous fence located behind the building,�q ause it would<allo for people to be concealed behind the buildings at night, and would rov d"' o `sibilit for ` olice;De artment. OW ""'e °" von 'tthe drawingof the site shows the continuous fence Julie Olsen:� t3 « e><> t3urt Cirele> stated behind all ::•the offices: t`=::staed her main concern was that this was a Planned Unit Development. She st4:eiFt - ';q:; < :.. hi set—or- r-s -othe -ee- -ated-in-thc f-utu-re, was-due to t Alteration of the Comprehensive Plan and the rezoning. She stated this property was changed to >$.:anned Unit Develo pent, and she believed it should follow the normal proper procedure of a P 1-.:4,!.::ed Unit Developzent. She stated if not, they would set a precedent, which would come up ar :> future projectShe stated this was not right or fair to the citizens, especially in light of the hlc,,l tl Is project has proceeded. Ms: ated the fence requirement had not been met, therefore, everyone should be provided a new copy of the current amended Development Plan, which will supersede any drawing. She stated that the requirement for the fence was indicated at a certain height, and that it would be opaque. She stated this was done for many reasons, not just for safety reasons, or as a temporary consideration. • Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 15 • Ms. Olsen requested the PlanningCommission to follow the normal procedures of the Planned Unit q Development, and not make deviations from it. She stated to do so would be very wrong. She stated it was her understanding, if the air conditioners were protruding from the building, and that was the reason that the fence would.be required to jog, in her opinion, was that the building was already in y f>\* the buffer zone. Atir ASK Ms. Olson stated people were very unhappy regarding the 50-.:cot bufferand ad always wanted a 100-foot buffer. She stated there was a lot of neighborhood input inlittskegatk She stated the: project was not completed, and if this change was viewed as. 'minor it did no t�arrant full-fledged 1 ha e:` when the e buildfilgtr' ' `i ' ' or Planned Unit Development procedure, what would pp � ,fzr� nom, n 6tct�, with the next Planned Unit Development. She stated the C mprehensive Plan map propAo edby the Planning Commission as they move forward with the newz rehensive Plan, indicate a large amount of property being changed and rezoned as PlannedltI Developments. She stated this '' re `ilo :4 without followingproper should be examined. She stated if these types of change � %verl� ::.-vgsm:i1�: p p procedure, it could.result in many problems for the CitSP. Nommposk. Chairperson Peterson stated one of the issues,..igte•:a oy_the procedure proceditiAvas to determine if this "mmlimaniproposal is a change or a request. He staled it appeared` t thisoint, the continuous fence "`roved. He stated the matter requirement was not contained in the origi�lplan that ?vas � � �� app does require further investigation. ; :F = AN A 4ris, Mr. Smith inquired if staff could v n the stipulations ca tained in the final plan. Jopke stated the plan that was approved by the pip Counciyaathe Development Stage indicated the fence to be located between the buildingtik. atmetaamprbuildings. 4.1rmimm. VOW Commis i en inquiredhi ,< lan Ms. Olsen was referringto. Jopke stated this document was the plan ` xtutte ;for the buildingennit, and upon which the building permits were issued. He stated the matte'...;.::•:41.141010r, ands°in his..: terpretation, it appeared the developer could construct the solid fence botalSogibittOgsbetween alitliOot require an amendment. He stated, if the neighborhood desired a...4,1iiiiiuous sOlid ci ing fence along the area, it would make sense to allow the jog in the orgo Ar. issioner Hegland:stated the issue was whether or not there was any statement in the plans, y`> stipulates continua:"< s fencing once the building is constructed. Jopke stated that the Planned -velopment do ument stipulates a six-foot, opaque screen fence, however, it does not specify <. .:_p°structed only between the buildings, or as a continuous fence at the rear of the •b :' :.^. nnnissioner Hegland stated the plan drawing indicates the fence to be between the buildtfHe stated it might not have been well communicated, however, that is what was represented. Commissioner Stevenson stated this matter might be a non-issue. He stated these were the final plans that the Commissioners received, and they did not show the fence to be located behind the office • buildings, only between. Chairperson Peterson stated the six-foot high fence requirement appeared Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 16 • to be only indicated at the sides of the fence buildings. He stated the plans were unclear, and he could not interpret the fence requirement, however, all of the indications provided, point to a fence that is between the buildings. Ms. Olsen stated the way this matter was explained, and proceeded foremonths, .sed upon the original Planned Unit Development, which was approved. She stated the e. as upposed to be a continuous fence in the back. She stated this was a majorissue. She sug ested the Planning Commission review the minutes and videotape of the 4010 Cou <meetings, as the fencs requirements were clearly spelled out therein. She stated the==present un : a >< the reasonwe entire matter should follow the normal Planned Unit Development process Shetatethsruld clarification, and there wo''� be no mi'sre resentatioto ; itizens provide one hundred percent c a t�.;;..:..,..; ,� P t , in regard to what was to occur. , . ;,< >F< Chairperson Peterson stated that the only document that wasnott< 'ear was.>:the construction plan, and all of the others are very clear. Ms. Olsen stated this was=snot the waFeatter was represented to the citizens on the Planned Unit Development document=<kShe noted e prior Mayor had stated the Planned Unit Development document superseded>i> ny yi p a drawing` draft. She stated it was explained explicitly that there would be a continuous fe ibind thebuilding, and it would be opaque, and of a certain height. She stated it vas further stated:that:: othing would encroach into the buffer zone. . . Ms. Olsen stated the fence requirementw2as not ie only is ue present. She stated another issue was in regard to making any type of ci es to a PlannedkUn`>:_ evelopment, and following through with the entire no al process. t:ted this was;tzl >fair thing to do. She stated to do otherwise differet acould su ; , provisio zyinterpretations Chairperson tierNstated they ,resently attempting to verify the official approved Planned ent,t Unit Developm ;terms ote<:'<;tten text, and the documents that are part of the approved Planned Unit; e ;el n nt:.. Nor Jopke lead pai a.gt. ;<.'., :' = armed Unit—Development-doeurent, enti-tled—Buffand Scr, ; :ng Fence indicatesa :s: Bening fence shall be installed along County Road H-2 (as shown on th- :-velopment Stage :v:an), and tied off on each end to prevent pedestrian traffic from the PUD opment off the s'tThe fence shall be opaque and at least six feet in height." Mill r stated the Development plan indicates the fence just between the buildings. . ; t,:.:, ; terson explained that the construction plans show a dotted line which is in between theeItaiingSr and no where else. Commissioner Kaden stated these plans show the office building extending up to the 50-foot buffer line. Chairperson Peterson stated this was correct. Jop.kestated it appeared, in looking at the actual design of the building that was being proposed, the building jogs back from the 50-foot line, and there was room to put air conditioning units. • Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 17 • thecentralportion of the buildingthat protrudes is indicated within a Chairperson Peterson stated ce a couple feet of the setback line, however, the rest of the building has sufficient room in which the air- conditioning units could be placed on either side. Commissioner Stevenson stated noise might be an issue with the air conditioning units, and if so, they may wish to work further with staff in regard to • the screening and buffering. Chairperson Peterson stated that it was unanimous that all invQ:lved wantadequate screening, and it served no one's purpose to have the screening be less < dequatillio ted this could be accomplished either through the relocation of the fence, of additional ties=<< i t :aced, orwith p g d the fence between the back of the buildings. He stated enter.option as as gat deyu, l WIRMWS „p. Con. katCommissioner Kaden stated he would like to hear the re ater Wrigaki.9 ut regarding the r`preference inlegnanfi . regard to a view of the buffer area or the fence. Atellenme ::. 'Kc€:; ruga;W Johnson stated the air conditioners would b`e contained i aycessed area between the CommissionerJo so a :. `''. :».<"''`� 'ee or`four air conditioning and the building. Commissioner Laube stated the [uld requitti units for this building. Chairperson Peterson st to tl exde eloper wouldprobably utilize two-ton units,which were not very large. Commission it i'✓aub . hums,was correct, however, they could y a be noisy. Chairperson Peterson stated he ha one an 30n0.> al 'ta_zt urirt, which was virtually silent, and this would depend upon the types ofd is utilized. He` ed>>Mr. Smith if he was aware of the .;;yam ffk amount of noise generated by the proposed air inditioners Mr. Smith stated he thought these ould gene t ;moreOISe than typical residential units. He stated they would have four units. ; e .tated he had o o le n leaving the fence as it is, and using it as a buffer. Het `tel <.they would si: ply:like to moo tie fence back to the edge of the trees, to provide visibilit t »v the offic7401011tbknd room behind the building for security and maintenance reasons. Heeitailio.air condi t iiie nits could be screened separately, if they did not want the fence in that loca ex lai e nnettl""could provide additional landscaping around the units. He stated they wgistidk <to o what was beneficial, and what the residents desired. "* a: , x:;,; :v�>i. 'fir :; .:ergs:o imostioa _ a tev_en `ta t d, fet sy tand.oint he would _o without the fence. He stated ate;:<: in--a�� a fegghiding the back oflOoffice would invite vandalism. Mr. Smith stated he did not believe the th ter project had generated any additional vandalism problems. Commissioner Berke stated there ...: t' rrently reports ofiiridalism every week in his neighborhood. He stated two years prior to the te):'Opment,they did4 t have a problem with vandalism. He stated he was not certain this was the l ' h...c eve pment,Astr however, it appeared to attract kids. Chan er ri'Peterson stated that the issue at hand was to determine the process by which to amend the Planned Unit Development, if required. He stated the necessity for a change was unclear, in that the text states to refer to the drawing for details, and the construction drawing indicates a dotted line which shows the 50-foot building setback, and another portion of the line indicates a six foot privacy fence. Commissioner Johnson stated the approved plan shows the fence between the buildings, and • in his opinion, the matter does not require to be before the Planning Commission. Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 18 • Commissioner Hegland stated, however, that Ms. Olsen was under the impression that it was to be a continuous fence. Ms. Olsen stated that everyone was. Commissioner Hegland suggested they request the City Attorney to review the matter, and provide a ruling, as he had approved the Planned Unit Development document. Chairperson Peterson stated the City Attorney's determination would be more legally convincing than the Planning Commission's interpretation of the dement, unless there was further description contained within the text of the Planned Univ r..-vel�:�o.pment document. Jopke stated this matter was unclear, and this was the reason reascdiakff broug =ht°t 'te attention oft-ez PlanningCommission, and desired a determination from the«> it Council.liagliffelfhe issue ie MENAregard to the type of buffer desired by the community anneighborhood fortSAscreening'_: th's.(149 rea. He stated the developer has come forward and stated they d.a pr bsal for considdagiod was attempting to work with the neighborhood to do what was.right>atIe stated the Planni `>Commission and City Council should determine what the expectations were, u.nd w at is the best development that could occur. He stated in his opinion, and based upon the the,54pedrittialkdeveloper could construct the fence between the buildings and meet the requirements seCtititithe.time the City Council approved the plan. `"` "_'° Osvogio* Joke stated another issue is that the Cit :>% rdinai . ssas<-NoNgat eficient'n defining the process of amending Planned Unit Developments. Heated, as„ s Qisen conunicated, it was important to better define this procedure for future Planed Unitvelopmt ' hat will come forward. He stated he would further suggest the Planning ommission recommend to the City Council that staff be directed to prepare some ordinardelkevision§it r future; nsideration to deal with this issue. He stated, as the ordinance is presently wiitten, it w s diff,c>'tto interpret from staff s perspective. He �°` o i Council that the neighborhood be invited stated the Plaaning Commisszt��>c,��ld suggest',. :.ttx�l� y g to the Cou eetin s t ::>provide..their int 11 Commissioner He` and:;stated thqmoor was obviously of the opinion that they were to provide a continuous fence aha : e lan croloolitiOw a continuous fence. He stated they should determine why this discredit ad c urred. ' e.stated staff should research the matter to determine if there was an lnw ritgoWetrwisewhich indicated this. He stated, if there is not, the developer shouldot-have-to-r-egd%. approvalie-st-ated-he-did-not-think_the-matter-r-equir-ed-to-o- reop.ehed. He stated, if tier idents wished to discuss the matter with the Council, that would be Y however, hfrom a CotiiYussioner's standpoint, unless there is some indication in the minutest at t ; : .uirement of a coofoluous fence exists, he did not see why they should do anything. He stated .rs the matter;'..has already been approved. miuso,„ Ago. :.` 'a :;::ube stated he believed this matter required the review of the City Attorney, and �. fur '"e search by staff He stated that a public hearing should be announced, to provide citizen input, in an unbiased forum. He stated there were mixed feelings and the issues were unclear, and the Planning Commission did not have the ability to make those decisions. He stated the Planning Commission could hold the public hearing, or it could be held at the City Council level. He stated, however, he believed, in light of Anthony Properties' desire to work with the citizens, the citizens should be given the opportunity to provide their input. • Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 19 • Mr. Smith inquired if it would be possible to obtain aruling from staff and the City Attorney to determine their standing, prior to holding a public hearing. Chairperson Peterson stated this would be a wise and prudent step for everyone's sake. Commissioner Kaden inquired if Mr. Smith obtained a ruling indicating that the continuous fence was not required, he would not consider,the residents' desires. Mr. Smith stated this was not what he meant. He stated he would 4e to see seplOtiat the ruling is, and then take the citizen's input. Commissioner Kaden noted at some t, many people got the impression that the fence was supposed to be cont ,. inuous. Mr Smith stat t y were in the right and could put the fence against the building, they would still like to mo t k, He stated the::. wanted to be good neighbors and work withpeople. <~ k `::: ::v Chairperson Peterson stated whether the fence is moved=*�C,Aitik".feet,_}fir is removed 0,5: `completelyn that location, he believed the citizens should have some input <matter. Mr. Smith'in q rred if the matter could be tabled until the next Planning Commission n thug, to allow staff and the City Attorney to conduct their research. He stated they have until untiVISkibilat5 to put the fence back up. Commissioner Hegland stated he would have a problem in regardt <<ti ,€as the building would continue to be constructed, and if this matter might; reopened to :bt`ai'n r sidents' input. ,»ate �:..:�,;`'� ' >:, Mr. Smith stated the question was who created the hard'S p A e inquire `if the hardship was created before this situation, or because the building=was in the wro'1466:6009Chairperson Peterson stated this was not a variance situation. He Aria.explained within a P ilr etl'`�Unit Development, there is an III alternate way of handling the normal requirem ts, and those matters are spelled out in a legal document, which defines every oce :_:i e. H•.:> ted the estion was what to do with a fence that was supposed to be there, and up n review;oft e documents, appears is not required. Commissioner He land statedNit .ss. t.as an asst m "tion at this point, and the only documentation they presently... ::`: `r'sh the building with::;no fence. Chairperson Peterson stated there was an obvious recollection` t t er ;was to'N:070Afrus fence, and the question is what commitments were made regarding; (1045: He stated,<>7:t, as clear in his mind, based upon the documents at hand, that the fence _` ">` ``tii ed>r owever«'hey should obtain the CityAttorney's opinion on the matter. ��ts� p„�ectu.;:� t. y Y p Mr. SO• stated he ho•d ` ` "t broutht to light a concern that was unnecessary. Chairperson Petyrn stated he belielifilr.believed Smith had done the right thing. Commissioner Kaden stated he w i h rather see Mr. Smbe proactive, and have the matter resolved to the satisfaction of everyone in : ,Ced. Mr. Smith sta..ed they were attempting to do what was right, and if it was necessary to r: Ze _,._.. . ;t a variance that was what they would do. !OtligliN::.,,.,,A4c,:,:' :::; uenson suggested staff, upon conducting the research, refer to the meetings during w h_ ;: "''cion was held regarding the fence. He stated the construction of the fence was requested in lieu of the office buildings, which were not constructed at that time, as a safety precaution. He suggested research be conducted of the discussion that took place prior to the construction of the office buildings. 110 Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 20 Ms. Olsen stated she had not attended the meetings at the Planning Commission level, in regard to the Theater Project. She stated the discussion regarding the fencing came at the City Council level, and would appreciate staff's review of the City Council minutes. She stated the final determination was the result of the numerous discussions at the City Council level. As Ms. Olsen stated it was her understanding that any revision to a PlannedEit Development would require a re-opening and following through of the entire normal :rocess. t ted she believed this would include the construction of the office buildings. Chair Arson PeteiVtignkilped the Planned. Unit Development documents provide an alternate form Q zoning, specified spg0giffAbigue, regaraig in terms of its own unique setbackIti uirement y'and otl r `x< ><�: °sta:e this what is acceptable, q �y� �>�� <> =�. _�:>>�< document specified the uses for the main portion of this de elopmen�,,t Outlots A and�`B, nd the°issues pertinent to those developments. He stated, if the construct a those areas is don according to the Planned Unit Development requirements, there is no n411101:01) n it. He stated the reopening was only required if the original plan was to be amende ` - tgthere was much room for alterations in building styles, and slight location changes, and it was e i t of the PUD document to allow some flexibility in the original plan, while stitloaDiFing conformance. He explained this did not necessarilymean that anychange would re urethe: e ::; ing of thelaned Unit Development. q.F.:..: P...,. dimr Jopke stated this Planned Unit Development'include. thetl at ,r t tlding, the office buildings, and two retail restaurant buildings. He stated`his unders. anding' tf h e process is that the development stage plan of the project was specific,,Oetailed4iWregard tthe theater portion of the property, as well as the three office buildings. He4at'ed thek 'ation, pargng, and landscaping requirements were defined for those four parts. He stated the tworetail restaurants were not defined, because without a tenant,the site layout could t of be determinedzi < e ated, in his opinion, the tworetail restaurant buildings have todlikOughto a deoppent stage planaPProval process. However, the three of eildins and vollgok were covered with the plan which was already approved, because all R011eetails were°c e ed. Chairperson an 1 11 '<::_ `rson : <=mof> re revisions to this development were made at the Planning Commission=level, and heolaunity meetings, even before the formal application was made. He "stated- y-saw-sever-al ` . :, ;; .�' ens of-the-project-prio-_to it bec • l.._Hestate-d_the proc.,,,, -continued with thtouncil, and there were some changes at the City Council level, with . MO , lsen agreeing tha he City Council minutes, as well as the Planning Commission minutes, s.>; d be reviewed in regard to the requirements of the fence. Ar V40 is stated other issue was that the air conditioners and/or the back of the building were •tsindeed of encroaching anywhere on the 50-foot buffer. Commissioner Johnson stated this was corrrect. e stated the plan did not show any encroachment upon the 50-foot buffer, and therefore, the developer could not place anything on the buffe, which he was well aware of Chairperson Peterson stated the general process for an amendment to a Planned Unit Development, in the event of a modification to the original plan, should be further defined. • Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting - Page 21 • Jopke stated that staff would review the minutes to define what the location of the fence was, and should be, and report back to the Planning Commission. He inquired if the Commission would direct staff to notify the residents of a public hearing. Commissioner Johnson stated he would like the City Attorney to review the matter to determine if it legally necessary to have that meeting. He stated Mr. Smith was to , pef developer who attempted to cooperate with the neighbors, and if he is not required to co i a i through the entire process, he should not have to. :' >.;> , "Jopke stated staff would contact the City Attorneys office ,4.01g'quirgiiiiikpRifilthe Commission would like to notify the neighbors. Commissioner Stevenson state .e d :nrt know where the Planning Commission's involvement in this mattrEIe stated, if they desired a public forum,he did not see where the Planning Commission should 5" ter involved in the process. He stated he was not saying there shouldn't be a public forum, ho e111he.did not think it should be held at the Planning Commission level. 'k' > ` >''»>-«<4 a£�:::.:» <:<��:.<::<:€: Chairperson Peterson stated if the CityAttorneyoamirigIthe samiriiiiidUsion as the Planning Commission, in that there was no requirement o"loc.a The f ce.behix d`the building, which would cause it to encroach into the buffer, there Mild be n 'ssu '" t"`e:`vires the Planning Commission. He stated, however, there was an expectation in the riinds ofxt >people that this level of research should occur at the Planning Commiss o 'level, t . r'efore, he° ould assume the public forum would • �' AV be best held at this level. : " r IV mak Commission..: 'ller stated theaap licant hada a.ed.tl e ywould move the fence six feet, and inquired if that wo.-:ldx: ;ace it into the b er. Mr. Sii itl'<£Sta�ed it would be six feet into the buffer, and. . 1. u <�r. they would to e m al shrubberyi >$tl e buffer area. Jopke stated it would impact the existing landscaping a fd ery utile, i `A VFWCommissioner;4016 : a etl;:the Cit•<�ou cil would have to amend the Planned Unit Development documen. 'the fenceaed into the buffer. Commissioner Stevenson stated this would not be req.„...,....--:' eq ' : if the fence` . s<i i � ti d between the bui tgs. Jo.:: ' stated staff would' report back to the Planning Commission with the results of their i.i`:e tigation, and the Planning Commission could, at that point, determine what was correct, in r,e,...<` .°to the process,and pass that recommendation on to the City Council. C ' .'::':s3.y1,,,,akepoche stated the ordinance should also be reviewed to determine the process required for latifidliiiit Developments, in cases of modifications. He stated in his opinion, everything should be brought forward for the benefit of the residents. He stated there should be no variance rights given to the developer without the notification and input of the residents. Chairperson Peterson stated that only in very minor instances such as the relocation of a sidewalk IIIshould the entire process not be required, however, a matter regarding a fence, or things of that Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 22 nature should be included, and subject to the approval of the City Council. He stated in this case, a change might not be required. Commissioner Hegland stated the developer had requested a fence and a change to its location because he thought it was necessary, and the necessity of that is in question. Commissioner Stevenson stated that Ms. Olsen had a point, in that the Council may have misinterpretedthe JAWS. Chairperson Peterson stated this also was a possibility. Al '`° `_"' B. Commission Ordeen Braathen's leave ofabsence req :es; Ny "y CommunityDevelopment Director Jopke stated this item'v:as the`consideration of c missioner worimawry Braathen's request for a leave of absence. He stated Commissioner Braathen has, foi reasons of establishing his business in a new location, requested he be grzix month leave of absence. He stated Commissioner Braathen desired to continue to se %e,ho e r at this time, he has other commitments, which prevent him from attending the meetings. mego,,,, 411101114, . o ` nowevers`",1dicates the requirement Jopke stated the Code in this regard was somewh�latt,g ��. q that the Commissioners attend twenty meetings.` thin t ' r ted if rLot they are subject to review and removal from the Commission. He state 'that Col t iss ner Br `then would not be able to meet that requirement, if he is absent for six, ?onths. tie stated' heayor and Council have asked the Planning Commission to provide Idtopiniofzton the matter, prior to approving or denying Commissioner Braathen s requestAr rir Chairperson Peterson stated.ton t o>prior oc a ro tte Planning Commission has granted leaves of absence:eAtahe expectation. thamsio t the Commissioner would commit the time after the leave of absence, was no -r : lle.stated this was provided the membership of the Commission emiale did not becc <'e<t d>lo:w. .'Vhd ':yam Commission.. �" k� �� �'� �,�*�:.��`�.:. whator Commission would do procedurally, with eight members.p0ent, in th e :ent. _locked vote. Chairperson Peterson stated there was previously a .::,: �..:;;.><::>>:>;tt. He stated-pie ntly there-is a mini-mum requir� `�of-seven-Cotte; . r�s--ander-ma�i'rnur-r�-of-r}ir-.����� and mum of nine members -He stated that during a leave of absence, a Commissioner still holds th-ir: eat, however, but.does not participate. Agmrof ;; issioner Hegland inquired if Commissioner Braathen would still have voting rights. 4.ersa:, .Peter ? stated he would not expect anyone on a leave of absence would want to vote, 4Vie:"41witi:'would cause him to question their motives. Commissioner Hegland stated, in light of " ��aping procedures, he could vote by proxy. Jopke stated this would be difficult, in that he would not be present to hear the evidence presented. Commissioner Hegland stated, with the communication technology available, he would think this would be possible, however, the issue was whether or not they would want to do this. • Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 23 III Chairperson Peterson stated this perhaps should be clarified in the by-laws of the Planning Commission. Jopke stated another alternative would be to have the City Council appoint somebody for the six-month period. Chairperson Peterson stated, at the second granting of a leave of absence the Comission had a sufficient number of members, and while the leave of absence was in effe t<som one had resigned, bring the membership too low. He stated a new member wa <appointed €`tg`"that time, and that was the cause of past bookkeeping errors. He stated he did notglieve eight3 rt rs were too low. Commissioner Berke inquired if they could utilize Council Liaison.=1 `'igney ftb t ti_n <>;.,ru;'po es. Col; �?:G' '.>x".�.xY.:i:;�r':D�''�.�'f":"):�:::�}�:;r Commissioner Hegland asked if a split vote could be sera on to t`,he Council as it w tAmoo., vonew 'imogNigh Planning Associate Ericson stated an item would not pass, i f u' mbers voted in favor, and four cast opposing votes. `<>. «>» 49r• '414MENSUMA*,. Commissioner Laube stated that the Commission u:as;fely at a qt the prior meeting. He stated, in light of the upcoming deadlines, this ma l map. oblem. ligaRated more members are necessary at present, to meet the membership require nts < ;, kw f ila `2 ''‘,.,,.4111F .,,i:.y n'1F Commissioner Miller stated if they app nt someone for six nths, it would take them time to become familiar with the process and i rues, and t s would," a difficult position to place someone 0in,just for the sake of a vote. R s` <` me gia .44w Commission-. Kaden stated if`he'4 ranted a'<1 �Y w f a Bence, they could go from there, and if they ran into >:rr�y�;len, someg t r tion could' ut ken at that time. _::Iae kis`h:�w>S's'br. " '>>:'"s£^`a: : MOTION/S G:0M >., Miller/Peterson3<to Recommend the Approval of Commissioner Ordeen Braathens Req est to : ix Month L a e of Absence. a . 3�,�. es<1$<r: Nays—0 The motion carried. ir 1*-':04,.. .•..-?. , Chairperson Peterson stat rfThe requirement of a quorum becomes a problem, they can request the Ci. temporary make a appointment to complete the term of the leave of absence. k .11 C. Previous Council Actions P anC ti '°.!:A k> e Ericson reported on City Council action from their meeting on August 23. He sta'ed':tlhat ` e Council upheld the Planning Commission's recommendation and denied the request for an oversized garage at 2809 Woodale Drive. He stated there was a public hearing for the first reading of the ordinance which would rezone the property and allow MSP to build an assisted living facility, and the consideration of the Conditional Use Permit for this proposal. He stated the Council directed Staff to set the public hearing for the ordinance to amend the City Code to clarify the 0 language in the R-4 Zoning District, and directed staff to draft a resolution approving the Conditional , Mounds View.Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 24 • Use Permit for the facility. He stated he had spoken with the developers who are drafting the site plans, which will be back before the Planning Commission in September or October. Ericson stated the City Council discussed the proposed vacation of the easement on Edgewood Drive (Pinewood Circle). He stated the City Council acted unanimously to maintain the easement, and this l :'. item would come before the Council again, to clarify that the Wetland A1teayon� hmrt is also being denied. Alk AWOL ADM NONSInks, 47 D. Upcoming Planning Cases , „AP =`g < ; PlanningOR Associate Ericson stated at the next meetingo the:Plan frak i � Commission:"t." >.ould be consideration of a request for an oversized garage addition, s ell as a variance for» :zero lot line garage. He stated the latter may come in the form of theigdpakihowever, the City Attorney is presently reviewing the matter, to determine how best to meeedijilliht request. He explained this request was in regard to two lots located on Hillview``Drive, whi ] otain two four-plexes. He stated the property owner desires to construct a garagetts ;service both buildputLings, with three-garage "Nalstalls on each side of the building. He noted this r ue`t might require lot combination process. 7. Chairperson and Planning Co mi`ssioner a oirt' t No reports were considered. y." :tsa. Ajit Air 0 SEW IP 8. Adjournment Amp yibbibusiness<before thelnnmgfi• Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting alv «p; 'A�>::::::«:�<::<:�:.;.: •*��k « "x;:_::3::333:22::><�zl�„'�;,. `F:,,: . t:in immet t` 5 d'ourned to the Agenda Session) -4,iiiSii , lar ikti, Iv Respectfully ubmitted=`u:a< tow ,X, ,, pke 2AV ANF ui: D evelpinent Director Trat 1014;7.,..v3.00.ed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 0