Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-06-1999
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION October 6, 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 ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Approve Minutes: a. September 1, 1999 5. Planning Case No.570-99 Property Involved: 2075 &2081 Hillview Road Consideration of Resolution 591-99, a resolution approving a variance request to allow for a one-foot garage setback Applicant: Jeff Johnson AI6. Planning Case No. 571-99 Property Involved: 8270 Eastwood Road Consideration of Resolution 595-99, a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit oversized shed Applicant: Alan&Tammy Doroff 7. Discuss options for amending the City Code to allow for driveways wider than the 35 feet. 8. Staff Reports/Items of Information a. Theaterf-nce b. Comprehensive Plan meeting schedule c. Previous Council Actions d. Upcoming Planning Cases 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 10. 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. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AGENDA SESSION AGENDA 1. Review Minutes-- September 15, 1999 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\PCAGENDA\1999\9-15-99.REG REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: October 6, 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 one-foot sideyard setback to construct two three-stall garage structures 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 Background: The applicant, owner of two contiguous properties on Hillview Road, each improved with four- unit multi-family structures, wishes to construct two three-stall garage structures between the two buildings to service both buildings. The garages would be setback from the common property line by one foot on each side. 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. This request in was before the Planning Commission at your last meeting on September 15, 1999, at which time it was thought that a variance could be avoided by combining the two parcels into one, effectively eliminating the interior lot-line. The problem with this solution was not with the County or applicant, but rather the applicant's two mortgagers. The applicant then asked to revise his request such that there would be two garage structures rather than one, each separated from the property line by one foot. Johnson Variance Application 2075 &2081 Hillview Road October 6, 1999 Page 2 Analysis: As was pointed out at the September 15th meeting, there are a number of hardships pertaining to these properties which makes the approval of a variance seem appropriate. The first is the lots topography. There is a section of level land immediately behind the four-plexes which then begins to slope downward toward the rear of the property. Location of the garages further back on the lot would require substantial filling and land alterations. The second hardship stems from the fact that these lots were not developed with garages in mind--the buildings were located in the center of the lot. While this positioning maximizes the distance between the buildings, it also limits the space available for construction of garage stalls. The last identified hardship is again based on the topography. Because of the rear slope of the properties, the garages would need to be closer to the buildings to take advantage of the available level land. If the proposed garage structures were to maintain the required five-foot setback, the end garage stalls on either side would be difficult if not impossible to access. Variance Criteria: With these hardships in mind, staff examined the criteria which the Planning Commission is to consider in any variance request. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The topography of these lots severely restricts where garage structures can be located without substantial and overly burdensome elevation reparations. b. T ie-literal-interpretation ofthe-provisions ofthis-Title-would-deprivelhe appli-cantof rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. Because of the topography and the distance between the buildings, the applicant is already limited to providing only three garage stalls for each of the buildings, instead of one stall per unit. If no variance were granted, only two garage stalls could be provided for each building. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant is not in control of the lots' topography nor was the applicant in control of where the four-plexes were located upon the lots. Johnson Variance Application 2075 &2081 Hillview Road October 6, 1999 Page 3 d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. The City Code requires that all (new) multi-family residential developments provide a minimum of one garage stall per dwelling unit. Currently, there are no garages on site and the applicant proposes to construct three for each building. Any new multi-family development would be required to provide the appropriate number of garage stalls. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. There is 70 feet which separates the two four-plexes. Each of the proposed garage structures is 32 feet wide, which will barely accommodate three individual garage stalls. Were the garages to be any further apart than the requested one foot setback, the risk of damage to the four-plexes done by vehicles backing out of the garages would be too high. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Approving a variance to allow for the construction of the two three-stall garage structures would immediately improve the appearance of the subject properties and would be a welcomed addition to a street which has seen the introduction of blighting influences over the last few years. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. It is not expected that the addition of the proposed garages would have any detrimental effects upon the neighborhood. In reviewing these criteria, staff feels that the basis for establishing a hardship has been met, in that all of the criteria are satisfactorily addressed. Given this and the discussions of the Planning Commission and public testimony on September 15th, staff has drafted a resolution which approves of the variance as requested by the applicant. Recommendation: Approve Resolution 591-99, a resolution approving one-foot side yard setbacks for a three-stall garages to be located at 2075 and 2081 Hillview Road, according to the proposed building plans 0 on file. City of Mounds View,MN Page 2 Development Application Present Use of Property ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant ❑ Single Family Dwelling ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling Multi-family Dwelling O Business/Commercial Establishment 0 Industrial Establishment ❑ Other(explain) Property Classification ❑ Abstract ❑ Torrens Description of Proposal () BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS N' AND ACCURATE 0 Signature of Applicant �+ Name of Applicant(typed/printed) ,-‘c rf 1 V • esh n, S 6 °N Signature of Property Owner Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) Address of Owner ..O / (f /L 6 (J r +Z EAJ X. Phone Number of Owner • 4 6 6r of ************************************************************************************************ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal —1 - 3 Assigned to: Date of Acceptance 120-daylimit Planning Case No. _'i 7 O " ? 60-day Limit Check# Receipt# Account# Fees Paid: �a� 'y� Application: A5 )O''� _-3 9L -i Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: 1/98 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\FORIv1S\DEVAPP.FOR � t . 62 _ I 1 CRP • �liStRKI/ 5751' -mu R2! . 5741it _ --- • 5731: .g IN iA N N N N . 5721 • • c DR 22 E 5711 •ON. NN N N 22411} r Nr'\...\ I \�oa NN N d— in 2237 N 2200\ 5701 s _ . `4 �to r`oc, N N N 2233 ? - 5691 +• �- e► r ' J R-5 • A��c'��� o .! .D� O,. e02'‘ vie)I1 5881 ,. + Act, c4 �t N N N NDN N N `'' 5671't , eag4 l\'' 5661'. 7\11._ (4 � N N! NV N N N N N N --3 C► ONIAL VILLAGE 0/ 40 O MBILE H9 „ '' -K ( p O I N N N N N N !N N N N N N • N N N N HILLVIEW O "• d 40 100 00 I O d<O 0'N d co00 i to' W i o l N 't0 mich *lap 4 • 0 1 00 3 P 03; O �i'd M; N N I .-1 O 0 01 CO _ d M 1 N 11� O 0) O) pp!1 . J N : N N' N NtN N; N N' N N a- - .- - I- • • r 0 co Oto • +1 N = N N 1...14 N; NfN1N NININ. N -N N OAKWOOD N N Ns NRN N NIN N"N $ j N 3o a- '0 r to 1 COto N� N COi%A O M �!(� Ol 'M 5590AK N. 01 10k M NI.- a • .. 4 N Ni N N;N, N N, N N N } O 0)' 0) '03 a M MtN .- O 01 01 n . , NFN N} N N N NIN r. .- PF I N N N N •N N N N N NlN N ;N1Nt ` ,N NININ OOD 51a, 0 • A0 .4. .,r m DR 1-1 c9 to - • -N mor-N- N - [-moi 'C1 pp — 1-t t0 3-OD4-N-FtD---00--N-1-t0--00--0 C 1-�- 01 O6 0_10 I N N N N N N N t N N i' N1 N N •- 03 - so in in In to)N .- .- .- 0 0 0 0 Io N1 N%N N N N N N N N N N NiN N N N N N N!N N • 01^ OtM 4 N N IN N N M N N to r, O N N ` .- M to 40 N t Of M N Of re) N 0) •- M N O N • N N N"N N(N .- C) 0 N 40 to to M M N g- 0 0 0 81 0 0 )+OpjO d t0 O TER- N Cl NIN NNNt'-v N N N N NDN N N1N N #NEN 4 N NIN N N1N It MiOo 0 DR 1 N N s N N N N N}�N J t0 O{ .r CO CO`N w 00 N i t0 m O t0 O d '(0 0` N N N N N tV N j O O) r .° to to M M N . . I.S1 01 01 00 1� 1O 017,1 0), M 2 O) ..- O }N N N a N •- r .- .- r- .- .- 1.- O O O 1 O AN ^1 N N N N N 3 M 1 N N V,N N N N N N N I N N N N N N N i N N 1 V 7 N N N N N N 'N -4/8 I Z._ __ s c { JPINEWOOD pR N N�N �_ • t� to n o)'r7 n o M i• }O1 s.� M n •- u) • 100 !O .4' ,1-1-'1-c13 .0 * t0 O c.,/ N N '^' .O- 1. :2 , .- 0 0 0 1 O N ICD „CO f� CO O d .� tO N NIN1N N N N N N IN N N N N N,N N N N N N N ili N�N,N N ,NI Nf N N N dN t s 111 Zoning Map Planning Case 570-99 Applicant: Johnson Variance Request N4 Location: 2075 & 2081 Hillview Road City of Mounds View Location Map $ 1 --, , , 1J 1 , I I _- - iliiiarN _III _ ...., womv IrlII I I - I :' — 7 p , I I I �' -ll - \111■111AMININE - . - _ ,1011111►� x — ..��-.N11111dop, — 2075 Hillview Road Li111i�� - - - 2081 Hillview Road 1 - 1 I _LULL_ I I I I ly \ / 1111111111 I I 'I-ail liki 1 1 I _ -TTI I I U _� Li 1111111111111 NE 11111/// 1/11 11 is 111111/ ma 1 - - _ I � �_ ■111N. : ;ii��/; i •e1 NI . > N 11110AIN �� - II II. lllia01 i1 !; I • • • T I I 1 . JeffreyMI II N. Johnson �1--_� 2075 and 2081 Hillview Road �= p MP 11 .� _� ..1999: rlei•11111/11 =_'.1 q _'_=,±,_- "II''".;'mu Variance (Zero Foot Setback) �- _�- mi. �_� -��: lull: `��al y��_il11IIIIr iii ilt��■u11i1 :�1�1111116: ��_-" -11i _u:_I-=- =1 Planning Case No. 570-99 .11: 1.: - ,,.•x.1111 fit;==__ ,•� 111 1 2X tlk \ \ 1.1 /11111111 'DI - ---• ' 0 .._ Al 111111111111 I' �}9� _ I .r. _.1>_ . :6T+Mil *� � T.11 111...........1/,::::::::u.... 1 �7 II m9uuuuin, i I1 1VP"--"n an. Munn Iu 1111111111111111 _i1411 -44.1;i1,„ ';'1�' - -1� 2075 & 2081 Hillview Road w111;- - - iN� _ _���0,_ IIIII �� ,�� 350' :'• '2j. �_=_luluiu1uii - Properties Within ==,-„, ••-, .1.4.-„,,..„,„„ HMI iIMIRIl naki_-''M S N-4.V.;1111111111111;1 �IhIWHIM�'iIIIII- I1 ; iiilli° ��■ = 11111119 p x1,11 . a_ ....11..1 Il„P1 11 m:_1111111, __ 11111!dill 11M MME 6 atiff) i Rill -: low P .09 I. 114<( Z a) -,,..ZAil4g,,V,Wkkikk'Z C,•`'k4'0.0"0144�s QN ` C 10.00tommitorskwORNI .,Y it O O cri ' Q egman flCT C RtikagEM xO O . � O O , M •ti ONO O � EWINNOW 11= 0 co ca rI ti JV M O) offfekam 14,.) ingefikj t E:),....4 imprefaimin t....4A wagr = QC 0tin) Q / ti V O N0. O N X a) M N C ::: ,� 0 —J aiRePel WO CA 4.4 O O0. N 0 OO t.=,{ _,,, �i fit' C 13 r. C '°_, t s eiN 1 al ONOMfikWAN kaalP§AVANKWAVTA*40.kagiA CO _` C ` ...,. CO C a) )E C) L_ 6 V W .091. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 591-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 1104.01, SUBD. 4, OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO SETBACKS TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCED SIDEYARD SETBACK FOR GARAGES AT 2075 AND 2081 HILLVIEW ROAD ; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 570-99 WHEREAS, Jeff Johnson of 2081 Hillview Road has applied for a variance to allow for a one-foot sideyard setback for proposed garages at 2075 Hillview Road and 2081 Hillview Road; and, WHEREAS, 2075 Hillview Road (PIN# 05-30-23-41-0011) is property zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential, legally described as follows: The west 103 feet of the east.414 feet of the north 160 feet of the south 193 feet of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 5, Township 30,Range 23 Ramsey County,Minnesota -Hitiview Rid-(PfN-#-05=3fl-23-41=0005)is piope'ty zoned-' - , Medium Density Residential, legally described as follows: The west 103 feet of the east 517 feet of the north 160 feet of the south 193 feet of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 5,Township 30,Range 23 Ramsey County,Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Proposed Site Plan 5. Staff Report Resolution 591-99 Johnson Variance October 6, 1999 Page 2 WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's control; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held Wednesday, September 15, 1999, with regard to this variance request; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient hardship with regard to the properties located at 2075 Hillview Road and 2081 Hillview Road to warrant the approval of a variance to Jeff Johnson for the construction of garages one-foot from the common property line between the two parcels, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to 2075 and 2081 Hillview Road which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity in that the amount of slope at the back of the property makes development prohibitively difficult. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title in that multi-car garages are desired in this district and serve as a physical improvement to properties. 3. The variance request is the result of factors over which the applicant has had no control. In addition to the topography, the buildings were constructed in such a way as to restrict the available area that can be utilized for the location of garage structures. 4. Granting a variance to allow a one-foot sideyard setback would allow the applicant to provide three garage stalls for each building where there are no garages currently. 5. The Planning Commission finds that the requested one-foot setback is the minimum variance that would alleviate the applicant's hardship. S 6. The purpose of the variance provision in the Code is to give relief to property owners seeking to improve their properties yet are unable to do so because of zoning code requirements and factors beyond their control. Granting this variance for a reduced Resolution 591-99 Johnson Variance October 6, 1999 Page 3 111 sideyard setback would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. 7. Two three-car garages located behind the four-plexes at 2075 and 2081 Hillview Road would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission approves the variance request for a reduced sideyard setback for two garage structures to be constructed one foot from the common property line between 2075 and 2081 Hillview Road, contingent upon: 1. The applicant submitting a revised survey-quality site plan showing the garages with a one-foot sideyard setback, a fence connecting the front and back of the garages, and all other pertinent dimensional and structural information. 2. The applicant arranging to have recorded with Ramsey County this resolution of approval and provide proof of such recordation to the City within 60 days of the date of approval, or this variance shall be rendered null and void. Adopted this 6th day of October, 1999 Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\570-99\591-99PC.RES REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: October 6, 1999 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 571-99 Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow for an oversized shed Petitioner: Alan& Tammy Doroff Location: 8270 Eastwood Road PIN No. 06-30-23-11-0079 Zoning/Land Use: R-1 / Single Family Residential Applicable Regulations: 1106.03, Subd. lg: No accessory building other than a garage shall exceed 216 square feet except by CUP. 1106.03,Subd. lh: The combined square footage for all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more than 20% of the rear yard. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Location Map Site Plan Resolution 595-99 Background: The applicants, Alan and Tammy Doroff, have applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 384 square-foot shed in the backyard of their home located at 8270 Eastwood Road. The area of this property is 18,711 square feet, or .43 acres. Most of the lots in this neighborhood are of the same size, many of which are improved with similar types of split-entry homes with attached double car garages. The shed, described to be a barn-like structure fifteen feet tall, would be situated behind the in-ground pool as indicated on the site plan. The backyard of the Doroffs' property is enclosed by an eight-foot tall wood fence which offers complete screening of the backyard area from the adjacent neighbors. The area of the backyard is 6,880 square feet, of which 384 square feet would be taken for the shed. This would amount to a coverage rate of 6 percent. The Code limits backyard coverage of accessory buildings to no more than 20 percent. There is an existing shed that would be removed upon construction of the new shed. s Planning Case No. 571-99 Doroff Shed CUP October 6, 1999 Page 2 Analysis: Dimensional Requirements: Required Proposed Met? Shed Setbacks (Side) 5 feet 6 feet Met (Rear) 5 feet - 35 feet Met Percent of Rear Yard <20% 6% Met Total Area of Accessory Buildings: s 1,400 sf. 384 sf. (shed) Met 480 sf. (garage) 864 sf. (Total) CUP requirements: Section 1106.04 of the Zoning Code states that no accessory building other than a garage shall exceed 216 square feet except by conditional use permit. With a conditional use permit, the maximum area for a shed is 400 square feet and for all accessory buildings the maximum area is a combined 1,400 square feet. As with any conditional use permit application, the Planning Commission needs to examine the possible adverse effects of the proposed use and review the general CUP criteria and specific CUP requirements, if any are listed. 11 Section 1125.01, Subdivision 1e lists the general adverse effects criteria which need to be addressed in order for a conditional use permit to be approved. These criteria are as follows: 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, 8270 Eastwood Roadlow-density residential. This pi opo al does-not-conflict with-the-Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Geographical Area Involved 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area Almost every lot in this area of Mounds View is the same size as the subject property. Many of the homes in the immediate area have a similar split-entry design and have attached two-car garages. Many of the homes have sheds in addition to their garages. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed It is not believed that the construction of the shed, even one so large as is proposed by the applicants, would depreciate the neighborhood. The shed would be completely screened except for the peak, which might be visible from the adjacent properties. The shed would Planning Case No. 571-99 Doroff Shed CUP October 6, 1999 Page 3 allow the applicants to store all of their pool equipment, yard equipment and other common items in one structure without taking away any room in the garage. 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. The existing garage is a small, two-car garage of only 480 square feet. While expanding the garage to the rear is feasible, this option would take up well-utilized backyard space next to the home. The applicants desire to construct the shed behind the pool in a less-used part of the yard to minimize the impact of adding 384 square-feet of accessory building space. This proposal satisfactorily addresses the adverse effects criteria. Also in Section 1125.01, the Planning Commission is to consider the general conditional use permit criteria, which are as follows: (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. AI The addition of a storage shed, even one as large as that proposed, would not create a greater impact on existing public facilities 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. The location of the shed behind the home and garage would hide it from general public view. Because of the tall fence surrounding the backyard area, the shed itself would be screened even from the adjoining properties as well. The shed would have a barn-like design, similar to one on an adjacent property, and would neither be incompatible with nor detrimental to this district. (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. Sheds and out-buildings are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for the storage of yard and garden equipment . Having this shed will allow the property owners to replace a Planning Case No. 571-99 Doroff Shed CUP October 6, 1999 Page 4 dilapidated metal shed and to store items currently left outside within a secure and protected structure. Staff believes that this proposal meets the general requirements as indicated above. In addition to these general conditional use permit criteria, Section 1106.04, Subdivision 7 lists the specific criteria which need to be met in order to approve a conditional use permit for an over-sized shed. The criteria with responses are as follows: a. The accessory building must conform with Section 1103.06 of this Title and subdivision 1106.03(l) of this Title. This section of the Code dictates where in the yard an accessory building can be located. The proposed shed would be located in the rear yard, which is the only place a shed can be located according to the Code. b. The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one lot cannot exceed one thousand four hundred(1,400) square feet. The area of the garage(480 square feet) and the proposed shed (384 square feet)total 864 square feet, well within the 1,400 maximum allowance. c. The accessory building shall not exceed four hundred(400) square feet. 11 The proposed shed would be 384 square feet. d. The building must be a permanent structure. • The shed would be a wood-framed structure mounted upon a concrete pad. It is considered permanent. e. The building shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the dwelling unit. The appearance of the shed will be different from the house, in that it will be a finished wood exterior having a barn-like design. The structure would be located in the backyard completely out of public view makes which makes this requirement less of an issue. The fact that most sheds are of a finished-wood construction makes this all the more typical. f. Should the use for which the permit was granted be changed, the permit shall be subject to reconsideration, revocation or other action regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title. The applicants indicate that this shed would be used strictly for storage, and that no activities would be proposed for the structure other than storage. Planning Case No.571-99 Doroff Shed CUP October 6, 1999 Page 5 Staff believes that all of the specific CUP requirements, as well as the general requirements and the adverse effects criteria are satisfied. Any adverse affects of this accessory structure are minimal and are far out-weighed by the overall benefits. Recommendation: Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 595-99, recommending to the City Council approval of a conditional use permit for Alan and Tammy Doroff, allowing a 384 square-foot oversized shed at 8270 Eastwood Road, with stipulations. et AA A James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\571-99\SHED-CUP.PC1 CI©I,k ,n CP NY.. 'w1! � `��'. : COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTME DEVELOPMENT APPLICATI !!='Aif•ir�r`"' 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55 �A$n=''Partners*11*. 612-717-40 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information A i Name of Applicant ! 1- 1 i Yl m l {�1` ' Telephone (1 a""7q-.9—(%() Address S& 70 u13±W Paid Fax )0a V(I).Lo) m]J 55110 Inserest in Property(check appropriate box) Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee,Operator,Manager 0 Agreement to Purchase o 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. PropertyGene ption/Proposal �V!` F Sht` (�i e (lard Address or General Location iC III Legal Description ! t Bina: f Sf- `i S Property Identification#(PIN#) (D(,-,O a3 l f 0691 #of Acres L(* St t )c 'AN 1 a Si / Current Zoning 6 �' Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250 ❑ Rezoning $250/acre; min$250 max$1500 ❑ Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit* ❑ Minor Subdivision $200 o Planned Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees ❑, PUD Amendment $350 X Conditional Use Permit R-1, R-2$75;all others$250 o "Variance R-1, R-2$100 all others$250 ❑ Code Appeal $100 ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan $125/acre;min$125 max$750 o Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2$150;all others$200 ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit R-1,R-2$25;all others$100 o 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 after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View,MN Development Application Page 2 Present Use of Property I ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant Single Family Dwelling ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment 0 Industrial Establishment O Other(explain) Property Classification 0 Abstract X- ' ,Torrens Desc ;ption.of P oposal ti(0A Cit 4- LI-1161a-11 � r)d ADS W $'Q/41 BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Signature of Applicant iki/.. D -ii .� m Name of Applicant(typed/printed) A l at1 1'11 i I ` Jozyg Signature of Property Owner D Crk.44 if G n / Name of Property Owner(typed/printed)ii X11 �'�Ca1iL (��� Address of Owner L� t I) fl I)C Cd Road Mourth \Jta,iO 11rY11.3 35 I ! 9 Phone Number of Owner LP l —ricl a—V 1 a5 r enre ,lobi-- 444-(495 Alanhs wort (ol a - 503 -63)-10 -1-arrinrtit U rIL FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal q—1 O — "t "1 Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. -7/ — C) 9 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: t, Account# Check# Receipt# Application: S — /0 0 3?"7 ©1 Gi/ 9i 33 10 Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: 8 Total: N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\FORMS\DEVAPP.FOR 1/98 - • • -NORTH COUNTY :-2— LINE— • - -- . • — • . — . . — • • — . . — . . -__ • - { N ono 84911 N .49`.(N N 8494 849 • N 8480 g n n 8494 8481 8484 ' 8490 848 - N 8470 8471 r 8474 85 8485 8484 847' 8470 8475 846' 8474 8471 8466 8460 8451 --8480 8465 8464 8465 8467 6440 8441 8456 0 8455 8454 8455 8450 8465 �� PUD --1 8432 4 8431 8444 8443 8444 ce 8445 8 8453 8464 8435 8434 8433 8432 8441 8454 `• 8424 8425 8434 8424 8444 8425 8425 8428 8429 8425 8400 8415 8420 8415 8414 8415 8408 / 49 8392 8401 8406 8405 8404 8415 8408 8415 ...__ 5384 8400 8379 8390 8405 8400 8395 8400 0 84058400 A33 8378 8389 �� 8380 _8384 8395 8380 8381 8390 8395 8388 1/2• 04:1-3-7- 8379 8373 8370 8385 8370 � � 8 "" 8379 8380 8385 8384 Y `7a 8388 8372 8360 8375 8360 - --- \01 8366 8376 8375 8378 8355 8368 8350 8355 8350 8375 -- - 8360 • 8345 = •e Y 8371 8372 8365 8360 8364 8345 8354 8345 8340 ____ _ � '0 8340 8325 83408 " 48346 8335 8331 8330 8325 8320 8321 -• 8342 8325 8312 8315 ,� 8315 8318 8323 8320 8315 8340 8321 8300 8305 1 8330 \ 8332 8315 _ 8300 8303 10 0 8305 8310 q-. , --- 8322 8305 8290 8295 :290 M� 8290 0 8285 290 8295 8310 8307 J _ . 8281 y80 0 8273 ARDAN `:i::; 8300 9 8285 8280 8287 8280 Z 1 8273 8___..... V 8275 8270 p 8281 8270(A 8271 e A 8285 +60 3 8267 8300 PARK �� VELAND m 8265 8280 8273 a 8261 : .e -'i Z----•--- 1: _rr ... ARK . 8251 w r`8250 8255 250 8255 8280 8283 7) 8255 8250 8267 t9 8260 N io r - 8241 8242 n Ill -- N a x8240 8261 82 '� e 7.e 8231 - • 1 8232 2 N NI 8250 _8271 __ I, N n n ^ N N N N N c N N N N 8230 8255 N _ 8247 AVEg Li8 8 e N N N N N N 8210 8211 8205 8225 _._., -- 8184 8193 8224 p. n y^.820C .....,r .8. -- 8217 8212 N N N N 8180 8185 ,� •• `" 8206 — 18208 DR �^L/F 8171 8200 8205 v - m 1413 41$ 4 8175 m 0 1' 8160 _ ..iiii:' .is•••::•::::::.::i:; :i::•::•:: °v N 8200 N N Nvh 814E 8165 0� 8150 8165 • • 8150 8155 c9 -•-•- 8145 APORT ' .__.______. __ _ i $ ! L. 8142 8145 �i�0� d'�,j" 8145 ��'_8140 8135 icv N N j ; 8135�� • 9iR`si- 8140 8141 8132 • -I 8125 L:3r1J.. 8131 ' --•------ n -- —••• 8121 8126 u1 n rn 4n N i4 M1 io uni a 1 a 8111 n 12 _. . m -ri-2 01 `1.1 e�- o-C o 8 .r t v I r) NI` '040 40 ; m in (co tD' N N N 8100 8101 N �n NN N1NNIN1NN^ NIN612� :12NN� N N � N NINN..': NN� N W • SHERWOOD a ,� ,. $ 40 CO iso g 1 N N N 'n °.� v B0B0 $0$1 N N 808$ 8075 $099 i N N $0$5 N N 48086 8085N civ 1 8080 co m Cv' N N ...._- _ 111 $071 8072 .._.. 1 I 8084 8085 _ 8066 8071 8068 ___ 8072p 8071 �� � 8070 8070 8071 8071 8075 8060 8059 8050 8055 8060 8065 8050 8060 8046 Ba 0 5 8044 8045 gp46 8041 8046 8042 8045 8052 8051 803 8040 8039 8032 8033 8040 8035 8032 8031 8038 8035 8024 8026 8025 8028 "' - 8030 -.---- • 8015 --"-a 8025 8018 8011 8000 8021 8022 8019 ,_ 8011 8000 8011 8000 8016 -- - 8001 8010 - 8000 x8005 8016 8009 8006 ___ --- ,� - ,...� 70 AR - 8004. 7981 7990 Q 7981 7990 0 7989 7coa _ 7oo� goon Zoning Map Planning Case 571-99 Applicant: Doroff Shed CUP Request N I, Location: 8270 Eastwood Road City of Mounds View 111 ilL Location Map ' il t-- EMI MINIM mum = r Nom.Nom.mum � a , I.... ow iira _II _ _L._ ____ MIMI MI =NMI IIIIIIIIM •11101. s o Immo 8270 Eastwood Road, _ „! rA IMO .� ..: o� if..11111 will _ i -i.■ moms .... ■un —� iiii i H ��� : : _ ti ti ti - �.- _ 11111111/ ig ! i1r$I ' i E i ....�1...milir_i 1 1 1AI 4 lora.: _ 1 _ I I I I �l I I UIIWMIP . -_ 41;1 _i_____ .. _ : I_ -- ______ ______ ..... ..._ __ __ IMI I i hili II I _______ -- == �_9z�a.01:2,--1E., Ir Alan & Tammy Doroff sl'=- 8270 Eastwood Road -Vie-■ = I _' Conditional Use Permit (Oversized " ill '"�'- " Accessory Bldg.) '•'7- " `eels . a 11111111111:"'=""'Slur`'"`" - Planning Case No. 571-99 il =BIW :u:_�_ n"_ ph:Ili ii :41 1I1s:.1I.3II,Ie=.IiI..t...i:.,0--_--:lE..1:iiE:i1iFT1.l1.:l.,,i'•V7 b(i'-l'" ..* [a.4m Nm::"..• .. 1.111 .IIIII.I..� _ � ..r...,..11lI IIIIIIIIIII.IIII _M-. "" '1SSi 111111%11111111111 . i��':��:; _ _:�=O8270 Eastwood Road ►:;; :'•� II ,,,,,,;i,,,i; Properties Within 350 1.11111111111 ,iiM Em; —_ mumnung �'�n1iii _L 'w : : Imc 11r ,� ....IIU►Ii= i ' % 1211D111111 III 510hirammilmmcwim rgi rim: 00 • 111 <1 Z itheina elikafnaiiktifflighlaraVilopeogli4iromv10416ensepontwaktifOromMtasionim ,frejapainiammianapiV** x x 'y ... 'k:::'<'V:gqr:r.Aa*hiekr.treVK 0 .,.....-\.„0,91posum x , wwxk, Y. ArdimiiiiiirimeiLtiodommospita.vmpormT 2 T \ t O ° A 111,y o Z CO21 t Vi ifty O a) CL t CU U cn 4•11 o CC-V :btu?.xx;x ^xxLixt ^w j'::k,'�'i`22xxxY£;? 'x: —Cl)O •14tie i x ..xxx� ��� £?3? ;zz;zsY{ ^ hl i3 xz' ,xxixxxxii:i::: f>�F*,i�xza.zz,xx�•��z:u,. 1.--776:- Q) 13 co o lo o O N CO N O x a) cti O .+— li J N 0 I „/ :: .., 4 . '''4%',,,4' r/,' ''', Z + • ;# •a 0•z,1 .„„A,,z'. %; /•'..1....1/0 ' 94170,,,0•; •„'',,zr%o•s .'''':f 14'.'• , wty4Az ,',..,446A.,,,„,,;.16r•,„•,:.,,.,„,,,,,:.v.'„,,,,,,,,,—,.,,,,e,,' -')•2,1..,1'--„-, ,,„•, ,,,',,,,,,Ai,, ,4f1„44.471,(0.,-•t—•-— "tt Tsra Ct t CZ c4 k, peoj apisAuung tz c,o ,,,,,-,,,,,,e,.,,,. •;,:,1-7:7, 40,,,,'.0”g • //,?4,,,, , ,, itii,a t DI 4g•/,?',4 •ii'4,,,e, ;, %,,,:/,1 y,,Y,4, %,,,,,.we.x 7 445„4.0,,' ,, `',12.Kr,17.„,- "",:x.r„lips,•, .•PWto,,,,,rve):•,- ;5/prey!" 1"40'4/ .--Y'%;'..e-, 74 I 1.0;- ,,,,,...xy; ',,, ..:,,,,-,/,s,46 `;;;'; 0 k..71.7,,,,:;•,-7, ; ie 7 4„,. ,44,,; ,, M? , ,,f,s. w4, .0,4. /*E, ..A.v-of''''',,v••%• ,4•/,%,,,,,q,;..- •;;,-,s,2•••,---i-- ,•,-•-, „• - • • • Ca C;$ 0 't•-,*,,';', „„ „.„„yi;,4 r r02,.A • „..„, . (4 co q ,,,, ,," ,,,* „ , '' i 13 A_ a = § gst" •i 2 -6 0 o 1 13- C 0 C il) 0 V) "0 :4= 0 CD 03 CI..0 00 w -----E 0 I- -I 13- '4%. %4,I" 111 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 595-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN OVERSIZED SITED FOR ALAN AND TAMMY DOROFF, 8270 EASTWOOD ROAD, MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 571-99 WHEREAS, Alan and Tammy Doroff have applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 384 square-foot shed on property they own, located at 8270 Eastwood Road, zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as followed: Lot 3, Block 2, East Oaks, Ramsey County,Minnesota WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows by conditional use sheds up to 400 square feet in area and no more than 1,400 square feet total accessory building space on one lot; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plan d. Area Map with Building Footprints e. Location Map f. 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. i.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, 8270 Eastwood Road, low-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Geographical Area Involved1111 Planning Commission Resolution 595-99 October 6, 1999 Page 2 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area Almost every lot in this area of Mounds View is the same size as the subject property. Many of the homes in the immediate area have a similar split-entry design and have attached two-car garages. Many of the homes have sheds in addition to their garages. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed It is not believed that the construction of the shed, even one so large as is proposed by the applicants, would depreciate the neighborhood. The shed would be completely screened except for the peak, which might be visible from the adjacent properties. The shed would allow the applicants to store all of their pool equipment, yard equipment and other common items in one structure without taking away any room in the garage. 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. The existing garage is a small, two-car garage of only 480 square feet. While expanding the garage to the rear is feasible, this option would take up well-utilized backyard space next to the home. The applicants desire to construct the shed behind the pool in a less-used part of the yard to minimize the impact of adding 384 square-feet of accessory building space. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the general 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 The-addition-af-a-storage-shed,—even hat-proposed- would-not-create a greater impact on existing public facilities 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. The location of the shed behind the home and garage would hide it from general public view. Because of the tall fence surrounding the backyard area, the shed itself would be AI screened even from the adjoining properties as well. The shed would have a barn-like design, similar to one on an adjacent property, and would neither be incompatible with nor detrimental to this district. , Planning Commission Resolution 595-99 October 6, 1999 Page 4 f Should the use for which the permit was granted be changed, the permit shall be subject to reconsideration, revocation or other action regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title. The applicants indicate that this shed would be used strictly for storage, and that no activities would be proposed for the structure other than storage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: 1. The conditional use permit shall be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval, and proof of such recording shall be provided to the City of Mounds View. 2. The shed 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. No other sheds or accessory buildings, other than the existing garage shall be • allowed on this lot. 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 6th day of October, 1999. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) NADATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\571-99\595-99PC.RES 1111 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Subject: Driveways RE: Planning Case No. 568-99 Date: Meeting of October 6, 1999 Background: At your meeting on September 1, 1999, John Henning, property owner of 8359 Red Oak Drive, was before the Planning Commission to request a variance for a wider than allowed driveway. As you may recall, his driveway was installed after staff had informed him that the proposed driveway was too wide. While the appearance of the driveway certainly is not unappealing, the fact remains that it is too wide, and there did not appear to be any basis for granting a variance, as there was no discernible hardship. Staff indicated that perhaps the Code could be modified to allow for wider driveways in some situations, given that three-car garages are no longer the exception--three car garages are the norm. With that, the Planning Commission tabled Mr. Henning's request, directing staff to research this issue as to what other cities require--or do not require--with regard to driveway widths. The following table represents the end product of this research. Driveway width requirement Driveway width requirement at street(property line): in yard: Mounds View 22' at street 35 feet New Brighton: 24' at street None Arden Hills: 22' at street Cannot exceed 25% of front yard width Fridley: 28' at street None Roseville: 26' at street None Spring Lake Park: 24' at street No wider than the garage Shoreview: 24' at street None, so long as impervious surface does not exceed 40% coverage of lot Blaine: 30' at street None Driveway Report October 6, 1999 Page 2 As can be seen from the results of this research, Mounds View's requirements tend to be more restrictive than neighboring cities. While Arden Hills has the same maximum curb cut width for driveways, no City other than Arden Hills and Spring Lake Park puts any limitation on the width of the driveway as it approaches the garage. With Arden Hills, the width limitation is tied to the width of the property--a 200' wide lot then could have a 50' wide driveway. Spring Lake Park limits driveways to the width of the garage. The obvious follow-up question is, "How wide can a garage be?" The answer is 1,000 square feet. Thus a person could construct a 50'wide by 20' deep garage and have a 50' wide driveway. Because of this insight, Staff is proposing that the Planning Commission consider the follow amendment to the City Code pertaining to driveway widths. In Section 1104.01, Subdivision 4c(1)(a), the underlined and italicized text could be added to the existing sentence: "The combined width for driveway and parking surfaces shall not exceed thirty five feet (35'), or the width of the garage plus an additional ten feet(10). whichever is greater. " The other approach to solving this code imposed hardship is to remove the phrase "parking space" from that provision, so as to only measure the width of the drive, presumably interpreted to be the width of the garage. The downside to that approach is that it would open the door to a person paving his entire front yard. And while that would be a highly unlikely probability, I would feel rather uncomfortable knowing that outcome could occur. Recommendation: Please direct staff to draft language that would amend the Code to allow wider driveways in either of the two fashions described herein or in another manner yet to be discussed and to draft a resolution indicating the i . . f '. - . - a ation that-the eity-eouncil-consider and adopt such an amendment. J =,-,- James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\568-99\DRIVEWAY.RPT 2 Sep 27 99 12: O1p Wendell R. Smith 651-484-0699 p. 2 •. . . • . 410 •". ' i 14,9 ' • Wendell R. Smith . Gorrxnerda!Real Estate Development,•Carsuhing • and brokerage • September 27, 1999 Mr. Rick Jopke City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 • Mounds View, MN 55112 RE: Office Building Dear Rick: • 4111 . I. apologized for not being at the last Planning Commission meeting. For some reason, I had Thursday as the meeting day and I was out of town until then. Based on the opinion by the city attorney, . I am rescinding my application to move tbe fence. We will construct the buildings and meet• th.e Put' requirements for the fence connecting to the ends of each building. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, -C ...tom ill))' illACEW Wendell R. Smith PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO • To: Mounds View Planning Commission, From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Subject: Comprehensive Plan Study Sessions Date: September 28, 1999 BACKGROUND: If all goes well, I will have the draft comprehensive plan text completed early in October. I have contracted with a GIS consultant(PlanSight)to do the map work. They will have preliminary maps completed by mid October. I would like to schedule a number of Planning Commission study sessions in October and an informational community forum in November to present the plan to the community. A formal public hearing could then be scheduled in early December. REQUESTED ACTION: I would suggest that the Planning Commission set special meetings for October 13th and 27th to review the draft plan. If the Planning Commission is satisfied with the draft an informational community forum could be held on November 10t. It looks like the October regular meeting agendas may be light so there will be opportunities to discuss the draft at those meetings also. 1111 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\10-6-99.doc Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 2 4. Approval of MinutesII A. August 18, 1999 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller to approve the August 18, 1999 meeting minutes as corrected. , 4/ ,;:, Ayes—8 Nays—0 f,2. The t carried. 3f E\t.Y.E glin, Id 5. Planning Case No. 570-99 oke Property Involved: 2075 & 2081 Hillview Road : Consideration of variance request to allow for a zero-foot y'`` '.0back. Applicant: JeffJohnson ,17-‘,..4:00„ < : ° The applicant was present. W Planning Associate Ericson gave the staeport as 6110 s:•;,Of > :0+ .k 5:kf The applicant, owner of two contiguo _ roper u>< on Hilly v Road, each improved with four-unit multi-family structures, had desired:: eonstruc a six-stall g t'age structure between the two buildings to service both buildings. The applicant, sin -'takin \.o er ownership of these two properties, has invested co ` : •erable expense =tn rehabbing< 1:. 1'> bgs and making upgrades and improvements. The ads adt.,;,,,ithA garage t re,would with' °ut question be beneficial to the property, to its residents` ta h ,immedi°a Planning Associa4:',,,:,0t;. xplain-,r:ift e variance request were to be approved, deed restrictions would need <itii fri ; ` t woul. : pply to the garage structures in the event of fire, or if one or Wi both of t <:: roperties - . . �n. .:old in the future. He noted, upon review of the City Attorney, this appro.0, although poss ; may not be the most appropriate in this situation. xi4 Pl. ng Associate EricOn stated another possible option for this type of structure would be to rs '- that the applicant join, or"combine" the two parcels into one parcel. He stated the applicant ,i'laitii.cated he wo;:< be willing to join the properties in lieu of requesting a variance, however, „� ;;i< ` i e mortgage holders for these properties, and from this standpoint, this approach `�"� M��a.t . . ` `ible. He explained, in light of this, the applicant has revised his request to allow a setba` • one-foot for both garage structures, which would result in two separate three-stall garage structures on each side, separated one-foot from the property line of each structure. He noted there would be two feet between the buildings to allow for mowing and access to the rear of the properties. Planning Associate Ericson commented that a five-foot setback would not be possible in this situation. He referred to the site plan, which indicated that a five-foot setback would push the garage Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 II so far over behind the buildings that one of the garage stalls would be very difficult to access. He added that a five-foot setback would not allow for access to the garbage dumpster enclosure located at the rear of one of the buildings. Planning Associate Ericson explained that staff believes there is some hardship presenteto allow for this in that the land at the rear of the fourplexes slopes downward toward theme Coloni `Village Mobile Home Park, and it would be difficult to set the garages back any further. _:'' -xarned that the two four-plexes and the slope of the land dictate the location of the ��ge st �y > `.''He added that the garages, if separated by five feet on each side, would make:>° . d garage I a „Lost inaccessib to a vehicle. . b :voise.,:, ,,,,,. 44 Planning Associate Ericson explained staff had thought t lot combination appro .ould be possible, however, as it appears that this is not an optione ;n:o resolution before t"e Planning Commission, at this time. He requested the Planning Commissionds s this matter, and direct staff *.rte <>> to prepare a resolution for consideration at the next meeg. ; F ::,,, Jeff Johnson, the applicant, stated that the backy 5 ' t of his pro is subject to drainage easement, and a large sewer pipe is located unct#861411414 further p, events the location of the structures to the rear of the property by thea. se"of fill. vivhic tt`r htotherwise be an option. o" Warren Hertenstein, 2102 Hillview Road, stat llhe livecttettigs the street from the applicant's AI property, and had lived at that location since<'1950. 10 commented the neighborhood had encountered many difficulties wit tl e subje t.property prior to Mr. Johnson's ownership. He commented that Mr. Johnsonhay= inproved, e nei:hborhood and he was in favor of this and any other roe Mr. Johnson i l iikare to r ::`o ; Commissio: - «;:Menson in>tt r �:;'1±- arding the security of the property, in terms of the two-foot section betty edings. non indicated he could place a fence between the front and rear of the buildurrg 0 ded he w• als put cement in that area, with drainage toward the back of the buildi : ff �x #X•_, `_: A . . •be i[1` "w= :t" •' the-Fire-Marshals-recommendation fcrr-two-feet-between strut` es. Ericson state th >e have been instances in the past, where a structure is located closer th.Qtf.s allowed pursuantif the Fire Code; which requires a six-foot setback from other structures. .lained in these eats, the Fire Marshall has indicated a firewall be constructed on both sides ucture, to;inibit the spread of fire from one structure to the other. He stated he was not .6 trml,e:.;.a.r t specific requirements, whether this be some type of firewall, or sheet rock that i '. t. i ` ndard, however, this has been allowed. Commissioner Laube explained that his primary concern was in regard to eaves of the roof, which would place the structures closer together at this point. Mr. Johnson explained that he would be constructing the buildings of stucco, and there would be a two-foot separation to the top of the building, with only an inch overhang on each end. Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 Planning Associate Ericson stated staff could consult the Fire Marshall to determine if there are specific remedies for these situations when buildings are in such close proximity to each other. Commissioner Laube noted a firewall could be installed, however, the ceiling of the garage would also require sheet rock, in order to prevent fire from jumping to the roof and spreadinm to the other side. Planning Associate Ericson stated he was aware of the code ,',apartm .• ures, which utilize a 40 to 50 garage stall structure, in that every so many stalls,k wall is to He explainer this could be done, and was simply a matter of ensuringi ,.1.:. " N ` `ti` is t:.° as done i ttn``est. �> ' the Coot' 4t viy440024it'.` Commissioner Miller stated there would be three stalls .ke, les each garage std{ a d two four-plexes. She inquired how the applicant would decide ' p .` :uld utilize the garage stalls. Mr. Johnson explained the use would be determined on a"firstst serve" basis. He noted, not ;,>.r,. everyone in his building has a vehicle. 1 ser Commissioner Miller inquired regarding additional=< kng for visi brs <: r. Johnson stated the addition of the garage structures would provide thn.'1s.arking spWas six vehicles would be parked within the garages, and through angling_tle parking"isoew he did not foresee the loss of more than one of the existing parking stalls. A(c < >:;::>: > ;<-><:>> 4 Commissioner Berke inquired if ther,fiwould be of>aroblem in terns of the roof, and ice or snow going c ''s from one roof to the wall of the tructu:: .::_'Mr. Jo ,:von explained there would not be, as the slope of the roof would direct iceand snow t;:« e fr• ;;..end rear of the buildings. Chairper �r son inquire. ending the e Al Code requirements for garages in this area, in terms o : nd thet ` bf:t_h . �' �;�. .;e ;:;;:�<t e property. Ericson clarified the requirement is a five foot setback fro '`•e oerty liner: . .. Chairperson P:t r ti`=t. F> refore Sithe present consideration was to allow for a four-foot variance on each sidi Peterson t4<was correct. e Co qissioner Hegland in n• regarding the spacing between the buildings. Ericson stated there is eet between the t .7-buildings. $04.4person Peters.. :n:.'quired if this represented 37 feet on the side of one structure, and the 34 feet 4:01413 er structure. Ericson stated this was correct. He explained the reason they the full ten feet between the structures is because this would leave no room for acce c the garbage dumpster enclosure. Commissioner Kaden stated the water and snow would be directed to the front and back of the structures, and inquired if this might result in a problem for the mobile home community at the rear of the property. Mr. Johnson stated it would not, as it would be run off the back of the buildings into the drainage easement. He added the land slopes downward in this area, however, it slopes back up Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 III the other side, and it would be very unlikely to fill this area with enough water to reach the top of the hill at the rear of the property. Ericson added there would be 55 feet between the rear of the proposed garage and the property line. Chairperson Peterson inquired if there were tax consequences for combining two paxcels. Ericson stated he believed that there were, and this would result in tax savings to thptperty owner. Commissioner Johnson stated this was correct, and would benefit the pr ,y svner. Commissioner Stevenson noted the four-foot varianceuest wasps'%esently before t Commission for action. Ericson stated this was correct, as st 'was not a>'°ares "':,: oment :that the lot combination would not be a viable alternative. ..::: 4110021 ,....:,.411ip,„ ;,:&,,,,. ogv Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the matter should beth tabled. Ericson stated this could be done, however, staff onlyrequired direction re ardin ' 'a a :.`_` q g ga $ �f resolution the Commission would like staff to draft. He explained if the Planning Commissionfinds is sufficient hardship, staff will draft a resolution of approval, and if not, a resolution denyin oom*rest for variance would be prepared. :,;' 'l 4.:.. ' APV.WWI Commissioner Miller commented she would like to si et_l atter o forward. Commissioner glightn' ` : +the awards presented to Mr. Johnson agreed. He added, in of Mr.,,� ' enstei r� fcoi': :.y.„ N Johnson by the Economic Developmentcommission`for his e diiikwith the fourplexes, he believed $ the applicant deserves this. Ai £"� 441 Chairperson Peterson commented e improvements Mz-��##`ohnson has made are good, and he believed the propos. s appropria: n.noted theE *minimal disruption or negative impact with this pro ;.`.sa,;;.;,��d, as to .' :. s th >;Fire Code>i q irements are met, this was a very good plan. Commis : t: en stated h i ed this as an improvement as well, as long as the Fire Code requirements ' _'' =<< < :<« :-,::"..:„,,,„,, Commissier< n " a ziqtir ctpiti e matterof the fence between the two-foot section of the buildings. Ericson s d this stjlatld be added to the resolution. Or 4 MQ< iN/SECOND: Be :Ff. /Jonson. To Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution Approving a Four-Foot VA ce Request to AMCfor a Zero-foot Setback to Construct a Six-stall Garage to Service two Fg -slexes at 2075 &2081 Hillview Road, Stipulating that a Fence be Constructed Between the VitgA. es for Secu t'Purposes. Ayes— 8 Nays—0 Motion carried. 6. Planning Case No. 569-99 Property Involved: 8011 Sunnyside Road Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 Consideration of Resolution 594-99, a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit for an oversized garage. Applicant: Donald Mackeben The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: ... Thea applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to c. ::struct an ad:.> tionwt:'h 4 Pp q g � � rage at �::e< 1 Sunnyside Road. The existinggarage is 720 square feet a 3equire= :. Y q y �"' ' ����.�i anal n ;:Floes nottesentl ret4�3 � Use permit, however, the applicant proposes to construct a 3 0�square foot additio1 ; o rear of the garage, to be used for a workshop/hobby area. He statectill4V09.1d create a garage1;`040 square feet in size, and would therefore require a Conditional Use" ' t ` 4" AITMA— Planning Associate Ericson stated the exiting house, at ap roximate y `r quare feet, is larger than the garage, even after the proposed expansion. He i a * proposedii 'n would be located to the rear of the garage, and would not be v' ifrom :,.;. treet, or rom two of the adjoining properties. He noted it would be visible fro e'prope t ,,:,ig th,where it would be seven feet from the property line. He stated there is" 2 5-foiSpspace. t the addition, and the property located to the rear, and 100 feet or more to the.:::roperty line4 the north. He stated in terms of screening and spacing, the proposal me t4:the re.uirements..£ le added the size of the garage is well _ � : within the Code requirements, wouldnot be Wier than *house,`house, and does not create extra stalls, Amt- so there would not be any additional traffic:; o in an out of the structure. Plannin. A:t i.c1 k Ericsc '' ' ff has e :eowe �,,t.. �.�t� the general Conditional Use criteria, and these have all .' g:°a rssed an atse ;> He explained, in light of this, staff has drafted a resolution, 'wooResolution e ;-:o the City Council the approval of this Conditional Use Permit request. >" a Commis • : r Miller stat . • driven by the property, and was not able to determine the aspects of the, ° posal based up : :.: ;s e had seen. She requested clarification. - Dona d Mackeben, the a pplicant explained he was in the process of demolishing the existing garage. git,ted three to fuyears prior, snow had caused the garage roof to cave somewhat. He erfriL ted the gar.ge needed new siding and garage doors, and when he obtained estimates to . 1 '�' `,doors and roof, he determined it would be less expensive to take down the old g• :k :,:-:;ulld. He explained the garage would be constructed on the same slab, exactly as it had � , with the exception of a 6-12 pitch, rather than a 4-12 pitch on the roof, to prevent the previous problem from reoccurring. Mr. Mackeben stated the addition to the back of the garage would not be noticeable from the street, or from the neighbor's house at the rear of the property. He commented that, other than the storage of lawn mowers, he was not certain how he would utilize the addition, however, he was scheduled Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 iito retire soon, and may use that area for miscellaneous hobbies. He stated he was not interested in mechanic or heavy carpentry work, and this would not turn into a situation that might become a part- time job in his yard, or anything of that nature. He stated he believed the addition would be a definite asset to the neighborhood and to his property. Mr.Mackeben stated the proposed addition would be an area approximately our festgOde by twenty feet long, and would not be much larger than that allowed bythe Code. =z-x,_;gained the rooflines p. would match the rest of the house. Commissioner Laube inquired if the applicant would have,;io remove re `.<: : ? back oftfe garage. Mr.Mackeben stated he would, adding that hewould prefe l dt to dotaf 'his, ''Ince, ere were many more oak trees on the property. He expressed is a., r ;ation to the Commissioners for taking the time to drive by the property and view the sit •.;e _ �� dl `. °'»that this showed interest on their part. .:. .:,, ., s#;. Chairperson Peterson noted a two-foot jog in the proposed 04.00191 of this addition, which indicates the garage setback five feet from the property3 angling b441.4m0 feet. Mr. Mackeben stated this was in consideration of aesthetics. Hee l n ' ':;would pre ent the appearance of one longline, and there was no other reason for oin this,.***"ed" g �°4**ied t�%e addition would be 20 feet long, and the existing garage is 24 feet, t erefore, t `e entire e'rt(Obarituld go back 44 feet into the property as a straight line. He stated he felt •if thi l ne wasiiiiialtd, the structure would be more 11 attractive. ' 1 f Allo, r tif As Chairperson Peterson inquired if ttroofline.oe addition would match the roofline of the garage. '�` `;.,` : > lower it foot, depending upon the Macke stated he belie `t't would � t� r .: �°;;they mayap g p contractor's€ mmenda i, terms of w t wt uld look best. Viaifaati, 1.1106, Chairperson ' it ::�.:>:::; by property. q pp �$<�t: . �::�7. .omment ;,:..� �;�dalso driven theHe inquired if the applicant would be adding t _ slab at h s me'grade. Mr. Mackeben stated this was correct. Commis inner Miller ilibfrAikere would be doors on the addition. Mr. Mackeben stated there would•,doors on the Iron.. , ae ; k of the addition, to provide a drive through in the backyard, to g alto or access of his blawnmowers. Ohteerson Petersonated the proposal appeared to be very good, and he could not see any mito, with it. ttimissioner Kaden stated he could see no reason the proposal should not go �"� p P riatir I' ::Mi The had driven by the property and thought it would be attractive. He added he ' 4 $0 ' . : <>t would be visible at all from the street, particularly with the proposed jog. Mr. Mackeben stated this was correct, adding it would not be visible to the neighboring properties either. He reiterated he believed it would improve the property. He commented he had personally contacted all of the neighbors on his street, and they have indicated they are in favor of the proposal. He stated, had this not been the case, he would not have pursued it. Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Miller. To Approve Resolution 544-99, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for an Oversized Garage at 8011 Sunnyside Road; Mound View Planning Case No. 569-99. Ayes— 8 Nays—0 The motion carr'.-d. Planning Associate Ericson stated this item would be considered at the Oct z er 2r 999 meeting of the City Council. v`' 7. Staff Reports /Items of Information "ems ° . A. Update regarding change in location f' .>screen fence at he Anthony Properties/O'Neil PUD (Theater Project. °:"`1Am" Community Development Director Jopke updated the Commissionx egardin :;the issue of the screen fence at the Theater Project. He stated this issue was di c j ssed at thelast m eting of the Planning Commission, and at that time, staff was directed<b ob. ;. : opinion'a i'd'review the files in more detail, to clarifythe fence requirement. ' Y Community Development Director Jopke stated head reviewedthe files, Planning Commission and City Council minutes, resolutions ` UD agreements, did could find nothing that specifically required a continuous fence. He.taied he ha `f'orwarde those documents to the City Attorney's office for review, and the City .tto 'ey has indicated,from a legal standpoint, a fence connecting the buildings is •nly require : `. > resented. of ii tie developer wishes to provide a continuous fence an•. . .. ix feet 'It's C ' ��,`offer areaa�t'��tnd the buildings, it would require an amendment to the app<• :;t.. deve ®p e t s age plan. He explained this would entail formal review by the Planning Coria '` lCity Cosui ¢ Community !, ela "e Dir ctor J` e commented he had attempted to contact Wendell Smith, represeve of the o ; ;,e ,.khowever had not been able to speak with him at this time. He � �„>� gin. reque :>`+ the Planing Co is ihn discuss this matter, and direct staff in regard to whether or not the r :ncur that, if the v-el per chose to connect the buildings with a fence, they would be in Co' �"ance, and the mater would not require the additional approvals. He stated the other issue to Mer is the potentialmendment to the PUD agreement, should the developer wish to move the thind the b : e ng. erson inquired if staff and the City Attorney's conclusions were the same as the Plan i'_` 'ommission's determination at the prior meeting. Jopke stated this was correct. Chair Peterson inquired if staff had received any input from the residents immediately to the south of the property. Jopke stated they had not. He noted, however, the residents had only been contacted in this regard by the developer. Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 Chair Peterson stated it appeared to be unwise to reopen the entire Development Review process for this matter. Jopke stated staff could direct this question to the developer, in light of the new information, and determine how he would like to proceed. He noted another issue discussed at the prior meeting was that staff should work closely with the developer in regard to the location of the air-conditioning units, and insure they are screened and do not generate a noise pblem for the neighborhood. 4 aletitY Commissioner Hegland stated there had appeared to be a,general itaprOVOt1 that there was a Amw requirement for a continuous fence. He inquired if this matterrequired to b" ad e'ss-.d with a forma action. ; 1_ Chair Peterson agreed this was the general impression ughtrward. He sta�b 'annin g« . Commission did not have a clear answer in this regard. ke mmented this may' ave been a matter of semantics, in that there was discussion of continuous> c ening of the Theater Project parking lot and activities that occur at the site, and mightto ea ;t elude that the screening be a fence, versus buildings and a fence. He stated the important'Aisy u >rthat the parking lot be screened from the neighborhood. The buildings in fa t provide a majoron of that requirement, Aomeand with the fence between buildings, the developerstechnically providing a continuous screen. 40"4- sestAr 0Commissioner Miller noted that much emphasis had been}placedthe__fence, rather than the fact that there would be three offices at the loc. tion. Jopke stated<t uts clear that it was appropriate to construct the fence prior to the construction of the building in order to provide the screening, however, now that the building is nstructedt provideshat function. 4fik dor ow A f" IretvgWr Chair Peterson=,commented tti r item fot° ` tion was to determine theappropriate review process : t or chanes=to`<:a PUD. He ktecteippearedstated there should be some simple level of processfor,t of change and< etermination regarding which changes are minor and which are not. title::. $" `x w .� Community , y..e'kp ;`< ` cfor Joke stated this was correct. He added they have obtained the opinion ., the City Attu' :,:gard to the fence requirement at the Theater Project, however, there was al .'a necessity to cl.'` ::::. process in the ordinance, for future PUlls. He stated he would be wor: ,:g with the City A . '7.0:.'s office to draft appropriate language in this regard, and bring that fo <rd to the Planning ; mmission at a future meeting. sma lam Air law B. Dis ;u cion of Economic Development section of the Comprehensive Plan L<..n : : ;e e`l'opment Coordinator Kevin Carroll stated in contrast to the mandatory work the ` 2 ' .mmission is conducting in regard to the Comprehensive Plan, the Economic Development Plait' Section is referred to by the Metropolitan Council as an optional plan. He added that many of the cities that have submitted their Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council have not included an Economic Development section. He noted, however, a number of months ago, he had decided S as the primary staff person to the Economic Development Commission, that this would be appropriate from a planning standpoint, as it would assist them in their consideration of the economic Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 10 development in the City of Mounds View. He explained that if the Economic Development Commission could agree upon some general priorities, they could go from the general to the specific, and use that information to help craft their work plans. Economic Development Coordinator Carroll stated the Metropolitan Council and Aier Planning organizations had set forth a recommended format for Economic Development:; tions, which included seven or eight different parts. He commented that some of these, psappeared to be too specific, and for that reason, they were deleted, and some of the<`44:::..`itl d captions of the recommended format were changed. He stated the Eco c Developmentkvmmission h determined to approach this section as a document that ,:0,11'd closely41,6011:eittk, believe:. e City should do in terms of economic development, and :this resulted in many' yt -`.; tate: ;ents contained in the first part of the document, "Communit`� coo Goals." ' , �` 1-1106 141, Economic Development Coordinator Carroll explained ggAgi next section of the document "Priorities for Economic Development Decisions," was f ebaf t " gard to whether or not they should list the priorities in order. He noted, as this was would"1cu]t and time-consuming process, it was recommended that they utilize bullet `oint. The stayer on •provides a list of the Economic Development Commission's highest M' collectively. „,kr. 14461.0aftwOr Economic Development Coordinator Carroll state"the.>s r :sc#ion, "Resources to Support .sem '=:�:� <x;::;r�.��,�.�t` Economic Development" is a list of the present assets and re urces of the City that would assist or promote Economic Development. ittf Economic Development Coordinator Carrollstated the`last section of the document, "Economic sw:AntlawDevelopme t Challenges, w' *:ghly debated . i the Economic Development Commission members =:.ne> d sever : rots had'comeTar ard, however, the ultimate consensus was to provide r ':`<`"tnthe p 4` >'of economic development within the City. He explained x:'.. ... p ,.: >«< «� 4: p � ���:-�<« ... that this section pert in 'to e current r p s ls, and was included in order to make the document more proactive, andlEiNtette to thellOittici general, that the challenges exist, and the Economic Developme t : opis 1 *Atts to constructively address these issues. Economic Developmentcoord`nator Carroll commented that the Economic Development Co < ssion had spent s e ,eight monthly meetings discussing the Economic Section, and the d•Att ent presently before the Planning Commission is the best culmination of those efforts. i ssioner Mil ; ointed out there were several references to Highway 10 contained in the • e ; t:Otiuired clarification. Coo •i : `it Carroll stated there appeared to be some confusion regarding this road. He stated in earlier drafts they had referred to the road as US Highway 10, which it was at one time, then they had references to County Road 10 or County 10, and had decided to omit those. He stated "Highway 10" was somewhat generic at present, and it would be helpful if the County and City could agree upon what the road will be called. He stated in his opinion, it would ultimately be called County Highway 10. He noted the document would go through several processes of review by the Economic Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 11 IIDevelopment Authority, the City Council and other bodies. He explained, at the point it is submitted to the Metropolitan Council, and they can be certain of what the road will be called, it can be amended appropriately. Commissioner Kaden noted the signage of I-35W had been changed to indicate that.,the road was County 10. Economic Development Coordinator Carroll stated there would probabl' :e no harm in adding the word"County" before the references to Highway 10, and if t s ani in the future it can be amended at that time. ; A. 't :' a�,,> Vis. ,.., , ,A, Commissioner Berke stated it appeared the documentpertains priml tot. ylopmet6f businesses. He inquired if there were any ideas brought forward regarding what they wo dude<= the mss:., •� �: :::;:�:: future in terms of the residential development and the deepmetf`of Mounds Vi'ess : e. Economic Development Coordinator Carroll stated this was: yt :pic of debate at the Economic Development Commission level. He stated two viewpointswe ` >rou t.forward, one was that his position, Economic Development Coordinator should deal exclusi ely with business and industry. He stated another viewpoint was that anything thatl o f t _tes to the th'&%9ItiFC3i of the community is economic development. He explained they ha:: <attemptedo strike a ance in this regard. He ov pointed out that the second and third paragraphs on <:.ge I of he do Zment contain references to residential housing. `" ,,,..„,,r Commissioner Berke stated he had no this, Weyer,vever, thetest of the document appears to address IIIbusiness, and not residential develc ent. ;::: ,. --t.,' ''''''' Commissioneaube commithe would_3 k€ r.Lto e'more mention of residential development in the secti s`t er than justsine . He noted 'a ' ncrement Financing and other funding sources were in • . . et t on for residentialdevelopment, as well as the fact that much of the property in Mounds Vie q is l r y developedy s b siness. He stated they should attempt to redevelop some of the areas, however, t ey should'cla tempt to develop the residential areas of the City. Commiss'o i r Berke co r i tthe city of Richfield appeared to be doing much in both residential and b siess areas, and ingt 'fhe City of Mounds View had similar plans, or was only going to pur - the' business development. itt .0f ,:t *mic DevelopmentCoordinator Carroll pointed out that this document was a Comprehensive ' date, and there';ire other portions of the Comprehensive Plan, which would pertain specifically Oiti :m '> e commented that former Building Inspector Steve Dorgan had done some work in : =.= d at one point, provided the Economic Development Commission members with a dra` 'oftfitIousing component of the Comprehensive Plan. Economic Development Coordinator Carroll stated it was necessary for the Economic Development Commission to determine what their work should be. He explained that in his opinion, and the opinion of a majority of the Economic Development Commission members, they exist not so much iito advise the City with regard to residential development, but primarily with the business and industry Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 12 component, and as this was their purview, it should be reflected in the Economic Development section of the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested if the issue of housing was going to be addressed in the Comprehensive Update, it should be addressed by the Planning Commission, based upon staff's research regarding the City's short and long term residential plans. He added if they were to consider including more of the residential housing issues, this might necessitate changing 4.41s section to "Economic and Housing Development Section," and would require they.start at*beginning,beginning, to determine how much housing development should be incorporated into t : docent. Economic Development Coordinator Carroll stated he bested there ou t! ;. fair amount f housinginformation in the final Comprehensive Guide p . l�: u date, �f�f . was w should this information originate. He acknowledged tha i"> is was an rrnportailikek. .Vatigi5 ,,,,„:„., ,,..„, 31, Commissioner Berke stated he had brought this forward t of Tax Increment Financing, and concerns among the residents that it assists the City with their' e:velopment, but does not necessarily reduce the tax base for the residents. He explained that bcreasinh ` esidential development and redevelopment, they are actually providing tax relief to the residents't 1 t ey`are producing higher property taxes, which is of benefit to the residents. .':AA ' '"` < `} :x_.`.: te Community Development Director Jopke:� t4Wv- ated ui ;` hey., ould have to look at the Comprehensive plan in entirety, to determine how itti flects ogoals and needs of the community. He added he believed it would address gis issue. Te explained to Housing section addresses the ATV AW IN housing issues of the community, and of ere areAreas that Alould be emphasized, this can be done, and consolidated into the Plan. �} �:;:::. h F At A <"I.ak ae�" i�\\,k::°';k'r"f,°�S`ro'i�y...t'� ` Commissioner;Hegland incf 'the Comprehensive Plan would weigh the issues of residential versus business:: pd industrial,de elopment l,. ::}stated he was concerned in that there is list of the Economic} e o� ±�ent C irns to 3;s priorities for development, but there are also priorities for residential de . ' :>.,:'t and hd`°°;,,.:.�' lthey balance these priorities in cost versus benefit analysis to the City. *h ' •t1u I' 0-veli•u= a'`. 3":: • .a. - .rated-this w-as-a-good-point. He-explained that ty-pieally 4, N'atif07 the "'prehensive Plan 1' #div tied i C=. nto sections, and each of those sections address the goals presented for the City. ;$ issioner Laube« ded this was document was one division of the Comprehensive Plan, aa° en e r, it is the economic development section, and the Comprehensive Plan and zoning of s �, Vial's. He explained that this section would indicate that economic development is "'i. evelopment, unless some other area of the Comprehensive plan addresses the issue of re dear housing, which is important in the balance of the development of the City as a whole. He added that this document otherwise sets the priorities presented therein, as the priority in the hierarchy. Community Development Director Jopke explained the Comprehensive Plan does not set a hierarchy, it simply indicates what the goals, objectives, and policy are in these specific areas. He noted the Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 13 Land Use Plan, which sets an overall tone for land use, however, there are other individual sections that the Council looks to, regarding specific projects and ways to implement them. Commissioner Berke inquired if this was s Community Development Director Jopke's experience with other cities. Community Development Director Jopke stated it was, however, this did snot mean that the issue did not merit clarification. Commissioner Stevenson stated the way that it is presente the C `' in : j : nsive Plan, and the information it contains, he did not see where this document>N:•akes an'': statement that econo ;.- development =1:x z: :<>: .; has any priority. A Economic Development Coordinator Carroll stated the Ec 0elopment CorilaSihad not intended the document to appear this way. He explained thefna t amprehensive Plan ''pdate would address many different issues, adding that if it makes ref rei 't honstructing a water tower or improving a park, this would not imply that this should tatcf.pril410140ball other things. He stated the fact that the Economic Development Commission has a sectionjd e s not imply that it takes priority. He noted it is for the City Council and theAgt*DevelopOSVAilkhoritythe to decide how the money is allocated. He reiterated this document . ' t : `ell as a gei1'guide in regard to what the Economic Development Commission beliefs should b `t c ne. -Ie pminted out the document will be submitted to the Economic Development< uthorit ..£and tht geabbncil for review, and they may decide to change it, however, the Economic Deelopmencmmission has done its part as an II advisory body. ` AP 4 IV 41% • Commissioner Miller stated she quite.4pressed=tth the document. She stated it was not lengthy, {`:.; A:�..� k` 3y?:?.,.. ���' . .tea. >�. k. �;���� :: ho Fryer, it contains ; ;ch infor "o:'�Y t'r`>:. Commutif V:illgptORment Director J ke stated that the Economic Development Commission and Kevin Caro 1 ejh.a very° ; d.>.. �:>:r� preparing this document and commended them on their k efforts. : '::::.? zr*Faaltita . 'kW" ChairpersonPeterson St to t it .s a ve .00d and concise statement of what needed to be done and sh'uld be viewed in the ntext of the whole Comprehensive Plan. He added that further refer'::n ting of the reside tiaj issues contained within the document would clarify the issue of ri:0;::ntial developmentconomic Development Coordinator Carroll stated that there could be i!:.'''' .1 cross-reference. to the residential development issues within the document. it .: n.....'eters.n stated that certain areas within the City will need assistance in terms of r=� . °. , . and this document provides some good guidelines for helping that along. C. Previous Council Actions Community Director Jopke reported on previous Council action from their meeting on September II 13. He stated the Council held First Reading of Ordinance 639, which pertains to conditional uses within the R-4 and R-5 Zoning Districts. He noted there was approval of a Wetland Buffer Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 14 Permit for the property located at 6991 Pleasant View Drive, which was purchased by the City for the Housing Replacement Program. He stated the Council approved a resolution denying the Wetland Alteration Permit for Oakwood Land Development. He added there was Second Reading and adoption of the Ordinance to rezone 2670 County Road I, from B-2 to R-4 for the MSP senior residential assisted living development, as well as the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for that request. OP AttikCommunity Development Director Jopke reported that the Council ga '� >:Reading approval � � and conducted the public hearing for the ordinance to create, gage sta<t .;; a, e PF and C Zoning District. He explained he had discussed this matt vvith the C': ;A ` , : : o expressed some concern regarding the language pertaining to signa:;:.. :t':relatin e s eci . a e flit site, and was uncertain how this language might affect g aspect, if the' t.; : :��e ..:o move forward in that regard. He stated, however, they have c ` luded that these are wo separate issues, moving along two separate paths. `"`Ati-h.:.: :; <� .. Community Development Director Jopke commented he had dis8V*iphtdiscussed ;potential spot zoning issue with the City Attorney, in terms of allowingbill ds of City'p .per He explained this might raise a concern among private landowner the £ ,o not have t "same benefit as the City in terms of revenue generation. He stated he ha ` orw d,a copy of the draft ordinance to the City Attorney who would be reviewing�.>it and providing< inion in this regard. sirA WO Community Development Director Jif AC e statedhe City Attorney had concluded there is no restriction in the deed, which would°prohibit billboards ate golf course. He explained the deed indicates that what goes on the property mu : ,ve:a.::�ublic purpose, and billboards would have a public ur �. .�� ���� >�:�r,,.:�::�. :,.><�'' p P ) p p l: in terms of r . e generati>. ` eht reduction at the golf course. He stated the City ;•.t iey,is comfortable at this c 614113e defined as apublic purpose. P p D. ;p ioming Planning: 'es vator Planning As « t is noted te next meeting of the Planning Commission, there would _ : . ebe c.n .v.,;',7.'• , . . e® o.. . . . . .' '•... _ .e P-ermit-te-allow-f-oi-an-ever-sized-shed-as well as an at 'ication from 1, $;`e :=state for a Site Plan Review for the assisted living facility at 267S Younty Road I. „.,' ' i;?''' ng Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission would begin to see a number of a, ces, some whip clarify the Zoning Code, as they attempt to work through some of the i.., * ;. st >”>e added that once the Comprehensive Plan has been forwarded to the City At 10:.::Ovnt begin to review the Sign Code, in entirety, and it is hoped that the issues will be ad.'e -."during the winter, after the Commissioners caseloads have decreased. 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Report Commissioner Stevenson reported that he had received a publication from Ramsey County, "Friends of St. Paul and Ramsey County Parks," which briefly addresses the billboards within Ramsey County. 11 Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 15 He stated the article indicates that neighboring communities, either have a moratorium in place, or ban billboards. He suggested the Commission keep in mind that these communities are not allowing additional billboards, during their contemplation of the billboard issues. No other reports were considered. Adjournment :r "OW -.\> ' MW T ere being no further business before the Planning Commi Actinghl - r adjourned ti .,,,,,- meetingat 8:06 p.m. tat AO" Notimiguki.1.• (The meeting immediately adjourned to tt* :gen.deSession) NIIINTV *WOW i .£ • Respectfully submitted .: ; <0 Rick Jopke .� :"n: A .. CommunityDevelopment Directorf Air Transcribed by: <sr „� ,- 6Trish Pearson AI °N°� AN TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. '', . . lf <.A A. OY kt, .00c Adopvm frz '.e;... �:”>xc:^tE<> '*'&''sem N:\DATA . '% A! :B\S t' \WPDOCS\MINUTES\1999\09-15-99.WPD ...., h.- s"F <y