Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-25-2007 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 25, 2007 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order Chair Stevenson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. July 25, 2007. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chair Stevenson, Commissioners Cramblit, Gunn, Lang, Meehlhause, Miller, and Walsh-Kaczmarek Absent and Excused: None Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson and Planning Associate Heller Index to Minutes Page Planning Case CU2007-00 and VR2007-001; Consideration of a Conditional Use 2 Permit for an Oversized Garage and a Variance for Garage Width to Exceed 35 Feet at 8290 Sunnyside Road. Planning Case MA2007-00; Review Preliminary Plat for 8184 Eastwood and 5 8211 Red Oak Drive Discussion of Allowable Zoning District Locations for Massage Therapy 7 Comprehensive Plan 2008 Update 9 3. Approve Minutes A. June 6, 2007 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Gunn/Commissioner Miller to approve the June 6, 2007 meeting minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting presented. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission July 25, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None 5. Planning Cases A. Planning Case CU2007-004 and VR2007-001; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage and a Variance for Garage Width to Exceed 35 Feet at 8290 Sunnyside Road. Planning Associate Heller summarized the application requesting a conditional use permit for an oversized garage and a variance for the garage width to exceed 35 feet. She reported the applicants would like to add a 22’x24’ addition to the east side of the existing garage. She stated the current garage is 32 feet wide, 24 feet deep, totaling 768 square feet. She indicated that with the new addition the garage would be 54 feet wide and 24 feet deep with a total square footage of 1,296. Planning Associate Heller pointed out the plot plan submitted indicates a garage area in excess of what is allowed without a conditional use permit. She explained that accessory buildings, attached or detached, are limited to 952 square feet; therefore, anything beyond 952 square feet must go through the conditional use permit application process. She stated oversize garages are limited to 35 feet wide, and anything beyond that width must go through the variance process. Planning Associate Heller stated the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as low-density residential. She reported all setback requirements would be satisfied with this request. Planning Associate Heller explained the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address any potential adverse effects which include, but are not limited to, relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use. Planning Associate Heller explained the garage would be expanded so the applicant could store their vehicles indoors. She stated this would be a benefit to the neighborhood and in keeping with the comprehensive plan to improve the quality, appearance, and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. Planning Associate Heller stated the home is located on the north end of Sunnyside Road, setback further than the neighboring homes, and on a wooded lot. She indicated that during the summer months, the house and garage are not visible from the street and during the winter, only the east end of the garage might be slightly visible through the trees. She stated the proposed oversized garage would not be noticeable or out of place in the neighborhood, nor should it affect any neighboring properties. Planning Associate Heller stated the proposed garage would benefit the applicant’s property providing additional on site, indoor parking and storage, and by increasing the property value. Mounds View Planning Commission July 25, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ She indicated the applicants own recreational vehicles as well as a few regular vehicles, and they would like to store the vehicles indoors and out of sight Planning Associate Heller stated Sunnyside Road is entirely single family residential. She indicated the homes in this area are a variety of styles and ages and most have large lots. She stated the proposed garage would not be out of character in this area since the garage is placed sideways on the lot and the extra width would not be seen from the street. She mentioned this property is about 256 feet deep, so the new garage should not affect any neighbors. She stated the expanded garage would not change the current front look of the house. Planning Associate Heller reported that a variance is also required for this request because the garage would exceed 35 feet in width. She explained that if the area of the garage were 952 square feet or less, there would be no limit on the width. She explained that for a variance to be considered for approval, the applicant must demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Planning Associate Heller reported exceptional or extraordinary circumstances did apply to the property located on Sunnyside Road as it was one of the first homes built in the area in 1938. She stated the garage was built well before the applicants bought the property in 1996, and was placed near the south property line facing sideways, rather than facing the street like most other garages in the city. Planning Associate Heller reported the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in that most garages are not set on the lot sideways, which allows property owners to expand their garages to the rear and not exceed the 35 foot width limit. She stated that due to the garage sitting sideways and being located approximately 14 feet from the side property line, the applicants have limited options. Planning Associate Heller reported the special conditions or circumstances did not result from the actions of the applicant in that Mr. Clemons and Ms. O’Donovan had no control over the placement of the garage on the lot. Planning Associate Heller reported that granting the variance would not confer on the applicant any special privilege because most property owners are not limited in such a way in order to expand their garages. Planning Associate Heller stated the requested 19-foot variance is the minimum amount necessary to alleviate the applicant’s hardship. She stated economic conditions did not enter into the need for a variance in this case. Planning Associate Heller reported the variance requested would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Code or to other properties in the vicinity. She stated the spirit and intent of the Code would be preserved. Mounds View Planning Commission July 25, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Planning Associate Heller stated the proposed garage should not have any impact on the supply of light or air to adjacent properties, nor should it impact congestion of streets. She indicated the proposed addition would not increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety or decrease property values in the neighborhood. Planning Associate Heller reported Staff received one letter of support from the neighbor to the north. She stated staff received a phone call from another neighbor indicating she had no problem with the garage expansion and is thankful for how well they take care of the property. She did ask if a pine tree would be removed, and commented on the propane tank possibly being moved. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek asked where the driveway came onto the property and if the driveway was paved. Planning Associate Heller replied the driveway enters from the east and runs along the north side of the lot. The entire drive is paved except for a small area in front of the garage. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek asked the location of the propane tank. Planning Associate Heller replied it is next to the garage and in view of the neighbor. She stated the propane tank could possibly be moved, or the applicant had indicated that another section of privacy fencing could be put up. Chair Stevenson stated the location of the current garage alleviated his concerns about approving this application. He did not see any potential commercial use of this garage as an issue. He stated the expansion made sense to him. Commissioner Miller stated she looked at the property and had no problem approving this request. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Meehlhause/Commissioner Lang to approve Resolution No. 870-07, a resolution recommending approval for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a 1,296 square foot Garage and approving a Variance for a 54-foot wide garage at 8290 Sunnyside Road; Planning Case Nos. CU2007-004 and V2007-001. Commissioner Miller made minor grammatical corrections to the resolution. She commented she was glad to see the resolution included a statement disallowing the use for commercial purposes, living spaces, or other uses restricted by the code. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. B. Planning Case MA2007-002; Review Preliminary Plat for 8184 Eastwood and 8211 Red Oak Drive Community Development Director Ericson summarized the request by Abiding Savior Lutheran Church, the owner of 8184 Eastwood Road, a 50,965 square foot residential parcel improved Mounds View Planning Commission July 25, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Randy Heltzer, 8180 Eastwood, expressed concerns over the utilities. He asked the Commission to follow the utility codes and require the utility work be completed now rather than when the Church decides to turn the property into a housing development. with a one-story home and attached single-stall garage. He stated the parcel is adjacent to the Church’s 6.31-acre tract of land addressed at 8211 Red Oak Drive. Director Ericson reported the Church submitted a major subdivision application to split the home and 16,025 square feet from the Eastwood Road parcel, attaching the remaining 34,940 square feet to the larger Church property located at 8211 Red Oak Drive. He explained that because of the proposed subdivision, the total acreage of the Red Oak Drive parcel would increase from 6.31 acres to 7.12 acres. Director Ericson reminded the Commission that in December 2006, the Church requested approval of a minor subdivision of the property located at 8184 Eastwood Road. He reported the City Council ultimately denied the request finding the proposal could not be considered as a minor subdivision due to the acreage involved. He reported the Council’s resolution of denial was approved on February 12, 2007. Director Ericson displayed the plat and pointed out the proposed subdivision of 8184 Eastwood Road. He reported the Church has submitted the necessary title commitment, which has been forwarded to the City Attorney for review. He stated the Church had previously expressed a desire to develop a senior residential facility on the property; however, the requested subdivision does nothing to further this goal. He explained that plat approval would allow the church to sell off the residential parcel. Director Ericson explained the subdivision requirements, possible park dedication fees, easements, utilities, public notice, and the deadline for action of this request. Director Ericson stated staff recommends the Planning Commission favorably consider a recommendation for approval for City Council consideration. Commissioner Miller pointed out minor grammatical corrections to the resolution. Chair Stevenson clarified that the Planning Commission is basically approving an address change. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek asked how deep lot two would become. Director Ericson replied 177 feet. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek questioned to whom the fence belonged. Director Ericson referred to the plat and pointed out the lot lines. He indicated the fence would become part of the Church property after the subdivision. Chair Stevenson invited the public to speak on this request. Mounds View Planning Commission July 25, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ uilt, this did not happen. He stated he assumed Xcel would place utilities underground if development occurred. He stated the church had no plans to cut down the utility pole or restrict electricity. s at d look at fees playground or to place a picnic table. He stated this allows the Church to parcel off ent Mr. Gary Cox , 2650 County Road H2 and representing Abiding Savior Church, replied the utilities were supposed to be on the lot line; however, when the house was b Director Ericson drew the location of the overhead power lines on the plat. He stated Xcel currently has an easement for the power lines. He stated there is no need to make any change this point. r. Heltzer asked if his power would be disrupted once development did come in. M Director Ericson replied Xcel is required by law to relocate the lines. He stated there would be no disruption of services. He stated the cost would be the responsibility of the developer. Chair Stevenson began the discussion of park dedication fees, stating the City shoul f ten percent of 35,000 square feet. o Commissioner Miller commented this subdivision would have no impact on the park system; erefore, she could see no reason to collect park dedication fees. th Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission does not take action on park dedication fees; owever, there was a request from the Council to discuss this fee. h Commissioner Meehlhause asked if the park dedication would be a one-time fee, or would the hurch have to pay them again if a new development happened. c Director Ericson replied that if a re-subdivision occurred, previous fees would be taken into ccount. a Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek commented if this is not an incremental step towards the ousing project, why is it being done. h Director Ericson commented the Church intends to use the 35,000 square feet whether it be green ace or a sp the house and 16,000 square feet in order to sell it. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek commented the goal of the City is to encourage improvem housing properties. in Commissioner Gunn stated this is no different from any other property owner with a large lot wanting to subdivide. Director Ericson stated the land value becomes attached to the Red Oak property. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek stated that from a tax perspective, the City loses that tax. Mounds View Planning Commission July 25, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ irector Ericson replied that is true, the Church is a non-taxable entity. He stated that since the ing ard times in the 1970’s. He stated this is an opportunity to buy back some property. Commissioner Gunn stated her issue with the park dedication fee is that nothing is being built on mmercial or residential e to do the park stated park dedication fees are triggered by a subdivision. He stated if there ND: Commissioner Miller/Commissioner Cramblit, to approve Resolution No. D lot could not be built upon it would be taxed accordingly. Mr. Pete Sargent also representing the church, mentioned the Church had to sell property dur h the lot; the church is simply dividing the property. hair Stevenson stated park dedication fees are placed on coC development. r. Sargent stated any building or improvement to the lot would be assessed in the future ifM development occurs. He asked that park dedication fees be imposed at that time rather than now. hair Stevenson asked if development happened, would that be the proper timC dedication fee. irector EricsonD were a re-subdivision in the future, a fee would be attached at that time. he Planning Commission reached consensus to recommend that a park dedication fee not be T imposed. OTION/SECOM 871-07; a Resolution recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat for the Abiding Savior Major Subdivision; Mounds View Planning Case No. MA07-002. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Director Ericson indicated this item would be presented at the August 13, 2007 City Council eeting. M 6. Other Planning Activity Community Development Director Ericson summarized the history of zoning for massage therapy. He stated the reason staff is once again raising this issue for discussion is to resolve the mission made when the ordinance was first adopted to establish appropriate zoning districts h licensed massage therapy businesses might operate. He explained that over the years, the City has received many inquiries from individuals interested in opening a massage therapy business and from residents asking about massage therapy as a home occupation. A. Discussion of Allowable Zoning District Locations for Massage Therapy o within whic Mounds View Planning Commission July 25, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ assage therapy could be treated relative to the zoning code. He stated it could be allowed with a conditional use permit, but given that similar type uses are already permit tor), aff feels Therapeutic Massage would be an appropriate use therein. He stated since there are ty” or Medical and Dental Clinic,” both of which are permitted uses in the B2 district.) Code ommendation would be forwarded to the City Council for rdinance approval. led in surrounding communities. irector Ericson explained a conditional use permit does not expire; however, it could be d not the user. located. irector Ericson stated a CUP includes specific conditions that must be met for approval. ommissioner Meehlhause stated therapeutic massage is similar to a chiropractic business. ommissioner Gunn commented therapeutic massage is an acceptable occupation. She stated ity Director Ericson described how m ted in the B2 zoning district (Health and Beauty, Medical, Dental, Chiroprac st extensive licensing provisions already in place in Chapter 514, requiring a conditional use permit (CUP) is probably unnecessary. Director Ericson informed the Commission it had two choices. He stated the Planning Commission could make an interpretation of the Zoning Code and decide that therapeutic massage would fall under the heading of another listed use (such as “Health and Beau “ interpretations are permanently kept on file and are often incorporated into subsequent Code updates. He stated the Planning Commission could instead determine that the therapeutic massage business is sufficiently dissimilar from other listed uses and recommend a Code Amendment to add the use to an appropriate zoning district. Director Ericson stated the rec o Commissioner Miller commented it could be interpreted as a home business. Director Ericson replied it would not be a permitted use in a residential district. Chair Stevenson asked how other communities handled therapeutic massage. Director Ericson explained how therapeutic massage was hand Commissioner Miller asked if a conditional use permit expired yearly. D reviewed yearly. He stated a conditional use permit goes with the property an Chair Stevenson asked if the CUP designates where the massage therapy could be D C C they must be certified and licensed and should be treated accordingly. Director Ericson recommended that the right way to correct this would be to add it to the C Code with an ordinance. Commissioner Miller pointed out that therapeutic massage is mentioned in Chapter 514. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 25, 2007 Page 9 Director Ericson stated no zoning district exists where it is permitted, which is the catch 22 situation that exists. The Planning Commission directed staff to draft an ordinance for consideration at the next Planning Commission meeting. B. Comprehensive Plan Update Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that the first meeting of the Comprehensive Plan Task Force was held on July 18, 2007. She stated the task force reviewed the existing comp plan and what their goals were. She stated the task force would meet monthly on Wednesday evenings for about one year, and the next meeting was scheduled for August 29, 2007. 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. August 8, 2007 B. August 22, 2007 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:28 p.m. ARspectT[171 submitted, 11m Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Dianna Wise pra MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: —7��5 (,� a'7 Name Address Phone 76 6 �F l le � G�� uo �`�o s , �� ?�� ? 717— c/P/ i