Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-15-2006 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting February 15, 2006 New Brighton City Hall 803 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Miller at 7:00 p.m. on February 15, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Hull, and Meehlhause. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Stevenson and Scotch. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson Planning Associate Heidi Heller ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case DE2006-001. Consideration of a Development Review for an Expansion of C.G. Hill & Sons Building, 5150 Quincy Street, Tim Hill of C.G. Hill & Sons 2 Planning Case PA2005-001. Reconsideration of the Belting PUD Amendment Relative to Parking, 5360 Edgewood Drive, Dr. Greg Belting 4 ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes January 18, 2006. MOTION/SECOND: Meehlhause/Hull. To approve the Minutes of the January 18, 2006 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission February 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5A. Planning Case DE2006-001. Consideration of a Development Review for an expansion of C.G. Hill & Sons Building, 5150 Quincy Street, Tim Hill of C.G. Hill & Sons Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that applicant and property owner Tim Hill is requesting a development review for a proposed 16,150 square foot building addition at 5150 Quincy Street to be added onto the east side of his existing building. This expansion would increase the building size by approximately 50 percent. C.G. Hill has been located in Mounds View since 1994 and is a growing company. This expansion would help the company continue to be competitive in their market along with being able to add a new assembly line to their facility. Planning Associate Heller presented the staff report, noting the property is zoned PUD and in this area there are commercial and industrial uses. The building was constructed in 1994 and it was planned for a future expansion in this location when the original building was designed. She explained that the business has now grown and the applicant is in need of more space. There are currently 79 parking stalls and they can construct 11 more, if needed, for a total of 90 spaces. Planning Associate Heller explained that with a PUD, the City has flexibility on the parking requirements. The applicant currently has 48 employees and they have indicated that they have had no problem with not having enough parking spaces. The back few rows are usually empty and are often used by semitrucks while the drivers eat at the nearby restaurants. The applicant plans to add only a few more employees in the future so parking shouldn’t be an issue. Planning Associate Heller advised that the building would expand to within 32 feet of the east property line. Industrial districts typically have a setback requirement of 40 feet so this building would be 8 feet short of that setback. But this is part of the original 1994 building plans and again, the PUD zoning allows for flexibility. She noted that with the new expansion, the rear of the building will move closer to the back of the Bethlehem Church building. Staff feels that this will not be a problem. Planning Associate Heller stated staff recommends the Planning Commission consider adoption of Resolution 826-06 recommending approval of the plan submitted by Mr. Hill. Tim Hill, applicant, explained that the company has grown to a size where additional building space is now needed. Commissioner Zwirn asked if there is an anticipated increase in employees. Mr. Hill advised that they have added nine employees this past year, which resulted in growth beyond the existing building. He stated they might hire another six to ten employees over next eight to ten years. Mounds View Planning Commission February 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ______________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn asked if they will construct more bays for delivery. Mr. Hill explained they have no access to the side or rear of the building so they are not able to add more garage doors. Trucks pull all the way into the building to unload. Commissioner Zwirn asked if they anticipate no increase in truck traffic. Mr. Hill stated that is correct. Vice Chair Miller asked what kind of work the company does. Mr. Hill reviewed the types of machinery lines they manufacture. Vice Chair Miller asked how long they think the building project will take. Mr. Hill stated they would like to start construction this spring and think it will be completed mid-summer. Commissioner Hegland asked if this addition is part of the original PUD. Mr. Hill answered in the affirmative and stated that C.G. Hill is his grandfather. He explained that they didn’t want to build too big too fast with the initial construction of the building, but wanted the possibility to add on in the future. He noted that electrical and plumbing were roughed in for the future expansion when the building was first built so they are asking to do what they originally planned to do in 1994. Vice Chair Miller asked whether the draft resolution should mention that this expansion is part of the original plan. Community Development Director Ericson stated it could be added as part of the record regarding this property. He suggested the draft resolution be amended to add another WHEREAS indicating the proposed expansion is consistent with the original PUD, which indicated the footprint of the expanded area. Consensus was reached to add this modification. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Zwirn. To approve the amended Resolution 826-06, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Development Review for a 16,150 Square Foot Addition to the C.G. Hill Building; Planning Case DE2006-001. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Director Ericson advised that this recommendation would be on the City Council agenda on February 27, 2006 ______________________________________________________________________________ 5B. Planning Case PA2005-001. Reconsideration of the Belting PUD Amendment Relative to Parking, 5360 Edgewood Drive, Dr. Greg Belting. Community Development Director Ericson informed the Commission that this is a request to take a second look at Dr. Belting’s PUD to allow for a 8,300 square foot office building between Mounds View Planning Commission February 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 ______________________________________________________________________________ the Community Center and Walgreens. He noted the indication about parking and the need for deficient parking to be utilized on excess area next door on the Walgreens site. That is what was contemplated when the Walgreens PUD was approved. Director Ericson read from the Walgreens PUD narrative regarding cross access parking. He advised, however, that after several meetings with Walgreens, Dr. Belting has been unsuccessful in gaining that access agreement. Director Ericson stated it is understandable that Walgreens does not want to give up part of their parking lot for overflow parking. He explained that Dr. Belting approached the City Council to ask if they would allow for overflow parking on the Community Center parking lot and received the same response; the City Council did not want to encumber the Community Center site with parking from another site. However, the City Council agreed there were conditions on the property that warranted a second look since it was intended that there would be a cross access agreement, but that did not happen. Director Ericson stated the City knows people will park where they want whether there is an agreement or not. The original agreement showed 43 parking stalls and that is what the Planning Commission had recommended and the City Council approved. Director Ericson explained staff is recommending a further amendment to the PUD agreement to allow a parking ratio that is consistent with 43 parking stalls. The resolution drafted for the Commission’s consideration would change the parking requirements to one stall for 200 square feet of gross floor area. That equals 42 parking stalls and Dr. Belting is providing 43 parking stalls, which would be consistent with the requirement. Director Ericson noted this is a PUD so there is flexibility to allow for changes in parking ratios, dimensions, and setbacks. This is something that the Planning Commission has considered in the past. Director Ericson referenced the staff report information highlighting two past requests, Zep Manufacturing on Coral Sea Street and the Minnesota Institute of Public Health building on County Road 10, which received a similar parking consideration. Director Ericson stated the draft resolution is before the Planning Commission for consideration. He noted that both Dr. and his brother Tom Belting are in attendance and can answer any questions the Commission may have. Director Ericson explained if the Planning Commission feels it needs to hold firm to the parking requirements, the building could be modified to cut off the southwest corner of the building, maybe 400 square feet, which would open space to create more parking spaces and be consistent with the 50 stall requirement. That is not staff’s preferred option or Belting’s preferred option. Dr. Belting is requesting modification of the PUD and staff recommends approval of that request. Commissioner Hegland asked about the two examples referenced in the staff report. Director Ericson explained that both examples are at 1 space per 250 square feet instead of 1 space per 200 square feet. Commissioner Hegland noted this request is then less than the previous two that were modified. Director Ericson stated that is correct. Mounds View Planning Commission February 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ______________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Greg Belting, applicant, stated he is now the owner of the property and felt the original easements intended in November of 2000 would hold true. However, since that time, there was a change in owners of the Walgreens property. He clarified that the local Walgreens management has not been disagreeable so it is not a local management issue. It is a Walgreens, Inc. issue. Dr. Belting advised that they are ready to go with the 8,300 square foot building that has already been approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District. He explained he is a chiropractor and there will be one additional doctor plus two other employees. So, if they are very busy, they may use nine parking stalls. Dr. Belting stated they think that 43 stalls will be ample parking. Commissioner Hegland asked whether there will be other tenants. Dr. Belting explained the extra space will be sold, not rented, but they have not yet found other tenants. He informed the Commission that strictly retail is prohibited on the property so the other tenants may be a title company, realtor, attorney, accountant, or dentist type of uses. It will not be a fast food use. Commissioner Hegland asked how much space the applicant will use. Dr. Belting advised they will use one-third of the space. Tom Belting, applicant, thanked the Planning Commission for their consideration. He stated they saw the cross easement documentation that was executed in 2000. They have talked to the local Walgreens manager who has indicated they have no problem with overflow parking in their lot. Tom Belting explained that they also need to amend the Walgreens agreement on square footage. Vice Chair Miller stated she does not know how there could be enough parking for a restaurant on this site. Dr. Belting explained it was the intention for a restaurant with cross parking easements but a restaurant didn’t go in and then the owners of the property changed as well. Commissioner Zwirn noted staff had stated that the Walgreens PUD contained a stipulation saying they would comply with cross usage. He asked how they can negate that even if there was a change in ownership. Director Ericson explained that they did execute a reciprocal easement agreement, however, there is nothing in the executed agreement to allow for shared cross access parking. Director Ericson stated staff has talked with the Beltings about this and questioned whether it is worth the time to try to rectify that issue at this point. He stated he cannot say how that was allowed or whether it was conducted without the City’s knowledge. The City received notification that the document was executed and recorded, but it was not until the Beltings reviewed it that it was found the documentation did not include the parking. It was the City’s understanding that would be part of the documentation. Commissioner Zwirn stated he understands this is the easiest route to take and asked whether it should have been caught by the attorney. Director Ericson stated it probably should have. Vice Chair Miller asked how many businesses could be accommodated. Dr. Belting explained that the building is set up to have a total of three or four additional tenants. If someone buys the Mounds View Planning Commission February 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 ______________________________________________________________________________ two middle units together, then there would be three owners. Otherwise, there will be a total of four owners. Vice Chair Miller noted there should not be a requirement for a lot of extra parking. Tom Belting stated they don’t anticipate a need for extra parking and pointed out that the building is not directly on County Road 10. Commissioner Zwirn pointed out that Beltings are operating in good faith and in a situation where they relied on information provided to them. Now, because of an error, they cannot rectify the problem without this process. He stated he supports adoption of the resolution and to allow the project to go forward. Commissioner Hegland asked whether the resolution should be amended to indicate the number of parking spaces. Director Ericson stated the resolution can explicitly state the requirement is 43 stalls and then round up to 1 per 200 feet. He suggested the “Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved” paragraph be amended to indicate: …“one space per 200 square feet of office space (43 stalls)” ratio and recommends approval of said amendment.” Vice Chair Miller asked staff to place her name on the last page of the resolution for signature. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Meehlhause. To approve amended Resolution 827-06, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Planned Unit Development Amendment Relating to Parking Requirements for the Walgreens PUD; Planning Case No. PA2005-001. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity Community Development Director Ericson informed the Commission that the Council invites the Planning Commission to attend a joint workshop of the Council and Commission on Monday, March 20, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. He explained the Council is holding joint planning sessions with all Boards and Commissions to be sure everyone is on track with the same goals and mission. The City Council would like to get the Planning Commission’s opinion on various issues and is looking at charting the path for economic development into the future. This is one means to seek out the Commission’s opinion. Director Ericson stated he understands one Commissioner cannot attend the meeting but it may be difficult to find a date that works for everyone. If this date works for a majority of the Planning Commissioners, he would like to keep this date with the City Council. Otherwise, staff will work on a secondary date. Commissioner Meehlhause stated at first he thought he would be unable to attend, but may have some scheduling flexibility and be able to attend. Mounds View Planning Commission February 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ______________________________________________________________________________ Vice Chair Miller asked if more than one Commission will be meeting with the City Council on that date. Director Ericson explained that from 6-7:00 p.m., the Council will meet with the Cable Commission. Then from 7-8:00 p.m. the Council will meet with the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Miller asked the Planning Commissioners to place that date on their calendar. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings A. March 1, 2006 – location to be determined B. March 15, 2006 at New Brighton City Hall Planning Associate Heller advised that there are no planning cases to consider on March 1, 2006 so staff recommends that the meeting be canceled. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Meehlhause. To cancel the March 1, 2006 since there are no planning cases for consideration. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chair Miller adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Carla Wirth TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.