Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-15-2006 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting March 15, 2006 New Brighton City Hall 803 Old Highway 8 NW, New Brighton, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. March 15, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, Scotch, and Stevenson Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson and Planning Associate Heller ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case CU2006-001. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit For an Environmental Processing Center at 4889 Old Highway 8 02 ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes February 1, 2006. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Miller. To approve the Minutes of the February 1, 2006 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes –7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda Val and Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated they have an in-ground pool in their backyard with a six-foot high fence around it. City code requires a five foot fence and their insurance company requires a six foot fence for liability. Last year their neighbor to the east, with a permit, constructed a two-foot retaining wall adjacent to their fence. The Amundsens feel this wall causes the fence to not meet the six-foot requirement, as well as is a liability if someone climbs over the fence with wall assistance, uses the pool, and there is an injury or death. They Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ contacted Community Development staff about their concerns and Community Development Director Ericson responded to them with a letter. He suggested that an option would be to raise their fence, but the Amundsens feel offended since their fence has been there for 15 years and the retaining wall has only been there since last year, so why should they have to bear the cost of a new fence. Chair Stevenson stated that he and his neighbor have this exact same situation and they have never had a problem, although he agreed that someone could go over the fence with retaining wall assistance and asked what the distance from the wall to the fence is. Ms. Amundsen replied two to three inches. Commissioner Miller asked what the purpose of the retaining wall is. She also asked what the fence is made out of. Ms. Amundsen replied the neighbor wants to put a car between his garage and the fence. She added their fence is green treated pine. Commissioner Hegland asked if the landscaping has changed. He also asked if the retaining wall is complete. Ms. Amundsen replied the landscaping has changed but she is unsure if the wall is complete. She added they are also concerned that the neighbor has created a three-inch, two-foot gully that constantly fills with debris and will probably start deteriorating their fence over time. They tried speaking with their neighbor but got nowhere, so they contacted Director Ericson. Commissioner Zwirn asked if their neighbor discussed putting up the wall before it was erected and if so, did the Amundsens address the liability issue at that time. Ms. Amundsen replied they tried to dissuade him from putting up the wall but he was not willing to discuss it. She added they did not discuss liability at that time since it just occurred to them when they received their insurance statement. Mr. Amundsen stated they are here tonight in hopes that the Commission would give direction to the building department to contact the neighbor and have them remove the wall. The wall runs about 30 feet along the entire side of the neighbors garage next to the property line. Director Ericson replied the neighbor cannot concrete the area, but changing the grading is allowed. Commissioner Zwirn asked what the wall is made of and, if wood, is it treated. Mr. Amundsen replied old treated 2 x 6 pieces against 4 x 4 posts, which were removed from the house’s wheelchair access. Fill was brought in from a new home constructed on Pleasant View Drive in order to bring the grade level with the driveway. Commissioner Hegland asked if, as an option, their neighbor were required to construct a six- foot fence along with the retaining wall, would it solve their problem. He also asked if, as another option, they would be interested in the neighbors paying for them to extend their fence. Mr. Amundsen replied the neighbor constructing a fence would solve their problem. He added they are trying to avoid any additional expenses. Ms. Amundsen noted her concern would be that the neighbor uses whatever materials he can find. Commissioner Hull asked if their insurance premiums increased or will increase. Mr. Amundsen replied they have not; however, they have not brought the issue to the insurance company yet because they were hoping to work it out with the City. Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn noted any audit by the insurance company would show the footage difference. He asked how far away the fence is from the pool. Mr. Amundsen replied if there is an incident and/or someone is injured, the insurance company would do an audit. He added the distance from the pool to the fence is 50 to 60 feet. Mr. Amundsen referenced a letter they received from Director Ericson stating the situation will be left as is. Director Ericson replied he appreciates the concerns the Amundsens are raising and previously asked the City attorney to review the issue from a legal standpoint. The City attorney’s position is that the fence, in its present condition with the retaining wall, is in compliance with code. It is still a six foot fence. The attorney added that the actions from one neighbor cannot restrict or prohibit another from doing something that is legal. A letter was sent to the Amundsens stating that their fence is in compliance with City code and indicated they could increase the height of their fence if they so desired, but did not suggest that they had to do this. He added the City cannot make their neighbor remove the retaining wall. Ms. Amundsen stated one neighbor’s action cannot obligate or restrict use of another’s property; however, the neighbor has restricted the use of their property because they cannot use the pool now due to the retaining wall. She added the City should err on who was there first and safety of the neighborhood. Commissioner Scotch stated they could bring forward a motion to revisit the code. Director Ericson replied he appreciates the interpretation but the retaining wall does not restrict the Amundsens from using their pool. He added he does not want to suggest the City cares less for safety or for the Amundsens, but the law states the City cannot request the wall be removed. He suggested if they would like to pursue the issue, they could address City Council at their next meeting on March 27 with the City attorney present. Commissioner Zwirn noted whatever agreement the parties come up with is fine, but unless the insurance companies are involved in this process the agreement is null and void. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case CU2006-001. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Environmental Processing Center at 4889 Old Highway 8. Planning Associate Heller reviewed the staff report indicating the applicant, Merlin Brisbin of Star Environmental, Inc., is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for an Environmental Processing Center at 4889 Old Highway 8, site of the Skyline Motel. The applicant has a signed purchase agreement with the current owners of the motel. The applicant is proposing to construct an 11,200 square foot building and a small additional accessory building. Planning Associate Heller stated the subject property is currently zoned industrial. An environmental processing center would be allowed as a conditional use in an industrial district. With every Conditional Use Permit application, the Planning Commission is required to review and address any potential adverse effects which include the relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area, traffic, adequate utilities and access roads and the demonstrated need for such a use. Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Planning Associate Heller stated that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the expansion of existing businesses and introduction of new businesses within Mounds View. The area continues to be designated industrial on the Future Land Use Map so the use would not be inconsistent with the Comp Plan. The proposed business would be on the edge of the Mounds View Industrial Park so the proposed business would not be out of place for this industrial area. Planning Associate Heller stated that the proposed processing center would be a new, attractive building and the applicant will have invested several million dollars into this project when completed. This site is in an industrial area and the processing center would be much more appropriate than the current use of a motel. The motel has been a problem due to the amount of police calls that it generates. The proposed business would not cause any depreciation to the area. Planning Associate Heller stated that the applicant expects to have 3-4 trucks per hour from 7am – 7pm on weekdays, and from 8am – 3pm on Saturday coming into the processing center. October is the busiest month for them so traffic would increase to about 7 trucks per hour during this month. They are hoping to work with their haulers in order to not have such a rush during the one month. Traffic counts on Old Highway 8 are 6,800 vehicles per day, so even during their peak traffic time, this business would only increase traffic on Old Highway 8 by a little over one percent. This area is already a heavy truck traffic area due to the neighboring businesses, so this amount of additional traffic would not be out of place. Planning Associate Heller stated that the Metropolitan Council and Mounds View Public Works department have already determined that the water and sewer lines that currently serve this property have adequate capacity for this business. The site also has good access onto nearby highways and freeways. Planning Associate Heller stated that the applicant has owned and operated the “Sewerman” business for over 25 years and understands the need for this type of business in Minnesota now. This would be a state of the art facility and the applicant has full support from the Met Council. Staff has reviewed the potential adverse effects and feels that the proposal adequately satisfies the conditional use criteria and would not adversely affect the surrounding area. Planning Associate Heller noted that a public hearing will be held when the conditional use permit application goes to the City Council for approval, and a meeting with the neighboring manufactured home park will be held to inform them of the proposed business. She recommended the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit as requested. At this time the applicant, Mr. Merlin Brisbin was introduced so he could do a presentation about the proposed business. Mr. Brisbin stated he has been in the sewer business for 29 years. The need for this type of business in the metro area was brought to his attention when the Met Council decided to start closing their disposal sites. He provided a slide presentation detailing the general facility design, state of the art equipment, and the process, indicating there will be no hazardous materials. The separation area will be clean and odor-controlled. One to four trucks per hour will come through the plant, with seven trucks per hour at peak times during the fall. He showed an example of the end product, indicating it is a non-toxic, dry, compost like material and listed EPA suggested Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ beneficial uses, such as selling as compost. He mentioned that there are a couple similar facilities in other states, such as Washington and Michigan. Commissioner Miller asked how long it would take to unload a truck. She noted possible public concerns regarding noise and odor. Mr. Brisbin replied unloading a truck only takes 7 to 10 minutes and would happen completely inside the building. He added there would be no noise or odor. Commissioner Zwirn asked what happens to the end product. He also asked if anything is stored onsite. Mr. Brisbin replied the dry end product is shipped offsite with nothing stored onsite. Commissioner Scotch asked the location and how long the factory in Michigan has been in operation. She also asked about equipment maintenance. Mr. Brisbin replied the factory is in Traverse City and has been open for two years. He added the equipment needs to be maintained about every 10 years. Daily, sprayers wash down the equipment and workers clean the floor and polish the machines. Chair Stevenson asked if the same trucks take back the filtrated water. Mr. Brisbin replied it goes from their equipment straight into the Met Council’s line, the City sewer line. Commissioner Zwirn asked where the 5,000 gallon tanks shown on the building plan will be located and the composition. Mr. Brisbin replied the tanks will be inside the plant above ground and are made of ¼ inch steel. Commissioner Scotch asked how often they expect EPA inspections. Leo Hermes from the Met Council replied that Merlin’s business would need to get permits from the Met Council who would regulate and inspect the business in place of the EPA. Currently the program involves discharge points into the system. This processing center will eliminate a number of disposal sites and improve others; therefore, there is a need for this within the private sector. Like other companies, this business would be permitted and they would need to comply with the rules and pay the City for sewer use. Commissioner Miller asked how large of an area trucks will come from to use this facility. Mr. Hermes replied they would be able to close four of their sites in the northern suburbs; Forest Lake, Coon Rapids, Brooklyn Park and Plymouth, since trucks would come mainly from the northern metro area. Commissioner Scotch asked about toxicity and how often it would be monitored. Mr. Hermes replied the Met Council Environmental Services issues permits that stand in place of a state or federal permit. He added it is unlikely the EPA would come in unless there was an issue. There is a staff of engineers from the Met Council that inspect these facilities at least once a year, if not more. Commissioner Zwirn asked why the Met Council wants to close these outer facilities. Mr. Hermes replied the type of materials entering the system has caused problems with losing pipe capacity and corrosion. There is currently no monitoring at these sites so haulers are dumping things that shouldn’t be put in the sewer system, which is adding to the build up and corrosion of Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ their pipes. And with the expected growth over the next 30 years in the Twin Cities, the amount of septage will only be increasing. Commissioner Hegland asked how odor is controlled. Brian Oakley, MFRA, replied odor is controlled with a bio-filter. Commissioner Hegland asked what if the bio-filter becomes inadequate or ineffective and what is done to ensure there are no problems. He also asked what the time frame is to rebuild the filter if they do have a problem. Mr. Oakley replied the bio-filter is simple technology involving the air from the equipment and the building being piped into the bottom of the bio-filter and as it rises, it goes through a layer of woodchips where a biological process happens to remove the odor from the air. The bio-filter does require some maintenance in that it needs to be kept wet. He added segmenting the wood chips would help ensure odor prevention. Commissioner Hegland asked how often the wood chips need to be replaced and what is done with the old chips. Mr. Brisbin replied that the chips do deteriorate over time and about every five years they would be replaced with the old chips going to a landfill. Commissioner Miller asked the location of the bio-filter. She also asked how big the bio-filter is. Mr. Oakley replied it would be outside at ground level. Mr. Brisbin replied there would be two pieces of equipment, with the size being determined later because it needs to be designed to fit the application based on the amount of air being treated. Commissioner Scotch asked why that site was chosen. Mr. Brisbin replied the site is centrally located for all haulers in the north metro area. The center needs to be within a 15 miles radius of the four Met Council sites that they would like to close. Mounds View is within that radius for all four of the sites. Commissioner Zwirn asked what the bio-filter area looks like. Mr. Oakley replied it looks like a garden with no plants; it is all wood chips. Commissioner Miller asked about snow covering the wood chips. Mr. Brisbin replied the air is coming from the building so it is warm and will melt the snow and water will trickle through to keep the chips wet and drain below them. Commissioner Hegland asked where the water will drain to if it is excessive. Mr. Brisbin replied to the sewer. There are pipes in the bottom of the bio-filter to drain excess water out of it in case of heavy rains. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the wood chips could be walked on and, if so, would air be forced up so a person would know they were walking on it. Mr. Oakley replied the chips would be about 3-4 feet deep and could be walked on. Mr. Brisbin replied air is moving upward at only four feet per minute so it is so slow moving that it wouldn’t be noticeable, and it dissipates by the time it reaches the surface. Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Scotch. To table Resolution 828-06, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Environmental Processing Center at 4889 Old Highway 8 until the next Planning Commission Meeting so more information can be obtained; Planning Case No. CU2006-001. Ayes – 3 Nays – 4 (Miller, Meehlhause, Hull, Stevenson) Motion failed. Commissioner Miller suggested language be added regarding an annual review of the permit. Commissioner Hegland suggested language be added regarding how to deal with odor if it is an issue in the future. Director Ericson stated there is a requirement in the city code, Section 607.03, which addresses noise and odor. He added he is not sure the Commission can come up with standards because no other cities have them. He suggested something be added to the resolution that indicates the operation will be shut down if the smell is a nuisance. Commissioner Scotch noted concerns regarding odorless toxicity and asked how it is being controlled in Michigan. Mr. Brisbin replied the trucks are closed and the contents go through piping into the bio-filter. Chair Stevenson stated there must be odor monitors that can be put in place. Mr. Oakley replied there aren’t any. Chair Stevenson stated Section 607.03 of the city code allows for the facility to be shut down and asked if any other language is needed. Director Ericson replied additional information could be added. Commissioner Miller verified that language stating the permit will be reviewed annually has been added to the resolution. Director Ericson replied yes. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Meehlhause. To approve Resolution 828-06, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Environmental Processing Center at 4889 Old Highway 8; Planning Case No. CU2006-001. Ayes – 6 Nays – 1 (Zwirn) Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss Issues to Bring to Joint City Council – Planning Commission Workshop Community Development Director Ericson stated City Council has requested a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to be held on March 20 at New Brighton City Hall. He added at this time he has no recommendations and although Council has no recommendations they thought it would be good to sit down and talk with all the city commissions. Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch suggested the Planning Commission discuss issues such as the retaining wall, pool and fence that was discussed tonight. B. Review Planning Commission Bylaws Community Development Director Ericson stated although no changes are expected, the Planning Commission bylaws need to be reviewed annually to stay consistent with code. Chair Stevenson stated he sees no needed changes at this time. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To accept the Planning Commission Bylaws. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Director Ericson stated there are no planning cases to present on April 5, 2006. He suggested the April 5 meeting be cancelled and the next Planning Commission meeting would be April 19. Chair Stevenson asked the Commission if there were any objections to canceling the April 5 meeting and holding the next Planning Commission on April 19. Hearing none, stated the next Planning Commission meeting will be held on April 19. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: April 19, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:38 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Cheryl Felix TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.