Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-17-2006 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 17, 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. May 17, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Zwirn, Hull, Meehlhause, Scotch, and Stevenson Absent and Excused: Commissioners Hegland and Miller. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson Planning Associate Heidi Heller ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case CU2006-003. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized garage at 8382 Knollwood Drive, Robert & Lisa Horbul 02 Planning Case CU2006-004. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized garage at 5308 St. Stephen Street, Mark McKay 04 Planning Case ZC2006-001. Consideration and Public Hearing for a Rezoning of 2901 & 2925 County Road 10 and west half of 8060 Groveland Road, Integra Homes 06 ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes A. April 19, 2006. MOTION/SECOND: Scotch/Meehlhause. To approve the Minutes of the April 19, 2006 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. CU2006-003. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized garage at 8382 Knollwood Drive, Robert & Lisa Horbul Planning Associate Heller explained this request is for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an oversized garage at 8382 Knollwood Drive. Robert and Lisa Horbul, the property owners, want to build a 24 foot by 30 foot addition onto the rear of the current three-stall garage. The applicants would like extra room for their recreational vehicles to store them indoors versus outdoors. She noted the plot plan that was included in the Commissioner’s meeting packets show how the layout would be directly behind the current garage. Planning Associate Heller explained that there is also a shed on the property so by adding this 1,604 square foot garage addition, the applicants would have a total of 1,796 square feet of accessory buildings, almost reaching the maximum allowed of 1,800 square feet. Accessory buildings, whether attached or detached, are limited to 952 square feet so a CUP is needed to construct the proposed 1,604 square foot addition. Planning Associate Heller presented the Zoning Code requirements to consider a CUP. The Code requires the Planning Commission 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, and the demonstrated need for the use. Planning Associate Heller noted the Comprehensive Plan encourages development and maintenance of residential areas to improve the quality and appearance of housing units and residential property. She noted that this residential area is zoned R-1 and by having a larger garage, the applicant can store vehicles inside, which is a benefit to the neighborhood. With regard to the geographical area involved, this property is located at Knollwood Drive, at the northern end of the City. The property has additional space at the back side, the front face of the garage will not change from what it is currently, so the addition would not be noticeable from the street. However, the garage addition will block the neighbor’s view across the back yard. Planning Associate Heller next addressed the issue of depreciation, explaining the garage addition would benefit the property due to the extra storage space and allowing more indoor parking as well as provide an economic increase to the value of the property. She stated the character of the surrounding area is strictly residential. Most homes are about 30 years old and have two-car garages, some with three-car garages. She advised that the proposed garage addition would not be out of character with the area since it cannot be viewed from the street. Planning Associate Heller stated another consideration is the demonstrated need for such a use. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ The applicant is proposing a 24 foot by 30 foot addition to allow for additional storage of recreational vehicles that they own. She advised that all Zoning Code requirements are met. Letters were sent to neighbors even though a public hearing is not required. Staff received one telephone call today indicating they are against the request. Chair Stevenson noted that person is a fair distance away from this site. Planning Associate Heller stated they are on the neighboring street, three to four properties away from the subject site. Chair Stevenson asked if anyone in the audience would like to address this request. No one responded. Chair Stevenson pointed out that this is one of the largest garages to come before the Planning Commission for square footage. He stated that he understands the need for depth to contain their vehicles and recreational vehicles but questions whether this is the minimum needed by the applicant in order to satisfy the housing of their recreational vehicles. Chair Stevenson stated he does not recall any garages of this size in Mounds View. He noted that parking things inside a garage instead of having them outside reduces blight in the City. Chair Stevenson asked the applicants to address the need for this size of garage addition. Lisa Horbul, applicant, advised they have two sons of driving age and want to be able to park their vehicles inside as well as their recreational vehicle, motorcycle, and other “toys.” Robert Horbul, applicant, asked the only reason a CUP is needed is because the addition is attached to the existing garage to make it one structure. If the addition was located five feet away, this CUP would not be needed. Chair Stevenson explained that a detached building would be restricted to storage and you would not be able to move vehicles in and out. He questioned whether this addition could be made smaller. Ms. Horbul stated they need this size of addition to be able to hold all of their vehicles and other “toys.” Chair Stevenson asked if the front of the garage with three single-stall garages would remain the same in appearance. Mr. Horbul answered that it will appear the same. Chair Stevenson requested that for future such requests, staff provide a better rendition of how the new structure fits into the existing house so the Planning Commission has a clear understanding of the roofline and appearance. Mr. Horbul presented a full sized drawing for the Planning Commission’s review. Commissioner Scotch asked where the 4-wheeler, three cars, and boat are being stored at this time. Mr. Horbul stated they are sitting behind the garage. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch asked what is in the small shed. Ms. Horbul stated it contains the lawn mower and smaller things. Mr. Horbul explained how the roof line will be turned 90 degrees from what currently exists. He stated that if you look “dead on” the garage, you will not see this new addition. Commissioner Scotch noted the City is getting requests for larger and larger garages to store items. Commissioner Zwirn stated the applicant’s children are teenagers so they will be using this garage space for several years. Chair Stevenson stated being able to review the full-sized set of plans has answered his questions. Commissioner Zwirn asked if trees will need to be removed. Mr. Horbul stated one tree will need to be removed from the back of the garage. Commissioner Zwirn asked if there will be windows in the side wall of the garage. Mr. Horbul stated there will be no windows. Commissioner Hull asked if they run a business from this home. Mr. Horbul stated they do not. Commissioner Zwirn asked if they talked to the neighbor on the north side. Mr. Horbul stated he has not but could talk with him. He explained that neighbor has a deck on this side of his house so he does not think there would be an issue. Chair Stevenson asked if the neighbors were notified. Planning Associate Heller stated properties within 350 feet were notified. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Meehlhause. To approve Resolution 833-06, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a 1,604 square-foot garage at 8382 Knollwood Drive, Robert & Lisa Horbul; Planning Case No. CU2006-003. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ B. CU2006-004. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized garage at 5308 St. Stephen Street, Mark McKay Associate Planner Heller informed the Commission that the applicant, Mark McKay, is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) at 5308 St. Stephen Street to construct an oversized garage. The current garage would be demolished and a new one built. The current garage is a little wider than a regular two-stall garage. The new building would be the same width but two cars deep. This garage would be 1,104 square feet, which is about 150 square feet larger than Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ allowed by Code without a CUP. The applicant wants the extra depth to park a third vehicle inside and his lot is not wide enough to add the third stall to the side. Planning Associate Heller stated like the last case, the Planning Commission is to review and address potential adverse effects. With regard to the relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, she noted this is a residential neighborhood and the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of all housing units in the City. Planning Associate Heller stated in this application an entirely new garage will be constructed and be a benefit to the neighborhood. Planning Associate Heller stated the geographical area involved is on St. Stephen Street near County Road 10 and again this is almost identical to the previous case where the garage would be deep so the front appearance would not change from what it is currently. The addition would not be noticeable or out of place but, since the garage will be deeper, it may block the view across the back yard. She advised that the houses to the rear on Pinewood Court are not lined up directly behind this house so the larger garage should not affect these properties, even though this lot is not as deep as some so it would be a bit closer to the property line than in the previous case. Planning Associate Heller pointed out since this is a circle, the houses are at an angle so there is no house directly behind. Planning Associate Heller stated this addition will increase the value of the property, which is a benefit to everybody. The character of the street is strictly a residential area and 5308 is near the end of the street where it almost meets with County Road 10. She noted that some houses have a single-car garage and some have a two-car garage but the lots in this area are generally not wide enough to have a third stall alongside. The applicant is proposing a 24-foot by 46-foot garage, which will allow for parking of more than two vehicles inside the garage. There are no other sheds or accessory buildings on the property. Planning Associate Heller explained that due to the depth of the proposed garage, it increases the size just over the allowed 952 square feet. Letters were mailed to neighbors within 350 feet even though a public hearing is not required. She advised staff has received no comment since the letters were sent out and all zoning and Code issues are satisfied with this request. Mark McKay, applicant, stated he has lived there since April of 1995 and is continually upgrading. Now he owns three cars and drives about 85 miles per day round trip so he is looking at getting another car with better gas mileage. He stated he either needs a bigger garage or will have two cars parked in the driveway. Chair Stevenson stated that he is familiar with the property because he used to live across the street. Commissioner Scotch asked how deep is the lot. Mr. McKay stated it is 66 feet from the back of the garage and he would like to go back another 24 feet. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson asked whether the roofline will remain the same. Mr. McKay answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Scotch asked if there are any additional sheds on this property. Mr. McKay stated there are none. He described the railing that will be installed around the deck he will also be building and advised that he talked with his neighbors and they have no problem with this request. Commissioner Scotch asked the applicant when he wants to start. Mr. McKay stated as soon as he can. Commissioner Zwirn suggested Mr. McKay consider installing an 18 foot door instead of a 16 foot door which would make it easier to navigate a car into and out of the garage. MOTION/SECOND: Meehlhause/Zwirn. To approve Resolution 832-06, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a 1,104 square-foot garage at 5308 St. Stephen Street, Mark McKay; Planning Case No. CU2006-004. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ C. ZC2006-001. Consideration and Public Hearing for a Rezoning of 2901 & 2925 County Road 10 and west half of 8060 Groveland Road, Integra Homes Community Development Director Ericson informed the Commission that the applicant, Ron Lillestrand representing Integra Homes, is requesting approval to rezone properties located at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the back half of 8060 Groveland Road from B-3, Highway Business, and R-1 Single Family Residential, to R-3, Medium Density Residential. Integra Homes was before the Planning Commission last year with a PUD request and proposal for 21 townhome units. At the time it was presented and noticed to the community, there was concern expressed by residents and members of the Planning Commission as to the density of the development and issues related to the development like parking and setback. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request. However, rather than forwarding that recommendation to the City Council, Integra Homes decided to go back to the drawing board, take into consideration the comments made, and come up with a new plan. Director Ericson advised they are now requesting rezoning from R-1 and B-3 to R-3, which would allow townhomes. The applicant has also provided a plan as to the proposed future development to incorporate 19 owner/occupied townhome units with sufficient guest parking area. He clarified that the request before the Planning Commission tonight is strictly the rezoning issue and the Commission is not looking at the site plan or major subdivision. Director Ericson stated rezoning requests are handled by ordinance. The Commission will look at the relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, whether the project goes in the area proposed, depreciation issues, character of the use, and demonstrated need for the use. The rezoning is an Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ action approved by the City with a lot of consideration as to the Comprehensive Plan. Director Ericson explained this is different from a CUP consideration because if the CUP request meets the maximum square footage, setback, and height limitations then the City would need an issue to be able to deny the CUP request. However, with a rezoning the City holds the discretion to make that decision. Director Ericson advised that notice was sent to people within 350 feet. Director Ericson advised that the Comprehensive Plan indicates this is a mixed use PUD area and the intent of that designation is to provide for some flexibility with land use with residential and commercial mixed together. In this case, the request is for the residential component of that mixed use type of development. He noted there is some commercial development in this area, like Johnson’s trailer hitches, so this would be consistent with that mixed use designation. Director Ericson explained the housing aspect of the Comprehensive Plan encourages diversity being available to residents. The City is now predominantly single-family residential, rental houses, and manufactured housing. Townhomes and senior housing are currently under represented in what is available in Mounds View. He noted that on the south side of County Road 10, there are some townhouses so this would be consistent with what exists. With regard to the geographical area, Director Ericson noted one of the lots is a vacant commercial property that used to be an independent gas station but that building was demolished. Another of the lots is a single-family house and the other is the subdivided back half of another single-family residential property on the site. This is a three acre site, which is the minimum requirement for a PUD. Mr. Lillestrand talked to adjacent property owners about expanding the scope of the development but at this point the project represents what he can accommodate at this time. Director Ericson explained that depreciation is a difficult issue to quantify with a certainty. In looking at the current proposal, he explained that it will not depreciate the subject property with 19 townhome units and there would be a tenfold increase in property values. However, the Planning Commission has to look at other issues associated with depreciation such as how it impacts the adjoining properties and whether the development is consistent with the uses out there. Director Ericson reviewed that the character of the surrounding area is primarily commercial along the County Road 10 corridor. Within two blocks of the site, there is a variety of commercial and residential uses. The residential uses include single-family residential, owner- occupied townhomes, and multi-family rental dwellings so a townhome development would not be out of place. The question is whether it is out of place for this specific location. Director Ericson next addressed the issue of demonstrated need for this use. He pointed out that since townhomes and senior housing are under represented, one could argue there is a need for townhomes units. But, Mounds View is getting 66 townhomes later this year and several hundred townhomes in New Brighton. The rezoning would be for Medium Density Residential, which is not tied to a specific site plan so it would open the door for single-family homes, twin Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ homes, and multi-family housing as long as density does not exceed a threshold. Governmental, schools, churches, and educational institutions could also be incorporated onto this site. Director Ericson stated it may be difficult to ascertain what the adverse effects are but in terms of intensity of the use and whether it is consistent with adjoining properties, the area is predominantly single-family homes so that is the issue that will be discussed tonight. Director Ericson advised that staff is not making a recommendation but asking the Planning Commission to hold the public hearing, receive input from residents and the applicant, and then come to a determination if a proposed rezoning is appropriate. He reiterated that the Comprehensive Plan contemplates an intensity in use, is guided for mixed use, and this site plan would allow for expansion of the development if that can be worked out at some point in the future. Director Ericson advised that staff received one comment from a resident that is included in the staff report. The resident from 8080 Groveland Road is concerned about the potential for rental housing and multi-family ownership who may not care as much for their dwelling as would a resident property owner. Director Ericson pointed out that is not what is proposed for this property. Director Ericson stated staff talked with the adjacent property owners who were concerned with the previous proposal and may be concerned with this proposal as well. He recommended the Planning Commission hold the public hearing and then direct staff to draft either a resolution recommending approval or denial, with findings. Chair Stevenson stated that he would like the timeline described. He noted the plans have not been submitted so issues like the entrance, exit, and density will not be discussed tonight. The issue under consideration tonight is the requested rezoning of the three properties. However, the Planning Commission also needs to keep in mind the intended use for the site. Chair Stevenson asked when the rest of the details will be presented. Director Ericson explained that the City does not conditionally rezone property. If the Council approves a rezoning, it is not contingent to any site plan or development proposal. He stated it is a difficult process because the City does not want to approve of a rezoning and then hope a good plan comes from it. The City wants assurance that by approving a rezoning, the plan will not be too intensive or out of character with the area. The timeline is that the recommendation will be presented to the Council and if they feel the property should be rezoned, they will direct staff to draft that ordinance and grant first reading. Then it would be indicated to the developers they have a certain timeline to prepare the plans, typically six months, and to return with the major subdivision. After that is considered, the City would hold second reading of the ordinance. That provides some safeguards that if the project is not consistent with the vision of the community, the Planning Commission and Council can deny the rezoning. He clarified that the process does not need to take six months and the applicant could return within a month with the major subdivision plans. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson noted the action tonight does not mean approval of the plans for this site. He stated if the rezoning is approved, he would encourage residents to attend the meetings coming up when the plans are presented. Commissioner Scotch asked what can go onto the site if the R-3 rezoning is approved. Director Ericson explained there are permitted uses and those that need special approval. Approved uses would be single-family detached dwellings, essential services (gas lines, transfer electrical generation) public parks, twinhomes, duplexes, townhomes up to six units per building, boarding houses, group homes, or family foster homes. Conditional uses would include public or semipublic recreational buildings (community center), religious institutions, educational institutions, government or public utility buildings, daycare, group nursery school, or multi- family structures. Director Ericson stated this is a three-acre lot so the maximum allowed would be 21 units; however, with multiple family there could be many more units than 21. Townhome units require 6,500 square feet per unit. Chair Stevenson asked staff to display the Comprehensive Plan map. He explained the thinking was that this area would have mixed use. Director Ericson displayed the map and reviewed the road alignments. He reviewed that back in 2001 and 2002, the Planning Commission looked at the uses on County Road 10 and it was the intention to encourage integrated planned development rather than a piecemeal development as had occurred over the years without an integrated approach. Director Ericson advised that when this land use map was adopted, the Planning Commission was looking forward to a coordination of development through grouping parcels together and encouraging development that was more beneficial than looking at parcel by parcel. On the north side of County Road 10, it was designated as mixed use from the corner of Eastwood up to Spring Lake Road on the north side. He explained it is intended to be developed with an eye toward coordinated development. Mixed use allows for flexibility and the market to come forward with proposals and then the City can determine if it is consistent with what they want for the area. Director Ericson noted the applicant tonight has assembled three acres of parcels. Originally the applicant desired to have more of the area included in a PUD but if this request moves forward, it will alter the development potential for the land southeast and northwest of this site. He advised that is not a reason to deny this request, but it should be taken into consideration. The developers have proposed a development that can incorporate the adjoining properties depending on availability in the future. Director Ericson noted that on the south side of County Road 10, there is another area of mixed use development. Recently, on the corner of Silver Lake and County Road 10, it was redeveloped into the CVS site. Also there are some townhomes directly south of the proposed area. To the north and northeast, it is all single-family (R-1) owner/occupied housing. The issue is that County Road 10 is the City’s primary commercial corridor, which allows for more intensive uses. The proposal being presented is 19 units and consistent with the vision for this site. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson asked the applicant to address the Commission. He noted that the proposal was rejected last year and asked how this proposal satisfies the concerns expressed at that time. Brian Bourassa, Project Manager representing Integra Homes, stated they have worked with numerous proposals, both commercial and residential, and met with commercial investors and planners. They also met with Mrs. Johnson regarding her parcel and potential to combine her property. Based on the research and discussions held, they decided to move forward separate from Mrs. Johnson. Mr. Bourassa asked permission to present the plans they have drafted. Chair Stevenson stated a vision has to be seen in order to consider a rezoning. Mr. Bourassa displayed a site plan of the proposal. He explained the people they talked with were not conducive to an aggressive commercial opportunity but more of an office-type of building. Then they investigated the surrounding area to see what was available for office and found an inventory is available. Mr. Bourassa stated they talked with the Johnsons, investors, and staff. Then the plan was developed for a townhome type product with single access to County Road 10. Mr. Bourassa explained this proposal differs from the last one because it has less density, is not a PUD with rear or side yard deviations, and is a straight forward R-3 development. He noted they propose a series of buildings with a common central area, increased open space, and have addressed the parking comments that were made. In an effort to not box in or spot develop along the corridor, they will provide transportation links to access the Johnson parcel to the northwest as well as to the west to provide linkage to the abutting property. He noted the building configuration has also been changed and more aggressive landscaping is planned. He advised that experienced commercial people have said that high end retail business will not fit on this site. Mr. Bourassa stated they agree with staff that there is a need for this type of townhome product, which is not a high rise. They investigated senior housing but that did not work out with the evaluation. He stated they then worked with staff on a coordinated development and hope the linkages being provided will work into that concept. Mr. Bourassa asked how the City differentiates townhomes from multi-family housing. Director Ericson stated the question is what is allowed in an R-3 district, which allows for up to six units in a townhome building. Up to six multi-family units would be allowed with a conditional use permit. Anything more than six units would need a higher density, R-4 zoning. Director Ericson noted that with a townhome, each has its own access, garage, and is owner-occupied. If this application is approved, then 19 individual lots would be created. With a multi-family project, there would not be individual lots and the tenants would be leasing the space. Mr. Bourassa explained that with this product, they are individually owned units with a common area around the outside. To prevent unsightliness, the common space is maintained by an association so there will not be individual lawn mowers. The grounds will be irrigated and Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ landscaped. He stated that association maintained communities tend to be very nice and also provides one point of contact should there be a concern. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. Cindy Johnson, County Road 10, stated she has been fighting this for years and the end of this month is the anniversary of her husband’s death. She stated she does not want to see townhomes go in because it will lower property values and this abuts two sides of her property. She stated it is her understanding that the City wanted to increase the tax base, which commercial property would bring about. Mrs. Johnson stated she would like to stop this project from going in. Commissioner Scotch stated she has learned a lot in the last year about the corridor and found that industrial and light industrial uses bring a tax base for homeowners. However, the question is whether the City wants light industrial on the corridor. Commissioner Scotch stated she totally respects Greg and Cindy Johnson and asked what she would be looking for to enhance her business since she is a homeowner with a business. Mrs. Johnson stated she would prefer to have three businesses. Commissioner Scotch noted the Comprehensive Plan is for mixed uses. She stated she supports businesses on County Road 10 and would like to know Mrs. Johnson’s vision to bring more tax base into the City. Mrs. Johnson stated she would rather see a business that closes at a certain hour and then there are no vehicles. She would also like to see the property well lit. Mrs. Johnson stated she foresees a lot more problems with townhomes. Duane Waldoch, 2935 County Road 10, stated he lives to the west of this property. He noted that Mr. Ericson explained what a PUD is as a vision and at first he was concerned about it but now understands that you cannot change growth. He stated that the vision in 2002 for use along the corridor may have changed by now, noting there may be a Viking’s Stadium within four or five miles of the corridor so there will be a need for hotels and restaurants. Mr. Waldoch suggested that once townhouses are constructed, it is taking space for residences. He noted that Mounds View now has an opportunity to look at the corridor again, knowing the Vikings Stadium will probably be coming in. Mr. Waldoch stated the person who bought this property has not contacted him and he believes that person did not do his homework before he purchased the property. He stated the buyer should have come to the City to ask about a townhome project because then he would have been told he needed three acres. He stated he felt sorry for him but that is the chance you take and you need to have a plan. Mr. Waldoch stated he thinks the applicant is now trying to force the issue to get townhomes to fit. He stated he would prefer that there be a lot of nice restaurants and hotels. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 12 ________________________________________________________________________ Mark Schnor, 2949 County Road 10, stated that he does not think the plan looks any different than what they presented a year ago. He stated there was talk about cutting down the number of outlets to County Road 10 but if townhomes go in, it will be a right turn in and out. He questioned how the Fire Department will be able to respond if there is no access to the back. He also asked what townhomes will do to his property value. Mr. Schnor stated the applicant has not approached him since the last meeting so he believes that nothing has changed. Mr. Schnor expressed concern about having 19 families with kids in this location because there could be a safety issue with kids running out onto County Road 10. Commissioner Scotch asked what his vision is and if it would include selling his land. Mr. Schnor stated that from Groveland Road to Spring Lake Road it was to be commercial but then a PUD was submitted. He stated his concern with townhomes is that you can only get into that site by one entrance so it will create a traffic jam on County Road 10. He commented he loves where he lives but County Road 10 is now being set up for businesses. He stated that people remember Mounds View as having three pharmacies on County Road 10. Commissioner Scotch pointed out that progress has been made in the City and the Mermaid is growing but the City is looking for continuity as you progress down the corridor. She stated she is asking for the resident’s vision because the applicant is asking for direction on what the City wants on this site. Mr. Schnor stated they have not approached him or his neighbor during their investigation on this site. Commissioner Scotch stated there is a need to group more land parcels together or it will be pieced together. Mr. Schnor asked what could be developed considering their lot sizes. He stated it would have to be residential to the back and a drainage ditch to the front. Chair Stevenson stated that is an issue because a three acre site is required so more residences would have to be bought. Chair Stevenson asked if there are more comments on the request to rezone. There being no additional comments, the public hearing was closed at 8:17 p.m. Chair Stevenson reviewed the options to table or make a recommendation. Commissioner Zwirn pointed out that several months ago the applicant was looking for development across from Saturn and residents complained that they did not want commercial. Now a developer wants a rezoning and residents want commercial rather than residential. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 13 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Waldoch stated his opinion is that this piece of property is not set up for R-3 development so the applicant is forcing the issue, which will change the properties around them. He stated again that the applicant should have done his homework before buying the property. Mr. Waldoch pointed out that once townhomes are put in to this location, the residents are “dead in the water.” Commissioner Scotch stated that is not necessarily true. Mr. Waldoch stated if the applicant had come and talked to the residents, then the project could go to Spring Lake Road. He stated his opinion that it makes no sense to put townhomes into this area unless the rest of the area will also be developed as townhouses. Commissioner Scotch explained that the corridor had to start somewhere and the City is trying to get some continuity. She stated her vision in ten years is not to have homes on the corridor. Commissioner Zwirn stated there are noise and safety issues with County Road 10. He noted this developer is attempting to fit in his development while still providing connections to abutting property to accommodate future development. Mr. Waldoch stated the applicant is just trying to force this development to make money and should have checked with the City before he bought it. Commissioner Zwirn stated that is an opinion but this applicant purchased the land, then purchased a second piece of land to fulfill the area requirements, and now wants to classify it as R-3. Commissioner Zwirn stated residents need to look at Mounds View as a growing community. Mr. Waldoch suggested there is no need for townhomes in this area. Commissioner Scotch stated she wished these residents would attend a town meeting. She explained that you have to look at the tax base, learn about the City, and become educated in how to enhance the City. She pointed out that there is a vacant office building on Long Lake Road so the City needs to be sure that what is developed will be used. Mr. Waldoch stated development is coming to the northern area so he would urge the Planning Commission to not make a decision too fast and to look at what will happen in the next four to five years. Chair Stevenson stated the Planning Commission needs to provide staff with direction to prepare a resolution to either recommend approval or denial of the requested rezoning. Commissioner Hull stated he thinks the City should stick with what it has and not change the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Stevenson stated Commissioner Hull would then support a resolution to recommend denial of the rezoning from PUD. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 14 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Meehlhause stated this area definitely needs redevelopment but he is not sure this is the right development. He stated he has concerns with townhomes, noting another townhome development with a number of units is already being constructed. Chair Stevenson noted that two Commissioners are absent tonight and they had voiced opinions about the application a year ago. Chair Stevenson directed staff to prepare resolutions for both approval and denial that can be considered at the next meeting. He stated there is a split opinion tonight so it is his preference to discuss this further when the full Commission is in attendance. Mr. Schnor stated his concern is the safety factor when entering and leaving the complex. He stated if the City approves R-3 it will be good for him since no one will be able to buy his property. Chair Stevenson noted that his property and to the west could also develop as R-3 at some point in the future. Commissioner Zwirn stated this proposal would enhance Mr. Schnor’s property values more than if it was a commercial site. Mike Welsh, 1866 County Highway 10 NE, Spring Lake Park, stated he has a townhouse development on the south side of County Road 10. He noted there is an additional location of townhomes in Mounds View and stated he does not see where the Comprehensive Plan is a problem since there are townhomes directly across the street. Mr. Welsh stated the Comprehensive Plan is for a mixed use development along the corridor so this application is part of the Plan. Chair Stevenson stated it is possible in mixed use to include townhomes. Mr. Welsh stated he does not see a problem with townhomes and thinks there are no safety issues. He noted that the building next to CVS has been vacant for a number of years and pointed out that the only business development in the past three years has been to sell Christmas trees on the applicant’s lot. He suggested this application would be better than no use and better than another gas station, liquor store, or car lot. Mr. Waldoch stated that traffic is already congested. He explained how the townhomes on the south side of County Road 10 have to make a U-turn and pointed out if this project is approved, there will be 19 more townhomes making U-turns, which will cause more traffic congestion. Commissioner Hull agreed that if this property is changed to R-3, it locks up that property and eliminates the future potential for commercial. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 15 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson stated that is also his concern. He stated he is not against townhomes but this proposal would take the middle out of that area and with the three acre requirement for mixed use development, there are not three acres left to the east or west. Chair Stevenson stated that the Commission needs to look at this application again and he would like all seven Commissioners to be in attendance. Commissioner Scotch asked residents to look at what could go into this site with R-3 and as it sits now so they have an idea of what the Commission is considering. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review Additional City Code Language for Retaining Walls Community Development Director Ericson informed the Commission that the issue is the possible changing of the code to look at what a retaining wall would be, setbacks, fences and terraces. The recommendation was to bring forward new language that defines what is a retaining wall, indicate what the setback should be for a retaining wall, and address issues that are unclear in the Code. He explained there was some confusion and a lack of clarity in terms of whether a retaining wall could be or should be set back. The Planning Commission’s recommendation had been that it be treated no differently than a fence so it could be located up to, but not on a property line. Director Ericson stated that staff drafted a code amendment to define retaining walls and in addition a definition for landscaping, which is an undefined requirement in Chapter 1103. Another change is the addition of a new subdivision articulating prohibited materials for fences. Director Ericson read the definition of landscaping, noting it provides a good idea of what landscaping is in case there is a question in the future. He also reviewed the language proposed to define a retaining wall, and location of a fence or retaining wall so it is treated similarly to a fence. Director Ericson then reviewed Section 7, Prohibited Materials, that define materials that cannot be used and exceptions. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Meehlhause. To approve Resolution 834-06, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Amendment to Chapters 1102 and 1103 of the Mounds View Zoning Code relating to Fences and Retaining Walls. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 16 ________________________________________________________________________ A. June 7, 2006 meetings return to Mounds View City Hall B. June 21, 2006. Chair Stevenson thanked the City of New Brighton for allowing Mounds View the use of their Council Chambers. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:43 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.