Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-07-2006 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 7, 2006 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 _______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order Acting Chair Miller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. June 7, 2006. _______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Zwirn, Hegland, Scotch, Miller, and Hull. Absent and Excused: Chair Stevenson and Commissioner Meehlhause Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson, Planning Associate Heller _______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case ZC2006-001. Continuation – Consideration for a Rezoning 2 of 2901 & 2925 County Road 10 and West Half of 8060 Groveland Road. Integra Homes; 12721 Overlook Road, Dayton, MN 55327 Planning Case VR2006-002. Consideration of a Variance requested for 6 a garage setback. Jim and Amy Wilson; 7025 Pleasant View Drive, Mounds View, MN 55112. Planning Case VR2006-003. Consideration of a Variance request for over 8 1,800 square feet of accessory buildings. David Slabiak and Maria Merabella; 8135 Long Lake Road, Mounds View, MN 55112. Planning Case CU2006-005. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit 14 for a motor freight terminal at 2169 Mustang Drive, Mounds View, MN55112; Joe Greenstein, Midwest Motor Express. Planning Case DE2006-002. Development Review for an expansion to 16 Midwest Motor Express building at 2169 Mustang Drive, Mounds View, MN 55112; Joe Greenstein, Midwest Motor Express. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes May 17, 2006. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Scotch. To approve the Minutes of the May 17, 2006 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. ZC 2006-001. Continuation – Consideration for a Rezoning of 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and West Half of 8060 Groveland Road. Community Development Director Ericson presented the continuation of the discussion on May17, 2006 for consideration for a rezoning of 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the west half of 8060 Groveland Road to R-3 Medium Density Residential. In 2005, Integra Homes, applied for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Planning Commission reviewed the general concept plan for 21 owner-occupied townhome units on a lot of less than three acres. Concern was expressed by the Panning Commission and adjacent property owners that the proposed development was too intensive, intrusive and out of place given the adjacent single-family residential properties. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 796- 05 in July 2005, recommending denial of the PUD based on the excessive development density and other adverse impacts. Rather than pursue action at the City Council level, Integra chose to re- evaluate their plan based on the feedback received. Integra completed their evaluation and re- submitted an application as a simple rezoning rather than a PUD. Currently, the 3.01-acre development site located on County Road 10 has a mixed zoning designation. The property at 2901 County Road 10 is zoned B-3, Highway Business and is currently vacant. The properties at 2925 County Road 10 and the back of 8060 Groveland Road are currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. It also has an existing single family home that would be demolished if the development were to move forward. Integra Homes is requesting a rezoning of the identified parcels to an R-3, Medium Density designation. Integra proposed development of a 19-unit owner-occupied townhome development to provide minimum intrusion of bordering properties rather than the original 21 units proposed in 2005. Director Ericson stressed this is not contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson asked the Planning Commission to review and discuss the request and consider the merits of rezoning the subject parcels from R-1 and B-3 to R-3 to allow for a 19-unit owner- occupied townhome development. Two resolutions were prepared – one for approval and one for denial. Both resolutions are available for the Commission’s recommended action, which will then be presented to the City Council for consideration at the June 26, 2006 meeting. Director Ericson encouraged questions and comments from the Commission and the audience. Acting Chair Miller stated that no action was taken on this issue at the last meeting due to the absence of Commissioners. There are two Commissioners absent at this meeting also. Director Ericson stressed that Minnesota law states a response within 60 days to a planning application is required. This can be extended out another 60 days. Having two members absent does not preclude the Planning Commission from taking action, however if the decision is to be extend, a letter must go out to the applicant. Commissioner Zwirn asked if Integra has requested urgency of action on this. Director Ericson indicated nothing has been brought to the staff. Acting Chair Miller asked if anyone in the audience would like to make comments. Mr. Duane Waldoch, 2935 County Road 10, appeared before the Commission. When he found out about PUD plan, he was initially upset. His concern now is if the property owner bought the property intending to build townhomes. If so, Mr. Waldoch stated, he did not do his homework and questions if the Planning Commission is now obligated to help fix his problem. Mr. Waldoch feels this property has potential for other opportunities. There are other townhomes being built in the area, so why does Mounds View need more built on this site. He indicated that residents of the proposed Integra townhomes would have to make a right-hand turn out of the complex, thus taking them away from Mounds View rather than into the City. Mr. Waldoch pointed out that there are nine acres in the PUD and he believes feelers should go out to other developers for building businesses more beneficial to Mounds View. He is also concerned that these townhomes will become rental properties rather than owner-occupied. Commissioner Scotch asked Mr. Waldoch what he would like to see built on this lot. He responded by saying that is tough to answer and believes the whole PUD area should be looked at and all opportunities explored. If this area is not Zoned R-3, the developer has the option to sell it. With the potential of the Vikings Stadium being built in the area, he believes more businesses such as restaurants and hotels are viable options. He reasoned that if this area is held up for townhomes, Mounds View is cutting their throats. He stressed that he is not against townhomes; he is against not exploring all options for this area. He asked how building townhomes would benefit Mounds View. Mr. Waldoch hopes the Planning Commission does not rush to approve rezoning to R-3. Mrs. Cindy Johnson, 2865 NE County Road 10, addressed the Commission. She believes the building of townhomes is not following the established Comprehensive Plan and is not part of the vision for Mounds View. She pointed out that $12,000 was spent to remove buildings and clean Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ this lot to make it appealing to business. In her opinion, rezoning this area to R-3 breaks up her property and makes it less valuable. Mrs. Johnson also believes the additional traffic and one way in and out of the townhome development will cause safety and traffic issues. She is in favor of using this area for business development. Mr. Mark Schnor, 2949 County Road 10, appeared before the Planning Commission and asked what the Commissioners would like to see in this area. Mr. Schnor said he loves where he is at and asked the Commission how they would feel about townhomes in their back yards. Mr. Schnor indicated that the plan last year was for 21 homes on less than three acres, now the plan is for 19 townhomes with the required three acres. He sees no real major change other than the tax base created for Mounds View. He also indicated the drainage ditch, previously in the back, will be moved to the front of the development and questioned what type of aesthetic view this will create for Mounds View. If townhomes are built, he questions what can be built to the west, if there would there be enough acreage for additional housing units, and what safety factors will be created. Mr. Schnor does not want to see County Road 10 become chopped up. He also brought up potential safety issues with a townhome development and access for fire vehicles and also garbage trucks within the development. Commissioner Hegland asked Mr. Schnor if he has a preference for what is built on this property. Mr. Schnor questioned if the townhomes are the right way to go or should businesses be built. Commissioner Hegland shared that when the Comprehensive Plan was developed, the B-3 zoning was in hopes of that having the option to not doing a PUD would encourage more business development along County Road 10. He also stated that affordable housing and rental property was discussed. At that time Mounds View was at a higher rate than in adjacent cities. He believes the idea behind the Comprehensive Plan is to develop more business along County Road 10. Commissioner Scotch stressed she does not feel traffic will be an issue. She also feels the vision for the Comprehensive Plan was for more business and is in favor of that option. Commissioner Scotch would like to see the whole strip purchased to enhance the City. Commissioner Hegland contends that Mounds View has a limited amount of space for business development. Acting Chair Miller expressed her understanding of the Comprehensive Plan. She also believes it is for business development and townhomes are not part of the plan. Director Ericson stated that development of the corridor is continually being worked on. Mounds View has vacant buildings in the area but this could change in time with the Medtronic project, the Viking Stadium, or other developers could renew their interest in the County Road 10 corridor. Commissioner Zwirn pointed out he hears lots of discussion on the corridor development. This discussion leads to the question of what to develop – residential or business. He expressed the problems of having a business near a residential area include vandalism, lighting issues, property maintenance, congregation of youth and others. He feels the Commission should look at which Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ permitted use is the lesser of two evils. Commissioner Zwirn stressed that Integra has an impeccable reputation regarding maintenance and communication with residents. To accommodate requirements of space and workability features, Integra is willing to work with residents on their concerns and recommendations. He stressed that once the City Council passes this, it is done. If there are problems later, there is not much that can be done. Individuals will need to bring individual issues or problems to the Council or Commission as they happen. Commissioner Zwirn is confused as to what the public wants to do with the corridor. If the public does not want commercial development, or doesn’t want residential, what does public really want? Mr. Waldoch again addressed the Commission and stated he has no problem with townhouses. He has issue with the proposed location and breaking up the PUD. He indicated there are no residential accommodations or services at that end of town. He questions why townhouses should be built on both sides of County Road 10. He believes traffic will become an issue on Spring Lake Road with the right hand turn out of the townhome development, which will not help Mounds View businesses. Mr. Waldoch believes there is a better way to look at this. He pointed out the townhomes going up along Long Lake Road and questions how many are needed in Mounds View. He restated his feeling that Integra did not do its homework and believes the PUD was developed for a reason. Mr. Waldoch would like to see townhouses kept at the end of town where sidewalks and stop and go lights already exist. He believes it is time for more business and the PUD makes more sense now than it did when originally developed. Commissioner Scotch maintains that most business owners take pride in their businesses. Director Ericson called the Commissions attention to the issue of traffic. It is his observation that the 19-unit townhome development would not create a traffic concern. Commercial business generally creates more traffic. In a conversation with the Fire Marshall, adequate space for safety and emergency vehicles and garbage trucks will exist. Secondly, trail ways and pedestrian friendly areas are planned along County Road 10 to Silver Lake Road and Spring Lake Road to the northwest. Director Ericson believes when the PUD was created in 2001/2002 they were looking at the future and what could go in this area. The challenge is to look at what would most benefit Mounds View. The B-3 zoning has been in place for many years. The R-1 has been inconsistent, therefore the City maintains control as to what goes in and the PUD will be broken up either way. Commissioner Hegland reiterated the reason for the PUD was based on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Schnor again addressed the Commission. He stated that if the townhome project was important, why is a representative from Integra not present at this meeting. He wonders if this is reflective of how the project will go. Acting Chair Miller reiterated the Comprehensive Plan is in place and emphasized it is for a mixed-use PUD. There are two resolutions before the Commission; one to deny and one to approve the rezoning request to an R-3. She asked Director Ericson if the Comprehensive Plan would have to be changed. Director Ericson explained this is a mixed-use PUD with an emphasis on housing. A townhome development would satisfy the housing component of the PUD. If the intent were for a commercial PUD it would have been designated as such. A townhome Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ development is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He reminded the Commission that the third option is to table this until next meeting. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Hull. To table until the June 21, 2006 meeting, Resolution 835-06, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Rezoning of 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and West Half of 8060 Groveland Road. Integra Homes; Planning Case No. ZC 2006-001. Ayes – 3 Nays – 0 2 Abstain (Scotch, Zwirn) Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ B. VR2006-002. Consideration of a Variance request for a 2 foot garage setback at 7025 Pleasant View Drive. Planning Associate Heller presented a variance request to allow a reduced side-yard setback for a garage at 7025 Pleasant View Drive. The owners (Jim and Amy Wilson) previously had a one-car garage and would like to remodel their home and build a two-car attached garage. The house was built in 1947 and placed approximately centered between the side property lines. Mounds View zoning codes require the living area of a home be ten feet from the side property line. A garage may be five feet from the side property line. The requested variance of three feet would put the garage two feet from the side property line. This home is located in an R-1, Single Family Residential district. The applicants wish to construct a new, larger attached garage to their home. Until recently, there was a single-car, 13’x32’ detached garage on the property that was 8.5’ from the side property line. The applicants indicated this was a very old and ugly garage and has been torn down. The property owners would also remove a shed on the property when they build the new garage. The roofline on the new garage will follow the one on the house, which slopes to the front and back yards. Water runoff would not be running towards the neighboring house. The house to the south is 14.5 feet off the property line. A four-foot privacy fence separates the two houses. The garage would be 3 feet from the fence and the fence is one foot off the neighboring property line. Planning Associate Heller explained that for a variance to be approved, the applicants must demonstrate that a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require the governing body (the Planning Commission in this case) to review a set of seven specific criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. Planning Associate Heller addressed exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property. She noted that even though the property is just over one acre in size, it is not much wider than many other lots in the city. The lot size is approximately 100 feet wide and 448 feet deep, with nearly the entire lot being designated wetland and wetland buffer area. The City imposes development restrictions in or near wetlands. This prevents the applicants from building the garage behind the house. The deep slope of the lot directly behind the house prevents easy Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ access to the backyard and limits how the garage can be constructed and makes it difficult to build a garage that would be two cars deep rather than two cars wide. When the house was built, it was placed 30 feet from the north side property line and 24 feet from the south side property line, which is where the side entrance and previous garage were placed. This leaves limited space for more than a one-car garage. Most of the other homes in the area were placed off center on the lot allowing more room for garages. Planning Associate Heller then addressed the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Title and explained that while the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by the other properties in the same zone, the placement of the home on the lot and the slope of the back yard precludes the applicant from having more than a one-car garage. This in itself may be considered a hardship. She noted the applicants are not the original owners of the property and had no choice in the placement of the home or the slope of the rear yard. With regard to special privilege, Planning Associate Heller noted that granting the variance would not confer upon the property owners a special privilege in that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and livability of their property. Setback issues are the most common source of variance requests. Planning Associate Heller stated the applicant is requesting a three-foot variance, which is the minimum amount that would allow the proposed garage to be wide enough for two cars. Granting a variance to allow the addition to encroach three feet into the side setback would not be materially detrimental to the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. The previous detached garage was 8.5 feet from the property line. The proposed addition should not have any impact on the supply of light or air to adjacent properties, nor would it impact congestion on the street. The proposed garage will not increase the danger of fire, endanger pubic safety or decrease property values in the neighborhood. Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that after holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the property owner and the affected neighbors, the Commission can approve, deny or table actions related to the request. If the Commission chooses to deny the requested variance, it should direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. Should the Commission choose to table the request because they require additional information before a decision can be made or more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information is provided. Because of the 60-day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Mr. Jim Wilson, 7025 Pleasant View Drive, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Wilson stated his intention is to get both cars in a garage. Their son just turned 16 so there will be a third car in the driveway. Mr. and Mrs. Wilson also want to clean up their lot and keep pace with the upgrades to other houses in area. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioners Hegland and Scotch stated they think this is great and are very supportive of his actions. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Scotch. To approve Resolution 836-06, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance to Allow for a Three-Foot Side-yard Setback for a Garage at 7025 Pleasant View Drive; Planning Case No. VR2006-002. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ C. VR2006-003. Consideration of a Variance request for over 1,800 square feet of accessory buildings at 8135 Long Lake Road. Community Development Director Ericson informed the Commission that the applicants, David Slabiak and Maria Merabella, seek a variance to allow more accessory storage space than permitted in an R-1 Single Family Zoning District. The applicants propose constructing a new 1,620 square foot accessory building at the rear of their 29,620 square foot lot. There is presently 868 square feet of accessory space on the lot. Their request would be for an additional 868 square feet of storage space over the 1,800 square foot maximum, or 37 percent more than what is currently allowed. The applicants have indicted a desire to store arcade games in the new building. Director Ericson explained the amount of allowed accessory space on a lot is presently 1,800 square feet, an amount that exceeds many if not most first and second tier suburban communities. The present allowance was established in 2002, increasing the previous maximum from 1,400. For a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. According to Minnesota statutes, the Planning Commission is required to review a set of specific criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the City Zoning Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all the criteria are met. A summary of the findings based on the statutes are as follow: Director Ericson advised there are no extraordinary circumstances relating to the lot or the usage of the property, which would warrant consideration of a variance for more than 37 percent of the maximum allowed square footage. While it may be true that the lot, at 2/3 of an acre, could support the additional garage without exceeding the 20 percent rear-yard coverage ratio and the garage would be reasonably hidden from public view, these facts do not support a finding of extraordinary circumstances. The applicants freely admit that the basis for the request is to resolve a storage space deficiency caused by their own doing. Director Ericson explained the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code allows for a maximum accessory storage space of 1,800 square feet. Many property owners, given the size of their lots and limited backyard depth, do not have the ability to construct anything close to Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ 1,800 square feet. Thus the Code does not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others. With regard to special conditions or circumstances, Director Ericson stated the applicants indicate they have exceeded their available on-site storage capacity and thus would like to construct a new 1,620 square foot accessory building in the backyard to house their arcade games rather than store their machines off-site. The request for this variance is necessitated by the applicant’s hobby and not due to property or other limitations over which they have not control. Director Ericson advised that granting the variance would confer upon the applicants a special privilege in that no single-family residential property owner is allowed more than 1,800 square feet of accessory storage space. The applicants have indicated that the requested 2,468 square feet of accessory storage space is the minimum amount necessary to alleviate their self-created hardship. Granting such a variance would set an unusual standard and would be contrary to the purposes of the Zoning Code. While each request is reviewed on its own merit, approving such a variance request would set a precedent leading to ramifications of this action. Director Ericson stated the proposed addition would not likely have any impact on the supply of light or air to adjacent properties, nor would it likely impact congestion of the streets. The proposed garage would not likely increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety or decrease property values in the neighborhood. Director Ericson summarized by explaining that for a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all criteria are met. In review of the above criteria, it is clear that not all criteria can be reasonably met. Given that, it would not appear that a variance in this case would be justified. Director Ericson stated that after a public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the property owners and affected neighbors, the Commission they can decide to approve, deny or table the request. Director Ericson acknowledged that staff does not support this action as the review of the hardship criteria does not appear to warrant approval. If the Commission believes hardship is evident, it would need to direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval, which clearly outlines the basis of hardship. Director Ericson indicated that staff has prepared a resolution of denial based on its review of the hardship criteria which does not appear to justify approval. If additional information is needed before a decision is made or if more discussion is required, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Director Ericson reminded the Commission that because of the 60-day requirements, it would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Acting Chair Miller asked Director Ericson if this is a garage and he stated it was indeed a garage. Her calculations indicate this building would be larger than the current house and garage together. At this time, Acting Chair Miller called the applicant forward. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Slabiak, 8135 Long Lake Road, addressed the Planning Commission and gave a quick background on their family. He explained they out grew their current space because of a growing family and his hobby of collecting pinball machines. Mr. Slabiak would like to enjoy his personal collection of pinball machines rather than pack them away. He is not planning to run a business from this garage; this is for relaxation only. At this time Mr. Slabiak deferred to his friend Michael Kaluziak. Acting Chair Miller asked about the supplemental information and Mr. Slabiak referred her to Mr. Kaluziak. Mr. Kaluziak presented justification to the Planning Commission for granting a Minor Area Variance. In determining the hardship criteria, Mr. Kaluziak and Mr. Slabiak use the definition of “undue hardship” as “requiring a showing that the property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance.” Mr. Kaluziak made reference to Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Moorehead, 445 N. W. 2nd 917 (Minn. Ct. App., 1989). This interpretation of hardship definition was affirmed in Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul, 529 N.W. 2d488 (Minn. Ct. App., 1995) and Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie, 610 N.W. 2d 697 (Minn. Ct. Appl., 2000). Mr. Kaluziak restated that Mr. Slabiak collects, owns and maintains a substantial collection of electronic amusement devices, primarily pinball machines and video games that are a historical display of Americana. This activity is a permitted use according to local ordinances. Mr. Slabiak is an avid collector but does not engage in commercial activities beyond trading of his own collection. The proposed building is necessary to protect the collection from the elements, theft or vandalism. Mr. Kaluziak maintained that to authorize the variance is not contrary to the public interest and because of the special conditions of the property; a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. By granting the proposed variance, the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice done. It is Mr. Slabiak’s belief that unnecessary hardship exists in part because the ordinance interferes with his right to use the property as he see fit. The extraordinary or exceptional conditions of their residence include an oversized lot, a private setting and a lack of neighbors to the east. According to Mr. Kaluziak’s and Mr. Slabiak’s research, the application of the existing zoning ordinance would unreasonably prevent the Slabiak’s from using the property for a permitted purpose and would render conformity with the existing ordinances unnecessarily burdensome. For example, the Slabiaks could propose the construction of this accessory structure using conforming foundations with a second story or basement and still meet the existing requirements. However, this would increase hazards in terms of fires, personal safety, building expense and inconvenience. In addition, underground storage of electrical components would be in an environment with higher relative humidity, which decreases usable life. These adverse effects are serious practical difficulties that pose more than a mere inconvenience. Approval of this variance would not confer additional rights on others owing to the exceptional, if not unique, conditions of this property. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Kaluziak stated granting the variance would have no effect upon the public. Approval of this variance does not conflict with any state regulations. Courts have found that an area variance poses a lesser threat to the integrity of the zoning scheme than those of use variances. Mr. Kaluziak pointed out the primary objectives of area zoning are to promote uniformity of development, lot size, building configuration and building size. Mr. Slabiak’s property has special conditions and uniqueness that distinguish it from others in the area including oversized lot area, the underdeveloped area to the east, existing vegetative cover and unusual lot dimensions. The property has a unique setting in its environment. In October, 2005, the City rezoned the nearby 72- acre Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course land from “Recreational” to “Business” without prior inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. The sale of this land was done to allow Medtronic, Inc. to construct a 1,200,000 square foot campus. The City determined this rezoning created no adverse effect and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed variance is not inconsistent with the spirit of the ordinance, as it would provide a more uniform density within the R-1 zones in Mounds View. Also, the Planning Commission stated the intent of the 1,800 square foot limit on accessory structures was intended to prohibit commercial vehicle maintenance in residential areas. The proposed structure will not have a driveway and will not be used for vehicle maintenance. Mr. Kaluziak affirmed, in this case, there may not be a clear relationship between the purpose of the existing zoning ordinance and the specific regulation. He notes that the Slabiak lot is 2.7 times the minimum lot sized required by local zoning ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed structure would actually provide a more uniform density of R-1 zoned lots within the city as described by the Comprehensive Plan and the majority of other R-1 residences in the City. Mr. Kaluziak pointed out that zoning ordinances must be reasonable, not arbitrary and must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the regulations. The proposed building would meet the maximum 20 percent area of rear yard provisions. The Commission has agreed that the “combined square footage requirements in the Code do not take into consideration larger yards such as the Slabiaks’. Twenty percent of the Slabiaks’ back yard is approximately 3900 square feet. Commissioner Hegland asked Mr. Kaluziak if this request is not approved, would a two-story building would be built to meet the existing footprint? Mr. Kaluziak said this is not an option, as a two-story building would create structural and access issues. Acting Chair Miller asked a question on the supplemental information under paragraph 3 – “the proposed structure will conform to all existing codes with the exception of its width” and “additionally there are several covenants proposed which would prevent any future incompatible uses.” Mr. Kaluziak referred the Commissioners to paragraph 8, identifying proposed measures to minimize any potential adverse effects. These include, but are not limited to: Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 12 ________________________________________________________________________ -Ten foot property boundary setbacks on all sides of the building to lessen any visual impact to the surrounding area. - Exterior of this accessory building will closely match the existing primary residence. - The accessory building will not be connected by a driveway, ensuring no vehicle maintenance will be performed. -No impact upon existing trees and additional landscaping will be done. - No windows other than those required for safety and will be insulated to abate noise from the facility. -Building will be accessible to emergency and public safety vehicles. -Construction will include any necessary grading or drainage modification necessary. -This structure will be shielded from view by existing vegetation. Director Ericson reminded the Commission that while he appreciates the nostalgia of the collection, this is not what the variance is for; it is for accessory building space. The Commission must also consider the future and long-term impacts of their decision. When looking at a variance, some hardship based on the property or the area in which this is located must be evident. If the property is sold, what happens then? When a variance is approved, it is forever. Mr. Kaluziak is asking the Commission to look at the reasonableness of the request. The Commission must consider the reasonableness; 1,800 is reasonable but 2400 is excessive. Commissioner Hegland asked how one can defend that this does not grant him a special privilege that no one else has. Mr. Kaluziak stated they did consider future impacts. He showed a diagram of the footprint on the lot. Similar properties were pointed also out. They do not believe this is a special right, that they do have precedence by this Commission that hardship is created by the smallness of a lot size, and the reverse should also be considered. They are consistent with existing guidelines within the Minnesota Planning Act, to allow different designations within districts themselves. In summary Mr. Slabiak’s application is for a permitted use and is not unreasonable. He believes the variance process exists for a reason and the remedy is more compliant with the planning ordinance than a two-story structure or alternatives would be. He also restated that there is a question as to whether the seven criteria within 1125 are legally sufficient tests to look at hardship. Acting Chair Miller asked Director Ericson if Minnesota statues require the Planning Commission to review a specified set of criteria; are the criteria in 1125 something the City determined or are they based on State of Minnesota statues. Director Ericson believes it is the language the City adopted and it is consistent with Minnesota statutes. There has not been a case, to his knowledge, where these have been challenged. There are opportunities to find hardship and the Planning Commission has done so on numerous occasions. There are numerous justifiable variances and hardship justifications. He does not, nor does City Attorney, believe that the criteria the City of Mounds View is in any way stricter or not conducive in finding fair and reasonable review of applications. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 13 ________________________________________________________________________ Acting Chair Miller asked Director Ericson if Mr. Slabiak can take his request for a variance on appeal to the City Council if the Planning Commission denies this application. Director Ericson stated it is the right of any applicant to take a denied request on appeal to the City Council. Commissioner Zwirn asked Mr. Slabiak if this facility is only for the collection or will meetings or exchange of machines for value be conducted here also. Mr. Slabiak said this is only for maintaining and working on his collection to pass on later. No meetings or sales will be held from this building. There will be no storage of chemicals or paint supplies, only cleaning supplies. He restores and dismantles these machines. The chemicals he uses are the same type one would use on cars. He restores these machines to a point they look like they have been used, not to make them flawless. Commissioner Scotch asked where these pinball machines are stored now. Mr. Slabiak stated they are in their home, garage and a rental storage unit. Commissioner Scotch commented that the backyard is totally buffered by trees and the lot is lengthy. Mr. Slabiak commented he would like to place the building in back so as not to disturb neighbors or his family. He talked to neighbors and there does not seem to be a problem with the construction of this building. Commissioner Scotch asked if adding on to the home would accomplish the same goal. Mr. Slabiak restated he wants the machines removed from the home and out of reach of his children and his wife does not want them in the home. Mr. James Lund, 14035 Hillsboro Court, Savage, MN, addressed the Commission, stating he owns property to the back of Mr. Slabiak’s lot. Mr. Lund said he would like to develop the land behind into single-family housing in the future. He has waited because other developers are trying to develop to the north. He does not want to alienate his neighbor if he decides to develop his property. Mr. Lund indicted that he believes Mr. Slabiak’s intention to have the building 60 feet from the north line is plenty. His major concern is that the building will not look like a pole barn type building. He also wants to save the tree buffer. Mr. Lund is also glad Mr. Slabiak is not putting in a driveway to this building. Mr. Lund would like the plans to be approved before he begins construction. He wants to be sure the footprint is 10 feet or more from the back lot and at least 15 feet from the north line. Commissioner Hegland does not see how this can be approved, given the criteria they must follow. The only way it will fit the criteria is to increase the criteria to 2,400 square feet. He is not suggesting that be done. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Hull. To approve Resolution 839-06, a Resolution Recommending Denial of a variance request for 2,468 Square Feet of Accessory Storage Space at 8135 Long Lake Road; Planning Case No.VR2006-003. Commissioner Zwirn commented this was an eloquent argument pointing out that 1125 is a guideline rather than a document cut in stone. He believes there are extenuating circumstances for individuals with large lots when they need outbuildings that would normally be construed as a large outbuilding, but on a large lot it meets the liberal criteria that could be established for this. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 14 ________________________________________________________________________ Nothing can be construed to be beneficial for a person with a lot of this size. He does not believe the Planning Commission needs to change the criteria, but should be able to liberally interpret 1125. Commissioner Zwirn is inclined to permit the usage. Commissioner Hegland indicated he believes this is not the only solution to this problem. Other options could be considered. Acting Chair Miller affirmed the Code sets the limit for accessory space and this goes way beyond the standards. She appreciates what Commissioner Zwirn said and what the applicant says, but given what they have to work with right now she does not see how this can be approved. Commissioner Scotch informed the applicant he can feel free to take this to the City Council. Director Ericson will let them know the process to do this. Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Zwirn) Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ D. CU2006-005. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Motor Freight Terminal at 2169 Mustang Drive, Midwest Motor Express. Planning Associate Heller presented the Commission with a request for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a motor freight terminal at 2169 Mustang Drive. This property was developed in 1974 as a trucking terminal and has continued to operate as such for the past 32 years. For unknown reasons, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) has never been issued to this property. The applicant, Mr. Joe Greenstein, recently applied to the City for a development review of an expansion to their building. While doing research, staff discovered that a CUP was never approved for this property. Planning Associate Heller explained that with every Conditional Use Permit application, Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to 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, traffic, adequate utilities and access roads and the demonstrated need for such a use. Planning Associate Heller stated the Comprehensive Plan encourages expansion of existing businesses and introduction of new businesses within Mounds View. The site of 2169 Mustang Drive and surrounding properties in the industrial park are designed as light or heavy industrial on the Future Land Use Map and this trucking terminal would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This property is designated as “Heavy Industrial” on the Comprehensive Plan maps. Planning Associate Heller noted this business is located at Mustang Drive in the Mounds View Industrial Park. The trucking terminal would continue to not be out of place for this industrial area. Since the property has operated as a trucking terminal for the past 32 years and plans to continue operating as such, there would be no change to the value of this or any surrounding Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 15 ________________________________________________________________________ properties. This site is in an industrial area and these types of businesses are what industrial areas are designed and zoned for. Staff does not feel there would be any depreciation of the subject property or the surrounding properties. Planning Associate Heller stated this part of the City is mostly an industrial area. There is a manufactured home community on the north end of the property; however, a natural vegetative buffer separates the properties. All other properties surrounding the subject property are zoned industrial. There are two other large trucking companies in this industrial park, so the character in this area is largely transportation based. With regard to traffic, Planning Associate Heller noted that Mustang Drive exits onto Old Highway 8 where traffic counts are 6,800 vehicles per day. Traffic would not change by approving this conditional use permit. The applicant is proposing an expansion to the building but does not anticipate an increase in traffic. There would be no change to the existing business. It would continue operating as it has for many years. All utilities and access roads are adequate for this business. The site is located on Mustang Drive, which has good access to nearby highways and freeways. Planning Associate Heller advised that Midwest Motor Express has operated this business in Mounds View since 1994, and this site has been operating as a trucking terminal since it was developed over 30 years ago with no problems. Midwest Motor Express is very happy being located here and would like to continue to operate and expand in Mounds View. Planning Associate Heller stated that public hearing notices were mailed out to all property owners within 350 feet of 2169 Mustang Drive, including the specific manufactured homes with in the radius area. No comments have been received. Planning Associate Heller summarized by stating Midwest Motor Express is requesting approval of a conditional use permit which is required to operate a trucking terminal on an industrial zoned property. By no fault of Midwest Motor Express, a Conditional Use Permit was never issued for the property even though it has been operating as a trucking terminal since 1974. There have been no problems with this property as a trucking terminal. Based on the stated criteria, staff feels the proposed adequately satisfies the conditional use criteria and would not adversely affect the surrounding area. Mr. Greenstein addressed the Planning Commission. He was shocked to discover there was no Conditional Use Permit and is requesting the Planning Commission grant the CUP. Director Ericson stated this is a housekeeping item. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Zwirn. To approve Resolution 837-06, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for a Motor Freight Terminal at 2169 Mustang Drive; Planning Case No. CU2006-005. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 16 ________________________________________________________________________ E. DE2006-002. Development Review for an Expansion to Midwest Motor Express building, Midwest Motor Express. Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that the applicant and property owner of Midwest Motor Express is requesting a development review for a proposed 10,500 square foot building addition to be added onto the north side of the existing building at 2169 Mustang Drive. This expansion would help the company continue to be competitive in their market and streamline their current processes. Midwest Motor Express provides direct trucking services to 13 states in the Midwest and western United States. The Midwest Motor Express property is zoned Industrial with motor freight terminals being allowed as a conditional use. With the expansion, they expect to hire about eight to ten new employees consisting of drivers, dockworkers and office personnel. The building was constructed in 1974 as a trucking terminal, and was expanded once in 1994 by 3,500 square feet along with surfacing approximately 90,000 square feet. The building is currently 19,000 square feet and the site also includes a 3-bay repair garage on the west side of the building. Midwest Motor Express would like to add a 70’x150’ expansion to the north end of the building. This expansion would consist of warehouse space and an additional 24- dock doors (12 on each side of the building). They are not expanding the building in anticipation of additional business, instead, they want to perform their dock operations a more efficiently and productively. Additional truck traffic after the expansion is not anticipated. This property is zoned Industrial and is just over eight acres in size. The Comprehensive Plan designates the current and future land use specifically as “Heavy Industrial.” According to the City’s parking code requirements, this facility would be required to provide parking according to the following schedule: at least eight spaces plus on space for each two employees on each shift based on maximum planned employment; or at a minimum, at least eight spaces plus one space for each five hundred square feet of floor space. At maximum expansion, this would result in the need to provide a total of 67 parking stalls when based on the total square footage of the building. There are currently about 40 marked parking spaces in the front of the building. More than enough space for parking exists at this facility since much of the site is paved. Staff is confident the site can support any parking needed. Planning Associate Heller advised that none of the setbacks would be changing except the rear of the building would be moved to within 225 feet of the north property line. This setback is much greater than the minimum requirement in an industrial district of 40 feet when abutting a residential area. Townsedge Manufactured Home Park abuts Midwest Motor Express on the north side. There is a grassy area with a berm and trees at the north end of the property separating Midwest Motor Express’ property from Townsedge. Staff feels that a building setback of 225 feet plus the vegetative separation between the properties should be an adequate buffer for the residential area. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 17 ________________________________________________________________________ With regard to traffic, Planning Associate Heller explained that even with the proposed expansion of 24 more dock doors, no increase in traffic is anticipated. This added space is needed to load and stage freight more efficiently, not for more business. This property is located in the Mounds View Industrial Park along Old Highway 8, which is a fairly high traffic road due to the amount of businesses on Mustang Drive and in the nearby area. Planning Assistant Heller requests the Planning Commission review and consider approval of the plans submitted by Midwest Motor Express proposing a 10,500 square foot addition to the north end of the existing building. Acting Chair Miller asked how long this may take. Mr. Greenstein said they would like to start as soon as possible. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Scotch. To approve Resolution 838-06, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Development Review for a 10,500 square foot addition to the Midwest Motor Express Building; Planning Case No. DE2006-002. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. __________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity None ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: June 21, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Acting Chair Miller adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Dianna Wise TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.