Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-02-2006 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting August 2, 2006 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 _____________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order Chair Stevenson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. August 2, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chair Stevenson; Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, Scotch. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller Economic Development Coordinator Aaron Backman ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page A. CU06-007: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage 2 Applicant: Brian & Laura Krystofiak Address: 2932 Woodale Drive B. VR06-006: Continuation Consideration of a Front Building 3 and Parking Setback Variance Request for Tyson Company at 4825 Mustang Circle Applicant: D&A Development Address: 4825 Mustang Circle ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes - None 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda - None. Mounds View Planning Commission August 2, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. CU06-007: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage Applicant: Brian & Laura Krystofiak Address: 2932 Woodale Drive Planning Associate Heller presented a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new garage at 2932 Woodale Drive. She stated the applicants, Brian and Laura Krystofiak, would demolish the old garage to build a new larger detached garage on the same site. Planning Associate Heller reported the applicants would use the garage for storage, as there are no additional storage buildings or sheds on the property. She reported the applicants are proposing a 28’ x 42’ garage, and called the Commission’s attention to their packet of information with copies of the site survey, showing the proposed footprint. Planning Associate Heller indicated the applicants are still working on the design of the garage but that it would match the style of the home. Planning Associate Heller emphasized the Zoning Code requiring the Planning Commission to review and address any potential adverse effects as a result of the rebuild. She stated the Comprehensive Plan encourages development and maintenance of residential areas. Planning Associate Heller indicated this new garage would be in a well-maintained neighborhood on Woodale Drive. Planning Associate Heller stated this is an entirely residential neighborhood. She expressed that the new garage would look like a normal two-car garage from the front, but may block the neighbors views across the backyards. Planning Associate Heller stated the new garage would increase the applicants’ property value and would not decrease the value of any property in the neighborhood. Planning Associate Heller indicated the garage would not be out of character and pointed out other recently approved larger garages in this neighborhood. Ms. Heller restated the applicants would use the 28’x42’ garage for storage space and parking their vehicles. Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission the applicants were available for questions. She also stated the proposed resolution recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit is attached for action by the Planning Commission. Chair Stevenson requested the proposed height of the garage. Planning Associate Heller reported the applicant is working on some design features and may come back to the Commission for a height variance to include upper storage in the garage. She stated the applicants are trying to stay within the 15-foot requirement. Brian Krystofiak, 2932 Woodale Drive, stated that he would like to have upper level storage in the garage which is why they may need to go taller. He stated that he would like to be able to park his van inside and that he cannot do that now because the garage is too small. Chair Stevenson pointed out he is curious about the height given the garage has such a large footprint. He indicated the new garage plan is only six feet wider than the current garage. Mounds View Planning Commission August 2, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Miller stated the plan seems to hit all required criteria. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the garage would be for storage only and not for potential living or business space. Ms. Heller replied that was correct. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Hegland/Commissioner Scotch, to approve resolution 849- 06 recommending approval of a conditional use permit to allow for a 1,176 square foot garage at 2932 Woodale Drive; Planning Case CU2006-007 Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Commissioner Miller suggested a grammatical change to the resolution. Chair Stevenson stated the variance would include a statement indicating the garage would not be used for additional living space or commercial purposes. Commissioner Miller required the variance state this garage would be designed and maintained for a uniform appearance with the house. __________________________________________________________________________ B. VR06-006: Continuation Consideration of a Front Building and a Parking Setback Variance Request for Tyson Company at 4825 Mustang Circle. Applicant: D&A Development Address: 4825 Mustang Circle Planning Associate Heller presented a continuation from the last Planning Commission meeting; a request for a front building and parking setback variance for the Tyson Company located in the Mounds View Industrial Park. She stated Tyson came back with some new plans. Planning Associate Heller pointed to the site plan displayed for reference. Planning Associate Heller stated Tyson’s first plan proposed a 120,000 square foot building on their property; the revised plan proposes 109,128 square feet. Planning Associate Heller stated Tyson would also add a railroad track spur from the tracks in New Brighten into the new building. She reported Tyson would be able to fit five rail cars inside the new building. Planning Associate Heller reported Tyson indicated, because there are problems hiring enough truck drivers, they are moving back to rail to transport goods. She reported Tyson would move their St. Paul site and employees to Mounds View if the rail project works. Planning Associate Heller indicated Tyson added additional parking and reduced the variance amount they are asking for. She drew the Commissions attention to the site plan where she pointed out the current building locations, wetlands, wooded area, and parking lots. Planning Associate Heller moved to the proposed site plan pointing out plans for the new building, setbacks and added parking areas. She indicated both building corners now have a ten foot Mounds View Planning Commission August 2, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ setback. She also pointed out the required 40-foot corner setback and the 20-foot parking setback locations. Planning Associate Heller stated for a variance to be approved, a hardship must be shown. Planning Associate Heller remarked this is a very large property, over 20 acres in size, where wetlands limit the location and size of the proposed building. She stated the literal interpretation of the Zoning Code may deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, in that most properties do not have, or have less, wetlands on their property. Planning Associate Heller stated special conditions or circumstances are a result from the actions of the applicant due to the building size that they want. She reported granting the variance may confer on the applicant special privileges denied to other property owners in the same district. Planning Associate Heller stated the variances requested are the minimum required to alleviate the hardship and economic conditions alone are not considered a hardship. She stated the variance may not be materially detrimental to the purpose or to other properties in the same zone. Planning Associate Heller verified the proposed variance would not impair adequate light and air supply to neighboring properties. Commissioner Miller asked which part of the building was made smaller. Planning Associate Heller, using the new site plan display, pointed out the cut down area to the east and south areas of the building. Chair Stevenson asked if Staff felt there would be adequate parking if another business were to move into this building. Planning Associate Heller said parking stalls are based on the size of the building. She pointed out large buildings do not always have a large number of employees. She indicated Tyson is trying to build as much parking as possible. She stated Tyson currently has about 150 spaces, which is more than Tyson needs, but less than what is required by code. Planning Associate Heller pointed out on the proposed site plan where additional parking spaces could go if needed. Chair Stevenson asked if Staff is comfortable with the parking plan given the purpose of Tyson. Planning Associate Heller stated for a warehouse type business, parking is probably adequate given that warehouse businesses typically do not have a lot of employees. But the Planning Commission does need to consider parking if Tyson were to leave. Commissioner Scotch indicated along Mustang the building appears to be in line with the building next door. Planning Associate Heller stated she drew it in as a reference and that the location is not accurate on the site plan. She stated Tyson’s building would be very close to the street and would stand out. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if Tyson was at the end of the street. Planning Associate Heller indicated they were and pointed out on the site plan where to enter Tyson and the location of other businesses. Mounds View Planning Commission August 2, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson indicated the railroad track runs close along Mustang. Planning Associate Heller agreed and pointed out the location of the tracks. Commissioner Scotch asked how wide the parking area on the south side would be. Planning Associate Heller stated it would be about 35 feet wide with a five-foot setback from the property line. Commissioner Miller asked where employees would park personal vehicles while out with the trucks. Planning Associate Heller stated most of the employees work daytime hours in the office. She also indicated many of the drivers do not necessarily live here but drive in from other states. Mr. Tellers, Tyson Company, reported they currently have about ten over the road drivers that may park a vehicle at their site. He does not believe there are problems with parking. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the new building would be a two-story building. Mr. Tellers stated it would not. He indicated he would like to explore the possibility of a mezzanine over the rail dock. Chair Stevenson asked how many properties the rail would go through. Mr. Tellers stated only Bellair. Chair Stevenson asked if Bellair would make use of the spur also. Mr. Tellers indicated they would. Commissioner Miller asked how long rail cars are in the building before they are unloaded and removed. Mr. Tellers replied they are unloaded within 24 hours to eliminate cars backing up and additional rail charges. Commissioner Miller asked if the cars, once unloaded, are loaded with other items and taken away. Mr. Tellers stated it depends on their customers. He indicated they have mostly in-bound freight on the rail cars. The freight is generally then sent out by truck. Commissioner Scotch asked if they handle flammable items. Mr. Tellers stated they do not. He reported handling mostly canned goods, milk powder, bagged salt, paper, and such products. He explained they have customers that pick these commodities up. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the front of the building along Mustang Circle would be one story. Mr. Tellers stated it would. Commissioner Zwirn asked if there would be enough room in the front parking lot for plowing. Mr. Thomas Hailey, MLS Engineering, replied, with the 20-foot drive and 10-foot wide parking stalls, there would be more than enough room to adequately plow and allow for fire trucks. Commissioner Miller asked where the flood plain was located. Mr. Hailey pointed out the wetland boundaries to the north on the site plan, and said the flood plain boundary is fairly close to the wetland boundary. Mounds View Planning Commission August 2, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Miller stated the wetland seems lower than the rest of the property. Mr. Hailey replied there is a significant drop. Commissioner Miller stated the Staff report indicated encroachment into the flood plain and asked how that fits into the city code. Planning Associate Heller stated Staff mainly deals with the wetlands, but with flood plains, staff will make sure the planned building elevations are where they should be. She indicated the statement in the Staff report was a response from Rice Creek indicating that the plans looked to be encroaching into the wetlands. Commissioner Zwirn stated he can appreciate the economics of the decisions on the size of the building, but there are criteria the Commission must go by. He cannot see where the criteria on variances would be met. He indicated he would like to see a building design more in compliance with Code. Commissioner Hegland indicated he would like to see more consideration for future use. He stated there is enough parking for Tyson employees today, but if Tyson leaves, the parking needs for other businesses might be limited. He indicated he would like to see what the parking would be with and without the truck parking element. Planning Associate Heller indicated the parking ratio is 1 parking space for every 500 square feet in the building. Commissioner Miller stated she would like the site plan to show proof of potential parking spaces for future needs. Chair Stevenson agreed with Commissioner Miller and would also request the proof of parking possibilities for the future. Commissioner Hegland agreed and would like to see proof of parking plan for future needs, as there are currently less than half the required spaces for the proposed building size. Commissioner Miller pointed out the variance request is quite a variation from what Code says. She also sees the problems and is not sure how willing she is to give on the variance. Commissioner Scotch asked if the rail would come into the building. Planning Associate Heller pointed to the location on the proposed site map, and indicated the cars would be completely inside the building. Commissioner Scotch stated she had no problem with it. Commissioner Meehlhause remarked the Commission talks about the need to be consistent in its rulings. He gave an example of denying a similar request along Old Highway 8. Mounds View Planning Commission August 2, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch reminded everyone that request was along a main thoroughfare and this request is located in a cul-de-sac. She stated this is a tough one but believes the Commission needs to move ahead on economic development. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Scotch/Commissioner Hall to approve resolution 848-06 approving a variance to reduce the front building setbacks to ten feet and the parking setback to five feet at Tyson Company located at 4825 Mustang Circle; Planning Case VR2006-006. Ayes – 4 Nays – 3 Motion carried. Commissioner Miller pointed out changes to the numbers would need to be made in the resolution. Chair Stevenson added he would like to have the applicant show proof of parking at the development review, and the resolution to state the actual square footage of the proposed building. Planning Associate Heller indicated all changes would be made. 6. Other Planning Activity A. Final Review of Ordinance 773 Regarding Fences and Retaining Walls Planning Associate Heller reported a few months ago the Planning Commission looked at changing the Zoning Code to add additional language related to fences, terraces and retaining walls. She stated the Planning Commission made recommendations that went into a new ordinance and then in front of the City Council for first and second readings. Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission of seven additional suggestions made at the Council meeting. She reported the Council requested the Planning Commission review the additional suggestions and decide if any should be added. Planning Associate Heller stated Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the added suggestions and included them in the staff report exactly how they were submitted and wrote a response to each. Ms. Heller reported Staff and the City Attorney believe the ordinance is fine as written, but the Council did want the Commission to review the suggestions and make comments. Commissioner Miller made reference to the proposed changes and the reference to require screening. Planning Associate Heller indicted this was in reference to when screening would be required, and what would be acceptable to be used as screening. Commissioner Hegland asked about the reference to barbed wire, and why the city or governmental units would be allowed to use barbed wire. He asked why should the city be Mounds View Planning Commission August 2, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ allowed to use it if no one else could. Planning Associate Heller stated that staff added barbed wire so it could not be used since the current code does not specify. Commissioner Hegland believes, regarding barbed wire, the Ordinance is trying to cover something that already exists. Planning Associate Heller made note of the discussion and said she would pass on this comment. Planning Associate Heller read and the Planning Commission discussed each of the seven suggestions. She began with the Community Development Department doing a review of retaining walls being built next to existing structures. The code currently has no setback requirements for retaining walls but that the fence, retaining wall or terrace must be on the owner’s property and not on the property line. Planning Associate Heller read the next suggestion of requiring railings or lighting on retaining walls over two feet high. The suggestion stated the maximum height for a retaining wall should not be over four feet when placed on easements, lines of sight and curbs. Planning Associate Heller stated that retaining walls must not run to the curb since then they would not be inside the property line. She stated there are currently line of sight rules for fences. Planning Associate Heller read the suggestion that a building permit be required for retaining walls next to egress windows or safety exits, tuck-under garages or cellar doors. Planning Associate Heller stated the City could not require a building permit for something that is already outlined as such in the Minnesota State Building Code. Planning Associate Heller did state Staff does ask to see site plans indicating where the retaining wall would be built. Planning Associate Heller stated the next suggestion was to change the “no setback” requirement to a six-inch setback. Chair Stevenson indicated the City had numerous discussions on the six-inch setback along property lines. Planning Associate Heller stated a requirement that retaining walls must be on the property already exists. Planning Associate Heller reported the next suggestion concerned property owners who build a retaining wall between the property line and a garage with the intent of parking a vehicle in this area. The recommendation was made that the area be planted with grass within one month and to prohibit parking on this space. Chair Stevenson stated the City has not seen a lot of problems with this. Planning Associate Heller reported the final suggestion was an addition to section 1103.09, subd. 3, item b. “unless the said retaining wall be directly next to an existing fence specifically installed to meet the building code requiring a minimum five foot high fence around a swimming Mounds View Planning Commission August 2, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ pool.” Ms. Heller indicated that both staff and the city attorney feel that what is written in the ordinances is acceptable. Planning Associate Heller reported she would bring the statements from the Commission forward to the City Council. B. TIF spending recommendations Economic Development Coordinator Aaron Backman, reported the Economic Development Authority (EDA) requests the Planning Commission review a list of potential economic development, housing and infrastructure projects and provide feedback and recommendations as to where TIF dollars could be best spent. Coordinator Backman explained the list of projects was separated into three categories: Economic Development Projects, Housing Development Projects, and Infrastructure Projects. Coordinator Backman indicated the Commission could also identify projects not included on the current list. Coordinator Backman discussed the items under each category on the list and gave examples of eligible projects under each category. Coordinator Backman explained housing projects in general, must benefit low and moderate-income individuals. He further explained economic development projects are historical projects that have happened or are going on today. He stated housing development and infrastructure projects are future oriented. Coordinator Backman asked the Commission to individually checkmark the projects they felt should be funded. He stated the responses would be tabulated and compiled into a recommendation for the EDA. Commissioner Hegland asked Coordinator Backman for any indication of the impact on any of the choices. Coordinator Backman replied he believed the City Council had a good idea of what the priorities are, but would take into consideration recommendations from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hegland expressed he does not understand why a cost benefit analysis was not done on the list. He feels it is dangerous to not do a cost benefit analysis along with this list. Coordinator Backman replied the danger with a cost benefit analysis in this case, is they do not know what the associated costs would be in the future. He stated he is merely trying to illicit a preferred focus from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Scotch asked about water, sewer, and other projects and if Coordinator Backman is talking about fixing these things. Coordinator Backman indicated TIF dollars could be used for this. Mounds View Planning Commission August 2, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland stated this is basically a wish list. He indicated he does not feel there is enough information provided on all the areas to make a good decision. Commissioner Meehlhause clarified what Coordinator Backman is asking for. He stated Coordinator Backman would like to know if the Planning Commission wants TIF dollars to be used for the items listed. He indicated that perhaps the Commission is reading too much into the list. The Commissioners should complete the list and turn them in to Planning Associate Heller by Monday, August 7. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. August 16, 2006. B. September 6, 2006 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:22 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.