Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-04-2006 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 4, 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. October 4, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chair Stevenson; Commissioners Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, Miller, and Zwirn Absent and Excused: Commissioner Scotch Also Present: Community Development Director Jim Ericson Planning Associate Heidi Heller ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page VR2006-008: Confirmation - Consideration of a Variance Request for a 2 Driveway Setback. Applicant: Mitch and Alison Ford Address: 8378 Groveland Road VR2006-009: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Storage of Flammable 7 Liquids. Applicant: 7T’s Management, LLC (Tyson Company) Address: 4815 Mustang Circle Accessory Building Codes & Requirements Discussion 12 Chair Stevenson asked if there were any additional items to be added. 3. Approve Minutes A. August 2, 2006 Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Zwirn /Commissioner Miler, to approve the Minutes of the August 2, 2006 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. VR2006-008: Continuation - Consideration of a Variance request for a driveway setback. Applicant: Mitch and Alison Ford, 8378 Groveland Road Planning Associate Heller summarized the continuance of the Planning Commission meeting from September 20, 2006, where neighbors spoke on behalf of the Fords and photos of the property were viewed. She explained the Fords are requesting a variance to permit a driveway with no setback from the property line. She reported the Fords built a garage in 2003 and that a driveway was installed the following spring without a permit. Planning Associate Heller reported Staff received a complaint referring to the zero-setback of the driveway. She indicated the Fords were given the option to either cut back the driveway one foot to bring it into compliance or apply for a variance for the zero-setback driveway. Planning Associate Heller stated the Fords indicated that a driveway next to the house leading to the rear yard had been there for many years. Planning Associate Heller stated from 2000 to September 2004, City Code allowed one-foot driveway setbacks if the owner received a letter of agreement from the immediate neighbor. Planning Associate Heller reported the Fords obtained a letter from Mr. Eric Severson, but incorrectly installed the driveway with a zero setback. Planning Associate Heller stated the hardship criteria was discussed at length during the September 20th meeting resulting in the Planning Commission directing Staff to draft a resolution of approval for consideration at the October 4, 2006 meeting. Staff has since received a letter from an attorney on the Fords behalf Planning Associate Heller explained that if the variance was approved, there had been some concern about the driveway being on or over the property line. Planning Associate Heller stated it is the responsibility of the property owners to determine the location of their property lines. She stated the City is not liable for property line disputes. She stated the public hearing was held over from September 20, 2006 to the October 4, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, therefore this is a continuance of the public hearing. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson inquired about City liability if the Planning Commission approved the variance. His concern is if the driveway does cross the property line and by granting the variance, would the city be liable for any action taken by the neighbor. Planning Associate Heller replied that the City does not require surveys when work is being done, and that she spoke to the City Attorney who indicated that the City is not responsible for determining where property lines are and it is up to the applicant to construct within their property boundary. She stated, according to the City Attorney, it would be a civil matter if a property line dispute ensued. Commissioner Zwirn reported he received the letter from Ms. Barb Benesch, Community Development Administrative Assistant in response to the letter from the Fords attorney. He asked, in looking at the letter and the application, what was the reason the driveway was not listed under special conditions or the other specified areas on the application. Planning Associate Heller stated this is the application that came in for the garage. She stated when Administrative Assistant Benesch accepted the application, she looked at it as a garage permit only. Commissioner Zwirn stated the application included the driveway also and the letter alludes to the fact Ms. Benesch had some recollection as to how close the driveway was to the property line. Planning Associate Heller stated she could not speak to what happened at that time. Commissioner Hegland asked how the issue came to the City’s attention. Planning Associate Heller replied that Mr. Jeremiah Anderson, Housing Inspector, received a call about the driveway being on the property line. Chair Stevenson asked who installed the fence. Planning Associate Heller replied the neighbor had installed it. Chair Stevenson asked if the fence was on the paved part and had a property survey been done. Ms. Kari Willis, 8388 Groveland Road, stated she had a survey done in April 2006 so they would assure the fence was put within their property boundaries. She stated a professional fence installation company installed the fence according to zoning codes. Ms. Willis stated the driveway blacktop had to be chipped out to set the footings which are entirely within their property. She stressed they made sure the fence was well within the property line. Chair Stevenson asked Ms. Willis if they had the property staked out along the property line. Commissioner Hegland asked how far the stakes were located from the fence and where the driveway was in relation to the stakes. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Ms. Willis replied the stakes were within a couple of inches of the fence. Mr. Eric Severson, 8388 Groveland Road, explained Midway Fence required a survey before they would touch the existing chain link fence as the blacktop was around the existing footings and protruding through the existing fence. Commissioner Hegland asked when the fence was installed. Ms. Willis replied the end of May 2006 and shortly afterward they moved the chain link fence from the back of the yard to the front of the wood fence, which they did themselves using the survey stakes. Mr. Severson stated the fencing company did the damage to the blacktop. Ms. Willis stated she made the call to Housing Inspector Anderson after the survey was done which showed the blacktop encroaching onto their property. She stated they are concerned about property value and legal liability stemming from the blacktop coming onto their property. Commissioner Hegland asked how much of the driveway is on their property. Ms. Willis replied it is up to 10 inches and varies along the length of the property. Ms. Willis stated the blacktop currently under the new privacy fence was through the old chain link fence prior to installing the new fence. She said they had to dig out the footings from under the blacktop. Commissioner Zwirn asked to see the photos that Ms. Willis had previously submitted to staff. He then referred to the letter from Ms. Willis that alluded to the representation of the signature on the letter of authorization dated August 23, 2003. Commissioner Zwirn asked how she came to that statement. Mr. Severson replied he asked to see the original, as he was not provided a copy at the time he signed it. He questioned the wording above his signature. Planning Associate Heller stated she did not have an original copy of the authorization letter. The Fords stated they were asked to submit the original to the City. Community Development Director Ericson explained Staff would typically put whatever was provided to the City in the property file and it would be kept indefinitely. He stated if an original submitted was submitted, the City should have it. He could not say whether or not the City had an original. Commissioner Hegland asked where the copy the Planning Commission received was acquired. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Planning Associate Heller stated it was made from a copy the Fords had at the time of the variance application. Chair Stevenson stated he is not sure how in all fairness the Commission could approve something that is a total infringement on the neighboring property. He explained that whether or not verbal or written authorization was received, no one gave permission to pave up to ten inches over the property line. Ms. Carole Isakson, attorney with Kalina, Wills, Gisvold & Clark, 6160 Summit Drive, Suite 560, Minneapolis, addressed the commission on behalf of the Fords. She pointed out the Fords paved an existing driveway that had been there since 1988. She pointed out the neighbor sat on this for three years. She stated the driveway is not over the property line. She pointed out there is no survey of the Ford property. Commissioner Hegland stated if there is no survey from the Fords, there is no property line established and this is why there is a one-foot setback. Chair Stevenson stressed, for the Commission to grant a zero-setback, it would never do so without a survey. He insisted there was a one-foot requirement since driveways and fences are typically not exactly straight, and can meander back and forth. He emphasized the Commission would not approve it without an official survey showing the driveway was within their property boundary. He declared the Commission would not grant this variance without a survey. Chair Stevenson stated if the Fords want to do a survey and bring this back to the Commission that would be fine. Commissioner Zwirn asked Mr. Ford, at the time he covered the driveway with blacktop, if there was a fence along the property. Mr. Ford responded there was. Ms. Isakson pointed out the issue of Adverse Possession and a Doctrine of Practical Location where two properties have always treated a line as a line, even if a survey comes in and states the line was at some other location, the courts would treat it as the line. Commissioner Zwirn commented the survey is not the primary factor the Planning Commission had to deal with; if a line is an existing line and had been treated as a line, Minnesota has a philosophy it is the line and Mr. Ford has every right to treat it as such. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if someone else were to purchase the property, would he or she be a victim of the invisible agreement. Ms. Isakson replied they would not be a victim, it is not invisible and the Doctrine of Physical Location is generally a fence. Chair Stevenson asked why the Fords went ahead and blacktopped the driveway within one foot when City Code had never allowed it. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ The Fords replied they were under the impression they had permission to do what they had done. Chair Stevenson stated the Fords clearly encroached on the neighbor's property and he could not approve the variance request. Commissioner Miller responded one thing to consider is the rock driveway that had been up to the fence since 1988. Chair Stevenson restated the driveway could not be paved up to the fence. Ms. Isakson replied the Fords believed they were working with the City, as Ms. Benesch told them all they needed was a letter of approval from the neighbors. She stated the Fords had done their best to comply with what they were told. Commissioner Zwirn stated Staff gave the Fords direction and the Commission needs to give them an opportunity to express themselves. Mr. Ford showed photos of the back of the neighbor’s yard and of their back yard. He stated the neighbor's photos made it look as if the dark area were blacktop when in fact it is black dirt. He pointed out the surveyor’s stake is 42 feet behind where the driveway is. He stated this is not encroaching. He stated his driveway does not go anywhere onto their property where they mow. Commissioner Zwirn asked if at the time the blacktopping was done if the original fence was there. Mr. Ford stated a fence had been there for many years. Chair Stevenson pointed out the neighbors cement fence footings and asked if the Fords had a problem with it. Mr. Ford said no as that would be petty. Commissioner Miller stated when the Planning Commission discussed this at the September 20th meeting they asked if the Fords would be required to cut out 12 inches of the driveway, what would they do with the space. She said the Planning Commission instructed Staff to draft a resolution to approve it, but to wait until the Commissioners absent from the September 20 meeting were there to discuss it. Chair Stevenson stated he did not have a problem instructing the Fords to dig it up. He mentioned he did have a problem granting a zero setback. He stated nobody deserves a zero setback variance and he did not see in good conscience how it could be approved. Chair Stevenson stated the practicality of why there is a one-foot setback is so these types of disputes do not happen. He declared property lines are not set unless they are surveyed. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Ms. Isakson replied this is a situation where the Fords are coming to the Planning Commission after the fact in which the City played a great role. She stated there are so many practical considerations that did make it a unique situation and the City bears some responsibility in this. She reported the Fords put a lot of money and work into this and worked with the City all along. Chair Stevenson stressed he wanted to be assured if this were granted, the City would not be liable. Ms. Isakson replied the City would have some liability if it were not granted. She stated everyone is trying to do what is best and given the situation, there are unique reasons to grant the variance. Community Development Director Ericson stated there are many good points made on both sides. He stated if the variance were denied, what would be put in the place of the blacktop removed. He stated it would not look as nice and might cause problems for both parties. Director Ericson expressed it is very clear there was some miscommunication and based on the Commission meeting on September 20th, Staff was requested to draft a resolution of approval for up to the property line. He stated if Ms. Willis and Mr. Severson said it encroaches onto their property, this is a civil matter. He agreed if it were brought to the Planning Commission before the driveway was put in, it would probably have been denied. He clarified the Planning Commission’s approval would be to allow the driveway to remain at a zero-setback, and not a negative setback. Chair Stevenson encouraged the Fords not to pursue any issue with the placement of the posts, as the Planning Commission would be quite liberally granting this variance if it were approved. He also stated if the variance is granted, both neighbors should go home and consider themselves fortunate. Commissioner Zwirn recommended the following statement be added to the variance: “by granting this variance the City is hereby held harmless from any future litigation and it should not be construed the City endorses a zero-setback.” MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Miller/Commissioner Zwirn, to approve Resolution 851-06 approving a variance for a zero-foot driveway setback at 8378 Groveland Road; Planning Case VR2006-008, with additional comments. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Abstain 2 (Stevenson and Meehlhause) Motion carried. B. VR2006-009: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for storage of flammable Liquids. Applicant: 7T’s Management, LLC (Tyson Companies), 4815 Mustang Circle. Planning Associate Heller summarized a request for a conditional use permit for the storage of flammable liquids at 4715 Mustang Circle. She stated this is actually an amendment to the current conditional use permit the Tyson Company has allowing for a motor freight terminal on the property. She stated Tyson is proposing to move Ferrellgas onto the property. She indicated she brought a site plan for the Planning Commission’s reference. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Planning Associate Heller stated Tyson Company would like to partner with Ferrellgas as part of their expansion project. She explained Ferrellgas is currently located at 1430 Old Highway 8, New Brighton. Planning Associate Heller indicated the current location is an area being redeveloped and the City of New Brighton would like Ferrellgas to relocate. She explained Ferrellgas sells propane gas and the site on the Tyson property would include four large above ground storage tanks, two smaller buildings for office space and storage, and a dock for cylinder filling. Planning Associate Heller explained an amendment to the current Conditional Use Permit is required in order to allow storage of flammable liquids in an industrial zoned district. Planning Associate Heller presented a drawing of the site and pointed out the location of the new buildings, Mustang Drive, where the rail would come in, and the site Ferrellgas would occupy. She stated some underground storage for ponding would be needed. Commissioner Miller asked if there could be more than one business on the property. Planning Associate Heller replied there could be and Tyson would more than likely lease the property to Ferrellgas. She explained Typson currently has four lots that would eventually be turned into one lot as part of the expansion project. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the driveway would be a two-lane or single lane. Planning Associate Heller replied it could be approximately 30 feet wide, which is enough for two cars to pass. Commissioner Miller asked about parking for the employees. Planning Associate Heller replied the buildings would be 1500 and 1800 square feet with only four to eight employees. She pointed out where the proposed parking lot would be located and where the wetlands exist. Chair Stevenson asked if the trucks were the large propane type trucks. Planning Associate Heller replied that was correct. Commissioner Meehlhause asked where the driveway would be in relation to the property line. Planning Associate Heller replied when they get into the setbacks they have 50 feet available. She reported there would be a development review required before this was built. Chair Stevenson asked if Staff had discussed the concerns expressed by Fedtech. Planning Associate Heller replied Community Development Director Ericson and Economic Development Coordinator Aaron Backman have spoken with Fedtech, and it did not sound like Tyson had spoken to Fedtech yet. She stated the concerns had not been addressed but would be in the future. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson explained the concern was for employees breathing in noxious smells that would be given off by the propane tanks. Planning Associate Heller explained Staff made phone calls and found the Fire Code and Fire Department would be the regulating body because the tanks are not over a certain size and propane evaporates if it spills and does not impact the soil or water. Commissioner Hegland asked if Ferrellgas planned to have smaller cylinders outside as they currently do. Planning Associate Heller replied yes. Chair Stevenson asked if it would be set up similar to the current Ferrellgas set up. Planning Associate Heller stated it would be similar for the most part. Chair Stevens asked if any incidents had been reported. Planning Associate Heller replied staff has called to ask and was told there have been none. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if New Brighton had made any offers for relocation. Planning Associate Heller replied she did not know. Commissioner Zwirn referred to the letter from Fedtech and stated his concern with the movement and vibration from the railcars. He indicated it could have a negative impact on the type of work Fedtech did and requested this be addressed. Planning Associate Heller replied she was informed there would be little to no vibration as the train would be moving so slowly by the time it reached Tyson’s property. She also stated the distance from the Fedtech building to the track would be 65 feet from the north side of the building to where the train would be inside the Tyson building, and 100 feet from the northwest corner and even farther from the west side of the Fedtech building. She stated more research would be done on how far the vibrations would go. Commissioner Miller asked if Fedtech was concerned when Tyson previously talked about the rail. Mr. Dale Tellers, Tyson Company, 4825 Mustang Circle, addressed the Commission and stated he talked to the rail companies who said an option is a welded track with fewer seams to minimize the bouncing. Mr. Eric Chalmers and Mr. Dave Fox, Fedtech, 4763 Mustang Circle, addressed the Commission and stated Economic Development Coordinator Backman had downplayed their need to be at the Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ first meeting concerning the rail. Mr. Chalmers indicated New Brighten is pushing their less desirable businesses to Mounds View. He indicated their precision cutting machines are bolted to the ground and the rail could impact the quality of the work they do. Mr. Fox stated the Tyson property behind them is on an old landfill and the quality of the soil may not be good. Mr. Chalmers remarked when they built their building they had to use pilings because the ground was not stable. He stated they have over 100 employees plus the employees of the other businesses and the mobile home park that would not want the smells. Commissioner Zwirn asked if Fedtech is equipped with air recycling. Mr. Chalmers replied they were not nor did they have air conditioning. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Chalmers to point out where their business is located and how far it would be from the proposed Ferrellgas building. Mr. Fox pointed out Fedtech’s location and stated it would probably be at least 80 feet to the lot line. Mr. Chalmers assumed the tanks would be backed up to their fence. He also pointed out his driveway and employee parking with traffic movement. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the site slopes towards the back. Mr. Chalmers stated it plateaus and then drops off as the property goes south and then in to the wetlands. He asked where the propane would pool if it spilled. Commissioner Hegland stated it would evaporate. Community Development Director Ericson suggested Staff coordinate a meeting between the property owners and Ferrellgas and then do a site visit to the current Ferrellgas location to determine if a smell exists. He also suggested Ferrellgas describe their safety plan. He stated he was amazed by how few regulations there were on propane. Chair Stevenson asked Community Development Director Ericson how much time he thought this would take as he agrees there should be a meeting with property owners and Ferrellgas. Mr. Doug Gross, Ferrellgas, addressed the Commission and reported there is no smell associated with propane. He stated if a repair is needed, the fire department is called and flare stacks are lit to burn off the gas; they do not vent into the air. Mr. Gross stated he has been with Ferrellgas since 1972 and they have always tried to be good neighbors. He mentioned there are systems in place to ensure they do not vent the propane into the air. He stated environmental issues are minimal and there would be no ground contamination as propane vaporizes into the air with no Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ impact. Mr. Gross explained a process of continuous inspections for all aspects of use, storage, and maintenance are in place. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Gross why Ferrellgas is looking for a new location. Mr. Gross replied New Brighten wanted the property for townhomes. Commissioner Hegland asked how many portable cylinders would be kept out and how many are filled daily. Mr. Gross stated about 200 cylinders are filled daily at the New Brighten site and there are about 200 one hundred pound cylinders used as needed during the winter. He indicated these are empty cylinders that are filled as needed. Commissioner Zwirn asked if Ferrellgas would change from a satellite site when it moved. Mr. Gross stated it is his understanding it would remain the same with about four employees. Commissioner Zwirn asked what the new buildings at the new site would be used for. Mr. Gross replied the 1800 square foot building would be used for storing supplies and the smaller building would be used as a small office. Commissioner Miller asked if cylinders would be available for gas grills and such. Mr. Gross stated there would be some, however their regular customers mainly consist of construction type businesses. Commissioner Zwirn asked Planning Associate Heller how long it would take to set up a meeting and site visit. Planning Associate Heller replied it could be done before the next Planning Commission meeting on October 18, 2006. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Zwirn/Commissioner Meehlhause, to table a decision on Resolution 852-06, a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit to allow for storage of flammable liquids at 4815 Mustang Circle; Planning Case CU2006-009, to the October 18, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 12 ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Accessory Building Codes and Requirements Discussion. Community Development Director Ericson reported a large number of residents appeared before the City Council on September 25, 2006 to express their concerns regarding large detached garages and accessory buildings. He pointed out City Council requested the Planning Commission examine the code and make a recommendation as to whether an amendment should be considered. Community Development Director Ericson explained the trend has been for larger garage and shed sizes. He mentioned the most recent amendment was adopted by the City Council in 2002 after a recommendation from the Planning Commission to increase the maximum total square footage for accessory buildings on a residential lot from 1400 to 1800 square feet. Director Ericson stated there is other criteria such as a building could not be more than 20 percent of the total property, maximum height and width requirements, and a variety of other requirements. He stated one of the items the code does not address is that of design. Community Development Director Ericson read the questions proposed for consideration by the Planning Commission. He stated Staff needs direction from the Planning Commission for a recommendation to take back to the City Council. Chair Stevenson asked Community Development Director Ericson to explain how the Planning Commission came to consensus four years ago on the 1800 total square feet. He stated it was more involved at the time and explained why the changes were made. He indicated the Planning Commission did not look at design at that time. Commissioner Miller stated at that time they discussed the percent of the rear yard that could be used for accessory buildings and that it must match the house. Community Development Director Ericson explained that for the most part the design requirements were only addressed for buildings in excess of 950 square feet. He stated smaller sheds generally did not need to match the house. Commissioner Hegland asked if the City received complaints about this issue and what the complaints were. Community Development Director Ericson replied over the last six months calls had increased. He explained most of the calls came from residents on the Lois Drive cul-de-sac. He mentioned there is a density issue in this area. Director Ericson stated the complaints were based on the magnitude of density in the back yards that block site lines to parks or natural areas. He said height limitations are extended also. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 13 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Miller stated residents request larger garages for storage of boats and ATVs so they are not stored in the yard. Community Development Director Ericson replied changes since the 1950s and the 1960s progressed toward larger garages. He mentioned the coverage percentage was lowered in 2002 from 25 percent to 20 percent of the back yard that could be covered in accessory buildings. Commissioner Hegland indicated there is not enough information to make a recommendation at this time and suggested information gathering be done and then decide where to go from there. Commissioner Hegland reported, as a point of reference, the increased square footage was to encourage people to improve their property. He mentioned previous limitations were quite restrictive and this is an improvement over the way it was. He believes the increased square footage has had a positive impact on Mounds View. The public hearing was opened at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Tim Holm, 2200 Lois Drive, stated he owned one of the garages in question. He asked the Planning Commission to look at lot size and how they compare to surrounding communities and at how these communities determine what to allow or limit relative to accessory buildings. He stated he had no concerns with the way they are but believes the design issue could be looked at. Mr. Holm explained how he built his garage to fit in with the design of the surrounding property and made every effort to stay within the letter of the code. Mrs. Mary Jo Verschay, 2203 Lois Drive, noted these are not complaints. She stressed she would like the Planning Commission to establish a citizens committee to research this. Mrs. Verschay stated in the last two years Lois Drive had changed because of the buildings. She asked if the 20 percent included concrete for driveways. She stressed the rules and laws of the code should be for everyone. Mrs. Verschay stated she became involved because she was thinking about the domino effect that happens. She referred to the Xcel Energy transformer on her property and the problems it had caused her. She stated there should be some discussion on how the decisions impact the entire neighborhood. She mentioned she travels extensively throughout the state and pointed out she does not see large accessory buildings around the state like the ones in her neighborhood. She believes her property value has been reduced. Mrs. Kathy Piche, 2204 Lois Drive, mentioned she is the neighbor between the two large buildings. She expressed she believes as a citizen, she has the right to know that her environment would be impacted by the code. Mrs. Piche stated she felt the value of her property had decreased because the size of the buildings have affected the neighborhood negatively. She is concerned the codes have allowed the changes to occur that devalued the property. Mr. Mike Read, 2208 Lois Drive, reported he has the white building in the pictures. He stated the building was constructed because of complaints of vehicles in his yard. Mr. Read said he had applied for a variance and CUP in the past to expand his attached garage but was denied, so he built the current building, which is allowed by code. He stated he does not believe larger garages are an eyesore. He mentioned he plans to do extensive landscaping next summer and invited the Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 14 ________________________________________________________________________ Planning Commission to visit his property. Mr. Read stated he also stuck strictly to the code. He indicated he would use the story and a half building to store small business items, a small office, and overflow from the house. Commissioner Zwirn asked Mr. Read if he incurred additional expense because of the denial of the initial request. Mr. Reed replied the extra costs were due to the footings he put in, but this made the building stronger. Chair Stevenson asked how much taller than the house this building is. Mr. Reed replied he was not sure. Mr. Mitch Ford, 8378 Groveland Road, commented he would like to leave the code the way it is. He stressed he would like everyone to have the opportunity to improve their property. Mr. Ford stated he saw no reason to take this opportunity away from residents. Mr. Ford complemented Staff for the good job they do. He asked Community Development Director Ericson how many number of complaints he is getting compared to the number of people in Mounds View. Community Development Director Ericson replied to the extent they have been contacted and it is the responsibility of Staff to bring them to the attention of the Planning Commission. Chair Stevenson complemented Mr. Ford on his garage style choice. Chair Stevenson asked the Planning Commission members what they would like to do. Commissioner Zwirn replied he is all for less government intervention. He stated the comments from residents have been towards design mostly. He did not think the code should be more restrictive and would like to look at lot sizes and more flexibility. Commissioner Miller mentioned the possibility for lot splits on the larger lots and the problems caused if a garage is set in the middle of the lot. Commissioner Zwirn replied it would be the responsibility of the property owners if they do that. Commissioner Hull stated he saw no problem with a task force. Chair Stevenson explained there are some requirements to coordinate with the design of the house for storage facilities greater than 952 square feet. He stated the square footage is not in question but the design of buildings less than 952 square feet. Commissioner Meehlhause stated he would rather see someone build a second garage than one of the 9x10 buildings from the home improvement businesses. He asked about the height requirements. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 15 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson replied the 2002 code change stated the garage could not be any larger than the footprint of the house except by conditional use permit. He stated this proved to be problematic in enforcement and it required a great deal of work in determining exactly what the footprint size was. He stated that requirement was removed from the code but a design standard never made it into the code. Commissioner Miller asked Mrs. Verschay if she was referring to a development or a lot split relative to her recommendation to seek input from the neighbors about proposed new construction in the neighborhood prior to approval, Mrs. Verschay replied she felt somewhat beat up, but stressed she was at the meeting for the people who did not want large buildings. She stressed it would be useful for neighbors to have more input as to what is approved. She mentioned she wanted to know who to talk to about the information. She stated she wanted the Planning Commission to have the opportunity to understand the impact large buildings have on a neighborhood. Commissioner Meehlhause asked Mrs. Verschay if she was against second garages. Mrs. Verschay replied she was not, however, the Planning Commission should look at the impact these large garages have on a neighborhood. Commissioner Zwirn addressed Mrs. Verschay and commented she should not feel like she is getting beat up; she is just practicing her citizen’s rights. He asked if she received a public notice of the actions on the garages. Mrs. Verschay stated they were told the garages were approved according to City code. Commissioner Zwirn clarified he heard the issue is with height. He asked Mrs. Verschay if there is a design issue also. Commissioner Zwirn asked if she is looking more towards a consistent design element. Mrs. Verschay replied she objects to the size rather than design. She stated she is not looking for a consistent design, but asked that a task force or committee look at it. Mrs. Verschay stated she is concerned with garages more than one story high and with the size. Commissioner Zwirn commented a gentleman with a very large lot wanted to build a larger one- story garage and was denied. He asked Mrs. Verschay how she would have wanted the Planning Commission to handle this request. Mrs. Verschay replied she thought denying it was a good decision. Commissioner Hegland asked if she had someone next door who wanted to add something to his or her property did she feel she had the right to say she opposed it. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 16 ________________________________________________________________________ Mrs. Verschay stated she did not have that right and this is why she wanted to have a discussion on other considerations. The public hearing was closed at 9:22. Chair Stevenson asked the Commission what the next step was. Commissioner Hegland said there are different issues, for example, should the Commission look at height and design issues. He stated if a committee were set up the Planning Commission would get lots of information to sort through. Commissioner Hegland mentioned enforcement issues also exist; for example, is the code too restrictive. Chair Stevenson stated the Commission should have the code in front of them and look at the 2002 changes to see what the restrictions are and reevaluate them after the regular Planning Commission meeting. The decision was made to study the code and make recommendations at the October 18, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. October 18, 2006. B. November 1, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 9:28 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.