Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-16-2005 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting February 16, 2005 Mounds View City H2ll 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. February 16, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Meehlhause, Hegland, Scotch, and Stevenson Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson Planning Associate Prososki ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Consideration of a Variance for a Reduced Number of Required Covered Parking Spaces at Greenfield Estates Located at 7635 Greenfield Avenue. 2 Consideration of a Lot Line Adjustment (Minor Subdivision) Request 5 between 3008 and 3016 County Road J. Consideration of a Re-approval of a Minor Subdivision at 7630 Woodlawn 6 Avenue and 7618 Edgewood Drive. _______________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes January 5, 2005 and January 19, 2005. MOTION/SECOND. Zwirn/Miller. To approve the January 5 and January 19, 2005 Minutes as presented. Ayes-6 Nays-0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case VR05-002. Consideration of a Variance for a Reduced Number of Required Covered Parking Spaces at Greenfield Estates Located at 7635 Greenfield Avenue. Planning Associate Prososki stated that the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing garages and construct 78 new garage stalls in a drive through style. The Zoning Code requires one covered parking space per unit. Greenfield Estates has 125 units and would be required to have 125 covered parking spaces, so the variance is requesting 47 less than the amount required. There would be 247 uncovered parking stalls. She stated that the applicant, Mr. Menning explained in a letter that there have been three fires in the past few years due to juveniles breaking into the garages due to the fact that half the garages are not visible from the rest of the property. She stated that the residents have to manually open and close their garage doors, and the proposed garages would be fully enclosed with two vehicle access points, and there would be an electronic garage door opener provided to residents renting a garage stall. She stated there is currently a high vacancy rate for the garages, and over the last seven years only 58% of the garages have been rented. She stated that no residents have called to object to this proposal. She stated if the Planning Commission decides to deny this request, a new resolution could be prepared for the next meeting. Chair Stevenson suggested the possible reason that the garages have been underutilized is due to the fact that it has been a burden to manually open and close the garage doors, the lack of security, and the amount of damage. He remarked that perhaps with the new facility, more residents would choose to have a garage. Alan Menning from Greenfield Estates indicated that they have ten properties located in the metropolitan area, and anytime their garage ratio to individual units exceeds 50 percent, they always have vacancies. He explained the vacancy rate at the various apartment buildings. He stated at some buildings sometimes they force people to rent a garage with their apartment. He remarked that some tenants only want to rent garages for the winter months. Commissioner Hegland asked what the problem was with renting the apartments to include the garage. Mr. Menning explained that they can’t because of the competition, and the other buildings in Mounds View don’t do that. Commissioner Hegland stated he felt most people would appreciate indoor parking. Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Menning stated that the extra $35 per month for a garage is a lot of money to many people, and it could cause him to lose tenants to other complexes. He noted that there are presently a lot of vacancies in the area. Commissioner Scotch remarked that there have been more vacancies in the last two to three years. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if renting garages as part of the apartment was standard procedure. Mr. Menning stated that none of his competition does it. He stated that the $35 per month for a garage requires another $100 of income per month to qualify for the apartment, and many people are on the borderline already. He said it was standard procedure to ask them if they want a garage, but it isn’t standard procedure to make them rent a garage. Commissioner Meehlhause asked why they couldn’t provide the garage with the apartment without charging extra for it. Mr. Menning explained that they wouldn’t make any money that way, and he would rather rent 50 percent of the garages for $35 per month apiece. Commissioner Scotch stated that she felt the problem they are having is that the variance request is to large, and she asked whether the plans could be adjusted for more covered parking. She stated that this would improve the property aesthetically. Chair Stevenson said he felt the percentage of garages that would be rented would rise when the new garages are built. Mr. Menning reported he is only renting 44 percent right now, so they would be increasing it by 16 percent from what they are currently renting. Commissioner Hegland stated that they are reducing the number of garage stalls that they will have available. Commissioner Zwirn noted that they are not here to discuss how Mr. Menning could better manage his apartment buildings, and they have to look at the practicality of what he was asking them to do. He stated that Greenfield could spend half of the money by revamping the old garages and putting more lighting in. He felt more creativity could be used to rent the garages for storage to people not living at the apartment complex. Mr. Menning explained that the present garages aren’t large enough to store a boat in, and they are not in the storage business. Mr. Menning further stated that the problem is that it is difficult to control 125 individual garage doors. He stated that some residents leave the garage doors open. Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn noted that they might not leave them open if they had a garage door opener. Commissioner Hegland commented that he was failing to see a hardship. Commissioner Zwirn agreed that there is none. Commissioner Miller noted that in 2001 the rental rate was 70.8 percent, and in 2004 it was 44.79, and she asked why there was such a difference. Mr. Menning remarked that back in 2001 the vacancy rate was less than 1 percent, and as such, they could require that new residents also take a garage. He also stated that the owner of the building wants to make these improvements to the property to make it more aesthetically pleasing to potential renters. Commissioner Scotch asked what the percentage of rented apartments was. Mr. Menning reported it is at 94-96%. Commissioner Scotch stated she felt they should have a few more garages than what they are requesting. Planning Associate Prososki suggested that the Planning Commission might want to consider 100 covered parking spaces, which would be 80 percent of what is required, rather than the proposed 78 stalls. Commissioner Scotch agreed that was a better idea. Mr. Menning stated that they could add six stalls to each proposed garage building. Commissioner Hegland stated that the hardship they are claiming is that they don’t think they can rent all the garages, but it seemed to him that part of the rent is based on the condition of the property, and they are improving the property and would have an advantage in that regard. Mr. Menning explained that their competition is Woodlawn Estates, and they are renting an apartment for $650 a month without a garage, so he also needs to rent his for $650 without a garage because there is no difference in the apartments as they were both built by the same builder. Commissioner Hegland stated that that just means they would be renting to a different type of person. Mr. Menning remarked that there aren’t that many different kinds of people around. Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland said he was having a hard time finding a hardship. Chair Stevenson stated that going from 100 percent to 62 percent of required garages is more than they would be willing to allow, but 80 percent would make him more comfortable, along with the fact that they would be improving the property. Commissioner Zwirn asked how they were going to handle garages being rented for the storage of property because the new garages would not be individual stalls. Mr. Menning stated that garages rented for storing of property was not allowed. Commissioner Scott indicated she would prefer to go with 80 percent. Chair Stevenson indicated that the resolution could be amended to require 100 covered parking stalls, and that the variance is for 25 stalls less than what would be required. Planning Associate Prososki noted the resolution should also be changed to show the applicant as being Greenfield Properties, Limited Partnership. MOTION/SECOND: Scotch/Miller. To approve Resolution 784-05 as amended, approving the request for a Variance for a Reduced Number of Required Covered Parking Spaces at Greenfield Estates Located at 7635 Greenfield Avenue in Planning Case VR05-002. Ayes –3 Nays – 3 Motion failed. (Nay-Commissioners Hegland, Zwirn, and Meehlhause.) Chair Stevenson asked whether anybody wished to comment on their vote. Commissioner Zwirn stated that there hadn’t been a clear demonstration of hardship, and he felt the proposal lacked creativity regarding a marketing plan. Commissioner Hegland stated that the difference between the costs of what they are proposing to build and what they are required to build is minimal, and the economic return on the investment should be realized. He stated that the applicant was not showing a hardship. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case M105-001. Consideration of a Lot Line Adjustment (Minor Subdivision) Request between 3008 and 3016 County Road J. Planning Associate Prososki stated that the applicant, Joseph Holmberg, is requesting a lot line adjustment because the driveway to his property of 3008 Co. Rd J is actually located on the adjacent property at 3016 Co. Rd. J. The previous owners had an understanding about the driveway situation. Joseph Holmberg now wishes to sell and needs to bring the property into Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ compliance, by moving the property line 15’ to the west. Planning Associate Prososki explained that even with the additional lot area, the driveway does not meet the 5’ setback. She stated that Staff is recommending that the City require the driveway meet the 5’ setback requirement by May 1 of 2005 and that money be held in escrow in case the new owner of 3008 County Road J doesn’t follow through. She stated that bringing it into conformance would mean placing grass or sod in the setback area. Chair Stevenson voiced a concern over the date of May 1, 2005. Planning Associate Prososki stated that she could extend it to June 1, 2005. Chair Stevenson indicated he would be more comfortable with May 15th. Commissioner Hegland asked if the property has been sold. Planning Associate Prososki answered that there is a closing contingent upon the minor subdivision. Commissioner Miller asked whether a hard surface driveway was required. Planning Associate Prososki answered that the Resolution does not require a permanent driveway, but the Planning Commissioner could make that request. She explained that the Resolution only approves the minor subdivision and requires that they make the driveway meet the setback. Community Development Director Ericson explained that Ordinance 752 that had recently been adopted would not require a hard surface driveway. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if the curb cut needed to be adjusted. Planning Associate Prososki said the width of the curb cub was satisfactory. Commissioner Miller reiterated it would be nice if the driveway were of a hard surface. Commissioner Hegland stated he didn’t think they should require it. Chair Stevenson stated that they wouldn’t require it, but it’s the Commission’s preference that the driveway be made permanent. MOTION/SECOND: Meehlhause/Scotch. To Approve Resolution 785-05, the Lot Line Adjustment (Minor Subdivision) Request between 3008 and 3016 County Road J, but to change the date to be May 15th. Ayes –6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Planning Case M105-002. Consideration of a Re-approval of a Minor Subdivision at 7630 Woodlawn Avenue and 7618 Edgewood Drive. Community Development Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission had already approved this application in 2001, but there were some issues with the easement documents and the mortgage company, so the deeds had never been record with Ramsey County. He stated that the purpose of the land transfer is to create more space on the Edgewood Drive lot, improved with a four-plex, upon which to build garages and supplemental parking space. He stated the four-plex currently does not provide any garage space, which is required under the Zoning Code. He stated both lots would comply with the area and setback requirements of the Zoning Code after the subdivision. Commissioner Miller asked if where they were putting the lot line would allow enough space for proper garages on both lots. Community Development Director Ericson answered that it would. Chair Stevenson remarked that he remembered this case well, and he didn’t see any changes. He said there had been a lot of discussion regarding this item previously, and he didn’t see any problem with approving it again. MOTION/SECOND. Stevenson/Miller. To approve Resolution 786-05, the Re-approval of a Minor Subdivision at 7630 Woodlawn Avenue and 7618 Edgewood Drive. Ayes-6 Nays-0 Motion carried. Community Development Director noted that this item would be on the City Council agenda on February 28th. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Review of Planning Commission Applications. Community Development Director Ericson explained that the two applicants, Michael Marrone and Al Hull, were unable to attend the meeting this evening. He stated that Mr. Marrone had run for a City Council seat during the general election, and Mr. Hull had run for mayor during the general election and the council seat during the special election. Chair Stevenson suggested recommending both candidates, indicating either would be good commissioners. Commissioner Miller said Mr. Hull had given a better description of why he wanted to serve on the Commission. Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn voiced a preference for seeing the candidates in person rather than simply making a recommendation. Chair Stevenson announced they would hold off on the decision until the March 2nd meeting so that the candidates could attend. ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: March 2, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Sheree Theobald TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.