Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-06-2005 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 6, 2005 Mounds View City Hall 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. April 6, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, Scotch, and Stevenson Members Absent: Commissioner Zwirn (excused) Also Present: Planning Associate Prososki ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case CU05-002. Consideration of a 2 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Residential Dog Kennel at 8370 Pleasant View Drive Applicant: Elizabeth Stoltz Planning Case CU05-003. Consideration of a 7 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an Oversized Garage at 7965 Fairchild Avenue Applicant: Rebecca Witz-Ross and Brian Ross _______________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes March 2, 2005. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Meehlhause. To approve the Minutes of the March 2, 2005 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes –6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission April 6, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case CU05-002. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Residential Dog Kennel at 8370 Pleasant View Drive. Applicant: Elizabeth Stoltz. Planner Prososki indicated that the applicant, Elizabeth Stoltz, is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for a residential kennel at 8370 Pleasant View Drive. The applicant is proposing to keep three German Shepard dogs as pets. Planner Prososki stated that one of the conditions of the residential kennel license is that the applicant must submit a petition signed by at least 50% of the property owners within 500 feet of the applicant’s property stating that they agree with the establishment of the kennel. The applicant has indicated that the signatures will be submitted at tonight’s meeting. Planner Prososki reported that the applicant is planning to enclose the backyard with a five-foot tall fence. There is currently a small fenced area in the yard and an existing kennel in the yard. The applicant has three German Shepard dogs; one male and two females. All three dogs are neutered or spayed. The applicant has indicated that the dogs are “inside” dogs most of the day. The dogs are only let outside when the applicant is home and are not outside from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Planner Prososki stated that she contacted the Mounds View Police Department and requested any complaints or reports filed regarding animals at the subject property. There is one complaint on file with the Police Department. On March 5, 2005, the Police Department received a complaint about barking dogs at the residence. Planner Prososki reported that many neighboring property owners commented on this request. The neighbors have concerns about allowing the applicant to keep three dogs, specifically because they indicate that the dogs bark excessively. Some of the neighbors have concerns that there are already several dogs in the neighborhood that allows this applicant to have three dogs would set a precedence, which would make it harder for the City to deny other potential applicants in the area. Planner Prososki stated that some of the neighbors have concerns about the barking and the loss of enjoyment of their property, but are reluctant to force the applicant to sell or give away one of her pets. Planner Prososki noted that staff has provided two versions of Resolution 790-05. One version recommends approval of the conditional use permit request and the other recommends denial. Planner Prososki explained that Staff does not typically attach two resolutions; however, this request is somewhat more complex than a typical conditional use permit request and seems to warrant attaching two versions of the resolution. Mounds View Planning Commission April 6, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Carl Klosman and Ms. Elizabeth Stoltz were present at the meeting. Mr. Klosman explained their side of the issue with the Planning Commission. He indicated they have a 6 by 9 kennel currently in the yard. Ms. Stoltz indicated she did not plan on breeding her dogs and as far as barking, they never leave the dogs unattended and will bring the dogs in if they bark. Mr. Klosman stated they are trying to be good neighbors. He stated they are conditioning the dogs to the neighborhood. He noted when they lived in West St. Paul they never had a single complaint. He stated they are willing to work with the neighbors if there are problems. Commissioner Hegland asked how long they lived at the residence. Ms. Stoltz stated they have been there since February. Commissioner Scotch asked how large is the yard? Mr. Klosman stated it is three quarters of an acre. Mr. Klosman stated all of the dogs are rescued dogs. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Ms. Barb Fisher, 8385 Pleasant View Drive, stated she has not met the applicants and cannot see their house but she has heard the dogs and they are loud. She thought there should be consistency and fairness in the neighborhood. She expressed a concern that with the warmer weather more dogs will be outside and it will get noisier. She stated there is not a lot of space between the homes. She stated they used to have a German Shepherd and it would run along the fence barking and they would have to bring their dog in to control it but the running never stopped. She did not think there should be an exception made in this case. Ms. Fisher stated that another concern she has is the permit will allow up to four dogs, which will not stop the applicant from getting a fourth dog. She indicated, that two would be the limit she would prefer to see. Ms. Ann Johnson, 8371 Pleasant View Drive, stated she was at the meeting for the same reason as Ms. Fisher. She stated she heard the dogs barking even when they were in the house. She also expressed a concern that the permit went with the property and affected long term what happens down the road. She thought the City might want to consider having a permit that went with the applicant and not the home. Ms. Stoltz asked if the permit was theirs and if they sold the home, would the permit remain in affect. Mounds View Planning Commission April 6, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Klosman thought this would be a major flaw in the process if the permit went with the home and was allowed to go to another owner of the house. Planner Prososki stated the CUP does run with the property and they are working with the City Attorney to change this. Commissioner Miller stated she thought with some CUP’s it should run with the home, but in this case, it should not. Ms. Lorna Silver, 8386 Pleasant View Drive, stated she agreed with the noise issue. She stated another issue she has is a safety issue. She stated they have a lot of children in the area and it concerns her that a dog may get out of the yard. Ms. Patricia Robinson, 8360 Pleasant View Drive, stated her concern would be that once a dog starts barking, others follow throughout the neighborhood. She stated her concern was the permit would go with the property. Ms. Corinne Copeland, 8391Westwood Road, asked if the dogs would be outside at night. Mr. Klosman stated they would not be out at night. Ms. Julie Olson, 8350 Pleasant View Drive, stated she would not like to see the applicant get a permit and when they first moved in, the dogs would bark even when the neighbors would come home from work. She wondered if the permit could be conditional to allow a third dog until death and then it would go back to two. Mr. Michael Hemingway, 8389 Pleasant View Drive, thought the applicants would be conscientious dog owners and would bring the dogs in if they were barking. He was in opposition because of the precedence it might set. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Chair Stevenson stated they have approved and denied dog kennel licenses in the past and they have yet to see an approval trigger an increase in the amount of requests. He stated they have also denied dog kennels for the size of the lot and type of neighborhood. Commissioner Miller thought the fact that the applicants have a large lot is a plus and also with the neighbors having dogs, they would know about the barking and could take that into consideration because she was sure their dogs barked also. She thought the applicants had good control of the dogs. Commissioner Scotch stated that people are entitled to peace and quiet while living at their home. She wondered what happened on March 5, 2005 that triggered the police call. She would not like to see the applicant forced to get rid of one of their dogs. Mounds View Planning Commission April 6, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Klosman explained that he thinks a neighboring property owner called the police. Commissioner Scotch stated her dog is kenneled during the day so there is quiet. She thought they needed to revisit this request at some point. Chair Stevenson stated this cannot be dog specific. Planner Prososki indicated this was correct. A CUP cannot be animal specific. Chair Stevenson thought maybe they could revisit this and make it a temporary or time limited permit and look at it again in six months to see what the neighborhood feels at that time. Commissioner Miller thought because there are so many dogs in the neighborhood, she could not imagine the applicants are the only ones with dogs barking and she thought they could overlook some of the noise. Commissioner Hegland stated the permit is for the property only. He wondered if there are any licensing issues that go along with this. Planner Prososki stated there are really no other requirements except getting the required signatures, which the applicants have gotten. Commissioner Hegland wondered if they could put conditions on the license for specificity. Planner Prososki did not know if this was possible. Chair Stevenson asked if the owner changed in the home, could the license be pulled and reviewed for revocation. Planner Prososki responded they could do this. She explained that the CUP stated that the permit could be reviewed at anytime. She indicated they could hold the license to three dogs. Commissioner Scotch stated two dogs are going to bark and adding a third is not going to add much more noise. She stated this goes back to quiet enjoyment of the neighborhood and it seemed like there were many residents in the neighborhood that had two dogs. Commissioner Hegland stated they could make the license and CUP limited to 3 dogs. Commissioner Scotch asked what the ramifications were for nuisance dogs. Planner Prososki stated the police are called and will follow up. Commissioner Miller stated the resolution does indicate as a condition “no more than three dogs.” Mounds View Planning Commission April 6, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson stated he would also like to see a time review at six months as a stipulation. Commissioner Meehlhause thought it was a good idea but he thought six months may be too long. Commissioner Miller indicated the neighbors have stated the noise has gone down considerably. Commissioner Scotch wondered if they could put in a condition that the permit be reviewed if a certain number of complaints are received. Ms. Fisher thought this was unfair to the neighbors to put a condition on complaints because it puts a strain on the neighbors. Chair Stevenson agreed and thought they should make this temporary to review the permit with another public hearing. Commissioner Hull wondered if the neighbors were fine with the time limit. The neighbors thought three months would be a good amount of time. Chair Stevenson stated they would have a public hearing in three months if the City Council approves this. Chair Stevenson stated they are hearing both sides regarding this case, one side is objecting but they do not want to see the applicant get rid of one of the dogs. Commissioner Meehlhause asked what would happen if they lost a pet, would they want to get another dog. Ms. Stoltz stated that they do not always necessarily need to have three dogs, but that they choose to take pets on individual cases. Ms. Johnson suggested that in three months, they could still make it temporary to be revisited again. She stated they do hear the dogs even if they are in the house. Commissioner Hull asked if the dogs are kenneled when left alone in the house. Mr. Klosman stated they are not. They are still trying to get used to the area. Ms. Stoltz stated they could try to limit the areas in the house the dogs would be allowed to go. Ms. Robinson asked if the City was going to work on the permit relating to it going with the property versus the property owner. Chair Stevenson stated they will be. Mounds View Planning Commission April 6, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Miller stated in the Resolution under number three, it should be corrected for punctuation. Planner Prososki read the Resolution stipulations to the public and Planning Commission, adding item five regarding review in three months with a public hearing. Commissioner Hegland wondered if they should remove the wording regarding “over six months”. Planner Prososki agreed and stated the wording would be stricken. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Scotch. To approve Resolution 790-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Dog Kennel at 8370 Pleasant View Drive; Planning Case No. CU2005-002. Ayes –6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case CU05-003. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an Oversized Garage at 7965 Fairchild Avenue. Applicants: Rebecca Witz-Ross and Brian Ross. Planner Prososki informed the Commission that the applicants, Rebecca Witz-Ross and Brian Ross, are requesting approval of a conditional use permit to construct an oversized detached garage at 7965 Fairchild Avenue. The applicants indicate that they would remove the existing 576 square foot detached garage and in its place construct a 1,440 square foot detached garage, which would be an increase of 864 square feet of garage area. The proposed garage would be set back five feet from the side property line and twelve and a half feet from the rear property line. Section 1104.01 requires a five-foot setback, which the proposed garage satisfies. Planner Prososki explained that in addition to the proposed garage, there is an existing shed on the property. The applicants are planning to remove the existing shed. The proposed garage would then be the only accessory structure on the property. The proposed garage would have an area of 1,440 square feet, which would make up 17.6% of the rear yard area. This satisfies the Code, as the Code allows the combined square footage of accessory structures to be up to 20% of the rear yard area. Planner Prososki reported that two neighboring property owners contacted Staff regarding this request. One of the neighbors thought the expansion would be beneficial, as the items that are now stored outside could then be stored inside. The other neighbor is opposed to the request and submitted a letter stating the reasons for opposition. He is mostly concerned that the garage Mounds View Planning Commission April 6, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ might be used for a business. The applicants have stated that the garage will be used for storage of vehicles, trailers and a boat and will not be used to operate a home business. Commissioner Miller stated that the shed being removed is not a part of the conditions in the Resolution and should be added. Planner Prososki stated technically it would not need to be removed but the applicants want to remove the shed. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Mr. John Verbanac, 7955 Fairchild, stated his only major concern is it may migrate into some sort of a business use. He stated the use for storage is fine but if it becomes a part of a business venture, he thought it would be wrong. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Planner Prososki defined what the Code indicates for a home business. Chair Stevenson stated one issue that was brought up was there was material and a trailer on the outside. Planner Prososki that there are two trailers on the property and both are parked in compliance with code. Mr. Ross stated he runs a remodeling business and is licensed with the State. He stated with the nature of his business, he has equipment that his current garage cannot handle. He indicated they want the larger garage for storage of this equipment, parking space and other storage. Mr. Ross stated the other problem they have run into besides previous harassment is vandalism. Mr. Ross explained to the Commission what he would like to do on the property. Commissioner Miller stated when she went to his house, she was impressed with his home and what he has done with his home and plans on doing with his garage. Commissioner Hegland asked if Mr. Ross made cabinets for his business. Mr. Ross stated he used to do this. Commissioner Hegland asked if he was doing any finishing work. Mr. Ross stated he only did this for his personal home and not for his business. Mounds View Planning Commission April 6, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland stated it seemed pretty obvious that he has business and personal activities going on at his house. Commissioner Scotch stated her biggest concern is that this garage not be used for his business. She would like to see the personal items such as cars being stored inside also. Commissioner Miller wondered if there should be a condition where the garage should match the home. Planner Prososki stated it is in the Resolution under item 2. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Miller. To approve Resolution 791-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct an oversized detached garage at 7965 Fairchild Avenue; Planning Case No. CU05-003. Ayes –6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: April 20, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Sue Osbeck TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.