Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-05-2004 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 5, 2004 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., May 5, 2004. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Scotch, Stevenson, Song, Hegland, Zwirn and Johnson Members Absent: None Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson and Planner Prososki ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Cases VR2004-003 and CU2004-0001 2 2208 Lois Drive Planning Cases MA2004-002, ZC2004-001 and DE2004-001 5 2800 County Road 10 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes a. April 7, 2004 MOTION/SECOND: Johnson /Zwirn. To Approve the Planning Commission Minutes for April 7, 2004 as Presented. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission May 5, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases VR2004-0003 and CU2004-001 Director Ericson indicated that fences in residential districts are allowed to be up to eight feet tall in rear and side yards. Any fence section that extends beyond the front face of the home toward the street (or streets, for corner lots) shall not exceed four feet in height. He directed the Commission to the diagram in the staff report. Director Ericson explained that property owner Michael Read is requesting a height variance for a six-foot fence to be located in his front yard. The fence is being proposed between 2204 and 2208 Lois Drive. The fence would be located between the front and back corners of Mr. Read’s property. The area of the fence that would require a variance would only be the portion of the fence that is proposed to be located in the front yard. Director Ericson reported that for a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. A hardship for a variance is usually based on the lot itself, and this is a rectangular lot on a cul-de-sac. It is a fairly typical lot but it is wider than normal. Director Ericson explained that the first criteria for finding a hardship is that exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same vicinity. The basis for this variance request is not property based but socially based. As a result, this particular criteria and some others to follow are not particularly applicable. The homes on this cul-de-sac have typical setbacks and nothing of a physical nature presents an extraordinary issue for the applicant. Director Ericson indicated that secondly, the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would have to deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Code. While the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of typical rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, the applicant seeks relief to be able to use his property in a more comfortable manner. Director Ericson explained that, in addition, the special conditions or circumstances should not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant indicates that he would rather not install a six-foot tall fence in his front yard, however the actions of others have prompted the request. Director Ericson added that granting the variance requested should not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Code to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special Mounds View Planning Commission May 5, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ privilege in that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to seek relief from the literal application of the zoning codes. While true that the Planning Commission has not before granted approval for a tall fence, one such request was granted by the City Council. Director Ericson stated that the variance requested should also be the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. The applicant is requesting a two-foot variance to have a six-foot tall fence where a four-foot fence is permitted. The applicant indicates that six feet is the minimum to alleviate his hardship. Director Ericson reported that the variance should not be detrimental to the purpose of the Code or to other property in the same zone. Director Ericson commented that the applicant perceives that he has a hardship and he is requesting the variance for privacy reasons. He has presented a statement from some neighbors that indicate they are not opposed to the fence, but the adjacent property owners to the fence have voiced their opposition to the fence. Both the applicant and the applicant’s neighbors have provided additional information for tonight’s meeting. Director Ericson recommended that after holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the property owner and affected neighbors, the Commission direct staff in one of three ways regarding this request: 1) Draft a resolution to approve the variance as requested or as mutually amended; 2) Draft a resolution to deny the request based on the lack of demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty; or, 3) Seek out additional information to clarify the request. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the home on 2208 Lois Drive sits closer to the street than 2204 Lois Drive. Director Ericson explained that the street actually comes closer to 2004 but the homes have approximately the same setback. The applicant’s home does stick out a little bit. Commissioner Zwirn asked the approximate lineal footage of the proposed fence. Director Ericson stated the fence would be approximately 45 lineal feet. Commissioner Johnson asked how close the fence would be to the asphalt of the street. Director Ericson responded that he believes the boulevard is approximately 16 feet. Commissioner Johnson noted that the fence would block the view of the home on 2204 Lois Drive. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Mr. Read, the applicant, indicated that things have gotten progressively worse over the years with his neighbor and he is looking for the variance for the fence to solve some of the issues. Mounds View Planning Commission May 5, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Kathy Piché, 2204 Lois Drive, and neighbor to the applicant, commented that she had assembled some photos for the Planning Commission, and the photos show locations that were red flagged that indicate where the proposed fence would be located. She is opposed to the fence as it would affect her quality of life. When she and her husband bought the home they looked at certain aspects of neighborhoods and compared them to others. When they first bought their home a hedge separated the houses at 2204 and 2208 Lois Drive. That hedge was taken down because they believed it separated neighbors. There has been a change of ownership of the home on 2208 Lois Drive. She believes a fence would create more problems. Her view of the street would be compromised and a safety issue is involved as it blocks the view of traffic. She has a two-year- old granddaughter that visits and she is concerned about safety. She would like to know how the fence would create privacy. She is asking for the quality of life that she has always had in her neighborhood. She believes the applicant is making the request because she questioned Mr. Read’s use of snowmobiles in his yard some time ago. She called to complain about the use of the snowmobiles because they were approximately 11 feet from her window. This fence would actually divide the neighborhood even more. She believes the fence would also block the view from her living room. She is concerned about maintenance of the fence. If the applicant thinks the fence would mean that he can use snowmobiles in his yard a sound proof barrier would actually be necessary. This is the result of a neighborhood situation that has gotten out of hand. She hopes the Planning Commission denies the variance request. Mr. Read indicated the snowmobiles are not operated much on his property much and they are only used when they are put on the trailer. The snowmobiles have never been on City property other than to put them on the trailer. He has done nothing illegal with the snowmobiles. There are eight kids in the neighborhood and the only one he has had to worry about was Mr. Piché. It would be a low maintenance, vinyl or cedar fence. Most of his yard is already fenced in. He hopes the Planning Commission approves his request. Commissioner Miller questioned the type of fence to be installed. Mr. Read stated it would depend on the height of the fence that he is allowed, but it would probably be cedar or vinyl. Commissioner Miller asked if Mr. Read would be changing the existing fence. Mr. Read stated he would not be changing the existing fence. Commissioner Scotch commented that she thought the variance would be detrimental to 2204 Lois Drive and putting up a fence that high would block the view. She is not sure how much the Pichés can see in Mr. Read’s back yard. Commissioner Scotch added that she does not see a proven hardship in this case. Commissioner Johnson stated he does not see a hardship either, but he sees other violations that exist on the property and Mr. Read could use an oversized garage. Mounds View Planning Commission May 5, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Miller commented that the Commission has to go through the hardship criteria and she does not see a hardship and she would like to deny the request. Chair Stevenson noted that he does not see a hardship either and in one of the few cases where a fence variance was granted, the variance was not passed by the Planning Commission but passed by the City Council. It was a situation where two neighbors did not get along. After the variance was granted the neighbor moved. He hopes the City Council does not approve this variance. Commissioner Johnson added that the fence would block the view of everything and if the eight- foot fence were installed where it is allowed it would be enough to ensure privacy. Commissioner Scotch asked how long neighbors have lived in their homes. Mr. Read stated he has lived there for 16 years. Mr. and Mrs. Piché indicated they have lived there for 30 years. Chair Stevenson indicated the majority of the Planning Commission suggests that the variance be denied and they would like a resolution of denial to come back at their next meeting. Director Ericson stated that such resolution would be on the May 19th Planning Commission agenda, as would the applicant’s request for an oversized garage and a variance for the width of a garage. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Cases MA2004-002, ZC2004-001 and DE2004-001 Planner Prososki advised that Velmeir Companies has submitted an application for a major subdivision, rezoning and development review of the land at the southwest corner of the intersection of County Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road, the former Amoco gasoline station. The proposed use for the development is a CVS Pharmacy. Planner Prososki explained how the plat had changed since the Commission received their reports. The 25-foot “tail” on Lot 1 of the plat had been deleted and some lot lines were changed. Chair Stevenson asked what the effect of the plat would be on the apartments. Planner Prososki reported that on the original plat the lot on which the apartments are located had a lower square footage than what is allowed by ordinance. Additional land has since been added to that lot to make it conform to the ordinance. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission May 5, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Don Lofquist, 7767 Groveland Road, asked where his house is located in relation to the plat. Planner Prososki explained where his house is located and that the lot in the plat that would be behind his home would be used for ponding. Commissioner Johnson noted that the original plan for the area behind the resident’s home would have been something that the resident would not have wanted. Tammy Abelseth, 7767 Groveland Road, asked if the chain link fence behind her home would remain in its current location. Jim LaValle, representing the Velmeir Companies, reported that the pond is very sandy and he does not anticipate that it will be a huge body of water. He would be happy to secure the pond. Don Lofquist, 7767 Groveland Road, questioned if the wooden fence on the townhome property, which is also on the back of his property, would remain. Commissioner Johnson clarified the location of the fence and he doubts the fence would be removed as he does not see any reason why it would be removed. Planner Prososki explained the rezoning requests. Lots 1 and 2 will be zoned B-3, Highway Business. Lot 3 will maintain the R-4, High Density Residential zoning designation. Planner Prososki indicated staff’s recommendation is that the park dedication fee be based on the value of Lot 2, but the City Council can choose another method for determining the fee. Director Ericson added that staff’s recommendation will remain as it is in the staff report but the fee would be based on the developed portion of the lot and not the ponding area. Commissioner Hegland asked why the pond is being rezoned. Planner Prososki informed the commission that the pond is part of one large parcel and the zoning needs to be consistent on the parcel. Director Ericson added that cities avoid “split zoning” parcels as it may lead to confusion and problems down the road. Commissioner Hegland asked how this would affect the area if the ponding was developed as a commercial lot in the future. Director Ericson explained that the ponding area is protected by an easement and there could be no development on that area. The City prefers to keep the area natural even if the pond is not there. The easement covers the whole ponding area. Chair Stevenson asked if the Simon family has accepted this proposal. Mounds View Planning Commission May 5, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. LaValle stated they have agreed to the proposal. Tammy Abelseth, 7767 Groveland Road, inquired as to the definition of CVS. Planner Prososki indicated it was a pharmacy that is somewhat similar to a Walgreens. Planner Prososki noted that the setbacks for the CVS Pharmacy are adequate. She explained the setback requirements and the setbacks provided. The Velmeir Companies were granted a variance for parking setbacks so they will have a five-foot parking setback. The Fire Marshall requests that there be a fire lane designation on the plan, and the location was pointed out on the site plan. Commissioner Miller asked if the parking requirement was based on the square footage of the building. Planner Prososki, advised that was correct and the requirement was based on the retail square footage of the building. The site is required to have 106 stalls and the site plan indicates there will be 92 stalls and 16 proof of parking stalls. The Code allows the site plan to show 15% of the stalls as proof of parking. Planner Prososki explained the drainage patterns for the site and added that SEH, the City’s consulting engineering firm, still had questions on the grading plan. New information will be provided at the next meeting. Planner Prososki stated the building is approximately 13,013 square feet. The height of the building is 23 feet, while the entrance to the building is 29 feet in height. The building employs the use of Exterior Finish Insulation System (EIFS). Planner Prososki commented that she needs to recalculate the site’s impervious surface area due to recent changes, The City Forester commented the landscape plan is a very nice plan but it requires high maintenance. The City Forester commented that there may need to be some slight changes to the landscape plan. Planner Prososki reported that the garbage enclosure is shown on the plans as being chain link, but staff recommends that the enclosure be constructed of the same materials as the building. Planner Prososki indicated the lighting plan meets the Code requirements with the exception that the plan exceeds requirements towards the residential area. The apartments are actually approximately 175 feet away from the property line, and the Code is exceeded at the property line, therefore staff is not concerned about the lighting of the site. Planner Prososki added that the signs shown on the plans exceed Code requirements but final plans have not been submitted for signage. Mounds View Planning Commission May 5, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Planner Prososki advised that 195 vehicle trips per day are estimated for the site. This does add traffic to the area, but the gas station actually generated more traffic and the traffic from the proposed site would not be detrimental to the area. Commissioner Miller asked if the people will be able to make a left turn at the Silver Lake Road exit. Director Ericson indicated a left turn could be accomplished at that location. Commissioner Miller commented that traffic heading to the north is bumper to bumper. Director Ericson added that the right-in, right-out onto Highway 10 will help alleviate that issue. Planner Prososki reported that the proposal does not exactly match the land uses that are part of the Comprehensive Plan for this site, which indicate the property as being part of a mixed use PUD. This development would, however, bring the commercial component to the residential area and it would not be detrimental to the area. Planner Prososki indicated that staff received comments from two citizens. One commented that the intersection is already busy and that the development would add to the congestion. She stated that the comment came from an employer in that area and that they commented that the employees already have a difficult time at the intersection. Planner Prososki stated that the second comment was that Mounds View already has two pharmacies and the person was unsure if Mounds View could support three. Commissioner Johnson stated he had been on the property of the neighbor who had complained about traffic and that parking lot was completely full at 3:30 p.m. He wondered if they had enough parking and they are not even affected by the proposal. The other complaint about too many pharmacies cannot be given much weight because the City cannot deny the proposal because there are one or two pharmacies already. Commission Zwirn asked if the fire lane being requested is in the area of the loading and unloading zone. Planner Prososki explained the location of the proposed fire lane on the site plan. Commissioner Zwirn wondered if the fire lane would infringe on the drive-thru area. Planner Prososki noted that the fire lane designation would mean that no parking would be allowed in that area. Chair Stevenson added that fire trucks could get around the cars in the drive-thru if they had to. Planner Prososki explained the movements through the drive-thru and also indicated that the two fire hydrants on site would be adequate. Mounds View Planning Commission May 5, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson added that the fire lane could even be marked as a one-way lane. Mr. LaValle indicated that the drive-thru lane closest to the building will be a pick-up lane and the outside drive-thru lane will be a drop-off lane. He actually prefers one way traffic in that area. Commissioner Zwirn commented that is an intelligent resolve to the issue. Commissioner Hegland wondered if there would be directional signs on the site. Mr. LaValle stated he would submit a sign package for the entire site that would include directional signage. Commissioner Zwirn asked if, in the event that issues arise from the residential area due to the lighting, Mr. LaValle would consider shielding the fixtures. Mr. LaValle responded that he could amend the lighting plan to make it conforming or add a cut- off shield. Commissioner Johnson noted that other businesses might also complain about the lighting and unshielded lights could be a problem. He likes the idea of lighting up the back of the garages. The issue could be left alone and shields could be required if issues arise. More lighting of the garages is better. Commissioner Miller inquired about the hours of operation of the CVS Pharmacy. Mr. LaValle stated it would be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with the drive-thru being open from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Ron Schleit, 7786 Groveland Road, questioned if the pond would actually raise the water level in the area and if the trees would be kept along the fence lines, as that would be nice. Tom Loucks, Loucks McLagan, the engineering firm for the project, indicated the pond would not raise or lower the water level as it is a retention pond and it is designed to hold a 100-year flood event. The developer would try to maintain the trees through the development process and there will be a buffer all the way around the site. It is basically going to be a dry pond. There could be safety issues and the developer will work with the City on that issue. The pond needs to be secured. Chair Stevenson added that a condition could be added to the resolution that the developer will work with staff on securing the pond for safety purposes. Mounds View Planning Commission May 5, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. LaValle, commented that the developer would also work with staff on the landscaping issues. They are still working with Rice Creek Watershed District on the design of the pond, and they will appear before that board at the end of the month. Mr. Loucks confirmed that the NURP pond might actually have water in it more frequently. It is about six feet deep and there is a four-to-one slope on those ponds. Mowing would occur around these ponds. Commissioner Miller asked if there would be a coffee counter in the CVS store. Mr. Loucks responded that originally a Caribou Coffee was considered for the site but that fell through. Mr Loucks asked to address the park dedication issue. There are allowances that provide greater flexibility in the payment of park dedication and he would like to put in the record that the developer would like to look at other options for park dedication. Chair Stevenson pointed out that is more of a City Council issue. He wondered if the bike trail had been addressed on the plan. Mr. Loucks stated it is shown on the plan in the right-of-way, but it has not been decided as to who would build the trail. Harvey Ford, 7780 Groveland Road, inquired as to whether or not traffic would be blocked from cutting through Simon’s. Planner Prososki responded that traffic will not be able to cut through that area. Director Ericson added that there is a possibility that the Pak site will be redeveloped and there has been the discussion that there could be shared parking between the sites. If this occurs there would still be a delineation between the Pak site and the liquor store site. Mr. LaValle stated that he appreciated the cooperation of City staff throughout this process. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. Director Ericson asked the Commission if they would be more inclined to keep the pond in a residential zoning classification. Commissioner Miller asked what advantage there would be in doing so. Director Ericson advised that there would be less land to rezone but there is no real extra protection in keeping it in a residential zoning classification. Mounds View Planning Commission May 5, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland responded that it may be misleading to rezone the whole site, including the pond, to commercial. He prefers that the pone be kept residential. Commissioner Johnson stated it would be cleaner to rezone it to a commercial designation, eliminating the split zoning. Commissioner Miller concurred with Commissioner Johnson. Chair Stevenson added that the whole corner was planned for commercial development. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: May 19, 2004 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:17 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Lori Thomsen TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc