Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-19-2004 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 19, 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 19, 2004. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Stevenson, Scotch, Hegland, Zwirn and Johnson Members Absent: Song (excused) Also Present: Planner Prososki ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Resolution 761-04, Discussion Concerning Acquisition of Parcel at 2525 2 County Road 10 Planning Case VR2004-003 4 Location: 2208 Lois Drive Applicant: Michael Read Planning Case VR2004-005 and CU2004-001 4 Location: 2208 Lois Drive Applicant: Michael Read Planning Case VR2004-002, ZC2004-001 and DE2004-001 6 Location: 2800 County Road 10 Applicant: The Velmeir Companies Planning Case DE2004-002 and VR2004-004 9 Location: 2151 Mustang Drive Applicant: Greg Kelley Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes a. April 21, 2004 MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Zwirn. To Approve the Planning Commission Minutes for April 21, 2004 as Presented. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Consider Resolution 761-04, a Resolution Recommending Acquisition of the Parcel Located at 2525 County Road 10 Economic Development Coordinator Backman explained to the Commission that the property at 2525 County Road 10 is for sale and Council authorized Staff to obtain an appraisal that should be available by Friday, May 21, 2004. Economic Development Coordinator Backman outlined re-use scenarios for the property with the Commission. Economic Development Coordinator Backman indicated that if the City were to acquire this parcel the City would control the entire block. Economic Development Coordinator Backman suggested that acquiring the property when it is for sale is much less costly than attempting to force a sale on an unwilling property owner and paying top dollar. Chair Stevenson asked who would be responsible for cleaning up any contamination. Economic Development Coordinator Backman indicated that the City is not aware of any contamination on the site and noted that the MPCA issued a letter of clearance two years ago. He then said that if the City acquires the property, the City would be responsible for removing the tanks. He further indicated that he located the tank removal service that did the removal for the Amoco site and asked for a cost estimate. The cost estimate for removal of two or three tanks was $9,000 to $11,000 but if the site needs to be assessed or analyzed, the cost goes up. Economic Coordinator Backman indicated that the sale could be contingent upon determining whether there are any environmental impacts that could be costly to solve. Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson said he does not think an adequate study was done on how much contamination there may be at the site and he would like a contingency placed on the purchase to protect the City from a lot of costs for environmental issues. Commissioner Johnson asked whether the Commission felt it would be appropriate to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Stevenson said that he would not be in favor of amending the Comprehensive Plan and would like to see the possible redevelopment scenarios for commercial development. Commissioner Johnson indicated that he would not be in favor of amending the Comprehensive Plan. He then commented that the last amendment barely passed and the City lost a large portion of commercial property. He further commented that rather than amending the Comprehensive Plan frequently a more comprehensive study should be done to determine whether there needs to be an overall amendment. Economic Development Coordinator Backman said he feels that redevelopment would be a good opportunity from the standpoint of the tax base. He then said that there are areas to the east of the location that could be added to this parcel to make it larger and more desirable to developers. The Commission indicated a willingness to move forward with the potential acquisition of the property but members are not interested in a rezoning of the property. Economic Development Coordinator Backman commented that it may be possible to get the property for less than $850,000, as the owners want to get out of the property. Commissioner Zwirn said he understands a good deal when he sees it and this is a good deal economically. One of the concerns he has is that this City is constantly talking about budget constraints and it concerns him that the City seems to be in a purchase mode during these tight budget times. Economic Development Coordinator Backman explained that the City would not be using general fund dollars but TIF dollars that are to be used specifically for economic development purposes. He then explained that if the City does not spend some significant funds on redevelopment over the next one to two years it runs the risk of losing TIF dollars. He further explained that TIF District One generates $1.5 million dollars in increment and the City is not allowed to sit on the funds and accumulate them, nor can they be used to offset issues with the general fund budget. The Commission asked that a contingency to ensure that there is no site contamination be added. MOTION/SECOND: Scotch/Johnson. To Approve Resolution 761-04, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Acquisition of the Parcel Located at 2525 County Road 10. Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Ayes – 5 Nays – 1(Zwirn) Motion carried. Commissioner Zwirn indicated that he had voted against the Resolution because he feels it is not consistent with where he thinks the budgetary concerns are. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case VR2004-003 Planner Prososki reminded the Commission that Staff had been directed at the last meeting to draft a Resolution of denial. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To Approve Resolution 756-04, a Resolution Denying a Variance Request for a Six-Foot Tall Fence in the Front Yard of 2208 Lois Drive. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried _____________________________________________________________________________ 7. Planning Case VR2004 and CU2004-001 Planner Prososki indicated that the applicant has requested approval of a variance to construct a wider than allowed garage as well as a CUP for an oversized garage. The applicant is proposing a garage that is 1,152 square feet but the code limits the width of the garage under the CUP to 35 feet and this would be 48 feet wide. Commissioner Miller asked how large the garage could be if it met the width requirements. Planner Prososki explained that the total square footage of all accessory structures allowed would be 1800 square feet, so the requested square footage is within the limits but there is an issue with the width. Chair Stevenson indicated that he has reviewed the request and does not feel that the situation meets the hardship requirements. He then said that the Commission has been consistent with not allowing garages to exceed the requirements of the Code. Commissioner Hegland asked the applicant why he has taken this approach rather than designing an addition that would meet the City’s Code requirement. Mike Read of 2208 Lois Drive addressed the Commission and indicated that he has been told that he has too many vehicles sitting on the grass and he needs the additional storage for his small business that he runs out of the house. He then said that he would prefer to add onto the existing garage as it would be cleaner and easier to do so. Commissioner Hegland indicated he is not against allowing the additional storage space but the footprint is outside the requirements of the Code. He then asked if the applicant has looked at other footprint designs. Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Read indicated that other designs would not be as convenient and would not look as nice and clean. He then said that he could have a larger garage behind the house but then he would have extra cement going past the garage. Chair Stevenson asked whether a variance for driveway width would be required. Planner Prososki indicated that the width is limited to either 35 feet or the width of the garage plus 12 feet so the proposed driveway would be okay. Commissioner Zwirn asked whether the applicant would consider using the maximum width and extending the garage back further, so that the garage is deeper, to gain the same amount of space. Mr. Read indicated that a design like that would require him to jockey vehicles around for parking and the roof line would have valleys in the roof rather than be straight. Commissioner Miller indicated that the Commission is charged with reviewing the situation and determining whether the hardship criteria are met and she does not see where the hardship requirements are met for this situation. Commissioner Johnson commented that the City has made several changes to the Code to allow more square footage for garages and he is not in favor of allowing an exception to the Code. Commissioner Zwirn commented that the applicant owns property and pays taxes and he wants to clean up the property. He then said that the applicant is trying to do the proper thing by adding storage to comply and he has a large enough lot to do what has been requested without infringing on the property lines. Commissioner Zwirn indicated that he does not feel that what is being requested is out of line. Commissioner Miller commented that the hardship requirement has not been met. Commissioner Zwirn asked whether the applicant would consider turning the garage the other way and come out toward the front of the property. Mr. Read indicated he had not considered that as he was hoping the City would allow him to go out the side to match the roofline of the existing garage. He then said that he is not sure whether it would be as convenient but he could look into it. Commissioner Hegland asked whether the applicant was willing to look at another option for the footprint. He then said that he would appreciate if the applicant would try to do that because he would like to see him get his additional storage space but the Commission is in a position where they cannot grant a variance due to the hardship requirements. Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Read said he would look at it and the other option would be to add a building in the backyard. He then said he is not sure whether it would be possible to go toward the street. Planner Prososki indicated she would have to check the prevailing setback on that street before she would know whether or not the garage can move forward. There were no residents present to speak at the public hearing. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Johnson. To Approve Resolution 758-04 a Resolution Denying a Variance for a 48-Foot Wide Garage to Allow for a Garage Addition at 2208 Lois Drive. Commissioner Scotch asked if it would be possible to do a breezeway between the garage and the new addition. Commissioner Johnson indicated that the Fire Code would govern that situation and he believes it needs to be a seven (7) foot separation and it cannot be connected by a breezeway. He then said that he believes that the Code would not allow the garage to be forward of the house. Ayes – 5 Nays – 1(Zwirn) Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To Approve Resolution 757-04, a Resolution Recommending Denial of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for a 1,152 Square Foot Garage at 2208 Lois Drive. Ayes – 5 Nays – 1(Zwirn) Motion carried. The Commission informed the applicant that he had the right to appeal the decision to the City Council. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Planning Case MA2004-002, ZC2004-001 and DE2004-001 Planner Prososki reviewed the major subdivision, rezoning and development review request of the Velmeir Companies to construct a CVS Pharmacy. Planner Prososki explained that the property was originally platted with five lots but that has been changed to three lots. Planner Prososki indicated that Staff is recommending that the park dedication fee be based on the developed area including the parking lot and the building. She then said that the City Council will make the determination on the park dedication fee but Staff recommends a fee of $57,812.69. Planner Prososki reviewed the requirements and noted that a variance was granted for the parking setback on the site previously. She also indicated that the site would require 106 stalls Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ but the Code has a provision for proof of parking. They show 93 stalls & 16 proof of parking stalls, for a total of 109 stalls. Planner Prososki explained that the drainage has been changed slightly and could change again dependent upon Rice Creek Watershed District. Planner Prososki explained that there would be a very large pond servicing the CVS site and it will also take drainage from the PAK building. She then explained that the City’s engineers from SEH are concerned that there is no outlet for this pond. Jim LaValle explained that they were before Rice Creek Watershed District in April and there was a request for further information that has since been provided and they are to be on the upcoming agenda for consideration. He then said that the outlet from the pond was eliminated on the plan because the pond was oversized to accommodate double 100 year storms. He also explained that the elevation at the outlet was essentially flat. Planner Prososki indicated there is a proposed trail shown 10 feet wide that runs parallel to Highway 10 and then runs parallel to Silver Lake Road. She then indicated that Staff is working on getting an actual enclosure rather than just the bench at the bus stop in that location. Planner Prososki explained that Staff reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and, even though the property is not being rezoned to PUD, it will bring commercial development to this residential area and Staff feels that it would not be detrimental to the surrounding sites as it was a commercial site before and this would be a similar use. Planner Prososki indicated that Staff did receive three comments from the public, two of which were explained at the last meeting, and the third comment came in since that meeting. The person was concerned that the development is not consistent with the residential area and expressed a concern with glaring lights from a 24-hour retail operation. Planner Prososki then said that the lighting would meet the Code requirements and the area is buffered and that was explained to the person. Planner Prososki indicated that the developer has agreed to the one way drive aisle with the fire lane and the fencing for the pond as requested. She then indicated that Staff recommends approval as the preliminary plat does satisfy the lot requirements and the buildings satisfy the zoning requirements. Commissioner Miller asked what the height of the fence would be to ensure it will keep children out. Mr. LaValle indicated that they would be willing to work with the City on the height of the fence. Tom Loucks said it is typical within the industry to use a five-foot fence that is non- climbable. Planner Prososki suggested using the swimming pool requirement of five feet. Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn indicated he had brought up at the last meeting the potential issue of the lighting impacting the rental units behind the property. He then said that he had understood that the developer would provide lighting that would be shaded to eliminate cascading light onto adjoining properties. Planner Prososki indicated that the developer had agreed to shield the lighting but, she believed there was consensus that it would be beneficial to light the garage area. Commissioner Zwirn said he does think the garages should be lit from the back but he wants to protect the people in the apartment complex from too much lighting. Mr. LaValle indicated that it would be possible to redirect the light to shine back toward the site to ensure there would not be an impact to the rental units. Planner Prososki indicated that the apartments are more than 175 feet from the CVS site so there should not be an issue. She then said that Staff could add a provision to allow the lighting to be changed in the future if complaints are received. She further noted that the foot candle readings are slightly over Code requirements at the property line in the back but the rental units are 175 feet from the site. The Commission asked that a lighting provision be added to the Resolution. Commissioner Miller asked for clarification on the rezoning. Planner Prososki explained that portions of the CVS parcel need to be rezoned and pointed those out on the map. She then indicated that she would further clarify the rezoning by adding that, “portions of Lot 2 and Lot 1” are being rezoned. Tom Loucks told the Commission he wanted to go on record as registering a concern in regard to the park dedication fees. He then referred to Page 11 of the staff report where it indicates the park dedication fee should be 10% of the assessed value. He further commented that they do not believe that this request constitutes a major subdivision in terms of the Ordinance because it is really a lot line rearrangement and that difference has consequences in terms of the park dedication fees. Mr. Loucks indicated that they are not creating a development site but are creating an unusually shaped Lot 2 to accommodate the requirements of the City and the Watershed District for ponding requirements and they will not be able to use the property for anything other than a ponding area. He then said that they do not expect that the Commission will change the wording of the Resolution but wanted to go on record to respectfully object to the park dedication fee. Mr. Loucks indicated that they mean no disrespect to the Commission or Staff and thanked the City for the opportunity to go before Council to discuss the park dedication fee. Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson suggested pointing out that a trailway is being constructed on two sides of the property and to ask Council to consider the construction of that trailway in lieu of park dedication fees. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Scotch. To Approve Resolution 759-04, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Preliminary Plat for Velmeir CVS Addition, Recommending Approval of a Development Review for a Retail Building and Recommending Approval of a Rezoning From R-3, Medium Density Residential and R-4 High Density Residential to B-3 Highway Business for the Lots Addressed 2828 County Highway 10 and 7750 Silver Lake Road. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Planning Case DE2004-002 and VR2004-004 Planner Prososki explained that the applicant has requested approval of a variance to allow a reduced front yard setback, a reduced front parking setback and an additional curb cut for an addition to the Bioclean building located at 2151 Mustang Drive, as well as approval of development review. Planner Prososki indicated that the Code requires a 40 foot front building setback on property zoned industrial and the current building is 38 feet from the front property line and the applicant would like to continue the building along that same property line and not any further forward. She then explained that the lot is long and narrow and there was a variance granted when the building was constructed due to the long narrow lot. Planner Prososki indicated that this lot is a corner lot, so the Code requires a 40 foot front parking setback for industrial property which means there needs to be 40 feet from Mustang Drive and Old Highway 8 and the current parking exists seven (7) feet from the front property line on the Old Highway 8 side. Planner Prososki indicated that the City’s Code allows for one curb cut for every 125 feet of frontage and this site is 11 feet short of the requirement for three (3) curb cuts. She then explained that the applicant has proposed to leave the middle curb cut as it is and enlarge the one to the east and add an additional curb cut that would be 32 feet wide. Planner Prososki indicated that Staff recommends approval for the third curb cut, as truck traffic would have difficulty navigating the site without it. Planner Prososki told the Commission that the applicant had originally been willing to agree to forego a curb cut on Old Highway 8 in exchange for the third cub cut but he has now asked that the provision be removed from the Resolution. Planner Prososki indicated that Staff does feel that a hardship has been shown due to the long and narrow lot and that it would be difficult to maneuver around the site without the third curb Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ cut. She then explained that the setbacks meet the requirements with the exception of the variance items. Planner Prososki indicated the parking on the site is based on the number of employees and the biggest shift has 14 employees and 20 parking stalls are shown. She then said that there is currently a drainage pond on site and this addition does not require Rice Creek Watershed District approval, but the public works staff is reviewing the drainage to ensure that the ponding is adequate. Planner Prososki indicated the addition would match the existing structure and noted there were no public comments received on this matter. Planner Prososki explained that there was a variance granted in 1981 and a variance in 1995 for the rear setback and the City Attorney has determined the applicant did not need to request another rear setback variance as it applies to the total setback. Chair Stevenson asked if there is a trailway on Old Highway 8. Chair Stevenson asked how close the trail is to the proposed parking. Mr. Kelley indicated the trail is about 20 feet from the parking and, with the change, would be at least 15 feet from the trail. There were no residents present to speak at the public hearing. MOTION/SECOND: Scotch/Miller. To Approve Resolution 760-04, a Resolution Approving a Variance from the Minimum Front Building and Parking Setbacks and a Variance for an Additional Curb Cut and Recommending Approval of Development Review for an Addition at 2151 Mustang Drive. Commissioner Zwirn noted that the Resolution includes the wording concerning the curb cut on Old Highway 8. Planner Prososki suggested amending the language to state that only three curb cuts would be allowed on the site in case at some point in the future the business would desire a curb cut on Old Highway 8. Mr. Kelley agreed with the suggestion and said he does not see any reason to have the curb cut on Old Highway 8 at this time but would like to have the option available in the future. The Commission agreed to the change. Planner Prososki suggested a second condition be added that the proposed addition shall be completed within one year or the variance will become null and void. Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ The Commission requested that the language read that the approval is null and void one year after Council approval. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Next Planning Commission Meeting: June 2, 2004 ______________________________________________________________________________ 11. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.