Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-20-2002 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting March 20, 2002 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 7:02 p.m., March 20, 2002. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Stevenson, Miller, Scotch, and Song. Members Excused: Johnson, Hegland, and Zwirn. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson and Planner Atkinson ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. ZC02-001 2 Location: 7653 Groveland Road Applicant: Terry Martinson Planning Case No. DE02-002 6 Location: SE Corner County Road I and Mounds View Drive Applicant: Mike Bjerkesette Planning Case SP109-02 8 Discussion and Review of Section 1108.02, 1108.04, 1109.02, and 1109.04 Subd. 4 of the Mounds View City Code Pertaining to Permitted and Conditional Uses in R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission March 20, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no resident comments concerning items not on the agenda. _______________________________________________________________________ 4. Approval of Minutes a. February 20, 2002 MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Scotch. To Approve the Minutes for February 20, 2002, as Presented. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case ZC02-001 Planner Atkinson explained that this case was a request for the rezoning of the back portion of 7653 Groveland Road. He noted the property had been recommended for approval of a subdivision at the Commission’s last meeting and the lot in question fronts on Silver Lake Road. Planner Atkinson indicated that a rezone to R-2 is not consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the applicant will need to show justification as to why the rezoning is appropriate. He also noted that the Commission needed to consider whether the rezoning would be detrimental to the neighborhood and/or neighboring properties. Planner Atkinson indicated the Commission had asked for justification for the rezoning, renderings of the twin home, and assurance that the drainage from the property would not adversely affect the neighboring properties due to an existing water issue. He then noted that development is possible on the lot without the rezoning. Commissioner Song commented that the City needed to make sure all building regulations and codes were met in order to protect the City from any potential liability with regard to the drainage issues. Planner Atkinson indicated there were ways to help route the water and noted if the property was not rezoned the building permit process would govern how the drainage issue is handled. Planner Atkinson commented that it appears from the plans that the twinhome would be a quality development. He then noted that the potential buyer intends to live on one side and a relative would live on the other side. Chair Stevenson indicated that the property could become a rental unit at any time. Mounds View Planning Commission March 20, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch asked how big the lot was. Planner Atkinson indicated the lot was 27,000 square feet. Jeff Hofstede of 7638 Silver Lake Road indicated that inch and a half water line with two one inch stop boxes was installed for water service to his property and Mr. Martinson’s property. He then asked if that waterline would be sufficient or if it would negatively impact his water supply in the future. Planner Atkinson indicated that he would need to ask the City’s engineer but said that the City would not allow something that would harm the neighbor to the south. Chair Stevenson indicated he was not as concerned about the twin home as he is about the drainage. He then commented that the City would need to make sure that the problem is fully addressed in order to limit liability to the City. Chair Stevenson asked for information from the applicant on drainage and the proposed development. Terry Martinson indicated he has been working with the City on the drainage issues and had also been discussing the matter with the neighbors. He then indicated that there would be a need to haul in fill to build the house. Commissioner Miller indicated she wanted to make sure the buyer is aware of the drainage issues and the potential extra costs involved with developing the property. Kais Guiga, the potential buyer, indicated he did not know the water issue was this involved. He then said he wants to get along with his neighbors and would be happy to comply with whatever the City asks him to do. He further stated, however, that he did not feel it was fair to ask him to pay to fix his neighbors water problem but noted he had no intention of doing anything to further complicate the drainage issue for them. Mr. Guiga said that Staff has told him there is a solution to the drainage issue and he will continue to work with them on that. Commissioner Miller asked what size each unit would be. Mr. Guiga indicated that the main level of each unit would be 1,370 square feet and noted the lower level would not be finished at this time. Commissioner Scotch said the architect’s plans looked great. She then asked Mr. Herrick, the resident to the north of the subject property, how long he had been at his residence and how many issues he had with drainage. Mounds View Planning Commission March 20, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Herrick indicated that he nearly had water in his home twice in seven years, once from snow melting and once from a heavy rainstorm. Commissioner Scotch commented that, unfortunately, the water issue was Mr. Herrick’s to resolve. Mr. Herrick said he would have thought the matter would have been addressed 20 years ago when the house was built. Commissioner Scotch asked if the City could help Mr. Herrick with his drainage issues. Planner Atkinson indicated the City could ensure that no water would be allowed to spill from the new development onto Mr. Herrick’s property. Chair Stevenson asked if Mr. Herrick had an issue with the rezoning other than the drainage issue. Mr. Herrick indicated that the property was zoned R-1 when Mr. Martinson purchased it and asked why it should be rezoned to R-2. Commissioner Scotch indicated a large single family home could be built on the lot comparable in size to the proposed twinhome. Chair Stevenson indicated that the entire block is twinhomes but for one single-family residence. He then indicated that rezoning this parcel would make the zoning consistent with the rest of the block. Mr. Martinson indicated the buyer would be living at the twinhome and that means a lot. Mr. Hofstede asked if the units would be able to be sold separately. Commissioner Scotch commented that the owner could own the units and move out and begin renting them at any time. Community Development Director Ericson commented that just because the property would be zoned R-2 does not mean you would have a better quality neighbor than in R-1. He then commented that there are renters who take excellent care of their rental property and there are R- 1 owners who do not. He then commented that the applicant could construct the building in a way that the property could be split with a zero lot line to allow for the units to be sold separately. He then advised the applicant to contact the building official to determine what would need to be done to ensure that the Codes regarding this type of matter would be met should he wish to subdivide it in the future. Commissioner Scotch asked what the setback from the road would be. Mounds View Planning Commission March 20, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Planner Atkinson indicated the minimum setback is 30 feet but noted if the houses are setback farther, the setback becomes the home that is the closest to the street. Mr. Guiga commented he did not think the setback would be an issue but asked that the City consider that he would like to have a large enough backyard for his children to play in. Mr. Hofstede asked at what point the water supply line question would be resolved. He then explained that he had paid for the waterline from the fire hydrant down Silver Lake Road and noted it was sized for two homes and adding a third could negatively impact his water supply. Chair Stevenson indicated the City’s engineer would have to answer that question. He then said that the City would not allow the new home to negatively impact the neighbor’s water supply line. He further said that, if the water line is not adequate, it would need to be changed at the expense of the developing property owner. Mr. Hofstede asked if there would be a public utility easement on the back half of the lot or between the two lots. He then commented that he and Mr. Martinson had an easement where his waterline comes in. Chair Stevenson indicated that when the lot splits an easement for utilities is created. Mr. Hofstede asked whether Mr. Herrick would be allowed to use the easement to drain his lot. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Staff would research the matter to determine whether the easement areas coincide. Commissioner Miller asked if the easement should be written into the Resolution. Director Ericson indicated he did not feel the matter needed to be in the Resolution and indicated that Staff would research the water line issue as well as the easement issue. He then commented that whatever needs to happen with the water supply line would happen at the expense of the developing property owner. Director Ericson indicated that the subdivision would be on Council’s agenda for the March 25, 2002 meeting. He then indicated staff would research the issues and hoped to provide answers to Council on Monday night. Chair Stevenson asked what was involved with making changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Director Ericson indicated the City would need to change the Comprehensive Plan for this lot but noted that there are several lots within the City that needed to be amended on the Plan and this one would be added to that list. Mounds View Planning Commission March 20, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson commented that, if Mr. Martinson had divided the lot prior to adopting the Comprehensive Plan, this lot would have been zoned R-2 because it fronts on Silver Lake Road. But, since it fronted on Groveland at the time the Plan was adopted, the zoning remained R-1. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Scotch. To Approve Resolution 692-02, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Rezoning From R-1, Single-Family Residential, To R-2, Single and Two Family Residential For the Rear Portion of the Property Located at 7653 Groveland Road. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Director Ericson indicated that the public hearing for the rezoning would be set at the meeting on Monday, March 25, 2002 and noted it would be set for April 22, 2002. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case DE02-002 Planner Atkinson explained that this was a request for development review for the National Handicap Housing Institute to construct a 20 unit housing facility at the southeast corner of County Road I and Mounds View Drive. He then noted that the site plan provided required one change with regard to the sideyard setback. Planner Atkinson indicated that two ground signs are proposed and said that signage would need to comply with the City’s sign code. He also stated that the site plan should be revised to show the correct sign setback of 15 feet. Planner Atkinson indicated that City Code would require 50 spaces for this development with 20 of those being garage spaces. He then indicated that the applicant would be requesting a variance from that parking lot requirement to be allowed to construct 30 spaces rather than 50 and no garage spaces. He further noted approval of this development review would be contingent upon approval of the variance to be heard at the next meeting. Planner Atkinson indicated there would be one access on County Road I and, after some discussion, the Super America had agreed to allow the applicant to tie into the access drive onto Mounds View Drive. Planner Atkinson indicated that the lighting met City Code requirements and the drainage from the site should be minimal as the site is flat. Planner Atkinson indicated that an extensive landscaping plan had been included and noted that the City Forester would be reviewing it and would provide comments, if any. Planner Atkinson provided pictures of the exterior of two other facilities and noted the proposed building would be similar to the pictures. He then indicated that he and Community Mounds View Planning Commission March 20, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Development Director Ericson had toured an existing facility and were impressed with both the interior and exterior. Planner Atkinson indicated that the City is excited about the facility and noted that the City Council had passed a resolution in support of this facility to assist the applicant in obtaining funding. Chair Stevenson asked how many parking stalls are not designated as handicapped. Planner Atkinson indicted that there were approximately 19 non-handicapped stalls. He then explained that the reason the applicant is looking at 30 stalls rather than the 50 is from past experience and he also noted that garage space is considered a luxury and affects the funding for the project. Mr. Bjerkesette indicated the reason he is proposing this building is that he has a waiting list of 188 people for a 24-unit facility. He further explained that the majority of the people on the list are from Mounds View and that is why he is looking to build here. Chair Stevenson asked why the 30 parking spaces versus the required 50 parking spaces. Mr. Bjerkesette indicated that due to the nature of their physical disabilities, many of the residents do not drive. He commented he may have only four or five residents that drive in a 25 unit building. He then explained that his primary funding source is the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and that organization considers a garage to be a luxury. He also explained that garages are not practical because those residents that drive a van usually have a van with a higher roof and that would not fit in a garage. Also, residents need to swing their car door all the way open to be able to get their wheelchairs out and that is not possible in a garage. Mr. Bjerkesette also indicated that it is difficult for him to keep the garage area and parking lot clear of snow and ice in order to provide a clear path from a garage to the building and that makes garages impractical for the handicapped residents. Commissioner Miller indicated that some of the units are two bedroom units and asked whether one handicapped resident and one able-bodied resident could live there. Mr. Bjerkesette indicated that there were six two bedroom units so there is the potential that there could be six able-bodied residents but said it is more likely that two handicapped people would occupy the residence. Chair Stevenson expressed concern for enough parking for visiting, especially on holidays. Mr. Bjerkesette indicated some residents go elsewhere for holidays and some stay home and he does not feel there would be a lack of parking during holiday times. Mounds View Planning Commission March 20, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Bjerkesette said his organization prides itself on its maintenance and welcomed the Commissioners to tour one of his facilities at any time. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To Approve Resolution 690-02, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Development Review For the National Handicap Housing Institute to Construct a 20 Unit Housing Facility at the Southeast Corner of County Road I and Mounds View Drive. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Commissioner Miller said she was impressed with the pictures of the facility. Staff put the picture on the monitor for those viewing at home. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Planning Case SP110-02 Planner Atkinson indicated that Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission review the provisions for multi-family and townhouse developments in the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts because currently multi-family developments are permitted in both zoning districts while townhouses require a conditional use permit. Planner Atkinson reviewed the proposed changes to the Code with the Commission. He then indicated that approval of these changes would mean that apartment complexes would come before the Planning Commission and Council for approval of a conditional use permit where, in the past, they did not. MOTION/SECOND: Song/Stevenson. To Approve Resolution 694-02, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a City Code Amendment to Sections 1108.02, 1108.04, and 1109.04, Subd. 4 of the Mounds View City Code Pertaining to Permitted and Conditional Uses in R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Next Planning Commission Meeting: March 20, 2002 ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:02 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Mounds View Planning Commission March 20, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, James Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.