Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-18-2002 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting December 18, 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 7:00 p.m., December 18, 2002. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Stevenson, Scotch, Zwirn, Miller, Hegland, and Johnson Members Absent: Commissioner Song (excused). Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case ZC02-006 2 Location: 5085 Sunnyside Road Applicant: Cynthia Thunstrom ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes a. November 20, 2002 MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Zwirn. To Approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission for November 20, 2002 as Presented. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. __________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission December 18, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case ZC02-006 Community Development Director Ericson explained that the applicant had applied to rezone her property from R-2, Single and Two-Family Residential, to R-3, Medium Density Residential. He then noted that the applicant had improved the lower level of the structure to allow it to be used as a dwelling unit. He further noted that the maximum number of dwelling units allowed in an R-2 zoning district is two units whereas the maximum number allowed in an R-3 zoning district is six dwelling units. Director Ericson indicated that to rezone the property the Commission must find that the requested zoning designation would be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and that it would not be detrimental to the neighborhood or adversely affect any adjoining properties. Director Ericson indicated that the requested zoning would be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, which indicates a “Medium Density” land use. According to the Comp Plan, two and three-unit buildings are considered medium density residential. Director Ericson remarked that rezoning this property could lead to the other properties on the bock requesting similar rezoning. Director Ericson indicated that this one request could add as many as 20 vehicle trips on a daily basis. Director Ericson indicated this was not an official public hearing and said that the City Council would hear this matter at its January 27, 2003 meeting and, anyone notified for this meeting, would be notified of that meeting. Director Ericson indicated he had received several letters in opposition to the rezoning and briefly reviewed the letters with the Commission. He then read an e-mail from a resident on Red Oak Drive who was concerned that allowing this rezoning would open the door to the other properties on the block being rezoned. He also read another letter from a resident on Red Oak Drive commenting that allowing the rezoning would create a slippery slope where by all the properties on the block would ask for a rezone. Director Ericson indicated that Staff feels that the request is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the only inconsistent issue, looking strictly at the Code, is parking. He then said that the major issue is what the impact would be to the community, which is something Staff cannot adequately express to the Commission and asked the residents in attendance to provide comments. Commissioner Hegland asked whether it was the intent of the property owner to title the units separately and sell them. Director Ericson indicated that this was not a zero lot line request so it would appear that someone would be renting the other units. Mounds View Planning Commission December 18, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Miller commented there was only enough garage space for one unit. Director Ericson indicated that the garage space currently meets the Code requirements but, if the City were to rezone the property, there would need to be three garage spaces as Code requires. Commissioner Johnson commented that the property is on the market and rezoning this property could lead to a new owner turning it into a six plex. Director Ericson indicated he had not researched whether the property would support a six plex but said the maximum number allowed by the City’s Code would be six. Commissioner Johnson asked whether the property was consistent with the City’s Code for parking and garages right now. Director Ericson indicated the property was consistent now but, if rezoned, the City would need to approve the rezoning contingent upon adding additional garage space. Commissioner Johnson commented that he feels there would be an adverse impact to the neighborhood by increasing the density of this property due to additional vehicles and parking issues. Cynthia Thunstrom, the property owner, addressed the Commission and indicated that she had purchased the property and converted it to space that would accommodate three units. One for her sister, one for her, and one for their mother who needed 24-hour supervision and care. She then said that she no longer needs the property for that purpose and has been attempting to sell it but, because it is nonconforming, she has been unable to sell it and that is why she is requesting the rezoning. Bob Hummelgard, 5072 Sunnyside Road, indicated he has lived there since 1967 and said he did some math and it is possible that the unit could generate 49 vehicle trips. He then said the property is located on a hill and there is not enough room on the property to park the vehicles so he is concerned where that many vehicles would park. Mr. Hummelgard said he is against the rezoning because he does not think the property can support the number of people and vehicles that could potentially happen if someone turned it into a six plex. He then said that he feels this would be like opening Pandora’s box because all the properties would be asking for the same thing. Fay Johnson, 5092 Sunnyside, indicated her main concern is with Sunnyside Elementary and the number of extra vehicles and vehicle trips that could be added. She then said that the property owner knew it was a duplex when it was purchased and it should remain that way. She further commented that if the City rezones this property the City could expect other properties on the block to request similar rezonings. She also commented that the property owner is not planning Mounds View Planning Commission December 18, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ on staying and asked the Commission to consider those residents that will have to live with what happens at the property. Richard Sonterre, 5060 Red Oak Drive, addressed the Commission and referred to his letter sent to Mr. Ericson. He then said he is speaking in opposition to the rezoning as he feels it would set a precedent for the other properties on the block to request a similar rezoning. He also said he has concerns in terms of how this would adversely affect housing values in the area as he feels that the transient nature of renters in that area have left concerns about security and safety and adding more persons would add to those concerns. Mr. Sonterre indicated that the applicant intends to sell the property for an amount in excess of the sale price for two properties sold in the area and simple math indicates that it could not be an owner occupied property based on the rates for a 30-year conventional mortgage and the need to get in excess of $1,000 out of both units to make it financially feasible. He then said that the math indicates to him that the new property owner would need to turn it into a six plex in order to recoup the investment. Ms. Thunstrom indicated she had not had a chance to speak to the neighbors concerning her request and is surprised at the opposition to the rezoning. She then said she does not want to cause a lot of trouble or disharmony with her neighbors and would like to respectfully withdraw her request. Director Ericson asked Ms. Thunstrom to contact him so that the City could obtain her withdrawal in writing. The Commission recessed at 6:35 p.m., reconvening at 6:40 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Consideration of a Request to Restrict Parking Along the East Side of Greenfield Avenue South of County Road I. Community Development Director Ericson indicated the Commission had discussed restricting parking on Greenfield at its last meeting and Staff had researched the matter and provided a Staff report for review. Director Ericson indicated the original developer, Mr. Mezzenga, was before the City a couple of years ago and had indicated that the building he intended to construct did not need all the parking required by the City’s Code and was granted a variance from the parking requirement of 20 spaces down to 15 spaces. He then indicated that Staff had asked the Police Department to provide information on any parking issues on that side of the street. Director Ericson indicated the Commission needed to consider whether there is good reason to recommend to Council that parking be restricted on the east side of Greenfield as it is legal to park there and restricting parking in that area forces the parking issue further down the block. He then indicated he received a call from the manager at Greenfield Estates who believes there have been vehicles overflowing from the property into the Greenfield Estates parking lot. He Mounds View Planning Commission December 18, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ further commented that there is parking where the City did not anticipate parking but the Commission granted a variance and, in hindsight, took the developer too much at his word. Director Ericson asked for direction from the Commission as to whether the east side of Greenfield should be posted as no parking. He then indicated he had asked Officer Terry Broos to speak to the Commission concerning parking in the area. Chair Stevenson asked whether it would be possible to re-stripe the parking lot in any way in order to get the 20 stalls as required by Code. Director Ericson indicated the only way to do so would be to expand the parking out toward Greenfield Avenue, yet only two stalls could be gained in so doing and it would require revisiting the previously granted variance concerning the location of the parking lot. Commissioner Zwirn asked whether there was a designation for handicapped spaces. Director Ericson indicated there was. Commissioner Zwirn asked whether anyone else called to complain about the parking besides the manager of Greenfield Estates. Director Ericson indicated that some of the neighbors on Greenfield had called complaining about the parking. Officer Broos indicated that Deputy Chief Brennan had asked him to sit out there from 3:45 p.m. to 4:15 p.m. on several occasions and he did not see any major traffic problems. He then said that there were three or four vehicles and, at one time, there were five but the vehicle left shortly after his arrival. He then indicated his recommendation would be to add a sign stating no parking here to corner about 75 feet from the corner in order to keep the intersection free from vision obstructions. Chair Stevenson asked if there is a bus that stops in the area. Officer Broos indicated he did not see any school buses while he was monitoring the location. Commissioner Miller asked what the process was for obtaining the “No parking here to corner” signage. Officer Broos indicated that the police department and maintenance could work together to have the sign installed. Commissioner Scotch commented there was nothing in the area to accommodate overflow parking. Officer Broos indicated allowing parking on the east side and keeping it back from the intersection would be his recommendation. Mounds View Planning Commission December 18, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch asked what type of businesses had moved into the building. Steve Farrell, owner of the building at 2402 County Road I, indicated his mortgage company occupies the upper floor and the lower side accommodates a title company and a State Farm agent. Commissioner Johnson asked whether there was also an accountant. Mr. Farrell confirmed that the State Farm agent subleases space to an accountant. He then said that he was not made aware of any issues with this building nor was he told that parking on the street would not be allowed because, when he bought the property, he knew there was not enough parking and planned on using on-street parking to accommodate his business. He further commented that he has 16 employees and restricting on-street parking would make it difficult for him to hire employees as they will not be willing to walk blocks to work, which would damage his business. Commissioner Johnson asked how many businesses in Mounds View do not contain their own customer parking on site and use on-street parking. Director Ericson said he could think of one other property where the clientele overflows onto the street. Commissioner Johnson asked what the City does with that issue. Director Ericson indicated that the City has worked very hard with the property owner to alleviate parking issues. Commissioner Johnson commented that Roberts off 10 caused similar problems and the City responded by posting the east side of Edgewood “No Parking”. Commissioner Johnson indicated he feels for the property owner but almost every business owner meets the parking requirements for their business so he has an issue with a business owner planning on using on-street parking to accommodate clients and employees. He further commented that there are business owners that have spent a lot of money acquiring additional parking. Commissioner Hegland commented that when this building was presented to the Commission it was not intended that there would be 16 employees. Mr. Farrell asked what the intent was. Commissioner Johnson indicated the Commission was told this was to be a low intensity office building with one or two tenants. Mr. Farrell indicated that it is plainly evident that the building was designed for four businesses. Mounds View Planning Commission December 18, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Farrell further indicated it was never brought to his attention that there were any conditions set with the building. He then asked if it stated in the resolution the number of employees or the number of businesses allowed in the building. Commissioner Zwirn indicated that Mr. Mezzenga had represented something different to the Commission. Mr. Farrell commented that he knew there would not be enough parking but knew there was overflow parking on the street. Commissioner Hegland indicated it was not right to assume that on-street parking is for overflow from the business. Mr. Farrell indicated that there is parking that is not generated by his business such as parking from the apartments. Commissioner Zwirn handed out pictures with respect to situations on parking on Greenfield. He then said there were five cars parked from 7658 Greenfield down to the corner and, looking up Greenfield, there were another four. He also noted that the pictures were from two different dates. Chair Stevenson asked how many more spaces could be added to the site. Director Ericson indicated that, looking at the site plan and the area available, it would be possible to add only two additional parking stalls but again that would necessitate amending the variance resolution as it would further encroach into the setback. Chair Stevenson indicated he was willing to pursue that as he wants to maximize the parking capacity of the site. Commissioner Hegland indicated he would like Staff to go and see what can be done to maximize parking on the site. Commissioner Miller indicated the no parking from here to corner would help. Commissioner Scotch indicated that while there are no safety issues present now, there would be issues in the winter with snow accumulations. Chair Stevenson indicated he wanted to get the engineer out there to see if there was any way to accommodate a few more stalls due to the change in use. Director Ericson clarified that Staff does not feel the use has changed at all but how the building was portrayed to the Commission was different. He then indicated that there are not any restrictions in the Resolution but it was conveyed to the Commission that there would be approximately eight employees and five or six visitors. Mounds View Planning Commission December 18, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson asked Mr. Farrell if he would be agreeable to adding the two stalls as suggested by the Planning Commission, indicating that he wasn’t sure the City could force the property owner to make the improvements when they are satisfying what was approved. Mr. Farrell indicated it would be a cost issue to him--he feels it would be too expensive to only gain two spots. Chair Stevenson commented that the usage requires 20 spaces and the City can amend the variance and force the issue. Commissioner Johnson asked Director Ericson whether the Resolution allows the Commission to require that the parking be changed if parking became an issue. Director Ericson responded that the resolution was silent on that issue. Commissioner Scotch recommended that Mr. Farrell promote carpooling to reduce the number of employee vehicles on site. Mr. Farrell agreed that that was a good idea, but indicated that the mortgage industry has varied hours and requires travel to meet with clients so it would be very difficult to coordinate schedules to allow for carpooling. Chair Stevenson indicated he would like to pursue maximizing parking on the site as it appears there is not adequate parking. Director Ericson reminded the Commission that the building is a legal conforming use and the use has not changed; it was proposed as an office use and it is an office use regardless of the number of employees. He then said he does not believe the Planning Commission or the City Council can force the building owner to add more parking. Chair Stevenson indicated he would like to review the original agreement with Mr. Mezzenga to see if the Commission included a way to increase parking if parking became an issue. Director Ericson indicated there was no development agreement and nothing in the resolution binds the building owner to any requirement that would force them to increase the parking if it is indicated to be insufficient. He then said that the City is doing that now for all projects. Commissioner Zwirn stated, for the record, that he made representations with respect to this problem to the Commission and the Council and representations were made back to him by Council Member Thomas and Mayor Sonterre that when these issues came back they would be dealt with and the City Attorney said they could be dealt with but now he is being told that the City cannot force the owner to expand the parking. He then suggested putting no parking signs along the east side of Greenfield to alleviate the parking issues and let the owner deal with accommodating his business parking. Mounds View Planning Commission December 18, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Johnson indicated that would be what he would recommend regardless of how far Mr. Farrell’s employees would have to walk to work. Director Ericson indicated it would also penalize others that would like to park in the area. Commissioner Johnson indicated he would like to recommend no parking on Greenfield Avenue from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mr. Farrell asked why the Commission wanted to punish businesses coming to Mounds View. Commissioner Johnson suggested tabling the matter to allow the applicant time to come to the Commission to discuss a reasonable solution to the parking situation. Chair Stevenson indicated the Commission was willing to do something if Mr. Farrell does not address the parking issues. Commissioner Hegland suggested securing parking from another building for overflow parking. Mr. Farrell asked for information on the owner of the building next to his. Chair Stevenson commented that he hopes Mr. Farrell will attempt to work with the Commission on resolving this issue. Mr. Farrell said he was willing to work with the City on the parking issue. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Review Request to Convert the Four-Plex Located at 2075 Hillview Road to a Six- Plex. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Staff had received a request to expand 2075 Hillview Road to a six-plex. He then indicated that a six-plex would be permitted under the Code but three issues led Staff to bring this to the Commission for consideration. The first issue is that the City adopted an ordinance allowing townhomes and making multifamily dwellings a conditional use making this property a legal nonconforming use and Staff questions whether the expansion would require this go through the conditional use permit process. The second issue is with regard to parking on the site. Commissioner Hegland indicated that this matter just came up with the twinhome case and he feels the City should be able to differentiate based on use, owner occupied or rental. Director Ericson indicated the City cannot separate rental versus owned as the ownership status has no bearing on the use. Commissioner Hegland said he feels it should be a special use to go from owner occupied to rental. Mounds View Planning Commission December 18, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson indicated the City cannot do that. Commissioner Hegland said he thinks the City should change its requirements so that it can do so. Commissioner Johnson indicated the use of the building, not the ownership, can be controlled by the City. Commissioner Hegland indicated he feels there should be a requirement for a special use permit for rental. Director Ericson indicated he respected the opinion but does not think the City can legally differentiate between owner occupied and rental units. Director Ericson indicated the request is to finish the lower level to make two more apartments and the zoning code would permit it but it does necessitate a conditional use permit. Director Ericson indicated the property does not have four garage stalls but has more parking than needed. Commissioner Scotch asked whether there was room for the additional garage requirement. Director Ericson indicated there would not be. Director Ericson indicated the third issue is “does this require a development review?” According to the Code, expansion is defined as adding to the building footprint so it is Staff’s interpretation that this is NOT an expansion and would not necessitate a development review. The Commission agreed that the request should come before the Commission through the variance process to resolve the parking situation which would then require a public notification regarding the expansion. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Review Memo Regarding Variance Denials and Appeals Director Ericson indicated that the Code currently does not specify how much time a person has to appeal the denial of a variance. He further indicated that Staff could put something together for the Commission to review and then asked for a recommendation on a timeframe for the appeal. Commissioner Scotch suggested 20 days. Commissioner Johnson suggested 60 days. Chair Stevenson recommended 30 days. Mounds View Planning Commission December 18, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson indicated he would draft an ordinance that sets a requirement to appeal within 30 days, and once the appeal is submitted the 60 day clock begins. ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: January 8, 2003 ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:45 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.