Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-21-2001 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting March 21, 2001 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., March 21, 2001. _______________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Hegland, Stevenson, Kaden, Cerny and Johnson. Members Absent: Commissioner Miller (excused). Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson. ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case Nos. DE01-001, VR01-001 & CU01-001 2 Applicant: ISD #621, Pinewood Elementary School Location: 5500 Quincy Street Planning Case Nos. DE01-001 & WB01-001 6 Applicant: Minnesota Institute of Public Health Location: 2720 Highway 10 Staff Reports/Items of Information 10 Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports 10 _______________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes A. February 21, 2001 Mounds View Planning Commission March 21, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Cerny. To Approve the February 21, 2001, Meeting Minutes as Presented. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. B. February 7, 2001 MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Cerny. To Approve the February 7, 2001, Meeting Minutes as Presented. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _______________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no resident comments on items not on the agenda. ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case Nos. DE01-001, VR01-001 & CU01-001 Community Development Director Ericson noted this was a continued discussion of the Pinewood Elementary expansion. The school proposes to add 10,000 square feet to the building, part of which is for classrooms. The school will also be remodeled on the interior. The school intends to expand parking onto the asphalt playground and extend the parking lot along Quincy Street to the south. With this request there are three issues before the Planning Commission. The request for a conditional use permit due to the fact the school is located in an R1 district, the request for a variance for the parking lot along Quincy Street due to the fact the parking lot is encroaching into the City right-of-way, and a possible variance to expand the parking in the asphalt playground area. Director Ericson noted that at the last meeting Staff was asked to research the parking lot issue and did not find any documentation for the approval to build the parking lot into the City right- of-way. He then noted if the school shifts the parking lot up a bit there would not be a need for a variance in that location but they would lose a few parking stalls. As parking is a major issue at this site, Staff feels that any loss of parking could constitute a hardship. David Pepper from Perkins and Will pointed out the various changes to the school site on the site map for those in the audience. Chair Stevenson questioned whether the larger parking area to the south had to be built to require that vehicles travel the length of the parking lot and exit to the north rather than to allow them to enter and exit at the same spot on Quincy Street. Mounds View Planning Commission March 21, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Pepper noted it was drawn that way due to the angled parking in place currently along Quincy Street. Chair Stevenson noted he would prefer to have an exit from the parking lot to the south directly onto Quincy Street. Commissioner Johnson asked if the curb cut onto Quincy was in compliance with the thirty-foot setback. Director Ericson stated there was no setback requirement like this in the R-1 district. Director Ericson stated he had been informed there would be no representation from the school district at this meeting as the Planning Commission had requested. He then noted there were a lot of unresolved issues concerning this development that really need to be addressed by the school district. Duane Nelson of 5459 Quincy Street presented a letter to the Commission that was a petition against the granting of the variance. He then asked Mr. Pepper if the existing sidewalks along Quincy Street would stay the same. Mr. Pepper stated the sidewalk would stay the same. Mr. Nelson stated he felt the school district did not need a variance for the parking lot to the south as the school has property to the east it could use for parking expansion. He then stated he did not feel it was right to take the school children’s play area away for parking. He also expressed a concerned that the developer would be taking out the buffer of trees along the playground area to the south. He also questioned where the snow from the City plows would go. Mr. Pepper stated he was not sure how the snow removal would be handled. Mr. Nelson noted that shortly after speaking to area residents concerning the petition he had received his tax statement and noted it is going up this year and for 2002. He then said he does not feel he should have to look at the parking lot. He also stated other businesses have to screen themselves from the neighborhood and he feels the school district should as well. Dennis Hammes of 5511 Quincy Street noted he was at the last meeting and this matter was tabled because there was not a representative from the school district present. Mr. Hammes then stated the fact that no representative is at this meeting is proof that his theory on the school district’s attitude of “ignore it and it will go away” is accurate. Mr. Hammes then outlined his issues with the school district expansion. His issues are parking, as he is blocked from getting in and out of his driveway quite often; and child safety, as there is no room for the kids to walk in winter. He then noted the recent referendum is going to cost much more than $30.00 as it was advertised to be. Nick Hammes, 5511 Quincy Street, told the Commission he has to walk in the road because of the snow and cars parked along the street. Mounds View Planning Commission March 21, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Jack Lasota of 5467 Quincy Street noted he agreed with the comments of Mr. Nelson. He further stated the expansion of the parking would radically change the look of Quincy Street as now there is a nice boulevard look with trees that would be removed for the parking expansion. Vera Olson of 5499 Quincy Street stated she felt the greatest thing to come out of this expansion would be more parking noting she understood that meant changing the look of Quincy Street. She then expressed concern for enforcement of the parking once the expansion is complete. Mr. Pepper noted there is the possibility to park 24 cars along Quincy on each side for a total of 48 and the parking lot expansion will have enough stalls to accommodate those vehicles to keep them off of Quincy Street. Pat Sharon of 5485 Quincy Street stated the school has had the playground area cleared out for quite some time to allow for parking and no one parks in there. She then stated she felt parking would still be an issue once the expansion is completed. Mr. Pepper noted the parking issue should be resolved when they stripe the parking lot and add the access. Ms. Sharon stated she is concerned that the school district will not enforce the parking lot requirements. Mr. Pepper noted the school would have a sidewalk on its property. Mr. Hammes noted a sidewalk on the school side does not solve the problem. Mr. Pepper said he could not speak for the school district but stated he feels sure the school district will do what it needs to do to enforce the parking. Mr. Hammes suggested Mr. Good request extra patrol from 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. and see what the Police Chief says. Mr. Lasota questioned how the kids would get across the parking area and bus area to the school building. Mr. Pepper explained there would be a crosswalk and a break between the buses for children to cross. Director Ericson stated there was a need for feedback from school administration to address the safety concerns. Mr. Nelson stated he also wanted to see screening from the parking lot. Director Ericson clarified the parking lot would not be coming any closer than the existing play area but would be going further south with the angled parking. Mounds View Planning Commission March 21, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson asked the Commission how it wished to proceed. Commissioner Cerny questioned whether the parking could be moved east as recommended by Mr. Hammes. Mr. Pepper stated he would need to check the grading plan but stated he did not think so. Director Ericson stated it may be possible to move the parking lot closer to the school but noted the school would lose the space reserved for possible expansion. By moving the parking lot closer the school may be able to gain enough spaces so as not to have to expand the angled parking along Quincy Street. Chair Stevenson stated he would like the architect to prepare a plan that puts the parking where the proposed future classrooms are to eliminate the need for additional angled parking. Director Ericson noted, he did not feel that by granting a variance, the City would be creating a special condition for the school district. He then noted there are seven different requirements for granting a variance noting the Planning Commission has always been careful in considering any variance request. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Kaden. To Table this Matter for Further Discussion and Input from School Administration at the April 4, 2001 Meeting. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Chair Stevenson asked that a representative of the school district be at the meeting to address resident concern. Commissioner Kaden stated he was very disappointed that no school officials were present at the meeting to address resident concerns. Commissioner Hegland stated this is the second meeting where the City had asked for representation from the school and he feels that if there is not a representative present at the next meeting the Commission should consider denying the request for the variance. Director Ericson stated he would ask that the public hearing at the Council Meeting be continued to another date pending input from the Planning Commission. ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case No. DE01-002 & WB01-001 Community Development Director Ericson explained that this was a continued discussion of a request to construct an office building at 2720 County Highway 10. Mounds View Planning Commission March 21, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson noted that during the discussion at the last meeting Mr. Winiecki had expressed a concern for the setback of the building. Originally the building was proposed to be setback thirty feet from County Highway 10 and the developer has revised the site plan to pull the building back an additional twenty feet making the setback from County Highway 10 fifty feet. Director Ericson explained the concept drawing for the Silverview Estates Planned Unit Development indicated a 25,000 square foot two-story building that was setback almost eighty feet. At the time of the Planned Unit Development approval there was no proposal to build the building to the specifications of the concept plan. The developer, in this case, is requesting to deviate from the proposed concept plan and that is why they are before the Planning Commission. Director Ericson noted the issue is what is an appropriate setback. He noted all other requirements have been met and there are no issues with regard to the setback from the wetland. Director Ericson noted Staff was directed to look at the meeting minutes from 1997 and 1998, which is when this item was addressed, to find out if any assurances or discussion took place on the record regarding placement of the building. Staff has reviewed the minutes covering the six- month timeframe where this was before Council and was unable to find any documentation that would indicate Council had made any agreement with Mr. Winiecki concerning the setback of the building to be built on the site. He then noted not every statement makes it into the minutes but stated anything of a significant nature such as an agreement concerning building placement would have been in the minutes. Director Ericson noted the mayor at the time had indicated that any changes to the concept plan would need to be brought before Council for consideration. He then noted that Staff recommends approval of the Resolution as presented. Mr. Winiecki of 2704 N.E. Highway 10 noted he had called the developer at the time and asked him about the concept plan. He further explained the feeling he was left with after speaking to the developer was that the concept plan is what would be built. If he had any question the concept plan would be changed he would have pushed harder and escalated the issue more than he did. Mr. Winiecki stated visibility is crucial for his business noting there is a steady stream of people coming to his building. He then presented the Commission with a letter to the City from Attorney Gary Dahle who offices with him. Mr. Winiecki read the letter that indicated Mr. Dahle is in support of Mr. Winiecki’s position that the proposed building should be setback in line with his building. Mr. Winiecki stated he should have been more vocal at the time of the PUD approval and asked that Council not allow the building to be built in front of his building. Ms. Deb Elfman stated she is not from Mounds View but works in Mr. Winiecki’s building. She further stated a lot of her clients recognize the building by description and do not need directions to get to it indicating to her that the visual aspect of the building is very important. Mounds View Planning Commission March 21, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. William Elfman stated he felt people do know the building by description. He then stated that allowing the proposed building to be built in front of Mr. Winiecki’s building would be “taking the view” out of Mounds View and he stated he did not think the Commission should do that. Mr. Jeff Dzurik of McGough Construction noted the visibility issue was addressed in Mr. Ericson’s reports to the Commission. He stated the PUD and the Resolution are clear on the requirements and the building as proposed meets those requirements. He noted the developer has gone one step farther by moving the building back an additional twenty feet. He then respectfully asked that the Resolution be approved. Chair Stevenson asked what the distance between the two buildings was. Mr. Dzurik stated he was not sure how far Mr. Winiecki’s building was from property line but noted the MIPH building would be forty-four feet from the property line. He then stated that he had considered the request from the last meeting to flip flop the building on the site and found that there is a drainage and utility easement located in the area where the building would need to be. Chair Stevenson noted the buildings, road and easements all run at an angle. He then asked if the MIPH building would sit perpendicular to County Highway 10. Mr. Dzurik indicated it would. Mr. Winiecki questioned where the utility and drainage easement was. Director Ericson clarified a building cannot be built over the drainage and utility easement. Mr. Winiecki inquired as to why it was not possible to move the building back. Mr. Dzurik stated he would have to put in a ten-foot retaining wall that would be quite costly. Mr. Winiecki stated the original concept plan indicated it was feasible to set the building back farther on the lot. Mr. Dzurik clarified that was a concept and that now there is an actual client with actual money. Commissioner Johnson suggested moving the building to the northwest would gain line of sight for Mr. Winiecki. Mr. Dzurik stated there is no room to move the building west without also pushing the building back. Mr. Winiecki questioned whether economic hardship was a valid reason to move the building forward. Mounds View Planning Commission March 21, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Dzurik clarified that MIPH is not asking for a variance in this instance and is doing better than the PUD requirement of thirty feet. Mr. Winiecki stated he could come up with an economic reason for a lot of things and stated he did not think an economic reason was justification to move the building forward. Christine Winiecki stated that currently if a person is sitting at the intersection of Silver Lake Road and County Highway 10 her building is visible. If the proposed building is allowed to be built her building won’t be visible until you are almost to it. She then clarified that she had no problem with the structure itself but did not want it built forward of her building. She further stated she felt like the “big guy was stepping on the little guy” in this instance and she does not think that is fair. Director Ericson reiterated that this is not a request for a variance and that in terms of economic hardship if the applicant is incurring any extra costs it may be reason enough to request the building be located where it is. Director Ericson stated visibility is important and should be taken into consideration but noted if a person stands at the intersection of County Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road with the building setback with Mr. Winiecki’s building there would be a loss of visibility whether the building were setback 50 feet or 75 feet. Commissioner Johnson commented on the sight line scenarios noting he agreed partially with both the developer and Mr. Winiecki. He then stated he has seen situations happen that involve buildings losing visibility that are then unable to rent their space. Commissioner Kaden agreed that Mr. Winiecki’s building was a beautiful building but noted the former owner set the building back that far from County Highway 10 and if the City requires that another building be setback that far it severely limits the development potential for that property. He then agreed with the line of sight scenarios as explained by Director Ericson and noted that he felt the City would be taking away something from the owner of the property to require a building be setback farther than City standards. Mr. Winiecki stated he felt money should not be an issue if it is a minimal amount to move the building back. Mr. Dzurik stated it would cost at a minimum $20,000 for the retaining wall that would be required. Commissioner Kaden asked if there were costs involved to move the building back the twenty feet. Mr. Dzurik explained MIPH incurred an additional $4,000 to $8,000 to move the building back the additional twenty feet. Mounds View Planning Commission March 21, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Winiecki stated he did not believe $20,000 was a very substantial amount of money for this type of project. Mr. Jerry Jaker from the Minnesota Institute of Public Health thanked the Commission for its time and stated he and his company were looking forward to coming to Mounds View and being good neighbors. He stated his company had tried to come up with an alternative plan in an attempt to address the concerns of Mr. Winiecki and agreed to move the building back the additional twenty feet at additional expense. He then noted he did not find $20,000 to be a nominal amount of money as his company is a non-profit company and there is a limit to what they can spend on this project. He further stated that, with all due respect to those involved, there had been no new arguments heard and respectfully requested a decision by the Planning Commission that would allow them to move forward on their project. Ms. Winiecki stated her husband has had his heart and soul in his business and has been in Mounds View for 25 years. She further stated she feels this building could negatively impact his business as well as affect the resale value of his building should he decide to sell it in the future. Mr. Winiecki stated he has been in business for 23 or 24 years and he feels that should account for something. He then stated that as a profit organization he has trouble with a non-profit telling him certain things. Chair Stevenson stated he would like to accommodate Mr. Winiecki as much as possible but noted as a Planning Commissioner he would prefer to eliminate the need for the ten-foot retaining wall due to safety issues. He then stated Mr. Winiecki’s building has the nicest front exposure in the City and stated he felt twenty 23 feet would not make that much of a difference to visibility. MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Hegland. To Approve Resolution 650-01, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Development Review Request for an Office Building Located at 2720 Highway 10. Director Ericson read the stipulations and requirements for the Resolution. Ayes – 4 Nays –1 (Johnson) Motion carried. ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Staff Reports a. Highway 10 Project Update Community Development Director Ericson reported Council had requested additional information as to total costs for the complete project before awarding the bid. He then stated this item would be on Council’s agenda for March 26, 2001. Director Ericson reported the Highway 10 Steering Committee would begin meeting again soon and invited interested Commission members to attend. Mounds View Planning Commission March 21, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports None. ________________________________________________________________________ 9. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 9:05 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.