Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-18-2001 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 18, 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., July 18, 2001. _______________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Hegland, Stevenson, Miller, Johnson, Zwirn, and Scotch. Members Excused: Kaden (excused). Cerny (unexcused). Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson, Planning Associate Atkinson ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. VR01-007 2 Applicant: Jennifer Osterlund Location: 8081 Red Oak Drive Planning Case No. CU01-003 3 Applicant: Jack Clasen Location: 8368 Groveland Road Planning Case No. VR01-008 and CU01-002 3 Applicant: Mounds View Animal Hospital Location: 2625 County Highway 10 Staff Reports/Items of Information 7 Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports 8 _______________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission July 18, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Planning Case No. VR01-007 Director of Community Development Ericson summarized the request for a second curb cut at 8081 Red Oak Drive. The applicants are Jim and Jennifer Osterlund. Director Ericson explained the curb cut has already been installed. He noted that this matter was before the Commission at the last meeting and there was significant discussion. The Planning Commission had a resolution before them for denial of the variance request. There are 7 criteria for a hardship case and the Commission discussed them, taking special consideration to the safety aspect. Director Ericson continued stating that given the amount of discussion at last meeting, it is safe to say the 7 criteria can be satisfied. The driveway is in close proximity to the intersection which causes a safety issue. Director Ericson noted the applicants did not cause this; the situation predates the ownership of the home. He explained that at the last meeting, the Planning Commission felt that granting a variance would not grant a special privilege. Based on the discussion and testimony at the last meeting, Staff has drafted Resolution 661-01. Director Ericson noted there are stipulations, including: the applicants must apply for a permit, and they have. Permanent surface material must be used within 3 months of approval. He indicated that the applicants may not be able to find an asphalt contractor in 3 months, in which case an extension could be applied for. He further explained that a new driveway shall comply with all zoning and setback requirements and shall be 50 feet from the corner of the lot. The width cannot exceed the maximum of 24 feet. Chair Stevenson questioned why a contractor would take on the job of adding a second driveway when the City Code does not allow it. He made the point that perhaps there are contractors that are not aware of the City Code. Director Ericson suggested there may be contractors that do not know the City Code. He added that some may know the city’s codes but decide to take their chances. Chair Stevenson inquired whether those licensees are allowed to work in the city when they do not adhere to the city code. Director Ericson stated that issue is taken into consideration when their license is renewed. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Hegland. To Approve Resolution 661-01, a resolution approving a request for a variance to allow a second curb cut at 8081 Red Oak Drive. Ayes – 4 Nays – 2 (Stevenson, Zwirn) Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission July 18, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson felt the safety wouldn’t be improved sufficiently to warrant the action. He added that there are many corner lots in the city with a driveway near a busy intersection and don’t have two access points. Commissioner Zwirn stated he looked at the property, and though he is sympathetic to their hardship, he wasn’t convinced that a turnaround couldn’t be developed, or other opportunities discovered. He explained he was taken back by the fact that a contractor had been found to start the job. The contractor was told to stop construction and he didn’t. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case No. CU01-003 Planning Associate Atkinson explained that the applicant, Jack Clasen, has applied for a permit for an oversized garage. He noted that there are 5 factors to consider when the Planning Commission hears this type of case, which are presented in the Staff Report. None of Mr. Clasen’s neighbors have contacted the City in regard to this case. Planning Associate Atkinson remarked that the last paragraph on the proposed resolution is incorrect, and he distributed a corrected copy. Jack Clasen, 8368 Groveland Road, stated that Mitch Ford is his neighbor on the north, and he doesn’t have an issue with this case. Mr. Clasen said he knows Mr. Ford very well. Mr. Clasen also explained he has discussed this with all his neighbors and none had a problem with this. Commissioner Johnson questioned if Mr. Clasen was planning to store items that currently are stored outside. Mr. Clasen answered he is. He explained that his family had considered moving out of the community to a larger home, but decided they want to stay in the city and improve their house. Mr. Clasen further explained he wants to add on to the garage first, then he plans to remodel the entire house. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson./Zwirn. To Approve Resolution 666-01, a resolution recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a 1,218 square-foot oversized garage at 8368 Groveland Road. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case No. VR01-008 and CU01-002 Planning Associate Atkinson stated there are several requests for this item including a variance request, a Conditional Use Permit, and text amendment to City Code. Mounds View Planning Commission July 18, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Planning Associate Atkinson explained the variance is for a setback of 12 feet instead of 15 feet. He mentioned this is a correction that should be made to the Staff Report. He pointed out that the proposed building is a little bigger than what is on the site plan. Because the lot shape is a triangle, a variance of 25 feet is being sought for the front yard. There are 7 criteria needed for a variance, which are listed in the Staff Report. In Staff’s opinion, the shape of the lot and size of the lot would be grounds to consider a variance. Planner Atkinson explained a resolution is included in the Staff Report. If this is approved by the Planning Commission, the item would not go to the City Council. This is a final step. The second issue is a Conditional Use Permit. This type of business is allowed in this zoning district as a conditional use. This parcel has been approved as B-2 zoning, but it has not yet taken effect. This item will come before the Planning Commission again for final site plans and the access points can be discussed then. Planning Associate Atkinson stated that currently, animal boarding is not allowed in the city. This request is to allow boarding in B-2 districts as a conditional use only. This is not specific to the Mounds View Animal Hospital; it would be applicable to all B-2 zoning districts. Planning Associate Atkinson pointed out that there is no B-2 zoning off Highway 10; it is all along Highway 10. Planning Associate Atkinson presented the proposed resolution to approve the text amendment. Under Subdivision 4, letter b will be eliminated, which states that a business cannot board except in association with hospitalization or surgery. The Planning Commission may recommend more stipulations be added to the ordinance. Commissioner Miller pointed out the Conditional Use Permit states there shall be no boarding. She questioned if the Planning Commission passes this resolution, would the Conditional Use Permit have to be rewritten. Planning Associate Atkinson suggested that use be eliminated from the text. Chair Stevenson questioned whether the proper steps for code amendments are being followed. Director Ericson explained that making a recommendation to the Council on a Conditional Use Permit and code revision is simply a recommendation. One of the conditions of this Conditional Use Permit is that it would not be effective until after Ordinance 685 was adopted by the Council. Director Ericson stated he felt the timing and procedure was being following. This would require 2 readings. Commissioner Hegland asked if the Commission has looked at any other animal boarding facility ordinances. He noted there is nothing in the report regarding size of animals nor the size of the area provided for each animal. Planning Associate Atkinson replied that the Staff hadn’t conducted research on these issues. This would be issues that the City would research and then a public hearing would be held to discuss this. Mounds View Planning Commission July 18, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson mentioned the Minnesota Statute would most likely stipulate the square footage needed per pen. Commissioner Hegland offered his view that if the ordinance is going to be changed it should be done with the research conducted. The applicant, Dr. Barcus, stated he has not heard of an ordinance that specifies the size of containment facility. He understood that to be something in the state or federal statutes. The plans for the building are to have runs that are 5 feet long by 3 feet wide with some up to 4 feet. The rest would be standard boarding or hospitalizing type cages. He explained that when he obtained the permit originally, there was never any discussion as to size of runs or cages. He suggested there was no difference in what his business does now or any other boarding facility. Dr. Barcus added that the plans for the new building call for 16 runs in the boarding kennel that are separate from the hospital area. The hospital area has 4 runs. From a size perspective, it is basically 16 runs. In his current facility, the runs are 3 feet by 4 feet. Chair Stevenson suggested a phrase be added to the ordinance that the applicant will comply with all state statutes. Commissioner Scotch asked if Dr. Barcus is using roughly a third of their space for boarding. Dr. Barcus clarified it will be less than 10%. The actual boarding facility is 14 feet by 34.5 feet. This would be room to potentially have 16 dogs overnight. Dr. Barcus explained that he is considering using 15 square feet per dog for the runs. Some runs are smaller such as 24 or 28 inches. He felt the number didn’t need to be in the ordinance but the size should be appropriate for the overall building. Commissioner Zwirn inquired whether the runs that are proposed is the maximum number they would have. Dr. Barcus responded there is no more available space. They would have to expand the facility to add more, and he didn’t anticipate that. Commissioner Hegland questioned if the spaces are purchased modules or constructed. Dr. Barcus explained the spaces could be made either way. He plans to use a block wall with stainless steel gates much like the Humane Society. Chair Stevenson asked if the proper public hearings have been given. Planning Associate Atkinson stated notices were sent for both the Conditional Use Permit and the variance. The text amendment request was not. He suggested this item be held to the next meeting in order to conduct research. Changes will be made to Resolution No. 665-01 as detailed by Planning Associate Atkinson, to specifically reference “five feet” rather than “reduced front yard setback.” Mounds View Planning Commission July 18, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn questioned whether a berm would be constructed on the Eastwood Road side. Planning Associate Atkinson explained that would be addressed at the development stage. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To approve Resolution 665-01, a resolution approving a variance to allow a reduced front yard setback to construct a parking lot on the property located at 2625 County Highway 10, with changes as discussed. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Planning Associate Atkinson suggested striking statement number 3 on Resolution 664-01 regarding the boarding of animals. Commissioner Miller asked for clarification on the mechanical ventilation. Director Ericson stated there are 2 ventilation systems. They need to be separate in order to abstain from recirculating the air in the building. Commissioner Hegland stated that the boarding issue is separate from approving an animal hospital to be built in a B-2 zone. Chair Stevenson explained that is the reason for removing statement number 3 in this resolution. Director Ericson further explained that the City would be allowing the Animal Hospital to transfer their current business to their new location and the issue of boarding should not be discussed at this point. He suggested that by leaving this statement in, the Commission would be sending a message to the Council that the Planning Commission feels boarding should not be allowed, and since it is not a discussion item, no message should be implied. Commissioner Hegland stated he was concerned that removing that statement it sends the message that the Commission would approve boarding for reasons other than hospitalization for surgery, illness or injury. Director Ericson explained that the city code still disallows boarding in the City. Therefore, by removing statement 3 from the resolution an action of approval would be for the animal hospital only, not animal boarding facility. Dr. Barcus stated he felt the statement was redundant. The city already restricts boarding. Animals would be boarded for hospitalization and that does not fall under the term of boarding. The definition of boarding is to house an animal other than for hospitalization. Commissioner Scotch suggested that this issue be researched. Commissioner Zwirn suggested that the statement be left in but add language that research is being conducted or that the City is aware that boarding will be conducted at this facility. He said he agreed with Commissioner Hegland. Mounds View Planning Commission July 18, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson again mentioned that the City Code does not allow boarding and by omitting this statement, it does not change the City Code. This is simply a recommendation to the Council. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To Approve Resolution 664-01, a resolution recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow an animal hospital to locate in a B- 2, limited business district, at 2625 County Highway 10, with the change of striking statement #3 and renumbering the items. Ayes – 5 Nays – 1 (Zwirn) Motion carried. Commissioner Zwirn stated he voted nay due to the removal of statement #3. Planning Associate Atkinson suggested tabling Resolution 667. No motion needed. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Staff Reports a. Previous Council Action: June 25, 2001, July 9, 2001 Director Ericson reviewed actions taken at the June 25 City Council meeting. The Council took action on the first reading of the ordinance on the Mounds View Animal Hospital. The second reading was on July 9 and was approved. It is not in effect yet. The development review for Mr. Mezzenga was approved. The building permit has not yet been obtained. Director Ericson reported that at the July 9 Council meeting, Mr. Gustafson presented his case. He indicated that if 2 or 3 of his lots were rezoned, he would be satisfied, as long as he had 5 lots approved. The first reading of the ordinance rezoning 2 of the 3 lots fronting County Road I was approved, predicating that Mr. Gustafson would apply for a variance for the setback. Mr. Gustafson’s house is somewhat off center, and a variance for 5 feet will be needed. He applied for a fifth lot with a reduced width. There will be a variance request for a reduced lot width for the fifth lot. The Council indicated they would approve the first reading of the ordinance, but would not hold the second reading until such time that a variance was granted and the major subdivision was applied for and approved. Commissioner Miller clarified whether the lot that should be 100 feet would now be 95 feet. Director Ericson confirmed. Commissioner Miller asked if Mr. Gustafson would need to meet the 7 criteria for hardship and Director Ericson confirmed that Mr. Gustafson would. Director Ericson stated an appeal for a shed on Mr. Baumhoefner’s property was tabled. The City Attorney informed Staff that the appeal would need to be noticed as would any variance application. This item will need to be re-notified. Mounds View Planning Commission July 18, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch questioned how many sheds are currently on the property. Planner Atkinson responded there are 2, and if this one is added, there will be 3. Director Ericson stated 3 sheds are not allowed and he would be contacted to remove one. Director Ericson reported that Building G requested an expansion of their parking lot. This was originally approved by the Council, subject to some requirements. One requirement was to enter into a development agreement with the city. There is a different owner now. Director Ericson suggested a resolution be adopted to amend the resolution that amended the agreement with the developer. b. Highway 10 Meetings Director Ericson communicated the last meeting for Highway 10 was a positive meeting. The consultant was present and went over the different plans and maps. The public meeting and open house recently on this topic was not very well attended, though there was some good discussion. Channel 9 broadcasted live from the meeting as their lead piece. This should help raise the level of awareness. Director Ericson stated that because there was a small turn out, the City sent a survey to residents the City had email addresses for, which was about 350. Arron Parrish indicated that within a couple hours of sending it out, he got 30 responses. Director Ericson informed the Planning Commission that the Council had a meeting on the Comprehensive Plan. This is a document that will be continually revisited. Commissioner Hegland inquired what the status of the Mermaid is. Director Ericson responded it is stalled, and that in part is due to the legislature and waiting to see what would happen with the property tax designation. Now that those numbers are in, there will likely be more activity. Director Ericson stated the Edgewood Middle School pond was approved. Chair Stevenson questioned what the status is with Donatelle’s. Director Ericson explained there is a pending liquor license application. The City is working on resolving issues with Ramsey County. Director Ericson also stated the Carmike Theatre parking issue is continuing. Since Donatelles has closed, that has been a benefit to the residents since patrons park there instead of the street. The theatre is in negotiations to acquire one or more undeveloped parcels near by. Adequate parking is anticipated by winter. Commissioner Miller asked if the Theatre has gone over its expectations or whether the amount of parking provided was not sufficient. Director Ericson replied the parking is adequate according to code. He suggested that sufficient parking for ticket prepurchasing wasn’t anticipated. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission July 18, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports Chairperson Stevenson suggested an ideal restaurant for the restaurant parcel would be Panera’s. Director Ericson stated a proposal for the corner of Long Lake Road and Highway 10 has been received and could be brought before the Planning Commission this summer. ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: August 1, 2001 ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:33 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Christine Moksnes TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.