Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-01-2001 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting August 1, 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., August 1, 2001. _______________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Stevenson, Miller, Kaden, Zwirn, and Scotch. Members Excused: Commissioners Hegland and Johnson (excused). Commissioner Cerny (unexcused). Also Present: Planning Associate Atkinson. ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. VR01-009 2 Applicant: Ernie Gustafson Location: 2525 County Road I Planning Case No. CU01-002 7 Applicant: Mounds View Animal Hospital Consideration of an Amendment to the City Code to Allow Animal Boarding as a conditional use in B-2 Zoning Districts. Planning Case No. PD00-002 10 Applicant: Dan Hall, the Mermaid Consideration of Resolution 669-01, a Resolution Re-approving the Preliminary Plat for the Mermaid Addition Major Subdivision. Staff Reports/Items of Information 11 Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports 12 _______________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission August 1, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no resident comments on items not on the agenda. ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Planning Case No. VR01-009 Planning Associate Atkinson explained that Ernie Gustafson, owner of the land located at the northeast corner of Long lake Road and County Road I, is requesting approval of a variance to allow for a reduced minimum lot width for a proposed lot within a yet-to-be-submitted major subdivision. The properties Mr. Gustafson owns are currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, although the City Council on July 9 approved the first reading of Ordinance 683, an ordinance which would rezone two of the proposed five lots of the yet-to-be-submitted major subdivision from R-1 to R-2, Single and Two Family Residential. Planning Associate Atkinson noted the width of the lot fronting County Road I is 296.74 feet. The lot could be subdivided into three parcels as Mr. Gustafson would like without the need for a variance were it not for the fact that Mr. Gustafson would like two of the three lots rezoned to R- 2. In addition, the location of Mr. Gustafson’s home, which was built closer to Long Lake Road than to the east property line, is an impediment to a three-lot subdivision To allow for the necessary ten-foot setback from the existing home, the proposed lot at the corner would have to be reduced to a 95-foot width rather than the required 100-foot width. The variance request is for the reduced, 95-foot width. Planning Associate Atkinson presented Staff's suggested alternative variance possibility. Rather than approving a variance to allow a non-conforming lot to be created, Staff believed it would be more appropriate to consider a variance for a reduced side yard setback for Mr. Gustafson’s home. Mr. Gustafson responded to this by pointing out that his water and sanitary lines exit his house on the west side, the side where the Staff suggested five-foot setback would be. The other problem with maintaining the required minimum 100-foot lot width at the corner is that the lot in the middle would only be 96.74 feet wide, 3.26 feet less than the 100 feet required for an R-2 zoned lot. So while Staff would rather not see the creation of a non-conforming lot, Mr. Gustafson’s proposal would be the most straightforward unless Mr. Gustafson would agree to have only one of the lots rezoned R-2. Planning Associate Atkinson indicated that for this variance to be approved, there needs to be demonstrated substantial hardship or practical difficulties associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. He indicated that the City Code mentions seven specific criteria that must be met in order for a variance to meet the hardship requirement. Planning Associate Atkinson stated that based on Staff’s review of the request and the Code requirements, it does not appear that there is sufficient hardship and practical difficulty Mounds View Planning Commission August 1, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ associated with this property to warrant approval of the variance requested. The Planning Commission, however, should discuss these criteria and open the floor to public comment before coming to any conclusions. Planning Associate Atkinson agreed that the five-foot variance requested is minimal (representing a five-percent reduction in the width of the lot), which is comparable to reducing a 10-foot side yard setback to 9.5 feet. Where Staff has the most concern, however, is that once the variance request becomes a function of the proposed rezoning and not the location of the house, the element of hardship is no longer apparent. Staff does believe that there would be just cause and reasonable hardship to reduce the side yard setback of the proposed middle lot because it would be based upon the location of the house and not solely on economic factors. This would result in only one of the lots (Lot 5) being able to be zoned R-2, however. Planning Associate Atkinson advised that, based upon the findings as presented and the lack of demonstrated hardship, Staff recommends denial of the proposed variance and has drafted Resolution 668 for the Commission’s action. If the applicant would consider scaling back his rezoning request to only proposed Lot 5, Staff would be willing to recommend approval of a reduced-side yard setback variance, associated with the proposed middle lot. Chairperson Stevenson suggested that if Mr. Gustafson’s lot were reduced as suggested, an easement be provided on the west side of the lot for his utilities. He also suggested that if there was not sufficient space on the west side of Mr. Gustafson’s property, the easement should extend into the adjacent lot through a lease agreement. He stated that he would prefer that Lot 3 maintain a minimum width of 100 feet and he agreed that there is not sufficient hardship associated with this property to warrant approval of the variance request for Lot 3. Planning Associate Atkinson stated that an easement along the property line may be possible. Commissioner Miller stated that she read the criteria listed in the staff report that must be met in order for the variance request to be approved. She stated that she did not feel any of the criteria were met in this case and she too would prefer a minimum lot width of 100 feet for Lot 3. Chairperson Stevenson invited the applicant and the public in attendance to address the Planning Commission. Ernie Gustafson, 2525 County Road I, stated that he was shocked by Staff’s recommendation for denial of his variance request since he could see no reason to not be granted a small five-foot variance on a 95-foot wide lot. He noted in June the City Council had approved the rezoning of the lots, providing the Planning Commission approved of the five-foot setback variance. Mr. Gustafson stated earlier this summer he had begun advertising the sale of his property and indicated that one interested party had wanted to construct townhouses, however, he was not willing to agree to this type of development. He stated a young couple from Afton, Minnesota had been interested in constructing a single-family home on Lot 3, however, because this process Mounds View Planning Commission August 1, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ has taken so long, he felt he has lost this prospect. He felt that this loss of sale should be considered a hardship. Mr. Gustafson noted in a prior request to the Planning Commission he had proposed the construction of duplexes along Long Lake Road but the Planing Commission had strongly opposed this proposal. He stated that his new plan proposed three single-family homes along Long Lake Road, not duplexes. Mr. Gustafson felt that, without performing an actual measurement, a person would not be able to discern whether Lot 3 was 95 feet wide or 100 feet wide. Mr. Gustafson noted that Community Development Director Ericson had recommended that his lot, Lot 4, be reduced in width by five feet on the west side of the property to allow Lot 3 to meet the 100-foot width requirement. He stated that this would be problematic due to the location of his sewer and water lines and the minimal distance this would allow for working on the service lines. Jeff Westlund, 7720 Long Lake Road, stated he supported the comments and recommendations of City Staff. He questioned whether Lot 3 could be rezoned to R-2 if it met the minimum lot width requirement. Chairperson Stevenson stated that this was a possibility. Mr. Westlund asked what the minimum lot size requirement is for the R-2 zoning district. Chairperson Stevenson stated that a lot in the R-2 zoning district must meet a minimum size requirement of 12,500 square feet. Mr. Westlund expressed concern that if Lot 3 could be rezoned to R-2, then a duplex may be constructed. Chairperson Stevenson noted that the Planning Commission had previously required that any duplexes within this development face County Road I and that none shall face Long Lake Road. Therefore, any duplex structure on Lot 3, a corner lot, would have to face County Road I. He noted, however, an actual subdivision plan has not yet been submitted for any proposed development of the subject property. Mr. Westlund requested confirmation that an application could be made to rezone Lot 3 to R-2. Chairperson Stevenson stated this was correct. Commissioner Miller noted the lot would have to meet the criteria of the R-2 zoning district. Commissioner Kaden noted in June the City Council approved the first reading for the rezoning of the property to R-2. Mr. Westlund believed that the City Council had only approved the rezoning of Lots 1 and 2. He reiterated concern about the possible construction of a duplex on Lot 3, regardless of which direction the building would face. Planning Associate Atkinson noted the approval by the City Council in June was for only four Mounds View Planning Commission August 1, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ lots that had been proposed at that time. Since that time, the applicant has changed the proposal to include five lots with the understanding that only two of the five lots would be rezoned to R-2. Chairperson Stevenson agreed that the concept approved by the City Council was for a different configuration than being presented this evening. Commissioner Miller noted Mr. Gustafson felt that because he has been unable to sell his lots he was losing money and this should be considered a hardship. She stated this was definitely an economic consideration, which could not be considered a hardship. Chairperson Stevenson stated he would like for the applicant to work with City Staff to develop a plan that would not require a new application for variance. He was concerned that if the Planning Commission voted to deny this variance request, and Mr. Gustafson was willing to consider staff’s recommendations regarding the reduction in the width of his lot, he would be required to submit a new application and pay another fee. Planning Associate Atkinson did not believe a new application and additional fee would be required. He believed that the subdivision of the property could work with some changes and agreed that the applicant should work with City Staff on a new plan. Chairperson Stevenson stated, although he did not want to hold up the development of the property, he was not comfortable with taking action on the current request. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Gustafson if he intended to construct a duplex on Lot 3. Mr. Gustafson stated this was not the case. He reiterated that the Planning Commission had denied the construction of any duplexes along Long Lake Road and his new plan would be for three single-family houses on Long Lake Road and two duplexes on County Road I. He noted his current home on County Road I had been expanded and, with the addition of a second entrance, could be considered a duplex. However, if he agreed to only rezone Lot 5 to R-2, his home could not be turned into a duplex. Commissioner Scotch requested confirmation from Mr. Gustafson that he would propose to rezone Lots 4 and 5 to R-2. Mr. Gustafson stated this was correct. Commissioner Scotch requested confirmation that with the current proposal the zoning of Lot 3 would remain R-1. Mr. Gustafson stated this was correct. He reiterated that a duplex would not be constructed on Lot 3, even if Lot 3 was 100 feet wide. Commissioner Kaden reiterated the City Council had approved the first reading of rezoning the properties along Long Lake Road to R-2. Commissioner Scotch noted at that time the property had not been divided as currently proposed. Planning Associate Atkinson stated that a subdivision plan would still need to be submitted to the City before any type of development could be considered. Mounds View Planning Commission August 1, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Miller suggested that this request be tabled until a subdivision plan is submitted with any necessary variance request. Planning Associate Atkinson stated there is a 60-day time limit for action on a variance request and, if a decision is not made before the expiration of the time limit, the request would automatically be approved. Therefore, a decision would have to be made within the next two months. Chairperson Stevenson stated he would prefer to table this request to allow the applicant to present a subdivision plan at the next Planning Commission meeting. He stated he was not comfortable with the proposed variance at this time, however, he felt his opinion may change once the subdivision plan is reviewed. Commissioner Scotch agreed that the plan was workable with a few changes. Planning Associate Atkinson stated the Planning Commission could table the proposed Resolution and act on it at their next meeting. Commissioner Miller noted that seven specific criteria must be met in order for a variance to be granted, which she felt were not met in this case. Commissioner Zwirn felt that any hardship in this case would be caused by the manner in which the property was proposed to be divided. Therefore, he did not see any hardship criteria being met with this application. He stated that the Planning Commission wanted to do what they can for the applicant, however, certain standards must be followed so that a development does not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner Zwirn noted that Mr. Gustafson had been before the City on a number of occasions with plans that do not follow the City’s guidelines. He suggested that Mr. Gustafson work with City Staff to develop a plan that will meet the City’s guidelines and criteria, while maximizing the use of the property, and provides definitive intentions that the Planning Commission can make a decision on. Chairperson Stevenson stated Mr. Gustafson should not have been shocked that his requested variance would not be easily passed. He stated that there would be very few situations in which the City would pass this type of request with such an apparent absence of hardship. Commissioner Miller agreed with the suggestion that Mr. Gustafson meet with City Staff to develop an acceptable plan. MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Zwirn. To not take action on Resolution 668, and to table the request made by Ernie Gustafson for a variance to permit a five-foot reduction in the minimum lot width requirement for a proposed lot at 2525 County Road I; Planning Case No. VR01-009, to the Wednesday, August 15, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. Mounds View Planning Commission August 1, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case No. CU01-002 Planning Associate Atkinson explained that Dr. Bruce Schnabel and Dr. Kevin Barcus of the Mounds View Animal Hospital have indicated their desire to board animals at their proposed new facility. The City Code, however, currently does not allow the boarding of animals except when associated with surgery, illness, or injury. Therefore, an amendment to the Code is necessary to allow this service. Planning Associate Atkinson explained that the City Code treats amendments in a similar fashion to conditional use permits. As with conditional use permits, the Planning Commission must consider possible adverse affects of the amendment. He advised that the findings of the Planning Commission shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: relationship with the Comprehensive Plan; geographical area involved; whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed; character of the surrounding area; and, demonstrated need for such a use Planning Associate Atkinson noted the specific text amendment would only apply to B-2 zoning districts. With many B-2 districts in the City, the adverse affects relating to the geographical area and surrounding area as listed above is difficult to measure generally. It can be said, however, that all B-2 zoning districts are located along County Highway 10. Therefore, when considering adverse affects to an area, the Planning Commission must look at what negative affects would be created if an animal boarding facility were present along County Highway 10. Also, since the amendment is proposed as a conditional use, any proposed animal boarding facility must be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, at which time further conditions may be placed on the approval if the specific location warrants them. Planning Associate Atkinson reviewed Chapter 1113.04 Subdivision 4 of the City Code which allows veterinary and animal clinics as a conditional use in B-2 zoning districts but prohibits animal boarding except for when associated with surgery, illness, or injury. He advised of the existing conditions of approval for these facilities and explained that this section can be amended to allow animal boarding if the Planning Commission feels animal boarding is an appropriate use in B-2 zoning districts. Planning Associate Atkinson stated it was discussed at the July 18 Planning Commission meeting that it may also be appropriate to include additional requirements for animal boarding facilities. Staff has reviewed State Statutes and ordinances of other cities in the Twin Cities area to determine what may be appropriate for the City of Mounds View. Surprisingly, very few specific requirements were found, other than provisions regarding the proper care of animals. Based on the information found, Staff recommends modifications and additions to Ordinance 685. Mounds View Planning Commission August 1, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Planning Associate Atkinson stated the Planning Commission should determine whether these requirements are adequate for animal boarding facilities or if more are needed. He noted an Ordinance had been prepared for the Commission's review that includes the changes reviewed. He advised that the ordinance can be modified before forwarding it to the City Council if the Planning Commission feels changes are necessary. Planning Associate Atkinson stated Staff also recommends that Chapter 1102.02, DEFINITIONS, be amended to remove language in the definition for VETERINARY OR ANIMAL CLINIC that prohibits animal boarding, and that a definition of animal boarding be added in order to specify what ‘animal boarding’ should include. He suggested the following existing definition could be amended as follows: VETERINARY OR ANIMAL CLINIC: A structure intended for providing medical examinations and treatment to animals. Services would be limited to small animals and would not may include boarding of animals. (Ord. 441, 5-23- 88) Planning Associate Atkinson recommended the following definition, or a variation, should be included in the City Code to specify what types of animals would be allowed in a boarding facility: ANIMAL BOARDING FACILITY: A commercial establishment in which domesticated animals are housed for a fee or compensation. Domesticated animals include dogs, cats, or rodents such as rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils or other like animals that are typically confined to a cage or other enclosure. Planning Associate Atkinson stated the Planning Commission should also consider that the definition would apply to all animal boarding within the City, not just for the Mounds View Animal Hospital. Planning Associate Atkinson advised that the Minnesota Board of Animal Health distinguishes a boarding facility from a kennel. According to the Board, a kennel covers only those units that pick up, confine, or advertise for lost, unwanted, stray, abandoned, or stolen dogs and cats. This includes humane societies, pounds, and pounds owned and operated by any political subdivision of the state. Planning Associate Atkinson stated the following definition for kennel should also be included in the Code so a distinction can be made between the two types of facilities: KENNEL: A facility that houses and advertises for lost, unwanted, stray, abandoned, or stolen dogs and cats. These include humane societies, pounds, and pounds owned and operated by any political subdivision of the State. Mounds View Planning Commission August 1, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Planning Associate Atkinson noted kennels are not specifically referenced in the Code and therefore are not permitted within the City. Planning Associate Atkinson stated a recommendation to the City Council regarding Ordinance 685 is included in Resolution 667-01. He suggested the Planning Commission review the text change as described in the Ordinance and provide input relating to the change as well as discuss what the definition of animal boarding should include. If the Planning Commission feels that animal boarding is not appropriate for B-2 zoning districts, they should direct Staff to prepare the appropriate resolution to act on at the next regularly scheduled meeting on August 15, 2001. Commissioner Miller asked what type of business was currently operating at the intersection of Long Lake Road and County Road I. She noted the business calls itself a kennel. Planning Associate Atkinson stated it was his understanding that this business is an animal boarding facility as defined in the staff report. Planning Associate Atkinson stated most ordinances interchange the terms animal boarding facility and kennel. He stated if both definitions were included in the City Code, the two types of facilities would be distinguished by definition. Chairperson Stevenson noted the City Code currently mentions a requirement for a kennel license for any resident wishing to keep three or more dogs. He stated that, according to the proposed definition, this would not be considered a kennel. He questioned whether adding the proposed kennel definition would require other amendments to the City Code. Commissioner Miller asked if the proposed Code amendments would apply to breeders. Planning Associate Atkinson stated the Code currently does not mention breeders and he was not certain whether there are any breeders located within the City. Commissioner Kaden asked if the list of small animals in the proposed definition for animal boarding facility would include other types of caged pets such as birds or snakes. Planning Associate Atkinson stated the definition could be open to interpretation. He suggested that the last line in the proposed definition could be amended to state, “...or other animals...”, rather than, “...or other like animals...” Commissioner Miller suggested the last line in the animal boarding facility definition be amended to state, “or other small animals...” Chairperson Stevenson stated he supported the addition of a definition for animal boarding facilities, but not the addition of a definition for kennels. Commissioner Miller agreed that if the proposed definition for kennels was added to the City Code this may cause other problems. Planning Associate Atkinson stated the proposed Resolution would recommend approval of Mounds View Planning Commission August 1, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ Ordinance 685. He stated the proposed Ordinance could be brought back to the Planning Commission with changes, or the Planning Commission could recommend approval of the Ordinance with changes. Chairperson Stevenson felt it would be necessary to bring the Ordinance back to the Planning Commission only if the requested changes affected items that the public may take issue with. He felt the proposed change to the animal boarding facility definition and the removal of the kennel definition could be made by City Staff prior to review by the City Council. Other than these changes, he supported the proposed Resolution. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Kaden. To approve Resolution No. 667-01, a Resolution recommending approval of a City Code amendment to allow animal boarding as a Conditional Use in B-2, Limited Business Zoning Districts, with changes as discussed. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case No. PD00-002 – Re-approval of the Mermaid Preliminary Plat. Planning Associate Atkinson explained that Dan Hall, the Mermaid, has requested City re- approval of the preliminary plat for the Mermaid Addition, a major subdivision associated with the Mermaid PUD. The plat groups together those parcels being utilized for Mermaid expansion, which include the former Rent-All property, the Music-off-10 property, the south 361 feet of the Mounds View Business Park South plat, as well as the existing Mermaid parcels. Altogether, the total area involved in the plat is 9.36 acres. Planning Associate Atkinson explained that the preliminary plat was originally approved by the City Council on November 13, 2000. However, the approved preliminary plat expired. Planning Associate Atkinson noted this preliminary plat is consistent with Chapter 1202 of the Mounds View City Code regarding subdivisions. The legal descriptions and property ownership information appear to be in order, however a copy of the preliminary plat has been forwarded to the City Attorney for his review. A copy of the plat has been forwarded to the County for their review as well. Planning Associate Atkinson stated Staff is recommending approval of Resolution 669-01, a resolution recommending approval of the Mermaid Addition preliminary plat, with stipulations. Commissioner Zwirn questioned why the original approval of the preliminary plat had been allowed to expire. Commissioner Kaden believed one reason was due to the fact that if certain Legislative changes regarding tax increment financing had been approved, the Mermaid Addition would not move forward. Commissioner Zwirn requested confirmation that a new application had been submitted and Mounds View Planning Commission August 1, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ another fee paid for the application. Planning Associate Atkinson stated this was correct. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Scotch. To approve Resolution 669-01, a Resolution recommending approval of the Mermaid Addition preliminary plat, with stipulations. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Staff Reports a. Previous Council Action: July 23, 2001 Planning Associate Atkinson reviewed actions taken at the July 23, 2001 City Council meeting. He indicated the Council approved the parking lot expansion for the Mounds View Business Park on their consent agenda. He stated the parking lot expansion had originally been approved by the City in 1996 but was never built. He indicated the new owner of the property wished to move forward with the parking lot expansion at this time but the original development agreement had been in the previous owner’s name. He indicated in order to add the new property owner’s name to the development agreement, several other documents would have to be amended, which would cost a considerable amount of additional money and time. He stated the City Council adopted a Resolution to amend the development agreement with the new property owner’s name. Planning Associate Atkinson announced that the City Council approved the Comprehensive Plan. He congratulated the Planning Commission on this accomplishment and indicated that copies of the new Comprehensive Plan will be made available. b. 2091 Hillview Road Planning Associate Atkinson indicated that located at 2091 Hillview Road was a boarded-up four-plex that the City has been attempting to purchase. He stated that HUD has accepted the City’s offer to purchase the property and he was not certain what the City intends to do with the property at this time. Planning Associate Atkinson stated that the new Walgreens store will open the week of August 13th. ________________________________________________________________________ 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports Chairperson Stevenson asked if there was any potential for new restaurants opening within the City. Planning Associate Atkinson stated the sign at the Donatelli’s Restaurant indicates that they will be opening soon. Commissioner Scotch asked if the restaurant will still be a Donatelli’s. Planning Associate Mounds View Planning Commission August 1, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 12 ________________________________________________________________________ Atkinson was not certain. ________________________________________________________________________ 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: August 15, 2001 ________________________________________________________________________ 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Lori Rolfson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.