Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-15-2001 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting August 15, 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 15, 2001. _____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Hegland, Stevenson, Johnson, Miller, and Scotch. Members Excused: Cerny (unexcused). Kaden and Zwirn (excused). Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson. Planning Associate Jim Atkinson. ___________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. DE01-003 2 Applicant: Dr. Bruce Schnabel and Dr. Kevin Barcus Consideration of a Development Review for the Mounds View Animal Hospital located at 2625 County Highway 10 Staff Reports/Items of Information 6 Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports 8 _______________________________________________________________________ 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no resident comments on items not on the agenda. _____________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission August 15, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 2 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Approve Minutes from July 18, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Scotch to approve the July 18, 2001 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes – 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case No. DE01-003 Planning Associate Atkinson explained the applicants, Dr. Bruce Schnabel and Dr. Kevin Barcus of the Mounds View Animal Hospital, have requested a development review to construct an animal hospital consisting of 5,086 gross square feet. He advised the Planning Commission that these applicants appeared previously for a rezoning to B-2 and conditional use permit which was tabled by the Council. He further explained the purpose of a development review is to allow the Planning Commission to evaluate the proposed development in terms of its consistency with City Codes and to ascertain and mitigate any potential impacts to the adjoining properties and the community as a whole. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council, who then acts upon the request. Planning Associate Atkinson noted the proposed site for the new facility is an irregularly shaped lot recently rezoned B-2, Limited Business. The property is adjacent to the Silver Lake Commons apartments to the north, a residential neighborhood to the east, and the Mounds View Square shopping center to the south. County Highway 10 borders the property to the west. Mr. Atkinson reviewed the dimensional requirements as detailed in the staff report. He then presented the parking issues, noting that according to the City Code, Section 1121.13, animal hospitals require three (3) spaces plus one (1) space for each one hundred seventy five (175) square feet of floor area. The applicant’s proposed facility would be 5,086 gross square feet, and 4,317 square feet of usable space, which is typically used for calculating parking spaces. This calculation eliminates the width of exterior walls and mechanical areas within the structure. The required parking, based on usable square feet, is twenty-seven (27) spaces which would be provided. Planning Associate Atkinson explained that as shown on the site plan, two (2) access points to the site are proposed. One is located on Eastwood Road and the other on County Highway 10. He reviewed that at a previous Planning Commission hearing, residents indicated that the additional traffic entering and exiting the site on Eastwood Road would negatively affect the neighborhood. Their desire was to eliminate the access point on Eastwood Road and only allow access from County Highway 10. The applicants have addressed this issue by indicating that a minimal amount of appointments can be made at one time, thus limiting the amount of traffic to the site at a given time. Planning Associate Atkinson advised that Staff feels the access point on Eastwood Road is important since the access point on County Highway 10 would only allow right-in/right-out traffic. The Eastwood Road entrance would allow customers to use the traffic light at County Road I for safe access to and from the site. He stated the only concern staff has is with the Mounds View Planning Commission August 15, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 3 ______________________________________________________________________________________ location of the two access points in relation to each other. There is a straight route from one to the other which may encourage cut-through traffic from Eastwood Road to County Highway 10. A more indirect route through the parking lot may discourage cut-through traffic or at least minimize the speed of this type of traffic. Planning Associate Atkinson noted the building elevation drawings depict the location of light fixtures on the exterior of the proposed building. The site plan, however, does not show any other lighting on the site. He advised the City Code does not require lighting in parking areas, but it may be beneficial if the proposed lighting on the structure does not adequately provide light for the parking areas. Planning Associate Atkinson stated Staff would recommend that if parking lot lighting is utilized, either through the proposed building lights or additional parking lot lights, that it be consistent with the City Code pertaining to lighting and glare. He suggested the applicant be asked to address the issue of lighting. Planning Associate Atkinson explained the site currently has a low-lying area that catches runoff from adjacent properties, mainly from the southern portion of the Silver Lake Commons apartments. Development of the site will alter the current flow of water, so it is imperative that a proper drainage system be put in place to handle additional water runoff from the increased impervious surfaces as well as existing runoff from adjacent properties. Planning Associate Atkinson advised that according to the grading plan, the site will continue to provide a water detention pond at the southernmost portion of the property. The parking lot is shown to be constructed with a slight slope to drain stormwater away from the building and into areas of pervious green space and the pond on the site which is encouraged by Rice Creek Watershed District and consistent with its “best management practices” philosophy. The parking lot is equipped with a spillway to allow water to flow to the pond without being impeded by the curb along the perimeter of the parking area. Water from the Silver Lake Commons will likely run along the common property line to areas of pervious green space along Highway 10, given the grading of the area immediately north of the proposed building. Rice Creek Watershed District does not need to review this development as it falls well below the minimum acreage threshold. Planning Associate Atkinson pointed out that according to the proposed site plan, several mature trees will be removed. The applicants, however, have indicated that they will save all remaining trees that are not located in the proposed parking areas or building footprint, which would be approximately sixteen (16) mature trees. The applicants will also be adding ten (10) potentialla shrubs around the perimeter of the structure and six (6) Hosta shrubs around the base of the proposed sign located along County Highway 10. Planning Associate Atkinson reviewed Chapter 1121.09, Subd. 12 of the Zoning Code, which addresses the screening of parking lots that abut residential property. He noted the property line adjacent to the Silver Lake Commons is proposed to contain six (6) parking spaces, which would require compliance with this provision. He explained the City Code allows two (2) options for screening: a fence, which must comply with the provisions established in Section 1103.08; or, a greenbelt planting strip, which must comply with Section 1103.08 Subd. 6(a). He noted that the apartments do have a fence along the property which meets Code requirements. While staff Mounds View Planning Commission August 15, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 4 ______________________________________________________________________________________ would prefer a more natural buffer, the drawback is that it would take years to fully screen the parking area when a fence would provide for immediate screening. In this case, input from adjacent residents would be helpful. Planning Associate Atkinson noted the building exhibits an aesthetically pleasing, context- sensitive residential appearance. Materials to be used include brick on the lower portion of the walls, vinyl siding on the remainder of the wall, and steel panel roofing. He presented elevation drawings and indicated Staff feels it will blend in well with the neighborhood. Planning Associate Atkinson stated the applicants are proposing two wall signs and one ground sign for their facility. The ground sign will be located on the southern portion of the property, approximately twenty (20) feet from the property line. The sign meets the setback requirement of fifteen (15) feet. The two wall signs will be located on the southwest and southeast sides of the building, respectively. The elevation drawings show the location of the signs, but do not show the size of the signs. The ground signs may be a maximum of 100 square feet in total area for all ground signs. Planning Associate Atkinson stated if the Planning Commission believes it has received sufficient information from staff, residents and the applicant, it may act on Resolution 670-01, a resolution recommending approval of the development review for the Mounds View Animal Hospital. If the Planning Commission feels that the applicants have not adequately addressed these issues, they should table the review until the next meeting to allow the applicants time to provide more information to satisfy the Commission. Commissioner Johnson asked if a condition can be added to the development agreement to require a fence to be erected should the fence owned by the apartments be removed at some point in time. Planning Associate Atkinson stated that condition could be added. Community Development Director Ericson clarified that the fence on Silver Lake Commons was constructed as part of a development review and is required for their development so it cannot be removed. Commissioner Miller asked how large the staff will be at any one time. Dr. Kevin Barcus, applicant, estimated eight to ten. Commissioner Miller asked if proof of parking is an option since their staff level is low and there would be adequate parking spaces. She suggested requiring additional green space and proof of parking rather than 27 parking spaces. Planning Associate Atkinson stated the revision to require additional landscaping and green space with proof of parking in lieu of parking could be done. Dr. Barcus stated he would also support more green space but is unsure how the site can be reconfigured to create more green space. He noted that the refuse area could be moved closer to the building to provide additional green space. Mounds View Planning Commission August 15, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 5 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson advised that an accessory structure cannot be located in the front yard but it could be relocated. He pointed out the new location that would satisfy the setback requirements and advised that Dr. Barcus has indicated that location is acceptable. Commissioner Miller stated if pass through traffic becomes a problem, “no through traffic” signs could be posted. She asked who will maintain the pond. Dr. Barcus stated it will be their responsibility but it is his understanding that the pond will not hold much water, if any. Commissioner Miller asked where the animals will be exercised if they are boarded. Dr. Barcus used the site map to identify the location of the fence line along the apartments and the exercise area that will be fenced. Chair Stevenson suggested the plans be revised to identify that location and the relocated refuse area prior to Council consideration. Planning Associate Atkinson suggested the resolution be revised to add several conditions as follows:  The ground sign shall be of a monument style with a masonry base. No pole or pylon signs shall be permitted.  The garbage enclosure shall be set back thirty (30) feet from Eastwood Road and shall conform to City design standards.  The site plan shall be revised to show the location of the proposed dog run at the rear of the facility.  The landscape plan shall be reviewed by the City Forester. Planning Associate Atkinson stated Dr. Barcus has agreed to these revisions and staff will research the option of providing proof of parking to add green space. Commissioner Hegland suggested eliminating the parking spaces along the building; next to the trash area to assure it is accessible. Dr. Barcus stated that rear parking area would be used by staff and they will assure it is open on trash day. Dr. Barcus stated there is a lot of green space in the area of the pond and he is unsure where more green space can be added since the two access points must be maintained. Commissioner Scotch asked if the clinic will have additional space. Dr. Barcus stated it is fully built-out with no additional space. Mounds View Planning Commission August 15, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 6 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Discussion occurred regarding the parking configuration and door entrances in an attempt to eliminate some parking spaces and increase green space. It was indicated that the parking spaces are arranged appropriately. Chair Stevenson asked why the handicapped stall is located around the corner. Dr. Barcus pointed out the location of the handicapped parking stall and explained it provides a closer location to the door and a more direct route into the building. Chair Stevenson asked if the resolution needs to address the boarding aspect. Commissioner Miller pointed out that the boarding aspect has not yet been approved. Community Development Director Ericson noted that during development review, the Planning Commission has not usually addressed what goes on inside the building beyond reviewing the floor plan and function of the building. He noted that during the conditional use permit consideration, considerable discussion occurred relative to the boarding aspect. Commissioner Miller requested a correction to the resolution which Planning Associate Atkinson indicated would be made. Commissioner Hegland expressed concern with the parking calculation being based on excluding some of the square footage rather than on building footprint. He stated he would be more inclined to support a proof of parking option. Community Development Director Ericson stated staff will research that option. He explained staff typically utilizes the useable space to determine parking requirements and, in past considerations, spaces such as mechanical rooms have been excluded. Community Development Director Ericson stated staff will review the Code to assure it is done consistently. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Miller. To Adopt Resolution 670-01, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Development Review Request for an Animal Hospital Located at 2625 County Highway 10; Planning Case No. DE01-003, As Revised. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 7. Staff Reports Resignation of Planning Commissioner Brian Kaden Community Development Director Ericson advised that Brian Kaden had submitted his resignation from the Planning Commission. He stated staff will present the Bylaws at the next meeting to review the Commissioner’s responsibility for meeting attendance. Chair Stevenson asked that this discussion be placed on the next meeting agenda. Previous Council Action: August 13, 2001 Mounds View Planning Commission August 15, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 7 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson reviewed actions taken at the August 13, 2001 City Council meeting. He advised the conditional use permit for the animal hospital was reviewed and staff recommended it be tabled so Ordinance 685 could have first reading, second reading, and adoption. He noted that amendment will conditionally allow animal boarding so once adopted, the animal hospital boarding request can be considered as a conditional use permit. Community Development Director Ericson stated the Walgreen’s project is near completion and Council has accepted the improvements on that site conditioned on Rice Creek Watershed District approval (which was received today), and the pathway being striped in the driveway. He advised the City Forester reviewed the landscaping and Walgreen’s agreed to maintain the landscaping to the point the City maintains the highway ditch to create a manicured appearance. Community Development Director Ericson stated the Council approved a liquor and restaurant license for the Knotty Pines Tavern and Grill (formerly Donatelle’s) and it is expected to open in several days. Community Development Director Ericson reported the conditional use permit for the oversize garage was approved by the Council. Chair Stevenson stated the variance criteria for hardships came into question at the Council meeting. Community Development Director Ericson explained that Mr. Baumhofner appealed the Planning Commission denial which resulted in a lot of discussion. He explained that while the Council may have supported consideration, they realized they are bound by the same rationale for granting a variance as is the Planning Commission. In addition, the City Attorney advised that they would have to draft findings of fact and address each of the seven variance criteria. The Council unanimously upheld the Planning Commission recommendation of denial. Community Development Director Ericson advised that Neal Zinser is working with Ernie Gustafson on a subdivision project which would be considered by the Planning Commission at its next meeting. He noted if the middle lot on County Road I was zoned R-2, it would result in setbacks that would necessitate a variance. The application indicates they are no longer looking for an R-2 designation so it would be R-1. However, the corner lot would not meet the R-1 requirements. He explained the hardship is based on the location of Mr. Gustafson’s house since getting any closer to that house would result in the need for an additional variance. Neal Zinser, Hamilton Creek Companies, introduced himself and stated he has entered into a contract with Mr. Gustafson to purchase the land and also entered into contracts with buyers of the homes that would be constructed. He stated there are currently interested buyers for all lots except Lot 2 where they intend to construct a house that is complimentary to the other homes. He advised they will meet with the buyer of Lot 5 tomorrow subject to receiving the variances. Mr. Zinser stated they are ready to comply with City requirements and will measure the area to assure they meet the setbacks from Long Lake Road. He stated the only remaining issue is with Lot 3. Mr. Zinser stated they want to be a compliment to Mounds View. Commissioner Miller asked if the St. Paul Waterworks will impact the project. Mr. Zinser stated their surveyor has been in contact with them to determine the exact location. Mounds View Planning Commission August 15, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 8 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson asked if a variance would still be needed on Lot 3. Community Development Director Ericson answered in the affirmative. Chair Stevenson stated that variance was to have been addressed at the meeting tonight. Community Development Director Ericson explained that Mr. Zinser wanted to provide the Planning Commission with additional information, as distributed tonight. However, staff did not receive that new information in time for inclusion in the meeting packets. He advised the variance request remains tabled until the Planning Commission takes it off the table which will occur at the next meeting. Commissioner Miller asked how many lots were being considered on County Road I. Community Development Director Ericson stated four lots were being considered and now it is a five lot plan with Lot 5 being rezoned to R-2. Once the subdivision plan is in place, the Zoning Ordinance would be back before the Council for second reading and a more accurate lot description would be in place. Chair Stevenson asked if Mr. Gustafson’s property should also be rezoned to R-2 so in the future it could be used for a duplex. Ernie Gustafson stated his house is almost a duplex now since he added a second story after the tornado. Community Development Director Ericson stated that is possible to do. Mr. Zinser stated Mr. Gustafson’s house faces County Road I and everything else is currently zoned R-2. He agreed a rezoning to R-2 would help Mr. Gustafson with a future sale. Mr. Zinser asked if the Planning Commission would like to see building renderings. The Planning Commission indicated they would. _____________________________________________________________________________ 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports None. _____________________________________________________________________________ 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: September 5, 2001 _____________________________________________________________________________ 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Mounds View Planning Commission August 15, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 9 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Carla Wirth TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.