HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-05-2000
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
April 5, 2000
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p.m., April 5, 2000.
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Hegland, Johnson, Kaden,
Laube, Stevenson, and Miller.
Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Rick Jopke,
Council Liaison Rob Marty, and Recorder Trish Pearson.
Index to Minutes Page
Planning Cases DE00-001 & CU00-001, 2848 County Road H2. Discussion
and Consideration of Resolution 611-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval
of a Conditional Use Permit and Development Review for the Proposed Expansion
of the Messiah Lutheran Church Facility.
Messiah Lutheran Church, Applicant.
2
Planning Case VR00-001, 2741 Hodges Lane. Discussion and Consideration
of Resolution 612-99, a Resolution Approving a Reduced Corner Lot Front
Setback to Allow for a Garage Expansion.
Cathy Magoris, Applicant. 8
Planning Case CU00-002, 2159 Terrace Drive. Discussion and Consideration
of Resolution 614-00, a Resolution Contemplating a Conditional Use Permit
to Allow for the Construction of a 256-square foot Oversized Shed.
Robert Kleinschmidt, Applicant. 12
Planning Case VR00-002, 8438 Groveland Road. Discussion Regarding a
Variance Request to Allow for the Installation of an Eight-foot Tall Fence in the
Front Yard of the Property.
Gregory and Elizabeth Brunes, Applicant. 14
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 2
Planning Case CU00-003, 8038 Long Lake Road. Discussion and Consideration
of Resolution 616-00, a Resolution Contemplating a Conditional Use Permit to
Allow for the Construction of a 400-square foot Oversized Shed.
Juanita Snetsinger and Shelley Hill, Applicant. 22
Planning Case VR00-003, 2400 County Road I. Discussion Regarding a Variance
Request to Allow for a Reduced Minimum Spacing Between Two Billboards.
DeLite Outdoor Advertising Company, Inc., Applicant. 24
Staff Reports / Items of Information 27
Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 30
3. Citizens’ Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda.
4. Approval of Minutes
A. February 16, 2000
MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Laube to approve the February 16, 2000 meeting minutes as
corrected.
Ayes – 8 Nays – 0 The motion carried.
5. Planning Cases DE00-001 & CU00-001
Property Involved: 2848 County Road H2.
Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 611-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a
Conditional Use Permit and Development Review for the Proposed Expansion of the Messiah
Lutheran Church Facility.
Applicant: Messiah Lutheran Church
The applicant was present.
Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows:
Messiah Lutheran Church has requested City approval of a conditional use permit and
development review to allow for an expansion of their facility. The Church, which is located at
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 3
2428 County Road H2, has been serving Mounds View and the surrounding communities for
many years.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission discussed this item at their March
15 meeting, at which time, many issues were brought forward. He indicated the Planning
Commission considered the number of parking spaces available on the site. He advised that the
first phase of the construction would create 188 parking stalls. The number of parking stalls
would be reduced to 176 in the second phase. He explained it is anticipated that with full
buildout, the number of parking spaces would be adequate to meet the needs of the facility.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant estimates that the Church could serve as many as
600 people per service, in the future. He indicated the Church is planning ahead for this point,
and is moving the parking lots to accommodate the future parking needs and the secondary
expansion, which could occur in three to five years. He stated the parking meets the City Code
requirements for the anticipated seating, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements for handicapped parking stalls are also met.
Planning Associate Ericson stated another issue with this request is with regard to the wetland
buffer requirement. He advised that according to City Code requirements, a Wetland Buffer
Permit must be obtained for any development activity that occurs within 100 feet of a wetland,
and this is an issue that the City Council would act upon. He indicated that the wetland buffer
permit request will be examined in terms of the effect of the drainage upon the adjacent wetland,
and the Rice Creek Watershed District is also reviewing this matter. He explained that it would
be premature to discuss the Wetland Buffer Permit until such time as the Watershed District has
given their approval with regard to the stormwater pond, the grading, and other related issues,
after which, the City could take action on the matter. He advised that the Planning Commission
was not required to act on this item.
Planning Associate Ericson provided the Planning Commission with a revised landscape plan,
which incorporates the changes recommended by the City Forester. He explained that the
boulevard trees, which were initially to be Marshall Ash, have been changed to Patmore Ash,
due to problems with the Marshall Ash variety in the City, in the past. He pointed out that
additional landscaping has been added at the southern portion of the property. The size of the
Arborvitae at the eastern edge of the property, along County Road H2, have been increased from
their initially proposed two-gallon size because this smaller Arborvitae would not provide
sufficient screening until many years in the future. The City Forester has recommended that a
four to five-foot Arborvitae be utilized to provide better screening of this area, at the initial
buildout of the project. He indicated the alterations suggested by the City Forester have been
made.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant is proposing to utilize decorative lighting along
the sidewalks, and that all of the proposed lighting meets with the City’s photometric analysis
requirements including spillage, glare, and foot-candle measurements onto adjacent properties,
as well as with regard to the centerlines of Knollwood Drive and County Road H2.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 4
Planning Associate Ericson stated at the previous meeting, an issue was brought forward with
regard to the location of an accessory building on the site. He explained that the applicant has
agreed to relocate this structure to address this concern.
Planning Associate Ericson indicated the Fire Marshall had questions pertaining to onsite traffic
circulation and the presence of fire hydrants, and these issues have also been resolved. He
explained that the circulation and the width of the drive aisles are acceptable for Fire Department
vehicle purposes. He indicted an additional fire hydrant would be installed along County Road
H2, which should service the facility very adequately, and the building would also be
sprinklered.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the City Engineer has reviewed the applicant’s drainage plan.
He advised that the stormwater calculations appear to be in order, and the stormwater pond
appears to be sized for those calculations. He pointed out that the stormwater pond is sized for
full future buildout of the facility, therefore, further review of the stormwater ponding or
drainage with future phases would not be required, unless the plans change significantly. He
indicated Rice Creek Watershed District would also review this matter, and that information
concerning their actions should be available for consideration at the time this item goes before
the City Council.
Planning Associate Ericson pointed out that because the Church has existed in its location for
such a long time, it has predated the City Code requirement that churches and other similar
institutions in residential districts have a conditional use permit. He indicated that staff believes
the presence of the Church, and the fact that it has been a good neighbor in the City for such a
long time, is one reason for granting the conditional use permit. He advised however, that City
Code requires that the adverse effects of the use, and the general conditional use permit criteria,
need to be reviewed.
Planning Associate Ericson stated there is an issue with regard to the screening on the site, and
that it is being addressed through the landscape plan. He indicated staff received a letter from a
resident who is also concerned about the screening and about the fact that the site would be
significantly changed. He explained that the site is currently heavily wooded, and a large number
of trees would be removed with this project. Ericson stated this provides the opportunity to
review this request in terms of the adverse effects to the neighborhood, and staff believes the
revised landscape plan is a major step forward in resolving these issues.
Planning Associate Ericson explained that the Planning Commission should determine whether
or not they concur with staff’s assessment and take into consideration the residents’ concerns.
With the exception of the fore-mentioned letter, staff has not received any additional feedback in
this regard. He stated he was in contact with the resident who wrote the letter and he had
indicated he would attempt to make contact with the Church. He explained that if this resident
has any suggestions with regard to the landscaping and screening, these would probably be
brought forward prior to Council consideration on April 24.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 5
Planning Associate Ericson stated in staff’s perspective, there are few adverse effects presented
by this proposal. He indicated staff has not received any complaints in recent history with regard
to the operation of the Church, and the proposed addition would benefit both the congregation
and the community. He advised that the expansion would match the architecture and style of the
existing building and should prove to be a good addition to the community. He stated that if
there are no other issues with regard to this request, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission direct staff to draft a resolution of approval for action at the next meeting.
Planning Associate Ericson indicated that the only matter that remains unresolved at this point is
the stormwater issue, as determined by the Rice Creek Watershed District, and this might not be
resolved for another month. He explained that the Watershed District would not issue a Wetland
Buffer Permit until the Church has retained a contractor, and final plans are submitted. The
applicant will not retain a contractor until it obtains City approval. He stated that in the interim,
he believed Rice Creek Watershed District would provide the City with some verbal indication
regarding whether or not the plans would satisfy their requirements. He indicated staff feels the
proposal is in order, and could be recommended on for Council review.
Chairperson Peterson opened the floor for public comment.
David Rudnik, 7191 Knollwood Drive inquired if a copy of the revised landscape plan was
available for public inspection. Planning Associate Ericson provided Mr. Rudnik with a copy of
the landscape plan.
Mr. Rudnik indicated that in his letter, he had brought forward an issue pertaining to traffic in
the area. He explained that some of the parishioners travel up from the south, on County Road
H, instead of making the trek from County Road H2, and occasionally on Sunday mornings, they
travel quite rapidly along Knollwood Drive. He requested that the Church ask the parishioners
to utilize the northerly route. He stated he would like time to review the final plans, and would
also request to be a part of the redesign process, so that he could have the opportunity to speak
with the Church regarding this proposal, in that his property is located one lot south of the
development.
Mr. Rudnik stated by and large, the Church has been a very good neighbor, however, there have
been some problems with a couple of the tenants who resided in one of their houses, and in this
sense, he views the demolition to be a positive thing. He explained that there have been some
domestic issues and some verbal abuse among spouses on more than one occasion, and this was
loud enough to be heard from inside their homes in the summertime. He inquired if the Church
plans to acquire additional properties as it grows, and whether or not they intend to use new
single family homes for these social programs. He explained that he does not wish to discourage
these programs, however, he would like to be certain there is proper social support for the
families the Church brings in.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 6
Mr. Rudnik inquired how large the Church intends to grow. He indicated he plans to be a long
term resident of the community, and as such, would request that the Church reach out to their
neighbors on a more informal basis, so that they can engage in discussions regarding the plans
for the future.
Commissioner Kaden inquired which neighbor had written the letter pertaining to concerns about
screening.
Planning Associate Ericson stated Mr. Rudnik had addressed the issue of screening, and that
staff received telephone calls from two other neighbors in this regard. He stated he did not
receive contact from the resident directly to the south, however, the other resident is very
concerned with regard to screening, as his home will be adjacent to the Church once the house
on County Road H2 is removed. He explained that this resident had suggested a fence be
installed, however, there does not appear to be sufficient room to construct a fence in this area
and provide for any type of landscaping.
Commissioner Kaden inquired if this was the reason for the larger trees in this area.
Planning Associate Ericson stated this was corrct. He explained that the initial plan specified
two-gallon Arborvitae, however, the City Forester did not believe these would be large enough
to provide any substantial screening for a number of years, and at that size could be easily buried
by snow, and possibly not have survived the winter. He advised that these Arborvitae were
upgraded to the four to five-foot size, which would provide an immediate screening and should
be able to withstand the winter during their first year.
Dave Widhalm, representative of Messiah Lutheran Church stated he was a member of both the
congregation and the Building Committee. He indicated that in the past, the Church has made
houses available to different social organizations in the Metropolitan area, and has relied upon
them to provide the tenants and social services. He stated this has not always worked out well.
Those houses would be removed, and this would no longer be an issue. He stated he could not
completely rule out such programs in the future, however, they were aware of the problems Mr.
Rudnik brought forward, which made them uncomfortable as well, and there were no plans to
pursue this in the immediate future.
Mr. Widhalm stated in terms of property acquisition, his feelings have always been that as a
Church, if they have the opportunity to acquire an adjacent property, they should attempt to take
advantage of this, as property only becomes available occasionally and they would like to have
some expansion options. He pointed out that given the cost involved in the current project, he
did not anticipate any further property acquisition for a while. He stated they have spoken with
the property owner to the west of the Luther Hall building, and he has given the Church first
right of refusal if and when he decides to sell his property, and the Church may or may not
consider this.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 7
Mr. Widhalm indicated that over the months, they have discussed communications with the
neighbors, and he believed because they are all volunteers and somewhat short of time this has
not occurred, however, it should have, and they extended their apologies in this regard. He
stated they would like to invite the residents to the next meeting of the Building Committee,
which would be held at the Church on April 28, at 7:00 p.m. He stated they would attempt to
notify the neighborhood regarding this, and would give over the first portion of the meeting to
any issues the residents may have, and attempt to find some resolution to them.
Mr. Rudnik inquired if it would be possible to plant more evergreens on the south end of the
property, given that there is going to be parking lot illumination in the evenings. He stated that
this area would be similar to a commercial parking lot from the perspective of his backyard,
which is currently dark in the evenings, and has a somewhat rustic atmosphere. He pointed out
that with the removal of the existing trees, and planting deciduous trees rather than evergreens,
the character of the neighborhood would be substantially changed.
Chairperson Peterson advised that City Code requires that the light does not leave the site. Mr.
Rudnik requested clarification. Chairperson Peterson explained that the light is to be directed
downward, and no direct light could leave the property.
Mr. Rudnik indicated the area to the north of his property is currently fairly wooded, and the
existing parking lot is fairly well obscured by both a degree of landscaping, short shrubs and
trees, as well as large mature trees, which would be removed, and new trees planted. He stated
this would make the parking lot visible whether the lights are directed towards his property or
not. He stated this presents a major concern, in terms of changing the character of this area in
the evening. He inquired if there was a way to save some of the mature trees in this area. He
indicated he was in favor of the Church expansion, as well as preserving the character of his
yard, which he purchased 10 years earlier. He stated he was in favor of improving the
neighborhood, however, he does not wish to lose the character of his property with the removal
of the landscaping.
Mr. Widhalm indicated this issue could be addressed with the architectural designers at the
Building Committee meeting. He stated with regard to traffic flow, this is primarily from the
south, based upon the parishioners who reside in this area. He indicated the design of the new
parking lots and the new entrances encourage flow from the north, east, and west to come off of
County Road H2, as the primary entrance will now be located on the southeastern portion of the
site.
Planning Associate Ericson pointed out that approval of the landscape plan before the
Commission would not prohibit the Church from considering additional landscaping. He stated
Mr. Rudnik’s suggestion to add some evergreens at the southern end of the property was a good
point, in that the applicant was only adding seven deciduous trees which would not provide
much screening during the winter months. He stated the Commission might wish to address this
at this time. He indicated the applicant has responded appropriately to the recommendations of
the City Forester.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 8
Chairperson Peterson pointed out that in addition to the seven new trees on the southern edge of
the property, two new trees were proposed on the western side. He stated there would be nine
trees in the southwest corner of the property, and this appeared to be a reasonable quantity of
screening. He stated although the Commission could not act with regard to the drainage issues,
it appears that the ponding is correctly sited, and of the proper size. Planning Associate Ericson
added that information staff has received from the City Engineers indicates that the drainage plan
will be adequate.
Commissioner Miller inquired if the revised landscape plan specifies the location of the lighting
on the site. Planning Associate Ericson stated that on the site plan that was provided to the
Commission at the previous meeting, it was specified where the parking lot and sidewalk light
standards were located. He added that staff has received the photometric analysis which was
also available for review.
Chairperson Peterson stated the Planning Commission’s action at this time was to review all of
the information staff has presented, and if there are any concerns, to bring those forward. He
advised that if there were no concerns at this point, the Commission would direct staff to proceed
with the preparation of Resolution 611-00.
The Commission had no further questions or comments.
6. Planning Case VR00-001
Property Involved: 2741 Hodges Lane.
Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 612-00, a Resolution Approving a Reduced Corner
Lot Front Setback to Allow for a Garage Expansion.
Applicant: Cathy Magoris.
The applicant was present.
Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows:
The applicant, Cathy Magoris, is requesting a variance for a reduced front yard setback on her
property located at 2741 Hodges Lane. The required setback on this corner lot is 30 feet, and the
applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the setback to 18 feet to allow for the expansion of an
existing attached two-car garage.
Planning Associate Ericson stated this issue was previously before the Planning Commission at
their March 15 meeting, at which time there was significant discussion regarding the presence of
a hardship, and whether or not all the criteria were met. He stated there was discussion
pertaining to the fact that the lot is irregularly shaped, with the back end of the property being
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 9
wider than the front. He explained that the frontage along Park View Terrace curves outward
and away from the house so that the back portion of the garage has a setback that exceeds the
setback at the front of the garage. He indicated the applicant is requesting a third stall addition,
which would create a setback of 18 feet at the front of the garage, and a setback of 24 feet at the
back of the garage.
Planning Associate Ericson stated at the previous meeting, the Planning Commission also
discussed the basis for the 30 foot setback on corner lots, a part of which is the sight lines, which
should allow for vehicles travelling along the street to see traffic coming from the adjoining
street. He stated the Commission discussed that given the irregular shape of the property and the
back end of the garage setback that is 24 feet from the property line would not significantly alter
the present sight lines. He indicated it was also mentioned that the 40-foot setback of the house
from Hodges Lane also allows for greater driver visibility.
Planning Associate Ericson stated another issue brought forward at the previous meeting was
with regard to maintaining the uniform setback in the neighborhood. He advised that in this
particular subdivision, there is no uniform setback. He explained that because of the irregular
shape of the lots and the configurations of the cul-de-sacs, there is no uniformity in terms of the
location of the houses.
Planning Associate Ericson stated that based upon these discussions, staff has drafted Resolution
612-00, which would approve the variance request for the reduced corner lot front setback. He
indicated the resolution contains findings of fact that address the criteria required to be reviewed
pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the first criteria pertains to exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances. He explained that because the lot is of an irregular shape, it presents some
obstacles to development. He indicated that in order to maintain a uniform setback, the house
would have to be situated at an angle, which would not make sense for this lot. He stated staff
would make the case that this could be interpreted to be one of the extraordinary circumstances.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the second criteria indicates “The literal interpretation of the
provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other
properties in the same district.” He stated the rationale for this finding is that the eastern side of
the proposed garage addition would have varying setback requirements. He pointed out that this
is not a normal situation, and the literal interpretation may cause some issues for the property
owner in terms of developing the lot.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the third criteria indicates “The variance request is the result
of factors over which the applicant has no control.” He explained that the applicant did not plat
the lot, and did not cause the oddly shaped configuration of the lot. The building was
constructed in the location where it needed to be, therefore, it is not as a result of the applicant’s
actions that the hardship was created.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 10
Planning Associate Ericson stated with regard to the fourth criteria, the granting of a variance to
allow for the 18-foot corner lot front setback would allow the applicant to better utilize the
property, yet, in staff’s opinion, would not confer upon the property owner rights denied to
others in the same district, due to the unique configuration of the lot.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the fifth finding of fact indicates “The Planning Commission
finds that the requested 18-foot setback is the minimum variance required that would alleviate
the applicant’s hardship, yet would still result in a 24-foot setback to the street from the rear of
the garage.” He advised that the sixth finding indicates that granting a variance for a reduced
front yard, corner-lot setback for the proposed garage addition would not be materially
detrimental to the purpose of the Title or to other property in the same zone.
Planning Associate Ericson indicated the last finding states “An 18-foot setback would not
impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety or diminish property values.” He stated these findings are staff’s
view of the requirements for hardship, and staff has drafted the resolution to reflect this. He
indicated that if the Planning Commission feels the findings are not appropriate or should be
altered in any manner, staff is open to suggestions in this regard.
Chairperson Peterson stated he did not believe that the literal interpretation of the provisions of
the Title would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties. He explained that
there is an existing two car-garage on the property, and although there are many three car
garages within the City, this is certainly not the norm. He indicated there were probably more
single car garages in the City than there were three car garages, therefore, he did not believe this
would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others.
Chairperson Peterson stated with regard to exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, the
subject property is an irregularly shaped lot, however, a trapezoid lot on a corner property is not
uncommon. He stated he was concerned that approval of this request would create a potential
for other property owners to request the same consideration.
Commissioner Johnson stated he was of the same opinion at the previous meeting, however,
given the traffic visibility and safety factors, and in light of the fact that the setback is 18 feet in
the front and 24 feet in the back, he was leaning in the opposite direction. Commissioner Miller
added that the fact that the setback from the street is 40 feet rather than the typical 30-foot
setback is another consideration.
Chairperson Peterson stated the argument pertaining to a uniform setback is compelling,
however, he did not see a hardship.
Commissioner Stevenson stated he could see no reason for denying this request. He indicated
there were quite a few three-car garages within the City, and the Planning Commission would be
seeing more requests for these in the future. He stated it was fairly common for the Planning
Commission to approve third-stall garage expansions.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 11
Commissioner Johnson stated he would like to see some comments pertaining to the sight lines
included in the granting of this item, as this was a major consideration. He indicated this was a
point of much discussion at the previous meeting, and had the sight lines been altered, he would
not be leaning toward approving this request.
Commissioner Berke concurred. He stated he was leaning toward approval as well, in light of
the sight lines and the manner in which the block curves inward on the front yard variance. He
indicated this creates a hardship on the applicant, adding that particularly in light of the backyard
siting of the garage, he did not see a problem.
Commissioner Laube stated he believed that the Commission should approve the request, and
should also examine the extension of the driveway, if the applicant so desires, as the Code has
recently been amended to allow for a 12-foot extension of the driveway along the side of the
garage.
Chairperson Peterson stated he did not believe this applied to corner lots. Commissioner Laube
advised that corner lots were not specifically addressed in the ordinance. Planning Associate
Ericson stated there is no requirement for driveway setbacks from the front property line.
Commissioner Johnson pointed out several typographical errors within the body of the
resolution. Planning Associate Ericson indicated the errors would be corrected. He suggested a
“WHEREAS” clause be added to the resolution to indicate “The Planning Commission has
reviewed the sight line issues, “ and an eighth finding of fact to indicate “The Planning
Commission finds that the sight lines and safety issues would not be impaired by the granting of
this variance.”
MOTION//SECOND: Laube/Johnson. To Approve Mounds View Planning Commission
Resolution No. 612-00, a Resolution Approving a Variance from Section 1104.01, Subd. 4, of
the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Setbacks to Allow for a Reduced Front Yard,
Corner-lot Setback for a Garage Expansion at 2741 Hodges Lane, Mounds View Planning Case
VR00-001, as Amended.
Ayes – 7 Nays – 1 (Peterson) The motion carried.
Chairperson Peterson stated his reason for opposing this motion is that he does not believe the
hardship requirement is met.
7. Planning Case CU00-002
Property Involved: 2159 Terrace Drive.
Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 614-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a
Conditional Use Permit to Allow for the Construction of a 256-square foot Oversized Shed.
Applicant: Robert Kleinschmidt
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 12
The applicant was not present.
Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows:
The applicant, Robert Kleinschmidt, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow
for the construction of a 256 square-foot oversized shed in the backyard of his property located
at 2159 Terrace Drive. This request is to replace a small shed that currently exists on the lot
with a larger shed to provide additional storage space for lawn equipment and items of this
nature. The property is located in the northeast section of the City, a block from the City’s
eastern municipal border. The 13,125 square-foot well-maintained lot is improved with a typical
1 ½ story home and two-car garage. There is an 8-foot tall privacy fence along the back of the
property.
Planning Associate Ericson stated that, as is the case with any conditional use permit, the
Planning Commission is required to review a set of general and specific conditional use criteria.
He advised that in terms of the general conditional use criteria, the Commission must consider
any possible adverse effects presented with this request. He indicated these criteria include the
relationship of the use to the Comprehensive Plan, the geographical area involved, whether or
not the use would tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed, the character of
the surrounding area, and the demonstrated need for such a use.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of
properties, and a means of accomplishing this is through the expansion of a home or garage, and
the creation of storage space. He indicated that it has been a commonly held belief of Planning
Commissions and City Councils that the addition of an attractive shed is an improvement over
the outside storage of items, as this reduces clutter.
Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has inspected the property, and feels that the size of the
proposed shed would be proportionate to the large backyard and the house itself. He provided
the Commission with a photograph of the backyard area, and a site plan, which indicated the
locations of the house, garage, and the proposed shed. He stated the applicant has indicated that
the existing shed would be removed upon completion of the new shed. The removal of the
existing shed would be specified in the building permit.
Planning Associate Ericson stated staff believes the construction of the shed would pose no
adverse effects for the neighborhood or the adjoining properties. He indicated there was not a
significant amount of screening from adjoining properties, however, the proposed shed would
replace an existing shed, and the 8-foot tall privacy fence in the backyard would provide some
buffer and screening to adjacent properties.
Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has prepared Resolution 614-00 for Planning
Commission action at this time. He advised that the resolution contains stipulations, which
indicate that the resolution shall be recorded with Ramsey County, and the shed shall not be used
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 13
for living space or other uses not allowed in the district. He stated the resolution further
stipulates that no other sheds or accessory buildings, other than the existing garage, shall be
allowed on the lot, and the shed shall be a permanent structure, designed and maintained to be
aesthetically pleasing and complementary to the existing dwelling and garage.
Planning Associate Ericson stated staff typically notifies the public, when a conditional use
permit request is brought before the Planning Commission, however, this has not occurred at this
time. He explained that the newspaper failed to publish several public hearing notices, and while
the Planning Commission is not required to hold a public hearing, they typically do as a matter
of consideration to the neighbors. He stated a public hearing for this item would be set at the
Council level on April 24, and this would be published in the newspaper, and notices would be
sent to the residents within 350 feet, therefore, residents would have an opportunity to address
the item at that time.
Commissioner Miller stated she did not see a problem. She pointed out that the shed is less than
the maximum square footage allowed, and it would not cover too much of the backyard. She
indicated she had gone to look at the property, and did not see this request to be a problem.
Chairperson Peterson stated there appeared to be screening in the backyard for the shed, and the
placement of the garages on the adjacent properties is such that they provide some additional
screening. Commissioner Kaden noted that even if there were not the best of screening on one
side of the property, the neighbors would probably prefer to see a shed rather than items out in
the yard.
MOTION/SECOND: Peterson/Miller. To Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 614-
00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for a 256
Square-foot Oversized Shed at 2159 Terrace Drive, Mounds View Planning Case NO. CU00-
002.
Ayes – 8 Nays – 0 The motion carried.
8. Planning Case VR00-002
Property Involved: 8438 Groveland Road.
Discussion Regarding a Variance Request to Allow for the Installation of an Eight-foot Tall
Fence in the Front Yard of the Property.
Applicant: Gregory & Elizabeth Brunes.
The applicant was present.
Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows:
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 14
The applicants, Gregory and Elizabeth Brunes, who live at 8438 Groveland Road, are requesting
a variance to allow for the installation of an 8-foot tall fence in the front yard of their property.
The fence would be eight feet tall for a length of 24 feet, stepping down to a six-foot fence, and
stepping down again to a four-foot fence. The applicants are requesting a variance from the
requirement which states that no fence exceeding four feet shall be installed in the front yard of a
residential lot.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicants have submitted a letter, which expresses their
need for a taller fence as a means to reduce some issues with the property owner to the north. He
stated they feel that the additional screening in this area would help them enjoy their property in
a manner to which they have grown accustomed in the 30 years they have resided at the
property.
Planning Associate Ericson stated with this request, staff has had difficulty reconciling the issue
that with a variance request, a hardship must exist, and typically, that hardship is tied to the
property. He stated in this case, the hardship is not based upon the lot, but rather, created by a
third party. He indicated this is not addressed in the City Code and State Statutes in terms of
granting a variance. He advised that staff has examined each of the criteria that the Planning
Commission is required to review with all variance applications, and in staff’s opinion, basing
that strictly upon interpretation of City Code and State Statutes, a hardship does not exist in this
situation.
Elizabeth Brunes, 8438 Groveland Road, the applicant stated her next door neighbor, Justin,
moved in approximately 3 years ago. She indicated his father purchased this house for him and
he was 20 years old at that time. She stated that over the past three years, approximately 40 to
50 people have lived in the home on a temporary basis. She explained that there are illicit sex
acts taking place in the yard, and the parties never stop at this property. She explained that they
drink all day and all night long, and the noise never stops. She pointed out that the majority of
these individuals are underage drinkers.
Mrs. Brunes stated she has never called the Police on anyone in her entire life, and she has had
many neighbors come and go, however, she has had to contact the Police is this situation. She
stated her neighbors are so afraid of this individual they do not know what to do. She explained
that every weekend he trashes everybody’s yard. His friends drive right through the yards,
throwing beer bottles and the like into their yards, however, no one does anything about this
because they are too afraid of Justin.
Mrs. Brunes stated Justin sits out in his yard and makes obscene comments to her at every
opportunity. She indicated her husband has had to put up with listening to him standing outside
their bedroom window at 4:30 in the morning carrying on in this manner. The Police have
informed her that he has a scanner, and he just plays games with them. She explained that every
time she calls the Police, they come out and everyone runs and hides. She stated these people do
not behave as adults, but rather, as drunken, immature boys.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 15
Mrs. Brunes stated she and Justin do not really have a problem, per se, and she does not wish to
create more of a problem than there is, however, she would like to be able to go to bed. She
indicated she and her husband are both “night-shifters,” and they generally do not retire until
1:30 to 2:00 a.m., therefore, for someone to disturb them, it has to be 4:30 or 5:00 in the
morning. She stated the Police come two to three times per evening, and have begun to take
Justin to jail. She indicated that he has made terroristic threats against her to the Police, stating
that he is going to get her.
Mrs. Brunes stated all she has ever done to Justin is request that he go to bed and be quiet, or ask
him to remove his junk from her yard. She indicated he does not cut his grass or rake his lawn,
and he parks vehicles all over his grass. She explained that the Mounds View Police informed
him that the cars must be parked on a prepared surface, and he took a large pile of landscaping
rocks and threw them all over his yard in response to this.
Mrs. Brunes stated this is an extreme hardship. She indicated her hardship is so terrible she is
not able to go out her front door. She explained that these people sit and wait for her so they can
call her names and laugh at her, or simply stand and stare at her. She commented she has
attempted to use headphones to avoid having to listen to their comments.
Mrs. Brunes stated Justin owns two dogs that stand at the fence in the backyard and bark at her
until she leaves, therefore, she is not able to utilize her back yard either. She indicated she and
her husband had thought that if they could put up a fence, they could go outside again. She
stated they contacted City Hall during the fall of the previous year, and they were informed that
they could have an eight-foot fence. She indicated that no one informed them that this would
only be permitted in the backyard, but simply that they could have an eight-foot fence, therefore,
all winter long, she and her husband constructed panels in their garage. She explained that when
they applied for a building permit, they learned that this was not the correct advice.
Mrs. Brunes stated she realized while building the panels, that they are extremely tall. She
explained that all she really wants to do is just prevent Justin from being able to stand and stare
at her from his driveway, which is adjacent to her property. She explained that they play football
and hackey sack in the driveway, and leave vehicles running for hours. She pointed out that
Justin has even come over and apologized for making her life so miserable, and acknowledged
that his actions are immature, however, the next night, he is right back at it. She stated there is
no peace with this individual, and she does not believe he is going to move.
Mrs. Brunes indicated that two years ago, she and her husband began to search for another
property. She pointed out she raised her children at this property and some of the old neighbors
are still in the area. She stated they are all just as put off by Justin as she is, however, it appears
that no one wants trouble with Justin and his “band of merry men,” therefore, she feels she is in
this alone. She stated the Police in Mounds View have been extremely kind to her, however,
there is a limit to what they can do because they have a difficult time catching him at these
activities.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 16
Mrs. Brunes reiterated that she has an extreme hardship, and she was willing to step down from
her original proposal, however, a four-foot fence would not help her at all. She stated she
planted a hedge 32 years ago on that side of the property, and she was willing to tear the entire
hedge out in order to install a fence because she could not stand to have them looking at her.
She pointed out that there are probably 10 men under the age of 22 at that house at all times, and
they have the mentality of 16 year-olds.
Mrs. Brunes stated she feels she is suffering an extreme hardship, and particularly her husband,
because the things Justin says would make any man go over and pop him one, however, this
could not be done. She pointed out that one night Justin jumped over the fence and threatened to
hit her. She stated he was very drunk, and when he saw her husband he went back. She
explained that this is what they are putting up with, and she did not see any alternative but to
block him off.
Mrs. Brunes stated Justin never leaves the property, he is always there, and so are his friends.
She stated the people who lived on the other side moved, because the situation was that terrible.
She indicated that the Police have a tape recording of Justin making statements against her, and
when they took him to jail he stated he was going to get her if it was the last thing he ever does.
She reiterated she has never done anything to Justin, except to call the Police and request they
come out and make these people go home and clean up her yard.
Mrs. Brunes indicated she would be willing to accept a six-foot fence, or possibly a shorter span
of 8 feet, however, a four-foot fence would not help. She stated she has put Miracle Grow on her
hedge in hopes it would grow, and they have been to the nursery to attempt to find a screening
plant that would grow fast and tall, however, she felt this was hopeless. She explained that by the
time it grows tall enough to provide a screen, she would probably be in the nursing home. She
stated this was her plight with Justin, and she does not believe he is going to leave, therefore, she
must do something so that she can go back out into her yard again.
Mrs. Brunes stated she had a perfect yard with a meticulous manicured lawn, and for two years
she has been unable to enjoy it, as she was embarrassed and ashamed to be out there. She
explained that anything the Planning Commission could do for her would be helpful.
Commissioner Miller inquired if a fence would really solve the problem. Mrs. Brunes stated she
believed it would help.
Commissioner Kaden inquired what the Police say regarding the lewd comments. Mrs. Brunes
stated the Police have come out and informed Justin that he must stop. She indicated only once
was she aware that they arrested him, and they had to obtain a search warrant for this, and pull
him out of a closet. She stated that on the way to jail he told the Police that his father could buy
and sell the entire Police Department, and he did not care how many times they attempt to fine
him.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 17
Mrs. Brunes stated for three years the Police informed her that he could have a backhoe. She
explained that he had two filthy dirty, rusty backhoes lining her property. She added he also has
30 vehicles at his house, and every day they are parked all the way across the front of her
property, and the Police say he has a right to do this.
Mrs. Brunes stated she did not wish to continue to fight with Justin, and never did. She
explained that she had simply requested he do the right thing. She stated the Police receive
many calls, and they always come and they have treated her very well, however, it seems that
they are unable to do anything with Justin, such as arrest him for calling her obscene words. She
pointed out that she has even held the telephone outside her window at 4:30 in the morning and
let the Police listen to the comments he makes.
Chairperson Peterson advised that the Planning Commission was to consider if there was any
action that could be taken from a planning standpoint. He indicated there were certainly issues
with regard to Police enforcement. He stated the City’s Nuisance Code could address some of
these issues, and it appears that there has been some enforcement in this regard.
Mrs. Brunes stated this process has taken three years, and as soon as they clean up one mess,
another one starts.
Chairperson Peterson stated both of these areas of enforcement should be followed very
diligently, and the Police Department must find some means to address this situation.
Mrs. Brunes indicated they had spent $2,500 to have a tree removed in order to have the fence
put in on bad advice, and she felt that they were victims all the way around in this regard. She
reiterated no one ever advised them they could only construct an eight-foot fence in the
backyard.
Chairperson Peterson inquired if Mrs. Brunes was planning to install a fence in the backyard.
Mrs. Brunes stated she was not. She indicated she prefers her front yard, and has invested much
time in this area. He added that Justin’s two dogs attack the fence every time she goes into the
backyard.
Commissioner Stevenson stated he felt for the applicant, however, he did not see how the
Commission could grant this variance, in light of the factors that must be addressed. He stated
he would hope Mrs. Brunes would repeat her statements to the City Council, which has the
authority to reverse the Planning Commission’s decision, and could possibly help her. He
indicated he would not be in favor of setting a precedent in allowing an eight-foot fence in front
of any house, however, he did not desire to see the Brunes continue to suffer either.
Commissioner Hegland stated this appeared to be a terrible situation to deal with, and he had
much empathy for Mrs. Brunes. He stated that if the City has not been able to help her resolve
this problem in three years, they have a problem as a City. He stated the City has a
responsibility to do something about this, and if it cannot assist, this in itself creates an unusual
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 18
circumstance. He suggested a possible means to address this would be to approve the fence as a
temporary structure until something could be done to resolve these problems. He pointed out that
the structure the applicant was proposing appeared to be somewhat temporary in nature, and if
the problems were resolved, she would likely be willing to remove it.
Mrs. Brunes stated this was correct. She reiterated she has a beautiful hedge that goes all the
way around her property, and she removed a 32 year-old tree she had planted in order to install
this fence.
Chairperson Peterson stated this appeared to be an issue of harassment. Mrs. Brunes indicated
she has filed a civil suit against Justin for doing this to her. She stated she has been informed
that she must go through the proper channels in this regard, and even they do not appear to know
what to do with Justin.
Chairperson Peterson stated the Police Department should attempt to determine some means to
provide relief from this situation, and the City Council might be able to initiate this. He advised
that the Planning Commission was required to examine variance requests in terms of the City
Code and State Statutes, and it does not have the freedom to grant approval unless it is done
accordingly. He explained that from a land-planning standpoint, he could not see a hardship,
although the applicant clearly does have a problem and a hardship. He stated that the City Code
would not allow the Commission to approve this request.
Commissioner Berke advised that the City Council could overrule the Planning Commission in
cases when an applicant wishes to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision with regard to
variances.
Mrs. Brunes inquired regarding how she would proceed with this. Chairperson Peterson
explained that if the Planning Commission denies the request, Mrs. Brunes has the option to
appeal to the City Council.
Commissioner Kaden stated he drove by the applicant’s house and has seen the property. He
stated it also appears to him that this is an issue of harassment. He stated he sympathized with
the applicant, having witnessed his neighbors go through the same situation for several years.
He indicated it took an extensive amount of time to resolve this
Mrs. Brunes stated she has attempted to gain the support of the residents along Groveland Road,
many of whom she has known for 30 years. She explained that every weekend the residents are
out in their yards picking up the trash, and the neighbor across the street has had to call the
Police several times as well, however, they are afraid to become involved.
Community Development Director Jopke suggested that one approach might be to investigate
the possibility of approving this item through the interim use permit process. He indicated staff
would have to discuss this with the City Attorney. He explained that the City could issue such a
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 19
permit for a finite period of time, however, it would not be possible to proceed through the
variance process.
Commissioner Stevenson inquired if there would be any complaints from the neighbors, if the
City took this approach, and the construction of the fence was permitted. Mrs. Brunes stated she
felt like she would not have a problem in this regard.
Commissioner Kaden inquired if the neighborhood was notified regarding this request. Mrs.
Brunes stated this item had not yet been published in the newspaper.
Commissioner Stevenson stated he did not have a problem with approving this request, however,
he would have concerns if it became a problem with the other neighbors. He stated he would
like the City to assist in resolving this situation for the applicant, however, they are responsible
for the entire City.
Mrs. Brunes stated she understood. She stated she also realized that the drawing she had
submitted represented a blockade type of a fence, and as she had indicated, she would be willing
to accept even two sections of six-foot fence. She pointed out that screening of her step alone
would assist tremendously, as she currently felt as if she were a prisoner in her own home. She
stated she would bring her request before the City Council, adding that she had run for the City
Council at one time.
Chairperson Peterson stated the primary remedy must come through Police Department action,
however, an interim use approach could be considered at the City Council level, and perhaps the
City Attorney could offer some suggestions as well.
Mrs. Brunes inquired regarding the possibility of building the land up three feet, and
constructing a four-foot fence upon it. Commissioner Stevenson explained that a berm is more
permanent than a fence, and if the problem was to cease and Justin moved away, that pile of dirt
would be more difficult to remove.
Commissioner Stevenson asked staff if the Commission would have to deny the request in order
to explore the other options.
Planning Associate Ericson advised that the Commission could not act on this matter at this time,
therefore they would have to wait until the April 19 meeting to determine their course of action,
at which time, it would be within their purview to table the matter as well. He explained that
during this time, staff could explore the interim use permit option as suggested by Community
Development Director Jopke. He indicated staff would research this with the City Attorney, to
determine if this is an option, as well as any other possibilities that may come forward in the
interim.
Planning Associate Ericson inquired if it was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to
draft a resolution for consideration at the next meeting, and during that time, to explore possible
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 20
options. He advised that it would be a good idea to take action rather than delay the matter, as
the applicant would probably prefer to have this matter settled.
Mrs. Brunes indicated she was in the process of re-landscaping her entire yard, due to the
damage caused by the removal of the tree, and in order to do this, it would be helpful to know
what she would be dealing with.
Chairperson Peterson advised that in conjunction with examining the options, Mrs. Brunes could
address the Council at their next session and attempt to have the enforcement issues resolved,
which would probably be the most expedient means to approach this. He stated a delay at the
Planning Commission level would not benefit anything.
Commissioner Laube inquired if staff could schedule an interim use permit for consideration at
the next City Council meeting, if the Planning Commission denied the variance request.
Commissioner Hegland requested clarification regarding the procedure for applying for an
interim use permit.
Planning Associate Ericson advised that the City recently adopted Ordinance 657, which creates
the language allowing the City to grant an interim use permit. He stated the language that was
added to Chapter 1126 of the Zoning Code indicates that the City Council has the ability to grant
an interim use permit within any district, for any use it deems appropriate by ordinance. He
stated regardless of the approach that is taken, the Planning Commission would review and
examine this, possibly in terms of a typical conditional use permit, however, this was uncertain
at this point, because it would be up to the Council to determine what those requirements would
be. He pointed out that this might involve as little as submitting a site plan for administrative
approval. He explained that the City Council could simply indicate that a six-foot fence in the
front yard, under certain circumstances, would be allowed, and if those provisions were drafted
into the ordinance, and the circumstances were met, the applicant would not be required to come
back before the Council.
Commissioner Hegland inquired how the Planning Commission could assist the applicant with
this process.
Planning Associate Ericson stated staff would have to examine this with the City Attorney, and
unfortunately, the applicant would be left out of that process. He stated the City would have to
draft the language in a manner that it would be legally appropriate and in keeping with Chapter
1126. He indicated that within the next two weeks, staff could discuss this with the City
Attorney, to see what would be appropriate, and bring some sample language to the City
Council. He explained that the Council would be the body, which, by ordinance, would create
that provision, and the process would have to commence from that point. He pointed out that
even with an interim use permit, this would not provide an immediate solution, because two
readings would be required at the Council level, and the item would have to be published in the
newspaper.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 21
Chairperson Peterson stated the issue of enforcement could be addressed at the next Council
Meeting. He explained that this is a separate issue from that of the fence, however, proceeding
with both of these matters simultaneously might be the most efficient means to resolve this.
Planning Associate Ericson suggested the applicant present her situation directly to the new
Police Chief.
Commissioner Berke suggested the applicant contact the Police Department regarding a Crime
Watch program, which has worked well in his neighborhood. He explained that this is a
program in which the Police Department and the neighborhood work in conjunction with each
other, and it provides some anonymity for those residents who may be afraid to contact the
Police.
Planning Associate Ericson stated staff would proceed with the direction provided.
9. Planning Case CU00-003
Property Involved: 8038 Long Lake Road.
Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 616-00, a Resolution Contemplating a Conditional
Use Permit to Allow for the Construction of a 400-square foot Oversized Shed.
Applicant: Juanita Snetsinger and Shelley Hill.
The applicants were present.
Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows:
The applicants, Juanita Snetsinger and Shelley Hill, are requesting approval of a conditional use
permit to allow for the construction of an oversized shed in the backyard of their property at
8038 Long Lake Road. The area of the proposed shed would be 400 square feet, which is the
maximum allowed. The property, which is located in the northwest section of the City, between
Sherwood and Hillview Roads, is 18,480 square feet.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the backyard area of this property is approximately 11,000
square-feet, which is similar to the size of the average City lot. He indicated the proposed shed
would be located approximately 150 feet from the house. He stated there is a small, attached
two-car garage on the property, which does not provide significant storage space, and there is not
sufficient room to expand the garage. The applicants are seeking a storage building of the
maximum size in which to house motorcycles, snowmobiles, and other items that can not be
readily parked in the garage.
Planning Associate Ericson stated there are currently two smaller outbuildings in the back yard
of the property. He advised that City Code prohibits more than one shed on a property,
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 22
therefore, if this request were approved, one of the conditions in the resolution would be that the
two existing sheds be removed. He stated the applicant has indicated at least one of the sheds
would be removed, and he was uncertain if it was clear that both sheds would need to be
removed.
Planning Associate Ericson stated staff visited the property. He explained that in terms of
proportion, it appears that the shed, which would be 20’ by 20’ feet, would fit in quite well. He
stated there was not a significant amount of physical screening between the adjoining properties,
and there are no fences to obstruct the view, however, there are a number of very mature
evergreen trees in the back yard that create a good buffer in this area.
Planning Associate Ericson provided an overview of the adverse effects criteria, which were
addressed in the staff report, and indicated that staff believes these criteria are all satisfied. He
stated this again, was a situation were the applicants would be able to remove some clutter from
the yard, and store snowmobiles, motorcycles, and perhaps a boat, which might otherwise be
stored outside. He stated the only drawback to this proposal is that the applicants would not be
allowed to keep the two sheds that currently exist on the property.
Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has drafted Resolution 616-00 for Planning Commission
action at this time. He explained that this resolution of approval contains stipulations that
indicate the two existing sheds shall be removed upon the completion of the new shed, and the
resolution shall be recorded with Ramsey County. He indicated the shed could not be used for
living space or other uses not allowed by the district, and the shed shall be a permanent structure
and be designed and maintained to be aesthetically pleasing and complementary to the exiting
dwelling in the garage.
Planning Associate Ericson stated staff reviewed this request in the context of how this shed
would fit in, not only in terms of the subject property, but also with the surrounding
neighborhood. He stated in his personal opinion, he felt this would fit in well, and in addition,
the presence of the mature evergreen trees would shield it from view and provide a good buffer.
He pointed out there is not a significant amount of screening to the property to the south.
However, after his inspection of the area, he did not believe this would be an issue in this
particular situation. He stated staff recommends approval of Resolution 616-00.
Commissioner Stevenson inquired if notification was provided to the neighboring properties.
Planning Associate Ericson stated this again, was one of the public hearing notices that was not
published in the newspaper, however, it would be published in the newspaper for the April 24
meeting of the City Council.
Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the neighbor to the south was aware of this proposal.
Planning Associate Ericson stated he was not aware if the applicants have discussed their plans
with this neighbor.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 23
Shelley Hill, the applicant stated that her neighbor’s son had inquired regarding why they were
cleaning up that back corner of their lot, and she had indicated something would be going in,
however, she was not certain if the request would be approved, and therefore, did not elaborate.
She stated these would be the only neighbors who would have a good view of the shed. She
explained that all the other surrounding properties along the back of their lot have full grown 40-
foot evergreen trees lining their property, and one neighbor has a 7-foot woodpile along his
backyard, to obscure the view of the neighboring properties.
Ms. Hill indicated she did not believe there would be a problem from this neighbor’s
perspective, in light of the condition of their backyard. She explained that this property was in
the worst condition of all the neighboring properties, and she hoped that this would give them
the idea to do something with their back yard as well. She indicated the evergreen trees in her
back yard would provide a screen to the other neighbors.
Ms. Hill stated she liked to keep her backyard neat, and was proud of its appearance. She
indicated she recently purchased two new snowmobiles and has four motorcycles. She stated
one of the existing sheds is 6’ by 6’ in size, and has been on the property since they purchased it.
She explained that it is in poor condition, and because of the low foundation, it fills up with
water in the spring, and they could not utilize it for storage. She stated she had no problem
removing both of the sheds.
Chairperson Peterson stated he did not see a problem with this request.
The Commission concurred.
Chairperson Peterson advised that typically they would hold the public hearing at the Planning
Commission level as well as the Council level, however, since the notice was not published, and
since this item will also be heard by the City Council, the Commission could take action at this
time.
MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Stevenson. To Approve Mounds View planning Commission
Resolution No. 616-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to
Allow for a 400 Square-foot Oversized Shed at 8038 Long Lake Road; Mounds View Planning
Case No. CU00-003.
Ayes – 8 Nays – 0 The motion carried.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the public hearing for this item would be scheduled for the
April 24 City Council meeting.
Chairperson Peterson recessed the Planning Commission meeting at 9:00 p.m.
The Planning Commission meeting reconvened at 9:07 p.m.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 24
10. Planning Case VR00-003
Property Involved: 2400 County Road J.
Discussion Regarding a Variance Request to Allow for a Reduced Minimum Spacing Between
Two Billboards.
Applicant: DeLite Outdoor Advertising Company, Inc.
The applicant was present.
Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows:
The applicant, DeLite Outdoor Advertising, is requesting a variance for a reduced minimum
spacing requirement to approximately 550 feet, to allow for the siting of a billboard at the
southeast corner of the Sysco property. This issue has been before the Planning Commission at
previous meetings, and the Commission recommended to the City Council that the interim use
permit be approved subject to the applicant applying for and obtaining a variance from this
provision, which would allow Sysco to have two billboards on their property.
Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has examined the existing property, and the hardship that
was evident in relation to the seven criteria that are set forth in the City Code, pursuant to State
Statutes. He indicated staff looked at the individual criteria, based upon what has occurred in the
past with regard to the siting of the billboards, and in terms of the basis for the hardship, which
would necessitate the approval of a variance.
Planning Associate Ericson advised that if the Planning Commission has any questions regarding
the criteria, or feels that an individual criteria requires to be further addressed, this could be
discussed at this time. He indicated staff is seeking direction from the Planning Commission
regarding whether or not these findings would be suitable for a resolution, and if so, staff would
draft a resolution for action at the April 19 meeting, which would approve the variance as
requested.
Planning Associate Ericson indicated this was not a public hearing, however, staff would send
out notifications to the property owners, and have sent a notice to the newspaper for publication
which will occur on Thursday, therefore, there will be proper notification for action at the next
meeting. He explained that this was another notice that had not been published by the Focus
Newspaper.
Paul Radamacher, representative of DeLite Outdoor Advertising stated on behalf of Sysco and
DeLite, he would urge the Commission to vote in favor of this request at the April 19 meeting.
He stated they concur with staff and their findings at this point.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 25
Chairperson Peterson clarified that the location of this billboard would be in the corner of the
southern portion of the Sysco property. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He
explained that the parking lot extends down into the corner of the lot along Highway 10, and
there is a very small piece of land adjacent to the parking lot, before it slopes down into the
stormwater pond. He stated the applicant is proposing the sign be located in this spot, just off of
the parking lot. He explained that this was the only possible location for the sign, as it could not
go into the pond, and if it were located on the other side of the pond, it would be too close to the
second proposed sign to meet the 500-foot MnDOT spacing requirement.
Commissioner Laube inquired if the applicant has submitted any designs for consideration.
Planning Associate Ericson stated he met with Mr. Radamacher at the Sysco site on Monday,
and they are working toward this. He explained that the Planning Commission would not be
taking action on this matter, however, the applicant should have a design proposal to present for
consideration at the next meeting, and they are both confident that this will be resolved to the
satisfaction of both parties.
Commissioner Kaden requested clarification regarding the hardship. Planning Associate Ericson
stated part of the hardship is the location of the parking lot, and its close proximity to the
property line. He explained that the City is imposing design standards that would inhibit truck
traffic, which would be overly burdensome to the property owner, therefore, the sign would have
to be located off of the parking lot. He stated this is a hardship, in that the sign could not be
located to maintain the 1,000-foot separation. He stated staff interprets a hardship to be present
in terms of the location of the City’s billboard on the Bridges Golf Course, which limits the
potential locations of the Sysco signs. He indicated staff has forwarded the criteria to the City
Attorneys for their review, and believes these findings address the apparent hardships in this
situation.
Commissioner Hegland stated in his opinion, this was a stretch for a hardship. He stated he
understood the reasoning behind this, however, he would maintain that the real issue should have
been resolved with a setback from the property line for both parties.
Chairperson Peterson stated the Commission could not act at this time, because there was no
public hearing. He inquired if staff was requesting direction regarding the preparation of a
resolution.
Planning Associate Ericson explained that if the Planning Commission feels comfortable with
the criteria and the manner in which staff has addressed the criteria with regard to the hardship,
staff would draft a resolution using those criteria and responses as presented in the staff report.
It was the general consensus of the Commission to direct staff to proceed.
Council Liaison Marty stated he realized that the billboard proposed to be located on Sysco’s
parking lot required to be of a monopole type construction, because of the truck traffic on the
site. He inquired if the Planning Commission had considered the monument style design for the
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 26
second billboard on the Sysco property, to be more consistent with the billboards on the City
property.
Chairperson Peterson stated the Commission has discussed this matter, and would prefer the
monument style design. He explained that the language they forwarded to the City Council
indicated that the billboards should be aesthetically complementary to the City’s billboards. He
stated there was also discussion regarding a brick facing on the pole structure, however, he was
uncertain if there was any specific language pertaining to the design of the second billboard on
the Sysco property.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the resolution recommending approval of the two Sysco
billboards contains a clause which indicates that the billboards be aesthetically complementary
to the signs on the golf course, and does not differentiate between one sign and the other.
Commissioner Stevenson indicated the design style was somewhat unclear at this point,
therefore, the Commission had requested the applicant come back before them with their
proposal for further consideration of the design. Chairperson Peterson pointed out that the
Council would make the final determination in terms of the type of construction.
Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He indicated the Council heard the interim
use permit request for the Sysco billboards, and this item was tabled. He stated the City’s
interim use permit for billboards at the golf course was approved, however, that approval would
not take effect until some time in May, when Ordinances 655, 656, and 657 become effective.
He explained that the interim use permit for the Sysco billboards was tabled pending resolution
of the variance request, and it would also be subject to the effective date of the ordinances,
which would not occur until 30 days after publication, therefore, the delay would not be
detrimental. He indicated Sysco’s interim use permit request would be on the April 24 Council
Agenda, and it is hoped that at that time, there will be a design proposal in place that would meet
with Council approval.
Council Liaison Marty extended his thanks to all of the Commission members. He stated he has
reviewed all of the information the Commission has forwarded on to the Council, and feels that
they are doing an excellent job. He added that the recommendations that come to the Council
appear to be examined from every aspect and perspective. He indicated he has expressed these
sentiments at the Council Meetings, however, he would like to reiterate his appreciation at this
time.
Chairperson Peterson thanked Council Liaison Marty for his comments. He stated the Planning
Commission attempts to prevent problems at the Council level if possible, and hopefully, the
information they provide is usable.
9. Staff Reports / Items of Information
A. Previous City Council Action
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 27
Community Development Director Jopke updated the Commission regarding recent Council
action. He stated on Monday March 27, the Council adopted Ordinances 655, 656, and 657,
which have since been published. He explained that Ordinance 655 pertains to the rezoning of
the golf course parcels from CRP and I-1 to PF. He stated Ordinance 657 creates the new
Chapter 1126, formalizing the fact that the City has the authority to issue interim use permits,
and Ordinance 656 addresses the provisions in Section 1008.08 concerning billboards, and
clarifies that an interim use permit would be granted for that use.
Communities Development Director Jopke stated the Council approved the interim use permit
for the billboards at the Bridges Golf Course, and granted the City Attorney the authority to
proceed with the final negotiations of the lease agreement with Eller Media. He indicated action
on the interim use permit for the Sysco billboards was tabled, pending completion of the
variance process.
Community Development Director Jopke stated at the Council Work Session on April 3, the
Council discussed a work plan with Springsted & Associates, who have been retained to assist in
a community discussion regarding the future of County Highway 10. He explained that a
Committee was being organized to assist in this matter, and the Council has requested
participation from the Planning Commission in this regard. He explained that they have
requested the Chairperson and two members of the Planning Commission to serve on this
Committee.
Community Development Director Jopke advised that the purpose of this Committee is to assist
with the community discussions. He explained that there would be two community meetings, in
which to discuss the issues with the citizens and obtain their input regarding County Highway
10. He advised that Committee would assist with the proposed format and content of the
meetings, and assist in facilitating the discussions at the community meetings. He stated the
Committee would meet prior to the community forums, at least one time in April, the community
meetings would be held in May. He indicated the report would be presented to the Council in
June. He stated at this time, staff was looking for the Planning Commission to formally forward
the names of the members who wish to assist in this matter.
Commissioners Laube and Johnson offered to serve on the Committee.
Community Development Director Jopke stated the Committee would be comprised of
representatives of the EDC, Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Planning Commission.
He stated there was also some discussion regarding the participation of representatives from the
Chamber of Commerce, as well as students who are interested in the safety issues, in the
aftermath of the tragedy that recently occurred on County Highway 10.
Community Development Director Jopke stated another item discussed at the Council Work
Session was the Big Woods study. He indicated this item would be coming before the Planning
Commission on April 19 for detailed discussion. He advised that the City has been working with
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 28
a consultant to examine the wetland areas between Sysco and the Bridges Golf Course as well as
the area south of U.S. Highway 10, adjacent to and south or Ardan Park. He stated this has been
an effort to determine the boundaries of the jurisdictional wetlands in this area. He indicated this
study has been approached somewhat differently than in the past, in that a number of wells have
been utilized to consider the water tables and the actual location of the wetlands, over a two-year
time period. He explained that the preliminary indications are that there may be approximately
35 additional acres of land that are not located in the wetland.
Community Development Director Jopke stated in anticipation of the detailed discussions, staff
has developed a questionnaire for the Planning Commission pertaining to their thoughts
regarding the possible uses of the area in the future. He indicated this would depend upon the
final determination of the Rice Creek Watershed District regarding the actual wetland
boundaries. He explained that the possibilities range from leaving the area as it is to additional
golf course development, or in the area south of U.S. Highway 10, potential additional housing.
He requested the Commissioners complete the questionnaire and submit it to staff within the
next week.
Community Development Director Jopke stated he attended the 2000 Safety Loss Control
Workshop conducted by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. He indicated one of
the items of discussion was the importance of making good decisions, and following the correct
procedures in making land use decisions, in order to avoid lawsuits against the City. He
provided the Commission with a list entitled “Ten Tips for Avoiding Land Use Claims.” He
indicated staff has also received a videotape that examines these issues, and at a future meeting,
time permitting, staff will present this to the Commission as well.
Community Development Director Jopke advised that Chairperson Peterson has received a letter
from Ordeen Braathen. He indicated that this letter was Commissioner Braathen’s formal
resignation from the Planning Commission.
Chairperson Peterson read the letter as follows:
“Mr. Chair and Fellow Commissioners:
I am submitting my resignation to the City of Mounds View from the Planning Commission.
It has been a pleasure working with you in the first half of the year. I realize with all of my
personal commitments to my business, I could in no way be as committed as each and every one
of you are.
I wish every one of the Commissioners all the best. Perhaps in the future I can commit more
time to the City I hold dear to my heart.
Thank you for the opportunity to serve with you on the Planning Commission.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 29
Sincerely,
Ordeen Braathen”
On behalf of the Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson extended his appreciation to
Commissioner Braathen for the time he was able to invest with the Planning Commission. He
stated they valued his input, and were sad to have lost a member of the Commission.
Chairperson Peterson stated this leaves a vacancy on the Planning Commission. He stated he
would not wish to minimize the time investment that is involved, because in light of their work
on the Comprehensive Plan and their upcoming schedule, this would not only involve the two
regularly scheduled monthly meetings on Wednesdays, but at times, three to four meetings per
month. He indicated any individuals interested in applying for this position could do so. He
explained that no formal background was required, other than a sincere desire to help the City.
Community Development Director Jopke stated this position would be advertised, and there was
a short application form to be completed, that is available at City Hall and on the City’s Website.
He indicated staff would post this opening with a 30-day period for the submittal of applications,
and in the first week in May, the Mayor will consider those applications, and make a
recommendation to the Council regarding who he feels should fill this seat.
11. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports.
No reports were considered.
12. Adjournment
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the
meeting at 9:55 p.m.
(The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session)
Respectfully submitted,
Rick Jopke
Community Development Director
Transcribed by:
Trish Pearson
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.