Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-17-2000 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 17, 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., May 17, 2000. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Hegland, Kaden, Miller, and Stevenson. Members Absent: Commissioners Johnson and Laube, with prior notice. Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Rick Jopke, Council Liaison Lynne Thomason, and Recorder Trish Pearson. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. VR00-004, 2195 Pinewood Drive. Public Hearing and Discussion Regarding a Variance Request to Allow for a Zero-foot Side-yard Garage Setback. Harry Meinert, Applicant. 2 Planning Case No. CU00-004, 2832 Woodale Drive. Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 617-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 1,248 Square-foot Oversized Garage. Thomas Stampfle, Applicant. 10 Planning Case No. CU00-005, 7474 Groveland Road. Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 618-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 400 Square-foot Shed. Phil Johnson, Applicant. 13 Planning Case No. CU00-006, 4949 Old Highway 8. Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 619-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional use Permit for Enclosed Outdoor Storage. ASC Properties, LLC, Applicant. 15 Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 Planning Case No. CU00-007, 2251 Oakwood Drive. Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 620-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an 1,150 Square-foot Oversized Garage. Kenneth Waste, Applicant. 19 Staff Reports / Items of Information 24 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 26 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. April 5, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Berke to approve the April 5, 2000 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 The motion carried. 5. Planning Case No. VR00-004 Property Involved: 2195 Pinewood Drive Public Hearing and Discussion Regarding a Variance Request to Allow for a Zero-foot Side-yard Garage Setback. Applicant: Harry Meinert The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant, Harry Meinert, is requesting a variance to allow for a garage expansion on his property located at 2195 Pinewood Drive. The applicant proposes to replace the existing garage with a 576 square-foot detached garage in the same location as the existing garage, which, as it is presently situated on the lot, does not meet the 5-foot setback requirement. The applicant is proposing to expand the garage up to the property line so as to maintain a six-foot setback from the house. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 Planning Associate Ericson stated staff examined this application very closely, in light of the magnitude of the variance requested. He explained that this variance would allow for a zero setback for a structure, which is not something that is typically approved. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff reviewed this application in terms of the seven variance criteria necessary to establish a hardship. He advised that the hardship criteria tend to be associated with the property, i.e., the configuration of the lot, the topography, or physical features, which would make the literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome and restrictive for the property owner. He indicated that in this regard, there do not appear to be any extraordinary circumstances present. He pointed out that the lot is somewhat irregularly shaped, which slightly throws off the setbacks, however, staff is of the opinion that granting a variance up to the property line would be a privilege not necessarily afforded to any other property owner in the district. Planning Associate Ericson explained that there does not appear to be any hardship that would warrant the approval of this request, in that the garage could be situated in the backyard where there would be sufficient room to construct it to the specifications the applicant desires. He noted the size of the existing garage is small, and staff recognizes the need for expansion and that the size requested is well within the guidelines for a garage. He explained that the reason this variance is being requested is because the proposed garage would be so close to the property line, and in this case, on the property line. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff felt it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to have some discussion regarding this matter, and therefore, has not drafted a resolution for consideration at this time. He advised that this was a public hearing, and staff would recommend that the Planning Commission discuss this item, and based upon that discussion and the facts presented, direct staff to bring forward a resolution at the next meeting, which would either approve or deny the variance request. Harry Meinert, the applicant stated he had obtained written permission from the property owner located on his westerly border to construct the garage to the property line, which would leave approximately 20 feet between the house and the new garage structure. He explained that with a zero setback from the property line, he would maintain a six-foot clearance from his house, which would meet the standards of the Fire Code. Mr. Meinert stated the proposed structure would be set back from the house, however, he did not wish to extend it into the backyard. He provided the Commission with a drawing, which depicted the situation of the existing building on the lot, and explained that if he constructed the garage in back of the house, it would infringe upon the sunlight that comes into the house and the 25-foot extension he constructed six years earlier. He added that this would also negatively impact the appearance of the house. He stated he proposed to construct the garage on the existing site. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 Mr. Meinert indicated his home was constructed in 1950, predating the Code and standards for setbacks. He explained that the existing garage is located approximately 3 feet from the property line, and the driveway exceeds the width of the building, and is located in very close proximity to the property line. He stated he would like to have a reasonably sized two-car garage, with a bit of additional space for a workbench and other such items, therefore he is proposing the 24- foot width. Mr. Meinert stated he was aware he did not meet all of the criteria for hardship in this case, however, he was proposing to construct a new garage with an attractive appearance that would match the house. He indicated his house has been completely refinished, and he would utilize the same type of siding and roofing on the garage, which he believed would add beauty to the area. He stated his was one of the nicest homes on Pinewood Drive because of the significant interior and exterior improvements he has made in the past ten years, and this was one of the reasons he was approaching the garage in this manner. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the applicant planned to obtain a professional survey of the lot. Mr. Meinert stated he has not had the lot surveyed at this point, as this obviously costs money, and he would like to rely upon the fence lines in the backyard, which he assumes are within six to eight inches of the property line. He stated his easterly neighbor had utilized a metal detector to determine the location of the back stake at the northeast corner of the property, and it was exactly where it was supposed to be. He explained that from this point, and measuring to his lot dimensions, which are approximately 90 feet in the back and 105 in the front, there is a 15-foot widening toward the front of the property. He indicated that even if he has a survey performed, he would initially measure the lot himself to determine the exact property lines. Commissioner Stevenson stated he is not aware that the Commission has ever allowed a variance within one-foot of the property line, and for this very reason, whether it be for a structure or impervious surface, it is very likely that relying upon a fence would not provide an accurate representation of the property line. He advised that if a structure or impervious surface was determined to slightly exceed the property line, in the future, there could be major problems. He indicated he felt for the applicant’s situation, adding that the City encourages improvements such as this proposal. He stated he would tend to believe the Commission could allow a variance within a foot of the property line, however, to extend that another 12 inches, and simply state that this was the property line might be problematic in that the property line might be determined to be different in the future. He advised that there could be problems with regard to the overhang, in terms of the runoff, and there were a multitude of reasons the City does not allow for a variance within a foot of the property line. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 Mr. Meinert inquired what would be involved if the variance were approved within one-foot of the property line and it was determined that the structure was in close proximity to the eastern property line, in terms of the required distance between a garage and a house. Commissioner Stevenson indicated the Fire Code would come into play at that point. Mr. Meinert stated the reason he was approaching the project in this manner was in order to obtain the required distance between the house and the garage. He indicated the existing garage is 18 feet wide, 22 feet deep, and 10.2 feet from the house. He explained that the structure is fifty years old, and quite dilapidated. He indicated that if the new garage were constructed to the property line, he would be able to maintain the 6-foot separation distance between the structures. Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the size of the new garage. Mr. Meinert stated it would be 24 feet by 24 feet. Commissioner Hegland pointed out that the staff report indicates a 32-foot separation between the estimated property line and the house. Mr. Meinert stated he believed this to be a fairly accurate measurement. Commissioner Hegland stated the property line was not square, and inquired regarding the minimum setback from the property line along the 24-foot length of the proposed garage. Mr. Meinert indicated the proposed structure would appear to be parallel to the property line, however, a survey would be required to determine this accurately. Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the length of the overhang on the proposed structure. Mr. Meinert stated there would be a one-foot overhang. Commissioner Hegland pointed out with a 32-foot separation between the house and the property line, the proposed garage could almost be constructed at 3 feet, and come close to the required setback. Mr. Meinert indicated this would leave approximately 5 feet of separation, and he had simply developed his plan mindful of the six-foot minimum separation requirement between structures. Commissioner Hegland inquired if the six-foot separation was measured from the foundation or the soffit of the structure. Planning Associate Ericson stated the foundation. Chairperson Peterson stated the Fire Code requirements must be met, however, he did not believe this generally involved great difficulty or expense. He pointed out that there have been many cases in which structures have been closer than the minimum setback requirement, with only one extra step, such as sheetrocking the interior of the building, or adjustments that are relatively easy to incorporate into the plans. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 Mr. Meinert indicated he planned to finish the garage with sheathing and a ceiling. He commented he has measured several times, and determined there would be 5 feet 8 inches one time, and 6 feet 4 inches another time, which would depend upon the exact location of the property line. He stated it would probably save some time to have a professional survey done. Chairperson Peterson explained that with an application, the Commission is typically provided with a professional site plan or accurate measurements. He advised that a professional survey would be a better approach, particularly in a case that involves setbacks. He pointed out that there have been several cases in which buildings have been constructed on neighboring properties, because everyone believed the property line to be in a particular location, however, it was not as it appeared. Mr. Meinert indicated that there should be a front and back stake on the property, and if they are located, a straight line string would provide at minimum, a good guideline, however, he would be willing to retain a surveyor to determine the location of the westerly property line, which would be more accurate for the Commission’s needs. He explained that if this matter was tabled until the next meeting, he could obtain a survey and submit it to staff. Chairperson Peterson advised that a survey would generally be required as part of an application. Commissioner Miller noted there might actually be more room on the property than the applicant thought. Mr. Meinert stated there is a double fence located on the westerly border of the property, and he would estimate that this fence is within 6 to 8 inches of the property line. He added he has lived at this property for 25 years, and during that time, it has always remained the same. He indicated he did not particularly care if it was changed, however, in this particular case, it was important to have an accurate measurement. Planning Associate Ericson pointed out that a hardship might be found in the fact that the existing garage is 3 feet off of the property line, and at minimum, the applicant be allowed to construct the garage in the same location. He indicated that if this were the case, and these measurements were verified by the survey, a 24-foot wide structure 3 feet from the property line would provide for a five-foot separation between the house and the garage. He explained that if the specific Fire Code precautionary measures were met for structures with less than a six-foot separation, the Commission, at the same time as granting a variance to allow for what in effect exists, could also grant a variance for the reduced setback from the garage to the house. He advised that the City Code requires a six-foot separation between structures. Commissioner Hegland stated it was difficult to determine the correct measurements without knowing the exact location of the property line, however, assuming that the garage would be parallel to the house, and the applicant were to construct a 24-foot garage with a six-foot separation between the two buildings, the Commission could determine the exact setback from that point. He indicated this may be another way to approach this application. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 Mr. Meinert inquired if the Commission would require a survey of the property. Planning Associate Ericson explained that the City’s policy is that a survey is a very good idea. He explained that a survey is required for a house, and not necessarily for a garage, however, when a structure is proposed within 5 feet of the property line, a survey is very strongly recommended. He added that the Planning Commission could make such a requirement as a condition of granting a variance. Commissioner Stevenson stated that if the applicant still desires to build closer to the property line than the current 3-foot setback, he would probably desire a survey in order to obtain a variance through the Planning Commission Commissioner Kaden recommended the applicant obtain a survey. He indicated his home is also on an irregularly shaped lot, and in his experience, the measurements can vary. He explained that when he decided to construct a fence, he attempted to locate the survey stakes with a metal detector. He pointed out that by the time he was finished, he could have probably hired a survey for less money and time than he put into this process, and in the end, he only found a lot of buried metal. He stated his neighbors informed him that the survey stakes were probably located in the street, however, there is so much metal under the streets that it is nearly impossible to determine where the stakes are located. He indicated he also discovered that his house was not parallel to the road, which might also be the case with this application. He stated the applicant might discover that the corners of the garage vary in distance from the street, which could make a difference as well. Chairperson Peterson stated the City has established dimensional requirements for a number of reasons. He explained that if a situation is very specific to a particular lot, and these requirements can normally be met, then in order to grant a variance, each of the criteria for a variance must be satisfied. He indicated staff has provided an analysis and response for each of these criteria. He noted that this case involves an additional situation, in terms of a building that is legally non-conforming. He explained that the structure was legal at the time it was built, however, it does not conform by the current Code. He indicated he would not be comfortable extending that non-conformance by allowing the garage to be constructed even closer to the property line however, the exact boundary was unknown in this case. He inquired if the applicant had considered connecting the garage to the house. Mr. Meinert stated this would be more expensive, and he was on a somewhat limited budget. He pointed out that it would cost over $20,000 to attach the garage to the house. Chairperson Peterson explained that if the structures were constructed parallel to each other, it would be easier to add a breezeway in the future, and he could see from the draft the applicant provided that he would not necessarily desire the garage to be butted up against the house, Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 however, with six feet or slightly less of a separation and appropriate changes, he might still be able to construct the garage in the proposed location, once the property line has been established. Mr. Meinert inquired regarding the date of the next Planning Commission meeting. Planning Associate Ericson stated it would be held on June 7th. Mr. Meinert stated he could provide a survey or more accurate measurements by that time, adding that if he could locate the survey stakes, those measurements should be adequate. Chairperson Peterson indicated there appeared to be alternatives available other than the request for a zero setback. Mr. Meinert stated he did not desire to construct the garage in back of the house. He explained that he was already proposing to set the structure back 4 feet. Chairperson Peterson advised that given the situation of structures on a lot, it was not always possible to have everything quite right. He stated that the garage has been in its present location for many years, and therefore, he did not see a problem with regard to that placement, however, once the structure is demolished, the legal non-conforming status would disappear, and the current 3-foot setback would be lost. He advised that at that point, the new construction must meet all of the requirements of the Code, and since the garage has existed in this location for many years, he did not see a real issue in this regard, however, in terms of allowing a lesser setback, particularly since the property lines have not been clearly defined, he would have a problem. Commissioner Berke agreed, adding that some type of a survey would be necessary. Commissioner Miller stated a survey would be very helpful to the Commission. Chairperson Peterson advised that the requirements for a variance must still be met. He explained that the Commission must define a hardship, which is not an arbitrary process, but rather, based upon a very strict legal requirement. Mr. Meinert stated he was aware that only 3 of the 7 criteria for hardship were met with his proposal. Commissioner Kaden stated he would be comfortable allowing the existing three-foot setback, if the structure could meet the Fire Code requirements. Commissioner Hegland stated this would be reasonable, and it would not necessarily require a survey because the structure already exists. Commissioner Stevenson advised that this was a public hearing, and the Commission would not be taking action at this time, therefore, the item would not need to be tabled. He indicated staff has requested the Commission provide direction regarding the preparation of a resolution. Chairperson Peterson explained that the Commission could not be fully aware of what could be done without knowing the actual distance between the structures and the property line. He Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 indicated that if the proposed garage were constructed in the same location as the present garage and perhaps expanded closer to the house, a variance would be required regardless, to replace the structure that has been legally non-conforming. He advised that there would have to be a hardship statement that defines why the situation merits a variance, and although the applicant feels it would be reasonable to replace the structure in the same location with a 3-foot setback, he was not certain what the hardship would be. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if staff could prepare a resolution recommending both approval and denial of the request. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff would attempt to do this. Commissioner Kaden inquired if this item was subject to a 60-day time limit from the date of submittal, which was April 26th. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct, and theoretically, the Commission would have until June 26th to act on this matter. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the applicant had considered constructing the garage 22 feet wide, but perhaps somewhat deeper. Mr. Meinert stated 22 feet would be adequate for two vehicles, however, if he was to go deeper into the lot, the structure would block the sunlight from the addition. He explained that the end of the proposed 24-foot structure would come up to the edge of the first window on the addition. He indicated he would prefer the 24-foot length, however, if it was necessary to adjust this to 22 feet in order to meet the requirements without a hardship, he would be willing to consider this. He explained that one of the reasons for the proposed 24-foot width was that this was a standard lumber width, and a 22-foot board would be more costly than a 24-foot board. Chairperson Peterson pointed out that 22 feet was a very common width for new construction. Mr. Meinert agreed. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the existing garage was set back four feet from the front of the house. Mr. Meinert stated the garage was currently even with the front of the house, and he was planning to set it back four feet. He indicated he has a slab patio with a large Elm tree directly in the middle of the two buildings and additional width toward the eastern edge would encroach upon the walkway between the existing garage and the tree. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the tree was healthy. Mr. Meinert stated it was. He indicated the tree, which is approximately 50 years old, was treated for Dutch Elm disease in 1980, and survived. Chairperson Peterson inquired what staff required in order to proceed with this matter. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has received sufficient information from the comments that have been brought forward at this time. He indicated that once the applicant submits a survey and site plan, staff would review these items and bring the Commission a recommendation at their next meeting based upon the findings. He explained that this might be in the form of a resolution of Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 both approval and denial, which would allow the Commission to proceed in either direction. He added that the hardship requirements might also be fine-tuned if the Commission believes there is sufficient hardship to proceed. 6. Planning Case No. CU00-004 Property Involved: 2832 Woodale Drive Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 617-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 1,248 Square-foot Oversized Garage. Applicant: Thomas Stampfle The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant, Thomas Stampfle, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to construct a 1,248 square-foot garage on his property located at 2832 Woodale Drive. The heavily wooded 37,000 square-foot lot is well maintained and improved with an older, one and a half story house and a small two-car garage, which is attached to the home by a breezeway. The existing garage will be demolished to make room for the proposed garage, which would be built in the same location in the side yard. There is a small 10 by 10-foot shed on the property, which is located deep in the woods, and does not adequately serve the applicant’s storage requirements. Planning Associate Ericson provided the Commission with photographs of the subject property, and advised that with every conditional use permit request, the Planning Commission examines the adverse affects of the proposed use. He indicated all of the lots in this area are larger, and very heavily wooded. He stated there is significant screening on the subject lot in the form of mature trees, and a privacy fence along the east side property line. He noted that the property owner to the east previously constructed a larger garage, and the Commission was aware of that property. Planning Associate Ericson stated it appears that the proposed use would not adversely affect any of the adjacent property owners or the neighborhood in general, and staff is of the opinion that this proposal would actually improve the subject property and be a good addition to the neighborhood. He stated staff has drafted Resolution 617-00, which recommends approval of the conditional use permit with stipulations that are present with any similar use including that the resolution be recorded with Ramsey County, and the garage shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed in the Zoning District. He advised that no other sheds or accessory buildings shall be allowed on the property, with the exception of the small shed which already exists, and the garage shall be designed and maintained to be aesthetically pleasing and Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 11 complementary to the existing building. He indicated this was a public hearing, and it has been noticed as such. Thomas Stampfle, the applicant, stated the existing garage is approximately 60 years old, and in dire need of replacement. He indicated he would like to construct an oversized garage primarily for the purpose of storage. He explained that he owns a third vehicle, which is currently parked outside the garage. He stated a larger garage would allow for that vehicle to be parked inside, and he did not anticipate any complaints from his neighbors in this regard. Mr. Stampfle stated he plans to construct the garage in a manner that would match the house, with aluminum or steel siding, appropriate colors, and a shingled roof. He indicated the garage would be located a few feet closer to the street than the existing garage, however, it would not extend beyond his house or any other houses in the neighborhood. Chairperson Peterson inquired regarding the orientation of one of the photographs provided by staff. Mr. Stampfle indicated this photograph was taken from the backyard, and directed toward the easterly side of the lot. He explained that there is approximately 80 to 90 feet of mowable grass in back of his house, and the lot is heavily wooded beyond that point. Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding the square footage of the house. Mr. Stampfle stated the main floor was 1,372 square feet. Commissioner Kaden inquired if the applicant was planning to improve the breezeway with this project. Mr. Stampfle stated he proposes to cut it back a few feet to allow for the demolition of the existing garage, and would reattach it to the proposed garage. He explained that he planned to paint the breezeway, and install a few new screens. Commissioner Kaden stated he had driven past the property that evening, and had noticed that the breezeway appeared to be in poor condition as well. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the proposed access at the rear of the structure would be sufficiently wide for the applicant, or if there would be an additional access on the southern rear wall of the garage. Mr. Stampfle stated the proposed three-foot wide door on the side of the garage should meet all of his needs. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the applicant had snowmobiles or any other items that would require a wider access. Mr. Stampfle stated no. Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that removal of the existing shed was not set forth in the resolution. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct, as it was not proposed that this shed would be removed. He explained that the resolution states that no other sheds would be allowed on the property. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 12 Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the 10 by 10-foot shed in the woods would remain on the property. Planning Associate Ericson stated it was his understanding that it would. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the total storage area on the property would be increased from 1250 square feet to 1350 square feet. Mr. Stampfle stated yes. Commissioner Stevenson inquired regarding the condition of the shed. Mr. Stampfle indicated it was approximately 55 years old, and its removal would not represent a major loss, however, he currently utilizes it to store his lawn mower and other lawn equipment. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if it would be necessary to allow the shed to remain, in light of the proposed 1,250 square foot garage. Commissioner Hegland requested clarification regarding the maximum amount of accessory space allowed on the lot. Planning Associate Ericson advised that the combined area of the shed and the proposed garage would be 1,350 square feet, and the maximum area allowed was 1,400 square feet. Commissioner Hegland stated the applicant should be permitted to keep the shed, as he would be within this requirement. Planning Associate Ericson added the subject lot is approximately 1 acre in size, and the existing shed, which is located deep in the woods, is not visible. Commissioner Kaden inquired if a previous proposal for an oversized garage in the same area was denied because it would have been larger than the house. He pointed out that the applicant’s garage would be approximately 100 square feet smaller than the house. Planning Associate Ericson stated the previous applicant, Tim Skeet, had requested a 1,400 square foot garage, however, the house on that property was approximately 500 to 600 square feet in size. He explained that the issue was with regard to the proportion of garage in comparison to the house. Chairperson Peterson advised that the Planning Commission does not approve or deny a conditional use permit request, but rather makes a recommendation to the City Council, at which level, the decision is made. He stated the matter before the Commission at this time is the resolution staff has drafted which recommends approval of the conditional use permit. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To Approve Mounds View Planning Commission Resolution No. 617-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for a 1,248 Square-foot Oversized Garage at 2832 Woodale Drive; Mounds View Planning Case No. CU00-004, as corrected. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 The motion carried. Planning Associate Ericson stated this item has been scheduled for a public hearing at the May 22, 2000 City Council Meeting. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 13 7. Planning Case No. CU00-005 Property Involved: 7474 Groveland Road Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 618-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 400 Square-foot Shed. Applicant: Phil Johnson The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant, Phil Johnson, is requesting a conditional use permit for an oversized shed at his property located at 7474 Groveland Road. The applicant is seeking a 400 square-foot shed, which is the maximum size allowed for a non-garage accessory structure. The 15,840 square- foot, well maintained lot is improved with a newer brick split-level home and attached two-car garage. There is currently one small shed on the property that will be removed to make room for the proposed larger shed. Numerous mature trees and an 8-foot privacy fence shield the backyard view from adjacent properties. Planning Associate Ericson provided the Commission with photographs of the property. He stated the subject lot is larger than the typical smaller lots in the City, as are the majority of the lots located in this area. He indicated the area is comprised of an interesting variety of housing styles, designs and age. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission is required to examine the adverse affects of the proposed use. He advised that staff has reviewed the five identified criteria, which include the relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, the geographical area involved, and whether or not the use would depreciate the area in which it is proposed. He indicated staff has also examined the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use. He stated the property owner has indicated there is a definite need for the additional storage on the property, as the existing shed is full, and therefore, from the standpoint of a demonstrated need, the criteria appear to be met. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has gone to the property and examined the location of the proposed shed. He indicated the very mature trees on this property provide some screening, as does the privacy fence, which surrounds the perimeter of the backyard. He explained that in terms of buffering and visibility to the neighbors and the street, staff believes that the screening requirements are met. He added that in staff’s opinion, there would be very minimal adverse affects as a result of the proposed use. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 14 Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has prepared Resolution 618-00, which recommends City Council approval of the conditional use permit request. He indicated this was a public hearing and notices had been sent to residents within 350 feet of the subject property. He stated staff received one telephone call from a resident of Silver Lake Road, who was simply curious regarding the process, and was not concerned that the proposed shed would impact her property in any way. Planning Associate Ericson stated in terms of the dimensional requirements, staff believes the subject lot could support a 400 square-foot shed. He advised that the resolution before the Commission recommends Council approval with stipulations which indicate that the City Council resolution shall be recorded with Ramsey County, the shed shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed in the Residential District, no other sheds or accessory buildings shall be allowed on the property, and that the shed shall be a permanent structure and be designed and maintained to be aesthetically pleasing and complementary to the existing dwelling and garage. Phil Johnson, the applicant, stated Planning Associate Ericson had done an excellent job preparing the staff report, and he was quite impressed with his wording. He indicated that after he learned he met the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Code, and prior to the mailing of the public hearing notification, he had gone to his neighbors with a petition regarding his proposal. He commented he was somewhat surprised that the City notified 36 people, some of whom were not even able to see his house from their residences. He stated he obtained signatures from 16 of his neighbors, including all of those whose yards abut his property, and there were no objections to his proposal. He added that after he became aware of the range of the notification he spoke with additional residents and there were no objections, although one neighbor indicated he did not want him to construct a foundry in his backyard. Mr. Johnson stated he would use the shed for additional storage. He indicated his wife has large potting beds, and has expressed an interest in using the structure as a potting shed, therefore, he was not certain how much use he would actually get out of it. He indicated his neighbor, John Weinecke, was present to speak on his behalf and in favor of the proposal if necessary. Commissioner Miller inquired if the proposed shed would be located in the same location as the existing shed. Mr. Johnson provided the Commission with a drawing of the proposed shed, and indicated that it would overlap a portion of the existing slab. He stated he had moved the old shed off of the slab, and it was currently located to the side of the site. He indicated that a couple of his neighbors have expressed an interest in taking the shed, which will be removed from the property as soon as the new shed is constructed. He explained that he currently uses the shed to store snowblowers, lawnmowers, and items of this nature. Chairperson Peterson stated the proposed shed appears to be of quality construction. Mr. Johnson stated he wanted the structure to be pleasing. He explained that it would have brown steel siding, which would match his house, and there would be a small passage door and a double Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 15 door in the front, which would allow him to move large items in and out. He stated he would like to wire the structure in the future, and install recess lighting in the ceiling. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Kaden. To Approve Planning Mounds View Planning Commission Resolution No. 618-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for a 400 Square-foot Oversized Shed at 7474 Groveland Road; Mounds View Planning Case No. CU00-005, as corrected. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 The motion carried. Planning Associate Ericson stated this item has been scheduled for a public hearing at the May 22nd City Council Meeting. 8. Planning Case No. CU00-006 Property Involved: 4749 Old Highway 8 Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 619-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Enclosed Outdoor Storage. Applicant: ASC Properties, LLC The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: This item is a request for a conditional use permit to allow for outside storage on the property located at 4749 Old Highway 8. The applicant, ASC Properties, operates their business, Ace Supply Company from this location. The subject parcel is zoned Industrial, and outdoor storage is allowed in the Industrial District as a conditional use. Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant proposes to construct a 1,920 square-foot outdoor enclosure area in which to store PVC pipe. He indicated there would be a chain link fence surrounding the area, with diagonal slats to block the view from neighboring properties. He stated the subject property is the southernmost property in the City, and there are no residences nearby. Planning Associate Ericson indicated there is an industrial office/warehouse building located immediately north of the Ace Supply Company building, and that property owner has contacted staff to request additional information regarding the proposal. He explained that they had some concerns regarding the outdoor storage, in that their offices look out toward the site. He stated he was not aware if there has been discussion between the applicant and the adjoining property owner to date, however, he was informed that this would occur, and therefore, these concerns Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 16 may have been resolved. He stated this was the only contact staff received in regard to this application, and notification was sent to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Planning Associate Ericson stated the subject property is zoned Industrial. He indicated outdoor storage would appear to be logical in an industrial area, and certainly along Mustang Drive. He stated a number of the businesses in this area have outdoor storage, and this proposal is not out of place with the surrounding uses in the area in which it would be located. He advised that the Planning Commission is required to examine the adverse affects of the proposed use, and staff’s initial view in this regard is that there are no adverse affects, with the exception of the visibility to the adjoining property owner. Planning Associate Ericson stated there are no specific conditional use permit requirements for outdoor storage, as there would be for an oversized shed or garage, therefore, this use would simply be allowed as a conditional use. Staff has examined and addressed the general conditions in the report, and all of the criteria appear to be met. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff recommends approval of Resolution 619-00, which recommends City Council approval of the conditional use permit, subject to stipulations attached which address the items that are permitted to be stored. He stated the applicant is proposing to utilize the enclosure to store PVC pipe, which is weather resistant. He indicated staff is concerned, as are the Planning Commission and the Council, regarding the possibility of the outdoor storage of other materials. Therefore, the resolution indicates that the outdoor area shall not be used for storage of chemicals, hazardous materials, waste, or items of this nature. He added that no flammable products, toxic materials, or anything that could wash away in a rainstorm and pollute the ground water would be permitted. He indicated it is very important that this requirement is met. He explained that because of the possibility that other materials might be stored outside, the resolution also contains an explicit allowance for staff, city, County and Fire Department inspectors to verify that there are no hazardous materials being stored outside in violation of the conditional use permit. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff feels comfortable in the granting of this conditional use permit, given the location of the use, and the fact that the adverse affects and general conditional use permit criteria appear to be met. He indicated this was a public hearing, and notices were sent to properties within 350 feet of the subject property. Bruce Hasselbring, representative of ASC Properties and Ace Supply Company, stated PVC is plastic pipe, which comes in 13-foot lengths and does not lend itself well to being moved in and out of garage doors. He indicated there is a storage area at their St. Louis Park facility, and some PVC pipe is stored on site at that location. He provided the Commission with photographs of the St. Louis Park facility and the fence that surrounds the property. He indicated the fence in the photograph was approximately 15 years old, and had woven slats. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 17 Mr. Hasselbring stated they owned the building, and were happy to be in Mounds View. He indicated they relocated from Roseville, where they had a leased space, and they have a vested interest in maintaining the building. He stated they have recently spent a significant amount of money to remodel the building to prepare it for their use, and it was their intention to install a nice area to cordon everything off from view. Mr. Hasselbring stated they and Greg Lien, the owner of the property directly to the north, Midway Industrial Supply, share a common driveway, and the loading docks on each side of the buildings face each other. He stated he met with Mr. Lien that date, and provided him with a copy of the site plan and photographs. He explained that Mr. Lien’s concern was with regard to the visibility and the nature of the stored items, however, after their discussion, he did not have any objections, and therefore, this issue appears to have been resolved. Commissioner Hegland inquired if the applicant plans to install slats in the fence on the subject property. Mr. Hasselbring stated this was correct, adding that they would be complementary to the building. Chairperson Peterson stated he had observed that on other sites some of the slats must be very lightweight, because it appears as if a very strong wind has blown them out. Mr. Hasselbring stated they have not experienced this problem at their St. Louis Park facility. He indicated it would be their intention to utilize commercial grade slatting, and not a residential grade, which might be a bit lighter. He stated they would not accept the slatting if it were subject to wind damage. Commissioner Miller inquired how often the PVC pipe would be delivered to the site. Mr. Hasselbring stated they seldom receive deliveries during the winter. He explained that they were a heating and air-conditioning wholesaler, and the PVC pipe is used in underground heating works, therefore, the primary market is during the summer construction season. He pointed out that in the wintertime, this product becomes hard to handle, and they do not sell large amounts of it. He advised that from May through November, they probably receive a truckload of product a month. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the proposed fence would be 8 feet in height. Mr. Hasselbring stated this was correct. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the materials would be stored below the top of the fence. Mr. Hasselbring stated this was correct. Commissioner Miller stated she did not see any reference to the size of the enclosure in the resolution. Chairperson Peterson stated the site plan indicates that the dimensions would be 32 feet by 60 feet. Commissioner Stevenson added that the enclosure would be 1,920 square feet in area. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff could include a clause in the resolution, which references the site plan in this regard. Chairperson Peterson advised that there was no maximum Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 18 requirement regarding the quantity of storage space, however, it would do no harm to add such a clause. Commissioner Stevenson suggested the Commission consider adding a condition that this item is to be brought to the attention of the Chief of Police, so that he could sign off with regard to the potential vandalism, and make his patrol officers aware of the area. He explained that they would want the Police Department to be well aware of situations that involve such a large area. Mr. Hasselbring stated they have not had any issues with regard to vandalism at their St. Louis Park facility. He explained that this product is 13 feet in length and 10 feet wide, and they have not experienced any problems with regard to people attempting to jump over the fence and take a piece of the product back over. Commissioner Stevenson stated he would not desire to see that after the fact, the Police Department had not been aware of this. He reiterated that with such a large fenced off area, the Police need to be made aware of it, and also sign off regarding the fact that the fence would be 8 feet in height, and that this would not be a problem. He stated he definitely wanted the Chief of Police to sign off on the project. Planning Associate Ericson indicated that without adding anything to the resolution, staff could forward the information to the Chief of Police, to make him aware of the project. He stated another option would be to add a clause on Page 2 of the resolution to indicate “NOW, Therefore, be it further resolved that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward notification of this resolution of approval to the Mounds View Chief of Police for his information.” He stated this would make it very clear that the intention is that the Police Department be aware of the project Chairperson Peterson stated he was not aware of any crime or vandalism problems in this area. He pointed out that there would be a locked gate, and it would not be easy to access the site. Mr. Hasselbring stated this was correct. Commissioner Miller inquired at what point in the resolution the reference to the site plan dimensions would be included. She noted the fourth ‘WHEREAS’ clause made reference to dimensional requirements. Planning Associate Ericson stated this could be added after this clause to indicate “WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposal, as shown on the site survey date stamped 5-08-00…” He advised that there is no limit on the amount of outdoor storage permitted, therefore, if the Planning Commission feels strongly that they should include the dimensions, they could be added, and if not, the resolution could simply reference the site plan. Commissioner Miller pointed out that the dimensions are included in other conditional use permits. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 19 Planning Associate Ericson stated this could certainly be added to indicate “WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed 1,920 square feet of outdoor storage satisfies the dimensional requirements.” He stated they could also reference the site plan, however, these dimensions were an approximate estimate as well. MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Stevenson. To Approve Mounds View Planning Commission Resolution 619-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for a Fenced, Outdoor Storage Enclosure at 4749 Old Highway 8; Mounds View Planning Case No. CU00-006, as Amended to Add a Clause after the Fourth WHEREAS Clause to Indicate “WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed 1,920 square feet of outdoor storage satisfies the dimensional requirements,” and to Include a Clause on the Second Page of the Resolution to Indicate “NOW Therefore, be it further resolved that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward notification of this resolution of approval to the Mounds View Chief of Police for his information.” Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 The motion carried. Planning Associate Ericson stated this item has been scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council on May 22, 2000. 9. Planning Case No. CU00-007 Property Involved: 2251 Oakwood Drive Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 620-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 1,150 Square-foot Oversized Garage. Applicant: Kenneth Waste The applicant was present: Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant, Kenneth Waste is before the Commission to request conditional use permit to construct a 1,150 square-foot garage on his property located at 2251 Oakwood Drive. The proposed garage would replace the existing single-stall garage that is in need of replacement. Planning Associate Ericson provided the Commission with a photograph of the subject property, and the applicant’s truck, which was parked in the driveway. He stated he was uncertain there was sufficient room in the existing garage to park the vehicle, and therefore, the need for a larger garage was very apparent. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 20 Planning Associate Ericson stated the subject lot is 12,000 square feet, slightly larger than the minimum lot size allowed in the City. He indicated the property is improved with a one and one half story home, which has been fully expanded at the upper level of the front of the house. The existing detached garage would be removed, and the proposed 1,150 square-foot garage would be attached to the house. There would be no issue with regard to encroachment into the setback. The site plan indicates that there would be a possible setback of eight feet from the property line, and the dimensions of the garage are proposed to be 23 feet by 50 feet. There is a shed on the property, which would be removed, and the proposed garage would replace both the existing garage and the existing shed. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has reviewed the conditional use permit criteria, and has addressed those in the staff report. He explained that staff believes the existence of the present garage, and the fact that it needs to be replaced, demonstrates the need for this use. He indicated that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and improvement of properties. He advised that the size of the proposed garage would be less than the maximum level allowed by the City, as the Code allows for 1,400 square feet with a conditional use permit, and the applicant is requesting 1,150 square feet. Planning Associate Ericson stated the proposed garage would not appear to be out of place in terms of its proportion to the size of the house. He explained that it would not be larger than the house, and it would be oriented sideways, so that the view from the street would be one-third garage and two-thirds home. He stated it was anticipated that by attaching the garage to the house and maintaining a uniform appearance, the results would be quite attractive. Planning Associate Ericson indicated staff has examined the dimensions of the lot and the size of the house in comparison to the proposed garage. He stated staff feels comfortable with this proposal, in that the adverse affects appear to be minimal. He pointed out however, the neighbors would be looking at the proposed garage, as opposed to the existing garage, which is smaller, and this would be a significant change. He added that this item differs from the previous applications in that the lot is smaller and does contain the same extent of wooded coverage, mature trees, and privacy fencing, which is a consideration. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was a public hearing, and notification has been sent to properties within 350 feet of the subject property. He provided the Commission with a location map, which indicated the properties that received notification, adding that a significant number of residents were notified in this regard. He indicated staff has prepared Resolution 620-00, which recommends City Council approval of the conditional use permit with stipulations similar to those of the previous conditional use permit resolutions. Chairperson Peterson opened the floor for public comment. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff received a telephone call from a neighbor who remained anonymous, and did not indicate where his property was located in relation to the subject Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 21 property. He explained that this neighbor raised the concern that the larger garage would allow for some type of commercial business or an auto repair shop, however, he had explained to the caller that an auto repair shop is not allowed in the R-1 Zoning District, as it is considered a commercial use, and this would violate the Home Occupation Code. Planning Associate Ericson stated in any situation involving a larger garage, there is an element of concern in this regard, and this has been addressed in Stipulation 2 of the resolution, which indicates “The garage shall not be used for any commercial purposes, living space, or other use not allowed within the R-1 Single Family Zoning District or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change from which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit may be considered null and void.” Commissioner Miller inquired if this language should indicate “the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void.” Planning Associate Ericson stated in this case, staff believed the word “may” would be more appropriate, as this provides the City Council the opportunity to examine the situation and determine whether or not the conditional use permit should be voided. He indicated this wording could be amended if the Planning Commission so desires. Commissioner Miller stated in other cases, the word “shall” has been utilized. Commissioner Stevenson stated the staff report mentions the removal of the shed, however, the resolution does not contain a condition for the removal of the shed. Planning Associate Ericson stated there was mention that the shed would be removed, however, it was not required to be removed. He indicated that requiring the removal of the shed was within the Planning Commission’s purview. He added that this was a smaller lot, and the Commission could stipulate that the shed would be removed in conjunction with this project. Commissioner Stevenson stated the Commission often requires the removal of existing sheds on smaller lots. Commissioner Hegland pointed out that there were two sheds located on the property. He inquired which of these sheds would be required to be removed. Planning Associate Ericson advised that there is an accessory storage attached to the garage, and an 8-foot by 8-foot shed behind the garage, both of which would be removed. He explained that staff did not include a stipulation in the resolution that would preclude the applicant from having a shed, however, it is the Planning Commission’s prerogative to impose such a condition. Chairperson Peterson pointed out that since the removal of the shed has been mentioned, it would be appropriate to stipulate this in the resolution. He advised that the plot plan indicates the existing shed is located two inches from the property line, which is not in conformance with the Code, however the diagram, if to scale, implies that the garage and its adjacent shed is located a fair distance from the property line. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 22 Planning Associate Ericson advised that the plot plan was not to scale. Chairperson Peterson stated the proposed setback would be 8 feet from the property line, and therefore, there was no issue in this regard. Commissioner Stevenson stated he would propose that the Commission include the condition that the shed be removed, as this was an opportunity to bring the property into conformity. Chairperson Peterson inquired what type of roofline would be utilized for the garage. Kenneth Waste, the applicant stated his brother-in-law was a draftsman, and would assist in the construction of the garage. He indicated they would attempt to construct the front of the garage to match the house. He stated the roofline would probably be the same height as the front of the house, and would peak toward the rear of the structure. He added that there would also be a small storage space, however, it would not be utilized as living quarters or anything of this nature. Chairperson Peterson inquired if doors or windows were proposed along the western side of the garage. Mr. Waste stated there would be nothing on the west side, however, there would be a service door on the east side of the structure, and at the back, facing north, there would be a nine- foot garage door. Commissioner Kaden inquired if there would be a service door to enter the home. Mr. Waste stated there would be one service door to access the house, and one in the back to enter the garage from the backyard. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the applicant was proposing a 9-foot roll up door in back of the garage. Mr. Waste stated this was correct. Chairperson Peterson requested clarification regarding the purpose of this door. Mr. Waste stated he would use this door to access the garage with his riding lawnmower, which has a 48- inch cut. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the applicant intended to store items in the backyard. Mr. Waste stated he planned to store everything in the garage. He explained that he had a 24-foot boat, two snowmobiles, and riding lawnmower, and other items for storage. He stated he was not a mechanic. Chairperson Peterson pointed out that concerns of this nature were often raised, and understandable. He stated this appeared to be a good opportunity to improve the property, obtain the necessary space, and remove a couple of non-conformities in the process. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 23 MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Berke. To Approve Mounds View Planning Commission Resolution 620-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for a 1,150 Square-foot Oversized Garage at 2251 Oakwood Drive; Mounds View Planning Case No. CU00-007, as corrected and Amended to Include a Stipulation in the Fourth WHEREAS Clause pertaining to the Removal of the Existing Shed, and to Amend the Language of Stipulation 2 to Indicate “Should the Use Change from which the Permit was Granted, the Conditional Use Permit Shall Be Considered Null and Void.” Terry Wiley, 2279 Oakwood Drive stated that during their discussions, some of the neighbors had noticed a tow truck parked in front of the property, and there was some concern that after approval of this proposal, someone might attempt to operate a garage or similar business on the property. He explained however, after they discussed the matter, they determined that if the applicant was attempting to improve his property and store his vehicles inside the garage, they would not object to the proposal, as long as it meets the City Code. Mr. Wiley indicated he was the resident who had contacted staff regarding this proposal. He stated their primary concerns were with regard to situations that were difficult to address after the fact, rather than dealing with them up front. He stated they were aware of several circumstances in which property owners with larger garages have used their property beyond residential use. He noted one property in particular, located next to the school on Pinewood Drive, has been a significant source of aggravation to the neighbors. He indicated this individual operates a garage, and the problem is that he is not required to meet any of the Commercial Codes, and it is unclear where he might be dumping the antifreeze and drain oil. He stated there were 12 vehicles in the driveway, and six along the street, and none of these vehicles belong to this individual, which presents a problem for the neighboring residents. He explained that the neighbors were concerned that this would be another of these situations, and this was the reason they had contacted staff, however, they welcome the applicant’s desire to improve the property and store his vehicles. Chairperson Peterson stated this concern was valid, and there have been problems of this nature in the past. He advised that with the conditional use permit process, uses that could potentially have some impacts are allowed, as long as the conditions are met. He explained that one of the conditions is that the only type of activities are those permitted in the R-1 District, which do not include auto repairs. Mr. Waste stated he was previously employed with Blue Tow Trucking, however, he has not worked for this company since his accident, which occurred over two years ago. He indicated he did have a tow truck, and only worked in this occupation part-time. He reiterated he was not a mechanic. Chairperson Peterson added that there is nothing in the Code that prevents a property owner from working on his own vehicles. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 24 Mr. Wiley stated this was acceptable, adding that it was better to address this issue at this time, rather than later. He stated they would recommend the Commission approve the applicant’s proposal, in light of his intentions, which appear to be more toward improvement than profit. Commissioner Stevenson stated the resolution should contain a stipulation pertaining to the removal of the shed, which should be included in the fourth WHEREAS clause. Planning Associate Ericson inquired if the Commission desired to amend the language in Stipulation 2 of the resolution to indicate “shall” rather than “may.” The Commission concurred. Chairperson Peterson stated the intent of this was that if there were an issue, it could be reviewed, and a opportunity to correct it would be made, however, if the problem could not be corrected, this was a legal means to remedy the situation. Commissioner Kaden advised that the conditional use permit would run with the property. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 The motion carried. Planning Associate Ericson stated this item has been scheduled for a public hearing at the May 22, 2000 City Council meeting. 10. Staff Reports / Items of Information a. Previous Council Actions Community Development Director Jopke stated at the Special Council Work Session the previous Monday, there was discussion regarding the Community Development Department and its priorities in preparing a work plan over the next year and a half. He stated there was an exercise for staff to identify the major activities within the six areas the Community Development Department deals with. He indicated both the Council and staff rated the results of this exercise, and the items that came forward as high priorities were the Highway 10 Redevelopment Plan and the Zoning Code update. He advised that the Zoning Code update was rated the highest priority by the City Council, and both of these items would ultimately affect the Planning Commission. Community Development Director Jopke provided the Commission with copies of the discussion for their information and review, and to determine if there were other issues that had not been addressed. He indicated staff would like the Commission’s input, so that they might incorporate this into their work plan as well. Community Development Director Jopke stated staff has been working with Springsted & Associates on the process for the Highway 10 study, and has discussed this with the Council as well, to ensure that they were proceeding in the proper direction. He explained that the study has been refocused at this point, to spend less time discussing the issues which have been well Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 25 identified in the previous studies, and more time to understand the studies, identify the common elements, move ahead with prioritizing, and ultimately, formulate an action plan that the City can take to accomplish those objectives. He indicated the first Steering Committee meeting has been scheduled for May 23rd, at 7:00 p.m., in Council Chambers. Community Development Director Jopke advised that the purpose of the Steering Committee meeting would be to introduce the Committee to the subject with a brief overview of the previous studies and other factors. He stated they would attempt to incorporate information pertaining to the safety recommendations that were developed by the Public Works Director and the Chief of Police, in response to the Council’s direction, following the tragedy that occurred on Highway 10. He added that they would have a presentation by Bill Morrish from the Design Center to discuss the North Metro I-35W Corridor Coalition, in terms of what impact that might have on the future reconstruction of Highway 10, as well as the possibilities for arterial roadways. He explained that the Design Center has examined the entire issue of livable communities and livable roads. He indicated the remaining items on the agenda would be discussion regarding the decision making process, and a timetable for developing the action plan. He stated it was hoped that this meeting would be televised. Planning Associate Ericson stated at the previous City Council meeting, the Council approved a resolution to overrule the Planning Commission with regard to the variance application of the property owners at 8438 Groveland Road, who had requested an 8-foot fence in the front yard of their property. He indicated staff had considered preparing an emergency ordinance creating a means to allow for taller fences under certain circumstances, as well as identifying a way this could be done through an interim or conditional use permit. He explained that staff was moving forward in revising the manner in which fences in general are examined. He advised that the Council voted to approve the resolution that overturned the Planning Commission’s decision, as they felt the applicant had experienced sufficient hardship. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Annual Spring Clean Up Day would be held the following Saturday, May 20th. He advised that property owners could bring the items they would like to dispose of to the Public Works garage, located at 2466 Bronson Drive. He stated there is a fee for this service, which is subsidized through a grant from Ramsey County, and therefore, it is an inexpensive way to dispose of unwanted materials. He indicated certain items could not be accepted, and further information regarding this has been specified in the Mounds View Matters, which has been provided to all residents of the City. He encouraged property owners with items for disposal to utilize this service. Chairperson Peterson stated he believed residents were allowed free disposal of one freon appliance, and two car tires. Planning Associate Ericson stated each household was allowed free disposal of two appliances, with or without freon, two car batteries, and eight car tires. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 26 Chairperson Peterson commented that such items are otherwise difficult and expensive to dispose of. He stated this was a great way for the City to clean up, and for residents to avoid charges from their own disposal services. b. Planning Commissioner Journal Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission has been provided a copy of the Planning Commissioner Journal, and if desired, discussion could be held at a later date. 11. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Commissioner Kaden reported he attended a Beyond the Basics Planning Commissioners training seminar, which was very informative. He indicated that anyone desiring to review the handout materials he received was welcome to do so. Chairperson Peterson stated he had completed the third seminar in the Beyond the Basics series and this information was also very valuable. He indicated there was a significant amount of information regarding Sign Code updates, and improper procedures, such as attacking the American Flag, even if it is being blatantly commercialized. He stated there was a chart of common practices of Planning Commissions and other similar authorities, which he found to be particularly helpful. He indicated this might be helpful to the Commission as well, and worthy of discussion. Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the suggestion that the Planning Commission examine the Code pertaining to oversized sheds. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Council gave staff direction to move forward in this regard, and this is a priority, however, ironically, staff has been very involved in dealing with the conditional use permit requests, and therefore, is having some difficulty finding the time to create an ordinance to amend the Code to be more flexible with regard to the requirements for oversized sheds. He stated it was hoped that there would be something before the Commission at the next meeting with regard to sheds. Planning Associate Ericson stated Walgreen’s has submitted their application, and it is scheduled for a public hearing with the Planning Commission at the June 7th meeting. He stated staff felt it would be appropriate to notice this public hearing, and the notification would be published in the newspaper. He explained that this would provide that everyone is aware of what is occurring, and to receive any public comment or input at the beginning of the process. He stated it was also hoped that staff would have the opportunity to come back before the Commission at their next meeting with a Code amendment pertaining to Tattoo Shops. No further reports were considered. 12. Adjournment Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 27 There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:54 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.