Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-06-2000 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 6, 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 7:03 p.m., September 6, 2000. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Hegland, Johnson, Miller, and Stevenson. Members Excused: Commissioners Kaden and Thomas. Also Present: Planner Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Rick Jopke and Council Liaison Rob Marty. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. VR00-005, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 631-00, a Resolution Approving a Front Yard Setback Variance Craig Walters, 8141 Edgewood Drive, Applicant. 2 Planning Case No. VR00-006, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 632-00, a Resolution Denying a Side-yard Setback Variance for Jim Trapp, 8018 Sunnyside Road, Applicant. 4 Planning Case No. VR00-007, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 633-00, a Resolution Approving a Parking Lot Setback Variance for Tony Mezzenga, 7664 Greenfield Avenue, Applicant. 7 Planning Case No. MI00-002, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 634-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision of 2474 and 2488 County Road H2, requested by RTM Management, Inc., Applicant. 16 Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 Planning Case No. PD00-002, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 635-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Development Review for the Mermaid Planned Unit Development, requested by Dan Hall, 2200 Highway 10, Applicant. 18 Planning Case No. 560-99, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 636-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Extension of a Conditional Use Permit for an Assisted Living Senior Residential Facility at 2670 County Road I, requested by MSP Real Estate, Applicant. 20 Staff Reports / Items of Information. 21 Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports. 23 3. Citizen’s 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. July 19, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To approve the July 19, 2000 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes – 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 5. Planning Case No. VR00-005 Property Involved: 8141 Edgewood Drive Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 631-00, a Resolution Approving a Front Yard Setback Variance Applicant: Craig Walters Craig Walters, the applicant, was present. Planner Ericson gave the Staff report as follows: Craig Walters, property owner of 8141 Edgewood Drive, has applied for a variance to encroach into the front yard setback to allow for the construction of a 308 square-foot addition onto the north side of his house. The house, which was constructed in 1946, was built at an angle on the Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 lot and is setback 24 feet from Edgewood Drive. The proposed addition would match the existing building and roof lines to maximize interior functionality and for aesthetic appeal. For the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. Planner Ericson presented the seven criteria and Staff’s response to each as outlined in his report. He explained that according to the City Code, all of the preceding criteria shall be satisfied in order to justify the granting of a variance. He indicated that it appears to Staff that in this case all requirements are met and that a hardship does exist. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 631-00, a resolution approving a variance for a reduced front yard setback to allow for the construction of a 308 square-foot addition at 8141 Edgewood Drive, as requested by Craig Walters. Chairperson Peterson opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. The applicant did not add any comments. Mike Doss of 2416 Laporte stated he lives just north of the applicant and asked why there was a need for the variance. He indicated that he and the other neighbors feel that this process is a waste of time and money and they support the project. He also asked why the house was not “grandfathered in” under the old Code. Chairperson Peterson explained that the house is grandfathered in under City Code but any proposed changes to the structure would have to comply with current Code and that is why the variance is required. He then went on to state that he agreed the process may appear a bit unnecessary in this instance. Commissioner Miller indicated that she sees no problem granting the variance as the house existed prior to adoption of the new Code. She then requested that Staff change the resolution to correct the typographical errors indicated. Chairperson Peterson indicated that he sees no problem with granting the variance request. Chairperson Peterson closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Berke to approve Resolution 631-00, a Resolution Approving a Variance for a Reduced Front Yard Setback to Allow for the Construction of a 308 square-foot Addition at 8141 Edgewood Drive, as requested by Craig Walters. Ayes – 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 6. Planning Case No. VR00-006 Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 Property Involved: 8018 Sunnyside Road Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 632-00, a Resolution Denying a Side-yard Setback Variance Applicant: Jim Trapp Jim Trapp, the applicant, was present. Planner Ericson gave the Staff report as follows: Jim and Judy Trapp, property owners of 8018 Sunnyside Road, have applied for a variance to encroach into the required side yard setback to allow for the construction of a deck and gazebo in their rear yard. There is presently a deck in the rear yard three feet from the property line. The Trapps would like to extend the deck an additional two feet (one foot from the property line) and construct upon it a gazebo, also one foot from the property line. While decks are currently allowed to be setback two feet from property lines, gazebos (which are treated as outdoor accessory buildings in terms of their setback requirements) are required to be set back five feet from a side or rear property line. The property owners of the adjacent property had previously obtained a variance to place a garage one foot from the property line. For the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. Planner Ericson reviewed Staff’s assessment and interpretation of the criteria. .  Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do not apply to this property in that the property owners have caused the conditions which necessitate approval of a variance.  The literal interpretation of the Code would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district in that the setback requirements do not prohibit the addition of the gazebo, only its requested location.  The special conditions or circumstances result from the actions of the applicant.  Granting of this variance would confer a special privilege to the applicants in that the Trapps are responsible for the conditions that necessitate the variance.  Granting this variance for a gazebo one foot from the property line would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone in that it would result in the gazebo being located less than two feet from the neighbor’s garage. Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5  While the gazebo would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, there is a possibility that in its proposed location, it could increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety due to the minimal two-foot separation from the neighboring garage. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the Mounds View Municipal Code, because it appears that all of the identified criteria have not been met, Staff recommends denial of this variance request. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 632- 00, a resolution denying the variance request of Jim and Judy Trapp to construct a gazebo one foot from the north property line of 8018 Sunnyside Road. Chairperson Peterson opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Jim Trapp of 8018 Sunnyside Road stated that he was told by Building Official Connie Forsythe that since his neighbors got a variance to build their garage one foot from the property line, that should not negatively affect his request for a variance. He also indicated that this is the first that he has heard that his gazebo would be only two feet from the garage and he agrees that this might be too close. Mr. Trapp said that he has lived in the neighborhood for 26 years, has good relationships with his neighbors, and doesn’t want to hurt those relationships. He explained that he wants the gazebo because he is semi-retired, spends a lot of time out by his pool, and would like to be in a screened in environment because he is highly allergic to bees. He indicated that it would not be the “end of the world” if the variance was denied. Chairperson Peterson added that he was on the Planning Commission when the variance request for his neighbor’s garage was granted and that situation was unique because the trees on the lot were such that many of them would have had to be removed to build the garage if the variance was not granted. Gary Andrew of 8045 Sunnyside Road stated that he is a building contractor and inquired as to whether there was a limit to the number of buildings allowed in a back yard. Chairperson Peterson explained that the number of allowed accessory buildings is three. Mr. Andrew stated that he had to get a permit to build his shed and indicated that Mr. Trapp had built a shed without a permit, right on the property line, until one of the neighbors became upset and he had to move it. He indicated that from his house, he would be looking right at the gazebo and there is not enough space between the gazebo and the garage so he feels that it is an unsafe situation. Mr. Andrew said he understands why Mr. Trapp would like a gazebo and he is just wondering how many structures in Mr. Trapp’s back yard are enough. Chairperson Peterson closed the Public Hearing at 7:31 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 Chairperson Peterson clarified that all variances have to meet the hardship criteria in order to be approved. Commissioner Johnson asked if the Planning Commission has ever allowed a variance for a gazebo to be closer than two feet to the property line. Commissioner Stevenson said they have never allowed a variance for a gazebo and indicated that in the past they have allowed variances for decks but not gazebos. He said that he doesn’t believe the variance would be approved even if there were no garage on the property line. Chairperson Peterson asked for a clarification on the exact location where the gazebo would be built. Commissioner Hegland asked what was on the south side of the pool. Planner Ericson indicated that there is a house addition. Chairperson Peterson asked if there was another location where the gazebo could be placed. He asked if it could be built on the south side of the pool. Mr. Trapp indicated that it might work to locate the gazebo on the south side of the pool. Planner Ericson indicated that City Code now allows for three accessory buildings, but added that a gazebo is not considered an accessory building. Commissioner Johnson indicated that he recalled when the Planning Commission worked on Ordinance 664 they did not consider a gazebo an accessory structure because it is very seasonal and not used for storage. Commissioner Johnson indicated that he would like to grant the variance but the situation does not meet the Code requirements. He then indicated that the Planning Commission likes to help people improve their property but he feels he can’t consider approval of this request because it would be too close to the property line and it could be located elsewhere on the lot. Commissioner Miller stated that in order to grant the variance the applicant has to meet certain criteria and she feels that the criteria have not been met. She also indicated that Mr. Trapp has created this situation and, therefore, is not entitled to a variance. Chairperson Peterson stated that he does not believe the hardship requirement has been met in this case. He stated that he agrees with Commissioner Miller that the Trapps made their own situation. He stated that the fact the Trapps gave permission for the neighbor’s garage (even though permission from him was not needed) does not entitle Mr. Trapp to a variance to now build the gazebo. Chairperson Peterson indicated that for fire safety reasons he would prefer to deny the variance. Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Stevenson to approve Resolution 632-00, a Resolution Denying the Variance Request of Jim and Judy Trapp to Construct a Gazebo one foot from the North Property Line of 8018 Sunnyside Road. Ayes – 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 7. Planning Case No. VR00-007 Property Involved: 7664 Greenfield Avenue Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 633-00, a Resolution Approving a Parking Lot Setback Variance Applicant: Tony Mezzenga Tony Mezzenga, the applicant representing the property owner Ernest Gustafson, was present. Planner Ericson gave the Staff report as follows: Tony Mezzenga, representing the property owner Ernest Gustafson, is requesting approval of a variance to construct a small, split-level office building on the undeveloped lot at the southwest corner of County Road I and Greenfield Avenue. The variance is requested for reduced parking lot and building setbacks. This 13,068 square-foot property is zoned B-3, Highway Business. The size of the lot, however, does present practical difficulties in terms of what can be developed, which has left the lot up to this point unimproved. County Road I is the second-most traveled roadway in the City. 1997 traffic counts show as many as 8,700 vehicles use this part of County Road I on a daily basis and projections are such that the volume is expected to increase as development progresses east of Interstate 35W. This lot borders commercial property to the west (Tom Thumb and a Laundromat), high density residential to the east, and low density residential to the south and north. The proposed office use is consistent with the B-3 zoning designation and is a less intensive use which would fit well into the predominately residential surroundings. Planner Ericson advised that Staff has met with Mr. Mezzenga and Mr. Gustafson on numerous occasions in an effort to draft a site plan that could be developed for the property. The size of the lot and the extent of the setback requirements however are impediments toward that goal. He presented the required setbacks in a B-3 district, noting the applicant has submitted a site plan for a 3,480 square-foot split-level office building with 2,975 square feet of usable office space. For that much area, the Code requires provision of 20 parking stalls. To construct a building of that size and a parking lot to accommodate 20 vehicles, variances would need to be approved to reduce the side and rear building setbacks from 20 feet to 10 feet and to reduce the parking lot setbacks from 30 feet and 20 feet to 4 feet and 15 feet. Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 For the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. Staff responded to the criteria as follows:  Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do apply to the property in that at only 13,000 square feet, the lot does not offer much area upon which to construct a viable commercial business. This situation is further complicated by the fact that the parcel is a corner lot that demands greater setbacks than would be otherwise required for an interior lot. Last, the development potential of the lot was further reduced when the County took ten feet of the property (1,320 square feet) for additional right of way.  The literal interpretation could deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district because of the County-acquired 1,320 square feet, the large setbacks and the size of the lot, the property owner has been unable to find a developer willing to consider this parcel.  The special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that this appears to be a very unique situation not applicable to many other properties within the City. The applicant contends that in fact the reverse may be true, in that there are many examples of reduced setbacks in the City, and that he should be afforded the same consideration.  While it would be possible to construct a smaller office building and the required parking on the site without the need for any variances, the resulting building would be too small, according to the applicant, to make a viable development project. From the applicant’s perspective, the variance requested is the minimum variance to alleviate the hardship.  In this situation, granting a variance for reduced building and parking lot setbacks would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Code or to other property in the same zone.  The reduced setbacks 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. According to the City Code, all of the identified criteria shall be satisfied in order to justify the granting of a variance. While it appears to Staff that in this case all requirements could be met and that a hardship probably does exist, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, it must find that all the criteria are satisfied. Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 Planner Ericson explained that after reviewing the documentation and taking public testimony, Staff is asking the Planning Commission to direct Staff to draft a resolution approving the variance either as requested or as compromised, or to draft a resolution denying the variance request. If the Planning Commission so chooses to approve the variance, Staff has included a draft resolution that can be acted upon as is or with any modifications as deemed necessary. Chairperson Peterson opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Herbert Zworn of 7660 Greenfield Avenue explained that his property would be the most affected by the development of the lot. He then explained that he currently spends several hours a month maintaining his property due to trash and other debris that is thrown in his yard by people who cut through his lot and the undeveloped lot to get to Tom Thumb. Mr. Zworn explained that there is an additional problem along the back of his property because Tom Thumb does not maintain the area around the privacy fence that separates his lot from the Tom Thumb lot. He indicated that he has many problems with Tom Thumb and feels another commercial building will only increase the problems he has to deal with because the commercial property owners/developers do not maintain their property. Mr. Zworn indicated that his front windows look directly out into the vacant lot and a two-story structure will obstruct his view. He also indicated that he would be looking at an eight-foot privacy fence out of one-half of the front window. Mr. Zworn asked the Planning Commission to restudy this project and implement other policies or designs, or vacate the idea because he feels that the property owner/developer and the Commission are attempting to put a “square peg in a round hole.” Chairperson Peterson told Mr. Zworn that Tom Thumb should be working with him to alleviate foot traffic across the property. A member of the audience stated that only half of the people within 350 feet were notified. Chairperson Peterson inquired of Staff as to whom and what addresses the notices were mailed. Planner Ericson advised of the number of properties on each adjacent street that were notified of the public hearing. Chairperson Peterson stated that the foot traffic to and from Tom Thumb should not be happening. He told Mr. Zworn that the City and the developer in this case do not want to make his situation worse and, in his opinion, developing the lot and placing a fence around the property would prohibit foot traffic to and from Tom Thumb and, thus, improve the situation Mr. Zworn is in. Colleen Olson of 7641 Edgewood Drive stated that she is not directly adjacent to the property but she objects to the variance because her neighborhood is already very congested and developing this lot will add to that congestion. She said she feels that this variance would give Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 the property owner an unfair advantage and she feels he should stay within the small property guidelines as established by current City Code. Dawn Little of 7658 Greenfield Avenue stated she would like the City to assure immediate occupancy once the lot is developed so that building does not sit vacant. Ms. Little stated she is also concerned that the parking lot lights will be bright and light up her yard. Ms. Little indicated that she feels the tenants at the apartment building will cut across the lot and there will be a bigger problem with graffiti and trash. She asked if the developer or owner of the building, when developed, would be local and available to handle problems as they arise. Chairperson Peterson indicated that Mr. Mezzenga, the applicant/developer, lives in Shoreview and the property owner lives in Mounds View. Ernie Gustafson of 2525 County Road I, the property owner, stated he has owned the property since 1942 and has lived in Mounds View since 1945. He stated that in 1978, he presented a plan to the City Council with 20 parking places but the Council demanded 22 parking places so the lot was not developed. He said that for 22 years he has been paying very high taxes on the property and if the Council had approved the variance in 1978, the City and Ramsey County would have benefited from the taxes the building would have generated. Mr. Gustafson indicated that the path goes through his property and people from Greenfield Avenue walk across his lot to the Tom Thumb store and when they leave the Tom Thumb store with their goods they toss their garbage onto his lot. Mr. Gustafson stated that this is the main reason he wants to build something, to eliminate the path. Mr. Gustafson pointed out that Tom Thumb has their parking lot one foot from the property line. Mr. Gustafson explained to the Planning Commission that he has received letters from the City to pick up trash on the property and he is sure that all of the trash on the property originated at Tom Thumb but he had to pick it up or incur costs to have it picked up. Mr. Gustafson said that in the winter, when it snows, the Tom Thumb store plows snow onto his vacant lot. He said he is tired of them doing this and would like to put a fence up around the office building and eliminate the problems. Mr. Gustafson then told the Planning Commission that in 1988, the City and County of Ramsey took 10 feet from his property to add the sidewalk and he got nothing for the property they took. Dick Palmatier of 7639 Edgewood Drive inquired as to why this piece of property was zoned commercial when the other properties, aside from the Tom Thumb lot, are zoned residential and would like to know if it is too late to rezone the lot as residential and have it developed as such. Chairperson Peterson indicated that every property in the City has a designated use and corresponding zoning. This lot is guided commercial and the Planning Commission agrees with the designation. Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 11 Mr. Palmatier indicated that the setbacks and variances in effect for the property would prohibit any commercial development. Chairperson Peterson indicated that changes to the Zoning Code pertaining to setbacks and the taking of some of the property posed some practical difficulties in terms of development. Mr. Palmatier asked if the four feet is from the curb or from the sidewalk. Planner Ericson indicated that the setback is from the property line. He then asked Mr. Gustafson how much space is between the sidewalk and property line. Mr. Gustafson indicated that it was approximately five feet. Mr. Palmatier asked how far the parking lot would be from the street. Chairperson Peterson indicated that it was approximately 20 feet from the parking lot to the street. Mr. Palmatier indicated that he feels there would be congestion and traffic tie-ups as a result of having an entrance on County Road I. He indicated that they had a similar problem with Highway 10, now County Road 10, and a stoplight had to be installed to alleviate the situation. Chairperson Peterson stated that the traffic on County I is heavy and in that context he feels that residential would not be desirable. Commissioner Johnson indicated that rezoning the lot to residential would not benefit the City and it is not being considered at this time. Planner Ericson indicated that while the lot is zoned commercial, there is a limit to the volume of traffic that could be generated from this site. He said that Staff is not concerned with potential traffic congestion because a small office building would not generate a large volume of traffic. Planner Ericson also indicated that the property owner would have the right to request a change of zoning but as of now, it is zoned commercial. In terms of single family homes or duplex, he is not sure anyone would want to live there due to the location and based on the volume of traffic. Tony Mezzenga addressed the pedestrian traffic issue by stating that cedar fences around the property should tidy up the vacant lot and cut down on foot traffic. He said that he and his father have some property in Spring Lake Park and he invited neighbors to check that property to see that they keep things nice. He indicated that he will establish a relationship with his tenants and assured the Planning Commission that the building would not sit vacant. Mr. Mezzenga stated his opinion that once the lot is improved the people in the community will treat the property better and not drop the trash. He stated that it does not make economic sense to build what is allowed without the variance based on the cost to develop the lot. Mr. Mezzenga stated that he and his father have a reputation for keeping their properties neat and clean. Mr. Gustafson cited several other locations where the parking areas have no grass in between parking areas adjacent to them. He said there is 18 feet of grass between the tar and curb on Greenfield Avenue. Mr. Gustafson indicated, in regard to the driveway, the City Code says there Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 12 should be 40 feet from the property line to where the driveway is and the drawings show that there is 42 feet to the driveway. Mr. Gustafson said that the amount of traffic that would come in from this development wouldn’t be as much as the traffic that goes to Tom Thumb. Herbert Zworn said that he did not want to stifle Mr. Gustafson’s ability to develop the property but requested that the problems they have now be looked into and dealt with before allowing the project to proceed. Mr. Zworn said that the building will be two stories and that they will be able to look down on his property infringing on his right to privacy. He noted he would be looking out at an office building. Chairperson Peterson closed the public hearing at 8:33 p.m. Chairperson Peterson indicated that a property owner is allowed to develop on their property what is allowed by City Code and, in this instance, the property is zoned for commercial construction. He indicated that this is a problem property because it has remained vacant for so many years. Commissioner Johnson said that the Planning Commission is only looking at a parking lot variance and whether they should approve the variance, not the building. Commissioner Hegland indicated that it is also a building setback issue. Planner Ericson indicated that none of the plans are final or approved and if the variance were to be granted they would need to come before the Planning Commission and the City Council to get approval of the plans. Planner Ericson indicated that the property is used as a route to get to Tom Thumb because it is undeveloped and he feels that once the lot is developed, the trash issue and foot traffic problem would be eliminated. Chairperson Peterson said that the two reasons it is a problem lot is that it’s vacant and there is a problem maintaining it because of litter. He said that if Tom Thumb is not maintaining the fence or the area around the fence, the City should get after them to maintain it. Chairperson Peterson stated that as long as he has been on the Planning Commission the property has been zoned commercial and changing it to residential at this point wouldn’t benefit anyone. He stated he feels that commercial is a more appropriate use for the property. Chairperson Peterson addressed the concern of cars driving across the lawn by noting there would be curbs so driving across the lawn should be eliminated. He then indicated that the plan is not final but is a concept or a proposed plan. Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 13 Commissioner Johnson said that the property is zoned B-3 which would allow for a gas station and fast food. He stated he thinks it would be preferable to have an office building as it would generate less traffic than a fast food operation or a gas station. Chairperson Peterson said he feels the proposal solves several problems and doesn’t cause any additional problems. He agreed that cut through traffic must stop and the plan can be modified to help alleviate foot traffic and graffiti. Commissioner Stevenson indicated that the degree of the setback is his concern. He questioned whether the four-foot setback is too much or not too much. Commissioner Hegland said most of the comments have related to Tom Thumb and he believes the problems of the property not being developed have led to more problems related to Tom Thumb. However, if the property were developed, it would be less of a problem and should not increase the current problems. Commissioner Hegland said he is not sure how much variance to grant. Chairperson Peterson stated that if the Planning Commission were to apply the zoning requirement for parking lots prior to the change in late 1996 or early 1997, this request is closer to what was allowed prior to the change. Commissioner Berke indicated that this type of commercial use is perfect but he feels there is a problem with the number of parking stalls and how much setback to grant. He requested that Staff look into that issue. Commissioner Johnson said that he agrees with the variance, noting if it were 1997, the variance would have passed. Commissioner Miller said that City Code does not specify for types of parking but uses a formula that specifies a certain number of spots per square foot. Chairperson Peterson asked Planner Ericson for different types of uses and the parking requirements for them. Planner Ericson explained the requirements for parking stalls per the City Code, noting the size of the parking lot will dictate future use of the building. He also stated that an office building does not generate much traffic and a future retail use would require more parking than would be available under the current development plan. Planner Ericson asked the developer to comment on the square footage needed to make the project profitable. Chairperson Peterson commented that there would be no advantage to the developer or the City to build something that doesn’t work. Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 14 Tony Mezzenga said that they originally were requesting 3,800 square feet. He said he feels the square footage of the building he has proposed is reasonable and needed to cater to a wider variety of possible tenants and in order to ensure that the building is leased out. Commissioner Hegland asked Mr. Mezzenga how he felt about the parking issue. Mr. Mezzenga indicated that he feels that there is wasted space and with an office building this small the businesses that rent space will be small with few employees and clients. He envisioned the building to be more of a “store front” for an insurance agent or someone who is at the office sometimes but not all the time. Commissioner Hegland asked how many tenants the developer is planning to accommodate in the space. Mr. Mezzenga indicated four tenants each using 800 or 700 square feet would basically be two employees per offices. Mr. Mezzenga said it would be hard for him to go with less square footage. Chairperson Peterson asked the Planning Commission if they would like to have more information or if they were ready to make a motion on the resolution. Commissioner Miller asked if there was another way to configure the parking lot. Planner Ericson indicated that he, the owner, and the developer had spent a lot of time trying to reconfigure the parking lot and found there is no way to reconfigure the parking lot without encroaching into the setbacks. Commissioner Hegland asked for clarification on the setback if it was from the sidewalk or from the street. Planner Ericson indicated that the sidewalk is included in the County right-of-way and the setback is from the property line, not the sidewalk. Chairperson Peterson indicated that there is a 20-foot driveway listed and that would provide for one car exiting and one car entering. He indicated that graffiti is a growing issue throughout the City and the Police Department should be involved in resolving that problem. Chairperson Peterson said he feels that if the lot is improved, there will be fewer people congregating and causing trouble and litter problems. Planner Ericson indicated that there is too much parking according to the developer. He indicated that the City tries to plan for the worst case and the most cars that could possibly be there at one time. He said they recently gave a manufacturing company a variance for one space for 250 square feet. He said that in his opinion there isn’t a need for that much parking space because such a small office building would not generate that much traffic. Commissioner Hegland inquired as to other cities requirements for different types of commercial uses. Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 15 Planner Ericson indicated that other cities refer to things in a similar way. He explained that the City Code does get specific for some types of uses but other cities lump all types of uses together. He said that the City has a book by The American Planning Commission that shows parking requirements across the country. Commissioner Hegland requested a sampling of parking spaces per square foot requirements to determine where Mounds View’s City Code falls and whether it requires more or less than the national average. Commissioner Johnson stated he thinks 20 spaces is too many for a small building like this and he would like to see the applicant come back to the Planning Commission with more information on parking. Commissioner Stevenson asked if the applicant would be required to pay more fees to submit a revised variance request. Planner Ericson stated it would be one variance request and the City would not require more fees from the applicant. Commissioner Stevenson agreed that it was too large of a parking area for this small office building and he would like to move to table the variance until the next meeting. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Hegland to table action on Resolution No. 633-00, a Resolution Approving a Parking Lot Setback Variance for Tony Mezzenga, 7664 Greenfield Avenue until the next meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for September 13, 2000. Ayes – 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Commissioner Johnson said he would have preferred to approve the variance rather than table it. Chairperson Peterson said he would like to determine how much parking space is really needed. If less parking is needed then there would be more green space left. Commissioner Stevenson said that if green space is preserved up front, there could be room to expand the parking spaces if needed for future uses. He indicated that he would like the applicant to come back with variables such as smaller parking areas with room to expand at a later date. Planner Ericson asked what the Planning Commission would like to see at the next meeting and if a ten foot setback would be more favorable. Commissioner Stevenson said he would like to see more green space on Greenfield Avenue. Planner Ericson said they could create a variance so that each property line could have its own setback. He said Staff would work on it and come back with several different proposals. Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 16 Planner Ericson indicated that the next meeting on September 20, 2000 must be cancelled or rescheduled due to a conflict. He asked the Planning Commission if they would like to schedule a meeting for September 13, 2000 where they could hear this issue again. Chairperson Peterson agreed that the setbacks were reasonable in 1997 and similar setbacks should be reasonable now and that four feet is one possible solution. However, he would prefer more green space if at all possible on the Greenfield Avenue side. Mr. Mezzenga asked if the building could be bigger. The Planning Commissioners indicated they would not favorably consider such a request. Mr. Mezzenga commented that it would cost money to table and delay. A consensus was reached to schedule a special Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, September 13, 2000. Commissioner Stevenson indicated that he would not be able to attend the meeting. 8. Planning Case No. MI00-002 Property Involved: 2474 and 2468 County Road H2 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 634-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision of 2474 and 2468 County Road H2 Applicant: RTM Management, Inc. Raymond McManus, the applicant representing the property owners, was present. Planner Ericson gave the Staff report as follows: Raymond McManus, representing RTM Management, Inc. and the property owners, James Kuphal and Danine and David Super, are requesting approval of a minor subdivision to subdivide the rear 80 feet from 2474 and 2468 County Road H2 to create a buildable lot fronting Irondale Road. Minor subdivisions are those divisions of land less than two acres in size in which only one additional lot is created. The area of the proposed subdivision is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential. The minimum lot size in this district is 11,000 square feet for an interior lot and 12,500 square feet for a corner lot. The comprehensive plan designates this area as single-family detached. The applicant has submitted a certificate of survey which describes the proposed subdivision. The two existing lots on County Road H2 are 75 feet wide and 288 feet deep, both 21,600 square feet in area. The proposed subdivision would create an 80-foot wide and 149-foot deep, 11,920 square-foot lot fronting Irondale Road. The new lot would conform to all Zoning Code requirements and would be considered a buildable parcel. The two remaining lots--at 15,600 square feet--would satisfy the minimum lot size requirement. Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 17 Staff has forwarded the Certificate of Survey to the City’s Engineering Technician as well as to the Director of Public Works. Other than dedication of the perimeter utility easements, the certificate of survey is in proper form. The City Attorney will review the Certificate of Survey and any documentation needed to record the subdivision with Ramsey County. Last, this subdivision is subject to park dedication requirements. The 5% fee is based upon the Ramsey County assessed land value of the land subdivided, less the value of any land already improved with single-family residential dwellings. In this case, the fee would apply to the 11,920 square feet of land at an assessed value of $1.23 a square foot. The extrapolated value for the lot would be $14,662.00, five percent of which would amount to a fee of $733. This fee would need to be paid prior to the City approving the subdivision. Staff is recommending approval of Resolution 634-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Requested Minor Subdivision of 2468 and 2474 County Road H2, with stipulations regarding the park dedication payment, revisions to the certificate of survey and recordation of the associated documents with Ramsey County. Raymond McManus indicated that the lot directly to the south is almost a mirror image of the lot they are proposing and they will do whatever the City requires. Chairperson Peterson asked that the Certificate of Survey be changed to indicate the correct name of the street to be Irondale Street not Third Street. Mr. McManus provided a corrected copy of the survey that indicated the street name change. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller to approve Resolution 634-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Requested Minor Subdivision of 2468 and 4274 County Road H2, with stipulations as indicated. Ayes – 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Planner Ericson indicated that this will be considered by the City Council on September 25, 2000. 9. Planning Case No. PD00-002 Property Involved: 2200 Highway 10 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 635-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Development Review for the Mermaid Planned Unit Development Applicant: Dan Hall The applicant, Dan Hall, was present. Planner Ericson gave the Staff report as follows: Dan Hall is requesting City approval of the development review stage of the proposed Planned Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 18 Unit Development to construct a 96-room hotel and a 500-seat banquet center to be attached to and integrated with the existing complex. The development stage plan is the second stage of a planned unit development process. The first stage is the general concept stage, which was approved by the City Council on August 14, 2000. The development review stage is the more detailed, in-depth review of the site plans, which are to include landscaping, drainage, grading, utilities, signage, elevations, floor plans, photometric analysis, etc. The final stage of the PUD is the administrative approval of the plans, PUD Document, development agreement and any other documents associated with the proposed PUD. The total area of the proposed PUD is approximately 10.7 acres, which includes the three existing Mermaid parcels, the Rent-All parcel, the Perkins parcel, Music Off 10 and the dry holding pond associated with the business park development. The existing business park access drive from County Road H would be shifted to the west to maximize the contiguous parking area for the proposed development. The hotel is planned to be a four story, 96-unit AmericInn. Attached to the hotel would be a “water park” which would offer in addition to the pool, a waterslide, hot tub, sauna, and a spacious lounge area. Attached to the hotel and the existing Mermaid facilities would be the 14,714 square foot banquet center, which would provide seating for as many as 500 people. In addition to the PUD, the applicant has also applied for a major subdivision, which would combine all of the subject properties into one platted parcel (presumably, Lot 1, Block 1, Mermaid Addition). The preliminary plat for this request has not yet been submitted and thus will not be contemplated at this meeting. The Planning Commission has been provided with a set of plans date-stamped August 10, 2000, for the proposed expansion. The plans include a preliminary site plan, a preliminary utility plan, a preliminary grading plan, a proposed landscape plan, a floor plan, and a photometric analysis of the site. Planner Ericson presented Staff’s detailed analysis of the site plan and requested the Planning Commission review and discuss the proposed plans for development and direct the applicant to revise the plans as follows: 1. The site plan shall be revised to show a nine-foot wide bituminous trailway constructed within the Highway 10 right of way no more than five feet from the Mermaid property and a 40’ x 40’ triangular sign easement area at the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H. 2. The site and lighting plans shall be revised to show the installation of six ornamental lights along the trailway within the Highway 10 right of way as noted herein. 3. The lighting plan shall be revised to show the light fixture specifications and light standard heights to be used for exterior parking lot illumination. 4. The applicant shall confirm and clarify the status and plans for the existing mermaid statue currently atop the building. Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 19 5. The applicant shall provide detail for the proposed monument and building signage to be used. 6. The applicant shall execute a sign easement document which dedicates to the City the area to be used for a gateway sign at the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H. 7. An existing condition site plan shall be included with the development plans to indicate the removal of the Perkins building and the removal of the two curb cuts serving the old Rent All site and associated restoration of the right of way. 8. As required by the Planned Unit Development section of the City Code, the applicant shall execute a development agreement pertaining to the Mermaid PUD, which will serve as the guiding and controlling document for this development. 9. The landscape plan shall be revised to show the specific types and numbers of plantings to be used within this development. The plan shall also show the addition of plantings in the courtyard area between the pool and hotel structures. The landscape plan shall meet the approval of the City Forester. 10. The applicant shall submit a materials board showing the exterior building materials to be used on this development. Planner Ericson indicated that items 1 and 2 have been satisfied. He noted that the draft resolution would recommend approval with these ten stipulations plus an added requirement to deal with the location of the fire hydrants with the approval of the Fire Marshall. Planner Ericson indicated that the Planning Commission could take action tonight or next week. He also noted that there would be a public hearing at the City Council level. Dan Hall of 2200 County Road 10 said he views this as a small part of the project and would do exactly what the Planning Commission requests. He then commented that he still doesn’t know what to do with the mermaid statute. He indicated that his wish is to do something with the statute but he’s not sure what because it has been around for 30 plus years. He said that he wants to keep it on the property but give it a facelift. Chairperson Peterson said that since the business name is Mermaid he does not object to the mermaid remaining as long as it is appropriately updated. Chairperson Peterson asked about the new plan for the County Road H parking setback being changed in two places to five feet but remained one-foot in another area. He also indicated that Mounds View was spelled incorrectly, noting it is supposed to be two words instead of one. Commissioner Stevenson indicated that he has safety concerns on the trail way farthest from County Road H because of the speed of traffic coming off of County Road 10 and the fact that it is straight on with the turn lane. He asked if it was possible to reroute the trailway with a little Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 20 bit of a bend so the bikers aren’t going quite as fast at that moment and the cars would also need to slow if there was a bend added. Truman Howell, the architect representing the applicant, said he had no problem with jogging the trail and roadway to make it safer. Chairperson Peterson asked if drainage from the site would be handled through natural gravity. Mr. Hall indicated that the same grades will be maintained as are now in place. Chairperson Peterson asked if the elevations are such that a gravity flow system would work. Community Development Director Jopke indicated that the gravity flow system should work properly. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Miller to approve Resolution No. 635-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Development Review for the Mermaid Planned Unit Development requested by Dan Hall, 2200 Highway 10 with the required stipulations. Ayes – 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 10. Planning Case No. 560-99 Property Involved: 2670 County Road I Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 636-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Extension of a Conditional Use Permit for an Assisted Living Senior Residential Facility at 2670 County Road I Applicant: MSP Real Estate Milo Pinkerton, representing MSP Real Estate, Inc., the applicant, was not present. Planner Ericson gave the Staff report as follows: On September 13, 1999, the City Council approved Resolution 5345 which approved of a conditional use permit for a 46-room, two-level assisted living senior residential facility at 2670 County Road I. The applicant, MSP Real Estate, Inc., has not yet commenced construction of the approved facility, and the site remains unimproved at this point. Section 1125.01, Subd. 3f of the City Code states that “Whenever, within one year after granting a conditional use permit, the work as permitted by the permit shall not have been completed, then such permit shall become null and void unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the City Council. Such extension shall be requested, in writing, and filed with the City Clerk-Administrator at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the original conditional use permit.” In addition, the Code states that a good faith attempt shall have been made by the applicant to complete the work allowed for in the CUP. Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 21 Milo Pinkerton has requested such an extension, citing economic and financial factors as the basis for the delay. He indicates that a one-year extension would give them enough time to begin construction. Planner Ericson stated unless the Planning Commission feels strongly to the contrary, Staff is recommending approval of Resolution 636-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the One-Year Extension for the Conditional Use Permit to Construct a 46-room, Two-Story, Assisted Living Senior Residential Facility at 2670 County Road I. Commissioner Berke said that the management group proposed for this facility was closed down in Wisconsin due to a staffing problem. He explained that the management group had told the Planning Commission that they would be adequately staffed. He expressed a desire to revisit the development plan if the extension is granted. Planner Ericson indicated that the Commission could readdress the conditions of the project. Chairperson Peterson stated that the aspects of the plan should be revisited to make sure everyone is clear as to what they are promising versus what they will do. Commissioner Johnson indicated that they should review the front door/lobby design as it opens to Mounds View Drive. He indicated he believes that there should be a desk where you sign out or a monitor so no one wanders out. Commissioner Stevenson asked if they needed to revise the resolution to add the conditions to revisit the front desk check out and level of staffing. Planner Ericson indicated that if they don’t add the condition to the resolution and they grant the extension it could be built tomorrow as originally proposed. Planner Ericson advised that the resolution could be revised to add the phrase “subject to the applicant reapplying for and obtaining approval of a development review.” Then all of those issues can be looked at again. MOTION/SECOND: Peterson/Berke to approve the revised Resolution 636-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the One-Year Extension for the Conditional Use Permit to Construct a 46-room, Two-Story, Assisted Living Senior Residential Facility at 2670 County Road I subject to the applicant reapplying for and obtaining approval of a development review. Ayes – 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Planner Ericson advised that this will be considered by the Council on September 11, 2000. 11. Staff Reports / Items of Information Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 22 A. Previous Council Actions Community Development Director Jopke reported on previous Council actions. He advised that the Council approved the items relating to Walgreens as well as some ordinance changes. The tattoo ordinance held over to research an Anoka County ordinance regarding tattooing. The final plat for the Walgreens development was held over because in preparing the final plat they discovered Highway 10 was not where they thought it was. Chairperson Peterson indicated he had heard there was a one-foot discrepancy. Community Development Director Jopke indicated that there was a two-foot discrepancy. The other issue was the Highway 10 study since jurisdiction was changed from the State to the County. He said that the County has committed to working with the City to address traffic and pedestrian safety issues. He indicated that Staff will present to the City Council a resolution formally requesting that the County address the issues of lowering the speed limit, adjusting the traffic signals, more and better signage, and improved visibility of crosswalks. Community Development Director Jopke indicated that they are working with a consultant on a Phase II work plan basically looking at short-term, long-term and intermediate items. Chairperson Peterson said the County replaced the lights at County Road H 2 and it appears to be helping. Planner Ericson advised that the next Planning Commission meeting will be on September 13, 2000. 12. Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports Commissioner Miller asked when Walgreens will begin construction. Planner Ericson stated that could happen as soon as the final plat is recorded and approved by Ramsey County. Chairperson Peterson noted the upcoming Fall Cleanup Day and reviewed the type of things that can be recycled at no cost. No other reports were considered. 13. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 23 Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.