Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-2013 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA April 17, 2013 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: February 6, 2013 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases None 6. Other Planning Activity A. City Code Amendment for Cargo Containers B. Review City Code to Promote Development & Sustainability 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. May 1, 2013 B. May 15, 2013 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. March 20, 2013 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting March 20, 2013 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for March 20, 2013. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Carvelli-Yu, Elofson, Rundle, Stevenson and Smith. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Miller and Schiltgen. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 VR2013-001. Consideration of a Variance for a Second Driveway 2 and Curb Cut City Code Amendment for Cargo Containers 3 County Road 10 Corridor Discussion 3 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes January 2, 2013. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Smith. To approve the Minutes of the January 2, 2013 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission March 20, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. VR2013-001 Variance for a Second Driveway and Curb Cut Applicant: Colvert & Theresa People Address: 7900 Greenfield Avenue Planning Associate Heller requested the Commission consider a variance for a second driveway and curb cut for the property at 7900 Greenfield Avenue. She explained a variance was approved for the second driveway in 1994 with the condition that it could remain in place only for 10 years or until the property was sold. She described the case in further detail stating the second driveway was requested by the previous property owners because the detached garage is quite a distance from the house. Associate Heller indicated the property was sold in 2002 to the applicants, and they were not made aware of the driveway conditions and would like the second driveways to remain in place due to Mrs. People’s mobility difficulties. She noted the City Code limits driveway curb cuts for single family residential lots to one without a variance. This property has had two driveways in place for 19 years, and a temporary variance was approved to install the second driveway. Chair Stevenson recalled this case from 19 years ago, stating originally the property owners were parking in the yard to be near the house and had created a dirt driveway from the repeated driving on the grass. The owners wanted to install a concrete driveway in this location and were told by City Staff that they needed to apply for a variance for the second curb cut. The Commission was split on whether to approve the variance, so they compromised and added the time limit for the driveway. He stated in most cases he opposed second driveways, however with this case, the situation was unique and he recommended the variance be approved. Commissioner Rundle did not oppose the second driveway either. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu questioned what additional expense the City would incur for the second curb cut. Associate Heller explained that the expense for the second curb cut and apron would be paid by the property owner during the street reconstruction project. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission March 20, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Theresa People, 7900 Greenfield Avenue, reiterated that she was not made aware of the fact that the second access would be negated upon the sale of the home. She stated she was not requesting to change anything on the property, but just that both driveways be allowed to remain as is. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Smith/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 975- 13, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance for a Second Driveway and Curb Cut; Planning Case No. VR2013-001. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. City Code Amendment for Cargo Containers Planning Associate Heller presented the Commission with a Code Amendment for Accessory Buildings addressing the use of shipping containers. She noted this amendment was discussed with the City Council earlier this month. The Council supported the proposed amendment and requested that only one container be allowed on a residential lot at a time. She then requested the Commission review the proposed ordinance language and direct Staff how to proceed. Chair Stevenson questioned how the City would address temporary cargo containers that were sided and roofed to resemble a shed. Associate Heller stated this had been discussed with the City Council who felt that by putting a roof and siding around the cargo container, it was now a cargo container inside of a shed, and the City does not regulate what is inside sheds. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu suggested this issue be further addressed and defined, as “prepping” or remodeling cargo containers by adding roofs, windows or doors, was becoming more and more popular. She did not want to see a large number of “eyesore” sheds creeping up throughout the City. She did not feel cargo containers belonged in residential neighborhoods in any way. Chair Stevenson asked who would determine if the encased cargo containers had become sheds. Associate Heller commented this would have to be determined by Staff. Commissioner Smith recommended that the surrounding shed should match the principle structure. Mounds View Planning Commission March 20, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Carvelli-Yu recommended additional language be written into the proposed amendment to assure that remodeled or altered cargo containers do not become an issue in the future. She stated she was willing to work on drafting a statement to add into the ordinance regarding this prior to the next meeting. Commissioner Smith questioned if the cargo container has to be placed on a specified improved surface. Associate Heller indicated that the ordinance had language requiring the containers be placed on a hard surface. Chair Stevenson recommended this item be tabled to the next Planning Commission meeting. ______________________________________________________________________________ B. County Road 10 Corridor Discussion Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that the City Council was working to improve the County Road 10 corridor. This involved landscaping the streetscape, in addition to renaming the corridor. The improvement of this corridor would assist with redevelopment efforts. She explained some TIF funds were available as well. Associate Heller explained an overlay district was suggested for the County Road 10 corridor to assist with the discussed improvements. An overlay district would allow for specific design guidelines for all future redevelopment. Associate Heller then discussed the recent redevelopment study for the Premium Stop lot and the surrounding properties. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu questioned if the City has contacted neighboring cities to discuss their redevelopment strategies. Associate Heller was not aware of any conversations, but understood that the use of TIF may assist with spurring redevelopment. Associate Heller noted a joint meeting between the Planning Commission and City Council has been scheduled for the April 1, 2013 City Council Worksession, to discuss this matter in further detail. She encouraged each of the Commissioners to attend. She reported she would forward the agenda to the Commissioners when completed. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission March 20, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. April 1, 2013 – Joint Meeting with the City Council at the Council Worksession B. April 3, 2013 C. April 17, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:46 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 6A Meeting Date: April 17, 2013 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Discuss Proposed Code Amendment for Accessory Buildings – Shipping Containers Discussion: At the January 2, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission agreed with staff that shipping containers are not appropriate as a permanent use in residential districts, but felt that there are situations where these, or other types of portable storage containers (such as PODS), could be allowed temporarily. Construction projects or moving are the primary reasons that a resident would have a temporary need for a storage container. At the February 6, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission and staff reviewed several ordinance examples from other cities, and the Commission gave staff feedback on what regulations they would like to see in an ordinance. The Commission supported allowing the containers for short periods of time, but not for permanent use, and also recommends not allowing the existing cargo containers in the City to remain as non-conforming. Staff reviewed this code amendment with the City Council at the March 4, 2013 Worksession, and the Council is supportive of moving forward with this amendment. At the March 20, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission wanted to table this to the next meeting in order to work on additional wording that would not allow the containers permanently in residential districts at all, even modified with pitched roofs and different siding. The rest of the language in the ordinance seems to be acceptable and ready to move forward. Recommendation: Discuss the additional language pertaining to not allowing permanent cargo containers in residential districts, even when modified. Respectfully submitted. Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Proposed Ordinance PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. XXX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE CHAPTER 11XX REGULATING THE USE OF CARGO CONTAINERS IN THE CITY The City of Mounds View ordains: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View hereby amends Chapter 1100, Section 11XX of the Mounds View City Code pertaining to “Cargo Containers.” 1102.02 Definitions: Subd. XX CARGO CONTAINER: An article of transport equipment which falls info any of the following categories: a. Originally, specifically or formerly designed for or used in the parking, shipping, movement, transportation or storage of freight, articles, goods or commodities; and/or b. Designed for or capable of being (1) mounted or moved on a rail car, or (2) mounted on a chassis or bogie for movement by a truck trailer, or (3) loaded on to a ship; and/or c. A prefabricated metal structure designed for use as an individual shipping container or a metal structure designed and built for use as an enclosed truck trailer. Subd. XX PERMANENT: Means a period of time that exceeds six (6) months. Subd. XX TEMPORARY: Means a period of time that does not exceed six (6) months. 11XX CARGO CONTAINERS Subd. 1. Permitted Locations and Prohibitions a. Cargo containers may not be placed, stored or used permanently on property zoned for residential use. b. Cargo containers may be placed, stored or used for temporary storage on property zoned for residential use. Each residential property may use only one cargo container at a time. Subd. 2. The following standards shall apply to all cargo containers: a. Cargo Containers shall not be stacked on one another. b. Cargo containers shall not be used for human habitation or commercial purposes, and shall not be provided with refrigeration, heating, electricity or plumbing. c. Refuse and debris shall not be stored in, against, on or under the cargo container. d. The cargo container may not occupy any required off-street parking spaces or loading/unloading areas or fire lanes in any district. e. The cargo container shall not block, obstruct, or reduce in any manner any required exits, windows, vent shafts, parking spaces, and/or access driveways. f. The cargo container shall be placed on an asphalt or concrete surface and be located a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the edge of the street. Ordinance XXX Page 2 g. The cargo container shall be structurally sound, stable, and in good repair. Any cargo container that becomes unsound, unstable or otherwise dangerous shall be immediately repaired or removed from the property. The City shall provide notice to the owner of the property where the cargo container is located of any condition in violation of this section. After notice to the property owner, any cargo container stored or kept in such a manner deemed a dangerous condition and a public nuisance as determined by the City may be immediately removed by the City. Any cost or expense associated with the removal shall be the responsibility of the property owner where the cargo container is located. 11XX Current Violations – Time to Comply Cargo containers located on residential property prior to the effective date of this ordinance are considered illegal. All property owners within the City shall have 6 months from the effective date of this ordinance to bring the properties, which currently contain cargo containers or accessory storage structures that are in violation of the terms of this Chapter, into full compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. 1106.03 (this is existing language – the underlined is proposed additional wording) Subd. 1. Accessory Buildings: A building originally constructed for use as an accessory building for the storage of materials and equipment accessory to a primary use located on the property. Accessory buildings, which for these purposes shall include garages, tool houses, carports, sheds and similar buildings for storage of domestic supply and noncommercial recreational equipment, whether attached or detached. (Ord. 664, 8-14-00) Item No: 6B Meeting Date: April 17, 2013 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Review City Code to Promote Development and Sustainability The corridor is the City Council’s priority this year and the Planning Commission has been asked to start the process of reviewing the Zoning Code in regards to development, such as possibly creating a “Corridor Overlay Zoning District” or a “Corridor Guiding Plan” to better promote and accommodate development along County Road 10. At the April 1, 2013 Council Worksession, the City Council and Planning Commission sat down together to hear the Council’s thoughts about what they want the Planning Commission to work on. Many ideas were mentioned at the Worksession, so the Commission’s first step is to start discussing ideas that could work here and how the City Code should be amended to accommodate these ideas. Some of the ideas that were talked about at the Worksession include: − Reduce parking space requirements − Require parking lots be placed behind building − Reduce setbacks for parking lots and buildings − Allow higher density (more housing units per acre) − Increase building height limits − Allow mixed-use developments − Create a Corridor Overlay Zoning District Other ideas: − Encourage shared parking between adjacent uses, if appropriate − Require that any new development on County Road 10 use the Planned Unit Development process, no matter how many acres the property is − Develop a “Corridor Guiding Plan” for all properties located on County Road 10 − Encourage and support innovative stormwater solutions & renewable energy systems − Sign changes: o Reduce sign setback requirements along County Road 10 o Prohibit new pole signs going forward – only monument signs allowed o Require all pole signs be replaced with monument signs within X years April 17, 2013 Staff Report Page 2 Sustainability, Green Building, Renewable Energy, Etc. Another topic that the City Council would like expand and encourage more of is the use of solar energy, renewable energy, etc. There has been a lot of activity and articles in the last several years regarding these topics as more residents and businesses install renewable energy systems, buy more fuel efficient vehicles and become more aware of the financial and environmental impacts that these changes can make. A simple way that the City can promote renewable energy is to have City Codes that don’t hinder the installation of these systems. Our City Code does make it more difficult by requiring a property owner to go through the conditional use permit process to install a solar system, but requires nothing except a building permit to install a wind generator. These sections of the City Code should be reviewed and amended. The nearby cities of Roseville and St. Anthony have strongly embraced promoting sustainability in their communities. Both cities have a lot of information on their websites about how to live greener, recycling, composting, etc. St. Anthony has adopted a “Sustainability Plan” with goals and guides for residents, businesses and city government activities and development. Recommendation Begin the discussion about City Code amendments that would promote and support development and renewable energy systems. Sincerely, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Code Sections 1103.04 and 1104.05 Current Mounds View City Code for Solar Energy and Wind Generator Systems 1103.04: SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS AND STRUCTURES: Subd. 1. Qualification: To qualify as a solar energy system, the system must be permanently located for not less than ninety (90) days in any calendar year beginning with the first calendar year after completion of construction. Passive solar energy systems are included but not to the extent that they fulfill only recreational uses. Subd. 2. Conditional Use: Solar energy systems and solar structures shall be permitted by conditional use in all districts; provided, that the system and/or structure is in compliance with minimum lot requirements and setbacks and meets the requirements of subdivision 1125.01(3) of this Title, but in no event shall a conditional use permit be granted for a solar energy system or structure which, when installed, would prevent abutting properties from being developed in conformance with all applicable codes or regulations. Subd. 3. Casting of Shadows: No owner, occupier or person in control of property shall allow vegetation or structures to be placed so as to cast a shadow on a solar energy system which is greater than the shadow cast by a hypothetical wall ten feet (10') high located along the boundary of said property between the hours of nine thirty o'clock (9:30) A.M. and two thirty o'clock (2:30) P.M. Central Standard Time on December 21; provided, however, this standard shall not apply to vegetation or structures which cast a shadow upon the solar energy system at the time of installation of said solar energy system or to vegetation existing at the time of installation of said solar energy system. Subd. 4. Violation Declared Nuisance: Violation of this standard shall constitute a private nuisance, and any owner or occupant whose solar energy system is shaded because of such violation so that performance of the system is impaired may have in tort for the damages sustained thereby and may have such nuisance abated. (1988 Code §40.04) 1103.05: WIND GENERATOR SYSTEMS: Subd. 1. Height: The height of a wind generator system shall not exceed thirty feet (30') above the height of the principal structure. Subd. 2. Anchorage: Anchorage of the system's tower shall not be located within ten feet (10') of the property line. Subd. 3. Protection from Climbing: The tower or support for the system shall be of climbproof design or protected by fencing. Subd. 4. Compliance with Other Laws: Location and height must be in accordance with all other governing jurisdictions and laws as they exist and are amended. Subd. 5. Noise: The system shall have a silent operation and be subject to the requirements of Chapter 604, Nuisances, of this Code. Subd. 6. Plans and Specifications: All systems will require plans, specifications and a site plan approved by a registered engineer or architect if deemed necessary by the City. (1988 Code §40.04)