Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-18-2012 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 18, 2012 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business A. Oath of Office for re-appointed Commissioners B. Election of Officers – Chair and Vice-Chair 4. Approval of Minutes: November 16, 2011 5. 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.) 6. Planning Cases None 7. Other Planning Activity A. Continue Discussion on a City Code Amendment to Allow Massage Therapy as a Home Based Business B. Discuss updated language for Chapter 1121.09 Code Amendment 8. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. February 1, 2012 B. February 15, 2012 9. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. December 7, 2011 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 December 7, 2011 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 December 7, 2011. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Miller, Rundle, Schiltgen, Stevenson and Smith. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 VR2011-008. Consideration of a Variance to Allow a Detached 2 Accessory Building to Exceed the Maximum Height Limit MI2011-002. Consideration of a Minor Subdivision 5 Set 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule 6 Review 2012 Planning Commissioner Applications 7 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes November 2, 2011. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Smith. To approve the Minutes of the November 2, 2011 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission December 7, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. VR2011-008 Consideration of a Variance to Allow a Detached Accessory Building to Exceed the Maximum Height Limit at 8027 Woodlawn Drive for Tim Downing Planning Associate Heller explained the Commission was to consider a variance request to allow a detached accessory building (garage) to exceed the maximum height limit at 8027 Woodlawn Drive. This was an after the fact variance as the garage has been constructed. Associate Heller explained in 2007, the applicant applied for a building permit for a single story garage. City staff approved the plans and the permit was issued in October 2007. However, the garage was not built right away and several time extensions were given for the building permit. In November 2009, the zoning code was changed to limit the height of accessory buildings to 18 feet. Work on the garage finally started in August 2010 and it was mostly completed by mid- 2011. Other than a footing inspection on August 31, 2010, no other building inspections had been requested by the applicant. City Staff was not aware the garage had been built until it was almost done. The garage that was built is two-stories tall and does not meet the previously approved plans or the current zoning code. Associate Heller stated the garage was being used for storage and the size of the garage is not necessarily out of place on the larger lot. She presented the Commission with several photographs of the garage and discussed City zoning code regulations. The current City Code states that garages were not to exceed 18 feet and the garage was 22 feet 10 inches tall. The Commission would need to review the variance request through the City’s new variance language and discuss if there is a practical difficulty. She reviewed several conditions if the Commission were to approve the variance. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Commissioner Cramblit asked why windows were placed on three sides of the garage, if it was only being used for storage. Tim Downing, 8027 Woodlawn Drive, indicated he is a contractor, and had several leftover windows and decided to use them on the building. Commissioner Cramblit questioned the need for the second story garage door. Mr. Downing stated this made it easier to bring items in to the second floor for storage. Mounds View Planning Commission December 7, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Cramblit inquired how the original existing detached garage would be used now. Mr. Downing explained it was his intent to demolish this building and build an attached garage in the future. Commissioner Miller asked when the project would be completed. Mr. Downing noted he did not currently have a timeline. Commissioner Cramblit questioned if the homeowner was aware of the City’s new zoning code prior to constructing the garage. Mr. Downing noted he was somewhat aware there was a change and spoke with the City about a Cambria roof. He explained the original garage was exactly the same minus the dormers and with a 10/12 pitch. He built the garage with a 12 pitch roof to allow for additional head room. He stated he spoke with the building inspector about the roof height and a comment was made that the height “would not be measured” by staff. For this reason, he went ahead with the 12 pitch roof and ordered the different trusses in August 2010. Commissioner Schiltgen indicated the garage constructed was a long way off from the original plans approved for the building permit. Chair Stevenson stated the City Code in place at the time of actual construction limits accessory structures to be no higher than 18 feet. He questioned how the City dealt with new construction using “green” or “used” building materials. Associate Heller stated this area of the international building code was changing with the push towards green building. The building official typically allows “used” building materials as long as they are in good condition and the original structural integrity is still in place. She noted the building official would have more information on this issue. Chair Stevenson commented City staff approved a building permit for a design that was then not followed by the homeowner. He questioned if the plans would have been approved if resubmitted. Associate Heller stated the revised plans would not have been approved by staff as the height exceeds City Code. Chair Stevenson expressed concern with this case and stated he would not have been in favor of approving this variance request if submitted prior to construction. He did not see the property as being unusual and therefore, the construction of a garage this tall would not have been allowed. Chair Stevenson stated that he did not support the variance request before the Commission this evening. Doug Less, owner of 7984 Woodlawn Drive, explained he lived on Woodlawn Drive from July of 1987 to April of 2007. He planned to tear down the house and build a new home and large Mounds View Planning Commission December 7, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ garage. He turned in the original set of drawings to the City and the City did not accept the plans as the garage size exceeded 1,800 square feet. The plans were then revised to reduce the garage size to meet the City’s standards. After submitting the second set of plans, he was told the home needed to be completed first before the accessory structure could be built. And tonight he learned the height requirements for garages have now changed. Mr. Less expressed frustration that this garage exceeded the height limitations and allowable square footage, and in addition, there was no driveway to the structure. He was upset with the mess created by the homeowner. He recommended that the second story be removed from this structure. Joanna Carlson, 8051 Woodlawn Drive, stated she did not object to the size of the garage as it allowed for necessary storage. However, if this variance were approved, it could steamroll into a problem in the future and set precedence. Christy Downing, 8027 Woodlawn Drive, understood the City should not make exceptions. She indicated her husband was working with building inspector Don on the garage, and perhaps he did not understand the issues that would be created by exceeding the height. Ms. Downing explained that her husband did not knowingly defy the City and its code. Jerry Espeseth, 8005 Woodlawn Drive, indicated the garage was well built, however Mr. Downing did not follow City Code. He stated his property value was down approximately 35% and the large garage structure was not helping. He requested additional screening be added if the Commission allowed for the variance. Mr. Downing commented there were three garages with larger footprints than his within 200 feet of his property. He stated the height allowed the building to block the Medtronic building. He felt the garage should be considered a story and a half and not a two story. He stated that several of his neighbors were not in compliance for issues on their property, but he was not bringing them before the City. Mr. Downing noted he had approval from Staff for a similar garage and requested the structure be allowed to remain. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Associate Heller reviewed the two versions of resolutions before the Commission this evening. Chair Stevenson reviewed the resolution in detail commenting he did not see this property as being unique. He indicated the property owner could have improved his property by adding an accessory structure that met the City’s requirements. For that reason, he did not feel the Commission could approve this variance. Commissioner Cramblit agreed stating the garage should have followed the original plans submitted and approved by staff. Mounds View Planning Commission December 7, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Schiltgen noted the timeframe from the original building plans submission to the actual construction was really drawn out. Changes were made to the City Code during that time and better communication should have been done by the City. For this reason, the variance should be discussed further by the Commission. Chair Stevenson commented the Commission’s decision could be appealed to the City Council. The Commission was being asked to review the practical difficulty and compliance with the Zoning Code. He indicated that when construction began in 2010, the height limit in the Zoning Code had already been changed, and the homeowner was not in compliance with the current Code. For that reason, he would not vote in favor of the variance. Commissioner Smith questioned if the Commission could approve this structure as a primary garage instead of a secondary. Chair Stevenson stated this wasn’t something that could be done. Commissioner Meehlhause asked how many building inspections should have been completed on this garage by the City. Associate Heller stated there should have been at least a footing inspection, framing inspection and final inspection. Also, electrical, mechanical or plumbing inspections, if applicable. She noted there were typically only three to four inspections on a garage. She explained that the City only completed a footing inspection on this garage. The homeowner did not contact the City for any other inspections. Commissioner Cramblit indicated the 18 foot height restriction was created by the City to assure there would be no living space above a garage. With the size of the garage, its dormers and windows, the space could easily be converted to an apartment. Chair Stevenson questioned how the Commission would like to proceed with the variance. Commissioner Cramblit felt the Commission had enough information to take action on the variance this evening and the item did not need to be tabled. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Chair Stevenson. To Approve Resolution 955- 11, a Resolution Denying a Variance to Allow a Detached Accessory Building to Exceed the Maximum Height Limit; Planning Case No. VR2011-008. Commissioner Schiltgen was conflicted with the denial of the variance as the City could have communicated better with the homeowner. Chair Stevenson stated if the applicant had followed the original plans, he would not have needed a variance. However, he changed the plans and built the garage without coming back to the City for approval. Mounds View Planning Commission December 7, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Meehlhause noted the existing garage did not reflect the original plans and his main concern was the excessive height. Commissioner Smith asked if the homeowner had to follow the building codes from 2007 or 2010. Associate Heller stated the code existing in 2010 would have to be followed as this was the time construction began by the homeowner. Commissioner Miller noted the applicant could appeal the Planning Commission’s decision to the Council. Ayes – 6 Nays – 1 (Schiltgen) Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ B. MI2011-002 Consideration of a Minor Subdivision at 2565 Sherwood Road for Bob & Mary Pearson Planning Associate Heller indicated the Commission was being asked to consider a minor subdivision of a vacant lot adjacent to 2565 Sherwood Road. Bob and Mary Pearson live at 2565 Sherwood Road and purchased the vacant property adjacent to the north about ten years ago. She reviewed the location of the subdivision stating their neighbor would like to purchase a portion of the vacant parcel to have a bigger backyard and build a garage. However, City Code does not allow a garage to be built on a parcel without a primary structure. If the neighbor were to combine the lots officially through Ramsey County, which would give them a single PIN number (then an accessory structure would be allowed. Associate Heller recommended that park dedication fees for this subdivision be captured only if a home were built on the site. Accessory buildings would have to be removed if the parcels were ever “disconnected” from each other. Chair Stevenson noted Parcel B was landlocked and could not be built on. Associate Heller stated Parcel A could be built on as it had access to existing road right-of-way to the west, and Parcel B could possibly be part of a larger redevelopment project, but park dedication fees would then be captured through the platting process. Commissioner Smith questioned what the park dedication fees would be. Associate Heller stated park dedication fees would be 5% of the County assessed value of the land. Commissioner Miller commented that at this point in time, neither lot had any plans for development. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission December 7, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Meehlhause/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 954-11, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision of a vacant lot owned by Bob and Mary Pearson, adjacent to 2565 Sherwood Road; Planning Case No. MI2011-002. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Set 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule Planning Associate Heller requested the Commission establish its meeting schedule for 2012. The meeting schedule proposed for 2012 represents the usual first and third Wednesday of every month with the exception of July, which will need to be adjusted to account for Independence Day. She recommended the Commission have a tentative date held on July 3rd or 5th and cancel the meeting if no cases were before the Commission. Chair Stevenson recommended the meeting be changed from July 3rd or 5th to July 10th. Commissioner Cramblit stated the meeting could be cancelled if there were no planning cases. Chair Stevenson noted a special meeting could be called if needed by the Commission. Associate Heller stated she did not see any problems with cancelling the July 4th meeting and rescheduling the meeting to July 10th. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolution 953-11, a Resolution Establishing the 2012 Meeting Schedule of the Planning Commission as discussed above. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. B. Review 2012 Planning Commissioner Applications Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that the term of three Planning Commission members – Gary Stevenson, Gary Meehlhause and Jean Miller - expire at the end of the year. The City advertised the vacancies, with applications due on November 10, 2011. Staff received applications from all three current Commissioners for another term. No other applications for the Planning Commission were received by the City. She requested the Commission review the applications and make a recommendation to the Council. Mounds View Planning Commission December 7, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Rundle. To recommend the City Council reappoint Gary Stevenson, Gary Meehlhause and Jean Miller to the Planning Commission in 2012. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. December 21, 2011 B. January 4, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:36 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: January 18, 2012 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Discuss Code Amendment to Allow Therapeutic Massage as a Permitted Home Occupation Introduction: At a City Council meeting in October, a resident asked the Council whether they would be willing to amend the City Code to be more permissive toward allowance of “massage therapy” as a home based business in Mounds View. The City Council then discussed the idea at their November work session. The City Council supports amending the City Code, and has asked that the Planning Commission take on how this should be accomplished. Discussion: Massage Therapy is a licensed business activity in Mounds View. The regulations pertaining to massage therapy can be found in Chapter 514 of the Mounds City Code, originally adopted in 1996 via Ordinance 583. There are many licensing and zoning requirements associated with such a business and they are expressly permitted only in the B2, B3 & B4 commercial business zoning districts. Such a use is not permitted in a residential zone or as a home-based business, as indicated in Section 514.10, Subd. 2, regarding locations ineligible for a therapeutic massage license. This clause reads, “A therapeutic massage enterprise may not be licensed if the location of such enterprise is not in conformance with Title 1100 of the Mounds View Municipal Code.” At the December 7, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission discussed options about how to amend the City Code to allow massage therapy as a home based business. The Commission felt that the use should not simply be allowed, but that some sort of city action should be taken to permit this business use in a residential district. The Commission decided that a conditional use permit seemed to be the best way to accomplish this. They felt it was important to notify the neighborhood about the business activity, and the required public hearing for a CUP would accomplish that. When reviewing other cities allowances for massage therapy in residential districts, the Commission was interested in the “special home occupation permit” that the City of White Bear Lake uses, and asked staff to find more information. After reviewing the White Bear Lake special home occupation permit process and talking with the Planner, staff feels this might be a good option for Mounds View. It will accomplish what the Planning Commission wants to through the conditional use process, yet the application fee is less and the permit does not run with the land and is not transferrable like a typical CUP. The applicant would also have to renew the special home occupation permit on a regular basis – White Bear Lake requires that it be renewed the first time after one year, and then every three years. Therapeutic Massage Code Amendment Report January 18, 2012 Page 2 Staff has included a draft example of zoning code language that would add a “Special Home Occupation Permit.” This proposed zoning code addition has been sent to the City Attorney to review in order to make sure it doesn’t contradict any existing Code language. An annual city business license for massage therapists will still be required. The special permit would only apply if the therapist wants to operate the business from their home. Discussion points:  What residential zoning districts should home based massage therapy be allowed in? All of them? Only R-1 and R-2?  Should the business hours of operation be limited?  If the applicant does not own the property where they would be operating the business, should they be required to provide a letter of permission from the property owner? Recommendation: The Planning Commission should review and discuss the Special Home Occupation Permit information. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Example language for a Special Home Occupation and Permit EXAMPLE LANGUAGE FOR A SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION AND PERMIT SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION: All massage therapists intending to provide massage services in a residential zoning district shall be required to apply for a "special home occupation permit" which shall be applied for, processed and reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Section 1125.01 Subd. 3 (Conditional Use) Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to provide a means through the establishment of specific standards and procedures by which special or customarily "more sensitive" home occupations can be conducted in residential neighborhoods without jeopardizing the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood. Subd. 1. Procedures and Permits. a. Declaration of Conditions. The Planning Commission and City Council may impose such conditions on the granting of a special home occupation permit as may be necessary to carry out the purpose and provisions of this Section. b. Effect of Permit. A "special home occupation permit" may be issued for a period of one (1) year after which the permit may be reissued for periods of up to three (3) years each. Each application for permit renewal shall, however, be processed in accordance with the procedural requirements of the initial "special home occupation permit". c. Transferability. Permits shall not run with the land and shall not be transferable. d. Lapse of Special Home Occupation Permit by Nonuse. Whenever within one (1) year after granting a permit the use as permitted by the permit shall not have been initiated, 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 Zoning Administrator at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the original permit. There shall be no charge for the filing of such petition. The request for extension shall state facts showing a good faith attempt to initiate the use. Such petition shall be presented to the City Council for a decision. e. Reconsideration. Whenever an application for a permit has been considered and denied by the City Council, a similar application for a permit affecting substantially the same property shall not be considered again by the Planning Commission or City Council for at least six (6) months from the date of its denial unless a decision to reconsider such matter is made by a majority vote of the City Council. f. Renewal of Permits. An applicant shall not have a vested right to a permit renewal by reason of having obtained a previous permit. The previous granting of a permit shall not constitute a precedent or basis for the renewal of a permit. g. General Provisions. No special home occupations shall be allowed which: 1. Involves employees other than persons residing on the premises; 2. Involves alteration or construction features not customarily found in dwellings; 3. Has an exterior display or sign in excess of one (1) square foot. Such sign, for identification purposes only, shall be located on either the principal structure or garage; 4. Generates any on-street parking. All vehicles associated with a home occupation shall be parked off-street and in compliance with the City’s parking requirements; 5. Operates in a structure deemed by the Building Official as unsafe or “not fit for habitation” and; 6. Results in violation of the provisions of Chapter 607, Nuisances, of the Municipal Code. h. Inspection. The City of Mounds View hereby reserves the right upon issuing any home occupation permit to inspect the premises in which the occupation is being conducted to insure compliance with the provisions of this Section or any conditions additionally imposed. Item No: 6B Meeting Date: January 18, 2012 Type of Business: Action City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Proposed Code Amendment – Chapter 1121.09 Introduction: After the discussion about driveways and parking areas in July, the Planning Commission approved an addition into the zoning code regarding accessing parking areas that are separate from the driveway. Staff has revisited the language, and reworded and expanded on it. Staff has prepared a new resolution for the Commission to review and take action on. Discussion: Staff requests that the Planning Commission review the updated language. The change is indicated in the resolution by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text. Previously approved language: If any parking area detached from the driveway is utilized for frequently used vehicles, it shall be serviced by an improved driveway that connects to, and is accessed only by, the primary driveway. Updated language suggestion: All areas used regularly for the parking of a vehicle or vehicles shall be serviced by an improved driveway adjoining to the property’s primary driveway. Access to separate parking areas shall be achieved only from the property’s approved curb cut opening at the street. Regularly accessing parking areas by other means or locations shall be prohibited. Recommendation: The Planning Commission should review the updated zoning code amendment and recommend changes or act on attached Resolution 956-12. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 956-12 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 1121.09 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE TO ADDRESS ACCESSING DETACHED PARKING AREAS WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that a requirement for accessing detached parking areas frequently be specifically addressed in Chapter 1121.09 Subd. 7 of the Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Chapter 1121.09 Subd. 7 of the Mounds View Zoning Code by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text as follows: Chapter 1121.09 Subd. 7. Surfacing: All areas, as allowed in subdivision 1104.01(4) of this Title, to be utilized for parking space and driveways shall be surfaced with a permanent improved surface material as defined in Section 1102.02 of this Chapter, suitable to control dust, drainage and erosion, meeting the requirements of Section 902.03 of this Code except as follows: A gravel surface material meeting the specifications of Section 902.03, subdivision 5 of this Code may be used for parking areas in an R-1 or R-2 District not to exceed three hundred (300) square feet or, if to be used as a parking surface for an RV, the minimum area that would encompass the wheel-base area of one (1) recreational vehicle. All areas used regularly for the parking of a vehicle or vehicles shall be serviced by an improved driveway adjoining to the property’s primary driveway. Access to separate parking areas shall be achieved only from the property’s approved curb cut opening at the street. Regularly accessing parking areas by other means or locations shall be prohibited. Plans for surfacing and drainage of driveways and stalls for five (5) or more vehicles shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review, and the final drainage plan must receive the Director of Public Works/City Engineer's written approval. WHEREAS, amending the Zoning Code to address accessing detached parking areas will serve to clarify the zoning requirements; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that an amendment to the City Code is warranted and justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of an amendment to Chapter 1121.09 Subd. 7 of the Mounds View Zoning Code to address accessing detached parking areas as defined herein. Resolution 956-12 Page 2 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 18th day of January, 2012. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL)