HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-18-2011
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
May 18, 2011 -- 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes:
January 5, 2011
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. Discuss Current City Code about Driveways and Parking Areas
7. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. June 1, 2011
B. June 15, 2011
8. Adjourn to Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSION
1. Review Minutes:
a. March 16, 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
March 16, 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. March 16, 2011.
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Commissioners Rundle, Schiltgen, Stevenson, Smith and Miller.
Absent and Excused: Commissioners Cramblit and Meehlhause.
Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller and Community Development Director
Roberts.
______________________________________________________________________________
Index to Minutes Page
Approval of Minutes 1
IU2011-001 Interim use Permit for a Temporary Tent at the Mermaid
Applicant: Mike Anderson, Mermaid Acquisition Group 2
_____________________________________________________________________________
3. Approval of Minutes
December 15, 2010
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Smith. To approve the minutes of
the December 15, 2010 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Mounds View Planning Commission March 16, 2011
Regular Meeting Page 2
____________________________________________________________________________
4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
None.
______________________________________________________________________________
5. Planning Cases
A. IU2011-001 – Interim Use Permit for a Temporary Tent at the Mermaid
Applicant: Mike Anderson, Mermaid Acquisition Group, Inc. Address:
2200 County Highway 10
Planning Associate Heller stated the process for reviewing and approving an interim use permit
(IUP) for a temporary outdoor membrane structure is the same as the process for considering a
conditional use permit. In 2004, 2005 and again in 2010 the City Council approved an Interim
Use Permit for the Mermaid to have a temporary tent. As of 2011, the Mermaid has new owners,
and the resolution of approval for the IUP states that the approval is void if the ownership
changes. An annual fire permit is required for this temporary structure. As a part of this permit
process, the fire marshal will review the application and tent material information, and conduct
an inspection post erection. She added the tent may be erected for up to 180 days per the state
building code.
Chair Stevenson stated originally the IUP permits were renewed annually and after the first year
of renewal it was amended to renew every five years.
Dan Hall, previous owner of the Mermaid, stated the City Council initiated the five-year renewal
after they saw that there were no problems with the tent.
Mike Anderson of Anderson Properties, new owner of the Mermaid, introduced himself and
indicated he would like to continue to use the tent for events and banquets.
Commission Schiltgen asked about the inspections of the tent.
Planning Associate Heller stated that the property owner must apply for a fire permit every year
before installing the tent, and then the Fire Marshal/Building Official would inspect the tent after
it was erected and before it could be used for any events.
Commissioner Miller arrived at the meeting at 7:15pm.
Commissioner Schiltgen suggested approving the resolution for a shorter term than the five
years.
Chair Stevenson asked about the five-year period and the fallback for the City if there were
issues.
Mounds View Planning Commission March 16, 2011
Regular Meeting Page 3
____________________________________________________________________________
Planning Associate Heller stated there is language in the resolution allowing the City review the
interim use permit at any time if problems arise that could necessitate revision or termination of
the interim use permit.
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution
937-11 Recommending Approval of an Interim Use Permit for a Temporary Outdoor Membrane
Structure at the Mermaid located at 2200 County Highway 10; Planning Case IU2011-001
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Planning Associate Heller stated this case would go before the City Council on March 28th.
______________________________________________________________________________
6. Other Planning Activity
None.
______________________________________________________________________________
7. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. April 6, 2011
B. April 20, 2011
______________________________________________________________________________
8. Adjournment to Agenda Session
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the
meeting at 7:18 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________________
(The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session)
Respectfully submitted,
James Ericson
City Administrator
Transcribed by:
Barbara Suciu
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Item No: 6A
Meeting Date: May 18, 2011
Type of Business: Discussion
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Planning Commission
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Discussion about Driveways and Parking Areas in
Single-Family Residential Areas
Introduction:
Permits for replacement driveways or driveway expansions are one of the common permits
issued every year, and parking off an improved surface is one of the most common code
enforcement problems. City staff was discussing some of the specific parking problems that
occur and decided to talk to the Planning Commission about what the current regulations are
for driveways and parking areas, and if any changes are recommended.
Discussion:
Many properties in Mounds View have narrow driveways and/or more than two vehicles. The
City receives many complaints about and finds many vehicles parked off the driveway in the
grass. After repeated driving over the same grass area, eventually it turns into a dirt patch and
is not attractive. Several years ago, the City decided to allow up to 300 square feet of gravel
parking areas as a more affordable option for homeowners to expand their driveways or add
additional parking in the side or back yard. Most cities have driveway width and setback
regulations, even if they do not require a permit for one. The most common side setback
requirement is five feet. No cities require more than five feet (other than in a very low density
residential district) and only a couple cities allow less than that.
The Mounds View City Code currently regulates driveways and parking areas with these
restrictions:
• Driveway curb cuts (the opening at the street) may not be more than 24 feet wide
• Driveways may be the width of the garage plus 12 feet, or 35 feet wide, whichever is greater
• Driveways must have a hard surface - asphalt, concrete, pavers
• Up to 300 square feet of gravel may be used as a parking area
• Driveways and parking areas must have a side yard setback of at least 5 feet
• If an accessory building is to be utilized for the storage of frequently used vehicles, it shall
be serviced by an improved driveway (1106.03 subd. 1h)
• All vehicles must be parked on a hard surface (exception: trailers with weight classifications
of A or B (0-3,000 pounds) may be parked on the grass)
• All new construction homes must install a hard surface driveway. Existing gravel driveways
can be maintained, but not expanded in size.
• Single-family properties are allowed to have 1 curb cut. Over the years, some property
owners have created a second curb cut. The second curb cuts are being eliminated when
the street is reconstructed unless it can be shown that the second access has been in place
for many years.
Driveway Discussion
May 18, 2011
Page 2
Items for Planning Commission to Discuss:
A driveway can be expanded or a separate parking area can be constructed in the side or back
yard, as long as it fits within the dimension and setback requirements. The idea for the
separate parking area is to allow the storage of seldom-moved vehicles or trailers to be stored
on the property without taking up space on the driveway. One of the problems that City Staff
sees is a separate parking area in the backyard that is not connected to the driveway and is
being accessed regularly. One particular problem property is located on a corner, and a vehicle
is driving over the curb daily to park on a gravel patch in the backyard. Staff recommends
adding language to the City Code that would require a hard surface driveway installed up to a
parking area if used frequently.
• Should additional parking areas be allowed only if they are adjacent to the driveway?
• Should the parking area be required to be accessible from the driveway, even if it is not
adjacent to the driveway?
• Should there be a limit on how much of the property is a hard surface? The code currently
only limits the percentage of building coverage in the rear yard (20%).
• If a property has a gravel driveway, should a hard surface driveway be required if a new
oversize garage is built?
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission should discuss the current driveway and parking area regulations
and possibly make recommendations for code amendments.
Sincerely,
Heidi Heller
Planning Associate