Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-07-2011 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA December 7, 2011 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: November 2, 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 A. VR2011-008 Consideration of a Variance to Allow a Detached Accessory Building to Exceed the Maximum Height Limit Address: 8027 Woodlawn Drive Applicant: Tim Downing B. MI2011-002 Consideration of a Minor Subdivision Address: 2565 Sherwood Road (adjacent north side vacant parcel) Applicant: Bob & Mary Pearson 6. Other Planning Activity A. Set 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule B. Review 2012 Planning Commissioner Applications 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. December 21, 2011 B. January 4, 2012 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. November 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 November 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. for November 16, 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 CU2011-001. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage 2 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment to Allow Outdoor Vending Kiosks in Commercial Zoning Districts 3 Discuss City Code Amendment to Allow Massage Therapy as a Home Based Business 4 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes October 5, 2011. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the Minutes of the October 5, 2011 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Mounds View Planning Commission November 16, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. CU2011-001 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage Planning Associate Heller requested the Commission consider a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow outdoor storage for The Tyson Companies located at 4825 Mustang Circle. Tyson Companies is a trucking and warehouse business that has been located in Mounds View for many years. The property is zoned industrial and outdoor storage is a conditional use in industrial districts. Associate Heller indicated the Tyson Companies would like to utilize their large property for additional business and be able to offer outdoor storage to customers. The storage area would only be visible to a few manufactured homes that are directly next to Tyson’s property. The area has been used for parking semi-trailers for many years, and would now simply include some stacked product. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit as requested. Chair Stevenson questioned how tall the outdoor storage would be stacked. Dale Tellers, representing The Tyson Companies, stated they had considered a contract for storing double high pallets of shingles that would have been about 8 feet tall. He stated that the height would depend on what the product was being stored. Chair Stevenson suggested the outdoor storage not exceed the building height. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if there were OSHA standards regarding storage height. Mr. Tellers stated safety would be a primary consideration and he would not want any products damaged or falling since their company is responsible for the product while it was on their property. Associate Heller stated fire code may regulate some products, as well as the manufacturer putting limits on how much they want stacked on top of each other. Commissioner Meehlhause questioned how long the outdoor storage products would be stored on site. Mr. Tellers noted the intent was to have the products sit four to five months before clearing out. Mounds View Planning Commission November 16, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolution 951-11, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Tyson Trucking (D and A Development) at 4825 Mustang Circle; Planning Case No. CU2011-001. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Proposed Zoning Code Amendment to Allow Outdoor Vending Kiosks in Commercial Zoning Districts Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission this item was discussed at the November 2, 2011 Planning meeting. Staff has received a few requests from local businesses requesting to install Redbox kiosks. At this time, the City Code does not allow for outdoor vending kiosks. Associate Heller indicated Walgreens has spoken with the City over the past several months seeking a Code Amendment to allow for this use. The Commission decided that the zoning code should be amended to allow these kiosks as a conditional use in commercial districts, including commercial PUD’s, but only at retail stores and restaurants. Associate Heller reviewed Chapter 1112, B-1 Neighborhood Business District, Subdivision 1112.04 with the Commission. She stated that this new language would be added to the B-1 district conditional uses since the zoning code builds on each chapter. Staff recommends that the Commission review and comment on the proposed language for the outdoor vending kiosks. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if hotels should be permitted to offer these vending kiosks. Chair Stevenson stated this would not be necessary since hotel TV’s offered movie rentals. Associate Heller added that two of the hotels within the City are very close to McDonalds, which currently has a Redbox inside the restaurant. Commissioner Smith questioned if the number of kiosks should be limited to two per site. Associate Heller stated the number of kiosks allowed would be specified in each Resolution on a case-by-case basis. Staff and the Planning Commission would need to review the outdoor space available for each applicant. Applicants can also request a CUP amendment if they want to add a second kiosk later on. Chair Stevenson inquired if the Police Department had been contacted regarding this issue. Associate Heller explained she did not bring this to the Police Department as these vending kiosks are becoming more common and there would be no cash inside the machine. Mounds View Planning Commission November 16, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Rundle stated the Redbox units were usually well lit and placed outside of reputable businesses. Chair Stevenson thanked Staff for including the requirement of “not impacting the flow of traffic” in the proposed zoning code language. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 952-11, a Resolution Amending Chapter 1112 of the Mounds View Zoning Code to Allow for Outdoor Vending Kiosks in Commercial Zoning Districts. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. B. Discuss City Code Amendment to Allow Massage Therapy as a Home Based Business Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that at the October 24, 2011 City Council meeting, a resident asked the Council if massage therapy could be considered as a home based business in the City of Mounds View. The City Council discussed the idea at their work session on November 7th. The City Council supports amending the City Code and has asked that the Planning Commission discuss how this should be accomplished. Associate Heller explained that currently the City Code only allows massage therapy in at least the B-2 zoning district and a city business license is required. An extensive amount of information is required from massage therapists in order to be issued an annual city license. Staff checked other community city codes and most require a license or conditional use permit to allow massage therapy as a home based business. Associate Heller indicated the easiest way to allow massage therapy as a home based business would be to amend Chapter 514.10, and state that therapeutic massage may be located in residential zoning districts. The Commission could also choose to allow massage therapy in residential districts as a conditional use. This would require an amendment to Chapter 1106.04 of the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning Code, adding therapeutic massage as a conditional use. This option would allow for greater control on this home based business, however, this may not be necessary, given the lengthy background check process already completed. She requested the Commission discuss the proposed zoning amendment options and direct Staff on how to proceed. Chair Stevenson questioned how the City would complete a renewal for these business licenses, and are site visits done as part of the licensing process. Associate Heller stated no site visits were currently being done for any business licenses. The Assistant City Administrator processes the business license applications every year, does a background check if necessary, and updates the City’s records prior to issuing a license. Associate Heller indicated the City could possibly complete onsite visits. Mounds View Planning Commission November 16, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Cramblit asked if this use would be allowed in an apartment or townhome unit. Associate Heller stated this would have to reviewed to see if the City could limit the types of residential housing this particular home-based business could be located in. She indicated some rental housing may include language in the leases regarding home-based businesses. Commissioner Schiltgen felt this type of use needed to be more restricted as there is no State licensing available for massage therapy. Commissioner Smith suggested requiring that each business owner prove they are a licensed massage therapist. Commissioner Schiltgen inquired if there was a fee for the business license. Associate Heller stated there are fees for every business license. She was uncertain of the amount for massage therapists but estimated it to be at least $100. Chair Stevenson was more comfortable with the conditional use permit for massage therapy businesses at a reduced planning application rate. He felt this process allowed the City greater means to regulate the use. Commissioner Smith questioned if additional employees would be allowed in the home based business for massage therapists. Associate Heller noted this was addressed in the City Code section about home businesses. Commissioner Miller asked if in-home visits were currently allowed. Associate Heller stated a massage therapist could do in-home visits. Chair Stevenson supported allowing massage therapy as a home based business with either a special use permit or a conditional use permit. The Commission agreed with this recommendation. Associate Heller stated she would look into other cities Special Use Permits in more detail and determine the best option and bring this back to the Commission at a future meeting. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. December 7, 2011 B. December 21, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission November 16, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:50 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: 5A Meeting Date: December 7, 2011 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Variance to allow a Detached Accessory Building to Exceed the Maximum Height Limit at 8027 Woodlawn Drive; Planning Case VR11-008 Introduction: The applicant, Tim Downing, property owner of 8027 Woodlawn Drive, is requesting a variance to allow the height of his detached accessory building to exceed the maximum height limit of 18 feet. Mr. Downing has built a second garage on his property that is 22 feet 10 inches tall. Discussion: In October 2007, the applicant was issued a building permit to construct a detached accessory building on his property. The building plans submitted were for a typical style, single story, 936 square foot detached garage. At the time the permit was issued, the Zoning Code height limit was 15 feet as measured midway between the peak and the eave. Mr. Downing’s garage plans showed a height of 11 feet at the midway point, which met the current zoning code. In November 2009 the Zoning Code was amended, and the height limit for accessory buildings was changed to 18 feet at the highest point. Mr. Downing did not start work on the garage for a long time, and the City Building Official granted several extensions for his building permit in order to keep the permit “active” until he had time to start construction. Per the building code, a building permit will stay active as long as some construction work is being done at least every 6 months. If after 6 months no work has been done, the permit will expire. The applicant may submit a written request for an extension of their permit, which the Building Official may grant at their discretion. A footing inspection for the garage was finally done by the City building inspector on August 31, 2010, and the floor slab was poured the next week. After that, the City did not receive any requests from Mr. Downing for more inspections. In late August 2011, Staff became aware that a 2-story garage had been constructed on the applicant’s property. After reviewing the permit application, staff saw that the garage Mr. Downing built was very different from the plans he had submitted in 2007. The Building Official attempted to contact Mr. Downing in late August 2011, and again in September after receiving no response to the first letter. In early October 2011, staff finally spoke with Mr. Downing and he submitted a drawing of the as-built garage showing the garage height to the peak was 22 feet 10 inches. At that time, staff informed him that he would need to either reduce the height of the garage or apply for a variance. Mr. Downing chose to apply for a variance. Downing Garage Height Variance Report December 7, 2011 Page 2 The Zoning Code states that the Planning Commission may issue a variance to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of the property owner’s land. This is true for all variance requests. 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. A variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. The zoning code limits the height of buildings in order to maintain visual consistency throughout neighborhoods. Accessory buildings in particular have these limitations so they do not exceed the height of the house, and to limit the uses that could occur in a larger building. This garage is not taller than the house, and will provide more indoor storage for the applicant. b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. While the Comprehensive Plan does not specify design or size criteria for buildings, it does support improvements to and the maintenance of properties. One might say that the applicant has built a “better than standard” looking garage because of the added design features of windows and dormers. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The applicant owns many things that would be stored in a large garage. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. This property does not have any unique features other than it is a larger lot. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant’s neighborhood consists of large, almost one acre size lots, and the applicant has a 2-story house, so the height of the garage is compatible with the house, and the overall garage size does not feel overwhelming to the property or the neighborhood. The second garage is behind the front line of both adjacent neighbor’s home and garage. Downing Garage Height Variance Report December 7, 2011 Page 3 f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The 4’10” height variance is the minimum variance needed to alleviate the practical difficulties since the garage is already built. g. The Planning Commission may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood, and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. The applicant has not finished the exterior of the accessory building. A new/modified building permit for the as-built structure has not yet been approved by the Building Official. If a variance is granted, staff would recommend imposing conditions of deadlines for receiving Building Official plan approval for the as-built garage, issuance and payment for the modified building permit, along with a deadline for completing the exterior finish of the garage. Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, this application requires a public hearing. Staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of the applicant’s property and a notice was published in the Sun Focus newspaper on Thursday, November 24, 2011. Staff received one phone call from the property owner of 8005 Woodlawn Drive on November 28, 2011. He is the neighbor immediately adjacent to the south. He is not in favor of allowing the applicant to disregard the city rules and exceed the height limit for the detached garage. The neighbor indicated that the applicant has also expanded the front garage without a permit, and there is still no finished exterior surface on the expanded area walls after at least 3 years. The neighbor has concerns about the overall maintenance of the property, particularly the several vehicles, trailers and farm equipment that are in the backyard and parking off the driveway in the grass. Downing Garage Height Variance Report December 7, 2011 Page 4 Recommendation: Staff recommends holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and the public. The Commission may take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. An approval version of Resolution 955-11 is attached for action if the Commission so chooses. 2. Deny the requested variance. A denial version of Resolution 955-11 is attached for action if the Commission so chooses. 3. Table the request. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide there is a need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Respectfully Submitted By, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photos 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Drawing of Garage 5. Letter from Applicant, Tim Downing 6. Resolution 955-11 (Approval & Denial versions) NZONING MAP * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View N H New Garage location 8027 The aerial photo was taken before the garage was constructed, but the footprint area has been cleared. Photographic Documentation View of property from the street. Top of tall garage is visible behind the front garage. Looking southeast across the backyard. View of north side of tall garage. Rear corner roof overhang of the front garage View of front/west side of tall garage. Looking southwest across backyard at tall garage and back of house (standing in NE corner of yard) View of rear of tall garage and south neighbors house and garage (standing in SE corner of yard) South neighbor’s property: GARAGE and HOUSE Drawing of front of as-built garage Letter from Applicant Letter from Applicant APPROVAL VERSION MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 955-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 22 FOOT 10 INCH TALL DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING AT 8027 WOODLAWN DRIVE; PLANNING CASE VR2011-008 WHEREAS, the applicant, Tim Downing, property owner of 8027 Woodlawn Drive, has applied for a variance to allow a 22 foot 10 inch tall garage on his property; and, WHEREAS, 8027 Woodlawn Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as: Woodlawn Terrace, Lot 24, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 05-30-23-32-0033 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Staff Report WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements restricts the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing regarding this request on December 7, 2011; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 8027 Woodlawn Drive, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 955-11 Page 2 1. The garage does not exceed the height of the house and is intended to provide enough indoor storage for the amount of items that the applicant owns. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant has added a significant improvement to his property and can store more items indoors. 3. The applicant owns several vehicles, trailers and other equipment that could be stored indoors. He will be able to maintain his property by being able to store most or all of his items inside. 4. The applicant’s lot is almost an acre in size, which is larger than most in the city. 5. The tall garage does not appear to be an overwhelming size for the neighborhood or the applicant’s property. 6. The 4’10” variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s practical difficulty since the structure is already built. 7. The Planning Commission may impose conditions upon the premises as may be necessary to comply with city standards and to minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood. These conditions are as follows: a. The applicant must receive approval from the Building Official for a new building permit for the garage as it is actually built. b. The applicant must pay the additional permit fees for the new building permit. c. The applicant must complete the exterior of the garage by April 1, 2012. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of Tim Downing, property owner of 8027 Woodlawn Drive, to allow one 22 foot 10 inch tall garage, subject to the conditions stated above in Item 7. Adopted this 7th day of December, 2011. _________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: __________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) DENIAL VERSION MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 955-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY BUILDING TO EXCEED THE 18 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AT 8027 WOODLAWN DRIVE; PLANNING CASE VR2011-008 WHEREAS, the applicant, Tim Downing, property owner of 8027 Woodlawn Drive, has applied for a variance to allow a 22 foot 10 inch tall garage on his property; and, WHEREAS, 8027 Woodlawn Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as: Woodlawn Terrace, Lot 24, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 05-30-23-32-0033 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Staff Report WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements restricts the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing regarding this request on December 7, 2011; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that all of the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are not satisfied, and finds there not to be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 8027 Woodlawn Drive, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 955-11 Page 2 1. The Zoning Code has established regulations for accessory building height in order to maintain visual consistency in the neighborhood, and to prevent accessory buildings from being taller or overshadow the house on the property. The applicant did not follow his submitted and City approved building plans, and did not follow City Code regulations. 2. The variance may not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, although the Comprehensive Plan would not encourage property owners to not follow City Code regulations. 3. The applicant may intend to use the property and garage in a reasonable manner, but has not demonstrated that there is a true “practical difficulty” associated with this property that would warrant allowing a garage to exceed the Zoning Code height limit. 4. There are no unique circumstances that apply to this property. The need to apply for a variance is the direct result of actions by the property owner. 5. Granting a variance to allow a taller garage may not alter the character of this particular neighborhood since the lots are large. 6. The variance requested is the minimum variance needed since the garage is already built. 7. The Planning Commission may impose conditions upon the premises as may be necessary to comply with city standards and to minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, denies the variance request of Tim Downing, property owner of 8027 Woodlawn Drive, to allow a garage to exceed the 18 foot accessory building height limit. Adopted this 7th day of December, 2011. _________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: __________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: December 7, 2011 Type of Business: Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of the Minor Subdivision of a Vacant Lot Adjacent to 2565 Sherwood Road; Planning Case MI2011-002 Introduction: Bob & Mary Pearson have applied for a minor subdivision to subdivide a vacant lot they own adjacent to their property at 2565 Sherwood Road. The lot is not for development purposes, but has simply been additional backyard area for the Pearsons since they purchased it in 2000. Their neighbor, Joe Holl, at 2573 Sherwood would now like to buy the west half of this vacant lot, also for more backyard space. The proposed subdivision will create two vacant lots. The applicants have submitted a Certificate of Survey that shows the subdivision. Discussion: A minor subdivision is ordinarily a division of land less than two acres in area in which no more than one additional lot is created. The lot is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and the Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low density residential. The minimum lot width for interior residential parcels is 75 feet and the minimum lot area is 11,000 square feet, and corner lots must be a minimum of 100 feet wide and 12,500 square feet. Below is a table which shows the dimensions for the parcels before and as a result of the proposed adjustment: Before Area Sq. Feet / Lot Dimension After Area Sq. feet / Lot Dimension Pearson owned lot 29,904 square feet 299’ x 10’ 11,365 square feet 113.65’ x 100’ Holl owned lot N/A 18,539 square feet 185.39’ x 100’ As this table shows, the proposed lots will meet or exceed all city standards. At this point, neither lot is planned for development. The east lot that the Pearsons will own is land-locked. The new lot that Mr. Holl will own does have Greenwood Drive right- of-way on the west side, so could have street frontage at some point. A few years ago when the housing market was good, some developers had been attempting to assemble land in this area, and planned to construct Greenwood Drive for the development’s access road. The new lot that Mr. Holl will own does meet the City’s size standards for a “buildable lot” if Greenwood Drive were to be built. Pearson Subdivision Staff Report December 7, 2011 Page 2 Park Dedication Requirements. Subdivisions of land are subject to park dedication requirements consistent with Chapter 1204 of the City Code. When the subdivided parcels are not going to be developed, Staff typically recommends that the park dedication fee not be required. Since there are no current plans for development of the lots, staff is recommending that the park dedication fee not be required at this time. However, the west lot is technically “buildable” because of the existing platted road right-of-way frontage. Staff is including a condition in the resolution stating that if a house is ever built on either of these lots, a park dedication fee will be required as part of the building permit application. Easements. With most subdivisions, the City requires the owner to dedicate drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the lot. Since there will be no construction occurring, staff is not requiring that these easements be added at this time. There are currently existing easements shown on the survey that will remain in place. Public Notice. No public notice is required for a minor subdivision. Summary. The proposed subdivision will simply split the vacant property and create one new parcel. All minimum city requirements are met with this request. The new property line was placed so that the Pearon’s shed has the required minimum 5 foot setback. Recommendation: Because the proposed subdivision satisfies all city code requirements, Staff is recommending approval of Resolution 954-11, a resolution approving the minor subdivision of a vacant lot owned by Bob & Mary Pearson, adjacent to 2565 Sherwood Road. Respectfully Submitted By, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Map 3. Resolution 954-11 4. Certificate of Survey Zoning Map  Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential  Areas shown with red dots are City roadway easements N NAerial Map New property line 2573 - Holl 2565 - Pearson Greenwood Drive right- of-way easement area N MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 954-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF THE VACANT LOT OWNED BY ROBERT AND MARY PEARSON, ADJACENT TO 2565 SHERWOOD ROAD; PLANNING CASE NO. MI2011-002 WHEREAS, Robert and Mary Pearson have requested approval of a minor subdivision of a vacant lot they own adjacent to their property at 2565 Sherwood Road, a property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally-described as: The Westerly 299.00 feet of the Easterly 528.66 feet of the North 100.00 feet of the South 262.00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 30 North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 06-30-23-14-0071 WHEREAS, the Applicants propose to subdivide this vacant lot into two lots; Robert and Mary Pearson will remain the owners of the east lot, and intend to sell the west lot; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Applicants request for a minor subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, and 1202 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Applicants request for a minor subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, since both parcels are planned to remain vacant open space and no additional homes built as part of this subdivision, a park dedication fee is not required with this subdivision application; and, WHEREAS, if in the future, a new house is constructed on either of these vacant parcels, a park dedication fee, based on five percent of the Ramsey County assessed market land value (of the year current at the time of building permit application), will be required before a building permit is issued. Resolution 954-11 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Applicants shall have 6 months from final approval to file proper documentation with Ramsey County, including new deeds, and furnish proof of such recording to the City. If such action is not accomplished by the date so indicated, this minor subdivision approval shall be considered null and void. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of a minor subdivision of the vacant lot owned by Robert & Mary Pearson, adjacent to their property at 2565 Sherwood Road, subject to the following stipulations: 1. The Applicants shall complete any and all requirements after final review of the Certificate of Survey and title commitment by the City Attorney. 2. The Applicants shall arrange to amend the Certificate of Survey if any changes are required by Ramsey County. 3. The Applicants are responsible for reimbursing the City of all fees associated with this subdivision request. NOW, THEREFORE 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 7th day of December, 2011. __________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 6A Meeting Date: December 7, 2011 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Subject: Consideration of Resolution 953-11, Establishing the Planning Commission’s 2012 Meeting Schedule. Introduction: The Planning Commission establishes its meeting schedule each year by resolution. Discussion: 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. The first Wednesday in July is July 4th. Typically, in the past when this has happened, the meetings were shifted that month to the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays. This is not possible to do now because the Charter Commission meets on the 2nd Wednesday. The options to deal with this holiday is to (a) only hold only one meeting in July or (b) shift the meeting to either Tuesday, July 3rd or Thursday, July 5th. Staff would recommend going with option B, shifting the meeting to Tuesday or Thursday. That way there is a meeting scheduled if necessary, but it can be cancelled if there are no planning cases. There do not appear to be any other conflicts with holidays that would fall midweek with the exception of November 21st, which is the day before Thanksgiving. If there are no planning cases for consideration during that time, the meeting could be cancelled. Recommendation: Discuss options for dealing with the first July meeting and Approve Resolution 953-11, a resolution establishing the 2012 meeting schedule of the Planning Commission. The schedule attached has been drafted with the first July meeting changed to Tuesday, July 3rd, but this may be amended based on Commission direction. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 953-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE 2012 MEETING SCHEDULE OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission intends to hold two regular meetings per month during the year 2012; and, WHEREAS, with the exception of July, the Planning Commission will meet on the first and third Wednesdays of each month, or as amended; and, WHEREAS, the schedule of meeting dates shall be established and posted to provide an orderly system for use by the Planning Commission, staff and general public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Exhibit 1, attached hereto, is the Planning Commission’s official meeting schedule for the year 2012. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that if the Planning Commission is required to or desires to hold special or emergency meetings, such meetings will be held in accordance with State law, Code requirements and Commission Bylaws. Adopted this 7th day of December, 2011 ____________________________________ Gary Stevenson Chairperson ATTEST ____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) EXHIBIT 1. 2012 MEETING SCHEDULE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 4 January 18 February 1 February 15 March 7 March 21 April 4 April 18 May 2 May 16 June 6 June 20 July 3 (Tuesday) July 18 August 1 August 15 September 5 September 19 October 3 October 17 November 7 November 21 December 5 December 19 Item No: 6B Meeting Date: December 7, 2011 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: Planning Commission Term Expirations and New Applications Review 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. The Planning Commission will review the applications at the December 7, 2011 meeting, and the City Council will make the official appointments on December 12, 2011. Sincerely, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Planning Application from Gary Stevenson 2. Planning Application from Gary Meehlhause 3. Planning Application from Jean Miller