Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-15-2006 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA March 15, 2006 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. February 1, 2006 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already Present on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes.) 5. Planning Cases A. CU2006-001 Conditional Use Permit for an Environmental Processing Center at 4889 Old Highway 8 Applicant: Merlin Brisbin, Star Environmental, Inc. Address: 8182 NE River Road, Elk River, MN 55330 6. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss issues to bring to joint City Council – Planning Commission workshop B. Review Planning Commission Bylaws 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. April 5, 2006 – location to be determined B. April 19, 2006 at New Brighton City Hall 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. February 15, 2006 2. Staff Reports a. February 27 and March 13, 2006 City Council Meetings b. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion *Reminder: City Council and Planning Commission joint workshop of the Council and Commission on Monday, March 20, 2006, at 7:00 pm, at the Mounds View Community Center. *NOTE LOCATION* NEW BRIGHTON CITY HALL 803 Old Highway 8 NW Item No: 5A Meeting Date: March 15, 2006 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 Conditional Use Permit for an Environmental Processing Center at 4889 Old Highway 8; Planning Case No. CU2006-001 Introduction: The applicant, Merlin Brisbin of Star Environmental, Inc., is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for an Environmental Processing Center, which would be located at 4889 Old Highway 8. This is the site of the current Skyline Motel, which is zoned “Industrial” and encompasses three lots for a total of approximately 2.85 acres. The applicant has a signed purchase agreement with the owners of the motel. The applicant would demolish the existing building and is proposing to construct approximately an 11,200 square foot building and a small additional accessory building. Discussion: Section 1116.04 of the Zoning Code conditionally allows manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging or treatment of cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and food products and the rendering or refining of fats and oils as conditional uses in Industrial districts. The applicant is proposing to construct a 10,000 square foot environmental processing center and 1,200 square foot office and research & development, along with a small accessory building for a separate biofilter system. The Environmental Processing Center is designed in response to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Service’s need to change the way industrial and household liquid wastes are managed. This Center will include a receiving and processing facility that uses leading technology to dewater liquid waste in a clean and odor-controlled environment. The dewatering process produces a non-toxic, dry by-product ready for reuse or disposal. The filtrate water will be returned to the Metropolitan Council’s collection system, aiding their downstream processing. According to numerous Environmental Protection Agency documents, utilizing recyclable components of wastewater is preferred and will significantly lower costs for local and state governments. CUP Considerations: With every Conditional Use Permit application, Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address any potential adverse effects which include, but are not limited to; relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area, traffic, adequate utilities and access roads and the demonstrated need for such a use. Each of these potential adverse effects is on the following page. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan encourages the expansion of existing businesses and introduction of new businesses within Mounds View. 4889 Old Highway 8 and all the surrounding properties are designated as light or heavy industrial on the Future Land Use Map and the proposed processing center would not be inconsistent with the Comp Plan. The Geographical Area Involved: The proposed business would be located on Old Highway 8 on the edge of the Mounds View Industrial Park. The proposed processing center would not be out of place for this Industrial area and the size of the property would accommodate the proposal. Depreciation: The proposed processing center would be an attractive, newly constructed building which would be an improvement over the existing building on the site. The applicant will have invested over $4 million into this project when completed. This site is in an industrial area and the proposed use would be much more in line for the area than the current use of an aging and deteriorating motel. The motel generates many police calls and problems, so the removal of this blighted property would improve the safety of the entire area, including the manufactured home park that is located north of this site. Staff does not feel that it would cause any depreciation of the subject property or the surrounding properties. The Character of the Surrounding Area: This part of the City is mostly an Industrial area. There is a manufactured home community on the north end of the property, however, a natural vegetative buffer separates the properties. All other properties surrounding the subject property are zoned Industrial. There are no properties across the street since 35W/Highway 10 run next to Old Highway 8 in this area. The proposed processing center would not be out of character in this area. Traffic: The applicant expects 3-4 trucks per hour from 7am – 7pm, Monday through Friday, and from 8am-3pm on Saturday (36-48 trucks per weekday, 21-28 trucks on Saturday) coming in to the processing center. October is the busiest month for emptying septic tanks, so at this time the applicant estimates that the truck traffic would increase during October to about 7 trucks per hour (84 trucks per day). The applicant plans to encourage his truck drivers to work with customers to help eliminate the large rush during one month every year. Traffic counts on Old Highway 8 are 6,800 vehicles per day, so even at the peak traffic time in October, this business would only increase traffic on Old Highway 8 by a little over one percent. The trucks that come to this business would drive completely into the building to unload and the property would be set up for truck staging on-site. Each truck only takes a few minutes to discharge, so there would not be trucks waiting for long periods of time outside. This area already has high truck traffic due to the existing businesses in the industrial park, so additional traffic to this new business would not be out of place. Adequate utilities and access roads are available: The Metropolitan Council and Mounds View Public Works department has determined the water and sewer lines that currently serves the property has adequate capacity to provide for this improvement. The site is located on Old Highway 8 which has good access to nearby highways and freeways. Staff Report Star Environmental Page 2 Staff Report Star Environmental Page 3 The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use: The applicant has owned and operated the “Sewerman” business for over 25 years and understands the need for this type of business in Minnesota. The Metropolitan Council has been operating the stations for septage discharging and treatment in the metro area. The product that is discharged at these stations must go through a pre-treatment process in order to remove paper, plastic, and anything else that cannot be part of the regular treatment process of septage. This is an expensive extra step that must be done because things that should not be in the sewer system do get put into it. The Met Council would like to open up this “pre-treatment” process to private businesses in order to reduce the Met Council’s costs for water treatment. There is great potential for the environmental processing industry and Star Environmental would also include a research & development piece. This would be a state of the art facility, and would be the first one in Minnesota and the first of this same model in the United States. Summary: Merlin Brisbin is requesting approval to locate an environmental processing business in Mounds View and has a purchase agreement with the owners of the Skyline Motel. The Zoning Code conditionally allows for this type of use in an Industrial district. This is a great opportunity for a site that the City has long desired to redevelop. At full running capacity, Star Environmental, Inc. anticipates to have 8-9 employees. Based on the above analysis, Staff feels that the proposal adequately satisfies the conditional use criteria and would not adversely affect the surrounding area. Merlin Brisbin, the applicant and business owner, will make a presentation at the March 15th Planning Commission meeting in order to better explain how this processing center will function, and the need for this type of business in the metro area. Representatives from Septic Check Inc., MFRA Engineering and the Metropolitan Council will also be present. Public Input: This meeting is not a public hearing, but one will be held when this Conditional Use Permit application goes to the City Council for approval. Prior to that, staff and the applicant are planning to talk with the owners and management of the Towns Edge Manufactured Home Park in order to notify them of the proposed project, along with holding a neighborhood meeting with the residents of the park. If any Planning Commissioners have questions that they would like to ask before the March 15th meeting, please feel free to call me anytime next week. Staff Report Star Environmental Page 4 Recommendations: After taking testimony from staff and the applicant, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit. Resolution 828-06 is attached if the Commission selects this option. 2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit. If the Planning Commission selects this option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution recommending denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the recommendation. If the Commission chooses to act on this option, Staff will provide the resolution to the Commission at the next meeting. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Application 2. Letter of Approval & Support from the Metropolitan Council 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial View 5. Comp Plan Future Land Use Map 6. Photographic Documentation 7. Resolution 828-06 8. Flyer about an Environmental Processing Center business 9. Site plans – separate attachment Letter of Approval & Support from the Metropolitan Council Aerial View Zoning Map Comp Plan Map Photographic Documentation Front of motel - facing Old Highway 8 South side of motel MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 828-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSING CENTER AT 4889 OLD HIGHWAY 8; PLANNING CASE NO. CU2006-001 WHEREAS, Merlin Brisbin, Star Environmental, Inc. has applied for a conditional use permit to allow for an environmental processing center; and, WHEREAS, the three subject properties, located at 4889 Old Highway 8, are zoned I-1, Industrial, and are legally described as follows: See Exhibit A WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging or treatment of cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and food products and the rendering or refining of fats and oils as a conditional use in Industrial districts; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Staff Report 2. Application 3. Letter of Approval & Support from the Metropolitan Council 4. Zoning Map 5. Aerial View 6. Comp Plan Future Land Use Map 7. Photographic Documentation 8. Resolution 828-06 9. Flyer about an Environmental Processing Center business 10. Proposed Site Plans NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Resolution 828-06 Page 2 Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request: 1. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages new business in Mounds View. 2. The proposed environmental processing center would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved and the size of the subject property which is able to accommodate the facility. 3. The proposed Environmental Processing Center would not depreciate the surrounding area. 4. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed business. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the 11,200 square foot environmental processing center, with conditions as follows: 1. The applicant shall consolidate parcels, if such action is required by the City Attorney. 2. The applicant shall apply for a Development Review of the facility. 3. The applicant shall adhere at all times to Section 607 of the City Code in regards to nuisances; particularly regarding Noise, Section 607.08, and Odor, Section 607.03. 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 15th day of March, 2006. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) ATTACHMENT A Resolution 828-06 Page 3 PARCEL 1: All that part of the South 175 feet of the North ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of the Northeast ¼ of Section 17, Township 30, North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, lying Northeasterly of a line run from a point on the North line of said North ½, 558.78 feet West from the Northeast corner there to a point on the South line of said North ½, 504.33 feet West of the South corner thereof and lying Southwesterly of a line run from a point on the North line of said North ½, 385 feet West from the Northeast corner thereof to a point on the South line of said North ½, 250 feet West from the Southeast corner thereof, said line being the Southwesterly right-of-way line of S.T.H. #8, except therefore all that part of the Northeasterly 130 feet measured at right angles from said right-of-way line thereof lying North of the South 75 feet of said North ½ and except therefrom the South 30 feet of the said North ½, subject to S.T.H. #8. PARCEL 2: A strip of land 130 feet wide measured at right angles Southwesterly of and adjacent to, a line running Southeasterly from a point on the North line of the Southeast ¼ of the Northeast ¼ of Section 17, Township 30, Range 23, and 385 feet from the East line of said Section 17, to a point on the South line of the North ½ of the Southeast ¼ of the Northeast ¼ of said Section 17 and 250 feet from the East line of said Section 17, and measuring 132.94 feet on the North line of said Southeast ¼ of Northeast ¼ and 132.92 feet on the South line of said North ½ of the Southeast ¼ of the Northeast ¼ excepting the North 75 feet and the South 75 feet of said tract, containing a total of 1.56 acres, more or less. PARCEL 3: All that part of the North ½ of the Southeast ¼ of the Northeast ¼ of Section 17, Township 30 North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, lying Northeasterly of a line run from a point on the North line of said North ½, 558.76 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof to a point on the South line of said North ½, 504.33 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof and lying Southwesterly of a line run from a point on the North line of said North ½, 385 feet West from the Northeast corner thereof to a point on the South line of said North ½, 250 feet West from the Southeast corner thereof, said line being the Southwesterly right-of-way line of S.T.H. #8, except therefrom all that part lying in the South 175 feet of said North ½ and also excepting therefrom all that part of the Northeasterly 130 feet measured at right angles to said right-of-way line, lying South of the North 75 feet of said North ½, subject to S.T.H. #8. Item No: 6B Meeting Date: March 15, 2006 Type of Business: Discussion City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Review Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws Introduction: The Planning Commission’s Bylaws state that they [the Bylaws] shall be reviewed on an annual basis, at the first regular meeting in February. Due to the Commission’s irregular schedule, we were unable to present the Bylaws for your review in February. Discussion: The Bylaws were reviewed and amended slightly in September of 2004 with one change regarding public comment unrelated to the Commission’s business. No other changes were made to the Bylaws. Recommendation: Review the attached Bylaws. If the Bylaws do not require any amendments or modifications, simply readopt by motion the existing Bylaws. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BYLAWS (Revised Sept 1, 2004) I. AUTHORITY: The Bylaws of the Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission (Bylaws) are established in accordance with the Mounds View Municipal Code Section 401.06. Subd. 7 “The Commission shall adopt bylaws for its governance and for the transaction of its business.” Where there is a conflict between the provisions of the Bylaws and the provisions of the City Charter and the Municipal Code, the provisions of the City Charter and the Municipal Code shall govern. (For purposes of simplicity, the Planning and Zoning Commission may hereinafter be referred to as the Planning Commission or the Commission.) II. ADOPTION OF BYLAWS; REVIEW AND AMENDMENT: A. ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT: The Bylaws shall be adopted by Resolution by an affirmative vote of the majority of members of the Planning and Zoning Commission appointed as voting members, and shall be placed on file with the City Clerk-Administrator and the Community Development Department. A copy of the bylaws shall be forwarded to the City Council for its information. Any amendments to the Bylaws shall be adopted by Resolution in the same manner as the original Bylaws. B. ANNUAL REVIEW: The Bylaws shall be reviewed on an annual basis at the first regular meeting of the Commission in February. III. MEMBERSHIP AND VACANCIES. Vacancies on the Planning Commission shall be filled in accordance with the Municipal Code, Sections 401.02 and 401.03. IV. OFFICERS A. OFFICERS NAMED: The officers of the Planning Commission shall consist of a chairperson and vice-chairperson. The Commission may create and fill such other offices from its members, as it may determine, to transact Commission business. In addition, the Director of Community Development, or his or her designee, shall act as the recording secretary for the Commission for purpose of preparing meeting minutes. City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 2 B. ELECTIONS; TERMS 1. Chairperson: At the first meeting in January, the Commission shall conduct an election in order to make its recommendation for the chairperson, following the procedure in Section IV.B.3. The name of the person recommended for chairperson shall be forwarded to the City Council for action at its next meeting in January. Based upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Mayor, with the approval of the City Council, shall appoint the chairperson of the Commission each year. 2. Vice-Chairperson: The Planning Commission shall elect a vice-chairperson each year at its first meeting in January, following the procedure in Section IV.B.3. 3. Election Procedure: For each office, the chairperson shall invite nominations from Planning Commission members. After nominations have been received, the chairperson shall entertain a motion to close nominations. If such motion is made and passed, and more than one nomination has been made, the chairperson shall distribute ballots to the Commission members and each member shall write his or her selection on the ballot. The recording secretary shall tally the ballots and announce the nominee receiving the most votes. In the event of a tie, the recording secretary shall announce the nominees tied in the voting and balloting shall be repeated until an election occurs. If only one nomination has been received, the chairperson may conduct the voting by voice vote. If a majority of the members present vote in the affirmative for the nominee, the nominee shall be elected. 4. Assumption of Duties: The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall assume office at the first meeting in February of each year. 5. Term of Office: The chairperson and vice chairperson shall serve one year terms, and may be re-elected to additional terms in accordance with this Section IV.B. C. DUTIES OF OFFICERS: The chairperson shall preside over the meetings of the Planning Commission, and shall have the authority to add or cancel regular meetings and to call special meetings as provided in Section VI. The Chair shall have the authority to redirect public comment unrelated to the Commission’s business to the most appropriate City commission or to the City Council. The vice chairperson shall assume the duties of the chairperson, in the absence of the chairperson. In the event of the absence of both the chairperson and vice-chairperson, those members present shall elect a temporary chairperson to preside over the meeting. City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 3 V. COUNCIL LIAISON: The City Council may appoint from among its members a Liaison to the Commission on an annual basis. It is expected that the Council Liaison will attend the Commission meetings on a regular basis. In the event of the absence of the Council Liaison at a Commission meeting, a Commission member may be appointed by the chairperson to represent the Planning Commission at the next regular City Council meeting or at the meeting where the City Council will be considering the planning cases acted upon by the Planning Commission in the absence of the Council Liaison. VI. MEETINGS A. TYPES OF MEETINGS; SCHEDULE: The annual meeting schedule of the Commission shall be adopted by Resolution at the first regular meeting in December for the following year. 1. Regular Meetings: Subject to the adopted meeting schedule, the Commission’s regular meetings will occur on the first and third Wednesdays of each month for the purpose of convening public hearings, making recommendations to the City Council, conducting business which requires a vote of the Commission, convening as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, conducting long-range planning functions and other official business. 2. Agenda Sessions: An Agenda Session is an informal session of the Planning Commission, typically held immediately following adjournment of a Regular or Special meeting, at which time the Planning Commission may review minutes, informally review proposed or pending planning cases or ordinance amendments, discuss previous actions of the City Council or other Commissions, and to perform other matters not requiring a vote of the Commission. 3. Special Meetings: From time to time, special meetings may be called in order to process significant caseloads, to review works in progress such as comprehensive plan updates or municipal code revisions, or to undertake a retreat or strategic planning session, either amongst itself or in the company of the City Council or other commissions. Special meetings can be proposed by any Commission member or at the request of the Director of Community Development, yet must be approved by a majority vote of the Commission. 4. Emergency Special Meetings. Emergency special meetings can be called via written notice to the Director of Community Development by the Chairperson or two Commission members, or by the Director of Community Development. (Emergency special meetings are those in which the subject matter is of such an immediate concern that it cannot be delayed until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission.) The Director of Community Development shall post and mail a notice of any special meeting City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 4 in accordance with State Statutes. Planning Commission members shall be notified by telephone and in writing, if possible, at least seven days prior to a special meeting. 5. Cancellation of Meetings: Regular or special meetings may be canceled by the chairperson or Community Development Director in the event that there are no items of business requiring the attention of the Commission, or for lack of a quorum, or in response to inclement weather or for any other good and sufficient reason. Members of the Commission shall be notified by telephone of any meeting cancellation. A notice of the meeting cancellation shall be posted as required by State Statutes. B. QUORUM: A majority of the number of voting members appointed to the Commission shall constitute a quorum. C. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS; ADJOURNMENT 1. Meeting Chairperson: If neither the chairperson nor the vice chairperson is present to conduct a meeting of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission may elect a meeting chair from among those members present prior to the commencement of business. The election shall follow the procedures set forth in Section IV.B.3, except that the Community Development Director, or his or her designee, shall conduct the election. 2. Open Meeting Law: Meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the State of Minnesota Open Meeting Law (Minn. Statutes 471.705). 3. Adjournment: Meetings shall adjourn at or before 11:00 p.m. unless a two- thirds majority of the members present agree to extend the time of adjournment. If there is no objection, the Chairperson may declare the meeting adjourned without the necessity of a motion or vote by the Commission. D. MINUTES: Minutes shall be recorded for regular meetings and each commission member shall receive a copy of the unapproved minutes for review and approval at a succeeding meeting. Minutes shall be approved by motion. Approved minutes shall be the official record of the business conducted and actions taken by the Planning Commission. Commission members may request copies of approved minutes after they have been corrected, if necessary, and signed as approved. Copies of the approved minutes shall be filed with the Community Development Department. Unapproved minutes shall be clearly marked “DRAFT”; approved minutes shall be marked “APPROVED”. A policy statement regarding the content and format of the minutes shall be on file with the Director of Community Development which may be reviewed from time to time as needed. City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 5 VII. INFORMATIONAL PACKETS: Each Commissioner shall receive a staff report, plans and additional information, as appropriate, for each item placed on the agenda for any regular or special meeting. The Commission packet should be delivered at least four days prior to the meeting. Each Commissioner is responsible for reviewing the material within the packet prior to the meeting. VIII. PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS: Advice from, consultation with, and/or requests for review by the City Attorney, City Engineer, City Planning Agency, or other paid consultants shall be in accordance with the Municipal Code, Section 401.07. IX. SUPPLEMENTARY PUBLICATIONS: All Commission members shall receive a copy of the Mounds View Municipal Code and a copy of the Municipal Comprehensive Plan as well as other materials provided by the City Council or City Staff. These materials shall be retained by each commission member and returned to the Community Development Director upon the member’s resignation or termination of appointment. X. CONDUCT OF MEMBERS A. ATTENDANCE: Commission members shall advise the designated Staff member or the Commission chairperson of an anticipated absence from any regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Any member attending less than 20 meetings per year without the consent of the Commission shall be deemed to have vacated the office, and such vacancy shall be filled by the City Council pursuant to Section 401.03, Subd. 1. A leave of absence may be granted by the consent of the Commission. B. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: 1. General Standard: No Commissioner shall be appointed with private or personal interests likely to conflict with the general public interest. If any person appointed to the Commission shall find that their private or personal interests are involved in any matter coming before the Commission, they shall disqualify themselves from taking part in any discussion or action on the matter; alternatively, they may be disqualified by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the Commissioners in attendance. 2. Conflict Due to Economic Interests: A Commissioner has a conflict of interest if, in his or her discharge of official duties, would be required to take an action or make a decision that would substantially affect the Commissioner’s financial interests or those of an associated business, unless the effect on the Commissioner is no greater than on other members of the Commissioner’s business classification, profession, or occupation. In the event a conflict of interest exists with respect to a particular matter before the Commission, the Commissioner shall disqualify himself or herself from taking part in any discussion or action on the matter. C. EX PARTE CONTACTS: Ex parte contacts are contacts between individuals seeking to influence the decisions of the Planning Commission and individual Commission members outside the meeting forum. Such contacts include meetings with project proponents, residents, property owners, and citizens separate from Commission meetings, communication between Commission members outside the meeting forum, telephone calls or letters which attempt to influence a Commissioner’s opinion on a matter which will be subject to the Commissioner’s vote. When the Planning Commission is involved in a matter which is to be heard and decided by the Commission (e.g. variances), Planning Commissioners shall indicate to the person contacting them that such contact is inappropriate and all testimony needs to be offered at the hearing to ensure a fair hearing for all parties. In all other cases, Planning Commissioners should discourage such contacts and should avoid expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case. When ex parte contacts occur, the Planning Commissioner is responsible for notifying the Community Development Director, and for conveying the substance of the communication at the next commission meeting at which the matter discussed is under consideration. _______________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _______________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director Revision History: September 1, 2004 February 21, 2001 February 2, 2000 March 5, 1997 February 3, 1993 October 1990 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting February 15, 2006 New Brighton City Hall 803 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Miller at 7:00 p.m. on February 15, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Hull, and Meehlhause. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Stevenson and Scotch. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson Planning Associate Heidi Heller ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case DE2006-001. Consideration of a Development Review for an Expansion of C.G. Hill & Sons Building, 5150 Quincy Street, Tim Hill of C.G. Hill & Sons 2 Planning Case PA2005-001. Reconsideration of the Belting PUD Amendment Relative to Parking, 5360 Edgewood Drive, Dr. Greg Belting 4 ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes January 18, 2006. MOTION/SECOND: Meehlhause/Hull. To approve the Minutes of the January 18, 2006 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission February 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5A. Planning Case DE2006-001. Consideration of a Development Review for an expansion of C.G. Hill & Sons Building, 5150 Quincy Street, Tim Hill of C.G. Hill & Sons Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that applicant and property owner Tim Hill is requesting a development review for a proposed 16,150 square foot building addition at 5150 Quincy Street to be added onto the east side of his existing building. This expansion would increase the building size by approximately 50 percent. C.G. Hill has been located in Mounds View since 1994 and is a growing company. This expansion would help the company continue to be competitive in their market along with being able to add a new assembly line to their facility. Planning Associate Heller presented the staff report, noting the property is zoned PUD and in this area there are commercial and industrial uses. The building was constructed in 1994 and it was planned for a future expansion in this location when the original building was designed. She explained that the business has now grown and the applicant is in need of more space. There are currently 79 parking stalls and they can construct 11 more, if needed, for a total of 90 spaces. Planning Associate Heller explained that with a PUD, the City has flexibility on the parking requirements. The applicant currently has 48 employees and they have indicated that they have had no problem with not having enough parking spaces. The back few rows are usually empty and are often used by semitrucks while the drivers eat at the nearby restaurants. The applicant plans to add only a few more employees in the future so parking shouldn’t be an issue. Planning Associate Heller advised that the building would expand to within 32 feet of the east property line. Industrial districts typically have a setback requirement of 40 feet so this building would be 8 feet short of that setback. But this is part of the original 1994 building plans and again, the PUD zoning allows for flexibility. She noted that the back wall of the new expansion will move closer to the back of the Bethlehem Church building, so staff feels that this will not be a problem. Planning Associate Heller stated staff recommends the Planning Commission consider adoption of Resolution 826-06 recommending approval of the plan submitted by Mr. Hill. Tim Hill, applicant, explained that the company has grown to a size where additional building space is now needed. Mounds View Planning Commission February 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ______________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn asked if there is an anticipated increase in employees. Mr. Hill advised that they have added nine employees this past year, which resulted in growth beyond the existing building. He stated they might hire another six to ten employees over next eight to ten years. Commissioner Zwirn asked if they will construct more bays for delivery. Mr. Hill explained they have no access to the side or rear of the building so they are not able to add more garage doors. Trucks pull all the way into the building to unload. Commissioner Zwirn asked if they anticipate no increase in truck traffic. Mr. Hill stated that is correct. Vice Chair Miller asked what kind of work the company does. Mr. Hill reviewed the types of machinery lines they manufacture. Vice Chair Miller asked how long they think the building project will take. Mr. Hill stated they would like to start construction this spring and think it will be completed mid-summer. Commissioner Hegland asked if this addition is part of the original PUD. Mr. Hill answered in the affirmative and stated that C.G. Hill is his grandfather. He explained that they didn’t want to build too big too fast with the initial construction of the building, but wanted the possibility to add on in the future. He noted that electrical and plumbing were roughed in for the future expansion when the building was first built so they are asking to do what they originally planned to do in 1994. Vice Chair Miller asked whether the draft resolution should mention that this expansion is part of the original plan. Community Development Ericson stated it could be added as part of the record regarding this property. He suggested the draft resolution be amended to add another WHEREAS indicating the proposed expansion is consistent with the original PUD, which indicated the footprint of the expanded area. Consensus was reached to add this modification. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Zwirn. To approve the amended Resolution 826-06, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Development Review for a 16,150 Square Foot Addition to the C.G. Hill Building; Planning Case DE2006-001. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Director Ericson advised that this recommendation would be on the City Council agenda on February 27, 2006 ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission February 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 ______________________________________________________________________________ 5B. Planning Case PA2005-001. Reconsideration of the Belting PUD Amendment Relative to Parking, 5360 Edgewood Drive, Dr. Greg Belting. Community Development Director Ericson informed the Commission that this is a request to take a second look at Dr. Belting’s PUD to allow for a 8,300 square foot office building between the Community Center and Walgreens. He noted the indication about parking and the need for deficient parking to be utilized on excess area next door on the Walgreens site. That is what was contemplated when the Walgreens PUD was approved. Director Ericson read from the Walgreens PUD narrative regarding cross access parking. He advised, however, that after several meetings with Walgreens, Dr. Belting has been unsuccessful in gaining that access agreement. Director Ericson stated it is understandable that Walgreens does not want to give up part of their parking lot for overflow parking. He explained that Dr. Belting approached the City Council to ask if they would allow for overflow parking on the Community Center parking lot and received the same response; the City Council did not want to encumber the Community Center site with parking from another site. However, the City Council agreed there were conditions on the property that warranted a second look since it was intended that there would be a cross access agreement, but that did not happen. Director Ericson stated the City knows people will park where they want whether there is an agreement or not. The original agreement showed 43 parking stalls and that is what the Planning Commission had recommended and the City Council approved. Director Ericson explained staff is recommending a further amendment to the PUD agreement to allow a parking ratio that is consistent with 43 parking stalls. The resolution drafted for the Commission’s consideration would change the parking requirements to one stall for 200 square feet of gross floor area. That equals 42 parking stalls and Dr. Belting is providing 43 parking stalls, which would be consistent with the requirement. Director Ericson noted this is a PUD so there is flexibility to allow for changes in parking ratios, dimensions, and setbacks. This is something that the Planning Commission has considered in the past. Director Ericson referenced the staff report information highlighting two past requests, Zep Manufacturing on Coral Sea Street and the Minnesota Institute of Public Health building on County Road 10, which received a similar parking consideration. Director Ericson stated the draft resolution is before the Planning Commission for consideration. He noted that both Dr. and his brother Tom Belting are in attendance and can answer any questions the Commission may have. Director Ericson explained if the Planning Commission feels it needs to hold firm to the parking requirements, the building could be modified to cut off the southwest corner of the building, maybe 400 square feet, which would open space to create more parking spaces and be consistent with the 50 stall requirement. That is not staff’s preferred option or Belting’s preferred option. Dr. Belting is requesting modification of the PUD and staff recommends approval of that request. Mounds View Planning Commission February 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ______________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland asked about the two examples referenced in the staff report. Director Ericson explained that both examples are at 1 space per 250 square feet instead of 1 space per 200 square feet. Commissioner Hegland noted this request is then less than the previous two that were modified. Director Ericson stated that is correct. Dr. Greg Belting, applicant, stated he is now the owner of the property and felt the original easements intended in November of 2000 would hold true. However, since that time, there was a change in owners of the Walgreens property. He clarified that the local Walgreens management has not been disagreeable so it is not a local management issue. It is a Walgreens, Inc. issue. Dr. Belting advised that they are ready to go with the 8,300 square foot building that has already been approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District. He explained he is a chiropractor and there will be one additional doctor plus two other employees. So, if they are very busy, they may use nine parking stalls. Dr. Belting stated they think that 43 stalls will be ample parking. Commissioner Hegland asked whether there will be other tenants. Dr. Belting explained the extra space will be sold, not rented, but they have not yet found other tenants. He informed the Commission that strictly retail is prohibited on the property so the other tenants may be a title company, realtor, attorney, accountant, or dentist type of uses. It will not be a fast food use. Commissioner Hegland how much space the applicant will use. Dr. Belting advised they will use one-third of the space. Tom Belting, applicant, thanked the Planning Commission for their consideration. He stated they saw the cross easement documentation that was executed in 2000. They have talked to the local Walgreens manager who has indicated they have no problem with overflow parking in their lot. Tom Belting explained that they also need to amend the Walgreens agreement on square footage. Vice Chair Miller stated she does not know how there could be enough parking for a restaurant on this site. Dr. Belting explained it was the intention for a restaurant with cross parking easements but a restaurant didn’t go in and then the owners of the property changed as well. Commissioner Zwirn noted staff had stated that the Walgreens PUD contained a stipulation saying they would comply with cross usage. He asked how they can negate that even if there was a change in ownership. Director Ericson explained that they did execute a reciprocal easement agreement, however, there is nothing in the executed agreement to allow for shared cross access parking. Director Ericson stated staff has talked with the Beltings about this and questioned whether it is worth the time to try to rectify that issue at this point. He stated he cannot say how that was allowed or whether it was conducted without the City’s knowledge. The City received notification the document was executed and recorded but it was not until the Beltings reviewed it that it was found the documentation did not include the parking. It was the City’s understanding that would be part of the documentation. Mounds View Planning Commission February 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 ______________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn stated he understands this is the easiest route to take and asked whether it should have been caught by the attorney. Director Ericson stated it probably should have. Vice Chair Miller asked how many businesses could be accommodated. Dr. Belting explained that the building is set up to have a total of three or four additional tenants. If someone buys the two middle units together, then there would be three owners. Otherwise, there will be a total of four owners. Vice Chair Miller noted there should not be a requirement for a lot of extra parking. Tom Belting stated they don’t anticipate a need for extra parking and pointed out that the building is not directly on County Road 10. Commissioner Zwirn pointed out that Beltings are operating in good faith and in a situation where they relied on information provided to them. Now, because of an error, they cannot rectify the problem without this process. He stated he supports adoption of the resolution and to allow the project to go forward. Commissioner Hegland asked whether the resolution should be amended to indicate the number of parking spaces. Director Ericson stated the resolution can explicitly state the requirement is 43 stalls and then round up to 1 per 200 feet. He suggested the “Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved” paragraph be amended to indicate: …“one space per 200 square feet of office space (43 stalls)” ratio and recommends approval of said amendment.” Vice Chair Miller asked staff to place her name on the last page of the resolution for signature. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Meehlhause. To approve amended Resolution 827-06, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Planned Unit Development Amendment Relating to Parking Requirements for the Walgreens PUD; Planning Case No. PA2005-001. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity Community Development Director Ericson informed the Commission that the Council invites the Planning Commission to attend a joint workshop of the Council and Commission on Monday, March 20, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. He explained the Council is holding joint planning sessions with all Boards and Commissions to be sure everyone is on track with the same goals and mission. The City Council would like to get the Planning Commission’s opinion on various issues and is looking at charting the path for economic development into the future. This is one means to seek out the Commission’s opinion. Mounds View Planning Commission February 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ______________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson stated he understands one Commissioner cannot attend the meeting but it may be difficult to find a date that works for everyone. If this dates works for a majority of the Planning Commissioners, he would like to keep this date with the City Council. Otherwise, staff will work on a secondary date. Commissioner Meehlhause stated at first he thought he would be unable to attend, but may have some scheduling flexibility and be able to attend. Vice Chair Miller asked if more than one Commission will be meeting with the City Council on that date. Director Ericson explained that from 6-7:00 p.m., the Council will meet with the Cable Commission. Then from 7-8:00 p.m. the Council will meet with the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Miller asked the Planning Commissioners to place that date on their calendar. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings A. March 1, 2006 – location to be determined B. March 15, 2006 at New Brighton City Hall Planning Associate Heller advised that there are no planning cases to consider on March 1, 2006 so staff recommends that the meeting be canceled. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Meehlhause. To cancel the March 1, 2006 since there are no planning cases for consideration. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chair Miller adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Carla Wirth TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.