Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-07-2006 *NOTE LOCATION* MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL Welcome Back MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 7, 2006 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. May 3, 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. ZC2006-001: Continuation - Consideration for a Rezoning of 2901 & 2925 County Road 10 and west half of 8060 Groveland Road Applicant: Integra Homes Address: 12721 Overlook Road, Dayton, MN 55327 B. VR2006-002: Consideration of a Variance request for a garage setback Applicant: Jim & Amy Wilson Address: 7025 Pleasant View Drive C. VR2006-003: Consideration of a Variance request for over 1,800 square feet of accessory buildings Applicant: David Slabiak & Maria Merabella Address: 8135 Long Lake Road D. CU2006-005: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a motor freight terminal at 2169 Mustang Drive Applicant: Joe Greenstein, Midwest Motor Express Address: 2169 Mustang Drive E. DE2006-002: Development Review for an expansion to Midwest Motor Express building Applicant: Joe Greenstein, Midwest Motor Express Address: 2169 Mustang Drive 6. Other Planning Activity A. None 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. June 21, 2006 B. July 5, 2006 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. May 17, 2006 2. Staff Reports a. Council meeting update b. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion Item No: 5A Meeting Date: June 7, 2006 Type of Business: PC Action City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Request to Rezone Properties at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the west half of 8060 Groveland Road; Planning Case ZC06-001 Introduction: Ron Lillestrand, representing Integra Homes, is requesting City approval to rezone properties located at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the west half of 8060 Groveland Road to R-3, Medium Density Residential, to allow for a townhome development on the site which would involve nineteen individual owner-occupied units. The development site is presently zoned B-3, Highway Business, and R-1, Single Family Residential. The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that this site is within a mixed use planned unit development area. Such a designation is intended to allow for some flexibility in redevelopment however with an anticipation that there be a component of both housing and commercial on the site and be master planned for a comprehensive, integrated development looking beyond the project boundaries. Background: Integra Homes applied for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in 2005 and the Planning Commission reviewed the general concept plan which involved the development of 21 owner- occupied townhome units. There was some concern expressed from Commission members and adjacent property owners that the extent of the proposed development was too intensive and the orientation of the proposed units intrusive and out of place given the adjacent single family residential properties. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 796-05 in July of last year which recommended denial of the PUD based on excessive development density and other adverse impacts. Rather than pursue action at the Council level, Integra chose to re-evaluate their plan based on the feedback received. They have concluded their evaluation and have resubmitted their application not as a PUD but as a simple rezoning. Presently: The development site has an area of 3.01 acres and is located on County Road 10 and currently has a mixed zoning designation. The property at 2901 County Road 10 is zoned B- 3, Highway Business and is currently vacant. 2925 County Road 10 and the rear yard of 8060 Groveland Road are currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. 2925 County Road 10 has an existing single family home that would be demolished if the development were to move forward. Integra Homes Request June 7, 2006 Page 2 Integra Homes is requesting a rezoning of the identified parcels to reflect an R-3, Medium Density designation. The R-3 zoning designation would explicitly permit the following uses: o Single Family Detached Dwellings o Essential Services o Public parks and Playgrounds o Two-Family Dwelling Units o Townhome Units (up to six units per building) o Boarding Houses o Group Homes o Family Foster Care The following uses would be “conditionally” permitted in the R-3 District such that a Conditional Use Permit would be required: o Public or Semi Public Recreational Buildings o Religious Institutions (Churches) o Educational Institutions (Schools) o Government or Public Utility Buildings o Day care center, Group Nursery o Multi-family Dwelling Structures (up to six units per building) While all of the above uses are allowed or conditionally permitted under the R-3 zoning designation, Integra has proposed development of a nineteen unit owner-occupied townhome development. Rezoning Criteria: Chapter 1125 of the Mounds View Zoning Code addresses rezoning requests. The procedure and conditions of approval are the same as for conditional use permits, which means the Planning Commission is to consider possible and potential adverse effects of the requested rezoning. The Planning Commission shall make a finding of fact and make a recommendation to the City Council based upon the review of potential adverse effects and finding of fact. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the site is designated as a mixed-use planned unit development. This is defined as land containing a building or buildings with significant amounts of residential uses in combination with commercial and/or office uses. Sites with this designation should be developed as planned unit developments (PUDs) to ensure that efficient, integrated and well-planned development occurs. One of the key components of the Comprehensive Plan, the Housing Element is geared toward maintaining and improving the quality and diversity of the existing housing stock and providing infill housing opportunities where both possible and practical. The proposed rezoning would help promote a greater diversity of housing choices in the community, based on the applicant’s concept townhome development proposal. Rental housing or multi-family units would not be considered an improvement to the City’s housing stock diversity. Integra Homes Request June 7, 2006 Page 3 Geographical Area. The subject area proposed for redevelopment currently consists of a vacant commercial property (formerly operated as a small gas station), a single family residential home and the subdivided back half of another single-family residential property. (The applicants subdivided the property at 8060 Groveland Road in 2005.) Adjacent to the northwest on County Road 10 is a residential property which already bears the R-3 designation. To the southeast is a residential office property operating as “Johnson’s Trailer Hitches.” The properties to the rear of the subject parcels are zoned R-1, single family residential, and are developed as such. Properties on County Road 10 tend to be developed to a greater intensity, whether commercial or residential, than in other parts of the community. Directly south of the project area across County Road 10 are two townhome developments—Knollwood Green and Northridge Villas. Depreciation. The question of depreciation is a difficult one to answer with any quantifiable certainty. Most studies which examine property value impacts of development generally find there to be little correlation between a project and subsequent property values. While property values may not depreciate as a result of the development, one can argue that quality of life for the existing residents that would be adjacent to the project could be negatively impacted. Strictly from the perspective of tax base and market values, the rezoning would promote a substantial increase in market value at the site, increasing from the present approximate valuation of $460,000 to an estimated $4,750,000—a ten-fold increase in value. Character of the Surrounding Area. The project area is located on County Road 10, the City’s primary commercial corridor. Within two blocks of the site, one can find a variety of commercial and residential uses. The residential uses include single family residential, owner-occupied townhomes and multi-family rental dwellings. In the immediate area however, the predominating land use is single-family residential. Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant desires to rezone the property to allow for owner-occupied townhomes. This type of housing is under-represented in the City’s housing demographic. The primary housing option in the City is single family detached with higher-density rental housing and manufactured homes second and third respectively. Owner-occupied townhomes and senior housing (independent or assisted) units are less prevalent. Adverse Effects Summary The requested rezoning to R-3, Medium density residential, would not be out of character for the County Road 10 corridor and would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which anticipated a mix of housing and commercial / office development in this area. The proposed development that would be permitted via the requested rezoning would increase the market values of the subject area by a factor of ten—from $460,000 to $4,750,000. While enhanced market value is desirable, the Commission needs to determine if the potential density allowed would be too intensive for the subject area, which is primarily lower density residential. The applicant feel this type of housing is in demand and would be a positive complement to the City’s housing stock. Integra Homes Request June 7, 2006 Page 4 Public Comment: Staff sent notices to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property and published a copy of the notice in the New Brighton Bulletin. At the time this report was prepared (May 12, 2006) only one comment had been received, that being from the residents at 8080 Groveland Road. They write: Because we are bordering your proposed project on two sides, we want to give you our input. We are not able to attend the meeting due to a handicap. Our opinion is that a multi unit building will be available to least desirable neighbors. Individual houses would mean a class of people that can afford to own property, keeping the area safe and property appearance acceptable. Please consider these issues in your planning. Thank you. Mr. & Mrs. Roy Droel, 8080 Groveland Road. At the public hearing which was held on May 17, 2006, residents Duane Waldoch, Mark Schnor and Cindy Johnson spoke to the request, each expressing varying degrees of opposition to the request. Only one individual spoke in favor of the request, a resident residing in the townhome development across the street in Spring Lake Park. After significant discussion regarding the request, the Commission tabled action in recognition of the fact that two members of the Commission were absent. The Commission asked that both resolutions of denial and approval be drafted for consideration at the June 7th meeting. Recommendation: Review and discuss the request and consider the merits of the requested rezoning of the subject parcels from R-1 and B-3 to R-3 to allow for a 19-unit owner-occupied townhome development. Both resolutions of approval and denial are available for your action either as presented or subject to your modification. The Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at their meeting on June 26, 2006. Respectfully submitted, James Ericson Community Development Director 763-717-4021 Zoning Map Photographic Documentation Subject parcel (2901 Co. Rd. 10) viewed from the south side of County Road 10 looking northeast. Subject parcel (2925 Co. Rd. 10) viewed from the south side of County Road 10 looking north. Comprehensive Plan Map Integra Homes Site Site Plan MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 835-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST TO R-3, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AT 2901 AND 2925 COUNTY ROAD 10 AND THE WEST HALF OF 8060 GROVELAND ROAD; PLANNING CASE ZC06-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, Integra Homes, has applied for a rezoning request of the properties at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the west half of 8060 Groveland Road to r- 3, Medium Density residential. The properties are legally described as: Lot 8, Block 3, Sherwood Estates; and, Subject To Highway; The Following; Part Of Lot 32 Description Beginning On Easterly Lot 32 100 Feet South Of Northwest Corner Lot 50 Thence South On Said Line To Northeast Line Of Highway Thence Northwest On Highway 32 Feet Thence Northeast To Beginning Also, Except Northwesterly Triangular Part Measured 7 Feet On Northerly & 100 Feet On Easterly Line Said Triangle; All Of Lot 50, and the West 271.10 Feet of the South 135 Feet of Lot 47, all in Auditor’s Subdivision No. 89. WHEREAS, 2925 County Road 10 and 8060 Groveland Road are currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and 2901 County Road 10 is zoned B-3, Highway Business; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Application 2. Letter from Applicant 3. Zoning Map 4. Location Map 5. Proposed Site Plan 6. Staff Report WHEREAS, a public hearing notice was published in the official City newspaper on May 3, 2006, and notices mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject properties; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this request on Wednesday, May 17, 2006; and, Option A DENIAL Resolution 835-06 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed Chapters 1108 and 1125 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to the R-3 zoning district and Rezoning process, respectively; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the land use component of the Comprehensive Plan relative to this request; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the site plans associated with this request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the possible adverse effects of this proposed rezoning request as required by the Mounds View Zoning Code: 1. The current zoning of the lots is R-1, Single Family Residential and B-3, Highway Business. The requested zoning of the lots is R-3, Medium Density Residential. 2. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the parcels proposed to be included in the development are designated Mixed-Use PUD on the Future Land Use map. 3. The rezoning and associated development plan as proposed would adversely affect adjacent property owners by compromising privacy and substantially increasing area densities. 4. The proposed density, while not inconsistent with the Code requirements for a 3-acre parcel, is too intense given the surrounding single family dwellings and does not fit the character of the existing neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above findings, the information and documents regarding the proposed rezoning, the report drafted by staff and the testimony of the applicant, and in consideration of the public testimony given at the public hearing, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of the rezoning request made by Integra Homes. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 7th day of June, 2006. _________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson Attest: _________________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (Seal) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 835-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST TO R-3, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AT 2901 AND 2925 COUNTY ROAD 10 AND THE WEST HALF OF 8060 GROVELAND ROAD; PLANNING CASE ZC06-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, Integra Homes, has applied for a rezoning request of the properties at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the west half of 8060 Groveland Road to r- 3, Medium Density residential. The properties are legally described as: Lot 8, Block 3, Sherwood Estates; and, Subject To Highway; The Following; Part Of Lot 32 Description Beginning On Easterly Lot 32 100 Feet South Of Northwest Corner Lot 50 Thence South On Said Line To Northeast Line Of Highway Thence Northwest On Highway 32 Feet Thence Northeast To Beginning Also, Except Northwesterly Triangular Part Measured 7 Feet On Northerly & 100 Feet On Easterly Line Said Triangle; All Of Lot 50, and the West 271.10 Feet of the South 135 Feet of Lot 47, all in Auditor’s Subdivision No. 89. WHEREAS, 2925 County Road 10 and 8060 Groveland Road are currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and 2901 County Road 10 is zoned B-3, Highway Business; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Application 2. Letter from Applicant 3. Zoning Map 4. Location Map 5. Proposed Site Plan 6. Staff Report WHEREAS, a public hearing notice was published in the official City newspaper on May 3, 2006, and notices mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject properties; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this request on Wednesday, May 17, 2006; and, Option B APPROVAL Resolution 835-06 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed Chapters 1108 and 1125 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to the R-3 zoning district and Rezoning process, respectively; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the land use component of the Comprehensive Plan relative to this request; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the site plans associated with this request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the possible adverse effects of this proposed rezoning request as required by the Mounds View Zoning Code: 1. The current zoning of the lots is R-1, Single Family Residential and B-3, Highway Business. The requested zoning of the lots is R-3, Medium Density Residential. 2. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the parcels proposed to be included in the rezoning are designated Mixed-Use PUD on the Future Land Use map. The proposed rezoning would not be inconsistent with the anticipated future land use for this area. 3. The rezoning and associated development plan as proposed would not adversely affect adjacent property owners and would not be out of place on the County Road 10 corridor, the City’s most intensely developed thoroughfare. 4. The proposed density is not inconsistent with the Code requirements for a 3-acre parcel NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above findings, the information and documents regarding the proposed rezoning, the report drafted by staff and the testimony of the applicant, and in consideration of the public testimony given at the public hearing, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend APPROVAL of the rezoning request made by Integra Homes. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 7th day of June, 2006. _________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson Attest: _________________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (Seal) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: June 7, 2006 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Ga age at 7025 Introduction: Jim and Amy Wilson, are proposing to construct a new garage attached their house located at 7025 Pleasant View Drive. The house was constructed in 1947 d ements are addressed in Section 1104.01 of the Zoning Code. Each zoning istrict is listed with the corresponding front, side and rear setbacks. In an R-1, Single Family s attached to their home. Until cently, there was a single car, 13’x32’ detached garage on the property that was 8.5’ from follow the one on the house which slopes to the front nd back yards, so any water runoff would not be running towards the neighboring house. ions: d, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical ifficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance to Allow a Reduced Side-Yard Setback for a r Pleasant View Drive; Planning Case VR06-002 The applicants, to and was placed approximately centered between the side property lines. Mounds View Zoning Code requires that the living area of a home is ten (10) feet from the side property line with a garage being allowed to five (5) feet from the side property line. The requeste variance is for three (3) feet, which would put the garage two (2) feet from the side property line. Discussion: Setback requir d Residential district, the typical building setbacks are as follows: Front, thirty (30) feet; Side, ten (10) feet; and Rear, thirty (30) feet. It is noted that sheds and garages, attached or detached, can have side and rear setbacks of five (5) feet. The applicants desire to construct a new, larger garage that i re the side property line. The property owners will remove the shed that is currently on the property when a new garage is built. The roofline on the new garage would a The house to the south is 14½ feet off the property line with a four foot privacy fence between the houses. Variance Considerat For a variance to be approve d burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission, in this case) 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. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows: a Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property, which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, rge at just over 1 acre in size, the lot is not any wider than any other lots in the city. It is approximately 100 feet wide and 448 feet deep with d 24 et from the south side property line, which is where the side entrance and garage b. pplicant of ghts commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ile the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, because of the c. e plicant. licants are not the original owners of the property and had nothing to do with the placement of the home or the slope of the rear yard. d. r on the applicant any special rivilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the e variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the ardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. um amount that would allow the proposed garage to be wide enough for two cars. . topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. Even though the property is la m almost the entire lot being designated wetland and wetland buffer area. The city imposes development restrictions in or near wetlands, which would prevent the applicant from placing the garage behind the house. The steep slope of the lot directly behind the house also prevents easy access to the backyard. Due to this slope, the homeowners are also limited as to how a garage can be constructed, making it difficult to even build a garage that would be two cars deep rather than two cars wide. When the house was built, it was placed 30 feet from the north side property line an fe were placed. This leaves limited space for a garage. Most of the other homes in the area were placed off center on their lots, allowing more room for garages. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the a ri Title. Wh placement of the home on the lot and the slope of the backyard, the applicant is unable to have more than a one-car garage which in itself may be considered a hardship. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of th ap The app That granting the variance requested would not confe p same district. Granting th and livability of their property. Setback issues are the most common source of variance requests. h The applicant is requesting a three-foot variance, which is the minim f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other roperty in the same zone. ow the addition to encroach three (3) feet into the side setback ould not be materially detrimental to the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. The g. t and air to adjacent roperty or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the not have any impact on the supply of light or air to djacent properties, nor would it impact congestion of streets. The proposed garage will Reco lic hearing and taking testimony from staff, the property owner and ffected neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the ve the variance as requested. Resolution 836-06 is attached if the Commission chooses this course of action. 2. o move forward with this option, the Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the 3. e 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 Re p Granting a variance to all w previous detached garage was 8 ½ feet from the property line. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of ligh p danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed addition should a not increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety or decrease property values in the neighborhood. mmendation: After holding the pub a request: 1. Appro Deny the requested variance. T denial. Table th 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. spectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Planning Application n Documentation 2. Plot Pla 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial View 5. Photographic Plot Plan Proposed Garage Zoning Map Aerial View New attached garage Photographic Documentation Front view of 7025 Pleasant View Dr View of where new garage would sit and be attached to house. This is the pad for the former garage. Steep drop off the rear of the house and garage. View from side of 7025 Pleasant View house looking at neighboring house to the south – fence is the neighbors, 1 foot off their property line – new garage would be 3 feet from the fence Garage would sit here View from rear corner of house and behind where the garage was, looking toward the street Backyard view – rear yard continues to slope away from the house View of property line area between the houses – neighbors fence goes almost to the street and around their front yard - the vegetation wraps around the fence MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 836-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A TWO-FOOT SIDE- YARD SETBACK FOR A GARAGE AT 7025 PLEASANT VIEW DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2006-002 WHEREAS, the applicants, Jim and Amy Wilson, have applied for a variance to allow for a two-foot, side-yard setback for a proposed 22’x30’ garage on their property located at 7025 Pleasant View Drive; and, WHEREAS, 7025 Pleasant View Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Knollwood Park, Ramsey County, Minnesota, Lot 68 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Plot Plan 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial View 5. Photographic Documentation 6. 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 imposes a hardship thereby restricting 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, a public hearing was held Wednesday, June 7, 2006, with regard to this variance request; 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. Resolution 836-06 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact related to this request: 1. The exceptional or extraordinary conditions relating to the variance request is that the house was constructed 24 feet from the side property line, the rear yard is sloped, and almost the entire remaining property is wetland or wetland buffer area which causes limitations as to how the property can be improved. 2. The literal interpretation of the Zoning Code would restrict the property owner’s ability to expand and improve upon the layout and functionality of the home. 3. The variance is requested due to the house placement and the grade change directly behind the house, factors over which the applicants have had no control. 4. Granting a variance to allow for the two-foot side yard setback would allow the applicants to have a two car garage in order to park their vehicles indoors, resulting in a better appearance for the neighborhood. 5. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owners a special privilege denied to others in the same district due to the unique nature of the existing conditions present on the site. 6. The two-foot setback is the minimum variance that would alleviate the applicants’ hardship. 7. The construction of new garage would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code or to other property in the R-1, Single-Family Residential zoning district. 8. A two-foot setback would not impair the supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. Resolution 836-06 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon its review of the documentation, testimony presented at the public hearing, and the identified findings of fact, does hereby approve the variance request for a two-foot side yard setback for a proposed garage at 7025 Pleasant View Drive, contingent upon the following: 1. The applicants shall obtain approval of a building permit for the garage prior to any work being accomplished. 2. The variance applies only to garage space and the setback on the south side of the lot. 3. The Variance shall become null and void if the work for which the Variance was granted is not completed within one year from the date of approval unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the City Council. Adopted this 7th day of June, 2006. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: June 7, 2006 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance to Allow 2,468 Square Feet of Accessory Storage Space at 8135 Long Lake Road; Planning Case VR06-003 Introduction: The applicants, David Slabiak and Maria Merabella, have requested a variance to allow more accessory storage space than permitted in an R-1 Single Family Zoning District. The applicants propose constructing a new 1,620 square foot accessory building at the rear of their 29,620 square foot lot. There is presently 868 square feet of accessory space on the lot, thus their request would be for an additional 668 square feet of storage space over the 1,800 square foot maximum, or 37 percent more than what is allowed. The applicants have indicated a desire to store arcade games in the new building. The total requested accessory storage space requested is 2,468 square feet. Discussion: The amount of allowed accessory storage space on a lot is presently 1,800 square feet, an amount that exceeds many if not most first and second tier suburban communities. The present allowance was established in 2002, increasing the previous maximum from 1,400 to 1,800 square feet. (For historical reference, the 1,400 square foot maximum was established in 1998, before which time the maximum had been 1,264 square feet.) At no time in the recent past has the Planning Commission ever granted approval for accessory storage space in excess of the maximum permitted. Staff feels the 1,800 square foot threshold is quite a generous allowance in comparison to other communities and up to this point no resident has requested anything beyond the maximum. Variance Considerations: For a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission, in this case) 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. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property, which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. Slabiak Report June 7, 2006 Page 2 There are no extraordinary circumstances relating to the lot or the usage of the property which would warrant consideration of a variance for more than 37 percent of the maximum allowed square footage. While it may be true that the lot, at 2/3 of an acre, could support the additional garage without exceeding the 20 % rear-yard coverage ratio and the garage would be reasonably hidden from public view, these facts do not support a finding of extraordinary circumstances. The applicants freely admit that the basis for the request is to resolve a storage space deficiency they are experiencing which is of their on doing. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code allows for a maximum accessory storage space of 1,800 square feet. Many property owners, given the size of their lots and limited backyard depth, do not have the ability to even construct anything close to 1,800 square feet. Thus the code does not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicants indicate that they have exceeded their available on-site storage capacity and thus would like to construct a new 1,620 square foot accessory building in the backyard to house their arcade games rather than store their machines off-site. The circumstance which necessitates the variance request results from the applicants’ hobby and not due to property or other limitations over which they have had no control. d. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Granting the variance would confer upon the applicants a special privilege in that no single-family residential property owner is allowed more than 1,800 square feet of accessory storage space. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The applicants have indicated that the requested 2,468 square feet of accessory storage space is minimum amount necessary to alleviate their self-created hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Granting such a variance would set an unusual standard and would be contrary to the purposes of the Zoning Code. While each request is reviewed on their own merit, approving such a variance request would cause “precedent” ramifications. Slabiak Report June 7, 2006 Page 3 g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed addition would not likely have any impact on the supply of light or air to adjacent properties, nor would it likely impact congestion of streets. The proposed garage would not likely increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety or decrease property values in the neighborhood. Hardship Summary. For a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. In review of the above criteria, it is clear that not all of the criteria can be reasonably met. Given that, it would not appear that a variance ion this case would be justified. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the property owner and affected neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Staff does not support this action as the review of the hardship criteria appear to not warrant approval. If however the Commission believes hardship is evident, you would need to direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval which clearly outlines the basis of hardship. 2. Deny the variance request. Staff has prepared a resolution of denial based on its review of the hardship criteria which does not appear to justify approval. 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, James Ericson Community Development Director Zoning Map I-1 * Properties without a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. Photographic Documentation Photo of front elevation, looking east at subject property. New garage proposed behind home. View of backyard looking east toward location of proposed garage. Aerial View Proposed Accessory Building Site Plan MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 839-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 2,468 SQUARE FEET OF ACCESSORY STORAGE SPACE AT 8135 LONG LAKE ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2006-003 WHEREAS, the applicants, David Slabiak and Maria Merabella, have applied for a variance to allow for 2,468 square feet of accessory storage space on their property located at 8135 Long Lake Road; and, WHEREAS, 8135 Long Lake Road is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: LOT 7 BLOCK 4, LAPORT MEADOWS RAMSEY COUNTY WHEREAS, the maximum permitted accessory storage space in this district is 1,800 square feet, the applicants have requested 668 square feet beyond the maximum permitted; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Site Plan 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial View 5. Photographic Documentation 6. 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 imposes a hardship thereby restricting 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, Resolution 839-06 Page 2 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held Wednesday, June 7, 2006, regarding this variance request; 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 hereby makes the following findings of fact related to this request: 1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary conditions associated with this variance request. 2. The literal interpretation of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by others in this district. 3. The variance is requested due to factors completely under the control of the applicants. 4. Granting the variance would confer upon the property a special privilege denied to others in the same district. 5. Granting the variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code or to other property in the R-1, Single-Family Residential zoning district in that the variance would set an unusual standard would create “precedent” ramifications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon its review of the documentation, testimony presented at the public hearing, and the identified findings of fact, does hereby DENY the variance request for 2,468 square feet of accessory storage space at 8135 Long Lake Road. Adopted this 7th day of June, 2006. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 5D Meeting Date: June 7, 2006 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate ermit for a Motor Drive troduction: idwest Motor Express, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to tor freight terminal located at 2169 Mustang Drive. This property was sion: .04 of the Zoning Code conditionally allows motor freight terminals as onditional uses in industrial districts. The applicant would continue operating on the Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Conditional Use P Freight Terminal at 2169 Mustang Planning Case No. CU2006-005 In The applicant, M llow for a moa developed in 1974 as a trucking terminal and has continued to operate as such for the last 32 years. For unknown reasons, a conditional use permit has never been issued to this property. Midwest Motor Express recently applied to the City for a development review of an expansion to their building and while doing research, staff discovered that a conditional use permit was never approved for this property. At this time, Midwest Motor Express is applying for a conditional use permit to continue operating as a trucking terminal at 2169 Mustang Drive. Discus Section 1116 c property as a trucking facility. CUP Considerations: Use Permit application, Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address any potential adverse effects which ensive Plan With every Conditional 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 listed below: Relationship with the Compreh : The Comprehensive Plan encourages the expansion of existing businesses and introduction of new businesses within Mounds View. 2169 Mustang Drive and all the surrounding properties in the industrial park are designated as light or heavy industrial on the Future Land Use Map and this trucking terminal would not be inconsistent with the Comp Plan. This particular property is designated as “Heavy Industrial” on the Comp Plan maps. The Geographical Area Involved: This business is located on Mustang Drive in the Mounds iew Industrial Park. The trucking terminal would continue to not be out of place for this V industrial area. Depreciation: Since the property has operated as a trucking terminal for the past 32 years nd plans to continue operating as such, there would be no change to the value of this or a any surrounding properties. This site is in an industrial area and these types of businesses are what industrial areas are designed and zoned for. Staff does not feel that there would be 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. here is a manufactured home community on the north end of the property, however, a natural T vegetative buffer separates the properties. All other properties surrounding the subject property are zoned Industrial. There are two other large trucking companies in this industrial park so the character in this area is largely transportation based. Traffic: Mustang Drive exits onto Old Highway 8 where traffic counts are 6,800 vehicles per ay. Traffic would not change by approving this conditional use permit, but the applicant is are available d proposing an expansion, which would increase the company’s truck capacity causing an increase in traffic in the area. If the expansion were to occur, an estimate for additional traffic could be if every additional dock door had a truck come and go every day, there would be an additional 48 trips per day which would be a approximately a 0.7% increase in traffic on Old Highway 8. Even if even additional dock door had 2 trucks come and go every day, traffic would increase by less than 2%. This area already has high truck traffic due to the existing businesses in the industrial park. Adequate utilities and access roads : There would be no changes to the existing usiness. It would continue operating as it has for many years. All utilities and access roads Use b are adequate for this business. The site is located on Mustang Drive which has good access to nearby highways and freeways. The Demonstrated Need for Such a : Midwest Motor Express has operated this business in Mounds View since 1994, and this site has been operating as a trucking terminal since it tor Express is requesting approval of a conditional use permit which is required to perate a trucking terminal on an industrial zoned property. By no fault of Midwest Motor was developed over 30 years ago with no problems. Midwest Motor Express is very happy being located here and would like to continue operating and expand in Mounds View. Summary: Midwest Mo o Express, a conditional use permit was never issued for the property even though it has been operating as a trucking terminal since it was developed in 1974. There have been no problems with this property as a trucking terminal. Based on the above analysis, Staff feels that the proposal adequately satisfies the conditional use criteria and would not adversely affect the surrounding area. Public Input: This meeting will be a public hearing. Notices were mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of 2169 Mustang Drive, including to the specific manufactured ecommendations: homes that were within this radius area. As of June 1, 2006, staff has not received any public comments. R After taking testimony from staff and the applicant, the Commission can take one of the 1 Recommend approval of the conditional use permit. Resolution 837-06 is attached if the . Recommend denial of the conditional use permit. If the Planning Commission selects this 3 Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered espectfully submitted, following actions related to the request: . Commission selects this option. 2 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. . 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. R Heidi Heller ociate ttachments: Planning Ass A . Application uture Land Use Map 1 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial View 4. Comp Plan F 5. Photographic Documentation 6. Resolution 837-06 Zoning Map Aerial View Comp Plan Map Photographic Documentation Front of Midwest Motor Express East side of bldg looking north MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 837-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A MOTOR FREIGHT TERMINAL AT 2169 MUSTANG DRIVE; PLANNING CASE NO. CU2006-005 WHEREAS, Midwest Motor Express has applied for a conditional use permit to allow for a motor freight terminal; and, WHEREAS, the property, located at 2169 Mustang Drive, is zoned I-1, Industrial, and is legally described as follows: MOUNDS VIEW INDUSTRIAL PARK, EAST 464.815 FEET MOL OF LOT 3 BLOCK 1; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows motor freight terminals in Industrial districts; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Staff Report 2. Application 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial View 5. Comp Plan Future Land Use Map 6. Photographic Documentation NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning 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 business to remain and grow in Mounds View. 2. The motor freight terminal would continue to not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved. 3. The motor freight terminal would not change or 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 a motor freight terminal to continue operating at 2169 Mustang Drive, and 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 June, 2006. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 5E Meeting Date: June 7, 2006 Type of Business: Action City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate tor Express building 6-002 troduction: roperty owner Midwest Motor Express is requesting a development review for a roposed 10,500 square foot building addition to be added onto the east side of the existing ion: otor Express property is zoned Industrial with motor freight terminals being allowed s a conditional use. With the expansion, they expect to hire about 8 -10 new employees: 4 or 5 the site also includes a 3-bay repair garage on the est side of the building. Midwest Motor Express would like to add a 70’ x 150’ expansion (to the mprehensive Plan esignates the current and future land use specifically as “heavy industrial.” Item Title/Subject: Development Review for Midwest Mo expansion; Planning Case DE200 In Applicant and p p building at 2169 Mustang Drive. Midwest Motor Express is a transportation service company that currently has about 80 employees. This expansion would increase the building size by approximately 50 percent. Midwest Motor Express 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. They provide direct trucking services to 13 states in the Midwest and western United States. Discuss The Midwest M a drivers, a couple of dock workers and a couple of office personnel. The building was constructed in 1974 as a trucking terminal, and was expanded once in 1994 by 3,500 square feet along with surfacing approximately 90,000 square feet. The building is currently 19,000 square feet and w north end of their building. They would also be expanding their parking area at the north end of the lot. This building expansion would be for warehouse space and an additional 24 dock doors (12 on each side of the building). They are not expanding the building in anticipation of additional business, but want to be able to perform their dock operations in a more efficient and productive manner. They do not anticipate additional truck traffic after the expansion. This property is zoned Industrial and is just over eight acres in size. The Co d Parking: According to the City’s parking code requirements, this facility would be required to rovide parking according to the following schedule: At least eight spaces plus one space for each p two employees on each shift based on maximum planned employment; or, at a minimum, at least eight spaces plus one space for each five hundred square feet of floor space. At maximum expansion, this would result in the need to provide a total of 67 parking stalls when ased on total square footage for the building. Many of the employees are truck drivers so they b come to the facility with their trucks and hook up to a trailer, so parking “spaces” for them are not needed. The spaces would only be needed for the office staff and visitors. There are currently about 40 marked parking spaces in the front of the building. There is more than enough space for parking at this facility since much of the site is paved. Staff is confident that the site can support any parking that is needed. Setbacks: None of the setbacks would be changing except the rear of the building which would be moved to within 225 feet of the north property line. This setback is much greater than the minimum requirement in an industrial district of 40 feet when abutting residential. Townsedge Manufactured Home Park abuts Midwest Motor Express on the north side. There is a grassy area with a berm and trees at the north end of the property separating Midwest Motor Express’ property from Townsedge. Staff feels that a building setback of 225 feet plus the vegetative separation between the properties should be an adequate buffer for the residential area. Traffic: With the proposed expansion 24 more dock doors will be added, but the applicant does not nticipate an increase in traffic since they want the added space in order to load and stage freight tor Express is requesting plan approval to construct a 10,500 square foot addition to eir current building at 2169 Mustang Drive. Such an expansion would bring additional tax base attached Resolution 838-06, which recommends approval of the plans ubmitted by Midwest Motor Express proposing a 10,500 square foot addition to the north side of a more efficiently, not because of more business. This property is located in the Mounds View Industrial Park along Old Highway 8, which is a fairly high traffic road due to the amount of businesses on Mustang Drive and in the nearby area. The traffic count on Old Highway 8 is 6,800 vehicles per day. Summary: Midwest Mo th to the community, and the availability of more space would allow the company to continue growing in Mounds View. No additional parking stalls would be needed with this expansion. Recommendation: Review and consider s the existing building. _______________________ Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Planning Application n sive Plan Future Land Use Map mission Resolution 838-06 2. Site Pla 3. Zoning Map 4. Comprehen 5. Aerial View 6. Photographic Documentation 7. Planning Com Zoning Map Bauer Welding Midwest Motor Express Tyson Company - trucking Vitran Express - trucking Comp Plan Future Land Use Map Site Plan Grassy Area Proposed Addition Current Building MME Aerial View Proposed Expansion Front of MME building Looking north along east side of bldg Standing at north edge of parking area looking towards Townsedge Home Park – the grass is a hill separating the homes from MME North end of bldg Area where expansion would be built – added on to the north side MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 838-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A 10,500 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE MIDWEST MOTOR EXPRESS BUILDING; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE DE2006-002 WHEREAS, Midwest Motor Express, located at 2169 Mustang Drive, plans to construct a 10,500 square foot single story addition to the current building; and, WHEREAS, the lot in question is zoned Industrial; and, WHEREAS, the subject parcel is legally described as: ALL THAT PART OF LOT 3 BLOCK 1, MOUNDS VIEW INDUSTRIAL PARK, OVERLYING THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 30, RANGE 23, WHICH LIES EASTERLY OF A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 113 FEET WESTERLY OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; AND THAT PART OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1, MOUNDS VIEW INDUSTRIAL PARK, LYING EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 30, RANGE 23, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA; and, WHEREAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View City Code requires all new commercial and industrial development to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for consistency with all codes, regulations and requirements; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents relative to this request: 1. Planning Application 2. Site Plan 3. Zoning Map 4. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map 5. Aerial View 6. Photographic Documentation NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request for a 10,500 square foot addition to the existing Midwest Motor Express building and recommends approval subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall install sod or asphalt on any disturbed areas no later than 60 days beyond issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, weather permitting. 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 June, 2006. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 17, 2006 New Brighton City Hall 803 Old Highway 8 NW, New Brighton, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. May 17, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Zwirn, Hull, Meehlhause, Scotch, and Stevenson Absent and Excused: Commissioners Hegland and Miller. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson Planning Associate Heidi Heller ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case CU2006-003. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized garage at 8382 Knollwood Drive, Robert & Lisa Horbul 02 Planning Case CU2006-004. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized garage at 5308 St. Stephen Street, Mark McKay 04 Planning Case ZC2006-001. Consideration and Public Hearing for a Rezoning of 2901 & 2925 County Road 10 and west half of 8060 Groveland Road, Integra Homes 06 ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes A. April 19, 2006. MOTION/SECOND: Scotch/Meehlhause. To approve the Minutes of the April 19, 2006 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. CU2006-003. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized garage at 8382 Knollwood Drive, Robert & Lisa Horbul Planning Associate Heller explained this request is for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an oversized garage at 8382 Knollwood Drive. Robert and Lisa Horbul, the property owners, want to build a 24 foot by 30 foot addition onto the rear of the current three-stall garage. The applicants would like extra room for their recreational vehicles to store them indoors versus outdoors. She noted the plot plan that was included in the Commissioner’s meeting packets show how the layout would be directly behind the current garage. Planning Associate Heller explained that there is also a shed on the property so by adding this 1,604 square foot garage addition, the applicants would have a total of 1,796 square feet of accessory buildings, almost reaching the maximum allowed of 1,800 square feet. Accessory buildings, whether attached or detached, are limited to 952 square feet so a CUP is needed to construct the proposed 1,604 square foot addition. Planning Associate Heller presented the Zoning Code requirements to consider a CUP. The Code requires the Planning Commission review and address any potential adverse effects, which include the relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area, and the demonstrated need for the use. Planning Associate Heller noted the Comprehensive Plan encourages development and maintenance of residential areas to improve the quality and appearance of housing units and residential property. She noted that this residential area is zoned R-1 and by having a larger garage, the applicant can store vehicles inside, which is a benefit to the neighborhood. With regard to the geographical area involved, this property is located at Knollwood Drive, at the northern end of the City. The property has additional space at the back side, the front face of the garage will not change from what it is currently, so the addition would not be noticeable from the street. However, the garage addition will block the neighbor’s view across the back yard. Planning Associate Heller next addressed the issue of depreciation, explaining the garage addition would benefit the property due to the extra storage space and allowing more indoor parking as well as provide an economic increase to the value of the property. She stated the character of the surrounding area is strictly residential. Most homes are about 30 years old and have two-car garages, some with three-car garages. She advised that the proposed garage addition would not be out of character with the area since it cannot be viewed from the street. Planning Associate Heller stated another consideration is the demonstrated need for such a use. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ The applicant is proposing a 24 foot by 30 foot addition to allow for additional storage of recreational vehicles that they own. She advised that all Zoning Code requirements are met. Letters were sent to neighbors even though a public hearing is not required. Staff received one telephone call today indicating they are against the request. Chair Stevenson noted that person is a fair distance away from this site. Planning Associate Heller stated they are on the neighboring street, three to four properties away from the subject site. Chair Stevenson asked if anyone in the audience would like to address this request. No one responded. Chair Stevenson pointed out that this is one of the largest garages to come before the Planning Commission for square footage. He stated that he understands the need for depth to contain their vehicles and recreational vehicles but questions whether this is the minimum needed by the applicant in order to satisfy the housing of their recreational vehicles. Chair Stevenson stated he does not recall any garages of this size in Mounds View. He noted that parking things inside a garage instead of having them outside reduces blight in the City. Chair Stevenson asked the applicants to address the need for this size of garage addition. Lisa Horbul, applicant, advised they have two sons of driving age and want to be able to park their vehicles inside as well as their recreational vehicle, motorcycle, and other “toys.” Robert Horbul, applicant, asked the only reason a CUP is needed is because the addition is attached to the existing garage to make it one structure. If the addition was located five feet away, this CUP would not be needed. Chair Stevenson explained that a detached building would be restricted to storage and you would not be able to move vehicles in and out. He questioned whether this addition could be made smaller. Ms. Horbul stated they need this size of addition to be able to hold all of their vehicles and other “toys.” Chair Stevenson asked if the front of the garage with three single-stall garages would remain the same in appearance. Mr. Horbul answered that it will appear the same. Chair Stevenson requested that for future such requests, staff provide a better rendition of how the new structure fits into the existing house so the Planning Commission has a clear understanding of the roofline and appearance. Mr. Horbul presented a full sized drawing for the Planning Commission’s review. Commissioner Scotch asked where the 4-wheeler, three cars, and boat are being stored at this time. Mr. Horbul stated they are sitting behind the garage. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch asked what is in the small shed. Ms. Horbul stated it contains the lawn mower and smaller things. Mr. Horbul explained how the roof line will be turned 90 degrees from what currently exists. He stated that if you look “dead on” the garage, you will not see this new addition. Commissioner Scotch noted the City is getting requests for larger and larger garages to store items. Commissioner Zwirn stated the applicant’s children are teenagers so they will be using this garage space for several years. Chair Stevenson stated being able to review the full-sized set of plans has answered his questions. Commissioner Zwirn asked if trees will need to be removed. Mr. Horbul stated one tree will need to be removed from the back of the garage. Commissioner Zwirn asked if there will be windows in the side wall of the garage. Mr. Horbul stated there will be no windows. Commissioner Hull asked if they run a business from this home. Mr. Horbul stated they do not. Commissioner Zwirn asked if they talked to the neighbor on the north side. Mr. Horbul stated he has not but could talk with him. He explained that neighbor has a deck on this side of his house so he does not think there would be an issue. Chair Stevenson asked if the neighbors were notified. Planning Associate Heller stated properties within 350 feet were notified. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Meehlhause. To approve Resolution 833-06, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a 1,604 square-foot garage at 8382 Knollwood Drive, Robert & Lisa Horbul; Planning Case No. CU2006-003. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ B. CU2006-004. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized garage at 5308 St. Stephen Street, Mark McKay Associate Planner Heller informed the Commission that the applicant, Mark McKay, is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) at 5308 St. Stephen Street to construct an oversized garage. The current garage would be demolished and a new one built. The current garage is a little wider than a regular two-stall garage. The new building would be the same width but two cars deep. This garage would be 1,104 square feet, which is about 150 square feet larger than Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ allowed by Code without a CUP. The applicant wants the extra depth to park a third vehicle inside and his lot is not wide enough to add the third stall to the side. Planning Associate Heller stated like the last case, the Planning Commission is to review and address potential adverse effects. With regard to the relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, she noted this is a residential neighborhood and the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of all housing units in the City. Planning Associate Heller stated in this application an entirely new garage will be constructed and be a benefit to the neighborhood. Planning Associate Heller stated the geographical area involved is on St. Stephen Street near County Road 10 and again this is almost identical to the previous case where the garage would be deep so the front appearance would not change from what it is currently. The addition would not be noticeable or out of place but, since the garage will be deeper, it may block the view across the back yard. She advised that the houses to the rear on Pinewood Court are not lined up directly behind this house so the larger garage should not affect these properties, even though this lot is not as deep as some so it would be a bit closer to the property line than in the previous case. Planning Associate Heller pointed out since this is a circle, the houses are at an angle so there is no house directly behind. Planning Associate Heller stated this addition will increase the value of the property, which is a benefit to everybody. The character of the street is strictly a residential area and 5308 is near the end of the street where it almost meets with County Road 10. She noted that some houses have a single-car garage and some have a two-car garage but the lots in this area are generally not wide enough to have a third stall alongside. The applicant is proposing a 24-foot by 46-foot garage, which will allow for parking of more than two vehicles inside the garage. There are no other sheds or accessory buildings on the property. Planning Associate Heller explained that due to the depth of the proposed garage, it increases the size just over the allowed 952 square feet. Letters were mailed to neighbors within 350 feet even though a public hearing is not required. She advised staff has received no comment since the letters were sent out and all zoning and Code issues are satisfied with this request. Mark McKay, applicant, stated he has lived there since April of 1995 and is continually upgrading. Now he owns three cars and drives about 85 miles per day round trip so he is looking at getting another car with better gas mileage. He stated he either needs a bigger garage or will have two cars parked in the driveway. Chair Stevenson stated that he is familiar with the property because he used to live across the street. Commissioner Scotch asked how deep is the lot. Mr. McKay stated it is 66 feet from the back of the garage and he would like to go back another 24 feet. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson asked whether the roofline will remain the same. Mr. McKay answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Scotch asked if there are any additional sheds on this property. Mr. McKay stated there are none. He described the railing that will be installed around the deck he will also be building and advised that he talked with his neighbors and they have no problem with this request. Commissioner Scotch asked the applicant when he wants to start. Mr. McKay stated as soon as he can. Commissioner Zwirn suggested Mr. McKay consider installing an 18 foot door instead of a 16 foot door which would make it easier to navigate a car into and out of the garage. MOTION/SECOND: Meehlhause/Zwirn. To approve Resolution 832-06, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a 1,104 square-foot garage at 5308 St. Stephen Street, Mark McKay; Planning Case No. CU2006-004. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ C. ZC2006-001. Consideration and Public Hearing for a Rezoning of 2901 & 2925 County Road 10 and west half of 8060 Groveland Road, Integra Homes Community Development Director Ericson informed the Commission that the applicant, Ron Lillestrand representing Integra Homes, is requesting approval to rezone properties located at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the back half of 8060 Groveland Road from B-3, Highway Business, and R-1 Single Family Residential, to R-3, Medium Density Residential. Integra Homes was before the Planning Commission last year with a PUD request and proposal for 21 townhome units. At the time it was presented and noticed to the community, there was concern expressed by residents and members of the Planning Commission as to the density of the development and issues related to the development like parking and setback. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request. However, rather than forwarding that recommendation to the City Council, Integra Homes decided to go back to the drawing board, take into consideration the comments made, and come up with a new plan. Director Ericson advised they are now requesting rezoning from R-1 and B-3 to R-3, which would allow townhomes. The applicant has also provided a plan as to the proposed future development to incorporate 19 owner/occupied townhome units with sufficient guest parking area. He clarified that the request before the Planning Commission tonight is strictly the rezoning issue and the Commission is not looking at the site plan or major subdivision. Director Ericson stated rezoning requests are handled by ordinance. The Commission will look at the relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, whether the project goes in the area proposed, depreciation issues, character of the use, and demonstrated need for the use. The rezoning is an Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ action approved by the City with a lot of consideration as to the Comprehensive Plan. Director Ericson explained this is different from a CUP consideration because if the CUP request meets the maximum square footage, setback, and height limitations then the City would need an issue to be able to deny the CUP request. However, with a rezoning the City holds the discretion to make that decision. Director Ericson advised that notice was sent to people within 350 feet. Director Ericson advised that the Comprehensive Plan indicates this is a mixed use PUD area and the intent of that designation is to provide for some flexibility with land use with residential and commercial mixed together. In this case, the request is for the residential component of that mixed use type of development. He noted there is some commercial development in this area, like Johnson’s trailer hitches, so this would be consistent with that mixed use designation. Director Ericson explained the housing aspect of the Comprehensive Plan encourages diversity being available to residents. The City is now predominantly single-family residential, rental houses, and manufactured housing. Townhomes and senior housing are currently under represented in what is available in Mounds View. He noted that on the south side of County Road 10, there are some townhouses so this would be consistent with what exists. With regard to the geographical area, Director Ericson noted one of the lots is a vacant commercial property that used to be an independent gas station but that building was demolished. Another of the lots is a single-family house and the other is the subdivided back half of another single-family residential property on the site. This is a three acre site, which is the minimum requirement for a PUD. Mr. Lillestrand talked to adjacent property owners about expanding the scope of the development but at this point the project represents what he can accommodate at this time. Director Ericson explained that depreciation is a difficult issue to quantify with a certainty. In looking at the current proposal, he explained that it will not depreciate the subject property with 19 townhome units and there would be a tenfold increase in property values. However, the Planning Commission has to look at other issues associated with depreciation such as how it impacts the adjoining properties and whether the development is consistent with the uses out there. Director Ericson reviewed that the character of the surrounding area is primarily commercial along the County Road 10 corridor. Within two blocks of the site, there is a variety of commercial and residential uses. The residential uses include single-family residential, owner- occupied townhomes, and multi-family rental dwellings so a townhome development would not be out of place. The question is whether it is out of place for this specific location. Director Ericson next addressed the issue of demonstrated need for this use. He pointed out that since townhomes and senior housing are under represented, one could argue there is a need for townhomes units. But, Mounds View is getting 66 townhomes later this year and several hundred townhomes in New Brighton. The rezoning would be for Medium Density Residential, which is not tied to a specific site plan so it would open the door for single-family homes, twin Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ homes, and multi-family housing as long as density does not exceed a threshold. Governmental, schools, churches, and educational institutions could also be incorporated onto this site. Director Ericson stated it may be difficult to ascertain what the adverse effects are but in terms of intensity of the use and whether it is consistent with adjoining properties, the area is predominantly single-family homes so that is the issue that will be discussed tonight. Director Ericson advised that staff is not making a recommendation but asking the Planning Commission to hold the public hearing, receive input from residents and the applicant, and then come to a determination if a proposed rezoning is appropriate. He reiterated that the Comprehensive Plan contemplates an intensity in use, is guided for mixed use, and this site plan would allow for expansion of the development if that can be worked out at some point in the future. Director Ericson advised that staff received one comment from a resident that is included in the staff report. The resident from 8080 Groveland Road is concerned about the potential for rental housing and multi-family ownership who may not care as much for their dwelling as would a resident property owner. Director Ericson pointed out that is not what is proposed for this property. Director Ericson stated staff talked with the adjacent property owners who were concerned with the previous proposal and may be concerned with this proposal as well. He recommended the Planning Commission hold the public hearing and then direct staff to draft either a resolution recommending approval or denial, with findings. Chair Stevenson stated that he would like the timeline described. He noted the plans have not been submitted so issues like the entrance, exit, and density will not be discussed tonight. The issue under consideration tonight is the requested rezoning of the three properties. However, the Planning Commission also needs to keep in mind the intended use for the site. Chair Stevenson asked when the rest of the details will be presented. Director Ericson explained that the City does not conditionally rezone property. If the Council approves a rezoning, it is not contingent to any site plan or development proposal. He stated it is a difficult process because the City does not want to approve of a rezoning and then hope a good plan comes from it. The City wants assurance that by approving a rezoning, the plan will not be too intensive or out of character with the area. The timeline is that the recommendation will be presented to the Council and if they feel the property should be rezoned, they will direct staff to draft that ordinance and grant first reading. Then it would be indicated to the developers they have a certain timeline to prepare the plans, typically six months, and to return with the major subdivision. After that is considered, the City would hold second reading of the ordinance. That provides some safeguards that if the project is not consistent with the vision of the community, the Planning Commission and Council can deny the rezoning. He clarified that the process does not need to take six months and the applicant could return within a month with the major subdivision plans. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson noted the action tonight does not mean approval of the plans for this site. He stated if the rezoning is approved, he would encourage residents to attend the meetings coming up when the plans are presented. Commissioner Scotch asked what can go onto the site if the R-3 rezoning is approved. Director Ericson explained there are permitted uses and those that need special approval. Approved uses would be single-family detached dwellings, essential services (gas lines, transfer electrical generation) public parks, twinhomes, duplexes, townhomes up to six units per building, boarding houses, group homes, or family foster homes. Conditional uses would include public or semipublic recreational buildings (community center), religious institutions, educational institutions, government or public utility buildings, daycare, group nursery school, or multi- family structures. Director Ericson stated this is a three-acre lot so the maximum allowed would be 21 units; however, with multiple family there could be many more units than 21. Townhome units require 6,500 square feet per unit. Chair Stevenson asked staff to display the Comprehensive Plan map. He explained the thinking was that this area would have mixed use. Director Ericson displayed the map and reviewed the road alignments. He reviewed that back in 2001 and 2002, the Planning Commission looked at the uses on County Road 10 and it was the intention to encourage integrated planned development rather than a piecemeal development as had occurred over the years without an integrated approach. Director Ericson advised that when this land use map was adopted, the Planning Commission was looking forward to a coordination of development through grouping parcels together and encouraging development that was more beneficial than looking at parcel by parcel. On the north side of County Road 10, it was designated as mixed use from the corner of Eastwood up to Spring Lake Road on the north side. He explained it is intended to be developed with an eye toward coordinated development. Mixed use allows for flexibility and the market to come forward with proposals and then the City can determine if it is consistent with what they want for the area. Director Ericson noted the applicant tonight has assembled three acres of parcels. Originally the applicant desired to have more of the area included in a PUD but if this request moves forward, it will alter the development potential for the land southeast and northwest of this site. He advised that is not a reason to deny this request, but it should be taken into consideration. The developers have proposed a development that can incorporate the adjoining properties depending on availability in the future. Director Ericson noted that on the south side of County Road 10, there is another area of mixed use development. Recently, on the corner of Silver Lake and County Road 10, it was redeveloped into the CVS site. Also there are some townhomes directly south of the proposed area. To the north and northeast, it is all single-family (R-1) owner/occupied housing. The issue is that County Road 10 is the City’s primary commercial corridor, which allows for more intensive uses. The proposal being presented is 19 units and consistent with the vision for this site. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson asked the applicant to address the Commission. He noted that the proposal was rejected last year and asked how this proposal satisfies the concerns expressed at that time. Brian Bourassa, Project Manager representing Integra Homes, stated they have worked with numerous proposals, both commercial and residential, and met with commercial investors and planners. They also met with Mrs. Johnson regarding her parcel and potential to combine her property. Based on the research and discussions held, they decided to move forward separate from Mrs. Johnson. Mr. Bourassa asked permission to present the plans they have drafted. Chair Stevenson stated a vision has to be seen in order to consider a rezoning. Mr. Bourassa displayed a site plan of the proposal. He explained the people they talked with were not conducive to an aggressive commercial opportunity but more of an office-type of building. Then they investigated the surrounding area to see what was available for office and found an inventory is available. Mr. Bourassa stated they talked with the Johnsons, investors, and staff. Then the plan was developed for a townhome type product with single access to County Road 10. Mr. Bourassa explained this proposal differs from the last one because it has less density, is not a PUD with rear or side yard deviations, and is a straight forward R-3 development. He noted they propose a series of buildings with a common central area, increased open space, and have addressed the parking comments that were made. In an effort to not box in or spot develop along the corridor, they will provide transportation links to access the Johnson parcel to the northwest as well as to the west to provide linkage to the abutting property. He noted the building configuration has also been changed and more aggressive landscaping is planned. He advised that experienced commercial people have said that high end retail business will not fit on this site. Mr. Bourassa stated they agree with staff that there is a need for this type of townhome product, which is not a high rise. They investigated senior housing but that did not work out with the evaluation. He stated they then worked with staff on a coordinated development and hope the linkages being provided will work into that concept. Mr. Bourassa asked how the City differentiates townhomes from multi-family housing. Director Ericson stated the question is what is allowed in an R-3 district, which allows for up to six units in a townhome building. Up to six multi-family units would be allowed with a conditional use permit. Anything more than six units would need a higher density, R-4 zoning. Director Ericson noted that with a townhome, each has its own access, garage, and is owner-occupied. If this application is approved, then 19 individual lots would be created. With a multi-family project, there would not be individual lots and the tenants would be leasing the space. Mr. Bourassa explained that with this product, they are individually owned units with a common area around the outside. To prevent unsightliness, the common space is maintained by an association so there will not be individual lawn mowers. The grounds will be irrigated and Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ landscaped. He stated that association maintained communities tend to be very nice and also provides one point of contact should there be a concern. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. Cindy Johnson, County Road 10, stated she has been fighting this for years and the end of this month is the anniversary of her husband’s death. She stated she does not want to see townhomes go in because it will lower property values and this abuts two sides of her property. She stated it is her understanding that the City wanted to increase the tax base, which commercial property would bring about. Mrs. Johnson stated she would like to stop this project from going in. Commissioner Scotch stated she has learned a lot in the last year about the corridor and found that industrial and light industrial uses bring a tax base for homeowners. However, the question is whether the City wants light industrial on the corridor. Commissioner Scotch stated she totally respects Greg and Cindy Johnson and asked what she would be looking for to enhance her business since she is a homeowner with a business. Mrs. Johnson stated she would prefer to have three businesses. Commissioner Scotch noted the Comprehensive Plan is for mixed uses. She stated she supports businesses on County Road 10 and would like to know Mrs. Johnson’s vision to bring more tax base into the City. Mrs. Johnson stated she would rather see a business that closes at a certain hour and then there are no vehicles. She would also like to see the property well lit. Mrs. Johnson stated she foresees a lot more problems with townhomes. Duane Waldoch, 2935 County Road 10, stated he lives to the west of this property. He noted that Mr. Ericson explained what a PUD is as a vision and at first he was concerned about it but now understands that you cannot change growth. He stated that the vision in 2002 for use along the corridor may have changed by now, noting there may be a Viking’s Stadium within four or five miles of the corridor so there will be a need for hotels and restaurants. Mr. Waldoch suggested that once townhouses are constructed, it is taking space for residences. He noted that Mounds View now has an opportunity to look at the corridor again, knowing the Vikings Stadium will probably be coming in. Mr. Waldoch stated the person who bought this property has not contacted him and he believes that person did not do his homework before he purchased the property. He stated the buyer should have come to the City to ask about a townhome project because then he would have been told he needed three acres. He stated he felt sorry for him but that is the chance you take and you need to have a plan. Mr. Waldoch stated he thinks the applicant is now trying to force the issue to get townhomes to fit. He stated he would prefer that there be a lot of nice restaurants and hotels. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 12 ________________________________________________________________________ Mark Schnor, 2949 County Road 10, stated that he does not think the plan looks any different than what they presented a year ago. He stated there was talk about cutting down the number of outlets to County Road 10 but if townhomes go in, it will be a right turn in and out. He questioned how the Fire Department will be able to respond if there is no access to the back. He also asked what townhomes will do to his property value. Mr. Schnor stated the applicant has not approached him since the last meeting so he believes that nothing has changed. Mr. Schnor expressed concern about having 19 families with kids in this location because there could be a safety issue with kids running out onto County Road 10. Commissioner Scotch asked what his vision is and if it would include selling his land. Mr. Schnor stated that from Groveland Road to Spring Lake Road it was to be commercial but then a PUD was submitted. He stated his concern with townhomes is that you can only get into that site by one entrance so it will create a traffic jam on County Road 10. He commented he loves where he lives but County Road 10 is now being set up for businesses. He stated that people remember Mounds View as having three pharmacies on County Road 10. Commissioner Scotch pointed out that progress has been made in the City and the Mermaid is growing but the City is looking for continuity as you progress down the corridor. She stated she is asking for the resident’s vision because the applicant is asking for direction on what the City wants on this site. Mr. Schnor stated they have not approached him or his neighbor during their investigation on this site. Commissioner Scotch stated there is a need to group more land parcels together or it will be pieced together. Mr. Schnor asked what could be developed considering their lot sizes. He stated it would have to be residential to the back and a drainage ditch to the front. Chair Stevenson stated that is an issue because a three acre site is required so more residences would have to be bought. Chair Stevenson asked if there are more comments on the request to rezone. There being no additional comments, the public hearing was closed at 8:17 p.m. Chair Stevenson reviewed the options are to table or make a recommendation. Commissioner Zwirn pointed out that several months ago the applicant was looking for development across from Saturn and residents complained that they did not want commercial. Now a developer wants a rezoning and residents want commercial rather than residential. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 13 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Waldoch stated his opinion is that this piece of property is not set up for R-3 development so the applicant is forcing the issue, which will change the properties around them. He stated again that the applicant should have done his homework before buying the property. Mr. Waldoch pointed out that once townhomes are put in to this location, the residents are “dead in the water.” Commissioner Scotch stated that is not necessarily true. Mr. Waldoch stated if the applicant had come and talked to the residents, then the project could go to Spring Lake Road. He stated his opinion that it makes no sense to put townhomes into this area unless the rest of the area will also be developed as townhouses. Commissioner Scotch explained that the corridor had to start somewhere and the City is trying to get some continuity. She stated her vision in ten years is not to have homes on the corridor. Commissioner Zwirn stated there are noise and safety issues with County Road 10. He noted this developer is attempting to fit in his development while still providing connections to abutting property to accommodate future development. Mr. Waldoch stated the applicant is just trying to force this development to make money and should have checked with the City before he bought it. Commissioner Zwirn stated that is an opinion but this applicant purchased the land, then purchased a second piece of land to fulfill the area requirements, and now wants to classify it as R-3. Commissioner Zwirn stated residents need to look at Mounds View as a growing community. Mr. Waldoch suggested there is no need for townhomes in this area. Commissioner Scotch stated she wished these residents would attend a town meeting. She explained that you have to look at the tax base, learn about the City, and become educated in how to enhance the City. She pointed out that there is a vacant office building on Long Lake Road so the City needs to be sure that what is developed will be used. Mr. Waldoch stated development is coming to the northern area so he would urge the Planning Commission to not make a decision too fast and to look at what will happen in the next four to five years. Chair Stevenson stated the Planning Commission needs to provide staff with direction to prepare a resolution to either recommend approval or denial of the requested rezoning. Commissioner Hull stated he thinks the City should stick with what it has and not change the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Stevenson stated Commissioner Hull would then support a resolution to recommend denial of the rezoning from PUD. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 14 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Meehlhause stated this area definitely needs redevelopment but he is not sure this is the right development. He stated he has concerns with townhomes, noting another townhome development with a number of units is already being constructed. Chair Stevenson noted that two Commissioners are absent tonight and they had voiced opinions about the application a year ago. Chair Stevenson directed staff to prepare resolutions for both approval and denial that can be considered at the next meeting. He stated there is a split opinion tonight so it is his preference to discuss this further when the full Commission is in attendance. Mr. Schnor stated his concern is the safety factor when entering and leaving the complex. He stated if the City approves R-3 it will be good for him since no one will be able to buy his property. Chair Stevenson noted that his property and to the west could also develop as R-3 at some point in the future. Commissioner Zwirn stated this proposal would enhance Mr. Schnor’s property values more than if it was a commercial site. Mike Welsh, 1866 County Highway 10 NE, Spring Lake Park, stated he has a townhouse development on the south side of County Road 10. He noted there is an additional location of townhomes in Mounds View and stated he does not see where the Comprehensive Plan is a problem since there are townhomes directly across the street. Mr. Welsh stated the Comprehensive Plan is for a mixed use development along the corridor so this application is part of the Plan. Chair Stevenson stated it is possible in mixed use to include townhomes. Mr. Welsh stated he does not see a problem with townhomes and thinks there are no safety issues. He noted that the building next to CVS has been vacant for a number of years and pointed out that the only business development in the past three years has been to sell Christmas trees on the applicant’s lot. He suggested this application would be better than no use and better than another gas station, liquor store, or car lot. Mr. Waldoch stated that traffic is already congested. He explained how the townhomes on the south side of County Road 10 have to make a U-turn and pointed out if this project is approved, there will be 19 more townhomes making U-turns, which will cause more traffic congestion. Commissioner Hull agreed that if this property is changed to R-3, it locks up that property and eliminates the future potential for commercial. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 15 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson stated that is also his concern. He stated he is not against townhomes but this proposal would take the middle out of that area and with the three acre requirement for mixed use development, there are not three acres left to the east or west. Chair Stevenson stated that the Commission needs to look at this application again and he would like all seven Commissioners to be in attendance. Commissioner Scotch asked residents to look at what could go into this site with R-3 and as it sits now so they have an idea of what the Commission is considering. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review Additional City Code Language for Retaining Walls Community Development Director Ericson informed the Commission that the issue is the possible changing of the code to look at what a retaining wall would be, setbacks, fences and terraces. The recommendation was to bring forward new language that defines what is a retaining wall, indicate what the setback should be for a retaining wall, and address issues that are unclear in the Code. He explained there was some confusion and a lack of clarity in terms of whether a retaining wall could be or should be set back. The Planning Commission’s recommendation had been that it be treated no differently than a fence so it could be located up to, but not on a property line. Director Ericson stated that staff drafted a code amendment to define retaining walls and in addition a definition for landscaping, which is an undefined requirement in Chapter 1103. Another change is the addition of a new subdivision articulating prohibited materials for fences. Director Ericson read the definition of landscaping, noting it provides a good idea of what landscaping is in case there is a question in the future. He also reviewed the language proposed to define a retaining wall, and location of a fence or retaining wall so it is treated similarly to a fence. Director Ericson then reviewed Section 7, Prohibited Materials, that define materials that cannot be used and exceptions. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Meehlhause. To approve Resolution 834-06, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Amendment to Chapters 1102 and 1103 of the Mounds View Zoning Code relating to Fences and Retaining Walls. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 16 ________________________________________________________________________ A. June 7, 2006 meetings return to Mounds View City Hall B. June 21, 2006. Chair Stevenson thanked the City of New Brighton for allowing Mounds View the use of their Council Chambers. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:43 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.