Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-19-2006 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 19, 2006 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. June 21, 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. VR2006-006 Consideration of a Variance request for Tyson Companies at 4825 Mustang Circle Applicant: D&A Development Address: 4825 Mustang Circle 6. Other Planning Activity A. None 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. August 2, 2006 B. August 16, 2006 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. July 5, 2006 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion Item No: 5A Meeting Date: July 19, 2006 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate a Request for a uilding and Parking Introduction: D&A Development, owner of Tyson Company, is proposing to expand their cility at 4825 Mustang Circle. The applicant is requesting to construct a new building with e facility expansion proposal for Tyson Company. They re proposing to construct an additional 120,000 square foot building on their property and ng Commission will also be hearing more requests from Tyson for a development view, and a major subdivision in order to combine their four lots into one. As part of this nough truck drivers. Because of this, Tyson is finding it necessary to explore other routes in current building. This is something at Tyson is not planning to move forward with for another two to five years. This is shown Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of Variance to Reduce the Front B Setback at Tyson Company Located at 4825 Mustang Circle; Planning Case VR2006-006 The applicant, fa front corners within seven and ten feet from the property line, and the additional parking area up to the front property line, with no setback from the Mustang Circle right-of-way. 4825 Mustang Circle comprises four lots which total approximately 20 acres and zoned I-1, Industrial. The Zoning Code requires a forty (40) foot front setback for buildings and parking areas located in Industrial districts. This variance request is part of a larg a add a railroad track spur from the tracks in New Brighton up into the new building. This property has significant wetlands on the west side of the property, which connect to Long Lake and the regional park. All the stormwater from the area drains into this wetland. The proposed new building, the future expansion space, and rail spur do not encroach into the wetlands. The Planni re project, they will also need to reroute a drainage easement which then the city would need to vacate that easement, and apply for a wetland buffer permit. Staff is only bringing the variance forward at this point because if the Planning Commission does not approve these reduced setbacks, Tyson will need to reconfigure their building footprint. We are also waiting for more information from Tyson before staff can make recommendations on the site plan. Tyson, along with many other trucking companies, are finding it virtually impossible to hire e order to continue moving freight. BelAir in New Brighton would also like to have rail access. They have come to an agreement with Tyson that will allow the tracks to cross their property and onto Tyson’s property, where this spur would end. On the site plan, there is shown to be an expansion to the th on the plans in order to see the entire expansion plans and help with the stormwater drainage planning. Discussion: rements are addressed in Section 1104.01, Subd 4 of the Zoning Code. dustrially zoned properties are required to maintain a forty-foot front setback for structures n additional 20,000 square foot building and a railroad track that would come onto their property from ts will increase ignificantly. Section 1121.13 of the Code would require that this site provide 381 parking d, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical ifficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly 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, not necessarily irregularly shaped, although a large piece of the property is wetland area and much lower ground, which does limit the space that b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights Setback requi In and parking areas. Industrial side and rear parking setbacks are five feet, or more if it abuts a residential use. The applicant is requesting a thirty-three (33) foot variance from the front building setback, and a forty (40) foot variance from the front parking setback requirement. They are proposing to locate the southeast corner of the building seven feet from the property line, the northeast corner of the building ten feet from the property line, and the parking lot directly on the lot line. If constructed as proposed, there would be no setback between the parking area and the Mustang Circle right-of-way. The building and parking lot are pushed to the property line due to the wetlands that are along the west side of this property, and keeping enough space behind the building to be able to have a drive aisle. Tyson Company has indicated that they need to have a certain amount of square footage in the new building in order for the expansion to be financially feasible for them. As shown on the attached site plan, the applicant would like to construct a 1 the south, then turn east where the tracks would enter the building. There would be room for four or five rail cars to load and unload inside the building. They would also add an additional parking lot with 23 stalls between the building and the front property line. Due to adding much more building square footage, their parking requiremen s spaces, based on the size of the buildings and the uses on the property. Currently, the site has 126 spaces, which is 22 spaces less than the required number. If the parking lot is constructed as proposed, the site would have 149 parking spaces. The Code states that parking requirements may also be determined based on employee count, although the actual required number of spaces is supposed to be the greater of the two determined numbers. The required number, if based on employee count, would be only 44 spaces. At most, after the expansion, Tyson may have up to about 72 employees. The actual parking space count that will be allowed would be decided during the development review. Variance Considerations: 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 topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The property is very large and can be utilized. commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. es do not have wetlands, or at least nowhere near as much on their property. c. Th The applicant had no control over the shape of the lots or the wetlands being present. tay away from the wetland area. But any additional expansion would require moving d. Th that i same district. for reduced building and parking setbacks, there are very rare cases in which there are e. Th Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. mum amount that would allow them to have the size building needed and add 23 additional parking spaces. f. Th prop present to justify a seven (7) foot building setback and zero (0) arking lot setback. Due to the size of this property, it may be hard to justify these g. Th or su stion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the rse effects. It will need to be determined whether or not the rerouted storm water drainage would be adequate and not create drainage problems for the area. Recommendation: The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, in that most properti at the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. When the current building was constructed in 1982, it was placed on the lot in order to s closer to the wetlands. And now due to bringing rail on to the property, it makes more sense to stay as far south on the property with the tracks as possible. at granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege s denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege denied to others in the same district. Although there have been many variance requests such extraordinary circumstances that it would justify eliminating the front setback all together. Due to the amount of wetlands on the property and that this is an industrial area, there could be justification to this request. at the variances requested are the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. The applicants state that the thirty-three (33) foot variance for the building setback and the forty (40) foot variance for the parking lot is the mini e variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other erty in the same zone. The variance may be detrimental to the purpose of this Title unless it is determined that enough of a hardship is p severely reduced setbacks. e proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property bstantially increase the conge neighborhood. The proposed building and parking lot expansion should not result in any of the above- cited adve After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected ission can take one of the following actions related to the request: is attached for approval as is or with amendments. The approval would be contingent upon 2. ropriate to support the denial. 3. re discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. The City has submitted their request for an Re neighbors, the Comm 1. Approve the variance as requested or approve the variance, but amend the reduced setback to an amount that the Commission feels is appropriate. Resolution 848-06 approval of a development review, approval of the drainage plan from the Public Works department, and approval from Rice Creek Watershed District. Deny the requested variance. To move forward with this option, the Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of approval with findings of fact app Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if mo additional 60 days for this application due to the complexity of the project, but the Commission should still act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible in order to be able to continue moving through all the planning requests associated with this proposal. spectfully submitted, 1. Application 2. Information from Applicant ap n 8-06 Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 3. Zoning M 4. Aerial Map 5. Photographic Documentatio 6. Site Plan 7. Resolution 84 Information from Applicant The variance requested in number 1 is no longer necessary as they shifted the building in order to comply with the setbacks. This request was for the future expansion of the current building. The front setbacks for both building and parking areas in industrial districts is 40 feet. The applicant is incorrect in stating otherwise in numbers 2 and 3. Zoning Map Wetland Boundary ↑ N Aerial Map 10 foot setback to corner of bldg Approx. Proposed bldg 7 foot setback to corner of bldg Rail spur Parking area – 0 setback The applicant states that the buildings cannot be any closer together. The placement of the new building on the site plan is the minimum needed in order to still be able to allow semi trucks to be able to back in to the south side of the current building and the north side of the new building. Photographic Documentation Due to the size of this site, it was very hard to photograph and be able to really get a sense of what it is like. Planning Commissioners may want to visit the area prior to the meeting. Trailwood Transportation is a Tyson Company. The sign in the picture below is in front of a parking lot, which is where the new building would go. Looking north along Mustang Circle at Tyson’s current building Current building – SE corner Looking west – along south side of bldg MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 848-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT BUILDING SETBACKS TO SEVEN AND TEN FEET AND THE PARKING SETBACK TO ZERO AT TYSON COMPANY LOCATED AT 4825 MUSTANG CIRCLE; PLANNING CASE VR2006-006 WHEREAS, the applicant, D&A Development, has applied for a variance to reduce the front building setbacks to seven feet and ten feet and the parking area setback to zero at Tyson Company, located at 4825 Mustang Circle; and, WHEREAS, 4825 Mustang Circle is zoned I-1, Industrial and comprises four separate lots which are legally described as: Mounds View Industrial Park, No. 3, Block 1, Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7 (Lots 5, 6, and 7 Subject to Easements) WHEREAS, Section 1104.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the minimum front setback for buildings and parking lots in Industrial districts is forty (40) feet; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting front building setbacks to locate the building seven (7) and (10) feet from the front property line, and a parking setback variance to locate the parking area zero (0) feet from the front property line; and, WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the following materials relating to this request: 1. Application 2. Information from the Applicant 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial Map 5. Photographic Documentation 6. Site Plan 7. 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, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding this variance on Wednesday, July 19, 2006; 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 makes the following finding of facts related to this request: 1. The exceptional or extraordinary conditions that apply to this property are the amount of wetlands and low land that occupy this site, which limit the buildable space available. 2. The literal interpretation of the Zoning Code would restrict the applicant’s ability to construct an additional building that would meet their business needs. 3. The variance is requested due to the wetland area and topography of the property, factors over which the applicant had no control. 4. Granting the variance would not confer a special privilege denied to other property owners in the same district due to the unique nature of the existing conditions on the site. 5. The thirty-three (33) and thirty (30) foot front building setbacks and zero front parking setback are the minimum variances that would alleviate the applicants’ hardship. 6. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code or to other properties in the I-1, Industrial zoning district. 7. The reduced front setbacks 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY 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 to reduce the front building setbacks to seven (7) feet and ten (10) feet, and the parking area setback to zero at Tyson Company located at 4825 Mustang Circle. Adopted this 19th day of July, 2006. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL)