Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-04-2005 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 20, 2005 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Acting Chair Miller at 7:00 p.m. April 20, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, Scotch Absent and Excused: Stevenson (excused) Also Present: Planning Associate Kristin Prososki ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case VR2005-0003. Consideration of a Variance To Reduce the Front Parking Setback to Zero at 4749 Old Highway 8 2 Planning Case CU2005-004. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to Add Two Additional Dwelling Units to a Multifamily Residential Building at 2071 Hillview Road 4 Planning Case DE2005-005 and VR2005-04. Consideration of a Variance for Reduced Parking Setbacks and a Development Review For a Proposed Retail Development at 2525 County Road 10 6 Planning Case MI2005-003. Consideration of a Minor Subdivision At 8060 Groveland Road 7 _______________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes A. March 16, 2005. Mounds View Planning Commission April 20, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Scotch/Zwirn. To approve the Minutes of the March 16, 2005 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case VR2005-003. Consideration of a Variance to Reduce the Front Parking Setback to Zero at 4749 Old Highway 8. Planning Associate Prososki informed the Commission that the applicant, Bruce Hasselbring, representing Ace Supply Company, is proposing to expand the parking area at the Ace Supply Company building located at 4749 Old Highway 8. The applicant is requesting to construct the parking lot up to the front property line, with no setback from the Old Highway 8 right-of-way. She noted that 4749 Old Highway 8 is zoned I-1, Industrial. The Zoning Code requires a 40-foot front setback for parking areas located in Industrial districts. Acting Chair Miller opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Commissioner Zwirn asked whether there would be any space left between the parking lot and Old Highway 8. Planner Prososki explained that there would be approximately 25 feet between the parking lot and Old Highway 8 if constructed as proposed. Bruce Hasselbring of 4749 Old Highway 8 addressed the Commission and explained that the site has a lot of limitations as to the ability to move around in that space. He then reviewed the proposal for the Commission. Mr. Hasselbring indicated the expanded parking lot would give them a better opportunity to do business in this location and would especially help during winter when and snow causes congestion on the site. Acting Chair Miller asked what kind of business is Ace Supply? Mr. Hasselbring indicated they are a heating and air conditioning wholesaler and there is also a tenant in the building that is in the heating and air business, but sells control panels. He stated that the last tenant is moving and he is looking to re lease the space. Commissioner Zwirn indicated this is a large facility but it appears that they are using only half of the existing parking. Mounds View Planning Commission April 20, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Hasselbring explained that they have 20 people working in the building and the remaining use of the parking lot is for people who come and pick up materials and to allow for truck traffic maneuvering on site. Commissioner Zwirn asked why the need for additional parking available if they are not using existing parking. Mr. Hasselbring explained that there are times when there is no parking available because there are trucks in and out and people coming and going. Commissioner Hull indicated that he drove through Friday afternoon and all the parking spaces were taken when he was there. Acting Chair Miller indicated that she is not sure if the City can consider parking spaces used for snow storage as absent parking spots. Commissioner Hull asked if the dock on the north end would be used or if traffic would be diverted. Mr. Hasselbring indicated that the south side would be serviced by a different truck dock. Commissioner Hegland asked what is on the north side. Mr. Hasselbring indicated that there are a series of dock doors. Mr. Hasselbring explained that they run three trucks out of that area and there are five total doors on the north. Commissioner Scotch indicated that this is a large variance to ask for and she is hard pressed to find that the hardship requirements are met. Mr. Hasselbring indicated that this would help him if he could reconfigure the site. Commissioner Meehlhause asked whether the new proposed spaces could be up against the building. Mr. Hasselbring indicated that his architect looked at numerous ways to layout the site and this is the one that allowed for the most parking and ease of traffic flow on the site. It also allows them to save an existing tree on the site. Commissioner Zwirn asked if there were any other proposals for addressing this matter. Mr. Hasselbring indicated that they could not put the dock in on the north side because the dock doors are on that side. Mounds View Planning Commission April 20, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ There were no public comments. Commissioner Zwirn asked when the applicant planned to do the work if approved. Mr. Hasselbring indicated they would finish the work by the end of the summer. Acting Chair Miller indicated there are seven criteria that have to be met before the Commission can approve a variance and those have not been met. Commissioner Hull asked the purpose of having the 40-foot setback. Planner Prososki indicated that it allows for green space for aesthetics. Commissioner Hegland indicated it is also a safety issue. Acting Chair Miller closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Miller. To Approve Resolution 793-05, a Resolution Denying a Variance to Reduce the Front Parking Setback to Zero at Ace Supply Company Located at 4749 Old Highway 8. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Planner Prososki read the last sentence of the Resolution that informs the applicant of the right to appeal the denial within ten days. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case CU2005-004. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to Add Two Additional Dwelling Units to a Multifamily Residential Building at 2071 Hillview Road. Associate Planner Prososki informed the Commission that the applicants, Roger and Rosemary Dickhausen, are requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for two additional dwelling units at their multiple family residential building located at 2071 Hillview Road. The applicants are proposing to add two dwelling units to the basement of their existing four-unit building. She noted the building would then have a total of six units, which is the maximum number of units allowed for a property zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential. Acting Chair Miller opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. There were no public comments. Planner Prososki indicated that she received correspondence from one neighbor indicating that they are pleased that the property will be improved. Mounds View Planning Commission April 20, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Acting Chair Miller asked if the uncovered parking stalls would be striped. Mr. Dickhausen indicated that they could stripe the parking lot spots if the City wanted them to. Acting Chair Miller asked whether the new garage would match the existing garage. Mr. Dickhausen indicated that it would match. Commissioner Zwirn asked whether there would be any parking allowed in the front yard area. Mr. Dickhausen indicated there would not be. Acting Chair Miller asked about the swale area behind the garages. Mr. Dickhausen explained that the engineers have designed the area as a pond for holding water on the site. Commissioner Zwirn suggested that the applicant consider fencing the pond to keep kids out and limit potential liability for accidents. Commissioner Zwirn asked whether snow would be taken off the site to ensure that there remained enough room for parking. Mr. Dickhausen indicated that the snow would be pushed off the parking area into the swale or pond area. Commissioner Meehlhause asked about windows for the new units. Mr. Dickhausen explained that one unit would have four windows added and the other would have three. Commissioner Zwirn asked whether the Fire Marshal had been consulted concerning this plan. Planner Prososki explained that, if approved, the application for the building permit would trigger Fire Marshal review. Acting Chair Miller closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Scotch/Meehlhause. To approve Resolution 794-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Add Two Additional Dwelling Units to a Multifamily Residential Building at 2071 Hillview Road. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission April 20, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Planning Case DE2005-002 and VR2005-004. Consideration of a Variance for Reduced Parking Setbacks and a Development Review for a Proposed Retail Development at 2525 County Road 10. Planner Prososki informed the Commission that Synders Drug Store has entered into an agreement to purchase the Gas For Less site at 2525 County Road 10 and replace it with a stand- alone building. She indicated that they are proposing to construct a 5,975 square foot building. Planner Prososki explained that Snyders has requested a variance for a five-foot parking setback along County Road 10, Long Lake Road and Bronson Drive. On the east property line shared with the City, Snyders is requesting a zero-foot parking setback. Planner Prososki reviewed each requirement of the development review with the Commission. Acting Chair Miller opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. There were no public comments. Acting Chair Miller closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Acting Chair Miller asked if there were any issues with the underground tanks. Gerald Williams indicated that there are no new issues with the underground tanks on site but that there was an issue previously that was handled by the Pollution Control Agency. He then said that, as a part of this project, those tanks will be removed. Planner Prososki reviewed the variances requested and noted that it may be possible for the applicant to work with the adjacent property owner, the City, to purchase a strip of property to allow them to meet the setback requirement on the east side. Commissioner Zwirn asked if there were other plans and whether this was the most workable plan. Planner Prososki indicated that this applicant had provided a different sketch plan but this plan worked the best for traffic flow. Commissioner Zwirn asked if it seemed like the City is willing to allow the adjacent City property to be used for a pond for the site. Dave Leonard from Snyder’s indicated that the City brought up the holding pond as a way to improve drainage at its site as well as handle water from the Snyder’s site. He then explained that they have been facing heavy competition with the addition of Walgreen’s and CVS and this new location would help them remain competitive and visible to their customers. Mounds View Planning Commission April 20, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch thanked them for locating a site that would allow them to stay within the City. Acting Chair Miller asked whether any traffic congestion issues were anticipated with traffic coming in from Highway 10 and from Bronson in an attempt to get to the drive thru. Mr. Williams explained that any traffic congestion would be minimal as the drive thru really is not used all that much. Planner Prososki reviewed the conditions of approval. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Scotch. To approve Resolution 792-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance for Reduced Parking Lot Setbacks of Five Feet Along the North, South and West Property Lines and Zero Feet Along the East Property Line, and Recommending Approval of a Development Review for the Proposed 5,975 square foot Single Story Retail Building at 2525 County Road 10, with Stipulations. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 8. Planning Case MI2005-003. Consideration of a Minor Subdivision at 8060 Groveland Road. Planning Associate Prososki informed the Commission that the applicant Integra Homes, represented by Ron Lillestrand, has applied for a minor subdivision of the property located at 8060 Groveland Road. The applicant is proposing to divide the east 187.02 feet from the west 271.25 feet. Planner Prososki explained that the existing home would remain on Parcel A and the newly created lot, Parcel B, would be added to property owned by the applicant to allow him the three acres necessary for a PUD. She indicated that the PUD request would be before the Commission at their next meeting for review of a 21-unit townhome development. Planner Prososki indicated that Staff recommends that the park dedication fee be paid at the time that Parcel B is developed. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Meehlhause. To approve Resolution 795-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision of 8060 Groveland Road, with conditions. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. The applicant and his engineer provided copies of a concept plan for the townhouse development to be reviewed. The Commission agreed to review it during the Agenda Session. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission April 20, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: May 4, 2005. 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Acting Chair Miller adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5 Meeting Date: May 4, 2005 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Kristin Prososki, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing, Review and Consideration of the General Concept Plan for a Proposed Residential Planned Unit Development at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10; Planning Case PD2005-001 Introduction: Ron Lillestrand, representing Integra Homes, is requesting City approval of a general concept plan to construct twenty-one (21) townhouse units at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10. The proposed development would also include a portion of the rear yard of 8060 Groveland Road. The general concept plan is the first stage of the planned unit development (PUD) process. The advantage to this stage is that the developer is allowed to bring forth a general site plan for City review and consideration without the need to have all of the other components prepared. If the City approves the concept plan, the developer would then submit additional detailed information (landscaping, detailed site plans, drainage, elevations, photometric analysis, etc.) for city consideration, which is referred to as the development stage of the PUD. Both stages (concept and development stages) require a public hearing. The final stage of the PUD is the administrative approval. A public hearing notice was published in the newspaper and notices mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject properties for this meeting. Background: The proposed development area 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 is requesting a Residential PUD, in which they are proposing to construct twenty-one (21) townhouse units. Residential PUDs require a minimum of a three (3) acre site. The proposed development site has an area of 3.01 acres. Although the property would be zoned PUD if approved, the use would be consistent with an R-3, Medium Density Residential district. R-3 districts allow townhouses up to six units. The Comprehensive Plan designates the future use of these parcels as Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MU-PUD). Integra Homes previously submitted a rezoning request for 2901 and 2925 County Road 10. The previous request was to rezone the property to R-3, Medium Density Residential in order to allow for townhouses to be constructed on the property. At that time, the Planning Commission and City Council considered the request and voted to deny the rezoning based on the fact that at that time, the proposed development area did not have the three acres required for a PUD and that the development would divide the block, such that neither side would have enough area to create a PUD. Integra Homes PUD Report May 4, 2005 Page 2 General Concept Plan Review: The Planning Commission has been provided with a site plan date-stamped April 13, 2005 for the proposed expansion. The applicant has also provided a colored rendering of the site. The total area of the proposed PUD is 3.01 acres, which satisfies the 3-acre minimum requirement for residential PUD. The site includes the property at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the rear yard area of 8060 Groveland Road, which is being divided through a minor subdivision. Relationship with Comprehensive Plan: The comprehensive plan guides this area of the City as a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MU-PUD). According to the Comprehensive Plan, an MU-PUD is “land containing a building or buildings with significant amounts of residential uses in combination with commercial and/or office uses”. In order to approve the PUD request (and the consequent rezoning) for these properties, the Commission must review two criteria. The first criteria is that the request be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The second consideration is whether the proposal would be detrimental to the neighborhood or adversely impact the adjoining properties. Regarding the first criteria, the proposed development contains the residential aspect of the mixed use, but does not have a commercial component. The City needs to determine if this meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Concerning the second criteria, that the rezoning not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood, it would seem evident that any development on the site would impact the neighborhood, be it residential or commercial. The City needs to determine if the proposed development makes sense and “fits” into the surrounding neighborhood. Development Review Issues: Density: The applicant is proposing twenty-one (21) units on 3.01 acres. Section 1104.02 of the Zoning Code requires 6,500 square feet per unit for townhouses. 3.01 acres equates to 131,116 square feet, which would allow for 20 units. Section 1120.03 of the Zoning Code allows a 10% density bonus for Residential PUDs, which would mean that this site could have up to twenty-two units. Building setbacks: The building setbacks are as follows: Building Setbacks Required Proposed Meets Code Units 1-9 Front (East) 30 feet 50.5 feet Yes Front for Unit 9 (South) 30 feet 30 feet Yes Rear (West) 40 feet 40.5 feet Yes Side (North) 20 feet* 20.5 feet Yes Distance from street 20 feet 20 feet Yes Integra Homes PUD Report May 4, 2005 Page 3 Units 10-15 Front (South) 30 feet 51 feet Yes Rear (North) 40 feet 40 feet Yes Side (West) 20 feet 218 feet Yes Side (East) 20 feet* 26 feet Yes Distance from street 20 feet 20 feet Yes Units 16-19 Front (North) 30 feet 153 feet Yes Rear (South) 40 feet 95 feet Yes Side (West) 20 feet 172 feet Yes Side (East) 20 feet* 20.8 feet Yes Distance from street 20 feet 22 feet Yes Units 20-21 Front (South/West) 30 feet 10 feet No Rear (East) 40 feet 70 feet Yes Side (North) 20 feet 241 feet Yes Distance from street 20 feet 45 feet Yes *Each building must also be located a distance equal to its height away from the property line and from each of the other buildings. The site plan currently satisfies this requirement, however, further verification will be necessary when a detailed elevations becomes available. Parking: The Zoning Code requires one covered and one and a half uncovered stalls per dwelling unit for multifamily properties. Each unit would have a garage and a twenty-foot long driveway, which would provide the minimum amount of required parking. Because the roadways are only twenty-five feet wide, they will need to be posted as “No Parking”. There is no visitor parking shown on the site plan. Staff would recommend that an area be designated for visitor parking. Building Design: The applicant is proposing attached townhouses, with buildings ranging from two to six units. There would be a mixture of one and two story buildings. Detailed elevations will be submitted at a later time. Drainage and Utility: If the general concept plan for this development is approved, the applicant will need to receive approval of a storm water management plan from Rice Creek Watershed District and the City. The streets will be private and would need to be maintained by the Homeowners Association. Detailed drainage and utility plans would need to be submitted and approved during the development stage of the PUD. Landscaping: A landscape plan would be submitted in conjunction with the development stage of the PUD. Integra Homes PUD Report May 4, 2005 Page 4 Access and Circulation: The proposed site plan indicates one access point on County Road 10. The proposed development would have private streets with a width of twenty-five (25) feet, which is the minimum width requirement for private streets within a PUD. The site plan shows a roundabout near the center of the site, with a street continuing north and a street continuing to the east. The roundabout has been adequately sized for emergency vehicles to navigate around. Traffic: The proposed development would increase traffic on County Road 10, however, Staff does not feel that it would pose any problems. The access point would only allow right-in/right-out traffic, which is to say that vehicles cannot cross County Road 10 at the access point and would only have the option to make a right turn to access the property and a right turn to exit the property. Trailways: To comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the County Road 10 Corridor Improvement Program, the applicant will be responsible for installing a bituminous trailway along the County Road 10 property frontage. Ramsey County has indicated that the trailway could be located within the County Road 10 right-of-way. Snow Storage: The site plan does not currently designate an area for snow storage. When a more detailed site plan is submitted, Staff will verify that an adequate amount of space is left for snow storage. Signage: The applicant has indicated that an entrance sign to the development would be placed along County Road 10. Specific plans for the sign would be presented during the development stage of the PUD. Additional Planning Requests: If the proposed development receives approval of the general concept plan, it will move to the development stage of the PUD, at which time the applicant will also apply for a major subdivision and development review. The final stage of the PUD process is the administrative approval. Public Comment: Several property owners contacted Staff to voice concerns about the proposed development. Some residents felt that the development was too intense for the area it would be occupying. Two residents commented that they felt the layout is poor and causes privacy issues, specifically because several of the units would be facing the existing neighbor’s backyards. In most developments, the front of the home does not face the backyard of another. In order to remedy this, the applicant could consider making all the townhouse units face the north/south street, which would eliminate the issue for the most part. In addition, some residents voiced a concern regarding the loss of trees and the need for screening of some type between the new development and the existing neighborhood. One neighbor stated that he would prefer a privacy fence as screening. In addition, some neighbors commented that they felt County Road 10 should be developed with commercial uses instead of residential, as it is the main business district in the City. Integra Homes PUD Report May 4, 2005 Page 5 Recommendation: Hold the public hearing and discuss the general concept plan for the proposed development. The Planning Commission can then direct Staff to draft either a resolution recommending approval or denial, which could be acted upon at the next Planning Commission meeting. Respectfully submitted, Kristin Prososki Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Application 2. Letter from Applicant 3. Zoning Map 4. Location Map 5. Proposed Site Plan (Separate Attachment) 6. Colored Rendering of Site Plan (Separate Attachment) Integra Homes PUD Report May 4, 2005 Page 6 Integra Homes PUD Report May 4, 2005 Page 7 Integra Homes PUD Report May 4, 2005 Page 8 Integra Homes PUD Report May 4, 2005 Page 9 Integra Homes PUD Report May 4, 2005 Page 10 Zoning Map Integra Homes PUD Report May 4, 2005 Page 11