Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-17-2005 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA August 17, 2005 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: a. There are no minutes for approval 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. CU2005-006: Conditional Use Permit Request to Construct an Oversize Garage Consistent with City Code Requirements Applicant: Tom Hansen Address: 7069 Pleasant View Drive b. VR2005-010: Variance request for Reduced Parking Lot and Driveway Setback at the PAK Building Applicant: Linda Miller, Miller Wright Enterprises Address: 2832 County Road 10 6. Other Planning Activity none 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: September 7, 2005 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. August 3, 2005 2. Staff Reports a. Planning Associate Recruitment Update b. Harstad Red Oak Estates Development c. Upcoming Planning Requests d. City Code Now On-line! 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting August 3, 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 7:01 p.m. August 3, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, and Scotch Absent and Excused: Commissioner Stevenson Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson, Economic Development Coordinator Backman ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case VR2005-009. Consideration of a Variance Request to Construct a Porch Addition that would encroach into the Prevailing Front Yard Setback. 2 Planning Case PA2005-002. Consideration of a SYSCO Minnesota Request for a Planned Unit Development Amendment and Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Expand their Parking Lot and Driveway. 3 Planning Case PD2005-002. Consideration of the General Concept Plan Review of the Medtronic Planned Unit Development. 5 Review Potential Acquisition of Residential Property Located at 2617 Sherwood Road for Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. 9 Resolution 805-05 Finding that a Modification to the Project Plan For the Mounds View Economic Development Project and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 Conform to the General Plans for the Development and Redevelopment of the City. 10 Mounds View Planning Commission August 3, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case VR2005-009. Consideration of a Variance Request to Construct a Porch Addition that would encroach into the Prevailing Front Yard Setback. Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the staff report indicating the applicants, Greg and Elizabeth Newman, 5323 Jackson Drive, are proposing to construct a porch addition to the front of their home. The addition would encroach into the prevailing front yard setback. The prevailing setback for homes on this block is approximately 48 feet; however, the typical building setbacks are thirty feet. Director Ericson stated for approval of the request there needs to be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property. The property’s only extraordinary circumstance is the prevailing setback of 48 feet. A six-foot front porch, which encroaches four feet into the front setback, would be the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the perceived hardship. Director Ericson noted the Planning Commission has received one letter from a neighbor stating they have no issue with the requested variance. He recommended the Planning Commission take action to approve, deny, or table the request. Acting Chair Miller asked why the front yard setback is at 48 feet. She also asked if this is approved could the rest of the neighborhood add a porch. Director Ericson stated the houses were constructed at that level and there is no indication why. He noted granting this variance request would not change the prevailing setback but would provide an opportunity for neighbors to make similar requests. Commissioner Zwirn asked if there are any pictures and/or designs of the porch. Greg Newman, 53232 Jackson Drive, stated they are putting a second story addition on their house. They are taking the gable and swapping it from north south to east west and adding a porch in front. He stated the porch would be an old fashion, southern style, wide-open porch with pillars. Acting Chair Miller asked if the porch would be six feet. Mr. Newman stated since one half of the house sticks out farther than the other the porch would go on the other half. Commissioner Hegland asked if the porch would line up with the house on the south side and if it would be staggered in height. Mr. Newman stated the porch extends out five feet farther than the house. He added the roof is elevated so the porch would be dropped down to the roofline. Mounds View Planning Commission August 3, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch stated as long as it is an open porch it will be ecstatically pleasing. She added she would consider this a hardship. Director Ericson stated in the last porch addition variance request a stipulation was added the porch would not be enclosed. He noted the Commission could add this stipulation if desired but Staff did not feel it was necessary. Commissioner Hegland stated he would consider the prevailing setback a hardship. MOTION/SECOND: Hull/Meehlhause. To approve Resolution 806-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance Request to Construct a Porch Addition that would Encroach into the Prevailing Front Yard Setback; Planning Case No. VR2005-009. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case PA2005-002. Public Hearing and Consideration of a SYSCO Request for a Planned Unit Development Amendment and Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Expand their Parking Lot and Driveway. Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the staff report indicating the applicant, SYSCO Minnesota, represented by Phil Seipp, President, is requesting approval of an amendment to expand the SYSCO PUD site by approximately three acres to accommodate an additional 100 vehicle parking stalls, 50 truck parking stalls, and a widened, relocated access road to the east of the building. SYSCO is also requesting that the three acres of land, to be transferred from the City to SYSCO, be redesignated from Passive Open Space (OSP) to Heavy Industrial (HI) on the City’s Comprehensive Plan future land use map. The City originally approved the SYSCO Planned Unit Development in 1989 and the SYSCO’s major subdivision which created their Outlot A, which was deeded to the City for future parkland, open space, or other public use. This additional space would provide SYSCO the ability to improve efficiencies and expand their workforce by about 100 employees over the course of five years. Director Ericson stated SYSCO has applied for a Comp Plan amendment which requests a redesignation of the three-acre parcel proposed for transfer from the City to SYSCO from OSP to HI. An amendment to the PUD agreement has also been applied for which would identify and assign any maintenance issues associated with the relocated stormwater pond. Director Ericson requested the Planning Commission review and discuss the SYSCO Comp Plan and PUD amendments. Feedback from City Council supports this issue. The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) met yesterday at the site to discuss wetlands, etc. He noted as a result of tonight’s action there would need to be a subsequent action to transfer the lot, subject to City Council review. Acting Chair Miller opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission August 3, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn asked if the land use information, in the comp plan amendment application packet, etc. is pre-Medtronic. He also asked about the estimated peak traffic numbers going up minimally. Chris Carda, RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. stated the entire Medtronic project was taken into account. He noted the report numbers reflect what traffic SYSCO adds. Acting Chair Miller asked what determined three acres. She also asked if SYSCO would see a need for more land in the future. Mr. Carda stated the three acres is a result of adding 100 vehicles and 50 truck parking stalls, which would expand the site east, and push the pond south. Philip Seipp, SYSCO Minnesota, stated he believes this expansion should take the company quite a ways into the future. He noted the business would be changing in approximately five to six years in terms of stocking fewer products. Commissioner Zwirn noted SYSCO recently acquired Asian Foods and asked if the expansion included transferring material and/or equipment from Asian Foods. Mr. Seipp stated they do some fleet maintenance for Asian Foods, but they serve a different market. He noted SYSCO abandoned that market when the acquisition was made. Commissioner Zwirn asked where on the aerial site would the three acres be. Mr. Carda stated it is outlined on Exhibit 1. Commissioner Zwirn asked if all necessary announcements have been made for the public hearing. Director Ericson stated yes. Commissioner Zwirn asked about waiving park dedication fees, etc. since the land was donated to the City and would be donated back to SYSCO. Director Ericson stated the issue has not been discussed. Dedication fees are a component of the subdivision, which is not yet before the City. Commissioner Hull asked since SYSCO donated the land is there any money involved. Director Ericson replied that the land would be deeded back to SYSCO for a dollar.. Commissioner Scotch asked why SYSCO transferred the land and now wants it back. Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated with the original development in 1989 SYSCO did not envision they would need all of the acreage so they donated 46 acres to the City for open space. SYSCO expanded east over the years but now they are up against the current parcel and there is no room to add parking. He noted if the expansion does not happen headquarters in Houston will add jobs elsewhere. Acting Chair Miller closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Scotch. To approve Resolution 802-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a SYSCO Request for a Planned Unit Development Amendment and Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Expand their Parking Lot and Driveway; Planning Case No. PA2005-002. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission August 3, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Planning Case PD2005-002. Public Hearing and Consideration of the General Concept Plan Review of the Medtronic Planned Unit Development. Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the staff report indicating on June 27, 2005, the City Council and the Economic Development Authority (EDA) authorized an agreement with Medtronic, Inc. to redevelop the Bridges of Mounds View golf course. On July 11, 2005, the Council adopted Ordinance 760 approving the transfer of land from the City of Mounds View to the Mounds View EDA and then to Medtronic, Inc. Director Ericson stated Julie Snow Architects and OPUS Architects & Engineers, Inc. have submitted a general concept plan site rendition for Planning Commission review. The first two buildings are proposed to be a maximum eight stories tall with approximately 50,000 square feet of space on each level. The first phase would involve construction of surface parking and structured parking stalls totaling approximately 3,000 spaces. The second and third phases will add two more buildings, for a total of 1,500,000 square feet of floor area. Some parking stalls and greenery will be in the City of Blaine. Director Ericson noted the site plan has changed slightly from that presented at the Planning Commission meeting of July 20, 2005 by indicating a clarification to the parking stalls and the realignment of the judicial stream that crosses the property. A letter has been sent to theF.A.A. but he is not sure if a response has been received. He noted a meeting was held with the City of Blaine and they are excited to move forward. Acting Chair Miller opened the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. Acting Chair Miller asked what part of the development would be in the City of Blaine. Director Ericson pointed out the area on the site plan. He noted two buildings in Blaine would be purchased as part of the project. Commissioner Hegland asked what is the plan for parking while the project is constructed. He also asked what are the rows of round objects on the site plan. Dan Young Dixon, OPUS Architects & Engineers, Inc., noted the CUP shows structured parking; there is two choices structured or on-grade parking. He stated parking would be on- grade for Phase 2 while Phase 3 parking would become green space after completed. Mr. Dixon stated the round objects are planting beds. Commissioner Hull asked about cafés on the grounds. Mr. Dixon stated they are looking at having a cafeteria for Phase 1 that serves Staff. He added they are looking at having one or several smaller cafés as well as other amenities such as a bank, daycare, fitness center, etc. Acting Chair Miller asked if the same is available at the Fridley site. Mr. Dixon stated yes, they have on-site food service. Mounds View Planning Commission August 3, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Meehlhause asked if the proposed 4,800 employees would be a multi-shift. Jim Driessen, Medtronic Inc., stated it would be a single-shift operation with 3,000 employees in Phase 1 and a total of 4,800 employees in Phase 2. Commissioner Scotch asked about the hours of operation. She also asked about putting 6,000 vehicles onto Highway 10 when the shift ends noting Highway 10 and 35W are already congested. Mr. Driessen stated hours are approximately 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. He noted it is not shift work; they are flexible in work hours with a start time between 6:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. and an end time between 3:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. He added traffic studies have been done. Commissioner Scotch asked if the 8 story buildings would have a similar look to Fridley as far as window appearance. Mr. Driessen stated they have spoken with MNDOT regarding the future expansion of Highway 10, and noted they would hold buildings back for that. He stated the buildings would not mirror Fridley since they are the headquarters, but this project would have many windows and natural light, but a different architecture. Commissioner Scotch asked about the airport in regard to 8 story buildings. Mr. Dixon stated the buildings would not be in the flight patterns; however, they still need to get approval from the FAA regarding height. He noted based on previous discussions with the FAA they would meet the requirements. Commissioner Scotch stated like other residents she has concerns although the site plan itself appears well done. Commissioner Zwirn asked in discussions with the City of Blaine how much of the TIF money is going into developing the City of Blaine property. He also asked if there was an indication the City of Blaine is coming to the table with money to assist in development. Director Ericson stated when all is said and done, possibly no TIF dollars would be spent in Blaine. He noted that there is approximately $25 Million in identified eligible expenses with a reimbursement cap of $14.8 million. The City has expressed its desire to Medtronic that TIF eligible expenses in Mounds View are reimbursed first. He added the City of Blaine is not participating financially. Commissioner Scotch asked about the potential for a park and how much land there would be for it. She noted concerns that the City should hang onto this land. Director Ericson stated approximately 43 acres. In preliminary discussions, plantings and/or something that accentuates property yet has an educational feel was mentioned. Acting Chair Miller asked where is the entrance to the park area. Director Ericson replied maybe north of the structured parking ramp but it has not been discussed in detail. Commissioner Scotch asked, for this amount of vehicles, are there two entrances off of County Road J. Mr. Dixon stated yes. Commissioner Hull asked about the trailways at the Fridley site. Mr. Driessen stated the trail is a multi-use path because it is actually a softscape fire access road. Mounds View Planning Commission August 3, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Coordinator Backman stated Medtronic would try to make an attractive location for employees and visitors. He noted the floor plans were originally larger but have been trimmed down. He added Medtronic would like to see a park on the open space land and has not expressed interest in buying this land. Commissioner Scotch asked if the City would be making enough money off this project to add a park. She noted she wants to make sure there is enough dollars going into the fund. Coordinator Backman replied yes. He stated approximately $150,000 out of the $865,000 park dedication fees fund would be allocated towards this park. Commissioner Meehlhause asked where the employees are currently located that would be moving to this development site. Mr. Driessen stated it would be a combination of existing employees throughout the northern suburbs and new employees. Commissioner Scotch asked how many new employees. Mr. Driessen stated the projection is 2,000 new jobs over the next seven years (to 2012). Commissioner Scotch asked if they have been in touch with the water shed district. Mr. Driessen stated yes. Lloyd Bardwell, 2932 County Road J, stated he is not opposed to the project and is already well aware of the flow of traffic. He checked with the bus company, which has 22 stops per day on this road, and they indicated there have been close accidents. He asked where the line is drawn from common sense to ridiculous regarding traffic. He stated he talked with an engineer at MNDOT and requested trucks drive on roads provided for them, i.e. County Road 10, not on County Road J. MNDOT said because of taxes derived from the industry this cannot be done. He added there would be 23,000 vehicles a day on the road and asked that the residents on the street be taken into account. Mr. Backman stated they want a road system that works well for all. There will be an Open House on August 9, 2005 at the Blaine City Hall regarding traffic expansion. He added although traffic will increase, there would be seven signaled intersections and dividers which should slow down traffic. He suggested concerned residents attend the open house. Director Ericson stated the traffic on County Road J is not as high on the residential side of County Road J. He noted 90 percent of the traffic would be getting on 35W and / or Highway 10. Karen Asplund, 8464 Greenwood Drive, stated she is concerned about traffic noise on County Road J because although there is a wall, it is still noisy. Commissioner Scotch asked how the site could be approved when she is not happy with the sale of land regarding the price being paid. Director Ericson stated that while he appreciates concern and reservations, the City Council has approved the development agreement with Medtronic. Sometimes the Council approves something the Planning Commission does not support. He used the example of billboards on the golf course which the Commission unanimously voted no on, but City Council approved. He added Council has authorized the project so the Mounds View Planning Commission August 3, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Commission’s role is to look beyond whether we think it was a good deal for the City and review the site plan on its own merits. Commissioner Scotch stated she is not sure if she supports an 8-story building. Commissioner Zwirn stated Commissioners could vote no on that basis. Commissioner Scotch stated she supports Medtronic but wishes the City would not have given the land away. Director Ericson replied $10 million can not be construed as giving it away. Commissioner Hull stated they are still waiting to hear from the FAA; therefore, they could deny it because this issue has not been resolved. Director Ericson stated this is a general concept plan and does not illustrate all points. He noted the Commission is voting on the concept of this development, not the particulars such as building height. Coordinator Backman stated the City undertook AUAR which looked at various issues including traffic. He noted RLK-Kuusisto Ltd. had conversations with the FAA regarding building heights. The feedback received from the FAA in fall of 2004 indicated they had no problem with 90 feet; therefore, they would anticipate no problem with an additional height as requested. Commissioner Hegland asked what is the proposed height. Mr. Dixon stated the submittal to the FAA estimated 140 feet which includes any projections, antennas, etc. He noted the building height is assumed to be around 130 feet (20 feet on the first floor and 15 feet from floor to floor for the other seven). Acting Chair Miller closed the public hearing at 8:33 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Meehlhause/Miller. To approve Resolution 807-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the General Concept Plan Review of the Medtronic Planned Unit Development; Planning Case No. PD2005-002. Ayes – 3 Nays – 3 (Hull, Scotch, Zwirn) Motion failed. Commissioner Hull stated the FAA approval is unresolved. Commissioner Scotch stated there are traffic issues and the meeting results of August 9 are unknown at this time. Commissioner Zwirn stated he has the same objections as last week, as well as the unresolved FAA approval and traffic issues. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Review Potential Acquisition of Residential Property Located at 2617 Sherwood Road for Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Mounds View Planning Commission August 3, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the staff report indicating the property located at 2617 Sherwood Drive is vacant and currently uninhabitable. Since 1998 there have been several present and persistent issues including many nuisance and building code violations. He noted at some point, the owner defaulted on the mortgage and the City began anew with the mortgage company and a new owner in an effort to correct the property violations. After the corrections were continually not followed through, the City brought action before the City Council on October 11, 2004 to declare the building hazardous and to authorize the abatement of the hazardous conditions. Director Ericson stated the City received permission from the property owner to conduct an appraisal of the property with the intent of submitting an offer to buy the parcel and demolish the building. He noted there has been no appraisal yet. Director Ericson noted Staff and City Council is requesting the Planning Commission review the proposed acquisition of the property (terms will be negotiated at a later date upon City Council approval) to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Acting Chair Miller asked if it could be divided into two lots. Director Ericson stated the problem is that Greenwood Drive is not there. He noted there is potential for future redevelopment; that is likely why the mortgage company bought it site unseen, because of the possibility of a subdivision. He stated the owner has granted consent to the City for an appraisal. Acting Chair Miller stated some feel the City should not be purchasing property. Director Ericson replied some times things do not happen and this is an opportunity to acquire the property from a willing seller. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the owner is the mortgage company and, if so, have they gone to or sent a representative to the property. Director Ericson stated the mortgage company is the owner; however, it is a strange situation because the individual granting access is local although other entities have an interest in the property. He noted he has dealt with four different entities, the current owner is an investor or broker, and the local individual is owner of record who is dealing with the mortgage company. Commissioner Scotch asked if the property was foreclosed on and if so is it in redemption. She noted if it is in redemption the broker may invest in the property and resell it. Director Ericson stated the value is not there to support a mortgage and the owner cannot afford to fix it. He added the City does not want to reward the owner for failing to correct the violations and certainly does not want to see the owners profit from the transaction. However there is an immediate need to resolve the situation and this is one such solution. The City would not offer more than the property’s value, based on the appraisal. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the taxes are current. Director Ericson stated he believes so, that the first half of the year has been paid. He added there would be a condition that taxes would be paid up until the property is acquired. Commissioner Hegland asked if the City was not going to take on liens, etc. Director Ericson stated that is correct. Mounds View Planning Commission August 3, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn asked if it is an eminent domain situation. He stated although he does not support eminent domain, there are numerous owners unwilling to cooperate with the City; therefore, this warrants action with the City. He also asked about the unsureness of who is the owner. He asked why the problems couldn’t be corrected with the individual, i.e. take them to court, instead of buying the property. He stated he does not want someone to make a profit. He concluded the situation warrants more investigation and the property owner needs to be brought in to answer questions. Director Ericson replied the City does not support eminent domain and there is no need because the owner is willing to sell. If the City goes through the eminent domain process, it could likely cost more than a simple acquisition. With eminent domain, City’s pay Fair Market Value if not more. He noted the owner of record is known, adding that it costs money to take the owner to court. If the city can resell the property to a developer, likely the City could break even. He stated the intent is that over time the City is reimbursed by property taxes generated and currently it is not at the value it could be. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Meehlhause. To approve Resolution 808-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Potential Acquisition of Residential Property Located at 2617 Sherwood Road for Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Ayes – 4 Nays – 2 (Zwirn, Hull) Motion carried. Commissioner Zwirn stated he is opposed based on arguments presented above. Commissioner Hull stated there is no numbers on what the City would be paying for the land. ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Resolution 805-05 Finding that a Modification to the Project Plan For the Mounds View Economic Development Project and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 Conform to the General Plans for the Development and Redevelopment of the City. Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the staff report indicating a resolution has been prepared for consideration of creation of TIF District #5 and the modification to the project plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project. The proposed TIF District #5 would encompass six parcels of land, three of which would be removed from TIF District #3. Director Ericson requested the Planning Commission review and discuss the plans to create TIF District #5. He noted this district was created to support Medtronic. Commissioner Miller asked what the resolution would do. Director Ericson stated the resolution would satisfy the Minnesota Statutory requirement that the Planning Commission review the plan. Commissioner Hegland asked for more specifics on what was modified. He also asked who would be responsible for the dollars noted in the document. Director Ericson stated TIF District #5 was added to support Medtronic. He noted three parcels would be removed from TIF District Mounds View Planning Commission August 3, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ #3 and added to TIF District #5. He added the Commission’s responsibility is not in the numbers but in generally reviewing / approving the modification if it is consistent with plans for the City. Commissioner Zwirn asked what impact would there be, in terms of money, of taking three parcels out of TIF District #3 and adding to #5. Director Ericson stated there would be no effect because the three are all municipal properties and they do not generate taxes. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if the $14 million was based on Medtronic going forward with the entire project. Director Ericson stated no, the TIF district creation proposed would support the Phase 1 development and getting the site ready for the project, but it does not contemplate any future expansion of the project. Commissioner Meehlhause asked what if business changes and there are cut backs, etc. Director Ericson stated the City’s protection is the pay-as-you-go note. If there are cut backs, etc. and the dollars are not there, at the end of the TIF term the City pays out only a percentage of what is paid in. He noted if values appreciate, the payout will be quicker, but the standard is 25 years. Acting Chair Miller asked how 25 years was determined. Director Ericson stated that was planned in the negotiations; it is the statutory requirement which cannot be exceeded. Commissioner Hegland asked to explain what would constitute conformity to the general plan. Director Ericson replied, on the face, it would comply in terms of office development or the project as a whole conforms because of the growth and development envisioned. Stacey Kvilvang, Ehler & Associates, stated the Commission is not looking at financing of TIF but rather do the plans to construct the office building conform to land use, zoning, etc. Commissioner Zwirn stated the wording says “development plans and tax increment plan”. Director Ericson stated it does get wordy but the language is required. A modification to the project plan is needed because the City is adding something that did not exist before, and tax increment financing is a component of that. He noted the issue would be heard by the EDA and City Council on August 22, 2005. Acting Chair Miller referenced the resolution, second whereas, the Commission has reviewed the plans to determine their conformity with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the City. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Meehlhause. To approve Resolution 805-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Finding that a Modification to the Project Plan For the Mounds View Economic Development Project and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 Conform to the General Plans for the Development and Redevelopment of the City. Ayes – 2 Nays – 4 (Hegland, Scotch, Zwirn, Hull) Motion failed. Commissioner Hegland stated more information pertaining to TIF, i.e. conformity is needed. Mounds View Planning Commission August 3, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 12 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch stated more information pertaining to TIF is needed. Commissioner Zwirn stated he does not like the concept of TIF financing and feels Council becomes lazy with this type of financing. Commissioner Hull did not provide a comment. _____________________________________________________________________________ 10. Next Planning Commission Meeting: August 17, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 11. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Acting Chair Miller adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Cheryl Felix TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: August 17, 2005 Type of Business: Commission Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 7069 Pleasant View Drive; Planning Case No. CU2005-006 Introduction: The applicant, Tom Hansen, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to construct an oversized garage associated with the new home planned for 7069 Pleasant View Drive. The new home, replacing a home that was recently demolished, will have a footprint of 2,000 square foot with approximately 3,200 square feet of finished living area. The basement of the new home will be left unfinished initially. The building plans submitted with the building permit application indicate a garage area in excess of what is allowed by Code. Accessory buildings, attached or detached, are limited to 952 square feet. Anything beyond 952 square feet must go through a condition use permit application process. The garage proposed for 7069 Pleasant View Drive is 1,082 square feet, of which about 140 square feet is a designated workshop yet still considered “accessory space” as it is not accessible directly from the home. Requirements: Section 1106.03, Subd. 1: This part of the Code limits the height of an accessory building, the number of accessory buildings and the backyard coverage ratio of accessory buildings. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for garages exceeding 952 square feet. Section 1106.04, Subd. 6: This part of the Code enumerates the conditions for garages exceeding 952 square feet, which are that the garage be permanent, be uniform in appearance with the home, not exceed 35 feet in width, and not exceed 1,800 square feet of total accessory building area on the lot. Section 1125.01, Subd. 1: The Planning Commission is required to review the possible adverse effects of the requested conditional use. Discussion: The request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct the 1,078 square foot garage satisfies the requirements as stated in Section 1106.03 and 1106.04, Subdivision 6 of the Mounds View Zoning Code. The garage is 35 feet wide, the maximum allowed with a conditional use permit. All setback and dimensional requirements would be satisfied with this request Hansen CUP Request August 17, 2005 Page 2 The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 7069 Pleasant View Drive, as low-density residential. CUP Considerations: Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address any potential adverse effects which include, but are not limited to, relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use. Each of these potential adverse effects is addressed below. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. As previously stated, the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The new home to be constructed will be a benefit to the neighborhood. The Geographical Area Involved. The home is located on Pleasant View Drive. The proposed oversized garage would not be out of place for this area and the size of the applicants lot would accommodate the larger garage. Depreciation. The proposed garage would benefit the subject property both in a practical sense by providing additional on site, indoor parking and storage area and a workshop, as well as in an economic sense, as the construction would increase the “value” of the property. Increased property values are of course a benefit to everyone. The Character of the Surrounding Area. This part of the City is strictly residential; strictly single family dwellings. Most of the homes were constructed between 1940 and 1970. Several properties in the area have completed garage expansions to allow for additional storage. The proposed garage would not be out of character in this area. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant is proposing a three car garage with a workshop. Without the workshop, the garage would not require a conditional use permit however because it is not considered living space the CUP becomes necessary. Public Comment Notices were mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Staff received only one inquiry regarding the request, which was positive. Summary: All zoning and code issues are satisfied with this request, and there does not appear to be any adverse effects associated with the request. Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider this request favorably and approve Resolution 809-05 which recommends to the City Council approval of the Conditional use Permit for the oversized garage at 7069 Pleasant View Drive. Hansen CUP Request August 17, 2005 Page 3 Recommendations: After taking testimony from staff and the property owner, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit. Resolution 809-05 is available for your consideration. 2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit. If the Planning Commission selects this option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. 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, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Zoning Map COUNTY ROAD H2 SITE PLAN WORKSHOP Three Car Garage N Photographic Documentation MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 809-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A 1,082 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE AT 7069 PLEASANT VIEW DRIVE; PLANNING CASE NO CU2005-006 WHEREAS, property owner Thomas Hansen has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,082 square foot garage attached to the new home to be built at 7069 Pleasant View Drive; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Lot 65, Knollwood Park Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,800 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the proposed garage would be 1,082 square feet, thus necessitating application of a conditional use permit; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Location Map d. Site Plan e. Photographic Documentation f. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the conditional use permit request on Wednesday, August 17, 2005. 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 proposed oversized 1,082 square foot garage satisfies the dimensional requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code. Resolution 809-05 Page 2 2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. 3. The proposed garage would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved. 4. The proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood. 5. The applicants have sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed oversized garage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the 1,082 square foot garage, with conditions as follows: 1. The garage shall not be used for commercial purposes or other uses not allowed within the R-1 Single-Family Residential district or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted; the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. 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 17th day of August, 2005. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: August 17, 2005 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance Request for a Reduced Parking Lot and Driveway Setback at 2832 County Road 10 Planning Case VR2005-010 Introduction: The subject property is a small commercial lot improved with a one-story concrete block building (commonly referred to as the “PAK” Building) on the south side of County Road 10, northwest of the new CVS Pharmacy. The property is zoned B-3, Highway Business Commercial and is designated as Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development in the Comprehensive Plan. A variance is being requested for a reduced parking lot and driveway setback around the periphery of the lot, as shown on the submitted site plan, to promote positive drainage on the virtually flat lot. The owners are represented by building manager Rick Perrozzi. The application does specify the extent of the setback reduction being requested. Discussion: The variance is being requested by the property owners to maintain maximum flexibility as they move forward with plans to repave their drive aisle and parking lot. The ability to pave into the setbacks as shown on the site plan could provide a slightly better grade for drainage purposes. The property was recently expanded as a result of the CVS Subdivision. Originally, the lot was 30,500 square feet. After the CVS subdivision, the PAK Building lot increased in area to 45,380 square feet with the addition of 25 feet to the east and 80 feet to the south. The CVS developers (Velmeir) have indicated that they will be responsible for paving and curbing improvements on the PAK site however these improvements have yet to be completed and are now perhaps on hold pending resolution of this variance request. Setback Requirements: The parking lot and driveway setbacks for a property zoned B-3, Highway Business Commercial, are as follows: Driveways: Parking Lots Front: 5 Feet Front: 30 Feet Sides: 5 Feet Sides: 5 Feet * Rear: 5 Feet Rear: 5 Feet *The Code indicates that where a non-residential use abuts a residential use, the parking lot setback shall be 20 feet. The west side of the parking area south of the PAK building abuts residential and thus would be subject to the 20-foot requirement. Miller Wright Report August 17, 2005 Page 2 Variance Considerations: For a variance to be approved, there needs to be demonstrated hardship or practical difficulties associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission) 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 individual criteria with staff responses 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. The lot at 2832 County Road 10 has very little change of elevation over the property which causes practical difficulties dealing with stormwater runoff. The poor grade has always been a condition of the site. 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. Staff is unable to address whether the literal interpretation of the Codes (the five foot setback requirement) poses a practical difficulty on the property owners or would deprive them of rights due others. The building is situated approximately 32 feet from the east property line, which means, less the five-foot setback, there is 27 feet in which to grade the lot to promote positive drainage both away from the building and north and south of the building. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The parcel at 2832 County Road 10 is a flat lot with little change of elevation. The applicants have done nothing to create or worsen their situation. 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 a variance to promote positive stormwater runoff would not be a special privilege. It remains to be seen, however, whether the encroachment would offer any additional benefit over what is there present. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. Mr. Perrozzi is requesting the variance to provide grading flexibility when it comes time to paving the lot. He has suggested that a zero-foot setback would provide maximum flexibility. Staff is not sure the encroachment will offer any additional benefit Miller Wright Report August 17, 2005 Page 3 f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. A reduced setback would bring the PAK Building parking area and drive aisle closer to adjoining property owners side and rear lot lines. While not likely to be a detriment to any adjoining property, the question would remain as to whether the variance would be inconsistent with the intent of the Code. 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. None of these risks or adverse effects would be likely as a result of the variance request. Criteria Summary Staff is unsure as to whether or not there is sufficient hardship associated with this property to warrant approval of this variance request. While Staff does agree that there are practical difficulties associated with this property (minimal elevation change) which may cause problems with the drainage of the site, it has not been demonstrated that the reduced setback will actually help resolve the situation. Recommendation: Open the public hearing and consider the testimony of staff, residents and the applicants. If the Commission believes all of the criteria have been satisfied and an approval is in order, staff will bring to your next meeting a resolution of approval. If the Commission feels the request does NOT satisfy the hardship criteria, staff would bring to your next meeting a resolution of denial. If the Commission should need additional information before action can be considered, staff will arrange to have such additional information prepared and submitted at your next meeting for your review. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Zoning Map Pond CVS PAK Photographic Documentation Front of building, from northeast corner of lot East side of building, looking south. The CVS curb is at the five foot setback, about 37 feet from the PAK building. East side of building, looking north South side of building, looking west toward residential properties Site Plan Pak Building Areas marked with are designated for reduced parking lot and driveway setbacks