Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-04-2004 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION August 4, 2004 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approve Minutes: July 7, 2004 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 5. Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Code Regarding Driveway Setback Requirements 6. Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Code Regarding Funeral Homes and Mortuaries 7. Discuss Public Comment Unrelated to Planning and Zoning Matters APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 763-717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. 8. Next Planning Commission Meeting: August 18, 2004 9. Adjourn to Agenda Session. AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: July 21, 2004 2. Staff Reports 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports Item No: 5 Meeting Date: August 4, 2004 Type of Business: Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Review of City Code Section 1104.01, Subd 4c(1)(a) Pertaining to Driveway Setbacks in Residential Districts Introduction: The Planning Commission reviewed this item on July 21, 2004 with a consensus to move forward with an amendment to remove the language pertaining to the one-foot driveway setback due to the numerous issues associated with it. The Commission had questioned what would become of the existing driveways that had been granted approval at the one-foot setback. There are three ordinances and two Code sections which relate to driveways, the most important being Section 902.02, which indicates that any permanent non-conforming driveway in existence as of October 11, 1999 (the date of adoption of Ordinance 620) would be allowed to remain, be maintained, rebuilt and reconstructed in the same manner as before. This would not include gravel or dirt driveways, nor would it include any driveways installed after 1999. Unless the Commission feels strongly that the two issues should be merged into one ordinance, Staff recommends that the City consider a separate ordinance to clarify and make consistent the broader aspects of conforming and nonconforming driveways. Background: Driveways in single-family and two-family residential zoning districts are permitted at five-foot setbacks to the side lot lines. The setback may be decreased to one foot with the consent of the adjoining property owner. The City Council reviewed this section of Code at their June 7, 2004 worksession meeting and agreed that a code amendment should be processed. Discussion: Reasons why the one-foot setback allowance should be eliminated include the following: • The neighbor may be pressured or coerced into signing the consent form • The neighbor may fear retaliation if they fail to consent • The neighbor may consent, then move the next month, and the new neighbor opposes the location so close to the property line • Granting the neighbor “veto rights” may infringe on the subject property owner’s rights to due process. • Maintaining a five foot setback would ensure easement areas remain unimproved • Eliminates driveways accidentally being installed on neighboring property • Stormwater run off directed to adjoining property Driveway Report August 4, 2004 Page 2 Recommendation: Review the attached resolution and code amendment regarding driveway setbacks and administrative variances. The amendments would be packaged into an ordinance for a public hearing and the Council’s consideration. If the Commission is comfortable with the draft language, Resolution 768-04 is available for your adoption. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 768-04 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CODE AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE REGARDING DRIVEWAY SETBACKS WHEREAS, the City Council has asked the Planning Commission to review the driveway setback regulations pertaining to the reduced setback allowances; and, WHEREAS, current City Code regulations indicate that driveways shall be set back five feet from a property line, except that driveways in single and two family residential districts may be set back up to but not less than one-foot from a property line, provided the adjoining property owner consents to such setback; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the pertinent Chapters and Sections of the City Code and feels a code amendment should be adopted to eliminate the allowance for a reduced driveway setback in the single and two-family residential zoning districts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission has identified the following findings in support of such an amendment: • Neighbors may be pressured or coerced into signing the consent form • Neighbors may fear or face retaliation if they fail to consent • Granting the neighbor “veto rights” may infringe on the subject property owner’s rights to due process. • Maintaining a five foot setback would ensure easement areas remain unimproved • Eliminates driveways accidentally being installed on neighboring property • Prevents stormwater run-off from being immediately directed to adjoining property NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of an amendment to the Mounds View Zoning Code substantially similar to the following: See Exhibit A. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 4th day of February, 2004. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Dev. Director (SEAL) EXHIBIT A. Section 1104.01 Subd 4: b. Driveways: (1) Driveways shall have a minimum setback of five feet (5')( from any lot line, except as permitted in Section 1104.01, subdivision 4c(1)(a) and Section 1121.15, subdivision 2 of this Title. Driveways shall be permitted to cross a required setback area in order to establish access between the lot and a public street. Where a driveway would encroach into an easement, the property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit if required by the City prior to construction of the driveway. Drive aisles and driveways which are within the boundaries of a parking area shall conform to the setbacks required for parking areas. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96; Ord. 620, 7-27-98; Ord. 642, 1-10-00) c. Parking Areas: (1) R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-O: (a) residential uses: Parking lots and driveways shall be set back five feet (5'), except in the R-1 and R-2 districts, parking areas and driveways shall be permitted with a setback of one foot (1') provided the owner(s) of the abutting lot(s) indicates their permission on a form acceptable to the City. Where a parking area would encroach into an easement, the property owner shall obtain approval for an encroachment permit if required by the appropriate authority prior to construction of the driveway. (Ord. 524, 2-22-93; Ord. 590, 11-25-96; Ord. 620, 7-27-98; Ord. 642, 1-10-00) Section 1125.02, Subd. 6. Administrative Variance Process: a. Types: Residents seeking relief from the Zoning Code may request an administrative variance, provided that: (1) The property is zoned R-1 or R-2; and (2) The request concerns setbacks; and (3) The variance amount is within twenty-five (25) percent of code requirements, except as provided in Subd. 6a(5) below; and (4) Approval of the variance does not result in a setback of less than five (5) feet, except as provided in Subd. 6a(5) below; and (5) The driveway was previously permitted at a setback up to one-foot from the property line. to: Mounds View Planning Commission from: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director re: Public Comment Unrelated to Planning and Zoning Matters date: July 30, 2004 On July 21, 2004, Commissioner Zwirn exercised his right as a resident of this City to speak on a matter relating to the operation and governance of the City, taking issue with the City Council in general and the Mayor in particular. Before addressing the appropriateness of the comments, let me stress that free speech and the right to express one’s opinion is the cornerstone of democracy and a foundational principle of American liberty. That said, the residents of the City of Mounds View are provided opportunities to express themselves at each and every City Council meeting. Public comment at these meetings may be directed at any facet of the operation or governance of the City--past, present or future; short term or long term. The Council is an elected body, voted to act on behalf of and in the best interests of the community as a whole. Residents vote for those individuals who best represent their own ideals and vision for the community. The Planning Commission, like the other City commissions, is an appointed advisory body with very specific duties and responsibilities. The Planning Commission is a volunteer board of Mounds View residents charged with studying and recommending to the City Council ways in which to carry out the Zoning Code and related regulations. In this capacity, the Commission has the responsibility to maintain and update the comprehensive plan; to act upon variance requests; to conduct public hearings and make recommendations to the City Council on zoning classifications, rezonings, plats, lot splits, planned unit development and conditional use permits. The Commission receives citizen input on these matters, solicits all available information on an issue and recommends appropriate action to the City Council for final action. If a resident were to address the Commission on a matter completely unrelated to the function of the Commission, the resident would be instructed to bring his or her concerns directly to the City Council. The public comment one would expect and welcome at a Planning Commission meeting would be related to those duties and responsibilities as outlined above—generally speaking, the development and redevelopment of the City and the zoning codes implemented to effectuate such improvement. Not explicitly stated but generally understood, Planning Commissioners do not use their position as a Commissioner to lobby, advocate or criticize the policies, philosophy and actions of the administration and City Council if not related to the planning and zoning of the City. Planning Commissioners do not take advantage of their position to make Planning Commission M E M O personal political statements. If a commissioner were so compelled to make such statements—which is his or her afforded right—they should be made where all other residents would make such statements—at a City Council meeting. Being an appointed board or commission member does not prohibit one from having an opinion contrary to the City Council nor does it prohibit one from exercising the right to voice said opinion—far from it; however being an appointed member of a board or commission does not afford that person with the right to use that position in such a manner not otherwise intended. I want to reiterate that free speech and personal opinions should be embraced and one does not abdicate such rights upon appointment to a board or commission. Such appointment however does come with the responsibility that the appointee follow and abide by generally accepted and important guidelines for public comment. Finally, I would like permission from a majority of the Planning Commission to draft language that would be inserted into the Planning Commission Bylaws to memorialize the generally held principles of public comment by a sitting commission member at a commission meeting. The Bylaws would state that it would be inappropriate to make public comments at a commission meeting unrelated to the assigned duties and responsibilities of the Commission when a more fitting and suitable public venue is available, i.e., City Council meetings. I would invite and encourage the Commission to discuss this matter to ensure that the majority would support such an amendment. Thank you. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 21, 2004 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m., July 21, 2004. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Scotch, Stevenson, Song, Hegland, and Zwirn Members Absent: None. Also Present: Planner Prososki ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case CU2004-003 2 Applicant: Bauer Welding Location: 2159 Mustang Road Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Code Regarding Driveway Setback Requirements 4 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes a. June 16, 2004 MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Scotch. To Approve the Planning Commission Minutes for June 16, 2004 as previously amended. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda Commissioner Zwirn read the following prepared statement: “Fellow Commissioners, Mounds View taxpayers. For three years I have sat in this position as Planning Commissioner during that time serving two Mayoral administrations and in my opinion of questionable character, whether its poor business practices, nepotism or threats of law suits to dip in the Cities coffers, I feel as a taxpayer and Commissioner I’ve had enough. The problems the City of Mounds View has had to endure these past few years and the monies this City has had to spend are the precursors to voter apathy. This area of government is the area that teachers in our schools draw lessons from to teach your children, so ask yourself if these are the lessons that you want your children being taught. I encourage the citizens of Mounds View, and I apologize that I have to request this of you, to take time from your busy family life, to become aware, critical and informed about candidates in our upcoming elections. Mounds View does not need and can no longer afford the pompous arrogance that has been associated with the Mayor’s office. Ladies and Gentlemen, in our everyday lives we are held accountable for decisions and it is my hope that you the citizens of this community will start demanding more responsible, accountable and ethical representation from your elected officials. After all, these elected officials are more than willing to cash their checks from the City each month. With that being said, I hereby request that Mr. Linke show respect for the office of Mayor and resign effective immediately and appoint an interim Mayor to carry out the important duties of that office. Mounds View deserves better. Thank you.” Chair Stevenson added that those comments were one individual’s opinion and not reflective of the Commission as a whole. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case CU2004-003 – Public Hearing and Discussion Regarding a Conditional Use Permit Request for Outdoor Storage at 2159 Mustang Road Planner Prososki presented the applicant’s request and indicated that Douglas Bauer is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for outdoor storage at Bauer Welding and Metal Fabricators, which is located at 2159 Mustang Drive and is zoned Industrial. The applicant is proposing to construct a paved storage area with dimensions of 50 feet by 80 feet. The area Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ would be used to store pallets, empty reusable containers and finished products for shipping. The applicant estimates the storage area would only be necessary for 2-3 years, until a permanent addition can be added to the building. Planner Prososki explained that Bauer Welding and Fabrication needs outdoor storage, which the Zoning Code conditionally allows in an Industrial district. Based on this, Staff feels that the proposal adequately satisfies the conditional use criteria and would not adversely affect the surrounding area. Commissioner Miller asked where the building expansion was going to be located. Doug Bauer, President, replied the expansion would be where the tar pad and temporary driveway were located. Commissioner Scotch asked what was going to be stored in the expansion. Mr. Bauer stated wood pallets and stackable plastic containers would be stored there because they did not have room inside their building. He stated they did not want to increase the size of the building at this time until they knew their business growth was permanent. Chair Stevenson asked if they needed a time stipulation for outdoor storage. Planner Prososki stated a time period was not required by Code, but if the Commission wanted a time period, that could be added. Chair Stevenson asked if staff would see this request again in three years. Planner Prososki replied in three years the gravel driveway would need to be replaced with an asphalt driveway as part of the conditions. Commissioner Hegland asked if they pulled a permit to install an asphalt driveway, was it required that the CUP be revised. Planner Prososki replied it would not required that the CUP be revised to install the asphalt driveway. Commissioner Hegland asked how long would they need outdoor storage. Mr. Bauer replied he did not know at this time. It would depend on his business success. Commissioner Scotch stated they should look at this before three years. Commissioner Miller noted this was not required by the Code. Mr. Bauer pointed out this was a secluded area and would not easily be seen. Commissioner Zwirn asked if Mr. Bauer understood that if this was approved, he would need to come back to the Commission for any further additions to his building and he could be denied future expansion. Mr. Bauer replied he understood this, but if the City did not allow him to expand if necessary in the future, he would need to leave the City. Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch expressed concern about what was being stored there. Mr. Bauer stated in their business, they were not allowed to keep finished goods or raw materials outside because they would rust and would be unable to sell them. Commissioner Zwirn asked if there would be any empty containers that held hazardous material outside. Mr. Bauer replied they would not do that. Chair Stevenson stated even though Mr. Bauer indicated that nothing other than containers were going to be stored there, he asked what kind of Codes were they facing with outdoor storage. Planner Prososki replied what they were proposing to store outside was allowed, but if the Commission wanted to specify exactly what can be stored outdoors, they could do that. Commissioner Scotch replied she would like to see that type of a condition. Planner Prososki replied she would add language to limit the storage to wooden pallets and plastic storage containers. Commissioner Miller asked how often CUPs are reviewed. Planner Prososki replied they are not reviewed again unless there was a time period set forth in the original CUP. Chair Stevenson stated as long as the proper wording was added to the conditions, he believed they could approve this tonight. Commissioner Miller requested the language limiting the outdoor storage to pallets and empty containers be added to the beginning of condition 2. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Zwirn. To Approve Resolution 767-04, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for Outdoor Storage at 2159 Mustang Drive; Planning Case No. CU2004-003. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Code Regarding Driveway Setback Requirements Planner Prososki explained that driveways in residential zoning districts are permitted at five- foot setbacks to the lot lines. The City Code provides an exception for a one-foot setback as long as the adjoining property owner consents by signing a statement to that effect. She advised that the City Council reviewed this section of Code at their June 7, 2004 worksession meeting and agreed that a code amendment should be processed. Planner Prososki noted the Code references dealing with driveway setbacks and explained if the one-foot provision is eliminated, all that need be done is to strike the language highlighted. If the Commission agrees with the City Council that an administrative variance process is appropriate, additional language would need to be added to Chapter 1125. Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland asked how would this affect existing properties. Planner Prososki replied that the driveways that already exist closer than 5 feet to the property line would be considered legal, non-conforming and that Staff was unsure if the driveways would be subject to the same rules that apply to all legal, nonconforming situations, being that the neighbors had granted permission. She said that they were addressing the issue with the City Attorney as to how they should handle this legally. Commissioner Miller stated this started because residents had to park on improved surfaces so they needed more space and this was one way to get more space. Chair Stevenson noted some of this came about because residents wanted to park along side of their garage and needed to get the neighbor’s permission. He noted he did not agree with the neighbor approval part. He stated he believed they should remove the neighbor approval section. Commissioner Hegland asked how many driveways were non-conforming. Planner Prososki replied there were numerous driveways. Chair Stevenson fully supported taking out the sentence that allows neighbors to grant permission for a reduced driveway setback. The remainder of the Commission agreed to that deletion. Chair Stevenson asked how they should handle the five-foot setback issue. He asked if they should they deal with variance requests administratively or should it come before the Commission. Commissioner Hegland stated he had a concern with someone replacing their driveway being required to change their driveway for nonconformance without having the option of coming before the Commission. He stated some of the rules needed to be flexible because this was a community that was going to be doing redevelopment and not new development. He indicated if they were just replacing the driveway, they might want to consider an option that they were allowed to do that without getting permission. Planner Prososki noted the City Attorney was looking at this issue. She stated right now if something was torn down, they were required to comply with the Code, but in this case there is the issue that the resident had originally been granted permission. Chair Stevenson stated they had seen a lot of situations like this and asked for more ideas and thoughts regarding this from staff and the City Attorney for the next meeting. He noted some of this could be dealt with administratively. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: August 4, 2004 ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Kathy Altman TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc