Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-05-2003 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION November 5, 2003 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approve Minutes: October 1, 2003 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. Planning Case MA03-001 Public Hearing and Discussion to Review the Proposed Longview estates Preliminary Plat Applicants: Eichi, Inc., Represented by Martin Harstad 6. Planning Case VR03-010 Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 742-03 Regarding a Variance for Reduced Front and Rear Yard Setbacks Associated with a Retail Commercial Development at 2800 County Highway 10 Applicant: Velmeir Companies, Inc. APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 763-717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2003 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: October 15, 2003 2. Staff Reports: 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports \\Trout\CommDev\Planning Commission\PC Agendas\2003\10-01-03 PC Agenda.doc Item No: 5 Meeting Date: November 5, 2003 Type of Business: Discussion City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing And Review Of A Proposed Major Subdivision Of Land Known As Longview Estates, North Of Woodcrest Park, East Of Silver Lake Road, West Of Longview Drive And South Of County Road H2 Introduction: Eichi, Inc., represented by Martin Harstad, has submitted an application for a major subdivision of the land between Silver Lake Road and Longview Drive, north of Woodcrest Park and south of County Road H2. The legal description of the property to be subdivided is Lot 4, Block 1, Mueller Addition. The proposed subdivision would create 15 lots from the wooded 7.14-acre parcel, of which half is delineated wetland. Eight lots would take access from Longview Drive and seven lots would access Silver Lake Road. All of the proposed lots satisfy the City’s expanded subdivision requirements within a wetland zoning district. In addition to Rice Creek Watershed District approval, the proposed subdivision will necessitate a wetland alteration permit approval by the City Council. Previous Submittal: The City processed a request for a major subdivision of this land in 2001, ultimately denying a variance and the subdivision as not conforming to the City’s subdivision standards. The original submission contemplated an eleven-lot development with each lot fronting Longview Drive. No lots were platted fronting Silver Lake Road. The issue with the original plat was that in a wetland district, there are minimum lot widths that exceed the standard widths, such that instead of eleven possible lots, only eight were allowable. The applicant applied for a variance which was denied due to lack of perceived hardship. Finally, the plat was revised to show 26 lots, well in excess of what is allowed, and the plat was denied. Discussion: Zoning: The area known as Longview Estates is zoned R -1, Single Family Residential. The proposed subdivision would be consistent with the existing zoning of the property. All the lots shown on the preliminary plat satisfy the minimum requirements of 100-foot lot width and 20,000 square foot lot area. Of the 15 proposed lots, nine wo uld require filling of wetlands to create a building pad. On lots where no wetland fill is necessary, most of the land available beyond the building pad is used for wetland mitigation purposes. No proposed home would have any significant backyard area except Lots 1 and 2, which would have 30 feet of filled wetland backyard. Many of the homes would be 15 feet or less from the delineated wetlands or mitigated wetlands. Longview Estates PC Report November 5, 2003 Page 2 Wetlands: The most significant i ssue regarding this proposal is the presence of the wetlands and the proposed alteration to them, the potential impacts to the water table, the natural drainage flow in the area, and the suitability of the proposed lots for construction. The City has regulations regarding construction within 100 feet of a wetland as well as within the delineated boundaries of a wetland. Rice Creek Watershed District also has to approve any alteration to a wetland. The preliminary plat indicates that Emmons and Oliver Resources (EOR) delineated the wetlands on the site in July of 2000. The delineation may need to be field verified by Rice Creek staff to ensure it remains valid. The Planning Commission however needs to review the proposed plat on the basis of whether or not it satisfies the subdivision and zoning requirements—the City Council will review and consider the wetlands issues. Flood Storage Capacity: One of the issues raised in 2001 concerned the existing flood storage capacity of the site and the impact of development. Section 1010.08 of the City Code requires that there be no net loss of flood storage capacity in addition to other flood storage issues. This and other wetland and flood storage issues will need to be fully satisfied via the wetland alteration permit approval process through the City Council. Soils Corrections: It is anticipated that there would need to be some moderate to extensive soils corrections to remove the loamy, organic soils, which are not suitable for building construction. Soil borings and engineering reports would be necessary to verify building suitability. The Local Water Management Plan (LWMP) indicates that the minimum building elevation for any structure in this area is 891.9. The lowest elevation proposed is 894.0, which would comply with the LWMP. Utilities: Water and sanitary sewer lines are present in the Longview Drive right of way with stubs in place for ten lots. While water and sewer mains are present on the far side of Silver Lake Road, there are no service stubs as there are on the Longview Drive side of the development. Fire hydrants may be required on the Silver Lake Road side of the plat. The proposed lots would be served by undergrounded electric and cable, as required by the City’s subdivision regulations. Traffic: Traffic will increase on both Longview Drive and Silver Lake Road as a result of this plat, although not to any great extent. While there would be no anticipated issues with the additional traffic volume on Longview Drive, there would be a n issue with the accesses onto Silver Lake Road, a county road with a higher volume of traffic traveling at a higher rate of speed. The County does not favor granting seven driveways permits on Silver Lake Road however they cannot deny them either. If all of the driveways were designed to allow for a “T” or turn around on each lot so that vehicles could enter Silver Lake Road in a forward motion, that would be preferable from a traffic management and safety perspective. Traffic engineers generally assign ten average vehicle trips per day to single family dwellings. That would mean that the homes fronting Longview would generate an average of 80 vehicle trips per day, with concentrations of traffic early in the morning and late in the afternoon. Park Dedication Fees: Park dedication fees would be applicable for this development, in an amount equivalent to ten percent of the market value of the land being developed. Prior to Council consideration, an appraisal should be conducted to determine the market value. Longview Estates PC Report November 5, 2003 Page 3 Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the Longview Estates parcel as single family detached. This designation is consistent with the proposed subdivision. One of the stated goals under the land use component of the Comprehensive Plan is to “Ensure that community development is compatible with features of the natural environment and is accommodated without destroying desirable environmental features and natural amenities.” The challenge of the proposed subdivision is to accomplish the development with as little impact and alteration as possible. Public Comment: The applicant held a neighborhood meeting for the original submission of the Longview Estates Plat. There were many in attendance and much concern was voiced regarding the drainage, loss of trees and suitability of the area for construction. A written summary of this meeting is attached as Exhibit E. Other Reviews Pending: Staff has delivered copies of the preliminary plat to the City’s public works director (Greg Lee), to the City’s engineer (Short Elliot Hendrickson), to Ramsey County (Dan Soler & Ken Haider) and to the Rice Creek Watershed District. The applicant will need to apply for a separate RCWD stormwater permit for this development and any City approvals would need to be contingent upon RCWD permit issuance. Recommendation: Hold the public hearing and discuss the proposed subdivision. While no official action will take place at this meeting, direction should be given to staff if additional information is required for subsequent meetings and action. Staff would suggest that the Commission consider the subdivision based on whether or not it satisfies the City’s zoning, subdivision and comprehensive plan standards and requirements. Issues concerning the wetlands will need to be considered by the City Council and the Rice Creek Watershed District. James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map w/ Subdivision Overlay (Exhibit A) 3. Location Map (Exhibit B) 4. FIRM Flood Zone Map (Exhibit C) 5. City Flood Zone Map (Exhibit D) 6. Neighborhood Meeting Summary (Exhibit E) 7. Photographic Documentation (Exhibit F) LONGVIEW ESTATES Proposed Subdivision ??Not to scale Proposed Property Lines EXHIBIT A. Zoning Map 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT F Photographic Documentation Looking southeast from Silver Lake Road toward Longview Estates Parcel Looking northeast from Silver Lake Road to Longview Estates parcel Looking northwest from Longview Drive to Longview Estates parcel Summary of Longview Estates Neighborhood Meeting 7:00 pm, May 22, 2001 Mounds View Community Center On May 22, 2001 at the Mounds View Community Center, Marty Harstad held an informal neighborhood meeting in an effort to raise neighborhood awareness and address questions pertaining to his proposed major subdivision, Longview Estates. Invitations were sent to property owners living within 350 feet of the land north of Woodcrest Park, east of Silver Lake Road, west of Longview Drive and south of the commercial business at the corner of County Road H2 and Silver Lake Road. It is estimated that about thirty residents were in attendance. Brian Kaden from the Planning Commission attended, as did the Mayor and myself. Mr. Harstad thanked everyone for coming and explained the purpose of the meeting, which was to provide an opportunity for the neighbors to review the proposed subdivision and ask questions and raise issues pertaining to the development of the eleven single-family home sites fronting Longview Drive. He briefly reviewed the site, the location of the delineated wetland, the areas of wooded uplands, the existing trees and the various elevations on the site. He pointed out where the lots would be located and how much fill of the wetlands would be required, how much replacement mitigation and the locations of the mitigated areas, and the area that would be designated an upland buffer, thereby reducing the overall mitigation that would be required by Rice Creek Watershed District, the local governmental unit having jurisdiction over the wetland. After his explanatory narrative, Mr. Harstad asked for any questions, of which there were many. It seemed that a common concern raised by the residents was the water table, the fact that all of the parcel appears “wet” and how the potential development would impact the neighborhood from a flooding and water flow perspective. The loss of trees between the wetland and Longview Drive, which currently act as both a noise and visual buffer between the existing residents and the traffic on Silver Lake Road, was also a major concern. Mr. Harstad indicated that most, if not all of the trees within 90 feet of Longview Drive would be removed due to the amount of fill that would be brought onto the site. He did assure the residents that if it were possible, any tree that could be saved would be saved, as trees add value to a lot. I was asked by some of the residents what “controls” the City had over the wetlands and the buffer area. I explained that wetlands are protected and that there are very stringent rules and regulations—local, state and federal—that restrict what can be done within a designated or delineated wetland. I explained that in this situation, Rice Creek Watershed District has local jurisdictional control over the wetland but that the City has an ordinance which protects a 100-foot buffer around any wetland. The ordinance provides the City control over what is developed adjacent to a wetland such that it can make certain requirements or conditions upon a development to further protect the integrity of the wetland and to ensure that its hydrological function is not compromised in any way. While the ordinance does not necessarily prohibit development within the buffer, it does impose many additional requirements that need to be satisfied. Mr. Harstad responded to what he envisioned being built on the proposed lots by suggesting it would not be unreasonable to expect a minimum of $250,000-valued homes with some being significantly higher. As an aside, he indicated that he would not be involved in the development of the homes, as his specialty was twinhomes and townhomes. The lots would be sold to developers one-by-one or all EXHIBIT E. Longview Estates Neighborhood Meeting May 22, 2001 Page 2 together, depending upon the offers received. Many of the residents commented that higher valued homes would be out-of-place in the neighborhood. The Mayor asked Mr. Harstad to respond to that that issue as to how he planned to address neighborhood “continuity.” While not necessarily prepared to discuss the continuity or potential discontinuity of the project, Mr. Harstad explained that these kinds of developments, barring the imposition of restrictive covenants, were driven by the free market. If people want to build more expensive homes, they will. I also explained that there is often a cycle by which over time, some neighborhoods evolve from predominately smaller homes to larger ones that more efficiently utilize the larger lots. A new development such as this may generate renewed interest in expanding upon or otherwise making improvements to the existing homes, which is a benefit to everyone in the area. One resident asked about the property tax consequence of living next to more expensive housing. A few residents wondered about the role the City had in protecting the interests of the new homeowners and the existing residents. I explained that our building official would be onsite to perform all necessary and required inspections and would ensure that the structures were being built in complete conformance to all applicable City and state building codes. Granted, the inspector cannot be on-site eight hours a day to ensure that no corners are cut, however, as Mr. Harstad interjected, we live in an increasingly litigious society and if the new house were deficient in any way, the builder and contractor would be held liable. It would not be in anyone’s best interest to put forth a substandard product. One resident felt that there wouldn’t be a problem making sure all the codes were adhered to as they had just done an addition and the City inspector was always there checking on the work and performing inspections. Other questions were raised about the “buildability” of this lot and the fact that many years ago some residents were told the lot was unbuildable. Someone asked about when the property was rezoned to allow construction of any kind, as it had been zoned “wetland” at one time which prohibited any construction whatsoever. I explained that to my recollection, the lot was never “prohibitively zoned” and that it was originally zoned single family residential based on a 1961 zoning map. A few long-term residents recalled a point when the strip fronting Silver Lake Road was zoned Commercial while the interior part of the lot fronting Longview had been zoned Multi- family. Mr. Harstad confirmed this recollection. It was not known however when the land was rezoned back to single-family residential. As for the suitability of the soils and “buildability” of the parcel, I explained that many lots in Mounds View had at one time been considered unbuildable, but due to market conditions and metro-area land shortages, these lots thought unsuitable for development are now being developed. The following list recaps some of the issues raised by the residents, in no particular order: ??Tree loss within 90 feet of Longview Drive ??Water table & flooding, wetland buffer ??Existence of a creek? ??Potential high-valued homes out of place with existing homes ??Intrusive truck and construction activity ??Restrictive covenants? ??Assurances and Controls, adherence to City and state building codes ??Examples of flooded basements, sinking driveway Longview Estates Neighborhood Meeting May 22, 2001 Page 3 ??Soil borings ??Protection and preservation of wildlife? After responding to all of the questions and allowing for general discussion regarding the proposal, Mr. Harstad concluded the meeting and encouraged anyone who had additional questions to contact him personally either at home or at his office. I informed the residents that a public hearing would be held on June 6 by the Planning Commission and that a notice would be sent to all residents within 350 feet of the project area as well as to any resident who had attended the neighborhood meeting. Item No: 6 Meeting Date: November 5, 2003 Type of Business: PH & Discussion 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 Request for a Variance to Allow Parking Area Encroachment into the Front and Rear Setbacks at 2800 County Road 10 (aka the Amoco Site.) Introduction: Velmeir Companies, a Michigan development group, has submitted a variance request for a redevelopment of the Amoco site at the southwest corner of Silver Lake Road and County Road 10. As the Commission is aware, the Amoco closed in 1999 and the building has remained vacant since then. Velmeir is proposing a 13,000 square foot retail operation with a attached tenant space of 2,500 square feet. Altogether, the building footprint would be approximately 15,500 square feet. To facilitate the development, the applicant is requesting a variance to encroach into the front setbacks of both Silver Lake Road and County Road 10 and the rear setback adjacent to the Silverwood apartment complex. The proposed front setback is five feet and the proposed rear setback is two feet. Discussion: Setback requirements are addressed in Section 1104.01, Subd 4 of the Zoning Code. Commercially zoned properties are required to maintain a thirty-foot front setback for BOTH parking and principal building. Commercial side and rear parking and driveway setbacks are five feet. Commercial Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) are the exception to the thirty-foot setback requirement in that setbacks, as with other zoning specifications, may be negotiated to standards not contemplated by the zoning code in an effort to encourage coordinated development and redevelopment and higher standards of building and site design. This redevelopment site consists of 3.38 acres, 1.62 acres shy of the 5.0-acre minimum requirement for a commercial PUD. Staff has worked with the Velmeir group and predecessor developers for years in an effort to bring about a coordinated redevelopment of the site. While a prime location at the corner of the City’s two busiest roadways, the site poses many challenges from complicated ownership issues, irregular lot lines, minimal lot depth and potential environmental issues resulting from the site’s use as a fuel station. The real estate acquisition cost, demolition and environmental assessments together make any redevelopment here an expensive proposition which is a factor in the applicant’s desire to maximize the developable area. A further issue concerning this site is the challenge of incorporating adjacent land into the development. The applicants will be capturing a slice of land from the Silverwood Apartment complex just south of the Amoco site and would be acquiring part of the vacant land behind the recently vacated Glacier Machinery Sales building, resulting in three different property owners coming together in support of this project, one of whom is a multi-national petroleum corporation headquartered in London. Velmeir Variance November 5, 2003 Page 2 The attached site plan indicates a total of 95 parking stalls for the proposed pharmacy/retail buildings with an additional 10 stalls indicated as proof of parking. Interior floor plans have not yet been submitted so staff is unable to accurately determine how many parking stalls will be required with this development—that would occur at the development review stage of the planning process. While other building configurations are possible, (multiple scenarios have been contemplated by the developer and by staff) without the variance, 39 parking stalls would be forfeited. The applicant has submitted a statement in response to the criteria the Planning Commission will be reviewing for the variance request. This statement is attached for the Commission’s review and consideration. Variance Considerations: For a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission, in Mounds View) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The property is primarily zoned B-3 and is proposed to be improved with a 15,500 square foot, two-tenant retail development. The lots are irregularly shaped and additional irregularly shaped land will be added to the site to help meet parking and ponding needs for the redevelopment of the former Amoco gas station. These can be considered exceptional circumstances. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would create a hardship for the applicant in that the applicant is facing unique redevelopment challenges not normally associated with raw land development. Because the site is less than the minimum allowed for a PUD, the developer does not have the same opportunities and allowances granted to other PUD-based developments. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The special conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant is attempting to undertake a multi-lot land consolidation with local and national property owners, taking into consideration the individual lot limitations, improvements and irregularities. Velmeir Variance November 5, 2003 Page 3 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. As the applicant states in the attached letter, there are other similarly zoned properties in the community with the same reduced front setback. Granting the variance would not appear to be a special privilege. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The five-foot front setback results in a 25-foot variance from what is required by the Zoning Code. While 25 feet represents a large variance in terms of percentage, it is the minimum necessary to allow for two rows of parking with a 24-foot drive aisle. The two-foot rear setback is necessary to allow adequate room for vehicular movements. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. One of the prevailing goals of the zoning code is to promote positive development and redevelopment within the community. Granting a variance to allow for the utilization of the front and rear setback would open the door to a much-needed redevelopment at this important corner in the City’s commercial corridor, eliminating a blighted, vacant building and significantly improving the corner’s appearance. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed variance would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects. Summary: All of the criteria, as indicated above, need to be satisfied to justify the granting the variance. Staff believes that all of the criteria can be supported and that the proposed variance would allow for a beneficial and much needed redevelopment at this prominent corner. The Planning Commission needs to review the criteria and determine whether the variance should be supported. Velmeir Variance November 5, 2003 Page 4 Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the developer, property owners and affected neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the requested variance with stipulation requiring successful development review, rezoning, and major subdivision approvals. Resolution 742-03 is attached for this option. 2. Deny the requested variance. If the Commission chooses this action, staff will need to be directed to draft a resolution denying the requested variance with supporting findings of fact. 3. Table the request pending receipt of additional information. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site Plan 5. Applicant’s Statement 6. Photographic Documentation 7. Resolution 742-03 Zoning Map HOLIDAY MIPH WESTERN BANK KINDERCARE REALIFE SILVERVIEW POINTE SILVER VIEW PARK Velmeir Development Site Plan Photographic Documentation Photo of vacant Amoco building, looking northwest Looking west at the Amoco site MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 742-03 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS FOR A RETAIL COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT AT 2800 COUNTY HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. VR03-010 WHEREAS , the applicant, Velmeir Companies, has applied for a variance from the minimum front and rear setbacks for a retail commercial redevelopment project at 2800 County Highway 10; and, WHEREAS , Section 1104.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the minimum front setback for a parking lot is 30 feet and the minimum rear setback is 5 feet; and, WHEREAS , The Planning Commission reviewed the following materials relating to this request: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site Plan 5. Applicant’s Statement 6. Photographic Documentation WHEREAS , the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding this variance on Wednesday, November 5, 2003; and, WHEREAS , according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following finding of facts related to this request: 1. The exceptional or extraordinary conditions relating to the variance request are that the lots are irregularly shaped and additional irregularly shaped land will be added to the site to help meet parking and ponding needs for the redevelopment of the former Amoco gas station. 2. The literal interpretation of the Zoning Code would create a hardship for the applicant in that there are unique redevelopment challenges not normally associated with raw land development. Resolution 742-03 Page 2 3. The applicant has not caused the condition which prompted the variance request. 4. Granting the variance would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege. 5. The variances requested are the minimum variances which would alleviate the hardship in that they are the minimum necessary to allow for two rows of parking with a 24-foot drive aisle in the front and adequate room for vehicular movements in the rear. 6. One of the prevailing goals of the zoning code is to promote positive development and redevelopment within the community. Granting a variance to allow for the utilization of the front setback would not be detrimental to the Zoning Code in that it would open the door to a much-needed redevelopment, and eliminate a blighted property. 7. The variance would 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above identified finding of facts, does hereby approve the variance requested for a five-foot front parking lot setback and a two-foot rear yard setback associated with a commercial retail development at 2800 County Highway 10, subject to the following requirements: 1. The applicant shall apply for and obtain approval of a Development Review, Rezoning and Major Subdivision no later than November 4, 2004 or this approval will be null and void. Adopted this 5th day of November, 2003. ____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 15, 2003 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., October 15, 2003. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Stevenson, Johnson, Scotch, Hegland, Zwirn and Song. Members Absent: Miller (excused) Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case CU03-004; VR03-009 2 Variance and Conditional Use Permit to Expand Garage Location: 7850 Spring Lake Road Applicant: Joel and Linda Whitbeck _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes a. September 17, 2003 MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Song. To Approve the Planning Commission Minutes for September 17, 2003 as Presented. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission October 15, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Public Hearing to Consider a Variance and Conditional Use Permit Request to Expand a Garage at 7850 Spring Lake Road. Community Development Director Ericson indicated the applicants have requested a variance and CUP to allow for a garage expansion. He then indicated that the Comprehensive Plan addresses these types of improvements and this is consistent with what the City encourages. The issue with the variance is because of the 10 x 15 area off the back of the garage. Director Ericson indicated the applicants submitted a brief statement as to the basis for the variance and the one thing that he found most interesting is that they do not have a basement so they are very limited in storage space. Director Ericson indicated that Staff has reviewed this request and it does not appear that this expansion would create any sort of adverse impact nor will it block anyone’s view of the lake. Director Ericson indicated that the request is consistent with all of the requirements and in terms of the CUP satisfies all the requirements with the exception of the garage width. He then handed out plans showing the proposed expansion. Director Ericson indicated that because of the variance request the neighbors were notified of this public hearing and Staff has received no comments either way. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. There were no residents in attendance to comment. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Hegland. To Approve Resolution 741-03, a Resolution Approving a Variance for a 40-foot Wide Garage and Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for An Expanded 1,110 Square-Foot Garage at 7850 Spring Lake Road. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Next Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2003 ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:13 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Mounds View Planning Commission October 15, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.