HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19-2020 PC
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
August 19, 2020 - 7:00 P.M. COMMISSION MEETING
Virtual Meeting
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85610722957?pwd=UUFBaWFmbUkxUk9CMHArMGJKd2JPZz
09
Passcode: 036175
Or iPhone one-tap :
US: +16465588656,,85610722957# or +13017158592,,85610722957#
Or Telephone:
Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 646 558 8656 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 669 900 9128
or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799
Webinar ID: 856 1072 2957
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Special Order of Business
A. (none)
4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not
Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for
the record.)
5. Planning Cases
A. PUBLIC HEARING; Resolution 1121-20, Variance to Reduce Setbacks for a
Driveway, 2448 Clearview Avenue
6. Other Planning Activity
A. (none)
7. Reports
A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity
B. Staff Updates
C. Council Updates
Page 2 of 2
D. Planning Commissioner Reports
8. Approval of Minutes:
A. July 1, 2020
9. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. Wednesday, September 2, 2020
B. Wednesday, September 16, 2020
10. Meeting Conclusion
Item No: ___05A
Meeting Date: Aug 19 2020
Type of Business: Planning Case VR2020-004
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: PUBLIC HEARING; Resolution 1121-20, Variance to
Reduce Setbacks for a Driveway, 2448 Clearview Aveue
Introduction
The applicant Carl Stroeing, is requesting a Variance to decrease the side yard setback from 5’
to 0’ to widen the driveway The existing driveway is 10’ wide (asphalt), and 8’ wide
(unpermitted gravel addition).
The Applicant’s written request is for a 1’ setback. After finding the property pin, the applicant
has changed the request to a 0’ setback.
Discussion
The home was built in 1952, and includes a 1½ car detached garage. The asphalt driveway is
about 10’ wide, gravel about 8’+ wide, and a concrete patio/parking pad in between the
driveway and house. The gravel portion of the driveway encroaches onto the neighbor’s
property.
The applicant would like to replace the driveway such that a cargo trailer can be parked on one
half of the driveway, without blocking access into the garage.
An alternative to this Variance is to widen the driveway towards the house. This would likely
result in the loss of a large tree.
Between 1993 and 2004, driveways could have a side yard setback of 1’ if the neighbor agreed
(Ordinance 524). In 2004, the City Code was amended back to 5’ (Ordinance 752). At that
time, the Council felt that neighbors could be coerced to allow a 1’ setback. During this time,
three homes on the same block built permitted driveways with 1’ setbacks. There are two
homes with unpermitted driveways with less than 5’ setbacks (1/3rd of homes on this block have
driveways with 0’ or 1’ setbacks). The Planning Commission may want to consider amending
the Zoning Code to a lesser setback.1 Based on a quick scan of planning cases since 2004, the
1 Mounds View City Code, Section 1104.01, Subd 4(b)(1); Driveways shall have a minimum setback of five feet (5’)
from any lot line, except as permitted in Section 1121.15, subdivision 2 of this Title [joint facilities and driveways].
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.
Item 05A
Page 2 of 12
Commission has approved 27 variances for driveway setbacks. This suggests that the
ordinance is inadequate.
Analysis
The Criteria for Granting Variances is detailed in the Resolution. In summary, the existing hard
surfaced driveway is one-car wide. A two-car wide driveway is a reasonable request. The
placement of the 1½ car garage limits which side of the garage door (east or west) the driveway
should be widened. If widened east (towards the side yard), a Variance is necessary. If
widened west, it will likely require removal of a mature tree. The City would prefer to preserve
mature trees because they contribute to the character of the neighborhood.
Many homes in Mounds View were built in the 1940’s and 1950’s with a one-car garage. This
property is not unique, nor is the situation to choose to preserve green space (setbacks) vs. a
70 year-old tree.
It is common for property owners to inquire, or submit zoning permits to widen driveways with
less than 5’ setbacks with the intent of preserving mature trees planted in the front yard, or
because widening driveways toward the interior yard, would interfere with a home’s side door
and steps. This property is not unique, to this dilemma.
Summary
The Applicant requests a Variance to decrease the side yard setback from 5’ to 0’ to reconstruct
a driveway.
A Public Hearing notice was published in the Shoreview Press on August 4, 2020, and mailed to
property owners within 350’ of the subject property.
Strategic Plan Strategy/Goal:
N/A
Financial Impact:
N/A
Staff Recommendation
It is Staff’s opinion that a two-car wide driveway is reasonable, and that it’s more of a choice
between what is more valuable; preserving the side yard setback, or preserving a mature tree.
The applicant’s request is to keep the tree and sacrifice the setback.
Staff requests that the Commission conduct a Public Hearing, and consider the following:
1. Approve Resolution 1121-20, Approving the Variance.
2. Approve Resolution 1121-20, Denying the Variance, with Findings.
3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be made, the
Commission may Table the request until such information is provided. Because of the 60-
Item 05A
Page 3 of 12
Day Rule (deadline: September 15, 2020), this would need to come back to the Commission
at its September 2nd meeting, or Staff may extend the City’s review past 60-Days by
providing notice and reasoning to the applicant.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________
Jon Sevald, AICP
Community Development Director
Attachments
1. Resolution 1121-20 (Approval)
Resolution 1121-20 (Denial)
2. Application
3. Aerial Photo
4. Site Photos
Item 05A
Page 4 of 12
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 1121-20
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM
FIVE-FEET TO ZERO-FEET, FOR A DRIVEWAY, LOCATED AT 2448 CLEARVIEW
AVENUE (PLANNING CASE VR2020-004)
WHEREAS, the applicant; Carl Stroeing, has requested a Variance to reduce the side yard
setback from 5’ to 0’, to widen a driveway at 2448 Clearview Avenue, legally described as:
PID: 08-30-23-32-0022
Lot 1, Block 4, Kowil Addition
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code, Section 1104.01, Subd 4(b)(1), requires a minimum
five-foot side yard setback for driveways in the R-1 Single Family Residential District. The property is
zoned R-1 Single Family Residential; and,
WHEREAS, a variance to the provisions of the Zoning Code may be issued by the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes
practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of property owner’s land. Practical difficulties
include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. No variances
shall be granted that would allow any use that is not allowed in the zoning district in which the subject
property is located. A variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances
exist (Findings in italics):
1. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title.
Finding: The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Code.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Finding: The Comprehensive Plan does not address driveway setbacks specifically, but relates to
the following:
Chapter 4 Housing
Goals and Policies
Goal 2: Maintain and upgrade the existing housing stock of the City.
Policy a: Promote the rehabilitation and redevelopment of housing.
3. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the
City Code.
Item 05A
Page 5 of 12
Finding: The home was built in 1952 with a detached 1½ car garage. Since then, it has been more
common for households to have more than one vehicle. It is reasonable to have a
driveway that is two-cars wide. Further, it is reasonable that the proposed driveway be
configured such that one side (e.g. lane) of the driveway is aligned with the garage door
opening. The Applicant’s request to align one lane along the side yard (e.g. 0’ setback)
will allow the other lane to align with the garage door.
Alternatively, if the 5’ side yard setback were maintained, and the second driveway lane
were to be between the garage and the house, it would likely necessitate the removal of a
mature Maple tree, a High Value and Specimen Tree (over 16” in diameter), according
to Mounds View City Code, Section 1127.02. It is the City’s goal to ensure that
development is compatible with the natural environment and is accommodated without
destroying desirable environmental features and natural amenities.
4. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone
or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner
of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.
Finding: Unique circumstances include a High Value Specimen Tree, which if, the driveway were
to be expanded to the west, this tree would need to be removed, or would be greatly
damaged. Mature over-story trees have contributed towards the character and quality of
life of the city’s neighborhoods. The City places a higher value on tree preservation than
on open space of minimal dimensions (e.g. preserving 5’ side yard setbacks).
5. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Finding: One-third of the homes on the 2400 block of Clearview Avenue have driveways with
setbacks less than 5’. Allowing the existing driveway to be reconstructed with a 0’
setback, is not out of character with the neighborhood.
6. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties.
Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
Finding: Practical Difficulties include the location of the detached garage (5’-6’ setback from side
yard property line), and garage door opening (about 7’-8’ setback), and the home’s side
door steeps.
Reducing the side yard setback from 5’ to 0’, allows vehicles to be parked on the
driveway without blocking access to the garage door.
If the 5’ setback were maintained, the driveway would be widened toward the house. The
placement of the home’s side door and steps, limits the length of the driveway.
Construction of this half of the driveway would require excavation, causing damage to a
High Value Specimen Tree, and possibly require its removal. Therefore, widening the
driveway toward the side yard property line is the lesser of two evils.
7. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a
variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or
minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out
Item 05A
Page 6 of 12
the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough
proportionality to the impact created by the variance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning and Zoning
Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment, based upon the above Findings, the Staff Report, and in
consideration of public testimony, Approves the Variance to reduce the side yard driveway setback from
5’ to 0’, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall obtain a Zoning Permit for the driveway and begin work within one year of
approval of this Variance, or the Variance shall become void, consistent with City Code, Section
1125.02, Subd 5 (Lapse of Variance or Appeal).
Adopted this 19th day of August, 2020
Gary Stevenson, Chair
Attest:
Jon Sevald, Community Development Director
(Seal)
Item 05A
Page 7 of 12
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 1121-20
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM
FIVE-FEET TO ZERO-FEET, FOR A DRIVEWAY, LOCATED AT 2448 CLEARVIEW
AVENUE (PLANNING CASE VR2020-004)
WHEREAS, the applicant; Carl Stroeing, has requested a Variance to reduce the side yard
setback from 5’ to 0’, to widen a driveway at 2448 Clearview Avenue, legally described as:
PID: 08-30-23-32-0022
Lot 1, Block 4 Kowil Addition
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code, Section 1104.01, Subd 4(b)(1), requires a minimum
five-foot side yard setback for driveways in the R-1 Single Family Residential District. The property is
zoned R-1 Single Family Residential; and,
WHEREAS, a variance to the provisions of the Zoning Code may be issued by the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes
practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of property owner’s land. Practical difficulties
include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. No variances
shall be granted that would allow any use that is not allowed in the zoning district in which the subject
property is located. A variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances
exist (Findings in italics):
1. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title.
Finding: The variance is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Code.
Mounds View City Code, Section 1104.01, Subd 4(b)(1), states; “Driveways shall have a
minimum setback of five feet (5’) from any lot line”...
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Finding: The Comprehensive Plan does not address driveway setbacks specifically, but relates to
the following:
Chapter 4 Housing
Goals and Policies
Goal 2: Maintain and upgrade the existing housing stock of the City.
Policy a: Promote the rehabilitation and redevelopment of housing.
3. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the
City Code.
Item 05A
Page 8 of 12
Finding: The home was built in 1952 with a detached 1½ car garage. Since then, it has been more
common for households to have more than one vehicle. It is reasonable to have a
driveway that is two-cars wide. Further, it is reasonable that the proposed driveway be
configured such that one side (e.g. lane) of the driveway is aligned with the garage door
opening. The Applicant’s request to align one lane along the side yard (e.g. 0’ setback)
will allow the other lane to align with the garage door.
Alternatively, if the 5’ side yard setback were maintained, and the second driveway lane
were to be between the garage and the house, it would likely necessitate the removal of a
mature Maple tree, a High Value and Specimen Tree (over 16” in diameter), according
to Mounds View City Code, Section 1127.02.
It is not the City’s intent, however, to preserve significant trees or woodlots where
substandard subdivision design, poor drainage, excess slope in streets and driveways or
inefficient utility construction would result. That said, if the tree is in the way, it’s the
owner’s option to remove the tree, or let the tree dictate the width of the driveway.
4. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone
or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner
of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.
Finding: There are no unique circumstances. The home was built in the 1950’s with a one-car
garage, and one-car wide driveway. The tree was planted with this in mind, and is now
in the way. There are many homes in Mounds View with the same circumstances. An
alternative solution is to replace the one-car garage with a larger garage in the
backyard, and widen the driveway within the backyard to accommodate vehicle storage.
This would both maintain the 5’ side yard setback, and preserve the tree in the front yard.
5. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Finding: One-third of the homes on the 2400 block of Clearview Avenue have driveways with
setbacks less than 5’. Allowing the existing driveway to be reconstructed with a 0’
setback, is not out of character with the neighborhood.
6. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties.
Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
Finding: Practical Difficulties include the location of the detached garage (5’-6’ setback from side
yard property line), and garage door opening (about 7’-8’ setback), and the home’s side
door steeps.
The most practical solution is to remove the tree, and expand the driveway towards the
south (interior), or to replace the garage, and expand the driveway into the rear yard.
7. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a
variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or
minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out
the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough
proportionality to the impact created by the variance.
Item 05A
Page 9 of 12
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning and Zoning
Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment, based upon the above Findings, the Staff Report, and in
consideration of public testimony, DENIES the Variance to reduce the side yard driveway setback from
5’ to 0.
Adopted this 19th day of August, 2020
Gary Stevenson, Chair
Attest:
Jon Sevald, Community Development Director
(Seal)
Item 05A
Page 10 of 12
Application
Item 05A
Page 11 of 12
Aerial Photo
Item 05A
Page 12 of 12
Site Photos
2448 Clearview Ave. View from approximate side yard property line (aligns with utility pole in backyard). (photo Aug 12, 2020)
2448 Clearview Ave. The patio is 7.5’ wide from steps to asphalt; asphalt is about 10’ wide, and gravel about 8’ wide (photo Aug
12, 2020)
DRAFT
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
July 1, 2020
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Mounds View Boulevard, Mounds View, MN 55112
______________________________________________________________________________
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for July 1 , 2020. Due to the
COVID-19 pandemic the meeting was held virtually.
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Commissioners Farmer, French (joined the meeting at 7:45 p.m.), Klander,
Monn, Nelson, Rundle, and Stevenson.
Absent and Excused: None.
Also Present: Community Development Director Jon Sevald and Council Member Gary
Meehlhause.
______________________________________________________________________________
Index to Minutes Page
Resolution 1120-20, Variance to Reduce Setbacks for a Parking Lot 2
Approval of Minutes 7
3. Special Order of Business
None.
4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
None.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mounds View Planning Commission July 1, 2020
Regular Meeting Page 2
________________________________________________________________________
5. Planning Cases
A. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 1120-20, Variance to Reduce Setbacks for a
Parking Lot at 4749 Old Highway 8
Community Development Director Sevald stated currently the building at 4749 Old Highway 8
has two tenants; Ace Supply (front) and Minvalco (rear). The property has parking on the north,
west, and south sides of the building. The north parking lot is nearest to the businesses’
entrances, and used by customers, employees, and semi-trucks. The applicant proposes to add a
customer parking lot within the front yard, requiring a Variance to reduce the front yard setback,
from 40’ to 0’ (the building has a 37’ front yard setback). The new parking lot would be nearest
to the front (main) entrance.
Community Development Director Sevald explained the majority of customers use the north
side-entrance, which is not ADA accessible. Ace Supply applied for the same Variance in 2005,
which was denied by the Planning Commission (Resolution 793-05), then appealed, and denied
by the City Council (Resolution 6544). The reasoning was that the request did not demonstrate a
sufficient hardship to warrant approval of the Variance. In 2011, Minnesota Statutes were
amended, replacing the term “undue hardship” with “practical difficulty”. The intent when
approving a Variance is to answer “yes” to the following questions; (1) is the Variance
reasonable; (2) do unique circumstances exist; and (3) would the Variance alter the essential
character of the neighborhood. The 2011 amendment made it easier to support a Variance, but
the intent is that Variances are only supported if the three questions can be answered in the
affirmative. Staff commented further on the Variance request, requesting the Planning
Commission hold a public hearing.
Tim Hasselbring, Ace Supply, discussed the current parking situation on his property. He
explained the requested parking would allow for parking at the front of the building, along with
handicap parking. He indicated during the winter months he loses the already limited parking for
snow storage. He commented further on the Variance and requested the Commission approve
the variance.
Bruce Hasselbring, Ace Supply, stated the building was recently remodeled to create additional
training space which meant there was a need for more parking.
Commissioner Monn asked what improvements would be made to the site given the fact more
parking would be added. Bruce Hasselbring reported he was thinking about adding more trees
and shrubs. He noted the landscaping would have irrigation in order to keep it healthy and alive.
Mr. Hasselbring discussed the location of his building and commented on the buildings color
scheme. He noted an irrigation system was in place and would be made operational.
Commissioner Monn questioned if the site could have additional greenspace between the
roadway and the parking lot. Community Development Director Sevald explained the available
greenspace.
Mounds View Planning Commission July 1, 2020
Regular Meeting Page 3
________________________________________________________________________
Chair Stevenson inquired if the location of the City Desk would be relocated. Mr. Hasselbring
commented the City Desk had been relocated to the north, past the front doors.
Chair Stevenson asked how many visitor parking stalls were needed. Mr. Hasselbring stated he
averages 14 customers per hour and these customers stay from 10 to 30 minutes. He indicated he
also needs to be able to accommodate delivery trucks.
Further discussion ensued regarding the site’s parking needs.
Commissioner Nelson questioned if the bike path or trail along Old Highway 8 would be
eliminated. Mr. Hasselbring stated the path would remain in place. He explained there would be
ten feet between the path and the parking lot.
Commissioner Nelson expressed concern regarding the proximity of the power lines.
Commissioner Klander believed the proposed parking lot change would allow for a separation
between the visitors with smaller cars and the larger trucks entering the site. Bruce agreed
stating the proposed changes would also create handicap accessible parking.
Commissioner Monn requested further information regarding the site’s snow removal. Mr.
Hasselbring described where snow was stored during the winter months.
Chair Stevenson explained he was concerned with the lack of greenspace on the site if the new
parking lot were approved. Mr. Hasselbring reported there would be 10 feet between the parking
lot and the trail, along with additional greenspace around the property. He noted the 10 foot strip
would have trees and shrubs.
Chair Stevenson commented he did not have a clear indication of the applicant’s plans for the
greenspace. Community Development Director Sevald explained staff would recommend shrubs
and perennials be planted in this area.
Commissioner Nelson agreed the lack of a plan for the greenspace was a concern for him. Bruce
commented landscaping plans had not been completed because he was unsure if the City would
approve the variance request. He explained he would be following the City’s planting
requirements if the variance were approved. Mr. Hasselbring reviewed the property site plan
with the Commission. He reiterated that the request was being made to bring parking lot closer
to the entrance while also providing handicap parking.
Commissioner Klander commented the applicant would have 10+ feet between the parking lot
and the roadway. He understood the applicants were willing to landscape this greenspace area.
He noted he supported the variance as requested. Community Development Director Sevald
recommended if the variance is approved that a conditional for approval be added requiring
shrubs and perennials to be planted along the parking lot in the greenspace. He reported 150% of
the escrow for materials and labor was to be paid to the City to provide a one year guarantee on
the survivability of the plants.
Mounds View Planning Commission July 1, 2020
Regular Meeting Page 4
________________________________________________________________________
Commissioner Monn questioned if the Commission could require the plant to be pollinator
friendly. Community Development Director Sevald stated the Commission could suggest this
but would have to define what plants are pollinator friendly.
Commissioner Klander indicated the City could suggest pollinator friendly plants be planted.
Commissioner Nelson recommended the applicant be required to work with the City Forester on
the plant species. He expressed concern with the fact the front door of the building would be so
close to the drive aisle and parking spaces. Community Development Director Sevald
recommended the applicant work with an architect to ensure the parking lot was ADA compliant.
Commissioner Monn questioned how many handicap parking stalls were required for this
building. Community Development Director Sevald reported the building had to have three
handicap parking stalls.
Commissioner Monn asked if the applicants had to go back to the drawing board to reconsider
the parking needs for this site given the fact they were only proposing to have one handicap
parking stall.
Mr. Hasselbring reported he would work with an architect to ensure the parking lot was ADA
compliant.
Commissioner Monn inquired what the project timeline would be. Bruce stated he would like to
have the project completed yet this summer.
Commissioner Monn questioned what the applicant was doing to bring the non-compliant
parking spaces around the building up to code.
Commissioner French joined the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Commissioner Nelson stated he was not terribly confident about approving these plans given the
lack of detail provided by the applicants. While he understood there was a cost to have plans
drawn up, he believed it would benefit the applicants to meet with an architect prior to coming to
the City for approval of a variance. Community Development Director Sevald reviewed the
greenspace that would be available between the proposed parking lot and Old Highway 8 and it
was estimated the applicants would have somewhere between 10 to 14 feet of greenspace. He
indicated 10 feet of greenspace would allow for several rows of plants.
Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m.
Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m.
Mounds View Planning Commission July 1, 2020
Regular Meeting Page 5
________________________________________________________________________
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Klander. To approve Resolution
1120-20, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance to Reduce Setbacks for a Parking
Lot at 4749 Old Highway 8 with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall obtain a Zoning Permit for the parking lot expansion and begin work
within one year of approval of this Variance, or the Variance shall become void,
consistent with City Code, Section 1125.02, Subdivision 5 (Lapse of Variance or
Appeal).
2. If the project adds 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area, or disturbs that
amount of soils, then the applicant shall obtain a permit from Rice Creek Watershed
District (Rule C). The applicant shall implement erosion controls during construction
(Rule D).
3. The applicant shall install landscaping consisting of a continuous row of shrubs and a
continuous row of perennials along the east parking lot. Prior to issuance of the Zoning
Permit for the parking lot, the applicant shall submit a landscape escrow of 150% of the
cost of plants and labor, to be held by the City for one year after installation and
inspection of survivability. Because the landscaping will be located within the right-of-
way, Ramsey County may remove landscaping at any time, without compensation.
4. The applicant shall stripe the entire parking lot(s) within one year, including providing
for ADA parking.
Commissioner Monn requested the plants and shrubs be pollinator friendly.
Commissioner Klander supported the City Forester working with the applicant to make a
recommendation on the type of shrubs and plants that would work best in this greenspace. He
indicated an evergreen shrub may be more hearty in this space, versus a pollinator friendly shrub.
Chair Stevenson commented the Commission could leave this decision up to the City Forester.
Commissioner Rundle supported this recommendation.
Commissioner Klander recommended the language require the applicant to consult with the City
Forester.
Commissioner Monn expressed concern with the fact this property would not be in compliance
with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the City’s efforts to become a pollinator friendly
community.
Chair Stevenson reported the City Forester had the authority to review plans and make
recommendations per the Comprehensive Plan’s direction. He indicated this has always worked
well for the City in the past given the fact the City Forester knows what plants will and will not
work.
Mounds View Planning Commission July 1, 2020
Regular Meeting Page 6
________________________________________________________________________
Chair Stevenson requested a friendly amendment to Condition 3 stating the applicant would have
to consult and have their landscaping plans approved by the City Forester. The Commission
supported this recommendation.
Commissioner Nelson stated Condition 3 does not state a timeline for the plant installation.
Community Development Director Sevald anticipated the plants would not be installed until the
spring of 2021.
Chair Stevenson recommended the plants be installed one year from approval of the variance
request. The Commission supported this recommendation.
Community Development Director Sevald recommended Condition 3 read as follows: Within
one year the applicant shall install landscaping consisting of a continuous row of pollinator
friendly shrubs and perennials along the east parking lot. The applicant shall consult and have
the landscaping plans approved by the City Arborist.
Commissioner Klander feared that the Commission was putting too many restrictions on this
business.
Commissioner Monn questioned if the applicant would be meeting all ADA requirements for the
parking lot. Bruce stated the parking lot would meet all ADA requirements for the building.
A roll call vote was taken.
Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
6. Other Planning Activity
None.
7. Reports
A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity
Community Development Director Sevald stated there were no upcoming planning cases at this
time.
B. Staff Updates
Community Development Director Sevald provided the Commission with an update from staff.
He reported work continues on Grey Stone Flats and a building permit will be issued to
Tommy’s Car Wash next week. He indicated the redevelopment of the Skyline Motel property
Mounds View Planning Commission July 1, 2020
Regular Meeting Page 7
________________________________________________________________________
was stalled and the project would be reconsidered in 2021. Staff discussed the work being
completed at Edgewood Middle School.
C. Council Updates
Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City
Council. He reported the City recently received word that Mounds View had achieved Step 2 in
the Green Steps City program. He noted the Simon’s and Tires N’More properties were both for
sale. He explained Amy Hodges was selected for Mounds View’s Citizen of the Year. He
updated the Commission regarding the noise wall being installed as part of the MnDOT
MNPASS project. It was noted this was a three year project.
D. Planning Commissioner Reports
Commissioner Klander stated this was his last meeting noting he would be moving to Shoreview
later this month. He explained he has enjoyed serving on the Planning Commission. He indicated
he would really miss Mounds View and his neighbors.
Commissioner Monn thanked Commissioner Klander for his dedicated service to the community.
8. Approval of Minutes
April 15, 2020.
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Farmer. To approve the Minutes of
the April 15, 2020 regular Planning Commission meetings as presented.
A roll call vote was taken.
Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Abstain – 1 (Klander) Motion carried.
9. Next Planning Commission Meeting:
A. Wednesday, July 15, 2020
B. Wednesday, August 5, 2020
10. Adjournment
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the
meeting at 8:37 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mounds View Planning Commission July 1, 2020
Regular Meeting Page 8
________________________________________________________________________
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Sevald
Community Development Director
Transcribed by:
Heidi Guenther
Minute Maker Secretarial