Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-01-2020 PC PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 1, 2020 - 7:00 P.M. COMMISSION MEETING Virtual Meeting Link to join Webinar https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84309762969 Webinar ID: 843 0976 2969 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 1120-20, Variance to Reduce Setbacks for a Parking Lot, Located at 4749 Old Highway 8 6. Other Planning Activity A. (none) 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 8. Approval of Minutes: A. April 15, 2020 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, July 15, 2020 B. Wednesday, August 5, 2020 10. Meeting Conclusion Item No: ___05A Meeting Date: July 1, 2020 Type of Business: Planning Case VR2020-003 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: PUBLIC HEARING; Resolution 1120-20, Variance to Reduce Setbacks for a Parking Lot, Located at 4749 Old Highway 8 Introduction Ace Supply Company proposes to expand their customer parking lot into the front yard, requiring a Variance to reduce the front yard setback, from 40’ to 0’. The parking lot would be about 10’ behind the trail, and 25’ behind the curb of Old Highway 8. Discussion Currently, the building 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. Currently, 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. Analysis Parking Setback 1 Min Req Existing Proposed Front (east) 40’ 37’ 0’ Side (north) 5’ 0’ 0’ Side (south) 5’ 5’ 5’ Rear (west) 5’ 4’ 4’ 1 City Code, Section 1104.01, Subd 4(3) I-1 parking areas and loading docks) Item 05A Page 2 of 16 Min Parking Standards 2 ACE Supply Minvalco Total Req Exist Prop Req Exist Prop. Req Exist Prop Office 31 12 26 14 31 31 132 43 57 Retail 8 - Warehouse 47 20 Storage 12 - Total Parking 98 12 26 34 31 31 Loading Dock 2 6 6 2 2 2 4 8 8 ADA (standard + van)3 0+1 0 0+1 1+1 0 0 1+2 0 0+1 Parking requirements are based on the area of specific use (e.g. 8 spaces + 1 space per 500 sq ft of warehouse), or the number of employees (e.g. 8 spaces + 1 space per two employees). Either way, this section of the Code seems outdated and ineffective. City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 2 provides seven criteria that must be met when approving a Variance, and is detailed in the Resolution as “Findings of Facts”. In summary, the Variance request must be reasonable; relate to unique circumstances which do not apply to similar properties and are not the result of the applicant; does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and is the minimum variance needed to alleviate the practical difficulties. Summary ACE Supply proposes to construct a parking lot in their front yard, requiring a Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 40’ to 0’. The new parking lot would provide a shorter distance to the business’ main entrance. Strategic Plan Strategy/Goal: Continue BR&E program, maximize utilization of development space and updated list of available sites, encourage land owners to maintain their properties, & consider residential redevelopment Financial Impact: None. Staff Recommendation Staff does not have a recommendation. There are equal arguments for and against the Variance. In support of approval, it is reasonable that customer parking be located nearest to the main door (entrances are on north and east sides of the building), and that parking for passenger vehicles be separated from truck traffic and loading docks (they are not). There are a number of industrial properties along Old Highway 8 with close to 0’ setbacks (e.g. Bio Clean, former Skyline Motel). The City Code’s intent of requiring a 40’ setback for buildings and parking, is to 2 City Code, Section 1121.13 (Schedule of Off-Street Parking Requirements) 3 ADA Parking Requirements: 1-25 stall parking lot requires 0 standard stalls + 1 van stall. 26-50 stall parking lot requires 1 standard stall + 1 van stall. Item 05A Page 3 of 16 make the building the main feature of the property (not the parking lot), and to provide green space. In practice, this has not resulted in more attractive properties. For example, this building has little character and almost no landscaping beyond grass. If the Variance is approved, Staff requests that shrubs and perennials be added along the east edge of the parking lot, within county right-of-way. In support of denial, little has changed since the 2005 Variance request. There is nothing unique about this property compared to other industrial properties along Old Highway 8. The corridor is characterized by a wide street, overhead power lines, and grassy front yards. The proposed Variance would result in the smallest grassed front yard on the corridor. Further, the design of the proposed parking lot leaves little buffer between the building and the drive aisle (not unlike the current parking lot). A minimum of 60” clearance (front approach) is required from the ADA accessible door.4 As proposed, the front approach will be incorporated into the drive aisle, meaning as customers exit the building, they are exiting almost directly onto the drive aisle. Staff requests that the Commission conduct a Public Hearing, and consider the following: 1. Approve Resolution 1120-20, Approving the Variance. 2. Approve Resolution 1120-20, Denying the Variance. 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-Day Rule (deadline: July 17, 2020), this would need to come back to the Commission at its July 15th 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. Applicant’s letter, May 12, 2020 2. Site Plan, May 4, 2020 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial Photo 5. Site Photos 6. Resolution 1120-20, Approving the Variance 7. Resolution 1120-20, Denying the Variance 4 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, Table 404.2.4.1 (Maneuvering Clearances at Manual Swigging Doors and Gates) Item 05A Page 4 of 16 Item 05A Page 5 of 16 Item 05A Page 6 of 16 Item 05A Page 7 of 16 Zoning Map Item 05A Page 8 of 16 Aerial Photo Item 05A Page 9 of 16 Site Photos 4749 Old Highway 8. View of front of the building, looking west (Photo May 22, 2020) 4749 Old Highway 8. View of front yard, looking north (photo May 22, 2020) 4749 Old Highway 8. View of front yard and north parking lot, looking SW (photo May 22, 2020) Item 05A Page 10 of 16 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1120-20 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 40-FEET TO 0-FEET FOR A PARKING LOT, LOCATED AT 4749 OLD HIGHWAY 8 (ACE SUPPLY CO.) (PLANNING CASE VR2020-003) WHEREAS, the applicant; Tim Hasselbring (ACE Supply Co.), representing property owner; ASC Properties, LLC, is requesting approval of a Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 40’ to 0’ for a parking lot on property located at 4749 Old Highway 8, legally described as: PID: 17-30-23-14-0005 Lot 2, Block 1 of Midway Industrial WHEREAS, the City Code, Section 1104.01, Subd 4(c)(3)(a) requires a minimum 40’ front yard setback for parking areas and loading docks in the I-1 Industrial district; and, WHEREAS, the property is zoned I-1 Industrial. In 2000, the property received a Variance to reduce the front yard setback for a nonconforming building, from 40’ to 37’ (Resolution 579-99). The existing parking lot has an equal front yard setback; and, WHEREAS, a Public Hearing notice was published in the Shoreview Press on June 9, 2020, and mailed to property owners within 350’ of the subject property; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on July 1, 2020; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the Staff Report, submitted plans, and has compared the request to City Code, Section 1125.01, Subd 4 (Criteria for Granting Variances), and in consideration of public testimony, makes the following Findings of Fact (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 this Title. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Item 05A Page 11 of 16 Finding: The request relates to the following: Commercial Goals and Policies Goal 2: Provide safe, convenient, attractive, and accessible commercial development. Policy j: The City will cooperate with existing and potential commercial developers and property owners in creating site plans with emphasis on access and egress, parking areas, landscaping and adherence to an architectural theme. Transportation Goals and Policies Goal 2: Developments shall provide sufficient off-street parking to meet the normal demands of all land uses and activities. 3. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. Finding: It is reasonable for the parking lot be near the building’s main (east) door. The parking lot is currently non-conforming, and is deficient by 89 parking stalls. The proposed additional parking will improve the non-conformity. 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; the building (warehouse) was built in 1970, without adequate accommodation for passenger vehicle parking within reasonable proximity of the building’s customer entrances (north and east entrances). 5. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Finding: The Variance would not significantly alter the character of the neighborhood. Nine of the 13 (69%) industrial businesses within 1,000’ of the subject property, on Old Highway 8, have setbacks less than 40’ from the ROW. Address Business Parking or Building Setback from ROW (aprox) Setback from centerline of street (approx) 2151 Old Highway 8 Bio-Clean 7’ 69’ 2155 Old Highway 8 Hoffman Weber Construction 37’ 87’ 4759 Old Highway 8 Midway Industrial Supply 45’ 98’ 4759 Old Highway 8 ACE Supply 37’ (0’ proposed) 94’ 57’ proposed) 2172 Old Highway 8 E/M Coating Services 40’ 104’ 2155 Old Highway 8 McKinley/Hill Corporation 35’ 80’ 2123 Old Highway 8 Windows for America 54’ 100’ 2100 Old Highway 8 (vacant) 6’ 80’ Item 05A Page 12 of 16 2087 Old Highway 8 (vacant) 15’ 92’ 2053 Old Highway 8 Superior Flooring 16’ 94’ 2052 Old Highway 8 Hank’s Specialties 20’ 90’ 2033 Old Highway 8 (vacant) 35’ 112’ 2023 Old Highway 8 Cheetah Precision Manufacturing 40’ 115’ 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 desire to separate passenger vehicle parking from loading docks, and the inability to do so, but for moving the passenger vehicle parking lot to the east front yard, or ceasing to use the three dock doors nearest the northeast building entrance. 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. 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 front yard parking lot setback from 40’ to 0’, 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, Subd 5 (Lapse of Variance or Appeal). 2. If the project adds 10,000 sq ft 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. Item 05A Page 13 of 16 Adopted this 1st day of July, 2020 Gary Stevenson, Chair Attest: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director (Seal) Item 05A Page 14 of 16 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1120-20 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 40-FEET TO 0-FEET FOR A PARKING LOT, LOCATED AT 4749 OLD HIGHWAY 8 (ACE SUPPLY CO.) (PLANNING CASE VR2020-003) WHEREAS, the applicant; Tim Hasselbring (ACE Supply Co.), representing property owner; ASC Properties, LLC, is requesting approval of a Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 40’ to 0’ for a parking lot on property located at 4749 Old Highway 8, legally described as: PID: 17-30-23-14-0005 Lot 2, Block 1 of Midway Industrial WHEREAS, the City Code, Section 1104.01, Subd 4(c)(3)(a) requires a minimum 40’ front yard setback for parking areas and loading docks in the I-1 Industrial district; and, WHEREAS, the property is zoned I-1 Industrial. In 2000, the property received a Variance to reduce the front yard setback for a nonconforming building, from 40’ to 37’ (Resolution 579-99). The existing parking lot has an equal front yard setback; and, WHEREAS, a Public Hearing notice was published in the Shoreview Press on June 9, 2020, and mailed to property owners within 350’ of the subject property; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on July 1, 2020; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the Staff Report, submitted plans, and has compared the request to City Code, Section 1125.01, Subd 4 (Criteria for Granting Variances), and in consideration of public testimony, makes the following Findings of Fact (italics): 1. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. Item 05A Page 15 of 16 Finding: The variance is NOT in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. City Code, Section 1104.01, Subd 2 (Yard Requirements) states; “Reduction of Yard Space: No lot, yard or other open space shall be reduced in area or dimension so as to make such lot, yard or open space less than the minimum required by this Code, and if the existing yard or other open space, as existing, is less than the minimum required, it shall not be further reduced. No required open space provided about any building or structure shall be included as a part of any open space required for another structure.” Reducing the front yard setback from 40’ to 0’, is less than the minimum setback required, and therefore, is not in harmony with the intent of the City Code. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The request relates to the following: Commercial Goals and Policies Goal 2: Provide safe, convenient, attractive, and accessible commercial development. Policy j: The City will cooperate with existing and potential commercial developers and property owners in creating site plans with emphasis on access and egress, parking areas, landscaping and adherence to an architectural theme. Transportation Goals and Policies Goal 2: Developments shall provide sufficient off-street parking to meet the normal demands of all land uses and activities. 3. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. Finding: The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. 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 of this property. The need for additional parking is a result of the applicant. The applicant has not demonstrated that other alternatives have been considered. 5. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Finding: The Variance would significantly alter the character of the neighborhood. Although 9 of the 13 (69%) industrial businesses within 1,000’ of the subject Item 05A Page 16 of 16 property on Old Highway 8, have setbacks less than 40’ from the ROW, if this Variance were approved, this property would have the least setback, and would not be in character of the neighbor’s expansive grassy front yards. 6. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Finding: The applicant has not demonstrated that other options have been considered in depth, or that the requested Variance is the minimum needed to alleviate the practical difficulty. 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. 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 front yard parking lot setback from 40’ to 0’. Adopted this 1st day of July, 2020 Gary Stevenson, Chair Attest: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director (Seal) DRAFT PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 15, 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 April 15, 2020. Due to the COVID-19 crisis this meeting was held via Zoom. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Farmer, French, Monn, Nelson, Rundle, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Klander. Also Present: Community Development Director Jon Sevald, City Administrator Nyle Zikmund and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Resolution 1117-20, Approval of a Variance to Reduce the Front 2 Yard Setback for a Garage at 3016 Woodale Drive Resolution 1118-20, Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 3016 Woodale Drive 3 Resolution 1119-20, Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 2520 County Road H2 4 Resolution 1116-20, Amending Planning Commission Bylaws 4 Approval of Minutes 7 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Special Order of Business None. Mounds View Planning Commission April 15, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 1117-20; Approval of a Variance to Reduce the Front Yard Setback for a Garage located at 3016 Woodale Drive Community Development Director Sevald explained the applicant proposes to tear down their home and detached garage, and build a new home with an attached garage, requiring a CUP for an oversized garage, and a Variance to setbacks for the new garage. Within the R-1 Single- Family Residential district, the minimum front yard building setback is 30’, with exceptions. The existing garage is set back 25’, and is non-conforming. As a non-conforming building, the garage may be replaced where-is, but cannot be expanded such that it increases the non-conformity. The applicant is requesting to expand the footprint of the garage in the northwest corner. The area of the proposed garage specific to the variance is about 2’ X 4’. Staff recommended the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and approve the Variance as requested. Commissioner Monn asked if what the unique circumstance was for the variance requested. Community Development Director Sevald discussed the placement of the home and the proposed garage and stated the proposed design was the most practical. He commented the existing garage was built in 1963 and had non-conforming setbacks that were out of the applicant’s control. Jennifer Oxendale, 3016 Woodale Drive, reported she was working to keep roughly the same foot print for the garage and house noting she would be expanding on their size slightly. She discussed how it had been difficult to find a large garage in the City of Mounds View stating she has been looking for the past seven years. She indicated the setback violation would occur with the new garage because she was asking to maintain the same setback that the existing garage has. She believed it would look odd to have the garage pushed back on the lot even further, especially given the topography of the lot. Commissioner Monn questioned how close the proposed garage would be to the neighbor’s garage. Commissioner Nelson estimated there would be 12 feet between the two garages at the closest point and over 15 feet at the front of the garages. He commented further on the grade of the property and stated it would be costly to move the garage and home back on the lot. Councilmember Meehlhause reported the side yard setback for a garage was five feet. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission April 15, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Nelson/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 1117-20, a Resolution Approving a Variance for a Reduced Front Yard Setback for a Garage located at 3016 Woodale Drive. A roll call vote was taken. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ B. Resolution 1118-20, Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 3016 Woodale Drive Community Development Director Sevald stated the applicant proposes to tear down their home and detached garage, and build a new home with an attached garage, requiring a CUP for an oversized garage, and a Variance to setbacks for the new garage. Within the R-1 Single-Family Residential District, each lot may have up to three accessory buildings, totaling 1,800 square feet. No accessory building may exceed 952 square feet, unless a Conditional Use Permit is approved. The proposed home will have a walk-out basement. Similarly, the attached garage will have a walk-out lower level. The lower level does not count towards the maximum 1,800 square feet allowed. Staff provided further comment on the request and recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Chair Stevenson questioned what the proposed height of the garage would be. Community Development Director Sevald reported the garage would be attached to the house. Commissioner Monn questioned if water runoff was a concern given the fact the garage was so close to the property line. Community Development Director Sevald explained this concern would be addressed during the building permit process. He stated gutters and downspouts would address this concern. Jennifer Oxendale, 3016 Woodale Drive, indicated she would not be changing the slope of the land in any way. She commented the garage would be 25’ x 42’ with a small bump out into the house. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner French. To approve Resolution 1118-20, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage located at 3016 Woodale Drive. A roll call vote was taken. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission April 15, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ C. Resolution 1119-20; Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 2520 County Road H2 Community Development Director Sevald explained the applicant proposes to replace their 24’ x 24’ detached garage, with a 26’ X 46’ (1,196 square feet) detached garage for the property at 2520 County Road H2. Within the R-1 Single-Family Residential District, each lot may have up to three accessory buildings, totaling 1,800 square feet. No accessory building may exceed 952 square feet, unless a Conditional Use Permit is approved. Staff provided further comment on the request and recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Nelson stated he supported the proposed garage. Commissioner Rundle reported the applicant had plenty of space for the proposed garage. Commissioner Monn questioned if the new garage would match the exterior of the house. Mike Ellefson, 2520 County Road H2, explained the new garage would have the same siding and color as the house. He reported the garage door color would be sandstone in color to match the window trim on the house. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Farmer. To approve Resolution 1119-20, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 2520 County Road H2. A roll call vote was taken. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Resolution 1116-20, Amending Planning Commission Bylaws (continued) Community Development Director Sevald stated during the Commission’s annual review of its Bylaws (February 5th meeting), the Commission discussed; (1) a minor text amendment; and (2) if Regular Commission meetings should be moved to a different night of the week. The minor text amendment relates to allowing Staff to use “other means of communication” (e.g. email) to communicate with Commissioners when canceling meetings. As-is, staff is only permitted to use a telephone. This amendment is included in the proposed Resolution. Community Development Director Sevald explained the bigger discussion is changing meeting dates. Wednesday nights conflict with many religious activities. Staff reviewed the 2020 calendar of evening City meetings and stated if the Commission were to change nights, the least conflict is the second and fourth Tuesdays. If those nights were chosen, there would be times where this conflicts with City Council meetings, where a Holiday bumps a Council meeting from Monday to Tuesday (e.g. Memorial Day and Labor Day). In this case, the Council would take Mounds View Planning Commission April 15, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ precedence, and the Planning Commission would not meet. The Planning Commission has 24 scheduled Regular Meetings per year, and typically cancels half of these for lack of agenda items. It was noted Thursdays are also an option. However, this night conflicts with the Mounds View Lions Club (1st & 3rd Thursdays). A number of Commissioners are Lions. Staff requested the Commission discuss this matter further and provide direction on how to proceed. Commissioner Monn supported holding just one Planning Commission meeting each month on the second Thursday of every month. Commissioner Nelson questioned if this would impact Planning Cases. Community Development Director Sevald stated this should not be a problem. However, he did like the option of meeting every other week. Commissioner Monn commented another alternative would be to hold Planning Commission meetings on the second and fourth Tuesdays of every month. Commissioner Nelson indicated he could support meeting on Tuesdays. Community Development Director Sevald suggested if the Commission were to change days and there was a conflict with the City Council that the Planning Commission meeting be canceled for that week. Commissioner Nelson supported this recommendation. Commissioner French stated Wednesday was a better night for him. Commissioner Farmer questioned when the bylaws would be revisited. Community Development Director Sevald stated the bylaws would be revisited again in December. Commissioner Rundle supported the Commission revisiting the bylaws again in December. Commissioner Farmer stated he would rather see the Commission voting on this item versus tabling action until December. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Stevenson. To approve Resolution 1116-20, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Planning Commission Bylaws, with the Planning Commission revisiting the meeting date issue in December of 2020. A roll call vote was taken. Ayes – 5 Nays – 1 (Monn) Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission April 15, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity Community Development Director Sevald stated the City had no upcoming planning cases at this time. B. Staff Updates Community Development Director Sevald provided the Commission with an update from staff. He reported Tommy Car Wash was a week or two from receiving a building permit with the hope of being operational late this summer. He stated work has begun on framing at Grey Stone Flats. He commented work continues on the Mounds View schools and work on Quincy Street would begin in the coming weeks. He updated the Commission on the Skyline Motel property noting work on this development has stalled at this time. City Administrator Zikmund updated the Commission on how City staff was working remotely during the COVID-19 crisis. He explained a limited number of staff members were still working from City Hall. He discussed how the Police Department was operating during this crisis and described how officers would be deferring medical calls to Allina. He commented further on how the Public Works Department was being staffed at this time. Community Development Director Sevald discussed how the Community Development Department was functioning at this time and noted permits were on the rise. He stated with residents spending more time at home staff was seeing an increase in the requests for permits. City Administrator Zikmund commented on the improvements that were occurring at City Hall and noted best practices for social distancing were being followed during this time. He stated it was his goal to have all of this work completed yet this fall. C. Council Updates Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He reported the City Council met this past Monday and approved an oversized garage along with the 2020 Street Improvement Project. He commented on the repairs that would be made to the Ground Reservoir and one of the City’s well houses. He discussed the HOPP program with the Planning Commission. He noted the Council had declared a local state of emergency and would be holding its meetings virtually during this time. He provided further comment on the issues the Council addressed at the March worksession meeting which included a discussion regarding the SBM Fire Department. He reported the Annual Town Hall Meeting has been postponed indefinitely. Further discussion ensued regarding Long Lake Woods. Mounds View Planning Commission April 15, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 8. Approval of Minutes January 15, 2020. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Nelson/Commissioner Farmer. To approve the Minutes of the January 15, 2020 regular Planning Commission meetings as presented. A roll call vote was taken. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. February 5, 2020. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner French. To approve the Minutes of the February 5, 2020 regular Planning Commission meetings as presented. A roll call vote was taken. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, May 6, 2020 B. Wednesday, May 20, 2020 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:26 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald Community Development Director Mounds View Planning Commission April 15, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther Minute Maker Secretarial