Loading...
6.10. & 6.11. SR 05-17-2004Item ~s 6.10. & 6. I I. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council J~/ Michele McPherso~rector of Planning DATE: May 17, 2004 SUBJECT: Case No.'s ZC 04-04 and CU 04-06 Consider a Zone Change to R4 Multiple Family and a Conditional Use Permit to allow the Expansion of a Mini Storage Facility Request The Council is asked to consider the following two requests: 1. Zone Change from R3 Townhouse/Multiple Family Residential to R4 Multiple Family Residential. 2. Conditional Use Permit to allow the expansion of a mini storage facility. Attachments · Location Map · Memo from the City Engineer · Resolution No 04 - Approving the Zone Change · May 5, 2004 Letter from Hubert & Mary Marty · Letter from Constance Mutchler · Site Plan Location 11869 191 1/2 Avenue Lots 2 & 3, Block 1, Ridgewood East 2"d Addition Land Use/Zoning MR Medium Density Residential/R3 Townhouse/Multiple Family Residential Memo to Planning Comrmssion/CU 04-6 April 27, 2004 Page 2 Overview The subject property is located on 191 1/2 Avenue adjacent to multiple family dwellings and north of several single-family homes. Located on the property are four stuccoed mini storage buildings, concrete driving lanes and a storm water detention pond that is fenced. There are two driveway entrances from 191 1/2 Avenue into the site. There is one tree in the boulevard, 11 trees internal and along the north property line and several "volunteer" trees around the detention pond. There is no security fencing and no on-site office. The applicant desires to expand three of the existing mini storage buildings in order to provide additional units. At the time the structures were constructed, mini storage buildings were allowed. They currently are not a use, permitted or conditional, in the R3 Townhome/Mulfiple Family District. Zone Change In order to grant the zone change, the Commission must consider whether or not the request would be consistent with adjacent uses and whether or not the use itself is consistent with the zoning district. The subject property is zoned for Multiple Family Residential, which would allow townhomes or apartments. The adjacent properties to the east (townhomes) and west (apartments) are zoned R4 Multiple Family which is specifically for apartments. The presence of mini storage within the Multiple Family Zoning District appears to be compatible with the multiple family dwellings in the area: there are few trips per day, there is little or no noise, and they are traditionally utilized by residents residing in multiple family dwellings due to the typical lack of storage available to them. If the zoning is changed, the site could be utilized in the future potentially for an apartment building. If that were to occur, the total number of units available on the site could not exceed 8 per acre as guided by the Medium Density Residential Land Use. The total acreage of the site is 1.38 acres, which would allow up to 11 units to be constructed. The zone change is consistent with the underlying land use. Conditional Use Permit Standards for Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit The issuance of a Conditional Use Permit can be ordered only if the use at the proposed location: W/ill not endanger, injure or detffmental~ affect the use and enj~ment of otherproper(y in the immediate vicinity or the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or general me~'are of the neighborhood or the dry. 2. W/ill be consistent ~vith the comprehensive plan. 3. W/ill not impede the normal and order~ development and improvement of surrounding vacant property. S:\PLANNING\Case Files\2004\CU 04-06 Pete's Mini Storage\5-17 CC memo.doc Memo to Planning Commission/CU 04-6 April 27, 2004 Page 3 4. Will be served adequately by and will not adversely affect essentialpublic fadlities and services including streets, police and fire protection, drainage, refuse diffvosal, mater and semer ~stems, parks and schools; and will not, in particular, create traflc congestion or inte~rence with trafic on adjacent and neighboring public thoroughfares. 5. [Vill not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that mill be detrimental to any persons orpropertjy because of excessive traflc, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, dust or vibrations. 6. Igaill not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. 7. [Viii fully comply with all other requirements of this Code, including any applicable requirements and standards for the issuance of a license orpermit to establish and operate the proposed use in the If denial of such a permit should occur, it shall accompany recommendations or determinations by findings or a report stating how the proposed use does not comply with the standards set forth in section 30-654. _/lnalysis Setbacks and Drainage The proposed additions to the storage facilities meet the setback requirements of the R4 Zoning District. All additions will be internal to the facility and will occur predominantly where existing hard surface is located. The minor amount of conversion from green space to hard surface can be handled by the existing storm water pond on site as noted in the City Engineer's memo. Landscaping As stated earlier, there are few trees on the site as part of a comprehensive landscape plan (12 planted trees and multiple "volunteer" trees around the pond). If this were a new request within the current ordinance, 25 trees would be required. Staff suggests that the Council consider requiring additional trees along the boulevard, the west property line near the detention pond, and east of the easterly building for screening and improved aesthetics. Building Elevations and Materials The existing buildings are wood frame construction with a rough stucco finish. No building designs or elevations were submitted, however the new construction should be similar, including the stucco finish. Planning Commission Action At the Planning Commission meeting of April 27, 2004 several residents spoke against the zone change due to the fact that it would allow additional apartments to be built if the mini storage facility would be redeveloped. S:\PLANNING\Case Files\2004\CU 04-06 Pete's Mini Storage\5-17 CC memo.doc Memo to Planrdng Cornmission/CU 04-6 April 27, 2004 Page 4 In regards to the conditional use permit, residents spoke regarding security, traffic, and lighting. The Commission felt that the site should be fenced for security reasons and that the hours of operation should be posted. The Commission recommended approval of both requests, but added the following conditions to the conditional use permit: The applicant shall place a fence around the perimeter of the property and the design detail of the fence shall be presented to the City Council at the May 17, 2004 Council meeting. The apphcation shall meet the City's landscape requirements. Signage with the hours of operation of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. shall be posted. Staff has received two letters from the closest adjacent property owners stating their opposition to the fence. Recommendation Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the request for a Zone Change from R3 Townhome/Multiple Family District to R4 Multiple Family District with the following findings: THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH ADJACENT ZONING AND USES. THE USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING. THE ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: e e THE APPLICANT PROVIDE A LANDSCAPE PLAN WITH ADDITIONAL TREES ALONG THE BOULEVARD~ THE WEST PROPERTY LINE NEAR THE DETENTION POND~ AND EAST OF THE EASTERLY BUILDING. THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS BE SIMILAR TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURES~ INCLUDING THE STUCCO FINISH. ANY ITEM OR CONDITION FOUND THAT INDICATES THE SITE IS LIKELY TO YIELD INFORMATION IMPORTANT TO PRE-HISTORY OR HISTORY SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE CITY IMMEDIATELY. FURTHER~ THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO STOP WORK AUTHORIZED IN ITS APPROVAL UNTIL THE SITE IS APPROPRIATELY INVESTIGATED AND WORK IS AUTHORIZED TO CONTINUE BY THE CITY. SIGNAGE WITH THE HOURS OF OPERATION OF 7 A. TO I 0 P.M. SHALL BE POSTED. Given the fact that the applicant has not had any issues with security and that the site is used by neighborhood children for a green play area, staff is of the opinion that the fence is unnecessary. S:\PLANNING\Case Files\2004\CU 04-06 Pete's Mini Storage\5-17 CC memo.doc "/ ~ < I ' ] {~ LRzZ;o~w~oJp I I ~ I I , I ~l ' r-~ ~ ~/ . · ~ RIDGEWOOD ~( ~ VANDENBERG ELK RVER ~ PARKER LINCOLN -~ JUNIOR HIGH HIGH SCHOOL r E~MENTRY ELEMEKTRY ~ SCHOOL ~ SCHOOL SCHO3E' Case Number: Location Map ZC 04-04 & CU 04-06 PETE'S MINI STORAGE N Howard R. Green Qompany April 14, 2004 File: 823490J-0240 Ms. Michele McPherson Director of Planning City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 RE: PETE'S MINI STORAGE EXPANSION Dear Ms McPherson: As requested we have reviewed the site plan prepared Bogar[, Pederson and Associates for the expansion of Pete's Mini Storage located on the north side of 191st Lane NW, west of Jackson Avenue. Currently the site contains three buildings running east and west, and one larger building running north and south. The proposal is to add on to the southerly two buildings running east and west. The existing driving area between the east west buildings is currently 40 feet. With the 15 foot expansion of the two southerly buildings this driving area will be reduced to 25 feet. This is adequate for two way traffic between buildings. From an engineering perspective there are two issues with this proposed expansion. The first is additional traffic because of additional mini storage stalls. To the best of my knowledge there have been no complaints relative to traffic on 191st Lane since the mini storage first opened. The additional expansion should add a minimal amount of traffic, and will likely cause no additional traffic concerns. Second issue is storm drainage. The storm drainage facility was originally sized for the impervious area in the existing development. The area of building expansion is currently concrete driveway, therefore changing concrete driveway to rooftop will not change the amount of runoff expected from these areas. The existing drainage facilities should be adequate to handle the runoff after the proposed additions. From an engineering perspective we would recommend approval of the proposed Pete's Mini Storage expansion site plan as submitted. If you have any questions regarding this issue, please call. Sincerely, Howard R. Green Company TJM:ac 2550 University Avenue West · Suite 400N · St. Paul, MN 55114 ° 651/644-4389 fax 651/644-9446 toll free 888/368-4389 Hubert & T. Mary Marty 11814 Highland Rd. NW Elk River, MN 55330 May 05, 2004 Phone: (763) 241-1163 City of Elk River 13065 Orono Pky Elk River, MN 55330 Attn: Planning Commission Re:Case ~'s ZC04-04 & ZC04-06 We border the North side of Pete's Mini Storage (Parcel C, Lot 24, Blk 2, Ridgewood East<see red shaded area of enclosed map>) and wish to state that Pete"s has been a wonderful neighbor. There has never been a problem with traffic or noise. At the April 27th meeting, we weren't given much of an opportunity to state our concern about the fencing or shrubery along the northern edge of Pete's. We are completely satisfied with the physical condition of the property as it is. There is a drainage easement across the eastern side of Lot 24, and during heavy storms the run-off will go across the northern edge of Pete's property to the "holding pond" that is already fenced in. If additional fencing or shrubs were placed in this drainage it is sure to effect the flow of the drainage. If either fencing or shrubs must go in, we would prefer shrubs. As for changing the zoning from R3 to R4, we feel that there are enough apartment buildings in the neighborhood, and allowing more apartments would cause greater traffic problems than increasing the size of the storage units. There is a duplex across Highland from us, and the traffic there is much greater than it has ever been at the mini storage, even on their very busiest week-ends. Also, the four parcels of Lot 24 are rather small, and Pete has been more than generous in allowing us to use the part of his land that lies north of his building and driveway, giving the appearance that our lots are larger. If possible, we wish that one or more of the planning commission would visit the site. Hubert E. Mart~~ Yours very truly ¥ ' ( ,, ...... SALK JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SITE RIDGEWOOD__ PARK VANDENBERG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SCHOOL ELK RVER HIGH SCHOOL STREET L____] SECOND ADDITION PARKER ELEMENTRY SCHOOL LINCOLN Case Number: Lc¸ ZC ~,. Map ~, CU 04'06 PETE'S MINI STORAGE N City Of Elk River 13065 Orono Pkwy. Elk River, MN 55330 Attn: Planning Commission RE: Case#'s ZC04-04 and ZC04-06 My property borders the northeast side of Pete's Mini Storage (Parcel D, Lot 24, Blk 2, Ridgewood East). Though I have only lived at this location for seven years there has seldom been any problem with noise or traffic. Matter-a-fact I have enjoyed having Peg's Mini Storage as a neighbor. Other locations in the neighborhood, such as a duplex across the street from me, have had far more disturbance and traffic than Pete's on his busiest day. Most of his patrons are extremely courteous pertaining to noise and when they visit their units. At the April 27th meeting we weren't given much of an opportunity to state our concerns about fencing. I'm very satisfied with the physical conditions of the facility and the planned expansion, but I am concerned about adding fencing. There currently is a drainage easement across the eastern side of Lot 24 that runs-off into a fenced in "holding pond." One of my concerns is that if fencing were put in it could affect the flow of the drainage. If something has to be added, I prefer shrubs. Another concern is that fencing could be a disruption of an already good, working relationship within the community. The four parcels of Lot 24 are rather small, and Pete has been very generous in allowing us to use part of his land that lies north of his building and driveway, and we have already created a natural boundary. He has always been a good neighbor to us and in return I feel we have been good neighbors, and good watchdogs. As for changing the zoning from R3 to R4, I feel that there are enough apartment buildings in the neighborhood. I often wondered why there was such a mix of zoning within a small area. Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that you remove the existing units, but try to maintain the current ebb and flow of noise and traffic within this neighborhood by limiting expansion. I appreciate this opportunity to express my opinions and concerns. I would also suggest that one or more of the planning commission visit this sito prior to the May 17th meeting. I request that you view us as a cohesive, functioning community which Pete has been part of (without walls) for many years. My Grandfather always said 'that if it ain't broken don't fix it', and in my opinion the neighborhood ain't broken and fencing is not necessary. Sincerely ". ' , , :' ' [ Constance Mutchler I. ~ ~. {~C~? ~ U~' ~ 11812 Highland Rd Elk River, MN 763-441-6194 tLiver c.,e Number: ZC 04-04 & CU 04-06 PETE'S MINI STORAGE / S :..? '.?.~.' / I S89~1'04'W ~ 261.(~0 ~ _%j'~- ~ / "' ,- ' :'2 '" : :' .- ' 261.00 P. r~ 260.97 N89 ~1 '04 'E I JO. 50 93966 Lane 1. T~e Contractor shall note any discrepancies between existing conditions os exist before beginning construction. during grading op~otions (La. silt f~ce. straw boles, etc.). topsoil os measured in ploce. 7. Seed oil disturbed areas within 7 do~ of final grading ~nd temporary SITE PLAN for Pete Rohlf Pete's Mini Storage / 20 0 20 SCALE IN FEET SCALE: 1" = 20' DESCRfPTTON Lots 2 and ~, Block I, RIDGEWOOD ~4ST 2ND ADDITION, Sher~unle County, Minnesota. LEGEND · Oenote~ found ~ron monum~Tt r11 Denotes telephone pedestal .... Denotes major contour .... Denotes minor contour Denotes remove concrete surface Denotes proposed concrete surface NOTES I. Bearings used for this survey ore bosed on the plot of RIDGEWO00 EAST SECOND ADDITION, ~he North line of Lots 2 (~nd J. ~lock I howng on assumed bearing of North B9"21~04~ East. BENCHMARK Railroad spike in no-th face of power pole on the ~est side of Jackson Avenue. I00 ff. south NOTE: CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UNOERGROUND LOCATE REQUIREMENTS. CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE DIGGING: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL T'~IN CITY AREA ¢54--0020 MINNESOTA TOLL FREE 1-800-252-t156