The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000 Planning Commission Packets_ . . _ _�' ' I ,- . _ .. . . . .. .. .. _. . _ . _ ._. . 1 . . . _ .. . . ' I ' . � . � _ ' , . -_" _..:--�. ;: .._.. . - � " _ "' � . . -. _ _ . : - . r _ : . _ . . - - ' . . . ' _" ' _ .. . _ - .. _ _ _ ;I '___'.--_ . '_'_ '�'�' ".'.__ ' . . . :. .-.�.. � ...-��.' � -' - +��/1`��'� �VV ��L]11V1VJl_LV�I]7 `�.�� _ ��ll1E��Y'�' �y 2�� %a �o �o�o' REGULAR MEETIIVG AGENDA l. Ca11 to Order 2. Roll Ca11 3. Citizens Requests and Comznents on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZEloTSe BEFORE SPEAKIl�TG PL�ASE COME 'I'O TI3E ppDI�Jl�d, �tD GIVE YOUIt F�L, loTAIVIE A�TI2 �DI)R�SS FO�Z 'I'I-i� li'�ViJTES 4. Planning Case No. 578-99 Property Involved: 2442 Laport Drive Consideration of a variance request for a reduced side-yard setback for the proposed home to be located at 2442 Laport Drive. Applicant: Spencer Mistelske 5 6 7 8. 9. 1. 2. 3. Consideration of Resolution 602-00, a resolution establishing the year 2000 meeting dates for the Mounds View Planning Commission. Election of Planning Commission Officers Staff Reports / Items of Information a. Previous Council Actions b. Upcoming Planning Cases Cha.irperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Adjoumznent to Agenda Meeting (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) **************************************** APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, THANK YOU. **�*********************�************** AGENDA SESSION AGENDA Review Minutes from the December 1, 1999 Planning Corrunission meeting. Review Minutes from the November 17, 1999 Planuing Comcnission meeting. Comprehensive Plan Review N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMM�PCAGENDA\2000V -5-00. WPD f: _ _ ,_ - -� , _ _ _ ________ --_ "- - __ . . -_ - �.- - -- - - -- ' - - , _ _ _- - .. :ri Ci2y of Mounc�s View P��.�� Co ��.�� ort Meeting Date: Januafy S, 2000 Title: Agenda Item: # 4 CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A REDUCED SIDE-YAItD SETBACK AT 2442 LAPORT DRNE. Iratroduction: Spancer Mistelske, property owner of Lot 3, SMLTDER ADDN.., has applied for a variance to construct a home at 2442 Laport Drive closer to the side lot line than is allowed according to the City Code zoning requirements. The reason why a variance is required in this situation is because the SMUDER plat included a thirty-foot right-of-way, named Faber Street, which is adjacent to Lot 3 to the west. The City Code requires that all buildings be set back 30 feet from any pubiic street or right of way. There is no distinction made between improved or unimproved right of way, and nor should there be. Please refer io the attached site plan and the Smuder Plat Discr�ssiv�a: Mr. Mistelske proposes to construct a house, which inclusive of the garage area, would be 75 feet wide. Rather than eliminate a garage stall and part of the home, Mr. Mistelske is requesting a variance from the requirement to maintain a 30-foot setback from the unimproved Faber Street right of way. The 30-foot right of way was dedicated with the platting of the Smuder Addition in 1968. At 30 feet, this right of way cannot support a street and it is not anticipated that the right of way would ever be improved without an additional 30 feet frozn the adjoining property to the west. While sta.ff would be in support of granting this variance, as the hardship to the applicant is clear; the Planning Commission should give some thought as to ihe potential developrnent possibilities of this particular area, especially considering that the City of Mounds View has control over Smuder Addn.. Lot 4, directly south of Mr. Mistelske. As the Planning Commission is aware, the City is Lindergoing a fairly exhaustive study of the wetlands south of Highway 10 (Old Highway 118) to determine with greater accuracy where the wetlands actually are. �� !� ., � : i , _ .� � :.,�.�-__�--�_ 4- � �- =-a � _ � : � . � . = .r =-� � - - Mistelske Variance Report January 5, z000 Page 2 The results of this study may greatly af�'ect the course of development in this area, making parcels such as Lot 4 more attractive to developers. 1Recorreanesac�ation: Direct staffto draft a resolution approving or denying the variance request of Mr. Mistelske. If ihe Planning Commission were to approve a variance, staff would recommend that the home not be any closer than 10 feet to the Faber Street right of way. l �;..��i/!/ti.z � �/�✓.��J��7%L James Etzcson, Planner Attachments: 1. Planning AppIication 2. Zoning Map 3. Plat Map 4. Site Plan C:\OFFICE\WPWII�I\WPDOCSITERICSON�MISTELSK.RPT �t��v �ro �t { �� . — i ry,. f�g-h?� ��, � � z � �� i,�''� � E�e ti��:� r�.� o.:. r b�, 2 Lr8 I�u' K�_.','u- : )r�j�:t(:i S:�v .. J�.i:: .� p°�,, �3I;?,;�l;�r fo�R�Jt ° Parrne'��a � � �t ~��'�%��{�/e, -��<;,�.,�c�t.. � � �� .Fid� ( L'iA �.�l��l�'�'� ��.��.�D�°l�'Y�.I��' ��PE��'�kil�'� ��LOP1�I�dT A�P]LgCA�'][�T� 2401 Highway 10, Mounds �iew MN 55112 �'I�as� �'ype �r Pcint B�afo�aan�tiou� - Co�p�lete �ofh Si�es mf'g'inis lE�r�e 612�717�4020 612-7�4-3462 - FAX AppGcant Infoe�nation /" l Name ofApplicant __��-�c2.;' %� � S'��' �S �� TelephoneL� � Z-I ��7 — 7 2. 1� Address � ° S y�{.S �J ac ks'o � r� v-e_�p�'�i� 3� f Fax ✓� U t,� v� �.! I�. �J , �'I /U �.�'/ / 2 , In�terest in Property (check appropriate box) � Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner o Lessee, Operator, Manager p Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other (explain) Applicants mast provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal Address or C,e:neral Location Legal Description Property Identification # (PIN #) # of Acres CtuTent Zoning Zy�fz �9�� t 3 . .�1�� Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Rezoning ❑ Major Subdivision ❑ Minor Subdivision ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) ❑ PUD Amendment ❑ Conditional Use Permit j�'' Vaniance ❑ Code Appeal ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan o Wefland Alteration Permit ❑ Wetland Buffer Pernut ❑ Floodplain Pecmit ❑ OPher vtd P�' /"7`��L � ��'� $250 $250/acre; min $250 max $1500 $250 + $250 deposit* $200 Refer to rezoning fees $350 R-1, R-2 $75; all others $250 R- I, R-2 $100 all others $250 $100 . $ I 25/acre; min $125 max $750 R-1, R-2 $150; all others $200 R-1, R-2 $25; all others $100 $200. *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The appIicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incu�red costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) daps after consideration of the application is completed, Please complete the reverse side of this appiication. /, � � . 3 `��8�' . { � l E�� i i�' X1{, r y��. _ ' . t S <� �! Ih � s I � . � t �C's�� of l�ounds �eew,1�1 -- - — — ` lDevelopment t�ppiicafion g��e � . Present Use of Properly � Undeveloped/Vacant ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) Properly Classification Descrip�ion of ❑ Abstract �/t r� q nct ❑ SingIe Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelling Q Tndustrial Establishment ❑ Torrens .� / ��, /'n � U � : C� '� r Str�� t�- S"� 7' � ciG jC �rv �^� BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, TF-iE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. - '1 � l) \ � �? /• ,::::�, � Signature of Applicant �-r.�}� - ` �i(,L ---�_ ,:, � J ,� Name of Applicant (typed/printed) �'e�1C er- l�l r'S � �S l�� Signature of Property Owner Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner r C-� �Gc`� �%.C% � - S'�th�� - � rsf-� lSk� �T y� ,_ 1 ct G !S�'G ,'1 �i' _ �7�i ,J L � /°Lb �.n� f V ��' c,� , %%li,� .�.�(/ Z �� rz) 9�7 — 7Zi� ***********************�******************************************��**************************** FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal ��-� S` �1 �'1 Date of Acceptance Assigned to: _ Planning Case No. ��-� -�� 60-day Limit ( 20-day limit _ Fees Paid: Account # Check # Application: -�' I o�.5 J o o � 3 �'f-lsi� _S9 LI-ol Park Dedication: Deposits: Other; Totat: Receipt N:IDATA\GROUPS\COMDE'V�FORMS�DEVAPP.FOR 1/98 t << a 0 � � � �. ) 4 ,.._. � 821 � 820 d a_�.....� s�a O...._.._ 81� �2 Q, •, ___ _ . . __ ___ _ ____ _ _ _ ' --- �j_ I � } , - - - - „ � y � �.._....._..P._.�.: ��f �.....��.... � G y w� _� �.�_..�.__.�.. � wq y m.�..� � SHERWOOD ROAD � ,� o � � Q ��?� � �n f � ! �°n � $�J�^ 8�85 j � i � , � � �(80�81 80Q� g � ¢ j g .. � ...�._,..... .� . �,.. � ,.�. c� �'....N..-.�.�..,.... $�8 � �N ` N �...N_�. N 1,..,.-....,..., _....�..� �M;h �.....i 2 .��.�..�.. .�.� ..�.�.a...,� a f ; .— � g Y 8071 � 80�0 8071 ��.� 8070 07 N j N � � w.... F.......:.... �,., �Q � 80�1 .__ ..��...�.. � ..__r�� GREENFI�\�'�� i �j o0 M ' ►^ � M �; N� N � � � N ,.— '� � �; r I� � N r r c 8046 8051 � $�� 7947 '� I '6 � ..........�. .,�....,_._. ...�...�.,,...,�.�...._.�..� .....�...,......._.�....,... 7945 7�4 � .._. �R . EN �8 Z w ,_.�.,:..,,...._�.m.�wM...�.. � ,�....._...,�...,._....,y.., w 7943 � p 8035 � f 8024 8027 � 801 7941 � 7940 >°'°'��' PF � �Q J �...�......�,..........,.,..._ � ....�.,._ _.._..�,...,.�........_ e 7939 ....,.,�......_._, _..�,..�...,,..,.�..�._.... . - _ �-�....�...._..,,....�..� � 801 7937 ��7936 7935 a say f �� $0�0 8005 7933 � '�'°""� _...��..,_.�..,.�...w,�.�.,��....._�,...,,..�..�._..., ,,...,�.�........... ._._..d_.,,.m_._ 7932 3� 7931 � a 79�'7 i984 7989 7988 '�929 7...928 7927 � pMr.....�._..,�...�.�. _._....M.�..,....._._�..,w.�...._.-,. 7925 ' 7924 ��+� r � E ,�,,,, p 7923 >4 79y5 � 7980 7971 ( 79�8 7921�7920 , i ��,.+ �� Zoning Map Planning Case 578-99 Applicant: Mistelske Setback Variance Location: 2442 Laport Drive .e�\� . .. i : :.� �. �. - . _ ' r .: . .: .. - � _ _ _ . . s � �� ' ��,:.� - ` . �, _ �t'� ____ '_�. -.��"__�_�___ . _ 4'_ - -..-�d' � �''-. . LY ...¢ �� ,��_.�... ;� _ - .::.� sz-.:= � W ��.! � � vJ � /� � i� / J� �"� � � � -� ` f .� o �~L T � �p„� � iv _ �� _ � � o M Site Plan Pla.tuung Case 578-99 Applicant: Mistelske Setback Variance Location: 2442 Laport Drive f- F� N�-E ��\� T 142, G _ �4 � I �5� - i - -- - -- __ _k ,- � ��i _ – , �, -i � m �- ' i I � � �02 � �'�C�y � �� --- --- ► ��y7o � li C3) �� /e ; � � CITY �� 128.0 _1�5 _ � Jao � I , CONTRAN S �1� is�}� � Css) � �9� 1 �I� WET �s 17 � ` � w'f� --' ' S o al -� ( 6 -p, • � 3. � ; � �i ��e 3� ►� ��?_ �_ _— 42.. 4� � � �� (�� ( L ui l5 � �!6) "' �C�►) � �(i3) `� � � � I �h� II � g 3 I e��' . 83�� a b3, ,�84_ �z�. �� -:� (Unimproved) � ; LAPORT DRIVE i � ' 95 - 125 �8 . 8 3 9O � 4�� ) `� �57� 8 cn 3 1� I� � c'? � �� —L°-- 9 . � c-f- go C43) m 3.� (�a) � � c4� � � � � � 4(s3) C54� 5 _� ' r 131,9'7 5 ` g3.95 C�8) 3 (�-3) ��) ��.�) # C�-a-) SHERWOOD ROAD Plat Map Planning Case 578-99 Applicant: Mistelske Setback Variance Location: 2442 Laport Drive 1�.5— �`� �' `S4j C�a) —1 -4-- f 2 C�9) � a � 6 4 3. 5 6 _______ ��\� _ .. ._. _ _ . �+- _ _ . . _ _ _ . . . . .... _ -- .- _ I__ = F =_ ; _' . _ , . _ � --- --- = --' ---_-- ---- _-- ' ` ' ' -- - - --=- ' - - _- -_ _ _ -- -- - -- �` City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: January S, 2000 Introductaon: Agenda Item: # 5 Each year, the Planning Commission adopts an annual meeting schedule, which sets the regular meeting dates for that year and the subrruttal deadlines for applicant submissions. Discussion: Staff has prepared for the Planning Commission's consideration the Year 2000 meeting schedule. It does not appear that any major holidays (4th of July, Christmas, etc.) interfere with the typical lst and 3rd Wednesday schedule. Recommendation: Approve Planning Commission Resolution 602-00, a resolution adopting the Year 2000 Planning Commission meeting schedule and applicant submittal deadline as presented. 1 r�� ° E.�' i!✓]i'I�f,d ��'�t�ci1 �.r7'V James Eracson, Planner Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution 602-00 2. E�chibit 1, Year 2000 Meeting Schedule C: IOFFICEI WPWINI WPDOCS I PLANNING 1602-RES. RPT � __ .��_ —�. � �I � -.: " �---:. � �' . . ': -: ��:_. :-.. � �-.� �J _ i.(I _ - 4 _ - _ ' """"' . __' _'""__' ' - ...,.-.... ' '___ ".._ _ ' ""'... _....-_ ._.-. i..' """"_. _ . "�"_'. �_ . .__ _�. ,.__ '.�_.... . _. . :'. . , .. r I � I I a MOUNDS V�W PLANNING COMMISSION R�SOLUTION NO. 602-00 CITY OF MOUNDS V�W COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINN�SOTA RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATES AND APPLICANT SUBNIISSION SCHEDULE DATES FOR YEAR 2000 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission will be holding two business meetings per month during the year 2000; and, WHEREAS, developers, citizens or other interested parties should be advised of deadlines for materials used by staff to prepare reports used by the Planning Commissioners to decide on a particular development issue; and, WHEREAS, a display of ineeting dates and submission deadline dates be established to provide an orderly system for use by the Planning Commission, staff and general public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Mounds View establishes meeting and submission timetable dates setting deadlines for submission of materials for agenda sessions of the Planning Commission. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Exhibit 1, attached hereto, becomes an integral part of this resolution. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that if the Planning Commission is required to or desires to hold special or emergency meetings, they will do so in accordance with State law, Code requirements and its Bylaws. Adopted this Sth day of January, 2000. ATTEST: (SEAL) C: \OFFICE\WP WIN�WPDOCS�PLANNING\602-00. WPD Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director _ _ _ --- - _ ; ,. _�� .' - - - : -- - _ - - —�=- � . - --------=' _---__ - - ---- - E: . ,- � 3 "O a� s v � �y C � � 'b � p �O � � � ..r O E � � U U �Q � .� c � a �•,� � � � ......................... . .... .. ...... ...... � �� N L'��,i !ri t`r� Cl] � C`�E S37 � N;.,�°J �"�"' �� CV N '� a- � N r" � r Ctid C'�.f LY] S� �"� � 1"'� �t' .�-- '�k' � 'CC3 ]�""" C!� � CV Ltil ��- � N LYS r" � C'�1 � � �� r- t�7 � � C`V �'3 � ��N C'tiE �-- d- � � � e- cxa � � � � � � � � � � �� N � f"`' e-�- i t L�V � � �� t�ti,E � �� O. C,O L^�? �i7 C'�] Q i'1 �+�- � � 4`a � � � t�! � � 1- t�! fw! Q i'r3 � � � t� ^+� �^- C� L.C7 L� C�•� Q7 � CQ i.C3 C1J Ct r^„ N �""" �O a- CV L'�,t �� r C�7i � � O f"• �d' � �,.ti, � t� 3'�• C-� � �' a- e- K� �] a-� C+.) N +�' +�-- j-- tV +a7 � C�I C'�7 �� C'�J C�[ : �� C'�1 i'k'3 � � � j� N �7'1 ( � } L`J ./ O'] 1 {�D 1� ti...J � Cd�l �i3 ,J "�J c'`� � ,��, � � f [�.[; � � c'� c� F--� r► ��- .- ao ,�. � G� �n C3 ��t r- � � N N r-^ � S'�J � � C�1 � C 1 � �` � a�- [Q�i N M � �.? 1� � . � LS� � C�t � �" � C'V (:i? C� ��, ' C3 � � G� C�'3 .'�' � ['�.i O? t� � � r-- �(�j �� - i`wJ Q , e-- �-- C'� � � � �. TS? C� C'3'7 i'S 7� � L�. i'� 'C�' 11 �' " c.�-+ �'T s— e— {'V ��'- N e�-- [1€ N � �. �. �C7 . N CV G3� � N � ' � � S'�'�t N �...�. �.,� c� t�. e� �,� u-� rU �ss �, c*� a� c� �--� r CV e-- C`J i� �^^ � C�i � � � � {'\: � r- ('s] i1i � �r,." � ,�..� C''ti� �.. �--., �, � �s an cv csa � � � � � � ,� c� c � � N N : � N C�,{ � � � r" � s�v c�o� � � � °a cF`°� ,�'c`� � � rMV c°� �j .g c� � � � � �} � CCr u� � r.,.. � � t� rn � � �- �- c�,t � � N R'� 9.L.. y"� � � �� i"N1! C'�� N N �� S'�U M �.:�. r� r�.� c�� K""r � ni r- �� iv {�� ra o r• � oo �s-� +� .- ao ~ � � tV C`+�I ��' �" N '�` r iV C"h� � � � � C�€ � � .�- LV M 1� � � N t�i }"- '�" � � � i�l tT� � N CY3 � � � � t��3 � tT � �"^" t� �``r '�° �� LS7 C"J l7] � ,�. � LSCU 7.1'� � � i'�'3 � ti»•- r-- N � N C``�� r»- r- L�3 cJa �� c�.� tri � c�+.� � r"' � t a c��a ,a ��:'- N � � Cl� � 0 ... � � � O U ° °A o � �D � O � a�W � o �� 0 � N � � � .� '-' � � � p.� � -�� 3� � � � � � � � ��„ y 'd � n v M N O N � �.y•�� N ,L�'�'' � t� � � � � N � � � � � � o � � a � 'C: t� � Q � �, o ?? .,., 'b cn y� �1' N ��•��o � � 'b � ��"`��A y � d.d � A on a � � � � f, � � bA a 0 _ _______ . : � --- - . - _ ._ — :. - - - .. ___ - - �_-� -- — _ -- ' -.-� _ ' - City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: January 5, 2000 Title: ELECTION OF OFFICERS Introductaon: Agenda Item: # 6 According to the Planning Commission bylaws, the Commission is to vote to elect its officers at the first meeting of each year. The Chairperson and Vice-chairperson positions are the only offices within the Planning Commission. Discussion: The following represents the section of the Planning Commission Bylaws pertaining to the election of of�icers: N. OFFICERS A. OFFICERS NAMED: The officers of the Planning Cominission shall consist of a chairperson and vice-chairperson. The Commission may create and fill such other offices from its members, as it may determine, to transact Commission business. In addition, the Director of Community Development, or his or her designee, sha11 act as the recording secretary for the Commission for purpose of preparing meeting minutes. B. ELECTIONS; TERMS Chairperson: Based upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Mayor, with the approval of the City Council, shall appoint the chairperson of the Corrunission each year. At the first meeting in January, the Commission sha11 conduct an election in order to make its recommendation for the chairperson, following the procedure in Section N.B.3. The name of the person recommended for chairperson shall be forwarded to the City Council for action at its first meeting in January. _ ; _ ; ' - - - ' � - _ _:. -.. , . � _ . -- - - � -- .- --- - M_- = -- - - --- -_� ___. -_;' � x :� �_- - - --.-�. Planning Commission Report January 5, 2000 Page 2 2. Vice-Chairperson: The Plar►ning Commission sha11 elect a vice- chairperson each year at its first meeting in January, following the procedure in Section N.B.3. � 5 Recommendation: Election Procedure: For each office, the chairperson shall invite nominations from Planning Commission members. After nominations have been received, the chairperson sha11 entertain a motion to close nominations, If such motion is made and passed, and more than one nomination has been made, the chairperson sha11 distribute ballots to the Commission members and each member sha11 write his or her selection on the ballot. The recording secretary sha11 tally the ballots and announce the nominee receiving the most votes. In the event of a tie, the recording secretary shall announce the nominees tied in the voting and balloting shall be repeated until an election occurs. If only one nomination has been received, the chairperson may conduct the voting by voice vote. If a majority of the members present vote in the affirmative for the nominee, the nominee sha11 be elected. Assumption of Duties: The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall assume o�ce at the first meeting in February of each year. Term of Office: The chairperson and vice chairperson sha11 serve one year terms, and may be re-elected to additional terms in accordance with this Section N.B, Vote for the offices of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson as outlined within the Bylaws. The results of this election will be forwarded to the Mayor for his and the Council's consideration. t.,�c:c�YVt.�,,9 �/�/L James Ericson, Planner C:\OFFICE\WPVJIN\WPDOCS�PLANNING�ELECT.RPT _ _ _ _ ; i- - - PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNIloTG COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Comm Stevenson, and Miller. Members Absent: Commissioner Braathen, *�riitil .�� Also Present: Planning Associate Jim;;;;��icson Council Liaison, Roger Stigney, and ,��corder� Index �� I�I1 s Planni�� '�a.�� ,�ca. �'74-99, `�� request for �;�'<.a�a��i�.��a1 IU��, and a Developr�� .��s -w �,� Vanman Com�� t•��s �41n � �:- '�. /"�a 1 �x Discus��n regarding �'�.�,�� and t,��"adjacent City I�.�rr;a��E��` �, . 2401 Highway 10� 7.00:� lc�;, Regular Meeting November 17, 1999 Mounds,`4�`�t'�w City Hall �� 1�� ?��w, MN 55ll2 :"'',�,"'C� ;'.Fu� J'�f� ��.�.., • �kp ,Noveit�b"fiK. :�`I.F �,��,�� ohnson, Kaden, Laube, Director Rick Jopke, �:;c�� 1�:� I�oad. Y�iscussion regarding a �� k��€ _��nrise United Methodist Church ��s� �r� �;:n��ansion to the Church facility. �;� ��.�i��i��, Applicant. i: ��isal for a Walgreens on the Videen property ��,al �lanning Case �a. SP-074-99 r-7 �:i�, r-�.�� s e-�visions to ��i�posed Ordinance 642, an ordinance amending the rrf�f�zz�� c�� re��.i'�r1'to driveway widths and curb cuts. ��.�::� �pc,c �� 3=�� x�i��g Case No. SP-071-99, Consideration ofResolution 597�99, a Jl�esolution Recommending Denial of Proposed Ordinance 644 Relating to Billboards. StaffReports / Items of Information Page � 6 15 19 21 r , �,.=-= ----.�' ' ; ,: : �- _ _ -� - _ . , - -- = - - . -- - _� - : ;.:. ; i Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 � Regular Meeting Page 2 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 4. Approval of Minutes , X.fi;G......... � . . ... . A. October 20, 1999 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Berke to approve th corrected. 5. Ayes — 8 Planning Case No. 574-99 Property Involved: 7687 Long Lake Discussion regarding a request for a and a Development Review to allow Applicant: Vanman Companies (R�? The app��.�n� °��f�,�, pre Planning As The applica��'��r��=E� Church �s��equ�siiKi� , ..:.�,. �<:>.. the ex�ision of their ( at t �` �rte ��'" � since 1957. �« Nays — 0 to the -ise) , ;i:F�,� � � r;port as follows: 21 ;s �� - ; �°�'� ��'� , , obPr'`��0, 1999 ��1� �kr�� ; ��utes as ' � �Y�� notion carried. �``i��i�ise United Methodist Church facility. i.e:�, �•�;��-�senting the property owner, Sunrise United Methodist a Conditional Use Permit and Development Review to allow for �`y located at 7687 Long Lake Road. The Church has been located «<.,r . Associate EriGSt1n indicated the Church was damaged beyond repair in 1965, after a tornado ,-;<:::#� ;_aa-ea, and:, �r�;�s completely renovated the following year. He noted that the Church and the \V :�� r��ented an award for the design of the structure. Planrti�t�;-�h.ssociate Ericson stated the proposed expansion will serve as additional space within the sanctuar�y ��d worship areas, and will provide for additional child care and Sunday school areas toward the rear of the Church. The expansion will also provide office space for the pastor and other church workers, and add a meeting room and multi-use space for facility. He explained the total area ofthe expansion is appro�cimately 7,400 square feet, which would bring the total square footage of the Church facility to 20,464 square feet. _ _. � - Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 Planning Associate Ericson stated the general requirements considered for a Conditional Use Pernut are outlined in the Staff Report. He advised that the specific requirements indicate the front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty-five feet, and this provision is met. He stated another requirement provides that sideyards shall be no less than thirty feet, and staff believes this provision to be met as well, however, there is an accessory building on the site which encroaches into the sideyard setback, s::<:: � and is located 20 feet from the property line. He explained that staff interprets t��'"provision to address the Church structure, itself, and not any accessory structure f' Planning Associate Ericson noted a specific requirement than one acre. He explained the site is approximately E wetlands and upland woods. He indicated that adequate sc landscaping is provided, particularly with the presence o�' the mature trees and landscaping on the site. Pla.nnulg Associate Ericson stated there is a requirement is provided. He indicated there are 98 parking stalls on t facility, as well as for the expansion, according to the �� seating in the worship area might be made av��;i��bl�, �� additional parking to be provided. He poittlt�d o�ai. Rl ta additional parking if it is determined to be�=�;i�cessaryx ' Planning Associate Ericson explai service entrances is not applicable; provisions of Section 1125 O1 c�f pertain to th� adverse af�� r��;� Permit _r��;��;: �Y�d that ;�:�jt ��.a�; three stY�eeis, '; from neighbo this a, w ini�rtua� ��.��_F�:F�:�� 3hall be no �� and th� �v� to t� o� �� :rlang and access to the site site, wj�4c;fa �1��°�;; t:he need for the existing �d�. I'1� Y��c c� �1�� additional temporary r9:2x;;r, staff belte�`�s this does not warrant �, ��;' ��;z��i�r��'� room on the site to create �ion perta�;':ni�rig �o adequate off street loading and �osal. I��:��dvised there us a requirement that the �;:<:::� ode az� rnet. He explained that these provisions ��c�difionally reviewed with the Conditional Use �s no ��f��.�fi<�'�� ects are presented with this use, or with the '��; ir�c�icatied with the location of the site, which is adjacent to ��I��zci� and wetlands, the proposed use is sufficiently separated Planning ��ociatc Ls-i�scs�� lained that with the second part of this request, the Development Reviev��here are dim��asp�,�� °equirements that must be met. He advised that all of these „ > req��i��ments have bee� �� {��i�l�. the exception of the parking lot setback on the west side of the prc�p�rty, along Long Lai��; Road. He provided the Commission with the site plan, which indicates tl��t� �� parking lot is a�t�'roximately two feet from the property line. He explained, however, even ,S��hat all the requirements are met, in that no alterations to the parking lot are �ed that the parking lot represents a non-conforming situation, and unless the sing to redo the parking lot, it should be allowed to remain. P1ar�r�iYig As�ociate Ericson advised that with the expansion, the applicant would be required to provide 92 parking stalls, and at present there are 98 parking stalls on the site. He pointed out that if the Planning Commission desires to consider the potential 48 additional temporary seats, as indicated on the site plan, an additional twelve stalls would be required. He explained that if that were the case, there would be a shortage of six parking stalls on site. He stated there is adequate �- ��-r_:.r `�� ; _'`�I • � � ,.__.� :-��, :. �S E r'_..�: � ; �r _ � . . _ _ _ . �,.-t, �:' � - - - . F . . _ . �_ � . . ,. . _ _ _. _ '-'_- .v., ., _�.:,_-. --_... . . -: -_ . �. .. ,. . - - 'I . " � - -- - � .._.. Mounds View Planning Commission November 1'7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 space to provide the additional six parking stalls, and if the Planning Corrunission wishes to enforce that, staff recommends the site plan be redrawn to indicate proof of parking, rather than an actual requirement that the developer provide the six stalls. Planning Associate Ericson indicated staff feels a shortage of parking on the site _would be self �.::. correcting, in that the congregation would certainly inform the Church., if addit��?�al parking is necessary. He stated staff recommends the Commission allow the parki��, 'r.o ��ain as it is. He explained that at some point in the future, if the temporary seattng beGar��b, �� r�aax�ent, the parking requirements can be revisited through the Conditional Use Peri�t�� vhich car.� �� i��,w�d by the Cit,y= at any time. ' A �<k,.�• Planning Associate Ericson stated that in regard to the ws will be more than 100 feet from the wetland, and as suc Planning Associate Ericson stated there are no plans landscaping will be provided. He stated that staff has c adequate, and the representatives of the Church ha��; i�; landscaping that will be removed with this expansic�t� �r�jt site, and the care of the existin landsca in �x �� g p �x��taff b�t�� detailed landscape plan. � `'��'' i`�:a"Y /.>S:`4i'� Planning Associate Ericson stated which typically require discussion.: therefore, there is no need to revz�' of Long Lak� Road, and tii�F;� z i� r�� stated �ti�z� ��;; two aG��y� ��ii drive aisles �� sa�<,'f� ouf, h� recommendin�; �� ;��{�r��s 1��; Planning A�ociat� �ric� �� ie.�i impact� ��i`this use are mc:�, �€�t� and,��ect staff to draft � �•�� s:;:<><: no,,��►tstanding issues v�rifi� ih: Gtiut�,cil is warranted. �� 0 ed n i�'e"site, all conG t�°�a�;��o�� tiivities ?��r permits woul�l �� r�quired. ��t� �`�� :?ndscaping, yet additional cl p��t ��r:'��;��.r�r�scaping on the site is �h�y ��r;�1�p zr,��replace the trees and addec� r��r�[; g;iven the history on the ar�ul�a x�c�f be necessary to require a �:;L � f`.�, k��A�� are ot��r`�cons�der�tions with the Development Review, G.� ��'�explai�j� ihere are.�:rio plans to alter the lighting on the lot, this prc��sion. H;e'��tdicated access to the Church is taken off other �.��;�� ec�� County Road I or from Bronson Drive. He on L�� , �}Ii� Road, and if the parking area were ever �, a�7c� ��te��i�t co achieve a greater separation between the two �°, �l��Y--� are no plans of this nature at this time, and staiiis not �vi�� '�gard to the access or parking lot. ied staffbelieves the specific and general criteria, and the adverse ;i'efore recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposal on for action at their next meeting. He stated stafffeels there are proposal, and therefore, a positive recommendation to the City �tated the dimensional requirements listed on Page 6 of the StaffReport indicate on Long Lake Road is proposed to be 35 feet, and inquired if this was in error. Plannir►g l�ssociate Ericson stated this was in error and should indicate a 75-foot setback. He explained that on Page 2, Item A of the StaffReport indicates the existing front yard setback for the Church to be 90 feet along Long Lake Road. He noted with the expansion of the worship area, that setback would decrease to 75 feet, which is well within the minimum setback requirement of 3 5 feet. He pointed out that the proposed setback of 35 feet on County Road I was also in error, and should _ _ . _ _. - _ ^ _ _ _ � _ _ _ . i ,.. . • : . - --� =---- _ -°--- -- �- '-- _. . . ------ , _ , . � _ _ - -- ; . -- � ' ' --=.:_. _ : - Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 indicate 47 feet, which is the e�sting setback, and will not be altered. He advised these items would be corrected within the 5taff Report. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the seating capacity would increase from 275 to 368, and if these calculations were used to forrnulate the parking requirements. Planning Associate Eric�on stated this was correct. k��s�� <<x�.�- ;;�; Chairperson Peterson stated he did not believe it was necessary �o, indica��; �r�}��'�if parking with this proposal. He explained it has been the practice of the I'l��r�irtg Comta�i:�E�,��r:� it� avoid requirit�� pavement, in speculation of a future need. He stated in thi� �ase there appear� c� �� af�°xcient rQt�m to add parking in the future, if necessary. Commissior� .�tevenson�<:�t�.ted h� ��c�r E�:��< r+ t�.•��is statement. Commissioner Kaden stated he also agreed. He addec� ih� desire to provide sufficient parking for their customers or .�� it will be provided. ChairpersonPeterson inquired ifthe Church had,,;m��`� �� j��; Ride type of service, and if a portion of the �o� rr%oial� ��, � c,� �:; Q;.;..,•. �� Carey Lyons, representative of Sunris�`United �ethodi�'r' Church had a tentative agreement for fi�i3S service� liowever, �� ior �;1� or business would likely '�h�refore, if it is necessary, %us route for a Park and purpose. °�h stated several years prior, the were not presently providing this. Commissioner Kaden stated the p�rsonage l��i.�.�izr�g was;�c�cated 20 feet from the property line, and . lHi� inquired if th�: 30�foot setb?��:�� r-�quiremeYa� �1�, t��3t �;�1'evant because this structure was not being altered. Planning l��s�� r�o� ��1a�.�� t��i �taffinterprets this setback requirement to be applicable to principle :,�t7-�o.;��-�;_ �.�.� advised ��<zi :��acks for accessory structures are typically less than the setback for th� ��+!��k�� u�.�3l��t��, �� '�ti�� small house is considered by staffto be an accessory structure ta �li�e priK�c;i�� r1;:� t��ich is the Church. Plar�g Associate Encso� ��P��E�d if it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to direct staff to r��ft a resolution of ap�roval �'or consideration at the next meeting. ``�tated it appeared this proposal was well prepared, and there were no lssues corrections. He added that the proposal appears to be a benefit to the Church as the community. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff would prepare a resolution for consideration at the next meeting of the Planning Commission, and would schedule a second public hearing before the City Council at approximately 7:00 p.m., on December 13. , ;.. -...JI � - � _ . _ � i �:�--- -- --- � . - --_-- - _- _ >_ � _ ---.�.=.�� .-_ _ ,.� : : Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 �I Regular Meeting Page 6 6. Discussion regarding TOLD proposal for a Walgreens on the Videen property and the adjacent City Remnant Parcele Community Development Director Jopke stated this item has previously come before the Planning Comrnission, and is the ongoing discussion of the property located across from City I3a11, a portion :�:::., of which is a remnant parcel created by the realignment of Edgewood Drive :.. and the; �i��ately owned Midland/Videen property. � `��'' Community Development Director Jopke stated in the past, this matter and advised the City Council that specific types c would be appropriate. He indicated the City Council is �;:i has also referred this matter to the Parks and Recreatic��' issues, as well as the wetland area, which comprises a gc��>i Community Development Director Jopke stated the City Ci before the Planning Commission and the Parks and l�e proposal, so that the Commissions can provide the�r t�pt�� regarding whether or not the proposed developtnen� �F F?p� to make the City owned portion of the proper`t�'ava��;�°a�.F, Edgewood Drive right-of-way. .,f�'' �s=> Community Development Directo�� and Terry Moses, representative of current ideas and alternatives for the Parks and Recreation �s��x�i matter. Bob Cunri��ka<au��f3, ,�� proposing to bx-ii�� .� �r:r��x the Commiss��z wa�h i �� F depicted.,;,.�;�e'stat�� t1�� a: :.�� parcel ts :approximately " remt�t,nt parcel and the � �� lanr� i�at would not be u; �i��i�pa has disct �:��j�a€9�ad. of tha p ion for �evie;'�,,� t�� °aiYiage of the site. . ��°�1 ��,�� aesied the developer come �aiia{, �'c��ssion and present their expl�ir��t ��i 2_'c�uncil is seeking input �priate, a�� if�� City should proceed �� `��)a�per, as well as vacating the k� stated BC�' Curuvng�in, of TOLD Development Company, �eri `Iadee�;' Yhe prop�y owner were available to present their site. k�� x��la�ned,��ommissioner Stevenson, as a member of n, cot�;�c� ,�i �v�t��a summary of that body's discussion of the �rj�Y�iC��,�v�; �� `�"�r D Development Company, stated his company was �r�a� �rc��:: �e� ��;��way 10, and to the City of Mounds View. He provided r�,��; oi i1��e �y-ti'pos�d site, and provided a brief orientation of the areas �fi�3�d��/�Iideen parcel is approximately 9.4 acres in size, and the remnant '� �� n size. He indicated the concept of their proposal is to take the ��. :K�r�1x' of Edgewood Road owned by the City, and trade that land for the �ized �"or development, which represents a fairly even trade. �✓.�k` ;'.a ��ingham pr��vided the Commission with a site plan, which indicated the re-engineered ��, �rr��::1r� ��r;=r �rid was created from the drawings of SEH. He explained the parcel is large ��;�� r�� ,�<'��odate some ancillary development adjacent to the proposed Walgreens store. He ��ac;a.��:d9< �;��'eA; �v �ias been identified as an appropriate site for a retail or restaurant building, as well as a possible clinic location, which use appears to be missing from downtown Mounds View. He noted some direction had been provided to staffto consider this to be a downtown area, or even the establishing of a downtown Mounds View. He requested the Planning Commission consider that a drugstore and clinic or restaurant are cornerstones of downtowns as they have been known since the 1950's, and will continue to be in the new millennium. _. _ ' - � -- - -_: _ -" - p=R,� - �' -- _ -- - - —_ Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 Mr. Cunningham requested that if the Planning Commission and the City Council support this project, they be pernutted to proceed through the Planned Unit Development process. He indicated they had met with the Parks and Recreation Commission two weeks prior, and explained the concept and the development. He stated Commissioner Stevenson was present at this meeting, and requested he address the proposal in his capacity as a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission. <<:, � Commissioner Stevenson stated the focus of the Parks and Recreatioaa Cct�nm��on was not with �.:, regard to what the development would be, in terms of a drug,�tore, r�st�l.�r�a�i ��c. He stated their main focus was upon the trade factor, and the wetland, whicl� ��a�� woul� �d�� 9.r�'� ,�otential naturaa area. He pointed out that two years prior, the question Y�ari'��arising re�,��'c��F�r; �� y��ential of ��e k� . wetland area, in terms of developing a ball field. He ;tt`�tllcated th±� ��ozr��r�z�t;i��r� ��A � ut��i��-the �;»,. impression that they could not utilize the area for ball fi�l�;�, �� ii h�"s been �oo wc3 �� it�� st. Commissioner Stevenson advised the Parks and Recr utilize the suggested trade area to their advantage. He Edgewood Drive area for a ball field, and did not wisl along Highway 10. He indicated there was a posit�ve �re�+ to utilizing the wetland area for this purpose Mr. Cunningham stated the Parks and consideration of the relocation of the stc agreed to provide the funding for t�a unspecified amount, which would ba �;�j the construction of some the traiYs; arn Cotnmissic��1' �,�der► inc zone. IVf�r ..�,��r��i��;ham COI712711SSlOYI�fl" ��1C��:Cd I'?' Mr. Cunn�n�ham �x�lair�� H. �<<.. that t1��3�:�lte plan was a = t; corr�p'I�tion, and is only i that all amon� ion felt they could possibly �a�y could not utilize the old ��?al soccer field location �'�t��i�issioners with regard C��'nx7��;��4� �� '�xought forward the economic t�rition y�c�s�r3, �-��; itldicated that his company has �Ie addeci':�hey also have agreed to provide an �e futura �s an allowance to the Park District for l�r c.ar��iderations. � i� ��:�;;propos�t� ti��j� �d7�ment would encroach upon the wetland buffer �� a� �Si°c��bl�� woulcl. st�cJ �;��s��r.,��±;�s7n of an area indicated on the site plan. �� is area represented the preliminary proof of parking. He explained f,F ,,� �;I'iminary plan, which would be subject to much revision prior to y�c�{;Qi 'r.o indicate the massing and some relationships at this point. 3`they would like to obtain access to Highway 10, at minimum a right-out, access would not have to occur on Edgewood Drive. inquired how large the proposed facility would be. Mi-. Cunnir►g��am stated the proposed Walgreens building would be approximately 15,000 square feet. He explained that the size of the prototype has increased in relation to the development located on County Road I, which is approximately 13,000 square feet. He pointed out that the footprint of the additional structure on the site is approximately 5,000 square feet. i`: � ... .. . ._� h . .:._ .. r �e -- . � �i�� . . . --------° ---4.L+ :-�u r� _=�-----' ' -'— � - _ _ �= _ .:. � f� - - _ - � �±' -<� '`' - - ' �' - - Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 Commissioner Johnson inquired regarding the amount of wetland located on the site. Terr�y Moses, representative of Prudential Commercial Services, and Robert Videen, the property owner stated he has estimated the wetland to be approximately 4 acres in size, however, the actual size is undetermined at this point. He suggested that SEH could possibly provide thi.s calculation. Commissioner Johnson inquired if the wetland area of the site was stormwater holding pond. Mr. Cunningham stated he did not:b�lieve permit a holding pond to be located within the wetland are�x`;�;=;;;:>�" �:>: Comrrussioner Laube inquired if there was sufficient room an the parc large or larger than the existing pond. Mr. Cunningham � F+,F 4;r� � h�r�'� for this purpose. Commissioner Miller inquired how this Walgreens structure located on Lake Drive. Mr. Cunningham Drive is 13,500 square feet, and the proposed stx�ur larger than this. > ci�'�si; a sigrii location of the District would ��i(1 2 S room vou�cl €.��i��f��;c� in size to the Walgreens �he �IJ�iy�;� ,��y ��ilding located on Lake �uld b� ap�9°c��;�?�l��ly 1,500 square feet Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding �;k��'size of t�e �V�lt>_;i �� ,�o,rire in the city of Fridley. Mr. Cunningham indicated the Walgreens st=az'e in Fr�dl�y is 15,(,t;€� ;;�fi.��,� feet. c� ��,��xc' :: � � � Y �1`�. � . Mr. Cunningham advised that the, �irs�posed faeil�ty would �atilize a drive-through pharmacy, which is currently standard on �11 "stai2�'alone" �l�tl�i-�ens �tores throughout the United States. He explained th�� would not bc� ��i �y�--throug�� 9ii� �>�r��ie sense as a bank or fast food restaurant, in terms o��.p��?.�� volume, �s�a:� �x� � i�ationv�l�r�� E,si�, an average of six cars per hour utilize the Walgrer;�i� ��r�:��nugh a�,f;��ir�, __ _ Mr. Cunningha�a �+Fat'�<;�i �,�r�,� �Iai�r�A�� :l:�'� neighborhood and convenience oriented retailer. He indicated tha�,��Ccm��;;��,�>�rf� 1��; ��-r-��d ir� a convenient fashion around the front ofthe structure. He stated��he`P��1c� ��c� ��4>,��f�,�,iion'Commission indicated it was necessary that the proposed ��;;� develo�ment would be c a� x��:�y��i�: �.;vith the design of the Community Center, City Hall, and Theater buildt�igs, and they woulr� ��„�� I�at their design would fit in and compliment the other facilities in .. ... �;�xfir�x�.:��io�er Johnsa�::inquired ifthe City would gain bank credits for acquiring additional wetland. ��st�+��:��r ��,��pment Director Jopke stated there was a delineated wetland on the east end of t�x�;;�``c��r��p��kx�y�enter land, where parking is now located, and that had to be mitigated. He stated ther�, �: :1:,� r'; �� rnumber of options to mitigate the wetland, and the City chose to utilize the Woodcrest Park �.� ��. Aor this mitigation. Commissioner Johnson inquired if the City would gain some type of credits for mitigating the wetland. Community Development Director Jopke stated this is possible. He explained that in the _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ i � _ _ - _ - _ __ _ _ _ _____ : _ y; _� Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 event that more wetlands gained than removed, the City could create a bank of credits that can be utilized to mitigate other wetlands. Commissioner Johnson stated, therefore, the City would gain with regard to subject property, in that they could utilize that property to mitigate the wetlands for another development, and gain these .::r:,;,: credits. �. :::;�;�y'' Community Development Director Jopke stated this was p an overall stormwater issue in this particular area of the � some of these issues could be resolved by creating a regic controlled by the City. He added this could meet the r�� property, and replace the pond that was put in for the s5:�� Commissioner Johnson stated he was aware that the pond therefore, the City could benefit by ownership of that la Community Development Jopke advised the City Cou��il �a�� the location of the stormwater pond for the stre�fi ��'r§i��4'. on the east side of the new road, versus the w�st side, i�� t� the road might be rnoved, and less work wc�uld then b�>� �:�� # S. �:��• , ,,�,;. such matters. �;:� ,��;;;`�� Community Development Dir designations of the Commurnity Videen sit� � � �o�ed B-3, aY�c� ?�a�s Council gi�t�,°5 �lpproval, at�r� �r��€3,� Developt�e��. ��rt��ss, as 'c1°ae: c�k zoning Community L?,.esr�t4p��ic,�: ,;.,.. :., in terms of:�e zonin� �� for the �dland Vide�� Coir�ma�nity Commerci�l w�tl�� his designation. H al� ��gewood Drive n� ��s•�d �;��ould be const�i� v� � tially cotEE�{;a �'�a'''�oted there is also �rid i� I��i;; �� xt �:��:��;ussed that the�� storm�va�cA��`jsF�a:E�� a ��3�� `Iideen s��, of any.�ten�,�t �+�:vc��r,.c��i ��the ed to the east in the future, used iriia�� 't'a��>�ght when considering �� latta��n �.��7� the pond was located ��?tior� tl�t a� some time in the future, -� ��, �x� 1'��fr►s of pipe removal and other ,Jnpke at�i�ised that.��n terms of the Comprehensive Plan er, a�lc, ��t° 1'ubl�c��cilities zoning, the portion ofland onthe ;dium c��X�� o�sing designation. He stated, therefore, ifthe �sal pro�'-n��3 vat�h the zoning process through the Planned Unit ��r pro,�o:�es, it will also be necessary to clean up some of the �;t��ctaons on the property. °cro:� Jo�l�� stated the City property would require to be re-designated �� _'j,rr�prehensive Plan, as well as the Comprehensive Plan designation ��; r��lded that the Comprehensive Plan update indicates this area as a �,�i�a� 1Development, and the proposed development would be consistent inted out that other potential City actions would be the vacation of the =way, and the Wetland Buffer Permit, which would be required because within the 100-foot buffer area. ��r��i��t�a.�E ;r �„��r�;lopment Director Jopke indicated that some re-platting of this property would be req�ar�r��'; �� adv�sed it would be necessary to create an official parcel of the remnant parcel in order to transi�� ownership to the developer. He added that part ofthis process would include the City Hall property, as a corner of this property is currently a part of that parcel, and it would have to be included in the plat. He commented this would provide the City the opportunity to clean up other issues pertaining to City Hall, such as the correction of some of the utility easements. He added that Bronson Drive, located on the north side of the City Hall site, is not a dedicated road and does not �dY ; � � __ _ _ _ _ ,= - . -_ � � ..�___ __. : - �- --------- -- - - ---. _ _ . . . - -°- - - "r --- --' = Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 10 appear on any County maps as a road, but is simply a piece of roadway across the City Hall parcel. He pointed out that matters of this nature could be resolved during the platting process as well. Community Development Director Jopke stated the Council is seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission based upon the alternatives and the present proposal, in terms3Qf whether or ;s, not this development is an appropriate land use, and if it fits in with the over�ll City I��iI�`campus type of development. �� ,,; �� Commissioner Hegland inquired if there were any mainten�ti�� Community Development Director Jopke advised there wou�� i'e � if the City acquires the property and the stormwater ponds xe�t�uire made, such as trails and pedestrian areas, they must be rt��i�ain Commissioner Hegland inc�uired if MNDot would have Highway 10, and what issues were presented with regar Community Development Director Jopke indicated would be approved. He explained that the State i� � State roads. He stated although this road is in ��''p �;::.. is somewhat less restrictive in this re�ard�:�i#"inav Commissioner Johnson inquired Cunningham stated there was ap� feet of be is�u� icent t� to the wetl �3 a;he sense the additional access off of �s z-�;i�� o guarantee that this ��v�� .dditional access onto � back to the County, which and not be permitted. frontage along Highway 10. Mr. Commission�r Johnson aslc�:t� �v��re the cic�s�:�c ��..cc��s'to the site off of Highway 10 was located. Communit�r D��elopmen:i �.?��;�t��- J"opke st��3's,�ai's'access is located at County Road H-2. Commissiota:��° ,�s��„�>�, stat�d i-�� r�s��l� not anticipate a great issue with the County with regard to an access at tr►is'��.��.��>�q, � it v�ou�d� f��s� ��qiaire a new curb cut, and would utilize the old Edgewood Drive access ��g��r,a��f ��;��elo��> a� Dire�tor Jopke commented that this area was utilized in the ., .�_.� •: past, how��t�et, rt ha� u�n�t� ct�s�� of�: ,,,;�: � .. ;. �� =z> Com�ISSioner Hegland �i�'€�;�? ��i� Comprehensive Plan provides for sidewalks in this area, and ana�tt�er access might poS�'a problem in terms of pedestrian traffic. 4�ll:�lity Develop�ent Director stated these issues were very good and would require further '�r, s��v�K-, �;y would be resolved through the Planned Unit Development and Development Chairperson Peterson inquired when the transfer process of the roadway would be completed. Community Development Director Jopke stated he was uncertain. Chairperson Peterson inquired if MNDot would no longer be a factor in this consideration, once the road is turned back to the County. Community Development Director Jopke stated this was correct. _ _ _ = l , _ __ - , __ . �_ - � - _ °� •- - - _ _ �� _ - - ---� f Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 11 He indicated he was uncertain when this would occur, however, it would likely be several months before the process was complete. He pointed out that the transfer of the road was originally planned for July 1, however, there are still issues between the County and the State with regard to the road's condition at the time it is transferred. Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding the height of the proposed b�aildin�; in `��;1`ation to the Community Center. Mr. Cunningham explained the elevations of the bui�r�� i.�c��cate the parapet of the building would be approximately 20' in height. He indz��ted he �� at��`s�r�ain regarding the height of the Community Center. He pointed out however, th�r�:are addi�sc�� °c:�itectural featur� that might be employed to add bulk or height to the build�rzg so that it %�� g�x �.�i�.&� t�� surrouncl��g structures. � „F��Y`� ` �' Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the height c�i i4�c; �:ommunity �e��'��' 'building. Commissioner Johnson stated the Community Center is ��,��t€� �d;�t�?:i�l,y 18 feet in height, and the proposed structure would not likely present a great varta��;�; ��`+��k� ��k� ��{;;�;ht of other buildings, in light of the distance between the structures. He stated �`� �a�+�� I��.< <�,�E �,�� project. Mr. Moses stated that a strip of land indicated on;;th� s�� h�1� ; 66 A`;e� �x�r��, and could eventually be utilized for additional parking. He stated ��the C€�� c��:� ��N., �l�e �ond could be moved from it presently proposed location, which would'p�ovide at� ar��=. ��}, �� ,az�ately 116 feet by 300 feet that would potentially allow for a junior sizec��soccer fx��ii in ti�� C,;��. ` Mr. Moses noted that it has types of use. He pointed out Drive, an�� w�a��1 the City d� basin at Yh� �,tJr��°I of Ed��w this was' ��s,��i. i��,��;�: th� cau lov�ering �1�� -�:a �.�;,��. 5 j` ;n m+�rttioned t�k�s propert� is wet, and possibly too wet for certain t ri��:ny ye� x,ti �� her��'t�as a cul-de-sac in this area of Edgewood a��'to recor,��;�� l��yi�oadway, they inadvertently raised the catch ��,��-ive anc3 R��€;�3�t�y `10 by approximately 14 inches. He explained �' ��1�,�c�dii�e�Yla.1 �3,�ater retention, and could possibly be resolved by Mr. Moses sttit�d �1� ��<a ,`y��y3;:�t� ��'itk� E��;�� aff, who indicated there is a considerable amount of solid ground on �e site th�� c��? �d� �r��zed for ponding to serve any new development on the site, as well as to re�i��ce the e�stin�; a�a��¢� ?��' cover an area-wide stormwater problem. issioner Johnson inc�uired regarding the current status of the billboard located on the Videen 1`�1�, , I�l��;� ;;'r;a,ted ��'�iillboard was in place by way of an easement, and easements were sold for both �� ;<�j� ::�n� as well as the "V" shaped sign. He indicated this was a very small and restrictive ea��,��fi<�b:c�., »ov�ring only an area around the sign itself, and only for the purposes of access and main��;riaxzce. Commissioner Johnson inquired if the billboard would be removed. Mr. Moses indicated this was a possibility. ;; � N , ,. _ � -,; r , . : . _ - � -�----_- �., - ._,— _ , -u.___ �`_;__� ..��_ .�_ _ja .�, .. . :: ----- ---- ----- - - — --u� - _- ---- -- ' --- _ __ Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 12 Commissioner Johnson inquired how the billboard fits into the site plan. He pointed out that the property owner would probably not want the billboard situated in front of the proposed building. Mr. Cunningham stated this was correct. He explained that they would attempt to purchase the easement, however, billboard space continues to increase in value. He indicated at some point in the >;:_;<:.. future, they will make an economic proposition to have it removed. �, �;`:: -' �:L �. •��:�� Commissioner Berke stated this appeared to be a good propos�a, and tk�� 9��i��iment would be of value to the community, particularly with regard to the buil�ing tiesign , Commissioner Stevenson agreed. He commented that with.£fi�te site type of development would certainly be proposed, howevPA$ ��.'s;; pr� Commissioner Kaden inquired if some trees would remai Mr. Cunningham stated they would leave as many trees�"as pos leave the trees located along the property line, as wel� x5�' � ��;�e� b that there were no homes within 300 feet of th�;�irp��f �� v� Commissioner Stevenson inquired if through facility. Mr. Cunningham explained that � Development document, howeve��''. stores in the.�J[etropolitan a��;��. he was not this is flnqu�r�c� �x �t�� le with rson Peterson there is a sub � late �e 9 �n alor� would ained they intended to t�e homes. He added limit the hours of the drive- �ours of operation in the Planned Unit m. to 9:00 p.m,, for 7 of the Walgreens any evergreen trees on the land. Mr. Cunningham stated � E�1�,7 ,,i�r�reen trees would provide a year-round buffer from vehicle ��ted'they could propose additional landscape buffer, and provide ,.az�icling landscape. 1 what the developer would propose, in the event the County does not need for access off of Highway 10. ��-. �� s�.�tl�1��,��<�r� e��iiained they have discussed this matter with both the State and the County. He s�� { R� ir �:-€'�� ;s�ntative of the County has indicated their requirement standards are less stringent thaYi ��; �:yi��t� r��;q�ai�•ements. He commented that the State tends to guard the rapid flow of traffic on arterial roads such as Highway 10, and the County may recognize the need for access to businesses along the highway. He stated however, if this is not permitted, they would request a right-turn into the site. �Ie pointed out there are other options, however, providing adequate access is clearly the best retail solution. � _� I^ �:.r>�._._ --- __. _ . . , . . � _ _ _ _ _ ___ , --=- ° � -----= . _ k ;-. ' -- -- - -- : : , Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Pa�e 13 Chairperson Peterson inquired if there were any signage issues with the proposal. Community Development Director Jopke advised these issues could be resolved as the matter proceeds. He explained at this point, the Commission should consider the basic land use, in terms of whether or not the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area, and if this particular proposal fits in at this location, the Commission can qualify the specific details in thei� recom��ridation to the Council. ` � � Chairperson Peterson inquired if any Tax Increment Finan Community Development Director Jopke indicated no T Chairperson Peterson stated this development appears ible use for this proj �u�ld be utili; Commissioner Laube stated this would be a good project For $��;�, ��c�' i.i�e c�ity would benefit through the acquisition ofthe wetlands. He indicated his only con�� c� 3'z��i ��;;y �,ao �iot loose any wetlands. Commissioner Johnson stated he concurred with this. C'�mnu�, 7icf�,:� �- k��'��:� agreed. Commissioner Kaden indicated he was in fav,Qr t��' ��E��t��,an� ��V�Ia��'��ns store in this area, as . v �: opposed to a more residential area. � _.� ja,jo,. :.e Council Member Stigney inquired if th� �awners s��"'the th��>�� aad made a proposal on this site. x> � : Chairperson Peterson stated this rr�att�r �vas disc�ssed a year;'prior, and was also a very compatible use of the property. < � �`��` ,.: ;��s �<,;�,-•. Communit� ��ev�:lopment b�"��rrt�z� Jopke ��da�:��ci ��:nne time, Anthony Properties indicated they. would lik� �� .i��i_ox� the.��y�..�-�y9 �oweve7-, ��y did� not proceed to this point. He stated they had indicate� �� i, devea��3 �rsrr;�r;'�ai�ildi�l�� ilnilar to those proposed at the theater, however, he r° �.9 r was uncertai��. r�� a� ��atu� �� r��.� ��F�s'��.��,�_� Commissionex, �,��.�.�1�� constructe�<at��the 'r.��c�a ,::. at the t��.ter comprise Cc��amissioner Laube T�t`sr��or Jopke stated �t .� �`;��rtr�� ar�eA 7��-��so� � �<�1i��.��. �.�a .�:?,�i�;�wo� hol��dr �€s�c�: :��f� c„c± if �i�� '��-oposed buildings would be smaller than the buildings ,'��.��:s�anunity Development Director Jopke indicated the office buildings �,4C�£) �:;�,uare feet. aired if this represented a higher tax base. Community Development was possible. stated the owners of the theater were interested in the land, prior to the l Drive. He pointed out that any developer would now have to relocate the Commissioner Miller stated this appeared to be the best offer for the site, and something they could work with. i ., , _ ---- � � : - . _ i : � --- ,_.__-` - ,a� r _ t - - ------ _ _ _ - - - --: `. :_: �. =.._ -� .>: _ - _ �t . � Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 rl Regular Meeting Page 14 a Corrunissioner Hegland stated his concern was that the City does not acc�uire any expenses due to the holding pond or additional road, and he was otherwise in favor of this proposal. Corrunissioner Stevenson inquired if the City would realize some savings, in terms of the platting of the land. Mr. Cunningham indicated the survey costs and issues of the plat re�uired further clarification however they would carry the plat over to City parcel. , �""'�'" � , �t<;;,�: Commissioner Johnson pointed out that to have a surveyor sirn��;y com� tp x�� zte t-equires an initial fee. Commissioner Hegland stated he would like to hav�; �;��s �natter �fh��c� ir� the Plannir��,. Commission's recommendation to the Council. �F :°' �: .�,�� <f�: Corrununity Development Director Jopke explained that ty��g�;�lly �hese issues are �lari.k"i�� %arAS� s��lled out during the Planned Unit Development and Developa��aE��.�,'�'�view �rocesses. I�e i��ica�ec� staff would prepare a resolution for consideration ofthis proposal, �>>a�( ij��in� it forward at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. <. , 7. Special Planning Case No. SP-07 A. Discuss revisions to prc�posed O Zoning Code related ta��iriveway� Planning Associate Ericson sta addresses c��l� cuts and driv�� discussion� cs� �1�� propo��c�; c�� for apprt��a ��.� �� ar, conr,�N� discussion �4 �� p��a�,as rr��a�z;�� this version oi' �� t-��a�c;�; inconsistenci,�s. < yun�auzt�l¢. �"��g �'�� ordinance amending the dtfi� Qu�i�� R� �uts. �is itern �v�� the c��t��;€ission of proposed Ordinance 642, which idths. t�; s��;t�ie Planning Commission has had significant ce, anc� lsc��i �#�ey can insure that what they are recommending �a:� �oni�dsiY�� in any manner. He pointed out there was some z�'��f��,zero lot line subdivisions, and the emphasis of presenting 3� �Y��immission is to address those issues, and resolve any :s , .;� ; ��`' '"" • Planniu�� Associate Eric�€�� t�jned that the first change addresses the zero lot line subdivision issue} tuith the addition of �,��r��.�� zY on Page 3 of the ordinance. He stated the entire section is new, wxt�t �he exception of th� existing Code, and the addition of Subds. 3d and 3e define driveway and z > l y: c�rb rui widths for zero �6t�t line subdivisions. He explained that Subd. 3d indicates "The width of the ��'��7€��r�y servicin�, t�� dwelling unit would not exceed the width of that dwelling unit's garage. �li�,¢� ��.r>�r�� b� side driveways shall maintain a minimum four-foot (4') separation unless the �� ? ��t `�� owners have filed a right-of-way and maintenance agreement with Ramsey County ac�c�� ,rh�b` c� �hc 1�y�ovisions of Section 1121.15 Subd. 2 of this Title pertaining to joint driveways." He advised this language was already present in the Code, and must be in place to explicitly address joint driveways. Planning Associate Ericson stated Subd. 3e defines the width of the curb cut, arad indicates "The width of the curb cut servicing one dwelling unit shall not exceed eighteen feet (18'). In the event „�i _ _ _ �. _u.;.�' _ , ._, _ -: Mounds View Planning Comm�ssion November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 15 of a common or joint driveway servicing both units, the width of the curb cut shall not exceed thirty- two (32'). He explained this change was proposed, and received significant discussion at the previous meeting. He advised that the width of the curb cut could be further discussed and specified during the meeting. Planning Associate Ericson explained the second change to the ordinance is the;.;`�t�c�ition of the minimum drive aisle width, as indicated on Page 5 of the ordinance. HP er��zned that after the fact, he felt the addition ofthis language might not be necessary, and �� fact, ,r�E�y b� �� limiting, and may commit the City to a width they did not need or desire in ��u'iure c�E�vr;��;x�g., I�e stated st� �� proposes this language be removed, and requested the Cornmission dir��yi: ��}.�-� �� c�� o. . . �. _ Planning Associate Ericson stated the third change is to th�' it was indicated at the previous meeting, it might be more aI3� was defined by land use, and presented in a table format, ra width of the curb cuts was subject to further discussion ,! of Subd. Se. "��f, c,�;��r��cl that and clearer if the c�.is°'E� cut width ;�,zrr�ply language. He noted the __ __ Planning Associate Ericson provided the Commiss�on �ic�� a brief ov� x sr��;�%�� {y� �he table prepared by staff which indicates that Single Family Res�d�nts�tl �i�c1 i�.��nufactu� �rQ � p;�y;��e curb cut widths are twenty-four (24') feet, and the current Code al��u�s tw��.�rci (?,>') ic��` Zero lot line subdivisions are currently allowed eighteen feet (18') anc� ifie appra,priai�; ��ri�11�. i�� ;rr� to be determined, however, this curb cut width would be the same�aS;�t appears�in the ]��;�, l�%��r��am Density type of zone. Planning Associate Ericson stated`;th�`iabl� fi,��er indica..E€�� thirty-two (32') feet for Medium and High Density Residential, Commet��l, Indu�� R�1,'��1d th� P�' and CRP Zoning Districts. He advised that currentl� ihere are no �:€,� 1� e;��t width� �i.��+.� zax� �I�e PF and CRP districts. He explained that there a.re ��iv��.ays in t��. ��'�� i atrict, at c'n� ��r?��'"and City Hall, and although a curb cut width require��t�t�� Q�� ;��: �e necc°��, n;� ik�es� si.�uatroY►� can be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, there is no Planning Ass�� '�� , �> : Subd. Se of�he orc�i��c .. ��<, "Single��amily uses sla indtc.�ted at the previou� re�� ir� more curb cuts i:��e�� :, additional lang �x��c��_a�1�d lots, wh��Y� r' ._ � �l��x�n. _ � �,�>,��,��,st��;�� a��r��l��i� change is the addition of language to Section 1121.09, s�, ��a��Ia ��;ard to the zero lot line subdivided lots, which previously indicated �� s� €;�.x��ted to one curb cut access per property. As the Commission 1-��.,�Ea��, �f that is not extended to the zero lot line subdivided lots, it could arzd much greater width than intended. Planning Associate Ericson advised �,t�:ge clarifies this provision, by indicating "Single family uses in zero lot line epresents the 50-foot section of land that would be limited to one curb cut, ation for variance from this restriction.” He pointed out there was also a of Page 6, which refers to Section 1107.03 for more information regarding divisions. Planning Associate Ericson explained that previous changes to the ordinance now appear in double underline, a.nd basically add language to clarify the zero lot line subdivision requirements so they are no longer ambiguous. He indicated from sta.�s perspective, the only matter left to resolve is whether _ -_ � - r y , � , , � � __��' ��I .. - � .== - _ I r-� �� E -�- ..� - - - - � -- --�-'i _ �,. ' _".' _" . _ _________ ' ' _"__. . .. .._.__ .__-.' .. -_..� _ __ �- .._ .. �� _ F __ ". Mounds View Pl�tnning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 16 or not the stated widths are appropriate, and the Commission is requested to discuss this, and possibly forward this ordinance to the City Council with a resolution at their next meeting. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the second column of the table is intended to reflect the maximum width of curb cuts. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. r Chairperson Peterson pointed out that this should be indicated, to cl permissible. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was a goca;�..point. ;; Corrunissioner Stevenson inquired if the intention of the lan�uage in the R-1 Zoning District, is to allow twelve feet (12'), in at��'ition to of a triple wide garage. Planning Associate Ericson stai.�,�� :aic> w� fiv� widths are ___ ___ _ __ _ _ _ __ __... __ _ Commissioner Miller pointed out this language speci�es p.;�� r�� <., o,f the attached parking area, however, not the length. Planning Associate Ericson stated this �;��: „�t� ,c;i,. He explained the Code provides there are some limitations on the amount of gravel that ;� ��,�� r�� c��r�, �iowever, there are no restrictions in terms of an attached parking pad. Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding Silver Lake Road and Knollwood Drive. ,�; Plaiuung Associate Ericson expl� feet (40') wide, and with the driveways and two eighteen-fo Commi 9si�� typically C'/ s��a feet betwe�n �� negotiate, wh would be more curb cuts i��E �ig,) _ �`�� h;� . ��;. units located on h�t; the cur.b.:.::�uts of th�„units on Silver Lake Road are all forty 3<;� < :� �t�on of r�t�e propert� "on Knollwood Drive, which has two ') curb �:��, Yh� Qtk��i's are forty feet (40') as well. egland �t�r�r� ,� ��r��l�l tw� �.��- b�r�ge is twenty-two (22') wide; and a vehicle is ��,�. vvide. �-t� �;��7��ir�cd i� t�� case oia driveway, where there is approximately two ,�£;�, �?�d �� ca� ��; �;�:��;� �� the driveway, the narrow curb cut would be difficult to ��;��?��as; i,a i��7�;�,, ��,�L �i"the garage. He advised that a forty-foot (40') curb cut p�'c��.��fb1� ';�� s��i:cc� .��e 6 ofthe ordinance, pertaining to zero-lot line subdivision � rJivp.� d�:g, ;'rir�u�d be amended to reflect twenty feet (20'), rather than eighteen feet eterson pointed C��at the eighteen-foot (18') requirement is also indicated on Page 4 of the c� in Subd. 1. �'' �,; _;, , .;:,:� '%�%�,t��E�� t��,�;r� ��nd commented that the forty-foot (40') curb cuts already exist within the City, ��r� �i �q ,. <<y �.c�P �� v�c�i�ld allow the resident to back straight out of the garage. He added that the wider cur� �� +�vuu►d be helpful for snow removal purposes, and would present a much better design. Commissioner Johnson stated he agreed. He pointed out that a wider curb cut would benefit those residents with boats and recreatiqnal vehicles, as well. - — : -- -- NYounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 17 Commissioner Stevenson indicated that in the case of a joint driveway, this would represent 36 feet. Corrunissioner Laube advised that driveways could not be adjoined without approval from Ramsey County. Corrunissioner Stevenson stated he was referring to those situations where the driveways are joined, and one continuous curb cut is permitted. He explained those persons with a thr�'or four-stall garage are still limited to twenty-two feet (22'), and possibly twenty fou'r {24');�ti the future. He stated that a thirty-six foot (36') curb cut would provide suffictent roorrk £c�z� �.G��ss to the garage, in ,: „ , . the case of a continuous curb cut. :Fy� Planning Associate Ericson pointed out on Page 4, the adc line subdivision curb cut widths, indicates they are limited i:`� if the driveways are joined, this represents thirty-two consensus of the Commission, this could be changed tc� feels a forty-foot (40') width is more appropriate, they c�C width for each dwelling unit. `' Commissioner Stevenson stated a thirty-six appropriate. :�'�� Commissioner Johnson agreed, adding �20�)• {s • of Subt�;�'e, pert�i,��sf� �z�, ��;4;ir: ��t�'�lot �:�;, : �Pen`��et (18') pc� �'�' "'�1[i��, ��pi�, and 3;�'). He explain�c� �lo«� ir' ��: is the ,��;, ��:et (36'), or if the Commission �r��r,;��.� � ��rNet�iy�foot (20') ma�mum cut width would be b� allowed at least twenty feet F.>,��. Chairperson Peterson tnqutred r��rding �1�r,; ��jndarc��dth of garage door on a twenty-two foot i22�) garage � ;,� ,� � Commun��J ��;��xnen� I-7�� ^�,s.x4�� c�vi�Ld that sixteen-foot (16') doors are standard.. Chairperson �'e�E,�-�r��? ��i �1��1 IIe pr-°r�i�7�a��y ��'��ided in a townhome with two driveways with a five-foot separation I�� lt�i��c� ��kt il�e ��ri�,'��'�ys were the width of the garage doors,_ and went straight. back to th+�;s�`re�t I�f� t�o9�T��;�?.��d that this was workable, and that configuration of the driveways in conjutiction with the ��r��' ��"s did not seem to be out of place. He noted, however, this would �,.: < not �,�a.ppropriate in the ��';�� {��' a three-car garage. J' y �: ssioner Stevenst�3� stated he had no problem with permitting twenty-foot (20') curb cuts, r, he would np�>�t�vant to double that width to a forty-foot (40') curb cut. He inquired if they ��.d :th� Ia��guage to limit this to a twenty-foot (20') curb cut for a single driveway, per ;, ]f�� c��d a single-family dwelling is allowed twenty-four (24'), and they did not want to � f�� sidents of twin homes, therefore, they should at least allow twenty (20') feet. Commissioner Johnson stated he agreed with this, in that they should indicate twenty feet (20') for a single driveway, and include a thirty-two (32') foot limitation for joint driveways, as well. _'_ ' _ r� -_= .�.�. _------ � _._-- ---r. ,>, - --- - _ . _. _- -- -_______ _. _ .__�... � . . _ ' �� :; - -.. _� _ ._. i .. . . . .�x�� "' _ Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 18 Commissioner Laube stated he would prefer to see thirty-six (36'), in that if there is a standard twenty-two foot (22') garage, with zero lot lines, and a four-foot separation, the driveway would be thirty-six feet (36') straight back from each garage door. Commissioner Hegland inquired if the proposed language would indicate a limit of for adjoined driveways, and if there is a four-foot separation between the drivewa� (20') curb cuts would be permitted. �,�� :.>::<��,,, Commissioner Stevenson stated this sounded reasonable. �;;;;;�;;»�� :_�:<>,, ,<<::<..� Planning Associate Ericson inquired if the draft language �iy�'FS��bd to be adequate. He advised they were attempting to pr�s� ;�,� �� amount of asphalt on small lot. He explained that many �3��ii.��, �� the garage, and through this language, single family homes v�� c� an additional twelve feet (12'). He advised that ifthis pro��s��Y� ��i�� subdivisions, there could potentially be forty (40') feet df`drivew� no front yard. He noted the proposed language sp�,r,� ��;�� addre and no other use. �� <; Chairperson Peterson stated was a fi� had lived in, and there were shrubs, 1 there was language in the right-of way the other resident to drive on you�- p�c�� language to incorporate, and may �e Plannin�} ��3ca�i�� Eri� dwellin�� a� �� .. �:e adjoinij�� c�s��.r��x��y� � delete the mini�z��=.rx� ci� the twenty (20'�} ��at� i column of t�et'tabl� x-�fi had be� inadvertently r�`3 ,' be ap�i�opriate for this issioner c a�i.o�s be ix feet (36') twenty-foot . U�� the �.o�� s's.�;,; <, ap�€�red a�rist the potenii�� "�g� ��zeessive ��v�-; driveways �h�t ��-� as wide as ��r;��;�irted to exparnc� ihis width by ��; i t3��aed over to the zero lot line �y �ra �a,s3� �ide of the garage, and ss�� tka�; ��p,-�''lot line subdivisions, c�t:'separat�p� be�r�lT�;c.�< z�i� �i�;veways ofthe townhome he �.� i` �caping, �,�d mail ��, �;� ��' cf�ai area. He stated, however, rnamtenance agre��nent, which indicated they must allow , to cz-4ss the dn�e��vays. He explained this might be good �.:. dard i�ngua�� 't�"r mortgage companies, as well. a,� st�� , i�ould r,��t�� ;.�te ma�cimum width for a driveway servicing one � Iv;.'��J�=�ra :,��iv��lor� �o ��wenty feet (20'), with a maximum curb cut for ihi� �y ��e, a�� (�6') in both sections of the ordinance. He stated he would ��; F��Ic �vic�'r.� Ii��ai��ion indicated on Page 5, and change the table to reflect �� ,��:>i,, �c�oi �:��g} �vidths. He stated he would also indicate that the second �<, t��:� ��irnum curb cut width. He explained that the R-O Zoning District x��:@E;�'i ��a,ri'the table, and suggested that a sixteen-foot (16') curb cut might requested the provision pertaining to adjoined driveways in the zero lot line in the table for clarification. �:��c��r��<;�da��,<lUliller inquired if the language in, Subd. e, on Page 6 of the ordinance would be afx��r��;�� '� ��ndicate a twenty-foot (20') maximum curb cut. Planning Associate Ericson stated this subdivision addresses zero lot line subdivided lots, as well as typical R-21ots, and it would be logical to make this consistent. =;:.,' - , -�.��--� --= �--=-- -- - - � --- - Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 19 Planning Associate Ericson stated staff would make the requested changes and bring a resolution forward to the City Council. He advised that a public hearing would be set for the first reading of the ordinance, as this matter is in contemplation of an amendment to the Zoning Code. 8. Special Planning Case No. SP-071-99 A. Consideration of Resolution 597-99, a Proposed Ordinance 644 Relating to Bi Community Development Director Jopke stated this item at several previous meetings, and is the discussion of an billboards by Conditional Use Permit, and setting sta orientation, height, and obstruction factors. Community Development Director Jopke stated st�f �a�.s dr� discussed by the Planning Commission. He��;�i�,�� f�� previous meeting was to forward a recomr��n�atio;� �� r��rli billboards were not an appropriate use i�z;t�ie locatzt�nG ciaK,�i o /,,;:; Z.,, o> Commission's direction, staff has drafte.d..:;`� resolut;��rn that �?��. the City Council, with four findings, �s �ollows;;Y ,. �` ,;: _ :ti� • 1. 2. 3, ��:: t5:::. �: 4. ti��n 1��s�t�ending Denial of s. �'�� , :.:� --��- --� .:t:..z. ;;:�;-' before the Pian�nx��F, ��.``�'�i�i��iission �o amend the Ciiy �:�c:l� �a allow ��rms of size location, spacing, c� ��Eir��r � 644, which has been sens�.is r��" � he Commission at the if th� �rdinance, because they felt d. �e stated that based upon the 7�ends denial of Ordinance 644 to � : .:, Large billbo�rd sz�i�' are no� f��l� c�priat� i�ses of property within CRP Conservation Recreation��i a�°��rt�ation an�? � 5� '��G��i�; Facilities zoning districts. These districts are ��tended ��s n�i��ri�l�; recreatirr�<�� portunities, open space, and protect the natural �:��ri�;ontne�li rk�rk��:� �a�,�=ib1�. ]Large advertising signs are not consistent with that zx��r��; �p� a, �, �ii€�� `�,jriate to commercial and industrial zoning districts. � t��,�r' ��tlJb,oaf�c� ��g;�a�, ��s��" be visually distracting and may detract from the g��a.�,��l.�c�� c�ta�� r�d, p� c��xav'c� a negative image for the community. 1�ie �ii�� ,�:t.t�g�°��;� has advised City staffthat the City cannot limit billboards to city- owned p A permit and fede� co `€��; ��;quired from the State of Minnesota to locate billboards along state ighways. State statutes restrict such signs to commercial and industrial �ts only. The contemplated sites for additional billboards are not zoned or industrial. �y�t��.�� ,r �. <��elopment Director Jopke stated Resolution No. 597-99 indicates that the Planning f:o�i��t�;��,�?� y-ecommends the City Council does not approve Ordinance 644, and that this recoYruneYiclation be forwarded to the Council, prior to final approval of the Planning Commission minutes. Community Development Director Jopke advised that the ordinance has been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office, and approved, as to form and findings. Commissioner Stevenson inquired who had drafted the ordinance. , . __ _ _ _ , , p----� _ _ _ . - � � _ . __ , - --�u �. :,_ �- ---_-� . _� _ • -- ------ . _ � --_ --- - - =-=- - - Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 20 Community Development Director Jopke stated he drafted Ordinance 644. Commissioner Miller inquired regarding the standing of the ordinance at this time. Community Development Director Jopke explained that the review of this matter before the Planning Commission, and their recommendation will be forwarded to t�i� Commissioner Stevenson inquired who had directed Ordinance 644. Community Development Director Jopke explained that Commission to review the issue, and the Planning Comt��i: ordinance for public review, and that this consideration ;� He indicated staff drafted this particular ordinance, wlli Commission, however, has not come before the City Cc��, brought forward to the Council, along with the recommen MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Laube. To ;�,.�Sp��-�r�� Recommending City Council Denial of Ord��a��e IVo,'��f#f? (Signs and Billboards) of the Mounds View��unic�pa� �oc'�� :<,� No. SP-071-99. .,,..,, .�:�:� Ayes - 8 9. �5��° ��e�ts / �o lf"�i � `�'«�;�n Planning Ass�?�i�� .��? at 267(��ounty Road I. <> � .»y [liiia'; �—ei:K'v;w7- � ��ti i.>.:�A':;s . � �o' � �hairperson �� currently Council. Jopke to draft , ,�;� he City.: ��unc�l ��i�c��c��^r� ��€� �'la�i�tmg iaY� incltcated there �lq�t�i�� `,� � �pecific �1�� volve the public 1-��z��`��process. � 3�6�� ta�,�x� discussed i�y �he Planning ci� �-��r„��; ,r �� <;�1 the ordinance would be itiori ax``flt� ��raning Commission. >>:�olution ��.' S97-99, a Resolution �.i� ��c�iraa��ce Amending Chapter 1008 ��;��4�ta�a�-?�;`to Billboards; Planning Case � The motion carried. feu�� d��° �da��°�rea�fl�±�� '�rnP�lolt�°(!ji �c�t(';C�4A�1�S�o �c�� :sia�ed `�€ ��te November 15, 1999 City Council meeting, the Council �� c;�.v for MSP Real Estate for the assisted living facility to be located Planning Commissioners Reports ��If�� x r ��fa� �;s, +��-�; ��risidered. l�e' ��.��u��°�en�ent There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8;57 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) �.: `>R G ' - - - - --- � �- __ r :_-- -- - --- Mounds View Planning Comrr►ission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 21 Respectfully submitted, R C �.. s<:<;�. �_�<� .�_� Y�: —. � :{ I ' _ . . ; �- --- --_----_ _ .si F � [ - '' - '' � ' — - - ------ --- 1 . _ _ _ _ . ,_ " `c _ ; : - �� . ''�.. , - - '. ,I � :_1 � _ _ � ' ' - _- --- . -- : - �; - ---- - - � -- _ — - � ._... ` __: . -�' _--.= - -- _. � PROC�EDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VTEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meetang December 1, 1999 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7.00 p.m., December 1, 1999. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Hegland, Johnson, Kaden, Laube, Stevenson, and Miller. Members Absent: Commissioners Berke and Braathen, with prior notice. Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Rick Jopke, Council Liaison Roger Stigney, and Recorder Trish Pearson. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 574-99, 7687 Long Lake Road. Consideration of Resolution 598-99 regarding a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Sunrise United Methodist Church and a Development Review to allow an expansion to the Church facility. Vanman Companies (Representing Sunrise), Applicant. 2 Consideration of Resolution 599-99 regarding TOLD proposal for a Walgreens on the Videen property and the adjacent City Remnant Parcel. 4 Special Planning Case No. SP-074-99, Discuss revisions to proposed Ordinance 642, an ordinance amending the Zoning Code related to driveway widths and curb cuts. 10 Staff Reports / Items of Information Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 11 11 s _ � _ , � , G � . _ _ ��, _� Mounds View Planning Commission December l, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 2 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 4. Approval of Minutes A. November 3, 1999 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller to approve the November 3, 1999 meeting minutes as corrected. 5. Ayes — 7 Planning Case No. 574-99 Nays — 0 The motion carried. Property Involved: 7687 Long Lake Road Consideration of Resolution 598-99 regarding a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Sunrise United Methodist Church and a Development Review to allow an expansion to the Church facility. Applicant: Vanman Companies (Representing Sunrise) The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staffreport as follows: The applicant, Vanman Companies, representing the property owner, Sunrise United Methodist Church, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit and development review to allow for the expansion of their Church facility located at 7687 Long Lake Road. The expanded areas will service as additional space within the sanctuary and child care areas, will provide for office space for the pastor and other church workers, and will add a meeting room and multi-use space for the staff and congregation. Planning Associate Ericson stated the total area of the expansion plan is approximately 7,500 square feet, which brings the total building area, after expansion, to approximately 20,500 square feet. He indicated the criteria for approving a conditional use permit for this proposal are all met, as are the dimensional requirements for the development review. He noted an issue brought forward at the previous meeting, with regard to the parking lot setback two feet from Long Lake Road, which was determined at that meeting to simply be non-conformity. He added that as the applicant was not proposing any alterations to the parking lot at this time, the issue would not be addressed with the overall development review or the conditional use permit. -- _ . _ __ _ __ _ ---- � : _ _ t; ; `----- =-- =—� ��. .. . -- .— - - � Mounds View Planning Commission December 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 Planning Associate Ericson stated the resolution before the Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit and the development review for this site, with stipulations. He stated the first stipulation indicates "The design and character of the expanded areas shall match and compliment the existing architecture of the Church," and the applicant plans to proceed in this manner. The second stipulation indicates "The existing non-conforming parking lot setback shall be allowed to persist until such time that the parking lot is reconstructed or resurfaced and the non-conformity can be corrected." Corrunissioner Miller inquired if the word "remain" or "exist" would be more appropriate than the word "persist." Planning Associate Ericson stated this was the intent, and the language could be amended to indicate ". .. shall be allowed to remain." Planning Associate Ericson stated the third stipulation indicates "Two additional parking stalls shall be marked and posted as "handicapped" to comply with ADA requirennents." He advised there are currently two such parking stalls on the site. The fourth stipulation indicates "The applicant shall be responsible for recording the City Council resolution of approval with Ramsey County within 60 days of final approval," which is a standard stipulation with any conditional use permit. Planning Associate Ericson stated there appear to be no unresolved issues with this proposal. He indicated there is a wetland on the site, however, the expansion development area will not encroach into the 100-foot wetland buffer zone. He explained that the existing parking space is adequate to meet the requirements for this use, even in light of the additional space that will be added with the expansion. He stated in staff s perspective, this request warrants a recommendation of approval. Commissioner Miller noted the dimensional requirements listed on Page 2 of the Staff Report, which indicates the parking lot setback (north), at 5 feet, required, and 80 feet, proposed. She inquired if this represents the setback from the street, although there is a structure between the street and the parking lot. Planning Associate Ericson indicated that a portion of the parking lot is located between the two buildings, and the measurement was taken from this point. Commissioner Miller stated the first paragraph, last sentence, on Page 4 of the resolution indicates "...it is not anticipated that the use will not cause...,"and requested the second word "not" be omitted. Planning Associate Ericson stated staffwould make this correction. Commissioner Stevenson noted the resolution indicates Planning Case 574-99, however, the Staff Report refers to Planning Cases 574-99 and 575-99. He requested clarification. , � ._:, .�� _ _ :-�_ .;: _-: -. '- -- J : u_.3�- _ - ��` ___ )j �_'_- _ _-.__� . . -___ .. . _ . µ -. :.. .. � . �1 Mounds View Planning Commission December 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 Planning Associate Ericson explained that for filing and tracking purposes, each individual action is assigned a tracking number, which is the Planning Case number. He comme�nted that in the past, staf�' has not included all of the Planning Case numbers on the resolutions, however, thus would be done in the future, to provide clarification, MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Laube. To Approve Mounds View Planning Commission Resolution No. 598-99, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Development Review Reguest for Sunrise United Methodist Church Located at 7687 Long Lake Road; as Amended to Indicate Planning Case Nos. 574-99 and 575-99. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Planning Associate Ericson stated a public hearing has been scheduled for this item at the December 13, 1999 City Council meeting. 6. Consideration of Resolution 599-99 regarding TOLD proposal for a Walgreens on the Videen property and the adjacent City Remnant Parcel. Community Development Director Jopke stated, at the Planning Commission's meeting on November 17, there was a presentation and discussion of TOLD Development Company's proposal regarding the remnant piece of property created by the realignment of Edgewood Drive, and the adjacent parcel that is privately owned by Robert Videen. He indicated at that meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution in favor of the concept and the proposed land swap. Community Development Director Jopke stated staff has attempted to compile the comments of the Planning Commission into draft Resolution 599-99, which indicates eleven findings, as follows: 1. The proposed retaiUrestaurant/clinic land uses, if designed properly, are compatible with surrounding land uses. TOLD has indicated a willingness to design the structures and use building materials which are consistent with adjacent buildings. 2. The proposed developnnent is isolated from residential uses. 3. The proposed land use is consistent with the future land use designation of the site as shown in the draft comprehensive plan currently being reviewed by the Planning Commission. 4. The proposed use is consistent with the current zoning of the Videen property. Rezoning of the city remnant parcel would be required. 5. TOLD is willing to relocate the stormwater holding pond on the remnant parcel at their expense. 6. TOLD is willing to trade approximately 7.4 acres of land for appro�mately 1.5 acres of land. The City could use the 7.4 acres of land to protect the exiting _e ! f .�v , , . __ � � __ -- -- . E :., _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ._ __ _ ._ � I Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 7. 9. 10 11 December 1, 1999 Page 5 wetland, to provide additional recreational opportunities, and to provide stormwater improvements. TOLD is willing to contribute towards the cost of recreational improvements on the 7.4 acre parcel TOLD will attempt to have the existing billboard removed. The Park and Recreation Commission has indicated general support of the TOLD proposal. The TOLD proposal is the best that has been presented and the developer is. willing to work with the city to address all issues. The Planning Commission is concerned that the proposal could result in additional city maintenance expenses. Community Development Director Jopke stated the resolution further indicates "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission supports the TOLD concept and would support the proposed land swap. - Approval of any specific development proposal should be through the normal city development review process after any required public hearings are held. The Planning Commission reserves the right to make additional specific recommendations through this process." Community Development Director Jopke requested the Planning Corrunission discuss these findings, to insure they are correct and clearly indicate the Planning Commission's review. He stated staff recommends approval of Resolution 599-99. Chair Peterson suggested Finding No. 11 might be more appropriately stated with the addition of the word "however," to indicate "The Planning Commission is however concerned..." He explained that the issue of possible is somewhat ambiguous, and in his understanding, the source of this finding relates to maintenance of the wetland area. Community Development Director 7opke stated staf�'s understanding is that the expenses would be related to the maintenance of improvements made by the City. Commissioner Hegland stated his original question was in regard to any expenses the City might incur as a result of the land swap, which they were not aware of at that time. He explained that whether or not those expenses would be restricted to City maintenance, he was uncertain. Commissioner Stevenson indicated the expenses could also be related to improvements to the wetland, due to the land swap. Community Development Director Jopke stated he had envisioned that if the City created a regional stormwater holding pond on the site, there would be maintenance associated with that. He added that if there were recreational improvements, those would require maintenance as well. Commissioner Stevenson stated it was probably most appropriate to leave the language of this finding general, as the specific expenses are unknown at this time. , . _�:i ,: Mounds View Planning Commission December 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 Chair Peterson pointed out that it this language might create the impression that there are some large costs associated with this project, without an understanding of what they might be. He stated his only concern is that the finding clearly state the intention. Commissioner Miller inyuired if the City could incur expenses other than those related to maintenance. Community Development Director Jopke indicated there could be expenses associated to the improvements the City would construct. Commissioner Miller stated therefore, this proposal could result in additional City expenses, and not specifically maintenance expenses, as currently indicated in Finding No. 11. Corrunissioner Stevenson pointed out that several other findings refer to potential additional expenses that would be incurred by the developer rather than the City. He stated the Commission was attempting to insure that the City was not entering into an expensive land swap agreement, and to that this is clearly indicated. Commissioner Johnson noted discussion at the previous meeting regarding the developer's responsibility for the cost of the survey. Community Development Director Jopke stated there was discussion regarding the platting of the property, and the developer had indicated they were willing to share in those costs. Commissioner Johnson stated the City would be required to pay for holding pond maintenance, whether for a regional hoiding pond, or the existing small pond, and inquired what additional expense could be incurred in this regard. Community Development Director explained that if there are larger stormwater issues in the area, that are not addressed by the existing small pond, this would result in additional expenses. He advised that the language of the resolution indicates the developer will relocate the small e�sting pond, however, this does not address the issue of regional ponding, which may be required of the City. Chair Peterson noted a similar situation several years prior, regarding the Greenfield Development, which involved a land swap. He stated two drainage ponds were created, and there was some concern regarding the City's cost to maintain those ponds, however, he was not aware that any large expense was incurred. Commissioner Kaden stated the Department of Public Works would likely have information that would assist in defining the expenses involved in maintaining the ponds. Commissioner Johnson reiterated that the City would maintain one pond regardless, and he did not believe one pond would cost more to maintain than another one. Chair Peterson added that this would be true even if the pond covers a larger area. : - _ ___ ___ � _ ( _ - - : : . _: t_ - ----- r.� :- _ _ . . `__ __ _ -_ Mounds View Planning Commission December 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 Commissioner Johnson advised that some of the ponds require to be pumped out during periods of heavy rain, however, this would be the only expense he could foresee. Chair Peterson explained that this was true of some of the smaller ponds with no exits. Chair Peterson inquired regarding the most appropriate wording for Finding No. 11. Community Development Director Jopke suggested that rather than more specific, the language be more general, indicating that the Planning Commission desires to insure that this land swap does not result in additional costs to the City. Chair Peterson stated this re-wording appears to be appropriate. Commissioner Miller agreed. Commissioner Stevenson stated clarification of this language is for the benefit of the public, who would be concerned regarding additional expenses. He indicated this more general language appears to reflect the intention of the Planning Commission more closely. Commissioner Kaden agreed. Commissioner Kaden inquired if the City would see a financially benefit with the proposed land swap, in addition to obtaining the wetland, or if this was to be determined by the Council, at a later date. Community Development Director Jopke stated ultimately, this would be the City Council's decision, however, as proposed, it is a straight land swap. He explained that the City would be giving up 1.5 acres, and gaining 7.4 acres in return. Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding the assessed value of both properties involved in the proposed land swap. Community Development Director Jopke stated he was uncertain. Commissioner Hegland stated the Commission could not be certain at this point, whether or not the City will incur any significant additional expenses due to the land swap, therefore, he would request language to address this. He explained that his concern is that as the matter proceeds, and the Council rules on it, they consider this factor. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if Commissioner Hegland agreed with the suggested re- wording. Commissioner Hegland stated the suggested language does not appear to raise any concern at all, and he was not certain he felt comfortable with this. Chair Peterson advised that this is a preliminary stage in the proposal, and the Commission is considering the "big picture" issues at this point. He indicated that many small issues will come forward, however, at this point, the Commission should identify all of the large issues and incorporate them into the resolution, to provide some feedback to the Council in terms of the direction of this proposal. ;; � : _ _ i _ -� --- = - � _ _ _ __' __ '_' _ ___ ' _" • ... . " ' f..-� : _ . _ . ____. ._' _ .-_�___. , �.. ._ .. -- .._J F-.,_:_ -!. Mounds View Planning Commission December 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 Commissioner Laube stated he felt the suggested language appears to be appropriate for this stage of the consideration. He indicated the Commission desires to inform the Council that there could be a cost, and request that the Council to review this. Commissioner Kaden stated the language in the resolution indicates "NOW, TI3EEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission supports the TOLD concept, and would support the proposed land swap," and inquired if this statement could be amended. He commented that he supports the concept, however, this language appears to indicate he aiso supports the land swap, and he is not certain that he does. He explained that he had inquired regarding the assessed value of the properties because if the City is stands to lose with this proposal, he would not support such a thing, and at this time, there is no way to be certain in this regard. He advised that the piece of land along Highway 10 might be more valuable than the other property, and he would like to know whether or not this is the case. Chair Peterson suggested the omission of the words "would support" in front of the words "the proposed land swap" would make this statement more general in nature. Commissioner Kaden pointed out that this statement would still indicate that the Planning Commission supports both the concept and the proposed land swap. Chair Peterson explained however, the statement would relate to both items, rather than to each item separately, which would serve to dilute the element of support. Terry Moses of Prudential Commercial Realty, representative of the property owner suggested the Commission consider the triangular portion of land that is owned by the City to be a pond, as that is what it is. He explained that as long as the pond is there, this land can not be utilized for very much else. He pointed out that if the City did wish to utilize the land for something else, the pond would have to be relocated, as ponding is required. He stated this land does not present a substantial amount of land value as it currently exists. Mr. Moses advised that with this proposal, the City will still have the pond, however, it will be relocated at no cost to the City, and in addition, the City will gain 7.4 acres of land. He commented it would be difficult to imagine a scenario in which that land could be utilized in any other way, and for the City to continue to provide the ponding that is required. He explained that if this portion of land was rectangular, and the square footage, it might be buildable, however, a triangular shape is very difficult to build upon, therefore, the land could not demand a very good price. He stated that the ponding is required to exist on this piece of property, with the exception of the proposed swap. Mr. Moses stated he considers the language in the proposed resolution to be a very general introduction to the process, and he views Finding No. 11 as a cautionary statement, which indicates that the City should be aware that there may be some associated costs that should be researched. He suggested the language be modified to indicate "unacceptable costs" rather than "substantial costs," as `substantial' can be defined differently by each individual, however, `unacceptable' depends upon the situation. _ _ ; __ -: - - - --�- --- --- '- -- — - - _-- — -- I Mounds View Planning Commission December 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 Commissioner Johnson stated he agreed with Mr. Moses in regard to the pond, and the value of the property, in light of the requirement of a pond. He advised that the pond could not be relocated unless the City owned the property adjacent to it. He stated he also believes the City will be benefiting with the land swap, in terms of gaining better wetlands, and may even be able to obtain wetland credits. He stated the City property is comprised of approximately 1.5 acres of dry land, and inquired what percentage of Mr. Videen's property is dry land. Mr. Moses stated the entire Videen parcel is approximately 9.4 acres in size, and of that, approximately 50 percent is wetland, and 50 percent is dry. Commissioner Johnson inquired what percentage of the 7.4 acres the City will gain is dry land. Mr. Moses stated approximately 1.5 acres of dry land will be used for the proposed development, combined with the City's 1.5 acres, therefore, the City will gain slightly more than 3 acres of dry land. Commissioner Miller inquired if the wording of Finding No. 11 should be amended to indicate "unacceptable costs." Commissioner Hegland requested clarification of the proposed re-wording of Finding No. 11. Community Development Director Jopke stated the language would indicate "The land swap should not result in unacceptable costs to the City." He suggested the addition of language, which further indicates `The City Council should look at the total costs of the land swap." Commissioner Hegland advised that this language should indicate "The Planning Commission does not believe the City will incur any unacceptable costs with this proposal," as they were uncertain regarding the potential expenses at this time. Commissioner Hegland commented that the issue of re-platting appears to be addressed in this statement as well. Community Development Director Jopke inquired if the Planning Commission desired to omit the words "would support" from the first sentence on Page 2 of the resolution. Commissioner Miller advised the words "would support" did not appear to be necessary, as the language already indicates the Planning Commission supports the TOLD concept and the proposed land swap. She requested further clarification of the proposed re-wording of Finding No. 11. Community Development Director Jopke stated the language is proposed to indicate "At this time, the Planning Commission does not believe that the land swap would result in unacceptable costs to the City. The City Council should look at ihe total costs of the land swap." MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Laube. To Approve Mounds View Planning Comtnission Resolution No. 599-99, a Resolution Supporting TOLD Development Concept and Praposed � � Mounds View Pl;tnning Commission Regular Meeting December 1, 1999 Page 10 Land Swap, as Amended to Indicate that the Language of Finding No. 11 be Modified to State "At this time, the Planning Commission does not believe the City will incur any unacceptable costs with this proposal. The City Council should look at the total costs of the land swap," and To Omit the Words "would support" from Page 2, First Paragraph, First Sentence. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 The motion carried. Community Development Director Jopke stated staff will present the Planning Commission and Park and Recreation Commission recommendations to the City Council at the December 13, 1999 Gity Council meeting. 7. Special Planning Case No. SP-074-88 Discuss revisions to proposed Ordinance 642, an ordinance amending the Zoning Code related to driveway widths and curb cuts. Planning Associate Ericson stated proposed Ordinance 642 pertains to the revision of sections of the Zoning Code related to driveway widths and curb cuts. He stated the Planning Commission has discussed this matter at four previous meetings, and at their last meeting, directed staff that with the incorporation of the information brought forward at that meeting, the ordinance would be in a form appropriate to bring forward to the City Council, Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has amended the ordinance, as per the direction of the Planning Commission at the previous meeting, and has prepared Resolution 600-99, which recommends to the City Council adoption of Ordinance 642. Commissioner Johnson noted that the RO Zoning District has been included in the ordinance. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has made this correction, and has included the appropriate curb cut for the RO Zoning District. Commissioner Stevenson requested clarification regarding how the matter will proceed from this point. Planning Associate Ericson stated a public hearing has been set at the December 13, 1999 City Council meeting for the first reading of the ordinance. He advised that the ordinance will require two readings before the Council, and will receive final adoption at the first regular City Council meeting in January. MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Miller. To Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 600-99, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Proposed Ordinance 642, and Ordinance Amending Title 1100, Chapters 1104, 1107, and 1121 Regarding Curb Cuts and Driveway Widths; Special Planning Case SP-074-99. _ -- _ � :��_�: . i:� �. _____ �= ___-_ . - -- �i' Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Ayes-7 Nays-0 8. Staff Reports / Items of Information A. Previous Council Actions December 1, 1999 Page 11 The motion carried. Community Development Director Jopke stated at the November 22, City Council Meeting, the hearing dates for Sunrise United Methodist and Ordinance 642 were set. He stated the Council gave first reading approval, pending further discussion at the upcoming Council Work Session, of Ordinance 644, related to billboards. Community Development Director Jopke indicated staff provided the Council with an update regarding the filling of the two vacant positions in the Community Development Department. He indicated the Jeremiah Anderson has accepted the Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector position, and will begin on December 8, and Aaron Parrish will be the new Economic Development Coordinator, with a start date of December 15. He stated staff was looking forward to having these individuals on board. 9. Chairperson and Planning Cammissioners Report No reports were considered. 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 7:46 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. ^ , ; � _ _ _ __ � _— ��._�..��.-s _r.��..__..��:,__ �.�c..:_�y.; r�__.. '._�� --. ' i�: �� -� � - ---- �---'�'I •-. .. _-- -� — --= --�__.--�- --� — �=- - -. . " . . �_ _;; � --- �s. .... � - ... - ; . � :_' . .-: ...` :: {_: "_ � Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting S. Ayes-7 Nays — 0 Stafi Reports / Items of Information A. Previous Council Actions December 1, 1999 Page 11 The motion carried. Community Development Director Jopke stated at the November 22, City Council Meeting, the hearing dates for Sunrise United Methodist and Ordinance 642 were set. He stated the Council gave first reading approval, pending further discussion at the upcoming Council Work Session, of Ordinance 644, related to billboards. Community Development Director Jopke indicated staff provided the Council with an update regarding the filling of the two vacant positions in the Community Development Department. He indicated the Jeremiah Anderson has accepted the Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector position, and will begin on December 8, and Aaron Parrish will be the new Economic Development Coordinator, with a start date of December 15. He stated staff was looking forward to having these individuals on board. 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Report No reports were considered. 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 7:46 p,m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. N:�DATAIUSERSIBARBBISHARE�PC Minutes ofDecember 1, 1999.DOC -- - --_ ---- --=- � �----- _ �-=- --- � ., _� � _ vi MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION January 19, 2000 7e00 PoM. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. 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 --------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Approve Planning Commission Minutes: a. December 1, 1999 b. November 17, 1999 5, Planning Case No. 57�-99 Property Involved: 2442 Laport Drive Consideration of a variance request for a reduced side-yard setback for the proposed home to be located at 2442 Laport Drive. Applicant: Spencer Mistelslce 6. Planning Case No. 579-99 Consideration of Resolution 603-00, a resolution approving a front yard setback variance for the building located at 4749 Old Highway 8. Applicant: ASC Properties, LLC. 7 8. 0 10 Annual review of Bylaws Staff Reports / Items of Information a. Previous Council Actions (1/10/00) Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Adjournment to Agenda Meeting (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) ****************�*******�*************** APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CONiM[JNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. ********�****************************** (Over) � _--�...�� l� _:.;. �- : �_;:�z' �i=-_` _- : _- . _ - :: ; ��f � -+ . - - � _-_ --- ?GENDA SESSION AGENDA 1. - Review Minutes from the January 5, 2000 Planning Commission meeting 2. Comprehensive Plan Review N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMM\PCAGENDA12000U -5-00. WPD ! 1 'z � .- - --- -- --� --� - '• --. :_�: _�. �` _: -- _ -- - _- -- -�- —. . �: City of Mounds View Planning Commission Rep o rt Meetzng Date: Janua�y 19, 2000 Title: CONSTDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A REDUCED SIDE-YARD SETBACK AT 2442 LAPORT DRIVE. Introduction: Spencer Mistelske, property owner of Lot 3, SMUDER ADDN.., has applied for a variance to construct a home at 2442 Laport Drive closer to the side lot line than is allowed according to the City Code zoning requirements. The reason why a variance is required in this situation is because the SMUDER plat included a thirty-foot right-of-way, named Faber Street, which is adjacent to Lot 3 to t11e west. The City Code requires that all buildings be set bacic 30 feet from any public street or right of way. There is no distinction made between improved or unimproved right of way, and nor should there be. The Planning Commission considered this matter at the January 5, 2000 meeting. At that meeting the Planning Commission continued consideration of this matter. Staff has had additional discussion with the applicant concerning other options including a minor subdivision that could allow the proposed house to be located such that a variance would not be necessary. As of the writing of this report, staff has not heard from Mr. Mistelske about how he wants to proceed. Therefore staff has not prepared a resolution for Planning Commission consideration. Staff will report any additional information it receives at the January 19, 2000 meeting Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning commission continue this matter until the February 2, 2000 meeting. N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEV CASES\578-99\MISTELSK2.doc �- _.... ��- _�1 r -_ .. .. ... - _ _ _ y _ - _.. _ _ - . �`�_--._- . . _ . ._ .. _._ _- --.� �-. _31. Agenda Item: ## 6 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: January 19, 2000 Title: CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A REDUCED FRONT-YARD SETBACK AT 4749 OLD HIGHWAY 8. Introduction: ASC, Properties, LLC., the applicant, has recently acquired this property, located at 4749 Old Highway 8. One of the conditions of the sale was that the nonconforming setback status be resolved through the granting of a variance. The building, a 38,192 square-foot office / warehouse structure, was constructed in 1978 and was most recently occupied by NASCO / Unidare US Inc, a distributer of welding supplies and parts. The building for the last year or more has been vacant. Discussion: Upon arranging for the sale of the parcel to ASC Properties, LLC, it was discovered that the building encroaches into the front yard setback along Old Highway 8. The required setback for a building in the I-1 Zoning District is 40 feet; the as-built setback is actually ranges from 40 feet to 37.33 feet. The applicant would like to have a variance approved to legally allow in perpetuity the existing non-conforming front yard setback. Given the fact that the new owners had nothing to do with the construction of the building in 1978, a good hardship-case can be made for the approval of such a variance. Recorrcnzendation: Staff recommends the approval of the requested variance and has drafted for the Commission's action Resolution 603-00, a resolution approving a variance for a reduced front yard setback for ASC Properties, LLC, with stipulations. �� James Ericson, PCanner N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DE VCASES\579-99W SC.RPT _ t - , ; - = - - ---'- �i � ' � . . - -- _ . ., __ _ , = . _ --- - >. , : _ - ._; . . �� _ . . --- - - - . _ _ ,_.> _ ,. _� _ - F� Y E +�' ll7j��l?� ��? .� �,A 1�� yn�� og`� ' p�rtaeR��' r COMMUNTTY DEVELOPMENT DEPART'MEI� � DEVELOYM�NT APPLICATION 2401 Hi�hway 10, Mounds View MN SS 112 , 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 - FAX Please Typc or prant Information - Complctc Both Side� oiThi9 Fonn Apptkant Information Nsme of Appli�ant }� S� (Zp Pe(L.'j"j LS ,�L (� Telephone � ��'� 29 • i� � g �„ddress �3 8� 5��dq e�,v o o d�-v C��u e S� v-}�-� Fax _'� L v1,'v�2 a� o ��$,� 1`� t� �n.e r o-� SS �'Z � 1 '�` All Co(1-2csponr�ehie stiou�d�c d�2r�Fe�P -fa Dec�iSe (�o`f-�6a✓��'i- u�W�u��'{' �Wein�sh�e,P.t�. Ynterest in Prnpca�t7 (chcck appropriate box) , � Owper of Proper�y 0 Contcacc for Deed Ovmcr � I�es.�sae. Operatar, Manager o �4�roemcnt to Purch�.� p Other (explain) Applicant� must provide evideuce of intetxat ip property at the time of arplication, and if you are not the owner of the properiy, you must provide a letter oT permu�ion from the owner �iving consent ro ehe Pilin� of this appiicatiuo. The property owner must aign thia application for it to be aecepted. Prnperty Dcecription/Propo�al I,, Ad�ess or Gcn�-al Location � 1 �-f � �� l {-(i ��hw�.0 �l� �' `p�ncf S �%� c �'✓ � � �. ��a� S�.\l Legal Descriprion ��t- 2,�, lo �,k_. I �t'1 � c1w c��„ .1.�nc�.� s+�r,'w t J Ptoperty Ideati5cacion #(PIN #� 1 � ?� �� 3,��'i (� b l7 � 2-- # af A,cr�es �� I 7% ^ c��t z�g _I. -1 � � �( U�t+�z.-�,� Type nf Application ❑ Comprcheusive Plan Amendm�t O Rezaning O Major Subdi�ision o Minor Subdivisioa ❑ Planncd Unic Dtvetoprnen� (PUD) � PUD Am�ndment D Condi[ional Use P�rmit � VST'1fl11Gt` ❑ Codz Appeal C� Devclop Review/Site Plaz� O W�tland Alteradon Prnmit a Wedand Buffc Permit o Ftoodplain Parmit a O�hcr 5250 5250/acre; min S25a max S I 500 3254 + $250 dtposit* 5200 R�fer co r�zoning Ccra 5350 R-�, R-? $%S: N�� 11j12CS $�5� R•I, R-2 $100 0ll others $?�0 S100 5135/ncre; min E125 nlax $750 R-1, R-2 $1;0; nll others 5200 R-1, R-2 52�; all othcrs 5100 5200 'Dtposils sha11 be paid to e.ovet all cos�s ot public notices, ms[trials and staff or consultnnt �ime ��cnc in the revicw, rrsearch at preparation of ma[erials associated with [his application. The applicant shnll he rc:�-ponsible for all rca�onable inct�re� coscs in e�ccess of the initial dcpo�7t amowic. Any portion of the dc�usi� ni�t spzn� or cncumher�d shall bc rcfunded to t!� applican[ within thirty (30) deys sfter considcralion of the application is wmplctccl. pleaie complete the reverse �ide of this appGeation. f _ _ � k _ _. ._ ---_ = - � .�.s��. .y_ � tl � .� ---- � � _ � . : _ _ _ - - - -- ;: _ � -. _._- - � - - C'. City af Mounds Yew, MN Pa e 2 Develo mentA lication Present Use of Pmperty ❑ Undeveioped/Vacant ❑ Duplex/Two Femily Dwella�g � BusiuesslCommencial Escablishment ❑ Other (explain) �■ Sin�lz F�i1y �Clling Multi-family Dwelling lndusvial Esu�blishmer►l' Ptvpc.tity Classificatian o Abstract � Totrens By MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APYLICATIQN. I HEREBY D�CLAkE THRT, TO 'I'H1:13L• ST OF MY KNOwLEDGE. TEiE INFORNrA7'ION PRO�DFD iS TRCrE ACCIiRATE. , �� Sip�tiu�e ofApplicaut . Name ofApplicant (ryPed�Pn�� S °L..• �Q_a� �2.fi �--� l..l.. Sigt►at�e af Propary (7wner Name ofProptrty Owner (typed/Printad) pddress of owner phonc Numbc:r of Ownec Vv�P.r -�- S C. '?2-0 ��fL.fi � � l.L'L. 38aS �� e�� M ;�N' o'1t �� SS'�� a- gz� - i�� iiciiMi�t�#i!s*a�#rtt�Y*4**��f�"+esif*s+ii6�h�M**i*M�MF�s+�ss�l�ktt4*i**#�1"My�cstrs*#*#*i�kii*rasssass�*�k�A*�#�' FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Datc af Submittnl �' pL�:ignzd to: Date of ,4cceptance 6p.day Liznit r� 120-d�y limit Plsuaiag Case No. S 7 I- 9 9 - Fees Paid: AppGearion: o'j..ro • o0 psr}c pedicahon: I}eposits: Other. Accounc # / � r- 3 �f r>�-�— Check � Receipt # ��-�-�1 �� Toial: 1i98 �:�DATAKi ROUPS�COltDE�FORtitSDE V APP. FOR : � _ _ . , . _ � _------ - -------- - �-=- - �- - , : _ . -_. .� , - i - . - - - '� - ---- - - - - _. u. DGEWOOD IR. HIGH SCHOOL Zoning Map Planning Case 579-99 Applicant: ASC Properties Variance Request Location: 8011 Sunnyside Road � � J E■ I z � �I W "' o w � Q � � � w ~ Q z i �L�� :: :: " �C :: :: :: ��. :: ii e .•. City of Mounds View Location Map �ii 1 :, 1 ,_== -'_�=- �„ _- `�= - : -_i,�-�,-,.._ ASC Properties, LLC 4749 Old Highway 8 Variance Planning Case No. 579-99 - �� 4749 Old Highway 8 Properties Within 350' � ��._�o.Q � , � » -; . . , �. I� _ ..o ._f*'a�Ji.Or�_ . . .o —.n —..a___. , v.n M1.o— ..o - . Q 'I �lM��iy �. . . � 1 � „ ' ._�. ��.:II" 4.-� �.. . ' , . . LL� i� — ' — y — � : rt v bc •i •a—=�rouoa eo'�xn un '� ' � ` � ..,,-- .` ' .. . � W . �-. . . .. � � .. N . a�O �^�. � ��MO . g 'OIV AdMHJ.IH uIX�� . m w O� M u --�u ru� ru vt u m iu w �y , � O p �(1 Yaw1ID am�orlun — n o m • > > � �.n«.� ' > . ,. — C' JaA. � � . Yna • . ' � : • � « _ � � uvn »voi .0 macwnr ewn L3lG'+W . . • ^�'��' r � — — — — — - ^ ' MIY,�^ ff10NIR1111Y r 'D , `r` . �� S MIYM — —+ — SII�N1111111='— ^ ^ ` J , � � � ' . .. ..-. _' _ _ _ . � � � . �I g � � .� .' e +� l�M�. . . . . W��! � . .� . . 1M1`•� Aw • � ' .' . . . . '°' -- ::6'm � .w-. ao•ast 'iw:�i.t�.oas .n ,.o � - � ,,, .� , ��a� • � -:. , • ' �� g • : i ' . ' . �i� � ' k �' bC'DVd YLLW3Y �' I � ,� , � s.� i ' . . � ; � . • . � �� I , i . AINfq� A35�1'M 10 �RL MWB 1Dd SV �'.`_ L__`.... _ ' . �,,1 • . • . . ,� IWl]01153tl Slp611lAISLLi61Q/ p!� �� - I . e� y �_ � ' -"'- � ' . ' ' t, ".el•-. ' � J i $ . � . . 9i $ ' - . i . i d a I NNM 3lMNW ' � • � - �jj ' . � � J�vt)l�l art` )0� LvmovYV � ' �. •4h.' . �=-� � I � n' " : ry � . \ \ 1 �� I. � I . � ' ' tl $ € K' . . .� � . . . � .�``` ,i . . , i.: .. ' . . . . . ; i •, I : .� .._��_1_ � , . -� ° . , . -- - . ,, ; - � �� :.� . , ,�.,. .�--- : � � � .. . ��. � k � � :I �� . . . � C � l� ' I � . 3� �- � N � ��,:�: . , . # � . �. � I oI � � � � � �, � �, �, .' � '. " , . . . ; I . . � . � I ' . I Z : � I ' �. `�i�:;��1 :'� ` � . , � . . . �� . � .�, I , ' , , ��.; ',y � . r ii ;'l,.' •, .' . � � i ' e—�'-- I I ,' I I '' I �,•'�', ',. . .. . , .� r �'� i � I '� 7 .' . . • ^� . , , � � �;� . . .� . � � . . � f: �� . � . � . . . . . m . . _.. . . �� ' - ,....._..... � """_ """ . . . . . _.. .... . '...._.. �„�Y��. - I ,�� ,` ~ . . . . �.�M.'... .. . . . . ' t.. , . i •' ' .-� - �N ' � � 1 . .: :`_"� _ .c=rJ, � ../W�i?�� uliT;,F -i� `�i�� h - - � ...,=I7,:: •" L_ �� . . '�1:��.'� ;Y� . -�. � ' � � ' . �. . �,� � . },� �� 'I' ,,1'1• I '''• � I" 1 : , I , . . • .' . �. � .. . • I . • v � �\ ..I ,;;g 3= si.,.. I . I I .. � . p�.. . . . . �.. • � ' _... u � N : i• -��-,- . � . .. -'. . i; 9 .. . �. . . I � ; I.... .. _ . .I � ,�, , M � � � ��+. ' - t°s ° `m m � M i .• � _ N �: ;I I �� : �; � 'r. `\'� � ,� .,. ,'i" ' • ,� ♦ ' . i'� . • I 3 . S � I �' u� j a I 3 � � � � . " 1 �:.ti.I; .�I:.�. I. �+.1�'�, L . �'' ` y�.'..' .. • ' • ' � ! �� ' . ' • . ;.l.:•1:-Y ��. u. . . � •,7 I 00 . � _ : .i�� ,... . ., J;: Z.. a I . I: . . � �i- '.t:�: ' '`', � ;;. ::�� . ,� �: : �I � � ' ' : . , . . F., . .. � � � . .I, � '. . .G.�. . , ,,: <',�:� . h , , � , . � , :-< � .. r: � a ; I �� : ,. : ,, :.• :• I',' ' , • �,'w : : , . 61I• ,� •''t,'.�,d• . �: . r.i � �� k. .�'� I; ° i.7 , � ��,, ! . � , '. . .. . ir ' ' !��I ��b''t'', . I • �_ .I.' . . :ir . . ' . • . i�.�.. . i . ' . ,.I . �� . . � �� : � � � .. , . . ,, . � . . . � �, � � � � 3�,, ; � l� :,I,�,I� ,� . ,. � , . :� . , . , . � . � . . . .. .. . � . � � : . � � . , �_ � .fi.„�.;_;�,.,.. . . . . . . � . �.. � ; :� -� . � ' ' r� �;� � : �: � . � . . � � � � � � . � `� _ -'oi I I ' � N'o . ' . . . , . .� � � 11:.,.,' r., � I , I R I , � . � t � i" . -•' ;(i . . , � r.,j..,:. �. � 1 ;I 1 1 '' � , .. I . :' � I , :I.� � I ';` .. � . � . � '' , � y . ' I ' �_..'oa - I ,. I . r � �' • ' :' . ' � �� • -�pC•'- L ,,�� r �� ' �9i61 ' �, ,, � ' � � 'I . . _� : . , . :; . . "�"'"" �eoc - - - � ,� ' < . '' . •. '�':�T. . . �� . . . ' . �,"� ''_`�- ; i i . . . . . . . .� . . ' `L . � _ � � ; — - --- -- - ...,. . .. . _ _ . . . . . : _ . __ . . � --- ---- -- — � F_3 . . . . i . . . . . i .. -_ e. '�_�..,r . _ , " ' �' =i: . . . . - ��._:�_ ` ' __.. _ . ,..' .,' ___'.. ' . . .._ "_ "'____'. "" � i" MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 603-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MIlVNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 1104.01, SUBD. 4, OF THE MOUNDS VI�W ZONING CODE P�RTAINING TO S�TBACKS TO ALLOW FOR A REDUC�D FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR AN EXISTING OFFICE- WAREHOUS� BUILDING LOCATED AT 4749 OLD HIGHWAY 8; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 579-99 WHEREAS, The applicant, ASC Properties, LLC, has applied for a variance to allow for a 37-foot front yard setback for the existing building located at 4749 Old Highway 8; and, WHEREAS, 4749 Old Highway 8 is zoned I-1, Industrial District, and is legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, Midwaylndustrial Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Property Survey 5. Staff Report WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's control; and, _ --- : � _ i .. - -._._. ---_ ----. .. - --� --= _- -_- - ---- Resolution 601-00 ASC Setback Variance January 19, 2000 Page 2 - - -- - - � . � _ �___. _� �- --- — -� � �, �, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held Wednesday, January 19, 2000, with regard to this variance request; 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, THEREFOR�, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient hardship with regard to the property located at 4749 Old Highway 8 to warrant the approval of a variance for a 37-foot front yard setback for the existing office-warehouse building, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to 4749 Old Highway 8 which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity in that the building was constructed 22 years ago and had been assumed to be in conformance with the Code. 2. 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 in that the condition has existed for 22 years and correcting the non-conformity would not be feasible. 3. The variance request is the result of factors over which the applicant has had no control, The building was constructed 22 years ago, well before the applicant sought to purchase the property. 4. Granting a variance to allow the 37-foot front yard setback would allow the applicant to utilize the building as it had been intended and obtain the property without the non- conformity to cloud the title. 5. The Planning Commission finds that the requested 37-foot setback is the minimum variance that would alleviate the applicant's hardship. 6. The purpose of the variance provision in the Code is to give relief to property owners seeking to improve their properties yet are unable to do so because of zoning code requirements,and factors beyond their control. Granting this variance for a reduced setback would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. 7. A 37-foot setback would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. _ �= : , __ --- _ ,.. __ -=-•- -- - ' —� - - �•-- �._..- -.� : -- -- --- Resolution 601-00 ASC Setback Variance ' January 19, 2000 Page 3 NOW, THER�FORE, BE IT FURTHER R�50LVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission approves the variance request for a reduced front yard setback for the existing office- warehouse building at 4749 Old Highway 8 contingent upon the following: 1. The approved reduced setback shall be as shown on the survey dated 11/4/99 on file with the Commity Development Department. 2. The applicant arranging to have recorded with Ramsey County this resolution of approval and provide proof of such recordation to the City within 60 days of the date of approval, or this variance shall be rendered null and void. Adopted this 19th day of January, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Corr►munity Development Director (SEAL) N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V�DE VCASES\579-99\603-00 PC. RESH ; I �. 1 ;,_'t :=� �-:i i: =? � � , � _ , - --.s,. __..- — - - -- -.� ,. . ,� _ - — - . ._ ,_ _ - - ---- '� _--- � �F - r, ;� i .) � �� I'_ -� � _ _ _ _ ______ _ ___ -, •- , , „ _ _ -- - _-.. _ .: _ _ _ ;: --, '` _. _=--- ---- -- - - r .-. . . . . ; . _ _ _. _.. _ . PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS V�W PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS V1EW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 2401 High��,1VIer��i 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson ai "f.0�: 2, Roll Call ary 5, 2000. °y 5, 2000 �'?i�ty Hall �II`� 55112 Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Comnn�ssi+��r�, �J��rke, ileg;l��?ci:; �bahnson, Kaden, Miller, and Stevenson (Commissioner Stevensor�,��n�t� %�a� ��?es;i:i�� ai 7:� >��.��i.). �<.;��`• ;`: Members Absent: Commissioner Braathert; leave of> �bs�x�r:�,, ?w�c� =;:�rhmissioner Laube, with prior notice. :A" :r., .,::..:_ Also Present: Planning Associate J��a �ncson at�t� Recorder �'rish Pearson. Index to:�� p1i1I1T11Ylfy �r��: Reque�c %�-'P At 2442 La.p Spencer Mi.�; ,,,;< �� i .,. . .!•.`s.Z:� � ration of Res dates for the of Planning i ::> i� �� 3. 78-99, r��. ][�rive. Consideration of a variance e� � or the proposed home to be located ��{�.`1,�--{)�, a resolution establishing the year 2000 �1�; ��%i�w Planning Commission. ission Officers norts / Iterns flf Information �a� E��(i l�lanning Commissioners Reports Page � 11 11 13 20 .:YJ`'l'�� .... :iAtS��i�'• : ,. �,.:; ..- . -.._ -{i r - -�< :-.-�-- : � - _ . -__ _ -- _ �-^il _ .. . _'. . �3.�==� � __ __'"_�� .. _ . . ' . _ . _ � _ -. . .. . . ___ I., "'_'_' " _ �...� . .- _ ,��._ � .. . .. .: � ..'v ._- . r . .. _ . . ._ � Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on 4. Planning Case No. 578-99 Property Involved: 2442 Laport Drive Consideration of a variance request for a reduced side- located at 2442 Laport Drive. Applicant: Spencer Mistelske The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as ;,. The applicant, Spencer Mistelske, is r�c�u�5ting a which on this lot is 30 feet, as it al�i.�� . s��-eet r�� takes the form of Faber Street, �w�t�I� was ori�;��2�11 and at 30 feet in width, is ript su��;ient for a. ,�:��r�� develop�c� "o� �mproved in �.k�� '��ac�. January 5, 2000 Page 2 osed home to be variance from tiiie side-yard setback requirement, ht-of-way �e explained that this right-of-way y�olatted with the SMUDER Addition, in 1968, �, ;a��r� t� is the City's position that it will not be Plannir�� a��jE�,�,�; �.ricson �Y�c�a�y��c.� ther� rs one parcel that would take access from the right-of- way, an�l ti��; �� e�z �, Blocic Y, ��?J��.;Addition. He advised that the City holds a Use Deed on this prope��y; ��:i�r��'�xe, there' �;, nt� �qr�cern that it would be landlocked, if in the future, the City decides �c� �r�c;�i:� �t�� ht-of-wa� ,<�� Plann��'Associate Eric ��r�' ;�q��:��' ;R;he question that arises with this request pertains to whether or ._.,��.� not`t}iere is a possibili� yt �g� ��tial development of this area at some point in the future. He , -,. ; a�ltised that if the Comz�,t`ssic�ii finds this to be the case, it would probably not be a good idea to y�,; � . �r�rnt a variance to the_��-foot setback requirement. He explained that they would not want to ;. _:��,v for this house tc� 1�e located 10 feet from the side property line, if at some time in the future, F�, !�,�� c;� �ould be ccilistructed directly in front of it. However, staff contends that this will not r.�� , ;{�r� i�, ��1t��td� probably not be unreasonable to grant a variance to allow for the 10-foot :h��<��,��a.' ��er ��r��d that a hardship is certainly present, in that the unimproved right-of-way exists, <� ; �� ,i�y ��laa� no plans to improve it. Planning Associate Ericson stated the site plan submitted by the applicant indicates a side-yard setback of 8 feet from the western property line, and additionally, an 8-foot setback from the eastern property line, which is the location of the proposed garages. He advised that this setback could be decreased to 5 feet, as the minimum setback requirement for a garage is 5 feet from the property line, and this would provide sufficient room on the west side of the lot for a 10 foot side- _ _ � �� ` � , `- - : '� -- - _-_ ._ . _.�.. ._�__ _ _ �-- - ._.. . --- -_- 1Vlounds View Plannang Cornmission J�nuary 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 yard setback. He advised that if a variance is granted, staff recommends it be which is the typical side-yard setback for properties not affected by an uniYnpr Planning Associate Ericson stated the site plan provid approximate width of the proposed house, and this could b setback. He explained that although staf�' has not supplied this request, a resolution has been drafted which indicate� this document, if the Commission were to consider �Y�z indicated that staff has notified all property owners within :� Pam DeGross, 8133 Woodlawn Drive, stated their land �i��k that she had spoken to staffafter the subject property hac� bee been discussing the different development possibilik.�#�� .�' �:�� have determined some possible solutions for what i� ��,r,�� `�r�� Mrs. DeGross stated they own approxima��ly `2 acres oi la�� houses on this property. She stated a partion of th�ir land could also utilize it as a right-of-w� y. ��e indica��c� they a� � determine their interest in develo�� i��at land 'She reque ,. adding that if the City begins to gz�t varian�c53, �hcy will ret�i: , � _ , Dan II��c�� t��;;>, � 133 WooEdl�t7,ra,: '�?a-ive Mr. DeCBrc��.�:� �,�<��tl ��ey ��lzn s�;, i�t� stated the a��r��i�,��' pt��o�3�� io €: however, the ��t�y ��:�� ;��d othe requested th� Comrriz>�nzr�� ,��s�de� where3= <�oodlawn I��-►�a� !,;�c��s '�h �. ., dev��opments together. owns N ��n °�, �'�� 3. less 10 feet, =way. rs..tl�e ComrtaiE;��r�r� i�p�xr�:�i�s the ;. fted slightl� �� a��F,��u ��' �� ",��-�foot Commissi+�n wi�il �. $-�-: ��I�.�� for>. �--�oo� s�tiback, and li� c;f�s,��c�' �'��;;t�� ; ��a�: variance at this 'ri��;, kTe �s�� c�� e:�i�, s�_abject property. up �d ��`��3�.�' ��.Y�e�. She indicated sold, �a�c� �� k��;�� i:la.at the City has "bi�; woa�Y. �". ' �he �rndicated they � Yhis a.re��. . nr3 are �onsidering building four �>=r;� ��ber Street; therefore, they ie�-vi�-wing several developers to i the Commission consider this, variances as well. which lots the applicant owns. Planning ��f�� heir property as well, and will also require an exit. He ��6.r� {z�i'' a driveway adjacent to unimproved Laport Drive, �,��;rnpts to develop this area for at least 25 years. He hi"s, in conjunction with the existing development in the area �ugh to Arden Street, and attempt to tie all of these -, DeGross indicatec�;;tihat if the applicant is permitted to construct a driveway where an actual �,« road should be.�';:�tiey will have to request right-of-way from the applicant's driveway to �:: <> � 4he back c�f'�fl�eir property in order to build. She commented that this road should be �,K:�cl �tc� a ft�ilI� sized City street with fire hydrants and other amenities. Miller inquired why the previous requests to build in this area were denied. Mr. DeGross explained that in the past, the wetlands were in closer proximity to the property, and they have been receding, however, they could also come back. He presented the Commission with an alternate development proposal he had drafted. . . � � ., ._ �� _ . �.,. Y . � r � . _ . . I - < -- =� � .�� '�.-' _„r - ' ' % E , _' � � 4 - -- �� - _ ; , i --� -' ---•- - ; t - - - _ - - - " - � - - --- -- -- - _ : - .: . ; ' . ` ---- � - =°--- -=-� . - , ; - _ . , -- -- - - � `- -- '-. , � . i� . � Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the circumstances leading to the 4. !�'�,. ;: �,. Planning Associate Ericson explained that when the SMUDER�:;;�t�dition v� was assumed that the property on this side of Laport Drive vu�t��i1d be similar 's con��ti`I of Lot � 96�, it fi`a�r� �I]�t an additional 30 feet of nght-of-way would be platted as ;��ll. He pottited out ti��ai �Ik�� -�n��1�1 have resulted in a standard size right-of-way, however, i�' �^�,��r o��irred. He irndic;��c�r�' �.,�,� �� went tax-forfeit a number of years ago, and ownership i�e��x��a��'�;E� tlie County. He advi��-,�� 1��t the City does not own the property, however, no develo��r��r�� :��1 �c�ur on the lot withouti the City's interaction. Planning Associate Ericson pointed out that if the DeCi� o�s' decid� Yc� �r property, and choose to dedicate an additional 30 f�aC t��'x��f��,� o� way t:o would be unwise to grant a variance to allow far t��;� 1��°��ar3� �F.E��a _r,lc on He explained that although there is no guara,z�`t��`tha� ��,� �i�d� ��r��r., �h� exists may create sufficient reason to preve� granting �� i��a�:�: ar� �� Commissioner Kaden inquired re Street. Planning Associate Ericsc feet of frontage. Mrs. �� tated foun c�as� ��t� �� cor Commissio��:s� - �� irnqui weeks earlier. �� x��ups�, ��1,: permitted to �i:iliz� �.%�a :� ��:� :ra ,.�� tr p� �q i�� c, ��: SO('iGli:f- z�`,1`l�? ��»y �y � �� " 3�. ��J' �"sioner Mille�- irrr�u��-,�� i�` variance. :�� or develop their L��r Laport Drive, it �,:�licant's property. that the possibility <. < <: �.,.:< ..��4> �: ze amou��of fronta�� the DeGross' own along Faber �hat a��ording to,,�h'e half-section map, they own 220 f %-� ,,. ,:, l��d, ��a� �hat they have already selected plans for had requested a variance on this property a few °d this was correct. He stated the applicant was Use Agreement. configuration of the house might prevent the necessity �n�er Mistelske, t}��;:�applicant, stated the only other configuration discussed was possibly �,. .. ing the structure;:;�' degrees, however, this would not make sense, as the house would face pf:.:.,: ��osite direct[o;�� He explained that if the area were developed, most of the homes would at ��; �.�a,�lt3� Di1Ve. stated they plan to build two houses facing east, and two houses facing north. Chairperson Peterson inquired if Lot 2 was also available to the applicant. Mr. Mistelske, stated he was the owner of Lot 2, and at this time he was uncertain regarding his plans for this lot, which were somewhat dependent upon what occurred that evening. He noted that the neighbors to the east of his property were interested in purchasing this lot to expand their __ _ _' ; :_ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting _ _ _____ _ _� - :-- -: ._. __ :� . — January 5, 2000 Page 5 back yard, and he had advised them that if all went well at the meeting, he proceed with this. -f�<<::. �.. Mr. DeGross suggested that if the property along Laport Drius ��re �vic of the property owners would have larger lots. Mr. Mistel��e stated he therefore, had no control over it. He added that he did ni�� believe �t>ry inquired regarding its size. Chairperson Peterson stated the 75-foot frontage width w the lot does not allow for sufficient square footage. Planni lot is approximately 9,890 square feet in size. Mr. Mistelske stated the wetlands were a major cc�A��.��s� explained that the wetlands are in very close pr��g�r�t�' would not be feasible, unless the wetlands rec,�ele"'a� so��r� �n�hen > to , all and W� ; however, the length of ��icson advised that this i��`�<�E;ed his land. He r�or�structing a street Chairperson Peterson advised that wetla�.t� boundar�� are r�of r��I��i�,ii l�y their present location, but rather, are examined on an histo��l bas�s ��Te explain�d that soil borings are taken to determine the soil types and the ty�es tif vegetatapn� that hava grown in the area for in the past 50 .... , years or so. - �' �' ' ;, Comrra.ics��x ICaden inqu�d .'�k �� . delineatio�+.'�� , �7.j��lands had been performed. Mr. Mistelske prese��:;�� ' �ommissi�3�� ;��~ �w�ilar►ca �'�€��1�xa��tion. Planning Associate Ericson explained that t}��; �� «��dicat� � X1�� .��3�c�i�a�a��c location or the 100-foot wetland buffer line. Mrs. DeGross �� easement on ��aF�� `�� :,h=:::: t�;$' Associate �.ric<>�� from this area, a��r 3 take access at thi�;;;I� oulc� ��`��!i��y encounter difficulties in attempting to obtain an vev✓:�y, a� ii is proposed to be located on a potential City street. that the Limited Use Agreement allows the applicant to take �lse. He stated it is not contemplated that any other parties ;��i::;. �eGross stated _��at because this proposal has come forward, they would build on their �t°��a�t-�:y, and the stz��t would have to be developed. She inquired who would be responsible for ��r, €,��<;a, �f c��lt�ping the street. Planning Associate Ericson stated the developer would be E;��a,,�,s��4;,��,�v �� ih� development of the street. __ _ _ _ _ iVlrs. 1�eGx�oss inquired why the applicant would not be responsible for this, as he would be developing his land, and using the road as his driveway. Planning Associate Ericson explained that pursuant to the agreement, when the street is constructed, any and all appropriate fees would be assessed to the applicant, however, this was to 1 : _ ;� - _ - - -� — - - - - == - - - -_ -- - - - - .. _ - . Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting _ _. January 5, 2000 Page 6 be determined. He stated the applicant would bear a portion of the re� construction of the street. , .�: _:;.:.: _�> Mrs. DeGross stated their land is fronted on three sides by p�tt+�d streets, ti�� also be responsible for the majority of the assessment. �� Planning Associate Ericson stated the City is considering �� this area, and staff has explored different possibilities, and � explained that given that information and the intent of the might desire to entertain another discussion of this mat� Commission feels that action is appropriate at this pomts ;I resolution of denial. He pointed out that the i�fc�rr appropriateness of granting a variance, however, +f�,��f��.A� reference, the discussion of different developmez�t �'��b� �,��Y��a� Commissioner Johnson inquired if the City; future. Planning Associate Ericson statec} � Corrunissioner Johnson advised that_„t�:.1ig1 costs of developing Faber Street;:�;;�rhich is explained that if the DeC� o Yc' v;`�belivide t; the respo��i�.A�ity for deve�c3��i� ��e street, street wer� s:� ��t�� ;v��rop�c�, it would. CO1T11711SSt4yTlE',i �0�;�dX�(� ,r� �tj DeG.r,.,t3�s''� lots could �� r�r-;i, .,,. sta��i this was correcc, �x��a�� ai}s,�r Street, simply to ��,��v the would �ot c�ritk�l >for future deve�r��g k�:i; �,��j��'r,'�his with the DeU�as�', r�� :�>��>`� ��la� Planning Commission i,�€ ��:� ihat if the Planning ✓ r;cy@41� ;�� J�,.-e�t staff to draft a ioxt pr€�;��t� '�a�ald impact the ; berleiit: c��' c��;' �,v�tland study for � �`rrnply �,ntrx;��uz��. � no plan� �o r.��'�f�yl_�'��a ��s��'Street at any time in the was c�i�recti. is, the develi�per would be responsible for the � ci proced��e with any large development. He , :;�;� ;�o� ��t�n "of their property, they would assume �i �rtg� developer. �� ,�af the question at hand relates to the setback, and if the l i.�� ;��:.rback cause a problem. Commissioner Johnson stated la�ting of� this area appears to convey the assumption that the �;d in the manner they have indicated. Commissioner Johnson , the City should not be responsible for the cost of constructing i,he subdivision of this property. ioner Heglaiit�" stated the City's only responsibility would be related to Lot 4. ; <:�;. ioner Joh.�;�n stated Lot 4 was not buildable. Planning Associate Ericson explained that ubsta�ac��rd lot, which does not meet the square footage requirement for development. 1�� i� �°,J§�� stated her in-laws own the adjoining property. She commented that they could purchase theii- in-laws back lot, and could access Faber Street from this property as well. Planning Associate Ericson stated many possibilities exist; however, Lot 4 is currently not developable. He pointed out that the applicant could also utilize 1000 to 1500 square feet from the back half of one of his lots, and it would be developable, however, that is not the issue at ' . � R .�.- .,�� . �- .. � 1 -.'T - `- . . . � _ . . ___��_.""-`_.__ __ � �.. � . :._a- -,�� ' _ - .:, ' _ r ''' � - _ �?� .� ..v '" ' '_ _ .-... _ .. . .' _'_ _- ` ' I..�, i: � ="'_„ �.____�__ ' . _ " _` __ "' " � '. '__' ." " .. Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 �- Regular Meeting Page 7 hand. He advised however, that simply being aware that these possibilities on the request before the Commission that evening. � ,�:H. Commissioner Hegland inquired if Lot 5 was developable �*�'��ttning there is a house on Lot 5. He explained that a number of 1��5`in the ( many years ago do not meet the current minimum lot size �-�t��.��rements. Commissioner Miller inquired if a cul-de-sac would be nec� Planning Associate Ericson reiterated that any number of po Chairperson Peterson stated since Mounds View is primarii� c�eve�le�� also arises. He indicated that re-development is an arPa �kae �ity has is also another possibility that should be considered. , Mx. DeGross stated his proposal com possibility would be for the applicant to house. Commissioner Kaden stated Mr. one half of their existing lot, alon Mrs. De�'�r��s comment�c� develo��, +.�� would sa�a�� ChairpeY-�or� �� E��',.•t�� ac�vi roads. Mrs. ��°a,�. �'��;�<' Commis�cirier "rohn��; �.c� � �,. . subdivi�li'ng proper�y. �� te1y;;;;�1in�ina ��<I�alf of Loi ,�: :•3:,r� .:�:. % h9 � __...a..�„i . ort I�r nigh� �hed light ;; ,<,� r:;}`t�;n�n stated �.��`� ��,��t�1o��d ab�r Street was re-development ,ved in, and that '�e suggested another roposed location of the new houses constructed on �,� �� the applir;��n�'Q� pr�pnsal is approved, and Faber Street is not r;��ruct a hou�� a� ��i�ir back yard. �� a.r��;�;_could only be constructed upon established, improved d��,� ��;1��licant was not building on an improved road. �}�at t}i'e applicant was not proposing to build three houses, and ;��"��oss stated the applicant was proposing to build a 400-foot �rperson Peterson at�vised that it is typical for the developer to be responsible for the initial � of constructing;a;:street, when more than one house is built on that street at the same time. �:�:.. explained that: �`�`er that point, the City pays all of the maintenance costs, with possib e ti �k� ��3��,tc t��h��ironertv owners. ��f;�g��; �.�sociate Ericson reiterated that this is discussion for another meeting, and the fact that these possibilities e�st should provide sufficient information to direct staff to draft a resolution of approval or denial of the variance request. Chairperson Peterson inquired regarding the amount of wetland in the area. Planning Associate Ericson explained that he had drawn in a loosely defined boundary of the City controlled wetlands on the plat map contained in the Staff Report. He stated this boundary is within two or three feet ,- _ � � ' -_� " � -�_. - --- • _ _ �,.�� ,. . : . °` ; _ .;;;�i k _ . _ : , .<:- .� r - - ' . _: _—,--- £ -_ - ' ' _ _ -- - ----. .� . _-. __ ; �. E. - -- -=----_:___.�.-�=- _- Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting January 5, 2000 Page 8 of that indicated on the applicant's delineation, however, without seeing the r��,�,ii�s of �� wetland study, it is simply an estimate on the part of staff and the City Engineer, ]�r: �r��^c�! �hat it is not believed that the lots located on the north side of unimproved Laport, Drive �r.r�.-e��fi ��; ��FV�lopable, even with a favorable delineation. . Commissioner Johnson inquired if this was due to the �i�a; oi' these ,�t�� P1a��A�� Ericson stated it was not, but rather because of the conditi�A�� f the sciils, and theiY� the wetland, which would not support housing. He advi�� fi��<�i �,hs;se were City co and no development could occur without the City's interaci:��, -�.�: ;t>r.r��,� ��oint. Chairperson Peterson inquired who owned the land to t�±�°nor-th +�� n��ved Laport Drive. Planning Associate Ericson explained that the City cont.rols these loi�, �.�Y�i ��.��s Use Deeds on them for drainage purposes, however, the State of ir.i�ar��i�=;;�r�� pwns the �ii �� a�pY, � Chairperson Peterson stated it was somewh�Z�� diffic�zl� a;� �e;,.�;r�xune t}�e highland trees from lowland on the aerial photograph, howeve�r;;1t appear�,�o ��Er��c:z,i� ��a�tural boundary line along the Laport Drive right-of-way. He statet� that smc� ��eY-e i;� ��t��l��y�1 for possible development f .<. and the improvement of Laport Dnve, further d�scussion shoc.�7c� talce place, prior to acting upon this matter. . .��rr ' Commissioner Stevenson Al�c��a�, �� =�regardin�, `�,�� .a�� t'r�me for consideration of this request. Plannin� �„��ociate Erics�� .�Q.F�cl in ordez` i.�� r�a��;�d �he 60-day requirement, the Commission should �a�..�; �?�?�i��a by Feb��,��; ��? c�r 15 at whi�� i��i� the City could request an additional 60-day extensie�aa� �� ?la�n�c? �� i�� a�� no� anticipate there being a need for this, as there was certainly �ra��:z��i ��7e zo�.- �r��dl�� , prior to acting upon the matter. Commission�r T�a��ra' ��,�;��; �hat i� ��a�F�.��ed the DeGross' could develop the back portion oftheir lot, and,if��'�%�do sc�,!��„ �� ;ood ci�ance that Faber Street could be improved. ,. :., __ �person Peterson ��U�,�� ?�� "_,und Construction Company owns one of the lots on Woodlawn e, and it was likely ��a�y �vor�ld be interested in developing this property as well. �� 1Vlistelske stated;;<�;t�at if the DeGross' build as they have indicated, and Faber Street and �-:::��:< >�:i A�rive were�;i�proved, they would both be assessed a very substantial amount for these , ,f ;: �y�� 7� ��i�d he would likely be unable to af%rd such an assessment. �t:d�a�u=�a ��:3��;�. Johnson stated if Faber Street were improved, it would be at the done so at the expense o�° the developer. Planning Associate Ericson advised that there are formulas to determine assessments, and because Mr. Mistelske would benefit from the frontage, which would be considered an improvement to his property, he would also be assessed for this. Mr. DeGross inquired if Tax Inerement funds could be utilized for such an undertaking, , . , - _-- ---- --- _ - _ - ---- - , _ � = - - -.: _ __:- - - Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting January 5, 2000 Page 9 Planning Associate Ericson advised that certain grants could be requested, sources could be examined, however, it was not likely that the City would Increment funds for the construction of a street. ,�><-`;« -;; Mrs. DeGross stated they were required to build appro�mately 30 %�i ` oi ,r°a Woodlawn Drive, at a cost in excess of $5,000, when they �a�isYructed,.the'ir home, . :�. aware of the costs involved. She indicated that sewer anc�'$�r�s�r amentttes were al along Faber Street. Chairperson Peterson pointed out that the reason the few rearrtairaa��; �� developed is because there are quite a few development limi��tions, �;� stated many lots were developed, which should not have �c;��. He e»j not an actual wetland boundary, or standing water �t� ��e� ��, there i are not sufficiently stable for a roadway or a��ttn� ��+��4�� ►d some excavation in order to establish a road : Mr. DeGross stated his father has owne.d;;�this prop,��y for- ,;. :,;>; � ,�,£�,' reason it has never been developed. ,,;<;;f�;�;<<>' _��;,�° Chairperson Peterson inquired if �1 unsuccessiul attempts to dev�lop t,� was ref�rz��,to Lots 2 ar�c� t, ��h.��%{ generally, � did not un� be done, it izing Tax long �unds View are not we:tland issues. He i'f�� even if there is � c��''conditions that �x:��ent may require 50 years, and that is the r. ��DeGy c�q .y �iad prPVi,�usly indicated there have been many property'xr� �:Fa� �� y`�j'years. Mr. DeGross explained that he are at a��:�i. l+��fK��'`?]evation than his property. on advis�� ust �Ni1Pr� 'r1�eA-e is development, expenses are involved, and ��er absorbsy �;k��s� {��:��3. �'. DeGross commented that this was the reason he R;�af; ��ic in rega�'{� �:t� ��-''proposed driveway. He added that if this is going to ,ociate Et-�c , thereforP, Peterson i� ,< i. as indicai rrectly` that the proposed driveway has already been approved by the not debatable at this point. ired if the land in the vicinity of the City controlled lot was fairly clear on the aerial photograph. ned that there were currently grasses and some large trees in this area. He higher in elevation, and sloped downward. Chais�ei�son �'eterson reiterated that he did not believe the Commission could take action upon this request at this time, and suggested the matter be tabled until their next meeting. He reiterated that the best solution would appear to be for all interested parties to discuss the matter, and attempt to deternune some solution .� --_- �'-.�-__�. ��-_. --- '_" -'�� ...�._ . ..---�`- Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting � �- ti �i f : ' - = - � - ; �.�. � _ ,. � -- -- --- ---- - ..: -r ----- - -�_--- -�- � January 5, 2000 Page 10 Mr. Mistelske pointed out that if the DeGross' were to develop their land, �he ir_rtprrs``��ment of Faber Street and Laport Drive would be a very time consuming project, �4gi�: �v �h�f wetlands, which are far too close to construct a full-sized City street. �-I� ��,ted the d�s��c4 ��i��. E�;ppeared to have been diverted from the direction he had anticipated, addi.�i� �.��.ti as a first �a�a��, k=��;�� ;(�r,�yer, he simply wanted to build a house. �; ' , Chairperson Peterson inquired who owns the property loc;:�4r��i �:o che north of the loe ��,�4r��+�;r.� �,y Lund Construction Company. Mr, DeGross stated Lund ��`��r��i��r,b`iar� Company also ow��$ E�ii� lot. Chairperson Peterson stated Lund Construction Corrapae�� €�c��.�� 'r.e�tially build two homes to the west of Woodlawn Drive, and south of Laport Dr��, ea� �,��c �jrive was extended to provide access. :,��. � Mr. DeCrross stated this was correct, however, Lap�� r� ��vould havt, tt� �� s�tended to Long Lake Road. Commissioner Miller inquired what Planning Associate Ericson advised tha� _<...;.::;<: Study. He explained that this study�:�'� �:Y;�:.:i'T.: .. without substantial corrections, iu�;;<;�?vhi� stated that without the com��l��r� st'udy, Commis��c��c��: ,�ce Associa�€* � ,�ik;�c��: Commission�x� ;i��l this matter. „ � ' ictiOris would of Laport Drive. %�� i:.f i �:% �e contingcx�c upoii the results of the Wetland that the �ils could not support development %!� :2i/ 1 devekqpment may be cost prohibitive. He a �r�� o deternune this. ar� ��t��.ii��t� when th�< t�l�tland Study would be available. Planning t�� :��; ��,�is�y would possibly be completed in March. ;��i��d ii`t�a�� cir,�tc�`be the appropriate starting point for consideration of ioner Stevensa�� ;�i��a.�y ��d;;;appeared that many of the decisions would be made dependent findings of this �t��r, ��'terms of whether or not the property is developable. ng Associate Eri��on advised that when this item went before the City Council both in , :�. , of the Wetland<f�uffer Permit and the Limited Use Agreement, the Council had considered %;x' ;t ihat some:;fi►�ure development could occur. He explained that the Council felt that even if ,: �: thP ��3 if �would not prohibit the applicant from building on his lot, as he would have a �� 1��+ �;gardless. He pointed out that this is simply a question of where the road might be �:�� 7��;Y•e to be improved, and if it could not be, the issue would be moot. Commissioner Miller inquired if there could be such questions relating to Faber Street as well. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was probably less likely, in that it is located further from the wetland to the north, the elevation changes, and there is less of an issue with regard to the soils and suitability for improvement. He explained that without seeing a contour map of the area, F . _ :.�- . I I . < :- .YJ'. � '�I ��:.; •«t �_ .. �� . �. . � :__ r�:fl l . -. .. -_ '�`_ -._ . I_'_"'�- "'� _�.. � r�: r.�.,, _ �._"'-_ . ., . ' "' _' �' ' Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting January 5, 2000 Page 11 it was an uncertainty at this point, however, through his examination of this to be a more realistic possibility. Chairperson Peterson stated the delineation presented app� surveys and aerial photographs, and that a boundary line very similar to that represented. He commented that this boundary, rather than an actual delineation. � �::. � ; , � tn �e fairly �.��aj' il�d be determ�.ned �ared to,;�i��>�a pho� found a7:�s�c� �apon ;�a �Tz�� 1,r.1 bP Planning Associate Ericson explained that in the early 19�0'�, ��r��;�� h� wetland zoning maps were created, they were based upon national wetland data, �i��h� �x7�� Y�� levations. He advised that the boundary line indicated on the map presents �� rc�v��,��, :�r��r;��, <,.ccording to the National Wetland Institute, is the location of the el�vaiio�r ��hat ��r�s.��,r�� 9�s the wetland, however, it is not intended to be an accurate reflection t��'�v��;xc �he wetl'asf�� lly exists. Commissioner Stevenson inquired what new ,ii�'�rinatior� �ur��.�l� %c� �vailable to the Commission if this item is tabled until the next meeting �`�l��nning Assa�i�a�� :�'t��a �#.ated this would likely be the result of any discussions held by MrFs£�Vlistelske�;�zid the �cx��a�recA� �i�operty owners, as well as ,.. the manner in which Mr. Mistelske wc�uld like to prt��eed, in h��it of the discussion. MOTION/SECOND: Ste Reduced Side-yard Setb Comnni�st��`. . A Chairperso� therefore, tl� matter, ,��t�€�s. r� . ;, tn to reven� hl,?� g P �rties remaining in nes, one developm all of the property,� > �., . To T��Y� �onside�'ation of the Variance Request for a Lapor.� ��i�%� �(.Inti! the Next Meeting of the Planning Nays — 0 Motion carried. the .��p1ic;��ii submitted this request on December 15, 1999; ss�c�� c��i�d have two additional meetings in which to review this f1�t� of�the application. He advised that the Commission was not ��4;�nt from developing his property. He explained that the / c��-� oftentimes oddly shaped, or subject to certain limitations, and the potential to impact another, therefore, the City desires to insure are provided equal opportunity. aonFr Jol�xastin added that the City would also like to see that all developable land is �, ��z�,g�s��re, the Planning Commission is charged with the responsibility of making � G; ,�� cr�i ial development is not hindered in the future. Chairperson Peterson advised tl:za.u�� atc�empt to find a solution that is acceptable to all parties. 5. Considerat'ron of Resolution 602-00, a resolution establishing the year 2000 meeting dates for the Mounds View Planning Commission. _ � _ _ .. -- °-=— -=---= =s -- � . . Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting � � � ,; • ,: : : _ . _ _ ._ - -- _ _ : =— ._- = - � - ---- --.� : :_� _ ��._:.. January 5, 2000 Page 12 Chairperson Peterson stated that each year, the Planning Commission is r�t��;�ire annual meeting schedule, which sets the regular meeting dates. He indicat�d ��s� �1 very good job preparing a proposed calendar, and he did not s�e �a,�� conflicis'; p�-�s schedule. � :.>,<;,,. ;<, �� , Commissioner Kaden inquired if the Commission should ��o consid�r�the merri Community Development Director Jopke, regarding the '��t�ciy Ses�i�in meeting Comprehensive Plan, as these meetings would also be telcvtirt�fi�. : � ;�aopt an iad done a �l with this Chairperson Peterson stated the Study Sessions were special �r�e�r��;�;, F�e�� in�; which the Planning Commission conducts their review of the Comprehens�ve �!�ain. �o�xl�p�a ;�,�c�� l��[iller advised that the item presently before the Commission pertained only t� the re�;��r��''r��A�ti�i:��;;of the Planning Commission. Chairperson Peterson noted that all of the pro�QSecl m�e�;�r?� c��;�' �n��a c ttz� standard dates. . �y�; Commissioner Hegland inquired if the Jul�`�� meettn�,'€��.te may ��•e;; b �� conflict, in relation to the Fourth of July holiday. �' `""' � ` , ,:::.:::. �::�:::;..: �;;.:,.,: _ Commissioner Stevenson p� and the given holidays woul Chair-�ae:�`��1� L��on st�.i�� MOTION/ a Resoluti Schedules� Election of l <�tt�� that tha�: ��i�;etiing wai�li� be held in the middle of the week, y`fall on M��ri��y �� '��sday of that week. `I ��o� antici��:� � r�roblem in this regard. en. `�'� /�pprove Planning Commission Resolution No. 602-00, ina �;��nmission Meeting Dates and Applicant Submission �� `' Nays — 0 The motion carried. Commission Officers �s��x��;; � � y��a{�e'Ericson advised that according to the bylaws of the Planning Commission, the ��'��,��(��s�,�� .;"to vote to elect its Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson at the first meeting of each y��i, ,��; 7.Y�cl.icated that if there is only one nomination for each position, a voice vote would be sufficient. He explained however, if more than one nomination is made, each Commission member shall write his selection on a secret ballot, and the recording secretary shall tally the ballots, and announce the nominee receiving the most votes. Commissioner Miller nominated Jerry Peterson for Chairperson of the Planning Corrunission. f _ - : — -- : � : --- -- 3�� ""- _ _ . ___ "' _ __" ' ._.. . . � ' -. :.- � _z _ _ ""__'" . . __"-_-___ .. __."-. . Mounds View Planning Comrrsission Regular Meeting Commissioner Stevenson moved for acclamaiion. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Berke. To Approve Jerry Planning Commission. '�`��'' �� ,. Ayes-7 Nays-0 Chairperson Peterson stated he had no objections to servi. although this was not a role he sought. He explained � service to the community, and whether or not that is insignificant. Commissioner Miller nominated Gary Commission. Commissioner Miller moved for MOTION/SECOND: MillerBerke. Planning Commission. Planni A.ye� - � '�Iic�,� f ��c Tm/[�.y staff woul� and the Co� oner c�-Chai January 5, 2000 Page 13 of the n �rson for the Cormta��it�n, ��,a y concern was to be of �,� : i:��-ough this position is the Planning n as the Vice-Chairperson of the The motion carried. ��rz,r;fJ that acc��Y��, to the Bylaws, the Planning Commission �� ;d t��^Y��r�, however, �he election of the Chairperson is a •, �,��c� �� ,ffirm the election, or choose someone else. He stated atic�a� t�� €;iat� ��>aty Council at their next meeting on January 10, 2000, r� thi� ts��i�,:r at that point. he was no longer serving on the Parks and Recreation nissioner Miller s��ted this was unfortunate, as Commissioner Stevenson had acted as a ;;;;: �a io the Planning;;�ommission, and had shared information that was especially helpful to t e �ing Commissxti�<:' Commissioner Johnson added that this was particularly useful in regard to �� ,,-p�', ,-fi�� Peterson noted that the City has received much good service from the various Commissions, and at times, it is easy to forget the long, sometimes tedious hours involved, however, these are service positions. Planning Associate Ericson advised that the City would be holding a City CounciUCommission Appreciation Dinner for all of the Commission and Council members, on Thursday March 2. He F . . . . . ' - _ . . . .. � . . .. -;�. _ � �._. . � ' ' -' -„"� . _ - ., _ . . . . _ . . . - � � , - - � - - - . -. _ - ' . . "- At ;.. . -'----- - � - � _ � _ . . '� ---- ---=- ---- �-_- .:_ - � _ __ - - -" Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 15 during the next several weeks, and if this can be accomplished in a lesser would certainly attempt to do so. ,«,. Commissioner Johnson advised that they could postpone there was substantial input at the formal public hearing on F there would be no need to delay the matter. Planning Associate Ericson stated he would inform this regard. Commissioner Kaden inquired if there would be some those located along Highway 10, where the zoning property adjacent to it. Planning Associate Ericson advised the Com�r�hensi of property. He explained that there might,,be �a redist however, this would not require a rezoni�g�at this poii Chairperson Peterson indicated notification, it would be wise tc differenc� bPtw�en the Com�r�l� could po��:��lly occur ir► s.�s� �m,s��: �� Chairperson �'`�4.z�x �� do somethiri� �; � � x�� occur, �(t�=�nly �y �„»> residerits�'affected. �io� ter for a�t�i��}:, g��rt�>. 9, how��-.-;�, F�'�&z�Y��, ,;::,<,. ;�ielopment Director e�t me, staff weelcs if ��re not, :3�as��>� i« ers, particularly �ronertv or the iplate any rezoning of some properties, here ma}�'`r:�iot be a legal requirement for who m�'�<'be affected, in order to clarify the a�r��r�.,�,rid the actual zoning, as well as what there vvas already some confusion in this regard. ined ti3t�� i��' �'��dents should be aware that the City does not intend to �xplaine�� tli��' ihis is planned process, whereby if something were to ��€�`-�;�,�, tih� results would be beneficial for both the City, and the nissioner Johnson, poiri�ed out that this information would be for the benefit of the �� wners along Hig�t?s�ay 10, who might have concerns that the City desires to take their 'al� land, which,Xl��y have owned for many years. Commissioner Kaden added that these are :.,�, coneerns, in tkit�;��this has occurred in other cities. u;'��?.��,z� �egland advised that there was no reason for citizens to fear this, however, the �J'��,�,r ;��a��r� �;larify that this is not the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, but rather, it is a plan for iutur� d�vetopment, if future development is to occur. He explained that it does not alter any existing property rights, and this should be communicated. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the decision to schedule the Informational Corrununity Forum or the formal public hearing, or both, would be determined during the next two Study Sessions. , : _ ,. _ � �_ ,__� � . , �---------- - =_--- - � �,�. :; _ , -- �..:- -- _ --------- , -- ---- --�- �°------- - ._,. . . . --- =_ - � Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting January 5, 2000 Page 16 Corrunissioner Johnson pointed out that the public hearing would req notification. Commissioner Kaden inquired if a 60-day notice was required xired, which Y;` ed to the rie�vz Planning Associate Ericson explained that a 10-day notice is days prior to the meeting, and the information must be pr� publication date. � Commissioner Johnson suggested two 20-day notices be p Planning Associate Ericson stated staff would probably aware and prepared. He indicated that staff would alsc website, it would be scrolled on Channel 16, and any othe will be utilized. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the Focus:,�i?vas still ili Associate Ericson stated this was correct. :.° �' Chairperson Peterson noted that advertised in both the Focus and th would consider this as well. ,.� Chairp�s s� the Ca�� !�o Planning son sta�� z�, 3�F�� the con e Plan ��d� .��si,ons for °��en� C�'�a�unv�°�1. �'�,ccir.��,�� g the Plannia�� held the first r� nd reading has ; could possib] ;<. have been prc�� e t�:�<;��Iow for <::z, �ublic hearing. 10 the �� i�z5��-� ti}��.� the residents are �l�j�;� ��s� � r�a �ion on the City's 'r,hai; �,�� v��l��l�; for advertising cial.�ewspaper. Planning Criformationa� Community Forum had been apers. Pls:�ning Associate Ericson stated staff ;> �:>< ,.y;, �'t��e Planning Commission to set the dates of 12 and 26, 2000. ��:�. si:ac�c� �� <:�s:he December 13 City Council meeting, the Council �� s; ;��f �ni� ax�►d development review for Sunrise Methodist Church, �t�i��;��c�n's recommendation, with no changes. He indicated that the diri',� ��'�)rdinance 642, pertaining to driveway widths and curb cuts, and �P�� ;��:?r��;3duled to occur on December 10. He explained that one of the change, and this has not yet been determined, however, no substantial sed to this ordinance, which the Planning Commission recommended. ��.��z�A,�;.1��sc�,��e 'Ericson stated the Council held second reading and adoption of Ordinance ��-f�, ��•1;{.��a��;�illboards. He indicated there was consideration of a request for a Wetland Buffer �f'��'..c�� tah the property located at 2551 Ridge Lane, and this item was tabled for further c�i�c�ssio�i. He indicated that the Council discussed this item at their previous Work Session, and it has been scheduled for consideration on January 10. Planning Associate Ericson advised that the City had authorized staff to draft a resolution which would allow TOLD Development Company to come forward with an application and development proposal for the City remnant parcel and the Midland/Videen parcel. He advised . . . � _ .. _ _ .. . _ . . . . .. .. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting '_'" "- '-_ ' .. '._" ��.'_""�" �. _ _ . �. . �_, : ._�_ .'_�.. "'_ January 5, 2000 Page 17 that the City is required to sign off on the application, as the City is one of therefore, the Council directed staff to draft a resolution authorizing the �:i development application. He explained that this does not �ta�antee �lz� approved, but simply allows a proposal to come forth, and tkzi�'proposal w� Planning Commission. ;�� Chairperson Peterson inquired if the additionai cost for the City property had been authorized. Plar�ning Associate Ericson stated this issue was discussed, c��c� with the developer, who will probably bear the majonty, ��'raoc a1 and platting. He advised that this matter could be clai-ii��d i�i the Council at their next meeting. B. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Ericson stated at be consideration a variance request p Highway 8. He explained that a sux� slightly over the minimum setbacl� F� to allow the building to rPm�ir� �'i owner�h��, explaine�l ��F�� x i;�' � prospective o�v�x��4s °�� location of i�a�; ��i��;�:��' ,�� :; ;:°,, Comr��sioner Heglan� �>. ;, of.e�'sting property is �::;,,, /��>'. �� 1`�nning Associate Eri ,:>-;;> '+��alained that the Cit� pr�f�a- the re on that would be �efore the ,�_`;;,:� <�,� y; ;,;�;. :�.::: �1� Yy. i�IXIFDn�l14i bJ% ��.�• ��rr�ent has been made r� ��.;� � or the surveying �� i�ta�:, �oes before the ne �ext meeti»g of thP ��r�gY�� Commission, there would , _ �;. �a�tiing to a'�varehous�/c��'�ice building, which is located on ,r,. , ,. y>'of the prt�perty has �ndicated that the building is situate the paz�r;��, iil�i-efore� �Iie applicant is requesting a variance curren�I� ��.�ts, sirnply to provide for a clean transfer of a va.riance was required. Planning Associate Ericson r�,4�r�.i-red, however, many times mortgage companies or ;�;`a��t approval in writing, in order to legitimize the existing � is an e�sting property clause, which indicates that the status 1�y a transfer of ownership. � pointed out that potential legal problems could arise in the future. He not request this application, however, the applicant chose to proceed in �� ,�<<��; F�°�;:�c��iate Ericson stated pursuant to the discussion at the previous Council Work ;�'� ^� �cx��;; ��l �iublic meetings held in City Hall shall be subject to cable cast. He explained that the �°l�x�riing Commission Agenda Sessions, at which meeting minutes and other non-planning related issues are reviewed, and the special meetings, such as those held for the review of the Comprehensive Plan would be televised from that point forward. Planning Associate Ericson advised that since the Planning Commission is required to review the Bylaws during their first meeting in February, they could amend the Bylaws to reflect this new �_.._�_.�. _ -_ i. --. . � . .. � �«:�. .. � ��. z.. � r -� �` _ _ . _ `et — -- .. E ..� --...�_y _ ___ �. �:�. ___�.�_. _ .. _ . _ _ � _ --- --' --=i. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting January 5, 2000 Page 18 policy at that time. He explained that the Agenda Session meetings no necessary; therefore, this could be clarified in the Bylaws. Chairperson Peterson commented that this policy could confli� not held within the normal schedule. He explained that �� Chambers for regular meetings, however, they are some��€; which may not have access to the cable equipment. �"]�:�a�ak� these situations would have to be resolved in advance. l�Sia�er ap�e�r to be :, ��'r,kf�f;�r +��4-iich are utt�t �c�<,' � {�c; a`;�iancil UY.Ill2ca q�+�"a�,�� :� �3ii1S�. Ericso��. �,+��ra.,,�r� �b��; _. __ _ Commissioner Stevenson stated he did not think the Plannir��; ��a��a��.��ir�r�'� informal discussion of the Comprehensive Plan should be televised, and sugges�ec� �la�f'r ��c;6;tiir�gs be held in a different room. Planning Associate Ericson explaine� that tk�as wo�?1c7 ±�t�� ;�� the requirement that these meetings be televised. Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that m�riutes ae r r��: Ix�� the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner K,�den addeci �ha'c 'c f ;s� Commissioner Miller stated this would ca�se much c,p'�fusion. Planning Associate Ericson explai�l� t�'at �l��y ��uld ;,> clear in terms of the discussion and ��s purposc.. Chairpersc�� eterson most lik�i�l � �;re�,� io stii television, arlc� �&a�` comments r��aK �"�kx�° that the�;�t�minissz� the bili�t�ards. alth �ver, there was all of the infor. y facts. not �'orrmal discussion of in misinterpretation. utilize disclaimers, and be very ing the meetings, however, it would oy� ��.tratk ��, ,�6�c� ��en the December 13 meeting of the City Council on �.��;il'y ac��;��ta�'��''{�)rdinance 644, pertaining to billboards. He noted �; ��x�z_r�� ;c��-��x��ssion recommendation, and that the Council appreciated �f� _�,�?s��i��c� �n�'only decision they could have, and unanimously opposed ��.��,z,1 ;, ;:��h�;d against the Commission's recommendation. He pointed out ��1�� ~h��k�rnent that suggested that the Commission had not been provided ip�;; �rF�ri. �� interpreted this to imply the Commission was slightly ignorant �:g��'��mi��ioner Ste�e�son stated he was not ignorant to the facts, and the Planning Commission °��. ��,j��-� c��t��; x�ationale behind the billboards, as relates to the golf course, and the bond issues y<. f��r,;..:��. 1��e�stated this was fairly well represented, and the Commission was aware of the �_��'7�� "`;�;. ��:��ons for voting in favor for the billboards. He advised that his decision was not iruluenced by these factors, and in his clear conscience, he could not vote in favor of billboards for the purpose of generating revenue, and then have to look at them, and know that he had any part in allowing them to be constructed. Chairperson Peterson stated the Planning Commission was not ignorant of the monetary factors, however, he believed the Commission's decision was based upon non-monetary issues. He added _ . _ _. 1 Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting January 5, 2000 Page 19 that even if the Commission had considered the monetary issues, he did have altered their decision. ,__, �T�: r. Planning Associate Ericson requested the Planning Commissio� �`iend the ag��a��.y �sgt�� minutes, prior to adjourning the meeting. Chairperson Pete�`��'ri suggested g�� c�caxx�.�i�� amend the agenda to indicate that the three items listed on �k��'?��nda S�ssron b� ��: �s Items 9,10 and 11. would the _ __ Planning Associate Ericson asked if the Commission would �t�€�� :o �e�,�iew the minutes a� che beginning or the end of the meeting. He advised that the C�� "��?��.�'�� r�v�Pw� the minutes at the ,:,. beginning of their meeting, and appears to move thrc��rg�a 'chi� r�, �a;:�� '��;_c�ly, however, the Commission may desire to consider this review at t��E �a�r� of the ��F�;:;�.��z4 :�.�� avoid requiring applicants to wait, if the review is very lengthy and t��ac� �;��a;��rming. Chairperson Peterson advised that the revi the meeting. Planning Associate Ericson s1 3+: future. Commissioner Miller inquired if to the minutes. ing f the min�� b�� be canciucted at the end of staff would' �r�a � a:�-��: ��;er�cias to reflect this in the .:y. then record all of the corrections Plannin�; ��5ociate Ericsc�� ?�:z.�`�;�his is th(� �i�c��;��7��'� a,t the City Council meetings, and it is a decisia�' e��: �;�� be mad�: ��y �:��; ��f�x�riing Cor��3��.sy�on and staff. He indicated he had no problem makin� '�tt�� ;€��F;�:ions h?�ri6��;�:�; �-�� id r�oy: li�;lieve staff would mind continuing in this manner. He inquir�n ��`��,� ��4� ��!c� oi'Ll�k:: ��t��n,� secretary would be necessary at this point, since she would only i�c'��°�.��;>, �..he adjourt'�me��i� ��"'�(le meeting. Chairpe[�tt%'Pei�;r�c�;+ �.4^��' �� ,�� someone could join the meeting during the review of the � �.. rrunut�'s;� and request c��;��r�E��y:��. of an issue. He stated the meeting would still be called to ord�%r`; and although th� ��l�x��yf�;;'��;ommission would not necessarily take any action at that point, ,,.�; t1��1�' could listen to the is�ie; �nd ihe information could be recorded in the minutes. �''iF��ining Associate �n�son advised that the recorder could simply indicate that discussion was �s��,r� r�garding a s��cific issue, or clarification was provided, however, she would not need to ��d�� ,hc. �n�,c��e�orrections to the minutes. IVLiller pointed out that the minutes are already very lengthy. Chairperson Peterson stated it was not necessary for the recording secretary to take the minutes of the corrections to the minutes. Commissioner Hegland advised that the Planning Commission could adjourn the regular meeting, and proceed with the Agenda Session, as they normally would. He explained that there was no F ; : � -- --= �-- __ . - --- -= - -:- . .�_�..�_- _s� _ �;,_ . � - -� =-- � `- -`-- _� ��,. __—•---.- ______�_ . . - : _ - _ __ , . � - . , :� Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting January 5, 2000 Page 20 need to change their procedure, simply because the meeting was being t� Stevenson added that the recording secretary was not required to„ remain simply because it is televised. �-� .,t;�;�:.. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to contin��`�o utilize procedure. , Commissioner Johnson pointed out that someone coulci jc�i�� ; �� and during the Agenda Session. Chairperson Peterson stated the public is notified in reg�d to r�: meeting is called to order, however, the Commission coiald reconv any further discussion entered into the minutes. Planning Associate Ericson advised that Director, or his or her designee, is the required to have a body present to record.. Commissioner Hegland explained Chairperson Peterson st� ,... togeth�r, ��a at a differ�r be formatly � .�� ;� �rd�;y . records o�f° t�us; :i I �1n�'� '�ccorc r�{ °��f �, they ��;r� ;�#�� the �tlYng �c� rding sf meetir��='�s over or� ��; �i��rida Session t�". €�U�t�YFI !d'?��'r�,f:sxl�i�leIlt :• after the adjou��n�, 4�� v��r�nir�g Commission � ��Z�; �a�;t;�; y�ary, and have unity Development Commission is not Commission has adjourned. �v, if the Commissioners are present a meeting. Commission could meet in the Agenda Session, and not ;r, Hegland inquired if it would not be necessary to keep �t� `peter"sc�� ,j�,�s x� ��aL an� of'ficial business must be conducted while the meeting is 5order and the �irA�� ;� ,;�°�;;:recorded, however, informal discussions, such as the review of are not officia.l ��.��a�� , but rather, housekeeping considerations. �rn��rrnment Planning Commissioners Report There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:3 7 p. m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) r- -- - --- �- - -- -�-�--.. � ` Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director _____ _ � , � _ _ __. _ , . "-` -,-- . �__ - . - : --- ' --- -= _ " � Transcribed by: Trish Pearson ,: .. TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. January 5, 2000 Page 21 � � . � J'v;�lcc o�ula- MOUNDS V�W PLANNING COMIVIISSION February 3, 2000 7:00 P.M. REGULAR. MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Ca11 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZEI�TS: BEFORE SPEAI�NG, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GNE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MIl�TUTES 4. Approve Planning Commission Minutes: a. January 5, 2000 5. Planning Case No. 578-99 Property Involved: 2442 Laport Drive Consideration of a variance request for a reduced side-yard setback for the proposed home to be located at 2442 Laport Drive. ` Applicant: Spencer Mistelske 6. Annual Review of Planning Commission Bylaws 7. StaffReports / Items of Information a. Previous Council Actions 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 9. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTEND.ANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020 IF YOU A.RE UNABLE TO ATTEND. TH.f1Ni� Y�U. �.� = k� _u__��.'�".x =�:i _ ! _a4_ --�-- ---- -- . �---_ _ -�, i: . - -- •- -__, �� ._ _= s��_� I � � AGENDA SESSION I AGENDA � 1. Review Minutes from the January 19, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. 2. Comprehensive Plan review. N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCpMM�PCAGENDA�2000�Plaiming Commission Agenda Template.dot i � , � 1 __ _ _ i _ : - . - � - - _ - - -- -` -_-- ---. � _ _ � �=-f � Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 2000 Supplemental Memo For your future reference, Staff is providing you with this "Supplemental Memo" in addition to verbally addressing the following two topics at the meeting tonight. 1. Henning Variance. As you may recall, John Henning, of 8359 Red Oak Drive, requested a variance to allow for a driveway wider than the allowed 3 5 feet. The Commission directed staff to look into an ordinance revision, which led to the drafting of Ordinance 642. After great lengths of discussion, the ordinance was forwarded to the Council who approved it as suggested by the Planning Commission. The change to the ordinance eliminates the driveway's non-confornuty. As such, Mr. Henning, upon notification of the passage of Ordinance 642, has withdrawn his application for a variance. 2. Planning Commission Training Session The planners from the corridor cities of Arden Hills, Blaine, Circle Pines, Mounds View, New Brighton, Roseville and Shoreview are meeting to arrange a series of training session sponsored by the I-35 W Corridor Coalition. The purpose of this meeting is to bring together the Planning Commissions from each corridor city for a joint session of networking, training, discussions regarding what works and what doesn't, public meeting rules and regulations; and to educate the commissions as to the purpose and intent of the I-35W Corridor Coalition. Most of you already have a good understanding of what the Coalition is and its purpose; this meeting will build on that and in addition provide valuable training tailored to the needs of the commissions. The first of these meetings has been scheduled for Wednesday, March 22, 2000. The time and place have yet to be determined; but because Mounds View is centrally located within the Corridor, it is likely the event (at least the first one) will be held at our Community Center. Staff will keep you updated as more information becomes available. ` � _ _ _ � �: ..- � . _ - - - -- °: . - ---- —. . _ - --_- ' - - -- - - -- - -- - �� i Czty of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: Februa�y 3, 2000 Tatle: CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A REDUCED SIDE-YARD SETBACK AT 2442 LAPORT DRIVE. Introductiona Spencer Mistelske, property owner of Lot 3, SMUDER ADDN., has applied for a variance to construct a home at 2442 Laport Drive closer to the side lot line than is allowed according to the City Code zoning requirements. The reason why a variance is required in this situation is because the SMLTDER plat included a thirty-foot right-of-way, named Faber Street, which is adjacent to Lot 3 to the west. The City Code requires that all buildings be set back 30 feet from any public street or right of way. There � is no distinction made between improved or unimproved right of way, and nor should there be. The Planning Commission considered this matter at the January 5, 2000 meeting. At that meeting the Planning Commission continued consideration of this matter. At the January 19, 2000 meeting, the Commission again tabled action, as no further information was available. Staff has left messages for Mr. Mistelske, who has not contacted staff since the January 5 meeting. Recommendataon: Because the sixty-day date falls on February 14, 2000, before the Planning Commission's next meeting, staffis recommending that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 601-00, a resolution denying the variance request of Spencer Mistelske for a reduced side-yard setbacic at 2442 Laport Drive. � Cvwt.¢�C� James Ericson, Planner Attachment: 1. PC Resolution 601-00 N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\578-99�Mistelske Report #3.doc i __ � _ � __ � _: �, ° . : �-- --_�. _---- --- - -- - - .. �v .,. _ . _� --- -- - ; v ---- - - ---� --- �. r I MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 601-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINN�SOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANC� FROM SECTION 1104.01, SUBD. 4, OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO SETBACKS TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCED SIDEYARD SETBACK FOR A PROPOSED HOUSE AT 2442 LAPORT DRIVE; MOUNDS VI�W PLANNING CASE NO. 578-99 WHEREAS, The applicant, Spencer Mistelske, has applied for a variance to allow for a ten-foot sideyard setback for a proposed house to be located at 2442 Laport Drive; and, WHEREAS, 2442 Laport Drive is property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as follows: Lot 3, Block 1, Smuder Addition Ramsey Counry, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Proposed Site Plan 5. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Planning Commission took public testimony regarding this matter at a public hearing on January 5, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical di�culties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's control; 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. , .; � � � _ � _ =- , h�:.: -..-�e..� 1� ��--��'.�'�. --:-. : _�-»._._ .;_�� = ----�. � : - -- -- -_ -_ _ � _ .. - . _ .. . '_ -. - ---=— - ---- Resolution 601-00 Mistelske Variance February 3, 2000 Page 2 NOW, THER.EFORE, EE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision Z of the Mounds View Municipal Code are not satisfied and finds there to be a lack of sufficient hardship with regard to the property located at 2442 Laport Drive to warrant the approval of a variance to allow the construction of a home ten feet from the side property line abutting unimproved Faber Street, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. There is sufficient reason to believe that the unimproved right of way known as Faber Street could be improved at some point in the future. 2. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do not apply to 2442 Laport Drive. 3. The property owner alone created the situation whereby a variance would be needed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission denies the variance request for a reduced sideyard setback for the proposed home at 2442 Laport Drive. Adopted this 3rd day February, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST; Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\578-99�RESOLUTION 601-OU.DOC _ !; _ Tatle: '----- �- `-_ _ '-== � --- - ,_ _- =--- �_---- -- =- - , , � _ Item # City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: February 3, 2000 ANNUAL REVIEW OF PLANNIlVG COMIVIISSION BYLAWS Introduction: According to the Planning Commission Bylaws, the Plarming Commission is to review its bylaws on an a.nnual basis, at the first regular meeting in February. These bylaws were amended in Maxch of 1999 to be consistent with changes made to the City Code regarding commission vacancies and appointments. . Recommendation: Review the Bylaws and make any changes as deemed necessary. vc►� �.-�.�.� James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Bylaws N:IDATA\USERSLTIlVIE\Templates�PC Report Template.doc : : . _ . _ . . _. . . .. � - - -- " . - _ - � '��- - -- - _ CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BYLAWS (Revised March 3, 1999) i. _. _. . _ _r. � � _ - �: . . . . - t _ . ---. -... ., _-_I I. ALITHORITY: The Bylaws of the Mounds View Pla��ning and Zoning Commission (Bylaws) are established in accordance with the Mounds View Municipal Code Section 401.06. Subd. 7"The Commission shall adopt bylaws for its governance and for the iransaction of its business." Where there is a conflict between the provisions of the Bylaws and the provisions of the City Charter and the Municipal Code, the provisions of the City Charter and the Municipal Code shall govern, (For purposes of simplicity, the Planning and Zoning Commission may hereinafter be referred to as the Plaruiing Commission or the Commission.) II. ADOPTION OF BYLAWS; REVIEW AND AMENDMENT: A. ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT: The Bylaws shall be adopted by Resolution by an affirmative vote of the majority of inembers of the Planning and Zoning Commission appointed as voting members, and shall be placed on file with the City Clerk- Administrator and the Community Development Department. A copy of the bylaws sha11 be forwarded to the City Council for its information. Any amendments to the Bylaws shall be adopted by Resolution in the same manner as the original Bylaws. B. ANNUAL REVIEW: The Bylaws shall be reviewed on an annual basis at the first regular meeting of the Cornmission in February. IIT. MEMBERSHIP AND VACANCIES Vacancies on the Planning Comrnission shall be filled in accordance with the Municipal Code, Sections 401.02 and 401.03. N. OFFICERS A. OFFICERS NAMED: The officers of the Planning Commission shall consist of a chairperson and vice-chairperson. The Commission may create and fill such other offices from its members, as it may determine, to transact Commission business. In addition, the Director of Community Development, or his or her designee, shall act as the recording secretary for the Commission for purpose of preparing meeting mirzutes. B. ELECTIONS; TERMS Chairperson: Based upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Mayor, with the approval of the City Council, sha11 appoint the chairperson of the Commission each year. At the first meeting in January, the Commission shall conduct an election in order to make its recommendation for the chairperson, following the procedure in Section N.B.3. The name of the person recommended for chairperson shall be forwarded to the City Council for action at its �irst meeting in January. 2. Vice-Chairperson: The Plannulg Commission shall elect a vice-chairperson each year at its first meeting in January, following the procedure in Section N.B.3, r �i � `_ '` .-=— - .�-- -- �= ---- -� - City of Mounds View � Platuung and Zoning Coitunission - Bylaws Page 2 3. Election Procedure: For each office, the chairperson sha11 invite nominations from Planning Commission members. After nominations have been received, the chairperson shall entertain a motion to close nominations. If such motion is made and passed, and more than one nomination has been made, the chairperson shall distribute ballots to the Comrnission members and each member shall write his or her selection on the ballot. The recording secretary shall tally the ballots and announce the nominee receiving the most votes. In the event of a tie, the recording secretary sha11 announce the nominees tied in the voting and balloting shall be repeated until an election occurs. If only one nominarion has been received, the chairperson may conduct the voting by voice vote. If a majority of the members present vote in the affirmative for the nominee, the nominee shall be elected. 4. Assumption of Duties: The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall assume o�ce at the iirst meeting in February of each year. 5. Term of Office: The chairperson and vice chairperson shall serve one year terms, and may be re-elected to additional terms in accordance with this Section IV.B. C. DUTIES OF OFFICERS: The chairperson shall preside over the meerings of the Planning Commission, and sha11 have the auihority to add or cancel regular ineetings and to ca11 special meetings as provided in Section VI. The vice chairperson shall assume the duties of the chairperson, in the absence of the chairperson. V. LIAISON TO COUNCIL: The City Council shall appoint from among its members a Liaison to the Commission on an annual basis. It is expected that the Council Liaison will attend the Commission meetings on a regular basis. In ihe event of the absence of the Council Liaison at a Commission meeting, a Commission member may be appointed by the chairperson to represent the Planning Commission at the next regular City Council meeting or at the meeting where the City Council will be considering the planning cases acted upon by the Planiung Commission in the absence of the Council Liaison. VI. MEETINGS A. TYPES OF MEETINGS; SCHEDULE: The annual meeting schedule of the Comrnission sha11 be adopted by Resolution at the first regular meeting in December for the following year. Regular Meetings: Subject to the adopted meeting schedule, the Commission's regular meetings will occur on the first and third Wednesdays of each month for the purpose of convening public hearings, making recommendations to the City Council, conducting business which requires a vote of the Commission, convening as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, conducting long-range planning functions and other official business. 2. Agenda Sessions: An Agenda Session is an informal session of the Plaruling Commission, typically held immediately following adjournment of a Regular or Special meeting, at which time the Planning Commission may review minutes, informally ___. . . ! .. . ._ . ' . . _ _ ... . . ._ _. r3. Ic _�.. _- t ' . __- . ..._: �.. __'"__ x ('. City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Coirunission - Bylaws Page 3 review proposed or pending planning cases or ordinance amendments, discuss previous actions of the City Council or other Commissions, and to perform other matters not requiring a vote of the Commission. 3. Special Meetings: From time to time, special meetings may be called in order to process significant caseloads, to review works in progress such as comprehensive plan updates or municipal code revisions, or to undertake a retreat or strategic planning session, either amongst itself or in the company of the City Council or other commissions. Special meetings can be proposed by any Commission member or at the request of the Director of Community Deve(opment, yet must be approved by a majority vote of the Commission. Emergency special meetings can be called via written notice to the Director of Community Development by the Chairperson or two Commission members, or by the Director of Community Development. (Einergency special meetings are those in which the subject matter is of such an immediate concern that it cannot be delayed until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission.) The Director of Community Development sha11 post and mail a notice of any special meering in accordance with State Statutes. Planning Commission members sha11 be notified by telephone and in writing, if possible, at least seven days prior to a special meeting. 4. Cancellation of Meetings: Regular or special meetings may be canceled by the ` chairperson or Community Development Director in the event that there are no items of business requiring the attention of the Commission, or for lack of a quorum, or in response to inclement weather or for any other good and sufficient reason. Members of the Commission shall be notified by telephone of any meeting cancellation. A notice of the meeting cancellation shall be posted as required by State Statutes. B. QUORUM: A majority of the number of voting members appointed to the Commission shall constitute a quorum. C. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS; ADJOURNMENT Meeting Chairperson: If neither the chairperson nor the vice chairperson is present to conduct a meeting of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission may elect a meeting chair from among those members present prior to the commencement of business. The election shall follow the procedures set forth in Section IV.B.3, except that the Community Development Director, or his or her desipnee, sha11 conduct the election. 2. Open Meeting Law: Meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the State of Minnesota Open Meeting Law (Minn. Statutes 471.705). 3. Adjournment: Meetings sha11 adjourn at or before 11:00 p.m. unless a two-thirds majority of the members present agree to extend the time of adjournment. If there is no objection, the Chairperson may declare the meeting adjourned without the necessity of a motion or vote by the Commission. �- - City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 4 D. MINUTES: Minutes shall be recorded for regular meetings and each commission member shall receive a copy of the unapproved minutes for review and approval at a succeeding nneeting. Minutes shall be approved by motion. Approved nunutes shall be the official record of the business conducted and actions taken by the Planning Commission. Commission members may request copies of approved minutes after they have been corrected, if necessary, and signed as approved. Copies of the approved minutes shall be filed with the Community Development Department. Unapproved minutes shall be cleaxly marked "DRAFT"; approved minutes shall be marked "APPROVED". A policy statement regarding the content and format of the minutes shall be on file with the Director of Community Development which may be reviewed from tirne to time as needed. VI. INFORMATIONAL PACKETS: Each Commissioner shall receive a staff report, plans and additional information, as appropriate, for each item placed on the agenda for any regular or special meeting. The Commission packet should be delivered at least four days prior to the meeting. Each Commissioner is responsible for reviewing the material within the packet prior to the meeting. VII. PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS: Advice from, consultation with, and/or requests for review by the City Attorney, City Engineer, City Planning Agency, or other paid consultants shall be in accordance with the Municipal Code, Section 401.07. . VIII. SUPPLEMENTARY PUBLICATIONS: All Commission members sha11 receive a copy of the Mounds View Municipal Code and a copy of the Municipal Comprehensive Plan as well as other materials provided by the Ciiy Council or City Staff. These materials shall be retained by each commission member and returned to the Community Development Director upon the member's resignation or termination of appointment. IX. CONDUCT OF MEMBERS A. ATTENDANCE: Commission members shall advise the designated Staff inember or the Commission chairperson of an anticipated absence from any regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Any mennber attending less than 20 meetings per yeax without the consent of the Commission shall be deemed to have vacated the office, and such vacancy shall be filled by the City Council pursuant to Section 401.03, Subd. 1. A leave of absence may be granted by the consent of the Commission. B. CONFLICT OF 1NTEREST: General Standard: No Commissioner sha11 be appointed with private or personal interests likely to conflict with the general public interest. If any person appointed to the Commission sha11 find that their private or personal interests are involved in any matter coming before the Commission, they shall disqualify themselves from taking part in any discussion or action on the nnatter; alternatively, they may be disqualified by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the Commissioners in attendance. 2. Conflict Due to Economic Interests: A Commissioner has a conflict of interest if, in his or her discharge of official duties, would be required to take an action or make a __ _ , _ _ . _ . ` . � •. � - il . ,_ �- - - . - - -�-..s� � ._ ' - — ---- City of Mounds View Plamung aud Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 5 decision that would substantially affect the Comrnissioner's financial interests or those of an associated business, unless the effect on the Commissioner is no greater than on other members of the Commissioner's business classification, profession, or occupation. In the event a conflict of interest exists with respect to a particular mati;er before the Commission, the Commissioner shall disqualify himself or herself from taking part in any discussion or action on the matter. C. EX PARTE CONTACTS: Ex parte contacts are contacts between individuals seeking to influence the decisions of the Planning Commission and individual Commission members outside the meeting forum. Such contacts include meetings with project proponents, residents, property owners, and citizens separate from Commission meetings, communication between Commission members outside the meeting forum, telephone ca11s or letters which attempt to influence a Commissioner's opinion on a matter which will be subject to the Commissioner's vote. When the Planning Commission is involved in a matter which is to be heard and decided by the Commission (e.g. variances), Planning Commissioners shall indicate to the person contacting them that such contact is inappropriate and a11 testimony needs to be offered at the hearing to ensure a fair hearing for all parlies. In all other cases, Planning Commissioners should discourage such contacts and should avoid expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case. When ex parte contacts occur, the Planning Commissioner is responsible for notifying the Community Development Director, and for conveying the substance of the communication at the next commission meeting at which the matter discussed is under consideration. On March 3, 1999, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 570-99, a resolution adopting its official Bylaws as presented herein and a revised meeting schedule. ATTEST: Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMM�BYLAW S�BYLAWS.99 ... �. . . . .. � ._ . . .. . . . .. _ _ _ _ y�--`S . _ .; _-_;'. . :�.- �. .� :- � �-�-� ------ - '---- ' i .._ . .' "--_ - ' � - ----.. _-- ._.- _�. __. Planning Commission Minutes Policy (Revised 2/4/99) 0 l. 2. 3. 4. 0 5 G� � 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Type of ineeting, whether regular or special. Date, time and place of the meeting. Call to order -- time the meeting was called to order. Roll call. a. List of inembers present. b. List of inembers absent (note whether excused or unexcused.) c. List of others present (staff, liaison, recorder, etc.) Citizens' requests and comments for items not on the agenda. Include residents' names and addresses, if no residents made comments, indicate as much. Corrections to and approval of any previous minutes and the vote taken, except that minor grammatical and typographical corrections need not be noted. For each planning case on the agenda: a. Case number, project name and address, brief description of the request, and name and address of the applicant. b. Summary of the request. c. Summary of any previous action. d. Summary of the staff review. e. Summary of statements made by the applicant, particularly concessions or agreements made by the applicant. f. Summary of comments made by each person testifying, with the name and address of the person noted. For any motions made: a. Name of Com.mission members making and seconding motion. b. Verbatim (if possible) statement of motion. c. Vote on each motion as to number of ayes, nays and abstentions. d. Reasons for each nay vote or abstention. e, Whether motion carried or failed. Specific concerns addressed to the chairperson for inclusion in the minutes. Reports by staff. Reports by Commission chairperson and members. Time of adjoumment. 5ignature of chairperson and recording secretary. N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMM�BYLAW SUvIINUI'ES.99 ---- - '�`i � �I � ' _--; :,- ,-- ..< . - --.: - --- - --= - � - -._— __- _. _---_— -- � --i<� � i � ' _- - - .--. � ".'..' ' _'_ —� '_"'__ ' y. "___ 4 � _, . _ ' _ . . I: 0 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 2401 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson a� 2, Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commis;�ic�zaei Laube, Miller, and Stevenson. : ; ' , �j� Members Absent: Commissioner Braathen;,,l�:ave of ab�enc� y;;:s- ,;sf !<,. <>:; �:., �:-1Vleet►ng � 19, 2000 (�'fl9y Hall �I i`�1 55112 nuary 19, 2000. Kaden, ��: � Also Present: Planning Associate Jirt� �'�-icson, ��ouncil Liatsori Dan Coughlin, and Recorder , , , �„� F Trish Pearson. , ' �,�`/ ' ! G..,..:,;.;`T"- ..........�� .Sdc:.?" Ind�sc �� i��i3��1a�+t�� Planr�in�, � ��.�� t'�X�. ;,/��99 .` request �'ofl- s .��..��a�'4� sid� y at 2442 Lapor � �'��'i�J��. Spencer Niistel�l��;, 1�,��s�af;�s Plann�txz�''Case No. S'75 �� 60�:.�b'0, a resolution a, lta��ited at 4749 Old H ;1��' �'roperties, LLC, , ,�g��7 �rive. Consideration of a variance b��:xs f�sa che proposed home to be located f�� ,�ld Highway 8. Consideration of Resolution ,.<a�. � z-ont yard setback variance for the building ��,��.�iaal 1_��visw of;��aws "��; �''� r ��f�� i �t�ms of Information Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports "� :":� ��t : `:+ �.=:, �-`� Page 2 3 4 4 5 __ _ _ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agend There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on 4. Approval of Minutes A. December 1, 1999 B. November 17, 1999 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller to approve the 1999 meeting minutes, as corrected. __ Ayes — 8 5. Planning Case No. 578-99 Property Involved: 2442 Laport Di� Consideration of a variance requ�5 � located �t �.�!!;�. �,aport I7x-i�r�� Applic�t�i `��:��;er Mist�l�lc� The applicar�i: �plicant, Spenc�� l�� construction of ;� �::« d in an unimpro�%�:� ;.:.�� A 30-foot setl�ac �treet, and,,t;k��::-�.pp] ��. for a red��` T January 19, 2000 Page 2 da. 1, 1'�-,��' 8� November 17, n carried. setback for the proposed home to be r� ��rrc;,the staff report as follows: ��, is requesting a variance for a reduced sideyard setback to allow h'ho�`rie on his property at 2442 Laport Drive. The subject property is area, just off of Woodlawn Drive, and is adjacent to unimproved Faber is required because one side of the subject property abuts unimproved cant is seeking a 10-foot sideyard setback. �l��r.��.i�; l, ��ciate Ericson stated there was significant discussion at the last regular meeting of �t�i� �'�K �a�rr�?�Q �ommission regarding this item, however, there has been no resolution as to how the matter should proceed. He explained that staff has attempted to maintain contact with the applicant, who is examining his options at this point, and further information should be available by the end of the week. Planning Associate Ericson explained that the time frame for consideration of this item provides that the Planning Commission is not required to take action at this time, therefore, staff would _ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting -- I �_ ______ _____ — - �- � -- - - --�- — - -- � January 19, 2000 Page 3 recommend the item be tabled until the February Z, 2000 meeting of the Pla�i; He indicated that if no word is received from the applicant by that meeting ��9.� resolution to deny the request. He noted that the applicant rru�h�t also wita��r�� or request Planning Commission action, however, this is still und�iermined. Commissioner Miller inquired if the applicant could request a�t' extensi Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He ex�>��t�� '� could also extend the matter for an additional 60 days, witho�� ;c��, accidentally, by virtue of non-action on the part of the City �� {�k✓�.; to act upon all planning requests within 60 days, unless t�at �+�A.r; Commission could extend this matter for an addition�l 60 days. ' information regarding how this matter will proceec� sk�c��.�l� t��. �?v�ilable MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Kaden. To Ta�'ie 1'1 2, 2000 Meeting of the Planning Commissio:Ci Y� Ayes — ..,..�.. .:. 8 '�' �� N . 6. Planning Case No. ; Proper��r x�� wf`��f��?: 4749 �ltl Consici�h��;� �s�'�`�:esolutioti buildin� io�,��< �. �r. �i`i�;9 Olcl Applicant: ��:� ��•<s�a��es, The .ai�plicant was not iiinission. ill draft a plication, the Planning Corrr��;:,�i�n th�t it might be approved � ��at the City is required �rr�e: �:>� �j�tended, and the ��; �R�g��ed that further y ��«, <��r� of the week. 5?,�r99 Until the February The motion carried. ��1ay 8 Ct(�, �s xesolution approving a front-yard setback variance for the Associate Erics�n gave the staff report as follows: ��_ item is a requ��ti< for a variance to allow for a reduced front yard setback for an o ice- ,.; .<,. �ouse buildin `;;lbcated at 4749 Old Highway 8. The applicant, ASC Properties, LLC is the �;, �9�r�� ;Y� cy �h�; subject property, which is in the process of changing hands. An application for �E ��;��`�>� en requested in order to provide for a clean transfer of the property. Planning Associate Ericson advised that a variance is required because the building, according to a recent survey, encroaches into the front yard setback by approximately 2 to 3 feet, on the north end of the property. He noted that the property curves slightly, therefore, the building maintains the required 40-foot setback toward the south end of the property. . Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting January 19, 2000 Page 4 Planning Associate Ericson stated staff believes a hardship exists in this case, a� that owner, who is purchasing the property, was not involved in the constructioz�' c��'�he'. added that the construction of the structure at the 37-foot setback;..was no� ��i:��ic�: likely, the result of an error at the time the site was improved , Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has drafted Resoliition 60 variance request, and would allow the established setback t��° �7.33 fee any variance approval, there is a stipulation that the resol��.�i�� ,i� County. He advised that another stipulation indicates that ��e�. ��r�:rt�� as shown on the survey on file with the Community Develo��:��.��b �:y�� stipulation provides that the reduced setback will only apply"to �h�� setback, and does not allow a 37-foot setback for the entire. buildin�. ` Chairperson Peterson inquired if there reconstruction of Old Highway 8, a few ye believe any changes were made at that time Chairperson Peterson noted this � Planning Associate Ericson stated il�i MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/I,aut Resolutiox� �°'.I�. 603-00, a. ��,�1�i�sr��n MoundS �I��:d�,� �oning ��z�it� �=�t�� irai for an `��.��ir�� ce-��:4��T.�c��; Planning �`��ta .I'�t�, ��79-�99. ,t';�res — II �`<�� i� 7. ��;`Annual reve� 8. ding. He but most <�' .<_ _'; � ��1, which !'��p�a�€��r�., �:1�.c :�He explained ��,�'�� ii;�� ., be recorded with ��' ��sey �1 reduced setbacic �iaall be �� „+ar.:nt. He explained this �. t��: �xceeds the 40-foot ihe �-igi�� :;€�f way during the c;iate Ericson stated he did not existed for the last 22 years. �e. To' .�_��?b;��r� ,�ounds View Planning Commission Approv�zi�� '41Axr,�nce from Section 1104.01, Subd. 4, of the ng to ��tb7r��c�"io A,llow for a Reduced Front Yard Setback �'huilding Located at 4749 Old Highway 8, Mounds View ays — 0 The motion carried. ; Associate Ericstir� ��ated staff would request the Planning Commission postpone the of the Bylaws ,t�r�iil their next meeting. He explained that according to the Bylaws, this is supposed,`;tts' occur during the first meeting in February, however, this item was :ently placed'�;on the agenda at this time. He indicated that staff would include a copy of ;��,�� s�;Ch� ��ommissioners' packets in order to provide sufficient time for review prior to � Staff Reports / Items of Information A. Previous Council Elctions (1/10/00) � � : �- � 1.� , ; . ': - =- . _ _ �- - -- - � - -,-- y , , _ :_ � - _ , : _ - -__ ---= - Mounds View Planning Commission ' January 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 `;;;�. =1 i i`. �, � ., Planning Associate Ericson updated the Commission regarding previous stated at the January 10, City Council meeting, the Council held second re Ordinance 642, which amends the Code pertaining to driveu�a�s and ; indicated a request for a Wetland Buffer Permit for Jamie ��i�rp, at 2 approved, with a number of stipulations. He explained tha�l<qrie of the sti� the City and the applicant enter into a development agre�m�nt, and tla��= being drafted. y� 5408, which approves a Council Liaison Coughlin indicated the Council also apprc request for a six-month extension for the Comprehensive F Planning Associate Ericson stated no planning casFS ha Planning Commission at their next meeting. H� ir�ca�r,��e��, discussions with TOLD Development Company �'�,��tiiz�. Development. He advised that this matter w��i, �oine be�< in the near future, however, at this point, st<��has not r...ecF �r<< �>;f<<> . ;�>,,; >:_::;<;� ,;;.:,:<� 9. Chairperson and Planning Gi�.i�'�issione;t's"Rep .: ;x;�:: No reports were considered. . 10. There `GFri: meeting � Jopke �rr�ment __ i, �� :�:�r�h�;� i��t��,�t�' t •� ;�,�i'�, �":�'�� $;aa�� irnnn submitt�d, Director Trrish i �arson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. il ac�tz�iiis. He nr� adoption of �� ?vidths. He � �e �.,�ne, was �; �r��c��'t�s that been sch�d�.rt�� !�� ome before the �aa� the City i� �u+�-�:ntly involved in ��i��<_�once�t pl�r� �or a Planned Unit i;tb�''�l�nning �ommission for review �� a�a �a��a��tion in this regard. the �'lanning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the Ijourned to the Agenda Session) N:�DATA\USERS�BARBB\SHAREUanuary 19, 2000 - Pla►ming Coirunission Minutes.DOC . , � . f : -: _ , , .:_ , �. _ �:��-=----�"! _ , : ; .. . . _ - . - �--< _ " --r•. :_- - - _ ,,. _1 � -=-__�' -) _ ; ' -- . - - _ _ _. -- _ - _ - -- � MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION February 16, 2000 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CIT7ZENS: BEFORE SPEAHING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADI)RESS FOR THE NIIlVUTES 4. Approve Planning Commission Minutes: , a. January 19, 2000 S. Consideration of Resolution 604-00, a Resolution Adopting The Pla.nning and Zoning Commission Bylaws as Revised at the February 2, 2000 Meeting. 6. Consideration of Resolution 605-00, a Resolution recommending City Council � approval of the updated Comprehensive Plan. 7. Planning Case No. CU-00001 Property Involved: Bridges Go1f Course Conditional Use Permit for Installation of Six Billboards Applicant: City of Mounds View 8, StaffReports / Items of Information a. Previous Council Actions b. Update on Coalition-wide Planning Commission meeting 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 10. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIkY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNA.BLE TO ATTEND. THANI� YOU. (Over) � ': .-. ,. . �:; �i . .. - - f _ , _ __ , , _ _—_. _._ _ . - � - �. - -- - ---- r . ___ � �_ . ____ - p - � AGENDA SESSION Agenda 1. Review Planning Commission minutes from the February 2, 2000 meeting. N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEVIPLANCOMM\PCAGENDA�20001February 16, 2000 PC Agenda.doc .) � = �--:1 _ -i � .. : . _ .. _ `s_.�..: __ _ _ _ Item # 5 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: Feb�uary 16, 2000 Title: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 604-00, A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BYLAWS AS REVISED AT THE FEBRUARY 2, 2000 MEETING. Introduction: The Planning Commission's Bylaws state that they [the Bylaws] shall be reviewed on an annual basis, at the first regular meeting in February. Discussaon: At the Planning Commission's last meeting on February 2, 2000, it reviewed the Bylaws as ` required and found that certain revisions were in order, directing staff to make these changes as discussed and to prepare a resolution of approval. Recommendation: Approve Resolution 604-00, a resolution adopting the Planning and Zoning Cominission Bylaws as revised at the February 2, 2000 meeting. �. j c�.�,ti��,,� �v��.ti.�. James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Resolution 604-00 2. Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws, revised 2/2/00 N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMMU3YLAWS�Bylaws Report -- 2000.doc _ ___ _ � _ . : , • , - MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 604-00 CITY OF MOUNDS V�W COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION ADOPTING REVISED BYLAWS FOR TI3E MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WHEREAS, Section 401.06, Subd. 7 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires the Planning and Zoning Commission to adopt bylaws for its governance and for the transaction of its business, and for annual review of these bylaws; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has conducted its year 2000 review of its bylaws and has determined that minor revisions are needed. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the bylaws for the Planning and Zoning Corrunission shall be revised as shown in "Exhibit A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and that the bylaws as shown in "Exhibit A" supersede previous adopted versions of the bylaws. � BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these revised bylaws shall be kept on file with the City Clerk-Administrator and the Community Development Department, and shall be forwarded to the City Council for its acceptance, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staffto forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Attest: Adopted this 16th day of February, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director N:IDATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMM�BYLAWS�PC RESOLUTION 604-OO.DOC _ . _ _ � .,z- -�:� : � - _- � — --- r �� . _ . .� � Exhibit A CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING ,AND ZONING COMMISSION SYL.AWS (Revised February 2, 2000) AUTHORITY: The Bylaws of the Mounds View Planning and Zoning Corrunission (Bylaws) are established in accordance with the Mounds View Municipal Code Section 401.06, Subd. 7 "The Commission shall adopt bylaws for its governance and for the transaction of its business." Where there is a conflict between the provisions of the Bylaws and the provisions of the City Charter and the Municipal Code, the provisions of the City Charter and the Municipal Code sha11 govern. (For purposes of simplicity, the Planning and Zoning Commission may hereinafter be referred to as the Planning Commission or the Commission.) II. ADOPTION OF BYLAWS; REVIEW AND AMENDMENT: A. ADOPTIONAND,4MENDMENT: The Bylaws shall be adopted by Resolution by an aff'irmative vote of the majority of inembers of the Planning and Zoning Commission appointed as voting members, and sha11 be placed on file with the City Clerk- Administrator and the Community Development Departinent. A copy of the bylaws sha11 be forwarded to the City Council for its information. Any annendments to the Bylaws sha11 be adopted by Resolution in the same nnanner as the original Bylaws. B. ANNUAL REVIEW: The Bylaws sha11 be reviewed on an annual basis at the first regular meeting of the Corrunission in February. III. MEMBERSHIP AND VACANCIES Vacancies on the Planning Commission shall be filled in accordance with the Municipal Code, Sections 401.02 and 401.03. IV. OFFICERS A. OFFICERS NAMED: The officers of the Planning Commission shall consist of a chairperson and vice-chairperson. The Commission may create and fill such other offices from its members, as it may determine, to transact Commission business. In addition, the Director of Community Development, or his or her designee, shall act as the recording secretary for the Commission for purpose of preparing meeting minutes. B. ELECTIONS; TERMS Chairperson: At the first meeting in January, the Commission shall conduct an election in order to make its recommendation for the chairperson, following the procedure in Section IV.B.3. 'The name of the person recommended for chairperson sha11 be forwarded to the City Council for action at its next meeting in January. Based upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Mayor, with the approval of the City Council, shall appoint the chairperson of the Commission each year. 2. Vice-Chairperson: The Planning Commission sha11 elect a vice-chairperson each year at its first meeting in January, following the procedure in 5ection N.B.3. _ . I . . _ _- . YI � : - - . _ . . . -..� . ? . . . -: . � . _ � .�y . _ . - - • , � _ - _--, _ , -'.- - - -°=� ---- -=--- ' --- -<'. " _ � /: � : � % t - �.: -- - - - '-=-- �- �v:- ' f "' - - City of Mounds View Plaruiuig and Zoning Comnussion - Bylaws Page 2 Election Procedure: For each o�ce, the chairperson shall invite nominations from Planning Commission membars. After nominations have been received, the chairperson shall entertain a motion to close nominations. If such motion is nnade and passed, and more than one nomination has been made, the chairperson shall distribute ballots to the Commission members and each member shall write his or her selection on the ballot. The recording secretary shall ta11y the ballots and announce the nominee receiving the most votes. In the event of a tie, the recording secretary shall announce the nominees tied in the voting and balloting shall be repeated until an election occurs. If only one nomination has been received, the chairperson may conduct the voting by voice vote. If a majority of the members present vote in the �rmative for the nominee, the nominee shall be elected. 4, Assumption of Duties: The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall assume office at the first meeting in February of each year. 5. Term of Office: The chairperson and vice chairperson shall serve one year terms, and may be re-elected to additional terms in accordance with this Section N.B. C. DUTIES OF OFFICERS: The chairperson shall preside over the meetings of the Planning Commission, and sha.11 have the authority to add or cancel regular meetings and to ca11 special meetings as provided in Section VI. The vice chairperson shall assume the duties of the chairperson, in the absence of the chairperson. In the event of the absence of both the chairperson and vice-chairperson, those mernbers present shall elect a temporary chairperson to preside over the meeting. V. LIAISON TO COiJNCIL: The City Council shall appoint from among its members a Liaison to the Commission on an annual basis. It is expected that the Council Liaison will attend the Commission meetings on a regular basis. In the event of the absence of the Council Liaison at a Commission meeting, a Commission inember may be appointed by the chairperson to represent the Planning Commission at the next regular City Council meeting or at the nneeting where the City Council will be considering the planning cases acted upon by the Planning Commission in the absence of the Council Liaison. VI. MEETINGS A. TYPES OFMEETINGS; SCHEDULE: The annual meeting schedule of the Commission shall be adopted by Resolution at the f rst regular meeting in Decernber for the following year. Regular Meetings: Subject to the adopted meeting schedule, the Commission's regular meetings will occur on the first and third Wednesdays of each month for fihe purpose of convening public hearings, making recommendations to the City Council, conducting business which requires a vote of the Commission, convening as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, conducting long-range planning functions and other official business. __� : City of Mounds View Planning vid Zoning Coirunission � Bylaws Page 3 2. Agenda Sessions: An Agenda Session is an informal session of the Planning Cominission, typically held immediately following adjournment of a Regular or Special meeting, at which time the Planning Commission may review minutes, informally review proposed or pending planning cases or ordinance amendments, discuss previous actions of the City Council or other Commissions, and to perform other maiters not requiring a vote of the Commission. 3. Special Meetings: From time to time, special meetings may be called in order to process significant caseloads, to review works in progress such as comprehensive plan updates or municipal code revisions, or to undertake a retreat or strategic planning session, either amongst itself or in the company of the City Council or other commissions. Special meetings can be proposed by any Commission inember or at the request of the Director of Community Development, yet must,be approved by a majority vote of the Commission. Emergency special meetings can be called via written notice to the Director of Community Development by the Chairperson or two Commission members, or by the Director of Community Development. (Emergency special meetings are those in which the subject matter is of such an immediate concern that it cannot be delayed until the next regular meeting of ihe Planning Coznmission.) The Director of Community Development shall post and mail a noiice of any special meeting in accordance with State Statutes. Planning Commission members shall be notified by telephone and in writing, if possible, at least seven days prior to a special meeting. 4. Cancellation of Meetings: Regular or special meetings may be canceled by the chairperson or Community Development Director in the event that there are no items of business requiring the attention of the Commission, or for lack of a quorum, or in response to inclement weather or for any other good and sufficient reason. Members of the Commission sha11 be notified by telephone of any meeting cancellation. A notice of the meeting cancellation shall be posted as required by State Statutes. B. QUORUM: A majority of the number of voting members appointed to the Commission shall constitute a quorum. C. COND UCT OF MEETINGS; ADJO URNMENT Meeting Chairperson: If neither the chairperson nor the vice chairperson is present to conduct a meeting of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission may elect a meeting chair from among those members present prior to the commencement of business. The election shall follow the procedures set forth in Section IV.B.3, except that the Community Development Director, or his or her designee, shall conduct the election. 2. Open Meeting Law: Meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the State of Minnesota Open Meeting Law (Minn. 5tatutes 471.705). _ _ , _� , . . -. , City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission - B laws Page 4 Adjournment: Meetings shall adjourn at or before 11:00 p,m. unless a two-thirds majority of the members present agree to extend the time of adjournment. If there is no objection, the Chairperson may declare the meeting adjourned without the necessity of a motion or vote by the Commission. D. MINUTES: Minutes sha11 be recorded for regular meetings and each commission me�nber shall receive a copy of the unapproved minutes for review and approval at a succeeding rneeting. Minutes sha11 be approved by motion. Approved minutes shall be the of�cial record of the business conducted and actions taken by the Planning Commission. Commission members may request copies of approved minutes after they have been corrected, if necessary, and signed as approved. Copies of the approved minutes shall be filed with the Community Development Department. Unapproved minutes shall be clearly marked "DRAFT"; approved minutes shall be marked "APPROVED", A policy statement regarding the content and format of the minutes shall be on file with the Director of Community Development which may be reviewed from time to time as needed. VI. INFORMATIONAL PACKETS: Each Commissioner shall receive a staff report, plans and additional information, as appropriate, for each item placed on the agenda for any regular or special meeting. The Commission packet should be delivered at least four days prior to the meeting. Each Commissioner is responsible for reviewing the material within the packet prior to the meeting. VII. PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS: Advice from, consultation with, and/or requests for review by the City Attorney, City Engineer, City Planning Agency, or other paid consultants shall be in accordance with the Municipal Code, Section 401.07. VIII. SUPPLEMENTARY PUBLICATIONS: All Commission members shall receive a copy of the Mounds View Municipal Code and a copy of the Municipal Comprehensive Plan as well as other materials provided by the City Council or City Staff. These materials shall be retained by each commission member and returned to the Community Development Director upon the member's resignation or termination of appointment. IX. CONDUCT OF MEMBERS A. ATTENDANCE: Corrunission members sha11 advise the designated Staff inember or the Commission chairperson of an anticipated absence from any regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Any member attending less than 20 meetings per year without the consent of the Commission shall be deemed to have vacated the office, and such vacancy shall be filled by the City Council pursuant to Section 401.03, Subd. 1. A leave of absence may be granted by the consent of the Commission. B. CONFLICT OFINTEREST.• l. General Standard: No Cotrunissioner shall be appointed with private or personal interests likely to cor►�lict with the general public interest. If any person appointed to the Commission shall imd that their private or personal interests are involved in any _ ,_ �:. � ; City of Mounds View Planning and Zoiung Comnussion - Bylaws Page 5 matter coming before the Commission, they sha11 disqualify themselves from taking part in any discussion or action on the matter; alternatively, they may be disqualified by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the Commissioners in attendance. 2. Conflict Due to Economic Interests: A Commissioner has a conflict of interest if, in his or her discharge of official duties, would be required to take an action or make a decision that would substantially affect the Commissioner's financial interests or those of an associated business, unless the effect on the Commissioner is no greater than on other members of the Commissioner's business classification, profession, or occupation. In the event a conflict of interest exists with respect to a particular matter before the Commission, the Commissioner shall disqualify himself or herself from taking part in any discussion or action on the matter. C. EXPARTE CONTACTS: Ex parte contacts are contacts between individuals seeking to influence the decisions of the Planning Commission and individual Commission members outside the meeting forum. Such contacts include meetings with project proponents, residents, property owners, and citizens separate from Commission meetings, communication between Commission members outside the meeting forum, telephone ca11s or letters which attempt to influence a Commissioner's opinion on a matter which will be subject to the Commissioner's vote. When the Planning Commission is involved in a matter which is to be heard and decided by the Commission (e.g. variances), Planning Commissioners shall indicate to the person contacting them that such contact is inappropriate and a11 testimony needs to be offered at the hearing to ensure a fair hearing for a11 parties. In all other cases, Planning Commissioners should discourage such contacts and should avoid expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case. When ex parte contacts occur, the P1a�lning Commissioner is responsible for notifying the Community Development Director, and for conveying the substance of the communication at the next commission meeting at which the matter discussed is under consideration. ATTEST: Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMM�BYLAWS�BYLAWS -- 2000.DOC I� " r. -f .�._ �_, � i _ ^ ` . _ __ .._ ___ _ ._.. . . _ . ...___ . G'._:,. _ �. - . ` - y ��` __� ' .. : ,. _ . _ .'- � l �;:1 � f .:; ,_. , ;. < _. - PLANNING C OMMIS SION MEMo To: Mounds View Planning Commission, Fromo Ricic Jopke, Community Development Director Snbject: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: February 11, 2000 � �_ ""_' K_�rm 'j�� On February 9, 2000 the Planning Commission held the required public hearing on the comprehensive plan update. No comments were received from the public. Staff has not received any additional public comments since the hearing. I have made amendments to one page and two figures based on Planning Commission comments following the hearing. I have attached copies of the amended pages for your information. [ The next step in the process is for the Planning Coinmission to formally recommend that the City Council adopt the comprehensive plan. Following that, the City Council will need to accept the comprehensive plan and authorize its subxnittal to adjacent comrnunities and to the Metropolitan Council for their review. Following review by the Metropolitan Council, the City Council can then adopt the comprehensive plan. REQUESTED ACTION: It is requested tl�at the Planning Commission pass the attached Resolution No. 605-00 recommending City Council adoption of the comprehensive plan. N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMM\02-16-00 comp plan report.doc _,- : � � � , , : �__'� __�=-�� :, - = =, ___ . _ _ _' -=_-- _: . - - _ - ---- - _ _� i MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 605-00 CITY QF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PLANNING CASE NO. SP-065-98. WHEREAS, State Statutes (Minn. Stat. 462.355, Subd. la and 473.175-473.871) require that the City of Mounds View update its Comprehensive Plan and submit it to the Metropolitan Council for review; and WHEREAS, State Statutes (Minn. Stat. 462.355, Subd. 1) states that the planning agency shall prepare the comprehensive plan; and , WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code in Section 401.04 designates the Planning Commission as the planning agency as authorized by State Statutes; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has prepared a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing thereon with the required notice published in the official newspaper of the city. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends that the City Council the adoption of the comprehensive plan dated February 16, 2000. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Attest: Adopted this 16th day of February, 2000 Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Joplce, Community Development Director N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMM�PCRESOS�I'C Comp Plan Resolution No. 605-OO.doc . . . _ - .._____ . . � . . ..'1 . . L --°° --- _ . .. . .. . . _ . . _ . - �-�� " d, z � Item #7 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: Feb�uary 16, 2000 Tatle: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 606-00, A RESOLUTION APPROVING SIX OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS ON GOLF COURSE PROPERTY Introduction: The City Council on December 13`h, 1999, adopted Ordinance 644, which amended the City Code to allow outdoor advertising signs (billboards) as a conditional use on properties adjacent to and north of State Highway 10 (formerly known as S.T. H. 118) and must face either State Highway 10 or I-35 W. � The requirements (in general) are as follows: • Billboards shall be located at least 250 feet from a residentially zoned property. • Minimum spacing shall be 1,000 feet. • Ma�mum sign area shall be 700 square feet per side. • Ma�mum height is 35 feet. Ordinance 644 has been attached to this report for your reference. Dascussion: Eller Media Company has presented the City with a proposal to install s'v� billboards on Bridges Golf Course property. These signs are of a high quality design, not the typical or standard highway billboard design commonly found in the general area. Staff has provided the Commission with Eller's full-color proposal for reference. The proposed signs would meet all of the criteria as established in Ordinance 644. As with any conditional use permit, the Commission needs to examine the request and weigh its merits against the adverse effects criteria in Subdivision le of Section 1125.01. In addition to that, the Commission is to consider the effects of the proposed use upon the Comprehensive Plan and also on the health, safety and general welfare of occupants on surrounding lands. In keeping with this requirement, staff has addressed the issues for the Commission's consideration. ::_; � _ _ _ , _, . ,------ -�_- ------. . _ _ ��.�:i i ---- ----�-- � ---- Billboards Report February 16, 2000 Page 2 Adverse Effects Criteria: - ,�- - , _ ` ' ------� F _ —� - - � ---" � ` - - _ ._. -- -- - --- . . � . _ As stated in Subdivision le of Section 1125.01, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment or conditional use. Its judgment shall be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors: (1) �Q: (3) (4) (5) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan, in either current or amended version, does not address the issue of billboards. The geographical area involved. The area on which the billboards cn�e to be located is the Golf Coufse pYOperty. There are fzve residential propertzes 265 feet south of State Hrghway 10 from which the billboards would be >>isible. � Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. It is not believed that the placement and installation of billboards on the golf course proper�ty could depreciate the land values or visual appeal of the golf course and surrounding grounds. The character of the surrounding area. The area north of State Highway 10 and west of I-3SW is dominated by industrial uses. Other than the Golf Course, which is the City's comnaercial golf facility, all other uses are of an industr•ial nature. The demonstrated need for such use. Golf Course Superintendent Hammerschmidt has addressed this issue, in that the revenues generated from these signs will help keep the golf cou�•se facility financially viable into the future and to counter-act ballooning bond payments. General Conditional Use Permit Criteria: The Planning Commission is to consider the following general criteria in its recommendation to the City Council: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. Installation of Billboards will not create or cause a burden to public facilities. City ofMounds View �---- � � -. �_�, r = � ._ Billboards Report February 16, 2000 Page 3 _ _ (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that e�sting homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deter►-ence to development of vacant land. (3) (4) (5) (6) ��) �g) There is no vacant or developable land in the immediate area and the residents south of State Higlnvay 10 should not be affected detrimentally in any way. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. There are no adjacent residential properties to the golf course. South of State Highwcry 10 there are five residential properties fi�om where the billhoards would be visible. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. The Crty Council does believe that the installation of billboards is integrally related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing lcrnd use The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. With the adoption of Ordinance 644, the proposed billboards ar•e consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning distr�ict in which they are to be locatec� The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Comprehensive Plan (either version) does not address the issue of billboards. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. Studies comnaissioned by highway safety crnd t�arrsportation groups and agencies find no correlation between billboards and accidents. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Access to the billboards will be gained via existinggolf course pathways and service roads. Given the review of the adverse effects snecific and general conditional use requirements, it appears that the proposal to install billboards at the Brid�es Golf Course is consistent with the Crtv Code and Ordmance 644 City ofMounds View � ��i � ` � = Y _ . � . . � _ ,�� fi�' = G _ '_� " ':I � � . , . �� . . . . - o .. :.. .--. . . �._ . � . . ..,�' - _ " . " _'_- ' � _ .__� _ . � . . __ ' ""' .' _" _ ' _ _ ' __"' ' ". 1'_ . ' '^_ _.s'" "'_' . >. _"_' ' � _ __ _ ,� , f ;� Recommendation: In consideration of the above-stated findings, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 606-00, a resolution which recommends to the City Council approval of Eller Media's proposal to install six outdoor advertising signs on Bridges Golf Course property. If Eller Media is unable to procure a permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for the proposed signs, the CUP shall be rendered null and void. r �- �..v�n�.o �Nl V'l/� James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Eller Media Proposal (separate attachment) 4. Ordinance 644 5. Platuiuig Commission Resolution 606-00 N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�EVCASES\CU-00OO1�Billboards Report.doc t ---- � —_- --- - -_ �._. ��'�`�7 �:� �rl7:�r • � ��l��J;i;i i! �%t �0 � 1.:.x<ii..j °,o !i�r::>;4U� r ♦ Bn�'u ° PartnerS��Q _ � -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information � Name ofApplicant � � ��1� �' �y^y�J Address ��IO I f� 7 � �_ !/1/1 b r,�.aL� S us� r.J f ry1�` _ �� a Interest in Property (check appropriate box) � Owner of Properly ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑ Other (explain) _ 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 - FAX Telephone ;� �c� ^ 7 � 7 � ��'� Fax _ % �o� ` � 8`� -3`/�� ❑ Contract for Deed Owner o Agreement to Purc�ase Applicants,must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from tl�e owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal 6 Address or General Location Legal Description Property Ident�cation # (PIN #) # of Acres. Current Zoning �n� 'S G�� v c,��r�� l� ) �1 � Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment o Rezoning ❑ Major Subdivision o Minor Subdivision � Planned Unit Development (PUD) � PUD Amendment �( Conditional Use Pernnit ❑ Variance p Code Appeal o Develop Review/Site Plan ❑ Wetland Alteration Pemut ❑ We[land Buffer Permit ❑ Floodplain Pernut ❑ Other $250 $250/acre; min $250 max $1 S00 $250 + $250 deposit* $200 Refer to rezoning fees $350 R-1, R-2 $75; all oth s$ 5 R-1, R-2 $100 all others $2 $]00 $125/acre; min $125 max $750 R-1, R-2 $150; all others $200 R- I, R-2 $25; all others $100 $200 � �� *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days after consideration of the application is completed. . Please complete the reverse side of this application. � , � �s� r_ ,� ; k. �; f - i � _ �'`--��' �; - c �'ry' - - - � �"�' - =-*� City of Mounds View, MN Development Application Pa�e 2 Present Use of Property ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling �1 Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) ❑ Single Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelling ❑ Tndustrial Establishment Property Classification ❑ Abstract ❑ Torrens - Description ofProposal 0 PG,�'C� �p ��-� EgU fF�,� S �`,� /��D /l �'�il'� � 4�y 1�L� (.. T" ..�'S _ i� ,. BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DBCLARE THAT, T;O TI� BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THL INFORMATION PROVID IS TRUE � ACCURATE. ^ Signature of Applicant • �.--- �U � ,; �� "� � Name of Applicant (typed/printed) .,� (-I- /-� J'►'J ��« 02- .SC1 fl'�� T Signature of Property Owner � Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner ��r �_ i'��a,.iZe�� .e.�� ; T � ( �Ll /✓/'l.t,JCP .t .I �l � %�2,�,�r.r� �1.:� �/ /r �. , :� � � �'l.: �� 'S' l 1�-�- ***�******************************************************************************************** TOR OFFICE US� ONLY Date of Submittal �- 15 -�� J Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. � 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: Account # . Check # Application: .�S � • � � —' Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: Receipt # N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�FORMS�DEVAPP.FOR I/98 ' :�::::�� . aaso � _ _ :::�.'� I ;`.� -_-_- _:�� I �-, 840� N� � --�-� � A sixth billboard (not shown) is p�°oposed Fr �� on undeveloped Golf Course property '`'� o� near Sysco foods. Refer to the Eller Proposal. <:;:; ;::;;;:; � �,; ;:: � �.;: ,: szso L__ B LANE NE 0 � � 3070 9044 801 f 7988 7968 7948 7930 ; a PF � ! N e 7860 �� 785 � 784 7b41 783 j 782: 782 0 � THE ;;;: �•:,:: eR��ES _ . �oCF O-12epresents proposed locations of billboards. , � ywY `� \� � 62 Zoning Map Planning Case CU-00001 Applicant: City of Mounds View Location: Bridges Golf Course CRP CpURS£ �� . . . , - -_ _ .. ___ _. _ . �.-- �i � v _ - � Ys _ - - _ � - �. �. __ y _ -.,:;,__ _..:.,.� ` _ . . :. .: -. . .:>.t. _ '.=�-`_ �� -:_ ,�--- � i - ,..,._._ . __..,_-. �.- - - _�.-r" - -�'.E- -- - - _ . __. _._. �----_ _ __ . , ... .. ;� _ --.- � � • -.. � ;- �.._ _,. ORDINANCE NO. 644 CITY OF MOUNDS V�W COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1008 (SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS) OF THE MOUNDS V�W MUNICIPAL CODE PERTATNING TO BILLBOARDS AS AN INTERIM USE; PLANNING CASE SP-071-99 THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1: Section 1008.08 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and italicized and deletions , respectively, to read as follows: Subd. 1. General Standards; Paragraph I(1): No ground sign (except temporary signs, portable signs or banners), or signboard �eav�! shall approach at any point nearer than three feet (3') to any building unless such sign is placed parallel to the side of the building, nor shall any such sign be placed within six feet (6') of the side of any lot nor nearer than fifteen feet (15') to any street line where there is no established or customary building line nor within twenty five feet (25') of any street corner right-of-way. Whenever the established or customary uniform building line upon the street where such ground sign is to be erected is more than fifteen feet (15') from the street or property line, then such sign shall not approach nearer to the street than the established or customary uniform building line. Subd. 5. Signs Along Freeways: Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, signs located on property adjacent to any freeway within the Municipality (including Interstate Highway 35W) shall be business signs advertising businesses being conducted on the premises on which the signs are located. No "traveling" or changing-message signs shall be located so as to face any freeway or be visible from the freeway. The provisions of this subdivision, however, shall not be construed to render illegal or nonconforming any signs that are legally located along any such freeway at the effective date herein.�ty , ', � , �f,. ,.t„ �„ ,.f;., ��F;,.�f � ,,,� t„� rt,,, r,�.,,��;1 � sc,—ci . Subd. 10. Billboards: A permit shall not be issued for any new billboard e�-a�v�g �� , ey�°�� unless it com�lies with the�'ollowing interim use reguirements: a. CONDITIONAL USE PERNIIT.� A conditional use permit (CUP naust be obtained in accor•drznce the p��ocedures foa�nd in Section 1125. 01 Subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. Any conditional use permit issared for an interim _� _ _ _ _ , _ . _ . : � - - - _ t, - - - billboa�-d shall autonzaticallv expire no later than Januaf-v 1, 2015 oi• ��hen the lease ag��eement fof� the billboar•d expires whichevej• date is ear•lier. Such CUP shall be null- and-void if the applicant {ails to obtain anv �'ec�uired permit from the State ofMinnesota. b. LOCATION.• The billboaf•d must be located alor7g and north of State Highwax 10 (118 . The ap�licant must have an approved lease agreement with th�ropertX owner. The billboard shall be of•iented lowards State Highwav 10 (1181 and/or I35W. Billboaf�ds naust be locatec� c�t least 250 feet froni residentiall zoned pj�opei-tv Billboards may be located adjacent to the r�ight-o� �of a street or hi�hwav but no part thereo,�' shall extend over such f•i�ht_o�� c. MINIMUM SPACING: Billboards must be at least 1000, eet apart. S�acing between signs shall be measured bv�t'ojecting the nearest points o the signs to the p��opertv lzne of the right-of-wav fr'om which they are intended to be read and »zeastcring the distance in a straight line between the projected points. Reguired spacing shall crpplv onlv to billboczr�ds vn the same side of the sanze r•oadwav. d. MAXIMUMSIGNAREA: The maximum �ross sur ace displav a��ea of the si�rr cannot exceed 700 sc�ucrre feet per szde except that anv rectangulat- billboar•d max contain tempo��arv extensions, cutouts, or top lettering which occupv a total area not in excess o twentv- ive (25Zpercent o the area of the basic billboard and fot-m an inte�ral part of the desi�r thereof. No such tem�orary extension cut out or top letterin� maZproject more than six (6) feet from the top, ei hteen (18� inches from either side or fifteen (1 S anches from the bottonz of the basic rectangular advertising nressage. The area of an extension, cutout, or top lettering shall be deenzed to be the a�•ea of the smallest f•ectangle into which such extension, cutout, or top lettering will it. e,_ ORIENTATION OF SIGNFACES: Billboards mccv have no n2o��e than two (2) si�n faces. Si�n faces n�ust be back-to-back with si�n faces parallel o�° an�led. All billboards with their faces back-to-back and parallel shall have no greater distance than ei�ht (8Z feet bet►veen the faces. All billboards with faces at an angle shcrll have no �•eczter angle than thzrtz-five (35�grees. f MAXIMUMSIGNHEIGHT.' The nzaximum allowable hei�ht of billboards shall be thirt� five (35Z feet. The hei�ht shczll be measured fi•onz the gr�ade at the base o the si� from the su�fcrce of'the roadwav whichever is higher• ,�. OBSTRUCTION.• No billboard may be located in such a nzanner as to obscure or otherwise interfere with the e�'fectiveness of an o�cial trc��' ic si�Yl, Sl�nal or device, or obstruct or interfere with a driver's view of approaching, mergin�, or intersectin�a,�'fic. Any billboard le�allv existin� on the effective date of this ordinance mav continue to be maintained in its present form and size but not expanded. This does not preclude the pef•rodic change of the message or advertisement presented on the billboard. �� ` ; _ _ _ � - i _ - = '�= �____ - ` _ : ` _ . -. : _ -,s � _ . _ r . _ _ .- _-- _,-- - — ----= - '� _ _ :' . .._ ` -- — --°-- - - — --_- - _,. � _; , . Any billboard destroyed by an act of God may be rebuilt within thirty (30) days if the construction of same would comply with this subdivision. SECTION 2: The title of Section 1008.11 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is hereby amended with the proposed additions underizned and italicized and deletions ��eu�s� �'��-��, respectively, to read as follows: 1008.11: : SIGN VARIANCES: SECTION 3. This Ordinance goes into ef�ect thirty (30) days after its publication in the official City newspaper. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 22nd day of November, 1999. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 13th day of December, 1999. ATTEST: � (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Dan Coughlin, Mayor Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator N:�DATA\GROUPS\COM DE V�S PECPR0.1�644.0 RD. D OC . - E _�__ . _ ' _. _ --. , ---- - ---- - - - - - -- _ _� ------ - '-- -- -_-= MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COI��IlVIISSION RESOLUTION NO. 606-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMI��NDING APPROVAL OF A PROPOSAL TO 1NSTALL SIX OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS ON BRIDGES GOLF COUR.SE PROPERTY WI�REAS, the City of Mounds View has applied for a conditional use permit to install six outdoor advertising signs of Bridges Golf Course Property; and, WHEREAS, said property is zoned CRP, Conservancy, Recreation and Preservation, and is legally described as follows: ' That Part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Qua��ter of Section S, Township 30, Range 23, lying nor•th and west of State Highway 10 Right of Way, and, Those parls of Lots 3, 4, 13 and 14, Block I, Laport Meadows, lying norlh of State Highway 10 Right of Way; and , Those par•ts of Lots 1— S, Block 2, I_aport Meadows, lying nor�th of State Highway 10 right of way; and , All ofLots 1, 2 and IS, Block 1, Lapo��tMeadows; and, All ojLot 4, Block 1, North Star Industrial Park 2"d Add. WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has adopted Ordinance 644 which amended tha City Code to allow billboards as a conditional use on properties north of State Highway 10 to face either State Highway 10 or I-3 5 W right of ways; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal from Eller Media and finds it to be consistent with the zoning requirements pertaining to billboards; and, WI�REAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has examined the adverse effects criteria in Section 1125.01, Subd. le and finds that the benefits of the proposal outweighs any possible or perceived impacts to the community; and, WI�REAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has examined the general conditional use permit requirements as stated in Section 1125.01, Subd. 3b and finds all requirements to be satisfied. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Mounds View recommends to the City Council approval of the proposal presented by Eller Media to install six billboards on Bridges Golf Course property, with the following stipulation: � �i� '_i._`_ . .. .- . ', .._.. 4:=s�__ _ ` _ .. � . . . . . � . � ..�.i, _ _'" ::. ""_- ._ -:..=i '�_ _ . �, . - . -.�� - - � {. � . -".�_ � �� . e' _ . ' _ . _ . _ _ , � Resolution 606-00 Billboards Page 2 1. If the selected billboard vendor is unable to obtain the requisite billboard permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the conditional use permit should be considered null and void. Adopted this 16'�' day of February, 2000, Jerry Peterson, Chair ATTEST Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\CU-00001\Resolution 606-OO.doc .: ,� , . -- _ . � _ 0 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION :;:,, CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ,,,�;>%_''�'" RAMSEY COUNTY,IVIINNESOTA �;:: -:;;�; ` I��r l�eeting , �:;;:, � ��;1%�°��s�.r';/,�:, �000� ..,<,,,. �Q.Y]I8Il��2 ''?r�ii`s'J, �..�iC'i�;;:�� 2401 1. Call to Order .;< The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at" 2. Roll Call f,f � .'', Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, .,,�Commissic�:��e�',<, Laube, Miller, and Stevenson. .£; �_> ��.�> -. Members Absent: Commissioner Br�t.�en, leave ��absence. 'f' Also Present: Community Develo�ment Dire�or Rick Jo�ke .... ;, Inde�c �.�� 1�;�1��i��r;� ��y 109 � ':00 p.m., �� . 2000. Johnson, Kaden, and Recorder Trish Pearson. Planrung Q�� e; ��?s�; ��99, 2442<�,�a.��ca� C: Dr�;�!e. Consideration of a variance request for a,�c�c1,�R�;�:�� yar�� i b��l; ��'the proposed home to be located at 2442 La,�€��i syt��f�`°. � � ... Spence�:;TViistelske, �p�s��n� hy?izi "<. 3 �y/ " a: �t' 3� .3 �. . .,. A;�;�i�al Review of Plann��g C;�mmission Bylaws ,>><::>;<;, "'" �'Re orts / Items Q�;�nformation �v�.�... p <::: � <::: �`��i�person an.� �`l�fiiiing Commissioners Reports �o cCa�n��ns' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 4. Approval of Minutes Page 2 3 6 8 � _ . _ . _ _ ,:: . _ _. _ _. ; __ � _ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting A. January 5, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Miller t o approve the January 5, 2000 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes — 8 Nays — 0 5. Planning Case No. 578-99 February 2, 2000 Page 2 Property Involved: 2442 Laport Drive Consideration of a variance request for a reduced sidr �y;�y-�� setbacic f�7�� _,��, n3��c�sed home to be located at 2442 Laport Drive. Applicant: Spencer Mistelske , f�� The applicant was not present. Community Development Director J��ke gav� tka� staff repor� �s follows: � At the Janaaa�r varianc� � Y,��:��. Code requir9 Faber Stre�� closer than 3 5 meeting., of Spenc�� ' "LO COP1�(l't��; Ir� ihis��'� co �he ��.o;.. 'lannir��, ��:�t��xr�.i�szc�r�; there was discussion regarding the e for fa�c�p��1� ��cated at 2442 Laport Drive. This was a home ai a lesS�r side lot line setback than that allowed by A� �a.se, there is an unimproved 30-foot right-of-way along ��`��9erty, and the applicant proposed to construct the home .� .� mu�ty Developrn�;za� �ksr€;�.�;o�� Jopke indicated that after some discussion at their January 5 .f, f, ifig; the Planning �';��r�i��>��r� continued this item for further discussion. He stated the �r was again continc��;� ��s� :��?Y��xary 19, as no further information had come forward since that He explained that��taf�iias received no word from the applicant regarding his plans, or how tends to annroach:<�`�s matter. �.��_��.,��anity Develt��ient Director Jopke stated the findings in Resolution 601-00 indicate that �x�� s �;� ;-�� i��1�e need for the Faber Street right-of-way, there are no exceptional or ��°i�naa �,�° ��,id-�umstances present on this site, and that the situation was, in fact, created by the pz�p�kx��;�� v✓�iei�. T�Ie advised that in light of these findings, and the 60-day time frame deadline, staff would recommend the Planning Commission approve Resolution 601-00, which denies this variance request. Chairperson Peterson inquired if there was any further word from the neighboring residents who had proposed to build in the same area. Community Development Director Jopke stated there was not. .- ,- � � k '_ - -- -=--- � .` ---- - — - ;-- _,_._ - . - --�. = ��::� . .. �------ -_- -- _� � --- : i - � Mounds View Planning Commission February 2, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 Chairperson Peterson inquired if there was any further inforrr delineation. Community Development Director Jopke stated remain with regard to the proposal, and it would be appropn deny this particular request. He pointed out that the applicant was examining the possi�; property, which could eliminate the need for a variance, t�� where the house would be located. �e indica4�'�a��r � Dt`the Planni�;; �;:��A�� of some'rt�inor sul�c�:�� dang t�pon how ttiis � Commissioner Johnson stated this was a situation where the �Y��;�r(. considering subdividing and building houses in this are�i, He ; approved, it would affect the potential improvement of Faber Str houses could be constructed. Community Development Director Jopke stat�d- this w�W res� ��;�:�,' ° to the adjacent property owner's ability to t�btain prop�r �.c,c,�� r� Johnson explained that if Faber Street �vas ever; irriprovec�, � <.;,: approved, the proposed home would .}�� Iocated in �oo close a��i-o for proper access. ; 4-��` � Commissioner Miller poin�:�� the worc� "�€" should b�; ��; Chaij-��c;d�c�,{i 9��rson st�ie� «Adopte�l 2� „�3' ,�`�� t��:y of � e� iew Zonin� �;��c�� House at 2�� _t�� : �on estions ;E��;aon to erty owner was also :x if this item were h�i:her or not those �?ddii�g that much of this related ic.> x�e �roperty. Commissioner ,�� his variance request was ,iif��i�y to Faber Street to allow in the �i �f, "�%T�l:�".�AS" of the resolution, the letter "T" in z�d page of the resolution should be amended to indicate, }�,�� t.' To Approve Mounds View Planning Commission I�eriying a Variance from Section 1104.01, Subd. 4, of the to Setbacks to Allow for a Reduced Sideyard Setback for a ; Planning Case No. 578-99, as corrected. Nays — 0 Motion carried. , <:, �'��missioner Steu�+ei��on pointed out that although the resolution is approved, this action denies �� ,�;a ^r�x� �eterson stated this was correct. He indicated that this denial was not based so much upoY� ^a lack of inerit in this case, but rather, because there was not sufficient information available with which to proceed, and by State Statute, if action is not taken within a certain time period, the matter is automatically approved. 6e Annual Review of Planning Commission Bylaws. _ ___ ___ _ . . --. — --- . ----- ' � � ---" '-- - �` .�'£ � �.r-: _.�... rr_< ___-___ «�� -�' - �^�`'�� .sr_.�—�� __� _ F_�' _-'� � I I Mounds View Planning Commission February 2, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 Community Development Director Jopke stated the Planning Commissio each year, at the first regular meeting in February, the Planning �;cr�x►missic the Bylaws, and make any changes they feel are necessary, il� �t��3ic,ated st� of the Bylaws for the Commission's review. ,, Chairperson Peterson stated the Planning Commission h�.d ��.de � previous year, primarily to eliminate procedural difficulti� ar� ��s��zs operations within the year, and in this sense, many improvei�r��,�� a� this year, the Planning Commission has undergone a chang� �i�;�� e°�� meetings. He explained that two meetings prior, the C�'tnmissiora � necessary to amend the format of their agenda, as rhe only di�f'erern meeting is broadcast, rather than only the formaL ��cs��i�;� �:� the in Bylaws should be amended to reflect this change , ��o� �€��y�r� �I9�; "�$ylaws made any reference ing �o�r=.�'}�� ;i�a�� would care to incorporate n the �c��_��ci1 ��,�ion in this regard. icate that to review a copy �,�:, 6:�� rumber of cor�-r.�;�i�� ; of the schedul�: o�":��:,� ��in. �; ,riade. He indicated that ��c� ,to the broadcasting of �a��7�l1� decided it was not M r�c�j�.Xc� �� hat the entire c;��a�;. ; �� inquired if the Community Development Director Jopke st�t�d he to the televising of ineetings. He inquirecl; if the Pl this into the Bylaws, or if they would .pr��`�r to relX;: Commissioner Stevenson stated t mention of anything relatec� tc� th� to sop��r}�Et� fr�quent chc��. ' frequc:��, +;��;r,iz�;;:; tl�erefc��'�; l�Q � Chair�� c�ri �.°'; �.�4,ox� sY�?iE;�� E� h� Commissior��°� ��1[rr�` ". . . secretary �i � �}�; �� which ir�s�i�ates, ,.` �'1�e City C[iuncil for acti , ., wh�r�m the Council zxie�tin� would occur igend�. ��ion would�;t, e a more appropriate place to make Y::>: . ;vising a�`�7�;�ri��;s, � rt is for the minutes which are subject pointecl '�,i�� i6�� tl�e broadcast policy was also subject to rather n�'r ge�`i:l�is as a complete addendum to the Bylaws. � i��n'` I�i��, �!; ��icers: Subparagraph A, last sentence, should indicate yion ior �.F��; ��urpose..." She noted Subparagraph B, first paragraph, �a� ihe }�erson recommended for chairperson shall be forwarded to the ,.� �Crst meeting in January." She inquired if a situation might arise i�old`' their first meeting on Monday, and the Planning Commission c�r�ving Wednesday. �"t��:�.rperson Petersn� �stated the Planning Commission had discussed this the previous year, and E,�{e �?�'�a;�os�r�, lz��age to address this possibility, however, he had not seen any provision for this -s� ��r, ��,r�<��J�?,�.' �Te pointed out that if the first Council Meeting were to occur prior to the first �''� ��E��;� ;��y:nrnission meeting, this recommendation could not come forward to the Council until theiY- second meeting in January. Commissioner Laube suggested the language be amended to indicate ". .. at its second meeting in January," and omit the word "first". ; . �� " - —�_ -- - ------ ---- -- -- - -- - -- - --� - - __ — ,. - _-: � _ � __ _ - - ` _ . - =--- -, t-�--=-- �--_- �__-- : � ----� ' � Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 2, 2000 Page 5 Commissioner Johnson stated the language could indicate ". .. the first Counci�: meeting; ta follow the first Planning Comrrussion meeting..." Commissioner Laube suggested the word "first" be omittsd, �tt� "... at the City Council meeting in January." He notec� th�� iangu action open. Commissioner Miller stated this would be the szza?plest Community Development Director Jopke inquired if the lan�u��;�; v�� of the person recommended for chairperson shall be forwarri�c3 ��cr ; January." :,�' Commissioner Kaden suggested the language indicate, ";.,.R, or at its Peterson stated this would be appropriate. Commissioner Stevenson inyuired if this p "At its first meeting in January, the Comrx recommendation of a chairperson," �.r <; recommendation of the Planning Com�mrssi approval of City Council..." He �'€�int backtracking, and the sentences v,rer� not in Planning Commission meetira�, ler indicat�;� "�"�a� �a�� of t11 Council at �3:; x:��r�f a��.etin� in sl� on sha�� ;ona follow�d by ..� at the next C oaat'� that the �to�r� order. ...�i the lan�u�.r;�: �i�i��, indicate age w€s�.��r_, �,;;?ti��; ��; ��'r.� of neari� tio ac�;on��la,��. ��i�� tald then indicate, "� h� �me Ii� �ity Council for action in " Chairperson ,�;�.r� witll a �entence that indicates Kr a.��a �t��t�on in order to make its tk��, ��ience "Based upon the zncil Meeting, the Mayor, with the ;urrent language appeared to be stated this should start out with the first s�nt��7ce' would be followed by the sentence, which �rrunended f'or chairperson shall be forwarded to the City ission��• �,��a�� tated this ��s correct, and this sentence would then be followed by the �e; that` inc�i�;:�=�� d`��:� upo�Y the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the .�' „ c ;�ith the approv��1 a�' ih� C�i�y Council, shall appoint..." ssioner Miller cl�'ifie� "that the first sentence would, in effect, become the last sentence. ssioner Stevensc�ri'stated this was correct. �`car��issioner Kad��t explained that the first paragraph of Subparagraph C sets forth the �� E�c�a=��d��; ic� b� fcillowed in the event that both the chairperson and vice-chairperson are absent. ��r ��c��.p��? ��hfs situation has arisen in the past, and according to the Bylaws, the Planning a.:-��a��sd,�3 ��w �s required to hold an election, and elect a temporary chairperson. He advised that �lus �i-ocec�u� e should be followed, in that if it was not, and the Commission made a decision that resulted in litigation, and an attorney reviewed the proceedings of the meeting and the Bylaws, there might be opportunity to suggest that the decision was not legitimate. He noted this was a fairly remote possibility, however, it could occur. _ " - - ; _ ; �------ - =-=-= --�=-------- , -__ . , , �. _,��_____� �--- ---�---- -� _-- -- --_------ _- -- � . Mounds View Planning Commission February 2, 2000 , Regular Meeting Page 6 Chairperson Peterson agreed, adding that this could prevent a particular pr perception of railroading or heavy-handedness, and although it was hoped impression the Commission would ever put forward, he couid;,s�e the p procedure. Chairperson Peterson stated the previous year, he had no1 be unable to attend the meeting, however, for some rea� the following day. He noted a similar situation two wee had been unaware that the Planning Commission meeting upon coming to City Hall. He pointed out that the Byla notified of such occurrences by telephone. He commentf notification practices have been utilized, however, in tr down. Community Development Director Jopke Commissioner regarding the meeting cance�; �_:,� Peterson. :._�,� in t�r�s of any liG,: '�as not the � +;�_llowing this City staff;�ii� E-;ra�f'i aas messa'�e was noc haf: tti situati ned....iha�._ h�: ;hac� a snowstor�n��, �`v�;?��Y�e and only learned of this >�ommissioners shall be ,x., � vari�ty of different ��'c�� c ��,�� -P had broken npted to call each �age for Chairperson Commissioner Miller indicated that.,t�� 1?age 5 o�'fhe Bylaws;;:�ast paragraph, last sentence, refers to a"revised meeting schedule..',.;x;,<;:;;;She requ�5ted clarifi,r�tion, pointing out that the Planning . fvy' : . ':'�:`N Commission's meeting schc d��lc lia�'been pre��s�y �ppr�:ved. Comrr�E�a�aty ��;velo�menl �"��;��a�' Jopke sta��c� t��i� entire sentence appeared to pertain to the Plannit�� .��k��y�.s�;ion's 199� ��rz� schedule, and suggested it be stricken from the Bylaws. %OITII]115�1();i4',$` �i��3PA��0Y1 �I.?!�f',(? ��' `�!',�TC��'.�... �rson ��z°sr��x �.�� :�ci. ��c ��p�airied out that current practice provides that the meeting l� �� establa�i��*�i �.,�' ,��uary, and the review of the Bylaws takes place in February, �;•:f�� . �`e; the situatiox� �€��;�`� �t��h meeting schedules are incorporated into the same resolution not reoccur. ° ssioner Miller a,C1��ised that that the top of the first page of the Bylaws should indicate ;d March 2, 2Q1�?:" i��,� ��;��T/�F��: Stevenson/Laube. To Approve the Bylaws, as Amended, and Item No. 4, `��1��a,��;;t�;��Last Sentence, Indicate "...secretary for the Commission for the purpose...", ��z��r�� g;s°��i�l B Indicate "At its first meeting in January, the Commission shall conduct an election in order to make its recommendation of a chairperson. The name of the person recommended for chairperson shall be forwarded to the City Council at its ne� meeting in January. Based upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Mayor, with the approval of the City Council shall appoint...", the Last Sentence, on Page 5, Last Paragraph, be Stricken, and that the First Page of the Bylaws Indicate "Revised March 2, 2000." - _ - : � l -- ---�------ _ -- - - - -- — — - --�. �-�. .�-= ,u , � -- Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Ayes — 8 Nays — 0 The 7. Staff Reports / Items of Information Community Development Director Jopke stated Planni Planning Commission with a supplemental memorandu�n like to bring the Commission's attention. February 2, 2000 Page 7 items that Community Development Director Jopke stated the Plannin� �'a;�ki��s�� u request for variance at 8359 Red Oak Drive. He indir,a�:a�� the �a�y�liu�t�r�_ requesting a variance pertaining to a driveway widtl�, �j ��.ca since that �irr��, adopted Ordinance 642, which amends the driveu�� r�,+i��i.� ��;quiremen�s, particular driveway now conforms with the new c�t�f�.zo�„��;� a•€:r�r,�iz��mentsi an� this regard, Mr. Henning has withdrawn his app}icacio�� i%>E s�, tir�x��;ar�� s Community Development Director J Commission to make a motion to acc� Commissioner Miller inquired � � Jopke stated the fees wer� n��- < <: Chairp�rst�� I��terson p� case. MOTION/SE��?1`�: T� Request to .f?�lt�� s�� ' Red Oak �rive, �Ia.Yir=�.�t}. ,��.,= • �l'<">� d' /,`' � �'i? S ��.. , h''y � ��y�%' �.� �y�� l.;:!%::'.'fi ,,,��mmissioner Hegland;;. , �3��Iopment Directa.c � ��.a� i�em. ;.�� ,., .,, . ng the able. ere was' vised tl��t it wou�d �a� a� draw�lrof this ap�lication. previously tabled a onn Henning, was � �;acy Council has � �civised that this i�on notification in ate for the Planning Community Development Director stai�' time involved in researching this ller. '1'�i 1�,�:�ept the Withdrawal of the Application for a Variance �Vic�� riveway for John Henning at Property Located at 8359 o �68-99 Nays — 0 The motion carried. i-equested clarification regarding the necessity of this action. Community opke explained that this was to officially acknowledge the withdrawal of -�::�rn_r�a��r��;� ��velopment Director Jopke stated that the second item noted on the memorandum �-,� ;�� .�?r� �x�%rmational nature. He indicated the I-35W Corridor Coalition has discussed the Yrieeting oi I�lanning Commissions for joint training sessions. He explained that these sessions would pertain to a number of issues, including planning items, the various public hearing procedures that are utilized by each community, and the endeavors of the I-35W Corridor Coalition. � , _ __ E - - _ — --- - ----- - , _ _ --- _ - �� _�-�`$-�..�� '�= -- — -----,_...� _ . �'.._..�:�- . � .� _ E :— � a Mounds View Planning Commission February 2, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 Community Development Director Jopke indicated the first of these meetings has be for Wednesday, March 22, and its location has not yet been determined, h��t�v�:�v;,z; will be held at the Mounds View Community Center, becaus�` �ai, its cent�-�� _�:� �. advised that staff would update the Commission, as more infbmi�tion beco�;� y.r�JF�'� that this would be a good opportunity for the Commissior�s`�o congregat� �i�r� lr-,� other. A. Previous Council Actions Community Development Director Jopke updated the I'1 Council action. He indicated the Council approved secor� an ordinance related to signage permitted in the PF (Publ Recreation, and Preservation) Zoning Districts. I(� �r�?t�,�s outcome of Ordinance 644, which was subsequ.ert�d,y ��>��r„f legal. ,��,� 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner Kaden reported � Representative Barbara �I�a�� Depari:rra�� s;� Natural ��,��a�.��:� obtain�;�:� ��suf;�r : iraformat.�c�i� +� introci��c�� r-� '��.��. a.� the �c��.x� from thc, 1��65ar��„�t�la�� l�i�-po; He indicatec� ��c�i• �x��%� Zi Commis�tbri5�r iCacJrYw :,a:�i�;c� F y; <, Repre�'iitatives las2 ye�;�, ¢��. re,��l £': rt�ing the expansi«� �� R�i�resentatives. He ex��a.inc and are not-=± iss 1C �"�('1�1i1E'.�,� (�{r1:C II:E;IT! �1� i. �-��: ��oiecl � s�heduled : appears it ;�.tion. He �.r��;, adding j;�� '�-«�ra �ach .'r a� y �� regarding recent �ec� Oz'dinance 637, .��'� a a (Conservancy, if��ied pending the iy I�all sign is now �`ended a ra��F,iir�g last,`��rsday, which was arranged by State ncerning fili� �� pQZ t�ssues. He stated representatives of the and the �`��ra�ay �'��s'of Engineers had also attended, and he �his m��f7r��. F��; advised that Representative Haake has '��-es�niatives that would attempt to take the final decision ��,��a.3k,i��ri vvith regard to the Anoka-Blaine Airport expansion. z�� ; ir�� c�uced a companion Bill in the State Senate. �th oi" these Bills were brought before the Senate and the House of '�v�re not passed, however, this year, there is new information �.t "' may change the opinions of some State Senators and I ihat the Metropolitan Airport Commission plans to fill 158 acres where this wetland would be replaced. �:��.�Y�ssioner K�d�t�° indicated both Senator Novak and Representative Haake believe that ��< �,,%��;�;= nr �'�ilt`�i�; of this Bill hinges upon the public's ability to engender the support of their > .;.r:s �'�� ,.a�� t°��and Representatives. He commented that Linda Runbeck, who represents Blaine, ��4� 4�� „ �nd Le�ngton, and State Representative Andy Westerberg, have to this point, been in favot• of�° the airport expansion, however, the new information regarding the filling of the wetland may change their minds. Commissioner Kaden advised that citizens could call the State Senator and House of Representative Information Line, and obtain the telephone numbers for their Representatives. He indicated that the new information appears to have changed the entire nature of this issue. He Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 2, 2000 Page 9 pointed out that the proposed site is the second largest plot of land owned Airport Commission, and they would eventually like this to be thei� second ]a , f.;••.,: Chairperson Peterson noted residents who have moved inta th� area east experienced some troublesome situations with regard to �he vn�r�?me of traf�i�; there might be some opposition from this area that would ��i�% in this L�:�sl� Commissioner Johnson pointed out that these residents r�,�e not oppose the airport expansion, upon signing their leases correct, however, this would not prevent them from conta� regard. He noted the wetland issue appears to be a very c� in that it was not previously known. y;;, the IV��trapolitan �;�� .i "r�3t�rt. �� port have nd ,��i=��,, ��^refore, ve e.i ��; �.. _ ��fl�:4� �o indicate that they';wc��Td ?��car� ��eterson stated this was �{ �� ,'�,�a,rc;,��presentatives in this ��i �a•��i��, �.��a� it was surprising, Commissioner Kaden commented that part of tt�� k=:a ;�3�� F�� f�i�� v�s that ut�ti��l one week ago, the Metropolitan Airport Commission had den�e[��thei�� i,��;;��r��z;; �+r 1�11 'r,l«�y amount of wetland to their own Airport Commission. He expla�,�� that th�y p1�� t� �r� �l�i`� `incrementally, however, they would be required to fill in 158 acr� of wetlan�d in order �t� ,�c��z-e �he minimum amount of acreage necessary to construct the 5,000 and 3,OQ(�'foot runw�ys in each direction. He stated he was uncertain regarding the s��c;c��° �rnvisions �or wetland i`eplacement, however, believed it must be mitigated within the s�,�r��, ��r��tiershed,G�i,�.tict, and;tlie Metropolitan Airport Commission would like to replace the w�t��,c�! ��r�ila proper�y i�c�.Y�� c�r� the Minnesota River. within ��?� ih�re ►nu�� 1�� a`two-to-one replacement of displaced wetland. �,�� 7 >would have to locate 316 acres of replacement wetland t�-��:�firi�t;.of the watershed district. Commissionex �a��.�a �0��8 the airpart property is located within two watershed districts, and this appears t�;�e'�th� �b�;v� �x��s� r�� ow down the proposed expansion. .;, ,:• Ch��rperson Peterson a�d��i ��i; �% makes no difference if the wetland replacement proceeds 30 �>..,:. aG�;`�s at a time, it still mu;�t �i� mitigated according to all of the requirements. He stated this was -�<<;<;; €. {,,, �. ��:�issue to continue to Glasely monitor. reports;<w�re considered. :� _- _ _ _ __ � � r-- � - - ' - - - - -s- ---_ ---2= - -- --- = -----_- ---� �u _ ' _ _ _ _,l_�e ; - � � � . i Mounds View Planning Commission February 2, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 � 9. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Comm�sstc�rtJ;, Chair P�t�r�c�€� �c�journed the meeting at 7:34 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the l��nda Se Respectfully submitted, _ _ k _ � , __ - -- - __ -� � _ _�_, . - ---- -�--- . _ _ � - --. . . - � MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2000 7:00 P.M. REGULAR ME�TING AGENDA 1. Ca11 to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZ�NS: BEFORE SPEAKIlVG PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME �ND ADDI3ESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Approve Planning Commission Minutes: a. February 2, 2000 5. Planning Case No. IiT00-001 Property Involved: Bridges Golf Course Request: Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution 606-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Interim Use Permit to allow for the Installation of S� Billboards on Golf Course Property. Applicant: City of Mounds View 6. Planning Case No. ZC00-001 Property Involved: Bridges Golf Course Request: Consideration of Resolution 607-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Zoning Change of Bridges Golf Course Parcels from I-1 and CRP to PF. Applicant: City of Mounds View 7. StaffReports / Items of Information a. Previous Council Actions 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 9. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVEL�PMENT AT 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO AT7END. THANK YOU. " "" . . .."_"". . �-__. . ___ -_'__ . _.. -"__ .'_'�"��r�.l . 4�'.'_ __��'�._ " _.�' "___'__ - .. . .. .. .. . "'____ Item #5 City of Mounds Vzew Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: March 1, 2000 Title: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 606-00, A RESOLUTION A.PPROVING SIX OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS ON GOLF COURSE PROPERTY Bacliground: The Planning Commission discussed this request at its February 16"' meeting, at which time public input was taken regarding the Eller Media proposal to install six billboards on Bridges Golf Course property. Most of the discussion was focused on three specific items, the foremost being the spacing and location of the six billboards in relation to proposed billboards on the adjoining Sysco property. The other two issues concerned the control of advertising content on the signs and the physical design of the signs, in that all of the signs erected should maintain a uniform and consistent design theme. As a reminder, the following are general requirements pertaining to the siting of billboards: • Billboards shall be located at least 250 feet from a residentially zoned property. • Minimum spacing shall be 1,000 feet. • Maximum sign area shall be 700 square feet per side. • Maximum height is 35 feet. Discussaon: With regard to the possible adverse effects and the general conditional use permit requirements concerning this request, staff has indicated that in its judgment and opinion, installation of the proposed signs would not adversely affect property owners in the immediate area. In addition, staffreported that the proposed signs would be consistent with the Municipal Code and satisiied the general conditional use permit requirements of Section 1125.01, Subd. 3b. As far as the issues raised by the Planning Commission, City staff and the City Attorney will be meeting with DeLite and Sysco representatives to begin negotiations pertaining to the positioning and spacing of the City's signs in relation to the signs proposed by Sysco. This meeting has been tentatively scheduled for Monday, February 28, 2000, which will take place before the Planning Commission's meeting on March 1, 2000. Staffwill report to the Commission the results of this meeting. i i: . _ : . _ _.. .�.- - �-- : ; . _ - � .� - -- -_------.._ _ , _ : -- - - --::� -- ----- '> _-_-- _- -- '- Billboards Report March 1, 2000 Page 2 With regard to the other issues raised by the Planning Commission—content and design, these are addressed explicitly within the resolution of approval. Stipulation 1 states "The City should retain the right to refuse objectionable advertising content per its lease agreement with the vendor." The City Attorney will ensure that whatever language is included pertaining to this issue would be consistent with the First Amendment. 5tipulation 2 states "All of the billboards should be constructed of similar materials and should maintain a consistent design theme as presented on Page 6 of the Eller Media proposal." These two stipulations make clear the Commission's intent in its recommendation to the City Council. Given the review of the adverse effects, specific and general conditional use requirements, it appears that the proposal to install billboards at the Bridges Golf Course is consistent with the City Code and Ordinance 644. Recommen�'ation: In consideration of the above-stated findings, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 606-00, a resolution which recommends to the City Council approval of Eller Media's proposal to install six outdoor advertising signs on Bridges Golf Course property, with stipulations. If Eller Media is unable to obtain the necessary permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for the proposed signs, the interim use permit shall be rendered null and void. Gi . ��w r c�w��o James Ericson, Planner Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 606-00 N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES�1TJ00-OO1�Billboards Report - Mar 1, 2000.doc � :.:: .�_ __-' :.:- _-_-' �: �-_. __�-.-s�_.-.._,___- _��' Y-- . -__ _ :�__�. .. .-�._ ___. " "_-'_ �.- �_.,. ,. ,.i . -_. .. _ .. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CONIMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 606-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMI��NDING APPROVAL OF A PROPOSAL TO 1NSTALL SIX OUTDOOR ADVERTISTNG SIGNS ON BRIDGES GOLF COURSE PROPERTY WI�REAS, the City of Mounds View has applied for an Interim Use Permit to install six outdoor advertising signs of Bridges Golf Course Property; and, WI�REAS, the Bridges Golf Course property is made up of a collection of parcels; and, WI�REAS, the following legally-described golf course properties are zoned CRP -- Conservancy, Recreation and Preservation: That Part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section S, Township 30, Range 23, lying north and west of State Highway 10 Right of Way, and, Those parts of Lots 3, 4, 13 and 14, Block 1, Laport Meadows, lying no�•th of State Highway 10 Right of Yi�ay; and , Those parts of Lots 1— S, Block 2, Laport Meadows, lying north of State Highway ] 0 right of way; and , All of Lots 1, 2 and 1 S, Block 1, Laport Meadows; and, WHEREAS, the following legally-described golf course property is zoned PF — Public Facilities: Outlot A, SYSCO WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has adopted Ordinance 644 which amended the City Code to conditionally allow billboards as an interim use on properties north of State Highway 10 to face either State Highway 10 or I-35 W right of ways; and, WI�REAS, Ordinance 644 requires that any billboard application be reviewed in the context of Section 1125.01, Subdivision 3 of the City Code; and, WI�REAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal from Eller Media and finds it to be consistent with the zoning requirements pertaining to billboards; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed lease agreement is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in keeping with the requirements of Section 462.356, Subd. 2 of Minnesota Statutes; and, �.- ►_ � = - .� r ._ .. . _ , . _ . . .:, _. � . _ . ._ _ . . - - . . �., . . _ . - - _ �. . . . . ._ ., �_.:.. " — -- ---'-- " . c. :_ .. . _° - . . �- .-,-. _ _> -. � - �' , �.r;...,___�_.�_ _.._. ._� .. .. ::.: %i �-= -- . .__ _ - -_�_..�� _ . .. _ . Resolution 606-00 Billboa��ds Page 2 WF�REAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has examined the adverse effects criteria in Section 1125.01, Subd. le and finds the benefits of the proposal outweighs any possible or perceived impacts to the community; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has examined the general conditional use permit requirements as stated in Section 1125.01, Subd. 3b and finds all requirennents to be satisfied. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Mounds View recommends to the City Council approval of the proposal presented by Eller Media to install six billboards on Bridges Golf Course property, with the following stipulations: The City should retain the right to refuse objectionable advertising content per its lease agreement with the billboard vendor. 2. All of the billboards should be constructed of similar materials and should maintain a consistent design theme as presented on Page 6 of the Eller Media proposal. The locations of the proposed billboards should be as indicated on Page 8 of the Eller Media proposal or in similar locations consistent with Mounds View Municipal Code. 4. If the selected billboard vendor is unable to obtain the requisite billboard permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the interim use permit should be considered null and void. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staffto forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 1 st day of March, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chair ATTEST Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\IU00-001\Resolution 606-OO.doc - -- - - _�. --- ----- � -- - --i- - _- � - - - ==----�r � t: __ __ �. _: . -- - = _. Item # 6 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: March 1, 2000 Title: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 607-00, A RESOLUTION RECOlVIlV�NDING APPROVAL OF A REZONING OF BRIDGES GOLF COURSE PARCELS FROM I-1 (1NDUSTRIAL) AND C.R.P. (CONSERVANCY, RECREATION AND PRESERVATION) TO P.F., (PUBLIC FACILITIES). Introductaon: In the course of processing the City's application for billboards at the Golf Course, staff has realized that certain Bridges Golf Course parcels are zoned CRP (Conservancy, Recreation and Preservation) and I-1 (Industrial). Golf Courses are not explicitly permitted uses within either the CRP or I-1 zoning districts. The only zoning designation permitting golf courses is the PF, Public Facilities district. In addition, it is presumed that the PF zoning designation would be more advantageous with regard to the City's application for billboards, at least with regard to the CRP designation. Discussion: The intent of the CRP zoning designation is to conserve, protect and preserve natural areas and allow for passive recreation use. An example of a passive use would be a walking trail or path, or another such use with minimal impact to the environment. A high-capacity executive golf course is not an example of a passive use. Accordingly, the CRP district, as well as the Industrial district, does not explicitly allow for golf courses. Rezoning these properties associated with the golf course to a PF (Public Facilities) designation would be appropriate, especially considering golf courses are explicitly permitted uses within the PF district, and would be in keeping with the zoning of all other city parks. In addition to achieving consistency with the Zoning Code, rezoning the golf course so that all parcels have the PF designation would be more consistent with the proposed Comprehensive Plan of the City. On both the existing and future land use maps (Figures 5 and 6, respectively) in the proposed plan, the golf course is designated SRO, or, Outdoor Sport and Recreation. Clearly the PF zoning designation would be more consistent with SRO land use designation. A11 other City parks, which are zoned PF, are designated SRO in the Comprehensive Plan. �, � ;- : _ _ ___ �,- - ---_ _ . � .. .. __ .:6�.��._ _ � -, ' " . a_=._ , . -; . _ _ -- -- - - - -� -=--- --t = - --- --- ` ------ ------ . : ' � ' � Golf Course Rezoning Report March 1, 2000 Page 2 Recommendatron: Given the inappropriate zoning designations of golf course parcels and their inconsistency with the proposed Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends ihat the Planning Commission approve Resolution 607-00, a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of Ordinance 655, an ordinance effectuating the rezoning of Golf Course parcels to the PF, Public Facilities, district. �� Gc.v�nk,� �G^�.�.�lJ�1L James Ericson, Planner Attaclunents: 1. Ordinance 655 2. Planning Cominission Resolution 607-00 -:�� := j N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES�ZC00-OO 1�PC -- Golf Course Rezoning Report.doc � _. - � , _ =- - ------- ---------. .. --- � ORDINANCE NO. 655 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF 1VIINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REZONING OF BRIDGES GOLF COURSE PARCELS FROM CRP (CONSERVANCY, RECREATION AND PRESERVATION) AND I-1 (INDUSTRTAL) TO PF (PUBLIC FACILITIES) THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Appendix A of the Mounds View Municipal Code entitled "Specific Rezonings" is hereby amended to include reference to the following Ordinance 655. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The Mounds View City Council has determined that the present zoning classification of certain parcels associated with the Bridges Golf Course are inconsistent with the Zoning Code and the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Subdivision 2. The City's official Zoning Map and the following described parcels are hereby amended as follows: Parcel Legal Description Existing Zoning New Zoning Desi nation Des► nation Tl�at Part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section S, Township 30, Ra»ge 23, lying north and west of CRP PF State Highway 10 Right oJWay Those parts ofLots 3, 4, 13 and 14, Block 1, LaportMeadows, CRp PF lying north of State Highway 10 Right of Way Those parts ofLots 1— S, Block 2, LaportMeadows, lying CRp PF north of State Highway 10 right of way All ofLots 1, 2 and IS, 13[ock 1, LaportMeadows. C�' PF Lot 4, Block 1, North Star Industria! Parlc 2"d Add Z-1 PF SECTION 2. This ordinance is effective thirty days after its publication. Read by The City Council of the City of Mounds View this 13`" day of March, 2000. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 27�' day of March, 2000. __: :� _� � � , , „� - _ , — -�� _ � ' , :_�_. _� �r�,_�, _,�_ ---___-_ __,_ .-- . . _ .-� ---- ---- ---_ � = __ ; _ � -- - —=-_ --� ..�.,__--- - ---�-- -�--�---•--- - - f=� � _ Ordinance 655 Page 2 Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk / Administrator (SEAL) APPRO VED AS TO FORM: City Attorney � N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES�ZC00-OO110RDINANCE NO 655.doc : . , :` �� _._ I�- _ � : '_' _ F"-�.w."_�_�_�.-. �_ . �.._ � __ _ __'_ ' . _�_'__ _- _ "".. _ - ._�. �___ ' _ _.__ . . .__ MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMIVIISSION RESOLUTION NO. 607-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMI��NDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 655, AN ORDINANCE REZONING BRIDGES GOLF COURSE PARCELS FROM CRP (CONSERVANCY, RECREATION AND PRESERVATION) AND I-1 (INDUSTRIAL) TO PF (PUBLIC FACILITIES) WHEREAS, the Bridges Golf Course property is made up of a collection of subdivided, platted and unplatted parcels; and, WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has become aware that the zoning of certain Bridges Golf Course parcels are inconsistent with the Zoning Code and wishes to initiate a rezoning to bring them into compliance with said Zoning Code and proposed Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the following legally-described golf course properties are zoned CRP, Conservancy, Recreation and Preservation: That Part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 30, Range 23, lying north and west ofState Highway 10 Right of Way, and, Those parts ofLots 3, 4, 13 and 14, Block 1, LaportMeadows, lying north of State Highway 10 Right of Way; and , Those parts ofLots 1— S, Block 2, LaportMeadows, lying north ofState Highway 10 right of way; and , All ofLots 1, 2 and 1 S, Block 1, LaportMeadows. WI�REAS, the following legally-described golf course property is zoned I-1, Industrial: Lot 4, Block 1, North Star Industrial Park 2"d Add WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission believes that the above legally described parcels should be rezoned PF, Public Facilities; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Corrunission finds that the proposed zoning would resolve an inconsistency and Zoning Code and proposed Comprehensive Plan; and, WI�REAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed Ordinance 655, the ordinance drafted to effectuate the change in zoning for the above legally described golf course parcels. � -� . � . � - - -- . . . _ _ - - -�- --_-- - �--= -�'----�-J� - '�'---- `�- - - � �--. - `-== � �-- � , � - � - .:.�.-- : 3 _ ' " � ' h' '_-__ . _-_ " __ "" -..' -_ Resolution 607-00 Page 2 NOW, THER.EFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Mounds View does recommend to the City Council adoption of the proposal Ordit►ance 655, an ordinance drafted to effectuate a change in zoning of the above legally-described Bridges Golf Course parcels. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Cominission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 1 st day of March, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chair ATTEST Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) ::) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\ZC00-001\Resolution 607-OO.dac MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION March 15, 2000 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Call to Order 2. Roll Call Citizens Requests and Comments on ItemsNot on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAHING, PLEASE COME TO TH� PODIUM, AND GTVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE NIINUTES 4. Planning Case IU00-002 Property Involved: 2400 County Road J— Sysco Minnesota Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 610-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Interim Use Permit for Two Biliboards on Sysco Property. Applicant: DeLite Outdoor Advertising 5. Planning Cases DE00-001 & CU00-001 Property Involved: 2848 County Road H2 Public Hearing and Discussion of Approval of a Conditional Use Pennit and Development Review for the Proposed Expansion of the Messiah Lutheran Church Facility. Applicant: Messiah Lutheran Church Planning Case VR00-001 Property Involved: 2741 Hodges Lane Public Hearing and Discussion of a Request for a Reduced Corner Lot Front Setback to Allow for a Garage Expansion. Applicant: Cathy Magoris, Property Owner Special Planning Case SR076-00 Consideration of Resolutions 608-00 and 609-00, Resolutions Respectively Recommending Approval of Ordinances 657 and 656, Ordinances amending the City Code by Creating Language to allow for Interim Uses. 8. StaffReports / Items of Information 9, Chairperson and Plamling Commissioners Reports a. Previous City Actions b. GTS Training 10. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) APPLICANTS: YOUR ATfENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY QEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO A�"END. THANK YOU. (over) AGENDA SE5SION AGENDA 1. Review the minutes from the February 16, 2000, Planrung Commission meeting. N:\DATA\GROUPSICOMDEV�PLANCOMM\PCAGENDA�2000\March 15, 2000 PC Agenda.doc Item # 4 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: Ma�ch 1 S, 2000 Trtle: PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 610-00, A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR TWO BILLBOARDS ON SYSCO PROPERTY. Introductaon: DeLite Outdoor Advertising, representing the property owner Sysco Minnesota, has applied for an Interim Use Permit to install two billboards on Sysco property fronting State Highway 10. Background: On Deceinber 13th, 1999, the City Council adopted Ordinance 644, which amended the City Code to allow outdoor advertising signs (billboards) as a conditional use (to be further amended as "Tnterim Uses") on properties adjacent to and north of State Highway 10 (formerly known as S.T. H. 118.) The ordinance set forth siting requirements, which are generally as follows: • Billboards shall be located at least 250 feet from a residentially zoned property. • Minimum spacing shall be 1,000 feet. • Maximum sign area shall be 700 square feet per side. • Maximum height is 35 feet. This application has been referenced by the Planning Commission at the February 16 and March 1, 2000 meetings in the context of how it would relate to the City's own interim use permit application for billboards on Bridges Golf Course property. Dascussaon: The two billboards proposed for the Sysco property are to be constructed of steel and be of a mono- pole double-faced "V"-shaped design. The Planning Commission has expressed a significant concern and displeasure regarding this type of typical billboard design and the fact that it would be aesthetically inconsistent with the billboards to be constructed on the adjacent Bridges Golf Course property. Because billboards are conditionally allowed as interim uses, the City does have the ability to impose reasonable design requirements with the granting of the permit. In addition to the siting criteria, which is addressed later in this report, Ordinance 644 requires that the requested interim use permit be reviewed in the context of the adverse effects criteria in Sysco Billboards Report March 15, 2000 Page 2 Subdivision 1 e of Section 1125.01 as well as within the context of the Comprehensive Plan and the health, safety and general welfare of occupants on surrounding lands, as addressed in Section 1125.01, Subd. 3b. Adverse Effects Criteria: The Planning Commission is to consider the following possible adverse effects of the proposed interim use permit in its recommendation to the City Council: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan, in either curf-ent or anzended version, does not address the issue of billboards. (2) The geographical area involved. The t►vo billboards are to be located on Sysco Minnesota properry. Sysco is adjacent to only one Mounds View property, that being the Bridges Golf Course, a comma-cial recreation operation. There are residential properties at least 300feet south ofSysco, across State Highway 10; yet the billboards would not be visible from these properties due to thepresence of a tall sound barrier on the south side of the highway. (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. It is not believed that the placenzent and installation of billboards adjacent to Highway 10 on Sysco properry could depreciate the land values or visual appeal of the subject parcel or neighboring pr•operties. (4) The character of the surrounding area. The area north of State Highway 10 and west of I-35W is dominated by industrial uses. Other than the Bridges GolfCourse, which is the City's commercial golffaczlity, all other uses are ofan industrial nature. (5) The demonstrated need for such use. It is believed that the revenue generated by the installation of the billboards would offset Sysco's operating costs at its present Mounds View location. General Conditional Use Permit Criteria: The Planning Commission is to consider the effects of the proposed interim use on the Comprehensive Plan and upon the health, safety and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities that serve or are proposed to serve the area. Installation of billboards will not create or cause a burden to public facilities. (2) The use will be suff'iciently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. It is believed that the billboards would not be visible from any residentially zoned property in either cities of Sysco Billboards Report March 15, 2000 Page 3 Mounds View or Blaine and that the installation of the billboards would not have a detrimental effect on the development of vacant land in the area. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The�•e are no residential properties adjacent to Sysco and as such this requirenzent does not necessarily apply. The Planning Comrnission does, holvever, have a signiftcant concer•n with i•ega�•d to the visual aesthetics of the proposed billboard and would �-econznzend that the proposed billboards be aesthetically consistent with those app�•oved for the Bridges Golf Course. (4) The use, in the opinion ofthe Planning Commission, is reasonably related to the overall needs ofthe City and to the existing land use. It is assumed that the need,for the proposed billboards is reasonably related to the economic situation of the property owner. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. With the adoption of Ordinance 644, the proposed billboards are consistent with the purposes of the Ciry Code and the purposes of the zoning district in whiclz they are to be localed. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Comprehensive Plan (either version) does not contemplate the issue of billboards. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. Studies commissioned by highway safety and transportation groups and federal agencies find no correlation between billboards and accidents. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Access to the billboards will be gained via existing Sysco drive aisles and parking areas. Specific Siting Requirements: (1) Location: The two proposed signs would be located adjacent to and north of State Highway 10. The signs are to be set bacic five feet from said right of way and would be more than 300 feet from the nearest residentially zoned property. (2) Minimum Spacing.• While the two signs would maintain more than a 1000-foot separation from each other, the second sign on Sysco's property would not maintain the requisite spacing from the first sign proposed and approved on the Bridges Golf Course property. (3) Maximum 5ign Area: The proposed signs would have a surface area of 672 square feet per side, which is less than the maximum allowed 700 square feet per side. (4) Orientation of Sign Faces: The sign faces will be angled and oriented toward State Highway 10. The angle of the separation between sign faces would not exceed 35 degrees. (5) Maximum Sign Height: The signs would not exceed the 35-foot height restriction. Sysco Billboards Report March 15, 2000 Page 4 (6) Obstruction. It is believed that the proposed billboards would not be obstructive in any manner to drivers on State Highway 10. In the opinion of the Planning Commission, all of the general and specific requirements and criteria regarding the siting and installation of billboards are satisfied, with the sole exception of spacing between the southernmost proposed Sysco billboard and the northernmost approved Bridges billboard. This issue has been discussed at previous Planning Commission meetings, with the Commission recommending that both applicants (DeLite and the City) work out a suitable arrangement to the satisfaction of both parties. While negotiations and meetings between the two have taken place, no agreement has been reached that would not involve the granting of a variance to one of the applicants. Given that, DeLite representatives have been advised that the burden of obtaining a variance should be DeLite's and not the City's. Recommendation: Approve Planning Commission Resolution 610-00, a resolution which recommends to the City Council approval of an interim use permit for DeLite Outdoor Advertising Inc., representing Sysco Foods of Minnesota, contingent upon (1) application for and approval of a variance from Section 1008.08, Subd. l Oc of the City Code regarding minimum spacing requirements, (2) redesigning the proposed billboards to be more consistent with the design of the billboards approved for the Bridges Golf Course property, (3) approval of MnDOT permits and (4) recordation of the Council resolution of approval with Ramsey County. �'• �t�� -u,�� Ja�nes Ericson, Planner I N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\iu00-002\Sysco Billboards Report - March 15, 2000.doc MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 610-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE 1NSTALLATION OF TWO OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS ON SYSCO FOODS OF MINNESOTA PROPERTY WHEREAS, the DeLite Outdoor Advertising, Inc, representing the property ovtmer, Sysco Foods of Minnesota, has applied for an Interini Use Permit to install two outdoor advertising signs on Sysco property; and, WHEREAS, the Sysco property is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and is legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, SYSCO and Lot 1, Bloc% 2, SYSCO WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has adopted Ordinance 644 which amended the City Code to conditionally allow billboards as an interim use on properties north of State Highway 10 to face either State Highway 10 or I-35 W right of ways; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has examined the adverse effects criteria in Section 1125.01, Subd. le and finds the benefits of the proposal outweighs any possible or perceived impacts to the community; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has examined the general conditional use permit requirements as stated in Section 1125.01, Subd. 3b and finds all requirements to be satisfied; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal from DeLite Outdoor Advertising, Inc., and finds it to be consistent with the siting requirements pertaining to billboards subject to changes as recommended herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Mounds View recommends to the City Council approval of the Interim Use Permit for two billboards on Sysco property as requested by DeLite Outdoor Advertising, Inc., with the following stipulations: 1. The design of the proposed billboards shall be revised to be consistent with or aesthetically complementary to the billboards approved for the Bridges Golf Course. Final design approval shall be given by the City Council. Resolution 610-00 Sysco Billboards Page 2 2. The applicant shall apply for and successfully obtain a variance from Section 1008.08, Subd. l Oc of the Sign Code within 60 days of City Council approval. If said variance request is denied, the applicant shall be allowed installation of only one billboard subject to the siting requirements outlined in the Sign Code. Subject to the above stipulation, the locations of the proposed billboards shall be as generally indicated on Exhibit A, attached to this resolution. 4. The applicant and the owner shall consider adding a clause to the lease agreement which states that the Lessee will refuse objectionable advertising content such as tobacco products, alcoholic beverages and gambling. 5. If the applicant is unable to obtain the requisite billboard permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the interim use permit should be considered null and void. 6. The applicant shall record or arrange to have recorded a copy of the City Council resolution of approval with Ramsey County, within 60 days of final action on this request, or the interim use permit shall be considered null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this interim use permit shall expire on July 1, 2015 or at such time that the billboards become abandoned or remain unused for a period of more than six months. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 15th day of March, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST Ricic Joplce, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\Iu00-002�Itesolution 610-OO.doc � � � O •� � � v 0 � � � 0 � � •,,� � t � � � W r .��. ,� �,> i �, �,� ;�;1�;�?;;�;,? COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ., DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION p �;(,�i;+�� 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 �'�'°�,,, �,p� 612-717-4020 id ' Parcners 612-784-3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information /� Name of Applicant � �� W� �IQR.%t5_ ��_ _�_ Address . ' 3 � 5 WRs��rx��o►.l �R•d�. Su��. �5 £Aa�a rnrJ 55�aa Interest in Property (check appropriate box) ❑ Owner of Propecty D( Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑ Other (explain) Telephone � 5 � - � �� Fax Cs1- y�l- �95. ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Agreement to Purchase Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you arc not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location Legal Description Property Identification # (PIN #) # of Acres Current Zoning a�(oQ Cou�.rr•� Ra�l �3 see �.�.�l��l s��e�ev Is�e �� _ Co!►��hPJ2C �G.� Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Rezoning ❑ Major Subdivision ❑ Minor Subdivision o Planned Unit Development (PUD) ❑ PUD Amendment , l� Conditional Use Permit C.��+�� ❑ Variance ❑ Code Appeal ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit o Floodplain Permit ❑ Other $25� $250/acre; min $250 max $1500 $250 + $250 deposit* $200 Refer to rezoning fees $350 R-1, R-2 $75; all others $250 R-1, R-2 $100 all others $250 $100 $ I 25/acre; min $125 max $750 R-1, R-2 $150; all others $200 R-1, R-2 $25; all others $100 $200 � �c. oo-a0da *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of matecials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. r r City of Mounds View, MN Development Application Pa�e 2 Present Use of Property ❑ UndevelopedNacant ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling � Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) ❑ Single Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelling o Industrial Establishment Property Class�cation o Abstract ❑ Torrens BY MY (OUR) SIGNATi1RE ON THIS AP�LICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO TI-� BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE TNFORMATIONPROVIDED.J.S-''PR� AND ACCURATE. Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant (typed/printed) Signature of Properly Owner Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner /ii�,l� ��/1 ��..�t� � � C�� S ySCd �av�C S�rv;ces ot %�1;r��'SV%�, -Z�c, �� o Co u� fy ��1 T � (� wv� tCS �r �' u! r �f � ✓�-S �,S /`Z G l z)��.� 73� 2 � � ��' ************************************************************************************************ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal a-/ S- a DOU ; Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. //,( O!?o� � 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: Account # Check # Receipt # Application: • 2S0 ��o-.3a��1' /� �%3 S`S�D�� Park Dedication: Deposits: — - — — - --- Other: Total: N:IDATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�FORMS�DEVAPP.FOR ��98 � '' -.... , <�., . �ljl , CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA � NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Mounds View Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, March 15, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. at Mounds View City Hall, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, Minnesota, 55112, regarding a proposed interim use permit to allow the placement of two outdoor advertising structures (billboards) at 2400 County Road J. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to this matter may be heard at this meeting, If you are unable to attend this meeting but wish to comment, you may submit a letter to 7ames Ericson, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112. The letter will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. If you have any questions regarding this meeting, please contact me at (763) 717-4022. James Ericson City Planner This notice is mailed to property owners within 350 feet of subject property. � This notice published in the Focus Newspaper March 2, 2000. - N:�DATAIUSERS�BAItBB\SHAREUCEEP-I1lWPdocslPubhearings�PC�Delite-Sysco NP.doc �,�tl City of Mounds View Location Map ��. �� 2400 County Road J � �� i11� IIIIC G� �III� � �'. �1 �� ,�_ ■� �� 1111� � � �IIIII�111 �� ' � � • � � �IIII -� � G .�i.�'�� !� :11: � ►�■ � = �� 111111��., � ��r■ _ � �.� �� - � i�111��ii ��ii i� i,1i � �:�� I 11111�'■ �� ■� �;�■■ �■.■ �.■■ �.■ ■�■■ .■■�■ .��..■ ��.� �� .. �� ■■�� . �� ..... �.� .r ,t : �� ..� .� �.. �� 1� �■� � -,,'�1�1►� � � �� i � i� �� , � �� .� �� " �. �, U�1� � � � ��.. �� '� � ►��;��;;�� .� i � �.� ��.. �� .�r , � �� 1�� . � - �� I �� "� �/D�� ■ \ ��■ � �� ■� i�� ■��■� �� 1 �f�� ♦ �� ■ �� ■�� ■��■ ��1� ■�� ■�■ �� ■��IIIlilllll.11llllllllll � � � " �� :: � ■ ■ ■■ ■ ��IIIIII'111111 111111111111 �� \��C: �::�...��■ .... ��■ � ,� � � �� .. :: � : :: : ��r��1��111111111111 ... ��— �� ..— -- ■■ • - -� - �� 11► 111111111 ■ -- -- -- -- ■ r ::: ■ �.. -- - -- ■• : ::: �r�� - � ...� , v, .�� -� .. . .11'• 111��1► � ! �C , �� ° �� ii � i��\�i i� i �11/��//1 %�� 1111111111111111 �� ■ ■� ■��1��: G: � IIIIIlI//i�:�� 1111111111111111 DeLite Outdoor Advertising (Sysco) Property (nvolved: 2400 County Road Interim Use Permit (Biilboards) Planning Case No. IU00-002 _ ' 2400 County Road J � Properties Within 350' � _ .l _ _- Item # 5 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: March 15, 2000 Title: PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION REGARDING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUESTED BY MESSIAH LUTHERAN CHURCH. Introduction: Messiah Lutheran Church, (herein after referred to as simply "Messiah") located at 2848 County Road H2, has requested city approval of a conditional use permit and development review to allow for an expansion of their facility. The subject property is zoned R-1, which allows churches as a conditional use. Currently, Messiah does not have a conditional use permit. The development review is necessary according to Section 1006.06 of the City Code, which requires that any development, redevelopment or expansion of existing facilities be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Bacltground: Messiah has been at its present location in Mounds View since 1941, when a white wood framed structure was built on what is now the back parking lot of Luther Hall at the southwest corner of Knollwood Drive and County Road H2. By 1951, the basement of Luther Hall was constructed with the main floor of the church added in 1956. The present Church structure across the street on the southeast corner of Knollwood and H2 was built in 1961, with an expansion occurring again in 1974, The old church building (now Luther Hall) was remodeled to serve as youth education space. The building expansion, which is proposed in two phases, will be of brick and would match the architecture and design of the existing building. The first phase of the proposed expansion will involve two small additions totaling 5,220 square feet to the church and a partial parking lot removal and replacement. The west single-story addition will add office space and a meeting room while the two-story addition on the east side will add a more spacious lobby and �athering area, more classroom space, a larger mechanical room, an elevator and restrooms. Two houses owned by the Church, 7225 Knollwood Drive and 2824 County Road H2, will be removed to make room for the expansion. The second phase of the proposed expansion will involve more ambitious building additions, which would serve as an expanded worship area and classroom space. The construction of the second phase, which is proposed in three to five years, would add approximately 27,505 square feet to the building. Messiah PC Report March 15, 2000 Page 2 Development Review Discussion: Dimensional Reguirenzents: Lot Area Front Setback (Knollwood Dr.) Front Setback (County Rd. H2) Sideyard Setbacks Parking lot Setback (east) Parking lot Setback (west) Parking lot Setback (north) Parking lot Setback (south) Parking stalls (1:4): Parking: Rec�uired 1 acre 3 5 feet 35 feet 3 0 feet 3 0 feet 5 feet 5 feet 30 feet 75 stalls Existing or Proposed 6,1 acres 3 5 feet 63 feet 200+ feet 40 feet 30 feet 3 3 feet 30 feet 176 stalls Met? Met Met Met Met Met Met Met Met Met Currently, there are 165 parking stalls available, excluding the overElow parking available across the street. After the first phase of construction, 188 stalls will be available. The construction of the second phase will reduce the available parking to 176 stalls. The church, under existing conditions, significantly exceeds the City's parking requirements, based on a maximum seating capacity of 300. Construction of the second phase will increase the parking requirements for the site; yet even so, it is anticipated that the site will continue to be over-parked. Seven handicap accessible stalls are shown on the plans, which would comply with Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) standards and requirements. First phase construction will remove all of the e�sting parking areas with the exception of the parking area immediately south of the building in the area designated for second phase building construction. One of the two accesses to Knollwood Drive from this remaining parking area will be closed, and no connecting access will be made to the expanded parking areas. This remaining parking area would be removed upon construction of the second stage of the building expansion. (The plans sent to the Planning Commission do not indicate that this parking area will be retained; staffwill present a plan which indicates as much at your meeting.) Wetland Bu ffer: While the building expansion itself will not fall within the 100-foot wetland buffer setback, the parking lot expansion and proposed stormwater holding pond do encroach into the buf%r area. As a result, Messiah will need to apply for and be granted a wetland buffer permit. Because Rice Creek Watershed District as well as the City's own engineers are involved in the review of the proposed on-site drainage and stormwater management, approval of the buffer permit could be considered a required formality. Landscapin� The applicant proposes to remove more than one hundred significant trees from the property, dramatically altering the wooded character of the site, It is imperative that a landscape plan be submitted which shows in specific detail the proposed planting schedule, including species, r Messiah PC Report March 15, 2000 Page 3 numbers and locations. The City Forester will review the submitted landscape plan to ensure each species of planting is compatible with Mounds View soils and climate. This will need to be done before the Planning Commission can take action on this request. Li�htrnQ: The applicant has submitted a photometric analysis of the site (not included with your plans) based on the foot-candle readings of the proposed lighting. According to the photometric analysis, there are eleven 30-foot tall parking lot light standards, each with a 400-watt bulb, hooded and shielded as shown on the attached specification sheet. In addition, along the Knollwood Drive passenger drop off and pick up drive through, as well as the sidewalk areas on the east side of the building, seven 12-foot tall light standards will be installed, each with a 100- watt bulb. The provided foot-candle readings are all within the Code requirements: Access: The Church takes access from both County Road HZ and Knollwood Drive, with three curb cuts on each street. The number of curb cuts will remain at six after Phase One construction, and will be reduced to five upon completion of Phase two construction. It is believed that the overall flow of traffic on the site and the impact to city streets should improve with the expansion. Staff has given a copy of the site plans to the Fire Marshal to ensure proper drive aisle geometrics for fire department vehicles. In addition, the Fire Marshal will review the placement and location of available fire hydrants. This information should be available for staff to report on at your meeting. Accessor•v Structures: The plans indicate that an accessory structure of approximately 400 square feet would be constructed at the south end of the lot, near Knollwood Drive. City Code requires that accessory structures be located to the rear of properties. It would be stai�s suggestion that this building be relocated near the proposed volleyball court or some other suitable location in the southeast corner of the lot. In addition, the proposed size of the structure exceeds the ma�mum size requirements and in itself would require a Conditional Use Permit. Rather than approving multiple CUPs, allowance for this structure can be written into the Church's overall CUP. De»aolrtion: As mentioned in the background section of this report, two residential properties currently improved with single-family dwellings and detached garages adjoin the present Messiah Church site. These two properties are owned by the Church and were purchased with the intent of providing for acreage for the Church to expand. Staff is unaware if the homes will be demolished or removed from the site intact. Either way, separate permits will need to be obtained by the applicant to arrange for this. Draina�e and tltilitv: The applicant has submitted plans to Rice Creek Watershed District for review, who will need to approve of the drainage plans. The City's engineer has also reviewed these plans and has Messiah PC Report March 15, 2000 Page 4 concerns with downstream wetland impacts and runoff onto to Knollwood Drive. The drainage calculations have been reviewed and were found to be acceptable based upon the extent of the pervious and impervious surface on the site. The sizing of the pond and all drainage calculations are based on full build-out of the plans. Any city approvals for this project should be contingent upon Rice Creek Watershed District approval. Mike Ulrich, Director of Public Works, has reviewed the plans and has made corrections to the utility specifications. These corrections have been forwarded to the applicant and will need to be shown on future plans. CUP Discussion: Messiah Lutheran Church has been serving Mounds View and the surrounding communities for nearly 60 years. The first church building was a small wood-framed structure built in 1941, which was replaced by the structure at 2900 County Road H2 in 1951. That building served the congregation until the existing building was constructed in 1961. The requested expansion is evidence of a vibrant and growing congregation, which will continue to serve the needs of Mounds View residents many years into the future. Because the Church was established before Mounds View incorporated as a City, its presence predates the City's zoning Code, which allows for churches and other similar uses in a residential district by conditional use permit. Spec�ic CUP Requirements: Section 1106.04 of the Zoning Code addresses conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 zoning district. Subdivision 1 of this Section addresses the specific CUP requirements for Churches, which are as follows, listed with responses relating to the present facility and proposed expansion, as appropriate: a. Fi�ont yard depths shall be a minimunt of thirty-five feet (35). The existing front yard setbacks for the Church are 35 feet facing Knollwood Drive and 63 feet facing County Road H2. Phase One of the proposed expansion will not change the existing setback. b. Side yards shall be no less than thirty feet (30). The sideyard building setbacks for the Church exceed 200 feet. This requirement is met, before and after the expansion. c. Minimum lot area shall be no less than one (1) acr�e, or as providec� in Section 1109. 02, subdivision 2b(3). (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) The property the Church occupies comprises 6.1 acres, of which less than one acre is deemed undevelopable. This requirement is met. Messiah PC Report March 15, 2000 Page 5 deemed undevelopable. This requirement is met. d. Adequate screeningfrom abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. Because no landscape plans have been submitted, it is impossible to say if this provision can yet be met. The demolition or removal of the two homes and expansion of the parking and removal of the tree cover will dramatically change sightlines for abutting properties. The applicant will need to address the screening issue prior to Planning Commission action. e. Adequate off-street parking and access is provrded on the site or on lots directly abutting or directly across a public street to the principal use in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this Title and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting reszdential uses in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. Adequate parking in excess of what the City Code requires is provided on the site, both before and more than likely even after the second phase of construction. The applicant will need to address however the screening issue and provide a suitable landscape plan prior to the Planning Commission taking action on this request. f. Adequate off street loading and service enirances are provided and regulated where applicable by Chapter 1122 of this Title. This requirement does not apply to the Messiah Church facility. g. The provisions of Section 1125.O1, subdivision 1 e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) These are addressed on beginning on Page 6. General CUP Re uirements: Section 1125.01, Subd. 3b outlines the general conditional use permit requirements that must be satisfied in order for approval to be granted. These requirements with responses are as follows: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. It is not anticipated that the use and proposed expansion creates or would create an excessive burden on parks, schools and other public utilities. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. The Church properly is bordered to the north by County Road H2 and to the west by Knollwood Drive. To the east and south, the property abuts single-family residential Messiah PC Report March I5, 2000 Page 6 homes. While the Church has existed at this location for almost 60 years without problem or complaint, the extent of the expansion and removal of trees and church-owned homes may result in screening issues for the adjacent property owners. The applicant will need to submit a landscape and screening plan for staff to sufficiently address this issue. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential propertzes. The existing Church fits well into this neighborhood and the proposed first phase expansion of the church building should not negatively impact the area. It is thought that with adequate landscaping, the overall expansion plans could be a positive addition to the community. (4) The use, in the opinion of the Ciry Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the Ciry and to the existing land use. The fact that the Church has existed in this location for almost 60 years with a consistent and growing congregation is proof alone that the use satisfies a community need. Its expansion is a direct result of the Church's growing congregation and its desire to be more responsive to its membership. (S) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. Churches and other institutional uses are conditionally permitted within the R-1, Single- family residential district. (6) The use is not in conflici with the Comprehensive Plan of the Ciry. The Comprehensive Plan (both the existing and proposed plan) designates this area as Institutional, appropriate for this type of use. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. Staff is unaware of any congestion problems on either Knollwood Drive or County Road H2 as a result of the Church's services. It is not expected that the first phase of the expansion would add any significant volume to either street. Also, the times during which the Church would have its greatest impact upon the street is also a period of relatively low traffic counts. Given these facts, it is not anticipated that use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. Adverse Aff'ects Criteria: Section 1125.01, Subd. le requires that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider possible adverse affects of the proposed use, or in this case, the existing use and expansion thereof. The following is the list of factors to be considered, along with a narrative response: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved. Messiah PC Report March 15, 2000 Page 7 (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (4) The character of the surrounding area. (S) The demonstrated need for such use. Staff feels that the impacts of this use and expansion thereto are potentially minimal, considering its 60-year history of operation without incident or complaint. As stated previously, it will be the applicant's responsibility to provide a landscape plan and response to the screening issue before a recommendation can be forwarded to the City Council. The use however is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which designates this area as Institutional. Last, the need for the Church is clearly demonstrated from its continued presence and proposed expansion at this location. Recommendation: The following issues should be resolved prior to the Planning Commission taking action on this request: The applicant shall provide to staff a comprehensive and detailed landscape plan which takes into consideration possible screening solutions to help relieve any possible impacts to neighboring properly before the Planning Commission will take action on this request. 2. The applicant shall apply for and receive approval of a wetland buffer permit in conjunction with the development review and conditional use process. 3. The site plans shall be revised to show the accessory structure located toward the southeast corner of the lot rather than 35 feet from the front property line. 4. The site plans shall be revised if, in the determination of the Fire Marshal, the drive aisles or parking areas are not sufficiently designed to allow for fire department vehicle access. In addition, the Fire Marshall shall make a recommendation regarding the placement and location of fire hydrants to service the site. 5. Specifications for the garbage dumpster enclosure shall be indicated on the site plans. � l u✓�v�.e-�o James Ericson, Planner FROM NEWAGE-MPLS. Feb-09-00 Q4:37P YHR r ^tners �� A6l� � � �-n..� wPl� L:onnario� N�me dAppliceac Ad�sss (THU) 2. 10' UO 12: 14.'ST. 12: 13/NO. 4362322569 P 2 21823: )88 P.03 COMII�JNPI'Y DEYELOPMENT DEPAR'11V�1VT DEVELOPMEN'I' qpPLICAT�ON 2481 H'igl�ny !4, Mcwids �I'�r I� 55112 612-717-40Z0 61Z-?a4-3462 - FAX ��. K Priat �adsu - G�lea D� 9ii� of'l�l. Faro ►■ • _ Y�. :.; .. _ : � , . � • '- ... -_r - _ . ., 1� �. . ► - . ��_ ��I�� ° � �.� o c�oa�aso�n�a o►� , ° � (��) Av'aama� m Pu�ee �ic�ad dwt peorl�s al�d�a d 1�eat�t 1� }�tt�r at fYr tlre d ap�tkatlo� aad U rw ara aot tM own�r of tb� ��7'. � onrt phrfi� a Mlhr dpraY� do� W.wMr �fvlK oon�at to 15� tqln� �! tW� apptlatiod 'I� rrO�y °°'Mr ��p 1� y�lkatMa fie tt b be aoet�i� � a t� I.oe�o� � �m ��r� r �en�r � � dAa+rs C1R�eet Z�amat N2 . -- - _____._.-. "i l kt�ou.r�o�o PM+W�,. � p.t3MS�`( cout�tY ��A1�t � atApplia�Lioa ° C�ehamnva 4um A�eat • o �a a �jor subd;v�io�u o b�Laar Subdivi�ioa o � U�� (�) �C' C.m�daod Uae Peemit a v.s�mos O CpdO Appeal �C' �� .+�►�� a �f►ed.adAl4sa6anPe+mic O Weeiro09�itArtmit a �imdplaio i'ami� . o p� ' _ !?SO i730/aa'� min i250 ranc S t S0� 5250 +5250 d�it• s�oo R�'ar oo �emonio= fots S3S0 R-1. R-217S; � o�� t250 R-i. Ra sioo.0 «� xtso s100 s��.�ma►s�zs�s'so R-1. R-2 S1 S0: W othas SIOp R-� , R-2 S2.i: au ah�xs S 100 S20Q -� �. :� o � �� J I �. C' �.� •� �~ D J jh .P�r 'DeQaib sL�ll be paid o0 oov�er dl corts cf pabti� oo�oe� m�Eeti�ls amd staQa 000wtt�ot tims apmt m 1�e fwiaa, �eaerrb or pn�wehqou da�taridr �ooiated wit6 tbl� �ppiic�liao, 'Ibc �pliput sbdl be �apante3k 6or �Q ieaaoc�bk iacu�ad casn ua aooras dtbe ioi�i�! dc+pmit anoum. AaY Pa� �� aOt or a►c�abei+od duu bc ++ett+odcd tc tl�s t}spliomc withiA t�jr (3pr� d� �' �da�on af We �pp�ia�an is opippk0ed !kw ampf�R� tbs nev� �ld� dlW yep8udon. FROM NEWAGE-MPLS. Feb-09-00 04:37P YHR f �tners �h' !f Mouods Ykw�� MAi � Use a['p�p�y ° U��v�t q �P�IMa� Fiot�y D�t�•�� c�� (THU) 2. 1�' UO 12:14/ST. 12:13/N0. 4862322869 P 3 21823: t88 a � g,�, Dw�tLas o ��'� 6 �t ��Qa�cty Ctuoe°.no° ° w� c . Ya,w �ipdan a�Pn�pwal � toUR) SIC3NA'IZJRg pIY TH� �'j.�IlTiOI� i H�P�Y DECIJIRE tFIAT. TO li� BEST OF MY �E+ � II�ORMAliatd PROVIDF,D IS TRUE AND ACCURpT�. • S+�ahur af Applicact N�me dAppticros (ty�e�/p�� . si�n�4+re od'P�opert�, Owner r�me af�ry o+•aer{�po�� A� a[pwect � �� w0lS P.04 �, : � �,r., � �...�' • r. _�..a. � . � . ►• •� � - ■. a'� � . .. i � � � ` � + � 1�1 • � � - r � � . Nl��rff��M��i�ip��f�NM��f��f iHpAfi�qN��i�t��N�� t�+�itir�r1i11� �ifafa n.��rs�., . � - r S-'�°�t8'�osxor�.Y � �� ^ p�c.xrb. -- o -c� . r� o,. �,�,� As�aAeaw: s�� 1Z0-d.ylimit,,,�i . Fxs APP1ic�ian: �0 j�� c� CJxcJc i p+�: 3 G q�) o �ib: Otha: r«,�: NiDATA�IA,OCip�►�p�,�pEy�BVAM.PO� I/9t r Zoning Map Messiah Lutheran Church r Wetlands Map Messiah Lutheran Church Planning Case CU00-001 - � ��. .elr}.��"� .r'i � . .�-. � � � " I. . , ..� __ H 2 -_ .--� _. _ � �- � �� IOt.I `L �os.r7 ^ . " " l0�.�7 �es.�I 3l! !'- � � �0 D _ wo'.::,. ois�an � 1 G o �.'°� N SL% V � K T' ;'; .Iyt • A ��?;: ,• 'r:�';Q;4�� O� , � . :tiL:<?� �:i,�.' :: � ?9 28 m 7 8 5 4 J 2 1 a �a '�i�;::::>::��: :�:-:' :; � l asaa,� '^ y�:'•'`:.� :, .l< =':� �:�� `� 2 ,P. - � �{ y;Y;,,;;"1�'•,::;S:l,{:"r:; �� W _ :J:; �,.�,�};, .� �:iv: �::,�1{:•:''�'�'�<: ::,,f' ` :: .�?s°�-;�1'(i: � � :; ; o ?� ;}: �. `�;:;:�::��iy;��s�� .;� , r; ::: P.:::•:�,.: -�.�I' .i �:•:i;Jti:_�i:��{•:r 100 r ;I; 'v,:� >i:; :Fl :'7 :•1;::?}�}:::.`.. . 31 1017 � �- G 1 0.I �!�i` _ •'1��r:i:•,:^`.•��'•::$::;M1::�'' b0 .�� ` � :.:; :::;;r; ;,,:.,�>;;•: ,l.`, j . . A 5 9�e. s G' ,' �•�• ,'-2,. �r � . • ^ �1' '' � � 0 , �;' : - {, ' ,. f� ( ; 3 � J �� } °, :. °' _ 7 0 20 `'$��' i:k�:: .:>..<:;: a:� :,�.,..;.::;::c .;^.,;�::�. i ;,•: :.t: �, :;; �: . . ' i`.; � :,�:�i::;i'::>r. .;y;;�:. -?T.:��`'- � ;�;r:.;,;::;,;�r>;;, � w - <��.�i�:-:;:;;-,;::.-::::�: - - :��•;: _ Z :; i �+ ;i; � a;'= :.,;�:�;�i<� �i : ; ::� � M e ssiah yiii`�c - _ �;a. i �e� .6 9 i . :•�:� �": � :�; =;;;?;:.�;. <::::� - .:� :`�t'��i�PA��'? :;,:; '.;;: :>;�'t:i;b. Church �:�;;�::: � �i''� �:..::::,<:::•::�� __ - _ -w�I�W4�, , � �•!'�..'�.:' .,'i ::; ,.•.! �.. � •.Y: :. :. �_T � (`� . :!. P roperties ;�;•::•:. -c:.<; o :?;:� o •3. 'S • $ 16 .�; ;;1� ';`;�t�';t" o -;3:;;i;;;i?t::,; _ • � '� � `;ti� ��:. .:r : ;� ..n:.i; ;:' : {?�): .j76. \``C:�:; �78.6L � _�f�r' J:,� 108.f4� .. � „ — �� - 1 r a � ., � � o a. - v - - - - la d ,°, � 3 � g -� ; 7 Buffe is �a i3 i� ii 0��. S � �2s� ' c� � _ _�� 32 _ ' e � � -- h � W � o 0 n v� ` ( ' / � 10 IG • IODJG. � —i- DRI VE z � e � iu.�s „ � �. �� w.i� i o• . J b ' � t 4 ± � �, n . `o � o I � J • io�� 9� 92 _{ 93 94 95 96 ,� o0 or Q A/ - -- 1 V�f�� - � o O n : �, ^+-- . 4 „ • h � -- � - - � , g9�; ." 2 0 o � � . 97 i .� r• � - .. o . 102 101 100 99 "' - 98 � �. A� � 'o, - -r,.$)� � i i � f i, . � s i �s � � � -- �� -,F � � A� � A R K� ��t . 1 1 i a \'� ``' « ,.� �� WOODGREST v SA�� r � 7�� r� . �,�e � � T b � r M, ; �, • IOO IOo �oo loe I19.�4 ;, o � �. �� +„� .... rr�%F � • w � ' 1 � ' � :, _ �l ' _ I . .. ' _::. CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF 1�'IINNESOTA 1 � NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Mounds View Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, March 15, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. at Mounds View City Hall, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, Minnesota, 55112, to discuss and consider the request of Messiah Lutheran Church for a conditional use permit and development review for a proposed building and parking lot expansion, at 2848 County Road H2. The legal description is as follows: Lots 4 5, 6, 7, 8, 19, 20, 28 and 29 Knollwood Park Ramsey County, MN Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to this matter may be heard at this meeting. If you are unable to attend this meeting but wish to comment, you may submit a letter to James Ericson, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112. The letter will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Tf you have any questions regarding this meeting, please contact me at (763) 717-4022. James Ericson City Planner This notice is mailed to property owners within 350 feet of subject properly. This notice published in the Focus Newspaper March 2, 2000. N:�DATA\USERS�BARBBVSHAItEUCEEP-I'I1WPdocs�Pubhearings�PCUvlessiah CUP_Dev Rev.DOC � -- � City of Mounds View Location Map � � , � � , , � � f � G . �.� � { ' � --C".r g , , _�- j � . �� ., . �� I ',�:,._ii...�__�_ �� _ � ■ .. � �\�1� . �� \�� . v �.,i 1 � HIIN IIH�IH IINII� �i�� ,,,,,,,,.,, � Messiah Lutheran Church Property Involved: 2848 County Road H2 Conditional Use Permit/Development Review Planning Case Nos. CU00-001 and DE00-001 �848 County Road H2 �'roperties Within 350' 02/16J2006 09:16 651-766-4196 RIC� CREEK W D7�T PAGE 01 F�b—O9-00 04: 37P_ YH17� Pa :� ne �s � rcE c�� wi�sa� a�s��c� ;uITE 390 aRDEN NcATJ1 3s� LEXiNOT01�! AVENNE N ARO�H Ni�,LS �K sa�3�aoss r*1 (6S1) 7B6�41941 �7[ (6S1) T86-o196 c: City o! �o�n�J,a �lj� Mani�o�fury w.rsen in��ar 8rou�b lICWD 2182337988 �uuca r.f�ulrcttiYc (FOR OFFTCE USE DN�'� P.02 � 00? PERMTf A�'�LICATXON NO„ . 4� � � �� REC'D OFFICE a�•J� OO REC'D ENrR aI / o0 NoECE SENI' �•/� •oo wG�� 3 �o"►-'t•o�a pFR.,R�i' � s�4b� ✓�- 9a�� /n��s; �, �+�� ' � � � , ; i Yt9 BE COM�L�TED B'Y AP�I.ICANY (Pri»ae Y�ad Owaa or CoAQactor fur Public Projecs) � (P!escc *ri� - _t1 O�aar ��a �r1-4 �� t�.tE�� Todsy's Darc .��.'�-� , 2�''C� ... aed�cu �.$,.`j.� Gou ►�T� Q-�_ i�,� Day Phoae �v( I Z) 7�y - i` "7 �� czcy-'zi� ou►s� V ti�E1�t ; M1a � l 1 Z.. FaX (�,�3 $�- — I'� 2 i r Ow�er's Si�w�t�re: ,A�tciupzced PtojecC Scs►tt p�te: (T10 �nu �� a (TKwt s� 'SL it doe�R eo� rop�se �►e�.ey �A!?�/ 'Z�'� kurr ei ��ihe^�') �.:i�3� �liC�t�nII fGf /��j�'�(�Q� �I,apd D�►cl�pment Pim Pii1a1 Sice �kaiaage Plsa C Sareets snd Urilities �lsn C� Sridse �e►dJar Cul�at p1m � Wtt17Aa A%�CL:t'tO4 p� C� SAore2aad Altcraqan Plm Q�uhticlQriwa Deai�, s Sysoe�st Ptast � Other (exp]ai�+ i� zet�ttks) RF,�iA,RKS: Desi�a Ea�teer Contact: " Nm+e �� , ��t� �EE LAt��.l Ad�ress In_? 1 L1J .�.��• 1�}� ,�Q1.5 j�#i �,,, P?wne lo+ 2 5�i'.�- 4( 9(o FAX (�]J ti-� I ta . �rr:�ri�i Lrresio� Co�stroUGradimg Consae� for ovs Inspectot: NaIDe '�'h2'L. � ;.� Z�• �;_i• ��, : ►• ': � �•1. ) l►:.�''' : t � Pho�ne (1Pj,'�,,,) � � ��,�1. i 9 l�' . .. Cel1 Yhone (,_) - - FAX ( i�� t. ) 5�+ I � dO��l� - ProjectNsme: Praje�t P�ap�se: Pta�ect Loc:don: �' �� 5 2ooa City orio�+�ae: i�D�„�1J_�, .�%1�` ��'�� j?- Couaty_ �.I�?�° C.Y _ RtCt �REElC —T 1%"yq'j�r'��AIC'I'' r____�_____tra vt Ss�ai.e ,�� s«.,Nhio _____^K R�nts �_.__� it ip�lvred me p�mit �fll b"�l:d 14r 1 � l�t ieAd �y be �tl[�sded:t Lo ��e if tequat�ed. C3n (631) 766-4192 for acsucaoee ia wm�letio� i�is �'oe� TLrsse stoe� 3 eepks o��ra�ies�t� pl�s and eese� dsa as audioed in "Riec Credc Water�d Disoriet P�mit fafotmaaos $eoehar� (F18�' a�ra7�Dis vpoa isqwat� Ma� aR delirat'� lasm sLants wiQa t�e'IyRop�iat. fee aeeo:dia6 ro sc�iedult oa psje 4 oC � P18� aad 'XHRFE �ats of eppceptiam a�� iacludia� o r��ee loc:cas� aa.ap to che abovr a4dress, wpp[yisti �ar th:s pesmir {�n RCWD doas ao� P�� 7� �PP�6 far anraeoeaeaey pc:mna 16�e may bs aaqoirod 40� O'IH�R IIqrcmmmcal ageaeies. �a�/�-TO.Aa�►iwd 9�-�'f R � � * � K k � � 1 � Ea � � �� . � K r�� ,tt � ( t !$f � � � �; I y i I � Er ----'-------L-- � .�' _ 1 1� 1 t i; "' " : '" t� _ � — t( � �I 1� 3 �� 1 � � � � �� Y 7 � � g— q— � + � � � � � i � � i i � � i I [� i �� d � � ! � ( � \, i \\�� i `, i i _� i �-- _��\ � ��. _ — _ _ L _ — � r �* �D iil ��i ei N O�' 11a'; �.� n a. o� e� ■ f �� I� I O � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � e � � ��6o�i�t�6�� ■■■��OI � �� ,� y # � � � O o m � �� e �; �� , � `�� b �b a � Z � � �!�,, �i � C �� 2 € �� E� �� k� ��F �'�� :j a� � ge� �� .N �p� � ! � � �� . . . . � ::^� :;�: - _- •� . :-': ` �.. --- - .._.: _ - . . ., . . . .... ........ .- — � �� . ,• . � .. .. _ ...'. . . .� +` `... ``l� . .. �� • ... I . � . . .-. , _� ., , ,\ ..�� ......_. . '.� - �� . , • .... .. . : . � .:. .... A / ` ' ' _ _ r�— ' `1 _"" K��'�: W Qf O��D: D R I V' E <., � o o �� ',:.�i,. Te ; -D ' � �� ..@ ,,....._,,.�; c-= = --�^ti O 0 - � ----• - � Q � � r:. ^��\, :'�. . _ �'i"�..-:- - -= :.4.. r'' _ .g.. F. .. •-,�• .. _ _ . � _ _ __-,r,, �r�_�. ',b�-.•.-^� •.�' �r .� •`�� '' � - - - _ �^.� , -� i T � 1 „... F_- � .. .. , �� ,. .'��,..�__-_�• x, , � :�C: •��:.'. . . , �:•-:•�' _ . _��... � , ,-. '�'`c, y`� _ � ' � �.''� � � . �.r�--'�!C:• • ` �,;i: .'.'.': � • i �:�"__�. � • '. .. ^-" ` n ,. ..x x: kk;.,r_-_-. : �•� a. �•._ .��j,' ; _ �j,s�,,.'•.� ; 'y '.,� � ��,...�.._., e � � �, : � 1 ••. .. .: •: �, � � _. � - :��-.�•`'_� ' ��" �-• � � : � ; : `:��:._� : : :�� ° � `;;-�a��,. � ,� :s ' K-�`�`',:�,� �, � : - �►�` k - �� r �. :;�; ' • „ ,,�, . ;:.: � <� � � .� `.: , . ;t � � ` ' x ��`:_ __ •.-:;:: - - - - ^°� -:: : e- � .. _ • � r' �^r_��',.. _ �� :t:� °: _ -�C� _:., . �f': �ti�.'. ,��.'; �i; ' E .,,, 1 ` • ;�' . -�•°� - - - •!'• ` T � . - t ,� \ �: ��_`"- -.'::-.•:-:-:'.� •�.� ^i '�'L,I,�e1�;: .i Q i � '• �j ctL_!��c ` \ >' �` '+°•- °°'-:-'°_ . . �. _�_ _� N'� . ! �. " • ' � � i r �Yi .. =, ��,`:,.• , '` �� ' i :�, — - ., .,,►.: -: :' : := ; :;: :�� =�:�-�.. z , �- � . ,� �� ... __ ;�;�;:1j�-:-_;:: "'''"_ : ' =e, '` �-' ; b ��-. _ '; .�:. �3.e•'•,-_•:'=-.•.°'•'-:.-. � �_ 1s�. .�� . � . ::AF • `�;k ?e�' - :� �� _ � • :�'--" •'• ; ��'. ._ _ .�:a. �� ..fl- : , . �; ; � ' •,; � .o �°. . � • -:=::'3'.� �� _ • - a :��° ' :��-- - - = =°'"� -�:;. - :- -. _ .�:, � ' ' �,.L•'�'-�,. . - . ::�5 �`.�. ` � ��•: :-= :-:-:�: :=:=:-:-.�. � - - _ - :�; : � � : ' R' �'' I • - � ��'t �r i -. y�°a�; : :'''' ' • ` _ -'_ ..'� ;.: _' _'_ '. _ -_ _ _ _ ' � + 'r „' :x '�j , • „ � �-l'.'.r�� _ _ i':i.�7 :•_ _ •C _ ��e�,•.•. _�. :��„ . �iJ o � :; .;: F�.�� -. - ��. � � -1;:;';�; °:��, ::: ::::::::: :::.:.:: �'::_=-'-" °-�:;;,:=: :� :':` : := _ :: y:.; .:•: .•-=- =: , �:- < :� ,.Y.: " �-��._. _. � '•;i°;� _ . _ . . . . . • •,- _ - " -� � �i .;j�:� , �'° '`•�:=_ ;•; :� � •: :=_ "-:-: _-::: :°:=: �.:�, � '`r + ' • �,',� °•': -°- _ ..�.... :: _ -:.-.•.',•: .-_ -•: �•�-"-' _-;•:: �:�_ ._ --;::__-:, �. : ;:� '/• .L � '& : —•-- �y��''�7.__°: ; .-: .d�?�: .: '_•.: -: .-_;,,:= -'�-- ::°':;.= :-.°: .•.': _-. . .-: .•: : _ . :• � . ��' ' • � � . .: : : _ .- •.�-_ .-:_ : .•_ °.° _•: ••: :P �;: •.•_°. _ . . . : Z-_: : :•- - - °: : "° - •,� �,. :�: �: :�-..•.•_•. - •_ �.:. -� �1 /�' � .,,� . ` , , °: � �:=:=:-_= :=' • : ::-: :=: _�_ . .:��: : _ :=::`: : :�: -. � � ��; ; , � _ .s, .......: ......: .::��: : . . - - . - - - - � . . ,m 4 ��. v�� _ = = �� - � �t--::--.-: : :_.-_: _: ..: .- :-: ._:_ ,� F :j� i ` �:Xo-_rv-'�`" _ _.:' _"��.wi��f�_ _ -� .�� _.. _ :` .. u': ;�� . .` :• �"')C3.'�t�_.:~- ..,. *..` I. :_ • d w't�.� •'_ f-`.�7 e�.-^r�.::... •'J, C_ .i�,,.r�� ' c � ] '�' ZK' �...4,. .�w • 6 i� � . - � _ •..,5'FK�-?�.��i^:;f:;�P .�� ; 1 ��'..S � \ `�r... .ri..�� 3 ' ,'ti � ..�F � - _ _ r•`, _ 1. , • ` 1�� ..� 1 , � • a , ♦ '•1 _ `•'� ��"'s..•-�\ � =_"'•• � . �r"`ti., iI :t_,��°• �. �' : M1 _ _ �T � - -`y� � ,:�Jy •. �'�_ . .,t r - � _' I . '"' .. 1_ F�� • ,� � , t `\ �? ! � 1 � � 1' C � - ; 3' ��`'� - ....---• � , !'r'� `'• : �C - . i - ' •i ;/ � •`= ' 1 . .; � '�` � t• I �'� 1 -�_ . . !. ,�'��'��. °l. � e �, /�� 7�� V Y� Y))).�...�� <y�y�� ,• ? / • . � A � `•�� • ��V/ •�•. —�� `..�' � � � l-1/ i �• , �� . � �. .,� �t', ��r • �-.� �`�r _� ; ..i , ` . • � - - ' �� . ._.- � • �' f ,_� '��+- .r+. `��, J ' ,♦ ., • ` ° - ' ♦ ` •^, • � �� t a�! �� °� I b �3� � �a� ��s s , �� E9� �� '� p� �F = � � v� al i � rn � ,� i �� rn Iv O %l� I+� � �� p�pm��0 BO O OO al� �� 1��4� �°��Y��d�a��1; � � ��ie ��i��6�gy . �� _ ��' ��'��k. �� +� �� e � � � 3 a�° C ; � $ �� s � �� r Z � � � �� o� s: I 3t �� i � � � a ,i. ';< iy `, ; �, '�f ..i � � . riu . ..j _��. ��.+t �� i �j� ?a � �'� 3 � � �� i� k� � �E3.��,a � a�;1��i i � � E �xa i;! I � � , �� ' � �� .; i � '$ �� a � �� , _• : a � � ` �i` � e# Q � ^r, '�� . _�; .•_ _... _ . �� Y' �� . � � a �.... �0;.�.;I�o �� a�� i �� . .i �� z i' I An � Z � �� 3 � .�.... � '-'1 � �; �.. , �� "�� a � ��q �� ?� g Ee0 �S� � 9 �� _� �� i q� �� € tle � . � ��L- --.. : � � .:;... __ .�..': -- _.. .".- - � _E.i , .,;� . _ . . - - --�_ . . .•,.� _•_ . '''., , '•�:. � .: . . _... �: -- -- � ....._K.N..o L. L W 0.•'0;'D. . -D.R r.� � � . . . . • .. . . _ _ _� ��..__ � .e —�---- o r .� �.r� 1 ' � : : y ° 0 r r r ai 1 � 4 /r. [ A C_ P4 B P= P° 2�t�'[� �; Y 1 y�g ie�9 � i� !��` sY �!�� :�,i jgiE Y3[��:�� ; iY�� {i�ot;[g3� s� f[ �� j��i �.`i s( Q�t e s--- �; 2 s i t. � f� �� S• j F�{�t3� E F �`T vi r�}: F9 icY [- ��i r' sa �y�.Ae kr�-F ; �i' +F !t :r,,{Ll[ ��7L� �1� ' ��t�ia.o ,�� $i $>�E,.g�f1��:r T;,I� !`; s�iS f� 4�-�ti! at j� $+ G f=e�t b :[}� )%�� j� .�'��°�[°iz.� � t!x f�: t ]�1i� `%��? �� 1�F�i i!`i�;a��$y ;s��;� ie�;A }i`}$��;gS7t�i� t�p�liT ' t ��g� 1¢ E�$ k i f=��5! g8e e e€t i � �l� 1 <<}j. iTj�2�1 � 1f`�i� s�-�t_ t 3i �C•�3Yi i i y f-°sa; (;i. �Ti a� i t i!`� t� �� i �]i:a t0 e��g��a�•C•i yI�� H;�l�° ;#iYi'�(�{ "� a�� ♦ �S Z- �� Bd � lfi L �'��8�'q6� �Xa iF �� Sa` > �i�'" L�S[Sr�dS ��i1\ '�' `i:c�A li<' e��l4g ? [� a_ t�' il �tr .� 2 •��'a' gi'��d=s3��a �r'• � F � �S iE�r ti*�sp¢ I�[a�f ";�{�' �iii6q �!t ��teS ��j �4a�'r.e3(.g� leg'e� r�- '�a� i�d �'n�s� �f-'i e° � y7�� 1��:I�3'p��D 4i�`etr)lF.. ��{l"�d �°gaY�ti��"°t"y :'C� ei� �°�9 1= S I![; 1 3��a F 4d r,!F + Sg N � � ��'r q I�c ei�iP� � � • /l� -/ �� R ( F��• ��f� _ ; `�Id #-�1Z61�� ..�-' �: �� .ax;�, i°}tiii �,�'�t i[= i3� :'t:;3 a ; 1� � e e �,3a>�1 a E � � 9 � �-_ � jd� a i � F ° og o °� � �a ��; �� oq �c n z� —�-i � �� a Z �� I �r � �Q ��f� ��z 1 I �IR � 9 � }.. � . ^ ��.. ,,. ; �� ,i � 4 �i � � �3 ; .L O; l� a: �� a� t; ; _ .�� o � :; : � �; x� � .;� � :^'� ; :� . : X, ' �\ � � . � M.~� `� . . � �f . � • � ■ � r � . o - > . . �� s��+ej`�� as��i'��%t �tfi�I}P:t'>'�¢ �8 �86 � �� : :e=�'� = 5�_ -j•t �k1sst�' 4 � '+s i�ie�� 6"p s#Ef�� F�z�;�. �� ii�1��=�f�'�� a E� ti� (�7 g3�i: °�y�3..� y ii+1c�1:'s�4al �r:��' 9 �p�. E i3�3� � ��?j�T�-��-;•� � !'sy2e�� ,l�t ��/S�si �� °_ti�ti��t4�� i�r a3 e�} �e& r� �r f�t�.4;e�3�-': �f��,�} �`�,j ��aF�� v159i��4i: 4=��=! � P�t =�1t a; F �gt=�9s:£^ �v ; �� ;� 4 g; � ,.�;3 ; :rg�ia-;��;- �• Z ° �g� � i i :; � � � � .:;��° ° �� l i� � �� ; � � � B� � �=o z�$z S�� ^'I Y • ,' �� 5i� �� E sc R�! �� i� �L � ,�. _ •' , ; .�_ - • ' -,:�e_: 4 ;`•_... .. , . `.�`J ' ~ .—�+.�_'.� J: _— — .':; � .. ... � .N 0 -�: L �!'� � 0, D, `'` _. _D, R . I.' V E �' � �--... . ' . " -� — "�.e,�°- s . . .' ^° • ,"' :� Tf X7 � ��-'—�- �~Yr � � � $ � �Q �� °0 Zv g a n Q ui Z �� . �� z� � � cZ «o s �� aa��i��4$��a a �a s a 3 za �! �f � S! �[� �+�� t � �� ;� ��a+��3 � � j � � �� . s � � � � � �£� �, ; , . � �� ., �� IIII�� _ ;3 xs ��9 ��` a {s, ( s 5 �� e ,,� 4! 7l� •� \ � z� :� y ; ,1 � ;, i � . f; i r� ; �: :;� ��Q ;� b A� �: ;.d i' .' � � `y �{z -�.., =o: ,, .� µ .i <� �; , .; ;�': �� ; _,1 � ' •Y j /a ;1 . 1 i � . �, � \ �,1 • ' � : C . .� _ �, '1 .' ,' �1 ar. w ? �•�, 1:i � L�./4 - .. •� ^ •� �../- •.. �. i. i;��,L. :> � _ .� . � � , , (1�1 � � � I 1 i • • � �' � ! � . � � m� i�� . • � ` , , : ��&��i�'�� t �� o i�=� �� R � ;: % l � C c� a � �� s �� s �� or �� RL s 'L _. . _ .... ' `'' _.. � KN0•LLArOOD DRI VE a --- .. . ._._. ..;a- — �_.__�..._._._---- �� -� - ^" ` _�---°--� _'__ ` 'I` i Ilili i II � � .. _.. '-� . � i ��, � � ' `� _ � � �1 r—l. - - � tD � � ; - � i t^'^ ' Y ..'�� '�.^- . — � y � � '��—�` � 6 , . III I I� ` .�� -- - � �: %`, _� ,_..�,n, r �i � � v z Y�� a m �-. _ - �` 9$ � ` ��. ,1 .•l i ` � � / � _ � ` / / � i 1 � ; �• . c��' � , `. n s o �j �� t �� r � E� �9� ��' Q �� f�� j�:i � �� 1�� '�� j ��g �;}i� � b � � e: "� � s � ;� � � gs c �=L � O �if }a °z _' � g; � a� I- I ° � �f` � � . ;� - o - ._ __'•� ....c:�. -., ; x , . ; �y 1 ; , . ✓,\ �: =,� . '> s : - � ' �' 1 ' -' � ' ; �"v...• ; ; � � �� •�% : �✓' � � ; ..! : b i � � � �4 l�xi , � o', F � �� 1 j � �; � Dfl � i , � - � � � 4 r�; � Z: Y a .� .� ;�-�--, _. r. i �-;- --� �-- • �� . ._, . , _, � � �� i f I / �`—.�_r.�.�_I � � �� / g h �_��$��9��e � � p 1 r ' ��'�ixi�� a�D�1 i � t s■1 a ��;�es :;�€R ��a.�`s��;� . � � � �g� ��sa� $ ; �3� 4�°�� a � . s � . � � � . . , �O � s � e - � � � • ' 1 � � � ��a�� 9 ��i �e�� n �� ,�� °�� c �� i�� 4a� �� a�� Rr fi ,a �� D � � � ' <o g$ � z�'�� e � n i�$ � t Z � {�� , * ` Z� �. : • ' i�;: n : � :. , :: '' .......... . . , ._..._ _._ ... K N 0 L L W 0 0 D .__._.D. R I-Y �EE! _� E�--�- a r � C � z� �� c� no �� 0 � i � � v 'i � r. , , � . . _�- �� i H'•. �C � ; � ; D� i � ..� �; OJ : E �: Oi 1 r � x� B; Ct ; _. �. �� s ` , x; i�� e� � , :� � --e � , � . , B, ; � � � A M � � R ,� l y • �y i � •,,. 4 l _� � ' t" ,.� ��_�� f . �'�� ;;�= a�Q�� ' � n'� '! � a�a�� T g,�6 € �j aE a��n . � �e��t � �� ° , � ' ��;�_ � �� 3i , �� 9.^ i I q� � �� . ; �€ � �I� � a� � �1J � t ¢ � : � 1 ` �� I ' I LI i 1 ��g�� 1 �r Z �� n �x �� f; _ �t'=— �. � � � 0 Y y 1 a e �' e �' .• . � - i� �, .� � I... -� . .:. � ,. , ., . � � � � � � �� iu . 11111l� - IIIIIY� 11111111. : : IIIIIIII 5 . �. ' ' 1 I 1 � • r� �•I � � �� 1 • RYZy� � � � �rTr� 7 � T. � � • � . `J •11• � : ,- •I 1• ' I\ �* � . �i � �� ' � �, o � ' / .��.,: "L ��i� ■� . �� /� • \� � . 11�� ■� ■ �� C ji • �� Glia �� ::: ■■ I _ ._ ,� . � . • �■ �� ■ � . I!!!I A� i � - - - � - - - � - - - �� r � �� r� � �� • C �� o C �� r O � �o -e � c � O � y 9 7 e: � �' .. �\ �j �� 'u� �■� �IlliI�I��1 =i l�'�►�I� �` ;� � .....: .....: ...... ...... ...... ...... m ...... ...... ...... ...... , ...... ...... ......� ..,... .,..�.. � :::.:...::::::� .�..�..� .............. - . ■��Y�� \�I ......�' ....,j�.......�� ...... .o..: �.....-:� .....� ....-,��.......� ...... - ....:......... ...... r� ......r �um s . Iuu■u�. � �uu� �� w uu�u� ��uu u�uu�, ��uu '.��uur ��u■■ •�■�■■■■■�� u� �uuu�� ` uun � ��uuun��i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:iiiiii:.:.:".ii�iiiiii�� u��un��uu�u��u �uu�•��uu�� uou��o��u�. ��...ri.�.�u��i ■�uuo��u��u�u�u� Si usu�u� i �u��i I1�\�� _��L'_'��\��I iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�iiii��iiiiiiii��iiiiiiiiii uu��l�u��i ��I ■��111 •1��/�i ......., :�. .............. / '�=......,,, .,............,.. ■■■■uu�■■■uru...... �■uuu�uuu�� uuu��uuu�■ �uuuunuuu ■��■u�■r■■�uu■ :::::°uo�u�u ■■■■■■■■■■■ �� . � � O 1 � � A m _ �e�g ��! �M ��, � � E �ig g�; o� ��l;e;ri � � �Y\;� � � � � �t � � <� , � � '�a �� y� ��..,:�``, � � �; �,,, ��`� � ��1 � �" i� 3 � �t -A � � F �. � �� E �"~'i: � : ;.,� :., ��ir �� I �'. � ^ , "'1' �� 4� �%;?:� 4i',sa:f . O 9 � �3j ui � a Z ta3 . m g�e : '"� y p F f� � r � � Z Z �� c `-: o O z G= �� h �`- ` R�F� � ��;'� � � � a � F i z s�j h �� 1 ,�.�t 3;P � � �° � t� . 1 -� F� � � 1 � i � a � : ^i I � � �'r' i �S� i #� � � � � �� L � � i _ � �°� a � � � � � �� a � � �' � � r � I �' e � � � � : _ � E p � � � � y � �� < � � � , -� � 6� 1 �€ , � , f � �� _: .� �A � � /' fr.�= ' ��i;! �;� ��EJ �� u�, ifl� � 1/`! 33�� /�1�� -��i11111;�; a a �' =1 � � - � `�� .. 1 � � ;@ �?. � � F� �� s + 0 3 i� t� t � ' � �` �{�i � A A� L t � ��,p� t� �9 � C� � � � � � � � i is � 2 � p Y � � � �Z D i S ��D n �y v �$2 � � a p C � � . _ � � Q { � � �� E �� ;� Y�� r • • ', -. . � '. r _ -� � —_. . � ,. `__ , . . • . ., . ..._ -.. -- D R..1 '� E . •--° g N'O L.Z 1� Ot0 �D; ' ' � _ _ . ___>, ...._: -. • - . . ,.�.... .,.... . • .•. i. � " ..::._ ...... ......, .. ... �. .. � . ; :. - � - ._ ;...., . __ _ _�.. ;�I ;_ ;`�:" _ , ,. � =_ . ,:":i. i. S. ..;.; . , `o - � - �,,.-:: ' . • 'i�.i�J ' :�:: s`�..^.'.�.~'.� _::... ..: : ` ^� ,I ..� � i- � '.., � :: : a;;:►.._...--r--f": w 1 �yo ' t : : `- .�..`<`� �,�� ' j • ;r�,�. •:o•,':� .`•. • a.t• �� _ ; :. . . . -��::. . , .i^�-5-!4 ;` • . '�'C, ' "��':� O `3-• , `.^� �. `r`` �.'�' � '.Nl.� � � �'� - �.+ ... �A� � .�� .�.� �. x ,:_.� '. -i- - ` � . � 1�; .I � �� J 4 (�i I —� � • '_�' �i ^ J ; h::. ' .c' ''� ,' � � -- �s.�'rt f `')r �\ •. ... . •:;S _ _ , :.�'I • - �� :�.~ � -':�,.. . ` ' ��Y �; . �i `'�'r��-`,-'" ' � ':&:• ;---�' t Z _ • ' �„ , . + _""' `�-;-�-- _"'- , , ,,, �� ,,.-':t 1 � ; --`-� . : ��. � �: O ;,... �� 1 :. {� 1'i- � :�': � � J .;�:.;-� :�, .�, : � .�L ��.� _ .;��1 ~� � " - � - .j Z . � ;;:�''..' ,:w ? l , -� ., Q � o =''�o� c:=�� `�`t�. '•` . •�- . \ �� . ' R,�}� \ `i ��_��.. -• •� � ' . �w� ' ��y.�.ya�^ �'..� �^ _._ '^�.-^ '�+.-. _.� _ "" _ _ ' ,� •�• 1 \, � ,.1 � �A 1��_Y=�V+s�� r � � M. :ri': � n �� t`� • � "'�� O � t � �,••'.�•,:: �. �.��• �:(...V��_. 1:.: ••= � a; r . . _ • '• .,.. :; -�, ; �:;, . ,_.�, _ . O �=�� '�`... „' �".. �� •. iI _ %4. .1� :'� �n : b ,�. �. � i�.ti.'� ` ; 7\ `�' i� . '� I . � 'µ •' � i �/� � �t -. .`'�i�°a > n� �• '-.,;� � ,• _. .__ - �C�.,� J ' / - :1': '� "� - �� ` 1.�'; � r: � _ —�,� f `�' � - . . �. • • ' �. � 'r : .' •_:V�-_ _—_�.� i •, ...i! � • _ ' i — -O �J O � O � m 0 n O �Z iC �V •r 1,. ' �� o� I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1-1"'� � ��€;�� zz �a ��<<��i�T# �F�� g= e f i�� c�� C { � � �aa '��' -ni O � � ^ ` j � s � � � � a.c` i . _ s � 9 e ��': 0 I .� B e . ��. y�j�� i Zy� �x p �� <� n �� prea Lighting Con#ourTM Series Features Nousing: Rugged, die-cast, Soh-corner aluminum housing with 0_t2" nominal wal! thickness. Extruded 4' soft corner arm fnr pole or wall mounting is standard. Dark branze polyester powder finish is st�ndard with other architectural colors avaifabfe. Door Frame: Oie-cast door frame has impact-reSistant, tempered glass lens which is fuliy gasketed vv'tth one-piece bonded mbular silicorte_ Optics: Reflectors are anodized hydro- formed/ segmented aluminum. Four IES cutaff dist�ibuuons available- Type 11 (Roadwey), Type III (Asymmet�ic), Type IV tFornard Throw) and iype V{Symmetric�. Reflectors are field-interchangeable. BaliasUElectrical SYstem: 8allast is high- reactaace, high-power factor {70-i50W HPS1 or high-ceactance, high-power factor const9nt-wanage autouansforcner i175- I 400W MH & NPS1. Ballast is copper wound and 100� factory tested- � �in+sh: �ask bronze polyester powder finish , (DDB) is standard with ott►er arct�iteCturai colo�s available. , Socke� Porcelain, horizontally iposition) oriented mogul base sockec witD caQper alloy, nickel-plated screw shell and center { contact UL listed 1500W-600V_ 4KV puls� rated. Listinga: Ul ��sted for wet locations_ Liste and laheled to compfy with Cenadia Standards (see options). Potes: See pages 259-T83. I Z�g Arm-Mounted, Die-Cast Cutoff �lat Lens Use for parking areas. street lighting, walkways and ; ar a�� ` L� f�� U, � Catalog Number KAD QOOM R3 fES Distri8ttion Designatioo (seteceone) H16H PRESSURE SOOIUM 70W KA� � 100W KAD tooS 150W KAD �� 250W � � 400W KAD 400S MEfAI NALIDF tOQW KAD 100M n5w W►o ,�sM 250W KAO �M a00W KAD 400M R2 ifl RA R55 p� R; R4 fUS f�2 iq Ra R5S R2 Iq Ro RSS A2 R3 Re RSS R2 ICi Ra R5 {� in HA R5 A2 f�i M F5 R2 R3 Ra I�5 $TANDARDPACKAGING Firttyres �tip ComD�ote �� unl[ cartons oMy. Fxemao: (0�r 131 RI�D 4nw i4120 SPD09 (t� a�no�: e� � (uaurei Aeeeasories ah�D sepsracery. ��. :��_�� Example: KAD 400M R3120 SPDO� �20 SPD09 � Voltege Mouating �pp SDDM 208 SP009 2� RPD04 � RPD09 �� WWD04 � YVW009 Tg' wBOa VYSD09 uw�► Square vo�e �rm� $quare pol¢ 9ttn Pound pole armZ Hound pale a�m Wood pole or weliz WOOd polA Of WHII Wa{I aracket Well brocket tESSArm (When ordering KMA, DAD 121 OpteonslAccessories For options and aceQSSOries. sce pege Z95-296. NOTES: � Murri•e�v oei�eat i�?�. 20a, 2s0, 277v). Y SPW9, f1P009 or WWD09 musc be use� wnnn lumin�4rei Y�Y oriented an e DM29. O�iB or OM49 drillinp Datt�rn. 3 In�luacs moundng a�- All &T9�s�o� are inCN6e tCGnrimcter.l onlr: othen•�9e spa�+fi�d• �� l ►� i_._l� l�� OIMENStONS �an�: �.a n.� �e�9�n: �7n �+•.sl W�Of�: 11Y Iu.S) Devtn: 7§: <�8.71 Me+�. wr.ighr. d2 �Le. I�9.� kgl �_�tTM brand fax transmittal memo 7b71 �� v�°S ' LlTHOf�11A LIGHTINL• Item # 6 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: March 1 S, 2000 Title: PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION OF A REQUEST FOR A REDUCED CORNER LOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A GARAGE EXPANSION AT 2741 HODGES LANE. Planning Case No.: Applicant: Request: Location: PIN No. Zoning/Land Use: Applicable Regulations: VR00-001 Cathy Magoris The applicant is requesting a variance for reduced corner front yard setback 2741 Hodges Lane 07-30-23-13-0036 R-1, Single Family Residential / Single Family Dwelling Section 1104.01, Subd. 3b, regarding Setbacks: Principal buildings shall maintain a thirty foot setback from any lot line abutting a public street. Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its review of variances. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Location Map Site Plan, dated 2-24-00 Background: The applicant, Cathy Magoris, who lives at 2741 Hodges Lane, which is located at the northwest corner of Hodges Lane and Park View Drive, is requesting a variance from the required thirty- foot corner front yard setback. She would like to expand an existing attached two car, 576 square-foot garage into a 864 square-foot three car garage. Magoris Variance request March 15, 2000 Page 2 Analysis: As with any variance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes reyuire that the governing body 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 e�sts when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria, with responses, 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 a corner lot and is an odd shape. This can make it more difficult to meet setback requirements. This is not a special circumstance in that there are numerous similar lots in the community. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights comrrronly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of thrs Ti2le. The literal interpretation would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district. The applicant currently has a two-stall garage which is typical in the community. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. There are no special circumstances. d. That granting the variance requested will 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. The granting of this variance would confer special privileges that other corner lot owners would not have. e. That the variance requested is the minzmum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. As the applicants have shown in the site plan, the e�sting setback is right at the minimum required setback. Any expansion would result in the variance being required. ,i Magoris Variance request Mazch 15, 2000 Page 3 f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The purpose of the variance provision in the Code is to give relief to property owners seeking to improve their properties yet are unable to do so because of zoning code requirements and factors beyond their control. Crranting this variance for additional garage space would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of lrght a»d 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 garage expansion would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. According to the City Code, all of the preceding criteria shall be satisfied in order to justify the granting of a variance. It appears to staffthat in this case a hardship does not e�st, and as such, if the Planning Commission were to concur, a variance should not be granted to allow the applicants expand their garage such that it would be eighteen feet from the property line abutting Park View Drive. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission direct staffto prepare a resolution approving or denying the variance request containing the appropriate findings for consideration at the Apri15, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. ` ' �(.��.Qi%1 �` �� Jim Ericson, Planner N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\VR00-001 Wlagoris Variance Report - March 15, 2000.doc ry��l if''.i�..'T'� ; �,s� �,::; ;,:; `�i:.�;��: ��. .� "•,, �i(.:°; :�?<< ;o�� ° Parrner6��y H COMIVIU1�iITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information � ,, Name of Applicant � � � � ��: '.� ( I Address ��'� � �4(l i�' C �ZIL � r" Gl•� 6,G�f c�J �N i1�� erest in Property (check appropriate box) Owner of Properfy o Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑ Other (explain) _ 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 - FAX Telephone �%[ �—1 r 0 �L' .` �✓:j =�� % Fax -- -- o Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Agreement to Purchase Applicants must provide evidence of intere�t in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the �ling of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location Legal Description Property Identification # (PIN #) # of Acres Cunrent Zoning Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Rezoning ❑ Major Subdivision ❑ Minor Subdivision ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) o PUD Amendment t� ❑ Conditional Use Pernut y''�•, Variance ❑ � Code Appeal ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan o Wetland Alteration Pemut ❑ Wedand Buffer Permit ❑ Floodplain Pernut ❑ Other $250 $250/acre; min $250 max $1500 $250 + $250 deposit* $200 Refer to rezoning fees $350 R- I, R- all others $250 R-1, R- $100� 11 others $250 $l00 $125/acre; min $125 max $750 R-1, R-2 $150; all others $200 R-1, R-2 $25; all others $100 $200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant tune spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit annount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within tkurty (30) days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the revetrse side of this application. City of Mounds View, MN Development Application PaQe 2 Present Use of Property ❑ UndevelopedNacant � Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) 1�( Single Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelling ❑ Industrial Establishment Property Class�cation ❑ Abstract ❑ Torrens Description of Proposal BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. h � Signature of Applicant ��-� �`i�`f�l' ],�- � GLt' Name of Applicant (typed/printed) C�'� � � c C S � Signature of Properly Oumer Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner i � � �tiL �--�}��`�� , � - � *************************************************************************�********************** FOR OFTICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal .'f - c? 5-� , Date of Acceptance • Assigned to: 1'laruung Case No. v�q � o— a n J 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: Account # Check # Receipt # Application: �}, l 8� � 0 Q.� ��_ � Cr 5 U__ �5 �C7 Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: N:IDATA\GROUPS\COMAEV�FORMS�DEVAPP.FOR 1/98 Magoris Varia�ice request March 15, 2000 Page 5 Zoning Map i63� 7635 ' 7620 � ..._�_...�_,..._i � ,�soo_ ��o, 759A �....�.....n_I_ _.,__.. � 7575 4 �, 7588 - -�-- 758 0 756� - --- � .�....._....._-. �—'� 7577_ � ,�__�_ . _. � 7555 .. �._755 ��sa �' pF . Y:�ss 7545 `-�' _._ 7�4 —� ;� - 754 �753 � 523��. ...�753 dE --, '_�752. i o�0 501� t� n,M. • i u� i ; � w 5 S r t0 ,.� (p J � N N N � � p� N N 1 1 i�'�..... './ �:_�'•:•:' �:�. �� i � r- i, M w N ��- — r --- -- — - - - -- - . � r i s ; I �� _ �� `�� ` � � i � q �� ' -� i t : i �� , +3�r.'r+� , i t F � . �-i h�µx, c , ��'�� t � �: i £� M1� :1) � �,� � � � ! ' ' `:.+ ; � - F �i 3..F'� 6 4-f'-.:� } !,� e�r� < t .' . � ' ��. � � ' i y � , , n C ,/��''y ~ t• � '�:Wi+�'f. �'/� t�+.�` T ,R-- ' .�i � , : �°`�^ l;�.i� � IiS�' .. . .. J� _ ..n._.. q�+, ' �' '� �`�' � � �� dIN� � ' n,� '��`,,�.� �,, ��, �``��.�L �r �a,��, ,... _ _..._ n }ti�.� �4�1�"� � ,�,� : . �� [. � .:''� � t1� a � r y, ._i- I 7, �}; �'�"�� 4 .�.- '' � , —_ `7. �a : _are p ��'�� ;� ¢��y�� ,�t,ai �- ,� i ,� �� , � ��" _ ,s; � ',+� s'� r r ., �SaA� -�_��1+. Ta� _�. YS� .�'y 1}ar �y� � � �.� 3Y�y i �. " �. . . ' ( " '� .� r I �i��A!�� . , � -i _ •. .. . ' _ ''w � V - . I . �. .� . , .�� `1�� _ _ i�M1 t � I . .s r �s � ` _.' i � j��y �1�, o�iS d �� y � � o G eS �,a�, ` � J t ��,,�u��x v�'D��/� %1'�N , � � � ■ I, P�?o �:�2 cl' Ur�-t �' r-�.. . � � � � �,• �.y - 00 � � r 1 � 1 � 1 � � � - �- � � �� i - j` � �a� � - � � � � � , .� .. � . � � �• . . �� ,QS� � . . . . G�� - . .. - � . �Z� . . . �' : .. . . . . � .� - � � -� � � _ � � . . a� .. . � . � . ....�� .�"'' .�� . ��, . . . . . . o �` '�' ' ; �3� . �'�. `- �' p . . ► � . -5-� � � . � a. �� : .� . ., . �ROPoSe� 9aQ� £ �.,� � . � � EXirJ� � �,1'/1�.. ' � • � lyoqrC Ga,eq,£ . % �, � . • � . _ _ _ �.�8,� �'' . Q - . . �-�, � .. .. � . � � � - � �� . �, 9a. S3 . � • 4 �, o . . .9 � a • • � �+ � .. o �. � . t� . � . -�. �, o � . �� ?� � , �.'�3 ��.o _ � � � .�. � -� � ��?� . /) ''�• . � . . � n�� . � 1� < <� �. . "1 ' 1 ' ' , I. , ; I CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF R.AMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA 1 :.�:.: NOTICE TS HEREBY GNEN that the Mounds View Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, March 15, 2000, 7:00 p.m. at Mounds View City Hall, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, Minnesota, 55112, to consider a variance request by Cathy Magoris for a reduced side yard setback to construct a garage addition at 2741 Hodges Lane. The property is legally known as: Lot 6, Block S Silver Lake Woods Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to this matter may be heard at this meeting. If you are unable to attend the meeting but wish to comment, you may submit a letter to James Ericson, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112. The letter will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Copies of the plans are available for review at City Hall. If you have any questions regarding this meeting or if you want to make an appointment to review the plans, please contact me at (763) 717-4022. James Ericson, Planner City of Mounds View This notice is mailed to property owners within 350 feet of subject property. This notice published in the Focus Newspaper March 2, 2000. N:IDATA\USERS\BARBB\SHAREIKEEP-IT\WPdocs\Pubhearings\PCWlagoris Variance,doc � City of Mounds View Locatio� Map d� � _. =- �,\_ � , = i � . , .�.� � E }<' � j ��; � ��/'.�.,i ; _ �� 1 .�'` � � _�LL � ,f� � �� ,t ;'� � � -y � � �_�.,,�. 'j � 'Ty�; � { � m�m� m�m � � � orn� ��, „�� 1 2741 Hodges Lane � � Cathy Magoris Property Involved: 2741 Hodges Lane Variance (Side Yard Setback) Planning Case Nos. VR00-001 � �I "� �' ,��`w:`�� _�741 Hodges Lane �roperties Within 350' I' Item # 7 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: March 1 S, 2000 Title: 1. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 608-00, A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 657, AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO INTERIM USE REGULATIONS AND AMENDING TITLE 1100 BY CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 1126 IN THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE 2. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 609-00, A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 656, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1108 (SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS) OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO BILLBOARDS AS .AN 1NTERIM USE. Ii:troduction: During the discussion of the proposed billboards at the golf course it was determined that billboards sl�ould be an interun use instead of a conditional use in order to put time litnits on dieui. In order to do this tecluucal amendments to the City Code are required. The attached Ordinance No. 657 gives tl�e city the authority to issue interim use permits pursuant to the authority granted to cities in Minnesota Statutes Section 462.3597. The attached Ordinance No. 656 changes the requirements that were uistituted by Ordinance No. 644 to require an interim use perniit instead of a conditional use pennit. It also indicates that the procedures for obtaining an interim use permit will be the same as for a conditional use pernut. The ordinance also extends the expiration date for billboard interim use pertnits from January 1 to July 1, 2015 so that the proposed billboards on the golf course can be up a full 15 years. Reco�n�neiidatio�es: It is recommended that the Planning Commission pass Resolution No. 608-00 recommending City Council approval of Ordinance No. 657. 2. It is recommended that the Plaruung Commission pass Resolution No. 609-00 recommending City Council approval of Ordinance 656. �� Rick Jopke, Co unity Development Director Attachments: l .Ordinance No. 657 2. Resolution No. 608-00 3. Ordinance No. 656 4. Resolution No. 609-00 N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�SPECPROJ�Sp076-OO�PC Ord 656 & 657 Report.doc MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 608-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF R.AMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 657, AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO INTERIM USE REGULATIONS AND AMENDING TITLE 1100 BY CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 1126 IN THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has passed Ordinance No. 644, amending Mounds View Municipal Code Section 1008, to allow billboards that meet certain interim use requirements pursuant to the authority of Minnesota Statutes Section 462.3597; and, WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has determined that a technical amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code is necessary to grant interim use permits pursuant to the authority of Minnesota Statutes Section 462.3597; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed Ordinance No. 657 and determined that it malces the required technical annendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Mounds View does recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance No. 657, an ordinance relating to interim use regulations and amending Title 1100 by creating a new Chapter 1126 in the Mounds View Municipal Code. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 15th day of March, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chair ATTEST Rick Joplce, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�SPECPRO]\Resolution 609-OO.doc SJR-177370v1 MiJ210-46 r ORDINANCE NO. 657 CTTY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OT RAMS�Y STATE OF NIINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE RELATIlVG TO INTERIM USE REGULATIONS AND AMENDING TITLE 1100 BY CREATING A NEW CHAP'TER 1126 IN TI� MOUNDS V�W MUIVICIPAL CODE THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Title 1100 of die Mounds View Municipal code shall be amended by the creation of a new Chapter 1126 as follows: CHAPTER 1126 INTERIM USES SECTION: 1126.01: Uiterim Uses 1126.O1:INTERIM USES: Pursuant to the authority of Minnesota Statutes Section 462.3597, the Council by ordinance may allow interim uses of property in any district widun the City, and may establish and impose conditions by ordinance, permit, or both, on a�iy such interim use. SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publicaaon. Read by the City Council of 4ie City of Mounds View this 28th day of February, 2000. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View tlus 27�' day of March, 2000. Dan Coughlin, Mayor Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk-Admuustrator APPROVED A5 TO FORM: City Attorney s rxa �6�s � �i MU210-46 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 609-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF R.AMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 656, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1008 (SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS) OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO BILLBOARDS AS AN INTERIM USE WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has passed Ordinance No. 644, amending Mounds View Municipal Code Section 1008, to allow billboards that meet certain interim use requirements pursuant to the authority of Minnesota Statutes Section 462.3597; and, WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has determined that certain clarifications and technical amendments are necessary to insure that the Mounds View Municipal Code is consistent with state statutes and local intent; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed Ordinance No. 656 and determined that it malces the required clarifications and technical amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Mounds View does recommend to the City Council the adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 656, an ordinance amending Chapter 1008 (signs and billboards) of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to billboards as an interim use. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 15th day of March, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chair ATTEST Ricic Joplce, Community Development Director (SEAL) SJR-177373v1 MU210-46 ORDINANCE NO. 656 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1008 (SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS) OF THE MOUNDS VI�W MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO BILLBOARDS AS AN INT�RIM USE THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 1008.08, Subdivision 10.a. of the Mounds View Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of the bold and underlined language and by the deletion of the language as follows: Subd. 10. Billboards: A permit shall not be issued for any new billboard unless it complies with the following interim use requirements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.3597: a. INTERIM USE PERMIT: An interim-c�ena�l use pennit (�IUP) must be obtained in accordance with procedures identical in form and substance to the conditional use permit procedures found in Section 112S.Olq Subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. Any cs��ie�a�interim use permit issued for an interim billboard shall automatically expire no later than d�-u�Ju1y 1, 2015s or when the lease agreement for the billboard expiress whichever date is earlier. Such �IUP shall be null-and-void if the applicant fails to obtain any required permit from the State of Minnesota. SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect thirty (30) days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of March, 2000. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of March, 2000. Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney SJR-17G746v2 MU210-46 r PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VI�W PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF IVIOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA � 2401 H 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson a:t �:00 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson ,�ammissialx��'� �c� Laube, Miller, and Stevenson. Members Absent: Commissioner Braathetij leave o�:absence. . Also Present: Planning Associat� �itri Ericso�, Commuruty� �e Council Liaison Lynn Thomasorn, a,�ti Record�z� T�ish Pear.s�sn_ 10, M ax° 1Vleeting r��v al r�, �000 U= ct,�:�;ry ]I�all lv�l l�� 1� � , ��r.[��a,ry 16, 2000. He�land, Johnson, Kaden, <; ;> ment Director Rick Jopke, Page Consideratiort p�"��u�l�,�iion GO�� 00, ��c�t�lution Adopting the Planning and Zoning Com�x7i��i�r� �yla��s 2s i��vi�� at the February 2, 2000 Meeting. , Cons�d��`ation of Resol�''r.itat� �{i;� Q:p, a Resolution Recommending City Council App��`val of the Updat��d ��ix��'�liensive Plan. �l�rining Case No. CU 0�001, Bridges Golf Course. Conditional Use Permit �"ok; Installation of Six::�3�llboards. �"i�3� o� Mounds V��w"Applicant. aa9 �-f�' ��jf�J�i � 1 Items of Information Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 2 � 4 27 28 r Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4> Approval of Minutes A. January 19, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Laube. To approve th� corrected. Ayes — 8 Nays — 0 February 16, 2000 Page 2 y;. :. , 19, '�000 meeting ; ��t�;`��otion carried. :f;£� r Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2000 Page 3 Community Development Director Jopke stated staff has prepared Resoli��!ic�� b�J5=�00 for the Planning Commission's consideration, which is a resolution recoinmendin� �;i�y �`v��ncil approval of the updated Comprehensive Plan. He stated this is the next <�ppropriate s'r�.g:� �� xk. j�rocess, and following this, the Council will be asked to accept the �t�mprehensiu� �l�t�, ��i �.�achorize �,,:` staff to forward the document to the Metropolitan Cour�cil ior their r�vx�vv. He �:��[�.ix3,�*E� i).aat g� ,>•M.�.• this review could take up to 60 days, after which, the Carr�pi-�}�erasave �1`an will be ret�a��t�: �c', �,�� City, and any amendments required at that point woulcl i�E; �ra�+�c. �e indicated the City �";raa,�,�r;z] would then hold a public hearing, and formally adopt the (;o, �a�r��.�z7�i�� aan. Community Development Director Jopke stated staff recoixur�Pnd of Resolution 605-00. Chairperson Peterson opened the floor for public �oxi��e�flt ��;7 Julie Olsen, 2663 Lake Court Circle �guired if ,�h� `��u�} Comprehensive Plan is returned to the Crty Council y,��iuld b� a° ��aira� +��mmission approval the Carnprehensive Plan. �?�-�;��.� to be held after the =t� ar�cl published hearing. Community Development Director Jopk�'`stated 1.his was corr�et. Chairperson Peterson added tha� ��ie previot�� put�l�� hearing was published through all of the normal ch�nnels, and beyo�ac� �:��, iY� an at�r:c��p� �o eoIlect as much input as possible, however, no publi� ��r�ent was �rovid�c�, <�ti all. He �pin�ed out that Ms. Olsen's was the first feedback receiv�c� ��ri�ini�g„to thc �om�i'e^h�nsive Pian, and extended his appreciation in this regard. Ms. Olsen indi��f�t� sl�e had inpui �o �r�vicle, however, had been previously predisposed. She stated she wotald Ccz�za�x��t o�1 the tia��''wilen it goes before the City Council, with hopes that this would:��'ovide �'�r su��en:t tirrie to"review the matter. yerson Peterson st�.tet1 st�i�'would continue to accept comments regarding any of the items Comprehensive Plart in the interim. ►unity Development Director Jopke stated this was correct. He indicated that if there are �mments, everz after the document is forwarded to the Metropolitan Council, staff will ;i.hosex,;a�zd tl�ey will be considered as part of the City Council review. __ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ �';nA��aas�ic�rier Miller stated she had noted some discrepancies in the Comprehensive Plan with i Pgard tio pa�e numbers, and matters of this nature. She inc�uired regarding the proper forum for addressing this. Community Development Director Jopke explained that during the preparation of the document, staff had experienced some computer difficulties, however, he believed those have all been corrected at this time. He stated he has reviewed the plan several times to insure this, and C`_�= - f-- r Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2000 Page 4 believes that the page number issue has been resolved. He provided Corr►�i�is��ar�n�x� 1VIiller with z. the corrected copy of the Comprehensive Plan for her review. �` ;�<:�W > r Chairperson Peterson stated copies of all of the maps, and pt�er related it��s ��°� �:�r,;>F.��r� oY� the walls of Council Chambers at City Hall, and various sr��ll�;� copies of thc�'rr�ap� a�•� ��i��l�,, i�' residents would care to come to City Hall and pick thPAx% �,��., T �e re�fi�erated that: a�7 C��t�� :x�� > matter was proceeding to the next step in the process, aizy �z��i ��s welcome, and any c��i�r�.�r�_n;,� relating to the policies or planning items would be addressed. Chairperson Peterson asked Commissioner Stevenson if:.h pertaining to the trailways to be acceptable. Commissioner Stevenson stated they were, ar�c� ��s�� Development Director Jopke for his efforts in tl�is re�arr.� off-street," was a more accurate representati�n of tf�� 10, and he was agreeable to the amended re�ference ta "C this revised terminology to be much ��1oi� acceptable:�5" :.4��;. MOTION/SECOND: StevensonllVTille��. T�i Approve Resolution No. 605-00, a Resolution Recon�.�.�r.��ndzng �: UpdaYec� C`,��aa�rehensive I'1��, � Amended. ' �' Community I�Q��i� for their hard ;vv o1�� fout�n ihr �:L��x��ges in terminology liiy appr eci��ti�n to Community ; s��ted �he language "future paved 'c�a�l�rsj�._y'proposed along Highway � Hi�;l��ray 10." He stated he found ounds View Planning Commission the City Council Approval of the l��e� - U; Nays — 0 The motion carried. I�irectox° Jopks e�tended his appreciation to the Planning Commission ;>�ime thev ira�r�sted in this consideration. The Carnmission recip�•s�c��d , f 7��"� Planning Case,<N'�. CU-00001 �'�x•c��F-�y Involved;;:�;��'idges Golf Course. 5 .: �'t��acla�ional Us�,�'.�rmit for Installation of Six Billboards. ��r��ali��a�� itv of Mounds View Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: This item relates to billboards on the Bridges Golf Course and is the consideration of Resolution 606-00, a resolution approving six outdoor advertising signs on golf course property. � . Mounds V�ew Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2000 Fage 5 Planning Associate Ericson stated on December 13, 1999, the City Cou 644, which amended the City Code to allow for billboards ��d other conditional use in tfie City, on properties located north of f�zghway 10, 35W. He stated there are only a few properties in this a�'��;'�one of w �,;;<;.:. property, and others, which comprise Sysco Foods. ,<: Planning Associate Ericson provided an overview of the � pertaining to billboards. He indicated billboards must residentially zoned property, the minimum spacing betweer� sign area shall be no more than 700 square feet per sid�, would be 35 feet. He stated a copy of this ordinance ;; Commission for reference. Planning Associate Ericson advised that Eller i billboards on the golf course site, and has �r�v review. He indicated these renderings vc�ere proposed at this time. He stated E]1�r;;M�edia � nature. He pointed out that these ax-e no� the t _ standard single-pole, metallic type billboards, � billboards were designed to be rrit�re �nvirorur�E the go�f �;c��aa-�e. ...._. ;s regardi�� necessary this is the has b s�gns as a ';;Xnterstate uirements of the o�r�qY��►c'e c� at least 250 feet from i;; 1�000 feet, the maximum ��s�7A�n r�ieight of the sign ��`rar.��d ;to the Planning _ _. __ __ _ _ _.. Yledia }�a� �r-�sefal:e;ci �Iie C1iy with a proposal for ded r�r�r�erit��;,; �o�° tk�� sigris for the Commission's an aGCUrate ��r�s�tj�ation of what was being �as .proposing s�x si�ns, which are all of a similar ��acal type of billboard, and very dissimilar to the �ormally seen: He explained that the proposed ntally fr�eni�ly, and to fit into the environment of Ericsor� r,t��ta�.c�ni�c� that all parties had been very clear in their sentiments ;;;,in �h�i �'ric;�/ h,�`c� 'I��:c nlesired or wanted, however, they are viewed as a i�ssi�t with t�� giera�i�n of finances at the golf course. He explained that `C'�� i'� considerii��;;il�.is proposal. „ PlannirigT'Associate �,f�icst�g� ;i �.t.�c# the City Council approved a resolution that authorizes this ,..;.<.. venture with Eller Medi�, �rld %�s.�t��orizes the application for the Interim Use Permit. He stated at tk�ei� last meeting, the �ity �ouncil adopted Ordinance 637 which added language into the �,i.y;x.r, � Tor�ing Code allowing ��r billboards in the Public Facilities and Conservancy Recreational, and �A��sPrvation Zoning Dt5`tricts. He advised that this is an interim use, and some language in the �::r'�c�� v✓ould require �o be amended to reflect this. He provided the Commission with a revised ��4z��I��ic�n, whi�l� �hanges the verbiage from "Conditional Use" to "Interim Use." He explained �;i��.�; �I�� i� �axz�idered an interim use because there is an associated time line, which is a fifteen- �� E�n,��d, afier which, the permits will expire. He advised that a conditional use does not ��c�ii��, therefore, the City Attorney has assisted in the drafting of this language, and has recommended the term "Interim Use" be utilized. Planning Associate Ericson indicated that Ordinance 644 directs staff to review the interim use of the billboard against the standards and criteria set forth for a conditional use, in that there are both adverse affects criteria, and general conditional use criteria which must be examined. r Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Planning Associate Ericson stated there were five ad Commission consideration. He indicated one of these criter Comprehensive Plan. He explained that the City's Co� billboards, therefore, there is no inconsistency in this re�ar� geographical area involved, this is the area on which the, h�l course property. He explained that there are five resident'ra� feet from the golf course, on the south side of new Highwa� from these properties. Planning Associate Ericson indicated the third depreciate the area in which it is proposed. He sta on the golf course property would be a detrimeni added that it is not believed that the placement �ar negative impact on the properties located soutfi of Planning Associate Ericson explai the golf course is a commercial ty and wooded area. He stated the more of an industrial type opez-a.t industrial, �I� stated th� zi�� ;.d��'�� such us�. 4=�� ac�inted ou'c thal ir ��c Plannin� �� Commission existing par� sufficientl� t erCie� He indicat� P : '�� • ainted out that th �.: . ance of at least 2 �oards in relations} rpretive issue, and>; d.:tha:t with operation r�^a to the r� n, and thr j a for cor►�e�� been f�ir1�� t criteria rns February 16, 2000 Page 6 rs� affects �i_�� c�r Planning 1�';the relations%T�j �� E:�a� �ase to the �y�,� rrehensive Pl�� }c;� ��c�g; ��.�dress ��,_'� y 1;�3 �Ie advised :t�i�at wi��'�� r�;r�rc7, �,�� th� � �ards v�citzlci be located r�� i:;�� ;,r�1� �t��l��es located approxirna(;��,r �60 U� ��ac� �1ze billboards w�ll be visible are whetli�r : � iats� believed ti1� ��r•C�k��;x cy value ',��i�� ,��f ihese �is� will tend to ��i��ng of billboards e golf course. He ards would have a �ard to the c�iaT-acter of the surrounding area, 'e stated there are some open space, wetlands, h of the golf course is Sysco Foods, which is perti�� o the north of the golf course are all �ian is �with regard to a demonstrated need for r� as to why there is a need for the billboards. icson s�aied �1�e�`�; ;�re eight general conditional use criteria for Planning ti.�r��. He ��cp1��n�� '��at the use must not create an excessive burden on ,�c�� public f'vcili�i�s, and billboards would not. He stated the use must be t�z- �epaz�ateci by clistance or screening, from adjacent residentially zoned :�i �:1��r� �r� no residentially zoned properties adjacent to the proposed site. e��c� �t � properties located south of Highway 10, which are separated by a 6� ;'fe�f,' and possibly more, depending upon the exact location of the i��;''to the property lines on the golf course. He advised that this is an �`�afibelieves there would not be any adverse affect on those properties. �l�r�nir�� .A�sso�ia�.P Ericson explained that another criteria specifies that the use and the opinion of t1'n� �;ni:z�c�l i� r��onably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use, ��J��a{;�} ;��., �een clearly stated. He stated the use must be consistent with the purposes of the :�"oniri� Codc; and the Zoning District. He explained that with the passing of Ordinance 644 in December, and Ordinance 637 the previous Monday, billboards would be a use consistent with the Zoning Code. Planning Associate Ericson advised that this use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and would not cause traffic hazards or congestion. He indicated the last requirement Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2000 Page 7 specifies that adequate utilities, access, drainage, and necessary facilities vv�1C' provided, and that is the case. <; ', i�:>;`�f�: < Planning Associate Ericson stated that in consideration o�' s��s� findings, �� installation of billboards on the golf course property wouic� 4,�>� have an,,ai��ret :;:r. ,�; nrQ��t�ed, or are � �7�::i��x� 3 �:ha.z: the G �'7�� 3b'�fif' �Ol£ course property or other properties in the surrounding ar�;a; .�r��r� would be consisten� w�i,�e �`cB= i'��;. Code. He stated staffrecommends the Planning Commissic�ri �tc�c}�� esolution 606-00, w��1 �� h�s been revised to reflect the new language pertaining to intez-itn z.is��s. �� ;xplained that there is one stipulation, which indicates that if the billboard vendor is una��a�: ic� t��a.�� ,a ��ermit from MNDot, the permit issued by the City would become null and voir�� "� nor�r� ��t�i �t.�i`� was not aware if MNDot would be approving of these permits. Chairperson Peterson opened the public hearing a� %;2� �.;'��. Commissioner Berke indicated the Plannin�;`�ommissi�n° ��c� ��ic��i,�ly voted unanimously in opposition to this entire consideration. � I3e stated ,the City C;c��a�jczl ;�a.c± voted in favor of the matter, and inquired why they were no�`taking th�' respons�bility for this decision, but rather, directing it back to the Planning Co�xumtssion. Planning Associate Ericson exp recomme�x��rzon on any sp�� permic�; a�� ny items a�`:rl�x the s��r.� ��r„a�-nrnendatiort s Bylaws io �al�� r�commenc that �la� �'��ni�.ins� ;Commission is required to provide a use pl��i�� se, ��such as conditional use permits, zoning He pc�%�ai.�t� aut that the Commission may very well make a�viously provided, however, they are required by their �:la ;such planning cases. Jonelle And,�r�s��a, � y�l 7.�a.�o� i T.°�rit�F �Cated her home was one of the five houses located to the south of tk�� galA c,c�r�t �F_ ��.e si�ted she was concerned that her property value would decrease as a resutt> t�f this proposal. 3x�.� ��lained that no one would want to purchase a house that has a billbpard visible from it� i�ac�� window. She commented that she would not, and the �Q,rrimissioners probablysyaouid not, either. �� i4i�. llnderson stated s�e was also concerned with regard to golf balls in her yard. She stated she �:� �;omplains about �%is every year, and is consistently informed that if golf balls are in her yard, ��xe� �.r-,� bein� a�t��itionally hit there. She inquired what would prevent people from hitting the �;��aIIS r�ntr� ��lc billboards, and causing even more problems. 1VIs. Anderson stated now that the highway has gone through, there is apparently sufficient traffic to accommodate such advertising. She inquired in light of this, why the residents have no sound barrier in front of their properties, along the side of the road. Chairperson Peterson stated the City has requested a sound barrier in this area for many years, however, they have always been turned down. He explained that MNDot has indicated legal Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2000 Page 8 technicalities, in that they have not actually modified that section of the Hi are not required to build a sound wall. , Ms. Anderson stated this area has certainly been affected ,�y the o highway. Chairperson Peterson agreed. He stated he bel��ved there thinking at the State level, and it is possible that a sound w€�ll �nay be G� the future. '� y, �:h�`�fore, they f�i�;i?t$f,,la :3.o ti11S «;;��`V vO32�� ;i'��iyiY,�; i.il I �ll: �C3d'11�; �vt}��"f: 3�i Community Development Director Jopke stated Director of �'t��1�r, �{,��c�i�;�; Ulri�h has researched this matter. He indicated the State's response is that this:s�ction r�±° d�c�,��1��,� does not appear in their long-range plan, however, they have agreed to perform soine nois� ��a�n��c��i�a� in the spring, when the traf�ic levels have stabilized, and basec_l i,�� '�f�i�sc studies, �z ;�czi�z�cf l�arrier may be incorporated into the plan. He pointed out that tlae�y �t�r'�'�:t�� i:l�a.i this is �v��i(c� l�e a long-range improvement, if it occurs at all. He stated th.e �iiy��Cowr�c;�� A� i�i��;r,�st�d in �this issue, and in their discussion of goals for the City it has bee�; k�rought farw�; ��. ��[� �rJ�ised that the City Council would continue to encourage the State tp move forw�rd in �liis ��;��1; adding that language has been incorporated into the Compreh�ns�ve Plan, ��i�ich acknai��le;cig�s that this is an issue that should be addressed. �_�' Phil Sei��rn, representativc of Sy� the golf cp��x;:��, and werc raoi ��;� He in.di.cr�r�d ihieir situatio�� r�i�¢,�+ new ��i�;��+�tJ<��y 1Q,, there i� � :�,ci highway f��s�x��' �.�,c:u pr;oper�y, aY�c� _ _ _ _. _ _ Foods si�i�ci �hey w�re in a slightly different situation than the Plar��; �t�mmission to object to the billboard proposal. n that they ha�e approximately 1,200 to 1,300 feet that abuts ba��r�i�r that insulates the residential properties across the �� a��c�n�.i�ty is commercially zoned. Peter Coyle,;r��t'��z�<�ti�;r� of DeLit� �utdoor Advertising stated they did not object to the golf course pzt�,�:�ct �f�at �� 'i�y �,�ursuiY�g; except in so far as the approval of this application could negati��Ely affect the ap�li�a.��o�as �l�at are currently pending for the Sysco Foods site, which have bee�l.�led with the City t�Ya €��Y�� of DeLite Outdoor Advertising. -�:� � ;. ;; : �`r' Coyle stated the Ciiy's Ordinance, as approved, contains the 1,000 foot spacing requirement. �c. �x.plained that if t�1e six applications that are pending before the City are approved, and ��.z��iis �re issu�d, tkt�'s would prohibit consideration of at least one of the two applications that �`�y�� s coY�a��;��t��r��to have filed, with regard to its property. He indicated that to the extent that �,�if,�� .3�`c ;;;x ��t�o��rds on the golf course property, rather than five, this application could prohibit E:��;zE�.��ar� of �he second site on the Sysco property. Mr. Coyle stated it was their understanding that the golf course does not require all six of the permits in order to achieve the financial objectives that have been set, however, Sysco's fundamental objection relates to the spacing issue. He stated that if the City chooses to proceed with the six billboards, they would request that the City would process a variance to allow for the consideration and approval of the two Sysco applications, when they come before the City. Y Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Mr. Coyle reiterated they were aware that the City has its p objecting to that process. He explained they were objecl negatively affects Sysco, relative to the City, adding that th�s for this somewhat scarce commodity. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the last billboard locat�cl conflicting with the spacing requirements. February 16, 2000 Page 9 �� <;;- �F underw»y; �t�c� �;I_aey were not ` as far �7 � f;�7� ��ing issue vely pu�.� 3�att��i �n ��r�iition , ., ��`property would bc; t�� 7e __ _ Mr. Coyle stated this was correct. He stated it was his.�tndersta��c�i�.� � located on the boundary that conflicts with their placement o�' t��o' �� property. He stated they were attempting to be respc�a��i�� c��.i.(�� `icy's r; own project, however, it has a direct impact on this �I��>>�t:� +.;��ai��ariy, whi that is pending with the City. He stated thes�.pro�o�c�:l:(,;1�1��,ai��;� ��c;re City Code, with the exception of those that �.r�"currently unri ;k {:�,�,�cl�.rati Julie Olsen, 2363 Lake Court Cir aware of what is occurring, ai the some reason, the Planning Corr►rrz�; many people who might believ� �l�i aware th�n a�si�� has be�� c_l��;��ssc staterrze�t �°��;<��o�c�ing thel� ��.��c>�� this i� _�i�;t_i�i��il�. �he r�c��;�t�G� t�� majori�y oi �;P�et�a. Chairperson y. out h�o't��ver, the ma� . ,;. expl�tined that the PI F;l;aiining Commission ;r, �ai�are issues, and the 1 i� vvas the billboard :��zx��l� on the Sysco €s�� ?� `�elates to their a'�s� �r�ade application cornpliance with the ,�t�ted it wa.�`�infortunat�'�fia� the residents are not always �� lcPS ��lace. She,�tated she was concerned that if for on dec%cl�cl �.r� vote in ��or of this proposal, there could be vvere i�� 2.vc�� az�ih� b'IIlboards all along. She stated she was for seve;�«.l za�nri�}�s;�and she understood the City Council's �r theig ra��Fisirj;�s, however, she does not necessarily believe "ommission deny the permit, for the reasons apparent to the with re��.�� to the Planning Commission's original decision, they had ;��isc o� l�iIlboards in this situation was not appropriate. He pointed r��ail;}� before the Planning Commission is somewhat different. He �,�rri�nission acts in two distinctly different roles. He stated the �eviously acting in the role of a planning commission, considering scope of things. �:h�irp�rson Peters��'� pointed out that many of the other issues the Planning Commission �.t��as��>�:� are z�qt tlealt with in this nature, but rather, in their role as the Board of Adjustment and 1��1� �-�`, ��tplained that this is the official body which is comprised of the members of the �'1��?�� :e,�imission who act upon variance requests, conditional use requests, and matters of _ _ ___ ___ _ ihis riat�r�;. I�e advised that this role consists of Code interpretation, and is less of a broad sweeping examination, but rather, a narrowly defined activity. He explained that in light of this, there is the potential for a different vote, or an appearance of inconsistency in their actions, based upon their capacity in these different roles of the Planning Commission. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2000 Page 10 Planning Associate Ericson added that when this matter was initially bro Commission, the question before them was with regard to thei� opinion course, and their overwhelming response was that they were o�pr�5ec� to City Council approved an ordinance, which amended tf�e :,City Cod� billboards, under certain conditions, in the overlay district, nct�-ih of Hig� role of the Planning Commission at this time, was to �xarruz�� the City � application before them complies with the Code. " Planning Associate Ericson stated there are some issues, Planning Commission has the ability to make a judgeme City Code must be examined, and there is always th� �o that the Commission might not like an item they ar� �u� City Code, oftentimes, they do not have the luxt_+.r`�y c��' positions the Planning Commission faces. ... Planning Associate Ericson stated Page 8 t�f Eller proposed billboards on the golf cours�. He stati minimum requirement, and in fact, tEa� �ast billbtl' proximity to the Sysco property lin�. II� stFji6;� i Sysco and DeLite Outdoor Adv�z�ising hav�� dr�a Plannin� �`qnr�mission at the�r �!1ar�h 15 mee�in�. re Planning a.t the golf ,�r� �h�t the „�5�`;,��Ilows 118: and c wta�� ;��e� �ab�t �;�:r.��ve in nature, that the nt=�al1 on, ��r��t�i��,i;i, �;ompliance with the ssibilii:y oi �? .�:�t��;��`: uote. He explained zi�a� Qn, hoivev�AS a�C�=i� as��allowed by the ��r��yi��g, it, which i�> �!�'ne of the dif�icult _. 's ��e��j;��5a� ��tdicates the location of the spaci�a�; s1i�r�ily exceeds the 1,000-foot �ra proposed on this property is in very close {iis billbo��'c� would impact the application that de with'`the City, which would be before the Planni�xfu .A,s,U��,�,�a, �ricsor� stai�:d iltat if the sign locations are approved as proposed, Sysco would b� li,rz�i�;�,�� c� �r�e billbo�r<� �r� �l��ir, property. He stated it appears there could be room to shift the sig�� rt r1ic� �;�lr cours� �.��t��t�y; to allow for a second sign on the Sysco property, however, this;;�ossa��io�r �:i�5 noi y�f, b��m fully researched. He stated this was something that could be,e��:trrit�ed. ' ;.< . Commi�ssioner Hegland irxc�r�i�-�:r� if there was any language in the new ordinance that limits the d��tance a billboard can �e �l�t;cd, with respect to a property line. He stated this appeared to be �1��` issue with regard to ��sco, in terms of a conflict with the property line. ir�g Associate;;�:�'icson stated he was not aware of any provision that specifically addresses s'r�nc� Crc�m � property line. He noted there may be language in the Sign Code that indicates .��`?,r r��r�ir�ment, however, this would be no greater than 30 feet, if there was any reference, Commissioner Hegland stated it would appear language of this nature should be added, to prevent a conflict such as this. Commissioner Johnson agreed. He stated that if there was a restriction within 500 feet of an adjacent property line, they would not have this problem, however, this would probably result in r Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2000 Page 11 the loss of one sign on the golf course. He suggested they require 500 � cr;'r ' property line. He added that if Sysco was unable to place twa Y�illboarci� �E�' result of this requirement, it would be unfortunate, however,,i#,wduld be �i��- the City. ....�. of the ty as a ion for Commissioner Stevenson stated he would agree with chi�. ��e ir��i`�ated however, �k��: �`i3-y Council has already overruled the Planning Commissioi� v��.1a A�c:�a.rd to the signs, �-�x�� Y3t�� proposing six billboards to generate revenue, which could b� ��;t��cl io five, in order to allov✓ Sysco to have two billboards. He stated the City would see �c� ��s�r�cxE�� F��;r��=�it from this, except through the permitting process, and would lose this incom� ' Commissioner Berke stated he understood this, how�v��, ��k�er consicl��%t�rt ��that Sysco has been a good neighbor and a taxpayer in the City, ant�'s�tault� f��; �reated fairly. Commissioner Johnson advised that this wo�;ld''equally Commissioner Laube stated this manner. He pointed out that whe and this action would set preced� requirements that apply to the C applicatiox��, �rid this confl��d`t ��as' utiliz� i.:�� •�solve this �nt��t t�� a propo Commission variance. C �rc�i.�ld not 6� abi� t t��i�s��j l?ointed o; ri�v;;lv�7C�I' �i3�VPY150 �c�x�c�itional: � I'or ih.c; r�.� are th� s�� sen, it �u�i sistent fQ7' �a tllis. >: - .:t� 5sion should approach this situation in this ; permit is �i'anted, it affects all of the citizens, propos�at. that comes forward. He stated the fox� ��/sco, and now that Sysco has filed an '��,pnined. He stated whatever means they parties, and if they approve this matter, as �;�sco would then come before the City to request a ;�l tk�at they might then have to consider a lesser spacing n�issioner Johnson �-�;�.t�;r�i�r� �}►at they could require the signs be set back 500 feet from the �ierty lines. Commiss;i�n�� Stevenson explained that they would not need to be this specific, ause allowing the t�o Sysco billboards would not interfere with any other billboards. He ed Ordinance 644,;��ii 637 are applicable only to this specific area, and these billboards. He �a�ed they woult� r�ot have to amend the Code, but rather, could be very specific that the signs >OQ feet from th�"property lines, in this case. �i,�i�°p��'�c��c Peterson stated a 500-foot property line distance restriction would effectively limit �ysco 'co only one sign, therefore, it would not necessarily assist in this situation. Commissioner Hegland pointed out that such a restriction would be consistent for everyone, in that the City would lose one billboard, as well. Chairperson Peterson stated the northernmost sign on the Interstate 35W corridor is outside of the City's jurisdiction, in terms of the sign spacing requirement. Commissioner Hegland advised � r Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2000 Page 12 that is would still have to be 500 feet from that property line, however, i�' ��z�y ;.��r:; losing one sign, there should be sufficient room for this. :� i:?%3 C?� : .b Commissioner Stevenson commented that rather than losing � st�n, the City �iov�t� pz�t�b��ly place them closer together. He inquired at what distance frorri tl��^ �p�operty I�rtes'the i�wo'�a��b��:1� on the Sysco property could be placed, and still meet the 1,OOQ��c��a'� s��ci��g requirem�n�. Mr. Seipp stated the frontage of this property was betwee� �,.'>��) �i�r1 1,300 feet, therefore, both signs would have to be within 100 to 150 feet from either Ic�p 1i�ic:, :��c' ��tc�icaied that almost any restriction from the property line would limit Sysco to one �gn. �• Chairperson Peterson stated there might be site li advised that a property line setback restriction wra►�� Ms. Olsen inquired if the Planning Commiss�;pn was the City Council overturn that decision. <:;;� . �:<? <: z` �;`, ' ` ::.: Chairperson Peterson advised that tk�� City Co�nc�t'1 that allows such a thing as this. �� explainec� thai and the Planning Commission cauid' only mal�c �. re the City �t��t��cil would tal�� i�� c�rmal actio� c��z ihi _ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ r��. the �ysc�a �r�p�r`ty as welL He �� -ily �ssist i� r�solving this issue, uest at this time, could is the orz�y'body that can enact an ordinance this is, �. .request for a conditional use permit, :orri.r�i��clation in this regard He advised that Ms. C�is�A� iz�r�t�rk��:�l if tl_�e �;��y �`c�«n�il would make their decision regardless of the Planning Commissio�'� ��;r•�rz�rner�c��tion, '`'i��i�-��-son Peterson stated he could not say what the Council would do, l�o�nr��r��; ��t� Ciiy Counr,i� �,,` �1�� ody that formally makes the decision. He added that the Plannin� �c�z��,'i 3U�c�ca :is recfuir�d �o � eview all of the items, and any additional information available,•��id i�»ke`��f;�z Ai;��r�mendation based upon this. _ _ _ 7lsen inquired if �n� st�ad�c�s �iad been done to support the statement that this proposal would no adverse affect o�. �n� of'the five adjacent property owners. __.. �'��nning Associate Exx�son explained this was a judgement call, and a subjective response to the Uc1�cf that it would k��ve an adverse affect on these properties. He stated staff had not solicited 6atl�rii��,from c�tl�er groups, however, they could probably find some studies that would support �.li�� °��izn, ��r1 citi�ers that would negate it. �o�n�riuriity Y�evelopment Director Jopke stated much of this determination was based upon the distance of these properties from the subject site, and the fact that they are separated from the golf course by the roadway. Commissioner Kaden inquired if there was a light on top of the billboards. r Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2000 Page 13 Michael Cronin, representative of Eller Outdoor Advertising, stated il�x s' S�r��; ��ri�ect. He indicated this was a non-directional, very frosted light. He poiri��d out i ia�� ai �u�.� u�ry dark on this side of the freeway, and the intent of this light was tet �;cid a liti�le ;�ao�� ;r��nt �o the structure. He stated that if this was an issue, the lights coulc� i�� shut off w�c�� na c��'r.c��;�a�> co $he billboards. �5 � Chairperson Peterson inquired if they were proposing ilf�i��itt{=ti��9 �agtlts, which would �:�'€��Iy not have much, if any effect. Mr. Cronin stated this was co��c1:, �(�� ,,igt�s would be illuminaied with soft light, to balance the sign face with the sign structu�•e:, ��r ;��:f�� the light on top of the billboard was a diffused, truly decorative light. , Commissioner Stevenson inquired who had determi;�.�ci' Mr. Cronin stated the sign locations were c�o,s�n by �hP �'i �,<; .;.� : these locations were set around certain fe��:itres that tk�� Cit� course, or if they were selected because of,the wetland on the tions oi �e si�� lie was not certain if x�� i�? ��i-eserve around the golf ��-f,� ��;c��e of the property. Mr. Cronin requested the Planning Coznmission approve staff'•.s"'recommendation, and allow them to proceed to the City Council, �xtd begin ta z�mplement, tl�e decision the City made with the adoption of the ordinance. Comt,lz��ia:��° �tcvensox� i�r��iX�y�� :z�� che r��o�3a. �,vf��i�?�ly sign, in closest proximity to the Sysco prop�ri� ��t�l�� r�cs� be move� �(.�� e�i, b�c�_us� of tii�e wetland. Chairperson l��.ccai �ci� �c�vised tha� ik��f� �ra�� many lowlands on a portion of this property, and the sites may ha�e �7��r.a:��l�c�l��, bec�ju�r ��i" �heu� accessibility. ,,,.� . �ssioner JohnsoY ve. He inquired � with, adding �a� Associ �a�c�s. _.. out that as biliboards go, the proposed billboards are very nmission should set a design standard that others would have to City requires developers to consider the design of existing advised that the City Code does not contemplate the design of the _ �:'��1x�z��s�oner Johnson inquired if they could require the applicants to comply to a design slacida�-d, as with any other similar situation. Planning Associate Ericson stated they could attempt to. Planning Associate Ericson stated the locations of the proposed signs were selected with regard to the different features of the golf course, and the presence of the lowlands and wetlands in the northern area of the property, toward Sysco. He explained that there was some reason for �:"" r Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2000 Page 14 choosing these particular sites, which is not to say there could not be however, these are the sites that the City and Golf Course Super�n�endent, felt would be the best for the golf course. Fs ,;;;.> ' Commissioner Miller inquired if at the time the City deci there was any consideration regarding what Sysco might d Planning Associate Ericson stated there was not. He expla the previous day, February 15, and at that time, the City could not have known that Sysco would be making a sim�, was aware that this possibility existed, however, they knowledge of Sysco's application. Commissioner Laube inquired if this had b of billboards, which would have been the fit Pianning Associate Ericson explair time, and the ordinance that allows Commissioner Laube inc�u site plara. �'lanning Associ meet vvfl Planning similar tc inquir�d ��r?,a�� ootage reqi��r� �i�:sas�. scated i Laube i iing Associate �c�uare feet iz �- i� �istrict�€;; �� f�1ar� �'�ira�nerschmid sal for �� r��.i.%�,�fa��cJs n�r� Lh� �`:�y�co applied for their permit hz�t� ��,�y ��tac�e its application, and �.r ��ap�li��ti�Y� �=�� ;�oted that the City set the sig,n. Ic�c;�:tx�ns prior to any thax the City ;}�as been Y��]Iboards was adopte� ng the n:�.tr.�� :o,f tk�� ,�i'g stated �li�s� si�ns were e was passed in favor apply for a permit. �ussing billboards for quite some December. ns represented with blue dots on the for the golf course. Yhe maximum square footage of these signs, and if they ;� o�`'the Public Facilities District. mum square footage was 340 square feet, and was s exceeded the maximum square footage allowed in the City on stated the ordinance adopted by the Council allows for signage up to Public Facilities and the Conservancy, Recreational, and Preservation � �;�,, ;,., � �� f�i�:�ac�n�r Stevenson inquired if these signs would be consistent with the other billboards. Chairperson Peterson stated that according to the proposal, there was to be money set aside for the purpose of creating a sign design according to City standards, therefore, the City would chose what type of signs these would be, �y Mounds View Planning Comm►ssion Regular Meeting February 16, 2000 Page 15 Mr. Cronin stated they have offered two images, and would work with �h� Cl�y. to find an acceptable design. £"' �;�:. ��y';yi • � ;., Chairperson Peterson stated that the proposal for the two nnpst'�westerly s�g�s to �k�� c��;�; or th� wetland area indicates that they are initially to be constrt�cied as star�darti momo�r�i�l�. �>��lY1G�1��ci structures, and the question of the construction materials o�"��rE� �i�ns as �ddressed ir� t�1�� ag c��>f,��,b; by the applicant. He noted however, there was nothing z��'��g�. ��1i��inr,e that specifi�s t�» ��f��f€rn of the signs. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. Commissioner Kaden inquired if notices of this Planning Associate Ericson stated all notified. Commissioner Kaden inquired if Planning Associate Ericson explai City- owned properties on th� soixl golf cotarsr, aa� �3laine, whic�� v�lc;r�' subjeci ,;i9:�; �N�r�.. notified. ; Ms. 01ser� :af��Liit��;c� i�`the five Ia�i.i=:. and if they ha.c� a�l ��iv�d noti�fi�,� resid five �1" there side of �tified a in:�: t��c�;'U"�en mailed residents. n�St7 4�,c�. �}�' �:he ga,lf course property were re than �ve properties, which include many � 1Q, �:�sco, and some properties north of the -�� s�ated all properties within 350 feet of the to the south of the golf course were within 350 feet, cd it ``u�as his understanding that notices were mailed to these ,,. " Olsen inquired if �'<�ler Media has provided a cost estimate for the construction and allation of the two si:�ns proposed for the golf course, itself. ng Associate;;<�ricson stated at this time, he did not believe anything specific had been :�I xr� terrn� �r� the type of City golf course signage would be approved. He stated the golf ,� ;., �; ,;�i�n� �;r� not a part of this application, because they are allowed with the ordinance that �c��t�c� the previous year. Chairperson Peterson pointed out that there was a connection between these two proposals in the sense that the financial offer that is made by this company helps the City toward the design and construction costs of the signs currently under consideration. r Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2000 Page 16 Community Development Director Jopke stated with regard to whether o�� .c�� ; could approve this item without a recommendation of the Planning Commis�a�r.� � �; � of the ordinance indicates "The Planning Commission shall ma�� nding oa� f��;� ` such actions or conditions relating to the request, as it deems n�cessary to G�,�'� y r�i purpose of this title." He advised that the following par-��gY•��11 indicat�s ;"T`he �i not grant a conditional use permit until it has received �. � t��n� � �f�r� irecommen� >�ty Council on 1125.01 �{,ommena ;,,, �raa3.r�i: and `�f45� �,�, a��x.�r,� �laall �� _ .�� _ __. ...�. _ Planning and Zoning Commission and the City staff, �� s:i�;il�� c��i ��c�ays after the ii� ��i a��:�r,�a�ai- Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at which the r�r.�Ta�;��. `��,�� :c�nsidered." He explained that according to the ordinance, the City Council could rule �� E�. �t�r��:��rial use permit, after 60 days from the first Planning Commission consideration of �k�e rriai.�.f;r. Commissioner Stevenson stated page 5 of Eller lVl� propose the two most westerly signs on the edg� 4��' standard monopole billboard structures, and; fI�E��, course is expanded." He pointed out that for those skeleton, single-pole billboard, because th� golf cout he did not see any nice designs for tliese monop�l� been spent on the construction des�gz� o£�he other �'oi Mr. Cronin st�ted they were expansior�., �c�c�i�1g that it tiu4�i recomr��r�c� �1:��: these si�r�� : Arthur ]C➢�a�uIl'e ��r�� construction �g�i�� r�3vin� where un��rta�i7 af"�1�� .. y: have b�Cick structur�� ir S ,,, str�tGf�res because of t � �,. He'�stated they had nc stzuctures for the exb however, ��Fz�r;'`gi��j�osal incli��'it��` s�atement "We �1��r; �.��k�aAat�,ar�a be oi�i�sxa�i�lly constructed as be c�i�v�r��c� �o �his �esigrn when the golf f��teet� y�:a��, rlae �tty could be looking at a Se �expai�sic�n m�� riot ever occur. He stated "signs, althaugh much time appears to have ir signs unclear Y-�;s;��r.�c�i�1� �h� �chedule anticipated for the golf course � appro�J��xt;�r� :t��;�c�x�amendation of the Planning Commission to he othef �: ��. �xplained that this was not a requirement they 3.iiv� of �`11�x- :i'��dia stated the original intent of the two poles was for �,r�� urpo>��; �n��that access to this area is somewhat dif�icult, and they li �;c��:}��s� �x�a�ision schedule. He indicated that if the City would like to xx� �r+;�c7, this could be done, however, they had proposed the single pole �a��.��d, and because they were uncertain if they would have to move. �ar�r�c� to do this type of construction, and then have to relocate the 5ion of the golf course, which would involve a great expense. He City would like to have brick structures in this area, this could be done. inquired regarding the State criteria for obtaining a permit to allow for the I�r. ]7ean indicated the City's criteria for billboards are more stringent than the State criteria. He commented they were confident the State would respond favorably in this regard. Chairperson Peterson stated one of the criteria of the State is that these signs be based in a commercial area. K Mounds View Plnnning Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2000 Page 17 Mr. Dean stated this was correct, however, a precedent had already been s similar situation. Mr. Cronin added that the issue of the dual p�ria�tting is' Commission or the staff, and it is addressed in the resolution �e �tated thf the unique nature of the Mounds View Public Facilities 7a�rar�� Code, as . elsewhere in the Metropolitan area, they were confiden� cl�r��`�ould obt�z� <.,,. from the State. ' Commissioner Miller stated she was uncomfortable with ��„��-� effectively cut Sysco out of the picture, although the City Ca�� this regard. `"`"'''" Commissioner Hegland advised that there regardless. He indicated the City could be ruling pertaining to the problem with the crit� Commissioner Stevenson suggested the the location of the most westerly sign application has now come forwa� d� slightly, because there are great�r t�ar� matter may come back to the pla.nziing other issu��,, Y�� sign in cic��,�;,L nx�q�ci►nit to know i�"�1jiw i� �ossibl�-" �:�OXI. design as installed, to the fir; �missio ld be f 1,000 to er crty, �n a ��u� to the `,��a'r, due to ;r zl� ,.� Ci;lOriS n ioi- six signs, which rr�ay i�verrule their decision in �olution �i�r i1�� Sysco proposal ��st for vas�i�?�ir,c:, or some sort of n send thiJ ifE��xt bacic to the Council, to see if �amined, with the awareness that the Sysco might be��rossible to adjust the six locations �'eet be�aeen them. He pointed out that the wa�l�:�n�'ormation that due to the wetlands or ��c1 not be relocated, however, he would like �e r,vat�!id �il� e to see a standard set with regard to the billboard tha� tt��s ''is �1�� only place in the City where billboards will ever be c1 set a,��r��ard to indicate that the rest of the billboards be similar ,,; Cor�n�ssioner Hegland ,inc��iec1 if the Sysco billboards would be subject to a sunset clause as ,., vu�`�� Commissioner K�d`e►t.,s�ated the City ordinance contains the fifteen-year sunset clause. .: ;__ �?;��nning Associate Er�Gson stated this was correct. He explained that the sunset clause applies to ,� . th� biliboards on the �olf course, as well as the billboards that would be located on the Sysco ��rc�p��y. " ". �,��rru�ia�s�an� Stevenson inquired if either of the billboards on Sysco property would be i�i c�r��c�a�a[ billboards pertaining to this company. Planning Associate Ericson stated it was his understanding that these would be standard outdoor advertising signs. Commissioner Hegland inquired who would be responsible for removing the signs, after the fifteen-year period. r Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Planning Associate Ericson stated the City Council would pro the necessary steps to ensure for an orderly removal, within a c� Commissioner Kaden inquired if there was any language in the signs. He stated he had not been aware that the ordi�� on the golf course, and during previous discussions, a q�sc to the necessity to include language pertaining to objection February 16, 2000 Page 18 revie� ��: ��:ti;�r, and take of yeat-s {�.� 4 f�� ;� F�.aset date. ;;,; y��a ;, nce r�lating to t�� c��;r��. of �� latiw other sign� �,��t�. �ft��,3�: bi-ought forward with! ��i r� Planning Associate Ericson stated the ordinance regul<'r.iir�g f�illl�c>Fi content that appears on the billboards, as this would be a violation oi`� stated that being that the City is the property owr��x c�� fi�a�: �ai. o��osed ability to dictate the type of content allowed on th�, yi��;,'��r°t��t�,�s the the ordinance can not impose these types of rec�uir�;ar�c,�is. Chairperson Peterson indicated that Ell prohibit the display of any advert�sing f position, or advocating and chan�es zn product or service whose purchas� pr u sole exception of the advertisPZ7��rat��`'of t We hav� t�a�?�?d this restric��c��a �liz�iinate from o�.�� ;J�t�z�asing copy�.''y �� <siated these c�r�e;s �� dve�-tisin� `rc��a�r �� hat a proposal. Commissioner ��.�.cle� ��r��d, addin; and alcok�o�,:>ancl ii' c�n� �s �l�or��d, w ^person Peterson igns that are loc that control, if tr ?a1r_1 not dictate the a��i:�zrient rights. He r�r, i�;, �� e City has the ��`�errient, however, r�1�Iedia's prt�posal ir�tlicv�?�s °��ller Media Company will r polit�cal ��ndidates, �t�vei�cisi�g promoting any editorial �ublic patr.�y or regul�tions, and the advertisement of any e is rea�r��cced by t1�� age of the purchase or user, with the �e Mint��oi� �tat�-T,ottery, or an Indian operated casino. , alrr�c��t a�� ?k ��e potential sources of controversy arising hat i� �i�s p:��4-sonal opinion, one of the more offensive of romotirig gambling, which is specifically endorsed in this �.�' he found gambling to be just as offensive as cigarettes ot the other. �d ��e lease agreement would allow the City to control the content of on::__City property. He stated he would assume that Sysco could also � desired. oner Stev��son stated this would not need to be included in the resolution, however, the �'o��z�ston could forward their views to the City Council in a recommendation, ;�.:�zear in�orporate more stringent controls in their lease agreement in terms of what type ��` ��eY�mitted. Commissioner Stevenson stated he thought they should do this, because the matter is out of their hands once it is forwarded to the Council. __ r Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2000 Page 19 Commissioner Miller agreed. She explained that at this time, they we��;' F�� recommendation as to whether or not this proposal meets with �he .Code, ai�f� �s.�i as far as the Code is concemed, if there was anything that wou�d �ause them �f� c�, Commissioner Laube stated the Commission should serncl � further work be done with regard to the Sysco considerat�c; potential for variances and other problems. He indica��;d they should request the City Council and the Golf Cours anything can be done about the sixth sign, and if they can � are a good partner with the City. He added it wou,{d Commission to send this back with this recommendation. nr. Commissioner Miller inquired if they could particular resolution. Planning Associate Ericson stated this Commissioner Kaden stated it before the Commission, and fc Sysco. �� to the i�'opriate t the Co back making a not certain s r�qtaest. .;:�,� >:. ;:. �-:;� °. ,�,. .t� :a recomrr��c1��.i�:�t� s:�� ' ; �. . ,. " 1t �s not t}�ex�c' <%�L�ri ��`. ,�: L�`a2k ��t�re they make thcir de�°��>�*�zi, � ��c��r-��i�b:�� attempt to determine if �»� !� �uaci� �:��u�o, simply because they �lie ��i�, �� i�e.hali of the Planning or io �n��i�i,,�; �q�� c��c+sion. ��.��a�e iter��, �nc1 r�ot act upon this �':i1�a�; �'lanning Commission. �le the resolution that is currently attempt to resolve the issues with Comn�«�ri�� s��elopme��i: �� Dir��;�e>r Jopke st��.fied ttiis could be done, however, the Planning Comi7��s ;��r��s ��r,��nmer��atit�� c;<f�.,,€�� .nclude a stipulation to this effect. Commission�r' �c��aic9c�� :,�o�r��<;�i �t�s� �;hai t�ie Planning Commission could table the item for 60 days. He stac�� :t �1��:_�r �,�3.f,rov� �lii� ��soiution, and forward it to the Council, the Council could change it, �pprov� ii:, ��c� A;�a<��, iNO�ald b�'the iinal decision. He stated he would rather see the item tabled, �nd a separai� rr:f,�3rr��;�i=iation forwarded to the Council. ssioner Stevenso�;;;st�,t�d he did not believe they could vote on the matter at this time, : knowing if the is;sues that have come forward could be resolved. ioner Joh��s;a`� stated the issues pertain to the appearance of the billboards, the spacing, ;<:;;<<::;.<, ysco prpposal, which must be resolved before the Commission could vote on the matter. K�c� �i''staff could provide some language to this effect. CommuniYy ]Development Director Jopke suggested they stipulate that the billboards on the City property be located in such a manner as to allow two billboards on the Sysco property. Commissioner Miller pointed out that the Planning Commission could not necessarily approve the installation of six billboards. � Mounds V�ew Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2000 Page 20 Commissioner Stevenson stated this could be the responsibility of the C�'r.?�' Planning Commission could leave this open, and simply indicate that their r�c�r consideration be made that Sysco be allowed to have two billbaa�t�s on their ��t �� Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the criteria th�y �nJ�i.�lcl use for t.�e nu allowed on the property. He stated this issue should be r-�:sc��T�:�l, in sQ��'manne and the on is that Chairperson Peterson stated the Planning Commissioa� �z-��v�c�t�sly recommended against billboards, nevertheless, the ordinances now allow them, �i��x�i:��, 'r.��; Commission now must examine this matter from a different perspective. He stated. if t�� s�i� ;��»'�blem with regard to placing the signs, the applicant should have an oppor�unit}� io ��:solvc:� �6kz�s, pr�or to taking any action, otherwise, this matter may proceed too quic;,l�l��. ��: 9ta�Fd in lu� ��i��'ic7��,'Sysco has been unfairly penalized in the past, with regard to the u�ili'ry ��;t,' �� oini�d o��i 1.��7"� Sysco has been a very good corporate citizen, and although he do�s not lil�� billUo%i��r1,s, a.r�d probably would not like the billboards on the Sysco property, all partzes must be irra'r.�� i'ai�-1y, ; Commissioner Johnson stated it goes 1,000 feet, because they would not' with this requirement, even if they,;' Commission should make a recoriime Commi5sit�,�� tevensor� M4�•(��I €�a�; nresent�cE_ �z� a.xt�i�;h a �-ec��x�l�.��.c;�d�t;` made by �y�t:a zc�� billb next nnvssioner Laube ilution that they a; City Council at thf � stec± to the ere 500 �ation iY 'estion of th� ininimum spacing requirement of oom to �ut`two billboards on their property, away fr��lii one property line. He stated the ��e�,7ard,; and the other points brought forward. two possib}� 'actions would be to table the resolution as >rl i o the resolution indicating that an application has been �i�y�K �roperty, and that the proposed locations be revisited. c� the resolution and take the matter up again at the ��a.��y should table this resolution, direct staff to prepare a new �s amended, pursuant to the current discussion, and provide this to meeting. _ �}�a�rperson Peterso;� stated it appeared to be the consensus of the Commission that this item be k�c>;t��a��ec� ��Y�t�l iheir�next meeting, at which time, the two applicants may have determined some �i��.�?.� i� ac�o�r�modate their purposes. He stated they should include a recommendation in the r��c��i��ar�. �i�ai: '+_ndicates that the applicants should retain control over the content of the signs, as per th� Iease agreements. He indicated they should also recommend the Council address the issue of sign construction, to make the monopole signs for the westernmost billboards more compatible to the other billboards. Commissioner Johnson stated there should also be standards that relate to the appearance of the billboards as well, and that the brick design be continued throughout all of the billboards. Mounds View Planning Commisseon Regular Meeting MOTION/SECOND: StevensonBerke. To Table Considerati the March l, 2000 Meeting of the Planning Commission. >f Ayes — 8 Nays — 0 Chairperson Peterson summarized that they were left with and content of the signs, as well as testimony from the audie with staf�s conclusion that the property values would no� issues for staff and the two applicants. He requested clat� City was applying for the permit on behalf of Eller Ivledaa Community Development Director Jopke advis City, as the property owner, and the City is th� a� David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road stated he ; indicated he had seen the Planning �t�mmissio Commission was about to table this �t�r�: He a Superintendent John Hammersch��zcl� had indir�;�'r. lose $800 per day, and he had wan�t;d to m�l<.� �t he did r�c��: �� ;lieve the :i��r�a '��ould be ��b , Hammet's�hxt�ir.lf: �was noi �r��Fx��,. � a, �» had ir�ci,ic Commissior��r ��o1�z��o�� days, howeve�-, 'r.�� 1�'icy Mr. Jahnk�;stal�ci il�iy :::.:> for 6Q;;d;�ys. �i �'`: ��°: :; �TanA � missioner Johnson ��`�i►nin� Commission. �ia.i�'d �i� �:oulc� �e �ci., ai1i. � February 16, 2000 Page 21 Resolu�ior� i�f�. �O6•-00, Until .:�� <: ,�:,� : The;tfi�tion r,a.rri��_ � c?'<<�` ��l z1 ��;:•,�a�;� of placement, conv'r,it�c;�ic�n xj��i�e��ai; �egarding a disagreerr►ent ra�n��xr.��t�, 1�� stated these were io�� Y'��a r,�ic;s>;. u�hether or not the m Use ��Y�rni'� is issued to the ��ttended t�� g�r�vious Council meeting. He rieeting on, television, and had seen that the sed that a� the Council meeting, Golf Course that if th�s matter was delayed, the City would �Ia��rz�� Commission aware of this. He stated �r�c�ing that he was uncertain why Mr. :� c1�.is was a very important issue. e�-stand the importance of $800 per day for the next 14 :these signs for the next 15 years. , with this postponement, the item could be delayed that the item had been tabled unit the March 1 meeting of the ��.r. ..=U�hnke stated ;;he� had simply wanted to inform the Commission regarding the apparent u�-��xa�,y of th�s z��-#�fer. He explained that the bonds could not be paid on the golf course, which pf�; a;�jcat u'�r� happy about, however, when it comes to his money, he does not want to see any ��;�<�y�, �� commented that this is not to say that he likes the signs either, however, he does not lilce 'co �ay out of his own pocket for these things. He thanked the Planning Commission for their consideration. Commissioner Miller stated they did not want to see any delays either, however, they would like to be fair to Sysco. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2000 Page 22 Mr. Jahnke stated he agreed with this 100 percent, and his only conc�� '�J�s r,r�e financial consideration. He stated that everyone was aware of how displ�ased he is �,t��. L�a� '�onds at the golf course that must be paid, and this was the money that was t�:�ssist in this: Chairperson Peterson stated it was good that Mr. Jahnl�e �� brought t��'�poi�� c�� r�,°��; a�a.d. ,it= needs to be discussed further. He stated he was uncet�c�i;�;� ��.i i�wo u��eks woulci YT��cc° ��eat', deal of difference, because it would take that amount oi ��1�; ;�� ,u�ciently resolve tl�r �>�her issues, regardless. ; ;;,,, Mr. Jahnke reiterated that he had misunderstood, and had;..nnly h�arr� l�Q c��ys, adding that $800 per day at 60 days represents a substantial amount of money. He siaE�r1 t`'r.:�E, �z�aiter must have been tabled as he came down to City Hall, and h� ��z�c� ;,j�as;t wanted' �a ��i�� fais information forward. �. �r�.��:. ; :;,_. Chairperson Peterson stated he would asstaut�te there ts a. forx��l' c��%r��`t'�signing at some point, and inquired where the $800 per day fits tri�oAthe tim}�g of thr i:. ' Community Development Director estimated the City would lose it� billboards are delayed the it would'. number oz" other issues, ,: �t�c1t ��` matter�':', process, occur, ir this the �t�� E o�ant of tir�i a�°��i� Planni be w fdp%e stated $::800 was th�>'amount that Mr. Hammerschmidt revenues, xn that eve,ry ;day that the construction of these ost the Ci'ry 6�tween ��00 to $1,000. He stated there were a the leas�,; a.z;�'�PZxt�z�fi; which must be developed, finalized, ncil, an�� °h� �a� not certain regarding the time line for these �ust bc; obtair�ed, however, he was uncertain regarding this �c��`t;�l. -�Ie explained that there were other actions that must :�t��r,ni��ion action. point the revenues to the City would commence, should iunity Development Director Jopke stated this is probably stipulated in the lease agreement, �er, he would ass��irme that when the signs are constructed, and there is advertisement in �;:�:: the signs woul�<:�egin to generate revenue. von � Pt�, yr�n inquired if this would not be any time earlier than the construction and first R/lr�. �ea�► siated the first payment would be made when the construction has commenced. He indicated that they do not have any control at the beginning of the process, however, once they are ready to pull a building permit, should have a crew available for construction. He stated once all of the discretionary approvals are completed, they could commence the process. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2000 Page 23 Chairperson Peterson commented that the issue of $800 per day,in lost re premature to bring forward at this point, because there are so maay steps ir} Mr. Dean pointed out that this was not their number, howev�r, �`t was sense of urgency with regard to this matter. somewhat i�r-, ihe Commissioner Stevenson stated the Planning Commissio��. .,�tr��,� �,;�ir�pletely ignore this %�t:�r at this time. Commissioner Laube stated the first item to forward to th� �`'o�bncii z� � 3�r��k��i: i:l�at the City work with Sysco to resolve the sign spacing issue as relates co the �ysco �rc�s�t i�,T, ' Chairperson Peterson inquired if both applicants f�1i' (:E�.�y �c��i�t� �,�orlc out sptxxe sort of agreement to the benefit of both parties. Planning Associate Ericson stated on explained that this depends upon the,s,� environmental features on the golf cc�u of the;;,�ity, thf and t��re may b th� ��liacent pro d'`do vvhat they could. He concerns regarding different Chairperson Peterson stated he wrou�d like to �;ti�x�sa��n p,a�.c� rieed for a formal resolution in order to proceed ir� �rk�at appears cQ be �1n� i�atural covA-s� �i r��;�i�3r�. Planniri� �s�e��zat� ]Ericso� stai�d the City would sit down with Sysco representatives and examine tl1i� ��;�a�, Commissioner �i.P�r��sa� stated the s� �s� �;,. ;>;, Comr�t�qioner Hegland s��i�;c� a l�i�� shc item was in regard to the design of the signs. be related to any type of plan to expand the golf course. ;ff rimissioner Laube expl;�ined that the golf course expansion has not been researched in terms o wetlands or the oth��onsiderations. He stated all of the signs should be of consistent design. ;�,:; � Stey;��son pointed out that he, Mr. Seipp, and Chairperson Peterson had attempte � prs�s�bility of the last nine holes of the golf course, as members of the Golf Course �d advised that this expansion may never occur. He stated in light of this, none of nsideration should be tied in with the golf course expansion. Mr. Seipp stated in his recollection, the primary concern with regard to the golf course expansion was the wetlands, adding that this was Sysco's reason for dedicating almost 40 acres to the City, and requested this property remain in the park system. He added that this was also the reason they had considered so many different designs, in order to construct the golf course with the least Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2000 Page 24 disruption to the wetlands. He stated he was not familiar with the additioYi�� ;��r�z�� s4�i�� this area, f;;. however, he would hope that the City would maintain a strong c�onc�rn for �t�E; �;°v�,�t��zc%s. ;:: Chairperson Peterson inquired if in terms of the constructic3� �t�he Planni�g C��r��ii ;:�ic�r� should take up the applicant's offer to make all of the signs of similar construction. '' Commissioner Johnson pointed out that this requirement sl��€�.1�; �l,sa include any future �ig�s �y - other applicants. ;,, Chairperson Peterson stated the sign locations were prr�bably +:i��, , accessible sites on this property are limited. He stated he would no�: �r course were to be expanded for another nine holes, i:l��; �i�;�� x� i:his area w because he did not know that there would be tha� 7�a�z��y �r}9�;��iial locatio there was great concern about preserving v�rhat is tli�� a.��c� �Pc�r� hau �;�:v.r closely, he was not certain there was suffic��i�` area to ��parac�, �� Chairperson Peterson stated they l items in the staff report, pertaining which it is proposed, and she beli subjective opinions on th� p�rt o� basis foi- ��tas without a �7i��»a�ty subjec'r.iv��: �1�r,i,ion on tkt�;�3:�g°k p�°;; them ��Y, cox�sxd�x��iion. Commissio��ei� �c�hrrst�n inquire new Hi�hwav 1t7. hat the number of 7a�e that if the golf � ��ve to be moved, �r them. He stated examined this very l i:�;c;+�ived testu�ony from � resident who felt that one of the � vr��d{;ther o�f`��t this use would tend to depreciate the area in �c� i i�ati it ��uld affect=�;�ier property. He stated these were af�', as vu�;ll a�, �h� �rs�perty owner, and they have no formal alysis c��' .j�:,,fc;��r; �3C�' explained that there would likely be a ; City �t'��r��,ii, t�;hen the tabled resolution is brought before nt's property was located on the opposite side of i�sioner Kad�� ;�r��t�;ti 't}� believed all five residential properties were located on the te side of the k�i��way .:°�Ie stated that in his opinion, the proposed signs are not as ctive as a monopc��e s�gri, however, his main concern would be in terms of the lighting. He i out that he has<�la-iven by the new theater, and these lights are on all night. He stated he s:�;; not want to liv,�;;t�'ext to this. ;;> iss�oner �pl�nson stated the lights are not supposed to be directed onto the neighboring ti�;� ��atrperson Peterson stated the light was visible as it reflects off of the atmosphere, :�TF.n� there is fog, however, there should be no direct light leaving the site. Commissioner Johnson stated he would be more concerned regarding the golf balls being hit into the backyard, than the billboards. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if this was a legitimate concern, in relationship to billboards. r Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2000 Page 25 Commissioner Johnson stated there had been some discussion that the b _. prevent the golf balls from being hit out of the golf course. ,;;�%;;;;; Community Development Director Jopke stated was awar� a��' this discus��c>t� �-��; that Golf Course Superintendent Hammerschmidt has b��n considert�ig thc c:cr; berming along the highway. He stated the proposed billi�t;�Kd� are c��signed to fit berm. actually out Ms. Olsen suggested the Planning Commission include F� r�.�i��'��, '�� i:��e Council in their recommendation that they consider decreasing the numb�x oi bi�il�c��j�c��s t�, �, in the event that other alternatives for the fair treatment of Sysco are not a�vailable. �he, �;�X��aancd that this might provide the Council with an option they might not o%�a��7ai�� b� aware o�'. Chairperson Peterson explained that if such a�,�ttua�ion �,<;3• . stipulation to the resolution, at their next Ctinsiderati stated he was not aware that a specific aGtion at thi�, however, it may be perceived as unnec�ssarily antagQri Commissioner Stevenson expl� allowed to have their two si�ras, He stated i�i�e� Council woudti ��;��. how�v��, �� ;1�aving it c��j�z� t deterrru�� r��c �n�ans to accot�.�l' Commissionet� �--I��;l��xc9.: the signs that; i�z�v� �r;�,, the time,tk��::�ysco a�� :. . � �� " - Cori�missioner Hegland H:.::� ,::_: :. p;��iperty line issue, the� �� regard at this time a.. w�� {,�r �-�Yi��,, the Coir►mission could add a �;_�, ax�d r��7a�m�n� this at that time. He #ime woul� ner,�;ssarily assist in this issue, stic. ,;;. �a�cJ. that cl�� :'oinmissiat� uwould recommend that Sysco be ��c� work tl�i� c�a�E. .with t�i�� City, thereby, leaving it open-ended. ,h��rc� that ai�x� c�a�'r�e sr��utions would be to drop one of the signs, s �r��d, the �1��rz�iz�g ��Commission would allow the Council to quirec� �F �t-�seclted �y �a�r�. language to indicate that Sysco's signs should match Co�imissioner Stevenson stated this should be addressed at �ut: that they were requesting Sysco and the City to work out the would appear to be appropriate to provide a recommendation in ssioner N1i�e�`'�stated it would not be necessary to require the signs be identical. �<:<::�::_ :: ssioner;�egland stated they should be complimentary. ��qr�i;�aiu�,��K��r Stevenson stated these signs are not before the Planning Commission at this time. �hairpex-son l�eterson added that there is not even a formal application at this time. Commissioner Stevenson stated the Commission members all appeared to be in agreement that something should be included pertaining to the content of the signs. �� Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2000 Page 26 Chairperson Peterson stated this language could indicate that `It is the P recommendation that the property owners add a clause to their. ;l�a,se agre� retain the right to remove objectionable signage. He pointed �ut that if could retain that right, this was probably the best that could ��xpected. - Commissioner Johnson stated the time to make this reco before the Planrung Commission with their proposal. Commissioner Stevenson stated they were recommending He stated they could indicate in their notes that this was c resolution. He added that they could indicate th�t z�obo signs, however, they would like this point to be exar��i�icc� 1 Chairperson Peterson stated that even if ordinance, it could be added to the lease ag Planning Associate Ericson inquired i� the : resolution be drafted, or that staff �i�rp�y sit d Planning Commission's recommend�i�ons witl�. ent. ��n��ation wo h�a � �3t'� ��:�'i.ti,r ,� SCl1SS�C� ti,y;,t?i y ha.s co„�.�c� � r.kiP �City �;o i r;�ryni�� this Yng Con with the d to the� 1��7air�,� �'s�#n�nission's ,�:��. �;;:r�i.i��; that they �rc�ti� ��ci��ii,y owners f��<� ; <;� be when �v�f;c� �;�� 1 keep this in mind, �, and is lost in the �t�e content of the addressed in the �n was recommending that a cil and provide a report on the Commissl��;:r ;tevenson 4,i�Y�r� ihis would �� aopt�ate, adding that staff should convey the Commis;;i«c�' ;��ason for i;�,�l�t��'��is item, tiv��i�1� ��5entially is that they are not ready to vote on the ma#�e�� a, t1ai� �:ifn�, bF�;�tis� �a�`�h.c;�;e issues. Planning Assv�;;��t�; ��i�;;��7� provic±�r� � su�rr�nary of the items that the Planning Commission would like to have adr�z•�� ifi��tks. th� �"ounril. �� stated the first item pertains to the spacing of signs with relatt��hship tc� t�1�; �;�;�c� .s�roperty; the second item is that all signs be of similar construction, and th�; tliird item is �1�� i��; 1eas�;, agreement contain language that the property owner reserves the�ng�it to refuse objec�ac�a��.'r�1�- �>ontent. nmissioner Kaden ir�yuired if the Commission would like to include a comment regarding the dent's concern pertaining to depreciated property values. . tet`��ricson stated this issue was very vague, and he was uncertain what the to address this. Chairperson Peterson commented that if he were in this situation, he would be far more concerned with regard to traffic noise. Commissioner Miller stated this resident was aware of approximate locations of the billboards, however, she was not certain this resident could be so specific at this time, as to state the billboard would be visible from her window. r Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Planning Associate Ericson pointed out that six billboards rather one, and perhaps two, depending upon the location of Commissioner Kaden commented that this resident might ha�tP had the proposed billboards, as opposed to a typical monopole �;i�;�;she � February 16, 2000 Page 27 Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correci, addiKr4; �r.��+; �� property, a brick pole may be visible, with no type of signag� ��.�. �ji��;r, ! Commissioner Kaden stated he did not find the proposed bill.boards io "�� i Planning Associate Ericson stated staff �c�ulc recommendations and sentiments to the Coun.�il at the f.. ,,: this item back before the Planning Commiss��n'at their Chairperson Peterson thanked the audi�nce memb inl�; �c�;; �,�� visible, but �'thoughts, �fi��;�� .r;1an�; ve been antit ��a;�,;�,�,. the perspectiv� of her the Planrlirig Commission's - : on February' 28, and would bring zz Tv��r�k� 7, 2000. and input. S. Staff Reports / Items of Z�f4�`n�a�a�H� `` :�hf;; ' .y,, ,.: ' ':; .�0 1��°evious Counc�l:Actions Commui�it�r �"��r�l�prraent ��ir�r��r ;��1<e stated at the February 14, City Council Meeting, the Council a��rc�vs�c3 u�Prond reacAia��; axac� adoption of Ordinance 637, which was the ordinance creating thc ��iF,�� t��aclas-c1.s ic��' t�1�� ' i�ia�ilic Facilities and Conservancy, Recreational, and Preservation Zt�xun�,, ��y�f-ic,��. �-Cc i.nr,�a�a�ed a paragraph relating to Planned Unit Development Districts ��s' �dd�i� rc� �1�� nrdinance, because the Sysco property is zoned Planned Unit T 1 ii� _ _�.. . .,.. xiung Associate Eric�sc�n 5faced the City Council also adopted Ordinance 653, which is an ,< ergency Interim Ord��ance regulating the siting and location of tattoo shops, body piercing :: :. ors, and establishrt�i�nts of this nature. He explained that an emergency ordinance allows the t to review the,;�:��guage of the ordinance, and adopt it at the same meeting. He advised there ;::, .�g�a requir;�r�'��z�t for two meetings, and a 30-day time period is not required in order for the i��a�� p b�`��effective. He explained that this allows the City the opportunity to review ;��f;� �� regard to the possibility of siting these types of businesses within the City. Planning Associate Ericson stated at this time, the City has no language pertaining to these types of businesses, and approximately a month ago, the City was approached by such a business. He stated that with the adoption of this ordinance, staff would put together some language, after which, the Planning Commission would review this language and make a recommendation to the City Council for the appropriate language to be included in the City Code. r Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting B. Update on Coalition-wide Planning Commissiari:;a ,;:`':;::'<:::::«;: Planning Associate Ericson stated the Coalition-wide Planr�ia;��`�Co been scheduled for Wednesday, March 29, at the Shore��i� �orr staffwould provide additional information, as it becomes ?�T��F�l.�l�. 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Rep No reports were considered. 10. Adjournment There being no further business before meeting at 9;10 p.m. (The meeting immed��tel Respectfully submitted, :; Rick J��c� Comrr,�i��fl�z,P ��i�,��lnument �i��t��- __ _ _ __ __ _ Transcribed b�; Trish Pearson T;...,.,, r... �. s'��r r*,a., �,,.,r..,,�.o�,,,�r �,. �ianning �;c�d�f'r�i< ourned�to the A�E February 16, 2000 Page 28 eeta n ha.s �eterson adjourned the Session) Governrnent Training Service 480 Cedar Streef Suife q01 SainF Paul, Minnesola 55 I 0 I-2290 Richard A. Jopke City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Y First Class Mail U.S. POSTAGE PAID St. Paul, MN Permit No. 3137 Mounds View, MN 55112 ' , f , ..:. 'fhese workshops.are for you ... REGISTER TODAY; SPACE IS IIMITED! . . � . . . . . . - � ' 6 � ' . . . . , . . . � � . . . � � . - . . '. _ . ' . . . . � . . . . . � . . � . . ' � ; LAIVD U5E PI.ANNING WORK5HOP5 � � . � FOR PIANNING COMMISSIONERS AND EIECTED OFFICIALS Mar�h - May, 2000 -- VARIOUS LOCATIONS . . _ '. ' I ; t ❖ Annual Planning Insfifufes . a �. ❖ Beyond The Basi�s � _ Q 4 �k ❖ Advanced Zoning Applicafions � i` �:• Environmenfal Plannin and � ` g `. . � Complian�e �,! � � � �JL NEW 1'HIS YEAR!! � {j , f, � ❖. Building Community Character '� �, �-. Sponsored by: GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE Co-sponsors: Assoeiafion of Minnesota Counties, League oP Mirinesota Cifies, Mefropolitan Council, Minnesota Association of Township5, Minnesota Chapter, American Planning Asso�iation r r ANNUA� PLANNING INSTITUTE: THE 6ASIC5 Wednesday, March 29 Thursday, March 30 Safurday, April I ihur�day, April ' Sf. Cloud Grand Rapids Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Cente. Workshop: 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. (final �heck-in: 8:30 a.m.) NUTS AND BOLTS OF PLANNING, ZONING AND SUBDIVISION REGULATION For 7hose New to Land Use Planning or Interested in a Review of Fundamenfals: ❖ The HisFory, fhe Process, fhe Resul�s ❖ ImplementaHon, Exer�ising Aufhority, Zoning/Subdivision Ordinan�es, Amendments, Permits, Enforcement :• �egal Limitations, Avoiding Lingation, Planning, Zoning and Subdivision l.aws, °Due Process", Conduchng a Proper Public Hearing and Recording Your Findings ❖ Who ParHcipates in fhe Planning and Zoning Process and Where Do You F(t in ❖� How fo Maximize Your Impa�t as a Commissioner, Membership Responsibilihes ❖ Hands-on Simulations of Actual Planning and Zoning Dilemmas, Hof Issues, Answers to Your Queshons FACU��nr . William GrifPirh; Attorney, Lark�n, Haffman, Daly & Lindgren Robert Lo�k�ear, Director oP Plann(ng and Publi� A(falrs, Washingron Coun�j Thls course has been approved for Conlinuing Real Esfafe Educah�on Credlh �:; � : �'j BEYOND THE B� 5 Saturday, April 9 Thursday, April I 3_ . Thursday, May 4 Willmar St. Cloud Brooklyn Cenfer WorkShop: 9:00 a.m. -�4:30 p.m. (final che�k-in: 8:30 a.m.) PLANNING IN DEPTH . For Those Who Wave General Knowledge of the Planning Process or Have Affended fhe Annual Planning Institute: The Basi�s ❖ Overview of land Use Tools and Standards, ❖ Review rhe History of land Use Regulahon. . •3 Source and limifafions of Authority to Plan and Zone, Community Parlicipation ❖ Fundamental Legal Prin�iples and Subdivision RegulaHons •: Comprehensive Plan Elemenfs in Oepfh ❖ Advanced Zaning ApplicaFions, Explore Innovative Ways fo Guide �and Use Development ❖ Learn about Preparing and Using Planning Tools to Deal wifh a Wide Variety of Developmenr Problems ❖ An In-depfh Review of Ihe Planning Process, from Proper �egal Notice to Development of �indings of Fact ❖ Small Group Sessions Applying Planning and Zoning Prin�iples, Hands-on Achivities ❖ Examine the �egal Issues in Depth, What Are Takings? Applying rhe Principles, Living wifh fhe 60 Day Limif ❖ Brief Overview of Minnesora's Enviranmental Review Program - EAW, EIS, Al1AR ❖ Practi�al Advice, Answers to Your QuesHons, Discussion -- Dis�over Shortcuts fo Avoid Pitfalls FACULTY Karen Cole, Altorney, Kennedy & Graven Phil Carlson, Planning Consullanr, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, in� Thls course has been approved for Connnuing Real Eslale Educalion credit .,. BUILDING COMMUNITY CHARACTER Thursday, April I 2 Brooklyn Center Workshop: 9:00 a.m. � 4:30 p.m. (final check-in: 8:30 a.m.) BUII.DING AND MAINTAINING COMMUNITY CHARACTER This workshop Pocuses on whaf makes up communliy characfer and prachcal ways fo enhan�e it This is advan�ed planning which gets fo the hearf and fabric of fhe community and provides a framework for you fo creafe outstanding places fo live, ta play and fo work. In rhis workshop you will learn how ro: ❖ idenfify and define the important characterishcs of your communify ❖ Tum narural assets info �ommunify rreasures � ❖ Use neighborhoods, business disfri�ts, streets, parks and even highways as character building elements. ❖ Use character zoning and performance slandards ro turn your communiry plan into realify. •S Help your �itizens discover how fhey �an enhance fheir �ommunity's vitality ❖ Thfnk big buf move ahead with realish� steps In�ludes "nuhs and bol�s" presentafions on such fopi�s as cultural resources, the lifes�yle impact of changing demographics and spe�ifi� zoning tools, plus small group sessions designed to help you apply whar you've learned to hypothefi�al [and your owni) situaHons. Join us for a workshop �esigned fo be fhoughr-provoking, useful and fun learning experien�el CORE FACULTY Oick Krier, Planning & Zoning Adminisrrabr, Cih� of Minnetonka Beach . Karen Gill-Gerbig, �aboratory Dlrecror & Program AsSOClare, Center for Anmropology and Cullural Herilage Educahon, Hamline Universi�y and Councilmember, Cif� of Lauderdale � Plus presenlahons by a varleh� of subJe�r mafter experl� WORKSHOP SITES All workshop sltes are ac�essible to persons with disabilifies and have�free parking for parfi�ipants. A small sleeping room block has been reserved at mosf sites indicated below. Participants needing such overnight accommodafions 5hould make reservations dire�fly with the fa�ilify. Mention fhe "Land Use Planning Workshop" when making reservations fo obtain these special ratesl BfOOk�yf1 �eflf2f INOTE.�ThrsLSachangelnsilehomprev�ous5emina�sll Earle Brown HerlFage Cenier 6155 Earle Brown Drlve (I-94 and 5hingle Creek ParkwayJ Brooklyn Cenfe� MN 55430 6! 2/569-6300 S/eeping. Room Rafe: $90+fax Annua! Planning Insiilul�.• The Baslcs April I& Ap�1120 Beyond 11�e Basics May 4 Advanced Zoning Appllcalions May I 7 Marnlaining Communll� Characie� Aprill 2 Grand Rapids � Sawmill Inn 230/ Soufh Pokegama Avenue Grand Rapids, MN 55744 2/8/326-8501 S/eeping Raom Rafe: $59+fax Annual Planning Inslitule: The Baslcs March 30 Willrnar Holiday Inn & Conferenre Cenfer 2100 Easf Highway 12 Willmar, MN 5620 / Sleeping Room Rafe: $55+rax Beyond h`�e Basics Aprll 8 St. CIOUd Radlsson Suife Hofel � 404 Wesf Sf Germain Sf Cloud, MN 56301 320/654-166/ Sleeping Room Rate: $58+tax Advanced Zoning Applicalions May � Environmenlal Planning & Compllance April 6 Besf Wesfern Kelly Inn � Hlghway 23 & 4fh Avenue Soufh P.O. Bax l 066 Sf Cloud, MN 56302 320/259-8! 13 Sleeping Room Rafe $SOtla x Beyond fhe Basics Aprll I� Annual Planning lnsl11u1�: The Baslcs March 29 Owaionna Ramadalnn I 2 I 2 North Intersfate 35 (infer5ecfion oF # I 4 and #35] Owafonna, MN 55060 507/455-0606 Sleeping Room Rahe: $52+tex Advanced Zoning Applicallons April l 9 �; . �==- � .-a �� iS� � ia ': c�"^' �"�'<_ r r ADVANCED ZONING APPLICATIONS Wednesday, April 19 Wednesday May 3 Wednesday, May 17 Owatonna St. Cloud Brooklyn Center Workshop: 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Final Che�k-in: 8:30 a.m. Nole: The Owafonna and Sf C/oud sessions wil! inc/ude special emphasis on mulh jurisdiclional planning and �egulafion. The Braoklyn Cente� program wil/ provide more concenfraiion on redevelopmenr planning. This workshop follows °The Basics" and "6eyond the Basics" ta offer more.depth info Land Use IsSUes. �eam h�ow to manage more detailed and comprehensive issues suCh as ❖ Using Advanced Zoning Appli�afions fo Break Ouf of rhe "Misuse oi Variances Syndrome" :• Undersfanding the Proper Use and Limitafions to the Use of Condifional Use Permifs ❖ Esfablishing and Urilizing a Planned Use Develapmenf Ordinan�e that Provides Flexibilify and Enhan�ed Confrol ❖ Undersranding fhe Benefits Provided by Performance Zoning ' ❖ How to Approa�h the Regulation of SignS � •3 How fo Incorporafe Urban Design Standard� info Community Zoning Ordinances ❖ How fo Approa�h a Mulfi-Jurisdicrional Planning Sfudy FACULTY John Shardlow, Presidenh, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, lnc; Planning Consullanr Appli�ahon has been made for Conhnuing Real Eslare Educahon Credit ENVIRONNlENTAL PLANNING & CON�PLIAflICE IAIORKSHOP -- LOOKING AT SUSYAINA�ILITY Thursday, April 6 St Cloud Workshop: 9:00 a.m. — Q:30 p.m. (final check-in: 8:30 a.mJ This Workshop fea�hes fhe fundamenfals of environmenfal compliance and environmental planning wifh an emphasis on making informed de�isions regarding impacfs to fhe natural and built environmenf. The course then illusfrafes fhe cumulafive impact5 man's acfivities have had on the natural environmenF within fhe State of Minnesofa. The course also dis�usses the local comprehensive plan and the benePits of�developing and implemenring such plans in managing local and culfural resources. ❖ Learn Environmental Stewardship Prin�iples and fhe Major Environmental Compliance Program Areas including: Air Quality Water Quality Solid Waste Hazardous Material Hazardous Wasfe . Toxic Substances Pefroleum _ Underground Sforage Tanks Noise Pollution Pesticides Above Ground 5forage Tanks Nafural Resources Culfural Resources Land Use Brown Fields ❖ Gef informafion on National, State and Local EnvironmenFal laws, Regulations and Ordinan�e5: The Communify Based Planning Act Mefropolitan Land Planning Acf Minnesoha's Environmenral Policy Act National Environmental Policy Act Environmenfal Impact Sratemenrs Environmental Assessments ❖ Learn Environmenfal �omplian�e Strategies, Self-Evaluation, Program Managemenf, and "Signifi�ant" Tr� FACULTY Ken Nlmmer, Presldent IMPACT Planning, Environmenlal Planner Gunnar Isberg, Gunnar Isberg & Assoclates, Planning Consullanr, former clfy councll member, planning �ommission member, and planning direcbr Hannah Ounevifz, Regional Planf E�ologisr, Minnesola Department of Na�ural Resdur�es GENERAL INFORMATION Ne are pleased fo once again ofier workshops designed especially for citizen planners. This year's sessions provide opportunifies for in-depth 5fudy of �urrent topi�s and hands-on application. Parficipants will enhance their knawledge of various areas of planning and, as a result, become betfer equipped to make re�ommendations and decisions about fhe �ommunities in which fhey live. PROGRAM FEATURES INC�UDE ❖ An ac�omplished faculty with extensive ba�kgrounds in bofh planning and instruction ❖ A Focus on current issues and fimely inFormation �3 Reference materials fo make your job easier ❖ Practical workshops designed by a�ommiftee of planning experts and lo�al offieials If you would like fo make your conhibution to solving land use problems as inPormed and effective as possible._REGISTER TODAYI THESE PROGRAM5 ARE FOR YOU. WHO SHOULD ATfEND? 111embers of planning �ommissions, boards of adjustment and appeals, and governing bodies in Minnesota cifie5, counties and townships. Alsn valuable for members of orher advisory commissions; housing and redevelopmenf aufhorifies, sfaif, real estate professionais, and ofhers working in areas related fo specialized workshop topi�s. �EAL ESTATE CREDITS "Annual Planning Insfifutes" and "Beyond the Basics" has been approved for Continuing Real EsFare Educarion credits. Application is pending for the "Advanced Zoning Workshops" in addifion, application has been made for Continuing Legal Education "real property".credit for each of these �ourses. Approvai is pending. REGISTRATION/CANCEI.�ATION Register at least 7 days prior to fhe workshop date using the forms in rhis brochure. (Spa�e is limited.) Fill out one form per individual; duplicate forms ii regisfering more than one person from your �ommunity/agency. You will not receive confirmafion; but we will notify you if the session you requested is full. Fees will be refunded less a$ I 5 service fee if fhe registration is canceled 3 working days before rhe program. You may substitute anofher individuai for a workshop af any fime. Should weather (or circumstances beyond our confrol) necessitafe program �ancellafion or postponemenf, registranrs will be notified via announcements on WCCO-AM radio and other local Minnesota radio stations. FEES The registrafion Pee for ea�h workshop is $99/per5an. A 5pecial group discounf rate of �85/person is available for organizafions registering three or more people for any of fhese courses. Both fees include a lun�heon meal, refreshmenf breaks and handout � maferials. IMPORTANT To qualify for the group discount, regisfrafions must be mailed in the same envelope! FOR FIJRTHER INFORMATION Contacr Government Training Servi�e Carol Schoeneck (65 I J 222-7409 or Minnesota Toll Free (800) 569-6880: � � _� ' Aboi�r;t��V�RfU(Vi�iUT TRAINING S�RVIC�, Conf�rence'Facilitator ' ' � . ` "GT� , p�rPhe� with '�fViinn��aF�'s., publlc se�t�r 'organi��tia�� ro' pr�vir�e in�ievative;:. c�n�pr��iv�, �1P�Cp'iC�I ��f�f�l�f1CG, trairiing and conJulting ��rviees. It is �gavernec� by ` ,,'r�pr��r�f�tiv�� of th�'l��sa�i�ti�in oP Minn�s�f� Counti��, L�ar�u� oP Mir�ne�Qt� Cities> : , _ . . .: N1inn��et�.,4�saGi�tia� �F lawn�hip �, �lVinne�ai� �egian,al D�velopmenr'Organi��tians; > MIrin�snP� �cflnal ��rd� ,4s�aci�fi�r�o nliir�ne�ol� Stat� Call�ges.;and Universiti�s, Sfate . . . oP. Miiinesota'and Php Ur�iv�rsity r�f Minne�of�: . _ - i� - i CUSTOMIZE & BRING A WORKSHOP T0 YOUR COMMLlNITY! Government Training Service can tailor any of fhese workshops ro meeP fhe �urrent needs of your community and bring fhe program to you. You choose the dafe and location, we provide the fa�ulfy and materials! Benefits of rhis customized approach to land use training include: •:• You �hoose rhe fopics fo be addressed by faculry-- ensuring that currenf key �ommunity issues are covered. ❖ A diverse group from your �ommunity can attend at a far lower cosf fhan sending fhem to the open enrollmenf workshops announced in fhis brochure. •3 You are guaranteed a dafe and fime �onvenfent ro fhe parti�ipantsl Conta�t Carol S�hoeneck ar GTS (65 I/222-7U09, Minnesola roll free 800/569-6880 or e-mail �s�hoene�k�mng�s.org) ho explore me possibilihes. CONSIDERING A GOAL-SETTING OR TEAM BUILDING SESSION? GTS �an provide fa�ilifafors who have extensive experience working wirh local governments like yo� . lead a session for your governing body and/or advisory commissionl We �an facilitafe a pro�ess fo gather cirizen inpuf, set goals, guide problem solving, help priorifize scarce resources, make budget decisions, or help strengthen exisfing teams. This professional, objecfive assisfan�e �an be especially benefieial in fimes of fough decisions. Conlact Mary Saba�Ce (65 I /222-7409, Minnesota roll free 800/569-68B0 or e-mail msabafke@mngfs.orgl fnr all me delalls. ............................................................................_....,..,............,..................,.........................,,..................................:..:.....,....,,.,.........._.........._.,.............. 2000 I.AND USE PLANNING WORKSHOPS -- March-May Reglsrration Form (Please prinf or lype. Form should be duplicaled when reglsl�ring mare Ihan one personlJ Name Jurisdicfion/Agen�y Streef Address City Daytime Phone Fax Number Regisfration Options: (Check all fhat applUl: Annual Planning Insfifufe: The Basics [j March 29 - St Cloud ❑ Mar�h �p - Grand f2apids ❑ Aprll I - Brooklyn Center ❑ April 20 - Brooklyn Cenl�r Beyond the Basi�s ❑ Aprfl 8 - Willmar ❑ Aprll I 3- St Cioud ❑ Mary q - Brooklyn Cenf2r Environmental Planning & Compiiance ❑ April 6 - St Cloud Advaneed Zoning Appli�afions ❑ April 1,9 - Owabnna ❑ May � - St Cloud ❑ May I 7- Brooklyn Cenrer Building Cammunity Characfer ❑ April I 2- Brooklyn Cenrer Title Mow long in this posifion? Stafe Zip E-mHll (It available.) Payment Options: ❑ Endosed is check # in me amounr of $ (payable fo Governmeni Tralning Servicel. ❑ Please bill me at above address; P.O.# (If appii�ablel. NOTE.• An $8/agency billing (�e will be added b rhe amounr owed. SpeClel Ne2d5 lMusCbe recelved arleasrlwo weeks beh�re ihe semina� for which you are regisleringll.• ❑ I have a dietary resrrichon. (specify: l ❑ I requlre some anclllary aids (i.e. sign language inrerpreter, large prinr Braille marerials, erc.l. Please conlact me at _ (Circle one; VOICE or TTYI � ❑ I cequlre some omer aaommodahons. Please �on� me ar (Cir�le one: VOICE or TTYI Return fhis form af least seven days prlor fo the firsf workshop you are artending fo: Government Training Servi�e, 480 Cedar Street, Suit� y0 I, St. Paul, Minnesota 55 I 0 I-22y0 (or fax fo: 65 I/223-5307J. , __ � - _ : ,�> �>�:..:__ _� . . _ � � , -- -- - -- - — --=- - -=-- �- -- � . :. __ _ � _ , _ MOUNDS V�W PLANNING CONIlVIISSION 7:00 P.M. -- April 5, 2000 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Call to Order 2. Roll Call Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. February 16, 2000 CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAHING PL�ASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDR�SS FOR THE MINUTES Planning Cases DE00-001 & CU00-001 Properly Involved: 2848 County Roa.d H2 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 611-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Pernut and Development Review for the Proposed E�cpansion of the Messiah Lutheran Church Facility. Applicant: Messiah Lutheran Church Planning Case VR00-QOl Property Involved: 2741 Hodges Lane Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 612-00, a Resolution Approving a Reduced Corner Lot Front Setback to Allow for a Garage Expansion. Applicant: Cathy Magoris, Property Owner 7. Planning Case CU00-002 Property Involved: 2159 Terrace Drive Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 614-00, a Resolution Contemplating a Conditional Use Pernvt to Allow for the Construction of a 256-square foot Oversized Shed. Applicant: Robert Kleinschmidt Planning Case VR00-002 Property Involved: 8438 Groveland Road Discussion Regarding a Variance Request to Allow for the Insta.11ation of an Eight-foot Tall Fence in the Front Yard of the Property. Applicant: Gregory & Eliza.beth Bnuies 9. Planning Case CU00-003 Property Involved: 8038 Long Lake Road Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 616-00, a Resolution Contemplating a Conditional Use Pemut to Allow for the Construction of a 400-square foot Oversized Shed. Applicant: Juanita Snetsinger and Shelley Hill 10. Planning Case VR00-003 Property Involved: 2400 County Road J Discussion Regarding a Variance Request to Allow for a Reduced Minimum Spacing Between Two Billboards. Applicant: DeLite Outdoor Advertising Company, Inc. (OVER) �� .� __ _ � ._. ,.:- _�, -�' _ . _f r._�_._..� �.s.c��- _ . �� . . � =----�,��,r.:_ i ..., . __.�.t��:....�_ ._.-,. 'f.-...�_,.__ .. .. �_1 r�.,= Planning Commission Agenda April 5, 2000 Page 2 11. Staff Reports / Items of Information a. Previous City Council Action b. 12. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 13. Adjournment to Agenda. Meeting (Immediately Following Regular Me.eting) APPLICANTS: YOUR ATfENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATfEND. THANK YOU. AGENDA SESSION AGENDA 1. Review the Minutes from the March 1, 2000, Planning Com�nission meeting. '.-� H:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�PIANCOMM\PCAGENDA�2000Wpril 5, 2000 PC Agenda.doc � _ _: . - - - - -- - ,. --= = - ._ ,��. - �-`-=- -- - -----;�:;: _�. .. - - ----- - : ,. ---== --=� � � Item # 5 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Title: Planning Crise Nos.: Applicant: Locntion: Introduction: Meeting Date: April 5, 2000 DISCUSSION REGARDING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, DEVELOPMENI' REVIEW �ND WETLAND BUC'FER PERMIT REQUESTED BY MESSIAH LUTHERAN CHURCH. CU00-001, DR00-001, WB00-001 Messiah Lutheran Church 2848 County Road H2 Messiah Lutheran Church has requested city approval of a conditional use permit and development review to allow for an expansion of their facility. The subject property is zoned R-1, which allows churches as a conditional use. Currently, Messiah does not have a conditional use permit. The development review is necessary according to Section 1006.06 of the City Code, which requires that any development, redevelopment or expansion of e�sting facilities be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. 13ackground: This item was first addressed at the Planning Commission's meeting on March 15, 2000, at which time much discussion took place regarding the site plan and the impact of the expansion to the immediate area. Pertinent to that, certain key issues were identified as being deficient, needing more review or additional information. As stated in the earlier report, the expanded building areas would match the architecture and design of the existing brick building and would be constructed in two phases. The applicant is seeking approval of only the first phase of development at this time. The first phase of the proposed expansion will involve two building additions totaling 5,220 square feet and a partial parking lot removal and replacement. The west single-story addition will add office space and a meeting room while the two-story addition on the east side will add a more spacious lobby and gathering area, more classroom space, a larger mechanical room, an elevator and restrooms. The second phase of the proposed expansion will involve more ambitious building additions, which would serve as an expanded worship at-ea and classroom space. The construction of the second pliase, whi.ch is proposed in three to five years, would add approximately 27,505 square feet to the building. � - -- — - -_� _ � :�: _ s _--� - - �'-_ T: � _ �� __ - !� ------ ---� r._._�'�' -}--___�. Messiah Church March 15, 2000 Page 2 Development Review Discussion: Dimensional Rec�uirements: All of the dimensional requirements pertaining to this development are met as discussed at the last meeting. The building and parking lot setbacks, parking requirements, minimum lot size and other zoning-related dimensional criteria are satisfied with this proposal as they pertain to the first phase of the proposed expansion. Parkirt�: Currently, there are 165 parking stalls available, excluding the overflow parking available across the street. After the first phase of construction, 188 stalls will be available. The construction of the second phase will reduce the available parking to 176 stalls. The church, under existing conditions, significantly exceeds the City's parking requirements, based on a maximum seating capacity of 300. Construction of the second phase will increase the parking requirements for the site; yet even so, it is anticipated that the site will continue to be over-parked. Seven handicap accessible stalls are shown on the plans, which would comply with Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) standards and requirements. Wetland Bzc�'f'er: While the building expansion itself will not fall within the 100-foot wetland buffer setback, the parking lot expansion and proposed stormwater holding pond do encroach into the buffer area. As a result, Messiah has applied for a wetland buffer permit. Action on the buffer permit cannot occur until afl:er Rice Creek has issued its approval of the drainage and storrr►water retention plans. Attached to this report is Rice Creek Watershed District's notification of authorization for administrative action subject to seven conditions. One of the conditions requires Messiah to provide a wetland delineation report, from which the City would establish the 100-foot buffer. Landsca��inQ: The City Forester has reviewed the submitted landscape plan to ensure connpatibility with Mounds View soils and climate and has made two recommended changes: (1) All of the 1'/2" caliper Marshall Ash should be replaced with 2" caliper Patmore Ash, and (2) the 2-gallon Techny Arborvitae should be upgraded to 4- to 5-foot Arborvitae. Staff concurs with the recommendations of the Forester and would add a further requirement to add plantings at the south property line to supplement the e�sting trees. I i�htin�: The submitted photometric analysis of the site meets the Code requirements. The parking lot light standards would be thirty feet tall with hooded and shielded 400-watt bulbs. The Knollwood Drive passenger drop off and pick up drive through, as well as the sidewalk areas on the east side of the building will have twelve-foot tall standards with decorative light fixtures, for which specifications have been provided. These lights will have 100 watt bulbs behind diffused glass. � f Messiah Church March 15, 2000 Pagc 3 Accessvrv Structures: At the last meeting, it was discussed that the accessory structure shown adjacent to Knollwood Drive should be moved toward the back of the lot. This change has been made as shown on the attached landscape plan. Because the size of the structure exceeds 216 square feet, specific allowance will need to be drafted into the formal resolution approving the conditional use permit. Future site plans sha(1 be revised to show dimensions of this structure. F'i�•e Marshal: The Fire Marshal for the City of Mounds View has reviewed the site plans and finds the drive aisles and circulatory routes to be adequate and conforming to Fire Department standards. A fire Hydrant has been added to the site plan on the south side of County Road H2 as requested by the Fire Marshal. Denrolitior�: Two residential properties--7225 Knollwood Drive and 2824 County Road H2--currently improved with single-family dwellings and detached garages adjoin the present Messiah Church site. These two properties are owned by the Church and were purchased with the intent of providing for acreage for the Church to expand. These two pi-operties will be cleared to make room for the expansion. Staff is unaware if the homes will be demolished or removed from the site intact. Either way, separate permits will need to be obtained by the applicant to arrange for this. Residents in the area have commented that the removal of these two homes would serve as a benefit to the neighborhood. Drainat;e and Utilitv: The applicant has submitted plans to Rice Creek Watershed District for review, who will need to approve of the drainage plans. The City's engineer has also reviewed these plans and has concerns with downstream wetland impacts and runoff onto to Knollwood Drive. The drainage calculations have been reviewed and were found to be acceptable based upon the extent of the pervious and impervious surface on the site. The sizing of the pond and all drainage calculations are based on full build-out of the plans. Final approval of this project should be delayed until the applicant receives Rice Creek Watershed District approval. CUP Discussaon: Messiah Lutheran Church has been serving Mounds View and the surrounding communities for nearly 60 years. The first church buildin� was a small wood-framed structure built in 1941, which was replaced by the structure at 2900 County Road H2 in 1951. That building served the congregation until the existing building was constructed in 1961. The requested expansion is evidence of a vibrant and growing congregation, which will continue to serve the needs of Mounds View residents many years into the future. � - --� . �...r, -:-�-� �.�f...�_�:_.� --. . �_;� ''L� - �`_-- �: : I_._=--- --- = .-�' - E,-'-=�_ - - �_: Messiah Church March 15, 2000 Page 4 As discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting an March 15, 2000, all of the specific CLTP requirements addressed in Section 1106.04 of the Zoning Code are satisfied, with the exception of screening. The landscape plan indicates a natural Arborvitae screen at the northeast corner of the lot. After changing to the taller arborvitae as recommended by the City rorester, the screening to the east should be satisfied. The landscape plan does not, however, address screening to the south along Knoliwood Drive and as such should be revised in some manner in accordance with input from the Commission and area residents. The Planning Commission has also reviewed the general conditional use permit requirements as well as the adverse effects criteria. Again, with the exception of screening, all of the general requirements appear to be met. A question was raised with regard to the potential traffic issues that could be generated with regard to the expansion. As stated at the last meeting, it is not expected that the first phase of the expansion would add any signiiicant volume to either Knollwood Drive or County Road HZ. Looking toward full build-out, staff is concerned about the potential for congestion in this area. The City Code in Section 1125.01, Subd.le, requires that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider possible adverse affects of the proposed use, or in this case, the existing use and expansion thereo£ As addressed at the last meeting, staff feels that the impacts of this use and expansion to be minimal, considering its 60-year history of operation without incident or complaint. The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which designates this area as Institutional. The need for the Church is clearly demonstrated from its continued presence and proposed expansion at this location. Recommendation: Of the issues of concern left unresolved from the meeting on March 15, 2000, only two remain; the landscaping plan and the drainage and stormwater plans. While staff would recommend the addition of plantings along the southern property line to further screen the use from the residential property at 7215 Knollwood Drive and the changes as suggested by the City Forester, the Planning Commission will need to review the landscape plan and determine its overall sufficiency. Regarding the drainage issues, Rice Creek Watershed District will be acting on the applicant's watershed permit, which will necessitate a delineation of the wetland, among other things. Staff would feel comfortable recommending that the Planning Commission approve a resolution contingent on changes to the landscape plan and subject to Rice Creek watershed permit approval, yet would advise that the City Council table action until the watershed approval is granted. If the Commission so desires, staffwill draft a resolution for action at the next Planning Commission meeting on April 19, 2000. � �JV1 YI�PA James Ericson, Planner 1:1DATA\GKOUPS\COMDTiV�DGVCAS�S\Cu00-OO1�E'C Messiah Report - April 5, 2000.doc : � -- -- - : - � -__ - : __� _ .� �� . - -- = ----- -- - - �: PARTNERS ARCHITECTURE PLANNING 3989 CENTRAL AVENU[ NE SUITE 520 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55421 PH: 61 2-788-5323 Fx: 61 ?..-788-5324 wti�w.yhr.c.om March 29, 2000 City of Mounds View Ylanning Commission 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112-1�99 l�ttn: Jim �ricson 1ZE: Messiali Lutheran Church Addition & Remodel Mounds View, MN Dear Mr. Ii�ricson: ln Response to the recommendations made in the City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report dated March 15, 2000: 1. On Sheet A090, a landscape plan has been provided. 2. The wetland buffer permit process is in pi�ogress. 3. Sheet A090 has been revised to show the �ccessory structure located toward the southeast corner of the lot. 4. Drive aisles and parking areas have been reviewed and approved by the fiie marshal. �l'here will be one fire hydrant added to thc site as a part of this project as shown on Sheet �10J0. 5. Specifications for the gai•bage dumpster enclosure are indicated on Sheet AOJO. Please conL-act this writer with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, YHR, Pax•tners K,...�..�_ L..�'--�1 By Kristen Boen t:\projects\1999 projects\9908\design\plancommission.doc �= f — — — � - � --- � — I I C 0 �I N T Y; � R Q A D N 0 H� �� ^�r� � "��'� � -- 8� � �� — / 8� JT i� I� � � I� mxwux �/'-Z -� �� CXISTING BUILDIj�IG -o JbH � ` ��2 R� M � P y G i_J P r!f� I�%'1 � _-�-_ _- - 5 � J Z 5 --� - - - - La06 J _ d � '�'A 5 5 � � � � � J�.�+� a1 _ C. ✓ O � V - � � � � i � � � • v. �; , i.Y �► �'; ,�` �r. G� �` _ �iW > � /� � ��1 � .,► iaj � ; � �� i 2 ,�� r -� � ` �_��C � � � � %1 , 'k./ �v'// �� / � /i0 r � `\� � � � � � �� .Y. ��i�l. S�n� i�= —_—'� �� s � EXISTINC 1fOUSE 1[11G - (24) PLJJI�$ � LANDSGAPE �.E6END - PLANTIN6S BY OWNER � u u u u n4 Ti��SH �1�GLOSUiz� I/4' = I'-0' ii �� ii I I � �j u u ��o� .,: ... p4 Ti��SH E1�GLOSU�� I/4' = I'-0' ALL 51DE SIMILIAR �� F E _� __� SENTRYWAY Construction - Heavy gauge zinc coaled sleel. Finish - l ow gloss BLACK polye�t�r powder coal. DiNuser - CLEAR �nsrnalic polycarhonate. Lamp - Hi�l� color ren�iennq compact (luoresceni or clear rnedium base HPS or MH. E3allast - 120V, buhiz. Class 'P', NPF (CF). 120V, fiOHz. NPF (HID). Fasteners -- Siamless steei screws. UL Listed - Wet Location. - w _.. .._ _I i_ _ -----� i . �------ __.-.__,. � �- - --- !..--I i_. _ _.- �----. . . � I.. ..._ ... _ .- . �.. -- I ---- -! �-- MODEL SPL13 SPL26_ SPL�) SHSSS SHS70 SHS10 SMHSO SMH70 SMH 100 LAMP NPE PL1S r�)P113 (3)PL1:l 35HPS SOHPS 70HPS t00HPS 50MH 70MH t00MH Options: • Cold Weath r 8allast • 277 Volt Bal sl • High Power aclor • Photocell • Pdle . 10' Direct TOPEKA POST TOP LANTERN MODEL �MP WIDTH LENGTH HEIGH WIOTH IENGTH HEIGIIT �2' �s t%4' 6 3�n• 1?• 15 1/4' '� 12" 15 1,'1.. 12' 15 '!4" 12° 15 t/4' 6 a/4' 12" i5 7/4' 6 3/4.. 12" 15 t/4" 6 3/4.. 12" 15 1/4' 6 3/4.' 12" 15 1/4" 6 3/4' 12" 15 1/A' 6 3/4" • Pier Fitter • Glare Shields • White Polycarbonate Di(fuser • Custom Colors T rvPe --- -- - ._ _. _ _ . _ . Construction - Heavy gauge zinc coated steel. TPL13 PL13_ 8 1/4" __ 8 1/4' __ 15" Fi�ish - Low gloss BLACK polyester powder coat. TpL26 �2)PL13 8 1/4" 8 1/4' 15" Diffuser - Textured WHITE acryli� TPLQ28 �UAD2F3 8 1/4" 8 1/4" 15" Lamp - High color rendering compact fluorescent 7PLQ56 (2)QUAD28 8 1/4= _ 8 1/4" 15" or clear medium base HPS or MH. TPL35HPS 35HPS a 1/4' 8 1/4" 15' - ----- -----.. -- _ __._..... Ballas4 - 120V, 60Hz, Class 'P', NPF (CF), TPL50HPS 50HPS 8 1/4" 8 7/4" 15" - - -- ...__.._ 120V, 60Hz, NPF (HID). TPL70HPS 70HPS 8 1/4" 8 1/4" __ 15" --- Fasteners - Stainless steel screws. TPLSOMH 50MH Fl 1/4' 8 1/4° 15" -- — ._ ... UL Listed - Wet Location. TPL70MH _ 70MH _8 1/4' _ 8 1/4" _ 15" Options: • Cold Weather Ballast • 277 Volt Ballast � High Power factor • 50 Hz Ballast • Clear Seeded Acrylic Diftuser -• Pole - 8', 10' Direct Burial • Pier Fitter �• Custom Colors Optional Finish Shown WALKWAY Construction - Die cast aluminum fitter. Finish - Low gloss BLACK polyester powder coat. Diffuser - WHITE polyethylene globe 13" (C�, 16"(HID) Lamp - High color rendering compact fluorescent (CF�, clear medium base HPS or MH. Ballast - 120V, 60Hz, Class 'P', NPF (C�, 120V, 60Hz, NPF (NID). UL Listed - Wet Location. �� MOOEL �PE DIAMETER WW13 PL13 13° WW26 (2 P� --- 13' ------- WWQ28 QUAD28 _ 13' --- WWQ56 (2)QUAD28 . 13"_ _ -- - - VWJ35 35HPS 16' -- ------ ---- --- --- WW50 ___ __ SOHPS _ ___ 1_6' _.._ WW70 70HPS __ 16' ---- --- ---- - - ---- WW100 100HPS 16" ---- _ _ ---- - -.. _ __ . . WVJ50MH SOMH 16" ------ -- ------ - - VWJ70MH 70MH 1fi' Options: • 277 Volt Ballast • High Power Factor • 50 Hz Ballast • Pole - 8', 10' Direc� Ourial • Pler Fitter • White Polycarbonate Globe • Custom Colors '2R � Optional Fnish Shown i TUCSON ADA Construction — Heavy gauge steel. Finish — Polished Brass. Di(fuser — Ruted CLFJ�R acrylic. Lamp — High color randering compact fluoresr,ent. Ballast — 120V, 60Hz, Class 'P', NPF. Mounting Hardware — Included with fixture. UL Listed — Damp Location q� . �q � �� I MODEL �MP WIDTH HEIGHT DEPTH NPE TUC18 ___ (2)PL9 _ 18' 41/2' 31/2' TUC26 _�PL13 18' _ 4 112' 3 1/2' Options: • Chrome Finish � Custom Colors/Finishes �ALENCIA ADA�-�-1- �'1(X�� MODEL �E WIDTH HEIGHT DEPTH Construction — Heavy gauge zinc coated steel. �,q�g pL9 7 1/2' 13' 4' k=inish — Low gloss BLACK polyester powder coat. VAL13 PL13 7 1/2' 13' 4' Retlector— High gbss WHITE polyester powder coat. VAL18 (2)PL9 7 1/2' 13' 4' l7iffuser — Textured WHITE a jG,. VAL18-EL (2 P) L9-4P 7 1/2' 13' 4° l.amp — High co or rendering compact fluorescent. VAL26 (2jPL13 7 1/2° 13' 4° Ballast — 120V, 60Hz, Class 'P', NPF. � VAL26-EL j21PL13-4P 7 1/2' 13' 4' Mounting Hardware — Included with fixture. Fasteners — Stainless steel screws. UL Listed — Wet Location. � iL�� I— w — --� n �— H � ! _ 1 �� Options: —• Cold Weather Ballast • 277 Volt Ballast — • High Power Factor • 50 Hz Bailast • Bottom Lens • Clear Seeded Acrylic Diffuser � • Custom Colors VENICE Construction — Cast aluminum. Finish — Low gloss BLACK polyester powder coat. Retlector — High gbss WHfTE. Diffuser — WHITE acrylic. Lamp — High color rendering compact fluorescent. Ballast — 120V, 60Hz, Class 'P', NPF. Mounting Hardware — Included with fixture. UL Lis4ed — Damp Location. �V �-- W -�-� I� � �' r� � { .. — � - � MODEL �E W107H HEIGFff DFP'fH VEN9 PL9 7 7/8' 9 7/8" 4 3/8' VEN13 PL13 7 7/8' 9 7/8` 4 318' VEN18 (2)PL9 7 7/8' 9 7/8' 4 3/8° VEN26 (2)PL13 7 7/8' 9 7/8' 4 3/8' Options: � Cold Weather f3allast • 277 Volt Ballast (� 1Natt Only) • High Power Factor • 50 Hz Ballast • Optional Finishes Available: Verde or White _ _--- — =-----��.- --- _ � ._-=: _. _ _ _ - - __ _ - --- ::__ _ _ _ ,_ _.:_ , :. I:l.11l I I c.I l l:.\I. I: I \ ��:�� . ' Specifications HOUSING liie lixlure slt:ii� ne c�tti! iiiuninuni �11;�n:inwn Sf'%iil �li' Cl:f1iIIP.(! ;IS ;)tl(l' `.�'l�i;llll)y Ilt'!'. Cli �Illy pC:'p5ily lofi�u)n ni<Ilaridlti i?i i:�'.S�neli�: L•II�:•i�.; („o,lmqs Sh�fll i;� �il ,indonr �n,ail Ilui'kn��ti ru�l�� ':r� f:�lfj)III(� lif Ili!il!� Si!!Ili!Il� �'lilllllillll; �4r1!' i�lli�h n?;� S'1�l l l be 3! 1 � EIi;CIfiCll i:Ofrt4iUnariiS :iiP n�UUnit'i� r! �!�r� ;ix.:;fF. �Ilt' �)�111�1$i L'0111�1d111tiPlli $Il;l�� )E: �i'.dlf;(1 VVi;"i 3fl dl;l(11IIlUl?i CO'✓!',I The lens Sh211 be ene pi°Ce �onned �jCryhc s��ied in Ihe hous�ng �o pn��ern dus� �nSeCl nr r�.;r��lure Conl�n�u;rl�i,n REFRACTORS RelnClorS S�� ;II ;k' ��m:C�s�c�n �nolde�7 0� t'c•CSi�icaie g!�s� in!�rn<tlly S�CUrg(1 wdh iwo s�zr,IP.SS SI@E:� ��e �eds Relr�ciors s��a�i be ;;a��er,led lop �3f1(1 b01i0fT1 Io ��ipw for exp�ln5ion �� r, conlracl�nn ELECTRICAL ';II �IeclnCa; :.:�moe•i�en:� ;°?,� m<t(2na!S sl�<��i b: U L recoyrn�er Ballas!s :;r� !��gh po�,ver iai;in� r?!=.:; lor 30 Sl�r!!ng Mec!iurr; base potc2lain SG��c��S dr2 dK,V '�i!cd MOg�� base porcel�m s��els :ire �iK,V r�iCd. Tl�i� e�?c!nc�l 2sser;b!y is G�.:nrCd �roilh qi;�Ck C�SCOnnc�l� lOr Servir,�ng MOUNTING Pol�; IoG; rnoun�ing lizli;r�� nall mclude � c�3sl a!:�rr,m��m lilt�:r plug antl shall be secureci wiln i�,�-�� stain�ess s�eel allen �1Qa(I SEI SCfeH's Arm mounling an �lum�num I��il Jnd exUucleri s�eeve snall be welded lo lhe hxiure 1 he sleevc s�a!I shp Ihe arm and be seCUred wifh iwo siain less s�eel screws The arm sha�� br, bo��ed to the p�„�;= wilh Iw0 SlainleS; Sle! I ha,x hF,a� boil� FINISH fixiu«� linish Shall Cons�sl ol c;learunq e�ch ir;; anrl nnsing lollowed by � prolediw� r,hrnmale p� ��-�i��. de�on�zec' �ra(er rinse oven dry oil �r,1 lur� C��:��h vailh � IhennOSel T�iIC SupCr polyr; ;i��r pC��:dci C0�1 linist� The finiSr Sh�ll m�F I Ihe A;tAA 605 Z uertDrmanr,e S�e� ihr�lir,r� v, ir;!� ir �,�..id(S p<�s;in�� 3i1f)�) hrn�r .;ill s(u ��_•��,� �,u L:�� 'I_!Sl�jl� fi''.�.I�.' . . RELAMPIN(, i:�� _ � ; .,�aunq I � � �I � , . .. . CERTIFICATION ! I/i;lh:5 :i!I�i!� :."; il51F,r; Ir!ii'� IJII�;`'!/;I�I;:I'�, �.�::'..�!ri�!/lil;'i�()I'.�..�'i ii;�.rill�l(1'l�,f; WARRANTY !b:. . .!':;ii .. .. . ... ., . '' . i . . PHO70METRICS Z�� A[_O 101 UCl<�i4�(�fl��I I_.cill��l�l� � �^•'-i '� � a7i)� i _ � nt i{ ',C z:r; iir�,� � t l f�-r%P�'�� ' S - rt Iti, ._ a._ ._I r � � �I' t ! �7 �i q �r� � $ � c:f . � � � ��,� 1 < �� n ��{. ;, � .. , ;�r�f ;�,, � ` � ' li+ ' � '� � , �, � ' �5 ,; �' 11 �'�� .., r' �i� � � � n� ' 2a f' �k, x , � _ �'� �� '��g�l „ > , � ,�. , � ,, . . _ , _ - _ — — -- ; �, . .,.. �, �,: , .. ,. r . _ .-- s.: . .. . 6:' �:_ . : _, : : _; _ _ � �� :-=- �.—. - . - -- - --- L ^ _ - ... '--' - — L':. � . ' - -- - .` -_ _ _ _ . _ . . ... _ . ..... . .. -- '--------- °-' ' � I� Catalog Numbers IW WHIiENCRYLICLENS �, �1C CLEAR ACRYUC LCIJS ALO 101CGR3 CLEAH ACNYLIC L[NS & IYPf 3 GIASS R[FRACTOR ALO 101CGR5 CLFJ�R ACHYI IC LENS & 1YP[ 5 GLASS REFRACTOR � ALO 101-30W WHITE ACRYUC LENS ALO 101-30C CIEAR ACRYLIC LENS _ _. - .._._ . ALO 101-30CGR3 CLEAR ACRYLIC LENS 8 TYPE 3 GLASS REFRACTOR _ — --- -- — ---- ------ _ _ . — -- ALO 101-30CGR5 CLEAR ACRYUC LENS & TYPE 5 GIASS REFRACTOR MEfAL HALIDE HPS 70 100 175 70 100 150 INT. EPA • • • • • • 40 1.98 . . . . . . q0 i�_gg • • • • • • 43 1 99 . • o • o • 43 1.98 METAL HALIDE HPS 70 100 175 250 70 100 150 250 WT. EPA • • e • • e • s Q6 2.BJ • • . • • • • • 46 2.87 • • • • • • • • 49 2.87 _ _. _ ._ _-- -- - _. _ _. __--- -_.__ ._ _ . . • • • • • • • 49 2.87 EXAMPLES --- - -- _------ --- - - - -....._-- . _ -- - ---- . --- ---- ALO 101CGR5 150HPS 277 • PS4-4S12-125 BLK _ - - - -- - -----._. .. - —_ _ _ AL0101W 175MH 120 SLA8 PR4-4R14-125 WHT _ ____ _... __---- — _ _.... .. ___ __ .. _ ... ...__.._ FIKTURE LAMP VOLTAGE ARM BASE-POLE COIOR � , s � . • � �� R�� ■■r; ;��■■ ■ ■ ■ ��ill�l�l i� ��■ ■�■ ��==�-�_-= �■��■ lilil I�I�I ■� !!!■ S�-_> L=:-� ■■■■ ■ ; � ■I,.:J ■ ■ �� ■�t:=: ��■ �� ■ ■■ I �■■■ ■►.� �� =' ■ I �� ■ �.� � I11 ��I 1�■ ■� ■ '=° ■I 1 I11 ��■■I'■■■■. .■ :�. ."■. ■■■■ 1■■■■■ . ■�'■. ■ ■■ 1.■■■ . ■"■. ■ ■■I 1■■. ..■ ■ I'■. ■ ■■I'.■. ■ .■■■ "■. ■■I'■.■■ .■ �■"■ ■ ■I'■.■■ . .■ . I ' ■ ■ 1■ ��■ l:. � I ■ ■■�� ■■■ ' ; .J ..' ' 1■. ■ �� ■ �.�.:/�� :1 I 1 �� ■�■� _ ,:�: � �:��_� A10101 AL0101-30 I1RM WMA9 SLAb POLE • oB9 nRi4 OPTIONS • � 2-ALO 101, ALO 101-30 2-s�na PRS-5R14 ALO 101 s�nia PH4-4R12 ----___ _.....----- ORS BC2-4 OPTIONS ALO 101 ALO 101-30 22'H x 15�,v 30'H x 15'w OPTIONS HSS House side shield LXN Polycarbonale lens in lieu of acrylic L�L Lighlly diffused lens to conceal the (ixlure interior � - � - - -- - ------- --- k . � I _ ___ _ _ _., - E -- �_. . . - _ .: : _ _ --- --- ` - � :� .�_ . . , __ __ � p, �� - March 21, 20(?0 Jim Ericson City Planner City of Mounds View 24�1 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Re: Messiah Lutheran Church Dear Jim: Thank you l�or taking time thc other day to discuss the above reference�l projcct and the pending building and parking lot expansion. While I supporC lhe church's plan to expand their facility, I am concerned about the impact to the neighbonc�xxi. Our family is located at 7191 Knollwood Drive and would be affected by the currcnt design. The current design plan calls for removing most of the trees on lhe property. This clear cut approach to the initial partting lot design will significantly change the character of the the street. I would like to recommend that the church and their architect consider a design which would retain most/more of the mature trees. I would welcome an opportunity to meet with the church and the architect prior to the next Planning Commission meeting to discuss possible design options. Anolher concern I have involves the future increased traffic flow on Knollwocxi Drive resulting from the anticipated increase in membership. While the traffic increase would generally c�ecur only on Sundays, there is already significant traffic from the soulh at this time. What level of traffic would be considered to much traffic on a residential street? Can a voluntary program be established by the church to have members take County Road H2? I do want to support the plan to remove the existing home on the south side of the church. This home has been used by the church to assist f�amilies in need. The family in this home during the past year have had many oc;casions of loud arguments which could be heard from within our home. This verbal abuse among spouses has been a concern. The demolition of the home will effectively remove this issuc. Finally, a long range issue needs to be acidressed concerning how large the church facility will grow in the future beyond the current desi�;n plan. At what poinl does the facility become to large for the residential neighborhood? I look forward to speaking with you in the near future concerning this project and welcome the chance to assist the church and community in addressing the local concerns of the design. Sincerely, � �r�`'"'"_ _ David J. Rudnik 1, ; -�---...-.�.. - _ _j �.+..wu....��..- _ - � �' �!� I.`—. �;� . �. t.� ,��f� '_!_ � _ � ! ;; i� MAR 2? 2u�J0 � �: �' � ; ;'_i'% �-Ue�-�.s�►�- J J i �� . .:: -=- - i_= � _- :_- . _ - � �. _ _ , --- Item # 6 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: Ap�il 5, 2000 Title: DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 612-00, A RESOLUTION CONTEMPLATING THE APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE FOR A REDUCED CORNER LOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A GARAGE EXPANSION AT 2741 HODGES LANE. Planning Case No.: VR00-001 Applicant: Cathy Magoris Location: 27� 1 Hodges Lane Applicable Regulations: Section 1104.01, Subd. 3b, regarding Setbacks: Principal buildings shall maintain a thirty foot setback from any lot line abutting a public street. Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its review of variances. Background: The applicant, Cathy Magoris, who lives at 2741 Hodges Lane, which is located at the northwest corner of Hodges Lane and Park View Drive, is requesting a variance from the required thirty- foot corner front yard setback. She would like to expand an e�sting attached two car, 576 square-foot garage into a 864 square-foot three car garage. The Planning Commission heard this variance request at their meeting on March 15, 2000, giving significant discussion to the hardship criteria and whether or not all of the criteria were thought to be met. Analysis: As with any variance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical di�iculty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body 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 individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: � .. :_ _ _ _. , _ _ , _ � _ _ -------- _ - —_ -� .•, �._��- �- . __ _ _; . r ��.�� r ------y� ��;_..: Magoris Variance 2741 Hodges Lane Apri15, 2000 Page 2 of 4 a. Exceptional or extraordinaf y circunzstances apply to the property which do not apply genercrlly to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result fi�on2 lot size or shcrpe, topography or� other circunistances over which the owners of the p�roper�ty since the effective date hereof have hac� nv cont�•ol. The property is a corner ]ot and is odd shaped, which can make it more di�icult to meet setback requirements. b. The litet-al 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 would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district, in that the east side of the proposed garage addition would have varying setback requirements. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant is not responsible for the conditions which would warrant the approval of the variance. d. That grantirrg the variance requested will not cortfer orr the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structuj�es or buildings in the same distr•ict. Given the unique nature of the lot configuration, it is not believed that the granting of a variance would confer upon the property owner a special privilege denied to others in the same district. e. That the variance requested is the minimum varrance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be consider�ed a hardshzp. The variance requested is the nninimum necessary to allow for a third car expansion to the existing garage structure. f. The variance would not be matet-ially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The purpose of the variance provision in the Code is to give relief to property owners seeking to improve their properties yet are unable to do so because of zoning code requirements and factors beyond their control. Granting this variance for additional garage space would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. �r . � , � � _ . . � _. �. .:_ L :_ _ . .� . --_ —,� —._ - -=---,= - • • � Magoris Variance 2741 Hodges Lane Apri15, 2000 Page 3 of 4 g. The proposed vaf�iance will not impaif� an adequate supply of Zigl�t and air to adjacent pr•operty o�• substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or� increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or inzpaif• propeyty values within the neighborhood. The proposed garage expansion would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. Recommendation: If the Planning Commission finds that all of the criteria are satisfactorily met, it would be appropriate to approve the attached Resolution 612-00, a resolution approving a variance for a reduced corner lot front yard setback to allow for the construction of a 288 square-foot garage addition located 18 feet from the property line. `.1c�� .+�..�s�, Jim Ericson, Planner G:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\VR00-OO1�Ivlagoris Vaziance Report - April 5, 2000.doc � _ : -� � . _ _ �_ . .� .� r _.:._�� -� ------ - — '- ---- --�a�- --_-- _ - ---��.:_� �. .��. .._.__. ��` . �r . Magoris Variance 2741 Hodges Lane April 5, 2000 _, Page 4 of 4 Zoning Map W d7��..•,�..SL � � 3 �s.�.;�N , .. ........ � ..,. ., ry r� _..:....._.... _,...:... L �uL.�3 ��,�.. i��i'� ,......�.:. ,,..... ..?�J.�� +�5 �� ,........,...,..,.....,; 'T�r� � 7�;�� '. .. ......... � . . . .......,. �_�� :� � ... ...� � ...:.... ��, ,�:�� -�' � �� `....,.� i � � �y� �'"� C*F � ,r^ 7 � i i ,3/23/2000 16:5 � 633B859 , ` TIMBERCRAFT - -�- �- �--�� i .�._.._., . �� . � fi� �'►a o R i's � . � ,� � . , � � ��y 1 f�o ��' �.aW�. � � � � /�'�o�tNd� v� a✓� %�'tN , � , Po �� .� . � � � �.� �.�� bo , �, .. , �t' � � .. � � �' � � � � — d� �� ..� .. , PAGE 92 �u� . . � �� . �� .� � �+ /` -, . b� - � j �'y � 4 O� . ,� � , �� 6 � . �� 4 . . {1?� ♦. � � �� . ► ? . . '__..�-�'� _I I;.= _. __ � ", , t.' � " • "__ - L� r_. _. "�- ___ 4_"�..__..�:-,� -�=-= __.� 1.:1„ '_. __ � _.� _ E,�_ _ _ - �l � MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 612-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANC� FROM SECTION 1104.01, SUBD. 4, OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO SETBACKS TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCED FRONT YARD, CORNER-LOT SETBACK FOR A GARAGE EXPANSION AT 2741 HODGES LANE, MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CAS� VR00-001. WHEREAS, The applicant, Cathy Magoris, has applied for a variance to allow for an18- foot, front yard setback for a proposed garage expansion at her property located at 2741 Hodges Lane; and, WHEREAS, 2741 Hodges Lane is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Lot 6, Block S, Silver Lalce Woods Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site Plan 5. Staff Report WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's control; and, - .; _ . . _ . _ . _ _ . . . . . . „ . . . . . . . . . : -'-- - - , _ . � . - __ -- i_ �. � :� _- - - -- .. ._ .. . . . . .. . _ . ..-- -"---�- Resolution 612-00 Magoris Variance April 5, 2000 Page 2 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held Wednesday, March 15, 2000, with regard to this variance request; 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, THER�FORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision Z of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient hardship with regard to the property located at 4749 Old Highway 8 to warrant the approval of a variance for an 18-foot front yard, corner-lot setback for proposed garage addition, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to 2741 Hodges Lane which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity in that the property is a corner lot and oddly shaped, which makes it difficult to meet typical setback requirements. 2. 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 in that the east side of the proposed garage addition would have varying setback requirements. 3. The variance request is the result of factors over which the applicant has had no control. 4. Granting a variance to allow for the 18-foot front yard, corner-lot setback would allow the applicant to better utilize the property yet would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege denied to others in the same district due to the unique nature of the lot's configuration. 5. The Planning Com,mission finds that the requested 18-foot setback is the minimum variance that would alleviate the applicant's hardship yet would still result in a 24-foot setback to the street from the rear of the garage. 6. Granting a variance for a reduced front yard, corner-lot setback for the proposed garage addition would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. 7. An 18-foot setback would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. Resolution 612-00 .. Magoris Variance April 5, 2000 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission approves the variance request for a reduced front yard setback for the existing office- warehouse building at 4749 Old Highway 8 contingent upon the following: 1. The applicant arranging to have recorded with Ramsey County this resolution of approval and provide proof of such recordation to the City within 60 days of the date of approval, or this variance shall be rendered null and void. Adopted this Sth day of April, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) T:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\VR00-OOlUtESOLUTION 612-OO.DOC Item # 7 City of Mounds View I'lanning Commission Report Meet�ng Date: April S, 2000 Title: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 614-00 CONTEMPLATING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OVER-SIZED SHED LOCATED AT 2159 TERRACE DRIVE Planning Case No: CU00-002 Applacant: Robert Kleinschmidt I.ocation: 2159 Terrace Drive Applicable Regulations: Section 1106.03, Subd. 1 j, stipulates that the combined square footage for all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more than 20`% of the rear yard. Section 110E.04, Subd. 7 lists the specific conditional use requirements for an over-sized shed. Section 1125.01, Subdivision 1 lists the general adverse effects criteria �vtuch need to be addressed in order for a conditional use permiC to be approved Introduction: The applicant, Robert Kleinschmidt, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 256 square-foot oversized shed in the backyard of his property located at 2159 Terrace Drive. The property is located in the northeast section of the City, a block from the City's eastern municipal border. The 13,125 square-foot, well maintained lot is improved with a typical 1'/2 story home and two car garage. There is a small wood-framed shed in the backyard that would be removed upon completion of the proposed larger shed. There is an 8-foot tall privacy fence along the back of the property. lliscussion: Section 1106.4, Subdivision 7 lists the specific conditional use permit requirements for accessory storage buildings in excess of 216 square feet. These rec�uirements, such as setbacks and maximum square-footage are met with this proposal. The setbacks for an accessory structure are five feet; the applicant is proposing to locate the shed approximately 10 feet from the property line. The area of the proposed shed would be 256 square feet, which is less than the maximum allowed 400 sc�uare feet. The area of the proposed shed plus the area of the existing 720 square foot garage amount to 976 square feet, which represents a 13 percent back yard coverage, well below the maximum 20 percent coverage threshold. _ _ - --�- � ,; _ -, �� - __ ��<-___- =-• '---- _ : . _`� �_s , _ c'r_ ,:_— -`. _-_�.: N°-�-- - -° ' -•_� -=--- �-'�-- _= `' :.` Kleinschmidt CUP April 5, 2000 Page 2 of 2 As is the case with every conditional use permit application, the Planning Commission shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. The findings of the Planiung Commission shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: • Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. • The Geographical Area Involved • Whether such use will tend to vr actzrally depreciate the area in which it is proposed. • The Character of the Surrounding Area • The demonstr•ated need for such a 1�se. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 2159 Terrace Drive, low-density residential. Almost every lot in this area of Mounds View is the same size as the subject property. Most of the homes in the area are of the same design with either single and double-stall garages, many of which properties also have sheds in addition to their garages. The e�sting shed on the subject property is only 80 square feet and is too small to be of any use to the applicant. It is not believed that the construction of the proposed 256 square-foot shed would depreciate the neighborhood. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and would fit with the general character of the neighborhood. The only issue of any relevance not addressed by the above findings is screening from adjacent, residentially zoned land. As stated earlier in this report, there is an 8-foot tall privacy fence to the rear of the subject property but no fencing to separate either of the properties adjacent to the east and west of 2159 Terrace Drive. Both properties would have an unobstructed view of the proposed shed from the respective rear yards. Staff performed an on-site inspection of the property on March 29, 2000, and observed that the garage on the subject property and the garage on the adjacent property to the east would, in effect, provide for adequate screening. In staf�s opinion, the property would benefit from this proposed improvement. Recommendation: Given the above findings and the fact that proposal would meet all applicable requirements of the City Code, staffis recommending that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 614-00, a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of this conditional use permit request, subject to stipulations. � � �� James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Development Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Photo Documentation Resolution G 14-00 �� ;'I;��x;:[ �� COMMU1vITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .� DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION °' ^°�^° 2401 Hi hwa 10 Mounds View MN 55112 �.� i;[= ;��; g Y � 612-717-4020 ,o�r`'jf • �'rrn��`"'�y 612-784-3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form AppGcant Ynformation Name of Applicant :� �/�� l�: LJ � I�LC I� SCf�-� ttM (/� % Telephone 7.S1,6 — Z J S j Address 21 s�� `r� (Z � r�L� f,iri� 1(%i Fax (�'1C�cJ tJDS tJie�� , (M J� � 5((Z Interest in Property (check appropriate box) � Owner of Property o Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager o Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other (explain) Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from thc owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to 6e accepted. - Property Description/Proposal � . Address or General Location � f � � ��-�� 4� (-� �� Legal Description �. C7 ! (�l r3L o C K z-. ,� I� C� �7 �{� I�� Property Ident�cation # (PIN #) # of Acres ciurent zoning �� S f ��.°`�'I -7 �/�'Ll Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250 ❑ Rezoniz�g $250/acre; min $250 max $1500 ❑ Major Subdivision $250 + $250 deposit* ❑ Minor Subdivision $200 o Planned Unit Development (PUD) Refer to rezoning fees ❑ PUD Amendment $350 � Conditionai Use Permit R-1, R-2 75� all others $250 ❑ Variance R-1, R-2 $100 all others $250 ❑ Code Appeal $100 ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan $ I 25/acre; min $] 25 max $750 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit R-1, R-2 $150; all others $200 ❑ Wetland BuEfer Pernvt R-1, R-2 $25; all others $100 o Floodplain Permit $200 ❑ Other _ *Deposits shall be paid to cover al] costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant tune spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shatl be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View, MN Development Application Page 2 Present Use of Property ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant � Single Family Dwelling ❑ DuplexlTwo Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ : Other (explain) Property Class�cation ❑ Abstract � Torrens ' Description of Proposal (�t� a-} S i f-�c.� i �'P�i/� S i O,�� S Ff L� i�>�� ,, t�� -,�P;�rt � BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATTON, I HEREBY DECLARE THfIT, TO TI-� BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, TI� INFORMATION PROVIDED IS E A A Signature of Applicant � Name of Applicant (typed/printed) I�C� (`3� R`J .'j .. K L L i�� Cl� � I�r Signature of Property Owner Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) Address of Owner S�-M � (� s f� t�� L l f r ri Phone Number ofOwner � . . ****+******************************************************************************************* � FOR OFFICE USE ONLY . - Date of Submittal a��- �- a�jp ' Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Plaruinig Case No. s u e�- O o a� 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: Account # � Check # Receipt # � Application: -�.� ' � 1 D D.-.3 � '7 � (,P d � �( . - .. �fS'9 / Park Dedication: � � � � Deposits: Other: Total: � N:�DATA\GROUPSICOMD�V�FORMS\DEVAPP.FOR 1/98 � . __ l- ..---- _:. --: --.- --. _ _________ rt r ; 4f� '� N� N i NS c ��,N� N �. N pft •, c, :a , �.; cos � c� p ;:i�� , � � N' `9 ��`NN�N�-NT � C,��C,Cj ��'.':-��ifl 1;� N \��'�a+�. ��C,i N ��, � � �. �, , �s�''` `'� � ,< ! c� �. �+��,c'� �,` r j � , � r.,cv.� 6'� O aO�. N";N 1, a , c, �6��jC� N �?�•-'` � � , i 45 w > a c , �� . pARK d. ;'�.. c�1 f �\ �� `� � � i �� '� : 1 1224 ; � °_1� 1 Nli�c N ; �� 4 0� �1,'��^�i°�t,MtNir;o{!o N' N� N�N IN jN � Nf Ni N N�N;NjN jN;N�NjC�� N HILLVIEW 5741 5731 5721 5711 5701 5691 �_�- R-5 � 5681 5671 5ss� COLONIAL VILLAGE —3 MOBILE HOME PARK o i °�° � o! o! o j o' o� o N I N� CV N y N i N� N � N�.N �� v(_..__� i 5511 5512 ��-- 5511 ��i� 5497 � 5503 � 5504 ! 5505 � � � ---�-• � 5472 �.,.___.._ _; 5499 PINEW00D cNV � cNV �� ; 5493 5494 � 5493 SCHOOL ST '�'°�" i 5485 5486 5485 �500 5480 � 5479 R-2 ---- -_--.---._...1___� 5474� �'�73 5468 5475 5478 5475 � 5468 5467 5464 � g,}63 gy� 5467 5462 ��--�5463 �--; �, �.� f 5459 --r---.._� i _ ��.---�_._ _.._._� ._�....M. 5456 �' � s� �=r-- � , 5454 ; 5455 N _._.%544 �C� ``� S 4 5453 I � � � _—.---t.---^._ � —' GJ ,` �`A ��R i �'._._ � ` } � i 5446 ' 5447 `� ``� s- f 5447 i 54-40 ��5441 `c 543 ��\G ,5�� 4\ V� '_5439 r i c'no l�� u`�i �� t rrni , , (}-�--^ j �tr, - - � � ! � . _ _ .. 5��.�� l� � t r+A't'z N � N � N I rv � .. . . Zoning Map Planning Case CU00-002 Applicant: Kleinschmidt Oversized Shed CUP Location: 2159 Terrace Drive � �w y',+� �' i �i;, 1L�� I I � �� W � H , � Ll..� I �-- Z ...................._ ............._. ..... . . __ _ _..._.... ... . _..... .. ............___ shed 16'x16' proposed new stornge shed location garage 24'x30' house proper-ty frant Site Plan Applicant: Location: z4�xzs- Plannulg Case CU00-002 Kleinschinidt Oversized Shed CUP 2159 Terrace Drive Existing Shed (7'o be Removed) Five Foot Setback �L�� - -�. _�._ �� ------ �i l I �- _ , - -- _ - �___ , �, :_ , ..: _ _ i s �t --• s _> ;_ !T; -�� . _�,.� =�3, '�:____ — -- -- •--- _��. _ - _� —�� _ __ __ . _, , _ __ � � �-� , .. . � .z . �, � . 1.° - - MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 614-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A 256 SQUARE-FOOT OV�RSIZED SHED AT 2159 TERRACE DRNE, MOUNDS V�W PLANNING CASE NO. CU00-002 WHEREAS, Robert Kleinschmidt has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 256 square-foot shed in the back yard of his property located at 2159 Terrace Drive, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as follows: I.ot 19, 13lock 2, Pinefvood Terrace, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows sheds up to 400 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,400 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Development Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plan d. Photograpkuc Documentation e. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission fmds that the proposal satisfies the dimensional requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general; and, WHER.�AS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed shed would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved in that sheds are commonplace residential structural improvements which help keep properties neat and orderly; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed shed would not depreciate the neighborhood in that the oversized shed would allow the applicant to store items inside which might otherwise be left outside and would guard against a cluttered exterior appearance; and, _ , � _ ��_ - __ � -� : . : u _ , _ , _ _ _ __ _. __ _� - , �_�� _� __._ . _ _ ___ Rcsolution 614-00 April 5, 2000 Page 2 WH�REAS, Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed oversized shed; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed oversized shed would be sufficiently screened and separated by distance from adjacent residentially-zoned properties in that the location of the shed behind the home and garages and next to a privacy fence would screen it from general public view NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recominends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: The applicant shall arrange to record the City Council resolution approving the conditional use permit with Ramsey County and provide proof of such recordation to the City within sixty days of Council approval or this permit shall be considered null and void. 2. The shed shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. No other sheds or accessory buildings, other than the existing garage, shall be a(lowed on the property. The existing shed may remain on the lot until thirty days beyond the date by which the proposed shed is completed. 4. The shed shall be a permanent structure and shall be designed and maintained to be aesthetically pleasing and complementary to the existing dwelling and garage. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 5`�' day of April. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) W:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCAS}:S\CtJ00-002\PC RESOLUI'ION 61400.DOC _- .___ . _ i � � _ _ _ . � .: Item # 8 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: April S, 2000 Title: DISCUSSION OF A VARiANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN EIGHT-FOOT TALL FENCE 1N THE FRONT YARD OF 8438 GROVELAND ROAD. Planning Case No.: VR00-002 Applicant: Gregory & Elizabeth Brunes Location: 8438 Groveland Road Applicable Regulations: Section 1103.08 statcs lhat no fcnce taller tl�an four feet shall be inslallcd in the front yard of a residenlial lot. 5ecCion 1125.02, Subd. 2 oullines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its review of varianccs. Background: The applicants, Gregory & Elizabeth Brunes, who live at 8438 Groveland Road one block south of County Road J, are requesting a variance from the requirement which states that no fence exceeding four feet shall be installed in the front yard of a residential lot. The applicants have submitted a letter (which is attached to this report) in which they express their need for a taller fence as a means to reduce if not eliminate problems being experienced with their neighbors to the north. The fence would provide a privacy screen between the two properties and would allow the applicants to utilize the front of their property in a mannei- to which they have grown accustomed in the thirty years they have resided at the property. The site plan which indicates the location of this proposed fence is attached. Analysis: As with any variance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body 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 individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: ��._�_�az_A� .__- ..__�_�s_�'e�.✓_" ��• _________- ___ _ �w_ Brunes Variance April 5, 2000 Page 2 of 5 . �� ._._ . . � . _.-. _ a. Fxceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to ihe 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 circarmstances over which the owners of the properiy since ihe effective date hereof have had no cvntrnl. There are no extraordinary circumstances which apply to this property. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title wozrld deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other prope�•ties in the same district zcnder the terms of this Trtle. d f. The literal interpretation would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district. That the special conditions or circzrmstances do not reszrlt from the actions of the applicarrt. The applicants are clearly not responsible for the conditions which have prompted them to apply for a variance. That granting the variance requested will nol confer on the applicant any special pr•rvilege that is denied hy this Title to owners of other lands, structur•es or buildings in the same dislrict. No other property owners are allowed to build fences in their front yard in excess of eight feet. 7hat the variance regzrested is the minimzrm >>ariance which wozrld crlleviate the hardship. Eeonomic conditions crlone shall not be ennsidet•ed a hardship. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to screen the subject property from the adjacent property and its occupants. The applicant indicated a willingness to "step down" the height of the fence as it approaches the front of the property. The variance would not be materially deif•inrental to the purpose of this Title or to othei• property in the same zone. Given the circumstances, staff does not feel the variance request would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone_ g. The proposed variance will r�ot impair an adequate sa�pply of light and air to adjacent property or substanticrlly increase the congestivn of the public streets or incr•ease the danger• of fire or ef�danger the public safety or sribstantially diminish ar impair property values within the neighhorhood. ---- =� i==— _ __ _- k _ = � % Brunes Variancc April 5, 2000 Page 3 of 5 . . _ . ._ L - . . " _ - The proposed fence would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. With regard to the first criteria concerning extraordinary circumstances, it is clear that the property is not a factor in this request, in that, the property is not oddly configured, nor is it topographically situated in such a way as to necessitate the tall fence. The second criteria states that the strict interpretation of the Code deprives the applicant use of the property. In this situation, the neighbors are depriving the applicants of their right to peaceably enjoy the use of their yard, not the City Code. While staff believes that-- in this specific situation--the approval of a variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code or to other property, tall fences in a front yard do not lend well to a promotion of community spirit or neighborhood cohesion. Furthermore, responding to the issue of privacy in this manner may create unintended consequences beyond the two properties and set precedence for every other property owner experiencing similar "next-door-neighbor" conflicts. Recommendation: In order for the Planning Commission to approve a variance, all of the criteria need to be addressed to the satisfaction of the Comniission. Based upon the above assessment, it does not appear that all of the criteria are satisfied, which would necessitate a denial of the variance request. While staffempathizes with the applicants and understands the situation in w}uch they are in, it is recommended that the Conunission direct staffto prepare a resolution of denial to be acted upon at its next meeting on Apri) 19, 2000. � v U-��'n-�-IJ James Ericson, Planner I:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDfiV�DEVCASI:S\VR00-002U3runes Rcport - April 5, 2000.doc � • �. �� )i ��;��;iC`;;; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT -� D�VELOPMENT APPLICATIOP P.�, i:[:=�:;:;; 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 ,�'�hj= ° PartneYSt��Q� E) I Z—% 1%-4020 612-784-3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Ipformation - Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information /� Name of Applicant __ (S iC � �" 0 i� �/ �- �,_ � z ►a m� rN Telephone �/ Z - % �' (� � (� � [U � Address ig � (i Y1� �',� rax ��i:.�� o v E � w rv ��e � %�l o U nl �� v I� �J w1 n� �- S� 1/ z- L►terest in Property (check appropriate box) � Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other (explain) Applicants must provide evideace of intere9t in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a Ietter of permission from tlie owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepteJ. Property Description/Proposal /' Address or General Location ��/� t� 11— �Q U L"C, l� GU k1 R b� rn c7 t�' io � U/ C�,� Legal Description �� IeTI-1 '�- e,) f�k I IQ 1(! l� �i h i0 J T�/r) n� LO 7'.,j �LL'� .Z, Property Ident�cation # (PIN #) # of Acres Cunrent Zoning 0 6 � o L�� c2c� `I S"" Z. � z I le C� Y O� I�� CS t .v �''VVT 11i4L Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Rezoning o Major Subdivision ❑ Minor Subdivision t7 Planned Unit Development (PUD) ❑ PUD Amendment ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Variance ❑ Code Appeal ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit ❑ Floodplain Permit ❑ Other $250 $250/acre; min $250 max $1500 $250 + $250 deposit* $200 Refer to rezoning fees $350 R-1, R-2 $75; all others $250 R- , 2 $100 Il others $250 $10 $125/acre; min $125 max $750 R-1, R-2 $150; all others $200 R-1, R-2 $25; all others $] 00 $200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated wi[h this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonabte incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View, MN Developrnent Application Pa�e Z Present Use of Property o UndevelopedNacant � Single Family Dwelling ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling o Multi-family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) Property Classification a Abstract Description of Proposal f,v (; W p i.1 _C �= cr 1 o rv e �� F F l� r� Gi� ❑ Torrens C.I K� � � � i� i l� j'� - v_ o hl � r�� 1C m U i-f c� U�C E� c� n/ T/-F G' S 1 i.� �,. `� l-� !� � c� y � S c� •�' �� t/�l'f� Fo�l-o4J �� ,�; �— �r'' � c' G �-io� s � r-1-� � �f 13 I° ► nJ �, rtl �- T--��-- �= r c- /�' ��a 1�. �.v;�z� BY MY (OUR) SIGNA'1 URE ON THIS APPLICATION, I I-IEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO T"HE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFOI2MATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Signature of Applicant i'�'-� �9� Name of Applicant (typed/printed) ��E�U � Y J.i � v 1'J �s Signature ofProperty Owner �.��d-A �� /C Narue of Property Owner (typed/printed) U i-`� �--� d 1eY ��C U%� �J� Address of bwner ��J�CI O`,,�(� UC L l� � I"J ff'-b � a � n� � s' U i��,J rn aJ r�.r / J Z Phone Nucnber of Owner �� 6"� 63 U-(� / G� *********************�x************�*********************************************************�*** FOR OFFIC� USE ONLY Date of Submittal `- J�� Z C c� O Date of Acceptance :-3 �( CG Assigned to: Planning Case No. ��-1 J C� � G� J--� 60-day Limit 120-day limi[ Fees Paid: Account # Check #. Receip A lication_ L' � eG � �D PP � � OD t,/(Oa'� Cc�:1 � Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: _( C� Q `' `: N:IDATA\GROUPS\COMDGV�FORMS�DG VAPP. FOR 1/98 .� � , . - � L �.___ . .�� ,�-- _'� � --��--- <;_ -- :�� h �- : . t � I - J �.:=��;:# � Brunes Variance April 5, 2000 Page 4 of 5 Zoning Map B � A � _ .� _ ___ _ _ - = - � � - - - � - -NORTH COUNTY � y�y N n 9 8499 g4gp � 849 �� 1D � N N 9 9�^�, ass{ a�s i F�. t g g4gs��„ 84a4 8489 .�g,�gp � g,� 8� ia iv `'' 8490 84S � ` 8477 I 8480 � - - 8�79 4470 847 8474 �� -t 8484 847 6488 8�8 �$�74 `—�" 8465 8470 8475 �74 84i _._ �'- i469 �� ._._..._ .__ 848 84 8454 �$4&1 {-....._�� g4gg 8456 &t81 �6480 845 y 84�a _� _ 8�t 84t - gqs5 I� 8439 8450 8455 8440 8441 � 8433 g454 84: ea�2 84ae -L_ s�-ts a�c V j g�,4 g� � aa�w 84 8438 � 8430 b438 g� a437 8� 8431 _._._ s�5 � a� saao �2� � s4zg a�z � �42{ a�a5 a`3+ s4ss a4z4 - a��g s4; 6421 1 8423 �8426 � g4�3�i 6420 841t 8418 ---- _��._._.�.,...� a413 � - 8419 8499 8420 8405 8392 8401 840` 8� e4of 8ai 8406 A407 . 1. B41 8415 847I 4pi M �- --- --- .. .-84U� 83�9 � � ��(�ea a3so au � 8394 8403 � g 8449 ` 8408 9��! �8378 a3a9 _____ .--._ gsg4 83! .._.--- �� B tA01 �8398 � 6379 � 838Q 8373 �� B31 837 83tl0 u 8391 $� ��..� �5 � 8372 8360 83i � � i387 .-- - --8382 83s1 �8378 37 j n � ' e - _ _..... .__ " � ; _ 8374 8383 M�� 8372 8371 r 8368 � 83681� 8360 ��'��,� �� ...�-. � 8350 83, $36 a371 ' 63 8331 � 1 8384 8345 8340 831 � 834 83fig 8354 8345 t _` ��.� _.._ �_._ 83: 8360 � 8359 Lv $360 � 8344 8351 ��834 �� 8340 �j3----`r-- 6330 83i �7 j 8358 8341 �.__�.___. 8343 � 8342 8325 8312 8315 I 832D 831 �--' -- -i d�.334 ..._._..--{--.�.�____.. .._._.�J __�- �._._._. g� 833� � 8339 � --- _ .__.__ �_ _.. —�i _�;V� 8335 �^ 8332 831b V a30i 8303 8310 w� 83( 8336 s32s � e33o 3 s3� a�3o s333 I t�.32z �ps.�� —•8280 8295 8290 82� ._..__..._. .._.w..__.�..�.. � _.�----�---� __�,'�-._..._._ __ �T_`-' 83t6 ��15 ! 8322 p 8321� 8325 � 8300 0 8285�. _82� 8287 � 8280 g2t _ 631 t T � 830lf Y 831 8275 �` y� 8270 � 828 t I 8270 (n Sz ss�2 82si � Js29e 830� GROVEIaND f"- � s2so � sv3 � a2so s2i 8265��._ _^-- -___�._ � 8289 9280 8290 .w._ ..� _ a2� PFPARK 8255 ; 8250 8267----� _ 8250 82, - s2s, i�_,�.ss3o szs,J..+ � �.. � �! �.�_ s2ao a2s, _ a2ao h 8270 D26D 8230 8241 �� N N{ Ni N N t$z3p 8255 N� N �. ARDAN a� , r- sza8 g L�� S 18 �.- N_ ��a �^i N� i� g N� N i� i N, s22o $z> >_'_-'-_'�__ '~ aaoa �' �-_.�__ i .i µ � : s2io sasa 8245 ,..-.____.._,�--- a2a7 � -`T'�" s2o2 -�.__._...__.._,.�. � � � � ��. �2 _�-_____ s2i� ___,� � �---_..�_�.�____.. --- 8210 ------�--__._._...�,. �___..... , 819$ 8205 c�v c�v'• N: crv t � .._.,_�___..__ R ' _._.__- � 1.-^t5 `— 8181 ai92 a 8203,1 N; n 82� �-�-�-�-- N 6175 '� R2fl0 _v..�..._..—__� -_.._�._._ � �+,�-- { N ... �- - i �3 I �n °.� ,� . '-� .,.. � 0 _ _ . z_-_�.�� '�:z=. �_ _- �'""' ._ �._ i . . _ .._ _ .._ L.__ . . _�- __" "... 1- .'_"'......"'_'_"_" f._' ��' _"' �. I' Brunes Variance April 5, 2000 Page 5 of 5 ►�Y �'� .��G��t �� 1"D1�elG��G� �(IG�� l� 0 �. �� s � � �� c�oc�,� . �iU�i /2.�� r�- -�� D�e� c� �=�� ;�� . �� . � ��' � �-� ' �� `� °�..t�Lc�o �, �� a�v o� � � �� Z:��Z/ �/I�GfJ �`-G�(% � ��/.,� Lc.�b �� `� � � � --�o. 0�2:..rJC ��. �o �� T C T � . /�� z�� - �, �� . �� ' � � _ �� ' � �� —�� .� �� , �- �G� � �� c��' �,��c� ��J ,� �' . �� - ��%� � � � � �� o� � �� " �� "� L%i� Zyo C`\� � � � � � ��G� � � � . ��'�C.l�r� � � f! � �i L�(s� S��G�� /�� , z �� - � � � � �� ' �' � � ��o� _ �� . ��. , � �� '�'�j r �/�L/u'� /''�/ � �� o ,�' ��,�� c�� . ` �� y/` � _ . . . (�'�/ I/�`� �� -`� 4 . � �i� � d �i�� /% � �� , G��-Zrt�G�� i-v G�r7 Z��/ - -b c�K�� c� �� _ . C �7� � �' `� C~�� _<F ir_.. _ l:I. R "' W .• �� ' . . 1f/� /� / �/ („/ C '� V C!rCIEG� . � � � `!7'IO`�!'V � , / C.�VW : � °`��v«� . G� ��,u..i . ��'� �'�� ` �� .�� . , �� L c�� .� . �.(/ �4 G � � a� G%s�(� , r/L-�/ � � i�C��/ L'(1`�� "'1' L��'�-'�-� � �- � ��'Y�.�/ a.�?i' �� / _ �� z �� - ��%=� � �� :�:� }�>� . -. � �� i � �-„ : :' � � �. ; L ' � � � » _.. _... �... �� i • s. Q�� _(''r�r`,�y;.i..��li :•� t� �i. �• �'�� .3 ,.�---- �. � �,,c,.:.�a�.y� � c---L�„•�� .. �� : n_ .....° _.° -.,..._.._.....A.. i �: I i � 4 �i , � � yp� � i I / � !4 e F .�...�_�.1.-,.,.........�.._ ,.... �%{ �� __ _ --= i a . �. _ , _ A _ ;._ — - .. . _ : _ _ _ _ � _ __ ._ �:��. , _ . . .__� . �.�- . L...�. . ._ .. .. : . . � -. �"' _ '__. .�. . '_ "'_':'. ' " ' ' - � IfCm # 9 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: April 5, 2000 Title: CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A 400 SQUARE- rOOT OVER-SIZED SHED LOCATEU AT 8038 LONG LAKE ROAD Planning Case No: CU00-003 Applicant: Juanita Snetsinger & Shelley Hill Location: 8038 Long Lake Road Applicable Regulations: • Section 1106.03, Subd. lh, statcs that no property shall have more tl�an one shed and one garage. • Section 110G.03, Subd. 1 j, slipulales that lhe combined square footage for all accessory buildings in a rear yard shall not occupy morc than 20"/0 of thc rcar yard. • Section 1106.04, Subd. 7lists the speci£c conditional use requiremenls for an over-sized shed. • Section 1125.01, Subdivision I lists thc geueral adverse cffects criteria which necd to be addressed in order for a conditional use permit to be approved Introcluction: The applicants, Juanita Snetsinger & Shelley Hill, are requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 400 square-foot oversized shed in the backyard of their property at 8038 Long Lake Road. The property is located in the northwest section of the City, midblock between Sherwood and Hillview Roads. The 18,480 square-foot, well maintained lot is improved with a rambler and attached two-car garage. There are currently two smaller outbuildings in the back yard which would need to be removed upon completion of the proposed larger shed. Numerous mature evergreens shield the back yard of view from adjacent properties. Discussron: Section 1106.4, Subdivision 7 lists the specific conditional use permit requirements for accessory storage buildings in excess of 216 square feet. These requirements, such as setbacks and maximum square-footage would be met with this proposal. The setbacks for an accessory structure are five feet; the applicant is proposing to locate the shed in the southwest corner of the rear yard no closer than five feet to the property line. The area of the proposed shed would be 400 square feet, which is the maximum allowed. The Code rec�uires that by accessory buildings take up no more than 20 percent of a rear yard; this proposal would equate to a minimal 3.3 percent coverage. As is the case with every conditional use permit application, the Planning Commission shall ,� _ � .� a : _ _ _ ,f . ��_—�__ 1��_ ��} '�=�.,.: - - ---_---- -- - - _. ,. _ �' - .. 6�--- - -_ - - -- _�-�-= __: _. _ - _ Kleinschmidt CLTP April 5, 2000 Page 2 of 2 consider possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. The findings of the Planning Commission shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: • Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. • The Geographical Arecr Involved • Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. • The Character of the Surrounding Area . 'L'he demonstrated need for seich a use. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 8038 Long Lake Road, low-density residential. Almost every lot in this area of Mounds View is the same size as the subject property. There is a good mix of housing styles in the area, though most are older 1'/2-story homes with detached garages. The two existing sheds on the subject property are too small to effectively store the owner's motorcycles and snowmobiles and other equipment which prompted the requesC for the larger shed. Given the size of the lot and the number of mature evergreens, it is not believed that the construction of the proposed 400 square-foot shed would depreciate the neighborhood in any way. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and would fit with the general character of the neighborhood. Staff performed an on-site inspection of the property on March 29, 2000, and observed that the back yard is quite large with many mature evergreens at the periphery of the back yard. While the trees would not completely block view of the proposed shed from neighboring properties, staff would contend that in conjunction with the separation of distance, the shed would be sufficiently screened and would not pose a detriment to adjacent properties. The addition of the shed would provide for interior storage of recreational vehicles and equipment that might otherwise be stored outside on the subject property. In sta#is opinion, the property would benefit from this proposed improvement. Recommendation: Given the above findings and the fact that proposal would meet all applicable requirements of the City Code, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 616-00, a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of this conditional use permit request, subject to stipulations. James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Dcvelopment Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. PhoCo Documentation 5. Resolulion 614-00 �'�`� �[� .::,, :�:, r(� ��Ji `� �' ::'•'.; L;!; �;, .� " i;�=:;;+,f eAf , �Mjt ' Partne'��Q COIVIMUNI'TY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View NIN 55112 6i2-�1�-ao2o 612-784-3462 - FAX Please Type or Pru�t Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information � l , L Name of Applicant � �l�i 'v�� 1 C� � �--1 S � �t q � f � �" e � � �U �� { � Telephone � � Z � ?8 � � `� � z � Address g� ?� �o v� c� �� e ��d Fax Nlo�wdSU,F:.J M +�J SSIr� Interest in Property (check appropriate box) � Owner of Property ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑ Other (explain) ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Agreement to Purchase Applicants must.provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of tl�e ptoperty, you must providc a lettcr of permission from thc owncr giving consent to the filing of this application. Tl�e property owner must sign this application for it to Ue accepted. Property Dcscription/Proposal Address or General Location g 03 � 1. 0 v� Legal Description S � � �a F �" �� . ° -i- � ; S � 2 ( n1 c' �— k" ��2 �c (-� ` � � �' ,e`'� Property Ident�cation # (P1N #) 2 � i -t- t )C �� 't t # of Acres Ciurent Zoning oy2 Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Rezoning ❑ Major Subdivision ❑ Minor Subdivision ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) ❑ PUD Amendment ,� Conditional Use Permit ❑ Variance ❑ Code Appeal ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan ❑ Wetlatld Alteration Pemut ❑ Wetland Buffer Pemut ❑ Floodplain Pernut ❑ Other $250 $250/acre; min $250 max $1500 $250 + $250 deposit* $200 Refer to rezoning fees $350 R-1, R-2 $75; all others $250 R-1, R-2 $100 all others $250 $100 $125/acre; min $ I 25 max $750 R-1, R-2 $150; all others $200 R-1, R-2 $25; all others $100 $200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete thc reverse side oi'this application. .,_ '_. ___�� __ - - - �� _- .i�� __,�, �.� '_ ��'_'�. � �.q'__..��:__--.r "'.�s . �_-� _�____--� y-= .� -,. f . '.�_' ' " ' - . � �� City of Mounds View, MN Development Application ' Page 2 Present Use of Property ❑ UndevelopedNacant ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) Property Classification Description of Propos`al `} -�� ke ci.c� ��% i 1� r� �l P a2'� � � . ❑ Abstract ❑ �To S�� r� rn,�! Single Family Dwelling Multi-family Dwelling Industrial Establishment Torrens 2 ��wy„�l�;�s �- 3 �o��-�� 1 L BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, Tf-IE INPORIviATION PROVIDED S TRLTE AND ACCURATE. Signature of Applicant ' 1�� Name of Applicant (typed/printed) S �' -P — t Signature of Property Owner Name of Properly Owner (typed/printed) . Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner ��-��_ 80 > �' � y� �-� �e � . �bvn�.S I��iJ /'✓l� SS/fZ (� � Z �� 2 � ************************************************************************************************ FOR OFTICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal ?�� 1 5� O � Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Plannu�g Case No. 60-day Limit l 20-day limit Pees Paid: Account # Check # Receipt�/�, Application: � ,� - 6 D 1(? � � �� % aj �� % 3 � v � (U Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�FORMS�DEVAPP.FOR 1l98 ��n a, �r- _ _. _ ' � ; � :, � 4 �---� r� r_.,, �-� ; � �� ` ��i � `,.� o� o o l� � r� i o v �: 811( � � �n l •t ' � 8111 i � . �n �n . •. �n ! �n �n � � yg 10 8101 i N � ,� ! u> c� 1 `�' i �� N! N N j N;Nj N NIN' N t N f Vt • ! � NERWOOD � ��O' o 'O i�� ip3 ' 00;0 i�l M i � � °a 8099 Z <n � �°n g I � ! u'ni <8086 g _ [ �n ( v? ! u� ! 8�8^ 8085j � ; � s �t � a '8081 CV ; N ; N! -�--- � N, N 1 .iO7�J c0 i �i.` ._�._-_—"; N CV __1..N t�_:t.�_..._. �..- . J N` N � N� N �t Q ...._ l-..._�.� _., v. 808� f � 4..�._.V......i____ _�_._.._ $�% � � � 80%2 Q 1 ' 8071 �� 8068 --1 8072 g 0 7 1 i--- p 8071 � 807d 8 0 7 1� �� 8070 � 8055 � 8060 8065 ��8050 � I 8060 � ' '�-' -�---=-�-�-------- `= 8041 8046 8051 ' 8044 8045 '! 8052 8051 ' 8044 8Q45 � 8046 � __^ .�� 8033 .�.� �'� 8035 i 803 8031 8038 8035 � i 8024 8027 �� 801 � .^� ' � 8021 _�`� 8022 8019 - �"'+�"""— �� Y�+�' 8011 � 8000 .�.,_. � ---- `�" � �� 8011 �_ 8000 8001��.. 8010 8011 i 8000 8005 � 801: � __.�.�. .._. _.. � +_,_.�.�...._._� 7981 ,''� 7990 � 7989 �,� 7996 � 9�____.�__ 799d 79 ' 7984 7989 � 7988 i 7980 p 79 � 7970 -----�- ---�-�---�--•----- 7969 �� 7980 7979�,�_..__��. — ` 7975 � 7980 7971 1 7968 7965 � ��7960 7961�.; -_-- ��_ ` ��. ��^ ----! 7969 �� 7959 �� 66 � 7950 7951 � 7954 T � � � � � 7955 7944 7953 ti 7948 7945 _�.-�--`- 7946 7927 � 79aa H I LLVI EW ---�--j--�--- .__..�__�____..__.._ 7935 ! 7930 7917 PARK 7945 ; 793 7931 5 7930 -�---•---- _"_'"'i�ci � I� ° `_' 7901 "-� -a^, �`u� � T' bi � a� � �....�._._.. � � ~ 1 � 3 O 'D �A � U� .d � 17_ tn �A U1 � j N i�- i f ! �._ _,_ �.....'..-... � ( ,� i a s � � �v � 7900 901 �n �n� u> 7900 ^� � � , � d• � N I� N 1 N i%�OO %9O� N i (V i PF i C��'. N' N' N i N� N N ftOAD __ _ _ — ,� ..___� � 7891 � N ; N ' 7880 � _. 7885 7$66 7877 � �854 k 7842 7863 i w 7830 n 7851 ; .--- � � �. �_ 782 _ � i� ��~. � 781 � � 7800 �c� R~�4 1,rO ,� ^ 04j `Oy `�' ,\�ti i �,��' R'` 3 �� 6�h � � -2 � � B�'J � N J B� 3 ��o 9-2 + N ; 7895 y N S N� 7890 7867 � �+7870 7860 7851 ��,._,_, 7850 7841 -�--w--� �V� 7840 7815 � 7790 s 7809 �� 777� 7801 �� 7764 __�_--�—;-.�..--.--• 7767 j 7760 7761 �^ 7750 7755 , 7730 7745 � `�'n 10 __..._�..._.�_r�- � rn-_ 7715 � N;<n �o �� 7869 7865_ 7855 7835 7815 � 7805 � 7801 � 7751 j 7741 7731 7721 7711 S O� � ':: %864 as � � l� .': � CJ�N .:: J 7858 7853 7852 W ...._.._.,...__ 7846 Y 7841 ; :.: �sao g 782s � _____ ' i 7800 7817 �_� 7809 __ � 7780 7801 T_� 7760 7797 _��; 7750 7787 7777 7740 7767 ~vT� 7730 7753 � ____ 7720 _,__._.._...._.. 7700 R-2 I� 1'") Of �� M r- � I� It� i.r.c�� ro�u>�n 2553 NNNN � NNNNN 2SS� N 2549 2547 2545 B-4 2541 2539 2537 � N ui ,n R �-2 7695 7687 -- 4 Zoning Map Planning Case CU00-003 Applicant: Juanita Snetsinger & Shelley Hill Location: 8038 Long Lake Road �ae9 7875 7861 7820 � 7833;78 781 3 7815:7� 780fi :.�-.• 7800 7801;78 7778 7749 77 7768 7�39�?� 7748 7729!77 ,7728 7719i77 7710 7709i77 � � 7701 �� lo ;� N i N N R—I4 66 R-4 2�66 �ss� � 7�6 7655 �eC� 7ae+c ��! M� N ( N` N� N .._._[._ • � 7869 '786C i� p 7857; 785( _. � _._...}_.__, � 7845j784( � 7837�783C 32 �_____ 7827l782( � �....__ 7817� 0 � 5 7807,� � 7751(;�� 30 7741�774C 2 Q 7731�773C 1� p 7721 i772C m 00 770 `* CO 1�\� —3 �766C 764C �-4 . _ , �``� .. .. . . � . . . � � 1 f . . - i . . o — 5�. � � ,1�,: l "t;J - � � S J "1-_ �!� `Q�" J �` �'�1�1'L � � �� D� . LotArea: IS,�180 sc�uare feet Area of 13ack Yard: 12,1 G0 square feet Area of Garage: �1 G square feet ,o�� Area of Shed: 400 sc�uare feet � k� . \t�, _ � , '—'" ' �x �. � � ` a� � _ �, ; , � �' -'`; �. �;�� .z�" �`�. �. iF I ' �� I . �� ' �= �: -__ .,._ _ � --�— � c, ------_..�_. �. \4�, .�' y� � � � � i Site Plan Planning Case CU00-003 Applicant: Juanita Snetsinger &: Shelley Hill Location: 8038 Long Lake Road 1�� ._:;: _ _-- ---- _, 4 _. __ . _"�_�:�; _ � .: _._. - Photographic Documentation 8038 Long Lake Road Back Yard Area � � i _ _ L.___. .� _: �. '_.._. Ie�__ _.—___ '__— _ .. .. F �_____ __ _�...�.�. . �. ._ - .. _ . _�_:, '��' --�,s,-,�l —. - ' �, `�;!r „ ,,, 1 : i , ak„ ,. � � , ��, �:;� . . i�. �� ' . . , � � - ��il�, �� ..n �,�0 � .iri ' , ��' 'i�14 i � , .,- r,i� . i � '; � � . . i, . � �,,� �, � .,�.. 1 �� I � n � ' i , II 1 ,i � im � f� II '� f. , , , � :,.,� . � ii i � �� I � „ � i1 „ � � �I , ��- � �r' , , ;} - _ { . , ' . 1 � 1� i �� , � I{1� � r1�, �� , ��.'�'- ' �+ � �'i � �i il II � � ,y,�; �, � �� tt�q f �� , , u � � <� � �, � �. � _ � ,tii' �� `r�.f ,1��,, � � �ti, '��, , � . I , , ,' � t � _ 1� � 1: 1' �� . I�` _�ii.� � �',�� l., ! _� �if�r�� {�II� � .�� i �Yl��r.��i , ��' , �� ' - � � -,.a �:i, � 4� �� u a �,� � fr ��t�u l��}� �, � �� ,,� �� " �� ' � (i �� u;_i,. �� ,� �� ,, ' -.�.� I t+ .:� � i� 7i' t U .�� iti �.,�tl � Iji �" . . . ;�1d � . � „ i! ii IiE . , ��II Il . '� �. . ' �I . . � I �� t .ii ., . ' ' �• .. � ��n• nl,.�. ') i lns ��-�J � � �- n " 4.i�r' r' ' �� ' � ';� � � � II � .,. � �� :�.-s_ : . r� � . � � .. � � . , . _ . .. . p -.SsL�: � �a�11. �. , 11 '"'f Y �, � , � " n . - �c�,, '! ::: - I� � '�, , ��.' : ' . U�f �� I� �I �.� �� " - " �'t q ll��i� (Z) _ �� {t , n . � �. � � , �;�� • �� ,ti�u , — t � � � il n � � , , „ � r '� ;,� ,. , u !.! . �� > �,�u %� 'f' ��i�. t _. r p �;,' _ j rap, , �,,: .,� �, " _t � � �� f � i �YY.. ��i ti .. � ` -� �wr .4. 0 t+L� �� a � . ! ai� . � Ci .1� V. n �i i .. . i . n . �� ,� � �. � " . .,.y 17� ��' , U �� i � af�� ' � `?'� d�� - �_�_ ��JWt��;l ,p . .� . ..- i. . ' ll .� �`-�s .Si' e C � �(� � � ��A) �;',LB� . . � ' n , � ...(5f i � �`.. t �� ...;a" ��'. - � �i �a _ t 'J 4 � . . ' `4 �'.r � .A r y / �;�y � � 1'�x . < ry z' ,;c' j� - � �„ � �;r` , , ! � �� s ,. � _. ,<�o � � , _ � , . . . : �:i:,, i,p.� _ .. � .. ._ ,,. , � . . , �f� „ �.> � „ u � �d: .-:> .� „ u �� k �� . �t� "-�- .� •� .. '�. Ih.. , ° �> :, � �� . ,. �(� r ', i, . � � > t ' ,. . � :: � �� , ' ,• �_, � •� . . �� , .. ��r� � � ��{ ( A'� , ti.. .. . . ( t � � \ �{�� , , �� ,,-:> y� � i� � � , < � �.� � ,� � , .� �ht; � .� ' r r „ ' t� r, . i Yil�n: i � . �. , _, ,�r+, `i' i i t,r '� � ; � tFl�t`� u , ti k ,f � .. � .� . ' ' u i � � 1 � r.r ? i �' � i t �!�i� �� j+ , 1j �� ., � ..� �s)� . t� u " S. � . �I, u 71i� i,n � i st. � 11 ti 4i�, � rr' , 1 Y . � Y�1' � } �ti', _.r .�, . , �u- .u_ �� . �,. I1� . .. L.}t� �� i.. 7k. . �.. r i�i�iS`,-. t�_� � i� �y � I , ,. � l �� ' i� ll " q .Y � ';tY�(d _ � , , „U ., . fi '., � ri�. 1 `i. ' . � t �� i � ., . � �� '1 ��<<� � �11 �l . SI i1� 7 r . � ❑u F-;�i � i, � , i o °u nSl _� � �r� s �� j 7�st.� �� r, . , u � '; r��. ,.,�II i)�t�t� � �°i ,i�. ,.ri1 S f> ., !I t10 li. �� „ � � . ' � U�r V � q . - u , �� 'i � . �• , S � i !`" 'li — -- '-'-- -- ---„ . _ �� — „S� � ��i`�__ _..h , __ 1 _��.1�4�� --_ . __� � � ,'� , �*�'-«��.{ .F_ ��.� .. , , . , ,`,• _ . ;� ,. ,. , � . % ,+ . � ' ,' .�J� � . . � � �i� � . ' ' '�.�l�14� � i � , 4 '' ' �; I , �ti y � I�`�'�^—` ' 1• , - �� . ' � . ' � • �,�;� � • � N.,.�.! ti! � H.. 1�i . ' . . : ' . , ' `�� ,�' •" r � � � } 9.' � �°ii�r°�. � '!t rt f�+ �i11 . � � � w � ,`e � t� h t+�� A, } n�+ � ,� � � •LI' Lw !^rii _ t e 7 � '�,' � � �...�M . � � "d b �, J 1� ,' a i li� � �.� t �'..,,i � '.! 7, j+. >ib �i��F� S /� 1� w'��)�4t f .,'4.y,+. i' 1 � . . �� tr o) ��v."� � R s�"�� -Kt N�� a w; YByt � ".1�+ h.~ I �.',_+I . ,:;'�'� f+,A'�.id, ��a�<$1�� i�� 'v�.Ll�i�NL� vk ;!4�!� �iV�a-4.vs"i� .I�V J;7��%' .i .r. .,. . . �,. , � . . . y'►� � � , _ . . ,. ��• � .�1'�� ,�.ii.. , . _ �-:-. — ----- --- - - ---- � • -� . .- _�_� — _----_- � ----- MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. G1G-00 CITY OF MOUNDS V�W COUNTY OF RAMS�Y STATE OF MINNESOTA =�----= i�.� � __ . RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A 400 SQUARE-FOOT OVERSIZED 5IIED AT 8038 LONG LAKE ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. CU00-003 WHEREAS, Juanita Snetsinger and Shelley Hill have applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 400 square-foot shed in the back yard of their property located at 8038 Long Lake Road, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as follows: The South 80 Feet of Lot 3, Spring Lake Park Hillvieiv Rnmsey County, Minnesotrz WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows sheds up to 400 square feet in area with a ma�mum accessory building area not to exceed 1,400 square feet; and, WH�REAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Development Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plan d. Photographic Documentation e. StaffReport WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies the dimensional requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general; and, WAEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed shed would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved in that the lot is rather large and sheds are commonplace residential structural improvements which help keep properties neat and orderly; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Com►nission finds that the proposed shed would not depreciate the neigliborhood in that the oversized shed would allow the applicant to store items inside which might otherwise be left outside and would guard against a cluttered exterior appearance; and, � , �. :! . 6 _� �_ - - _._�,,, ��-,r%—s:..r=:.'s`�- -...:.z�:l _ �-� ..__�__ .. _. ». _ ----•-=.� �.__._ _ . ;. __. _ _ _ = =�=i, __�r_ s�s<�=�� Resolution 616-00 Apri15, 2000 Page 2 VVHEREAS, Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed oversized shed; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed oversized shed would be sufficiently screened and separated by distance from adjacent residentially-zoned properties in that the presence of mature evergreen trees and size of the back yard help screen it from general public view. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 12�SOLV�D that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: The applicant shall arrange to record the City Council resolution approving the conditional use permit with Ramsey County and provide proof of such recordation to the City within sixty days of Council approval or this permit shall be considered null and void. 2. The shed shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. 3. No other sheds or accessory buildings shall be allowed on the property. The two existing sheds may remain on the lot until thirty days beyond the date by which the proposed shed is completed, at which time they shall be removed. 4. The shed shall be a permanent structure and shall be designed and maintained to be aesthetically pleasing and complementary to the e�sting dwelling and garage. BE IT rINALLY RESOLV�D that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 5"' day of April. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) W:U�A"CA\GILOUPS\COMDBV�DF.VCASES\CU00-003U'C I2�SOLUTION 616-OO.DOC � • < , _ , � F; ` � :' - -- --_- ---� ---- --- _: : - ------- _—� — --- -y- -- ---- - I-- - -- - -- Item # 10 City of Mounds View Planning Commisslon Report Meeting Date: April 5, 2000 Title: DISCUSSION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST BY DELITE OUTDOOR ADVERTTSING TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCED MINIMUM SPACING REQUIlZEMENT BETWEEN TWO BILLBOARDS Planning Case No.: VR00-003 Applicant: DeLite Outdoor Advertising Company, Inc. / Sysco Foods Location: 2400 County Road J Applicable Regulations: • Scction 1008.08, Subdivision lOc requires that therc be a minimum 1,000 feet separating any two billboards in the City. Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its review of varianccs. Background: On December 13, 1999, the City Council adopted Ordinance 644 which amended the City Code to allow for the installation of billboards north of State Highway 10 (formerly known as TH 118) as conditional interim uses. Sysco Foods and the Bridges Golf Course are the only properties north of State Highway 10 where billboards could be located according to the ordinance. The City was first to apply for billboards, requesting six to be located on Bridges Golf Course property. The unique stone-monument design and associated landscaping of these billboards was an important feature to the City to ensure a good fit with the golf course. The locations of the six billboards were chosen so as not to impede, obstruct or inhibit golf course operations while providing signage visibility to motorists. Not long after the City's formal application was accepted, DeLite Outdoor Advertising Company, representing Sysco Foods, applied for an interim use permit to allow for two billboards to be located on Sysco property. Upon initial review, it was discovered that the second proposed sign on Sysco's property would be too close to the City's first sign on the Go(f Course. Representatives of both parties worked to resolve the inadequate spacing, but in the end, short of one party losing a requested sign, a resolution was not forthcoming. The Planning Commission, in its recommendation to the City Council regarding Sysco's interim use permit application, recommended approval conditioned upon Sysco applying for and obtaining approval of a variance to resolve the spacing deficiency. On March 17, 2000, the City received DeLite's variance application. , ; _ �. _ � _ _ _ ;; _ _ ��_�_ �_ _ — ..__�_�s ��----= --�-- --- ---- �� -- - ----- -- _ -- - — --- -- --- —_= -- . ,_ - -. I Sysco Variancc April 5, 2000 Pagc 2 of 3 A public hearing had been set for this date yet the notice was not published in the paper as intended due to an error by the Foca�s Newspaper, thus no action can be taken on this item. The hearing notice will be republished and notification mailed to property owners within 350 feet, for a public hearing with the Planning Commission on April l9, 2000. Analysis: As with any variance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with theseThe Code clearly states that athardship exists when alol2of the Subdivision 2, of the Ctty Code. criteria are met. Tile individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: 0 Exceptional or extraordinary circumstartces apply to the propef•ty which do not a��ply gener•ally to other �roper�ties i�z 1he same zone or vicinity arid r•esult from lot size or shape, topography vr �lher circz�mstarrces over which the ow��ers of the pro��erty since the effective date hereof hcrve had no control. Sysco Foods, a thriving national food service and dry goods distributor, is utilizing its property to nearly full capacity. The part of the k�phat servn est e bus ness. 1 Theves as a parking area and circulatory system for the tru parking lot itself and the trucks that utilize it presents an extraordinary circumstance and practical difficulty relative to the siting of the proposed billboards. The literal interpr�etation of the p��oi�isions vf this 7itle wvrild dep�•ive the applicar7t of r•ights conmzorily enjoyed by other propei'ties in Jhe same district uf�der• the terms of this Title. While the literal interpretation of the provisions of Section 1008.08 would not deprive the applicant the ability to install one billboard, the strict interpretation of the provision would prevent the installation of a second billboard in the location sought by the applicant. It would appear that two billboards would fit on the property while maintaining the required 1,000 foot setback, but the resulting siting locations would be unacceptable due to interference with truck traffic and also due to sight-line considerations. Thus, a deprivation to the property owner does exist. That the special conditions oi� cir•cz+mstattces do not result fi-om the actioras of the applicant. The applicant was not involved in the drafting of the ordinance which conditionally allows the installation of billboards on properties north of State Highway 10. Its business and the associated site development and improvements had occurred long before the contemplation of such an ordinance. Had the ordinance been in effect prinr to the Sysco development, the site plan could have been configured in such as way to allow for the location of two billboards in compliance with the provisions of Section 1008.08. i__ ., _ .__ __�. _.us_ _ � Sysco Variance /�pril 5, 2000 Pzge 3 of 3 - ----� �-�-�-�. w. - '-- ' "_� � `-. � � �t. . . 1� --- d. That gi•a��ting the variance requested wrll rzot confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, Sl7'Z/Ct2li'eS OI' IJZ[IIL�131g'S IYt ihe same district. e. � The only other property owner in the corridor wliere billboards have been allowed is the Bridges Golf Course, which has already received approval for six billboards on golf course property. Installation of billboards is not allowed on any other properties in the City. 7�iat the var•iance reguested is the miftimzml varia�rce tivhich woz�ld alleviate the ha�-d.ship. Ecoraomic ca�dilivns alone shall rrvt be considered a hard.shi�. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to allow for the second billboard while still maintaining a separation a(lowable by Minnesota Department of Transportation permitting standards, which allows for a minimum spacing of 500 feet. The variarlce N�ould nvt be materially den•imental to the pz��pvse of this '1'itle or to other ��•operty in the same zone. Given the circumstances, staff does not feel the variance request would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. g. The proposed variaf�ce will not i��ai�• ar� adequate supJ�ly of light and air to adjacent �j"O�JL'1"�y O7" S1lBStLTi7Z1Ci'IZy I71C7'�'Cl'Se the congestion of the publre slreets or increase the danger of ftre of• e�7da�igei• the p�blic safety o�• srrbstantially diminisl� or impair property VpI2/BSWI/I1!/1 lylL' 11G'I��hborhood. The proposed reduced spacing between the two billboards would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish prope�rty values. Recommendation: Given the above assessment of the criteria for approval of a variance, staff believes that all of the standards are satisfied and would recommend that if the Planning Commission is in agreement, it should direct staff to draft a resolution approving a variance for a reduced minimum spacing between two billboards for action at its next meeting on April 19, 2000. V G�-v�.c.d James Ericson, Planner I:IUATA\GROLJPS\COMDEW)L'VCASBS1VR00-003\Sysco Variance Report - April 5, 2000.doc _ _ ___ _ ___� __ � � : . . _ - -_._ — -___ . _.�< �, .. . .x�. --� . ��---- - . �__ . ---- - --=-- - _--�- - — , _ -- _- _ . _ :._ _ _ -- - - i } I �, PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS V�W .�%l;a:. R.AMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA �'�>'�?�� ;,f,. i'>:. �'��A�v° 1VIeeting ; ¢F l�J�.QUr°�➢u ll, �000 3 �'I � ��@�l]`��al' � �,J4iiT vJ {l �; �y 11�?lll ..l•� ,>��, 2401 �e ,�'l�vay 10,1Vlaui��l� V ��;gs�°; �v�I�� llll� 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson B. Roll Call �`�.., Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, .��`ttriissie€, ,�.;<, , ��>: Laube Miller and Stevenson. -�� % ,,.. , , .:�<}> ;�- �;;.:,>. ::..3' �t;�£�': �i� Members Absent: Commissioner Braath�n; leave q��.�se� sd=::., Also Present: Planning Associate 7ttn Eric�oa�., �'o�nmu Council Liaison Dan Coughlin, �o��Course �3��-�ntend� Trish Pear�n. _ Ind��c �� Planning -ai��`''of an Interi�� iards on Golf Co `of Mounds View, 1, 2000. 7ohnson, Kaden, �evelopment Director Rick Jopke, ohn Hammerschmidt, and Recorder _ ___. __. Q�, i'��-i��,�'.��If�;ourse. Considerationof ;��a�� CO6-Oa, a Resolution Recommending _� J'�~��x��::co Allow for the Installation of Six <��:��f.y. ,,: �l�nrung Case No. ZC�?�=001, Bridges Golf Course. Consideration o �c�:;�lution Recomnri��cling Approval of a Zoning Change of Bridges ��c��'�.�'�vp se Pa��`��'from I-1 and CRP to PF. �:s�� R ��u�d� �iew, Applicant. y �"� n , r�^ �j; 's , ,��7�� ;�orts / Items of Information Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Page � 18 20 22 f " '_ . .. " g . . .� . _ ._ . _ . ., . " __ _ . ; . . . . . '_ . : � .. . � . . ''��i..�� .,��_ _'�? . �. __a+'.��__..._� �s '_'_ "'"' ". .__' _'__ "«� _ �� ' ___— � _ +Er�. _"' '___—__ _ ' 1 - �u. . . . -=� �..� ' "" � �_ '___ - '"_. . ""'_ � . _ `_' j ! Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on 4. Approval of Minutes A. February 2, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: JohnsonBerke to approve the F corrected. Ayes — 8 Nays — 0 5. Planning Case No. IiT00-001 Property Involved: Bridges Golf Course Consideration of Resolution 606-00; a;: Pernut to Allow for the Installation<��:Si Applicant: City of Mounds View ;�<��'� The March 1, 2000 Page 2 00 meeting minutes as -`�2ecommezading Approval of an Interim Use s on Golf,�tiurse Property. �::::� Planning A.��t� �':�`?.�sr��. ��v� ��i� s��"��port as follows: The applicant, �a�r y:"�� ,� ��x° �,,,�our�ci� ,�a�;�n�, is proposing to install six billboards on Bridges Golf Course,�a��perty. r"�ar;r ��+,�'s",�;y� ��ulc� �-�q�aire the approval of an Interim Use Permit (ICJP), and the duratf�ri'of the inteY�ii�n ��, ��r,��d't�e 15 years. There was significant discussion at the last meeting � •:>• of.. t�e Planning Commis�x�� ,�.�,:cerning this issue, and some of the issues raised with regard to ; ,. t�±� 6illboards centered �pori �.il� spacing and location of the signs, as well as their design and the ��E;ssa e content. �' `" ,, g �� la�ing Associa��'<Ericson stated Golf Course Superintendent John Hammerschmidt has �c�r�� ff�°��cl earte��e measurements at both the Bridges Golf Course and the Sysco property, and ��•: �y�.��%� s�x�a'�'calculations with regard to the siting and location of the signs, in keeping with the i,:.`�� s,_ :�€�� s�paration requirement. He indicated Superintendent Hammerschmidt was present, and could speak to those issues. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has drafted Resolution 606-00, which recommends approval of the IUP to the City Council with a stipulation that the City retain the ability to refuse objectionable advertising content per its lease agreement with the billboard vendor. He indicated the resolution also contains a stipulation which indicates that all of the billboards be constructed � - _---- - ------ - - - - -� ---- - �- --=_ �. _ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting : . _____�_. � _ __ __ �--: _ __ �___ March 1, 2000 Page 3 of similar materials, and maintain a consistent design theme, as presented Media proposal. He advised that another stipulation addresses the issue z; billboards can be permitted through the Minnesota Departmen� pf Transp that if a billboard pernut cannot be obtained from MnDOT, �Iptt� ��tterim U �<f'%::! the City will be considered null and void. t��::.,� ,s<<>:<:� _ Planning Associate Ericson stated the signs do not appea± to the subject property. He indicated the Planning Cc�+7 lengths at their last meeting, and the general Conditional met by this proposal, as well as the adverse ef%cts criteri� received testimony from a resident who lives on the <s concerned regarding the location of the signs, and til�; ��c property. He indicated staff is of the opinion thai �rA� � detrimental to the property values of those propy�z��5 �6��4:a Superintendent Hammerschmidt provided t,�e C� proposed locations of the signs. He indi��:ted the golf course property at its easternmost;pqint, in tt the boundary of Mounds View �ras� tl��"Ciiy o�' overview of the site locations �i�c�� i:he ea�i:��t �.�. explained that a minimum: of �,004� �e�h is req��°�� laine. �he � 6 .:�� tlie Eller i�``or not the �r�c? indicates �. 'a�'��a�ovecl by r_;�ent ��erse effects, ��i�;�t �'�,�;a��ic�' ��r� c�r�cussed this issu� a'� �resat ��z�a��z b.-r�quirements appear to be ; �rj��ysl ��,�� Planning Commission siry� �� i�;(�w�y 10, who was al cA`1�r:;F; i:�c;jr �uould have on her ation o9 �;�4� G��„x�s� would not be A;h�; south sic��' ��' Highway 10. � � �it�� 'map, which should the �� i,� �ituated in the corner of the he second green adjoins 35W on ovided the Commission with an stern edges of the property, and sign. _ _ _ Supe��ix:,a�s3��x�� ,��.dn�m��:��s.��.Y,�d ther�'��r��.�{x��O� a. 1,400-foot separation between the first and ��cc�4�.c� ��;��. '��"1�� co�� •z�;xa ,��.�� b��. �xi�e�lded forward so that it will not interfere with the wester;n ��;f;�� aa€;;� a��r�� he onr��c�, :�r�� rould otherwise only be visible to eastbound traffic. He stated ih�; �liiY�� si�,�,' �v��c? �>� i o.r,��c� �,��",' feet from the second, and situated on the edge of the swamp, in tY� �a�i��A ��:'��i� �olf �oui��;. ; �% :, ; : x�pi��ndent Harr�z��z��s>�>��£>�� .clicated the fourth sign would be located 1,000 feet from the f,.,.; �,�reen, and the fift�t :s��,�F ;��f��.�id be another 1,000 feet, and adjusted slightly toward the east �use it could not be l�:�at�i directly in front of the eighth green. He explained that they placed �� location approxim��::�1y 40 to 50 feet behind the eighth green, to the east of Judicial Ditc . He ;:��ed that from �`�` point, they moved exactly 1,000 feet to the sixth sign location, which , t,� ;:�rl be at the e,d��`'of the woods clearing, and approximately 37S to 400 feet east of the go ;€�;;pr�per�� e, which is adjacent to the Sysco property. He indicated this is the maximum �� `ation they can provide, and they could not move any farther to the east of the Superintendent Hammerschmidt advised that Sysco's preferred site is in very close proximity to the property line, which would allow them to construct the sign off of their parking lot, however, the distance between tlus location and the City sign would be less than 1,000 feet. He advised that in the northwest corner of the Sysco property, there is a portion of land that extends down from the junction of County Road J and Highway 10, however, this would not be an acceptable _ µ _ �` !:— ;i ,: � ------ . -- -- • =-- - .. - __�. _ ^ � - -- ---- - ---Y= , -- - - -- =--� " I Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 1, 2000 Page 4 sign location because the overpass would block any view from the north. He'�xplain� could move approximately 40 to 50 feet from the property line, whicla `��rc�ui.t�. acceptable location for a two way sign, however, there would only'be 500 tc� �f?C� f�� i � signs. He pointed out that with the 1,000-foot spacing requi�`emeii'£; one o�i:h� ��,�Ii; have to either obtain a variance, or lose a sign. He advise�" i�a� State Codc; ca1l� i�i�� minimum spacing between signs, therefore, Sysco coulc�; ��tali a sigr� xri this lac';�a. obtained a variance, for which they would have to show a k��t-i�p, g�r�i'ich may ��:.i ;i their internal traffic circulation. Superintendent Hammerschmidt indicated another factor th�� "��;� �,��x�� the initial consideration of the signs, one of the pnmary�; �nfk,�a� 4,�4;��s � of%ring something unique. He stated they were pa-oposzn� thi�� }�e; �;c they would like to obtain some agreement for s�m�i�•;i r��..;��;��,;,na� �i�c tw� Sysco property. However, it would be very di��l.; '�� rF �t �;�,d !:� ��-o��id facing. He explained that the monument styl� �fg7i` ii1�y� ��>�:; ��c�ui,��,� fa cut approximately 50 feet into the property; �nd thi� ��,LS�r�. ��. ��lxi��tii would have to be constructed within the e�,i�tin� parl�� ar�a. Chairperson Peterson inquired westernmost site proposed on th� Superint�ttc��za� riamme He expl�in�� s��at this excavat�, , <�r�;b � ��;-�, c converu�nt. �,�-� ka�� ac;� Peter Co�le, x��r•��;��__< has been. s��irrutted �rc �� l:: '�':` Sysco property. k �� H�a�xrierschmidt elude� tla�;'<'sign and to allow �� €;� �ome before the Pla ,;. �� rnit process is pe.t�t�i ,� ' � i�' ativ'm i�z C�ISCUSS10T1 �:;-�%' �I�''�„�i� �t they ide an ;en the would ��£oot nto play is that during �� lesigrn, in terms of (i` r;��.�,:,� property, and �gi��d��s �� oposed for the ; +l�c-: s�rne type of sign tiie golf course would � for Sysco, if the sign ibility � and ground conditions of the z cours�;. •,.� ,��.- . ,%, ;ated th��.A;� ��J�� O'e hydrological studies of the entire area. upland, F�� y�� bermed up at the time the drainage was be fairly easy. He noted that it would be much more �y��,ca,property, and this might be worked out at some point. �� x ��i�� atdoor Advertising and Sysco Foods stated a set of plans �,� x��t reflect ihe monopole structures that would be proposed for the ��a�,r,�;;.�hat those signs reflect the comments that Superintendent ��i is the need to ensure there is clear space under the bottom of ��uility of trucks in the parking area. He stated these plans have not ; Commission, in terms of a formal review, however, the Interim Use He advised that the design of the signs was an issue that required x�� ;'t��fr=i.;; ��,r� ,s; i 7ohnson inquired if they were proposing a monopole structure, rather than a ��t�� _:=: ��: ��z�le sign. Mr. Coyle stated this was correct, adding that they have no other option, given il�e layout of the Sysco property. Commissioner Berke inquired if there had been any discussion between Sysco and the City since the last meeting of the Planning Commission. -= .� - :, , r _ . __ _ _ _ _ _ ' . s----.. . >.,� ,� .— . -- I l.,____•--__•L`3�_ �_ h .__ �___ �__ .—_ _ d. _' __. _ __. Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 Planning Associate Ericson stated he did not believe so. He indicated Su�e�'�ritendent Hammerschmidt has been quite involved with the examination of the dim�ris�t�ns �nd the sign spacing, and it was believed that these discussions would take pl�:��.;v�ithin t�t� �k��>� ��w days. Mr. Coyle stated they had hoped there would be a meetin� Paul Radamacher, a representative of DeLite Outdoor I1 previous week, and this has been the primary obstacle in z� contact with City staff and the City Attorney on several � good desire on the part of the City to resolve the issues, been practically worked out. ,�i'�f%� V; i��i:i�thatas�` Mr. Coyle indicated their fundamental concern at this � this process, they do not wish to be the ones wk� variance. He stated it would be logical for th��il�F ,. decisions regarding the sign facings made up-<�'Cint, � position of having to achieve the relatively�cult van Mr. Coyle advised that the City's 1 requirement, therefore, there may � explained that one option would �.b,� ,< case the �.ppaic�tion presently be�`c�r+ 1,OOO�fo�� ,��a�;�ng betw�:��:. ��:��° �� proce�cl. ��:� '��., two . . basis. ` Mr. Coyle northeast lo that the a��i `' e� iacing issue. II� ement. He expl� provide a solutio � and also res�`� ' i. <; iliti�s on the::sl��: o apply the Cox posed �� which ;r in the w��' �� i<��.c? �hat ising hat� tinder�on�; �v� �;e�� rf �}�c, ,a�d �e indicated he fi�� ;�� az� �;��, and was satisfied tiES;F ►s � :��€�r, �i. Yhis point, they hav�; rioi �T�`; `g y �%0111E; �` � �� z,��plicanl � ��a.� u��;a�,��g of ;e �g�'��ad�iz€� �c �l��operty owner in Y �i�� City seeking a �tiempt to have the applicants are in the "� requii ert��;nt is well in excess of MnDOT's with re�:`�1 to the spacing of the signs. He , <;. an int�tTor lot spacing requirement, in which �� 5;��3�Icl be in compliance, because there is a ��; i�ic�icated this would also allow Sysco to ;o �paced 1,000 feet apart, on an interior lot rh ��,��:�i�� d�'� 1,400 feet between the first sign on the furthest ,i� �;o�_xr��, #;� ��n� �ign located around the curb, and it was conceivable <,��r�ent across those signs would be 1,000 feet, notwithstanding the � a��; �xplained that this presents another potential means to resolve �� s,ti�� another option would be to decrease the 1,000-foot spacing 3 t�at although this would probably require a Code amendment, this ' it would allow the City to achieve the locations proposed for the golf Sysco's preferred locations, which are necessary for its operational �r�J�. ��;ti��r��; ��tat+�i� as the Commission was aware, Sysco is a good neighbor to the community, and ��r a,,- r�� a �. 'is to cooperate with the City in this matter, and they anticipate that with further ui;�cuy��or�, %�ds would be the case. He indicated it was their hope that if the Commission took any action on the application before them at that time, they would request the Council not take any action relative to the golf course that would put the Sysco property at a disadvantage under the Code. . _ . ., � �y � , f , 1� �� .�_� _ _ � , ---�_--- - -- . ---- _�- �-__ _..� ------ --- __.__ �._ - �. . _. .�..� ,�_.� _.-. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 1, 2000 Page 6 Commissioner Johnson inquired regarding the area required to construct a m monument style sign, in terms of the amount of space Sysco would lose in �hs were to construct a monument style sign. ,-�-�>. , �.. Superintendent Hammerschmidt indicated the monument s��'sign v� and there would be a separation of 15 to 30 feet, dependirt� upon the that the signs would be 50 feet by 50 feet, and with the ar��x� o4's�� least several hundred square feet. He pointed out that w�,�� ,��,��.�fl�i� at the golf course because of the design issues that had cc�Y�<�. :k��s.��T� pertaining to the monopole structures. He stated he wou� ��;��s ��a.F proceed, however, if his spacing calculations at the golf cat�,'s� a�� a need to install a sign in their parking lot, and cou.lc� a�►��all the mi locations he has suggested. He explained that t�-��.a� �, _-'_� ; ��;� ��af�"i� would nice to have similar signs. , Commissioner Johnson inquired reg golf course, and the location of Hammerschmidt stated approximatel Mr. Co�le pointed out that this Superintez�d��afi �Iammers�lt��ti feet, th��r� ��a�is� not be �a�� physic��'' ��•r�.�� Commissioner 1��11�r �t�uired six. Superint�a�€��tt ��r� 3�;k�.s��: �r distance l�`�reen th� ��s��x ��xk�� "%�� ` � %% Co,m�ussioner Hegland z�t,;a =� ��:� satisfy m to �t sign �' "n th� ;:., �x� 600 fe�t. 1 versus a lot if they �uld ��t `� I aE.cti �at 1�r��h, a[,g�t angt�;. �� l��ii��cl �y poles, woulr� z��rt�k�� the monument si'y��; ��1;frz� �1 in the initial discussion ��i� io tell Sysco how to c; � � ;��r>co would not have �ui�e;�t style signs at the �A�i a o�rn for this, and it i��t�a sign proposed on the i-operty. Superintendent OT,s�cing requirement. t��pacing requirement were changed to 800 more signs at the golf course because of the if tl�e �`;x�;� 't��rald consider five signs at the golf course, instead of ,hrnaic�t ��i.�cl tihe Council had originally proposed six because of the # l �� r;cor►omic factors. ��arding the amount of frontage Sysco has on Highway 10. �a�p�rintendent Hamm . schmidt indicated Sysco has 1,200 feet of frontage, however, the plans ��. �r��i�at� 1,649 feet, b�C�'use the measurements were taken all the way to the edge of County Road .�,` �T� �xplained tk�a� the Sysco property begins on Highway 10, and extends into the right-of-way , �;;y c�� .��.��y ]lt.�ati �;�'therefore, they have 1,400 feet, with a 200-foot easement in the center of it, y;�i;�� a�i�roximately 1600 feet of frontage. �opnrn.issioner Stevenson inquired regarding the likelihood of obtaining the permits from MnDOT for the six signs proposed by the City, and then obtaining permits for two additional signs shortly tfiereafter. Mr. Coyle advised that as long as the City has approved a pernvt, and the spacing requirements and other Code requirements provided for under the State Statutes are met, MnDOT is obligated _ . - �. - .-- - _ ; _ � _ - - - � = -- - -- �. . .�.� _ 1. � -- - - --- - - - - . _------ 3 .- - �..,�.._. . . Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 1, 2000 Page 7 to issue the permit. He explained that MnDOT does not have the dtscr�ior► to t��ice their ,,. decision based upon the number of requests submitted, as long as;they are in ��r��liance with the local Code and State Law. He stated it was his understandmg L�iat;as long �?5 t:lt�; si�ns have met MnDOT's 500-foot spacing requirement, they would be appro��x'l�" ` Michael Cronin, representative of Eller Media stated tl, was an administrative permit, and there is no discretion. meet the 500-foot State requirement, MnDOT might have applications were submitted first, however, the City requi; standards, there would be no problem obtaining the pernvt Commissioner Johnson stated he was not opposed ta ��] 550 feet spacing between Mounds View's and Sys��',� both signs for their financial benefit as well. He ��di��A�� to the design theme, in that the City was �ally a s i � �� : structures. „�;,f ,-x;> Planning Associate Ericson stated �� next Planning Commission meeting, He advised that the Planning Co�r that could convey to th� Ciiy ��uY resolve �R��;;�:v�� issues ��.�� r� �.�r�n City s�� i�� tf r��is co�.��r� �� a��,�:r.�A are nuii��s��., ,�R�;x�xAy �+v�.ii��F��; 1��ti�p the Cod� �;;�a�� a�€,��f� �:c� 5�a.c��, �� objectives. �� $��,�r�� r��{;�i�af,� c��e the Commissi��z ��r,°��.t� �3i3.> e,>s�,��; f.o , �<:: �ioner Johnsoqt' amend the Co ent in the Cod �l signs in the f� �m,nnenie� that if the si�t�� : r� �sx°� - ": . {. <��dgement in terms �� i��l ��,; ,y�� ;° far in excess of iV(�►Y�� 1 all �i��i �tpcz�, �ar�d;,even with only �e; vvoulrJ�� a-�:F�i� ��'see Sysco have ��r, he was ��icerned with regard � �,c� �limi��te the monopole style ;:;±f�;co appl��'�on was s�i�eduled for a public hearing at the D�� ,�>for�, thE�s?�ssue of d��tgn could be addressed at that time. Y...> . 9sion r;c�F�� . A+;+clude a� ��h stipulation in Resolution 606-00 :il their g�� °�� r �y'sco and the City to work together to of spac:�k��, ��.� �di�cated both the Sysco representatives and ��lished i��r7 several different means. He explained there i.��; � variance, an interpretation of the Code, and amending ��•�;, vaould allow both Sysco and the City to achieve their �'st� be added the resolution to make the Council aware that � � �solved. ��<� ��c: ��ould prefer to see a variance between the two parties' signs, ,� f��o�� for this. He explained that if they decrease the spacing o�00 feet, there would be nothing to prohibit Sysco from installing ,�-;-., �;��r�� rson Peter��i��stated although he is no fan of billboards, the City Ordinances allow them in "r.��a�, ��.��+txc�r�;; �d;t%iere is not a major difference between seven and eight signs, therefore, they �h��l�� .>� �o find a means to make this work for both applicants. He stated a variance would �� Fa:� k� ;l �� , more appropriate approach than amending the Code, and the language of the OI'C�lYl�1��;e, is fairly clear in terms of the 1,000-foot spacing requirement, therefore, there is likely not much room for interpretation. Commissioner Miller requested clarification regarding the 1,000-foot spacing requirement as it pertains to the distance of the signs from the property line. �- . - . - -,�..n.�t •--.� .. . =--- -�_�_� {:�.�- --- �'�_..� � f.� ._.,�,_�. . !.._:'_,. _ "3'.��` . .� - I=z_F � • Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 1, 2000 Page 8 Chairperson Peterson stated the language indicates "Billboards must be at 1 Spacing between signs shall be measured by projecting the nearest point property line of the right-of-way from which they are intend�d; �, be r��+ distance in a straight line from the projected points." He sta,�e�' fhe besi a work out an arrangement between the two applicants tci allow for �1I accomplish this through a variance. He explained that tlz� details co:uld '1 Council leveL Commissioner Miller pointed out that the Planning C; Chairperson Peterson indicated either body could consider Commissioner Stevenson advised staff that the Planni�i�y; �ommissi fifth stipulation, as suggested by Planning Associate ��€€��`a. Commissioner Berke stated he agreed. He i��;,patiec� �h�, �F,. ��i ?�a..��T. the Cit as S sco is the tax a er. :`�-`�" Y, Y P Y ,�,� Commissioner Laube stated he wou Council approval of the current apjil order to avoid any misunderstand�t language �houlc� be addeci io th� ��s next st�� . �s�1� ��rocess. ..�� y �� .�` ��:: :. ke to see,.��t this ,� . tnn, x�,�;�� €�l�ss of � on ti�c; ��+r � of �itl ast 1,000 �eet apart. oi 'r11�;; ��i�ns fio the ��c� m�asuring the �rc�� j;,��a1d be to ^i�i�s. 5if;t��, ;�,nd io r r�PC�i'ia�i��c� :�:the:. grant the variance. ('' like to include the xld be on the part of natt'�r is completely resolved prior to h�t�ier or not this results in a delay, in ��of the applicants. He advised that this situation be resolved prior to the Comrr�r':;z a��;�� f�,�remsor� g-��h�z-�.'r.� �� :�a?� �� would like to see both applications submitted to the State si�a>>�� „=�.�r��;f ��; ��a�� }., ��F would not care to see Sysco's two signs denied because tf�� ;��,,� �,��`1}1��a�icJ� �/i�v�� '��°„��iously allowed six signs in the same general vicinity, and he would,�i��f �� ,�� :h��< 9;he Sys�� a�plica.tion receive the same priority as the City's. �7 if he could foresee a problem in this regard. �'Coyle stated he did 7�t�t �-Ie explained that the fact that they were attempting to proceed on a ,:>:>; �ctive and cooperat��'�: basis was sufficient from Sysco's standpoint. He indicated both parties ,:;; � basically on the,;,��ine time line, and it would be his hope that before the City Council takes r��, �h� parties '�?Vriuld know precisely what MnDot's answer would be, and that the final ��<T?l on. t�� (f course request would include that final decision. He explained that if they : , ,. �; x�.s�� z��t��d to make that decision because the outcome as it relates to Sysco is unknown, �� c��fer action until the outcome is known, and then they could proceed simultaneously. _ ✓., Commissioner Johnson inquired if Mr. Coyle could foresee a problem in terms of constructing a monument style sign rather than a monopole structure on the Sysco property. Mr. Coyle stated he did, because of the parking lot encroachment issue. . _ . . _ _ - — . . c� �- � :i.s ' i�� — =�y....�� -i .. , 1 ..__—_' .. �....�...-_.'__— __ '_'� _"�ri�.; __ -..—�. .— "__'1"'__._ ' '. _ ' ` " � Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Johnson pointed out that if the spacing requirement was de sign could be shifted 50 feet or more in either direction. Mr. .;Coyle it willing to consider this, and would do their best to cooperate with;;�he City ::,<,.f<.:; ;. . Commissioner Laube inquired if the construction materials;;�a'r a more consistent with the materials used on the goif cov� �� IVI�- discuss this matter with City staff. He pointed out that � R<. ��ar�� because it would depend upon the location of the signs. Commissioner Hegland advised that the Commission shc the adjacent property lines. He indicated that as a Cc recommend changes to the Code to address problems ( i�� they should have a 250 foot limit between the pro��Y`f �f '' any adjacent property is provided the same righ� �:.��i comply with the 500-foot MnDOT spacm� �: e quirem.� proposal with the exception of the first sigt�� n the go1�" � the Sysco property. He pointed out that.i;�'�ysco on�yf�a . sz e .z �.ii to decrease the sign spacing distanc��tiq �00 feet��iowe and all of the criteria would fit £t�r �e eight �r�;ns. consider examining the Code to a�t�:ntl it accox ��1y. Chair��r that ai `'��°c �; signs w�u@r� ��> the exce�,�ioc1' Code woul � �:. ,,:�. .. . . ,.;!;< 1 �' � He March 1, 2000 Page 9 to S<4t'� �'eet, the t��v�would be „^-, �:��aalr_� b� not co c�E�t� �: �f��. �r��► location relative to �io�rr, ii. �a��; 'g�`i�i� responsibility to �nd thr� ��ras � �p�•oblem. He stated ic� �ny sig►-� ��aat'�s iristalled, so that �#:,�,� . He expl�ined that this would ?�� v�.f�ulc? g�ot change the present ,, �x�f� �o�i�;ibly the adjacent sign on � �� zrontage, they would have �at would appear to be a solution, :tiposed the Planning Commission �n nos�� +��.�� aP site ma�,� �� `�y ��dicates the location of the proposed signs, two ��i�i�� Y�� invol�t��a, ��iich are for the golf course, itself. He advised a 250�%a�� .��o�,s�t €;,� li�� d�sca.rice spacing requirement, the locations of these �`; a,problem. �� °�,��Ek�Ya�c� that as the Code is written, these proposals fit, with ��; �a�,, tha� cou?�� ' ��°� �:�F.�ed with a variance. He explained that amending the r� ��:�.��_�r��;��; clnfl y �,t�4;�=;A, ��nd he was not certain that creating a property line •:�:£� ,.::... niissioner Johnson s�� had considered this as well, and did not believe this constituted a ge in the Code, be�iiuse_there was very little possibility that additional billboards would be osed, except possib�� to the north of the City's first sign, on the border of Mounds View and �;;��a,�ry�r;i�n�� t�'venson indicated the permits would only be specific to this area, therefore, he a��i ��.,+; ,�� a problem in this regard. He stated that in terms of the 250-foot property line y�,��,�a�`'s��a, �1i� intent of the original spacing requirement was to address residential properties, �nd '��ii� Y�quirement should remain in place, to insure that the signs do not infringe upon residential property owners. He pointed out that this was a specific case, and they should not interfere with the City Code, they must simply decide whether or not to allow this specific use. Commissioner Laube pointed out that with the hards}up presented in terms of Sysco's parking lot, a variance would come into play, regardless. He explained that even if they utilized a 250-foot .;- ._ a , _ :,��-_ _ .. . . .� :: _ _ .. . . , c � :._:.._ -- -� -� ��__._a��. _`= -� , Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 property line spacing distance, it would not affect this specific proposal, be granted for the parking lot, which would move the sign closer to the Commissioner Johnson indicated that if they moved the first located on the curve, and Eller Media would probably noi � Planning Associate Ericson advised that with the addrtio�; : foot setback from the property line, Sysco's second �i;;�. parking lot, as it is currently proposed to be 150 feet off of the Planning Commission would be looking at an ordinan� Code, in terms of re-addressing the Conditional Use Per� therefore, this language would come before them a�ain. �Ie make a change, or to recommend to the Council t�t.��, ��°,�� point. �,. . Commissioner Hegland stated the Sysco prQposal had �c�c y� ,•.: � signs would be subject to the 15-year dura"�on as wel:;;f�'Planr ;•:��: ,.:;;: correct. He explained this was the m��ii�um durati#�n of this I�� SP�x�J� ' �� Planning Associate Ericson sugg�st�d lang��.�� with reg�r "The City shall work in com��,a�ctic�ri with I)� �.::�g:� ��x�tdt�or A signage, a�€� �lus shall b� ��F��-;�,n��i�ed prior tc: ;:t.ca�;�g��,� �,ction ifthis �an�t�� reflected��i�� 9�1�t�� Comrn+.��>� ��'c� in'r.ent. � neca�as� a �rop��y 1i�. sigt� ;?.;�0 �'� er. ii] �i:�ll2b� would �,vould be 'f?A��;ua�� :requiring a Yninir�A�z:a,g � s�•=. 'r,J��y,��t� �a.v� to be install�cl �i� K;��;ig• �� :aa, ;��x��r�y line. He indicated that ��ii-=� �-��;�.�-� �tio this Section of the �� vvi�t� �:��r��a �.J�� 'ermit language, �x��l�inec� �ha� �i �llcr°� was a desire to �g�;� 1�e� rmac�e, i� c��.21u b� done at that d, and inquired if these Ericson stated this was �' to the fifth stipulation as follows: dvertising to ma�mize the proposed regarding this request." He inquired Commissi�� 1��c�� ;a��r��o�.A�c� �i ��c�>s��?��rl 606-00 should indicate that this is to be an interim use. Planrni��;'�' j�;fi��;�� ?�-icson';.��b'��i�`��as correct. He pointed out that this terminology is not clearly ��.�4;€£�� .� �.�,�; c��ation o1 ��.j�; ;cr:�olution, however, it has been incorporated in the first tc[S7L7�DL� 1k CS:��'� " .. :.,. Cor�ttriissioner Miller ir�qu�� :�° this should also be clarified in the title. Planning Associate .�t<:,:, ��i�'son suggested the tt�� be `amended to indicate ". .. a resolution recommending approval of an '��rim Use Permit to ��i'stall six outdoor advertising signs on Bridges Golf Course Property," r�.:� ��r��i�h would clarify that they are referring to the Interim Use Permit. :: /�r , ,;: �,, �i=�,��ce+:��lc�ne�;: �1i�ter noted that the third "WHEREAS" of the resolution refers to the ','��a.�:a��r�a�� creation and Preservation Zoning District, however, the ordinance refers to the ��,x�3rs,�, �:�*�;�liti�� Zoning District. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He explained that the current zoning of the property is Conservancy, Recreation and Preservation, and the next item on the agenda is the proposed rezoning of the golf course, to make all parcels representative of the Public Facilities Zoning District. He stated this action was intended to occur in the past, however, had not been � Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Mceting March 1, 2000 Page 11 accomplished. He indicated the resolution refers to the Conservancy, Recreatxi�n and zoning, because that is the current designation of the property. �,, Commissioner Miller stated the fourth "WHEREAS" refe�;s��'"the ,� :.;. designation. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was co;�`#"�ct. He e current zoning of that parcel. Commissioner Kaden inquired if this Interim Use Pernvt �f� Sysco, would expire January 1, 2015, and not 15-years fro� Planning Associate Ericson advised that the issue of the p�i�'ni�: c�L�� the Council, and the language is proposed to be c:han�ed to i beginning July 1, 2000. He stated the expiration ,d�f�� 7a��r1 '�e ; Ordinance 656. f �, ,,�.,r,,;:.,-• Commissioner Kaden stated one of the st��a��ations tr� �t��P�� t�,��s��:i ;�;<< <,i� retain the right to refuse objectionable >�dvertism� �ontetA� ��' billboard vendor." He inquired who woulc� be res�t��sible for c��er: ,:.;.� Planning Associate Ericson stated �h�s' woulco by a specified listing, or if i}�� 'would e> accept. ��, ^�at�d he wa � j�f�� a��r��in how is; the Cii�i ,�t��d��'A�.�:v �nd th�; �;:2�;�a r,��r��ni�s to � Comrru�� ;_��' ��<�ir and the �'lar�i��>� �.�g�� gambling �,; �� 6 Y � ..% � : . INY� r Plann�g'`Associate �Ai� the.�Council that gam.bl�. .�yr ,. .�{.. th:��first stipulation of �;,,<::;�, i�r�iceed in this manner.; Yub�t� k°�?�:sit�� zo�►mg �pla�ned i��'�1�� the that may be apprt�ar��x xor �l��roval. ��. �ome back before �> �, i��<; � ,.��en-year period, ds�.�� ir�� the adoption of i.radicates "The City should 'lease agreement with the ing objectionable content. , «, !��;t�e lease agreement, whether that be I�oard vendor to limit what they would � place, which was more of an issue for a'� proposal contained a list of objectionable content, ��ed one item with regard to advertising the related to �� he Planning Commission could provide a recommendation to ;��; included on that list. He advised that this could be indicated in olution. and it would be the Council's decision whether or not to ,,,, , .,. �"��?�,�-�jerson Petexst5�►" stated Eller Media's proposal indicates that they are restrictmg t e �ic��i��in� x� �1��;`items that are age restricted, with the exception of gambling. He explained g:l'�j.: �� i�x�� of the proposal indicates that this restriction eliminates almost all of the ��r.�sht�f��l :�urc�s o1°controversy, however, he did not believe that was correct, as in his opinion, billbo�rc�s advertising gambling are some of the most objectionable. Commissioner Kaden stated in his opinion, the State should not be in the business of running a business that promotes social problems. He indicated some well known public figures have either served time, or would possibly do so in the future, as a result of gambling. He added that the City should not be in the business of providing a means to advertise gambling. He pointed out that if �--_ - ---. - - - -- . _ — �= �� --- -�=----- �f : t�e. � ' a� . . `� ,. . _ _ ._� -i:.� — -- ---1 - _ -�.. _ .. :��a ._ -�:` Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 1, 2000 Page 12 they were going to restrict advertising for cigarettes or alcohol, which also they should not allow advertising for gambling. , Chairperson Peterson inquired if it was the consensus of first stipulation to indicate they be more specific rega� advertising content. Commissioner Stevenson stated he would agree to this. address all objectionable content, however, the Commi gambling be included as objectionable content, upon consi would not be aware of the Commissions' opinion unless sea resolution. He added that this language might b� incorr stricken. Planning Associate Ericson suggested the refuse objectionable advertising content, in Chairperson Peterson inquired if it as stated. Commissioners �erke anc� Jak�nsc��i that not all �eople view thk� �� o� Commi��ir��'�.��b� stat�c� �� :d COTI11T11SSlOi1�Y°' �f:.��,�E9��r, ;w.�� i �",C� �1C` C� this was the .�a��r �t�➢ nE�:x��:bl.e a.c1 specifica�,j�r�si2i�t �� ,r};�� ''' ,�!�� Co�ssioner Stevenso� �;��^��;r� ad of the t�d right in the ��:�� that they do noc �i�� r� io �� andicate they desire that � �e ��:ini:e� out that the City r�� .�i��,,^��;�i: is included in the pitc� i��.� 1�;,�:se, ; or ignored and ty retain the right to .. � ,� ission to include the language, stated th�;r c�i� �aat at��. Commissioner Johnson pointed out advertisi��?� >> E; s��j��ttonable. nn problern with �his language. ��o� ;�rrsh to see gambling signs, however, he did not believe �c.� ai;��g content, and he was uncertain that it would help to would agree to the addition of this language. Miller s��gested the matter be put to a vote. �`Miller/Kaden. To Include Additional Language in the First Stipulation, to i Should Retain the Right to Refuse Objectionable Advertising Content, Promoting Gambling. �Comrrus�ianerr Stevenson stated there currently exists a list of items that are considered objectionable, and the issue of gambling does not appear to be addressed. He pointed out that the Commission was not attempting to dictate what is moral or immoral, or to determine whaY constitutes objectionable material, however, they believe this item should be amongst those included on the objectionable materials list, for consideration by the City. .,,. G � - . � '� _ . _ . . . . _ _ _ �, . _. . .. - --_-'. . _. . -_' . ' "'_.. .-- ' - ' �� - .,. _ ,. . ., _ �--"_' . '- - . . . . . . �� . . . - .-. _ --�,: Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 1, 2000 Page 13 Commissioner Hegland inquired who would determine what is ob�e�iioY�able�,"�naterial. Commissioner Miller pointed out the Eller Media already has a list of items th�� I�a z�c�� advertise. �-, Commissioner Kaden indicated they specifically exempt IvLnn�sc�ta State ��ra:��:� �! and Indian �:.: .... . � � operated casmos. ;. , :; Commissioner Johnson inquired if the Crrand Casino wou�� not be p�rinitted to adu�r �thr�; ��zr-. hotel in this case, simply because it refers to a casino. Hc ��r��+ucci oui th'at gambling cr��,�.�#�� ,! very large market, and this action would attempt to liY��a3 1�`:�r��° I�/f�dia and DeLite �'.��.`��:�€�or Advertising from this. He advised that eventually this wa��g�� <�x��l.�: �n an issue of freedorrn of speech. - ,> . . Commissioner Hegland stated he did not agree, in that � h� i;��iae wa;y c interim use, which would affect members of the co�n��y �I� inq what is considered to be objectionable material � y; %;�. � r�. h-� ,;N �z..,�.- �:;>,::- :.�;�:• � Commissioner Stevenson stated the Commi�ibn s only ir��.�;� ��,a. ��.�1'� this item in the lease agreement, and not vVh�o makes;��` deci��; 't'r� � Commissioner Hegland stated in h the right to refuse objectionablQ understand how being more ��ecif ,� .: Comrr�a.:;,y�� the di�js`��-� restric�ed ' of age in � cigarettes, reason he; be co��Yt�e �n sta. ,dver�i in the Ayes — 6 � irr� ' fl��Yn allowing an i deternune : the Council include them. . � :: x��rprei�t�c��, the Comrni5�ion was suggesting the City retain tdvertisiz��, ;�i:�lc�tever,<�at may be, and therefore, did not � was nec�;�<� r�€��.. �r� ��,x��`ofthis resolution. 1'�/��dia ha� ��`�$�yv'�ed zri their proposal that they would prohibit ��.i�a� it�rr��, or any product or service whose use or purpose is cr�:��A��, �:his includes gambling because you must be 18 years �. .k:�� ;E��ed out that if they are going to restrict liquor and �a�ab��ng, �which is age-restricted as well. He stated the only ��e added was to make the Council aware that this issue should ;.�c. �(Berke and Johnson) The motion carried. ,,, �% ner JohnsQ;��pointed out that alcohol and tobacco are items that are readily accessible ,.... , either ir�,,��eir homes, or through friends or acquaintances, however, lottery tickets an �� olve the same accessibility. He advised that minors could not legally enter ;��,�� , the issue of age restriction does not apply. Com�xussioY�er Berke stated the comment that gambling was socially unacceptable would only be applicable to a small number of people who were opposed to gambling. He indicated he did not gamble, however, the fact that gambling casinos continue to expand, and take in millions and millions of dollars, is reticent to the fact that the majority of the people do not find this activity to be objectionable. He stated he did not believe it was the Corrunission's position to state that they find gambling advertising objectionable. _ . I� �: _ -.:.. ..__..� . _ .� l �. r'_ . �'. - . � s_�..._�.-._ ? - -_ -'='�__-_.�._.�. _�� _ Y '� �� - - - .. 'i 4�--r —'� - .-'.. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Chairperson Peterson stated the third paragraph of Eller Media' copy indicates that gambling is specifically considered non-cor�t /.j:'. was in favor of the addition of this language, because he doe�'�� whatever the outcome, there would probably be little diffet��tce was a statement he desired to make. March 1, 2000 Page 14 proposal in the that he :nt, and ��r, this _ __ _ Commissioner Hegland stated the second paragraph on I��.�� r(" dhe resolution makes t°��r��ilce to the general Conditional Use Permit requirements, and inqv�� :�� would be an interim use. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct, how�;��r, �.h� r�c:c�rji��r��;n�s and the review components are the same as those for a Conditional U�� 1�erini�. I-ie �>.{��.��;c� �h�� tihis was not in fact, a Conditional Use Pernut, however, the Cou��;� s��i',,�� 'ommis';��c�� -i�3c�u��i look at those same criteria in their decisions regarding interim„��,�� Commissioner Hegland stated it appE Commission has reviewed the matter requirements as those set forth for a c,c�r� Planning Associate Ericson sta the Section of the Code a.clo��e of Sectiar��1.125.01. I�� ' ;;a�� Planni�ap; ��a�a€t�assion ha.� �;��flri 3, and ��r �;��,� ��< is coi�s�� necessarily r��:�d ,y� �;�1� �a.r,� � conditional �.o��., �a� c��,��,a::ec� �lii F Page 1, in ��J ! therefore, � �i�: � in all of these ��i he __ __ _ _ _. � ��c��lc�k �r�ed to indicate that the n�.�� T�c� I�ermit, under the same prese; � �. �%�p�� g� c�ttl�I be re-drafted, making reference to linanc�. ��-; ?�� 'er to that particular subdivision instead the 1��`��ti;��F� ii�t��icate "WHEREAS, the Mounds View sitin�; x�c��,h�°��ents as specified in Section 1008.08, Subd. tllo�e requirerrients." He explained that this would not ,� xec�uirements are in fact, Section 1125.01, regarding �� t�rjti�ntial for confusion. �7�;e 644 is mentioned in the third "WI�REAS" from the ' Section 1125.01. He stated this was essentially the same language would simply reiterate that the matter had been Associate E.,:`��on stated this was correct. He explained that this language simply states ,.i�,., ,i nance 644:;;;:��quires that the pernut be reviewed in the context of 1125 and the second �iy s ' ;PA�'�~t�z��'age 2 indicates that they have made that determination, and are making the ��.�, ai is �in compliance with that Section. �:;ornmissioner Stevenson requested Planning Associate Ericson clarify for the record, how they as a Commission, could unanimously vote to oppose billboards, yet justify to the residents of Mounds View and to themselves, a vote in favor of the resolution before them. He stated this had been clarified at the previous meeting, however, he would like to have this reiterated, in terms of how this action differs from the Planning Commission's opposition to the billboards. ., ,. _ F , T _ _ [, ;--_ . �.---..� _. _ _ :� �-- - -----. .— - _. - _. , .. - -- -- . ��. , . _ � Mounds View Planning Commission Regalar Meeting March 1, 2000 Page 15 Planning Associate Ericson advised that in December, the Planning Commiss the City Council to consider the possibility of allowing billboards in a pari City. At that time, the Commission's finding and intent was ve�:�lear, in th an acceptable use. The Commission passed a resolution ind��.�irtg their fin� this to the City Council. The City Council acknowledged t�+� �'lanning Co�'n this item, and proceeded to adopt Ordinance 644, wluch'aan�ended the �i billboards, which are now a pernutted use in this section oi`�;��2 �:'ity, as long met. Planning Associate Ericson stated one of the roles of applications in terms of the City Code. He indicatec application before them in terms of whether or not is. i,.� and not in terms of whether they desire or approve;� �� very clear. ,��Y Chairperson Peterson stated at the last spoken with regard to the siting of billl indicated she found this to be objer�:i�t forward. _______. � �with aboil ��.:� ty Codc' as certai �sted by n of the was not � w�rded � -:�� .�� a�ps on ; �F�' 1��"$xr �"O➢: >i .u.°r"� Y,Y4i ission is to review �E� � considering the «:i�;r►ts of the Code, c��_ thev have been ; of 2�a� i'��° ��:�� '��mission, a resident had o��'the lug��v��y �r om her property, and had ;inquired i�' any similar objections had come Planning fissociate Ericson stated �� was noc ��r��€; ca� �ii�;%' Comrni.y��a��- �:��u�� st��,�� t,� h�c� s��oke�. i��'�� roperty owner who resided at 2411 Laport Drive, �,r�c� ��s�;cl s�i5 "f;+.�apxqc��i��P��i that not all the residents on the north side of Laport Drive tiveY� ��P�x�tl�i�:� :��;,��-�i;�¢ �.��z� <�a}��1i�;��on, and that the notification was strictly within 350 feet of the propc�� t>��;'��. �. �' _.��,>�aini�,� ��3.�z ��t.��ing the wintertime, this resident would be able to see two billboarc�s �_ �:k��. ��: ��,�.�� v✓i�ar� o��, �:t�� would probably see the light as we]]. He stated all of the residez��v✓l�c� iz�t� c�� r�4. ��c��-'r�� ide'ofLaport Drive should have been notified. Planning Associate E� i y,:;:;.:., ��rt Drive that abut ��hway that may also ��.�r� in his understanding, all of the properties on the north side of �:y 10 were notified. There are four properties that do not abut the to see the billboards. These four properties were not notified. ir�issioner Lau��indicated this property was the furthest from Highway 10, however, as it �� ; z��i,� .� ��, �ul�de-sac, the property protrudes outward, and all of the rear windows are ; n�sj, �� fi�� billboards. He indicated that although this property was the furthest distance �1��s �,z,iz' �ourse, it would have one of the better views of the billboards. Planning Associate Ericson stated this property owner probably did not receive a notification, and this was an oversight on staiis part. He explained that they did not intend to exclude a resident who would potentially be affected by this proposal. .. _ _ _ , .. : .-- �, - - --: _-- � -- - - � � ��— �: _--�• - -��. _ ``<' .__. _ �. .---- - - � -- - —�-___.__. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 1, 2000 Page 16 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Kaden. To Approve Planning Commission R;'t�solut�p�a I'�1o. 606- 00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Proposal to Install Six �v�ci�r�� :��l�,rs,,��asing Signs on Bridges Golf Course Property, as Amended to Include .t��itiona l�,��i ;��U� ,;�n the First Stipulation to Indicate that the City Should Retain the Right tc� ��fiise C�'ujc�c;r'.��,�,�,; ;,.��,�.-ertising Content, Including Advertising Promoting Gambling, ancl �� nclude a k'i��i ��:i�:��;i�f��:a4�,� :;which Indicates that the City Shall Work in Conjunction with ��;�xflY� Sign �#�t�ripa�y �o ivd� r�;..�� he, Proposed Signage Regarding Both Interim Use Permit ��_��ion�. Such Agreern�r�r ,�� . Deternuned Prior to Council Action on this Request. At this time, Chairperson Peterson opened the floor for Julie Olsen, 2663 Lake Court Circle inquired if th� o��ii,��r��°�: �as �� for a Conditional Use Permit, in that the term "coa�o�a�h��:��s' iric�i�a�e� this item is not in complete compliance. s�� .. ,>;; � r: -,!�` Chairperson Peterson explained that some aspect of the proposed use that Ms. Olsen inquired if the Commi them, because there is a conditio Chairper�� '�t�rson the an�I��,� � F� .0.;� �a�title �nditit�rial and ir�e �;; , .:;: <:. �q�`es monitc��n� �,<� � �, /h ' � , �, ,b�y�£: ��uld rzot f��essa does xz�S, ��a��% the , �r��iy ��as there a need �•�; i� �t� �xception, and e utilized when there is ; to approve the resolution before criteria of the ordinance. this wat� �n�� i�i�;S�rie situation as a request for variance, and iless th�� ,<� � specific reason not to grant one. Commi�s�cs��.��' ��r��as� �dvised that ��r�xac��io�al use pernut is such that if an applicant meets all of the condiiio��f�;, �.rzc� ��a� �ity Coux��il ��$z�;:�' the request, the applicant could successfully sue in court. He e��s�� ;�� €�r�l�ss the a�p�ic;ag�� does not meet the conditions, the City is required to approve�t�i��requ�:�r.<.a��"�,'.�r��it. I�[e pointed out that this was not like the variance process, where ��e applicant is ,��;ca�x�r�,.� i:c�;�;�-ove a hardship. r, .: u- .;:.: �: .,,>„% ' :�>.. ,,,.� �r• ,�.. , �:`.,% A�Is�' Olsen inquired reg��iing the nature of the conditions, and if they were based upon staf�s a�t��pretation, in tertns t��'the impact of the proposed use on neighboring properties. �y:��ir��ex-�o� ]Petersc�n `stated staffin this case, is also the applicant on behalf of the City, and there �.��y ��:: �,,�� tion of a eonflict of interest, however, he did not believe this to be the case. �� s��; ��d ��`��criteria include five items which are examined in terms of adverse effects, and ,:,. ��' ��- :,ral conditional use permit criteria which are also examined as part of the review �A�ac�;�s. kIe stated staffwent through each of these items to determine if they were met. Ms. Olsen stated no studies were conducted, but rather the findings were based upon staff's interpretation, therefore, the Planning Commission should not be required to accept this as gospel. She added that although the Comprehensive Plan does not address billboards, this does not represent that they are in compliance. She stated in her opinion, the Planning Commission has the -- �- � . , � ---- =-- - . . ,._ . , _ � � --= _ . �� _>_r �, .: �: -- -- _:- - :� T =,. .,_ � '= - �� . � ---- -- - - E Mounds View Planning Commiss°ron Regular Meeting March 1, 2000 Page 17 . . ,. right to their own mterpretation, as to whether or not the use actually meets 2�t� cond�fat�ns. She :. inquired who creates the conditions. ., :;s:�;. �::>:,,;. Chairperson Peterson stated they are specified in the ordinanc�,.��#� ``' �j�i� Ms. Olsen inquired if an ordinance was written for a sp�� area, for. buainess p�.�i��;��t�; ��.� would occur if someone else were to indicate they requz��.' �� ame �c�nsideration to �.c� i:�� g:� business purposes as well. She inquired regarding the pc��.��°�� ' li�igation in the even� ��a�� business were to request a billboard in order to meet theix� c;�a��.�r.�c��w��, which was the reasori �Ii� City allowed the billboards. She inquired why this was not o�i�, ��' ��a�: +;��;r�a for examination. Chairperson Peterson stated these issues have been �J� cY these decisions uitimately does not matter at tivs �c�t 3'.. . ordinance that allows billboards in the area nort�=�'�� F��r.� owned property, and the property owned by �y�o�Fa�� :.; for billboards. He indicated the Planning,Cti'mmission i� this nature, but rather acting in their tc��e as the,��oar f�; examines such applications in terms oiwh;ether or,n�st they Ms. Olsen stated it would be appt�s�Y'iate to to direct staff to perform a�easit�i(ity anal� affect th� �r��:x�; �f'surrou�,�� z�c�i�ie�. Plannin� ��x��a �€��.a., xr� different jud��°,��. ��1 �s He pointed Q�� 3,�..�� z,n, 7� r., „ none of _ t�t�'`it ;,: � � � �:.�� i >> Stever��on indicated tl�; ;. :: •: wer��answered to their �� ; ��e �sly diaci��, arit� the rationale for �;7�plain�c; " i i�� i�.t�E, �ity now has an �i;��ay 10, ��k�t�•�i consists of City- �� $��;�, {�roper�y owners are applying � ��s� c��' �esirability or matters of oP' ,��r��trtn�nt and Appeals, which e�i �:he Code requirements. a study has been conducted, and or not this item would adversely °�� I��x��a��;�y, there would be a judgement call on the part of the �crtr�a �� Et_��.�i�g �, recommendation to the City Council, and then a �.��: ��j.� ��i' �i��° ��ncil, as to whether or not the requirements are met. �,�1in�; �:c�l�x�a�aission reviewed this matter at their previous meeting, and c,��; ax� terrrts of requiring much further discussion. Commissioner a1��£a��ir, �ommission had questions regarding several items, and they �;.,�::;� ..:;;:,.;, ��airperson Peterson s��ted the Commission did not see any necessity to adjust their view in this r�#�ard. He stated t}u��'�was one of the reasons he had earlier inquired if staff had received any / ;Y ��;�- �;omments fr+�`i�f residents in regard to whether this use would tend to, or actually decrease ��-��A� ��r va.l��,,s' �� `'the area in which it is proposed. He indicated that this proposal is in ��;� �iY► the Code requirement that the use be 250 feet from residential areas. He c;�rj��2y e�'►a�; �his also involves a judgement call in terms of whether or not the surrounding �� o�ei �i�� would be negatively impacted, and after their previous discussion, the Planning Commission determined that there did not appear to be a significant affect to these properties. Ms. Olsen stated the Planning Commission had requested both parties come to an agreement in regard to the two applications. She requested clarification regarding what had occurred in this regard. � _ _ _ . . : r � ;,�, r� ��> �� -_ . � c.,? ,�.: •� ___ ��a_-:-�v-.� � - --�--a��__.__�� _ �_ ' __�_ . .._._.., --- - C� -- -__W. � _ _ `�-� __ � Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Chairperson Peterson explained that the applicants have atterr one of the applicants was unavailable, and there has beeti placement of the signs at this time. Ms. Olsen inquired if the item could be tabled in light of tl��i Chairperson Peterson explained that the Planning Co��,.� address this issue in their recommendation to the City Cou�c; they have added language to the resolution that both applica� Ms. Olsen indicated that until they are certain that an to see that the item is tabled, 5he stated this; recommendation, however, there was no assurat��; advised that the item would come before the R�a�nin� Planning Associate Ericson stated both;�pplicants,;;;'ve stoo �':: and have indicated the feel ve stro�''1``:>;that this ;��Il be resol Y rY � 3� � ..,: March 1, 2000 Page 18 to discusg ��r 3;,y��;�� however, ;Omple�� Y,� t 1.��.��;�i: as to the �� 4s,ra:� �;onsidering lan��Y, �:o `,�� ssioner Miller advised thai ��:i�t��,'.'�s�� ork together. has b��3 �-��ac��c�, she would like c� po b�7�i�;�� 1��;�� Council as a �1c� occu�. �:�m�nissioner Berke �s� ��ior �,o,�nal approval. the Planning Commission Chairperson Peterson stated furtl��r ��lay at �.�;�;; �'larining C��imission level would not necessarily < be beneficial, and it was best to �rnove forw�a,�� -��r�th; 9,h� ��m. He explained that both applicants have indx��. c� their willa�r�n�� r; io work ��tpb��` �dwards a resolution, and he has every confid�i��,� �,A��s1 v✓ould d�a ��. ��;a `ta�ed th�a°� +;�r�s a�motion on the floor to approve Resolution 606-0(Y;�� ra�� a>��.r��-al az�e��r��t�� a��d coir�ciions. He inquired if there was any further discussiorr. Commission �t1 ��-;�� _��;��eol clarifica��o�1 regarding the language proposed for Stipulation 5. 3j�s:, ;. u�irrg"Associate �;� �riction with Del,i rim Use Pernut ap� request." ,�i the proposed language indicates "The City shall work in l�dvertising to maximize the proposed signage regarding both Such agreement shall be determined prior to Council action on Ayes — 8 Nays — 0 The motion carried. ��jr�,�� c�� i'�terson the Planning Commission voted in favor of this resolution, however, this f��: t•:�� it��icate they are in favor of billboards, but rather that they must act in a different c;apac;i�;y tYian they had during the previous consideration. 6. Planning Case No. ZC00-001 Property Involved: Bridges Golf Course. -�- -- � - -,.. � . � ; � : --�> - L:-' ,. �._.--- - - .. -- --�um..:._ �- f Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 1, 2000 Page 19 Consideration of Resolution 607-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval ; c�£; a Zo of Bridges Golf Course Parcels from I-1 and CRP to PF. ; " .�-.. Applicant: City of Mounds View .��,�;�yy :. .�;�€:,�;&� t�<, Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: This item is consideration of Resolution 607-00, which is �` the rezoning of Bridges Golf Course parcels from I- i 5' Recreation, and Preservation, to the PF, Public Faciliti�� reviewing the City's application for billboards on the golf c the zoning of the golf course is not consistent with the �� explicitly pernutted uses within either the CRP or I-1 �ot�i�� Planning Associate Ericson stated there has b��'li .. members that the City initiated a rezoning a�tiq�°�on this had not taken place. He stated the pra �i'sed use golf course. He advised that the PF Zo�fg District; , :>. �,::: one of the parcels associated with th� �o�f cours�;�s He explained that the proposal befo�-e ili�'Planntt�� c � parcels associated with the golf �purse �°r�or�� ir designation. they �,,c��e: �;� proposed �y� the e�sting proposal wc fact that� � ��•.;-• Plan ��t�na ��, and ��s��ict y �;�c�� E� I�istrici:�: ' CRP, Conser!�?-�#��y, . In the cou� �c; ai ��taff discovered that �olf courses are not � � ;�;�.? ;�ion oin �:1�� '��art of City staff �� :��r �everal„�ears earlier, however, 7�� ar��e with the zoning on the � F;�:I� `+.��t��~ses as a permitted use, and ntl� under the PF zoning designation. s�ci'�3�would rezone those parts of those t�ig CRP and I-1 zoning, to the PF f�2c; Eric�c�� ti�E�x�;c� lZesoliatit�� f�7�00 recommends to the City Council that ��ffac�; ��5; ��rl�� p:��c�v�s zhe rezoning of the golf course parcels. He stated the :��:�� -�i�r��ic�F�; �� :t ��i�?ng with the proposed Comprehensive Plan, whereas �„��;�aa��z, �±s r�o� `f��d ��;f"'�consistent with the Plan. He explained that this �°��,��r ��r; ��.�� th��E �� is not consistent with the Zoning Code, and also the �or�i�� :,:�r;,�r��iox�� would not be consistent with the proposed Comprehensive i for the�� rx<��{;`��r�. rson Peterson s��tec�. a portion of the wetland between the Sysco property and the al Park is curre�tl� zoned PF, as well as a portion of the golf course around the ninth hole. 4Y:::_� ;d he believed;C�utlot A, of the North Star Industrial Park 2°d Addition, is currently zoned :�>;;,<.� should be,iti�l�tcled in the rezoning as well. ��r��,g,��, �'-�<>�>��i�4:� Ericson stated they could include this property in the ordinance, and change ihc* r�j>��; ��aYn �.�1 to PF, which would make sense, given its more park-like purpose. He stated th�Y � w�� :wo outlots, and the parcel Chairperson Peterson was referring to was Outlot A, North Star Industrial Park 2nd Addition, as opposed to Outlot A, SYSCO. Chairperson Peterson inquired if a formal description of this property was available. Planning Associate Ericson stated it was. �, :� - . _�` --. : _ � - ---- - - - = --> - -� --- - - --� , . . , n 7 '_i —" "_ " ' i__f '_' _a'�.y_' _ __ +�_t __=��.. �-�� _ � ��1��,..s '�i:{I � � � Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 1, 2000 Page 20 Chairperson Peterson stated this description could be included in the fourth resolution, pertaining to the I-1, Industrial zoned properties. „ Commissioner Kaden inquired if the legal description of tlu the ordinance. Planning Associate Ericson stated this wa� rc MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Miller. To Approve Planni;{�f> a Resolution Recommending Approval of Ordinance 6� �,' Course Parcels from CRP (Conservancy, Recreation, and �'� (Public Facilities) as Amended to Include the Legal Descrip Park, Second Addition, in the Fourth "WHEREAS" �3� Industrial Zoned Properties. Ayes — 8 N 8. 5taff Reports / Items of Inform Ao Communi emotiona� death ��' d was ad� F•.�. quickly � � Communi� discussioa� Previous Council l[�evelopment �ir�c 1.i��t of the , ;°<�,��; � � ��z� old ��:,�a�r,a�aj s'� �°�+�� th� yout� ��d �� vide �afr`e�`'. _.�.. ud�tg the future � itiing Commission aps that would be ned. He stated in upcoming month� ,•., ;��;< !nature. .._�:,:�� of the � i't� ert woulc7; t�,�:7 ��;, ,x>�;i,�ded in �?sy t� Y r��ct. � , ,,� � :� ;A:a;�irnis��n Resolution l�l��, ��Cit7,; ,' � ;,.f�kz�%�nce Rezoning BY�ici�� F"o7f ,�r.,�°��r:€��.�,� and I-1 (Industrial) to PF ;�u`A >�� '��i.�� A., Northstar Industrial the ti�.^�s>1�3�is»y �ertaining to I-1, ___ �I'he motat�a�i carried. tr Jopke .,>�:� .. ..��xu t�>�uncil meeting on Monday was very `„idemt tha� �s� ��_, ,-µ;�� 't�a� previous Friday which resulted in the g;� cross �+f�� A>�✓�� 10 at Edgewood Drive. He indicated there k��'�.:n�� t��. �he coYnmunity for the City to do whatever it can, as c.��ac��;�c��a� ior people attempting to cross the highway. C�irector 7r��%� inciicated the City Council has scheduled this item for ��;�zor� 'rhe�%llowing Monday, and many ideas are being discussed, a��s�� n�` � Task Force to examine Highway 10. He advised that the ��a� �conomic Development Commission have been mentioned as the ested to participate in the Task Force, however, this has not yet been of the importance of this issue, there would be significant discussion in xding revisiting the issue of pedestrian bridges or tunnels, and items of ��.��a� �.�'�velopment Director Jopke stated there was also discussion regarding the potential i�g-kx,��f��it on pleasant View Drive and Highway 10, in terms of the geometrics and traffic �i�;na.1, •wliich is being brought forward primarily by Spring Lake Park and Anoka County. He stated this was also important to the citizens of Mounds View, in terms of the potential impact, and there was much discussion concerning an increase in traffic levels and less desirable conditions for the residents on Pleasant View Drive. He stated there was an appeal to the Council that they not approve the plan that has been brought forward, and there will be additional discussions in this regard. . _ . . : . .:.. . . _ . . I . . �.- . . . __ . . __ ' ; „ ...._ -= - ----- -�- .. . --- -- --' � -----" - -. -' - �_ , . - - _-' --�..-___ '-' "- - - �-=---- °�-^ -�-�_ .. ..: �� `_ - �-`.: . _ . . _ .. .r � .-.._ - I' Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Community Development Director Jopke indicated the Council the Interim Use Pernut application for billboards for March 13, � for the Business Subsidy Policy that the City is required by S� there would be discussion of this item at the Work Session �'��l%I Council accepted the Comprehensive Plan, and authoriz�� afi Metropolitan Council and adjacent communities, and the ��s��'�ci with the rezoning action at the golf course. Community Development Director Jopke indicated relating to Interim and Conditional Use Pernuts, p explained that one would clarify that language in the would create a new section that establishes the authea Statutes. He indicated these ordinances would . bE:' their next meeting. „'�•'S, ? �� Commissioner Laube requested staff Highway 10, for the March 13 public Use Permit for billboards. Planning E�.sso�iate Ericson �ta1 ,� would b� ,y.��t>��eration c�, �ds�; ;; propc�-� y � ;:f, �cXicated �`�!�c :� ��:� requ��r: .`.�� ,, �1��itional i�s� ��! facility ��: 6��J;, parlcir7g' applicatiori %t <,�,g��;� ��t redu 656 and 657,,,�'-' March 1, 2000 Page 21 set a punu� ;n� t. riti, they also s� ��tatutes t� �� >nday rugh�, � to subr�t the . ;:t; also �uthorize blic hearing , �Ye stated :;� �� ai the rdina��;.::z7°�� c��t�?: 657 are clarifications ic�ti,��=�y �� y'��t��l, co billboards. He lit��i�� rela9.er� r.r� �il�l��i�-ds, and the other ��x�s' 3�,; �a<; Interxtri ��J�� ermits as per State h��f� x�� ;c�x�r►miss�o�t for consideration at <: ' ' to ik�f; ai��a� t•esrdents on the north side of l befor�;t�he Council regarding the Interim 'that at th�; �c�.�! ,. x�� g of the Planning Commission, there o applic�� Q�>~�f�.� �nierim Use Permit for billboards on their ;�aiheran �t�:� �, �:�'��ould come before the Commission with a �i ��n�i �i��a��,1c��i�ent Review to allow for an expansion of their �la��i� ��,�operty. He indicated there would be a variance �,i��r;:;rs.�°��' �etback for a garage, and some review of Ordinances . ;-%•<:- ruri�'Associate E� �� ;��i ��F.t�e�,t� �t the following Planning Commission meeting, on Apri15, staff i�i bring forwax�c� ��:��,�a��re pertaining to tattoo parlors, body piercing shops, and ilishments of this rt�iure.'` He indicated the Council approved an ordinance that suspends j;. >:: e types of uses for N�:;�ix-month period to allow the City time to review its Code, and to make f�:;< �nmendations as ��;:�he appropriate zoning language regarding such uses. He stated staff will �,o�n� sarTra�l�;l��iguage, and have some discussion regarding which components of which .��,�ir��c��F3 ��a�h9: be appropriate and how they would apply to Mounds View. He indicated �s: ��e��<��d'; ��:�ey could have a workable ordinance to recommend to the City Council for their Planning Associate Ericson stated there would also be a public hearing for a Conditional Use Pernut for an oversized shed. He pointed out that the unseasonably warm weather has gotten the building season going in full force. He stated the City has taken in a number of building permits, and they were happy to see that this is occurring, and certainly were not planning on a rush this early in the year. ---�,. r _ : . - ' y . ` _:.�.---�..�. .�-` ..�:1.._;_.__�- �. _ . , i �--='�.-�—, :°:--�. t--------- - '------ -�� -- ---- - - -=--' — u— -- -- ---__ . Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 1, 2000 Page 22 Planning Associate Ericson stated the Board Appreciation Dinn�r would. � evening at 6:00 p.m. He indicated on Wednesday, March 2�;'the I-3 �°�i �;.: Planning Commission Dinner and Training Session would be;��t��t 6:30 �r�`. Community Center. He requested the Commissioners coxApa�� 'ommunity �: Jopke or himself regarding their plans to attend this meetix9�4, ,�� 1nat staff�i the appropriate plans. '� Community Development Director Jopke advised thatc requested to speak at the Appreciation Dinner the follc business and their priorities for the upcoming year. Chairperson Peterson stated in the past, the would like to address, including the Sign ( this list has been updated, in light of the completed. ,� Community Development Director adoption of the Comprehensive Pl', Code, as well as all other items cani would be a very time consumin� -�re ii�,. be a pe�� ts"�: _.�.,�.�-; involv�c� z� � _ �'�K � �,;�< suggestiofl�� re�,��; have been m�E��; � desire t4;��'oy�� "s� Sign,�t�e has come t��;�'�'that LtH1�, ;� � �� r:•�,. ;. £�/r r;y� /.;,.:.,�. �xplai�d that C�ra��ssion v� � B�� r� innple,�x ��: : '/�'So ;: �:i�� following cior Coalition �5x, ��ior�-;view �ae;�� e��or '.>�,.�� at�� ii��c� ion members rrught be �egarding their current Ff„�,ic�r� has hac� a v,rish list of items they �� ':�:�� of thi�� n�i�ire. He inquired if '�� .��°��n�iv� plan Update has been wit�%the implementation and formal f< .t ��/d� be examining the entire Zoning R'.:Y't�' . �piat�on plan. He pointed out that this ��.�� k�� -e th� ��g��r issues to be resolved, however, there would 1g` �,��l��c�a t�� lV�[e�t�o�oli�an Council and all of the other bodies would be of the. Gc>��1�rE;��ive Plan. He inquired if the Commission had any -�ich item� th�y:�tr��id like to address during the year. He indicated they �<�1�dnesday fc�� tr�any months, therefore, he was not aware they would ��r �r�a�a�Yr�� action beyond their normal meeting schedule, however, the �#�� E�a��az'! �� times, as well as various other items. �jrperson Peterson e�p�ain�d ihat throughout the City, there are a number of issues that should addressed, and theyx��e primarily housekeeping items. He advised however, in terms of the s-::.;:; Yz �'ode, there ar��<:many new businesses coming in to town, and the Sign Code is not �:�:;_r ��is'r.�nt, and do ,,'::�iot allow certain things that most businesses have come to expect, and a � %�f <�'` E��1g sa�f th�s�"€fi��es require clarification. c�'�� +��AS�f ��y�I�evelopment Director Jopke advised that the Highway 10 Corridor issue would also u� cor,r�:�xA� forward for examination in the near future, in terms of the redevelopment, as well as the safety and traffic issues. 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports No reports were considered. , .. . . . . i ... . . __ ... .. ...:- -' - ' F . . . �. .. ; t� ' "" _ _ ^__. k= Mounds View Plann►ng Commission Regular Meeting 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning meeting at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. March 1, 2000 Page 23 Pe�tia�yc3c� a�j�t.�rn�c� the t;:-:s� � ,R• s,: �. , �: •.: � ;,; , . � ,�;%. ;;-;�,, , ,�,. ;. . ;, � _ __ __ _ __ -- �--- ; __ `. t_...-�._ .._�i = �----- =- _ ___.. = - -- - - _ . -- -- - - -- -- -= - _ � _ ,6 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION 7:00 P.M. -- April 19, 2000 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. March 1, 2000 CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDR�:SS FOR THE MINUTES 5. Planning Cases DE00-001 & CU00-001 Property Involved: 2848 County Road H2 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 611-00, a Resolution Recom►nending Approval of a Conditional Use Pennit and Development Review for the Proposed Expansion of the Mcssiah Lutheran Cliurch Faciliry. Applicairt: Messiah Lutheran Church 6. Planning Case VR00-002 Properly Involved: 8438 Groveland Road Discussion Regarding a Variance Request to Allow for the Installation of an Eight-foot Tall Fence ui the Front Yard of thc Property. Applicant: Gregory & Elizabeth Btunes 7. Planning C�se VR00-003 Property Involved: 2400 County Road J Discussion Regarduig a Variance Request to Allow for a Reduced Minunum Spacing Between Two Billboards. Ap�licant: DeLitc Outdoor Advertisuig Compa.ny, Lic. 8. Discussion Rcgarding the Pcterson Enviroiunental Hydrology Analysis of the Vacant Land North �id Soufli of State Highway LO 9. Discussion Regarduig Proposed Chv�ges to the Zoiung Code Related to the Presence and Siting of Tattoo, Body Piercu�g, Body B� �wding, Body Painting and Related Establislunents within the City Of Mounds View. 10. Staff Reports / Items of Information a. Previous City Council Action APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE 70 ATTEND. THANK YOU. (OVER) . . . . , i. .. - _ _ _ . _ _ : ��.�.._,I 1 __ � __ _ _ . . — _ . .- . . : _ac�... _ _ ___ . . .. - _ . � t . -_"._� � . . .-� � . . . � �. . . .. .. , _: _. -- ._ _._— �_ . . .. z____ —i. .:..�- � ♦___. __i�-•__.-_____—, .. _. . . .__� �.._ . - � � . �. � - ,-. .�. f 1 �'- � � Planning Commission Agenda April 19, 2000 Page 2 11. Chairperson and Plaiuiulg Commissioners Reports 12. Adjounm�ent to Agenda Meetuig (L1m�ediately Follo�vuig Regular Meetulg) AGENDA SESSION AGENDA 1, Review the Minutes from the March 15, 2000, Planning Corrunission meeting. L:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMM\PCAGENDA\2000�April 19, 2000 PC Agenda.doc _ _ � - ' -_ -- - -- - - .. . - — �- ---- -- • -- - -- - - — �_ Item # 5 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: April 19, 2000 Title: Plannartg Case Nos.: Applicant: Locat�on: Introduction: DISCUSSION REGARDING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND WETLAND BUFFER PERMIT REQUESTED BY MESSIAH LUTHERAN CI�URCH. CU00-001, DR00-001 & WB00-001 Messiah Lutheran Church 2848 County Road H2 Messiah Lutheran Church has requested city approval of a conditional use permit and development review to allow for an expansion of their facility. The subject property is zoned R-1, which allows churches as a conditional use. Currently, Messiah does not have a conditional use permit. The development review is necessary according to Section 1006.06 of the City Code, which requires that any development, redevelopment or expansion of existing facilities be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. This item was addressed at the Planning Commission's meeting on March 15, 2000, at which time much discussion took place regarding the site plan and the impact of the expansion to the immediate area. Pertinent to that, certain key issues were identified as being deficient, needing more review or additional information. On April 5, 2000, the Planning Commission again reviewed the request and determined that with the exception of Rice Creek watershed approval of the project's stormwater ponding and grading plans, all of the unresolved issues had been addressed to the satisfaction of the Commission. The church proposes to expand their facility in two phases. The first phase of the proposed expansion will involve two building additions totaling 5,220 square feet and a partial parking lot removal and replacement. The west single-story addition will add office space and a meeting room while the two-story addition on the east side will add a more spacious lobby and gathering area, more classroozn space, a larger mechanical room, an elevator and restrooms. The second phase of the proposed expansion will involve more ambitious building additions, which would serve as an expanded worship area and classroom space. The construction of the second phase, which is proposed in three to five years, would add appro�mately 27,505 square feet to the building. The expanded building areas would match the architecture and design of the existing brick building. The applicant is seeking approval of only the first phase of development at this time. � _ ,:- . , . _ , - -=-- -� � :� -- :>_ : :: . --- -�-- °_ "'�' - -. - ` -� f�' __ r �',' - ------ - --• --- -:__ _- . .. _ . z..��=, ..._. , . ,_� . . ^ ! Messiah Church April 19, 2000 Page 2 DeveCopment Review Analysis: Dimensional Rec�uirements • All of the dimensional requirennents pertaining to this development are met as discussed at the last meeting. The building and parking lot setbacks, parking requirements, minimum lot size and other zoning-related dimensional criteria are satisfied with this proposal as they pertain to the first phase of the proposed expansion. Parking: Currently, there are 165 parking stalls available, excluding the overflow parking available across the street. After the first phase of construction, 188 stalls will be available. The construction of the second phase will reduce the available parking to 176 stalls. The church, under existing conditions, significantly exceeds the City's parking requirements, based on a maximum seating capacity of 300. Seven handicap accessible stalls are shown on the plans, which would comply with Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) standards and requirements. Wetland Buff'er: While the building expansion itself will not fall within the 100-foot wetland buffer setback, the parking lot expansion and proposed stormwater holding pond do encroach into the buffer area. As a result, Messiah has applied for a wetland buffer permit. Rice Creek Watershed District is also reviewing the applicant's plans and has administratively authorized approval of the project subject to conditions which should be met once the Church has entered into an agreement with an appropriate contractor. Approval of Messiah's conditional use permit, development review and wetland buffer permit will be subject to Rice Creek Watershed permit approval. Landsca�ing_ The City Forester reviewed the submitted landscape plan to ensure compatibility with Mounds View soils and climate and recommended specific changes. The applicant has revised the landscape plans accordingly. The Planning Commission reviewed the revised landscape plans and determined that the landscaping proposed was adequate and satisfactory. Li�ghting: While the submitted photometric analysis ofthe site meets the Code requirements, staffis concerned about the amount of light and the height of the parking lot light standards. The lighting contractor has been contacted and was asked to consider reducing the height of the parking lot light poles and changing the bulb wattage from 400 to something less intensive. The primary basis for the requested changes is the desire to maintain as much a residential feel to the project while minimizing the "glow" emanating form the property. - , : �.: .. � _ _ _ _ _ , , Messiah Church April 19, 2000 Page 3 Accessory Structures.• A 400 square-foot accessory building is shown on the site plan near the volleyball court. The dimensions of the structure will need to be shown on the next set of revised plans that will be sent to the City Council. Express allowance for the structure will be included in the resolution of approval. Fire MarshaX: The Fire Marshal for the City of Mounds View has reviewed the site plans and finds the drive aisles and circulatory routes to be adequate and conforming to Fire Department standards. A fire Hydrant has been added to the site plan on the south side of County Road H2 as requested by the Fire Marshal. Den�olition: Two residential properties--7225 Knollwood Drive and 2824 County Road H2--currently improved with single-family dwellings and detached garages adjoin the present Messiah Church site. These two properties are owned by the Church and will be cleared to make room for the expansion. Permits will need to be obtained for their removal from the properties. Draina�e and Utilitv: The City's engineer has reviewed the grading and drainage plans and drainage calculations which were found to be acceptable based upon the extent of the pervious and impervious surface on the site. The sizing of the pond and all drainage calculations are based on full build-out of the plans. The applicant has submitted grading and drainage plans to Rice Creek Watershed District. Their approval is required before the project can move forward. CUP Discussaon: Messiah Lutheran Church has been serving Mounds View and the surrounding communities for nearly 60 years. The first church building was a small wood-framed structure built in 1941, which was replaced by the structure at 2900 County Road HZ in 1951. That building served the congregation until the existing building was constructed in 1961. The requested expansion is evidence of a vibrant and growing congregation, which will continue to serve the needs of Mounds View residents many years into the future. As discussed at the Planning Commission meetings on March 1 S, 2000 and April 5, 2000, all of the specific CUP requirements addressed in Section 1106.04 of the Zoning Code are satisfied, with the possible exception of screening. The landscape plan has been revised to show taller arborvitae to the east as recommended by the City Forester, and additional plantings to the south. The Church may choose to supplement the plan with additional plantings in response to neighborhood concerns. i� _- _ _ : ; � .----- _—_ =z- �----- -- - _ - . _ _-=------ -. _ _ . , , � _�:: : _ _ _ { ,- --�--__ - _ _ � Messiah Church April 19, 2000 Page 4 The Planning Commission has also reviewed the general conditional use permit requirements as well as the adverse effects criteria. Again, with the possible exception of screening, all of the general requirements appear to be met. A question was raised with regard to the potential traffic issues that could be generated with regard to the expansion. As stated at the last meeting, it is not expected that the first phase of the expansion would add any significant volume to either Knollwood Drive or County Road H2. Looking toward full build-out, however, staff is concerned about the potential for congestion in this area. The City Code in Section 1125.01, Subd. le, reyuires that the Planning and Zoning Comnnission consider possible adverse affects of the proposed use, or in this case, the existing use and expansion thereof. As addressed at the last meeting, stafffeels that the impacts of this use and expansion to be minimal, considering its 60-year history of operation without incident or complaint. The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which designates this area as Institutional. The need for the Church is clearly demonstrated from its continued presence and proposed expansion at this location. Recommendation: Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 611-00. �J C�.MA-��D C�d2c,clre-i� James Ericson, Planner V:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\Cu00-OOI�PC Messiah Report - April 19, 2000.doc , � __ _ _ i � �: - .. __ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ � _ �x _-: ___ _ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 611-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND WETLAND BUFFER PERMIT REQUEST FOR MESSIAH LUTHERAN CHURCH, LOCATED AT 2848 COUNTY ROAD H2; PLANNING CASES CU00-001, DE00-001 AND WB00-001 WHEREAS, Messiah Lutheran Church has applied for a conditional use permit, development review and wetland buffer permit to expand their Church facility located at 2848 County Road H2; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, is designated as an institutional use on the Comprehensive Plan and is legally described as follows: Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 19, 20, 28 and 29 Knollwood Park, Counry ofRamsey WHEREAS, according to Section 1006.06 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, any new construction or expansion of existing facilities requires the approval of a development review; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1106.04 of the Mounds View Zoning Code, churches and other institutional-type uses require a conditional use permit to operate within the R-1 zoning district; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1010.08, any development occurring within 100 feet of a wetland requires a wetland buffer permit; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. b. c. d. e. f. g� Planning Application Zoning Map Location Map Site Plans, date-stamped March 10, 2000 Grading and Drainage Plans, date-stamped March 10, 2000 Landscape Plan, date-stamped April 5, 2000 StaffReport - �__ . . : ___ _ _ _____________ __ , ., Resolution 611-00 April 19, 20Q0 Page 2 -� ----�- � _�-- -- --- -�- __ _ ` ----- - -== � � ,. . - - - � - WHEREAS, the dimensional requirements associated with the proposed Messiah Lutheran Church facility expansion are all met; and, WHER.EAS, the site plans date-stamped March 10, 2000 indicate that the first phase of expansion will increase the area of the existing Church by approximately 5,220 square feet; and, WHEREAS, there are 165 parking stalls presently available on the site; after the first phase of construction there will be 187 spaces available which will exceed the minimum number of stalls required to be provided for 300 seats; and, WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has reviewed the site, grading, utility and drainage plans and finds them to be acceptable and consistent with City standards; and, WHEREAS, the City Forester has reviewed and approved the proposed Landscape Plans; and, WHEREAS, the Mourids View Fire Marshal has reviewed the site and utility plans and finds them to be consistent with applicable fire codes and fire department standards; and, WHEREAS, Rice Creek Watershed District is reviewing the proposed grading and drainage plans and is expected to approve them pending payment of a cash surety and approval of a NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Permit; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View City Council has considered the specific criteria for Churches and other institutional use facilities as they appear in Section 1106.04, Subdivision 1 and finds that they are met; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has considered the provisions from Section 1125.01(1)e of the Zoning Code regarding possible adverse effects of the proposed use and makes the following findings: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved. (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (4) The character of the surrounding area. (S) The demonstrated need for such use. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as "Institutional", which is consistent with the R-1 zoning of this site. Messiah Lutheran Church, which has existed at this location for almost 60 years, provides a desired service to the residents of the City and neighboring communities. The property is bordered by public streets on its north and west boundaries and bordered by low density residential on its east and south sides. Other than extending the Church's presence one lot to the east and to the south, the proposed expansion would be in keeping with the e�sting design and architecture and would not detract from the character of the surrounding area. _ __ , , _:_:. � - -- -. �,�. - ---- — - . � - Resolution 611-00 April 19, 2000 Page 3 I�TOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above-referenced findings, staff review, outside agency review and public testimony, recommends approval of the (1) conditional use permit, (2) development review and (3) wetland buffer permit for the operation and expansion of the Messiah Lutheran Church located at 2848 County Road H2, with the following stipulations: The design and character of the expanded areas shall match and/or complement the existing architecture of the Church. 2. Specific allowance for a 400 square-foot accessory building as shown on the landscape plan date stamped April 5, 2000 shall be granted in conjunction with this resolution of approval. The site plans to be reviewed by the City Council shall be revised to indicate shorter parking lot light standards (24 feet or less) and bulbs with lesser intensity lumens. 4. The site plans to be reviewed by the City Council shall be revised to indicate those areas to be used for snow storage. The applicant shall guarantee all landscape plantings to be living for a period of two years. The applicant shall replace any plantings deemed dead or dying by the City Forester within thirty days receipt of written notification. 6. Approval shall be subject to the applicant being granted a Rice Creek Watershed Permit. No City permits will be issued without evidence of a Rice Creek Watershed Permit. 7. The applicant or its designee shall be responsible for obtaining City demolition or building relocation permits for the homes located at 7225 Knollwood Drive and 2824 County Road H2. 8. The wetland and the stormwater drainage pond shall be protected by a perpetual public easement per Rice Creek Watershed District requirements. 9. The applicant shall make arrangements with Ramsey County to have Lots 4 and 19 of Knollwood Park combined and joined with the Church property to make one lot for purposes of zoning and building code compliance. 10. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the City Council resolution of approval with Ramsey County within 60 days of final approval. BE IT FINALLY R�SOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. �� __ _ "'_- _,. _ M l� ...-........�«A_ _ � . C r � =� _��_'_� �"""_" . �r = ..u.� _''- ____' ""'- �yt; .. � , v__,.. .. , i . Resolution 611-00 April 19, 2000 Page 4 Adopted this 19"' day of April. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) H:�DATA\GROUYS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\CU00-OO1�PC RESOLUTION 611-OO.DOC ,` ` _ _ � _ _ _ � •� : "' --- -- .� _ -- y. .,� �. _ ----------- —• - -- . � Item # 6 Cily of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: April 19, 2000 Title: PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 615-00, A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN EIGHT-FOOT TALL FENCE IN THE FRONT YA.RD OF 8438 GROVELAND ROAD. Planning Case No.: VR00-002 Applicant: Gregory & Elizabeth Brunes Location: 8438 Groveland Road Applicable Regulations: Section 1103.08 states that no fence taller than four £eet shall be installed in the front yard of a residential lot. Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines die criteria to be used by the Plaruiulg Commission in its review of variances. Background: The applicants, Gregory & Elizabeth Brunes, who live at 8438 Groveland Road one block south of County Road J, are requesting a variance from the requirement which states that no fence exceeding four feet shall be installed in the front yard of a residential lot. The applicants have submitted a letter in which they express their need for a taller fence as a means to reduce if not eliminate problems being experienced with their neighbors to the north. The fence would provide a privacy screen between the two properties and would allow the applicants to utilize the front of their property in a manner to which they have grown accustomed in the thirty years they have resided at the property. The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission on April 5, 2000, regarding the request, reiterating the hardships they have endured as a result of the actions of their neighbors. While the Planning Commission collectively sympathized with the applicants' plight, preliminary discussions focused on a lack of a property-related hardship in this situation. In order for a variance to be granted, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difF'iculty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. In this situation, the property itself is not an impediment to development or use nor does it present any associated hardship. 1 � __'_�-�! _ �_�'__ -�� . r::`� ----� =- - f�--_•- '��:�� _ �_��.:�____�:�__._�i _ �_�_..�_---_•-�-- l ., Brunes Va�-iance April 5, 2000 Page2of5 Analysis: At the meeting on April 5, 2000, it was suggested that perhaps instead of a variance, the request could be allowed as an interim use. (Recently adopted Ordinance 657 allows for the granting of interim uses.) Staff consulted with the City Attorney, who advised that in order to approve the request as an interim use, the City would need to adopt an accompanying ordinance to specifically allow for tall fences as an interim use. Given the amount of time required for such an action, the interim use alternative would not serve as an expedient solution to the applicants' situation. Staff would suggest that in the meantime, other remediatory actions be considered by the applicants. Staff has discussed this situation with Chief of Police Bill Clark, who recommends that some type of neighbor mediation or dispute resolution may be the best alternative to address this issue. The applicants have been advised of this alternative and of Chief Clark's willingness to help moderate such a meeting. Hardshtp Criteria: State statutes require that the governing body review a set of prespecified criteria for each application and that it make its decision in accordance with those 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 individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. Exceptional or extr�aordrnary 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 circunzstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof�have had no control. There are no extraordinary circumstances which apply to this property. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights co�nmonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district. That the special conditions of• circuntstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicants are clearly not responsible for the conditions which have prompted them to apply for a variance. d. That granting ihe variance requestea' will 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. . _ ___________ �i _ ,�__ — - � . - � — - ----- Brunes Variance Apri15, 2000 Page 3 of 5 e. f. !.: --- - --- �: -- . �_ _ --- - - �. No other property owners are allowed to build fences in their front yard in excess of eight feet. That the variance requested is the nzinimum variance which �vould alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to screen the subject property from the adjacent property and its occupants. The applicant indicated a willingness to "step down" the height of the fence as it approaches the front of the property. The variance would not be materzally detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Given the circumstances, staff does not feel the variance request would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. g. The p�•oposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public stt�eets or increase the danger of ftf•e or endanger the public safety or substantrally diminish or impazr property values within the neighborhood. The proposed fence would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. As stated at the last meeting, it is clear that the property is not a factor in this request, in that the property is not oddly configured, nor is it topographically challenged or situated in such a way as to necessitate the tall fence. The strict interpretation of the Code does not deprive the applicant use of the property. In this situation, it is the neighbors who are allegedly depriving the applicants of their right to peaceably enjoy the use of their yard. While staff can appreciate the applicants' frustration, tall fences in a front yard do not promote community spirit or neighborhood cohesion. Recommendation: Based upon the above assessment, public testimony and previous discussions, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 615-00, a resolution DENYING the variance request of Gregory and Elizabeth Brunes for an eight-foot tall fence in the front yard of their property located at 8438 Groveland Road. James Ericson, Planner G:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDfiV�DEVCASES\VR00-002�Brunes RepoR - April 19, 2000.doc ` _ . � '�: . _ �_ �. _ I:�,• _ �_ � - --- < - : _------_t______------ --� = __.. .___ �: �. . _,. _. _:� _ .r=�._..._ _ --�---- � . Brunes Variance April 5, 2000 Page 5 of 6 Zoning Map B � A -- ____ - -� - = - �� - _= RD - - - -NORTH COUNTY _z- 49 4 g49 rn rn 49 8499 8490 � I � �_ �_N ^N �_ ._._...... _.__.._..._ o"�� 849t. � i h f8494 495;N ��_8494 849 �848 8485 � 84B4 8489 ---; N�._N.1.-.., ,n �. !. ?--`.-..._ �._._,._ _1 8480_ 8481 �� _....�N N N 8490 H45 8477 i 8450 8479 ."-�.-°-_ ------ 8485 8468 ---�- ---__ 8470 8471 -._".. -- - i 8484 847 8469 $474 $465 $470 �.w# 8474 gq75 �f`"- 8469 ^ I --8460 �-�--.'�" t� -- �474 84i . o _._..�.__;___.�.._ ._._.. .._ 846D -----_.._ .�_,...__. 846 ea6S - "� � 6461 847 -- - . -. � 8464 84( 8454 �-.�"'.�-' 8463 8456 8461 � 8460 845 �' _ V�� ._ -- __- - _- - &t6a •--- .._.�.... _ 84SS � -_� _. 8455 �5 8459 8450 8455 g440 8441 1 � 8455 8454 84; 84a2 8a49 I 8440 84a5 ; 8444 -,._..~. 8432 ^Y --•�~^ 8+44 8443 ` 8a4a �° 84 _.�..1. �..__.� 8431 ` .._. Q 8431 .+-------- 8436 -"'._ a439 843$ _-_.._ ----� -'""' " 8430 8425 � 8430 � ----- - •----r- B424 - -�- � ~ 8434 �35 __ 8434 84: � 8429 � 8432 � �___�. 8425 8425 8424 _____-. ta2 - --i o �_.__s_------- 8419 _.__ ...�.--- .-_-- - ----� 9418 ��`Y �23 -{I-.- 8426 - I 8�0 sai5_ �� s4�0 ea15� sat4 84; 8419 8419 ` 8420 8409 � � -�...�_ _ � .� - -- � _ �-- ; _' , _.. _ ____ � ..�.� ---..-�-.__.� ._ ._ ._�.�8392 8401 � 8406 8405 i^ gq-p4 841 .__. �....,------ 8406 8407 841 8415 8414 401 M � I8J84 --- --- -( �-- --- ---."...� 8390 $4( .__.....� ---.T_.-...____....- ------ __._-- _ _-- �. m 8394 8403 ; 8408 8409 8408 S� 1� ��,837b b388 B400 8379 -__-_ ._. .. -- _.__.--- -• ..__..�_. �...____... 9 co -, -.•-------- _�....._... 8384 83S _ __ `_.�_`,-�--_— 8401 8398 .: ' �.__. �._______._. �_..� a39� i saos ._-- �..-_.----_ . R LAN �� e37 8379 �� 8380 g373 e37o a3� 8380 -_.__- �-�----- ^$391� 8388 L _ ___- - .__.__ _�.._._..Y _-_ $387 i 8382 __._ _..._�_�.._. __� 37� „+ � ��-.; • � 8372 � _ � � . 8365 f_ .__._._--,--,- 8360 831 _�- ------•--r--- - .. ^8381�� 8378 � �'� ,!836_ �.----•---�- -__.....�. _.__. . 8374 8383 � 8372 �----_'.-- p--.._ �r°� to� ,-__ 8355 � 8368 Q.__-_..__i.. @35D 83; .---_�_-�, 8371 �.^8368 � 8369 � i � 8360 L- _.- --.--.- ---- ..-. 836 837� _.�-_ _._..�. _ ...-__ _ _.----• i 8364 8345 8340 831 -- . _..4. _ i 8368 8351 � 634 8365 � 8354 8345 _��...:�..- ---r-•- _ f ----.__ _.� �-°--- 83: W 8359 I --- --'- 8340 � 8360 x --.� 8360 TM g3�,� 8351 ` i�34G $331 833� � g 8347 ��`..._ 835H �-••-- _..-----.___.�-____. 8335� _�..-.�-�_ ---�.._.._ 83i � �._.__,�, 8341 " 8343 ! 8342 83q5 f 8312 8315 � 8320 g31 -.._. _. 8335 8334 __ . �.: - 8334 - �_. ._�-.T.T... - ---- --- - ____ -•-��µ� � 8339 � ��_ 8335 � 8332 8315 8300 8303 8310 W 83f � __._.�...._..^. --- .._. o �._ 8336 8325 I 8330 �$33� B3J0 6333 i 6322 '—^�� -_8290 • ~y� 8290 N 82i .____._..._, .�.�.�..____�__ � ______ _�_�___� 8305 ; 8295 ,� 8316 8315 ^8322 p 8321 �.� 8325 ' 8300 0 8285 V... �_� 8280 3287 _.. �.- 8280 z�2t -- Z _ -- I .r _.�_.._..---------- _..---- i-.._.� __.�. � - . --- 6311 � 8308 x 831 S 8275 � $270 p 8281 � 827o tn 82� -.-_��___.__- _.___ U-_._.__._.....�_.��__.---_ � s3�2 s2s� � 8298 aao� GROVELAND 82� , 82so � 8273 W�„�� 8260 82i �-�'� 8289 8280 g2�5 � PARK a 8255 �^ 8250 8267 W�` 8250 82; _ ..� _�_�_.._ 8290 ,..__��_.__ . _ .y . -.-- �� _ � . —. -._. _�-..'. 8281 ' 8250 8261� h � p� in �n{ r� i o�? � 8240 �---- t 8240 M 1.---.-.-- � 8251 f � a q^` � ,nI n; .o-,a �---- _ .._To�,._.,__ � 8270 � 8230 8241 �� j �Jj' N n t� ) r. � rS n N SZG�S i N j"I ARbAN N� N( N�N t$Z,jp HZSS � N �--- AVE � , ,� . _ _._..._; a ; v: `v :N;--lo!$ �u`°-,'��a 822D 8248 --- _ �._.._ ---. rn o� 4 rn rn �• o 00 !824 0� � co Q� m` oo n j r� I n? n�.._.. i LL N� N 1.N i. �, '; N, I C�� .._..._� N N " I N i N � N � N l N; cv � 8211 ---•- __...�._....�-�--- : 8210 - 8225 8245 i;-----__._ S2o6 8 2 2 � �-..!� �1�_.i,--�_�..__... f�_ w ; .,......_._.�.._._�._ 8202 �•-----..�..�___..._.-.._� �n i � o� �R' 2p � i .°-- - t r �---- ' g2 � � 8217 � I 8198 8205 N � N�• N? N I �.__....---. _._.....�-- R2(10 8191 _ __M.._ ^ E ` _ 8192 � 8203,� � ; n �� 8208 p��Rp 8175 - -•--.--� -� •!--'�^� �.-.�'._ _. .._ � '�`-.� N ' .- .f ._ � tn .i �dd'r-•-- _ i ,� � � , � _ i : �= ---- ----= _ � � : ._ � :�_-- --_----- --- - - . . _. _ _ _ � :__ , . _ � ------ ' - -_ Brunes Variance Apri15, 2000 Page 6 of 6 .�� "E .��G��i ��.�c� �ir�"[�lJ�'�t��(� ..�C�t�t� N _ _ s __ . _ - 'r __ ' __'"" � _ '! y�'_"'"" I _ _ _ � . . .�ca.-_�3 ._. ' > .v = sn - _ _ _ _ _ __ . .. -_ _"__ ' '_"""" "" . — . _ . �_- __s _� `___•`. ��. y-,!J _ - .. -. . �, z • I MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 615-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 1103.08 OF TH� MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO FENCES TO ALLOW FOR AN EIGHT-FOOT TALL FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD OF 8438 GROVELAND ROAD, MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR00-0020 WHEREAS, The applicants, Gregory and Elizabeth Brunes, have applied for a variance to allow for an 8-foot fence in the front yard of their property located at 8438 Groveland Road; and, WHER.EAS, 8438 Groveland Road is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Lot 3, Block 2,Barth and WalcirialcAddition Ramsey Counry, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site Plan 5. Staff Report WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's control; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held Wednesday, April 19, 2000, with regard to this variance request; and, WHEItEAS, 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. _ _ _ , . _ , - _. � ,. . _ . . �. _-- - —= _.:__;=�a - !-- - ----- - - - _ - '=_-- --- -=--• _ _ .. _ _ . _ . _ : � Resolution 615-00 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are not satisfied and finds there to be insufficient hardship with regard to the property located at 8438 Groveland Road, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances related to the property located at 8438 Groveland Road. The lot meets and exceeds all minimum zoning requirements, is rectangular without any slope or any topographical deviations. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Code. 3. Without an evident hardship tied to the property itself, it would be inappropriate to grant a variance to allow for an 8-foot fence in a front yard to mitigate a dispute between neighbors and would set a precedent for other property owners. 4. Granting a variance for to allow for an 8-foot fence in a front yard would be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code in that tall fences are prohibited to ensure suitable visibility and to promote a community spirit and neighborhood cohesion. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission denies the variance request for a fence with a height in excess of 4 feet in the front yard ofthe property located at 8438 Groveland Road. Adopted this 19th day of April, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) F:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\VR00-002�RESOLUT[ON 615-OO.DOC - � _ I : �:; _ _ --- -_- — -- , --- _- ----- ,-. . : __. _ _ _. _ __ _ ,. , . __--� .:- _ , — � -- �. i. Item # 7 Cily of Mounds Vaew Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: April 19, 2000 Title: PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST BY DELITE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCED MINIMUM SPACING REQUIREMENT BETWEEN TWO BILLBOARDS Planning Case No.: VR00-003 Applicant: DeLite Outdoor Advertising Company, Inc. / Sysco Foods Location: 2400 County Road J Applicable Regulations: Section 1008.08, Subdivision lOc requires that there be a minimum 1,000 feet separating any two billboards in the City. Section 1125;02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its review of variances. Background: On December 13, 1999, the City Council adopted Ordinance 644 which amended the City Code to allow for the installation of billboards north of State Highway 10 (formerly known as TH 118) as conditional interim uses. Sysco k'oods and the Bridges Golf Course are the only properties north of State Highway 10 where billboards could be located according to the ordinance. The City was first to apply for billboards, requesting six to be located on Bridges Golf Course property. The unique stone-monument design and associated landscaping of these billboards was an important feature to the City to ensure a good fit with the golf course. The locations of the six billboards were chosen so as not to impede, obstruct or inhibit golf course operations while providing signage visibility to motorists. Not long after the City's formal application was accepted, DeLite Outdoor Advertising Company, representing Sysco Foods, applied for an interim use permit to allow for two billboards to be located on Sysco property. Upon initial review, it was discovered that the second proposed sign on Sysco's property would be too close to the City's first sign on the Golf Course. Representatives of both parties worked to resolve the inadequate spacing, but in the end, short of one party losing a requested sign, a resolution was not forthcoming. The Planning Commission, in its recommendation to the City Council regarding Sysco's interim use pernnit application, recommended approval conditioned upon Sysco applying for and obtaining approval of a variance to resolve the spacing deficiency. On March 17, 2000, the City received DeLite's variance application. � �� _ � ! ._ �__�-- .� �__ - � Sysco Variance April 19, 2000 Page 2 of 3 ; __ _ _ _ ..:_� k ._ _ �.. �.- . --::.- _ __..i - . � -.. The Planning Commission discussed this request at its meeting on April 5, 2000 and felt that there was su�cient basis for a hardship in this situation and directed staffto draft a resolution for action at its meeting on April 19`l, Analysis: As with any variance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body 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 individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary ci�°cunlstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result fram lot size or shape, topography or other circunzstances over which the owners of the prope�°ty since the effective date hereof have had no contf�ol. Sysco Foods, a thriving national food service and dry goods distributor, is utilizing its property to nearly full capacity. The part of the property alongside Highway 10 serves as a parking area and circulatory system for the trucks that service the business. The parking lot itself and the trucks that utilize it presents an extraordinary circumstance and practical difficulty relative to the siting of the proposed billboards. b. The liter•al interpretation of the provisions of thrs Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. While the literal interpretation of the provisions of Section 1008.08 would not deprive the applicant the ability to install one billboard, the strict interpretation of the provision would prevent the installation of a second billboard in the location sought by the applicant. It would appear that two billboards would fit on the property while maintaining the required 1,000 foot setback, but the resulting siting locations would be unacceptable due to interference with truck traffic and also due to sight-line considerations. Thus, a deprivation to the property owner does exist. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result, fi°oni the actions of the applicant. The applicant was not involved in the drafting of the ordinance which conditionally allows the installation of billboards on properties north of State Highway 10. Its business and the associated site development and improvements had occurred long before the contemplation of such an ordinance. Had the ordinance been in effect prior to the Sysco development, the site plan could have been conf°igured in such as way to allow for the location of two billboards in compliance with the provisions of Section 1008.08. . � i . �. . _ . � _ �:r_ _ . - _ _ . Sysco Variance April 19, 2000 Page 3 of 3 d. That granting the >>ariance reqacested �vill not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Tztle to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. The only other property owner in the corridor where billboards have been allowed is the Bridges Golf Course, which has already received approval for six billboards on golf course property. Installation of billboards is not allowed on any other properties in the City. e. That the varrance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Econon2ic conditions alone shall not be corrsider•ed a hai•dship. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to allow for the second billboard while still maintaining a separation allowable by Minnesota Department of Transportation permitting standards, which allows for a minimum spacing of 500 feet. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of ihis Title or to other property in the same zone. Given the circumstances, staff does not feel the variance request would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially zncr•ease the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property >>alues wzthin the neighborhood. The proposed reduced spacing between the two billboards would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. Recommendation: Given the above assessment of the criteria for approval of a variance, staff believes that all of the standards are satisfied and would recommend that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 613-00, a resolution approving a variance for a reduced minimunn spacing between two billboards as shown on the site plan stamped Exhibit A. � G�v� James Ericson, Planner T:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASGS\VR00-003\Sysco Variance Report - April 19, 2000.doc ---- ------ � .=- --- ---- �-' --- ==-- : �- - -- ___9�. �-- --- = - -_-----� ' _- -_ . � MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 613-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 1008.08, SUBD. IOC, OF TI3E MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING A REDUCED MINIMUM SPACING REQUIREMENT BETWEEN A PROPOSED BILLBOARD ON SYSCO PROPERTY AND A BILLBOARD APPROVED ON THE ADJACENT BRIDGES GOLF COURSE PROPERTY; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR00-003. WHEREAS, The applicant, DeLite Outdoor Advertising Company, representing the property owner, Sysco Minnesota, has applied for a variance to allow for the siting of a billboard less than 1,000 feet from the nearest approved billboard located on the adjacent Bridges Golf Course property; and, WHEREAS, Sysco Minnesota is located at 2400 County Road J, property which is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, and is legally-described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, SYSCO and Lot 1, Blocic 2, SYSCO Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site Plan 5. Staff Report WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's control; and, � . _ - ---- ._ ._-., . _�, _ i�_� �'- -- Resolution 613-00 Sysco Variance April 19, 2000 Page 2 ._.. . _ ,_� . .� - � � �'--- - -�y. �: .`-- �_s- A._�r>_..-r � __�_: . -- ��'��"----.. 4_�.__s.:�_.�.._ ._.._� _ .�i _ _ :l WHEREAS, a public hearing was held Wednesday, April 19, Z000, with regard to this variance request; 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 has reviewed the criteria identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code and makes the following findings of fact: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to 2400 County Road J in that the existing parking lot and truck circulatory system effectively prohibits the siting of a billboard in a location consistent with the requirements of the Code. 2. A deprivation to the property owner exists in that the literal interpretation of the Code would prohibit the siting of two billboards which would otherwise meet the Code requirements were it not for the location and configuration of the parking lot. The applicant was not involved in the drafting of the ordinance which conditionally allows the installation of billboards on properties north of State Highway 10. Its business and the associated site development and improvements had occurred long before the contemplation of such an ordinance. Had the ordinance been in effect prior to the Sysco development, the site plan could have been configured in such as way to allow for the location of two billboards in compliance with the provisions of Section 1008.08. 4. The only other property owner in the corridor where billboards have been allowed is the Bridges Golf Course, which has already received approval for six billboards on golf course property. Installation of billboards is not allowed on any other properties in the City. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to allow for the second billboard while still maintaining a separation allowable by Minnesota Department of Transportation permitting standards, which allows for a minimum spacing of 500 feet. 6, Granting a variance for a reduced minimum spacing between two billboards would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. 7. The proposed reduced spacing between the two billboards would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. 4 _ a - �. __�_ _.�. � . ..___.� ---- _ -_-- . . . �: _ - _ - —�s� ..--- __.�� . ��_ _ " � _.-----_°_---_-�`" -----�-°- Resolution 613-00 Sysco Variance April 19, 2000 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTH�R RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds there to be sufficient hardship with regard to the request made by DeLite Outdoor Advertising Company and does hereby approve a variance for a reduced minimum spacing requirement between a billboard proposed on Sysco property and a billboard approved on Bridges Golf Course property as indicated on E�iibit A attached to this resolution, contingent upon the following: 1. The applicant shall arrange to have recorded with Ramsey County this resolution of approval and provide proof of such recordation to the City within 60 days of the date of approval. 2. This variance shall be considered null and void without an approved interim use permit. Adopted this 19th day of April, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) J:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\VR00-003UZESOLUTION 613-OO.DOC I r_ , .—� i , I ; � � ; , , -, , -� : _ ; — i i L_. Long�Lake Road , � � I � _ , � , � � . ; ; Woodlawn Drive �. _ I I , � ; �� . i ': � , � j--i � � � _. � . Edgewood Drive ; : . _� � _ ; . ! -- � - , , - ,-:-, , , � i � ��. � �' : i ' i I ° � � � � I ! � - i ; ; . . ; . . ,- ; ' i ; i -- ' � , i i � � � i � ' i � ' � � t ; � . i � , ; �D , , v a � I ! � � � N � . �_ � � s� ' C �� . ; ; Q.. 'I D, � � < I � '. O �I ,, � � N v -� �' –I (D , �- � � -�aoom ; i I (n— ' . � �1t � � i � ; ;� ��, � l � , �. '� � � �� D � � -- a - � � \ o p � ' ! , a -, , � <� � . o � I r^ . �v ��c� Q ; ,� � ; ; , � (p ; ! � ; ,Q� I N ,— - v •�W I `� ;,Q' i __ i' i;' Q � '�� ...- ;� � _� �- - . 4 - .�: -� ._ � :: � •� �', ;, . . . . , ,: '4.... , . ; {--_1 ; - ' � i �� ' i � i � -_ - , ... l ' �, � ' ,: ; ` � � ^ �. I �1 . � J � , �. ; o ,' � � _ c c� ; , �.` I i � y ;I ( i � � o �i. _. � � � ; \� • , i a � �comQV, o�,a`�� '-`•�o=�� m�-o�aocu � v O o0 � cn Q ��O-m°-�' �.��°�� ov,'�' o (n= o��v,� � � O � s o� o .� � X Q � W � �r 0 0 � n � � 0 � � 0 � "b O y a� �o � � I ! ! ---- - ! — — '' � �I l�i. !� � � � � � 0 � e� � � A � m x s a � D Item # 8 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: Apt�il 19, 2000 Title: DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS OF THE VACANT LAND NORTH AND SOUTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 10. IntroducPaon: At the Planning Commission's last meeting on Apri15, 2000, a survey was distributed to the Commission which seeks input and feedback regarding the possible development potential for the vacant lands associated with the Bridges Golf Course as well as the vacant land south of Highway 10, as indicated on the attached graphic. Discussaon: John Hammerschmidt, Manager of the Bridges Golf Course, and representatives from Peterson Environmental will be present at the meeting to discuss the options for development in these two areas. The Commission should be prepared to discuss the questions from the handout. Recommendation: Discuss the range of options available for the potential use of these lands, if determined to be outside of a delineated wetland. v� James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Hydrology Study Area, Water Table Depths, May 2-8, 1999 I:�DATA\USERS\TIME\Templates\PC Report Template.doc i _ � ,. : _ _ � � : Week 2 : 5/2 - 5/8 11 1 11 �11 •11 :11 � Legend Water Table Depth (feet) • Electronic Wells � -3.5 to 0.0 Ditches � 0 .0 - 1.0 Ponds a�=:�;a:� 1.0 - 1.5 � Kriging Boundary � 1.5 - 11.0 Watertabie depth contours (1.Q foot interval} N _ Item # 9 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: Title: DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ZONING CODE RELATED TO THE SITING AND LOCATION OF TATTOO, BODY PIERCING, BODY BRANDING, BODY PAINTING AND RELATED ESTABLISHIvIENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW. Introduction: On February 14, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance 653, an emergency ordinance drafted to prohibit the siting of tattoo shops and similar uses for a period of six months to allow the City ample time to review and research these types of uses and other cities' relevant codes. The ordinance expires on August 14, 2000, unless e�ended by the City Council. Discussion: Ordinance 653 was drafted in response to the possibility of a tattoo shop being located on County Road I on a property zoned B-2, Limited Business District. Because the City's Zoning Code does not contemplate tattoo and piercing shops, it could be legally argued that they would be permitted in any commercial business district. Without any language pertinent to such uses, the City would lose any control over potential siting requirements if the zoning code were challenged and not upheld. (The Courts have ruled that cities may not exclude certain types of businesses or commercial activities while permitting other types.) While no Zoning Code can contemplate every possible type of business or commercial activity, not addressing potentially controversial uses such as adult uses, pawn shops or gun shops, can lead to problems. Some issues to consider with regard to the possible siting of tattoo parlors include which zoning district would be most appropriate, whether the use would be permitted by right or conditionally, (and if by condition, what conditions), whether setbacks would be imposed from certain sensitive uses such as schools, residential districts or churches, and whether the uses would be licensed. Staff is providing the Commission with three examples of zoning requirements for tattoo shops from the cities of St. Paul, Crystal and Richfield. St. Paul's Code is less restrictive and allows tattoo shops as permitted uses in certain districts. The City of Minneapolis also allows for tattoo shops as permitted uses in certain districts. The other two examples are very similar in their construction and, in comparison the St. Paul's code, are much more restrictive. It would be sta�s suggestion that Mounds View adopt language similar to that of Crystal or Richfield with revisions as needed. c _ �_:. ^.y:_._; .... :. �. . _ .;��__ :� --..: �. . :_— - - - - - `... .. � . . � __ ""�_-�+�v =. t- --- � - —.�'_ t � � �I' I _ _ _ ,.: . , ... ._,.,,. . ._ _ - _ :.. _ . _., , 1 r Tattoo Shops Report April 19, 2000 Page 2 of 2 Recomrnendatdon: Review the attached codes pertaining to tattoo and body piercing shops and discuss the following issues: 1. Which zoning district(s) would be appropriate for the siting and location of tattoo and body piercing shops? 2. Should such uses be considered conditional or permitted by right? 3. If such uses would be considered conditional, what conditions would be appropriate? �_1�,,,�p �i�--�..�-cL� James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. City of St. Paul, Tattoo Parlors Code 2. City of Richfield, Tattoo and Body Piercing Code 3. City of Crystal, Tattoo and Body Piercing Code 4. City of Mounds View Ordinance 653 K:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�SPECPROJ\SP075-00\Tattoo report 4-19-OO.doc (? i y" y 0 F ST, � A U t_ Chapter 367. Tattoo Parlors Sec. 367.01. Definitions. http://www l. stpaul.go v/code/Ic367.litm I The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this chapter: (1) Health officer: The term "health officer" means and includes the health officer, his assistant or any inspector of the division of public health. (2) Tattooing: The word "tattooing" means and includes any method of placing designs, letters, scrolls, figures, symbols, or any other marks upon or under the skin of a person with ink or colors, by the aid of needles or instruments. (3) Person: The word "person" means and includes any individual, firm or corporation, owner or operator of a tattooing establishment. (Ord. No. 16357, § .01, 10-14-77) Sec. 367.02. Licensc. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the business of tattooing for a fee without first obtaining a license. (Ord. No. 16357, § .02, 10-14-77) Sec. 367.03. Iavestigation and inspection. It shall be the duty of the health officer to investigate the premises where tattooing is proposed to be practiced, and if it shall appear to the health officer that the sanitary conditions prevailing upon the premises comply with the provisions of this chapter and conform to the rules and regulations promulgated by the health officer, the license application for the establishment shall be approved. (Ord. No. 16357, § .03, 10-14-77) Sec. 367.04. Fee. The annual fee for a license to engage in the practice of tattooing shall be established by ordinance as specified in section 310.09(b) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. (Ord. No. 16357, §.04, 10-14-77; C.F. No. 99-518, § 1, 7-7-99) Sec. 367.05. Tattooing of minors. It shall be unlawful to tattoo any person under the age of eighteen (18) years. (Ord. No. 16357, § .05, 10-14-77) Sec. 367.06. General instructions. The tattooing license and regulations of the division of public health shall be posted at all times in a i ofa 4/12/00 1:34 PM ��_`=;_ :___ -. l�ttp://www l.stpaul.gov/code/1c367.html conspicuous place in the tattooing establishment. (Ord. No. 16357, § .06, 10-14-77) Sec. 367.07. Rules and regulations. The health officer shall promulgate rules and regulations reasonably necessary to the safe and sanitary operation of tattooing establishments after giving the parties affected thereby notice and opportunity to comment. The health officer shall make available at least one (1) free copy of the proposed rules and regulations to any party requesting them. The health officer shall allow written comments to be submitted for ten (10) days after notice of the proposed promulgation is given. If, at the end of the ten-day period, the health of�'icer chooses to adopt the proposed rules and regulations, whether in the original or in an amended form, he shall make available a copy of such rules and regulations to all affected persons upon request for at least five (5) days before filing them with the city clerk. Rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be effective upon filing with the office of the city clerk. Amendments to rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to this section shall be effective twenty (20) days after filing with the office of the city clerk. (Ord. No. 16357, § .07, 10-14-77) 5ec. 367.08. Penalty. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter or any provision of the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder shall be subject to a fine of up to three hundred dollars ($300.00) or imprisonment of up to ninety (90) days or both. (Ord. No. 16357, § .08, 10-14-77) Sec. 367-09. License revocation. Any license granted under this chapter may be revoked by the city council whenever the holder thereof has been convicted a second time for any violation of its provisions or for any violation of the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. (Ord. No. 16357, § .09, 10-14-77) 2of2 4/12/00 1:3Q PM _ _ , � ORDINANCE NC1. 99 � AN � ORDTNANCE R�LATTNG T'U PUBLIC H�ALT'�i AND S rl': KEGULA7'ING 'I'H[� PRACTICE OF' 7CATI'00 A R�LATEb AC'1�'vITTES: A1�NDING CRY5TAI. CITY CO�'IE BY ATIDINC A SECfION � THE CI7'Y OF Ck�'STAL pRbAINS: Section 1. SECTION 6�0.01 � ci .ty code is azrtended �y addittg a settion to tead: pA�NTING ESTA,BLISHMENTS PURPOS� 'I'he purposE'of this cection is to �gulate the busit�ess of t�ttooing, body picrcing. body brar,d' g, or body paintit�b in ordEr to prevent the trar?sinir�ion of disca�e and protect the h th �d we]fare of the genetal public. The City Covncil �ad,c th�t the experience o� other citie� indicatcs chat there is a connection betweer� body piercing and disease 'r��smi�sion and other health problems. ?he City Councii find�� that stringer�t regt�lations goveming t�ttooing can mit�imize the disease risk and thcref protect the ge�eral health arid welf�re of the commvnity. �� 660.3. DEP ONS. SabdiUi,ion 1. For purpos�s of this section the terms defined in thi� subscction ha�e the me�ing� giv�n them. i Subd_ �2. "Body piercing" means �ny metlyod af puncturing the skin of a person hy the� aid of needles or other in.ctruments decigmed or used to puncturc the skin for the p �e of in�erting jewelty or vther objectc in or through thc human body. � Subd. �. "Body branditig„ means impressing or burrting a matk nr figure on the skin c�f � I rsatt with a hot object or flame. Su b d. � 4. "�aay p�;nting�� me�,s any tnethod of appiication of coloring �gents to creat� a petmanent color to thE skin. � � Subd. �. "Clean" meat�s the ab�ence af ditt, gtea.ce, ��,ish, g�rbage odor i I �JK1267z8 � CRZ�S-30 I I and other o�f�nsive, unsightly, or cxtraneou� matter. 5u�i. 5_ "Good repaur" means �ree af cortosiots, bre�ks, crackc, cizi s, pitting. ex ssivc we�r and tear, 1cak.e, obstrt�etions, and similar dcfects so �s ta constitvtE a�good �nd covnd condition. � Su ' . 7. "Enforcetnent officer" meatt� the c�ty health �uthotity or other designee of e City manager. Sub�.. $. "I,asuir,g Authority" means the c'rty covncil. Sub�• 9• "7�ttooing" me�ns the mazkin of the skin o of permanernt colors by iqtroducing thcm through put�ctnre of he S�non by iacert�on S�CTION 6G0_o5 L,iCENSE RE UIREb ! It is �nl�wf 1 to aperate �n est�biishmeni whcie tattooing, b�dy piercing, hody branding, or dy painting is practiced, nor engag� in the practice of tatkooing, body pi�r�ing• bo iy branding or body painting withnut � licen.Ce_ SEC7'10N 6�0.07 LICENSE APPLICATI4N. Subdi�ision 1. qn application f�r a licettse is ma�le on a forin supplied by the c�ty cicrk �nd must cant�ih the ap�mpriate informatiort t�quired by this subsection. � Subd.� 2. If the �pplicatzt is a batural person; ( t) The natrie� place and date of birch, street r�sidence address, and hone nuinber of th� applicant. � � (2) '�'hether the applicant h�s cvet ttsed ot ha.s bcEn known by a ttatn� othcr than the� applicant's natne, �nd if so. tile hazrte ot n�mcs used ahd ihforttlatiotl concerning da�tes aud places whcre used. I (3) ; The name of thc busihecs if it is to be cotiductcd und�r a dcsign�tion, name, or ctyl� other thatt the name of the applicant attd � certifed �opy c�f the certific�te ac r�quired by Mirmesota Statutes. 5ection 333A2. � f4) i The street addresses at which the applicant hac li�ed during the pteceding ftve�yeats. (5) IThe type, nam� �d Iocati�t► of every business or occu ation ' which the �ppl cant has beeri ettga�ed during the preccding five ycarS, �d he natne ar�d address of e app}4cant's employer �nd parMer, if ztty, duritig the preeedin� fivc I i D.�:z?s�ra� CR205�30 yeatc Subii. 3, .If the applicatat ic a partr�ership: � i�) ! The aame and �ddresses of �il gerieral atid Iimited parthers �hd a1] intorm�tioni cvncErning each genetaf partncr requi�d in sui,diVisinn 2. i2) i Thc natr►e of the m�ttaging pattt�er �d the �nterest of each p�rtncr irt the tattooin� cstablishmertt. (3) I A ttuE co of the artnc appiication. i If the p�rtnership ispequired� o�fil�eea certific�e as�Mm��tr�detname �ursu�nt to �ii�nesota St�tutes, seetion �33.01, a certified copy of suth c�rti�icate mu�t bE att�hed to the application. Sub�_ 4. If thc appiicant is a corpor�dtivn or vther �iusihec.c: (1) T}1e name O� �e CoippC3tiOT1 oi bitSjtiC.cS fOi'ii1Ed, attd if incor�rated, th� ctate of i coiporation. I (2) � A true copy of the certi�icate o� in�orpor�tion. If the applicartt is a foreign co ration. a ceitific�te of authotity �.c rcqtzired by Minnesota Statute�, section 3D3. , must i�e attachcd to thc applicat�on. i (3) i The �ame of the tnariagcr. propriet�r, or other �gent in charge of the busines� and �all ittformati�n concernir►g each manager, proptietor, or agent required in subdivisiorl2. � 5ut�d.;5. In the case of all �ppiicants: I � ii} j whether the �pplicatit halds a curt,ent tattooing, body piercing, body br�hding or bbdy painting licEnse frorn any othcr go�emmenta! ur�it. . (2) I whether the a licaht . pp h�s Pre��ously been dcnied a iattooln�, bociy ptercing. bod}� brandittg ot ��y p�tir►g lirense frotn any other gavetnmental uriit_ (3) � The tocation of the business prerrtise.c �d the le��l de.5cription theieaf. I � (4) � Whether ail rea] est�te atid person�I r p�.yabie for th premises to be lic�nsed have bcen p�id, ��tid� f� p��aa�� ye�s and amounts that � unpaid. (5} ;If the application is for premises eithci plat�ed or under construction I �cias��a I CRZ05-30 I _ _ - ` ' ----� - ��i ;-_; - _ ._ _ _- _ _ _ _ �f j - . .. . ' . - . - . . r> =�%X%�/ X��M17/1 ✓F�//.' . � , - . � . . - ' . � I or underga ng substand�l alter�tionc, the appt�cation rnu�t be accompanied by ��ct of prelimin plans showi�g the design di the proposed ptemi�es to be Iicensed. A copy of th plans must be submirted to building, fire �nd healt� autharity for approv�t, f the plans of design are on filc with the City Building �nd Iticpection Di�ision, planc need nc►t � cubtt�itted. (Gi � Such other ihformation thc r.ity man��er t,lay require. � S�CTION �60.09 APPLICAi'ION �XECUTIpN An appIicati n fot' � license must be signed atid sworn to. If the �ppiicatiott is that of a n�tural rson, it mu�t be sigrled arid sworn to by such person: if that of a corporatioa, by an offic£r th��of, if that of a partnership, by one of thE general part»crs; �n� if that of �t� unineorporated �.ssociatihn, by the mariager or managittg officer ther f_ Falsi�ication af informatioi� on a lice�se appiication requires the deni�l o� � ii�ense. � SECrION 6�0. i 1 APPLiCATioN vER1�tCAtrON � A� applicati�n will be referrcd t� thE police chie� Eor �crification �nd in�estigation of the fa�ts �set forth in the �.pplication and any ncCecsary �riminal baekground ehecks to assµre compf iance with this cectioh. i S�CTION 6�0.13 L,fGENSE p�RipD AND LTCENS� F��S The term o the license ic thE caiend�r year or the rem�itting portion thcreof. Tcmporary t ttoaing, body piercing, body branding ot bady painting Event license wi11 not be is ued. The fee will not be pr�rated. The fee for a iicense is set forth in Appendix N� The fce must be submitted at the time the applic�.tion is filcd. �ecs 2re tton-tefurlliabie. 5EC�'roN G6Q.15 PERSONS �1ELIGI$L� FoR LICENSE. Subdi+�isior► 1. A license m�y n�t be issued to � applicant, or partner ot other person in charge �f thE ticenses if the iapplicant: (1 } ! Is a minvr at the time the application i6 fi tcd; (2) � Has been convicted o� any ctime ciirectly related to the occup�tion ticenced a,c p scribed by Minncsota Statutes, section 364..03, subd_ 2, and hac not shown campe nt cvidence of suffscicr�t rehabilitation and present �tness ta perform the duties of e licensed occupation as pres�ribed by Minnesota 5ta.tutes, seetior� 364.p�. subd. ; � (3} � Does not have the Ieg�l authority to be employed in the Unitcd �i��a� CRZOS-30 i � Statcs: or i _ _ _ . .-.: , . -= , -_ .:.. _ - ->, ; ` _ i (4) ; Is not af good motal ch�racter or tcpute. I SECTION G0.19 G�NERAi, LICEris� I�pjJ��EN7-5. Subdivision 1. Tattoos on �n�ts. It is urilawfvl to taitoo, pierce, brartd ot paint � person undet� the ��e of I S e cept in the p�sence of, and with the wri��n pE��siplt of, thE parent or lcgal gttardiau� of the minor. atid the p n�t perm with the ownership, • 2• F'rohibition vn Licer,sc Tr�r,sfer. A license ir fo� the person ises namcd on the �pproved 1ic�nse applicatiort. Trancf�r of a licer►se is ! frotu pl�ce-to place or ftom person-to-perso� without first complying �uirements of atl orig�nal applic�tian, except whete ari exisring hcencec is incorporated ar�d incorpor�tivn do�s not �ffcct the >ntro1, and ihtcrect of the existirtg licensed �stablishment. Subd� 3. Hourc of O r�tion. A licettsed establishment may �ot be �pet� f�r bu` i�ess bef o r e 7: p p �, m, n a r ��}� r 1 1: 0 0 p. r n. Subdi 4. Licensed Premi�cs, The license is o nIy cffectovc for the c�mpaet ahd cont�guous .cpace cpeci�ed in che �ppro�ed licettse �pplication. If the iicensed prer.�ises is enlarged. alter�d, or extcrided, the licensee must inform the pottcc rhtef � subd•!5- Effect of Liccnse 5us nsion or Revocation. Tt is nr�Iawfui to soticit busirt�s or offer to perfotm t�ttvoing, body piercing, body branding or body pauntittg seri�� es while ur�der Iicense su�pe�sion or rev�at�on by the City. Sabd. �G. Mairttenance nf Order. 7�e licensee is responsiblc f�r the condu�t af th� businees bcing op�:razed and muct �t a!! t�mec maintaih conditions of good order. : 5ubd. �7, E__mvlavee Li�ts. i�e licensee must provide to the city manager a list�of empinyecs who perform tattooing, bod body paintin at the hcensed establichment atld �erify thatt ea.chemployee ha.t reccived a cop�, af this cecticm 66Q, i � Subd. �. Li�bilit Ir�sur�ce. I,icensces must have �t a11 timcc � valid certi�icate of i�surance isst�ed hy at� insur�ce eom�any licensed to do busir�ess in thc State af 1►?innesota indicating th�t the licease� is curt�ntly cover�d in the licen.ced busin�ss by a liabiIity incettaz�ce �olicy. The minimum limits o� covetage �or such insur�ce are: � ( t) �Cach claim, at least 5200,OOp; ��z6'zR CR205-30 _ , � - - _._ -> �- - - _ - - , > _. - (Z) � each group of cl�ims, at least $SOD,000. � TF,e it�sUr�n�e must be kept in force durittg the term of the liccnce and pro�ide for not�c�tioti to the City prior to terminatiott or cancella.tion. A cerhfic�te of i�sur�»ce m�st be fited with thE City. i SECTION 0.21 H,EALYIi AND SAN1�'ATION REOUIR�MENTS. Subdi�ision 1. It is ut�latwful to ettgage in the pr�ctrce af tattooi�g, body Fietc�ng, body brandi � g or body painting �t a�ny place itt the City without complying with the re�ulations r�f this subsecti�h. 5ub�.2. L��atorv ReQUiretnent. A place where t�ttnaing, hody piercing, b y brariding csr body pa�nt�ng ic pr�cticed muct be eqnippeci with att ad�quate d cottVeniently located toilet room atid h�rld l�vatory for thE �ccomrnodat on of ernp)oyees and patrans. The hand la�atory tnu`t be equipped With hot and�cold running water under pressure, be m�intained in good repair at alt times atid ke t in a clear� �nd ��rtitazy condition. Toilet fixtures and sca�� must he of a�arlitary o n front dcsign and readily clear�able. Eas�Iy cleanablc, cvvered receptacics ust be provided for waste materials. �1 la+�atory facility muct bc pm�idec! wi � adequate supply of hand cleansi�g compound and singe-service sanitary towe s or hand-ciryin� devices. , Subd. 3. Skin tnfection. A person ha�ing a skin infcction or othcr disease of the��kitt m�y hot be tattooed, �ainted, ot bianded. Subd.l�, Sterili�ation attd Dis s�l of Bid-Hazarcious Matcriz►ls. Necdlec, razo� blade� atid othcr eyuipmenP u<ed �or pierced. branding or puncturitt� muct bc indi idually pre-pack�.ged, sterilized and dispr�s�ble, �d this equiprnent rnay t�ot be us d on r„ore thar� one cuscomor. Bio�hazardous wastc mus� bp d�spo`ed af in accord ce with law, �d dispos�l pto�edure` chaIl he �pproved by the he,�.lth �uthority. Ap roved steriliaing solutions ar�d methods may be uscd fvr the purp��e of stcrili�ing i struments oth�� thatl needlec �d razar blades when such sterilizin� sol�ttionc and �riethod.c �re appro�eri by the bcalth �uthnrity. i 5ubd. . 5kin Ptep�ration Ptocedures. i"he follawing procedureti mv�t bc used for ski preparadon. I (1 } � The op�r�,tor mu.ct wa,ch hands thoroughly with �oap �d water following the t�aad washing procedures as approved by the hEalth authority and then dty them with a cie�n towe] bcfore and after each t�ttaoing. Opetators with skin infections of tt�c hand may not perform any tatioc7ing, body piecing, body branding ar hody p�rnhn� scivices. , bJIe1,Z677.g I GR265-30 I _ __ �� - - � _� , _ _ .:..�, ;::,is... :�d�r.: :- I � (2) � If it is neccssary to sha�c the skin, pte-packaged. pre-steritized. disposable, �azor blades shall t�e used. i (3) ��'he skin area ta be tattoocd, pierccd, branded ot p�nted rnu�t bc thorou�hly le�ncd with germicidal �oap, rinsed thoroughly with water, and stErilized � ith an antiseptic soluuon xpproved hy the health �uthority. Single-,rervi e towe)s and wipes must !7e u�ed in thc skin cicaaing ptocess. {4) � After tattooing, pier�ing or brartdi�g, � sterile dtescing must be applied to th� 4�.ttooed, pierced ar hr�,ded �t�ea. (e) � ratih Furniture. Tahles. ch�irs. futniture, or area on which a patron recei�es � tatt�, body pierc;ing, body brariding or bady paintir►g must },e imper'vioUS t� moisture and prvperly saniti.-�ed �fter each tattoo, body piercing, body br�ndir,g or I body paiating. The surfacc must be coVered by sitiglc-serVice disposable pa�per or clean linens. � (fl � Tawels. An oper�tor must pmvide �inglc-servicc towels or wipec for cach custnm ` or person and such towelc vr wipes mu�t bc stored and disposed of irt a mariaer acc�pt�ble to thc h��1th author�ty. I (g) �I Gatment� of rat�r_ An operator mu�t wcar dean, washable garments whdn en��ged ita the pra�Nce di tattaoing, body p;crc�ng, body bral�ding or body paintin If g�rment,� are contatainatcd with blood or body fluids, the g�rment must be remo ed, changed and discarded or cteritized by ar� �ppro�ed mcthc�d. (h) ; Pi ents. Pigments used it� t�ttooing must be st�rile �d free from b�cteri� atyd oxiouc �genis atid cubstance� including merc�try, *he pigmcntc us�d fram stock so tions far each customer muct be placed in a sit�gIe-�er�ice reccptaefe, a.nd such r+�� tacic arYd recnaining 5olutiori mt3st be discarded a�er tsse dtt cach customer in a� ordance with procedures appro�ed by tire health authority. � (i) ; Mini.mum F1oor Sbace. There mu>t be at least l50 squ�re f�et of floor space �t fjhe pl�ce where the ptactice o� tattooing, bc�dy piercittg, bc�dy brandin� or body paint'' g is canduetcd �d the place must b� so I�ghted and ventilated as to camply with e stanfl�ttds approv�d by the city m��ger. 7he facifity must nieet a11 rclev�nt buildi g eocies and federal l�w reiated to access. (j) InfluEnce of Aleohol and Dru s. It is tuilawful ta practice tattcx�ittg, �Y �1e��g bvdY br�ding or body paintit�g w}vle under the influcnce of alec�holic bev ages or illieit dntgs. A custdmer may ne►t be t�ttooed, pierced. brat�ded or pai ted w}�e under the it�fluencc of �Icoholic bever�ges or illicit drugs. � fk) �rittert Instruetions. The op�r�tor must provide the person t�.trooed, I ti�rteia6�Za � CR�05°3tl � I � � I r } �_ _ _ _ _ ; _ . _ - - . _. _ � I I �ierced or b a�ded with printed instruetions on thc appro�cd care of the �kir during thc healing m�e55. I �1� � LiYit�� Ouarters. A pl�ce licen�ed as a t�rtoo, body p'rcrcing, body brandin� or �body paintiri� establichmcnt m�.y not be uscd or occttpied as 1iving or slceping qua�ters i (m) i H atitis. A person to be tattoo�d, branded or pie�ed must he asked whether the Iperson has had �irai hepatitis in thc pre�eding cix motith�. A per�on �uspccted ofjpresently ha�ing Viral hcpatitis or having had �it-al hepatitis within the preceding si� manths may not be tattoocd, br�nded ot pierc�d. unlesc the petcon has the written c�►nsent of � licensed physici�q. SECTION C�OZ3 SANCTIONS FOR LYCENSE vJOLAT10N5. (a) i Th� City Cr,uncil m�y revoke the license or �u,cpend the licenc� for a �ioJation of: � (1} I a prov;sion af this c�ction or �ay other local law goVerning the carr�e a�ti�1ty durin� the license period; I (2) � viotation of any criminal law during the licen�e peric�d which adverseJy aff cts the abiJity af the licenseE to hot�estly, safety, vr )awfully conduct a tattooing, bo piercing, body branding or body painting husinesc; (b) i Ti�e City Council may revoke the license or suspertd tFte Iicense if the licensee subrt�itted fal�e infrsrrnation �t omitted niaterial �formation in thc licensing prcxess. � SEC7ION 6G�.25 PENALTY, A �iolation of�this �ection i� a misdeme�or. � Sec. 2. This otdin�rtce is effective itt �.ccarda.t�ce with Ctyct�l �ity code. subseckion 1 i 0.I 1. i � I � � M�yor A�TEST: � I I A7KiZ6�Z8 I eRZO5-3o I 630.01 (,?. � T`/ Or �-1 GI� l`- l E(_D Section 630 - Tattoo, body piercing bod�y branding and bodv painting establishments (Added, Bill No. 1997-21) Re�ulation of tattoo bodv piercin� body brandinp and body painting services Subd. l. P�ose statement. The purpose of this section is to regulate the business of ta.ttooing, body piercing, body branding, or body painting ui order to protect the health and welfare of the general public. The city council finds that the experience of other cities indicates that there is a connection between ta,ttooing and hepatitis and other health problems. The city council �nds that stringent regulations governing tattooing can minimize the hepatitis and disease risk and therefore protect the general health and welfare of the community. 630.03 Definitions. Subd. 1. For purposes of this subsection the terms defined in tivs subsection have the meanings given them. Subd. 2. "Body piercing" me�is any rnethod of puncturing the skin of a person by the aid of needles or other instnunent designed or used to puncture the skin for the purpose of inserting jewelty or other objects in or through the human body. "Body piercing" shall not refer to any medical procedure performed by a licensed physician or medical practitioner. Subd. 3. "Body branding" means impressing or burning a mark or figure on the skin of a person with a hot object or flame. Subd. 4. "Body paintuig" meaus applying color, pigment or paint to an area of the skin that exceeds three square inches. Subd. 5. "Clean" means tl�e absence of dirt, grease, rubbish, garbage, odor and other offensive, unsightly, or e�raneous matter. Subd. 6. "Good repair" meaus free of corrosion, breaks, cracks, chips, pitting, excessive wear and tear, leaks, obstructions, and similar defects so as to constitute a good and sound condition. Subd. 7. "Enforcement officer" means the director of public safety or designee. Subd. 8. "Issuing authority" means the director of public safety or desigr►ee. Subd. 9. "Tattooing" mea�is the markiug of the skin of a person by insertion of permanent colors by introducing them through ptmcture of the skin. 630.05 License required. No person shall operate any establishment where tattooing, body piercing, body branding, or body painting is practiced, nor engage in the practice of tattooing, body piercing, body branding or body painting without first procuring a license from tl�e department of public safety. 630.07 Contents of application for license. Subd. 1. Forms. Every application for a license under this subsection shall be made on a form supplied by the deparlment of public safety. _ Richfield City Code r� jT//.,��'j`l.ir�j... . ,�f�j.� I' _..'� � -- G ..�1/. ��%/.�//.(.Jl1✓J.:% 630.07, Subd. 2 (Rev. 1997) Subd. 2. Contents of a�lication. In addition to information wliich may be required, the applicant shal state whether the applicant is a natural person, corporation, partnership, or other form of organization. Subd. 3. Additio�ial info,-matioi�: natural �ersons. If the applicant is a natural person, the following information shall be funiislied: (a) The name, place and date of birth, street residence address, and phone number ofthe applicant. (b) Whether the applicant has ever used or has been known by a name other than the applicant's name, and if so, the name or names used and information concerning dates and places where used. (c) The name of tl�e business if it is to be conducted under a designation, name, or siyle other than the name of the applicant, and a certified copy of the certificate as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 333.01. (d) The street addresses at «�hich tlie applicant has lived during the preceding five years. (e) The type, name and location of every business or occupation in which the applicant has been engaged during the preceding :Eive years, and the name(s) and address(es) of the applicant's employer(s) and partner(s), if any, for the preccding five years. (fl Whether the applicavt l�olds a current tattooing, body piercing, body branding or body painting license from any other goveriunental unit. (g) Whether the applicant has previously been denied a tattooing, body piercing, body branding or body painting license from any other governmental unit. (h) The location of the business premises and the legal description thereof. (i) Whether all real estate and personal property taxes that are due and payable for the premises to be licensed have been paid, ai�d if not paid, the years and amounts that are unpaid. (j) Whenever the application is for premises either already in existence, planned or under construction or undergoing substantial altcrations, the application shall be accompanied by a set of preliminary plans showing the design of the proposed premises to be licensed. If the plans of design are on file with the city of Richfield. building and inspection division, uo plans need be submitted to the issuing authority. (k) Such other infonnation the city council or the department of public safety may require. Subd. 4. Additional iiiformation: partnershi� If the applicant is a partnership, the following information shall be furnisl�ed: (a) The name(s) and addre;ss(es) of all general and limited partners and, for each general partner, require the information uncler subdivisiou 3 of this subsection. (b) The name(s) of the managing partner(s) and the interest of each partner in the business to be licensed. (c) A true copy of the partnership agreement sl�all be submitted with the application. If the partnership is required to file a certificate as to a trlde name pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 333.01, a certified copy of such certificate shall be �ttached to tl�e application. Subd. 5. Additional informltion: corporation. If the applicant is a corporation or other organization, the following information sl�all be furuislicd: (a) The name of tl�e corpor�tio►i or business fonned, and if incorporated, the state of incorporation. (b) A true copy of tl�e certificate of incorporation. If the applicant is a foreign corporation, a certificate of authority as required by Minnesota Statutes, sectiai 3U3.06, shall be attached to the application. (c) The name of tl�e man�ger(s) proprietor(s), or other agent(s) in charge of the business and, for each sach person, the information required uncler subdivision 3 of this subsection. f, _ -� r ` �- �rA. :� . _ ; ,. _ _ i - - - � Richfield City Code i - Subd. 6. Execution. The application must be executed as follows: (a) an application by a natural persou, by tl�at person; (b) an application by a corporation, by an officer of the corporation; (c) an application by a partnership, by a partner; (d) an application by an incorporated associatiou, by the manager or managing officer. Any falsification on a liceuse application shall result in the denial of a license. 630.07, Subd. 6 (Rev. 1997) 630.09 Application verification. Subdivisiou 1. All applications shall be referred to the department of public safety for verification and iiivestigation of the facts set forth in the application, u�cluding any necessary criminal background checks to assure compliluce �vith this subsection. 630.11 License period and fees. Subdivision 1. Amounts. The license fee is fixed in appendix D, The term of the license is the calendar year or the rcmai�ling portion thereof. Licenses will not be prorated. Subd. 2. Payment. At the time of an original application for a license, the license fee shall be paid when the application is filed. At the time of rene��al of a license, the total license fee shall be paid when the application is filed. Licenses expire on December 31 of each }�ear. Subd. 3. Tnvestigation fee. ,At tl�e time of each original application for a license, the applicant shall also pay an investigation fee set by 1��]Jl'.liCll\ D. If the expeuses of the investigation exceed the investigation fee, the public safety department staff shall so notify tl�e applicant and shall require the applicant to pay an additional investigation fee as providcd in appendix D which tl�e public safety directar deems necessary to complete the investigation of the applicant. Thc �pplicant shall pay such an additional investigating fee within five days after notification. If such additional ll1V(:St1�Tlt1011 fee is not paid within the five day period, the city will give no further consideration to the lpplication. Subd. 4. Refunds. No ��art of a liccnse a- investigation fee shall be refunded except in accordance with this subsection. 630.13 _Persons ineligible for license. SuUdivision 1. No license shall be issued to an applicant who is a natural person if such applicant: (a) Is a minor at the time the application is tiled; (b) Has been convicted of any crime directly related to the occupation licensed as prescribed by Minnesota Sta.tutes, section 364.03, subd. 2, znd has not shown competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to perform the duties of tl�e licensed occupation as prescribed by Minnesota Sta.tutes, section 364.03, subd. 3; (c) Does not havc tl�e legal authority to Ue employed in the United States; or (d) Is not of good moral character or repute Subd. 2. No license sl�sll be issued to a partilership if such partnership has any general partner or managing partner: (a) Who is a minor at the time the application is filed; (b) Who has beeii convicted of auy crime directly related to the occupation licensed as prescribed by Minnesota, Statutes, section 364.U3, subd. 2, ai�d ��l�o has not shown competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and present titness, to perform tl�e duties of the licensed occupation as prescribed by Minnesota Sta.tutes, section 364.03, subd. 3; (c) Does not have the legal ,tuthority to be employed in the United States; or (d) Is not of good moral character or repute. Richfield City Code � _i � , - !, ; :; -_ _ - ' _ ' - = _ - -_ 630.13, Subd. 3 (Rev. 1997) Subd. 3. No license shall bc; issued to a corporation or other organization if such applicant has an} manager, proprietor, or agei�t ii� chargc; of the busii�ess to be licensed; (a) Who is a tninor at the time the a�plication if filed: (b) Who has been convicted of any crime directly related to the occupation licensed as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, section 364.0 �, subd. 2, and ��ho has not shown competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to perforni tl�e duties of the licensed occupation as prescribed by Minnesota, Statutes, section 364.03, subd. 3; (c) Does not havc the legal �utliority to be employed in the United States: or (d) Is not of good moral chsracter or repute. 630.15 General license requirements. Subdivision l. General licensing requirements are as follows: (a) Tattoos on minors. No pc;rson shall tattoo, pierce, brand or paint any person under the age of 18 except in the presence of, ilI1C{ \VItI] iIl(; \��rittcn pennission of, the parent or legal guardian of such minor. (b) Prohibition on license transiir. The license granted is for the person and the premises named on the approved license applicatioii. No transfer of a license sliall be permitted from place-to-place or from person-to- person without first complying with the rec�uirements of an original application, except in the case in which an existing noncorporate licensee is incoi•porated and incorporation does not affect the ownership, control, and interest of the existing licensed e;staUlishment. (c) Hours of operation. A liccnsee shall not be open for business for tattooing before 7:00 a.m. nor after 11:00 p.m. (d) Licensed premises. The tattoo, body piercing, body branding, body painting establislunent license is only effective for the compact and contiguous space specified in the approved license application. If the licensed premises is enlargcd, sltered, or extended, the licensee shall inform the department of public safety. (e) Effect of license suspension or revocation. No person shall solicit business or offer to perform ta.ttooing, body piercing, body brancling or body painting services while under license suspension or revocation by the city. (fl Maintenance of order. The licensee shali be responsible for the conduct of the business being operated and shall at all times maii�tain conditions of order. (g) Employee lists. The liccnsee shall provide to the department of public safety a list of employees who petform tattooing, bod� piercin�, body branding or body painting at the licensed establishtnent and shall verify that each employee has receiv�cl a copy of Section 630. (h) Liability insw�ance. All licensees sl�all have at all times a valid certificate of insurance issued by an insurance company licens�d to do business in the State of Minnesota indicating that the licensee is currently covered in the licensed business by a liability insurance policy. The minimum limits of coverage for such insurance shall be: (1) Each claim, at least :�200,000; (2) Each group of claii»s, at least $SOO,UOU. Such insurance shall be ke;pt in forcc during the term of tl�e license and shall provide for notifieation to the city prior to termination or canc�llatiou. A ecrtiticate of insurance shall be filed with the city. 630.17 Health and sanitation re uirements. Subdivision 1. No person shall engage in the practice of tattooing, body piercing, body brandiiig or body painting 1t any place in the city without complying with the following regulations: ' 4 : _ . � = , - - , - � ; . - .. . �:If'�%/i'�i'�J1��,�/� I/� ..'/��' . r� ;.,�/ .. �.fri +!. '`ii • )i4il��li.r:SN�;; - - � i . . _ '_-- . _ ' -: . �. . " �. =� - ' . ___-_-" � '__ I"' ___ - '' :: -' " .:. -' .-.i...� Richfield City Code 630.17, Subd. 1(a) (Rev. 1997) (a) Lavatory requiremc;nt. Every place ��here tattooing, body piercing, body branding or body painting is practiced shall be equippcci �vith an adequate and conveniently located toilet room and hand lavatory for the accommodation of emplo��ces ai�d patro��s. The hand lavatory shall be supplied with hot and cold running water under pressure; shall be 11111I1t111]�CI in good repair st all times; and shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. Toilet fixtures and seats sliall be of a s�iitary open front design and readily cleanable. Easily cleanable, covered rece�tacfes shall be provided for waste materials. Every lavatory facility shall be provided with an adequate supply of haud cle�nsing compound aud singe-service sanitary towels or hand-drying devices. (b) Skin infection. No persou l�aving auy sl<in infcction or other diseases of the skin shall be tattooed, pierced, branded or painted. (c) Sterilizatiou and disposal of bio-l�azzrdous materials. All needles and razor blades and other equipment used for piercing, branding or puncturiug shall be individually pre-packaged, pre-sterilized and disposable. No such equipment shall be used on more than one customer. All bio-hazardous waste shall be disposed of in accordai�cc �vith law, �nd disposal procedures sl�all be approved by the health officer. Approved sterilizing solutions and methods may be used for tl�e purpose �of sterilizing instruments other than needles and razor blades when such sterilizing solutions and methods are approved by the department of public safety or their designee. , (d) Skin preparation procedures. Tl�e follo�ving procedures shall be used for skin preparation: (1) Each operator shall �vasli their hauds thoroughly witl� soap and water following the hand washing procedures �s approved b�� the departmcnt of public safety and then dry them with a clean towel before and al-ter eacl� catlooing, brancling, piercing or painting. Operators with skin infections of the hand shall not perform an}� i1ttOO1114�;, body piercing, body branding or body painting services. (2) Whenever it is necess�ry to sliave tl�e skin, pre-packaged, pre-sterilized, disposable, razor blades shall be used. (3) The skin area to be tatlooed, picrced, branded or painted shall be thoroughly cleaned with germicidal soa��, rinsed tl�orouglily witl� �vater, and sterilized with an antiseptic solution approved by the departmcnt of pub(ic safety. Oiily single-service towels and wipes shall be used in the skin cleaning process. (4) After tattooing, piercin� or branding, a sterile dressing must be applied to the tattooed, pierced or branded arc.i. (e) Operating fiu�iiiture. All tables, chairs, furniture, or area on which a patron receives a tattoo, any body piercing, body brauding or bod�� painting sh�ll be covered by single-service disposable paper or clean linens, or in the alternative, the tablc, clizir, or furnitur� on which the patron receives a tattoo, body piercing, body branding or body painting shall be impervious to moisture and shall be properly sanitized after each tattoo, body piercing, body brancfin� or body paintin�. (fl Towels. Eveiy operator sl�all provicle single-service towels or wipes for each customer or person and such towels or wipes sl�all be stored aud disposed of in a manner accepta.ble to the department of public safety. ._ � � , :.. :.: - - - - -•' - - - - _ ` >. ,: -. _. �'�- _ :� � � �� , -- < , - _ - � - � j''Ii��ff,izi�.ii��Sj, •: r�.ii%%�/� i�i��}.� , - - '; =. ..: , , , :-" , .' ' .:_ - I _.- - _ :,=' .. I Richfield City Code 630.17, Subd. 1(g) (Rev. 1997) (g) Garments of operator. Cvci-�� operator shall ��ear clean garments when engaged in the practice of tattooing, body piercing, bod�� branding a- body pzinting. If garnients are contaminated with blood or body fluids, such gannent shall be rcmoved, changed, and/or cliscarded or cleaned by dry cleaning methods. (h) Pigments. Pi�ments uscd in tattooing shafl be sterile and free from bacteria and noxious agents and substances including mcrcury. The pigments used from stock solutions for each customer shall be placed in a single-service receptacle, and such rcc�ptacle 111CI remaining solution shall be discarded after use on each customer in accordance ��-ith proccdiu�cs approved b}� the department of public safety. (i) Minimum floor sp�ice. Thcre shall iiot be less tl�an I50 square feet of floor space at the place where the practice of tattooing, bocl>> piercii�g, body branding or body painting is conducted, and said place shall be so lighted and ventilated as to comply �vith the standards approved by the department of public safety. (j) Influence of alcohol and dnigs. No persou shall practice tattooing, body piercing, body branding or body painting while under tlie iiifluence of alcoholic beverages or illicit drugs. No customer shall be tattooed, pierced, branded or painted ��hile �u�der the influence of alcoholic beverages or illicit dnxgs. (k) Written instructions. T(�e; operator shall provide tl�e person tattooed, pierced or branded with printed instructions on the approved carc of the sl<in during the healing process. (1) Living quarters. No pl�cc liceiised as a tlttoo, body piercing, body branding or body painting esta.blishment shall be used or occupie�i as living or slecping quarters. 630.19 Revocation. S�ibclivision 1. General. Tl�e city col�i�cil may revoke the license or suspend the license if the licensee submitted fzlse information or omitted material information in the license process required. The city council may suspend or revoke a liccnse for the violation of any provision or condition of this section or any other local law governiii� tlic samc; activit}� duri�lg the license period or any criminal law during the license period which adverse(y a17�cts ou thc ability to hoi�estly, ssfely, or lawfully conduct a tattooing, body piercing, body branding or body paiuting busincss. Subd. 2. A revocatioii or suspension slisll be prc;ceded by written notice to the licensee and a hearing befare the city council. The notice sh�ll give at least eight days notice of the time and place of the hearing and shall state the nature of the cliarges �gainst tl�e licensee. The notice shall be mailed to the licensee at the most recent address listed on thc application. 630.21 Issuance of temporai-�� tatrooin�, bociv picrcing, bodv branding or bod�painting event license. Subdivision 1. A person mav O�C1ll1 a te;mporary license to conduct tattooing, body piercing, body branding or body painting provided that the follo��ing license rcquircments are met: (a) Duration of event. The event is no louger tl�an four continuous days. (b) Number of events. Tl�e same; person or organization has had no more than four ta.ttooing, body piercing, body branding, body paii�ting eveuts in the s:�me calendar year. (c) Security measw-es. The clirector of public safety designee has approved the security measures for the event. _y. _ _. _ _ . _ ,. . -- : .: _ , :.: - - `�_� -_=::, =-_ _ -: � _ _=:.. _ _- Richfield City Code 630.21, Subd. 1(d) (Rev. 1997) (d) Health inspectio�i. The department of pt�blic safety designee has reviewed the health and sanitation measures for the event and has inspectcd cach vendor space for the event. (e) Liability instu�ance. Liability insurance has been obtained to cover the event or in the alternative each vendor has procured insurance co cover the veildor's operations at the event. The minimum limits of coverage for such insurance shall be: (1) each claim, at least `�20U,OOU; (2) each group of claims, cit lcast $��0,000. (fl A certificate of insurance shall be filed witl� the city. (g) 'The licensee i»ust com��l�� vitli the requirc;ments at subsection 630.15 (a), (c), (fl, and subseetion 630.17 (a -1). Subd. 2. Tempora�v ap�lication. Tlie tcmpora�y license application shall request the following information: hair. (a) The applicant's name and current address. (b) The applicant's current employe►•. (c) The applicant's acldresses 1=ur the previous iive years. (d) The applicant's cl�te of birth, l�ome telephone i�umber, weight, height, color of eyes, and color of (e) Whether the .l�)�)IIC:lllt Il.�s cver uscd or bcen kno�vn by a name other than the applicant's name, and if so, the nanu or names ancl iuformation conccrning dates and places where used. (fl The loeation ��-here the evcnt �vill be couducted. (g) The number of taltoo, piercin�, branding or painting bootl�s that will be operational at the event. (h) The names and adclressc;s ol' persons iu ch�rge of the event. Subd. 3. Back rr�ci investi��ation. The department of public safety shall verify the information supplied on the temporary license npplication and shall investigate the background, including the current background of the applicant. Within seven da��s of receipt of a complete application, the department of public safety shall grant or deny ch� .ipplica.tiu��. � :".i -- i i f � i ' . _ -_ I , : _= l - : _ - _ ; . � - � � � = � _ .. i !� r,.' r .. - . = r . . . . . . � . . ;I , - . . ... --_-- _-. .. � - ._ .. _-- . .. °. , --- � � . - . - . . Conditional Use in the C-2 (general commercial) district Subd. 20. Tattoo establishments, provided the following conditions are met: a) such uses shall be licensed under Section 630 of the City Code; b) such uses shall be located not less than 100 feet from any residentially zoned property; c) such uses shall be located not less than 350 feet from any school, church, park, day care center, or public library; d) such uses shall be located not less than 350 feet frozn any establishment selling and/or serving alcoholic beverages; e) such uses shall be located not less than 100 feet from the right-of-way of an entry street to the City. For purposes of this subdivision, an entry street is defined as Penn Avenue, Lyndale Avenue, Nicollet Avenue, Portland Avenue, Cedar Avenue and 12th Avenue; and � such uses shall be located not less than 1,000 feet from other tattoo establishments. ORDINANCE NO. 653 AN EMERGENCY Ile1TER1M ORDINANCE REGULATING THE PRESENCE AND SITING OF TATTOO, BODY PIERCING, BODY BRANDING, BODY PAINTING AND RELATED ESTABLISHI��NTS WITHIN THE CTTY OF MOUNDS V�W. WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the issue and continues to consider the issue of whether the City should adopt an ordinance to address the City health and safety issues caused by tattoo, body piercing, body branding, body painting and related establishments within the City; and WHEREAS, City staff has made an initial review of this matter and recommends that this matter be more fully studied; and WHEREAS, the City Council has authority, pursuant to Section 3.06 of the City of Mounds View City Charter and Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355, Subdivision 4, to adopt an emergency interim ordinance during which time the City will conduct a study of the possibility of adopting new or amended controls to fulfill the City's legal obligation to adequately protect the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, such emergency interim ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare because no land use controls or regulations exist for tattoo, body piercing, body branding, body painting and related establishments within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council authorizes a study as to the possibility of adopting new or amended controls to fulfill the City's legal obligation to adequately protect the public health, safety and welfare; and WH�REAS, the City Council makes the following: �I I►I I I► � 1. The City Council authorizes a study to be conducted for the purpose of considering the adoption of new or amended land use controls or regulations as defined in Minn. Stat. § 462,352, for tattoo, body piercing, body branding, body painting and related establishments within the City of Mounds View. 2. The City Council of the City of Mounds View directs the City of Mounds View Planning Corrunission to conduct a study of this matter and make recommendations as to the adoption of amended official controls or regulations to fulfill the City's legal obligation to adequately protect the public health, safety and welfare. SJR-175286 MU125-4'I 3. This emergency interim ordinance is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the City of Mounds View residents and to protect the planning process, because no land use controls or regulations exist for tattoo, body piercing, body branding, body painting and related establishments within the City, and not to delay or prevent any single project. NOW, T�REFORE, based on the above findings of fact, THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City of Mounds View Municipal Code Appendix D is hereby amended to include reference to the following emergency Special Ordinance No. 653. Subdivision 1. Purpose. To protect the planning process under the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355, Subdivision 4, and to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Mounds View, the City Council of the City of Mounds View hereby adopts an interim ordinance which prohibits the presence and siting of any new, or the expansion of any existing, tattoo, body piercing, body branding, body painting and related establishments within the City of Mounds View. Subd. 2. Applicabitity of Ordinance. This interim ordinance sha11 be in effect until the 12th day of August, 2000, or until the final adoption of an amended ordinance to regulate tattoo, body piercing, body branding, body painting and related establishments in the City of Mounds View, whichever occurs first. SECTION 2. This emergency ordinance is effective upon adoption in accordance with Section 3.06 of the City of Mounds View City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View, Mirulesota, this 14°' day of February, 2000. Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney N:�DATA\GROWSICOMDEV�SPECPROJ�SP075-00\Ordinance 653.doc SJR-175286 MU125-47 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMNIISSION CITY OF MOUNDS V�W RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA , ,,.' 2401 �i��vay 10, 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson a. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Cax�zrnis�ic�r�r; Stevenson, and Miller. ,,,�""' : f.6 v � �� . Members Absent: Commissioner Kad�� °with prig�r; riotice, absence. - , }�5� � ;. - �� :..:,.; ,�:.: ..r �:;:>; Also Present: Planning Associate��im Er�c�c��.;! �c�urnr�i I�� Pearson. "' Indez ��.1��n��<: t:'7'.00 ��t�,,' r� ��x�:f�e, I Meeting 15, 2000 .�:��y l�all I� 5�:11� I S, 2.000. , Johnson, Laube, sioner Braathen, leave of Gary Quick, and Recorder Trish Planrung Case �+la. ��IC��•��i�)�., ��00 �c�t>�i� y Itoad J-Sysco Minnesota Public Hea.t�ng ��xcz �`��r�s.�'��r� o�R�so�ution 610-00, a Resolution Reco�ending �ppa'r��r��i �� ,A�xerim Use Permit for Two Billboards i�=;� on,��sco Property. ��X i�e Outdoor Advertis�tig; �1��licant. ��r�r7ing Cases DEOO;;i.�7�1 & CU001-001, 2848 County Road HZ , ,.,r �� li�; ��earing and D�scussion of Approval of a Conditional Use ";e ��G;, � ��cl l��t�lcrprnent Review for the Proposed Expansion of r��; �+j��°��,i�e� �,��'eran Church Facility. 3�!��:�� +; ��-:��.IZ�ran Church, Applicant. Planning Case VR00-001, 2741 Hodges Lane. Public Hearing and Discussion Of a Request for a Reduced Corner Lot Front Setback to Allow for a Garage Expansion. Cathy Magoris, Applicant. Page 2 9 15 �� , _ �_ � .: -�. ,�� -- - - � _ � w � E�W�y�3 �-�-:r�; . _ . ._ . _ . . .: -. _=- -_.-;� ��. � ��-� _ . _�_�- '�'. -F`�' �.� ; . .; ..., F�i/i,/, _�iTi�, - . . _ _ _ � . ' �1 •%•i%}r/l! -.. !i l/t� ii ii � �•: /I% i%%�/%/// Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Special Planning Case SP-076-00, Consideration of Resolutions 608-00 and 609-00, Resolutions Respectively Recommending Approval of Ordinances amending the City Code by Creating Language to allow for Interim Uses. , StaffReports / Items of Information Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items 1VoP There were no citizen requests or comments on items not ori�'the 4. Planning Case IU00-0002 Property Involved: 2400 County Road J— Public Hearing and Consideration o; of an Interim Use Pernut for Two �i.�� Applicant; DeLite Outdoor Adver��n�: The ap�lic�t was presen;t. DeLite ��at�� an Interim �T� .� 1ri111�,� i�3SOCla�� n' olutiion 644, which f��`" requirements in �itions are that the rrunimum spacing � jx-� feet per side„� d ��,�ti Minrn �, ;;,- <;< ��<.< tion 61;Q:�{ on S<v�o ] aff repo llows: March 15, 2000 Page 2 22 � Recommending Approval property owner Sysco Minnesota, has applied for on Sysco property fronting State Highway 10. :;��s�y �c�j�ised that in December of 1999, the City Council adopted r��>�� xe City Code to allow for billboards as an interim use, and set t a:rt� � j`�pacing, height and other criteria. He indicated the general ��;1lboards be located at least 250 feet from residentially zoned property, �ween the signs shall be 1,000 feet, the maxinnum sign area shall be 750 the maximum sign height shall be 35 feet. �"��E��€��;;�`" ��ract�t� Ericson stated this application was referenced by the Planning Commission at �;�� ??��z� �vvo meetings, during which there was consideration of the City's request for an a,a.�:�T �� perrmit to allow for six billboards at the Bridges Golf Course. He explained that there w�.� �om� discussion regarding how that proposal would impact Sysco's application, which is before them at this time. Planning Associate Ericson stated the two billboards proposed for the Sysco property are to be constructed o£ steel, and be of a monopole double-faced "V"-shaped design. He indicated the _ , ' � =<= - - -_ - :, r , � � _ �ss _ _- _ - _ � =�` _ r .. � �j�y., f,rfi.'� i,. . ii.%�, :/rii .::/11.ii'.c�/.�i/ i9iM'i % . Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 Planning Commission has expressed a significant concern regarding this type of typical design and the fact that it would be aesthetically inconsistent with the billboards to be co� on the adjacent Bridges Golf Course property. He advised that becai�se bill�i conditionally allowed as interim uses, the City has the ability, to impas�; x��,s�nabl ., requirements with the granting of the pernut. �:s''�;,, � �,/y�f Planning Associate Ericson explained that in addition to the ��ng criteria� �rtima��'�r�4 that the requested interim use pernut be reviewed in �li� �onte� o�;,a`�conditic��r�� i indicated staff has examined this item in terms of the advr� ;��`�c�s �r�teria, as well a� �r context of the Comprehensive Plan and the health, saiFi�,j �,r�� ;��al vvelfare of occu surrounding lands. Planning Associate Ericson stated with regard to the ad��r�e the two proposed billboards would be a detrimeni �o, t1�e- a.x-� indicated that in terms of the general conditional �� p�r�ii� < burden on public facilities, and it would be �Qns��t��; ��r�� Ordinance 644, and not cause any traffic<; �ti'ngesfiic�%:� �>a � .> Comprehensive Plan does not specifically,�ctdress bi�l%-�.�n��' opinion that the use is not inconsistent wi�is'the Muni�i$pal �o�:� Oa� LC� '� �ria, �1i - �ity is are design res �` L�a��:� not believe that {;T�� ;t;; property. He �,�; `+h7�uld not create a ��.� �as amended with �e explained that the respect, staff is of the Planning Associate Ericson stated Y�t�; p�'opo�ed ��ns are to�b+� located adjacent to, and north of, Highway 10, which is in compli�nG�;� with t�zr. �� c:�inance >�e indicated the two signs would be more than 1,000 feet apart, k��+v��r�r, one of ��k€;a� �a�n�-�uould not be 1,000 feet from the nearest billboai-d, ��}� �� vvould b� ��c��i4�� r� the go�.,� s�t�Y.��':'�€: property. He stated the maximum sign area and h�;��i� ��.�1 �f-,� cor��Eo��P, =.r��.�� ix�� Cod�, ��id `�he sign faces would be angled and oriented towarc��'�-�tgk��a�� 10, T�� xr��°E��€�� . �� 10�� believed the proposed billboards would obstruct traffic or traffic 1��fa:�; ;�-��>9 ��` �� xx��r-u�i�rH;`��-; �� x �hicles travelling along Highway 10. Stafffeels that this interim use �ic��,�� -�;e��,��s� ��, c;� =��.9�ea�� 'vith the City Code, the Comprehensive Plan, and Ordinance 6��. ��-- � Plan�ing Associate E {� 5� �e�T�te and the City, ��3�rse and the two p �; �s �de. He explained ,��> > rions of the billb ��f�� ? � c� in a gree��` ,,�; ,� ,,,,•: ir;�r��a �i��Gi;Fthe Planning Commission recommended that both applicants, w��x �� an arrangement that would allow the six billboards on the golf o�,osed''on the Sysco property to co-exist and be consistent with the City htswever, it does not appear this can be achieved, due to the proposed xiis on the golf course, which could not be further shifted without placing a on the fairway. .�� k�e��,s', �f'�ro��iate Ericson stated staff has drafted Resolution 606-00, which recommends City C;4.<�;��:':_�s.��-oval of the interim use permit for the two billboards on the Sysco property, contingent upon stipulations. He explained that the first stipulation indicates the proposed billboards should be designed to be consistent with and aesthetically complementary to the billboards approved for the Bridges Golf Course, and final design approval would be given by the City Council. He indicated the second stipulation requires that the applicant to apply for and successfially obtain a variance from Section 1008.08 Subdivision lOc of the Sign Code, regarding .�' _ . . . . . . _ _ . . . _ . . � } _��lr'� . �� ,�r�� >�" r ` . � � « _-= �-�- .� �-�'-� � � - ��'.: ��-�. , � � ..'T' �c � . 1 � -` . �.� �" l• ` �i.%�'� , laa)�i��`�'1.��. i%�'`�#ti�///r.� , : !� /� y, n. .. �'!/�i%r// ,. _._:.--'-:,.- - ;s _: . ` � _ _ I _ I- - - �:- —° ---- : , _ �,�. — --- -- ' ( Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 � Regular Meeting Page 4 minimum spacing requirements. He pointed out that if the variance is denied, the applicant,would i.,,. be allowed one billboard, subject to the siting requirements as outlined in the City Code;t�:rid the Sign Code. _ . .. . _s'`''=�. �;;. ,; :!• Planning Associate Ericson advised that the third stipul� stipulation pertaining to the variance, the locations of the p� indicated on Exhibit A, which is attached to the resolution. the locations of both the billboards proposed for the Syscc City golf course. He pointed out that the first billboar� proximity to the second billboatd on the Sysco property, ti explained that the distance between these two billboards Planning Commission were to review a variance applicatio� the spacing of these signs meet the 500-foot MnDot minim� previous �� 'r,[�� ,�?�1t course 1s 1r� a� •x a� �{��r;�: �z ,��x;- r��;��;ssitating the variaf.±r,:;. k �� 1��3t) d:�a �;�0 feet, therefore, if the ��d �� 1�;��; �hat a hardship exists, Planning Associate Ericson indicated the last two st�j�t��<��i� �af s:he r��of�fl�:�� r� housekeeping ��, in nature. He explained that the applicant is rec�u�r�'1>t� t•��i�r� �, �opy oi� i.h�; �:.`btralcil resolution of approval with Ramsey County, and if the�''pticant is ��i��z, �� btat�°`the required billboard pernuts from MnDot, the interim use pernu� ��all be cAnszc�e� f.�� .�s�.�� ,id. Planning Associate Ericson stated residents within 350 feet of the pr foot radius of Sysco. Peter° the buY-c�� ,�i property, �w�� to site thE bi that the prc� :�nn was a public hear��, and staff mailed notification to , as we,� �s to the c�t�r�ofBlaine, which is within the 350- ;,. r�presedlt�r,A�t t,��'"�;�sco Foo�� '?�a�r� ��i,ite Outdoor Advertising, indicated they �,; , �� recoxnYr,,`��r�� s;�� ° a�prova�; �a��ever, they disagreed with the conditions that �cs�t��G� be on �y�t,� ��.i �'��",aF� �o seek the variance to site the two signs on the Sysco i�.�a �� i�i� �riva�e ��-��a-`,�, I:��e stated it was not disputed there was ample land area I1��F��'� ;; ��i�h six on`��-�� c�� t�ourse, and two on the Sysco property. He explained ��=f� ��.�� i�� th�.� ��l�i� �,��A" course design configuration and the wetland on the �� as. �xi�f�� r� �.ate the billboards in a manner that would allow the maximum � has availa.i�I� �� `two proposed billboards. Coyle reiterated the� `did'not agree that the burden should be on Sysco and DeLite to apply the variance, becau��'the hardship is clearly present on the golf course property. He pointed chat the City has:�not completed action on its own application, and they believe it would be �, �p�ropriate �t�� the City Council to take action on a variance as relates to its own �� , �-��;� `than put the private applicant in the position of having to compete with the F��- �� a,a .�:��Y�nval of their second billboard location. Mz°. Coyle stated City staff has recommended, and they have agreed to do all they are able to design their monopole structures to be compatible with the ground signs proposed for the golf course. He indicated Sysco has sent the City a letter, informing it that ground signs were not feasible on their property, as they would create a safety hazard for the truck traf�c. He explained that they propose to utilize a brick wrap-around of the pole to provide a complementary style, and ' . - � ,;u; Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting ! _ F:_ _ u�,-- ,��r,6yra _ - _. March 15, 2000 Page S would be willing to work with City staff to attempt to obtain an appropriate design. He �ointed out that this represents an additional cost to them, however, they understand the sentimen��of the Planning Commission. t�;::, ,<,�,�`��-3�>' � ::� ;;_. ;, Mr. Coyle stated the primary issue is the variance, in that ' �``" burden to satisfy this requirement, and particularly so, acknowledges the potential that the interim use permit mig He explained that if this were the case, Sysco would h property, however, the City would have all six it has prop; be the proper outcome. He stated they would argue thai: � one sign location if necessary, in order to achieve the spacir taxpayer. He indicated they had no problem with the other report. �;;} Commissioner Miller inquired regarding the exact ��<��nr��E;�, �� Coyle stated their billboards were 1,000 feet apat°t� �-�r��f n x� City Code. He pointed out that the sout h�.,�tlrriost �arT�;�� `� billboard create the conflict. ��"�� , . Chairperson Peterson indicated comment. There was no public input. a ld be their thc :,'i:>�'i'�"; be gran��d u" ��,n tt;'�� "��ncil. with ;ci1�� one l�i1l��,�,�-�� ,A� �g� ✓hi��t �hey do not L,r;t�� ;r� �;i��a��.; �; ;.��ovlc.� be prepared �.� �;��; i�.j� � � �p,��;r�t� of the private �roperty 3"R� �k3��s �ei forth in the staff w�en �ysG��', �;��s��billboards. Mr. � LA��: spac�n�, requirement of the ��an �r=-� �3 �� n.d ,the northernmost City �nd opened the floor for public Commi��;��t��e�� .i��l�inson �fl��;�� "�;�� first sigr��c�� cfie� golf course was located as far to the east as possibl�. �' ��,��s��; ��a��z �;�r��,�� stated this was correct. He explained that this sign maintaiY�� "�,�ri�€��,��€: 5��a�-atic�� •s��rg �B�A�; �econd sign, which was situated as far over as possible without b�ix�n, �� ,e.�r�. ��:� �<:�Y-�eti. " Commiss��iner 1tiJiZ�c� i��aa�� pvv it viwas determined that Sysco request a variance, rather than the�� "�:'�Planning ��yc��°a��,�Y ��:��Y�n stated the City Attorney has indicated that this was the more ap�xbpriate manner in ��1��.�> �� i�� oceed. He pointed out that while there were two sides to this , >,.. }s�t+e, and a case could b� macie that either party should bear the burden of obtaining the variance, tl�� majority of staff '_ � the City Attorney were uncomfortable with the concept of the City , ,, . �� r� �: � rng itself a vari��, m terms of how this might be perceived by the general public. Staff has r��:��rriended that�`��sco apply for the variance. He pointed out, however, the resolution could ��f"��r��:n�� x� i}ie Planning Commission so desires. �` '��r�o3��-��u��1�A� �tevenson inquired if there was a point on the Sysco property where their second sign could be located that would not impede truck traffic. Mr. Coyle stated in his understanding, in addition to the parking area, there is a stormwater retention pond in that corner of the property that prevents them from shifting this location any further. � Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting ,_____ . _ ____ __ : - . . - - �F . " ' � -- ' , . __ . _ _ . -_ � ...: . �' �.� ...' �fl��.�Si% . J�.`/!: !i 1 �Y/iiij ��f !4 �% r%/i ' - �_ _ -- - ... - - ._ _ _-. t March 15, 2000 Page 6 Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the parking lot was directly adjacent to the holding pond. Mr. Coyle indicated this was correct. Chairperson Peterson indicated the entrance driveway and proximity to the edge of the property. He stated the Comn possibility of monument style billboards on the Sysco prop, letter indicating there was insuiiicient room for this. Mr. f� weeks prior. Chairperson Peterson stated the requirement that the billli�3��,� i k was somewhat vague. Planning Associate Ericson stated thu;� �°�;�tY� provide some ambiguity as to what is aesthetically complem�� r? �,r; this stipulation was that something be done, which tli�; a�plic� however, the Commission might wish to be more specif�.uc� tlxi� �-�� .. Commissioner Miller pointed out that the Corramrssi�r� p�-evd�,�?rxly did not need to be identical. 'j '�� Fn Commissioner Stevenson inquired if $_ Commission, at the design stage. Pl,,;,�:;;' Commissioner Berke indicated steel pole.�Commissioner J�h nature zn fr�rit of the s�gn�. �j interim u ,� ��,z'��-�� ,..�.�� before the i�,err� ��.��Q� � the variance �5 z�c��rr 3 City's ��3nent fo�� :�; Syscp��':'"Planrvng ��;s r�� evas ie �a.. ?; befo advised se� parkin�; �c��,; �.�� "very close t;,had ��;v�€�r�;;�� sEUSSed the :...; however, ��t; ��s�� een the stated,th� l�r ��r �f�� ,4;�3.a; cwo .�. > ; =��:��thetically com�ler��re��:�a�y � �� va� olrafted specifically to ��.��: �s��ad��i��i that the intent of �.t�� ;F ��3f1{�;�ted is the case, r��termin�d that the billboards c��;:>�ack before the Planning �ed that it would not. �e of stone structure, rather than a there should be something of this �� ; time� �he Planning Commission tabled the City's billboard E�� €��,�;�a;��ion between the City and Sysco to resolve the issues, r�`,��: ��az'n��; Commission, however, the burden of applying for �� <�t �� `o�a�o Sysco. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the � �;��1 �c� �iYrung, in that the City's application was submitted prior to ��;�nn stated he did not believe this was the case. �i;�iimissioner Laube ��n��L�ar��c� if the variance request would come before the Planning �.>>;; . �mmission or the Ci.��°>Council for consideration, Chairperson Peterson explained that either �r�� S ::;;.:: could rant a va�ri�nce. ';<��;' <: �x-��a��r�,�� ; j./�iler inquired if Sysco would be able to meet the criteria the Planning �� >�'�� ;��.� h� ... ��.:5� consider in granting a variance. Commissioner Laube stated they would have � � ��°��, �vidence of a hardship. Commissioner Johnson indicated that if Sysco's trucks were parked against the second monopole, this would prevent a complete wrap-around design, and all they could do is put some type of brick in front of the sign. Commissioner Laube stated they could camouflage the pole by utilizing an imitation brick wrap-around material. ' _ �;` r ' � , �, t - � _ � - : �! -� �� ' '� ` , � � � -�-; . �>��.�%��,j� 1i.:4"�r'`.!i%'��/.i.:,r, r�/�, 5/ ��riY/.iii�/:!i ��'y�'ir3 Y�ar-s''i: -- - - - _-_: _ — '� -Y-�--_- �•.- � _ - -. _"! •_=--- - ' "�' Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 15, 2000 Page 7 .,... Commissioner Hegland stated he was convinced that Sysco was willing to make th��igns as ; � .<; aesthetically pleasing as possible, and had no concerns in this regard. He i�t�ica9 e��.tb+ere were <, :;. concerns with regard to the property line issue, however, he b.,elieved th� ;ag��at'ion far the y.,:�.. variance should be Sysco's responsibility. i;;�;; �;. , , ,f�.� � .��.% , ! Chairperson Peterson stated it was the general consens, � �� 4:he Comrru��on ��+r�;.' � .q;?�rf , t�� , ,; aesthetically complementary, and that staff should wox-�� wzth th�;,�,pplicant p�; �,r;z;;��,j��: something to this effect. He stated he did not believe it w�� x� �h�� ysco must bea� �+�� m��;� of applying for the variance, however, there was ar� '�a��a��-��a, �►a�-�iship in terms +:y�' �oih applications. Commissioner Berke stated he believed that the applica,tio�t "for the �� responsibility, however, he would be agreeable tc� �>� �.�aiing a v application is approved at this time, to ensure that this -;��';tE�� d,a�; c�one. ihe applicants was required to lose a sign, it shoult� b� �ra� '�:;i��. �;>,;,��. Commissioner Miller pointed out that the �xty's 1,OOQw�"aoi s��.��r�,� �� ' , .,, foot State requirement, which would alsa � a consid�ration in ��z-.��r�; � Mr. Coyle stated they were not they would prefer not to be left after havin�, already been b�fe�.re avnlicatriot�, :�-�c; sueeesr�;�F ;�ti: He inr�i� variar�c� their ap� issue. �l ov�rn �on Peterson 4�F €� �� Commission �oa �;� be the City's >co, if there that if one of �irement exceeds the 500- granting the variance. ap�� to b�:�� required tfl' apply for the variance however ;�s�: � � , �mg, az��c� h�� +rPd to �ndergo a second application process, Commi�,��+� ��: s��t an indirect basis, in terms of the City's nning C:��ag�.�;��a��fl-ovide a recommendation to the City d; zn co;�j��,�ion wi�h the approval of the interim use permit. i� 6�� to go back through the process again, when the f��'4� property. He explained that Sysco was able to satisfy ��,:�j ��owever, the adjacent City property was creating the h� variance request was anticipated to come back before the �ion, or if this would be resolved at the City Council level. ning Associate EriC�;;�n advised that according to the City Code, the Planning Commission is ,�::«j. ir�d to review t��%'variance request, and public hearing notification must be published and �s� i��c� to resid.�;�5 within 350 feet of the proposed site. He stated staff appreciates the r;�A��' ,<_;; ;rKA�iion, however, they must comply with the public hearing and public noticing ��-�y��5� ��.,� �� :he variance request. �;hair��;��or� Peterson stated that given this, the next step in the process would 6e for the applicant to apply for a variance, which would then come to the Planning Commission for consideration at their next meeting on April 5. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He noted there would be sufficient time prior to the next meeting to provide proper notification and publication of the public hearing. L - � ��i� �.: _ . ��/�i,�3�i =`� �..�--_ - - -- Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 �,-: Commissioner Berke stated it should be the City's responsibility to apply for the:;��'iance, Planning Associate Ericson advised that if the Planning Commission recorr��nc�s Bt��, the City Council that the City obtain the variance, this recommendation wQuld come �� a� Council at their meeting on March 27�', and technically, a notice could nt�t be publi�k��;� �� :�� rn�wspaper prior to that point. He stated the City Council might o�r��ru7e the I'la��i�� Ar��e��ission's ;�;' recommendation. He indicated this item could be sch�cluled for th� 'l�;r�a��:�. �`'' �2{'��,�lning '��?�� ,�. Commission meeting, however, they could not be ceY:��K�� v��y��t the;�C,tty�Cou:{ic;i�� ;; ��c, �°�a� ; decision maker, would respond to this particular conditia��. ��x <,,�,;�r� �'of the interir►a u�� ,��i ,; '' � Commissioner Stevenson stated they would not desire to �x �; �,;' ..�s #:�r��. should move forward upon the basis that the applicant mu�a �r��y` �-�� the consideration at the April 5 meeting of the Planning Coirimissiori. Planning Associate Ericson stated he believed tha� <�� :�a�; �:� � E��_�i.ion befo forward to the City Council as presented, w�th" �ia� :�p,isy��'(s_�8,�.�;�s' �(�ai the variance, the City Council would be agreeabl� io �:h�� g��;�z��1 st�,.�� ,. sending out the notification and scheduling ��:e public he�t-af7r, ��' �� ari� 5`�' Plannin Commission meetin . � �-- ��'� � g ;«:,:: s�;� - MOTION/SECOND: Ste Resolution No. 610-00, a the Installa,tion of Two ,, subje�;� tc� �,t��u.l�tions as ,� 5. � Hearing and Proposed Ex ant: Messiah Il nlaruier, therefore, they E variance, and schedule ae �:'oinmission goes �licant apply for the ould be comfortable request for the April T.o';A'1�pprove MC�nds View Planning Commission �rrar��;��i��g Appr�val of an Interim Use Permit to Allow is�a��; >��a.� c��,:Sysco Foods of Minnesota Property, Nays — 0 00-001 The motion carried. ��a�7 �:oad H2 ��`Approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Development Review `` �he Messiah Lutheran Church Facility. Church Ericson gave the staii report as follows: The applicant, Messiah Lutheran Church, located at 2848 County Road HZ, has requested City approval of a conditional use pernvt and development review to allow for an expansion of their facility. The subject property is zoned R-1, which allows churches as a conditional use. Currently, Messiah does not have a conditional use permit. The development review is necessary Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 15, 2000 Page 9 according to Section 1006.06 of the City Code, which requires that any � redevelopment or expansion of existing facilities must be reviewed by the Planning and City Council. Planning Associate Ericson stated Messiah has been at its pres� 1941, undertaking numerous expansions, and having changec� �t: past. He indicated the Church has been a good neighbor, ��r� ��`� City and surrounding communities. Staff would hope th��:c; s�.k�; as the request for the conditional use permit in a favorable li�i��. Planning Associate Ericson provided the Commission with �� expansion plan of the Church facility in the various pha�c�� indicated the building expansion, which is proposed in tv��b' pl match the architecture and design of the existing l�uilrla�af;. expansion would involve two small additions, tota�� '�, r"?� �� removal and replacement. The west single-stor��.d'ci�t��sa ��r�� two-story addition to the east will add a t�ior�� spaci��a�' �>�3� classroom space, a larger mechanical roor� an elevatt�r �x�rr` �.; of the first phase of the expansion is progc�sed to be :appro��K�� i: F:.:;.. ngs on iding��: ,k::: , Th� f i� �� ia�re f�;�'c, �� x�em �i�w since ��c�;; in. the � �� ;; ;�.c� Yh� t indicated the pro�osed ��;�osed expansion. He � ��' ��i° �rick and would ��;�c� e�� the proposed �.�a� � ��rtial parking lot od�l�c�' entryway, and the ��tering area, additional 1'he total square footage square feet. Planning Associate Ericson indicat�d ��t wi�h r��' number o�` �eats available in the worship area, staff anticipates that 75 parking �talls woulc�. i��L r�;c{uired fa� ihis site, and there are presently 165 stalls, ther�£or�, the applicaraY i� �tnr�ll within. c;�tiu �.�aaa��it�� -�quirement. He stated the parking area appears ��s �� xpandec� �°;,�� :�n�ively �� '�:ra�� ;��oposal, however, upon completion, the actua�, �� n�r�t wcv��1�� .�� s�`;q��ase beyond �'�0 1� stalls. He explained that after the first phas� �� ;��>�ir�x�, �� r��i,� ��:�cl b�; availalole, and the second phase of the construction would xcdu��' �� a�.��al��i- ��' �t��a;� �.�� '.�`��, , Il[e pointed out that even with the full buildout of the facility, assumr��r ��.;._,�-�; ��1�11��; Ee��ii�c�rt��, s�ating space in the expanded worship area, stafffeels very confide�ii �:�a��; �� :�x��se;�� 1�� ,y�.��l� would fit with the Parking Code requirements. �ag` Associate Erics�r� ��,��+�;d that while the building expansion itself would not be located 'i� 100 feet of the v�e�ts�� the site, the parking lot would be, and this will necessitate a _ __ �nd Buffer Permit,::;;;;H� explained that the plans have been subjmitted to the Rice Creek �:_�: rshed District, w.li%�1� is currently examining the drainage issues. He stated a rather large ��<. �water managerr�yir�t pond has been proposed for the site at the back corner of the lot, outside �: bounc��rie�-;`;t�i'`�the wetland. He indicated staff has reviewed the drainage plans, and �:,�; �� a k�� .z�age calculations and pond specifications to the City Engineer who believes this <�;,� �;�� ,�i�tent with the site, and acceptable. P1a��aa�A��, Associaie Ericson indicated that staff is awaiting Rice Creek Watershed District approval of the drainage plan for the site. He explained that once the watershed district is comfortable regarding all of the drainage impacts, City staf�', the City Engineer, and the Director of Public Works would also be comfortable with regard to the drainage proposal. _ : , ,:;, _ :; - - �, - - :�� 3' i._ _ -- _ � _ ; - jif�r-riiii .i /,..f.i✓.�Gj, r'/... �Yf _"____ . . . � ' � . . -" . __' _' .. . _ ".. ... . � _.Y. -.. . . . , �1 �:' . __ _" Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 Planning Associate Ericson stated at this time, no plans have been submitted in landscaping on the site, and as indicated in the Staff Report, a significant number of , landscaping will be removed with this expansion proposal. He explained thz�� iaff b,�;s that the overall character and environmental nature of this site;,will be dra,��l��j �lt therefore, has requested the applicant submit a landscape plan, �;�i,�ia; he be�i�� $7��z:� �v ,.5, presentation by the applicant at this time. He indicated the la�€�scape plan w�g�1�i �,r. r;;� staf�and the City Forester, and brought back before the Plan�i�g Commissi��`�� ;��u��; their next meeting. ��M `' Planning Associate Ericson indicated another issue perta�n��, ��. j 3 on the site. He indicated that the Church owns two horn�:,�, �� Knollwood Drive, and one, adjacent and to the east of the ;�c�,' �D, stated these two homes would be removed to make rod��a �orr � t parking lot would then be shifted down into these lots. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has b specifically, the property owner at 2816 Co�t� �f� �i�<' the house on County Road H2, will be 4t��fe resident was t�nable to attend the me�tin�, �iowe for Planning Commission considerafi�€�� at the owner indicated he would be much rn�Ji°� corr�f of privacy fencing were to be ir��t�lled. �°1F�r purview of the Planning Co�tumi�s�on to ma��=; � an appro��dry %�r�dscapin:�;�� ::'��! some sc�Q�. of the�r��p��; : ,az� �he a%�x��a�i�; �a�•s��s,.i�s wo��1�: � of and and e for :d by ��a �.t l�nc�scaping is th� �c;,?�;d �aiY�� r��.?c�r�f. to the site at 7215 ;iy��Y ?;��a�ty Road H2. He �;��r �xr ��f1, and the Church �n<�cc��:��c� %�,, ��sidents �iijacent to the site, ''Roac� �� ,�r��,�� a�op��`ty, after the removal of ;t fro� �t:�le ��x�l�� lc��. He explained that this ver i�ould sub�ni� ��titei� expressing his concerns ,:, n�xt meetmg He explained that this property ��ble with �}� proposed expansion if some type �:�� I�ssa�tate Ericson stated it was within the ��:�:�, b.,�h��ridation to this effect, adding that with ��aaj., 1.�#;� would be comfortable that the concerns Planning 1-i��a��` ��: ��a��os� F��w��,�,�� €� ��x-� was some concern with regard to the lighting, and staff has �-equ�F :;�� s��:oa�� j�, =j.�?��y��,5 �j? the site. He explained that while this analysis was not availabl� :gt� �.�;; ��`�� `� �� :o ��,o� ��:s �r�epared, Staff did received a copy of the analysis afterwa,d�s �nd fizzd.�t a�� ;,ar�4��terit with the City Code. He stated the lighting specifications indie,�5�the lights will 1,�. ��d��ar��,�� Kad shielded from direct view so there would be no issues with re,g�1 to glare, and th� A��fis�,��,�r,�+'�4pht fixtures would be a decorative residential type of light. %""3 �g Associate Eric�on stated the Church currently has six access points, with three curb cuts �/:. N lii< �nty Road HZ,a��i three on Knollwood Drive. After the construction, the number of access rn�c�ti�l� bc, r,��ced to five. He indicated staff has reviewed this matter with the Director of ';�� {.�,:; �y�d in terms of access and circulation, this appears to be acceptable. i`'' >, �; ��c��iaie Ericson stated staff has provided the Fire Marshall with a copy of the site N�aA►;�, +z� c��•der to obtain her response with regard to the internal circulation on the lot and the drive aisle specifications. He indicated the Fire Marshall had questions regarding whether or not the building would be sprinklered, which would also impact the location of fire hydrants, and other items of this nature. He explained that these are all issues yet unresolved, however, staff � - _ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 15, 2000 Page 11 feels very confident that prior to the next meeting of the Planning Commission, they addressed. :� Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant proposed ta c approximately 400 square feet at the most southerly point of thE purpose of housing lawn mowers and equipment, and as a u�i He stated staff is recommending this structure be relocated,�' volleyball court. He explained that the City Code requires;;t�t the rear of the property, behind the primary structure. Planning Associate Ericson stated the demolition of the trj,�c� �� immediately to make room for the parking lot expansion, wl��€��d Y '» of the development. He indicated permits from the City'�i�voi project, as well as notification to the Minnesota Pollu�zo�� :� '��t possible stipulation in the StaffReport. , 1 be ;ruct an ��r��k,��,�F '�iructure of �,: on K�c��r�c� �.� i��, for the uilding fo�� k��; �:;;�it3��x� racility. rear of i�.� loi�, ��;��&� �o th� , ;:. , y r�moved would proceed ��.�.e�1 into the first phase ��;�� i or the demolition r: ;��r;��r�� is indicated as a � . � . <4y .. . %� Planning Associate Ericson stated the StaffulZeport �t��t ��c. ;,�u�cific �onditional use permit requirements as they apply to Churches, ar��similar us�'in �� .�-1 �p�tii�ig District. He indicated that all of the specific requirements ar��inet as pr�:�osed. �� ;ated in terms of the general conditional use permit requirements; st�f#� feels �e�% comfortal5:�e that the use will not create an excessive burden on existing park,s, ��t`eets, sch�i�ls, and ot��:r public facilities. He pointed out however, there is some question �ii�i regai-c� +:� y��F^ use bei'ng;sufficiently compatible or separated by distanc�.or screening frotxa �dj�ent residf;ha�� :y.��a �r used lands. He explained that this is the area i�� r�?��;�1 he has ��t+.�� ,� �.,:��.��hat fact ��2 F�4��:��1 landscaping and screening on the site is trees, af%cts crit�� i d��,�;� fP��.�A�'��ti,�� tl�is be ac�;X��r�pli�h�;ca through bernung, fencing, or evergreen �,�z�;L �a�x��; �; � rF��,,;�Jed, and until that time, staff feels that those particular �U�ci i�;al1�'��,r �� s_ '��R�; al�o indicated, that in Staf�'s opinion, all of the adverse m��ra� ��z�;s�i��,��d��—aresatisfied. ung;�.ssociate :F 4 1��r ��3� ,r� �here is no resolution before the Planning Commission at this �� explained ��rY=. t.6�<, d,e.�p�. �� was strictly the discussion of this item, in terms of resolving �:; �`the issues and dip�:f-y��, ��: applicant to come back before the Commission at the next ing with changes thc��wil�'satisfy the requirements. �v ��n.riarng Associate ,��cson stated that staff has received a couple of telephone calls from i•:: . �� a�,��t�c��-s who ha��;�ndicated concerns regarding the expansion, and the potential change in the c,�<<Fa ��s ;�; ,. �a�: :3 �a�� area, in terms of removal of two homes and the additional impervious surface. ;,��- q��.�i ��; ��lepinone call from a resident to the north of County Road H2 who lives across the ��,..� ,� �� E � � �I _ �'�'so�/��i�i''.�/f ' �� '-��=` - -- -. � Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . ` . . Y . - _ �i..�-�:.�f,.., ..i,..3: _ = _ L.-- - . . . March 15, 2000 Page 12 the second recommendation is that the applicant apply for and receive approval of a Buffer Pernut in conjunction with the development review and conditional use process. ,; �: staff recommends that the site plans be revised to indicate the relocatio� ;of the,;a structure toward the southeastern corner of the lot rather than 35 feet fro� i;h� frnnt � s: . line. �f;:> > ,,��.�>., ;t :�, s::. ��$%;�ii;.�`�'6; �i? / Planning Associate Ericson stated sta�s fourth recommezl�l��s�n is that th� sit� p�a��':��c^ : the event that the Fire Marshall determines the drive ai�i�,=; �,�; �arking'�t�teas are u.c�� ;,�: designed to allow for fire vehicle access. In additiori; ��, �zz-e T�arshall wouic� a! � etland property in recommendation regardmg the number and placemeri� r�w k�� ycJrants to service ��s�, yi��. Planning Associate Ericson stated there was some concern ci�r �� s�xpansion, there would not be sufficient fire hydrants to satisfy the requiremer�ts o�" ��^ ��Bx�{; ��ode, which, in his , ,, understanding, requires that all portions of the buildmg b�' �;vithir� �� ,�; �� a�°ire hydrant. He indicated this matter would be resolved prior to the Aaer.� �xi�eting or` ��r� ��ld��g Commission. He stated the fifth recommendation is that specific��a��9 .��:o• +1�� garUa�e; �a€��n�istier enclosure be indicated on the site plans, and staff would furtYi��rti r�f �if�f�:rnd ihat this �� g�rovided by the next meeting. ,<:,�<;.s;:<> . �'� �:.<.<: Planning Associate Ericson indicated which is expected with any expansiox they can be resolved, and that the ct��i� were of er of i�sues' remaining to be resolved, 1ow�;ver, staff feels very confident that can be addressed as well. Commissio�aer 1Vliller inquir��l r��rding th�" �5��.�> �°w� ��t�`'playground equipment located off of Knollwo�� .�rd�v�. Cha�Y��ifi� ;��_� "�terson i��ta�� layground equipment appeared to be locate��';�p��;�' ��A�; �arkit�� rr�, �r��x�� was not"�r��osed to be altered until the second phase of the expan�i��y �,��;��;�°��-�, k�e �vo7xl� ��i>+�.r��€; �h�� ;c�uipment would remain intact until that time. A church between �. green a�� the seco��c ; corner o i° �r� €t�.�� a��i� parking lot would remain as it is, and the driveway rh�^ k�u%�€��r��; r�vould be removed. He stated the would expand the ��r or.4nd `closer to the south side of the building, where it would t ., ,. �� >°aase of the expansion, at which time, it would be relocated to ��°ns�en Boen, represe.��tive of Messiah Lutheran Church stated they understood the necessity s;,.> �{ ��11 of the recommendations listed in the Staff Report. She indicated there was somewhat of a 7{ �i• �f�j ,�«r.��rrstar�din� ��h regard to the landscape plan, which was not yet complete, and therefore, %� ��` �y��.�� d. �;�;��a�g1�t it along at this time. She explained that the plan was in the process of being r;�+��z�.%�,��€��, s��`a;�r�ver, they would desire a little more time, in order to hear some of the comments �;'=�,r� ��°_� YA�i�fitrors, and to determine what could be done in terms of fencing and additional �cY��ei�tii�. Chairperson Peterson indicated this was a very informal stage in this process. He stated he did not anticipate a problem with regard to the site drainage. He noted that with the expanded parking areas, there would be more runoff, however, the ponding should provide better control of I� ; ri �: - .. ; ` _ " - G1 f � �3„�_' � r : - - - � _ � , _ __ _ _ � _ l"r�/ �l�fri r... , •fi,�3, 4 ,. //,�.'.:..%:G/r .�'fi � ti�: . - � . � � - . . � -- - _ � . � _ :� �� - �- ... . -- � i-z _ -;__ .. _ ._.� . : ' .:.. . .. . ..� . - _ , _r: . ' ..-_'__ _ _. "_' ' I Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 13 the quality of the water, and with the outlet structures in place, there should be more con�rol on the uantit of the water as well. •�,'�,�/� � q Y ��<, ... .�.,. •�� Commissioner Stevenson stated he agreed with staf�s recommendation re��c��r�a %��relocation '�k� r,: � l�r; �lorth of of the accessory building. He indicated he would like to see the �xucture-��+�c� ; ...,<. the volleyball courts, in front of the pond, with attempts t�r mamtain s��x�; ��, �3�,; ,�xisting landscaping. � ;;>� Commissioner Miller inquired if the garage of the adjacexAC'` the two houses would be facing the parking lot. Chairpe� ,�� face the volleyball court. Corrunissioner Miller stated sh�; necessary in this particular location. „ Commissioner Stevenson stated there might be located on County Road H2, adjacent to the subj Commissioner Johnson inquired regarding Boen stated they were considering some ty Commissioner Johnson noted that constructed immediately, in orde indicated he would like to see thai S �.,' are remov�d. , E��sori of the d��ti,�t°�ra� ast, of re�;a ��c� ;4�= ��cted by the det��s�ax��rt c�� indicated the gara�� 7e��loi �1, that screening would t�e forthe house br this location. Ms. and landscaping. �itioring i es�den�s 11ave desired to have a fence hSl` ` actual cot�s;�ruction site from their view. He vided ,a�K�oon as possible, after the two houses �; which s��,��; oi development would the parking area be ';'8��.?,x �; parking area would be expanded during the first phase »>� irpersor� �� sr� a��l�a,kak r� ��' �� h�'��tg�ed driveway in the northwest corner of the site would be xded �� t�i� c�ennc��€5��: �3s�_.�Fc�, or' a portion of that removed and reconfigured. Ms. Boen ,: tf �d ��ie driveway �w�r��,� �� ,�i�;��red, and the sidewalks would remain. � �� irperson Peterson iri�t�irec� if the applicant was aware of the general nature of the landscape �osal. Ms. Boen;�``3tiidicated they were considering the placement of berm trees along ft:<,,, .•.:;<< llwood Drive, a�'�und the dumpster location. She stated they would not attempt to �A'+_�,�ratly �and,se,�� the area of their future worship sanctuary, however, they would do their �:. +� r��:�3 �p �andscape within the 8-foot wide strip along the eastern edge of the driveway. 3:_�� xe>��'vr�ey would scatter plantings throughout the remainder of the site to break up some �>.'u r:,z�i�;Y��, and there would be some ground plantings adjacent to the building. Ms. Boen stated a number of trees would be removed with the expansion, and she was not aware if the City would require they replace the exact amount removed, however, many of these trees would replaced. She advised that the site would appear quite barren for a period of tinne, however, they did not desire to leave it in that condition. [ . r_�.-� l ��.:.�-�-�S s Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting .. . : . . i__ . . _ . . . . _ -.- `--__ . " `� ' _ ` -- ., . . ._ ; , . . .:c- � _-_' � -'-��:-�. . :- - ---_-_ : � �-. -. . ._. . ' �i i iirl � . :-. �.ii7i �i March 15, 2000 Page 14 Chairperson Peterson inquired if the trees that did not require removal for the expansion would remain. Ms. Boen stated this was correct, adding that th�j �vo�a1 save all the trees they could. She explained that the reason for the large ar�ioi�� h�. this phase of the expansion is because during second phase, in°t.�lu�ee to fi�:� ;r� ,,�r;.':. �:.•�,� become the new worship space, and that expansion �,"%seat 600 ��1c ! approximately 150 parking stalls. She indicated this first �%se prepares �;�a� ,i�r-, �� ar:;�g lot �Eempt to �rking with is �rea will �t�. require ��.s�; :��c��ie expansion of the facilrty, wluch will be spnnklered and elev�c�r� accesstbl�s: She adv3 $E _� €��s�� ;:;� of expansion is their primary objective at this time. Chairperson Peterson stated� at this time, it was undeternun�c� �a +:�s ��, ��F�;��y aisle widths and the turning radius on the corners were in compliance as relates �;� ih� 1� �€� �= � �4 :��,�� r�aent requirements. Planning Associate Ericson stated he believed the proposa� �would �� cc ��i:,�f�l�, however, he has not yet received the Fire Marshall's report. „ Chairperson Peterson stated a fire hydrant Drive and County Road H2. Planning As sprinklered, this would probably not be a si� Chairperson Peterson inquired if indicated their civil engineer is Department site accessibility, an� meeting of the I'lanning Comrnissxi expan. stat�C� .�a�, �tr� x�rji ;�o not have su�i��< �:a �� E�,�g �� x � t ,; the futuF� �nc� � i �+� � �; .��€��1 �i �o IJiSP, iw�st �°c�r�ier of Knollwood u��a�:t if the building were ,:..:<. �e an,y�;ather fire;:;, ydrants in the area. Ms. Boen � .., loo��, into th:�,; issues of fire hydrants and Fire ��r;� �o rr�eet a`it 'of these requirements by the next ty would change significantly with the � �.��=�a��ant change in the usage. He explained that they do ��i�F�� cl:� in terms of classroom space and sanctuary space in �»nsion of e�sting functions. _ ___ ____ _ __ �on Petersorz ��t� r�. �r�%c �ppeared to be a very good expansion proposal, which is to the enviror��ent '' He pointed out that although there would be a change in the 7/ U ce of the facili�-�or a period of time, the end result would be worthwhile. � ��;'> ��Y. ��so��t��icson stated this item would come back before the Planning Commission for �� K<a� �,�i� n at their April 5 meeting. 1�'��a��ning Case VR00-001 Property Involved 2741 Hodges Lane. Public Hearing and Discussion of a Request for a Reduced Corner Lot Front Setback to Allow for a Garage Expansion. 4 :iii � . . .. . - ' " _ " I .. '" Mounds View Planning Comm�ssion Regular Meeting Applicant: Cathy Magoris The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant, Cathy Magoris, who lives at 2741 Hodges corner of Hodges Lane and Park View Drive, is request foot corner front yard setback. She would like to e�� square-foot garage into an 864 square-foot three-car gar�, Planning Associate Ericson indicated the existing garage is line, on the corner of the property, and the applicant is p� 18 feet at the front corner of the garage. He explai��d �:� garage would be more than 18 feet, as Park Vi��r1 !��'A�i provided the Commission with a photograph of ��, ::��r��%� �`�� Planning Associate Ericson stated, as with��y ` to act favorably, there must be a demonsY.rated' property that makes a literal interpx��a,tton of property owner. He indicated ��€��.� �tatutes, specified criteria for each applic��on anc� sri�: which are set forth in Sect�otz-112 s:02, Su�rJ��r� that a ha�-��-�3? exists whe� ��1 �� i�x� ��teri�; :;a��; Plannir��, '� � ��°�� r�rson f ' presenis s�.�a��>��k��'�� .�rm, and similat � �E��_� ��' ��1-a�z��o opinion, wc�,u�� s�Y ��r�t� s�;T�� , , 1 distnc�,�� e inc��.c� � �� ,. this �r,��est, the config� ti'� �_ f >< ap��`val of the request��r.� �.�i�1e granting a vananc�;, � �:. �„�d°c?mental to the Code; �if ,„ S.t��'��z�ce should not bet;�pp March 15, 2000 Page 15 which is . , �h� setba�;;�. ,��,les away im the a: attached ��_n_ the side property ��:b�cic be reduced to �� ,��:1c corner of the �� ;�ac; property. He ianc�.a��,��4:�:cr�.y, ��3�'��ie Planning Commission .:;:. �d�p or pra��;�� +ii�iculty associated with the s`, :. �yCode ov��1y i�uic�ensome or restrictive to a �uire that ��Iii� governing body review a set of ��,:� . its deci�,€�€ii m accordance with these criteria, �5 �, ��' �'he City Code. The Code clearly states ;�� a�;, )/� 7 kIodges Lane is an odd-shaped corner lot which oA°��;�s��zk��;��;, yet there are numerous other corner lots in the City ,�. �� ra �,,��;t the literal interpretation of the Code, in staf�s �� pli�� o�� ights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the R- ��,�� siaff' does not feel there are any special circumstances regarding >r� �i,� �kte lot is certainly not the doing of the applicant. He stated that .,�°�� would in effect confer upon the applicant a special privilege. � ailovv for the third garage stall would not necessarily be materially indicated that based upon the other criteria, it would appear that the oved as not all of the criteria are satisfied. �-;<;�,�;� i��,;,, ��pR�ka ��r., ��,��,��"Ericson indicated staffhas not prepared a resolution for action at this time. �� ;E 3��,x��,�_.�� :�iat there is some gray area with regard to the criteria, and the requirement is that �� fiy�,,,��,; c�.iii�;i7a must be met in order to grant a variance. He indicated staff has attempted to address the criteria, however, the Planning Commission might not be in agreement with these findings. He stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a resolution either approving or denying the variance request, for their consideration at the next meeting. He explained that if staff is directed to draft a resolution of approval, the Commission should discuss this item, and detertnine clear findings of fact in support of that. He indicated this � � _ �; l � �I l '^ �� •= J j i , : . � _ i _ _ � �_' -� � k _ c f - �,. _ :.� � � _ - ` _° - - , _ - < _-� ,�; ,� - - — � _ � . . . - -- _ . _ F-_ � . '/ . ,, -. . _ . ... " " . . ' .. ___ '%. :. ... � . . .. ._. - ;: ._--'-- �: ..: .- .. . �./1/ / .�I� . . -__- .__ __. _ . . . _ ._.. .-. ___ _. �.Cq�� I. ____ .- � �. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 15, 2000 Page 16 was a public hearing, and notification has been provided to residents within 350 feet,.of the applicant's property. ��;;�, Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has received two tel expressed concerns with regard to this request, as well as a..; provided to the Commission members. ,��'<< Peter Murlowski, of Timbercraft Lumber Company, rP��; company was working with the Magoris with regard to �� variance request is granted, they would be perfornung tl�� the main considerations with a variance is the ability to d�� feel that Mrs. Magoris' situation presents a particular ha� facility out of her home, and has a lack of storage w�thir� space is finished oi� He added that the driveway L��c�ar�P.< drop off their children in the mornings and pic1�: i�t�a�,, � cumbersome. He explained that the Magoris fam.ri�y° �� %, �i' coming of driving age fairly soon, anothe��ar wilI ��: ients who li�ve been �Y��ntative ��titie applir�:�z�, �;t��,r,� �i� � �;�`: <. ��,� ilus ��rticular projec�., ,r�a�� x° c��' �g�°>�n�Ff,�.;on work. He s�atE;rE r��pc� c�f ��>s��?��'�� g�ship. He indicaied they ��;kyx �� ; operates a daycare ��ie biousu ��;�;��i�e majority ofthe ��ges�� r�.t�� >z �lientele arrive to ,� ?n the ��`��;��, and this is very ��;��.of vehicCe:�,.�inc� with their son is problem. He stated they feel there is a hard��ip and aldeiil�; �,E; �� Mr. Murlowski indicated there ar�; received variances similar to that. granted for a sideyard setback fat' Terrace. He indicated a ��E�.�t.�Yar�; � locatec� �e '�.�n,.l �ark Vi��1: ��-c3�5r�,F Park �j��;�;f T:?�7av�;��as �r"��r.�� tr�x:��i Commissi. removed. Cathy th�' ;; IVli-. Magoris indicated ;ntly parks this vel� � side, which wc��l •{ , ac�y�al eara�e.��t�' �� v�rlu�h will compound the F� third garage stall. ,,, : _ � :.; ; , ,�: Z� z�st three �ri�perties wi�hin 2he immediate area that have ;��n; � c;qu�� by the applicant. He stated a variance was poich a��6iox� at th�;property located at 7386 Park View �s receitJ�e.� z� �llt��r;�`or an addition and a deck on property which �,� �I ;s� ��;��rner lot, and the property located at 7312 i�;� for a s��;y�rd garage addition. shed in the back of the property would be would not. She explained that this shed had just recently i this shed was utilized to store the pool equipment. he �v�ras a large van that she utilizes for her daycare operation, and she �e in the driveway. She stated she would like to be able to park the van be safer for the children, and this was another reason she would like an ��°'�tevenson inquired regarding the size of the storage shed. Mrs. Magoris indicated > o�vas approximately 8' x 10' in size. Commissioner Miller inquired regarding the nature of the telephone calls received by staf�' Planning Associate Ericson stated he received two telephone calls, and a letter that date, however, he could not verify that they were from different individuals. He explained that the letter might _ _ _ _ . ._ < , � �h _ ' � ...:�:�_ _,_ .s_ _. _ _ _ - -- - -- _ — — ' l; Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 15, 2000 Page 17 have come from one of the two people he had spoken with on the telephone, whose addresses were not provided. He explained that in the letter, which the applicant h� there is mention of a privacy fence to assist in screening the site. He ind�cat�d thxs.; such an expansion more palatable to certain people in the area, altha��;;�� condition may be viewed as unreasonable and unrelated to the acxiif�l: requc �:. ' s�, �. _s Cornrnissioner Stevenson inquired regarding the accessib�€�� Magoris stated the pool was above ground, completely su�t�L deck on the side. She explained that in order to access `r.}��; ��, gate and up the ladder on the deck, and the pool has €��-� �� < board. She added that the yard is completely fenced at �l�a��' fence. %t�j'' Gary Millhouse, 7400 Park View Drive stated h�: li applicant. He indicated he had no problem with i�.F ;�F be directly facing it. He stated he believed th.� ��v= with regard to the proposal are located to th��,��icie of the garage would not be across the street f��#'tii either` ,.<::�. .� Mr. Millhouse stated he believed He indicated this is one of the a much concerned regarding the � they continue to rise. I�� expand�c' s,��ages help it��;�'��'�� could ��:, ��.�� pertaina�� .�� stated he wou trt��he street. H� � begin to encroach ;ated he would be rder to grant a var h�orhood, he ha� a no c��a! �.r�d_ �.� of the [� who and t make such a 10/I2"�. tust go tnr�u��A� E��R ,� e�.a,�. i�y her daycare ��; �z ��1� v�v�r, it is not a�rivacy � a� �;;�-i� north of the >t��l, and he would iave some concerns He pointed out that i�� €��' ^�/�;�� ;��ee-car ,�a'age would�increase the value of the property. t��velopm�tts in the C��y of Mounds View, and he is very rty valu�s � that nea��orhood, and would like to see that , :;< . at nei�l�l�o�'s �� est in their homes with additions an ; valu�! ��` �,��' �h�j'tiomes, and make this a very desirable �� rJo,� �; ��°c�7;�mity to the applicant's garage as a neighbor �;,r,, this proposal. He indicated he understood the issues ?��g Commission must take these into consideration. He � h� �atYUmission provide the Magoris with a variance. ,�,,,� ;c� he had some concerns regarding the expansion of a corner lot �s(�a��;�? ;�hat corner lots are more difficult to deal with, however, when �,;r:;b: -�;%,�n 30 feet, other issues come into play, such as sight lines. He �c�rned about this proposal independent of the criteria that must be met �e. He added that although this is probably a larger lot than most in the impression from looking at the photograph that it is already overbuilt. s !'. �~��;g�$ ��E�� `;#�Venson advised that they must be very careful when considering corner lots, U�,��,� ,x��;��.�' iurn in both directions. He stated be setback 40Sfeet from the�oads which �;f��r'„�� E;�;��t �; �n place, however, the house appears to wc��ld probably provide a sufficient safety factor with the expansion. Mr. Murlowski stated he agreed there were reasons fncroach into�the str et and obstruct requirement, in that they would not want a structure to e traffic visibility. He stated the applicant's house is situated on the lot with a 40-foot front yard , � ° �'�,� �'� �� ' � - . ; = _ - ' t � -- ' � � = f - �� ,r. < = ,- -, -_ ._ - - - . . , ;` - , : � _ ; �1 « �1V Y ✓�,..�k'..� ..____ . . . -_ _�_ _ __ - _ .-� v ' _ ' _ .. . - _". . . _ . _ .. � -: S ,_ �/�/�//��FJ Ji/fs. ..,f :' / y� . �..� . "_ _" _ _ ' "___' ._. � . .. . I �J Mounds View Planning Commission i March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 18 setback, and Park View Drive to the east actually curves away from the house, addition of 12 feet of structure would not obstruct visibility any more than the currently does. Chairperson Peterson stated this is an irregularly shaped cc difference from a normal corner lot as relates to the first cri Commissioner Miller stated she did not see any speciai Commissioner Johnson agreed. He added that this w�� generally granted to improve situations found with the upgrade the property. ;refore, the ::;;<;. ;ti:;" `;'>�iouse ,.::�:� �; <;: c s�e much ouse, and �� ` � structures, in Mrs. Magoris indicated the owner of Lot 4, two lots to� ��e sou�.��d ��` ��, ��.f,��;rty� requested a variance that the residents opposed. She indicatec� chi� r-P�i�1�:nt h�ci �y �,�„�� c;;�'r �r�-age, which he , �,,,, basically doubled straight back into the lot. She �r�� Ia��.� lowere� �d,� ��a�unding property values by 5 percent, and although the residents ��r��e�; r��tas�, � � o this, �.��v_; �;ity approved the variance. �,; - �x� Chairperson Peterson stated this occurre ��n the p� the early 1990's. Mr. Millhouse indt��tl this gar�i • . : . . , ; t e expans�on was not consistent v�1t�: �i� ong�n� �'i � Commissioner Hegland inr��c� „a�' this ex��x��;3�� proposed•t��z � �;orner lot. �°lF�i�tri�zg A,ssociat� ��a�;^ yard s�F:3E� ��✓K��' F,vail�.ble: �perty loca.�� : `I312 Park View Terrace, in ;e extended;beyond the side of the house, and ofline o�,��e structure. i.}d be approved if it were not being ted yes, depending upon how much side Commissz�f��;�� -��;��i �>raz.�;d ��'tl�j��a,�� rgue that this makes all corner lots exceptional. He stated he �eali�;€�� t�� .r�� ,�,1�y ��; ��r lots, however, the Commission should look at this application �z� .�� ;��; ��; 1�„��,;, �� ,�-,�inal setback of the property, and the equity of all homeov,y�"��s in ihe �±r°��. Cq�irnissioner Stevensc�� R�gnri out that if the configuration of the back of the lot were ��'�+�olated to the front, �heY•� would be more than a 30-foot setback. He explained that because s�� h� irregular shape o�;the lot, which narrows in the front, there is an exception. ; �t;y, ��R �+��+��ioner M�1�� stated she did not believe there was a certain right to have a specific number �k � �� `�a�� . ��h� s��dlthat while the City allows three-car garages, two-car garages are quite typical �� r� .. ,...�:. .:.�i (;o�rurussioner Johnson inquired regarding the square-footage of accessory building area of the lot. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was 864 square feet, plus an additional 100 square feet, if including the shed. Commissioner Stevenson advised that this was less than the maximum requirement. _ , , _ ; ; ,� t : f - fi�� ,'r%i�r.ii,-..:r��-;j. }�/.�..�.1�!Ti!�t�l1lG_r�'�:'S` 3s -. _ - - (-' ' � . - -. ...__ .-_. . -_ - ---- i� � Mounds View Ptanning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 19 Commissioner Miller indicated they were not denying garages per se, as the applicant already has a two-car garage. Commissioner Stevenson indicated they also could not deny the reque��"�in the basis of requesting a third stall. He stated he did not believe the numb�x� `�af stal�s��'yunless it exceeded three stalls, was relevant. �,, %- ' Commissioner Hegland explained that in order to interpret t�,�;properly, have to compare corner lots of the same shape, which woulc� �� very diffi� intent of the 30-foot setback on corner lots is to address �x a:��f; ��ibility:� _ �: �� Chairperson Peterson stated the setback requirement was it� explained that the front yard setback of all homes along the l� to the corner, and is uniform all the way down the block. ; structures located too close to the street in relationship`5:�o stated the main argument £or the 30-foot setback is tlus ��tai�o Commissioner Stevenson stated the 30-foot structures would all be in alignment. Mr. :� setback 37 feet from the street at one poin�,:s:� oth� rrm�ty �� would �� the other reasons �s �i�;�'. �-1e �• ,,,. r.�a,�, which carries throug :s �r�ziance would result in ��;�.��-�;�' �r► tihat block, He �€� cnaintain that the located on Lot 5, is � Chai erson Peterson stated he had �t��erns wrtk� iregard to t�� second criteria, in that granting � � the variance might confer on th� ��;��icant s��,�ial privile��'s denied to the owners of other ��: properties in the same district. H� +e�cplatn�r� e�� .�►e was,.�,�, iicerned that approval of this request might set a, precedent, and tY�e ow3�ers of o �.�� ;��a e a�� s would desire the same consideration. He poinc�,�:1 s��;:� it could k��; ��:� °�hat this A� ��. �a i��caY corner lot. Connrna��'��;� h 3�:P,1a.�.c�. i_r prop�rEy, a�4�� x��4, ��a�r��?1.. requests foo� ��,��xA � a.€, �a:: ��;;;: , , '' ' CommissY�ir�er l�/Iille� r�.��hf�� xher>b'y State Lav�. ~.;; itfii:;�nternretin� these ved this proposal to be an improvement to the tv was well built, and there have been a number of the criteria for granting a variance were not set by the City, but �er Hegland pointed out that Planning Commission is charged �y . issioner Miller iri�uired if the driveway width would increase at the structure. P anrung _:<::: ate Ericson st�;:"" this would not necessarily be the case. inquired regarding the content of the letter staff received pertaining to the lv��. 1�/�agoris indicated they would be willing to construct a privacy fence. She reiterated that tlus proposal does not represent a significant difference in terms of the current view of the adjacent properties, which would simply continue to see the side of a garage. � E �i � /r�'r,��'i�i�' �'— ~ ' .) f , � _- if r{ r , ' - ��,�� " .{ _ < : , � �T'i%,�if/` iiJ+1;/ ••.�lA � -- „rf �ii/1//r��J�/r+. . _ - . . Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting �� ,�i,i ri r�y; ,. ....-�. March 15, Z000 Page 20 Mr. Millhouse pointed out that this resident's concern might have been with regard to the equipment and a play structure located in the applicant's back yard. ,:;< Chairperson Peterson inquired if the applicant's boat would he stored trt tJ�� age. Mrs. Magoris indicated the boat would be parked in the second stal:�:. ' She ret�� `��`� a� Q�� having this / 3�;f.�.S.,:' additional vehicle storage would create safer environment forF�+� ��uldren. ,:. , Chairperson Peterson inquired if any of the items kept in �te backya�'d��vould b�. ��K-�;��' �� garage. Mrs. Magoris stated the playground structure in s k�� r�,��c y� � r,�, vvhich was coA� ��,� �;� ��r her father, was made of wood and could not be mov�;F�, >�;�� J�:��:�d they would �?�.°�� %ie children's tricycles in the garage. Chairperson Peterson requested clarification regarding staff via telephone. Planning Associate Ericson staied the activities in the applicant's backyard. ,, Chairperson Peterson indicated it was the cons�sus of° ,r.:... < prepare a resolution approving the vanar��"'request � variance, based u on the irre lar sha e,ofs'the lot. ��' P � P �{ �� Planning Associate Ericson stated 5, 2000 Planning Commission me,� 7. lIl H R 3.�.41�z; ��1�� r�<� as expressed to ��`�tnarilv related to ssion to direct staiito igs in support of the a res,t��;ution for consideration at the April Consideratia�� A��' r�:��olutior� �(ia��(�� l, 609-99, Resolutions Respectively Recommending Approval of �t ��f�{�� z;�; ��7 �nd ��, ��c��a.a�ces Amending the City Code by Creating Language to Allow fo�:Tria�a��s� ��;;�d�� s� �,� _ .� ,. P1ann��Associate Eri��a��. �-,a�� ;�`e staffreport as follows: � �V �r�ng the discussion 4� the proposed billboards at the golf course, it was deternuned that ��. �iilboards should be a� �nterim use instead of a conditional use, in order to put time limits on Q a��-,,ir�. In order to do; �s technical amendments to the City Code are required. ,; �::, � ��ffaf��}� �� ;=.�X � h�� Ericson advised the Ordinance No. 657 gives the City the authority to issue ��:�� .� �� X� ��:� ��a.its pursuant to the authority granted to cities in Minnesota Statutes, Section �`�� ,�%''/. �.i� iridicated Ordinance No. 656 changes the requirements that were instituted by Q�r�is��.rnce No. 644 to require an interim use pernut instead of a conditional use permit. He stated this ordinance further indicates that the procedures for obtairung an interim use pernut will be the same as for a conditional use permit. The ordinance also extends the expiration date for billboard interim use pernuts from January 1, to July 1, 2015, so that the proposed billboards on the golf course can be up a full 15 years. 4 = s-� i :_ �i//%c %% � Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting _ __ March 15, 2000 Page 21 Planrung Associate Ericson stated staff recommends Planriing Commission Resolutions 608-00 and 609-00, resolutions respectively recommendm�'; the Ordinance Nos. 657 and 656. ��. ' ,.,. ,;.;... ,�f?!,:.<.:�:< i,:"sr,s�.3,: - . _ .. . ........ .. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Berke. To Approve Resolutions 608-00 and 609-00, Resolutions Respectively 657, an Ordinance Relating to Interim Use Regulations % New Chapter 126 in the Mounds View Municipal Co Amending Chapter 1008 (Signs and Billboards) of the h/J to Billboards as an Interim Use. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 8, 5taff Reports / Items of Information A. Previous Council Actions Planning Associate Ericson updated :t' indicated at the City Council meet�p ti ,: 5419, which is a resolution appr��ng course. �-I� ��vised that �1�� Cauricxl t� have Ia��S��r��;,,r� place i�� rar� ��i3:�i l�;c�cle, �; �1�;. ��'�� Y!� li'�tLll�ii�II�;i# Planning 1��:�nf ��-} - offered by,�t��y � b��r4 � ��St�4i ici ? were ir��ere Dire��a�� Jopke, who �e p th� 18W � �_'Title 1100 :�iy' �<>::> �nance 656, a.ri'' Municipal Cod� �,�r�,ried. of or ion regarc�ng recent Council actions. He s ,: Monday,�;;�he Council considered Resolution use p�rtxut for the six billboards at the golf .�� atil their March 27 meeting, in order to �? �Y�ow for such approval to occur. ld�� =`��, �';�mmission with information pertaining to classes being inixi� ,,,�� e. He indicated that if the Planning Commissioners �;� of these classes they could contact Community Development �:�r them for attendance. r� ��aning Associate Enc�n siated the North Metro I-35W Corridor Coalition Dinner and Semmar ,, � t�l �.1d be held on Mar,,e��29, 2000. He indicated he has not personally seen the mailings for tlus ;;, 1f ;s � c, therefore, he ��s uncertain if the Commission was to respond to staff, or mai a response f�a�.;�°<i:ly. 1__H[� st�ted'�t�mmissioner Kaden has indicated he would attend the seminar, and requested �,��, t;�x�x��>�.�:�c��advise regarding their plans, which he would communicate to Community _ __ _ _ _ �,�,� �}-�;�q��5��,�� ii-ector Jopke. i l�nt�i�i� l�ssociate Ericson stated the City is experiencing an influx of planning cases, and the �. next meeting of the Planning Commission should be quite lengthy. He stated in addition to t e Messiah Lutheran Church and Magoris applications, the Commission could see a variance request at their April 5 meeting. He indicated there would also be a conditional use permit request for an __ _ .._ _ _ . __. . . _ �! - .�.. �il � r,�'�'� °''�i � _ "t . . . . . _ - - _ . - - - - - = _ - - . `�i�i�if�i�iY/.�3,,�1/i,l�.+f/�i% �/l..�'�`._ f i/.i�. . � .�/i r� r � ii`l.•.2 . . ---. ._. . - �� f.,=. ---- �� -' - � . I = - . . Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 22 oversized garage, a variance application for an over-height fence, and a conditional use peranit for an oversized shed. `; ;:��;; � l .,% .(u Planning Associate Ericson indicated the Walgreen's development propo�� r�� be coming before the Commission in the near future, and it was possibl�>,t�:at the �'�;��a�a��=,;;��a:� ��,�ould be � ;.:�•:w� seeing another large scale expansion proposal as well. He �;t�� the Aprit 1� r��;�,�,��; �;�nda includes the review of the City Code with regard to tattoc� ��x�� and establis�iner��;; �� r��i�, �� , He explained that the City Council adopted a moratoriurr� ��rianc� per��iriing to i,�x��.T, �a,;�,f e��at1;; gave the directive to determine� appropriate language �� ! � t�� ,�t��fi� uses within �€, ��' ��,�, ��;' Mounds View. 90 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners I��p��1 No reports were considered. �;%%�; i.r �,�,�,, 10. Adjournment ,4;:;�''�i� r:��` :•��< .; f:i'�i'r; There being no further business before s��i�"e Plannin ""Comm meeting at 9:49 .m. ��`F;�;- ,��Y P f,: ..., . �;1� � � , ;. .� � � � �, , ��x, ' "' , (The meeting imm�dz�'tely adja��c� 'r.o the A� f �F:, %� / f'-. Resp��;t�'i,�11� �a�bmitted, ; _ Rick Jopke�,;; ; Commun��Dev�loptra�� 3 .�_,<.> _ cribed by: Pearson <>>;` % �� >aver Off Site Seer`�tarial, Inc. air Peterson adjourned the Session) - _- "" . _. � . - { - . -_� �.._ ' - � F . "._ i ._. _. _ �- , - i - - i __ _ . - . " .. ��._ . �. � - _ � " .. . '� � . _.Y�if.�/n2G .�"r.`fr_�-==�: ..._._._ .�. ..- , .— -- - -• -- - ----.. .. MOUNDS 'VIEVV PLANNING COMI�VIISSION May 3, 2000 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Ca11 to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZEIVS: BEFOR� SPEAKIl�TG, PLEASE COME TO T`HE PODIUM, AND G1VE ypUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE NIINUTES 4. Approve Planning Commission Minutes: a, March 15, 2000 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11 Discussion Regarding Update to the City's Local Water Management Plan Discussion Regarding Peterson Environmental Wetlands Analysis Discussion Regarding Springsted Highway 10 Study Viewing of League of Minnesota Cities Video, "Tuesday Night Council Meeting" Staf�Reports / Items of Information a, Previous Council Actions b. Upcoming Planning Cases Chairperson and Planrvng Commissioners Reports Adjournment to Agenda Meeting (Immediately Fallowing Regular Meeting) ,APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANI� YOU. (over) 1 .� =°- �_.�) _ _= _`-�, -- � - _ � � . . _ _ _ _ -_ � -- _ _ _ _ _ _ � __ - - - - -- = ; , _ .- - _ . �_ -- - - - -- - . _ ;I _ _ _ .. . f=_= AGENDA SESSION AGENDA Review the Minutes from the Apri15, 2000, Planning Com�ssion meeting. • Page 2 :. ` _ ; ; _ _ _ _-, -- _ , - .. _:. ; - : _- ;._ - - --- -_ : - - - -__ _ . _. _ _ � � - , - _- - - " --- --- - ... _ -._ — --- -- - - - E < _ _ - - =- __ � _: , _. .s MOUNDS V1EVV PLANNING COMIVIISSION May 3, 2000 7:00 P.M. REGLTI,AR MEETING AGENDA 1. Ca11 to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZE� YOUR FULL NANIE �ANID �ADDRESS FOR THE pMIlVUTES AND G 4. Approve Planning Commission Minutes: a, March 15, 2000 5. Discussion Regarding Update to the City's Local Water Management Plan 6. Discussion Regarding Peterson Environmental Wetlands Analysis '7. Discussion Regarding Springsted Highway 10 Study g. Viewing of League of Minnesota Cities Video, "Tuesday Night Council Meeting" 9. StaffReports / Items of Information a. Previous Council Actions b. Upcoming Planning Cases 10. Chairperson and Planning Comtnissioners Reports 11. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTEND O��z� DEVELOPMENT REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY C AT 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UN.ABLE TO ATTEND. THANIC YOU. (over) _ _ _ ___ __ f <L � _ } - _ : -� i = - - - _. . =- - - - =— --_ -_ ' � - .,$) _-- � �.-f AGENDA SESSION AGENDA 1. Review the Minutes from the April 5, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. • Page 2 Y _ =�--- �- - �- , � . � z:. . � � ' �`:.- ; :_:� ._ ". - �...-.-- -- - Y -�:! _ ' ' " � : . . - I - ' , _ " . ._. . ..-___. . --. . _ . . . ._ ._ . - . . �._� .. _ . . . "__. __ _ _"_. .� . _. "_ . . .. _. �«a- - _____ . __. t: � Item # 5 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: May 3, 2000 Title: DISCUSSION REGARDING UPDATED LOCAL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Introduction: Mounds View adopted a local water surface water managea e ond nenera�on local su ace wa er Minnesota Statutes. The city is now required to complete g management plan consistent with the Rice Creek Wans be aniintegra lpart of the Cityase Statutes also require that local surface water management p comprehensive plan. Metropolitan Council review ° not subm? tted. prehensive plan will be delayed if a local surface water management plan is Discussion: As you may recall the updated comprehensive pla urface w eb mtan gement plan was a necessary indicated that an update of Mounds View s local s step listed in the implementation element of the plan. According to SEH, the city's engineering ate shed D strict dand M nnesota State S atutes. Rice managemen t c o n t r o l s u n d e r R i c e C r e e k W Cre e k Watershed District adopted a second-generation Watof hee u l d t Moun d s View w'ill t l y reviewing and permi tting proj e c t s a s p e r t h a t p l a n. A s p a rt p formally adopt the rules, goals, and policies of the Rice Creek Watershed District as its own. Rice Creek Watershed District will continue to have authority over NPDES Permits and the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act for the City of Mounds View. Representatives from She will be present at the May 3, 2000 Planning Commissio uest onsghat review the attached draft with the commission to get feedback and to answer any q the Commission might have. � Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Attachments: 1, 4/17/00 Letter from Metropolitan Council 2. 4/26/00 Letter from SEH 3. 4/27/00 Letter from SEH 4, Draft Local Surface Water Management Plan � / ' _.__�� F y IF . - _. . 4 _ _ . _ :.d'».�� iF f-. �"" c._ . '_ ._ .. ____ r� _ _ ____ _ _ _ A .. : u F _ _ _ � ; � _ - t � � �- r — �r., . ,.f� &;k�f3�°rii�bfd'�/�.�fivf6�0/i %i�li.�i �r...._.f�iii.-i� "..., ..:Yi iiif l�ietropolitan Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future �nvYronmen�:al Serui � April 17, 2000 Mr. Rick Jopke City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 Dear Mr. Jopke: As you are aware the city of Mounds View is located within the Rice Creek Watershed District. The Rice Creek Watershed District completed their second-generation watershed plan in 1997. Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410, Metropolitan Area Local Water Management, requires local communities to complete their local surface water management plans within two years of watershed plan approval by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. Therefore, it is now time for the city of Mounds View to have completed its local surface water management plan. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473.859 requires the local surface water management plan to be an integral part of the city's comprehensive plan, therefore comprehensive plans submitted without a local water plan will be found incomplete. Communities are required to submit their local surface water management plans to the Metropolitan Council for review at the same time that it is submitted to the watershed organization for approval. I would be happy to meet with you and tallc about the need for a local surface water management plan, the options available to you, and the assistance available. Please call me at 651-602-1156 ifyou have any questions about the local surface water management plan process. Sir.cerely, ,. � �� dy Sventek Watershed Coordinator CC: Kate Drewry, Rice Creek Watershed District James Nelson, Metropolitan Council District 10 Sandra Pinel, Metropolitan Council Sector Representative � -.1.� Y � � =�. . � ', ._.�: . . _ . I _ " . '. .— - J. ' : { r .Y 2��_ _�'� _ "- �_ _ - �� ..- .y x- .."��"` � -- _ _ I .: '� - ' _ '.'_ '. �i.r.i�:.n_•f�i�ii,� :,.:�:..r.:�,d/iY�.G/it�i�s"i% —. _, ----- - �j .�= - -_ ' - __ `� s — s April 26, 2000 Mike Ulrich Director of Public Works City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Dear Mr. IJlrich: 3535 Vadnais Center Orive. 200 SEH Center, SI. Paui, MPJ 55110-5108 651.490.2000 �ngineering • enuironmenlal ° archilecturt ° RE: City of Mounds View Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A-MOUND9903.00 551.4902150 FAX lranspnrl«Cinrs We are writing in regards to the letter from Metropolitan Council dated April 17, 2000, regarding the City's Local Water Management Plan. This is an update on the status of the Plan. We believe that Mo� tdan 1e��esota S a e St tut se water management controls under Rice Creek Watershed D er their 1997 Water Rice Creek Watershed District is currently reviewing and permitting projects, p Resource Management Plan, for the City of Mounds ViC from thistPlanlas the r11own.�PRice Creek goals, and policies of the Rice Creek Watershed Distn Watershed District will continue to have authority Statute 103B.�201 to 1 Bt.255, as adopt d Conservation Act for the City of Mounds View, per State by the Minnesota Legislature in 1990. This Statute alsol�q Was writen 1 n�1992a there h�been Local Water Management Plan. Since the onglnal P minimal change to the hydz'ology. Therefore, we believe the existing hydrologic model is still accurate, and meets this requirement. If you have any questions you can reach me at 651-765-2901. Sincerely, Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. �� \ �� Beth Peterson Project Engineer BCP/bcp/RJK c: Rocky Keehn, SEH \W puJ24:ikls\wuter\ I pnrya:Nn+wx1�9903.0�\wonl�iuke3.Juc cn�� Fiiintt Hendrickson Inc. • O(fices located throughout the Upp er Midwest � Equal Opportuniry Employer ... . .. . . .1__:.... iinil ilf ItPUP.. . [ _ si� �i� � _ _ � I � ,� _ r� ._ �r _ = 9 f � �'" �- ?� _ ��' - . - ' -.� � - � - - - �--_ .. _ _' ._..r' _ . - : ; : -.' _.� � ::. . _ i �� . -. _ .. .�, . -. . � ..._ , . '_ — � .. : __.;f _...�.1�:.�.>� '' .__ .,.nv77.� . ..�'.. �:- -�'�</�/./�%/.y/•.....i�/'�//� f/s�9'i3ifiiif �«.,/.>ii/. . ./.. .ivli./I/'./�/i. — — '� MEMORANDUM 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, 200 SEH Center, St. Paul, MN 55110-5118 TO: Rick Jopke, City of Mounds View FROM: Beth Peterson, SEH • �' DATE: Apri127, 2000 �� Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A-MOUND9903.00 651.490.2000 800.325.2055 651.490.2150 FAh We are enclosing twenty copies of the draft of the Local Water Management Plan for members of the Planning Commission to review. The puzpose of this review is to get feedback and questions from the Planning Commission that we will address at the meeting next Wednesday, May 3, 2000. The format of the Local Water Management Plan will be to formally adopt the Rice Creek Watershed District's goals and policies, while the rest of the gaps are being filled in as required by law. There are still a few areas in the Plan that have not been completed yet, however they will be included in the final Plan. These items include: • Executive Summary • Wetland information from the Golf site • Water quality treatment evaluation for each subwatershed • Revised hydrology • Dates on the CIl' Program We have also included a copy of the memo and letter that was sent to Mike Ulrich addressing the Met Council's comments, for your information. If you have any questions please contact me at 651-765-2901 or Rocky Keehn at 651-490-2026. bcp Enclosure c: Rocky Keehn, SEH Ocpu424:ads\wateAlproject�mound\9903.00\word�ick l.doc Short Elfiott Hendrickson Inc. . Offices located throughout the Upper Midwest ° Equal Opportunity Employer We help you plmi, design, and achieve � _ .. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS DS �� NING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUN ,,� RAM5EY COUNT'Y, M�NNESOTA 2401 1, Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson 2, Roll Call , ' �;, > : � �ruzussio Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, , � ller. �°' �"` Laube, Stevenson and Mi ,; �; �;�-' � �, <:-� .�,`�� . , ,,,, A1so Present: Planning Associate �i�r 'f � ��son, �c�;ttivn Council Liaison Rob Marty, and It��s'��a ��sh,��arso� ;. � „ �,r �'. Indeg to N��a�utes and Car�:��F�,�� of a Cond i �°� of the Mess Messiah,,�r�,�,,i� 10, ��' � ��i��rr Meeting .�tstt�_t°uA 5, 2000 ; <<I �? ��' u;F �"�i�j ��91 y`� i«, �i+, l�i j�,T' ,�3 �1_.I�,� '�,000. 7ohnson, Kaden, pment Director Rick Jopke, 00 00� �, �;�1��.� i, 2.�48 County Itoad H2. Discussion ��r �,_�sol��_ �"�� ? ��; °' �esolution Recommending Approval , _._.__.s ,.�, � ��,,rtr<< � .,t��t Review for the Proposed Expansion ig Case VROO�OU olution 612-99, a ;k to Allow for a y Magoris, Appl�Ga <�:.� �'E;�� -��,t<.;' p`r��11�;f�.�:tt. -l;,i��dges Lane. Discussion and Consideration tioii Approving a Reduced Corner Lot Front Expansion. .�< � �� _,��1 ,�; ��a�� ,��pp2, 2159 Terrace Dn latinUl a Co ditiona Use Perrm�tn _- � �� ; ��„ �� b�� ,�`4-00, a Resolution Contemp S __ ; �`��p��1 ��'the Construction of a 256-square foot Oversized Shed. k�c�t��1 � ��l�;iA►schmidt, Applicant. PlanninS Case VR00-002, 8438 Grov t lla ion of anvE ght footRTall Fen�Ce in the Variance Request to Allow for the Ins Front Yard of the Property. Gregory and Elizabeth Brunes, Applicant. Page � 8 12 14 � � ;` � - -- - r � � L - , � .• � - _ - -_ _ - � - � � .�.<� ji �t -_ _. .- _..__. ---- --- �.._ „ ._. =_ s�t,,, , X�: � . � � . . - . � � . � . ; � � �. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Mceting April 5, 2000 Page 2 Planning Case CU00-003, 8038 Long Lake Road. Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 616-00, a Resolution Contemplating a Conditional Use Permic �:�,a , Allow for the Construction of a 400-square foot Oversized Shed. :;. Juanita Snetsinger and Shelley Hill, Applicant. ��' <:>�: >,.:�,. �,':�.K .,. �.... . .. .... Planning Case VR00-003, 2400 County Road I. Discussi Request to Allow for a Reduced Minimum Spacing Betw� DeLite Outdoor Advertising Company, Tnc., Applicant. StaffReports / Items of Information Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments There were no citizen requests or 4. Approval of Minutes 5. A. February � �9 20 S :rty Involved: 284 �ssion and Consid� itional Use Permi �;:� -z � n Church Fac€�1 �as present. to items Nays — 0 & CU00-001 a : 22 2'� 30 February 16, 2000 meeting minutes as The motion carried. -<`'� Jl�oad H2. i of Resolution 611-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Development Review for the Proposed Expansion of the Messiah Church Planning Associate Ericson gave the stafi report as follows: _ ' ' . ... - , ' . J . � – . . .. . . � .. . - . . -_ ' t . . .. ._ . --- ? . __ .- _ . ' , - . . _- . ' , . _ . . . . `a^Y.�.' � "" ' "' _ ' • _ "_' '_ _ . . . _ . __ ' Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting EipCli 5, Z000 Page 3 -.>, Messiah Lutheran Church has requested City approval of a conditional use perrrut and development review to allow for an expansion of their facility. The Church, which is �� es for 2428 County Road H2, has been serving Mounds View and the surroundir�� 'o�?� many years. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission meeting, at which time, many issues were brought fo� Commission considered the number of parking spaces �v�a�� first phase of the construction would create 188 parkiYe� would be reduced to 176 in the second phase. He ��p buildout, the number of parking spaces would be adequaie t� Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant estim� 600 people per service, in the future. He indicated � and is moving the parking lots to accommodate 4�� expansion, which could occur in three to five �r��. ' requirements for the anticipated seating, r�� the requirements for handicapped parking stalls'�tre also rr � ;;�� ti,r issue �'t"h this rec�u�sc is with regard to the wetland .r;t;;.f ��g' °��.�E;r�rdir��y�o City Cc�e requirements, a Wetland Bu er m�r�1o�„r,�nL a�itvity tha�occurs within 100 £eet of a wetland, ��'� „��f�x�� Fa� ,v��: He indicated that the wetland buffer ,,��5 �,� ��, �.��F �-,,��°the drainage upon the adjacent wetland, s.{��t �� y ��r,,ia�� this matter. He explained that it would ,��;�,;f��,`.�r Permit until such time as the Watershed District has � k"��6 K;€�x-mwater pond, the grading, and other related issues, �� x5: �Iie matter. He advised that the Planning Commission � this He ;i on th�!Site. �-I� 15 � ,4��;. ��e�'number oi �at ��`�;� � ;. ,. ,��,�� anticipated that �� i�11 ��-��;� ��;�� i.��ds of the facility. � ��ac� ��ve as man as �t the ��,��r r�:��: Y �r�;1n xs y��; �� ,�;�� for this point, �; �a.x-lcing rEc��f�y .�� he secondary , t;�d. �:4.��, par�ang<,rr►ee�s the City Code �� .� fi =. �nrith I�sabilities Act (ADA) Planning A.ssociate Ericson statec� buffer requirement. He advised Pertnit must be obtained for any, t and this a� ar► issue that th� �"i�y,' permit Y��t�� , v�ill be ��4��;�; �� and tla� ,��.�r,,,, _,�'��lc Ve7� ��'�a�a�} ��- ` �� be pre�,� y.,.€�.;-s� �.� ��;.��;��s fi�� r��%,�;�t given th�i� ��%��'�� .,�,i�k� after which, ��< '`�� r �;��,_ was not requa��,��- �°, 3�`;� �;� �;a.k� �s�En �a� �r��x�. ,�;�i'' �� Planr�� Associate �,A��-�� d the Planning Commission with a revised landscape p an, �.:;r w�� incorporates t�iF ` s��^ d��,�� commended b� Ash halve been hanged to Patmore Ash, due �s�<;;3 � ievard trees, which �;�re �utially to be Marsha , �`� roblems with the T�shall Ash variety in the City, in the past. He pointed out that additional �� ;<. ��;a�ping has been�t�ded at the southern po�Road I-i2 have beenTncreased from he�rinit ally < �� ;c;r� �d e s��e property, along County , �� ' g ;, ��,r,,xs,� ,�1 �,ti�r�..��n size because ttus smalle o ebe�'has ecommended that a folur tosfive foot �, ��, ;; �> ��$,r ��zrs m the future. The City F ,_:�.,:, ;,r� �-,� utilized to provide better screening of thi�e rhave beenlmadebuildout of the project. I-�e inc�icaced the alterations suggested by the City Fore Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant is prO eets w th thel Cityes photometntc analysg the sidewalks, and that all of the proposed hghtmg m rk F � � _ �I �-_;{ .= s� �� : ,_-_ • „ �, ; ,- .- _-_ ,_ — = ! _" -::r ---- - -- _ _ - _ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 5, 2000 Page 4 requirements including spillage, glare, and foot-candle measurements onto adjacent well as with regard to the centerlines of Knollwood Drive and County Road H2. Planning Associate Ericson stated at the previous meeting, an regard to the location of an accessory building on the site. I�� agreed to relocate this structure to address this concern. h,: Planning Associate Ericson indicated the Fire Marshall h� circulation and the presence of fire hydrants, and these explained that the circulation and the width of the drive ai� vehicle purposes. He indicted an additional fire hydrant � H2, which should service the facility very adequately, and t Planning Associate Ericson stated the City Engineer �� He advised that the stormwater calculations app�a�° e appears to be sized for those calculations. He �{c�i�it�;� full future buildout of the facility, therefore, fu��er rev; with future phases would not be required, �ess the p,�a Creek Watershed District would a1�o x-��rz�w this �ti actions should be available for con�zc��<��n at the��"ine Planning Associate Ericson such a lon� time, it has �ox institu�i�� :��a r��;sidential �� the pr�:y� :a�� .i,�: �htaY��,��.,: I011g �la'�� r!� {i�Ta� '?',^�`sOY� !�di Clt�1 COC�� r;:t'�+a^��':� �.i��'!: "�:�1�• criteria. �; this as was a��-�z��«Ss. ;�rward with ined �.�� ;� �.��j�licant has tCY: :�ie�taining �� ,�a�sa:�s� ��°�f'ac ;``�also been rF�c,��;�:��. .7��. Ej��ble for Fire I�e�<��.��ler►t >A�ll�� along County �oad ;��f� ��.l�o be sprinklered. �� a��,�;��a�,A��',> drainage plan. order, a�a�i r�� ,;��A��,ater pond ih� stormwat�� oY�d is sized for ' ��.+,��1�t��x�Y� ponding or drainage �; tg�;��F7�;antly. He indicated Rice �A��, ��iiforYnation concerning their goes before the City Council. out tha�. ��G�;��.�s� thP-'r��iurch has existed in its location for �the City �`�c��s;, �;�r��,�•��iment that churches and other similar �.ve a co��>��.�'��s�^ ��ermit. He indicated that staffbelieves ��-�� t1�� a��` �een a good neighbor in the City for such a �=�r:=.i:�f; r:h� conditional use permit. He advised however, that ��;�� s of the use, and the general conditional use permit riamm�� sociate e`�� .� ws;�� f�,�e �;c� there is an issue with regard to the screening on the site, and that i�i�`being addres�� '.i� �- �r ��';the landscape plan. He indicated staff received a letter from a re '� nt who is also ��_��,: ��„ {= about the screening and about the fact that the site would be ,� .- s��ificantly changed. ]E�� explained that the site is currently heavily wooded, and a large number rxs ,:; �y �es would be rem(�ed with this project. Ericson stated this provides the opportunity to , ., :�,f1��w this request '., �erms of the adverse effects to the neighborhood, and staff believes the 3�� <;�� ndscape�p��'is a major step forward in resolving these issues. '�'?<:r 5��;': �.�.x �;�i'ate Ericson explained that the Planning Commission should determine whether or x?�' �:�;' �`a�aa�;�ar with staf�s assessment and takes into consideration the residents' concerns. With the exception of the fore-mentioned letter, staff has not received any additional feedback in this regard. He stated he was in contact with the resident who wrote the letter and he had indicated he would attempt to make contact with the Church. He explained that if this resident has any suggestions with regard to the landscaping and screening, these would probably be brought %rward prior to Council consideration on Apri124. Mounds View Plann►ng Commission Regular Meeting _ _ � -_ - _ April 5, 2000 Page 5 , s<..... Planning Associate Ericson stated in stai� s perspective, there are few adverse effectWp ��e,s�a d to this proposal. He indicated staff has not received any compuld benefit bo h��,�"��at on and the operation of the Church, and the proposed addition wo the community. He advised that the expansion wouldt�m��C ��u� y��"��°�i�� €.��l�if there existing building and should prove to be a good addition � %:> are no other issues with regard to this request staff recom�x��nds that th� �iar�zE��; '��Y��d'=��°� , � direct staff to draft a resolution of approval for action at the ��ext meet� g'" Planning Associate Ericson indicated that the only matter tt� A�� the stortnwater issue, as determined by the Rice Creek Wat�� °- resolved for another month. He exp laine d that tcon racta�,�a d�F�!rA� Buffer Permit until the Church has retained a ,,�� val. applicant will not retain a contractor until it obtains �"xcy �� he believed Rice Creek Watershed District would<�� 5h`��¢��' ��x�-'�?tY regarding whether or not the plans would satisf�'��-�n ��"��r""'�`��' proposal is in order, and could be recommend�d'on fot �� a� �� r�.� ;:::� �. _ Chairperson Peterson opened the floc�Y� David Rudnik, 7191 Knollwo available for public inspection. the landscape plan. Mr. R�a�a�a�� area. �-�� instead o � s travel quit� utilize the r the �ti�d th�� ; ,�;�; tha� �c � 9 �`h�; L�'Ey�C a �i i��resolved at thi� `��.�'��: �s fi��c;i:, and this might not be ��l�l ��t issue a Wetland ��,,;�;� , � submitted. The ,��,;�� x�¢�� in the interim, �;�� ,��r, �verbal indication I-Ie indacaced staff feels the f>%:` lan was if a cop�;;�f the revised landscape p �ri��`::;;rnvided Mr. Rudnik with a copy of ��e,ti ,;�e hac� ��'��,�',�1� �'o�ard an issue pertaining to traffic in the ,� �,;�<� ��?,�-� s l; v o n e r s t r a v e l u p from the south, on County Road H, �� ,��A�,��,y �,oad H2, an d occasionall y on Sunday mornings, t hey ��,% ��+�E;�`�He requested that the Church ask the parishioners to ,i��ca;��=: dvould like time to review the final plans, and would also ,�H¢;K� process, so that he could have the opportunity to speak with ��;��9�a1, in that his property is located one lot south of the u�sy:�..,Y....,---• >;.;; � - I �;:... ; .:. „ . ;. �� %�� ry ood nei hbor, however, there have -! �,, � , j:,:� �. Rudnik stated by a�d large, the Church has been a ve g �, �;� ��ome problems ��tth a couple of the tenants who resided �ained that the e�have beenl some _. ` r�;_� ;, ��; vi�w� tk�� demolrtion to be a positive thing. He o e than one occasion, and this was on m . I' , , ouses . ;�4��,��E,,q�: �A��,�� i� s o m e v e r b a l a b u s e a m o n g s p ��,,;f� ��.�;��,a ��''be heard from inside their homes in the summ ertiOr not they intend to use new �,; ;,;>, �,��;�uire additional properties as it grows, and whet sir�gle far►vly homes for these social programs. He exp in there a shproper soc a 1 support for t e these programs, however, he would like to be certa families the Church brings in. (` ;�. - `�4 . _ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting �' ` - -_ = - - - --- - __ i,%%i�.f ' •:..iiF �. •> / iF . .rG=. ///1/%%- � - ' ' -�- -- - Apri15, 2000 Page 6 Mr. Rudnik inquired how large the Church intends to grow. He indicated he plans to be,,.a long term resident of the community, and as such, would request that the Church reach ou� �t�� their neighbors on a more informal basis, so that they can engage in discussions r�e��ir.�g th��plans for the future. . Commissioner Kaden inquired which neighbor had written screening. Planning Associate Ericson stated Mr. Rudnik had address� received telephone calls from two other neighbors in this � contact from the resident directly to the south, however, th� regard to screening, as his home will be adjacent to the C}�t HZ is removed. He explained that this resident had su�ge'��. �. does not appear to be sufiicient room to construct a�� rdc.�,�,r� landscaping, Commissioner Kaden inquired if this was �,,,;. Planning Associate Ericson statec� �his �r��;s c two- gallon Arborvitae, however, �h� �.,`��:y �, to provide any substantial screenin�g ��;�� ;� Y��, buries by snow, and possibly not �Z�.�� suYViv� upgraded to the four to �iv� �'�vs ��, v�}llch � able to �w��:r�.��. the wint��` ��?��heir firsi ��s, Dave ��i congrega houses a� them to � Those hQ �ely rule out su� brought forwat� this in the immec fo�� ° �;��;�' a s ��. �'rF�Y°� �� ff �qr=;a � �,- �"'�� ` a�,,r; ] � i�rar ;,,: �his ar�a s about r screemng, a,�c� �;�� #:��:s` �tated he did noi a �;�,�ivc, a��: is very concerned with '� ��s� on County Road ��r��c�, however, there � z��; �or any type of area. '�te explaai��r� �d�ia� che initial plan specified did not be�ieve these would be large enough years, ��"at that size could have easily been inter,�;t�e advised that these Arborvitae were ��`i��an immediate screening and should be �� l,��c;�si��a �,�arh�ran Church stated he was a member of both the ��xx�� '��4��,�'�� He indicated that in the past, the Church has made ��xar ;n�:��a� r=��f��a� �ations in the Metropolitan area, and has relied upon �» �x�� `-�� f� ��:,�v�ces. He stated this has not always worked out well. ��:��1��1, and this would no longer be an issue. He stated he could not �r��',��t�� in the future, however, they were aware of the problems Mr. ��P�a�fil�a' made them uncomfortable as well, and there were no plans to �,..`�,a.._.. %,�,' �Iidhalm stated �'" terms of property acquisition, his feelings have always been that as a ��'��i��l, if they ha�f�e opportunity to acquire an adjacent property, they should attempt to take ��t� �� ;� °' ��t��'as property only becomes available occasionally and they would like to have �� fy;�,=+ ��£ xi�options. He pointed out that given the cost involved in the current project, he did �� `�F$9--.,9.A�E.�c, any further property acquisition for a while. He stated they have spoken with the property owner to the west of the Luther Hall building, and he has given the Church first right of refusal if and when he decides to sell his property, and the Church may or may not consider this. Mr. Widhalm indicated that over the months, they have discussed communications with the neighbors, and he believed because they are all volunteers and somewhat short of time this has not , ,._ ,: : . _._ : _: - � Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Apri15, 2000 Page 7 occurred, however, it should have, and they extend me �eri aof thel Bu'ild'ng,Coamrr they would like to invite the residents to the next g would be held at the Church on Apri128, at 7:00 p• he first atort qn of the a�� ' �a neighborhood regarding this, and would give over P ,,. ,. " I y' � � ;�>.s%%" the residents may have, and attempt to find some resolution to t�?�� ..i ; '� IVir. Rudnik inquired if it would be possible to plant property, given that there is going to be parking lot i this area would be similar to a commercial parking lot is currently dark in the evenings, and has a somewhat � the removal of the existing trees, and planting de character of the neighborhood would be substantially � Chairperson Peterson advised that City Code req�a�r�s Rudnik requested clarificationcould leave the pz��'� � � d ect light in ligh� c� ;d t1riL�:i stated `�[otify the any issues �:�`� " the � ' � ,,.�: ��a� �, �eofhisbacl��/��; �� He pointed ou� cl��: �v�ri�Yi ��- than evergreens, the downward, and no tr � , ;; Mr. Rudnik indicated the area to the existing parking lot is fairly well obsci as well as large ma ture trees, which<- would make the parking lot visibl�;� He stated this presents a major �?.u� evenin�• He inquired if � h� °�� indicat�c� �� '�%?� �n favor re� s.�� a.ur �� ;� __,�.:,.�, �,� ��f �a��r.t l0"�� ,�;a � �� howev�;; y '�,�� t��,� ��E. landsca.piYA�• Nir. WidhaJ� a ��,� ��;� � K� , � � .,, e Buildin ��'� � �'�� sout :. �iased upon t1��" � pa��c �" g lots and the n� G�ri�rntv Road H2, as t i a way ��[e s ; the site. Mi'• to be directed ,,,, : �of his pr�?�e�Y� ��r �� {�� fairly wooded, and t e '' ree o� Y��"��[,ld�� short shrubs and trees, both a ci�g lanted. He stated this s�.xi be r��ved, and;;,��w trees p t�� ights are cl�t'�cted towar ds h is pro pert y or not. , .�.. �, k,��, of chaun��ng the character of this area in t e , .•:., .,, s. ,�, ,�� ,�� of the mature trees in this area. e �,a� 5.r,�,�, ��iell as preserving the character of his yard, �;,, �;e; ��' was in favor of improving the neighborhood, r�naracter of his property with the removal of the ��;,�,� `K �� be addressed with the o��s usapramarily from the �� stated with regard to traffic fl, �x��,��,;� who reside in this area. n rt� dea tea d west ton °fine °ff ° �,��F;e;;, encourage flow from the , ��.�-�r �ntrance will now be located on the southeastern portion of the �x� ,.,. r�i �y�°� roval of the landscape plan before the ;»�,y'�tt�,.�� A,�sociat��;�ricson pointed out that app °"`'' rohibit the Church from considering additional landsca prtg•wa ea g od - �'�;��,y, �x�}�i r�3� 110t p . ��;�4,, �� t�; ,�� ,:�i�ggestion to add some evergreven dec duous t ees � ch would not provide much a, ��a�;�; ��e applicant was only addmg s ht �,r,�sh to address this at tlus ��°�° ��;� �;�;d�A�g during the winter months. He stated thp Co �el � to he recommendations of the City time. He indicated the applicant has responded a p p Y Forester. � � ( �- - _ ; w _ _- ' -. .. -- -• _ -- '- : = :frz�=% ;•; ...�if/�/i��. ;,�j, " . : .; _ _ — - .. --- _, .. . _ - •. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 5, 2000 Page 8 Chairperson Peterson pointed out that in addition to the seven new trees on the southem �dge of the property, two new trees were proposed on the w t 'd trees in the southwest corner of the ro e es ern s� e. He stated there would>1� nine p p rty, and this appeared to be a �� Ac,�l� ��;ntity of screening. He stated although the Commission could not act with,, regard to ;:}�� .:��,�,�� issues, it appears that the pondng is correctly sited, and of the proper.�;':,� , planrr,�a�;� �;,;};�,��;x�,«; �ricson added that information staffhas received from the City Engin;��s'indicates �.l��f�e �qa�;!��a�� plan will be adequate. y�y� Commissioner Miller inquired if the revised landscape plan the site. Planning Associate Ericson stated that on th Commission at the previous meeting, which specified wh standards were located. He added that staff has received tl available for review. ,:<: Chairperson Peterson stated the Planning ( the information staff has presented, and if advised that if there were no concerns at thi with the preparation ofResolution 611-00..�� ;;�,< The Commission had no further qu�s� ��s�f �p 6. Plannin� Case ��QU�' 1��; ��, Propex;,f ,�.�.r��sf�>�a: 274`T ��5��;A� V�z?��. Discu��:Kr:� x��i=�.,�.��,t5ir��;��.w�s �x�`��:��.,,�.�on LOt F1'Ori� �a:3a"sF t �,; ��a ;�1��i��V iCSx � ?:,��aT��e'<��,K� Applicant: C�r�a�� i�r�t.�i��a3'�s The was the y location of thc ��,�axd �� c�� a.h�,t was provide� r.y a,hc ��?� l�t and sidewalk light �.a` �.�:��l��is which was also at this ttm� �� to review all of '��, to bnn� those forward. He ��x� +�o�dt� direct staff to proceed 612-00, a Resolution Approving a Reduced Corner ansion. Associate Eric��i gave the staff report as follows: ti�.� ��plicant, Cath�;y:';�agoris, is requesting a variance for a reduced front yard setback on her a� �y located,��'��41 Hodges Lane. The required setback on this corner lot is 30 feet, and the �� rig a variance to reduce the setback to 18 feet to allow for the expansion of an �R� ��ed two-car garage. 1'lanning Associate Ericson stated this issue was previously before the Planning Commission at their March 15 meeting, at which time there was significant discussion regarding the presence of a hardship, and whether or not all the criteria were met. He stated there was discussion pertaining to the fact that the lot is irregularly shaped, with the back end of the property being wider than the front. He explained that the frontage along Park View Terrace curves outward and away from _:. _ _ .. .. _ _. _` . As — � - —• - - � — ,. - - -: - = l:- � - -- - =-- ._.- -- ,.. . _ . _ _�.��.._•.«.�..._ _ _ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Mceting Apri15, 2000 Page 9 the house so that the back portion of the garage has a setback that exceeds the s� front of the garage. He indicated the applicant is requesting a third stall addition, create a setback of 18 feet at the front of the garage, and a setback of 24 f�ca� ai. �� garage. ,,' .. i.: �.f.:(R Planning Associate Ericson stated at the previous meetia discussed the basis for the 30 foot setback on corner lots, ay� should allow for vehicles travelling along the street to see tt'� He stated the Commission discussed that given the irregu��?� end of the garage setback that is 24 feet from the properi�{ present sight lines. He indicated it was also mentioned tha� � Hodges Lane also allows for greater driver visibility. , Planning Associate Ericson stated another issue bfl ou�,�a; with regard to maintaining the uniform setback �� e particular subdivision, there is no uniform setb�ca�� ` shape of the lots and the configurations of t�+�;�u1-de ��'�� .�� location of the houses. ,�;:� 6�,% Planning Associate Ericson stated 612-00, which would approve the indicated the resolution contains � pursuant toMinnesota Stat� aA;a�� obstacles t�s ��"�� would have �� f�d�: ,��s=d:e"a would make �� r;�� r��$�' of of the at the of the 51_ al$0 t �� ¢:>;y •:a:::;, �.- $iihic;h ,� f �42�,°t< �� `-�he properiy a.c�� a,�� 3<.�;r: �i�s��lc� a�ot significan�ly «�x� 9 a:k1c ?;�. � �>�,,;; �;etback of the house �r�om ard �?� ��aX`% ,�� meeting was orhooc�. � ��! ��i�ised that in this ��c;� th�� t�e�:ause of the irregular � ,.:; �,,, „�,if�rmitv in terms of the hese disc��ions, staff has drafted Resolution for the r�d'uced corner lot front setback. He .,�-; t addr�ss` the criteria required to be reviewe ,� ��;,c� �the firs� "�F��aa�� pertains to exceptional or e�raordinary ��;�, �� raus� �he lot is of an irregular shape, it presents some �� £,,��J�a,c;c�. ��ia� in order to maintain a uniform setback, the house �� a�,a.>��, �:�� would not make sense for this lot. He stated staff �,r; �,�„Icl i�� ¢�c�;�reted to be one of the extraordinary circumstances. , ,, ,, /`�,y �• �lann�ng Associate ��iE,��.n ��'�¢�'�%the second criteria indicates "The literal interpretation of t e _'�<�� ; �_i,�,7 de rive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other >rca�tsions of this T�.�1., p /� s �Y ��erties in the same c�� -��"' �e stated the rational ck re u rement�s.l He po nt d out that this .� `�� proposed garage ad�ition would have vary►ng set a q �E y�c.�t a normal situa#�#in, and the literal interpretation may cause some issues for the property 5/K ' f ,�.n,.��s� in t�rms of ��.'�eloping the lot. ;:�, �,��;a ��r; i, F;�,�,, �ate Ericson stated the third criteria indicates "The variance request is the result of �� ;<,�p� v,�°�rc;r ��ich the applicant has no control." He explained that the applicant did not plat the lot, and did not cause the oddly shaped configuration of th� sult ofhhe appl cant s ct onsntha the the location where it needed to be, therefore, it is not as a hardship was created. � � �- c �' �>� . � . . . - � � �.t! �� .-?� x ::� -1 , h ' . r - _ - - -. - . . _ . . - - - _ -- � �-.— _ . _ . � . .... �,� __ -- --.. - = -- - - il� �%i.%„�'✓i/iis'f. r � 'iifiy,, . ".�rriiii/%�i; i � x - %�� ; - � — -- - Mounds View Ptanning Commission Regular Meeting April 5, 2000 Page 10 Planning Associate Ericson stated with regard to the fourth criteria, the granting of a allow for the 1 S-foot corner lot front setback would allow the applicant to better property, yet, in staf�s opinion, would not confer upon the property owner ;��;; ci�ni� in the same district, due to the unique configuration of the lot. ,_ Planning Associate Ericson stated the fifth finding of fact i finds that the requested 18-foot setback is the minimum vari� applicant's hardship, yet would still result in a 24-foot ��;cts� garage." He advised that the sixth finding indicates th� �� yard, corner-lot setback for the proposed garage additi��. fxJ� the purpose of the Title or to other property in the same zon� Planning Associate Ericson indicated the last finding sta� a supply of light or increase congestion, nor woui� i'r i�� public safety or diminish property values." He ,;a�s;�;� requirements for hardship, and staff has drafted t}aF: __ �:,� � the Planning Commission feels the findmg��e no� �r manner, staffis open to suggestions in tlus r��ard. Chairperson Peterson stated he did the Title would deprive the appliG, there is an existing two car-garag� i within the City, this is c��-��i,�ly g��' garag�� a�� ;�� 'ity thar� a:�;4�;��; ��i�� Chairp� subject other p�Q'p�iiy o "The nce to ze the others rn��sion �:.�;:� th� �:. �_ to the,.sfx�et fi-oYr� ��<� ,:�,�� .��A�, +;lf> � ��riance for a ��rEi�r�� f�' ��f�> ��e materially decri,x��; flzr:+� i:�o i ��-��d��F,�� vvould not impair �-��`� ��;�� '�� "+�� : or endanger the : findii�ps da�r; �; ��'s view of the � reflect Q��;, ':�_ �� indicated that if �d�i� �rr shc�uld be altered in any ,�t�t;�'�lieve th�t'`"the liteial ��teYprretation of the provisions of �lt;::t�i n�}l�� ,��y�oyed by;a�her properties. He explained that ;�i the pro��;y, and al��ugh there are many three car garages the norr�_ �� ;�tt��a��'d there were probably more single car : three �� ;�x�;�f��;`therefore, he did not believe this would �r��y en�oy`e>� ��r �c��ers. �3�� r�� ,��r �'� �� to exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, the ;�,�a��y ��.s��i ��;��however, a trapezoid lot on a corner property is not rr� y��y�� '� �hat approval of this request would create a potential for ��s��.�� he same consideration. (,o�[hissioner Johnsor� �f�; �� was of the same opinion at the previous meeting, however, given �� raffic visibility and ��t� ��,�cors, and in light ofthe fact that the setback is 18 feet in the front ��`�� 24 feet in the bac��e was leaning in the opposite direction. Commissioner Miller added that , �. E�a' ��ct that the setba��from the street is 40 feet rather than the typica130-foot setback is another _ , . �::;��:> �terson stated the argument pertaining to a uniform setback is compelling, however, a hardship. Commissioner Stevenson stated he could see no reason for denying this request. He indicated there were quite a few three-car garages within the City, and the Planning Cotnmission would be seeing more requests for these in the future. He stated it was fairly common for the Planning Commission to approve third-stall garage expansions. _ - _ r �; _ ; _ - , 4 . ._._ � - - .' .. . -�_. - - -_ - -� til � .� -_ : � ' __ � - ::. - �.. .._- '_",: -- . - . ._ . .. _'. --- .. . � : I.��. .�.�:_ . ._�_:^ �. _ -_ � _... . . .. . .. . _. _' -'._ _ . i . __ _ - _ .:. ..:.- .-. •' . ., .�. . .._ _ ' _' -___-� __. ._..__ _ _ . .___ . � . . ;:. ..: :, . .- � ,. . .. '-�•..� �..::':'"...�_.�._ .. � "' April 5, 2000 Mounds View Planning Commission page 11 Regular Mect►ng Commissioner Johnson stated he would like to see some comments pertainin� to the �i,":yg�' lines included in the granting of this item, as this was a major consideration.��-��xcat��'�he would point of much discussion at the previous meeting, and had the s�ght 1 �'�� ;=z� not be leaning toward approving this request. �h, ,; �. .�„r� Commissioner Berke concurred. He stated he was leaning� tE��srard approv��, �� w��?., a�� aY,��< of the sight lines and the manner in wk►ich the block curves rF�� 3�a �n the��r�'�i`nt yaYC� �Yk�� '�� indicated this creates a hardship on the applicant, addin� ��^3 ��?�-L1�,��'Yy in light of thr �s1��1�,��'�� siting of the garage, he did not see a problem. Commissioner Laube stated he believed that the Commis�3��. "�f°�-=�,� should also examine the extension of the drive extens oh� � pl� d� i recently been amended to allow for a 12-foot garage. % � � .. Chairperson Peterson stated he did not belie�t�>tni: advised that corner lots were not specifi��y adc Ericson stated there is no requirement for �nveway Commissioner Johnson pointed Planning Associate Ericson «�E�]E1�S" clause b� �c�€�� review�c� �� . �ight liz��, 7;,r�� C�11uiRn FD��kA n! � SS A.➢ b11f� L�-� zr ��A��. this va.Y ��.��;w;,',� Resolution �I�. � �`:�°-�f�� ;, Mounds��w �or�t�g-, lot 5,��`�ck for a Gara. ,y%., OO;�s��f�s Amended. fi,�,� ' Ayes — t the request, and as the Code has ?� ,`r.�e side of the `' Commissioner Laube ;. Planning Associate property line. y; ��' hical errq , within the body of the resolution. wsr�s�al tYPo�p � ted the ''�i`�'ors woulCi�`�be corrected. He suggested a ,;, .; the rP.vc��,�a��x� �c� ��dlcate "The Planning Commission as �nd a��'' ��a�� '��ing of fact to indicate "The Planning � and ��i�e;� ��u�s would not be impaired by the granting of ��-,�-� ;�,� �'o Approve Mounds View Planning Commission .tL�„�,F�'� ��,x�xc�ving a Variance from Section 1104.01, Subd. 4, of the _,�:,.aining io Setbacks to Allows for a Reduced Front Yard, Corner- ��g:�ii�n at 2741 Hodges Lane, Mounds View Planning Case VR00- Nays — 1(Peterson) The motion carried. :�;;� ��i,,;;�;� '�t�r;�q� stated his reason for opposing this motion is that he does not believe t e � �=,��ent is met. <<ii�� Case CU00-002 Property Involved: 2159 Terrace Drive. Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 614-00, a Ra 256ts uare foo Overs zed Shed al of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for the Construction o q Applicant: Robert Kleinschmidt �,_- � -`�i �- � �;�- �` °i ,I _ r- = - Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting The applicant was not present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant, Robert Kleinschmidt, is requesting approval for the construction of a 256 square-foot oversized shed in t 2159 Terrace Drive. This request is to replace small shed� larger shed to provide additional storage space for lawn �c�,; property is located in the northeast section of the City, a. b�� border. The 13,125 square-foot well-maintained lot is irn� and two-car garage. There is an 8-foot tall privacy fence alc� Planning Associate Ericson stated that, as is the ca��; �,v�� i� ;��r�y Commission is required to review a set of gen�x-�tl� ��.r-� �g� advised that in terms of the general conditional �z�,� ��,p�,��, �; possible adverse effects presented with thist'�`eques� r.°�f� � ;�;�r relationship of the use to the Comprehensi,�v�;��lan, the ��;ogr�� .,,. � ; t e use would tend to or actually depreci�#e the area �n whicP� ,� . k-�� ,�: � surrounding area, and the demonstrat��;;;;t�ed for s�t�h a use. Planning Associate Ericson properties, and a means oA � the cre�tR�a�� ,torage s�:�:;�r COmra�i�;ti,��3a�;� ,��t�� !�'aty Ce��a�k� outsid�:::��°,,.,� ,s ��,�;x�,�, a� �� Planning proposed the Cor� �ns of the hou��,'' isting shed wou� g shed would bE ; ,�-� �////.�sr..�i>: r.ftii�. April 5, 2000 Page 12 � � " r: , ,•��Yi. ��i3'.%ii, �- --- — o allow :'��i:�;c� at k�!<�eXlsts ox�� Y �a . �?a�_ Ttsa:��;:c� items of this �� k,��k �� City's easterri ,r�r:��a�,�A;�l � iypical 1 '/Z stoiy home �afr'�� property. dii�ors:�� ;oE, �� it, the Planning c cc�r�dz��;�� se criteria. He �o��i�»��a .��►ust consider any ��ed t��se criteria include the «: �� '��;`involved, whether or not ?�x�;��osed, the character of the >°the CoY��:;fa�nsive,:I��an encourages the development of shing th�� I��9 �� e expansion of a home or garage, and idicated i��; Y� �:a,�il'been a commonly held belief of Planning i��.e addi�i� a�t an attractive shed is an improvement over the �;:a �:l�aiter. sta1�-'E� �� r" �� inspected the property, and feels that the size of the ��o��:�� o the large backyard and the house itself. He provided ��s,�-a.�h of ihe backyard area, and a site plan, which indicated the ,�� a�� the proposed shed. He stated the applicant has indicated that �;raoved upon completion of the new shed. The removal of the �ec� in the building permit. ing Associate ��i�son stated staff believes the construction of the shed would pose no �,�flFects fa ;�t�ie neighborhood or the adjoining properties. He indicated there was not a r ..: �: , y�� f3,; ,t;��`of screening from adjoining properties, however, the proposed shed would F�� h��ing shed, and the 8-foot tall privacy fence in the backyard would provide some � -��.�� :�ning to adjacent properties. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has prepared Resolution 614-00 for Planning Commission action at this time. He advised that the resolution contains stipulations, which indicate that the resolution shall be recorded with Ramsey County, and the shed shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed in the district. He stated the resolution further stipulates that no other � Ja :n . �- j - � jti� -� ---�''. .' . . _ . . . . . _ . � . . _ . : .� : � .. : . _ __- . � .. .. _ . . . . . _ � �fl�fli%/�l�//f%�� '�i/.�'Ii �.��//.%�f�/�G�1 � -- � � - - Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 5, 2000 Page 13 or other uses not allowed in the district. He stated the resolution further stipulates that no, other sheds or accesso buildin s other than the existin ara e shall be allowed on the lo�;<;;�:fid the rY g � g g g � � �' shed shall be a permanent structure, designed and maintained to be aesthe��Gally pl��sing and ..r complimentary to the existing dwelling and garage. ,�; ,;, ::.:,. Platuung Associate Ericson stated staff typically notifies the request is brought before the Planning Commission, how��, He explained that the newspaper failed to publish sev�;a��1 �; Planning Commission is not required to hold a public ��: consideration to the neighbors. He stated a public hea� r Council level on April 24, and this would be published in sent to the residents within 350 feet, therefore, residents ` the item at that time. Commissioner Miller stated she did not see a prob��: the maximum square footage allowed, and it v��,�i�Ic� �: indicated she had gone to look at the propert.y,� �t�d did Chairperson Peterson stated there appea� placement of the garages was such ,.,�;' ,� < � Kaden noted that even if there w��,� �::i4jC?:::s. neighbors would probably prefer rt?:,�ee a ,_:::., 00, Squs 002. to be the �","when a a�k;��.��z�r.� s,3��:, pernut is has nc�� c�c�°��:��,�� i�i:> cime. ��lic hear��g�''notic;e�, _c��k �J��a�, kr�� ., th�� %pically do �,� s� �rA��<, n.,��; �°�-�x ��3 � item would b� se� ti�.h� ; �F ��r„��;�.p��, and notices would be ��f� ��;�,�r�;!:�a�. ��ortunity to address ��ir�ced out ��.i;'i�� shed is less than �:� ';�.�� much o�-the backyard. She . ,.. �,btdf �,'�Iuesty�fo be a problem. .. .......:� r�i`�ening ic� �;��a��. �a��Cyard for the shed, and the q.; ;/ , -..., t�e some aa�c�is�ional screening. Commissioner �,�: of screerW�.� on one side of the property, the ;;:H;� r than iL�ms out in the yard. ��d ,�,>��x�f��f�`a1��r. 'X'c� /'�;,;�s��:n� ". `�anning Commission Resolution No. 614- ;��k�h ��r,��, �,�prov�,.l ub �'�c��itional Use Permit to Allow for a 256 ydo�;r� �� ;�,� Y�`' Terrace Drive, Mounds View Planning Case NO. CU00- ,�"o:'€I�:J — 8 8. ;�s>�'lanning Ca�� 't.<r��' ,.....<. _ _ _ p The motion carried. �erty Involved: 843,$yf�'�veland Road. ussion Regarding a;;�ariance Request to Allow for the Installation of an Eight-foot Tall Fence �yyi � �ront Yard of , :�'Property. �C' %'� Elizabeth Brunes. �:�E;E�r�t: xr�p�c��.. was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The a plicants, Gregory and Elizabeth Brunes, who live at 8438 Groveland Road, are requesting P a variance to allow for the installation of an 8-foot tall fence in the front yard of their property. E.+� �' �3� y � : F r `�'=- . '� f : � r '�` � ��r�F /k�+Yi�y/i ��/ ,�i•i1 �iH r .:, •/ir.h ✓/f: :.i�%i iii%/%1'it�`Y;qd' � - ,:i_--.- - - : � ., - ;, -._ . „ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Mceting April 5, 2000 Page 14 The fence would be eight feet tall for a length of 24 feet, stepping down to a six-foot fence and �� stepping down again to a four-foot fence. The applicants are requesting a variance <;�'b'iti the requirement which states that no fence exceeding four feet shall be installed i� �h� fi-az�� yard of a residential lot. " Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicants have subrr��az letter, w�� f. ;<c; need for a taller fence as a means to reduce some issues �itk �-k�� property own�i �� 4,:� stated they feel that the additional screening in this area ��.a�� h�lp the�xt enjoy thei,' � 5:.:,,, manner to which they have grown accustomed in the 30 ye��u �t��y ��a�f�"Tesided at the Planning Associate Ericson stated with this request, staff that with a variance request, a hardship must exist, and property. He stated in this case, the hardship is not base+ third party. He indicated this is not addressed in th� y;�A granting a variance. He advised that staff has e�a;�x��.�.i Commission is required to review with ail variatt�A,;�,p��.�j: strictly upon interpretation of City Code an�t��tat� ��d situation. . '�"�' ,.... �;;�y Elizabeth Brunes, 8438 GrovelaYar� ��;�;�d, the moved in approximately 3 years agc�. �#�P indica was 20 years old at that ti�n�. ��,�ifatied tha;� � people hav� lived in the ho�� o� �± tempora�3;r � taking ��I�� : �p� c�ae� yard, a��c� �:�� k��ties neve�; �a� all da�r �a�s�f m�� ;�,i: lori�, �� ;� ��aise never � indivic��r7 ��f ag��a-�+e� r��-�r��:�;�,�. Mrs. Brune� ��a�r-� ;� many neighb4�� e��rr�i� � �,.> stated �e��n�igh�or, � that,��ry weekend i thr,�,�uing beer bottle� f,,;� t��use they are too a ��'ode �.�ac� ` ,�;I� of tlie ��n .�1'I�I,S �n � ,,, i<. their �� .�lty reconciling ihe issue �. x�a;�x��lship is tied to the , 3�+�� her, created by a ��dr ��tes in terms of ��Y�� .��at the Planning �zii'� opinion, basing that �� does not e�st in this �Iicant sta��i'' her next door neighbor, Justin, �� % his fathe�- purchased this house for him and he �h� p�;��three years, approximately 40 to 50 �> �� ,"'explained that there are illicit sex acts � p,�� property. She explained that they drink 9. �h� pointed out that the majority of these v��' ��r�i��<� eit� Police on anyone in her entire life, and she has had k?c��sf s�; ` 3he has had to contact the Police is this situation. She �ad of tliis individual they do not know what to do. She ex plained ��rybody's yard. His friends drive right through the yards, Iy�c� into their yards, however, no one does anything about this ustin. �'t�. �runes stated,��stin sits out in his yard and makes obscene comments to her at every {;��}��a.A�.ag�ity. She,u'�icated her husband has had to put up with listening to him standing outside ��t �`+^t� k��a�t` ��dow at 4:30 in the morning carrying on in this manner. The Police have �.��6��.�f� ��:�l��t he has a scanner, and he just plays games with them. She explained that every �.�gL.,,� >,a�:� ;;�a(1� th� Police, they come out and everyone runs and hides. She stated these people do not behave as adults, but rather, as drunken, immature boys. Mrs. Brunes stated she and Justin do not really have a problem, per se, and she does not wish to create more of a problem than there is, however, she would like to be able to go to bed. She indicated she and her husband are both "night-shifters," and they generally do not retire until 1:30 Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting , April 5, 2000 Page 15 to 2:00 a.m., therefore, for someone to disturb them, it has to be 4:30 or 5:00 in the She stated the Police come two to three times per evening, and have begun to take Jus She indicated that he has made terroristic threats against her to the Police, s��asa,n, rha�3� to get her. �� r� �3 F.�l�'li... i . ..... ......... ....... Mrs. Brunes stated all she has ever done to Justin is request him to remove his junk from her yard. She indicated he �c and he parks vehicles all over his grass. She explained th��: � that the cars must be parked on a prepared surface, and ��►�� and threw them all over his yard in response to this. ;; Mrs. Brunes stated this is an extreme hardship. She inc able to go out her front door. She explained that these her names and laugh at her, or simply stand and star�; ; to use headphones to avoid having to listen to their�e��a Mrs. Brunes stated Justin owns two dogs that'�t+ ,� % until she leaves, therefore, she is not able t� �tiliz� husband had thought that if they could p%`� up a they contacted City Hall during the��;�af the � could have an eight-foot fence. S��i�;dtcated �a�. in the backyard, but simply that th�t could �nzve � and her husband constn�cted°:pa��ls in thezx� ��' building ��;�°��it, they leax-n��x �.�€�'t t,.�is was r�o�, $�A�: NiTS. �Y��"i�"� explain�c� c�-k� her from iv� and hackey,, i,,, . Justin 1��;� �;-.,:: that 1��'°actions are �gc�r� this individu �i:�� cE�� F!'.l(��1 triJ i at �tk�� er }��ck y��. t ri�; they c �w� �rious year, i ne inform,e �u �ightP�ac��' go to cut lus �ras� � �ew Poli pile of la 1�� 'o jail. going l.��. or ask ,; �� w�n, !� ; ,s�� i�� °��x3z d� so terrible she is not �� , � �ii��. ��° ��er so they can cail Sh� ��c�,A-��a��R ;;"k�e. has attempted ;y i�� h� is�;�kyard and bark at her �;i�t��;��.' �he indicated she and her �� outside again. She stated �nd they were informed that they that this would only be permitted nce, therefore, all winter long, she ined that when they applied for a advice. �;�� @� building the panels, that they are extremely tall. 5he ��;� �� x�.;> �r; ��.�st prevent Justin from being able to stand and stare at d� ,��.��;��g A,¢��her property. She explained that they play football ;�,� y,,.�c�� ;c��r� vehicles running for hours. She pointed out that r��. �-,��ologized for making her life so miserable, and acknowledged �;��::� <<��ver, the next night, he is right back at it. She stated there is no �,��Zr does not believe he is going to move. �i� ��. �runes indicated;<,�at two years ago, she and her husband began to search for another ';S«°x-ty. She pointet�;;;out she raised her children at this property and some of the old neighbors ,��11 x� th� �flP�;;,`�he stated they are all just as put offby Justin as she is, however, it appears ��;€� �A�.r-. j�u�3�� ;��trouble with Justin and his "band of inerry men," therefore, she feels she is in F F,��;��:, '�;�a� �'cated the Police in Mounds View have been extremely kind to her, however, ,,'�t ,, ii:rrmi'r. ico what they can do because they have a difficult time catching him at these ac�i�i�ie�. Mrs. Brunes reiterated that she has an extreme hardship, and she was willing to step down from her original proposal, however, a four-foot fence would not help her at all. She stated she planted a hedge 32 years ago on that side of the property, and she was willing to tear the entire hedge out I Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 5, 2000 Page 16 in order to install a fence because she could not stand to have them looking at her. She pointed ,. out t at t ere are probably 10 men under the age of 22 at that house at all times, and t:k�e�' have the mentality of 16 year-olds. ___ ;�� Mrs. Brunes stated she feels she is suffering an extreme hards��, �nd pa.�� :;� �I;��°� t�: �� i�iusband, because the things Justin says would make any man go over a�d,�iti?p him on�;',��€J��;.YJ�,�, �,lu� rould not be done. She pointed out that one night Justin jum��c� ��v�°r the fen�� ;�n�1 ��;�.�.�� :o ��it her. She stated he was very drunk, and when he saw h�;�� .��and he,�r�srit back. �� ,�q��;� that this is what they are putting up with, and she did not �e: ��,r �lt�� tive but to blo�� .�ai�� ;: : Mrs. Brunes stated Justin never leaves the property, he is alw� ft�> ��K�r_ � s�,� � stated the people who lived on the other side moved, becau�t. �ipe; a,�;�� indicated that the Police have a tape recording of Justin rr��cin� �c� ��.�� they took him to jail he stated he was going to get h�� `i it. �was th� lEj:�' reiterated she has never done anything to Justm, ex;c�� ,�,�1 �he l�c�ii out and make these people go home and clean u�i h�t' �rF�,��, Mrs. Brunes indicated she would be of 8 feet, however, a four-foot fence hedge in hopes it would grow, and plant that would grow fast and tal�, l time it grows tall enough to pro;Y�c�� stated this was her plight wit� Jiasian must do �Gs��E°r��n� so tha�: :~<sE; �;�� c , ��, Mrs Brix��58 :v��g�;t� she ��a�� :,�f-,�-�,,z; she has b��;�, r<k�.��: �o �r��c�y ��; ;,�: explained tha� `� x�.y��a�; �.�� x�lannii�� ;! Commi would help.'' ��iimissioner Kaden � � <Y �:�ited the Police have :�> > >h� aware that i,e' � �+ � � o�' a�lose� �;;� ,. �viuir��;�a accepis� �fl)r No��d'not help y;�he s �� ave be�i��o the � ,�� • ��r��-, �b� �`�lt this vr a scre�;��, �1�� ould .� and shr-;' ��r��, �� i� back oa%'�; ��.G� h��° �a.�-c �c� so are his friends. She �� iN�� that terrible. She as k�:�;�.��t her, and when �'�.�y�y�a �s� �;ver does. She �,f�� t�%:r��.est they come �r.��; ��`�Aa�,�;, �y�- possibly a shorter span � c��3 :��. � s�a;� ;�ut Miracle Grow on her u�ry to attempt to find a screening i-�s �S°hopeless. She explained that by the '�bably be in the nursing home. She ve he is going to leave, therefore, she again. v�itr► a meticulous manicured lawn, and for two years �as embarrassed and ashamed to be out there. She ;Yy . ssion could do for her would be helpful. �°ence would really solve the problem. Mrs, Brunes stated she �i�ir� what the Police say regarding the lewd comments. Mrs. Brunes �ne out and informed Justin that he must stop. She indicated only once arrested him, and they had to obtain a search warrant for this, and pull stated that on the way to jail he told the Police that his father could buy Department, and he did not care how many times they attempt to find Mrs. Brunes stated for three years the Police informed her that he could have a backhoe. She explained that he had two filthy dirty, rusty backhoes lining her property. She added he also has 30 vehicles at his house, and every day they are parked all the way across the front of her property, and the Police say he has a right to do this. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 5, 2000 Page 17 Mrs. Brunes stated she did not wish to continue to fight with Justin, and never did. She explained �,:.>.<,. that she had simply requested he do the right thing. She stated the Police receive many;c;,��t1�,ls, and they always come and they have treated her very well, however, it seems tr�2e. �1��y ar� �nable to do anything with Justin such as arrest him for calling her obscene words �P�r k��aNq��d out that she has even held the telephone outside her window at 4 30 ��the mor�:��; ��s. �� a. �:r�e Police listen to the comments he makes. �' '�� Chairperson Peterson advised that the Planning Comriri�. action that could be taken from a planning standpoint. i' with regard to Police enforcement. He stated the City' � these issues, and it appears that there has been some enfor Mrs. Brunes stated this process has taken three years, another one starts. __ Chairperson Peterson stated both of these diligently, and the Police Department must fi�� ,� R: Mrs. Brunes indicated they had spent put in on bad advice, and she felt th� ,� ::< reiterated no one ever advised t�'�n <,,;�,;� backyard. �`� �r::;:.� 1�11J. I�-Y3UJ.A�r�: k ��(�A��/Vl� Snfd time iri ��;� � r��., i:-�� 2 backyard.� �� Commissio�� .�°� �� ,. . ' � Commi�tnri'cai�lc� �3,,?� i f>F.. would hope Mrs. �ru�� to ��erse the Plannin �, :� ��a��.�rl not be in favor � ; �.�k�x»�er, he did not de to ivas to as :� /x f �� CtSriSidei- iz c�,��'� �� ,��;�° y;s :here were ce��t,� �� ;��"'� �c�� could addre�� :��.�yc� �i , ��a�-d. � a��' �l�an up one mess, s��o��'''�e followed very �kz�� situation. �t�''a tree r<;��r;a� iri order to have the fence ;tims all t.�� way around in this regard. She only ca:,txst"ruct and eight-foot fence in the .�� ;�� -�. g�� , ��s��ning to install a fence in the backyard. ��,; ��;�� indicatei� ��e' �i��ers her front yard, and has invested much a�F�, ��.�u'r,��-�'� two dogs attack the fence every time she goes into the a t�, , E,�;�l �-�� ;�� for the applicant, however, he did not see how the �$fl�;� *,��i�rnce, in light of the factors that must be addressed. He stated he :� ��-��, � Lpeat her statements to the City Council, which has the authority �;!;�*��ssion's decision, and could possibly help her. He indicated he �`.:��itt�� a precedent in allowing an eight-foot fence in front of any house, ;, �� to see the Brunes continue to suffer either. i; �, �` ��a,�ar��ior�ez- ��id stated this appeared to be a terrible situation to deal with, and he had g��F��,' £�,�F��:�!} ��:�?"Iv1rs. Brunes. He stated that if the City has not been able to help her resolve �;�,, ��; �,�� ;,�� i:hree years, they have a problem as a City. He stated the City has a responsibility �� {��,' �,�,_��1�fli1g about this, and if it cannot assist, this in itself creates an unusual circumstance. �3[e su�gested a possible means to address this would be to approve the fence as a temporary structure until something could be done to resolve these problems. He pointed out that the structure the applicant was proposing appeared to be somewhat temporary in nature, and if the problems were resolved, she would likely be willing to remove it. � f - � �i/ " " ' �� Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting �; -_ �� / //f .�. ll,Vi .. .. .. � �'- '- . .. " April 5, 2000 Page 18 Mrs. Brunes stated this was correct. She reiterated she has a beautiful hedge that goes all the way �<,. aroun er property, and she removed a 32 year-old tree she had planted in order to it��11 this fence. .; `'_.��°� Chairperson Peterson stated this appeared to be an issue of she has filed a civil suit against Justin for doing this to her. S she must go through the proper channels in this regard, at� what to do with Justin. F<'«>. Chairperson Peterson stated the Police Department shoul provide relief from this situation, and the City Council rru that the Planning Commission was required to examine Code and State Statutes, and it does not have the freed+ accordingly. He explained that from a land-plannir��; G.�� although the applicant clearly does have a problerp <�� , � would not allow the Commission to approve this r�q��u�� ; Commissioner Berke advised that the cases when an applicant wishes to a� variances. ,�� Mrs. Brunes inquired explained that if the � appeal to ��E� �:i.cy Cou� �' the Pla�ng C ��; � <.� �� j sh� ti�=r��c� proc�� o �, point, nent i.��d�.'�,�, ��:Py �ndicated ;d she 1na:K ��a' :�� :�=��3.�rie�.� that theysdc� ��c�� F��:�,,�' �ss �:.�aow Q:c� cleternune some �.xg��.��;�'�o � �'�„� �.n.itz�te this. He advised ��s ^ ;, �� terms of the City =�s ��'��;>,?1 �anless it is done » `��x�°� '��( f��e a hardship, l�e ��.�� t��i �he City Code :�`° ��lanning Commission in :� ��ecision with regard to with this. Chairperson Peterson st, Mrs. Brunes has the option to Comrriisc�F�,�>f;�. rA,y.,h� r : :, , .�t�ie�..�a� �� f�� ry �h� applicant s house and has seen the property. He stated it ��s�� %xf�a�� ; �� _arn tli"a.B: ��a;� ��, °� ��sue of harassment. He stated he sympathized with the applicant, h��vp��,� ��,��;r� ��,, ��,�� o through the same situation for several years. He indicated rt�tc>;q� s�x�. e�<fi�E ��;'>�ir e�n��xr�� t'ime to resolve this, and these residents ultimately had to approa,k��3�us s�tua�i�-� �� s �x�x ��-a�r that made the entire neighborhood angry, ,,�'� `<�: F%;r ; ,<_ M� Brunes stated sh� c�^.;; ��;��pted to gain the support of the residents along Groveland Road, �y of whom she has�;�ow�ii for 30 years. She explained that every weekend the residents are s :: y; � 2 t�i�� in their yards pickin�=up the trash, and the neighbor across the street has had to call the Police �� ;��1 times as well,..��wever, they are afraid to become involved. .'�� ::..... � '--`- �Mry� FR��a+�r ��;� 1�Iapment Director Jopke suggested that one approach might be to investigate the a��_ �� `.�� =a��proving this itern through the interim use permit process. He indicated staff �J� e�< ��`v� i:c� ��scuss this with the City Attorney. He explained that the City could issue such a permit for a finite period of time, however, it would not be possible to proceed through the variance process. f 4 � _ /� .•/% ; � � _ � : - :: [ _ - -_ - - ; . �' . _ _ _ � �� - �� M_ '� k , :,`�, _ . ' . . � _. . . :�. -_ - _. � - � :. l - _ � , - . _. , . . . _ _ .. . . -z,c�,�i� z-•-r..-_.' __' " _. . _. . • _.__ ' ' " .i � April 5, 2000 Mounds View Planning Commission Page 19 Regular Meeting - :� < °i .- I Commissioner Stevenson inquired if there would be any complaints from the neighbors, if the City _� ��;s�:>�. took this approach, and the construction of the fence was permitted. Mrs. Brunes stat,e�i;;s%e felt .�3 ":. like she would not have a problem in this regazd. , f Commissioner Kaden inquired if the neighborhood was Brunes stated this item had not yet been published in the n Commissioner Stevenson stated he did not have a probl��r�, 4��Af�a � he would have concerns if it became a problem with the �➢� �:4��k �� the City to assist in resolving this situation for the appli�E�:��:� ��'� entire City. Mrs. Brunes stated she understood. She stated she submitted represented a blockade type of a fence, �n� � to accept even two sections of six-foot fence ��' �� would assist tremendously, as she currently felt c�.;a . fl-7 stated she would bring her request before tl��,�itiy �v� Cauncil at one time. °� :��> � ,�`<� Chairperson Peterson stated the � however, an interim use approach City Attorney could offer some su; Mrs. �k�aa��;� �.nqutrea re�,�f, 5 a four ��,,�� :f��,u�on iti a fenc�, ��ac� �.� �:�� ,�rv�l�x�� difficuic �a ;. s�f�.4�"��%. to �E Mrs. �: He stated �1��y are resp a��+� realA � e.� ��, � r�� drawing she had � �he had iY�di�:r��, �b�� lould be willing ��a,�� s a��a�: .ihat s�1 G��>��f her step alone -, ;��, ,, �, �� :kjrison�� ;4 ��e�- own home. She ��, �� „��;�3 ��, ��i'e�had run for the City come ��'ough Police Department action, �„r at th��>�ity Council level, and perhaps t e ►ili�� `�a��g the land up three feet, and constructing Stev� �.>�r, ��plained that a berm is more permanent than �r�d Justin moved away, that pile of dirt would be more Commission would have to deny the request in order / j,, ' `:, ing Associate �A-�� >� ��.��S�d �hat the Commissio e� nuldo determine heilr eourset of achon, 'ore they would ha�?� �a''watt until the Apnl 19 me g uch time, it woul,��;�e within their purview to table t� omt otnra SS ggestedeby Community � this time, sta��ould explore the intenm use pemu p � .�;;,r ��i pir��'r Jopke. He indicated staff would research this with the City Attorney, o P;3�Q:,�; ��. �,p.�y�;'��lan option, as well as any other possibilities that may come forward in the Flan��1� Associate Ericson inquired if it was the consensus au� ne Ch �mel totexplo etpos ble draft a resolution for consideration at the next meetmg, and S options. He advised that it would be a good id�a��er settled ion rather than delay the matter, as the applicant would probably prefer to have tlus ____ ___- _ _ - - ---- � _ - �_ .. ,,; �., r.,�rif�///i��:%,..+.-;i. �, ,,,x.:,,. ..... ,.,..:: ,. ,,. ,.., Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 20 Mrs. Brunes indicated she was in the process of re-landscaping her entire yard, due to the �i,amage caused by the removal of the tree, and in order to do this, it would be helpful to know,=��t she would be dealing with. ,>:::k<«:-- <�:�:;�. Chairperson Peterson advised that in conjunction with ex, address the Council at their next session and attempt to which would probably be the most expedient means to a Planning Commission level would not benefit anything. Commissioner Laube inquired if staffcould schedule an i�di� next City Council meeting, if the Planning Commi Commissioner Hegland requested clarification regarding th use pernut. ,.. Planning Associate Ericson advised that the City e. the language allowing the City to grant an interz�x;� added to Chapter 1126 of the Zoning Code r�ti�ica� an interim use permit within any district, fo�C xny us regardless of the approach that is taken, �� Plannin possibly in terms of a typical condit�t��a��use pe ;,, because it would be up to the Cc3��ci��to �e��^�� pointed out that this might invol3�� as little z��'' ��8�� He explai��cl that the City �`�a.�x�.��"could sic=��_� y�a under before Commissi process. a.r��i o� be allc� R�� met, this. could the for conside�-a�ac��z::.��E ��,� the variance r�eque��. ;;�,��iplying for an interim ��ti ��r�� s�;��ri, �ss-cla,�� x��;.� ��, which creates �,�e'' �=;,�y�x,�. �� s�at�r� _��.��;"l�ngi,�age that was �� s ° �,��" �_�_d'��r ��unc�� 1ias the ability to grant e ii ��n� ��,>�'°�� y ordinance. He stated ,�"`�omrri��z��;' ��,caicl review and examine this, x&i�t, howev��,`�his vvas uncertain at this point, ir�e what�$t�'iose requirements would be. He nittm� �€��ite plan for administrative approval. �� .t$at a six-foot fence in the front yard, ��. :��' those provisions were drafted into the j�1��;ant would not be required to come back ing Commission could assist the applicant with this � g"Associate �:�aE,��r� 2��,� �<:staff would have to examine this with the City Attorney, and fl, . �C��'tunately, the appli��t';�f�<+_1�� be left out of that process. He stated the City would have to �_� the language in a t�anri�, ��at it would be legally appropriate and in keeping with Chapter '�<. He indicated�t within the next two weeks, staff could discuss this with the City ��, � rney, to see wha�::�vould be appropriate, and brin some sam le lan ,� �• g p guage to the City Council. ��nlalra��1 t}�a� ;;�he Council would be the body, which, by ordinance, would create that �'�� x�E� t:k�;� process would have to commence from that point. He pointed out that even ��z ��'�+`��gs��'ra�� pernut, this would not provide an immediate solution, because two readings ?��'� Y� �'� �c�uired at the Council level, and the item would have to be published in the newspaper. Chairperson Peterson stated the issue of enforcement could be addressed at the next Council Meeting. He explained that this is a separate issue from that of the fence, however, proceeding with both of these matters simuitaneously might be the most efficient means to resolve this. _ - _ . _, _ , _ _=-: F • � . -. ; ... _ , = _ _: - , : -. -;= _ _ _ - - _-.. _. -_: - — �= _ -- �-- - __ � - - - _ � :. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 5, 2000 Page 21 Planning Associate Ericson suggested the applicant present her situation directly to -; �� Police Chief. , �' .; Commissioner Berke suggested the applicant contact the Pohce j Watch program, which has worked well in his neighborhood ��;` in which the Police Department and the neighborhood work iz� ;�� provides some anonymity for those residents who may be afr�id�to Planning Associate Ericson stated staff would proceed witl� tl��"��Y 9, Planning Case CU00-003 Property Involved: 8038 Long Lake Road. Discussion and Consideration of Resolutioi� 616 -(�� r,' Use Permit to Allow for the Construction of a 4(l�1 �"`,y��VY � ,. Applicant: Juanita Snetsinger and Shelley Hi,��:% $.>;�, � The applicants were present. Planning Associate Ericson �av� The a Lon� �1��.` maxirr►u�x� Sherwood J�ra�n�t� ��t��F�r .�� a� cc�� ;: ��.. 'A.h� ��=,�<�: ��`eet, which is . �� be located app car garage on the c2ent room to e� i r�►um size in w� �.: ;:9y �ar�c�� in t��;�€ Y�r�o new a Crime .ec� �� *�I4:5 �. ��rogram �n w�� ,�� .��;��, and it t t��'`�a1�.z��;, % .;., �>: provided. p; a Conditional .��: ,.;. ,�,� ,�nd She114b��r ifst�l�, �.�`e requesting approval of a conditiona use ��a� �f an ov�� i��c� shed in the backyard of their property at 8038 �,�� =; ,;x�posed shed would be 400 square feet, which is the ��, ��tr��°i: �� located in the northwest section of the City, between ,, ��;;�� ;�iiare feet. �;�� d the backyard area of this property is approximately 11,000 �� tk�' size of the average City lot. He indicated the proposed shed ,�,��iy l50 feet from the house. He stated there is a small, attached �pe�y, which does not provide sig efiSeekin�ra torage� buld ngeof the d the garage. The applicants a g to house motorcycles, snowmobiles, and other items that can not be - > �F: >t��;��ti�d��r i s<< x,�,�ate Ericson stated there are currently two smaller outbuilding�onerte b herefore,�f ��,;; ,;�,��;Y �, . i�[e advised that City Code pr��bns in the resolutionhwould be that the�two e�sting � I� J J y;�� quesi were approved, one ofthe conditio sheds be removed. He stated the applicant has indicated at�l ld n ed to be removed Would be removed, and he was uncertain if it was clear that both sheds w ---=--i - =J �_.� __+ _ _ .� � _ s�-- �, � -�. �; ,r •' ' - _ - � � = -;{�� - ��y�j� - • r °�_ �� ..zz_.V. . _�. _—" __. .._.. _ � _. . . ' . -- _"_ ..._ .. . .. -- .. � _'_. _ " //!f l��Jft�i.+�i�,%: JfI r. � � .__ . . � � ��'- `�i�k49'��/F/!.k �( � . 1 � � . .�iF% i%%% ' 1 �� Mounds View Planning Commission Apri15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 22 Planning Associate Ericson stated staff visited the property. He explained that in texrns of proportion, it appears that the shed, which would be 20' by 20' feet, would fit in uite,a��t. He 9 y ;� stated there was not a significant amount of physical screening between th� ��s�� nperties, and there are no fences to obstruct the view, however, thereff;are a nu�z��a �F ,,r�ry mature evergreen trees in the back yard that create a good buffer in this��r�a. Planning Associate Ericson provided an overview of th� addressed in the staff report, and indicated that staff beli�{ stated this again, was a situation were the applicants woul� the yard, and store snowmobiles, motorcycles, and pe�-ha; stored outside, in the shed. He stated the only drawbac�c would not be allowed to keep the two sheds that cunently e; Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has drafted action at this time. He explained that this resolut�o� the two existing sheds shall be removed upon th�: �i shall be recorded with Ramsey County. He ,�dicat� or other uses not allowed by the district� ��d the designed and maintained to be aestheticadl��pleasing the garage. �: ;:x� •m,.�.. v�1VyLa"t•>l.�dALCiAi6IIa �1ul8at;A �t��^,1-� �:h�se c�t�r�a are al1 �� e� �a��, �' �� .f�l� r �' �rremove sorri� � � +,i��,� n, -��;: f ��l � �r,. which might oYhcr;�f, ;_, �� F ,�s'��tf�s�l is that the applicants �!��.�c�n 61b-0C� a��, �51��g��g Commission �a��';�'<t�al �ont�.�r�� ;��€Jf:�ons that indicate '�R:a�� ` ��; new � �r�.�_+;�`� and the resolution r;>fl��s�� ;��,�� r�ot��e used for living space y�� ;�rriianent structure and be corr��ar��y�; to the e�ting dwelling in Planning Associate Ericson stat�� stafC ��v��.y��1�� }�1� req��st in the context of how this shed would fit ,m, not only �« s,c., 4:��` of th� k��{,a ��y��y, but also with the surrounding neighbc�rh��. fiIe stated ��y E�� ;onal op��,��;��., ��; ��,�� t}lls would fit in well, and in addition, the preseza�r� ��` �:�� a�ri��re ��,,4�p�s��t;��: ��,� �,�,o�l� �,�� irom view and provide a good buffer. He pointe� �� a.�� ; �.�, � s��r�„�4{;r��p �,��a,��t of screening to the property to the south, However, after his �r� -a��r�a��,� �F� �y�,=; 7 �Y�,�; ��x�� zot believe this would be an issue in this particular situation. I�� s�z�c� �;� �d R t�,r ��, h,,,�� s�;<3��va1 of Resolution 616-00. ,. .:« n�g Associate :��ied in the ne ang of the City issioner if noti�ication was provided to the neighboring properties. us again, was one of the public hearing notices that was not er, it would be published in the newspaper for the April 24 inyuired if the neighbor to the south was aware of this proposal. i stated he was not aware if the applicants have discussed their plans ��<''?'+.. �- i�id��, �he applicant stated this neighbor's son had inquired regarding why they were cleaning up that back corner of their lot, and she had indicated something would be going in, however, she was not certain if the request would be approved, and therefore, did not elaborate. She stated these would be the orily neighbors who would have a good view of the shed. She explained that all the other surrounding properties along the back of their lot have full grown 40- " - -i -- :..:_-� -� __ -_-; - '_� _. 4 : ` , _ ., -: _-- ` : =_-_ ; :- ._...`.;<; _.,_ ,_;� , _ ,:- _ _: ___ . , _ ,- _: �,. ,_ _ , - -:: - - -- -_ _ -_- - - - -- . ---- _ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 5, 2000 Page 23 foot evergreen trees lining their property, and one neighbor has a 7-foot woodpile backyard, to obscure the view of the neighboring properties. f;. �; � Ms. Hill indicated she did not believe there would be a problem from this in light of the condition of their backyard. She explained th�, tJ�us prc condition of all the neighboring properties, and she hoped th� t�� would something with their back yard as well. She indicated the ey��'green tree: > ✓/F= �`.: provide a screen to the other neighbors. �' � �� Ms. Hill stated she liked to keep her backyard neat, ant indicated she recently purchased two new snowmobiles and of the existing sheds is 6' by 6' in size, and has been on the explained that it is in poor condition, and because of the'�€ the spring, and they could not utilize it for stor��. �� both of the sheds. ' Chairperson Peterson stated he did not see a The Commission concurred. Chairperson Peterson advised that i��%a�ly Commission level as well as the �a�ancil l�� since this item will also b� ��c� �?y �he Ci� time. _ Resolu�ion:`' Allow for a Case No. C� ing Associate � 24 City Council �rsorn P ��. ti�f, , � �:aOQi: his ; �:�,� �n��.�� xz �h� worst F,�''�,� ,�� ti��a�; ��. ro do y ,. ;��,z .��sc�� t�a�"� tn��u�d ;3,;; ��L,c± of its appearar�c;�, �_y�l� � �� .�.��ac,��ycles. She s�afed one �� , � , �;��r �, :��;y purchased it. She ;- faLg„�,,,��Y�,,, �� ,��1X� up with water in ted shc �� Y'�� 1��?�lem removing ld ho�� he public hearing at the Planning �. .� er, ce the notice was not published, an ::��Commission could take action at this To Approve Mounds View planning Commission nmending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to ii at 8038 Long Lake Road; Mounds View Planning Nays — � The motion carried. the public hearing for this item would be scheduled for the the Planning Commission meeting at 9:00 p.m. ion meeting reconvened at 9:07 p.m. 10. Planning Case VRUO-003 Property Involved: 2400 County Road J. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting I;^ _ � ( _ ; r �- , .�: - - : . . _ Apri15, 2000 Page 24 Discussion Regarding a Variance Request to Allow for a Reduced Minimum Spacing Between Two Billboards. Applicant: DeLite Outdoor Advertising Company, Inc. The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant, DeLite Outdoor Advertising, is requesting a variance for a reduced minimum spacing requirement to approximately 550 feet, to allow for the siting of a billboard at the southeast corner of the Sysco property. This issue has been before the Planning Commission at previous meetings, and the Commission recommended to the City Council that the interim use permit be approved subject to the applicant applying for and obtaining a variance from this provision, which would allow Sysco to have two billboards on their property. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has examined the e�cisting property, and the hardship that was evident in relation to the seven criteria that are set forth in the City Code, pursuant to State Statutes. He indicated staff looked at the individual criteria, based upon what has occurred in the past with regard to the siting of the billboards, and in terms of the basis for the hardship, which would necessitate the approval of a variance. Planning Associate Ericson advised that if the Planning Commission has any questions regarding the criteria, or feels that an individual criteria requires to be further addressed, this could be discussed at this time. He indicated staff is seeking direction from the Planning Commission regarding whether or not these findings would be suitable for a resolution, and if so, staff would draft a resolution for action at the April 19 meeting, which would approve the variance as requested. Planning Associate Ericson indicated this was not a public hearing, however, sta#� would send out notifications to the property owners, and have sent a notice to the newspaper for publication which will occur on Thursday, therefore, there will be proper notification for action at the next meeting. He explained that this was another notice that had not been published by the Focus Newspaper. Paul Radamacher, representative of DeLite Outdoor Advertising stated on behalf of Sysco and DeLite, he would urge the Commission to vote in favor of this request at the April 19 meeting, He stated they concur with staff and their findings at this point. Chairperson Peterson clarified that the location of this billboard would be in the corner of the southern portion of the Sysco property. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He explained that the parking lot extends down into the corner of the lot along Highway 10, and there is a very small piece of land adjacent to the parking lot, before it slopes down into the stormwater pond. He stated the applicant is proposing the sign be located in this spot, just off of E _ � j � . . � Y� �+ � - � Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting � . � � __ . . " �� f>�'� �Y � S � - - Y A..r- _ - . __. -��-s=--_ ._ "- (�.::- Apri15, 2000 Page 25 the parking lot. He explained that this was the only p ossible location for the sign, as it could not g o into the pond, and if it were located on the other side of t�e uo e�, n� ould be too close to the second proposed sign to meet the 500-foot MnD�T spacmg q Commissioner Laube inquired if the applicant has submi�e dat the Sys go si e�on Mondayt and Planning Associate Ericson stated he met with Mr. Radama the are working toward this. He explained that the Planniega desi�n Sproposal t o p esent fog Y action on this matter, however, the applicant should a consideration at the ne� meeting, and they are both confident that this will be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. Commissioner Kaden requested clarification regarding t�nhal�d� h a d Pts clo e prox lmit Et c the stated part of the hardslup ls the location of the par g � ro ert line. He explained that the City is imposing design ne�nthe efohet he sign ouldthave p p Y traffic, which would be overly burdensome to the property o�' ' i� that the sign could not be to be located off of the parking lose aration e He stated staff interprets a hardship to be present located to maintain the 1,000-foot p in terms of the location of the City's billboard on thafBhasgforwarded the c�rit ria tol heSCity potential locations of the Sysco signs. He mdicated st Attorne s for their review, and believes these findings address the apparent hardships in this Y situation. Commissioner Hegland stated in his opinion, this was a stretch for a hardship. He stated he understood the reasoning behind this, however, he would ma'arties that the real issue should have been resolved with a setback from the property line for both p Chairperson Peterson stated the Commission could not�i ectiont egard ngbthe p eparationaof a public hearing. He inquire d i f s t a ff w a s r e q u e s t m g resolution. lannin Associate Ericson explained that if the Planning CommiS th re eard to he hardship, staff P S criteria and the manner in W��hose�cr teria and responses asep esented n the staff report. would draft a resolution usmg It was the general consensus of the Commission to direct staff to proceed. uncil Liaison Marty stated he realized that the billboard Precause of he truck t ai�ic on the Co p y e construction, b parking lot required to be of a mono ole t p He in uired i£ the Planning Commission had considered the�mo t n� wlth the b llboardston srte. 9 in order that it is more c second billboard on the Sysco property, the City property. ' erson Peterson stated the Commission has discussed this �a �ea o he Ci yr Counc 1 Chatrp monument style design. He explamed that the language they _ �= - � _ .� F� _ - - - - � — - Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 5, 2000 Page 26 c _ .� - - indicated that the billboards should be aesthetically complementary to the City's billboards. He stated there was also discussion regarding a brick facing on the pole structure, however, he was uncertain if there was any specific language pertaining to the design of the second billboard on the Sysco property. Planning Associate Ericson stated the resolution recommending approval of the two Sysco billboards contains a clause which indicates that the billboards be aesthetically complementary to the signs on the golf course, and does not differentiate between one sign and the other. Commissioner Stevenson indicated the design style was somewhat unclear at this point, therefore, the Commission had requested the applicant come back before them with their proposal for further consideration of the design. Chairperson Peterson pointed out that the Council would make the final determination in terms of the type of construction. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He indicated the Council heard the interim use permit request for the Sysco billboards, and this item was tabled. He stated the City's interim use permit for billboards at the golf course was approved, however, that approval would not take effect until sozne time in May, when Ordinances 655, 656, and 657 become ef%ctive, He explained that the interim use permit for the Sysco billboards was tabled pending resolution of the variance request, and it would also be subject to the effective date of the ordinances, which would not occur until 30 days after publication, therefore, the delay would not be detrimental. He indicated Sysco's interim use permit request would be on the April 24 Council Agenda, and it is hoped that at that time, there will be a design proposal in place that would meet with Council approval. Council Liaison Marty extended his thanks to all of the Commission members. He stated he has reviewed all of the information the Commission has forwarded on to the Council, and feels that they are doing an excellent job. He added that the recommendations that come to the Council appear to be examined from every aspect and perspective. He indicated he has expressed these sentiments at the Council Meetings, however, he would like to reiterate his appreciation at this time. Chairperson Peterson thanked Council Liaison Marty for his comments. He stated the Planning Commission attempts to prevent problems at the Council level if possible, and hopefully, the information they provide is usable. 9� Staff Reports / Items of Information A• Previous City Council Action Community Development Director Jopke updated the Commission regarding recent Council action. He stated on Monday March 27, the Council adopted Ordinances 655, 656, and 657, which have since been published. He explained that Ordinance 655 pertains to the rezoning of the golf course parcels from CRP and I-1 to PF. He stated Ordinance 657 creates the new Chapter _ F , � -` - - Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting , Apri15, 2000 Page 27 1126, formalizing the fact that the City has the authority to issue interim use pernuts, and Ordinance 656 addresses the provisions in Section 1008.08 concerning billboards, and clarifies that an interim use permit would be granted for that use. Communities Development Director Jopke stated the Council approved the interim use permit for the billboards at the Bridges Golf Course, and granted the City Attorney the authority to proceed with the final negotiations of the lease agreem`eNnas abledller Md ng completion of the va ance intenm use pernut for the Sysco billboards � , P process. Community Development Director Jopke stated at the Council Work Session on April 3, the Council discussed a work plan with Springsted & CounttesHwhWay V10. ee He texplained th t I a a community discussion regarding the future of y g Committee was being organized to assist in this am�attHe ex lained h t they have reque ted participation from the Planning Comrrussion in tlus reg P the Chairperson and two members of the Planning Commission to serve on this Committee. Community Development Director Jopke advised that the purpose of this Committee is to assist with the community discussions. He explained that t aen the r in ut regardi g Highway 10. S He which to d�scuss the issues with the crtizens and obt P advised that Committee would assist with the proposemeetirn st aHe st t d the Committeegwould assist in facilitating the discussions at the commumty S meet prior to the community forums, at least one timntedto the Council in June. He s�tat d atthis held in May. He indicated the report would be prese time, staff was looking for the Planning Commission to formally forward the names of the members who wish to assist in this matter. Commissioners Laube and Johnson offered to serve on the Committee. Community Development Director Jopke stated th� ol�tand he P anning Copmuni sion. representatives of the EDC, Parks and Recreatton Co , He stated there was aiso some discussion regarding th� P terested in thep safetyai sues, o n the Chamber of Commerce, as well as students who a aftermath of the tragedy which recently occurred on Highway 10. Community Development Director Jopke stated anothem iwo ld beucoming befo e�he Pla ong Session was the Big Woods study. He indicated tlus it Commission on April 19 for detailed discussion. He advisand the Bri gles Golf Cou ser s welllas a consultant to examine the wetland areas between Sysco the area south of Highway 10, adjacent to and so�'onal wetandsin t}us areate He dicated this effort to determine the boundaries of the �unsdic study has been approached somewhat dii�erently thauai locat ontof the wetlandsb over a two year been utilized to consider the water tables and the act � _ k, �. - �' F-_ - _ - _ - ; _ . - ,_. _ : .; � - _ - , � Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 5, 2000 Page 28 time period. He explained that the preliminary indications are that there may be approximately 35 additional acres of land that are not located in the wetland. Community Development Director Jopke stated in anticipation of the detailed discussions, staff has developed a questionnaire for the Planning Commission pertaining to their thoughts regarding the possible uses of the area in the future. He indicated this would depend upon the final determination of the Rice Creek Watershed District regarding the actual wetland boundaries. He explained that the possibilities range from leaving the area as it is to additional golf course development, or in the area south of Highway 10, potential additional housing. He requested the Commissioners complete the questionnaire and submit it to staffwithin the next week. Community Development Director Jopke stated he attended a League of Minnesota Cities' workshop pertaining to loss control issues. He indicated one of the items of discussion was the importance of making good decisions, and following the correct procedures in making land use decisions, in order to avoid lawsuits against the City. He provided the Commission with a list entitled "Ten Tips for Avoiding Land Use Claims." He indicated staff has also received a videotape that examines these issues, and at a future meeting, time permitting, staf.F will present this to the Commission as well. Community Development Director Jopke advised that Chairperson Peterson has received a letter from Ordeen Braathen. He indicated that this letter was Commissioner Braathen's formal resignation from the Planning Commission. Chairperson Peterson read the letter as follows: "Mr. Chair and Fellow Commissioners: I am submitting my resignation to the City of Mounds View from the Planning Commission. It has been a pleasure working with you in the first half of the year. I realize with all of my personal commitments to my business, I could in no way be as committed as each and every one of you are. I wish every one of the Commissioners all the best. Perhaps in the future I can commit more time to the City I hold dear to my heart. Thank you for the opportunity to serve with you on the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Ordeen Braathen" Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting � - -_ - - r - -- = ; -_ -_= _ _ _;_ - - -. ..---- ----� - - - � k,, April 5, 2000 Page 29 On behalf of the Planning Corrunission, Chairperson Peterson extended his appreciation to Commissioner Braathen for the time he was able t t a member of the Commiss o�ssion. He stated they valued his input, and were sad to have los Chairperson Peterson stated tlus leaves a vacancy �s i volPved begau e�in 1 ght of he r work on would not wish to minimize the time investment that the Comprehensive Plan and their upcoming sched sleb t at t me s three oyfour�meetingstper regularly scheduled monthly meetings on Wednesda pp y g month. He indicated any individuals interested in �her than a�s n ere desire to help the C'ty. He explained that no formal background was required, o Community Development Director Jopke stated twai ablelat City Hal and on the City's Websites a short application form to be completed, that �s a He indicated stali would post this opening with a 10-daoy P�e °dhose happlc ations�f and llmake a and in the first week in May, the Mayor w recommendation to the Council regarding who he feels should fill this seat. 11. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports. No reports were considered. 12. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. =' i _ --:==� - - -'I -- j � _ � :. � ' -; f�_. � . :� .� �> . : = - _ - _ _- - . _ .. _ , _ �: �., _: -_:,_ _ , ,= _.:_:_ ", - - -:, _.__. � -<. _ .. E. .. - . . � .. . '_ . ' _ ' _ ._.. ___ _ __. -- _ � I MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION May 17, 2000 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. 3. 4. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Roll Call enda Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Ag _ _ � -- ' PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM' CITIZENS: Yo� FULL NANIE AN� �D�SS FOR THE 1VIIlVUTES AND GIVE Approve Planning C°�ssion Minutes: a, Apri15, 2000 planning Case No. VR00-004 5' uested to Allow for a Zero- 2195 Pinevvood Drive a Vanance Req Public Hearing and Discussion Regarding Foot Side-Yard Garage Setback. p,pplicant: Har�'Y Meinert 6, planning Case No. CU00-004 2832 Woodale Drive Pubhc Hearmg> Discussion and Consideration of Res � fo°a 6 248 Square-Fouot n Recommendu�g APProval o f a Con di t i o n a l U s e P e r m i Oversized Garage• Applicant: Thomas Stampfle 7, Planning Case No. CU00-005 7474 Crroveland Road �e-Foot Shed. Publ�o Hearmg, Discussion and Consideration of Res � fo°a 400 Sq� a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permi Applicant: Phi1 Johnson g, Planning Case No. CU00-006 4749 Old HighWaY g Public Hearu�.g, Discussion and Consideration of Reso� fooE�c,o �d'ORdooruStorage. Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Pernn ppplicant: ASC Properties, LLC. (OVER) � �, _ _ , - � � - 1 4-� � , , _ , y _ _ _ _ ---- -. _. _ . _ - _ _ � ��;��y'� i�_ � ° 6� _�' - � __ �' � . �/. _ . . —.--. . _ -- -- _ . si?�k,�r��H!w,✓4/% ��r!!'�ii:i�G•.u..��f7f�, .�,�.,.�,.Ii%ril7%/L;: Planning Commission Agenda May 17, 2000 Page 2 8• Planning Case No. CU00-007 2251 Oakwood Drive Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 620-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an 1,150 Square-Foot Over- Sized Garage. Applicant: Kenneth Waste 9• Staff Reports / Items of Information a• Previous Council Actions b• Planning Commissioner Journal c. 10. Chairperson and Pla�lning Cor�ssioners Reports 11. Adjournrrient to Agenda Meeting (Immediately Following Regi,lla�. Meeting) APPLICAIVTS; ypUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNTTY 1�EVELOPMENT AT 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNA.BLE TO ATTEND. THANI� yOU. AGENDA SESSION AGENDA 1• Review the Minutes from the April 19, 2000, Planning Cornmission Meeting. Item # 5 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: May 17, 2000 Title: PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION OF A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A ZERO-FOOT GAR.AGE SIDE-YARD GARAGE SETBACK. Planning Case No.: Applicant: Request: Location: PIN No. Zoning/Land Use: Applicable Regulations: . . \i/:ZIIIali1L! Harry Meinert The applicant is requesting a variance for reduced side yard setback 2195 Pinewood Drive OS-30-23-43-0094 R-1, Single Family Residential / Single Family Dwelling Section 1104.01, Subd. 4b, regarding Setbacks: Accessory buildings shall maintain a five foot setbacic from any side lot line. Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its review of variances. Section 1123.02, Subd. 1 states that a lawful nonconforming structure shall not be enlarged. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Location Map Site Plan Letter From Thomas Meyer Background: The applicant, Harry Meinert, who lives at 2195 Pinewood Drive, is requesting a variance from the required five-foot side yard setbacic. Mr. Meinert would lilce to remove an existing detached 11/2 car, 396 square-foot garage and replace it with a new two car, 576 square-foot detached �ara�e at the same location. The existin� �ara�e does not meet the required five foot setbacic. Meinert Report May 17, 2000 Page 2 There is zzo record of a variance ever being granted. The garage probably predates the setbacic requirement and therefore is a lawful non-conforming structure. Analysis: As with any variance application, for the Plamzing Commission to act favorably, there inust be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal inteipretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and malce 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 tl�e criteria are met. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. Exceptional or ext��aordinaiy circu»�stayzces apply to the prope��t�� wliich do Tiot apply gerzeYally to otlzer p��operties i�z the same zone o�� vici�zity and result fr�o�i lot size of� shape, topogs•aplzy o�° other ciYCU»ZSta�aces ove�� which the o�vnei•s of the p��opeYty siizce tlae effective date lae��eof have had no control. The property is an odd shaped interior lot. The front of the lot is wider than the rear of the lot. This can make it more difficult to meet setbacic requirements. This is not a special circumstance, in this case, in that there are numerous similar lots in the community and because the garage and house are constructed perpendicular to the side lot line in question. b. Tlae lite��al inteipf°etation of the p�°ovisions of this Title would depf°ive the applicant of f•ights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the sa�ne district unde�° the te�°f�as of this Title. The applicant currently only has a one-and-a-half-stall garage which is not typical. There are, however, alternatives to construct a smaller two-car garage or to expand the existing garage with less of a variance. A larger garage could also be constructed in the rear yard without a variance. Therefore, the denial of the variance would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the same district. c. That the special conditions oT° circunzstances do not result fi-onz the actions of the applicant. There are no special circumstances. d. That grarzting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special pi�ivilege tlzat is denied by this Title to owner°s of other lands, stT'LtCIZ[Y2S OY I7ZllICl�ZT1gS Zl2 the same distf�ict. The granting of this variance would confer special privileges that other property owners would not have. ��= Meinert Report May 17, 2000 Page 3 e. f. Tlzat the va��iance i•equested is tlze �niniJ�zuJn variance whicl� would alleviate the hardslzip. Econoinic conditions alone sliall �2ot be considered a I�ai�dslzip. The requested variance exceeds the minimum necessary to allow a two car garage to be constructed on the site. According to the information provided by the applicant there is approximately 32 feet from the existing house to the side property line in question. There would be room to construct a 22 foot wide two car garage which would only require a one foot variance while maintaining the required six foot separation between the new two-car garage and the existing house. A variance could also be granted to allow the existing garage to be expanded to 23 feet in width. A two-car garage could also be constructed in the rear yard without a variance. The varzance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to otJzer• property in the same zone. The purpose of the variance provision in the Code is to give relief to property owners seeking to improve their properties yet are unable to do so because of zoning code requirements and factors beyond their control. Granting this variance for a zero foot setbacic would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Side yard setbacic requirements are in place to allow proper separation between structures for health, safety, and aesthetic reasons. g. The proposed va�iance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent prope��ty oY substantially increase tlze congestion of the public sti°eets or incf�ease tlie danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diininish or iTnpaiY pT�opef°ty values within tlze neighborliood. The proposed garage could impair the supply of light and air and could increase the danger of fire and endanger the public safety. According to ihe City Code, all of the preceding criteria shall be satisfied in order to justify the granting of a variance. It appears to staff that in this case a hardship does not exist, and as such, if the Planning Commission were to concur, a variance should not be granted to allow the applicants to build their garage with a zero side yard setback Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a resolution approving or denying the variance request contaizung the appropriate findings for consideration at the June 7, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. i �' r �l G�;��,,'� %�..��,�, Jim Ericson, Planner N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\Vr00-004VvIeiuert Variance Report - May 17, 2000.doc � _ �:r �' � �a�x3��i% i�: I �� - ��: a„_ �ia i u z�� r :�,r.� il)1 �1)Ei';iI.S"'.'?: A +�J-�t•r• �•�p �'tl' �Gr` ♦ ti �'��''G ° Parrne'n�`�Q ,,. - -= =- � - - - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEI�i� DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIG 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Informat�on � � ,�- Name of Applicant �� /i- /2 � )� `r) - M -e � � � � � Telephone Address � v�.��l� ��ill�wvot(� �/�,. Fax ,M d W-�uc��S (/,�,.�z-�,c� P✓] �-J S� r I z. Interest in 1'roperty (check appropriate box) � Owner o€Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other (explain) 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 - FAX 7� ��._ 7�G-5'GzG Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owncr giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Propecty Description/Proposal Address or General Location Legal Description Property Identification # (PIN #) # of Acres Current Zoning � � � � �l IV�zuic�J �Y .�/2 . L 07� .� � l5 /v ��' � � �v`2� � i� c�Z`t'-�i,�� 3 �,� .�� rX.� r✓��r ,/f � Type of App(ication ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Re2oning ❑ Major Subdivision . ❑ Minor Subdivision ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) ❑ PUD Amendment � Conditional Use Pernut Variance ❑ Code Appeal ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan ❑ Wetland Alteration Pemut ❑ Wetland Buffer Pernut ❑ Floodplain Permit ❑ Other $250 � . $250/acre; min $250 max $1500 $250 + $250 deposit* $200 Refer to rezoning fees $350 R-1, R-2 $75; all others $250 R-1, R-2 $100 all others $250 $100 $125/acre; min $125 max $750 R-1, R-2 $150; all others $200 R-1, R-2 $25; all others $100 $200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff' or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not speni or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days after consideration of ttie application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. City oiMounds View, MN Develo ment A lication Present Use of Properiy � Undeveloped/Vacant ,,.e� Single Family Dwelling � Duplex/Two Family Dwelling � � Business/Commercial Establishment � Multi-family Dwelling � Other (explain) . �ndustrial Establishment Property Class�cation . ❑ Description of Proposal Abstract � Toirens Ya�e 2 BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE pN THIS ppp�,j�ATTON, I HEREBy DECLARE THA.T, TO THE BEST OF MY , KNOWLEI7GE, TI� INFpRMqTION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. . Signature ofApplicai�t : _ . � I, ��-ke,c.�� . Name of Applicant (typed/printed) . 7"7` ,,� i2 R�,. Y- .. _ M 121�J��ve M-�tn/�2T` Signature ofProperty Owner � ' - � � _ Name of Property Owrier (typed/printed) - . ' �e' ' �- /�'��YiZ y J .i/ � M e � �/��e % Address of Owner :i�.I % S�i,1/ .? cr� v U�� " . � � %Z l� B K.�,'„�f l/i,�� 1�J• 5 S�.i2 `7L>.3- %JG-I� �G� � Phone Number of Owner � � � . . .. *********�***�************�*****�*************************************************************�x* Date of Subinittal . FOR OF�'ICE USE O1VLy �� Date of Acceptance � a � � � . �; . Planning Case No. �^ L Assigned to: �_ 60-day Limit 120-day limit -----� ' Fees Paid: � Application: ' %,�,� Park Dedication: Deposits: . Other: . Total: h1:�DATAIGROUPSICOMDEV\i'ORMSIDEVAPP. FOR Account # Check # Receipt # � ^�n y (� �L / �' I S�5 �' 1/98 � F _ �� ' _; 2195 Pinewood Drive Zoning Map _. ..,_...._. ,� rHR" i 'i ,�-��;_ ��j ! bl ;S'i i O� � I � L tb,`-u� •�; .t ,•-. I /',, ✓ r �l iT``� �� N'� CI . N : (�I ;' ' . �.'` N, ,� i N� N INi N� ' � �,,,�N�,,, r'' c D� " � 2245 .•. 4 . cr`•, c� . ....-;.. ..,.to� - `� 6`C�.-CA , d"i (O, rDl tf7l, �',�➢�i I�� •�'e�� N ��'�.. c� •'. D; S" N, cV i N: N __,,. _� 'y, !(�; N� N.� . � •� �\��,, �c',`c.! j��, , c'� �1 7 V M N i1 J� ;tP��N:�,c�'_<`+�, �.i � 2237,'� I�, N': N�220ff� N � �:,;`a`"`.��r�C,�'., `N�°�` N�N 2233� �: ?� i. .,, _�;, ��a. c� t p �� C'a � pA , � `.. �� `., c� �i; p'; �' . p 5, �\ �¢� ':•- �rt:•.,C� i,j_ ��;u?'N• � M �� .N � \ +� �1 � N' N: N� N i cJ '�N ` �,, W,. N� c�;N`NI N'; N N� ... •� � < . . ; , ': ' �b� .c��: c .N �', . - --•-_�. . �_....,.....,- - .. -. � �� ,..- ° �',.. -�. � N . . l ...- /: ��`` � _ .� �96� ��,., ��--L�---_..�--_�,, :__ , 2�. :� � � ,, •�� _� .--- , _...� .._�......._._�.-------��--- .�'', : �/.-"�-,� f n rn : M, � �n � r� ` rn ! ' � �� % . r0 � �O �+ ` M j tn : al ' ._ ; Q i � ` i- CV/�'j//` I ViNIN;N N;N1N:N�N! N: N; �� — N 1 LLVI EW .o; o' .r? �n� i,�'ji I�' N� N� �:0� Q'rnf a�0 p�' f`;. cD: (y; Cy'N% N� N1 (V: N'N: N!r; N: N`N�N`N'N N�N-NjN;n;N`tV�N��v N. N NiN! i i � i �,rrN ��"'� a,'�A��:'� � ,,� r1.. ...I.. N,C�`7l N�N N N� N N O�� OMitq N i CV N, N: N N; N. N+ M � N,N ' N .--� !,�.�cV. ; t� I N � N: N�� N! N ...'._ iD ¢] I O i d � CO I 00 I O f el 6� � aD i{� � tD ; vy �Q6 N; N I N? N; N � N j N� N "_._ N. N I. N i._N.! N.:._N � CV f N IQ� � ` ' ..�,,r,_ _ >62 N�N'N��N!N�N �N!� N'N�N.N N��N_`�N,"N --- (J ' 00 ; O : d' � �O . p� .. i5 � ao s� � �� °n ' N rN ) N.N � NI Ni (,� , _.. � n >4 ..._.... .--...._. . __...:,.__:., ._ i _._' ��(�iOl'�i�l�� i r � � 1O � � >3 N' N� C`i• �N� N�N i N _ N� Nr �y. (�' N N%N - - (Y_ ' i26� cn:oo;oi�,� �oa lo "_ N �� I�;N�� N'N >ZCl cV .N'N;N,N;N;N 5731 ..5721 a71t 570� 5ti91 5681 �s» 5fi61 � fit-3 I R-5 G �� , , _ : � E �. „�- - . ; ��iii�t.l�f.•r•��ri�//i�. '�/ri,�•:.�/%i�f11 � . � _ - . ''� '• ' ' "' COLONIAL VILI...AGE MOBII.E HOME PARK i�`� �;^I� Q:o;oMio�o io'o;o;b (`t i N � N�; N� N � N � N � N i N ��m't�.coi o0 o�o',m<a°,� a`*o.ti�i� �.Mir�',N; 1, h '-:r�, �. �� ;�� i� `O:O�OiO OAT�W�OIJ N;N',N:-N�N�N;NIPl;N:N;N.iN PARK ' __ _ - - 5590 ^� r�'i;M N�6' '":o�rn m a`�o n;n PF : :,- �' o o:o'a;o �. N, N;P�.N IN .N � N'N'N 'N �N�N �N�� :N!d ��f(J'.�;CVi�D}QO;N�lD;00lO��;��;�;�;0 i ^ O� c� O� i m r- ; va ;�, ;�n t�, �, , r� . ca : r; � r �NiC��cv�N CV : . e � . � . ; �O O'O'O':� ( N; N; n . . � 1 ' N N� N 2 N CJ �� CV ; C�� ; N � N'� P� i N� N t N; N N: N� N � N- N i CJ ', .-_, __ ' ° i � : i . . _ . . .--. � , ..._., . : .., - . _ -- , +� I � �._. - _ , [ . 6� f � - � . . : N� �� ro ! in �n . rn= r-i { r ', w r-� n i ct r-� ' r; r- ��n r` . ,N�Nr'N N;W.O�1o0 I�I vJ�� :� M N��.� a�,p`O O':OiP � � r.ti ' N�' N; N: N([� c f N� �CJ..N � N�t� �N IN iN' N�O! `.N iPl ' N�N N i O ! it�q� i N' �� t} tD ; dD I �. N'' N' N� N: Ni O�`�I� 1�•�(Di�I?!lT) �-.i.�,.�..H� N N1 N; � �- � ! Ir N 1 N i(V U(V j CV 1(�I � CV � N i N ��N l+n r� '' � Z I �n. . N� ry�0,?p m �4'� a �;�:��:� I� � N r4 n ; �a ; �� n � M i+M �N N �� ; N 3 N� CJ :N'��N iN � N i N! N: N ��M iM'N:i;�io.a,I�:i �'I �'��i i�al �Cv �N;�N;N �_N ICV i Ni N�N I � i� �__ ; .: __ , I I `'`��r7 IN� �'�� 'rniv, I O.. O`. • ,,�-� � �, �o�o I i N s N i N �:N ; N: N j N I N; cV .(V ; , ; ; �; 551 _.,. o � i i__..°� ; t 1 5512 N N, �. N- �_..__ _ _. ...._ ..i 55'J5 � �- -�;,� = 5497 � 5472 ��_5�.._.° 5so° -;.---54�9 PINEWOOD � � � r � _.---- , __. > cv � cv � 1 - ra493 5494 5493 SCH�OL � � N ' `� , -- I_.__.___. j ___..�,..... � -�-� - __ ; T � 5485 5486 � 5485 5500 ! 548d 1 5479 R...2 : ,..._,..._._ .. .. ... . .:..:..._._....... I i 3474..i� 5�73_ 5466 5475 5478 ; 5475 ----�...,_-s---.. ��_.,_...-,._..._.__ - _.-� ................._.... 5468 ` , 5463 5467 � ; 5ns� .. 546�a ! 346 �...._._ -- - ----� �� ----.__ 6 ; 5459 -• ----�-- - 5462 ' ------. -.... _ . _ _. 5�63 • ` s ' I � ; -- � , I-45 5454--,; 5�55 cn 5456,544 �� s;'•. �S� : 5453 vF.-'� I ;' � � � - < � ��.... � , A . � . : - ---- _.. ...... ,, . 5446 f.. 5�47 Q 543 `' �G�, 5�..� 5� ._ i 5 4 4 7_ M ��; �, i�� I�! o� ; f.. . --°-1 ¢ Q� � • � 5439 r. ; m � u� ; in � � r� ; r, : 5440 S_ 3441 �' 5��3 ':6 `�� I 5433 N� s'' c� i N� N, N i=' ;' C� 543{.._.1...�5433 SA�.�,c9 •.��-�' ---._..._ BELI,� W •.- ._....--•- � : S� , s ^5425 � ; o : cv �.r \ � 2 �,A' � $42�i � ..4 rJ . 2�� •--�- n N i N tM __ �-.._._._..........__.,. .. � � •. •-- , - _....... 5a2o � sa2 s42�..._ .. T — - ± _........ _ N � - -- -- -- � , �._ . : .- � � __ .._. : '.�..��.__..,'5419. ; N N .. ._ ._� , � , { �...:.�_..__.,. _. � � i � ; �..�. .....�-; � ' 1\ ,SA� 1 a ' 5415 5414 y�n,., ; M; �;'n . Q I o;_._.5413 �., ,o i^ "' ��; � � � 401 _._...,....._.J.........-- ---•- - , � � N � N N , fV :• CV : �J�6 ; 5405 5406 ; N< N� N��`1 ; N i N; rJ�O�J N" f`� : N: N s N! N i CV DRtVE �� r no u ' �v : w � p � N °" `" � �- : °o ; rn i. a°o 5392�_. 5391 5392; 5391 i0 O� ��, f� 1 h+ I tU i IA ' tn > d' I !7 ; N , N : N'. � � ... - _. ' Y�, � Q � � n i �. � �� W I � � W � F-- Z � `,f,-�. � =Y8 / �__ .;�. _ . . . . f �P�j}�s'�'-�` �i � �r...r .�� .� s � � - J ._ _ ....-: - _ _ � = ._ _ � - "' '._ . - _ .,. . ... . .,.s. „ ;i F. ��i' �/%f/�i�f.�.. .. �--' - Photographic Documentation 2195 Pinewood Drive �` � � �r"�� f �,� r*,.l� �-��- ��:. .. y� ±- - . -;, :�=�p'..�' -�-' ; ';,7~:��,��_' '� , ` ^ . � •,�.• ~'E�-<;,-..� - ,��y,;.�;`:� �r, � .:_?�.2M1- ��. 3„�j � ` - - .',:?r' "'' %�' `'4� � ,� , r : '.y�'. . '� �* _ � � ; ��A.� a � � ,�= ".; 7 �{� .. �'`� '� F � _ �� k A, _ - - ,\ ��..r.;. '_ ....�h,�,t. �._ _' , I '"'x��.aij � ;: �� ...._ _ - , �.y^,::� . i*�� Y � < �, ��R _�- . _ . � M;. �' '� ..__.._ ._ - .. . .'_ ' {'�1 b" Bs�faE-.�� i , . ��- � Z � : �'� "�k . . .� '6 s �.� '�i'' . � k �!�w" r c.'� r: = }� : > � � "' � � �+ �. � i : �� s � � � � . f �` �{, �4 + 't �.+r�''`s- � '=' Y �� i �: ,� � , r" �`P� "'m`�'' ''�.� 'as C �� " � x � . �`� � n °� , � b'�y .. • � "3• F'��b� � .�- �, � +R� x:� d � y��.V�^ � � = n�.a n_ �+i 'r� 1 r � s �`;. x � � g 8`�'� �: � F '• 1� s`�tG. �� i �' M%3 �. �#.�a.��.�+.. �,� � �^ � :.�,��°(' .e � ..: ri �'+� ��;�� sf �. ,' � 5 t. �'� -.r ��'t �Y ,� � T �� • �J,' c� � e �. y� � �fs ��e". '. �¢z� ` � �.� I�Ft� ��'w'H.. k �� f) ,. � T � :_ � } y t, �`� �.X, . i, t t r � � -. '�°�%r�Y. � y �. r S �. � ^t . � � � � :. y . �} " ' �� ,. � j., r - , r� F Y' x -� � .�x� � 5" �`, s "r ++` h � � r S ,� /'��'w� ' , a)� ��t t'f � a� �'.i°j� �. r :4 i y tt�r �f � y �.�.'� en= '�� Y, j`i t . ,t, s-...T jYy�'.`� t `�".� ai t��i.- Yb b'� � t 5 _ @�.t.': '�t . � Y�" td: .r. n e �..s� � K.� �.,.-^Z '...."�.� • �'� '�<'� � `�"- a f � �� r� 'ti � �`� i � � y'.°�r: � £f��y�..G.:_„y, 1 Y. �' .� � f .'Jr%�'�E.y.� I �:_ � .g,��'� . . �X" ^ ^�P � �e�a..r '��{•'� 6 ai' � � . �'S . .: �.. � =� . .� � ... ._. . . .` _ M . . � �,.'�.. �•�- '_ � '\�I�� . I�. ...- ....; .. • _ . - p,..;i_......_ - �' �^"_ I i' } 1 - "+ ' .' . _.: 'j�E' '� r ' ''� � .'S''v, : . :j ,r� ' �..,- � c5 11p .�:.,� -. �'' ��> 4 - � �� _ F �{x�'� � fi'"�`�'..' �4 . .�� i � t :�' '� ` -�ss�. `3�� } " N d„ � 4 � �-c'��' ' ^ �,6� y ' S � � „ � � � - : 'k � �t �i . . �:.�. . . � � � . �:. ,- - ��y�( j�� FK..,. � . 4� %�`.� 'Y>�.: . � .. ..� -,�'n.!`��`LYN�.'�-�'n �i�'� 2i/.'L`. e°4i ..�t. - _ K..,..f,a, ,<,ro . . ' ' . -... . ... ti�_ . . , . � . , . . . . 'fa.+�-.� i ,- :� - � . � • . ��, "�' '� �:F r`,; : • . . . :�"�i�i -.-s • ' :yx y�:, _ -- " �r� : ��r�� p =*} �-� _, ,. � . � : i �� -�,.. • - - - - - - _- . ,. / , , CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Mounds View Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, May 17, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. at Mounds View City Hall, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, Minnesota, 55112, to consider a variance request by Harry Meinert for a reduced side yard setback to construct a new garage at 2195 Pinewood Drive. The property is legally lrnown as: Lot 31, Block 8 Pinewood Terrace No. 3 Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to this matter may be heard at this meeting. If you are unable to attend the meeting but wish to comment, you may submit a letter to James Ericson, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112. The letter will be forwazded to the Planning Commission. Copies of the plans are available for review at City Hall. If you have any questions regarding tlus meeting or if you want to make an appointment to review the plans, please contact me at (763) 717-4022. James Ericson Planning Associate This notice is mailed to property owners within 350 feet of subject property. This notice published in the Focus Newspaper May 4, 2000 N:�DATA\USERS�BARBB\SFIARE�KEEP-IT\WPdocs�Pubhearings�PC�Ivleinert Variance.doc _, .__, i. �' ' '_"__. I:�: .: ._'. . _ . " _ . ' " . ;�.�`. �_ _. - . .�__.-.�.. _. __.� Ic_"�_' ' ' __"_ __'� _ L.= :-..:... ,__f ._ . . _ .. ..._ . . .._ ..�.... . .. .. .... .. '. I . � - I � � � � April 25, 2000 TO: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Harry Meinert I, Harry Meinert would like to request a variance to build a 24' x 24' garage on the existing property site. The current garage sits three feet from the western border property line. I have already received permission in writing from the resident of 2201 Pinewood Drive to build the new building up to the property line. The new structure would still be a full six feet from the house and would run the 24' to the western property line. Therefore gaining the necessary footage to accommodate my property to its fullest, without gaining a variance and having to comply with set backs. I would be to close to the house (less than the 6 ft. minimum). Sincerely, ��l..�vr�„f Harry D. Meinert u � April 18, 2000 City of Mounds View City Hall 2401� Highway #10 Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 To Whom it may concern: I Thomas A. Meyer, on this day of April 1$, 2000 do hereby give Mr. and Mrs. Harry (Mickey) D. Meinert, residing at 2195 Pinewood Drive, Mounds View, Minnesota, the permission to build up to the existing (east side) property line (of my property), a garage. The only requirement I ask is that any damage to my lawn west of the property line that may be damaged due to the building of such garage be repaired after the garage has been constructed. Thomas A. Meyer 2201 Pinewood Drive Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 Signitures: Thomas A. Meyer: � ��/ Mr. / Mrs. Harry (Mickey) D. Me�nert: Y ° `�'" � / -�; ' . � ��Date: C` � Date: _�_ ,��- ,,�j�`� �� f� ��:� ^ . ____ _ T _ _ �, �., . _ _ .:� -. -- -- -- _:y;.,..-- ,�., _-�-_------= ----- �. -- 3 � Item # 6 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: May 17, 2000 Title: PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 1,248 SQU1�RE-FOOT OVERSIZED GARAGE LOCATED AT 2832 WOODALE DRIVE. Plannirzg Case No: CU00-004 Applicant: Thomas Stampfle Locatron: 2832 Woodale Drive Applzcable Regulatioras: • 1104.01, Subd. 4: Accessory buildings shall have a setback of 5 feet. Accessory buildings shall not be allowed in the fiont yard. • 1106.03, Subd. lf: No garage shall exceed 952 square feet except by CUP. • 1106.04, Subd.6: This section lists the specific conditions for garages exceeding nine hundred and fifty-two square feet. • 1125.01, Sub. le: This section lists possible adverse effects that the Planning Commission shall consider in malcing its recommendation. Iiztroduction: The applicant, Thomas Stalnpfle, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to construct a 1,248 square-foot garage on his property located at 2832 Woodale Drive. The heavily wooded 37,000 square-foot lot is well maintained and improved with an older, one and a half story cape cod and a small two-car garage attached to the home by a breezeway. The existing garage will be demolished to make room for the proposed garage, which would be built in the same location in the side yard. There is a small 10 x 10 shed on the property, hidden in the woods. Discussione Section 1106.4, Subdivision 6, lists the specific conditional use permit requirements for garages larger than 952 square feet. These requirements, such as setbacics and maximuin square-footage would be met with this proposal. The setbacks for an accessory structure are iive feet; the applicant is proposing to reconstruct the garage 10 feet from the side property line and 70 feet from the street. The Code sets an upper limit of accessory storage space on a property at 1,400 square ___ __ ____ r .. , . : �;- - - -=- ----- �--- ------ - - Stampfle OS Garage CUP 2832 Woodale Drive May 17, 2000 Page 2 feet. With the proposed garage and the shed in the woods, there would be 1,348 square feet of accessory buildings on this lot, iifty-two square feet less than the maxiinum allowed. As is the case with every conditional use permit application, the Planning Commission is required to consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. The findings of the Planning Commission shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: • Relatiorzshzp wztli tlze CoT�aprehensive Plan. • Tlze Geogi�aphical Ai�ea Involved • Whether such use will tencl to oY actually dep�°eciate the a�°ea in w1�.ich it is proposed. • The CIZai°acteT° of the SuYrou�zding Ai•ea • The demonstrated need for such a use. The Planning Commission believes that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 2832 Woodale Drive, as low-density residential. Most of the lots in this area of Mounds View are large and able to support larger garages. There is a good mix of housing styles in the neighborhood, some of which are traditional, others, including the home adjacent to the east, are more eclectic or avant-garde. Given the size of the lot, a privacy fence along the east side property line and the heavily wooded condition of the lot, it is not believed that the construction of the proposed 1,248 square-foot garage would depreciate the neighborhood in any way. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and would fit with the general character of the neighborhood. The applicant has indicated that the existing garage is in poor condition and needs to be replaced. Given the inconvenient location of the shed, the expanded garage area would offer additional convenient storage space. Staff inspected the property and believes that the proposed garage would not appear out of place, would be more than adequately screened from the neighbors and would maintain a sense of balance and proportion on the property. The adverse effects of this proposal, if any, are minimal. Recommeridation: Given the above fndings, staff recommends approval of P1amling Commission Resolution 617-00, with stipulations. �� C�/►'v�Lj ��'�`....t.t ��-�.`ry�� James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Development Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Existing Site Plan 5. Proposed Site Plan 6. Letter from Applicant, dated 4/6/00 7. Resolution 617-00 Ra.. � ,z�r,i Fve' i. �, i.• '��'��`�:;�:�- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT :. �,., A DEVELOPMENT APPLTCAI'IO' � ::�:�,,;;;- •,�� ::i�:�r�;, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 5511� n��'rt ° partner5��e� 612-717-4020 6I2-784-3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information Name of Applicant Address Thomas Stampfle Telephone ( 61 2) 780-9022 2832 Wooddale Drive F� _ Moundsview, MN 55112 Interest in Property (check appropriate box) � � Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager o Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other (explain) Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of appGcation, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the iiling of this appGcation. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location Legal Description Property Identification # (PIN #) # of Acres Cuirent Zoning 2832 Wooddale Drive Lot #92 Knollwood Park .832 Residential � Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ . Rczoning o Major Subdivision ❑ Minor Subdivision ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) ❑ PUD A.mendment � Conditional Use Pemut Q Variance ❑ Code Appeal � ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan ❑ Wetland Alteration Pecmi[ ❑ Wetland Buffer Perniit o Floodplain Pernvit � ❑ Other $250 $250/acre; min $250 max $ I 500 $250 + $250 deposit* $200 Refer to rezoning fees $350 R-1, R-2 $75; all others $250 R-1, R-2 $100 all others $250 $100 $125/acre; min $125 max $750 R-1, R-Z $150; all others �200 R-1, R-2 $25; all others $100 $200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public no[ices, materials and staffor consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicaint shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days after consideration of the application is completed. Please coroplete the reverse side of this application. ' . _ .! . __ . ' I. � . . . .- .. _ . . . . .. - . . ., . .t'�i . _ - , , . . : _ _ �_._.t_.>:_�s .-._.- -. .. -v.�'�-.�+,� � '_ "`.i. �_ _ � '_"'" '�_�--d..- _�.. .—_=._" " � � City of t1�lounds View, MN � Development Application Page 2 i Present Use of Property ❑ UndevelopedNacant � Single Family Dwelling ❑ Duple:c/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-farnily Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment o Industrial Establislunent ❑ Other (e;cplain) Properiy Class�cation � Abstract ❑ Torrens �- i • • • •.• . �-��• •� • - .. �- -•- • - • _.- _.. ... •�• •■ •• �- •- -•- . - -. ■ �- . ••_ • . � • _ • ! - � • . - • - - - . � - • � � • - BY MY (OUR) SIGNAI`URE ON THIS APPT.ICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO TI� BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFURMATIUN PRUVIDED I5 TRUE AND ACCURATE. Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant (typed/printed) Signature of Property Owner Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner �I��.u. _u• - Thc�ma c �i'amr�f 1 r� 8"� w��r�r�a 1 e Llxive Moundsvi��t, MN 551 1 � (612) 780-9022'(H) (fi�?) A�A_7RS4 Ext. 228 (W) ************************************************************************************************ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY � Date of Submittal � ' �7 - '"�: .) Da[e of Acceptance Assigned to: Plaruung Case No. cu.<�� `' 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: Account # ry Check # Receipt # Application: �}" 7 5 ) 3 O � � 7 -1 �`�.� 1D �f �'9 ��r.� Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: N:�DATAIGRUUPS\COtifDEV\['ORIvtS\DEV,�PP.FOR 1/98 , _. - ------��.� �� _ _- ,�, _-- —�. -- - - — _ :.� _ _ � _ _ �� Zoning Map 2832 Woodale Drive • 7381 7382 � �365 � ?3E0 .._._ - : -_- � ._ _ . , _ 73�7 � i �134i , ` i ` ;732� ; j i , 337: �; N; W� o �. o . 0,. o,I � : rn rn N t�t � Cv ; N N ; ,� ;:� c'v : - a ; o �i N . SV ,. CJ ; N : M ; � ; � I � ; i ! � ' '. � � i : ; f_..._:..�.�,. _ -� --�- '- -- --.,._.._._,_ � ; 7234 ; ; 722� i---!....._..._._..... . .__._...... �20ti I , ; 7188 , � ..__,_ . ........... .._- .._. 7?- i 715� '' . �_ _�I .� � � ' _._... a' ! a' v' y � a> ' rn� i �'� `�-� �f � / I � _� ; ... --�� ,=38 � 73 �� 7378 7374 �I 7�7Q � 73f�5 , '��0�'.� 7295 B- 1 �� , � � ,. ,: b � w x 3 n �,;_ �_ � ��zs r• ; r- : �• � �� t�� ci:� cv ��v � 732 � � DG LN 732 � I r°- � =: � - ,r'. �n`V :�' �__731 359 M �- - _ . 'n•n �731� x 7309 ` tn ; u� 730 ,•- -- - � � h� n R-2 :r ��' o'o .r : � cv 1'• ; f� . (� ��; N� � �1�- i - ,=- ��89. _ ��. p�5i78'!517r 51765t7 ;• _ ._, _ .. � 5174,�,17� �t 5172, 517 i _.! . � W5370'Si69 �� 51 fi8�5167 � ..... ... .: . . ...... (., O 5 t 6fi`5 7 65 I 5164;51 fi3 � ��sz'e,�s, � 527g! 527. �2 5272; S27 52 52E6; �267 �2 52fi0` 52b1 _525��_525' o � 524 � -M 5248i ir. 5242; �24 � 523&i.523 --� ` 52� 2: 5230 �-- �._ ._, 5224 ;_ �2` 2� _ -� 52? 1 5218 !._.._.�.. �.. ' S21 $� 5212 `- � - - _._; 521 1 --� 5206 :...-, .._.. . 5� . _ . _.... . 5205 -,:... 5200i-•- - � 52 - - ---- 5201 . _ _. 5148;--- -• 51 �707Q � �� ._....-':5149 ---. �. N 5143 51 +�0 : 5141 51 706 5139 5i32s�t33 51 .. '�; R^2 . ..�.._ .. _._;_ --- n `: 0 5133. 51�45125�5i � . � '� -- -- - �pR^ � �OC3f�CREST ��>>.� s�is:s.i�., �.�1 !� 1 > PARK _ .._ � sios�5�os z s1 ::' �_�.J -� � 51 13 � - - - -- ��.y - - j� � �� c� 5107 5100 ; 51 d 1 51 � (O - C , 5092•_.�091 5092 N SfJ92 �� 5C ; - __ � ___...- -; - . -r .. . .�..,._ 5a86i �08 � 5086; Sf}8 5086 50� 5( '` 6960 __... . ;...___. --..._.._ ,...._ _- 508 �..- .-_ 5(}80_�a�-- 5080�_507 5080 ��T 5C 547 � 5071 5Q72� 5071 5072 �071 Si _..: _�...._._._ , . ..,.... .. 6940 5G66', 5065 � 5G56� 506_. 5�J8 506 5( _.--_ ___ .. S ..._._. -- 506T -- .---:...._ 5Q�9 � 5060� 50�� 50 505 5( - --� _. �,...-.. � __.___.�.-_-.,.. 545_ �rn i o 5054� 5p53 O 5C�54 5053 5054 50� 5C � � N �04fi � `,045 � ��46' SO45 504 51 ;i_.___ : City of Mo�nds Viev�v - L�caiion �Vl�p ... r� r■�ii� �i""�� ■ � : i!;�� 1 1 " 1 �� C ��il �� C �� '��I� �II� r� �� ■ �„„� ��,�„„ "��► �� ii i�� ii �� ..� �� : •••. - � � �■ �� O �� /� � �� ■�r �� ■■ �� ■�� ■� �� ■� �� ■ �i i� „ ,1 �� Thomas Stampfle Property Involved: 2832 Woodale Drive Conditonal Use Permit Planning Case No. CU00-004 � ��:::� �-:,; :�: :<:u::>.::..:::& :ii:::;t :�:e�i;:eii; 2832 Woodale Drive Properties Within 350' y � , I CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF R1�MSEY S TATE OF l��INNES OTA � ' NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the Mounds View Planning Commission on Wednesday, May 17, 2000 at 7:00 p.m, and by the Mounds View City Council on Monday, May 22, 2000 at 7:15 p.m. at Mounds View City Hall, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, Minnesota, 55112, to discuss and consider the request of Thomas Stampfle for a conditional use permit for an oversized garage (1,248 SF) at 2832 Woodale Drive. The property is legally known as: Knollwood Park Lot 92 Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to this matter may be heard at these meetings. If you are unable to attend the meetings but wish to comment, you may submit a letter to 7ames Ericson, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112. The letter will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council. If you have any questions regarding these meetings, please contact me at (763) 717-4022. James Ericson Planning Associate This notice is mailed to property owners within 350 feet of subject property. This notice published in the Focus Newspaper May 4, 2000. WOODAL.E DRNE' EXISTlNG SITE PLAN FACE OF GARACE TO EOCE OF S7REET IS 85 FT. EAST WALL OF GAF%1GE TO PROPERTY LINE IS 12 FT. BACKWALL OF GARAGE TO PROPERTY LINE IS 181 FT. WOOD.4lE IJRNE ' PROPOSED S1TE PLAN ° FACE OF CAftAGE TO EDGE OF STREET 1S 70 FT. ° E45T WALL OF GARAGE TO PROPERTY LINE IS )0 fT. ° BACKWALL OF GARAGE TO PROPERTY LINE 15 168 F7. TOM STAMPFLE 2832 1N00DALE DRIVE MOUNDS VIEW� MINNESOTA DATE: 9/it/98 Apri16, 2000 Mr. Jim Ericson, Planning .A.ssociate City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112-149 Dear Mr. Ericson: Find enclosed my application for a`Conditional Use Permit' and a site plan for a proposed garage on xny property. My plans include the total demolition of the existing garage structure (and slab) do to it's 60 year age which has taken it's toll on the structural integrity of the building. A sagging roof, no footings, are just a few of the things that are tiuning this structure into a hazard in the not to d.istant future. The proposed structure is an oversized building with m.easurements of 52' long x 24' wide. As the plan details show, it is a basic gable style building with no special effects that may stand out in a fri.endly neighborhood setting. The new st-ructure will have a proper type foundation and modern construction practices incorporated. I would like to make the finished grade of the new structure about 1' higher than the existing building. During the spring melt and longer � average rains, the existing garage can become a holding pond for the rain water. By raising the grade I can elitrunaie this problem entirely and get the driveway to slightly slant towards the street. Please review the information and call me any time with questions. Sincerly, �—� �� , �ea�r� Thomas Stampfle TJS/comp c.c. File � i � j � _ _ __ :_ - - . = - -_ -- ----- -� - =? - � � .. m Photographic Documentation 2832 Woodale Drive ;� �� :: - � .. r,�s- .0 t @@@lll . y.� � _ . ' . . ' � � � � ��S"`G ��,�.r' �Q "� S�_' - . [` . ��y,V^ N �1 tl : �'j, �' ' �� , V � i�,^ t r'� 1_' S , � `� '�i��.s�,( � � 3�,y 1.r�yy `. .� - ..:'y ey„�' �u.ytt %r'�i3j.c�x �.�t '� . ak +ir '"t' r "eX' �? � . . � '� ��,,it:��,�.ir S�i-"L.ki,q,�'°'_� 7:�'„��.�'Wig ,w ��ei..y�'r"`"`-r >�� s. .��-s'- . �ya��,r�.�-zn ' � . .hy..e .. W �,� �# .�, r.��' �v�r a w�; r•hn„,y��-'h.±re. �n�.- . f��i �� "� �Y" �'1.�.' �` ` ;'l.� . q : "� /a �1 i �"�aZ...i.'3 `My�: � . ��'1 '��Y. �-._:..� . < .. . - �� _ .: _ ._ 1 ... . _ _ _ . _. , t ' L. _.i�_i�_. � .:"_ �.'.. ` c-1_.�"-r � h.�. � rY.s�� r =--�--r� �—=�----- --- ----:_ � . -- ---- --.. . _,_�:_�_� — � . j , j i � . I � , � MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 617-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A 1,248 SQUARE-FOOT OVERSIZED GARAGE AT 2832 WOODALE DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. CU00-004 WHEREAS, Thomas Stampfle has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,248 square-foot garage in the side yard of his property located at 2832 Woodale Drive, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as follows: Lot 92, Kraollwood Park Raraisey County, Mi�anesota WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,400 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Development Application b. Zoning Map c. Existing Site Plan d. Proposed Site Plan e. Location Map f. Public Hearing Notice g. Photographic Documentation h. Letter from Applicant, dated 4/6/00 f. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission fnds that the proposal satisiies the dimensional requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed garage would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved in that the lot is rather large and expanded garages are coinmonplace residential structural improvements which help lceep properties neat and orderly; and, _:: ; . _ - - ; - �.,,. _�,l _: . . . . .t-. . : : r. _ - - . r _ ___ _ . . : _ _ . __ __ _ ______ -�-, .>; --- ----- ---��-�,._-� . ' �_- _ . ..::-...��...J __-_'_ ...:- �. _ � _ � �_ _.. _ _ . . Resolution 617-00 May 17, 2000 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood in that the proposed garage would replace an older, structurally unsound garage with a sagging roof; and, WHEREAS, Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed oversized garage; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Plaruiing Commission finds that the proposed oversized garage would be more than adequately screened by a privacy fence, mature trees and an adjacent garage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission reconzmends approval of the conditional use pernzit with the following stipulations: The applicant shall arrange to record the City Council resolution approving the conditional use pennit with Ramsey County and provide proof of such recordation to the City within sixty days of Council approval or this permit shall be considered null and void. 2. The garage shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. 3. No other sheds or accessory buildings shall be allowed on the property. 4. The garage shall be designed and maintained to be aesthetically pleasing and co�nplementary to the existing dwelling. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Conunission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted ihis 17th day of May, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Ricic Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DGVCASES\CU00-004\RESOLUTION 617-OO.DOC _ - _ ;� ;. _ � . =; R - - _— -- - ---- ---. ..� - . � Item # 7 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report MeetiTZg Date: May 17, 2000 Title: CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A 400 SQUARE- FOOT OVER-SIZED SHED LOCATED AT 7474 GROVELAND ROAD Planning Case No: Applacant: Locatiora: Applicable Regulatio�zs: CU00-005 Phil Johnson 7474 Groveland Road • Section 1106.03, Subd. lh, states that no property shall have more than one shed and one garage. • Section 1106.03, Subd. lj, stipulates that the combined square footage for all accessory buildings in a rear yard shall not occupy more than 20% of the rear yard. • Section 1106.04, SuUd. 7lists the specific conditional use requirements for an over-sized shed. • Section 1125.01, Subdivision 1 lists the general adverse effects criteria which need to be addressed in order for a conditional use permit to be approved Introduction: The applicant, Phil Johnson, is requesting approval of a conditional use pennit to allow for the construction of a 400 square-foot oversized shed in the backyard of his property at 7474 Groveland Road. The 15,840 square-foot, well maintained lot is improved with a newer bricic split-level home and attached two-car garage. There is currently one small shed on the property that will be removed to make room for the proposed, larger shed. Numerous mature trees and an 8-foot tall privacy fence shield the back yard of view from adjacent properties. Discussion: Section 1106.4, Subdivision 7lists the specific conditional use permit requirements for accessory storage buildings in excess of 216 square feet. These requirements, such as setbacics and maximum square-footage would be met with this proposal. The setbacics for an accessory structure are five feet; the applicant is proposing to locate the shed in the southwest.corner of the rear yard no closer than five feet to the property line. The area of the proposed shed would be 400 square feet, which is the maximum allowed. The Code requires that by accessory buildings take up no more than 20 percent of a rear yard; this proposal would equate to an 8.9 percent coverage. t _*�: � _._._::, i`_ _____=-.a� � :..�, w_ Ir . -: - -� �` ' - =-- - - -_-- --- _ � � � -:� !c -- _- Johnson CUP May 17, 2000 Page 2 As is the case with every conditional use permit application, the Planning Commission is to consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. The findings of the Planning Commission shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: • Relationship with the CoinpJ°ehensive Plan. • The Geographical Area Involved • Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. • The Character of the Surrounding Area • The demonstrated need for such a use. The Planning Commission believes that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 7474 Groveland Road, as low-density residential. Most of the lots in this area of Mounds View are either the same size as the subject property or larger with a good mix of housing styles. Given the size of the lot, the number of mature trees and the complete bacicyard screening accomplished by the wood privacy fence, it is not believed that the construction of the proposed 400 square-foot shed would depreciate the neighborhood in any way. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and would fit with the general character of the neighborhood. The applicant has stated the existing shed is too small to suit his storage needs and has thus requested approval of the larger shed. Staff inspected the property and believes that the 400 square-foot shed would not appear out of place, would be more than adequately screened from the neighbors and would maintain a sense of balance and proportion on the property. The applicant has submitted a non-binding list of signatures of neighbors and area residents who would not be opposed to the oversized shed. The property owners adjacent to the applicant do not oppose the proposed shed. Recommendation: Given the above findings, the apparent support of the neighbors, the more than adequate screening and the fact that proposal would meet all applicable requirements of the City Code, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 618-00, a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of this conditional use pennit request, subject to stipulations. ; �.�! c:�uvt� �2�.�-vz—� James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Development Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Photo Documentation 5. List of Signatures 6. Resolution 618-00 _ �_z__ � i _ _ _ . _ _ ; _> _ , � :.� ._ _ ._�<:�. _ _ _ — - - - - -- :. _ _ . ---- - --- - -- --. _.-- - -- ---�---- . � -- - � i;u'ii `i� �:�' l J� I Jj:� �ri4: A �° �.`•I:�':'�t:r �,� . .. ti ,('ri f� � ParMeYS��Q AppGcant Information Name of Applicant Address COlV11l�IUNTTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTIi�EN'I' DEVELOPIi�IENT APPLICATION 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form �-(� 763 -�7��--5�(�,2 �1� � L. � � ,� s e � -f''I 7 �l"1 �l � (�c�V �C��(J �-� Nt � v�I � U 0�-ti' iM. �..1 SSI l 2. Inte�st in Property (check appropriate box) � Owner of Property ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑ Other (explain) Telephone � ' � �3 �� L �`3 �� '' � Fax ❑ Conh-act for Deed Owner ❑ Agreement to Purchase Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal -�y �1 q ` �r Address or General Location /��-1 G``Clv � ��ivi,n �� ILl�1 �-�t''� S 11 t�.'ti s� �� Z Legal Description � Ll-- � 1 C� � t l �7� , S�� N(� L� �� I:IV C� �.S Property Ident�cation # (PIN #) '��,�QL � f1 �J �(�,�5 ��/ �.O�+N �� 1 I N �-' ' —r � # of Acres ��.C� �� l� yU � �! � .S � � !� � E,' �`�( Current Zoning � S`�� .� ll��.-�C��' ca � � Y 1� � � � Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Rezoning ❑ Major Subdivision ❑ Minor Subdivision ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) � PUD Amendment Conditional Use Permit ❑ Variance ❑ Code Appeal a Develop Review/Site Plan ❑ Wetland Alteration Pernut ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit ❑ Floodplain Pernut ❑ Other $250 $250/acre; min $250 max $1500 $250 + $250 deposit* $200 Refer to rezoning fees $350 R-1, R-2 $75; all others $250 R-1, R-2 $100 all others $250 $100 $125/acre; min $125 max $750 R-1, R-2 $I50; all o[hers $200 R-1, R-2 $25; all others $100 $200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complcte the reversc side of this application. `►' �� f��7 . �z -, _ — _ _ _ _ __ _ .: � .� -. _ �; � V-_�.�.� �.. � . _ _ � �r � _ r � � _. �. =_ . . , . - = k --_------��__.__. - --- -j ---= - �--=- -- City of Mounds View, MN . . Development Application � � Pa�e 2 Present Use of Property ❑ UndevelopedNacant ❑ Duplex/Two F'amily Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) Property Class�cation Description of Proposai � Single Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelling o Industrial Establishment ❑ Abstract � Torcens 2 n �� a �- ��s��.y � �_� `u� �� s�b�� BY MY (OUR) SIGN'ATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PRO TRUE AND ACC T.. � � , Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant (typed/printed) _ _ � �--\\L1 � l�< � 0 -�}i�JS� �J Signature of Pro e Owner `�J� �. P rtY I Nazne of Property Owner (typed/printed) � Address of Owner : ��1 � C�1�.0 I/�CA�--� �.� �V1��S U r �-t..� i1�t �j . S'S112 Phone Number of Owner �(^ ! �o �J "� �L`�� b � � �' �! f Z- 1�'� � � b � "�� "� � J � ****************************************�******************************************************* , � FOR OFEICE USE ONLY . Date of Subinittal �-/ 7- QC� � Date of Acceptance Assigneii to: Planrwig Case No. � (�.i ,/�� Q�J � 60-day Limit 120-day limit • �'ees k'aid: Account # Check # � Receipt # Application: _ -� i 5 i 0 � - � .� 7 � �� c�-�� --� � ' Park Dedication: Deposits: . Other: Total: N:�DATA\GROUPSICOMDEV�FORMS�DEVAPP.POR 1/98 �:�� I�-,- :-:_ _.�. : .� _ � _ . - — - _ _ . -: � � -, =-- - - - -- -----�- - - - - - Zoning Map 7474 Groveland Road ��::: ;,�;;, _r �^_ .� _ _ - . � -�-- � r692 _.... :::::: �.cr r. .:• . ,.. ,,� ..:: _ ..... .. ; � , . 7G9 7665 cv . 7686 7685; �p ; ... � 7690 CD � �. ,N � � i--7680. .. ... _.. ,. � .._ I _..- a ��-'�n� � _ � � i�,o �sss '� �6s2� � 7675 � 7fib5. � 76$ X � ?G3C -�£�4 ?614 ?soa ?584 �564 ?546 �s�a O O � �s'd 7665 ! 7660 � _ ._._ : .. .. __.. 7655 i 7Bb6 7E47 � 7G44 7653 .. ._..,_. ._ ......_ ._. � 7033 7654 7629 763� 7635 . _ --- --- i 7$29 7620 7625 i 7fi20 - __-. •;, f . `. ___.�..............,:.____ _ _- , 7627 � ]i:UO 7619 ,' �SG� 76U1 ; . ' _ , � 758� � 7594 757� � � �� ' 7581 j 758 ... . � I 7579 � .758ti -- --... -- -. --- . __._, _,._ .,. � . . --.._. .. 7565 p 756J_ 758 C� 7585 —__ .....: _ . ; ?55 O ._ ,---- z _ . ..-- R-2 �. 755� i � 7555 ' 7b7� � ...._ W. _...._ _ --.:� ..... .... .... J -- -. ._....... 7. 5.. 7545 _ 755 O 7545_ � a, � 7552, � : �S� N , ^ ;.. . _ _ ` 754 Y 75t5 ; �� _. i��`..4z_ _.�..,.- ....�'_ _.. ... ._.. :...T....,..� . 754.� � . f�. � +i� .h .. m j � I � I N1 � %�JU1 N : � : %rJ�O N � r�j N � N J�.3 . ..7rJTJO D�IVE 22 ;.- � �' 7490 7485 � m �di� h'— - I 7474 74�9 _-� ; N 1 -� , oi , � � 493 a� ; � � , 75UT� 7485 j '. 7474 7471 747 r' ; N i " I74b2 - ---- BROh;SON 74 �7 --�•- - - --- . 7�454 ' ,: ..__._ 7451 , 745E` N i cc W `t •- --- _--- 74A$ 7445 R-� 7,L52 s ': v� • m'� I -• �--..._ ..._._- N � cy i t�� .. �.,._....__ .---._ .... . ........- . , QG 743d 7435 � i �4 � 7475 i .--_- --- �"- � _ � � 744 r�- i 744 . ,; a . - -- . � .._ .. ,. _r.. _ _ , R 740Q i : t 7440 � A 74-0 ?4b5 ; 74 f 2 -., .0 ; ( 7408 7390 } -------- � --• �- -- - ._ 74 _ _._. .. � z ' 7395 7400 �� 73'JO [r �381 ; 7JfS2 � � _ ..._ .__ -.._ -- . _ : .. ......_ . ..? .. . .. .. ._ ! -r3$ _.__.. . .... __ � 735U ___�_ [L ....... _... .__.._. 7350 � 7365 7360 7375 �, � �_� --____ 7378 _ - ---- . _ �. _ .. � - - - - , ff 7350 � 374 Y 73a� � ~ � �3�c 7373 R�-2 j _ .... 7S4 _ --.... -- i`'*'IU� --- ' � � ;i32 7327 .r `M 73`�`� ?3f6 � I i ` � �%��J� N �� N� I � %3.ryi8 ��'� » n 3i7, r�i J cv�v � n I d i o j7317; �� r. ai ._ '� h�,lu5n' � . . 1 1 .M �h.M.Ml ' � f� m. 0� � rn� m � a7 00 : aa aoE �" �°D : 73 i 0 ^ �: "7 i N r r�' N: N; N %��Jr'cvcv.c�cv3' N' N� :(J I� O, N- `} 1 tQ �� lb � 6 O I� f� pMj G�i ' t�" ; a� ! Oi M � c� , N; c� c� . rv �+ � ca _..�.._�I i ; i � � � � 1 . ' I , � j . � - :. _. .. .,. � .........I .__ - i.._. � , I •I_ . �._... ---- '7234 ! �� j ' _.........,__.._...7226 , t.. _.._ 720C1 I : _t.:_::_.�, _ . . - -i ---_ —. ,._._ _ . -- - � i ; � 71 �B$ )------•--......---�-- ....._.. 7772 ; � .____ __�_._. _ ... _ i 7150 I � Q j �I..- ----�. _...1 �. � _ �... � � r a� `: rn rn � UJflIlflAl � � <p i `3' : `D ' Q? � c� N ' O Nj ab I Cp °? '728 ly ` N � CJ <'J : � : : �, i i I ' I - , ;,-. , ^_. ; i' � � ��~:72a � � �� I _, .,-_ .... ..... ... .._1 1-'�_...., __t._ . �z3� __ - — 1"j - -- - _. � ; - � 722`� i ' - ...._.. ..... . ...... ........�_. 727 r � r'�. . ` 7190 719t , f�-4 � 7780' ' 1511 �.._....-, _ ... �-._ .- � --^� � I M ` N 1 r~ ' � ' � � 711; oo � Eu !�o I ao a� ; oa . CV � C`! ' N; N (V . l�t np �' 1 ,' PU� G � N SILVER V1EW PAR K PF _. l� , 6 � �� Y c.�i�i� n � n �N -� C � -. � °� �n p i, N n p r' ..' N ._. n - -- � - :� �. N� �`v °�'��`�C � � ,� r .... _ � y� i42 a,, Y, _._. . ', o � '�`�aai ' �, �ti �t' v , i� ri �42� � ; R �, �'-'. � : - � � �. pR 733 - vttw , .� ; ��_.� i.._ �i o y i 4t'i� �j33 �. c ' c � T' �- �� - _ R '_ �;:.'n , a _ i��319 I`. i� i h i N �C..!�� '� M :DG L1�1 732 rry.i n; t�• -__ ,..cv . , cu : � _ 731 � �' � J3�9 r,�'.�, a ` � . ! ,� ,' M 731 S . �c 7509 � '�� M ci M 730 -.,M .. ; :._ : `� : h , h ?� R-2� ` ��i�, ~� ; �i � a�o I n r. � r� n I��"C� N (V 5177 ;- �1$�1$ !r i � 0 5178.i517i 5t 76517 � ......_�_;..- . Q �� 51 74, a,17 C ! .... _ _ ` 5172:517 'ti -- _ � 51704�6 � --- � 51 fi8'�5167 J:- _•-- �I'� � rj i s��-' � f? � t.�.',��,.,. 5278; 5=�: �1in 5272', 527 5272I -� . , d, 52�6, ��7 5206� �i 52f0' S261 _ ,..... "TZ� 525d� �25� Q � � N [� -M.. ,. � 5248� 524 � ; � ,--• �o � 5242� 52q. cv � a 5?.35 _ 523-- i � � 5230'i__a2� 234 cv ; _ ---= , � _ 5224:522 224 N _.___� 52� 1 52181..._..,..� 521 z S 521 5212; � —;52�1� ca}� c�ty of Mou�ds v�e�► Location Map �► �� Z� � �,W � �� f f _ t }gn� k ' E � �� .I � _;� 'l�� .�:, �. _ , �u "" I �� ! 7 �... �f - C F ' 1 j �� — � � � r �,. ... 7 .�' _....� ..... �_�.. .;_i. �� ■.1 �'.1 �,II� �� ` �� i ; 7474 Groveland Road I L Phil Johnson Property Invoived: 7474 Groveland Road Conditional Use Permit Planning Case No. CU00-005 � . , .. �.�a��:�. ��`\\�`� ,: .�.., 7474 Groveland Road Properties Within 350' '.� ..` / , I CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA � �- � , J NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the Mounds View Planning Commission on Wednesday, May 17, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. and by the Mounds View City Council on Monday, May 22, 2000 at 7:05 p.m. at Mounds View City Hall, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, Minnesota, 55112, to discuss and consider the request of Phil Johnson for a conditional use permit for an oversized storage building (400 SF) at 7474 Groveland Road. The property is legally known as: Spring Lake Park Knolls Except west 154 feet; Lot 104 Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to thus matter may be heard at these zneetings. If you are unable to attend the meetings but wish to comment, you may submit a letter to James Ericson, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112. The letter will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council. If you have any questions regarding these meetings, please contact me at (763) 717-4022. James Ericson Planning Associate This notice is mailed to properly owners within 350 feet of subject property. This notice published in the Focus Newspaper May 4, 2000. _ _ _ � -= - -__- : _ _�, `_� _� -:' - - I - Photographic Documentation 7474 Groveland Road ! � � � � � , :� ; , _ � � . � �. 1 = .! • . _ ' . �fi _ � F� ' � ' �M�' / . _ � � � '4' . . _ . A� ti -:+i.G l.. .. ,� � _ , � 4` .' ' Y . _�;� . - : f• _ • i;�..�:"+�.,..;_. _ .. _ _ _ .: _ _. .� _ _ � . .__ . ..... �. . >.._.. _ ,...kro_ _ ..,,. _ . __. , . _ _ ._ _�. __.� �.._ � _. � --- — — - " {m_�� _ .. . --- , � �: i PLOT PLAI�T Address ��-i � � G ��' � ��:.�� -= — �=- i Date � � j � � � � . 1 �, Builder ��i--�� ... -� � �R� r`� ;::a � �� Owner � � �� Brief Descri t�on of Pro osed Constructaon � P P � Q� � �"� � ✓ �' � � �`� �'� V '� � i � i� �. E ;� i �,.1 t,� Building Permit No. - Show all existing buildingslstructures loc�tted on the property. - Show all proposed construction and l:�bel "proposed" - Indicated distance from proposed structures to all property lines. - Indica#ed dis#ance of �roposed structure(s) to existing structures. - Show street loc�taon(s) and nlme(s). _ - Show directional symbols (north, south, east west). �t%E�� Z0, � .. _�� . -_� .-Q _ � �i ZC� �-� -S �-� ,, ,- �� -- --- - �. _ _..._= �� --- � a '�„'' �-� > �� I �! �_i�r�o �'c�S� `t�_ �2.o.x 2.0� CC�� S 1 a_ _ . ., ---- �-�--�- --.___.. � _`0j:.01,_CS�'�:. TQ �O�J�r-=.� � XISTI t�l � ---. _ 1-� C� U S _�..�_. ._ .._ , � 50U..._...�1.�}'�.C�.� .�...� �,L�.�... ---- - _ r_ �..,.� t � 2 _ � :. .� �� : � �� , �� _ _. � __ . _.. ._. _ .2D ._.__. � City of Mounds Vi w Community Development Department * 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 � (612) 717-40?0, Fnx (G12) 784-3462 t 1 �2 �� . � �I xi :U J. r I l./ i� l ( i =--� rn ,�- �1�n� U� !� � � � 0 z � �, o- � .;� ;-� '� �o�� z �I � •2 x �� . � � .�— � � � r��" �' o �x �w �� `�, r ^. � � � � r 3' 'U � O � rn i- � v - . . • �r� � � .� m :�. � � .:�� ;m ;� ;� � Z $ ' � ;� , :r. � �� , �;;.�: �� :�� ;n c� 0 � z ✓ -� --- _ _ _ _ _ �.: . _ _ � .-1 � ��Coc � 1, �� 6� M,o-vr�� v►��v Q�-cC� � LS .� � ��.��-�+.� 1 S� ��! ! �� G o� SC 6 NU�iv�� 8 \ l (� c� � �t,�. ��I �C G l-� �oc2-S �� .� a � �.�"j 4 �j � �� b `�'t'�L �O�S��-� c.b� � ` � 20 ` 4,bn ��`� �CC�S'o��/ � �� 2o x � �� L� r � � � 7 � �-�,� � �� ".'� 6�-�� ° � �� P �'�-c'� �,►z�.� �t�� .�--�-�� 2�G�� t� 6 �y � 2� �� - � �� r� �. �-�-5 `W � c 1-� `� S ��S�T2vc��o�• �i�� .--� L�S r l� e.�vi� S � b�1 l � �y,� p��v � o � ►'�LL �► U E ��G��o�-S �'' � � e c'-e � 1�'t'y L° �-��' � �.�- �.� � R � �-- _ ��.�� -y � c�-�S� � � � �-c ��-S S � 2.�� ti� �y � �� 4 �� J� ��s � '� � --� �, � �� 2- � _ �� -� - �� (� � .�.� �ir� i �C =.. -_ �_— _`� �z= -_ -s_._, �.._.�=` �.._ ': . _.____`-_ -' - -_ . ,_�I . C4--_� �,�,� -_... �� .. . . i ____- -�'='= �----�:' ��—_� i , To the City of Mounds iriew; I do not object to the request by Phil Johnson for a Conditional Use permit to build a 20' x 20' Accessory (storage) building in his back yard at 7474 Groveland Rd.. 1. �� '�( l.`r� f J C� t"1 F L�(_ �% / G�t.� `�� L"`� / � � �I C��-�� " �� --� � � I z.) � t�- -� y3`( 2. �� ,�En � �c��yx - �-��-P��- � 7 � 51 �� ..� ��o�� r��2 � 1�� _ 7 �� 3. ��, �� 14�%�� r�` ��S`",�, � , � �/�' ��/��ti,� � ��:� �g y ��.�--- , � � ��' 4. � ;� �=�-u�� 9� ��G ��: /,�N �iz - ��v- � f �� s. �� . Sri,,� 6. �1�� z-�J �.c�Q �. ��' . , � . , 9. d� / � �' shedpet.doc �`►g� ��Il�u-�.,-� Q� �--� �ia-�)7-19�-% � 2 � � .�/� �°�``a"�z` � 2 �� _ 7 ��- 5 � �,S �� `%- �-'/ �� `/ '7 ,� �'-�, r %' y�d 9� � �� J�1/ l, V�„ � V� �" � ��. D vt, v��. �.�� 7 � (� - � � �Z .� - —� � u_ ! - —� — i � �._ _�� . — ------- _ _ ..�- . . ------- -� ��..- — - -- ---°-- _. - - — — -- F 6 To the City of Mounds View; I do not object to the request by Phil Johnson for a Conditional Use permit to build a 20' x 20' Accessory (storage) building in his b ck yard at 7474 Groveland Rd. � / �� i:- ? G!/�I �,? �.. `--"G�' �J �l,'�(2� �''�'? , 10. j � � �� .L� U-r? � r� /� �. , ��—��'��/ 11. \o�v� C�� W t,.�;� C.� ( �7S-i �� C�'f� c� v� ��- t--� �� , 3� 7�y,_2��c� , ia. ��r �� Uc� � ,� 2�3� IS�� t�� l,ou,�-�S '\%t��e��: �� l�`Z. 13. J�(�,� �-- � C1 /I �% � � / `1�� ll�.��d ��l ��AsU;�v � �rN SSI��- i 4. �� '�ru�i� 74�-� � K.v1G/��D'G� ,�� . ° "�O u.�?�� yj �t?t�J 1�✓J , S�5// � 15. ��22%�-� �� 7�5�� "� r � � �� . ��,� p��. �.-�-�.w �r+. �-�'��eQ.�. 17. shedpeLdoc -� �7 � k�..� �.��,�uv � 2� �,��s v��'cJ� �„� Ssr�Z �7�3_�g�(=as�S- . " ___.- . .. .� ; .' _ _ . .. _ . — _ . _ ' - ' .._ . _ _ L�__ � '_ «a_o. �-= . F-. . _ ' _ __" .'. , _ .. _ . 1, - _ t✓ __ MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 618-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A 400 SQUARE-FOOT OVERSIZED SHED AT 7474 GROVELAND ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. CU00-005 WHEREAS, Phil Johnson has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 400 square-foot shed in the Uacic yard of his property located at 7474 Groveland Road, property zoned R-1, Single Fainily Residential, and legally described as follows: The East 120. 0 Feet of Lot 104, Spriiag Lake Parlc ICizolls Additio�z, Ramsey Count��, Miiziaesota WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows sheds up to 400 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,400 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the Plaiuiing Coinmission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Development Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plan d. Photographic Documentation e. Signatures of Neighboring Residents f. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies the dimensional requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, tl�e Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission ftnds that the proposed shed would not be out of place given the character and geography of the su�rounding area involved in that the lot is rather large and sheds are commonplace residential structural improvements which help lceep properties neat and orderly; and, WHER.EAS, the Mounds View Plamling Commission finds that the proposed shed would not depreciate the neighborhood in that the oversized shed would allow the applicant to store items inside which might otherwise be left outside and would guard against a cluttered exterior appearance; and, �T T _-� u� 1. �, _ _ _ __ _ � �_� _ .,_ _. _ __ �. � _�.� --- °----- _ � ��-- _ _ , _---- __ _ _ Resolution 618-00 May 17, 2000 Page 2 WHEREAS, Mounds View Planning Cominission finds that the applicant has sufiiciently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed oversized shed; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed oversized shed would be more than adequately screened by mature trees and a privacy fence. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Conunission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: The applicant shall anange to record the City Council resolution approving the conditional use permit with Ramsey County and provide proof of such recordation to the City within sixty days of Council approval or this permit shall be considered null and void. 2. The shed shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. 3. No other sheds or accessory Uuildings shall be allowed on the property. 4. The shed shall be a permanent structure and shall be designed and maintained to be aesthetically pleasing and complementary to the existing dwelling and garage. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Plaruiing Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 17t" day of May, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Ricic Jopke, Comnlunity Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDLV�DEVCASES\CU00-005\RESOLU7'ION 618-OO.DOC _ ____ __ . : .. _ ---- ' �- -a_- '-. --_ _� __ ___.. E-- . --- --- -- -----�--- . . : - --��=—=- ----------- Item # 8 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: May 17, 2000 Title: PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN ENCLOSED OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA AT 4749 OLD HIGHWAY 8. Plannang Case No: CU00-006 Applicant: ASC Properties, LLC Locataon: 4749 Old Highway 8 Applicable Regulations: • 1116,04, Subd. l: Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use requires a conditional use permit. Introduction: The applicant, ASC Properties, LLC., represented by Bruce Hasselbring, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for a 1,920 square-foot outdoor chain-link fenced enclosure in which to store materials used by the building's tenant, Ace Supply Company. The Zoning Code allows for outdoor storage in an industrial district, but only through a conditional use permit. The 1.97 acre lot bordering the City ofNew Brighton is improved with a two-story, 38,000 square-foot office-warehouse building. The Planning Commission recently approved a side-yard setback variance for the applicant when ASC took ownership of the property earlier this year. The outdoor storage is desired to alleviate the inherent difficulties of maneuvering 10 and 15-foot sections of PVC pipe inside the building. Discussion: Section 1125.01 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. The findings of the Planning Corrunission shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: • Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. • The Geographical Area Involved • Whether such use will tend to or actually deprecicrte the crrea in which it is proposed. • The Character� of the Surroundirrg Ar•ea • The demonstr�ated need for such a use. , . . _ , - � .��z.��. - `.i: ., K__,.....�_ �.�°�`` h�.__ - - - _ �. . .s��-'�=_�i - �=`" ------- ---- ' � __��,____�. __- �.. ASC Outdoor Storage 4749 Oid Highway 8 May 17, 2000 Page 2 The Comprehensive Plan designates this property and this area for industrial uses. The subject property is improved with an office-warehouse type building, as is the property directly to the north. Other properties in the area support a mix of light and heavier industrial uses, many of which also utilize outdoor storage to some degree. The fenced enclosure would be visible to traf�'ic on Old Highway 8 as well as to the adjacent property to the north, whose offices would face the proposed enclosure. Staffreceived a call from the adjacent property owner who expressed concern about the appearance of the proposed enclosure. ASC representative Hasselbring has proposed to install heavy-duty woven slats to further screen the materials being kept outside. No chemicals, hazardous substances or waste materials would be stored outside within the enclosure—only weather-resistant PVC piping. Section 1125.01, Subd. 3, of the Zoning Code identifies the general conditional use permit pertinent to all CUP applications. The City Council is to consider these criteria in addition to the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission, For the Planning Commission to make a recommendation, staff thought it might be appropriate to review the general criteria in addition to the adverse effects considerations. These general criteria with responses are as follows: 1. The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, sfreets and other public facilities and utilities which se��ve or- crre proposed to serve the area. It is not expected that the enclosed outdoor storage area would have any impact on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve this area. 2. The use will be suffrciently compatible or sepa��ated by distance or screening fi•om adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that exrsting homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deten•ence to development of vacant land There is no residentially zoned or used land adjacent to or nearby the subject parcel and all land in the area has been developed. 3. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent reszdential pf•operties. There is no residentially zoned or used land adjacent to or nearby the subject parcel. As such, this criteria does not apply. 4. The use, in the opinion vf the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. Outdoor storage is a typical accessory use within this zoning district reasonably related to the needs of the businesses that operate in the area. S. The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. L' - -�-=-- _,_<v_s,.._ I��_ -- ASC Outdoor Storage 4749 Old Highway 8 May 17, 2000 Page 3 � 7. : -- - - _ . - �-- —_- _ �. _ -_.. The Planning Corrunission finds the proposed use to be consistent with the Zoning Code. T7ie use is not in cor�ict �vith the Conaprehensive Plan of the City. The Planning Commission finds the proposed use to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The use �vill not cause ira�c hazards or congestiorr. The proposed enclosure would not cause and traffic hazards or congestion. Adequate utilities, access roads, draznage and necessaryfacilities have been or will be provided The enclosed area would be located in the paved area adjacent to the building's north side, to which all utilities and access are already in place. It appears that all of the general conditional use permit criteria and adverse effects criteria are met with this proposed use. Recommendation: Given that the property is zoned Industrial and the comprehensive plan designates this area for industrial uses, and given that outdoor storage is a conditionally allowed accessory use in this district, and given the relatively minimal impacts of the proposed use, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Resolution 619-00, a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit for enclosed outdoor storage at 4749 Old Highway 8, with stipulations. � C� �NV�> �L��L James Ericson, Planner Attaclunents: 1. Development Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Proposed Site Plan (Separate Attachment) 5. Public Hearing Notice 6. Resolution 619-00 �� •.c�yr ,�.t,�, L';yJ� u wL -.. .. �. , _.� --- - — --- -- _ - �,��;��,",;;�; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ,, DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION p i.�};i+,;! 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 �� 612-717-4020 ,n�h� • Pa`c`jecs�`� 612-784-3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form - Applicant Information C `� 1 ° �c�5 a�C� �(� _ t b � Name of Applicant � `� � ` � P � �2' � � � `-e-- Telephone Address J Z� C� �`J �.�_2A.J � O� � C.. �U Fax ct S� -�1 a9 - l U m�l.s��.-E�ol�3 � � . S 5 �-a4� Interest in Property (check appropriate box) � �°" Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other (expla'vn) Applicaqts must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. - Property Description/Proposal � `� L, _ - C,� Address or General Location - � 1`� � �w `'�r V �� (�� ,�.�1 S S t I"]� Legal Description _ L" °� � �� ' � rn � �"'� � ��'� � Property Ident�cation #(PIN #) ��1 3 O a.. 3 l'-4 b o 0 5�- # of Acres Current Zoning l > ei`-E'].�o � 't Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendmen[ ❑ Rezoning ❑ Major Subdivision ❑ Minor Subdivision ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) ❑ PUD Arriendment � Conditional Use Permit ❑ Variance ❑ Code Appeal ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan ❑ Wetland Alteration Pernut ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit ❑ Floodplain Pernut ❑ Other $250 $250/acre; min $250 max $1500 $250 + $250 deposit* $200 Refer to rezoning fees $350 R-1, R-2 $75; All others $250 R-1, R-2 $100 all others $250 $]00 $125/acre; min $125 max $750 R-1, R-2 $150; all others $200 R-1, R-2 $25; all others $100 $200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant tune spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the isutial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days after consideration of the application is completed, Please complete the reverse side of this application. � l-� j - - i �_.-��-- - i '-- _ � ��. - - - -- -_ '��_ �I � � City of Mounds View, MN -- — — Development Application Pa�e 2 Present Use of Property , ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant o Duplex/'Two Family Dwelling e� Business/Commercial Establishment o Other (explain) Properiy Class�cation ❑ � Abstract ■ � Single Family Dwelling Multi-family Dwelling Industrial Establishment Torrens . ., n � ( _ BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, T HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE 1NFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE ACCURATE. Signatvre of Applicant Name of Applicant (typed/printed) �j2.v C,�. �. �-PrS S�1..(3 l� Signature of Properly Owner Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) � L° , � `1Z� �Z..1—1 � , � L.C, Address of Owner � U o1- �j ��2� O O� ��. �_ �rn�� , r� ��a� Phone Number of Owner �� -' q aq "� � 1p � g **************************************************�****************************************�**** / F(�R OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal �f �- � �^:� U Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. �-�t c� v—�' � l;� 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees _�i� j�; � Account #� Checl�#� ;� Receipt # Application: j 7 �� .�,y-� � � � %('� j'�,7 Park Dedication: ' Deposits: Other: Total: N:IDATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�GORMS�DEVAPP.POR 1/98 � . . .� --- �° ` : .- - i:`---- _'�� -- Zoning Map 4749 Old Highway 8 �2ao i230 i22o i210 i20U' . -- —=-`-- — — � - - s` . --- - _ ' � :: �� :: C� i: �� .. .. City of Mounds Vievor Location Map ASC Properties Property Involved: 4749 Old Highway 9 Conditional Use Permit Planning Case No. CU�0-006 �• • • • : �� ' •�- - 1 � ---� , , CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF R.AMSEY STATE OF l��lNNESOTA � NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the Mounds View Planrung Commission on Wednesday, May 17, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. and by the Mounds Vievv City Council on Monday, May 22, 2000 at 7:20 p.m, at Mounds View City Hall, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, Minnesota, 55112, to discuss and consider the request of ASC Properties, LLC for a conditional use permit for outside storage at their facility located at 4749 Old Highway 8. The properry is legally known as: Midway Industrial Lot 2, Block 1 Anyon�e desiring to be heard with reference to this matter may be heard at these meetings. If you are unable to attend the meetings but wish to comnnent, you may submit a letter to James Ericson, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112. The letter will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council. If you have any questions regarding these meetings, please contact me at (763) 717-4022. James Ericson Planning Associate This notice is mailed to property owners within 350 feet of subject property. This notice published in the Focus Newspaper May 4, 2000. . _ . " - " " _- . I _- � '_ I .. . "_ . . . .- .. . . . ..: . .. . . . " _ � . _ _. . - . �_ i� �`�___ t.___ - -"- . ��-: _-- -'-' --� .__ � �____. : i .�� ___ _ _._... -_ . _._-�_` _ _."."_'_ " _ ___ MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 619-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RA.MSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A FENCED, OUTDOOR STORAGE ENCLOSURE AT 4749 OLD HIGHWAY 8; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. CU00-006 WHEREAS, Bruce Hasselbring, representing the applicant ASC Properties, LLC., has applied for a conditional use permit for outdoor storage at 4749 Old Highway 8, property zoned I-1, Industrial, and legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, Midway Industrial Ramsey County, Minnesota r__ __-__ � � WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows outdoor storage within industrial zoning districts; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Development Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Survey date stamped 5/8/00 d. Location Map e. Public Hearing Notice f. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies the dimensional requirements as outlined in Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission iinds that the request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Industrial and outdoor storage is common in industrial areas; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed outdoor storage would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved in that other industrially-zoned properties in the area utilize outdoor storage; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed outdoor storage would not depreciate the neighborhood in that the enclosure would be visible only to the industrially- zoned property adj acent to the north; and, WHEREAS, Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the applicant has sufiiciently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed outdoor storage; and, � _ _ _- ° _-- _ ------- '� _� � � �.. ;----=_ -----�-=—_- -_= Resolution 619-00 May 17, 2000 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed outdoor storage would be adequately screened by chain-link slatted privacy fencing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: � 3. The applicant shall arrange to record the City Council resolution approving the conditional use permit with Ramsey County and provide proof of such recordation to the City within sixty days of Council approval or this permit shall be considered null and void. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining a building permit for the enclosure. The storage area shall be anchored securely to the building and ground and enclosed with lockable gates. 4. The fence used to form the enclosure shall utilize diagonal slats to screen the contents within the enclosure from public view. Said slats shall remain in place for the duration of the enclosure; missing or broken slats shall be immediately replaced. 5. � 7. There shall be no storage of hazardous, flammable or toxic materials or chemicals of any kind within the enclosure. The applicant shall allow for periodic onsite inspection of the enclosure by appropriate City or county inspectors to verify compliance with the provisions of this resolution. Violations of the conditions of this approval may result in the possible revocation of the conditional use permit. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 17�' day of May, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\CU00-006�RESOLUTION 619-OO.DOC , . _. � i _ _ _ . v . _ _ ,. . . .. � � � . . -' - : : . . . _ :".` _ . _ . .. . _ .. " . �:'.,. ,'�" _ . - ..' _�' "- . _'_' `-.__ "�' L . . . - . �I ' . _ _'. _ _-� .. . . _ . . . ��.-.�. i_ _'_' _ _' Item # 9 Czty of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: May 17, 2000 Title: PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 1,150 SQUARE-FOOT OVERSIZED GARAGE LOCATED AT 2251 OAKWOOD DRIVE. Plannang Case No: Applicant: Location: Applicable Regulations: CU00-007 Kenneth Waste 2251 Oakwood Drive • 1104.01, Subd. 4: Accessory buildings shall have a setback of 5 feet. Accessory buildings shall not be allowed in the front yard. • 1106.03, Subd. lf: No garage shall exceed 952 square feet except by CUP. • 1106.04. Subd.6: This section lists the specific conditions for garages exceeding nine hundred and fifty-two square feet. • 1125.01. Sub. le: This section lists possible adverse effects that the Planning Commission shall consider in making its recommendation. Introduction: The applicant, Kenneth Waste, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to construct a 1,150 square-foot garage on his property located at 2251 Oakwood Drive. Mr. Waste has indicated that the existing single-stall garage is in poor condition and needs to be replaced. The lot is 12,000 square feet, slightly larger than the minimum allowed in the City. It is improved with a one and a half story home which at some point has had the upper level fully expanded on the side facing the street. The existing detached garage situated alongside the home will be demolished to make room for the proposed garage, which would be built in the same location in the side yard. There is a shed in the rear yard which would also be removed in conjunction with the proposed garage construction. Discussaon: Section 1106.4, Subdivision 6, lists the specific conditional use permit requirements for garages larger than 952 square feet. These requirements, such as setbacks and maximum squa.re-footage � .. � , -- _3;; : _ t _� _ _. w , _ . - --�--- ------- , _ �_:�� _-- —•-- -�-- - --- - -------- - ---- --- . Waste OS Garage CUP 2251 Oakwood Drive May 17, 2000 Page 2 would be met with this proposal. The Code sets an upper limit of accessory storage space on a property at 1,400 square feet. The applicant is proposing to attach the 1,150 square-foot garage to the house, maintaining the same front setback as the house. The garage would be at least five feet frotn the side property line. As is the case with every conditional use permit application, the Planning Commission is required to consider the possible adverse efPects of the proposed conditional use. The findings of the Planning Commission shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: • Relationship with the Conip��ehensive Plan. • The Geographical A��ea Involved • Whether such use will tend to or actually dept�eciate the area in which it is proposed. • The Character of the Surrounding Area • The demonstrated need for such a use. The Planning Commission believes that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 2251 Oakwood Drive, as low-density residential. The 12,000 square-foot lot is small, yet typical for this area of Mounds View. Most of the homes in this subdivision are older, one and a half story cape cods that were built in the early 1950s—one of the first subdivisions built in the City. Most of the homes were built with detached single-stall garages, which by today's standards, is not sufficient for the typical multi-car family. Many of the property owners in this area have already expanded or replaced the original garages. Given the size of the lot, however, extra consideration is needed to ensure that the proposed garage would maintain a sense of balance and proportion between the home and garage. The home is 36 feet by 32 feet, or 1,152 square feet and factoring in the upper story, has more than 2,000 square feet of living space. The 23-foot wide garage would be oriented sideways toward the street, such that bulk of the garage would be directed toward the back of the lot. Attached to the house, the garage would represent 39 percent of the front width of the combined structures. It is not believed that the construction of the proposed 1,150 square-foot garage would depreciate the neighborhood in any way. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and would not be out of place considering the character of the neighborhood. Staff has inspected the property and believes that the construction of the proposed garage would be an improvement from what e�sts currently. There is a privacy fence in the backyard which would help buffer and screen the garage from the adjacent neighbors' views, Staff received a call from a property owner within 350 feet of 2251 Oakwood Drive who raised a concern that the larger garage would be used for some commercial purpose. The caller, who did not identify himself, was told that the Planning Commission and City Council would explicitly stipulate that the garage, if approved, could not be used for a comnnercial purpose or for any purpose not allowed within the R-1, Single Family Residential zoning district. _ � �. -- _ _ _ __ . - -- - -. . : : . - ,__ . . � = - : ---� - =- - - -- - _ �_- -=—� - - -- Waste OS Garage CUP 22510akwood Drive May 17, 2000 Page 3 Recommendation: Given the above findings, staff recommends approval of Planning Commission Resolution 620-00, with stipulations. �. � i?,;vtiu;,, (�I%'�,ti,��,� James Ericson, Planner Attaclunents: 1. Development Applieation 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Existing Site Plan 5. Proposed Site Plan 6. Photographic Documentation 7. Public Heating Notice 8. Resolulion 620-00 _ _______ _. . � bi. .s�. �A � c:,u�`u t�� •j ',:` �;;�:;: �: ,,::�; ��J I>>:i�,�Li!�:�r .� "� �;� ; . i:(s�;�cr, A� ' � ti 'Brist' PutoerSh�Q COMMUNITY DE'VELOPMENT D�PARTMEN'r DEVELOPMEI�IT APPLICATIC 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 - FAX AppGcant Information J � '/ ,,j Nanne of Applicant �rN1 /iZ �2 �l�i l�L'4 � I -�- Telephone �'/z'��0`�� % Address Z Z r/ �q�u/�o U' �1^ Fax /�/1o�-�rd'S 1l, '-� r,c/ /YIl�/ � �/1 � _ �erest in Property (check appropriate box) Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager o Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other (explain) ' Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property ovmer must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location Legal Description Property Identification # (PIN #) # of Acres Current Zoning �� Z�� C�cr Tt Cl/OQ�7 �/^ �% Type of Application o Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Rezoning ❑ Major Subdivision ❑ Minor Subdivision o Planned Unit Development (PUD) ❑ PUD Amendment ; -o.: __ Conditional Use Pernut ❑ Variance � o Code Appeal ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan o Wetland Alteration Pernut ❑ Wetland Buffer Pernut ❑ Floodplain Permit ❑ Other $250 $250/acre; min $250 max $1500 $250 + $250 deposit* $200 Refer to rezoning fees $350 - R-1, R-2. $75; all others $250 R-1, R-2 $ T00 all others $250 $100 $125/acre; min $125 max $750 R-1, R-2 $150; all others $200 R- l, R-2 $25; all others � 100 $200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View, MN . . Develo ment A lica.tion Pa e 2 PresentUse o#'Properiy ❑ UndevelopedNacant ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Busine§s/Commercial Establishment ❑ O.ther (explain) o , . Single Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelling ❑ Industrial Establishment Property Classification t7 Abstract ❑ Torcens � Description ofProposal O 1/�l�' Siz�.� �r�'�ci r' �(/� U'�� S/ S' f'�j'-�f =: - - j - . _ - ..- _ ,• �,�. BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, T HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE.INFORMATION PRO VIDED TS TRUE AND ,ACCURATE. � � : .. . . � . Signature ofApplicant . ��_1��i/�� Q� Name of Applicant (typed/printed) � /�-p��'� � . ��5' f '� Signature of Properly Owner :i ��,�p,� (�, �� Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) _ Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner ��z- 7�0 � � �� **********************�****************+*******************�************************************ � . • " FOR OFFICE USE ONLY � ' Date of Submittal , -. !� ,- �� , c��. � : � Date of Acceptance � ' Assigneii to: � Planning Case No. C.�� } :�- .� :f ' i 60-day Limit 120-day limit • Fees Paid: . Account # i Check # Receipt # Application: _��..,� `�� 1!'� t� ��'? �I (\'� o�.i�/ Su.3c�, Park Dedication: • Deposits: . � � . Other: Total: N:�DATA\GROUPSICOMDEV�FORMS�DE VAPP.FOR 1/98 Zoning Map 2251 Oakwood Drive ri �•� � r � r, m j i � ur p h. b:�; fi. Y. t-� � N � 0 � O � -F . M; h 1 M. M! M' M � �'1 M M N7 N N r N: t� i N � N: N' N C`i � N � N � l� i I[1 i¢' !r}) �� i M I N ; Q� � I 1 H�' M� 1•7 � -� 17 r� �d • N. C: f N Sv: (V � CV i�� : N�!'l�l. ! t� . .� r�", i �1 . � 1�-:- �I `I Y) �'i I N �� CaLOh MOBILE o �'i � N �'; N c�iiD': 1;M'N; N�cV'NI < i ...;�....i . i.. p.�M 'r. � G N�;M: N :,. DR V'� t9:-W iNI'�iW :. CV itq '�{ �_7 to ci[� �ri I'y' i�^•!I^ . N; fJ ; CV ` N�, N j N� N;(V �' N j< . _.._..:— "___'_. . � � I __. _.. . .,....., _ � : I N�n?QI r� �f�IC>�:M'1� iC r��qiib u)�.�:M M'N� Nj<-1iN iN�: N� N':CV � N It i��wiu� ui v�ri�r��ry � r I�� N;CI�41.� N:N:�y '(V .ry�� , � ....1......_...:......'_._,_..:...:.' ,. I i. . � . . �..._.�,.. ; �i ��r.:0i.'r7 �� n :Oi :r) � h i;t t� tD : �A i�� y: M. M I� I,. f J� N� N � f. i � N: N� N: N!.! �� Q , . .. � N �, �i....N. �_��11 9512 , 11 N'�� N 5503 5504 ' S505 J � �� _ s4s� � aa�z � � .,. . ,:__. . .5493 PI N EW00 D co , n } _ _. .. .. _. ; i c`�v I c�v 4� � 5493 5494 ;�"5��3� SCH00L I� T_ _ . ___ - -- ----- � 5485 54f36 ' S485 �� 5480 i _ 5479 . R�. � � _...---... . , .._........ . .- 5474. - �_. 5473 S�s6$ 5475 5478 I 5475 54fi8' '^- 546i 5464 i. 54fi3 1-34°-- �_54(17 -----�--'. 5q62 + 8463 NI�5456. ��1 �O� s `SF...66 5459 .....I.�_ f --I --- --�.__._�_...., � _ 5454 i 5455 �44 r SX 545„ F... : � 5446 ^� 5447 � 543� �U� SA, �Sp •�, 5+47 N � i ! i i �j�niu�IMlin a,� r 5449 5441 � �6` '', i`� � 5439 r� ; co .n ��n �.r t r� .� r --i�..----� `'S ` - ---�.._. r —' — -- � i r- . n : �� N N:N:N N 5434 j 5a33 �' Sx� Jco '•.J�,� � 1_.5i33 6ELl�E LN ._�`� 5426 i 5+25 '• A1`,� (.--5425 ��,� < ao � t� '. N t v � ,:� _"'_ ,� . `0 1 � : � v Ir� 5 4 2 0 rj42I 3420�- � ! 5 4 1 9 �' .) _ _ ....._.. N� N N! N CV �. N__.._, t�...... . 5�i14 5415 �414 ��M�c'`�v �«�.io�o' 5413 n�m�,�n'�w �'nic� "..i _, .._..._ .__.. ._t ol � N � N i N � N. N ...... . � .� � �`.- i � � rJ4Q5 � �4Q� 5d�6 ; N'� N�N N;N N� �J4Ii�J N' NI N!N=,N I N iN DRIVE , dira� � t0' 4 `N:�in.cv i .r : N '; � � , �0 ; 5395 5394 ; 539 m• o� � n� r� � m!�� s �n ! v n �+ •"' g'� � i� 5352'_ 539 i 5392� 539 ......_'_� N N N!N N:NfN:(•1 N CV ; N;N'�.�� _. � 5387 5385 5387 O''� � N I �+� N� N � N � w;. c� cv i�'+ i`" ;'`i '''� ; r+ 53R6' S38 53�6! 538 � � �TR�t �" .S.�SR4 i 9.�R1 S I I !' i � . , ; ! � . � ron�i c>ti � eTen' c7'� : . -__-.^ __ _ . . City of tl�o��nds Vie�nr - Locatio� M�p ,��,�� '..� � :.i:: _4 � ;� � � _I--� I�._ �..�� ...'�� ' � ,' �� ' � ��'� ' r � ..��i �� ' _ j ! � �� r � 2251 Oakwood�Drive _�.,. ` l _ r �3 u_�....i: . .i...:�.��,, l � � , � � � Kenneth Waste Property Involved: 2251 Oakwood Drive Conditonal Use Permit Planning Case No. CU00-00�` � 2251 Oakwood Drive 3�:3f`��:t..�;ii":: ``��°�� __�' Properties Within 350' .;�_,>,>:,,,f:.;: P��O'i' PL� Addres� 2 Z�l C��s/��u�G c�CI' %�i^ _, _ I3s►te L~ -:�''-- .:, Builde� �_ Own��r�Q ��i��? Cf� ��-C_ B��f DesGriptjan of �'roposed Construction /1/��- ;.,� r--,��r� -� _ - Build�ng ��ritdit No. - S�o�v aii ez�sting t�uildin�s/structures l��s�te�l an the p�°operty. - �ho�e+ all proposed construction anc� l�be! "proposcd" - Andicated dist�nce from proposeai ste°uctur�s to �YI property iines. - Indi�at�d distance of pr�p�aed structure{s) tn existerag structur�so - �how strCet IocAtion(s) And aame(s). - Show directionnl s�mbol9 (north, south, �east we�t). N �n/--� C Caty �f 1Vlau�ds View Community Developgnent I)ep�rtment ° 2401 ��':ghwny 10, Maunds View,lViN �511� (612) 717-�02Q, Fax {SIZ) i84-34b2 - -� � 7 - � �--------� '� -`-' � �=- �_- . . ._. . ._. _ ... -� . : ..._ . . _ . --- 4 - ---. _. .__� :-_., �... _�. Site Plan — Proposed 2251 Oakwood Drive Oakwood Drive 150 _ . : � _, .� � _ _ _ �—-- .. : � ;� _; , � -- —�—__._. .� _ .. _ _ �, � �----- — — . .�, -- ----- _ _ . �— — _ — --- —-- Photographic Documentatian 2251 Oakwood Drive �=w� � _, �: �. s , �,--., .� � .- �. �•�� ^ - � i... : �— t�. �� .I:!' 'T`. .6 'ta� ��'� �� '�� _•• �� . . .. �.��l�.J � �^� 11 _ .. � r� i '.7 r�. _ . ... i . § - cr ' � ' ' � t C . ' � �� z 1 a��`'� r h} �,�'� �� T� , .. .. � i .,�;: � -i�?`N4'� � ; ' � �i.::�. � ��„^.'n- � . . wi��rt� �ye. P.,c.�- f� ' . ti• �t' . _ �t'' r _ - " n.. �:4^�-'�h:,L: �'�,^6V�� . . � ,5.. t f "y �y ..� y iz , � t . s`t..�`�,'Y..�'�'� ��"'�_'�ys� m'�'l�'r ,_._ '�.�.��;_...._.,.,.�___.___ �..._ ._.___..._....,._..�._ _,..,_r�. �___ . .� .b .,.:.,.z. -y.a.�. � / , � ' CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF 1��IIl�INESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the Mounds View Planning Commission on Wednesday, May 17, 2000 at 7:00 p.m, and by the Mounds View City Council on Monday, May 22, 2000 at 7:10 p.m. at Mounds View City Hall, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, Minnesota, 55112, to discuss and consider the request of Kenneth Waste for a conditional use pernut for an oversized attached garage (1,150 SF) at 2251 Oakwood Drive. The property is legally known as: Pinewood Tenace No. 3 Lot 23, Block 6 Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to this matter may be heard at these meetings. If you are unable to attend the meetings but wish to comment, you may submit a letter to James Ericson, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112. The letter will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council. If you have any questions regarding these meetings, please contact me at (763) 717-4022. James Ericson Planning Associate This notice is mailed to property owners within 350 feet of subject property. This notice published in the Focus Newspaper May 4, 2000. � ��. �. � _ : . � : �, .�v• _�._�.. _._._.... '_'e . C:�_I_:�� .'_'. — _ '_�. k-- '___" "�_" _" �_�" —_ '"��f- �?`'_' - _— i_L; G MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION R�SOLUTION NO. 620-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A 1,150 SQUARE-FOOT OVERSIZED GARAGE AT 2251 OAKWOOD DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO< CU00-007 VVHEREAS, Kenneth Waste has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,150 square-foot garage in the side yard of his property located at 2251 Oakwood Drive, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as follows: Lot 23, Block 6, Pinewoo�l Terr�ce No. 3, Rnnzsey County, Minnesotn WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,400 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Development Application b. Zoning Map c. Location Map d. Existing Site Plan e. Proposed Site Plan f. Public Hearing Notice g. Photographic Documentation f. StaffReport WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies the dimensional requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed garage would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved in that other homes in the area have similar sized garages and that there is sufficient room on the subject property to accommodate such a structure; and, _ , L —. --- _ - --- - _ i:: . ; �__ - . �. �-- �.�r- - . � Resolution 617-00 May 17, 2000 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood in that the proposed garage would replace an older, functionally obsolete garage; and, WHEREAS, Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed oversized garage; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed oversized garage would be adequately screened by privacy fencing and in its sideways orientation to the street. IvOW, THEREFOR�, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: The applicant shall arrange to record the City Council resolution approving the conditional use permit with Ramsey County and provide proof of such recordation to the City within sixty days of Council approval or this permit shall be considered null and void. 2. The garage shall not be used for commercial purposes, living space or other uses not allowed within the R-1 Single-Family Residential district or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the perinit was granted, the conditional use permit may be considered null and void. Given that the garage is proposed to be attached to the home, the garage shall be designed and maintained as a seamless and cohesive addition, aesthetically pleasing and complementary to the existing dwelling. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 17°i day of May, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:IDATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASGS\CU00-007�RESOLUTION G20-OO.DOC � _ . T =__ __.::. . s : . _ -- - -- �=- - - ---� �= �- --._. :.. _ ___. � s = - a• --� - - ------- – -- - – -- 1 h � PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLA1vNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA ,��: `�:t <;; �;> �.��fl�au° Meeting � l�x:.�',* L'a\J��f'�i! Il.J'y 600� M��a�� f ;�� .'n�� 11 i::��.�; j�� y�,,T a�'f :� 2401 TJI��;ll�rl��ei�`1 �Q� l�'.4Qi!.�lL�+ \J��l'��v� l�'I11.V'��l, sSi ':.i 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson �;; •:��. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, 4tiin�nissic��:��; Stevenson, and Miller. .;;� :_:: > ,<;;; ,, � Members Absent: Corrunissioner Berk� ;<'ti�ith prior:;i�fltice. ::::_ :: Also Present: Planning Associat� �m Ericscst�, �ouncil � Trish Pearson. Planning ��se� ��t�-�01 & CiTQ(�d€�� and Conside�-a�io�? c�� ;sc�}�a�io�� 61_ �.;i of a Condztitsn�a� a��: ��;��dir �;ac� ��vr i'., -� ofthe��essiah Luih�ia� t;`�,��r�;�k ��cility. Messia$ Lutheran Chui c�, ,��i��ant. ::. ;�•, ,<. �.; �%; E' �`l�nning Case VR00-0(}�� 438 Groveland Road. Discussion Regarding a �ej�riance Request to A�Inw for the Installation of an Eight-foot Tall Fence �z� t�a� JFront Yard af ��'� Property. ��:��-y �, Elizat��th��Brunes, Applicant. :"�G�� t�s; l,f��c �VR00-003, 2400 County Road J. Discussion Regarding a 'J�riaAi�e �eyuest to .Allow for a Reduced Minimum Spacing Between Two Billboards. DeLite Outdoor Advertising Company, Applicant. , 2000. , Jaisnson, Kaden, Laube, Roger Stigney, and Recorder County Road H2. Discussion �olution Recommending Approval Review for the Proposed Expansion � Page 2 5 7 F.-_ � ._�.ve -_��'XLI �.��__...�_......._______-. . L.�.� �_$21 r�._zct�---'t Vi: _ S�- " __. Mounds View Plan Planning Commission Regular Meeting ""__" .____ '__�1 .�� "_ __'_'.- _ "._ . 1 April 19, 2000 Page 2 Discussion Regarding the Peterson Environmental Hydrology Analysis of the Vacant Land North and South of State Highway 10. Discussion Regarding Proposed Changes to the Zoning Code ��Iat'ed to the ,`. �R. Presence and Siting of Tattoo, Body Piercing, Body Brandin�a�>Body ��;�<E� Painting and Related Establishments within the City of Nio��ax?;�� iew. x:;:: �'�``� StaffReports / Items of Information Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports =� �` 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on It� There were no citizen requests or comments..p��ste 4. Approval of Minutes � ,r,iG A. March 1, 2000 MOTION/�ECOND: �te��nsc��l�.,aube to ;��s corr�ccc �. 5. Pla,��u� �`� ,�..fv.; ,��' ' Pro��t}' Involved: 'L D��.ission and Con: ��oiiditional Use Pei �>�a�heran Church Fac .�?i�p�li�ant: Messiah I �<, ,<::::�, ,z. �.; ;�� '��"�t�' �,�,��+��a�� a� nc _ __ _ _ __. f�yc°;� - `�' Nays — 0 �, �l t,�;i� �� r��;., t��,�U 11 d�� '�(1�0-001 �e A�c�it 11 16 March 1, 2000 meeting minutes as The motion carried. w�k ;r �Z`i�ad H2. � d�f Resolution 611-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a bevelopment Review for the Proposed Expansion of the Messiah Church present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: This item is the consideration of the development review, conditional use permit and wetland buffer permit for the Messiah Lutheran Church located at 2848 County Road H2. The application is in conjunction with the Church's development plans to expand the Church facility. The � .��__ � ,� -- _ _ - - �-� --- .:�=� I^ Mounds View Plan Planning Commission Regular Meeting applicant proposes to remove two homes adjacent to the facility accommodate a future expansion, and install a stormwater holding, p currently nothing on the site to accommodate the stormwater rui�i�i�i, S ki,•+' stormwater holding pond is viewed as a significant improvement", wetlands on the site. { _:° Planning Associate Ericson stated this item was discusser� Commission meetings, during which, significant discussiay� proposed expansion and the fact that two houses adjacen� replaced with the expanded parking lot. At the previou requested the landscape plan be revised to include additiort� help mitigate this encroachment. Planning Associate Ericson advised that the lands��.� four to five-foot tall arborvitae on the northeast screening, and with the addition of trees a� t�e south that the landscape plan was adequate a�t��met witl reviewed the revised landscape plan ani� has fount�� consistent with City soils and the c��im�te'of the are�. Planning P�ssociate Eric,o,� ". before �r�� }er the pro.�,c�� Planr��`��; f;€�tn��is�ion b��A��?� standa��Cf ��F �e:rti; ��slcin�; Ioi-, i subject pro��t�l �� o1J.woo poles would l�� i�� , and ; ;iclr�; c; ae 9 all April 19, 2000 Page 3 , expap7d' th�; paz�lc�ng lot to ond on tr��; t��£��rty. There is there�'o��;; �.�� irion of the and wili ��;1�� s ;��rPCt the �: 15 and Apri1 �� 1?�b�3i�7�; rding the im�racc�`€�z` �lic; would be removed and � ;�''lanning Commission � �l�tings on the site to ��; �,�en reviscc� 9:o indicate a row of ��e I ��,c�perty to provide additional �f�� i.��, ��a��Planning Commission felt c��.�a> ��Y�ies. The City Forester has oi� �r�e }�Aoposed planting species are ' the parlti�� ;r..��tnents are met with the proposal, both ansion. �� .c��,r?�ed that at one of previous meetings, the ��. upon ati ��ue'r��rtaining to the proposed 30-foot tall light 4�� a brought forward by a resident located to the south of the ,;,, 9�� explained that this resident commented that these light ��,��j=�at��-of place in this residential neighborhood. Planning��s�'ociai� -L.r�r,��t ��?��;�ced staf�'reviewed the issue and made reference to the lighting � ..:. of th�£�Vynnsong 1Th��=' ��;��1> on Highway 10. He explained that residents south of the �<,.::,� _ __ th��er on County Ro�d �'? ��accessfully lobbied to have the parking lot lights nearest County , �- Rt��d H2 be no taller ttt�C�` �� feei. 5taff has spoken with the lighting engineer who indicated the 1��ht of the proposed�s��ht standards could be reduced, however, there would be some trade oii n •,nr �ri ��rms of the numb.�r;�of light standards that would be required to meet the lighting needs of the :.,,,.�:,. ��j��t��; ��,,:�Ciate Ericson stated it was staf�'s contention that something must be done with �`��,�� Er� �� lighting, as this is strictly a residential neighborhood. He explained that while the Church has been present at this site for a number of years, the proposed expansion of the parking lot would bring it closer to the other properties, and the new parking lot lights would create an encroachment into the nighttime calm and peace that the neighborhood currently enjoys. He advised that the resolution before the Planning Commission contains a stipulation that the lighting plan be revised to indicate that the light standards be 24 feet in height or less, with lesser intensity lumens than the presently proposed 400 watt bulbs. He explained that staff was not certain if it -----� . , _ � , � ,___-�:–� ,�-- -�_�_._...}.�_W__---. _ --- --- ._ .. _ .--_ , _ --_ -- - -- -- --- - – – � — --- � -- --- �-__--- __..� _ i Mounds View Plan Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 19, 2000 Page 4 would be possibie to lower the intensity of the lights, however, the height o� 71�.�> li could certainly be decreased. He also pointed out that Staff has: learned �}�s��: �r�A�a ; manufactured in five-foot increments, so if the resolution is appr��d, staff�c�i��dd e;^� stipulation be amended to indicate 25 feet or less, as the light �t2iindards are rra��z�j.(�}� foot increments. r.. Planning Associate Ericson stated with the exception o�":3 pertaining to the specific conditional use permit crit�ria, '. setbacks, and parking requirements are met. He indicated tk is the permit through Rice Creek Watershed District, which yet retained a contractor to perform the work. He advisei� tl permit request with authorization for administrative a��a��ra applicant obtaining a National Pollution Eliminatioz� ��s�:��r�; was an administrative permit and it would not �� t�� ?:��F Creek Watershed District has essentially authqnzed �i�e ��r :, the wetland delineation indicates the stort�vvater pond is s storm water runoff on the site, and is al�t� �sized fo� �ture t phase of the construction takes pl�c�, �� storm Sw�ter pond runoff created by this expansion. � �,:. f� Planning the tirev� P approval o a number stipulation would b:e;� ' `t'�'� to the list o ssociate Ericson ��di�; u i`�-�,vo meeting�, �i" �h��' �6°i�, �Nitl� th� F��; �,tC o��ax�.��W��n �q�prc��ra� c '��a� t��k,��=.�€��w��fai rP,r�� o�i `��pula��s�¢��:., wi��:� '� tCl:`.;I1iC�1��Y:��" s �l{�: '��.�.�li; :�'L � all of the ras are �nd this in five- ;t ,::a�, : �' :�.. Yc+02raaiY ��; the zoning requir�i�r�entis, srqar�olved issue at th�s �oint � ;��:��x�,� the applicant has not 'r��'��;;,�� 9dR�;,^l �istrict tabled the subjc:cw �� ,��>I� �urety and to the � Systern p�a-x�� -le indicated this �ld bc� r�r,�ii�;d, therefore, Rice the permit. He advised that :ar�iingly for the anticipated �laerefore, when the second accommodate any additional ;;,6��5 the g��>�°s�.l �,��ar��t��i�ial use permit criteria, as reviewed at ning C��'�� appear to be satisfied, as do the adverse �n of ihe �i��iing on the site. He stated staff recommends ,�olution 611-00, which recommends to the City Council :t�t��itional use permit and wetland buffer permit, subject to ��lx� change to those being the amendment to the third x°fi��' be 25 feet in height or less. He advised that this item �g before the City Council on April 24, and any additions or uld be addressed at this time. __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ �ner Miller inquired if the trash enclosures on the site had been addressed. Planning Ericson indic;�;t�ed this was specified on the site plan. �rson the year 2000 be included in the date of adoption of the proposed �;' o��.r.��y�c�ner Stevenson inquired if the relocated accessory building was a new structure on the site. Planning Associate Ericson stated he was uncertain if the accessory building depicted on the site plans would be saivaged from the site or if it would be a new structure. Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that if the applicant constructs a new accessory building on the site, they would be required to remove the existing structure. Chairperson Peterson noted the existing structure appears to have been the garage that remained after the removal of a house. , _ � �_` � _ _ � ' Mounds View Plan Planning Commission April 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 ,, <<- Planning Associate Ericson stated he believed the site plans ir►dicate remr9��1 of ih� existing structures, and the accessory building may be a new structure, however, he �i� ��, ��i`tain. ,a; : ��:':. ; MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Miller. To Approve Planning Comt�vs"sion Resolr�f��i� :i��t�, � l l-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use �'ernut, De��;lnpi►��;aa� ��x;v��u �r�d Wetland Buffer Pernvt Request for Messiah Lutheran Chui-��a; �,ocated,�,t 2848 �ors;:�� ,s��cl .��'1.,; Planning Cases CU00-001, DE00-001 and WB00-001, as �i�°��< <I �t��Indicate tha2 ��i;�a�l��it�� be Changed from (24 Feet or Less) to (25 Feet or Less). 6. Ayes — 7 Planning Case VR00-002 Property Involved: 8438 Groveland Road. Discussion Regarding a Variance Request � in the Front Yard of the Property. ,r;�;� ;�;::;>;;> Applicant: Gregory & Elizabeth Brurz�`";�;� Nays — 0 ` �fll��'�ar�� ca.g-ried. Eight-foot Tall Fence T e applicant was not present "� , ;: ...;,:...;..;> : ,�� , ,,, f ;y: Plann��a� l'x�;;��ci�te Ericsrs�z';��,�r�; i'��; sta�'f repoi� as follows: This is a ret��l��c �{c�r' $ c✓�.ria�c� �c� �sl[c�v� ��r. a fence taller than that permitted by the Code, in the front yard of''i�.� �:�t��r;,.,y :io�E�t�� .� �438 Groveland Road. The applicants, Gregory and Elizabeth Bru�� s�; lk�,r�. �;,�;�,' _somP ��i�x��;ialties with a neighbor located to the north of their propert�, arid feli i.J��i3 �(k.� ��$�,�; �ould provide a privacy screen between the two properties, and � ¢r redu�s if not eliminate �c��ri�� t��'�1��'harassment issues and problems they have been experiencing. Q��f� ��ining Associate Eri�scin sta�ed there was significant discussion of this item at the previous �� ~:��ing of the Plannin��Commission, at which time, the applicant addressed the Commission, and �r:� ��,��I�ined why she ,��:t that a hardship was evident in her case. He indicated the Planning <<. :. ��A��nission empat��ed with the applicants' situation, and would have desired to approve this r��ran� �� ! ;��re �ieen any means to do so, however, the Commission explained to the applicant i�"�= a,E��_��'� rr��;� �no hardship that could be tied to the property that would warrant the construction ofi �� `�'ao� �;�nce rather than a four-foot fence. He advised that the Commission must abide by the language in the Minnesota Statutes and the City Code when granting a variance. He explained that there are seven criteria, all of which must be addressed and satisfied, however, in this situation, that could not be done. Plaruung Associate Ericson stated staff has drafted Resolution 613-00, a resolution denying the applicants' variance request, for Planning Commission action at this time. He indicated there are � `-=-- _ _— _ _ � , _ -_ -�'� �_ --- ----� - Mounds View Plan Planning Commission Regular Meeting - - � ----=--� l'-- �. -- =--� I - ,�_ _. __ ._ � � .. - April 19, 2000 Page 6 four findings of fact listed on the second page, which indicate that there a�� AO �xceptional or e�ctraordinary circumstances related to the property, and that the literal mteY-��<��r�� of the Code would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed b� t�thers. �r•; ,�i��:X-^r�."�t�e third and n .::.�; . ..:::; fourth findings indicate that without an evident hardship tied �ti'the propeY c;;� �� dfi;, a.� xvoiald be inappropriate to grant a variance, and that granting a vari�rat;�' to allow fo�'.��i ��r`��t�� x��cP in the front yard would be materially detrimental to the pu��.�n�l; of the Zpn�rig Code, ��.�� s�� x3�a; lend well to the community spirit and neighborhood colac��,��. k�� p�iinted out tha� �:�ai;� �Q,�,��'. might already be lacking in this situation, however, approv�.� �s�° �:��i;, request would certaitll�� ;;rt � precedent in terms of the potential for future requests for �^��,�a�.•�er��s� x�rnces in the front ya�-ds of other properties. , Planning Associate Ericson indicated the applicant has been forwarded a copy of the staff report and the rest�'1 Commissioner Stevenson requested a brief ez��l�riation as resented at the revious meetin `�`"'� P P g• ,..... .�:: Planning Associate Ericson stated perhaps the fence could be allowec advised that the City Code had be� very similar to a conditional �%se ��:i the use. ,��ka�: �Y�abling langa��;� �it � allow �o�` �Ea�;h �yp� of t��. �� c��: however, t�t�:y ��;,, ii�-st �a�� ra a��- after whir;�, ��c,�3�;a�c,�it��, �a�on ih�'�°€ for the use ��i��aat�� rrr��sarily b�� the City Cour��_ �g Associate E , y;�• ��: would be any r� the best response indicated staff felt on in this situatior �c� A��-r�.��f�;'„ � f��:act; h cle��i�� hi.;!x�:ciUeSt. and has to an interim use, a� ik�� previo�t's�meeting, 1t had been brought forward that �� i.empor� structure, through an interim use permit. He �'recen�iy, .; ��is�:d to a1lt�w for interim use permits, which are mits, wit�r'�.��., .,�: ��ti�in that a time limit could be imposed on �e Cod�, ?ac��r��: ,�ecessitates that an ordinance be drafted to �c;,� word�� am; �;icy could allow for a use as an interim use, ��:a�.nE,e that would amend the City Code to allow for that use, G�crr'�a�;�;_�s stated therein, they could grant an interim use permit �; �•�qu�red to come back before the Planning Commission or ��:�� this process would require a minimum of two months before ��a€� ��Y� che property owner, and in light of this, it would probably not ie �pplicant, who would most likely take her case to the City Council. actively pursuing an interim use pernut would not be the best course of ��;��gland inquired if this was the recommendation provided to the applicant. ciate Ericson stated staff and the applicant did not specifically discuss the interim roach. Commissioner Hegland stated this option was discussed at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, and he was uncertain whether or not the applicant had a clear understanding of the process. He inquired if this option has been offered to the applicant as an alternative that she could pursue. f_ __ _ � .- _ .. . . � � �.i __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _._ _ ________.. _ _ � _ _: � _ . _ - - ..� � Mounds View Plan Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 19, 2000 Page 7 Planning Associate Ericson stated this was dependent upon what occurs at the`��ity Csaitr`icil level, as resolution at the Council level would be immediate. He> explainP�s (�� a� that is not forthcoming at the City Council, staff could certainly addres�'i�i�,possiba�.�,3,�r �af �ti interim use permit with the applicant. Commissioner Miller pointed out that last paragraph of th� ��olution c�ntains �h� c��y x�� i�p.�� that indicates a four-foot fence is allowed. Planning AS�c��`��f=�: ��,r�`�n�stated stazA ct��' -�r�� s„�. "WHEREAS" clause between the first and second clause� �� a�r��;`� ;r; Gt�is point at the br�,i,�� oi the document. Chairperson Peterson stated the fifth "WI�REAS" clau��''rndicat�,� �:��i�� y��,. �al�'olic hearing was being held at this time, however, neither the applican�� K�.�j:� ariy resid��:a;�, �yf��E:� ��9�nt to address this item. He requested additional language to iYldxr��, �� 3�,y i��m v��s rli��.�� ;� a.t the April 5, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, in order �a p�r�{�� - �a �;��aa�� y-�corr� �f� ihe discussion of this matter. ; . Planning Associate Ericson suggested bot�� statemer�ts be combiri�d ��t the "WHEREAS" clause to ;: indicate "The Planning Commission ��scussed tl�;s'` request .t�.� April 5, 2000, and the public �:::« : .:::.:,, hearing was held on April 19, 200Q" ;� �, �; f;� � % ; .<?.% MOTION/�ECOND: li/�ill��/��t�nson. '�.y� ��rt��+� >1vlounds View Planning Commission Resolutac�#� :i'T�. 6] 5-00, ��:��.�e�o:n Denyi��?; �� r�iz��rice from Section 1108.08 of the Mounds View '��a�ai�� ' '4�aca� I'eri�iaaiY�s� �� `�;r�c�s to ai��e�j� ��or an Eight-foot Tall Fence in the Front Yard of 843�� =C'�E��r�1�sk��a �oa.c�, l�k�s��a,s�� a,7��,z �laYaning Case VR00-002, as corrected. ��.y�� — '� Commis�s.��ne"r Jo}�ns��A �st�g��ir� �,�r . regard��o tlus matter. 1�1.�,�i��i��g; taki;p'place during the w��c. �� A ��i the Chief of Police, vvho• is tn.:mediate some form a�:.resolu Navs — 0 The motion carried. .l i� there had been any meetings with the Police Department in l�;s�ociate Ericson stated he was not aware that any meetings had e�ndicated he has spoken with the applicant, and has also spoken aware of the situation, and has offered his assistance in attempting ion to this matter. , . .�<•�, ,F�c��•��r�i��c�ner Joh�s.::"t�n stated it was his understanding that the applicant was attempting to obtain rJ�� {;� a. ��.�h�r�� numbers to the Police Department, as the neighboring property owner was �j;��a*�b��; ��. �r,.�;nrier to avoid being confronted by the Police. He noted he had seen a list of the tii{1k��,4��' ��'�imes the Police have been called to this residence, and it was approxirnately 5 pages 1ong. 7. Planning Case VR00-003 Property Involved: 2400 County Road J. _ t.:::� _t______��; E < � � . :..��:� - - - .o:.�.. .___ .: 1 - ._: _..�._..._ �� _ �. 1Vlounds View Plan Planning Commission Regular Meeting Discussion Regarding a Variance Request to Allow for a Reduced Two Billboards. Applicant: DeLite Outdoor Advertising Company, Inc. ,,�:":-:�;;,. The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The item is the consideration and public hearing of a v�.�aan�,�: �� Advertising to allow for a reduced minimum spacing req�tirement Nor.-;�� two affected billboards are located at the southern c�7� r��` �.�� ysco �rc of the Bridges Golf Course property. The dist�� : ;��;��ting th�; appro�mately 500 feet. , � Apri1 19, 2000 Page 8 etween by DeLite Outdoor ��r� billboards. The ?a��r ��he northern end ��oards would be Planning Associate Ericson stated this item3�i`�s been d��cuss�� ;��: �r��r��.�tl'meetings during the past two months in relation to the interizn use permit and:flye vari��d�.�: ��,��r�ments. He indicated staff has drafted Resolution 613-00, which ��roves th� variance rer��uest based upon the discussions at the April 5�' Planning Commissic�� a��eti�fl�, a�; �v✓hich time,, a list of hardship statements was comprised which address the se�le�a cri�eria fs��• a��ovin�;��e request. He indicated Exhibit A depicts the,locations of thP �illboi�rds, and s��a.�°�;� �.�� c�cation of the two billboards that would have t'�� c��B�:�c� separat�c�z� �a�'.`.��?0 feet. I��: p��,�3�� oui that this attachment indicates that the distan�° ;� �,�F��.��v��;�. rh� bi11b�,��f�a �u�� be appl��oxi�r►a�ely 550 feet, however, this would actually be closer tc; �C�f3 ��-�,, ��r�x��fore, ��F ��r�u��l y-�commend any references to the distance be changed to indicate �0(3 ;��-�„ �� a� �,*� �fl�,i; ��s. 6��; �� amended to reflect this. Peter Coyle, ��`��nt��t� �_f°1�e�,i�� i�cc�oor Advertising and Sysco Foods stated he would like to clarif� for the recorc� at�� z��:�n the perspective of DeLite and Sysco, the hardship that justifies the v�i�nce request is c�-�;�� j rhe inability of the City to adjust the placement of the billboards th�;�vere previously a��,•€�u^�:� �>F'i the golf course property. f;.:u> �:�� „ �;��?. �Coyle indicated th�� is ample space on the golf course property to adjust the City billboards vnodate Sys�v''s proposed billboards. He stated there is sufficient spacing between the posed ,,y�,y.�� billboards, and the variance does not apply to those, but rather the Q�� r��' proposed billboard, as separated from the westernmost golf course sited 3�� ""explained that the difficulty is presented in attempting to achieve the City's i'"s�i��;ing requirement of 1000 feet, as set forth in the City's interim use ordinance. Mr. Coyle indicated he would like the record to reflect that this is the obstacle they are seeking to overcome by virtue of the variance application, and that the hardship is warranted on the basis of the City's need to be able to protect the play of the golf course, as well as the water features that are present on the golf course, which preclude the adjustment of any of the billboards to _-- -- _-r. E : � --- ` . . _:_ ,, w . _ _ _ . _ ---- ------ - ---- Mounds View Plan Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 19, 2000 Page 9 accommodate the spacing issue. On behalf of the applicants, he extended hi Planrung Commissioners for their time in attempting to resolve these issues. ;;'!' Commissioner Stevenson requested clarification of the depicted on E�ibit A. Planning Associate Ericson explained that there was sia�'t��r�� Highway 10 to allow the Bridges Golf Course billboarc��` ��s ��; however, they are located as proposed due to the presenc�. ox �74��a.�� this nature on the golf course property. ,: ��, Corrunissioner Hegland inquired regarding the distar�c;e; and the property line. Planning Associate Ericson �r�i; 250 feet from the property line. He explained tl�� i'�'a�; stormwater holding pond is located to th�r �outh ax billboard, therefore, this is the only possible s�te. Comnnissioner Hegland advised explained that the issue under however, if Sysco's proposed 1 encroaching upon their leg�� ,i,��n the varia��°,� ��ot�ld not ch��xi�� at COIri1T11SSIC required w hardship." �:uatzon is �;��: �n`�y7i�L?; JLr'�I.,P,(g b'�IC}i`��a r��.as,'.ViZ± ��"��. �� a:<, t�s 1�7 i:fa'rar s�i to the �o�r�cl.s as � along the �-�� . ��:�'��. closely spaced �c�� i��r��, �t-�s, greens, and items of° the �}r�ci�'.� ��, ya�:rnmost billboard ]lboard ?s ;��S,�t;�.-,d to be less than ��: is loca�< <Y <��,:1,e north, and the �§f?ic:ly ad�.acent to the proposed ;�aaces tt�+�� burden u�n Sysco rather than the City. He ation �s :;fhe 500-fc�pt spacing between the billboards, is less ihan 250 fe�t from their property line, they are �ted �h��n .��<�� r�o� �i`een established in the discussions, and vcr, h�; �ir� ��'c �elieve that the statement that the City is �(;CLIi—J�P. ? �ti��rx , i�iE�i:�:;�ies "the variance requested is the minimum variance �; i.h�I��`��i��;,�."Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a �l�ai: ��:�� `'�ysco and the City were pursuing the billboards for «��ards generate revenue, however, this was not addressed in the ung Associate Enc�on` siai�d this was a matter of interpretation, in that billboards are ��d, and there is ra:�?'m to make them fit. He explained that the economic factors could come %�;�� lay, however,.�i��ere is some subjectivity with regard to the criteria and through the ��,,;;>� , s��ns at previ;�us meetings and at the staff level, staff felt that economic conditions alone ��fi. ��v�n� ��s variance request. ��?��,�� c�iier Kaden stated the City submitted their application for the billboards first, and had th� locatioris of the City billboards planned out, therefore, Sysco could only have one billboard without the variance, and the Planning Commission was considering that the hardship. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that this was also because the City would only have five billboards instead of six. Commissioner Kaden explained that without the variance, one of the parties would lose a billboard. Commissioner Johnson indicated another factor is that the State � __ : � ; _ _ . : _ _ _ _ __ :. �_--- ..__; .----------�-� ---=-------__-___ ._. ..-�— _.�..., _ --- - -. _. �- ---- --- -- -------- Mounds View Plan Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 19, 2000 Page 10 spacing requirement is 500 feet, whereas the City requires a 1,000-foot rrunimtii�x►, sp billboards. _ Planning Associate Ericson stated the case could be made City submitted their application first, but rather that the o precludes the siting of that billboard. He pointed out th� 1,000-foot separation, and if the distance between the bili not be necessary. He explained that this could be consic not based upon the fact that the City's application was sub Commissioner Miller stated Page 3, Item 2 of the r� considered null and void without an approved interim address the fact that this proposal is contingent �a� permit. _ �,� Planning Associate Ericson stated this was �tii� interim use pernut. He pointed out �ha�� the explained that if the State does not �t�:��: �kie re and void, and if the interim use p�� i��i i� x�ull a - ,, He stated this could be addressec� iv�ath a. �hird:s staflFfelt tlus might be some�u�at ��edundant Comrxa��,�x��;t of this ��x��,ar.�� He indicat�� i suggested sh� voice an ohi�� ng Associate � with the p� to voice her the meeting � they to o�al; i� not necess��y �� `�&t thai the ce was dra��d ir� � r��;��;whi�h e requ�r�ments do iie� �a:�a.�d��: �, �wa� 750 feet, the vari�c;� ��;��;' t=��- cause for hardship �� is � d�-�:�� dir��±� a'?��i. �:�a� variance shall be �i�f3 � zb��i��;E:; i.l�at this does not �lican�'s � 4,�{��r � n obtain a State �utever, t�� '�,��i�igency is addressed in the ce is 9.��1 �,� �,�e interim use permit. He permits, �he interim use pernvt shall be null l, the V�,riance would also be null and void. on p��taining to the State permit, however, .cted� ��v�elc earlier by a resident who had been notified scussion pertaining to the billboards and the golf course. ��h regard to the placement of the billboards, and he had '��ris regard, and also advised her that if she desired to ��aould attend the public hearing, or contact staff. He objections to staff. ��. �:�c� he had spoken with this resident as well, and that she was not o% billboards being installed along Highway 10. He indicated she had ►s, and he had similarly advised that if she desired to do so, she could a letter, which staff would be present for consideration. �v'q�:r" h°?��°i/`-��.;�3�- ; Stevenson/Laube. To Approve Mounds View Planning Commission �� <9�.�� 1�;. ��613-00, a Resolution Approving a Variance from Section 1008.08, Subd. IOC, of �-��. ��f��=�A��€� '�Iiew Municipal Code Regarding a Reduced Minimum Spacing Requirement Between a proposed Billboard on Sysco Property and a Billboard Approved on the Adjacent Bridges Golf Course Property; Mounds View Planning Case VR00-003, as Amended to Tndicate that Stipulation 3 and All References to the Spacing Between the Affected Billboards in the Resolution be Changed to Indicate 500 Feet. Ayes - 7 Nays - 0 The motion carried. � _ _ _ _ , . . �""''.._.� �.�_'" :.. ;...,. :: _� � �.. . � - �-- L. .." . . - - _. __ _ � _ _� - _ . ._ . ___3t..i_. . K'..<. Mounds View Plan Planning Commissfon Regular Meeting 8. Discussion Regarding the Peterson Environmental North and South of State Highway 10. Planning Associate Ericson indicated both Golf Course 1�fat�� representative from Peterson Environmental were uj��.� Commission at this time, and have requested this item be r�:f� staffwould reschedule this item for consideration at the Mav� � April 19, 2000 Page 11 Land before the l�l�ir�rii?�� a�enda. He indicated :�ira��:tission meeting. Commissioner Laube stated at the previous meetin�, h� ��;b��ested in��.a�� d��>�� om Rice Creek Watershed District pertaining to their plans for th� �a.r�n�; ��r7:�;ri by thc ;2�f��:�`�-om County Road J, Sysco, and the surrounding the properties, lbcy?��c� �d� ��i��., �e sti��t;�,'. ;�e was somewhat disappointed that the Commission had only��ceiveci �3 �;rb�� r�r>�� ';��s information in this regard. .,f_ <; . _ Planning Associate Ericson ; Environmental, and had expre broader impacts to this area, in addressed . He noted that 3�� f to receiy� il�+;n� �rior to �� n...v__ .. � . �., them �Y'�ti Commissione�� i41��' �-��u�� prepare th��'�f�� r��,�;r'�. � E,�,��-p��_� �; s�i had �p'oken with;,,;a representative from Peterson N f �� th��`�'lannin,� 'Commissia�is' desire to learn more about the �`s of th� ��r��;adz� of thts i�tinoff. He stated this issue would be distrib�.�� .�;�gi��;��ires to the Commission, and had hoped He ��c�t��:�$ ��t €�a.� c�uestionnaires be returned to staff at the ° go ihcy t;�uld be forwarded to the consultants to provide ��^. � la��rung Commissions' concerns. n regarding the electronic wells being utilized to � g Associate Eric ,�� g�r�� d the wells are radio controlled and take readings of the water �� , �jlevels at various ��xxi�p� �,��o�_dghout the day. He stated there were approximately 32 wells ig utilized for this pu�pose, which were installed the previous spring, and have been reporting 5:.:..:: 2he last year. He e�tplained that a significant amount of work has gone into the development ,:; .:.:� his hydrology stt;t�y; and in mapping out the locations of the water tables to determine how ' 1�1�C°fU8i0 OyP,�'T:i��rne with the rainfall, and how they compare to previous years. He advised ��{ +.�1� ��z�u��tg reports would lend additional strength and legitimacy to the statistics they are t��'��'; :��ce Creek Watershed District. Chaitperson Peterson requested staff provide a copy of the map and the survey to the representatives of Sysco, who, as adjacent property owners, would be interested in this matter. He stated the survey appears to indicate that if the compost site is relocated, it could only be moved north of Highway 10. He advised that there has been discussion regarding this in the past, and he believed a more appropriate location would be the old arsenal site on County Road I. He _ � R� _ _ _ . � .� - _� �_. �=. _�_n �_ ___""_"" '....��. :.:1 .. ' . . - - _ �_. _. . .. '" ��....�.a.--t..�w " `___ ' '��_' _"' _. . " _' ' ' " . ^ � I Mounds View Plan Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 19, 2000 Page 12 «.;�< explained that this would be a better location for most of the residents of.>lk�ounds;';�iew, and , . : � wou also serve some of the Shoreview residents. Planning Associate Encst�n sga��d this would have an added benefit in that residents would not have to trans�iori ,their cEampc�s� a�ross County Road J. � .;> � , Commissioner Kaden requested clarification regarding r1�c� ��xstributio�yq� the survcy. ��; Associate Ericson stated he was not certain which grou�:; w,�,fr-,i7�r� y��;��ve the survey a�c �� a��,' however, he was aware that a copy has been forwarded i.c�'r=�K� ��"��Y�;il �nd Parks and JE�e��%o�� Commission. 9. Discussion Regarding Proposed Changes to th Siting of Tattoo, Body Piercing, Bo;d� ; Establishments. t � Planning Associate Ericson stated �.l�ir �rr�a� is be£a�`e� the discussion at this time. He statec� th� �.;;3r�;� �Counc��adopted ordinance, which prohibits the �i�arz� �t' �, �too: �hops, bod establishments within the City of ��s�uY►ds �Iie�': :� ciate Er-� address ��;��: ��r�a that they wo�� uses, it could b€� ' daycare fa��:�rr � wa� [�sr�t�: o�� us�s. codes, and to located. r�a Code �Z��a.�� -�� a:l��e Presence and ��„ Body�� '��.��ig� and Related °Ia.t�r�i��g �ommission for preliminary )��iinance 653, an emergency interim ,p�ercing, body branding and related ��.�(��c� � fev�? �� ago, the City was approached by an ,f; ri� �.�cat� in th� '�ity, and at that time, the City Code did not �� ;;��a1�x�a��c1 that this is not to say such uses are inherently bad, or m� 'i� i.�� ;�ty, however, without any language pertinent to such ngeci c��?.� ��ey be allowed to operate on Highway 10, next to the witihin ��i�;' commercial district. He advised that the City Council �_ �rdinance, which allows the City time to review and research $r;�,�ge which would create conditions by which these types of uses ',��;��iing Associate Er��son indicated the courts have upheld that a City may not discriminate >��: vv�en certain typeS of uses, and all were aware of the issues and controversies surrounding �i��lx" �stablishrn��ts, pawn shops and gun shops, therefore, it makes sense for the City to ��p ��"w ¢�� e3 ;+;�r��s of uses before we are faced with a use in a location that may be inappropriate. ��p�p�� t��o�iate Ericson stated staff has provided the Corrunission with examples of codes relating to tattoo shops and piercing parlors, one of which is that of the city of St. Paul, which is quite brief, and the other two from the cities of Crystal and Richfield. He indicated that the Richfield and Crystal codes were very similar in nature, and were actually drafted by the same company. He noted that once a good ordinance is drafted, it is often the case that same ordinance is adopted by other cities. __ . . -- -: ri.. � r � Mounds View Plan Planning Commission Regular Meeting Planning Associate Ericson explained that at this time, staff wa Commission. He stated the questions before the Commission ar�' appropriate for these types of uses, should such uses be co�z�zd� right, and if conditional, what conditions would be app�t�pr conditions set forth in the examples that would certainly i�� ,�;cleq adopting another city's code, some fine-tuning and tweal�i�a�, �„ ,�e of the City. Commissioner Kaden pointed out that the language of;<;� scarification. He explained that this process involves pla�t�g skin, over which a scar heals in different shapes and des��;?n�. staff could research this issue to deternune if th�r� �rc =�r.��=� discuss this with a person who perForms the proc;��4s�_ Council Liaison Stigney stated all licensin� �a , .- establishments, and there is no mentioy{��:��f ..��j'Z.> tattoo functions. He advised that.:��o,me S personnel performing these proced�t�'�� Pla� to a massage studio or a beauty p�lor, in w be licens�d. He indicatec� g.k�� ld be ac require;r��iu� for other use6�:��r�r�,+�a i1�e Code i: silic April 19, 2000 Page 13 .:;ss<.. _ �;,�' /y , i ; requ�sii��'��k from the hich z��r.y� �li��r��t� would be d condi�i��,�f?� �;� �sr a.«itt�d by te. H� ��c1rr��.�.,,r, �� t��F;� ��ere � .:. ite,,. ,Y�it�vvever, i,� ��r� ��}��.�;,u a� a�'�;;��to suit the s��t:+.�ic. ��c��>t�s� r�� oY �;e� �ioes not address I ��i�� n incision in the �G��;��1;� �ricson stated ;��i�c��iot�, and possibly � aX��3��' �,� �a��fn to the owners of these of th� �x�;a`,f;c��iel actually performing the ire th�%,, you must have certified trained �ciate �ricson stated this would be similar ;,,<< �f;;�;i:�``individual operators are required to �� f,. t i�e ordinance, and there are licensing guage could be patterned after. Chairp��'�r�a� £='�cc��4�n stat�� . �=��,��';� ordin�nce is very brief, and does not appear to address locatioYi. l��a��:a-��r�s� I°,,:s�so�ia.t�; ��ic;�r�r� ��,,�) ��.he ordinance itself does not, however, they utilize a matrix consi�� i�r�, ,r,a�' $��; ��i�°��-�Y�t `��,�� is�E.i�icts and a list of all of the uses, which are indicated as permitted �� ar�t�zt��{{��,� �et-1�>i��;c9>Ya��s in certain districts. He indicated that where these types o,,ry�as�s weY-e ��-�-Fx�a��;�i�, ihey wc;re pernutted by right, and did not require a conditional use ssioner Miller ad°v�s�� th�t the Commission may wish to consider the hours of operation, ,,,,.... ing upon wher�>;�'these businesses are located. Chairperson Peterson stated this was ed in the Ri��ield code, which also addresses additional uses in the GZ General ;F-ci�.l I�istr��;%'with a number of dimensional criteria. He pointed out that St. Paul's �;� c�ral��;dt�r�resses these criteria in the matrix. �"��3��' 1�'ssociate Ericson added that this ordinance goes no further than to specify the location of' ihe use, and in which district, in terms of sizing requirements or matters of this nature. He stated the city of Minneapolis is similar, in that these uses are specifically permitted in certain districts, as opposed to conditionally permitted. He pointed out that this might be one advantage of a city this size, in that they have many zoning districts, with many divisions and different classifications, and the uses might be pernvtted in such a limited area. _= ___ i _ . _ _ : ; �_ :: . - --�--------- , . c - ---: _.: .: � . - -� � -s� � --- - ------- . . . - - --- : - -- ------ i _ _ _ Mounds View Plan Planning Commission Regular Meet�ng April 19, 2000 Page 14 Chairperson Peterson stated Richfield's code sets up certain distance req zoning districts and other uses, and that indicates that these ar:.:e conditic �<< appropriate. �� f� �;;>;, Planning Associate Ericson stated staff could draft an ors based upon Richfield's ordinance, and bring that befoa-� � discussion, which would provide the opportunity to obtair� to the City. He advised that the interim emergency ordin��c� on the siting of these types of businesses, and this matter r� staff would commence this process, and attempt to b� Commission at their May 17�' meeting. -F�;' `�in other would be nce fasluQ��cil ic�, 1�is�� y�Iiew �ommisston fo� �rX' �kt��a •�?�f ��.�ti�j �,. f��(�ack specific�lly ��t�?��s��; �r;��i��l��s a six-month �nor��€�riuxr� �� d.� �� addressed. He indicated 1:�� r�� ordinance before the Commissioner Kaden inyuired if there were any �?r�r ��-��rtr�.��i �� -with lar��;��;� �e�-taining to the restriction of similar types of uses. Planning Assq��<< �;�i�,��xr ��ated the �'rqy has an Adult Use Ordinance that limits the locations of certam ��i�s of' �c�r�� _ �.� indi�ated this ordinance has ,,: not been recently amended, and it is availab��'for review; in f.�� y �c�t%� that was provided to the Commissioners. �� $ ' fj�::::::;.. Commissioner Kaden inquired if ti�a;�;>€ Ericson stated the City Code da�s no contentious.. and controv�xsi�,� ty��s of future; h��ni�;�l�x�, the City ,��sc�� ci�s a back�; �;��€r�. Ax� �e.�rrras of �f�� p��acl 10. Staffit' _�$cb �y� ��'�� the � � �' ��'a� r��;t�� a ` lff��A� i��fY0H1� � addre��es pawnshops. Planning Associate vnshA;p�'or gun shops, which are both very �� quire examination at some point in the .�s, and this could provide some additional �� nand. zng Associate ]C:� i��a��. �r��i.icated at the City Council Meeting on April 10"', the public igs were set for i�� rieisinger/Hill and Kleinshmidt conditional use permit requests for ized sheds, which`;`�ere heard and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at last meeting. I�e'stated the Council also set the public hearing for the Messiah Lutheran �� developme�t�' review, conditional use permit and wetland buffer permit request, and f ,,�. �� th� l�l�ning Commission Bylaws. Upcoming Plannang Cases Planning Associate Ericson stated three planning cases have been scheduled for consideration at the next meeting of the Planning Commission, and a fourth case is pending. He indicated there would be consideration of a conditional use pernut request for an oversized garage, and for an oversized shed. He stated a conditional use permit was also being requested to allow for outdoor storage at property located at 4749 Old Highway 8, which is the same property that was granted a Mounds View Plan Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 19, 2000 Page 15 variance to allow for a reduced front yard setback a few months earlier. He �+-'�!iser� ih2�t outdoor storage is allowed by conditional use permit in the industrial distri�t. Planning Associate Ericson stated this week, TOLD D��I�prilent CoA�r�<��d;�, .� Walgreens, will submit their application for a Planned jTrait Develo�x��t�� a� �.1�� Edgewood Drive and Highway 10, where they propose (:�� {�r�x�struct a� '�algreeYl;, �a:� Restaurant. He stated this item would probably come befo�� `�� lan��ng Commissic�r� Planning Associate Ericson stated another item the Commi��r�� "�u�i,��3 l: an examination and possible revision of the Code, in respc��c>� �.�f �%� YB�� conditional use pernut requests that are being submi�ed. i�-,4� kA ;:�;a! consistently granting conditional use pernuts to allow �r��--sh�c�, Xaa ��;�� I€i currently allowed, and in light of this, the Connmiss��s� ��?;;� ��.�c�r�minc tk�� footage should be increased. He advised that �� '�^a�%��fl„, ;�f,,a��, the Cic Commission approved an amendment to the "Cod€; �� '��v�r ��x lar� conditional use permit. He indicated the `�taximum �q��r<;mr�a��,� vril permit was increased from 864 to 952�:square few'�,'�and �t ah,r�E�� ve requirements for sheds and accessory, �t��tures no�� as well. c. Sensible Land Us�'::`�+nalition �te the ap�l�s��c�� indicated 1�� ZE informative. He of .> _ �; considering shortly is �ni��r of oversized shed ?�� that the City is �� a� � 16 square feet � �.�� x�raximum square- y �: nui�cil and Planning �er garages without a hout a conditional use prudent to review the cs��:z'!�r��i��d the Co'�stAa�;;�;�,��a v,�ith brochures from the Sensible Land Use ita��,�i�r�� h��, a_nyon� x�'��.��c;si�d in attending this meeting should complete anc� '��,ri �c� �'��:�amux�i�y T�evelopment Director Jopke or himself. He �nal�y �.�r:��;�� r;�u�ule of these meetings, and found them to be very '�,�,�9ii ii��>>:� ��►�eoe�, Plan;�ring Associate Erics��;u��.�;d the I-35W Corridor Coalition is requesting feedback from the P��'trung Commissions �l �ity �ouncils with regard to the meeting which was held on March %? ��', in the city of Shbireview. He requested any comments or suggestions pertaining to this �{��,�s ing be forwardec� tti Community Development Director Jopke or himself. .-,... -�:'��,��k�ai�sic�nar �`,,�;�be indicated this meeting was basically identical to the previous meeting, and �,��, r�,�� a�t different topics be considered. Chairperson Peterson stated the meeting was well e��Tr�„ A� ��.:��nding, however, he shared Commissioner Laube's viewpoint, in that specific topics at fiaiuY-e Yneetings would be more valuable. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Coalition plans to work toward seminar type meetings in the future, and discuss specific topics such as conditional use permits, land subdivisions, or land use law. xf� � � , _ _ `- - --� � . �. , _ - - -- _ . - �---��: =.�.:z-; I ��-- - - --•-°_---- 1Vlounds View Plan Planning Commission Regular Meeting Chairperson Peterson requested an update regarding Highway .; Planning Associate Ericson stated there is little to report �� has been inundated with reports, studies, and files of inf�rr��Ea and at this point, is attempting to digest all of this infa��;��t��:, aware of the individuals who would serve on the Steeri��; ; during the first week in May, tentative dates would be set Ac�,``p;� 11. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Rep�i�ts No reports were considered. 4 12. Adjournment �_« y� "" ,; 7�;: There being no further business before .�� Plannin��ommis� meeting at 8:15 p.m. ` �� ` > -,: ;< s>. t ;:' (The meeting immedz�tely adjo�tt-rl�d �o the;A�et , .:.. , �: . Respectf�,(�� a�brnitted, Rick Jopke Communitv.I =- --� f ::� ��_:._.�` _ � � April 19, 2000 Page 16 s` fime. He ��ica i�� a��E; , ;. �ic�x� perta�n�rig to pre�;s�r�` i��i�, 1�-�� stated the cons ��C�e�, and it was �o ltant Peterson adjourned the a Session) � _ ; ,� z _ 1. 2. 3. 4. � MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION June 7, 2000 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULA.R MEETING AGENDA Call to Order I�.I[�il Introduction of New Planning Commissioner Barbara Thomas Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAI�NG, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR. FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE NIINUTES Approve Planning Commission Minutes: a. April 19, 2000 6. Planning Case No. ZC00-002 2387 Highway 10 Public Hearing and Discussion Regarding a Planned Unit Development for a Walgreens Drugstore and Culvers Restaurant at the Northeast Corner of Highway 10 and Edgewood Drive Applicant: TOLD Development Company, Representative: Bob Cunningham 7 ,� E 10 Discussion Regarding an Ordinance to Amend the Zoning Code Pertaining to Sheds and Accessory Buildings. No Staff Report StaffReports / Items of Information a. Previous Council Actions b. Withdrawal of Meinert Variance Application Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Adjournment to Agenda Meeting (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNTTY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. (OVER) _ . - _ _ _ - , . :, u . :;� ��. ;� _ - _ . .. � - - - Planning Commission Agenda June 7, 2000 Page 2 AGENDA SESSION AGENDA Review the Minutes from the May 3, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting. � - ) E:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMM�PCAGENDA12000Uune7, 2000 PC Agendadoc Item # 6 � City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: June 7, 2000 Title: PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION REGARDING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A WALGREENS DRUGSTORE AND CULVERS RESTAURANT AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 10 AND EDGEWOOD DRIVE Planning Case: ZC00-002 Applicant: Bob Cunningham, Representing TOLD Development Company Introduction: Bob Cunningham, representing TOLD Development Company, is requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development to construct a Walgreens Drugstore and Culver's Restaurant at the northeast corner of Highway 10 and Edgewood Drive on property commonly referred to as the City's "remnant parcel." Mr. Cunningham is proposing to swap approximately 7.7 acres of the Midland Videen site for the remnant parcel, which is approximately 2/3 of an acre. It is proposed that the stormwater pond on the remnant parcel would be relocated to high ground within the 7.7 acre Midland Videen site. Approximately 3.2 acres of the 7.7 acres to be received by the City are upland and potentially developable. The remaining acreage is wetland, delineated by the City's engineer, SEH. Within the upland area, it would be proposed that the City's stormwater pond would be relocated and resized to accommodate more runoff and to help reduce potential flooding that may occur downstream south of Highway 10. In addition to the relocated stormwater pond, the pond adjacent to the Community Center would be expanded to provide more of a community surface water management benefit. It is further proposed that the developer would construct a paved trail that would encircle the wetlands, connecting to both the Community Center and the proposed development. The 7.7 acres would be utilized as passive outdoor open space, preserving and enhancing the natural and scenic value of this wetland as well as to preserve the wildlife habitat and to improve the City's surface water management system. In order for the Walgreens Planned Unit Development to proceed, the site would need to be replatted to create the two development parcels. In so doing, the Community Center would become one parcel, as would the City Hall / Public Works land. The wetlands would be platted as an outlot. In conjunction with the replatting, the right of ways for Edgewood Drive and Bronson Drive would be dedicated. In addition, the right of way for the original Edgewood Drive would be vacated and any utility easements vacated or relocated as needed. , . , _ - : � _; . _-- - � , .: �—� �.:: �--�- � :: --- ----- -- --- � _..,. __ _ _ ,� � ---- --- _ .. - --- =_------ Walgreens PUD Report 2387 Highway 10 June 7, 2000 Page 2 PUD Discussion: The minimum project area for a commercial PUD is 5.0 acres. Because the project area includes the complete Midland Videen parcel, the total project area is approximately 10.4 acres. Planned Unit Developments are processed in three stages: Concept, Development Review, and Final. Public Hearings are required for the concept and development review stages of the process. The third and last stage of the PUD process--final approval--is administratively approved. (Refer to Chapter 1120 of you Zoning Code for more information on the PUD process.) At the discretion of the developer, the concept and development stages may be combined to help expedite the approval process. (The concept stage is for the benefit of the developer, to receive City approval of the general concept without the extensive financial outlay often required for detailed site plans, surveys, consultants, etc.) The City Attorney is drafting a Development Contract that will spell out all of the details and requirements of this project. In addition, a PUD document will be drafted that addresses the specific site improvements and any conditions and or stipulations attached to the project. Development Review Discussion: Dimensional Requirements: * Project Area: Front Setback (Highway 10) Front Setback (Edgewood Drive) Side yard Setbacks Parking Lot Setback (NE) Parking Lot Setback (NW) Parking Lot Setback (SE) Parking Lot Setback (SW) Parking stalls: Required 5 acres 30 feet 30 feet 10 feet 5 feet 30 feet 5 feet 30 feet 112 stalls Existing or Proposed 10.7 acres 70 feet 130 feet 40+ feet 0 feet 10+ feet 5 feet 5 feet 98 stalls Met? Met Met Met Met Met* Met* Met Met* Met* *These dimensional requirements apply only to Lot 1. Because this project is proposed as a PUD, the parking lot setbacks and parking requirements may be less than what would normally be allowed in the underlying zoning district. Parkin�: The site plan indicates availability of 98 parking stalls. The City Code requires retail establishments provide one stall per one hundred feet of retail floor area plus one space per employee. Given an anticipated retail floor area of 10,584 square feet and six employees on the busiest shift, the Code would require provision of 112 stalls. Because the project is a planned unit development, specific code and dimensional requirements may be reduced in the best interest of the development to allow for greater design flexibility and conservation of land and open space. Four handicapped accessible stalls are shown which is consistent with ADA requirements. In addition, there will be a cross access and reciprocal parking easement agreement between Lot 1 and Lot 2, which will allow for overflow parking for either use if needed. T _ _ Walgreens PUD Report 2387 Highway 10 June 7, 2000 Page 3 Building Design.: The proposed Walgreens would be 15,120 square feet with a two-lane drive-thru prescription pick-up. The 24-foot tall, one-story building would be of a brick-face construction similar color to the Community Center. The top half of the building would be wrapped in an exterior finish and Insulation system (EFIS) similar to other newer Walgreens stores in the area. Signage: The applicant proposes a total of 205 square feet of building signage and additional 120 square feet of pylon site signage. Altogether, for the proposed Walgreens, 320 square feet of signage is proposed. The proposed pylon sign, as shown on Page A5.1, is 25 feet tall and is supported by two steel poles. While staff is comfortable with the proposed height of the sign, the design is not in keeping with the monument style design desired for this area. Staff would strongly suggest that the signage be limited to a brick monument design, or, if a pylon is required due to contractual obligations, that the supporting columns be of brick and masonry with decorative cornice treatments near the top of the sign. Wetland Buffer': While not expressly indicated on the site plan, a portion of the buildings and parking lots will fall within the 100-foot wetland buffer setback. Given the proposed expansion of the Community Cen�ter stormwater pond and the relocation and expansion of the remnant parcel stormwater pond, the potential impact to the wetlands should be minimal. SEH, the City's engineer, has reviewed the proposed plans and agrees that the overall regional benefit of the expanded stormwater ponds would more than compensate for any potential impacts to the wetland. The proposed parking lots on either Lot 1 or 2 would not be any closer to the delineated edge of the wetland than the Community Center's parking lot, which is within five feet of the wetland. Landscapin� There is very little existing landscaping and tree-cover in the area to be developed. The applicant proposes to add minimal landscaping to the site as shown on the landscape plan. Staff believes, however, given the prominence of the site and extent of the impervious surface coverage in close proximity to the wetland, more plantings are necessary to help stabilize the pervious area and to increase the perceived aesthetic appeal of the project. The applicant should be directed to add more plantings and explore the feasibility of plantings in the parking lot islands to further lend a wooded feel to the development LiQhting_ The applicant has not yet submitted a photometric analysis of the site. Staff would suggest that the developer select lighting consistent with and similar to that at the Community Center and City Hall. In addition, The City is working with NSP and the Movie Theater to install ornamental lighting along the Highway 10 trailway. Staff recommends that the applicant be subject to installing similar ornamental lighting along its trailway fronting of Highway 10 in conjunction with the installation of the ornamental lighting on the south side of Highway 10. : � � -�- _ .. � - _ _ __ _ _ < . , =�� . _ , __.. � --- _.--- ------ ---- - - - _ � � - --- -- - - - - - I° Walgreens PUD Report 2387 Highway 10 June 7, 2000 Page 4 Access: The site plan shows a right-in right-out access from the northbound land of Highway 10. The primary access would be taken from Edgewood Drive, in the location of the present curb cut on Edgewood Drive. There is some question as to whether Ramsey County Traffic Engineers will allow for the proposed right-in right-out, or any access for that matter, on Highway 10, due to the presence of the deceleration lane for Edgewood Drive. The site plan will be forwarded to Ramsey County for their comment and review in conjunction with the preliminary plat. Drainage and Utilitv: The applicant has submitted plans to Rice Creek Watershed District for review, who has administratively approved of the concept plans calling for the relocated stormwater pond. Mike Ulrich, the City's public Works Director, and SEH Hydrologist Rocky Keehn have reviewed the proposed drainage and utility plans and have recommended changes. These plans are in the process of being revised in accordance with the suggestions changes and may be available at the time of the Commission meeting on June 7. It is anticipated the applicant would need to work within the delineated wetland to install the required storm sewers, which would also need to be approved by Rice Creek watershed District. Trailwavs: It has been suggested that the developer shall be responsible for installing a bituminous path around the wetland that would connect to the Community Center as well as to the proposed Walgreens / Culver's development. In addition, there is a strong desire to install bituminous pathways along the Highway 10 Corridor as indicated in the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan and as recently evidenced with the construction of the movie theater across from City Hall. In that case, the theater developers were required to install 1,7001ineal feet of paved trails along Highway 10 on theater property. The Walgreens site plan as proposed would not allow for a trailway to be installed along Highway 10 as the parking lot is shown to be set back five feet from the property line. Because the City requires 7-foot wide trails, the parking lot would need to be set back from the property line a minimum of 10 feet. It is not know if the site plan could be arranged in such a way to allow for this, but staff would suggest it be done to accommodate the Highway 10 trailway off of the County right of way. Major Subdivision Discussion: Preliminarv Plat: Mr. Cunningham has arranged to have a complete and full survey done on the City Hall property, public works property, the Community Center, the Midland Videen site and the remnant parcel. This survey is included with your staff report for your reference. Utilizing the information obtained from the survey, a draft preliminary plat was drafted. While this too is included for your reference, it is only labeled as "Exhibit99 in the lower left hand corner of the plan. The proposed plat has not yet been identified with a name. Because the remnant parcel is a part of the City Hall _ =- - ---__ �---_-- -=- --_� __- =- i Walgreens PUD Report 2387 Highway 10 June 7, 2000 Page 5 -� .� _ _ _ , --.� ��,.�� _______ • � � _ site, all of City Hall will be included in the yet to be named plat. The Walgreens lot would be replatted as Lot 1, Block 1; the Culver's site as Lot 2, Block 1, the Community Center as Lot 3, Block 1; and the wetlands replatted as Outlot A. City Hall would be replatted as Lot 1, Block 2. The 66 feet strip of land directly east of the Community Center would be attached to the Community Center lot instead of with the proposed Outlot A. The full platting of the City Hall site does allow the City to legally dedicate both Edgewood Drive and Bronson Drive right of ways. Up to this point, and until the plat would be approved, the streets simply were constructed on City property and were not platted as streets. In fact, Edgewood Drive was never platted to access Highway 10, so the proposed plat will address that as well. Because Edgewood Drive was realigned, the former right of way is no longer needed and is proposed for vacation with the southern 280 feet going being attached to the proposed Walgreens and Culver's lots and that area adjacent to the Community Center vacated and attached to the Community Center lot. The right of way would need to be vacated by ordinance. In addition, it will be necessary for easements to be dedicated for the relocated and existing utilities, as well as for five- and ten-foot side and front yard drainage and utility easements comrnon with all major subdivisions. Existing Signage Easements: There are two recorded signage easements on the Midland Videen property; one for the present billboard and the other for the old Bel Rae Ballroom sign, which was removed in conjunction with the construction of the Community Center. In its place, a small sign for the day care center was erected. It is proposed that the portion of the easement area that would encroach onto proposed Lot 1, Block 1 be vacated. The applicant has requested that the proposed owner of Lot 2, Block 1(Culver's) be awarded easement rights to utilize a portion of the remaining easement area for a business sign visible from Highway 10. Staff will consult with the City Attorney to determine if this can be done as part of the PUD agreement. Recommendation: Because no action is proposed for this request at this time, staff is seeking input from the Planning Commission as to those issues identified as either being deficient or needing more information. The applicant will provide the updated preliminary plat, drainage plans, grading and utility plans, revised site plan and the lighting plan for the Commission's meeting on June 21. James Ericson, Planner Attachments: l. Zoning Map 2. Location Map 3. Site Plans, Survey & Draft Plat, date-stamped 6/2/2000 _ �- =� ---- -- - - - -- .. �-- - _ _�, _ �_._ . .. . - - _ ----- - ____y Zoning Map City Hall / Midland Videen Site � ,,.; > ,�,�, ��„ ,,, �, , � ,t � < �- t� � 1 _.f�Y ?71��1 "1��ii 'It(i) .�� -"'-I�i1 __ 03 Z 7au% ' , j � 4 w //51 775n 7787 /IIFi ;.�q 775i�. _ , I i��1 W 7717 D � 7)4t 7'•t0 �;i��' 'li;,5 ..1,� �;,,�� ;?q1i -_ . : �, ) 17i1 77{Ll 77'�S /iM1i 7/l!-17%ill 7741 1i41 �p�� [ C - ,, ni t 17?1 7J�(.1 �/!?H �;�q �;��, ��: t� t7jt; ' ' a) �._, � - � !�i �i � �� , ;;,, c� ,i,c, �,�,y ��c o �;z, i�zc w�: �_. .. ��: u�� z u' m Z ` r� .-. n �r� 'rep� �M n�� n u'1 ?70n � �!� � vpi vl ) 7/pl 770n 770 `�� i'p1 ,R .c+�,"— -R-2' V - - C� R-2 — � � _�; - ; —rr—..�-- �, 4 �, m' � - -, :� � _. �o �n ' �� o,i�� i551 �'r �i `� v' �n �r � o, .� ° ,p � �O �L � r �� a e •a� -t •� . - =j �^ ;�i`i°i.";,'i r�� 7fi9S �� i �, � ., , + r,rv � � zsan �. ,� . R - 3 �sr - 7r&7 7Gr. f�. �%> 7G6 '' 25,t; �!;r 7r.43765R �-4 - ,� . � .. � � ��I � � � w 5��,(�� ^ ;55 t�.,_ 5� 5.,', i W -- N; .� y ' - ' ',54. 5544 55-0`� �j gSq•4 Q IR �'� �� -� S!539 �538 553� 55.Si '� 1J. n �'S �533 � ..32 S�,i r, 5`. " u �� 5527 5��6 55?. N 55:'.G c � �� C �� '^ �szo ss2 i 5� �o `= n 5°�_ t -- RD 25�tit� �� 55 � B-4 �<,.yi „ '- ��s R-4 - 3 ir,at �FS�� 25',9 ji 7539 7F�IA 25?:'4 'f 766 7f.�, 6tU ��1 7 �' N4 (,, , (\ `2 8-3 � `� ; ui �; .� !-4 .. � �r>t5 �r;}n 7655 762•{� � Q .. '1i45 � 'n11. ` -- C� 7ti41 7r.%9� .'fi)1 , � R-a �'. �-. � /f11 7i;iC K -r v S'f Ifi2 W 15y5 '��,�i. 7G51 p� � �• �I c �ei r� r� f- r 7n3 � �, ] 581 75.�C � 7SS1 ,-0 ,� ;545 f��;•1 �n �n ri :.� �� 5si ;ssc ' cJ ��I � �: � 7535 ��.3' .� .`r' 751 I � i ..v 7i"Ct 'S°_(. 7505 750a 75ui PUD o � a �d ,�, v, 0 ��, n �� ,, k-4 f �•1�� v; �n r� �n `_.401 '.��)� 534a 53��=, `.t87 S"f�36 531i7 O _ _y. t N `_SnV _-.�.r. t U � 5;7* 5t72 i37;t � ----- `'��-� �,lF.�. SJr>n 53F,7 B-3 �, , ' �,�r� sz;� � / 5i51 :iJS:, 5355 _33', 5_ta.� c�,.ti�, C S`�3.5 �.3SF• 53:ti 2 ,. 7 � s�?t �t�. S.33u 533 t � i . , �,. - , „f, y ``Q t t?ti. 5.y�, ,� � S{ �'J ��,� ��ii 5317 S �' StOQ ...1�� : .jr.' • c.^OQ �:`•� /•%i� .: J �' ° . � ;'q8 .`.'dj 1 ✓ �� ` O r �i .� SoQS : a .�'s:r' � w ��•'� '� 5�N7 R-2 tt-[� - ��, o -�T•�' -.-f�-�; .-�,-,o-�, �, � .�`�� r, °' � � �n ...'�`� :� -Li �i ,-� �, �; ''�:pt •r °' : � ' ` � " � --Y " �- B - 3 � ti'16G ,..5?U` .._?', ..'4� �:' •y ,.�<� b �? �� `` 7�:-.7 B-_°i `b' � R� 'U �.� � -t';r _351 S;s.b � .>;:'8' `�. - _:�1 c pp Sy.`,U �25` 5'51) ,2-�,O ��-6u .,.. �n O \ ,::44 g�q� °,�44 !�'-- - a 5252 53!)9 _`•ZA4 (�-4 tn �'� 3 2: - ;:14_ � ,n r. _ - � ,�� u�� r- `Y' �• wo ' � �-,� 52a� 5_=°. �, ,U ,� [� � .� ,;• w, ,,y�,., c; ; �Y /��(� u I � .. .''i. � I �' 1. � C 1 l I C 1 C! V� ,L Y (�l <�-r ' - . . - - O � � ��., 52 � >�d0 rs� 7!ci c� q o,\ � ,�, ci.�,RV��w �AVe � � ,,, ,(J � - .. . o a� � > oi � � i � '!1 . �'9 �" �/`t' -�j m I 5^t� � � � , .� . ci � ,, ``\ 5'14 .�L.;t �a `r •`� r i-t w � 52ry O 26U `� a` P� 52^ _•zo , , � i < i �., , � , c i Z ,zsn ,, t�o ,, _i� i .�52so�, i l �+ l `. 5 S22 �n u, io �n �. rn ��n � 5259 52�i� n;' `\ rn ur� ��n T vi 4n r io �.n �n a n��, , � � 5250 `_;�I.S 5�.'`+�> 525:. 5250 � °� ,p `ra v�+ �n �� Y> >'�ly 5�1.t ;1. :�� ° �� + �i � - ,.c =� n6�a_ g�an rv r� :�i oi .i ! ,---�•- -� ` •' 24n °:.f- --.iii534P ..• 4. � WE �--- � IDGE _ LANE - ',�3U .:59 52:tp5239 5230.5'13< 5[30 , „� �D-- ��-�-- �i� -�- ui � c ��i^� � p'� tJ O tc� J1 u _ Il hl �.- � �� t.t f� <Lf Ji � y �r ! a. Q � in tn �t -1 f -f 7 fJ,�2U c�'.'4 S:' 'i� `�`�(r - :'•'(' _ �n vi �� `�� + ��i r� � �i ,.i � i ,.-�t �� ... � . . S�:oi)5_L 5. ;;� ii � r ,- � i � . °.�OE. 520: �� c*. ,n �. �. .. ,- �� '70 `,.'I! � 5?'I(1 g?� 21f� f;f. tiJlO O� u'� - r i i. '� - . �O l0 i(1 �I �! Ih C 1 r• . Q i�. „ �L' �l) t(> 1 i '1 7 � e � u� �n � �n , 5"l00 5?�J1 ;!� n "� v �t� e� �i ri ? ., (. �20p 57q91 5200 .. . _ . "' � � 9 f1l1 5�!i) 57�i) `? 1= __ � `_ � � . _ _-___ _ ��.� , ,_:_ _ _� _ _ ___ . : .,.. � �ity of Maunds View Location Map ■ ■�� ■ ■ ■■ � � .. -_ � � � . . ��,�� . ��"�� ,��...�, ��F,�� a�� ....: IIIIII� � � ■�M��1� � _ '� _� � �� ■��M��■ ,��►,� �� ■ ... .1111«/ � ' ��s~ �� C �`� ► � �� C : :: ��I�� i � �.' � �� ` �� illlllll .. � _.� �� UValgreens (TOLD Develapment) �Propert� Involved: 2387 Highway� 10 Planning Case Nos. MA00-OQ1, ZC00-002, & DE00-00� -*Propert� Involved: 2387 Highway 10 (Additional properties involved in proposed subdivision include: 2401 Highwa� 10, 2466 Bronson Drive, and 5394 Edgewood Drive � Properties V�lithin 350' E z w �ad H � t �1 O W U La � ► w W ; �� ; � i ,��l�,1i��i O 5 0� � ;� �� ii,�;�1ji N � � �� tJ,�lil',j�f M z : � � . �al� }i�;i�!Ij,ii � .7 R �9`-'� � j° "r, ��I ;�I � � 9n �� Ja�� ;i�,iU��,�� '��° � Iloi��l�� i l� � , � E �} � • � �l;�z � _ �� Q��! I�� '.' :F d;Y'Z -5 •^ �9g�.•^� °F"x::E°=E82� ;"S7:" � 8:sE9.°aS°<< 1�'F-�`! Ye:f7: ��V"F �- aS Se 'j ,,y 9.Ig =� €°.:.�y`.YY " � 3a° :3_ 6 I_F° -y� f`CCF'Da9 =$'�"`''8'eD9� '=8:.8.'i 9�8-="_ e"g .F�:'8: ': _ `32 _ e= y e ...: m :i° _�'•- .. jYJI4ek' . ��`yA= AZ "4�: _ R..°Y2 $IY:'°=Yg> '' " _3°{F_ OF71Se�`• . �4'P^ `•.. • eR . _ ; .�"6f Y: C `'" ' 9S:_ '`_9_ �-6- 5A o=:.:'°Y:_�R- o�ae`ro €::Y_68_[0� � �' �€4. . : `Y:- ;_ :�iYB%F.'aJ _ :Y.i.E E8`W' :R•:e�I ;R ' _ �Y2` �8E• �`;=`•:�p3 "�`_�°-- .f•° �8'tA='... %�ao::e�eSS__x a ° ��'°'' ' _1 •R.o�2� S .o.� .._.., °.':•. °.t...at°F I.°°aY�7;i.°9; ��I� � b ':__�`.` :e8."o __y'_ 'Soc '�°. y Y`q°° or"'`.� °'ss"°°'"' -�',«.-•.._: .8 8.�•vY.o� 5f ; 6qi ia ' •.WO:Efr�%o gE.' ..�BPf��. 9 s ?es=s?sd s:g=,; ��.� 7 71 � Re•.z� �.eY�gEFeq " 1 . l:��'o'a .t; .:3:^... 3.7�E.:.o:.,.� "� S::P�.•F _ ^�.q.. ; �_ "' ..t"�:.20:�°= 6�:g,', e o'Fa7'8;t : d_➢� F`.:F;_.`�;::: -' Y: � g "k... _ S e:o o .n °f4o'-•- C .SFi:`.�'�5 -F8Y.-:��•:=. t.;3'd.'�° °➢- � fe E�.F -.89Ee. 9 g�A:�g••;== '°.k:❑ °' ' Sfi:Y 8:5 �eb:�S o YSo_� �6R°.- .° 86��'i'Ro[ .. _ . <•.3°="�-:Ro°'� °�." :.°i '8`_"°..6° a . ' �:°• E. ^_ '� - gt:3:°:�.:�:' .,°�::�g.a � � `^• " .•�= o _ t.t � . :YEL'' ,. �i: _ �.. . _ . r� 8 �°'•<.. € 'Ctd::.�1.' �j• F`�'� Y1.ig�Y?? ale��=F_F'�� Y��:}j��j f.::�A�.�::jSf6 Y�I�I�YI t�e3�'F�i�i}�ef� E�:�iIY:i �Y:Y:_��:Y_�� 4�:_��:� F�:S_.y.�kY:.`e � � %\ .�� P / � �, �� . � ee '�',�� o / \ �� _ �:1 �i��, / ' � ..�,J ` _ _ '� f ' / \ � _ i 1 ^ / bylr� � uo-F_�` �\� � L � `� _ � _ � . '� / - � � \ � \ +\�s �i+ i n /\� � � ��,� \ �g, �� / �' . \ �. ` \ a. "�y� ��;' i � ��'��. � � \ � � / . � \\��`� p. G � 4 �:: � � a� I \ �� g ` . � u \ � `t ~R � ° I ��`. �e . / m 4a�-- \ � \ ��. _ �`, i / / /, / / � pP� � ' / - - � �� / - - ----- --- '-----° �'-- \ "'n� u �':. .m / 'c._.. � ia . . f� o / n 1� '�' / / �`,� ' �' � o / 1�P{,,��,� � � / �� ,' �a i � �/�5.� � ,,°� �'� e °� i �� a �'� � � 4J� �,�� i �j��`FS / � _,-�s . � / '! / / / /� �� .� � � — ---y. ,� _ ! . _ � �. . �_ . --"'r-�..,��.-�.� _ __<� �,,. ��..�..� _ ` -._ -- ` --�':-.. � - -'- . . _ _--- ��>r.�':..:� .� _. - — -._. . _- 6 H � � � � � � � � �� ° � � � � 9 �� . � ��a� � � � � �� .00 � � � � �q�� V �� (�� € � � ��K� ��9� � � �t�gyg rp�y . � ]NC d o b � ��@k�� I � 65Fd'�v � i J � � � Y H � � � � �¢6 � o. � o. ■oo❑ - � �t�� a �� d � �@�a�� g � � a � � e�eGq �K i� � �� k' �Y@ � � � • � � �� ° �� s � � I = h � Z � p_ N � � � � �� _ J�� : � � � � �! iS Q a�e� �' �� < m � �,.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._ � ._.�.._ �:. -- ��,. .., �_.. ��, T � � d ;. A �LL � �� .`: ,� � � � �i. .. i -.,. �;.II;�;, ; I�'''��'''. . } �� <� _ ��o �� p`� �I � e � � ��ya �9 �� a D� / / i .' � / / , �� E J � m � , � : _ - �=.. ,.— _ . __ --- - ---- -- ; _ _ - -= – --- - —; � ��. � b hAF�b ee�� e�a;a ti y, � g� L � � � � Q o nA�a� aa2d � ' = a X i' � � m � �� 4 �l � � ' � � � � � a � � �� - a � � � �a��gg � � ` � � � � 8 g § � � � g � d � � ■oo q' � �* 9 � a� � � ��i6 � � ��e � ' ` � Q � � ��g� � �� $& @ � � � � � �� I � ��' � � � � � � � � 8 Z d � ��*� � �� ,( � � � � � ��y��g � � ■� �_ r (( q upp p6 p �n p P ��da � ] � � ] � � � � � � � 9��6 � Q� S � C YN �� ] i � O � p �¢p¢��¢� � � i � A�'s's R's§ - � _SE�SP o� � o■ ■OO❑ - � d �t L �O� � � � n�.. °�� 111�,�,,,�,��,,,�,�„��,__� I �'I'�� O n _ C� �� z �, � � �� g ° � !� a @ ag� � � � � � � �� 1� e g n � . � � � � � fi � � � e W �� g � � �� # � � $ � � W �b O O O O 00 O 00� O�� 9�908 O�m�� OQ N7 �� J;� � �� IJ I I �I II �I I II � I I iI i� I f�;J I 1 I j I I '-ll- II II II II II II 11 II tl II __1 II -� ii ; ii � �i i - �� z �� II_ �� ;� � � Q �� ellw ii J ii W i� �I z I�U � �-i- n n k ii �, ii ! \ i� l 1 � ii � Ui i i n � ii i� ii ii I _ �' 1 � 3s� -� ��! �� R � Q �-- w L� w U z � oa �� az �� 1" � �� g �� Rg � �� N� . i - _ _ F_ �� -, .- _� z :.: -�. . :. — _--- �.. _� _ - _ ` - ---- —�: - _ _ _, - : r. ; `:-;.� < <� ; _ - �:: �---- ----- ; H� � e � �� 'a_ �� 9 d � �� s� �� .00 �. �$ �� o� � o■ ■O�❑ � N � � �� z� � � �� a � A ��y f :, •� � a � �:�� h��N R�� qLQe @ �i �� F��@� �� ❑ � � S� d �� ■ z � � Q � � � � �� > q �a - $ �9 �,. w 3 � ��6�� Q � `<4� � R��a��g� 3 , � �� ' �p��g�� s t� z _ � J � N z O ¢ �� wz � ��a��;�, � : x�� a ��c �� 5� � �+'�ti tici �3ti �� Q �a o W T � a :., r� � p� �� t�� $ aS � hTgR� as h��3 � �� I � �`�� Q ��$ � a ��g� �� K < � ��¢gp ��[�SE �y b 8 �� z � � e=� � n �� li �� z �� i `.�4�� J � P Y ll § �y�6 y R e L Y �� g � �� tl�� pg 4 �: �� . � �a�� g333� � �I e � �'��d � a @ y ti• � t�m F� �1§�& ��a�� ; W • h @ K � �ti ��o S' x � 7� r�F � p � ^ c� I �hQ� L � � � � � �� 0 3 Q O � __ , O� uWi § ��'�'� � N J Q F W � �� J z �,' �� $e � �—J—J � 4 �� a � �� Q� �� a �� 8 �g �� & � � a�� p�e� :e �9 i F : 5 t � � : ��9�B�p� �� :� ��€ nnvea.a�� g� H� �� 9�e �� o v 1 � � �� z 4 Q` �� a H 4�� J �Q F- 8� o z y �d w' �h s° a° �� s� a� a� �I � E � _ 4 S z ? z o ti F Q ��g ' � �{ ��i " ' > uWi w 4 a�$ z �' ' a q � I �� --- v Qa 9 e o; 9- �a w3 �� - a: 4 ii ; :� ,. a. �„� o ��;� � �� `✓ ��4� o� �ff� : _ . " '_ — -,_ ." : i "_.. ' _ . _ _ . _ . . . .. .._. . ' ..... "_ I _— _ . . . . " �_"' . _ _ _.__' '' " ,_. . . ..____:.�__."._:i.. ' —___—___— _"_' " __'"" __—" _ _ ' '_' _— —_ ____— _ �.��s.e'_ '.._. . %- � � �� a � �� sg � �� ■oo �� oe � o■ ■OD❑ �� r � �� g� � � �� ? � �� 00000 0 �� w`� qpw ~��Y 0 � N ��F N �uo � ��.F � �� 8 � b n � � 4 � O �� 1 � �OO � 5 WR z �� y�� A LLQOY � `�T��a b v ��z � J� � ��r � O ��" � a ��§ ��666Y ��n h. �� .n m � R �Y zti ' �� R � }��a�4�@�7� �p�� i �� R�� B� ��o=�� @ �� 6 t'9�S! 4�Q �� i 6Q �a ��ps��5� �� d y� �F:�.�,.� �� --------------------------- - i � ; . � � � �� d� �� yo �� 8 �� @� � $ � �� g�� < �5 � €�gs �n � �g�� G r�� s��g@§g ��[�SE �� p��t� �� @�� s��a�� Y � : � : � � Ig � J �w � I�g o � � '��;o . W Z ` � z e � �� uQ. � p � �-- � i i � ..ro � .an c,� i � � O: Z 4 . _. ; � � �� ' -------------------------------- � � 3 �� ' � � � � . �o-o F i 6 Si � � � � �. : � g � o � 3�s g �� • � � � � k � h�� ¢. � �x��=a,�� Rb 0nA Q k � � � , � �� d� C! � � �� 9 �� p ��g� y , * 000 O � OD � � a �� r� � . . �g �. u: � � ��fi� � �� U1 � � ,•�� g�� I � ��" �� n �� O O O � O �F � pS� " c � ., P - m 4 N � Q� � � � �� — ■ c �'r ' � \, O O �:� ;0 O . ;. ��\ �I a ��!'�J o ' I r� o ° c-,:- a �' ' � 1 :� ;� • �; � �, .' �.. g�o � $�p�^ ��g ��Y�� Fb y �� a�Y�� yi�� A4 Y � �� n � � ��y R � �. � � J �R� �€��a �� s� �� t a s � � �� ' y��Y � ��r� �� d o a �� . �� 9� � � _ �� g� �� e'< c� g ��Y� � �� m � � ��}�� < � tg ��; �� y��m� � Y � �� 3 � ��`�� (7 _ _ = f = A; - - - - _ _ "-. �- -. Item # 7 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: June 7, 2000 Title: DISCUSSION REGARDING DIRECTION TO REVISE AND AIV�ND THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE RELATING TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Introduction: As the Planning Commission is aware, staff has indicated for some time of the need to revise the Zoning Code relating to accessory structures, and more specifically, the conditional use permit renuirements associated with accessory structures. The City Council heightened the priority level of this task when at a recent council meeting it directed staff to revise the Code in response to the number of shed CUPs being processed. Dascussion: Rather than staff drafting an ordinance for the Commissions review, staff decided to first ask some questions regarding this issue so as to draft an ordinance that is in keeping with the desires of the Planning Commission. Currently, a conditional use permit (CUP) is required for any shed larger than 216 square feet. The maximum size of a shed with a CUP is 400 square feet. Only one shed is allowed on a lot. If not 216 square feet, what should the CUP threshold be? (216 square feet is equal to a 12' x 18' footprint.) 14' x 20' ? 14' x 22' ? 2. Should the maximum shed area of 400 square feet be increased? Already this year, the City has processed two shed CUP requests, both for 400 square feet. Should larger sheds be permitted uses in larger yards rather than by CUP? 4. Should more than one shed be allowed? On larger lots? And as long as we are examining the requirements for sheds, there are other accessory use issues which should be considered as well. Garages up to 952 square feet are allowed without a CUP. Garages up to 1,400 are conditionally allowed. Should the 952 be increased? Should the 1,400 be increased? (Until just two years ago, the above thresholds were 864 and 1264 square feet, respectively.) 2. By CUP, Garages may not provide access for more than three vehicles (i.e., may not have more than three doors). Should this limitation be removed? Should the limitation apply only to garages facing the street? This requirement does not apply for garages 9S2 square feet or less. _ :... _ � - - �' - - --- . � � =�- - -•:: - - - = ._ - �- - -__�... , -- --- � � ----- -------- � - . __. __ .:_.,_ ., _. — --- __.___ r- --� . .. r.__�. � : ; - -- Sheds and Garages Code Revision Report June 7, 2000 Page 2 . 4. G By CUP, garages shall not be wider than 35 feet. Interestingly enough, there is no similar provision for garages less than 952 square feet, which means that a person could unconditionally have a 40-foot wide garage with access for four vehicles. Should this be made consistent? In which way? Some walkout ramblers with attached garages could (and do) have lower level garages that can be accessed from the side or rear. How should the Code address multi-level garages? Footprint only? The Code allows for a 400 square-foot shed, but not a second garage. Should the Code be amended to allow for a second garage, as long as the 1,400 square foot maximum is observed? There is a consensus that newer homes with large attached garages fronting the street are unappealing. Should the City, by virtue of some "perFormance zoning" techniques, encourage the location of garages in the rear yard, thus preserving the aesthetic appeal of the home? Other issues which will need to be addressed. Our Code requires accessory buildings be set back six feet from any other building. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) requires only a three-foot setback. Staff would propose that our Zoning Code be amended to be consistent with the UBC. In addition, the Zoning Code should be amended such that setbacks less than three feet be allowed with written approval of the building official to ensure fire code standards are incorporated into the proposed construction. 2. In 1998, when the Zoning Code relating to accessory structures was last revised, a stipulation was added that required a CUP if the footprint of the proposed garage was larger than the footprint of the home. Staff is suggesting that this provision be repealed because (1) it is an administrative headache, (2) is not fair or equitable for owners of small houses, and (3) creates additional work for staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council. Recommendation: Please direct staff as to your individual thoughts on each of the addressed items as well as other related issues so that an ordinance may be drafted for your action on June 21, 2000. . �.��.,..�.�t�s2.::� �-�..�;:�"Yt.. James Ericson, Planner - _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ . _ �'�----- -- -- _. ` .: - _ : --- ------- ----- - : �. - -- -- �--� �---- —` _- -- � t i , PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW .�.;,,;. RAMS�Y COUNTY, MINNESOTA ;�;, , "`��'"�� 2401 �np��v�y 10, 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson a;t;;; 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, C.tk�rx�zs�iu€x��' Laube, Stevenson, and Miller. f'�' �: �:<;i f;<.:-, .>'s� s�''V : y Members Absent: None. '''��` f �`y „�<: <;,.,:�;.>; F�,��% ,f::;;;::�::::> s;:.;; ��;<:3 ;, Also Present: Planning Associ�.zr, ��`��Ericso��, ;��mmuniY; �::; Council Liaison Dan Coughlin, af�� ;cordef '�"a-�;��, P'�az-sa.��: � ;�1��,�v° Meeting ��i �„� �9 2000 if,:.T(.v' `�.' �1y h3[all �.�r; 1�I,�T�� `�:�.'.�:li A2 2000. Johnson, Kaden, Director Rick Jopke, Inde� c;�:, � f'J� i�t�i �m;,c�;s� Discussiot� r� �;�,�� r,�� ,T�da, c%o a;�r� ';i� gf u�::ocal Water Management Plan. _ __ Discussiat�"�teg�.x�c�gxag., ��s>�ir� ��zvi� ar�ai��Y�tal Wetlands Analysis. , �� ; ;�:%. , ., : , ,. Dis�ssion Regarding Spr�ri��;�:�r� Highway 10 Study. ��. '�l��wing of League of N��inesota Cities Video, "Tuesday Night Council Meeting." r;:<: f; �Y��°k�eports / Iterr��t�f Information /..3 i.'.V . s �';�� ,aa �>c;�: ��n< <.�d��'lanning Commissioners Reports 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. Page 2 10 10 11 12 13 i Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4. Approval of Minutes A. March 15, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller to approve the corrected. Ayes — 8 Nays — 0 5. Discussion Regarding Update to the City's Lo��ll May 3, 2000 Page 2 Plan. as Community Development Director Jopke stated thi.y rYs,�r< �1�:�;� the pr��t�t� t�£the City's Local Water Management Plan, which is being updated z�u �..�� A�q�� with t11e "��.xa�liensive Plan and pursuant to Metropolitan Council requirements�£ ��; ��t ��I�� City ��:t is in the process �� i. , of preparing the update of the plan, and rep��entativc� >>�" �� xr��e pa'e�ent to discuss the plan and obtain the Planning Commission's feed��ck. ��;�f "' Rocky Keehn, Short Elliot H consultant for approximately 13 ; much of the development tha� �.� original VJater Managerti�� ,l,a�: had woY-�w�c; �sji�� in this r�€�r��rt�. " �n sta�A�' he has ..b;�en with the City's engineering � ��-.� x;,.; ring �r�xch time he�<;�as had the opportunity to observe eo! �.f� �,��: �'�ty ,�:`�� indicated he had written the City's th7��vws�.Fd��4 �.�ew was one of the first communities he Mr Keeh� �.�� :�� h�y �nr�,�-�E ��; �:� utilize much of the same hydrological information that was contain��'� �� ,< ��z iP;;y�4�� la�� s� ��; ��'��aration of the second-generation plan. He explained that during the ��;�; �c>��;:,:�.�: c�A` th�; 1��,�1 ��n, there was a desire by the City to take over some of the pernutt�r��;:aY��kxr�� bm�r ��'��.a w.�� ac� �g-eek Watershed District, however, that perspective has changed"c��ver time, p�y�-��E�j �� Watershed District would continue with permitting relating to wet�a�ids, water qual��r .,�<yx�� ,�.a�c1 rate control, He indicated there were some thresholds over w�u�� the Watershed i��s ioes not have controls and these would be addressed during the , �::��r----� - ��ehn stated B.��Peterson, SEH Project Engineer, was present to provide the Cotnmission r .;:� �,��;k�round��rmation and advise as to the regulatory reasons for the development of the �4 :�?�<�.�,��°.��ement Plan. JI�c �� ''i��rson, SEH Project Engineer, indicated that in 1984, State Statute required that '�lat�x�shed Districts write a Water Management Plan, and within two years after the approval of this plan, a Local Water Management Plan was required to be written. She advised that the Rice Creek Watershed District Water Management Plan was approved in 1997, and the City must now meet that requirement. ._.... __ .. _—. . '_ c__. --..:,�__.� If._'.__ _ -- _ . ..__. -. __--_____ _._ .. � _..__._ _'___— �_ 7.� ._, " .. . . Mounds View Planning Commission Ii�ay 3, 2000 Regalar Meeting Page 3 Ms. Peterson reviewed the requirements of the four bodies of government that set,��rz�th the reyuirements of the contents of the Local Water Management Plan. These irt�l�ad� S�t�� Statute 103B, Minnesota Rule 8410, the Metropolitan Council's rec�uirement �°�i�• ��. ��ecal Water Management Plan, and the Watershed District requirement .�ki� notet� F��,��: iay�: x�ice Creek Watershed District and Metropolitan Council's requirements �'br the Local ':�tnrj �'��r�a,�ement f� � Plan were the same. °� ,f�=>.� : s ,:. �� o. , : . ff� ,. Ms. Peterson indicated the requirements set forth by t�EA T��;�%i o��c�la�an Council a� c; �� s��c��i: '` detailed of the requirements for the Local Water Manage�-�� ''l�,s:�. ��he discussed e�.cl� ��' �R►t�� requirements and explained that each of these requirement�; �:��f� bf;�n specifically listed and addressed in the plan. , Mr. Keehn indicated that during the current reviev� ��rar.��, t��y hacl ;+`��<<a;��.�-�. ��-narily upon the Rice Creek Watershed District permitting rules. ��ti� �.�� ,�;r� ��1�� k:�d_�e ;��-��s ��elate to rate controls for any residential and development 'p�� ,� ��at� a�(��rz `� E�� E��x; ��a.Y�d industrial and commercial areas greater than Z.5 acres I��tated �}�c �4,�,'�� °�z�sscd ��is�r.`�ct continues to permit water quality or wetland impact based upon the lca��, w1�ta�,f� i�,s F� ��ch smaller requirement, . .;: therefore, with the plan as proposed, Rj�e Creek �atei-shc�� r ��r;�' would continue to permit these activities based upon these acre�:g±� z`equirem,erits. Mr. Keehn advised that the Rice all proposals that come i�d�c� �.�:3� Water-shet� `D�strict does r�s�� r��;� tvaicall`�i �`�a��nrf�� a. coa� �� a; reviews � �r��'g��4��; tl»�, �� presents a ��,��:� ,� ��1�� District consic�� .v E�� wel involved m tk�;� E;��.��-;�i�a�di�t� � City. I��,��plain�ci i�&�,��. ��ar �� '%� only,k�.�ve regulatory aif��c�i�� k Water��a�^�,rl I�istnct.�tas the opportunity to comment upon nmunity, ��t�a��:�� a.:�l�� #o� these issues. He indicated that if the �ent upo��, ��°��r��i, the City's Planning Department would ��a �o 5�.�-�;� �� t�l�»ir review. He explained that when SEH s> ;��all impact to the site, and whether or not the proposal ��IcX.I��l; or area adjacent to it. He noted that the Watershed �}��s =� they permit a project, SEH does not tend to become th� ��;:�i�;%3 �pecifics, but rather, in terms of the overall impact to the mos� par-t, the Watershed District does not comment, because they t�� ihe property that is being developed. ; ;s .� Keehn stated SEhI �So i°�views buffer related issues, and the typical recommendation is that �.�ay residential developtxient within the buffer be set back 10 to 15-foot from the wetland, and this ��ti�w relates prima��+`�to the wetland's impact is to the system. He explained that if this is a ,��: ��r`�;t�:�.��1 at the top;,��°the watershed, which will run through several wetlands before it reaches �� f� fg;�ctt, s h��dncern is more of a local issue, and providing a smaller buffer. He stated there <��, ��1� �l��t they consider a bit more sensitive, and in these cases, they have recommended to `c�� "p�;? 3�,�'c a larger buffer be provided. He added that in situations where an individual has constructed a driveway or increased the impervious surface directly adjacent to a wetland, they recommend an increase in the buffer. He pointed out that these projects are reviewed on a case- by-case basis, which provides some flexibility in situations that might otherwise require variances. _ _ , , _ - _ �:.: ,:- -. - =- - - =- -�- - ' ----- - =- - - - � - - - - - - �------ �------ ="� r- °--- - . _- _ y - -- ___ .. -_ Mounds View Planning Commission May 3, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 Mr. Keehn stated he believes the current Water Management Plan has worked very well �for the City, and there have not been many controversial issues in the last five years. He added;;i�i�t they have a cooperative working relationship with the Rice Creek Watershed Dis�t°ict en�tn�ers. He requested the Commission provide feedback regarding the current issues fa�ir�� 1��'�ity, and the issues they would like to see addressed with the Local Water 1V��;gemen�.P��t� �=�� ±c��»sed that the Cit would have re lato authorit over residential dev�;�t� ment of S a�r�� .�� {�; %:�';' Y � �' Y � �� , � and one � �;�- of the issues for consideration is whether or not the City s�a��I� approach �es� ��f.�k��.�.��t�;� in th� '�' same manner as the Watershed District, applying their n.�(e,�� a� gu�del,i�l,+�s''across i:i��y ,��, ��E A,v ;;` some of these considerations should be left to the discret�� '�"ii� st�� Mr. Keehn indicated a question had recently come forwar pertaining to whether or not there should be a rate control particular project did not fall under Rice Creek criteria, h�� it presented a somewhat minor impact to the ove�-.,11 kayc�x SEH has done modeling based upon future develo��;k��;��., � going to occur in the future. He explained ,�.h� �; '�� o� consistent with the plan, the impacts have g�z��i`a11y t�� ! .: aware of the building elevations, setbacks,,�t� items oit�iis Chairperson Peterson stated one a� to properties along Highway 10 i commercial use. He inquired if th� Mr. I��1�ra`+;3��ic,aied thes� �art��:}�. Corric��x- ��fa��, �� ident�� '. held o��` c?��;��3��z��.:�ai of d.h� � 4�.{:; Plan was ��r�lr;��;, z-�� x�c�� ° �: the previou� ��, �f��. +:�� Ynaj� and this has,:�� .j�:�'��` ��t��; ��nac i�sioner Hegla�ci ining or defini��; ��a.i� rrQ� s;��a.i�ridual site development, ��;a�.��'r�� r) �i;� �, lots. He stated this eY, � � cs<a� �� ;��eering perspective, gic syst�;�i�, t�.1��° �eehn stated that th�;y h�� E� ''��' {��2imate of what is �� :he la,c�rl �7��;' oi development is fl��,�fi�c}. I'xoperty owners are made � ��;,: ;;£ a:ajor cha�ges to the u�dated Comprehensive Plan relates ��, �:��i� currsiitJ� resident��; but are now being proposed for �r �i�opc;i�i�� i�ve been.:.it�entified in SEH's models. P . ;;' :. 5�.��, �s would �,�� ;k�_�;��ated into the models, and the Highway 10 ��l.an. I�� i�a�i�cA out that this was one of the reasons they y��a.��;�� 1�/lanagement Plan until the update of the Comprehensive ;��4� �,r� ��en only four or five minor changes to the models since ,r ��' � t�� t�evelopment occurring in the past six or seven years, c�Y� ��;<+�:�veralt system. regarding the Metropolitan Council's criteria for �u1�. Keehn stated thes�4;�?;�ere typically the same issues as those the City would consider problems. t;j, f,� ; �� indicated this was�`nc�t highly implemented in the original plan, which primarily addressed water �. ; . €��?��s}� issues. Fo�`'��ample, the City has studied the possibility of installing a stormsewer system , ,;, r��?�� ax.;*.��l�xs,� st�3rmwater treatment at the Arden Avenue sub-district in the northern portion of �.�� 9. �� =.`.�t�d this area has been identified as a problem, in terms of water quality, and they �: �.; �, � s:� ;�t ��ox�ated plans for resolving this. He pointed out that City staff has also identified other problems, such as flooding at specific intersections. If the Commission is aware of other problems, they could also be included in the plan. He advised that these items are based upon input from City staff, the commissions, the Council, and the residents. : - • ' _. , ' - �� . . .. ----- _ __ ,. �. _:w,_--_ _ __� . . . _ Mounds View Planning Commission May 3, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 Chairperson Peterson noted the update was not as lengthy as the previous plan, and i was intended to be a supplement. Mr. Keehn advised that in the past, the City had intended to take ovF, f�i� s�� authority from the Rice Creek Watershed District. He exp1�21��:t� ��„�i th� f��s��1 ��.{ include the permitting goals and policies, which generated s�,��;��is�cial pa�c�-�=J�;��c, � they are currently approaching the plan from the standpo�k i1-AEa:c r:he Wat�� sh�;r$ �� would act as a supplement. Rather than reiterating spe�"�s'� �oals, t�:� �ity co�.��c�. Watershed's plan, regarding water quality issues, and it��°� �f� �hi� �ature. He a� previous plan was written prior to Minnesota Rule 841�� E�a�;��. �aas provided a c allowed for the omission of unnecessary information. f •: Commissioner Kaden requested the abbreviations of the�,�tib-wafrK �a�;r�, b� ;�pellec legend. Mr. Keehn stated this would be amended. , Chairperson Peterson stated the original plan were unique to Mounds View. He inquired i�t Mr. Keehn stated the Metropolitan soil data be included, and all of the if an item is not required, it would � �;. in addition to the Metropolitan Cr�i soil map, and drainage maps. ' districty": 1./�b°. `f� �F; however, � � ��,�', �! ,r �,, Chairperson .��.��; they co�tl.��include �` incl 's re� quired if it �; � , >s:'�. Z:>y' �pernutting needed to -� �Y►dicated ��' � �lan r. ��:�° rt �� ;�t�i s�aE; Fi�ii�i J9, C�.�� out on the ��us��c� �_. ��s ��+€ :;;� ab maps and illustrations that e it�mw� ��,r��cr1� a�yr ��air�e�`in the current plan. ir�s such a c�ra�.� Q� q su�-iace water resources and ,;,�?vould be it��rporated into the plan, however, ( l.�nless spe�tfically requested. He indicated that in�nts, t�e: �ilan would contain a land use map, n sfat�c� ��: h��'+:�;inal plar► �r��I�aded a substantial definition of each of the sub- 1 sta�.�� k��.`� ��E��al�� lan provided a detailed description of each watershed, '3s�a: �La�`� yi �3'�i'r,�i��"7 �;�?�?:�.t#��G�. �r� i�►�� t��. ��a�°oY-mation would still have value. Mr. Keehn indicated _,�� in �his Y-egard, if the Commission so desired. Ca�i►issioner Johnsol� ��Gj��,,ci if the plan would contain a future land use map. Ms. Peterson �i�dicated their informa�ics�� h�:�i �Oeen obtained from the Geographical Information System data. �; ; �"��anunity Develop�iEnt Director Jopke stated staff could provide a copy of a future land use �£ ., ��t�,:� A�r this purppse:�" Mr. Keehn indicated this could be added to the plan. He added that they ��E�� r;; as��:��luding a map, which would indicate the areas that were proposed to change, �:��r� ;��;:r ��,� i�� potential changes. Commissioner Hegland stated the updated Comprehensive Plan contains proposed land use changes, and inquired if SEH was proposing to include a summary ofthese changes. Mr. Keehn stated this was correct. He indicated the hydrology model would be completed when they are able to incorporate the areas that have changed. ; , _ r — . .. i. ? � : _ �, .-._. _ ... , - _ . . . . . _ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 3, 2000 Page 6 Chairperson Peterson inquired if it would be possible to route a copy of the original plans,to the ,<><f,: Planning Corrunission and City Council members, for purposes of comparison. He advx�� that ::.. riiy:::::, Mounds View was one of the first communities to develop a Comprehen�i�� Lo� Wetland ,,:;�. Program, and much of that detail was included in the original Wat�r Mana��.��t �'la;'i�: frf3' Mr. Keehn advised that the changes pertaining to the golf cc7��'�e'area woul� �^ er��,1t��;d in the ��. plan at some point in the process. He indicated some of��he procedui�at°'is��e;�'�� P�1and evaluations would probably also be included in this plan, �-:�i :;� �,�,�ould ultimately b� E� �:r��,�� of the original plan. _ Chairperson Peterson stated this was the first draft of `p:��.F' incomplete. He indicated that as the matter proceeds, they ;f?��r; process as well. '<<;- Mr. Keehn stated this was correct. He explained tka�� ;: ��u:�;; 'r.r required by law. He indicated that at this time, ti��'��"��iF��a��,��; they are satisfied with the Metropolitan Cour�t;�('and �� K. '�; �.��: and if there are any issues in the City that shq�ild be adc�r�ess�c� �xg Chairperson Peterson stated Se indicated the original plan co identified at that time, and si explained that some of th�� E probab�y ��,�� s;o have sc�� r� they v��A� .�a��r� ih� ojs��e�'� F:�.�;:� forwa��rw; k�fy�Is��;`l�'f', i;�l�g rr1)Cyrxr�� relates to ti�� ;��;�;�;_ �� Mr. Keehn s�i�i.�:c� �� items th��ere ba��d ,c}'s ,a plan�a�;�somewhat a�� .:� majt��'ity of the water � ;;:'�, some of the reqi ��y�a�issioner many sections were go through a review b�sic x��.Ex��rrrlc ofthe plan, as �hou[d c;aa?sicl,Pr whether or not �l��rsl��c�'�ist�rict requirements, 6��`�he plan'�IS�s a numb� oi issues present in the City. He ��' desct�d��on and ra�onale for each proposal that was inforina.t��s�. ' should be -yincluded in the current plan. He ;re low.��'��; ��it�erations, however, the Council would • proc�Q�r��,� a�a �h�s�regard in the future. He pointed out that ��view �'�� ;c�ports for the particular issues as they come ��ald provide an understanding of how each of these items l��.c� add�`�sses every watershed within the City, and specifies those �a,ter quality improvement. He explained that in this respect, the �i�rve, as this information is not required. He indicated that the ��rovement projects have been identified, with the changes being �i�e slightly more stringent than they were during the past seven regarding the origin of the term "Judicial Ditch." ; ;;;... ; ,.;, ��r ::,�� 6�r��nsed that in the past, a law had been written to grant jurisdiction to the County to �e��a�� f�°�� i�se ditches in the rural, farmed areas. He advised that the term "Judicial Ditch" is related io the specific Statute pertaining to ditch construction throughout the entire area, and this Statute sets forth very specific requirements primarily related to the manner in which improvements are assessed. _ ` v � P _ � _ __ -- �_ l': _, : : - - - , »,� _ . _ _ �.- _ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 3, 2000 Page 7 Mr. Keehn indicated Rice Creek Watershed District has authority over the Judicial l the improvements that are made to them. He pointed out that under the Statute, the District would be required to petition each property owner in the area p� �oF i;t� comn project, such as cleaning out a ditch, however, the law has ,been aY�,e��c�� p improvements can be made under less stringent requirements Commissioner Miller noted two question marks at the Ground Water Resource Data, which indicates "Wellh something was to be included at the end of this senten currently monitoring well water, and at this point, their re Chairperson Peterson inquired if the list in Section 4 previous plan, omitting those items that have been cc identified since that time. Mr. Keehn stated the m�jora the majority of the water quality issues have not c��k�¢ the plan relate to the street construction and curb ��a}+_9 ; He added that the maintenance issues are pri��iilv th� ; Chairperson Peterson stated the Streets P`�licy 1 5. � . runoff, and some of the Planning Co��sion : terms of the actual impacts of the rui�;A;f�'to the be incorporated into the plan. ' y3� �'� � tI11S I11�+�r �) possible, a changethe ;d that �� F. �, there'��„ �; ` ,�a:. %O (:��«tE�,�.: �; �i�� cC�'i c�, � l;; and any that a senten�� on �'j�s;� �r�., ; zander ectiori .Pl�an." �i�;, ��.s��s':�-�� i# �'��.�in stated the Cc��,��s� � �r� ,., t,: �:- �:h� p��o,j��'cN' �, t�c `;i:�i.C",Cl, SOYYI`71 �-�� <.c;ts, and list contained in the c�m� that have been ; 3J�;�;�� identified, and fi nc� other issues in i� could be included. ;e had �c��r��-�ed the issue of stormwater had b��n involved with that committee in syst�m': He inquired if these items would : Waters}��t�� y��'��t; as the permitting authority, may not be '�llo1 be b��ti� a�r�r��sed by the City. He indicated that although ��;�-Pfcr '�o include as much of the information in the plan as r��f��f�� the plan. He pointed out that it is much easier to `� `�� K� would lilce to see some consistency in terms of the references to 'rsi�t��ter Mil��;i F ��L��^�? A��, y10. Comm��a��,� �i��f�,��.��ment Director Jopke stated the roadway in front of City Hall is _ _ __ __ . _ _ __ y referred to a� �;�s�.��:��+,r � 0, and Highway 118 is now referred to as Highway 10. nissioner Kaden , and "County .;� : £:,,: ��mt in this r.�s�ai d the Comprehensive Plan makes references to "Highway 10 (Old 10 (Old Highway 10)." Mr. Keehn stated they would attempt to be �:��A';��>��a� ��ferson stated from time to time, drainage issues come forward when residents ��° ��c�c�n`.F�,ations to their property, and such projects do not typically present a problem, however, in the case of a large commercial property, they could. For example, when Roberts Off Ten desired to expand their parking lot, the neighbors were concerned that every time it rains their street floods, therefore, an outlet restriction was installed in the parking lot. He explained that information came forward with that project, and later as part of the Theater Project 3 � I _ .. :_.. _ . ____.- _ , _ . _ . ...- . -- . _,- ._. _ _ '__��-- ��-�--'-��.�,..�I r��3.:'�.-'.�`' r�'�" "� . !? ��. __ "�'~"s._ — —�.I Mounds View Planning Commission May 3, 2000 Regular Meeting Page S discussion was that there were some capacity limitations in the stormsewer south of He inquired if this item had been included on the list. Mr. Keehn stated this had been included, adding that the City constructing a new stormsewer from Robert's Off Ten, an s> stormwater capacity. He advised there was also discussion r�� the Community Center. He indicated the regulations have �Y�� they are currently examining the system in terms of sor�lU r�� planned to come into the area, as this would have a� �� downstream. He stated they would research this matter, an�i c� may be some slight changes to the plan. He stated he be�� construct a new stormsewer system as part of any street t�A south to Rice Creek to increase the capacity. ��`'� Chairperson Peterson stated the City would be seeiff south of the community center in the near fut�r�. converted to a wetland. He inquired if;;,��`'of consideration. , .. . Mr. Keehn advised that all of thes� be some minor adjustments to the, j there had been some discussion r�� site, and some thought that, �� the 1 larg� �✓�a;��° �u�lity treat��n� �t��a occur�t-��, �$�fir,r�:v�r, it w��l� ia� ��r�r: some p 6. Yn light iilQ � rys as p� �riate ;the in tl 10. lity of se the ond at -�, a.nd ihe pot�tial develoj�a�� :��. i� s,�6�r� �;tpon what is res�r;�,�7,p�;�c,fa :A��r�iin� upon this researcl�, �.��P�-e ��`t� �i��; was still a proposal t�o �;�s��i�c� �om Robert's Off Ten nt p��o�J��"1 �or the vacant area a pat l,_ ri��;' has recently been ►��en�s have been taken into earc,��d and identified, and there would �elcap!rnent that has occurred. He stated �located downstream from the Theater �vas reconstructed, they would install a �ject. He explained that this has not items in the plan, as they might occur at ��ti�� °�on Environmental Wetlands Analysis. munity Developmei�� '�ir��tor Jopke stated the consultants from Peterson Environmental not present to disCuss ��iis item, therefore, this matter could be held off until such time as were available to p��sent their findings. �;.,• �n inquired if staff could provide any information regarding the future area. �;`�an�.az��€Yi�� evelopment Director Jopke advised that at this point, the study is ongoing and the consultants are examining three areas, which include the property between the golf course and the Sysco site and the property south of State Highway 10, which is designated CRP. He explained that Rice Creek Watershed District is examining the possibility of creating stormwater ponds in this area. He indicated the area commonly known as the "Little Woods" was also being examined _ _; _ , , =-=� Mounds View Pianning Commission Regular Meeting '-- - -- - - --- — - _- `.=-`; lO�Iay 3, 2000 Page 9 in terms of the ultirmate delineation of that particular wetland, and the potential for residential development in that area. „ 7. Discussion Regarding Springsted Highway 10 Stud Community Development Director Jopke stated the Stee; ira� 1:0 has been working with Springsted & Associates to refin� !�,��, x, He indicated that during the review of the studies that hti°fi1z � evident that much of the initial work has already been done, ��s� He explained that there were many common issues througb��ati � they have decided to focus upon understanding anc� ati�'��►�ti common elements, after which they will deternune if i�e,��,;issu priorities and possibilities are. ;, � Community Development Director Jopke discussion at their next meeting. He indic to be held a week from that date, howev�; should be a clear focus prior to pra�e�e� focus is somewhat different than w�t��`=�va matter with the Council prior to pr�ceedin $. t�tetl this it�m'�r£ �ed the fir�Y �teeA, the proc�:ss shoul� ; with ��ie matter. i�i�i�l�� anticipat� -.:; �r►mrttee has been fanrk�4;��, �€��i he :�� f: � and the initial � �r��A ?3� �� :' ��c,n� r?one in the past, ii t�G r��Ar�� :�' t�k� ��zz�� have been identified. �� ,3`'�� y+��i ;tudies, therefore, �g ��; �,r�,��,N�� the issues and es a� � r�.ri�� t,� �; ��a�t; and what the I�l z��: ��f��e the City Council for ; r:;;��trtas�t�e meeting was planned �� r, efully thought out and there ��e explained that at this time, the therefore, staff would discuss this (Ce�u�� Video, "Tuesday Night Council Meeting." _ _ _ Community De�r�1�a��rtYa�A��.'�irrector :l�o�k�; :;ta�ed this item was a League of Minnesota Cities video presentatiQ� ti�� :r� lr ��R;;� =��um��l s-r�ee�ing, which deals with a company that desires to install a teleco�unications tc��;� ! b�s `��i�� property, and the neighborhood opposition to that proposal. He u�::�'icated the video ,��-��r�+�.�� nsight into how this particular Council handles this issue, and pQ�, �'� questions regardi�� -ocess for the Commissions' consideration. �e video focused upQif%�four key points, the first of which pertains to the Council's review of land ��; a5s�aes and zomn�}�n terms of the individuaPs property rights, versus the philosophical reasons �� x�izi�;. The ��d� indicated that the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to maintain an orderly ��c� � r��.+ ��F.p��a� �ity, which helps to ensure that what someone does with their property does not ��f ta��,rv��r ,��x�ct other property owners. The Council must consider the accepted uses in specific �,��e��:�. 'n [�c video stressed the importance of staff support and active involvement, and the importance of information regarding land use issues. The second point relates to the role of the Council, and which actions are appropriate. The video indicated that the Council must step away from policy and look directly at the facts of the case � .. . _ �_ _ :-.: r � `—'----_�_.. •� -- ----=_-.__�:. �..��W:`-�,..�' �-s.::-�� •'.`�.� . ---._-__. _.�z! - )- �_ -- . .-_ . � . i�- , __. . -. i � Mounds View Planning Commission May 3, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 � j before them. The Council must consider the goals of the City, and is required to act as j as a legislative body. The Council must work with the specifics of the particular case make broad policy decisions. The third point pertains to the neighborhood reaction to a p examine both the law and the fact, and while it is definitely base their decision solely upon the neighborhood input. Th�;. and appreciate the concerns of the residents, and resp�ct;�� would directly affect the future of their property. The Cou��;? not not ��. The �;;��'�� i�,fl-�c�uired to 1��ant� lhE.' 4r,�(}$,�.C�d��.� �„ ��-�able to �� ,;, dncil mus� �ct�r�si��: �� a�r��a;�;,;si�nd `�'�` right �tt�; c�ispui� a °p�a�,��:�k�� a,?�.� _ The fourth point relates to the necessity of keeping a clear ��:��°t� �� record of the evidence presented, and to document the reas�s� v��.a.- �� of fact must be based upon the record, and within the legal stancla�-c record is also necessary to indicate that the Council ha� �ia�fille� i�s satisfied its position in regard to the law and fact. Community Development Director Jopke p�tii from the Minnesota League of Cities R��`'11 �� brought forward in the video presentatt�3�f: He very good resource, and as informatia�<it�.;provic encouraged the Commission merr�t��;��o atten rf� ,.;� that he has set aside funds in th,";%�ommunity�; �i .S� Planning Commission trairli��; � in'r,;; clear reco �°�� e ��; �� Comrrussion ��r� �rn ,;�� the findings �a�`� ��°f., �?:�:g� �' __.., ` ` '' Chai � .;�-son Petersox� � a j��led address tliese y�ances, conditional �.��a�s could not be h �. �a�e�.rses have been ve,z� '.lr�tCD `3,Y4t��., 3 ,> j�� .id� t�� y �;ood t� communiYy inw,�(�r��r��;��zi.: �� (�ublic hearing, to be the r�i��; oi fact. The finding � fa� ii��iy Ordinance. The �� t€�;�,,.and that it has ___ _ _ _ _ __ _____ __ __ ___ h� �c�� ,.� w�t�i tna�:erials he obtained .�ent ��;��n6, ��}�iich reflected the issues ��ed the ��:�i< ��; of Minnesota Cities was a would b� �c usc;,��ed to the Commission. He e cours�� as they become available, noting � ,;. opm�nE" Department budget specifically for o�ke stat�a� �re believed the video had done a good job o£ ��; ��aling with the specific facts of the case, and having a �� pi,� for the findings of fact. He indicated the Planning �� arisidering resolutions of approval or denial based upon �t.��-rid themselves of these points. I sorri�';of the training courses the Planning Commission members have �� ;� vvell. He explained there were many legal issues pertaining to pt;�r�ruts, due process for applicants and residents. He stated these �d appropriately without some training in these matters, and these 1 Items of Information Previous Council Action Community Development Director Jopke stated the Comprehensive Plan has been submitted to all of the surrounding communities. He indicated staff requested comments in April, however, no comments were received, and the Comprehensive Plan has now been officially forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for their review and comment, which could take up to 60 days. He stated f ..�_ I. _. " - ,. -__ . _ . . . _- . . _ ' .. _ _ __ .: � -- i 1 . _, ' _.. � - _ .. ' -_ _ _ __..�' __ _-' •___ __. . .. ..__ ._� _ . _.. '_ _.�«. . - ... Mounds View Planning Commyssion Regular Meeting May 3, 2000 Page 11 the Commission was provided a letter, which indicates the importance of the Local;,Water ,:. . Management Plan. He advised that the Metropolitan Council would consider the Compr�k�ensive Plan incomplete until they receive that plan. .''� Community Development Director Jopke indicated the latest d�at�� for the vacancy on the Planning Commission is May 19, 2000. �� ated ap at City Hall or on the City's Website, and encouraged intei-��d parties t the Mayor would make a recommendation to the City Cou�t�il�for that v�i Planning Associate Ericson stated with regard to the reqL�.c�� fence in front yard of 8438 Groveland Road, the applicanf their Work Session on Monday night. He explained that the regarding her situation and her immediate need. He i�i' between the Council, himself, and Police Chief Clarlc Y-eg�.r�: issue. He advised that there was discussion r��a��, i��s Code, and the process and time line involved. , Planning Associate Ericson stated there � landscaping, with six-foot evergreens f.�� immediate buffer, however, there a�-� ;;;spr tendency to die. He stated they c�t�cttssed some feedback in this regard. He; �ndicated option, given that she has ati��p�� this in regarc+.�r►�, �;a�� ;� for a tall��- �',��<�� which the Cnu��1 or the deve�t��a��s c�ntact t�tth"the a x��. � :J��-,an �t.�t�� ¢�c� fa� ��fl�,��s; ��; ic;ated +.I��°« s� what ca�a :,k-iYr► use pe .r,�.:. , . . . ,,. �'�'s discus��i x � �ac'ci; �ced one `foot oAA �u� {;:;.:;� �e con�ems that a��tl the possibly of irivol� th� ��lic�nt �Ya"S hesi t E i��.� submittal for �3-��,� =v-t �2;,Ezvailable lv ,:�T ��`�i�cd that ;e to allow for an ��oot oxe the City Council at �� cl. to alert the Council �►�,�.�a, bPen discussions � ��: r,�n�� to resolve this ��ii:;� �e�d amending the �� potential installation of , ' which could provide an planted in that area has a the City Forester to obtain to consider the landscaping Erac�`�rc �±��=P��d;iha.t at �th�; ��t �Council meeting, there would be discussion �ility �i° ��g�� ?��?f�� an Emergency Interim Ordinance that would allow ��, cy�� o�":��3a.��; <�:a ��ell as other situations that have arisen in the past, in ��.�s� irrapo��; �.c��.i9,��s�� ;reening requirements with the conditional use perznit ��, �� ac�v��;d.� 'ct�at the matter is progressing and staff was keeping in >lia;��;,.:�8�� 'r,i�n7�ting to maintain order in the neighborhood. ___ _ B. Upco�uan��`�'a��r�eng Cases ry`�� . ...:-:F �!��nning Associate E��on stated five planning cases would be before the Commission at their �'��,{t z.4zeeting on M�' �'7�'. He stated there would be two conditional use pernuts for oversized s��,��, a conditic�3i��'use permit for outside storage, a conditional use permit for an oversized � ,,�;r ��1��..c�7 ��a �� tce application for a garage located closer to the property line than what is ��f��4�,� ��; �dicated that if time permits, they would also attempt to review the first draft of the r��a�'�P �;�.�rtaining to tattoo shops, body piercing, and establishments of this nature. He stated staff has me�: with representatives from TOLD Development Group, and the Commission should be seeing this application on the agenda at the first meeting in June. 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports _ _ r- _ � .._ ..� _. _.. .. � _ ;. - . - -:: i � - _� � _ - ' - - - . _ _ . . ____ . .- - .-.-„_,__,_ . -- - -- ` ---� � -_- - ----- F -- . . Mounds View Plann►ng Commission May 3, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 12 No renorts were considered. __: _ _- — , � _ _ � _ MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMTSSION June 21, 2000 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKIl�IG, PLEASE COME TO T'� PODIUM, AND GTVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MIlVUTES 4. Approve Planning Commission Minutes: a. May 3, 2000 5. Discussion Regarding Anticipated Changes to the Zoning Code Pertaining to Sheds, Garages and Accessory Structures. 6. StaffReports / Items of Information a. Previous Council Actions 7. Chaizperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session (�mmediately Following Regular Meeting) APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT TH�S MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT (763) 717-4020 g' YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. AGENDA SESSION AGENDA 1. Review the Minutes from the May 17, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting. N:�DATA\GROUPSICOIvIDEV�PLANCOMM�PCAGENDA�2000Vune 21, 2000 PC Agenda.doc T. . � � _ _ ____ _ .� _ _. __�� ,__ __ _ ___ _ ._ __ _ _ ____- . Item # 5 Czty of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meetrng Date: June 21, 2000 Title: DISCUSSION REGARDING DIRECTION TO REVISE AND AMEND THE MOLTNDS VIEW ZONING CODE RELATING TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Introduction: Staff has been directed to work with the Planning Commission to draft language revising the Zoning Code regarding sheds and accessory structures. The Planning Comnnission initiated discussion on this issue on June 7, 2000, and requested information as to what surrounding communities require as well as what the City of Mounds View has approved up to the present for oversized garages and sheds. Dascussion: Staff identified numerous questions pertaining to the zoning requirements for accessory structures which will need to be answered before an ordinance can be drafted. These issues and questions are as follows: • The maximum area for a shed w/o a CUP is 216 square feet. Should this be increased? If so, to what? • Should the ma�mum shed area w/ a CUP be increased from 400 square feet? • Should larger sheds be permitted uses in larger yards rather than by CUP? • Should more than one shed be allowed? On larger lots? • Garages up to 952 square feet are allowed without a CUP. Garages up to 1,400 are conditionally allowed. Should the 952 be increased? Should the 1,400 be increased? • By CUP, garages may not provide access for more than three vehicles. Should this limitation be removed? Should the limitation apply only to garages facing the street? (This requirement does not apply for garages 952 square feet or less) • Should there be a maximum garage width? • How should the Code address multi-level garages? Footprint only? • The Code allows for a 400 square-foot shed, but not a second garage. Should the Code be amended to allow for a second garage, as long as the 1,400 square foot maximum is observed? �, _ ___ _. _ ,. -. . � � —. � _. _ � , .« .�. .� .- � � �_ � :: Report #2 on Sheds June 21,2000 Page 2 • Eliminate the requirement that no garage--except by CUP--shall exceed the footprint of the home? • Institute a maximum accessory building coverage percentage? Of lot or rear yard? Sun�ev Results.• Staff surveyed all of Mounds View's municipal neighbors as well as the cities of Columbia Heights and Maplewood, asking five specific questions: What is the maximum allowed size of an accessory structure without a CUP, what is the maximum allowed area with a CUP, are there any special requirements for an accessory structure, can a resident have more than one shed or garage, and what is the ma�mum size of an attached or detached garage? (The results of this survey are attached to this report). Generally speaking, the surveyed cities range the spectrum regarding sheds. Most cities, however, do not differentiate between sheds and garages. Only one city—Blaine, at 200 square feet—has a lower maximum area requirement for sheds t5han Mounds View. At the other end of tlie spectrum, Maplewood allows for the most square feet of accessory building space, although the maximum can only be achieved on the largest lots. Five of the cities surveys have either maximum building coverage percentage or rear-yard percentage requirements. Two cities—Arden Hills and New Brighton—do not regulate attached garage area. Histo�°ical Oven�iew of Conditional Use Pef�mits: Staff has collected this data going back to 1980 and will present the results in table format at your meeting Recommendation: After discussing the above questions, reviewing the attached survey results and the historical CUP analysis (to be provided at your meeting), staff is requesting that the Commission reach a consensus and to direct staffto draft an ordinance which would amend the Zoning Code with regard to accessory structures. �J �►��a ��:,t� James Ericson, Planner L:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMM�tvliscellaneous PC Memos\Shed Cup Memo - June 21, 2000.doc k� ._ �; r : � - -' ._. .:. . I..� - - ' --- :- '°- t`--- --- � , E .�t :''::�- =- -'-- -� _ -=s-- . _ . � __, . _ City Shed Limits Spec. Req's Notes 1. No home occupation 1,400 square foot total for accessory Fridley Up to 240 w/o CUP � Compatible with storage structures -- two garages OK 763-571-3450 Up to 1,000 w/CUP home Accessory area cannot exceed footprint of home No limit to number of No distinction between sheds and New Brighton 600 square feet outbuildings al�lowed so garages. Maximum building coverage on 651-638-2050 long as the 30% is not a lot is 30%. Attached garage can be as exceeded. large as desired. Blaine 1. No home occupation Garages are limited to 1,000 sf , 763-785-6198 200 square feet 2. Compatible with 1,200 with a CUP home Spring Lake Park Total of all accessory buildings cannot 763-784-6491 1,000 square feet exceed 40% of rear yard. No more than two accessory buildings allowed. Lot coverage ratio shall not exceed 40% Properties larger than 2 acres may have 1,000 square feet more than 1,500 sf accessory storage area Accessory structure Shoreview (1,500 square feet cannot exceed height of upon approval ofPC & CC 651-490-4682 combined maximum principal structure No more than two accessory structures area) allowed. Footprint of accessory structure may not exceed footprint of principal structure. Arden Hills does not differentiate 1. Not taller than house between sheds and garages. They are all Arden Hills Up to 728 square 2. Same materials as accessory structures. Attached garages 651-633-5676 feet can be as large as desired. Area of house Accessory structures on lot may not exceed 25% of rear yard. Columbia Up to 1,000 square < 5,500 sf, 35% building coverage ratio Heights feet, depending 5,500 or more, 30% building coverage 763-706-3678 u on lot size , 1. Not taller than house No limit to number of sheds as long as Maplewood Limits tied to lot 2, No home occupation ma�mum area not exceeded. 651-770-4566 area 3. No living space in �,�ee below*) detached garages lewood Lot Area Under 8,000 8,000 - 11,999 12,000 - 15,999 16,000 - 20,999 21,000 - 41",999 42,000 + uirements Detached Bldg Area (w/o attached garage 786 1,000 1,000 1,100 1,250 1,250 Attached Garages 768 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,250 1.250 E:�DATA\USERS\JIME\Old PC\Word DocumentslShed Research.doc Total attached and detached area 1,118 1,420 1,480 1,660 1,850 2, 500 � _ _ .. . _� ._ _ :_ : I y : . -- - -�._ _ " . �.- - °�_.� -_' � ` - �I • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW Community Development Memo TO: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FROM: ]IM ERICSON, CITY PLANNER SUBJECT: WALGREENS UPDATE DATE: 6/ 16/00 CC: WAL�GREENS FILE Bob Cunningham, representing iold Development Inc;, developers of the proposed Walgreens project, has informed staff that their consultants have not yet completed the missing components of his development PUD application. Rather than bringing forward what has been completed, Mr. Cunningham has chosen instead to skip the June 21, 2000 meeting and appear before the Planning Commission at its first meeting in July. Staff will publish a hearing notice for the July 5, 2000 meeting and send notification to residents in the area, including those in Greenfield Estates and Landmark Estates. If any member of the Planning Commission wishes to discuss this item further, please either call me prior to the meeting or raise the matter during the "Reports" section of the meeting Wednesday. P:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASESW1A00-001\Wagreens Memo - June 21, 2000.doc � � _ �T ' :7, .. . , . ..-- - � t- - - -- _- - . .. ... - .- � �-•--- ---� ° - � - �- --_.� .. _. i.. . . _�. �_�;€�' '� PROCEEDINGS OF TH� MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS V�W RAMSEY COUNTY,IVIINNESOTA ,.,,� 2401 I8[�g��u�t✓�� 10, 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at��' 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Cc��n�ssior�c�r a��: � ; :::. Stevenson. 5: � � ' � < ', ' _ ,M�,� Members Absent: Commissioners Joh�s�rn and La�t�; with p� ; < i;�,:�' .-• ,:;� , > ;. ; ,i Also Present: Planning Associat� �i�n �ri�so�, ��ammunit�,< Council Liaison Lynne Thomasor� atid Recorr�r�� '�'x-ish Pearst�� Planning Ca��:��1ra, v�j`��i�4 Discussion Re��xrliz�� 3 � Garage S�t1��ck. �,<.:; . Harryf�emert Applica;�� , �::<� � �:;�y' P1az�ung Case No. CL10C �rid� Consideration of Re� � ;C�onditional Use Pe�;mri �'��an��s Stampfle. A'`�i�ilic ce. ��;u�9�u° 1Meeting l�C(�y Ily, �000 4�a�a�� 'v'`�� k'u �.;1Q,,y' I�3[a�l ��1� �,��c,•:��-, ��,iEi�T ��a �ll it� �7, 2000. �,' Kaden, Miller, and Director Rick Jopke, Page 00�!, � I�a l�ir��v��od Drive. Public Hearing and a��a.e�r,�; l� ��;sx io Allow for a Zero-foot Side-yard �00�,'2832 Woodale Drive. Public Hearing, Discussion 5lution 617-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval for a 1,248 Square-foot Oversized Garage. ��A�s��>: t'F E,�:;�o. CU00-005, 7474 Groveland Road. Public Hearing, Discussion ��?�� r��a.� �� y�;e��iion of Resolution 618-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 400 Square-foot Shed. Phil Johnson, Applicant. Planning Case No. CU00-006, 4949 Old Highway 8. Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 619-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditio�nal use Permit for Enclosed Outdoor Storage. � 10 13 �s�== - --� - ��--- -- ----- � .__.. - - �--- -_ ��.,�. !�� ..� � �-�.��._ (r� -�,�_.�-��y: �=ti _ �' .. �.. <�.� _- - ` =_' l I � � Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 17, 2000 Page 2 ASC Properties, LLC, Applicant. Planning Case No. CU00-007, 2251 Oakwood Drive. Public Hearing, Discussr+ and Consideration of Resolution 620-00, a Resolution Recommending Appro�a of a Conditional Use Permit for an 1,150 Square-foot Oversized,��:cage. ,: ;.. :; Kenneth Waste, A licant. ��` � �" PP r��~" ,: Staff Reports / Items of Information ;�� ,�,£ $� � Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items 1�I 1 There were no citizen requests or comments on it 4. Approval of Minutes A. Apri15, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Steve corrected. � __ __ 5. 1�'y��b�� a..�:u�� i`Ioo �IIE Property I�.v�sl� ,��: <}; � ��'� �h�:A��U ,,, .:: Public �+��t�ng ar�d ��vt��; ;ic�� ,tf�::... Gara�e `Setback. A�'��icant: Harry Meirie� � <` a.�plicant was to a�?t�t��ve the the !!'�he agenda. 5 fl9 5, 2000 meeting minutes as The motion carried. �� i onl ]�r�u� .��,�rding a Variance Request to Allow for a Zero-foot Side-yard gave the staff report as follows: 'i�'� ��jttcant, Harry Meir►ert, is requesting a variance to allow for a garage expansion on his prropet-�y located at 2195 Pinewood Drive. The applicant proposes to replace the existing garage with a 576 square-foot detached garage in the same location as the existing garage, which, as it is presently situated on the lot, does not meet the 5-foot setback requirement. The applicant is �1T-_•� �'�� _.r"��':�-- � `� . -..' �� - _. li -__ .__��- . _�.. I. _ -_ . . .- _ _ .__" ____�___ -._' "_ ".'_"_ .. . .. . . . ... _ _ . _ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 17, 2000 Page 3 proposing to expand the garage up to the property line so as to maintain a six-foot the house. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff examined this application very magnitude of the variance requested. He explained that this;<;;�'at�iance setback for a structure, which is not something that is typically=;t�;pproved. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff reviewed this ap�ol criteria necessary to establish a hardship, He advised !1 associated with the property, i.e., the configuration of ` features, which would make the literal interpretation o restrictive for the property owner. He indicated that in this extraordinary circumstances present. He pointed out that t which slightly throws off the setbacks, however, staff is of �� to the property line would be a privilege not necessa�rily � the district. Planning Associate Ericson explained that j;�iiere warrant the approval of this request, in t�Z�t the there would be sufficient room to ros��;g:„ ��.=,°i it to the size of the e�sting garage is �k��11;' �i��d sta� size requested is. well within the �uideiinc� a�� variance is being requested �s bec��use the pr��r�� and in Ehz� t��,�,e, on the pr��c ��.� k�`;��;. Plannin� .��.,f�c �a�,� �Ja�;r;,oci °'>�: to have �c�.��; �j�,.�;r_i��ao;n ,e�� considera�iori �� E��i��a��a�. �� tl�at the Pla��, �:,c>��rsa��4��0� ��> > presented, dxrec� s i��.A � � � r��•�.r: appro�� or deny the v�� .7%��; �'. �• � from 'ght of the for a zero yc�:�tion in ter�s of the s�� ,��i��ice �: ,: �a� �he hardship criteria E<>r��' �c� �e r�� , r.lie topography, or �il�ysir,�l � ii�� ! � �c€r,> �verly burdensome and ��arn, �Ia1;�c c#.o not appear to be any �ie lo� i� �c��,n� �u�at��: �� egularly shaped, h� opia�ioYO �9f,rp �,��;zx�,�g a variance up �'o�rded to �Y�}� otl��.�- �roperty owner in �ti a�a��r� �r� �� any hardship that would cotAlci ��; �,j,,��ated in the backyard where ificat�or�s 'che applicant desires. He noted izes '�ie need for expansion and that the �g�:;� He explained that the reason this ;��would be so close to the property line, i�lt it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission Y xnatter, and therefore, has not drafted a resolution for h�t `�his was a public hearing, and staff would recommend ithis item, and based upon that discussion and the facts d a resolution at the next meeting, which would either y Meinert, the ap�ticanY stated he had obtained written permission from the property owner ed on his westerl��border to construct the garage to property line, which would leave �ximately 20 fee �� etween that house and the new garage structure. He explained that with a �etback from,;;��`� property line, he would maintain a six-foot clearance from his house, which r� a�ac�,�;�;1�� st�ndards of the Fire Code. ��f?:� , i!�%��;� E stated the proposed structure would be set back from the house, however, he did not wish to extend it into the backyard. He provided the Commission with a drawing, which depicted the situation of the existing building on the lot, and explained that if he constructed the garage in back of the house, it would infringe upon the sunlight that comes into the house and the 25-foot _ _ : _ __ , , k . : : --=----=- �° ------- , _L: . _ , : -- --�- --- . . -- - - : , _ — - --- � - _ - - - �- - ' .' ` - --- - ---- -- -- ---- � _ _ i . I � Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 e�ension he constructed six years earlier. He added that this would also negatively impact the appearance of the house. He stated he proposed to construct the garage on the existing s�t�;:�� Mr. Meinert indicated his home was constructed 1950, setbacks. He explained that the existing garage is located line, and the driveway exceeds the width of the building, � the property line. He stated he would like to have a reasoi additional space for a workbench and other such items, width. Mr. Meinert stated he was aware he did meet all of the cri he was proposing to construct a new garage with an attra house. He indicated his house has been completely refinis of siding and roofing on the garage, which he believ�c� w� his was one of the nicest homes on Pinewood Driv� ��c,��j�� improvements he has made in the past ten ye�x:�>., ��t�' approaching the garage in this manner. ,�s�� "" Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the,.��plicant �,.. ::- :,; lot. �� ;>;<:�- Mr. Meinert stated he has not ha� and he woul� lilce to rely up�arn �irt� ' eight inck�� f dh� prop�x,��r lir�rr. �� _� detern�ii�e� ti��;l�cation o� �� %.�.c:��: � wher�; �� ni��' sup�osed to ��;, � dimensions, ,��. �g�, approxiY�.��..e, widening tiow�'c� c�� r�� of the p h� would ini��It�l a��;�?.�;r,�� he lot hi �� the � ed in po lards for property vmity to � %� bii of �c�� h��f�ialli� in this case, however, ; ��P�r�,ir�� +hat would match the and ia� �n�.�ic1 '��;�a:zlize the same type add bea�ae,y �Q '��e�;� �rea. He stated �he significa.�� irxr�a ior and exterior +;•L��?..; on� oi' �:��e ��easons he was fessional survey of the i� lot s�ai �r�yec� aY this �oint, as this obviously costs money, ��e lin��y`�it Y��, :h��ard, which he assumes are within six to stated �� ^avrg �•l� :��eighbor had utilized a metal detector to lc� at tl�e ��a� �1�east corner of the property, and it was exactly t��ci,l�ined ihat from this point, and measuring to his lot <�t� �'�e� in the back and 105 in the front, there is a 15-foot ��rr�y, �Ie indicated that even if he has a survey performed, ��;1�° �o determine the exact property lines. M , f ' %%/ '. . Comn�'iss�ioner Stevensar� �r�� :�a.: his awareness, the Commission has never allowed a variance � �� wit�� one-foot of the �a��a�x��, "ii-r�e, and for this very reason, whether it be for a structure or .y�' i,,m,,�pervious surface, it i� �;very likely that relying upon a fence would not provide an accurate � �� ;��resentation of the p;��perty line. He advised that if a structure or impervious surface was i��-rxiined to slightly e�cceed the property line in the future, there_could be major problems. He �s�ca,a f?; �a� 1ne felt fc�r;�ie applicant's situation, adding that the City encourages improvements such ra,, ��,;:�-��,o�c�s�.� Iie stated he would tend to believe the Commission could allow a variance ;�;��r,�� a, ��e, ��°th� property line, however, to extend that another 12 inches, and simply state that a�� a a,�f�;� a�a�; ��roperty line might be problematic in that the property line might be determined to be diie►��id iri �he future. He advised that there could be problems with regard to the overhang, in terms of the runoff, and there were a multitude of reasons the City does not allow for a variance within a foot of the property line. ; . r ^ � � _ . : � 1Vlounds View Planning Commission M�y 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 Mr. Meinert inquired what would be involved if the variance were approved within one-foot of =.r:>;. the property line and it was deternuned that the structure was in close proximity to the�<;��stern property line, in terms of the required distance between a garage and a house. '� ��f'F Commissioner Stevenson indicated the Fire Code would come i Mr. Meinert stated the reason he was approaching the obtain the required distance between the house and the � is 18 feet wide, 22 feet deep, and 10.2 feet from the hous at in this rzz�,rnncY' ��r�7s: He indt�ated the �i-'i' c�olazr�ed�that the stY-u e�- to years old, and quite dilapidated. He ind�cated that if ih� ��;�u ��z�ge were constna�t�r�'�,s�:rhe property line, he would be able to maintain the 6-foot separrat�c�� rl��F�i�r;�; between the structures. Commissioner Hegland inyuired regarding the size of t��- ne�� f��.x�l�;� �., Meinert stated it would be 24 feet by 24 feet. Commissioner Hegland pointed out that the sta�° ��r�t�r'r. i��i�;at�;s a=�I-iod� separation between the estimated property line and the house. .<��r: 1VAein�,��.' ��f��.c:r� 1a� l�e��ved this to be a fairly ,;�. accurate measurement. ,._ Commissioner Hegland stated the minimum setback from the property Mr. Meinert indicated th� howe��c-, �c� '�.; survey wo�ll Commi��xr�3��x� L�egland i�. Mr. Meiz�� i: ��.t�c� ��re C,flmmission��- .��;�1� �� line, the �rnposed �� setbac��"' Mr. Meinert: ,. simp�� developed his missioner Hegl o;�'zt of the st�: ►►.►z� ,. :,; y line; �vvas not sc�y:tare, and inquired regarding the ►g th��:2`.4-foot len�itii of the proposed garage. structiar� �,x�r��icl �pp.ear to be parallel to the property line, ;d to d�f�� r�x��a� � }��s'accurately. -�iing 1:he length of the overhang on the proposed structure. Ek��s�o� overhang. ou� �i�ih � 32-foot separation between the house and the property z�lmosi' be constructed at 3 feet, and come close to the required r.k?as would leave approximately 5 feet of separation, and he had t�fial of the six-foot minimum separation requirement between Xuired if the six-foot separation was measured from the foundation or Planning Associate Ericson stated the foundation. y, : �`V��r��i��;� y�a,� ��erson stated the Fire Code requirements must be met, however, he did not believe ��a .�};�;k�r��al.i�i involved great difficulty or expense. He pointed out that there have been many cases in which structures have been closer than the minimum setback requirement, with only one extra step, such as sheetrocking the interior of the building, or adjustments that are relatively easy to incorporate into the plans. i � - Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 Mr. Meinert indicated he planned to finish the garage with sheathing and a ceilin�. He commented he has measured several times, and deterrr►ined there would be S feet 8 inc�;es one time, and 6 feet 4 inches another time, which would depend upon the ��k��t locati�ri� of the property line. He stated it would probably save some time to have; a professic�� .u�ti�y done. Chairperson Peterson explained that with an application, with a professional site plan or accurate measurements. would be a better approach, particularly in a case that ir there have been several cases in which buildings have bee�a because everyone believed the property line to be in a pa�-�i appeared. Mr. Meinert indicated that there should be a front and ba�. located, a straight line string would provide at minimu�rsx � willing to retain a surveyor to determine the locatiQ� c��' ihk be more accurate for the Commission's needs ��T� �,��I�i�� the next meeting, he could obtain a survey and<sx��b`mit �� :�: �:�. Chairperson Peterson advised that a suxv�y would g�ti'�rally Commissioner Miller noted there mi�li�;��tually be�itriore ro� thought. Mr. Meinert stated there is a doubl� fence lo�,��;�i �a� ��a� �vesterly border of the property, and he would estii�a�.�:� that th�s �`�;��.r,� �� aithin 6 to �� z�� a�'the property line. He added he has lived at this p�xc�p�;�y for 25 y�°�j:�`u, ��c�'�i��-��la that ��a�, ��.'has always remained the same. He indicated he did"r�p� ��,r�ic�larly car�� + �� 7,r��; �;�,��;�, how�ver, in this particular case, it was important to have an ac��z•�t� xta��urerne��.. on � :advtsed that �,>`pra��,�s�ar�� sv�v�y ��ves setba�lc:s He poi�iis;t� csi�i illa,t �A�Si:na�t�c� on neighboring p��n��i��:s; .;� ��,��yiori, however, it was �an� �:y it ,talc� c��? a�� t��?rcy, and ifthey are od g�iclei�n�, l��s�ac��er, he would be ��sterly pi-o�r��t� l�rie, which would � tih�t if this matter was tabled until utr�d as part of an application. the property than the applicant Paanning Assca:�i�.i� �ri garage i� 3 feet of�" n-f.' gara��ti'the same lo� ve�t�ed by the survey, fi;�;�=foot separation be lission, at the �, varian�e fo� rr�� o��rt�� ,�� .�i�� a hardship might be found in the fact that the existing ��r��E �;iy line, and at minimum, the applicant be allowed to construct the �s�,-,�, ��. ��icated that if this were the case, and these measurements were '•'.�'f-��t.'��kde structure 3 feet from the property line would provide for a �t�en ��e house and the garage. He explained that if the specific Fire Code -;'were met for structures with less than a six-foot separation, the � time as granting a variance to allow for what in effect exists, could also reduced setback from the garage to the house. He advised that the City separation between structures, as well as the Fire Code. ��ra��oner� �Iegland stated it was difficult to determine the correct measurements without 1c�iowiA�� he exact location of the property line, however, assuming that the garage would be parallel to the house, and the applicant were to construct a 24-foot garage with a six-foot separation between the two buildings, the Commission could determine the exact setback from that point. He indicated this may be another way to approach this application, = _--_-� ._ � � Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 17, 2000 Page 7 �� Mr. Meinert inquired if the Commission would require a survey of the property. ;f�<->� , �i� ;, Planning Associate Ericson explained that the City's policy is that a survey �; L? �✓r��P good idea. He explained that a survey is required for a house, and not ne,e��,sarily �o�° ��c., �.owever, when a structure is proposed within 5 feet of the properly �>Iine, a survF��y �s �r,�� y� ��rongly recommended. He added that the Planning Commissio�n c�,ctiild make su�ch a��yrl��'��r,o��;��d; �,� a condition of granting a variance. �`;:�:�"� . .F£'.... �..... . . . .... . ..,:' Commissioner Stevenson stated that if the applicant still c�P than the current 3-foot setback, he would probably desire through the Planning Commission Commissioner Kaden recommended the applicant obtain on an irregularly shaped lot, and in his experience, tih�; �x�€ when he decided to construct a fence, he attetxa�t�� t� detector. He pointed out that by the time he �as `f nish�r for less money and time than he put into tlu�,process, aix� � :: metal. He stated his neighbors informed him that tkz� sui street, however, there is so much �nP�<s,I ��rider the.:�eets where the stakes are located. He ��x�.�ir,��d he al�o discc the road, which might also be t�� cas� wicla �1�is appli discover that the corners o�' the :�ara�e vark� gr� c(ista�G reasons. �-��:: can normally satisfied. He noted that t€ oz�ing. He expl�; fs .; �.�nform by the cu 'ormance by allowf exact boundary . iecting the garage>` l Il that closer to the prop�g�j�:;�:ric �j��ler to obtain a -va� iaiice ey. k��; ��.rl,�c,•�d�,rl his home is also nents c��;� 5ra.�y.: �Ye explained that ° f he survey ,talces with a metal :a�a�c�. have �robably hired a survey �=;i�c1, ��s,: s�nly found a lot of buried �(4k t, ry��ci-e probably located in the is rnearly impossible to determine that his house was not parallel to He stated the applicant might � the street, which could make a s��9.Pr�. tt�n'-�'"�� 1-i�� established dimensional requirements for a number of �� ,��i�a� ��;very specific to a particular lot, and these requirements ��c,ra �� Q�� 1� <;�,;a.��.� � variance, each of the criteria for a variance must be ;��:s�� 1��<, k��1c�� an analysis and response for each ofthese criteria. He ��s�l�;�� adclitional situation, in terms of a building that is legally non- ��s� ��.�; �;�±� structure was legal at the time it was built, however, it does s N��;��€ ��c��'� He indicated he would not be comfortable extending that non- �r� �h� garage to be constructed even closer to the property line however, w,�;� unlcnown in this case. He inquired if the applicant had considered t�3�the house. I>this would be more expensive, and he was on a somewhat limited budget. He would cost over $20,000 to attach the garage to the house, Chairperson Peterson explained that if the structures were constructed parallel to each other, it would be easier to add a breezeway in the future, and he could see from the draft the applicant provided that he would not necessarily desire the garage to be butted up against the house, I ' f�-'a—:�-- --- .-' : � '-;_ _ : . �: : _�-� - �. 1_�__ . �<�_�. �:r� �.<.�:...�. ____ �� . r � _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ .e �-. _ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 17, 2000 Page 8 however, with six feet or slightly less of a separation and appropriate changes, he might still be able to construct the garage in the proposed location, once the property line has been estat��:i:shed. ;,,�,tt£,>. Mr. Meinert inquired regarding the date of the next Planning Commissio� n;a��i�� Planning Associate Ericson stated it would be held on June 7`�. �;;'�; ;;. Mr. Meinert stated he could provide a survey or more accurat+� ineasurement�`by ,, that if he could locate the survey stakes, those measuremenC� should be ,at��juate. _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ ___. _ _ _ __ __ _ _. _ _ _ __ Chairperson Peterson indicated there appeared to be alt�r.��2r�v��?-v��il�ble other than th� �`��;st for a zero setback. Mr. Meinert stated he did not desii-� �c� �c��c,i:,;r.h� garage in bacic o� �he house. He explained that he was already proposing to set the �tf�.�ct,�zx�c ��r,�� ! t'eet. ,�> Chairperson Peterson advised that given the situatiod� c�i ;yi� ucture� r�r� �� 1�t; a� was not always possible to have everything quite right. He stated thai. ��:' �;�a� �jge ha:� 'o� c;r.� :iq�:p� � present location for many years, and therefore, he did not see a pz`ab1�;�� vit� ��;ard to r.ha� ��i�cement, however, once the structure is demolished, the lega�;,£�t�n-co��%j�°�ai;r�� ;��'r,us �ould disappear, and the current 3-foot setback would be lost. He'ai�vised that �:� �(�a�; k?�i��iy f.�x� new construction must meet all of the requirements of th� Cod�,�'and since fhe g�ra�;�; la�.Y existed in this location for many years, he did not see a real i�;;u� �n this regard, howe��r, in terms of allowing a lesser setback, particularly since the prc��a�ri:y lines ha.ve not beert :,clearly defined, he would have a - � t� problem. ,. . _ ..,,� Commissio��:;:c� .�erke a��;�,�c�, a��ding tha,�' sraix�� y�� of a survey would be necessary. Comrr�assic��;�` �[illcr sta��d ��g��r��r,would b�'-v��;� �z�lpful to the Commission. Chairpersc�y� ��°�r�� ar�� dvi,�ed ��►�:�: �,�ac; �•��i.aix�ements for a variance must still be met. He explained that the Cotrzi:�-��;3ic�x� �xA��t defiri� <� �aarcl�ha�s which is not an arbitrary process, but rather, based upon a very st�`a{;t i�,U�1 ��c�t��r��ne�.t. Mr. ��friert stated that only 3 of the 7 criteria for hardship were met with his nmissioner Kaden ��ted he would be comfortable allowing the existing three-foot setback, if �,<;<,> stnacture could m�eY'the Fire Code requirements. Commissioner Hegland stated this would be : ,, ;�n�ble, anc� �t ufi�uld not necessarily require a survey because the structure already exists. sy��li�a��„��r��x'�� >`tevenson advised that this was a public hearing, and the Commission would not u� ��J��A��; �c��iori at this time, therefore, the item would not need to be tabled. He indicated staff ha6� � c,qia��ted the Commission provide direction regarding the preparation of a resolution. Chairperson Peterson explained that the Commission could not be fully aware of what could be done without knowing the actual distance between the structures and the property line. He _ _ -________ _ __ __ . � . . _. , Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 ltegular Meeting Page 9 indicated that if the proposed garage were constructed in the same location as the present garage and perhaps expanded closer to the house, a variance would be required regardless, to repl�ce the structure that has been legally non-confornvng. He advised that there wc��lc? hav„� to be a :. hardship statement that defines why the situation merits a variance, and alti�c��l� 'rh� applicant feels it would be reasonable to replace the structure in the same ltir�ation wii�'r ��ic��: �etback, he was not certain what the hardship would be. , Commissioner Stevenson inquired if staff could prepare a ��saluiion and denial of the request. Planning Associate Ericson sta�er� staflP wc Commissioner Kaden inquired if this item was subject tio a�{�W� submittal, which was April 26`�'. Planning Associate E�i��c��r theoretically, the Commission would have until June 26"' tQ�;�:'ct o,1 Chairperson Peterson inquired if the applicant had: wide, but perhaps somewhat deeper. Mr. Mei�e� vehicles, however, if he was to go deeper int�,�e 1ot, the addition. He explained that the end of t�e propo edge of the first window on the addit�c�r�`�� He ind , >: however, if it was necessary to adJLA;��; �;alixy to 22 fe��' hardship, he would be willing to �:c��&c��r th�s' �Ie proposed 24-foot width was that;��ai� wa� a wc��c��r d! more costly than a 24-foot baardx�F;�y� Mr. NI �� from the Mr. N to set ij�g €�r. to do limit from the date of �.,l�is was correct, and _ _ _ __ _ __ �oi��;ir�Pred cor�sti� uc�in� ',Lhe 'garage 22 feet sfi�'r.��`� ;� reei would b� adequate for two �l�r �8��,jrrui�� }�ould block the sunlight from sc�� .�� a c�ti�� !sFx �actu��e would come up to the €catecl he 1Ni�v.�r� prefer the 24-foot length, in orde� �� meec �he requirements without a ; explain��i that one of the reasons for the umb.e�r �vidth, and a 22-foot board would be son p�3��r,r;c� �aut that 22 fec� 6.��'a very common width for new construction. :�. �'4��3iY �,E;�;y�� rson inquired if the 'existing garage was set back four feet l a�:; �1i�Ll,,r-; rt ��R�r� �i'zt� �;�r•��e was c� enf1y even with the front of the house, and he was planning {�k f'ou�� G�r,�,. ��c; ��a,di�ated he has a slab patio with a large Elm tree directly in the the two buil��a�,� ��c� �;dditional width toward the eastern edge would encroach upon ay between ��,- �;��t.��tg� garage and the tree. irperson Peterson ��quired if the tree was healthy. Mr. Meinert stated it was. He indicated ,<.;:;,. �ree, which is ap�;aximately 50 years old, was treated for Dutch Elm disease in 1980, and !.:'.��t�c;��;b��;� ��terson inquired what staffrequired in order to proceed with this matter. Planning � IA,;�G,�-�f,i�FE� p:ricson stated staff has received sufficient information from the comments that have been broughi forward at this time. He indicated that once the applicant submits a survey and site plan, staff would review these items and bring the Commission a recommendation at their next meeting based upon the findings. He explained that this might be in the form of a resolution of both approval and denial, which would allow the Commission to proceed in either direction. He _:` Mounds View Planning Commfssion Regular Meeting May 17, 2000 Page 10 added that the hardship requirements might also be fine-tuned if the Commission believes there is sufficient hardship to proceed. ,,;�;�; <:. 6. Planning Case No. CU00-004 Property Involved: 2832 Woodale Drive Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of Resolutiogl � 17 -00, a��olutioY , .::. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 1,248 Square--fc�oL 1`�versi.��d Garage. Applicant: Thomas Stampfle The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report The applicant, Thomas Stampfle, is requestir�� 1,248 square-foot garage on his property lti�ate� 37,000 square-foot lot is well maintained �nd im� and a small two-car garage, which is ��:f�ched to �.: ;> will be demolished to make room fc�r '��►e pt o�s� location in the side yard. There ;is, �: `small 10, �� deep in the woods, and does n:o� ��l�quately ��v� �; ]Eri and ac�v=:�e;�i ��t� ±� the adve� s�; �i��;�: � heavily wood�c�, � trees, and a ��i��i; the east;.p��viously at 1 ��I �a�"Ea �s�air��i.��na,� ��e permit to construct a ��:�� ./a�oc�a!€> ��%ve. The heavily wooded �c� with at� c�1s1�P�, �one and a half story house home by � breezeway. The existing garage garag�,, ,which would be built in the same foot:;,�ed on the property, which is located ��p.ltcant's storage requirements. �� 3brz��:c1 the� Co�i�t�ission with photographs of the subject property, sry t��rg��zk�c�,kT,l' �as� permit request, the Planning Commission examines pr-opc�crT�� .�� .�� i��dicated all ofthe lots in this area are larger, and very �d th�r�;' � 3;;i�t;ai��aiat screening on the subject lot in the form of mature ;�l�rag i:he E<�i `sidc property line. He noted that the property owner to ar:i�d �,l�rger garage, and the Commission was aware of that property. Pl�'i�j�ing Associate Erics�r�° „k�f:�c� it appears that the proposed use would not adversely affect any Q£��he adjacent property;; owriers or the neighborhood in general, and staff is of the opinion that �1�a'� proposal would a`�tually improve the subject property and be a good addition to the •�:.r;r ��;i�;hborhood. He st�t;�:d staff has drafted Resolution 617-00, which recommends approval of the ��'��:��n�l �?s� p��it with stipulations that are present with any similar use including that the ��:° �>��1��,z63 ��:� <<,�.,�rded with Ramsey County, and the garage shall not be used for living space or c�%��:R° �r, „� �.a;� �,.Ilowed in the Zoning District. He advised that no other sheds or accessory [�r`x�1��;:� �Fi�li �e allowed on the property, with the exception of the small shed which already �xists, and the garage shall be designed and maintained to be aesthetically pleasing and complementary to the existing building. He indicated this was a public hearing, and it has been noticed as such. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 17, 2000 Page 11 Thomas Stampfle, the applicant, stated the existing garage is approximately 60 years o dire need of replacement. He indicated he would like to construct an oversized garage for the purpose of storage. He explained that he owns a third vehicle, w}uch i� ct�.rrent outside the garage. He stated a larger garage would allow for that vehicl� ta {�� aark :, and he did not anticipate any complaints from his neighbors in t�ta:�firegard and in parked inside, Mr. Stampfle stated he plans to construct the garage in a manner that wt�z�id ra��,i�;1� s,EE.�: ��ouse, with aluminum or steel siding, appropriate colors, and a sk�gled roof,y%�Te indre�.�F�1 �ta4-; �n, fl�'r; would be a located a few feet closer�to the street than th� ��si�ti�� arage, however, i� ��ai��i ��c�� extend beyond his house or any other houses in the neighbox�l�oa�1: Chairperson Peterson inquired regarding the orientation of ��r�c r�i G;l�r� ky��cographs provided by staff. Mr. Stampfle indicated this photograph was taken fr�fn il�e f��c�yaz°cI, �nd directed toward the easterly side of the lot. He explained that ther� is a��?roximately �0 �p �14 �eet of mowable grass in back of his house, and the lot is heavily woac��c� 3,�;yc�nd that poi�a�. Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding the _square fo rr�ain floor was 1,372 square feet. l``-"� ,:;:.;::, Commissioner Kaden inquired if �i�� icant w project. Mr. Stampfle stated he pac��c�C�� to c�t< the existing garage, and would rea�r.�cl� it La �;�� to paint the breezeway, and tnstaU �'few new �r� e Chairpersoxa. s�fficiently ; wall of the'�� Stampfle stated the ►ing t�,;improve the breezeway with this a fe�� feet to allow for the demolition of :: .,; ;d<��rage. He explained that he planned __ _ __ __ __ _ _ . _ ___ __ i sta,��. �a�; �i��c��i�-iven pasi: �h� pi-o�erty that evening, and had notices that the �� ; ir� ��;; �-��liii�n as well. c> k�c�uired �x p.t�� cap�ised access at the rear of the structure would be �€,� ��plicant, ar :i�'2here would be an additional access on the southern rear S�tampfle stated the �rt��s� three-foot wide door on the side of the garage should meet all Is needs. Chairpers�n Pe�erson inquired if the applicant had snowmobiles or any other items would reyuire a wi��r access. Mr. Stampfle stated no. ��j��' �r�;issioner Ste��on pointed out that removal of the existing shed was not set forth in the (�xfi��a. �.l��ng Associate Ericson stated this was correct, as it was not proposed that this ��.�r,��1r� b;� removed. He explained that the resolution states that no other sheds would be �>�t� �r� �he ��-operty. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the 10 by 10-foot shed in the woods would remain on the property. Planning Associate Ericson stated it was his understanding that it would. � _. _. _ : _ . __ _ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting __ - -- _- -__-.-- ... �: •: : May 17, 2000 Page 12 Corrunissioner Stevenson inquired if the total storage area on the property would be increased from 1250 square feet to 1350 square feet. Mr. Stampfle stated yes. '"�'" ;;,>=s:�. ,: Commissioner Stevenson inquired regarding the condition of the was approximately 55 years old, and its removal would not reg,i currently utilizes it to store his lawn mower and other lawn equipr Commissioner Stevenson inquired if it would be necessa�y �tq '�laow the proposed 1,250 square foot garage. Commissioner �=i�^,s;��zd re the maximum amount of accessory space allowed on the lc�i. Planning Associate Ericson advised that the combined area �f" �I�i� �; would be 1,350 square feet, and the maximum area allowet� ti�as 1,�!-(� Hegland stated the applicant should be permitted to Ice�� ix�� she;ci requirement. Planning Associate Ericson added the �t�i�GG�:�: �c��: i� app the existing shed, which is located deep in the wcac�d�; 4�; i�� risibl�. Commissioner Kaden inquired if a pre denied because it would have been 1 garage would be approximately 100 sc Planning Associate Ericson square foot, garage, howeve feet ir� siz�_ T�e explai�a�� house:;' Chairpersora conditional u level, the de olution No. 617-00 �w for a 1,248 Squ� � No. CU00-004„�s ;; .A,y�s — 6 the ��roposal fQr; ar► cs�r��z�;xr�c ,,; than the; �iouse. �� x� �A�. �`��txap�7� indicated it a �z�7.�c�a 1��,; ]aowever, he <si�ecl to rer�� 7�� P, i�s �i�h� �f �ted clarificatioi� r�;;��.rel��a� the proposed gara�e ��t. Commissioner .�c��ld be within this ;Iy � acre in size, and �;�b�a�e in the same area was ��cl out that the applicant's �e feet srru�ler than the„house. �,<:��> :;.:;, �revi�-�`�; F�.��plicant,; Tim Skeet, had requested a 1,400 on g��,� �r��.a��cz�� was approximately 500 to 600 square su�; �v�� trri�h regard to the proportion of garage in advised tha� �11� �lanning Commission does not approve or deny a `�,.c�uest, bu� ��C��;x� d��$�j.lces a recommendation to the City Council, at which a��:,, �-Te statc�l fi�� matter before the Commission at this time is the :�c� �nr�ai�l� ; c commends approval of the conditional use permit. "t�3�+�r�;r�.,�x,LiVIiller. To Approve Mounds View Planning Commission __ . , a lE��solution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to C�' foot Oversized Garage at 2832 Woodale Drive; Mounds View Planning Nays — 0 The motion carried. ��i�,��ie�F;l�.ssociate Ericson stated this item has been scheduled for a public hearing at the May 22, �000 �;��y �ouncil Meeting. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 7. Planning Case No. CU00-005 Property Involved: 7474 Groveland Road Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 618 `C�tl;, a Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 400 Square-foot Sh�;d ` Applicant: Phil Johnson The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the stafi report as follows: The applicant, Phil Johnson, is requesting a conditio��, property located at 7474 Groveland Road. The ,�R�� which is the maximum size allowed for a non g��-�� foot, well maintained lot is improved with a>;�ewer br garage. There is currently one small shed on the prop� the proposed larger shed. Numerous mature trees a�d s of view from adjacent properties. Planning Associate Ericson provi�� <. the subject ,lot is larger tha� lh�:' t locat�cl. ix� ��u� area. He indicai�c�' � desigr�� z�t� d£�� >. Planning .�.�s��iai:� ��,�icsoxl stai�d affects of th� ��ro��s�yc� �}se. �Ie � include the xel�tic�di5�ni� ��h thP also ��'inined the c}i�i He: s��te p p y " d the ro ert ��%� �,property, as the e7 ;:��;�;;£ ��ed, the criteria aooea be met. he Cox cal sm area i s May 17, 2000 Page 13 �� permi'r. �'c��;� �� ,>��ized shed at his �,rzi is seekin�` �, �!C�t? ;quare-foot shed, �;n��st��y. structui�;. ��li'�� 15,840 square- s�`�ia�;-��rjr�;1 hom� and attached two-car �Ir�,�; �,�%11 '�� moved to make room for 8�io�� c��v�c:y� fence shield the backyard p�`otographs of the property. He stated ie City, as are the majority of the lots an interesting variety of housing styles, tl�� l�nning Commission is required to examine the adverse �3vE:�� h�:t staff has reviewed the five identified criteria, which �;,��}��rehensive Plan, the geographical area involved, and -eciate ihe area in which it is proposed. He indicated staff has > surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use. indicated there is a definite need for the additional storage on is full, and therefore, from the standpoint of a demonstrate d ��1��ilzr�g Associat� Ericson stated staff has gone to the property and examined the location of the �sf r�,r�r��,�1 :��d �e� indicated the very mature trees on this property provide some screening, as _: < ..:; d�� :��.� �ax�rr�cy fence, which surrounds the perimeter of the backyard. He explained that in ��3��,;,�� l�la��ring and visibility to the neighbors and the street, staff believes that the screening requirements are met. He added that in stai�s opinion, there would be very minimal adverse ai%cts as a result of the proposed use. � �� t- � �.� � r �� _: --_-� -- --� : � � ;�`� . . �.:�=_ .. �� _ � � �..:�-:;:c. E.= f ...�� _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _:� Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 17, 2000 Page 14 Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has prepared Resolution 618-00, which recommends City Council approval of the conditional use permit request. He indicated this was a publi�;;;�earing and notices had been sent to residents within 350 feet of the subject prope�;�. He stated staff received one telephone call from a resident of Silver Lake Road, �w}ao �w�� s��ply curious regarding the process, and was not concerned that the proposed;sl�ed wo��I� �i��+��Ac� h�r property in an wa . ' �s `: Y Y � .,f.- Planning Associate Ericson stated in terms of the dimens subject lot could support a 400 square-foot shed. He � Commission recommends Council approval with stipulatioi'r resolution shall be recorded with Ramsey County, the shec other uses not allowed in the Residential District, no other allowed on the property, and that the shed shall be a pei�- maintained to be aesthetically pleasing and complemenlviy �� Phil Johnson, the applicant, stated Plann preparing the staff report, and he was quite, ,; he learned he met the dimensional requirern� the public hearing notification, he had go proposal. He commented he was soz��wha1 whom were not even able to see his 1�pu'se fro�n t ,, from 16 of his neighbors, including �lI of thov�; +; objections to his proposal. �� at��ed that airyr,�;�• he spok� �.�1�C�� additional �.�;�qci.�;��,s and there ��^r he dici ��1: �xT��x�r.,him to cc��.;��;� ��c��.andry ip, ��. of to �r r ose . k�� al ri��cl that the resolution �i�a��r� �h�; �,�,��x�� Yic�icate that the City �,rra 3��ril �la�l.� a��s�i 1��'; used for living space or ;��eo1� o�• ��;r,�;ssory buildings shall be �i�e�1t s�zrac�r��n �nd be designed and the existivi�; ri�welli7i� and garage. ;z�t�; �=�,ric,�o7� had done an excellent job �v�1k� fai � vac�r�iing ,�Te indicated that after ;�oni�� "'s�d�, :i�id prior to the mailing of `�neighbars �r�2�i` a petition regarding his l that th;�.Citiy notified 36 people, some of ;sidenc�s: He stated he obtained signatures yards abut his property, and there were no .�,s�e` aware of the range of the notification �jPCtions, although one neighbor indicated ard. Mr. Jol��st�� ;E .�,�;�� !��; woul� �x;�� a� ��. for additional storage. He indicated his wife has large potting beds, �s�.c� ¢�a%}:. �;��•�ss�c� �� ia�:�s��, ��► using the structure as a potting shed, therefore, he v�as not cer�ai;� ��c��,z�i ,.��a�� zsc x,� �c�i�lc�'��ivally get out of it. He indicated his neighbor, John ,sv, Weinecl��,=�as ��t��e�r�. �� ;�� c�Ai his behalf and in favor of the proposal if necessary. �<. �ussioner Miller ini�u�r�r.� �6 �:1�� proposed shed would be located in the same location as the ng shed. Mr. Johrt,stin provided the Commission with a drawing of the proposed shed, and ited that it would;;>�pverlap a portion of the existing slab. He stated he had rnoved the old ,;,: :;: �ff of the slab a�� it was currently located to the side of the site. He indicated that a couple � .::,.::: ,�:<;..: y�r«i�hbors h;a�e"expressed an interest in taking the shed, which will be removed from the ;, R�;� �s �c�c��z as�the new shed is constructed. He explained that he currently uses the shed to {v:rtac��it��t��.x-s, lawnmowers, and items of this nature. �:h�.ix�pe��son Peterson stated the proposed shed appears to be of quality construction. Mr. Johnson stated he wanted the structure to be pleasing. He explained that it would have brown steel siding, which would match his house, and there would be a small passage door and a double _ ___ __ __ �, - - - - -- _ � :. _- --- -- ---------= Mounds View Planning Commission li�day 17, 2000 Regular 1VIeeting Page 15 door in the front, which would allow him to move large items in and out. He stated he would like •.:,:.;:;,; to wire the structure in the future, and install recess lighting in the ceiling. ,;,:`;;:;; � MOTION/SECOND: HeglandlKaden. To Approve Planning Ivlo�za�� T��Planning Commission Resolution No. 618-00, a Resolution Recommenc�i�x�; l�,pprov.�� ,�� :� j�s,��.ditional Use Permit to Allow for a 400 Square-foot Oversized Shed at 7�fI� '�c�ovelanc� ��c��r�, i'e1Cc��nds View Planning Case No. CU00-005, as corrected. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Planning Associate Ericson stated this item has been 22°a City Council Meeting. 8. Planning Case No. CU00-006 _ Property Involved: 4749 Old Highway 8 �`r;�" ' Public Hearing, Discussion and Considerati�iri` of Resolution Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for„�nclosed �utdoor , ;;: Applicant: ASC Properties, LLC , hearing at the May Recommending The applicant was present. ; -�� " r,,:t Planru�� assc�� r�t.�� 1�ricsc�.a+; ��.tr� +.�1� staff report as follows: This item yry r�' �-� c��, foc� a co��dzi�r�r�r�1' �a�e pernut to allow for outside storage on the property located at �'7<<�; ��)c� �i,�kaway �' `�'��;', �ppficant, ASC Properties, operates their business, Ace S�apply Corza��aa,� ±�-�� i�i�� I�catzor�. ��'f�� subject parcel is zoned Industrial, and outdoor storage is allow.� zri'the 1�nc�uv�ri�al.:� U�st.�:icY as a conditional use. Pl�r� ,; ;> ing Associate �� i<.4y�� aF�.ted the applicant proposes to construct a 1,920 square-foot aut�ioor enclosure area �� which to store PVC pipe. He indicated there would be a chain link �e�ce surrounding the aaC�a, with diagonal slats to block the view from neighboring properties. He �.�:a�.ed the subject prc;�perty is the southernmost property in the City, and there are no residences �'1��n��; 1a:;;>�iciate Ericson indicated there is an industrial office/warehouse building located iii��c,��y riorth of the Ace Supply Company building, and that property owner has contacted staff to request additional information regarding the proposal. He explained that they had some concerns regarding the outdoor storage, in that their offices look out toward the site. He stated he was not aware if there has been discussion between the applicant and the adjoining propsrty owner to date, however, he was informed that this would occur, and therefore, these concerns �- --_-------. i (--- -�-- �_u�� _ L. _ <<�� -------- --- < ,. _ _ _-� = -- � -->-- _-----� i � � - _�: �;.�-:. �-- -- --- Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 16 may have been resolved. He stated this was the only contact staff received in regard to this application, and notification was sent to all property owners with 350 feet of the subject p��perty. Planning Associate Ericson stated the subject property is zoned I�dustrial. storage would appear to be logical in an industrial area, and c�r;��i�ly alora; <<;;:;�. stated a number of the businesses in this area have outdoor stpr��e;`'and this place with the surrounding uses in the area in which it v�o�.�ar� be located: r.� Planning Commission is required to examine the adverse ��°��cs of the;;prti initial view in this regard is that there are no adverse affect z, ��rzi.}1 th� ��cep the adjoining property owner. Planning Associate Ericson stated there are no specific co�r�i�iona�' outdoor storage, as there would be for an oversized shec� or gara,� simply be allowed as a conditional use. Staff has exarnin�c� a.nd add in the report, and all of the criteria appear to be met_ on of the �d outdoor Drive. He ; s�ot out of �r� �� tlle t requirements for i-�, this use would �eneral conditions Planning Associate Ericson stated staff recp�mmen�� .r:��$��1 �:�i° ��Mqtution 619-00, which recommends City Council approval of the �riditional �3.�e ��t�ii�:; ��;i''tio stipulations attached which address the items that are permittet�'to be stc��d. II� ��c� {:}ic �pplicant is proposing to .,,, utilize the enclosure to store PVC pip�, wluch rs weather ;resistant. He indicated staff is �: ..,. , . . concerned, as are the Planning Comzriissio� anr�'the Coun��; regarding the possibility of the outdoor storage of other material� Therefo� �,S �i��; r�solut�c�� indicates that the outdoor area shall not be usecl for storage of cherrii�als, haza��a; �cn�.��°i��s; waste, or items of this nature. He added t��:�: �z� flammabl�� ,��r�r��:�,c��s, toxic �zs��dc�-d�.��, oY- anything that could wash away in a rainsto�`�� 3r�r� ��llute the; �x�� Ea��er woulr� �,bEy ��a',mitted. He indicated it is very important that this r�c�u�r�rrr�i�� met. �=e �a��i�i��.� �h�i l�ecause of the possibility that other materials might be storec� out.s��l�, ��?c� x��olu�ior► �1�� ;��A�r�:�,��as an explicit allowance for staff, city, County and Fire Departmezlfi irij�}��r;�c��; �.o verify''r:k�� th��-�3'are no hazardous materials being stored outside in v;olation oftk�� t��i�t�r��?i'�s� permit ,; ;uAssociate EpiE.�c�� aff�,:��;:staff feels comfortable in the granting of this conditional use given the locataQrx �€ �.c��: �zs�, and the fact that the adverse affects and general conditional nit criteria appear�#o be met. He indicated this was a public hearing, and notices were sent ;rties within 350;��et of the subject property. 1��°��;r. �ass�lbrer�g;; representative of ASC Properties and Ace Supply Company, stated PVC is ��:.;�7�ae, wh�� comes in 13-foot lengths and does not lend itself well to being moved in and ��: ��i' ��`��e i�eiors. He indicated there is a storage area at their St. Louis Park facility, and some ��T�f ��i�,p� �s'stored on site at that location. He provided the Corrunission with photographs of the St. Louis Park facility and the fence that surrounds the property. He indicated the fence in the photograph was approximately 15 years old, and had woven slats. � :.:�: � .r , _. ` _ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 17, 2000 Page 17 Mr. Hasselbring stated they owned the building, and were happy to be in Mounds View indicated they relocated from Roseville, where they had a leased space, and they have, �;";s interest in maintaining the building. He stated they have recently spent a si�nificant=�rrio , ,;. money to remodel the building to prepare it for their use, and it was their inte�i�ia�z t�i' install area to cordon everything off from view. ,�,� � .f,; Mr. Hasselbring stated they and Greg Lien, the owne�- Midway Industrial Supply, share a common driveway, ar�c buildings face each other. He stated he met with Mr. L copy of the site plan and photographs. He explained tha� the visibility and the nature of the stored items, however, any objections, and therefore, this issue appears to have be He unt of a nice e property i�flx�� i;i�1 �e� �.,��, �orrth, oading;.�pcics on eac�a r��'�.a•i°;�he d Corrunissioner Hegland inquired if the applicant plans �a ii;a��all slati property. Mr. Hasselbring stated this was correctr. ac��ia� �' i�a�'r �hey the building. � , .:. Chairperson Peterson stated we had ot lightweight, because it appears as if a stated they have not experienced ih:is would be their intention to utilize carx might be a bit lighter. He stated�:.t�ey damage. �;; , - a heatirig ` works, thE t}rat in the it. He a�� that blem -cia1 e;''and provideci ��.,.�; �r��i&�. � concern was with Y-Fr��.�.� i.o ��iscussion, he did not have on the subject iplementarv to }�� yt��> ;t��rkt of the slats must be very l has t��c�t�r�� i�m out. Mr. Hasselbring St. Lpuis l�ark facility. He indicated it ttin�, and not a residential grade, which �t;:the slatting if it were subject to wind ic��rii°r,c� ��se�a; often the ��J�" pipe would be delivered to the site. Mr. sel�nrxs g�;��iv�t� rJcliveY�ies during the winter. He explained that they were iiiot�iY�f; �=��.c��sa��r, and the PVC pipe is used in underground heating �anaxy �ry»t'��;�, i� du.�ing the summer construction season. He pointed out �a�� ;�.�z-odu�;t 6�cc��ries hard to handle, and they do not sell large amounts of ? l'��,y xht�ough November, they probably receive a truckload of product a r��irperson Peterson mq�;�ired if the proposed fence would be 8 feet in height. Mr. Hasselbring �<�}, � '�t�ied this was correct nChairperson Peterson inquired if the materials would be stored below the �:�i;��, of the fence. Mr,:.�asselbring stated this was correct. �,, , .., ��;�rtx��a��inxa�Y- a�l��ller stated she did not see any reference to the size of the enclosure in the A�:;,t�1€��,��. �i'j;��x�person Peterson stated the site plan indicates that the dimensions would be 32 ��t �4� Ci� �eet. �ommissioner Stevenson added that the enclosure would be 1,920 square feet in �rea. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff could include a clause in the resolution, which references the site plan in this regard. Chairperson Peterson advised that there was no maximum . . ___ , , , - -- - , - _ �_ -- , -_.� �=r �,,�_=-�r '- --� � �--- - — - ---- = - . ___. _ �__r ..___—_—Y i � Y <=.�::_._ . !. -�_ -=�=:.__�=�;: _._ ___.,_-�. � �e, '� Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 17, 2000 Page 18 requirement regarding the quantity of storage space, however, it would do no harm to add such a clause. ,,..,.... Commissioner Stevenson suggested the Commission consider ad brought to the attention of the Chief of Police, so that he could;-.; of vandalism, and make his patrol officers aware of the area.;<,;;'�e the Police Department to be well aware of situations that invCa�ve Mr. Hasselbring stated they have not had any issues wit��'s Park facility. He explained that this product is 13 feet in le not experienced any problems with regard to people attempl piece of the product back over. ;aco off w such a is item is potential uld want to t�andalism at thei�� '�:' �.�,�F�:;' ` �ac� l. 0 feet wide, anc� tt��y �aa ve ja��,;over the fence and take a Commissioner Stevenson stated he would not desirP Fo see �.h�t ��;r i1i� <fact, the Police Department had not been aware of this. He reiter�t�r� �.��dat ;�p�Tith �uc� �3 �a,,,�; �'�raced off area, the Police need to well aware of it, and also sign of�r�t;ar��i�P�;';��A.�. d�.c,t ��at: ili� ��x�c;� wou(d be 8 feet in height, and that this would not be a problern: T�e siat��x hc; �.�e��r�itFly wanted the Chief of Police to sign off on the project. '�n"�' .. ;- �� <, .. Planning Associate Ericson indi forward the information to the another option would be to a Therefore, be it further re�sc�lvE forward ?�o��cation of th�� €;s� iruorm?�.+c�x�. �� st Departt��'i�;�zi, �,v: ��r� Chairpersor� T��tea-��; He pointed ou� 1'l�.ai �t Hasselbr�ng �tated ��R�'; ,, ��:,. ;,;> �. � .> Cc��riissioner Miller r.«>;> c�i;mi'ensions would be �lii�i�nsional requireme o�i}� �d �h��' without �:dding ariy�i7�ng to the resolution staff could �t� cif�Polic�, �o make hu�t'aware of the project� He stated �` clause ort ;Page 2.t��`�the resolution to indicate "NOW, hat the 1\1.��r�rl� �1��r,r�l�lanning Commission directs staff to ion of ap��ta�r�� i.« ��ie Mounds View Chief of Police for his �ld make �� -�,> clear that the intention is that the Police �cl lic �;r�zu �ar�� re of any crime or vandalism problems in this area. s��ula� �� ir��:��d gate, and it would not be easy to access the site. Mr. what point in the resolution the reference to the site plan She noted the fourth `Wf-IEREAS' clause made reference to ��'1�r��iinp Associat� .�r�cson stated this could be added after this clause to indicate "WHEREAS, y,�,>.. '�:'ti� i�l��r�x�� 1��yvplanning Commission finds that the proposal, as shown on the site survey date ��.a�r��s�-.�� '�(��-�'�J6..." He advised that there is no limit on the amount of outdoor storage ��:i ��z� � a ��, `�:h�;a-efore, if the Planning Commission feels strongly that they should include the dimensions, they could be added, and if not, the resolution could simply reference the site plan. Commissioner Miller pointed out that the dimensions are included in other conditional use pernuts. i _ _`_� _ �; _ -- - . I . . -- - --------- --- ---- �-- ---- --_��i � �, ' ------ ' � -- r--- _. Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 19 Planning Associate Ericson stated this could certainly be added to indicate "WHEREAS; The Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed 1,920 square feeti�f outdogr storage satisfies the dimensional requirements." He stated they could also ref�x��7�.��, ��,� site plan, however, these dimensions were an approximate estimate as well,•; .;,, MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Stevenson. To Approve Resolution 619-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval for a Fenced, Outdoor Storage Enclosure at 4749 Old �xat No. CU00-006, as Amended to Add a Clause after the I' "WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission fin� of outdoor storage satisfies the dimensional requirements," Page of the Resolution to Indicate "NOW Therefore, be it, � Planning Commission directs staff to forward notifica�ic�� Mounds View Chief of Police for his information." Ayes — 6 Planning Associate Ericson stated this City Council on May 22, 2000. ,. 9. �lannin� Case 1V�o 4 Proper. �y ��ro��r�d: 225 i 6.��;: Public "�-��-ia��; �i;�ussiox�'<? Approval o�'��:�'carrd�a;��1 KJ Applicant: ICe��x�7�t.�-� �� , < __ The anp�tc�n� rNa� r,r��x�� in� Associate 0 ,�c�unds Vif �l' � Conditi %��ir? y B , �.�� uri�r s�;T��i s ii��i �i.�t�; pa �� i�' ��c�I��r. �� }�ey- r,,sol�r o�° i:his ��sc� � .�:��nr1l��; �, �_,c�x��.xsion 6,, . ��1 Use l��R�t`►i� i �3 `,r�,��aU� �ds View �la��; �;�� AS Clause i,c� �a:��zc;�� posed 1,920 square feet �. �'laL�se on the Second i iks�.i: c_iie Mounds View �zc�ii ��'' approval to the carried. public hearing before the tion or`' Itesolution 620-00, a Resolution Recommending �_ 1,150 Square-foot Oversized Garage. the staff report as follows: '�'��, a_pplicant, Kenn�t�' Waste is before the Commission to reyuest conditional use permit to �;., �c�i��+j��t a. �,15Q �quare-foot garage on his property located at 2251 Oakwood Drive. The xs��+�' �,�� ; ��.�t v✓ould replace the existing single-stall garage that is in need of replacement. .�`j��xi,r ��,t��i��e Ericson provided the Commission with a photograph of the subject property, ��.�g�s �taE, �i..��,li�anc's truck, which was parked in the driveway. He stated he was uncertain there �w6�� uiizcient room in the existing garage to park the vehicle, and therefore, the need for a larger garage was very apparent. _ _ , . - - --_��. L-=--=-- �- -- =L� -----z------ - -. . � - ' - -_ - -=�-_�—=- � --= — - —.� , __u..� �. __._�_.. ..�_ �� a _ ��.. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 17, 2000 Page 20 Planning Associate Ericson stated the subject lot is 12,000 square feet, slightly larger than the minimum lot size allowed in the City. He indicated the property is improved with a one: ��ci one half story home, which has been fully expanded at the upper level of the fron� ;�f the k�ause. The e�sting detached garage would be removed, and the proposed 1,150 squareq��it�� ;ai°�ge would be attached to the house. There would be no issue with regard t�?; encroach.��;�aY i��ci;fhe setback. The site plan indicates that there would be a possible setback raf �ight feet fi-c�i�a �,i��; ��r��-ty line, .;`�;> �.; � and the dimensions of the garage are proposed to be 23 feet by 50 feet ��.�err-, �� a ��Ir-=c� �� the %;�` property, which would be removed, and the proposed gz�ra�e would,.r�place boi.h i.�r� �� z�Yax�n �' , ;,, 5. garage and the existing shed. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has reviewed the co��t��.��7a:1' addressed those in the staff report. He explained that staPf� �jF�li��r�� garage, and the fact that it needs to be replaced, demonstr�ies ii�e s��,� that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the dev�l_or��e��nn� ±Ynp�-o nature. He advised that the size of the proposec� ��°xa��;�°��>>>lrl be 1 allowed by the City, as the Code allows for 1,4QC? :;��?.K'� :��,�� ich a the applicant is requesting 1,150 square feet. „�_. Planning Associate Ericson stated the terms of its proportion to the size o� a.1 house, and it would be oriented s%c�r�� garage and two-thirds home. H� �ta house and maintaining a unifarm �p::pea Planni�� ,l�;;s�c:i�te Fric��'��. ?�� the hot��,� �� Yn�aarisor� `�� proposal, isa �I��. %1��'�.dvers� �i would be lool�_sr�r; �'r_. Ek�� propo this would be � �i�n��c,��f'�ka� in that th� Iot'�s srna�I�x� �z�.r� �� privae� �encing, whic�i �� s3 ' n , � �� sed s, so i ( '�hJ e permit criteria, and has : ��xistence of the present c�x ��aa� use. He indicated ��ri�. �f �roperties in this �,t�a�:'il�� ma�mum level ncliti�inal use permit, and ��,ge wotalr� �is�fi �pear to be out of place in <explained tliat it would not be larger than the the view; from the street would be one-third iicipated fhat by attaching the garage to the ��ta �c�uld be quite attractive. ;�ed staff ha5 ��^�-rnaeied the dimensions of the lot and the size of °�r��s�d garage. He stated staff feels comfortable with this c� >�?;r��ae:�rr,,to be minimal. He pointed out however, the neighbors ��Ar��;�., �'opposed to the existing garage, which is smaller, and ;c, �� ided that this item differs from the previous applications � con�airn the same extent of wooded coverage, mature trees, and vng Associate E, �csq�1 �ca�ed this was a public hearing, and notification has been sent to erties within 350 £e�t of the subject property. He provided the Commission with a location � F. which indicated-��ie properties that received notification, adding that a significant number of �,��f.s were nottft'�� in this regard. He indicated staff has prepared Resolution 620-00, which �;. r��:��f�cls �'�� Council approval of the conditional use permit with stipulations similar to those � ��¢s,t��r i�� onditional use permit resolutions. Chaiiperson ]Peterson opened the floor for public comment. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff received a telephone call from a neighbor who remained anonymous, and did not indicate where his property was located in relation to the subject � _ _ � ---- ; _ _ _ _ . _�-: ,�_ _ _ : . 4.��. �___ _ ____ . � _ � . - - - _ �� Mounds View Planning Commession Regular Meeting May 17, 2000 Page 21 property. He explained that this neighbor raised the concern that the larger garage would allow for some type of commercial business or an auto repair shop, however, he had explained;'to the caller that an auto repair shop is not allowed in the R-1 Zoning District, as;it is coz�idered a commercial use, and this would violate the Home Occupation Code. Planning Associate Ericson stated in any situation involving concern in this regard, and this has been addressed in S indicates "The garage shall not be used for any commer�ci6 not allowed within the R-1 Single Family Zoning Districi c�: change from which the pernvt was granted, the conditiona_I' void." Commissioner Miller inquired if this language should considered null and void." Planning Associate Ericson stated in this case�, <: appropriate, as this provides the City Cou��l determine whether or not the conditional u�'"pei could be amended if the Planning Comrr►iss�on so rg�r garage, t�c�r � �ation 2 o�'::i,he Y� rposes,,l�;virig spa the �c�riing Code. 1�� z�:� rslay be co� �t of �ich � "th� c��c�ati�ba�1 �a<,e permit shall be �v�,� ��:.h� word "�x��y" would be more c�Yxr,��i��i �.r� ex�t7rtine the situation and c1 �e�> ��.d�d. �e indicated this wording Commissioner Miller stated in otheY� �2eg�5, the wnz�d "shall" h�°been utilized. Corrunissioner Stevenson st resoha�i;ioa�. ��a�� ot contai�a. stated �:��e�a� �r�i,y rnentiota dl remov�e�, �� i��li�a.ticci 'i COIT11T11S5aOtx' 9' 3�JU(g'Y.i{3cN. �P that the shed +�rc�L�� i�� i��nc � .� ted '< '� staii r �;a�ciition fo !i %li� si��rl w v�c� ��,, e�sc�� . rr��4��ans Yhe removal of the shed, however, the r th� �err��t�! of the shed. Planning Associate Ericson ouid b� � ebr�oved, however, it was not required to be the removal of the shed was within the Planning was a smaller lot, and the Commission could stipulate atin with this project. �ner` Stev�n��€�a� �i�.�c� ciie Commission often requires the removal of existing sheds on ts. Comrr�is�t�>�:��` ��land pointed out that there were two sheds located on the He inquired w��rs��. ��"�3�e�e sheds would be required to be removed. .,<:,.; ning Associate Eric."�n advised that there is an accessory storage attached to the garage, and -foot by 8-foot sli�d behind the garage, both of which would be removed. He explained that ,<.;;:.:: r�a.r� not inclu�i� �'stipulation in the resolution that would preclude the applicant from having a ,., , h�v�e��, �t ii� the Planning Commission's prerogative to impose such a condition. �":`b��tt��z�son' Peterson pointed out that since the removal of the shed has been mentioned, it would be appropriate to stipulate this in the resolution. He advised that the plot plan indicates the existing shed is located two inches from the property line, which is not in conformance with the Code, however the diagram, if to scale, implies that the garage and its adjacent shed is located a fair distance from the property line. � - - -------�-�-�:—r � i4'�--=---'- � - �---:-. �=�.._ „- k : _ _.._- �'=�"....:`_:i i: _' � `.� _� � _ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 17, 2000 Page 22 �__:. P anrung Associate Ericson advised that the plot plan was not to scale. Chairperson,:P;�f�rson stated the proposed setback would be 8 feet from the property line, and thee�fore, thc:re` was no issue in this regard. __ __ Commissioner Stevenson stated he would propose that the Camri��ssion inclu�lr 'r,t�� cc�r��licion that the shed be removed, as this was an opportunity to bring the p�`operty into, coxiz`"of-fr�aiy. Chairperson Peterson inquired what type of roofline woulc� �r�: ��tilized �'or the garage, Kenneth Waste, the applicant stated his brother-in-law wa� �� c�x-'��x��n, and would assist in the construction of the garage. He indicated they would attem�� ;�nst�ir;�, t;h� fr-ont of the garage to match the house. He stated the roofline would probabty ��e rh� ,�1n�; ��ei,;�aa: a� the front of the house, and would peak toward the rear of the structure..,,_T�[� added �1aar., �.1��-� i�vould also be a small storage space, however, it would not be utiliz�c� �,�Z��i� c�uar�:ers or �7�ytlair�� of this nature. Chairperson Peterson inquired if doors or windeiws v✓�r� �i��,c��,�e�� long the western side of the garage. Mr. Waste stated there would b�,�tothing o�a ��; v�� s�r��;, �ii�wever, there would be a service door on the east side of the strucxure, and at��e bacic, ��'a�sn� �aarth, there would be a nine- foot garage door. �;;.;" ��;� .<:�....... Commissioner Kaden inquired if,th�re woulc� i�c�� servic�; t�oor to enter the home. Mr, Waste stated there would be one s�rvf��'door to �� c.,�� :k�� hause, and one in the back to enter the garage #'r�rn �the backyard. Commi��ir�:�a�;�` �,�.��vensor� ir�r{i�-c;r� x�`�ka� �.p�licant was proposing a 9-foot roll up door in back of the gafl�a��. �!1:��. °�� s��ci �f�i;��'�� t��-Y:�ci. stated h��iuld �i` �� inch ciit�� irperson Peterson i �d he planned to st wmobiles, and ridi ��a.Y�i�. .._ :«.. �c� c�la��c;+.�;��iodr regarding the purpose of this door. Mr. Waste b.a �r,ccss che garage with his riding lawnmower, which has a 48- ir��'if the applicant intended to store items in the backyard. Mr. Waste everything in the garage. He explained that he had a 24-foot boat, two lawnmower, and other items for storage. He stated he was not a '.;��.a��Nr �� e�terson pointed out that concerns of this nature were often raised, and �F3:`x��#,r,>�;��a.�l�. He stated this appeared to be a good opportunity to improve the property, obtain �1z�, Yie;�:c;s�a�� space, and remove a couple of non-conformities in the process. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Berke. To Approve Mounds View Planning Commission Resolution 620-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow I :v �_-_ ___ ___ - ---- -- -__ - - �-- Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 17, 8000 Page 23 for a 1,150 Square-foot Oversized Garage at 2251 Oakwood Drive; Mounds View Pl No. CU00-007, as corrected and Amended to Include a Stipulation in the Fourth Clause pertaining to the Removal of the Existing Shed, and to Amend the Lan�u;��e o 2 to Indicate "Should the Use Change from which the Permit was Granted,�t�p, �i'r-�� Perrnit Shall Be Considered Null and Void." Terry Wiley, 2279 Oakwood Drive stated that during tl had noticed a tow truck parked in front of the property, approval of this proposal, someone might attempt to op�; property. He explained however, after they discussed applicant was attempting to improve his property and sc would not object to the proposal, as long as it meets the C there ining Case �REAS �t�pulation tional Use ,;%a�ri I}�OiS �: i�:1 �.,�,�ara��:��or similar busii��;!n�� a�r;'� n��:��ts �f��y determined th�� " �tie Aa�s r1�.ka��:�� inside the garage, they Mr. Wiley indicated he was the resident who had ��.��i staii e�c;�f�t-��i��; �his,. proposal. He stated their primary concerns were with regard to stYu��i��Q� �,s1at wer� di%xr;i��'�;�p address after the fact, rather than dealing with them up front. He �tat�t� tkz�y �nt�;�� awa�-� oA ��eral circumstances in which property owners with larger garages �ve usec� �;i�e:°.�z ��xiy �eyt�i�d residential use. He noted one property in particular, located, ��xt to th� �c;iir��i �,� ��wood Drive, has been a significant source of aggravation to the �.�tghbors H�`indic�ic��3 r:��iu �sidividual operates a garage, and the problem is that he is not r�r�i��°a-;{! to meet �zty of the Cc�mcnercial Codes, and it is unclear , , ,_ . where he might be dumping the an��'�;�^��: and dr�jn oil. He��tated there were 12 vehicles in the driveway, and six along the stre��, �anci no�ae �+' 'cliese vel�eTes belong to this individual, which presents a problem for the netghbi�ring resi�e�:�� pl�,itied that the neighbors were concerned that this >v�»,�lc� be anothe¢� ca� �1�� situatio�t;4, �i�� za� `was the reason they had contacted staff, howe,v.�r, �}YC�� !el�ome �,.�� .��i��;n�'s desir{� �� rove the property and store his vehicles. , Chairpersott, �E��,� s��e ��:a� �;d il�i� ��;�'�. s�as valid, and there have been problems of this nature in the past. H� �c��f��ca ��r=�; j�vi�.1� th� �:�s��c�z�iorial use permit process, uses that could potentially have s0me impact� �r� �l��v.�s:l, as �oYi�- r�� he conditions are met. He explained that one of the conditions �s t�at �h�; �f�l�> ih� t�pe of activities are those permitted in the R-1 District, which do not m��i;tcle auto rep�xr_�. i, ;�, r s�%" ' , Waste stated he w�� pr�viously employed with Blue Tow Trucking, however, he has not �' �� ; ��rked for this compat�y �since his accident, which occurred over two years ago. He indicated he �� have a tow truck//,��iid only worked in this occupation part-time. He reiterated he was not a . �,�,.7 �fft �"1"b�;�;�1�?911G. Y,�>.,;t, �erson added that there is nothing in the Code that prevents a property owner from own vehicles. Mr. Wiley stated this was acceptable, adding that it was better to address this issue at this time, rather than later. He stated they would recommend the Commission approve the applicant's proposal, in light of his intentions, which appear to be more toward improvement than profit. --- �=--__�. 1.------- -_ ._ _= E: _. � � - -..�, ___�nL�� „ � -_____-.� ,. ` -- -. .- - - . �— _ �_ _�.��_�, <_�_.�. _ . . , -. � ✓ - Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 17, 2000 Page 24 Commissioner Stevenson stated the resolution should contain a stipulation removal of the shed, which should be included in the fourth WI�REAS clausr;� Planning Associate Ericson inquired if the Commission d Stipulation 2 of the resolution to indicate "shall" rather than "n Chairperson Peterson stated the intent of this was that if i i��,��;' and a opportunity to correct it would be made, howeve�-, aa' �f this was a legal means to remedy the situation. Commissioner Kaden advised that the conditional use permi Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Planning Associate Ericson stated this item has 2000 City Council meeting. 10. Staff Reports / Items of Info a. Previous Council to : an i.�St�€�; it couli robl�rii could not tin ""�o the ,$,: ;>`F;�' an�uage in ;��cur�-ed. � ��Y.,��Y+'Y.�,.�..5:: ; �C��'k �;r'�,�,x�,', ��uld a-��x�a �,v�th the property. '��'he motioxa �°a��,°��;��. ; �r� �r�a_�� pub1�� ,��i-ing at the May 22, Community Development Dir��tt�xJopke sta'r,c:c� �'r. �1�� ;��ial Council Work Session the previous Monday, i.h�re was disc�iu;�irsx� ' x�e,�arding �� u::c�xnm�ixiity Development Department and its pnont��s zxa �at`��ja�-�ng a�,�r1a�� raj;�n �>�c�r the �1�� y��.r and a half. He stated there was an exercise for sta� �� at��aiy i,l�e,� �� yra�j�� ;tz�it:�i�� vithin the six areas the Community Development Departmen� ��j�� rit�. H� ��c�ic;�s.�;c� l�r��t� Yne Council and staff rated the results of this exercise, and the item� ��ay<<��. ��tl� £oi-w�r�� a I�� srities were the Highway 10 Redevelopment Plan and t}�e Zorung �t��h a��n�.��, :�� c�viseci ��i�'c 'r_N�� Zoning Code update was rated the highest priority by the C�t� �o�a��cil, �s�.� l�c�s.�� i,these items would ultimately affect the Planning Commission. :� �munity Developrr��,�� :��Gtor Jopke provided the Commission with copies of the discussion Cheir information ant3,.: review, and to determine if their were other issues that had not been -essed. He indicate�;`�staff would like the Commission's input, so that they might incorporate �r�to their work pl�``as well. f;��r��j�A,.rr�i�y ��T��trpment Director Jopke stated staff has been working with Springsted & d�:n,�:t��;a�g�� ;��xa! ��►e process for the Highway 10 study, and has discussed this with the Council as �:��l�y p,� s��ca� �; �l�iat they were proceeding in the proper direction. He explained that the study has E,�rx� N r:� �,�used at this point, to spend less time discussing the issues which have been well identified in the previous studies, and more time to understand the studies, identify the common elements, move ahead with prioritizing, and ultimately, formulate an action plan that the City can _ �:_�--- - .. -: - -- --- . : �=----- � _= - - Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 17, 2000 Page 25 take to accomplish those objectives. He indicated the first Steering Corrunittee meeting scheduled for May 23`d, at 7:00 p.m., in Council Chambers. Community Development Director Jopke advised that the purpose of � meeting would be to introduce the Committee to the subject w�tk� �.;;brief o studies and other factors. He stated they would attempt to in�prporate ir the safety recommendations that were developed by the Pu�Ja�°�Works Di Police, in response to the Council's direction, following the;; ��•�g�dy that:.t�� He added that they would have a presentation by Bill Moa��x�� i-om the North Metro I-35W Corridor Coalition, in terms of �x��r a�a�.�j��'. reconstruction ofHighway 10, as well as the possibilities ioe ��ya� the Design Center has examined the entire issue of livable s:��rd�rai�� indicated the remaining items on the agenda would be d�s�ussion �r� process, and a timetable for developing the action plar►. �I� stated �i would be televised. Planning Associate Ericson stated at the resolution to overrule the Planning Cor property owners at 8438 Grovelanci Itoa� their property. He indicated staff }i�� ; means to allow for taller fences uz�d��'`' could be done through an interi�"�x con forward in revising the �na��ie� ��x whicl ho itio Counc�i Er,�F�;cl �o approve t�� °�sc�1�_,tion th they f�l�' �I�� li�;ant hat� ��< ��:�ic�n�;cr.� �uffi� Planrung I��sa� �a'r,�; ��; Saturday, IVi�y ,��'' ;; dispose of ta ;t�� 1��,��>l ,<;; for this sei�rt�e, w��`scla inexpe�sive way to d ac��p�ied, and further i �?v�ch has been provid �c�� disposal to utilize tl oi� ;�t7 � �� c�vj� � been prev�ous �.irung to :t�;hief of e'Design Center k�� isc��s� at might hav� on if�� t��'r�� <�,��ays. He explained that .r.�;.} ;�,�d livable roads. He ��`��c�aa�.�; '�l��e decision making r?s �� that this meeting City � °��e��r;;� �;�f ,.cing, �he Council approved a �vith xe�arR� �,�+ IA��; �rariance application of the ..,:. �::�et�uestec� �3,�a ��•��`c�c�t fence in the front yard of � y, preparing ��'emergency ordinance creating a cumstanceS; �as well as identifying a way this ;e permtt,F<''He explained that staffwas moving �¢�z��rail are examined. He advised that the urY��d the Planning Commission's decision, as -ciship. ��c,� il�� F��?�ival Spring Clean Up Day would be held the %llowing �c�'a�a�� t�p�rty owners could bring the items they would like to €��ra�c;, 'Iocated at 2466 Bronson Drive. He stated there is a fee a:ced through a grant from Ramsey County, and therefore, it is an '�anwanted materials. He indicated certain items could not be ;;�� regarding this has been specified in the Mounds View Matters, residents of the City. He encouraged property owners with items :��" stated he believed residents were allowed free disposal of one freon _}� `'car tires. Planning Associate Ericson stated each household was allowed free liances, with or without freon, two car batteries, and eight car tires. Chairperson Peterson commented that such items are otherwise difficult and expensive to dispose of. He stated this was a great way for the City to clean up, and for residents to avoid charges from their own disposal services. �- ---- _`_:_, I;��d�_ �.. _ kr�-- -�----- - � _._ — � �. E� :-�_ _:��- -' �_`-------- - - — - Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting b. Planning Commissioner Journal Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission has been � Planning Commissioner Journal, and if desired, discussion could be held a� 11. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Repo Commissioner Kaden reported he attended a Beyond the seminar, which was very informative. He indicated tha� materials he received was welcome to do so. Chairperson Peterson stated he had completed the third sen and this information was also very valuable. He indicat�+ information regarding Sign Code updates, and imp,-o��r American Flag, even if it is being blatantly cor��r��xci�ii�e common practices of Planning Commissions an�i t�L��.r� �x�2i particularly helpful. He indicated this mightrb� �elpful r�� i.�� discussion. .,,, Commissioner Hegland inquired the Code pertaining to oversized direction to move forward in thi� very involved in dealing wiik� ih� difficulty fint�ing the tim� i;rs c,°�� regar� � r� a ��,, � -.�quireme��.r3' �«� ' Planning l��sc�c:k;�r.� ��i�-i� for a public h€�.��Ix��; �rx would b�'�ppz-opria�.�>; �: < <..-� new��;per. He expi�ia� l f? . to.,�ceive any public c �r�p�d that staff would ��a�� ;�:a�g with a Code an ,Yy� :P�c� 2 �_�y��.her reports,��re ment � �lanni +��; r�Fsu pro��E c�u�°�;�� ; c�.i s�- �1.�ihot�iii May 17, 2000 Page 26 a to revie��,r of the nd the Basics series ,nificant amount of �A as attacking the ��i�� was a chart of �ich he found to be well, and worthy of u'd�in� the sug�estion that ;�k�e Planning Commission examine » .... d� f3�lannin� Associate �ncson stated the Council gave staff ;ard, an�1 i;�r� i� � priorit�, however, ironically, staff has been nditional ��;;�� a�g��ait requests, and therefore, is having some an ordi�-�.��;K �;� amend the Code to be more flexible with �sized sh�s:��. E�e stated it was hoped that there would be f:�e next rr►eeiing �vith regard to sheds. !�K1 �i�tec� 't��,��;'s has submitted their application, and it is scheduled ti��, :�la��ir�� 1=nmission at the June 7"` meeting. He stated stafffelt it ��+�� his, ��u�lir hearing, and the notification would be published in the � Y��.�� zt� would provide that everyone is aware of what is occurring, and r�i��.� �ir input at the beginning of the process. He stated it was also x�ve �h� opportunity to come back before the Commission at their next >ndment pertaining to Tattoo Shops. considered. '�'1»r� �i�iY�� no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) ` . r=� :. � ;. ; _ _ --- : -----=-- _--�.�.�; ---- - — - .. �.. _.. �, Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 27 ��_ , - : MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION July 5, 2000 --- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: SEFORE 5PEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUIVI, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Approve Planning Cotrunission Minutes: a. May 17, 2000 5. Local Water Management Plan Update, Presented by Rocky Keehn, SEH, Inc. 6. Planning Case ZC00-002 2387 Highway 10 Public Hearing and Discussion Regarding a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a Walgreens Drugstore at the Northeast Corner of Highway 10 and Edgewood Drive Applicant: TOLD Development Company, Represented by Bob Cunningham 7. Special Planning Case SP-079-00 Discussion Regarding the First Draft of Ordinance 664, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Pernutted and Conditionally Pemvtted Accessory Buildings. 8. StaffReports / Items of Information a. Previous Council Actions b. Mernnaid Expansion Update 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session (Irrunediately Following Regular Meeting) APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNTTY DEVELOPMEN'I' AT (763) 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. ^` � .. . . , 9 �s.. �— _, . _ - .�:_ _ _ - . ___-- __. -.. __ �- �. . _ ... . . . : _;.. y _ ..__ ' ____ '__.�.cs4/3: �.�-. _ .. _____��__�._L'. ..�s�_��.u_�.�_u�_____:�' f.� �...' ._�_ �._ :.�« _: ��wu. � a_' - '_ '_ Planning Commission Agenda July 5, 2000 Page 2 AGENDA SESSION AGENDA Review the Minutes from the June 7, 2000, Planning Corrunission Meeting. N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDENPLANCOMM�PCAGENDA�2000Uune 21, 2000 PC Agenda.doc -� : , ,.- .- - _ - _. . - �_ ��:_ _ .. . _ - _ -_ � --`=- -- � '- --- .- . ' � --- - - -- - Item # g e� City of Mounds View Planning Commiss�on Report Meeting Date: July S, 2000 Title: DISCUSSION REGARDING UPDATED LOCAL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Introduction: Mounds View adopted a local water surface water management plan in 1992 in accordance with Minnesota Statutes. The city is now required to complete a second-generation local surface water management plan consistent with the Rice Creek Watershed District Plan that they adopted in 1997. Current State Statutes also require that local surface water management plans be an integral part of the City's comprehensive plan. The Metropolitan Couucil has completed a"completeness" review of the city's comprehensive plan and has commented tl�at the local surface water management plan must be submitted. Discussione As you may recall the updated comprehensive plan approved by the Planning Commission indicated that an update of Mounds View's local surface water management plan was a uecessary step listed in the implementation element of the plan. SEH, the city's engineering consultant, was present at the May 3rd Planning Cotnmission meeting and discussed the framework of the updated plan. As part of the update Mounds View will formally adopt the rules, goals, and policies of the Rice Creelc Watershed District as its own. Rice Creek Watershed District will continue to have authority over NPDES Permits and the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act for the City of Mounds View. The Planning Commission provided input to SEH and they have now connpleted the draft document. Representatives from SEH will be present at the July 5, 2000 Planning Commission meeting to review the attached draft with the commission. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the draft document and recommend its approval to the City Council. Planning Commission Resolution No. 622 that would complete that action is attached f r� your consideration. i� Rick Jopke, Com unity Development Director Attachments: 1. 6/19/00 Letter from Metropolitan Council 2. Draft Local Surface Water Management Plan 3. Resolution No. 622 __ , _; - , �. _ . � ; . . ; _,�� . �! _ �.,.r' : _ �...�• _ _ �-- _, t _j; � : �F ,��> _ _ — -- - ---� .--- --- -_- ----------- - — --- - - _ �...4__� -- � MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 622-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE UPDATED � LOCAL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, State Statutes (Minn. Stat. 103B.201 to 103B.255) require that the City of Mounds View update its Local Surface Water Management Plan and submit it to the Metropolitan Council for review; and WHEREAS, an updated Local Surface Water Management Plan has been prepared; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the draft updated Local Surface Water Management Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the adoption of the draft updated Local Surface Water Management Plan. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Attest: Adopted this _ day of , 2000 Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director N:IDATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMM�PCRESOS�PC Comp Plan Resolution No. 622-OO.doc Metro�olitan Cou��l Working for the Region, Planning for the Future June 19, 2000 Rick Jopke City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Re: Mounds View Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Council Referral File # 18258-1 Metropolitan Council District 10 Dear Mr. Jopke: Metropolitan Council staff has finished its completeness review of the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan Update. Most elements of the plan are complete. The transportation element is one of the most thorough transportation elements we have seen in a long time. It adequately addresses all applicable surface transportation and transit requirennents of a comprehensive plan. However, the staff finds the plan incomplete at this time in the Aviation, Land Use, NaturaUWater Resources, and Sewers elements. Below is a description of information needed to make a completeneSs determination, and staff advisory comments. We would like to meet with you as soon as possible to help address these items and begin review of the plan. The Council cannot begin the forma160-day plan review until the following information is received: INCOMPLETE AREAS Aviation (Channcey Case, 651-602-1724) The Aviation element should restate the latest agreement between the Council, the MAC and the city. The plan includes reference on pages 26, 86, and 103 concerning court-order information that has been superseded by the legislative action and agreement between the Council, the MAC and the city. The old references should be deleted, and reference to the new action incorporated in the city plan. The text on page 102, itezn 6, should also be clanified in the context of the new agreement. On page 86, the city indicates that it is almost fully developed, which ixrzplies that there would be no future location for tall communications towers that might affect airport airspace. There are, however, several large parcels that may be redeveloped. Also, it isn't clear if communications ' towers might be a pertnitted use in such areas, or if it would be a conditional use. . 230 �ast Flfth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1626 (651) 602-1000 I�'ax 602-1550 TDD/TTY 291-0904 Me[ro Info Line 602-1888 An Equa! Opportun(ty Employer � : � :_ . ___e_ .. - ---_- .. ,. _ ._ - � � .�� I � ;°� --rt ;_; _ _ • _ , � Ricic Jopke June 15, 2000 Page 2 The plan should clarify if there is a local ordinance to control potential tall structures or a policy zndicating that the MnDOT will be noti�ed if such proposals come before the city for action. Land Use (Greg Pates, 65l -602-1410) • The implementation element of the city plan indicates that the city has .Annual City Budget and Long Term Financial Plan, and Parlc Dedication Capital Purchase Plan tools and programs. However, the plan does not include a capital improvement program (CIP). The plan should include a CIP, and we can provide examples and guidance if desired. Natural and Water Resources (James Larsen, 651-602-1159) The document states on page 42 that the Rice Creek Watershed Distxict (RCWD) adopted an overall plan in 1994. The city is also currently preparing a local surface water plan as an element of the overall comprehensive plan. In order to complete our review please address the following: • Revise page 42 to indicate that the RCWD's last update of its overall plan to meet the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) `second generation' plan cziteria, was approved by the BWSR in Septerr�ber of 1997, and adopted by the RCWD board in October of 1997. • Submit for our review the updated local surface water management plan. Wastewater Systems/Sewers (Donald Bluhm 651-602-1116) The following information is needed to allow the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) to coxnplete our review: The sewer map showing the existing sanitary sewer systezn for the city should be upgraded to show vacant lots and parcels currently not sewered with a general indication as to when the area may develop. The map should show service areas (sewersheds) for each connection point to a metropolitan interceptor as well as those axeas of the city that receive sanitary sewer service from an adjoining community. Copies of all intercommunity flow agreements should be submitted. � The plarz needs to project flows for the entire city and for each connection point to the interceptor system by 10-year increments through 2020. This information is again needed for two reasons, first, to allow the MCES to program and size needed improvernents to the interceptor system serving the city and second, if an emergency arises, to be able to estimate the needed pumping rates for emergency pumping around impacted areas. • The plan should identify local objectives, policies and strategies for preventing and reducirig excessive UI including suinp puxnp in the local sewer system. i_ p � : .-_ � Rick Jopke June 15, 2000 Page 3 ADVISORY COMMENTS Natural and Water Resources (James Larsen, 651-602-1159) The document states that two residences continue to utilize ISTS in the city. The city will need to monitor the systems and take appropriate steps should there be any indication of their failure. Staff will consider these steps to be adequate to track the remaining two systems in the city. Transportation (Bob Paddock, 651-602-1340) One note of correction, on page 75, within the paragraph discussing "Principal Arterials," the number "10" needs to be added to the words "....and State Highway " If you have any questions, please contact Greg Pates, Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1410, or Sandra Pinel, Sector Representative, at 651-602-1513. Sincerely, r'-' �� : , ,,,- i��.'��• Eli Cooper, Director . Planning and Growth Management cc: James W. Nelson, Metropolitan Council Member District 10 Richard Thompson, Supezvisor, Comprehensive Planning Sandra Pinel, Sector Representative Judy Sventek, Watershed Representative Lznda Milashius, Referrals Coordinator Greg Pates, Principal Reviewer V:\library\commundv�referralVetters\OOletters�Ivlounds View CPU inc - � MEMORANDUIVI 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, 200 SEH Center, St. Paul, MN 55110-5108 651.490.2000 800.325.2055 651.490.2150 FAX TO: City of Mounds View, Planning Commission FROM DATE � Rocicy J. Keehn, P.E. June 29, 2000 Review of the Local Water Management Plan Enclosed is the next draft of the Local Water Management Plan for your review. We have incorporated the comments that you provided at our last meeting. These included: ✓ A more detailed description of each watershed ✓ Description of the Mujor Watersheds (names) ✓ Future land use consistent with the Compreliensive Plan ✓ Corrected teYrreinology for the hzghway system (used the same as in the Comprehensive Plan) ✓ Correction of grammar errors (we hope). The plan that you have to review also includes all the appendices that will be in the final plan. This allows you to provide a complete review of the document. This is your City's document not ours and thus it is important that you complete a review that will supply us with insight into your planning requirennents that can only be provided by the citizens of Mounds View. Therefore to help provide a working docunnent, we need your review to provide us with: ✓ Comments on ter�ninology that yoac do not understand. ✓ Correction to inforrreation that you feel is misstated. ✓ Missing information that would be Izelpful to the City. ✓ Items that you feel Rice Creek Watersher� District will not be able to provide. ✓ Any other items that you feel should be addressed or corrected in the plan. Please nnalce all your comments in your copy of the plan and return to us. This will make our job easier as we incorporate your thoughts into the final draft that will be provided to the City Council. The final draft will be reviewed at the July 17 council worlc session. Formal public input and hopefully approval to send the plan out for agency review will occur at. the July 24 council rneeting. Again thanlc you for you efforts in helping us provide the City with a plan that is a benefit to the City. Enclosure c: RJK/rjlc s:\temp late�ceh\wo rdtrnemo-wo fi leuo,do � Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. . Offices located throughout the Upper Midwest • Equal Opportunity Employer LVclrefl� youlilrut, rlr.sigrt, anct ucltie��e . . . _ . . . . . _ . . .. .. . . _ _ _ . ' _ '_____________._ . Item # 6 City of Mounds View Planning Comrnission Report Meeting Date: July S, 2000 Titlea PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION REGAR.DING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A WALGREENS DRUGSTORE AND CULVERS RESTAURANT AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 10 AND EDGEWOOD DRIVE Planning Case: ZC00-002 Applicant: Bob Cunningham, Representing TOLD Development Company Background: Bob Cunningham, representing TOLD Development Company, is requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to construct a Walgreens Drugstore and Culver's Restaurant at the northeast corner of Highway 10 and Edgewood Drive on properiy commonly referred to as the City's "remnant parcel." Mr. Cunningham is proposing to swap approximately 8 acres of the Midland Videen site for the remnant parcel, which is approximately 1 acre. It is proposed that the stormwater pond on the remnant parcel would be relocated to high ground within the 8 acre Midland Videen site. Approximately 3.2 of the 8 acres to be received by the City are upland and potentially developable. The remaining acreage is wetland, as delineated by the City's engineer, SEH. Within the upland area, it would be proposed that the City's stormwater pond would be relocated and resized to accommodate more runoff and to help reduce potential flooding that may occur downstream south of Highway 10. In addition to the relocated stormwater pond, the pond adjacent to the Community Center could be expanded to provide more of a community surface water management benefit. The 8 acres would be utilized as passive outdoor open space, preserving and enhancing the natural and scenic value of this wetland as well as to preserve the wildlife habitat and to improve the City's surface water management system. In order for the Walgreens PUD to proceed, the site would need to be replatted to create the two development parcels. In so doing, the Community Center would become one parcel, as would the City Hall / Public Works land. The wetlands would be platted as an outlot. In conjunction with the replatting, the right of ways for Edgewood Drive and Bronson Drive would be dedicated. In addition, the right of way for the original Edgewood Drive would be vacated and any utility easements vacated or relocated as needed. This request was iirst brought to the Planning Commission on June 7, 2000, during which meeting significant time was spent discussing the various aspects of this development proposal. Because the applicant has chosen to combine the general concept and development review stages of the PUD process, the Planning Commission requested additional information regarding the ;� : �J __ _ _ - �- �-- _ _" - ------- � • � - --•-- h Walgreens PUD Report 2387 Highway 10 July 5, 2000 Page 2 _ _,� i -'- -� - --�. k�-- � �_- �u �.,- � development, such as economic benefits, traffic impacts, trailway/sidewalk integration, coordinated landscaping and more detailed site plans. It was noted at the meeting that a photometric analysis would be needed, as would a copy of the preliminary plat and drainage and utility plan. Update: Site Plan: The reduced-scale site plan provided to the Commission has been updated with regard to the addition of lot dimensions and applicable site measurements. Not shown on the copy provided to the Planning Commission are the locations of the trailways and sidewalks. The applicant will present a full-size site plan at the meeting which will show the inclusion of the pedestrian ways. Draina�e: The applicant will present the draft utility plan for the Commission's review. The City's engineer, SEH, Tnc., has reviewed the draft plan and has been in close contact with Sigma, the applicant's engineer, to work out the minor details to create a drainage plan acceptable to all parties. Rice Creek has reviewed the drainage plans and has verbally consented to the concept of the expanded stormwater holding pond and the minimal disruption its construction would cause. Preliminarv Plat: The applicant will have on hand a large-scale version of the preliminary plat for the Commission to review. The plat has been named "City Hall Addition." Parkin�: The site plan indicates the availability of 43 parking stalls for Culver's and 103 spaces for the Walgreens for a combined total of 146 spaces. Staff was not able to determine if the proposed stalls meet Code requirements as the internal breakdown of square footages (retail floor area vs. storage areas and dining areas vs. kitchen areas) were unavailable. Staff plans to present this information verbally at the Planning Commission meeting after consulting with the applicant. Signa� Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission require as part of its recommendation to the Council that the signage provided for either use (Walgreens and Culver's) be of a monument design in keeping with the character of the other signs in the immediate area. Staff has asked the applicant to produce a full-color rendition of a monument sign for the Commission to review. Wetland Buffer: Given the anticipated regional and site-specific benefits of the expanded stormwater holding pond on the upland area of the Midland Videen parcel, staff would recommend that a wetland buffer permit be issued in conjunction with the development review to allow for the building, utility, and trailway improvements as proposed. Landscapin� As stated at the June 7, 2000, Planning Commission meeting, there is very little existing landscaping and tree-cover in the area to be developed. There are a few trees along the Highway 10 right of way that would remain undisturbed with the construction. Staff would recommend that a stipulation requiring the retention of these trees be incorporated into the Planning Commission's resolution. The applicant has delayed putting forward a iinal landscape _ _ ,._:� � ..�,_ . - � _ � _�i _ . _ __ __ _ . __ . __ _____ _ _ _ _ __ _ , _ �. , _._ _ Walgreens PUD Report 2387 Highway 10 July 5, 2000 Page 3 plan until the final grading and drainage plans have been accepted and agreed to by the City Engineer. Li htin�: The applicant has submitted a photometric analysis of the site, however the submitted plan is of a small scale and is difficult to read. Staff has requested that the applicant provide a full-sized version for the Planning Commission's review and consideration. Staff has not had an opportunity to discuss lighting fixture with either the applicant of the director of public works. Access & Trailwa� The applicant maintains that access from Highway 10 is critical to success of the Walgreens and Culver's development. Walgreens, we have been informed, approved the location based on the access from Highway 10. Staff will be meeting with Dam Soler, Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, Wednesday, July 5, prior to the Planning Commission meeting to review the access issue as well as trailway issues as they relate to the Highway 10 corridor. Staff will report back to the Planning Commission verbally as to what was discussed. The proposed trailway through the Midland Videen property would not encircle the wetland as was originally planned due to the issue of wetland encroachment and mitigation. The path would instead be located between the proposed stormwater pond and the existing wetland so as to maintain the greatest distance from the homes on St. Stephen Street. The path would connect with the anticipated trail along Highway 10 with the Community Center site. The developer will present a site plan clearly showing the proposed locations of the trailways and sidewalks as discussed. Si�ge Easements: Staff has learned that the sign easement area adjacent to the abandoned Edgewood Drive right of way is controlled by the City of Mounds View, acquired in conjunction with the purchase of the Bel Rae Ballroom. It is anticipated that this easement area would be vacated. The applicant has indicated there to be a desire on the part of Culver's to utilize part of the existing easement area for signage. If this is to be done, it would need to be accomplished by means of a new easement area, outside of the platting process. Appraisal: Because of the proposed land swap and major subdivision, staff has arranged to have a commercial appraisal done for both the City's remnant parcel and the 8 acres of Midland Videen land to gain a better sense of the relative value of both parcels. In addition, the appraisal would be used as the basis for any park dedication payments required of the applicant in conjunction with the major subdivision. Public Hearing Notices: It was discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting that residents of multi-family complexes do not receive sufficient notification of public meetings such as the one being held on July 5, 2000. As a result, staff arranged to re-notice the meeting, including in the mail-out the residents living in complexes such as Greenfield Estates and Landmark Estates. This increased the number of notices mailed from 102 to 360. The cost of the additional notices was estimated to be $161.43. Staff will discuss with the City Council at a future worksession meeting the legal notification obligations versus the additional cost of notifying individual multi- family dwelling units. Staff will keep the Commission informed as to any decisions regarding our notification policy. fr==� �� =- _� � _ �;��-� � �; � _--.. . : _ - -- - -:. - -- _- ---� _- �. I _ --.. Walgreens PUD Report 23$7 Highway 10 July 5, 2000 Page 4 Recommendataone Because no action is being proposed at this meeting, staff is once again seeking input from the Planning Commission as to those remaining issues identified as being either deficient or needing more information. Staff does however feel that the Comnnission should have enough information to direct staff to draft a resolution for consideration at the Planning Commission's next meeting on July 19, 2000. � `. G�Mti,t� �'v�-- James Ericson, Planner F:IDATA\GROUPSICOMDEVIDEVCASES1MA00-0011PC Walgreens Report - July 5, 2000.doc � . - �'---�--- - '- L. �— --'- . _-- . ..-- - - _. . i�rr � _ � _' .-'--�'- � � Zoning Map City Hall / Midland Videen Site ��905 778t) 780i ?3nC �°� � 7 �—,.�� .. �°..6- J SSb^ 5,tir,.. �.o: � ��.. w _ p 3 7�01 ?7r,.0 ?7y; 78po 78i,t �BOC �� 5 � 555n z c;St 780? ;� 5557 W Z 7767 %%78 775L ( / �^ �• U = � ; 4 w �751 775p 77.M19 .< �., d; w 7,�, -, ,n^' =,55� � 555U 555� d 55` rn , p�-;,-01 7;-0� ,��, %'GA �.,}� 774p ?751! -� � ri �t ��:� g54, i5A4 °,�4 iw ��.3 U 7731 77tC� 7753 77M1g 77:9 7730 77A1 '�4 ` PINEWOOU CI�� r,. � � � � �o-"-�, � ^-�a ,rl, �_,39 5.3$ SSS4 55. � 77�� 7^.0 77?8 -r719 ?72, a 77t1 ?��- ci �i �l� ri n '-h SS.i3 r.'.•�32 g�� 5`3� � 7711 C7 77t0 ?7i)9 771 p'7:1 77�t: L+1 771�� ' �J r � � -� C r .- im m � 557.7 5�2o SG2 V1 552G c co ��n O °J .- O O a � "� m ao n io ¢, i n� �n �r, 7700 � u� �n �n �n u� 7?Oi 7700 770�+'�O �7 � n �, � � r�� o.� � 01 1 N ti oi 5521 5520 5521 : 520 i �-2 R-2 CO z RD ao �c. m' o cv a�o 'i ui �> o v, � �n � o, r, ,n ,� u• �n �n a n�v o "- �+ G-�o ro�n u ��n 2553 u4i ,%i r, �(1 �,� v"'",�' u�'�� ?$51 7695 N �� `I N V N a y c�! ('J J �`f N CJ C! �� , .�..,.,,,,, R-3 _1 �sG �'�:, 254� 7657 766 �� >��'? 7G6 7F.43 765P. PUD � o .-T' � c�i ra B-4 �5ai R ?4G R-4 � —3 7sai -,�.=,r ;r,ai 253� 7G6�' 1j 76�0 �639 �saa �s:,t �' � 76.. 7624 76i O 7635 '630 � � / � ?E;fi 7655 - � �' ?645 762' � 7b2`. 7s?. �6si R-d � � • �_ ��, �sti �s�. R-4 �' � � � � »3i `` �O \R-7 `� �'o �i ��r, � �f� 761 � 7595 ?59. �� 4145 `�� - LL r r n r. 7�3 � � • 7581 75L1 75'I u, h a � o . �n 7565 7564 0 � .i:� B-3 N a "� � �ssi �s` �s'' � g`i� �� ca �v r•, `D o 7535 753 •r �� 7511 v a ��i oi :5?1 �'j'�� 7505 75on �SDi SaD� � T!y h'r BRONSON �� "°' R—a � CITY HALL ��y� 5��a ss�as Z ° a h�•,A 5394 �3!?7 S:SFS6 5387 O � v_� �n `l� W 1t �� /' S;.;1 N 5380 °�3P 1� J Y \ ,�•'' i_. g37� 5}72 5373 � '" �'^ R-4 g .= 1 l / ,=' � �� F�, s,ycs ssE� �� '' ''} �� , � B-3 ' .35� s3,,H s35a v� � � , !-4 / 351 535� 5353 ', :41 5334 5;45 t� 335 2 S.33E 53,',7 7 1 .j�s �t� S.33p 533t c ' .r�y �Q �'��6. s3�g i' .l, � � i J `f ,S . , 'JO 5317 .i �'• . j'a 53�Q , ��,/�. •''�J�� 5?aa �19, / �I 5J0 :�7.98 `, V� 1 � \��e � 5: 95 Op 5�y5 �. 't 3 � 5i?0 n w U ' S287 C a> o r� rt-t e 2 - � �� n S'�79 � � %n �i, � rr o , r�' -, d 7 > .- , :;,t � J. e-3 !'+ �� N t� c� t .i rt r� � �`� I U � �:1 �` 52fiU 5262 `^�`� 529� �;' •y M1 :� '° 5255 5•�F1 `?56 5257 5�� 8-3 'b" ti° 1' CJ (J � ' _ .:�•� �� 7^ n ('� s�so s2s. s?°.� � ��EO 5� �� o p , 4 ti2`5 O` 5�92 5309 5284 R-4 i� O \ 5..44 �zq 5 44 c+ �« p 5.'.a � �n �. - u� rn M, u, n Q� Z O ' Q �o,R "�4' $2::E -i =r d e »-~i �r a 5?90 F.''c,y � � O �� 5; 4 c� J N ri r� ry oi ri � dr� `�, � ` � 523� 523' CLEARVIEW AVE 5280 528. �� q' � � ✓�37 5270 5_^79 5270 �� „ � u (' S214 5=3i .`,226 52�1 0-`Dr K o' -�r -�'i v w 52hg. �' PF 5225 5'2D ra N �i N N o�� pi Z 5?64 5.'.69 :>��t) �v �+ �� o ci � v�'., ��i S_2 r? �,n v� v n M N O 5250 525 5250 525 SGI9 5-��'t S�� yt N v[1 N C J N �� ;° �i �� o+ �v 5240 S24 5"<405249 �N� IDGE LANE ��3G 5239 52305239 N O � O �l1 t0 O�J � Z p' V �j N lD d O �`I N � O � f�. n l0 �!� d' d ) N � � ��°n v�i v� �i r; � �i a"' � .`��1� v o �i cv N[� �i � 5220 5��g 52'0522 � �i r� �1 ri :�� r� <v 2' rn v�r - r, o, �r _ S�OE 5�0 r> rn n v� e. y M� 5210 521 � 5?tU g�� 0 0 0 �.. �o cn �n v � �c u> �n i° �� u 57.00 f'°'� 5201 r� N a �� I N r°•i N ��nn Sin 5200 520_ % y �� \ � 5260� �� 2E0 � 52505259 52:,0 `�' � 5240 `-''4 52no ,� 5230 523�- 5234 57?052� 52[0 ,`,210 `,7 S 5? 10 5200 S209I 520D ,� W_ - _ � _ . « _ � t « : . x —.: : � _ . --, ��. _ � . .. .. . v ---_ � - — - -- - - ---- — — — Location Map City Hall / Midland Videen Site Ciiy af Maunds View Location I�lap 'i ��w ■�� .�� ■� ■■ . ■�. �. � ��r' i� i�.,.,: � .. ■_�� ■ �� ■� � � � : �: * �� .� ... � ��Ir�* �� .. =C i r � s� r •~i� � � �� ■�� , . r �� ° � : �� IIII�' �.. �. ,,�� ■ ■ +�e.� ■■I `��'��' ��,� � � �. �� IIII�II �r ■ ��"�� „��«��,��"�� „�� ►, �� ■�� r�M��M� _ _ �� ■�■ ■■�M��■ ,��„ ■■� ��, � Walgreens �TOLD Development} *Property Involved: 2387 Highway 10 Planning Case Nos. MA00-001, ZC00-002, & DE00-002 -*Property Involved: 2387 Highway 10 (Additional properties involved in proposed subdivision include: 2401 Highwa� 10, 2466 Bronson Drive, and 5394 Edgewood Drive � Properties Within 350' •_ _ �_ -� _ _ _ � Item # 7 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: July S, 2000 Title: DISCUSSION REGARDING ORDINANCE 664, AN ORDINANCE AIv�ND1NG CHAPTER 1106 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. Introduction: Staff has been directed to work with the Planning Commission to draft language revising the Zoning Code regarding sheds and accessory structures. The Planning Commission initiated discussion on this issue on June 7, 2000, and continued discussion on June 21, 2000. Based on the input and comments generated at these two meetings, staff drafted Ordinance 664, which amends Chapter 1106 of the Zoning Code pertaining to accessory buildings. Discussion: The most substantive changes contemplated by this proposed ordinance are as follows: • All property owners are allotted 1,400 square feet of accessory building space subject to the 20% maximum rear yard coverage ratio. • All properties allowed a 952 square foot garage, regardless of footprint of home. � Three accessory buildings are allowed instead of two. � Limit of one garage eliminated. •"Size of accessory building not to exceed footprint of house" requirement eliminated altogether. � Distinction between garage and shed eliminated—simply referred to as accessory buildings. There are other changes contemplated by this ordinance, some of which are minor and "housekeeping" in nature, while other changes simply clarify the Code and address "setback" issues which, up to this point, the Code has been silent on. If desired, staff will identify every change considered by this ordinance. , � ..� . � � -�-:, _ _ . -..._ .r . .. : __. .... _ .—r..._.��.�. �-_.��.�-.c��.� `o=-_�I -' -- - —` - '--- Report #3 on Sheds July 5, 2000 Page 2 Recommendation: .— .�-- _ _ . . . . i�+j = . � _ E � ---� '-__ . .. Please review the attached draft ordinance and determine if it is acceptable from the Pianning Commission's perspective and direct staff to make any modifications as needed. Staff will then prepare a Planning Commission resolution recommending the adoption of Ordinance 664 and will present it along with the final version of Ordinance 664 for Planning Commission action on July 19, 2000. ' c• �..� C-��l��,l,� � 4��-� ��v James Ericson, Planner E:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDCV\SPECPRO.�SP079-00\PC Memo - July 5, 2000.doc .�� _ -.- - ORDINANCE NO. GG4 CITY OF MOUNDS 'VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINIVESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1106 OF THE MOUNDS V�W ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO PERMITTED AND CONDTTIONALLY P�RNIITI�D ACCE5SORY 5TRUCTURES THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1: Section 1106.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and the proposed deletions ��^�ai, to read as follows: 1106.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are pernutted uses in an R-1 District: Subd. 1. Single-family detached dwellings. (Ord, 575, 7-15-96) a. Each applicant for a buildin�permit to construct any dwellings shall be required to provide of� street parkin� spaces for at least two (2) automobiles per familv in addition to an��ge spaces to be used. b. Everv dwelling house hereafter erected shall be so located on the lot so that at least a two (2 car garage, either attached or detached, can be located on said lot. c. No pernut shall be issued for the construction of a residential dwelling unless the drivewaX servicin� the propertv is to be improved with a permanent surfacing material so as to control dust, draina�e and erosion, according to the requirements as set forth in Section 902 OS of this Code, except that the propertv owner ma�provide a signed notarized statement in which the property owner a�rees to improve the drivewav in conjunction with the desired construction activities or within six (6) months of the commencement of such activities in a form acceptable to the City Attornev. For the purposes of this Title permanent surfacinp materials are defined as concrete, asphalt or brick. (Ord. 620. 7-27-98� Subd. 2. Permitted single-family uses allowed under Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357, subdivision 7, as follows: a. A state licensed residential facility serving six (6) or fewer persons, except as provided in subdivision 3 ofthis Section 1106.02; (Ord. 596, 3-10-97) b. A licensed day care facility serving twelve (12) or fewer persons; c. A group family day care facility licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9501,0445 to serve fourteen (14) or fewer children; d. Residential facilities whose primary purpose is to treat juveniles who have violated criininal statutes relating to sex offenses or have been adjudicated delinquent on the basis of Page 1 , _ , �=«..`.._�- � _ -�: 1�_ ::_ „� __�� _o- .� Ic` - - . _-_� - _ .� F.`�'�__ - _ . : . _:. .. _ . . =•� ' _ .�` _ 6 Y:�.� Ordinance 664 conduct in violation of criminal statutes relating to sex offenses shall not be considered a permitted use. (Ord. 575, 7-15-96) Subd. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision 2.a. herein, foster family homes as defined in Minnesota Rules, chapter 9545, section 9545.0010, subp. 7, which relate to the Department of Human Services and group homes and group foster homes as de;Finned in Department of Correction Rules, extracted from Minnesota Rules, chapter 2925, section 2925.0100, subp. 9, shall be allowed as permitted uses to serve not more than eight (8) children per home, not including the foster family's own children. (Ord. 575, 7-15-96; Ord. 596, 3-10-97) Subd. 4. Essential services. (Ord. 575, 7-15-96) Subd. 5. Public parks and playgrounds. (Ord. 575, 7-15-96) SECTION 2: Section 1106.03 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and the proposed deletions °��, to read as follows: 1106,03: ACCESSORY USES: The following are pernutted accessory uses in an R-1 District: (1988 Code §40.10) Subd. 1. Accessory Buildings: Accessory buildings, such as attached or detached garages or tool houses, carports, sheds and similar buildings for storage of domestic supply and noncommercial recreational equipment. . , � �_ - •. : ;ia�' a. Every R-1 zoned property improved with a single-family dwelling is allotted a maximum of 1,400 square feet of combined accessory building area, subject to the requirements noted herein, . _ - - ...- ' ..• - - - . ,- .. . _ Page 2 � -w ,� --- ----_ .� ;_ , , � . .�_ : _ _ __ __ __ , _ __ _ __ .�,�._ _- _ __ _ . ___ '{ Ordinance 664 : . _ � � •• � �CO�.��i0r.�ns.s��:.Gi0�0�:n:�en� i�C��:ie�.m0�0ue��ii� i0��.�� i�0�v� �r�ra: d. Accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen feet (15') in height, shall be five feet (5') or more from a11 lots lines of adjoining lots and shall be si��€e�'-) three feet (3'� or more from any other building or structure on the same lot. Attached garages must conform to the front and rear setback requirements for the principle structure, and the side yard setback shall be at least five feet (5'). ' ` - _ _ . _ . .. - e. € No accessorv building ga��ge in an R-1 District shall exceed nine hundred fifty-two (952) square feet in area, except by conditional use permit. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98) f. � The combined square footage of accessory buildings in a rear yard shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) ofthe rear yard. (Ord. 442, 7-11-88; Ord. 620, 7-27-98) g. An outdoor living room or patio shall not be used for storage of automobiles or trucks. h. No pernut shall be issued for the construction of more than �u�ae-�2� three 3 accessory buildings in any R-1 District. One of the tjue-�2� three 3 pennits must be for a garage. i. Accessorv buildings shall have a weather resistant, treated or finished exterior. Structures composed of tubular metal and canvas or exposed plywood, particle board or similar materials shall not be permitted. � ..: - j. If an accesso _ry buildin� is to be utilized for the storage of frequentiv-used vehicles it shall be serviced bv an improved drivewav so as to control dust, drainage and erosion, according to the requirements as set forth in Section 902.05 of this Code. Subd. 2. Outdoor, Uncovered Parkin�paces: a. Parkin�paces for residential vehicles as re�ulated by Section 607.06, Chapter 802 and Chapter 1121 of the Municipal Code. b. RV Storage: Storage of recreational vehicles and equipment leased or owned by the resident as regulated by Chapter 802 of this Municipal Code. Subd. 3. Home Occupations: The regulation of home occupations within residential structures is intended to �strr� ensure that the occupational use is clearly accessory or secondary to the principal dwelling use and that compatibility with surrounding residential uses is maintained. No home occupation shall be allowed which: Page 3 _ .�. � . , � _.. , n.. _ . . _�. � � �.�.,� , - -_- - — --- -- — - _ . _---- Ordinance 664 a. Involves employees other than persons residing on the premises; b. Involves alteration or construction features not customarily found in dwellings; c. Has an e�erior display or sign in excess of one square foot. Such sign, for identification purposes only, shall be located on either the principal structured or garage. Any sign existing prior to December 29, 1972, shall not be enlarged but may be continued at the size and location upon such date, except as hereinafter specified or subsequently amended. Any sign erected after December 29, 1972, but prior to the effective date hereof shall come into compliance herewith by April 1, 1983; d. Involves exterior storage of equipment or materials; e. Generates more than two (2) motor vehicles at a time for either off-street or on-street p�"�g� f. Results in violation of the provisions of Chapter 684 607, Nuisances, of the Municipal Code; and � g. Involves activity visible from the public streets. Subd. 4. Noncommercial Greenhouses and Conservatories: Subd. 5. Recreational Facilities: Swim�ning pools, patios, decks, gazebos, swin� sets, pla�. s��tems and plav houses, outdoor livin r� ooms, tennis courts, and other recreational facilities which are operated for the enjoyment and convenience of the residents of the principal use and their guests. Such facilities shall be set back five feet (5') or more from a property line, exce�t swimmin�pools, which shall be set back ten feet (10') or more from a propertv line.. Subd. 6. Boarding: Boarding or renting of rooms to not more than one (1) person. Subd. 7. Other Uses: Other allowed uses incidental to the dwelling unit, including, but not limited to: clothes lines and poles; lawn and garden ornaments and other landscapin� features; and pet house, e�facility or kennel. A pet house, facilitv or kennel shall be set back five feet (5'� or more from a propert.� ; , � . (1988 Code §40.10) SECTION 3: Section 1106.04 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and the proposed deletions °��, to read as follows: 1106.04: CONDTTIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an R-1 District (requiring a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title): Subd. 1. Public or semi-public recreational buildings and neighborhood or community centers, public and private educational institutions limited to elementary, junior high and senior high Page 4 W,,,:�_ . __ _ -� _ - .� . _ � . � � _ . - � . _: . . . � Ordinance 664 schools and religious institutions, such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues; provided, that: a. Front yard depths shall be a mirumum of thirty-five feet (35'). b. Side yards shall be no less than thirty feet (30'). c. Miniinum lot area shall be no less than one (1) acre, or as provided in Section 1104.02, subdivision 2b(3). (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) d. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. e. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting or directly across a public street to the principal use in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this Title and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 1103.08 of tltis Title. f. Adequate of� street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where applicable by Chapter 1122 of this Title. g. The provisions of Section 1125.01, subdivision le of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) Subd. 2. Governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of the community; provided, that: a. Confornuty with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained and required setbacks and side yard requirements are met. b. Equipment is completely enclosed in a permanent structure with no outside storage. c. Adequate screening from neighboring uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. d. The provisions of subdivision 1125,01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. Subd. 3. Residential planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 1120 of this Title. Subd. 4. Residential dog/cat kennel. Subd. 5. Model homes. (1988 Code §40.10) Subd. 6. F�a�age Accessorv buildings exceeding nine hundred fifly-two (952) square feet. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98) Page 5 ,.. -. _.. _ - � - __ _ ___ ,� � . -� � � .— ..� - ,.y. .� . � _._.. _ �_� � .. _ _ ___ _ _ _ Ordinance 664 a. The accessory building must conform with Section 1103.06 and subdivision 1106.03(I) of this Title. b. The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one (1) lot cannot exceed one thousand four hundred (1,400) square feet. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98) c. The building shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniforrn appearance with the dwelling unit. d. The width of the building cannot exceed thirty-five feet (35'� �^� �"��•� ��-�� *�� -�� «� ..,,�,•,.�„ ., e. The building shall be a permanent structure. f. � Should the use for which the pernut was granted be changed, the pernut shall be subject to reconsideration, revocation or other action regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title. ' - . ._ ._ . �,:,:..,.,.,:,;,,�.�, _:..,:.:,.�:��..:,�_.:...--��i • - — --- - _ ... �. - _ . . .. .. Subd. 7�. Wireless telecommunications towers and antennae subject to the provisions established in Chapter 1124 of the Zoning Code. (Ord. 588, Z-10-97) _� :; Page 6 . .�- T . � _ � . _. -_-_v�_ - _ � ___._� -'.__�_._ .... _-_ ._ .___'_._ _ _ . _ .' _ ____ _._- �4_�.`. - ,�_ _. �_ .__�wy_,_._ . __. . . . . �. ( _ I Ordinance 664 SECTION 4. This Ordinance becomes effective thirty (30) days after its publication in the official City newspaper. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 2000. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 2000. ATTEST: (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney � Page 7 Dan Coughlin, Mayor Michael Ulrich, Interim Clerk / Administrator � � ; : , .. .. __ _ . __ _ . . = � ,�- — ------- _ -- �. -- - ------ - - -- =-- - -, _ . .. _ _ � _ ----- , D I PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS V�W PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA /�; 2401 I�Iu��Y��✓�a�� 10, 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, G`�mtnissio� Laube, Miller, and Thomas. �s „•.! ��:.:. .:.. 3':'i: E�,�� "l:�i% j:x:..::i' Members Absent: Commissioners Stey�ii!�on, with;;:�?�rior � f�a<�€r,;::;Y -.<i ;,.„w ,; . ,,: ��. Also Present: Planning Associat��iii�Ericsc�� y;o�nmu and Recorder Trish Pearson. ; �� _ _ __ _ ��uai��,r 1Vleeting �1�xA� '79 2000 ��u��t1� ��y t�'�k-� lE�all ��a �l � V"�� c� �vs:-, l�l��l ��;�1 � � :�4, >000. nd, Johnson, Kaden, Director Rick Jopke, 3. .�I��r��Ir � `�,m of ��Jh*�,a ��n_��n,n�Qx� Co�-u ��r,�� ,�A�;,ni��.�l�° �arbara Thomas Planning �=3.,r�r ��s`,�; �;�-i��o�� ir�k��€��r°�� ;��a� Planning Commission to Barbara Thomas, who was appointed to t��-�r�� :t�; ��r►ain�lr:�� a` �� i�r�n vacated by Commissioner Ordeen Braathen. Her term expires at R4�a�; ��,r� �� i001. K:�� €�,�� hat all were excited to have Commissioner Thomas � on board„�,��,'°- , ssioner Thoma� t!%��y s�caz�� b�nio office later that evening. ?i ��-��a to Minutes ;5:% ; �:�� i.�r��i��,�, �"��,1�Tc� ;�C00-002, 2387 Highway 10. Public Hearing and Discussion ��;�_� ��°f��,b�+; �a �`��,i�ried Unit Development for a Walgreens Drugstore and Culver's �';r d��a��x°�„a3 ��, �`�}��; IVortheast Corner ofHighway 10 and Edgewood Drive. T(�I,l� Y��velapment Company, (Represented by Bob Cunningham), Applicant. Discussion Regarding an Ordinance to Amend the Zoning Code Pertaining To Sheds and Accessory Buildings. Staff Reports / Items of Information Page 2 29 34 - _ . .. . _ _..= ,� :x�� I� �= ___��-=-_� I ��_� `-- - .,�s �-- -�- - ----.s. - ---• t.�� _- - ��---� . _ _ i Mounds View Planning Commission Regutar Meeting Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 4. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on There were no citizen requests or comments on items not 5. Approval of Minutes A. April 19, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Johnson to approve th� � corrected. 6. Ayes — 8 Planning Case No. ZCO Property Involved: 2387 Highway Public Hearing and Discussion R�j and Culver.;s Restaurant �� ; �T� TOLI� �{;�:r�ir��xient Con��i=�r�,kf ��;, The appli Planning ch� � a June 7, 2000 Page 2 >s,�: ,�::�; ` ,f��.; agenda. � �,r �� , y � .�t" y . ; ., - ;. 1�, ;�i "1he: minutes as carried. LJnit;;��velopment for a Walgreens Drugstore �;��ay 10 and Edgewood Drive. Applicant: i� .�unningham) report as follows: Bo y'��unningham, r��z�.:��;�� ";�'�LD Development Company, is requesting approval of a Pl ��'ed Unit Developrr2�� „ �ornstruct a Walgreens Drugstore and Culver's Restaurant at the ��s�� ;,; fi`��theast corner of �Y�,��ir�v�,y 10 and Edgewood Drive, on the Videen parcel as well as the �r��erty commonly re��ri'ed to as the City's "remnant parcel." One of the actions necessary to ��og-rdplish this pro ;;°�sal is the subdivision of the Cit Hall arcel in order for the develo er to ,� Y P p �r��i.,�� ,� remt�a'i� jiarcel that was created during the realignment ofEdgewood Drive. The City ,.r :�x<�°y �.��Aj�z�=��t�<a'storm water holding pond on the remnant parcel. There has been significant ,;,,� ;s� ��r��xo�� g�rding what would be appropriate for this parcel, and significant discussion with the �.��>d��,�.nt"regarding this application. Planning Associate Ericson stated that that the Planned Unit Development would involve a rezoning and major subdivision of the property, in order to create the proposed lot. He explained that this process would also combine other lots into two developable parcels. The applicant has _ _. ._'; � -:':. _ — _ _ __ .. _ �_ . ,,-. 4-L:-__�— _' ..--'. _.._—_ _ _ l'_":i ___ , . . . ' � . :_�_ . --�_ ..__. __. __....,_.__'__ . __. . 1 : . __ � __:. _ � _� . __ __'.�__�_ : . [ .. ._, . . __ ._. . ' ___'_ _ �' i A Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meet'rng Page 3 proposed to trade 7.7 acres of the Midland Videen site for the City's one acre remant parcel. He provided the Planning Commission with the site plan, which depicted the area of the;:::�i'dland �,,�;:, Videen site, of which approximately 4 to 4.5 acres is wetland, and the C�l.y�'s rernn�t�t parcel, which is approximately one acre in size. d- r��f;... � �%. ,�::: Planning Associate Ericson indicated the remainder of the dland Videer� sit� �%a��,�� }i� City �F,;:> would get is upland. It could be utilized for additional stor�n �vater holdtn� ponds, c�x �:c� i��.rc;a s� �-s' the size of the wetland for mitigation credits. He explai�F�� i�]az there. i� �`slight po:��at�dii��t �� ,,< ,: portion of this area could be developed in the future how�t.r�,�°, at ,.� r��f planned for det��ic��$�a�,��i � and the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Open ��°,c�: �� i:he City obtains tlus ��c,; :�i can ensure the preservation of the wetland and open space, ��.�c� s�s9a,Y� �� wetlands to nanction more efficiently in terms of taking in storm water , rechargin,� �I�� '��a��r,`t��i�,i.��-, and protecting the wildlife and natural habitat in the area. He pointed out=�hat �c, ��s;, ;�af ��,:�±, of the land trade agreement, City staff has said that the developer wou�� respo�sal�l.�; As�g 4��c:��i,ng the walking trails. This has not yet been finally resolved and is ;��tfaj��;t'�:�� i_�rther �ii�ci+;�;��7b. He advised that the transfer of property between the City and th� a.��1��;�.tx�� E:.��ssary aaa r��-�r��r for this proposal to move forward. , Planning Associate Ericson stated that which allows for the integrated dev�l�� the site. He indicated the Planne� �,��i create a more beneficial developr�n�nc normally present in the I�iscr�c��, iri �3hicr � ik�ie Planned'�nit ]D�v�;1o�r�aent is a three-stage process, fs.�% ��ent of pa��'els and �le�bility in terms of construction on 'i��v�l�a�rnent also p�ovides the City the opportunity to ,....F. �y a�,�,r��3�iz� restricttons and requirements beyond those it is X;� s��ar.��, �d�this would allow for greater flexibility m terrm� �sl: �5x�,�;�yervmg thP :�pF;r� ::��ace, as i� ��s- �-�e explained that oftentimes, Planned Unit Develca�m�� ,-e used �� .�21��.��` ��w.��l�er densi�� t��v�lopments in order to create additional Open Space, "a� �c� s�� ,�'r,� ci-�cAii s x�;r ��.�;;iry, by preserving Open Space, and these are elements of this proposal. �r��: zc,��i:;��a s,��i: ��o�'�i�a�� t"':��g�.Midland Videen site would be transferred to the City, and while �� '�r�� j� �,a�i �A'`�� osed Planned Unit Development, it would retain its a� a.��;�: �_�pace. Planrung �Associate �r��;{>�� ,�a �r:��R :��at the three stages of the Planned Unit Developments process � .; are'C'�ncept, DevelopAk�c��s';r��:�r�E:�hr, and Final Approval. He indicated the first two stages require �.:,s!,r, �'�blic hearing, and sta;�t�`has'Y►o�ified the residents within 350 feet of the entire project area. He �az�dicated the first and,�eond stages of the process may be combined, and the applicant has opted �r� '�xoceed directly tt��he Development Review stage. He indicated there have been informal ,.,�..: �t�r}ra�xs�ions at va�r��iti�"s Planning Commission meetings and City Council Work Sessions, and ��.��;�c �a;�, ��A� �pp�rcant is proceeding directly to the development review stage of the process. R1�a��K��;; f�A:�b��ociate Ericson advised that during the development review process, the Commission is required to examine the site plan, lighting, signage, elevations, landscaping, zoning and setback requirements, and items of this nature. He explained that as the process moves forward, staff would draft a Planned Unit Development document, which would incorporate all of the details associated with this project. He indicated that if the City approves the Development Review stage of this project, staff would draft the development contract, which would clarify all of the terms of �. .. _ ... .,_ ��.�. _ _ . _ _ .. -, . _ . ,. ' . ' ' '_ ' ._,-�u_=��_--'__� � --' ' - .�:..i.: _.. :."' .__—__� - e__� :..c=�=. -_. __� I� . . , Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 7, 2000 Page 4 the property transfers. He advised that there are a number of issues that would resolved with the platting of the property, such as vacating the old Edgewood Drive ri and the platting of the entire City Hall complex, the Community Center, th� ll�i�iland the remnant parcel, and the other parcels located in the subjectfarea. He ��iza��;r1' � would allow an opportunity to clean up the City Hall campus s�te,,�ncluding i�:� ��+�'� �� Drive is not a platted street, but is actually only asphalt lakd�s�'�er the City ��f.i ��r�� stated that the platting process would allow both Bronson %�rive and th� a:�;��;r�� r�� Edgewood Drive to be dedicated as public streets. 55 ; Planning Associate Ericson stated that that the Preliminar� �a this time, however, the Commission has been provided represents the proposed configuration of the lots, with the adjacent to the Community Center which runs up to Bron�o Preliminary Plat comes before the Commission, th��., �� Community Center lot, and the storm water holdtr�� :��r.p create additional capacity for storm water , and,,�r%at�� .��i��.1 Planning Associate Ericson stated that they might wish to consider and offer th � j: that with this proposal, the City Hall,;�� a separate block, and the proper#y ,�c��1 block. He indicated the Walgre�s; C become three separate parc�ls, ��c� the Videen sA�., ��rald be desi�`��<j��;�� r> �r� Oi need, to be r i'' ,I�tTG�i waY� �t�een site, ut that this aS: i3ronson Fp�rty. He Y€��2it�-°"11� Ol� ��, =,rif��.,� �ac�� b�fore the Comm�ss�� at �� F+ .,.��; �lan which accurately �xce��i�� ` ? 66-foot strip of land Dri��;. �� ;a:�i:��_ined that when the of' lar►c� ��rc�r.�%c�. i�� attached to the �c�rald be c,.�}��aA�� l into this area to �s� ��ntrol c�o�r�isi��eam flooding. as the P��air�g ��"1��1��1� ;,>i�ii reviews this proposal, iought�fiii�terrr� y��r"s� ��rrne �or the plat. He advised � .:< on t��s�vest side��f Edgewood Drive would become . ,< as� ��' Edgewc��" Drive would become a separate �';� ��taurantis"and Community Center sites would ��Y°��;� �,��Yremain Open Space on the Midland Planni�a� la.�s��<�G�� a��o�� p�„�i�� 't��h�t :�11 of the dimensional requirements for the proposed develo�7ir►et�� ;��: ��°., c�� ;�le �.�� 1�� k Ie indicated there was an issue with regard to the proposed pa1�14.�r{�r, �s�e �,�,�;��.r,�c. ��* ��.�,.�� iJ.+�� the site plan provided to the Commission does not specify the t�z��c��;� �a�� i:��a� ar�t�x'�;��a�ia��n would be before the Commission at their ne�ct meeting,d�tt�'Vvev��, ir� �r��, �,ar�r��,b�i d��at the parking lot extends up to the property line and the right- of-w��'a�ong Highw��.y ;� ��. K�F ��;��:l�ined that this presents a difficulty in terms of constructing a tra�t�'t?vay or path in thi� �a�.<?, ��5, ��r��;�,xssed, and therefore, the applicant would have to examine this, �� ,: �c��f�etermine if there �s s�1:�iictent space to shift the parking lot back 15 feet to accommodate that ��hway. �,F < �;��sj.ir;� �ssociat�' ;�ricson indicated that the Commission was provided with a preliminary �f;Y {g�,r��3;�� 1z�,��, which is not significantly detailed. He stated that that the Planning Commission �;i��f t1.� �° F�,;��;�� ihe landscaping issues and provide some feedback in this regard. He advised that, ,.f> +�z� a%? i' �Jnr extent possible, the design of the Walgreens Drugstore is proposed to. match the ci�sigrfl �r�d color of the Community Center building, and to a lesser extent, City Hall, which is a different color of brick, in an attempt to be consistent with the style that is becoming prevalent in this area. He pointed out that the Theater, which is located across the street from City Hall, has utilized the same type of design style and color of brick as the Community Center, and that this is the design proposed for the Walgreens Drugstore. �-_ . ` ___� t _ _� .. . c : - _ . _ _.. _ , -- Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 7, 2000 Page 5 Planning Assaciate Ericson stated that Culver's Restaurants utilize a corporate would desire to keep that, although there was potential room for negotiat�ori; i� indicated the Commission was not considering the Culver's Restaurant at thz� ti� „>.. this project could be considered a staged development. He �dvised t��i � Commission should proceed with the Development Review �'c�r �the Walgr�� would provide all of the information necessary to review tl�u� rr�atter, inclu,d��g b and examples of signage. He stated that the developer �� r�dicated �h�t Wa ; :.. very open to some type of monument style signage, and g�t��a the prominence lesign,: �rid they `lus r��gard. He ;, ��r� therefore, 's.��:i,s C;oxnt, the ��f,�;, a�c� staff l��.�ij� ��;:la"r.zon�s of Y location on Highway 10, it would be important to the City i�a� ika� si�nage be less intrusive, while still meeting the needs of Walgreens. Planning Associate Ericson stated that that there were this information would be brought before the Comrniss there was an issue with regard to the wetland l�y.�� delineated, and is contained within the Midland��!�c��i w would be in very close proximity to the Walg�eens bu of the Culver's Restaurant building, and tk�et'efore, a i He stated that it was possible that this issue could b�yr document. ,��;-"� htiri� ��xra:�'��r�3��l�le at this time, and ihe ne�t .rx��ai�-��, �Jle,.stated that that �� flndic� �er� ��: �Netland has been �� ;xplain?d i,�7Z�'tkle 100-foot buffer �,�a� ��auld cut 9:hrough the footprint c� ��.i1��• ��r�init would be necessary. �ec� Rr� �,��E� ��lanned Unit Development Planning Associate Ericson statecl �hat acce�s =c, �:��; site �SSproposed as a right-in, right-out, off of Highway 1Q, and. a full acc�� d�i�reway of�' �� <�;�K��t�+�ot� brive. He indicated that the City has had som�- �3i��a�sions with��;��; �ounty fl`�;�F��'��s� k�1e proposed locations of ingress and egress of th� '��.�,��:Ea�, �nd `tt��;�h ¢�u�k�� an i�J�� -��i��i regard to conflicts with the right-turn on H�ghw�y"�0 �c�r x�..��,��v��o�i �;��v� �..�F,�xplained that the access to Walgreens might be shifted further soutla5,`��v��.�t �i��nn �'rdc nr�;� �.��;�t�l�spd Drive turning lane, and that this issue would require further exarr��a.i�c�r�.�'� ��>.ir�.c�.;.�ated i�c�e�� v�ould be another access from Edgewood Drive, which would serv� tl�� jc�i�i�. ��y�r�� +�� ;a;:� �o the Culver's Restaurant, and an additional access to Walgreet%� �He a�vay� �.� ��<�� yjo�s�t access and parking document would be filed by the two propei�ti'es, to provid� tha� ��,gj �c�� have access to the entrance on Edgewood Drive. ��ning Associate EriG��n s�ated that one of the conditions the City would place upon this "�raject is that a trailwa�,'},r'system be constructed, in the hopes that it would encircle the wetland 4 ; , �,�cl tie into the Comn�t�ruty Center, the future trailway on Highway 10, and the Walgreens and ��3.��s-'s developm,��.' He explained that this would offer the visitors to the Community Center �;� =�at ��,�it� �� walk through the natural area, which is comprised of woods, standing water, ��`a�� . .r�t�,� �z��'"variety of vegetation. He indicated the City is very determined to preserve this �� 3,, ��;r;; �ndisYurbed area, which gives further reason for moving forward with the proposed trailways, which would serve to delineate and preserve the wetland area. Planning Associate Ericson stated that that the storm water holding pond, which was constructed with the realignment of Edgewood Drive, and is currently located on the City's remnant parcel, would be relocated to the very southern portion of the Midland Videen site. He explained there : �, a _ _ _ ,�_ , .._� :�a._��.�:�.-�� -- :�,. = . _<.�_ . . c �_ . _ - -- —� 1�_-=1 - _ _ _ . .. . _ I----- ---- - _—�- - - Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 7, 2000 Page 6 are approximately 3 to 4 acres of upland that could be utilized for expanding the wetl�and or creating additional storm water holding ponds so that it could accommodate some �t�ditional storm water that is currently going untreated into the Highway 10 storm sewe��ystem He added that this would allow for the possibility of reducing, if not; eliminatirt�; �:�� ;�o�ential for downstream flooding. ��'��y Planning Associate Ericson indicated the storm sewer lor,�� Road H2 was not sized accordingly for the amount of flov� rainstorms, there is some backing up of storm water . H� the storm water coming down Edgewood Drive could t holding pond, which would have an overflow that would � He pointed out that the larger, perhaps two-acre, storm wa terms of the City's Local Water Management Plan, and thc' Planning Associate Ericson stated that that ther� indicated that in his understanding, the billboa arrangement, and would remain on the prt�p leaseholder. He stated that Midland Vtdet;t�'"re� this matter. He explained that the oth�� sign s£s:an Edgewood Drive and Highway 10, az��l �;�?;ras ded Center the Bel Rae Ballroom. ,``;�" � ;��;��fi�tecl, t}�> document to determine if the Cit�s purchase� �;�� ,;, ,; . ��der F Ic�s in, ��;� ��' ,��I�L�% �Ss�f�Y> „ .,; yy, ��%�'�'.� �/� ��at it was hopec� ��a�� ;�.fl a��' `�� ir�to the new storrz��- v�ra��r ;:��iA�; back out if necessary. ;��ra�l� would be beneficial in r� °��d� ;�Ag�;� ��emer►c� �� 11t� �roposed site. He E�� i��' cs�� e,�, ; sites was, �iy permanent lease �y L�,n��s� �i�c: .�� <,�, r��;s' purchased from the esen��'tive, �'c�� J i$!/.��s, could further address as�rrient i; E��.�x�� 'io the intersection of old �o i; ed to the �revious owners of the Community 'the City ,A:��orney was researching this lease 9igr� eas�;m�nt in conjunction with the purchase f <,� of the B�1 Itae Ballroom, ix� wk�x�% case, tr�� s�r��a� ��!�i1ve a simple process of vacating that easemen� %a�°ca�, k�e �xplaar�� :�� if the si�r� ��.n��i clid not transfer with the property during this t��t�ii� �he City t�a�s�` ��, �z�.�r� �� co��a�� a�.:�� The applicant is requesting that part of this area b�' �i��,f,� �'�R� sign�� °��' ��A� i�fr��v� c�'� 1�estaurant, which would not have Highway 10 frontage, at�r� ��8�� a�: hav� �aafiic,ic�� r�;�r;�ai`+�� iFrom the roadway. Planning �;t'i��nA� �c�tc�� x��a�! r7�� i�rther information regarding the ownership of the sign eas�ent wou�d ��: ��1: s'��,t��i� ,� i: �he next meeting of the Planning Commission, at which time, the applicant would bri�� c�E �r�a�� ;:he Preliminary Plat and the final site plan, which would specify �=�"the dimensions, �� ;�r{ la <,<; F;ny other information the Commission feels is necessary. He �ained that the site p�► would indicate the proposed trailways on the Midland Videen site and ag Highway 10, as<� ell as extension of the existing sidewalk along Edgewood Drive to kaway 10. He sta�l that that the photometric analysis would also be presented at the next ,<:. ,: ...:>:, <�xn�, �nd if tl��te='vvere any recommendations pertaining to the landscape plan or other issues, !l' ��: .�x;��.�.�:x�� :�jr��itd be brought before the Commission at that time. He indicated this was a �� _a�E7�:��.�,�; �nd that staff sent out literally hundreds of notifications, due to the size of the area. Dave Kepler, 5314 St. Stephen Street inquired why the City needed the proposed development. He stated that that there was a Walgreens Drugstore four miles away in Northtown, and another in Lexington. He stated that that he did not wish to see this area developed, and he did not see the need to continue developing every piece of undeveloped land. He indicated he has lived in ' '---'- ..s..=._.,. . �-- — --`-' !_ � - -' . f�.� -- -. . . . .--- - . � _ ;_.-.- . _- Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 7, 2000 Page 7 Mounds View for 12 years, and has walked through the proposed site, where there are de,er. He tb/ pointed out there was plenty of traffic in this area without the proposed trails. He stated:;t�2it that the City should examine this proposal very carefully, adding that if this area is �(�r be de�Ieloped, he does not believe a Walgreens Drugstore is appropriate for this loc�tion , .;> Barry Peterson, 7565 Edgewood Drive stated that that 1 Community Center create a campus that is very attractiv believe a Walgreens Drugstore would enhance the area. �.-� c> away from the City, it would be out of the City's conY� c� would not have an opportunity to change their minds. �-&�; parcel was utilized for a soccer field, and if there had been � and develop the area at that time, there would have bf appeared as if bit-by-bit, things have proceeded in this dtreet mnant parcei; ��;i�y; �-�.<�,1i anc� the ' _;> m Highw�� `1 �, �A��. �,� �icJ �1ot ated tlt��once the ��eE,�� i� r�l��x� �;. a 1��'.�period of ti��n�, �.�.�c� �;��r,,i��'' � ��, chat two years earli��, thi� :� 1<�Z i� ��ave over the soccer �'ield �_ �z�;r��:a�,�tr�r outcry, however, it Mr. Peterson stated that that Edgewood Drive is �it�re ai�� {;iive six�� k��; ��r;velopment of the Theater, particularly in terms of the small pond p�'`'C�i�, ��E�r�3�;� �� a i'emn<��i r��r�e1, which creates ,�.> .� the appearance of a downtown area which t�e;;lCity dors Y��:�,: c��z��i•��zs� h��e. He commented that � ,:..:F it would be a shame to lose that. He indic�t�d there w� ��`t�� a�,c,r�E; �1n�gstore within three miles �;r of the proposed site, in addition tc� ��rrider's d�stor-e, ��i2��.��x� pharmacy, and all of the pharmacies that operate within th� s,x �r;:�, z y stores<:��e explatn�d that there were many drugstores in the area, however, there were t�:�,z;� �6°�� rc�l�'such as this remaining in Mounds View. He stated that that other communities �ould noL �;��;icl�r- selliti��the land adjacent to their City Halls, and this pro�osal •did not ap��ar �i�'be very ��r� Z�n� s�nge planning, Mr. I�c�pi�� {��%;�l s;hat i��.�: �}�F; ��t�t��r of Hi�;��,1�� 10 and Edgewood Drive, with the addition of the Thea�,��, ��s ��;c�rra�: v�,�;� "��s;��, ��a�:�ac� one tragedy has already occurred. He indicated further congestior� r�c� �� r��r, � nr_� %�,'� �� x�,��; in and out of the site was simply not necessary. He stated that th�� a��: �� s �.w� l�c��r ��d�� Edgewood Middle School, and they both go to the Theater H�,a��i��l ��x� �: �+ �as a iK �� very difficult to cross the highway, and they did not need additior�at.tr�ffE on"t�iN �.ra��acy�`: ` r �'Cunningham, erstood and appr ect lightly, but � �ers. He statec l�c�in� �edestria� '�s�r��aiiv� of TOLD Development Company, stated that that he d�he neighbors' concerns. He indicated they were not coming into this , have been discussing their proposal with the City for a number of that they believe this proposal would enhance pedestrian safety by along the north side of Highway 10, connecting the sidewalk from the Drive to the sidewalk terminus adjacent to the Community Center. -�� i�a �;< ��:��artr�iragham stated that that the Midland Videen parcel, which consists of approximately 3.5 acres of developable land, is privately owned, and is not owned by the City at this point. He advised that the proposed transfer of one acre of the City's property for 8 acres of the remnant parcel of the Midland Videen site, and having TOLD Development Company pay for the upgrade to the storm water system and the trail system, represents an extremely fair deal to the City of Mounds View. r . . K �� _ � _ _ _ �, . I 3._...-�---..� ---. .v.--•- - _ - � � . i:� �-�� . : - -- . _�� _.. . _r ��.. �. �-..�_: -- -- - -=-� =--� Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 7, 2000 Page 8 Mr. Cunningham stated that that they were not looking to detract from the campus o� Hall, Community Center and the Theater, and with regard to the comment p�i•t�inin� �p being something of downtown Mounds View, this has been discus��r� ��. i��e Commission, and they had agreed, which was one of the reass�i� they w�;�-� ;�; o��t�sing architecture of the Walgreens be consistent with that of the �pmmunity C;en'r��, ,��; ,>�� that they also believe Walgreens, being primarily known as ��riagstore, alt��2i�,Y� �J. �� is an important addition to what might be considered a dow��`own Mouz��I��Viev�. �-�t� �� that the Culver's Restaurant was a mid-priced restaura�i �:��4; �atPr� ��''both adults a�xc� and they feel this would also be a very important and at� s�� :=r�� .c�c��.iion to a downtown View. Mr. Cunningham stated that that they are very excited at��i �aroud c+�` ��,�� forward to the Planning Commission. He indicatecl �is��y ax�� being s€��;�>i�; sensitive to the neighbors, and are literally hundre.�.; t�,� k�F;� ��N�y ft-orra development proposaL He stated that that th�y �3c�;�� %�i� w�� an development scheme, which adds value to the ��ty oi lo/Mc�u�c� e`��i�w ��.�` Chairperson Peterson requested c number of drugstores within a cer Mr. Cunningham stated that th� Developtri�nt Company. �-��: i� comrr�i�t�� :: coYne to tk�� i��, 'i Walg�-�;��a, �i�� :otidtact�c� �. r.na�� also loc�;� �:ca� forecas�� e that over � population c ,� in a ph�'�'�ni �,los�ly in��.� �� t; �le�r��nds i�� .�:ta�.�, :, derno� =':t�� City this area Planning that the ��ied out ry� r��ore, s hey have brought ��7� �vetlands, and �z��s� home in this �1y responsible a which determine the fhis was ��c��' a specui�tive venture on the part of TOLD cated Ve/fj.�f,� E�:�as kz�s approved the proposed site and are ��vided aI� '�� it� �pprovals are obtained. He advised that ��alysis, `i��;ing 'aware of their new store at Northtown, and �:�t�g�e'r.��ior► in the entire area. He explained that their sales �i�� 1��: i.�lere is a current and sustained demand. He indicated �� -t was brought forward which indicated that the K�'f�� !��r,� :�� z��in�, ��c� iherefore, the need for a pharmacy, and the goods sold nt, and th�� investment� ;:�v�x� rh� years. He stated that that Walgreens has made a �J�y%rlgreens to be an outstanding corporate citizen, which makes � u�a�ldings and quality operations in quality cities. `.. %;` . ��ry Moses, represer�'�ative o Midland Videen, stated t at that Paul Videen has owned the !'! • �X�;y ��je�t property sinC�;� 1950, and during that period of ownership, he has given the City of �tr��x��nc�� /xew eve�t`yt�iing they have ever requested, such as road easements and storm water �r:=��,� a,d �aa ��'�e�: He indicated Mr. Videen has pernutted festivals to be held on the property, ��:e�� Y�+��.;�vho has ever requested use of the property has been granted this freely, with no �;��. �. ;;�. �� .�tated that that Mr. Videen allows the Boy Scouts use of the property, and when the �;�uldren's I�ome Society requested to erect a sign on the property, Mr. Videen not only gave his permission, but also paid to have the permission drafted and charged them nothing. Mr. Moses indicated that over the years, Mr. Videen has had several different development ideas for the property, however, because the City's plans have changed so many times, the timing was - a .� � � � - �:. .�,. _ ___ __ _ _ : : ,, __ _ _ _ __ __ _....,� � . . , .. . _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ . _ _ __ _ ___.I Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 7, 2000 Page 9 never quite right, and none of these came to fruition. He advised that Mr. Videen is oldez now, ,�:.. and in poor health, and although he would be happy to hear that the neighbor's h�`�e'' been ;: enjoying the use of his property, it is private property. He noted tha"r' a�o on�, ii-om the neighborhood has ever approached Mr. Videen to purchase the property, an�1 �i.� ��.7��xl�d now like to sell. � � ��: Mr. Moses stated that after very close examination, they have.cletermined tha� �.h�s ��- �k�� :�ly �it� along Highway 10 in Mounds View that could be develop�t� for Comi�iercial us�, �z�,d� a� £:xQ� i�� some way, adjacent to residential property. He added �1�{ �h�y ar�`aware that 1vlota{��t�' �ji��t needs and desires more commercial development. Chairperson Peterson stated that Mr. Moses was correct wti�'A b��',fa��. �c�' r�a�.-� ,��amber of properties .<:,. available for commercial development, with the except�of��`of ir» �>A°��x p�� .K: �:1�� corner of Long Lake Road and Highway 10, which is a restaurant s�� that is nc��.' �f��e�ik��te,ly adjacent to residential property. Commissioner Kaden asked what would be uil� the property. Mr. Moses stated that one nt��an� easement from the existing owners, ancR �noth possible swap. He explained that ��x�.�:�. =k�� City Highway 10, it is in the position 4�� ,�ad�t billl indicated this area is much more �i�sira�r�; i; �: � would be difficult to negotiate with the own�€-'�� the right �ts it�stall a bi1lbQ�x�c� ca,�' �� new ��j� MnDQ`�', ��; Y�ointed �i�� ,�ia� �.�a�; City �r�� ilved cn fi��a;� ��'�Lt�minatiiig the billboard site on to ac�cari�pli��t i�i�� s�iald�be to purchase the sign �r a� he hac� ��;�yiPd in the past, would be a , ha�`��mended th� Code to allow billboards on new o�rd locatipn�"along the new Highway 10. He ;i�� of biliboard sites, and he did not believe it i��r ��,�er�ent to swap the site on the property for ��.� ,1qj'if the billboards were to be approved by ;f�� ven obtain some compensation in such a Mr. Moses 5t��.�;� ��c ��:_ F,va�� sae�iai+�� i�� he previous owner of the Bel Rae Ballroom property, and he did �s�� ,1i��=� ��; x�;��al� �� s��ai+,��lt to come to some agreement with him with regard to � f ,�:> the sec��d s'ign eas��c�� 1�3;p property, however, there was a fairly good chance that this has alread�r been taken ca�-�, m�; �� .�i City's purchase agreement of the Community Center property. H�,`��vised that anoth�r'a�r��;�p�> �+;� eliminate the signs would be by City condemnation. Cunningham cl company has a y�S�ilp SltultlQ:�; �i that Mr. Videen owns the tand underneath the billboard, however, the etual easement, which allows the billboard, and this was not a lease or fee rather an easement. �� i�homas inyuired how long Mr. Videen's property has been on the market. Mr. �liat he began marketing the property in 1992. Commissioner Thomas inquir.ed if Mr. Videen has received any firm offers on the property. Mr. Moses stated that at one time, there was an offer from a residential developer for single-level senior housing, however, something behind the scenes occurred which scared that buyer off. He ! F u- � , . _ -^ �3.. � l� - 1 _ �°� �s � r _... . r =a , - ----�—. . . ..�.. . - --- ---. ___ _._ _ _.._..._ , �----- _ , .. �_ _�� _�. --• ---- -----'-_' Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 indicated that through the years, other proposals have been brought forward, however, the;y were never in synchronization with what the City desired. He indicated the City has rezo't��d the �,r ;: . property several times and changed its Comprehensive Plan. He explained that at one �Cime, the property was zoned commercial, and other times it was zoned residential, ;a.n�l �h� iiming has never been quite right for Mr. Videen. �k{> .�� Commissioner Thomas inquired regarding the current that it was zoned B-3, Commercial. Commissioner Thomas inquired how far the large trees line, and if they could be saved rather than removed. Mr. Cunningham indicated that the trees generally be�;i wetland, to the east of the proposed development. �� 1� of both the wetland and tree line, and could pro�!��; F,. Commission. , Commissioner Thomas inquired re Edgewood Drive. She stated that � would be eliminated with the cons� that those trees would be included � Planning the sit� Commissi zoned Pl� process, or their ho�`�: ciate Ericson in relation�i� Associate =��"or 4 ; to the of the.:�t iat the d � �ropo Ja�i�x�in� o the ��;�.r�r�.y,,10 were from the ;��k,�� i:y �tihe �d,� ��a.� ��;��n delineated as �hat the� ��> >�-; �al��?.�;d delineations �Fo�mation �� ;t:��i� aA�.� the Planning creF��; �.�r �.�,r� `��erween the new and old tha� wr��- {�g°�vicJed, it appears that these ed pa�l�ing lot. Mr. Cunningham stated `indicate the location of those trees on ings, and parking lot, and bring that a� �r�t�� th��' A� �1�� A�.��,r� vvere to move forward, the wetland area would be ��r��r��op�-��i� �-�� t�c�i:a.ired if this could be zoned Open Space later in the p�rx�� %��o a, ,��1�; ry��> �hai the residents could be certain that the upland behind L�& c�� i�.'�f ,�"iF)c��. Ericspi� �� :�c� �hat staff would request the City Attorney's opinion in this ted that the Conservancy, Recreation and Preservation designation might for this property. ��?��%;� �evelopment Director Jopke stated that the Outlot site is designated as a natural �� >�;�±r,�; in the Comprehensive Plan, and this would provide some protection against future developtnent. He added that through the Planned Unit Development process, the only thing allowed to occur on that property would be exactly what is approved on the plan, and the property would be specified as Open Space on the plan, which would provide protection from that standpoint. He advised that if the proposed land swap occurs, the City would own the . _. . ' .� � .- � . 5 L � I I_- ' _`_ '�___-. " �" -_ . ._�- '. _ _ . _ '_r" �'_, _" ".... .. ___' ,. . ' ".__�_.w.-' '�_ "�_ � . = t Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 7, 2000 Page 11 property, and therefore, a number of protections would be in place to maintain the exists. Commissioner Laube pointed out that a Planned Unit D�vel inquired if it would be more appropriate to address this issuE rather than within the Planned Unit Development document Community Development Director Jopke advised that i change the designation at any given point, however, if the be the property owner, and therefore, would have completf Mr. Cunningham offered that if it was the desire of the City,.;�:r. Open Space, the City could attach a protective covenant �tc development, regardless of the zoning. Chairperson Peterson stated that in all of the pr��a,l� ��. Ii he was not aware of any proposed use fox`�riythi�� s�� property, with the remainder of the property��imply se�t�in� a; Mr. Cunningham stated that they had"b�'� upland, however, there appeared tc� be r� area as it exists, with the exceptio� of'a p � ck�� perty as it ;-.;V<:,;> �sy;; :: ��;. nded. . He esi�nation, awner cou�c� i�� s�� sc� ;� ces place, ih� �',�4�� >t�u�� the property. erty as perpetual ibit any form of � ior�n�-�x-�� for this property, e d�velopable area of this ��ervation role. :..;�, .:>�� ::;;.� u�rd the pos�ibiliiy o£' developing a park on the in this, but rather, more interest in leaving the trail. Commiss►oz��: 1�Iegland ;��1�;�;. '��at 112 �r��°1��1 ��paces were required for the proposed develo��a�rzf,� �� .nqui►-�f� a� ,,5��'��Kr�b�r w��`��ec� �a�on the Code requirement for this business. Plannin� ��s„�r��€: :�.� a� ��y�-+ ��m;�:r� a�i�� this requirement was set forth in Chapter 1121 of the City Code. . Commission k�s �;4��r�.�� k��:��+ ��p: it c�id �o�t appear that the applicant could meet this requirement, howeve�','��is app�;�a� �, r�� '�L, �� ,large number of parking spaces for such a use. He inquired , ;Y„ regar�iuig the numbe�� r�p' ��'_�� s� �.��;Fapplicant would generally desire for a project of this nature. ' Cunningham stated ��a� i�° �hese were stand-alone parcels, Walgreens would generally look 70 to 75 parking st�lt�, and a 4,500 square-foot Culver's Restaurant would generally look for �:::: �, 0 55 parking stal��j�vvhich is not inconsistent with the Code requirement, however, there was a �ix► synergy �r� k��nng the parking of these two businesses in close proximity to each other. He :»• �� d�!�� ksrig was more than adequate for the two proposed uses. ___ __ ___ �€�ar�.�a.�;��c�n�_:r Hegland stated that the proposed parking appeared to be somewhat excessive. Mr. Cunningham pointed out that it was somewhat less than that required by the City Code, and this was reflected in the synergy factor. Chairperson Peterson stated that there have been some ideas in the past regarding the drainage plan, and this was one of the reasons that at the Council level, it was decided that the pond should . --- -:�- � � ��_ h [� — � . .. - �-- -- --- . _- -- �` �' z: -� :� - , .�:--- : ` .:�_ . . _ .,.�� ---' -'-='—�- -- - �-� Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 7, 2000 Page 12 be moved to the other side of Edgewood Drive, so that it could potentially be elsewhere. He inquired regarding the current plans for the pond. Planning Associate Ericson stated that staiihas seen a draft c entire site, and this has been forwarded to the City Engineer the specifications and requirements would be for an expande located at the southern end of the Midland Videen propezty which is currently located under Edgewood Drive, would b� buildings, and would cross the wetland area. He stated ihai; proposed storm water pond, which would take in all of th� and City Hall, as well as all of the runoffthat comes down Er Planning Associate Ericson stated that all of the runoff directly underneath Highway 10, and there is no ip��a��. proposed that all of that storm water would be routeta ��'� sediments would have the opportunity to fall oui,>��c� $ Y�� F;. there would be an outlet, which would feed; back i��ic� Highway 10 right-of-way, and this would,��tinnect to tC�F 10. ..��...� ,�� ;r�"" : .. . ;� Planning Associate Ericson stated pond, however, it would create an be beneficial in terms of redu�in�!, water se�h�� :� County Ig.�� 3� ��. �"C�E�'t�;t€,t3r� �;�'¢'i'iY��;. �� aC�`�IXS�C'� l��A�'' and f��.�� z��`�' �� jeEl�nd �i surfac�° �w��c�� i��r��;��?��t b Planning Asstic��,�t� � �'a�;�� . size for.fi,��'pon�l ix► r�x��° ��:� .�%%, sew�r� #d` cross into th� �q�i h � �. fla�fi�ould reach the new �c �'�.�sed that all of the el��at � `/5 ��t�rminine the most angron plan, ,t�rm water pc�xzri, �>,��ai��a Ce explained �ha� ��a�, ;zr,c�� routed to itie north �� ;� ; �t�r� "sewer would d� �, ��- �. : �� s irc�d_r� the Walgreens, tris�t�el 1;:�,:av�. �elocated asses the w.rne what Nould be 1.�i'>ij✓�;, , ck� �� €kae i i14�.�3 `r.Ii� .:;� ��; r'�, m l:c��;�:�nXz��1 �.,��i�� currently drains i for �1�i� �vs�r�;:��, �� h�,�, indicated it is =;kra� xn w�ic�r i:,��rli,��r, pond, where the ��a:�� would pud�iiy, He stated that ��ax ��: 49��+��x a,[�at runs parallel to the �xr�� ;a��n��+ , vr�s underneath Highway F��hey w�� irncertain regarding the size of the storm water ?pporturiiiy �c�� alI of th� runoffto be treated, and it would also !ie poter►t.��1 a�� e��A�;tream flooding, as the size of the storm � not ad�:c�dz��£; t:�, .�r��dle all of the volume which runs down �;kii> woul�` ��fl-�vic�e a place for the storm water to cleanse itself , x��;"r� �,l�a�er state, and it would provide an overall regional �r� �h��`t�ie City Engineer is currently considering an appropriate �� +�odate the volume of flow, and the best location for the storm �-?�-: stated that the elevations appear to be acceptable, in that the ��;ci� the pond, and be diverted back underneath Highway 10. He > of contour appear to support this, and this is simply a matter of e location of the storm sewer s. �>t�z��,�uniiy �eve��i�'nent Director Jopke stated that staff has requested the City Engineer _ ;<, �;�a�ai�� +�a�.�r :� � 7��'and come forward with the best scheme to address the regional watershed ��2��r�;� ��a �xj� is called for in the Local Water Management Plan. He indicated this concept �v�� c�intiEC� co the developer, and is in the process of being fine-tuned at this point. He eac��aiYi�d ihat City staff has been involved in this process, and the City Engineer has also had conversations with the Rice Creek Watershed District in this regard. Commissioner Thomas inquired if altering the flow of runoff through the area would affect the residential properties. Community Development Director Jopke stated that the intent was that ,.. . .. . . . . �. ,� ' C - L Mounds View Planning Co�nmission Regular Meeting June 7, 2000 Page 13 there be a positive affect on overall drainage, as the runoff in this area and downstream would be better treated and accommodated. Commissioner Johnson added that this would also p;;r'��ide an opportunity for potential wetland credits. >' Chairperson Peterson inyuired if the proposed pond would be d�si�ned wi�� ia��ar��n� ��nlcs, and similar in style the pond at the Theater project, rather tha� th� drainag� ��4�fir,i�QS �;��,ilized at y��9' s < �, :. Mounds View Square. Community Development Director Jt�pi�e stated th,��t,ihi� v��'r c��-x��;��.. ��.h' �,. > ��ix,::r: Chairperson Peterson inquired if the pond would be attr�� ponds that require fences. Mr. Cunningham stated that th safe. He noted litter traps would be installed. Chairperson Peterson inquired if there was significant wetlands during different periods of the year. Mr. �etersA there was a foot or two of water in the area. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the pr� provide additional capacity to handle a 1 that there would be more control over water would be diverted into the poztd; wetland. , .... ... propo��.�, be siz�;� � which v�Ts Highway its banks. into the l Peterson inqut io itnissioner Kaden ands would be loc ic;a_�►y ��'� �y<y� atia �osed to the utilat' ld be visually attir �er levels of the times in the year, ��;�� -�n��'>�l�� s�ab��i�ze the water levels and a�:ior�, .��tin,� Associate Ericson stated : w,� c�x l;� �r�1sj in that more of the storm be l�ss lunoii draining directly into the r�d i�:�there co�� r; ;?q�� clditional flooding as a result of this ��, i�;:�on stated. ��f ��r k��e indicated the storm water ponds would ��•��€:�§• .r��.i�fall �v�a��:, �Y�d there would be an overflow storm sewer , r7i�J�E �.�� xcess volume underneath Highway 10, and into the y�c�p.�; .��.� ��3s� pond could not reach a point where it would overflow �, ��r��{� �?�;��v�� : �.�y�.--� ------ ---� .,: � ,.�` `: �� I � r ; : .- � �; � _ �. : : . _ _, : -- _ ---�- - �. �.:._� - ---�.�__ �_�_ �� , _ _ _ _ � Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 14 Commissioner Miller inquired how soon the applicant expected to hear from Ramsey �ounty regarding the access off of Highway 10. Planning Associate Ericson stated that there �;±��"some ,: consideration as to whether the applicant should meet with MnDOT or Rams�y Coun�, in light of the pending transfer of the roadway to Ramsey County. He;:<<explained i�i�� aa�y County would be the caretaker of the roadway in the future, and heres; have o�y s��;K� pr�liminary discussions at this point. The applicant desires to proceed wit��tiiys`matter wi�l�x�r� ��e-�'a�€��t w�ek. Commissioner Miller inquired if there were any traffic Associate Ericson stated that traffic counts for Edgewoo with a previous proposal, TOLD Development Company the anticipated volume of traffic that use would be gen� extrapolate this information to fit the current situation. l prepare this information for consideration at the next meet` Commissioner Laube inquired if the entire propQ access from Highway 10, or if the applicant wc�u�d Ramsey County denies further access. Mr C,ianni� that would have to be addressed. He ind��ated W right-out access from Highway 10, and t�iat'was the f;. County, adding that they would attemp� io show � and efficient manner. of Highr� Highway Steerixa� � the speed miles per which res Peterson st� � �, in conju °�u �T�lOfl � p� ��r,a�t�� hac� was a ver;�r°�trox�� cak �:F;::� in cc�njunction with Ed�eWOOd Drive and c�ritext of the access �;1��; meeting, and did �v�.ici� would not onlv up �.i�es av �i'1 F� .P, t7v � �ar�� ;t ��, of ��e ror rev��v. ��:��an� `available. H� ��3ci�;c� ti�a.t traffic study to c�E�c�=�+r�ita� ,�rould be fairly simple to �� ,�cated that they could '-'Irir�ai�r, �:"orrunission. �g upo�� ight-in, right-out � ight-ir� c��x�y, in the event that i��t thPre were many variables >tr�� as based upon a right-in, ��c:h �ie would approach Ramsey that they could do this in a safe ;d �-�at`#�� City of ��.l�t��.��ar�;; �i��,�r'is currently examining the safety issues ,fii�:t� �w:2��a issues ox` ��:�4,��e��;� ��d visual appeal, and attempting to make �si��la ��.�,t�«�11y sffl-r;i:��a r��i��roadway. He stated that the Highway 10 1�, ��::��;�ri;�u� �;vE;nirig, and all of the members felt very strongly that �y i Cl �,; ��,�c;e: ;�i��. He explained that the roadway was designed for 70 ��:c� a�. �fl �a�i�� ;�= hour, however, vehicles travel much faster than this �� ; o� w:1��: ��t� acceleration and deceleration lanes. He stated that there R�� .rF F-��r��ce the speed limit to 45, or possibly 40 miles per hour, which, ra��#� ��scaping and other measures, should make the corner of i�y,�JES,x i 0��afer. He pointed out that this may have some bearing in the f I�ighway 10, in that a representative of Ramsey County was present at indicate that it would be a problem to slightly reduce the speed limit ;fit this specific corner, but also, the entire City. �:"s�,x��r; a�� -;, ; f��i�son stated that another issue discussed by the Steering Corrunittee was that all �a�� '. {�.� ��g��a�'+Q,i�nts be mandated to install all of the bikeways and pathways, and any safety ��s�y �c�r: ��c;E:�sary along the highway. He indicated funds were available from Ramsey County so�� aid��c� or brick crossings on the road to slow traffic, as well as curbing of the medians, trees, and items of this nature. He explained that this would tend to have a calming affect on the speed of traffic, as opposed to a wide-open stretch of roadway. _:: � - � �- ___ _ _ . . . .� - � .. _ �---- - ; -. ..�. -. .� , _____ _ _ . __ _ ._. _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _____ _ _ _ _ _ __, , _ __ __ __ __ ___ __ _ _ �� Mounds View P►anning Commission Regular Meeting June 7, 2000 Page 15 Commissioner Johnson indicated the Steering Committee had compared Highway 10 to the; wider roads in the City, and determined that the wider roads are generally traveled at highex�.;�a'tes of < ::: speeds, however, the narrower roads, with overhanging trees and �il�ual x�t�rruptions automatically result in slower speeds. He advised that this was no longer iz� �as�:�.�ssion, but is in the process of taking place, and the residents should attend'��ese Hig�w�y 10 '�ev?lopment , ,. meetings, as this is where they would have the most signific�nt ��inpact regardiY��; �t�h.�� curs in the area, in terms of pathways, bikeways, crossings, and li��ii iiming. H� stater� �ha:� �� +�ould take place as soon as the roadway is turned back to Ram��y �'otanty, a.�t� Yt would ��> ��s� c��;�� in steps of 2, 5, 10 and 15 years, however, one of the in��.EC I�s��its would be th�� r ��r�' developments along the Highway would be required ce� ��x��;�� ;�id�walks, bike pa��l�y �nd walkways next to the highway, as well as landscaping anc� o�F��t t��r��us.�v->� items. Commissioner Johnson advised that when the road Transportation, there was very little the City could do � construction of bike paths along the highway two y��t� t this not be done in the very wide easement on i��i�wa�? �r,, , paths to be constructed on the property side,Q�;£ifie ditch, , explai��r� � i�:�, ar►d ll�r e, anr� they has no problem wrth tlus. He stated that t�t� +Crty s har�ds w�� that Ramsey County has control of the r�a�;� the Cit}� �'able �o Commissioner Hegland stated tl- conflict with the addition of safe roadway would result in reduce� together. " � points of t�7� �°�x��z��.��•� obtains a rig}�� x�. �,��'ra� along the lugi�w�y, f.�aF there ar�� =>S�acres a� A ,. ,,, therelGOuld actually l ��. cuz�`e'ntly only requesti ta �i ' ��}r �:�c; Department of �z�� ik��,y ��ad discussed the �L°��:� �.";� ��sponse was that wo�Y�� otc allow any bike p�.rs that Ramsey County h 1VInDOT, however, now with these measures. �f entrances �rid exits along the highway would rat�iways, ,u� �hat the increased traffic crossing the �fi�i th�t 1i`e was not certain how these would fit �i��,�e.;��'�,��E�r�; �aas already been some reduction in the number of access �x-op��bi.�� <�1��; �Iighway 10 regardless of whether or not the applicant ��<;�;e�,� ��a i.I�i� ��iiie. He stated that there would be 8 acres of frontage r��a�cl �io� �{; �;r�r:�ched once the City gains control of it, and at present, N��b�� l�nd on Highway 10, which is quite valuable. He indicated that �raa� a,�c��ses on the 8 acres of frontage, however, the applicant was issioner Thoma�`;;;�equested clarification regarding the physical features of the Culver's rant. Plann}�g''� Associate Ericson requested that the applicant bring promotional �tion regar,din�'�the Culver's Restaurants for the Planning Commission review at the next eterson requested an overview of the Culver's menu. Mr. Cunningham provided the Commission with a copy of the menu, and explained that it consisted primarily of grill items, in addition to soups, salads, and chili. He indicated Culver's does good business in frozen custard, serving a different flavor daily, as well as frozen shakes and malts. He explained that there is a children's menu and a kids' club, and this was a very family Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 7, 2000 Page 16 oriented restaurant. He stated that there is a Culver's Restaurant in close proximity to his;.home, and many senior citizens patronize this restaurant. He indicated Culver's is known;;`ft��' their extremely clean facilities. ;; �'''� Chairperson Peterson inquired if Culver's was a regional chain. ;><;�;� 5:<;.; �'' F='s :�:.::;;;_>,.- f>:;.;; Mr. Cunningham stated that Culver's is based out of �a.t�l� �ity, Wisc located in virtually every small town in Wisconsin, and iJ�.�,� �e�e doing.,� : the metropolitan areas. He indicated each of the rest�L�� znd��en would be dealing with a local franchisee at the proposed �is:�.. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the exterior design of the b�z�t�it�ig� �°�°z� �� ? � Cunningham stated that he believed there was some latitud`� i� terrx-�s ��' �>laF Runs Mae, 5398 St. Stephen Street stated that oz�� : : from the vehicles that utilize the drive-throug��,�f t��E residents in this area have experienced sigruf�ant noi Ballroom in the past, and sound carries in t1tisF"area. T; Commissioner Laube stated that some type of evergreens be plantf appear on the site plan. I�e in� screenin� such as plan�iz��5 � �t particulax�y ��.,i �ir�p the wi�t'€'a' �ta�>,:a Mr. Cui��a�a��;�� ;�ta��c� include �1��t�x�.,s�,;� ic� ,u Restaurants c�c� �� ' ;a�� 10:00 p.m.. � �� s��. ensure thE�� are na�. ��.�r; ,.,�,;� wout��e a substantial �� coul�'be addressed a� �.�� ing Associate xamatelv 550 f� ed th�; than �� nstn, �wti;lt 3'�;��j�l��ayais �tural pra�esaic�� ?,�i.� ently ownerl, ��n:r� g.�da��j� ��-uorate standard. Mr. �,;�r��;�rns vv�� ' �aotential for noise I��'',n �':.estau��a�lx. ' �he indicated the n��l;��a� �sso��ated with the Bel Rae �s, the Pl�rining Commission had requested :rve as a;;;s;oiand barrier, however, they did not barri�ir<;y should consist of a natural type of ��czd this was to screen the vehicle noise i1e �;��, �,�.�xr��a�ing plan is very preliminary. He indicated they would ��rr�c �t ��.��;�rig ;, He pointed out that to his awareness, Culver's �:��. {�Ja a��-Ixt��1t� basis, and they all appear to close at appro�cimately ��at �I�� o�� of operation could be discussed with the franchisee, to '�3a.: ��. �h� evening. He indicated that the drive-through order window ��.��;,�: ��i� the nearest residential property, and the issue of vehicle noise >� �j��i ��-�ceeds. n stated that the drive-through window at the Culver's Restaurant was feet from the back property line of the homes along St. Stephen Street. ��a�x��;,��x��;�°; t��xlier inquired regarding the size of the proposed Walgreens in comparison to the ;�:��.� ��A� �,��z�; ii�rive and at Northtown. Mr. Cunningham stated that as a retailer Walgreens is �t��a��a��Iy aiier�pting to modify their plan. He explained that the latest incarnation of the �Ialgreens plan, as depicted on the site plan, was 14,490 square feet. He advised that the most recently constructed store was approximately 500 square feet larger than this, and the facility at Northtown, was 15,120 square feet in size. !- . • L .� : ,�_ ;_ . . .� : .... ��i . - . L:.-. . .._ _��_ 1 L._ ,�: _� - -- --_ . �:� �� ______ =- � f Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 7, 2000 Page 17 Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding the size of the Walgreens located in the city of Fridley. ,.;:::;. Mr. Cunningham indicated this store was 13,390 square feet in size, and all of the buildiiz�g'sizes ; ;. were within 10 percent of each other, however, they were all subje�� to sax�e design , ;,, modifications. , Chairperson Peterson stated that the two proposed buildings �peared to b� 'Yrior� �i�E��; `�00 feet from the nearest residential property. Commissioner Kaden stated that he was aware that souY►c� �<i�°�-.i�� f��er over open iv��%' �.z�� a�` the applicant could provide additional trees and plantir►gs, �hr� �rc�i��ci assist in blockit7g ��s�� oi the noise. Mr. Cunningham stated that this would be incorpo�-�� z��%cx �l�P landscape plan. Chairperson Peterson inquired if there was further informat�on rcg� r ��w.��; ��z.� l��hting plan. Planning Associate Ericson stated that not at this t�m�; 1f�3�h7��:r, ther�, tN�r ;:� ��sibility that some type of decorative lighting might be incorporated iraz� #;?-z�; ��x�, �-�e er��lairi�c�. r1�at the Director of Public Works had discussed decorative lightixtg'alor��, h;��,��r��cl �rive with the owners of the Theater, and if this was to occur, it might h� possible t�? inco�•��a'��; ��irriilar design style into this ,.,: proposed development. ��r �:,.<<.. Chairperson Peterson stated that i� �dtlition �o tk�� need for �i�iewalks and paths along Highway 10, one of the items brought forw�.rd by t�?c ��.�;c;ring C�m�iittee pertained to the fact that this �.f, ,.. area is very dark, He poinied outs that it rr��;�;i�� 6� b��te�cial to incorporate the trailway in the lighting ��l�e�ti��ic�x- the parlci�� a.'� ' Comrru�s;,��R�;�� ;�.,��ibrl ir�c��ai�-�� 1��,1 ��a� applicant proposes to address the issue of the pathway along Hi��b•ti��?� �(3, '�� ,'X�Y��aixa�, ��,t�r:�.�� ricson stated that the applicant would have to examine the site plax� a:��c� ��;��r�rr��4; �� hc��u��.��i� �ould be reoriented or the parking lot resized in order to accommodat��,c �5��r�r��,f; / , s,� Com�russioner Hegl� �e� I��n� k�� ;d a Af the applicant has been provided sufficient information reg��rling the City's ex��;�s��,�� _ or this pathway. Planning Associate Ericson stated that yes, �rng that this was simpl� a matter of putting this in writing and bringing the matter back before �:_..;.<.;<; ,��.� �il�; C01111]11SSlOri. S�� .>. ,, �;'��as��erson Peter�stiri"stated that the right-of-way along Highway 10 was current y very wi e, an ��,3��`� c1��.� �-a�t allow any paths or things of this nature in their right-of-way, however, as part ��' �� c��v��r�Xiflnent of the Highway 10 corridor, it is possible that the width of the right-of-way _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ �;��I.�:;,��; �l�cxc�sed, leaving additional green space that could be used for the City's benefit, but not actually as part of the Ramsey County Highway right-of-way. There was a question regarding whether or not a trail could fit in this area and be resolved in that time frame, or if the applicant would be required to work with the current road standard. � � _� . . ,. . . e z� � � _ � �_ . ------- --- _ . _ __ _ _. � _ _ _ . _ _ . _� � �_ _ . _ . ... �:- .� __.. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 18 Planning Associate Ericson stated that Ramsey County appears to be willing to work w�th the �<;.. City in terms of a pedestrian way, the decorative lighting, and some type of plantings in.t�e right- of-way, therefore, that option is a possibility, however it has not been discuss�ri � � t�us ppint. Commissioner Johnson stated that until the road is turned back�� t,amsey �`�ii��at�, fkii� i� still up for discussion, and if the applicant is requesting a right-m, �ig��=out access, �h� ��sibility of additional room along the highway could be discussed in Gon�u�ction with t,h�s� Commissioner Thomas stated that there was considerable ��c�c�n��l r�a�'operty in this lac,xa��r�, ��2� significant lighting has been built up in this area. She inr�ic��t<4ri :� Ey�� . with two more eve�z�r��; �nd late night businesses at this corner, she would be interesteci �� i�= s�� r��:?'r.iri� shielded lights in �:he plan, and determining what could be done to prevent light frp�> ��t�'�s ,��a,�� @,��, 3ite. l -:.. Mr. Cunningham stated that they will provide a phoLc�x�a�i.ric analysl:��y' whic�i �p�cifies the light candle throughout the entire site plan that would b� ��;t'�fl��i by the pj�t��US�c� uses. He stated that the photometric analysis indicates there (/�vc�ulc� ��:'��a li�h� spilla e beyond the outside 2 �y •�y � boundaries of the property. ,�;��' Commissioner Thomas inyuired Af th� p consideration as well. Mr. Cunna�a�;l�� st� specific to the lighting fixtures thai �°,�t�'�c1` b� Planning hooded advis�c� residerntial xat homes locai socia,te as als� !�� :'�� 91A� t� �S� f`o��.(. `, �.�19 � �L��xzei'.! �J�,°� +:Y�_� w��:1 ��`,r ��'��,c� I :t,,,txt`�''C analysi� ; �.�c,k directional lighting into �� this was �i�rrect. He explained that it was orated int�3��he project. that the �ity �€��y �equires that the proposed lighting be of the b�lb, �r�d ��i� � the light be directed downward. He ?c�uiremen� ��ia� stipulates that the light shall not escape the �x��iic�nti cor�cern to the City. He stated that in light of the ��yt %n consideration of the City Hall campus area and the ,�:k;ir;r.� `as a concern to maintain a residential feel to this .ix��;;_�ouid have to be consistent and in keeping with that. ��rson Petersor� �� P� �,�e<��; :i�wer light standards were utilized at the Theater to prevent spheric light froYn ��hg�aa�g; p:��e property. He explained that although the Code does not � any direct light tor,s�lll dnto other properties, in certain conditions, the lighting generates a , which is reduced`�through the lowering of the light standards. He suggested this might be � ��> �orated into thisl�ghting plan as well. �ac�mas stated that the Theater and trees separate the residential properties in this tree break is not present in this case. Commissioner Johnson stated that regardless of this, the Code requires that no light leave the property. Planning Associate Ericson pointed out that if there is some lighting closer to the street on Edgewood Drive it might be beneficial from a safety standpoint, as opposed to the opposite end of the site where it wouid be preferable to avoid any light spillage. , — � ; :.. - _u � � -- . . - - _ _ _ __ � .s�:�:�. . , __ � Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regul�r Meeting Page 19 Commissioner Kaden stated that with regard to the comment pertaining to why a Walgreens Drugstore was necessary when it is in such close pro�mity to other drugstores, he und'�stood this concern, and had wondered for many years why the City would allow a�Zet�.� �as ,st�tlon to be constructed when this would drive another one out of business. He ind�ca��c� ��:�''attended a Planning and Land Use seminar, where he discovered that acc��d�g to th� �v�r'`;�r,� �ourt, if a property is zoned for a specific use, and the developer meets ail �fthe requir�r��,��a,'��r. �;iiy may not disallow the use on the basis that there are too man,r pther simila� �ses �i� ti�� .. 1"-Ie advised that this would be in violation of the U.S. Constit��,�a;�, as wel�;,ds the Comx:��xc.i��'�;c3r,1.�y; :.;� : therefore, if a proposal meets all of the specifications, ��n�� 1��; zon�xg` is in place, �1�� r;�� ta�; allowed to proceed. Barry Peterson, Edgewood Drive stated that he however, the subject property is public land. Co� land is privately owned. Mr. Peterson stated that the Midland Videen was City owned, and this parcel was necess�.r� if the development could occur without the;� that it could, however, it would be in claser � loose access to all of the woods. Mr. Peterson stated that he was t�c��. oppos��a: concerns. He requested claz�fica�csri regard��.� the propsa�c�� ocation of -�� ;��d�� docks, �., Mr. Cuilizi�'� depicted ar� most visible � ;� ��p;�;�i "�:��,ii i�(� �()�C l�,ja�<� 'r.r�sh �otnY��i,b , , : :f 'r,�� ;��l�r�.�; s 1Ze��ta inquired order �c,�� s na�'�el o to u�'.�� a ��r� �o private property, hn�o7� ��i�`sri<;�� hat at this time, the � e,�wnec�, �low�,i��;i, the small pond �a��jasat t�'proceed. He inquired �at� �ar�imissioner Johnson stated � t�� I7e residents, and they would s propq�:l, however, had some questions and �£�ae� to the traffic in the area. He stated that ��nted on the site plan, did not appear to be cks were proposed. He explained that the site plan an overhead door facing northeast, which would be for both buildings would be taken off of Edgewood Drive. d be a shared entrance for both the Culver's Restaurant and i��gY; Peterson stated t��t this would significantly affect the levels of traffic in the area. He stated ��;��" i�he Theater,�?iC�ject Planned Unit Development had undergone many changes, and it was c�t+��. � a-��pll�ct all of the things that occurred, however, the residents were ultimately f: ��`ss�°��a�-;r{ yr�� ;t�iis was just a"bitter pill" that they would have to swallow. He stated that he did �� r�.4�f-.: io come to a point in this process where it is just another "bitter pill" that they must swallow because the project was so far along, and he would like to know these things in advance. Commissioner Johnson stated that the "bitter pill" in this situation would be the Midland Videen lot, which is currently zoned B-3, and as Commissioner Kaden had stated, if someone came in with a proposal to develop the 3.5 acres of developable land and could meet all of the '.. :�:: - _r. L . � � -- -- - . . �� .... i'_"Q„' . - "�,� L�.=.s-- -�u:��"- r----------_ C:J<'-_.� `...__..,_.� - r ::i �__ ._ . Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 7, 2000 Page 20 requirements, the City could not stop them. He added that with this proposal, the City, would maintain control over the development process. , Mr. Peterson inquired regarding the value of the Midland Videen prop��ty ,>�.�Ynmissioner Johnson advised that developable property fronting Highway 1�43��was wortl� �i€;�.v�r�:��r `�� amd $10 per square-foot. Mr. Peterson inquired what this particular` p�tiperty was �?ut�Y��It �uit� only 3. S acres of developable land, and how this compared to the val�� t�f the City,�prc�r�er��. j Commissioner Johnson advised that there was a storm t��r ��nd City-owned parcel. Mr. Peterson stated that the pond v�ol�l� i.,�; i�;�; explained that with the pond in the middle of the parcel, it v��a,z �� ,n property, because the pond must be relocated if the land is k£u �rs' ��;�; relocate the pond unless the Midland Videen property �T� � invo� :1 commented that this was probably the best proposal ��.c c�i'ry woulcl. preserving the green space and other factors. ,: cated in the rnidc�I�;': a�i` �L� ved. Chairperson l�e;d€;� son `(.k� anything as commercial ra_��c.� ��aere was no place to ��'��,�1A�issioner Johnson ;� �x� �(ai�;sxte, in terms of Mr. Peterson stated that this development :��uld t�x��;��.�;` t�� :�i�; �,onrAi�uity of the area. He explained that this commercial developme��>�vvas props�sec� �ts �ar I�r,�� in the middle of the City , , .;. HaIU Community Center campus area , tCommissivrier .To��a�� scai�ecl that this was correct, :. ;:<,: however, this developer was willin� �t�' work w�tth the Ci�� in terms of a design, which is . . .. <.> >.' , r cons�stent with the surrounding fea��'es. � ' •� ;•.�.�' F � �A Mr. Petersan stated that tl�g pt°��*�ri�ous ye�ar,,; r� ��;�i��A�iaire was sent out to the residents to determine �Y�7��a��; ��ould b�:r�ta�.�; vvzth the Cii_�� a��•�c;l, �nd in his understanding, there was a very rrunimal�t��c�;A,y�, how��r��, �kae �x��jorxty oa c�a��c� who responded indicated they felt this land Community appraisal o� further it�y r�fc��r��f;.�. ��s �r�:r�b- �� ted that staff has met with an appraiser to obtain an ��. �n�.�� "'4-�l a;F��.�;1 ��d �,�� utlot, and they anticipate that by the end of the month, iob� �;r��a,�� d,s�; {';r�il�ble"in this regard. erson Peterson ty development Commissioner ��✓k��e in relationship to the wetland boundary the Midland Videen �ccur, if it were to be developed independently of the City remnant indicated it would abut the residential property. `��?��1�Y�� Asso�tate �t`icson stated that the Midland Videen parcel is 9.4 acres in total, of which -��,a��.�.��y; `� �cres is upland. He advised that there were ways to reconfigure the wetland, and �� 9��F� ��zi�t� s�v1s all shifted to one side, with the consent of the Rice Creek Watershed District, ��tj��yr�.+:;��" a.a�ea� to the rear could be mitigated or combined with the uplands to create a more �ea,iule �levelopment scenario. He commented that this was a possibility, although it was not anything that the City would like to see. Planning Associate Ericson stated that that site could be developed, and as all were aware, such acreage on Highway 10 in such close proximity to the Twin Cities simply does not exist, and they __ ; _. ✓. . .. - �.�-' i �� _ : �.: � ------_ _ _ , . _ _ . _ � Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular° Meeting Page 21 are presently seeing development on what was previously considered to be undevelopable land. He pointed out that properties that were marginal, at best, were now being developed. ;�e`'stated :. that a couple of houses were currently being constructed in the City on ��r�� .,a-�1es, thaf` no one would have thought to build upon in the recent past, therefores,, the pos:�ii�� Yr �;,a�s�� that with some mitigation there could be significant area for development L�ti�his prc�q.��?,:r,;y. Chairperson Peterson stated that he would prefer to see access on Edgewood Drive, and farther from the resident� access further down the highway. He added that given th� sell and do something with the land, something would oc�� Planning Associate Ericson stated that the next Planning Cc�r ,< :, June 219`, and the residents in attendance were welcorn�: tc explained that the residents who signed in would t� ��x��clF was happening in the future with this project. He c��d;rl 't��' been a public hearing this early in the discussion, �� .��i�y °tv�� < plans were not available for Planning Commt:��an reviep,u, ��ae�� of this project, and the fact that it involve�; �iublic lat�d; �N�� i r. > discussion as early as possible, to obtain f�edback that �ould b Planning Associate Ericson stated the Preliminary Plat, as well as a, addition to,the dimensiori� ��-ac� i� some l;. ;�3� d�� scamples w�t�It� d.��; ` that i`r ;hr�7; ��;��E�ci �Pnat �hfi� '��s,cF;' that tl��,' ��s�zt�`��s�i�� rc�v.P��4 �ra� �� COIT1TT115Si0Y2r%� � � %YI discussion p�ri�T��ri� She inQU�ec�'`if thac �pment cia�±�r tc �±., rather>tl�an to i;laa� :tlie`nronert� erty, regardles�. l0 T�i�>�i�ra �n�tinp would be held on �iic��2�� Pii�t� Fa�€��trng as well. He with irii��xr��3�%s�E�� ;�egarding what �at typ?c:��l,i, ��c; would not have r�r�limina�y �;c�orc�pt, and all of the c;v�€`, staff believed that the nature ��ecd ��'��uding the residents in the i�tili7rad for making this decision. °�+`i: i:he ne�� :rr�eeting, th�;applicant would be able to provide , .:.•. �l�n, whi�h addresses;�ail' of the issues that were discussed in of thi� ra��f►��;: �3e indicated the photometric analysis and re the ��;�a��.�r�i;��2�sn; as well as the landscape plan. He stated l�n wou�c� ��: �o�npleted at that point, and any other items �-�view at that time. tha� `�6. r�.�'�zz�� the Theater project was proposed, there was some �ro��rt�, �� erms of including some of the land for of�'ice buildings. t�� epresented further development along Highway 10. �/�;, ; ;> >�`munity Developrn�a.>.a, �ir��tor Jopke advised that there were a number of discussions going ,�,, , :��C to the University ;�� Utinnesota study of the City about what would happen to this entire . �a. He stated tha�;':;� concepts that were brought forward pertaining to many different ,�;., s��o�-tunities for addt�onal development including the relocation City Hall to a different building .�:f.�, �� , �.��.�� for addit��i��1 office development along Highway 10 in this particular area. He explained s/",,i''. _a� .,��:A�.��; �r��r� S�me ideas, however, none of these have come to fruition. ��`� �� r _�;�z��,�°ir�u�n, 2564 Greenfield Avenue stated that there is significant traffic at the intersection on Edgewood Drive, particularly in the morning and evening hours. He indicated the intersection appears to be narrow, particularly in the center area, which makes turning from any direction very difficult. He suggested that when the traffic patterns are determined and the concept comes forward, the applicant discuss this with Ramsey County, and inquire regarding the possibility of � -- r�,-:. -- - - _ : . . s _ . "_- -� t�-� � �__'-� - �-- - - - � - �:� .�__ ...,,_�:' . i�_ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 7, 2000 Page 22 widening the intersection for safety purposes, and extending the light timing so that peo�?le are able to cross completely, rather than just halfway across the highway. :<>`��`��'' ,..,,;;,,Y ;>. Chairperson Peterson requested clarification. Mr. Akerman stated thaa ��r ;r�'K: �� section on Highway 10 appears to be 12 to 15 feet narrower in the centec,t�a� it is o�a ��cs ��5+�� on either �n side of the highway. He explained that vehicles traveling no�f� ar��south on �-��;�r�r�y ��ave to make a tight turn to go through the intersection, and then t�`it�st adjust th��r.vF ��A�,#r,� �;� ��;:�r rhs , proper lane. ��i , �� Chairperson Peterson stated that it appeared from the sitE Highway 10 at a slight angle. He suggested this portion of involve moving those medians back. , Mr. Akerman stated that a left hand turn lane shoulcl hand turn lane or a lane that goes through and turn,s:iit traffic coming in the opposite direction, this �r�aiE attempting to go in both directions. He stated i�at h�; evenings, when there is increased traffic ��'the area Theater has become somewhat of a shoz�t�ut for ve� �.�� rather that taking County Road H 2 i4 �.ighway 1,��'" Commissioner Johnson advised over the li�ht timing. He ind°i�a that was �g��i;�� as that ther� � of the I��;�r�� :n�, of Tt•�a��r�� He stat�� :� �� `��r.�� d1c�� c��t�. LED liglx�.�, ;his��,� t�c;i�, �i�ny ��aYi Mr. Ackerman.si�c�� , could ;�his iss�. here wo no way cr� liter� Edgewood Drive ae;r;� 9��s �;y,10 redevelopment nught ded bccau�� .�ac:�°�; �> �urrently a right ;� t�ca Edgewo�t� �'�� t�e, and if there is �t��;�t��i�i of a ��a�:��c jam for vehicles �a.i�,��Ir3x-�y ��c�7.iced this in the mornings and �ic, d�ci�F�� f�aat' ��e road adjacent to the es iflaf; �3��a•r€�; thY�ough the neighborhoods �:r��alc� be addr.�ssed now that there is more control c.� b� ��c��light timing, because one of the points c;�'t�a� g�� ighway on one light, and representatives hat� �to run to make it halfway across the highway. ;ction could be widened, as this was one of the new be possible. ��a,�;��c wo�z��d;;be more potential for an accident with this development, ri�+:° ��ming�°off of Highway 10 or from the ball field, and perhaps the ��: � i.�� lane with this project, to safeguard against problems in the Moses stated that;�ith regard to crossing the highway, this was comparable to a problem the f':%'.;::: �a,ds were experie;z�cing in that trains are deceiving and appear to be slow moving because of :�ax-�e size. H��';��plained that highways and freeways are similar in that they do not appear to �,<��,� �r4y��jae� to cross until you are actually in the process, and he believed an educational t;;:,' �� ? 4��c;�;ssary with regard to perception, such as that utilized by the railroads. James Faracy, 5298 St. Stephen Street stated that it would make more sense for the City to purchase the entire parcel because it is a piece of property that does not exist anywhere else, and he believed the City should have taken action to obtain that property. He inquired what assurances the residents on St. Stephens Street have that the developable 3.5 acres would not be developed in the future. _.- �� _ _ _ _ _ . .� � � _ : � � � _, _ � _ � � � _ ____ ____ _ _ __ _ ___ _ _ l; Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 23 Commissioner Johnson stated that at this time there were none, short of purchasing themselves, however, the land swap would take care of this. Mr. Faracy inquired what assurances the residents would property for development after the land swap. __ the C�x,��rc�i�li� =�:��o�: �ell the Commissioner Johnson explained that this property i��; t�� n di; s-. Chairperson Peterson stated that one of the main factors a� @�j��: �Ilr� �r�i and there are many City, State, and Federal statutes, as wr-;i.a d�..� t��c� �ir� which prohibit the filling of wetland. He pointed out tha� �r =��<.rs �� disturb the drainage pattern, therefore, he could envision �� :,��A,t� :�ac�a have any interest in developing the site beyond the current�propo.s�L �� a covenant might be written into the deed to providF th�x. th,�<� propF�i.y i Commissioner Kaden stated that he would be tn fF desire further development of this property ,ai�£,�iii; Council or City Planner might decide that `s�ich a Laube added that in the future, State laws zriight be Chairperson Peterson pointed out �f ` fl ,, ;F'' ��"' � �' ��s�sed as �4:x;��c� ��r�, �� , perty �s preseni 5� ��,r��,ld��; �reek Watershed �l��rict, � �?�lyone's best inierest to � �herein the City would .' xi��.�r� x}ae suggestion that '�-;cr�<}.z�:�' �. ;�atural space. �� ` �l�i�,�. ��c� a��ised d:k�at: ihe City may not ti�r�e5 p�4a�i�,�r��'S �r� i}�e,future, a different City rent�ar� v�c�ulci.''$��; ��Sy" money. Corrunissioner cl�fi'eren� as �v€e�i. »��. :-� � issues wou�fl still be present. .:,> Mr. Cunningham stated that ttt�`�'�tility pl��z�a�c� f�a� �h�'3.5 acres of upland adjacent to the residence5:i, �� i,iture stoa,�� x,��?w:�;��'�etentioc�, ' Mr. Fat'�y h;�f,��'�:« �� :}�xk�4�� t ;,'��: property along Highway 10 was undevelopable. Mr. Cunningh�br� ��ar� ��: �3��i:� w�� r�'��.� ��r�wever, it was conceivable that the wetland on that site could be rrur�f;rR�,��;s� �r� ��a�� . x�E��.�r�° 7�, 4��.� �reate a developable strip along the highway. ., ,: ,.. >:, � Plannin$ ��ssociat� �=� �•��c�� r��a�Y-�d to the site plan and pointed out the areas of wetland and lc��able land. lopment in the Id allow some fi the proposed ar tway 10 access, :c�1ce the nron� �; �r��a��f�<t� there are wetland regulations, which would prohibit any et��t�� r��, however, there are provisions within these regulations that ig ,c�f the wetland if those areas were mitigated at a 2 to 1 ratio. He advised ;;�puld be developed in its existing state, as it is zoned Commercial and has ;:.,�. �ich he believed was one of the City's reasons for considering this proposal, off of the market commercially. He stated that the City has always had the e this property. 1°.F._ , i, �-;v v�:,� ��dicated the suggestion to place restrictive covenants in the deed pertaining to the use of this property was an excellent idea, however, the City has condemnation rights over almost anything that is done, and this could be changed. He advised that one answer would be to place a conservation easement over this land, and give it over to the State or some higher entity than the City, which would take away the City's ability to do this. � - - , ; , �.� � �� ; _ �. _ � � ��. . _ _ ,__ : Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 24 Mr. Cunningham pointed out however, that if the City were to do this at this time, it;.would eliminate the City's future opportunity to utilize this land for wetland mitigation, and ,t�c�i'efore, the City might desire the property remain as it is until it is turned over. Mr. �i��F;,; ex�s�ained that the City should attempt to obtain all that they desire from the property, af%�;� v,r.t��;��,'to prevent any commercial development, this might be the answer. �ry,rfff ;£y Commissioner Hegland pointed out that having the prop�Y-� be the best assurance that it would not be developed. lf.� possibility that the property could be developed in the fuii control, and there would have to be many citizens in favor occur. He stated that this has been done in the past, ho City's control would provide no greater assurance that it w� Mr. Faracy stated that the City was currently propo stated that the City has the one-acre parcel, and tl parcel to develop the land, therefore, it is not��cle�'ii any protection against development. Mr: `��'arac� ,.:< understood the nature of business, howevsi',��he had 5 �. the maximum protection for the r�sic�er►�� ri the area::'. of the proposed development, howc�v€��-, ��; had gqcSt�'' Commissioner Johnson stated th�, tl�e zon designated ,public Open Sp�,�`F �uciuld have Laube an�;x�f;,s;�c� a covenata� c��t��.�� :;�, added �� Mr. Fa�`��f ��ac��x <�<i ��w Associat� �;�°�r,��t ��;°=��c�cJ. be drafted to��i��r�.a�� h the develo�m�x±.� �r.��r.a�{�.'. set fort�� t}ie c1.rv��frs��r�: s�%n> dedic��bn of an easei�E�a� + / �-• to a�`�outside party, ofl- �orc�� ,��. �v�uld be clarified in si�r�ii .;:<<:;<;: �'r�nership, and these is��e: <:.- „ the City's +r,t�n�ros � �c��cf �� ?bly �• �lained.;��f' althoug�� .}�c+. �;'� � ti� a;� �� l,the �ity, it would bF rp��x "'i��r �r;��. ��E�elopment in orde�� c�; i� io :a�; �n�� ;�; �fne property ou� oi ihe ��, �� i:rade �;ity :�d:��ci _�c�� vate land. He �r �� i�cussin� �;�r�sr�ra.�r►g that one-acre �.+. �+�ac; �"�%y's own�r-:��n�p of the property is r.�,t�r� �l��si }�e w�t�` a businessman, and t�ce�d�4� s��;�:�d°r�ii�� the best means to ensure ie s�ar�c� ��,�i �ie lived on the opposite side ends w��ase homes back up to the site. �h� new.'parcel, which is being discussed as i��{ �� impact on this matter. Commissioner �� a��;'��roperty remains in this designation. ��; +-:�;�i��aA:s could be certain that this has been done. Planning 17� ��4��`ta>�� r`tg� land swap could occur, a contract and language would c�wap, �r�.��, �hc; �erms of this agreement would be spelled out within _ _. ` r� ��i �� .cf ��;� t�►e transfer of land would occur with the stipulations y°tsr��,,�� t, including other actions in conjunction with that, such as the �r�;a� ��I�fi entirety of that land, whether that be by conservancy easement ��r� covenants that are placed on the deed. He indicated those issues cant detail in the language that would create the transfer of property would be all be resolved prior to the land swap. ��1�r��ix�� Asso�iate��ricson stated that the Planning Commission and the City Council could �:w ��7�-��°.��;. +��:��, ¢:�� :`�cres of the Midland Videen site was to be for perpetual public use and remain ��t�c��aa'�r��, �:,�,wever, the next Council might feel differently, and there was no protection that ��r.��c� ;��°t��zt�i� �he City from changing its mind at some point in the future, short of the dedication of the land to an outside party by a conservancy easement. He added that the one-acre parcel on the corner was public land, and the City was currently making the case that they could transfer this land and turn it into commercial development, with the trade off being that the City obtains 8 acres in return, however in essence, the City is proposing to sell ofi public land, and there is nothing to prevent the City from doing this again in the future. _ : , — Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting _, :�� June 7, 2000 Page 25 Mr. Cunningham suggested the land might be dedicated to the Park District as a park, as,:,�it;>�vould likely be much more difficult to sell a park. '' Planning Associate Ericson stated that the entire City Hall ca��t�au area is cc�.A�yi�i�p c�r1 �� park. He advised that the City has powers of condemnation and em��g�ii domain, t�a�,'�i��'�>, �� he City desires to do something, it will. ,:: �:<,:;r Community Development Director Jopke stated that staii � determine what alternatives exist, and report this informa� City Council. Commissioner Laube stated that a covenant would developed, however, it would be more difficult to c�o, i� have to be notified. He pointed out that the Planiug�o � this matter, as the City Council could always ov,��-nal� �� Mr. Faracy commented that given the numk?er of great as they appear. He stated that if sox�riething ofthis land more difficult at mini;r��xa��,':�� vould d the residents in the area. ''" Chairpersor� Peterson sta other le�� t��aod to de� with th� �. ��x � ��x� �ity Ca� move �fa��4r��i��, a��;,i-�rn�. wetland, �?r�c� 4�'rA�1� ;.u��16��rac to be mitiga��rd ��, �. � ��c� have to creaie �:�a��x�: !a�°��, �� ,r,onsu�i��with the City ��t�ix��r 1��: ;� i�� lanning Commissioi� and �f�e iot 'ensiaY c� ia�� F.l��; :la.nd would not be vould cost ��cr��y, a�ri tlt�>,citizens would ��ita�ission does �70� �iave the final say in ;a� i�;co'mxr►endatio�n. its �x•�;s�;:�;., §Y�r�',concerns might not be as be c�o�� +n ��alce the future development y mak� ihis proposal more acceptable to �d +:�� it:'was ver�� s•l�-r�¢ �� h� discussions that a covenant approach or 't�i`�.�� pl�� would bE; r,��s��fj.��i��y and he would not anticipate any argument a�°a1 �xa, ��i� ,� egard. ��; �o°►rited out however, if this development was to i.��p� �,:�x��r.� za�r��lcJ primarily be wetland and a highland strip behind the �;�vir� c��. ��, ia��r�inated. He stated that at best, the wetland would have �. ra�:aox�, �xa�t�;��; if you attempted to eliminate it, you would actually f�cl� ihE, c�u��i.�x� at that point would be where to put it. ssioner Johnsort s�� at the wetland would have to be mitigated on the subject y, and it was pre�itc��.� �i� cliscussed that the mitigation would occur in the developable area residential develcipmer�t rio�th of City Hall. He added that this was where the wetland would come into':play, which would almost ensure that this area could not be developed. >:�: <<;;:�:: ;rson Pete�;s�i��"stated that ultimately, this may be the strongest argument, in that this would ,� x �' °�� an �,n�,�;�ural area that was desirable to preserve as such, but it would also be wetland, Isk ��r�a:�1y'impossible to do anything else with it. Comrrussioner Thomas inquired what type of notification had been provided to the residents of townhouse complex at Landmark Estates, with regard to this development process. Planning Associate Ericson stated that a public hearing notice was published in the Focus newspaper, and that went out to all residents. He indicated all property owners within 350 feet of � _ . , . . . �.7.----- • - � - �- - - _ = ;: _ �� -=� z .,. . . �:� %. _ _ _ __ _ _ _ - --- --_-- — _ .. . �----- . ��. _ ��: Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regalar Meeting Page 26 the City Hall, the Community Center, the Midland Videen property and the remnant parcel were ,r,,.%i�. notified of this public hearing by mail. ,< �;;, �f�� ,. Commissioner Thomas stated that she has lived at the Landmark Estates for �ouA� y��s�, however, }..:;. _ she had only learned that this public hearing was taking place ��a<use sh� �ai�� 4t��c� E� attend the meeting in her role as a Commissioner. 5he added that.��:�arge numbc�` �i ��;.;�r��.��: ?t the ,� ..� Landmark Estates do not receive the Focus newspapet-, t�l��a�are not deltxrerer� &� �.,a� d��-:� of the townhouses, nor did it appear that any other form o�� x��aification vv��-provide�±.�� : aa��1� , :F out that there are as many individuals who live in thiy �:��;r��hous�e��dmplex, whic�a �� d��i�r�: adjacent to the Community Center and the subject parcei, A,� ��.�r�; ar��residents who live a�L,dL; �t. Stephen Street. �. . Planning Associate Ericson stated that staff could examine;�'his, �o �c°��-;x��,�ii�.� ;l�o�v the notification is distributed, and this would be addressed in future maili�a�s. „ Chairperson Peterson inquired how the man��:tr��d��, ��a� �, �ommurl,c� �`do�erty distributes messages to individual residents. He ind't��:f�d� so��i�: �;��ax�t�ani��es „ha.�e Apartment Owners Associations, which are groups of property;owners w1�o v�ic�rl�: �i� �. �,�t�perative effort to inform each other regarding bad tenants, an�l so f�rth. He �:G1uised ��a�, I�", {�� r; were such an organization ,..,:,. in Mounds View, this might be a gr�oca ;��:chanism �t�r" the distrzbution of public notices. ;�: � . Commissioner Thomas stated tha� �� ,anc�arj.�� a�.�tates �ras not a secured building, in which the residents utilize locked mailboxe� `She explf�i�tE;�`� ��a�� h�se were individual addresses that could have been""r��ii�d by mailry `��t�f<:��i�;�, were nc�:; notifica�ic this rental P1 0 __ -' � i�°�o�� ,��,r� ��,� the Landmark Estates property was indicated on the k�� y�,�� 9��;t�� ted that the notification was provided to the owner of f; : " �s'ociate ��it; �r�a� �%a��d that"the City could take that extra step, possibly by personally the mana�er�r�� of xliese properties to work out a system to ensure that future s are posier.�, F:,r�� " �ecessary, a staff person could go to the property and hand deliver �znraaissioner Johnsei�i'>inquired if public notification was required for a preliminary meeting such ,;;-< �,��is�. Chairper��j-�'eterson advised that this meeting was advertised as a public hearing, and ��;.;�, �i�� i�fication process was subject to the same requirements as any other public Commissioner Thomas stated that residents who utilize a box mail system, and do not have an individual mailbox at their home would be difficult to notify. She indicated that this should be considered with a project of this magnitude. � � __ �� _ : ; � Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 27 Planning Associate Ericson stated that staff could obtain the addresses from the management of these properties, and they do not need to be sent to the specific individual, but sim .,��r;<:�`b the resident at that address. He explained that staff could attempt to obtain addres;lis�;, al k-�itiugh this could result in the mailing of hundreds of notices above and beyond the City'� �e„��! r�j��igation. � ' Commissioner Thomas indicated that when the Community G�;�f�r'went forw��, ��r�,�; ?�1�, rriuch discussion in the Landmark Estates and surrounding areas r��ardmg the la�k''o�`�� c�c��;.. She stated that residents of rental properties might be shor�-��x� �-esidents,��owever, t�t�� a�tc��fz��i�� y x who reside in the townhouses are generally long-term r��ic:��i.�, �ot��""'of whom hav� �€:�ic�� ,,. the area for years. Planning Associate Ericson stated that at the point that the �yl�x�xii� this item, staffwould re-notify, and do their utmost to ensizi�e that a Chairperson Peterson inquired regarding the di around the wetland at this point. Mr. Cunninghf staff regarding the need for a walkway alt�ng discussed with the Parks and Recreation azZd`Pla �y development and at their cost, fund a tra�' along Connmunit Center to the trail alon :k�i'"�`wa 10. Y g ` �: Y Mr. Cunningham stated that meeting with staflF and thr �� of th� we��g�". �+s well. Y:��: i; they h��r� � �;��i 'r.n link i."r��; � this locatio��.'. construct a �:�az� �� id�s Mr. Far.;�� inquired' He int�i�ated he has �y�3 . thoug� he is walking �� would be terribly �ci �- tha� �;4�;s�>��.;� ��;; �, rt' �. � �.{ �^�� :�� 1� z �I.Sr'�il�l? ning �;ofnini the east side >sion takes action on �;r?�-�, notified. �niaa�; �« ;_��; ,:;��•oposed walkway �� w�,� �; ixi �;7ea.�- agreement with �C� �'r�ox�t�ge, and as previously Q��, ��ey would, as part of their " i�a.E� ��vetland that would link the :�'u'st beca��a� �v��.re of«the next step in this process, during a �ineers, az �rJ��t.�? �; E��; �'`trail was proposed along the west side �d that th�,�; ��,,� ��'this, because in addition to the two trails, �;_sidewallc'��y2��;yt�: co the Community Center to the trail at the �� ighway 10, which would create a complete loop around 1�� c�c�t,�ee the necessity for this, and that it would be difficult to �. ika�; �i�:velopment and the wetland. xhe proposed trail around the wetlands would be to the houses. �� trail located on the other side of the highway, and feels as 1�s� residents' backyards. He stated that he was not certain that to ihe residents that live in this area. �r i ;. .� 14��.ning Associate E�'t�'son provided the Commission with the SEH concept plan. He state t at ,,, ,.: <�� i� point, the��as considerable latitude as to where that path could be located. He explained �°��.� �� 8,�� tc��irr�'�ater holding pond is constructed along the back side of these properties, the ��.�tE�sF�?y �t��d �e located between the storm water pond and the wetlands to provide a separation c�J : vxa��f� �s 100 to 150 feet. He indicated this plan was still in a very preliminary stage, and was provided for discussion purposes only, at this point. Mr. Faracy stated that he would find this plan acceptable, as long as the bui%r remains. :� __-_' ; _ _ - .�_:. r _ � � . - - -___�_�-. ` :--_- -..�_�_= =-----�—=----- ---� — -__� Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 7, 2000 Page 28 Chairperson Peterson stated that the trail in this area was a good idea, although he s Faracy's concern. He indicated however, he was not certain whether or not it would be to construct a trail between the proposed development and the wetland on th� �aest s�d� who desired to walk in this area could walk through the parking lot. ; Commissioner Kaden inquired if the walking path on the within the wetland, or on the Community Center property Planning Associate Ericson stated that the Community property line, and the wetland is located at the edge of` according to the site plan, there does not appear to be su� without disturbing the wetland in that area. Commissioner Kaden stated that the SEH concept �n partially located in the wetland as well as on the h�gki��i be constructed to separate the wetland from the,hig%ia� Planning Associate Ericson reiterated pond would not be constructed in th�; 1 would be located completely upon �h,�: ; stated that the applicant would c��a�'. indicate what they believe is an ��a�rro they would have. another op�oz�t.ainity agreemer,a� +r�+��:5�. �he plan. ��: �. Mr. Pet��`��,,..: �sx��,.�a, �� ii' ;�+,r�x� generate�, �,r, �oi� ��F;�lo��a� requesting 1�;� Ra��,��r��.:`.��ar�. nat,��is was a.;prei�rr ��tion indica��d on �. ��h grourui�ri �nd wou ��r,k �� h� next me� Y- �i-iat�� ta��tio� for � � t0 z'FX1.t��; ��(A�1 �h7Cb'�C Mr. those rid of the sit� �1t�u��c� 6�� 1.��;ated "�" {:; the wetland boux�c��zy, z <, � ;�i�' �3� p��-lcing lot is locai�d �?� x�i� `' ��in� lot. He pointed c��: fi�at �r>�� c� c;onstruct a walking path that th� :�aAC��,� �� ; gond would be inquir�c��iA �n"��t�hen berm would �r �I��rr,�ng, and the storm water (��1'.Y,. �I� explained that the pond �t encroach into the wetland. He ; with a site plan, which would strian walkway in that area, and to the point that the City is in s pertaining to the number of jobs that would be le for discussion. He inquired if the applicant was Mr. Cu�'J�ngh��n �€��r� ' a a t,.� �'V`Jalgreens drugstore generally creates a combination of i.:�:� apprc��rnately 25 paj �� a��. ;��rimarily full-time jobs. He indicated they had previously , broi��ht forward infoF�,ia�z�:�� f,�;�,�clirng the salary ranges for Walgreens positions, a good number ..:.: : Q.�';1�vhich are professional, managerial type jobs. He stated that Culver's Restaurant creates many ,.„� �p�t�time opportunit�e�,rt,;°which are primarily suited to teens, in addition to some managerial �,t��itipns. He indicat� he would meet with a representative of Culver's the following day, and , ��;.� +.��►��ci. �btain furthei�:>:�nformation at that time. stated that they are not requesting any Tax Increment Financing on this project. Chairperson Peterson stated that the appiicant had previously provided traffic projections for the peak traffic hours at a specific store size. He requested the applicant bring this information for review at the next meeting. . J _ � ., �--- ;: : _ ____ — ,� .__.� _ : � y i.- — - - —� -- . _ ___ _____ __ ____ __ �,� Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular 1Vyeeting Page 29 Mr. Cunningham stated that he would provide this information to staff, to allow £or the Comnnissions review prior to the meeting. He extended his appreciation to the.;��i�ning Commission members for their time and perseverance in this process. '= S`�''� Chairperson Peterson stated that the public forum for issue� p�i`i�i�ing to �i�s;€��,r�y;�,.0 would be held on July 11�' . He indicated all citizens were welcome to ai��r►d ihis meetg��;_ 7. Discussion Regarding an Ordinance to Amen�il and Accessory Buildings. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the need to revise the �ity j conditional use permit process pertaining to sheds �n.c� �4t�a size gai-a�� some time. At their last regular meeting, the �;�?.� �;�a#x��il direci� Commission to examine the Code, provide ,r�:cdff��if��;Y�c�e��a�.� �or r ordinance amendment for the Council's revie�v.3� _ Planning Associate Ericson stated preliminary input from the Planni�� regarding how these issues should : is the limit over which a conditiot�� higher, and -�t what point should �t � Comrri'i�;��-�aar;�° ��i,El�� s back tli��a�;�� i��: �il�� A� average, dx� �:��€fi �� permits fox� J��.��,, �� `�� process. yf;;-:;,, /��f�;. r " //:Y Plan�uiig Associate ]L;ri in;�eases every year, f �a�ed that staff could E Pertaduauu�� a'r,� ��'. ;� �vith regard to the ��' be�n discussed for ��'f and the Planning �ra�, and present an i�� attemptiz�g ta draft an ordinance without s ;,,> staff comp��ed some questions for discussion ,.�.�,., `�-Ie explal�ed, for example, if 216 square feet required;;,�hould it be higher? If so, how much pet`mt� be required? ±o.<s-g ��; :i�� viewing'the staii report, he had thought that staff might go p:�P �a.RC �� .�� to three years, and provide the Commission with an �rk��ll�.y�': x�7A�1 ��a,,,�st requests that have been granted for conditional use �xplaixi�c� a,�.��,;." ;��is" might provide a better idea of where to begin this ris�d that without going through this research, the average request �1e, the average for the year 2000 is 400 square feet per shed. He the files, and provide this information without great difficulty. '�"c�i��nissioner Heglaiid� stated that the reason for this examination is that 400 square feet was not �;i��ntly large,�t�q`iigh. Planning Associate Ericson explained that if the maximum limit allowed �{�r ,� :;�g_.�� a;� �ais�t�to exceed 400 square feet, this would encompass the requirement for a single f;� ,;ra� ��;; s�z�;�and if they allow a 450 or 500 square-foot shed, why would they prohibit two �GA� �R�;�,:�;% "�Ie pointed out that for a larger lot, they might wish to completely eliminate the conditional use permit provision for a shed, for example, if a property owner has 40,000 square feet of backyard area, a provision could be written into the Code to exempt them from that requirement. i, : : � -- � _ � .:�..�—_- . � � �_ �_. _< . . �t ��W.�.:__ . . ��, � �.� .!.,�.e..�_ . --. °.� Mounds View Plann►ng Commission Regular Meeting June 7, 2000 Page 30 Planning Associate Ericson stated that the examination process might require several meetings ,.::. before staff comes back with an ordinance. He indicated he had also complied a list of.issues for consideration with regard to garages, including whether or not the maxirriu�n size ��iould be increased from 952 square feet. He advised that this was originall,y 864 squar� �"��., ti�trach an upper limit of 1,264 square feet, and the difference between the two�.#�s ;the bas�� :��x� ��, n00 square- �,,�� , foot shed size. He explained that currently, the maximum si��`rir a garage �r,ii�l�c��'E?. d;�,�clatiional use permit is 952 square feet with an upper limit of 1,400 sqc��re feet, and if i�i�s t�fF�,:� ��ar��ecl. to 1,000 square feet without a conditional use permit, it woult� �e consistet�t'r�vith wh��: �,��; �k�;v�a�as; requirements, in terms of the relationship to the 400 squas��3, shed, I�owever, this wc�axlr� �a�3; �� the case if they desire to increase the size of the shed as v��{;ii. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the intent of this u for the residents, and to create an environment that is rr�o plans. He explained that it was extremely frustrating �� who would like to put up a shed over the weekend a��t�: time, however, there must be a balance, and these at'� 3l,�; to discuss. �%_.� ' � Commissioner Miller stated that one of those uses that are not permitted, such ;; ;; that this could be regulated witho�t� �.`i that they could control these issu�� il�i'o� ��s �f�, Stl"UCiUT�. Planmri� �� ;,,ci{ a�,a:� �ri the quesf,�c�� r��y;� ; �rz Ordir�ance' �:,r€�I�i��,; � business is p�e �r�r�.�r�, & that there az�'�s��'�r��°i<-� �i typicall�,t�vu�d i� � raF�� ,.>: ;. any n[��sance situations �. � co,�t��#ional use permic , .:.., J�ey�ond these criteria. ��-�f�s for craft shows, � iiz;, r"r, he o�� to hav� cess rvc�� at the �; the process easier �heir improvement ��' .to an individual +?olve two months ission is requested �' purpose��'�'or the r:�,+�r�z�iorial use pernvt is to regulate �: >� an auto..,;;��pair busin�ss. Commissioner Hegland stated iclitior��'use perrr�� Commissioner Johnson explained h��.�s�� A�aeans, suc� as prohibiting a driveway up to the �� aa�: the �ity does Y�ot currently allow two garages, however, ��%�� c>1 .� garage. Commissioner Hegland pointed out that the ��r� �k` ��usiness. Planning Associate Ericson advised that a zi ��r�s�'b+� �-r� keeping with the Code requirements. He explained �c� i1c��; o��upations such as, that here shall be no alterations not ��ae� e is no outside storage, and that the business shall not create �s�Q��Y7ed that there are other issues as well, however, through the ii�� City could be very specific, and place requirements above and ted out that the City does not prohibit an individual from making of this nature. �sioner Th��iias inquired if the conditional use permit process provided information r- s �» �� x��s��of items that are stored in the structures. �� y�u�;iate Ericson stated that there was no reliable information in terms of the percentage of shed owners who utilize the space for the storage of specific items. He explained that at the time the applicants come before the City to request a conditional use permit for a shed or garage, they are required to establish a need for the structure, and they typically indicate a very general reason. �--�:- - � . � _. �>. - _ _ _ __-_ , _ _ .�,.� � : � : __ __ _ _ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 7, 2000 Page 31 Chairperson Peterson stated that this ultimately amounts to "stuff," and the need to store�;it. He �s;< pointed out that it was generally better to store "stuf�" inside a building rather than aiit; in the yard, however, the property could be overbuilt at some point, and perhaps th� �r�mrni,s��nri should consider a clause pertaining to the percentage of the yard cover�ge. He irxqi:�� d r�garding the current ercenta e of covera e allowed. ''�� r P g g ��'€;%��'� � � ,;.: Planning Associate Ericson stated that no more than 20 per��rit of the ba��ya��c� r,a.�i l�� ;�?��ered by accessory storage space. He indicated this was previous�y �5 percen,t� however, c�.�:��iFtf; �� .�st Code revision, the City had desired to allow a greater amoun� ��f cov�ge. Commissioner Hegland pointed out that this was a mis�i�� Ericson stated that this was correct, adding that 20 percent ? allow for another house. Commissioner Hegland stated thai tl and structures of this nature. Planning Associate Ericson stated that since t�i� {�'- review the questions presented by staff, th�s ttem co on June Zls`. He indicated by that time, e�'�:ryone � questions staff has compiled. He reitera��d that thiw Commission may wish to take time b;,�een tlus'rr`i answers. Commissione they allo�, a� Plann�n� ,�.ss case of a v�� simply state� whether this<� Hegland ��;c�i�< c,��_�taff coulc� �`�3��.�-�ykx his would l,i;ac�f,t �ii��act the di�E:�t��s��, nC. Planning Associate �.rnl of an acre lot could J �c� �void pole buildings ��3� ,;,a�r� 1a� , noti ha�. 'the opportunity to I��;� ��<7c.�� c�� th� �genda for the meeting alcd �a��r� ��t�. �� pportunity to review the ould i�� <� ' 1;a ;-�` extensive process, and the in� ar►c1 �he ne7ct to consider some of the communities to determine what ,r. �� r i��oii s��i�� r�:�: th� Code does not address the size of the garage in the ��,��4�1Pr� i,v�tk�. �A lU�ar�ar� 1�;v�1 two-car garage in the back. He advised that the Code �? �a�>��;izi�; a.cr��o�u�� c��', �uare-footage is allowed, however, it does not specify 3��' �.�k,��n :�� j x� � �r�� x the actual area. p"'.�t`son Petersor� ;i-ties would be a�� us application wh� ver, it was uncle�r f;=;, to consider this<;�s �;::,:<, would be sa�e'`od -a,�:N�c� �1a��;he would tend to think that the impact to the surrounding �,,;>�c� v�ith the footprint rather than the total square-footage. He noted a �°� a�'esident had desired to construct a garage on the back of the house, �s to which side of the property was the front, and the Commission may well. He advised that regardless of the type of revisions that are made, iball cases, however, the attempt would be to address the majority of the i z, f,��, ��; r�.s�ociate Ericson stated that Item 6 on the second page of the staff report pertains to whether or not the Planning Commission is interested in considering some type of performance zoning criteria that would perhaps allow the larger sized garage if it were located behind the house. He indicated the Commission felt very strongly that the appearance of the wider garages that are currently being built, which dominate the street front, do not lend well to an aesthetic __ _____ ______ _ __ __ _____' _ _ . _ _ _ � _. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 7, 2000 Page 32 curb appeal. He inquired if this was an issue the Commission would wish to consider if the�garage ;;;�>: were oriented away from the street so that only the house was visible. ,<: ;�;;:; ��%x � ,. Commissioner Hegland stated that in many of these planning ddesigns, tYi�; �ac��' �s not even visible. Chairperson Peterson stated that many upscale ne�ghbt�ti��'.�oods hav�� fsa, ��,=.;ex� lois, and most of those have garages that angle in such a way that as��3t� c�rive by yot� ;; �h� �tx� �tc�ln�;, and possibly part of the garage door off to the side. �][P �ainted out �hat tl�� `>��,�;(�� z�� be accomplished with the smaller 75-foot lots within the City. �,;'�4`` Commissioner Hegland advised that flexibility was very they were dealing with redevelopment, rather than new d Commissioner Johnson stated that the Commission has that are larger than the square-footage of the house. this consideration, �3��;��,�a ;e uests for garages Planning Associate Ericson stated that the last ttm� �h� ��ig�t-r�s�ion exarr►��c�'"the Code, in terms of Ordinance 620, a provision was included F�vhich rec�u�,c�d� ��;�ri��i?�na,l.�se permit any time the L .; Y''' :. �.: garage is larger than the house. He sugg�sted this ct�t�'lcl f�� a�,;�x��zr��6�: ''He explained that from staiis perspective, this is an admi�.�s�rat��t�'nightmar��f�He explla.��F:c� ��at if there is a 600 square- foot house, and the applicant has � C(�t� E��uare foc�i garage ih� -;he would like to expand to a 650 square-foot twc�-car garage, he woz��t� ��, �-��air�c��to obtain �::conditional use permit. He pointed F�i>��" out that this provision appeared ��` be ��;:� ;r �;oocl id�a �at the time, however, after it was implemented, it pecame ��n�aa��fit that all c��` ��€, 4��a��°ations were not necessarily taken into considera��,, �nd the Caz�t�n��ui�ax��;may wisr� ��a �:��<rt��1c; �his further. Commis�acj�a�� c��a�R��ox� :��a��c�. �}�� r�ed with this. He pointed out that you may have two or three indivir��,a�f� 1��.,�,iri � srr►a� :�acJr,��r�; �'sth a boat, a motorcycle, two cars, and may have other items to sto� �` �?� �� ;�.x-� t;�. ��, �.c�u��ti tiiat if they were limited to a small garage based upon the size ofth�'�'a��;��,�, ��N;��:a�r� wor�l�i'�nd up in the backyard. .�.. ., , :: .. .. ssioner Hegla��c� ,v��.�� t�a�� the size should be based upon whether or not the proposal nts an improv��l��i� �c� �� A�roperty as well, in that people do not generally tend to spend _ __. _ on projects that d� not''make much sense. �;�` �,�,.; ssioner Laube:��ggested that rather than basing the size upon the total square-footage of ,: >, ��dation, p,er�ps this should be based upon the total square footage of the house. He �;�� A�:�a� aa� :��ivould not desire to leave this provision in the Code, however, he would not _�3� �b,F�� ;es excessively larger than the house simply because they have taken it out. Commissioner Johnson stated that the requirement that accessory structures be complementary to the house would prevent many such problems. Commissioner Laube stated that there would still be cases of this nature, and he would prefer to be able to control them to some extent. He noted a previous application the Commission had � �. _.�` ,. . , • t. _ : _ �� < .�,� _ . _ _ . _��: _ ___________ _� � �._. � _ Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular l�eetia►g Page 33 considered, in which the resident had a very small house, and had requested to construct,,a very large garage on the lot. He advised that this type of proposal would be allowed. <"`�-�� , ��,., 5 • Planning Associate Ericson stated that this was correct to a point, in tha� �1��; ��rty owner could have a 900 square-foot garage, per se, which on that ap�Ix�ant's lc��, ��l�c(� a,�g�c particular house, would have been a very large garage, however, staffwpulci Iiesitate ��,irE� ��iy��'�ir�� zn the Code that would be based upon the square-footage of th� k more difficult to administer from stafis perspective. H� t�di footprint, however, it would be much more difficult to a�1rRfl��; to the size of the lot, up to a point. cated ni.'. � 1110 r' �d it �v�n Commissioner Laube pointed out that if the house was 600 ��j��r�^ a�P�;, �cy�� cr�uld increase that by one and a quarter to one and a half percent. Planning Ass�ciat� k_,ric;;�c,s� �„��I�.�ned that this would generate more conditional use permits, and the City �✓� ��;;r�,�nptin� io t�v�ir� ��a� a£at all possible. He stated that if a 900 square-foot garage was ��1� ��y�n��., ,a.l.ihoug�s� I�� y no proponent of building an imbalanced lot, however, perhaps th�J ��•�+��? s��t��.z�a;, th�4 a.r�yo�� ;oLald have this size of a garage, which would be fair. He stated k�'he wc�u�� p ��v.�x��c �a. would be fair to state that a h s neighboring property, which has additiona} �quare-foQ��ge i�� r��,�s �g��se should be permitted to have a larger garage. He stated that he �?vould proptise thiy �z��v4 b��n� be eliminated completely, and all property owners be permi�� c� �� ave 95� :�r 1,000 st�uare �eet. He pointed out that if , the could not meet the 20 ercent ��d�> ard cov�� e re uiref�i(ent this would be le itimate cause Y P �''� g 9 ><. , , g for a conditional use ermit. '`':.`��' P _ .,�;;;>.< Chair��a �:.a�, ;�� rson stai�d th��. ��y��re were r�_ ��s?�; �i�r ��iy of lot sizes in Mounds View, and there are r►-��w�� 9��:��dard loi�;,'��r�E�'��allich h�zv� �,��y'��:h� smallest single car garages, which are not very �ti�A�,�:�E�ve �� iki� �ud-r�r�� i��s,�. �Ie stated that the Commission should ensure that what is done is pra.r,ai�� °`a.11_�-�si�i�ni� ��r,ll�c� wish;io improve their property. Planning Ass�c eai�: :� determi�e ;wiiat th�y � use ��rrriits and shed� .; -;, at '°�ir next meeting. �'�•. ��th any thoughts or s 'r�d �h:�9' staff would survey the surrounding communities to woul� attempt to determine how other cities handle conditional a�9 and to bring this information before the Planning Commission y��d the Commission members contact staff prior to the meeting 9:hey may have, so that they can proceed with this matter. ,.. ,. �'�mmissioner Thom�S;inquired how these issues might impact a house with living space above an �tt�.�hed garage ,z�Ianning Associate Ericson stated that these properties could potentially be _ ��:t�� Qa'`�,, ��,{�r�_ ��;; �xplained that properties could only have one garage, and sometimes that is a ��1�� p�� ciperties with attached garages or lots on which could not be further expanded. He _ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ ___ __ _ _. �i��, v'x�«� �:'�iis discussion would not change the fact that there would be attached garages, and ihat the only option for someone with an attached garage, if there is no room to expand, is to convert that to living space, or build a new garage. Commissioner Thomas stated that many of the rambler style homes in the area have attached single-car garages that have not yet been updated, however, because there are similar conditions � p-��_:�� . . ir_ _ ;-- -��--- � � .. _ . . -�=-�;� . _ . . __.. . . _._ . __ - I Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting �==— ------�.. � .. �. �_� June 7, 2000 Page 34 with regard to fence lines and setbacks, this would cause a severe hardship for these p�operty owners in terms of expansion, and the requirements would be nearly impossible to meet;>'t�zi'these :. lots. Planning Associate Ericson stated that any revisions that are mad:e,�o the C;c3d� ��c�� rno� impact these individuals, and they must ensure that they does not ��ate�additiona� �iifft�;i,s��s, which could make their situations worse. r.;, __ 8. Staff l�eports / Items of Information A. Previous Council Actions .«<, � Community Development Director Jopke stated that a�. a g3� ]Vlay L�"`' <�i��y +�c�ttr��il meeting, the Council approved four conditional use perm�ts ip� �}�r�,x:;� z��? g�ra�;e� Eanc� ;h�cl�, which were recommended by the Planning Commission, :u��udY��; i:€�� a;;c�;��7i�:�onal us� perrr►ii for outdoor storage at Ace Supply Company. He statec�:�t�at thc �:��x�� i�rf�w a�t�a�iuced to the Walgreens Planned Unit Development at the Work �t'�ssion the yp�'e�veoe�<; ��J��t��'; He indicated there was also discussion pertaining to the Mermaad�Hotel at��'�Banc�i�c� ��r��x- project, and the Council �,;,� ;; f ,; gave preliminary approval to a Tax.;,��z��ment F��.ancing rec},u�st by the Mermaid and directed �>..., staff to continue the negotiation o�'t�+�'dev�°la��?mt agreerta�rit. He explained that the Planrung L//� Commission would ultimately be �amirung �k�� ; c�r�os�l ii� terms of the land use issues, and staff anticipat�s.tha.t a�Plannec� LJt�.�t T��velopmen�, ��a��,<�e�r._�� ,;vill be developed and brought forward on this pa ��t��., �Ie advis��:� t�� •�� Council �� b��r��r�;c� a consensus to approve some additions to the��'a� ��.�r��r�t poi��,, ��°g:�� a��. Communrty �a; to the area �t District ha�s (r ,� , :; asked if ��'C :e�;tfiiat the Rice C� � �villing to contribuc�; �ds, as well as some, he Watershed Distri. ; �� ar�a. /%s�" �irectt?r ��>+, ��:atied that another area of Council discussion pertains � o� �-��:�:�z��:�{� ��ark. He explained that the Rice Creek Watershed ��.x� �o �°c��a ucc additional open water ponds in this area, and have ��F.a;:ix� �ursuing this and if so, what their expectations would be. He J"{z��>�;;:�ed District has approximately a half a million dollars that they k�<<�. ��b: ��ct, with the initial concept being open water ponds with some Iking trails around the ponding areas, most of which would be funded He stated that this proposal could potentially create a nice amenity in ��;;�:"//. y �';�� ,+, �.��:r f�� t�r'son inquired if this was the area directly north of Greenfield Park. Community <?'��<<��j�c�� :a'�%x�ector Jopke stated that this was correct, in addition to an area further to the y�:f�.a a:�. Chairperson Peterson stated that a portion of this property is a right-of-way for a future roadway, and various park improvements have been proposed for development in this area. Community Development Director Jopke stated that the Watershed District has been discussing the .� �. _� . ._ . . ,. . - _ - ��.� _______ _ � � '-� i; Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 35 construction of improved divided pathways in the area, in addition to maintaining the natural environment. ,�`�;';" r�t�:"':::>:::::»• :: r6i::;?`, `:.; � . .�i Community Development Director Jopke stated that the Highw;ay 10 ��e;�iu��; ��}�mittee has been meeting, and examining all of the previous studies anct c�mmon x�,�a��s �kEa�, ��av� been generated by those studies. He advised that at the first meet��, ��ill Morrish �F°�� r� �Ja�iv�rsity of Minnesota Design Center was present to discuss arteria� "roadways atnc� c�aiaE;a-r-;r��. ��.�;��J to ;" consider those. He indicated there was participation from J��a Soler froilmT�amsey �:��j�a�,� �A §��fa.� � meetings, which has been very helpful in terms of providiz�� anderstanding of ��; ��',a�x�,��:,�'" County perspective. Community Development Director Jopke stated that at the evening, the Steering Committee examined some of the-. roadway, and established their priorities for those ��sue:� included the name change and speed limit on Highv,��;yr ��3' of the issues pertaining to trailways and buffers �s �a�l�. Community Development Director Jopke; two-phase process. He explained that th�: �::<, an action plan, and the priorities that �e;�� , identified those priorities at this pt��ni �n would be held on July 11�', at 7:Qt1 p:m., in in order to;�rese�t those ��r��a�i�s'�to the I the cc�r.;��a.��ax��v. He ex��a�x��:c� ih�� follow 7 �r the which „n: ,��r;�i.�n�; g1��;vvas held the previous suET:� ��r�s� �;fl��c��i:s pertaining to the ��e sta��c� ��_� r�i� �tighest priorities r�r� they �vv�.r�; �tarr��ttly examining all tha� �he r��^irap�etit of Highway 10 was a phai�e involvF� �.��lc�ri� at the important items in � fo the C�ti� ,` �3[e indicated the Committee has ocess. He �c�vised that a community meeting �il �hamber;" and this meeting would be televised �� r�x��,uz`� that they are in keeping with views of ��nf;�t'ing, a report would be made to the City ��i� �;ouncil would have the opportunity to give _ __ _ their ��'��r�l�; Community ��;v�l��h��r.s�_ t�,�, 1i�9x°�Sr��.'F��r� ��ated that that during the second phase in this process, they would ��.i��'�� €��.�i€��;c� aci�o�� n of those steps that the City could take to guide the future d��elopme�t: �i�a�;; ��c�; �Iighv✓ay 10 corridor, including short-term safety measures that ' jf`� l; ��'` �tated that this would also involve researching various funding could��ie made imm�ci��ac�. �:�, , <: sou��es including Ra�xj.�nr �`�s��Y��y, and producing a long-term plan for Highway 10 and a definite �� 1��'�on plan to proceed ir�,.�i�a� Y��gard. He stated that the emphasis was to move beyond the study .4� ,<;<:>. ;>><;< st�ge, and ensure that �Ci;i`iiething is accomplished to better the corridor. r ti7 �c��r��anity Deve�qptirnent Director Jopke stated that he, Mayor Coughlin, Chairperson Peterson �r� ,��: ,� �� p�ting in workshops with the I-35W Corridor Coalition, having attended the first of ��a��;,� � r.�� r�3��s;� t�ie previous week. He advised that they were examining the entire Coalition with t;`��;� �°� ��,:n��ities and their representatives, to discuss what they identify as common interests in neighborhood areas, and their definition of livable communities. He stated that the ultimate objective of these discussions is to bring forward projects that the Coalition supports, and within his group, he has clearly identified Highway 10 and livability as important issues and potential projects for the Coalition to examine. He advised that with the support of the Coalition, the City ��,a,r---:� f � _�. "�'" : ' -� F—�s' -- ,-- __ - : . . . , , ~'�' � I`c— -- �� y` 1__�- � . . . [_.. _ . Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 7, 2000 Page 36 could have access to additional funding sources to assist to assist with the Highvyay 10 redevelopment as well. ;� «: Chairperson Peterson stated that a representative from the city o�Blaine �wa5 ,�c ��{.r� ;+.'c his table, and their interests in the Highway 10 redevelopment were ver�r;;;s��ilar �o �ao��; ��.�;,ce City. He stated that this was a great opportunity, which may result in ��diYional fundin�; N�i#r��"#hat were not previously available. ; ! .t'�� Community Development Director Jopke stated that �. '��c;E ,��4on ��vould be held ��g ��;��,��' Chambers on Thursday evening, from 5:00 to 6:30 p.�ca�; �;sr ��.o�aor the hard �v�� of Representative Haake, Senator Novak, and City Attori�ey. �,��; �a1�a.t� regard to the airpor� legislation, which was passed. He encouraged the public to a'r,��;��ra'� Bo Withdrawal of Meinert Variance Ap� Planning Associate Ericson stated that Harry ly�E�n�r�y construct a garage, and therefore, has withdra�i""his ap 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner Laube stated that Committee, however, he has sinc� schedule. H� indicated he had�` Committ�, za�wever, hi� .,:r;;A�r�� offer :1 comr�v Chairperson l��e��so: redevelopm��ix �::��'. have mac��: ari iYr��a�`. He ��ol� �. �� <n�� %`� �"�x��wood ��R6�i�. �fi��' <a va� �°u, v _ _ ` decided not to ��red to ��e as a member of the Steering ��;;,s c�ol, an�i l�;�s found that there is a conflict in his =v�c��,a�4� Iike to be involved with the Steering b�`�'3�.�� he end of July, and therefore, he would ��►ember who might desire to serve on the �.h�.t i�s `�v��; ��;Y°eat opportunity to have an affect in the Highway 10 �� 1� of t��,�z��ring Committee members who have attended thus far �N�?s ��parent that many things were going to happen as a result of c� .��' ��rrimissioner Thomas would be interested in serving on this �".��unissioner Thomas��`tated that she would be indisposed with her duties as a new Planning ; +�i�ission member�.��id therefore, must decline. ,. �� :%i;. �:.. ,�y ,��i;��x��<; � au�ie stated that he has been watching the televised meetings and is attempting to �x � �� ,�t�� 'the proceedings. He indicated he had some thoughts on the issues, and would _ ��;�xxf�a:z;��': ��a�s� to stai� He reiterated he truly desired to serve on this committee, however, the iir�a�n� 1na5 rio� worked out in his favor. No further reports were considered. 10. Adjournment e-.- _ _.— : � ____ _ __ . � ..r� . _ -___ _ _. _ _ _ __ ________ _ _ _ _ , . ___ ___ - _ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 7, 2000 Page 37 There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adj meeting at 10:10 p.m. 4 (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenti�. Session} r :<,��;�� >;,' Respectfully submitted, �, , :> Rick Jopke Community Development Director �:;�r:%. the _ _ _ � . :. . . M�UNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION July 19, 2000 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENSe BEFOR.E SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODNM, AND GNE YOUR FULL NA1VI� AND ADDRESS FOR T�E IO�IINiJTES 4. Approve Planning Commission Minutes: a. June 7, 2000 Consideration of Plannulg Commission Resolution 622-00, a Resolution Recommending to the City Council Adoption of the Updated Local Water Management Plan as Prepared by SEH, Inc, 6. Plaaning Case ZC00-002 23 87 Highway 10 Discussion and Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution 623-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Major Subdivision and Development Review Regarding a Walgreens Drugstore and Proposed Restaurant at the Northeast Corner of Highway 10 and Edgewood Drive. Applicant: TOLD Development Company, represented by Bob Cunningham 7. Planning Case ZC00-003 2200 Highway 10 Public Hearing and Discussion Regarding the General Concept of the Mermaid Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 97-Room Hotel and Banquet Center Addition. Applicant: The Mermaid, Inc., represented By Dan Hall, President 8. Special Plaaning Case SP-079-00 Consideration of Resolution 624-00, a Resolution Recommending Adoption of Proposed Ordinance 664, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Pernutted and Conditionally Pernutted Accessory Buildings. 9. Special Planning Case SP-075-00 ' Discussion and Review of Proposed Ordinance 663, an Ordinance Creating Language to Administer and Regulate Tattoo and Body Piercing Establishments. (OVER) y _ _ .:� . !-� � ' �- +z�� :� ``-- . ------ - .�__. ---- . �� i�.v.. � ___:.:c��. __ . t_. �. ._�ra. fi� - --, _ _ _ __ __ .. _ . .� . . � ' '- g � ' 1 Planning Commission Agenda July 19, 2000 Page 2 10. Discussion of Proposed Ordinance 658, an Ordinance Clarifying Language Pertaining to Fences and Fence Heights, and Consideration of Resolution 625-00, a Resolution Recommending Adoption of Proposed Ordinance 658. 11. StaffReports / Items of Information a. Previous Council Actions b. Highway 10 Steering Committee Update c. 12. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 13. Adjournment to Agenda Session (Irnmediately Following Regular Meeting) APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THLS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT (763) 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. m AGENDA SESSION AGENDA 1. Review the Minutes from the June 21, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting. J:�DATA\GROUPSICOMDEV�PLANCOMM�PCAGENDA�2000Vu1y 19, 2000 PC Agend�doc Item # City of Mounds Vie�v Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: July 19, 2000 Title: DISCUSSION REGARDING UPDATED LOCAL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Backgroun�'. SEH, the City's engineering consultant, was present at the May 3rd and July 5`�' Planning Corrunission meetings and presented an updated Local Surface Water Management Plan. At the July 5`h meeting the Planning Commission asked that additional language be included in the document concerning redevelopment. Attached is the revised language that SEH has drafted for Planning Commission consideration. Recommendataon: Tt is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the updated Local Surface Water Management Plan. Planning Commission Resolution No. 622 that would complete that action is attached for your consideration. Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Revised Local Surface Water Management Plan language 2. Resolution No. 622 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMM�Miscellaneous PC Memos\7-19-00 LSWMP Memo.doc ( _ �I ` ! i _. � t�=.T .: �'�.� F.:�•� � ' : � :.. -_ ..��: - �----- �--�--�:=_ �� t�..=. �` -- _ t---=--_ __.... �.:t�. �_ MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 622-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE UPDATED LOCAL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, State Statutes (Minn. Stat. 103B.201 to 103B.255) require that the City of Mounds View update its Local Surface Water Management Plan and submit it to the Metropolitan Council for review; and WHEREAS, an updated Local Surface Water Management Plan has been prepared; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the draft updated Local Surface Water Management Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, B� IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the adoption of the draft updated Local Surface Water Management Plan. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Attest: Adopted this _ day of , 2000 Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Ricic Joplce, Community Development Director N:\DATA\GROUPSICOMDEV�PLANCOMIMPCIt�50S\PC Comp Plan Resolution No. 622-OO.doc I ,.. -- � - _-- . -- - - -��_ •— — •---_,-� . ._.._ ". L== - Executive Summary — page 1 ,�_ ___ __. . '-'s' Original Text Some redevelopment is anticipated in Mounds View, along the County Highway 10 corridor. Most of the development in the City has incorporated storm sewer and drainage ditches in the drainage pattern. The City realizes the importance of managing runoff to neighboring communities. A summary of the discharge rates to neighboring communities is also provided in Section 2. Flood levels, peak discharges and storage volumes for the drainage basins for 100—year storm events are also provided in the Plan. Renised Text There are a few undeveloped pa�•cels r•enraining in the City and therefo��e the primary issue, as it t•elates to zmpacts on this plan, will be redevelopment of existing land uses. Areas of redevelopn�ent have been alr�eady been identified alofzg the County Highway 10 CO7"Y1C�OY IYl �77'BVIOZIS stuc�ies and other land uses, while not formally identified, are antrcipated to be altered as economic ar7d social changes drive ��edevelopnzent in areas th�°oughout the City. Most of the developnzent in the City has incorporated sto�•m sewer and drainage ditches in the drainage patterns, which may need to be reevaluated based on future changes. The City also realizes the importance of managing runvff to neighbot•ing communities and has adopted requi��ements that are consistent with watef•shed r�egulations to prevent any confZicts. A summa�y of the discharge rates to neighboring communities is provided in Section 2. Flood levels, peak discharges and storage volumes.fo�� the di•ainage basins for 100 year� storm events are also prorided in the Plan. Background — Page 3 Original Text Land development in Mounds View is nearly complete, with only a few parcels remaining to be improved. Most of these areas are along the Highway 10 corridor. Residential uses constitute the majority of land use within the City. A small portion of the City is commercial/business and industrial. Since the City of Mounds View is nearly completely developed, the population has stabilized and should remain relatively stable. Revised Text Land development of open parcels in Mounds View is nearly complete. Most of these areas are along the Highway 10 corridor. With most of the open areas developed, the focus of local plan will be on issues related to redevelopment of existing land uses. When less dense (i.e. large residential lots) t-edevelop to more dense housing or commercial or business use, there is an impact on the drainage systerns and lhus impacts will need to be add�•ess as part of the planning process. However, this planning pj�ocess will need to be flexible so it can deal with both large and small (i. e. lot splits). land use changes. Even wi[h future larrd use changes, residential uses constitute the majoriry of land use within the City. A small por�tiorr of the City is commercial/business and inclustrial. Even with these redevelopment issues the Ciry ofMounds View will remain nearly completely developed, and thus the population has stabilized and ,rhould remain relatively stable. � �� _ � .� i.-== =- =� __ ;. c:.. ___—==-=-- � :.:_ _�«_ . �� .- -------�_ r�- 1 -� --->-- — �- — Land Use — Page 17 Original Text Mounds View is almost completely developed to its highest and best use. The majority of the City of Mounds View is residential land use, with a few parcels being developed as commercial/business, or industrial use. Only a few small parcels remain undeveloped. Most of these undeveloped parcels are small parcels in residential areas. Very little change in land use is expected. The existing land use is shown in Figure 8. Figure 9 shows the land that can be redeveloped either by large parcels being split or small residential parcels being developed. The future land use is shown in Figure 10. Revised Text Mounds View is almost con�pletely developed to its highest and best use. The majority of the City of Mounds View is residential land use, with a.few parcels being developed as conznzercial/business, or industrial use. Only a few small parcels ��emain undeveXoped. Most of these unc�eveloped parcels are snrall parcels in residential areas except fvr some af�eas along the Higln��ay 10 cvf'17Ct07'. T%71S BJCISllilg �Q'Y1Gi� Z[S6 ZS SIIOWYI lYl FTg2lYB 8. It ZS howe��er aritrcipated that there will be some land use changes due tv redevelopnzent of vaYious a�•eas of the Clly. FI�Z[7•e 9 shows the areas that have the potential to be redeveloped either by large parcel.r being split or sn7all residential par�cels being developed. As is wrth many planning docunzents, economic and social changes may alter the asszrmption made 10 create Fig��re 9. The future larrd use map can also be used to estinzate future changes in the conveyance system. Future land use is thus shown in Figure 10. � : , . �_ _ ___ Item # 6 City of Mounds Vzew Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: July 19, 2000 Title: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 623-00, A RESOLUTION REGARDING A PLANNED LTNIT DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR A WALGREENS DRUGSTORE AND CULVERS RESTAURANT AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 10 AND EDGEWOOD DRIVE Planning Casea ZC00-002 AppCicartt: Bob Cunningham, Representing TOLD Development Company I3ackground: Bob Cunningham, representing TOLD Development Company, is requesting approval of a Planned Unit Developinent (PUD) to construct a Walgreens Drugstore and Culver's Restaurant at the northeast corner of Highway 10 and Edgewood Drive on property commonly referred to as the City's "remnant parcel." Mr. Cunningham is proposing to swap approximately 8 acres of the Midland Videen site for the remnant parcel, which is approximately 1 acre. It is proposed that the stormwater pond on the remnant parcel would be relocated to high ground within the 8 acre Midland Videen site. Update: Site Plan Issues: The applicant has submitted for the Planning Commission's consideration a complete set of revised plans, date-stamped July 14, 2000, which include the Site Plan, Preliminary Landscape, Freliminary Plat, Grading & Drainage Plan and a Utility Plan with specifications and details. Missing are the elevations, photometric analysis and signage plans, all of which the Commission has previously reviewed. Trailwa� The site plan now shows the general locations of the proposed trailways. They are noted as being 5 feet in width. The City requires a minimum 7-foot wide path so that public works staii can maintain them in the winter without disturbing the surrounding sod and landscaping. Staff has suggested that the trail be extended south to connect with St. Stephen Street. Setbacks: The parlcing lots for both uses are setback a minimum five feet from the Edgewood drive and Highway 10 right of ways. While the current zoning would require a minimum 30-foot parking lot setback, the proposed PUD designation would allow for the reduced setback. Draina�e: The drainage plans submitted by the applicant are the result of a collaboration between the applicant's engineer, 5igma, and the City's engineer, SEH. These plans have been forwarded :_. _ : - .-__ _ __ __ __ .�w � __ _ _ _._ � _ , �. � _ _ .� _ __ _ Walgreens PUD Report July 19, 2000 Page 2 to Rice Creek Watershed District for their review as well. Given the depth of the pond and the close proximity of the bituminous trailway, it would seem prudent that the specifications include a safety shelf below the expected ordinary high water level (OHWL) to protect against accidental submersions. The cost estimate to relocate and construct the new pond is $174,000. Preliminary Plat: The plat has been named "Mounds View City Hall Addition." City Hall and Public Works will be combined into one lot described as Lot 1, Block 1. The Community Center parcels would become Lot 1, Block 2, and would include the 66-foot strip to the east. The Walgreens would be Lot 3, Block 2 and the restaurant use lot 2, Block 2. The wetlands and upland area on which the stormwater pond would be located would be labeled "Outlot A". The sign easement area shown on the preliminary plat (Doc. # 1072932) will be vacated, as will the gray-shaded Edgewood drive right of way. While the preliminary plat appears to be in proper form, it has been sent on to the City attorney for review. Parkin : The site plan indicates the availability of 43 parking stalls for Culver's and 103 spaces for the Walgreens for a combined total of 146 spaces. Estimating the internal breakdown of � square footages for each use (retail floor area vs, storage areas and dining areas vs. kitchen areas), it appears as though the code would require only 112 spaces. Staffwill work with the developer to determine if the number of stalls provided can be reduced. Staff would also recommend that the notation on the site plan showing 10 future parking stalls within the wetland to be eliminated. Si na e: Staff has communicated the Planning Commission's desire to the applicant that the signage provided for either use (Walgreens and Culver's) be of a monument design in keeping with the character of the other signs in the immediate area. Staff has asked the applicant to produce a full-color rendition of a brick-based monument sign for the Commission to review. Landscapin�: The Landscape Plan submitted by the applicant indicates the number, types and locations of the proposed plantings to be used on the site. Staffhas forwarded to the developer the Theater's planting schedule and requested that there be an attempt to match the plantings from that development and the adjoining Community Center. Rick Wriskey, the City's forester, will review the landscape plan and will make suggested changes based on the success ratio of other plantings used in the area. In addition, boulevard trees will be a suggested component of the landscape plan. The plan will need to show the preservation of the e�cisting boulevard trees along Highway 10, Li�htin�: The applicant has submitted a photometric analysis of the site which the Planning Commission reviewed at a previous meeting. That analysis satisfied the City's code requirements. Based on feedback from the Director of Public Works and NSP, Staff has forwarded to the developer two examples of lighting that the City would like to incorporate into this area of Mounds View. The shoebox styled lights would be appropriate for the parking lot lighting, while the more decorative lighting would be appropriate along Edgewood Drive and the bituminous trailway fronting Highway 10. In return for the City installing the lights on Edgewood Drive, the applicant shall be responsible for lighting the path along Highway 10. Instead of the four shoebox styled lights indicated along the trailway, the site plan shall be revised to show two decorative lights between Edgewood Drive and the Highway 10 access, and three additional decorative lights along the trailway south of the Highway 10 access, spaced 200 feet apart. : . _ � � _ _ __ _ _ _ . . .__�_ � .� - -- - �-- •--- - - — - -----� - . . _ _ Walgreens PUD Report July 19, 2000 Page 3 Appraisal: This issue was verbally addressed at the Planning Commission's last meeting, at which time a one-page summary was provided that indicates the appraised value of both the City's remnant parcel and that part of the Midland Videen land the City would receive. To summarize those results, the remnant parcel was appraised at $166,000 based on existing conditions ($200,000 without the pond) while the Midland Videen land was appraised at $161,000. Recommendation: If the Planning Commission is satisfied with this PUD proposal, both in terms of the anticipated uses and overall site design as well as the overarching land use implications and transfer of land, staff would recommend approval of Resolution 623-00, a resolution recoinmending to the City Council approval (with stipulations) of this planned unit development, major subdivision and land transfer proposed by TOLD Development Company. �� . �'lX�.l ��1""�� Gi � James Ericson, Planner ACtaclmients: 1. Site Plan & Preliminary Site Plan, date-stamped July 14, 2000 2. Site Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan, date-stamped July 14, 2000 3. Preliininary Plat, date-stamped July 14, 2000 4. Recommended Light Fixtures 5. Resolution 623-00 F:\DATAIGROUPS\COMDEVIDEVCASES1MA00-0011PC Walgreens Report - July 5, 2000.doc �V% ` �� ;p° 76smrn 1 � 9 �3�d�OKLY�J CEQVT�'R 1��' l�19CD1lNDS 1�IEii�f �,,,�,+s�a� o�+-zs-fla DMS5Q Llr11�14963�1 . � � I ooZ � 3/8"= t "�-�� D�tS50 3115 (3� �s�� +AL A �wern°' � wcnw�ra�4GG DGI�t . A7 .e � oe ox Step to Precision - The Shoebox moves you in the right direction using precision illumination giving a pleasing look and feeL for any outdoor setting. — — - - — ---- — _ - -- --- -- -- : � 1971 Gateway Boulevard, Arden Hills, MN 55112 • www.nspco.com • 1-800-960-6235 02000 Northern States Power Company _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ ;_ :_ _ _ . __ ., - _� . _ , . _ .. -- -. . .. . J -=---- --- - _ '- -- �-- ---- ---- - ! RESOLUTION NO. 5409 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY � STAT� OF MINN�SOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TOLD DEVELOPMENT CO. TO PROCEED WITgI THE PREPARATION OF A PUD APPLTCATION WHICH INCLUDES CITY-OWNED PARCELS WHEREAS, TOLD Deve(opment Co. is proposing to develop property which includes parcels owned by the City of Mounds View; and WHEREAS, TOLD Development Co. is proposing to prepare a PUD application for the proposed development; and WHEI2�AS, tl�e City of Mounds View City Code requires that all property owners be included i�1 PUD applications. NOW, TH�REFORE, B� IT RESOLVED, that the City of Mounds View authorizes TOLD Development Co. to include city-owned parcels in its PUD application. Adopted this l Oth Day of January, 2000. � /// � -' 1 / i / ✓ ' / �� ^ ATTEST: � 1�: �s'cc�. � % ��< --v'.- \Dan Coughlin, M yor SEAL: ��^�" � e Charles S. Whiting, City lerlc/Administrator C:\TEMP\5409.doc _ _._ .. ; _ __ . � . ._ �� .. . � - -"� �. ':.S _�._ " _'._� �G_.___..__ .____..tc+rar_—�_.� . _ — ' �.�� __.� _Y.� _ �. ��y-� - • . . _ ' � � __ __.. � � .__.v.�i .��_ __..• ._ __ . ._ . MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CONIMI5SION RESOLUTION NOe 623-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF NIINNESOTA RESOLUTTON RECONIMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A MAJOR SUBDIVI5ION, A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAGE OF A PROPOSED PLANNED LTNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND AN EXCHANGE OF LAND FOR AND WITH TOLD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; PLANNING CASE NO. ZC00-002 WHEREAS, TOLD Development Company (hereinafter "TOLD") has applied for a Major Subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) to construct a Walgreens Drugstore and Culver's Resta.urant at the northeast corner of Highway 10 and Edgewood Drive; and, WHEREAS, the properties associated with the Major Subdivision are generally known as the Mounds View City Hall campus, the Mounds View Community Center and the Midland Videen land, and are legally-described as follows: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 1) WHEREAS, the properties associated with the Planned Unit Development are generally known as the City's remnant parcel and the Midland Videen land, and are legally-described as follows: (SEE ATTACHED EXIIIBIT 2) WHEREAS, on January 10, 2000, the City Council of the City of Mounds View approved Resolution 5409 which gave authority to TOLD Development Company to submit an application for a Planned Unit Development inclusive of City-owned property; and, WHEREAS, critical to the approval of the Major Subdivision and PUD is a proposed exchange of land whereby TOLD would receive the City's 1.0 acre remnant parcel in return for the City receiving 8.0 acres of the Midland Videen land; and, WHEREAS, the City's remnant parcel is currently zoned PF, Public Facilities, has an appraised value of $166,000, and is legally-described as follows: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 3) WHEREAS, the Midland Videen land to be given to the City is currently zoned B-3, Business Commercial, has an appraised value of $161,000, and is legally-described as follows: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 3) .:_� t� � Resolution No. 623-00 July 19, 2000 Page 2 ._ _ _�____ . _. . __ _ _ _ _ _� .� : . � _��_ �:.�. :� �;. �: WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan recommended for approval by the Planning Commission designates the parcels associated with the PUD as CC-PUD, Community Commercial Planned Unit Development; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings relative to this request on June 7, 2000 and July 5, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following iindings regarding the criteria for a PUD zoning designation as identified in Section 1125.01 Subd. l.e. of the Mounds View Municipal Code: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommended for approval by the Planning Commission defines a Community Commercial use as a"Land use principally engaged in the provision of goods or services with a primary service to the con-ununity." Examples of such uses would include retail and service- oriented businesses sucl� as baril:s, drug stores, restaurants, veterinary clinics or day care centers. (2) The geographical area involved. (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (4) The character of the surrounding area. The surrounding area is dominated by municipal activities, such as City Hall, the Community Center and the Public Works building; commercial activities, such as Wynnsong Theatre and Donatelle's Supper Club; and natural open space areas. Separated by an expanse of open space to the east is a single-family home subdivision. Given d�e separation of distance, it is not expected that the single- family homes would be depreciated or impacled in any way. The general area in recent years has become the heart of Mounds View with the development of the 15-screen movie theatre and construction of the Corrununity Center. It is believed that a Walgreens and proposed restaurant development would be consistent with and complementary to the immediate area. (5) The demonstrated need for the use. The applicant's client feels strongly, given Mounds View's existing and anticipated demographical composition, that this area would be an appropriate and successful location for a neighborhood- oriented Walgreens. Regarding the proposed restaurant, previous market research and resident surveys have indicated a strong support and desire for additional non-fast food restaurant choices. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission iinds that this proposal satisfies the purpose and intent of a PUD as stated in Section 1120.01 of the Mounds View Municipal Code in that the proposal contemplates the overall development of these properties and provides for an appropriate mix of complementary uses adding to the vitality of the City Center; and, WHEREAS, requirements would be included to ensure high quality architectural design and coordinated signage, preservation of the wetlands, and consideration given to preserving existing tree cover outside of development areas wherever possible; and, i.�° : _ :_ , ; � ; ___ � ____________ . __ : � � � � Resolution No. 623-00 July 19, 2000 Page 3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission iinds that this proposal meets the general requirements and sta.ndards for Planned Unit Developments; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that this proposal meets the special requirements and standards for commercial PUDs regarding minimum project size, minimum street frontage and minimum property width and landscaping; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents relative to this proposal: 1. Application, dated May 8, 2000 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Property Survey, prepared by Loucks Associates, date-stamped June 30, 2000. 5. Preliminary Plat, prepared by Loucks Associates, date-stamped July 13, 2000. 6. Site Plan, prepared by ArchNet, date-stamped July 14, 2000 7. Preliminary Landscape Plan, prepared by ArchNet, date-stamped July 14, 2000 8. Grading and Drainage Plans, prepared by Sigma, date-stamped July 14, 2000 9. Photometric Analysis 10. Building Elevations and Proposed Signage 11. City Recommended Light Fixtures 12. Culver's Menu & Promotional Material 13. Resolution 5409, adopted January 10, 2000 14. Commercial Property Appraisal, by Appraisal Concepts, Inc. , dated June 30, 2000 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary plat of the proposed Major Subdivision, the Development Stage of the proposed Walgreens PUD, and the exchange of land as proposed by TOLD Development Company, all subject to the following stipulations: 1. The Site Plan date-stamped July 14, 2000 shall be revised as follows: a. The bituminous trailways shall be changed to a 7-foot width. b. The trailway along Highway 10 shall extend to St. Stephen Street. c. The trailway alongside the wetland shall terminate at the parking lot of the Community Center, rather than the property line. d. The four "shoe-box" lights shall be changed to iive decorative "Domus" lights, two located north of the Highway 10 access, three located south of the Highway 10 access. Spacing between lights shall be approximately 200 feet. e. Provide surmountable sidewalk/trailway link to Edgewood Drive. f. Eliminate notation of "10 Future Parking Stalls". g. Add locations of parking lot light standards. h. Add notation of "No Exit" or "Do Not Enter" sign to be located near the Highway 10 Access to prevent exiting. �- `- -- . -��-�-�� .-" �° - ' - .� . . _:: 4 _ . _ : . : .. =. . _ . . ...�__-- :? y " - � ' -- _- -_. . ]r_�- � ._ .. l _ � Resolution No. 623-00 July 19, 2000 Page 4 2. The Landscape Plan and planting schedule shall be revised according to the suggestions of the City Forester and to provide for a consistent landscape theme throughout the Highway 10 / Edgewood Drive intersection node. 3. The developer shall submit a revised sign plan indicating monument design signage. 4. The Drainage Plan shall be revised if necessary to meet with the approval of the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District. 5. The Preliminary Plat shall be revised by revising the drainage and utility easement area to include the reconfigured drainage pond. 6. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City of Mounds View pertaining to the proposed development and exchange of land. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Sta.ff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 19th day of July, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) X:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\WALGREENS (MA00-001, ZC00-002, DE00-002)\623-00 PC RFSOLUTION.DOC �' ? f - -- ' � _ . = w ....--a-s� - --. "'---_�_� _. r.. ..�__� �_._ � . . . c�':i = .�.,� ___.`� b--'—'- ---'-' — - - .._ :_�_ �_ . --� �xhibit 1. Legal Descriptions for Maior Subdivision: City Hall: That port of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, lying North of State Highway 10- 62, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota. :_� � The North 30 feet of the West 254 feet of the South 15 Acres of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 30 North, Range 23 West, and all that part of the South 15 Acres lying Northeasterly of State Highway 10-62 Except the West 254 feet thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota. Community Lots 19, 20, 21, and 22; That part of Lot 16, lying North of a line drawn between Center: the Southeasterly corner of Lot 19 and the Southwesterly corner of Lot 4, except the East 66 feet of said Lot 16; all in Block 5, Pinewood Terrace No. 2, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota. Midland Al] of Lots 17 and 18 and that part of the East 66 feet of Lot 161ying North of a Videen: line drawn between the Southeasterly corner of Lot 19 and the Southwesterly corner of Lot 4, also that part of Lot 16 lying South of a line drawn between the Southeasterly corner of Lot 19 and the Southwesterly corner of Lot 4, all in Block 5, Pinewood Terrace No. 2, according to the recorded plot thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota. . � The tract described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 17, Block 5, Pinewood Terrace No. 2, Village of Mounds View, Min�esota, according to the recorded plot thereof; thence South along the West line of said Lot 17 a distance of 55.19 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence on a curve to the left with a radius of 20 feet and delta angle of 90 degrees 32 minutes 30 seconds a distance of 31.61 feet; thence East along the South line of said Lot 17 a distance of 72.19 feet; thence South on a line parallel to the West line of said Pinewood Terrace No. 2 a distance of 66.91 feet; thence on a curve to the right with a radius of 62.5 feet and delta angle of 90 degrees 32 minutes 30 seconds a distance of 98.77 feet; thence West on a tangent to lost said curve a distance of 28,91 feet; thence North on a line parallel to and 33 feet East of said West line a distance of 149.81 feet, more or less, to the actual point of beginning, according to the recorded plot thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota. -j- o :: _-= , _ ..�� ._- — – �--- � - z,-�J - - ---- � - ` - - , : :1 Exhibit 2. Legal Descriptions for Planned Unit Develonnnent: Midland A11 of Lots 17 and 18 and that part of Lot 16 lying South of a line drawn between Videen: the Southeasterly corner of Lot 19 and the Southwesterly corner of Lot 4, all in Block 5, Pinewood Terrace No. 2, according to the recorded plot thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota. :►� The tract described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 17, Block 5, Pinewood Terrace No. 2, Village of Mounds View, Minnesota, according to the recorded plot thereof; thence South along the West line of said Lot 17 a distance of 55.19 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence on a curve to the left with a radius of 20 feet and delta angle of 90 degrees 32 minutes 30 seconds a distance of 31.61 feet; thence East along the South line of said Lot 17 a distance of 72.19 feet; thence South on a line parallel to the West line of said Pinewood Terrace No. 2 a distance of 66.91 feet; thence on a curve to the right with a radius of 62.5 feet and delta angle of 90 degrees 32 minutes 30 seconds a distance of 98.77 feet; thence West on a tangent to lost said curve a distance of 28.91 feet; thence North on a line parallel to and 33 feet East of said West line a distance of 149.81 feet, more or less, to the actual point of beginning, according to the recorded plot thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota. City That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Remnant Township 30 North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, lying Parcel: northeasterly of the northeasterly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 10-62, lying south of the westerly extension of the south line of Lot 19, Block 5, Pinewood Terrace No. 2. according to the recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota, and lying southeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest corner of Lot 22, Block 5, said Pinewood Terrace No. 2; thence southerly on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 46 minutes 46 seconds East, along the west line of said Lot 22, a distance of 73.58 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence southerly a distance of 330.62 feet along a tangential curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 383.00 feet and a central angle of 49 degrees 27 minutes 34 seconds; thence South 48 degrees 40 minutes 48 seconds West, tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 186.68 feet to the northeasterly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 10-62 and there terminating. Vacated That part of the Edgewood Drive right of way proposed to be vacated according to Edgewood the description in Exhibit 4 lying south of the westerly extension of the south line of Drive: Lot 19, Block 5, Pinewood Terrace No. 2, � -- _- '' _- __ _. ___----- . ------ _ -_- S°-- ,�-y .__.-� L�� ------�--_ ` . Exhibit 3. Legal Descriptions for Parcels to be Exchanged: City Remnant That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Parcel: Township 30 North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, lying northeasterly of the northeasterly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 10-62, lying south of the westerly extension of the south line of Lot 19, Block 5, Pinewood Terrace No. 2, according to the recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota, and lying southeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest corner of Lot 22, Block 5, said Pinewood Terrace No. 2; thence southerly on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 46 minutes 46 seconds East, along the west line of said Lot 22, a distance of 73.5 8 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence southerly a distance of 330.62 feet along a tangential curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 383.00 feet and a central angle of 49 degrees 27 minutes 34 seconds; thence South 48 degrees 40 minutes 48 seconds West, tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 186.68 feet to the northeasterly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 10-62 and there terminating. Midland Videen That part of the East 66.00 feet of Lot l 6 lying North of a line drawn Parcel: between the Southeasterly corner of Lot 19 and the Southwesterly corner of Lot 4, also that part of Lot 16 lying South of a line drawn between the Southeasterly corner of Lot 19 and the Southwesterly corner of Lot 4 and lying easterly and southeasterly of the hereinafter described Line A, all in Block 5, Pinewood Terrace No. 2, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota. Line A Beginning at the southeast corner of Lot 19, said Block 5; thence southerly, on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 46 minutes 46 seconds East, along the east line of Lots 17 and 18, said Block 5, and its extension southerly, a distance of 156.67 feet; thence South 10 degrees 12 minutes 41 seconds West, a distance of 109.95 feet; thence South 39 degrees 58 minutes 09 seconds West, a distance of 160.01 feet; thence North 84 degrees 47 minutes 13 seconds West, a distance of 48.04 feet; thence South 39 degrees 58 minutes 09 seconds West, a distance of 28.56 feet to the southwesterly line of said Lot 16 and there terminating. Exhibit 4. Le�al Description for Ed�ewood Drive Vacation: _� r - � That part of Edgewood Drive as dedicated in the plat of Pinewood Terrace No. 2, Ramsey County, Minnesota, and together with that part of Edgewood Drive as located in the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 30 North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which has become a public roadway by prescriptive use or recorded easement which lies northeasterly of the northeasterly right- of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 10-62 and which lies southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest corner of Lot 22, Block 5, said Pinewood Terrace No. 2; thence southerly on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 46 minutes 46 seconds East, along the west line of said Lot 22, a distance of 73.58 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence southerly a distance of 330.62 feet along a tangential curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 383.00 feet and a central angle of 49 degrees 27 minutes 34 seconds; thence South 48 degrees 40 minutes 48 seconds West, tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 186.68 feet to the northeasterly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 10-62 and there terminating. � - -= �-- --=�-� i=-- --- _ ,� �`�r„v ,._ - __� . t � .--�- � _ _ ..� _--_ I �.. ---- - '- ; " "__ - --- i i: Item # 7 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: July 19, 2000 Title: PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 626-00, A RESOLUTION RECOMIv1ENDING APPROVAL OF A GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN FOR A HOTEL AND BANQUET CENTER A.DDITION TO THE MERMAID ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX, 2200 HIGHWAY 10. Planning Case: ZC00-003 Applacant: Dan Hall, Representing Mermaid, Inc. Introrluction: Dan Hall, representing The Mermaid, is requesting City approval of a general concept plan to construct a 97-room hotel and a 500-seat banquet center to be attached to and integrated with the existing complex. The general concept plan is the first stage of a planned unit development (PUD) process. The advantage to this stage is that the developer is allowed to bring forth a general site plan for City review and consideration without the need to have all of the other components prepared. If the City approves the concept plan, the developer would then prepare the balance of the submittal (landscaping, detailed site plans, drainage, signage, elevations, photometric analysis, etc.) for city consideration, which is referred to as the development stage of the PUD. Both stages (concept and development stages) require a public hearing. The final stage of the PUD is the administrative approval. A public hearing notice was published in the newspaper and notices mailed to all property owners within 350 feet ofthe subject properties for this meeting. In addition to the PUD, the applicant has also applied for a major subdivision, which would combine all of the subject properties into one platted parcel (presumably, Lot 1, Block 1, Mermaid Addition.) Action on the major subdivision will not be contemplated at this meeting. Background: The concept of a hotel development and banquet center at the Mermaid is not a new one. The owners of the Mermaid have for six years or more contemplated this type of expansion, investigated potential partners and franchise opportunities. Throughout this time, there have been informal discussions with previous Councils and Planning Commissions regarding the potential for this type of expansion. To staf�s knowledge, the concept has always been considered in a favorable light. Mr. Hall has applied for tax increment financing on the project, and on June 5, 2000, the City Council directed staff to work with the Mermaid to finalize the finance package. � � _ . .� �.c--�,-:_ �_ �---.a'` -`_'-�.---�=� ��----'�- � -�'�:st":�C'._��=c�i ��' .. : ..�.aa r� :k __ �C_-'r.' _�_� ��'� - - ' (r-- . _. 1_,. _ _..i , _ � ._. � �� __ „�.1__1.._.��--- -._,. :_._. Mermaid Report July 19, 2000 Page 2 GeneraC Concept Plan Review: The Planning Commission has been provided with a set of plans date-stamped June 30, 2000 for the proposed expansion. They include an existing condition plan, an existing condition topographic survey, a proposed conditions site plan and a proposed condition site plan encompassing both the project area as well as the Mounds View Business Park South development. The total area of the proposed PUD is 11 acres, which includes the three existing Mermaid Parcels, the Rent-All parcel, the Perkins Parcel, Music Off 10 and the dry holding pond associated with the business park development. (The minimum requirement for a commercial PUD is 5 acres.) The existing business park access drive from County Road H would be shifted to the west to maximize the contiguous parking area for the proposed development. The hotel is planned to be a four story, 96-unit AmericInn. Attached to the hotel would be a "water park" which would offer in addition to the pool and waterslide, hot tub and sauna, a spacious lounge area (the "plaza"). Attached to the hotel and the existing Mermaid facilities would be the 14,714 square foot banquet center, which would provide seating for as many as 500 people. Dimensional Reguiremer�ts: Parlcin�: Page AS2 of the submitted plans indicate the proposed and anticipated configuration of the development. As shown on this plan, a total of 977 parking stalls would be required with the addition of the hotel and the banquet center. The plans indicate that a total of 961 spaces can be provided on the site, but only if the parking lot setbacks are reduced from the B-3 zoning district- required 30 feet to five feet along Highway 10 and at one point along County Road H, one foot. Such a reduction in the setback requirement is allowed via the PUD process, which explicitly states that a purpose and intent of the PUD is to allow for variation from the provisions of the Zoning Code, including setbacks, parking, height, lot area, etc. Parking lot setback: As mentioned above, the setback of the parking lot can be reduced via the PUD process. Approaching this in the strictest sense, if the setbacks requirements were to be enforced without deviation, as many as 175 parking stalls would be lost. The net effect of such a loss would mean either the banquet center would be reduced in size and capacity by 50 percent or more, or the hotel would need to be completely eliminated. Neither scenario would be feasible based upon the already submitted cost and earnings projections. It does appear possible, however, that the proposed one-foot setback along County Road H could be increased to five feet with minimal impact to the number of parking spaces or design of the building. Building setbacks: The Building setbacks are different from point to point, but generally speaking, the bowling area would remain unchanged at a minimum setback of 60 feet, the dining and bar area would be more than 200 feet, the hotel addition would be a minimum 100 feet, while the banquet center would be setback only 35 feet. All of these setbacks satisfy the curreni B-3 zoning requirements. : i _ � � ;: ., � : �� _ ____ � _: � �.:: � .�. .. . : : Mern�aid Report July 19, 2000 Page 3 Development Review Issues: Buildin� Desi r�r.� The proposed hotel expansion would be professionally designed and aesthetically pleasing and would tie in to the existing facility. It could be suggested that the existing facility be renovated to match the new construction. SiQna e: The applicant plans to retain the multi-colored electronic sign along Highway 10 and proposes three additional signs along County Road H. The additional signage is indicated to be of a monument design, which should be encouraged over a pylon type of sign. The applicant has indicated that the corner of the property adjacent to Highway 10 and County Road H would be reserved for the City to install a gateway entry sign. Landscaping: A landscape plan will be submitted in conjunction with the development stage of the PUD. Lightin�: A photometric analysis would be submitted in conjunction with the development stage of the PUD. Staff has forwarded to the applicant the same lighting proposed for use on the Walgreens development. A copy of the proposed ornamental lighting is attached for the Commission's review. Access: The proposed site plan indicates two Highway 10 accesses and two County Road H accesses. While this would not represent a change from the existing configuration, the two accesses serving the Rent-All property would be eliminated. No new accesses, other than the relocated access to the business park, are contemplated with this proposal. Draina�e and Zltilitv: Staff and the City's engineer have been working closely with the applicant and Rice Creek Watershed Dish�ict to create a regional stormwater holding pond that would be located partly on the Meho Waste Control property and partly on Edgewood Middle School property. While the final drainage plans and use agreements are still being drafted, all indications are that all paities--including Rice Creek Watershed District--will approve the stoimwater project. The benefits of this proposed stormwater pond are unmense, in that stormwater iunoff fi•om the Mermaid site currently drains untreated directly into Rice Creek. _��.�-. k^- � - -- _ G ` A_ , � _ - _ _- - . -- ` -- -- �.�� '-------� $_--�-• (�� Meimaid Report July 19, 2000 Page 4 Ti�ail.wc�vs: To comply with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and the Mounds View Trails and Sidewalk Plan, it has been suggested that the applicant be responsible for installing a bituminous trailway along its Highway 10 property frontage. As with the discussion concerning Walgreens, Dan Soler with Ramsey County has verbally indicated that the trailway could be located within the Highway 10 right of way. It has also been suggested that the School District would be interested in having the existing trail around its wetland improved, which could be done in conjunction with the stormwater pond improvement. Major Subdivision: In conjunction with the PUD, the applicant has also made application for a major subdivision, which, among other things, wili combine all of the associated project parcels (Perkins, Rent-All, Music OffTen, etc.) into one platted lot. This action is required due to the subdivision of a parcel owned by the business park (dry holding pond and driveway). Recommendation: If the Planning Commission is satisfied and accepting of the general concept plan regarding the proposed Mermaid Hotel and Banquet Center additions, staff would recommend approval of Resolution 626-00; a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of the general concept plan, subject to any stipulations. i �'• i \...i�:>✓�'v��, L-i�,-c-C.'-�z:TY1-' James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Location Map 3. General Concept Plans, date-stamped 6/30/2000 4. Light Fixtures 5, Resolution 626-00 i �; ;; _- -,�� 1_ -- _ sa. ,p s��a��r,- �f� t w�l" ; );`i�;� :��'`�:: .� p•:•��: i;� � �t�u',"' ��p ..I:::r'.:.. ♦ � oR�"�J ' Partnersr``Q Applicant Intormation Name of Applicant Address � : : iL � : - �y — _-. f _ __;;a _ _ _� -- -- --. "ti' COI��MUNTTY DEVELOPIVIENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form MoundsVista, Inc. d/b/a The Mermaid, Inc. 2200 Highway No. 10 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 - FAX Telephone 612-784-7350 Fax 612-784-0107 Mounds View, MN 55112 Interest in Property (check appropriate box) `�7� Owner of Properiy ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager � Agreement to Purchase � Other (explain) Applicants must provide eviJcnce of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the ow�ner of the property, you must providc a Icttcr of permission from thc o�•ncr giving consent Yo thc �ling of this application. The property ohmer must sign this application for it to be accepteci. Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location Legal Description Property Ident�cation # (PIN #) # of Acres Current Zoning 2200 Highway No. 10, Mounds View, MN See Attached. Parcel 1: 08-30-23-43-0006, 08-30-23-43-0007, 08-30-23-43-0008 Parcel 2: 08-30-23-43-0009, Parcel 3: 08-30-23-43-0005 Commercial Hi�hway Parcel 4: 08-30-23-43-0010 Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment o Rezoning �C Major Subdivision o Minor Subdivision i� Planned Unit Development (PUD) ❑ PUD Amendment ❑ Conditional Use Pernvt O Variance ❑ Code Appeal �CC Develop Review/Site Plan ❑ Wetland Alteration Pennit ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit ❑ Floodplain Pernvt o Other $250 $250/acre; min $250 max $ I 500 $250 + $250 deposit* $200 ' Refer to rezoning fees � $350 R-1, R-2 $75; all others $250 R-1, R-2 $ I 00 all others $250 $100 $125/acre; min $125 max $7S0 R-1, R-2 $150; all o[hers $200 R-1, R-2 $25; al] others $] 00 $200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shail be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complcte the rcvcrse side of this application. �_ _ �~�-- :� � �-� ��--- �_ i - —� �,.��-� � :� s :� _=� _� _�.: � ---= - _----� - � ---�— City of Mounds View, MN Development Application Pa�e 2 Present Use of Property ❑ UndevelopedNacant O Duplex/Two Family Dwelling � Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) Property Class�cation �5 Abstract ❑ Single Family Dwelling o Multi-family Dwelling o Industrial Establishment ❑ Torrens DescriptionofProposal The planned development is for a 160 room hotel with banquet, restaurant and bowling facilities BY MY (OUR) STGNANRE ON THIS APPLICATION, T HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO TI� BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, TI-� TNFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Signahue of Applicant � 'f�i2l.=S l +'�� Name of Applicant (typed/printed) ��'?r/�1 i L L L. ��—�L...L (� .'�°� • 2��j Signature ofProperty Owner Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner :Z,2uc.� I�K �bi-t,J�4' l c� l�"L(��..�kJiAS vf c.tiv' !2t >J S S I Z ��2 `��y��3S� ***************************************************�****************�**************************w FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Subznittal � Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. 60-day Limit 120-day limit • Fees Paid: Account # Check # Application: Park Dedication: Deposits: . � Other: Total: Receipt # N:�DATA\GROUPSICOMDEV�FORMS�DEVAPP.FOR 1/98 Mermaid Zoning Map ��:::, 2fi1�' � h �J� �Y��U �,� 25 �2��', 239 S23(}" �� 522C> 21� 5Z1t). zo9 I 52QCi� ._._� W V` �i � 1.`�0 �� w� M' y�� . �^ • �,✓� � _.. _ _ yy....,,.. �.. > � ,� : � .� .� y �'�-�_ -'�� -.�iz�� __ -.-�-�.e-v-_�+! �,..... .: .:.__, .u-�: _��r...- ..�J . �_c" ",- __ . : .... ' .`�: j.�:��-1��+.s�ec��.��.e�m.! .�_�._ J"_". '."' ____ _"� _ '. I Ci�ty of I�lounds 1�iew Loca�ion Map M��■��■= ; �� ,� �� ■�■�� ;�,.,� . � ��: �L��ii=1=� ��■ „�.�,., �= =' -� ��N�� ".�,., : � C � �� : �r��*��■ �■ ■. ��y� �� +■��■ ■�� .�� S.rr��t� � � �� :: ■ ■■� w■ . + ... �I� ��■ � C�+�� :.w.�w�s: :C'ir�� i *� i��: �: :C .�� . -�i�■�s == .: ... .� ,.. �� .... ... .. .... ..- - ��..��... ��• -• • - .. .�� w.. ��r ��r �r ��■ r � r r • The Mermaid, Inc. *Propert�r I nvolved: 2�Q0 Highway 10 Planning Case Nos. MA00-QO�, �GOQ003, & DE00-OQ3 0 - Propert� Involved: 2200 Highwa� 10 `;,,.,��;:r;,; = Pra erties 1Nithin 350' ,,t � ,;, p � � ii �� ii ..:�.� �:i • �tld-1 Ma7hSOdlK%M \ \�� / � � � � w � ulllllllllllll V � �o �t � W J Q C] 0 ❑ 3 O � r" . a' � � �9 r a' �o �� m � �I � �� ° � �� w � J Z � Q z V z p � o Z � � M w H !V � � �° S � ° a° =4 °` � � W ° .. � � � Q _ g � z z � W` �` � I-- � J� �� ` � N Q OL a Q ?� a- p J m w� m �w Z A � l� Z � � m z., o �.. �� w w W p[ - r h- F"_ �L �(�(�l ��D U If1 LL� 3 Ifl � O � Q F UZl U� Q. T � T � O � Q. � T J � � 3a 3� �� F � ` ,O .� \ l�� '\ 'f. �dPy / /. `2�tiV� / � � P6. �P,�k, � / \ �d, S ,,� �\ � /I I.I'I1��ll � \�•� C�T��Tf11'11� �rH�N�� '\ > o-�� Uff�T�T�1 � � �� _ z � aa 9 UTffffl��llTTfIT�11 I � Q � W F- N 4 h Z�— l iii�� . �� s � SN`Old AkldNlWll�lid _ � � K° �� `(e � i � e o� �� s �� aa 3� �� m 0 t � 1 � d .- � _o � , � IIII I �— \ � �x,� � �«� �� .--� � - SMYId AHVNIYVI�3Hd v '�a-i ha�now — — �� ! . � 6 1 � • r�� ] . . a j � � 51 � � � �' - �� , O O O'040� ��O;O O O . � ; p i i�� 0 � � ; 0 0 0.:�-___o_;_____._,_________________ � oo��oo; ;00000 . � �; � � ��-�-�---._._._.---._._._._. � � �._�.-�..-�-.� � 000 O; , � O O O�tO O � � O �J=i O O O ai O�' O O O O O Oe•O O I 1 n, n�n ��n . eO O O O � � d �� __L � � ¢� U (� g y 4 ., a� aa 3> d'� P� P �, � I� G= o- y � � � � -o g � � � � � � � S� �"� � •'� � �'"'° �� a o�� {� �¢ I�� m sl . 7a 3� g I I I�KX1.:Xtli15TR7J fi0-J lON � �� „ �.?� �� o � � [�� : y ,— � I I I I I Sid'�ld %FlVi`iIW�'l3Hd B10H M3VSa!(KJY'1 � ��r ��, ba ST 6�d�� S�: 0 � a� t � t � � �iiiiiiii ��,W `� • l��J� � k� N�1fH�WOJ $1CF1 M3NSUYKJ4N � x �� a� �� q � 6 � � � � C' � ai ! � �� "" "� � � � sr�v-� ,u�vNiwna� � � . �oH'�� 1 �� `� x �� ! ;� 3� �&a� � Q - e g 3 � � t � 0 r � __- i -- __ HF'K �b �1�l�l9 lb � 1'/ FK HKI.N 1 I tt.: I UKHL L I la Apr-i6-OU 03:53pm hrom-6um�� in4 �� ri e� rr v�. srI O��V rr�n� IM. \��)�'� M e �wN�� e.. v mi�.�i �'• � to� , 76omrn I � b1� 5b1 4�y� IU NbY ,-,...,__.__� �C2] r.e1��1 ��.�TI�,N • •'�/(r�e� . 1 � v � �i�Otai�LYA1 CENT�i� N�� aI�UAIi�S V1��41 �+„�`�` o,-x6 n�s�o uusl �9s3,� � � �� sooz 3��op QMS50 31153A � la.{�L A � a� � _ -- , :_ � r - _ �� _ -�---- :_ ��-� r_ _ . __�_.� «:. .: _= �.::` �: 4--=-- � � . . , f----- — oe ox Step to Precision The Shoebox moves you in the right direcfion using precision illumination giving a pleasing look and feel for any outdoor setting. — — - - — ---- - --- — - - -- - -- � 1971 Gateway Boulevard, Arden Hills, MN 55112 • www.nspco.com • 3-800-960-6235 m2000 Northern States Power Company -{ . r.' � . � �.. . � _Y : �� :� .. ' _ _. . , . _ . . - ' ._.� . ..'.' '-',_ . . . . • t. : . .. . �� ' . :.- . . _- - . _ .. . .. . . . _ - _ . . � - . - ' � _ "�_�-�--. . � _. �Y+-: .�' -�� - -°-'- MOUNDS VIEW PLAIVNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 626-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCII. APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN REGARDING THE PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A HOTEL AND BANQUET CENT�R AT THE MERMAID, LOCAT�D AT 2200 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. ZC00-003 WHEREAS, Dan Hall, representing The Mermaid, Inc., has made application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and is requested approval of the PUD general concept plan; and, VVHEREAS, The Mermaid is located at 2200 Highway 10 and is currently zoned B-3, Business Commercial; and, WI�REAS, the PIN numbers of the properties associated with this PUD proposal are as follows: 08-30-23-43-0006 - Mermaid 08-30-23-43-0007 - Mermaid 08-30-23-43-0008 - Mermaid 08-30-23-43-0009 - Rent All 08-30-23-43-0010 - Perkins 08-30-23-43-0005 - Music Off 10 08-30-23-43-0023 - Mounds View Business Park South Condo (part) WHEREAS, a public hearing notice was published in the official City newspaper on July 13, 2000, and notices mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject properties; and, VVHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed Chapter 1120 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to planned unit developments; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the land use component of the Comprehensive Plan relative to this request; and, W�-IEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the site plans date- stamped June 30, 2000, relative to this request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the general concept plan of the proposed planned unit development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Municipal Code and recommends approval of said plan with the following stipulation(s): ; --_ � ! __ � ♦�= _ _ � _ , _ _ __ _ _ . � ____ � --- ..- — - � � - ---- - --- �- --- -- - - i Resolution 626-00 July 19, 2000 Page 2 1. The Site Plan shall be revised prior to development review submission to reflect a minimum five-foot parking lot setback along both County Highway 10 and County Road H. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staffto forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 19th day of July, 2000 Attest: Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director E:\DATA\GROIIPS\COMDEV�DGVCASESVvlcnnaid Hotel (ZC00-003, DE00-003, MA00-002)�Resolution 626-OO.doc I ' � a � , � � v _ ; ` � -- � = : - ' ----- - = i` " --°_ > Item # 8 City of Mounds Vie�v Planning Com�nission Report Meeting Date: July 19, 2000 Title: C�NSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 624-00, A RESOLUTION RECOMI��NDING ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 664, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1106 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. Introduction: Staff has been directed to work with the Planning Commission to draft language revising the Zoning Code regarding sheds and accessory structures. The Planning Commission initiated discussion on this issue on June 7, 2000, and continued discussion on June 21, 2000. Based on the input and comments generated at these two meetings, staff drafted Ordinance 664, which amends Chapter 1106 of the Zoning Code pertaining to accessory buildings. The ordinance was reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 5, 2000, and direction was given to staff to draft a resolution recommending to the City Council adoption of the ordinance. Discussion: The only changes made to the proposed ordinance that was reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 5, 2000, were to underline the added text in subdivision la on Page 2 and to re-letter the subsequent subparts of that same subdivision. While much discussion occurred regarding this, no changes were made regarding the confusing signage subdivision within the home occupation section of the Code. Because Ordinance 664 contemplates accessory buildings, such a change would not be germane to the rest of the ordinance. It was decided that any changes to that particular subdivision would come about as a result of the impending and long-overdue revision to the City's sign code. Summary of Changes: Once again, the most substantive changes contemplated by this proposed ordinance are as follows: All property owners are allotted 1,400 square feet of accessory building space subject to the 20% maximum rear yard coverage ratio. • All properties allowed a 952 square foot garage, regardless of footprint of home. , _ , , _ Y ,, ,L --_------- . - - - . . : _ -- --� . .; _ly .�-- --�' - r--- -- _ : _� Report #4 on Sheds July 19, 2000 Page 2 • Three accessory buildings are allowed instead of two. • Limit of one garage eliminated. •"Size of accessory building not to exceed footprint of house" requirement eliminated altogether. • Distinction between garage and shed eliminated—simply referred to as accessory buildings. • Accessory buildings shall be constructed with a weather-resistant siding material and shall not be constructed with canvas or tubular metal. Recommendation: Approve Planning Commission Resolution 624-00, a resolution recommending adoption of Ordinance 664, an ordinance amending Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to permitted and conditionally permitted accessory buildings. � ��.�Ja-u �'L.. � ��v�� James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Ordinance 664 2. Resolution 624-00 � 0 �=: ) : T r : : - .- - ----- - --_ --_ — : - ORDINANCE NO. G64 CTTY OF MOUNDS VICW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHA.PTER 1106 OF THE MOUNDS V�W ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO P�RMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TI� CITY OF MOUNDS V�W ORDAINS: SECTION 1: Section 1106.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and the proposed deletions ��, to read as follows: 1106.02: PERMI'TTED US�S: The following are permitted uses in an R-1 District: Subd. 1. Single-family detached dwellings. (Ord. 575, 7-15-96) a Each �plicant for a building�ermit to construct anv dwellings shall be required to provide off-street�arking snaces for at least two (2) automobiles per family in addition to any ��e snaces to be used. b Everv dwellin� house hereafter erected sha11 be so located on the lot so that at least a two �2) car �ara�e either attached or detached, can be located on said lot. c No pernvt shall be issued for the construction of a residential dwelling, unless the driveway servicing the �ropertv is to be improved with a perrnanent surfacin� material so as to control dust, draina�e and erosion according to the rec�irements as set forth in Section 902.05 of this Code exce�t that the property owner ma�provide a signed notarized statement in which the property owner agrees to improve the drivewav in conjunction with the desired construction activities or within six (6) months of the commencement of such activities, in a form acceptable to the Citv Attornev. For the purposes of this Title, permanent surfacing materials are defined as concrete, asphalt or brick. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98) , Subd. 2. Pernutted single-family uses allowed under Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357, subdivision 7, as follows: a. A state licensed residential facility serving six (6) or fewer persons, except as provided in subdivision 3 ofthis Section 1106.02; (Ord. 596, 3-10-97) b. A licensed day care facility serving twelve (12) or fewer persons; c. A group family day care facility licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9501.0445 to serve fourteen (14) or fewer children; d. Residential facilities whose primary purpose is to treat juveniles who have violated criminal statutes relating to sex offenses or have been adjudicated delinquent on the basis of Page 1 -. _��: __�'_ � ,� L � . � �� , � __ - =---- - -- _ - -�-= - '' �.r_ � ;� � �� _ _ . y. :. H- _.. . ---- • -�--°------ - �`_-- ----- ----- -- - ° --- � ...._,. Ordinance 664 conduct in violation of criminal statutes relating to sex offenses shall not be considered a perniitted use. (Ord. 575, 7-15-96) Subd. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision 2.a. herein, foster family homes as defined in Minnesota Rules, chapter 9545, section 9545.0010, subp. 7, which relate to the Department of Human Services and group homes and group foster homes as defined in Department of Correction Rules, extracted from Minnesota Rules, chapter 2925, section 2925.0100, subp. 9, shall be allowed as permitted uses to serve not more than eight (8) children per home, not including the foster family's own children. (Ord. 575, 7-15-96; Ord. 596, 3-10-97) Subd. 4. Essential services. (Ord. 575, 7-15-96) Subd. 5. Public parks and playgrounds. (Ord. 575, 7-15-96) SECTION 2: Section 1106.03 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and the proposed deletions ��, to read as follows: 1106.03: ACCESSORY USES: The following are pernutted accessory uses in an R-1 District: (1988 Code §40.10) Subd. 1. Accessory Buildings: Accessory buildings, such as attached or detached garages or tool houses, carports, sheds and similar buildings for storage of domestic supply and noncommercial recreational equipment. . ,. � � . a. EverY R-1 zoned prope improved with a sin le-family dwellin� is allotted a ma�mum of 1,400 square feet of combined accessory buildin� area, subject to the requirements noted herein. , _ - - - •:. . - : - :- .. . Page 2 :r , _ _ _ - � , __ _ r _ . _ ___ �4:�, :� � ._____. _ - - -- --�----- Ordinance 664 � , e�ta�e� , � � � b. �- Accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen feet (15') in height, shall be five feet (5') or more from all lots lines of adjoining lots and shall be s�i3�€ee�{�} three feet 3'r) or more from any other building or structure on the same lot. Attached garages must conform to the front and rear setback requirements for the principle structure, and the side yard setback shall be at least five feet (5'). , . . , c. € No accessory buildin� ga��ge in an R-1 District shall exceed nine hundred fifty-two (952) square feet in area, except by conditional use permit. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98) d. �- The combined sc�uare footage of accessory buildings in a rear yard shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) ofthe rear yard. (Ord. 442, 7-11-88; Ord. 620, 7-27-98) e. � An outdoor living room or patio shall not be used for storage of automobiles or trucks. f. �i- No pernvt shall be issued for the construction of more than �e-(�� three 3 accessory buildings in any R-1 District. One of the ��e-(-�� three 3 pernvts must be for a garage. � Accessory buildings shall have a weather resistant, treated or finished exterior. Structures composed of tubular metal and canvas or exposed plvwood, particle board or similar materials shall not be permitted. , � h If an accessorv building is to be utilized for the storage of frequentiv-used vehicles, it shall be serviced by an improved drivewav so as to control dust, drainage and erosion, according to the requirements as set forth in Section 902.05 of this Code. . Subd. 2. Outdoor Uncovered Parkin�paces: a Parking spaces for residential vehicles as reg;ulated bv Section 607.06, Chapter 802 and Cha�ter 1121 of the Municipal Code. b. RV Storage: Storage of recreational vehicles and equipment leased or owned by the resident as regulated by Chapter 802 of this Municipal Code. Subd. 3. Home Occupations: The regulation of home occupations within residential structures is intended to �e ensure that the occupational use is clearly accessory or secondary to the principal dwelling use and that compatibility with surrounding residential uses is maintained. No home occupation shall be allowed which: Page 3 _ __ ___j _. r _ ; �-- _ _ y �:�a �.� �._,� � - - - . . � ,r_. =:� l____..�-�__�. �. . . .----- - - - - - .r- ----- --- - - -- - -- - '' - .:� Ordinance 664 a. Involves employees other than persons residing on the premises; b. Involves alteration or construction features not customarily found in dwellings; c. Has an exterior display or sign in excess of one square foot. Such sign, for identification purposes orily, shall be located on either the principal structured or garage. Any sign existing prior to December 29, 1972, shall not be enlarged but may be continued at the size and location upon such date, except as hereinafter specified or subsequently amended. Any sign erected after December 29, 1972, but prior to the effective date hereof shall come into compliance herewith by April 1, 1983; d. Involves exterior storage of equipment or materials; e. Generates more than two (2) motor vehicles at a time for either off-street or on-street parking; f. Results in violation of the provisions of Chapter C94 607, Nuisances, of the Municipal Code; and g. Involves activity visible from the public streets. Subd. 4, Noncommercial Greenhouses and Conservatories: Subd. 5. Recreationa] Facilities: Swimming pools, patios, decks, gazebos, swing sets, plav s, sy tems and pla� houses, outdoor livin r�ms, tennis courts, and other recreational facilities which are operated for the enjoyment and convenience of the residents of the principal use and their guests. Such facilities shall be set back five feet (5') or more from a property line exce�t swimming pools, which shall be set back ten feet (10') or more from a property line Subd. 6. Boarding: Boarding or renting of rooms to not more than one (1) person. Subd. 7. Other Uses: Other allowed uses incidental to the dwelling unit, including, but not limited to: clothes lines and poles; lawn and garden ornaments and other landscapin� features; and pet house, e�facility or kennel. A pet house, facilitv or kennel shall be set back five feet (5'� or more from a property line. ; , � . (1988 Code §40.10) SECTION 3: Section 1106.04 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and the proposed deletions °,�=a��i, to read as follows: 1106.04: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an R-1 District (requiring a conditional use pernvt based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title): Subd. 1. Public or semi-public recreational buildings and neighborhood or corrununity centers, public and private educational institutions limited to elementary, junior high and senior high Page 4 _ �, . . __ � » � _ __ ___ _ __ _ ___ _. _ . �� - _ _ � � � _ _ __ _ _ _ _ ____ ___ _ � Ordinance 664 schools and religious institutions, such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues; provided, that: a. Front yard depths shall be a minimum of thirty-five feet (35'). b. Side yards shall be no less than thirty feet (30'). c. Minimum lot area shall be no less than one (1) acre, or as provided in Section 1104.02, subdivision 2b(3). (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) d. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. e. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting or directly across a public street to the principal use in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this Title and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. f. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where applicable by Chapter 1122 of this Title. g. The provisions of Section 1125.01, subdivision le of this Title are considered and � satisfactorily met. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) Subd. 2. Governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of the community; provided, that: a. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained and required setbacks and side yard requirements are met. b. Equipment is completely enclosed in a permanent structure with no outside storage. c. Adeyuate screening from neighboring uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. • d. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. Subd. 3. Residential planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 1120 of this Title. Subd. 4. Residential dog/cat kennel. Subd. 5. Model homes. (1988 Code §40.10) Subd. 6. Ca�age Accessorv buildin�s exceeding nine hundred fifty-two (952) square feet. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98) Page 5 E . _ . :w . � :� M��::�.,� .� � - . _ __. � � . . :: _ ,i ��- � Ordinance 664 a. The accessory building must conform with Section 1103.06 and subdivision 1106.03(1) of this Title. b. The combined snuare footage of all accessory buildings on one (1) lot cannot exceed one thousand four hundred (1,400) sc�uare feet. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98) c. The building shall be designed and maintained to provide a unifonn appearance with the dwelling unit. d. The width of the building cannot exceed thirty-five feet (35'` �� "�.•, ��-° *'�� '�� .,,,�,:,,�o „ .-, � ------ -------• e. The building shall be a pennanent structure. f. e; Should the use for which the pernvt was granted be changed, the permit shall be subject to reconsideration, revocation or other action regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title. ' - - _ �e�rrf . . _ ._ . i��!�e!e�:�t!n��sE. - - •�• _, ,.. Fr.�. . ,__.,�:..,..:,.:.- ,,,..� �s.�: - . . .. •• Subd. 7&. Wireless telecommunications towers and� antennae subject to the provisions established in Chapter 1124 of the Zoning Code. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) , i Page 6 r _ _ i _ ��---: _ _---= _ _ . . � » Ordinance 664 SECTION 4. This Ordinance becomes effective thirty (30) days after its publication in the official City newspaper. Read by the City Counci] of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 2000. Read and passed by the City Counci] of tlle City of Mounds View this day of , 2000. Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Ulrich, Interim Clerk / Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney I:�DATA\USERS\J�vvIE\Old PC\Word Documents\Ordinance 664.doc Page 7 e � __: _ ___ _: . . _ � �.. _ . . � � - ,� MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 624-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE 664, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1100, CHAPTER 1106, R�GARDING PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE SP-079-00 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed proposed Ordinance 664, an ordinance amending Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to permitted and conditionally permitted accessory buildings; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission, after significant discussion, believes the proposed ordinance to be in the best interest of the community and is in lceeping with the overall spirit and intent of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and, WHER.EAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission asserts that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the land use goals and policies addressed in the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends to the Mounds View City Council adoption of proposed Ordinance 664. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staffto forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 19°i day of July, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Comrr►unity Development Director (SEAL) O:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�SPECPROJ�SP079-OO�IZESOLUTION 624-OO.DOC -y _ - • � _, «; __ , _ _ �___ . -- -- , _ . _ _ .: . __� . _ � Item # 9 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: July 19, 2000 Title: DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 663, AN ORDINANCE CREATING LANGUAGE TO A.DMINISTER AND REGULATE TATTOO AND BODY PIERCING ESTABLIS�-IlVIENTS Introduction: As the Planning Commission is aware, the Mounds View Municipal Code does not at this time address tattoo or body piercing establishments. In order to adequately research this issue, the City Council adopted interim Ordinance 653 on February 14, Z000, which prohibits any tattoo shops of body piercing establishments to be located in the City for a period of six months. The six month period will expire on August 14, 2000. Dascussion: With the assistance of tlle city attorney, staff has drafted an ordinance which creates licensing provisions and zoning allowances for such uses. Staff would request the Planning Commission review the entirety of the ordinance paying especially close attention to those provisions concerning the Zoning Code. The ordinance is drafted to allow such uses in the B-2, B-3 and B-4 business zaning districts. They would be allowed unconditionally (i.e., no conditional use permit would be required) so long as three specific requirements are satisfied: , a. Any such establishment shall not be located closer than 500 feet from an educational facility, place of worship and shall be separated by no less than 1,000 feet from any other such establishment located within the City of Mounds View, as measured from the property lines of the property upon which the uses are located. b. The minimum floor space for such use shall be 250 square feet c. The establishment and operators shall be licensed and be in compliance with Chapter 515 of the Municipal Code. Staffis also including a memo received from Robert Vose in the city attorney's office regarding tattoo and piercing establishments which the Planning Commission can review for additional background information. � . e . • _ _. . . . -�rr . t�-=. .� :.. �..-� ; < � r ._ -- ------ -� ....�1.... �.. . . . .- --.�. . � �.._. �. '� ._ Ordinance 663 Report July ] 9, 2000 Page 2 Recommendation: Please review and discuss the proposed ordinance and direct staffto make any corrections or revisions as needed. If the ordinance is satisfactory, staff would draft a resolution for the Commission to act upon at your next meeting on August 2, 2000. �.,�� G�/1n•'t-2�i,1 �'v'��.��ir`+'��'`_. James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Ordinance 663 2. Memo from Bob Vose A O:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�SP�CPRO.nSP075-OO�PC Report - July 19, 2000.doc 0 � � _ _�,� � .� MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Ericson FROM: Bob Vose DATE: July 13, 2000 RE: Proposed TattooBody Piercing Ordinance; Ordinance 663 Jim: you have asked several questions relative to the City's proposed tattoo/body piercing ordinance. This is responsive to those questions. Please note that this response is based on our experience and/or review of other cities' ordinances but does not reflect extensive legal research on the issues raised. Should you want a more detailed analysis please let me know. References in the example ordinance are to the Richfield public safety department. Such references in the Richfield ordinance allow for deviations from the ordinance requirements where approved by the department of public safety. Because Mounds View does not have an equivalent agency that is well equipped to address this kind of public health and sanitation issue, we suggest striking the references and eliminating the administrative discretion. For example, Section 515.11, Subd. 1(c) could be modified as follows: ��e� Sterilizin� solutions and methods � shall be used for the purpose of sterilizing instruments other than needles and razor blades. �x"�°„ �„�'� �+°r:';�:�rt Please let me know if you would like assistance with additional modifications. 2. You ask whether the ordinance may exempt jewelry stores that do limited piercing? You have proposed language exempting "jewelry stores" that provide "facial piercing." Presumably, the basis for this exemption is that: 1) such stores are likely established and better funded, managed, etc. than some small tattoo/body piercing shops; and, 2) experience shows that the risks associated with pierced ears is small compared with other kinds of body piercing activities. Generally, we believe this kind of exemption is permissible but recommend that you better define the scope. Rather than exempting all facial piercing- lips, nose, tongue, eye brows- which may raise more significant risks of infection or injury, the ordinance could exempt only ear piercing. In addition, you may want to better define "jewelry stores." Consider adding the following: For purposes of this ordinance, a jewelry store shall mean a retail business that derives a majority of its revenue from the sale of jewelry and that derives less than one percent of its revenues from ear piercing services. 3. Section 515.11, Subd. 1(g)- Can the City require tattoo/body piercing patrons to Iceep private parts covered? As we discussed, the City likely can impose this limitation. As drafted the provision does mot prohibit tattooing or piercing of such body parts but rather requires that � . _ .. , �: i r � ` _ _ . � _- - -_ �- -- ------- - -- r �___ �.-. �.�;.__ ., _ . �:. -' -- -�•- � they remain covered. This mitigates the potential for a claim that the restriction impermissibly limits freedom of expression- tattooing or piercing of certain body parts. However, it may be dangerous to tattoo or pierce a body part that remains covered. After the first sentence, consider adding: The specialist may lift the covering to expose the person's breasts, buttocks, anus or genitals to the limited extent necessary to perform the tattooing or body piercing requested. The specialist shall ensure that the exposed body part may not be viewed by any other person. Alternatively, if the goal is to prohibit tattooing or piercing of those parts, the provision should explicitly so state. However, we are not aware of health information indicating that such tattooing or piercing is an unhealthy practice and there is little evidence that inappropriate sexual contact is prevalent at tattoo/body piercing shops. As drafted, the ordinance does not contain such findings. Such findings would need to be added and evidence supporting such findings would need to be located. Finally, you ask whether the City should prohibit certain kinds of contact between patrons and service providers. We have not located this type of restriction in other cities' ordinances. In addition, we are not aware of evidence supporting a need for this restriction. 4. Zoning- Several cities specifically identify this type of business for zoning purposes; i.e. restrict to certain zoning districts. We have not, however, located specific CUP standards for such businesses. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. -_- _.r.. _ _ __ ' �-.^.T_ _ I IA._ _.' '_ _ _ __ . _ _ _ - - '__--_- ORDINANC� NO. 663 CITY OF MOUNDS V1EW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF NIINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE TO ENACT A N�W CHAPTER OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ADMINISTER AND REGULATE TATTOO, BODY PIERCING, BODY BRANDING, BODY SCARRING AND BODY PAINTING �STABLISHMENTS AND TO REVISE TITLE 1100 (THE ZONING CODE) PERTAINING TO SUCH USES TI� CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Title 500 of the Mounds View Municipal code shall be amended by the creation of a new Chapter 515 as follows: Chapter 515 Tattoo, Body Piercing, Body Branding, Body Scarring And Body Painting Establishments SECTION: 515.01 515.02 515.03 515.04 515.05 515.06 515.07 515.08 515.09 515.10 515.11 515.12 515.13 515.14 Findings, Purpose and Intent Definitions License Required General Rule License Application Application and Investigation Fees Application Verification and Consideration Persons Ineligible for a License Locations Ineligible for a Tattoo and Body Piercing Enterprise License General License Requirements Health and Sanitation Requirements ' License Terms, Renewals Suspension; Revocation Temporary Tattooing, Body Piercing, Body Branding, Body Scarring Or Body Painting Event License. 515.01: FINDINGS, PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of this section is to regulate the business of tattooing, body piercing, body branding, body scarring or body painting in order to protect the health and welfare of the general public. The city council finds that the experience of other cities indicates that there is a connection between tattooing and hepatitis and other health problems. The city council finds that stringent regulations governing tattooing can minimize the hepatitis and disease risk and therefore protect the general health and welfare of the community. � _ _ �. _ � � . _ _ _ __ :..-... -.— :� -��.� � .�.� = -- == _ . -- - - ---- - - � '- -- .._� Ordinance 663 Page 2 515.02: DEFINITIONS: The following definitions apply in this Chapter of this Code. References hereafter to "sections" are unless otherwise specified references to sections in this Chapter. Defined terms remain defined terms whether or not capitalized. "Body piercing" means any method of puncturing the skin of a person by the aid of needles or other instrument designed or used to puncture the skin for the purpose of inserting jewelry or other objects in or through the human body. "Body piercing" shall not refer to any medical procedure performed by a licensed physician or medical specialist. "Body branding" means impressing or burning a mark or figure on the skin of a person with a hot object or flame. "Body painting" means applying color, pigment or paint to an area of the skin that exceeds three square inches. "Body scarification or scarring" means any method by which a scar is applied to or left upon a body. "Clean" means the absence of dirt, grease, rubbish, garbage, odor and other offensive, unsightly, or extraneous matter. "Good repair" means free of corrosion, breaks, cracks, chips, pitting, excessive wear and tear, .. leaks, obstructions, and similar defects so as to constitute a good and sound condition. � "Enforcement officer" means the Chief of Police or designee. "Operate" means to own, manage or conduct, or to have control, charge or custody over. "Specialist" means that person performing the tattooing, piercing, branding or painting within a licensed tattoo and body piercing enterprise. "Tattoo and body piercing enterprise" means a place of business where all or some of the following services are provided to the public for consideration: tattooing, body piercing, body branding, body scarring or body painting. , "Tattooing" means the marking of the skin of a person by insertion of permanent colors by introducing them through puncture of the skin. 515.03: LICENSE REQUIItED; Subd. 1. Tattoo and Body Piercing Establishment License: It is unlawful to operate, offer, engage in or carry on tattooing, body piercing, body scarring, body branding or body painting without a tattoo and/or body piercing license. Subd. 2. Tattoo and Body Piercing Specialist License: It is unlawful to practice, administer or provide tattoo, body piercing, body scarring or body branding services in the City without a tattoo and/or body piercing specialist license _ - - � _ _ __ ___ � �.� � _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _� - ___ _ _ _ _ ( - � _ -:..:.. .� _ � _ _ , Ordinance 663 Page 3 515.04. GENERAL RULE: The owner or operator of a licensed tattoo and body piercing establishment may employ only licensed tattoo and body piercing specialists to provide tattoo, piercing, branding, scarring or painting services. The owner or operator of a licensed tattoo and body piercing enterprise need not be licensed as a tattoo and body piercing specialist unless that owner or operator personally provides tattoo, piercing, branding, scarring or body painting services. 515.05: LIC�NSE APPLICATION: Subd. 1. Tattoo and Body Piercing Establishment License: The application for a tattoo and body piercing establishment license must contain the following infornnation: a. For all applicants: (1) Whether the applicant is an individual, corporation, partnership or other form of organization; (2) The legal description of the premises to be licensed together with a plan of the area showing dimensions, location of buildings, street access and parking facilities; (3) The floor number, street number and rooms where the tattoo, piercing, branding, scarring ^ or bady painting services are to be conducted; (4) Whether all real estate and personal property taxes that are due and payable for the premises to be licensed have been paid, and if not, the years and amounts that are unpaid; (5) If the application is for a premises either planned or under construction or undergoing substantial alteration, the application must be accompanied by preliminary plans showing the design of the proposed premises; if the plans for design are on file with the building inspector, no plans need be submitted; (6) The name and street address of the business if it is to be conducted under a designation, name or style other than the name of the applicant, and a certified copy of the certificate required by NTinnesota Statutes, section 333.02; (7) Any other information that the City Council may require. b. For applicants who are individuals: (1) The name and date ofbirth and ofthe applicant and applicant's residence address; (2) If the applicant has ever used or been known by a name other than the applicant's name, and if so, the name or names and infoimation concerning the dates and places where used; (3) Residence addresses of the applicant during five (5) years preceding the date of application; :�r'-__�-�._._ . C,..� r'-' � "-.-�- - � ._-- - _�� _�;' _. _..� 4'�_. -"- -' .__. . !� _ . - -`"� -'� �_�' ._- " ' . >_--. Ordinance 663 Page 4 (4) The type, name and location of every business or occupation the applicant has been engaged in during the preceding five (5) years; (5) Naanes and addresses of the applicant's employers for the preceding five (5) years; (6) If the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony, crime or violation of an ordinance other than a minor traffic offense; if so, the applicant must furnish information as to the time, place and o�ense involved in the convictions; (7) If the applicant has ever been engaged in the operation of tattoo, piercing, branding, scarring or body painting services; if so, the applicant must furnish information as to the name, place and length of time of the involvement in such activity. c. For applicants that are partnerships: (1) The names and addresses of general and limited partners and the information concerning each general partner described in subdivision lb of this Section; (2) The managing partners must be designated, and the interest of each general and limited partner in the business must be disclosed; (3) A true copy of the partnership agreement must be submitted with the application, and if n the partnership is required to file a certificate as to a trade name under Minnesota Statutes, section 333.02, a certified copy of that certificate must be submitted. The license--if issued--will be in the name of the partnership. d. For applicants that are corporations: (1) The name of the organization, and if incorporated, the state of incorporation; (2) A true copy of the certificate of incorporation, and, if a foreign corporation, a certificate of authority as described in Minnesota Statutes, section 303.02; (3) The name of the general manager, corporate officers, proprietor, and other person in charge of the premises to be licensed, and the information about those persons described in subdivision lb; (4) A list of the persons who own or have a controlling interest in the corporation or organization or who are officers of the corporation or organization, together with their addresses and the information regarding such persons described in subdivision lb of this Section. Subd. 2. Tattoo and body piercing specialist license: The application for a tattoo and body piercing specialist license must contain the following information: a. The applicant's name and address; b. The applicant's current employer; __ ,� _ _ _ Ordinance 6C3 Page 5 c. The applicant's employers for the previous five (5) years, including employer's name, address and dates of employment; d. The applicant's residence address for the previous five (5) years; e. The applicant's social security number, date of birth, home telephone number, weight, height, color of eyes and color of hair; f. If the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony, crime or violation of an ordinance other than a minor traffic offense and, if so, the time, place and offense involved in the convictions; g. If the applicant h'as ever used or been known by a name other than the applicant's name, and if so, the name or names and information concerning dates and places where used; h. Evidence that the applicant: (1) Has current insurance coverage over one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) for professional liability in the practice of tattooing, piercing, branding, scarring or body painting; (2) Is affiliated with, employed by or owns a tattoo and piercing enterprise licensed by the City; (3) Whether the applicant holds a current tattooing, body piercing, body branding, body scarring or bo.dy painting license from any other governmental unit; (4) Whether the applicant has previously been denied a tattooing, body piercing, body branding, body scarring or body painting license from any other governmental unit. (5) Any other information that the City Council may require. 515.06: APPLICATION AND INVESTIGATION FEES: The fees for tattoo and piercing enterprise and specialist licenses are set forth from time to time by City Co,uncil resolution. An investigation fee will be charged for tattoo and piercing enterprise licenses. An application for either license must be accompanied by payment in full of the required license and investigation fees, if applicable. 515.07: APPLICATTON VERIFICATION AND CONSIDERATION: Subd. 1. Tattoo and piercing enterprise license: The Clerk-Administrator must verify the information supplied on the license application and investigate the background, including the criminal background, of the applicant to assure compliance with this Section. Within ninety (90) days of receipt of a complete application and fee for a tattoo and piercing enterprise license, the Clerk- Administrator must make a written recommendation to the City Council as to issuance or non- issuance of the license. The City Council may order additional investigation if it deems it necessary, but must grant or deny the application within one hundred twenty (120) days of receipt by the Clerk-Administrator of the complete application and required fees. Ordinance 663 Page 6 Subd. 2. Tattoo and piercing specialist license: Within ninety (90) days of receipt of a complet application and fee for a tattoo and piercing specialist license, the Clerk-Administrator must grant or deny the application. Notice will be sent to the applicant upon a denial informing the applicant of the right to appeal to the City Council within twenty (20) days. If an appeal is properly made, the matter will be placed on the next available City Council agenda. 515.08: PERSONS INELIGIBLE FOR LIC�NSE: Subd. 1. Tattoo and Body Piercing Enterprise License: A tattoo and body piercing enterprise license may not be issued to an individual who: a. Is a minor at the time the application is filed; b. Has been convicted of any crime directly related to the occupation licensed as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, section 364.03, subdivision 2, and who has not shown competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to perfonn the duties and responsibilities of a licensee as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, section 364.03, subdivision 3; c. Does not have the legal authority to be employed in the United States; d. Is not of good moral character or repute; e. Is not the real party in interest of the enterprise; f. Has misrepresented or falsified information on the license application. Subd. 2. Tattoo and Body Piercing Specialist License: A tattoo and body piercing specialist license may not be issued to a person who could not c�ualify for a tattoo and body piercing enterprise license or who is not (i) ai�iliated with, (ii) employed by or (iii) does not hold, a tattoo or body piercing enterprise license. 515.09: LOCATIONS INELIGIBLE FOR TATTOO AND BODY PIERCING ENTERPRISE LICENSE: Subd. 1. A tattoo and body piercing enterprise may not be licensed if the enterprise is located on property on which taxes, assessments or other financial claims to the state, county, school district or City are due and delinquent. In the event a suit has been commenced under Minnesota Statutes, sections 278.01-278.13, questioning the amount or validity of taxes, the City Council may on application waive strict compliance with this provision; no waiver may be granted, however, for taxes or any portion thereof, which remain unpaid for a period exceeding one (1) year after becoming due. Subd. 2. Zoning Compliance: A tattoo and body piercing enterprise may not be licensed if the location of such enterprise is not in conforinance with Title 1100 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. e � � _ ' _ . _ � .;, . : _ _ __��_� �4 . - � �� __ _ .� . �- -. _� _� �_____ _ __ __ __ __ __ € Ordivance 663 Page 7 515.10: GENERA,L LICENSE REQUIREMENTS: Subd 1. General (icensing requirements are as follows: (a) Tattoos on minors. No person shall tattoo, pierce, scar, brand or paint any person under the age of 18 except in the presence of, and with the written permission of, the parent or legal guardian of such minor. (b) Prohibition on license transfer. The license granted is for the person and the premises named on the approved license application. No transfer of a license shall be permitted from place-to- place or from person-to-person without first complying with the requirements of an original application, except in the case in which an existing noncorporate licensee is incorporated and incorporation does not affect the ownership, control, and interest of the e�sting licensed establishment. (c) Hours of operation. A licensee shall not be open for business for tattooing before 8:00 a.m. nor after 10:00 p.m. (d) Licensed premises. The tattoo, body piercing, body branding, body scarring, body painting enterprise license is only effective for the compact and contiguous space specified in the approved license application. If the licensed premises is enlarged, altered, or extended, the licensee shall inform the Clerk-Administer. (e) Adherance to Codes. The tattoo, body piercing, body scarring, body branding, body painting enterprise shall comply with applicable Minnesota Statutes and all titles, chapters and sections of the Mounds View City Code, including those expressly stated as follows: Chapter 513, Adult Establishments; Section 514.11, Subd. 5, regarding prohibited massages; and Title 600, Public Health and Safety. ( fl Effect of license suspension or revocation. No person shall solicit business or offer to perform tattooing, body piercing, body branding, body scarring or body painting services while under license suspension or revocation by the city. (g) Maintenance of order. The licensee shall be responsible for the conduct of the business being operated and shall at all times maintain conditions of order. , (h) Employee lists. The licensee shall provide to the Clerk-Administrator a list of employees who perform tattooing, body piercing, body branding body scarification or body painting at the licensed establishment and shall verify that each employee has received a copy of Chapter 515. (i) Liability insurance. All licensees shall have at all times a valid certificate of insurance issued by an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota indicating that the licensee is currently covered in the licensed business by a liability insurance policy. The minimum limits of coverage for such insurance shall be: (1) Each claim, at least $200,000; (2) Each group of claims, at least $500,000. s �� . L : . . -. ._ : . . . . __"�. l�f r .� �.. . 1�� _ ` u. G . i ._,.--_ _ - -' _ •- `'.`-'-- Ordinance 663 Page 8 Such insurance shall be kept in force during the term of the license and shall provide for notification to the city prior to termination or cancellation. A certificate of insurance shall be filed with the city. 515.11: HEALTH AND SANITATION REQUIREMENTS: Subd. 1. No person shall engage in the practice of tattooing, body piercing, body branding, body scarring or body painting at any place in the city without complying with the following regulations: (a) Lavatory requirement. Every place where tattooing, body piercing, body branding, body scarification or body painting is practiced shall be eyuipped with an adequate and conveniently located toilet room and hand lavatory for the accommodation of employees and patrons. The hand lavatory shall be supplied with hot and cold running water under pressure; shall be maintained in good repair at all times; and shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. Toilet fi�ures and seats shall be of a sanitary open front design and readily cleanable. Easily cleanable, covered receptacles shall be provided for waste materials. Every lavatory facility shall be provided with an adequate supply of hand cleansing compound and singe-service sanitary towels or hand-drying devices. (b) Skin infection. No person having any skin infection or other diseases of the skin shall be tattooed, pierced, scarred, branded or painted. (c) Sterilization and disposal of bio-hazardous materials. All needles and razor blades and other equipment used for piercing, scarring, branding or puncturing shall be individually pre- packaged, pre-sterilized and disposable. No such equipment shall be used on more than one customer. All bio-hazardous waste shall be disposed of in accordance with law, and disposal procedures shall be approved by the enforcement officer. Sterilizing solutions and methods may be used for the purpose of sterilizing instruments other than needles and razor blades. (d) Skin preparation procedures. The following procedures shall be used for skin preparation: (1) Each operator shall wash their hands thoroughly with soap and water then dry them with a clean towel before and after each tattooing, branding, scarring, piercing or painting. Specialists with skin infections of the hand shall not perform any tattooing, body piercing, body branding or body painting services. (2) Whenever it is necessary to shave the skin, pre-packaged, pre-sterilized, disposable, razor blades shall be used. (3) The skin area to be tattooed, scarred, pierced, branded or painted shall be thoroughly cleaned with anti-bacterial germicidal soap, rinsed thoroughly with water, and sterilized with an antiseptic solution. Only single-service towels and wipes shall be used in the skin cleaning process. (4) After tattooing, piercing, scarification or branding, a sterile dressing must be applied to the tattooed, pierced or branded area. _ v.. ,, � _ �.�� _. _. _. � _� .. _ , . ___ _ _ _ 1= Ordinance 663 Page 9 (e) Operating furniture. All tables, chairs, furniture, or area on which a patron receives a tattoo, any body piercing, body branding, body scarification or body painting shall be covered by single-service disposable paper or clean linens, or in the alternative, the table, chair, or furniture on which the patron receives a tattoo, body piercing, body scarring, body branding or body painting shall be itnpervious to moisture and shall be properly sanitized after each tattoo, body piercing, body branding, body scarring or body painting. (� Towels. Every specialist shall provide single-service towels or wipes for each customer or person and such towels or wipes shall be stored and disposed of in an acceptable manner. (g) Coverings: The specialist shall require that the that the person who is receiving the tattoo, piercing, branding, scarring or paintingwill at all times have that person's breasts, buttocks, anus and genitals covered with a non-transparent covering. The specialist may lift the covering to expose the person's breasts, buttocks, anus or genitals to the limited extent necessary to perform the tattooing or body piercing requested. The specialist shall ensure that the exposed body part may not be viewed by any other person. (h) Garments of specialist: The specialist performing tattoo, branding, piercing, scarring or painting services shall be fully clothed so as to have the specialist's breasts, buttocks, anus and genitals covered with a non-transparent material or clothing. Every specialist sha(1 wear clean garments when engaged in the pi-actice of tattooing, body piercing, body branding or body painting. If garments are contaminated with blood or body fluids, such garment shall be .� removed, changed, and/or discarded or cleaned by dry cleaning methods. (i) Pigments. . Pigments used in tattooing shall be sterile and free from bacteria and noxious agents and substances including mercury. The pigments used from stock solutions for each customer shall be placed in a single-service receptacle, and such receptacle and remaining solution shall be discarded after use on each customer. (j) Minimum floor space. There shall not be less than 250 square feet of floor space at the place where the practice of tattooing, body piercing, body scarring, body branding or body painting is conducted, and said place shall be well lit and ventilated. (k) Influence of alcohol and drugs. No person shall practice tattooing, ,body piercing, body branding, body scarring or body painting while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or illicit drugs. No customer shall be tattooed, pierced, scarred, branded or painted while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or illicit drugs. (1) Written instructions. The operator shall provide the person tattooed, scarred, pierced, painted or branded with printed instructions on the approved care of the skin during the healing process. (m) Living quarters. No place licensed as a tattoo, body piercing, body branding, body scarring or body painting establishment shall be used or occupied as living or sleeping quarters. ^____ ___ _ __ _ . . . _ _ L _ . � � � ..� . _ __;_ � - Ordinance 663 Page 10 515.12: LICENS� TERMS, RENEWALS: Licenses expire annually on December 31. The license fee will be prorated in thirty (30) day increments for licenses issued after June 30. The Clerk-Administrator must prepare an application form for the renewal of a license requiring information that the manager determines necessary for consideration of the renewal. The renewal application must be made no later than November 30. 515.13: SUSPEI�ISION; REVOCATION: Subd 1. The city council may revolce the license or suspend the license if the licensee submitted false information or omitted material information in the license process required. The city council may by resolution suspend or revoke a license for the violation of any provision or condition of this section or any other local law governing the same activity during the license period or any criminal law during the license period which adversely affects on the ability to honestly, safely, or lawfully conduct a tattooing, body piercing, body scarring, body branding or body painting business. Subd. 2. A revocation or suspension shall be preceded by written notice to the licensee and a public hearing before the city council. The notice shall give at least ten days notice of the time and place of the hearing and shall state the nature of the charges against the licensee. The notice shall be mailed to the licensee at the most recent address listed on the application. 515.14 TEMPORARY TATTOOING, BODY PIERCING, BODY BRANDING, BODY ' SCARRING OR BODY PAINTING EVENT LICENSE. Subd. 1. The Clerk-Administrator may issue a temporary tattoo, piercing, branding, scarring and body painting event license as provided in this subsection. Subd. 2. A temporary tattoo, piercing, branding, scarring and body painting specialist license may be issued to a person who: a. Is qualified to hold a tattoo and piercing specialist license under this Section; b. Has completed the required application and paid the license fee at least seven (7) days prior to the effective date of the license. Subd. 3. A temporary license is effective for four (4) consecutive days. A person may not be issued more than three (3) temporary licenses in any period of three hundred s'vcty (360) consecutive days. Subd. 4. All other provisions of this Section apply to temporary licenses. 515.15. EXEMPTIONS: Jewelry stores that provide ear piercing services to its customers as an accessory service shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter so long as the service is incidental to the sale of jewelry. For purposes of this ordinance, a jewelry store shall mean a retail business that derives a majority of its revenue from the sale of jewelry and that derives less than one percent of it revenues from ear piercing services. _ � ;- • =_ .. :: , -_ ,j ---- -- Ordinance 663 Page 11 _ _ _ ` === = =->-- - ; , -� _ , _ _ -- � : r� �� - = , _� � �. � - -- _� -= 515.16: VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shal] be punished as provided in Section 104.01 of this Code. (Ord. 663, x-x-2000) SECTION 2. Chapter 1113 of the Mounds View Municipal Code shall be revised to address zoning and siting requirements of Tattoo, Body Piercing, Body Branding, Body Painting or Body Scarring Establishments by the addition of the underlined lan�ua� as follows: 1113.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a B-2 District: Subd. 3. Tattoo, Body Piercing, Body Branding, Body Painting or Body Scarring Establishments, provided that: a. Any such establishment shall not be located closer than 500 feet from an educational facility, place of worship and shall be separated by no less than 1,000 feet from any other such establishment located within the City of Mounds View, as measured from the property lines of the property upon which the uses are located. b. The minimum floor space for such use shall be 250 square feet c. The establishment and operators shall be licensed and be in compliance with Chapter 515 of the Municipal Code. SECTION 3. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publication in the official City newspaper. First read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this _ day of , 2000. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this _ day of , 2000, Dan Coughlin, Mayor Attest: Michael Ulrich, Interim Clerk-Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert C. Long, City Attorney H:�DATA\GROLTPS\COMDEV�SPL'CPRO.�SP075-00\C)rdinance 663 -- Tattoo Code.doc _ _ _ _ , . _ �, _: -_. . _.,: -. _-- _ -. :>, ; . _ ,,<, , : ,.. -=- __, - - -- - - _ _ -_. _ - - ` -.__ -- � --- -= � --- � �'-�._,_n. _ ..- Item # 10 City of Mounds Vie�v Planning Co�nmission Report Meeting Date: July 19, 2000 Title: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 625-00, A RESOLUTION RECOI��IMENDING ADOPTION OF OR.DINANCE 658, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1103 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO FENCES AND FENCE HEIGHTS. Introduction: The drafting of Ordinance 658 resulted from a series of discussions held by both the Planning Commission and City Council earlier this year regarding a property owner's variance request for a tall fence in her front yard. The request, as the Commission may recall, was denied due to a perceived lack of property-related hardship. The City Council ultimately overturned the Planning Commission's decision, citing the documented harassment a police activity next door as the governing hardship. Through this process, it became apparent that there should be a provision placed in the Code that would allow for some flexibility in dealing with unusual situations that would not normally be considered "hardships". Discussioia: The proposed ordinance contemplates the addition of one sentence of text to Section 1103.08, Subdivision 3a., which states: "The Citv Councrl naav require or anproi�e fencing up ta ninetv six inches �96 ") in height in a, front vard to satisfv a buffer of� screenrn� cortdition of a developn�enl review or conditional use �ef mit " The addition of this language would have the effect of allowing for taller than normal fences (up to 8') if required by the City Council or requested by the applicant for buffering or screening purposes Recommendataon: If the Commission is comfortable with this language, staff would recommend approval of Planning Commission Resolution 625-00, a resolution recommending adoption of Ordinance 658, an ordinance amending Chapter 1103 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to fences and fence heights. �= Ll� c��.�'�.f.�, James Ericson, Planner O:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEVISPECPRO.T�SPU80-00\PC Memo - July 19, 2000.doc ; _ � .fs `� �' -- E _ _ �! : _ � - _ ' _ - _� , ' ,. � - F , _ _- ' , -. - - - — � ---- - --- - -. ... .. L, -.....�.e.�. _ �'_ "___ � �.:�.a�..� �--.__� _.-.::r_�.. _'___'_ .'.� �-�.� ��'' �:'.... .-_ I ORDINANCE NO. 658 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMS�Y STATE OF NIINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1103.08, SUBDIVISION 3, OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE, PERTAINING TO TFIE LOCATION AND HEIGIiT OF F�NCES WITHIN THE CITY OF MOUNDS V�W THE CITY OF MOUNDS V�W ORDAINS: SEC'TION 1. Chapter 1103, Section 1103.08, Subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby amended with additions >>nc�erlined to read as follows: 1103.08: FENCING, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING: Subd. 1. Height: No fence shall exceed eight feet (8') in height and in the case of grade separation, such as the division of properties by a retaining wall, the height shall be determined on the basis of ineasurement from the average point between the highest and lowest grade. -�:.- „ . ___�_�!�- � Subd. 2. Intersections: No fences, structures or planting of trees or shrubs sha11 be permitted within thirty feet (30') of any corner formed by the intersection of street property lines or the right of way of a railway intersecting a street, except properly constructed chain link fences. Such chain link fences shall not exceed forty-eight inches (48") in height from the grade level at the lot line and shall have openings in the wire mesh of not less than one and five-eighths inches (1- 5/8") nor more than two and one-fourth inches (2-1/4"). Such fences may follow the lot line to the lot corner. The thirty feet (30') restriction noted above shall consist of the triangle formed by connecting the two (2) points on intersecting lot lines that are each thirty feet (30') from the lot corner, Subd. 3. Location: Except as provided in subdivision 2 above, fences not to exceed forty-eight inches (48") in height may be located on any part of a lot. Fences not to exceed ninety-six inches (96") in height may be erected on any part of a lot behind the front line of the principal building. ThP ("it�� [�:nnncil ma�� r_TirP, nr aTnrnvP fPnr,ina�,,.� tn ninetv-six inche,� ,(9E��, in heiaht in a frnnt��arci t� �aticfv a hl�ffer nr ccrPPning cnnc�itinn nf a rlevelnnment review nr r.nnriitinnal usP nermit b. A fence shall be installed on the applicant's property. The fence shall not be installed directly over the property line. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall go into effect thirty (30) days after it has been published in the official City newspaper. __ i _ - - - ' ' , _.- - _ _ = - _ °' % ,;. . _ , - _ _.. _ : : _ - _� - - ---- - ` -=-: - _ �� _ -- _ = _ ' -- - : �.. l -= --- Ordinance 658 Page 2 First read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 2000. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 2000. ATTEST: (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert C. Long, City Attorney � Dan Coughlin, Mayor Michael Ulrich, Interim City Clerk / Administrator 0 _� .� �; � � __ ' � C ,, - i i � _ _ . . ._ = '_ _= � : -_ - - MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COlVIM[ISSION RESOLUTION NO. 625-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE G58, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1100, CHAPTER 1103, REGARDING FENCES AND HEIGHT OF FENCES; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE SP-O80-00 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed proposed Ordinance 658, an ordinance amending Chapter 1103 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to fences and the height of fences; and, WH�REAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission, after significant discussion, believes the proposed ordinance to be in the best interest of the community and is in keeping with the overall spirit and intent of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission asserts that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the land use goals and policies addressed in the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THER.EFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends to the Mounds View City Council adoption of proposed Ordinance 658. BE IT FINALLY R.ESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 19`" day of July, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) O:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEVISPECPRO.I�SP080-OO�RESOLUI'ION G25-OO.DOC ' � / �. I. -�- -�--� , _ ________ - _ �� _ - - _.: -_ . . _ -- - - _- :, = _ _ , � -- _ - --- _ � - _ - - _-. --- F. _ _- ...._ ___ ' __ ' - .. . _{ I PROCEEDINGS OF TH� MOUND5 V�W PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS V�W RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 2401 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson ��':t ��' 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson (r.�c�mmissic��a�r:� � , (•'I'..��1 Miller, and Thomas. � i�� , , �' � :�� Members Absent: Commissioners Kad;en.,and Stev.et�son, with � 3� ;, f ,_ , �'. � % : fff � Also Present: Planning Associat� Ittri Ericso�, �ommunit�,� Council Liaison Rob Marty, and ��corder Tri�h l��arson Inde� �� .I��d7,�i,��v� Discussior► l��z �d'c�ir�� t��aticipat�;c� � t��3ras?�rs ��o the Zoning Code Pertaining to.�hed5, � u�� ; a�r+. f`,< <�,y��,iy Structures. :y��' Staff 1�.��orts / Item. ; o F"�A�z�z��a�lqn : .:.;:�:- ;. ;., Ch�lirperson and Planning �a¢�`�ri�issioners Reports ,�. ,,.. ;, � ' ��tlar Meeting a�lCl�l!.� %1�9 2�� , Mo�n?�� -��v�l c�:.'u�zy lE3[all s: 10, MQ�nds Vn�; Pr�y ��I�I `� �:]11L� r ;;,��. .s:<:• � .tt1,, ,iu,te; ;�, �, ?,000. I� Johnson, Laube, Director Rick Jopke, .. Page 2 26 27 ,;, ; ��, CCitizens' R�quests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda . .. : q � £ s' ' J `�'�i�4 -; �� z rro eitizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. ��o l��pr°oval of Minutes A. May 3, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: LaubeBerke to approve the May 3, 2000 meeting minutes as corrected. _ i � `` _ - _ :_ . ,_: ;. ,.- -. : - - - - -- = , -- -� . _ _- - - , = - _ _ - - - -=-- -=- ` - _— _a.__�� _. --- _ -.:- : -= -= ' --_-�� 1VIounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Ayes - 7 Nays - 0 June 21, 2000 Page 2 The motion carried 5. Discussion Regarding Anticipated Changes to the Zo Garages, and Accessory Structures. , ;" Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follow �: Staff and the Planning Commission have been directed by �:h� �;ic Code with regard to Conditional Use Permits for accessoY-� �cr�xr�� Planning Commission initiated discussion on this issue on Ju�� 1,'_�'.� as to what surrounding communities require, as well as=�wha� � tr approved up to the present for oversized garages and ; h�;rli�. Planning Associate Ericson provided municipalities, which outlines their res� and their application of the Conditional indicated the range varies significa�aily, i� accessory structures, however, oth�r r�:xd structures as large as 2,500 squar� ��e�� majority of cities do not differenti�e b Code P'�h ��x�aa�g� to Sheds, _ ouncil to review the 'City : ;,Izeds, and garages. The �.r�� ec�uested information �'r.v �� !„1'�!Iounds View has the ��'m�ir��r� �� ;r�� , � a suiv�y �or the neighboring ;cti�`�"EYCode �, r�� . ci�` t�v�z�s��d accessory buildings [,ISe Permit=p�nc�ss �fo�°',��° 1n'rger sized structures. He t�at som�,`�ities or�ly �al��w��' �ap to 1,000 square feet for accessory stnactures. Sor�� c�ti�s requir� perceniag� �A' �;c�verage o.f �.1�� r��r or total y surfac�'.or- �rc;�s3�z-� builc�in� �o�z�:r�'�;e. Planning As structure sha and a��j`e�"previoi a �.; poter�ial revision to t to,� �`�consider the reqi r'j F;� J��er than the house, * ach �s' the city o�;-Maplewood, allow for accessory � ndtn� upon th� size of the lot. He advised that the r� �;shed a.r�;t� a garage, which are both considered �}��. ��ssory structures do not exceed a certain s1 ��a��; �vv�►ether that ratio be based upon impervious �o� sta�� t�� 1�VIounds View City Code requires that an accessory ��e �han :Z,� ��°cent of the rear yard area. He explained that there is no �h�. .,��a;��u�� k��ailding coverage on the lot based upon the total lot area, ��A�� f' the Planning Commission, this was discussed in terms of a :c�c��. 'T�i� Commission also discussed whether or not they would desire ��cr�d �� a. �onditional Use Permit for a garage, which is proposed to be ardiess of the size of the house. <,:;, ang Associate ��'reson stated staff has identified a number of issues related to the zorung f:� ��nts for ��essory structures, and has prepared a list of questions for consideration in this %y�N �.; '��>��r�'�x��>as follows: '�'ll� Yr�aximum area for a shed without a CUP is 216 square feet. Should this linnit be increased? If so, at what point should a CUP be required. Should the maximum shed area with a CUP be increased from 400 square feet? * Should larger sheds be permitted uses in larger yards rather than by CUP. _______ _ _ .� . - ---- -- _- - - --- - - _ : . _ _.: _ - . _ - ! _ --- � � ��_ ----«-- �I Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting * * * Should more than one shed be allowed? On larger lots? June 21, 2000 Page 3 Garages up to 952 square feet are allowed withouY a CLTP. Gar,�� ,;;� `i c�' 1,400 are conditionally allowed. Should the 952 be increased? �l�s�ulc�;,the 1,4�;�a�: iaai;��ased? By CUP, garages may not provide access for limitation be removed? Planning Associate Ericson advised that the intent of this i-ee��x�� as a five stall wide garage facing the street. He explaixiec� �� accessory structure tends to dominate the lot, and the px��ci� accessory to the garage. ,��' * Should there be a maximum garage width? .� .-- Planning Associate Ericson explained that th,,;� �s nc� �� garage up to 952 square feet, however, at �� point at �w1ii (953 square feet or larger) there is a 35-fop't�maximuiz��'wic * How should the Code addres� tm�tlti -I :£� Planning Associate Eric�or� ��eti'.the Planrc should b� �r��r-essed throv�;ia �tt� �'taotprint o1 both l�;v�;��:�. * Th� �t�� ?�i�� fog� a �Of� �;��6�r�iFc be arrt��s�i�-�� , ��iow foti� ?+ �>r;�;c�iac� .� - _;< ;<<::<. �.�s`� ee `�;�hzr,Ic�,. �hat��t� Yiiis �y� „ � to address suc11 sii�.��tiotis � is a point at which the ct'a,�r� becomes somewhat idth requirement for a Use Permit is required int only? �n, at a previous meeting, felt that this rather than the total square-footage of shed,� but not a second garage. Should the Code ;e, as long as the 1,400 square-foot maximum is Planrung`Associate Eriesc�?1't��.��;d''a 400 square-foot shed is very close to the size of a single stall gaf��e. He indicated lae la��{� �;r��ie to a property on Spring Lake Road on tha� date, which has a t�Ei`�k-under single stall g�i ag�; �iiat could not be expanded, and therefore, the property owner v��c�uld like to build av�cond garage. He stated typically, when a property owner desires to � <y �:�.�i�truct a second �a�age, the City Code requires that the original garage be converted to living ��-� or demohsh��°however in this case, it would not be practical to convert the original garage . cr' ��'��a�;; ��;�r�; by�cause it is located at such a level that it is not connected to the house, and there �.:' ��.� �{;c;�: ;w �'rom the garage to the house. He pointed out that the garage could not be ��:��.��i�"ta�Gi °ar�d yet the property owner requires additional space in which to park her vehicles, therefore, he had explained that the Planning Commission was currently examining this very issue, and that this would be a good opportunity to attempt take such situations into consideration. * Eliminate the requirement that no garage—except by conditional use permit—shall exceed the footprint of the home? �- � , . �;..s�.�:: = � _ _ - _ - - Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting _ : I _} - _ _= , _ : _ �,� June 21, 2000 Page 4 �.:<...,. Planning Associate Ericson stated some cities require that the garage does not exG��:��i the n,�' footprint of the house, and others do not. He advised that Mounds View requires tk��fi a garage shall not be larger than the house except by conditional use permit, and one �f t�� a�iPs staff had surveyed simply does not allow for the garage to be lar��;�,;,,than il��:' 3��;a; rander any circumstances, therefore, there are cities which are more r��xictive than ll��{�m,�r�r� r�Ti�w in this regard �"� ' � E_ ., * Institute a ma�cimum accessory building coverage �� Planning Associate Ericson requested the Commission feedback at this time. He stated it was hoped that staff cc July 5°i meeting of the Planning Commission with an ordi possibly forward this matter on to the City Council fo� azd,� ' �3f lot or rear ya L}s6� ��i.€;� assues and provide iis ;arn� t�rfi;�dc:: �.�2c� �ommission at the e w��ir;�� '�i�c� �.�� h.at language, and seco�u.I :n;rar�s��,��, ��x J.ulv. s ys � ::. Planning Associate Ericson provided the Commt�sic�� %��e ��;:�� ..� .;;.: average square-footages of Conditional Use�:P��rinits ��a��:�� t�r � �.; six years. He pointed out that there does �p appear tt31��: <��°�� f ,. the exception of sheds, which are irnr.rr�a�azig in size �;�Te sta�� c� �;, an average of 1,050 to 1,200 squar� �'��i in 20Q�; however,,th ,<:r square footage in 1998. He advissd �%a� prior tt� ;� 998, the �xir � : :r even less in previous years, thereft�� thaY amot�tx� has be�rt;incre� , ;:, toward larger p ar�ges contir��a�s :` ��" irp�i�st��a �t=�� on staE�c� t� iber' �s�' �tyt��s;��;; 'r,h�.� have �� nmissione�' �'lx�•r�a,s <�otc;d Permit sheds. Shc d rch m�«�-i�� pertaining to the �i��1 � a�pid� garages over the last � r�,��rd larger structures, with .a,;r�s appear to be maintaining City increased this ma�cimum um was 1,284 square feet, and ;ing over the years as the trend h doe� �ot appear to indicate that there have been a great Conditional Use Permit. rage size of the sheds requiring a Conditional Use if all three applicants had requested 400 square foot u�� ` Pi ng Associate �..r�r�cj�� cc� this was correct. He inquired if 216 square feet was an �„�;� ��ropriate maximum sq�are #`ootage for sheds, or if this should be increased , ;; : �� f:`��tira.zx�issioner Johns,;t�:��stated he believed it should be increased to 400 square feet without a :�;t��;ii;ic��n�� LJs� P��it, as this appears to be the average request. r ,. °;��ir°��<r ��t�t ��'� ��rson pointed out that this did not take into account the number of sheds that did ;�a�: ��c�iAif°�: ��;onditional Use Permit. Commissioner Miller stated they did not know the number oi sheds that were constructed at 216 square feet or less. Planning Associate Ericson stated he was not personally aware of the number, and it would require some effort to pull all of the building permits and make queries into the databases, however, this information was available. ,� T _ M �� --- - - -- - - � --_- .,_�.. = =� =- _ _ . _ - _ �� -- Mounds View Planning Commiss�on Regular Meeting June 21, 2000 Page 5 Chairperson Peterson explained that it might be the case that the average shed size 10,y��s ago was 100 square feet, and now that average is increasing, yet this is not reflect�<� ir, i;he �z�i'i�rmation before the Commission. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was corr�t��, ��ia�ag that this information only takes into consideration those sheds that requir�t� �, Condi�ic�na� �Js�'�°�;��mit. Chairperson Peterson stated it appears as if the garages ar� a more impo�;iant �c��'.�,rir,��i.�o�l in terms of the purpose of the Conditional Use Permits, and it would prc5b�bly be lc�:��4; �s� E�� ;;;;i�� with regard to a shed, however, a 400 square foot shed is a'l�r�;�� ;,�ruct�re. Commissioner Hegland stated he viewed this examina�ion attempting to accomplish. What would it like to control, this was a situation which involved redevelopment rather t� makes it much more difficult for property owners co �°iYx�t that it would be beneficial to the residents to make t.�i� �~�<��°, favor a maximum square footage based upon �c�t �i��, �x,:� i that the larger lots would generally require �ar�ii�re� stor a;;�; � whether or not the number of structures sht�iuld be lirr�i��c� � excessively lenient. He indicated th�re were a wide�variety �?;• addition to the siting of the existing st�u;�ures. ,>�;;,, � i��: e,o�a��?x� of what the City was afr 9a�� r;cal�lr; at could be, because i ��w �.��r��vrn�i,:�, Redevelopment lutions ��r i�ei,r ��;�r�s. He advised ��ei�ts fl�;�:i�1e, �rac� �ie would tend to ��,u�uld ap�eat� tio be reasonable in ��, �� added `that he was uncertain �}hr�,' l��v,r�uer, he did not wish to be ' lc�k'�i�:�s in the City to consider, in _ Commissioner Johnson stated h� had se�� r��aae of th�; properties that have been granted �• Conditional Use Permits o� n,��r�a�;+�s with fa�c��t�� hi�h were larger than the houses, and he could ��o� r�� o��e that a��,��r�.r"� �A'� be out o�`��, ; Comrriisw�r�n�� ..��e agr�c�, ar��i��;; �hat it was very difficult to differentiate recent garage expansior�s ��ra� ��i�'!n��Ner ci.{;sis�,�� c��ri�;��rations, which have a three-stall garage in the front, a small windo��; ��ca d;�» ��F�nairicies� r��' i.�i� house is located behind the garage. He stated this is currently the,,,�r��>��k�a��a.i ;ss.�a� o� builc�ii��;. Johns was referring to a property that had a detached garage. Gt7ir►missioner Laube st�led all of the newer structures are similar in that the garage is more ��zUle than the house, a�d for the most part, a Conditional Use Permit request for a larger garage , s, ��ivi� the footprint o��t�ie house would be considered in comparison to this newer design. He r;i�?�� :he City has t�ecome accustomed to seeing the larger garages with smaller houses, whether ��.�,��+,f�, ;.,�4 s�ociate Ericson stated one of the things the City is attempting to accomplish with this process is more flexibility. He explained that this year, there have already been five Conditional Use Permit requests for oversized sheds and garages, and the intent of the Code revision is to be more fle�ble and less restrictive. He pointed out that it might be possible to achieve this by examining the total square footage of accessory structures allowed on a lot, and allowing this amount to be divided up at the property owner's discretion. He explained that this might be a �� ; ; � i ; �;� ��:: _ - ' '=' % h - � -� - - - : � -_ _ � . _ ... - _�,--•----�----- --- - � _ __._.___�___----�--�__�., - �--= -�-_-� r• --.. . — -- - - ------- - Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 means to address the current multiple car family redevelopment situations where the property owner is unable to expand off of the side of the garage, and is unable to demolish tk��%garage because the older house is not structurally sound. He suggested that the Gty �ight ��r�w 1,400 square feet of accessory storage area, and limit that to three stru.Ctures, and in �k�� vent that the �f accessory structures are larger than the house, maintain the x�yuYremen� o�'j� �o�r�itional Use � _ >,:; Pernut to protect against a small principal structure beingy�qminated by a l,�Ot�' �c��z�j�F foot garage. Commissioner Laube added that they could keep the 20 � which would then restrict the smaller lots, but allow thc property, and if this was not possible, the property owne�� Permit. Commissioner Thomas stated she would be muc�� requirement upon the total lot area, as opposed to of the houses which are set back a significant di�ta of an acre in the back yard, and a half an acre4�'thE ��5<, the total lot area to be accessory structu��; and regardless of whether or not they are a s�,rigle car � back. She added that structures pra�t�sed to b� require a Conditional Use Permit. "�� ' ,,; fro��i, :' ear ��ra coverage r�c�a�e�; ;��;��€;:�� c��poriunity to impi-o<r�<� ��e�r >til! a��ly for a Conditional L1se comfor'c�ibl� i��s�.�tg; the coverage in ligh��i tE�r-� ��€acement of some t;reet, and m�g�t only have a third ��+ sted tl�ey allow 25 percent of ��L��,�ur��" as accessory buildings, �'n��, and a two car garage in the [arser than the house could still in i.�►r Chairperson Peterson stated �e li��'ieved tha�. �,v��R,r ;z�r��? 1ot in town should be entitled to have a standard .��r��? Parage, eu�� `° �� ouse is ��1� ;�a��er, however, the questions would be in terms csfr��tija�r��; a �tanci�,�� s�z�;c� ��.��e. Commission�i Jc�i�z�s�� 3��tcd �1��s� ��:�� have primarily come forward in relationship to properties vvitih � 7�� >�� 00 squ�ar� ��ci� laaiase, where the property owner desires a 900 to 1,000 square foot.��:t'��. �� rir�i�ac�d th�r� �re �nany smaller houses in the City, and if nothing else, .�3� � the foo�p�rit'"should''b� z�rc;��i to 1,000, possibly 1,100 square feet, to allow for the storage of velu�l�s that would oth��~�� Ue ;p�rked in the front yard. �erson Peterson sC,�ed tiie limiting the size of the garage in relationship to the size of the rty or the house si�e is appropriate in terms of e�remely large garages, however, they must nine an upper laz�'it, whether that be 864 square feet or 952 square feet. He pointed out that :�;<..; �� sxze �n w��h everyone should be entitled, and beyond that point, rules could be applied ,�, ;:<�� 1�� ,��ntial for abuse. c��rra��i:s�:�dne�� Yegland stated they should attempt to control the abuse issue, while attempting to �u� a� AY�;s�ble as possible so that people are more likely to improve their property. He advised that if the City is inflexible and diiiicult, property owners would simply move to another city that allows for such improvements, and it is very important that the City encourage the improvement of property. _.. _- > ' ` : ' - , — _- � Mounds View Planning Comm►ssion Regular Meeting I �� f � - - l_ s .F=: ,. - ---- - - = � � rr. = .z_:�:�:: f- ��: June 21, 2000 Page 7 Chairperson Peterson suggested they could state that a structure less than 864 (952?) squ�re feet would simply require a building permit, and above that point, it would be examined in ter�itii'�'�of the footprint of the house. He stated the 20 percent rear yard coverage limitat�on i;� �;urrenfl� in effect for all homes, and if this was just applied above the threshold,;.it would �Izz��a.i.�� -nany of the f�> ;, nuisance cases which require calculating the size of the house, v�ihich woutd s�v� ° i�;:k-�ir�r�nt s�aff time. Planning Associate Ericson stated he would have concerns this, as is always the case when there are revisions to th�; �; building permits. It appears that other cities utilize suc11' � certain they worked well, much of that would relate to com City could utilize the Mounds View Matters newslett�� Television, to inform the residents in this regard. He exp�ai regard to these requirements, and communicate th�4 Y.h� �' could be made aware that when they come in fox � 1��ils�ir submit their proposal with a site plan, lot dimensi�xi�, ��c� �';�� that information is available, they might obtai�t the ga� a�a� �.� Permit. < .: Planning Associate Ericson stated additional information, however, � through the entire Conditional Us that it would ultimately .� � <y�� ;�, previotasly �c?y7� somethiz��>, ��;�u� � buildi�a� �a�ur, ,' s�nply ex�a�i�a�;��; � situations. in that are i.ut le doi �asmg, ii the tNith reg �7t�� or � rc��Tisid�:. n�.a��%f �ra� , �ian �v'v ted ila2�i ty has �; s�,��rmii ;� �� cy�tpri� �;y ri�stz�e rd��o the adm'ir�is�r�:�ic�� p�' terations in the ��nrtl,tr��; t�f` , and although l�e �ua� not r�: �� pointed out that the ,�;;i��°, �-mail, and Cable r" ��R,��y tir�ea � very clear with �:�:rx��c� {1��; Code, residents �i�c,�� ,,,�ri�� be required to t of sh��'house, and if all of witk�out a Conditional Use �t�er would have Lo spend some time gathering tould be th�t'they might not be required to go �, and hopefully, this would be flexible enough �� s� t�e property, whereas they might have �.A��;�;` instead of demolishing the garage and t�i � shanty addition in attempts to avoid the Pxplained that this might assist in eliminating those �rEj4r;c� �hF �'ont��nal Use Permit process does contain a deterrence factor ��a �i��;� c;ome liefore the City and present their case, and many individuals �ing Associate Ericst,�n a�ded that another problem occurs when the property owner comes in ,�:,Y� a building permit; �nd submits his plans to construct a garage over the weekend, only to ver that the rq�i�ss will take two to three months. He stated it was ho ed that the Code P p c�K� could res lt��n a win/win situation for the City and the residents, as long as they craft the ,� �s. �� ;:° �a�, �°c�r�i �ration of all the angles and ensure that there are no loopholes or means for Chairperson Peterson suggested the Commission discuss the garage related items and determine if all of the points have been covered. Planning Associate Ericson inquired if the Commission desired to base the multi-level garage requirement on the footprint. _ ____ ___ _ . _ -- ,- . . � - _ _, f --- ---- --°---. _ :__ �:. ��: r-1:� I Mounds View Pl�nning Commission Regular Meet�ng The Commission concurred. Chairperson Peterson stated a multi-level garage was no terms of visual appearance, rainwater runoff, or the criteria u Planning Associate Ericson asked the Commission if thP structure if they were to allow for two garages, and if th;; structures or one, if they were to limit the property owr than two. Commissioner Miller stated this should be considered agreed, adding that the expense associated with the consl taken into consideration. Planning Associate Ericson stated very few mul� however, there were a few in existence. •`�``�� Commissioner Hegland inquired if the �r�inmissi footprint square footage as one struci.��`�, ' The Commission concurred. f � �;�:;�' Commissrc�r��;�� e�land xnc;��i�'�r� �'�garding t£a� � currentiy�9S?, :�c��.lafl-� fee�:, �ii�aou�: �. �onditio�� ' Planning A; and as long allow them �ia�t� k�'��son stat�c[ �;�� ,�;rt�.ir� �;c�:�ac�zt�ons �x�� cd�c( �r��; �:��c,y:r��sire': Heglat�� k��tre� b��'�:�1 _ _ , .. : _ , : . , '' �- �--��4 June 21, 2000 Page 8 different than a �in�r �, sed �t�z`:evalua�zon': . ;;H.si;;;s<- ':t:,;; � � t�- level gara�� -wo�al� �d�li��level ga�-�ge woul� � �t� �hre� accessory st� ��; sts�.��i�,�;. �;orrvni �tion ox +�,�?lti� ��r�� gar� .> r�e pro�o garage, m �Yl� :c'lS OTl� xni a� �w� tt c;�� , �a�.��e;r. ier Laube should be eing constructed, nt the multi level garage limit on the garage structure, which is proposing to allow each resident 1,400 square feet, , the 20 percent coverage and footprint requirement, would be 1,400 square feet for the total structures. ung Associate Eri�SOn''stated this was simply a suggestion, and staff did not necessarily cate this position..,s�`�;� �i�sioner Mille�>'inquired if this was the current reyuirement. Planning Associate Ericson F;r�ab�:��:�y �he requirement is 1,400 square feet total, however, anything above 952 square ��air� ��r��.�ire a Conditional Use Permit. ��ir�� son Peterson pointed out that if they were to proceed in this manner, they must consider the definition of a shed versus a garage. Commissioner Thomas indicated this was the reason she had suggested they approach this in the same manner as the city of Arden Hills, and consider total accessory buildings. She explained that _ � � t � — -� = r - ,_= - I _ --.:�.. � _... - _r� �--�-. ..-- ' --�- - --_ _ -_. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting �� _- �•------ June 21, 2000 Page 9 if a property owner only has a single car garage, and expansion is not feasible, he allowed to construct a two-car garage in the back yard. She suggested they discard t of what constitutes a second garage, and consider all of these structures to be �r.;r,e��or� based upon a total lot area coverage percentage. :;;. Commissioner Laube stated a 400 square foot shed is the foundation. Commissioner Thomas proposed that they defin the property owner to construct a two-car garage in the baC rather than a two-car garage without a foundation. or a an a� i. w] Chairperson Peterson stated he believed the history of these r�r��zx�-�j-��-�; to the second garage, in that if the structure is located d��• r�� .��c: �•;:' extended to that structure, there would be a significant arrtn'unt o� ��Eij Planning Associate Ericson stated this was a conces �: ��v�r, it was u install more pavement than necessary, in light o£thc :.��as� ixavc��ved. co shquld be ��..:�r�ncept �iuildings, ��vi�i:l�out a ��f ailow R�ertain to the pavement �at d, and pavement is is: c�n the lot. anyone would Commissioner Thomas added that there w�5'already a�roblera� �p� � er�rns' of vehicles being parked in the driveway because there is no gar�g��space fc�r,�hem, �x�r� �;i��;�; ��arking on the grass is not permitted, the driveway must be ex��;n�i�d, wh�ch- results iri a,signif�cant amount of impervious surface. Commissioner Johnson added �hat res�dents are nok-;}iermitted to park their vehicles on City streets. s;�' ;<,. Comrraxss�t�r��:�- Thomas co��r�?�c�t�d that driv�w�!�c� �ur�a.�1d have to be expanded, regardless. Plannin� As;�a�,ar��.,. �ri without a xa ��a�� v�;c�' d� be parked in �he 6��I� advised that �t�tla�'�c runoff az�s� rechar-ge ryr•P how��r`, the vehicles v on st��er.� xka€,t�� as a provision that a garage could not be constructed ew�y, tvhicl� ��t`��<ides a tie in to address the concern that vehicles would ��d on ��i� �� =ci'"a garage that is not connected by a driveway. He tac3ra of° tr�a� �x��rl, pavement, they would be losing something in terms of �t��c� a� would probably not be as good from an environmental standpoint, ul� l�� aarked on an improved surface rather than haphazardly parked in �ssioner Berke iriqtiired if there were any provisions in the Code that address the potential �::>�Y: iness pursuits,�Q�'the property, to protect against auto repair and similar types of businesses ;, :;;> ; larger stru��`res, if they are allowed in the back yard. :�l�cAS��' .f�.c;s��iate Ericson stated there are Code requirements pertaining to Home Occupations, arac� �C�� flty has historically allowed people to work out of their home, so long as they meet certain conditions. He explained that such a venture must not create a nuisance or generate traffic, no outdoor storage is permitted, no employees can come to the premises to work, and there are other similar restrictions. He advised that some cities do not allow for Home Occupations in a garage or accessory structures, however, Mounds View does not make that distinction at this point. He pointed out that if the City allows residents free reign over 1,400 ,�� i ' �'--.._� � �� F . , � �: � � �� _ - _ � _ as' F =�J _ - - � �-- - ( _ v= --y, - - - � r' � I _�.___��__ �___� - -- �-�,.�.��::� �� , • - � -- -°--- . .. , �� ___� Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 21, 2000 Page 10 square feet of accessory space to do with as they will, they may desire to institute a requirement �.�::: that the space not be utilized as a business, however, they might wish to consider if the�;'�ould f � :;F desire to prevent someone from setting up a woodshop to make decorativ� ��c�oc� cat~slings. He indicated the City has not received many complaints with re�ard to thi�!.�.€ thi�°'point, and therefore, staff was not e�ctremely concerned. .-_:�_� � ,:«;>:£�y> ��I Commissioner Johnson stated he believed the City's N�ais��cr; Code eff��iiv�� Firlr�xn�YSti�s this issue at present. ,r: .. Corrunissioner Thomas indicated she would be very regulations in this regard, simply for the sake of those prop so forth. She stated these types of projects are typically d to inside the home. Commissioner Johnson stated that whether these �t repair, they would not be a significant concerr��He' �:s. more toward auto repair and restoration, ho�±�ver this Chairperson Peterson commented �ha1 their vehicles, as they can probably a� them. He stated he believed that tk�� the garage requirements, particulari�` , structure could be utilized xn �he;:same expansio� �i�th� �reexistix��, Dw:��;i�are, Plannin� A.ssa�i��; �:i-icaso,� ��c��x�c� 1,400 squa�'� ��1; �;�.r,��sory sto9-<,�;�'' Chairperson P;�i�rsU�� ,�.��:c� l�c ��ou who do, t�ofi hav� �'' ��i a n�;, �r� �wo� �,....:».. shoul� �e allowed to obt�i�� tk��iz�'�i ,, i.; = a ta��rit at which review i� rt��,�ss�ry �ie �jc�r�d this point. �"'�o��n s�fe��aards a ght of tk�� ecc �etter c��`s and i�ion�:� CJse Pe if the c��}x�i'�i�ion of ....,��,�� ;� ,,a,..�. as ;��i.a'ole with creating �a�t��c:r �c�:�'who make small craiis and c r�ssory buildings, as opposed ated to st�ail !��xafts or computer ��A: ihat iY� �h�; `�ast, the trend was _ _ my� f�w�r teenagers are working on r� as less need to learn how to repair f ;. f'v✓as necessary at the upper limit of �arage is expanded and a secondary that there were issues with regard to iate threshold. �hairperson Peterson would be uncomfortable allowing � without any restrictions. Id b�;"adding that up to a certain point, those property owners �ld "like to replace their existing garage with a larger garage ilding permit and proceed, however, beyond this, there is still d clarification regarding what the City would desire to control Peterson stated these would be the same issues that the current �:'��rt�a�s��n�a� �'homas stated they could keep the requirements based upon a percentage ofthe ��;s >��. �: '��i� indicated that the property owner could have 1,400 square feet of accessory storage �� Is ca�� lot is large enough to support that amount of coverage, and if it is not, they could be allowed to construct up to a certain percentage. Planning Associate Ericson suggested the Commission determine whether they would utilize total lot size or rear yard area for the coverage percentage requirement. f _ �I I N ! I �� I . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' ; i -,_ w= �-- -- , -- - - ,_ „� - t _ , , _ _ . _ ____ ' �_-___-'-_-_�__._J I ;_. __ ...= ._ • "_- __ . . ._. . .. --'-.. -._... __�._ _ .-- -�. . � , �.� _ .r .�.��1� Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 21, 2000 Page 11 Commissioner Johnson stated he believed they would have to utilize the lot size, in new design configurations in which the garages are located in front of th� hc�i;��F�. � that if they stipulate rear yard only, a garage in the front yard would not k�� c �r��`� would affect the entire design of the house. _ Commissioner Thomas added that these properties already and the question would arise in terms of expanding this gara Planning Associate Ericson advised that if the house is setb the Code does not allow for a garage in the front yard oi` property owner is limited in terms of the back yard area, � the front yard, and he would be limited regardless. y�; Commissioner Thomas inquired if the Code allow front yard. Planning Associate Ericson statedf� ,;;;�,,;,. setback on that block is maintained. ,�<:>::.�- Commissioner Miller stated in co there is currently much discussion vehicles are not permitted, howevf concept would change entirely "; contemplat�ng a radical chaa�G�;� i r�i Comrr�i:� ;ic��°'�olin�on `si�t' on ca�-s,�'�� Y�� as awai�� surFace b�c;��. tt� ��z�> ,�a�-a�;c�, an the and this back on the lot than Q�iiei��, F�: ��P explained that if the ��u1� not be constructed in _ �anslon o�� z� `3.fik.a,rhed garage in the �� .the app�-o��i�ie setback or the unctzori� with requests for �hc�� y Conditional Use Permit, ,��r�ing the £a�t that impz�ved driveways and the storage of ik ��iPy allow' �arages tq be constructed in the back yard, this '�lanning 'A.ssociate.;;.��icson stated the Commission was what ha� b�e�� d��z� �� the past. -��uireme�i�� irrei-c� made at a time when many people worked �ase where the property owner had installed an improved 't� t'�move four feet of the pavement from the front of the garage in ord�i tc� �r��;�� 'n�� stzr��i��ic��. �e explained that there was an asphalt driveway to the garage, with � fc�laa�i�c�� 9�-:i��,o:��roc,�: �� i� f'ront of it. .y Com�iz�sioner Hegla��d sP.��.cn t��e� purpose of this discussion was to update the Code, and he feels tha�';��e City must be r;��b��iE,ve with other communities in order to enco,urage residents to y, 5 ;t i:tl��rove their properties.: E...... ioner Johnson;'stated he would prefer to see an improved surface to these structures as to a rut:,�`�;ing into the back yard. Commissioner Hegland stated he believed property ;f ��t�� ;d�sire to install an improved surface in order to be able to utilize the driveway Chairperson Peterson stated the current Code indicates there must be an improved surface to the garage. He inquired if the Commission would like to make a distinction between a primary garage that requires an improved surface, and a secondary garage for which an improved surface is optional. � j- -�� r�-�.� _�. �� _ - _ --�' ` � �. _ �.--�; t --�_-,.�' _�;c -r�_--.•�� . � --� �:� .;; .. - . . �, . . —� -. _ � �. - _ - �____��1;-:.:..rc='n .�..,.�.�-. '-�c -irc_ .._� --- - - ' ' ' `• �--- :: - -' � "'�- —_ :._.�. ----="-' ----'___°_ ._ � =f; Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 21, 2000 Page 12 Planning Associate Ericson suggested they might wish to retain the garage/shed distinction, however attach no sc�uare-footage limitations. .; <�;<<s' > >;:<<r :::� :�� Chairperson Peterson stated they could retain the garage/shed de;signation �,n,nd dro�;;any pretense ;� of the prohibition of the storage of vehicles in the secondar�t ��-t�cture, � th� �:¢,��le c�_�rrently /�Skk�` � .. states. ,,>�,,.� Planning Associate Ericson noted a recent situation in which has a 400 square foot shed, and the property ow� snowmobiles in that structure. He explained that they times during the year, and move them to the primary would feel very uncomfortable requiring that they make Commissioner Johnson pointed out that there would attached garage who would desire to construct a 20 `� yard, and would desire an improved surface, and i�� Planning Associate Ericson inquired at w surface. Commissioner Laube suggested explained that if the foundation � be consid�red � �arage. Commi"ss�c�da�� ;l�nd `� people`' u�d�1r.� ��c� ��i7� � assumpt�ort, hor�jrv�i�y �� Chairpersor� �e�te� st�i� s'r.� good, a�d tlle �o�i��,�i. �"�� structure �v� acces��ry , prs��e�ty owner desire� �� £,,, . ��t�>�not believe it would :j.-��,;,; s> `�r�t�Face to the secondarv i5 ilot b� c��x�rru to ; a. prope�xy on Loi�t; ��{�tc� a�c��,; �nci Lc� �tore their motorc�y�� .r�� in�cc� �.lae motorcycles out �? f.c��a��l�; ; i�t �;�� ';t�tiy�lt�rtime. He staied he ir' c��'��tn��?V. ,. pro�es �� a�3�1a�a<;��:� ��ith a single car ?0 by 30 �i,1�� S��°��cture in the back ��.ox restrict tk�etn from doing this. to put in an improved ie foundation of the structure. He rt the building, that building would the City`�ould� desire to control this. He stated he believed a, ;�lanning Associate Ericson stated this was a logical c� 1:h�; c;ua-remt'��quirement to have the improved surface to the garage is ri�� ay wish to eliminate the restriction against pavement to the PA �� a��ently prohibited, and simply allow this in the event that a `��;�;�1 in this manner. Commissioner Johnson agr.eed. He stated he e�ppropriate to demand that a property owner to install an improved ructure. ��sioner ThQ�as stated that if the garage is utilized to store more than one vehicle, it was , ��%�?. �.1a�; ��raperty owner would want an improved surface. Commissioner Johnson agreed. �:� �«�� $c,�:�rson pointed out that they might initially utilize gravel, however, they might �� c�r��cway in the future, if the need arises. Commissioner Thomas stated an improved driveway might not be necessary if the structure is being utilized for the seasonal storage of a vehicle and the issues related to appearance would not be applicable, however, if there is a vehicle coming in and out of the structure on a daily basis, the _.. i � - ,- — = =. - Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 21, 2000 Page 13 property owner would desire an improved surface. She added that it might take some the construction of the garage before the property owner could do this. Chairperson Peterson stated an improved surface would be more �;onvenient x?��i� standpoint as well. Commissioner Thomas added that the very ;Feui situationw �.�� could be addressed. Planning Associate Ericson stated th�re were more a��i situations. ,. �» . Commissioner Thomas inquired how the current CodF '�c�rij�� Planning Associate Ericson explained that the Code indica.i:<<° ��i must have a driveway. Commissioner Thomas stated that if the current G properties that already have an unimproved driveway this examination. Planning Associate Ericson ad�i;;F from occurring in the future. ,, Commissioner Thomas inquired why they ;�t?�ere �, :. with the consideration of sheds and �arages oftentimes, when there is a change, �h�z�' are so which reference specific Chapters �h��' a� is dif affecting everything else. � ` � and exii path, at Planning A such as.:ara nnin� to ese issues, �� n expand your gai after removal �emattc f these `" : .r h,�, :.:�%., ��' ��.,n� not rc��ol��r��; �.f��; �ssues related to back, tl�i� �n��.�c��ric�t,.be resolved in 'i�ey covlc�� 7r�;�>�ni. �these situations r� A��>�j�v� this issue in conjunction �'��k��fie Ericson explained that o�uiectec� issues and different Codes �ript to make one revision without _ _. z�;�� .pahnson si�'�e� ihe;; City Codc�'! �°�c��ai.r�; °'that vehicles be parked on an improved ;�rc�id�tec� ouf �d.��. i� ��c�Jperty ownc�� coY�:;trructs a garage in the back yard and enters , �E;�u:�� a��o��<� ?��ta�l�� s�ructure, the driveway would eventually become a rutted z�t,;�.l1e pr�ope��ty c��,>��:g� ��ould be liable for a ticket. � e:rir�:;t�£�'�,'r,ac�c� lle h;�� concerns with regard to the potential for possible abuse, u�i' �hj�ic� r,l��c��rp� � to drag race through his back yard because he is not required to ��;-%driveway, anc1. ��v�i��?.��i�:>the driveway is dirt. He indicated that for three years he ,:> rmed the functio�� s�� =��i�� out to properties in response to complaints. from neighboring �rty owners that �h�;it� nc;ighbor has no regard for the appearance of his property in that he , indiscriminately,,,�n'd has no defined driveway. He explained that from a code enforcement point, it is diffi.�uit to inform such an individual that he must be parked on the driveway, +t� exact loca�iori is unclear. ��xis:�?c�x�r.;x >�ohnson suggested they could expand the definition of an improved surface to 3r��°�a4r�� 1°�c;l� �r similar materials, and not simply limit this to asphali and concrete. He stated that since the ordinance restricting residents from parking on the grass went into effect, he was aware of many instances in which driveways have been expanded to the sides with rock. Commissioner Hegland pointed out that even if they do not require an improved surface to these structures, the fact that residents are not ailowed to park in those areas would not change, and � .� _ i . �-- n � j, :, , �..�: . _ ; _ _ k ' �� _ l � , _ _ �. :- ,_ = -- - - � - - - F .� - r �- � � - - ��- �. ----- _ _ ._�. L..._.5__,.,: �:. _. .- �- - -- !._ _� ��i;�.�fY _...� ��=------ �:- . - . �:_; i. . .� ._ .. . . ' """' ._" "__' "�"_' ' � Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 14 they could still be ticketed if they do this. He stated that the property owner would have an improved surface from the street to the storage building of their choice, and that wou.ldF�e the only surface they could park a vehicle on. He stated they would not be ;.��,c�vi, ed �c3 have an improved surface to the secondary building, whieh he would assume would h�; �.li.i�xz�c� ior storage. Planning Associate Ericson stated it would likely be obvi structure. He stated another issue is that the Code only al that if there is a driveway on one side of the property bec�u; garage is located, and there are large trees or a retainirl�' have another garage in back, however, the only way to a� another curb cut. Commissioner Hegland stated this would be an uncor permission. Planning Associate Ericson advised that i% this situation would certainly come forward, and mus� �'3 ,:_,><.<..,. x;;�t�ich is th vs for one cu hat is where t sory ined y�ra,�1 alon� that driveway, ch�y�; �:�t��i� �,�s � �:��.a� s�l-�acture would be �iia-�u�;h i si��aa��rar� �a�l��zt w��ald require special �arag�� wQ:r� �l�t��n��d.>on a propertY, �d;��,a�ed. Commissioner Miller inquired at what poi�t ,�t"Iie C�(.y ��s dr�a��Y�a�i,�<� iher��'�have been too many Conditional Use Permit requests and tlu�� the curzeni z.c��, ��i�,� l,ie` revised. Chairperson � : , ..:: Peterson stated this occurred in consideration of th�recei7i x�+��x�r��,l�s requests for Conditional Use Permits that were made simultia�eously. He �dvised that 1f they could eliminate some of the Conditional Use Permit requests fca�� 'aecls by s�zr►�ily increa,s1;tig the square footage requirement, the Commissions' efforts could ;be concentA F�� on the �onditional Use Permits for garages, which are a more. substantial assu��9He expl�%r�6 �� +:;Y�at r�u�ing the last six years, the City has seen an averag� cs�:�hree Condit��na3 �J�,� Permii Y�c,q��,�� yea.r for garages, and with the exeeption of the last;;�'�ro y�ax�s, fewe Commission�r 1Vri11�i° �� Permit, and ceq�irc. G� �' Plannin ;�ssociate Ec�it �:.,� of y�ea'r'�'; �and this req��i anQt�er 50 square fee� %:.'�%� �q�zrnletelv revise their � �;�r��;s'r.�: �s��- �heds. �ge�s'rec� 'r��r �1��,+��r.300 square feet for a shed without a Conditional Use 9��cliiio��l �T;�, h��;rl��ai� for 400 square foot sheds. �c�x� ��a.��c� �taff vvas concerned in that the Code is examined every couple ��a� ��a�j�ars to be revised incrementally, and would simply be increased �#�,4r�rt� �:��: next revision. He explained that this was. an opportunity to ;j�pro`�ch in this matter, and be very flexible. �i��rson Peterso�i';`�stated the 400 square foot maximum shed size has remained constant, �E'f::: ';�s;vc��-, ih� total;;;::st:�e of the garage and accessory structures was increased from 1,264 to 1,400 ��t: c��a,. �:�� stated accommodation for the larger buildings was made in terms ofthe garage, c�� ;.;:1��r�a� ia� that this is likely more usable space. Co��x�a:i�sioner Thomas stated the changing usage of sheds has generated all of the recent requests, and this structure is not a shed anymore, but rather, accessory storage. Planning Associate Ericson stated one of the issues at the Council level is that the City is simply rubberstamping all of the Conditional Use Permits. He explained that if there are criteria in the ______ _ � _ _ - -- _ , - . _ F� _ _ � _ - - ` - -- = = : - - : � = -- - - , ,_ . --- - : � _ ;� - - - __ - - . - - .- - _ _ �� Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 15 Code, which specify that sheds shall not exceed 20 percent of the rear yard coverage or be larger than a specific square footage, and these conditions can be met and approved by the City� t�i� City might wish to simply permit these sheds. ;' Commissioner Miller inquired if this would be appropriate for �. `�OQ squar� k�c�r ��i�d. �lanning Associate Ericson explained that the Commission could build in some qualzi�c�.;.i��a�.;> �c� provide that they do not allow a 400-square foot shed that mighi be��xcessive on a s�eci�a� �7��;�r;� �y, and he believed it was possible to build in safeguards to accom�li�ki this. „�'�r �`' , «.�:.. Commissioner Hegland stated they were attempting to lirr�if ��a�� ;;r A��;,�ricting the total amo�� of storage area available, and how that is divided and utiliz�d i� ��t� ±4> ��a� �k�dividual property owner. Planning Associate Ericson stated he comfortable with the �ia��«:;�1 ��'��ue a maximum number of accessory buildings. Commissioner Thomas stated that if the propert; footage, whether this is limited to two struct��r workable, they could always require that the �t'�ipe the third structure. She stated she did �ot bel appropriate, and was uncertain as to why �his was a Planning Associate Ericson stated because of properties such as tha lot. He explained that tile p:KO��e' there as ar� vl%acl�ed gara��; �a��n�� the fro�t arar� �� ;�nall wirxr��va, �� that i�'t��r��'��;i3�t�:> w�;s�c� E�11c��r structures, w�a�lt� �>� ,permitte��„ Conditional �J:��; [��°x�� c�b�ai�� Commissttiner Thoma� of tl��;�rouse. She statP� ,�� of yf.�e house, as it �hi ,: v��tsoever. Commissi recent requests e living in a sm r�;�� of the hc�`� b �., �ilow�d ��1�� i��i�'��storage square ��7�>,% ��%li��ee wott�� robably be more �� obF,E��r� � C,a�.ditional Use Permit for �. �c l.iYr�iti�� t�e number of sheds was iorz. e reason he suggests three"accessory structures be allowed is n Long La.t��' Road vv}uch is a very large 18,000 square foot owner wc��?id �ik�e ta construct a 400 square foot shed, and , there i q�Ist� �',��nall 8 foot by 10 foot shed with a porch on �i� is us�;d foy° gardening projects and so forth. He explained , t�;„small shed such as this, possibly 200 feet from the other �� stated the Commission might wish to require that a �� l�hing beyond three structures. ��c�tj��;d. v✓hy tlie size of the accessory structure is limited to the footprint s11�; c�z�? �not understand why storage space should be tied to the footprint �i� �� appear to have any relationship to the size of the structure �zaer .�ohnson indicated this has been the major issue with regard to the e stated the Commission had discussed that there could be three or more ouse, for example an 800 square foot house, and if they are limited to the there would not be sufficient room to park two vehicles, leaving any � outside. :��a�r�i�� 1�ssociate Ericson stated the history of this requirement pertains to the principal structure on the property and aesthetics, in terms of whether it is a residential community or a community of garages. He explained that they would not desire a 1,400 square foot garage to dominate a lot, with a small 800 square foot house off to the side. � � Y � ��f . � _ _ < < ..� .�� t ,� � - ,fy � - r - �z.x � ' - __- . ..� .,..,. i-:�.�._.� ,. �_. _ .� - — l-- --,_.�._ ..� �.r�:� � -=�-�-'---. � ._. _.,��. y._-.�.�_..�s.�_ ..�.F.�,_ _ _ - Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 21, 2000 Page 16 Commissioner Thomas stated this would depend upon whether the appearance of a large,garage t:>r„ would be considered more important, or three vehicles sitting out in the driveway. She �t�t�d this <f was a restriction that did not suit their purposes. Planning Associate Ericson pointed out that there would regardless. Commissioner Hegland stated the new house designs do the garage, and in the majority of the new developments, � little of the house is exposed. Chairperson Peterson stated he did not believe that the changed. He stated everyone should be allowed, no ma feet, which would translate to a 24 by 36 foot garage. ,, room for two vehicles, a workshop in the back, boat'; s�� ,�;;< be large enough for any reasonable minimum use` �� n He indicated that if there is a storage shed, tk��:;�ize of i and allowed up to a certain point without a f�onditionat ; u �r, �y� f z, .: <` entirely eliminate the issue of the staee� �oriditional;�I�se Pef-rni would be acceptable, however, thai ��A�� xa�t woulc} �e added to .F�. the total square footage within the ��7a��;riurn reqtairement. s 't�r;ee vehi�le� ��t i�e; c.iY-iveway, �v< <� , ; rovide �t�tl;u�h more tha�xz � �ri�E�� f °� car �arage is visible, ��hi�� `i�1�r � c,�' �,!-�O� ;,r�uare foot should be th� �1��a.sK�: �r J�c size, 864 square teci i�� ,�r��Ic� ��ovide sufficient , and �� r3� a�e of ihis size should :�uare fcc� �Yiould be permitted. �,tures �c�uld be added together . �-T� explained that this would �c� sh�ds up to 400 square feet size of the garage to determine i> Commissioner Hegland siag�;�°sie�i �the requi�-�;�z��r�i :�3c �.,?00 square feet maximum, and garages less than.8�� ;�c�iaare feei h� 2��u�,c� without �`�nt�iE,�c��`��Jse Permit. ,' Comrnis�za��-:@✓�i��a� ,�o:«a�:�;r�. �� i�� inaximum garage size without a Conditional Use Permit has beeYi c�t�n��c? �� 9�?., �c�u�i`� s��i, �lanning Associate Ericson stated the current Code indicates thati �±fay �,ac��;e lal�f,�r �E�� he house requires a Conditional Use Permit, and Chairpersor� �;;�c��:s�,ii �v�.� �ix��osan� ��i��y property owner be allowed 864 square feet. _�„ ,: - /� , Comrm��sioner Johnso�� r��:a��;�� ch� �otal square footage could not exceed 1,400 square feet. He / "/l pa�t�d out that if th� y.zii��,�� :��, on an attached garage, the shed in the rear yard would be t,;.� : �i�ted to 400 square fe;it: Fianning Associate Ericson added that if the 952 square foot garage �<: .z �s; �r�re larger than the house, a shed would not be allowed without a Conditional Use Permit. rson P�t�zst�;�"stated three numbers have been considered for garage sizes in the past three a��i_�c�i�.g€; $64, 952 and 1,000 square feet. He inquired which size the Commission was -�z�� .��'cFiis point. Planning l�ssociate Ericson stated a 952 square foot garage would be allowed, as long as the footprint of the house is 952 square feet, and if the footprint were less than this, a Conditional Use Permit would be required. He explained that a 600 square foot house could not have a 952 square foot garage, therefore, Chairperson Peterson has suggested everyone be allowed 864 square feet without a Conditional Use Permit. He added that if a property owner desired 1,400 , �— 4 �� _ - '� � _ _ � p � _- _ _ -_ _ , � - i � . - _ _ .. - -. . _.. - - � -�- .. ,._, .- .: - . -- ..-. . ._ . ._... . . . .., . . � - - - --'- . `----- - - - _': ---. .. ---- � . . - � � - . � - - .: _ . . i-----� = -'-'-°--� -----'---� - ------ -- '- . -: ' _ .:. 1 Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 17 square feet, he would be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit because this would ;exceed the footprint of the house. He stated this would provide a safeguard against accessoryjstr�a�tures that appear out of place and do not fit in with the character of the neighborhood. ��'�''� Commissioner Hegland inquired how you a property owner coulti tabtain �,�?�(} ��7�� fFet if he could not exceed 400 square feet. Commissioner Laube exp��t�ed that they °tnl��lc� ��cy€ c,'r.�c� �hat ;:�;: they could exceed 400 square feet, however, anything o�er that arr�ouni �ro��ici ��;r.y�.liA e a, j` Conditional Use Permit. Community Development Direccc�r "Joplce pox�tt�cl out th�i: i�y �(��v,��x�g; additional structures, the property owner could obtain 1,40(} „;��f-� %�C`' Commissioner Thomas stated that if the current limit is 95`i �;c,�as��{ ��:r,'r., and a Conditional Use Pernvt would be required after that point, they should just ��r�; a;A� a�7�:�i�x«.�:a-� at 952 square feet for all property owners. She inquired why the would de�tre to r-�v�� R�� i�z�; �� ;vious 864 square foot requirement when they have already stated thac eve��n,r��; coulc� i��; 9.;`J w��i�re feet. Planning Associate Ericson advised that some � feet. Commissioner Thomas stated she was.av�'�� basing the square footage on the footprint �?�'the She stated all property owners sho��lc� be ailowed to 864 square feet. She indicatec� �� a�?t) squarF problem, and the property owner ��r.)�.��e1.'be allau limit on the size of the shed should ��e eiitriinat�c�,; feet of accessory,structur�. �1��'stated the i��;u�.; the amour�� n�ween 952 >i��.r� �`c�t and 1,�?C?0 {3� of the lo� �.nd E�i� �aumber z�A �c;�°�;�s�l,;y buildif�g:�, c ��p��-�x�s ��a��l�l not arcdrrrrnodate 952 square : of zh.r,>. '�� ind�cated:,5he was not in favor of hous�, a��c� il��s'r�rc�v�s�on should be eliminated. 9�� 'squai ��n�� , a ��c� the City should not revert � <:<> �'oot house �uas alr�eady experiencing a garage , y ,,: ;d to have ��`2 square feet. She added that the �nd ther� s�ould be a maximum of 1,400 square �� l�c; tiealt with pertained to how to approach uar� �'eet, and this would depend upon the size �d �would allow for much more fle�bility. Commissiot�er: L�LS��: inquired xe�'��.�•diii� 1he dimensions of a 1,400 square foot building. He pointed out �1�� a. 9:?:� ��uare �°oo� ��ci��s; v✓ould be almost as large as a three-car garage. ,r.' Commissrorter Heglasad �A��a�ca�� that if the garage was 952 square feet, the accessory structure �r coulc�?� 'e 448 square fee�t, va�.�ch i� ;essentially the size of a standard 24 by 24 foot garage. �� . fts�" `; � �?��ning Associate Eric�pn s�ated only a property with the lot area to support a 1,400 square foot �rr�cture would be able to obtain that size building. He explained that if there was a very large k�t��se on the propert�; �it would be unlikely that anyone would notice the second garage in the �t • �j<�c �<5 :��.owever, th� ��%guard would be that each property owner would have 952 square feet, and ��fY �r��lr� la� allowed 1,400 if they are able to maintain the 20 percent back yard coverage g'�r�t��;xx��., �cl�so not exceed the footprint of the house. Commissioner Thomas reiterated that she was not in favor of a restriction based upon the square footage of the house. Cortamissioner Laube stated the Commission had considered an application for a 50-foot garage in the back of the property, which already had a single car garage in the front. He inquired how €; � .� (:� � � �- �; � � C �-''�-� �, - - - "' = r �-- - - _ „ : -�- - , - _ : - : - - � ` � � _ . .: - � •. � •'?�i��Cti:.l�s...• _ � _ �'- .. - .,.. -- � J.r//L � ��S:z 'I�*".__F�r._�i��_�...:�..:i .. i..,..�:�_....:_/....,_.✓.'. ' ___ "_'r Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 21, 2000 Page 18 large the second garage could be in the back if the City does not apply any r� Commissioner Thomas stated this is the point at which the 20 percent rear yard requirement would be applicable. .�` Commissioner Laube pointed out that this property owner building of this size. Commissioner Thomas stated this wa; and he should be allowed to do this. She stated the City wa; is the point at which they would move to different communi�; >use, his ling ot�;�� upport a ��cic yard, ,. ��t� ihat _ Commissioner Laube disagreed. He stated this property ov�nr��° til�rs;�t�icl ��ow have that larg� g.;��-�'�� in the back yard, and would then desire to add on to the ha��;: r��, �.��guii-ed at what point this would result in excessive lot coverage. Commissioner HegXa.�ac� �:��,�;c,i ch� �roperty owner should be encouraged to add on to the house. '`£ '". L ". ' Commissioner Laube stated this was correct, howe��°, i;ie ��ould noi r�r�<�;rr, �hat the yard be completely covered with a garage structure. •�xr�r�a��Rycaix��° �'homas :,ta��ci. che lot coverage requirement is already in the Code, and the,ktti se woG.a��J ��ai; b�; �,ble ic��6e expanded if the lot ,<��:�; .r exceeds the coverage ratio. F,-.,%` --• Planning Associate Ericson advised Laube stated language would have: Commissioner Thomas the lot. �1a� ��cplained their ��;ssoa-�r 'stora�e d �ive Planning Ass upon 20 perc ,.:.:;: . �ss�oner Laube ; are would have upon the back � ��ac�u.a.: th� b is not sp'�ified in the Code. Commissioner Nould be ��rr ��c��a�t,� r�ble in tying the requirement to size of have suffici�zt� ��. ;ir�e�, they should have the freedom to build �.� c�rtain limi�, aY�c� c}�ey could restrict this to three buildings, ,n�x`��acv �h� �'i-eedom to do this. ''`�ommission would consider the current ratio based or the total lot coverage ratio. �re not allowed to build in the front of the property, and the �ted in the back yard, therefore, the percentage should be set �'�aAnmissioner Hegla�z�I�pointed out that people add on to the back of the house, and this would �,,� �,�,��z�ler�cl th� b�C'k yard � ��i��r�_,�i,�� ^,;;:�s;rate Ericson stated he was concerned that if they proceed with straight lot ��r� z f�.s�� or E»ilding on a lot, they would reach a point where someone would be unable to ex�atic� �:lieir house. He explained that this would not only apply to accessory storage but also to the buildings on the lot. Chairperson Peterson pointed out that there are a few homes in the City where this would be a problem. Planning Associate Ericson indicated that if you have a 1,100 square foot lot, a 2,000 �. � �r ._ � . . . ' - .� 8.:�.' _ _ .:f F =� :.e " -.--� `- t _ _ . I� ' ' . � '' - - - - I "r " c - ---- � . � . . . _.. . �.. : � - - : . -. -. . . ..� . . �'-�-� . _ _ .. . . - ---- -- �- `° ---- - _ . - �- --- � - � � - - - — —'-t r Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 21, 2000 Page 19 square foot house, and a 11,000 square foot garage, you would not be able to expand He stated he would not desire to have a situation arise in the future where a prop would not be able to expand. Commissioner Thomas stated the Commission had discussed that raised the issue regarding which was the front and whic� could make some recommendations pertaining to lot covera�; percent of the total lot area would require a Conditional �J�s examine the situation and determine if there is sufficient r�� the purpose of the Conditional Use Permit is to address ex�:��i Commissioner Miller stated this would require a var met in order to obtain a variance. Commissioner L, hardship by allowing the accessory structures on these a� the back y4arc�. and that anvil�iri Planning Associate Ericson stated for this reasoriy l��':�c��1� t��; ��o�-� back yard area, and overall, this would still b�. tied to i aae �7�c.1� �� r:� build in the front yard. He pointed out hpwever, if yo�i riF�c;; ��: +.�> 9r •' problems might arise in terms of expandin� the hous�:�� at the �'. addition. li ,�1<e Road r��.��d they ��d.;��: �f 20 �eria which must be �uld be creating the il� tying this to the use they could not building coverage, Chairperson Peterson stated he coulri i'int thinlc cii any situat�on where the City would wish to �� restrict the property owner's abili� io expand! t�� house �ie stated there were a few lots where this would be a pzoblem iri tih� C'ity� where th��-� �`� ��r�et��that are two blocks wide, and another street ��I�g�iri�,through the x�nid�l��. �-Ie statec� ��a� hax,is�s�were originally set back quite a distance from ��.�, �,r.l-��, l�owever, �1ac��r ,��; �,s��,�� located' in �}�� very back portion of the lot. Planning l� �; �n�z��: �;� icsori sia��d �hi� w�uld be a unique situation that might be appropriate for a variance. Chair��s so�� '�tei�sorA `��r��, �c�iiing that in most cases the variance process could address this. " �' :��`; ` Com�r�ssioner Thoma y;c7.��;c� P.�?�s �ould decrease the number of Conditional Use Permit requests. ..:F�� ;,; i ;%y� . ,;,. �;�;�ining Associate Ericst5r� stiated it appeared as if there was a consensus to proceed with a 1,400 s��iare foot maximum,s �tnd eliminate the 400 square foot requirement, because if two garages are ��i1��wed it would not 1��` sensible to have a 400 square foot limitation on the shed. He stated the i;�;�3� ,�c�uare feet wquld be conditioned on the fact that it could not exceed 20 percent of the back �,r��r� ��;f., ��7�d ct�uld exceed the footprint of the house without a Conditional Use Permit. He ��rl�r;u�� a;:;��ch property owner would be allowed 952 square feet, however, beyond that, the ai�sres� f�x� r:�a' ��;�essory storage space would be based upon the footprint of the house. Commissioner Hegland inquired if a Conditional Use I'ermit would be required if the house was 1,000 square feet, the property owner constructed a 1,000 square foot garage, and desired to construct a 400 square foot accessory building as well. He pointed out that there were not many homes in town that were 1,400 square feet, and he did not think this would be necessary. He _ , _ f ,�s . � . . _ . i _� y _ . E .:." f -�' � a' :�� -�� _- - --'��' �� - " G -- - f �� _ _ : _. . -� :.�_�-� --�_. _ • ... -._ .. _ - . . . - . ' ,. . .. _ . �'= '_.- ��-- —�= - ----- -:.� r ._�t= .. w��= s..�s� . .u.l�_s._..��-- -- "-. . . _�_. �� _ � .. '=-` ' � ' � k �� Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 21, 2000 Page 20 proposed that there be a 1,400 square foot limit for all accessory buildings, with a total of three ,,,,: buildin s, �'��' g ,�::,« :� Chairperson Peterson stated the primary issue they were con would be greater than 952 square feet, and when they exami: Use Permits, this is the case that has initiated this revision��. <�<� 1,400 square feet would not require a Conditional Use Pernut� Planning Associate Ericson stated they could also add l�r� accessory structure up to a certain level, without triggerir��; `�. He stated he would be very hesitant to disregard the tie ic� having the only safeguard the 20 percent lot coverage requir Commissioner Thomas requested clarification regardin� x,,.h.�; footage of the house. She inquired if they were att�mptir�� ,� would not be larger than the house, and if so, why"� :�'lan��in�; to the definition of the principal structure. ��: 4 E`' � !1.fi. Commissioner Hegland stated ther� Associate Ericson stated there wec-� Commissioner Hegland stated in size. Cotnmissioner Millec i in the �oc��. : ] IC50fi1 5� and 860 sq��nr� a��t 1't�fl- a�wo ��+�� Chairperson P�'i�:��;�c��:� ��;r,;t� �.h�;y been exp�decl, ar2�� ?��,� � �:�a�•��,� �E ;,.,,,, / �N/�,. l� / /� C�mttiussioner Laube stater� �� c �t��ies in the complex. ;;�;� few 1;j400 sq ��:�y stated twr� ings that xaditional l�� han �vvould allow io� �� e�t��c� �� Conditional l7se �=`'€�Fn�ic. '1.:aootage of the house, and �.� 1�f�E;lc yard area. purpoye ��;+ ` -� ' 1i1��it th� s'i �us to the square ; garage so that it stated this relates in the City. Planning ority oi ;�a�r�s�s in the �ity were less than 1,000 square feet regarda�� z1:�e rec';(�ii�ed square footage of houses as set forth rec�uirements were 960 square feet for a single-family home, �lready be approaching this limit with a rambler that has orch in the back. se is 1,800 square feet, and this is one,of the average size �� ;:s�i�imissioner Heglanct3 stated that is not representative of the majority of the homes in the f,z�r��.r��anity. He �nt�?uired if they would desire to limit all of them to having to obtain Conditional ��e; ��AZ�c, �� onstruct a second garage, the primary purpose of which would be boat and , r�;� t�2 �i��I ��rcle storage. Commissioner Thomas inquired why the size of the house was a factor. She stated if this was simply an issue of appearance, the point has been raised that in light of the new design configurations, the City is already seeing the larger garages. � , ; _ - , ._ -_ _ ` - � - _ - L_: : � �--_ �----:....._ ._. - " � --- -- - -- - ___ - � - -- - �t Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 21, 2000 Page 21 Commissioner Hegland inquired how they would approach two story houses. Co Johnson stated the Commission was able to approve a Conditional Use Permit re� property on Long Lake Road by including the square footage of the second stary, of th� Planning Associate Ericson pointed out that this property Qr�?��r. requi"r�� <� �'�� Pernvt regardless of this. He inquired if the Commissiot� d�stred to ret�r�� zhc:� `; d footprint of the house, so as to prevent a 1,400 square fop�'`�arage from dorr�i��.�.��j� advised that presently, if a property owner desires to do thi�, �t<,Condrt�o�;ai'`Use perrn%�. Chairperson Peterson stated the Commission was o�is�� Conditional Use Permit, and only in situations where th�re garage which when combined, exceed the 1,400 the square ,: ; Permit be required. Planning Associate Ericson stated Commissioner structure without a Conditional Use Permit. CQrr�i' a reed with this. �'""`'` ,::>::> s g :�>-Y.: Commissioner Thomas inquired how rear yard. Planning Associate Ericso. the house, and could not be in the fi•t�. Commissioner Thomas stated the ki be the pr�ii��a��, structure, b��1��9� ��: , :; Plannin� ��.;ra�cia�€: ��;�on �t��E1 � been noti��{' ;��a� �t�F ��,:#,.�o;�i�1g �> and their ho��sc� is �i��T ��`�0 :;c�u�:Y�: neighbors, v,��iU i�ac�a�;��.� ��, s��c;�� neighbo:xk�t�od,�im ad«�t.�or� a{� �� Aa.c would U the of tl ioner for a itional Use �; a,z-a ��o the . � .��>�. k�e :cl��; ��7., square feet wi�laoui ` � da�ao��,�r' �ccessory building and a �t ��mi�, �wo��lol a Conditional Use s propo��irl,� �' 1,400 square foot ;:�and and Johnson stated they also re y;�ould domi��; t.he lot it if it restricted to the sti�ucture must be located behind the front line of 7�'propertY .«...: £�,;;.:;� :::�; >�il! be x� front of the property, and it would still ��zz�� s�ructure in view. ' Ja�� received significant feedback from residents who have �g�� y owner desires to construct a 1,200 square foot garage, .�. �Ye stated this is an issue of significant concern to the ��osal would be very displeasing and would depreciate the at they would have to look at a garage instead of a house. person Peterson stat�;c1 �� o�ne sense he would agree with this. He explained that looking through the garage,:Coriditional Use Permit requests that the Commission has considered the last six years ��;;an average of three per year, in most cases there was a neighbor who was vrned with regard: to the size of the structure and what the property owner intended to utilize , 1-Ie explaine�;��iat simply allowing the construction of these larger garages would generate �z��xic a.mo�nt of concern among the neighboring property owners. P1ax�a��x� l-�ssociate Ericson advised that this could give rise to a situation in which that large garage cuts off a supply of light and air to the neighboring properties, and these are criteria that the Commission is required to examine through the Conditional Use Permit process. Chairperson Peterson stated presently, the structure is allowed to be five feet from the property line, and a 1,400 square foot building with the appropriate roofline could very easily block the , , �.s � _ _ _ � ' � ; � ' , �" �4.. .i r . _ � - _� ' _ �: - ' .s"; -� Ir ' ' _ ^!r�..=/xN..,..�..3 ._.�.s�c.G�F::t� ��3.�_!� - ' _" ".. i�Y! .,'� If' Tr�r_�.,._.�. .�"" "' '_�� _"___ _ _ � ... __ . . _ rL Y!._ i Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 21, 2000 Page 22 access to light to neighboring properties. He stated they would have to include some against negative impacts to the neighbors. Commissioner Miller requested clarification regard the height Associate Ericson stated accessory structures that are not attac; limited to 15 feet in height. Chairperson Peterson pointed out tl� rather half way up the side of the structure. Com�r►issioner Laube stated a large garage of 26 by 50 fe�e�; a nc was �.�� n extremely Planning Associate Ericson explained that if there was a stee}� ��rc.:�a icP i. could theoretically be 20 feet high. He indicated that if th� sfri�c,�.�fr�.'� feet, the City currently has the opportunity to review this,.�nd enst7� �� tki� the neighbors and the community. Commissioner Thomas inquired how many Conditi�na� i.�� ;�� :t�i � requ denied. She pointed out that if the requests are not be�ng cl�r��c�, r�sader� to go through the process. �' �.f,_< Commissioner Laube inquired if garage larger than three stalls. Pl, Laube stated a structure 952 squ they went any larger than th�, �k could eas��y' ��stnact a �� as ti?Y'f; 50 feet:u�irl�, ;��id this wc�r��I�i �y�; ;� were �11'c��ue�J. _ Commissio accessory storage,�� Planning ways been l�-ei�ht, but large garage, the roof a r��r than 952 square x�z �� re no impacts to Commission has l not be required he eui`"rent Cc�#��' prohib�t� '�` property owner from having a �� Assocl�� rricson st�ted this was correct. Commissioner r� �feet in si�� wo�l�l b� �s large as a three-car garage, and if ry would la� :a1�6.��-�r3�a ; s�ur or five car garages. He stated you 0 feet de�,�', �7.y �? �€��:i on the property, and that would be 48 to r�;ssible if I;�rt}0 �qu�re feet without a Conditional Use Pernut �ef� ihox�a�a:� ��;c�S�P� ��y �.11��w the property owner 952 square feet, and as many u�1'din,�a �� r:�a��r� �1,��}�c��x ��'�onditional Use Permit, so long as the total accessory s not e�t;�,�;c� �;'�C�4) ��g�rare'feet, however, a single structure would not be allowed to square fe�� i,�,��.ffi; ��'-� �;onditional Use Permit. imissioner Hegland �el of a garage. Co �:l�s to store in tla��:l jc ;��.o�as� acnd k�e�ed ed although it would be likely, this would allow for a 50-foot long ssioner Laube stated he would want a five-car garage if he had three , and two to drive, and he would wish to have the garage located next ,Y; `:�_`homas pointed out that if there was a demonstrated need and sufficient space on roperiy owner could obtain a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Johnson clarified that the discussion was presently 952 square feet for all property owners, with 1,400 square feet total, and a maximum of three structures. He indicated that if a property owner desired to have one 1,400 square foot garage, he would be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. [ _� � _� . . ' . �� .,' � �� _ � ._ t,.__._.�,._ � _ . ". -," _ - ._. �. . -=- ._. .�_ -�... -'--� _ :_ : . - .__ " ' ».__. . �; =- - -_' --- I � Mounds Vrew Plann'rng Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 23 , �.. Planning Associate Ericson inquired if the Commission was proposing that a property �wner would not simply be allowed to have a 1,400 square foot garage, but woialcl b� zeq�lx� io obtain a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Thomas stated this was correct, k��r��,r��', this was not to imply that the request would be denied. Planning Associate Ericson inquired if the Commission woui� �liminate of the house. Chairperson Peterson stated this would or�� p��ly to s� square feet, and therefore, he felt that this should be eliminat�^�. i}la`i: � rtnt Planning Associate Ericson inquired if the property owner or� ��c�rjlc. �rive with a 400 square foot house could have a 952 square foot garage, and then, t�� ta �,� O(� >�uare feet of accessory storage space, and simply max out the square footage>'witllou�. �? �`�orad�taonal Use Permit. Commissioner Johnson stated yes, if he has sufficient s�ac:�,�n his b�.�;ic�'R��t�, Planning Associate Ericson advised that the srrta�� t� ��r°��.�� on chc� px s��er�y would be the house. Commissioner Thomas stated if he h;as,� 95� �c�4?�x� �t>�a� ��r�ag�, �he largest structure he could add would be 448 square feet. Platu7�g Assoc��e �,rd�satz ,,i��tet1 `inany houses in the City � were this size. ,�-'%`'F Commissioner Thomas stated these property owners with o' rest of the community. She -< community sixnply becauss:#h� Commis�:�an�� A��aY�c� p and the act��a� li��F ;�pa� �- . � , :. �e�ause �ounds Vi�� is an old City. She inquired why �r kun��.should �°�iimited to less storage space than the sho�� c�i !�� tire�ited any differently than the rest of the of tl>� hc��.�,� ��> smali. tt�c� vui r#��,Y rmany of these homes are one and a half stories as well, �;oi.��t� 1�F ��?lzr��:into consideration, which is larger than the footprint. Chairpersor� <,F��ezsoz� s��i � c��aes�?.c�r� was raised earlier with regard to the number of Conditic�n�� Itse Peri�li� �°��i��:�i� 'r.hat have been denied, however, a more significant question ,„ woul�;`be in terms of` 1��f mar�y,> Conditional Use Permits were approved without conditions attaGiied to address issue5„ _''� � f,� ,. Cc%mmissioner Thomas. �riquired how many Conditional Use Permit requests have required three t ;.. �m��ail�s time to comp��te. Commissioner Laube stated he was only aware of two requests t at ��;��s��d an addittqr��'meeting, and these requests were not for garages or sheds. �;°�&��,aa��j�r-,':b �"homas stated in light of the many ideas the Commission was considering with this ��.r��ix��i��o��; �h� square footage of the house was becoming less and less important. She suggested that rather than having to review the Code again in two years because the City is attempting to rnicromanage the sc�uare footage issue, they should simply eliminate this restriction. , : �. � _ �, J � � :.� Y .� F p- __s�e . -_ - �, - � __ _�____' ' _ ____ ' . " ' '$ . _�___ ._. ..__ ._. . - j' I � - � � - _ _ . ' . . _ -. _ . .'�.i . ' . . ... ..- _ .� : .: ..__�� `_` - -• _ . � _ . - . .. _' .. . ' _. .�:._. � -��r.. . ""'__��___ --. � ,._' '�__ . _- � .._ . .. . ..____ . _ _� _. . . _ ._ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 21, 2000 Page 24 Planning Associate Ericson stated he did not agree that the square footage of the becoming less important, and he did not believe the City has ever minimized the fact t} principle and accessory structures. Commissioner Thomas stated they have already allowed the 9 the size of the house, and therefore, based upon a 600 squar� would already be the garage. Planning Associate Ericson sta�. current discussion, however, not from a historical standpoinii < Commissioner Hegland stated it would be false to conside�'z in that there are many one and a half and two story home� in Planning Associate Ericson stated staf�'s role was to language to reflect whatever the Commission feels is Chairperson Peterson stated he believed everyan� �' part of the reason for this is that there are numerou houses as well, are substandard. He expl�,�d that i properties, the first sensible step would b�:to constr� might wish to expand their house. �" Commissioner Johnson agreed 1,248 square foot garagc� ��q%c additiox�� Y� b;'x:�� ack ofth�:-�� Planni,n'�; �,�;;c��E��.r l��,x-ic.�o�t �,�� considera�.ia�.�. a�; %��e ¢��xi ��,� regarding what is �p�ropraat�. � a s�a.rir.�: s u;are fooi 9 �ot house, t this was ct�i as the principal was ; are �less of r�_�cture � �:o the �nc1 �r.�A��c�,-�, and would draft a sta��c��t�c� sized garage, and th�.�arages and possibly the �v�rn�rs wish to improve these a�c;d garage, after which they k��;.stated he��v�s aware,s�f an individual who had constructed a �� t�i�;building ��e3�a��; ��r� �i"is lot, after which he constructed an )�': E�;4� si�`�' has received sufficient information to draft language for ��; ��' �:tiF; planning Commission, and to continue the discussion Julie Ols��n, 2663 La�� ,'c�rr�x ?;ircle staied she agreed with Commissioner Thomas. She stated the foc3tprint of the ho�a��: �N�A� �t�.Yally irrelevant, because there are one and a half story homes, r .;. cap� �ods, two stories, �.��c� pa��r� level homes to consider. She stated the foundation size should ,. ��t be a basis for ho�w ;1arg� a property owner is permitted to build another structure. She €��pl�ined that people st�rt improving their properties at some point, and it is much less expensive �c� +�prove the gara��:��an the house, therefore, they begin with the garage and eventually add on �r,; 9;'i� l,.ouse. <��::>��`, zUA ��l��Y �G:��cl the complaints that come forward to the Commission typically come from one or t�n� 3,e.t��i��f ;� requesting information regarding how the property owner intends to utilize a 1,100 or 1,200 square foot garage, when their house is only 600 square feet, and they are concerned that the property owner is going to set up some sort of shop or business, however, there are rules and regulations in place which restrict these things, therefore, this is not a significant concern in relation to the size of the garage. _- ---= - --- � `� . __ _ � .__ __.._.��__�:�� _.. _ . _--- -- _ - - - _ >. _ , ; .. ,. , _. .. . __ �L +;. � Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 21, 2000 Page 25 Ms. Olsen stated the majority of the current Code provisions for curb cuts are not correct. She explained that if you consider the new construction design, one of the pri of contention is that they have constructed a new house with a three car �ara�� ai �r� and they are unable to access or exit the third stall of their bec�us� they caa ��o�� ; '�' wide curb cut. She stated the size of the newer structures has n�� .��n talc�;� ��irr,� ��z� the new Code pertaining to curb cuts, and this was simply an ��iipl� of the rz��sii y�:: the foundation of the house as a basis for the size of the gara��: Chairperson Peterson stated the Commission has discuss several meetings, and in previous years, and has address� some issues remain. He indicated that with regard to th�; Commission is in consensus to eliminate the footprint of size of accessory structures, but to retain a lot size for gar He pointed out that another issue before the Commissi�� which are three stalls versus four stalls wide, and �� regard. , � Planning Associate Ericson stated it was n,q�''so rr rather, that the Code is silent on the �act that previously, less than 864 square feei, t�te�`� was no because 864 square feet does not l�nd ��self well �: addressed. He indicated that with xhe larger s�ruc : :. stipulate that a garage sh�ll h�: f�t� 1�iore thar� ��e�� Comn�issit�a�;would desir� a�c� ��iai�'z��his or elia��:� than foui' dri �hat c�;_c the; q�� alar-, 9;he es sufficiently d�ration in _ _ _ _ __ ay and curb cu� i�,�i?e ��.� of these issues�, kl��. �ver, �: ions, it appears that the :� "fja>�� for calculating the �c� �� ;a�ain standard size. n ��:;d t�iz�ing to garages ,ri�; rliscrenancv in this ch t�a� ��i�r� ��, �isccepancy in the Code but ;�r`structu�-��,�' l�;ss than 952 square feet, or 5�,. equiremeni �ha� ihey be limited to three stalls, four stalls.5'"He stated this issue requires to be �res, th� Conditional Use Permit requirements �_ ;�r wld�hs wide, or 35 feet. He inquired if the C�s provision. �1�Y�� cJ��`s��c� �I��,i a:;;35-foot width restriction limits the property owner to less Planning Asseic.�a�� ,i i retain q�feliminat� `cfa�, Cond��ianal Use Permi� ,�,:.,,. no��l�lowed to have a , f �„ s�;�per and longer than %>.<:<: <, . 1�is, m Mounds View < i i��<�� maintaining this�,�� c�� o be more ��t�iiti i��;s�at�c� ti�� ommission should determine whether or not they would F�E;�z-a�;x��n. IIe pointed out that a property owner could apply for a �x ��,30(� square foot garage, and the current City Code states they are �f,;� z�ore than three car widths wide, therefore, the structure would be is �de, and that seems to have worked well, because 95 percent of the deep and narrow lots. He stated staff was not significantly concerned iction would create a hardship, however, in the process of adjusting the the Commission might wish to consider this as well. �'r��r�i�.�i',,;Kc��e � Thomas stated she had no strong feelings in this regard, and suggested that if a �ia ��,r��°�: y? �»��►er desires a 952 square foot garage that is wider than 3 5 feet, this be addressed in the Conditional Use Permit process. Planning Associate Ericson stated this is how this matter is currently set forth in the Code. He explained that the Code states that a 952 square foot garage may be configured to the property �.` - °� � F � � - F # _ �� , �I j _ - r: � �. - :� � - ' _ `: �: : f _�_ . . -- � - - =__ =. ,._ > £x _ � �- -°----- - - -- • � --• - _- '----- � __ -_ ,.--- _ - --- - -,_ .----_ � _.�� Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 26 owner's specifications, and there is no restriction on the number of doors, however, once the ,. i%,f'::>. structure exceeds 952 square feet, a Conditional Use Permit is required. ;<_" e�% Chairperson Peterson stated he was aware of at least one four-c� on the lot, does not face the street, and there is no wid� d�i�l� property owner must make a very sharp turn to access the r�ar ,�� acceptable in the event that four stalls are needed. He sta,t�d C would be an appropriate means to address this. Commissioner Miller inquired if the Commission was to c��ic��-: cut issues as well. Planning Associate Ericson stated the c�a �v��v�� :i recent revision to the Code, which states that a property owa��,r �F� wide as the garage. "5�' >��:.;r Commissioner Thomas inquired what types of issu�;y��a��b�� <;s�� a four-car garage that is only 952 square feet,�a��c� ��.� �jr��t accessory storage space and construct a shed %t�fthe �> >c�;, ;��t�, ! problem as a result of a garage that exceeds 35 feet in r,v+�.tl�, '� ,:> ,,;, could potentially limit access to the back �ard. �:;;xri ' -��, 6. Staff Reports / Items o�' A. , P�revious ��u�u��.�: from th� :I��p�o�aia�� of the Meti��1ia.�� f�� developed a com.�l.€;r�; incorporate the aur�'�za� reflecte�i �� the Compz� �;Y % also b�'rncornorated iY� `��before the Planr ineer would pres �ining to sanitary ' is attempting t�� ..,,.;, ,��r� with thei�r•:r�� B"H1111RD�HOI1 �� ` f; �� ` g011S ��"�� JCt��;�, �t is angled ��. �-:�� ted the '. �1��r, %i�u�3�;�y-� to be �iona► �� u s� A=E>�� r�z� �r�cess ;:;:, driveway widths �y�� urb , i�as been addressed in ch� �ved to have a driveway as �`o��warci i OWI1P,fl� C ':�;zse where there is �-�d to increase the if there would be a Johnson stated this ;r�� °at{rc%�rr �opice stati�c� :�a�i` Fia.s received a preliminary list of comments �o�;'x�ti�.�i �xtlz Y`�;�ard to the Comprehensive Plan. He indicated this is part un�ii's ��»��l�;ti�:qi��s review, which purpose is to determine if the City has ��?��. ��° ��.�vi�c�� "fhat in the area of aviation, the City is required to 1c��1a�i�� p,�ement that recently occurred, to ensure this language is :��c;.r��;i�r<, �lan. I�e stated the Local Water Surface Management Plan must c� � i» +��s��r�prehensive Plan, and this particular item was scheduled to come ��, Q:"��s��aission at their next meeting on July 5�', at which time, the City 1;�;;;;,;ih� 'laiest version of the Plan. He indicated additional information ;�ers is required to be included in the Comprehensive Plan as well, and rovide this information to the Metropolitan Council so that they may ew. %'€�x��a'��u�� :�;ae�elopment Director Jopke stated the Highway 10 Steering Committee would hold ��r��ra��tt�i4.y �neeting on July 11`", at 7:00 p.m., in Council Chambers. He indicated the Steering would present the framework for an action plan and priorities that have been developed for issues concerning Highway 10, which range from safety and community identity to environmental issues, as well as Economic Development issues. He requested members of the community attend this zneeting and provide their input to ensure that the information forwarded to the City Council reflects the desires of the community. _ __ � : __,. _ _ _ _. , : -- �- - --� =- --=-- -= - _ ---_- - -- -: --_= - . �_-- --- � Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 21, 2000 Page 27 7o Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Report Chairperson Peterson stated he would be unable to attend th� ruly 5"' �T�c,c Commission. No further reports were considered. `� �'M 8. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Comrr�i��io��, �fi�i�� e meeting at 8:47 p.m. �`' ) Planning rson adjourned the � r y � � _ �-- i'�-��' ' _ ' _ �{! y. - � ..i _ . � _ , . � _ -.` .-..- �=.' t _ - _ '--� ' �--`:`: . --� _, . ,__'.: __ - �. � .=' < -.s..t._-----'� '_ - - - - - .. . -- -'-`-"_-� . : _ _.. = " _ _ _ _, . _ .. _ .-.- _. °i �. 1 -_ _ . ___._'-- '� � —'-" -=- '- MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION August 2, 2000 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Call to Order 2. Roll Call Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CTTIZENS: BEFORE SPEAHING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODNM, AND GIVE YOUR F`ULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR 'THE MINUTES 4. Approve Planning Corrunission Minutes: a. June 21, 2000 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 627-00, a Resolution Concerning the Mounds View economic Development Authority's Economic Development Project and T� Increment Financing Proposals. (Aaron Parrish, Economic Development Coordinator,) 6. Review of Ordinance 665, an Ordinance Rezoning the Properties Associated with the Walgreens PUD, and Ordinance 666, an Ordinance Vacating the Old Edgewood Drive Right of Way. 7. Special Planning Case SP-075-00 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 629-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Proposed Ordinance 663, an Ordinance Creating Language to Administer and Regulate Tattoo and Body Piercing Establishments. StaffReports / Items of Information a. Previous Council Actions b. Highway 10 Steering Committee Update 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNTTY DEVELOPMENT AT (763) 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. (ovER) .� � , � � � ; _ �� :� � ,�� - � � � ' � �- rr. � --- f - y� ».1�� - � � f =--- - - - - � � --- -.. . � -�a�'�^_- �r •- �-=-• ------ ... ,_._ ., r..�.. .�._.� �_.�: ��..'- Y � .. Planning Commission Agenda August 2, 2000 Page 2 AGENDA SESSION AGENDA Review the Minutes from the July 5, 2000, Planning Corrunission Meeting. G:IDATA\GROUPS\COMDGV�PL.ANCOMM�PCAG�NDA�2000Wugus42, 2000 PC Agendadoc `. _,'\ -`>�ii _ - ___ ___ _ � � � � i ; - - .- . , . . ,__ _ _ ,.-- . - _ -- - - _ : .� � - --- - �-- ---_ -�.: _ .� --' - - -- — --------- _ : - - --- --- ��, � � i Itern #5 Czty of Mounds View Planning Comxnission Report Meetisag Date: August 2"d, 2000 Title: DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 627-00, A RESOLUTION OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CONCERNING THE MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCTNG PROPOSALS Lzt�•oduction: Dan Hall, representing The Mennaid, is requesting the use of tax increment financing to construct a 97-room hotel and a 500-seat banquet center to be attached to and integrated with the existing complex. Backgrousid: As a component of the Mermaid redevelopment, the use of tax increment financing has been requested. In accordance with the Economic Development Authority's Tax Increment Finance Policy, the applicant has submitted an application requesting TIF assistance. This application was considered at the May 25th meeting of the Economic Development Commission where a recommendation was made to the Economic Development Authority to give preliminary approval to the application. At the June Sth Council Work Session, staff was instructed to prepare and negotiate the appropriate documents for consideration by the EDA at a later date. One of the documents necessary when using tax increment financing is a`TIF Plan." As part the process of amending TIF Plans, it is required that the Planning Commission review the plans to determine their consistency with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. On a general level, TIF' Plans serve to broadly articulate goals and objectives for the TIF district. The TIF Plan also includes a budget for the expenditure of TIF funds generated as a result of the project. A copy of the TlF Plan modification has been included for your review as Attachment #1. A resolution for the Commission's consideration has also been included as Attachment #2. Recom�zendation: Consider adopting Resolution 627-00 Concerning the Mounds View Economic Developrnent Authority's Economic Development Project and Tax Increment Financing Proposals -, /�, /,., ,�— ,; ; .� %;,-,�,:_ :., '. Aaron Parrish, Economic Development Coordinator �� . . _ . , j_:r �' Ilt. � _ - i± r��? s?. . - � . . . . . � , _. : .. ._ ._ . �>�.t��_�_�% U%rrl'-�..f.1..s__� ,_r r.S_ .._.._. : ' ,/.�. _n:. Mermaid Report August 2, 2000 Page 2 Attachments: 1. Amendments Relating to the Mounds View Economic Development Project of the Mounds View Economic Development Authority, Including Amendment of its Project Plan and Amendment of the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts (Nos. 1, 2, 3) within Said Project 2. Resolution 627-00 A Resolution of the Mounds View Planning Commission Concerning the Mounds View Economic Development Authority's Economic Development Project and Tax Increment Financing Proposals " ' 1 ' — ``___ _ . . ._ ' .. �_ " " . "' . . �. / � � _ � _ _ '. � = I —_ � �: _ _ - . .: " �. �. _. � . .�`_ ._ . _��J . . _ .. _ _ _ � . .._ —_c«S�Yr_Sl�E..�'�.ti . . . . . - - . . ... _ ��10� �� -� ;� � 0 ��% �A ~°gress . Partners�\�4 � • 1 I ' a -3- -: i.:. _ � � . 'r - _ s:tFl r - l F r r - Amendments Relating to the Mounds View Economic Deve].opment Project of the Mounds View Economic Development Authority, Including Amendment of its Project Plan and Amendment of the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts (Nos. 1, 2 and 3) within Said Project August 14, 2000 This document was drafted by: 1187873.1 Briggs and Morgan 2200 First National Bank B1dg. 332 Minnesota Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Te1: (651) 223-6600 Fax: (651) 223-6450 _ .1 � _ _ Amendment of the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project and Amendment ot Tax Increment Financing Plans Section 1.1. Definitions. The terms defined below, for purposes hereof, shall have the following respective meanings, unless the context specifically requires otherwise. The term "development" includes redevelopment, and the term "developing" includes redeve].oping. "Board!' means the Board of Commissioners, the governing body, of the EDA. body. "CitV" means the City of Mounds Va.ew, Minnesota. "Council" means the City Council of the City, its governing "Count_V_" means Ramsey County, Minnesota. "Development Districts" means Development District No. 1, Devel.opment District No. 2 and Development District No. 3, as amended. "Development Proarams" means the Development Programs for the Development Districts, being specifically DeveJ.opmen.t Program No. 1, Development Program No. 2 and Development Program No. 3, as amended. "EDA" means the Mounds View Economic Development Authori.ty, established pursuant to the Enabling Act and pursuant to a certain "enabling resolution" adopted by the Council on March 28, 1994. "Enablinct Act" means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 through 469.108, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047, 469.124 through 469.134 and all other statutes and powers incorporated or referenced therein. ��Project" means the Mounds View Economic Development Project established as of May 9, 1994, including without limitation the areas of the City encompassed therein, and initially constituting all of the Development Distri.cts, as amended. "Proj ect Area" means the total area within the City inCluded within �he Project. "Project Plan" means the consolidated plan firs� adopted as of May 9, 1994, for the development of the Project, constituting initially the Development Programs, as amen.ded. iie�e�3.i 2 �-- � z =�t� �� j e r �� .i : � — :Y '�-_ - -- t , w �' � . - - f - =-a"g � F " "State" means the State af Minnesota. "Tax Increment Districts" means the Tax Tncrement Financing Districts which have heretofore been estab].ished within any of the Development Districts, or which may hereafter be established within the Project, as the same may here�ofore have been, are hereby or may hereafter be amended. "Tax Increment Act" means the Minnesota Tax increment Financing Act, presently codified as Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179, as the same may be amended. "Tax Increment Plans" means the respective tax increment financing plans adopted for the Tax Increment Districts, respectively, as the same have been, are hereby or may hereafter be amended. "Development District No. 1" means that cerCain Development District No. 1, originally approved and establa.shed by the City and the Council (pursuant to its Resolution No. 1951) as of December 12, 1985, as amended. "Development Pro�ram No. 1" means that certain Development Program for Development District No. 1, originally adopted and approved by the City and the Council as of December 12, 1985, as amended. "Develo�ment District No. 2" means that certain Devel.opment District No. 2, originally established and approved by the City and the Council (pursuant to its Resolution No. 2091) as o� September 22, 1986, as amended. "Developmen.t Proqram No. 2" means that certain Devel.opment Program for Devel.opmen.t District No. 2, originally adopted and approved by the City and the Council as of September 22, 1986, as amended. "De�relo�ment District No. 3" means that certain Development Distric� No. 3, originally established and approved by the City and the Council (pursuant to its Resolution No. 2294) as of February 22, 1988, as amended. "Development Procrram No. 3" means that certain Development Program for Development District No. 3, originally adopted and approved by the City and the Council as of February 22, 1988, as amended. Section 1.2. Backcrround and Purposes. The City estab�ished the Development Districts and adopted their respecti�v-e Development Programs pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Development District Act, previously found in Minx�.esota Statutes, Chapter 472A, and now codified in Minnesota Statutes, 1187873.1 t =�— - _ _ _ _ � .. _. f . Y_ �_ � .. - , , , ' - S:• .: h �- - .�r' � """;"'__ -' .. _ ""' _ ..- '. .. _ _ "t' / _ _ ' " � ' Sections 469.124 through 469.134, and the City established Tax Increment Financing District Nos. 1, 2 and 3 within the Development Districts pursuant to the Tax Increment Act. Pursuant to the Enabling Act, on March 28, 1994, �he Council adopted an enabling resolution and thereby established the EDA. Pursuant to Section 469.094, Subdivision 2, of the Enabling Act, the City transferred to the EDA, and the EDA accepted from the City transfer ot, the control, authority, and operation of the Development Districts, including the existing Tax Increment Districts therein, thereby empowering the EDA to exercise al1 of the powers that the City could exercise with respect to the Development Districts, subject to the covenant an.d pledge by the EDA �.o perform the terms, conditions, and covenants of all bond indentures and other agreements executed for the security of any bon.ds issued and any other activities undertaken with respect to the Develapment Districts. The EDA recognizes and finds that, whil.e appropriate uses and emphases may vary between various portions of the Ci.ty, efforts to develop the City will be enhanced and their success will depend upon a unified, consisten.t, and broad-based approach. In particular, the Board believes that it is important to have the flexibility to use tax increment and other resources generated within. any of the Development Districts and the Project as a whole for the preservation and enhancement of any and al]. portions of the entire Praject Area, al1 as may be permitted by applicable 1aw. Accordingly, it is the EDA's purpose, consistent with the stated purposes of the Council, to consolidate and amplify the City's development areas, goals, objectives, development costs, and activities to the fullest extent permitted by the Enabling Act, the Tax Increment Act and other applicable law, and the Board hereby finds that through such consolidation the n.ecessary developmen� of the City can be accomplished more consistently, efficiently, and economically. Pursuant to Section 469.094, Subdivision 2, of the Enabling Act, the EDA is au�horized to exercise the powers of a city with respect to a development district under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.124 through 469.134, and the powers of a housing and redevelopment autharity under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047, among other powers, and it is �he intention af the Council and the Board that the EDA sha11 have and be empowered to exercise any and a11 of said powers as may be necessary or appropriate for the development of the Project in accordance with the Project Plan. The Development Districts, the Developmen.t Programs, and the Tax Increment Di.stricts and Plans have been incorporated in�o the Project and P�oject P1an. 4 1187873.1 _.. _ _ ;- , . � -; _ . ==-: � _ � :- Section 1.3. Previous Enlarqement and Consolidation of the Development Districts; Designation as Mounds View Econamic Development Pro�ect. Each of the Development Districts was as of May 9, 1994, enlarged to include the area of each of the other Development Districts, and said consolidated and enlarged composite area was then designated as the Mounds View Economic Development Project (the "Project"). This Project Area consists of the entire City. The Board finds that each of the Development Districts, as so enlarged and consolidated into the Project Plan, and the resulting Project Area, together with the goals and objectives which the EDA seeks to accomplish or encourage with respect to such areas, including without limi�ation �he amendments made hereby, constitutes without limitation a"development distric�" within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.125, Subdivision 9, and a"redevelopment project" within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469�.002, Subdivision 14e Section. 1.4. Amendment of �he Pro�ect Plan; Summary Fiscal and Economic Implications. Each of the Development Programs has been amended to include all of the goals, objectives, activities, and development costs here�ofore identified in each of the other Development Programs and in each of the Tax Increment P1ans; the effect of the foregoing being that each of the Development Programs and Tax Increment Plans has been amended to include the other Development Programs and Tax Increment Plans. Said consolidation and amendment of the Development Programs and Tax Tncrement Plans has been designated as the Project Plan tor the Project. It is also the Board's finding that each amendment to any of Development Programs, the Project Plan. or the Tax Increment Plans, including without limitation the amendments made herein or hereafter shall constitute and be deemed to be an amen.dment of all of the Development Programs. The Board and the Council hereby find that each Development Program and the Project Plan, as amended pursuant hereto, together with the composition thereof in�o the Project P1an, constitutes and sha11 be deemed to be a"development program" within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.125, Subdivision 3, and a"redevelopment plan" within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.002, Subdivision 16. The Project Plan is hereby amended to include the estimated public improvemezzt and development costs described herein. These costs are anticipated to be made or incurred within the Project and finan.ced in whole or in part by �ax increment or other a�crailable revenues of the EDA. Certain land within the Project in the vicinity of The Mermaid restaurant and entertainment center is expected to be acquired, including tax parcel nos. 08-30-23-43-0005, 08-30-23- 43-0009 and 08-30-23-43-0010. This enlarged area will then be i1a�s�s.i 5 . _ . _ _ . , • . . : . .- redeveloped, including proper�y clearance, renovation of the existing Mermaid, construction of an approximately 96 room hotel, a 500 seat banquet tacility and a connecting atrium, and the completion of new parlcin.g facilities, storm water improvements and other related site work and improvements. The new budget hereby incorporated into the Project Plan and the Tax Increment Plans is presently estimated as follows: Mermaid Redevelopment Project: Land Acquisition Demolition/Removal Other Site Work, Including On-site Utilities Mermaid Rehabilitation and Remodeling Other Soil. Correction/Remediation Administrative Expenses Interest on TIF Indebtedness/ Borrowing Relating to Costs of the Redevelopment Proj ect Total Development Costs and Maximum Amount of Bonded Irzdebtedness $1,736,700 sio,000 .�: :� 433,992 126,320 ioo,000 1 500,000 $4,705,819 If bonding is required to finance the applicable portions of the foregoing costs, as is anticipated, the reasonable and customary expenses for that bonding, such as capitalized interest, interest on the debt, bond discount, and fiscal and legal fees, would be added to the estimates listed above. Tax increment bondin.g and in.debtedness may include traditional general obligation or revenue bonding, including interest-bearing "pay-as-you-go" financing, external general obligation bonding and internal, interest-bearing EDA or City-financed borrowing. Interest on borrowing is anticipated to be between 6o and 90 pe�' annum. Ac�ual bonding amounts and requirements may vary depending on bond issue structure and then-prevailing interest rates. To complete the summary of fiscal and economiC implications, it is estimated that this projec� will generate approximately $250,000 to $300,000 of additional tax increment, commen.cing as early as 2003, much or all of which is expected Tonbe aleorto pay some o� the above costs directly and/or t�heaCOS�s described interest on indebtedness incurred to pay above. The EDA intends to pay from available tax increment such qualifying administrative cos�s (including al.locable City and EDA expenses) as may be permitted by but subject to the applicable 1187873.1 ; � � � '___' �1 "_- . ' ' , _ f ' .. _ _" _ . _ _- _ �. _ �I . F � _ �/i I _ -'.-: -'_: .- :' �. .- ��.� �' �:: .:._ .. _-' '� _ _ C � � . ' " . r. � _ _ "" ' _ � -". -- s� a . rs�! _ . ' " limitations provided in the Tax Increment Act, which limit currently is l00 of the total tax increments. Section 1.5. Amendment of Existing Tax Increment Plans. Each of the Tax Increment Plans for the existing three Tax Increment Districts is hereby amended to incorporate all of the public development costs, programs, goals, and activities heretofore and herein incorporated into the Project Plan pursuant to these Sectians l.l through 1.5, inclusive. Consistent with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 5, requiring that "tax increment received with respect to any district shall be segregated by the authority in a special account or accounts on its official books and records or as otherwise established by resolution of the authority to be held by a trustee or trus�ees for the benefit of holders ot the bonds," the EDA will account for all increment from the Tax Increment Districts in one or more accounts and subaccounts, including the ability where deemed appropriate to establish one or more accounts for the proper accounting and implementation of the Tax Increment Districts and the portion of the Projec� to be financed directly or indirectly with tax increment. The right to make appropriate transfers in and out of such accounts is hereby reserved, along with the right �.o make both external and internal interest-bearing bo�rowings, whether long term or short term, including tran.sfers from other.City or EDA funds to cash flow tax increment obligations and other legitimate expenditures. 1187873.1 % r . .. . ,� '. __. . :. < . y = . _�I . . .. f. . .._. ... . _ - f - - -= f - -- � ----- -"--`- -.d� _-_ -` --- - -- -- - _.- ` - -� •---- __ ._� . . -_�� .--- --' -- -- - - - '`�1 t � �o�� o� o�[�D� .� �. ,�, P 0�� .� r�grPSS � partneCS�\�S � _ ` • � / -4- �� - --- -- � - — =- - -- � -- - .,,<.=.�._l.r� ! ��= f . ._.�.-� -- �... .....a MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 627- 00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CONCERNING THE MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PROPOSALS WHEREAS, the proposais made by the Mounds View Economic Development Authority (the "EDA") to amend the Project Plan for the EDA's Mounds View Economic Development Project (the "ProjecY') and to amend the tax increment financing plans for the tax increment financing districts heretofore established within the Project to reflect increased development goals, activities, expenses and bonded indebtedness; all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047, 469.090 through 469.108, 469.124 through 469.134, and 469.174 through 469.179, respectively (collectively, the "Plans"), have been submitted to the Mounds View Planning Commission (the "Commission"); and WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plans to determine the consistency of the Plans with the Comprehensive Plan of the City: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mounds View Planning Commission that the Plans are consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan and the Commission recommends approval of the Plans to the Mounds View City Council. Attest: Adopted this 2"d day of August, 2000 Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director ' Y:� � � -. ._= ..i G ,1 _�_ ��.sTf �- ., ____ _ . _____ _ _ .. � _ . .. . . ---- . - - ' -�- ---- .. . .. . ._ . ---� -- '-- -. _ - Y . � . . ___. Item # 6 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: August 2, 2000 Title: REVIEW OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE 665, AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE WALGREENS DEVELOPMENT FROM B-3, HIGHWAY BUSINESS, AND PF, PUBLIC FACILITIES, TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; ANU pRDINANCE 666, AN ORDINANCE VACATING THE OLD EDGEWOOD DRIVE RIGHT OF WAY Background: At the July 19`h meeting, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 623-00, a resolution which recommended to the City Council approval of the Walgreens development review stage of their PUD, the preliminary plat, the rezoning and the vacation of the old Edgewood Drive right of way. Staff felt it should provide copies of these ordinances to the Commission for review purposes, even though the Commission has already recommended their approval. Unfortunately, the City Attorney was not able to provide copies of these two ordinances by the time this report was drafted. Staff will provide copies of these ordinance to the Commission on August 2, 2000. Recomme�dation: No action is required other than to review the ordinances and provide any feedback to staff at the August 16�h Planning Commission meeting. The City Council is scheduled to hold second reading and adoption of the two ordinances on August 28, 2000. � -�,) Gi�V�.��-O �t--- James Ericson, Planner .- : 9�' t . . . . _ . . " " 3� —'�a . ♦ _ f _ �.^�� F� " _ _ _ _ - -_ . . - _ _ _ �'-� . . . .-� . . -. . .: .� ._, ,.. _ - . . r "' . . . . � . _ ' ___. 1?'6�� ._�v__ ...._.`" -'— .�C:�:.�:.� .__�' _' __-__ _� � " _ . � . . .. _ ._ "_ _._.. .. .. _ __:.. � . _ . _.__ _ ' � � I: � � � Item # 7 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: August 2, 2000 Title: DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 629-00, A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 663, AN ORDINANCE CREATING LANGUAGE TO ADMINISTER AND REGULATE TATTOO AND BODY PIERCING ESTABLISHMENTS Lztroduction: As the Planning Commission is aware, the Mounds View Municipal Code does not at this time address tattoo or body piercing establislunents. In order to adequately research this issue, the City Council adopted interim Ordinance 653 on February 14, 2000, which prohibits any tattoo shops of body piercing establishments to be located in the City for a period of six months. The six month period will expire on August 14, 2000. It is expected that the Council will call to order at their worksession on August 7, 2000, to extend the moratorium for an additional three months. Discussion: With the assistance of the city attorney, staff has drafted an ordinance which creates licensing provisions and zoning allowances for such uses. Staff would request the Planning Commission review the entirety of the ordinance paying especially close attention to those provisions concenrzing the Zoning Code. In addition to creating licensing requirements, the ordinance is drafted to allow such uses in the B-2, B-3 and B-4 business zoning districts. They would be allowed unconditionally (i.e., no conditional use permit would be required) so long as certain specific requirements were satisfied 1Zecom�nendation: 0 Approve Resolution 629-00, a resolution recommending City Council approval of Ordinance 663. �J �� -��- James Ericson, Planner i r h' >�{I � _ _ _ f __ �#' - :� � ' - ' - - = - - ::,. . ; _ - - - - . . '-:- - �' � ' � ;..� �_ '=o-;'�.._�L:��'�: '-- '_-_�- � .-. . . , . .L...i. , u,i�� .�/ {",_ _... _.� _.. .. . ._�..."` .___,. . __ "_' ' . _'_ ._._' '_'_' "" "_. . . ... . , ORDINANCE NO. 663 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE TO ENACT A NEW CHAPTER OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ADMINISTER AND REGULATE TATTOO, BODY PIERCING, BODY BRANDING, BODY SCARRING AND BODY PAINTING ESTABI.ISHMENTS AND TO REVISE TITLE 1100 (THE ZONING CODE) PERTAINING TO SUCH USES THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAII�iS: SECTION 1. Title 500 of the Mounds View Municipal code shall be amended by the creation of a new Chapter 515 as follows: Chapter 515 Tattoo, Body Piercing, Body Branding, Body Scarring And Body Painting Establishments SECTION: 515.01. Findings, Purpose and Intent 515.02. Definitions 515.03. 515.04. 515.05. 515.06. 515.07. 515.08. 515.09. 515.10. 515.11. License Required General Rule License Application Application and Investigation Fees Application Verification and Consideration Persons Ineligible for a License Locations Ineligible for a Tattoo and Body Piercing Enterprise License General License Requirements Health and Sanitation Requirements 515.12. License Terms, Renewals 515.13. Suspension; Revocation 515.14. Temporary Tattooing, Body Piercing, Body Branding, Body Scarring Or Body Painting Event License. 515.01: FIIVDINGS, PUR.POSE AND INTENT: The purpose of this section is to regulate the business of tattooing, body piercing, body branding, body scamng or body painting in order to protect the health and welfare of the general public. The City Council finds that the experience of other cities indicates that there is a connection between tattooing and hepatitis and other health problems. The City Council finds that stringent regulations governing tattooing can minimize the hepatitis and disease rislc and therefore protect the general health and welfare of the community. -: - - - - -- _ � . Ord'ulance 663 Page 2 � � � � � = �.= , -. - ,. : . . . _ - :_ _..- : - - -. � -_— -_ -- s � . .=— 4 �. 515.02: DEFINITIONS: The following deiinitions apply in this Chapter of this Code. References hereafter to "sections" are, unless otherwise specified, references to sections in this Chapter. Deiined terms remain defined ternls whether or not capitalized. "Body piercing" means any method of puncturing the slcin of a person by the aid of needles or other instrument designed or used to puncture the skin for the purpose of inserting j ewelry or other objects in or through the human body. "Body piercing" shall not refer to any medical procedure perfonmed by a licensed physician or medical specialist. "Body branding" means impressing or burning a mark or figure on the skin of a person with a hot object or flame. "Body painting" means applying color, pigment or paint to an area of the slcin that exceeds three square inches. "Body scarification or scarring" means any method by which a scar is applied to or left upon a body. "Clean" means the absence of dirt, grease, rubbish, garbage, odor and other offensive, unsightly, or extraneous matter. "Good repair" means free of corrosion, brealcs, cracks, chips, pitting, excessive wear and tear, lealcs, obstructions, and similar defects so as to constitute a good and sound condition. "Enforcement officer" means the Chief of Police or designee. "Operate" means to own, manage or conduct, or to have control, charge or custody over. "Specialist" means that person performing the tattooing, piercing, branding or painting within a licensed tattoo and body piercing enterprise. "Tattoo and body piercing enterprise" means a place of business where all or some of the following services are provided to the public for consideration: tattooing, body piercing, body branding, body scarring or body painting. "Tattooing" means the marking of the skin of a person by insertion of permanent colors by introducing them through puncture of the slcin. 515.03: LICENSE REQUIREI): Subd. 1. Tattoo and Body Piercing Establishment License: It is unlawful to operate, offer, engage in or carry on tattooing, body piercing, body scarring, body branding or body painting without a tattoo and/or body piercing license. Subd. 2. Tattoo and Body Piercing Specialist License: It is unlawfixl to practice, administer or provide tattoo, body piercing, body scarring or body branding services in the City without a tattoo and/or body piercing specialist license t . �t �` . _ _ F f _ �� Y � � �::.�3'�� `,._.� - --�— -- - -- -- - —_-- -_._....__ ... ------ ----- ------ �_ =�.L.:.�� =:=..�... ... � . . ..� .... . �. ..__t �'6 � Ordinance 663 Page 3 515.04. GENERAL RULE: The owner or operator of a licensed tattoo and body piercing establishment may employ only licensed tattoo and body piercing specialists to provide tattoo, piercing, branding, scarring or painting services. The owner or operator of a licensed tattoo and body piercing enterprise need not be licensed as a tattoo and body piercing specialist unless that owner or operator personally provides tattoo, piercing, branding, scarring or body painting services. 515.05: LICENSE APPLICATION: Subd. 1. Tattoo and Body Piercing Establishment License: The application for a tattoo and body piercing establishment license must contain the following information: a. For all applicants: (1) Whether the applicant is an individual, corporation, partnership or other form of organization; (2) The legal description of the premises to be licensed together with a plan of the area showing dimensions, location of buildings, street access and parlcing facilities; (3) The floor number, street number and rooms where the tattoo, piercing, branding, scarring or bady painting services are to be conducted; (4) Whether all real estate and personal property taxes that are due and payable for the premises to be licensed have been paid, and if not, the years and amounts that are unpaid; (5) If the application is for a premises either planned or under construction or undergoing substantial alteration, the application must be accompanied by preliminary plans showing the design of the proposed premises; if the plans for design are on file with the building inspector, no plans need be submitted; (6) The name and street address of the business if it is to be conducted under a designation, name or style other than the name of the applicant, and a certified copy of the certificate required by Minnesota Statutes, section 333.02; (7) Any other infornnation that the City Council rnay require. b. For applicants who are individuals: (1) The name and date of birth and of the applicant and applicant's residence address; (2) If the applicant has ever used or been lrnown by a name other than the applicant's name, and if so, the name or names and information concerning the dates and places where used; (3) Residence addresses of the applicant during five (5) yeaxs preceding the date o� application; _ _ _ _. . _ _ _ r. - - _. , --. _ - . ,-- � __ -. _ � . -- . _ - - -- - ... . . . . . -- �� - C_? _,. _ ._ .. . .-. ' --. •-, .-`. _. ' ' - , Ordinance 663 Page 4 (4) The type, name and location of every business or occupation the applicant has been engaged in during the preceding iive (5) years; (5) Names and addresses of the applicant's employers for the preceding five (5) years; (6) If the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony, crime or violation of an ordinance other than a minor traffic offense; if so, the applicant must furnish information as to the time, place and offense involved in the convictions; (7) If the applicant has ever been engaged in the operation of tattoo, piercing, branding, scarring or body painting services; if so, the applicant must furnish information as to the name, place and length of time of the involvement in such activity. c. For applicants that are partnerships: (1) The names and addresses of general and limited partners and the information concerning each general partner described in subdivision lb of this Section; (2) The managing partners must be designated, and the interest of each general and limited parhier in the business must be disclosed; (3) A true copy of the partnership ageement must be submitted with the application, and if the partnership is required to file a certificate as to a trade name under Minnesota Statutes, section 333.02, a certified copy of that certificate must be submitted. The license--if issued--will be in the name of the partnership. d. For applicants that are corporations: (1) The name of the organization, and if incorporated, the state of incorporation; (2) A true copy of the certificate of incorporation, and, if a foreign corporation, a certificate of authority as described in Minnesota Statutes, section 303.02; (3) The name of the general manager, corporate officers, proprietor, and other person in charge of the premises to be licensed, and the information about those persons described in subdivision lb; (4) A list of the persons who own or have a controlling interest in the corporation or organization or who are officers of the corporation or organization, together with their addresses and the information regarding such persons described in subdivision lb of this Section. Subd. 2. Tattoo and body piercing specialist license: The application for a tattoo and body piercing specialist license must contain the following information: a. The applicant's name and address; b. The applicant's current employer; � _ '� Ordinance 663 Page 5 , _ - _ _ - ` � �'S ' -� - ` � � -_ � �; __ _ _��_ _.;f� ______-:� �... _..< . _.< �. _ . — , ,._.__ ___ c. The applicant's employers for the previous five (5) years, including employer's name, addres� and dates of employment; d. The applicant's residence address for the previous five (5) years; e. The applicant's social security number, date of birth, home telephone nurnber, weight, height, color of eyes and color of hair; f. If the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony, crime or violation of an ordinance other than a minor traffic offense and, if so, the time, place and offense involved in the convictions; g. If the applicant has ever used or been lcnown by a name other than the applicant's name, and if so, the name or names and information concerning dates and places where used; h. Evidence that the applicant: (1) Has current insurance coverage over one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) for professional liability in the practice of tattooing, piercing, branding, scarring or body painting; (2) Is affiliated with, employed by or owns a tattoo and piercing enterprise licensed by the City; (3) Whether the applicant holds a current tattooing, body piercing, body branding, bod} scarring or body painting license from any other governmental unit; (4) Whether the applicant has previously been denied a tattooing, body piercing, body branding, body scarring or body painting license from any other governmental unit. (5) Any other information that the City Council may require. 515.06: APPLICATION AND INVESTIGATION FEES: The fees for tattoo and piercing enterprise and specialist licenses are set forth from time to time by City Council resolution. An investigation fee will be charged for tattoo and piercing enterprise licenses. An application for either license must be accompanied by payment in full of the required license and investigation fees, if applicable. 515.07: APPLICATION VERIFICATION AND CONSIDERATIONo Subd. 1. Tattoo and piercing enterprise license: The Clerk-Administrator must verify the information supplied on the license application and investigate the bacicground, including the criminal bacicground, of the applicant to assure compliance with this Section. Within ninety (90) days of receipt of a complete application and fee for a tattoo and piercing enteiprise license, the Clerk- Administrator must make a written recommendation to the City Council as to issuance or non- issuance of the license. The City Council may order additional investigation if it deems i�. necessary, but must grant or deny the application within one hundred twenty (120) days of receipt by the Clerk-Administrator of the complete application and required fees. Ordinance 663 Page 6 _ �-. _ Subd. 2. Tattoo and piercing specialist license: Within ninety (90) days of receipt of a complete application and fee for a tattoo and piercing specialist license, the Clerk-Administrator inust grant or deny the application. Notice will be sent to the applicant upon a denial informing the applicant of the right to appeal to the City Cou.ncil within twenty (20) days. If an appeal is properly made, the matter will be placed on the next available City Council agenda. 515.08: PERSONS INELIGIBLE FOR LICENSE: Subd. 1. Tattoo and Body Piercing Enterprise License: A tattoo and body piercing enterprise license may not be issued to an individual who: a. Is a minor at the time the application is filed; b. Has been convicted of any crime directly related to the occupation licensed as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, section 364.03, subdivision 2, and who has not shown competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to perform the duties and responsibilities of a licensee as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, section 364.03, subdivision 3; c. Does not have the legal authority to be employed in the United States; d. Is not of good moral character or repute; e. Is not the real party in interest of the enterprise; f. Has misrepresented or falsified information on the license application. Subd. 2. Tattoo and Body Piercing Specialist License: A tattoo and body piercing specialist license may not be issued to a person who could not qualify for a tattoo and body piercing enterprise license or who is not (i) affiliated with, (ii) employed by or (iii) does not hold, a tattoo or body piercing enterprise license. 515.09: LOCATIONS INELIGIBLE FOR TATTOO AND SODY PIERCING ENTERPRISE LICENSE: Subd. 1. A tattoo and body piercing enterprise may not be licensed if the enterprise is located on property on which taxes, assessments or other financial claims to the state, county, school district or City are due and delinquent. In the event a suit has been commenced under Minnesota Statutes, sections 278.01-278.13, questioning the amount or validity of taxes, the City Council may on application waive strict compliance with this provision; no waiver may be granted, however, for taxes or any portion thereof, which remain unpaid for a period exceeding one (1) year after becoming due. Subd. 2. Zoning Compliance: A tattoo and body piercing enterprise may not be licensed if the location of such enterprise is not in conformance with Title 1100 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. :, :; ; � ` � E ' = : ` ��-�.? 4 : _ _ - �� - - ` _ - _--- - _�__ -. .._ . : : � : .;. _ _ - - -- - ---- - ----- -: ��- -� P - - — - — _ ' _ - : -- � = - ----- - - — , . -. Ordinance 663 Page 7 515.10: GENERAL LICENSE REQUIREMENTS: Subd 1. General licensing requirements are as follows: (a) Tattoos on minors. No person shall tattoo, pierce, scar, brand or paint any person under the age of 18 except in the presence of, and with the written permission of, the parent or legal guardian of such minor. (b) Prohibition on license transfer. The license granted is for the person and the premises named on the approved license application. No transfer of a license shall be permitted from place-to- place or from person-to-person without first complying with the requirements of an original application, except in the case in which an existing noncorporate licensee is incorporated and incorporation does not affect the ownership, control, and interest of the existing licensed establishment. (c) Hours of operation. A licensee shall not be open for business for tattooing before 8:00 a.m. nor after 10:00 p.m. (d) Licensed premises. The tattoo, body piercing, body branding, body scarring, body painting enterprise license is only effective for the compact and contiguous space specified in the approved license application. If the licensed premises is enlarged, altered, or extended, the licensee shall inform the Clerlc-Administer. (e) Adherance to Codes. The tattoo, body piercing, body scarring, body branding, body painting enterprise shall comply with applicable Minnesota Statutes and all titles, chapters and sections of the Mounds View. City Code, including those expressly stated as follows: Chapter 513, Adult Establishments; Section 514.11, Subd. 5, regarding prohibited massages; and Title 600, Public Health and Safety. (� Effect of license suspension or revocation. No person shall solicit business or oifer to perform tattooing, body piercing, body branding, body scarring or body painting services while under license suspension or revocation by the City. (g) Maintenance of order. The licensee shall be responsible for the conduct of the business being operated and shall at all times maintain conditions of order. (h) Employee lists. The licensee shall provide to the Clerk-Administrator a list of employees who perform tattooing, body piercing, body branding body scarification or body painting at the licensed establishment and shall verify that each employee has received a copy of Chapter 515. (i) Liability insurance. All licensees shall have at all times a valid certificate of insurance issued by an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of Min.nesota indicating that the licensee is currently covered in the licensed business by a liability insurance policy. The minimum limits of coverage for such insurance shall be: (1) Each claim, at least $200,000; (2) Each group of claims, at least $500,000. t��'-'--'- ----`----. •_�-��• t_ .__� �,.�._.�_,.. _.__4�� . __ i: Y -r .--xa.� ....,.�.-�,.�_.�...�..� 4 - -----._..._.....__. ^-. Ordinance 663 Page 8 Such insurance shall be kept in force during the term of the license and shall provide for notification to the City prior to termination or cancellation. A certificate of insurance shall be filed with the City. 515.11: HEALTH AND SANITATION REQUIREMENTS: Subd. l. No person shall engage in the practice of tattooing, body piercing, body branding, body scarring or body painting at any place in the City without complying with the following regulations: (a) Lavatory requirement. Every place where tattooing, body piercing, body branding, body scarification or body painting is practiced shall be equipped with an adequate and conveniently located toilet room and hand lavatory for the accommodation of employees and patrons. The hand lavatory shall be supplied with hot and cold running water under pressure; shall be maintained in good repair at all times; and shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. Toilet fixtures and seats shall be of a sanitary open front design and readily cleanable. Easily cleanable, covered receptacles shall be provided for waste materials. Every lavatory facility shall be provided with an adequate supply of hand cleansing compound and single-service sanitary towels or hand-drying devices. (b) Slcin infection. No person having any slcin infection or other diseases of the slcin shall be tattooed, pierced, scarred, branded or painted. (c) Sterilization and disposal of bio-hazardous materials. All needles and razor blades and other equipment used for piercing, scarring, branding or puncturing shall be individually pre- pacicaged, pre-sterilized and disposable. No such equipment shall be used on more than one customer. All bio-hazardous waste shall be disposed of in accordance with law, and disposal procedures shall be approved by the enforcement officer. Sterilizing solutions and methods may be used for the purpose of sterilizing instruments other than needles and razor blades. (d) Skin preparation procedures. The following procedures shall be used for skin preparation: (1) Operators shall wash their hands thoroughly with soap and water then dry them with a clean towel before and after each tattooing, branding, scarring, piercing or painting. Specialists with skin infections of the hand shall not perform any tattooing, body piercing, body branding, body scarring or body painting services. (2) Whenever it is necessary to shave the skin, pre-pacicaged, pre-sterilized, disposable, razor blades shall be used. (3) The skin area to be tattooed, scarred, pierced, branded or painted shall be thoroughly cleaned with anti-bacterial germicidal soap, rinsed thoroughly with water, and sterilized with an antiseptic solution. Only single-service towels and wipes shall be used in the skin cleaning process. (4) After tattooing, piercing, scamng or branding, a sterile dressing must be applied to the tattooed, pierced or branded area. �.�,.�i,.jf f�'.r� ,� �--7 �s e_� � < � '% 'f _ �-u_ ��J. _ ._ ___ _____ __ __ � `i{--�� j _ -`�Y%'%��l.il�.�ll � � �- ..,... .,.... • � . �� } . .� � �.._ . - I � � t � �` I r � � ._��. � . -_ . .� .` :? __._ '__'__ _- _'__' _' '-r�+'� �,..�i..:=� - r d. _�.�:2�1i/��i'r.��..+��!S __ . . _ _. �/%±Yf�s.�a1i�...u.._rl�f41 �s�.� Ordinance 663 Page 9 (e) Operating furniture. All tables, chairs, furniture, or area on which a patron receives a tattoo, any body piercing, body branding, body scarification or body painting shall be covered by single-service disposable paper or clean linens, or in the alternative, the table, chair, or furniture on which the patron receives a tattoo, body piercing, body scarring, body branding or body painting shall be impervious to moisture and shall be properly sanitized after each tattoo, body piercing, body branding, body scarring or body painting. (� Towels. Every specialist shall provide single-service towels or wipes for each customer or person and such towels or wipes shall be stored and disposed of in an acceptable manner. (g) Coverings: The specialist shall require that the person who is receiving the tattoo, piercing, branding, scarring or painting will at all times have that person's breasts, buttocics, anus and genitals covered with a non-transparent covering. The specialist may lift the covering to expose the person's breasts, buttocics, anus or genitals to the limited extent necessary to perform the tattooing, body piercing, body scarring, body painting or body branding requested. The specialist shall ensure that no other person may view the exposed body part. (h) Garments of specialist: The specialist performing tattoo, branding, piercing, scarring or painting services shall be fully clothed so as to have the specialist's breasts, buttocks, anus and genitals covered with a non-transparent material or clothing. Every specialist shall wear clean garments when engaged in the practice of tattooing, body piercing, body branding, body scarring or body painting. If garments are contaminated with blood or body fluids, such garment shall be removed, changed, and/or discarded or cleaned by dry cleaning methods. (i) Pigments. � Pigments used in tattooing shall be sterile and free from bacteria and noxious agents and substances including mercury. The pigments used from stock solutions for each customer shall be placed in a single-service receptacle, and such receptacle and remaining solution shall be discarded after use on each customer. (j) Minimum floor space. There shall not be less than 250 square feet of floor space at the place where the practice of tattooing, body piercing, body scarring, body branding or body painting is conducted, and said place shall be well lit and ventilated. (k) Influence of alcohol and drugs. No person shall practice tattooing, body piercing, body branding, body scarring or body painting while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or illicit drugs. No customer shall be tattooed, pierced, scarred, branded or painted while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or illicit drugs. (1) Written instructions. The operator shall provide the person tattooed, scarred, pierced, painted or branded with printed instructions on the approved care of the slcin during the healing process. (m) Living quarters. No place licensed as a tattoo, body piercing, body branding, body scarring or body painting establishment shall be used or occupied as living or sleeping quarters. - . " ... .. i . .. . . - _ - _ _ .__" . ." - . " . . _ . ." .. . .. . .._. . . . _ " . _- . . . - � _ -'.-.._ _ . . _ _ . . . -, _ _ � _-_ -.:- . .-�-_�_._ ' i . � -_.-: _: _'.. - �:.'.: .'-.-.- . ." _...-_ ', -. . ' . _______ • .___ ` __"__ _ ._' _ Ordinance 663 Page 10 515.12: LICENSE TERMS, IZENEWALS: Licenses expire annually on December 31. The license fee will be prorated in thirty (30) day increments for licenses issued after June 30. The Clerlc-Adininistrator must prepare an application form for the renewal of a license requiring information that the manager determines necessary for consideration of the renewal. The renewal application must be made no later than November 30. 515.13: SUSPENSION; REVOCATTON: Subd 1. The City Council may revoke the license or suspend the license if the licensee subm.itted false information or omitted material infonnation in the license process required. The City Council may by resolution suspend or revolce a license for the violation of any provision or condition of this section or any other local law governing the same activity during the license period or any criminal law during the license period which adversely affects the ability to honestly, safely, or lawfully conduct a tattooing, body piercing, body scarring, body branding or body painting business. Subd. 2. A revocation or suspension shall be preceded by written notice to the licensee and a public hearing before the City council. The notice shall give at least ten days notice of the time and place of the hearing and shall state the nature of the chaxges against the licensee. The notice shall be mailed to the licensee at the most recent address listed on the application. 515.14 TEMPORARY TATTOOING, BODY PIERCING, BODY BRANDING, BODY SCARRING OR BODY PAINTING EVENT LICENSEe Subd. 1. The Clerlc-Administrator may issue a temporary tattoo, piercing, branding, scarring and body painting event license as provided in this subsection. Subd. 2. A temporaxy tattoo, piercing, branding, scarring and body painting specialist license may be issued to a person who: a. Is qualified to hold a tattoo and piercing specialist license under this Section; b. Has completed the required application and paid the license fee at least seven (7) days prior to the effective date of the license. Subd. 3. A temporary license is effective for four (4) consecutive days. A person may not be issued more than three (3) temporary licenses in any period of three hundred sixty (360) consecutive days. Subd. 4. All other provisions of this Section apply to temporary licenses. 515.15. EXEMPTIONS: Jewelty stores that provide ear piercing services to its customers as an accessory service shall be exennpt from the provisions of this Chapter so long as the service is incidental to the sale of jewelry. For purposes of this ordinance, a jewelry store shall mean a retail business that derives a majority of its revenue from the sale of jewelry and that derives less than one percent of its revenues from ear piercing services. � f - '.' . _ . .� . .- " � � - ,. ' ` � :_._: ��_�i� i_. � ...� . _ .. F ° , . : ..x+ :� � _ _ _ -�I "''-� .. '�� if' � � '3 � — - ' -- _.. . �. -- - ' - � - ---- . . _�-- -. . .-_ . - � - i - _ - - �' - ' � - r'� - - "--- - '=- . _ -. . . _:. . . — .�_.�__�.. :c - =�-- - -- - -� .. - �- - Ordinance 663 Page 11 515.16: VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as provided in Section 104.01 of this Code. (Ord. 663, 8-28-2000) SECTION 2. Chapter 1113 of the Mounds View Municipal Code shall be revised to address zoning and siting requirements of Tattoo, Body Piercing, Body Branding, Body Painting or Body Scarring Establishments by the addition of the underlined language as follows: 1113.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a B-2 District: Subd. 3. Tattoo, Body Piercing, Body Branding, Body Painting or Body Scarring Establishments, provided that: a. Any such establishment shall be separated by no less than 1,000 feet from any other such establishment located within the City of Mounds View, as measured from the property lines of the property upon which the uses are located. b. The minimum floor space for such use shall be 250 square feet c. The establishment and operators shall be licensed and be in compliance with Chapter 515 of the Municipal Code. (Ord. 663, 8-28-2000) SECTION 3. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publication in the official City newspaper. First read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 14th day of August, 2000. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 28th day of August, 2000. Dan Coughlin, Mayor Attest: Michael Ulrich, Interim Clerk-Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert C. Long, City Attorney H:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ�SP075-00\Ordinance 663 -- Tattoo Code.doc . . . _ . . _ . .. . , � - ' y _: ._- ' ' . , :... - - � - � r _ -__-_ _' '' . -' � • ' �'_' - -:- i - .s -, w._._i. :' " ' _' _ . . _" _s . . ��' . _:_. =' ' .- . ._.." " ' ' '.'_' ;-. _ ._. _ � - _'� . __-._� _ ��_"' _ _ ._'.I . �'�'- :. _ '�:.'. .::r �. ' . . . � . y . --_ _ '"_"'"' ' . .� .. � , _ _"" _" -"�. "" - . . - .:,_..:� ' '_ _'� .— _"_ `�"'_' '_-'_' MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 629-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF 1VIINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ORI)INANCE 663, AN ORDINANCE CREATING LANGUAGE TO ADMINISTER AND REGULATE TATTOO AND BODY PIERCING ESTABLISHM�NTS WITHIN THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE SP-079-00 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed proposed Ordinance 663, an ordinance creating language to administer and regulate tattoo and body piercing establishments within the city of mounds view; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission, after significant discussion, believes the proposed ordinance to be in the best interest of the health, safety and well-being of the community and is in keeping with the overall spirit and intent of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission asserts that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the land use goals and policies addressed in the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFOR.E, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends to the Mounds View City Council adoption of proposed Ordinance 663. BE IT FINALLY R�SOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 2nd day of August, 2000. ATTEST: Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) H:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�SP�CPROJ�SP075-OO�RESOLUTION 629-OO.DOC : i - -_ - --. :- - ::.._ ;_ : > ;: < - ; . ,, _ _ _ _ PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 5, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Acting Cl�airperson Stevenson at 7:02 p.m., July 5, 2000. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Acting Chairperson Stevenson, Commissioners Berke, Hegland, Johnson, Kaden, Miller, and Thomas. Members Absent: Chairperson Peterson and Commissioner Laube. Also Present: Planner Jim Ericson and Community Development Director Rick Joplce. Index to Minutes Local Water Management Plan Update Page � Planning Case ZC00-002, 2387 Highway 10. Public Hearing and Discussion 4 Regarding a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a Walgreens Drugstore at the Northeast Corner of Highway 10 and Edgewood Drive. TOLD Development Company, Represented by Terry Moses. Special Planning Case SP-079-00. Discussion Regarding the First Draft of 14 Ordinance 664, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Accessory Buildings. Staff Reports / Items of Information Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 3. Citi�ens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 17 17 � _ �. 1L f' � � _ r 4 � - �' _. �_ _ " - _ � - _ - _ � F �fY...�i-_...��.�_,....�,.:L t_s�"_' '�:�..:e�L�:;. . - - _ _ __ '.�_.:�.��_.._ .._�.;JII.' �%f.r, r._i:.<.i.."" � " »�_ .i �.✓..� ' _ Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting page 2 4. Approval of Minutes A. May 17, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Kaden to approve the May 17, 2000 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes - 7 Nays - 0 The motion carried. 5. Local Water Management Plan Update Rocky Keehn, of SEH, Inc., explained that the goal for the evening is to receive any last feedback from the Commission before update goes to the City Council worlcsession. The plan incorporates comments made in previous meetiiigs, descriptions on maps are more detailed, and Watershed descriptions have been added. Mr. Keel�n advised that a few more edits may need to be made; also, highway descriptions would need to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan update. Coinmissioner Miller pointed out that Figures 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 were not clear. Mr. Keehn explained the final plan would be in color. He had not znade color copies to conserve on costs. Commissioner Miller commented that Pages 3 and 1'1 discuss land uses and how Mounds View has developed and stabilized. She questioned if anything should be included regarding "redevelopment" issues, as the City is concerned about redevelopment. Mr. Keehn agreed that the issue could be further addressed. Commissioner Miller stated although there is not a great deal of land left to be developed, there are redevelopment processes going on that should be included. Commissioner Hegland aslced what they would consider redevelopment in regard to this plan. Mr. Keehn advised that if redevelopment in this plan entailed open space, there could be a negative impact on the City's hydrology. For example, if a comnlercial business goes to industrial or vice versa, there would probably not be that much of an impact. However, if one- acre lots are converted to '/4 acre lots, those are the lcind of redevelopment scenarios that could have an impact on the plan and soine of its assumptions. He said tlley could expand this area if the Commission would like. Commissioner Hegland stated they should be specific as to how redevelopment is defined in terms of the Watershed. Acting Chairperson Stevenson stated if a building's footprint is not going to change it is not really a redevelopment issue for Water Management. Commissioner Hegland noted if the square footage of a home is doubled it is considered redevelopment, however, he does not thinlc it would be necessary to put that in this plan. �� r _ = f = � r _ � - ! � �; �l . Y 4_ ` � t ` ��' �_% i._�:r.�_ _ -� 'W . °- - --- � ' =- -°: - -- �. = - .�. z___�.�� ...____-----. _ .�_w ,_��--- .. >�_ �-- `�:- ( ��s.o.,.�r�. -,-ri I .. ".. ' �-.: .- .; Mounds View Planning Comrr►ission Regular 1Vlceting July S, 2000 Page 3 Mr. Keehn advised that he has seen an occurrence in many communities where 20 to 30 hoines were previously built with a house and possibly a�arage, and are now built with a house, a double garage, a barn in the bacic, and the patio. This could impact the storm sewer systems with street flooding, a low spot that never used to flood could begin flooding. He advised a lot of plans do not address that, but that may be a problem in the future if redevelopment increases the impervious surface areas. Mr. Keehn noted that if everyone in the Watershed District were to build a new house and a double garage, there would be problems. Acting Chairperson Stevenson inquired if they should expand on the redevelopment issue in the plan. Mr. Keelui said if he read this plan tlie way it is, it would imply tilat conditions have not and will not change. Perhaps the plan should explain that although planned development may basically stay the same, there could be other issues related to redevelopment. He suggested that as people look for changes in their property, they should loolc at the "big picture" and see what the potential iinpact is. Commissioner Hegland stated he finds it hard to believe that a typical homeowner in Mounds View would have an impact on this. Even if everyone increased the size of his or her building by 50 percent, he cannot believe it would affect this to that large of a degree that it would have to be dealt with. Coinmissioner Hegland suggested, perhaps, the types of things to be included would be a change of the topography of the property or large projects, such as big parlcing lots or something similar. He said he would lilce to malce sure that the plan does not restrict homeowner development in any way, but rather keep it restricted to the larger projects. Acting Chairperson Stevenson pointed out that in Mounds View, redevelopment is an issue, and it is becoming more and more of an issue. He concurred with Corrunissioner Miller that they are really not addressing redevelopment in this docu�nent. He stated it should be addressed that water management should consider redevelopinent, as it is an issue in Mounds View. Mr. ICeehn said the way the plan reads now is that it almost implies that the system is good and everything will be olcay. However, it sounds lilce soine redevelopment issues could cause potential negative impacts and they should Ue addressed in the plan. He stated he will add some additional language to flag that point and to let people lcnow that there is a concern. Acting Chairperson Stevenson said there are definitely some issues with redevelopment. If they were to redevelop a large parcel that happens to be a mobile home parlc, the implications to water management would be great. He stated some development will happen in the City and he believes the plan needs a statement regarding it. Mr. Keehn said he would worlc with Staff to develop language that reflects both sides of this concern. He added this would not include anything that would restrict a property owner from constructing a garage. Acting Chairperson Stevenson directed Staff to draft a resolution for the next meeting. _ � - : , �, � . _ � -= r , -- - �� Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 area that would be utilized for drainage or the holding of storm water, there would not be a problem whatsoever. In teri��s of providing a trailway along Highway 10, what sl�ows on this plan can be accoinplished. Acting Chairperson Stevenson noted he thinlcs this trailway issue is something that will be in discussion all along Highway 10 and this is just the first of tlie City's discussions with the County as far as going within the right-of-way. The City was not going to encroach on property owners, they would actually encroach into the old right-of-way. He said he is happy to hear that a trailway all along Highway 10 should not be a problem once the state has turned over the county roads. Planner Ericson advised that another issue regarding trailways dealt with pedestrian safety. While there is tlie marlced pedestrian crosswallc on the noirth side of Edgewood Drive, there is no pedestrian crosswalk across Highway 10 on the south side of Edgewood Drive where the Walgreens and proposed Culver's would be located. The developer indicated that it would be a good idea and Staff concurred that there should be so�ne lcind of landscaping alongside the trailway that would be in the right-of way to prevent people from crossing in an unmarlced area. They could add some physical and perceived impediments so pedestrians would not cross at that location. Planner Associate Ericson acicnowledged that people will cross where they want regardless, however, landscaping and something decorative could deter enough people to make a difference. Cornmissioner Miller inquired what lcind of material the trailway within the right-of-way would be. Ericson said it has been discussed to be 7-foot wide paved bituminous trail, similar to the one across the street, and would be maintained by the City. Planner Ericson advised it looks as though it would be a sufficient area and there would not need to be any filling or grading to put in this trail. It is 50 feet wide and the ditch comprises approximately 30 feet of that, so there is sufficient space and it is even possible to put in some low profile plantings along the trailway. He stated there were also discussions of putting in decorative lighting which could be located on either side of the trail. He indicated that Milce Ulrich, Director of Public Worlcs, is working with Northern States Power for some lighting ideas, and they do have two different styles of light fixtures that are planned for installation on Edgewood Drive. Those styles could also be incorporated into a trailway that could carry over to the wetland, however, that has not been discussed yet. Planner Ericson advised there have been no changes or additions to the site plan other than showing the trailways. Also, they are still waiting on the final plan for the drainage. The City Engineer has worked with the developer's engineers and they have all the information they need to determine how big the relocated stormwater holding pond should be, where the storm sewer should be located, and the proper elevations. All that information is in the hands of the developer's engineer and will be forthcoming; there should not be any issues that will be unresolved. He explained the pond would be sized to fit the area that's there. It will not be sized to accommodate 100% of the flow coming through the storm sewer under Edgewood Drive, but would be sized to handle all the flow from Culver's a�1d Wal�;reens, the flow from the City Hall parking lot, and the existing volume of the pond. It would also talce on much of the storm water � , - _ F .. . . - _ :. =' . _. - . r._� �,: x ..d.: "` _._� � .-„ "'! �_�.:_ -. � �. y . ". :,��„r�., � k. i . _ ' _ . __ . _ , ' '_- ' . �' . : '�_. . . ..�. _�.., r . Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 that is ri.uuling through the existing storm sewer on Edgewood Drive, which currently flows untreated under Highway 10. The intent is to talce volume off Edgewood Drive and get it filtered and cleansed before sending it bacic into the system. The pond would be sized to utilize the uplands that are available, not 100% of the volume. He stated he thinks this is a great benefit to the City, that they can loolc at ponding from a more regional pex•spective, rather than on a single development scenario. It should reduce ihe possibility of downstream flooding and will be a water quality benefit for the City as well. Planner Ericson advised the preliminary plat in the staff report indicated the plat would be named Mounds View City Hall Addition. There are no changes to the plat, and copies will be made available at the next meeting. The easement area for the sign was discussed concerning rights to the sign easeinent as�ea where the Bel Rae ballroom sign was. When the City purchased the Bel Rae ballroom and constructed the Conununity Center they also toolc over ownership of that easement area. He explained it is lilcely the City would vacate that easement area and if there is a need to create another area for signage purposes they could address that issue on its own at some point in the future, rather than trying to retain sorne portion of the exisiing easement area to meet the needs of the second developable lot. A vacation of the original Edgewood Drive right of way would also be required and is shown on the plat as being vacated. The wetland area would be covered by an easement, something that Rice Creelc Watershed District would require, and given that it would become the City's property he does not thinlc there would be an issue with dedicating an easement. If the City is the deed holder, an easement may not even be required. Planner Ericson reported the Rice Creelc Watershed District has reviewed the plans and because of the improvement to the water quality and additional ponding and storm water capacity they are very excited about this plan. Tliey have indicated that as soon as the f nal specifications are forwarded to thern it should be approved. Plamler Ericson advised the developer is proposing 146 parlcing spaces. The City Code requires a little more than that, however, there is a benef t of having both uses side by side. There would be a cross access in parlcing easement granted so that in times of pealc use patrons from either parcel could use the other's parking. Staff felt that would compensate for the deficiency in parking. One of the intents of the Plaruied Unit Development process is that they look at these issues and determine if there are creative ways to address specific requirements, such as parlcing and setbacics in ways that are not normally handled by the zoning code. The Planned Unit Development process allows the City to deal with them in a more creative and beneficial way that would allow for development to occur in an area where it might otlierwise not occur. Planner Ericson indicated that staff had contracted with a commercial appraiser to appraise both the City's remnant parcel and also on the eiglrt acres that would be transferred to the City. He noted that Staff had handed out a copy of the sumznary page which shows the valuations on the land. The appraisal indicates that the City's parcel has a$166,000 value while the eight acres of Midland Videen property is valued at $161,000. It is very similar in terms of value, which is presuming that it could be developed as a stand-alone parcel. If the two parcels were joined together and appraised, the value of the two parcels combined would be more than their parts. �. j � .; �-.T : _ : _ cv�� 1_ - = I � ' � . .. . " ' __-' - Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regalar Meeting Pnge 7 Regarding public notification for this meeting, Plamier Ericson informed the Commission that staff sent out approximately 360 notices and are doing all they can to get the word out. He reported they put much information on the City's website about the development proposal, including a copy of the last staff report. They also put a notice in the Mounds Vie�� Matte�•s, which was just recently delivered to residents. He stated the City is trying to assure they obtain as much input as possible. From this meeting, l�e hoped to be able to have a resolution drafted subject to the information that has been presented from him, tl�e public, and the developer. The resolution could either represent approval or denial of this development proposal and could be prepared for the next Commission meeting. Acting Chairperson Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.in. Kyle Longstead, 7901 Edgewood Drive, questioned if tl�e City would put an Embers up in this location knowing that there is an Embers by Northown. He compared this to putting in another Walgreens so close to the one by Northtown. He feels they are saturating the area with similar product with the possibility of another empty building two or three years down the road. Commissioner Johnson responded that according to law they ca►uzot deny another drug store because they already have one. Mr. Longstead said lie understands that, however, he hopes some thought has gone into what they are developing. He stated he is a worried they are going to have an empty building that no one will rent or buy. Acting Chairperson Stevenson said this issue was a big concern, especially when Walgreens was going to go in on County Road I, which was the original proposal and was even closer to Northtown. He stated they aslced the same question of saturation to the developer and he convinced them that the drug stores are two-fold. Walgreens relies on local people who can walk to it, and there are a lot of senior citizens in the area. Also, it will be the destination of people driving northwest on Highway 10. He explained the developer wanted a Walgreens location with easy access. That is why they wanted the location on this side of the Highway. He stated that in answer to Mr. Longstead's question, the developer convinced inost of the Commission that it would be an viable operation in this location. Commissioner Kaden stated he attended a land use and planning seminar where a presenter who taught the seminar had practiced in land use law for over 30 years. She informed them it actually violates the U.S. Constitution in soine way for tliem to determine they cannot have a Walgreens here because there is one down the road. He explained if they �neet all the conditions, the Commission cannot consider the close location issue. Mr. Longstead noted it is not Walgreens in particular he has a problem with, he has a problem with the saturation. Commissioner Kaden said he understands that, he grew up in Mounds View and every time a new gas station went up on Highway 10 another one went out of business. He did not understand why they lcept adding more. However, he learned the Council and Planning Commission cannot say there are too many gas stations and they are not going to approve another one. i� � ==-i � � = _ � ._ _ -= � - - � - .. . _ _;f;c I Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting P,�ge g Commissioner Thomas stated she would lilce to clarify they are not discussing a problem of law, as this is not a private property for sale. There is no problem of law when this is City property they would be trading. It is their job as the Plamiing Cornmission to determine if this is the proper use for City property and whether or not they would lilce to trade tilat land to be developed into retail property. She explained that, at this point, being City property, there is NO law requiring them to allow any development whatsoever, so they should be very careful quoting Constitutional references in deciding whether or not they want to develop this land. Commissioner Thomas also commented that this is the opportunity to hear the community voice on whether or not they want to see a building put up across the street from the City Hall. There is no U.S. Constitution violation for someone to come and say they do not want to see a building here that could go out of business. Commissionez Johnson stated they also had many conununity meetings on what types of uses should be sought in Mounds View and a lot of it was restaurants and another drug store. That is why they are seeing this development going forward. Commissioner Thomas responded she is not against the possibility of this land being developed, however, it is their responsibility to decide what is there and no one should be saying at this point that they have to allow a Walgreens because that is not the case. The City can decide whether or not to trade the land for that development. Commissioner Johnson stated Commissioner Thomas is correct, but if they did not allow Walgreens here he would guarantee Walgreens would not go away, they would be bacic in another spot of this highway. Commissioner Thomas said that is their responsiUility as a corporation, but the Planning Commission should decide if it should be there. Commissioner Kaden stated they do not have to trade the City lot for tl�em to develop this Walgreens. Mr. Videen, however, wants to sell his property and those 3'/2 acres of upland behind the residents' houses can be developed subject to the wetlands. He stated he personally would think that woods behind the houses and open wetlands with a Walgreens on this site would be more palatable than a development stuck in their bacicyards. Acting Chairperson Stevenson clarified Mr. Longstead's concerns as being saturation and the possibility of an empty building a few years from now. He said he appreciates that concern, which would be a concern of anyone, including the Commission. Acting Chairperson Stevenson stated that, at this time, he feels good about the situation and does not feel they will have an empty building in the near future. Doris Hamline, 3034 Ardmore, asked if this had been brought to Springsted, the consultant group hired to help with redevelopment and safety issues along Highway 10. Community Development Director Joplce said they are aware of it. Ms. Hamline said it seems they have concurrent discussions going on. She pointed out that the community public meeting is July 11'�' where it will be discussed what the community would like _ _ : - ^� t - _ ;_. - ` ` — -- > -- - - �_� - ------- _ --- - _-== - ---- _ e.__, _,_ � �— j�.� Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regnlar Meeting Page 9 to see happen as far as redevelopment and safety issues. Ms. Hamline suggested the City can put iai all the lights and sidewallcs they want but that is not going to safely transport the people they are hoping to draw into Walgreens and Culver's. This would include the senior citizens and lcids who will walk there and cross that lughway to get to the inovie theater and the Community Center. They may have sidewallcs on either side of the street, but they still have one big open highway that they need to cross. She stated it has not been crossed safely once, and questioned how many more times will it not be crossed safely if they continue to draw more cars and more businesses into the area without fully addressing the safety issue of that highway. Acting Chairperson Stevenson responded that safety is a real concern which they have discussed and they would not allow a development to go in without addressing how Highway 10 can be maintained more safely. Acting Chairperson Stevenson stated they would not want to see another accident happen and they will address it, to malce sure the developer has that foremost issue in mind before they see development go through. Ms. Hamline stated she thii�lcs safety going bacic and forth across that road needs to be addressed, which she has not heard much discussion about. Terry Moses, representative of Midland Videen, said he would lilce to add a little more comfort to any concerns about Walgreens. He explained Walgreens loolcs at a site based on the population in a one-mile radius; so some stores might be two miles apart. It is farther than that to Northtown and they are not worried at all about not having enough business. He stated they will be signing a 20-year lease with options to extend, so they will be occupying that building for at least 20 years. Mr, Moses stated they have done an extensive study of this site and board approval was very positive. In response to questions, Mr. Moses reviewed tl�e Culver's hours of operation, and advised they will employ approximately 25 full time employees with 10 to 14 being on duty at a time. Out of the roughly 75 Walgreens in the Twin Cities, he advised that only 10 are 24-hour operations and they are in high-density areas. It is not anticipated that this would be a 24-hour store. He reviewed the hours of operation and advised Walgreens will have 12 full time employees and 30 part time employees. It will generate 600 to 800 car trips per day, and because they lilce to be on well-traveled roads, a lot of the cars will be people passing by the site anyway. The drive-up window cannot be used for picicing up anything other than prescriptions. He assured the Planning Coinmission they will do a very good job in landscaping and will meet the City's requirements. He noted the site plan witl� dimensions and two signage proposals, one was pylon and one was monument. Mr. Moses stated he believes the City indicated they prefer a monument sign and that was agreed with today. Mr. Moses presented the site plan, noting the locations of pathways, ponds, and parcels to be traded. Commissioner Kaden inquired if the three small detention areas were still necessary because of the large pond. � -- -- - - . : - -- � .: _ ��. - _ - _ .:� . -- �-- - = _ _ _ _,: �-- -. ._ Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 Plaruier Ericson advised they have not discussed the specifics, however, it could be the case that those small basins would not be required for infiltration purposes. They could provide for additional infiltration for the site and create some additio�zal opportuzlity to filter sedimentation utilizing the best managemeilt practice that Rice Creek Watershed prefers. He said he thinlcs, at this point, that Mr. Moses is accurate in saying they are not necessary, however, he is not aware if they are going to be provided. Planner Ericson explained they would not retain any water but be a place for water to go during a heavy rainfall and there is no reason they cannot be landscaped. Acting Chairperson Stevenson aslced if tl�e square footage and appearance of this building would be similar to the store at Northtown. Mr. Moses explained the proposed store is 14,500 square feet. He stated it would be difficult to tell the difference but this store might be more lilce the store on University Avenue. Corrunissioner Kaden inquired how the developer might feel about putting some pine trees by the drive-up window to blocic the amplified sound some of the residents have expressed concern about. Mr. Moses responded if tllat is agreeable to everyone else they would agree. He commented that the p.a. system however would not audible to anyone but the person in car. Commissioner Hegland aslced if the drug store and restaurant could be better aligned with each other in order to fit in additional parlcing. Mr. Moses responded that the area where most of the cars come in should be wider rather tl�an narrower, so it may be difficult to do. Connmissioner Hegland commented they discussed having the trailway along Highway 10 extend all the way to the extended sidewallc on Edgewood Drive. He asked what the plan is on the entrance to marlc that for anyone using the trail, as it goes right across the entrance area. Planner Ericson responded there has not been significant thought as to how to deal with that other than some lcind of signage being installed. He advised they will be loolcing at that not only here but all through the City as the Highway 10 trail corridor system gets implemented. Commissioner Hegland inquired if tliey are loolcing at designating that as a pedestrian crosswalk area. Planner Ericson responded soinething lilce that could be utilized, however, the problem is people coming off the highway, and he is not sure if it would be in the best interest of traffic to make it stop. He agreed, however, that it should be examined. Acting Chairperson Stevenson commented one of the things he has seen happen in busy intersections is to make almost a right hand turn for a number of feet that goes sli�htly deeper at that turning point with the same on the other side for the bilcers. He explained that a berm or something at the end would require people to slow down. Planner Ericson said that is a wonderful suggestion and could be incorporated. As the trailway approaches Edgewood Drive, instead of ineeting up at a 90 degree angle, it curves in at the ri�ht-of-way so people have to slow down or stop. Commissioner Hegland stated he does not thinlc they sliould do anything that would obsttuct a driver's view of that intersection, as that view will lilcely be more valuable. Mr. Moses suggested _ �_ ' _ . - - - - - _ - , _ � _ _ f ___ _�, �� . .� - _.. ' R: ,; -:. ° - ��fJ;. . . : -:� . . - . . . _.' :- -`_ .___ _. . ._ . - I" Mounds View Planning Coinmission Regular Meeting July 5, 2000 Pnge 11 they discuss the geoinetrics of the right-in so it is not just lilce an exit ramp on the freeway but would force people to slow down. A resident of St. Stephen Street said she does a lot of wallcing and the way Edgewood Drive is planned now she won•ies about people using it as a freeway. She stated she also worries, as they discuss putting in a trailway, that a lot of people will have to watch their step as they enter or come out with bilces, wallcing, or pushing children with a cart. She suggested there has to be some jog where they are not directed into the line of traffic. Planner Ericson said there was a discussion earlier this afternoon regarding having a bend with more of a radial meeting of the sidewallc to tie into t11e applicant's property, rather than having the trailway meet up with the sidewalk at a 90-degree angle. He explained there could also be a pedestrian crossing, not right up to the right-of-way to Highway 10, but back 15 feet to allow for greater visibility for pedestrians, bilcers and vehicles. Commissioner Miller inquired if the City Council already made the decision to trade this land. Planner Ericson explained the Council had not specifically decided this but authorized Staff to explore this and he does not believe there was any type of limited negotiation or purchase agreement. The only thing the City did was act as a signer on the application so it could proceed and be considered. He explained the Council granted Staff the aUility to process the application. Commissioner Tliomas stated she feels they are discussing two different issues. The first is the issue of whether the developer will be able to worlc with the limitations and guidelines of the City to the Planning Commission's sufficient desire. Sl1e stated she has seen every indication the developer will go to the utn�ost lengths to do what they would lilce them to do. However, the other issue they are tallcing about is a basic trade. Commissioner Thomas stated she fully understands why Mr. Videen wants to sell l�is property. She commented that what she has not been convinced of, is what the City is getting in return being better than what they have now. She commended Staff for providing the values of tlie properties which helps immensely. Commissioner Thomas suggested it looks as though the properties are equal. However, in. order to convince her this is wliat she wants, she has to be convinced that a retail property located across from City Hall is appropriate, and she is not convinced of that. She stated that issue would have to be answered before she would feel comfortable saying they should trade. Commissioner Johnson stated they discussed at length two months ago what they would gain, which would be a lot greater than what they have. They now have a corner lot and a pond in the center for a holding pond. He noted the City would gain a much larger holding pond, water filtration, wetland credits, and a park with a walkway. Commissioner Thoinas stated she is very close, however, everything they would gain from that property would have to be matched by what they would lose by losing tlais property and putting retail on it. She stated this property does add to the Ueautification of this area and creates a "community feel" which they would lose if they gave it up. Commissioner Thomas stated it would also brealc up the continuity of this property. She questioned if that is worth what they would gain. _ 1- �� -_: :_- : ; - ,: . - _ �, _ --_ -----:_ _.: -: _ > : _ -�� "= ij - ------ - � - :�.L _ __µ�. . , _, Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 12 Planner Ericson stated he does not feel they can go through the merits of the transaction on a point by point basis regarding the positives and negatives in the next five minutes. I-�e noted however that there would be tax consequences that would benefit the City tremendously, not to mention the fact tl�at if this does not go forward they would retain the land but could potentially lose the ei�ht acres that is right now a very pristine �latut•al wetland and upland area. He stated in his personal opinion, the remnant parcel is a great piece of land with the pond in it, but he would much rather save the woods and the wetland and the eight acres. Granted, the wetland cannot go away as they are protected, however, certainly the 3 1/2 acres of developable land could be developed commercially. Planner Ericson stated the Planning Commission can tallc about if the City could have purchased the land, but now the proposal is before them and they can either act now or live with the consequences. Commissioner Thomas stated this property has been for sale and on the marlcet for eight years and she wonders exactly how developable it is. She said she does not see any imminent danger of this property going to something they cannot stand anytime in the near future, as it is going to have to go to what would worlc well on the property. Commissioner Thomas said if it comes down to worlcing with the developer she has been incredibly impressed with the desire of this developer. The question is what the community wants. Planner Ericson agreed these are very weighty issues that have to balance out. Acting Chairperson Stevenson commented they are not only tallcing about Walgreens, but also a Culver's Restaurant. Since putting this on television, he stated people have told him they want to have the Culver's Restaurant since it is a favorite family-restaurant of many. He noted that when the theater developed, it was to have a Chili's Restaurant, which was lost due to the amount of time it took for the development approval. He said this was loolcing positive with not only a Walgreens, but also a Culver's Restaurant. Commissioner Johnson stated a restaurant was the number one thing that the people in the community wanted when they discussed it two years ago. Mr. Moses stated the City's reirmant parcel is triangular and hard to f t a square building on the land. Regarding the value to the City, it is being used for a pond. However, with the current scenario, the City will get a bigger pond, a pathway, inore sidewallc, and a new, tax-paying retail development. The Walgreens alolle will generate between $60,000 and $80,000 per year in new taxes, plus the restaurant. He noted the residents on tlie east would be assured that nothing will be developed in the woods and wetlands, and the development is farther away. He stated this property and the owners go bacic 50 years, and for 50 years there have been problems with every proposal Mr. Videen brought forward. Mr. Moses stated he personally has been worlcing on this for ten years and believes this proposal is the right thing for everyone. He stated Commissioner Thomas is off base and it is too late to say no, that all this has all been discussed. Commissionei• Thomas stated it is not too late, this is clearly the time to bring up these concerns and issues, as it is a public hearing. --_: - . ;::; f ,�i _ - - E = '� - . -- -- - _ _ ._._ - -- - - �- = --._ -° -. : _ _ — �----- � P --- .'�-- '-. .. _ .: --_` ..__.-�_�. , . ... ,� -: , _ � _. . . . __ - �--�------- _ . . . _ . . - -- -----' I: Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 13 Mr. Moses apologized to Commissioner Tl�omas and the rest of the Commissioil, indicating that of course, she was correct. Commissioner Thomas accepted the apology. She stated she toolc the history into great consideration before she forinulated her questions. She stated she may be new to the Commission but she has aslced the questions she needed of staff and of other inembers to find out the background and history, and has lived in the City for the last 20 years. She stated she is very aware of what has gone on with this property and took that into great consideration. These choices, however, must be made according to the here and now, regardless of Mr. Videen's health situation or intentions. Commissioner Thomas stated this is still an econoinical issue and very little of the past has anything to do with this when tallcing about some of the land usage issues. Commissioner Thomas inquired about Culver's Restaurant being tentative in the development. Mr. Moses said they are not far enough along in the lease negotiations to have a forn7al agreement, however, Culver's does want to locate here. Commissioner Thomas said she is in great favor of tl�e restaurant. She stated she has been very pleased with the response from the developer, Mr. Moses, and Mr. Videen but this is siinply a matter of choice in terms of what they want located here. Council Liaison Stigney addressed the Conlmission, indicating that earlier Walgreens had offered to purchase the parcel outright, and at that time, the amount of money versus a possible trade was discussed. He explained tl�e people looking at it felt a trade might be more beneiicial to the City than the outright sale since the land is not really developable as it is and would require some combination with the adjoining parcels. Commissioner Kaden noted that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Soine people may iind the pond beautiful, but he finds the wooded areas beautiful. He would lilce to see the woods and more open land saved. Unfortunately, there are not many areas the City has a chance to obtain. If the numbers come off this close in a trade, he felt it would be a good deal for the residents to get more open space and wooded areas. He said he is not real excited about big buildings everywhere, however, if it works in the tradeoff he would appreciate the woods being saved and having the buildings farther away. Mr. Moses said the developer will use the same bricic as the City Hall complex and malce the roof material match the Community Center to make it all fit in well. Commissioner Thomas inquired if anyone has discussed the security issues regarding how Walgreens feels about the stroil� youth environment due to the movie theater and the Community Center. She noted the possibility of vaildalism or shoplifting. Mr. Moses said this has not been discussed, noting Mounds View is one of the nicer areas they would be located in. He noted that inner cities have more youth hanging around than Mounds View and he does not think it is a concern at all. Mr. Moses stated the trash would be enclosed so there will not be an opportunity for anyone to cause litter. ; � ' � �; . � _ �s� ,-- _ ,= f ` ;_ � � - -- x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,=" I --_ �r_: _;�, _ :- �. :-- - = - - - _ -- . r , _ �_ ; ; - , F_ - - _v. �__ .. ��__._ .-._ ._ . .: .. .. . .... � .. s" ' . :. ' _ - �_ _ _ �_ __' ' .._ __" _ '. '{��_"''"'`' � Mounds View Planning Commission Jul 5 2000 '' Y � Regular 1Vleeting Page 14 Commissioner Thomas noted the police station is basically across the street and hopefillly the store would not be a target. Mr. Moses noted with the store being so close to the highway and visible it is not a place a teenager would likely hang around. On the issue of the pathway and driveway, Mr. Moses stated an example of a well-used trail in Oalcdale (the Gateway Trail) that follows Highway 36 and crosses Hadley, just before I-694. He stated that is a good example of a DNR trail crossing a very busy street. The same resident of St. Stephen Street suggested they malce a nature center out of the extra parcel of land that is wetlands. She suggested tlley could utilize Japanese walkways in the wet area and nature trails. Acting Chairperson Stevenson responded the Mounds View Forester would be evaluate that suggestion. Planner Ericson suggested a resolution be prepared for the next Plaruiing Commission meeting if the Commission feels they have enough information to direct staff one way or another. If the Commission wants or needs additional inforznation, staff can bring forward more information. He noted the Highway 10 Steering Committee meeting will be held at the City Hall on July 11 tt' Acting Chairperson Stevenson questioned if information would be forthcoming from that meeting that would affect this consideration. Commissioner Johnson said the Steering Committee will not affect development of land per se, it has inore do to with increasing the safety of the highway as far as pedestrian crossings and trails along the highway. He stated the meeting would directly relate to the Walgreens issue. The Planning Commission agreed to direct staff to draft a resolution in favor of the proposed Planned Unit Development. Commissioner Kaden commented that the developer has been willing to worlc with the Commission, therefore, they should trust they would have the landscaping plan completed by July 19tn 7. Special Planning Case SP-079-00 Discussion Regarding the First Draft of Ordinance 664, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Accessory Buildin�s. Planner Ericson gave the staff report as follows: Ordinance 664, which would affect cha.nges iil accessory structures in the City has been distributed to the Planning Commission with the changes that are exactly as they were discussed and agreed upon in principle at the last Coininission meeting. � ; _ _ i � r-- �:` --- . ----- -- --- - ._..,-� - - - �'��: - __ _ - _ _ - ----- -- - - _ Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 15 Planner Ericson advised there are other minor changes contemplated by this ordinance, most of which are houselceeping and reorganizing language in a more logical fashion. Some sections of the code were put under a different subdivision, where it discusses single-family dwellings, and they have cleaned up some previous errors. He noted the changes are evident in the Commission's copy of the ordinance, deletions are strucic out and additions are underlined. Comrnissioner Kaden inquired if 952 square feet is cur�ently the maximum size of a garage without a CUP. Planner Ericson responded affirrnatively, subject to the footprint of the house and the 20 percent rear yard coverage ratio. Commissioner Kaden questioned if this code change would strilce the "footprint" requirement. Plan�ier Ericson stated that is correct. Acting Chairperson Steveiison inquired if the Commission had any more input on changes made from the last meeting. Commissioner Miller aslced for clarification on the first page, item C, be�inning at the fourth line. Planner Ericson explained that the language was talcen from a different part of the code under 1106.02 subdivision 1C. He explained that it was added in 1998 so as to allow a property owner building a house a little bit of flexibility. If tlie Code did not include this language, it would almost imply that before a house could be built, the driveway would already have to be there. This language indicates that there are ways to build a house and not be required to put the driveway in at the same time, as cement trucics and other heavy vehicles would be coming in and out. He said this could be amended to state inore clearly what they would lilce it to say. He suggested the Commission could think about revising this section and if they find language that makes more sense, it can be revised up until the second reading. Planner Ericson also advised that there are a couple other changes in between substantive and housekeeping to the ordinance. He read from Page 3, item I, stating the change would make it clear that the accessory building shall have weather resistant treated or finished exterior. He explained the existing code was silent on material and they have had problems with some very shoddy looking sheds and structures. Commissioner Miller aslced about the lettering on Page 2, which was not corrected when items b and c were deleted. Planner Ericson noted the lettering would be corrected and advised of the addition of item j, which will be corrected to be item h. Commissioner Kaden questioned what is meant by "frequently used vehicle." He expressed concern that if there are any complaints, the meaning of this could change depending on the inspector at the tiine. Planner Ericson explained that when this was loolced at, they attempted to come up with language that shows the intent but leaves roozn for some interpretation. He noted they do not want to require every accessory building to have an improved driveway. Commissioner Miller inquired if the building is considered a garage if a car is put in it. Acting Chairperson Stevenson said it is for a vehicle that is going to be frequently used. He explained � 4 _ _ , � f t _ � ; - = - - --- - - - = _ - � �=� ' ` �� F ' -� ' ' - - = == --------��= . .:_ . -- � -- � -- ----- ,_ _._�_ --- - ---°--�:2�=t'G.�ti.,�_.�'' ._...._�.�__�!r�..�. � � Mounds View Planning Connmission July 5, 2000 `� Regular Meeting Page 1G when they originally discussed this they did not want someone storing an antique vehicle, an ATV, or something not often used to have to have to have a driveway. Commissioner Johnson said he thii�lcs tliey agreed that if they end up plowing the driveway and making ruts they would probably do somethin� to improve it. Planner Ericson said he thii�lcs the property owner is going to dictate what will happen. He stated the City has to leave some coirunon sense option and allow the resident to do what malces sense and appropriate. Planner Ericson stated staff was not quite sure how else to address this other than by stating specific requirements for a certain size. If after a year they have ruts, he thii�lc that would constitute "frequent use." Commissioner Johnson said if they are goin�; to plow the driveway they will probably parlc in front of it, which is not allowed without an improved surface. That is where enforcement by the City Inspector comes in for people that do not understand it is an eyesore and needs to be talcen care of. Commissioner Miller requested clarification on page 4, item c, beginning at "Any sign existing prior to December 29, 1972, shall not be enlarged ..." Plaivner Ericson responded he could strilce that beginning language as they would not laiow when the sign was originally put up. Commissioner Miller inquired if a sign were only six square inches, could it not be enlarged to one square foot. Planner Ericson explained yes, but he does not thinlc that section is appropriate anymore, as this was drafted in 1983. Commissioner Miller suggested when they amend the sign ordinance they may want to consider if one square foot is appropriate. Upon inquiry, Planner Ericson stated they need item c to be included, as it addresses home occupations, and they need to have the allowances for signage for home occupations. They could strike language from "any sign existing" and say a home occupation can simply have one square foot of signage. Corrunissioner Miller inquired if playhouses are considered an accessory building. Planner Ericson responded they are listed as an accessory use but not and accessory building. Council Member Stigney aslced regarding the home occupation signage if it is supposed to be located on either the principal structure or the garage. He noted many times daycare center signs are out on the street or mailbox. Planner Ericson said that is how the code reads. The l�ome occupation ordinance was put in place in 1983 and has been in place for 17 years. Commissioner Hegland clarified they are requiring a Conditional Use Permit to create an accessory building more than 952 square feet, however, there is not a Conditional Use Permit to �o up to 1,400 square feet, if you have a 952 square foot garage you can put another building up. Planner Ericson stated the accessory buildings are allowed to a maximum combined square footage of 1,400 square feet. He said staff would draft a resolution for the Commission's action _. -_--- _ �, .� ., C i= -_ . _'�'_r f - - F �' � .' � 'y ..."�- __. : h �..._ .�"'_. = y _- " _ ___-'___ -t , ._ __._ _ _•_--- _-- -- - �'✓rd%'d�:s,�fi''�l_w. fl.G:��....Y.._� �__._. - -'— -_,_... _s .-�. ._ I� Mounds Vievv Planning Cornmission July 5, 2000 Regular 1Vleeting Page 17 at the next Commission meeti�lg on July 19`�'. He inquired if the Commission feels tl�ey should strike out language from tl�e hoi�ie occupancy section. The Plamiing Conlmission coiasensus was to direct staff to leave that section in, stating they can change it when they change the sign code. 8. Staff Reports / Items of Information A. Previous Council Actions Cominunity Development Director Joplce stated the City Council meeting on June 26t�' had a light agenda, with nothin� of much impact related to plamling issues. There were some issues with some business licenses and a renewal of aii insurance policy. B. Mermaid Expansion Update Community Development Joplce stated the project is moving ahead, they have received an application from the Mermaid for a concept, and will forward it to the Planning Commission at the next Commission meeting. 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Commissioner Johnson stated a Highway 10 Steering Committee meeting is scl�eduled on July 11`�' at 7:00 p.m. It is open to the public and they will be talcing comments about the Highway 10 con•idor. No further reports were considered. 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Plamling Commission, Acting Chairperson Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 9:22 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully subnutted, Ricic Joplce Community Development Director Transcribed by: Carol Hamer TimeSaver Off Site Secreta��ral, Inc. C:IWINDOYf�SITEMPjzdyS, Z000min:�hves.DOC ` -� _ __ _ -. _ — �...- - --- � . _,� �__� _ _ ... _ _. � : �-.�.�r1�. _� = - --- : �: � MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION August 16, 2000 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2, Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CIT7ZENS: BEFORE SPEAHING, PLEASE COME TO TAE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Approve Planning Commission Minutes: a. July 5, 2000 5, Planning Case No. NII00-001 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 630-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision for Leo & Patricia Bergeleen, 8132 Long Lalce Road. 6. StaffReports / Items of Information a. Previous Council Action 7. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNTI'Y DEVELOPMENT AT (763) 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THA.NK YOU. AGENDA SESSION AGENDA 1. Review the Minutes from the July 19, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting. `�� N:�DEITA\GROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMM�PCAGENDA�2000Wugust 16, 2000 PC llgeucla.doc , _ -- __ � — -- - - - , . ---__:. . � --- ----- :- � – --_ --_ -._,--.... � " Item # 5 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: August 16, 2000 Titleo CONSIDERATION OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR LEO BERGELEEN, 8132 LONG LAKE ROAD. Introduction: Leo Bergeleen has applied for a minor subdivision to subdivide his lot located at 8132 Long Lake Road and has submitted a Certificate of Survey to effectuate the subdivision. The subdivided portion would not be used for development purposes, but would instead be combined with a property fronting Sherwood Road. In essence, this is a simple land transaction whereby one property owner deeds part of his lot to another property owner. No new lot would be created by this action. However, because a change in property lines is involved, the City is required to approve the action, which is defined as a subdivision of land. Discussdon: The existing lot to be subdivided is approximately 49,673 square feet, or, 1.13 acres, is zoned R- 1, Single Family Residential and conforms to all the City's lot requirements. It is 496.73 feet deep and 100 feet wide. Mr. Bergeleen proposes to split offthe back 300 feet of the property and has entered into an arrangement to sell this subdivided portion to a neighbor located at 2565 Sherwood Road, Bob Pearson. Mr. Pearson is planning to combine Mr. Bergeleen's rear 300 feet to his own property, thus no new lot would be created. After the subdivision and land transfer, Mr. Bergeleen's lot would be 19,770 square feet. Staff has forwarded the Certificate of Survey to the City's Engineering Technician as well as to the Director of Public Works. Other than dedication of the westeriy 30-foot of the subdivided for roadway purposes, no changes or special requirements are being made. Typically, it is the case with most minor subdivision that the City will require dedication of perimeter drainage and utility easement areas. However because both lots have already been developed and no new development is being proposed, dedication of new easements would not be needed. The City Attorney will review the Certificate of Survey and any documentation needed to record the subdivision with Ramsey County. Last, most subdivisions, minor or major, are subject to park dedication requirements. This request is unique in that, again, no new lot is being created and no new development will occur. Staff has indicated to Mr. Bergeleen and Mr. Pearson that because of this, no dedication would be required in this instance. (Section 1204.02 Sub. 3 of the Municipal Code exempts land improved with single-family dwellings.) r � _x . .. . . _ _ � ^ `-,�--�- �-° __- _ __ _'_' -� Bergeleen Subdivision August 16, 2000 Page 2 Recommenclation: . . .r ... ' - :: . ._ . � �- .: ----- -- ..: _ � - -----t=--- , . � Staff is recommending approval of the attached Resolution 630-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Requested Minor Subdivision of 8132 Long Lake Road. C`' � T� • J I^�.�,r-�� C C�-��..�.��_� � c.�..��. James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Certificate of Survey (Date—stamped Aug.ist 10, 2000) 4. Resolution 630-00 I:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES�IvII00-OO1�PC Report - Aug 16, 2000.doc i � i.�..� . .---- �_ .�. , ,,,r� :,,< � ,. �- �i:I�ii:`:�i;"`. A O N :;f_tt:r,.. •A :i� :�.'i :i�� . , �hlj' PartnetSh�Q _ ___ ___ _ ; - - COMMUNIT'y DEVELOPMENT DEPART'1V�NT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MIV 55112 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Infortnation - Coroplete Both Sides of This Form AppGcant Information � Name of Applicant � r- p�. �.'j` �� _� Address � � �� -' �' Telephone �- �g j� ��'� J �� c�1 S'.SI1 �, F� Interest in Property (check appropriate box) � Owner of Property � Lessee, Operator, Manager o Other (explain) Q Contract for Deed Owner � Agreement to Purchase AppGcants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, aod if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the fi�ling of this application. The property ownec must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location Legal Description S�C �� Property Identification # (PiN #) � # of Acres Current Zoning �1�� o��tl� L/�i��' pcE ' /� Type of Application � Comprehensive Plan Amendment � Rezoning � Major Subdivision �'� Minor Subdivision � Planned Unit Development (PUD) � 1'UD Amendment � Conditiona! Use Permit � Variance o Code Appeal � Develop Review/Site Plani � Wetland Alteration Peimit � Wettand Bui%r Perniit � Floodplain Pec-mit o Other � �10 ��+! D,s �� ,� �,�, /�I� $250 $250/acre; min $250 max $ I 500 $250 + $250 deposit* $ZOO c�.�.b: �� ,x,�, Refer to rezoning fees $350 R-1, R-2 $75; all others $250 R-1, R-2 $ I 00 all others $250 $100 $125/acre; min $ ] 25 max $750 R-1, R-2 $150; all odiers $200 R-1, R-2 $25; all others $ I 00 $200 �Da�� *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in �xcess of tl�e initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not apent or encumbered shall be re#'unded to the applican[ wittun thirty (30) days at}er consideration of the application is completed. Pleuse complete the reverse 9ide of this application. i __ _�_ "_ _ ; � ' - . �� M/. . _ . ` . - _ ._-- ; _ F -- � � _ ' f -.-�. _> ��_ , _ v._ ' ___�__ " 1____ ....__ ____ ' � -_-- - � �� . - - .. � .._ _ _ _ .. �. _ . _ �' "��. _: . _ � ��_ I -.; -: � __�_ � _ ',. 1 ___`: City of Mounds View, MN pa e 2 Develo ment A lication Present Use of Properiy ❑ UndevelopedNacant CJ Duple;c/Two Family Dwelling o Business/Commercial fistablishment [7 Other (eYplain) Property Classification Description of Proposal � Abstract �` ❑ 0 �� Single Family Dwelling Multi-family Dwelling Industrial Establishment Torre�s gy MY (OUR) SIGNATURB ON T�IIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO TI-� BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFURMATION PRUVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCiJRATE. , . '' .. �'/' Signature of Applicant `�-' �'-��i�'�`f'' �� ~ // � /� % ,.. � :o Y� ' ��. � �/�� / n iJ y ed/ rinted � -' �`'-� � '� Name of Applicant (typ p ) ' ,%Z� L3�27-'S. !��-9-!z sc+.'� f'/,�JP`� 1Y1.. l�792 S��u Signature of Property Owner Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner �-� 13 2G��.-E�>2' � �� ************************************************************************�x*********************** FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal �� z`�' � pssigned to: w1 i�. � Date of Acceptance �" 2 K'�n 120-da limit Planning Case No. ��°>; �C� �3 d I 60-day L'unit Y Fees Paid: Account # Check # Recei t� Application: %,00 • o� 1-. 0�'3��'�- � �O� 5�" �� I�� Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: 1/98 N:�D ATA\G RO U P S\C O M D G V�FO Rh 1 S�D E V�P P. FO R €.--. ^. ��.>-�a�--:v:=�----� --'—' I—.,..:�- - ��_'_-' '. -, � -`_ . ..._._ _ `_�-_'------'� � .-'-'--�— ----. � --' . �I --- I Zoning Map 8132 Long Lake Road 8431 84AA 8443 f3444 � 8445 84�4 8453 8464 - - 8435 843-0 8454 �, 8425 8434 8433 8432 8aai �� 8425 8424 8415 8420 8425 8428 8429 8444 g425 8413 5414 8401 8406 8405 8404 8415 8408 8415 8424 a415 8408 �� 8400 8379 8390 8405 8400 fz 8400 � 8389 8395 8400 0 8405 �y _ _ 5380 8379 8380 8373 8584 B395 8381 8390 8395 &388 � '� 8370 8385 8�70 _. 8365 II372 II367 8379 8380 8385 . 8384 _. 8360 8375 8360 . ...... . - - � .._.- . . . .. _ � l 8355 8368 Q 8359 8350 8355 8350 8375 8376 8375 8378 ' _ .._ _ ___ _ _ _ __ ._ .... 83a5 ,_. 836a 8345 8340 8345 8340 �371 g372 8365 8360 ` _. 8340 8331 8330 as35 __ . 8330 8357 8340 $325 0 8335 _:... . 8325 8320 8321 O �� , 8320 OC ` : . 8325 8372 a315 8320 8375 � 8318 8323 ;... 8395 8340 `':.. _ _ �. _ _ _. 8300 8305 . 8330 8315 g3p0 8303 8310 w 8305 8;f}p 8327 _ .... _..... _ ,.:.. _ . 0.... ,_ 8305 8290 8295 II290 � 8291 8290 � 8285 8290 � 8295 ' 8310 8307 , s2a5 szao sza� a2eo � szai szao az�3 a2so A a2�s AR DAN \ 8275 8270 p g261 6270t� 8271 �270 8300 W ' azss a2so � azs� PARK 8265 8260 a 8273 8260 8267 8260 _ _ _ _ _ __ 8250 � 2 g > � __ 8255 8250 8267 8250 8251 8250 8255 w 8 55 280 6�+J�:` � s", . . � 283 ' .. , __. �n ,n n o,: �:8240 8267 � R240 � � n rn .-. 8241 8242 � � M ,� 8260 � 8 N � 4 co �n a: a _ n � co �n : v � rn. uo � ,o � .O. . _ � � � �O i0 � in . �A 47 r � Sz7� � : N N N: N.HZ3O 8255 c�AV lV . N N N 8235 tD 82.32 N N: ry� S�IJQ .J .. , ,�. •,j N . . -. ... 1r.::_ . AVE 8247 !� �:•:; _.. � • v co 00 _ ... ...._ ) _... to op o �v a. co I cnn ^ , ^ a 8220 �O N p i N N N . . . . . . 82�rJ � N : N' N._ N N � N N 823 8239 _ . . . . . � •t . .. N 8210 8271 _ _. . . _.. � •:i _.. .. .. _ 8225 ; ' i u� ; n rn�- 820 818A 8193 2�} _ . � f , n �. � r�. _.._. _ �7 � t � N N N . N �. . ..H�HO S�BS . . � �� .. . � - . . . . . _. � 'j $`2 82 DR _ .. o �� s2os ; _.. o ... �`. �': a a v°- ,- 8 7 7 5 `° 0,� ' 1 8160 8 7 7 7 �! j 8200 � .. .. . 5_..,-_- ._�!�.. :i�.—. n n: �.nn 8165 w ,,'1 .. _._.. _ 4. f N�`+ c� iac� 814 � 87 65 :-{ 815D ""`- -- .____._ 8155 d� G� 8150 '� 2 8145 4..f � _ ._... _. � � St42 8145 ��,0 ��s 8145 i:'•:� 814p j ,. 1 8i35 '813; 5735 _ ��8� �'�y.� � 8740 8141 ,_ ; • 8125:' 8�30 8131 #1. _. .._ ...... .. �'� � 8732 8121 8126 812< ._ _ _ .___ �n ; n � rn ' � ��. ,O v� -h� �o � u� : n ' m � n rn •� � . M' �n , r� . � .. N �._ . . . �, [p � �(1 . V . � �7 N 1� tO �. N ' � . '7 $711 - b O .,.i � � - � � - N . ��. p a N N� N� N: N ; N N N. 812 1Z1 N N. N: N N ' N. N� N�.•? N N N. N H1O H� O'I N � y� � � N oao Ro <_ (p �p p � c0 ; (p' . 00 � O - O d� - tD -. — �� v ' &080 '- ° � � 8099 I � � � . vi $086 R r i. r. 8081 n. n: 8088 8075 8085 , g g �n in '� 8085 N..._ N N� Q� N' N. N-. N - ' N. N N. N. N. N� HOF3O 8085: �. . 8066 £3071 . _ 8068 8071 _ _ 8081 _. so�o ao�i _ so $o� , -- _ o>> rso�� ao�o _ . _ 8075 8060 8059 805� 8055 8060 8065 8050 -- .... 8D7t _.__._ . _... _.. _; _ .. ..... _. _ . - _. . 8045 8040 8042 8045 8052 gp5� 8044 8045 8046 8041 8046 8051 �'39 8032 8033 8040 6035 8032 8031 8038 ao2s s 8028 x _. p 80 5 8024 802; _ .. . 8015 - p 8025 8078 8011 � 8000 8021 8022 8019 8030 p. _... . _ .. _ _ 8005 $�� 8009 800G 8071 8000 8001 8010 �$��j 8000 800: . . _. . _ , . . . _ _ _ 79B5 6004 . 7981 7990 � 7981 7990 � 7989 7996 a 7993 ! 7990 7977 7964 798. __.. __ _ .. _ , . � __ . ._ 7975 7970 7979 7980 7969 7980 7979 7980 � 7985 7970 _. __ _ _ _.. _. . _ - _,. . ..... _ ._. 7960 7961 _ 7964 79]5 7965 7960 7959 7970 7965 "-_ �. ... 7980 7971 � ... _ . - .. .. _ . .. 7966 7969 _ _ _ _.. ... . .. 7955 7956 � �g49 7954 7959 7950 �957 79�4 _ ._ _ _.._ . ... . .._ _ _ 7955 7949 795: 7940 7945 7946 7927 HILLVIEW 7933 7950 7930 7935 7930 7977 7940 PARK 7945 �9s4 793 . . .._ .. __ _ ,. .. ... , - � m � ' � : �n rn ;. .. _ �n r� __ �901 m ,� �-, �; . . . .. _h... n n � 790p � � � ' 7900 79d1 � � : 7900 907 �n . � �'j' R � N � N' N %9OO 7JO'I � N� N N. � N N'i P� ' N�. N 1'.i. N' %9OO N ��y�� ROAD °^ � �'`� � � 7895 � . � 7 � � 7864 7865 � u> E � � ° ° ry^ �� N . %8HB N %S9� N : N . %BBO .. .. . N N' B9O %SErJ. N . N � .. . N � N � .��.I N . N %HB 7SHJ . . �_ .. .. . .__... .. .. . . .- . . . -. : , .... . . . .. } .. 4 7876 Z 7865 7866 7867 �.7870 7B69 7858 {� 7878 7875 � _. _ _ 7853 �, �'�� 7870 y 7877 7854 7851 7860 7865 7852 w ' � 7870 7861 _. ... . .. ^ . . . _..�_ -.,.�.. . ...��.,- Y 7R47: ti'•:d.. __.. _, z...... ; s��. _ _�� :�; �r_� .,.�� _ ---• I� �. � v_. °� E _ . :: . c - -= _ := : 1� , " _ _ , — - '` '` �- --� _ � i r Property Map � 8132 Long Lake Road � 4�: ` ' z. Q`,' a� �" l? o ` 16.� .38 a.c ,_ C�T►�a µ; � 53 (O �' cJ • loo� � . 2 q pl . � �, � � �-3 N 43 43 ,3Ca �43 � �f . 5 K� W � 5 --;-� o � ;. � , _ � � � , 12,9 . a0. .:S � 30 I 105 � � O. - o I .. / D ac. IG 6.190 l c� __— --- .1�:�. � .'DPn.iri�lp�(p._..._� � oC. �ro44�ps � . . � � l i . ' (A I- . o , . 'TS 'i� - 2 400.0 . 12 1,85 . 91.8� 9 ,9 � � .5 �. . � .� � . � . � � � -. .. , :30�ac .3oac, ..�.! a•c, , q,p o n, � .A�Bo-c ,� � ai .36 0,�, r�-. .36a.c .36u�, ! • I So . . _ � k so � �4 ogo � � 3 � � � . , � `� � . �, C. � 3o a,_3 ;�� 1 v �� 4a �,� �; . -- � , o r � ) �.. � o�a .. �3r) �. C � � � � 050 �^ �21�0 ��o o°c�. 43 05o Isco 1 3 ilo 1 ' 3 o cp �- � � + ,4.3 43 � 43 � # r� • . ,�, + I, 528 -- a - _ � g , � - +a►o 1 � � � . 55 0� � � � Ci �� oZ�� o M (�9) - - 5O � ' +725 ' +�-►��.-r � . � .5?o�-c.. , 050 4 O UT L�OT ' C�°) ��' C ��o A . � . �'S, � - . 5 a3 �o +�o�.s � � E6fo� . Q 4o��)r- /� 7� �:.�� p.� � 1 ��.9 G L � 2 � ��N ��4� �- � � .r .�_ � N I •4t'n' sl.C. � �' � [1 • ' �n 3� � 9 I 9.°�� o�� . N 3 C�5) �: � � � � .o � • , o - � - 30' - - - " , ': � q-o 5w 313 'r � � -y- � 3 i` • vf Z � �� ) ,� .��o W� I, 5 3 o�.c, , c� �. r ,3 p: 'd' � - ' as y � � C49) �45 , r=�-- ,s •� � Thirty Feet ,.. � . �11 Roadway �) . I 3 o,-c ; 1 �@ s; � Dedication � „ � E.. �� ,,: r--+'� k. r , � : :: Ii: L•: �> r�, l�"_� � , ' �U �. 3� � . • �^ i �, , � ; �, ,4, � . � r � .28 o.c . 0 67 � � l 4� ��',, a I � ,2� cb.c . r ,2s �` � � ' .3O o�.c � � . �1 ac , � p m ` ¢i � � o i� J � ��; � �i � � c45� �� .�.,�r2� o m p �` 45 � 5 N r �, 45 080 � � N �' ° ��48 � � �' �� ¢5 � � � 128 � o � 80 � ��30 ►_�9��', O - , ' o , � . �� ' Ah��- �.- 526.-] � `�3_ .. � - � [, . J _ , . . . . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ I a F ! �R �� Y:%�� f "•?:i ��-. `1'``'. O... , ,; � W �,, 'a a � �� - U l.�J '.-Z_7 W L "� .�.. ~ :zl � �� w L . ; •_ i � n .., rn � " 7 s`� Ii? � [„� C � �, Z ,, �� ,` .-7 �: w_ C.-�� C � C � ..~d ~ C7 z 0 a ca � � � ,�nL a � 4 �I a 2� ; �� e ZY � �� > �u.ox a «ww 4 � � � c� h ��A�� + O � �gz�@Sdp e ��$F N � ��b�� Q � � z � b��:ec�� .. � � � ��d��g� g � e�cc'N�b � �Q, .�I, F ��b?¢� � ff ��b�� E eRyy �"o� 5 � �gp-��g� e � � ��9��a ��, / , � i � � � � I I � � i � i I i d s�, � P�i� � �� :� � : i cl 0S 7 I 'f I �➢ � � ii� � s�. �I@9 � 9.: `� �d� ...:� �3 � , i � �� • ;�? ��6� �,�� P, I�� I� i �. I � I ' `Y,..:" I �� I I � . �.e� � I ! `'4; i I ' ' I '� I � I ' • ' � i S0� ° i I '�� ! � ;�+�_ � :a�e, � �' �1'}� ; � I ,.a-r � t.s�� 3! �I � �; � i i I � � � II � ' i �d� I I ��; 1 ` i 9 � � I �y i � � � i � I � 1 i � I �I . �i,"� •�� U z � � ':i W i p a �_ E� � _ � E3�1� � i � �i6�a I � i I � � ��ay � i � a �F� � i I a � � I � I ;, a � I cw� 1� I I '' ;� , � � � , � 2 � I � }ss �� . � ' i � � � � Fa�3 � � � d� I d �erq 7 I � y t �{ � I � 4� I ; � v � .. a 1 A�q I , ' � � � � I � � � I � 9 ��a�- I _ � _.. j � ii �� _ : � ,•oe � � �; :, �. � i WV �� ._1 g_ ( � .a� � i i� �� i i � ,-��:. � " ; �� I ;I ' � � ��f � ';i�� I � �� 3 33r i� ; rt ' i � � iys3i ; �� + � , �, #� .� ��, � � � i::. , , �� ;:..,�::�°:�1 � �� . �«,�.x.�.W, , ..,�:��.:::. �` ''° ;�� :�s= �:�i � � :� k ,... , i; ,, , , ':',i • � I �� a �V6�M1Y.� '...' ;.4.',''� i1 � . ..�;_ • . . � . .. •�-1'J'Y .%�',�� i � � �i � ti � � +s 1 I % �:l�� I TS �� 1s e-`6�¢ � - i �: p °�!F e;§ � ' i '��' a�. � � ��. ; �'� � � �^:�=j3 A �e� � � � ' e��1��Y1qg�J � yf ;� ip� � �� I I;ySC[ � 119 �� `� � ��s�....».a. �e � � � �y �F� � : �. � i � ;�� 1 � � �oj ` � � � � I � I � �; � �} , i I � 1 ' � I ' � ' i , i � i ' � ' le6 j� / � ��4 � °�'�� 1 I 1 .p I:31tY1 ` � / ?�i � i a� 0 � ;g e i I i ��d p;� � � + � I ; ; 3 i �p "� i° � � I � � �h�� x.�C Y �i: ��y� _� � ¢'�Y , �: a_ �¢�� py ��E�� ak tl� e � � � $ c° ��i i�8 .Sa°e�� s ��G4 i ��o� i ' W aaYS �� Sge€�� I p�� o `��3.Y° '�p 8ae Jiiv� � <°n�� g�g�� a.Zi9 � gxe��i a4$d ` o g�e5�py ��$%a_V � � � ~ a ff�$k� .�� bb2�.� � I � �_.rt :::r{;t�, , . i . ' i. ;.:,.,:. :.; �", , ::I:;:. :s ; � .a � � f �63 I ;�� c � � r4 �� I � � � �;; B: ea tC A�� Gp I4YJ $ 7��1a I EC�p I� � � 7 R�� ; �� jb6sb � a 5�7 6 � > � ✓ � u W ��•-.� �i �a F-�1 C"� w d �.i ; � � � � _ , _ � ._'. ,�•.., - -' ' __ __ _ � . _ _ . '_'___ . MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RE50LUTION NO. 630-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMS�Y STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR LEO AND PATRICIA BERGELEEN, 8132 LONG LAKE ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. Mi00-001 WHEREAS, Leo and Patricia Bergeleen have requested approval for a minor subdivision dividing property they own at 8132 Long Lake Road, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as follows: The North One Hundred (100) Feet of the South Two Hundr•ed Sixty-Two (262) Feet of the East Five Hundred Twenry-Eight and Sixry-Six Hundredths (528.66) Feet of the Northeast Quarter (NE %e), of Section Six (6), Township Thirty (30), Range Twenry-Three (23), According to the United States Government Survey Thereof, Subject to Easement on the East Thrrty-Three (33) Feet Thereoffor Road Purposes and Subject I'urther to an Easement over the Rear Five (S) Feet Thereof for Public Utiliry Use. Subject to Restrrctions, Reservations, and Easements ofRecord, ifAny. WHEREAS, the land subdivided from the above-described parcel is legally described as follows: The Easterly 528.66, Except for the Easterly 229. 7Feet Thereof, of the North 100.00 Feet of the South 262.00 Feet of the Nnrtheast %4 of Section 6, Township 30 North, Range 23 West, Ramsey Counry, Minnesota. Subject to a 30.00 Foot Dedication for Roadway Purposes over the Westerly 30.00 Feet Thereof. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant's request for a minor subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, and 1202 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant's request for a minor subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted�a Certificate and Plat of Survey for the above described property; and, VVHEREAS, the Engineering Technician and Public Works Director for the City of Mounds View have reviewed the proposed minor subdivision and has found it acceptable; and, WHEREAS, no park dedication fees shall be required with this subdivision due to the exemption for existing single-family dwellings language as stated in Section 1204.02, Sub. 3, of the Municipal Code. '_ "' . ._ __[_ . I�: h . � � : � ' –_: __ .�_ . � - --------� '-- . .r___�.-_ - --' � L - . — - . _ �. ..��_-. �R. ---- Resolution 630-00 Paae 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the minor subdivision request made by Leo and Patricia Bergeleen, owners of 8132 Long Lake Road, contingent upon the following: The land subdivided from the Bergeleen's parcel shall be immediately combined with the parcel located at 2565 Sherwood Road, owned by Bob Pearson. Proof of combination shall be submitted to the City of Mounds View within thirty (30) days of Council approval. 2. The applicant shall record the City Council resolution of approval, the Certificate of Survey and the right of way dedication document (if such a document is required) with Ramsey County within thirty (60) days of final adoption, and present proof of such recording to the City of Mounds View. Failure to record these documents or provide proof of such recordation shall cause this approval to be null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 16th day of August, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) J:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DGVCASES\MI00-OO 1�RES. 630-00. DOC --� - �_ ; _ --_ _ �-� , . �. � -- ---- �-- - - . , -- _--=, °- _ ,- , : ----- - .: . --- -- r _ - ►� , PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 19, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p.m., July I9, 2000. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Conunissioners Hegland, Johnson, Kaden, Laube (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), Miller and Thomas. Members Absent: Commissioners Berlce and Gary Stevenson, with prior notice. Also Present: Planning Associate Jim,Ericson, Community,Development Director Rick Jopke, Economic Development Coordinator Aaron Parrish, and Recorder Carla Wirth Index to Minutes Page Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution 622-00, a Resolution Recommending to the City Council Adoption of the Updated Local Water Management Plans as Presented by SEH, Inc. 2 Planning Case No. ZC00-002, 2387 Highway 10. Discussion and Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution 623-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Major Subdivision and Development Review Regarding a Walgreens Drugstore and Proposed Restaurant at the Northeast Corner of Highway 10 and Edgewood Drive. TOLD Development Company, (Represented by Bob Cunningham), Applicant. 3 Plarming Case No. ZC00-003, 2200 Highway 10. Public Hearing and Discussion Regarding the General Concept of the Menmaid Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 97-Room Hotel and Banquet Center Addition. The Mermaid, Inc., (Represented by Dan Hall, President), A�plicant. g ; ._ �`� - �-'-----? k ' } -- 4��. -'_ . � � �. - - - ' - -� - .y�L_ --- �I 'E"�� -'�----'- � . _ h_ - '� -_-s '��I'' I!..,,.-� , � � .= �.. � �.-.- ;.. � _. . . �_: . . :,� .- ---= °_.; � • . -•:-a�� _...�. Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 Index to Minutes — continued Special Planning Case No. SP-079-00. Consideration of Resolution 624-00, a Resolution Recommending Adoption of Proposed Ordinance 664, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Permitted an Conditionally Permitted Accessory Buildings. Special Planning Case No. SP-075-00. Discussion and Review of Proposed Ordinance 663, an Ordinance Creating Language to Administer and Regulate Tattoo and Body Piercing Establishments. Discussion of Proposed Ordinance 658, an Ordinance Clarifying Language Pertaining to Fences and Fence Heights, and Consideration of Resolution 625-00, a Resolution Recommending Adoption of Proposed Ordinance 658 Staff Reports / Items of Information Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports � 3. Citizen's Requests and Comments on Iterris Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 4. Approval of Minutes A. June 7, 2000 Page 11 .}:.. -�;,��,+�".Ft+z�, 12 14 15 17 MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Kaden to approve the June 7, 2000 rneeting minutes as corrected 5. Ayes — 6 Nays - 0 Motion carri.ed. Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution 622-00, a Resolution Recommending to the City Council Adoption of the Updated Local Water Management Plans as Presented by SEH, Inc. Community Development Director Jopke reviewed that at several past meetings, the Planning Commission discussed the update to the Surface Water Management Plan as prepared by SEH, Inc. He noted the Commission had requested additional language which has been prepared and presented for the Planning Corrunission's review. Staff recommends the Planning Commission pass Resolution 622-00 to recommend approval of the plan by the City Council. He noted the attendance of a representative from SEH, Inc. should there be any questions. �- � ��;;�- _ � _ � -�- - - _ _ -- - _ _ -_ - -- _ _ _ - - Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 Commissioner Miller and Community Development Director Joplce noted several typographical errors and requested that they be corrected. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Kaden to approve Resolution 622-b0, a Resolution Recommending City Council Approval of the Updated Local Surface Water Management Plan as prepared by SEH, Inc. Ayes — 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 6. Planning Case No. ZC00-002 Property Involved: 2387 Highway 10 Discussion and Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution 623-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Major Subdivision and Development Review Regarding a Walgreens Drugstore and Proposed Restaurant at the Northeast Corner of Highway 10 and Edgewood Drive Applicant: TOLD Development Company (Representative: Bob Cunningham) The applicant was present. : �:��'; Planner Ericson gave the staff report as follows: Bob Cunningham, representing TOLD Development Company, is requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to construct a Walgreens Drugstore and restaurant at the northeast corner of Highway 10 and Edgewood Drive on property commonly referred to as the City's "remnant parcel" aiid the Midland Videen property. Mr. Cunningham is proposing to swap approximately 8 acres of the Midland Videen site for the remnant parcel, which is approximately 1 acre. It is proposed that the stormwater pond on the remnant parcel would be relocated to high ground within the 8 acre Midland Videen site. Planner Ericson reviewed that this application was considered at three Planning Commission meetings and the issues of the site plan, drainage, platting, signage, and parking have been thoroughly discussed. The consideration now before the Planning Commission is a resolution recommending approval to the City Council of the development review, preliminary plat for the proposed Mounds View City Hall addition, and the rezoning of the parcels from B-3, Business Commercial, and PF, Public Facilities, to a PUD designation. He noted the updated site plans that were provided to the Planning Commission. Planner Ericson stated his staff report indicates the requirement for a minimum 7-foot path that was given preliminary approval by the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer. He corrected it to indicate a minimum 9-foot path to match what is on the theater property. He advised that the cost differential between a 7-foot and 9-foot trail is not significant in the view of staff. � -, � �� _ � .,_ _._._. ------ -- - - - ---. . % =, ` i '' '. `� �.;. - _- --_— - --`�' '-= ` _ - , _ ; -; --- - . . _ -_.. - �_-� ., _ _--- � ----- � Monnds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 Planner Ericson stated the drainage plan is in its final form and has been reviewed by the City Engineer who indicated the outlet from the subject parcels could be put in a more appropriate location. �" Commissioner Laube arrived at 7:10 p.m. Planner Ericson stated it would be more appropi-iate to relocate the storm drain to disturb as little wetland as possible, which will occur. All other aspects of the drainage are satisfactory and the Rice Creelc Watershed District has indicated support for what is being proposed. He stated the only other change that will occur with the site plan is the addition of a safety bench within the storm water pond to provided an added measure of safety. Planner Ericson noted the specifications for lighting fixtures. He explained the plans showed four shoe-box style lighting fixtures along the Highway 10 trailway and staff recommends, instead, five decorative lights which are the same as will be installed along Edgewood Drive. Planner Ericson noted the inclusion of the proposed res'olution and recommended it be corrected to explicitly state the rezoning will be from PF and B-3 to PUD. He proposed a revision to the Resolution title, advising that staff will insert that language and correct the trail width to 9 feet. Planner Ericson noted the attendance of Bob Cunningham and offered to answer questions. Bob Cunningham, representative of T,OLD Developznent Company, stated he has no issue with increasing the trail width to nine feet. He stated the monuznent signage is proposed for the intersection of Edgewood Drive and Highway 10 but he does not have a colored rendering of the proposed signage. He presented a colored rendition of the proposed building, noting there will be no signage on two of the elevations. He stated this rendering shows the color of the brick being closely matched to that of the theater, Community Center, and City Hall buildings. He stated a metal cap will also be added to the corner element to add a similar design feature as contained on the Community Center. Commissioner Miller aslced if the plans include a pylon sign. Ivlr. Cunningham stated they do not propose a pylon sign but do propose a 65 square foot monument sign in lceeping with the style of the City Hall monument sign. The brick base will match the building bricic and the sign will be on top of that. He stated a similar sign will also be proposed for the restaurant site. Commissioner Thomas asked if the right-out turning movement has been eliminated from Hibhway 10. Mr. Cunningham stated they had requested a right-in/right-out from. Ramsey County but that was denied and a right-in only was granted which Walgreens has`now agreed to. Commissioner Kaden stated the corner of Lot 2 shows an area jutting into the wetland and aslced if that is a change. � i� --- - _ • = _ __- u - - - - --: - ___ - ` - - Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 Mr. Cunningham stated it is a slight change at the request of Culver's Restaurant to accommodate a future parlcing expansion area, if needed. He clarified that area is not being requested today for parlcing, but the lot line is being changed to allow Culver's to retain the area should it occur that they need additional parlcing in the future. He noted using that area for parking would not be easy, and would involve wetland mitigation. He agreed with the staff recommendation to remove the notation that it is a parking area since that is not being proposed at this time. In response to Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Cunningham explained the right-in is designed as requested by the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer so it will not be perceived as a high speed slip off lane and would require a turning movement at about 15 miles per hour. He noted ihis design would slow the cars substantially as they exit from Highway 10 and malce the turning movement into the parlcing lot. Mr. Cunningham advised they have used a similar design in another area where a trail was in the vicinity and found it worked well. Commissioner Johnson reviewed the discussion held by the Steering Committee relating to the configuration of trail to slow down the speed of bicycles. Mr. Cunningham stated they will worlc with staff to assure that an acceptable design is included. He suggested this is a good first step in the right direction for the use of Highway 10. Planner Ericson reviewed proposed coYrections to the resoution including a corrected title, a revision to the NOW, THEREFOR$ BE IT RESOLVED paragraph on Page 3 to add the wording: "the rezoning of land from B-3 and PF to PUD," and another revision to Page 3, sub l a, to state "The biturriinous trailway shall be changed to a 9-foot width." MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Johnson to approve Resolution 623-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of (1) A Preliminary Plat of a Major Subdivision, (2) A Development Review Stage of a Proposed Planned Unit Development, (3) A Rezoning Of The Properties from B-3, Highway Business, and PF, Public Facilities to PUD, Planned Unit Development, and (4) An Exchange of Land for and with TOLD Development Company; Planning Case No. ZC00- 002. Ayes - 7 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Mr. Cunningham stated his appreciation for the careful consideration of the Planning Conunission on this application and stated he loolcs forward to bringing quality development to the City of Mounds View. 7. Planning Case No. ZC00-003 Property Involved: 2200 Highway 10 ° Public Hearing and Discussion Regarding the General Concept of the Mermaid Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 97-Room Hotel and Banquet Center Addition Applicant: The Mermaid, Inc., (Representative: Dan Hall, President) ! ' � � _ _ , .. � , r .�- � : • - = y � - - -- -�t ` � � : �_,. � �� ._ . �_ .:_ - --- --..�_�_ _ - - . ..___�..- - --t---°--- � - - -- ---- - - • _~ -- --- Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting The applicant was present. Planning Associate Planner Ericson gave the staff report as follows: Jnly 19, 2000 Pa�e 6 Dan Hall, representing The Mermaid, is requesting City approval of a general concept plan to construct a 97-room hotel and a 500-seat banquet center to be attached to and integrated with the existing complex. The general concept plan is the first stage of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. If the City approves the concept plan, the developer would then prepare the balance of the submittal (landscaping, detailed site plans, drainage, signage, elevations, phoiometric analysis, etc.) for city consideration, which is referred to as the development stage of the PUD. Both stages (concept and development stages) require a public hearing. The final stage of the PUD is the administrative approval. A public hearing notice was published in the newspaper and notices mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject properties for this meeting. In addition to the PUD, the applicant has also applied for a major subdivision, which would combine all of the subject properties into one platted parcel (presumably, Lot 1, Blocic 1, Mermaid Addition). Action on the major subdivision is not scheduled at this meeting. Planner Ericson noted the comprehensive plan does designate this as a mixed unit/Planned Unit Development so this application would be consistent with that designation and the zoning. Planner Ericson noted there have been several subrnittals identifying the parl�ing and building configuration. He�advised that Perlcins has decided to not renew their lease so that property will be included in this project. The Mermaid also closed on the rental property and applied for a demolition permit for that property. The Music Off 10 property and part of the business park property that provides the access from Highway 10 will also be incorporated in this project. Planner Ericson explained that as part of the project, all the parcels would be combined and the access drive location shifted to the west to allow for contiguous parking on the site. Planner Ericson stated there is a small holding pond on the business park property that would be relocated as part of a larger reg-ional storm water pond that would be constructed on the school district and metro waste property. Planner Ericson noted the City was awarded a grant to assist with the development of the regional pond. The Rice Creelc Watershed District has reviewed the project, as has the City Engineer, County Engineer, Metropolitan Council Waste Management Division, and all are pleased to see the storm water pond be installed. He advised that currently, all of the water drains, unfiltered, from this site directly into Rice Creek so it is a benefit to divert the water into a settlement pond and assure the water going into Rice Creek is treated. It would also reduce the spikes of water inflow into the Creek during heavy storms. Flanner Ericson reviewed the proposed parking of 972 spaces, noting 977 parlcing stalls are required by Code, but since this is a PUD, the City can consider the complementary uses this development would have to determine the appropriate number of parlcing spaces. He noted the required parking setbacics and pointed out that the site plan identifies a 1-foot setback from County Road H. Staff would recommend that be changed to a 5-foot setback. He noted there appears to be room on the site to accommodate this 5-foot setbacic. � . � -- _ � --_-_ _ � .. - - --- � - — _- = _ _ , _ _ - Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting P�ge � Planner Ericson stated the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer indicated no objection to a trail on County right-of-way but the applicant inquired regarding the need for a trail in this location. He stated this issue could be worlced out during the process. Planner Ericson stated these are general plans and staff's recommendation is for approval of the general concept plan, with the 5-foot setbacic change, which would be considered by the City Council. He advised that this is a public heaxing so notices were published and sent to property owners within 350 feet of the site. Dan Hall, representing The Mermaid, presented a colored rendition of the proposed project identifying the southwest cornet• of the 4-story AmericInn and attached banquet facility. He explained the regional holding pond will clean drainage not only from this site but also from County Road H, Horse and R.ider, Pettibone, Herbst, and Perlcins properties. He stated this is the largest area of untreated water in Mounds View and a grant was awarded to address the need to treat that drainage prior to it entering the Creek. Mr. Hall offered to answer questions of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kaden asked if the drainage for businesses past Music Off 10 is addressed. Mr. Hall stated it is not. Commissioner Kaden aslced if this will;be enougli parking as proposed. Mr. Hall stated the parking is appropriate when considered on a year-round basis. He noted the parking lot is designed in regional sections to allow clients to parlc close to the use they desire. However, since the building is connected, it allows you to enter the building and walk inside to the desired venue. Mr. Hall explained how they anticipate groups of people to arrive at the site, noting the various uses anticipate activity at different times. He commented on the importance of offering adequate parking and stated he is comfortable with the number of parking spaces being proposed. Corrunissioner Miller aslced if tl�e dining area will be opened to the public. Mr. Hall stated they are not adding square footage to the existing upstairs facility and the banquet center will be a new area. Commissioner Thomas noted the dining area being referred to by Commissioner Miller already exists. Mr. Hall stated that is correct and that it is a public dining area. Chairperson Peterson inquired regarding the exterior finishes. Truman Howell, architect representing the Mermaid, stated the hotel will be a 96 to 97 roorn facility and construction will be with precast concrete floors and party vvalls constructed of concrete block for soundproofing as developed in the AmericInn programs. The exterior is made I T- _ _ �'�.14. r . . . ' i .-' _��.____ '_....e -... L� ... �� - - .. ,_-.` �_ . 1 "_ __.' �__ �.�.�.. F�. �' _ � i � E �s . _r'- � � �. �. . G�-s3 .s . . " . _ "_ - . _ 1 .,v _ -. _ ..� .. .. . �_. .. �_�. ._.__.. <.'_ .__'__ � Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 of EFIS and decorations. He stated EFIS is a stucco-lilce material that is amenable to detailing and reveals to provide exterior character. Chairperson Peterson aslced how the exterior finishes of the new addition fit with the existing building. Mr. Howell stated the existing building is fairly simple so not much worlc will be needed. He �'�` explained that the east side of the building, the water park area and plaza, and the existing structure will all blend together. He stated they plan to add a new entry to the existing restaurant area in a style that is compatible with the new structure. Mr. Howell stated they are sensitive to the need to assure the structures blend and hold their character. Chairperson Peterson opened the public hearing at 7:51 p.m. Commissioner Kaden stated there is a holding pond behind Music Off 10 and another pond exists between the two existing buildings. He asked if tliat is where the new pond will be located. Planner Ericson stated the new pond will be farther west on County Road H, just beyond the Herbst property. City Engineer Keehn stated there are some wetlands in this area and they are aware there will be some impacts to this wooded wetland area. He stated the wetland has been delineated. City Engineer Keehn explained they would incorporate the pond into the school's environmental system and add diversity to provide different types of wetlands. In this case, it will create more open water wetland areas for birds and ducics. He advised this is acceptable with the Rice Creek Watershed District and reviewed the additional calculations that would occur prior to construction. Commissioner Kaden aslced how the filtration concept works. City Engineer Keehn stated the theory is that if there is enough depth in the pond, it will provide treatment, along with assuring there is enough distance between the entry and outfall. He stated in theory the pond will provide a 25-year sediment loss but this rate can depend on the amount of sand and salt in the water drainage. Chairperson Peterson aslced if the business park property will be tied into this drainage system. City Engineer Keehn stated the actual drainage treatment area includes the south part of the existing business park building and a small area to the east. Chairperson Peterson asked if the entire business parlc area to the north will be included City Engineer Keehn stated it will not be included but the erosion concerns of the school will be addressed. He stated this project will also address the undeveloped area to the north that is zoned industriaUcommercial wkuch will need its own sedimentation pond but discharge through this area. This project will be designed to accommodate that in the future. � : _ . , ` I - � —=—�--- `==-- : _ _ _ - : , ---_ -_- _ , . -- __ _--- = ' � Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 Chairperson Peterson aslced about the school district's desire to make trail improvements. City Engineer Keehn stated the school may loolc at improving or expanding the trail system and this pond design will accommodate that as well. He noted this pond is desigiied as a regional pond so it will address drainage for that entire area. Commissioner Hegland asked if there is a requirement or Code that dictates the number or location of entrances and exits. Planner Ericson stated thai type of restriction to limit the number of entrances is not included for commercial uses. He noted four accesses are being requested and those four exist today. He noted the Rent All business has two additional access points but they will be.removed. Commissioner Hegland stated it appears one entrance per road would be more realistic and cause fewer problems. Planner Ericson stated with having almost 1,000 parl�ing stalls, limiting to one access on Highway 10 and one access on County Road H may be problematic, especially considering the uses include a banquet hall. From staff's perspective, reducing from six access points to four is a good situation. He stated staff believes the proposed configuration will work out and provide sufficient traffic flow. Commissioner Miller inquired regarding the distance between the points of access. Commissioner Kaden estimated there is about 230 feet of separation between two access points and about 250 feet of separation between the other two. Chairperson Peterson stated he believes the number of proposed access points to be appropriate. Commissioner Kaden aslced if the access road to the business park identified on the plan exists today in this alignment. Planner Ericson stated the plan before the Planning Commission identifies the proposed driveway with the relocated access points. Commissioner Miller inquired regarding the exact number of rooms being proposed, noting 96, 97, and 100 rooms have been mentioned. Planner Ericson stated the application is for 96 or 97 rooms, given internal configurations and what will fit. Mr. Hall explained that with every hotel you have to provicte for meeting rooms, storage, etc. and it is an internal decision if they should add a meeting room and eliminate a sleeping room. He explained those decisions have yet to be made but the square footage would remain the same. Mr. Howell explained that there are many con�gurations and provided details of how hotel l.ulits are configured in several other hotel projects. _ - -� . - � ` --= ' ---- _ � _ _ " _ . _ ` E- r_ � �� F �yYi��. K �� ..._ �. _ �^.?s �_�'�� { .. . r �. - '_"". �Y . . _.,. � � ,: , �._""-. _ _�__ " ""'"� ""_ ...-�_��.._.._ ..a-::=__ � �' ._ _ . ______ . .. I Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 Chairperson Peterson noted the economic issues with this project have been discussed by the Council. Planner Ericson stated there have been Council discussions and staff has been directed to work with the Mermaid to finalize the financing package. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish stated the preliminary financing package is a pay- as-you-go TIF arrangement, as opposed to up front bonding, with a not-to-exceed amount of $2.5 million. He stated those are the rough parameters that staff is worlcing with. He explained that with a pay-as-you-go arrangement, the money received depends on the project's ability to generate tax revenue. . Chairperson Peterson stated if the project has come to this point, it means the financing issues are believed to be feasible. Mr. Howell stated staff will provide a report at the August 4, 2000 meeting of the EDA with the proposal finalized. Bob Hajak, legal representative for the Mermaid, advised that John G. Kinnard has provided a letter of agreement and a dialogue is occurring between them, the developer, and the City. He advased that John G. Kinnard is anxiouS to close on the property. Commissioner Miller inquired regarding the water parlc. Mr. Hall stated the pool will be oversized and contain fountains, a larger seating area, and be more than a pool in an effort to attract family business. Commissioner Miller asked if it will be available only to the patrons of the hotel. Mr. Hall stated he is unaUle to answer how the end use will be handled but noted they have always been a strong supporter of the community and he believed there were possibilities in the future. He clarified, however, that it would never be open to the public. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Laube to approve the Resolution 62b-00, a Resolution Recommending City Council Approval of the General Concept Plan Regarding the Proposal to Construct a Hotel and Banquet Center at the Mermaid, Located at 2200 Highway 10; Planning Case No. ZC00-003. Ayes — 7 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Planner Ericson stated the City Council will hear this proposal on August 7, 2000 and it will be considered for action at their regular meeting of August 14, 2000. After that, he expects the development plans will be submitted for Planning Commission consideration. Mr. Hall thanked the Planning Cornmission for their consideration of this �roject. -�--- -�-- � i -_ _ _ - �� : �- - =-----==-= -- - . _ _ _--- -- Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 11 8. Special Planning Case SP-079-00 Consideration of Resolution 624-00, a Resolution Recommending Adoption of Proposed Ordinance 664, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Penmitted an Conditionally Permitted Accessory Buildings Planner Ericson gave the staff report as follows: Staff has been directed to worlc with the Planning Commission to draft language revisiting the Zoning Code regarding sheds and accessory structures. The Planning Goinmission initiated discussion on the issue on June 7, 2000 and continued discussion on June 21, 2000. Based on the input and comments generated at these two rneetings, staff drafted Ordinance 664, which amends Chapter 1106 of the Zoning Code pertaining to accessory buildings. The ordinance was reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 5, 2000 and direction was given to staff to draft a resolution recommending to the City Council adoption of the ordinance. The only changes made to the proposed ordinance that was reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 5 2000, were to underline the added text in subdivision la on Page 2 and to re-letter the subsequent subparts of that same subdivision. Planner Ericson explained that it is lioped this will be a benefit to the City. He stated the Council looked at this at their work session and they felt this was a huge step in the right direction, and would benefit the City's residents. Planner Ericson stated the Council conveyed its thanks to the Planning Commission for talcing on this project to create an ordinance to address this issue. Commissioner Hegland aslced about the height of the building, noting there is a 15-foot limit. He stated if someone has a home with a steep roof pitch, a height of 15 feet may prevent them from matching roof styles. Planner Ericson explained it is measured as 15 feet from the ground to the midpoint of the truss so it does allow for flexibility with higher-pitched roofs. Also, if there is living space above the garage, a roof line could be maintained that way as well. Chairperson Peterson aslced if that type of language is a common practice. Community Development Director Jopke presented a diagram to better explain the area of measurement and advised this is standard Zoning Ordinance language. Planner Ericson stated that during his employment with Mounds View, there has only been one request for a taller roof and that was only for several more inches. Chairperson Peterson stated he wants to assure, since a change is being made, that the language is adequate to address the requests that will be received. Commissioner Thomas suggested a wording change on Page 5, subdivision 6, to indicate "Accessory building" rather than "Accessory buildings." _ ! � . - ---- - - __ ;. � �. ; : _ _ _ _ _ i -:'-�--. � - = -_ ��---_-- - x�, z�_..�_ ._ ��_.._. :-�� __#._.�..-.::. _ . _� � '� �. -�-._- !: . Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 12 Planner Ericson noted other sections use the plural word forrn and explained it is relating to the zoning district not to one specific lot. However, that could be changed, if directed, to the word "building." Corninissioner Miller reviewed the language on Page 2, subdivision la, and suggested the word "allotted" be changed to the word "allowed." Planner Ericson stated the City Atiorney also commented on the use of the word "allotted" and agreed with the suggestion to use the word "allowed." Commissioner Miller referred to the language on Page 3, subdivision. b, and aslced if the Fire Code should be mentioned when there is only a 3-foot separation. She also asked whether a special iire wall is required. Planner Ericson stated the Zoning Code zequires a 6-foot separation but the Building Code requires a 3-foot separation. He stated that staff will verify the Fire Code requirement and make the appropriate correction, if needed. Chairperson Peterson suggested the Fire Marslial also be aslced about the issue of eave separation. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Kaden to approve Resolution 624-00, a Resolution Reconlmending Approval of Proposed Ordinance 664, an Ordinance Amending Title 1100, Chapter 1106, Regarding Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Accessory Buildings; Special Planning Case SP-079-00. �-: ;��,, Ayes — 7 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Planner Ericson advised that a public hearing has been scheduled before the City Council on July 24, 2000 9. Special Planning Case SP-075-00 Discussion and Review of Proposed Ordinance 663, an Ordinance Creating Language to Administer and Regulate Tattoo and Body Piercing Establishments Planner Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The City Council placed a 6-month moratorium prohibiting any tattoo shops or body piercing establishments to be located in the City. The 6-month period will expire on August 14, 2000. The proposed ordinance creates licensing requirements and adds minimal language to the Zoning Code as to the appropriate zoning designations in which such a use could be located. - _y` - , . _�-:. � �: i _ � � : ; _ - i� .:':_�J 1'�"._____-_ � . ; . . - ._ -._ :. _ Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regnlar Meeting Page 13 Planner Ericson noted the memorandum from the City Attorney's office providing feedback. He advised that a copy was also provided to the Police Chief and the Assistant to the City Administrator. He stated this ordinance was based on a City of Richfield ordinance and revised to fit the City of Mounds View in all references. Planner Ericson noted the rnemorandum from Bob Vose and recommendation that there be no spacing requirements from other types of uses since there is no documentation saying these types of uses are inappropriate or should be a certain distance from a school, cliurch, etc. He stated at this point the only separation language being contemplated is a 1,000 foot separation from other such establishments. Accordingly, Planner Ericson recommended a revision to Page 11, 1113.02, subdivision 3a to strilce the words: "500 feet from any educational facility, place of worship and shall be separated by no less than." . Planner Ericson stated the Planning Comrnission will need to consider which zoning districts this type of business is appropriate to be allowed, noting staff has suggested it be allowed in the B-2, B-3 and B-4 business zoning districts. Commissioner Hegland aslced why a 1,000 foot separation between similar uses can be required but not a separation from other uses. Planner Ericson explained that spacing distances can be required to assure there is not a strip mall created of similar piercing businesses. Commissioner Hegland stated it appears if a restriction can be required between common businesses, the other separation requirement is no different. He asked if there is B-2 property adjacent to residential. Planner Ericson stated almost all commercial districts in Mounds View are next to residential districts. Commissioner Johnson stated the separation between like businesses will limit the number of businesses and prevent concentration. Planner Ericson clarified it is 1,000 feet as measured from the property boundary which restricts two similar businesses on the same property. Cornmissioner Kaden noted the licenses required and aslced if that is required in St. Paul or if Richfield has any body piercing businesses. Plannez• Ericson stated he is not aware. Commissioner Kaden stated he called such a business and found the tattoo shop is licensed but none of the employees are licensed individually. Planner Ericson stated the City wants to assure the operators are responsible and can be held liable. Commissioner Miller noted the language does not identify who is doing the licensing. � . . 1.-. � . ' ' " _ . . .. ' - -- --- - -,..�-�.Y-��=�'"�-- �--=�' � - - ' ---' -°-' � ... _ , . ------- . . y_ __..: . _ �; . _ .___,_ ,. . -� . .. _ _ _ --'--'-- . . . _ v- � Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 14 Planner Ericson stated since it is within the Mounds View City Code, that is understood and implied. Commissioner Miller asked if body painting as defined in the definition section means a permanent application. Planner Ericson stated there are types of inlc that are not necessarily permanent but have a permanence to them, such as henna inlc which is not injected under the slcin and wears off over time. He noted the definition of "tattoo specialist" which is referenced in the other areas. Commissioner Miller reviewed the remaining sections of the proposed ordinance and requested modifications to provide consistency in word usage and capitalization, and to correct wording. Planner Ericson stated staff will make the requested revisions. Commissioner Kaden noted the exception paragraph addresses only ear piercing which would not include other body piercing. ;,�,`�� '`�'��i..., Planner Ericson stated that is correct. Chairperson Peterson asked if anyone has made application for such a business. Planner Ericson stated he is not aware of any and, technically, the Council should extend the moratorium an additional two months to cover the time during which the ordinance is being considered and becomes effective. He stated he will ask the City Attorney about that issue to assure it is addressed. 10. Discussion of Proposed Ordinance 658, an Ordinance Clarifying Language Pertaining to Ferices and Fence Heights, and Consideration of Resolution 625-00, a Resolution Recommending Adoption of Proposed Ordinance 658. Plaruiing Associate Planner Ericson gave the staff report as follows: Tlle drafting of Ordinance 658 resulted from a series of discussions held by both the Planning Commissiorl and City Council earlier this year regarding a properiy owner's variance request far a tall fer�ce in her front yard. The request, as the Commission may recall, was denied due to a perceived lack of properiy-related hardship. The City Council ultimately overturned the Planning Commission's decision, citing the documented harassment of police activity next door as the governing hardship. Through this process, it became apparent that there should be a provision ptaced in the Code that would allow for some flexibility in dealing with unusual situations that would not normally be considered "hardships." The proposed ordinance contemplates the addition of one sentence of text to Section 1103.08, Subdivision 3a., which states: � • � :.�{ 1 � : ._ �. L �t �� Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 15 "The City Cou��cil »zay require or approve fe�acin,� up to niizetv-six inclzes (96" in height in a front vard to satisfv a bu�'fer or screening condition o a developrnent review or co�aditional use ep rmit '• The addition of this language would have the effect of allowing for taller than normal fences (up to 8') if required by the City Council or requested by the applicant for buffering or screening purposes. Planner Ericson explained that this provides another avenue of consideration other than a variance procedure. If the Commission is comfortable with this language, staff would recommend approval of Planning Commission Resolution 625-00, a Resolution Recommending Adoption of Ordinance 658, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1103 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Fences and Fence Heights. Commissioner Johnson stated his support for the proposed ordinance which will provided added privacy. Commissioner Miller asked why the height is stated in a measurement of inches rather than in feet. Planner Ericson stated there is no reason and both can be stated. He reported a public hearing is scheduled for Monday, July 24, 2000 with the City Council. Commissioner Kacien stated his back lot line is his neighbor's side lot line and asked if this ordinance would allow him to place an 8-foot fence to within 30 feet from the road. Planner Ericson stated some interpretation is needed with that type of situation and staff has approved fences wllere one back yard property abuts another's side yard. He commented on the difficulty in wording an ordinance to address every situation that could occur. Planner Ericson advised that staff created diagrams for residents who want to put up a fence so they can better understand the regulations. MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Johnson to approve Resolution 625-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Proposed Ordinance 658, an Ordinance Amending Title 1100, Chapter 1103, Regarding Fences and Height of Fences; Special Planning Case SP-080-00. Ayes — 7 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 11. Staff Reports / Items of Information Ao Pervious Council Actions Community Development Director Joplce reported on previous Council actions pertaining to Planning Commission cases. He advised that the Council scheduled two public hearings for the ordinance on fence height and accessory buildings. At the worlc session on July 17, a presentation was made by the Rice Creek Watershed District Administrator regarding a potential . 3�� . _ _ . _ _ .. __ .. . . .. . . . . � . . . -.. . . � _ . . . _ .. _ . . . . . . . . . _ : J�l�__�___ .. �. .... . �. :- .._ . ' . " � . _. .'! .. �i ."_� i�-. r _.:_' . _ _-, Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 16 project in the Greenfield Park area and their interest to worlc with the City to create additional storm water llolding ponds. The intent would be to provide additional storm water treatment and rate control prior to entering Rice Creelc. Cornmunity Developrnent Director Joplce stated the Council gave approval of the concept and for Rice Creek to proceed with developing more detailed plans so neighborhood meetings can be held. Community Development Director Joplce reported the Council established a schedule for 2001 � budget discussions. ' Community Development Director Joplce advised that another issue addressed was truck traffic limits on County Road H as requested by Beverly Adair due to Murphy Warehouse truck traffic. Ms. Adair is asking that trucks be prohibited on County Road H. It was determined that County Road H is a County State Aid road so trucks could not be prohibited but the County said the City could put hours of day limits on the truck traffic. However, Ms. Adair also sent letters to Murphy Warehouse. They have been working to reduce the level of truck traffic on County Road H. Currently, Ms. Adair is happy with the results. The Counci] discussed this and truck trafiic on County Road H2, and directed staff to loolc into the matter further with the potential to establish hourly restrictions in cooperation with the City of Fridley on County Road H. Comnnunity Development Director Joplce stated the Council received an update on Local Surface Water Managernent Plan by the City Engineer. Also, discussion was held on public notice requirements and issues relating to notification of apartments and other properties where the owner is noticed. The Council was aslced to establish a policy for future notification and they directed staff to coi�duct further research on the procedure and costs to expand notiiication. Community Development Director Joplce stated the Walgreen proposal was presented as well as proposed lighting on Edgewood Road. Bo Highway 10 Steering Committee Update Community Development Director Jopke provided an update on the community xneeting which was held on July 11 and attended by about 20 people to discuss issues and priorities related to Highway 10. He advised it was clear that safety was the number one priority so the Steering Committee, staff, and the consultant will meet again next week to look at those priorities and how they are presented to assure that safety is a top priority. Community Development Director Jopke advised that a report will be presented to the Council in August and authorization requested to draft detailed action and financing plans. Chairperson Peterson stated he felt a lot of good information was presented at the community meeting but, perhaps, a better explanation should have been given to explain why some of the items were included on the priority list for Highway 10. Commissioner Miller stated there are certain things you cannot do anything about, such as bicyclers coming from Perkins and crossing Highway 10 traffic lanes. Community Development Director Jopke explained how walls and berms can be used to create more separation. -� .�t . ; � _ `� . --_ -�,� . -__,, . � ' - , ; � �_ _ .,... .- - -- -- _ - -- = - =_- _ _ _ .._- -- -- --.�� Mounds View Planning Cocnmission July 19, 2000 Regular Meetfng Page 17 Commissioner Thomas stated residents were concerned about the placexnent of trails along the highway since it allows trail users to leave the trail area to cross the highway. Commissioner Johnson agreed there was a misconception with residents who had the impression that curbs and landscaping would immediately be installed along the trail. Chairperson Peterson reported on a recent near-accident by Taco Bell when a group of pedestrians were attempting to cross Highway 10 after the signal light had turned green. Commissioner Kaden commented on a location along University Avenue that has a fenced area to prevent pedestrian crossing activity which he believed did not loolc very good Commissioner Thomas noted several areas by Northtown Shopping Center where shrubs make it inore difficult to cross the area. She suggested there are other methods that can be used, noting it is not a good idea to locate all of the City's trails along the highway. 12. Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports No reports were considered. A. �"�' 13. Adjournment � rc ��:. There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9:23 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, �. ��: �� ,� �� Ricic Joplce Corrununity Development Director Transcribed by: Carla Wirth TznieSavef� Off Site Secretarial, Inc. � .. -_:_.,. . _��=.y. l�-- - - = - -_� �-=-- 1. 2. 3. 4 _ _ ---- L ' MOUNDS VIEW PLA,NNING CONIlVIISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 20q0 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Call to Order Roll Ca11 Citizens Requests and Comments on Ttems Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAHING, PLEASE COME TO TIiE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE NIINUTES Approve Planning Commission Minutes: a. July 19, 2000 5. Planning Case Noa VR00-005 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 631-00, a Resolution Approving a Front Yard Setback Variance Craig Walters, 8141 Edgewood Drive. 6. Planning Case No. VR00-006 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 632-00, a Resolution Denying a Side- yard Setback Variance for Jim Trapp, 8018 Sunnyside Road. 7. Planning Case No. VR00-007 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 633-00, a Resolution Approving a Parking Lot Setback Variance for Tony Mezzenga„ 7664 Greenfield Avenue. 8. Planning Case No. MI00-002 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 634-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision of 2474 and 2488 Couniy Road H2 Requested by RTM Management, Inc. 9. Planning Case No. VR00-007 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 635-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Development Review for the Mermaid Planned Unit Development, requested by Dan Hall, 2200 Highway 10. 10. Planning Case No. 560-99 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 636-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Extension of a Conditional Use Permit for an Assisted Living Senior Residential Facility at 2670 County Road I, Requested by MSP Real Estate. APPLICA.NTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT (763) 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. (OVER) ,.,. _ Planning Commission Agenda September 6, 2000 Page 2 11. Staff Reports / Items of Information a. Previous Council Action b. 12. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 13. Adjournment to Agenda Session (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) AGENDA SESSION AGENDA 1. Review the Minutes from the August 2, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting. H:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMM�PCAGENDA�2000\Sept 6, 2000 PC Agendadoc . _�.� 1 � _ _ -- __ . _ _ W �_ _ _ _ _ ( _ . _ � .: . - -_- - ' : -:�,_ --�--- , ?�� _ : �-----=- - -r.. • - ._�,- - . � �. . � - f ij . C ( � Item # 5 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: Septeinber 6, 2000 TatCeo DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 631-00, A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FRONT YARD SETBACK VAKTANCE FOR CRAIG WALTERS AT 8141 EDGEWOOD DRIVE IntNOduction: Craig Walters, property owner of 8141 Edgewood Drive, has applied for a variance to encroach into the front yard setback to allow for the construction of a 308 square-foot addition onto the north side of his house. The house, which was constructed in 1946, was built at an angle on the lot and is setback 24 feet from Edgewood Drive. The proposed addition would match the existing building and roof lines to maximize interior functionality and for aesthetic appeal. Discussion: For the Pla.nning Comrnission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body 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 critenia are met. The individual criteria, with responses, 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. Mr. Walter's home was constructed in 1946, twelve years before Mounds View became a City and before the Zoning Code was adopted. The house was built at a slight angle from the street, and at its closest point, is set back 25 feet from Edgewood Drive. The proposed addition would match the existing building line and would not increase the extent of the encroachment. b. The literal tnterpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other propertzes in the same district under the te�ms of this Title. The literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district. The applicant seeks to improve his property by adding on a 308 ._.., _ ___-- -. =� i . . . _ .. .. . . _ Walters Variance Report September 6, 2000 Page 2 square-foot addition to match the existing building and roof lines. The addition would not increase the extent of the encroachment. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The house was constructed at an angle and encroaches into the setback that was established 14 years after the home was built. The applicant is not responsible for this situation. d. Tliat granting the variance requested will not confer on the applica�zt any special privilege tlzat is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. The granting of this variance would not confer any special privileges to the applicant in that the extent of the encroachment would not increase with this addition. e. That the variance requested is the fnini�num variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. While it would be technically possible to construct the addition to meet the front setbacic by offsetting the addition by iive feet, because of structural issues, internal room configurations, existing landscaping and aesthetic issues, doing so would not be practical or beneficial to the resident. f. The variaT�ce would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The purpose of the variance provision in the Code is to give relief to property owners seeking to improve their properties yet are unable to do so because of zoning code requirements and factors beyond their control. Granting this variance for additional living space would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. g. The proposed varzance will not impair an adequate supply of light a�ad air to adjacent property or substantzally increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminzsh or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed expansion would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. According to the City Code, all of the preceding criteria shall be satisfied in order to justify the granting of a variance. It appears to staff that in this case all requirements are met and that a hardship does exist. .. : _ __ _ _ _ :p : , F� ��_ _-__'__ .. _ _ �_-_'_'-'� . _. _ . �__ �_. . :' ' ' "'-_" ___... .- � ._"'. .' .'__-_ _"' ..__". _ ' '_ "_" _ .. """_ � Walters Variance Report September 6, 2000 Page 3 Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 631-00, a resolution approving a variance for a reduced front yard setback to allow for the construction of a 308 square-foot addition at 8141 Edgewood Drive, as requested by Craig Walters. � �.. C�.� ' � �'--�.(�-l� James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site and floor plan 5. Letter from Applicant, dated Aug. 9, 2000 6. Resolution 631-00 P:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\VR00-005\Walters Report - Sept. 6, 2000.doc c..'�� (= ?1��'�� '�%-� COIVIMUNTTY DEVELOPMENT DEP.ART'MENT � DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION d,:�,�� "•�, �;(;:,t;,;�' 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 ��'��=t''Partnexsr�Q� 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Tnformation � I, n� 1.�."" Name of Applicant �\ l�J 1�p j Address ( � c�'1 iU f Interest in Property (check appropriate box) �' OwnerofProperty o Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑ Other (explain) �k�Z �7v --v��v ifvi•.� ��3 7F�y — 799� Telephone Fax Grz .3�v �- 06�3 ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Agreement to Purchase Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a lettcr of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must siga this application for it to be accepted, Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location � �� Legal Description . �,;--� �� e� . ��- Iv� ,(3 jc�C�C 6 � �u,�c�-� n�) e��voc,ty .� Property Ident�cation # (PIN #) # of Acres Current Zoning Type of Application � ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Rezoning ❑ . Major Subdivision ❑ Minor Subdivision o Planned Unit Development (PUD) ❑ PUD Amendment ❑ ConditionaU7nterim Use Permit � Variance o Code Appeal o Develop Review/Site Plan ❑ Wetland Alteration Pemut [7 Wetland Buffer Pernut ❑ Floodplain Pemut o Other $250 $250/acre; min $250 max $1500 $250 -h $250 deposit* $200 Refer to rezoning fees $350 R-1, R-2 $75; all others $250 R-1, R-2 $100 all others $250 $100 $125/acre; min $I25 max $750 R-1, R-2 $150; all others $200 R-1, R-2 $25; all others $100 $200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materi als and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant wi[hin thirty (30) days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View, MN Development Apptication Pa�e 2 Present Use of Property ❑ UndevelopedNacant ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwetling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) Properly Class�cation Description of Proposal � Abstract � ❑ ❑ � Single Family Dwelling Multi-family Dwelling Industrial Establishment Torrens _ -��-.�- L��ci �e�-lrx�l< L��.�i��C� BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant (typed/printed) Signature of Property Owner Name of Properly Owner (typed/printed) Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner C� ��Gl� ' WCt,' • , �, t n.a.ur ,UC�.�.�� __ o ct�o. _ rt_ "��'S �l�i �d�� *********************�*******************************************************�****************** FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal `_'. ` 1"' � n C� Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Placuung Case No. �/' �� C� C� S 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: Account # Check # Receipt # Application: 1 O C� � 0 b 1� fl ��-I'(�r� _�k� ��—'' ��' l�'U � Park Dedication: ` Deposits: Other: Total: N:�DATA\GROUPSICOMDEV�FORMS�DEVAPP.FOR 1/98 . � : _ _ , � -- - ------- - `------ - - — ' --_ ._ ��=��7 =---- ---- - ' �- — ---- , �: i Zoning Map 8141 Edgewood Drive s�, s anos 'O 8aoo \ o aaos � 8395 8.388 � 8385 6384 6�75 8378 8365 E36D E325 Q 8321 � PF 83t5 8340 8305 f1330 8295 3310 8307 o sz�3 ARDAN 0 � 82E7 ssoo PARK _ z � 8255 8280 �. � M s2so Z a'-a3 N � � � � 825D O 8271 8247 o N a � i N N N �"'., 823 8239 8225 � r� 8224 � `� az,� •; szT2 �i s2os e�os � � ' s�� I -�—"__--�.�._" ;- ; ; ; s,so ----:�___-_�-_._ 'r i SIM1S L - - ',� 8140 8135 �4 8132 8121 >�:::� .- r� �A h N O� . � ,� u, ,� ;� ::� �� N N sio a�o� �� .� 7 fD 808�J � InA� N 8086 8071 8�72 P.060 soa5 aoas 8031 80:,8 80t9 8030 O soo� so�o � � 7993 7990 d 7985 7970 7961 �964 7951 795G HILLVIEW 79p� PARK ' PF w � � v _.:_ _�..__....'._. ---�--._.��._._..__._...-- �-�-,-� ,� / �' ��NET� �� , .� � j \ f• :•.:' i 1 � � � / / i ? � , 3� HWY . • � � .� o ��-, � v �... f v a°R ;� M M �� ' � -- �� -----'— CJ N N nl N �`i iv :�`•� -/� _�--�J IAPORT D -� ��'� L��J,...._ � O o N N �� r �, cv ro o ;� $140 v v � r� n �7 h� n M M "� '1 � N N N N' N (V N N N N-. N i!8133 '�� gt30 p 141 81� 8126 8123 1 812D t�il 8121 81 e O+ r1 C.7 O� M M f� � O� ��7 �n ^ O� in � N •! C] O O �� y7 O 7� �� p p v°> � < •`"r` d 8i10 w 81�1 a � r� � n n n r� r, n M, r, N �i N N N N N N N N CJ N (`I N SHERWO ROAD � 8085 °�i �°n a � ° o ° � � � v n � � o � IHOS I n � N � � 8 �5 ��' � � �i � M � _ \C J �� 8071 8070 075 r N�So �� / GREENFIE��'�={' � �----�-- sos� eoaa '�a� GR��NF�E�-� 7945 7944 8027 Roi 7943 , � �sai 7940 Q 7y3� PF "� �o � � ��a� `c z 793' 7836 � `�' r' 8005 Snl 7s35 rn •5n �' ` s 7953 7932 793� M N N� c� sc� 7989 ?988 7929 7928 79T_7 ,n � N N `o �'��'' ~ � 7925 792a 7523 �� NKN��'�" a�ff' �� s�i'. 7971 79tiB 7921 7920 � � N f �•:� ��, ` w 75 I 9 °�n M r' r�� 'c'� 7953 7948 w 7917 �p � q W = �J NnNn � �'�+� �,/� � 7913 7910 w 791,, �� N sG� �/ 7931 7930 �;9�9 7906 � 79Q9 N n, N� �' m�c 7eo�. Rq N � ,°in �n •Mt r� 7905 7900� �ILL.� �, �� .r a '�' � �� o, N iy CJ N ry JSO� � p tL�� M r7 r� M �'> N N C- 17 N N N [V N J 0 tn N 0 �i� ��-� Of N1 U1 1� OI � � ° --f "' o o79a � � � PF � � �7 M M M M M. � � � 7885 N �fJ ]$6Q 7865 N N � 'I tn Ifl �889 788 .r a a v �� CJ N N N N N CJ (V N N N� N�,: . N N N N N N O�OOy DR C+ _ � , �86s �ass �8�s �a�s �$s 7869 7860 � �,,i �, ) 7865 7852 7853 r 4`� g 7855� 56 t 567 E 561 561 Z c°� W 7870 ?86t 785 7857 785 � � � cv > 7855 7�6 g 7829 �-� 7836 3 7847 784 � 7845.784 � 784� 561 i/� 5612 561 � 561 Q T � 783v 7840 i.'. � 7837 7E3 78 25 S� 5606 560 560f c� 78t7 �; 7820 p 7833 7832 � � 7827 5601 5600 5601 5600 n 78t5 7800 �Q�o 7a1 �v.c 78' - - °' �'.�t_._ _ _ _ � . ... _ -. i . _ - :i r. �... � � ' _.. � _ . . _ _ . ._. ...,... _ . r . . ,. . . . . .'_ � " . . . ,___ _ _.. � .. .. .... ..... � '_""' � _ _. ti�.�. __' �it� of I�I+�unds Viev� - L��atiar� I�i�p� �� ■� �� w .��. � � �� r�.� �i�■� ■■ �I■ as ■�� s! . /S�1``r.._ ■�� ■ .�� Cra ig VIIa Ite rs Property Involved: Vari ance `�� ,� Planning Case No � 8141 Edgewood Drive VR00-005 � 8141 Edgewood Drive � Properties UVithin 350' : � _� � � _ __ _, _ , - �. __..__ ��fi.. .�_�. . '.- ' . . � - - �.�_.- :�__'��`. ..:- ". _._._�. .._ '_' .. - _._ -- -- - _ k-_.,_ _ - . --- - -----_�-� August 9, 2000 TO: The Mounds View Planning Commission RE: Variance request On August 9�' while trying to obtain a Building Permit I learned that my single family home at 25'S" from the front property line was within the 30' setbacic zoning ordinance. Thus initiating this rec�uest. When my home was constructed in 1946 I should be able to safely assume that it was set back from the property line according to the standard at that time. I should also note that three of the four houses that are not corner lots on the 8100 blocic of Edgewood are set back at 25' rather than 30'. Was or is there a special setback for our blocic of 25 feet? The addition that I have designed accommodates a couple of major issues. 1) The 10 feet of foundation nearest to the proposed addition has only three courses of blocic below grade with a 3 foot ledge and additional courses of blocic to malce a finished maximum height of 5' — 11"(see drawing). With 8" ductworlc and 6" x 6" floor beams there are several places with a height of 5' — 3". Rendering the space uninhabitable and virtually useless. 2) The proposed design also continues the interior and exterior lines of the house. This was done to malce the addition as unobtrusive as possible. We also wanted an addition that is functional and aesthetically pleasing to our neighbors and us. This addition will bring our above grade finished size to 1130 square feet, thus complimenting the homes around us. Redesigning the addition to not require a variance has several drawbacics. 1) Setting the addition 5 feet back will make the addition an obvious afterthought that will talce away from the curb appeal of the home and detract from the surrounding houses. 2) A 5-foot design shift will also call for the removal of some large bushes and a large tree. These items provide a natural barrier between my neighbors' bacic yard and my side yard. They will then have an unobstructed view of the back of my house. They will feel as if I built the addition on their decic. 3) Redesigning the addition would also require an extensive amount of change to the existing structure. Our existing floor plan is not very open to change. When space is at a premium in a small house there is not a lot of room for reconfiguring of living spaces. And let's not forget about the load-bearing wall down the middle of the house. I hope that you are understanding of my concerns and will grant me a variance of my front property line for a space of 5' by 14'. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Craig Walters 8141 Edgewood Dr � �. — --=-- •-- - --- - -- --- ,. _ � . _ - - - =-- • Y; - _. - ___ - G , � 1J[j, � 1�l%��s J /.� �21 1/�'L-' ; � � ; � - ' � - I � '� N . n � -� v; : � � - f F-, �n _ � z � f fTS � ; � _.., � i � ro � I � o � ( 0 � c `� � � m � a o � � � z �� cn x d C7 � ► � � I I � � � � � � O � I i _ � i �� c� � � � G7 R1 oQ�c � ��o� m 0 3� o rn m � � �1 b � �j �*r V £ � D Cn jD I � ___ ��__ _ -�-- m -- -L-__ _ � i --_ � � .i � £ � Ec � I/ H o r r„ � V ...� o � I l� I � f o'N^ , � � � �� i� � o I / I '� '� I 3 � � � � � � ;------�______ �_ �.��' , , , � � i I i , i L_�,_^, 1 � r__y � I ' I � � I! ' \ I .: � i � r� - i ; � O U Z I b .`0 .� o / -t� � � r- H � z rn o� o� O � "� H � f'n d m � Ki . z m � � cv' • �ti C �j \ �' � �� y ��._.� I - ' .� - .. . . _ ' L . . ': ._ � � f�' _ � -.�. �._ ' . ' __ . ''"__' ..__'" '__- _____ . ... i ._'. .... � z,-= ' . . _. _ - .-... : ,.. -a-2Y+' . . -: _ _ , . . .. . . l MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 631-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF R.AIVISEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 1104.01, SUBD. 4, OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO SETBACKS TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCED FRONT YARll SETBACK FOR A BUILDING EXPANSION AT 8141 EDGEWOOD DRIVE, MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR00-005. WHEREAS, The applicant, Craig Walters, has applied for a variance to allow for the construction of a 308 square-foot addition onto his home located 8141 Edgewood Drive; and, WHEREAS, 8141 Edgewood Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: The South 90.00 feet of Lot 10, Blocic 6, Laport Meadows, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the home at this address was built in 1946 and is set back 25 feet from Edgewood Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site Plan 5. Staff Report WHEREAS, a public hearing was held regarding this variance request on Wednesday, September 6, 2000; and, _ : . _ � _ _ �f� �:�� _ __ �. . - - -- °- -__ _ __ . -------- _ --= --- - --- -_ .. . - ------ --_- 4 - - --- � � Resolution 631-00 September 6, 2000 Page 2 WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's control; 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, SE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Plaruung Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient hardship with regard to the property located at 8141 Edgewood Drive to warrant the approval of a variance for a 25-foot front yard setback for a proposed house addition, and malces the following findings of fact related to its decision: Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to 8141 Edgewood Drive which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity in that the home was constructed in 1946, 2S feet from the street and 14 years before the adoption of Zoning Code. 2. 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. 3. The variance request is the result of factors over which the applicant has had no control. 4. Granting the variance to allow for a 25-foot front yard setback would allow the applicant to malce improvements to his house consistent with the existing building a.nd roof lines. Approval would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege denied to others in the same district. 5. The Planning Commission finds that the requested 25-foot setback is the minimum variance that would alleviate the applicant's hardship. 6. Granting a variance for a reduced front yard setback for the proposed house addition would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. 7. A 25-foot setback would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. I - -- ..... .. ... . .. .. .. . .. _" — " �..-_ - __ IN��.. ._i ._.. "< .. �.. �..ra.�- - – :. . � .. -_. . _.''-,', �-. . � . _ __ ° _�"__ . _ . ' _ :__ � .__'_ :. . � � �.� .� . � .. ... �_ ��r - " __" " _ _ '__ _'_". �� . .. . . - .. ' _– F Resolution 631-00 September 6, 2000 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission approves the variance request for a 25-foot front yard setback for a proposed house expansion at 8141 Edgewood Drive, contingent upon the following: 1. The applicant shall arrange to have this resolution of approval recoded with Ramsey County and provide proof of such recordation to the City within 60 days of the date of approval, or this variance shall be rendered null and void. Adopted this 6th day of September, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) J:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\VR00-005\RESOLUTION 631-OO.DOC � ______ ______ .. - . ' L ._ _ _ _ .. . ... . � -c . f . - _ ' �' _ - � - � -_ __ - . -"' .. � '-. ,_. ' i: ' ' '. , f �� _ - - : . . _ - � � ,. .. _ -- . i ._ .: -� _" - . . . - - ' _ _ i .: i . -':: . � _ . . . . - � l l`iir %f! - - - _ . .. �f./c/1fl`_%�1%��i.�'. . . . . _ . _ . � . . . . - - - � - -_ � i f. _ �� Itern # 6 City of Mounds Vie�v Planning Commission laeport Meeting Date: September 6, 2000 Title: Introduction: DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 632-00, A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR A REDUCED SIDE-YARD SETBACK REQUESTED BY JIM AND JUDY TRAPP AT 8018 SUNNYSIDE ROAD. Jim and Judy Trapp, property owners of 8018 Sunnyside Road, have applied for a variance to encroach into the required side yard setback to allow for the construction of a deck and gazebo in their rear yard. There is presently a deck in the rear yard three feet from the property line. The Trapps would like to extend the deck an additional two feet (one foot from the property line) and construct upon it a gazebo, also one foot from the property line. While decks are currently allowed to be set back two feet from property lines, gazebos (which are considered outdoor accessory buildings) are required to be set back five feet from a side or rear property line. Discussion: For the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body 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 individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordina�y circumstances apply to the pf°oper�ty which do not apply gene�ally to othef• properties in the sanze zone or vicinity and result from lot size vr shape, topography or other ci�•cunrstances over whrch the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no conh�ol. In reviewing the plot plan supplied by the Trapps, it appears as though the proposed location of the gazebo is the most convenient location given the adjacent pool and e�sting deck. While the gazebo could be located elsewhere in the back yard, there would be no direct access to it from the deck. -� _ : � - ' = v r_ ( � -_ , r` � , _ _ _ ' . . - . • '" -_ " - • � � � �.K "Y�f. �f .- . LYj : . .._ _- ' {�' -' � -- ..�" .�� _ _ _ _ f �� --. - �,3 �rn��.�`/.�af/%�%ia �ii�if��i,i ri.if.r .,_- .,•.�r..iii/�irw%�r/i - = - Trapp Variance Report September 6, 2000 Page 2 b. The liter•al interpt•etatiort of the provisions of this Titl.e would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by othe�� properties in the scrnae district under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation of the Code would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district in that the setbacic requirements do not prohibit the addition of the gazebo, only its requested location. That the special conditions o�• circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Because the Trapps are proposing the gazebo in that specific location and not another location allowed by the Code, the Trapps--to some reasonable extent--are responsible for the conditions which would necessitate the variance. d. That gr•arrting the variance re�uested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owne�s of other lands, structures o�• buildings in the same Ci�1SlJ'ICI. The granting of this variance would confer a special privilege to the applicants in that the Trapps are responsible for the conditions which necessitate the variance. e. That the variance r�equested is the minimunz variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. For the size of the gazebo being proposed and for the location, the variance requested would be the minimum to alleviate the hardship in that there would be insufficient space between the house and pool for the gazebo were the setback to be increased. f. The variance woulcz' not be nraterially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The purpose of the variance provision in the Code is to give relief to property owners seeking to improve their properties yet are unable to do so because of zoning code requirements and factors beyond their control. Granting this variance for a gazebo one foot from the property line would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone in that it would result in the gazebo being located less than two feet from the neighbor's garage. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adeguate supply of light arrd 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 prope�ty values. While the gazebo would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, there is a possibility that in its proposed location, it could increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety due to the minimal two-foot separation from the neighboring garage. ___ __ � _ _ _ __ __ __ ___ _ _____ __ . . . � :� r �--: �f� ` __ `-; r - � . ' ` ; i - __, ._�_:: � � : = - f l _ ___ "' Nfl��a�l.G� i _.w,.... _ _"'" '_ •._ . ....._______. ' _" Trapp Variance Report September 6, 2000 Page 3 In accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the Mounds View Municipal Code, because it appears that all of the preceding criteria have not been met, staff recommends denial of this variance request. Reconzmendation: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 632-00, a resolution denying the variance request of Jim and Judy Trapp to construct a gazebo one foot from the north property line of 8018 Sunnyside Road. � ��,s�'�1� /�b��.,��'�'� James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Location Map 3. Plot Plan 4. Resolution 632-00 E:\D�TA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\VR00-006\Trapp Report - Sept. 6, 2000.doc � _. _ � ' . �- �" � ', - _ � — � ' " " _ .+� Y _ _ _ _ _ . . _ t � - ._ � - . - ' . . - . . . _ _ _ . . . __ `"_ -. ... . _ �. _ _'_ ' �<..r��11'}��Xi�1r�i. - � � - � .. . c�J"� u' �a'��' r•,! a;� r;�r� ��!'��ic':� .�r� A P i �"� ; �� •,, €i.:;, :�,r r�'S'n'�f • Parmers��Q� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN'i' DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIO. 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 - FAX Applicant Information � � •� �� , �� Name of Applicant � 1�. �C� C`•� Telephon o Address `� '� - � Fax~] �o �j 7 � �j `� �� r� S � YY� �� i 1�. Interest in Property (check appropriate box) `�� Owner of Property ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑ Other (explain) ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Agreement to Purchase Applicants must providc evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the propetty, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location Legal Description . Properly Ident�cation # (PIN #) # of Acres Current Zoning . Sc+.r�Q C� � ��'� ��l S"•� � Q v�� ;._��. � Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment o Rezoning ❑ Major Subdivision ❑ Minor Subdivision ❑ Planned Unit DeveIopment (PUD) ❑ PUD Amendment ❑ ConditionaUinterim Use Pernut � Variance q Code Appeal ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit ❑ Floodplain Pernut ❑ Other $250 $250/acre; min $250 max $1500 $250 �+- $250 deposit* $200 Refer to rezoning fees $350 R-I, R-2 $75; all others $250 R-1, R-2 $100 all others $250 $100 $125/acre; min $125 max $750 R-1, R-2 $150; all others $200 R-1, R-2 $25; all others $100 $200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this appticationo __ _ _ __ _ ____ __ _ E�; , , _ <':::`' _rx� j =- - - F - : __ - City of Mounds View, MN � Development Application Page 2 Present Use of Property ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant � Single Family Dwelling ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling o Multi-family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) Properly Classification iption of Proposal o Abstract 6��:.�� o Torrens � �ti � � �- .-. , . �� o r� �J 'C` ��' �' v\ J BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION> I HEREBY��"L,ARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWI,EDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRU�F ,�cN,D ACCURATE. Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant (typed/printed) Signature of Property Owner C Name of Properly Owner (typed/printed) Address of Owner ..�''J ,� � ` -..�1 Gt`C(� e S � /��C`c ,T— �•� �Jy �\ : �„r` / ri ,. �, , - , U'rn �.. ��c� �� J\�hhv\ �� ` � ��1 1� �(' 1 � �.�•�c� � ) "� c �� 11 %�� Phone Number of Owner � � � � � � � � �� _ � *********************************�x*****�x******************�************************************* FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal � � 1 �f � � � Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. �� ,�' -`;;� 60-day Limit 120-day limit 'v' ��, o � � a �P Fees Paid: Account # Check # Recei t# Application: �,�r._i3iti� , �f lS 0 �``� (� `� �t� r1' ��..� �� -- Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: N:�DATAIGROUPS\COMDEV�FORMS�DEVAPP.POR 1/98 _ � l- -_ ° _ __ -. _ � - , Zoning Map � 8142 P,143 `��, `� r`� �, s�145 i g, V,�, C.pP`f'/ �, s' � 8 � N. �,�� 8 1 4C� R 1 41 � a��s s��o 8131 �' ;ti s �r, r. o, ._ ,r� �n � �, u� �� r rn � _...� � � �� cc� u� �r �r rr, � � �- r. � u� �t *r ° 1 1 f ^ O P � i IX� r � u�� n r� r� n r. r� �� $12 , �� a �a �n u� � � ��u s, u� �n v� u-, 7 PI N Cq N N N �`� N N '�J N N PJ N CV :.-; N N fV (�1 OQ RO � � ° � � — — ` � "t ° �B � SQ85 � � ' �- t- n SORO $OElsrt r� 80E ,�075 :i, �A 80�g cn �s� �� r•, 8 <'j i J N � I N ('�I ` N C 7 ��! N N N � I F 8085 $070 � 8071 8066 $(?:i'0 8p68 8071 8�7 � $� 8075 846� 81�59 8050 8055 �� 806t) 8p6`, 8U5�0 8G71 g! ' 5045 8Q42 8045 �, $052 8051 $044 8045 8( i g�/� 8039 P0�5 ��? $�33 1 8�40 EsU35 �032 8031 8t i S�' Y � 80�5 � p 8G25 aots so�� s000 �o�� 80�� s�,�y 8r I ) 80J5 $�ifi 8UG9 ti0U6 B 8011 $000 8�p1 8( / 79B5 8003 748t 7990 C� 7ggi , 7990 0?989 7�g6 � �993 75 7975 7970 � 7979 798U a 7s69 '� 7980 � 7�75 79$0 � 7s$5 79 7g�p 7961 7c 7965 7960 p��5` 797� �98� 7963 � 79h9 �° �_%�5�► � 7959 7�n� 7950 7951 7` 7955 795E p� 7940 794� �`�4� ��27 HILLVIE' �aj3 940 7950 7930 7935 T93p 7917 ' PAR K � � � �n u, rn �n r� 7901 N �'� � 7gpp 7901 790G N � N 79Q0 7901 � N 7900 PF HILLVI£W ROAD � � � � �,'�°'`�'� N 7$� n 7891 � N 7880 7$95 N N �89p 7885 �� 7E � , �, � �sss 7sss �ss� �a�o �as9 �� 3 ��,a n B-2 �� sbz � 7877 7R54 7851 7860 7865 7E 787Q N ��, 7863 7842 �� 7850 7855 7f 7840 7B35 78 ?�9fl 7$15 78 � 7805 7T 777p � 78b1 77 Z 7?64 �W 7751 7� 7780 � 7741 77 775Q 7731 77 7730 7721 ?7: 77�p 77t1 . �, _ � � v�i � ;n 77i R-2 n r� rn�n � r•� �- m r u� N�� v�i�� 25 NNC n� � Nc•JNNN 25 � Z�J N 25 25 6-4 �s 25 25 �� rl F S � �J u �1 � �� >�� U i� 5��, �,�� s� �� F r��.1 �ll��; ►, � 3 C1, � �.� � r�� ! � Si �� >�� a�� '� , fl—� Y'�� r� ci c�J � e��J Q � �►�, I n c u�r�� , � �Cit�c� 1 �-/ �,��'� 1 ��: . � ��i P �J u r�� J c� V' i 4 t� C� lJ,��e. �.,� o ra I. ��1 � `�' � il i ° ��'t, �. , � ti i � J � U � L ,�. i� � � n �c� � �� u ►^ � ''�.,� �� I 1 n i.� �� P. ��, r�Q r� 1 S ��! !�-�� 1�.� \ � l 2, h��' �. Q �'}, o ti l. S-� C � 1'� U �� G� o �Q r� � �'� y� � �1�� J t` �� S a � ~ . �j' � o �T�u c I Wr� i�1�� `b j�' � � �..��,�1 S .� ,, �aJ�(�� a� „ '��, h :�. � �` S �J �� `� r � ��. �� o� ;, y G�. � �1� � �. �� 1 a �,� b � l�fi'� l� �, i � � r► � -l� � C'� �� . }� � � � �� , �..�.�� . �� can � C� r c:�. �,� SfiG r�.� s�r r' i\�Q_ �� C��..1 � �. Yrl � v �e � _.�� . � �'� � � � � �� Ft:' I ,� Address !�� u �� PLOT PLA.N �' �� i Builder � r� ��_ . Owner Brief Description of Proposed Construction � l � • Bu Date�� -/ �-/ Permit N Show aIl eaisting buiidings/structures located on the property. Show all proposed construct�on and I�bel "proposed" Indicated distance from proposed structures to all property lines. Tndicated distance of proposed structure(s) to exasting structures. Show street location(s) and nnme(s). � Shaw directional symbols (north, south, east west). �._.._. i��: . �i.i.;i�, i �3 �.r-� ; 1 r� .i � ��.'.... � �_'_"'"_"^..,..."___.... _ ... . .._..... _ _....... . I . __ _._ _�__ __.. _ -- --_ _. ._ _ _ .- -�.. l - . ;. , � -- - „ �� ' � V ...� s� �� w--- �- 1 � .. - ; i ----.��=. �� 1� .r._ ;� ' �j�:� .. ,--- �. •, � , ; ` . . �. .�?' � . ¢ -.: �.` �__ - . ! '/.�"'(`'T,LJ .; `'. i 4. . � . . � � j---."'-^---�J..-`I�.�.; __:'. .. ...y� 1. -"__ _ _ i, � ��: . � i i � --.._..__. ___._....� _..Y__..........._..1 . ��er,� �� 5�� r-�� r� City of lYlounds View Comznunity Developmen't Department * 2�01 High�ay 10, Mounds View,lV�t 55112 (612) 717-40? 0, Fax (612) 734-3�#6?. r � :' k ,, _ : _ � ; i �, '"..- � 'c J�.,i . -.;-.. . - : _ -�--= - �i�. � -_ , b - . � - - _ - - - . . � _ > _ _ . — , _ � _ - _ -- _ . : _ .__ ..._ __ _ •— --__ .. -' `__:�-----. � . .._�.._�:. �_� __ _ :� �' - - - - .—_._ .._ .<. __._.�. _- - -- MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION R�SOLUTION NO. 632-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 1104.01, SUBD. 4, OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE (PERTAINING TO SETBACKS) TO ALLOW FOR A ONE-FOOT SETBACK FOR A GAZEBO AT 8018 SUNNYSIDE ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR00-00G. WH�REAS, Jim Trapp has applied for a variance to construct a gazebo one foot from the north property line of 8018 Sunnyside Road, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and legally-described as follows: North Half ofLot 99, Spring Lalce Park Hillview, Ramsey Counry, Minnesota WHER.EAS, Section 1104.01, Subd. 4a(1) of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires a five-foot setback for accessory buildings; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Plaiuung Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site Plan 5. Staff Report WI3EREAS, a public hearing was held regarding this variance request on Wednesday, September 6, 2000; and, WFIEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's control; and, WHE1tEAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, all of which must be satisfied in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFOR�, BE IT RCSOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings with regard to this variance request: �_—,_ _. ' , _- ' -`-- -...,_ � - . - :: �.:r�Cl �f"�_:_ . . I� .- . — -_. - P �. .� . ' - ---� i —�:��:r.:.e�.-� _.:�_� � - — ---- - � F.-`� � . . --.-_�. - _.�.._. -- -_ '-' --- -. . f ,. . -. .__. _ :..__ �__�- : �.�.• .�- �.-�� .-' {r� � /f ! :.lF . . . -, _.. -.- '_ � I � Resolulion 632-00 Scptember 6, 2000 Page 2 1. There does not appear to be any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances which would apply to 8018 Sunnyside Road. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title in that the gazebo could be located elsewhere in the back yard.. 3. Granting a variance for the reduced setback for the gazebo would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title. 4. The Trapps are responsible for the conditions which necessitate the approval of a variance. 5. The reduced setback could increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. NOW, THER.EFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission denies the variance request for a one-foot setback for a gazebo at 8018 Sunnyside Road due to a lack of justifiable hardship. Adopted this 6th day of September, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) G:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\VR00-006\RGSOLUTION 632-OO.DOC i•�-� _ �; _ - -t� " � � _ ��j - - � � ;.- _� < : = = r - - - _ - ,. _ _ _ -- ('rJ'"fiii`ifr)'i�l�r"s.' � _- �._ --��a�—�.:J:�G_ ':: �.�_:_.__.� ..._ r _.. . �- - Item # 7 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: September 6, 2000 Title: DISCUSSION T ADD BU DING SE BACK VARIANC�ES FOR O rJyG A pARKING LO MEZZENGA, 7664 GREENFIELD AVENUE Introduction: Tony Mezzenga, representing the property owner Ernest Gustafson, is requesting approval of a variance to construct a small, split-level office building on the undeveloped lot at the southwest corner of County Road I and Greenfield Avenue. The variance is requested for reduced parking lot and building setbacks. This 13,068 square-foot property in terms of w atg an be developedTwhich has leftithe lot p to9 does present practical difficultie this point unimproved. County Road I is the second-most traveled roadway in the City. 1997 traffic counts show as many as 8,700 vehicles use this part of County Road I on a daily basis and projections are such that the volume is expected to increase as development progresses east of Interstate 35W. This lot borders commercial property to the west (Tom Thumb and a Laundrom.at), high density residential to the east, and low density residential to the south and north. The proposed office use is consistent with the B-3 zoning designation and is a less intensive use which would fit well into the predominately residential surroundings. Discussion: Staff has met with Mr. Mezzenga and Mr. Gustafson on numerous occasions in an effort to draft a site plan that could be developed for the property. The size of the lot and the extent of the setback requirements however are impediments toward that goal. In a B-3 district, the required setbacks are as follows: Buildin Setbacks Abutting Residential Front 30 feet 30 feet Side 10 feet * 20 feet * Rear 20 feet * 40 feet * Not less than 30 feet if abutting a street 30 feet 5 feet 5 feet Lot Setbacks Abutting Residential 30 feet 20 feet 20 feet -- , _ _ , - ;_: :- _ � Mezzenga Variance Report September 6, 2000 Page 2 The applicant has submitted a site plan for a 3,480 square-foot split-level office building with 2,975 square feet of usable office space. For that much area, the code requires provision of 20 parking stalls. To construct a building of that size and a parking lot to accommodate 20 vehicles, variances would need to be approved to reduce the side and rear building setbacks from 20 feet to 10 feet and to reduce the parking lot setbacks from 30 feet and 20 feet to 4 feet and 15 feet. For the Pla.nning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body 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 individual criteria, with staff's interpretive responses, are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary crrcunzstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vrcinity 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. It can be said that the size of the lot is the single-most defining factor which constitutes a hardship in this situation. At only 13,000 square feet, the lot does not offer much area upon which to construct a viable commercial business. This situation is further complicated by the fact that the parcel is a corner lot which demands greater setbacks than would be required for an interior lot. Last, the development potential of the lot was further reduced when the County took ten feet of the property (1,320 squaxe feet) for additional right of way. b. The lzteral 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 could deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district because of the County-acquired 1,320 square feet, the large setbacks and the size of the lot, the property owner has been unable to find a developer willing to consider this parcel. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant and properiy owner are not responsible for this situation. d. That granting the variance requested will 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. � _ ' - = r_, _ -- - _ = - =_ _ _ , _ _ . - . - ,,,. . . ,-.. ,,. : , - . , _ - - --- - -- . _ � _ -- ---- =-- - =- — -- ' �`�--� Mezzenga Variance Report September 6, 2000 Page 3 The granting of this variance would not confer any special privileges to the applicant in that this appears to be a very unique situation not applicable to many other properties within the City. The applicant contends that in fact the reverse may be true, in that there are many examples of reduced setbacks in the City, and that he should be afforded the same consideration. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. While it would be possible to construct a small office building and the associated required parking on the site without the need for any variances, the resulting building would be too small, according to the applicant, to make a viable development project. From the applicant's perspective, the variance requested is the minimum variance to alleviate the hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The purpose of the variance provision in the Code is to give relief to property owners seeking to improve their properties yet are unable to do so because of zoning code requirements and factors beyond their control. The Code requires that the parking lot be set back twenty feet from any adjacent residential properties. This requirement was added to the Code recently to protect the comfort, health, safety and well-being of residents from busy non-residential parking lots. In this situation, granting a variance for reduced building and parking lot setbacks would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone., as long as suitable buffering and screening were utilized. 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 reduced setbacks would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. According to the City Code, all of the preceding criteria shall be satisfied in order to justify the granting of a variance. While it appears to staff that in this case all requirements could be met and that a hardship probably does exist, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, it must find that all the criteria are satisiied. � ; i ; . , �� _ � F _� � N _ ,� �..=� . _-� ': `- - " - - � i =- "= . -- - -? �. - ..- . . - - -_- - ` j `` =- - -_ -. Mezzenga Variance Report September 6, 2000 Page 4 Recommendation: After reviewing the attached documentation and taking public testimony, staff is asking that the Planning Commission direct staff to draft a resolution approving the variance either as requested or as compromised, or to draft a resolution denying the variance request. If the Planning Commission so chooses to approve the variance, staff has included a draft resolution which can be acted upon as is or with any modifications as deemed necessary. C� �� t, �'»I..f h !_ _ �? =�-� �- James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site Plan 5. Setback Map 6. Letter from Applicant 7. Resolution 633-00 X:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\VR00-007Uvlezzenga Report - Sept 6, 2000.doc t�!�T�'V� C.�fI U li �.J ' r,( n,,+.r � ��;�I�,�:},c� A '� ��j�ri,`.« .A i!L•.a :t':r �°,P�i�� .�ParmeYS�`�y i _ ^ f,. __. _ , -- -- _ ... i . , i- � . ,� . -. . " �. � - �: .. . . . - -. _ =�r _ . . F � .. " " . - . ' . . _ COMIVIUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Tnformation �,i� /�" NameofApplicant � o:�.�. l �� _�� --�� Telephone�L� -�Z-7-�'��I Address -�- . Fax �1-�.��sc�� •- F �J (�� 2� �terest in Property (check appropriate box) � Contract for Deed Owner Owner of Property o Lessee, Operator, Manager � Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other (explain) � Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the tiling of this application. The propecty owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location � � � C � �=1% � ~/ �- �"` u �� f: • Legal Description , __ l, c� —L 3 �'� ��c�cl�, 3� iir I�N�il;l�1 l��al�, ��I�I S�`� Gc Property Ident�cation # (PIN #) �� < % �� 7 �� S �_ �� # of Acres � � v�' � �— � _ 2 Current Zoning Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan A�nendment ❑ Rezoning ❑ Major Subdivisian ❑ Minor Subdivision ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) p pUD Amendment ❑ ConditionaUInterim Use Pennit ❑ Variance ❑ Code Appeal ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit ❑ Wetland Buffer Pezmit ❑ Floodplazn Pernut ❑ Other $250 $250/acre; min $250 max $I500 $250 + $250 deposit* $200 Refer to rezoning fees $350 R-1, R-2 $75; all others $250 R-1, R-2 $100 all others $250 $100 - $125/acre; min $125 max $750 R-1, R-2 $150; all others $200 R-1, R°2 $25; all others $100 $200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days after consideration of the application is completed. �'lease complete the revcrse side of this application. � I .. ;�� _ � r _ � � � � � :. � . -- - - � l� - � - � - - _= -� �-�___.. r. : � �� F1— -- —_-'- -,._�_.�,. -'-- � -.:-r_a�._.;.,,_�_s«.,a�Yi/.G Itl-- . -- 1 City of Mounds View, MN Development Application 2 Present Use of Property ,� UndevelopedNacant o Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) Property Classification � of Proposal Abstract r ■ r ❑ Single Family Dwelling Multi-family Dwelling Industrial Establishment Torrens BY MY (OUR) SIGNAT2TRE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE TNFORMATION PRO VTi)F.t� ifi TR� rF e t�m e rrr ro� T� Signature ofApplicant Name of Applican�t (typed/printed) Signature ofProperty Owner Name ofProperty Owner (typed/printe Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner - �_5 � 5� C c� v^�l I'� R a� I� � _�t o� �.� �� v � G ul ��,� 5��,'�i� � , �r� � �- �� '� � � 9 � � , ************************************************************************************************ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal �•/? - a�0 Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: Accouni # Check # Receipt # Application: �� '�C� � � ..' S (� ? `� _ ir O `'� �1 Park Dedication: - Deposits: . Other: Total: N:IDATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�FORMS�DEVAPP.FOR 1/98 �.. , - - f�. �. - �- - -•--- - - _: � = - - _ -- -, - - � --- _--- -- -- - � �; Zoning Map _ I ^ , .^.. ('yU'`�-~ VI_l � � _Rii�_f \;.�, _ ' o �-; o °; ir _� r. �.. r•� 7o�q .�,..�.� . 1�� . " c� y �• f ' a, tv c�� ri ci � f. �n � �Y r7 ;gr.�u� "N _ f i ui t `„ ,1 � ��! 7'9Q0 K v y 7 a I ��jflt _ � � ri i..� �_� i. ' _ca i-� cv c�� o.� N ra cv n� _ _' r� I: -.i � � �a � �' ' H1LLVfEW — � `,� ,-.,. - '� c +. -. ; � — : �� - � -- -- - _' � - � i .Y -t '1 C1 -. �. l� �.i' Q -f .., U; C7 't rD �-- c� P� ci •� . i-, r, n i n ,•- n o, ui r. �c, �n �v n p �!i "� CJ . ..� .� �.� r.l N f I CJ N C! N C�f ( 1 l`J C�I � 7�JA 7$89 iE8 �t o<t � h,`._'_ �� — C+ c� c.+ ;.� �a c� oa c,i i �., or c�, �, OAKWQQD DR p- , -- � ul �... rn r� iy � -- 7 �j ?8E:? i859 'B60 O r. i � � ' �'.:, :�> �i "� : �.'i r.� �� n � in ''8'B Y' C� '$5: } ;�.�?t� _.r:tE 5F�1�: �..1 � �� f! �� ri ci �� ,� �� v 7Y.�?Q 78Si it'.SC � �" � �- p `— --= � _ �`+ ?ns� 7gsa ' �>6� u> 5c,i2 5r,i� � sc;i: QAKWOOD 7A3G � � 7845 784 � 7841•� � T"i,�y •� '� �` x, '�,�L � 7Rt7 784' w C1 �t,r�; �:,r�� 5r�0' `_�5G5 �v r� w rv ra �.i �i o n 7Rj7 �H3 %`�SI CJ fV CJ fl N C7 fl CJ �1 �%�'� p i�33 7�.i� � '`_•.605 '�G00 56(�1 E,GUO u-� r-- cn �� n �- O 78?.7 7R2 � c� w r� n�il °di v� � r_ 781 � 7f115 � 5 556' ci �� •i ri c� c� �� ° r� %�j� °.• 6.. J 5Ji2 J�'.•f_ CJ ('1 . J : 1 C! N r�� '� .I �$Ob 7�� D� :..__' W - Y 7(�p ^ � J.SiJ =�1J�JC S5i% w�SJ Z _ C�C`1R �xno �aui ;ao - ; ' - _ ;;. � � 7E07 j t�� / ��` A�� 555 ] U 555U 5.551 pz. �`-5`-`�! � s^�i R �'` i �� 7:78 77•49 775 �' y � r- c� r. �n � � lJ Y r�� c�� i c� �� ci �� °�� c 7�c>8 ;-ay 774q ;;5ii� :___• '' `:_"' ,:��Sa, s5aas.>as� SsoaQ r, ,� �, {�: F �41 774 � PINEWOUD CIR 1� � -' .,'�i,' ir� �� r. c� �n �� n 7730 �. � 5539 5538 553� 55•��' oi �a N ci � i cJ �� 774.. 777.9 ra—"v cv a � �, ri iv ^'-=i� T C� � r� iU ',3� 7728 ?719 772r�� 31 ?7� { n r� �n '`S _`..5;3 r .>� ca: 7�3_' PIt��W��1 �R �v ri �-� o� �� `F�`5-+'= �-�� 7710 7709 77j p 7721 77?l�� ^ ~ co rp o •r �o <-�� .r . w 7715 �. u, o� r� 5:+27 5 26 ��" ln 552�i a, �,�, m r D�'i v, �t n � r_ �p �n i �i �� ty �.� N �..i r� cu . � p C� , ;� n� r�i � r�� O �� 5�-,1 �S' S5°1 55��Q r� ni N r+ ri oi ci oi ^� , v> � 7701 7�Od 770 �� O 7701 �� c� �+ c. I � CO R-2 � RQ , , �v o � M N o o �" u �,. .,.. � `'' c �, � ,,,f � c i 5 � � �� .t �f d 7 �S � �r I . N ri CI N N fa N N f �' 7• I N N PJ PI 2 ! l � � f� 54fi7.� �,A72 5 , �>> R—g _ � 76e;i Qi. � �n u� ,,, a� a?� •�ss � P U D e �° yGo 1 6r',� .' 7643 7656 i � a <, � � � �' �,`?4`�� 5 —4 � `� �5at ?Fsa�: � ;r,t,� � � �f�'O�EE�G�S7 4 7bE P.— � � 3 I G � / tw Snss{' S4''s Ft-2 7610 ��.-�9 �ea•s �'i 76C�1 "� �47C 5473 5ti68 5 i6�' 7635 � 6�a7640 0 , � ',i� �� -- 76�5 7530 ---- --'- � •� i 6C 7655 �.�- � . � ;6n� ♦ R-d �� 5'ltie 5467 54C4 5 � 7h45 � 76�5 i6. � { � 5 R-� �; 5�G2 54ti,i �- � h�. � 761 1 7F, i � ♦ � � 5a;f ty ' , .� �762iC] � r �6:,1 :r7A�,�, 5•l54 5•7,55 � �s�< � r�'n u�-, �; d-%, 7b1E�w 759.5 �i9� � � �' 'r• n r- i. r- 70� •Q' i � �: vi � i 544f 544� p 5435 �G`� � 7581 75ft0 r in � L _ ' 75�i �: i 5ann 5�SA1 Q �� 7Stid � �.' �r a o ,0 7565 �X �-, � t JSJ'I 5•i3� �r . D �l r� !'� .. 1 � �J .r -f A 7�� 1 i:J J ii.q '�`+., A N N N ��7,'�S :l4�'�i JM1LJ :� ,y � %S3S %Ji'i "�,�",, %:ll i S•i�o j'i�!1 J��U �Ji y 75? i 752 ,�!i - 541 4 541 i SA 1 4 � 5401 7505 7504 i�� : � 54Uf 540.°i 5�06 �i �r 6RONSON � CITY HALL ,-,.� ;��5 s��a s��s �, � � ° � � ° � � N {`I CJ �J CJ (�I (`7 N ��3F7 5386 5387 p �� `� cv �� w �, ,�� 5394 g?.�� N �,t80 `_•361 � " ;,373 53?2 5373 � i� , ,. �. � 1' /� %� � �'� 5.i65 536E 5�6� �3��, �-� /�/ t' B-J � ,5? 53SA 53`_,0 ` u� v. �n �n / O ,r � 535t S35? 5353 53`"�4 N; ; a `o � �� .� •a ..� 1'� ,�a� � / �,3a3 s3sq 5345 LAMEERT �F, )`f ` 5��35 5'�3G �s �� LqMBERT �; � r � / \ S �/� cl r� r. �� T �7 � �15. �''3�U 5�3t �., �., �. O ��" '�j.��;�,Q `'�2e s3�� s��a PARK PUD -;' `:r. `r1�� 53�� PF t, ,f S „�O '�'� f, 5309 `L� �''�-,�/h��,` '>3-i �,?Q9 Ifp �/� \��Cl. _l �.I !F �::lV �...�JI J��.: l�� • `,� G� (S 5'._., O 5�g5 ,n �_ m- n�n u� r� u p U 0 4'' '��?y'ry� � h- ,�n Fi m r� i\i fi vi r i v � ,Lt�� h� ,`F'� pt_ TJ K, F� iJ _ 5�P i r.J r.� CV SV CJ N f J N �' p R-2 p�� g� B �^°- 5; ,, �� ° � ?�i° � A °4. � � ��91 � £ ,�� -"-'. `._:� � ` � , Sr� � I _ _ Y � � - �..- _ _ ` _-, i - _ . - _ _.-- -- - � -- . ' � . �- - � - -. - - .. '_�___�_"...r�..�.r.'..�.. �.. _ .__ _.__ - - - .. . . . . .-. . - - �i�y of I�I aur�d� �i�v�r - Lo�a�ian I�I ap� �� ..� ._� � �� ■� �r r� �� S� nMi M�� i� ��i�i � i� 7664 Greenfield Aven � �� :�: w� :� ■� .� ii � '� = � ��t►� `` � �� t� . �■■ �� rlM1►�1,�� M1►t�iiiii ♦ .��i��1�� I��R111� r ■ ■�� . ��fll ■� . ��I��//�1��11 ■ .�■ . � ..�.. ��. ■�.. 1��l�ii�l�,�j��i . ■�� . � :ii r ��I�I�i��/,/�� ■Nrr� ii: : �Il��,f� j�� ■Il�� :i: : ��11�11111i� =� slls r .�ti� �C .:= :� � � � �� ■+■i �i � � .__ �r r■� �� .r �� * �� =i I� �� *�+� : -- �i� �_ �t��_ � �� CIIIIIII� `r � �_ ��: � �:::�i�iiii��ii��: �� Tony Mezzenga Property Involved: 7664 Greenfield Avenue Variance Planning Case No. VR00-006 - 7664 Greenfield Avenue � Properties 1Nithin 3�0' , . ' _ . . _. . .. � � � � � � � � � � �� c r � � v � � �� - . ' _ ' ' . . . f' � . . - . . . ' _- - . . ,. .I� �_ .nd . . anuan� p1at�uaa�c� �� N � :� � � � � a� � � U cd p N � d� �7 "� r.-� ..-+ � � � � � 0 � � � � a U � N � O N I I � U � .--� N � U � � � � .� � � � � � � � .� � c� � 0 Z � _ { _ _ _ � , t , - �. F' ` -- ;� f �,., ��-: ,�.. . - :._ _ p = _ i< _ : �;i h� - - � ��.- = : � :; - c°�S- � lo- Z..�c�s ---- -- --- -• i -- ---- ---- ----------- � _------ - --- ------ -- - --- ------- ---- ------ --- - - -�--- - - - �—_ - �. _:.. �.� --.-----� _.�� -" -- ----- -- -- ------- I ------------- - - �--------- -� -- ---------... ..._. _ -- -- --...--- --- _ --- --- -- -.�=N __ �`'!"�-�'��. �.7 �c+..__ - -, � � , �. --------Ce��.- ---�--�----�.�.�,_±?�.�._ -- - --- - --- - - ----- - - - --------- ---� -------� - __--------- — � ------- ^-- ----- . . -- ---__..------ _ - ' --. �-z.e- -- -� _ -- � _ - • --- - �--1,�.., �- -- - � _ ( �~� . . . a . ;�'�f _ Y .`'�. .-f•--•�_- -__'_._....-_'._".' _"I . _ �_._'_ • T . .......... ._'._._-"'_".._....._____ ._.... .....__ _______.__.'-._ � � �-r _._^____'�_..._'.' _-___,_..___...__"___ __.... ._"_'.._._ ._. . C,�C� Z`YY\�w� �1 �� '�_ ----- - - - -� -----� . _.._._ _-. _ ..._ _`?_-�fi:. - - -- Vc� 'b�'l..S►�?� .` �s, ___..._.. _ _ ��--- -��-z..q�_ ------- . --- - ��_�.�'�_ .. - L�--'-- --- ._..__----- -- . _...---. ._._. _.__._...------ -...-- � - ._--.'--___...-"--..._-"-'-'---"--�-° '--_.-.._.-"------_�-�-� -r�'--....' -. .-�!_._.—�� Zi-r-�-.r _---�-s_-'----�� -- ��:,�.� - ---- ------ - - -- _._- �--- --- - _. .._ _ _._ _. __ .-- -- _ - - . - --- _ - - - -� '- �--- -�- ! �t.�, . _�_ �-- ��,�- - --�,�. �.��.,�,_ __ -- __.. e�, _------ �-c� � � Q � --_ -- .- - -..- ---_�- �- -_-- -. . _ . _ _._ _ . . --- _ ___ :.�,:- . __ _ _----_ . . . z� ��; --- � ,_� ._. �r,�. �,.�,,� - i °��. _ _ ._ - --. . _ .._ -- - - . - -- - --- --- -� -- --- --... -- _ _ _ _ -- - -- � - , -... _ _. - -- - -- --- -- (,�;=�-- - - � —__.. _ - _...-- ��i;�..-�"- - ----�---------�st_�.��__.._��:��t�----..._.. -- . . .. L� � - . -.. _ _.. _ _.__ __ .. _ ----__. _ _ -. - C5 � _ �'�r '- - - `'�'S _ . �. � . ..- /�1.�� - ��-�r.: �,_ ... �i��i.��.e°�r"�`L.�±. _. __. _.__ .._.._ , _ _. . . _.._ � - __ _. . . __. t __ -- -- --- - - �l'� - - -� �-Q�� - � _ �'�l _� � :;_.�-� _ �v � ��. • -- - - _ -- _ - _ — -- - - - - --- _ _..._ _..._.. _ -- -- .._ -- __ _ _ _.. _ _... � _ , s ._._. . _ _ �a�..,lrt.�:,�, - -- � � _ _ . _�,►?-� __ � ��-��.�. . - - --- -- - - - -. .� _-_ . . .. . . _ ._- - _ _ _ - - - �. `�� _ - �'�!-� _ _ _ . ��!�..� � <; _ . ��--��..�� ; - - - -. .. --- _ _�.. . _ .__ .. - --- -- __ __ f -- - - .__. - 1�� `j _ ._. _- -- ---- _- - - I (�T3� �...��`T . . . _ �u�o ..h � - i�.�A �.�, `S 'T_..._..... _._ �-�,'... ._ - __.. I --------...- __� . - .. ._ _. ._ _ _ _ _ . _ ��'^ . --- --- -- .-- _ . ---- - �� ._ . _ . - i� � ��y v pr�'31�.. . _ . . _.��', s�,'-Lo � � :� � _ . �. _ _ . _ . J ` _ _ - __ _ ._ � - G�-r::� _ ..-r�-�e-� � _ �- _ _ ��,cx�_ _ �`�' _ _ -�`�= _ _ - - - ;, _ _ _ _ . ;��,� ' _ � �`"� ;, _ _ _ _____ ___ ____ __ _ i _ ' _. . -. - — _� _---- --� ---- --------- -- ---- - -- -- --- -- _ . . -- -------- __ __ _— — - ------�- � � ,� _ • L..:�_a'�... -�..- _ - - � . _ t.._. --�1.-�-�-�.. ----- ----- _._�..a-c - -. _ _ _ _ -- _ __ . _. . � _ __....- " " ' ' _'__' . V-..____�' ._'_-_ " ' I_""'-""__ � __"'-'__ _'._"-_""__.. ___-___"_'-"_' ..._._'__ _'__"'__' "_�' __'_ "__"' " "_" -"_. _�..__. _ __"- ""._.'__'_' -' ' _" , ' � _ . ' •. � � i`13t��? --..... _ ,�-L�-c�'-""' -�t'° ---� �t�.� — -- P�,�, c ��,.r��-- . __.. _ — ._ --- -- - - � . __ � - - -- --------�------------ .. --- ---- - ---- - - ---- — �--...__ �, _ _��___ ' r , �2...___ _.�'i�i `�`>�.C� - --- ,.---- ----! �� 7 C.'�'C!�V!�___ _.._.c.:.r�.,.-_. — - ; ', I -- - —._ . ... — ----- --- �------ --- - ---- ----------------- --- -..._. _.__ .._-- ' � �' -- ��`' ��-- ----.... . --_._... ___ ---------- -- --- � _.__.. __._ --- --... -------- — ----.. . .. -- �;, �1�k,U,'�p�� _ z.,�.�'�..�-... u+vf t� �.`� -- _.. _....--_-- ----�.`�. _,------ ...--- '�-- -�- --- - . _..� ---- -- -- __._ -- - - - �.1 ; -- —...-- ----- ------------1 _ ._ _ - --------- - ------- ----.--- -- - - _ ------ -- . _ --- � , " ,.j.`�i ��.,:� � - -----__ _ _ :-- - -- ----- -� �.�,�v�..,.,"�.,:�-�w- -----P!�� _ .__ '��: .--------�(� � I -. -�� -- :. -�— - -- - - ---i �_ -� --_ _ ---- - - - ----- -- � r .� � . . ,. - ,. --- -- .. . ---- - � --- ... _. -- -- I/!�'�'"�. �!"='- �s`�`-e' - �'`'``��-�-f�t�-'�----�- -.... --- --- � � _ _ _ _ , _. _.. .. .__ _ - --- -_ ;:: -- -- ..� -- ------- ._..__.. � _ . .-- -- �-- _._... ----_- -- ------ '� ` , � _ ,� _V ...... -- .1.��....--..- �.a_ � L°._ � ------ _ _. . ----- -- - - - _��, "�. ----------� - _. __ . ------------_., - , . �, _ . , __ : _ -__---_,._ _._ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ . __-- ._ _ _ _ - � p:�,�--; .. _ _. ��-= � - - �v�,�.=-�� _ _ _ : � �� _�.��J..---- — .. . !�� . --. . ��`�.•-V - � - `- - _ - -- -- ---. ._------ -- - —._._. __.. - - . . _ ---� - - -- - ._. . .. :. _. ___ _ _._ _ . .. - -. ----�--- -- - - _. . _ __ � _ _ _ . �J I�� _ _ .. _ _ ^�..� . ,C, ��t. 1..�',�, I�,�,�r��-sz _ .. . ___ .. .� �_ _ _ __.- — . __ _I _.--__ --- _.. - - - - -- -- . - ._ __ .-- --_ -- __ � __ _ _. __ _. _ _ . ..> , � �� . : S'�...._ . . _. _I� �.:�"_. t `��L. � �i '1`�!�,-�. -- � �.�, A�.i-c.� w ��. :.; _ ._.......-�-�----- , _ ...--- .... ___ - ----___ ___r _ i I ---� __.. .. _ _ _ _.._ _.. . ._ .. _._ --- -- - - - _. _ . . _ -- --. _. .. _ _ _.-- ---�----- I� . _ z� . `�_ _ _ �� _ _ - � _ .. . � _._._.-s�,� .. _. __.._�l?�C�'•.��"�-�! -. �'a...__... _ .. �-' _ _. =_-. � _._.._._ __. . _. ._ _ _ _. _ . _. ._. . .. _ . _ ._ __. , __ _ ..._ -- - -. :_ , -_____ - - --_._._.. _.._ � J . , � � 1 � f� �-�, �� L l _� �Y�� C. _ _ .r�1 . - - _ . ._ - . , _......_._...---.._.._ _ I . _ -- - 1 �\I --- --- � -.__ .._._- — - - --- -- � �— --I �- - — '-. ..--- --.—.. ..._.... . __ _ . . .._ _. __.._..... � --._ --- -'--- _ i �f "�-', _ _ _ 1 � .��+-- ..` `4'�. '`� ��. . � Pt�� C��2.Z� : � l i � � ' L-�-- - - � � _._ __ ._ _. . ___ , _. __ .I - - - - -- _ _ _.. . -- .._. . .... _. __._.------ ---. ..--- -- ____ . . _ �;� � ° _ _ --�=ti ��. �- - P�p - -�: i��...c... . . t�-�, �. _ �.._._ . --- - __�. �-- - �,J � {k _ (,� �. �'��i��`�- _., . . -. - - ��- _ _ --- �_ _ - - -- -- -_ -- -- - - ------ - I I . . ._ - -- - , ; � � - �,�� - L�. ,��.� . `��; � _ _ ._ _ - _- - ,_ -� �;�_ ��. �� __ j_. .�,��> 'Mczyz..��-�-_ - - - - _ �r� � � _ ,� -. ...'_.._.._ l� � — . _ .. -�1-1.. b � ., � !?t � ,�it-2 �- . -� �` > -� � t � . _ ; � _�.- ��--: ; _ ,� � .��. �� _ j ,� � _ _ � _ _ � - ; .-- � _ � , -- • �. : :� i� r:� _ _ . ' -. __ _.,. ___ ._ - - - '---- . . �-4 r :::�r� r __ G-5..__ -,.,. _._�4 � .�-J •G�'l/l1��i% . ��,._ .f I I i. � MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 633-00 CITY OF MOUNDS V�W COUNTY OF RA.IVISEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIA.NCE FROM SECTION 1104.01, SUBD. 4, OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO SETBACKS TO ALLOW FOR REDUCED BUILDING AND PARKIlVG LOT SETBACKS FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING AT 7G64 GREENFIELD AVENUE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR00-005, WHEREAS, The applicant, Tony Mezzenga, representing the property owner Ernest Gustafson, has applied for a variance to allow for the construction of a 3,480 square-foot, split- level office building at 7664 Greenfield Avenue, property zoned B-3, Highway Business, and legally-described as follows: Lot 30, Block 3, Greenfield Plat 2,Except the North 10 Feet thereof,� Ramsey Counry, Minnesota WI3EREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposai: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site Plan 5. Letter from the Applicant 6. Staff Report WHEREAS, a public hearing was held regarding this variance request on Wednesday, September 6, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's control; and, � _.. _. t � -- - _ ' _ �I * ' - - f -" `. . � � - , � � -�- _ '- : -- ,._ _ ._-. __ == - ,.. _ L..r'�'��if% y� �:� „ ' '_ _�.l. ._ ^a:x../J.,'`r.4ci�.; .o.r._E?' �. �..__�., _. - �_ _ . t . . '" ,/�/J.. ii�i2 �i� _ Resolution 633-00 September 6, 2000 Page 2 WHERCAS, 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 finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient hardship with regard to the }�roperty located at 7664 Greenfield Drive to warrant the approval of a variance for a 10-foot building setback and a 15-foot and 4-foot parking lot setback, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to 7664 Greenfield Avenue which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity in that the development potential of the lot is restricted by its size, by the County's acquisition and by corner lot setback requirements. 2. 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. 3. The variance request is the result of factors over which the applicant has had no control. 4. Granting the variance to allow for a reduced building and parking lot setbacks would allow the applicant to convert the vacant lot to a viable commercial development. Approval would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege denied to others in the same district in that this situation is very unique and not applicable to other properties in this district. 5. The Planning Commission finds that the requested setback reductions is the minimum variance that would alleviate the applicant's hardship. 6. Granting a variance for reduced setbacks for the proposed office building would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone, as long as suitable buffer and screening measures were implemented. 7. The reduced setbacks would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RE50LVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission approves the variance request for a 10-foot building setback and a 15-foot and 4- foot parking lot setback for a proposed office building at 7664 Greenfield Avenue, as shown on the site plan attached as Exhibit 1, and contingent upon the following: � �. � _ � E y��s _ � _ �i�_< -�- : _ , , .. _ . -� � __ ; � - � , _.: _ :` _-_ _ r . _— =- - _ _. , � ,- _ - -. � � s : ' ' � .--�.. :. � ,.__ !. ,_� _ : ,_, . . ; _ . -- -- . . , ' -".�''"-�------'- -----..... __.::-�,. ,__,1�---�.�.�. , y: .:- ._. Resolution 633-00 September 6, 2000 Page 3 1. The applicant shall arrange to have this resolution of approval recoded with Ramsey County and provide proof of such recordation to the City within 60 days of the date of approval, or this variance shall be rendered null and void. 2. The applicant shall apply for and receive approval of a development review for the proposed office building consistent with and similar to Exhibit 1 within 6 months of the approval of this resolution. Failure to apply for and receive approval of the development review within the prescribed time-frame will render this variance null and void. Adopted this 6th day of September, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) X:�DATA\GROUPSICOMDEVIDEVCASES\VR00-00'7\RESOLUTION 633-OO.DOC -�.` ' : � _ - _ . _ __ _. ! � :_ _ _ . - - -- EXHIBIT 1. Resolution 633-00 � � ��i � � � •� � � � � � a � � �l �� / � V � �i.� � � � « � r � .. .. anuany p�ai�uaaa� �� a� Uu"u'L�L � � N � � N � .«-� O J p� C N � C O � � , ` LL (n � (0 . � � N M -� 0 � A � � U U � � � �LLL.L� j M N N � � C � C dj � •� O � � mLL(nQ= � � U � O � O z , . . � z _ .. _...�11:4 � .1 .Yf �s'L _ �I 'F��a_� __ _ — 4 " " _' _. _ " � W� _- --- i_: Item # 8 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: September 6, 2000 Title: CONSIDERATION OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2474 AND 2468 COUNTY ROAD H2, REQUESTED BY RTM MANAGEMENT, INC.; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE MI00-002 Introduction: Raymond McManus, representing RTM Management, Inc. and the property owners, James Kuphal and Danine and David Super, is requesting approval of a minor subdivision to subdivide the rear 80 feet from 2474 and 2468 County Road H2 to create a buildable lot fronting Irondale Road. Minor subdivisions are those divisions of land less than two acres in size in which only one additional lot is created. The area of the proposed subdivision is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential. The minimum lot size in this district is 11,000 square feet for an interior lot and 12,500 square feet for a corner lot. The property at 2474 County Road H2 is a corner lot. The comprehensive plan designates this area as single-family detached. The applicant has submitted a certificate of survey which describes the proposed subdivision. Discussion: The two existing lots on County Road H2 are 75 feet wide and 288 feet deep, both 21,600 square feet in area. The proposed subdivision would create an 80-foot wide and 149-foot deep, 11,920 square-foot lot fronting Irondale Road. The new lot would conform to all zoning code requirements and would be considered a buildable parcel. The two remaining lots--at 15,600 square feet--would satisfy the minimum lot size requirement. Staff has forwarded the Certificate of Survey to the City's Engineering Technician as well as to the Director of Public Works. Other than dedication of the perimeter utility easements, the certificate of survey is in proper form. The City Attorney will review the Certificate of Survey and any documenta.tion needed to record the subdivision with Ramsey County. Last, this subdivision is subject to park dedication requirements. The 5% fee is based upon the Ramsey County assessed land value of the land subdivided, less the value of any land already improved with single-family residential dwellings. In this case, the fee would apply to the 11,920 square feet of land at an assessed value of $1.23 a square foot. The extrapolated value for the lot would be $14,662, five percent of which would amount to a fee of $733. This fee would need to be paid prior to the City approving the subdivision. t �� trvii : � �� _ _ .. S F .f. _.{� _ _-- _ _ _ RTM Management Minor Subdivision September 6, 2000 Page 2 Recommendation: � �, 5�I � _ _ �- � ___ - . .1/i� _ __ . -_ Staff is recommending approval of the attached Resolution 634-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Requested Minor Subdivision of 2468 and 4274 County Road H2, with stipulations. James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Certificate of Survey (Date—stamped August 14, 2000) 4. Resolution 634-00 L:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES1MI00-002U'C Report - Sept 6, 2000.doc , , i � _ _ _ ___ _ _ � } _ __ _ - ` �-�-<_ --� :-: - �� `fr�j�±;;� �4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTM�NT DEVELOPMENT .A.PPLICATION � 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 � �� > ;� ` 612-717-4020 o I;?aV� OAf n�rt�ti ''ParmerS��y 612-784-3462 � F� Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form 1�: �3 +1 � �r� ��V ;��.,.� �!►�z 5 Applicant Information • r � ' Telephone � \'c� �1 �� Name of Applicant �.�• • Y C U ' v' �,�-�� .2-� o� �-�_ , Fax �SS 1 to � � �v 7 S� Address u (� ` : .�\ C�� \ r\ � � � 1 `i \ . . . Interest in Property (check appropriate box) �e.,^'x' �� pwner of Property ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑ Other (explain) ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ';� Agreement to Purchase Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving conaent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be acsepted. j Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location Legal Description , Propecty Identification # (PIN #) # of Acres Current Zoning Type of Application � p Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Rezoning p Major Subdivision � Minor Subdivision ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) ❑ pUD Amendment o ConditionaUInterim Use Permit p Variance ❑ Code Appeal ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit p Wetland Buffer Pernut p Floodplain Pecmit ❑ Other � $250 $250/acre; min $250 max $1500 $250 + $250 deposit* $200 Refer to rezoning fees $350 R-1, R-2 $75; all others $250 Ra 1, R-2 $100 all others $250 $100 $125/acre; min $125 max $750 R-1, R-2 $150; all others $200 R-1, R-2 $25; all others $100 $200 � � �� *Deposits shall be paid to cover als associatedbwith this applicat ons The apl cant shal be respons ble for all reasonable research or preparation of maten incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunde to the applicant within thirty (30) days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the rcverse side of this application. (� ✓\ r�`� � _ _ � �� ; E.t� .y � ,:�:: �: - . - ,�� f" y. �. - _ -.- . . - -- =--1 - � ---= --- - �.! � _�_�:�!�-� .�� :!_:��._....u. --- � - --- .. - -; �-. . s� '-� w ' `! City of Mounds View, MN Development Application _ page 2 Present Use of Property o UndevelopedNacant ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) m� Single Family Dwelling � Multi-family Dwelling ❑ Industrial Establishment Propecty Class�cation ❑ Abstract ❑ Torrens BY MY (OUR) SIGNAT'URE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Signahue of Applicant '�� __ Name ofApplicant (typed/printed) �rJ-�� r�,�;�� ,(� c V� c�j�_`� '�:iDu�qv- \ � �wne..v- Z.. � xSignature ofProperty Owner S Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner � �t�w�Y U l i �A-wr E 5 e"'� � �, ti I 5 �7�� -� �I,� 1�y 2�17`i C.�un j��o�c��l G�'��v h�( �ssll n�nds v' � (� �2—?�U•�,SZ�PJ (��3> �195 ��112� � �e✓ i Su �' )2 *********************************************************�**�*****�x**********�**�*************** FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Subnnittal �- 1 y- ��, O OC� Date of Acceptance ` Assigned to: Planning Case No. ,�.� ��O- n C'S � 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: �� Account # Check # Receipt # Application: � r� o ' � �? `} � � � � � Park Dedication: Deposits: . Other: Total: N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�FORMS�DEVAPp,FOR 1/98 T � _ � . __�� __ -= _: - : __ - 4 � �� .. .. -. . � ... . .;; ' ' _.. ( �`:.' -�>. "i ....',' :-: t:_- , . _ --.- - = . - - ' _- . � . '_ , . '�''- _ .- - � ' � ___' '__ � . _..- .___' _ _- � ��......�'/��rt/�'1% i�7 � f,�:=-- - - - _ ,,r .__ _ �- - (' Zoning Map K -''+ � � ° 'n �'�� N � � � � O Q � N p N R�4 r... . _ .. �Ci � �il � �D � N `� O � t;,� N 4 I � � � N � � I • � ' I N r o � � � Z� v � C9 � o'. w J � n -c � � � � . fV N N N � -� � � �..�r�i i � . p : p � tti �f7 � ' � � � c� : c� �n �n u� �n � ty; (y N N N. N ._.__.___.__-` .. . � j p p � � +i� . u� D SD c0 � 1f3 � u% V N N C`� N N_ � H�� p Q I �— � ao N�� rtv J.S 1}• � `�'�,1 v� u°� �279 d v� v�� 1� �y � N N �7 N N N N N I � `J�LBZ rJZ% ..■... rJ2� � 52fi0 � � S2b7 _ 5267� 5256 5 1 52�6 : _ ..... � 5261 527 5250 523 5250 �2�� a 5264 � 5244 $?q. 5244 p / - � 524 ty n � cA � � �� , 524 52►�8 � �o- � �t ¢ �r +r � � _ �`J..4 N N N N. CW N�y N 523r� �2�? 5237 " �L �� AVE , u � o0 0� cy cD 5231 5226 � cn �n : Sr :� � r� cv 5214 _ 5231 d �r � � : � sr � t � N N N: N� CV hJ N Y P� 5225� sz2o 522 n�� N i � SL�� FJZ��i �j�} N N N l�t. N N N N I DGE u��y `�`� ,n i n ►°n ' 521 N N N: N C�I ,206' _ 520 ;2Qp 520 ii �44. 515 i 138 .:.: 514 i132` . 5141 5�zs s13� 512� 5t25 5114. �11i 5108......... `.... 5ias . � M n. PF ;; ' u� : v� ° 5, n, • f` N n1 nl A] _ woo� � �� 5152; 5155 5150 5'E 5 w ...._.... . 4J 5142 `�141 p 5i44 514 5132 �1s'S 5130 51� 5128: 5131 512G 512 5118 5115 5114; 511 I ti,nR �„�� n� � { �-� oo . o N . � n �� w �n tt �t :.r� ;c�t �t d d ' � - st ' tt . .t d rt {.a cv CV ', N N N' M �n rn M u'� r• �''� �'� I`� tp 4D �li '� '�t �'') CJ d d �!' � '� `* `t � N N N� N � N N waoo,qt� �K 515P 5155 180 N 518 514� 5185 ,p 5170 5179 514t� ��7� � �i60 5169 5i35 5t65 515� 5159 5128.5i49 5140 5149 5120 5145 �13� g13 5108 . �'':-_=_� r: , z � �-"�.. _ � i 5292' S309 5290; 5299 578fl, 52� 5270? 5279 .5264: 5269 5254 525 � 5240 524 j 5230:5239i 5220, 5229' �J21a 521 � 524Q 520 _ �� , _ � _ - : - = - , --_ _ - . '. � ..-. : - _. . . �'- .. ... . _ . 4. . . ' .":" , '�.. _ . . � .. � � . _. _ ::fll�,;�.:.f3 Yrt�=..�_�___' " "" '_ _ MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 634-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF 2468 AND 2474 COUNTY O�NERS JAMES KUPHAL AND DANINE & DAVID REPRESENTING PROPERTY SUPER; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MI00-002 WHEREAS, RTM Management, Inc., representing property owners James Kuphal and Danine & David Super, has requested approval of a minor subdivision of 2468 and 2474 County Road H2, properties zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally-described as follows: Lots 7& 8, Block 1, Clear View Addition County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to subdivide the rear 80 feet from both lots to create a buildable lot fronting Irondale Road with a proposed legal description as follows: The Southerly 80.00 feet of Lots 7& 8, Block 1, Clear View Addition County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant's request for a minor subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, and 1202 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant's request for a minor subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Certificate of Survey for the above described property; and, WHEREAS, the Engineering Technician and Public Works Director for the City of Mounds View have reviewed the proposed minor subdivision and has found it acceptable; and, WHEREAS, the proposed Certificate of Survey has been forwarded to the City Attorney for review; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4, a park dedication fee in the amount of $733 is applicable with this proposed nninor subdivision. ;�� a I. -; _,_ , _ _ s _ _: _ _- - — - - - - - - - -_ � - ' � �� _ r ,'�-� � „ �-'- a . -- - � -- — - -- �- - ��'�.,�_i:-su. .i • =r �! ` .ru�_ � . � � _ r� "�.:.1 �✓ >��1 ...�, f �iill�i✓.r •iifr ,!.`. u .>- � � Resolution 634-00 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the minor subdivision of 2468 and 2474 County Road H2 requested by RTM Management, Inc.: 1. Prior to the City Council approving this subdivision, the applicant shall submit the required park dedication in the amount of $733.00. 2. The Certificate of Survey shall be revised to show a ten-foot drainage and utility easement along the front and rear properly lines and a five foot drainage and utility easement along the side property lines of the proposed lot as required by Municipal Code. Text shall be added which states, "A separate drainage and utility easement document has been executed and recorded with Ramsey County." 3. The applicant shall record the City Council resolution of approval, the Certificate of Survey and the easement document with Ramsey County within thirty (30) days of final adoption, and present proof of such recording to the City of Mounds View. Failure to record these documents or provide proof of such recordation shall cause this approval to be null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 6th day of September, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) Q:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASESUvII00-002�RES. 63400.DOC � � _ _ _ _ - � -_ : -� , _ „ - ; . : =-�' � �. :. _ ' zir< .�lr. �� - � . - -� . - - - = x �'� . ;_ - � , �4 - --- -__�_ _ -- ' C --� _ r.. �. - � - � � :�ii'.� Mr�'r.,.�_ � - - -- � �- - -- _. �[ _ . • _ . _"_ ._ . ._ �.. "__' '_'. ' ._ . . �_.' Item # 9 City ofMounds View Planning Commission Report Meetitlg Date: September 6, 2000 Title: DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERA.TION OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST FOR THE PROPOSED MERMAID PUD CONSISTING OF A HOTEL AND BANQUET CENTER ADDITION TO THE MERIVIAID ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX, 2200 HIGHWAY 10. Plannang Case: PD00-002 flpplaeant: Dan Hall, Representing Mermaid, Inc. Introduciion: Dan Hall is requesting City approval of�tme� tel land a 500 se t banquet center to be attachedt o Unit Development to construct a 96 ro and integrated with the existing complex. The concept of a hotel development and banquet center at the Mermaid is not a new one. The owners of the Mermaid have for six years or more contemplated this type of expansion, investigated potential partners and franchise opportunities._ Throughout this time, there have been informal discussions with previous Councils and Planning Commissions regarding the potential for this type of expansion. To sta�'s knowledge, the concept has always been favorably considered. Mr. Hall has applied for tax increment financing (TIF) on the project, and on August 14, 2000, the City Council approved modifications to the City's TIF plan which will allow for the future approval of the Mermaid TIF assistance package. I3ackground: The development stage plan is the second stage of a planned unit development (PUD) process. (The first stage is the general concept stage, which was approved by the City Council on August 14, 2000.) The development review stage is the more detailed, in-depth review of the site plans, which are to include landscaping, drainage, grading, utilities, signage, elevations, floor plans, photometric analysis, etc.) The final stage of the PUD is the administrative approval of the plans, PUD Document, development agreement and any other documents associated with the proposed PUD. The total area of the proposed PUD lst� Perk ns Parceol, Mus c�Off110 and the dry hold ng pond Mermaid Parcels, the Rent-All parcel, associated with the business park development. (The minimum requirement for a commercial PUD is 5 acres.) The existing business park access drive from County Road H would be shifted to the west to ma�mize the contiguous parking area for the proposed development. ;%�,� �_ _ s k �; �` � .h�;: -- _ _ -_=� - - - - - , _ _ - - - �� _..._ _ �. ---- - ----- •-• _- ..�� --- - --- _ :i Mermaid Repoi•t September 6, 2000 Page 2 The hotel is planned to be a four story, 96-unit AmericInn. Attached to the hotel would be a"water park" which would offer in addition to a pool, a waterslide, hot tub, sauna, and a spacious lounge area (the "plaza"). Attached to the hotel and the e�sting Mermaid facilities would be the 14,714 square foot banquet center, which would provide seating for as many as 500 people. In addition to the PUD, the applicant has also applied for a major subdivision, which would combine all of the subject properties into one platted parcel (presumably, Lot l, Block 1, Mermaid Addition.) The preliminary plat for this request has not yet been submitted and thus will not be contemplated at this meeting. Develop�ient S`tage Review: The Planning Commission has been provided with a set of plans date-stamped August 10, 2000, for the proposed expansion. The plans include a preliminary site plan, a preliminary utility plan, a preliminary grading plan, a proposed landscape plan, a floor plan, and a photometric analysis of the site. Dimensional Requiren�ents • Parkin�: The site plan (Page C-2 of the submitted plans) indicates the proposed and anticipated configuration of the development. As shown on this plan, a total of 975 parking stalls would be required with the addition of the hotel and the banquet cer�ter. The plans indicate that a total of 961 spaces can be provided on the site, but only if the parking lot setbacks are reduced from the B-3 zoning district-required 30 feet to five feet along Highway 10 and County Road H. Such a reduction in the setback requirement is allowed via the PUD process, which explicitly states that a purpose and intent of the PUD is to allow for variation from the provisions of the Zoning Code, including setbacks, parking, height, lot area, etc. Because of the multiple complementary uses on site (restaurant, sports bar, hotel, bowling lanes, hotel, banquet center) staff considers the 961 stalls to be adequate for the facility. Parking lot setback• As mentioned above, the setback of the parking lot can be reduced via the PUD process. Approaching this in the strictest sense, if the setbacks requirements were to be enforced without deviation, as many as 175 parking stalls would be lost. The net effect of such a loss would mean either the banquet center would be reduced in size and capacity by 50 percent or more, or the hotel would need to be completely eliminated. Neither scenario would be feasible based upon the already submitted cost and earnings projections. This setback configuration met with the approval of both the Planning Commission and City Council at the concept stage of this development. Buildin� setbacks: The Building setbacks are different from point to point, but generally speaking, the bowling area would remain unchanged at a minimum setback of 60 feet, the dining and bar area would be more than 200 feet, the hotel addition would be a minimum of 100 feet, while the banquet center would be setback 35 feet. All of these setbacks satisfy the current B-3 zoning requirements. _ - i � - � = � -- - ,- _ - -= _ -: � __: , _ ,., . . _ _ - - - : :----- — .. ---- - - ._�_�------ _._. - -- � Mennaid Report September 6, 2000 Page 3 B7�ildi�rQ Desi�rr.� The proposed hotel expansion would be professionally designed to be aesthetically pleasing and would tie in to the e�sting facility. The hotel addition would be constructed of prefabricated concrete walls and would be finished with maintenance-free siding accentuated with sections of Exterior Finish Insulation System (EFIS). A materials board will need to be submitted which shows the exterior materials and colors to be used in the construction of the building additions. Mr. Hall has discussed the probability of the existing mermaid statue being renovated and relocated to another location either within or atop the building. Staff recorrunends that Mr. Hall clarify the plans for the statue to ensure the end result would be consistent with what the City would consider appropriate. Other than the relocated main entrance and the painting of the existing exterior walls to match the new additions, no other changes to the existing building are planned. Si a e: The applicant plans to retain the multi-colored electronic sign along Highway 10 and proposes three additional signs along County Road H. The additional signage is indicated to be of a monument design, which should be encouraged over a pylon type of sign. No details have been provided for any of the proposed monument or building signage. Before the Planning Commission can take action on the development review request, this will need to be submitted. The applicant has indicated that the corner of the property_adjacent to Highway 10 and County Road H would be reserved for the City to install a gateway entry sign. The site plans should be revised to indicate this by showing a forty-foot triangular easement area at that corner of Highway 10 and County Road H. In addition, an easement docuinent will need to be executed by Mr. Hall for county recordation purposes. Landscaping: The landscape plan submitted with the site plans indicates conceptual plantings of trees in the parking lot islands and along the front of the building facing Highway 10. While any proposed landscaping is an improvement over what is currently present on the site, the PUD requirements stipulate that the landscape plan shall identify the specific types and numbers of plantings to be utilized and shall be reviewed by the City Forester. In addition, stafF recommends that plantings be incorporated into the courtyard area between the pool building and the hotel, assuming such area is to be green-space. A revised landscape plan shall be resubmitted for Planning Commission approval. Trailwavs: To comply with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and the Mounds View Trails and Sidewalk Plan, the applicant shall be responsible for installing a bituminous trailway along its Highway 10 property frontage. As with the discussion concerning Walgreens, Dan Soler with Ramsey County has verbally indicated that the trailway could be located within the Highway 10 right of way as close to the iVlermaid property as possible. The site plan will need to be revised to show this. F � � �:a �.:g c,. - � � `-.�.t� .�- `'��` :--�___�_� �s .� _ _-- _ , I � _ - - i � L i �� ' __ - � � � � ' ..�. 4 -` _�T -._ "'. . . _ _... _ '_'_ ,i_., ,. ."' . � _,sz_ . . � ��ZS��.! -�� sf�' � � /ifi%/� r � � _ . _ ; .+y,y� /ii; ��ir/r. � /i .. �3/ii3llfJfri'._7F�ii�% --- � -• - Mennaid Report September 6, 2000 Page 4 Li�; htin� A photometric analysis has been submitted in conjunction with the development stage plans. The City Code requires that any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking be hooded to eliminate glare on public streets. In addition, the light shall not exceed 1.0 footcandles at the centerline of any adjoining street. It appears as though the footcandle readings comply with this requirement. No specifications are indicated however regarding the light fixtures to be used or the height of the light standards. This information will need to be submitted for consideration. Staff has forwarded to the applicant the same lighting proposed for use on the Walgreens site, including a graphic of the proposed ornamental lighting. As was required for the Walgreens PUD, staff is recommending that the ornamental lighting be installed alongside the bituminous trailway, spaced 125 feet apart. Thus, the site plan will need to be revised to show two ornannental lights between the northerly property line and the northerly Highway 10 access drive, two lights between the northerly Highway 10 access drive and the southerly Highway 10 access drive, and two lights between the southerly Highway 10 access drive and fhe intersection of Highway 10 and County Road H, Because the City is working with NSP to install these lights, staff is suggesting that the applicant submit a payment directly to the City to cover the cost of installation. Such amount would then be deducted form any required letter of credit or cash surety involved with the financial guarantee of the public improvements. Acce.ss: The proposed site plan indicates two Highway 10 accesses and two County Road H accesses. While this would not represent a change from the existing configuration, the two accesses serving the Rent-A11 property would be eliminated. No new accesses, other than the relocated access to the business park, are contemplated with this proposal. ,,.. Draina�e and Utilitv: Staff and the City's engineei� have been working closely with the applicant and Rice Creek Watershed Disn�ict to create a regional stormwater holding pond that would be located partly on the Meh�o Waste Control property and partly on Edgewood Middle School property. While the final drainage plans and use agreements are still being drafted, all indications are that all pa.rties--including R.ice Creek Watershed District--will approve the stormwater pi�oject. The Uenefits of this proposed stormwater pond are immense, in that stormwater runoff from the Mermaid site currently drains un��eated directly into Rice Creek. Recommendation: Review and discuss the proposed plans for development and direct the applicant to revise the plans as follows: r �. �---= . F : �..__ Mennaid Report September 6, 2000 Page 5 The site plan shall be revised to show a nine-foot wide bituminous trailway constructed within the Highway 10 right of way no more than five feet from the Mermaid property and a 40' x 40' triangular sign easement area at the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H. 2. The site and lighting plans shall be revised to show the installation of six ornamental lights along the trailway within the Highway 10 right of way as noted herein. 3. The lighting plan shall be revised to show the light fixture specifications and light standard heights to be used for exterior parking lot illumination. 4. The applicant shall confirm and clarify the status and plans for the existing mermaid statue currently atop the building. The applicant shall provide detail for the proposed monument and building signage to be used. 6. The applicant shall execute a sign easement document which dedicates to the City the area to be used for a gateway sign at the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H. 7. An existing condition site plan shall be included with the development plans to indicate the removal of the Perkins building and the removal of the two curb cuts serving the old rent all site and associated restoration of the right of way. 8. As rec�uired by the Planned Unit Development sect�on of the City Code, the applicant shall execute a development agreement pertaining to the Mermaid PUD, which will serve as the guiding and controlling document for this development. 9. The landscape plan shall be revised to show the specific types and numbers of plantings to be used within this development. The plan shall also show the addition of plantings in the courtyard area between the pool and hotel structures. The landscape plan shall meet the approval of the City Forester. 10. The applicant shall submit a materials board showing the exterior building materials to be used on this development. � /� �� ,��'� �'C1�W4V �'� James Ericson, Planner W:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASESUvlermlid Hotel (ZC00-003, DE00-003, MA00-002)Uvlemiaid PC Report - Sept 6, 2000.doc _.�._—. _ f � �-� � - " ' ; . �. .. .. a �J-�� .v.i� . Cy� � �i � � '"`s'c'�r^. '�'W;. � .� , � -�'� ��: �� . _ _ : � ..l.�..'.rf/,�fr �,� -s at ;r,✓.!� %' ,.,._. . ,._�. -- -- .L.. .. - — � ... ' '-F�,n,��' . � . r�.rr�..-:-.� _._ ..� f.: ..- -- - - - �, _ Item # 10 Czty of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: Septembe� 6, 2000 Title: DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQiJEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ASSISTED LIVING SElVIOR RESIDENTIAL FACII.,ITY LOCATED AT 2670 COLTNTY ROAD I, REQUESTED BY MSP REAL ESTATE, INC. Introduction: On September 13, 2000, the City Council approved Resolution 5345 which approved of a conditional use permit for a 46-room, two-level assisted living senior residential facility at 2670 County Road I. The applicant, MSP Real Estate, Inc., has not yet commenced construction of the approved facility, and the site remains unimproved at this point. Discussion: Section 1125.01, Subd. 3f of the City Code states that "Whenever, within one year after granting a conditional use permit, the work as pernutted by the pernut shall not have been completed, then such permit shall become null and void unless a petition for e�ension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the City Council. Such e�ension shall be requested, in writing, and filed with the City Clerk-Administrator at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the original conditional use pernut." In addition, the Code states that a good faith attempt shall have been made by the applicant to complete the work allowed for in the CUP. Milo Pinkerton, representing MSP Real Estate, Inc., has requested such an extension, citing economic and financial factors as the basis for the delay. He indicates that a one-year extension would give them enough time to begin construction. To refresh the Planning Commission's collective memory, staff is attaching a City Council report and resolutions for both the conditional use permit and the development review, both of which had been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Recommendation: Unless the Planning Commission feels strongly to the contrary, staff is recommending approval of Resolution 636-00, a resolution recommending approval of the one-year e�ension for the conditional use permit to construct a 46-room, two-story, assisted living senior residential facility at 2670 County Road I. � ,,;� - _ i �. �� '�} � ti �.� :- '� _ ° _: � � ; t = � ` : � � , -,.,, , . r �.L'-'=' """"-.. .� .. ___...�_,i ii.FiJi.:di.' . .. _ ..- � . '-v±Fr_}'Lf��/��%%%A?�!7/.� �i'iT�i f��Yl.. : :�i�� i�. .. iYi�///%�:I,i�:Y/��5� v7n"ir:� _l ` - ._ _ _ ___ ___ .. _ r^ _ ._ � MSP Real Estate, I�ic. CUP Extension Sept. 6, 2000 Page 2 `�--J CiJJLt.�1J <-�'1�--i,{_.�� James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1, Letter from Milo Pinkerton, dated August 12, 2000 2. StaffReport to City Council, dated Nov. 9, 1999 3. City Council Resolution 5345 4. City Council Resolution 5385 5. Planning Commission 636-00 ��_,,-, -�<_ . E:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEVIDEVCASES1559-99\CUP Extension Report - Sept. 6, 2000.doc / � � _ � �_ _� ��;,—R� reai estate `' ' incorporated . ;'�_:; :.; August 12, 2000 Rick Jopke Community Development Director City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View MN 55112 Re: Extension of Conditional Use Permit Ass�s�eci Liv�i�g Residence 2670 County Road I � Dear Rick: This letter is a request to extend our approved Conditional Use Permit on the above- identified parcel of land. We feel we have an excellent use for this property, but we need an extension to put all the final pieces together. If you have followed the assisted living market, many large companies have gone out of favor with the investment and lending communities; many markets are overbuilt (not Mounds View), and it has been more difficult to get financing as a result. We have goad lenders that can work with us, but, as a small company, we can only borrow so many dollars at one time. If we had a one-year extension, I am confident that we could start construction next year. I am available any time if you need further clarification. Sincerely yours, /��%"%�'�''w` � / Milo Pinkerton President MSP Real Estate, Inc. Letter Jopke.doc 401 North Third Street • Suite 440 � Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: 612.337.5I44 • Fax: 612.336.4565 � .�� :��f 3 �•� - - -• � � �� - _ 4 : , ��-.� ��... - °� ; -_ - ' �"w _�..__...�._Jy.- : S _ h._ _ _ _ of. Mounds View Staff � - _ � =� � � - � � _ �-- � - � � ��--> �'•��. : - y i -_ / _�i'i i'/,ri/s.i�.. �f. ir�, : f: _...///.%ii//�i,i�ll.��. ✓Y'�Fi� Item No. Staff Report No. Meeting Date: November 15, 1999 rt Type of Business: CB To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: James Ericson, Planning Assoeiate Item Title/Subjects Consideration of Resolution 5385, a Resolution Approving a Development Review for a Two-Story, 46-Room Senior Assisted Living Facility at 2670 County Road I Date of Report: November 9, 1999 Background: The applicant, MSP Real Estate, has requested approval of a development review for a two-story senior assisted living complex to be located at 2670 County Road I. The applicant has an agreement to purchase this site from the property owner, M& E Realty. The Council approved the conditional use permit for this development (Resolution No. 5345 attached for reference) and the ordinance wluch rezoned the property from B-2, Limited Business Commercial, to R-4, High Density Residential (Ordinance 631, also attached for your reference.) One of the requirements of the approved CUP is that the applicant get approval of a Development Review. The building will have a maintenance free exterior will brick accents om the first floor. The applicant has submitted an architectural rendering of the proposed building, which will be on display for your meeting. In addition to the existing sidewalk along County Road I, the applicant will install a sidewalk along Mounds View Drive to connect to the existing sidewalk, and then have an internal sidewalk on the. site to allow the residents and their guests to walk uninterrupted around the building. Analysis: Dimensiorral Rec�uirements• Building Setbacks: Front (Co. Rd. I) Front (Mounds View Dr.): Side (SuperAmerica): Nlirumum lot width: Minimum lot area: Building height: Parking requirements: ir 30 feet 30 feet 40 feet 100 feet 1.0 acre. 45 feet 31 spaces r o d• 30 feet 30 feet 85 feet � 190 feet 1.62 acres 37 feet 31 spaces Met ? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes _ _ _ ; _� � � - i - : " - _ - - - -- !�.�'�i% - - - MSP Assisted Living Senior Residential Facility Planning Case 559-99 November 15, 1999 Page 2 All of the dimensional and other zoning requirements (setbacks, building height, parking spaces, etc.) are either met or exceeded with this proposal. DrainaQe: The applicant has subrrutted a drainage plan to which indicates runoff will either be absorbed into the greenspace or directed across the parking lot and onto either Mounds View Drive or County Road I. There are two storm sewer catch basins near the intersection o£Mounds View Drive and County Road I to which any runoff will flow. This drainage plan has been reviewed and approved by Mike Ulrich, Director of Public Works. Because the site is under two acres, Rice Creek Watershed District approval will not be necessary. Landsca�e Plan: In Section 1103.08 of the City Code pertaining to fencing, screening and landscaping, it states that the lot area remaining after providing for off-street parking, sidewalks, driveway, building and other requirements shall be planted and maintained in grass, sodding, shrubs or other acceptable � vegetation or materials generally used in landscaping. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan which has been forwarded to the City Forester for comment. After review, Forester Wriskey suggested that changes be made with regard to a few of the listed species, which has since been done. The landscape plan included with your packet is the version approved by Mr. Wriskey. Parki� and Access: There are 31 parking stails shown on the site plan, the amount required in the approved conditional use permit. Two of the stalls are handicap-accessible, which satisfies ADA requirements. There are two accesses to this site, one on County Road I and the other from Mounds View Drive. The Planning Commission discussed at great length these two access points, and after significant discussion, recommended that the access to and from County Road I be marked as right-in, right-. out only, to prohibit any attempted dangerous cross-over access from the west-bound lane of County Road I. No restrictions were placed on the Mounds View Drive access. Utilities and Easements Utilities are available to this site and no easements will need to be dedicated for this project. There is an existing utility easement along Mounds View Drive in which the telephone and gas lines are buried. A storm sewer is located on the site in the County Road I right of way. There is one fire hydrant located on the site, and one hydrant across the street from the lot on Mounds View Drive. The Fire Marshal has indicated that because the building will be sprinklered, the two existing hydrants would be sufiicient for purposes af fire protection. i a e: The applicant indzcates that the specifications for the site signage have not yet been cornpleted thus there is nothing to present to the Council in this regard. The Planning Commission in their resolution recommending appraval required only that any proposed signage be in compliance v�rith the City Code and the approved CUP, which allowed for 32 squaxe feet of signage, not including any incidental signs, such as directional signage. . , f � - � _: _ _ - i Y � �� .�-�- --= ; � ��= t, _ �'`-�� _ -� i � � - �`; �-� �r__r._ ._.._ "____ .. ....� _ ." . _._.__ .=��t� _ t..-__ _ ._ i:/1..7��'��i!!��J1�( Ir� __ _ � _ __ _.. . /.•'r ./'!i�_ . _ ... �.�„ .. :I MSP Assisted Living Senior Residential Facility Planning Case 559-99 November 15, 1999 Page 3 Li,�hting.. The parking lot will be illuminated by four light standards, each 21 feet tall with hooded 350-watt bulbs directed toward the lot. The entrance canopy will have six recessed 70-watt reflector bulbs and the side entrance will have two bollard-type lights along the sidewalk. (The applicant has provided lighting specs for the fixtures proposed, included with this report.) No other lighting is proposed. The Lighting plan and photometric analysis date-stamped 10/8/99 (not included) showed that the footcandle readings are all within the required limits. Staffwill have on hand a copy of the lighting plan and photometric analysis at your meeting. �eneral Site Plan Issues The site plan shows the proposed location for the dumpster area--noted only as "trash". Included with this report, separate from the site plans, is a more detailed illustration which shows the construction details of the enclosure. Recommendation: Given the fact that this project meets all dimensional criteria and requirements and that there are no outstanding or unresolved issues, and considering the Planning Commisston's recommendation of approval, staffis recommending that the Council approve this development review request for MSP Real Estate. Council Resolution No. 5385 is attached for your action if so desired. � �� James Ericson Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site and Floor Plans, Elevations, date-stamped 11/2/99 (Separate Attachment) 5. Landscape Plan, date-stamped 10/20/99 6. Trash Enclosure Detail, date-stamped 10/20/99 7. Light Fixture Details, date-stamped 10/8/99 8. Planning Commission Resolution 596-99 (Development Review) 9. City Council Resolution No. 5345 (Conditional Use Permit) 10. Ordinance 631 (Rezoning) 11. City Council Resolution No. 5385 N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\559-99�DEV-REV.CC 1 _ _ _ _ . .- �: _ �- - - °---a �� rll �� -� '��:�I��C::�. � r��' . �pt ,;,h, . '� - tarm«+ Applicant Ynforniatioa Naaae ofApplicant Addre�; COMMUI�TITY DE'V�LOPMENT DEPA�TMENT DE'V'EL�PNI�NT APPLTCATIQIV 240I �iighway ] 0, Mounds View MN S� 112 b 12-717-4020 61 Z-784-3462 - FAX Please Type orPrint Informxtion - Complete Both Sides ofTh� Fprm ��_ �\i �� LS•; � � �r�a�r� �ia�Rn �i,�,��f4Pc:�St �'� _ r �t '• � �1J1 � i�.�' L� w� Inter�tt ia Property (checic appropriatc box) [7 . Owaer af Propeny . a I.�xsee, Operator, Mswager a Ot}ter (explain) Telephone (a ( 2 � "3 "j - S`!�/�% , . s;i-rti ti� V �t�x f�Z 3'� (o � 4'S� y'' a Con�uc[ for Dzed c7wnGr � Ag'eemccil Uo Purcht�5� Applic�nta mu�t provide eviden�e nf intet�cst Iti pmperty at the time of applic�tion, and i#'yott are no't tlte owaer of th� prnparty' you mqsrt prqvide a lattcs of permi��ion i'rom thc owner giving eQltsCnt to the ftling oT this apJatio�#ion. The prnperty op�ner must aigu thv agplieation tor it tq pe accepted. p'rnperty Dc�criptuoalProno��ll ' ,� Addres'3 or Gtaa�at Locuiion Z- (�'7C� � O� N•i�1 �a� Lcga1 DescriPtion � a n � •.- ��. �� c r. � t •n= R � � (�q �;> �� u�j 1� u �-I � � • • • �- — Property Iden�fication #(PTN �) � 7-�30 �- Z 3 w � l- v o 4 0 # �Acr�s � L L � ✓� , j � �t%.0113i1g '1._>�! ��.i.l�'�� .�'31w:=>� �:M1.l.l.t�R�i1.-L� ��l�r�'i l,l`�1�� 1 �- . Type a�Applicexion � t..� ,,► �� 2- �-I , k-1 1 �.. 7�-�•, • z-�, `y�,:: s� a t N�,�-� o Comprei�ensive P1an Am,endment a Rezonu,g . ❑ Msjor 5ubdivisiou � Minoe Subdivisinn p Planned Unit Devtlopment {PUll) o PiJD Amendment ❑ Conditional Use Pennit o Vsrisnce a Codt pppeal � DeveIop Rcvicw/Site I�laa G Wet]]m7d Al,te7adon Permic o WetlsadBufferPemvt ❑ Floodplain P�nnit ❑ Qthet � �250 $250/acre; min $250 mex S ] 500 $250 +$250 dz�osit* TZ00 Refer to rezoning fea.� �350 R-1, R-2 575; ull �d�ers $25� . R-1, R-2 $ t 00 s!i o�}►ers S2S0 $1(30 $125/acre; mir► $125 max $750 R-1. R-2 S 150; aIl others S2(}0 $-1, R-2 $2S; all othcrs $100 $200 '�Deposi�ts shall bc paid to covrr sIl coscs af purlic notices, muteri�Is and staff or cansi�itant time spent in the rcviEw, rescsrch or prep&ration of mAterials associated with this applicatioll. 'I7ie spplicant shsl! b� r�ponsible for aIl reasonable inelur�cd cos�s in eXCess of the ihitial dc:p03i1 amount. Ar�y portion of the d�os`ie not spent �r encumbere:ci shn11 be t�nd�d tio the applicant within tf�irty (3Q) ctays ufiat cons-idcr.uian of the application is complzt�cl. Please complete the revcrac side of this applic$tion. �"� -. .. . _ � e ��:.___ _ _. . _ - - _ _ _ ; _ . 1 . � _ � -s M _ - ' �- _ - _ _ - -i; I: _ i _ . _. _ _ - �cy ofMouads v,ew, Mlv rp�nt Use of Prope}ty � Underreloped/Vacant a Sin le F Q g ami2 Dwellin Dupiex!!'wo Fsmily Dwelling o o Business/Cor�� Estnblisbmcnt Muld-fam,`Iy Dwellin�� 0 oth�r (e�,�ai�) ° ��vsa�ial Est�btishmc�,c �Pary C�assificstion o Descriphon o�Proposal Abxtract � Tortr.ru 5-rit u''71 r1J Q � r, P'e� ^'T SGFi�S '� ''i.V�-oi)1.�.1;s.v � ��G •- �"ZSiL+�J S'i TL•v�'TLiRt` .4�2�-' I�C�7i=.wt �., BY Iv�y (QUR.) S�'GNAT[JRE ON ZT�S APPLICATION, I H�� DECLARE 1�L49'� '�O T!-�: fiLS7' OF M Y KNOWLEDGE. ?13E TNFO1zMATIONPROVIDEI� IS 7'R � ACCUR.qT'E, Signahime �A�p��,k . Name ofApplicnnt (typ�d/ptuyt�� . � � ` L � �Jt i' Sigaat�e ofl°mPcrtY Qwncr Namse of pt�operg' Qwn�a' (typed/print� AddL1BSS Of O►4/riet' Plwne Number of pwner 1 t' E � �A-�•�, ' r+� ' �j S�L• ��r� (N,�rAPcL�s S`�c�� -^ tc;°7 � 1 z "3 e:� �_ Z c� z-7 JI--+:n� ` (3G'Li�-Z �r�i- � � 1� G•� � S,y�,a. #*******�***�s�w�r*#*****�****:***��wr*******�r�r***��+�x�w**s******�*******r�*�r*****�x**�***�*m�r*�:�**s� Daoe af Sub�nittal 1�OR OFFI,CE iTSE dNL7C • Date of Acceptance ." /D - � 1, � � �—,.._,.�__...� P1a�sing Cas� No. Au�i�nu3 to, b0-day Limit 1 �U_dKy limit Fees Paid: Application: ab'p� 0 7J Park b�dicsuian: — Deposics: Other: 1"atal; N:iDAY'A�GROUPSICL7NiDEYWORMSV)E VAPP.FOR Acco�mt # - D (� Check # Recei�t # � �aS S� _ 3� AS I/9$ �, 2 .� 'TI.1 _ . _ � � 8�2 �� Y N.• .. .v �y . 7878 Z 7885 7866 78fi7 7870 7869 7858 N 7870 � 78n 7854 7851 78fi0 7865 7852 w�853 �� 7863 �� 7841 785a 7855 . 7846 g 7841 ,�� 7951 7830 Q : 7fl40 • 7835' ' 7840 7829 `� a 7815 7817 30�. ,� �820 � �s� �� n9a �aoa ��r, �e� cn o �ea5 nao �sos �eo� ,y � 6�1 j 7800 � 7809 7770 3 7801 7760 7797 • ti�1 ^0 8-2 � R_4 �eoi W�s� nso �a7 . �' 'L�O :��1 7767 7760 � 7741 77¢p � . 7781 7750 7731 7730 7753 B-2 . . 7755 7730 7721 7720 , " ry��y°' 7745 7710 7'711 , • 7715 crov N u�i u0°i ;° 7700 u� PUD SILVER VIEW PARK 'm� ►55a •? � . 'S50 � ' '542 PF • �540 . '532 , • . '530 , � �� c . ' R�2 :? .�•a .� ��n �� a, ►� ,� � n n�c io � �o �n �n �n �n 2553 n.� "•'�� B'3 , NNNN � NNN�C�+� ZSS� V' ' N �• ' 2549 z 768 N �¢� O B-3 ry�b° . . B-4� 25� ' I, 2539 2537 . B-2 0 �� . . ti . � � � � a^ r�+ N B-2 �'� ryh � .. N . .,. �, o > N N � N-�'° � � � p� � . �1� 8�7 W c0 .,.. � t�0 tA M N N � �i/ q O N M O d' CD W ^ �I% N� N�N N"�N M �� t�0 � � .- . tp •+ N e,� *'' tY '�F I� N a N O�D O CV '" N N N � � O"� N - l��N w�+ . N �.�+N N � � � . � � .r � e � N N R-4 � v � � N N . .,��. � gV ... O /D � N cV m o t0 M� t� • Y ap to �'J �.�-,� � N'. � � w' c�7 �� .s..::c_e:•:ti:::.��. N� N �h �...��-,s�r.. �caca_ �r.r-'�: _ _ _ i��;:.� : �•� �'�' �, : �{�.•�, �-�tititi•:' °Y•; ��.• _ m �-' 10 e ^i%. 4) .a 1n N N . .I. "' ;� .+� :r t: 7401 ��` .__ �'�: 7442 •N 744 � 42' � n n n • �= - - --`�;,� 74F0 � n DR 73 .,PI�^ �� ..... 7408 a 7390 �- VI�� 7� _ � ,� � g 333 tRr�u 7a'n ' r. �a �n n 7323 t , - • _ • , , . , w 7390 738 N N N N 732 • � � � tC� 7378 N DG N ;° N N 7350 737 Y�: n� 3 � . 0 7370 735 �n .- � 731 _ N � � � N N N 73� �:a� n � 7313 = - � , , � ;:::;::;:::;., � Zoning Map Plannin,g Case 559-99 n Y,,,1;...,r+. r ,rc�r Zn ,.,.� �,.�...�._ � �� _. - - - i ,• - - - � -- - i` �. � �City of Mounds View Location Map � �� _�� - r--� �� _� �� ,� � . � • � •_ • �� _= �� ,� �� . �� - �� , �� o �� , � •� � • � - , � ' �� ■ ■ ��11■ ��s �� ' : �.... ��- ■■ �� '� ` �� ..� � ■ �� , � � �� ■�� : �� ... � � � �...� � � �� ■�� ■ � ► \�� 1 1 11 � i��t�� I�� r � � ��■ ��,�" ��,,,�,�, ��,�� „„�, ,��,��►� �� 1 ��■ �� = ; ii i MSP Reai Estate 2670 County Road I Conditional Use Permit and Rezoning Planning Case No.. 559-99 and 560-�� 2670 Counfy Road I ��;;��; Properties Within 350' �w �M3In SQr�nOw :;i3 � I� 3 3 N,y:- � i ;�d� ^u�LSIS:�d dSw 173: �dc � :i3�Ni, �_iyI:G��y�. � / � � � � � W U Q d � � / :� ; , - � ,�-� __r r .:. _ � . f _ ��`--� - -��; - - - - � - -,'s1 -_ -e__ __ _ , i , �t _ � � I . ' � jj � �. ,..� I�� `'� 'i ] ; _ _YCI_� 1 t�n.vca - � —J-��. .�� ;1�. _ � � _ . I i .�...:I„-_----_ _ -_I-, :�q ,. :i,.�,';`'::. .- i � �..'- --._ v�i _ _.�i �__ ��`_ � --" -' '9 --- �:i11 ;3: � � a a• �J � C � F J N ' o> v o� a 3 W > a z 0 i i N ti 0 n ____ __ ___ P ; – - _ - _ �,� _ �l r : � _ .. . - _- - � ' _ . , -.'. - . . _- `. - - - . ._ _ ._-. . .._ . .:.� � -.y� = . - -- _.. : . . .. _ . � .- _ _ ,._ ,_ . _: � .� �.. - - - - - � ----'— - . -_ . _ .a,'�ivltJ.✓✓.a _ �� ."_ __�sy . - -__ . . . . - _. . " _ . . . \ � � � � / ..,u� 4 � j�L , �T p ' - �. .:..�''r:_1;.. � �;zy;< - .',: - _ � .' }' � - !�:'�;;;! e.;'��'`,.� ; •' ,.,� ,:.ti.: F : i y� : •�_ t..'�,� � -'�� _ _ ''Y,S.;i J�'-.: (qj� � f•' 1�� 10 � � � N � d y c � � N y � � N d � � O 4 � � .� rG J� L - .� t --�t .. . -� .. _ _. .. _ . � r. Y, ,_�_._ � . . t ��-^.._.-,- ,-e:' _.' ._ �._` _ :^ .. '".,..c.'�s'. :- - _". - _ _ _ _ ""' '" __-`�� 7:r- . - - -- ' F - . �'�� ' @ 'I ^_` .a ,',.raa I .. ._� i�ro I c�m�>.v-; ,�«.w I ��lin:R� f ' . � •'ll_�•I—'_i:"� � — ;'e4 �_^� '' • - � � �'a _ �r<_ �L:tv?'i '3i'�r� � � N N 0 : ',� '•lO:i�1bH + '. .' {y,_j a�'.�� ' ' - -tli �.,.:..,.. __ � R� Q P u � o W H � N l [n �Ll a v 3 W % N G Z S � n ` �N a I w O H� � ' .i , _ __ _ � _ c -� � i: � w F .-'� _ �_-."c - -�: _ �.:_ ..� -�.. _ __:. ..,� _.. __. __.. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CONi1VIISSION RESOLUTION NO. 596-99 CTTY OF MOUNDS V�W COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF N�NNESOTA RESULUTTON RECONIlV�NDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A TWO-STORY, 46-ROOlVI SE1vIOR ASSISTED RESIDENTIA� FACILITY LOCATED AT 2670 COUNTY ROAD I; ' pLANNING CASE NO. 573-99 W�-lEREAS, MSP Real Estate has requested City approval of a development review for a 46-room, senior assisted living facility located at 2670 County Road I, property legally described as follows: Tract "A ; Regastered Land Survey 414 . Ramsey County, State of Minnesota � W��REAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a development review be conducted for all commercial and industrial development and all residential development if more than two dwelling units are being erected within the City; and, W�REAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: � 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Site and Parking Plans, date-stamped 10/8/99 4. Elevations and Floor Plans, date-stamped 10/8/99 5. Lighting Plans and Specifications, date-stamped 10/8/99 �� 6. . Landscape Plan, date-stamped 10/8/99 7. Staff report WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the site plan date-stamped October 8, 1999 and. revised on �ctober 20, 1999, conforms to the general zoning requirements of Title 1100 with regard to setbacks, parking requirements, and building height; and, WF3EREAS, the IViounds View Planning Commission acknowledges that the Mounds View Fire Marshal has reviewed the placement of fire hydrants to service the building and finds their location and n.umbers to be acceptable; and, WI-iEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission acknowledges that the Director of Public Works has reviewed the drainage plan and has found it to be in conf�ormance with the City's Loca1 Water Management Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission acknowledges that the City Forester has reviewed the Landscape Plan, recommending slight modification and clarification of the planting species used, and has found it acceptable with the indicated revisions. �' _ -: � _ _ --�:� ,�. �. � : � '� _ s ' _ w : r .--- _- r ' _ �,rY � � t. ,:. - - _ _ "_ . _. . .__ . .� ___� —.__��_,___.�____ _�is� � .�=-.v»-ia��„r�l� �//�Yfi._.1._!�c_: . // s ._ :�: //�/f:� /f/.�!. � . _ Resolution 596-99 MSP Development Review November 3, 1999 Page 2 NOW, TBEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of a development review for a 46-room, senior assisted living facility located at 2670 County Road I, subject to the following stipulations: 1. The Site plan shall be revised prior to action by the City Council as follows; a. A sidewalk shall be shown along Mounds View Drive. � b. The access onto County Road I shall be marked as being "exit only." c. The building shall be situated so as to comply with all setback requirements. d. Signage shall be in compliance with the City Code and approved CUP. BE TT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staffto forward tlus resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. . Adopted this 3rd day ofNovember, 1999 Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL N:�DATAIGROUPS\CO1vIDEV1DEVCASES�559-99�596-99PC.RES � .I � �;�- - _ _ _ f�-- � , � �� - -� � �- : � -- - - - - _= , .__ .___ . _ :�:" _.. =- �i:` , _ _. ------- -- '.v�.:..��:.._...,._�� .. - - f.�f.�rr". .lr---- _ f.., - �v-� - F RESOLUTION NO. 5345 CITY QF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STAT� OF MINNESOTA A RE50LUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ASSISTED LIVING 5ENI4R RESIDENTIAL FACILITY TO BE LOCATED AT 2670 COUNTY. � ROAD I; PLANNING CASE NO. 559-99. WIiEREAS, MSP Real Estate has applied for a conditional use permit to allow for an assisted living senior residential facility at 2670 County Road I; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned B-2, Limited Business Commercial and is legally described as follows: Tract "A', Registered Land Survey 414 Ramsey County, State of Minnesota WFIEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application " b. Zoning Map _ c. Location Map d. Site Plan e. Staff Report f. Staff Parking Analysis Memo, dated 8/3/99 g. Letter from M& E Realty, Property Owner, dated 5/24/99 h. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map I. Planning Commission Resolution 584-99 F � : . � � IF � �j �iiri�'% �/..„ . . ... ._ ._. _- ..__ _.____. . . . . ' ' __ _ _ � _ . . .� Resolution No. 5345 September 13, 1999 Page 2 WFiEREAS, such a facility is a permitted condit�onal use within the R-4, High Density residential zoning district; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council adopted Ordinarice 631 on September 13, 1999, an ordinance which rezoned the subject property from B-2, Limited Business Commercial, to R-4, High Density Residential; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View City Council has considered the specific criteria for assisted living facilities as they appear in Section 1109.04, Subdivision 2 and find that they are met; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has considered the following provisions from Section 1125.01(1)e of the Zoning Code regarding possible adverse effects of the proposed use: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved. � (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (4) The character of the surrounding area. (5) The demonstrated need for such use. and makes the following findings concerning same: The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Mixed Use PUD, which would be consistent with the proposed R-4 zoning of this site. Such a facility would help nn.eet the housing needs of a particular segment of the community. The property is located between commercial sites to the north and a high density residential development and park to the south. The proposed use would act as a buffer between the existing land uses. The proposed style and architectural design of the proposed facility would blend into and add character to this area. WHEREAS, The Mounds View City Council makes the following findings that the general criteria for CUP approval in Subdivision 1125.01 (2) have been met: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which�serve or are proposed to serve the area. It is not expected that this use wild have any impact on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (2) The use will be su£ficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value arid there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. � This development, while not abutting any residential property, would be suf�ciently compatible with the existing land uses and would not cause any foreseeable depreciation rn neighboring property values. i� - 4 _ �� .� -_ _ .. " . -__ . Resolution No. 5345 September 13, 1999 Page 3 (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. - The architectural rertderings presented to the Planning Commission and public show a well designed and aesthetically pleasing building. � (4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the e�sting land use. The demand for assisted living facilities such as the one proposec� is growing to accommodate an aging population. (5) The use is consistent with the pwposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The use would be consistent with the R-4 zoning district, which allows for assisted living facilities with a conditiorral use permrt. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area of the City as Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, which indicates an anticipation for a varrety. of uses. An assisted living facility would be consistent with this designation and would also address a goal to offer a wide range of housing alternatives to a varieiy of population segmerrts. (7) The use will not cause tra£fic hazards or congestion. It is not expected that this use would create or generate substantial levels of traffic. As such, it would not be expected that this use would cause traffic hazards �or congestion. (S) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. � �. All of the infrastructure serving this site are anstalled and provided--no additional infrastructure will be needed to accommodate this use. N�W THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit for an assisted living senior'residential facility at 2670 County Road I as requested by MSP Real Estate, with the following stipulations: 1. The applicant sha11 record the conditional use pernut with Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval and provide proof of such recordation to the City or this permit shall become null and void. �-�W `� ��= � � } x � �" � , � � t � �� -�_.,v -- : � �:-� t�� _ '_ _ � � ,� �.� r ; k `:� - t�� .. _ i �r J� _,� �,fj� { / ��/. �� //i I/•'l:%%/I.//.•:r/ rJ(� KJi�.�. �/%/�i//.��!%l/..� / ./7i �f :'�/✓��/��/Y/�� iY!//f%�_I.i%f�L/_J: %��r1} �1.._�. .r!/1r.�'/.1.%'{J ' � � �__. � _ � . . �%? _ _' _ "/:�ili./ J Resolution No. 5345 September 13, 1999 Page 4 2. The applicant shall apply for and receive approval.of a developrnent review for this use, submitting the appropriate fee and submittal materials to the Director of Community Development. 3. The use shall be allowed to display facility identification signage as reviewed by the Planning Commission. and approved : by the City Council within the development review process, in an amount not to exceed 32 square feet, not including any uicidental or directional signage as allowed by Code. 4. All State laws and statutes governing such uses shall be strictly adhered to and all required permits for operation shall be obtained and maintained. 5. The facility shall be secured at all times ta protect the health and safety of the facility residents. 6. The use will be subject to parking requirements equivalent to one stall per every three beds or fractions thereof and one stall per every employee on that shift having the most personnel present. Adopted this 13th day of September, 1999. ATTEST: . (SEAL) N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV 1DEVCASES\559-99\5345CC.RES � .� r �4�Lt,� / Dan Cou hlin, M yor � J, � . Charles S. Whiting, ity Clerk / Administxator c : G � � , - _ _ : �.-- _ _ , _ __ � .: . ___ � . , , ORDINANCE NO. 631 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW . COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REZONING OF 2670 COUNTY ROAD I FROM B-2, LIMI'I'ED BUSINESS COMIV�RCIAL, TO R-4, ffiGH DENSTTY RESIDENTIAL AND AMENDING THE CITY'S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PLANNING CASE NO. 559-99 THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Recitals Section 1.01: MSP ReaI Estate has applied for a rezoning of the property located at 2670 County Road I, currently zoned B-2, to be rezoned as R-4, High Density Residential, said property legally described as follows: Tract "A ", Registered Land Survey 414 Ramsey County, State of Minnesota Section 1.02: The use proposed by MSP Real Estate is an assisted living senior residential facility; and, Section 1.03: The Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: . a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Location Map d. Site Plan e. � Staff Report f. Staif Parking Aualy'sis Merr�o, dated 8/3/99 g. Letter from M& E Realty, Property Owner, dated 5/24/99 h. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Ivlap i. Planning Commission Resolution 584-99 Section 1.04: The Mounds View City Council has received a recommendation of approval - from the Mounds View Planning Commission as stated in Planning Commission Resolution No. 584-99; and, . Section 1.05: The Mounds View City Council does hereby find that this proposal meets the general requirements and standards for Rezonings as follows: Ownership: The application for approval of this rezoziing has been filed by MSP Real � -- '-1`-1- -;�� -:� = l - f i , . Estate, who holds a purchase agreement for the properiy, and has been executed by the owner of the property, M& E Realty Company. � Compreherrsive Plan Consistency: The comprehensive plan designation for this property is IVl�xed Use Planned Urut Development. The praposal is consistent with this designation. Geographic Area Ir�volved.• The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Mounds View Drive and County Road I. Neasby uses include a SuperAmerica and the Silver View Plaza to the west, a lugh density residential development and Silver View Park to the south, and a Burger King, Bicycle shop and.a senior high rise to the north. Impact to Adjoining Properties: It is believed that the impact of this proposed development would be minimal. The use would act as a transition between the present commercial and residential uses. ' . SECTION 2: The Mounds View City Council hereby amends Appendix A of the Mounds View Municipal �ode entitled "Specific Rezonings" and amends the Official Zoning Map for the City of Mounds View to change the zoning designation on the property described above from B-2 to R-4. . SECTION 3. The Mounds View City Council does hereby stipulate that in the event the development being proposed by MSP Real Estate does not come to fruition within one year of this ordinance's adoption (or sooner, upon written notification of the applicant), the Council rnay act to reinstate the property's original B-2 zoning classification. � - SECTION 4: This Ordinance is effective thirty days after its publication. First Read by the City Counc�l of the City of Mounds View this 23rd day of August, 1999. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 13th day of September, 1999: ATT'�ST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: \ �/��11�0� � h City Attorney N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDE�DE VCASES1S59-99\631.OTtD ;� . � , � � � , �..�1� � Dan Coughlin, ayor �� Charles Whiting, ity Clerk-Administrator RESOLUTION NO. 5385 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF NDNNESOTA � RESOLUTION APPROVING A DEV�LOPMENT REV�W FOR A TWO-STORY, 46-ROOM SENIOR ASSISTED RESIDENTTAL FACILITY LOCATED AT 2670 COUNTY ROAD I; PLANNING CASE NO. 573-99 . WHEREAS, MSP Real Estate has requested City approval of a development review for a 46-room, senior assisted living facility located at 2670 County Road I, property legally described as follows: - Tract 'A ; Registered Land Survey 414 Ramsey County, State of Minnesota WHEREAS, Ch�,pter 1006 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a development review be conducted for all commercial and industrial development and all residential development if more than two dwelling units.are being erected within the City; and, VVHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site and Floor Plans, date-stamped 11/2/99 5, Landscape Plans, date-stamped 10/20/99 6. Trash Enclosure Detail, date-stamped 10/20/99 7. Light Fixture Specifications, date-stamped 10/8/94 8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 596-99 9. StaffReport WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council finds that the site plan date-stamped Novemher 2, 1999, conforms to the general zoning requirements of Title 1100 with regard to setbacks, parking requirements, lighting and building height; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Cauncil acknowledges that the Mounds View Fire Marshal has reviewed the placement of fire hydrants to service the building and has found their location and numbers to be acceptable; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council acknowledges that the Director of Public Works has reviewed the drainage plan and has found it to be in conformance with the City's Local Water Management Plan; and, • - a r.� I. � i v- � -.!� _ _ � �- - . . r �t�_ �� _. .:_, F � ` ; _ -- . �; .;- . -_ .. . -:. -:_ . . _ --: � , ' _ �rlr/��v��,r,�� , __ ! ��;ir,�i�rr��,�;,Nit�'% �f�.�i.' __ . �f.r .�. .>f.:i• Resolution 5385 MSP Development Review November 3, 1999 Page 2 WF-IEREAS, the Mounds View City Council acknowledges that the City Forester has reviewed the Landscape Plan and has found said plan to be acceptable for Mounds View's soils and climate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View City Council approves the requested development review for a 46-room, senior assisted living facility located at 2670 County Road I, subject to the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall install signage to designate the County Road I access as being limited to "right in, right out." 2. Building signage shall be in compliance with the City Code and approved CUP. Adopted this 15th day of November, 1999 Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator SEAL N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES�559-99�5385CC.RES : y f - _ -- = _ 2 � _ - __. _._` : _- -- --= - i - "--- - " - ----- � :� --�`.�`�.�,' - - MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMNIISSION RESOLUTION NO. 636-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF NIINNESOTA A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING 5EIVIOR RESIDENTIAL FACII,ITY TO BE LOCATED AT 2670 COUNTY ROAD I; PLANNING CASE NO. 559-99. WHEREAS, Milo Pinkerton, representing MSP Rea1 Estate, has applied for an extension of the conditional use permit for an assisted living senior residential facility at 2670 County Road I, approved on September 13, 1999; and, WHEREAS, Mr. Pinkerton has submitted this request in writing and within the prescribed time-period as outlined in Section 1125.01, Subd. 3f; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as follows: Tract ':9 '; Registcred Land Survey 414 Ramsey County, State of Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission believes the proposed use for which the CUP was granted remains consistent with the proposed comprehensive plan, which identiiies this land as Mixed Use Planned Unit Development; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission believes the applicant has made a good faith attempt to commence work on this project. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve a one-year extension of the conditional use permit approved on August 13, 1999. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 6th day of September, 2000. ATTEST: (SEAL) Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director E:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\559-99\RESOLUTION 636-OO.DOC � " h 1. ` _. _ , , „ , _• � . '_,'.� _ "___�__� -�'. __ .�_. � �..-:w�v'�� drl�'��L . __ '..._t....� .�....3 .. . ._...i.."_.`__ . . ... L , � � PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Call to Order ,is. Regular Meeting August 16, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highwa� 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p.m., August 16, 2000. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chaiiperson Peterson, Commissioners Hegland, Kaden, Miller, Stevenson, and Thomas. :,,. �:�.: � � {. Membei• Excused: Connnissioners Berlce and Johnson. Also Present: Planner Jim Ericson Chair Peterson reported that Commissioner LauUe has resigned due to his upcoming move out of state. Index to Minntes Planning Case No. MI00-001, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 630-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision for Leo & Patricia Bergeleen, 8132 Long La1ce Road, Applicant. Staff Reports / Items of Information. Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports. 3> Citizen's Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. Page 2 3 4 r : j �„� �;t?��` �. � fj � � £_ F. .�. ,�z- i- -_ - _� ��. -.. � _ . _ ' _ ��1�f��/y/// �✓r1Y/ � � ! :!.% . . .-. , . . . . � ,. . y . . . Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4. Approval of Minutes 1 � � � .�� i.-. 3�! �-'�iC/-: L... _ ��. i. il .-- . . August 16, 2000 Page 2 A. July 5, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Kaden to approve the July 5, 2000 ineeting minutes as corrected. Ayes — 6 Nays - 0 5. Planning Case No. MI00-001 Motion carried. �`' Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 630-00, a Resolution Recomrnending Approval of a Minor Subdivision for Leo & Patricia Bergeleen, 8132 Long Lalce Road. Leo and Patricia Bergeleen, the applicants, and Bob Pearson, their neighbor, were present. Planner Ericson gave the staff report as follows: Leo Bergeleen has applied for a minor subdivision to subdivide his lot located at 8132 Long Lalce Road and has submitted a Certificate of Survey to effectuate the subdivision. The subdivided portion would not be used for development purposes, but would instead be combined with a property fro��ting Sherwood Road. In essence, this is a simple land transaction whereby one property owner deeds part of his lot to another property owner. No new lot would be created by this action. However, because a change in property lines is involved, the City is required to approve the action, which is defined as a subdivision of land. The existing lot to be subdivided is approximately 49,673 square feet, or, 1.13 acres, is zoned R- 1, Single Family Residential, and conforms to all the City's lot requirements. It is 496.73 feet deep and 100 feet wide: Mx. Bergeleen proposes to split off the back 300 feet of the property and has entered into an arrangernent to sell this subdivided portion to a neighbor, Bob Pearson, located at 2565 Sherwood Road. Mr. Pearson is planning to combine Mr. Bergeleen's rear 300 feet to his own property, thus no new lot would be created. After the subdivision and land transfer, Mr. Bergeleen's lot would be 19,770 square feet. Staff has forwarded the Certificate of Survey to the City's Engineering Technician as well as to the Director of Public Worlcs. Other than dedication of the westerly 30-foot of the subdivided for roadway purposes, no changes or special requirements are being made. Typically, it is the case with most minor subdivisions that the City would require dedication of perimeter drainage and utility easement areas. However, because both lots have already been developed and no new development is being proposed, dedication of new easements would not be needed. The City Attorney will review the Certificate of Survey and any documentation needed to record the subdivision with Ramsey County. I , 1 I �^ j r -� �� I� - _ ° � � a r , --,� - � _ . : - _ 1 _ .� _ .J I�. I .� - - " � - -- � -- - - _��dY.C'il'�..x_ - = r _ t.i _��,,,� � _._..e ., :�frf .1� i. irc�,. _ . > .� Mounds View Planning Commission August 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 Last, most subdivisions, minor or major, are subject to park dedication requirements. This request is unique in that, again, no new lot is being created and no new development will occur. Staff has indicated to Mr. Bergeleen and Mr. Pearson that because of this, no dedication would be required in this instance. (Section 1204.02 Sub. 3 of the Municipal Code exempts land improved with single-family dwellings.) However, if the property were ever split and developed into new lots, a park dedication fee would be required at that time. Planner Ericson stated staff is recommending approval of the proposed Resolution 630-00, a resolution recommending approval of the requested minor subdivision of 8132 Long Lake Road, with two stipulations. The first stipulation is to require the land subdivided from the Bergeleen's parcel to be immediately combined with the parcel located at 2565 Sherwood Road, owned by Bob Pearson. Proof of combination shall be submitted to the City of Mounds View within 30 days of City Council approval. The second stipulation is that the applicant shall record the City Council resolution of approval, the Certificate of Survey, and the right-of-way dedication document (if required) with Ramsey County within 30 days of iinal adoption and present proof of such recording to the City of Mounds View. Failure to record these docuinents or provide proof of such recordation would cause this approval to be null and void. Chair Peterson commented that this is a very straight forward request. Commissioner Stevenson stated his concurrence. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Thomas to approve Resolution 630-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Requested Minor Subdivision of 8132 Long Lalce Road. Ayes — 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Planner Ericson advised that this will be considered by the Council on August 28, 2000. 6. Staff Reports / Items of Information A. Previous Council Actions Planner Ericson reported on previous Council actions. He advised that the Council approved emergency Ordinance 667, a revision to Ordinance 653 which created a moratorium on tattoo and body piercing establishments, to extend the moratorium by another three months. This additional tiine will allow for further research and, if adopted on August 28th' there would be no gap between when the moratorium ends and the new ordinance is effective. The Council also accepted the resignation of Council Member Lyiuie Thomason which will be effective November 7, 2000. Planner Ericson advised the Council has authorized hiring of Kathleen Miller as the new City Administrator and she will start on September 18, 2000. On August 14, 2000 Council toolc action on the Walgreens PUD and adopted resolutions to approve the PUD and exchange of real property, the wetland alteration permit and development stage review, and the preliminary plat. The Council also gave first reading to ordinances to rezone the properties from B-3 and PF to PUD, to vacate the old Edgewood Drive right-of-way, and authorizing disposing by sale of �- . _ r.L _� �I .� � _ r.. -�e _ - -- _ � � - --�-�� r � , �'- w - � // �� - �, . .. . , , . -�-� .�.._ , _. _ . . � �� ' -.. _. �,� �:;Y�.�/.�-� _ G � - � � -- .._°-- J"-:i' l / f.%l _ , i %. _ . �_ a� .._.. � _ r �I.F.:,:��f�.. t../. � i Mounds View Planning Commission August 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 City-owned real property, (as required by City Charter). Second readings will be considered on August 28, 2000. Planner Ericson reported the Council approved the TIF package for the proposed Mermaid Hotel and Banquet Center expansion on a unanimous vote. The Council also gave second reading to Ordinance 658 related to fences and fence heights, and Ordinance 664 related to accessory buildings. Planner Ericson advised the Council extended their appreciation to the Planning Commission for their work on the ordinances. They will become effective 30 days from August 24th. The Council also approved a$9,000 expenditure for Phase II of the Highway 10 study by Springsted. Planner Ericson advised that the next Planning Commission meeting will be on September 6, 2000 and will include consideration of another minor subdivision, two variances, and a development request and plat approval for The Mermaid. �:��.> 7. Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports �'`�'j''� "� ��" No reports were considered. u�� ,,; ��i":' �"� .'� , 8. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Cominission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 7:16 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, - Rick Jopke Community Developxnent Director Transcribed by: Carla Wirth Ti�neSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. � �` .%� 7� ,,.�r �� i f, i _ ! � 1. 2. 3. � ._ .____ _ . . . ._- . . . . _.., . - "� _ _ .'=` ..`-' - _- . . _ ` - ._ � �.:,_:: _ _...,. __. . . � � -� - _ i. ...� :.. _. _. - --° � � - MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Call to Order Roll Call Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAHING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MIlVUTES Approve Planning Commission Minutes: a. August 16, 2000 5. Planning Case No. VR00-007 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 633-00, a Resolution Approving a Parking Lot Setback Variance for Tony Mezzenga„ 7664 Greenfield Avenue. G 7. 0 StaffReports / Items of Information a. Previous Council Action Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports Adjournment to Agenda Session (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEA.SE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT (763) 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANI� YOU. AGENDA SESSION AGENDA t. Review the Minutes from the August 2, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting. G:�DATA1GROiJPS1COMDEV�PLANCOMM�PCAGENDA�2000�.Sept 13, Z000 PC Agencla.doc � �`'_ � =- � = f�' - _ ' , 4 - � - _ ; _ ; _,__; - `'` : .. s - - � I " .�_6 i -- - . ._ :_: - - -= z=_--.: ,= : : i� � '--"- � —' ---�' - -._ - , �i__'s"`—"—"1----� �..,..-��'i.��!!le''l:l.�iGi �i_: I a 7 �� Item # 5 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: September 13, 2000 Title: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 633-00, A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN OFFICE BUILDING AT 7664 GREENFIELD AVENUE, REQUESTED BY TONY MEZZENGA. Introductaon: Tony Mezzenga, representing the property owner Ernest Gustafson, is requesting approval of a variance to construct a small, split-level office building on the undeveloped lot at the southwest corner of County Road T and Greenfield Avenue. The variance is requested for reduced parking lot and building setbacks, a reduced parking ratio, reduced driveway separation and reduced parking lot width. While not required to do so, staff again sent notices to the property owners within 350 feet of 7664 Greenfield Avenue regarding this meeting to ensure neighborhood awareness. Background: This 13,068 square-foot property is zoned B-3, Highway Business. The size of the lot and corner-lot setbacks present practical difficulties in terms of what can be developed, which has left the lot up to this point unimproved. This lot borders commercial property to the west (Tom Thumb and a Laundromat), high density residential to the east, and low density residential to the south and north. The proposed office use is consistent with the B-3 zoning designation and is a less intensive use which would fit well into the predominately residential surroundings. Public Hearing: The Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this proposal at its last meeting on September 6, 2000. Numerous residents attended the meeting, some of whom expressed concern regarding the proposal and the existing condition of the vacant lot and the Tom Thumb store. In summary, the general concerns were as follows: • Cut-through pedestrian traffic • Littering and graffiti, lighting and fencing • Reduced visibility • Traff'ic Congestion • Inappropriate zoning designation In response to these concerns, staff recognizes that there are issues regarding the lot in its present, undeveloped state. The property owner has indicated that people are cutting across his lot to go to the adjacent Tom Thumb store, and in so doing, have worn a deep path through the lot. There also seems to be a constant accumulation of litter on the lot which at times becomes quite unsightly. Development of this lot would greatly reduce if not eliminate both of these problems. � � �. � � _ f_ �I `� r _ � - -- �_ .�� , r �� : - _ � � _ ��3`�f/.�`� (/f/_:�...'r' " _s r"'. ii/ _ % �r 1__././�.l1J_.�Ji" _ ._s_z��it'l�/� `T�=-�i�df1_ �!!. �, _ _ _. ._ _. Mezzenga Vanance Report September 6, 2000 Page 2 While completely unrelated to the requested variance application, staff has inspected the Tom Thumb store and is working with the management to address recurring graffiti problems. The problem however is not limited to Tom Thumb or this area. At this time, the building and fence is free from any graffiti and the grounds are free from litter and debris. Regarding visibility, one resident expressed concern that the view from his home would be blociced by the construction of a building or fence on the vacant lot. While this may be true, development on the vacant lot cannot be denied to preserve this view. Staffwould encourage the residents to be involved in the site plan review stage of the development, at which time consideration would be given to landscaping and fences and other physical site improvements such as lighting. Concerning the issue of traffic congestion, staff acknowledges that County Road I carries a significant volume of tra�°ic and while a curb cut onto County Road I would not improve traffic flow, stafffirmly believes that the anticipated daily vehicle trips to this property would be minimal so as to not cause any unreasonable congestion. Assuming a peak of ten vehicle trips per hour, a car would be entering or e�ting the parking lot less than once every five minutes. At that rate, vehicle safety and traffic flow would not be compromised. Last, regarding the present zoning of the property, as indicated at the Planning Commission's last meeting, the commission members examined this lot and its zoning during the comprehensive plan update. The commission determined that a residential development would not be appropriate on this site, even though it borders residential on three sides. Given its frontage on County Road I, the amount of traffic and the adjoining commercial use, the Planning Commission chose to maintain the commercial land-use designation, considering business/commercial to be the most feasible and appropriate future use. P�rking: The applicant has submitted a site plan for a 3,480 square-foot split-level office building with 2,975 square feet of usable office space. For that much area, the code requires provision of 20 parking stalls. To construct a building of that size and a parking lot to accommodate the 20 vehicles, variances would need to be approved to reduce the side and rear building setbacks from 20 feet to 10 feet and to reduce the parking lot setbacks from 30 feet and 20 feet to 4 feet and 15 feet. The Planning Commission inquired about the number of stalls, and if the applicant felt the parking requirement to be adequate or excessive. Mr. Mezzenga replied that twenty spaces were excessive, given the small size of the building. Staff agreed that the requirement may be more than what is needed and offered to provide the Planning Commission with office parking requirements from other municipalities. Staff referred to the Of� Street Parking Requirements publication, published by the American Planning Association. Of the nine examples given, none required more parking for an office use than does Mounds View. The range went from one space per 200 square feet to one space per 750 square feet. The most common ratio was one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. Applying the 1 per 250 ratio to the proposed 3,480 square foot building results in the need for 14 spaces. Given that, staff drafted a site plan based on the 3,480 square foot building and a parking lot to accommodate 14 vehicles. This site plan is attached as E�ibit A. r �--- �.�� . f4 '� M l� ' 'r�sr. '� - '- � . �.t _ ` V` `�v.., �1-: � " ��r . .� ss .': _.' _ _ { .q-�-.. � . � �f -�_' — �Y_ " . ��'"" -�— .�_�.., �.:.: --- �� . I -' ; t _ � - - --- '— - — � - y - � ` ' = r1 + ._.�..,,,.,�..a�� Y�:<� -�� ._r–�.,._—� _ _ t, , Mezzenga Variance Report Septembei- 6, 2000 Page 3 Site Plan: The site plan attached as Exhibit A differs from what was originally proposed by Mr. Mezzenga in that the building and parking lot have essentially traded places. The new site plan ma�mizes green-space while minimizing the parking area. With six less stalls and a reduction in the drive aisle width, more pervious surface area can be set aside for landscaping and grass. The building setback from Greenfield Avenue is 30 feet, which complies with the Zoning requirements. Because of the small lot size, however, variance are still necessary. The variances contemplated by the proposed site plan are as follows: • 9' reduction in front yard building setback • 14' reduction in front yard parking lot setback • 18' reduction in driveway separation requirement • 2' reduction in parking lot width requirement • 6 space reduction in number of parking stalls required i�ariance: For the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical diiiiculty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body 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. Given the reconfigured site plan, staff believes that the variances requested are the minimum to alleviate the hardship and believes the hardship test has been met and that there are clear and demonstrable practical difficulties associated with this lot which makes development prohibitively restrictive. Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval of the variances requested by Tony Mezzenga to construct an office building at 7664 Greenfield Drive, with stipulations. �...� C�.�-4� C-�t�-�L� James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Localion Map 3. Site Plan (Exhibit A) 4. Parking Requirements (Pgs 19-20) 5. Resolution 633-00 X:�DATA\GROUPSICONIDEV�DEVCASES\VR00-007�Ivlezzenga Report - Sept 6, 2000.doc � �> I�� /y � r � � � � ��_ � / �r'� �I G�, `�-� . - k _ � � � li'�/�/�fii ._—,.i..,..i..r.rl �__ .:i:..�.�.r _....n�rl.�: ._.>_.��i.._ �✓%sr+,'.�jSb � �.-E�o'��+:�:{rr'�J. I.i :_..-:._ _ "' ' ' ' _ _ Zoning Map � I � � � ��za .-- Rv_ � ^ _ - � �.� F � � � �' °i ' .: '�0=' 7c��,� �N L�/\� r-, o� -r ti'=• ��1 rt, - v� u� K � r ,T. I � {n V 7 ) �,U �i..�i i u� q �.� c; •- �� ! �/�� .. �� CJ N N (. . y00 c� N N c� J°V I 7901 _ O u' r� �'> �� c� �,i o� (.'`-- N �i i i <v �i 1�-` r- �", � I o.� r.� �i �-v 788 7889 788 7878 787� 786 ��'�� z 7t�Ef 735 7A36 � �gq� 78� 7°-� � 78J3 �r33 �81 � 7H 15 -,�81 �sos 78U0 79U1 78C 77%8 77•49 ��` ��8 :?}4 774 774Q �7:'g 773 ��zs 7;t� 7�� 7%�Q %7�Q %7) � � 77Q1 7�C � � LL� � � � N ry -� 76G 1 � •` .- v�' ,c' ,_., �, - ��, �� , J ._ __ H1LLVIEW °'-s. - tp ra � �D �-.t rr cp o] � a� :r' --- ... I�r a r c, .- p p �i. n -r •� ✓i . K> 1�) F^� Ml 1�1 Y) 1 �> � f�. L � 1(1 , M � y �.} �� a S-'•_-.i C! Cv t'1 f! f-1 N f�l C'! N C-! N N f�1 N C-I �.a (y �l (V . L - (�! N (`I t ! N CJ N CJ � OAI<WOQD DR i869 7G'60 p J. �� ^ W v aJ a r� io �-- v� r � 78.554 ;561': ��,lf 5G1� 551Y> �� o� ^� .v c� �' `�' »�n 7857 '785C � r+ �i �+ oi ai N ri c� cv SF- � ---�-___ c� c�� 7845 784 � 7II41 `>G 1., � 5612 5Ci 1_ N`'�' � —__ ()/�Kw �b I W m o a D x �,- w--� � f , m n � �� w `t':l `_�r��fi 560' _�hr�r, ca � %��i �HJ� %�i�Sl 1 C CJ N J �'� fj !J N C ' ��z '� � 5601 SG00 5607 5600 �' �� 8�7 u� r� cn �� n ,_ s co r� r. u,°n' ,n � 555' J 5562 755_ 55G2 �; i i �Ni �; ci �� ; �� %$�% j_ �'-`—� lJ� Z JSF�� f'J N .';55 Q 5556 g�57 w Z T�(� 7807 i~ �� r+� �►u�. � �55t U 555G 5551 a"`� O ��" 4� � o,�,° o a�R 'f� M� � i! 1 �y c,A 7 � 7751� � . . �a � W Y ra � � r+ !'.+ �a ct <`+ r� �—'' - � —"' •`�a. ssaa s�a�, � �,�.a•: c� C� �, �, 7%4'l a, � � m �4l � f INEW�p CIR )�� in n r, o in �n v n -rv— �� r � i J��39 �irJ�B �J.��. �JS.S, N c`J C� �� N ('I �a �'1 ?� � ro n io ?`�ti N rl N�N c�l �y i� �� %%:� %%J ) M r'i �O �'S �iZ S�i'�� „ �, ,�, �, r, 5 �: �:,32 ss3_. � PINEWOOD OR 772t 77� '� cn f" O � 7715 n .- u> rn r� 557.7 5�20 552 � 552ti co �,p o v�n � o a.�n � m � � �.. � cn d� K� CO ^• �D lfi .r M i � r� n �� n n �� N �� v. i �•� a ri ri r� 770 ��U ?701 ca o; ^� c.c �+ SS^1 `-` 55:.1 55:.0 � �i ri ^+ r� ca ci o� c+ , CO h�2 RD I � �i �t i� �i •u r-.:�.�....-r. � c i a O o7 "t \� w �l V 17 N ^ l M M �1 Cl d N 5 a � a -r �-.. � I N N rJ c•J fd f �j �••-c•,•,� � �..1 !'� t�J P� a. J r� � (�--� �-1 76r;C Sa97 5 �'-�� 7GG : F'��I / � �r� G � ,n �� i-- '�472 5�� 7643 ?658 � � � � !n !v � � p; ' (�� N 5 � ,� � 9 R �1 R- 4 �,�. 3 ?6a t ?5��r 7fi70� 7f39 764-0 7635 762�7b40'Q 7655 5�52��{ Q�p 7635 7530' 7645 � 6" '�'� 762°� ;6?B `�"�', 7sil�s�o • �6, �fi2�jp � •r v v M �tiT�.757E.W 7595 Jt"�.� n r n n 7 b., +,� 7581 75,BC� _ �- P,-3 ,� � � 8 7565 7564 7 y K 755t %55C ca cv cv ;� � 7535 753� o, ;•, 7521 752C 7505 7504 PF � � CITY HALL � �� \\� � / ,tio I� �'� I 5394 7F�E I F ��,� � s Y ' ?6a1 pI R—v �t ♦ �6�1 ci ��> 7531 � � r� 0 7 `,: I � r � 7511 � 7a01 F I R-4 ��i 4 `_� F.n(�1 S�SU 5474 Sh6R 5�►r•? 5454 544G 544Q 5a3a 542fi 5410 5414 � 54G6 ST s•ti�s R-2 V Sa73 5n68 _5 54&7 5464 - 5 54G3 5tF5 N {4565449� 5441 `�/ `[� `S; 5433 �9 '. �R b4'L5 S°,� E :,a2t 5a2o 5415 5414 � 5qp5 5406 ri �'i' W O tv �D O N , 5395 5394 5395 m m r. r w�n u, v � z C�! hl N C•1 N N N (�I � 5387 53f36 53P,7 O`'' `" �� N N ro<v � S:.gt � 538n ;,�$1 i U _-� �,-� ` 5:�73 5372 53�3 � �-j 5.565 5.7tiG 536� B-3 ` �' :,357 �-i�,y 53°.9 � ' S351 ''351 5353 53a'� 53�4 5345 _ 533� 2 533f• 53: 7 . j � I S�} �(�r S.33p 5331 ( ; J 't•;y�4,Q `�`�ZE 5323 � s �}n��`' Ss `� 5s» �. , S�J i S: `a 5509 C'.i../ �n 5^oa R-2 �-�-----� > �` � �' � �; `� r .,.'�. i ° � �. ,� �'�,J_� `� � 5298 5.Y�1 > ' S295 O 5�g5 9y u•�,.,� �O '3t=:,:�0 ,..�� w C� 528? B- �a 53�6 �n o. r� v� �A -t . M 53i4 N o, ,-+ c, c� ri ri a LAMSERT LAMBERT " ' " C1 N C: f'� fJ C: 5�� pARK PF u� �� rn- n�n o� n r o, o� r n �o �n -r a _ rJ �'� �7 CI Cl (V f'! N � N �'�1 CV CV C-f V (J N �. _. �� .' t _ C i ��: _ - - - . _ � r �: � _ -, , ' . . - - � -__,.. �� - ..� M. '_ . '- '. _'_' " _ - ___ '_ _ I�-�_ _��_...�__ . � G.7..rr,•�;_._c�__.._w...._. � . : ✓•,Siilt�i.r✓�J�!//.? v^�l! ��y of I�I ounds l�i��nr - L+��atian t�l ap� ..i w: �� : � �I �.. ..� �� ►1�11�� +��ts�� .:r �r �� w ��f �rt1►�� M� ��■ �� i�� srr■ Cr �,��r �'�/�rj��11 �� 1��111� r ::�:: ��1��111 . ■�■ . � . ��.. ��I��i��lll �lu�� : :�� : ��w�rr,�r�1j1'f11 � .�. +■ �11�R��/1�� ■■�■� �rr�: :�� : �I�rri��ir,�,�� l��..�.. ��11�11�►r■. == s11s r ��ti� � : ��' .. �. �,� �� ..� �� r .�i� �■� � � �� ! r S �� *� �� = �i i �= ti��'��= , :� �:. � �� C��I��: �� I'1��11�� : ::i ��IIIIII��IIN��NC ��'•,� 7664 Greenfield Aven ��: .� :j ■� �� ii� �i ��a � �� ■r■■ � �r�� r,r i �x�� # � �� r.r..,..�� , Ton� Mezzeng� Property Involved: 7664 Greenfield Avenue Variance Planning Case No. VR00-006 - 7664 Greenfield Avenue � Properties Within 350' _ � :� � - .�s -, k =- ��= � _ - -- - - - � , �� , - _ - -_ _ � _ °- . '�= � - '"- -- - , . --- -- - --= __ _ -- --�—� -- : _ _.._.-- .._u_..__.. _ � _i. Museum (See also Art Gallery) One space per each four seats in rooms for public assembly or for each 150 sq.£t. of gross floor area for use by the public, whichever is greater, plus one space for each two ennployees on shift of greatest employ- ment (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Co., N.C.) One space per 1,000 sq.ft. (Omaha, Nebr.) 1.2 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. o£ gross floor area (Hillsborough Co., Fla.) One space pex 300 sq.ft. of gross floor area (Fairfax Co., Va.) Newspaper Stand 3.33 spaces for every 1,000 sq.ft. of gross floor area (St. Louis Co., Mo.) Night Club One space for each four seats (Durham, N.C.) One space per 50 sq.ft. of area open to the public (Norman, Okla.) Nursery or Greenhouse One space per 1,000 sq.ft. of total sales area (Omaha, Nebr.) One space per 1,000 sq.£t. of floox area, plus one space per 2,000 sq.ft. of land area (Lake Forest, Ill.) One space per 400 sq.ft. of gross floor area (Orange Co., Calif.) One spaces per 300 sq.ft. o£ sales floor area (Lexington Co., S.C.) One space per each 100 sq.ft. of retail sales for the first 5,000 sq.ft. and one space for each 200 sq.ft. of retail sales area above 5,000 sq.ft.. Greenhouse sales area: one space per each 1,000 sq.ft. and one space for each 500 sq.ft. of greenhouse sales area above 1,000 sq.ft.. Exterior nursery sales area: one space per each 5,000 sq.ft. of exterior nursery sales area (Albemarle Co., Va.) Two spaces for every three employees on the maxi- �� mum shift, one space for every vehicle customarily used in operation of the use or stored on the premises, plus five spaces for every 1,000 sq.ft. of gross floor area of salesroom (St. Louis Co., Mo.) Nursing Home (See Convalescent Center) Office One space per 750 sq.ft. of floor space (Arlington, Mass.) One space for each 300 sq.ft. of gross floor area; 40 percent may be compact car spaces (Aurora, Colo.) One space per 300 sq.ft. of gross floor area (Plano, Tex.) An office complex of 50,000 sq.ft. or rnore: one space per 300 sq.ft. of gross leasable area (Addison, Tex.) Four spaces per 1,000 net sq.ft. [miniznum]; five spaces pex 1,000 net sq.ft. (maximum] (Bellevue, Wash.) Four spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of gross usable floor area up to 20,000 sq.ft. of gross usable floor area, plus two per 1,000 sq.ft. of gross usable floor area £or gross usable floor area more than 20,000 sq.ft. (Long Beach, Calif.) One space per 200 sq.ft. of net leasable area on the ground floor and one space per 300 sq.ft. of net leasable area in the basement areas and on all floors above the first floor (Albuquerque, N.M.) 4.4 spaces for each 1,000 sq.ft. of gross floox area (Hilton Head Island, S.C.) One space per 200 sq.ft. (Fairbanks, Alaska) Office, Dental Two spaces for each examination or treatment room, plus one space for each dentist and other employees (Montgomery Co., Ohio) One space for each 200 sq.ft. of leasable area, plus one additional space for each 200 sq.ft. of area used as a reception area for visitors (Savannah, Ga.) Offices, Montgon7e-ry Counh,/, Manflancl ;', � :T 1 a I� G l ;� 19 � �, � v :, .� � . � - -� - '��-- —. .__ .�_ -. � :__- --' - - . ._ - �" -._ -- One space for each 200 sq.ft. of floor area (Gainesviile, Fla.) One space for each 100 sq.ft. of area (Albemarle Co., Va.) Office, Medical One space per 300 sq.ft. of gxoss floor area if over 10,000 sq.ft., then one space per 200 sq.ft. of gross floor area (Orange Co,, Calif.) One space for each 250 sq.ft. of gross floor area (Columbus, Ohio) 4.5 spaces per 1,000 net sq.ft. [minimum], five spaces per 1,000 net sq.ft. [maximum] (Bellevue, Wash.) One space per each 200 sq.ft. of floor area (Bozeman, Mont.) One space per 100 sq.ft. of usable floor area, with a minimum of £our spaces, plus ane space £or each employee (St. Clair Shores, Mich.) One parking space for each 50 sq.ft. of gross floor area (Bonner Springs, ICans.) One space for each four seats provided fox patron use (Aurora, Colo.) One space for each employee, plus one space for each examining room (Hilton Head Island, S.C.) Three spaces per treatment room and one £or each doctor or dentist (Norman, Okla.) Four spaces per doctor or dentist on duty during busiest shift (Arlington, Mass.) Five spaces for each doctor (Albuquerque, N.M.) Six spaces per practitioner (Fairfax Co., Va.) Oil Change Shop Two spaces pex service station, plus two per sexvice bay. Service bay or pumping area is not a parking space. (Cotumbus, Ohio) Outdoor Storage One space per ennployee on the largest shift (Hillsborough Co., Fla.) Outdoor Theater One space per each foux seats (Albemarle Co., Va.) One space per three patxons to the maximum capacity of the facility inclusive of both indoor, if any, and outdoor capability (Lake Co., Ill.) One space per 400 sq.ft. of site area (Omaha, Nebr.) Comment. This is a standard for an outdoor music theater. Park Space equivalenf to one percent of the total land area. Parking area available along park roads or private drives may be used to fulfill this requirement. (St. Louis Co., Mo.) Two spaces pex acre (Long Beach, Calif.) One space for each three users at maxim.um utiliza- tion (Northport, Ala.) 20 � _ - = : -.- _ .- _ - Pawn Shop One space per 300 sq.ft. (Omaha, Nebr.) Pet Shop One space for each 300 sq.ft. o# leasable area (Savannah, Ga.) Pet Cemetery One per employee (Hillsborough Co., Fla.) Photography Studio One space for each 400 sq.ft. of leasable area (Savannah, Ga.) One space for each 300 sq.#t. of gross floor area (Durham, N.C.) Five spaces �er 1,000 sq.ft. (Lake Forest, Ill.) Plumbing and Heating Supply One per 900 sq.ft. (Honolulu, Hawaii) One space per 1,000 sq.ft. of floor area, plus one space per employee and one space per each company vehicle, plus one space for each 10,000 sq.ft. of open lot or storage area (Bozeman, Mont.) 3.33 spaces for every 1,000 sq.ft. o# sales and office area, two spaces for every three employees on the maximum shift, plus one space for every vehicle custornarily used in operation of the use or stored on the prennises (St. Louis Co., Mo.) Police Station (See Fire Station) Post Office One space per employee on shift of maximum em- ployment and one space per 800 sq.ft. of gross floor area (Orange Co., Calif.) One space for each 500 sq.ft. of floor area ($ozeman, Mont.) Space per �each 400 sq.ft. of gross floor area, plus one space per each two employees on the shift of greatest employment (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Co., N.C.) One space per 125 sq.ft. o£ gross leasable area, plus one per employee on the largest shift (Citrus Co., Fla.) Four per 1,000 sq.ft. (Lake Forest, Ill.) PrinHng and Publishing One space per 1,000 sq.ft. g�ross floor area, or one space per employee, whichever is gxeater (Leesburg, Va.) One space per 600 sq.ft. (Honolulu, Hawaii) One space for each 200 sq.ft. of leasable area (Savannah, Ga.) One space per two employees, plus one space per ea�ch 500 sq.ft. of floor area open to the publzc, for � customer parking, but, in all cases, a minimum of two customer parking spaces (AlbemarIe Co., Va.) One space per ernployee (Orange Co., Calif.) Produce Stand Three spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of gross floor axea (Hillsborough Co., Fla.) � - ` `'t G`` - -- � _ � � !, �' � � = -= p ` . _ - sr: ' _ _.s..�s� . —.. �." � ___ .0 -_.__ � �r3.:-�` ��..<�� .. �u__ =� � � - , I MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 633-00 CITY OF MOUNDS V�W COUNTY OF RAMSEY STAT� OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM SECTIONS 1104.01, SUBD. 4 (PERTAINING TO SETBACKS), SECTION 1121.09, SUBDS. 4 AND 5(PPERTAINING TO PARKING LOT WIDTHS AND DRIVEWAY SPACING) AND SECTION 1121.13 (PERTAINING TO OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS) OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE, FOR AN OFFIC� BUILDING AT 7664 GREENFIELD AVENU�; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR00-007. WHEREAS, The applicant, Tony Mezzenga, representing the property owner Ernest Gustafson, has applied for a variance to allow for the construction of a 3,480 square-foot, split- level office building at 7664 Greenfield Avenue, property zoned B-3, Highway Business, and legally-described as follows: Lot 30, Block 3, Greenfield Plat 2,Except the North 10 Feet thereof,• Ramsey County, Mi�znesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site Plan 5. Letter from the Applicant 6. Off-Street Parking Requirements 7. Staff Report WHER�AS, a public hearing was held regarding this variance request on Wednesday, September 6, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's control; and, i= � Resolution 633-00 September 6, 2000 Page 2 - - - - - : �i k _' _ __ _ , t .. _ = �i 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, THEREFOR�, B� IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient hardship with regard to the property located at 7664 Greenfield Drive to warrant the approval of a variance for a 21-foot front yard building setback, a 16-foot front yard parking lot setback, a 24-foot driveway separation, a 61- foot parking lot width, and a"one space per 250 square feet" off-street parking requirement; and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to 7664 Greenfield Avenue which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity in that the development potential of the lot is restricted by its size, by the County's acquisition and by corner lot setback requirements. 2. 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. 3. The variance request is the result of factors over which the applicant has had no control. 4. Granting the variances would allow the applicant to convert the vacant lot to a viable commercial development. Approval would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege denied to others in the same district in that this situation is very unique and not applicable to other properties in this district. 5. The Planning Commission finds that the requested variances to be the minimum variances that would alleviate the applicant's hardship. 6. Granting a variances for the proposed office building would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. 7. The variances would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. NOW, TFIEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission approves the variance request for a Z1-foot front yard building setback, a 16-foot front yard parking lot setback, a 24-foot driveway separation, a 61-foot parking lot width, and a "one space per 250 square feet" off-street parking requirement for the proposed office building at 7664 Greenfield Avenue, as shown on the site plan attached as Exhibit A, and contingent upon the following: � _ � � F �_ -- -� -------------------- _ . . _ ._.__ _-._,. ` -- -- �-. _7_;��.,:. ;:� �� l�;-� -.-- - �.y.. . Resolution 633-00 September 6, 2000 Page 3 1. The applicant shall arrange to have this resolution of approval recorded with Ramsey County and provide proof of such recordation to the City within 60 days of the date of approval, or this variance shall be rendered null and void. 2. The applicant shall apply for and receive approval of a development review for the proposed office building consistent with and similar to Exhibit A within three months of the approval of this resolution. Failure to apply for and receive approval of the development review within the prescribed time-frame will render this variance null and void. Adopted this 13th day of September, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) X:�DATA\GROUPSICOMDEV�DEVCASES\VR00-007UtESOLUTION 633-OO.DOC Resolution 633-00 September 6, 2000 Page 2 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, THEREFOItE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section I 125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient hardship with regard to the property located at 7664 Greenfield Drive to warrant the approvai of a variance for a Z1-foot front yard building setback, a 16-foot front yard parking lot setback, a 24-foot driveway separation, a 61- foot parking lot width, and a"one space per 250 square feet" off-street parking requirement; and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to 7664 Greenfield Avenue which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity in that the development potential of the lot is restricted by its size, by the County's acquisition and by corner lot setback requirements. Z. 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. 3. The variance request is the result of factors over which the applicant has had no control. 4. Granting the variances would allow the applicant to convert the vacant lot to a viable commercial development. Approval would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege denied to others in the same district in that this situation is very unique and not applicable to other properties in this district. 5. The Planning Commission finds that the rec�uested variances to be the minimum variances that would alleviate the applicant's hardship. 6. Granting a variances for the proposed office building would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. 7. The variances would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission approves the variance request for a 21-foot front yard building setback, a 16-foot front yard parking lot setback, a 24-foot driveway separation, a 61-foot parking lot width, and a "one space per 250 syuare feet" off-street parking requirement for the proposed office building at 7664 Greenfield Avenue, as shown on the site plan attached as Exhibit A, and contingent upon the following: , �� _, ,..� � � ,� __ . ;£�.�a : :_.� _ _ `._ �w _ � , �:� . .: � _ . . . � � __ _ -s-� __: _ - Resolution 633-00 September 6, 2000 Page 3 1. The applicant shall arrange to have this resolution of approval recorded with Ramsey County and provide proof of such recordation to the City within 60 days of the date of approval, or this variance shall be rendered null and void. 2. The applicant shall apply for and receive approval of a development review for the proposed office building consistent with and similar to Exhibit A within three months of the approval of this resolution. Failure to apply for and receive approval of the development review within the prescribed time-frame will render this variance null and void. Adopted this 13th day of September, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) X:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASGS\VR00-OOTRESOLUTION 633-OO.DOC � EXHIBI�' A. < � �, � � . �.� �-� �� r. ,—� ^ � >v �� I-� �, L � > i:\ , �� _ � "f' �.� �r� � ,, t �M --^. � � r. `,� --'t. � �.. � � � �� ; 'L• ,� � �� ! .-1 � ±l ' : � � � L� � �� i i ---� m �'� 7� � � C� � n o' o � =-� �� }4` -\-•\I V v f-s f� ,---' �.../ � �� • � _._.. �r� t , � f � r � � ��st � -- - ; i ! i j � � ; :,.� , ■ �. � � � s � N �_. .`- �. _.__ _.---- - __.. �..... _.' ' � � _. � _ � I — I � � i I I � __- ; � � ; ; , _ i j I � a -- b_"�,.�.i; ` � i , . � + 1 � tJ ' � ' ! � ) 1 1 : i . i .__...,..... ; � . ..----._._�._ .. _,_ � • _ ,....._ .......................s...._. /� _ _ I v'�3 � � � }�� , � ) � � � { � I � ,� 1' , � � — , _ . _ _ i • ; -- � . _-- ! 1 S ` i + i i �►� � i i S i { 4 � i � � � � � i �r F �n - � t � � � l � t�-i - �s � � r : J . . ��_. . . _ �=" ' ;. � . . . ii' 1. _ . -,._�s . _ . . � � PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNIl�1G COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Call to Order Regular Meeting August 2, 2000 Mounds VYew City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View,1VIN 55112 The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p.m., August 2, 2000. 2. Roll Call ,��:, Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Hegland, Johnson, Kaden, Laube, Miller, and Stevenson. Members Absent: Commissioner Thomas, excused. Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Ricic Joplce, Economic Development Coordinator Aaron Parrish, and Recorder Carla Wirth Index to Minutes � Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 627-00, a Resolution Concerning the Mounds View Economic Development Authority's Economic Development Project and Tax Increment Financing Proposals. (Aaron Parrish, Economic Development Coordinator) Review of Ordinance 665, an Ordinance Rezoning the Properties Associated with the Walgreens PUD, and Ordinance 666, an Ordinance Vacating the Old Edgewood Drive Right of Way. Special Planning Case SP-075-00. Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 629-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Proposed Ordinance 663, an Ordinance Creating Language to Administer and Regulate Tattoo and Body Piercing Establishments. Staff Reports / Items of Information Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports Page 2 4 5 6 6 � : _. _ ____.. � � . . - � � _. � .� � �,,� _ _ . _ __ _ ___ __v ___. _ ___.__ _ _>.� ,__ _ . _. � �_. , �4� � `:� Mounds View Planning Commission August 2, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 3. Citizen's Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agend 4. Approval of Minutes A. June 21, 2000 -�'� MOTION/SECOND: MillerBerlce to approve the June 21, 2000 meeting minutes as corrected Ayes — 8 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 5. Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 627-00, a Resolution Concerning the Mounds View Economic Development Authority's Economic Development Project and Tax Increment Financing Proposals. (Aaron Pairish, Economic Development Coordinator) Economic Development Coordinator Parrish gave the staff report as follows: Dan Hall, representing The Mermaid, is requesting the use of tax increment financing to construct a 97-room hotel and a 500-seat bailquet center to be attached to and integrated with the existing complex. In accordance with the Economic Development Authority's Tax Tncrement Finance Policy, the applicant has submitted an application requesting TIF assistance. This application was considered at the May 25th meeting of tl�e Economic Development Authority and preliminary approval was given to the application. At the June Sth Council,Woxk Session, staff was instructed to prepare and negotiate the appropriate documents for consideration by the EDA at a later date. One of the documents necessary when using tax increment financing is a`TIF Plan.' As part the process of amending TIF' Plans, it is required that the Planning Connmission review the plans to determine their consistency with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. On a general level, TIF Plans serve to broadly articulate goals and objectives for the TIF district. The TIF Plan also includes a budget for the expenditure of TIF funds generated as a result of the project. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish noted that a copy of the TIF Plan xnodification and Resolution 627-00 Concerning the Mounds View Economic Development Authority's Economic Development Project and Tax Increment Financing Proposals has been provided for the Commission's consideration. i:.,�� _ . : ._ �. -� f�-�. . :-_ , - - Mounds View Ptanning Commission August 2, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 Commissioner Laube aslced if these documents apply only to The Meimaid. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish stated that is correct, they are specific to The Mermaid. Chairperson Peterson inquired regarding the specific dollar amounts and aslced if an amendment would be needed should the numbers change. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish explained these documents contain estimated costs and the final documents will contain an actual budget. Commissioner Miller aslced if there is an estimated completion date. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish explained they are attempting to receive development approval and it appears the earliest they could break ground is September to October and the tentative opening date is sometime late next year. Commissioner Laube inquired regarding the iinpact on the City's bond rating. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish explained there is only a limited effect on the City's ability to bond for general improvement projects since the revenue occurring in the TIF fund would not occur "but for" these projects. Also, this is a pay-as-you-go project with no revenue bonds issued by the City on behalf of the developer. Chairperson Peterson aslced if the plan remains consistent with what the Planning Commission considered previously. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish stated there have been no revisions. Chaiiperson Peterson commented that this consideration is more of a formality based on what was determined during the Comprehensive Plan discussions. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish stated that is correct. Commissioner Kaden asked about the financial stability of The Mermaid and the reason TIF is involved. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish explained the theory is that "but for" the assistance being provided, the project would not proceed. He explained staff has been worlcing with The Mermaid for several years and to determine what amount would be needed to move the project forward. The anticipated revenues to be received by The Mermaid will be turned into equity for their project:'' Economic Development Coordinator Parrish stated if TIF was not given, this project would not proceed as proposed today. ` Comrnunity Development Director Joplce stated it is the Council's decision whether or not to approve this type of TIF financing and if this is the minimum amount that should be put towards this project. He explained that as part of the application process, The Mermaid is required to provide those numbers to the City. Commissioner Kaden stated it appears it is assumed this project is considered to be �nancially feasible. Community Development Director Jopke stated this project has undergone a substantial financial analysis and they have determined the amount needed from TIF to successfully move the project forward. _ _ _ _�_ � , . ; , -�.� : . �:. ,�_ �_ _ �. � . , , ____..___ _ _ __�_.. _. � _ Mounds View Planning Commission August 2, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 Chairperson Peterson noted the Planning Commission has already reviewed this project and determined it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Johnson to approve Resolution 627-00, a Resolution Concerning the Mounds View Economic Development Authority's Economic Development Project and Tax Increment Financing Proposals. Commissioner Stevenson noted the proposed resolution indicates the plans are consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan and the Commission recommends approval of the plans to the Mounds View City Council. Chairperson Peterson concurred that the consideration is not of a financial nature, but that the plans are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ayes — 8 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 6. Review of Ordinance 665, an Ordinance Rezoning the Properties Associated with the Walgreens PUD, and Ordinance 666, an Ordinance Vacating the Old Edgewood Drive Right of Way. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: At the July 19t�' meeting, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 623-00, a resolution which recommended to the City Council approval of the Walgreens development review stage of their PUD, the prelimina.iy plat, the rezoning, and the vacation of the old Edgewood Drive right of way. Staff felt it should provide copies of these ordinances to the Commission for review purposes, even though the Commission has already recommended their approval. He noted the City Attorney has provided copies of these two ordinances and explained that no additional action is required at this time other than to review the ordinances and provide any feedback to staff. The City Council is scheduled to hold second reading and adoption of the two ordinances on August 28, 2000. Chairperson Peterson stated proposed Ordinance No. 666 vacates a portion of Edgewood Drive and proposed Ordinance No. 665 approves a rezoning of parcels from PF (Public Facilities District) and B-3 (Highway Business District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development District). No cornments or objections were interposed regarding proposed Ordinance Nos. 665 or 666. 7. Special Planning Case SP-075-00. - - . - - - ,. �- � . _ .�� __ _ . � � . � _ � �.._____. _ _ .J� � __ . �.� Mounds View Planning Commission August 2, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 629-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Proposed Ordinance 663, an Ordinance Creating Language to Administer and Regulate Tattoo and Body Piercing Establishments. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: As the Planning Commission is aware, the Mounds View Municipal Code does not at this tirne address tattoo or body piercing establishments. In order to adequately research this issue, the City Council adopted interim Ordinance 653 on Februaiy 14, 2000, which prohibits any tattoo shops of body piercing establishments to be located in the City for a period of six months. The six-month period will expire on August 14, 2000. It is expected that the Council will call to order at their worlcsession on August 7, 2000, to extend the moratorium for an additional three months. With the assistance of the city attorney, staff has drafted an ordinance which creates licensing provisions and zoning allowances for such uses. Staff would request the Planning Commission review the entirety of the ordinance paying especially close attention to those provisions concerning the Zoning Code. In addition to creating licensing requirements, the ordinance is drafted to allow such uses in the B-2, B-3, and B-4 business zoning districts. They would be allowed unconditionally (i.e., no conditional use permit would be required) so long as certain specific requirexnents were satisfied. Staff has made the corrections requested by the Planning Commission and recornmends approval of Resolution 629-00, a Resolution Recommending City Council Approval of Ordinance 663. Commissioner Miller noted that Page.l l, Section 2, refers to underlined language, however, no language is underlined. Plaruling Associate Ericson stated all of Subdivision 3 should be underlined and that correction would be made. Commissioner Kaden nofed a paragraph on Page 1 where the words "City of Mounds View" should be capitalized. Planning Associate Ericson stated that correction would be made. MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Miller to approve Resolution 629-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Proposed Ordinance 663, an Ordinance Creating Language to Administer and Regulate Tattoo and Body Piercing Establishments. Ayes — 8 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 8. Staff Reports / Items of Information A. Previous Council Actions Mounds View Planning Commission August 2, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 Community Development Director Joplce reported on previous Council actions pertaining to Planning Commission cases. He stated on July 24, 2000, the Council set public hearing times for items relating to Walgreens, the Tattoo and Body Piercing Ordinance, and for the TIF amendments discussed earlier tonight. They also held public hearings on Ordinance 658 relating to fences and fence heights and Ordinance 664 relating to accessoiy buildings, both of which were approved for first reading. The Council also approved giving the Rice Creelc Watershed District the go-ahead to develop more specific plans related to the Greenfield Parlc area and areas on which the Watershed District is interested in constructing. This will allow them to prepare more detailed plans so neighborhood and public meetings can be held. B. Highway 10 Steering Committee Update Community Development Director Jopke provided an update on the community meeting which was held by the Highway 10 Steering Committee on July 25, 2000 to prioritize the issues presented and to clarify the priority issues, with safety being the highest ranlced issue. This information will be incorporated into a report which will be presented to the City Council at their August 7, 2000, worksession. At that time, the Council will be asked to go to the next phase to prepare an action plan to improve the Highway 10 corridor in Mounds View. 9. Chairperson and Planning Co►nrriission Reports Commissioner Stevenson advised that two billboards have been erected for Sysco. Chairperson Peterson noted the si,gns are pylon style with I-beams on either side. He asked if the final plans were approved by City Staff. Planning Associate Ericson answered affirmatively. No other reports were considered: , +�;; 10. Adjournanent � There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 7:29 p.xn. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Joplce, Community Development Director Transcribed by: Carla Wirth, TimeSaver Off Site SecYetarial, Inc. � � _� , _ _ _ _ ____ __ _ _ __ : ^ , _ r =. _ - - -- �-�. — -, -- __:-._ �__ _ _. � ___ _ _. _ MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2000 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAHING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MIlVUTES 4. Approve Planning Commission Minutes: � a. August 2, 2000 5. Planning Case Noe PD00-002 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 637-00, a Resolution Reapproving the Development Stage Plans of the Mermaid Planned Unit Developnnent Applicant: Dan Hall 6. Staff Reports / Items of Information a. Previous Council Action b. Replacement Zoning Code 7. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT (763) 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANI�YOU. AGENDA SESSION AGENDA �. Review the Minutes from the September 6, 2000, Planning Corrunission Meeting. 2. Review the Minutes from the September 13, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting. O:�DATA\GROUPS\COIvIDEV\PLANCOMIvI�PCAGENDA�2000\Oct 4, 2000 PC Agencia.doc Item # 6 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: October 4, Z000 Title: DISCUSSION AND RECONSIDERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED MERMAID PUD CONSISTING OF A HOTEL AND BANQUET CENTER ADDITION TO THE MERMAID ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX, 2200 HIGHWAY 10. Planning Case: PD00-002 Applicant: Dan Hall, Representing Mermaid, Inc. Irctroduction: Dan Ha�l is seeking City approval of revised development stage plans for the proposed Planned Unit Development to construct a 70-room hotel and a 500-seat banquet center to be attached to and integrated with the existing complex. On September 6, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a set of development stage plans date-stamped August 10, 2000. Prior to City Council review, however, the plans were amended to such a degree that reapproval by the Planning Commission was deemed necessary. The City Council is scheduled to review the revised plans on October 9, 2000, for which a public hearing has been set. Discussion: There are a number of changes contemplated by the revised development stage plans from what the Planning Cotrunission originally recommended for approval on September 6'j'. The most noticeable change is that the hotel has been scaled back to three stories and 70 rooms from the initial four- story, 96-room plan and that the Perkins site is no longer a component of the Mermaid expansion. (It has been proposed that the restaurant building will be converted to an office use.) The water park, which was a separate building located in the hotel courtyard, is now shown to be attached to the east wing of the hotel, replaced with parking in the courtyard area. The total area of the revised PUD is approximately 9.36 acres, which includes the three existing Mermaid Parcels, the Rent-All parcel, Music Off 10 and the dry holding pond associated with the business park development. (The minimum requirement for a commercial PUD is 5 acres.) The existing business park access drive from County Road H would be shifted to the west to maximize the contiguous parking area for the proposed development. E{�� _ . _______ _--` � � � �_..�.. � . , __ _ _. . :. :..�� 4_____ -, Mermaid Report October 4, 2000 Page 2 Development Stage Revaew: The Planning Commission has been provided with a set of plans date-stamped September 28, 2000, for the proposed expansion. The plans include a preliminary site plan, a preliminary utility plan, a preliminary grading plan, a preliminary landscape plan, an existing conditions plan, an overall floor plan, exterior elevations, an enlarged banquet floor plan, hotel floor plans, and a revised photometric analysis of the site. Dimensional RequiYements: Parkin�: The site plan (Page C-2 of the submitted plans) indicates the proposed and anticipated configuration of the development. As shown on this plan, a total of 828 parking stalls would be required with the addition of the hotel and the banquet center. The plans indicate that a total of 832 spaces can be provided on the site, but only if the parking lot setbacks are reduced from the B-3 zoning district-required 30 feet to five feet along Highway 10 and County Road H. Such a reduction in the setback requirement is allowed via the PUD process, which explicitly states that a purpose and intent of the PUD is to allow for variation from the provisions of the Zoning Code, including setbacks, parking, height, lot area, etc. Parking lot setback: As mentioned above, the setback of the parking lot can be reduced via the PUD process. Approaching this in the strictest sense, if the setbacks requirements were to be enforced without deviation, as many as 175 parking stalls would be lost. The net effect of such a loss would mean either the banquet center would be reduced in size and capacity by 50 percent or more, or the hotel would need to be completely eliminated. Neither scenario would be feasible based upon the already submitted cost and earnings projections. This setback configuration nnet with the approval of both the Planning Commission and City Council at the concept stage of this development. Buildin� setbacks: The Building setbacks are different from point to point, but generally speaking, the bowling area would remain unchanged at a minimum setback of 60 feet, the dining and bar area would be more than 200 feet, the hotel addition would be a minimum of 100 feet, while the banquet center would be setback 50 feet. All of these setbacks satisfy the current B-3 zoning requirements. Buildin� Desi�rr.� The proposed hotel expansion would be professionally designed to be aesthetically pleasing and would tie in to the existing facility. The hotel addition would be constructed of prefabricated concrete walls and would be finished with maintenance-free siding accentuated with sections of Exterior Finish Insulation System (EFIS). A materials board has been submitted and will be available for viewing at the meeting. Other than the relocated main entrance and the painting of the existing exterior walls to match the new additions, no other changes to the e�sting building are planned. Si a e: The applicant plans to retain the multi-colored electronic sign along Highway 10 and proposes three directional signs along County Road H. The additional signage is indicated to be of a monument design, which should be encouraged over a pylon type of sign. Refer to Figure 1 on the following page for an example of the proposed directional monunnent signage. The • .,�_�_ : - , . �. �� :.��______ _�y � � _ _ . _ . L_.._ _. �� E Mermaid Report October 4, 2000 Page 3 applicant proposes four building signs total; one for the AmericInn (Figure 2), one for the Mermaid Nightclub (Figure 3), one for the Mermaid Restaurant and one for the Mermaid Lanes. Table 1 on the following page indicates the total sign area proposed by the applicant. Fi ug re 1 • F1 Ug re 2• Figure 3. � � � I 2' �^ CV --� � - — � ___ 5'-8° - i � ' I , � r !' , HOTEL RESTAURANT NIGHT CLUB 8'-4" _ _ -- -- - - - - �"�MERICINN 2z�_o�� 51'-10" � � MERMAID NIGHT CLUB 1 5� J The applicant has indicated that the corner of the property adjacent to Highway 10 and County Road H would be reserved for the City to install a gateway entry sign. The site plans have been revised to indicate this easement area. A separate easement document will need to be executed by Mr. Hall and recorded with the Ramsey County to malce it official. Mermaid Report October 4, 2000 Page 4 Table 1. Proposed Site Signage Area. Sign Type Sign Text Area Si 1, Wall Mounted Mermaid Ni htclub 255 s uare feet Si 2. Wall Mounted Mermaid Restaurant 270 s uare feet Si 3. Wall Mounted Mermaid Lanes 195 s uare feet Si 4. Wall Mounted AmericInn 69 s uare feet Sign 5. Directional Monument Entrance — Hotel, Restaurant, 20 square feet Ni ht Club Si 6. Directional Monument Entrance – Cabot Pro erties 20 s uare feet Si 7. Directional Monument Entrance – Ban uet Center 20 s uare feet Total Pro osed Si na e: 849 S uare feet Under the B-3 zoning provisions, the amount of signage that would be allowed for this development would be limited to 340 square feet for a pedestal sign and 100 square feet for each building occupant. Given the five uses within the building (hotel, bowling lanes, restaurant, night club and banquet center) a total of 840 square feet of signage could be allowed. The Mermaid has an e�cisting 162 syuare-foot, multi-colored, electronic changing message pedestal sign along Highway 10 which would bring the total signage on the site to 1,011 square feet. Stafffeels the directional monument signs to be a necessary component of the signage package yet considers the amount of signage devoted to the Mermaid uses to be excessive. Staff recommends that the total amount of signage on the property—including the existing pedestal sign--be limited to 850 square feet. Landscaping: The landscape plan submitted with the site plans indicates conceptual plantings of trees in the parking lot islands and along the front of the building facing Highway 10. While any proposed landscaping is an improvement over what is currently present on the site, the PUD requirements stipulate that the landscape plan shall identify the specific types and numbers of plantings to be utilized and shall be reviewed by the City Forester. The plan indicates the planting of 25 deciduous trees and 4 coniferous trees with additional unnamed plantings in the courtyard area. Staff will seek input from the City Forester as to appropriate species from those listed and for any other suggestions to improve the landscape plan. Trailways: To comply with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and the Mounds View Trails and Sidewalk Plan, the applicant shall be responsible for installing a bituminous trailway along its Highway 10 property frontage. As with the discussion concerning Walgreens, Dan Soler with Ramsey County has verbally indicated that the trailway could be located within the Highway 10 right of way as close to the Mermaid property as possible. The site plan shows the trailway extending north beyond the project area in front of the Perkins site. While Perkins is no longer part of the PUD, staf�' would recommend that the trailway and lighting remain as shown on the plan. Lighting: A photometric analysis has been submitted in conjunction with the development stage plans. The City Code requires that any lighting used to illuminate off street parking be hooded to eliminate glare on public streets. In addition, the light shall not exceed 1.0 footcandles at the centerline of any adjoining street. It appears as though the footcandle readings comply with this _ _ _ _ _ _ i_ . _ . . _ _ �, _. - _ � �_ _=____ _ . Mermaid Report October 4, 2000 Page 5 requirement. The applicant intends to utilize the existing parking lot lighting where possible with the addition of new light fixtures at the southern end of the building. No specifications were provided for the proposed new lighting. The site plan does indicate the location of six decorative lights along the Highway 10 trailway. Because the City is working with NSP to install these lights, staff is suggesting that the applicant submit a payment directly to the City to cover the cost of installation. Such amount would then be deducted form any required letter of credit or cash surety involved with the financial guarantee of the public improvements. Access: The proposed site plan indicates two Highway 10 accesses and two County Road H accesses. While this would not represent a change from the existing configuration, the two accesses serving the Rent-All property would be eliminated. No new accesses, other than the relocated access to the business park, are contemplated with this proposal. The northern Highway 10 access is actually located on the Perkins-property, although there is a joint use agreement filed regarding the access. Drazna�e and Lltilitv: Staff and the City's engineer have been working closely with the applicant and Rice Creek Watershed District to create a regional stoimwater holding pond that would be located pal�tly on the Met�•o Waste Cont�•ol property and paxtly on Edgewood Middle School property. While the final drainage plans and use agreements are still being drafted, all indications are that all parties--including Rice Creek Watershed Disri�ict--will approve the stoimwater project. The benefits of this proposed stormwatei• pond would be immense, in that stormwater runoff from the Mei�naid site cwrently drains untreated directly into Rice Creek. Recommendation: Review and discuss the revised development stage plans and consider action on Resolution 637-00, a resolution reapproving the development stage plans for the proposed Mermaid PUD subject to the following stipulations: 1. The lighting plan shall be revised to show the light fixture specifications and light standard heights to be used for the new exterior building and parking lot illumination. 2. The total building, monument and pedestal signage to be used on the development shall be limited to 850 square feet. 3, The applicant shall execute a sign easement document which dedicates to the City the area to be used for a gateway sign at the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H. 4. As required by the Planned Unit Development section of the City Code, the applicant shall execute a development agreement pertaining to the Mermaid PUD, which will serve as the guiding and controlling document for this development. 5. The landscape plan shall be further revised to show the specific types and numbers of plantings to be used within this development and shall be approved by the City Forester. . .; . .. . ... _ .� ._ . . . _ 1_ . �-- C .+ . _. ::�_ � .".__ . • .__'_ . _ . _ .. . . . . . . , . - ` - ' ' " '_' „'"' ' ' "_�_ __ .' "'" ' _ ' _ � `_. _ _ '. _ ' " _ "_._ I Mermaid Report October 4, 2000 Page 6 �.,� CWUI.�,:i � W►—c,"T�+ James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Development Stage Alans, date stamped 9-28-00 2. Resolution 637-00 W:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\Merniaid I lotel (ZC00-003, DE00-003, MA00-002)�Ivlarn�aid PC Report - Sept 6, 2000.doc � _ ..: . ; . " _; .. . . ��. .. . = 1 = __ _ ' _ !` : . ._.'-_ . '.�.___. ._" -_'. �'-. . ... _. . _. ... _ `_':._... � ' " _ '-., �_ IV - _ .' -� __" `"'�_. -�_y. y. - � . ,. 4 � MOUND5 VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 637-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE REVISED DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANS OF THE PROPOSED MERMAID PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, 2200 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. PD00-002 WHEREAS, Dan Hall, representing The Mermaid, Inc., has made application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and is requested approval of the PUD development stage plans; and, VVHEREAS, The Mermaid is located at 2200 Highway 10 and is currently zoned B-3, Business Commercial; and, WHEREAS, the PIN numbers of the properties associated with this PUD proposal are as follows: 08-30-23-43-0006 - Mermaid 08-30-23-43-0007 - Mermaid 08-30-23-43-0008 - Mermaid 08-30-23-43-0009 - Rent All 08-30-23-43-0005 - Music Off 10 08-30-23-43-0023 - Mounds View Business Park South Condo (part) WHEREAS, on July 19, 2000, the Mounds View Planning Commission recommended approval of the Mermaid PUD general concept plan and on August 14, 2000, the Mounds View City Council approved the general concept plan; and, WHEREAS, on September 6, 2000, the Mounds View Planning Commission recommended approval of the original development stage plans for the Mermaid PUD; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed Chapter 1120 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to planned unit developments; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the land use component of the Comprehensive Plan relative to this request; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the site plans date� stamped September 28, 2000, relative to this request. _ __ . _ - � . __ , .a... � ; , _, ___ _ ___ _ ___ _ �._ �_ � , _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ Resolution 637-00 October 4, 2000 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the development stage plan of the proposed planned unit development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Municipal Code and recommends approval of said plan with the following stipulations: q 1. The lighting plan shall be revised to show the light fixture specifications and light standard heights to be used for the new exterior building and parking lot illumination. 2. The total building, monument and pedestal signage to be used on the development shall be limited to 850 square feet. 3. The applicant shall execute a sign easement document which dedicates to the City the area to be used for a gateway sign at the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H. 4. As required by the Planned Unit Development section of the City Code, the applicant shall execute a development agreement pertaining to the Mermaid PUD, which will serve as the guiding and controlling document for this development. 5. The landscape plan shall be further revised to show the specific types and numbers of plantings to be used within this development and shall be approved by the City Forester. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staffto forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Attest: Adopted this 4th day of September, 2000 Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director X:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES�iviermaid Hotel (ZC00-003, DE00-003, MA00-002)U2esolution 637-OO.doc "'�_'-`_ : . '_ _ . " . .y . . '=a'�=_� �� .._ .. 1.s::�� _°'. ' _=;: '�__,..�.:�: "� I�i. _. _ . - .�3i> . _.� G_ �c . _._. .-' -.._ .� . '= I "__"' _"_ "�_" _� I •=:s � , I i 4 1. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW R.AMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Call to Order �y Regular Meeting September 6, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds iliew, MN 55112 The ineeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:03 p.m., September 6, 2000. 2. lZoll Call ��'' Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berlce, Hegland, Johnson, Miller, and Stevenson. ;��' Members Excused: Commissioners Kaden and Thomas. Also Present: Planner Jim Ericson and Community Development Director Rick Joplce. Index to IO�Iinutes Planning Case No. VR00-005, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 631-00, a Resolution Approving a Front Yard Setbacic Variance Craig Walters, 8141 Edgewood Drive, Applicant. P1aiuling Case No. VR00-006, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 632-00, a Resolution Denying a Side-yard Setback Variance for Jim Trapp, 8018 Sunnyside Road, Applicant. Planning Case No. VR00-007, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 633-00, a Resolution Approving a Parlcing Lot Setback Variance for Tony Mezzenga, 7664 Greenfield Avenue, Applicant. Planning Case No. MI00-002, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 63A�-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision of 2474 and 2488 County Road H2, requested by RTM Management, Inc., Applicant. Page 2 :� 7 16 . _u .i �:�s�._. .,._...� __ � r .�;:,—. ��-=° , Mounds View Planning Commission Regnlar Meeting 1:.. �- _ .� ._..� �.�. F- � �,fi _ . _ � ; " �r�-_ :< , �,�,F Plaruling Case No. PD00-002, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 635-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Development Review for the Mermaid Planned Unit Development, requested by Dan Hall, 2200 Highway 10, Applicant. Planning Case No. 560-99, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 636-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Extension of a Conditional Use Permit for an Assisted Living Senior Residential Facility at 2670 County Road I, requested by MSP Real Estate, Applicant. September 6, 2000 Page 2 . , �h;_;- :�. ` � ,; � ��;,: U�.� 1^S �,E - k _ w a=<�f�s�� §,!�� ' Staff Reports / Items of Information. a�'�� i:�. , ,,�y: � ,',: Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports. 3. Citizen's Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 20 21 23 4. Approval of Minutes � � � r. . 6� .�. k��^ �-' A. July 19, 2000 � MOTION/SECOND: Stevel�son/Miller. To approve the July 19, 2000 meeting minutes as corrected. ' .� Ayes — 6 5. Planning Case No. VR00�005 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Property Involved: 8141 Edgewood Drive Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 631-00, a Resolution Approving a Front Yard 5etbacic Variance Applicant: Craig Walters Craig Walters, the applicant, was present. Planner Ericson gave the Staff report as follows: Craig Walters, property owner of 8141 Edgewood Drive, has applied for a variance to encroach into the front yard setback to allow for the construction of a 308 square-foot addition onto the north side of his house. The house, which was constructed in 1946, was built at an angle on the . , . : :: -_ .: __. : -;-. _... .. : _ ...� : . i�- --_- -_-- t . . . . . --- � -- - � - _ J..--- - .._ A, _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ . _._. . . . .. .... . .�. . l Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 lot and is setback 24 feet from Edgewood Drive. The proposed addition would match the existing building and roof lines to maximize interior functionality and for aesthetic appeal. For the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that malces a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and malce 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. Planner Ericson presented the seven criteria and Staff's response to each as outlined in his report. He explained that according to the City Code, all of.the preceding criteria shall be satisfied in order to justify the granting of a variance. He indicated that it appeat•s to Staff that in this case all requirements are met and that a hardship does exist. Staff is recorrunending that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 631-00, a resolution approving a variance for a reduced front yard setback to allow for the construction of a 308 square-foot addition at 8141 Edgewood Drive, as requested by Craig Walters. Chairperson Peterson opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. .-. The applicant did not add any comrrients. Milce Doss of 2416 Laporte stated he lives just north of the applicant and aslced why there was a need for the variance. He indicated that he a�id the other neighbors feel that this process is a waste of time and money and they support the project. He also asked why the house was not "grandfathered in" under the old Code. Chairperson Peterson explained that the house is grandfathered in under City Code but any proposed changes to the structure would have to comply with current Code and that is why the variance is required. He then went on to state that he agreed the process may appear a bit unnecessary in this instance. Commissioner Miller indicated that she sees no problem granting the variance as the house existed prior to adoption of the new Code. She then requested that Staff change the resolution to correct the typographical errors indicated. Chairperson Peterson indicated that he sees no problem with granting the variance request. Chairperson Peterson closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Berlce to approve Resolution 631-00, a Resolution Approving a Variance for a Reduced Front Yard Setback to Allow for the Construction of a 308 square-foot Addition at 8141 Edgewood Drive, as requested by Craig Walters. Ayes — 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried. - - - - — -- -. -- -� �=- Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 6. Planning Case No. VR00-006 September 6, 2000 Page 4 Property Involved: 8018 Sunnyside Road Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 632-00, a Resolution Denying a Side-yard Setbacic Variance Applicant: Jim Trapp Jim Trapp, the applicant, was present. Planner Ericson gave the Staff report as follows: yi Jim and Judy Trapp, property owners of 8018 Sunnyside Road, have applied for a variance to encroach into the required side yard setbacic to allow for the construction of a decic and gazebo in their rear yard. There is presently a decic in the rear yard tluee feet from the property line. The Trapps would lilce to extend the decic an additional two'feet (one foot from the property line) and construct upon it a gazebo, also one foot from the property line. While decics are currently allowed to be setbacic two feet from property lines, gazebos (which are treated as outdoor accessory buildings in terrns of their setback requirements) are required to be set back five feet from a side or rear property line. The property owners of the adjacent property had previously obtained a variance to place a garage one foot from the property line. For the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that malces a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and malce 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. Planner Ericson reviewed Staff's assessment and interpretation of the criteria. . Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do not apply to this property in that the property owners have caused the conditions which necessitate approval of a variance. The literal interpretation of the Code would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district in that the setbacic requirements do not prohibit the addition of the gazebo, only its requested location. • The special conditions or circumstances result from the actions of the applicant. Granting of this variance would confer a special privilege to the applicants in that the Trapps are responsible for the conditions that necessitate the variance. . � _.. _ ,._. � .: _ . _____ , �:. _ . _ > �- �. L _ _ _ _ = � Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 • Granting this variance for a gazebo one foot from the property line h�ould be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone in that it would result in the gazebo being located less than two feet from the neighbor's garage. • While the gazebo would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, there is a possibility that in its proposed location, it could increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety due to the minimal two-foot separation from the neighboring garage. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the Mounds View Mullicipal Code, because it appears that all of the identified criteria have not been met, Staff recommends denial of this variance request. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 632- 00, a resolution denying the variance request of Jim and Judy Trapp to construct a gazebo one foot from the north property line of 8018 Sunnyside Road. Chairperson Peterson opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. `�� Jim Trapp of 8018 Sunnyside Road stated that he was told by Coru�ie Forsythe that since his neighbors got a variance to build their garage one foot from the property line, that should not negatively affect his request for a variance. He also indicated that this is the first that he has heard that his gazebo would be only two feet from the garage and he agrees that this might be too close. Mr. Trapp said that he has lived in the neighborhood for 26 years, has good relationships with his neighbors, and doesn't want to hurt those relationships. He explained that he wants the gazebo because he is semi-retired, spends a lot of time out by his pool, and would lilce to be in a screened in environment because he is highly allergic to bees. He indicated that it would not be the "end of the world" if the variance was denied. Chairpe�•son Peterson added that he was on the Planning Commission when the variance request for his neighbor's garage was granted and that situation was unique because the trees on the lot were such that many of them would have had to be removed to build the garage if the variance was not granted. Gary Andrew of 8045 Sunnyside Road stated that he is a building contractor and inquired as to whether there was a limit to the number of buildings allowed in a bacic yard. Chairperson Peterson explained that the number of allowed accessory buildings is three. Mr. Andrew stated that he had to get a permit to build his shed and indicated that Mr. Trapp had built a shed without a permit, right on the properiy line, until one of the neighbors became upset and he had to move it. He indicated that from his house, he would be looking right at the gazebo and there is not enough space between the gazebo and the garage so he feels that it is an unsafe situation. Mr. Andrew said he understands why Mr. Trapp would lilce a gazebo and he is just wondering how many stntctures in Mr. Trapp's bacic yard are enough. — - -z� k:.!__. �_ _. -- — - : . c _ ��A__. _�- �._=�.._..zx=_ _ � - --- Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Chairperson Peterson closed the Public Hearing at 7:31 p.m. September 6, 2000 Page 6 ,:�� Chairperson Peterson clarified that all variances have to zneet the hardship criteria in order to be approved. Commissioner Johnson aslced if the Planning Commission has ever allowed a variance for a gazebo to be closer than two feet to the property line. Commissioner Stevenson said they have never allowed a variance for a gazebo and indicated that in the past they have allowed variances for decics but not gazebos. He said that he doesn't believe the variance would be approved even if there were no garage on the property line. Chairperson Peterson aslced for a clarification on the exact location where the gazebo would be built. Commissioner Hegland asked what was on the south side of the pool Planner Ericson indicated that there is a house addition. Chairperson Peterson aslced if there was another location where the gazebo could be placed. He asked if it could be built on the south side of the pool. Mr. Trapp indicated that it may worlc to locate the gazebo on the south side of the pool. Planner Ericson indicated that a gazebo is not considered an accessory building. He stated that City Code Ordinance 664 allows for three accessory buildings. He also indicated that the Code was recently changed to address a gazebo as an accessory use rather than an accessory structure due to the limited seasonal use of the structure and the fact that it is not used for storage. Commissioner Johnson indicated that he recalled when the Planning Commission worlced on Ordinance 664 they did not consider a gazebo an accessory structure because it is very seasonal and not used for storage. Commissioner Johnson indicated that he would like to grant the variance but the situation does not meet the Code requirements. He then indicated that the Planning Commission likes to help people improve their property but he feels he can't consider approval of this request because it would be too close to the property line and it could be located elsewhere on the lot. Commissioner Miller stated that in order to grant the variance the applicant has to meet certain criteria and she feels that the criteria have not been met. She also indicated that Mr. Trapp has created this situation and, therefore, is not entitled to a variance. Chairperson Peterson stated that he does not believe the hardship requirement has been met in this case. He stated that he agrees with Commissioner Miller that the Trapps made their own situation. He stated that the fact the Trapps gave permission for the neighbor's garage (even �; . . _ �—� � -._� . � . _ _ ��_..�, � c � :__ _ - . . . �.�..� .. �. . Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 though pertnission from him was not needed) does not entitle Mr. Trapp to a variance to now build the gazebo. Chairperson Peterson indicated that for fre safety reasons he would prefer to deny the variance. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Stevenson to approve Resolution 632-00, a Resolution Denying the - Variance Request of Jim and Judy Trapp to Construct a Gazebo one foot from the North Property � Line of 8018 Suimyside Road. 7. Ayes — 6 Planning Case No. VR00-007 Nays - 0 Motion carried. ��, ``��;�`'' Property Involved: 7664 Greenfield Avenue Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 633-00, a Resolution Approving a Parlcing Lot Setback Variance Applicant: Tony Mezzenga 'w' Y`";° Tony Mezzenga, the applicant representing the property owner Ernest Gustafson, was pxesent. Planner Ericson gave the Staff report as follows: Tony Mezzenga, representirig the property owner Ernest Gustafson, is requesting approval of a vaxiance to construct a small, split-level office building on the undeveloped lot at the southwest corner of County Road I and Greenfield Avenue. The variance is requested for reduced parking lot and building setbacics. This 13,068 square-foot property is zoned B-3, Highway Business. The size of the lot, however, does present practical difficulties in terms of what can be developed, which has left the lot up to this point unimproved. County Road I is the second-most traveled roadway in the City. 1997 traffic counts show as many as 8,700 vehicles use this part of County Road I on a daily basis and projections are such that the volunle is expected to increase as development progresses east of Interstate 35W. This lot borders commercial property to the west (Tom Thumb and a Laundromat), high density residential to the east, and low density residential to the south and north. The proposed office use is consistent with the B-3 zoning designation and is a less intensive use which would fit well into the predominately residential surroundings. Planner Ericson advised that Staff has met with Mr. Mezzenga and Mr. Gustafson on numerous occasions in an effort to draft a site plan that could be developed for the property. The size of the lot and the extent of the setback requirements however are impediments toward that goal. He presented the required setbacks in a B-3 district, noting the applicant has submitted a site plan for ��'`. ...... C _:. _ , �. .- ' _ : _ �_1�_ � _ � _1._� .� . �...� _ �,: � . _ _� e:s:_' --- ----=--- -- --.�P�.y,xn ¢ . -- — - -- - L-Z'sS� Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 a 3,480 square-foot split-level office building with 2,975 square feet of usable office space. For that much area, the Code requires provision of 20 parlcing stalls. To construct a building of that size and a parking lot to accommodate 20 vehicles, variances would need to be approved to reduce the side and rear building setbacics from 20 feet to 10 feet and to reduce the parlcing lot setbacks from 30 feet and 20 feet to 4 feet and 15 feet. For the Planning Commission to act favorably, there rnust be a demonstrated hardship or �� practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and inake 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. Staff responded to the criteria as follows: Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do apply to the property in that at only 13,000 square feet, the lot does not offer much area upon which to construct a viable commercial business. This situation is further complicated by the fact that the parcel is a corner lot that demands greater setbacks than would be otherwise required for an interior lot. Last, the development potential of the lot was further reduced when the County toolc ten feet of the property (1,320 square feet) for additional right of way. • The literal interpretation could deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district because of the County-acquired 1,320 square feet, the large setbacics and the size of the lot, the property owner has been unable to find a developer willing to consider this parcel. • The special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. • Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to ovvners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that this appears to be a very unique situation not applicable to many other properties within the City. , The applicant contends that in fact the reverse may be true, in that there are many exampies of reduced setbacks in the City, and that he should be afforded the same consideration. � While it would be possible to construct a smaller office building and the required parking on the site vvithout the need for any variances, the resulting building would be too srnall, according to the applicant, to make a viable development project. From the applicant's perspective, the variance requested is the minimum variance to alleviate the hardship. In this situation, granting a variance for reduced building and parking lot setbacks would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Code or to other property in the same zone. The reduced setbacics would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. __ __ _ . . _: . _ _ Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular 11✓Ieeting Page 9 According to the City Code, all of the identified criteria shall be satisfied in order to justify the granting of a variance. While it appears to Staff that in this case all requirements coul�l be met and that a hardship probably does exist, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, it must find that all the criteria are satisfied. Planner Ericson explained that after reviewing the docurnentation and taking public testimony, •� Staff is asking the Planning Commission to direct Staff to draft a resolution approving tlie variance either as requested or as compromised, or to draft a resolution denying the variance request. If the Planning Commission so chooses to approve the variance, Staff has included a draft resolution that can be acted upon as is or with any rnodifications as deemed necessary. Chairperson Peterson opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Herbert Zworn of 7660 Greenfield Avenue explained that his property would be the most affected by the development of the lot. He then explained that he currently spends several hours a month maintaining his property due to trash and other debris that is thrown in his yard by people who cut through his lot and the undeveloped lot to get to Tom Thumb. Mr. Zworn explained that there is an additional problem along the bacic of his property because Tom Thumb does not maintain the area around the privacy fence that separates his lot from the Tom Thumb lot. He indicated that he has many problems with Tom Thumb and feels another commercial building will only increase the proUlems he has to deal with because the commercial property owners/developers do not maintain their property. Mr. Zworn indicated that his front windows loolc directly out into the vacant lot and a two-story structure will obstruct his view. He also indicated that he would be loolcing at an eight-foot privacy fence out oF one-half of the front window. Mr. Zworn aslced the Planning Commission to restudy this project and implement other policies or designs, or vacate the idea because he feels that the property owner/developer and the Commission are atteinpting to put a"square peg in a round hole." Chairperson Peterson told Mr. Zworn that Tom Thumb should be worlcing with him to alleviate foot traffic across the property. A znember of the audience stated that only half of the people within 350 feet were notified. Chairperson Peterson inquired of Staff as to whom and what addresses the notices were xnailed. Planner Ericson advised of the number of properties on each adjacent street that were notified of the public hearing. Chairperson Peterson stated that the foot traffic to and from Tom Thumb should not be happening. He told Mr. Zworn that the City and the developer in this case do not want to malce his situation worse and, in his opinion, developing the lot and placing a fence around the property �. � , _ r . , ; . _ ,. �: - ,. Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 would prohibit foot traffic to and from Tom Thumb and, thus, improve the situation Mr. Zworn is in. Colleen Olson of 7641 Edgewood Drive stated that she is not directly adjacent to the property but she objects to the variance because her neighborhood is already very congested and developing this lot will add to that congestion. She said she feels that this variance would give the property owner an unfair advantage and she feels he should stay within the small property guidelines as established by current City Code. Dawn Little of 7658 Greenfield Avenue stated she would lilce the City to assure immediate occupancy once the lot is developed so that building does not sit vacant. Ms. Little stated she is also concerned that the parlcing lot lights will be bi-ight and light up her yard. Ms. Little indicated that she feels the tenants at the aparhnent buildu7g will cut across the lot and there will be a bigger problem with graffiti and trash. Slie aslced if the developer or owner of the building, wl�.en developed, wouldl be local and available to handle problems as they arise. Chairperson Peterson indicated that Mr. Mezzenga, the applicant/developer, lives in Shoreview and the property owner lives in Mounds View: Ernie Gustafson of 2525 County Road I, the property owner, stated he has owned the property since 1942 and has lived in Mounds View since 1945. He stated that in 1978, he presented a plan to the City Council with 20 parlung places but the Council demanded 22 parlcing places so the lot was not developed. He said that for 22 years he has been paying very high taxes on the property and if the Council had approved the variance in 1978, the City and Ramsey County would have benefited from the taxes the building would have generated. Mr. Gustafson indicated that the path goes through his property and people from Greenfield Avenue walk across his lot to the Tom Thumb store and when they leave the Tom Thumb store vvith their goods they toss their garbage onto his lot. Mr. Gustafson stated that this is the rnain reason he wants to build something, to elixninate the path. Mr. Gustafson poirited out that Tom Thumb has their parlcing lot one foot from the property line. Mr. Gustafson explained to the Planning Commission that he has received letters from the City to pick up trash on the property and he is sure that all of the trash on the property originated at Tom Thumb but he had to pick it up or incur costs to have it picked up. Mr. Gustafson said that in the winter, when it snows, the Tom Thumb store plows snow onto his vacant lot. He said he is tired of them doing this and would like to put a fence up around the office building and eliminate the problems. Mr. Gustafson then told the Planning Commission that in 1978, the City and County of Ramsey toolc 10 feet from his property to add the sidewalk and he got nothing for the property they took. ` :_ �-� F;:= _ . � _ � ,. . - _ _ _ . , -,,.._.,�:,,��v � � :` _ . � , .. .- . ' i � .. . .. ._ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 11 Dick Palmatier of 7639 Edgewood Drive inquired as to why this piece of property was zoned commercial when the other properties, aside froin the Tom Thumb lot, are zoned residential and I would lilce to know if it is too late to rezone the lot as residential and have it developed as such. Chairperson Peterson corresponding zoning. the designation. indicated that every property in the City has a designated use and This lot is guided commercial and the Planning Commission agrees with Mr. Palinatier indicated that the setbacks and variances in effect for the property would prohibit any commercial development. Chairperson Peterson indicated that changes fo the �oning Code pei-taining to setbacks and the taking of some of the property posed some practical difiiculties in tei-ms of development. Mr. Palmatier aslced if the four feet is from the curb or from the sidewallc. Planner Ericson indicated that the setback is from the property line. He then aslced Mr. Gustafson how much space is between the sidewalk and property line. Mr. Gustafson indicated that it was approximately five feet. Mr. Palmatier aslced how far the parlung lot would be from the street. Chairperson Peterson indicated that it was approximately 20 feet from the parlcing lot to the street. Mr. Palmatier indicated that he feels there would be congestion and trafiic tie-ups as a result of having an entrance on County Road I. He indicated that they had a similar problem with Highway 10, now County Road 10, and a stoplight had to be installed to alleviate the situation. Chairperson Peterson stated that the traffic on County I is heavy and in that context he feels that residential would not be desirable. Commissioner Johnson indicated that rezoning the lot to residential would not benefit the City and it is not being considered at this time. Planner Ericson indicated that while the lot is zoned commercial, there is a limit to the volume of traffic that could be .generated from this site. He said that Staff is not concerned with potential traffic congestion because a srnall office building would not generate a large volume of traffic. Planner �ricson also indicated that the property owner would have the right to request a change of zoning but as of now, it is zoned commercial. In terms of single family homes or duplex, he is not sure anyone would want to live there due to the location and based on the volume of traffic. Tony Mezzenga addressed the pedestrian traffic issue by stating that cedar fences around the property should tidy up the vacant lot and cut down on foot traffic. He said that he and hzs father have some property in Spring Lalce Parlc and he invited neighbors to ehecic that property to see that they lceep things nice. He indicated that he will establish a relationship with his tenants and assured the Planning Commission that the building would not sit vacant. Mr. Mezzenga stated i � ----. ' _ .<=`- ' --. _ .----- . ---=- -- '_--- '-------- - �., 1: _-. .. �. �sf_.�-•---. . �� Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 12 his opinion that once the lot is improved the people in the community will treat the property better and not drop the trash. He stated that it does not malce economic sense to build what is allowed without the variance based on the cost to develop the lot. Mr. Mezzenga stated that he and his father have a reputation for keeping their properties neat and clean. Mr. Gustafson cited several other locations where the parking areas have no grass in between parlcing areas adjacent to them. He said there is 18 feet of grass between the tar and curb on Greenfield Avenue. Mr. Gustafson indicated, in regard to the driveway, the City Code says there should be 40 feet from the property line to where the driveway is and the drawings show that there is 42 feet to the driveway. Mr. Gustafson said that the amount of traffic tfiat would come in from this development wouldn't be as much as the traffic that goes to Tom Thumb. Herbert Zworn said that he did not want to stifle Mr. Gustafson's ability to develop the property but requested that the problems they have now be loolced into and dealt with before allowing the project to proceed. Mr. Zworn said that the building will be two stories and that they will be able to look down on his property infringing on his right to privacy. He noted he would be loolcing out at an office building. Chairperson Peterson closed the public hearing at 8:33 p.m. Chairperson Peterson indicated that a property owner is allowed to develop on their property what is allowed by City Code and, in this instance, the property is zoned for commercial construction. He indicated that this is a problem property because it has remained vacant for so many years. Commissioner Johnson said that the Planning Commission is only loolcing at a parking lot variance and whether they should approve the variance, not the building. Commissioner Hegland indicated that it is also a building setback issue. Planner Ericson indicated that none of the plans are final or approved and if the variance were to be granted they �would need to come before the Planming Commission and the City Council to get approval of the plans. Planner Ericson indicated that the property is used as a route to get to Tom Thumb because it is undeveloped and he feels that once the lot is developed, the trash issue and foot traffic problem would be eliminated. Chairperson Peterson said that the two reasons it is a problem lot is that it's vacant and there is a problem xnaintaining it because of litter. He said that if Tom Thumb is not maintaining the fence or the area around the fence, the City should get after them to rnaintain it. _ . �,.�,� _ _ i� _ _�____ _ __ - � Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 13 Chairperson Peterson stated that as long as he has been on the Planning Commission the property has been zoned commercial and changing it to residential at this point wouldn't benefit anyone. He stated he feels that commercial is a more proper use for the property. Chairperson Peterson addressed the concern of cars driving across the lawn by noting there would be curbs so driving across the lawn should be eliminated. He then indicated that the plan is not final but is a concept or a proposed plan. Council Member Johnson said that the property is zoned B-3 which would allow for a gas station and fast food. He stated he thinks it would be preferable to have an office building as it would generate less traffic than a fast food operation or a gas station. Chairperson Peterson said he feels the proposal solves several problems and doesn't cause any additional problems. He agreed that cut through traffic must stop and tlie plan can be modified to help alleviate foot traffic and graffiti. Commissioner Stevenson indicated that the degree of the setbacic is lv.s concern. He questioned whether the four-foot setback is too much or not too much. Commissioner Hegland said most of the comments have related to Tom Thumb and he believes the problems of the property not being developed have led to more problems related to Tom Thumb. However, if the properfy were developed, it would be less of a problem and should not increase the current problems. Commissioner Hegland said he is not sure how much variance to grant. Chairperson Peterson stated that if the Planning Commission were to apply the zoning requirement for parlcing lots prior to the change in late 1996 or early 1997, this request is closer to what was allowed prior to the change. Commissioner Berke indicated that this type of commercial use is perfect but he feels there is a problem with the number of parking stalls and how much setback to grant. He requested that Staff look into that issue. Commissioner Johnson said that he agrees with the variance, noting if it were 1997, the variance would have passed. Commissioner Miller said that City Code does not specify for types of parlcing but uses a formula that specifies a certain number of spots per square foot. Chairperson Peterson aslced Planner Ericson for different types of uses and the parlcing requirexnents for them. Planner Ericson explained the requirements for parlcing stalls per the City Code, noting the size of the parking lot will dictate future use of the building. He also stated that an office building , r �_ --�-_-�'-----_� F:��. �_ _. . ... . - - -_.• �-#-- =--�__ r--'-=- - - � :�� : _ ��.,. . . Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 14 does not generate much traffic and a future retail use would require more parking than would be available under the current development plan. Planner Ericson asked the developer to comment on the square footage needed to make the project profitable. .� . Chairperson Peterson commented that there would be no advantage to the developer or the City to build something that doesn't work. Tony Mezzenga said that they originally were requesting 3,800 square feet. He said he feels the square footage of the building he has proposed is reasonable and needed to cater to a wider variety of possible tenants and in order to ensure that the building is leased out. Commissioner Hegland asked Mr. Mezzenga how he felt about the parlcing issue. Mr. Mezzenga indicated that he feels that there is wasted space and with an office building this small the businesses that rent space will be sinall with few employees and clients. He envisioned the building to be more of a"store front" for an insurance agent or someone who is at the office sometimes but not all the time. Commissioner Hegland aslced how many tenants Yhe developer is planning to accommodate in the space. Mr. Mezzenga indicated four tenants each using 800 or 700 square feet would basically be two employees per offices. 1VIr. Mezzenga said it would be hard for him to go with less square footage. Chairperson Peterson asked the Planning Commission if they would lilce to have more information or if they were ready to malce a motion on the resolution. Commissioner Miller asked if there was another way to configure the parlcing lot. Planner Ericson indicated that he, the owner, and the developer had spent a lot of time trying to reconfigure the parlcing lot and found ihere is no way to reconfigure the parlcing lot without encroaching into the:setbacks. Conunissioner Hegland asked for clarification on the setbacic if it was from the sidewallc or from the street. Planner Ericson indicated that the sidewalk is included in the County right-of-way and the setback is from the property line, not the sidewalk. Chairperson Peterson indicated that there is a 20-foot driveway listed and that would provide for one car exiting and one car entering. He indicated that graffiti is a growing issue throughout the City and the Police Department should be involved in resolving that problem. Chairperson . r_ :..c.r._—_ _' __ . . . . .. .. _�___ '_"_ '_"_�'—__'_ � . r WY,_� �. r �._ ." ' _ ... ._ _ __ . .. '__—_" I `Lt Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 15 Peterson said he feels that if the lot is improved, there will be fewer people congregating and causing trouble and litter problems. Planner Ericson indicated that there is too much parking according to the developer. He indicated that the City tries to plan for the worst case and the most cars that could passibly be there at one time. He said they recently gave a manufacturing company a variance for one space for 250 square feet. He said that in his opinion there isn't a need for that nluch parlcing space because such a small ofiice building would not generate that much trafiic. Commissioner Hegland inquired as to other cities requirements for different types of commercial uses. Planner Ericson indicated that other cities refer to things in a similar way. He explained that the City Code does get specific for some types of uses but other cities luinp all types of uses together. He said that the City has a boolc by The American Planning Commission that shows parlcing requirements across the country. Commissioner Hegland requested a sampling of parlcing spaces per square foot requirements to determine where Mounds View's City Code falls and whether it requires more or less than the national average. Commissioner Johnson stated l�e thinlcs 20 spaces is too many for a small building lilce this and he would lilce to see the applicant come back to the Planning Commission with more information on parking. Commissioner Stevenson aslced if the applicant would be required to pay more fees to subrnit a revised variance request. Planner Ericson stated it would be one variance request and the City would not require more fees from the applicant. Commissioner Stevenson agreed that it was too large of a parlcing area for this small office building and he would like to move to table the variance until the next meeting. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Hegland to table action on Resolution No. 633-00, a Resolution Approving a Parking Lot Setback Variance for Tony Mezzenga, 7664 Greenfield Avenue until the next meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for September 13, 2000. Ayes — 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Commissioner Johnson said he would have preferred to approve the variance rather than table it. Chairperson Peterson said he would lilce to determine how much parlcing space is really needed. If less parlcing is needed then there would be more green space left. ; _ , � ; _ _ . - � -- - �: :. :.:--; - : -- .. L,� -_- - —:- �-�.. _ ,_ �. ,.. --- -- Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 16 Commissioner Stevenson said that if green space is preserved up front, there could be room to expand the parlcing spaces if needed for future uses. He indicated that he would lilce the applicant to come back with variables such as smaller parking areas with room to expand at a later date. Planner Ericson asked what the Planning Commission would like to see at the next meeting and -�� if a ten foot setback would be more favorable. ,,�' Commissioner Stevenson said he would lilce to see more green space on Greenfield Avenue. Planner Ericson said they could create a variance so that each property line could have its own setbacic. He said Staff would worlc on it and come bacic with several different proposals. Planner Ericson indicated that the next meeting on September 20, 2000 must be cancelled or rescheduled due to a conflict. He aslced the Planning Coinmission if they �ovould lilce to schedule a meeting for September 13, 2000 where they could hear this issue again. Chairperson Peterson agreed that what was reasonable in 1997 is reasonable now and that four feet is one possible worlcable situation. . However, he would prefer more green space if at all possible on the Greenfield Avenue side. - Mr. Mezzenga asked if the building could be bigger. The Planning Commissioners indicated they would not favorably consider such a request, Mr. Mezzenga commented that it would cost money to table and delay. A consensus was reached to schedule a special Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, September 13, 2000. Commissioner Stevenson indicated that he would not be able to attend the meeting. 8. Planning Case No. MI00-002 Property Involved: 2474 and 2468 County Road H2 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 634-00, a Resolution Recornmending Approval of a Minox Subdivision of 2474 and 2468 County Road H2 Applicant: RTM Management, Inc. Raymond McManus, the applicant representing the property owners, was present. Planner Ericson gave the Staff report as follows: Rayrnond McManus, representing RTM Management, Inc. and the property owners, James Kuphal and Danine and David Super, are requesting approval of a minor subdivision to F.. __ a . �__..... .' ' "- . ._-., :._..__._. :C� r. . :. ._. ..� �_ . _�Y_'�_ _""_ 1�. _ -- _.-s.,__.._'____ L. .... ... . _"__'_ ___.�_'"_"—�c..._ � _ __ _ _ _ _ . .. ... ._. _ . _ . ..._ ., _ I Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regula�° Meeting Page 17 subdivide the rear 80 feet fiom 2474 and 2468 County Road H2 to create a buildable lot fronting Irondale Road. Minor subdivisions are those divisions of land less than two acres in size in which only one additional lot is created. The area of the proposed subdivision is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential. The minimum lot size in this district is 11,000 square feet for an interior lot and 12,500 square feet for a corner lot. The comprehensive plan designates this area as single-family detached. The applicant has submitted a certificate of survey which describes the proposed subdivision. The two existing lots on County Road H2 are 75 feet wide and 288 feet deep, both 21,600 square feet in area. The proposed subdivision would create an 80-foot wide and 149-foot deep, 11,920 square-foot lot fronting Irondale Road. The new lot would conform to all Zoiung Code requirements and would be considered a buildable parcel. The two remaining lots--at 15,600 square feet--would satisfy the minimum lot size requirenlent. Staff has forwarded the Certificate of Survey to the City's Engineering Technician as well as to the Director of Public Works. Other than dedication of the perimeter utility easernents, the certificate of survey is in proper form. The City Attorney will review the Certificate of Survey and any documentation needed to record the subdivision with Ramsey County. Last, this subdivision is subject to parlc dedication requirements. The 5% fee is based upon the Ramsey County assessed land value of the land subdivided, less the value of any land already improved with single-family residential dwellings. I�i this case, the fee would apply to the 11,920 square feet of land at an assessed value of $1.23 a square foot. The extrapolated value for the lot would be $14,662.00, five percent of which would arnount to a fee of $733. This fee would need to be paid prior to the City approving the subdivision. Staff is recorrunending approval of Resolution 634-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Requested Minor Subdivision of 2468 and 2474 County Road H2, with stipulations regarding the parlc dedication payment, revisions to the certificate of survey and recordation of the associated documents with Ramsey County. Raymond McManus indicated that the lot directly to the south is almost a mirror image of the lot they are proposing and they will do whatever the City requires. Chairperson Peterson aslced that the Certificate of Survey be changed to indicate the correct name of the street to be Irondale Street not Third Street. 1VIr. McManus provided a corrected copy of the survey that indicated the street naxn.e change. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller to approve Resolution 634-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Requested Minor Subdivision of 2468 and 4274 County Road H2, with stipulations as indicated. Ayes — 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried. _ �- -; _ �� -- -:-- - -�.�..Y—,. • � . - �-=-�--=-=-� '---- --=z � � _. � .�� _--- - - - - ---� -- -- .. . . ._� . . -- . ._�� Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 18 Planner Ericson indicated that this will be considered by the City Council on September 25, 2000. 9. Planning Case No. PD00-002 . . ; '� k'��p Property Involved: 2200 Highway 10 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 635-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Development Review for the Mermaid Planned Unit Development Applicant: Dan Hall The applicant, Dan Hall, was present. ,,�� : . . ♦C Planner Ericson gave the Staff report as follows: Dan Hall is requesting City approval of the development review stage of the proposed Planned Unit Development to construct a 96-room hotel and a 500-seat banquet center to be attached to and integrated with the existing complex. The development stage plan is the second stage of a planned unit development process. The first stage is the general concept stage, which was approved by the City Council on August 14, 2000. The development review stage is the more detailed, in-depth review of the site plans, which are to include landscaping, drainage, grading, utilities, signage, elevations, floor plans, photometric analysis, etc. The final stage of the PUD is the administrative approval of the plans, PUD Document, developm�nt agreement and any other documents associated with the proposed PUD. The total area of the proposed PUD is approxiinately 10.7 acres, which includes the three existing Mermaid parcels, the Rent-Al1 parcel, the Perkins parcel, Music Off 10 and the dry holding pond associated with the business parlc development. The existing business park access drive from County Road H would be shifted to the west to maximize the contiguous parlcing area for the proposed development. The hotel is planned to be a four story, 96-unit AmericInn. Attached to the hotel would be a"water parlc" which would offer in addition to the pool, a waterslide, hot tub, sauna, and a spacious lounge area. Attached to the hotel and the existing Mermaid facilities would be the 14,714 square foot banquet center, which would provide seating for as many as 500 people. �n addition to the PUD, the applicant has also applied for a m,ajor subdivision, which would combine all of the subject properties into one platted parcel (presuxnably, Lot 1, Block 1, Mermaid Addition). The prelirninary plat for this request has not yet been submitted and thus will not be contemplated at this meeting. The Planning Commission has been provided with a set of plans date-stamped August 10, 2000, for the proposed expansion. The plans include a preliminary site plan, a preliminaiy utility plan, a preliminary grading plan, a proposed landscape plan, a floor plan, and a photometric analysis of the site. � ..� ;»: .._ _ : _ _ _ __ _ _ . �,_ __ . _ . ..�.. , y - � i__ _ ___ ___ __ _ ____ _ __ ___ _ _ ,_ _ _. _ _ __ _ __ _ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 6, 2000 Page 19 Planner Ericson presented Staff's detailed analysis of the site plan and requested the Planning Commission review and discuss the proposed plans for development and direct the applicant to revise the plans as follows: 1. The site plan shall be revised to show a nine-foot wide bituminous trailway constructed within the Highway 10 right of way no more than five feet fronn the Mermaid property and a 40' x 40' triangular sign easement area at the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H. 2. 3. � 5 � 7 The site and lighting plans shall be revised to show'the installation of six ornamental lights along the trailway within the Highway 10 right of way as noted herein. The lighting plan shall be revised to show the light fixture specifications and light standard heights to be used for exterior parking lot illumination. The appl'zcant shall confirm and clarify the status and plans for the existing mermaid statue currently atop the building. The applicant shall provide detail for the proposed monunlent and building signage to be used. The applicant shall execute a sign easement document which dedicates to the City the area to be used for a gateway sign at the coi-�ier of Highway 10 and County Road H. An existing condition site plan shall be included with the development plans to indicate the removal of the Perlcins building and the removal of the two curb cuts serving the old Rent All site and associated restoration of the right of way. 8. As required by the Planned Unit Development section of the City Code, the applicant shall execute a development agreement pertaining to the Mermaid PUD, which will serve as the guiding and confrolling document for this development. 9. The landscape plan shall be revised to show the specific types and numbers of plantings to be used within this development. The plan shall also show the addition of plantings in the courtyard area between the pool and hotel structures. The landscape plan shall meet the approval of the City Forester. 10. The applicant shall submit a materials board showing the exterior building materials to be used on this development. Planner Ericson indicated that items 1 and 2 have been satisfied. He noted that the draft resolution would recommend approval witli tliese ten stipulations plus an added requirement to deal with the location of the fire hydrants with the approval of the Fire Marshall. Planner Ericson indicated that the Planning Commission could talce action tonight or next week. He also noted that there would be a public hearing at the City Council level. _: .� � �- --_-=-' �-_--:—_____��_--_. �----=--- --_ _ � � _ .-<.�.�- ----'= c.--�------�-� -------- a- ---_� _._, �. ��.�.� _��.�..�:�:� Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 20 Dan Hall of 2200 County Road 10 said he views this as a small part of the project and would do exactly what the Planning Commission requests. He then commented that he still doesn't lcnow what to do with the mermaid statute. He indicated that his wish is to do something with the statute but he's not sure what because it has been around for 30 plus yeaxs. He said that he wants to lceep it on the property but give it a facelift. Chairperson Peterson said that since the business name is Mermaid he does not object to the mermaid remaining as long as it is appropriately updated. Chairperson Peterson aslced about the new plan for the County Road H parking setback being changed in two places to five feet but remained one-foot in another area. He also indicated that Mounds View was spelled incorrectly, noting it is supposed to be two words instead of one. Commissioner Stevenson indicated that he has safety concerns on the trail way farthest from Coi,uity Road H because of the speed of traffic coming oFf of County Road 10 and the fact that it is straight on with the turn lane. He asked if it was possible to reroute the trailvvay with a little bit of a bend so the bilcers aren't going quite as fast at that moment and the cars would also need to slow if there was a bend added. Truman Howell, the architect representing the applicant, said he had no problem with jogging the trail and roadway to make it safer. ' Chairperson Peterson aslced if drainage from the site would be handled through natural gravity. Mr. Hall indicated that the sa.rne gi•ades will be maintained as are now in place. Chairperson Peterson aslced if the elevations are such that a gravity flow system would worlc. Community Development Director Jopke indicated that the gravity flow system should work properly. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Miller to approve Resolution No. 635-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Development Review for the Mermaid Planned Unit Development requested by Dan Hall, 2200 Highway 10 with the required stipulations. Ayes - 6 Nays - 0 Motion catried. 10e Planning Case No. 560-99 Properiy Involved: 2670 County Road I Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 636-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Extension of a Conditional Use Permit for an Assisted Living Senior Residential Facility at 2670 County Road I Applicant: MSP Real Estate ��_� _ I : „ ;; � . _ � � _ �-__ _ .� �: . Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 6, 2000 Page 21 Milo Pinicerton, representing MSP Real Estate, Inc., the applicant, was not present. Planner Ericson gave the Staff report as follows: On September 13, 1999, the City Council approved Resolution 5345 wluch approved of a conditional use permit for a 46-room, two-level assisted living senior residential facility at 2670 County Road I. The applicant, MSP Real Estate, Inc., has not yet commenced construction of the approved facility, and the site remains unimproved at this point. Section 1125.01, Subd. 3f of the City Code states that "Whenever, within one year after granting a conditional use permit, the worlc as permitted by the pennit shall not have been completed, then such permit shall become null and void unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the worlc has been granted by the City Council. Such extension shall be requested, in writing, and filed with the City Clerk-Admirustrator at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the original conditional use permit." In addition, the Code states that a good faith attempt shall have been made by the applicant to complete the worlc allowed for in the CUP. Milo Pinkerton has requested such an extension, citing economic and financial factors as the basis for the delay. He indicates that a one-year extension would give them enough time to begin construction. Planner Ericson stated unless the Planning Comnlission feels strongly to the contrary, Staff is recommenciing approval of Resolution 636-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the One-Year Extension for the Conditional Use Permit to Construct a 46-room, Two-Story, Assisted Living Senior Residential Facility at 2670 County Road I. Commissioner Berke said that t11e inanagement group proposed for this facility was closed down in Wisconsin due to a staffing problem. He explained that the management group had told the Planning Coinmission that they would be adequately staffed. He expressed a desire to revisit the development plan if the extension is granted. Planner Ericson indicatecl that the Cornmission could readdress the conditions of the project. Chairperson Peterson stated that the aspects of the plan should be revisited to malce sure everyone is clear as to what they are promising versus what they will do. Commissioner Johnson indicated that they should review the front door/lobby design as it opens to Mounds View Drive. He indicated he believes that there should be a desk where you sign out or a monitor so no one wanders out. Commissioner Stevenson aslced if they needed to revise the resolution to add the conditions to revisit the front desk check out and level of stafiing. Planner Ericson indicated that if they don't add the condition to the resolution and they grant the extension it could be built tomorrow as originally proposed. -� - 1—= _--- - ,_" , �L .: � : �_'�+ �-� = . _ k=� � - I � . .� �...,. a L- v? _ � :.�.�_--' r .. . , , _ ' - __.� --- - -- - . . --- - ----- --- - • - -----' �i Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 22 Planner Ericson advised that the resolution could be revised to add the phrase "subject to the applicant reapplying for and obtaining approval of a development review." Then all of those issues can be looked at again. MOTION/SECOND: Peterson/Berlce to approve the revised Resolution 636-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the One-Year Extension for the Conditional Use Permit to Construct a 46-room, Two-Story, Assisted Living Senior Residential Facility at 2670 County Road I subject to the applicant reapplying for and obtaining approval of a development review. Ayes — 6 Nays - 0 Motion camed. Planner Ericson advised that this will be considered by the Council on September 11, 2000. 11. Staff Reports / Items of Information A. Previous Counc�l �,.ct�ons � � , t , �.w . � � , :::. �,� ti s, � ',.,; ..,,.,,.. .� , �,. _ , � `� y �'�r�... : � � Community Development Director Joplce reported on previous Council actions. He advised that the Council approved the items relating to Walgreens as well as some ordinance changes. The tattoo ordinance held over to research an Anoka County ordinance regarding tattooing. The final plat for the Walgreens development was held over because in preparing the final plat they discovered Highway 10 was not where they thought it was. Chairperson Peterson indicated he had heard there was a one-foot discrepancy. Community Development Director Joplce indicated that there was a two-foot discrepancy. The other issue was the Highway 10 study since jurisdiction was changed from the State to the County. He said that the County has committed to working with the City to address traffic and pedestrian safety issues. He indicated that Staff will present to the City Council a resolution formally requesting that the County address the issues of lowering the speed limit, adjusting the traffic signals, more and better signage, and improved visibility of crosswallcs. Cornmunity Development Director Jopke indicated that they are working with a consultant on a Phase II worlc plan basically looking at short-term, long-term and intermediate items. Chairperson Peterson said the County replaced the lights at Cour�ty Road H 2 and it appears to be helping. Planner Ericson advised that the next Planning Commission meeting will be on September 13, 2000. . .., _'' "_.s,... ; ::�. �� ,.�...._ : ° _ :_; ::_ . ; . . _ _'__ :e� - _'___ .� __ " _�_��_ __ _ � _' '"_�'__ . ___ r . .- _. ,.._ �.__ ; .: . �. _.� -�__ . . . __ . ,. � _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .. Mounds View I'lanning Commission Regular Meeting 12. Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports September 6, 2000 Page 23 Commissioner Miller asked when Walgreens will begin construction. Planner Ericson stated that could happen as soon as the final plat is recorded and approved by Ramsey County. Chairperson Peterson noted the upcoming Fall Cleanup Day and reviewed the type of things that can be recycled at no cost. No other reports were considered. 13. Adjournment ry� � �i.f v�,.;`�' �i��: . h . '� �� _,:: , ' There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Joplce Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TifneSaver Off Site SecYetarzal, Itac. +��. Y �i�. �:., h . ;t . t ��.''. : � . . .� ll�� -': ., t: . . ' �.`!:. � � �� : , „_�' _,�; � - i � � .. .__i G . .._ _...._�_.f . . _'vve_ . ___' "" _. __. ..�-�_�. -_. 1� _� .' -'-:�m?`-�. ..°� . L'-4 __-,r+x"_""' _ _ _ '_"' -___ '_'- "" -: . ... . . . _. . . "'_"_ . . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ .. . _ _ . . _ . _ ._. . _ .. : _ . _ .. '_ . -.... .."_�'_ � I � I PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting Septembe�-13, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds Vfew, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p.m., September 13, 2000. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berlce, Hegland, Johnson, Miller, Kaden, and Thomas. Members Excused: Commissioner Stevenson. Also Present: Planner Jim Ericson Index to Minutes �' >Y, ,.,,�1.�"'. :r �Y , •.� : � Planning Case No. VR00-007, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 633-00, a Resolution Approving a Parlcing Lot Setbacic Variance far Tony 1VIezzenga, 7664 Greenfield Avenue, Applicant. Staff Repoi-ts / Items of Infonnation. Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports. ' 3. Citizen's Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items �zot on the agenda. 4. Approval of Minutes A. August 16, 2000 Page � 14 15 MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Kaden. To approve the August 16, 2000 meeting minutes as presented. � . � .� _ _ __ � .� _ � _ _ � �:�. . . ,. . . . , - � --- _ _ . „ _ -- - --�-- -- --- �- -�-- --- �s._.._� .. ... _` -- - Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting Ayes — 7 Nays - 0 5. Planning Case No. VR00-007 September 13, 2000 Page 2 Motion carried. Property Involved: 7664 Greenfield Avenue Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 633-00, a Resolution Approving a Parlcing Lot Setbacic Variance A licant• Ton Mezzen a Pp • Y g , Tony Mezzenga, the applicant representing the property owner Ernest Gustafson, was present. Planner Ericson explained Tony Mezzenga, is requesting approval of a variance to construct a small, split-level ofiice building on the undeveloped lot at the southwest corner of County Road I and Greenfield Avenue. The variance is requested for reduced parlcing lot and building setbacks, a reduced parlcing ratio, reduced driveway separation and reduced parlcing lot width. While not legally required to do so, Staff again sent notices to the property owners within 350 feet of 7664 Greenfield Avenue regarding this meeting to ensure neighboi•liood awareness. This 13,068 square foot property is zoned B-3, Highway Business. The size of the lot and corner-lot setbacics present practical difficulties in terms of what can be developed, which has left the lot up to this point unimproved. This lot borders commercial property to the west (Tom Thumb and a Laundromat), high density residential to the east, and low density residential to the south and north. The proposed office use is consistent with the B-3 zoning designation and is a less intensive use that would iit well into the predominately residential surroundings. The Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this proposal at its last meeting on September 6, 2000. NuLnerous residents attended the meeting, some of whom expressed concern regarding the proposal and the existing condition of the vacant lot and the Tom Thumb store. In summary, the general concerns were as follows: . . . . Cut-through pedest�•ian t�affic Littering and graffiti, lighting and fencing Reduced visibility Traffic Congestiozl Inappropriate zoning designation In response to these concerns, Staff recognizes that there are issues regarding the lot in its present, undeveloped state. The property owner has indicated that people are cutting across lus lot to go to the adjacent Tom Thumb store, and in so doing, have worn a deep path through the lot. There also seenns to be a constant accumulation of litter on the lot which at times becomes quite unsightly. Development of this lot would greatly reduce if not eliminate both of these problems. While completely unrelated to the requested variance application, Staff has inspected the Tom Thumb store and is working with the management to address recurring graffiti problems. The problem however is not limited to Tom Thumb or this area. At this tirne, the building and fence is free from any graffiti and the grounds are free froxn litter and debris. .�.� _. "=�s�-`" _ .c.-� -__"'-. ,._: _.._.. —:__.I . ____ .::o"'��r .. "�"�� 1._� . ..__-__.�<,_��._ -..__� _ Ir�.. : "_ ��_Ti._�_....-_�I _ C ' . � Mounds View Planning Commission September 13, 2000 Special Meeting Page 3 Regarding visibility, one resident expressed concern that the view from his home would Ue blocked by the construction of a building or fence on the vacant lot. While this may be true, development on the vacant lot camiot be denied to preserve this view. Staff would encourage the residents to be involved in the site plan review stage of the development, at which time consideration would be given to landscaping and fences and other physical site improvements such as lighting. Concerning the issue of traffic congestion, Staff acicnowledges that County Road I carries a significant volume of traffic and while a curb cut onto County Road I would not improve traffic flow, Staff firmly believes that the anticipated daily vehicle trips to this property would be minimal so as to not cause any unreasonable congestion. Assuming a pealc of ten vehicle trips per hour, a car would be entering or exiting the parlcing lot less than once every five minutes. At that rate, vehicle safety and traffic flow would not be compromised. Last, regarding the present zoning of the property, as indicated at the Planning Commission's last meeting, the commission members examined this lot and its zoning during the comprehensive plan update. The coxnnnission determined that a residential development would not be appropriate on this site, even though it barders residential on three sides. Given its frontage on County Road I, the amount of traffic and the adjoining commercial use, the Planning Corrunission chose to maintain the comnlercial land-use designation, considering business/commercial to be the most feasible and appropriate future use. The Planning Commission inquired about the number of stalls, and if the applicant felt the parlcing requirement to be adequate or excessive. Mr. Mezzenga replied that twenty spaces were excessive, given the sinall size of the building. Staff agreed that the requirement may be more than what is needed and offered to provide the Planning Coinmission with office parlcing requirements from other municipalities. Staff referred to the Off-Street Parlcing Requirements publication, published by the American Planning Association. Of the nine examples given, none required more paxlcing for an office use than does Mounds View. The range went from one space per 200 square feet to one space per 750 square feet. The most common ratio was one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. Applying the one per 250 xatio to the proposed 3,480 square foot building results in the need for 14 spaces. Given that, Staff drafted a site plan based on the 3,480 square foot building and a parlcing lot to accommodate 14 vehicles. The site plan differs from what was originally proposed by Mr. Mezzenga in that the building and parlcing lot have essentially traded places. The new site plan maximizes green-space while ininiinizing the parlcing area. With six less stalls and a reduction in the drive aisle width, more pervious surface area can be set aside for landscaping and grass. The building setback from Greenfield Avenue is 30 feet, which complies wiih the Zoning requirements. Because of the small lot size, however, variances are still necessary. The variances contemplated by the proposed site plan are as follows: 9' reduction in front yard building setbacic 14' reduction in front yard parking lot setbaclt 18' reduction in driveway separation requirement Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting • 2' reduction in parking lot width requirement • 6 space reduction in number of parlcing stalls required September 13, 2000 Page 4 For the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that malces a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body 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. Given the reconfigured site plan, Staff believes that the variances requested are the minimum to alleviate the hardship and believes the hardship test has been met and that there are clear and demonstrable practical difficulties associated with this lot which malces development prohibitively restrictive. Staff is recommending approval of the variances requested by Tony Mezzenga to construct an office building at 7664 Greenfield Drive, with stipulations. Chairperson Peterson asked for questions from the audience Herbert Zwirn of 7660 Greenfield Avenue stated he would like to object to the project for the same reasons as he listed last week: He said he used to be an insurance agent and indicated at times his office used 3 parlcing spots and at other times his office used 10 parking spots. He feels the type of occupancy needs to be talcen into consideration based on reduced parlcing spaces. Mr. Zwirn indicated he has to live with what the Commission decides and he doesn't want to have to deal with the fallout of the project such as debris, foot traffic and privacy issues once the project is approved. He said he has many problems with the Tom Thumb that have not been dealt with and he is afraid he will have even more to deal with once this property is developed. Chairperson Peterson said the Corrunission is dealing with the application for a variance and all the tallc about Tom Thumb and maintenance of the fence and garbage should be dealt with under the City Nuisance Code that was strengthened a couple of years ago. He then said Mr. Zwirn needs to follow proper procedures to work with the City to bring Tom Thumb into compliance with City Code. Chairperson Peterson said the property owner of a lot in the City has the right to develop the lot within the limits of City Codes and Ordinances and B-3 zoning allows many different uses. Tom Thumb is not directly related to this variance request and he asked if Mr. Zwirn had contacted City police in the past to report any incidents. Mr. Zwirn indicated when he first moved in he reported to the police the foot trafiic, the activities in his yard and the graffiti. He indicated he does not want to have to spend his evenings calling the police and turning people in all the time. He said he realizes this is not about Tom Thumb but his point is he has trouble already with the commercial property next to him and he is afraid of having yet another business he will have problems with. He then said in _; _ �- - . _ _ --- - _ � ,: =�, :�� _ t a_ . .F •—=--°°„-_ •-__. i:��_ __ _s.;. .- �._;_.� Mounds View Planning Commission September 13, 2000 Special Meeting Page 5 his opiiiion the developer and the City are aslcing to put too big of a building on too small of a lot. and are attempting to get away with it by shrinlcing the parlcing lot. Comrnissioner Heglund aslced how the variance actually affects Mr. Zwirn's property and said in his opinion he doesn't believe it does affect his property. Mr. Zwirn said he is unhappy with the fact Mr. Mezzenga wants to put a bigger building on the lot than is allowed by ordinance and he believes it will only cause trouble for him. . Commissioner Heglund said he believes something on the lot will be better than nothing on the lot and should actually decrease problems for Mr. Zwirn. Mr. Zwirn said he spoke to two realtors who indicated if the City rezoned theproperty residential it would be no problem to develop as residential. He suggested he and the City sit down and look at the ramifications of this proposed development to his property. He said he wants the Commission to be aware of the fact since he moved to the property in February he has had nothing but problems with the Tom Thumb lot. He requested the City slow down and really consider what will happen if they proceed with this development. Chairperson Peterson indicated the Commission understands it could be rezoned but there is a comprehensive plan for zoning for every property in the City and it has been determined that the best use for this property is commercial. Chairperson Peterson said Mr. Zwirn's point is well talcen on the size of the building being too large for tlie lot and that is what the Commission intends to loolc at tonight. Chairperson Peterson said he agreed with Commissioner Hegland that whatever goes on the vacant lot should improve Mr. Zwirn's situation and he doesn't see how it could get worse. Ernest Gustafson, the property owner, said the traffic, trash and grafiiti is a reason to build something on the lot to stop foot traffic from going across his vacant lot into Mr. Zwiin's lot. He stated he believes this development will stop the problems. He also said when he mows his lot there are 2 or 3 cars a minute in and out of the Tom Thumb lot and in his opinion there is no way an office building will generate that much traffic. Commissioner Thomas asked how far it is frorn the curb cut for the Laundromat to where the curb cut would be for this building. Plainier Ericson indicated the driveway access is one or two feet off of the property line and on the site plan presented to the Planning Commission the scenario is 24 feet from the Tom Thumb and Laundromat with the building and the parlcing lot switching places it can maintain setbacks. Commissioner Thomas indicated her concern would be that having two curb cuts less than 25 feet apart could cause a significant traffic problem. Planner Ericson said it is not ideal and agreed maximizing the distance between the two c�.ub cuts would give a little more room for visibility for people exiting and entering. .� k;. _ _ . .- _ _ ... _ �� _�� .�� A� . �; � ,. � : � .� :_� - t- _-_ --. . _ . , ---_;��. :,:� �=� �.. � �, _.�..�� Mounds View Planning Commission September 13, Z000 Special Meeting Page 6 Commissioner Thomas asked if they considered placing the curb cut on. Greenfield Avenue rather than County Road I. Planner Ericson said the problem with placing the curb cut on Greenfield Avenue is it reduces the amount of area that can be used for parlcing. If the building is left in the same orientation there is just barely enough room to squeeze the driveway back along the adjoining property and then into the parking lot which would eliminate two parking spaces so you lose either part of the parking lot or part of the building. Commissioner Thomas said she is concerned about having two curb cuts so close together on County Road I. Planner Ericson said the request for reduction in the parlcing stalls is not a request of the applicant it was brought up by the Commission last weelc because the Commission felt 20 spaces were too many and that is what lead to the proposal for 14 stalls. He indicated the 20 stalls calls for a variance of four feet from County Road I and four feet from the side property line. Commissioner Thomas said they went from a maximum of 20 stalls to a minimum of 14 stalls and have left no maneuverability as far as site development to fit in that many spots. She then said if they really are limiting it to 14 stalls she feels Mr. Zwirn's comments as to the fact the City and developer are trying to fit too large a building on too small of a lot have some validity. Commissioner Thomas said six parlcing spots were dropped from last week's plan and if the orientation of the building is changed you lose two more parlcing spots. Then you are down to 12 parlcing spots which is too few for the size of the building. Commissioner Heglund said he is not sure it has been determined how rnany spots are required for the size of the building and he did not believe the Commission has studied enough what this size of the building requires. Commissioner Thomas indicated the City has a lot of buildings of this type and has set Ordinances which are used to judge how much parking is required per square foot of building. Commissioner Johnson said he would like to try to meet in the middle and he thought there would be 16 or 18 parking stalls not 14 parlcing stalls. He then clarified the Comnnission is supposed to be talking about the variance not the development plan. Commissioner Johnson said at this point he would vote for the variance. Commissioner Thomas aslced if they are locked into a certain amount of feet in a certain place when they actually have no idea what they are saying yes to. She indicated the variance would be dependent on which site plan was approved so there does need to be discussion about site plans prior to approving the variance. Planner Ericson said based on the site plan provided to the Commission, it calls for 14 parlcing stalls but there are ways to look at how much parlcing is enough parlcing and there are a number � . ... �__ �� „ . _ , _ .�a.� __ .._� �, � __ _ _ ____ ________- �__ _ __ _ _ -____ _.� _ _ _w _ _:k .� __.. _ . . __ ___ __ _ __. _ _ _ _ � Mounds View Planning Comrrussion September 13, 2000 Special Meeting Page 7 of ways to look at the situation. The Commission is being asked to provide a minimum number of parking spaces to the applicant and the applicant would be required to worlc within those constraints. Commissioner Thomas aslced what is the probability once the site plan is approved the Commission will be aslced to consider a different or further variance to change the numbers. Planner Ericson said whatever is decided tonight, there should be enough forethought into the process that a further variance request would not be necessary. Commissioner Thornas agreed and indicated she felt the Conunission needed to take a Uetter look at the numbers. Commissioner Johnson said he would lilce to see 16 parlcing spaces and feels anything larger than that is too many and smaller than that would not accommodate the businesses planned for the building. Commissioner Thomas indicated she would lilce to suggest the Commission go with the "one space per 200 square feet" ratio which would be the 16 spaces and reduce the square footage of the building if needed to comply. Chairperson Peterson said Mounds View's requirements are much more strict than other cities in the area. He suggested the plan proposed in the Staff report extended two feet bacic on each side achieves the 16 parlcing spots. He indicated he did not have a preference for what side the building is on. Planner Ericson indicated the only difference in the plans if the parlcing lot is next to Tom Thumb is a five-foot setbacic. If the building is next to Tom Thumb it requires a 10-foot setbacic and the difference on Greenfield Avenue is a 25-foot setbacic instead of a 30-foot setback. The curb cut is away from Tom Thumb but closer to Greenfield Avenue. Comnnissioner Thomas said if there is not enough parlcing there is no where for the overflow parl�ing to go in the area which means there will be parlcing up and down the street in front of people's houses. She stated she wants to make sure there is enough parking to accommodate the building. Commissioner Johnson said if they allow just enough parlcing for office space there is the potential that something else can come in at a later date with a higher volume of traffic and then there isn't room to accomrnodate the parlcing for it. Comnnissioner Thomas said she agrees but thinlcs one space per 200 square feet of building is very common in the City and she sees no problem with it. Commissioner Johnson said the Staff report from last weelc indicated even with the square footage of the building as it is, there are liinits to the type of tenants that will be able to use the building. , . � _ _ _ N _ _ --- -�._�c�----'----, r.�---------��_�: r- �.. -'-----'------ .: � t _r_.. _ ��.�_ ._��. -`— -----�- °- ==`-- -_' �- -• - --- -- ----- � I Mounds View Planning Commission Septernber 13, 2000 Special Meeting Page 8 Planner Ericson said the building is proposed to be 3,480 square feet which is a total foot print number not a total useable office space which is 2,950. He said if you round the nurnber up to 3,000 leaseable square feet at one per 200, it figures out to be 15 parlcing stalls. If one more is added, they could lease an additiona1200 square feet of office space and still comply. Commissioner Thomas said she would be more comfortable using those numbers and felt the site developnlent plan would be more worlcable if they called for 16 spaces or one space per 200 square feet of building. , �u�-: .. �'` '�.�.: �� Commissioner Johnson agreed. Planner Ericson indicated the proposed curb cut is close to 50 feet from Greenfield Avenue. He said there should be room for 16 parlcing stalls and plenty of room for the curb cut as shown on the site development plan. Chairperson Peterson said if one more stall in each banlc were added it would push it back farther towards the back of the property. But if you centered it, then the setback on the backside is not 15 feet. Planner Ericson said they were intending to measure the setback from the 20-foot mark. Chairperson Peterson said it didn't matter to him if the parking lot is on the Greenfield Avenue side or the Tom Thumb side. He felt that was irrelevant in terms of a variance and noted that how nnuch building and how many parking spaces is what they are deciding tonight. Commissioner Thomas aslced where the current sidewallc was located. Planner Ericson said the sidewallc is within the right-of-way, located approximately five feet from the subject property. Planner Ericson summarized the discussion by saying if two stalls were added and the lot shifted up, there would be a 15 foot setbacic on the back side and a 12 foot setback fronting County Road I. He then said if the Commission wanted to make sure they don't have to revisit the variance in the future, they could round it to a 10-foot setback on County Road I. Commissioner Miller asked what the extra space toward the back of the parlcing lot would be used for. Planner Ericson said the extra space in the bacic would be used to bacic out, not as an encroachment. Commissioner Thomas asked if they needed to make it 10-foot wide stalls if they go with one parlcing spot for 200 square feet. She also aslced if they had roorn for 10-foot wide stalls. Planner Ericson said 10 foot wide stalls would require eight additional feet and City Code only requires a nine-foot stall. If the Commission wants to make sure they don't have to revisit this � — —r .. -` _ . .:_ _ � w_ `_: : _ .� _ . _ � _� A _._____ _ � - __ __,__ _____� � v �� Mounds View Planning Commission September 13, 2000 Special Meeting Page 9 issue, they could note there could be a 25-foot setbacic from Greenfield Avenue only if the parlcing lot is on the Greenfield Avenue side. It wouldn't be needed if the building is on the Greenfield Avenue side. Commissioner Thomas stated she would like to give everyone as much space as they can but malce sure it is worlcable. �`;� Commissioner Johnson asked if there would be a 10-foot setbacic in the front and the back. Planner Ericson indicated there would be 10 feet in the front off of County Road I and 15 feet in the bacic. A member of the audience asked if there would be room to plow snow. Planner Ericson indicated there is plenty of room to plow snow and if there is a large ainount of snow it would have to be removed from the site. This is a common practice with commercial developments. � , A member of the audience aslced what the setbacic from County Road I to the Tom Thumb driveway was. Planner Ericson said he did not lcnow and referred the question to Mr. Gustafson, the property owner. Mr. Gustafson said he believed it to be around 20 feet. Planner Ericson aslced if he meant from the street or the property line. Mr. Gustafson said he thought it was closer to five feet but he was not sure. Chairperson Peterson aslced Planner Ericson to look at the aerial photograph to see if he could tell. Planner Ericson said it was hard to tell but he thought it loolced to be around 10 to 15 feet. Commissioner Thomas said it would match if Mr. Mezzenga were to be granted a 10-foot variance. Chairperson Peterson said the Tom Thumb was constructed in 1972 and they would have had to follow the requirements then in place. Comznissioner Johnson aslced if the Commission was planning to grant 10 feet in front, 15 feet in bacic, with a minimum of 25 feet from Greenfield Avenue if the parking lot is on the Greenfield Avenue side. Planner Ericson asked if the building were switched with the parlcing lot would the Commission prefer a greater setbacic to the front or to the rear. He indicated if there was a greater setback to the front the people leaving Tom Thumb would have more visibility. � , �. .�� . , .K�:...___��- -- �:i, "-_ i.w._:, -�_ - -"t . .--yi �-�:-- � ..:_. Y_�. - -____.__� < •-��_�__., _ r_ .- � .. �_ ,..� -_� :� -.-'. �- : �..-: .�.-:i `�,,-.:�. Mounds View Planning Commission September 13, 2000 Special Meeting Page 10 The Planning Commission aslced the developer to comment on his preference for the location of the building and parking lot. Mr. Mezzenga said he would prefer the bacic of the building against the bacic of Tom Thumb because it is easier to pull out on Greeniield Avenue and the aesthetics of the building would be cheaper for him. He explained if the bacic side of building faces Greenfield Avenue, he will have to make it more aesthetically appealing but if the back of the building faces Tom Thumb there would be no need for aesthetics. Mr. Gustafson said Mr. Zwirn had said last week there was a plan to put up an eight foot fence so he couldn't see out. He said he wanted to make it clear there is no proposal on any of the plans presented to have an eight-foot fence. They were proposing lilac bushes which can be trimmed. He said if the building is towards Greenfield Avenue tlie neighbor would not be able to see anything. But if the back of the building were toward Tom Thumb, it would be better for Mr. Zwirn. Chaiiperson Peterson said there seems to be a little support for the idea of moving the parlcing lot toward the Greenfield Avenue side so the wording of the resolution could be simplified and there are fewer changes required. Planner Ericson said Staff would put together another site plan showing how it could work out given the variances that would be granted by the Planning Commission this evening. Mr. Mezzenga asked what the worst case would be if the Commission granted a variance for more parlcing spots. Chairperson Peterson said he needs to meet the minimum requirements for a hardship and the Commission felt 20 parlcing spots was too many. Mr. Mezzenga said he doesn't want to get into a position where it becomes a larger monetary invesnnent to have plans drawn and then need to come bacic and revisit parking issue. Commissioner Johnson said flip-flopping the plan in front of them would give him 10 feet in bacic and would increase the number of parking spots from 14 to 16 because the Commission did not thinlc 14 parking spaces was enough but felt 20 spaces was too many. Commissioner Thomas indicated the Commission is trying to grant the rninimum variance that would allow Mr. Mezzenga the maneuverability needed to develop the lot. Chairperson Peterson said he wanted to make sure it is the minimum to alleviate the hardship and then aslced Planner Ericson if he had enough information to be able to draft a resolution for approval at the next meeting which is the first meeting in October. Commissioner Kaden asked if they could plug in the new numbers to the resolution before thern in order to approve it tonight. � � -..� >.� , _ _ _ �— . _ _ _ . � �_____ � �_ __ _ , :_ _ _... ..� y.. _ _. : _ � a . � _ _ _ . ____ _ � : . � Mounds View PIanning Commission September 13, 2000 Special Meeting Page 11 Planner Ericson said that would be fine and then asked if there was a consensus to act on the Resolution tonight with the adjusted variances as agreed upon. He stated that the parlcing lot setbacks would be 25 feet to the Greenfield Avenue side, 15 feet to the side neighbor, five feet to the Tom Thumb side, and 10 feet to the front on County Road I to allow for 10 foot setbacics for the building at the corner and rear. John Houle of 7643 Edgewood Drive said his bacicyard and Tom Thumb's backyard touch. Mr. Houle said he has been there since the 1960's and he doesn't lalow why the Tom Thumb lot was ever rezoned to commercial. He believes the lot in question should be zoned residential, not commercial, for the simple reason it would do away with a driveway onto County Road I. He feels there is a real demand for residential and a house belongs there, not commercial. Chairperson Peterson said if Tom Thumb were not there the whole block would have been zoned residential but since it is there, it is less desirable now for a residential development. Mr. Houle said he feels a house belongs there and he would lilce to see it rezoned. He expressed his concern for accidents because of the trafiic on County Road I. Chairperson Peterson indicated the current zoning for the piece of property in question is commercial and it would be up to the property owner or the City to request a zoning change which, in this case, neither are willing to do. Chairperson Peterson said once a property is zoned commercial in an area where commercial works for the City, it is difficult to change the zoi�ing. Commissioner Johnson indicated if the property were in high demand for residential use a builder would have purchased the lot, aslced to have it down zoned to residential, and built an apariment building or duplex. But, that has not happened which indicates to him there really isn't a demand for residential use for the property. Corrunissioner Thomas indicated at tlus point a rezoning would be at the request of the property owner, he hasn't requested a rezoning, and the City is not inclined to make him rezone it. It is zoned commercial and he is within his rights to develop it commercially. Commissioner Miller aslced if the Commission had decided what the driveway separation would be. Planner Ericson indicated the Commission had determined it wasn't necessary for the resolution as long as the parking lot and the building were going to switch places. Chairperson Peterson indicated the driveway sepaxation could be dropped from the resolution. Commissioner Thomas indicated any further changes could be worlced in as process moves along. �� _>>._Ya.��s� �' �:�,.� �at=�_r.._...._....�.f.c:_,�..._..t �+:,.. _ .., . . _""'_ ' '_ L '.' _ _ _s..<�� . _ _�_ G:•� � � '�_ :_= ..V.� ra:•�-_.._._...�.._�_.r.i� Mounds View Planning Commission Septennber 13, 2000 Special Meeting Page 12 Planner Ericson summarized what the Commission had agreed upon to be 25 feet from Greenfield Avenue, 15 feet from the side fronting the property on Greenfield Avenue, five feet from Tom Thumb, 10 feet from the front on County Road I with a building setbacic of 10 feet from the side and the rear which maintains the 30 foot required front setbacic, the variance for the one space for 200 square feet parlcing, and the variance for the 61 foot parlcing lot instead of the 63 foot as per City Code. Chairperson Peterson aslced if he had included the five-foot from the Tom Thumb side. . Planner Ericson clarified it is for the parking lot being on the Tom Thumb side. He also explained a variance is not required because the setbacic is five feet from Tom Thumb and that part does not need to be in the resolution. Commissioner Miller aslced Exhibit A to be changed to reflect the changes discussed tonight when the resolution is revised. Chairperson Peterson said Exhibit A could be the same as last weelc's but the parking lot portion is changed to reflect decisions of the Commission at this meeting. Planner Ericson said there is no notation of fences oi- trees as that will be determined at a later date during the development review stage of this proposal. Chairperson Peterson said contingencies must be recorded with the county and development review must take place within three months in order to be valid. He said they could add a sentence that says screening and fencing would have to be resolved at that time as well, but it is not totally necessary. Commissioners Thomas and Miller said they did not believe it to be necessary as there is a sentence saying failui•e to apply for and receive approval will render the variance null and void. Chairperson Peterson aslced if there was further discussion on the resolution or the changes. Commissioner Miller asked if they need to edit the sentence which states the public hearing was held on Wednesday, September 6, 2000 to add the discussion was continued to September 13, 2000. Planner Ericson said he does not lcnow if this is legally a public hearing but they could certainly indicate the matter was discussed at the September 13, 2000 meeting. Chairperson Peterson said he doesn't think the public hearing was continued from September 6, 2000 to September 13, 2000. He said he would like to add a sentence saying the issue was discussed at the meeting on September 13, 2000. Planner Ericson said he will change the resolution to read "a public hearing was held regarding this variance request on Wednesday, September 6, 2000 and the discussion was continued to September 13, 2000." �� . __ , -� - _ - - � � _ . . � r.�,..� �,:. 4'_ ..:; .. `. ..._. _._�.___�.: ___. ... . �__. . . .. ..._.i=.�t r._s. .. .""' . ...___ � Mounds View Planning Commission September 13, 2000 Special Meeting Page 13 MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Heglund. To approve Resolution No. 633-00, a Resolution Approving a Parking Lot Setback Variance for Tony Mezzenga, 7664 Greenfield Avenue with the changes as requested by the Commission. Ayes — 7 Nays - 0 Motion cai-ried. �>�'-Y °:��. Chairperson Peterson indicated without the development review nothing can legally be done on the property and the next step at this point would be to worlc up the plans as to where to put the screening and what type of screening. He aslced Planner Ericson to give informaiion on the development review process to the applicant. Planner Ericson said he would work with the applicant to malce sure he was aware of all of the requirements involved with the development review. Chairperson Peterson said it would be in everyone's best interest if the neighbors were actively involved in the plan. Planner Ericson said Staff will notify residents when this comes bacic before the Commission for discussion. 11. Staff Reports / Ite�s of Information '"3� A. Previous Council Actions Staff brought the Planning Commission up to date on action of the Council as it relates to the Commission. The City Council did approve the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 663 which is the Ordinance governing tattooing and piercing establishments in the City with a change not to allow the tattooing of minors at all. He indicated the change was made because the City did not want the operator to have to malce the judgment as to who was the parent and if they were following the Ordinance. The Council wanted the change so for people under 18 years of age, there would be no tattooing and no piercing in Moi,uids View. Chairperson Peterson asked if the prohibition of under 18 applied to ear piercing. Planner Ericson indicated ear piercing is allowed but no other piercings. Planner Ericson said the City Council also approved the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 668 an ordinance vacating the sign easement. He indicated the easement area is no longer used or needed and that is why it was vacated. He said if and when the Walgreens transaction goes through the City will own all of that frontage on Highway 10 so if the City should need an additional sign location there would be plenty of room. P1aruler Ericson said Staff would like to bring to the attention of the residents that there is a vacancy on the Planning Commission and the Mayor has stated he will be accepting applications for the seat up until 12:00 Noon on Monday, September 25, 2000. He indicated they have . : .. . , _ _ . _ _. � --.�. V-----'-- ' "_--� `---�"--�.��_�_��}��.__r� r� r � :�„--'- ..�, • _ t . � ._- -.e3..Y ':< _.-=;: . : -Y.:...��. _-: �_.,. _ .;t: �� "� Mounds View Planning Coznmission Special Meeting September 13, 2000 Page 14 received some applications and the term ends December 31, 2000. He said the application is on the website or a City Staff person would be willing to fax or mail the application if anybody is interested. 12. Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports "Y"a'�'' .;r Chairperson Peterson noted Saturday, Septernber 23, 2000 is Fall Clean Up Day. �� 2, There were no other reports of the Commission. � '"'''� �� ;:�: r. 13. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Ricic Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier . TinzeSaver Off Site Secretaf°ial, Inc. �. �:�x .ryl Sk.�, .'1:f � r:;,;: ,.;;��,. S,� .. ,;� ! � � ti� �. _ � -_ __ _ _ _ - _ _ _y __ � : __ _ � � � _ ___. � _ _ - � 1. 2. 3. 4. $ MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION October 18, 2000 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Call to Order Introduction of New Planning Commissioner, Travis So and so. Roll Call Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITTZENS: B��ORE SPEAHING, PLEAS� COME TO THE PODIUM, A.ND GIVE YOUR F'[JLL NANI� AND ADDR�SS FOR TI� MINUT�S Approve Planning Commission Minutes: a. September 6, 2000 b. 5eptember 13, 2000 6. Planning Case No. PD00-002 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 63 8-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Mermaid Addition Preliminary Plat Applicant: Dan Hall 7. 8. 9. 10 11 Review First Draft of Ordinance 672, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Home Occupations Discuss Possible Changes to the City's Sign Code, Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code StaffReports / Items of Information a. Previous Council Action Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports Adjournment to Agenda Session (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) APPLTCANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS ME�TING IS R�QULSTED. PLEASE NOTIFY THE COMNIUNTTY DEV�LOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 763-717=t022 IF YOU AR� UNABLE TO ATTEND. AGENDA SESSION � ►1� : �. Review the Minutes from the October 4, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting.. K:IDATAIGROUPS\COMDL'VIPLANCOIv1Iv11PCAGENDA�2000\Oct 1 R, 2000 PC Agenda.doc Item # 6 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meetitag Date: October I8, 2000 Title: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 638-00, A RESOLUTION RECOMN�NDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE MERMAID EXPANSION, 2200 HIGHWAY 10. Planning Case: PD00-002 Applacant: Dan Hall, President, The Mermaid Background: The applicant is requesting City approval of the preliminary plat for the Mermaid Addition, a major subdivision associated with the recently-approved Mermaid PUD. The plat groups together those parcels being utilized for Mermaid expansion, which include the former Rent-All property, the Music-off-10 property, the south 361 feet of the Mounds View Business Park South plat as well as the existing Mermaid parcels. Altogether, the total area involved in the plat is 9.36 acres. Discussion: This preliminary plat appears to be consistent with the Subdivision Plats and Procedures Chapter of the City Code and a copy of the preliminary plat has been forwarded to the City Attorney for his review. The legal descriptions and property ownership information however is incomplete and as such, that page—the dedication page, has not been included for Planning Commission review. Plat Hi�hlights: • As mentioned above, this plat combines all of the properties involved in the Mermaid PUD into one lot, Lot 1, Block 1, MEFZMAID ADDITTON, and one outlot, Outlot A, MExN1AID ADDrr1oN. The outlot would serve as the access drive to the business park property to replace the existing access drive. While it is not anticipated that the business park would own the proposed outlot, it is expected that a permanent access easement would be recorded in its favor. • The plat dedicates 120 feet within the right of way for County Road H south of the Rent .All Parcel and 100 feet (9.5 feet deep) south of the Music Off 10 parcel. • The plat dedicates a ten-foot drainage and utility easement around the perimeter of the Mermaid property and also dedicates a 35-foot wide easement area for utilities along the southwestern shared property line between the Mermaid and business park property. � — � _ � _ , ____ _ _____ _. ____ __ __ __ Mermaid Preliminary Plat Report October 18, 2000 Page 2 Park Dedication Requirement: ._ _ �� .. . . � .. � . s ��_�� _ _ _ _____ __ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ � Chapter 1204 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that all major subdivisions and plats pay a park dedication fee. For developments encompassing more than one acre of land, the fee amounts to ten percent of the associated land value. The table below lists the land values associated with the Mermaid project and the amount of the park dedication required for this project: SITE Music Off 10 Halis: nt All Iding Pond �TAL: PIN 083023430005 083023430006 083023430007 083023430008 083023430009 Part of 083023430021 MV Land` $ 26,100 $ 261,600 $ 370,500 $ 68,000 $ 79,300 $ 117,557 $ 923,057 Area (SF) 17,753 $ 82,842 $ 168,555 $ 40,521 $ 41,854 $ 57,910 $ 409,435 $ 'Based on Market Value for Assessed Year 2000; For Property Taxes Payable 2001 PSF 1.47 3.16 2.20 1.68 1.89 2.03 2.25 From this table, the fee that would be charged to the Mermaid for tkus plat would be $92,306. Recommendation: Staff is recommending approva] of Resolution 638-00, a resolution recommending approval of the Mermaid Addition preliminary plat, with stipulations. � o�� C�'�-c� ��. James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1, Mermaid Addilion plat, date-stamped 10/11/00 2. Resolution 638-00 F:IDATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASESUvlermaid Hotel (ZC00-003, DE00-003, MA00-002)�Iviermaid pre plat - Oct. 18, 2000.doc �� .� _�s Zoning Map _ _ �, >.59 5250 � `ti� � 24 5240' ' p —.. � }�,"�: 0 239 5230 � ; ' �'y� r 229 5220; ; � � ; , : , 21 5210. ; ! 209 5200� ; , �Middle School I'C U ___ _., � __ , �: _ � ; �_..:......:.._.__..---.__ .._ : _._ . N PUp I I o 5230 --"_.........__..-- � N ___....... _f N ; wooaA�E i N ' N 520d � g' �:'(I•.'� N >- �O � � y,�' \ o°�°�(��r°vNv Iry`�' NNN N �`1 Mounds �.._� . � ,___Viev�--.�.._.... Business PUD z ::.::. � : ;: � .: 5205 � • -- -,- -- -- - -- -- —� — -- - ----�- �yh �� y`�' S150 � --- 1..-------.....� I P'L,�o� ��' � i � �� i .� N �; ..._.--.--� ►'�� N�' a,�� j o� M �� ---.—_--�--._.._.. titi°1 � �'L � '! N � r . � r------_..._�: � 0 �� Q P �1q�6�� l ry�o �' ,��G�'`�P� � � �0 B-3 � ? �;'' o � Mermaid'� \ '�'g , - I 1 i ' Additio� �'� ;f � � � i; I c�v I c�y � i ! i cV I N cv I! R-5 , TOWNS EDGE TERRACE MOBIL� HOM� PARK CRP � Q�� _._ . . . � ��' cc'. _ °.., �._ _` ... . . . _ _ _. . _ . . L:-�. � __ 1204.01 SECTION: 1204.01 1204.02 CHAPTER 1204 .-. _ .-'-- ----` =-'- '- - ..... �. __. ._ . __. ��z,- `:l 1: _.— - - , PUBLIC PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS Land Acquisitions Dedication of Lands 1204.02 ' 1204.01: LAND ACQUISITIONS: Where a proposed park, playground, school site or other public site, as shown on the Comprehensive Plan or Open Space Master Plan, is embraced in part or in whole by the boundary of a proposed subdivision and such public sites are not dedicated to the Municipality or Board of Education, such public ground sha11 be reserved and no action taken toward approval of a subdivision for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days to allow the Council or Board of Education the opportunity to consider and take action toward acquisition of such public ground or park by purchase or other means. (1988 Code §42.12) 1204.02: DEDICATION OF LANDS: Subd. 1. Dedication Required: a. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 462.358, in all subdivisions to be developed for residential, commercial, industrial or other uses or as a planned development which includes residential, commercial and industrial uses or any combination thereof, a reasonable portion of each proposed subdivision shall be dedicated to the public for public use as parks, playgounds, public open space, wetlands or storm water holding axeas or ponds or, at the option of the Municipality and at its sole discretion, that the subdivider contribute an equivalent amount in cash based on the fair market value of the undeveloped land. (Ord. 474, 9-25-89) b. Cash payments so received shall be placed in a special fitnd7 and used only for the acquisition of land for parks, playgrounds, public open space and storm water holding areas or ponds, development of existing park and playground sites, public open space and storm water holding areas or ponds and debt retirement in connection with land previously acquired for such public purposes. Expenses incurred by the City in acquiring said cash dedication may be deducted from said dedication before it is deposited in the Park and Playground Fund. � See Section 203.06 of tliis Code. City ofMounds View .,. ._ . ,. . . -° . - ` --' �:'. : . - . ..- c-a' : ._ ._. -:�;' _ .- � ---= v _ t�^ � r >� [. 1204.02 1204.02 (Rev. 97) ' c. The Municipality, at its sole discretion, may take into consideration the open space, park, recreational or common areas and facilities which the subdivider has provided for the exclusive use of the residents of the subdivision; except, that storm water holding areas or ponds, whether required by the Municipality or any other regulatory body, may not be taken into consideration. Subd. 2. Deternvnation of Dedication Procedure: Upon receipt of a yualifying subdivision, the Council sha11 refer it to the Parks and Recreation Commission8. Said Commission shall report to the Council its dedication recommendation. Upon receipt of the recommendation, the Council shall call for either a land dedication or a cash payment, in size, location or amount, as it determines. The Council may require a professional appraisal to determine market value for purposes of a cash payment. Subd. 3. Credit for Existing Single-Farruly Dwelling: The subdivider of any parcel of land shall receive �. credit for an e�sting single-family dwelling unit by excluding the acreage of the occupied parcel remaining after subdivision from the computation of dwelling units per acre if the parcel of land is zoned for single-family residence and has located thereon one single-family dwelling. Subd. 4. Dedication for Residential Lands: The subdivider of any tract of land which is to be developed for residential uses shall dedicate to the public for public use as parks, playgrounds, public open space or storm water holding areas or ponds, that dollar value of the tract to be subdivided, which corresponds with the applicable size of the subdivision in the following schedule: Cash Dedication Subdivision Size Per Acre Residential uses on parcel(s) with a total area of less than one acre Residential uses on parcel(s) with a total area of one acre or greater (Ord. 604, 1997) 5% of market value of land 10% of market value of land Subd. 5. Dedication for Commercial and Industrial Lands: The subdivider of any tract of land which is to be developed for commercial and industrial uses shall dedicate to the public for public use as parks, playgounds, public open space or storm water holding areas or ponds, ten percent (10%) of the land of the proposed subdivision or, at the option of the Municipality, an equivalent of cash equal to ten percent (10%) of the ma.rket value of the land at the time of the subdivision. (Ord. 604, 1997) 8 See Chapter 405 of this Code. City ofMounds View �� ) 1204.02 _ , 1204.02 (Rev. 97) ' Subd. 6. Dedication for Re-Subdivision: For any subdivision of a parcel on which a cash dedication for parks has previously been made but on which an additional cash dedication is required due to re-subdivision, the amount of cash dedication required on the re-subdivided parcel(s) to be developed for residential uses shall be based on the market value of the land at the time of re-subdivision based on the schedule set forth in subdivision 4 of this Section less any applicable credit for the prior cash dedication. The amount of cash dedication required on the re-subdivided parcel(s) to be developed for commercial or industrial uses shall be based on ten percent (10%) of the market value of the land at the time of re- subdivision less any applicable credit for the prior cash dedication. (1988 Code §42.13) (Ord. 604, 1997) City ofMounds View - MOUNDS V�W PLANNING COMMISSIQ� RESOLUTION NO. 638-00 CITY OF MOUNDS V�W COUNTY OF RA.MSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TFIE MERMAID ADDITION MA.JOR SUBDIVISION; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. PD00-002 WHEREAS, Daniel Hall, President of The Mermaid, has applied for a Major Subdivision to expand the existing Mermaid property by adding the adjoining former Rent-All property, the south 361 feet of the Mounds View Business Park South property, and the Music Off Ten property; and, WI�REAS, the legal descriptions for the properties to be platted are as follows: (See attached EXHIBIT A.) WI�REAS, the proposed plat is named "MERMAID ADDITION" and contemplates reorganizing the above parcels into one developable lot and one outlot; and, WHEREAS, the area of the proposed "MEItMAID ADDTTION" is 9.36 acres; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents relative to this proposal: 1. Application, dated May 8, 2000 2. Zoning Map 3. Preliminary Plat, date-stamped October 1 l, 2000 4. StaffReport. WHEREAS, on October 10, 2000, the City Council of the City of Mounds View approved Resolution 5458 which approved the Mermaid Planned Unit Development (PUD); and, WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan recommended for approval by the Planning Commission designates the parcels associated with the Mermaid PUD and znajor subdivision as RC-PUD, Regional Commercial Planned Unit Development; and, WHEREAS, according to year 2000 Ramsey County property value assessments, the total land value of the properties involved is $923,057; and, WI�REAS, Chapter 1204 of the Municipal Code states that all subdivisions and plats of land to be used for commercial or industrial purposes are subject to park dedication requirements amounting to ten percent of the most current assessed land values; and, _ �. � �. __ ; _ _ _: ..: ., _ _�._ .. _ � :. - � _.,�.. �. � . __ . �-s` �.. ��— --- - - - - - -- - - ----- - _-�-- r . . �.---r---=j 1 Resolution 638-00 Page 2 WHEREAS, according to Chapter 1204 of the Municipal Code, the applicable park dedication fee for this major subdivision is $92,306; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat of the proposed Major Subdivision, subject to the following stipulations: 1. The Preliminary Plat shall be revised by indicating the current property owners and appropriate legal descriptions for the involved properties. 2. The developer shall execute a sign easement document which dedicates to the City of Mounds View the forty foot triangle at the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H as shown on the preliminary plat for a City gateway sign. 3. The developer shall submit the applicable park dedication fee of $92,306 prior to the City signing the final plat. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 18th day of October, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) X:�DATAIGROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASESUvIERMAID HOTEL (ZC00-003, DE00-003, MA00-002)\638-00 PC RESOLUTION.DOC .. .."" _ " } -_ " ' " ". .. . . . .. ' .. " _ ,_ � EXHIBIT A. Mer�maid Le�al Descriptions Tract A That part of the East 546.75 feet of the South 715.10 feet of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23 in Ramsey County, Minnesota lying Southwesterly of the Southwesterly right of way line of U.S. Highway No. 10 as it is now laid out and traveled and lying Northerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the West line of the East 546.75 feet of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 distant 445.25 feet North of the South line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 as measured along said West line of the East 546.75 feet thereof; thence North 86 Degrees 52 Minutes 52 Seconds East (assumed bearing of the West line of East 546.75 feet of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 is North 0 Degrees 47 Minutes 11 Seconds West), and to the Southwesterly right of way line of said U. S. Highway No. 10 and except that part of the following described property included in the above described tract: Convnencing at a point on the South line of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 8 distant 897.5 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof; thence North 35 Degrees 07 Minutes West (assumed bearing of West on said South line) a distance of 392.7 feet to the center line of County Road H; thence South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West along said center line, a distance of 145.0 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West 120.0 feet; thence North 35 Degrees 07 Minutes West 252.0 feet; thence North 54 Degrees 53 Minutes East, 190.0 feet to the Southwesterly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 10; thence, South 35 Degrees 07 Minutes East along said Southwesterly right of way line 200.0 feet; thence South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West along said right of way line 70,0 feet; thence South 35 Degrees 07 Minutes East along said right of way line 52.0 feet to the point of beginning. Tract B: That part of the East 546.75 feet of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23 in Ramsey County, Minnesota lying Southwesterly of the Southwesterly right of way line of U. S. Highway No. 10 as it is now laid out and traveled, lying Northerly of the center line of County Road H and lying Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the West line of the East 546.75 feet of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 distant 445.25 feet North of the South line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 as measured along said West line of the East 546.75 feet thereof; thence North 86 Degrees 52 Minutes 52 Seconds East (assumed bearing of the West line of the East 546.75 feet of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 is North 0 Degrees 47 Minutes 11 Seconds West) and to the Southwesterly right of way line of U. S. Highway No. 10 and said line there terminating and except that part of the following described property included in the above described tract: Commencing at a point on the South line of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said 5ection 8 distant 897.5 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof; thence North 35 Degrees 07 Minutes West (assumed bearing of West on said 5outh line) a distance 392.7 feet to the center line of County Road H; thence South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West along said center line, a distance of 145.0 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West 120.0 feet; thence North 35 Degrees 07 Minutes West, 252.0 feet; thence North 54 Degrees 53 Minutes East, 190.0 feet to the Southwesterly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 10; thence South 35 Degrees 07 Minutes East along said Southwesterly right of way line 200.0 feet; thence South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West along said right of way line 70.0 feet; thence South 35 Degrees 07 Minutes East along said right of way line 52.0 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to County Road H. . _�:_ . : ..�._.� - . . . �:- ;_. . �. ;.; . .:-_ 6 �'- ----. . -. . , �. _ '__- ._� l�:r. _-'-��..��'----.r_ , 1:.3°-�__ . Rent All Le�al Description: A tract of land being a part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and also a part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows; Commencing at a point on the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter distance 897.5 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof; thence North 35 degrees 07 minutes West (assumed bearing on said South line) a distance of 392.7 feet to the extension Northeasterly of the centerline of County Road H; thence South 54 degrees 53 minutes West along said center line a distance of 145.0 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 54 degrees 53 minutes West 120.0 feet; thence North 35 degrees 07 minutes West 252.0 feet; thence North 54 degrees 53 minutes East 190.0 feet to the Southwesterly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 10; thence South 35 degrees 07 minutes East along said Southwesterly right of way line 200.0 feet; thence South 54 degrees 53 minutes West along said right of way line 70.0 feet; thence South 35 degrees 07 minutes East along said right of way line 52.0 feet to the point of beginning. Niusic Ofi 10 Legal Description: The east 100.00 feet of the West 657.57 feet of the South 215 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, according to the U. S. Government Survey thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Business Park Le�al Description: (Assumed) That part lying South of the North 557.08 feet of that part of LTNIT 2 in TI75 1985 N CONDOMINItJM NUMBER 296 r �:�� _ � �__ ___�:. � _ � � ; �__ _ - � � , Item # 7 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meetirrg Date: October 18, 2000 Title: DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE 672, AN ORDINANCE REVISING CHAPTER 1106 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE RELATING TO HOME OCCUPATIONS. Introduction: Ordinance 672 was drafted in response to growing issues relating to businesses operated from within a home or garage, defined within our code as a home occupation. Discussion: There are four changes thus far contemplated by Ordinance 672. The first is to correct a grammatical error by replacing "insure" with "ensure." The second change addresses allowed signage for home occupations by removing language impossible to enforce. In addition, it contemplates allowing for more sign area from one square foot to four square feet and opens the door for signage in places other than the house or garage, yet stops short of answering the question, "what if the sign is not visible from the street?" Staii asks for the Planning Commission's thoughts in particular to that question. The third change is a housekeeping correction. Chapter 604 was deleted a number of years ago and replaced by a revised Chapter 607, Nuisances. The last change contemplated by this ordinance is the addition of item "h", which explicitly states that automotive sales, service or repair as a home business is expressly prohibited. Staff will verify that there are no legal issues resulting from the disallowance of these types of businesses. Recommendation: Please review Ordinance 672 and provide staff with any comments, suggestions and feedback you may have. � � �� -r..,c�i-�� o--- James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Proposed Ordinance 672 E:�DATA\USERSUIME\Comm Dev Stuli�Ord 672 Report - Oct 18, 2000.doc _________ ' :- : �_ : �� x � ORDINANCE NO. 672 CITY OF MOUNDS V�W COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF NIIlVNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 110G.03, SUBDIVISION 3, OF THE MOUNDS V�W ZONING CODE, PERTAINING TO HOME-BASED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW THE CITY OF MOUNDS V�W ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Chapter 1106, Section 1106.03, Subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby amended with additions imc3erlined and deletions s�track-m7t-to read as follows: Subd. 3. Home Occupations: The regulation of home occupations within residential structures is intended to �nsure insare that the occupational use is clearly accessory or secondary to the principal dwelling use and that compatibility with surrounding residential uses is maintained. No home occupation sha11 be allowed which: a. Involves employees other than persons residing on the premises; b. Involves alteration or construction features not customarily found in dwellings; c. Has an exterior display or sign in excess of fnur mte square feet foot. Such sign, for identification purposes only, shall be located on either the principal structured or garage ��nl .cc incatinn nf �uch �i�n wnulcl n�t hP vi�ihiP frnm the street , , 1 , . � > > �� d. Involves exterior storage of equipment or materials; e. Generates more than two (2) motor vehicles at a time for either off street or on-street P�'�g; f. Results in violation of the provisions of Chapter fiQZ 66�, Nuisances, of the Municipal Code; aa� g. Involves activity visible from the public streetsTand � � � �u• -r - • -�. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall go into effect thirty (30) days after it has been published in the official City newspaper. � `"-.... .- -=- `tl```-r—�- --� �"� r �'•i 1�'..�� "_ _s.�'��_s.�. F.. .-- --- - -:_. Ordinance 672 Page 2 - _ _ � . r� .:. : ._. .�, s� :' ��-=— �---' . ... _ .. _. : ...._ . ; �� . : . -- -- - ' y � f First read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 2000. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 2000. Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen Miller, City Clerk / Administrator (SEA.L) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert C. Long, City Attorney ' r ^ ��.� . °_-.-.`�"�.-� _ �..�.., !� �.��.-`�",� �.__,. �f --�--- ---- --- _ =�,`t! _ -- _ ' -- _. --- � I V I Item # 8 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: October• 18, 2000 TitCe: DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF CHAPTER 1008 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO "SIGNS" Iniroduction: As the Planning Commission is aware, the City's Sign Code needs to be updated. Because of the anticipated light upcoming agendas, stafffelt it would be a good time to revisit this item and discuss proposed changes that should be incorporated into the Code. Discussaon: Staff is providing to the Planning Commission a current copy of the Sign Code for review. Please take a few moments to read through the Code and come up with some ideas as to how it can be better drafted. Staffwill prepare a list of questions and present them to the Planning Cotnmission, the answers to which can serve as the starting point for this Code revision. Before the meeting, staff would also ask that the Planning Commission pay particular attention to the visible signage while driving though our City as well as other cities. What do you see that looks nice? What does not look nice? Staff will make an attempt to photograph some of the signs within Mounds View and present them for discussion at the meeting. Staffwould anticipate that many meetings will be spent discussing this issue before a Code revision is drafted and sent on to the City Council for its review. In addition to reviewing our own Sign Code, staffwill present at future meetings copies of sign codes form other cities, some local and some national, to gain a better perspective of what works and what does not. Recommendation: Review Chapter 1008 and identify the issues which will need the most attention. � ��% U-/��1 't,- James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Chapter 1008 �:�DATA\USERSUIME1Comm Dev StufilSign Code Report - Oct 18, 2000.doc � -��: � � .. „ _� i 1008.01 SECTION: 1008.01 1008.02 1008.03 1008.04 1008.05. 1008.06; 1008.07: 1008.08: 1008,09: 1008.10: 1008.11: 1008.01 Section: CHAPTER 1008 SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS Definitions Building Pernvt Required; Exceptions Application for Permit Permit Fees; Waiver Issuance of Pernut; Conditions Sign Installer's License Provisions Maintenance of Premises Location, Design and Construction Standards Abrogation and Greater Restriction Violation of Provisions Sign Variances (Ord. 644, 12-13-99) , : 1008.01 (Rev. 12/99) - DEFINITIONS: The following terms have the meanings ascribed to them in this Subd. 1. BANIVER: An attention-getting device, the materials of which consist of paper, cloth or of other man-made materials and which are of temporary nature. Subd. 2. BILLBOARD: An advertising sign located off the premises where the advertised product is sold or offered. It is usually, but not necessarily, owned by an advertising company. Subd. 3. BUSINESS OCCUPANT'; An individua.l or group of individuals owning, renting or leasing a building or part thereof to conduct a business separate of others. Subd. 4. BUSINESS SIGN: A sign that states the proper name of the business, organization or institution located on the premises on which the sign is located. Subd. 5. GROUND SIGN: A detached sign erected upon or supported by the ground and not attached to any building. City ofMounds I/iew 1008.01 - 1008.01 Subd. 6. PEDESTAL SIGN: A ground sign erected upon a single post or shaft or upon two (2) posts or shafts that merge or touch at the base or which are not more than fifteen feet (15') apart, center of shaft to center of shaft, with the display portion mounted on top thereof at least seven feet (7') above the surface of the street adjacent to the property on which the sign is located. No such sign shall have a sign area of more than three hundred forty (340) square feet on each side. Such sign may advertise only businesses located on the premises. No business property shall have more than one (1) pedestal sign adjacent to each street upon which such business property abuts; provided, that on each street frontage of more than one hundred feet (100'), one (1) additional pedestal sign may be established and maintained on such street frontage if such additional pedestal sign a) is located on a single pole, b) does not exceed twenty eight (28) square feet in an area on any side and does not have more than two (2) sides, c) is not more than four feet (4') in width or seven feet (7') in height on the sign face, d) is located at least seven feet (7') above the surface of the street. In lieu of one (1) additional pedestal sign, two (2) separate signs may be located on the sanne pole, but such two (2) signs combined shall not exceed, in area or dimensions, the limitations applicable to a single additional pedestal sign, No pedestal sign shall be so designed as to have both a) moving parts, and b) moving or blinking lights. In addition to the pedestal signs percnitted by the foregoing provisions of this subdivision, a sign advertising a public telephone may be located in the area ahead of the building setback line on the structure in which such public telephone is located. Subd. 7. PORTABLE SIGN: A back-to-back, mobile advertising device which may be mounted on wheels and used for commercial as well as civic promotions. Subd. 8. PROJECTING SIGN: A sign other than a wall sign suspended fronn or supported by a building or structure and projecting out therefrom. Subd. 9. ROOF SIGN: A sign erected upon or above the roof or parapet wall of a building or structure. Subd. 10. 5IGN: A sign, the primary function of which is to direct attention to a product, service or activity that is sold or of�ered either elsewhere or upon the premises where such sign is located or to which it is affixed. Subd. 11. SIGN, ADVERTISING: A sign, the primary function of which is to direct attention to a product, service or activity that is sold or off'ered either elsewhere or upon the premises where such sign is located or to which it is affixed. Subd. 12. SIGN AREA: That area of a sign within the marginallines of the surface, which bears the announcement, name, advertisement or other message or, in the case of letters, figures or symbols attached directly to any part of a building, the area which is included in the smallest rectangle which can be made to circumscribe each letter, figure or symbol displayed thereon. City ofMounds View J _ _ _ - � __ : . 1��0.�1 - .�, . _ 1008.02 - Subd. 13. SIGN, DIRECTIONAL: A sign for the purpose of making specific connmercial, industrial or public and semi-public locations known and to assist in finding these locations on the property which the sign is located. Subd. 14. SIGN, FLASHING: Any illuminated sign on which the artificial light is not maintained stationary and/or constant in intensity and color at all times when such sign is in use. Subd. 15. SIGN, IDENTIFICATION: A sign, the primary function of which is to identify a residential, commercial, industrial or public or semi-public use located upon the premises where such sign is located or to which such sign is affixed. Signs identifying commercial uses may call attention to the product, service or activity that is sold or offered upon the premise$. Signs identifying industrial uses may call attention to the product, goods or material which is produced, processed, assembled or stored upon the premises. Subd. 16. SIGN, ILLUIVIINATED: Any illuminated sign on which the artificial light is maintained stationary and/or constant in intensity and color at all times when such sign is in use. Subd. 17. TEMPORARY SIGN: A sign so designed as to be movable from one (1) location to another and which is not permanently attached to the ground, a sign structure or a building. Subd. 18. WA,LL SIGN: A sign attached to or erected against the wall of a building or structure with the exposed face of the sign in a plane approximately parallel to the face of said wall. (1988 Code §39.01) 1008.02: BUII.,DING PERMIT REQUIRED; EXCEPTIONS: Subd. 1. Pernut Required: It is unlawful to install, construct, erect, alter, revise, reconstruct or relocate any outdoor sign or structure, as defined in Section 1008.01 of this Chapter, in the Municipality without first obtaining a permit therefor as required by this Chapter, except as provided in subdivision 2 of this Section. (1988 Code §39.02) Subd. 2. Exceptions: Permits need not be obtained, but the other provisions of this Chapter shall be observed, for the following types of signs: a. A sign not exceeding ten (10) square feet in area, pertaining only to the sale, rental or lease of the premises upon which displayed. b. A sign on residential property stating only the name of the occupant, which sign shall not exceed two (2) square feet in area. Ciry ofMounds [/iew _ _ _ ____ _ : , . _ _ s � .�.�� — � �—� � -� _ t . _ _. - - ' -.__._� �_--_------' ,r°�-----�'� - `i:�' .�-'--- I = . �<.�=_..._�__.,__�_ . , _ v t___��. _ =_ -- `-- -,.. _ - - -- �� t- ii I: 1008.02 1008.03 (Rev. 5/98) - c. A sign on property on which a public, charitable or religious institution is located, stating the name and nature of the occupancy and information as to the conditions of use or occupancy or a sign on such property used by the institution as a bulletin board, which sign sha.11 not exceed ten (10) square feet in area. d. A campaign sign as provided for in subdivision 1008.08(11) of this Chapter. (1988 Code §39.03; 1993 Code; Ord. 607, 5-11-98) 1008.03: APPLICATION FOR PERMIT: Application for perrnits shall be made upon forms provided by the Clerk-Administrator and shall include the following information: Subd. 1. The name, address and telephone number of the applicant. Subd. 2. The location of the building, structure or lot to which or upon which the sign is to be placed. Subd. 3. The position of the sign or other advertising structure in relation to nearby buildings, structures and streets or highways, if necessary. Subd. 4. Two (2) blueprints or ink drawings of the plans and specifications and method of construction and attachment to the building ground. Subd. 5. A copy of the stress sheets and calculations may be required by the Inspector, on larger signs, showing that the structure is designed for dead load and wind pressure in any direction in the amount required by this Chapter and any other applicable law. Subd. 6. The name of the person erecting the structure, if not the applicant, or the name of the person on whose property the structure is to be located, if not the applicant. Subd. 7. The written consent of the owner of the property, if not the applicant. Subd. 8. A statement as to whether the sign will be illuminated or not. Subd. 9. A statement as to whether any electric lights on the sign will be "moving" or bluilcing. Subd. 10. A statement as to whether the sign will be single-faced, double-faced or multi-faced. City ofNlounds View i _ � ; � .? . . - ---- -. � ►: _ 1008. 03 Subd. 11. A statement as to whether or not the copy on the sign will be changeable. 1008.06 - Subd. 12. A statement as to whether or not the copy on the sign will relate only to the business or activity conducted on the premises on which the sign is to be located. (1988 Code §39.09) 1008.04: PERMIT F�ES; WAIVER: Subd. 1. Fee: The application for a pernut shall be accompanied by the required pernvt fee. The pernut fee shall be established by resolution of the City Council. (1988 Code §39.10) Subd. 2. Waiver: The Council may, in its direction, waive the fee required by this Section where the signs are to be erected by civic or religious organizations. (1988 Code §39.11) 1008.05: ISSUANCE OF P�RMIT; CONDITIONS: Subd. 1. Issuance: Upon presentation of application, pernut fee, plans and specifications and other required information, the sign construction pernut shall be issued by the Clerk-Administrator, except as provided in subdivision 2 of this Section. Subd. 2. Special Approval from Council: In the case of an application for a sign requiring a special pernvt or which will be illuminated or moving or of unusual height, size, design or location, the Clerk-Administrator shall refer such sign to the Council for approval. No permits for any such sign, so referred, shall be issued without first obtaining the approval of the Council, (1988 Code §39.14) 1008.06; SIGN INSTALLER'S LICENSE PROVISIONS: Subd. 1. License Required: No person shall engage in the business of installing signs nor shall be entitled to receive a permit to install a sign in connection with such business unless first licensed by the Municipality to do so. (1988 Code §34.04) Subd. 2, Application and Fee: A license may be granted by the Council upon written application to the Clerk-Administrator on such form as required by the Clerk-Administrator and accompanied by an annual license fee as established by resolution of the City Council. (1988 Code §34.05) City ofMounds View r ; , _ , �. �' �I ,�' � _ '� ; �- ; 's�: _ : f� -•-- � ' ---�--- -- - - . . _ = - -- -- -°� - . . - — -- -- --- 1008.06 � � i � i Subd. 3. Liability Insurance: Any person holding a licensee shall file with the Clerk-Administrator policies of public liability and property damage insurance which sha11 remain and be in force and effect during the entire term of said license and which shall contain a provision that they shall not be cancelled without ten (10) days' written notice to the Murucipality. Public liability insurance should not be less than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) for injuries, including accidental death to any one (1) person and subject to the same limit for each person in an amount not less than three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00) on account of any one (1) accident, and property insurance in the amount of not less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00). (1988 Code §39.07) Subd. 4. Expiration: Licenses shall be issued on an annual basis, with the license year running from July 1 through the following June 30. (1988 Code §39.08) Subd. 5. Revocation: A license may be terminated and renewal thereof may be denied by the Council for cause after notice to the licensee and reasonable opportunity for the licensee to be heard on the question of such terrnination. Cause shall include any repeated or persistent violation of the requirements of this Chapter. (1988 Code §34.06) 1008.07: MAINTENANCE OF PREMISES: Premises on which ground signs are located shall be maintained free of weeds and debris, and where landscaping was part of the original sign permit, such landscaping sha11 be maintained in the manner provided in such perniit. (1988 Code §39.12) 1008.08: LOCATION, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTTON STANDARDS: Subd. 1. General Standards: Every sign sha11 conform to the standards of this Section whether or not a pernut therefor is required, and nothing contained herein shall be construed as modifying or repealing any of the provisions of this Code relating to zoningl. No sign shall be so located as to obscure or tend to obscure any existing sign. The following additional requirements are to be observed: a. Each ground sign sha11 be securely built, constructed and erected on the ground. Temporary signs sha11 be so desigr►ed that they are not readily overturned. b. No sign structure shall be attached or placed upon any building in such a manner as to obstruct any fire escape or any window or door nor shall any sign structure be attached to a fire escape. 1 See Tide 1100 of this Code. City ofMounds View __ : �.1- � _ � -- -- — --- �--= - �_ _ �_— �r . _______.-G' ~ • � -" -- '__ �_:__, -. :a .�" . . , _ _ � � i � i 1008.08 (Rev. 12/99) � c. No sign erected before the e�ective date hereof shall be rebuilt, altered or removed to a new location without being brought into compliance with the requirements hereof. d. No swinging sign sha11 hereafter be erected or hung on or attached to any building within the Municipality, and every such sign so erected, hung or attached prior to the effective date hereof which is deemed unsafe by the Building Inspector shall be immediately removed by the owner thereof or changed to conform with the requirements of this Chapter when so ordered by the Building Inspector. e. Where portions of a sign are subject to a dii�'erent classification, each portion shall meet the requirements of its classification. f. Each sign requiring a pernut shall have an identifying number to be provided by the Inspector, which number shall be posted on the e�rterior surface of the sign structure in a location where such information will be readily visible after the sign is constructed. g. All signs and sign structures shall be maintained in a safe condition and in a state of good repair at all times. No sign shall display matter that has been deemed obscene by a court of competent jurisdiction. h. Each sign sha11 be used and maintained orily in the manner pernutted and subject to the conditions imposed at the time the permit therefor was granted. i. The following additional conditions shall be observed: (1) No ground sign (except temporary signs, portable signs or banners) or signboard shall approach at any point nearer than three feet (3') to any building unless such sign is placed parallel to the side of the building, nor shall any such sign be placed within six feet (6') of the side of any lot nor nearer than fifteen feet (15') to any street line where there is no established or customary building line nor within twenty five feet (25') of any street corner right-of-way. Whenever the established or customary uniform building line upon the street where such ground sign is to be erected is more than fifteen feet (15') from the street or property line, then such sign sha11 not approach nearer to the street than the established or customary uniform building linel. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99) (2) The owner, lessee or occupant of the land on which the ground is located and the owner of the sign shall keep the property on which the sign is located free of long grass, weeds or other rank growth, rubbish or debris. I See subd. 604.03(3)b of this Code for billboards obstrucdng public ways. Cily oJtLlounds View . _: �.��` �I . ��- � s t ' __ �-� : .. _�_._-�� -- - ---= =- - < <- � .�_�..�: �._� .� --r --�- � - - - - -- — -��._ - - --_ . :_... " _ � 11: 1: 1/: 1: (3) All parts of ground signs shall be designed for wind pressure of not less than thirty (30) pounds per square foot, and ground signs of wood construction shall have a11 members which extend into the ground protected from decay by treatment with a preservative approved by the Building Inspector. (4) No permit shall be granted for the location of any ground sign having a sign area of more than forty (40) square feet within one hundred feet (100') of any single-family residence; provided, that the Council may grant a special permit therefor if the owner of such residence gives written consent thereto. (5) Pedestal signs permitted by the zoning regulations of the Municipalityl and by this Chapter may be located adjacent to the right of way of a street or highway, but no part thereof shall extend over such right of way. (6) No sign shall exceed thirty five feet (35') in height. (1988 Code §39.14) Subd. 2. Signs Allowed by District: The following requirements are for allowable signs as they pertain to zoned districts: a. R-1 Single-Family Residential District: (1) A name on residential property stating only the name or address of the occupant not exceeding two (2) square feet in size. (2) A sign not exceeding ten (10) square feet in area pertaining only to the sa1e, rental or leasing of the premises upon which displayed. (3) A sign, as allowed in subdivision 1106.03(3) of this Code, pertaining to home occupations. (4) Signs as allowed in subdivision 11 of this Section. b. R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District: Signs as allowed in subdivision 2a hereof. c. R-3 Medium Density Residential District: Signs as allowed in subdivision Za hereof. d. R-4 High Density Residential District: (1) Signs as allowed in subdivision 2a hereof. 1 See Title 1100 of this Code. Cily ofMounds View _. �a��...��u � �� _ . �. , T � -- _ :,, . _ . _ - �_ ___ _--�,-� . . . - - _��-a � � i � i i = - loo8.og �xOV. Zioo� _ (2) Direction signs for office, model, apartments, etc., locations not exceeding five (5) square feet. e. R-0 Residential-Office District: Signs as allowed in subdivision 2d hereof. f. B-1 Neighborhood Business District: (1) Signs not exceeding one hundred (100) square feet total area combined. This includes all types of permanent signs, as defined in Section 1008.01 of this Chapter. (2) Temporary signs, as allowed in subdivision 9e of this Section. g. B-2 Lirruted Business District: (1) Signs not exceeding one hundred (100) square feet per business occupant. This includes all types of permanent signs, as defined in Section 1008.01 of this Chapter. (2) Temporary signs as allowed in subdivision 9e of this Section. h. B-3 Highway Business District: Signs as allowed in subdivision 2g hereof. i. B-4 Regional Business District: Signs as allowed in subdivision 2g hereof. j. I-1 Light Industrial District: Signs as allowed in subdivision Zg hereof. k. Other Signs As Allowed in Certain Districts: B-3 Highway Business District, B-4 Regional Business District and I-1 Light Industrial District may have, besides the one hundred (100) square feet signage per business occupant, one (1) general pedestal sign not exceeding three hundred forty (340) square feet. Only one (1) pedestal sign is allowed per property. 1. R-5 Mobile Home District: Signs as allowed in subdivision 2d hereof, excluding subdivision 2a(2) of this Section relating to allowable signage. (Ord 585, 7-15-96) m. PF Public Facilities District: Signs not exceeding one hundred (100) square feet total per building. In addition pedestal signs are allowed in accordance with Section 1008.01, subdivision 6 except that no pernvt shall be granted for any pedestal sign of more than forty (40) square feet within one hundred feet (100') of any single family residence. Except as otherwise provided in this Section, such signs shall only identify and relate to the activities that are intended to occur on the site. Billboards, as pernutted by Section 1008.08, subdivision 10, are allowed as an interim use under Minnesota Statutes, section 462.3597. (Ord. 637, 2-14-00) City ofMounds View �i � ; ; � ; _ _ � : �z.� . _..�.. f- � �- - _-- r------=�- - _--_ . _--__ ---- --. _. . -- --=- -- -_-- -- _ -- --- 11: 1: 1008.08 (Rev. 2/00) - n. CRP Conservancy, Recreation, Preservation: Signs not exceeding one hundred (100) square feet total per building. In addition pedestal signs are allowed in accordance with Section 1008.01, subdivision 6 except that no pernut shall be granted for any pedestal sign of more than forty (40) square feet within one hundred feet (100') of any single family residence. Except as otherwise provided in this Section, such signs shall only identify and relate to the activities that are intended to occur on the site. Billboards, as permitted by Section 1008.08, subdivision 10, are allowed as an interim use under Minnesota Statutes, section 462.3597, (Ord. 637, 2-14-00) o. PUD Planned Unit Development: Billboards, as pernutted by Section 1008,08, subdivision 10, are allowed as an interim use under Minnesota Statutes, section 462.3597. (Ord. 637, 2-14-00) Subd. 3. Traffic-Control Related Sign Regulations: Compliance with the following regulations relative to traffic control is required: a. No moving or flashing sign shall be located or maintained within fifty feet (50') of an intersection at which traffic semaphores are located. b. No sign shall be designed, located or maintained so as to be likely to obscure or conceal or cause confusion as to any traf�c-control sign or device. c. No sign shall be located or maintained on or over any public street or highway right of way unless specifically permitted by the zoning regulations of the Municipalityl . d. There shall be no use of revolving beacons, zip flashers, flashing signs or similar devices that would distract automobile traffic as to constitute a safety hazard. The illumination of any sign located near a residential district shall be defused or indirect and located so as not to direct light on residences2. No flashing sign shall be located in such close proximity to residences or residential property as to constitute a nuisance to persons residing on the property by reason of flashing of the lights in such sign. e. The sign shall be located or maintained so as not to interfere with the ability of drivers or pedestrians to see any crossroad or crosswalk3. (1988 Code §39.13) 1 See Title 1100 of diis Code; see also subdivision 604.03(3)n of this Code. Z See Section 1103.09 of this Code. 3 See also subdivision 604.03(3)b of this Code. City ojNlounds View i l� >1 1 : , � -� ,� __- _—_—_' 1�=.•'_ _ _ _"___"_ . : . .-_ _�r_ __d1 ..-. -- _' ___—� '-_ "' _'.... Y = � _ - .. __ 'I 1008.08 1008.08 (Rev. 12/99) ` Subd. 4. Clearance of Signs from Conductors: The minimum clearance of any sign from unprotected electrical conductors (whether poles or other installations) shall not be less than thirty six inches (36") for conductors canying not over six hundred (600) volts and forty eight inches (48") for conductors carrying more than six hundred (600) volts. Subd. 5. Signs Along Freeways: Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, signs located on property adjacent to any freeway within the Municipality (including Interstate Highway 35V� shall be business signs advertising businesses being conducted on the premises on which the signs are located. No "traveling" or changing-message signs shall be located so as to face any freeway or be visible fronn the freeway. The provisions of this subdivision, however, shall not be construed to render illegal or nonconfornung any signs which are legally located along any such freeway at the effective date herein. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99) Subd. 6. Projection Signsl: The following standards shall be maintained for all projection signs: a. All portions of projection signs shall be designed for a wind pressure of not less than thirty (30) pounds per square foot. b. Such signs shall not project over public street right of way but may project over sidewalks located on private walks. No such sign shall be less than twelve feet (12') above the level of the sidewalk; provided, that such signs which do not exceed four (4) square feet and which do not project more than two feet (2') over the sidewalk may be eight feet (8') or more above the sidewalk. No projection sign sha11 project beyond a curb line nor project more than eight feet (8') over any private sidewalk. c. There shall be no more than two feet (2') of space between the inner edge of any such sign and the face of the wall from which it projects, nor shall the outer edge of the sign be more than eight feet (8') from the face of the wall. d. The building or structure from which any such sign projects and all attachments or fastenings must be so constructed as to safely resist the dead load and the wind load added by the attached sign. e. All such signs sha11 be of noncombustible materials or of not less than one hour fire-resistive construction. 1 See also subdivisions 604,03(3)b, 604.03(3)n 1103.08(2) of this Code. City ofMounds i/iew 11: 1: 1008.08 (Rev. 12/99) � Subd. 7. Roof Signs: The following standards shall be maintained for a11 roof signs: a. No roof sign shall be located nearer than five feet (5') from the outside wall toward which it faces nor exceed twenty five feet (25') in height above the roof level of the building unless constructed integral with the building or structure, nor shall it project beyond the edge of said roof in any direction. For the purposes of this subdivision, lights attached to the sign structure and lights attached to the building and beamed toward the sign structure shall be considered part of the sign structure. b. Every such sign shall be either metal, metal clad, incornbustible, open wire or open metal sign; except, that such sign may have letters, figures, characters or borders of wood if such borders do not exceed four inches (4") in width and such wooden letters, figures or characters do not cover more than twenty five percent (25%) of the area of such sign; provided, that in place of sheet metal, substitution may be made of the following ;materials: tempered pressed wood or other similar materials approved by the Building Inspector, having equal properties as to strength, fire and moisture resistance. c. No such sign shall be so placed as to prevent passage of persons from one part of the roof to another. d. The building or structure upon which such sign is placed and all attachments or fastenings must be so constructed as to safely resist the dead load and the wind load added by the attached sign and in such a manner as not to cause damage to the building or structure on which such sign is placed. e. No roof sign shall be more than si�cty five feet (65') in length, nor shall it extend more than twenty five feet (25') above the surface of the roof of the building on which it is located. No roof sign shall e�ctend more than forty five feet (45') above the average ground level of that part of the street toward which it faces. Subd. 8. Wall Signs: The following standards shall be maintained for all wall signs: a. No wa11 sign shall have a projection over a private sidewalk or an established building line of more than twelve inches (12"). b. The materials, construction and attachment of any such sign shall meet the same standards and requirements as roof signs. Subd. 9. Banners, Temporary or Portable Signs: Temporary signs, as defined in Section 1008.01 of this Chapter shall comply with the provisions hereof. The following standards shall be maintained for all banners, temporary or portable signs: City ofMounds ��iew a _ _ � �..__. F . . _ , q _ ` �I ,.,f " l .l y. � i • _ � - ' -- , _'_' _"'"_._ _' ' .- __� _'_: ' '__n .-��,- !Cr�_a__ r.,r�.._,,..._ _ ,_.-.,.,-- � M� ..__ ,-�,... " _ _ " ' _ _ �-y 1008.08 1008.08 (Rev. 3/00) ' a. Temporary signs and banners attached to any building constructed of canvass, plastic material, cloth or other material with or without framework, shall be strongly constructed a.nd shall be securely attached to their supports. They shall be removed (including all framework and supports) as soon as damaged or torn and in no case later than twenty one (21) days after erection. b. Banners and temporary signs shall not be larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet in area for each twenty feet (20') of building frontage. There shall not be more than one temporary sign on any building frontage. c. No banner or temporary signs shall project over public property or right of way but may extend a maximum of six inches (6") from the face of the building. d. Banners and temporary signs shall not be hung so as to cover, either partially or completely, any door, window or opening required for ventilation. e. No temporary sign, banner or portable sign shall be located on any multiple residence, commercial or industrial property in the City without first obtaining a permit therefor from the City. If the City determines to grant an application for a permit for any such temporary sign, banner or portable sign, it may impose conditions upon the granting thereof, and it shall be unlawful to locate or maintain any such sign or bannering for a longer period or in a different manner than that specified in the permit. No such pernut shall be granted, however, where such temporary signs, banners or portable signs are prohibited by other provisions of this Code. f. No portable sign or temporary sign shall exceed thirty two (32) square feet on each side. g. No portable sign, temporary sign or banner shall be located on any property in the City for more than twenty one (21) days at one time or for more than three (3) twenty one (21) day periods on any one (1) year. � h. The Council may allow administrative approval of sign installation for signs of identical design being installed by a business or individual. Once Council approval has been obtained for a particular sign design, the applicant may receive administrative pernuts for the installation of such sign from the Clerk-Administrator following submittal of all relevant information as outlined in Section 1008.03 of this Chapter and receipt of applicable fees. Subd. 10. Billboards: A permit shall not be issued for any new billboard unless it complies with the following interim use requirements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 462.3597; (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 656, 3-27-00) City ofMounds View " � � �' r ii i.J� . F' r ,y�� . _ r _ � d . ' � F 1 �-�:. � � � i; � x� � ! ��, ; � .t__-.- ... �� .-' -_.. __ ____ - . . -'_ ' - ...��_ "' ---`_'- '-- -"--'- ' -- --- � .._d,. _ bir�,_ . ._ _, ._�__.. ,-'- ' --- � : . � � 11: 1: 1008.08 (Rev. 3/00) a. Interim Use Permit: An interim use permit (ILJP) must be obtained in accordance with procedures identical in form and substance to the conditional use permit procedures found in Section 1125.01, subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. Any interim use pennit issued for an interim use billboard shall automatically expire no later than July 1, 2015 or when the lease agreement for the billboard expires whichever date is earlier. Such I[JP shall be null-and-void if the applicant fails to obtain any required pern►it from the State ofMinnesota. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 656, 3-27-00) b. Location: The billboard must be located along and north of State Highway 10 (118). The applicant must have an approved lease agreement with the property owner. The billboard shall be oriented towards State Highway 10 (11�) and/or I35W. Billboards must be located at least two hundred fifty feet (250') from residentially zoned property. Billboards may be located adjacent to the right-of-way of a street or highway, but no part thereof shall extend over such right-of-way. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99) c. Mirumum Spacing: Billboards must be at least one thousand feet (1,000') apart. Spacing between signs shall be measured by projecting the nearest points of the signs to the property line of the right-of-way from which they are intended to be read and measuring the distance in a straight line between the projected points. Required spacing shall apply only to billboards on the same side ofthe same roadway. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99) d. Maximum Sign Area: The maximum gross surface display area of the sign cannot exceed seven hundred (700) square feet per side except that any rectangular billboard may contain temporary extensions, cutouts, or top lettering which occupy a tota.l area not in excess of twenty-five percent (25%) of the axea of the basic billboard and form an integral part of the design thereof. No such temporary e�ension, cut out, or top lettering may project more than six feet (6') from the top, eighteen inches (18") from either side or fifteen inches (15") from the bottom of the basic rectangular advertising message. The area of an extension, cutout, or top lettering shall be deemed to be the area of the smallest rectangle into which such e�ension, cutout, or top lettering will fit. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99) e. Orientation of Sign Faces: Billboards may have no more than two (2) sign faces. Sign faces must be back-to-back with sign faces parallel or angled. All billboards with their faces back-to-back and parallel shall have no greater distance than eight feet (8') between the faces. All billboards with faces at an angle shall have no greater angle than thirly-five degrees (35°). (Ord. 644, 12-13-99) f. Maximum Sign Height: The maximum allowable height of billboards shall be thirty-five feet (35'). The height shall be measured from the grade at the base of the sign or from the surface of the roadway whichever is higher. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99) City ofMounds View . . . ___ _ , .. ; ;- _ , . . . . �.. -� i 1� -.�_�,�__ _�Y��`_��"__J. ��. . .; ..: �.:. � , , I � . . __... - . . . . ._ ___'_ .__ . .. .__ _. ___ _. .._ _ _ _ . '. __' __ _ ., . �� ..-� 1 • J 1008.08 1008.08 (Rev. 12/99) - g. Obstruction: No billboard may be located in such a manner as to obscure or otherwise interfere with the effectiveness of an of�icial traffic sign, signal, or device, or obstruct or interfere with a driver's view of approaching, merging, or intersecting tra$'ic. (Ord. 644, 12- 13-99) Any billboard legally e�sting on the effective date of this section may continue to be maintained in its present form and size but not expanded. This does not preclude the periodic change of the message or advertisement presented on the billboard. (Ord. 644, 12- 13-99) Any billboard destroyed by an act of God may be rebuilt within thirty (30) days if the construction of same would comply with this subdivision. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99) Subd. 11. Campaign Signs: The following regulations shall apply to all campaign signs for political candidates or issues: a. No more than one sign shall be erected per candidate or issue along each street frontage of any parcel of land. b. Campaign signs shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet and not exceed four feet (4') in height above the ground; except, where such signs are located no closer than one hundred fifly feet (150') to the property line of a residential dwelling, the maximum size shall be thirty two (32) square feet, and the ma�cimum height above the ground sha11 be six feet (6'). c. Campaign signs may be displayed from the last day of candidacy filing or thirty (30) days before an election, whichever is earlier. d. All cannpaign signs must be removed no later than five (5) days after an election; except, that after a primary election, signs for the winning primary candidates need not be removed until after the ensuing general election. (1988 Code §39.14; 1993 Code) 1008.09: ABROGATION AND GREATER RESTRICTION: Where the conditions imposed by any provisions of this Chapter are either more or less than comparable conditions imposed by any other code, rule or regulation of the City, the code, nale or regulation which imposes the more restrictive condition, standard or requirement sha11 prevail. (1988 Code §39.14) 1008.10: VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS: Any person found violating any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (1988 Code §39.15) City oftLlounds 1/iew E = .�� E � 1 1008.11 1008.11 . � � --. -: J i -. � �. --" -.__. . �.`_ - ��' x �. . :'� . �i ... � � ?. . �. � SIGN VARIANCE5: (Ord. 644, 12-13-99) 1008.11 (Rev. 12/99) Subd, 1. Criteria for Granting Variances: A variance to the provisions of Section 1008 may be issued by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner. A variance may be granted in the event the following circumstances exist: a. Exceptional or e�raordinary 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 e�ective date hereof had no control. � 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. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. d. That granting the variance requested will 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. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the haxdship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. g. Circumstances under which the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title create an undue hardship on the applicant. Economic hardships may be a circumstance for issuance of a variance. (Ord. 585, 7-15-96) Subd. 2. Variance Requests; Fees: All requests shall be made in writing on the form provided by the City and the request shall include the fee specified in the City's Fee Charges. All information required when applying for a sign pernut, as outlined in Section 1008.03, shall be required before the request for a variance is considered. (Ord. 585, 7-15-96) City oJMounds View , _ �� . _ _. , _ , � � �. r � _ - .;��- - -- - - - ' - - -- — - - _-_ ' � - - •- -- - — • -r------- �.��__� ..�_ � �� ' �$.__ . _ " � �. _. _ _ _ �' �� _�. , 1. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Call to Order Regular Meeting Octobe�- 4, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Il�ounds View, MN 55112 The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p.m., October 4, 2000. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Cominissioners Berlce, Hegland, Johnson, Miller, Kaden, Thomas, and Stevenson. Members Excused: None. ��,. `��'' . Also Present: Planner Jim Ericson and Coznmunity Development Director Raick Jopke. Index to Minutes Planning Case No. PD00-002, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 637-00, a Resolution Reapproving the Development Stage Plans of the Mennaid Planned Unit Development Applicant: Dan Hall Staff Reports / Items of Infozmation. Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports. 3. Cita�en's Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda Thei•e were no citizen requests or comments on iterns not on the agenda. Page 2 8 G� _. �`�x _ :, . . _= _ , , , . . . . -=' - -_'�._ =. _,�.. Y- - --�., , .._ _ _ - _ .. _ J�" �gI 7�.- � S�' � t i ��:� x � � ..` . '._,� . ♦ '� " '""_'__' -_._��: . ._"'"_" "_ ' . . . .. .�' � " " -� .. _� Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4. Approval of Minutes t�. August 2, 2000 October 4, 2000 Page 2 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To approve the August 2, 2000 meeting minutes as presented. Ayes — 8 Nays - 0 5. Planning Case No. PD00-002 Motion carried. � ��-��., Property Involved: 2200 Highway 10 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 637-00, a Resolution Reaprroving the Development Stage Plans of the Mermaid Planned Unit development Applicant: Dan Hall, President ��7��,r-"`� Planner Ericson gave the staff report as follows: �Y�F',- ��,-� �±:� Dan Hall is seelcing City approval of revised development stage plans for the proposed Planned Unit Development to construct a 70-room hotel and a 500-seat banquet center to be attached to and integrated with the existing complex. On September 6, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a set of development stage plans date-stamped August 10, 2000. Prior to City Council review, however, the plans were amended to such a degree that reapproval by the Planning Commission was deemed necessary. The City Council is scheduled to review the revised plans on October 10, 2000, for which a public hearing has been set. There are a number of changes contemplated by the revised development stage plans from what the Planning Commission originally recommended for approval on September 6, 2000. The most noticeable change is that the hotel has been scaled back to three stories and 70 rooms from the initial four-story, 96-room plan aud the Perkins site is no longer a component of the Mermaid expansion. The water park is now attached to the hotel rather than being a separate building, with parking shown iii the courtyard area. The total area of the revised PUD is approximately 9.36 acres, which includes the three existing Mermaid Parcels, the Rent-All parcel, Music Off 10 and the dry holding pond associated with the business parlc development. The existing business parlc access drive from County Road H would be shifted to the west to maximize the contiguous parlcing area for the proposed development. The Planning Commission has been provided with a set of plans date-stamped September 28, 2000, for the proposed expansion. The plans include a preliminary site plan, a preliminary utility plan, a preliminary grading plan, a preliminary landscape plan, an existing conditions plan, an overall floor plan, exterior elevations, an enlarged banquet floor plan, hotel floor plans, and a revised photometric analysis of the site. ��_ - -� ; f; F , � �.:. �� -� �' `- :I ,-� s __- ; �'__ �� l� _ Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 Planner Ericson provided additional detail regarding the site plans, addressing specific aspects of the plans as follows: Regarding parking, the City Code would require a total of 828 parlcing stalls with the addition of the hotel and the banquet center. The plans indicate that a total of 832 spaces can be provided on the site, but only if the parlcing lot setbacks are reduced from the B-3 zoning district required 30 feet to five feet along Highway 10 and County Road H. Such a reduction in the setbacic requirement is allowed via the PUD process, which explicitly states that a purpose and intent of the PUD is to allow for variation from the provisions of the Zoning Code, including setbacks, parlcing, height, lot area, etc. If the setback requirements were to be enforced without deviation, as many as 175 parlcing stalls would be lost. The net effect of such a loss would mean either the banquet center would be reduced in size and capacity by 50 percent or more, or the hotel would need to be completely eliminated. Neither scenario would be feasible based upon the already submitted cost and earnings projections. This setbacic configuration inet with the approval of both the Planning Commission and City Council at the concept stage of this development. The building setbaelcs are different from point to point, but generally spealcing, the bowling area would remain unchanged at a minilnum setbacic of 60 feet, tlie dining and bar area would be more than 200 feet, the hotel addition would be a minimum 100 feet, while the banquet center would be setbacic 50 feet. All of the setbacics satisfy the ctirrent B-3 zoning requirements. The proposed hotel expansion would be professionally designed to be aesthetically pleasing and would tie in to the existing facility. The hotel addition would be constructed of prefabricated concrete walls and would be finished with maintenance-free siding accentuated with sections of Exterior Finish Insulation System; abbreviated as EFIS. Planner Ericson presented a materials board for the Planning Commission's review and continued with his report: Other than the relocated inain entrance and the painting of the existing exterior walls to match the new additions, no other changes to the existing building are planned. The applicant plans to retain the multi-colored electronic sign along Highway 10 and proposes three small directional signs along County Road H. The directional signage is indicated to be of a monument design, which is preferred over a pylon type of sign. The applicant proposes a total of four l�uilding signs; one for the AmericInn, one for the Mermaid Nightclub, one for the Meimaid Restaurant, and one for the Mermaid Lanes. The applicant has indicated that the corner of the property adjacent to Highway 10 and County Road H would be reserved for the City to install a gateway entry sign and the site plans have been revised accordingly. A separate easement document will need to be executed by Mr. Hall and recorded with Rarnsey County to malce it official. Under the B-3 zoning provisions, the amount of signage that would be allowed for this development would be limited to 340 square feet for a pedestal sign and 100 square feet for each building :.r -�+ : �. -sS`� � .y � . -� .. � , a:�� . ._ . -_ _ - - S r : � ' � . ' � ---�-. -- � - r " - ' — -.. .- -__.. -. -," '.-- ,• • - ��- �_� - - - - " - iF; � = ' - - —� � .._'—'-- -' ��.�: -- .. .. ..--' —. .� . '—��._ .....,.._.�. ._ .- .- — .'- - "-� _ ,. ._ . . ! -' .--..^'— —'—"- ----. —' —' —'. —.. . -._.— -� Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 occupant. Given the five uses within the building (hotel, bowling lanes, restaurant, nightclub and banquet center) a total of 840 square feet of signage could be allowed. Adding to that total the existing 162 square foot, multi-colored, electronic changing nnessage pedestal sign along Highway 10 would bring the total signage on the site to 1,011 square feet. Staff feels the directional monument signs to be a necessary component of the signage package yet considers the total amount of signage devoted to the Mermaid uses to be excessive and recommends the total amount of signage on the property be limited to 850 square feet. The landscape plan submitted with the site plans indicates conceptual plantings of trees iYl the parlcing lot islands and along the front of the building facing Highway 10. While any proposed landscaping is an improvement over what is currently present on the site, the PUD requirenzents stipulate that the landscape plan shall identify the specific types and numbers of plantings to be utilized and shall be reviewed by the City Forester. The plan indicates the planting of 25 deciduous trees and 4 coniferous trees with additional unnamed plantulgs in the courtyard area. Staff will seek input from the City Forester as to appropriate species from those listed and for any other suggestions to improve the landscape plan. Regarding trailways, the applicant shall be responsible for installing bituminous trailway along its Highway 10 property frontage. Such a trailway would be consistent with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and the Mounds View Trails and Sidewallc Plan. As with the discussion concerning Walgreens, Dan Soler with Ramsey County has verbally indicated the trailway could be located within the Highway 10 right-of-way yet as close to the Mermaid property as possible. The site plan shows the trailway extending north beyond the project area in front of the Perkins site. While Perlcins is no longer part of the PUD, staff would recommend the trailway remain as shown on the plan. A photometric analysis has been submitted in conjunction with the development stage plans. The City Code requires that any lighting used to illuminate off-street parlcing be hooded to eliminate glare on public streets. In addition, the light shall not exceed 1.0 footcandles at the centerline of any adjoining street. It appears as though the footcandle readings comply with this requirement. The applicant intends to utilize the existing parking lot lighting where possible with the addition of new light fixtures at the southern end of the property in the vicinity of the hotel expansion. No specifications, however, were provided for the proposed new lighting. The site plan does indicate the location of six decorative lights along the Highway 10 trailway. Because the City is worlcing with NSP to install these lights, the applicant will need to submit a payment directly to the City to cover the cost of installation. Such payment would then be deducted from any required letter of credit or cash surety involved with the financial guarantee of the public improvements. The site plan indicates two Highway 10 accesses and two County Road H accesses. While this would not represent a change frozn the existing configuration, the two accesses serving the Rent-All property would be eliminated. No new accesses, other than the relocated access to the business park, are contemplated with this proposal. The northern Highway 10 access is actually located on the Perkins property, although there is a joint-use agreement filed regarding this shared access. Staff and the City's engineer have been worlcing closely with the applicant and Rice Creelc Watershed District to create a regional stormwater holding pond that would be located partly on the _ _ , t � = Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 Metro Waste Control property and partly on Edgewood Middle School property. While the final drainage plans and use agreements are still being drafted, all indications are that all parties, including Rice Creek Watershed District, will approve the stormwater project. The benefits of this proposed stormwater pond would be immense, in that stormwater runoff from the Mermaid site currently drains untreated directly into Rice Creek. Planner Ericson then provided to the Planning Cornmission staff's reconunendation as follows: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and discuss the revised development stage plans and consider action on Resolution 637-00, a resolution reapproving the development stage plans for the proposed Mermaid PUD subject to the applicant submitting details on the light fixtures and standards proposed; a limitation of sign area to 850 square feet; the applicant executing a sign easement document dedicating to the City the area to be used for a gateway sign at the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H; the applicant executing a development agreement pertaining to the Mermaid PUD, which will serve as the guiding and controlling document for this development; and subject to City Forester approval of the landscape plan.. Commissioner Johnson inquired if there was room for a trailway fi•om the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H to tie the trailway into the trailway in New Brighton. Planner Ericson indicated a trailway was not placed in that location because County Road H is scheduled to be reconstructed at some point in the near future and, depending on how it is reconfigured, the trailway may have needed to be reinoved for construction. Commissioner Stevenson indicated Ramsey Gounty has proposed to construct a regional bilce trail starting at the southwest corner of Highway 10 and County Road H after the completion of the reconstruction of County Road H. Commissioner Thoinas inquired as to whether there will be signage for the vehicles coming off of Highway 10 to indicate the location of the pedestrian trailway. Planner Ericson said they have not specifically loolced at plans for pedestx-ian trailway signage but that it will be a consideration when drafting the PUD document. He also said it is possible the Highway 10 steering committee may be able to provide input as to how the trailways should be marked. Coinmissioner Miller inquired as to what effect the downsizing of the project would have on TIF requirements. Community Development Director Joplce told the Commission the pa�-ticular numbers are still being considered and he expects to have a clearer idea of the effect of the downsizing on TIF requirements in November. Chairperson Peterson asked if the Perkins site was owned by someone other than the applicant. _ _ -: ; - =: . _ - � ' �- _ _ _ '_= %.,.� � �� " -,-� �. r -= - - -- � - _ . ._: --- - - �:-�- �_� _�, - - -_� . . . _ - � --- ------ -- - - - �----- - - _ -- ----- - - _ I N Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2000 ` Regular Meeting Page 6 !- Mr. Hall indicated another of his companies is the owner of the Perlcins site and indicated there is a cross access easement between the two properties. Commissioner Miller inquired as to whether another restaurant would go in the building. Mr. Hall told the Commission it has not been determined what will go in tlze building but said he does intend to lease out the building. He explained it was cost prohibitive to have tlie Perlcins site as part of the development. The reason behind the downsizing is the lending institution set a lending limit and with the larger hotel he was over the limit. He also told the Commission he did not believe the TIF requirements were affected at all and said he was $700,000 over what is needed to demonstrate the need for TIF. Commissioner Thoxnas referred to the site plan and noted there did not appear to be handicapped parlcing spots located near all entrances. She then inquired if the applicant intended to have handicapped parking spaces at each entrance. Mr. Hall told the Commission the plan for parlcing was simply a layout to show proof of ample parlcing and that there will definitely be handicapped parlcing spaces at each entrance. Commissioner Thomas referred to the site plan and noted there appeared to be room for only one delivery trucic to dock at a time. She then inquired if the applicant intended to expand the loading dock to accommodate more than one trucic at a time. Mr. Hall said he intended to leave the loading dock area as it is stating it worlcs well for his purposes. He indicated 90% of his deliveries come off the side of the truck and not the back so he did not feel there was a need to have a truck ramp lilce at a truck terminal. He stated most of the delivery trucics have a 12-foot ramp that they extend and roll the inventory in. He also commented on the fact that the revised plan provides for no parlcing near the loading docic which would be more convenient for the delivery drivers. Chairperson Peterson inquired as to why the pool was downsized. 1VIr. Ha11 indicated the pool was downsized because the hotel was downsized. He said it is standard to design the pool size to accommodate the number of rooms the hotel l�zas. He indicated the lending institution provides a xnaximum amount to be spent per room for the pool and he is bound by that figure. Mr. Hall then assured the Planning Commission that the plan he presented is the plan they will sticic with and there should not be further changes to it. Commissioner Johnson noted the hotel is larger than other ArnericInns he has seen. The Architect on the project indicated it is one of the larger .AmericInns but not the largest. He indicated a typical prototype Americlnn has 64 units and the one on the Mermaid site is proposed to have 70 units. He told the Commission the materials would be of a high quality as is the staz�dard with Americlnn. He also pointed out the building will be "L" shaped allowing for larger interior corner and exterior corner rooms that will be very nice. �; _ _ . . � -.- ; _ � _ , -- -- - -- - .. - � � _ .. ._,� Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting October 4, 2000 Page 7 Chairperson Peterson inquired if they intended to charge more for the corner rooms. The Architect indicated the price per room was a decision for Mr. Hall to malce but said it would malce sense to charge more for a nicer or larger room. Chairperson Peterson inquired if there was a standard size for rooms at an AmenicInn. The Architect indicated the industry standard for hotel rooms is 12 feet wide and Ameiiclnn's rooms are 14 feet wide. He also pointed out the rooms are separated by an eight-inch concrete wall which malces them one of the quietest rooms in the industry. Commissioner Hegland inquired as to what changes the applicant planned for the mermaid statue. Mr. Hall indicated he wanted to talce it down and update it to malce it more politically correct but due to a lack of funds he is unable to do much more than a fi•esh coat of paint at this point. He told the Commission at some point in the future it is his intent to update the statue. Chairperson Peterson inquired as to whether there would be a courtyard. Mr. Hall indicated it would be very nice to have the courtyard but said he was more concerned with what will give him the best return on his investment. He indicated in his opinion parlcing is the most important thing at this point and he wanted to show as many parlcing spaces as possible. He then told the Commission that especially in winter there is a problem with "creative parking" and when that happens the number of cars you can fit in the lot greatly diminishes so he would prefer to be able to use the "courtyard" as parlcing at this point. Chairperson Peterson inquired as to whether the language of the resolution needed to specify a parlcing requirement. Planner Ericson indicated if the City required a minimurn of 808 parking spaces that would give Mr. Hall the ability to eliminate the parlcing in the courtyard at a later date and use it as green space and still have the required number of parking spaces. He then indicated he does not believe there would need to be specific parlcing space language in the resolution but said they will address the parlcing in the PUD document. MOTTON/SECOND: Johnson/Berke. To approve Resolution No. 637-00, a Resolution Reapproving the Development Stage Plans of the Mermaid Planned Unit Development. Ayes — 8 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Planner Ericson indicated this matter would be considered by the Council on October 10, 2000. 11. Staff Reports / Items of Information A. Previous Councfl Actions . . ` : y. ��'` --�I �' :� f ` E '<- '�-'� ---�-� -- �_- -- -,__ _ _ - - _�_-__ — _�--- - � JI Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 � Community Development Director Joplce reported at the October 25, 2000 meeting the Council approved Resolution 5477, a resolution approving a minor subdivision of 2468 and 2474 County Road H2 to create a buildable lot fronting on Irondale Road. The Council continued the public hearing on Resolution 5476, a resolution regarding the development stage of the proposed Mermaid PUD. The Council discussed the final plat for Walgreen's at their worlc session and also reviewed the developinent stage plans for the proposed Mermaid PUD. The development stage plans for the proposed Mermaid PUD will be on the Council agenda for October 10, 2000. The Council authorized the purchase of 7861 Groveland Road for future redevelopment. It is the intent of the City to purchase the property and lease out tlie house until such time as the area is redeveloped. Community Development Director Joplce noted he received a letter from the Metropolitan Council concerning the Comprehensive Plan aslcing for additional information which he has since provided to them. The Metropolitan Council has 60 days to review the plan commencing on September 14, 2000. This item will be on the consent agenda at the Metropolitan Council meeting scheduled for November 1, 2000. If the Comprehensive Plan is approved by the Metropolitan Council there will be a public hearing before the Council to adopt the Plan. The Highway 10 study steering comrnittee submitted its Phase I report to the Council and it was accepted. Council authorized the steering committee to proceed with Phase II. The Council passed Resolution 5474 requesting that Ramsey County loolc at pedestrian safety issues on Highway 10. The resolution was presented to Commissioner Bennett at the meeting. Since then, Community Development Director Joplce indicated he had received a letter from Ramsey County staff indicating their willingness to cooperate with the City on those issues. Chairperson Peterson inquired as to how the discussion on changing the name of Highway 10 was proceeding. Coinmunity Development Director Jopke indicated they are looking into the legal implications and requirements of changing the name. Commissioner Johnson inquired as to the date of the next Highway 10 Steering Committee meeting. Community' Development Director Joplce indicated the next meeting is October 19, 2000. Cominissioner Thomas inquired if the Highway 10 Steering Committee will be worlcing on changing the narne in the Anoka County portion of the road also. Community Development Director Jopke indicated they are working on a plan for Highway 10 and will include all affected jurisdictions in the decision making process. Chairperson Peterson noted Mounds View was one member short on the Highway 10 Steering Committee and inquired as to whether any of the Planning Commissioners would be interested in serving on the Committee. . _ :. � � .. �- ., :. - _.i' _ -- --- , .. -- >: -- - - � - - - • � - � - - -- . -- -- - ... ` :; _ __ . Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 Commissioner Stevenson indicated his willingness to serve on the Highway 10 Steering Coinmittee. B. Replacement Zoning Code '!�''� The Planning Commission was rovided with a com lete co of the recentl u dated zonin '� P P pY Y P g �' code. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the City was doing their` own updates to the Code or if it was being handled by an outside firm. Staff indicated they are attempting to locate an outside iirni interested in doing the updates for the City but at the present time Staff is handling the updates. Chairperson Peterson noted it is important that all updates be provided in a timely manner regardless of whether it is being handled by Staff or an outside firm. 12. Chairperson anct Pla�a�in� Commission Reports Commissioner Miller brought to the attention of the Planning Commission a concern regarding the striping on County Road I just east of Quincy Street. She indicated there are two lanes that suddenly necic down to one and then there is a right hand turn lane to get on the freeway. She indicated the area is confusing and potentially dangerous and inquired if there was anything that could be done about it. Community Development Director Jopl�e indicated he would look into the situation to see if it could be improved. Commissioner Johnson inquired if Mr. Mezzenga had applied for a permit. He also aslced if anything is being planned for the land behind the Super America. Planner Ericson indicated nothing will happen with the land behind Super America until Spring. Commissioner Johnson told the Commission he recently learned the City has an easement for a right turn lane on the land behind Super America that could be used in the future. Plaiuler Ericson indicated Mr. Mezzenga was finishing up loose strings on other projects and will come bacic before the Commission soon. There were no other reports of the Commission. 13. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson :- ;_ _ _ . =-- ` = - - - �- -= - __ _: <-: -- -=_ ---- . - . :: - =--- ---- - =-=' � -- _ � . - � v� . _m �_ __�_.. _ . .. r'+- � . , y - �.,'5� - s��.j �, . — _ _ _' _ _ �`'' � . _3�d � . �7 F ' � � y'l� t ' �. Mounds View Planning Commissaon Regular Meeting adjourned the meeting at 7:57 p.m. October 4, 2000 Page 10 (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Ricic Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. ' .,. �2 , 31. I� . .... iF-`: y.,: ;,. �g , �, r �� •� ; �,�,. ' ,r �►,, ��... ,.:.. �i f..i"/ �. ' �.� - :� ` -- � ,� 'c� _`_ . _ �. _ .� _ _ _. ,. , _ -- _ .--'� � ' °_--"�>'�- ='--- ; c -: . --- - - -- -- ---. .� .,-w:- —r= s�.__ - _ `•:-- �_ _:_ MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION November 1, 2000 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Oath of Office, Travis Cerny 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11 12. 0 CITTZENS: B�FOR� SP�AIQNG, PLEAS� COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR TH� MINUTES Approve Planning Commission Minutes: a. October 4, 2000 Review Modifications to TIF Districts, Consideration of Resolution 639-00 Review Proposed Ordinance 675, an Ordinance Rezoning the Mermaid Parcels from B-3 to PUD, and Consideration of Resolution 640-00 Recommending Approval of Ordinance Review Second Draft of Ordinance 672, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Home Occupations Discuss Possible Changes to the City's Sign Code, Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code StaffReports / Items of Information a. Previous Council Action Chairperson and Plaru�ing Commissioners' Reports Adjournment to Agenda Session (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDAI�ICE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTTFY THG CONIIVIUNTI'Y D�VELOPMENT DEPAR'TMENT AT 763-717-4022 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. AGENDA SESSION AGENDA Review the Minutes from the October 18, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting.. Y:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�I'LANCOMNI�PCAGENDA�2000�Nov l, 2000 PC Agenda_doc __ _ - � ;, � _ _ � �. :�: ,_ . , � _ ;: �_ =- - -- - - -- ----- — — -> - ----. - �. -- t�..— ---- _ _._ . <,—, �� , , i Item #6 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report MeetingDate: Novemberls; 2000 Title: DISCUSSION AND CONSIDER.A.TION OF RESOLVTION 639-00, A RESOLUTION OF TI� MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COA�INIISSION CONCERNIlVG THE CTTY OF MOUNDS 'VIEW ,AND TI� MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY'S PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE TAX INCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, WIT'HIN TI� MOUNDS VIEW ECONONIIC DEVELOPMENT pROJECT AREA Background: For over a year the Office of the State Auditor has been reviewing Mounds View's TIF records. While they have examined a range of issues, a particular emphasis has been placed on the use of TIF for the Community Center. Aside from the concerns expressed by the OSA, City staff identified some azeas of our TIF admirustration that could be improved. In particular, the TIF budgets reported in the OSA's annual "TIF Authority Reports" are not an accurate representation of what is contained within Niounds View's TIF plans and subsequent modifications. To address this discrepancy, the EDA's fina.ncial advisor, Ehlers and Associates, was retained to evaluate and determine existing TIF budgets based on the original TIF plans, subsequer�t modifications to the districts and their respective budgets, and the 1994 Mounds View Economic Development Proj ect. This analysis has recently been completed and is included for your reference as Attachment 1. This situation is somewhat unique since no new expenditures or projects are being added. In essence, the proposed modifications are a restatement of what currently exists. However, we have elected to go through the process of modifying the districts via the public hearing process for clarification purposes. As part the process of amend.ing T]F Plans, it is required that the Planning Commission review the plans to determine their consistency with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. On a general level, TIF Plans serve to broadly articulate goals and objectives for the TIF district. The TIF Plan also includes a budget for the expenditure of TIF funds generated as a result of the project. As pzeviously stated, the updated budgets included in the modifications are a restatement of existing TIF documentation. A copy of the TIF Plan modification has been included for your review as Attachment #1. A resolution for the Commission's consideration has been included as Attachment #2. ��1 I' . "' � �� - . _.°�� r, '`s. ___ _._ � W_ _ � _._u. _ ._' _� rc' _ �� t_ __ ' ___ _ � _ ._ `- .-_ _—_. �E -� L '- �" I Recommendation: Consider adopting Resolution 639-00 Concerning the City of Mounds View and the Mounds View Economic Development Authority's Proposed Modifications to the Tax Increment Redevelopment Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, withi.n the Mounds View Economic Development Proj ect .Area. � �� , Aaron Parrish, Economic Development Coordinator Attachments: 1. Modifications to the Tax Increment Redevelopment Plans for Tax Increment District Nos. 1, 2, 3. 2. Resolution 639-00 A Resolution of the Mounds View Planning Commission Concerning the City of Mounds View and the Mounds View Economic Development Authority's Proposed Modifications to the Tax Increment Redevelopment Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, within the Mounds View Economic Development Project Area. _ -, � .,= : - . � _ � .� _ ___ , . , _ k _.__�� - _. . - ------- - ._ --- ------ - - . - , _ � . _ _.�.� — � _ - �-�y� � , � .� L-->=-;� �u� �� M[�D� " � :� � �C�� •�r S drrPSS � Partnecs��Q � ''1! h' .i:i%1 ri�`�� •`u�' `4�`!'R �.�` lF k� ��:i4�•i �:^ u�r;!._ ' r• � , � � 4, ;' � >: 3 � �. - . I . ..Yv^«� .. . . ; _ � . . y.�.�: _ .`��+ � . l ' l 1 �r-SJ--- � � . ._ • - . Y . C^ _. i - - -� •.+ f -. . 2'"�..-_=n � � �.e. �.' ' s''-�— '�. �� -�"'_'=...�_.... , i F _. ' '.�u: �_ -r.-�� -- .___'"— __ _' '_ � __ "' "'__.:'=si't:=.r --�' � � _ p =e:t"af'�s�'� � � _ _,. . .. ., . , I � :� . As of Ocfober 13, 2000 Draft for Filing Fiscal Implications �,k.:,�.k.-s•.��..,,-, • �.,•_�.:,a�..� MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCiZ.EMENT REDEVELOPMENT PLANS for TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT N0.1, (a redevelopment district) MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY STATE OF MINI�IESOTA Originally Adopted: September 22, 1986 Modified on J'anuary 11, 1988 Modified on June 12, 1989 Modified on Mazch 26, 1990 Modified on May 9, 1994 Modified on April 14, 1997 Modified on August 14, 2000 Public Hearing on the Modification: November 13, 2000 Prepared by: EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES,INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Phone: (651) 697-8500 Fax: (651) 697-8555 E-mail: infoC�ehlers-inc.com Web Site: www.ehlers-inc.com a 0 � c � � . jj . � � � _ ,. � _ ` r - --= —�. � .� , . j=---� -- ---._.. ,.,--- - _ _ . - . TABLE OF CONTENTS (for reference purposes only) SECTION I- MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT ND. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCI'ION . . . . . . . . . . " ' ' ' 1-2 DESCRIPTiON OF PROPERTY IN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1.... 1-2 ESTIMAT'B OF COST ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF LOANBONDED INDEBTEDNESS � � � � � � � � � � � 1-2 SOURCES OF REVENUE � � � � � " " " " " " " ' � � 1'2 � ADMINISTRATION OF TA.X IIVCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT . . . . . � _2 ....... 1-3 APPENDIX A- BOUNDARY MAP OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCIIVG DISTRICT NO. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 APPENDIX B- BUDGET HISTORY AND ESTIMATE OF PR�JECT COSTS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DTSTRICT NO. 1 ................................ B-1 City of Mounds View Modi£cation to the Redevelopment Plan for Tax Increment Disuict No. 1 1-1 � ; _ -__ _ _ _ . - .. - . _- . ,_ _ -_ - .: � - =- _ � . , t . �� --- ---- ----s= . «, .. �_ ..._. o . - _� - -- - _ _ _._ ----..�. � --- -= - -- � _ � SECTION I MODIFICAT,ION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. l INTRODUCTION (As Modified November l3, 2000) The following is a modification to the Tax Increment Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan") for Tax Increment District No. l. Generally, there are no substantive moditications to the Tax Increment Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1. The purpose of the nnodification is to attempt to bring the Plan into compliance with the Office of the State Auditor requirements as they are understood at this point in time. The following subsections are being modified in an attempt to clarify the Plan and clarify and restate the budgets in the Office of the State Auditor's required focmat. D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 The modification affects no change in the geographical boundaries of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1. G. Estimate of Costs (As Modifced November l3, 2000) The budget history and estimate of authorized publYC costs associated with the tax incremen tinancing redevelopment district are outlined in the line item budget in Appendix B. H. Estimated Amount of Loan/Bonded.Indebtedness (As Modified November I3, 2000) The City reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or othec indebtedness as a result of the Modified Plan. The projects have been �nanced by bond issues, inter-fund Ioans and transfers. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized achvities. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed-$36,000,000 without a moda�cation to the Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. I. Sources of Revenue (As Modified November 13, 2000) Several sources of revenue may be used to �nance public costs associated with the development projects in the municipal development district including tax increment �nancing, special assessments, earned interest, general property taxes, state aid for road mai�ntenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the developer and investment income, and undesignated municipal funds. Appendix B includes a detailed estimate of the Sources of Revenue being authorized for the District. City of Mounds View Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Tax Increment District No. 1 1-2 : - ,, _ —�:-.:°�F� _ r.� _�..x ":' ------�:: �_ � r :. �-- = - , _ ._ - • - - ---- ---- , , �-_� W. Administration of the Tax Increment Financzng Redevelopment District and Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account (As Modifed November° I3, Z000) Administration of the tax increment �nancing redevelopment district will be handled by the City of Mounds View's E.D.A. Executive Directoc. Consistent with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision S, requiring that "tax increment received with respect to any district shall be segregated by the authonity in a special account or accounts on its of�cial books and records or as otherwise established by resolution of the authority to be held by a trustee or trustees for the benefit of holders of the bond," the EDA will account for all increment for all increment from the Tax Increment Districts in on or more accounts and subaccounts, including the ability where deemed appropriate to establish one or more accounts for the proper accounting and implementation of the Tax Increment Financing Districts and the portion of the Project to be financed directly or indirectly with tax increment. The right to make appropriate transfers in and out of such accounts is hereby reserved, along with the tight to make both external and internal interest bearing borrowings, whether long term or short term, including transfers from other City of EDA funds io cash flow tax increment obligations and other legitimate expenditures. City of Monnds View Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Tax Increment District No. 1 1-3 ;- _ ,{- - - � _-• � .APPENDIX B BUDGET HISTORY AND MODIFrED ESTIMATE OF PROJ�CT COSTS TAX INCREMENT FIN.ANCING DISTRICT NO. 1 APPENDIX B-1 ._� � — --- - C� . - - '=- -- . 1 0 � �.I� � Q °o 1 � v w 1 � a a� � m � m � Ro D N y O n W m N . . . .. . _ _ . .. � � . . :� p�''��"`'ra=��rj�� r �s;J'i %i` - - � --- — -- --- - ---- _ _�, �.:_��,.� . �...v:�;. O � � � � 0 n. � 0 a N 1 � 0 a � � 0 a N � 0 � � � � n a a D n � � n z z � D 3 u. 1 � > s pp � � 3� o � > � � W � �az � n � � ..rn 2 � o Z ��D �rn� am� m<m �rr^"Z m � X °. z W �o -i o v � � �� o n N � yz 0 � � 0 c � a � m 0 D � .-- - -- � ��: � __ .-�ii - �"—:�_��:-��_.: -:_� ��. ��-��: -=-4'... 1� �_�.=..�s_'= �., . l�-�'- �-- - - �� - ��----°-- —'---- -� L:E (�- � As of October 13, 2000 Draft for Filing Fiscal Implications r ' MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT PLANS for TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 2, (a redevelopment district) MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Originally Adopted: February 22, 19$8 Modified on May 9, 1994 Modified on April 14, 1997 Modified on August 14, 2000 Public Hearing on the Modification: November 13, 2000 Prepared by: EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Phone: (651) 697-8500 Fax: (651) 697-8555 E-mail: info@ehlers-inc.com Web Sit�: www.ehlers-inc.com -, ; =- `: _. - --- _..__, ,. . . _ - - � - - - . -- - � - --- - -= - - -- -_-- � - — - � r:�. �_ _. TABLE OF CONTENTS (for reference purposes only) SECTION I- MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 INTRODUCTION.............................................................1-2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 1N TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2.... 1-2 ESTIlvIATE OF COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF LOAN/BONDED INDEBTEDNESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 SOURCES OF REVENUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 ADMINISTRATION OF TAX 1NCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3 APPENDIX A- BOUNDARY MAP OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCIlVG DISTRICT NO. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 APPENDIX B- BUDGET HISTORY AND ESTIMATE OF PROJECT COSTS FOR TAX INCREMENT FIlVANCING DISTRICT NO. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 Ciry of Mounds View Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Tax Tncrement District No. 2 1-1 -_� _ __ , F�� t __.____,��-' ..�__�� r < � -�= � . C� �; __ i - � ---=— ------. _ �r _ -'- — -- �---_'=- �— � � = SECTION I MODIFICATXON TO THE T�X INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2 INTRODUC7TON (As Modified November I3, ,2000) p� 2 The following is a modification to the ax Increment Redevelopment Plan (the 66Plan") for Tax Increment Distric�Generally, ther re no substantive modifications to the Tax Increment Plan for Tax Increment Financing District The pucpose of the modit5cation is to attempt to bring the Plan into compliance with the Office of the State Auditor requirements as they are understood at this point in time. The following subsections are beyng moditied in an attempt to clarify the Plan and clarify and restate the budgets in the Office of the State Auditor's required format. Q � H. I. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District No. Z The modi�cation affects no change in the geographical boundaries of Tax Increment Financing District No. 2. Estimate of Costs (As Modified November 13, 2000) The budget history and estimate of authoryzed public costs associated with this project are outlined in Appendix "B", Budget H�story and Estimate of Project Costs. Estimated Amount of LoanBonded Indebtedness (As Modified November I3, 2000) T'he City reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the Modified Plano The projects have been financed by bond issaes, inter-fund loans and transfers. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized act�vities. The total principal amount of bonded fndebtedness or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing wil] not exceed-$36,000,000 without a modification to the Plan pnrsuant to applicable statutory requirements. See Appendix "B" of this Plan. Sources of Revenue (As Modified November I3, 2000) The principal source of revenue to be used to finance public costs associated with the projects in the redevelopment project is tax increment financing. The City reserves the r�grit to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Modif�cat�on to the Municipal Development District Plan and the Modified Plan, inclading, but not limited to, general property taxes, state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the developer, investment income, and undesignated municipal funds to pay for the es- City of Mounds View Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Tax [ncrement District No. 2 1-2 -_ . � - --- --- -- -- =- .. — . _ �` �- _ __ � -- --- - � �r - _ :.. -��:. .. a � ... __ - " 4, -.- "' ' ' � '=.�r I _"_�. ---� � _ _ _ _ .:C timated public costs. Appendix B inclndes a detailed estimate of the Sources of Revenue,being authorized for the District. W. Administration of the Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment District and Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account (As Modified November 13, 2000) Administration of the tax increment �nancing redevelopment district will be handled by the City of Mounds View's E.D.A. �xecutive Director. Consistent with Minnesoea Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 5, requiring that "tax increment received with respect to any district shall be segregated by the authority in a special account or accounts on its of�cial books and records or as otherwise established by resolution of the authority to be held by a trustee or trustees fo� the bene�t of holders of the bond," the EDA will account for all increment for all increment from the Tax Increment Districts in on or moze accounts and subaccounts, including the ability where deemed appropriate to establish one or more accounts for the proper accounting and implementation of the Tax Increment Financing Districts and the portion of the Project to be �nanced directly or indirectly with tax increment. The right to make appropriate transfers in and out of such accounts is hereby reserved, along with the tight to make both external and intemal interest bearing borrowings, whether long term or short term, including transfers from other City of EDA funds to cash flow tax increment obligations and other legitimate expenditures. City of Mounds View Modification to the Redevelopment Plun for'Tax lncrement District No. 2 1-3 as vi�w � ��- D i __ : _ M -. -_--- ; :. � - _ - _ - r _ _ i -� ,, -- . . � r _ . . -.., . . . - '-- _" _ . . ..�._"_�'_ �� - F -. _... ,_ :�- __"' -__-__"' ."" """ "' . _. ' -. ._S� _ _ :::. . �.:_'. ,.. ._-, � .._.___ -_ -.._ - ��. APPENDIX B BUDGET HISTORY AND MODIFIED ESTIMATE OF PROJECT COSTS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DTSTRICT NO. 2 APP�NDIX B-1 i---- -= � _--- , ` � �. -- - - s� ----�- �=�---L------- ` I� --_.. �.. L Mounds View E.D.A. � APPENDIX B TAX INCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 Budget History and Estimate of Project Costs � ax �ncrement Interest on invested Bond Proceeds Loans Proceeds Real estate sales Special assessments Other Revenue & Increments Transfers Total Sources Land/bldg Site prep Utilities Parking Streets Park Social Interest reduction Bond principal Bond interest Loan principal Loan interest Admin Other Bond discounts Renovation Congingencies Project Costs Demolition Soil Correction Transfers Total Uses Sources-Uses 10/13/00 Hwy 10 Proj Budget Add Dist #4 Add Dist #1 Confirmation Oriqinal Combination Budqet mod Mermaid Proj Modification 02/22/88 05/09/94 04/14/97 08/14/00 11/13/00 $4,401,800 $4,401,800 $4,401,800 $0 $1,180,000 $28,075,000 $4,290,000 $3,205,819 $35,570,819 $4,290,000 $3,205,819 $7,495,819 $0 $0 $56,491,600 $4,290,000 $4,705,819 $65,487,419 $0 $0 $0 $56,491,600 $4,290,000 $4,705,819 $65,487,419 �5,581,800 $145,460,000 $17,160,000 $15,823,276 $178,443,276 $715,000 $9,715,000 $2,419,369 $1,736,700 $13,871,069 $700,000 $220,506 $920,506 $50,000 $3,180,000 $698,807 $3,878,807 $0 $150,000 $150,000 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $4,860,000 $4,860,000 $0 $0 >1,180,000 $28,075,000 $4,290,000 $3,205,819 $35,570,819 i1,186,600 $20,868,400 $1,500,000 $22,368,400 $0 $4,290,000 $3,205,819 $7,495,819 $0 $0 $55,000 $595,000 $390,000 $100,000 $1,085,000 $0 $0 $25,000 $175,000 $175,000 $0 $1,110,125 $433,992 $1,544,117 $300,000 $300,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $0 $110,000 $110,000 $0 $126,320 $126,320 $56 491 600 $4,290,000 $4 705 819 $65,487,419 3,211,600 i45,460,000 $17,160,000 15,823,276 $178,443,276 2,3�0,20o I $o I �o I— �I �o Prepared by: Ehlers & Associates _� .� �.- - --�---- �y.�:...��. �:> j ._.,__-,� __.. �_ . ��— -� -- - � � - — — --�---y--=s' �- - � _a�. - =- - - --- ' �� . As of October 13, 2000 Draft for Filing Fiscal Implications ' ; ..t.. . .._,..... . ,.:, --. r.. .. ,. �:,:,, ., ..,... .. MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT PLANS for TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 3, (a redevelopment district) MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Originally Adopted: February 22, 1988 Modified on March 13, 1989 Modifed on May 9, 1994 Modified on April 14, 1997 Modified on August 14, 2000 Public Hearing on the Modification: November 13, 2000 Prepared by: EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Phone: (651) 697-8500 Fax: (651) 697-8555 E-mail: info@ehlers-inc.com Web Site: www.ehlers-inc.com r = . __�� _ �w.�.___,_.�_., _: _ s�.��. '� . =_-� �l�=�.�.___�� -�� . 1'`. — .._.<��r� _ �"��.`��._..«�_'___—�s � ; TABLE OF CONTENTS (for reference purposes only) SECTION 1- MODIFICATION TO THE TAX 1'NCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 1NTRODUCTION............................................................ 1-2 DESCRIP'TION OF PROPERTY IIV TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 3.... 1-2 ES1'TMA'I'E OF COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-2 ESTIIviATED AMOUNT OF LOANBONDED INDEBTEDNESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 SOURCES OF REVENUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 ADMINISTRATION OF TAX INCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3 A.PPENDIX A- BOUNDARY MAP OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND TAX INCREMENT F7NANCING DISTRICT NO. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 APPENDIX B- BUDGET HISTORY AND ESTIMATE OF PROJECT COSTS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DTSTRICT NO. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 City of Mounds View Modification to the Redevelopment Plnn for 7ax Increment District No. 3 1-1 �:_ �_ ;; � i - , _ � � _ , _ "_ � `l c:: � :: w-' - �-'-2ic,__ __—� _ "__ _. _ ' .'.'___. _._ _ _ .- = —. _ - .: c:i ts'.F __ _ -_zrfr�_ �� ,l ° ��< SECTION I MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 3 INTRODUCTION (As Modified November l3, 2000) The following Ss a modification to the Tax Increment Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan") for Tax Increment District No. 3. Generally, there are no substantive modi�cations to the Tax Increment Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3. The purpose of the modification is to attempt to bring the Plan into compliance with the Office of the State Auditor requirements as they are understood at thas point in t�me. The following subsections are being modified in an attempt to clarify the Plan and clarify and restate the budgets in the Of�ce of the State Auditor's required format. � G H. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 The modification affects no change in the geographical boundaries of Tax Incrernent Financing District No. 3. Estimate of Costs (As Modified November l3, 2000) The budget history and estimate of authorized public costs associated with this project are outlined in Appendix "B", Budget History and Estimate of Project Costs. Estimated Amount of Loan/Bonded Indebtedness (As Modifted November l3, 2000) The City reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the Modified Plan. The projects have been Fnanced by bond issues, inter-fund loans and transfers. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed-$36,000,000 without a modification to the Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirementse See Appendix "B" of this Plan. I. Sources of Revenue (As Moddfied November l3, 2000) The principal source of revenue to be used to finance public costs associated with the projects in the redevelopment project is tax increment financing. The City reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Modification to the Municipal Development District Plan and the Modified Plan, including, bat not limited to, general property taxes, state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the developer, investment income, and undesignated municipal funds to pay for the es- City of Mounds View Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Tax Increment District No. 3 1-2 • �". ,.. . . �' _.�.il _ x: -- �..c..._��__. . ��` -_�._� =Y.�_ c _ _.,,s :.� -�-�'----^ .s� �� _ .._ .._.v u �_._�.�. _ �r ��_�,s _s.�.��. _ __ .a _. timated public costs. Appendix B includes a detailed estimate of the Sources of Revenue -being authorized for the District. W. Administration of the Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment District and Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account (As Modified November 13, 2000) Administration of the tax increment financing redevelopment district will be handled by the City of Mounds View's E.D.A. Executive Director. Consistent with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 5, requiring that "tax increment received with respect to any district shall be segregated by the authority in a special account or accounts on its official books and records or as otherwise established by resolution of the authority to be held by a trustee or trustees for the lienefit of holders of the bond," the EDA will account for all increxnent for all increment from the Tax Jncrement Districts in on or more accounts and subaccounts, including the ability where deemed appropriate to establish one or more accounes for the proper accounting and implementation of the Tax Increment Financing Districts and the portion of the Project to be financed directly or indirectly with tax increment. The right to make appropriate transfers in and out of such accounts is hereby reserved, along with the tight to make both external and internal interest bearing borrowings, whether long term or short ternn, including transfers from other City of EDA funds to cash flow tax increment obligations and other legitimate expenditures. City of Mounds View Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Tox Increment District No. 3 1-3 � ,.. � �: _ u- s -� _ �u �. _ t , : .. =�_ � .�._ � _._.�: �� _ ....�. �, � _______.� �� ) �_ • • �l�ir7�:ie� BUDGET HISTORY AND MODIFIED ESTIMATE OF PROJ$CT COSTS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRTCT NO. 3 APPENDIX $-1 i"; ; xi iiX� � �f: :6 ... ri ♦9 7 � ` �� OCi,24.2000 9:51AM EHLERS & RSSOCIATES Mounds View E.D.A. APPENDIX B TAX (NGREMENT REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 3 Budget Historyand Estimate of ProJect Costs � N0, 4485 P. 4 Miller Project Gomb budget Add D�st �4 Add Dist #1 Contirmation 10/23/00 Prepared by: Ehfers & AssOeiates C� 0� 0� o�� a��r _ r`QS Partne�5 ! ;Y�{�� :�r� (�:,i �i't. l�'�y'. .i2.Y .i��:f� -'rji�� 71i.: µ :''U � , �.�:i�l la `i � �'�+� � . �'i k, ' :;,y�; , � MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 639-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE TAX INCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT PL.ANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2 AND 3 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Mounds View, Minnesota, (the "City") has proposed to adopt a Modification to the Tax Increment Redevelopment Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1, 2 and 3(the "Modifications") and has submitted the Modifications to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3, and WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the to determine their conformity with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Modifications confor►n with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. Attest: Adopted this 1 St day of November, 2000 Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director r ��--____._ = _,.._ � �� . � .. ; ; °� _�.; 1�_� _..��_��__:�� r.---_.__.�.:;�,4w_..:�f�. �}��. � i..., � -- -- ------- -- _- -- --- -=-i Item # 7 City ofMounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: Novembej• 1, 2000 Title: REVIEW ORDINANCE 675, AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTIE5 ASSOCIATED WITH THE MERMAID PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 640-00, A RESOLUTION RECONIMENDING ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 675. Planning Case: PD00-002 Applicant: Dan Hall, Representing Mermaid, Inc. Discussiona On October 10, 2000, the City Council approved Resolution 5476; a resolution approving the development stage plans for the Meimaid Pla.nned Unit Development. The resolution contained a clause authorizing staff to draft an ordinance to effectuate the rezoning of the properties fi•om B-3, Highway Business, to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The Planning Commission is required to review and offer a recommendation regarding all rezonings in the City. Because this ordinance was not drafted when the Planning Commission recommended approval of the development stage of the PUD on October 4, 2000, a separate resolution is now needed concerning the Plaiuung Commission's recommendation. Recommendation: Review Ordinance 675 and if acceptable, consider approval of Resolution 640-00, recommending to the City Council adoption of Ordinance 675. � � • �' � ��ir�,k,1 i" � i�-�t1�'. \ri �� James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1, Ordinance 675 2. Resolution 640-00 V;�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASGSUvterniaid Hotel (ZC00-003, DE00-003, MA00-002)Wlermaid PC Report - Nov 1, 2000.doc .__-=�_ _ _-=____ -= � - = --= _ �� f�-' ==�---- _— " - _._ �_ ----. - -=-- -=---- ---- ORDINANCE NO. 675 CITY OF MOUNDS VI�W COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA �— -- - - AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REZONING OF PARCELS ASSOCTATED WITH THE MERMAID PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPM�NT FROM B-3 (HIGT3WAY BUSINESS DISTRICT) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT) THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Appendix A of the Mounds View Municipal Code entitled "Specific Rezonings" is hereby amended to include reference to the following Ordinance 675. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The Mounds View City Council has determined that to further economic development and organized land use controls that the present zoning classification of certain parcels should be reclassified to be consistent with the Mounds View Zoning Code and the proposed Mounds View Comprehensive Plan. Subdivision 2. Th following legally-described Planned Unit Development: � City's official Zoning Map and the zoning classification for the parcels are hereby changed from B-3, Highway Business, to PUD, Tract A: (Mermaid Parcel) That part of the East 546.75 feet of the South 715.10 feet of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23 in Ramsey County, Minnesota lying Southwesterly of the Southwesterly right of way line of U.S. Highway No. 10 as it is now laid out and traveled and lying Northerly of the following described line: Beginning at a poin! on the West line of the Easi 546. 75 feet of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 drstant 445.25 feet North of the South line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 as measured along said West line of the East 546.75 feet thereof,• thence North 86 Degrees S2 Minutes 52 Seconds East (assumed bearing of the West line of East 546. 7S feet of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 is North 0 Degrees 47Minutes 11 Seconds West), and to the Southwesterly right of way line of said U. S. Highway No. 10 and except that part of ihe following described property included in the above described tract: Commencing at a point on the South line of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 8 distant 897.5 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof,• thence North 35 Degrces 07 Minutes West (assumed bearing of West on said South line) a distance of 392. 7 feet to the center line of Counry Road H; thence South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West along said center line, a distance of 145.0 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West 120.0 feet; thence North 35 Degrees 07 Minutes West 252. 0 feet; thence North 54 Degrees 53 Minutes East, 190.0 feet to the Southwesterly rigl�t of way line of Trunk Highway No. 10; thence, South 35 Degrees 07 Minutes East along said Southwesterly right of way line 200.0 feet; thence South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West along said right of way line 70. 0 feet; thence South 35 Degrees 07Minutes East along said right of way line 52. 0 feet to the point of beginning. SJR-184037vi MU210-48 f T _ � "_. . . -. . _._.,. c---. _ " ' ".. X� i _ . _" _ _' __ - _ _ _"_. Ordinance 675 Page 2 Tract B: (Mermaid Parcel) :. � ; _ : '. _ = u—.�_ ys �._: - ' ._._�. .� :.. �_' �L That part of the East 546. 75 feet of ihe SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 8, Townslsip 30, Range 23 in Ramsey Counry, Minnesota lying Southwesterly of 1he Southwesterly�right ofway line vf U. S: Highway No. 10 as it is now laid out and traveled, lying Northerly of the cen[er line of County Road H and lying Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the West line of the East 546. 7S feet of.said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 distant 445.25 feet North of the Sbuth line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 as measured along said West line of the East 546. 75 feet thereof,• thence Nor[h 86 Degrees 52 Minutes 52 Seconds East (assumed bearing of the West line of the East 546. 7S feet of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 is North 0 Degrees 47 Minutes I1 Seconds Wes[) and to the Souihwesterly righ! of way line of U. S. Highway No. 10 and said line the��e terminating and except that part of ihe following described property included in the above described tract: Commencing at a pornt on the South line of the SE' 1/4 of the SE 1/4 o,f said Section 8 distant 897.5 feet.West of the Southeast comer thereof thence North 35 Degrees 07 Minutes West (assumed bearing of West on said South lineJ a distance 392.7 feet to the center line of County Road H; thence South 54 Degree.s 53 Minutes West along said center line, a distance of 145.0 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 54 Degrees S3 Minutes West 120. 0 feet; thence North 35 Degrees 07 Minutes West, 252. 0 feet; thence Norlh 54 Degrees 53 Minutes East, 190.0 feet to the Southwesterly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 10; thence South 35 Degrees 07 Minutes East along said Southwesterly right of way line 200.0 feet; thence South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West along said right of way line 70. 0 feet; thence S'outh 35 Degrees 07 Minutes East along said right of way line 52. 0 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to County Road H. Tract C: (Rent All Property) A tract of land being a part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and also a part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter distance 897.5 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof,• thence North 35 degrees 07 minutes West (assumed bearing on said South line) a distance of 392.7 feet io the extension Northeasterly of the centerline of County Road H; thence South 54 degrees 53 minutes Wesi along said center line a distance of 145.0 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 54 degrees 53 minutes West 120. D feet; ihence North 35 degrees 07 minutes West 252.0 feet; thence North 54 degrees 53 minutes East 190.0 feet to the Southwesterly right of way line of Trunk Hrghway No. 10; thence South 35 degrees 07 minutes East along said Southwesterly righ! of wny line 200.0 feet; lhence South 54 degrees 53 minutes West along said right of way line 70.O,feet; thence South 35 degrees 07 minutes L+ast along said right of way line 52. 0 feet to the point of beginning. Tract D: (Music Off 10) The east 100. 00 feet of the West 657. 57 feet of the South 21 S feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Ramsey Counry, Minnesota. � - _- - - -__� . ,-- -= — �� __-_- `--=-- `�i� � - - - Ordinance 675 Page 3 . _ � e � .... i ':54�—�� . � l/�"" _— . . _ - . -... s�-=�sv.��<s._u E� _�ms.-.'�szf_�; SECTION 2. This ordinance is effective thirty days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 13th day of November, 2000. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 27th day of November, 2000. Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST Kathleen Miller, City Clerk-Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney V:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES�Ivlermaid Hotel (ZC00-003, DE00-003, MA00-002)\Ord'uiance 675 - Rezonuig.doc . f _ ;. - i = c - •-- •�` ---- _._..., ..'�_ _- " ----- y. t,-; . ---- : _�_ _ --- �, - - --°= � _ . _ � _ I � I MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 640-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REZONING OF PROPERTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE MERMAID PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FROM B-3 (HIGHWAY BUSINESS) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) WHEREAS, Daniel Hall, President of The Mermaid, has requested approval of a planned unit development (PUD) to expand the existing Mermaid complex by adding a hotel and banquet center; and, WI�REAS, on October 4, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 637-00, a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of the proposed Mermaid Planned Unit Development; and, WHEREAS, one of the requirements of a PUD is to rezone the properties associated with the development from their existing zoning designation to the PUD designation; and, WHEREAS, the legal descriptions for the properties to be rezoned from B-3 to PUD are as follows: (See attached EXHIBIT A.) WI�REAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan for the City of Mounds View and finds that the proposed rezoning to PUD would be consistent with the indicated "Regional Commercial Planned Unit Development" land use designation; and, Wf-IEREAS, the proposed rezoning would be consistent with the intent of Chapter 1120 of the Mounds View Zoning Code, Planned Unit Developments, which strives for the grouping of land parcels for coordinated and integrated development. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance 675, an ordinance rezoning the above-described properties from B-3 to PUD. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. --�: . . _ . - —, , � - �a. - -�--_. �.e.,...r� ------� - � -- - :.._ .. - — - — -- __ _ . . _ t _-- � -- --- ---=�--- " _ " .t _ t— `.s= 1 Resolution 640-00 Page 2 Adopted this 1 st day of November, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) V:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASESUv1ERMAID HOTEL (ZC00-003, DE00-003, MA00-002)U2ESOLUTION 640-00 (REZONING).DOC : } . . ._ , . � _` J ' ,.:. . ' ".a. ' " 1 = L . . , _ . . . . _.. .. . _ _ -. � _ . �� . ,<'-. . . z ' _� _ �_._ ' _ "____.i_ ' _ ' �.�"._"'_�-.'��-�s-�-_� : - . _ � �_� �__ __._`.�_"__.'— ._ ._-_r:.. .. ...>_ _., ..d . ,. .. . � EXHIBIT A. Tract A: (Mermaid Parcel) That part of the East 546.75 feet of the South 715.10 feet of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23 in Ramsey County, Minnesota lying Southwesterly of the Southwesterly right of way line of U. S. Highway No. 10 as it is now laid out and traveled and lying Northerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the West line of the East 546.75 feet of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 distant 445,25 feet North of the South line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 as measured along said West line of the East 546.75 feet thereof; thence North 86 Degrees 52 Minutes 52 Seconds East (assumed bearing of the West line of East 546.75 feet of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 is North 0 Degrees 47 Minutes 11 Seconds West), and to the Southwesterly right of way line of said U. S. Highway No. 10 and except that part of the following described property included in the above described tract: Commencing at a point on the South line of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 8 distant 897.5 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof; thence North 35 Degrees 07 Minutes West (assumed bearing of West on said South line) a distance of 392.7 feet to the center line of County Road H; thence South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West along said center line, a distance of 145.0 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West 120,0 feet; thence North 35 Degrees 07 Minutes West 252.0 feet; thence North 54 Degrees 53 Minutes East, 190.0 feet to the Southwesterly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 10; thence, South 35 Degrees 07 Minutes East along said Southwesterly right of way line 200.0 feet; thence South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West along said right of way line 70.0 feet; thence South 35 Degrees 07 Minutes East along said right of way line 52.0 feet to the point of beginning. Tract B: (Mermaid Parcel) That part of the East 546.75 feet of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23 in Ramsey County, Minnesota lying Southwesterly of the Southwesterly right of way line of U. S. Highway No. 10 as it is now laid out and traveled, lying Northerly of the center line of County Road H and lying Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the West line of the East 546.75 feet of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 distant 445.25 feet North of the South line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 as measured along said West line of the East 546.75 feet thereof; thence North 86 Degrees 52 Minutes 52 Seconds East (assumed bearing of the West line of the East 546.75 feet of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 is North 0 Degrees 47 Minutes 11 Seconds West) and to the Southwesterly right of way line of U. S. Highway No. 10 and said line there terminating and except that part of the following described property included in the above described tract: Commencing at a point on the South line of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 8 distant 897.5 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof; thence North 35 Degrees 07 Minutes West (assumed bearing of West on said South line) a distance 392.7 feet to the center line of County Road H; thence South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West along said center line, a distance of 145.0 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West 120.0 feet; thence North 35 Degrees 07 Minutes West, 252.0 feet; thence North 54 Degrees 53 Minutes East, 190.0 feet to the Southwesterly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 10; thence South 35 Degrees 07 Minutes East along said Southwesterly right of way line 200.0 feet; thence South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West along said right of way line 70.0 feet; thence 5outh 35 Degrees 07 Minutes East along said right of way line 52.0 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to County Road H. , �—� ..: . __'�_' �-� �___ �...'-_' "_»."':'' v'� "' �. _ _ _. Tract C: (Rent All Property) _ . --�� _ ..4i ��.._. _�er�...>_..�._:1 �=-=_...r,.�. A tract of land being a part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and also a part of th� Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter distance 897.5 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof; thence North 35 degrees 07 minutes West (assumed bearing on said South line) a distance of 392.7 feet to the extension Northeasterly of the centerline of County Road H; thence South 54 degrees 53 minutes West along said center line a distance of 145.0 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 54 degrees 53 minutes West 120.0 feet; thence North 35 degrees 07 minutes West 252.0 feet; thence North 54 degrees 53 minutes East 190.0 feet to the Southwesterly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 10; thence South 35 degrees 07 minutes East along said Southwesterly right of way line 200.0 feet; thence South 54 degrees 53 minutes West along said right of way line 70.0 feet; thence South 35 degrees 07 minutes East along said right of way line 52.0 feet to the point of beginning. Tract D: (Music Off 10) The east 100.00 feet of the West 657.57 feet of the South 215 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota. ' .. �a f::-::. _ �.. -- _ �`� - - — - - - ` ; _ F: _ ;, --- -- ._ _ s , .a: .�--� - ;:�s 4 - _ _ _ '.i1� � C . _ .. .. �. _. _ .. _. . ` ._.:. :.- �. _ '_ '____ '��.�r_��.._�l_i - _�... . � • I � Item # 8 City ofMounds View Planning Commission Report Meetirrg Date: November l, 2000 Tatle: DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE 672, AN ORDINANCE REVISING CHAPTER 1106 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE RELATING TO HOME OCCUPATIONS. Introduction: Ordinance 672 was drafted in response to growing issues relating to businesses operated from within a home or garage, defined within our code as a home occupation. The Planning Commission reviewed the first draft of this ordinance at its last meeting on October 18, 2000. Discussaon: Two changes have been made to this ordinance from the version reviewed on October 18, 2000. The first deals with the amount of parking a home business is allowed by changing the requirement from "no more than two vehicles for on or off street parking" to "no more than two vehicles for on street parking." The other change reflects where signage can be placed upon the lot, adding a third option-- within five feet of a street frontage, as long as no part of the sign extended into the right of way or adjoining property. The other changes originally contemplated by the attached ordinance remain unaltered, and are as follows: The first is to correct a grammatical error by replacing "insure" with "ensure." The second change addresses allowed signage for home occupations by removing language impossible to enforce and by increasing the square footage of allowable signage from one square foot to four square feet. The third change is a housekeeping correction. Chapter 604 was deleted a number of years ago and replaced by a revised Chapter 607, "Nuisances". The last change contemplated by this ordinance is the addition of item "h", which explicitly states that automotive sales, service or repair as a home business is expressly prohibited. Recommendation: Please review Ordinance 672 and if acceptable, approve Resolution 641-00, a resolution indicating the Commission's support of Ordinance 672 and its recommendation of adoption by the City Council. � CJ�YI.�.p �!�-t-c.�cTY� James Ericson, Planner X:�DATA\USERSUIME\Comm Dev Stuf�Ord 672 Report - Nov 1, 2000.doc � __. _.�� : --- - . _ __ _ . _. � :. �. .�� T . _-�__--- -�--� �. ORDINANCE NO. 672 CITI' OF MOUNDS V�W COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA _ _ �_ �, r � ___F C AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1106.03, SUBDIVI5ION 3, OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE, PERTAINING TO HOME-BASED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW THE CITY OF MOUNDS V�W ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Chapter 1106, Section 1106.03, Subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby amended with additions underlined and deletions strack�oatto read as follows: Subd. 3. Home Occupations: The regulation of home occupations within residential structures is intended to Ensure insure that the occupational use is clearly accessory or secondary to the principal dwelling use and that compatibility with surrounding residential uses is mainta.ined. No home occupation shall be allowed which: a. Involves employees other than persons residing on the premises; b. Involves alteration or construction features not customarily found in dwellings; • � � . • � • • . - � �. • • �- � . • � �• - • �- • . -� • • - � �. � . . -. • .. ..- � u� � -� •� �- � ��•� .� � � � • • r•� � • •i� . �- •� • �.■ �- -• �• �• -.�-�� •- •�� • � •�-� �� - -� � � -. � • . . . : - .- - ' .� • .- - �. -. �. .- . i .-. - - .� . � . �.. . .. - - -. - -� .e'- •- � -. • .r -..- - .-. -. . - - -. .�'- p- - �- ' - �� • - -�- .- �. - - -� .n � - i � • ��.� - - -.. ��'� � '. d. Involves exterior storage of equipment or materials; e. Generates more than two (2) motor vehicles at a time for ' - on-street parking; f. Results in violation of the provisions of Chapter fiQZ 6@�, Nuisances, of the Municipal Code; arrd g. Involves activity visible from the public streets;and � � . .��. -.. • . -�. , Ordinance 672 Page 2 SECTION 2. This ordinance shall go into effect thirty (30) days after it has been published in the oPf°icial City newspaper. First read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 2000. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 2000. Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen Miller, City Clerk / Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert C. Long, City Attorney I �� j�. _ -._>_� - . . i , : ;.. _ - •-= --- -� -�--------a. ... L�u J , ,. � _ _ _ � --- -�- --� .� ��- — . � � � - - � �' I: � MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 641-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE 672, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1100, CHAPTER 1106, REGARDING HOME- BASED BUSINESSES; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE SP-083-00 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed proposed Ordinance 672, an ordinance amending Section 1106.03, Subdivision 3(Home Occupations) of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining home-based businesses; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Corrunission, after significant discussion, believes the proposed ordinance to be in the best interest of the community and is in keeping with the overall spirit and intent of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission asserts that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the land use goals and policies addressed in the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan, � NOW, THEREFORE, B� IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends to the Mounds View City Council adoption of proposed Ordinance 672. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staffto forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 1 sth day of November, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) E:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�SPECPRO.I�SP083-OO�RESOLLTTION 641-OO.DOC ��- ._ "': _-- � :..i�� _-.�_ .r.�..�..r__.s..-..v.. _ h��f �., . .r..i._..� _ -..; �'_.'...�.. . �r_r�'"'��.: - < � " . .�"' _. � . " '_"_ .s "'� ' " ' '_" . "'...-_�,_. . " _ Item # 9 City of �Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: November l, 2000 Title: CONTINLJED DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF CHAPTER 1008 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICII'AL CODE PERTAINING TO "SIGNS" Discussiort: At the Planning Commission's last meeting, staffprovided the Commission with copies ofthe City's current Sign Code (Chapter 1008). For comparison purposes, staffis now providing the Commission with a copy of Burnsville's Sign Code, which appears to be a good example of how a sign code could be better drafted. Staff is working on a redraft of Mounds View's Sign Code which simply reorgaruzes the data without making any changes to the specific requirennents. However, due to the complexity of this task, staff was unable to complete the redraft in time for inclusion in the packet. If completed prior to your meeting on November l, 2000, staff will distribute copies of the redraft at the meeting and discussion can take place at your November 15, 2000 meeting. Weather permitting, staff will attempt to photograph some examples of signage within the City to give the Planning Commission a visual example of certain types of signs as well as an idea of the scale and perspective of signs in the community. It is intended that the photographs would be displayed in a computerized, Powerpoint presentation. Again, staffwould also ask the Planning Commission to pay particular attention to the visible signage while driving though our City as well as signs in other cities. �fi �� James Ericson, Planner K:�DATA\USERSUIME\Comm Dev StufilSign Code Report - Nov 1, 2000.doc _ _ _. , - r� - ' - ' � ,_ _ _ _ : _ - -�, ..e---- - - -=-- Y____ . _. _ -_ - � ---��_w�.. �'. ----_:_r..__....._ -�.� � .-°--- ---- --�_.� 10-30-1 SECTION: 10-30- 1: 10-30- 2: 10-30- 3: 10-30- 4: 10-30- 5: 10-30- 6: 10-30- 7: 10-30- 8: 10-30- 9: 10-30-10: 10-3Q-11: 10-30-12: 10-30-13: 10-30-14: 10-30-15: CHAPTER 30 SIGNS Purpose Definitions General Provisions Allowable And Prohibited Signs In Any Zoning District Special Events Signs Allowed By Permit Wall Signs Allowed By Permit Freestanding Signs Allowed By Permit Billboards Off-Premises Directional Signs Permit And Fee Required Removal Of Unsafe And Illegal Signs Nonconforming Signs Banners On Light Poles Sign Tables � 10-30-2 10-30-1: PURPOSE: Signs have an impact on the character and quality of the environment as a prominent part of the scenery; they attract or repel the viewing public and affect the safety of vehicular traffic. Their suitability or appropriateness helps to set the tone of the neighborhood. The purpose of this Section shall be to regulate the placement, erection and maintenance of signs in the City so as to promote the health, safety, aesthetics, economic welfare and general welfare of the community. The following standards in this Chapter are, therefore, adopted to regulate signs. (Ord. 704, 2-2-1998) 10-30-2: DEFINITIONS: For purposes of this Chapter, the following words and terms are defined as follows: ADDRESS SIGN: A sign communicating street address only, whether script or in numerical form. 299 City of Burnsuille _ 10-30-2 ALTER: ----_. _""' �, _, .. _ _ ...- ..._ _ _ �.' �. � 10-30-2 Refers to any major change to a sign, but shall not include routine maintenance or painting. ANIMATED SIGN: Any sign that uses movement or change of lighting to depict action or create a special effect or scene, including devices with or without a commercial message, such as spinners and windsocks, but not including barber poles and time and temperature signs. AREA A freestanding sign which identifies the name of IDENTIFICATION a residential subdivision consisting of fifty (50) SIGN: or more lots; a multiple �esidential complex consisting of twenty (20) or more units or three (3) or more structures; an office, business or industrial structure containing three (3) or more independent businesses or organizations; a single business and/or industrial complex consisting of three (3) or more separate structures existing on individual platted lots or as a planned unit development; a mobile home court; or any integrated combination of the above. AWNING: A temporary hood or cover that projects from the wall of a building, and which can be retracted, folded or collapsed against the face of the supporting building. BALLOON: A flexible, nonferrous inflated bag in various shapes and colors. BANNER: Flexible material affixed to a building, vehicle, polss, or other supporting structures by all corners. � BANNERETfE: Flexible material that resembles a flag, and has minimum dimensions of two feet by two feet (2' x 2') and no larger than three feet by five feet (3' x 5'). A"smaller sized bannerette" is defined as a pennant. BEACON: 2ss Any light with one or more beams directed into the atmosphere or directed at one or more City of Burnsville , ____ � �f � � _ 10-30-2 BILLBOARD: 10-30-2 points not on the same lot as the light source; also, any light with one or more beams that rotate or move. See definition of Off-Premises Advertising Sign. BUILDING FACADE: That portion of any exterior elevation of a building extending from grade to the top of the parapet wall or eaves and the entire width of the building elevation. BUSINESS SIGN: CABINET SIGN: Any sign which identifies a business. A sign that has framing around the entire sign message with a removable face. CAMPAIGN SIGN: A temporary sign promoting the candidacy of a person running for a government office, or promoting an issue to be voted on at a governmental election. CANOPY SIGN: The area of copy, graphic or identification which is affixed to a projection or extension of a building or structure, including a marquee, erected in such a manner as to provide a shelter or cover over the approach to any entrance of a store, building or place of assembly. The portion of the canopy, projection, or other architectural feature which contains no copy or graphic identification, shall not be defined as signage, but if illuminated shall be included in the total sign area pursuant to subsection 10-30-3(P) of this Chapter. CHANGEABLE COPY A sign or portion thereof with characters, letters, SIGN: or illustrations that can be changed or rearranged without altering the face or the surface of the sign. A sign on which the message changes more than eight (8) times per day shall be considered an animated sign and not a changeable copy sign for purposes of this Chapter. A sign on which the only copy that changes is an 2lectronic or mechanical indication of time or temperature shall be 299 Caty of Burnsuille _ . .� . i. _ .._.,- .. ` - _ 10-30-2 10-30-2 considered a"time and temperature" portion of a sign and not a changeable copy sign for purposes of this Chapter. COMMERCIAL Any sign wording, logo, or other representation MESSAGE: that, directly or indirectly, names, advertises, or calls attention to a business, product, service, or other commercial activity. CONSTRUCTION A nonilluminated sign placed at a construction SIGN: site identifying the project or the name of the architect, engineer, contractor, financier and other involved parties, or announcing the character of the building enterprise or the purpose for which the building is intended. DEVELOPMENT A sign placed at a development site for the PROJECT SIGN: purpose of selling or promoting the project. DIRECTORY SIGN: An exterior informational sign which identifies the names and/or addresses of businesses or tenants within a multi-tenant building. FLAG: A piece of cloth or bunting varying in color and design, used as a symbol, standard, emblem or insignia identifying a governmental agency or any civic, charitable, religious, institutional, patriotic, corporate, fraternal or similar organization. FREESTANDING SIGN: Any sign supported by structures or supports that are permanently anchored in the ground and that are independent from any building or structure. GOVERNMENTAL A sign which is erected by a governmental unit SIGN: for identification or traffic. GROUND SIGN: A freestanding sign under eight feet (8') in height erected on one or more freestanding shafts, posts, or piers which are solidly affixed to the ground and not attached to a building. A ground sign shall be considered one sign though it may have two (2) faces. 298 City of Burnsailde �_:: �° . _ . � t _ ` �� I . - �. �_ - �._ . _ �,: __e, 10-30-2 10-30-2 HOLIDAY SIGN: A sign or display that contains or depicts a message pertaining to a national, State, local, or religious holiday. ILLUMINATED SIGN: Any sign which is lighted by an artificial light source either external (light source not within sign) or internal (light source within sign), or by means of reflective materials. Illuminated architectural features or portions thereof which contain no copy or graphics shall not be defined as an illuminated sign, but shall be included in the total sign area pursuant to subsection 10-30-3(P) of this Chapter. INFORMATION SIGN: Any sign, including on-premises directional signs, menu boards, and public information service signs, giving information to employees, visitors or delivery vehicles, but containing no advertising or identification. INTEGRAL SIGN: A sign carrying the name of a building, its date of erection, incidental information about its construction, monumental citations, commemorative tablets and the like when carved into stone, concrete or similar material or made of bronze, aluminum or other permanent type of construction and made an integral part of the structure. LOGO SIGNS: Any brand name, trademark, logo, distinctive symbol, or other similar device or thing used to identify a particular business, institution, or activity. MAXIMUM HEIGHT: The vertical distance measured from the highest adjacent grade, within one foot (1') of the base of the sign, to the top of a sign. MINIMUM HEIGHT: The vertical distance measured from the highest adjacent grade, within one foot (1') of the base of the sign, to the bottom of such sign. MONUMENT SIGN: A freestanding sign that is intended to be incorporated into some form of landscaping design scheme or planter box, is attached to the 299 City of Burnsuille �. ._ ... _..�;---��_�---�.._. (�•�__�_z _„'r'� _�.� is..�._...•---r.�___--3c:: _ � ...,... u--•--°--- ---� r_ .__ -r.��£.: ..�:I 10-30-2 MULTI-FACED SIGN: 10-30-2 ground by means of a freestanding support structure, is solid from grade to the top of the structure, has materials that are constructed of the same primary building materials of the principal structure, is placed directly on the ground or on an interior planter base which is incorporated into a design arrangement. A monument sign shall be considered as one sign though it may have two (2) faces. Any sign with a sign face oriented to more than two (2) directions. NAMEPLATE SIGN: Any sign in a residential district which states the name and/or address of a business or occupant of the lot where the sign is placed. OFF-PREMISES A billboard, poster panel, painted bulletin board ADVERTISING SIGN: or other communicative device which is used to advertise products, goods, services, ideas or noncommercial speech which are not exclusively related to the premises or owner of the property on which the sign is located. OFF-PREMISES A directional sign located upon property other DIRECTIONAL SIGN: than the lot of a development or use for which off-site direction is intended. ON-PREMISES A sign erected on private property which DIRECTIONAL SIGN: contains no advertising, and is specifically intended to facilitate the safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles into, out of and circulating upon the site on which such signs are located. OPAQUE: PARAPET: Impervious to the passage of light. A low protective wall which is located along the edge of a roof on a building. PENNANTS: Flexible material, whether or not containing a message of any kind, suspended from a rope, wire, or string, usually triangular shaped and in a se�ies, designed to move in the wind. 299 City of Burnsuille �- �` - - -_ �� _: 10-30-2 _ �.. _ _ _ . _ 10-30-2 PORTABLE SIGN: Any sign not permanently attached to the ground or other permanent structure, or a sign designed to be transported, including, but not limited to, signs designed to be transported by means of wheels; signs converted to A- or T-frames; menu and sandwich board signs; umbrellas used for advertising; and signs attached to or painted on vehicles parked and visible from the public right of way, unless said vehicle is used in the normal day-to-day operations of the business. PRINCIPAL BUILDING: A building or buildings in which is conducted the principal use of the lot, not including storage buildings, garages, and buildings for other clearly accessory uses. PROJECTING SIGN: A sign other than a wall sign which is perpendicular to and projects from a building, is supported by a wall of a building or structure, where the leading edge extends more than twelve inches (12") beyond the surface of such wall. PUBLIC A sign designating the current time and/or INFORMATION temperature and/or stock market data on the SERVICE SIGN: exterior of a building or pylon so as to be viewed by the passing public from a public right of way. PYLON SIGN: A freestanding sign erected on one or more freestanding shafts, posts, or piers which are solidly affixed to the ground and not attached to a building. A pylon sign shall be considered as one sign though it may have two (2) faces. REAL ESTATE SIGN: A sign placed upon a property advertising that particular property for sale, for rent or for lease. A real estate sign shall be considered as one sign though it may have two (2) faces. RIBBONS OR Long or varied lengths of flexible material used STREAMERS: to decorate. 299 Caty of Burnsuille __� � �: . e__: --- . �_. 1�_ - --==��= 1��:� . . .,. ._.�--;+. .� ��-----_. -_ .� . .. "� � _s- ' �,� , . . : _ � ., � . � , .»�.-- . �, -- . . : �- '� _ ;'c�_-- � t._t --°--�: ,.. , �_-�:.__s - . �.�. 10-30-2 10-30-2 ROOF SIGN: Any sign which is erected, constructed or attached wholly or in part upon any roof or over the highest roofline of a building. ROOFLINE: The top of the coping; or, when the building has a pitched roof, as the intersection of the outside wall with the roof as illustrated below. RUMMAGE SALE Signs advertising infrequent temporary display SIGN: and sale by an occupant on his premises of personal property, including general household rummage, used clothing and appliances. SECURITY SIGN: A sign identifying the presence of a security system. SERVICE ENTRANCE: Secondary passage or opening to a structure which is intended for delivery and removal of merchandise or goods, and which is not intended as a public entrance. SIGN: Any written announcement, declaration, demonstration, display, illustration, insignia or illumination used to advertise or promote the interest of any person or persons when the same is displayed or placed out of doors in view of the general public, or inside of a building within three feet (3') of a transparent window. A sign shall be considered as a structure or a part of a structure for the purpose of applying yard and height regulations except as herein provided. SIGN AREA: That area that includes the smallest rectangle around each line of copy for individually mounted letter signs and the entire face of a sign, including the advertising surface and any framing, trim, or molding but not including the supporting structure for all other signs. The maximum sign area is the maximum allowable g�oss surface area in square feet of a sign or signs. The maximum number of signs cannot be arranged and integrated so as to create a 299 City of Burnsuille � �_. � � _ . . �; i �: 10-30-2 - - _, . _ _ - ._'-�� r.:�.r. �..`_�_ � .��. 4= �.:_�-_:. � ' _ . . . . ��..,. 10-30-2 cumulative gross sign area in excess of such requirements as may be applicable. SIGN CRITERIA: A comprehensive signage plan for a multi- tenant building to be established by the owner or owners' association (as in the case of a condominium) and the City, which shall include the following components: height, location, size, number, type, basic decorative theme, design, decor and material of signs to be placed on the buildings. SIGN SETBACK: The distance from the property line and curb to the nearest part of the sign, measured perpendicularly to the property line or curb. SIGN STRUCTURE: SPECIAL EVENTS: The supports, uprights, bracing and framework for a sign. A temporary promotional event on the business premises. STREET FRONTAGE: The side of a lot abutting one or more streets. An interior lot has one street frontage and a corner lot has two (2) or more frontages. TEMPORARY SIGN: Any sign which is erected or displayed for a specific pe�iod of time, and not of a permanent nature. VEHICLE SALES SIGN WALL GRAPHICS: A sign painted or applied to the window of a vehicle. A sign which is painted directly on an exterior wall surface. WALL SIGN: A sign which is affixed to the exterior wall of a building and which is parallel to the building wall. A wall sign does not project more than twelve inches (12") from the surface to which it is attached, nor extend beyond the top of the parapet wall. Banners do not qualify as a wall sign. 2ss City of Burnsuflle - _ -. 10-30-2 10-30-3 ' WINDOW SIGN: A temporary sign affixed to the outside or inside of a window or inside the building within three feet (3') of a window in view of the general public. This does not include merchandise on display. Window signage shall not include business and logo signs. (Ord. 704, 2-2-1998) 10-30-3: GENERAL PROVISIONS: (A) No sign permitted by this Title shall, by reason of its location, color or intensity, create a hazard to the safe, efficient movement of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. No private sign shall contain words which might be construed as traffic controls, such as "Stop", "Caution", "Warning", etc., unless such sign is needed to direct traffic on the premises. (B) All signs and sign structures shall be properly maintained in a safe, orderly condition at all times, including the replacement of defective parts, cleaning and other items required for maintenance of the sign. Vegetation around, in front of, behind, and underneath the base of ground signs for a distance of ten feet (10') shall be neatly trimmed and free of weeds, and no rubbish or debris that would constitute a fire or health hazard shall be permitted under or near the sign. (C) All signs shall be constructed in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code and the National Electrical Code. The maximum brightness shall not exceed one hundred (100) foot-lamperts'. (D) No sign shall be erected, placed or maintained on, fences, trees, power and light poles or the supports thereof, except as allowed as special events. Signs on rocks shall be allowed if they use metal letters and numbers or the commercial message is etched into the surface of the rock. (E) All signs utilizing electricity shall be subject to the State's electrical code and electrical service wiring shall be buried or concealed. (F) No signs other than governmental signs shall be erected or temporarily placed within any street rights of way or upon any public lands or easements or rights of way, except by conditional use pe rm it. 1. A unit of brightness equal to 1/� candle per square cen4imeter. 299 City of Burnsville . _ ,: , _ _.. � ---- ; . . - =_- -- — .�=.v: � -� --- - -�--__ _ - : _ __,� .-. � w� 10-30-3 10-30-3 (G) No sign or sign structure shall be erected or maintained if it prevents free ingress or egress from any door, window or fire escape. No sign or sign structure shall be attached to a standpipe or fire escape. (H) Window signs shall not cover more than twenty five percent (25%) of the window area on each elevation of a building. All window signs shall be placed on the inside surface of the glass, except for temporary painting applied directly to the glass surface. (I) A minimum of one address sign identifying the correct property number as assigned by the City shall be required on each principal building in all districts. Such sign shall be of sufficient size to be legible from the nearest street yet shall not exceed nine (9) square feet in area. The numbers shall be metal, glass, plastic or durable material and the numbers shall not be less than three and one-half inches (3'/2") in height, in a contrasting color to the base or made of some reflective material and so placed to be easily seen from the street. (J) (K) (L) No seasonal/holiday decoration shall be allowed on or within the right of way. Commercial message of the sign shall be neat and orderly and not obscene. The signs shall be professionally prepared. Signs in all B-1 and B-2 Districts may only be illuminated during business hours, or until eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M., whichever is later. (M) Signs with external lighting shall have no exposed light sources or fixtures unless decorative fixtures are utilized and the light source is fully concealed and diffused. If a wall sign is mounted above the first floor of a building, the illumination, if any, shall be internal. (N) No more than three (3) flags may be displayed outside of a building. This number may, however, be increased to a total of six (6) flags provided a permit is issued and the following standards are met: 1. No two (2) pairs of flags may be the same. 2. Where multiple flagpoles are used, there shall be a maximum spacing of twenty feet (20') allowed between the poles. 2ss City of Burnsuille - --- -- - '". . 4a - � --a�-� ��. 1.� � _�_.._�r �. _._._i; � ._. . _ --'-- -- -- �'� j -- "`� ---= - ��-'_� , s� zs: 10-30-3 (0) The maximum angle permitted between faces freestanding sign is sixty degrees (60°), anything anything more is two (2) signs. 10-30-4 of a double face less is one sign, (P) Illuminated architectural features or portions thereof, not defined as signage or a canopy sign, shall be applied at the rate of one-third ('/3) the architectural feature area toward the maximum allowable sign area permitted under Table A in subsection 10-30-15(A) of this Chapter. Illuminated architectural features shall include, but not be limited to, wall-, roof- and window-mounted neon, the wall surface between multiple rows of neon, illuminated sign bands, backlit canopies, awnings or wall banding features, etc. (Ord. 704, 2-2-1998) • 10-30-4: ALLOWABLE AND PROHIBITED SIGNS IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT: (A) Allowable Signs: The following signs are allowed without a permit unless otherwise specified. These signs, if placed in accordance with the following standards, will not apply toward the maximum allowable sign area, but shall comply with all other applicable provisions of this Title: 1. Governmental Signs: Signs of a public, noncommercial nature including safety signs, danger signs, trespassing signs, traffic signs, signs indicating scenic or historical points of interest, memorial plaques and the like, when these signs are erected by or on order of a public officer or employee in the performance of official duty. 2. On-Premises Directional Signs: Shall not exceed four (4) square feet in area. 3. Integral Signs: Shall not exceed nine (9) square feet in area. 4. Campaign Signs: Shall not be placed upon public right of way or property, except for parks and other public areas approved by the City Council. Campaign signs erected on private property should be erected with permission of the property owner or lessee. Those installing campaign signs shall comply with the Fair Campaign Practices Act contained in State of Minnesota Statutes chapter 211 B. 5. Holiday Signs: Shall not be displayed for over sixty (60) days. 299 City of Burnsuille � � � � �_- �-�:-- 10-30-4 � �:> s= _ = �� - 10-30-4 6. Security Signs: Shall not exceed one square foot with one sign per driveway connection to a public right of way. 7. Real Estate Signs: a. Property for sale signs shall be wall or freestanding signs and shall be removed within ten (10) days after the closing on a property. (1) Such signs shall be professionally designed and painted on all sides, including support posts. Freestanding signs shall be properly anchored into the ground using posts with minimum dimensions of four inches (4") square or three inches (3") in diameter. (2) Such signs shall be limited to one per street frontage of the property. (3) The content of the commercial message on these signs shall include an offer of the property for sale, the realty company name, the phone number, and other information related to the sale. (4) Such signs shall nat measure more than twelve (12) square feet in R-1, R-1 A, R-2, and R-3D Districts, and shall not measure more than forty (40) square feet in all other districts. The forty (40) square foot limitation may be increased to sixty four (64) square feet, provided a permit is issued and the following standards are met: (a) The sign shall be a maximum height of twelve feet �12'). (b) The sign shall be set back from the front property line no less than one foot (1') per one foot (1') of sign height. (c) The sign shall be nonilluminated. b. Temporary property for lease signs shall be wall or freestanding signs. (1) The gross area and total height of a temporary property for lease sign shall be limited to the maximums prescribed in Table C of subsection 10-30-15(C) of this Chapter, except that the real estate sign area for a building that contains a 2ss City of Burnsville ,-� �� _ _ - _ �. s vv � - � � -- � � ` ' —�-�----- - --_-'- --='��: k - _��:. ;_ � .-.:_„ rV= . 1,.,,' �-.�-�—�'--�a��1 . —�t,._�i`_— '--- _--- — �'— Y'-- �' =-- "'� — - .: _ _ � ..� _�_.. � �A. 10-30-4 299 10-30-4 minimum of fifty thousand (50,000) square feet of aboveground leasable area may be increased to thirty two (32) square feet regardless of the adjoining street classification and speed limit, provided that the building is located in a B or I District. (2) Temporary property for lease signs shall be set back from the front property line no less than one foot (1') per one foot (1') of sign height, except that if the sign cannot be located to comply with the minimum setback requirement from the front property line without locating the sign in a parking lot or other paved surface, the sign may be located up to the front property line provided that the sign does not exceed sixteen (16) square feet in area and four feet (4') in width, and further provided that the sign will not disrupt any public utility service and interfere with the sight line visibility of motorists on the adjoining roadway. (3) The content of the commercial message on such signs shall include an offer of the property for lease, the management company or owner's name, the phone number, and other information related to the lease. (4) Such signs shall be limited to one per street frontage of the property, and if ground mounted, shall at a minimum meet the following requirements: (a) Signs shall be constructed of painted, smooth-finish plywood, and if ground mounted, shall have either flush or side mounted, four inch by four inch (4" x 4"), painted wood posts. (b) Sign faces up to thirty two (32) square feet in area shall be constructed of one sheet of material, and larger sign faces shall not be constructed of more than two (2) sheets. (c) Flush-mounted signs shall include a four inch (4") wide painted border on the sign faces in a color to match the signposts and contrast with the background of the sign face. The sign face area shall include the border. (d) Side-mounted signs shall include decorative post tops and four inch (4") wide painted top and bottom supports in a color to match the signposts and contrast with the City of Burnsuille � c � �� _: � , -� �= � : _ - � ir,- � . _ � . _ . ,� � _� .�_ , _ _ :, ` � --- ° - - - ---- --:. I�_�xl __�_.� _ ' �-_ ___'____ _ " __ _ "' � � 10-30-4 10-30-4 background of the sign faces. The sign face area shall not include the posts and supports. (e) Skirting and landscaping in addition to sad shall be optional for ground-mounted signs, and all such landscaping shall be maintained to the standard prescribed in subsection 10-30-3(B) of this Chapter. c. For new buildings in B and I Zoning Districts on Interstate 35 West and East, Highway 13, Cliff Road, and County Road 42, a wall- mounted leasing banner may be installed during construction and the first six (6) months following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The banner may be displayed up to an additional six (6) months if the building is less than fifty percent (50%) occupied at six (6) months past the date of occupancy for a maximum of one year, including any time the banner is displayed during construction. Such banners shall be constructed with top and bottom ropes seamed into the banner and securely attached to the building, and shall comply with the following requirements: (1) Minimum twelve (12) ounce weight vinyl material. (2) Minimum two hundred forty (240) pounds per square yard of tensile strength. (3) Minimum one hundred ten (110) pounds per square yard of tear strength. Such banners may be illuminated. The maximum size of such banners shall not exceed two (2) times the area limits of Table C. d. All nonconforming real estate signs shall be brought into conformance with these requirements by July 1, 1999. 8. Construction Signs: Shall be confined to the site of the construction, alteration or repair, and single-tenant building signs shall be removed within thirty (30) days, and multi-tenant buildings shall be removed within sixty (60) days after the particular project or building under continuous construction is issued the first certificate of occupancy. Signs shall be allowed on each major street frontage the project abuts. Signs shatl be professionally designed and painted on all sides, including support posts. No sign may exceed forty eight (48) square feet. 299 Caty of Burnsuille - ., . - �: _ _ . � _ _ - -r - - -:. s� � ._� —..� - �i , . y..--�-- -------- --- E - -= � r:�:: _ __ - � __-� . . - ------_--- --- - _ -�--�--`- _ �4 � 10-30-4 10-30-4 9. Development Project Signs: Shall be allowed in all zoning districts by permit. For the purpose of selling or promoting a development project of three (3) to twenty five (25) acres, one sign not to exceed one hundred (100) square feet of advertising surface may be erected on the project site. For projects of twenty six (26) through fifty (50) acres, one or two (2) signs not to exceed two hundred (200) aggregate square feet of advertising surface may be erected. For projects over fifty one (51) acres, one, two (2) or three (3) signs not to exceed three hundred (300) aggregate square feet of advertising surface may be erected. No dimension shall exceed twenty five feet (25') exclusive of supporting structures. Such sign shall not remain after ninety five percent (95%) of the project is developed. If such signs are lighted, they shall be illuminated only during those hours when business is in operation or when the model homes or other development are open for conducting business. The sign shall be set back from all property lines no less than one foot (1') per one foot (1') of sign height. Signs shall be professionally designed and painted on all sides, including support posts. 10. Rummage Sale Signs: On-site and off-premises signs shall not exceed four (4) square feet and shall be removed at the terminatian of the sale. 11. Integral Signs: Shall not exceed six (6) square feet. 12. Vehicle Sales Signs: Shall be limited to vehicles on display in approved open sales lots. The letter height shall not exceed twelve inches (12"). 13. Barber pole signs. �4. Time and temperature signs. 15. Signage on bus benches, as regulated in Section 10-7-42 of this Title. For the purposes of this Chapter, such signage shall not be considered to be aff-premises advertising signage. (B) Prohibited Signs: The following signs are prohibited in all zoning districts: 1. Any sign which obstructs or impairs the vision of drivers or pedestrians or detracts from the visibility of any official traffic-control device. 299 City of Burnsuille �_ ; . _ �� : - ;: ._��. - - __ ---- � - - - -- --- - " . t_.. - _'_ ___" "_ " " �' _'_ "— _.�_ " ._.__�. �- �_._ .. -., �-.-.� . . -_.• _ __,�� 's� . : . . . ' '�' � 10-30-4 10-30-5 2. Any sign which contains or imitates an official traffic sign or signal, except for private, on-premises directional signs. 3. Off-premises advertising and directional signs except as permitted in Sections 10-30-9 and 10-30-10 of this Chapter. 4. Business signs on or attached to equipment, such as semi-truck trailers, being used in such a manner that advertising is a principal use of the equipment. 5. Animated signs. 6. Projecting signs. 7. Roof signs. 8. Any sign which contains or consists of banners, bannerettes, pennants, ribbons, streamers, strings of light bulbs, balloons and hot or cold air inflatable devices, spinners or similar outdoor advertising devices, except as may be approved by a special event permit in accordance with the provisions as set forth in Section 10-30-5 and subsection 10-30-7(H) of this Chapter. 9. Portable signs. 10. Wall graphics. 11. Beacons. 12. Multi-faced signs. 13. Signs supported by guy wires. 14. Cabinet signs on buildings, except for logo signs. (Ord. 704, 2-2-1998) 10-30-5: SPECIAL EVENTS: Special events allowed by permit: (A) Special Events: The businesses in all business and industrial zoning districts as well as each public and institutional conditional use in residential districts shall be allowed six (6) special events per calendar year. Each special event shall not exceed ten (10) days and shall not be extended for more than three (3) consecutive time periods for each business. Once the time period has expired for the 299 City of Burnsuille : . . . . . _ . �,�._�:. , _ : .. I�,. �na. '- . . ; � _. `. . _ . � .. � .. . ,, - _ . . . . � . _.. . - ,- »�. . . . ,�- �. , a.-.so_-<_?-_.�.: i= u._:_..�.�. ''�� --== .�_>--' - . �': "-"-'_:c. _,...._...�� _.__ c� _._-_ - - -- 10-30-5 10-30-5 speciai event the business shall wait the same number of days that the permit was issued for to start a new special event. (B) Permitted Advertising Devices: The advertising devices described below are permitted for special events in addition to the maximum allowable sign area, provided they are professionally done and the following standards are met and complied with: 1. Small Balloons: a. The size of small balloons or a group of connected balloons shall not exceed two feet (2') as the largest dimension, except that balloon arches not exceeding eight feet (8') in height shall be allowed. b. Small balloons may be multi-colored and incorporate logos and messages. c. Helium balloons shall be refilled daily. 2. Tents: a. Tents, including all ties, ropes, stakes, etc., shall be located entirely upon the permittee's property and shall comply with the City's setback requirements for accessory buildings. 3. Bannerettes: a. Bannerettes may be used on light standards or flagpoles. b. No more than one bannerette shall be allowed per standard or pole. c. Bannerettes shall be smaller than any U.S. flag on the property, and shall not be flown at a height greater than any U.S. flag allowed on the property. 4. Banners: a. Banners may be attached to poles, tents, and buildings, provided they are well secured and are prevented. from being blown around uncontrollably by the wind. b. No more than two (2) banners shall be allowed. 299 City af Burnsualle i - �. �� .. _.___.: __._ ._ _. ,.� �_.. - • - _ ______ r -' _ -- °� - - _ �-- ------ -- _ - � , � 10-30-5 10-30-5 c. Banners shall not be larger than one hundred (100) square feet nor higher than the wall of the principal building on the lot. (C) Prohibited Advertising Devices For Special Events: The advertising devices or activities described below are prohibited for special events: 1. Animated signs, beacons, light bulb strings, pennants, portable signs, ribbons, and streamers. 2. Displays or special features on any landscaped areas or on roofs. 3. Aerial rides. 4. Large balloons or collections of small balloons exceeding two feet (2') in diameter, except for balloon arches not exceeding eight feet (8') in height. 5. Additional lighting that does not meet this City Code. 6. Any advertising device in the public right of way. 7. Hot air inflatable devices. (D) Permit Requirements For Special Event Lot Decorations Are As Follows: Before any special event signs or decorations shall be permitted to be used for an event, the responsible lot owner or organization shall submit a completed application for a permit with the City. In addition to other requirements, the applicant shall show that when the event is held, adequate parking area will continue to exist, even though a portion of required parking spaces may be used to celebrate the event. Only after the �City �issues the permit, may a business display the special event signs and decorations. (E) Violations: 1. It is a violation for any person, company or organization to provide, erect or display any beacons, balloons or other advertising device which is not in conformity with the provisions of this Section. 2. Special event signs and decorations not removed by the last day of the special event. (Ord. 704, 2-2-1998) 299 Caty of Burnsuille � . ... .. . - : . . � �- ...�� r :_. r �_.�.. �r ;�1 ri �� j� " -----=-. � _ _ _ � �> 10-30-6 10-30-6 10-30-6: SIGNS ALLOWED BY PERMITe Signs will be allowed by permit in R-1, R-1 A, R-2, R-3A, R-3B, R-3C, R-3D Districts. (A) Nameplate Signs: Any nameplate signs over two (2) square feet shall be set back at least ten feet (10') from any property line. No sign shall exceed twelve (12) square feet in area or ten feet (10') in height above the average grade level. Signs may be illuminated, but such lighting shall be diffused or indirect and not illuminate beyond any lot line. (B) Ground Or Monument Signs: Ground or monument signs shall be allowed for the purpose of permanent identification of residential areas. Signs shall be set back a minimum of five feet (5') from all property lines. At each principal entrance to such an area, a maximum of two (2) signs, not to exceed twenty (20) square feet per sign (of actual sign area exclusive of walls or supports), shalt be allowed. Larger signs may be allowed as part of a planned unit development or conditional use permit. (C) Freestanding And Wall Signs: Freestanding and wall signs shall be allowed for conditional uses and subject to the following requirements: 1. The cumulative total wall sign area, when added to the gross sign area of all freestanding signs on the site, except for wall and freestanding signs that do not count toward the maximum allowable sign area pursuant to subsection 10-30-4(A) of this Chapter, shall not exceed the maximum allowable sign area set forth in Table A in subsection 10-30-15(A) of this Chapter. 2. The gross area and total height of a freestanding sign shall be limited by the formula and regulations set forth in Table B in subsection 10-30-15(B) of this Chapter. 3. Freestanding signs up to six feet (6') in height shall be located no closer than five feet (5') from a street right of way. 4. Freestanding signs over six feet (6') in height shall be located no closer than twenty feet (20') from the front street right of way. In the case of a corner lot, all sides fronting on a public right of way shall be deemed the front. 5. No part of a freestanding sign, except for an on-premises directional sign, shall be located closer than five feet (5') from any driveway or parking space. (Ord. 704, 2-2-1998) 299 City of Burnsville �: = 3�- _ . G... E �- =-_�_; I"�"" _ C ::s�- . �.�_ - '-__ , .. - " "�-_ - . . _ _ , r��.__ ��..�,._ � � � _ - . » � . _ . _ Y 10-30-7 10-30-7 10-30-7: WALL SIGNS ALLOWED BY PERMIT: Wall signs will be allowed by permit in B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, I-1, I-2, I-3 Districts. (A) The maximum number of wall signs on any principal building shall be two (2), and in all cases, each sign shall be placed on a separate building facade, with or without street frontage except as allowed in subsection (G) of this Section. (B) The maximum number of wall signs allowed may be increased over two (2) by conditional use permit for single occupancy buildings provided the following minimum standards are met: 1. There shall be no freestanding sign exceeding six feet (6') in height upon the lot. 2. The wall signs shall consist of individual letters. 3. The wall signs shall be identical in style, wording, color and size. (C) The cumulative total wall sign area, when added to gross sign area of all freestanding signs on the site, except for wall and freestanding signs that do not count toward the maximum allowable sign area pursuant to subsection 10-30-4(A) of this Chapter, shall not exceed the maximum allowable sign area under Table A in Section 10-30-15. of this Chapter. (D) Wall signs shall be constructed as individual mounted letter signs, and may be mounted on exposed raceways that are painted to match the sign band area. No cabinet signs are allowed except for logo signs, and except as a�chitecturally integrated into the building design and approved through a conditional use permit. (E) Wall signs shall be constructed with a maintenance free/permanent finish material. Wall signs shall not be painted. (F) When a building faces two (2) or more streets, calculation of the maximum allowable sign area shall be based upon the front building facade and the smallest building facade facing a street frontage. Signs may also be placed on the side of a building not facing a street. No building side may have signage in excess of the signage allowed for that side of the building based upon the maximum allowable sign area of that building facade. (G) For multiple-occupancy buildings, each occupant shall have no more than one business sign, except that the end tenants may have a 299 City•of Burnsvidde �:�--_:. ------ _--- � � � �. 1 �-3�-/ .I�'_ _ . . ......� _.�..e�.�_ ' _� . �a 1 �"__ . .._ _ �_. .:1� ., ti ., _._ T��_�__�a�.. 1�=�� 10-30-8 i maximum of two (2) signs each to be located on the front and side elevations of the tenant space. ihe building owner shall prescribe a comprehensive sign criteria distributing the proposed signs to the occupants. The comprehensive sign criteria shall be subject to review and approval by the City. (H) Temporary business signs made of cloth or cloth-like material are allowed as a wall sign in lieu of a permanent wall sign, which would otherwise be allowed for a building or tenant, subject to the following requirements: 1. Permits shall be limited in duration to no more than three (3) months. 2. Temporary wall signs shall be securely attached to the building in such a manner that no portion of the sign will be allowed to blow around freely in the wind. 3. Where a sign criteria has been prescribed for multiple-occupancy buildings, the temporary wall sign shall be sized to fit within the specified sign band area. 4. There shall be no additional sign lighting allowed in addition to that which has been approved for the building. (I) A sign that is above the highest roofline of a building but on a parapet wall that does not extend all the way around the building shall be architecturally integrated into the building design. This type of sign shall not be considered a roof sign. (Ord. 704, 2-2-1998) 10-30-8: FREESTANDING SIGNS ALLOWED BY PERMIT: Freestanding signs will be allowed by permit in B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, I-1, I-2, I-3 Districts. (A) Monument signs up to six feet (6') in height shall be located no closer than five feet (5') from a street right of way. (B) Freestanding signs over six feet (6') in height shall be located no closer than twenty feet (20') from the front street right of way; however, the freestanding sign front setback limitation of twenty feet (20') may be decreased where a corresponding decrease in the sign height occurs. The formula for determining the height and setback variation shall be established at or below a diagonal plane beginning at the point twenty feet (20') back from the front property line and 299 City of Burnsuille - _ � _ _-T__ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ -- - - - -�: �, - --�:_: > : - �. � --� s _ _ . __ 10-30-8 1 Q-30-8 rising to the corresponding height limitation set forth in Table B of subsection 10-30-15(B) of this Chapter. From that point, the plane descends to a second point five feet (5') back from the front property line at a height of six feet (6'). In the case of a corner lot, all sides fronting on a public right of way shall be deemed the front. (C) Freestanding signs except for an on-premises directional sign, shall be located no closer than five feet (5') from any driveway or parking space. (D) Pylon signs shall be located no closer than fifteen feet (15') to the front property line. (E) The minimum pylon sign height clearance to the bottom of the sign, including the cross-bracing, framing or sign enclosure shall be eight feet (8'). (F) A maximum of one freestanding sign is allowed upon any single lot. Additional freestanding signs may be allowed provided they are in compliance with the following standards: 1. The signs are constructed as a monument sign and shall not exceed a height of six feet (6'). 2. Decorative shrubbery and flowers must be incorporated as a part of the monument design and are maintained on a regular basis. 3. The signs, if illuminated, may be either internally or externally lighted in accordance with these regulations. 4. The gross area of the signs, when added together with all other freestanding and wall sign areas, does not exceed the maximum allowable sign area established for the lot. 5. Monument signs may incorporate additional berming on a slope of three to one (3:1) where the berming is incorporated into an overall landscaping design plan. Landscaping shall be provided on the slopes of the berm in an interesting and varied appearance. Where a planter box is incorporated, the landscaping shall occur in and around the planter with a similar attractive design. In both cases, the height of the sign, including the planter box shall not exceed six feet (6'). 6. Signs allowed pursuant to subsection 10-30-4(A) of this Chapter. 2ss City of Burnsville _ _-- — , _ - •-- �� _ . - ,- . - = --- ---=-- ' _ 10-30-8 10-30-8 (G) The gross area and total height ofi a freestanding sign shall bE limited to the maximums prescribed in Table B of subsection 10-30-15(B) of this Chapter. The maximum size and height of each sign shall be determined by the classification of the street towards which the sign is oriented, provided that the property on which the sign is to be located either fronts on the street or is part of a planned unit development that fronts on the street. (H) In the case of a multiple-occupancy building, which is a center for industrial, commercial or retail purposes on properties over ten (10) acres, a freestanding sign larger than that provided for in Table B in subsection 10-30-15(B) of this Chapter may be approved by conditional use permit. (I) For monument signs, the copy and graphic area shall not exceed the maximum square feet permitted under Table B in subsection 10-30-15(B) of this Chapter. (J) The cumulative gross sign area of all freestanding signs, except as provided for in Section 10-30-4 of this Chapter, when added to the total wall sign area, shall not exceed the maximum allowable sign area under Table A in subsection 10-30-15(A) of this Chapter. (K) In all B Districts and approved retail businesses in I Districts, changeable copy signs may be permitted. Changeable copy sign approvals will be granted only upon the elimination of all existing illegal temporary signage. The.following criteria will be applied when reviewing changeable copy sign applications: 1. The signs shall be attached to the pylon sign beneath the business name or incorporated into an alternative freestanding sign proposal. The design of the sign shall complement other existing signage on the site. 2. The background color shall complement other existing signage on the site. 3. The size of the sign shall not exceed twenty five percent (25%) of the gross sign area when added to an existing pylon sign. This percentage limitation does not apply to totally new signage. 4. The gross area of a freestanding sign under Table B in subsection 10-30-15(B) of this Chapter and the maximum aflowable sign areas specified in columns a and c under Table A in subsection 299 City of Burnsualle , � : _ � _ , , _� , . � _ � , �: - � �- �- - -•-- _.. _ . - : _ - : .�: - r- �� .� 10-30-8 10-30-9 10-30-15(A) of this Chapter may be increased by twenty four (24) square feet to accommodate a changeable copy sign. 5. The lower portion of the changeable copy sign shall meet the eight foot (8') minimum height clearance requirement. If the bottom of a changeable copy sign is proposed at a height below eight feet (8'), the message board shall be enclosed with a vandal-proof encasement and shall be designed as a ground sign. 6. Changeable copy signs shall not be allowed as a wall sign, except as may be approved by a conditional use permit. (L) Where there is a grade difference of more than four feet (4') between the proposed location of a freestanding sign and the higher grade of the street frontage towards which the sign is oriented, the sign height base elevation may be established at the center line of the street, provided that the property on which the sign is to be located either fronts on the street or is part of a planned unit development that fronts on the street. (Ord. 704, 2-2-1998) 10-30-9: BILLBOARDS: (A) Billboards are permitted only in I-1 and I-2 Districts and only where the adjacent streets are intermediate arterial or interstate freeway roadways, as shown in the Burnsville Comprehensive Plan. (B) A conditional use permit shall be required for approval of a billboard pursuant to Section 10-5-5 of this Title. (C) Upon obtaining a conditional use permit for a billboard, the company ar person obtaining the permit shall file with the City a performance bond in the minimum amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) or a letter of credit or cash bond in like amount to guarantee compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. The ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) shall cover one through five (5) signs. (D) The maximum sign size shall be seven hundred fifty (750) square feet. Billboards may incorporate cutouts protruding beyond the framed perimeter of the sign face providing the total sign area not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) square feet. (E) The maximum sign height to the uppermost portion shall be forty five feet (45'). The building setback limitation for the zoning district in �ss City of Burnsuille _ . - _ _ _ '�� +�...:... -•___�.__—__� � L_S__�_i.��a�-::: .._.:� -_a._l��_�-s. ' y� -� -.. —. �..- - ....___�_ �__�_ �.a�.--Y�..� ..�� _ C_ �_.__ .� �� t>�Y. . .—sc�us��.�' _'_ `L.=... 10-30-9 10-30-9 which the sign is located shall apply to principal structure setbacks for billboards. (F) The minimum radius distance between billboards shall be two thousand feet (2,000'). (G) No billboard shall be constructed within two thousand feet (2,000') of the City's corporate limits. (H) No billboard shall be constructed within one hundred fifty feet (150') of the point of tangency of the entrance or exit ramp on any intermediate arterial or interstate freeway or within one hundred fifty feet (150') of the intersection of the nearest right-of-way lines of any other class of street. The point of tangency shall be measured from the point where the off ramp meets the adjacent traffic lane. No billboard shall be constructed between ramps of an interchange. (I) Billboards shall be a single support, metal structure free of any supports or guy wires. The metal shall be either painted or treated in such a manner as to prevent deterioration. (J) Billboards shall have a maximum of two (2) faces. (K) All electrical wiring shall be underground and concealed. (L) The lot on which a billboard is located shall be improved by landscaping and must be maintained in an acceptable manner. (M) Billboards are a principal use of property. Notwithstanding subsection 10-7-3(B) of this Title, a billboard shall not be erected on the same lot with a building, and billboards shall be removed from a lot before any other building or structure is erected on the lot. (N) In B-3 Districts, a billboard or off-premises advertising sign may be proposed as a second principal use of a lot only pursuant to a planned unit development plan which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, meets the �equirements of this Title, and is approved by the City Council in compliance with the following additional standards: 1. The billboard or sign must be a preexisting, nonconforming use. 2. The owner of the billboard or sign must hold an ownership interest or easement in the underlying real estate where the billboard or sign is located. 2ss City of Burnsuille =--Q- �. _ _ : . :. .�_ _ �._. _ _ �. ____ .._ __ � 10-30-9 10-30-10 3. The billboard or sign must be located adjacent to a minor arterial or principal arterial roadway. 4. The Council must approve an amortization schedule and removal plan limiting the duration of the billboard or sign use and incorporate that amortization schedule and removal plan into the findings, decision and agreement for the planned unit development. (Ord. 704, 2-2-1998) 10-30-10: OFF-PREMISES DIRECTIONAL SIGNS: No person shall install or cause to be installed an off-premises directional sign, except as follows: (A) The Development Review Committee, as defined under Section 10-5-2 of this Title, may authorize the City to install off-premises directional signs in the public right of way, provided such signs comply with the following standards: 1. The sign shall be installed solely for the purpose of traffic direction and control, and not as an advertising medium. 2. The sign may include a street name and a street classification, such as a frontage road designation, but shall not incfude the name, logo, or trademark of a business, development, or institution. 3. The sign shall direct traffic to a particular street or to the collective businesses on said street when access to the businesses is unreasonably indirect or circuitous. 4. The sign shall be green with white lettering in a size approved by the Development Review Committee. Factors to be considered by the Committee when determining the appropriate sign size shall include the sign's location, purpose, amount of lettering, and proximity to other existing signs, and the posted speed limit of the street along which the sign is to be installed. 5. The Development Review Committee may authorize temporary directional signs for any business areas that have access to any public street that is under construction or reconstruction, or is being repaired. The signs shall redirect traffic to alternate access streets, shall comply with the provisions of this Section except that the signs shall be orange with black lettering and may include the names of affected businesses, and shall be removed upon completion of the street construction, reconstruction, or repairs. 299 Caty of Burnsuille ... - - _� ; �:� �_ .__ .��. _ . �.� . . � . . � 10-30-10 10-30-10 6. In order to direct tourism traffic to Burnsville hotels and motels, the Development Review Committee may authorize the City to install off-premises directional lodging signs in the public right of way'. The signs shall be blue with white lettering, shall include only the word "Lodging" and a directional arrow, and shall be placed to direct traffic from a principal arterial level street to a hotel or motel. Wherever practicable, such signs shall be located on existing sign poles. (B) The Development Review Committee may authorize the installation of off-premises directional signs, either in the public right of way or on public property, for government buildings, public parks, hospitals, and emergency care facilities. Such signs shall not exceed ten (10) square feet in area and, if located on public property, shall comply with the setback requirements of Section 10-30-8 of this Chapter. Such signs may include only the name, logo, and address of the building, park, hospital, or facility and other directional information necessary to direct traffic to the buifding, park, hospital, or facility. (C) The Development Review Committee may authorize the installation of off-premises directional signs on private property for religious facilities located on streets that are not classified in the Comprehensive Plan as collectors, thoroughfares, or arterials. Such signs shall not exceed ten (10) square feet in area and shall comply with the setback requirements of Section 10-30-8 of this Chapter. Such signs may include only the name, logo, and address of the facility and other directional information necessary to direct traffic to the facility. (D) In a multiple lot planned unit development (PUD) that includes shared driveways and parking areas among the lots, a sign directing traffic from one lot of the PUD to a business on another lot in the same PUD shall not be considered to be an off-premises directional sign. Each such sign shall not exceed ten (10) square feet in area, shall be included in the total allowable sign area for the building to which the traffic is being directed, and shall be compatible with the other signs in the PUD. (E) For the purpose of providing off-premises direction to a new residential development, the developer may abtain sign permits to erect nonilluminated off-premises directional signs as follows: 1. No o4her tourism-related directional signs are allowed because printed directional information on area retail, restaurant, and service establishments is readily available at ho4els and motels. 299 Caty of Burnsuille " ". . . . i . . ._ _' ___ - ._:t. � ..�_ .� _. '_."" _ � . � .___ �'s_�s. ' � _� . ��_s. ... . e� ..J_' _ . ..>_ . : __ . . . __ " . � __' ..e_ - __—______` � _ ' . _ '_`.nS�_ __JI �..-u . ��:�sdTc.+.�'_'_.. '_�.�� ---..--: _. .... .: ... _ . . . 10-30-10 10-30-10 1. Each development shall be allowed two (2) such signs per entrance to the development up to a maximum of four (4) such signs. 2. Each sign shall not exceed thirty two (32) square feet in area and six feet (6') in height. 3. Each sign shall be erected on private property and shall be set back at least five feet (5') from all lot lines. 4. Signs shall be professionally designed and painted on all sides, including support posts. The signs shall be uniform in design and size. - 5. Such signs may remain in place until occupancy permits have been issued by the City for ninety percent (90%) of the lots in single- family subdivisions and eighty percent (80%) of the units in all other residential developments, at which time the signs shall be removed. The City shall issue no additional building permits for new construction within the development until all off-premises signs have been removed. (F) Temporary off-premises directional signs for residential open house events, including model homes and rental units, may be installed by any person as follows: 1. Sign Size: Each sign shall not exceed twenty eight inches by twenty eight inches (28" x 28") in size. 2. Sign Content: Each sign shall include either the words "open house", "rental unit available", or "model home", and the name and telephone number of the person responsible for the sign. 3. Sign Placement: The signs shall be directional in nature and shall be placed solely to facilitate the direction of traffic to open house events. Placement of the signs shall be as follows: a. The signs shall not be located more than one mile from the site of the open house event. b. The signs shall not be placed closer than five feet (5') to any curb. c. The signs shall not be placed on a sidewalk. d. The signs shall not interfere with traffic visibility. 299 City of Burnsuille _: -. -- : - - . --_;:� y�___.. -_� � M .:1 . �%-- ------_�,�`w .�. _ � . . � _�_�._. ___.. ._J ' --- '-� 10-30-10 10-30-12 e. The signs shall not be placed on private property without the written consent of the property owner. 4. Sign Quantity: To maintain the directional nature of the signs, they shall be limited to a maximum of twelve (12) signs per open house siie, with a maximum of two (2) signs per intersection. 5. Sign Duration: a. The signs may be in place from one hour before to one hour after a weekday open house event. b. The signs may be in place from ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. on Fridays through six o'clock (6:00) A.M. on Mondays for a weekend open house event. c. Signs for annual, metro-area, special real estate events, such as the Parade of Homes, may be in place for the duration of the event. (G) Rummage sale signs allowed under subsection 10-30-4(A)10 of this Chapter shall be exempt from this Section. (H) All decisions of the Development Review Committee pursuant to this Section shall be consistent with the provisions of Section 9-1-8 of this Code, and shall be subject to review by the City Engineer. An appeal of the City Engineer's review shall be made in writing to the City Manager, or his o� her designee, within ten (10) days of the City Engineer's decision. (Ord. 704, 2-2-1998) 10-30-11: PERMIT AND FEE REQUIRED: Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, no sign or structure shall be erected, constructed, altered, rebuilt or relocated until the required fee as determined by City policy has been paid and a permit has been issued by the City. (Ord. 704, 2-2-1998) 10-30-12: REMOVAL OF UNSAFE AND ILLEGAL SIGNS: If the City finds that any sign or sign structure is unsafe or in violation of the provisions of this Chapter, the Chief Buifding Official, or his/her designee, shall give written notice to the owner and/or party responsible for the sign to comply with the standards required by this Chapter in a prescribed time frame and manner. The removal of the signs shall be done in the following manner: 299 City of Burnsville _. A _ _ _ _ _ -:�.:.� : : :��3 1��_�� .:: �__.�_ �__.a'� �.�� -- - - - - wys .. - >.. . __�__ --- - - -- _ -__ _ -- _ _ '� . � 10-30-12 10-30� 13 (A) Permanent Illegal Signs: The Chief Building Official, or his/her designee, shall order the removal of any permanent sign erected or maintained in violation of this Title. Thirty (30) days' notice in writing shall be given to the owner of such sign, or of the building, structure or premises on which such sign is located, to either comply with this Title or remove the sign. The owner of the sign, building, structure, or premises shall also, upon removal of any sign, be fully responsible for repairing, replacing and returning the ground, building wall or other mounting surface to its original condition or to a proper condition consistent with the present appearance of the area, building wall or surface. (B) Temporary Or Illegal Signs: The City may impound signs which have been illegally installed upon public property or within public right of way or easement. The sign owner may retrieve the signs according to the following: 1. Fee Payment: For impounded signs there shall be an impoundment and storage fee as may be approved from time to time by Council resolution. 2. Retrieval Of Sign: The sign shall be retrieved from a designated impound area during routine business hours and within fifteen (15) days from the date of impounding. After fifteen (15) days, the City will dispose of the sign. , 3. Liability: The City shall not be held liable for any damage to impounded signs. (C) Closed Business Signs: Signs not used for signing when a business closes or leaves the tenant space for twelve (12) consecutive months shall be addressed in the following manner: 1. Wall signs (individual letters) - shall be removed. 2. Wall signs (cabinet) - a blank face shall be inserted in the cabinet. 3. Freestanding signs - the sign area shall be totally covered. (Ord. 704, 2-2-1998) 10-30-13: NONCONFORMING SIGNS; Any sign legally existing on the effective date of this Chapter which does not conform to the requirements set forth in this Chapter shall become a legal nonconforming use. Except as specified elsewhere, legal nonconforming on-premises signs 299 City of Burnsvidle ry �; _,.:L k .-� . -- ---- -- � ` — -- - - _� F` -- __ I�.:. - '"``� -_� _ �-�-'_-____.�.�.�� i = - - - _� 10-30-13 10-30-14 shall be allowed to be maintained, repaired and refaced, but shall not be rebuilt, relocated, replaced or altered without being brought into compliance with all the requirements of this Chapter. (Ord. 704, 2-2-y 998) 10-30-14: BANNERS ON LIGHT POLES: (A) In order to provide unity and identity for multiple building planned unit developments, decorative banners may be installed for year- round or seasonal display on privately owned light poles in any zoning district by conditional use permit, provided that the banners comply with the following standards and requirements: 1. Banners may be approved only for developments with multiple principal buildings and multiple businesses, such as a multi-building retail or service center, a mixed-use campus, or an office/industrial park. In no case shall banners be approved for a single principal building development, a single business development, or a residential development that is not part of a mixed-use commercial development. 2. All banners shall be constructed of high-quality, durable, fade- resistant cloth. 3. The banners may be of various colors and designs, provided that the banners are consistent with an approved comprehensive design plan. The banners may contain the name and logo of the development and seasonal or special event greetings. In no case shall a banner advertise a business name, a product name, or a service. 4. The top and bottom of each banner shall be mounted to the light pole by appropriate brackets. Banners may be mounted only on light poles owned by the applicant, and shall be mounted to provide a minimum of fifteen feet (15') of clearance between the bottom of the banner and the ground adjacent to the light pole. No more than one banner may be mounted to each light pole, and banners shall not be attached to more than fifty percent (50%) of the light poles on the site. 5. Each banner shall not exceed a maximum size of two and one- half feet (2'/2') in width and five feet (5') in length. 299 City of Burnsaille , _; x , ; _ ,� :. , t . . ..�.. : � , = --- --_---_ . ,.�� .r.. _ _ _ _ __. _ _ —=-- --- `-- - - --�-- - = -----•-• - - ---� �� - -�- -=-- �_, � 10-30-14 10-30-15 6. The banners shall be included in the total allowable sign area for the buildings in the development, consistent with Table A, subsection 10-30-15(A) of this Chapter. (B) The applicant for a conditional use permit shall provide to the City a color drawing of the proposed banner design or designs, fabric samples, a site plan showing all light poles and noting the proposed banner locations, and mounting details. (C) A banner that has become torn, faded, loose, or otherwise in disrepair shall be promptly replaced or removed. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the revocation of the conditional use permit, pursuant to subsection 10-5-5(H) of this Title. (Ord. 704, 2-2-1998) 10-30-15: SIGN TABLES: (A) TABLE A: MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA a b c B-1 District 50 sq. ft. ar 10% up to 250 sq. ft. CUPs in R Districts 50 sq. ft. or 12% up to 250 sq. ft. B-2 and I-3 Districts 50 sq. ft. or 14% up to 250 sq. ft. B-3 District 100 sq. ft. or 16% up to 300 sq. ft. B-4, I-1 and I-2 Districts 125 sq. ft. or 18% up to 400 sq. ft. a. Allowable sign area regardless of building facade. b. Maximum allowable sign area based on percentage area of building facade. c. Maximum allowable sign area per lot. Sign areas exceeding maximum shown in column c, but less than area allowed in column b hereof, may be allowed by conditional use permit or as part of an approved planned unit development. (B) TABLE B: FREESTANDING SIGN STANDARDS EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED Street Classification' Local Collector Speed Area Height MPH (Square Feet) Feet 30 20 6 SO 25 16 35 50 20 40 100 24 299 City of Burnsuille �� F � �_'_ _,_ .' � . _ __ _ - v _ ._ _ �. �. __ _ _ " . I- ._ � F s �...r b%.�__ .�.. _. . C_ . _ __ � _ , � : ' ,-- . � --- - — — — -- , _ _. . �_ � i 10-30-15 Table B (cont.) Street Classification' Thoroughfare, minor and intermediate arterial Interstate freeway 10-30-15 Speed Area Height lMPH) (Square Feet) Fee4 30 35 40 45 50+ 65+ 50 100 125 150 175 200 18 22 24 26 28 32 (C) TABLE C: PROPERTY FOR LEASE SIGN SIZE LIMITS Speed Area2 Height Street Classification' �MPH) (Square Feet1 Feet Local 30 16 8 Collector 30 - 40 16 8 Thoroughfare 30 - 35 16 8 40 - 45 32 12 50+ 64 12 Minor and intermediate arterial 30 - 35 16 8 40 - 45 32 12 50+ 64 12 Interstate freeway 65+ 64 12 1. Street classifications are defined by the Official Comprehensive Plan as adopted and amended. Signs on directly adjoining frontage roads may use the standards for the adjoining street classification. 2. Signs limited to 12 square feet in R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. (Ord. 704, 2-2-1998) 2ss Caty of Burnsville ., . � ., _ . _ � , _ , - __ � �._. � _ :.1: . r� . � �. �. ��.�. ; = -----�- -- -� . . - � _ .� _____ i � 10-30-15 Table B (cont.) Street Classification' Thoroughfare, minor and intermediate arterial Interstate freeway 10-30-15 Speed Area Height MPH (Square Feet) Feet 30 35 40 45 50+ 65+ 50 100 125 150 175 200 18 22 24 26 28 32 (C) TABLE C: PROPERTY FOR LEASE SIGN SIZE LIMITS Speed Area2 Height Street Classification' (MPH,1 (Square Feet) Feet Local 30 16 8 Collector 30 - 40 16 8 Thoroughfare 30 - 35 16 8 40 - 45 32 12 50+ 64 y2 Minor and intermediate arterial 30 - 35 16 8 40 - 45 32 12 50+ 64 12 Interstate freeway 65+ 64 12 1. Street classifications are defined 6y the Official Comprehensive Plan as adopted and amended. Signs on directly adjoining frontage roads may use the standards for the adjoining street classification. 2. Signs limited to 12 square feet in R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. (Ord. 704, 2-2-1998) 2ss City of Burnsville ` � f! _ "' `_'.'._' � _ "__ _ Y µ.�.�z-_ _'�� n 1. � ._ . . .. .:: _ _ . R' �_.'`_'"'.�:..u.-.��_�__' '__' . =. �� .... " " " " _ " _-� ' __: .. __—. . . . r I' PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Call to Order f.�: 1Zegular Meetiug October 18, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds �iew, MN 55112 The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p.m., October 18, 2000. 2. Introduction of New Planning Commissioner, Travis Cern� Postponed to later in the meeting. � �J!r 3. Roll Call � � - � �. .t:;. Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Cerny (amived late), Hegland, Johnson, Miller, Thomas, and Stevenson. :�� Metnbers Excused: Commissioner Kaden. Also Present: Planner Jim Ericson and Community Development Director Joplce. Index to Minutes Planning Case No. PD00-002, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 638-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Mermaid Addition Preliminary Plat Applicant: Dan Hall Review First Draft of Ordinance 672, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Home Occupations Discuss Possible Changes to the City's Sign Code, Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code Staff Reports / Items of Information Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports Page � 4 7 8 9 . . _.. . . '.` - ;. � _ .._ f .. c _ . - . , � a t� _�W� �L!rJ �z�! �c�_ ' "—.�� " ' . I � 1� - _ - . . - _ . �-- -��_;:� r s�- . 4 _ . —_____ _—'_ __. "' __'__' ' " . - _. ' __ __ : _ __ _ . . -�.�--� � Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4. Citizen's Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda October 18, 2000 Page 2 There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. .,;;x:, Se Approval of Minutes _ � � r��. ' _ ` ' :� a ^ �? : `E� f�'�: J f A. September 6, 2000 ��' �� ,,� :��; B. September 13, 2000 �?'`� `"� "T- MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Berke. To approve the September 6, 2000 and the September 13, 2000 meeting minutes as presented. 6. Ayes — 7 Planning Case No. PD00-002 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Property Involved: 2200 Highway 10 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No of the Mermaid Addition Preliminary Plat Applicant: Dan Hall �'�'�.�'� '��#��y 638-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval Planner Ericson explained that, Dan Hall, the applicant, is requesting City approval of the preliminary plat for the Mermaid Addition, a major subdivision associated with the recently approved Mermaid PUD. The plat groups together those parcels being utilized for Mermaid expansion, which include the former Rent-All property, the Music Off 10 property, the south 361 feet of the Mounds View Business Parlc South plat as well as the existing Mermaid parcels. The total area involved in the plat is 9.36 acres. This plat combines all of the properties involved in the Mermaid PUD into one lot, Lot 1, Blocic l, MERMAID ADDITTON, and one outlot, Outlot A, MERMAID ADDITION. The outlot would serve as the access drive to the business park property to replace the existing access drive. While it is not anticipated that the business parlc would own the proposed outlot, it is expected that a permanent easement would be recorded in its favor. The plat dedicates additional right-of-way for County Road H south of the Rent All Parcel and south of the Music Off 10 parcel. The plat dedicates a ten-foot drainage and utility easement around the perimeter of the Mermaid property and also dedicates a 35-foot wide easement area for utilities along the southwestern shared property line between the Mermaid and business parlc property. Chapter 1204 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that all major subdivisions and plats pay a park dedication fee. For developments encompassing more than one acre of land, the fee amounts to ten percent of the associated land value. The assessed value for the Mermaid plat is $923,057. This amount is based on the marlcet value for assessed year 2000 for property taxes _. _ , _ _ _ � .j , Mounds View Planning Commission October 18, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 payable in 2001. Based on the assessed value of the property, the parlc dedication fee required is $92,306. Staff recommends approval of Resolution 638-00, a resolution recomnnending approval of the Mermaid Addition preliminary plat, subject to the following stipulations: The Preliminary plat shall be revised by indicating the current property owners and appropriate legal descriptions for the involved parties; The developer shall execute a sign easement document which dedicates to the City of Mounds View the forty-foot triangle at the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H as shown on the preliminary plat for a City gateway sign; and The developer shall subrnit the applicable parlc dedication fee of $92,306 prior to the City signing the final plat. Planner Ericson noted if Resolution 638-00 is approved by the Planning Commission it would then be presented to Council for approval. , �� ,:�, .. The applicant was not present. , Commissioner Stevenson inquired as to whether the applicant was aware a parlc dedication fee would be required. Planner Ericson indicated the applicant was xnade aware of the requirement for a parlc dedication fee earlier in the process and was quoted a somewhat lower figure. Planner Ericson indicated the applicant may request some consideration on the fee. Commissioner Miller inquired as to whether the original quote for the park dedication fee included the Perkins property. Planner Ericson indicated it did but said the original quote for the park dedication fee was based on 1999 values while the current figure is based on Year 2000 values. In addition, the original quote did not include the portion of the business parlc property that is included in the plat. Altogether, this amounted to a 12 percent increase. Commissioner Miller noted the reference to Highway 10 in the legal description was inconsistent. In some instances U.S. Highway 10 was used and in other instances Trunlc Highway No. 10 was used. Planner Ericson indicated this is the legal description as it stands and once the plat is approved aIl references to Highway 10 are eliminated and there is no longer a problem with consistency. Commissioner Thomas inquired as to the difference in the first quote for the parlc dedication fee and the present quote for the park dedication fee. Planner Ericson indicated the first quote for the park dedication fee was approximately $82,000. Chairperson Peterson inquired as to the logic behind the additional the right-of-way dedication. „ � , . , _ � __ fi----- -_ �_._ � _� .— . _ r _ _ �� ---� '=--- ° 1� - _. . ..— -- - . ::;.,s�� - �',_ - .... - G� Mounds View Planning Commission October 18, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 Planner Ericson indicated the City did not require that and said the Mermaid did that on their own. Community Development Director Joplce indicated it may have been a County requirement. Chairperson Peterson referred to the plat and noted there was a reference to Anolca County. He then inquired if that was an error. Planner Ericson indicated he was unsure and would check into it. :�`” MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To approve Resolution No. 638-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Mermaid Addition Preliminary Plat. Ayes — 7 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 7e Review First Draft of Ordinance 672, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Home Occupatro�ns, Planner Ericson explained Ordinance 672 was drafted in response to growing issues relating to businesses operated from within a home or garage, defined within City Code as a home occupation. Planner Ericson noted there are four proposed changes to the Ordinance at this point. Two of these changes are houselceeping issues and the other two relate to signage and expressly prohibiting automotive sales, service or repair as a home business. Commissioner Miller inquired as to whether the City needed to set a lirnit for motor vehicles allowed at the residence at a given time. Plaruaer Ericson indicated he felt it was appropriate for the City to limit the number of vehicles a business may have at the residence at any one time in order to prevent the business from causing a nuisance for the neighborhood. Commissioner Thomas inquired as to how the City would enforce a two car rule. �'lanner Ericson indicated the City has had two instances recently where home businesses were violating the two car rule and the City has been able to enforce the rule. Commissioner Thomas indicated she did not believe the City should be attempting to regulate the number of cars at a home business. Planner Ericson noted the ordinance is already in effect and limiting the number of cars is not a change---it is currently part of the Code. ra'r" ' ' ; . ' ' ,�L � 1 _- �-_ � � __' _ '��'. � . ' . . . ' • _ _' � _ _ ��" ..i. ' ' .-. ... ' ..,, . ... . r �-�°,.. . - ' ' _ .. , _' '_ .. .� __._�_., �..��•"c._. F'_�_�__ ,�- , _ _= __' " " '_'.�. ._. ""'"_' _ F... ..._.--_.... "-_" � -..__ ' .. . . _ .. ___ _ _ _. . __.. Mounds View Planning Commission October 18, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 Community Development Director Jopke indicated that the limit on the number of motor vehicles allowed serves to liinit home businesses to those types that do not have a high volume of vehicle traffic. Commissioner Hegland inquired as to whether this vehicle restriction applied only to businesses or if there was a provision within the Code for social gatherings as well. Planner Ericson indicated the City does not limit the number of vehicles a resident can have at a social gathering. Comnnissioner Hegland inquired as to whether this vehicle restriction would apply to someone who has frequent garage sales. Planner Ericson indicated it would, though he is noi aware of any situation where this has been a problem in the City. Commissioner Johnson noted there was an incident in the past where the City ended up videotaping a residence all day in or•der to show a violation of the vehicle limit. He indicated even with video evidence the case was thrown out of court. Planner Ericson indicated the courts are more aware of the need to regulate home businesses now than they have been in the past. He also noted there have been two cases in recent history where the City was able to enforce its Code. Commissioner Thomas asked for examples of the situations Planner Ericson referred to. Planner Ericson noted there was a landscaping business operating from home that was violating the vehicle restriction. He also noted there was a business repairing vehicles also in violation of the vehicle restriction. In both instances the City was able to enforce the vehicle restriction with the help of the courts. Commissioner Johnson indicated he would like to see a restriction for "on street" paxking but not for parking off street. Commissioner Thomas inquired as to if a Mary Kay demonstration would violate City Code. Planner Ericson said, technically it would, but indicated a infrequent group of cars at a residence, while being a technical violation of City Code, should not be a problem. Commissioner Thomas indicated she would like to eliminate the language restricting the number of motor vehicles allowed. Commissioner Berke indicated he was in favor of restricting the number of vehicles allowed because he did not feel the neighbors should have to put up with the nuisance created when someone runs a business from home and has a high volume of traffic. � , .. _ _ > w. �.� =.�t. � �. �—. K --- - " -:----�-��.�I � _ � _ L � �- ._-____ -A- - - ---- -- ---------- 'i Mounds View Planning Commission October 18, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 Commissioner Thomas indicated she would prefer to put some language in the Code only limiting the number of vehicles if there are a certain number of vehicles for more than two or three days in a row. Commissioner Berke indicated he would prefer to limit the number of vehicles not the number of days in a row. A consensus was reached that the Commission would lilce ta see the stipulation for "off street" parking removed from the Ordinance. Commissioner Hegland inquired if there was regulation for lighting the signs for home businesses. Planner Ericson indicated there was not, as property owners are allowed to use decorative lighting and to aim lights at the house or a sign. Commissioner Miller inquired as to what provisions would be made for existing signs. Planner Ericson indicated it would be dif�cult to determine vvhat signs were in place before the ordinance was changed. He also said Staff is familiar with the City and that most of the signs in the City would comply with the four square feet provision in the Ordinance. Commissioner Johnson inquired as to whether two-sided signs were in violation of the four square footage of sign requirement. Planner Ericson indicated two-sided signs were allowed under the Code. Planner Ericson asked the Commission if there should be allowances for signs if the sign would not be visible from the street if attached to the structure. Commissioner Thomas indicated she would lilce to malce a provision for signs not visible from the street. Commissioner Johnson indicated he too would lilce to make a provision for signs not visible from the street. Commissioner Hegland indicated he would be fine with a provision for signs not visible from the street provided the sign was far enough from the property line so as not to create a nuisance for the neighbors. Commissioner Johnson indicated he would prefer the signs be placed within five feet of the front property line. Commissioner Stevenson indicated he would prefer the signs be placed within five feet of the property line that abuts the street right-of-way. Thereby allowing people with road frontage on two sides of their property to choose where they wish to place the sign. -- __ ___ _, _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ____ !� ' --- �--------- ._-�--- " - ---�----- - --- . .. � . . _ _— k _.� • :. _ _v .. :� . , _ _ _ . �x _ �. 7 _ Mounds View Planning Commission October 18, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 A consensus was reached to allow signage within five feet of the property line that abuts a street right-of-way. Planner Ericson noted he would make the requested changes and bring the Ordinance bacic before the Planning Commission for further discussion. 2. Introduction of New Planning Commissioner, Travis Cerny (continaed) Planner Ericson introduced Travis Cerny to the Planning Comrnission. '"� :,. The Planning Commission welcomed Travis Cerny. 8. Discuss Possible Changes to the City's Sign Code, Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code Planner Ericson explained the City's Sign Code needs to be updated and clarified and said this agenda item is to begin discussions on proposed changes to the Code. Chairperson Peterson indicated there needs to be a stipulation concerning inflatable gorillas. Commissioner Miller indicated traveling signs and flashing signs need to be addressed. Commissioner Hegland inquired as to whether the Sign Code covered search lights. Planner Ericson indicated there is a provision in City Code for search lights but it is not addressed under the Sign Code. Planner Ericson indicated multiple family housing complex signage needs to be addressed. He said the City has some signs that really loolc nice and others that are possibly too large. Planner Ericson also indicated that according to the City Code, churches in the City are not allowed to have signs because of the zoning district they are in. In a related situation, there was a variance granted for the Kinder Care to allow for a sign. Because of the zoning district the Kinder Care is in they would not have been allowed to have a sign. Planner Ericson requested guidance from the Planning Commission as to how to proceed on the Sign Code. A consensus was reached by the Planning Commission to direct Staff to clean up the current Sign Code to malce it more readable by using tables to describe signage allowed by zoning district; to checic with other cities and provide examples of sign codes to compare with Mounds View's Sign Code; to check with a sign rental company to verify the standard size for temporary signs; ;� � � : , ----------- _ ��: _ - _._ . �.—�-�- - -- - ---� _ � �'=5 _' _ �.__.� � -3 ��.� �--_--- - --- Mounds View Planning Commission October 18, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 and to talce pictures of examples of good and bad signs within the City and outside the City to use as a comparison. 9. Staff Reports/Items of Discussion A. Previous Council Actions .�� '�� Community Development Director Joplce noted that the City Council approved the Development Stage Plan for the Mermaid PUD and the final plat for Walgreen's at the October 10, 2000, meeting. , . .,�� B. Items of Discussion Community Development Director Joplce noted there is a meeting of the Highway 10 Steering Committee scheduled for Thursday, October 19, 2000. Dan Soler from Ramsey County will be attending the meeting to update the Steering Committee on Ramsey County's plans for Highway 10. The work plan will be discussed which includes the developnient of a conceptual design for the city's plan for the roadway. There will be a breakfast meeting set up sometime in the near future with local businesses to discuss the future plans for the Highway 10 corridor. Community Development Director Joplce noted he had received an e-mail from the Metropolitan Council which indicated there should not be any opposition to Mounds View's Comprehensive Plan. The Plan should be approved as a Consent Agenda item at the Metropolitan Council's next meeting on November 1, 2000. Once the Plan is approved by the Metropolitan Council, a public hearing will be scheduled prior to the City adopting the Plan. Cominunity Development Director Joplce indicated his desire to bring before the Planning Commission the redevelopment of the area on Highway 10 between Silver Lake Road and Groveland Road in the near future to discuss the mixed use planned unit development and what role the City should take in facilitating unified development in the area. Community Development Director Jopke indicated the terms for Commissioners Hegland, Berlce and Peterson expire at the end of the year and asked the Commissioners to inforrn Staff as to whether or not they are interested in serving another term. 10. Chairperson and Plannfng Commission Reports There were no other reports of the Comrnission. 11. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:39 p.m. _ 1, . , , _ --- - --- - =-- --- --- - -• ._-- -- - - - -_ _. . . _ _ _ - -- - --- _ � Mounds View Planning Commission October 18, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 I:� II ' .'. :'� (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. aa,`�, , ,� �:ti... . ;F �. :. 1�t�:;.�� , , . , : . �.'', . _ � _ _ � . ��_. �----= _-- ---- _ _ -- - --- " .,s; _ .L _ , ___ _ _. :. __ .. �--•-- _ , __-_,.. � _ , __ . . _ °--- - — s---- - `- ° € � ' E MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION November 15, 2000 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: $EFORE SPEAHING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODNM, A1vD GIVE YOUR FULL NANI� AND ADDR�SS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Approve Planning Commission Minutes: a. October 18, 2000 5. Discuss Possible Changes to the City's Sign Code, Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code 6. Staf�Reports / Items of Information a. Previous Council Action b. Planning Commissioner's Journal 7. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) APPLICANTS: YOUR ATT�NDANCE AT TfIIS MEETING IS R�QUESTED. PLEASE NOTII� Y THE COMNIUNITY DEVELOPIVI�NT DEPARTMENT AT 763-717-4022 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATT�ND. AGENDA SESSION AGENDA t. Review the Minutes from the November 1, 2000, Planning Corrunission Meeting. E:�DATA\GROCJPS\COMDEV�PLANCOM1vnPCAGENDA�2000�Nov I5, 2000 PC Agenda.doc � ---- L:�.%_.�+.�:. .:.._ E'z_ ..'��_`��_,�? � ��"� � - f - - . - ; -___�_ ,_�:. .--- - -_ _ - City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: November 1 S, 2000 Title: Item # 5 DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF CHAPTER 1008 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE SIGN CODE Introductaono To continue on and further the discussion regarding the need to revise the City's sign code, staff has drafted a preliminary revision to the sign code with the only changes of substance being the addition of a"purpose" section and the reorganization of the allowable signage by zoning district into a table. In addition, staff has obtained a model sign ordinance from a group named the "United States Sign Council Foundation, (USSCF)" a charitable, nonprofit organization devoted exclusively to funding sign-related research and educational activities of benefit to the growth of the sign industry. Staff has also requested a copy of a model ordinance from the League of Minnesota Cities. Staff has drafted a proposed schedule for the review of the major components of the sign code to guide us through this time-consuming process. The proposed schedule assumes there will be two meetings in December, though the Planning Commission may decide to cancel or reschedule the second meeting on December 20th due to its proximity to the Holidays. Discussion: In keeping with the desire to accomplish the very large task of redrafting the sign code by breaking it down into smaller components, staff is hoping that the Plaruiing Commission can (1) briefly review the USSCF model sign code and (2) review the organizational redraft of the City's sign code. In doing the organization redraft, staff came across other code issues which will need to be addressed: _ Sign Code revision report November 15, 2000 Page 2 Purpose• Without changing the section numbering of the sign code, staff added a"Purpose" section to the Code as a means to suminarize the goals and intent of the ordinance. If the language looks familiar to some of the Commission, you may recognize it from an earlier revision attempt. What are the Commission's thoughts on the addition? Definitions. Generally speaking, we will need to go through each definition and compare ours to the model ordinances and determine the language most appropriate. Some definitions are fine while others (e.g., Pedestal Sign) need help. I took the liberty of striking most of the language from within pedestal sign definition but thinlc it still needs to be reworded. Another issue within the definitions is the labeling used. For example, on Page 2 you see "Business Sign, Ground Sign and Pedestal Sign". On Page 3, some of the definition terms are reversed, as in "Sign, Flashing, or Sign, Directional". Either way, they need to be consistent. The list should also include reference to pylon signs and signboards, among other potential definitions. Exceptions. Section 1008.03, Subd. 2, on Page 4lists situations in which a permit is not needed. (A) The City has never required a permit for installing a for sale or lease sign, regardless of the size. Should this item be omitted? (B) This states that ID signs on residential properties do not need a pernut if under two square feet. Since two square feet is the maximum allowed, we could probably omit the size in this case as it implies a larger sign is OK with a building permit. (C) This is similar to (B) in that a church sign under ten square feet does not require a permit. Does this mean a larger sign is allowed with a building permit? The Code is silent on that question. Staff would suggest adding a clause elsewhere in the Code to clarify this. Staff would also suggest that any sign under ten square feet be exempt. For if not, that would mean home occupation signs and other incidental or directional signs would require a permit. Permit Fees. Section 1008.04, Subd. 2 states that the Council may waive a fee for a religious or civic group. What, however, does "in its direction" mean? Should this be, "at its discretion" or "on its direction"? Issuance of Permit. Section 1008.05, Subd. 2, states that unusual signs or signs needing a "special permiY' need to be referred to the Council for approval. What is a special permit? Is this not in the realm of a variance? If the sign does not fit the stated standards, this would indicate that the Council could approve a non-conforming sign. While in one sense this might be a good approach in time-sensitive situations (such as advertising for an outdoor sale to occur in one week), staff is more concerned that without any approval standazds, the Council's decision could be viewed as being arbitrary and capricious. Sign Installer's License. Section 1008.06 addresses the provisions for obtaining a license to install signs. Other than simply indicating that the installer needs to have a license, I'm not sure this whole section needs to be in the Code. If it does remain in the code, Subdivision 4 will need to be changed as the license year is now the same as the calendar year. Construction Standards. On Page 7, Subd. 1 f of Section 1008.08 requires that each sign be installed with an identifying number. I don't think this is something that's done anymore. If not, this could probably be omitted. Also on Page 7 is Subdivision li of Section 1008.08. Subpart . .-s - . �:.-�' _� �_-, _ „ ��' :`"-'_�'"� _ _ �. l.�.-= __�___�, s�__ � � : I_a . _- � . = E .._ -� – - r - _ ._ . Sign Code revision report November 15, 2000 Page 3 (1) is notorious for being one of the most confusing sections of the sign code. (Staff rewrote the subdivision and added it to the last page for the Commission's review.) In the first line of subpart (1), it refers to a signboard. This should be either be defined in the definition section or omitted. Subpart (3) requires that ground signs be able to withstand wind pressures of not less than 301bs per square foot. Staff suggests that reference to wind pressure or treated wood members be addressed in Section 1008.08, Subd la. Subpart (4) should be changed to eliminate the provision whereby a sign could be larger if the affected resident consents. What if the consenting property owner moves and the new owner does not consent? Subpart (5) can be dropped altogether as it seems to add more confusion to an already confusing subdivision. (What makes a pedestal sign so special that it can be located adjacent to a right of way but a ground sign needs to be set back 15 feet? A pedestal sign IS a ground sign....) Allowed Si n�a�e. The table on Page 8 represents staffls attempt to put in one graphic all of the signage allowed in all of the zoning districts. The Commission may notice that some of the square footages are different staff took the liberty to adjusting the allowed areas to be less restrictive in most cases and more restrictive in the maximum allowable ground sign size. The table should be discussed to ensure that the area allowances are acceptable. At some point the business community would also need to provide comment. Variances. Is there a need to repeat the criteria for variance approval in Section 1008.11? Staff would think that it would be easier to simply refer to Chapter 1125 rather than individually listing the criteria. Recommendation: Please review the USSCF model ordinance and review staff's preliminary redraft. Also, please provide any feedback you may have regarding the proposed revision schedule and direct staff to make any changes if needed. James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. USSCF Model Sign Code Ordinance 2. Staff Preliminary Redraft I. L:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�SPECPROJ�SP082-OO�Sign Code Revision Report - Nov 15, 2000.doc United States Sign Council Foundation http://www. usscfoundatia�. org/signcodeB. html _ . _ _._ i', F i. ' : � l i2 �, 4,�� -r _ �;f �� l j 3r4 t,`, (. ) f,�'.�� e ' � r� 1 � y€, � > ;, f r ; � ry�� '�,'b h`i-'t, Il�TEItNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL ��.� ��g�� ;r.:. ..3Y":.;' :%:i%L:' is�i` ; �:k` s.:JS<c ,..�,_., .�s � �L�7f.� %' 6. r'2 <L4: .:i:i. �a:�:s'�%/,r :.Sf% ` € ;,�::>/%i.`.';' :.s>' i . :`xz:t>' �` �ifs. ,:,::.::, ,,. ��., �..> .:>3`,.. .,.£,:.: . s�.% � ..,,;«.;, �:;,•,,�s�;•, ;:. ...... .......:::.:,;:::..,:,�.:..:.., :,... ....... ., ..,.:::,:. ' a.:,..�. ,. ,w: .,.,,.;:.,:.:�;;.::.;�.:� .,;.:..,,..>:. ,.:;:. ::..:.::::..::. .,�.:;<..... f ......,,.,:,�::s::>;:i.:_... ..:.:..:,:......... .:.,.s ... ... :E;`>»;'^;�::::: �,>. :: :r::-�:.�� . :� ;;..:: _ � ... �� . . . , : . .. .. . . ........ , � �. .:, . ....� ;: .: .., ��t . .�. .. _ ��r�:�t�;.t�€�r�:+;:�1:: t:91��;: 5.'t'}E,>:?t4.'�'C; ::� INTERNATIONAL ZONING CODE CHAPTER 10 - SIGN REGULATIONS - VERSION B TABLE OF CONTENTS: • Section 1001 - PURPOSE • Section 1002 - DEFIl�IITIONS • Section 1003 - GENERAL SIGN TYPES • Section 1004 - GENERAL PROVISIONS • Section 1005 - EXEMPT SIGNS - • Section 1006 - PROHIBITED SIGNS • Section 1007 - PERMITS • Section 1008 - SPECIFIC SIGN REQUIREMENTS • Section 1009 - SIGNS FOR DEVELOPMENT COMI'LEXES 211 Ra.dcliffe Street * Bristol, PA 19007 * 215.785.1922 1 of 1 11/10/00 7:44 PM United States Sign Council Foundation http://www.usscfoundation.org/section 1001 _ 10026.htnil INTERNATIONAL ZONING CODE CHAPTER 10 - SIGN REGULATIONS SECTION 1001 PURPOSE The purpose of this chapter is to protect the safety and orderly development of the community through the regulation of signs and sign structures. SECTION 1002 DEFINITIONS Abandoned Srgn - A sign structure which has ceased to be used, and the owner intends no longer to have used, for the display of sign copy, or as otherwise deiined by state law. Animated Sign - A sign employing actual motion or the illusion of motion. Animated signs, which are differentiated from changeable signs as defined and regulated by this code, include the following types: 1) Environmenta.11y Activated: Animated signs or devices motivated by wind, thermal changes, or other natural environmental input. Includes spinners, pinwheels, pennant stings, and/or other devices or displays that respond to naturally occurring external motivation. 2) Mechanically Activated: Animated signs characterized by repetitive motion and/or rotation activated by a mechanical system powered by electric motors or other mechanically induced means. 3) Electrically Activated: Animated signs producing the illusion of movement by means of electronic, electrical, or electromechanical input and/or illumination capable of simulating movement through employment of the characteristics of one or both of the classifications noted below: a) Flashing: Animated signs or animated portions of signs whose illumination is characterized by a repetitive cycle in which the period of illumination is either the same as or less than the period of non-illumination. For the purposes of this ordinance, flashing will not be defined as occurring if the cyclical period between on-off phases of illumination exceeds four (4) seconds. b) Patterned Illusionary Movement; Animated signs or animated portions of signs whose illumination is characterized by simulated movement through alternate or sequential activation of various illuminated elements for the purpose of producing repetitive light patterns designed to appear in some form of constant motion. Architectural Projection - Any projection that is not intended for occupancy and that extends beyond the face of an exterior wall of a building but that does not include signs as defined herein. See also: Awning; Back-lit Awning; and Canopy, Attached and Freestanding. Awning - An architectural projection or shelter projecting £rom and supported by the exterior wall of a building and composed of a covering of rigid or non-rigid materials and/or fabric on a supporting framework that may be either permanent or retractable, including such structures which are internally illuminated by fluorescent or other light sources. 1 of 6 11/10/00 7:44 PM United States Sigii Council Foundation http:l/www.usscfounda[ion.org/section 1001_10026.I�ttnl Awning Sign - A sign displayed on or attached flat against the surface or surfaces of an awning. See also: Wall or Fascia Sign. Back-lit Awning - An awning with a translucent covering material and a source of illumination contained within its framework. Banner - A flexible substrate on which copy or graphics may be displayed. Banner Sign - A sign utilizing a banner as its display surface. Billboard - See: Off-Premise Sign and Outdoor Advertising Sign Building Elevation - The entire side of a building, from ground level to roofline, as viewed perpendicular to the walls on that side of the building. Canopy (Attached) - A multi-sided overhead structure or architectural projection supported by attachement to a building on one or more sides and either cantilevered from such building or also supported by columns at additional points. The surface(s) and/or soffit of an attached canopy may be illuminated by means of internal or external sources of light. Canopy (Freestanding) � A multi-sided overhead structure supported by columns, but not enclosed by walls. The surface(s) and or soffit of a freestanding canopy may be illuminated by means of internal or external sources of light. Canopy Sign - A sign affixed to the visible surface(s) of an attached or freestanding canopy. For reference, See Section 1003. Changeable Sign - A sign with the capability of content change by means of manual or remote input, including signs which are: 1) Manually Activated - Changeable sign whose message copy or content can be changed manually 2) Electrically Activated - Changeable sign whose message copy or content can be changed by means of remote electrically energized on-off switching combinations of alphabetic or pictographic components arranged on a display surface. Illumination may be integral to the components, such as characterized by lamps or other light-emitting devices; or it may be from an external light source designed to reflect offthe changeable component display. See also: Electronic Message Sign or Center Combination Sign - A sign which is supported partly by a pole and partly by a building structure. Copy - Those letters, numerals, figures, symbols, logos, and graphic elements comprising the content or message of a sign, excluding numerals identifying street address only. Development Complex Sign - A freesta,nding sign identifying a multiple-occupancy development, such as a shopping center or planned industrial park which is controlled by a single-owner or landlord, approved in accordance with section 1009,2 of this chapter. 2 of 6 11/10/00 7:44 PM United States Sign Council Foundation http://www.usscfoundation.org/section 1001_ 10026.ht:nl Directional Sign - Any sign that is designed and erected for the purpose of providing direction and/or orienta.tion for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Double-faced Sign - A sign with two faces, back to back. Electric Sign - Any sign activated or illuminated by means of electrical energy. Electronic Message Sign or Center - An electrically activated Changeable Sign whose variable message capability can be electronically programmed. Exterior Sign - Any sign placed outside a building. Facade - See Building Facade. Fascia Sign - See Wall Sign Flashing Sign - See Animated 5ign, Electrically Activated Freestanding Sign - A sign principally supported by a structure affixed to the ground, and not supported by a building, including signs supported by one or more columns, poles, or braces placed in or upon the ground. For visual reference, see Section 1003. Frontage (Property) - The length of the properiy line(s) of any single premise along either a public way or other properties on which it borders. Frontage (Building) - The length of an exterior building wall or structure of a single premise oriented to the public way or other properties that it faces. Ground Sign - See Freesta.nding Sign Illuminated Sign - A sign characterized by the use of artificial light, either projecting through its surface(s) [Internally illuminated]; or reflecting off its surface(s) [Externally illuminated]. Interior Sign - Any sign placed within a building, but not including Window Signs as defined by this ordinance, Interior Signs, with the exception of Window Signs as defined, are not regulated by this Chapter 10. Mansai•d - An inclined decorative roof-like projection that is attached to an exterior building facade. Marquee - See Canopy (Attached) Marquee Sign - See Canopy Sign Menu Board - A freestanding sign orientated to the drive-through lane for a resta.urant that advertises the menu items available from the drive-through window, and which has no more than twenty percent (20%) of the total area for such sign utilized for business identification. Multiple-Faced Sign - A sign containing three (3) or more faces Off-Premise Sign - See: Outdoor Advertising Sign 3 of 6 11/10/00 7:44 PM United States Sign Council Foundation http://www.usscfoundation.org/section 1001_ 10026.1itml On-Premise Sign - A sign erected, maintained or used in the outdoor environment for the purpose of the display of inessages appurtenant to the use of, products sold on, or the sale or lease of, the property on which it is displayed. Outdoor Advertising Signs - A permanent sign erected, maintained or used in the outdoor environment for the purpose of the display of commercial or noncommercial messages not appurtenant to the use of, products sold on, or the sale or lease of, the property on which it is displayed. Parapet - The extension of a building facade above the line of the structural roof. Pole Sign - See Freestanding Sign. Political Sign - A temporary sign intended to advance a political statement, cause, or candidate for office. A legally permitted outdoor advertising sign shall not be considered to be a political sign. Portable Sign - Any sign not permanently attached to the ground or to a building or building surface. Projecting Sign - A sign other than a Wall Sign that is attached to or projects more than eighteen (18) inches from a building face or wall or from a structure whose primary purpose is other than the support of a sign. For visual reference, see Section 1003. Real Estate Sign - A temporary sign advertising the sale, lease, or rental of the property or premises upon which it is located. Revolving Sign - A sign that revolves three hundred and sixty degrees (360) about an axis. See also: Animated Sign, Mechanically Activated. Roof Line - The top edge of a peaked roof or, in the case of an extended facade or parapet, the uppermost point of said facade or parapet. Roof Sign - A sign mounted on, and supported by, the main roof portion of a building, or above the uppermost edge of a parapet wall of a building and which is wholly or partially supported by such building. Signs mounted on mansard facades, pent eaves, and architectural projections such as canopies or marquees shall not be considered to be roof signs. For visual reference example of roof sign, and comparison of differences between roof and fascia signs, See Section 1003. Sign - Any device visible from a public place which displays either commercial or noncommercial messages by means of graphic presentation of alphabetic or pictorial symbols or representations. Noncommercial flags or any other flags displayed fi•om flagpoles or staffs will not be considered to be signs. Sign Copy - Those letters, numerals, figures, symbols, logos, and graphic elements comprising the content or message of a sign, exclusive of numerals identifying street address only. Sign Face - The surface upon, against or through which the sign copy is displayed or illustrated, not including structur•al supports, architectural features of building or sign structures, nonstructural or decorative trim, or any areas that are separated from the background surface upon which the sign copy is displayed by a distinct delineation, such as a reveal or border. See Section 1003. 4 of 6 11/10/00 7:44 PM United States Sign Council Foundatiou http://www.usscfoundation.org/section 1001_ 10026.ht,nl 1) In the case of panel or cabinet type signs, the sign face shall include the entire area of the sign panel, cabinet or face substrate upon which the sign copy is displayed or illustrated, but not open space between separate panels or cabinets. 2) In the case of sign structures with routed areas of sign copy, the sign face shall include the entire area of the surface which is routed, except where interrupted by a reveal, border, or a contrasting surface or color. 3) In the case of signs painted on a building, or individual letters or graphic elements affixed to a building or structure, the sign face shall compromise the sum of the geometric figures or combination of regular geometric figures drawn closest to the edge of the letters or separate graphic elements comprising the sign copy, but not the open space between separate groupings of sign copy on the same building or structure. 4) In the case of sign copy enclosed within a painted or illuminated border, or displayed on a background contrasting in color with the color of the building or structure, the sign face shall comprise the area within the contrasting background, or within the painted or illuminated border. Sign Area - The area of the smallest geometric iigure, or the sum of the combination of regular geometric figures, which comprise the sign face. The area of any double-sided or "V" shaped sign shall be the area of the largest single face only. The area of a sphere shall be computed as the area of a circle. The area of all other multiple-sided signs shall be computed as fifty percent (50%) of the sum of the area of all faces of the sign. Sign Structure - Any structure supporting a sign. Temporary Sign - A sign intended to display either commercial or noncommercial messages of a transitory or temporary nature. Portable signs or any sign not permanently embedded in the ground, or not permanently affixed to a building or sign structure that is permanently embedded in the ground, are considered temporary structures. Under Canopy Sign oa• Under Marquee Sign - A sign atta.ched to the underside of a canopy or marquee. V Sign - Signs conta.ining two faces of approximately eyual size, erected upon common or separate structures, positioned in a"V" shape with an interior angle between faces of not more than ninety degrees (90) with the distance between the sign faces not exceeding �ve feet at their closest point. Wall or Fascia Sign - A sign that is in any manner affixed to any exterior wall of a building or structure and that projects not more than eighteen (18) inches from the building or structure wall, including signs affixed to architectural projections from a building provided the copy area of such signs remains on a parallel plane to the face of the building facade or to the face or faces of the architectural projection to which it is affixed. For visual reference and comparison examples of differences between wall or fascia signs and roof signs, See Section 1003. Window Sign - A sign affixed to the surface of a window with its message intended to be visible to and readable from the public way or from adjacent property. , � Back to Contents More � 5 of 6 11/10/00 7:44 PM United States Sign Council Foundation http://w�,vw.usscfoundation.org/section10036.html INTERNATIONAL ZONING CODE CHAPTER 10 - SIGN REGULATIONS SECTION 1003 - GENERAL SIGN TYPES Sign Types and the computation of sign area shall be as depicted in Figures 1003.1 through 1003.4 ." �� :. ,�.. ��„� . :r �, s � s�'�� : ��;~ s � �::;.�:> - #r f��si'�4��,1'�I\1 i7�S :t_J4G.7�: hY.L(aW Pi�IE` ri�a��tir� ��s�a�rtait�� st��.��i �Wtiti.�ii7 {y�t C$�ri' #'FitykSL£: � ._..�� . �r�1�.l. �I� �1��JA �I�i�� ?�! �'�'�€��'�O�E�€'� �_. , _::: = = : __— _ :...,�.. �#Q�3� ��{�N �A�tC31�'Y �IGt�I K1N �'Kt�.�S'�#t#,iC?CNti �itNJpY �l�i1Y6i :'i.�i�F�:'� Ga�ni�r�� 8i�jr�.TyN�� Back to Contents • - (�" 1 of 1 11/10/00 7:51 PM !� United States Sign Council Foundation i of i http://www.usscfoundation.org/section 1003_26.htm1 INTERNATIONAL ZONING CODE CHAPTER 10 - SIGN REGULATIONS SECTION 1003 - GENERAL SIGN TYPES Sign Types and the computation of sign area shall be as depicted in Figures 1003.1 through 1003.4 �+�z� ; �...�, � � t ii. k .Aa.iLJYi"Owt`,��`,`?>l�'i �s��;'8 f �,� t �� J{„�(�r� �a ->:w� � �. = ( >�,�� t•�;.� � � � �<.;�r �,��t>. ' �a�:�:�n� kinsr,<:,n�,,,„,,,t�i< �tti�r{, ��t� �"��',.�r� ... ��-�� .,.. �__ ' ' , `!" _ _ � . � � �� ;. �t�.?t�;,4'>;r�t �:�� :a��t�;a�� rxt�si.�v��. __ � �.,,.�...�... ��r^�� y F � `F } y o"'Y �',� t Y f �;;` � �� +�:.! �,k .Cty'F . :.»«. . - :; �. �.. -- : v_ �, ' �ew: �GE � l . '. � '-��G.'�. �.r�.t��aA� �'.s,� i c �� , �, � ��_ � � � ��3� �� £ �.�y - . .. _ " . . .... ._.._._ ........... ................... . . ,.. - �e . . . . . . � . . � . , ...,. �,:.:;.na�11NIN777MMi Wy� Yu � �,ii �t h�c � ,<l.� � ��>r f t �� ; . .. , �.(,�.�r� ?�}'3 > S�`s K 1af3P£ � ., A..i ` ' ?,�`..�e4`l°"�3� fdG'�ilSa:< �t'C �r� Ct.�v.nr.:tDa.: s: � � «� -_ ' _- ,...::. � 3'� :`Y.'sAVa '��' ,h6�.l:Y>,��,r_;�'�: �!.�IM�` ��s _. , � �. �. � .,. � �� ...,�"i��„'�A.'A`:..�C:... � �,� 2c2 f�'iii7�'�:'� ,'i.9�'" $ f=-.� � ' `A'. :.;�,'°... , , : <� ii� � � s�t.�i..fs;��kT?33i4 ��` �.�� f ' '�.�� F�tf�ilwCi:�ilil�;z �am�aarisA�� - �Z(1Cifi Fsklt� SAf9II 373`:�SC11 St�E7�S � Back to Contents More � 11/10/00 7:52 PM United States Sign Council Foundation http://www.usscfoundation.org/section1003_36.litml INTERNATIONAL ZONING COD� CHAPTER 10 - SIGN REGULATIONS SECTION 1003 - GENERAL SIGN TYPES Sign Types and the computation of sign area shall be as depicted in Figures 1003.1 through 1003.4 4 � ,e: t, 2; �.:1 :.> # k 3�� J, ' � � 1( �:y.; ,. : ,.. i x )z�._5�_.�_.`:; � �I��h.��a\,�1�i�. vr� �. �3':�: r..,:.t � 7 �... ... . �.. _:-=...... -. � ....__.. *;i�,F; �,t.rii�:s:ttT�ts :e ; F 3io, 3.r :�:: g ', i'J 4 q � �� r �. ; .,. ! �...'t . �-x ♦ � a . >. 7w�i.�:� :�;;£f . �y�� s�:�� liii�"x��` ...<.. , `£":..3 :, Figt�ra� 1003,3 ;31GN t7r„RE�1 •- C�MP`U'TlATit7[� Nf�T�1f.�iiQL�JGY Suni �rf 5.h�d��d llr�a� i�i�ty F�c�prc.x+�nt 5i�#n Ara.�: Sigrts c:�ir��tr�ucCc�cf wi�F�s �a�sn�lw ar:c:n�ir��st� � Back to Contents More � 1 of 1 11/10/00 7:54 PM United States Sign Council Foundation http://www.usscfoundation.org/section1003 46.ht;nl INTERNATIONAL ZONING CODE CHAPTER 10 - SIGN REGULATION5 SECTION 1003 - GENERAL SIGN TYPES Sign Types and the computation of sign area shall be as depicted in Figures 1003.1 through 1003.4 ,� , ( � �_ a g�j � �. .9��+ � �}.,sr .� �,� � �.�a,l: sb� �� .� ��.�n� �� . � � t -i )3t� 1Ft 1 :"�) 33�2. ...s , ... . )�. i':..1< S t t'.: to..z��. �� " � �_ �.� � �'i :�.�' ��.��.�., �;� „ : <_,, °> <;�- , -:,� . �.: # > i� I E � �. i.:....,:�,>r � 3 :. �.s :. S:E.i.>.'.;:€?.s �:[ �t:: �:: <riw>'. l Y'�; `,. �' 5 • :� ��_.. `, y� , r.;>:. ; �; ? >r,.< ;�< �� ` ' � j '� ` `� t: �� s: ia 3� 7# • a 1 J.`�' ��{ t"r'�:.;��yi�'t��f��ji ., :r� .�.i?.�Cl,'; / ��' t Y v�... ��. �l ::.f t;r��,:.: � T ' i cF� fra K�� tf��t�, ,�,, ,- � �� xr ff rr�� < %�( �� ;.� �'��': /J�� / �� r' � /i,��, � � ,< <,�'�� ' r i. f eF 5� �� .l�.3'':<I�. ;�i s;t xs p: s ! ,: >;� s... , i};... , it'.;. :. i.. �t u z� f` i' + �,4E tf�-� � .�.i ;y'>. '' � S, u.f ,.;� � �t �' .t: F3 .. ��k1Yii. �i1{is��'� SI�G� A��A e �(,�k4i?il'A`,4;'f1t7N NC�THC3E3U:l�t)GY 7�itrri At.�N�iitrCT Ara�� r►ty �to�rsES�rlt::�i�ai l�r�?sa f�?r �utiet Cpt��7fi�1��c�3 �'��r��u� 5i�r�� c�i��(�firo�.af'irsc�iG€clu�t ��rtErir�, m1�G�a�nt��. ar iri��:p�a�� o►�i t�uii�i►rt� ia�i�i� �r'stru�tcnrc�s � Back to Contents lofl More � 11/10/00 7:55 PM United States Sign Council Foundation http://www.usscfoundation.org/section10046.1itml INTERNATIONAL ZONING CODE CHAPTER 10 - SIGN REGULATIONS �.-.----..:�.---�-..--...---- ... _.,.._,__.._...�-_ ___ .. -- . � ... .. . .......,.._._._._.�.�.. SECTION 1004 GENERAL PROVISIONS 1004.1 Conformance to Codes. Any sign hereafter erected shall conform to the provisions of this ordinance and the provisions of the Building Code and any other ordinance or regulations within this jurisdiction. 1004.2 5igns in Rights-of-Way. No sign other than an official traff�ic sign or similar sign shall be erected within two feet of the lines of any street, or within any public way, unless specifically authorized by other ordinances or regulations of this jurisdiction or by specific authorization of the code official. 1004.3 Projections Over Public Ways. Signs projecting over public walkways may do so only subject to the projection and clearance limits either defined herein or, if not so defined, at a minimum height of eight (8) feet from grade level to the bottom of the sign. Signs, architectural projections, or sign structures projecting over vehicular access areas must conform to the minimum height clearance limitations imposed by the jurisdiction for such structures. 1004.4 Traffic Visibility. No sign or sign structure shall be erected at the intersection of any street in such a manner as to obstruct free and clear vision, nor at any location where by its position, shape, or color it may interfere with or obstruct the view of or be confused with any authorized traffic sign, signal or device. 1004.5 Computation of Frontage. If a premise conta.ins walls facing more than one property line or encompasses property frontage bounded by more than one street or other property usages, the sign area(s) for each building wall or property frontage will be computed separately for each building wall or property line facing a different frontage. The sign area(s) thus calculated may then be applied to permitted signs placed on each separate wall or property line frontage. 1004.6 Animation and Changeable Messages. Animated signs, except as prohibited in Section 1006, are permitted in Commercial and Industrial zones only. Changeable signs, Manually Activated, are permitted for nonresidential uses in all zones. Changeable signs, Electrically Activated, are permitted in all nonresidential zones. 1004.7 Maintenance, Repair or Removal. Every sign permitted by this ordinance shall be kept in good condition and repair. When any sign becomes insecure, in danger of falling, or is otherwise deemed unsafe by the code official, or if any sign shall be unlawfully installed, erected, or maintained in violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance, the owner thereof or the person or firm using same shall, upon written notice by the code o�cial forthwith in the case of immediate danger, and in any case within not more than ten (10) days, make such sign conform to the provisions of this ordinance, or shall remove it. If within ten (10) days, the order is not complied with, the code official may remove or cause such signs to be removed at the expense of the owner and/or the user of the sign. 1004.8 Obsolete Sign Copy. Any sign copy that no longer advertises or identi�es a use conducted on the property on which said sign is erected must have the sign copy covered or removed within thirty (30) days after written notification from the municipal code official; and upon failure to comply with such notice, the code official is hereby authorized to cause removal of such sign copy, and any expense incident thereto 1 of 2 11/10/00 7:55 PM United States Sign Council Foundation http://www.usscfoundation.org/section 10046.html shall be paid by the owner of the building, structure, or ground on which the sign is located. 1004.9 Nonconforming Signs. Any sign legally existing at the time of the passage of this ordinance that does not conform in use, location, height, or size with the regulations of the zone in which such sign is located shall be considered a legal non-conforming use or structure and may continue in such status until such time as it is either abandoned or removed by its owner, subject to the following limitations: 1) Structural alterations, enlargement or re-erection are permissible only where such alterations will not increase the degree of nonconformity of the signs. 2) Any legal nonconforming sign shall be removed or rebuilt without increasing the existing height or area if it is damaged, or removed if allowed to deteriorate to the extent that the cost of repair or restoration exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the replacement cost of the signs as determined by the code o�cial 3) Signs that comply with either Item 1 or Item 2 above need not be permitted. � Back to Contents More � � � 2 of 2 I 1/10/00 7:55 PM United States Sign Council Foundation http://wv✓w.usscfoundation.org/section10056.html INTERNATIONAL ZONING CODE CHAPTER 10 - SIGN REGULATIONS SECTION 1005 EXEMPT SIGNS The following signs shall be exempt from the provisions of the chapter. No sign shall be exempt from Section 1004.4. 1. Official notices authorized by a court, public body, or public safety official. 2. Directional, warning or information signs authorized by federal, state, or municipal governments. 3. Memorial plaques, building identi�cation signs and building cornerstones when cut or carved into a masonry surface or when made of noncombustible material and made an integral part of the building or structure. 4. The flag of a government or noncommercial institution, such as a school. 5. Religious symbols and seasonal decorations within the appropriate public holiday season. 6. Works of fine art displayed in conjunction with a commercial enterprise where the enterprise does not recieve direct commercial gain. 7. Street address signs, and combination nameplate and street address signs which contain no advertising copy and which do not exceed six (6) square feet in area. � Back to Contents More � �1 1 of 1 11/10/00 7:56 PM United States Sign Council Foundation http://www.usscfoundation.org/section10066.ht�nl INTERNATIONAL ZONING CODE CHAPTER 10 - SIGN REGULATIONS SECTION 1006 PROHIBITED SIGNS The following devices and locations shall be specifically prohibited: 1. Signs located in such a manner as to obstruct or otherwise interfere with an official traffic sign, signal or device or obstruct or interfere with a driver's view of approaching, merging or intersecting traffic. 2. Except as provided for elsewhere in this code, signs encroaching upon or overhanging public right-of-way. No sign shall be attached to any utility pole, light standard, street tree or any other public facility located within the public right-of-way. 3. Signs which blink, flash or are animated by lighting in any fashion that would cause such signs to have the appearance of traffic safety signs and lights, or municipal vehicle warnings from a distance. 4. Portable signs except as allowed for temporary signs. 5. Any sign attached to, or placed on, a vehicle or trailer parked on any public or private property, except for signs meeting the following conditions: 5.1 The primary purpose of such vehicle or trailer is not the display of signs 5.2 The signs are magnetic, decals, or painted upon an integral part of the vehicle or equipment as originally designed by the manufacturer, and do not break the silhouette of the vehicle. 5.3 The vehicle or trailer is in operating condition, currently registered and licensed to operate on public streets when applicable, and actively used or available for use in the daily function of the business to which such signs relate. 6. Vehicles and trailers are not used primarily as static displays, advertising a product or service, nor utilized as storage, shelter or distribution points for commercial products or services for the general public. 7. Balloons, streamers, or pinwheels except those temporarily displayed as part of a special sale, promotion or community event. For the purposes of this subsection, "temporarily" means no more than 20 days in any calendar year. � Back to Contents More � 1 of 1 11/10/00 7:59 PM Uiutcd States Sign Council Foimdation http://��nvw.usscfoundation.org/sectiou10076.html INTERNATIONAL ZONING CODE CHAPTER 10 - SIGN REGULATIONS �--..--._.;-.. . .._._....., -.-.-:_-_-w....�-__�....._.____�. __-_,�__�.M. �:_._..�._.__.__.m._._.__.�__,�w.�._...�._..�__.._�._�....�_.� SECTION 1007 PERMITS 1007.1 Permits Required. Unless specifically exempted, a permit must be obtained from the code official for the erection and maintenance of all signs erected or maintained within this jurisdiction and in accordance with other ordinances of this jurisdiction. Exemptions from the necessity of securing a permit, however, shall not be construed to relieve the owner of the sign involved from responsibility for its erection and maintenance in a safe manner and in a manner in accord with all the other provisions of this ordinance. 1007.2 Construction documents. Before any permit is granted for the erection of a sign or sign structure requiring such permit, construction documents shall be filed with the code official showing the dimensions, materials, and required deta,ils of construction including loads, stresses, anchorage, and any other pertinent data. The permit application shall be accompanied by the written consent of the owner or lessee of the premises upon which the sign is to be erected and by engineering calculations signed and sealed by a registered design professional where required by the building code. 1007.3 Changes to Signs. No sign shall be structurally altered, enlarged or relocated except in conformity to the provisions herein, nor until a proper permit, if required, has been secured. The changing or maintenance of moveable parts or components of an approved sign that is designated for such changes, or the changing of copy, business names, lettering, sign faces, colors, display and/or graphic matter, or the content of any sign shall not be deemed a structural alteration. 1007.4 Permit Fees. Permit'fees to erect, alter, or relocate a sign shall be in accordance with the fee schedule adopted within this jurisdiction. � Back to Contents More � 1 of 1 11/10/00 8:00 PM United States Sign Council Foundation Itttp://www.usscfoundation.org/section1008b.h:ml INTERNATIONAL ZONING CODE CHAPTER 10 - SIGN REGULATIONS SECTION 1008 SPECIFIC SIGN REQUIItEMENTS 1008.1 Identification Signs 10081.1 Wall signs. Every single family residence, multifamily residential complex, commercial or industrial building and every separate nonresidential building in a residential zone may display wall signs per street frontage subject to the limiting standards set forth in table 1008.1-A. For shopping centers, planned industrial parks or other multiple occupancy nonresidential building, the building face or wall shall be calculated separately for each separate occupancy, but in no event will the allowed area for any separate occupancy be less than 50 square feet. 1008.1.2 Freestanding signs. In addition to any allowable wall signs, every single family residential subdivision, multifamily residential complex, commercial or industrial building and every separate nonresidential building in a residential zone may display freestanding or combination signs per street frontage subject to the limiting standards set forth in table 1008.1-C. 1008.1.3 Directional signs. No more than two directional signs shall be permitted per street entrance to any lot. There shall be no limit to the number of directional signs providing directional information interior to a lot. In residential zones, the maximum area for directional signs shall be 4 square feet. For all other zones, the maximum area for any directional sign visible from adjacent property or rights-of-way shall be 12 square feet. Not more than twenty five percent of the area of any directional sign may be devoted to business identification or logo, which area shall not be assessed as identification sign area. TABLE 1008.1-A IDENTIFICATION SIGN STANDARDS WALL SIGNS TABLE 1008.1-B SIGN A.REA 1 of 3 11/10/00 8:04 PM United States Sign Council Foundation h ttp://www. usscfoundation. org/section 10086.1itml TABLE 1008.1-C IDENTIFICATION SIGN STANDARDS FREESTANDING SIGNS Footnotes *1 For subdivision or apartment identifcation signs placed on a decorative entry wall approved by the code official, two (2) identification signs may be placed at each entrance to the subdivision or apartment complex, one on each side of the driveway or entry drive. *2 For shopping centers or planned industrial parks, two monument-style freestanding signs not exceeding fifty percent each of the permitted height and area, and spaced not closer than 100 feet to any other freestanding identi�cation sign, may be allowed in lieu of any freestanding sign otherwise permitted in Table 1008.1-C *3 For any commercial or industrial development complex exceeding one million square feet of gross leasable area, or 40 acres in size, such as regional shopping centers, auto malls or planned industrial parks, one freesta.nding sign per street front may be increased in sign area by up to fifty percent (50%). � Back to Contents More � 2 of 3 11/10/00 8:04 PM United States Sign Council Foundation http://www.usscfoundation.org/section1008 2b.html INTERNATIONAL ZONING CODE CHAPTER 10 - SIGN REGULATIONS 1 ti�Lt, 1 V V 8. 1-L 1 HtfL� 1 UU2S.1-r, 1 of 6 11/10/00 8:07 PM United States Sign Counci) Foundation http://www.usscfoundation.org/scction 1008_26.Ir ml TABLE 1008.1-F 1008.2 Tempora�y Signs 1008.2.1 Real estate signs. Real estate signs shall be permitted in all zoning districts, subject to the following limit.a.tions: l. Real estate signs located on a single residential lot shall be limited to one sign, not greater than 4 feet in height and 6 square feet in area. 2. Real estate signs advertising the sale of lots located within a subdivision shall be limited to one sign per entrance to the subdivision and each sign shall be no greater than 32 square feet in area nor 8 feet in height. All signs permitted under this section shall be removed within 10 days after the sale of the last original lot. 3. Real estate signs advertising the sale or lease of space within commercial or industrial buildings shall be no greater than 12 square feet in area nor 6 feet in height, and shall be limited to one sign per street front. 4. Real estate signs advertising the sale or lease of vacant commercial or industrial land shall be limited to one sign per street front, and each sign shall be no greater than 8 feet in height, and 32 square feet for property of 10 acres or less, or 100 square feet for property exceeding 10 acres. 5. Real estate signs shall be removed not later than 10 days after execution of a lease agreement in the event of a lease, or the closing of the sale in the event of a purchase. 2 of 6 11/10/00 8:07 PM Unitcd 3tates Si� Council Foundation http://www.usscfoundation.org/section 1008_2b.html 1008.2.2 Development and construction signs. Signs temporarily erected during construction to inform the public of the developer, contractors, architects, engineers, the nature of the project, or anticipated completion dates, shall be permitted in all zoning districts, subject to the following limitations: 1. Such signs on a single residential lot shall be limited to one sign, not greater than 6 feet in height and 16 square feet in area. 2. Such signs for a residential subdivision or multiple residential lots shall be limited to one sign, at each entrance to the subdivision or on one of the lots to be built upon, and shall be no greater than 8 feet in height and 32 square feet in area. 3. Such signs for nonresidential uses in residential districts shall be limited to one sign, and shall be no greater than 8 feet in height and 32 square feet in area. 4. Such signs for commercial or industrial projects shall be limited to one sign per street front, not to exceed 8 feet in height and 32 square feet for projects on parcels 5 acres or less in size, and not to exceed 12 feet in height and 100 square feet for projects on parcels larger than 5 acres. 5. Development and construction signs may not be displayed until after the issuance of construction permits by the building official, and must be removed not later than 24 hours following issuance of an occupancy permit for all or any portion of the projeci. 10008.2.3 Speciat promotions, event and grand opening signs. Signs temporarily displayed to advertise special promotions, events and grand openings shall be permitted for nonresidential uses in a residential district, and for all commercial and industrial districts subject to the following limitations: 1. Such signs shall be limited to one sign per street front. 2. Such signs may be displayed for not more than 30 consecutive days in any three month period, and not more than 60 days in any calendar year. The signs shall be erected no more than 5 days prior to the event or grand opening, and shall be removed not more than 1 day after the event or grand opening. 3, The total area of all such signs not exceed 16 square feet in any single family residential District, and 64 square feet in any commercial or industrial district. 1008.2.4 Special event segns in public ways. Signs advertising a special community event may be permitted in or over public rights-of-way, subject to approval by the code off'icial as to the size, location, and methods of erection. The code official may not approve any special event signage that would impair the safety and convenience of use of public rights-of-way, or obstruct traffic visibility. 1008.2.5 Portable signs. Portable signs shall be permitted only in the C, CR, and IF districts, as designated in this International Zoning Code, subject to the following limitations: 3 of 6 11/10/00 8:07 PM United States Sign Council Foundation http://www.usscfoundation.org/section1008_26.h� ml 1. No more than one such sign may be displayed on any property, and shall not exceed a height of 12 feet nor an area of 60 square feet. 2. Such signs shall be displayed not more than 20 days in any calendar year. 3. Any electrical portable signs shall comply with the national electrical code, as adopted in this jurisdiction. 4. No porta.ble sign shall be displayed prior to obtaining a sign permit. 1008.2.6 Political signs. Political signs shall be permitted in all zoning districts, subject to the following limitations: 1. Such signs shall not exceed a height of 4 feet nor an area of 8 square feet. 2. Such signs for election candidates or ballot propositions shall be displayed only for a period of 60 days preceding the election and shall be removed within 10 days after the election, provided that signs promoting successful candidates or ballot propositions in a primary election may remain displayed until not more than 10 days after the general election. 3. Such signs shall not be not be placed in any public right-of-way or obstruct traffic visibility. 1008.3 Requirements for Specific Sign Types 1008.3.1 Canopy and marquee signs. 1. The permanently-affixed copy area of canopy or marc�uee signs shall not exceed an area equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of the face area of the canopy, marquee, or architectural projection upon which such sign is affixed or applied. 2. Graphic striping, patterns or color bands on the face of a building, canopy, marquee or architectural projections shall not be included in the computation of sign copy area. 1008.3.2 Awning signs. 1. The copy area of awning signs shall not exceed an area equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of the background area of the awning or awning surface to which such sign is affixed or applied, or the permitted area for wall or fascia signs, whichever is less. 2. Neither the background color of an awning, nor any graphic treatment or embellishment thereto such as striping, patterns or valances, shall be included in the computation of sign copy area. 1008.3.3 Pro�ectrng signs. 1. Projecting signs shall be permitted in lieu of freestanding signage on any street frontage limited to one sign per occupancy along any street fronta.ge with public 4 of 6 11/10/00 8:07 PM United States Sign Council Foundation http://www.usscfoundation.org/section 1008_26.html entrance to such occupancy, and shall be limited in height and area to 1 square foot per each 2 lineal feet of building frontage, except that no such sign shal( exceed an area of 100 square feet. 2, No such sign shall extend vertically above the highest point of the building facade upon which it is mounted by more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the height of the building facade. 3. Such signs shall not extand over a public sidewalk in excess of two-thirds (2/3) of the width of the sidewalk. 4. Such signs shall maintain a clear vertical distance above any public sidewalk a minimum of 8 feet. 1008.3.4 Under canopy signs 1. Under canopy signs shall be limited to no more than one such sign per public entrance to any occupancy, and shall be limited to an area not to exceed 8 square feet. 2. Such signs shall maintain a clear vertical distance above any sidewalk or pedestrian way a minimum of 8 feet. 1008.3.5 Roof signs 1. Roof signs shall be permitted in commercial and industrial districts only. 2. Such signs shall be limited to a height above the roofline of the elevation parallel to the s�gn face of no more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the height of the roofline in commercial districts, and fifty percent (50%) of the height of the roofline in industrial districts. 3. The sign area for roof signs shall be assessed against the aggregate permitted area for wall signs on the elevation of the building most closely parallel to the face of the sign. 1008.3.6 Window signs. Window signs shall be permitted for any nonresidential use in a residential district, and for all commercial and industrial districts, subject to the following limitations: 1. The aggregate area of all such signs shall not exceed twenty-�ve percent (25%) of the window area on which such signs are displayed. Window panels separated by muntins or mullions shall be considered as one continuous window area. 2. Window signs shall not be assessed against the sign area permitted for other sign types. 100803.7 Menu boards. Menu board signs shall be permitted not to exceed �fty square feet. 5 of 6 11/10/00 8:07 PM �f . �� United States Sign Council Foundation http://www.usscfoundation.org/section1009b.�itml INTERNATIONAL ZONING CODE CHAPTER 10 - SIGN REGULATIONS 5ECTION 1009 - SIGNS FOR DEVELOPMENT COMPLEXES 1009.1 Mastei• Sign Plan Required. All landlord or single-owner controlled multiple-occupancy development complexes on parcels exceeding eight (8) acres in size, such as shopping centers or planned industrial parks, shall submit to the code official a master sign plan prior to issuance of new sign permits. The master sign plan shall establish standards and criteria for all signs in the complex which require permits, and shall address, at a minimum, the following: 1. Proposed sign locations 2. Materials 3. Type of illumination 4. Design of freestanding sign structures 5. Size 6. Quantity 7. Uniform standards for non-business signage, including directional and informational signs. 1009.2 Development Complex Sign. In addition to the freestanding business identification signs otherwise allowed by this ofdinance, every multiple-occupancy development complex shall be entitled to one freestanding sign per street front, at the maximum size permitted for business identi�cation freestanding signs, to identify the develop►nent complex. No business identification shall be permitted on a development complex sign. Any freestanding sign otherwise permitted under this ordinance may identify the name of the development complex. 1009.3 Compliance with Master Sign Plan. All applications for sign permits for signage within a multiple-occupancy development complex shall comply with the master sign plan. 1009.4 Amendments. Any amendments to a master sign plan must be signed and approved by the owner(s) within the development complex before such amendment will become effective. � Back to Contents � Back to Version A or B � Back Home 1 of 1 11/10/00 8:08 PM �.i_.Ik SECTION: 1008. Ox: 1008,01: 1008.02: 1008, 03 ; 1008.04: 1008.05: CHAPTER 1008 SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS Puypose Definitions Building Pernut Required; Exceptions Application for Pernut Permit Fees; Waiver Issuance of Permit; Conditions 1008.06: Sign Installer's License Provisions 1008.07: Maintenance of Premises 1008.08: Location, Design and Construction Standards 1008.09: Abrogation and Greater Restriction 1008.10: Violation ofProvisions 1008.11: Sign Variances (Ord. 644, 12-13-99) 1008.Ox: Purpose. The sign ordi»ance is intended to establish a comprehensive and balanced system of sign control that accomnaodates the need for a well-maintained, safe, and attractive community, and the taeed for effectii�e communications including business identification. The City of Mounds view finds it is necessary for the promotion arrd preservation of the public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community that the construction, location, size and maintenance of signs be controlled. Further, the city finds that.• • permanent and tentporary signs have a direct impact on and relationship to the image of the community; • the manrrer• of installation, location and maintenance of signs affects the public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community; • an opportunity for viable identifrcation of community businesses and institutions must be established; • the safety of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and other users of public streets and pf�operty is affected by the number, size, location and appearance of signs that unduly divert the attention of dri>>ers; � installation of signs suspended from, projecting over, or placed on the tops of buildings, walks or other structures may constitute a hazard during periods vf high winds and an obstacle to effective fire-fighting and other emergency setvice; • uncontrolled and unlimited signs adversely impact the image and aesthetic attractiveness of the conzmunity and thereby undermine economic vcrlue and growth; ..._ ,-- � ._ ..,, _ _ _ �. �W - : _: _ _ _ . _ _ _ . : _ L:� � -:��. _ __ __�__ �. � _ _ , Draft Sign Code Revision November 15, 2000 • uncontrolled and unlimited signs, particularly temporary signs which are commonly located within or adjacent to public right-of-way or are located at driveway/street intersections, result zn roadside clutter and obstruction of views of oncoming traffic. This creates a hazard to drivers and pedestrians and also adversely impacts a logical flow of information; • commercial signs are generally incompatible with residential uses and should be strictly limited in residential zoning districts; and • the right to express noncommercial opinions in any zoning district must be protected, subject to reasonable restrictions on size, height, location and number. 1008.01: DEFINITIONS: The following terms have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: Subd. 1. BANNER: An attention-getting device, the materials of which consist of paper, cloth or of other man-made materials and which are of temporary nature. Subd. 2. BTI,LBOARD: An advertising sign located off the premises where the advertised product is sold or offered. It is usually, but not necessarily, owned by an advertising company. Subd. 3. BUSINESS OCCUPANT: An individual or group of individuals ov�nvng, renting or leasing a building or part thereof to conduct a business separate of others. Subd. 4. BUSINESS SIGN: A sign that states the proper name of the business, organization or institution located on the premises on which the sign is located. Subd. 5. GROLJND SIGN: A�'°Q '^^�-sign erected upon or supported by the ground and not attached to any building. Subd. 6. PEDESTAL SIGN: A ground sign erected upon a single post or shaft or upon two (2) posts or shafts that merge or touch at the base or which are not more than fifteen feet (15') apart, center of shaft to center of shaft, with the display portion mounted on top thereof at least seven feet (7') above the surface of the street adjacent to the property on which the sign is located. �`:� �u:,:� ��, ��,��> >,��,o ., �;�, ,.r,,,,,,.o *�,.,,, ��,,.00 �,,,,,,�,•oa � ,�., «nrn � .,�,;,.�, � ,��, ,�,,,,;,,o.,� r o,a... ,,,...��. ,.. .;a�,a ��,,,,- „ ,.�, ��,..,,,� �.�„+,,,,� „�,,,,,..o *�,.,., „ � , , , , � � , , �e � ' • f 9 1 7 Page 2 - :�� _� : � _ 1 ._ , .. _____ _ . _ _ . � 1. _ _ __ _.__. _ _ __ ___ _ _ ___ __ . ____ ___ � � i 1008.08 1008.08 (Rev. 12/99) ' Subd. 4. Clearance of Signs from Conductors: The minimum clearance of any sign from unprotected electrical conductors (whether poles or other installations) shall not be less than thirty six inches (36") for conductors carrying not over s'v� hundred (600) volts and forty eight inches (48") for conductors carrying more than six hundred (600) volts. Subd. 5. Signs Along Freeways: Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, signs located on property adjacent to any freeway within the Municipality (including Interstate Highway 35V1� shall be business signs advertising businesses being conducted on the premises on which the signs are located. No "traveling" or changing-message signs shall be located so as to face any freeway or be visible from the freeway. The provisions of this subdivision, however, shall not be construed to render illegal or nonconfornung any signs which are legally located along any such freeway at the effective date herein. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99) Subd. 6. Projection Signs�: The following standards shall be maintained for a11 projection signs: a. All portions of projection signs shall be designed for a wind pressure of not less than thirty (30) pounds per square foot. b. Such signs shall not project over public street right of way but may project over sidewalks located on private walks. No such sign shall be less than twelve feet (12') above the level of the sidewalk; provided, that such signs which do not exceed four (4) square feet and which do not project more than two feet (2') over the sidewalk may be eight feet (8') or more above the sidewalk. No projection sign shall project beyond a curb line nor project more than eight feet (8') over any private sidewalk. c. There sha11 be no more than two feet (2') of space between the inner edge of any such sign and the �ace of the wall from which it projects, nor shall the outer edge of the sign be more than eight feet (8') from the face of the wall. d. The building or structure from which any such sign projects and all attachments or fastenings must be so constructed as to safely resist the dead load and the wind load added by the attached sign. e. All such signs shall be of noncombustible materials or of not less than one hour fire-resistive construction. i See also subdivisions 604.03(3)b, 604.03(3)n 1103.08(2) of tlus Code. City oflLlounds Vietiv 11: 1: _ . _ . . . . .. _ . ._ _ . . I . . . . . __ . . "' _ _- . 1008.08 (Rev. 12/99) ' Subd. 7. Roof Signs: The following standards shall be maintained for all roof signs: a. No roof sign shall be located nearer than five feet (5') from the outside wall toward which it faces nor exceed twenty five feet (25') in height above the roof level of the building unless constructed integral with the building or structure, nor shall it project beyond the edge of said roof in any direction. For the purposes of this subdivision, lights attached to the sign structure and lights attached to the building and beamed toward the sign structure sha11 be considered part of the sign structure. b. Every such sign shall be either metal, metal clad, incombustible, open wire or open metal sign; except, that such sign may have letters, figures, characters or borders of wood if such borders do not exceed four inches (4") in width and such wooden letters, figures or characters do not cover more than twenty five percent (25%) of the area of such sign; provided, that in place of sheet metal, substitution may be made of the following materials: tempered pressed wood or other similax materials approved by the Building Inspector, having equal properties as to strength, fire and moisture resistance. c. No such sign shall be so placed as to prevent passage of persons from one part of the roof to another. d. The building or structure upon which such sign is placed and all attachments or fastenings must be so constructed as to safely resist the dead load and the wind load added by the attached sign and in such a manner as not to cause damage to the building or structure on which such sign is placed. e. No roof sign shall be more than sixty five feet (65') in length, nor shall it extend more than twenty five feet (25') above the surface of the roof of the building on which it is located. No roof sign shall extend more than foriy five feet (45') above the average ground level of that part of the street toward which it faces. Subd. 8. Wall Signs: The following standards shall be maintained for all wall signs: a. No wall sign shall have a projection over a private sidewalk or an established building line of more than twelve inches (12"). b. The materials, construction and attachment of any such sign shall meet the same standards and requirements as roof signs. Subd. 9. Banners, Temporary or Portable Signs: Temporary signs, as defined in Section 1008.01 of this Chaptec- shall comply with the provisions hereof. The following standards shall be maintained for a11 banners, temporary or portable signs: City ofMounds View _ , .��. _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ____ ____ _ , _ __ _ _� ... -- - . � � , Draft Sign Code Revision November 15, 2000 ��:.s.s�� Subd. 7. PORT.ABLE SIGN: A back-to-back, mobile advertising device which may be mounted on wheels and used for commercial as well as civic promotions. Subd. 8. PROJECTING SIGN: A sign other than a wall sign suspended from or supported by a building or structure and projecting out therefrom. Subd. 9. ROOF SIGN: A sign erected upon or above the roof or parapet wall of a building or structure. Subd. 10. SIGN: A sign, the primary function of which is to direct attention to a product, service or activity that is sold or offered either elsewhere or upon the premises where such sign is located or to which it is affixed. Subd. 11. SIGN, ADVERTISING: A sign, the primary function of wkuch is to direct attention to a product, service or activity that is sold or offered either elsewhere or upon the premises where such sign is located or to which it is affixed. Subd. 12. SIGN AREA: That area of a sign within the marginal lines of the surface, which bears the announcement, name, advertisement or other message or, in the case of letters, figures or symbols attached directly to any part of a building, the area which is included in the smallest rectangle which can be made to circumscribe each letter, figure or symbol displayed thereon. Subd. 13. SIGN, DIRECTIONAL: A sign for the purpose of making specific commercial, industrial or public and semi-public locations known and to assist in finding these locations on the property which the sign is located. Subd. 14. SIGN, FLASHING: Any illuminated sign on which the artificial light is not maintained stationary and/or constant in intensity and color at all times when such sign is in use. Subd. 15. SIGN, IDENTIFICATION: A sign, the primary function of which is to identify a residential, commercial, industrial or public or semi-public use located upon the premises where such sign is located or to which such sign is affixed. Signs identifying commercial uses may call attention to the product, service or activity that is sold or offered upon the premises. Signs identifying industrial uses may call attention to the product, goods or material which is produced, processed, assembled or stored upon the premises. Subd. 16. SIGN, II,LLJMINATED: Any illutninated sign on which the artificial light is maintained stationary and/or constant in intensity and color at all times when such sign is in use. Subd. 17. TEMPORARY SIGN: A sign so designed as to be movable from one (1) location to another and which is not permanently attached to the ground, a sign structure or a building. Page 3 �_�, ..- -' w � ._. -= --="-= - u- -- =�-' .�. t-�: -.t _ t� __ -_'-�-= --- � :. . - --_- - '--� - - "= � Draft Sign Code Revision November 15, 2000 Subd. 18. WALL SIGN: A sign attached to or erected against the wall of a building or structure with the exposed face of the sign in a plane approximately parallel to the face of said wall. (1988 Code §39.01) 1008.02: BUILDING PERMIT REQUIRED; EXCEPTIONS: Subd. 1. Permit Required: It is unlawful to install, construct, erect, alter, revise, reconstruct or relocate any outdoor sign or structure, as defined in Section 1008.01 of this Chapter, in the Municipality without first obtaining a permit therefor as required by this Chapter, except as provided in subdivision 2 of this Section. (1988 Code §39.02) Subd. 2. Exceptions: Permits need not be obtained, but the other provisions of this Chapter shall be observed, for the following types of signs: a. A sign not exceeding ten (10) square feet in area, pertaining o�ily to the sale, rental or lease of dle premises upon which displayed. b. A sign on residential property stating only the name of the occupaut, which sign shall not exceed two (2) square feet in area. c. A si�i on propei-ty on which a public, charitaUle or religious institution is ]ocated, stating the name a�ld nature of the occupancy aud information as to the conditions of use or occupancy or a sign on such property used by the institution as a bulletin board, which sign shall not exceed ten (10) square feet in area. d. A campaign sign as provided for in subdivision 1008.08(11) of this Chapter. (1988 Code §39.03; 1993 Code; Ord. 607, 5-11-98) 1008.03: APPLICATION FOR PERMIT: Application for pernuts shall be made upon forms provided by the Clerk-Administrator and shall include the following information: Subd. 1. The name, address and telephone number of the applicant. Subd. 2. The location of the building, structure or lot to which or upon which the sign is to be placed. Subd. 3. The position of the sign or othex advertising structure in relation to nearby buildings, structures and streets or highways, if necessary. Subd. 4. Two (2) blueprints or ink drawings of the plans and specifications and method of construction and attachment to the building ground. Subd. 5. A copy of the stress sheets and calculations may be required by the Inspector, on larger signs, showing that the structure is designed for dead load and wind pressure in any direction in the amount required by this Chapter and any other applicable law. Page 4 li' __:_. > ._ ,� � � -, _ __ _ � . _a. _ _ - =`=j Draft Sign Code Revision November 15, 2000 Subd. 6. The name of the person erecting the structure, if not the applicant, or the narne of the person on whose property the structure is to be located, if not the applicant. Subd. 7. The written consent of the owner of the property, if not the applicant. Subd. 8. A statement as to whether the sign will be illuminated or not. Subd. 9. A statement as to whether any electric lights on the sign will be "moving" or blinking. Subd. 10. A statement as to whether the sign will be single-faced, double-faced or multi-faced. Subd. 11. A statement as to whether or not the copy on the sign will be changeable. Subd. 12. A statement as to whether or not the copy on the sign will relate only to the business or activity conducted on the premises on which the sign is to be located. (1988 Code §39.09) 1008.04: PERMIT FEES; WAIVER: Subd. 1. Fee: The application for a permit shall be accompanied by the required permit fee. The permit fee shall be established by resolution of the City Council. (1988 Code §39.10) Subd. 2. Waiver: The Council may, in its direction, waive tlie fee requil•ed by this Section where the signs are to be erected by civic or religious organizations. (1988 Code �39.11) 1008.05: ISSUANCE OF PERMIT; CONDITIONS: Subd. 1. Issuance: Upon presentation of application, permit fee, plans and specifications and other required information, the sign construction permit shall be issued by the Clerk-Adininistrator, except as provided in subdivision 2 of this Section. Subd. 2. Special Approval fi•om Council: In the case of an application for a sign requiring a special permit or wluch will be illuminated or moving or of unusual height, size, design or location, the Clerk-Administrator shall refer such si�i to the Council for approval. No pennits for any such sign, so referred, shall be issued without first obtaining the approval of the Council. (1988 Code §39.14) 1008.06: SIGN INSTALLER'S LICENSE PROVISIONS: Subd. 1. License Required: No person shall engage in the business of installing signs nor shall be entitled to receive a pernut to install a sign in connection with such business unless first licensed by the Municipality to do so. (1988 Code §34.04) Page 5 . .�,_ _ _ . -: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ Draft Sign Code Revision November 15, 2000 Subd. 2. Application and Fee: A license may be granted by the Council upon written application to the Clerk-Administrator on such form as required by the Clerk-Administrator and accompanied by an annual license fee as established by resolution of the City Council. (1988 Code §34.05) Subd. 3. Liability Insurance: Any person holding a licensee shall file with the Clerk-Administrator policies of public liability and property damage insurance which shall remain and be in force and effect during the entire term of said license and which shall contain a provision that they shall not be cancelled without ten (10) days' written notice to the Municipality. Public liability insurance should not be less than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) for injuries, including accidental death to any one (1) person and subject to the same limit for each person in an amount not less than three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00) on account of any one (1) accident, and property insuxance in the amount of not less than fifly thousand dollars ($50,000.00). (1988 Code §39.07) Subd. 4. Expiration: Licenses shall be issued on an annual basis, with the license year running from July 1 through the following June 30. (1988 Code �39.08) Subd. 5. Revocation: A license may be terminated and renewal thereof may be denied by the Council for cause after notice to the licensee and reasonable opportunity for the licensee to be heard on the question of such termination. Cause shall include any repeated or persistent violation of the requirements of this Chapter. (1988 Code §34.06) 1008.07: MAINTENANCE OF PREMISES: Premises on which ground signs are located shall be maintained free of weeds and debris, and where landscaping was part of the original sign permit, such landscaping shall be maintained in the manner provided in such permit. (1988 Code §39.12) 1008.08: LOCATION, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS: Subd. 1. General Standards: Every sign shall conform to the standards of this Section whether or not a permit therefore is required, and nothing contained herein shall be construed as modifying or repealing any of the provisions of this Code relating to zoning�. No sign shall be so located as to obscure or tend to obscure any existing sign. The following additional requirements are to be observed: a. Each ground sign shall be securely built, constructed and erected on the ground. Temporary signs shall be so designed that they are not readily overtumed. b. No sign structure shall be attached or placed upon any building in such a manner as to obstruct any fire escape or any window or door nor shall any sign structure be attached to a fire escape. I See Title 1100 of this Code. Page 6 :; - _ � f _ . - _ �-�_ w � � � .- . __ __ _ _ _ _ _- _ .. _ _____ _ _ __ _ : _ __ _ C Draft Sign Code Revision November 15, 2000 c. No sign erected before the effective date hereof shall be rebuilt, altered or removed to a new location without being brought into compliance with the requirements hereof. d. No swinging sign shall hereafter be erected or hung on or attached to any building within the Municipality, and every such sign so erected, hung or attached prior ta the effective date hereof which is deemed unsafe by the Building Inspector shall be immediately removed by the owner thereof or changed to conform with the requirements of this Chapter when so ordered by the Building Inspector. e. Where portions of a sign are subject to a different classification, each portion shall meet the requirements of its classification. f. Each sign requil•ing a permit shall have an ide�ltifying number to be provided by the Inspector, which number shall be posted on the exterior surface of the sign structure in a location where such information will be rcadily visible after the sign is constructed. g. All signs and sign structures shall be maintained in a safe condition and in a state of good repair at all times. No sign shall display matter that has been deemed obscene by a court of competent jurisdiction. h. Each sign shall be used and maintained only in the manner permitted and subject to the conditions imposed at the time the permit therefore was granted. i. The following additional conditions shall be observed: [Refer to my changes on Page 16] (1) No ground sign (except temporary signs, portable signs or baimers) or signboard shall approach at any point nearer than tiv-ee feet (3') to any building unless such sign is placed parallel to the side of the building, nor shall any such sign be placed within six feet (6') of the side of any lot nor nearer than fiftee�l feet (15') to any street line where there is no established or custoinary building line nor within twenty five feet (25') of any street corner right-of-way. Whenevet• the established or customary uniform building line upon the street where such ground sign is to be erected is more than fifteen feet (15') from the street or property line, then such sign shall not approach nearer to the street than the established or customaty uniform building line. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99) (2) The owner, lessee or occupant of the land on which the ground is located and the owner of the sign shall keep the property on which the sign is located free of long grass, weeds or other rank growth, rubbish or debris. (3) All parts of �-ound signs shall Ue designed for wind pressure of not less than thirty (30) pounds per square foot, and ground signs of wood construction shall have all members whicl� extend into the gound protected from decay by treatment with a preservative approved by the Building Inspector. (4) No permit shall be granted for the location of any ground sign having a sign area of more than forty (40) square feet within one hundred feet (100') of any single-family Page 7 _ _. , F Draft Sign Code Revision November 15, 2000 residence; provided, that the Council may ��ant a special permit therefor if the owner of such residence gives written consent thereto. (5) Pedestal signs permitted by the zoning regulations of the Municipalit}t and by this Cl�apter nlay be located adjacent to the iight of way of a street or highway, but no part thereof shall ex�end over such right of way. (6) No sign shall exceed thirty five feet (35') in height. (1988 Code §39.14) Subd. 2. Signs Allowed by District: The following table represents the allowable signa�e and area requirements b zonin dg istrict: T" � " . ;"'b "°K,,;"°""° *" �"' � „� "''�° � *�'� 111V 1V11V Y��J11 1 V Kll V111V11{.0 U.1 V 1Vl (.11l Sign Type R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-O B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 I-1 PF CRP PUD Ground No No 32 �� 32 �`� 32 �'� 200 240 300 300 100 100 �Z� Wall No No 64 64 No 32 100 100 100 100 100 100 No �z� Projection No No No No No 8 24 24 24 24 No �Z� Identification Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Temporary �3� Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Real Estate 10 10 24 24 10 24 24 24 32 32 64 no No 32 Home 4 4 No No 4 No No No No No No No No No Occu ation Campaign �4� Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Billboards No No No No No No No No No No No Yes �S� es �5� es �5� Directional �6� No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes RentalOffice No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No Incidental �'� Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes �� Ground sign shall be no taller than six feet as measured from grade �2� Signage requirements within a PUD shall be as indicated by the PUD Narrarive document. If no such document exists, signage shall be as allowed for a B-3 zoning District. �3� Refer to Section 1008.08, Subd. 9 �4� Refer to Section 1008.08, Subd. 11 �5� Refer to Section 1008.08, Subd. 10 �6� Refer to Section 1008.08, Subd. 13 �� Refer to Section 1008.08, Subd. ? a. R-1 Single-Family Residential District: (1) A name on residential property stating only the name or address of the occupant not exceeding two (2) square feet in size. (2) A sign not exceeding ten (10) square feet in area pertaining only to the sale, rental or leasing of the premises upon which displayed. 2 See Title 1100 of this Code. Page 8 �_ . . ' _: . . . .' �.. . . : ' _.' ' _'. "" . _ - : �- __' "" __'_' . . . _..-.... _ _ . _ .. . " _"�__'�'_: Draft Sign Code Revision November 15, 2000 (3) A sign, as allowed in subdivision 1106.03(3) of this Code, pertaining to home occupations. (4) Signs as allowed in subdivision 11 of this Section. b. R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District: Signs as allowed in subdivision 2a hereof. c. R-3 Medium Density Residential District: Signs as allowed in subdivision 2a hereof. d. R-4 High Density Residential District: (1) Signs as allowed in subdivision 2a hereof. (2) Direction signs for office, model, aparhnents, etc., locations not exceeding five (5) square feet. e. R-0 Residential-Office District: Signs as allowed in subdivision 2d hereof. f. B-1 Neighborhood Business District: (1) Signs not exceeding one hundred (100) square feet total area combined. This includes all types of permanent signs, as defined in Section 1008.01 of this Chapter. (2) Temporary signs, as allowed in subdivision 9e of this Section. g. B-2 Limited Business District: (1) Signs not exceeding one hundred (100) square feet per business occupant. This includes all types of permanent signs, as defined in Section 1008.01 of this Chapter. (2) Temporary signs as allowed in subdivision 9e of this Section. h. B-3 Highway Business District: Signs as allowed in subdivision 2g hereof. i. B-4 Regional Business District: Signs as allowed in subdivision 2g hereof. j. I-1 Light Industrial District: Signs as allowed in subdivision 2g hereof. k. Other Signs As Allowed in Certain Districts: B-3 Highway Business District, B-4 Regional Business District and I-1 Light Industrial District may have, besides the one hundred (100) square feet signage per business occupant, one (1) general pedestal sign not exceeding three hundred forty (340) square feet. Only one (1) pedestal sign is allowed per property. 1. R-5 Mobile Home District: Signs as allowed in subdivision 2d hereof, excluding subdivision 2a(2) of this Section relating to allowable signage. (Ord 585, 7-15-96) Page 9 .: __ , f _—_____ - -__ ��: .:.-:Y�_�� : .. _ :...� . . . _ . . _ - — _ �_ — —____�_�_�__i�. _ - " �. � " ' .:. _ .._: .. _, . - __ '�:�_.�. . �.::. _��..:.. ...��'e�—_.�� .��.'r .� ___. _' _ ' ""_ "�.__.__�� : Draft Sign Code Revision November 15, 2000 m. PF Public Facilities District: Signs not exceeding one hundred (100) square feet total per building. In addition pedestal signs are allowed in accordance with Section 1008.01, subdivision 6 except that no pernut shall be granted for any pedestal sign of more than foriy (40) square feet within one hundred feet (100') of any single family residence. Except as otherwise provided in this Section, such signs shall only identify and relate to the activities that are intended to occur on the site. Billboards, as pernutted by Section 1008.08, subdivision 10, are allowed as an interim use under Minnesota Statutes, section 462.3597. (Ord. 637, 2-14-00) n. CRP Conservancy, Recreation, Preservation: Signs not exceeding one hundred (100) square feet total per building. In addition pedestal signs are allowed in accordance with Section 1008.01, subdivision 6 except that no permit shall be granted for any pedestal sign of more than forty (40) square feet within one hundred feet (100') of any single family residence. Except as otherwise provided in this Section, such signs shall only identify and relate to the activities that are intended to occur on the site. Billboards, as permitted by Section 1008.08, subdivision 10, are allowed as an interim use under Minnesota Statutes, section 462.3597. (Ord. 637, 2-14-00) o. PUD Planned Unit Development: Billboards, as permitted by Section 1008.08, subdivision 10, are allowed as an interim use under Minnesota Statutes, section 462.3597. (Ord. 637, 2-14-00) Subd. 3. Traffic-Control Related Sign Regulations: Compliance with the following regulations relative to traffic control is required: a. No moving or flashing sign shall be located or maintained within fifly feet (50') of an intersection at which traffic semaphores are located. b. No sign shall be designed, located or maintained so as to be likely to obscure or conceal or cause confusion as to any traffic-control sign or device. c. No sign shall be located or maintained on or over any public street or highway right of way unless specifically permitted by the zoning regulations of the Municipality3. d. There shall be no use of revolving beacons, zip flashers, flashing signs or similar devices that would distract automobile traffic as to constitute a safety hazard. The illttmination of any sign located near a residential district shall be defused or indirect and located so as not to direct light on residences4. No flashing sign shall be located in such close proximity to residences or residential property as to constitute a nuisance to persons residing on the property by reason of flashing of the lights in such sign. e. The sign shall be located or maintained so as not to interfere with the ability of drivers or pedestrians to see any crossroad or crosswallcs. (1988 Code §39.13) ' See Title 1100 of this Code; see also subdivision 604.03(3)n of this Code. a See Section 1103.09 of this Code. 5 See also subdivision 604.03(3)b of tlus Code. Page 10 _: _. . _. , - Draft Sign Code Revision November 15, 2000 Subd. 4. Clearance of Signs from Conductors: The minimum clearance of any sign from unprotected electrical conductors (whether poles or other installations) shall not be less than thirty six inches (36") for conductors carrying not over six hundred (600) volts and forty eight inches (48") for conductors carrying more than six hundred (600) volts. Subd. 5. Signs Along Freeways: Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, signs located on property adjacent to any freeway within the Municipality (including Interstate Highway 35V� shall be business signs advertising businesses being conducted on the premises on which the signs are located. No "traveling" or changing-message signs shall be located so as to face any freeway or be visible from the freeway. The provisions of this subdivision, however, shall not be construed to render illegal or nonconforming any signs which are legally located along any such freeway at the effective date herein. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99) Subd. 6. Projection Signs6: The following standards shall be maintained for all projection signs: a. All portions of proj ection signs shall be designed for a wind pressure of not less than thirty (30) pounds per squaxe foot. b. Such signs shall not project over public street right of way but may project over sidewallcs located on private wallcs. No such sign shall be less than twelve feet (12') above the level of the sidewallc; provided, that such signs which do not exceed four (4) square feet and which do not project more than two feet (2') over the sidewalk may be eight feet (8') or more above the sidewallc. No projection sign shall project beyond a curb line nor project more than eight feet (8') over any private sidewallc. c. There shall be no more than two feet (2') of space between the inner edge of any such sign and the face of the wall from which it projects, nor shall the outer edge of the sign be more than eight feet (8') from the face of the wall. d. The building or structure from which any such sign projects and all attachments or fastenings must be so constructed as to safely resist the dead load and the wind load added by the attached sign. e. All such signs shall be of noncombustible materials or of not less than one hour fire-resistive construction. Subd. 7. Roof Signs: The following standards shall be maintained for all roof signs: a. No roof sign shall be located nearer than five feet (5') from the outside wall toward which it faces nor exceed twenty five feet (25') in height above the roof level of the building unless constructed integral with the building or shucture, nor shall it project beyond the edge of said roof in any direction. For the purposes of this subdivision, lights attached to the sign structure and lights attached to the building and beamed toward the sign structure shall be considered part of the sign structure. 6 See also subdivisions 604.03(3)b, 604.03(3)n 1103.08(2) of this Code. Page 11 • � . _ , r_ . .,; �. � , �� ,.. �., _ ��-�� i 1 �ti �:'� �s��..�. _�' r._�r� ' --•-- '-'"°---`—_. ,. . ,.. _ -- __ __ . .. - - - ' - .- - __•- - —_' . . . :. _ . _ _ . ,�. . _ . � Draft Sign Code Revision November 15, 2000 b. Every such sign shall be either metal, metal clad, incombustible, open wire or open metal sign; except, that such sign may have letters, figures, characters or borders of wood if such borders do not exceed four inches (4") in width and such wooden letters, figures or characters do not cover more than twenty five percent (25%) of the area of such sign; provided, that in place of sheet metal, substitution may be made of the following materials: tempered pressed wood or other similar materials approved by the Building Inspector, having equal properties as to strength, fire and moisture resistance. c. No such sign shall be so placed as to prevent passage of persons from one part of the roof to another. d. The building or structure upon which such sign is placed and all attachments or fastenings must be so constructed as to safely resist the dead load ancl the wind load added by the attached sign and in such a manner as not to cause damage to the building or structure on which such sign is placed. e. No roof sign shall be more than sixty five feet (65') in length, nor shall it extend more than twenty five feet (25') above the surface of the roof of the building on which it is located. No roof sign shall extend more than forty five feet (45') above the average ground level of that part of the street toward which it faces. Subd. 8. Wall Signs: The following standards shall be maintained for all wall signs: a. No wall sign shall have a projection over a private sidewalk or an established building line of more than twelve inches (12"). b. The materials, construction and attachment of any such sign shall meet the same standards and requirements as roof signs. Subd. 9. Banners, Temporary or Portable Signs: Temporary signs, as defined in Section 1008.01 of this Chapter shall comply with the provisions hereof. The following standards shall be maintained for all banners, temporary or portable signs: a. Temporary signs and banners attached to any building constructed of canvass, plastic material, cloth or other material with or without framework, shall be strongly constructed and shall be securely attached to their supports. They shall be removed (including all framework and supports) as soon as damaged or torn and in no case later than twenty one (21) days after erection. b. Banners and temporary signs shall not be larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet in area for each twenty feet (20') of building frontage. There shall not be more than one temporary sign on any building frontage. c. No banner or temporary signs shall project over public property or right of way but may extend a maximum of six inches (6") from the face of the building. Page 12 , � .: .. - . � �._ -� _ �, . � _.. � ._ . - . �. _ ; __ = _ � - - �! � E Draft Sign Code Revision November 15, 2000 d. Banners and temporary signs shall not be hung so as to cover, either partially or completely, any door, window or opening required for ventilation. e. No temporary sign, banner or portable sign shall be located on any multiple residence, commercial or industrial property in the City without first obtaining a permit therefor from the City. If the City determines to grant an application for a permit for any such temporary sign, banner or portable sign, it may impose conditions upon the granting thereof, and it shall be unlawful to locate or maintain any such sign or bannering for a longer period or in a different manner than that specified in the permit. No such permit shall be granted, however, where such temporary signs, banners or portable signs are prohibited by other provisions of this Code. f. No portable sign or temporary sign shall exceed thirty two (32) square feet on each side. g. No portable sign, temporary sign or banner shall be located on any property in the City for more than twenty one (21) days at one time or for more than three (3) twenty one (21) day periods on any one (1) year. h. The Council may allow administrative approval of sign installation for signs of identical design being installed by a business or individual. Once Council approval has been obtained for a particular sign design, the applicant may receive administrative permits for the installation of such sign from the Clerk-Administrator following submittal of all relevant information as outlined in Section 1008.03 of this Chapter and receipt of applicable fees. Subd. 10. Billboards: A permit shall not be issued for any new billboard unless it complies with the following interim use requirements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 462.3597: (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 656, 3-27-00) a. Interim Use Pernut: An interim use permit (IUP) must be obtained in accordance with procedures identical in form and substance to the conditional use pernut procedures found in Section 1125.01, subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. Any interim use permit issued for an interim use billboard shall automatically expire no later than July 1, 2015 or when the lease agreement for the billboard expires whichever date is earlier. Such IUP shall be null-and-void if the applicant fails to obtain any required permit frorn the State of Minnesota. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 656, 3-27-00) b. Location: The billboard must be located along and north of State Highway 10 (118). The applicant must have an approved lease agreement with the property owner. The billboard shall be oriented towards State Highway 10 (118) and/or I35W. Billboards must be located at least two hundred fifly feet (250') from residentially zoned property. Billboards may be located adjacent to the right-of-way of a street or highway, but no part thereof shall extend over such right-of-way. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99) c. Minunum Spacing: Billboards must be at least one thousand feet (1,000') apart. Spacing between signs shall be measured by projecting the nearest points of the signs to the property line of the right-of-way from which they are intended to be read and measuring the distance in Page 13 _ Draft Sign Code Revision November 15, 2000 a straight line between the projected points. Required spacing shall apply only to billboards on the same side of the same roadway. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99) d. Maximum Sign .Area: The maximum gross surface display area of the sign cannot exceed seven hundred (700) square feet per side except that any rectangular billboard may contain temporary extensions, cutouts, or top lettering which occupy a total area not in excess of twenty-five percent (25%) of the area of the basic billboard and form an integral part of the design thereof. No such temporary extension, cut out, or top lettering may project more than six feet (6') from the top, eighteen inches (18") from either side or fifteen inches (15") from the bottom of the basic rectangular advertising message. The area of an extension, cutout, or top lettering shall be deemed to be the area of the smallest rectangle into which such extension, cutout, or top lettering will fit. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99) e. Orientation of Sign Faces: Billboards may have no more than two (2) sign faces. Sign faces must be back-to-back with sign faces parallel or angled. All billboards with their faces back-to-back and parallel shall have no greater distance than eight feet (8') between the faces. ,All billboards with faces at an angle shall have no greater angle than tlurty-five degrees (35°). (Ord. 644, 12-13-99) f. Maximum Sign Height: The maximum allowable height of billboards shall be thirty-five feet (35'). The height shall be measured from the grade at the base of the sign or from the surface of the roadway whichever is higher. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99) g. Obstruction: No billboard may be located in such a manner as to obscure or otherwise interfere with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, signal, or device, or obstruct or interfere with a driver's view of approaching, merging, or intersecting traffic. (Ord. 644, 12- 13-99) Any billboard legally existing on the effective date of this section may continue to be maintained in its present form and size but not expanded. This does not preclude the periodic change of the message or advertisement presented on the billboard. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99) Any billboard destroyed by an act of God may be rebuilt within thirty (30) days if the construction of same would comply with this subdivision. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99) Subd. 11. Campaign Signs: The following regulations shall apply to all campaign signs for political candidates or issues: a. No more than one sign shall be erected per candidate or issue along each street frontage of any parcel of land. b. Campaign signs shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet and not exceed four feet (4') in height above the ground; except, where such signs are located no closer than one hundred fifly feet (150') to the property line of a residential dwelling, the maximum size shall be thirty two (32) square feet, and the maximum height above the gound shall be six feet (6'). Page 14 Draft Sign Code Revision November 15, 2000 c. Campaign signs may be displayed from the last day of candidacy filing or thirty (30) days before an election, whichever is earlier. d. All campaign signs must be removed no later than five (5) days after an election; except, that after a primary election, signs for the wuuung primary candidates need not be removed until after the ensuing general election. (1988 Code §39.14; 1993 Code) 1008.09: ABROGATION AND GREATER RESTRICTION: Where the conditions innposed by any provisions of this Chapter are either more or less than comparable conditions imposed by any other code, rule or regulation of the City, the code, rule or regulation which imposes the more restrictive condition, standard or requirement shall prevail. (1988 Code §39.14) 1008.10: VIOLATION OF PROVISIONSa Any person found violating any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (1988 Code §39.15) 1008.11: SIGN VARIANCES: (Ord. 644, 12-13-99) Subd. 1. Criteria for Granting Variances: A variance to the provisions of Section 1008 may be issued by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner. A variance may be granted in the event the following circumstances exist: 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 had no control. 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. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. d. That granting the variance requested will 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. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. g. Circuxnstances under which the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title create an undue hardship on the applicant. Economic hardships may be a circumstance for issuance of a variance. (Ord. 585, 7-15-96) Page 15 . ...: 1.: : _ ..� . . . . .. . _ - - .. .. . . .. .. _ - _�_ i .: . _.,.�_.., . _. .. . .. ___. ,.:.:._'. .-:.::. _ ' ( _ '" ' - " . . _ � _'_ _ _ •. --^ _ . _ _ .�.� � .�:,�_. ... . r, > .:. . , . -..�..- . � � � Draft Sign Code Revision November 15, 2000 Subd. 2. Variance Requests; Fees: All requests shall be made in writing on the form provided by the City and the request shall include the fee specified in the City's Fee Charges. All information required when applying for a sign permit, as outlined in Section 1008.03, shall be required before the request for a variance is considered. (Ord. 585, 7-15-96) Jim's revised Sectfon 1008.08, Subd li: i. The following additional conditions shall be observed: (1) No part of a ground sign shall be nearer than three feet to any building unless such sign is placed parallel to the side of the building. (2) No part of a ground sign shall be nearer than 15 feet (15') to any perimeter lot line nor located within thirty feet (30') of two property lines abutting intersecting street right of ways. [Insert Graphic to Illustrate] (3) The owner, lessee or occupant of the land on which the ground is located and the owner of the sign shall keep the property on which the sign is located free of long grass, weeds or other rank growth, rubbish or debris. (4) No permit shall be granted for the location of any ground sign having a sign area of more than forty (40) square feet within one hundred feet (100') of any single-family residence. (5) No sign sha11 exceed thirty five feet (35') in height. (1988 Code §39.14) Page 16 � � : , _ �� - .— - d R ., v_ _ PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS V�W PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA _ 2401 Hi 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at:'�:00 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, ��mmissio�r��,' ��; Stevenson, Kaden, and Cerny. ' 'f !: � ,;. r�>. < �, :�:: Members Excused: Commissioner � h�nr��. !��' .��>: : , ::. , � .; : sti� A1so Present: Planner Jim Ericson;��d �o��muiq�€�V Develoni�r��nt Index �t�,� 1��I�n�t#es Review 1VIc��fiir�€,�?4iear�� i:o 1'lI� �a�,;ri�;i� Review Propos�� .��.�i��E�iz�� 67�, an � Parcels frc�,t� �=� �,c} �9�::�� r��F �'onsid „__ ,. . , ..y. .. 10, Meeting r 19 2000 ',� �: ��, y �all ��T �z311�2 b�f 1, 2000. Director Jopke. �CQnsideration of Resolution 639-00 ��nance Rezoning the Mermaid �ation of Resolution 640-00 675 Johnson, Miller, Page 2 3 F��riew Second Draft of �rdg�aY�ce 672, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 o� th� Mounds View Zc�ning Code Pertaining to Home Occupations 4 <,.<.::. , �u��iu�u�s Possible Ch�.�ges to the City's Sign Code, Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code 5 ., ;�.� _ � %�,? � ��:�:�t�t s � 1 ��ems of Information 7 Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports � 3. Oath of Office, Travis Cerny Community Development Director Jopke administered the Oath of Office to Travis Cerny. r-;�r- �:= � t�� ---�,� �.�_ . ^-�- � L � .� . ._____ �: �� -- �:�:: .� � � _ �..r Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4. Citizen's Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the 5. Approval of Minutes A. October 4, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller, To approve the ��€�s��zp ! presented. 6. Ayes — 8 Review Moditications to TIF Di Community Development Director Jopl housekeeping changes in the way the �i TIF reporting. The City has been ,t�nt��;r i City has hired Ehlers and Asso�it�.t�s to reporting into compliance wi�.h st�.t�� requi Staff re�r��r��a�;d:;.c��c� View ar�t� �:ta� i��s��:�b. Plans for ��; "�"�?;� �' Economic Y��v��dr��,�� Chairper�o� ��ters� wer�,:�i�i�E'changes to �%1��,7 �i ;rneni: F�'i � :�roi�:ci !` �;Yi �, Nays - 0 0 November 1, 2000 Page 2 _ ��.� ;�y%; ,.:;�;; . ��v�`,,,y ; / �l � 000 meeting minutes as 639-00 �.� ,; , < � explainet�`, to thP ��>��riission the need for some keeps;t�x mcrem�r�c zz�iaylc� (TIF) records and in its iew��i�'the Stat� �uditor's Office and in response the co��z�;ri� cha��es to bring the record keeping and lution 6��0,' � Resolution concerning the City of Mounds c��o��d Modifications to the Tax Increment Redevelopment r,�; ��ricts Numbers 1, 2, and 3, within the Mounds View that the changes were merely housekeeping issues and unuruty Developmerit;';�ir�ctor� Jopke confirmed the changes were merely housekeeping issues no changes were be��g proposed to the TIF Districts. �..:,.. %lizz' ,:•H �� rp�rson Pete�-sbw�"pointed out a typographical error in the language on Page 1-3 and asked z� �� oz-�e��e� "on all three pages (1-3). �:`�rr�cr.��Jinner Johnson inquired as to why there was one piece of property that was not included in the "rIF District map on Page A-1. Community Development Director Jopke indicated it may be a problem with legal descriptions but said he was unsure of exactly why that piece of property was not included in the TIF District. Community Development Director Jopke indicated at some point, it might be appropriate for Council to amend the TIF District to include that piece of property. i�:� _ ..�._L�:�_ i,:� _ _ :- :.:�� r, �_ �=� - -�- --- -- _-=' - -- - - -'`"°__- -� - _=-� ---=--._._--: .. �. �� . _ .. .... Mounds View Planning Commission November 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 Chairperson Peterson inquired as to whether the maps included were created automatic.ally using software or if they were done by hand. Community Development Director Jopke indicated the maps ��r�,;crea�� c� indicated Staff had checked the legal descriptions and they ap��ar��o be co � �� He Commissioner Miller noted there was a typographical error qn I'age ��2 rn Sectio�� 1�� k� that the reference to TIF districts on the second Page 1-� re�'��° �c� T'� �istrict 2 consi�3�,��,t;�. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Berke. To approve Res€�lu�i�s�i i�tt�. 639-00, a Resolution Concerning the City of Mounds View and the Mounds Vieru �cc�ra��a�s�° .��:�i�lopment Authority's Proposed Modifications to the Tax Increment Redeveloprrxent Pl��as �'�,` `�C� .. .�icr�ment Financing Districts Numbers 1, 2, and 3 within the Mounds View �c.�anomic I��»�r��_ i%'� �ject Area. Ayes — 8 N i. Review Proposed Ordina�am� B-3 to PUD, and Consid�u��i Ordinance G75 Planner F,ricson told the �'n�y�a�i`. Resolu�io;p ��proving t41� F��v��lc�y��,.x The ��:��c�r� contai�� :�,, c�1�.��'�� rezoning' ��' t1t€; �7��o�e� cies �t��e�� The Planpli�a� ��rr�i��siora is t��i rezonings in �1i�, �'."��,j,�, �a��uroval c�� project to nn�`v� �� t�1<�?��:�. '� .: Com�ss�oner Stevensc�n i! .i k ,. Pl�ner Ericson indicate,d: b��iness park portion o�th ��t��z-person I' �c�a-� �!;��n, County. 'an O mf RE ed. ��'`��a� Mermaid Parcels from Itecommending Approval of on the ��` y�"��il had approved Resolution 5476, a �t stag� �il�� ±�� the Mermaid Planned Unit Development. autho�-iziri� �tia:ff to draft an ordinance to effectuate the ,�Iighway Business, to PUD, Planned Unit Development. �� `�� review and offer a recommendation regarding all �� -�.;c�ning of the Mermaid Parcels will allow the Mermaid to whether the Perkins parcel was included in the rezoning. the"Perkins site was not included in the rezoning, He also noted the e property was not included in the rezoning as it is already zoned PUD. as to whether the reference to Anoka County on the map had been �;�on indicated the map would be corrected to reflect that the property is in Ramsey MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Johnson. To approve Resolution 640-00, a Resolution Recommending Adoption of Ordinance 675, an Ordinance rezoning properties associated with the Mermaid Planned Unit Development. Ayes — 8 Nays — 0 Motion carried. , : --- _: ,_ ., r_ � -- _- , : - ` -- �� : "` . . .-�_ .-"-�' --_�._.� . _ ,�� . .. _�� -_�� _L� :: . ; . '_ : _-: ... . < <_�' _ - ... _ . 4-e Mounds View Planning Commission November 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 .�:�;�:. f:> S. Review Second Draft of Ordinance 672, an Ordinance Amendir�� Cha�ter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Home O�cupatu�u�:�;� . Planner Ericson told the Commission this was the second relating to businesses operated from within a home or ga occupation. The second draft reflects changes requestec� October 18, 2000. �� .>or vraiilanr� � r� f1Y _�� flrainance �; defined t�. �i'r.}� �',�3t�� <f:; l�ome the Com�;r��sion �� i�.^, �;��,:��r�6� �}�. The first change references the amount of parking a home c��a�� 'w requirement from "no more than two vehicles for on or off �� •��,�,i:�� :y��I�i vehicles for on street parking." The second change re��t;tis whe�� s permitted on the homeowner's property. The proposed rh�r��;F �o tk�� sign for the business to be placed within five fe�� i ��si i�1�>� ci oii�a��, sign extended into the right-of-way or adjoining p�c}p� ��°g�, `�'�t9� �k�irr� c1�� Tt includes the addition of item "h," which e��i�ly s�a�E�;, Gr�� aoi as a home business is expressly prohibited �;'" Commissioner Johnson inquired as tQ; ,.> drafting item "h." He then indicate�i � repair as there are many aftermar� t or tearing c�rs apart and cau��g ��iui Planne� '�;�-ir;;;�� .t�dicatec� �� issues t�� v�� ;reate. Commissio��g- ��r�;c.�� :�c�i vehicles but��d 3�a �:��s r�E�! what is:u�rong with ��'�r��.A.��' in th�::City and he does ��i l .f;%f : Cpriimissioner Stevenson �� r�i�hin the City. .. ;;y `:�� ier Stafl:"�iad co L1 X1 �C)YYLL`�OI'�$bl0 you c,,� 11 add ta f�� 11n �a!:i�t��iti allowed by changing the �;" co "no more than two ;kas�s��, ;�or the business is J��r�inan��_would allow a �.: �c�n� as no part of the 1�,� ��ivolves "nuisances." r� sales, service or repair ;d with the City Attorney prior to prohibiting automotive service or ;les that do not require loud tools r��$ c�heck with'�he �ity Attorney to ascertain what—if any—legal �ted 'rt� ih�° �:��st in the City there were many mechanics working on a}�ci, a�� ,��t� need a very expensive piece of equipment to analyze �sf�;��1-e iti can ve fixed. Therefore, there are only a few mechanics left ��:��r�'there is a big problem. ned whether items "g" and "h" could refer to all home businesses Ericson inc��ated the City has had several problems with automotive businesses within the ��r��.��:��ct�ier Kaden indicated he agreed with Commissioner Johnson that the statement excluding automotive repair or service was too broad and would eliminate those businesses adding aftermarket items to vehicles that do not cause a nuisance to the neighborhood. Commissioner Johnson indicated he is involved with an aftermarket organization and had heard from them that a statement disallowing service and repairs to automobiles could be construed as discriminatory as this type of business does not necessarily cause a nuisance to the neighborhood. He also indicated the organization believes a home business could fight the ordinance in Court and _ � T :_ .: � : _ � � ,� _ r, _ . ______ � _ _ _ � _ _ . A �__ _ � . � � Mounds View Planning Commission November 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 would more than likely win. He indicated a desire to have the City Attorney review the ��g�lities of including such a statement. Planner Ericson indicated item "h" could be stricken from the prefer. It was the consent of the Commission to strike item "h" Commissioner Miller indicated there was a typographical asked that the word "to" be added. MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Hegland. To approve Re the Commission's Support of Ordinance 672 and IiS IZf Council with the Deletion of item "h." Ayes — 8 9. Discuss Possible Change� Code Planner Eri�son presentec� a to MoL�ilc�;� �1�ivvv's Si��, ��c City's �.�;��d�; �� , p� e-;��:Yii Ata� project �;��r��}��ir�� -..riany Commissioncr �;� specific typ�� fp�' u� looked li�� fo�� :li;� 'er Ericson i ommission. s� cCity' if t:��; �`t�i � ch� first "Whereas" }�:10 would d lution indicating �ion by the City pte�° 1008 of the Municipal the sign c��`�li��r��a�:� from the City of Burnsville for comparison l�Ie indi��ci tir�i�"v,�ill continue to clean up the format of the �de one pit;c,c; �c a time to the Commission as this is a large ��ects of signage. c,ated it wa�.�� t�e helpful to have either pictures or drawings of the E�;��;ed in t��; ii�;n Code so the Corrunission would know what the signs be taking pictures of signage within the City to present to inquired as to what the criteria would be for each type of business to �fln�a��;�� _,��' andicated signage would be allowed based on the zoning district the businesses �r��}, ��; Commissioner Stevenson indicated the Burnsville Sign Ordinance seemed clear and concise and noted it was a good model to start with. Planner Ericson indicated Staff would attempt to redraft the City's Sign Code to model after the Burnsville Code to make it easier to read before any changes were made. -: .-... . _ _ _ _ _ � _ _ __ �:: � bz � �,. . _ . :. . ___ � _ _ .._ . _ __ _ _ � Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting November l, 2000 Page 6 Chairperson Peterson inquired as to whether any of the work of previous Commissi sign ordinance would be able to be used. Planner Ericson indicated he had pulled the old file on the s�g� t��Jinancr> „g3�� ,rs�l �.�,. • ;c. ;,: : information that is not outdated. ,�y;�f�;>-• __ Commissioner Hegland noted it may be helpful to standard signage. Planner Ericson indicated he could contact local sign comp� Community Development Director Jopke indicated he was� that would have a model sign ordinance the City could use,: Planner Ericson indicated he would research tl�� t€�� ordinance. ;.; :, :- Commissioner Kaden inquired as to the st&�t�s of Community Development Direc down based on the fact that t appeal by �h� sign compan�r t Noverribc�� j �,, 2000 that ��a�,�/ ;�� is the ,.�� c��d'�:l.low billhc��-t� y� Commissio�z�;g• ',��1�� ;�di ii�c�u attended the 1��.��r�j�lir�x.� � Plan. Comzz�unity Develo�m�raL �i� w.e.�I�'and he would be atte��' � sign co�� >? � ��'R�`z �'s i�Fi �are of a i��;'a, a mod�l. � �i�;�eYx�u� to for n�'on the whatever back on any revisions �� ign industry group ice the model sign :l,;. ��.��:�;�r��t�'at the golf course. T6��'e indicat��l the perrxut for the billboards had been turned z`operty i� �� ?oned,� �;dustrial or commercial. There is an r.he City �dd� ;�t�iY�� There is an administrative hearing ,., ayed intc� �`��r�c��•��r: One of the big points the City will make golf cou��; ,�i �J� agan with a similar zoning designation. ��c� ��hether Community Development Director Jopke had ��t;��` to obtain the approval of the City's Comprehensive Jopke indicated the meeting had been rescheduled for next Staff Reportsl�tems of Information ous Council Actions �otnmunity Development Director Jopke indicated Council had set the public hearing for the Mermaid Preliminary Plat. B. Items of Discussion Community Development Director Jopke told the Commission he had submitted his resignation and taken a position with the City of West St. Paul. � . �--,�_ _�_ __ , ._, �--- -=-- -' -- • =----- - � ,y __. . Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting � . _ �� ., .-_ ,: : - �- .- . _, .: _.. __. .. ___ _ __ _ E 11. Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports Commissioner Stevenson invited Commissioner Cerny to give Commissioner Cerny indicated he has lived in Mounds View s ; Ham Lake. He also said he is a rental property owner in the!`;C The Commission welcomed Commissioner Cerny. There were no other reports of the Commission. 12. Adjournment There being no further business before the the meeting at 8:05 p. m. (The meeting immediately :� Respectfully submitted, _ ��r.t��li`,:�i�si.�, �11ai November 1, 2000 Page 7 and �' -:��- i`�:imself. f;�l�� l��ed in eterson adjourned _ : _ _� ______ _ __ � , ____ _ _ �� ___ ____ _ ___ _ -_ : _ . _ - � 1. 2. 3. � MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION December 6, 2000 -- 7:00 P. M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Call to Order Roll Call Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITTZ�NS: BEFORE SPEAHING, PLEASE COMC TO TI� PODIUM, AND GIV� YOUR FULT. NAME AND ADDRESS FOR Tf� NIINiJTE5 Approve Planning Commission Minutes: a. November 1, 2000 5. Planning Case No. MI00-003 Property Involved: 8480 Eastwood Road Consideration of Resolution 641, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision. Applicant: Richard Cary 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 � Discussion of Ordinance 672 Regarding Home Occupations Continued Discussion Concerning the City's Sign Code. StaffReports / Items of Information a. Previous Council Action (11/27, 12/4) b. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports Adjournment to Agenda Session (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) APPLICAI�ITS: YOUR ATT�NDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQU�STED. PLEASE NOTIFY TIIE COMMU1vITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 763-717-�1021 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. AGENDA SESSION AGENDA Review the Minutes from the November 15, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting. E:�DATA\GROLJPS\COMDEV\PLANCOIvIIv1�PCAGENDA12000�Nov 15, 2000 PC Agenda.da; Item # 5 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: Decembe� 6, 2000 Tatle: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION641-00, A RESOLUTION RECOMI��NDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF 8480 EASTWOOD ROAD Introduction: Richard Cary, representing the property owners Sharlee and Peter Cleveland, is requesting approval of a minor subdivision of 8480 Eastwood Road, a corner lot fronting on Eastwood Road and County Road J. Minor subdivisions are those divisions of land less than two acres in size in which only one additional lot is created. The 32,738 square foot lot is zoned R-1, single family residential and is designated as single family detached according to the Comprehensive Plan. The lot split will create a new 14,202 square foot lot facing old County Road J leaving 18,536 square feet for the lot with the existing home. Both lots would conform to all zoning and subdivision code requirements. The applicant has submitted a certificate of survey which describes the proposed subdivision. Discussion: Staff has forwarded the certificate of survey to the City's engineering technician, the City's attorney as well as the Ramsey County traffic engineer for review. Other than the need to dedicate perimeter easements, the subdivision request is straightforward and does not pose any issues. This subdivision will be subject to park dedication requirements. The fee is 5% of the land value of the land subdivided, less the value of any land already improved with single-family residential dwellings. In this case, the fee would apply to 14,202 square feet of land at an assessed value of $0.97 a square foot. The extrapolated value for the lot would be $13,776, of which five percent would amount to a fee of $689. This fee would need to be paid prior to the City approving the subdivision. Due to the possibility of cancelled meetings later this month, staff scheduled this item to be heard for consideration by the City Council on December 11, 2000. .�_ _ _ ._ e. � _ .� -- _ _ __ _ PC Report December 6, 2000 Page 2 Recommendataon: Because this is a straightforward subdivision which satisfies all related code requirements, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the attached Resolution 641-00, subject to the following stipulations: The applicant shall retitle the survey to read "Certificate of Survey". 2. The applicant shall revise the survey to indicate 5-foot perimeter drainage and utility easements around both lots, except lot lines abutting Eastwood Road and County Road J, which shall indicate ten-foot easements. 3. The applicant shall arrange to execute and to record the drainage and utility easement documents with Ramsey County. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for the drafting, execution and recordation of a utility easement document granting in the favor of the Parcel A the south 15 feet of Parcel B for sanitary sewer access. Said document shall be reviewed by the City Attorney and a copy shall be placed on file with the City for reference. Z �J� , �. � �' �1��i,/ )� (� �,JJJ��Y�� James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Application 3. Letter to Applicant, dated 11/21/2000 4. Letter from Ramsey County, dated 1 I/21/00 5. Survey 6. Resolution 641-00 E:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES�IvII00-003�PC Report - Dec 6, 2000.doc r - �� ), ��;�?�;.[�;=� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT -� DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION _ °�,p i;(:;;,;,r�;� 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 ,�`��f ' Partnc�Sti�Qy 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form �� 7d � ` �'�� AppGcant Information 1 � Name of Applicant �i '� �L,d l.i,'� Telephone �� 7C�3 -7�(o-`��L (,� '� Address t �b�(��Cxi'K�L�: Fax �� 6`'� -�7�6 �-�7S 3'Lj �'�,t� ��_{ , ►'� Interest in Property (check appropriate box) ❑ Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager � Agreement to Purchase o Other (explain)' Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not thc owner of the property, you must providc a letter of permission from thc owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this appGcation for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal 'l Address or General Location �� `� �^.c� ;�� ` �1��+�� , ��..�i1 Legal Description �`�� • Properiy Ident�cation #(PIN #) � b�� Z� � � ��a 2- # ofAcres +�� Ciurent Zoning � � Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250 ❑ ' Rezoning $250/acre; min $250 max $1500 ❑ Major Subdivision $250 + $250 deposit* ,�( Minor Subdivision $200 ❑ Planned Unie Development (PUD) Refer to rezoning fees ❑ PUD Amendment $350 ❑ Conditional Use Permit R-1, R-2 $75; all others $250 ❑ Variance R-1, R-2 $100 all others $250 ❑ Code Appeal $100 ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan $125/acre; min $125 max $750 ❑ Wetlatid Alteration Pernut R-1, R-2 $150; all others $200 ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit R- I, R-2 $25; all others $100 ❑ Floodplain Pemut $200 ❑ Other *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirly (30) days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. . • ._� � �:.� , .. ..� d .� :. �� _ �w�.�_ � _ . _ _ . ,... _ _ .�� y City of Mounds View, MN Development Application � Pa�e 2 Present Use of Property o UndevelopedNacant �. Single Family Dwelling ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) Property Classification � Abstract o Tonens BY MY (OUR) SIGN'ATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO TI� BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INF'ORMATION PROVIDED IS TR CC TE. , f . .. Signature of Applicant : ,�G�� Name ofApplicant (typed/printed) �'��°�1� � �'� " � � Signature of Properly Owner Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner .��-h�� .tv �� f�� C �.E-�JE? l, !� �, � � � d �_�'7�=oz �� %Q � ��u'„�AS v'��w •/`/�✓�, S'�(��; . 7��-?lS-XilCoy . T*T*TTT*T*T*T***TT**TT**'�*T***Ti�i�TT*�i*T**T*TT*Ti�TT***i�i�**T***�i*******i�i�*******i�***i�***********`�T � . � � FOR OFEICE USE ONLY . Date of Subinittal /� _ � ) � O Q . ' Date of Acceptance Assigneii to: Planning Case No. ��7-�j�i�)— �� 60-day Limit 120-day limit • Fees Paid: Account # Check # Receipt # Application: v�0(�• no } 6 C) 3�l¢ � ��'-i� a. I.F �-7� Park Dedication: � Deposits: Other: Total: N:IDATA\GT20UPS\COMDEV�FORMS�DEVAPP.FOR 1/98 d �. �-:� : .� -�,_�.�� - - : � � � j� . j� . � �1 � �r ,% � `� �' : �,j � ap � � :: 'Ll: ;:. ;� � �l �, � : a� ; 4 � � ' � � ' � , . 00 .. _.. .... .: .. . : � : � : tt] �C� � : +f� ; �� +-- ` U� � r� . {� ' Ql 9Q � cLY itil C�) �' : �} �t r'l rri rn r'� : rri ; r� ; r� ; 40 00 : GO • c0 . t4 �0 : op • o� , 00 � ' 'd- . �h � *� ; C� Q G� : <D ' N . C7 : O �. • C4 if? : tt {Y C> � : A� (� f� ' 'd' : N ' ,39 tr�; a`ro o�o a��. ar o• a� a� � o�o ;�m ° �o '• m; 1 �� : : : : : . .. ,_ _ , . , . . _ .. ,. , . . . . . . . .. . . , , . ,• •, : ,,.a w '' �, ,� �y . r.. rn : ,n ° T-. : �� : M ' i� ti ' � �� '� � : � .�q, . ,"�a. . N�y ; � M . M r ) : r� ' M � �� 0� : 0� ��OQ b0 Ob . � � . 00 K7 ' OD 00 : 4a : 04 , � � i i , � i . O � Cb � � ' v � N W � t? : �7 �? C� � c'J ! C.7 ' C� : O ; iri � G5 f� 4b i' v� M t�l �� [? � 00 t� CD �' d` M N: rr� � �� t- : � d' i ' �h +i� d• et +� , t�7 M . �� N'> ; r� � ►'� ' �"7 ' GO � I..... CLs. ob CQ QO i oa oC1 . tq CQ ' u? : aQ o0 ' OC? c�J o0 ' 00 ; 00 > ! � • � + �; � � �. � �. , � � _, -.. ........ ,...: .� . , . . .. ... .., : . ... _..... . .... , ._ . .. � , � � . �, : � � ��'�z � 'i ; ' ' . ; � • ; �� ?� cn : r'? : tf� U? : u� �f] �f] tf') �f! it� �� f'r : u7 �� tC7.' lf7 ' t�% E�;(D' tL7 : 'a � N . Cl '�7 bb I`w lf5 : cl' � N}: N' r `� 4� � � ` r` : �t . � : d. . �t `?' . �t : � ' �- : r� : M M i� r� : r� . rh . r'S � . � : a�C3 : � � � ! �CO : 00 ; � . � , 00 :. 0� , 00 : ob 04 . 00 CQ : p0 . (X3 : �70 l�b ` � �� . � . � ' � :'Q • ,y, eh ' d- : Kt- ' d' v ; tl- , d- . �t , b � d' ' c? Q � � , Cy d G1 I � � , � . � � �c7 d- r�7 ` N . ,— . G� ' O� , tra � cA � � �i-- t� � fV � d- • d� � , `9' , d' ' `'i` -ct • d- . d- . d- : � : �7 r� r'i , r� r'1 : r� ; t�? M � � pp � ; 00 � O�S ' � OJ R3 : O] (fl : OG � �0 GQ � : p0 : 00 : UJ �, d4 00 � 80LZ � : ; , � �9l.LZ' : . � � � : ' , ' : ,�OZL7 . ,t� � ,�, � �r-, �n � � � �n : �n ,n ; �n ` rn r� n , a7 . � r- �: �n �r5 00 s f� .: u� : u'r �r :� c� , r- ; C� . r• ? n c� : �Ci :. d- �. �, � f� �`, *t d- d : �t : �' ; � : � . M M � N) r7 � N? : t� � '� � �t "`.' ', k] QD : tt� '�� 06 � D� 00 0� . 00 : a0 0� : t�0 � p0 ; �p i � [� ?� CI �i7 � d� ; e�- �,�}. :(7 u� d '� O' t0 . O O� N 00 d- r� � N � � C}3 ; pp . � ; cP , u� �t r'''� {`J : L'3 . t� f^- '� ; � , Yr M -0 ,�• . �. ; sy. • d- . d- � � . �. .� : �{. , �y . � , r.�y M � 04....; 00 : oD ;�0 : QO a� : ar cp cp ; o0 op � c0 � CO ;°Cs : Cc� cd j Q � �rLZ; � ' � �: : , N� �........ __.'...:.... �..... ..� .... . ... . � _ _.. _ .. ; c� �-.�. s�tz ; ; . , : ... : � w , .,�., � . .. � O � .... � ' � $ ,�d' � 'ct � � ; N ' r- : C� � h� � � ' '� ' M N .0 � tr'J � 40 ' 0.�r � , Co : �- �t , d- : � �t r� .� : �� M 1� ; K} ; r7 O � � 00 : RJ ' ob . 4� � cr3 . 07 . op ; ap � � �� N � I ---'-- - - . .. . .. .-..._ _ . 1:�.....-�_'-_. - �.. ...". '..� �-- — . - ��:� ---. _..�. _ --- - . . a�'—... -��w - _____ f_. .- i RAMSEY COUNTY TO: FROM: Department of Public Works Kenneth G. Haider, P.E., Director and County Engineer ADMINISTRATION/LAND SURVEY 50 West Kellogg Blvd., Suite 910 St. Paul, MN 55102 •(651) 266-2600 • Pax 266-2615 E-mail: Public.Works@co.ramsey.mn.us MEMORANDUM Jim Ericson City of Mounds View Dan Soler w Ramsey Cou y Public Works SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision County Road J DA'TE: November 21, 2000 ENGIN�ERING/OPERATI(`� 3377 N. Rice Street � Shoreview, MN 55126 (651) 484-9104 • I�'ax 482-5232 The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed lot division for 8480 Eastwood Road. Ramsey County has the following comments regarding this proposal. 1. The proposed lot split should not have any adverse effect on traffic operations along County Road J. 2. The new lot will require an access permit from Ramsey County for construction of an access onto County right of way. Thanks for the opportunity to make connments regarding this assue. If you have any questions or need any additional information please give me a call. �,;��; �� ,-, �,,.,� � . . . �, . _,�t.:) ��-, ,�c.;.;�_ c=.� Minnesota's First Home Rule County printed on recycled paper with a minimum o(10% post-consumer content ,:� CITY OF JDS -o a ��p �• ��UV 'Or ogrPSS ` PartnetiS��QS November 21, 2000 Richard Cary 5692 Regis Trail Fridley, MN 55432 RE: 8480 Eastwood Road Minor Subdivision Dear Mr. Cary: Phone: (612) 717-4000 Fax: (612) 784-3462 I am writing concerning your application for a minor subdivision of 8480 Eastwood Road in the City of Mounds View. We anticipate that the Plaxuzing Commission will hear your request on December 6, 2000 and make a recommendation to the City Council based upon their findings. The Council will take action on your subdivision request at its meeting either on December 11 or December 26. Your presence at both the Planning Commission and City Council meetings would be advised. I have forwarded a copy of the survey to our City Engineer, our City Attorney and the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer for their review. I hope to receive their comments prior to the Planning Commission making their recommendation. As I mentioned to you before, this subdivision will require a paxk dedication fee equivalent to five percent of the land-value of the newly-created lot. In addition, you will be responsible for dedicating two easements with this subdivision: one for the sanitary sewer access along the south 15 feet of the remainder parcel, and the other for a perimeter drainage an:d utility easement on the new lot, ten feet front and back, five feet on the sides. (Refer to the enclosed survey.) Last, we will need to know iithe property is encumbered by any liens or mortgages, as any person or entity having an interest in the property would need to give their or its consent to the recordation of the easement documents and subdivision with Ramsey County. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, � J �� James Ericson, Director of Community Development City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 • Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 � PNINTEOWITH Website address: http://tcfreenet.org/ip/city/moundsview S��NK � Equal Opportunity Employer recycled paper MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 641-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA R�SOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF 8480 EASTWOOD ROAD, REQUESTED BY RICHARD CARY, REPRESENTING PROPERTY OWNERS SHARLEE & PETER CLEVELAND; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MI00-003 WHEREAS, Richard Cary, representing property owners Sharlee and Peter Cleveland, has requested approval of a minor subdivision of 8480 Eastwood Road, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally-described as follows: The north 975 feet (measured at right angles fo fhe north line fhereo� of the following described tract; that part of the Norfheast Quarter (NE 1/4) of Section 6, Township 30 north, Range 23 west described as follows; Beginning at a poinf 1584 feet east and 2835 feet north of the southwest corner of said Northeast Quarter, fhence wesf parallel with the south line of said Northeast Quarter a distance of 264 feet; thence north and paralle! with the west line of said Northeast Quarter a distance of 537.98 feef; thence easf on the north line of said Northeast Quarter a distance of 264 feet, thence south parallel with the west line of sold Northeast Quarter c distance of 529.05 feet to the point of beginning, excepting therefrom the north 33 feet thereof and also excepting the east 25 feet thereof. WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to subdivide the west 100 feet from the lot to create a buildable lot fronting County Road J(North County Line) with a proposed legal description as follows: The wesf 100 feet of the norih 175 feet (measured af right angles to the norfh line thereo fl of the following described fract; that part of the Northeasf Quarter (NE 1/4) of Section 6, Township 30 north, Range 23 west described as follows; Beginning at a point 9584 feet east and 2835 feet north of the southwest corner of said Northeasf Quarter, thence wesf parallel with fhe south line of sold Northeast Quarter a distance of 264 feet; thence no�th and parallel with the west line of said Northeasf Quarter a disfance of 537.98 feef; thence easf on the north line of said Northeasf Quarter o distance of 264 feef; fhence south parallel with the west line of said Northeast Quarter a disfance of 529.05 feet to the point of beginning, excepting therefrom fhe north 33 feet thereof. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant's request for a minor subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, and 1202 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant's request for a minor subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Survey for the above described property; and, L - r . _..—� . _, .... �<..._��s.. _ l-= ___ _. � _ G�� --. . _ �. � .' '— – ^ �–, _ . •s�- _ �-_ . s>.-'-'_ --. � .�._ Resolution 641-00 Page 2 'WF�REAS, the City Attorney, the Engineering Technician and Public Works Director for the City of Mounds View have reviewed the proposed minor subdivision and survey and have has found it acceptable; and, WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer has reviewed the survey and has stated that the lot split should have no adverse effect on traffic operations of County Road J; and, WI-IEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4, a park dedication fee in the amount of $689 is applicable with this proposed minor subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planrung Commission recommends approval of the minor subdivision of 8480 Eastwood Road, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Prior to the City Council approving this subdivision, the applicant shall submit the required park dedication in the amount of $689.00. 2. The Survey shall be entitled "Certificate of Survey" and be revised to show a five-foot perimeter drainage and utility easements along the rear and side property lines and a ten-foot drainage and utility easement along the front property lines abutting either Eastwood Road or County Road J. Text shall be added to the Survey which states, "Separate drainage and utility easement documents have been executed and recorded with Ramsey County." 3. The applicant shall arrange for the drafting, execution and recordation of an easement document dedicating in the favor of Parcel A the south fifteen-feet of Parcel B for sanitary sewer access. This document shall be reviewed by the City Attorney and shall be placed on file with the City for reference. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining an access permit from Ramsey County for any and all work occurring with the County right of way. The applicant shall record the City Council resolution of approval, the Suzvey and the easement documents with Ramsey County within thirty (30) days of final adoption, and present proof of such recording to the City of Mounds View. Failure to record these documents or provide proof of such recordation shall cause this approval to be null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 6th day of December, 2000. F. ,. .. _ _ � j Resolution 641-00 Page 3 Jerry Peterson, Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) J:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASESVv1100-003�RES. 641-OO.DOC � __�;:✓-�•- :'`'..�"`�'�.._ _. _.. 1:--_:. - __ ' - 1�_. � � _ __ _� - .w �_ "._ "__"_"_�s--=_ Item # 6 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: December 6, 2000 Title: DISCUSSION AND RECONSIDER.ATION OF ORDINANCE 672, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1106 OF THE MOiJNDS VIEW ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO HOME OCCUPATIONS Background: The Planning Commission reviewed potential revisions to the Home Occupation Code on October 18�' and again on November lst before sending proposed Ordinance 672 on to the Council with a recommendation of adoption. The City Council reviewed the proposed ordinance at their worksession on November 8, and on November 13�' was scheduled to introduce the ordinance for its first reading, but declined to do so after taking public testimony seeking further changes to the ordinance. Rather than attempting to make any significant changes to the ordinance at the Council level, the Council determined it would be prudent to have the Planning Commission review the ordinance again with the specific goal of addressing the issue of non-resident employees. Discussion: As the Planning Commission is aware, the Code prohibits the employment of non-residents in a home occupation. Staff is of the opinion that permitting non-resident employees to worlc at a home occupation has the potential to change the essential nature, purpose and intent of a residential district. It can be assumed that property owners usually invest in a honne with the expectation that the homes in the neighborhood are dwelling units, not businesses. Property owners have vested stakes in the preservation of the neighborhood and the introduction of non-resident workers with no vested interest in the property is a legitimate concern for homeowners and their financial investment in the property. That being said, however, there are certainly situations when the presence a non- resident employee would not cause a problem; yet staffwould contend that the potential risk to the community of opening that door outweighs any benefit gained by changing the Code to benefit one particular home based business. Staff has surveyed surrounding communities to determine how other cities address this issue. (The results of that survey are attached in Table 1 and Table 2.) In summary, eight of the twelve cities surveyed do allow for non-resident ennployees, five of which allow just one non-resident employee while three cities allow non-resident employees only by conditional use (CUP). Other Survev Results: All cities except Spring Lake Park limit parking to some extent, seven of the cities do not allow any on-street parking. None of the cities, except the two that allow more intensive home occupations by CUP, allow unrestricted off street parking similar to what was contemplated by Ordinance 672. Five of the twelve cities require some form of licensing or permitting; Mounds View does not. Two cities require all home occupations to obtain a conditional use permit, while four other cities require a CUP for more intensive home occupations. Nine of the cities surveyed include an area requirement that the home business may � . . . __ - - '-='---' = --- .. - . . �_. '----'-�.:_-,, : : .. : _ .--_�.:: 4__��_»._.'� ' ..-_'��— - _• r_-=ia= . _a .� _ _ - .�::. Re-Examination of Ordinance 672 December 6, 2000 Page 2 not exceed. Mounds View has no such requirement, which nneans the business could conceivably take up 100% of the home, and since no restriction is nnade regarding the use of accessory buildings, a home based business could dominate the accessory structures as well. Only three cities include a limitation on the hours of operation. Regarding prohibited uses, the Planning Commission took a considerable look at the potential of restricting automotive uses as a home based business but in the end made no change in that regard. Half of the cities surveyed do identify certain businesses as being prohibited—more concerning retail sales, automotive repair and firearm sales. 7800 Gloria Circle: In October of this year, staff became aware (by means of an anonymous complaint) of a possible violarion of the City's Home occupation ordinance at 7800 Gloria Circle. A letter was sent to the person residing at the address which pointed out the requirements of the ordinance and that if the resident wished to continue operating the business, it would need to comply with the Code. After receiving the letter, Mr. Hollander, resident of 7800 Gloria Circle, contacted me regarding his business. I reiterated the Code requirements and Mr. Hollander admitted that his business—which employed the use on non-resident workers—could not comply with the requurements and asked if the Code could be amended. It was at this time that the Planning Commission was already reviewing the Code so Mr. Hollander surveyed his neighbors (an example of his survey is attached for your reference) and made plans to address the Council when it was scheduled to hold the first reading on November 13�'. Mr. Hollander will explain that his business, which has operated at that location for more than two years, poses no impact to the neighbors and actually provides an economic benefit to the City by virtue of the fact that his employees shop, eat and do other business in Mounds View. Staff however has received many calls in opposition to making any changes to the Code, especially as it relates to non-resident employees and Mr. Hollander. While this issue has been raised directly as a result of Mr. Hollander, the Planning Commission has to consider that any changes that benefit Mr. Hollander will also apply across-the-board to the whole City. Even if Mr. Hollander's business is relatively unobtrusive, there is no guaxantee that that would be the case for all subsequent home occupations to take advantage of non-resident employees. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission reconsider the ordinance as directed by the City Council, yet should not limit its review to simply the issue of non-resident employees. .All of the requirements contemplated by the Code should be re-examined in light of the survey results and the concerns of residents that may choose to address the Commission. � � � _ C;; �ti�� L i2,w�-v'1.� James Ericson, Community Developnnent Director Q:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�SPECPRO.�Sp083-OO�PC Report - Dec 6, 2000.doc r • -� __ . � — ------ - --- __ . —__ -- - ;_-_ . �. : � . . „�__ _ _ __: � _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ . _. __ � .,� - -- � � � N o� 0 3 0� o� N N o� � � '� a� a� a� •-- o»-� o»- o •- o a� a� •- o � o 0 � �� c � c N � � � � � � � , � ' � � � ,,... � w .fl w- .n �.- .n � � ,�-- .n � � � .n 41 � � � � t�/) m � N � N � N � N � � � � � N N � � N ,� �4� ��: '� C '� C '� C � �Y � � C C � � �� C tn C tn C In � � � � � � � � C(n C cn ' N Z N ` N �„ O � O � O � � C� � t0 N (4 N (II �� CO O � O N CO ` z U z U Z U } F- } F-- >- i- } i- Z U z U }' � Z U Z r i- ., � E E E ��_�_ � oQO o `��' r�i � � � ,..a I ��' O O o o O �� o o O �� O o�� ;� ' Z z z z z ��, z Z z � oo Z z }� ,�, :'. � � ',, � �-; �! , � �� 4" 0 o a`�i u`�i o o � � a`�i o a`ni a�i a�i � Z Z } } Z Z � � � Z >- >- >- U �-_' o c i c �' �.. ca �� cu o 0 fts � � �o � N �o ��:' U �cc� �� .�co _ L O � � � � � � � � � � � � C � � �:� � O " �' o o � � U � o o *-' C w o U o 0 __...',� ..' N M Z � N Z Z O Z N N Z Z� � O «� N N N Z __ _ x:: -;" [�' C��I A� q�p � �i} �7) ��. .,�� 'to" � 3� �; � �g ,�,, �, O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q�>:::::;:: z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z z z Z � l.: � ;� :: � � N � � �a.; �� a�i� N N� � �' a°'i � a�i o. o 0 o a� o 0 o a� � o ai a� __: _ � o �� Z Z Z � Z Z Z � o Z �� t�- ��.�: a� � c�a � � �'. �� n� o a� o 0 0 � o 0 0 � o a� ;� -:�', �- Z �- Z Z Z � Z Z Z �- Z 1- tJl ' N c � u� N � M N N - N '� ' � a' � C C � C tn K�l � cII O C� N � � ci! cCp � � N +-� N:«, fC tB '�' ?' N N�� "-' a � C L V t+-� .0 � L V � O �p L L � C V t V�r � 7 � � ' : .e. �G r T .r (Q � � .�-� N C C �+ r-' � � T .� Vl � r� .-' � CO �' � L .: N ..-. .� ...� ,�, L N L w ..., U � � � N n � � � � t� � � � N � � t CII � � � � �7 p� N '� � N 0 c� p� � 4ci '� O��, O� a O� O r- O� � C'�'' � O` O � C�>� O� C C �i �. � �� a� E� a> E �� E° E— o;� � c E n E n o:Y— �n E— `o oY N � �< o� �°`m x� a'�i E o c o� o`m °•°-� o� °v'�- o c`v-�°o•o' o� c o m o a� �o n Zc�a� Z>:,r Zo Zco Z�E� Zo Zo Zo.m� Zcao Z� Z� � � ! � �i � IW- � •� � � � � u- � ce� d q � � � � _� M T r r � � �� N O O N � O N � O O N� � � � � : i(.) i'° %� i° .% G'. i° i' �'y i s� � � i" i) � � aa � � ° �- � �� y Ci1 � � t� ' �.a . .r i F� � „ M�, t� � i R!!' �' � ! Cy =, .� n^. g� � g � ' � � Cfy � cu ; � �, , ,�; � � � 4 0.� �;, � P� � �,��. : E�9 � `�" �} :� � ��. 1�,1 � � 'f�J F-? � Ll� � � �� P �; � _�, =? � �tfl � �' � �' 4:��.. ��. h� � fi" � [j �. fi� �D tY4 �� '� F-� � � �i; �$ P�9 &.�. [ � , l`� i � ,"; �; [�' �.9A (fJ �-�°�' . _. _ .. -� 4�. ! _ !___i e =� _ _ _ , __ _ _ , _ � . - ;� . _� ��-�-_— ' _` - -�. ---=--. . _ .__:. - --=E. � � � � (II � ` � .... � C p � O � � � � � L O � _L C � �'C+-� �O � p "Q O � � p � N � � U O� N u� N C f1 �i � "� ,C tn O � � t� � Q � � � � � L � � �.- � ' O � t6 (�0 � — ?j C � '�p � � � — c� � (�U (n �,, �([f (� � U � � . � � � � f!� N � C O � � � C uj . � � � O � '� Q � � v- � tn .� � � O N � V >, > Q cL�U � (U �.> N c� � O� c� C �' �,- >+ � "� .0 (D � � � C C � • � (II . � � �- Q- C t- N �II � � -� .� � � Q � � � � O � � Q � cn X '� � .._• t/j � � (�ll � � � (n Q � V N � � � L � � (6 � � C � V � � (Q (Q � C � � ! � ` p L Ci .,,.`--_ .� Q. � O��(a U) ''' O ui > •� O � � � .� � � � � (� `- U � � Q � �,�, � N ` � ..-�. N N •� � 0� Vi �. . V N (� V tn O' V � � � c�6 � N � N� "'' "6 � .� � L � L w- � V � O <; � (U�� «fC�' �,�� Oa c � a� � � �'�n �� c.� �� '� ��'co c �-�� n�'cQ cc j O � � -� � O U � s � � � � CO '� � Q N 0 N N �c� � L� �� Y � .0 � � � � .� � Q O � � � � � � "� N N � - O � � ,.0 C � � O� N C L'� � � N V= _ � � ��. � N �'—'C tn �� C tn 0 L�. V � N vi � OL (Q � C (�3z �> � � �� A (6 L N • p c� �, � -p L � � "� � .�- (�6 O � � O U N ` 0 � '� Q � N v O 0� .� U � �� Ri �•�� L �� X .�. :�-. L.L C "� _ "-- � ` � � N V ,� �+ �i � � ."= � l/� ' � �t� � _ U � >+ Q- � � (0 � � O Q"'� O � � � � � � ,� � � '� v' �; � O C�J � ��•C p � E p N � �- � � � �`�� o ��E �� a� ;,_ N o cn p`o V� � 'i3;1 � � � V � O � � +� � O � Z O � � � N � Q �.. � 0 -p � � ` � � -� � : ; :;i2;: � i � N � Q C � Q � � tD � U � ::::�':: �t'0 � Q � p � � tn � � � � Q -p N "_' Q O � � � � � .s Z � � � I— . � O O I� L�.. O � : N ': ;!: 'U � � � :; � � . � c> j, (tl ' � � � S �° � i N N � � � .: N � � ' � � � � � � �) `� � : � -'-' � .� � C3 .� ; (U : (� � : F�+ S� C ? � l�, ' � :: � ; � __� ,.< _;� ._ �-_� � ? ., e. _ �_ . _ . �_ :. � _ . -- �_ �� - -- - � -- ' _ _ _ _ - - . _.__ _ - - -- - ---- C + i' ' ' F Ericson, Jim To: Ericson, Jim Cc: Mounds View Fax (Business Fax); New Brighton Bulletin (Business Fax); Focus News (E- mail); Focus News (Business Fax); Coughlin, Dan; Miller, Kathleen; Anderson, Jeremiah; *MV Council Subject: Possible Changes to Mounds View's Home Occupation Code Dear Mounds View Residents, I am writing to inform you that the Planning Commission on December 6th and again on December 20th will be considering changes to the City's Home Occupation ordinance, changes which could potentially affect every homeowner and resident of the City. Home occupations are businesses that are operated out of one's home, such as an accountant who has an office at home, or a seamstress or dressmaker are other examples. Currently the City Code aflows home based business as long as certain requirements are met. These requirements are as follows: **�****�«�************** 1. Only residents may work at or for the business--no employees are allowed if they do not live on #he premises. 2. The business cannot alter the construction of the home or involve construction features not normally associated with a home. 3. Exterior signage for the business is limited to one square foot, affixed to either the house or the garage. 4. There can be no exterior storage of equipment or materials associated with the business. 5. The business cannot generate more than two vehicles at a time for either an- or off-street parking. 6. The business cannot be a nuisance to other residents in the area or cause violations of the City's Nuisance Code. 7. The business must be completely contained with the home or garage; no activity shall be visible from the street. �********,�*,�**,�*�**w*,�**,�* A resident with a home based business has requested that the City remove the restriction prohibiting non-resident employees. What I would like to know, and the reason why I am writing, is If you lived in a house next to a person operating a business from their home, what would your reaction be if that person could be allowed to have employees? If you have ANY comment one way or the other, please respond by e-mail, by phone (763-717-4021) or by coming to the meeting here at City hall on Wednesday, Qecember 6, 2000 at 7:00 pm. If you are unable to attend but would like to stay informed regarding this issue, the Planning Commission meetings (as well as all council and commission meetings) are broadcast live on Cable channel 16 and rebroadcast at other times as well (refer to your community newspaper for the broadcast schedules.) If you do not have cable TV, you should know that you can have the community access channels installed for free. Call 651-481-9554 for more information. Thank you for this opportunity and I welcome any input you may have regarding this or any City-related issue. Sincerely, James Ericson Community Development Director 763-717-4022 (phone) City of Mounds View 763-784-3462 (fax) 2401 Highway 10 iime(c�rcmnet.orq <mailto:jime rcmnet.orq> (e-mail) Mounds View, MN 55112 http:/%tcfreenet.org/org/moundsview (web) C�U � � �� -o o- "• D��J� � ~O�'rP'�S - Parme�S��S �ctober 23, 2000 R�sident 78(�U Gloria Circle M�unds View, MN 551 ] 2 RE; Possible Home Uccupation Violation Dear Resident: Phone: (612) 717-40f Fax: (612) 784-348� The City of Mounds View has been informed tliat you are operatinb a busi��ess out of your home at 7800 Gloria Circle. This business might be in violation of our City ordinanc� which regulates home businesses, especially if you have employees who are not residents of t�,� home. For your information, a home business is permitted in Mounds View if and otzly if the followinn requirements are met and satisfied' l. Only r�esidejils may work at or for the business—no employees are ��ilowed if they do not live on the premises. 2. The business cannot alter the construction of the home or involve construction features not normally associated with a home. 3. Exterior si�nage for the business is limited to one square fout, affixed to either the house ur the �arage. 4. There can be no exterior storage of equipment or materials associated with tl�e business. 5. The business cannot generate more than two vehicles at a time for either on- or off-street parkin�;. 6. The business cannot be a nuisacice to other residents in the area or cause violations of the City's Nuisance Code. 7. The business must be completely contained with the home or garage; no activity shall be visible from the street. rr✓i. vmxrT r� 2401 Highway 10 • Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 \nI..L...:a.. ...J.J......... L.�a... //�.,1...........a .......1:.-.l..:a../......� �.-..J.......... ��s�. j --- _ �� Y. Page 2 If you wish to cantinue operation of your home business, please ensure that all of these requirements are satisfed. Please contact me at 763-717-4022 if you have any questions about the home occupation ordinat�ce, this letter, or any otl�er �t�atter. Sincerely, � e- � ,. � . �:..,, , ,, �j � ': �., � `� .,� t 1.:,� .�: � James Ericson, Planner City of Mounds Vie�t� � : �( -- -- _ � � ,. -_ _= _ _ ._ . ----- -- . , :�; :_ __-___ �.: � �. ... �_� _._ . «�.. .. . ,_ .. . s . ��_ Dear Neighbors, 11-11-2000 My name is Todd Hollander, and I have lived at 7800 Gloria Circle for 2-1/2 years. As most of you adready know, I have a small, home-based business called Prospects Unlimited. All our work is business- to-business computer-related sales by phone. We have Irttle "tra�c ", no rreed of large signage, etc. I have been told in the few neighborly inquiries 1 have made, that my business "has had little or no noticeable negative effects ", and that they haven't minded what I am doang. I started as a home-based business model because 1 wasn't "born with money ", and had no lines of credit — not uncommon for those wanting to start a business.... so my choices were home based or nothing. When 1 moved to this location it was only myself and one other part-timer. I still have that person, added one more last year, arrd added 2 more this year. YVhen I reach S, I intend to move the operation out to suitable local office space and contirrue residing here. However, the matter has been brought to the attention of the City of Mounds View. (And coincidentally it is it is a scheduled topic for Nov 13 at 7pm at the city of Mounds View town hall). (Please see requirements #1 &#S of the attaclted letter.) I(we) intend to try to demonstrate a few key considerations to the Moands View city council in an attempt to achieve a less restrictive city ordinance. Our �oal is to see that Mounds View allow for an amendment from the requirements #1 &#5 in the general citv ordinance if the business meets the followin� criteria: • 1I[' �! �/ l. /' /[! '/ l.'! / �� I .' '! II / !' I /I'�� { � � ! I' I / � 'I I ! '/( / / / / '/ . 'L!'/ . : ! : / / I'I ( l /l' � / (' '�. '//'! . This issue may be relatively unimportant to you, but I ask, how like[y is it that someone close to you — a so�, daughter, or other close person - will be involved in a small start-up business? According to what I've heard, the odds are good, and risimg quickly. And how will you feel when they can't pursue their dream because they don't have the money, can't borrow it, AND can't work it out from their home? The chance to start this business has made a GREAT difference in my life. But more importantly, I've been proud to watch my business make a difference for others too! The 4 who work with me make MORE than an average wage (average here is $17.50/hr), have BETTER than average working conditions, and we SPEND money at local businesses. At several places we shop, we are so "regular", that we are known on a first name basis with the owner (ABC Liquor, Holiday Gas, Mario's Movies, Spring Lake Lumber, Riches Restaurant, etc). Point is small businesses are imnortant, growing in imnortance. and we have the abylitv to decide whether or not to be a restrictive communitv. So, whether it's to help us. to help the local taz base. or simelv to allow vour friends and family t6e same chance I've had. I ask for you to take a moment of time to express vourself (on the reverse sidel. If you are uncomfortable with thai option, call Jim Ericson @ 717-4022 to tell hirn your personal feetings. Jim is our elected official, VERY fruendly and helpful, and he wants to do what the community wantse Again, please taWe a minute to tell him (and the council) your feelingse A completed statement has more "force" than a call, but doing one or the other IS IlVIPORTANT! Sincerely, �J °� � todd(a� phonerens. com 763.795.8818 . . _ _ . -�°s��r� . .__ . w a _ 1� - :;�� - �.._ . . �.._'�z=� =--., _ � - -��: �. _ "_ . _ : ..: _ . . . ._ . _ . '-'-� �__— --Y.- _ — � _< �- � .� . . � �_ -'�.�..-.�.- . _�. .�_� ., Y_. . ... _ _ _ . _ '. (_ � _' __"' ' . p E � M Oz�inion on . Our Mounds View Citv O�dinance: _ ��, , �� .�� / �� 1��.��•� �� , ; �. < I am the RES ENT of the prope at: �� / f Signed: � - Dated: // / /Z/2000 Or if you wish to a�ree in whole in verbatim with what I am suggesting to the city council, simply'check the black box below, sign your name, and date it above. � (All responses will be turned in 11-13-2000.) As received by Todd Hollander, Resident of 7800 Glaria Circle �...Q todd�a phonereps.com 763.795.�81 � _ , r... ,.., E'-�- ; _ ,_, - - - S�x- �_° L:. E � � -� .. .. . ��:::; . �.- .. Y� -_r . -��.--_= -:.:� ,. .;..._.�:; _ �--__ . - -- _ —._ -. i � ORDINANCE NO. 672 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1106.03, SUBDIVISION 3, OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE, PERTAINING TO HOME-BASED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW TI� CITY OF MOUNDS V�W ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Chapter 1106, Section 1106.03, Subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby amended with additions unclerlinecl and deletions s�trac�rout-to read as follows: Subd. 3. Home Occupations: The regulation of home occupations within residential structures is intended to encure irisure that the occupational use is clearly accessory or secondary to the principal dwelling use and that compatibility with surrounding residential uses is maintained. No home occupation shall be allowed which: a. Involves employees other than persons residing on the premises; b. Involves alteration or construction features not customarily found in dwellings; • • � . • � � • . - •• • • �" 1 . � � �• " � 1' � . -� - • " � �. � A � � -� • � . . � ' • 11 • 1 ' � � 1 / ' � � � ' �\ .I 1 1 1 � ■ � 1 • a . • • 1 • . 1 " �1 • �.■ 1'�'• �� 1• '.�'1� �' •1• 1' � •�'�\ �• �' '\ � -'� � � � � . . � - � - - - �I � � - - 1 � - � � � � � • - • 1 � - � - I - .A � � � � � • � �. ' - -� - - J�- �- �'� � �� -��- � .A - �-� '\ • - - -� �- � • _ � ' - � - ' - � � � � • - - � - r - � . - - - • JI • " 1 • � � 1 �I - - - n • • � � ' � ' • d. Involves exterior storage of equipment or materials; e. Generates more than two (2) motor vehicles at a time for ' - on-street parking, f. Results in violation of the provisions of Chapter b9� 66�, Nuisances, of the Municipal Code; and g. Involves activity visible from the public streets. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall go into effect thirty (30) days after it has been published in the official City newspaper. . . . . . . . . . .. _ f_ _ _. L i �_� ,_. . : _-„ '__' -'� ` . � __ _ ' � "" � ' :._:-� _ � .. . . . _ .. _ ' ' "_. . ._ ' ___ "' _ ' '_'_ ' � _,, Ordinance 672 Page 2 First read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 2000. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 2000. ATTEST: (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert C. Long, City Attorney Dan Coughlin, Mayor Kathleen Miller, City Clerk / Administrator � _ . __ _ ___ � �-� - � ----- =- � _ _ _ ..:_ . � _ x� ; _ _ , . ..-_' '--• -r _ _ ..� - -,._.:_.� . ..�_ �_._. � _� . .�. __ . _ .�_ . . .� "" __-_ '. t � Item # 7 Czty of Mounds Vzew Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: December 6, 2000 Tatle: CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHA.PTER 1008 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, "SIGN CODE" Introduction: Based upon the last meeting, staff has revised the proposed tinneline for the review of the Sign Code. It can be further refined as we go along. The two changes were to switch the date for review of temporary signage with the date to review ground signage. The other change was to eliminate a specially-designated "business community" special meeting on February 7, 2000, the rationale being that the business should be involved, or at least invited to be involved, at each of the meetings. Drscussion: The Planning Commission had scheduled this meeting to review the definitions contained within our code as well as to compare and contrast them with those definitions contained in other ordinances. To help in accomplishing that goal, the Commission would be advised to bring to the meeting the other ordinances previously provided to the Commission. In addition, staff has made a photocopy for each of the Commissioners of the American Planning Association's Sign Regulation handbook. The handout briefly reviews many of the issues associated with sign codes and provides its version of a model sign ordinance. That document, along with the others already reviewed, should provide a suitable foundation upon which to base our own Code revision. Recommendation: Please review the APA's Sign regulation handbook and be prepared to individually assess and refine if necessary the definitions within our Sign Code. If time permits before the nneeting, staff will attempt to provide a first draft of possible definition revisions. , � `� C'r,��,1 �_�. �:' �.� � L.�.. James Ericson, Community Development Director Y:�DATA\GROiIPS\COMDEV�SPECPRO.nSP082-00\PC RcpoR - Dec 6, 2000.doc J!' _' '_ 1 -- . ._ .-. _ . "��Fi: . '' . C_ ° — --.�. � . 1=�_—`— " -- �— - C-�: '�"-�.'--- - _. .._s. _`�_. 1--I 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS V�W PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS V�W RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA , 2401 Hig��vay 10, 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, �ommissic�ners ��x-1; Stevenson, Kaden, Thomas, and Cerny. ,:;�;: :'ii1 � Members Excused: None. ,��`�:° Meeting �s, z000 >��y �r��l r�r:��:A �t� ��v�l��l�n� 15, 2000. Also Present: Planner Jim Ericsori �nd Comrn3xr��y I7ev�l�pment Director Jopke. Discuss Possil�� "�1�� Chapter 1008 �i t}�e� Staff ��"orts / Ite�ris Ch'�irperson and Plar :��.' ' Catizen's , to the C�t��'e, .��i�n.:Code, ici�al Cod� Reports uests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda requests or comments on items not on the agenda. Johnson, Miller, Page 2 5 5 ,_--� i, � : � f ;-�=_; � ---.. � -.-: � "' = t-=_: r. -::. : �-�_ -: �. -. I�"-.. _ , � : � �: : _ . . _ . _ _- -- -- .. . : _ ; �. . _ -------: :. _: , . Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4. Approval of Minutes A. October 18, 2000 Commissioner Miller indicated a period was needed on Page 6 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To approve the O the noted correction. Ayes — 9 Nays - 0 5. Discuss Possible Changes to the City's Sigxa Code Planner Ericson drafted and presented to the Gpz�z�ni��i� with the only changes of substance bein�`� the ��c�c reorganization of the allowable signage by �t�riing distz�i� Planner Ericson obtained and p called United States Sign Co exclusively to funding sign-rela the sign industry. Mr. Erirscin Leagu� ��' �i�nnesota Cit��:� b�i sign o��c,�i�isix��: �he Leagt�e oz would 1�� r�E�.ur�v tc�'forward sc�tz� the �afi ;ated he hac� � s told tYt� :L,�a �nesoia Cicies ��a�bles t:o lum. �oae, : November 15, 2000 Page 2 ;,£. �i it1P,P,$2%]�� filli'12 i f�;•� Wlt�l ��Ioiion carried. �� p��° �1��1�4> -a,i`�° �he Municipal ary r�vi; ion to the sign code ``t�urpose" section and the i�mission a,�;t�odel sign ordinance from a group �a charital�It�; nonprofit organization devoted ucatioz�a� �ctivities of benefit to the growth of sc� r'et�uested a model sign ordinance from the rLt� nf Minnesota Cities did not have a model loes have several cities' ordinances on file and Planner Ericso�Y c�r��t�r� :�:: ��roposec� ��a�;c��,�l� for the review of the major components of the sign code to help ��di�� t1�� b��ess. "� 1��; ��timeline was presented to the Commission and Planner Ericson,;asked for in�7�€. �,s i� z�.��ns,�� or icvisions to the timeline. Pl�nrier Ericson reviewed ea��i a� �a of the code he felt needed updating, changing, or clarifying, r��"�rring first to the new ``Purpose" section. He indicated that each of the definitions would need , �b`' be carefully conside�`ed for possible changes. He pointed out that on Page 4 in Section 1Q�8.03 Subd. 2..��ferring to "Exceptions" would need to be revised to be clearer. He , , ..:..:.:.. ��:€�mmended that ��ie phrase "in its direction" in Section 1008.04 be changed to read "at its �ii��f�pn" fp�`; pta�'pose of clarity. He referred to Section 100�.05, Subd. 2 concerning permit ?��;t��c:�;; ��cating that the part dealing with "unusual signs or signs needing a special permit s�i:�,t� �t� b� referred to Council for approval" should be rewritten for clarity. He advised that some of the language in Section 1008.06, addressing the provisions for obtaining a license to install signs, could possibly be removed from the code. Planner Ericson continued by pointing out that Subd. lf of Section 1008.08 requiring signs to be installed with identifying numbers may not be applicable and as such, could either be eliminated or changed. He stated that in his opinion, subpart lof Subd. li of Section 1008.08 subpart 1 is one of the most confusing sections of the sign code. Planner Ericson indicated because of the _. � , _ __ _ ;. �.. . I___ ____- ____ _ _ _ .. _ > .�. _ _ _ _ _ _. ___ _ ______ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting November 15, 2000 Page 3 confusing nature, he redrafted the section and presented his new version to the Com� their review. Planner Ericson indicated that the table on Page 8 identifying signage district was added as a result of the suggestions made by the Commission ��i i�� lasi r�zi last issue addressed by Planner Ericson concerned the variance langua��:, �r�� r�y>� necessary to repeat the criteria in the sign code. The section co�1c�; �imply 1-c,{�� 'r.o 4;�i�:� Commissioner Thomas inquired as to how Section 1 businesses. Planner Ericson that home-based businesses were defined Commissioner Kaden inquired as to how wind speed Planner Ericson indicated the City would rely on i:he City Code requirements. ��nci�.r the City Code. e coulGl l�,a c��°.;i'r;cm compariies �.r3 �rc ;ion for =zoning ig. The �r it is 1125. for a sign. signs that met Planner Ericson told the Commission it is nat the int�nt af �i�z�i io malZe changes to the sign ordinance that would malce most signs in tkz�,�ity noncq�forn�i��, ', Commissioner Johnson indicated thai ��-�� and R S zoning are larger parcels and requirements for allowable real estate "for sale" si�ns sk�o7�ld possz�ly be changed to allow a larger, 32 square-foot sign which seems to be the industz'�7 ;�'�i�idard. ! Planner F_,x�kr "worlc i��tJ'ra� thinking �r differently. courtesy for ir � indicated that �,'��I`�' remov�,� ��ci�.e �z��I�I` advertising signs such as "weight loss" r�-��" and o�1i��° ni.!�;;��,iic� adveriiva�l� from telephone poles to prevent others from �1.� �Ii�w allo�� ;11 �c�vertising. Garage sale signs, he added, are treated �rz��:ti�c�n is �ri��.��;cJ i�� lic; newsletter each spring concerning sign etiquette and -� : the City Ericson indicat�cl ion on allowab�� si �� to whether there was a place in the code defining Christmas tree r� ailowed for that. there are guidelines for Christmas tree sales lots which include Ericson as'�� the Commission whether they wanted to invite local business owners to the �l;��intng and discussion meetings on the sign ordinance or if the Commission would r,coxn� up with a draft of possible changes to the sign code and then have one meeting �siness owners could review and make comment on the code changes. Commissioner Thomas indicated she felt it would be a good idea to switch Ground Signs and Temporary Signs on the schedule to accommodate the holiday rush times for business owners. It was the consent of the Commission to notify local business owners of the meetings to discuss proposed changes to the sign ordinance and to inform them there will be a business owner's %=-: , _. . , . _ -� - � _ __ � : - .t. : - - -- ___ _ _ . . .. Mounds View Planning Commission November 15, 2000 � Regular Meeting Page 4 forum on February 7, 2001 should they wish to participate in any or all of the meetings. ,;,It was also the consent of the Commission to switch Ground Signs and Temporary Signs on th�,;�::i.:�eline. ;<:,. : Commissioner Thomas noted it may be necessary to define the requirem:ents fit��' ft si�ri such as the Carmike sign that is oriented at a 45 degree angle. Planner Ericson indicated that issue could be looked at Commissioner Kaden inquired as to how the Commissior�. -01�c��,�lr� h� advertise pop sales by stacking cases of pop up and usir��; r�r��f;AP�3 price. Planner Ericson indicated that right now Mounds V display and sale of products. Community Development Director Jopke indi advertise and display product outside under th;+ The conditional use permit allowed for a s��if Commissioner Hegland inquired as ta �liether the City call and obtain the proper p�Xmitis. Planner Ericson indicated that_9 ouY of 10 ev�� informs p�o�le who rent tli'e �z�:c�� that they aa�; event is k�eirra ��ld to obt�ir� c��_ '_ Commissior��-��tf�en �indic� on Page '7 becau:.e 1i� ?czio�n looks nice bu� z� � ��a��c�� Plann.�2`�ricson sugges��cl �` ,��;:�' ,..�,. �eiziimissioner Thomas su�;� �r•pvided it's maintaine� ` ode _ _.. ,... ;:>::: > 'tn� nf th� ;i�;i �;oc1s-;: ; gas station ovv�x�;d�s rvllo ored cases to outli�r; c1�ze for the outside ey had;"`�efined the ability to s of.a conditional use permit. i��ys per year. or other local events within s cio call for a permit. The sign company permit and to contact the city where the c� x�"��r '�a�; ��ecessary to redefine the meaning behind "long" grass ofr �cg��ir;c��i.�; i;i' his neighborhood who has ornamental tall grass that one o�' �I�c' r�eigkibors who disapproves of it. ornamental grasses as a separate issue. changing the language on Page 7 to read "controlled landscape" �rson Pet�zs�i�'indicated the graphics showing how to measure signs was very helpful and ;:;,: �l �,� iQ ��h��her the City could use them in its Code or could somehow obtain graphics to 1 lanner Ericson indicated he would think this could be possible. .., _ _� � �� i ="'" . . . . . � . ..' "_... sa�... __ = f � `�. . ��_� .. . ;.i _ . 1.��= _. __'�.-�... ' _ = r .. � .. � .,.-. . . _ "_ - :�� I Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 6. Staff Reports/Items of Information A. Previous Council Actions 7. Community Development Director Jopke indicated November 13, 2000 and approved the Preliminary ] referred Ordinance 672 back to the Planning CG discussion. This item was referred back because a r per City Code his telemarketing business is not allo�� that come to his home to worlc. Chairperson Peterson inquired as to whether it wa� covering home-based businesses from the cities s�r. guide while working on the home-based business r�r�li Planner Ericson indicated he had already re�u��t�r� future meeting. B. Items of Discussio�n Community Developmeni and thanked the Commi��i Cha��°�v��g�=��,?��n�� i�ll��rn�nn� ;,�, �::;.. «��;R:,�c�� Joplc� fold the ___. _. __. _. 'ror the o��cunity tp Commur�at� �� loTovember 15, 2000 Page 5 �a��' �1�ze (;ity� t;��x�2c�1 had met on i ior the Mer�n�?zt� �"i�7�� fld they nission far fuz�thc�i' � ��se��i'�;1� �nd dent carn;� forward i��c:��ii�� ilzat becat�s�'he has outside €.��i1:iIc�y��u be �7cssaiE,i� io obtain ordinances xndi��i� 1°✓fc�r�l��1s. �Iiew to use as a nce. and wou�d` present them at a nission this was his last meeting with them. Director Jopke for his years of � ��rar�raission Reports as to the status of the Walgreens and Culver's development. Pl.��er Ericson indical��1. €�a��tg� were progressing along but said there is a probability that �'�alver's will not come t�;rVlounds View as there is a new Culver's restaurant opening just north a� :Mounds View. , ,;: �`�a;x��.i�sioner Thc�z��:s inquired as to whether the City had received plans from Ernie Gustafson �c��- t�a� �J,��o�rt�ent on County Road I. �al�nn�r �ricson indicated he had not received anything concerning the property. Commissioner Johnson noted he had spoken to the owner of the Amoco property who indicated he was attempting to find someone to reopen the station. If that is not feasible, the property will be sold. However, not to another gas company. There were no other reports of the Commission. r:_::- , 1 -- _. _ --'_ .';°-- -- '-_ . . -: _ ,_ . ' -= -,-. 4�:� �.-.__ _S`� _ _". 1.: -- -- -- - . !��-• � - -- _ , � Mounds View Planning Commission November 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 ' ;1 f � 1 ' ,� i_ _ ,_ _ _ � __- ____ :___-�, � .. �_ '_ MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION December 6, 2000 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda � CTTIZENS: BEFOR� SP�AHING, PLEASE CO1VI� TO Tf� PODIiJM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAM� AND A.DDRESS FOR THE NI1N UTES Approve Planning Corrunission Minutes: a. November 1, 2000 __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _�� 5. Planning Case No. MI00-003 Property Involved: 8480 Eastwood Road Consideration of Resolution 641, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision. Applicant: Richard Cary 6. Discussion of Ordinance 672 Regarding Home Occupations 7. Continued Discussion Concerning the City's Sign Code. 8. Staff Reports / Items of Information a. Previous Council Action (11/27, 12/4) b. G] 10 � Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports Adjournment to Agenda Session (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS 1VI�ETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY 'THE COMMLTNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 763-7171f021 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. AGENDA SESSION AGENDA Review the Minutes from the November 15, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting. E:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMbl�l'CAGENDA�2000�Nov 15, 2000 PC A�;enda.doc __ . � __ _ _, _ _ _ _ _: . i. � � •� �. - - - - . . . . . . �� _ � . . _ _ _ . _ I Item # 5 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: December 6, 2000 Title: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION641-00, A RESOLUTION RECONIlVIENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF 8480 EASTWOOD ROAD Introductaon: Richard Cary, representing the property owners Sharlee and Peter Cleveland, is requesting approval of a minor subdivision of 8480 Eastwood Road, a corner lot fronting on Eastwood Road and County Road J. Minor subdivisions are those divisions of land less than two acres in size in which only one additional lot is created. The 32,738 square foot lot is zoned R-1, single family residential and is designated as single family detached according to the Comprehensive Plan. The lot split will create a new 14,202 square foot lot facing old County Road J leaving 18,536 square feet for the lot with the existing home. Both lots would conform to all zoning and subdivision code requirements. The applicant has submitted a certificate of survey which describes the proposed subdivision. Discussaon: Staff has forwarded the certificate of survey to the City's engineering technician, the City's attorney as well as the Ramsey County traffic engineer for review. Other than the need to dedicate perimeter easements, the subdivision request is straightforward and does not pose any issues. This subdivision will be subject to park dedication requirements. The fee is 5% of the land value of the land subdivided, less the value of any land already improved with single-family residential dwellings. In this case, the fee would apply to 14,202 square feet of land at an assessed value of $0.97 a square foot. The extrapolated value for the lot would be $13,776, of which iive percent would amount to a fee of $689. This fee would need to be paid prior to the City approving the subdivision. Due to the possibility of cancelled meetings later this month, staff scheduled this item to be heard for consideration by the City Council on December 11, 2000. . r r . �: ; - _-��, . � �, � _ �_ L i, _ . >: .: _ _.�; ;: � PC Report December 6, 2000 Page 2 Recommendation: Because this is a straightforward subdivision which satisfies all related code requirements, stai�is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the attached Resolution 641-00, subject to the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall retitle the survey to read "Certificate of Survey". 2. The applicant shall revise the survey to indicate 5-foot perimeter drainage and utility easements around both lots, except lot lines abutting Eastwood Road and County Road J, which shall indicate ten-foot easements. 3. The applicant shall arrange to execute and to record the drainage and utility easement documents with Ramsey County. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for the drafting, execution and recordation of a utility easement document granting in the favor of the Parcel A the south 15 feet of Parcel B for sanitary sewer access. Said document shall be reviewed by the City Attorney and a copy shall be placed on file with the City for reference. 1 �J- `��`��'��nL�J� C. �J��U1'L� James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Application 3. Letter to Applicant, dated 11/21/2000 4. Letter from Ramsey County, dated 11/21/00 5. Survey 6. Resolution 641-00 E:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES�IvII00-003�PC Report - Dec 6, 2000.doc r - i'�'�i�'"v �f= �)j�,i;;?s;�� ; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .� DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION _ �.�, i:j;:;,;;}�; 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 '°R�s, _ �,ti,Q� 612-717-4020 Partne 612-784-3462 � FAX Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form \� 1 t `,� ,/ � �v� ol � � c� ��u� Applicant Information 1 � Name of Applicant �'t ' tZ,c� �.11.i,� Telephone � = �%�3 -�`=b�i-�`i L � '� Address t, �b�j��-Gc�S�JJLa,� �� Fax 7 6`'a -�7�6 �-�S 3'Lj �2l' c� � _, , r� Interest in Property (check appropriate box) o Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager � Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other (explain) � � Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal '` l n(� Address or General Location _ �"1�� `� �^.Ck;,�� ` 1° l��L+�� , `,�;�ti_.� ) �,f�l 1� Legal Description T�`��" �0�� • Properiy Identification #(PIN #) � b 3� Z� � l O C�o 2.. # of Acres +� � Current Zoning � � Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Rezoning ❑ Major Subdivision ,1�{ Minor Subdivision ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) ❑ PUD Amendment ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Variance ❑ Code Appeal ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan o Wetland Alteration Pernut ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit ❑ Floodplain Pernut o Other $250 $250/acre; min $250 max $1500 $250 + $250 deposit* $200 Refer to rezoning fees $350 R-1, R-2 $75; all others $250 R-1, R-2 $100 all others $250 $100 $125/acre; min $125 max $750 R-1, R-2 $I50; all others $200 R-1, R-2 $25; all others $100 $200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit noY spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View, MN . Develo ment A lication � Pa e 2 Present Use of Property ❑ UndevelopedNacant � . Single Family Dwelling o Duplex/Two Family Dwelling o Multi-family Dwelling p Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) Property Classification �( Abstract o Torrens BY MY (OUR) SIGNAT'URE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO TI� BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,'fHE.INFORMATIONPROVIDED IS TR CC TE. Signature of A licant . � :; � . . . . rr � �.+T° Name of Applicant (typed/printed) �-� L�►2-�1 � �.�2 � + � Signature ofProperty Owner Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner s!-�� C'�.��€�� _�r � C�,��e �,��. � � `d � �.�'Z�`c'�z, � �Q , .�`�du:.,.A� ��,+��.; .�.� ., s'�rr.�: � _ ?��-�l�s-x��.y . ***********�x************************************************************************************ � . . � � ` . FOR OFEICE USE ONLY � . Date of Subinittal � j� _ � ) - O Q � � ' Date of Acceptance J __ Assigned to: Planning Case No. �y�j��— �� 60-day Limit 120-day limit • Fees Paid: Account # Check # Receipt # Application: oi0�,• "o } 6 l 3 ln � S`('�] a., j.P � i� Park Dedication: . Deposits: . Other: Total: N:�DATAIGROUPSICOMDEV�FORMS\DEVAPP.FOR 1/98 � � �-�-�: - � . _ _ -.. , � - .. _ .. �. _ . _ ..•..,. __ _ ___ _ _ :� ,.�:_._,� _ _ _ �.. _ _ _� �_. __ .. . _ _ . � ; , i � ' I rQ : ��, � � � � � / 'tt : v CD � �f1 : ��5��; � � , �� : , ,,� .q. . � �r J � . � t 3 ; � � �n � : m � d- r�7 Nl � � � d' +�}' , Q � � ' � � ; � : � � �� :: . �..� �� Q, � �� W : OJ; � � �ti : ,... : u� : �D ' CV : N s^ : M : N� , r� ; N� ba : OQ • p� ; 03 c� C7 : C� ' N. t7 ' q�. CA . 0.� t� I� ; d' : N �O A�7 ��00 ; O�C� : C d � 0�0 ; . . . .. �� , ` . . . . . , , , � . i . �� ll7 ' � � � ` � . � . N : r�- � 00 ' f� �. I'� � I�. .' i'� � M : tCj ; N �� d~- �d' �� ti' ' d' ar . � � • e'} : t7 M , Ml rry � r`� � � ; � 00: 00 �oQ o0 : pCt o0. Cr7 . 00 00 CO : a7 : i --,�...^..... i , � i � c:� b tb � �: � N� 04 (s0 C? : O G� C'� C� ' C.7 O;{7 : 4U � f�} f•. cb �' cr r7 cV � G� p• 00 I� �tl �C} ', rh M fV :r+�— � � . �. .�. .� ; � i ` � +i� �M � � : N) M ; rn : � : r'r ' "`7 ' � . CO � t�s o0 CO � i. oR dC� . OQ d0 • a0 .. o� : �u • OCT b0 G�0 p0 ; OQ :; � .... � : i �; � � � �: , � � �. , � � _ . .. . ..... ... : .� ... : _ , ... . . .. ...... . .... . . . ... � � i : ' ` . : � � �� '� ' • : ' . `�� j; u�y. .. ��'} , � : �t1 i� �[? ' � ' r� � U7 ' � �'] � � �fi , u7 ' ►i� � i.t� � u7 ' � h� � (D� �C? : N Gi ' � bb I� � : d� ' N � .-- �. 4�' 00 ' n ; '� : � : d� , '�' d' • �t ' st ' .�- : M : M M i� r�} : M . N7 r7 � . 0'�p � O�l� : Qt� � �tq i a4 , � . � . 00 `.. 4� . 00 ; 63 OC1 . 00 OA : 00 '. GO ; � L�b ` � Q� . � �. . - -,Q , ,�. <r : � : �- � �r ' d- ; d- . d- , �, : �r c� o : ca : ca c> c., I q�y q� ;�p ' e� Cp �fy d' M` tV :+— . O� Oi ` U� ti cA ��') tf' : r� � N � � �cl� , `9' . d� ' `�' -c}- • tt . d- . �d- : d� : r� r� � , r:} rl : r7 : � M � p� qp Cq ; GO , C� :� �d : 4� : O� t.� , Op . tYJ tp 9Q ; hp : pp . p� . QQ : pp Cy ' , ' ' � �� ' � , . . � �� ' �. , ' • ' . . ,OZL� . tC� � ,n � u� �n � ►� � �n ' u� �n ; �ti `. � ►'� n � . �ry r- i. �, : 1CS : OV : f� ; �J : U7 �' : N5 N : r' , � . M1 '. f� GO : In :• �- � r ; � Cyy d- 'd' d' •3' d� : d' : d' �: Lt' . M N? � N} r� i.,� h� : �..� : � � � . 00 ': a] Oa ' tr3 , t� : orJ , 00 00 ob , ca . oa o� . 00 �p p3 ; q? : � � �l�1 �� a � a- ; c5 � �- : �r o ' � o o � cv � ; � � � � � � : r,a : � �: ca � . Yr � c� : o c5 r. : c4 -n �r ; .�. . �r d- �r � � � �r : � �r . ,� � Ky ; r� ; �y � o .. .. ; � , oa : co : oo . cb � an oo . co ; oa : ao � oo � aa ; oa : c� : aa a °� z�.cz � � . : ; ' c�� .......! '..:. :..... _� .... � . . . . . . .. . ;. c� �—... �trZZ : ; ° � : ..._ . mw � .. �; �. �. ..: .�: ,� _.. . c rn : oo r� � �t� : � � �- �t, : �h r- Q, cx, �n : � ; � u-, � � � (J ^d� , ^�t- d- '� � d- r'] N ' •— : C� � t� , c� . u'i � : r'? N C QO -�y. (YJ i C�0 : Q7 ��. OJ . T!- ��. � ^ct t'� r'7 � I'� O�b CO '� C�Q : QO O d' .G.. 4G : R7 ' �D : 00 i CU fl0 . 00 ; 00 N oo � _„� .. . .. � : �� - .. _ -_.=�.�--=�--- ---- � � .�.. : . � ---- - --- - - - -- RAMSEY COUNTY TO FROM: Department of Public Works Kenneth G. Haider, P.E., Director and County Engineer ADMINISTiZATION/LAND SURVEY 50 West Kellogg Blvd., Suite 910 St. Paul, MN 55102 •(651) 266-2600 • Fax 266-2615 E-mail: Public.Works@co.ramsey.mn.us MEMORANDUM Jim Ericson City of Mounds View Dan Soler � Ramsey Cou y Public Works SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision County Road J DATE: November 21, 2000 _ _: _ _ _ - -- -- _ : , _.: _ _ _ �NGINE�RING/OPERATI('� 3377 N. I�ice Street - Shoreview, MN 55126 (651) 484-9104 • Fax 482-5232 The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed lot division for 8480 Eastwood Road. Ramsey County has the following comments regarding this proposal. 1. The proposed lot split should not have any adverse effect on traffic operations along County Road J. 2. The new lot will require an access permit from Ramsey Lounty for construction of an access onto County right of way. Thanks for the opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you have any questions or need any additional information please give me a call. a;,,�; :7 �� ^;-;,� � . :; ; , . �. �., •.: t.; ��, ��.t: t„i� �_� b•� Minnesota's First Home �,ule Co»nty printed on recycled peper with a minimum oP 10%post-consumer content .:�'..z. CITY OF UNDS A a A � �� A� S �rPr�, � partnecsh�Q November 21, 2000 Richard Cary 5692 Regis Trail Fridley, MN 55432 RE: 8480 Eastwood Road Minor Subdivision Dear Mr. Cary: Phone: (612) 717-4000 - Fax: (612) 784-3462 I am writing concerning your application for a minor subdivision of 8480 Eastwood Road in tlne City of Mounds View. We anticipate that the Planning Commission will hear your request on December 6, 2000 and make a recommendation to the City Council based upon their findings. The Council will take action on your subdivision request at its meeting either on December 11 or December 26. Your presence at both the Pla.nning Commission and City Council, meetings would be advised. I have forwarded a copy of the survey to our City Engineer, our City Attorney and the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer for their review. I hope to receive their comments prior to the Planning Comrnission making their recommendation. As I mentioned to you before, this subdivision v✓ill require a paxk dedication fee equivalent to five percent of the land-value of the newly-created lot. In addition, you will be responsible for dedicating two easements with this subdivision: one for the sariitary sewer access along the south 15 feet of the remainder parcel, and the other for a perimeter drainage and utility easement on the new lot, ten feet front and back, five feet on the sides. (Refer to the enclosed survey.) Last, we will need to know if the property is encumbered by any liens or mortgages, as any person or entity having an interest in the property would need to give their or its consent to the recordation of the easement documents and subdivision with Ramsey County. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, � J G�� James Ericson, Director of Community Development City of Mounds View PflINTEO WITH SOYINK ,A, 2401 Highway 10 • Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 Website address: http://tcfreenet.org/ip/city/moundsview Equal Opportunity Employer � recycled paper L . " ' "_ . _ ._._ _: ' . .... . "' ' _ __- _ ' _ _ " ' .'' . . '__"" ._. __ L= -_�.�:.��:+.�..z-_-_ � -._ _" _.. _.-_ � _L. _ . . MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 641-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF 8480 EASTWOOD ROAD, REQUESTED BY RICHARD CARY, REPRESENTING PROPERTY OWNERS SHARLEE & PETER CLEVELAND; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MI00-003 WHEREAS, Richard Cary, representing property owners Sharlee and Peter Cleveland, has requested approval of a minor subdivision of 8480 Eastwood Road, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally-described as follows: The north 975 feet (measured at right angles to the north line thereo� of the following described tract; fhat part of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of Section 6, Township 30 north, Range 23 west described as follows; Beginning at a point 9584 feet east and 2835 feet north of the southwesf corner of said Northeast Quarter, fhence west parallel with the south line of said Norfheast Quarter a distance of 264 feet; fhence north and parallel with the west line of said Northeast Quarter a distance of 537.98 feet; thence east on the north line of said Northeast Quarter a distance of 264 feef, thence south parallel wifh the west line of sold Northeast Quarter c distance of 529.05 feet to fhe point of beginning, excepting therefrom the north 33 feef thereof and also excepfing the east 25 feef fhereof. WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to subdivide the west 100 feet from the lot to create a buildable lot fronting County Road J(North County Line) with a proposed legal description as follows: The west 100 feet of the north 175 feet (measured at right angles fo the north line thereo� of the following described tract; fhat part of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of Section 6, Township 30 north, Range 23 west described as follows; Beginning af a point 1584 feet east and 2835 feet north of fhe southwesf corner of said Northeasf Quarter, thence west parallel with the soufh line of sold Northeast Quarter a disfance of 264 feet; thence north and parallel with the west line of said Northeast Quarter a disfance of 537.98 feef; thence east on the north line of said Northeast Quarter o distance of 264 feet; thence soufh paralle! with fhe west line of said Norfheast Quarter a distance of 529.05 feef to the point of beginning, excepting therefrom the north 33 feet thereof. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant's request for a minor subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, and 1202 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant's request for a tninor subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Survey for the above described property; and, .- .: .. . . . .. . ;`. - `- '"�.� . �,� . _ _ - 'u==...-_��_ --- -, 1�= -� �� "- :�__. - ::. ._::.-- . . .. _._ . _ _... . ' _. . � r "- - '-- . -.. '- - - --- ----i Resolution 641-00 Page 2 WHEREAS, the City Attorney, the Engineering Technician and Public Works Director for the City of Mounds View have reviewed the proposed minor subdivision and survey and have has found it acceptable; and, WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Traff'ic Engineer has reviewed the survey and has stated that the lot split should have no adverse effect on traffic operations of County Road J; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4, a parlc dedication fee in the amount of $689 is applicable with this proposed minor subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the minor subdivision of 8480 Eastwood Road, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Prior to the City Council approving this subdivision, the applicant shall submit the required park dedication in the amount of $689.00. 2. The Survey shall be entitled "Certificate of Survey" and be revised to show a five-foot perimeter drainage and utility easements along the rear and side property lines and a ten-foot drainage and utility easement along the front property lines abutting either Eastwood Road or County Road J. Text shall be added to the Survey which states, "Separate drainage and utility easement documents have been executed and recorded with Ramsey County." 3. The applicant shall arrange for the drafting, execution and recordation of an easement document dedicating in the favor of Parcel A the south fifteen-feet of Parcel B for sanitary sewer access. This document shall be reviewed by the City Attorney and shall be placed on file with the City for reference. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining an access permit from Ramsey County for any and all work occurring with the County right of way. 5. The applicant shall record the City Council resolution of approval, the Survey and the easement documents with Ramsey County within thirty (30) days of final adoption, and present proof of such recording to the City of Mounds View. Failure to record these documents or provide proof of such recordation shall cause this approval to be null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 6th day of December, 2000. , -� � -- .� _ � ,. _. __ _ -- � �..�:� � .. _- � ' - �- -- --�` - k�=------ -�: ��___�;. .�a ��.._ . ...___� � �. : x Resolution 641-00 Page 3 Jerry Peterson, Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) J:\DATA\GROUPS\COM DEV�DEVCAS ESVv1l00-003\RES. 641-00. DOC ( � �i � : _ � . � � ----- �------. �. � c_ _: . . ;:-- - -- = — — — -`�' -' - -•- • ---'-- -- - �-j-' __ '.�„—i'-' __ _ _ _ _ _ Item # 6 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: December G, 2000 Title: DISCUSSION AND RECONSIDERA.TION OF ORDINANCE 672, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1106 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO HOME OCCUPATIONS Background: The Planning Commission reviewed potential revisions to the Home Occupation Code on October 18�' and again on November 15` before sending proposed Ordinance 672 on to the Council with a recommendation of adoption. The City Council reviewed the proposed ordinance at their worksession on November 8, and on November 13`h was scheduled to introduce the ordinance for its first reading, but declined to do so after taking public testimony seeking further changes to the ordinance. Rather than attempting to make any significant changes to the ordinance at the Council level, the Council determined it would be prudent to have the Planning Commission review the ordinance again with the specific goal of addressing the issue of non-resident ennployees. Drscussion: As the Planning Commission is aware, the Code prohibits the employment of non-residents in a home occupation. Staff is of the opinion that permitting non-resident employees to work at a home occupation has the potential to change the essential nature, purpose and intent of a residential district. It can be assumed that property owners usually invest in a home with the expectation that the homes in the neighborhood are dwelling units, not businesses. Property owners have vested stakes in the preservation of the neighborhood and the introduction of non-resident workers with no vested interest in the property is a legitimate concern for homeowners and their financial investment in the property. That being said, however, there are certainly situations when the presence a non- resident employee would not cause a problem; yet staffwould contend that the potential risk to the community of opening that door outweighs any benefit gained by changing the Code to benefit one particular home based business. Staff has surveyed surrounding communities to determine how other cities address this issue. (The results of that survey are attached in Table 1 and Table 2.) In summary, eight of the twelve cities surveyed do allow for non-resident employees, five of which allow just one non-resident employee while three cities allow non-resident employees only by conditional use (CUP). Other Survev Results: All cities except Spring Lake Park limit parking to some e�ent, seven of the cities do not allow any on-street parking. None of the cities, except the two that allow more intensive home occupations by CUP, allow unrestricted off street parking similar to what was contemplated by Ordinance 672. Five of the twelve cities require some form of licensing or permitting; Mounds View does not. Two cities require all home occupations to obtain a conditional use permit, while four other cities require a CUP for more intensive home occupations. Nine of the cities surveyed include an area requirement that the home business may ---- , _,. . , . , � _ _ r� ��.� = 1,. - E �. — : . � ._�_ _ _� _.,. . - - --- '----�=�r_ . .�-� . � - ��__ :.:� ----_ -- __ . `�s Re-Examination of Ordinance 672 December 6, 2000 Page 2 not exceed. Mounds View has no such requirement, which means the business could conceivably take up 100% of the home, and since no restriction is made regarding the use of accessory buildings, a home based business could dominate the accessory structures as well. Only three cities include a limitation on the hours of operation. Regarding prohibited uses, the Planning Commission took a considerable look at the potential of restricting automotive uses as a home based business but in the end made no change in that regard. Half of the cities surveyed do identify certain businesses as being prohibited—more concerning retail sales, automotive repair and firearm sales. 7800 Gloria Circle: In October of this year, staff became aware (by means of an anonymous complaint) of a possible violation of the City's Home occupation ordinance at 7800 Gloria Circle. A letter was sent to the person residing at the address which pointed out the requirements of the ordinance and that if the resident wished to continue operating the business, it would need to comply with the Code. After receiving the letter, Mr. Hollander, resident of 7800 Gloria Circle, contacted me regarding his business. I reiterated the Code requirements and Mr. Hollander admitted that his business—which employed the use on non-resident workers—could not comply with the requirements and asked if the Code could be amended. It was at this time that the Planning Commission was already reviewing the Code so Mr. Hollander surveyed his neighbors (an example of his survey is attached for your reference) and made plans to address the Council when it was scheduled to hold the first reading on November 13t" Mr. Hollander will explain that his business, which has operated at that location for more than two years, poses no impact to the neighbors and actually provides an economic benefit to the City by virtue of the fact that his employees shop, eat and do other business in Mounds View. Staff however has received many calls in opposition to making any changes to the Code, especially as it relates to non-resident employees and Mr. Hollander. While this issue has been raised directly as a result of Mr. Hollander, the Planning Commission has to consider that any changes that benefit Mr. Hollander will also apply across-the-board to the whole City. Even if Mr. Hollander's business is relatively unobtrusive, there is no guarantee that that would be the case for all subsequent home occupanons to take advantage of non-resident employees. Recommendation: Staf�'recommends that the Planning Commission reconsider the ordinance as directed by the City Council, yet should not limit its review to simply the issue of non-resident employees. A11 of the requirements contemplated by the Code should be re-examined in light of the survey results and the concerns of residents that may choose to address the Commission. . � � _; ��, �1+"�,Y/\ � I�l,tiJti'�,-. James Ericson, Community Development Director Q:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�SPECPRO.nSp083-OO�PC Report - Dec 6, 2000.doc _� � ,• . . _ �� _ _ _ - �..� � � .. . _;r-- __.� � ______ . � _ __ _ _ _ _ - - - - � .. � x: cn cn rn o� o� o� o� N N o� � � �' a� � a� � a� � »-� o»-� o�- o •- o a� � a� � o �� o 0 �' U U U �. � �. �- U U � c� � tn N N N N � � � � � � (o' . C = C = C � � .� � � w .f] v�— � C � C 7 � .L] � 7 �' � � k t!) CII (0 CII CO CB N (Y ' cn m cn � cn m � N � N � N � N u� � cn � � N cn p� "_' N ;�; tr7 c c c � � 2 0` c c � ' a� � :� c 'in c 'in c 'u� � °� � � � � � � c 'in c '�n � � Z 'v�—i � � > > � v� .� cn .n �n � v� � � � rn � � ui � PI< o� o� O� N cff N c6 N cU � ta O� O� N c6 O� O N N i Z U Z U Z U ?- H � I— � I— �- I— Z U Z U � I— Z U Z �- h �i E E E � ;� ' ,°- °° a � � � ' � �I� o 0 0 0 0 �� o 0 0 �� o o �� ;:s Z Z Z Z Z � rn Z Z Z >- ao Z Z�., � _ ._ �� ,' � ', n.a = xz9 � � � !�. � �� '� ' �- �� ' o o a`"i a`�i o o a`�'i a`�'i a�i o aNi ai a`�i � Z Z >- } Z Z } � } Z >- >- � U ��' c o c o n �5 � L '~' o .c ,°�n o a �� _' U N � N � � � � N p � ��i � �E� �� E�� C� s;�° o o °o � a> o o »-, c�� o � o 0 �' ' N M Z�— � Z Z O Z N N Z Z� � O M N N N Z __ _ s .'' �= c;� 6��. � �, -'�. ' �'�i £�) �� . �,�q �',�' O O O O O O O O O O O O O ,.,,, �,;, ,,,' Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ,,�.;:i: � � : � � N � � �.��.� �: C N C� C C N � i� ' � cn N C N N � Q 7 a � Q Q� � � � N� N q O O O N O O O N C O N N � O � 7 Z Z Z � Z Z Z ❑ O Z i- i- Sm . ;'.,�..'. � �.I�': i�$ �� Qa ua �. � � � �� ;�� o ai o 0 0 � o 0 0 o`�i o � �,,,, '�;, ?- Z } Z Z Z � Z Z Z } Z } � N C �!' a � N � M N � N � C�� C � C C+� C N � C C C tn � � 7l t?� CII 0 C fd �C � ClS � CQ N *-' N:�+ (0 fC '�-' �' � (0 N N r.+ � .� C Y L U L,�-+ .� � L V � O �7 L t � G V .0 V.�-� � 7 . �� .�,r � ` .., � � w.., � �+ �, .-� = lLll C C � �►+ � r� � N � �A r-� fn � U �, b � N Q � � � � tn N t� � � � �j � CII � � � N � � '� � � � � p� ` � aF � � .r 0 CO d � � O � O > 'C C '-' tn O � O � '� � > � O i � C C � ��' E� a> E a� E � E° E— o� � c E n E v o;�— N E— a o:� � � o;= °��' o� X o� E o � o� o� o°' o� o� o��.o- o� � o c`a o a`�'i � ;;., Zocn Z�a� Z>:,� Zo Zm Z�E� Zo Zo Za.m.� Zcao Z� Z>- � � ' A � ia, W • � �, �? � � L~L cd � �; � �j � � �— � � �, � d U �� r� ' �� N O O N � O � N O O �� i° Li % C� � � � �i- i° � i° i' ,%' � i' � aa - - ' � � o., , �, � ° �' �a Fa A�-� j ,�, �' � fa � s+� `c=; ��, �, ,�;; �: .� � �� k''� � � a � � � � � , t� �' �� dj ' Q4 t?1 � P� .� � � �: �: � � � � � , ��? � �' � i p c� � n � ..� � a �' , . , � Q.�9: � �; _:� ��'. ci"� . �. �° �.: 11., I �� . �: r' �'.. _. ,. ;- � � -� i�� ' e°� . `�. .: j�.. .�': `c-��.''. ��.: h i��..._ - ��`� - . '�vt._. �._�.�..�r"""�'i _ � r�=.. ...-_ �"��__ ��n. �� `' ._ _..,-_ _ - �"!�:_._.l �'c'� -_ �+.'�v��e �r�.�<+_� " j _' ' ..� � L .� � � � � � -F-� L� ...r -� C Q N O C � O ` _L �� C'C+-`.'• �O c� p '� O v� � p � N _ � � � U � � � � N �C O � N "O ,� tn � � � � (/j N Q � � � � � L -� � L � � L (U (� � — � C � '�p � � � — (n � � (� � �(LS tQ � U� � � Q ��Cn N C C O� � C L- C t/j . � O �''� � Z3 "� (B � _ ' � .II � �— p C� � � N �` U L �� Q (`B � (� � .> N � � � -Q cA C >, > ; L (� � t� � C C � • � (� tn N � �- C p �(0 � . v� "� ` N � Q "'' -Q � ` .-. � .Q � � t� X � � � � 0 � � � �.Q � �� Q` U � p� �Y �- � ti- R3 -� c� C � (U � � � V � � (� ('�6 � C � C i � � L U;� � fl..� ��N N � cn > •� O � � � .� � � � � ` c� `— U � � Q � . .•• � � ` C .v� C .� (II � E O � � �� . .�? � (l7 V � U � lA � � C � 'p .� O V � � � � � � O � � O � -Q � .0 �. "- cA U � � � (� � � �i (li C � � ,� �j ..0 O Q C � N ��c� �,C � �`C7 '� � � � � � � � � � C Q C C V O � � V � O U � V � � � � ,� � � Q (Lf � � V �cn N ,� � � N � � � ,� '� � C � � Q O � � cU � �� 'Q N N� O� L �� E L o a� a� c�� a� � � � "'"a�� 'm�"c ��'°�` c�a� N�.� o �� o L��,� c� � �n E �� t° c�Z °�� a� � m � Q ��o � °�� -°o� •`a p�� cII cn o U � p O� �� -� � � � ([f � •� � L � � p � X .-. :�_� LL �, ` "-' _ `� � � c '� � o � �, � � v� «� � vi � •� � N �. V V� �, p., �n C � N .-��, fl- . � � �' (Q (6 � C � � � tn v� 0 ` �. O � � `�- N (0 � � � E . r� � � N 'C � � � �0 � � � N � � N: � � °v � U N .� U � � � � � � �- U Q" � � � ') � V ,� � O tA O O � `� `- � O C N ;�' � O � � O .�...�! � �> X � � O� �•�.• �' � �� „Q ; � � � N N Q C � Q. N � (17 � U ' > � O > � � � � '� .�:: (�Q Q a � p � � N � � Q- � �- -p � N � � � p � O O � (� .0 > � a_„ � � � �:,,!�', f1 .° � C� Z Z c0 � I— .� O O �..° � O .� � ,. , a� b � � .QC : U ;j�, (LI : :� _ : Qa ! �.' :: � � L .. (D ; Ct7 W ��. ; p ; q� � :: � � : � � � � � � � : � ' � � � �.. � c"�d .;§"' ' i� � C� 'b`. � � � E� �A .;_3 C:� �.t�.' c�.. .'; �' '. � ': � 4._; _ a : � , . �- _s___. - Ericson, Jim To: Ericson, Jim Cc: Mounds View Fax (Business Fax); New Brighton Bulletin (Business Fax); Focus News (E- mail); Focus News (Business Fax); Coughlin, Dan; Miller, Kathleen; Anderson, Jeremiah; "`MV Council Subject: Possible Changes to Mounds View's Home Occupation Code Dear Mounds View Residents, I am writing to inform you that the Planning Commission on December 6th and again on December 20th will be considering changes to the City's Home Occupation ordinance, changes which could potentially affect every homeowner and resident of the City. Home occupations are businesses that are operated out of one's home, such as an accountant who has an office at home, or a seamstress or dressmaker are other examples. Currently the City Code allows home based business as long as certain requirements are met. These requirements are as follows: ,t,t*,t,t *vr*,r*,t,ir,t**,r+r***,�w,t,r 1. Only residents may work at or for the business--no employees are allowed if they do not live on the premises. 2. The business cannot alter the construction of the home or involve construction features not normally associated with a home. 3. Exterior signage for the business is limited to one square foot, affixed to either the house or the garage. 4. There can be no exterior storage of equipment or materials associated with the business. 5. The business cannot generate more than two vehicles at a time for either on- or off-street parking. 6. The business cannot be a nuisance to other residents in the area or cause violations of the City's Nuisance Code. 7. The business must be completely contained with the home or garage; no activity shall be visible from the street. ***�**w***,�*,�,�****�******* A resident with a home based business has requested that the City remove the restriction prohibiting non-resident employees. What I would like to know, and the reason why I am writing, is If you lived in a house next to a person operating a business from their home, what would your reaction be if that person could be allowed to have employees? If you have ANY comment one way or the other, please respond by e-mail, by phone (763-717-4021) or by coming to the meeting here at City hall on Wednesday, December 6, 2000 at 7:00 pm. If you are unable to attend but would like to stay informed regarding this issue, the Planning Commission meetings (as well as all council and commission meetings) are broadcast live on Cable channel 16 and rebroadcast at other times as well (refer to your community newspaper for the broadcast schedules.) If you do not have cable TV, you should know that you can have the community access channels installed for free. Call 651-481-9554 for more information. Thank you for this opportunity and I welcome any input you may have regarding this or any City-related issue. Sincerely, James Ericson Community Development Director 763-717-4022 (phone) City of Mounds View 763-784-3462 (fax) 2401 Highway 10 jime _ rcmnet.orq <mailto:jime _rcmnef.orq> (e-mail) Mounds View, MN 55112 http://tcfreenet.org/org/moundsview (web) ,_ .. _. �. . � _ ____ � � - _. - � � : _ �� - == -.i _ .. =�.. _�--:� . _-��.� _ ,�..� ..�.�,�: 1 --� C�O��' �'� �D� -o �. P � ��U .A ^°B�P,rs - Partne�S��s �?ctober 23, 2000 R�sident 78UU Gloria Circle Mounds View, MN 55112 RE: Possibte Home Occupation Violation Dear Resident: Phone: (612) 717-4�� Fax: (612) 784-348� Th� City of Mounds View has been informed tl�at you are operatin�; a busijiess out of your home at 7500 Gloria Circle. This business mi�;ht be in violation of our City ordinanc� wl�ich regulates home businesses, especially if you tiave employees who are not residents of ih�e home. For your information, a home business is permitted in Mounds View if and o►i1y if the followin� requirements are met and satisfied' 1. Only reside�Tls may work at or for the business—no employees are ��ilowed if they do not live on the premises. 2. The business cannot alter the construction of the home or involve construction features not normally associated with a home_ 3. Exterior si�nage for the business is limited to o�ie square foot, affixed to either the house or the garage. 4. There can be no exterior storage of equipment or materials associated with tlie business. 5. The business cannot �ei�erate more than two vehicles at a time for either on- or off-street parkin�;. 6. The business cannot be a nuisaiice to other residents in the area or cause violations of the City's Nuisance Code. 7. The business must be completely contained witl� the home or garage; no activity sha(l be visible from the street. 2401 Highway 10 • Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 � f�i, vi�ix«nwin� �ni..b...:a.. ,..-i..i�......, t-.u...//a,.s...,.��....a .,.,..i:...l.-.:a..1.,..,.. �...-�....:..... Page 2 If you wish to conlinue operation of your home business, please ensure that all of these requiremenis are satisf ed. Please contact me at 763-717-4022 if you have any questions about the hom� occupation ordinance, this letter, or any otl�er matter. Sincerely, e- - . ` , f,,\ . �. �., .: � _ •i ` (.; .J i � � , Jaines Ericson, Planner City of Mounds Vie�,�� '' __.:.�:___ i'"_'___._��' " "' . __'' _ L ___-. �_.:____ __'_ F"" '" _ =�- -�..��., I�_�;;:::_=`��.1�:��:� ��:�. Dear Neighbors, 11-11-2000 My name is Todd Hollander, and I have lived at 7800 Gloria Circle for 2-1/2 years. As most of you already know, 1 have a small, home-based business called Prospects Unlimited. All our work is business- to-business computer-related sales by phorte. We have little "tra�c ", no need of large signage, etc. I have been told irr the few neighborly inquiries 1 have made, that my business "has had little or no noticeable negatrve effects ", and that they haven't minded what I am doing. I started as a home-based business model because I wasn't "born with money ", and had no lines of credit — not urrcommon for those wanting to start a busi�ess.... so my choices were home based or nothing. When I moved to this location it was only myself and one other part-timer. I still have that person, added one more last year, and added 2 more this year. When I reach 5, I intend to move the operation out to suitable local offace space and continue residing here. However, the matter has bee» brought to the attention of the City of Mounds View. (And coincidentally it is it is a scheduled topic for Nov 13 at 7pm at the ciry of Mounds View town hall). (Please see requfrements #1 &#S of the attaclied letter) I(we) intend to try to demonstrate a few key considerations to the Mounds View city conncil in an attempt to achieve a less restrictive city ordinance. Our goal is to see that Mounds View allow for an amendment from the requirements #1 &#5 in the general city ordinance if the business meets the followin� criteria: � /[�' �� .. �' a! '� �.'� � t . � .' 'I I! � I ' r ��'�, ! � I /' / /� '( ! [ '/(/ l! / '� . 'L!'/ . � : I / /'/ ('�/ /(' I / !' '!. '/['( . This issue may be relatively unimportant to you, but I ask, how likely is it that someone close to you — a son, daughter, or other c[ose person - will be involved in a smull start-up business? According to what I've heard, the odds are good, and rising quickly. And how will you feel when they can't pursue their dream because they don't have the money, can't borrow it, AND can't work it out from their home? The chance to start this business has made a GREAT difference in my life. But more importantly, I've been proud to watch my business make a difference for others too! The 4 who work with me make MORE than an average wage (average here is $17.50/hr), have BETTER than average working conditions, and we SPEND money at local businesses. At several places we shop, we are so "regular", that we are lrnown on a first name basis with the owner (ABC Liquor, Holiday Gas, Mario's Movies, Spring Lake Lumber, Riches Restaurant, etc). Point is small businesses are important, growin� in importance. and we have the abilitv to decide whether or not to be a restrictive communitv. So, whether it's to help us. to help the local taz base. or simplv to allow your friends and familv the same chance I've had. I ask for vou to take a moment of time to express vourself (on the reverse sidel. If you are uncomfortable with that option, call Jim Ericson @ 7I7-4022 to tell him your personal feelings. Jim is our elected o�cial, VERY friendly and helpful, and he wants to do what the community wants. Again, please take a minute to tell him (and the counc�l) your feelings. A completed statement has more "force" than a call, bnt doing one or the other IS IIVIPORTANT! Sincerely, .v Q %� - todd(a� honereps.com 763.'795.8818 ` � _ � .:_� . , t : � � � .,.�- �..1:. '-�_�'=_i T . .' '" "' _ L'� . "_-�a._._�__..�=fi �--�-:. .�r_��'�1 r��-�� ' �-._,'_� .. �.��__..._._ Mv O�inion on Our Mounds View Citv Ordinance: � ��, � �� .�� ,� , �. � I am the RES ENT of the prope ate �� f Signed: � • Dated: // / /�/2000 Or if you wish to a�ree in whole in verbatim with what I am suggesting to the city council, simply'check the black box below, sign your name, and date it above. � (All responses will be turned in 11-13-2000.) As received by Todd Hollander, Resident of 7800 Gloria Circle �'� todd , honei•eps.com 763.795.�� 18 � �.� _��: � . :, , � . ; . �� . : "�...__ . -• . _�: t�;es.�.�._�L� " ="'s_" .,.� ._.-.:,: ��__. - t's.r-._.�_s.. �" "'..–�..t "':. __��_.�..�'-� ��—_. ':_3' �' .x'+.�.s^?A _ . � ORDINANCE NO. 672 CTTY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAIVISEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1106.03, SUBDIVISION 3, OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE, PERTAINING TO HOME-BASED BUSINESSES WTTHIl�T THE CTTY OF MOUNDS VIEW TI� CITY OF MOUNDS V�W ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Chapter 1106, Section 1106.03, Subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby amended with additions �mrlerlinPC� and deletions shuck-nut-to read as follows: Subd. 3. Home Occupations: The regulation of home occupations within residential structures is intended to ensuie i�rsare that the occupational use is clearly accessory or secondary to the principal dwelling use and that compatibility with sunounding residential uses is nnaintained. No home occupation sha11 be allowed which: a. Involves employees other than persons residing on the premises; b. Involves alteration or construction features not customarily found in dwellings; . • � � . • • � • � - � �• � • �' � � �• " � �' � . '� ' � ' � 1. � A � � -� � �. .�" • /�• 1 '� �1 �' � ��'�\ 1 1 1 • ��1 � � •�• . 1" 1 • �. � �' '� �� 1• ".�'1� �" •1• 1' � •�'� �• �' °� � -'� • • • • � � - - � - - - .11 • � - - 1 .1 • - � � ■ • � � " � 1 � - � - - � � � � � � • � � • _ ' _ � _ _ � .�� - • - 11 ' � � � • - � � ' ♦ .1 " � _ t °\ � ' _ ' � .� ' � • • • �- - �- - - �� • • � - -�- �r- �.. - - -� �•11 � - 1 � � � � - - -n � • ' � � i d. Involves e�erior storage of equipment or materials; e. Generates more than two (2) motor vehicles at a time for ' - on-street parking, f. Results in violation of the provisions of Chapter b9166#, Nuisances, of the Municipal Code; and g. Involves activity visible from the public streets. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall go into effect thirty (30) days after it has been published in the of�icial City newspaper. _ __ _ _ . . . ;.. . -� --- ::, . . . . _ . . � ::�----' ,. : r., _� - --_'_--.--�.' ---� -- . ,.. �.�� ..-s _r.> � - _. ,. _.. �_ .�._ .. � .. .z. -_`--------. . . . -�._ . �I Ordinance 672 Page 2 First read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 2000. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 2000. Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen Miller, City Clerlc / Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert C. Long, City Attorney �� - _ 1_. . : __. == r-. _.�.. L ;� .� :..---- "- ---�- - �- '�== - '---:_._ ��_-=-= � �=--- z � �. F:�.�c-°. � --�. - . Item # 7 Czty of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: DecembeY 6, 2000 Title: CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 1008 OF THE MLJNICIPAL CODE, "SIGN CODE" Introduction: Based upon the last meeting, staff has revised the proposed timeline for the review of the Sign Code. It can be further refined as we go along. The two changes were to switch the date for review of temporary signage with the date to review ground signage. The other change was to eliminate a specially-designated "business community" special meeting on February 7, 2000, the rationale being that the business should be involved, or at least invited to be involved, at each of the meetings. Discussion: The Planning Commission had scheduled this meeting to review the definitions contained within our code as well as to compare and contrast them with those definitions contained in other ordinances. To help in accomplishing that goal, the Commission would be advised to bring to the meeting the other ordinances previously provided to the Commission. In addition, staff has made a photocopy for each of the Commissioners of the American Planning Association's Sign Regulation handbook. The handout briefly reviews many of the issues associated with sign codes and provides its version of a model sign ordinance. That document, along with the others already reviewed, should provide a suitable foundation upon which to base our own Code revision. Recommendation: Please review the APA's Sign regulation handbook and be prepared to individually assess and refine if necessary the definitions within our Sign Code. If time permits before the meeting, staff will attempt to provide a first draft of possible definition revisions. , � �� _��,,� �- �-'-�.,,\� L,�.. James Ericson, Community Development Director Y:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEVISP�CPRO.T�SP082-00\PC Report - Dec 6, 2000.doc _ �_ „ n _ - _ . __ . � �.__: �-��._ _.< �-:�� _. _�•,1•tGla:�:�'1. - _�____�_=i - Y_�� . .. . _� ._ — �= a- ..z� -_�_ T 1; i` PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW - R.A.MSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA ,. '� C s_,�;��i9�� Meeting I�`�u� Yr.,,1«li��s�<r 15, 2000 1V��a�1u��i ��l�t��r,� ��k� �all 2401 Hig�t�qVay 10,1Vlpur�� V,��.��r; 1a�111 !�P;�fl� 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p.zn , 1�1��,l,ti,;E:r 15, 2000. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, �ommissianers ��rl�c, ��e�i`and, Johnson, Miller, Stevenson, Kaden, Thomas, and Cerny. ..:... ..;:.:.. Members Excused: None. ' ��'� Also Present: Planner Jim Er�cso�a; �nd Comrn�?�ii�y �� »li�pinent Director Joplce. Index �:�v 5��u��: Discuss Possi%I� �i��xa«E,� to tk�e Cz�y':� �:i�;�� ':Code, Chapter 100$ �.� �1�r�� A�r��ici��1 �ode �� Staff �ports / Items o� � rzt�ic � �z%��;x�n C�i�irperson and Plannin� �o��nission Reports �n ;. �itizen's �e�'uests and Cocnments on Items Not on the Agenda "�"}�� rra�z�� .<� '�;itizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. Page 2 5 5 - =---.a.�-� �-----__ tn» . L�.__ - _ F.. _ _._ ---- - � ---�---= - - �_ =� -.�el 1 �= --- - -- Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4. Approval of Minutes A. October 18, 2000 November 15, 2000 Page 2 Commissioner Miller indicated a period was needed on Page 6 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To approve the the noted correction. 5. Ayes — 9 Nays - 0 Discuss Possible Changes to the City's Sign Code Planner Ericson drafted and presented to the with the only changes of substance bein reorganization of the allowable signage by �o. Planner Ericson obtained and pre called United States Sign Cou� exclusively to funding sign-relate the sign inclustry. Mr. Eri�;:�t�ri i� Leagu� a� l��innesota Citit,� ��.� �- �� sign a��ia�47�r.;r.: ��The Lea�r,t� �i � would b�� I��.��r �t� �i�rwar�l �sr�r��'� Planner Eric code to hel� the ;ated he s told tk r�anple� to him. iplier 18, 200(� meet�r��,r rc�i;�i�t�;, �with '. i�Il�tion carried. �� h��°' � OQ� ;of the Municipal ��r��minaiy reU��ion to the sign code ;. � ��` � "purpose" section and the � nmission a rnbdel sign ordinance from a group a charitable; nonprofit organization devoted ucationa,� activities of benefit to the growth of sa;; re��ested a model sign ordinance from the ;�r� of Minnesota Cities did not have a model �oes have several cities' ordinances on file and n�l�-�,�°i'ec� �� r�ro��o5��i ��,Ia�rl.a,�fe for the review of the major components of the sign ;;�p�i�� 1�� r:�r,�� `ib� ��imeline was presented to the Commission and Planner for ini��t�� i� �;��n�� or revisions to the timeline. , Pl��n�er Ericson reviewed ea�h area of the code he felt needed updating, changing, or clarifying, r�f�rring first to the new �`Purpose" section. He indicated that each of the definitions would need ta ;be carefully consid�,�ed for possible changes. He pointed out that on Page 4 in Section 10Qb.03, Subd. 2, �r�;�`erring to "Exceptions" would need to be revised to be clearer. He , ;;., ��Y,�;s��rnmended tha� �Iie phrase "in its direction" in Section 1008.04 be changed to read "at its ��i;�� z� ��«" �a�`-pu��`pose of clarity. He referred to Section 1008.05, Subd. 2 concerning permit �=�;�f �!��;�z ��t��cating that the part dealing with "unusual signs or signs needing a special permit ��.�'; ��; r�r; i=eferred to Council for approval" should be rewritten for clarity. He advised that some of the language in Section 1008.06, addressing the provisions for obtaining a license to install signs, could possibly be removed from the code. Planner Ericson continued by pointing out that Subd. lf of Section 1008.08 requiring signs to be installed with identifying numbers may not be applicable and as such, could either be eliminated or changed. He stated that in his opinion, subpart lof Subd. li of Section 1008.08 subpart 1 is one of the most confusing sections of the sign code. Planner Ericson indicated because of the =_ "_'_'I I �-- - -,s`� _ � :_ . _; " ._-_, _ . . ,�_ . _.. L..: _ _ _. - ..__:,. !� �-_ _ _ __:_ _ -_� C = _ _ . E- - -- ---- �:_�-•- . _ _ _ � y`'� Mounds View Planning Commission November 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 confusing nature, he redrafted the section and presented his new version to the Commission for their review. Planner Ericson indicated that the table on Page 8 identifying signage by �oning district was added as a result of the suggestions made by the Comznission a7. ii;� last rzx��ting. The last issue addressed by Planner Ericson concerned the varianr� langu��;�, 'and �vfiether it is necessary to repeat the criteria in the sign code. The section coulc�' �imply r�I�r'i:c� �17%�pt�r ] 125. Cominissioner Thomas inquired as to how Section 1 businesses. Planner Ericson that home-based businesses were defined Commissioner Kaden inquired as to how wind speed Planner Ericson indicated the City would rely on the City Code requirements. Planner Ericson told the Commission it is na� 'the int ordinance that would malce most signs in tk�� City nonG� Commissioner Johnson indicated allowable real estate "for sale" si sign which seems to be the indusi Planne� d ,ric;��an in� cc . _ _r r'°. �a f .. - - - » thinking� IV![a7xne�s �Iiew differently. ��r`t�r�na�i�n courtesy for g�r�.g� ��es Commis;s��3ner Miller! xn�7 sales..��'t�iin the City anc9. ��.�iner Ericson indicatF i�f'ormation on allowabl� ;��r� and R 5� �oni c�7_ald pos�z�s�y be �dard. ' (�5.:0� would ��ply ��j h�,l��,hased aar��I.�ly under the City Code. e.�oul��l t7�; ��e�mined for a sign. companie� �o �rt�t?i��;..signs that met �� ; i a�£ to ma�e changes to the sign ��it�s;, e targer parcels and requirements for �g�d to allow a larger, 32 square-foot !�k�ai �i��' remov��'il�,� sx��I advertising signs such as "weight loss" �tlx�.�� nx�;r,nrr advei-Ci;�i�ig from telephone poles to prevent others from allc��,��s� ��f�;��t. advertising. Garage sale signs, he added, are treated is �rir�iFyc3. �� ; newsletter each spring concerning sign etiquette and ii�-��l �s to whether there was a place in the code defining Christmas tree i��;� �1'lowed for that. there are guidelines for Christmas tree sales lots which include ,. �` ;€-�l�r�nPx- Ericson as�� the Commission whether they wanted to invite local business owners to �c?��r� �_�� s}i� ��nirig and discussion meetings on the sign ordinance or if the Commission would �i`,r��z� ��i cc��n�; i:�p with a draft of possible changes to the sign code and then have one meeting wfi< <e �u�iness owners could review and make comment on the code changes. Commissioner Thomas indicated she felt it would be a good idea to switch Ground Signs and Temporary Signs on the schedule to accoxnmodate the holiday rush times for business owners. It was the consent of the Commission to notify local business owners of the meetings to discuss proposed changes to the sign ordinance and to inform them there will be a business owner's j.. . --� �� ____ _ ,�._.�. : _ ______ � -� =� � _� � ►�� Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting November 15, 2000 Page 4 forum on February 7, 2001 should they wish to participate in any or all of the meetings. , It was also the consent of the Commission to switch Ground Signs and Temporary Signs on th�;;.ti�rreline. Connmissioner Thomas noted it may be necessary to define the Carmike sign that is oriented at a 45 degree angle. Planner Ericson indicated that issue could be looked at Commissioner Kaden inquired as to how the Commission ,�:P�r�1; advertise pop sales by stacking cases of pop up and usi��'�� ;i�'; price. Planner Ericson indicated that right now Mounds View'� Code display and sale of products. _ Community Development Director Jopke indi advertise and display product outside under t�i+ The conditional use permit allowed for a sg��ifi Commissioner Hegland inquired as the City call and obtain the proper,� Planner Erics< informs p�ta�� event i�; t�fi�r�,;; Commission�;b on Page % bec looks nice bu� P1ann�;r Ericsc «: : _�:. �:,>:<;:;.. C��imissionei t�r�vided it's r such as the ing c�f tI7� �i�,� �oc1; . ; gas station ov��i'� �,vk�c��'' �� ored cases to oi��_lii�� I��, for the outside :c��i1�� i:l�ley had ��fined the ability to d ct�r��I�ti�:�� oi` �, cotiditiional use permit. of ota�;�YCI�; c�i;��1:�ys per year. or other local events within �� indicated th�� 9 c�uti of 10 ev��s planz��rs do call for a permit. The sign company : who rent th� s��;n�; i:hat they z��yT n�� a permit and to contact the city where the ��ld to obi�.iii �n�;_ �� !��lc��;rz �x�dicatec� x�'rr�ay� �r. ra�,cessary to redefine the meaning behind "long" grass ��,;c.; r��-; !<r�c�ws of �c��-r��t��'�� iki: l�.is neighborhood who has ornamental tall grass that ,� ,l �� i� t= ��z?��.��:��to o��e o� 1.�� neighbors who disapproves of it. sug�e Thomas ornamental grasses as a separate issue. changing the language on Page 7 to read "controlled landscape" ��ixpez�son Peter,s�t�''indicated the graphics showing how to measure signs was very helpful and �g�c{� �.ir�r� as� �o i�rhe�her the City could use them in its Code or could somehow obtain graphics to r�;��, it� ±�a� �`�c�€;. _ __ I�lanner Ericson indicated he would think this could be possible. � �� _ � � � _- - _ _ ___ _ . _� ��_ _:...�� _ === -'_ _ __ __ __ _____ _ _ ;_ _ __ : � � .�� , Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting G. Staff Reports/Items of Information A. Previous Council Actions Community Development Director Jopke indicated November 13, 2000 and approved the Preliminary : referred Ordinance 672 bacic to the Planning CC discussion. This item was referred back because a;r per City Code his telemarlceting business is not allot?� that come to his home to work. Chairperson Peterson inquired as to whether it covering home-based businesses from the cities guide while working on the home-based business Planner Ericson indicated he had future meeting. B. Items of Discussior� Community Developmeni and thanlced the Commissi 7. Cha� r�� oinmissi �ii�`��o:� Joplc� told the � xor the o��,rt�inity to Commu�i i �,° ��v��.€rprr November 15, 2000 Page 5 i�.t : ihe (;ity �.;aur�cil �ac� met on :t �"or the Merz�a'�zd �� at�d they �nission far �urth�z� �•�,c,1r�°h and dent carr�;e forward i��clic:nii«€; tl��t because he has outside ��,1a��3v ��.,. b� ;ac��s�I,l� �c� obtain ordinances andiz�g, t��l��taa= View to use as a nce and wot�ld present them at a rimission this was his last meeting lc with them. Director Jopke for his years of �xr� �!�?�� l��nin� ��;r«�F,�gssion Reports vensa� in:c�La�s-��l as to the status of the Walgreens and Culver's development. 7er Ericson indica.s��i i er's will not conne �� :] ounds View. were progressing along but said there is a probability that �s View as there is a new Culver's restaurant opening just north �s inquired as to whether the City had received plans from Ernie Gustafson on County Road I. indicated he had not received anything concerning the property. Commissioner Johnson noted he had spoken to the owner of the Amoco property who indicated he was attempting to find someone to reopen the station. If that is not feasible, the property will be sold. However, not to another gas com:pany. There were no other reports of the Commission. 1 _-L- ; _ i . _ _ r k _ =�_- 1'.��.=�� _--:�- -�, - ' =' - - '- --: ."---- -= �------ _ 3_ _u.......1 Mounds View Planning Commission November 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 �.. �. , , � _ � � : :� -- . � _ . _ ��=�� ' � � _ ____."_ - __ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ � `I ;� MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION December 20, 2000 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULA.R MEETiNG AGENDA l. Ca11 to Order 2: Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITTZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PL,�ASE COME TO TI� PODIUNL, A1VD GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDR�SS FOR THE n�IINUT�S 4. Approve Pla.nning Commission Minutes: a. November 15, 2000 5. Planning Case No. VR00-008 Property Involved: 7764 Greenwood Drive Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance Request to Allow and Garage Addition with a Zero-foot Setback. Applicant: John Wilson 6. Consideration of Resolution 643-00 a Resolution Recommending City Council Adoption of Revised Ordinance 672 Regarding Home Occupations 7. Consideration of Resolution 644-00, a Resolution Setting the Meeting Dates for the Planning Commission in 2001. 8. StaffReports / Items of Information a. Mezzenga Application b. Network Liquors, 2345 County Road HZ 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT TI-ILS ME�TING 1S REQIJ�5TED. PLEASE NOTIFY TI� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 763-717-4021 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. AGENDA SESSION AGENDA 1. Review the Minutes from the Decennber 6, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting. E:�DATAIGROUPS1COIvIDEV1PLANCOMM�PCAGENDA�20001Nov 15, 2000 PC Agenda.doc Item # 5 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: Title: CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR A GARAGE ADDITION (LEAN-TO) UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE (ZERO SETBACK) AT 7764 GREENWOOD DRIVE Background: John Wilson, property owner of 7764 Greenwood Drive, has requested a variance to permit a garage addition built onto the side of his garage up to the north side property line. The structure has already been constructed without a permit. Staff became aware of the structure in May after neighbors called to complain about it. The Building Tnspector visited the property and sent a letter to Mr. Wilson on June 8, indicating that a building permit had not been obtained and that the construction was in violation of Code requirements. Mr. Wilson did contact staff after receiving the letter, and he was told that he would either need to remove the garage addition or apply for a variance. After not hearing back from Mr. Wilson, staff left additional voice mail messages for him, and was finally contacted by Mr. Wilson on September 5. I followed up with a letter that same day, again indicating that a variance would be necessary to keep the structure. Attached to that letter was a planning application and a handout regarding variances. Two months later, staff had not yet received an application and once again sent a letter to Mr. Wilson, this time indicating that is an application was not received by December 1, a Ramsey County court citation would be issued in his name. Staffreceived the application on November 20, 2000. Discussion: As with any variance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical dif�iculty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body 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 e�sts when all of the criteria are met. (The applicant had been sent a list of the criteria and was encouraged to submit a written response to demonstrate his hardship.) The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: . . . . �. . . � L Wilson Variance Report December 20, 2000 Page 2 a. Exceptional oi• extraordinary circumstances apply to the p�•opef°t�� which do nvt apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from Zot size or shape, topog�°aphy or other circumstances over which the owne�°s of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. There are no extraordinary circumstances which apply to this property. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rrghts con2monly enjoyed by other properties in the same distt•ict under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result fi•onT the actions of the applicant. The applicant is clearly responsible for the conditions which have prompted him to apply for a variance. Had the applicant applied for a building permit prior to doing the work, he would have been told that the addition would be in violation of the Zoning Code. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, siructures or buildings in the same district. , Granting this variance would confer upon the applicant a special privilege in that other property owners are not allowed to build within the five foot setback. e. That the variance f•equested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. Because the structure is already in place, the variance requested is the minimum that would be necessary to maintain the structure. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Given the circumstances, staff strongly feels that granting the variance request would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title. In addition, granting the variance would set a dangerous precedent, sending a message to residents that it is acceptable to ignore the building code and zoning code requirements by seelcing approval through the variance provision. 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 Wilson Variance Report December 20, 2000 Page 3 dange�• of fire or endcrnge�° the public safety o�� substa��tzally dinzinash o�• ii�zpai�� prope�•ty values ivithin the neighbo�°hood. While the addition would not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjoining property, if left in place, stormwater runoffwould continue to drain onto the adjoining property. It could be argued that the adjoining property's value could be impacted by the structure located up to the property line. After reviewing the criteria and the details of the variance request, staff has determined that the criteria are not satisfied and thus the request should be denied. Recommendatfon: Approve Resolution 645-00, a resolution �lenying the variance request of John Wilson to have a garage addition up to the property line and requiring the property owner to remove the structure within 30 days of the date of denial. w,��:��;� �C,.�t-f�;:€s�.. James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Plaiming Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Letters to Mr. Wilson 4. Resolution 645-00 N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\VR00-0081Wilson PC Report.doc , ��` "' "_' " _...�.. ....� ..�.� ...� ..:..� v.aa ve ua. �YJvVY �� r�_°= L � CaMMUN1TY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .. DEVELUP�1�iT APPLICATIOP" ; " s'�; 2401 Highway 10, Meunds View MN 5S 1 l_ -, a�, ��F�.0 - v�.m�rr,�fi 612-i ].7-402 612-784-3462 � FAh Pieue Type atPsiut Ynrormutiop - Compkte Both SiJe� o4Thie Fa�n Applic�t Ldo�rmatiwa .�� W I � (� � 76 3 — � � � -- "-�`�'JJ Name ofApplicuat Tcicphont pd,dress —11 b`Z. �l�'K.,.`,� l.� � j� � Fa�c7Z �— 7/7 - o�-�.tr' Tqiereat in Property (che+dc appropriete box) � Oum,er of Prnperry o Conocact for Deed Owner a I,es�e.rti operator, Menager o A�reeinc.-nc to Pw�chase a Other (rxpluin) Applirauta mwt provide evideucc of inteerat in pmperty at the timt ot applic�iion, xnd it you ar� not the owner of the pmperty� you mnst proviJc a ktter otpermisaion from the owner giviog eonaent to thC Ciiltg of thie application. iLc propQrty vwrner mu,t eign thia applicatioa for it to be aceepted. Ptopetity DeseriptioulPropatal Addre�s a�r GeQecal Location Legal bascription . Propetty Idcnsfication # (PIN � # oPAcs�s G7urentZortmg 7'ype ofApplication o Campreheusivc Plan Ameadmeat d I2.e�oaing O Major Subdivision ❑ Mlnor Stibdivision o Plantux3 Unit Devetapmcnt (P[7D) ❑ PLID Amendmeat o Condition�Ulnt�im Use Pennit �1C Yatiaacc - a Code Appeal ❑ Dcvr.lop Revi�vlSite Plan o Wctlaad Alter.►tion Pcrmit o Wetland Bui%er Pcsmit . o Floodpluin Pcrmit n Orher 5250 $250lacre�� mia 5250 mux S 1500 3250 +5250 deposit'� �200 Refer to rezoning lccs $350 R-1. R 2 �J,iqpll othess $250 R-1, R-2 100 ll othc�'s 5250 $I00 S i 25/IICr� min S] 25 max 5750 R-1. R-2 $l 50; aIl others $200 R-!. R-2 $25; all others $]00 szoo ;peposits shall be paid to covet utl costs of public notices, mnterials :,nd scsff or consultant time speat in d�e revicw, reseatch orpreparahon afmstecials assaciated wi[h this ap�licalion. The applic3nt shaA be rcapon,�bie for all te�onable i�cucrea cos[t nn exccss of �e iaitia] cleposit amount Any por[ion of the dcpoa`�e not spcni ur encumbc'red shall bc tefiu�ded to the applicurat withiu thiny (30) days �fier consid�tion af the unpiicaaon is completed Pleaac eomplete the reveree 9ide of this application. v.ir vvi vv yJ.GJ StLl V1L f0�! J�iO.: 1i11Y Vi iLLV �(J�J5 City of Mounds �ew, MN Development Ap�licativn ' Pa�e Z Pc�t Use afPropary G] UadcvelopedNacsnt Q�.' Single Farnily Dwelliag p Dupl�Jlwo Family Tawellmg o Multi-family Dwelling o Busines5lCommer�cial �stablishment o Indzistriai Es�blishment ❑ O�her (Cxplain) �roperiy Classification �' Abstrgct o Torreas nG3Crip[IOIIOfpIOpOS� Qw�� Gl ��`M � l�� '�� /°"lA�tn, �I.-u/�� BY A�Y (OUR) SIGN�iURE ON TI�IS APPLiCATION, KNOWi,EDGE, TI� YNFORMATTON PROVID� IS % NF Si�ahae of Appiic�nt �/ Nsm�e of Applicant (typedlprinte� ' �a Signahue ofP:vperty Owner Name ofProper�y Owncx (typed/prinLul) Addtrss of Owner Phone Nurnber oi Owner ' DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY I�CCURATE- 0 � � � `� � � �o�P v �m,,,,-��` ��,� t�-v�/ �i 1 Z-- �7� .�-- � /1 _._. o.r2_T w�wt�+•s��»�+��s:tssi»v�ssss**�w �**�es**ss�:**a#*s�r�r*s*:�tf��tR�s+s#s+��s�*ss*t *�x�*::*i*�� *��ss*st*�t FOR 4FF�CE USE ONLY Date of 5�bmittal r-�-O � a b Y)ate of Ac�eptance l' �"a O_ Assigncd to: Plaswing Case No. -O "1 �� 6b-day Limit ___________ 120-day limic Fees Paid: Acefltmt # Cheek # Rccei tp # APPlication: r �- 0, . 0 0 1 � C� �,� �a.� _ ( � - � � � Z��__—.. paric Dedication: Deposits: OtScr Totai; N:IDATAIGROUPSiCI)MDE�IFORNIS�DBvAPP.FOR ��g . - _ ,. _ :�- �__ : : __ _ . _._ �� _ 4 u � � j � '� ZONING MAP �69 79�G "1979 ��u — � y�� i:!iu d65 7960 7gs� %964 7gF.►; 79b9 ,. �g�4 i59 7950 79�1 345 7946 7�27 � H I LLVI EW �,35 793C� 7917 7940 � �, , �, r 79�� PARK � � 7900 7901` � � 790n N N N N p� ROAD cD 00 N .— (D � 91 � � 7880 7895 � � 789a 7885 � � ?864 r.1 rJ � � N N 85 7866 ?867 �� E70 786g 785E 77 7854 �� 7860 7U�5 7$52 W 63 784? �8�� 7850 7355 `` 784E� g 51 �a�0 Q 7840 7635 `�$dQ � 7$15 820 � 7815 779Q �g0� , '7$1 U�t1 � 78G5 7�0 � W 78d�� 777� � 7801 77�4 ,800 y ft—� 7301 77ti� �W �75t 7750 �� 7767 776U � 7�41 77�Q h � � •. �� i�'; i 761 775fi 7731 7�3Q �� R � 77ss ��30 �� ii2o � ��as ��,o �� i I ca ry�� 2 '715 � � °�n^° `p ,n 7704 � cv c�, , ��-^� R-2 �a,.�„ ��-.,.��,. M1 �tfit0 ` cM0 tD�� ,ZrJrJ.3 p 7 �n �n �n u7 �n �n u� u� �r, � D!J NNCJN � N(�JNNN 2551 c� � 2549 �' 2547 � i�a� N g_3 ,��`c B�� s4q � 2537 0 �-4 �i� ti � 'u g_� � � Q� C et CJ � � t� p l� .. N '�' CV � N'r � a� � �j — LS (`J rj � C O� � � h .... n CO p (� � ,— N �� N ^ '— p,�QC �..'� N Q ^ N N ��' o � n r� -- rv cv . _ cv .-, c a �� h �; �Y� �� 7�75 7g8d 7c 7955 7944 7<. 7945 7g34 7� a, ,n !—; ct, r. 90 t n�n �' � v� 7900 d C [�. ;.� N C� O c0 � ` ciU � 78brJ u� �n f;... f lo �]$8 78� �n C'J N 2. : N N � %B�J:i � j �, 787$ %$� � � �87� 7841 � � Z 78 ,; . , �s3s 3 7829 ' f' 78 7817 4j 782d � 78 7809 781 � 7$ 7801 7806 7797 ?g00 7t3i 7787 7778 77 77�� 776$ 7767 �� 7753 77a$ 77 ��zs �� 771Q 77 u� � �► � � � 77i R-7 � � �� 7695 cv c,' � 76�7 766 R-4 �-� ss �� 66 j �7f�6 7655 76 t � _`?� � � � � � N �p lp � � � �`3 � � o � \ �� .,.. _ __ : � � �� OM�ID� -^o . " OC� nM�I ,Ar S d'ress � partnecsh�Q � � June 8, 2000 7ohn Wilson 7764 Greenwood Drive Mounds View, MN 55112 Re: Lean-To Attached to Garage Dear Mr. Wilson: Phone: (612) 717-4000 Fax: (612) 784-3�462 The City has become aware of a lean-to type structure that has recently been constructed on your property at 7764 Greenwood Drive. City records show that a pernut has not been applied for nor issued for this project. Tn addition, after a site inspection of the property, the City found that this structure is not in compliance with Building Code requirements. The City appreciates your efforts to keep your property orderly, however, Code requirements must be followed while doing so. Please call me at your earliest convenience so that we may discuss this matter further. I can be reached at (763) 717-4026. Sincerely, CITY OF M�UNDS VIEW �cn lY,i,.�� Q-��' -r+-, o'r, 5 a"'� I 1J---121 Kathi Osmonson Building Inspector /bab CC:�ick Jopke, Community Development Director James Ericson, City Planner Jereiruah Anderson, Housing Inspector Connie Forsythe, Building Of�cial 2401 Highway 10 • Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 PflIHTEO WITN Website address: htt //tcfreenet.or /i /cit /moundsview SOYINK TM p� 9�p Y � Eoual O000rtunifv Fmnlnvar recycled paper CITY OF �,NDS A .a. P �np • D�UU Ar S ��pfs - Partnersh`Q Septernber 5, 2000 John Wilson 7764 Greenwood Drive Mounds View, MN 55112 RE: Variance Application John: Phone: (612) 717-4(' Fax: (612) 784-3� (By Mail & Fax) Thank you for contacting me today regarding your garage and lean-to at 7764 Greenwood Drive. As you are aware, your, lean to—which was constructed without a building permit—violates the City Code in that it encroaches into the required 5-foot side yard setback. In addition, the size of the garage with the lean-to exceeds the City's maximum square footage and thus requires approval of a conditional use permit. I am attaching a planning application and a handout regarding variances that details the seven criteria the Planning Cornmission considers when determining if hardship e�sts. Please include a letter with your application that addresses the seven hardship criteria and any other information you feel would be beneficial regarding your reyuest. If the Planning Commission approves your request for a variance, you would then be required to apply for and obtain a conditional use permit. If the Planning Comrrussion denies your request, you would then be required to remove the lean-to within a prescribed period of time. If you have any questions about this, please contact me at 763-717-4022. Sincerely, �J (iU�t.e� ��.c��i-&�. James Ericson, Planner City of Mounds View Cc: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Barb Benesch, Administrative Assistant 2401 Highway 10 • Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 � PRINiED WITH Website address: http://tcfreenet.org/ip/ciry/moundsview SOYINK ,,,, Equal Opportunity Employer recycled paper . .. _- _ _ __ _ ___ ___ . _ _ CITY OF NDS -o �� P• ��VU '�r S d'r"Sf � Partnersh�Q November 6, 2000 John Wilson '1764 Greenwood Drive Mounds View, MN 55112 RE: Garage Addition Deax Mr. Wilson: Phone: (612) 717-4000 Fax: (612) 784-3462 On September 5, 2000, we spoke about the extension of the roof you added to the garage without a building permit. That same day, I sent out a letter confirming our conversation and enclosed for your use an application for a variance, which is required because the structure was built up to the property line. It has been two months and I have not heard back from you nor have we received your application. . ;___ While we understand that you—lilce everyone—have many things that keep you busy, resolving this code violation should be a priority. Assuming you still have the application, please return it to me with the appropriate� fee along with a statement addressing the hardslup which would warrant the approval of the variance. If we do not receive your application by December 1, 2000, you will be issued a Ramsey County court citation for violation of the city's building and zoning codes and for failure to correct said violations. Violations such as these are misderneanors, which carry a rnaximum $700 fine. If you have any questions about this, please contact me at 763-717-4022. Sincerely, � (:t�VYl:�.c� ��.-lk.iN�� James Ericson, Planner City of Mounds View Cc: Rick Jopke, Commuruty Development Director Barb Benesch, Administrative Assistant Connie Forsythe, Building Offcial PNINTEO �NITII SOYINK n, 2401 Highway 10 • Mounds View, MN 55112�1499 Website address: http://tcfreenet.org/ip/city/moundsview Equa! OpportunitV EmploVer � recycled paper , , ,.:F ; � � - J _ _ � . _ __�. � �.. ._� _ �. . �� --�: �:- - MOUNDS V�W PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIOl�T NO. 645-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RA,MSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FROM CHAPTER 1104 OF THE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO ACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACKS, REQUESTED BY JOHN WILSON, 7764 GREEWOOD DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR00-008. WHEREAS, The applicant, John Wilson, has applied for a variance to allow for an addition to his garage located adjacent to the north property line of his property located at 7764 Greenwood Drive; and, WHEREAS, the City Code, in Section 1104.01, Subd. 4a(1), states that accessory buildings in a residential district shall be set back five feet from property lines; and, WHEREAS, 7764 Greenwood Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: The South 80 Teet ofLot 45, Spring I,ake ParkHillview Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Letters to Resident 4. Staff Report WFIEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's control; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this request on December 20, 2000; and, WHEI2EAS, 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. �_ __ _ � ,�_ _ - - Resolution 645-00 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125,02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are not satisfied and finds there to be insufficient hardship with regard to the property located at 7764 Greenwood Drive, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances related to the property located at 7764 Greenwood Drive. The lot meets and exceeds all minimum zoning requirements, is rectangular without any slope or any topographical deviations. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Code. 3. Without an evident hardship tied to the property itself, it would be inappropriate to grant a variance to allow for an addition with no setback from the property line and would set a precedent for other property owners. 4. Granting a variance to allow for an addition with no setback from the property line would be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code in accessory buildings are not allowed closer than five feet to a property ]ine. 5. By building the structure without a building permit, the applicant has caused the conditions which require approval of the variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, denies the variance request of John Wilson, 7764 Greenwood Drive, to allow for a garage addition with no setback from the property line. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ADDITIONALLY RESOLVED, the Planning Commission does hereby require that the garage addition be removed at the property owner's expense within 30 days of the date of this denial. Adopted this 20th day of December, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\VR00-008\RESOLUTION 645-OO.DOC December 12, 2000 City af Mounds View James Ericson 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 Reference: Public Hearing Variance Request John Wilson Lean To Addition to Garage Mr. Ericson: As I will not be available to attend the meeting, on the above referenced public hearing, scheduled for December 20`�'. I would like to make my feels known. First of all I feel this request is very redundant as the lean-to has been in place since this summer. This lean-to should be torn down; it is in direct violation of city and property codes. Mr. Wilson is also running a business from this location which is not allowed in the City of Mounds View. How much longer are you going to allow this to happen? If this lean-to is not taken dowra I will put one on my pxoperty next yeaz, to the south, and use it for a carport. I will apply for the variance after it is done. It has been my experience with the City of Mounds View that rules are made for only certain individuals to follow and the majority can do as they please. This City, by not effectively taking action, to any requests for changes on Greenwood Drive, have allowed Greenwood Drive to become the garbage area of Mounds View. The individua.ls on Greenwood Drive are getting tired of your ineptness. Thank you. , � � C�.0 �� -�� f��- CeCelia Brownell 7730 Greenwood Drive N.E. Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 .. : . �� ... : ;,;" ;; - S �±�(�W��, Item # 6 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: December 20, 2000 Title: RECONSIDERATION OF A ORDINANCE 672, AN OR.DINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1106 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE PERTATNING TO HOME OCCUPATIONS Introduction: The Planning Commission reviewed potential revisions to the Home Occupation Code on October 18"' and again on November 1S` before sending proposed Ordinance 672 on to the Council with a recommendation of adoption. The City Council reviewed the proposed ordinance at their worksession on November 8, and on November 13"' was scheduled to introduce the ordinance for its first reading, but declined to do so after taking public testimony seeking further changes to the ordinance. Rather than attempting to make any significant changes to the ordinance at the Council level, the Council determined it would be prudent to have the Planning Commission review the ordinance again with the specific goal of addressing the issue of non-resident employees. Discussion: At the meeting on December 6, 2000, the Planning Commission reconsidered the ordinance and took considerable testimony from the public, reviewed a summary of e-mailed responses on the topic and came to a majority consensus as to how the ordinance should be drafted in light of the new information. As to the issue of allowing employees, a majority of the Commission concluded that it saw no reason to change the ordinance to allow employees, citing concerns from residents and the potential for changing the essential nature of a neighborhood. A nnajority of the e-mailed responses and those who spoke out at the last meeting had concerns regarding on-street parking associated with a home occupation. Based on that, the Commission chose to modify its original change concerning parking to disallow on-street parking altogether yet retained the change that dropped the limitation on the number of vehicles that could be parked oi� street, so long as the vehicles were parlced in compliance with the City's nuisance codes. Otherwise, the Planning Commission agreed to keep the ordinance as it had originally recommended for approval. Because, however, one change was made to the Ordinance, the Planning Commission should reaffirm its recommendation by approving a new resolution. �_ . ; ; �.. _ �...� _ ___ _ _�.�__ . ,_. _-____ _ �p_ �s.._ _: : Ordinance 672 Report December 20, 2000 Page 2 Recommendataon: Approve Resolution 643-00, a resolution recommending to the City Council adoption of the revised Ordinance 672 regarding home occupations. �.��; �� James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Ordinance 672 2. Resolution 643-00 N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�SPECPROJ�Sp083-00 (Home Occs)�PC Report - Dec 20, 2000.doc �::�. .. F:-;:: :: ,-.::: ORDINANCE NO. 672 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF 1VII1�INESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECT`ION 1106.03, SUBDIVISION 3, OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE, PERTAINING TO HOME-BASED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF MOUNDS'V�W THE CITY OF MOLTNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Chapter 1106, Section 1106.03, Subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby amended with additions ��ndPrlineci and deletions strac�C-outto read as follows: Subd. 3. Home Occupations: The regulation of home occupations within residential structures is intended to Pnc>>rP irisixre that the occupational use is clearly accessory or secondary to the principal dwelling use and that compatibility with surrounding residential uses is maintained. No honne occupation sha11 be allowed which: a. Involves employees other than persons residing on the premises; b. Involves alteration or construction features not customarily found in dwellings; • � � . • • • • • - � . •• a • �- . • � �• • �- • . •� - • � �. � . . -. • .. .•- • u• � -� �� - � •�-r► .� � � � • . ■•� • .. • •�• . �• a� • �.� �- •• �• �• •.�-�� r- •�� - � •�•�� • �- '. � -� • � • • :- - .- ' ' .�� . .- - �.�•-. �. .� �- � .-. - ►- .� � • . • .�� . . . .. - - -• - -� .� - �- n-. • .. -�.- . .� - .-. =. • - - -� .� - . . . �- - �- - - �r • � • - -�- .- �. - - -� .� • - • • ��.� - - -.. .. ��'� i -. d. Involves e�erior storage of equipment or materials; - � - . � � � � . , � • : �l'�� - . • Fii -T�i`l::�ii'�i�� i� - • � . • � � . � - . �. -� •� ,�• � •u� .� - � �- � �. �• •� -u-� .- - - . - .� ... . . �- � - � - . - . . .: -- ..� •. f. Results in violation of the provisions of Chapter .69Z GB�, Nuisances, of the Municipal Code; and g. Involves activity visible from the public streets. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall go into effect thirty (30) days after it has been published in the official City newspaper. I. ._::---_ _,.�.-��:_=. . <,a: . ��F�'�'--'. . .�"� -' -..:�: �—: �'_..�: . . _ .. L��.. ____. ._..�...._ . . , i_�..� '_�� .... E��—.L.:�'_��. _ .�.. ,� I Orciinance 672 Page 2 First read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 2000. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 2000. Richard Sonterre, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen Miller, City Clerk / Administrator (SEAL) . . . . �1��1�7.��a.i�� Robert C. Long, City Attorney i MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 643-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE 672, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1100, CHAPTER 1106, REGARDING HOME- BASED BUSTNESSES; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE SP-083-00 WHER.EAS, the Planning Commission on November 1, 2000, approved Resolution 641- 00, a resolution recommending approval of proposed Ordinance 672, an ordinance amending the City's Zoning Code pertaining to Home Occupations; and, WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the proposed ordinance at their meeting on November 15, 2000, and after taking testimony concerning the issue of allowing non-resident employees, referred the ordinance back to the Planning Commission for further study; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public nneeting on December 6, 2000 and took considerable public testimony and received a large number of written correspondence from residents opposed to the issue of allowing non-resident employees in a home occupation; and, WHEREA5, the Planning Commission has determined that it would be in the best interest of the community to continue to disallow non-resident employees associated with a home occupation; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has also determined that it would be in the best interest of the community and in the interest of public safety to prohibit on-street parking associated with a home occupation; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission asserts that the proposed revised ordinance is consistent with the land use goals and policies addressed in the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends to the Mounds View City Council adoption of proposed Ordinance 672. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. _ - . ,_ . � � � _ _ __ - __ _ �_ __ _ _ _ . __ � _ _ __ � Resolution 643-00 December 20, 2000 Page 2 Adopted this 20th day of December, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) �__:-_.:::.: ,��::: N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�SPECPRO.�SP083-00 (HOME OCCS)\RESOLUTION 643-OO.DOC ��i Item # 7 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: DecenzbeY 20, 2000 Title: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION 644-00, A RESOLUTION SETTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S 2001 MEETING SCHEDULE. Introductaon: The Planning Commission establishes its meeting schedule each year by resolution. Discussion: The meeting schedule proposed for 2001 represents the usual every first and third Wednesday, with the exception of July. The first Wednesday in July is July 4�', so that day was not marked as a meeting date. Instead, only the third Wednesday is listed as a meeting date. Unless the Commission feels differently, I would suggest not scheduling a second meeting in July at this time. Rather, if a second meeting is needed due to workload, it can be scheduled then at a time convenient for the Commission. The proposed meeting schedule is consistent with the Municipal Code as well as the Commission's own Bylaws. Recommendation: Approve Resolution 644-00, a resolution establishing the 2001 meeting schedule of the Planning Commission. L�C�.�;� ��L�"�. 7ames Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Resolution 644-00 Y:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMM�2001 Meeting Dates Repori.doc t. Y� �.-..�� 1r ._.__ _ _. .—�_ _ _' . . � _� ' •'___ .. —�rs_ . __ _ , .._ .. . .. "__—_�� . . _ .. �-- ____ � MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 644-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATES AND APPLICANT SUBMISSION SCHEDULE DATES FOR YEAR 2001 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission will be holding two business meetings per month during the year 2001; and, WHEREAS, developers, citizens or other interested parties should be advised of deadlines for materials used by staff to prepare reports used by the Planning Commissioners to decide on a particular development issue; and, WHEREAS, a display of ineeting dates and submission deadline dates should be established to provide an orderly system for use by the Planning Commission, staff and general public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Mounds View establishes meeting and submission timetable dates setting deadlines for subrrussion of materials for agenda sessions of the Planning Commission. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Exhibit 1, attached hereto, becomes an integral part of this resolution. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that if the Planning Commission is required to or desires to hold special or emergency meetings, they will do so in accordance with State law, Code requirements and its Bylaws. Adopted this 20�' day of December, 2000. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) O:�DATA\GROLIPS\COMDEV�PLANCOMM�Res. 644-00 - 2001 Meeting Dates.doc EXHIBIT 1. � � � � � � O > � � 0 � U � W � �--i � � V � � � � � O .� � . r., � � bA � . ^., � C� � � � i CJ� r~� � N N C- �� ..w. p� ►�'� c`J C37 C�i �- C"'� C`I M Q i`� C� (` Cf" r-' '�" r-' CC� LL � �— C'�i C`W �� r-- � CV M r' c— C�.1 C"�,! C�1 C3'7 C� Ct7 C� C� C� O f"�- % Li'= r.�.. � N � '� r-- N M � c-^^ C`�; C~�f � � � N � �J � � o� � }.....' C'`�j � � N 1''` � � � � d' � W 1�,''7 c�i � c� �� c� c� c� r-, � t-- c.� r. �t- p„�,a i--� C+^) e� c�-- CV N � C''� � r-- c (1j � �&.a �. �)..t; CV C5� �. � N CSJ CSi C� C� �� C:] Lti'� �., r"-' N �t "�° c�- r--� (`�I � (� c-� (-�j � � � � T1 'd" �- C/"J � e- �-- N C�`� t`�" r`^%„ N C�J �� r-��- �J L.1,.� N CTi � CY'3 O � i�'� C� P` �� CC� C� � r-- N C� e--' C�! N c— N C�"J }�„,., �_. � L.C'� C`tit C5� � CV rC"� Cr"J �, � l.t ) h( C37 r--� C*! N r— r-�» C�I r-- CJ N r /.��, QCi 'c-� J.S7 Ct'� r(�� !"'y L',�J � � r•�,�� O � C�! v� �'""" c- CV N �� r-��^ N M� � �-�-�' G`J N 'r""''�„ � N� C� �� Cii L�7 C� � L,-� LV Ci7 C,i7 �. � 1--- e--- hl � N M � c— �-- CV �`°' c--- CC� i.C7 �°' Lf� N CF: `s� e— 0.Z L�? � ,�' C� r�.-- +c--- C�I � r--- U;� � N N � �' x� � N � "� � CrJ M r� r�- � �� cfl .� c� � r� C3 i�-� ��l w�-- N C�'� t^^^ h[ h! L.L C'�f C7� � N "` �� N� 1..r7 N�� u� c� �- ,— �— a� � r-- cr.� �..,, �,,� r- � cU r� '� �.- e— r� � "V tI"'r1 •' J � �ry Lr/ �`1 V �'^' o r- L y � �_ � `�/ C""` t"�. �" J i-� `�` �� N N � r�-� r-- N �, N G?� �� N D7 CO r--- R:� 1..7 � LS'? C''�{ O'7 � � a�-�- c-- N � `� c-- :--- CV •+� �' � r— C�,E N � � �, �.^^ tY� ES7 w�"' � C� E^-• "�j" � �,,,` 'c�' � CX� � � � � c— i--� C'�1 � �— s— N � r-�»• � � � C� f'D e,.,,, �� ,L") Cy 63 �J t~-' QC� r— Cy CV ,�. �.-. � �-y c� cn c� d,. �— c� �n �..,� �- .-- a� � f- c�t r- r- rv �-�- cv cv F^^- �- r-u OO 1.f9 M"�f�" � N M � t-^,. N N r-- r-- N � O � [��t C�'1 � C.�D � � O � t�7 � �% �- � C`�! C77 4S� C�'] O �,,,,,, � Ia'� CV '� �. r- CY.? iS"7 � N M � C'ti! N� e-�- .�--- N � �- � ,� � � N rr, �d- �---� aa � c7 r� �t- .� c�^' N N �`" �- N N � ��--- �- N C�% � �'`' � C�1 C`�V � � � � � � � C�i C3'� � N � � � O O � '�t �t 4.� � O � O � � � o W fx O O i O N � N "d a� y 0 �, a, a � � ` d ��a �� y � Ci N L � O �t' � � i � � � � �p o y rr L1 •� r O d' � � �� U � � � � � -p c� °u � �o�p �y � C �. � � � .� � � ee � � � � w b � A �a -d a � a� a� � a � � � ° c� •� +j d a� a d A T' � � 'c � � o � V ��..1 W ly c� � � � 0 � o � V ^� •L �.i � 0. � � h � � C� A � � � a� a� � t. � � bA a u , ... . z. __�. �� _ - � �_ : ._. _ _ ._ ., .. _. I PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 2401 Hi�h�vay 10, 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at �:00 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, GC��i�nissian�rs T3e Stevenson, and Kaden. .�.� Members Excused: Commissioner Cerr�y It was ��ed Barbars r^� the Planning Commission. 4,' ii;�, l.. . Also Present: Community I7ev�ic�pment Dire(��cs� A�,ric�or� �ounc �.. �� ,j -=iiiR��° Meeting � � �n s�![If}! �-�E" �P'y 2�0� n��; � r�:�� l[�all cis \r�� Jcr51v��1I�" ��1� 6, 2000. Johnson, Miller, inas is no longer serving on Liaison Stigney. 1LLUG� �17�.P lYJL&xtlL7�� .'? : Planning Case I�c�, Z�[1[�� : Property Inva��ed; ` f�Lt�� ,�siworaci ��:��ad Consider�t�C�� o�'R�tiao��zsi�rt 6� 1, a�esolution Recommending Approval of a ��t�division ^ant: ��i�l��rrf� ��;az�Y ssion of Ordinance;:�72 Regarding Home Occupations zued Discuss�o�;>Concerning the City's Sign Code �.��t7�t� / �tems of Information �erson and Planning Commission Reports Page 2 4 8 8 9 � : _ , .-; =- �: � _ . . :_ . . , �. � _ __ _ _ _ _____ _ __ _ _____ ___ _ ___ ____ ... Mounds View Planning Commission December 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 3. Citizen's Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the 4. Approval of Minutes A. November 1, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Berke. To approve the No�� presented. r;�%f� 5'i! Ayes — 7 Nays � 0 5. Planning Case No. MI00 (��#�� Property Involved: �;._::,;>>•8480 Consideration of Resolutian>�'S1, a R� Subdivision. Applicant: T�ichard ��r� Communit_y , I�evelopment square _f��:� �iid zon�d �.�� Coun�� ,l�.o�.ci .� a��ving 1�i and �tii �ibin� tI conform'' certificate �� 0 Meeting Minutes as (L1bt1t��1 r�� t'i ding Approval of a Minor Ericson ;,�c��lf�i��ci tk�e'�property involved is currently 32,738 ot split ��-i1I ��<a�:i:c, � new 14,202 square foot lot facing old ��e �eet for the lot with the existing home. Both lots would �z�ic�n code requirements. The applicant has submitted a ��c�t�os�d:.subdivision. Comnnumty �evF 1�7,�i�a�f1� �ar?c.�or Bri�son indicated Staff believes the minor subdivision request to be ,�traightfo�-warci a��c� nc�f �:o pose any issues other than the need to dedicate perimeter easements. This subdivi�ir��z aw� ,��rject to parlc dedication requirements. The fee is 5% of the land val�ze of the land subdiv�d�r,i,, 1.�ss the value of any land already improved with single-family ��siclential dwellings. T�� fee would apply to the newly created lot which is 14,202 square feet of I�zicl. at an assessed va�ue of $13,776. As such, the 5% fee would be $689.00. This fee would n��d to be paid prio�`to the City approving the subdivision. Due to the fact there is not a second �;i�;� �ouncil Meet�ng in December this matter will be heard before Council at the December 11, �orritriianity Lyevelopment Director Ericson indicated Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the minor subdivision with the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall retitle the survey to read "Certificate of Survey"; 2. The applicant shall revise the survey to indicate �ve-foot perimeter drainage and utility easements around both lots, except lot lines abutting Eastwood Road and County Road J, which shall indicate ten-foot easements; �� - -1� _ - _ _ ___�_ _ �_____ _ . _ . _ � u _. _ I Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 6, 2000 Page 3 3. The applicant shall arrange to execute and to record the drainage easement documents with Ramsey County; and 4. The applicant shall be responsible for the drafting, execution. and rec utility easement document granting in the favor af Parcel A th� �;c�».�I Parcel B for sanitary sewer access. Said docurn�r��t shall b� r�vi��u�;c�, Attorney and a copy shall be placed on file with i�e' �ity for refi�x�,�ac�. '. Mr. Cary was present at the meeting and offered to ' arisw Commission had. utility 'ding of a 15 feet of � the City �1ai �; �i ��; Commissioner Miller requested a couple of minor typographic�I ��nx��°�ctic�ns to the Resolution. Community Development Director Ericson indicated the R�solucioxa :r��z��r�»�° may be incorrect and asked for the latitude to be able to correct it if nece�saly. Consent was reached to allow Staffto insert the �p��;r,9. ��.,�rluiipn numb��- ii riecc,ssary. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Miller `�`o Appx-ove `�.�:;�;cil.�xiic�� 641-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision of 8480 Eastv��c��ri +;_oad. [Editor's 6. Ayes — 7 The correct r� ��°di Community Dev�n1;,; �r`ri� ordinance ��d'1��,�� s �ci� :xr�r approvar: ;::�`eard at the Co�ir :ng there was con:� �cil sent the ord deration. The n�aR ;-based business: ` ,. Nays:- 0 Motion carried. r� a,s �i�?.•O(I �,:3> ding Home Occupations �ir�ctior r'� ��c�i� addressed the Planning Commission and indicated this ��1. � i previ�us meetings and a recommendation had been sent on to o�-rJ�ilance changes were discussed at a Council work session prior to n�ch'r.a�ng on November 13, 2000. At the November 13, 2000 Council i�sl� public input expressing concern for changes to the ordinance and ce back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further item at issue is whether to allow non-resident employees within a ,:, ':;`��A«u�.�r�a!� �7�;�e�l�opment Director Ericson indicated he had sent an email concerning the s�r�,�,r.�;,:�.c� �h��tges to Ordinance 672 to those Mounds View Residents for whom he had email �e�ux�::s��. The overwhelming majority of those surveyed by email expressed the desire to leave the code as it stands and not to change it to allow non-resident employees. Community Development Director Ericson read the 7 requirements of the Honne Occupations Code to the Planning Commission and indicated the Planning Commission may want to consider adding a requirement establishing hours of operation and perhaps limit the amount of square footage allowed to be used for a home-based business. .. __ Mounds View Planning Commission December 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 Vicki Kluck, 5467 Adams Street, told the Planning Commission there is a lawn care service business operated out of the home across the street from her. The business has :b��ri and continues to be a nuisance for the neighborhood. There are employee vehicles parlced ��; �he street causing visibility issues for cars traveling on the street. The vehicles are ��l��c� a��l�t�ss from her driveway causing access problems for her. During the summe�`; t�e hours oi �p��r��tiQr� are from dawn until darlc which is 9:30 or 10:00 p.m. After returnir�� home the bu;��i�� 4;;; �i��rin�� begins maintenance on the equipment in order to be ready for th�' following, day. fI'��i�' ait��°��iours activity is noisy and disruptive to the neighborhood. The�� ar� also a lot'of misc�ll�r��pus �i�ce�. of equipment that are no longer operational scattered abou� 'r.h� yarcl, �he requested tIi� r�'lZ��r�irrg! Commission not change the ordinance at all or if anything, t'i��.�11 i�� il�e restrictions. � Bruce Madsen, 5463 Adams Street, told the Planning Comix�xssio� f�c' < f�;i �e�r_1 �wholeheartedly with the statements of Ms. Kluck He indicated he is the own�r' of a hol7ae-l» �c�� l»zsiness but has no employees and feels employees within a home-based b«si�ess is not a��r�o�r.a��,; He requested the Planning Commission not change the ordinance. Mari Scotch, 7806 Gloria Circle, told the P1az�ziing Co;��i�i� ;ior� ��i� is the rieighbor of the resident at 7800 Gloria Circle operating the business vvith the �o�.�i ein��ipyees, She explained there are too _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ ___ many vehicles parlced on the street as the 'street is :��ry narrow �� sliort and there is not much l c: parking available. This causes her ta �a�e probletns accessing her driveway. She also explained the employees have couches out t�a�� cif the resi�ence where' they take smoke breaks which is causing a nuisance for the neighbc��'s ' She reque�ted the ord�ance not be changed. Gordi I�uXu��r, 7815 Glori� � causes t�o r��zir11 traffic on tl1 the tinic. ��c�x��-�based busi disrupts t}le �1�i�,=labtinc��od. I� �resseci �c,n��.xr� �'or the business at 7800 Gloria Circle as it He doest �aati want vehicles parked in front of his house all ould be allowed but employees are not necessary as it d�i �.�e ordinance not be changed. Terry Wiley, 2.277 �)a.�r��4c1 ][��-ive, ine�icated he felt the ordinance should not be changed as home-b��ed businesse� s��c��a}cl nnt have ernployees. If a home-based business needs to expand to havin� employees ir�c r�u ,il��,;; should expand to a commercial building. There is plenty of al space avail�.3.�1� �i'�hin the City and this would be a more proper venue for an ; business than; �`resideilce. He requested the City not loosen restrictions or change the to be more lz�;�ral. �'�i�irperson Petersp�i explained the reason the ordinance changes were being discussed in the first �s��j��r., ��r�� tn �le�.tt up the ordinance to malce it easier to understand. At that time there was a ruii�cr�� c,.�i�-�r��c; �o on or off street parking but the ordinance was not approved by Council and is �,�a !<: �,�;�ore the Planning Commission for discussion and resident input as to whether the ordinance should be changed. Mr. Wiley indicated parlung is a huge issue for residents when a business has vehicles parked on the street. Snow removal cannot be done properly which is unfair to the neighbors. He also believes neighbors have a responsibility to get along with one another and if one is operating a business causing a nuisance to the neighborhood it should not be allowed. ... ___ __ _____ .. _ . _ _ _ ____ _ . , __ - _ _ . . .. �. . . ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ I - �• _ __ _ Mounds View Planning Commission December 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 Commissioner Johnson inquired as to what types of home-based businesses are o the City. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that since„home-bas�c�'1�L��i licensed or registered, the City has no statistics on what ktnd� r�f„busincs YP� ar-' operating within the City. Commissioner Hegland inquired as to what type of complaii�ts;,the City r��eives co based businesses. within s are not many are Community Developnnent Director Ericson indicated the com��aiti��, �?;�i��Ily stem from automobile type businesses and lawn and tree care businesses. Commissioner Hegland indicated that a person runriin�� business ou� �f ��z� home is basically asking for a special privilege and should be allowec� ic> r�� ;i ��j��c�vi��d the��bti�ai��;�s does not disturb the neighbors. Tf the business does disturb the li�i�l�il�c��`� th�°�1 �,lle or-dinaa��;e allows the City to enforce the code to prevent the business from.ope��a�ing. Commissioner Johnson expressed con��rn for businesses in homes they rent. He f�;��s';��iis shot and his/her tenant not something tl�e ��ty"�should, x Mari Sr.,ot.ch, 7806 Gloria C.'ii�rlc renter rF,�,ax��ible for ordax��r�c:�� Commit;U�oJ��-� .��ra�t�FOn indic��,�;� he feels i�i �n%��]rJ 1��;� a. ht��e pr�� would move to �la� E�c�r��r,�_if' �mp as it is or perhat�s ��la��.� t�s��; en:1z estioned �tions. ' �r3 `fr�om having home-based regulated between the landlord ty could hold the homeowner and the � l�ad done some research into whether to allow employees and ��n tca a11ow employees. All types of small office businesses -e�s �u��r;'�a,llowed. He would like to either leave the ordinance Com.m�ssioner Johnsor� �I:,t� f�lrli��.ted that some of the daycare businesses within the City are re,qu�red to assign dro� c�i�` ��c� pick up times in order to keep cars parked on the street to a r��mum to comply witk� "�ht; or-dinance. He stated that if employees are allowed then the City tri�y need to restrict th�:::�ours of operation to protect neighbors. �r��taxz�znity Devel�ptnent Director Ericson explained that the City can hold anyone--renter, �xc�rr��; r� �n�n�r, in��tirists--violating an ordinance accountable and will do so if found to be in C:om�nissioner Kaden expressed a concern for allowing on-street parking as several streets in town are too narrow to accommodate parked vehicles and vehicle traffic. He indicated it may be in a neighborhoods best interest to have the street made a"no parlcing" street and then have the police ticicet vehicles that park illegally. Roger Stigney, 8400 Eastwood Road, expressed concern for home-based businesses which have employees come to the home and park their personal vehicles for the day while working offsite for _ _ - ___ _ _ _ _ _ � _ _ `--. - ----__ • � - - - - -- =- - Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting �.- A - , �---- -- - - - � _,: ; December 6, 2000 Page 6 the business. He does not think he should have to have employee vehicles parked in front of his home all day. Commissioner Miller indicated if no employees were allowed then there woul� r�ot be employee vehicles parked on City streets all day. Commissioner Stevenson suggested requiring the home-based business to ha•cJc, i�s �;�t�}�ic-��c��s park in front of that residence only. Chairperson Peterson expressed a concern for enforcement Mr. Stigney said he felt the City could prohibit home- employees to park on City streets all day. Chairperson Peterson indicated there would be a to more expense for the City. Commissioner Hegland indicated the complaint. Chairperson Peterson indicated i repeated problems the City would; Mr. VJiley i��rlicated if tl�e Ciiy' enforce;l'��,li i��t�e. Commissior�ex�` �1��:�ason �om�-n� impression ik�e �.i�y t:v�< <��s�,�min� Commiss�t�ner Johtl�� one .r�;'�;�rier or one whi teni�orary employee to � t��re were I�ours of n�eci to loolc into it. r�id not a��a�.� c�n-stFeet pro parking. from allowing their would add up the code if there is a ation limitations and there were parking then there would not be an when on-street parking was discussed it was his would be for clients of the business not employees. to how the City should handle a home-based business with just �ally did the books but went on maternity leave who needs a on-street parking should be for clients only. IU[s. Scotch indicated=there are a variety of ways to get help with your business that do not involve b�'�t�t;i��; an ern�l��ee into the home-based business. She expressed her concern that with the ��-t��si�x�', n�rrx�er of home-based businesses the City needs to be careful about loosening x��t;r-;��ic�n5 to allow for employees. She also indicated she would like to see the current ordinances more strictly enforced so that someone else does not end up in her situation where there is someone who has been violating the home-based business ordinance for two and a half years and getting away with it. Chairperson Peterson indicated he did not want to allow any non-resident employees. : , «.� .�z.. �. � : � a . .-_ � -��. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 6, 2000 Page 7 Commissioner Hegland indicated there may be a reason to allow one non-resident there would need to be parking restrictions if the City did so. Chairperson Peterson indicated he would lilce to leave the housekeeping to clean it up but not change the ordinance to allow employees.;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;,, Community Development Director Ericson inquired as would like to limit the hours of operation. Commissioner Stevenson indicated he would like the i spoken and the vast majority of residents do not want change to allow non-resident employees. Community Development Director Ericson aslced if on-street parking altogether. Commissioner Miller indicated two cars for by code. , Commissioner Hegland inquired l�n�,� �he requirement. __ __ . Community;,Development I�zrectpx�ricson in Chairp�i�so.r� £�'si�z��on re�r�� hr�s�i�I� �tile requ asked th� ��,�:r�.in� :�orr�mis�ic�� I` a.,�u chan�e MOTION/SE�CJ�?��':' Parking Assoc�at��. �ri Ayes — n :; ��irperson Peterson Pl�nning Commission �;'��.��nunity Develsagi� :. Nays — 0 on but ordinance __, .. . J ;yy ta '�vhether th� ��anriir�g ,�';�,��zr�is�ion nar1�°� �o' sz�y as it is. The resideni� l�ave �x��es 71�� he b�:lieves the City should not lanning Cor��rr�i� ri��l� c��r:.ed to eliminate are currently allowed the no on street parking would be on a complaint basis. e�y�ents of the home-based business ordinance and to each requirement needed to be made. o Change Ordinance 672 to Prohibit On-Street ses within the City. Motion carried. ed if there were any more issues concerning Ordinance 672 the consider. nt Director Ericson indicated that other cities do prohibit specific types of in the survey, and asked if this was something the Commission wanted to Consent was reached to not further change Ordinance 672. Mr. Stigney suggested in this booming e-trade economy there is a potential for a home-based distributorship business that may generate several UPS or RPS trips per day. He suggested the Planning Commission may want to consider setting a restriction on that type of activity. It was the consent of the Planning Commission to address the e-trade issue should the need arise. � . . , -, __ _ . � __._ ,. -,._._ � _ . � � _ � _ _= � � _ ,.� _ _, _. _ .: _ �,:.__ _ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 6, 2000 Page S Community Development Director Ericson indicated that due to the change in the Ordinance Staff would draft a Resolution for consideration at the next Planning Commission meeting. 7. Continued Discussion Concerning the City's Sign Community Development Director Ericson indicated the tim to the sign ordinance was developed based on proje� Commission and may need to be amended to accommodate Staff could go through the definitions section and provici�; need to be revised. Commissioner Miller indicated it seemed the definiti should be located somewhere else in the Code. Community Development Director Ericson documentation on the sign code for discussio� �Iine for proceeding wxt� �i �d light a�eridas for thl l�s s�,}�edtile. Mr. Ericsor iri�3�.�� those definitions �;�;est�t� t�c ��#{�i1rr the riext �'l��r�z�ilt,� �;:: Chairperson Peterson indicated the sign , c,ode document be around 10 years old but still useilrl. I-Te also incllcate� including some slanted toward tk� �ity and so�i�e sl complimented Staff on providmg i?u��1 balancerJ;ticjcumen �5 s information that ssion review the meeting. �ci in the packets appeared to a good mix of documentation rd the sign companies. He 8. rt5/I � �z� Parcels fror�� 1� � � : ,, :ouncil Meeting. �`c Watershed DistricG, ' taon ctor Erieson reported Ordinance 675, an Ordinance rezoning the ;i��E�a_y Business to PUD was approved at the November 27, 2000 �.��;s:ion will begin as soon as documents are finalized with Rice �:`�r�imunity Developm�rit Director Ericson reported Council discussed at its last work session a ;. rv�tlands alteration pe�mit for two properties in the 7300 Block of Knollwood Drive, the Highway l�;i,�er-ing Comm3�ee and request for proposals, and a building up for lease in the Mounds View �;��;i ;t� ��;�; ;�'� ,r�t �ui�lung to be rented by what Staff believed to be a trucking freight terminal. B. Items of Discussion Community Development Director Ericson indicated he had received a letter from Barbara Thomas resigning from her seat on the Planning Commission as she was elected to the City Council. Mayor Coughlin indicated at the last City Council meeting there was a vacancy and the City is accepting applications. The application can be found on the website, can be picked up, mailed, or faxed to any resident interested in applying for the vacant seat. - ��___ _ _ � ��; o _ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 6, 2000 Page 9 Council Liaison Stigney thanked the Planning Commission for their professionalism work on the issues presented to them. He indicated he has been impress�d ;with,i�i'; Planning Commission "digs" into the issues before making recomr�endations �o: Coun�rl. Community Development Director Ericson indicated Sta�`, would hav� � r�se�1 consideration adopting the meeting dates for 2001 at the ne� meeting. 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Re��u°�:� There were no reports. 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the the meeting at 9:20 p.m. (The meeting immed�«t�51� ��dj� Respectfully submitted, ;;:::::::�' Session) �'' hard ay the on for Peterson adjourned