Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016 Planning Commission Packets0 0 lJ MtOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 6, 2016 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business A. Oath of Office for New and Re -appointed Commissioners B. Election of Officers — Chair and Vice -Chair 4. Approval of Minutes: December 16, 2015 5. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 6. Planning Cases A. None 7. Other Planning Activity A. None 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, February 3, 2016 B. Wednesday, February 17, 2016 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner's Reports 11. Meeting Conclusion UA MauNvs VMW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 6, 2016 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business A. Oath of Office for New and Re -appointed Commissioners B. Election of Officers — Chair and Vice -Chair 4. Approval of Minutes: December 16, 2015 5. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 6. Planning Cases 7. Other Planning Activity A. None 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, February 3, 2016 B. Wednesday, February 17, 2016 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner's Reports 11. Meeting Conclusion of Mounds View Staff Item No: 3B Meeting Date: January 6, 2016 Type of Business: Election of Officers To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Election of Officers According to the Bylaws, the Planning Commission is to hold an election of officers at the first meeting of each year. There are two officer positions, the Chair and the Vice Chair. Gary Stevenson has been serving as the Chair and Paul Schiltgen has been serving as the Vice -Chair. There are no "term limits' to either position and no pre -requisites in serving other than some experience on the Commission, basic knowledge of Robert's Rules of Order, and the willingness to assume the position. For each office, the chairperson shall 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 Commission 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 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 shall be elected. The name of the person recommended for chairperson shall 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. Sincerely, James Ericson City Administrator PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting December 16, 2015 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for December 16, 2015. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Kieffer, Klander, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Elofson. Also Present: City Administrator Jim Ericson and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 ZC2015-001 Rezoning from Bl, Neighborhood Business, to B2, Limited 2 Business 3. Approval of Minutes November 4, 2015. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Klander. To approve the Minutes of the November 4, 2015 regular Planning Commission meetings as presented. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. December 2, 2015. Commissioner Kieffer requested a change to Page 3, noting Chair Stevenson's comment should read: "...was anyone interested in using the site as a B1 use". Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 16, 2015 Page 2 Commissioner Love requested Mr. Punjani's name be spelled correctly throughout the minutes. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Kieffer. To approve the Minutes of the December 2, 2015 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases Motion carried. A. ZC2015-001 Rezoning from Bl, Neighborhood Business, to B2, Limited Business Applicant: Zulfiquar Punjani Address: 2408 County Road I City Administrator Ericson indicated the applicant and property owner, Zulfiquar (Julio) Punjani, has submitted an application to rezone his property located at 2408 County Road I, previously operated as a neighborhood convenience store, from B-1, Neighborhood Business, to B-2, Limited Business. The property is one of only two commercial properties presently zoned B-1. The other property is located at the southeast corner of County Road H2 and Silver Lake Road. The expressed basis for the requested rezoning would be to allow for the operation of a liquor store on the site, although the Commission would need to consider all possible uses. City Administrator Ericson reported the Planning Commission reviewed this request at its meeting on December 2, 2015. After reviewing the staff report and hearing from the property owner, the Commission expressed an opinion that the request would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive plan and would not be out of character considering the surrounding uses. After considering the other criteria for amending the City's official zoning map, the Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution recommending approval of the requested rezoning of the property. City Administrator Ericson reviewed the request in further detail and stated based on the direction provided at the December 2, 2015, Planning Commission meeting, staff has prepared Resolution 1039-15 recommending approval of the requested rezoning of the property at 2408 County Road I from B-1, Neighborhood Business, to B-2, Limited Business, along with findings of fact in support of the recommendation determining that the requested rezoning would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, would not depreciate the neighborhood, would not be out of character for the area, would serve a demonstrated need, and that the uses would not be inappropriate for the location. Mounds View Planning Commission December 16, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 3 Commissioner Love explained she printed out the list of allowed uses for the B 1 zoning district and read this aloud for the record. She believed this was an extensive use for a neighborhood store. She was concerned with how the neighborhood would be impacted if a liquor store were to locate on this property. She commented that Mounds View already had more liquor stores per capita than its surrounding neighbors. She did not see a demonstrated need for another liquor store in the City of Mounds View. Commissioner Schiltgen was of the opinion that the City was not to regulate businesses, but rather should allow the free market to regulate which businesses will thrive in the community. He provided comment on the history of this property and stated a convenience store was no longer prospering at this location. He explained there were adverse effects to having the space vacant as well. For this reason, he did not oppose the site being rezoned. Chair Stevenson addressed the Comprehensive Plan along the County Road I corridor. It was his opinion that B2 would be a proper zoning classification for the property at 2408 Comity Road I and would offer the property owner new options for the site. He supported changing the zoning from B 1, Neighborhood Business to B2, Limited Business. Commissioner Schiltgen agreed stating the rezoning would greatly benefit the property owner. He believed the rezoning would assist in revitalizing the property. Commissioner Klander requested further information from staff on how the site could become a liquor store. City Administrator Ericson reviewed the City Council review and approval process for rezonings in detail with the Planning Commission. He noted the Ordinance would require a public hearing and would not be effective until 30 days after being published. After that time, the applicant could apply for a liquor license and would have to go through an extensive background check and licensing process with the City. Commissioner Kieffer did not believe the City needed another liquor store. However, she also understood that this was one of the only remaining B 1 zoned properties in the City, which limited the uses on the site. Because of this, she could support the rezoning of the property. Further discussion ensued regarding the allowed uses within the B 1 and B2 zoning districts. Commissioner Rundle asked if the Council had to limit the number of off -sale establishments within the City. City Administrator Ericson reported the City had to regulate the number of on - sale establishments but could have any number of off -sale establishments. Commissioner Love requested that the information regarding liquor stores per capita be passed along to the City Council. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Klander. To approve Resolution 1039-15 Recommending Approval of the Rezoning of the Property at 2408 County Road I from B-1, Neighborhood Business, to B-2, Limited Business; Planning Case No. ZC2015-001. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 16, 2015 Page 4 Commissioner Kieffer questioned if findings had to be listed within the motion. City Administrator Ericson reported the Planning Commission was not required to list Findings of Fact, but noted the Commission's comments would support the motion. Ayes — 5 Nays — 1 (Love) Motion carried. 6. Other Planning Activity None. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases City Administrator Ericson explained he had no upcoming Planning Cases for the Commission to review. B. Staff Updates City Administrator Ericson provided the Commission with an update from staff. He noted seven interviews for the planner position were held last week and background checks were being conducted. It was his hope the new planner would be hired in early January. C. Council Updates Councilmember Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He explained the Council approved the 2016 budget and property tax levy. He commented the 2016 levy was a 1% increase over 2015 and was the lowest tax levy when compared to neighboring communities. He indicated the City would now allow Sunday liquor sales from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. He noted Angelica Klebsch and Jason French have been appointed to the Planning Commission. D. Planning Commissioner Reports Chair Stevenson thanked Commission Kieffer for her service to the City of Mounds View. 8. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, January 6, 2016 B. Wednesday, January 20, 2016 Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 9. Adjournment December 16, 2015 Page 5 There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson City Administrator Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. OUNDS S VIEW of Mounds View Staff Item No: 8A&B Meeting Date: January 6, 2016 Type of Business: Reports To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Upcoming Planning Cases and Activity & Staff Updates A. Upcoming Planning Cases and Activit At this time, there are no new planning requests that have been submitted for consideration. The only pending activity in the immediate future is to review the Planning Commission Bylaws, which needs to be done at the first meeting in February. I have included the Bylaws in this packet for the benefit of our two new members. The Bylaws were last updated in 2007 and Staff is not aware of any provision that should be revised. B. Staff Updates I would like to say that we have an update regarding the proposal from the Beard Group who had proposed to construct a market -rate multi -family facility at the corner of County Road 10 and County Road H2. (the Crossroad Pointe site.) The City Council agreed that the developer could make the proposal based only on the residential component, leaving "Phase 2" available for future redevelopment either by the City or the Beard Group. A draft Predevelopment Agreement has been prepared but the attorneys continue to hash out the fine details which would guide us to a more binging Development agreement. Regarding the position of Planner, it had taken longer than expected to reach out and hear back from all the references, so no offers have been extended to our top candidate. It is still our hope to have the candidate before the City Council for approval at the January 25, 2016 meeting. If all goes well, we anticipate a start date of February 1, 2016. I will be out of the office the third week of January, so coupled with no pending planning applications, I would like to cancel the scheduled meeting on January 20, 2016. Sincerely, James Ericson City Administrator FINANCE COMMERCE TCAAP board wrestles with master developer solicitation By: Janice Bitters January 5, 2016 4:25 pm The authority overseeing redevelopment of a former ammunition plant in Arden Hills on Monday approved a solicitation proposal for a master developer, but not before spending three -and -a -half hours hashing out details as minor as using an "a" or "the" in the final motion. Members of the Joint Development Authority board also argued about perceived contradictions between city and Ramsey County goals. The board is made up of two Arden Hills City Council members, two Ramsey County commissioners, and one non -elected appointee who chairs the board. City Council member Brenda Holden was especially vocal about discrepancies she felt existed between county goals and those outlined in the city's Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant Redevelopment Code, which sets design standards for the future Rice Creek Commons development. "We're all just going to put goals in [the solicitation] that may conflict, that may not conflict, and we'll just throw confetti in the air and where it lands whoever is in the circle is OK?," she said. "I don't understand. Somebody's going to have to explain it to me." By the end of the meeting, the board unanimously approved a widely anticipated document sought by developers interested in reshaping the 633 -acre former Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, once the state's largest Superfund cleanup site. The 23 -page document is seeking a rough timeline for site redevelopment from a company that can prove it can accomplish the task. David Sands, who chairs the authority's board, said specific numbers may need to be adjusted within the two sets of goals, but they generally match. The solicitation, which will be released Feb. 1, outlines eight priorities that generalize and combine the vision of county and city planners. The solicitation is looking for tax base growth, job creation, transit and mobility opportunities, energy and environmental resiliency, housing diversity, natural resources protection, community vitality and interconnection, and enhanced recreational features. "What can't the five of us — or the four of you at least — not agree on in terms of those generalized goals," Sands asked board members. Mark Ruff, the board's financial adviser, stopped the meeting at one point to say that developers are used to navigating differing goals between multiple stakeholders. "That's pretty typical" for developers, Ruff said. "So the larger question is less about how the developer feels about this, and more about your comfort level moving forward with the solicitation without your own goals and objectives." The solicitation will require responses by March 2, but planners will host a developer information session and pre -proposal conference Feb. 11 for interested bidders. According to the master plan, which has been approved by the city but not Ramsey County to date, officials are looking for a proposal that offers a mix of housing types to accommodate about 3,000 new residents. They want 4,000 jobs to be added through retail and office space. Of the 633 total acres on the site, 320 of them would be developable. Ramsey County officials announced last month they had finished cleanup of the Superfund site, which is in the northeast quadrant of Interstate 35W and Highway 96. Planners are asking developers to be creative with their responses to an 11 -question solicitation, which asks about the strength of the development team and strategies to attract major employers. A solicitation review committee will select top candidates by March 18 and make a recommendation to the authority by March 31. Ultimately, the authority will make the final master developer selection and Ramsey County, the owner of the land, will negotiate purchasing terms. As the authority wrapped up the final vote Monday, Holden picked apart the language in the motion. Originally, the motion read that the board would authorize the formation of "the" solicitation review committee. Holden, who said she would like more say over the proposed members of the review committee, asked that the board change the wording to read "a" solicitation review committee. The tension at Monday's meeting is an indicator of how seriously officials are taking the development, Heather Worthington, Ramsey County's deputy manager, said Tuesday. "What they showed last night is great leadership in saying'OK, we might not agree on every single detail, but we are in consensus in how to move forward," she said. "We know the best way to move forward is to issue the solicitation and pick a master developer and then get this site back on the tax rolls."' 1 0 0 Mcatmms VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA February 3, 2016 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business (none) 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. Planning Case VR2016-001 Variance Request for a Reduced Driveway Setback Applicant: James Cigelske, The Asphalt Company Owners: Joe & Gina Diekman Address: 2200 Hillview Road 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review the Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 8. Approval of Minutes: January 6, 2016 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, February 17, 2016 B. Wednesday, March 2, 2016 10. Meeting Conclusion MoUNns VVI r] AN Item No: 7A Meeting Date: February 3, 2016 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Review the Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws Introduction: The Planning Commission's Bylaws state thatthe Commission shall review the Bylaws on an annual basis, at the first regular meeting in February. Discussion: The Planning Commission should review the attached Bylaws. Staff is not aware of required revisions and is not proposing any changes to the Bylaws. The last time the Planning Commission amended the Bylaws was in January of 2007. The last change was about the number of absences a commissioner may have in a given year. Recommendation: Adopt the Bylaws for the Planning Commission. If the Commission does not make any amendments or modifications to the Bylaws, then the Commission may readopt them by motion. Sincerely, James Ericson City Administrator Attachment Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws W7:I Ic7III re1 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BYLAWS (Revised January 24, 2007) AUTHORITY: The Bylaws of the Mounds View Planning 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 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 shall govern. (For purposes of simplicity, the Planning and Zoning Commission may hereinafter be referred to as the Planning Commission or the Commission.) 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 members 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 shall 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 Commission 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. IMAW61,10101A.-RI 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. City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws B. ELECTIONS; TERMS Page 2 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.13.3. The name of the person recommended for chairperson shall 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 shall elect a vice -chairperson each year at its first meeting in January, following the procedure in Section IV.B.3. 3. Election Procedure: For each office, the chairperson shall 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 Commission 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 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 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 IV.B. C. DUTIES OF OFFICERS: The chairperson shall preside over the meetings of the Planning Commission, and shall have the authority to add or cancel regular meetings and to call special meetings as provided in Section VI. The Chair shall have the authority to redirect public comment unrelated to the Commission's business to the most appropriate City commission or to the City Council. 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 members present shall elect a temporary chairperson to preside over the meeting. City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 3 V. COUNCIL LIAISON: The City Council may 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 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 Planning Commission in the absence of the Council Liaison. VI. MEETINGS A. TYPES OF MEETINGS; SCHEDULE: The annual meeting schedule of the Commission shall 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 Planning Commission, 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 matters not requiring a vote of the Commission. 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 Development, yet must be approved by a majority vote of the Commission. Emergency Special Meetings. 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 the Planning Commission.) The Director of Community Development shall post and mail a notice of any special meeting City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 4 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. 5. 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 1. 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. Statutes 471.705). 3. 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 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 meeting. Minutes shall be approved by motion. Approved minutes 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 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. City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 5 VII. 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. VIII. 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. IX. 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. X. CONDUCT OF MEMBERS A. ATTENDANCE: Commission members shall advise the designated Staff member or the Commission chairperson of an anticipated absence from any regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Any member absent from three consecutive regularly scheduled meetings or more than six regularly scheduled 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 OF INTEREST. - General Standard: No Commissioner shall be appointed with private or personal interests likely to conflict with the general public interest. If any person appointed to the Commission shall 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 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. 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 calls 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 all testimony needs to be offered at the hearing to ensure a fair hearing for all 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 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. ATTEST: Gary Stevenson, Chairperson James Ericson, City Administrator Revision History: January 24 2007 :September 1, 2004 February 21, 2001 Y February 2, 2000 March 5, 1997 `February 3, 1993 .':October 1990 DRAFT PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting January 6, 2016 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Schiltgen at 7:02 p.m. for January 6, 2016. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners French, Klebsch, Love, Rundle, and Schiltgen. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Klander and Stevenson. Also Present: City Administrator Jim Ericson and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. Index to Minutes Special Order of Business Approval of Minutes 3. Special Order of Business A. Oath of Office for New and Reappointed Commissioners Page City Administrator Ericson administered the Oath of Office to newly appointed Planning Commission members Jason French and Angelica Klebsch and reappointed Planning Commission member Paul Schiltgen. B. Election of Officers — Chair and Vice -Chair City Administrator Ericson requested the Planning Commission elect a Chair and Vice -Chair for 2016. Commissioner Love nominated Gary Stevenson as Chair of the Planning Commission Mounds View Planning Commission January 6, 2016 Regular Meeting Page 2 SRA F T Vice Chair Schiltgen nominated Julianne Love as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Klebsch. To Elect Gary Stevenson as the Chair of the Planning Commission for 2016. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Klebsch. To Elect Julianne Love as the Vice Chair of the Planning Commission for 2016. Ayes — 5 4. Approval of Minutes December 16, 2015. Nays — 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the Minutes of the December 16, 2015 regular Planning Commission meetings as presented. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 5. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 6. Planning Cases None. 7. Other Planning Activity None. 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission January 6, 2016 Regular Meeting Page 3 DRAFT City Administrator Ericson discussed upcoming planning cases. He reported staff continues to negotiate with The Beard Group on the Steeple Pointe property. He noted a development agreement was being drafted by the City with the assistance of the City Attorney. He explained there were no items for the Planning Commission to discuss on January 20th and for this reason, he recommended this meeting be canceled. B. Staff Updates City Administrator Ericson provided the Commission with an update from staff. He explained the City had interviewed a number of candidates for the Planner position and an offer has been made to the top candidate. He anticipated the new employee would be working for the City on February 1st C. Council Updates Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He welcomed newly appointed commission members Angelica Klebsch and Jason French to the Planning Commission. He discussed the energy efficient measures the City was taking to install LED and solar panels. He encouraged residents to nominate candidates for Citizen of the Year. He reported applications for this honor were due Friday, January 29th. He noted that individuals that work in Mounds View were now eligible for nomination. Council Member Meehlhause discussed the future plans for the public works facility. He provided further comment on a recent survey conducted on behalf of the City regarding organized garbage collection. He explained the survey found that the majority of Mounds View residents opposed the idea of organized collection. He commented on the pros and cons of organized garbage collection. Vice Chair Schiltgen asked if the survey results would be available to Mounds View residents. City Administrator Ericson indicated the results would be posted on the City's website. Commissioner Klebsch questioned how the service levels would be determined for Mounds View residents. Council Member Meehlhause anticipated that the Council would have to discuss this matter further in order to find the proper level of services to meet the communities' needs. Vice Chair Schiltgen inquired if garbage rates would drop if the City were to have organized collection. Council Member Meehlhause believed this to be the case. D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. Mounds View Planning Commission January 6, 2016 Regular Meeting Page 4 DRAFT 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, February 3, 2016 B. Wednesday, February 17, 2016 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chair Schiltgen adjourned the meeting at 7:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James Ericson City Administrator Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 7' 7�7� MOUWNQS V 1LYY Item , 2 16 Meeting Date: February 3, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing - Consideration of a Variance for a Reduced Driveway Setback at 2200 Hillview Road; Planning Case VR2016-001 Introduction: The applicant, Jim Cigelski, representing property owners Joe and Gina Diekman, is requesting approval of a variance for a reduced driveway setback at 2200 Hillview Road. The applicant replaced the Diekman's driveway in 2015 and was told after the work had been completed that the driveway was too close to the property line by a foot and a half. (Required setback is five feet.) Mr. Cigelski contends that the driveway was replaced in the same place as the original driveway. A review of historical aerial overlays would seem to support this statement. Rather than remove part of the driveway, the applicant and the owners are requesting a variance to allow the driveway to remain in place as is. The previous driveway appears to have been located with a 3.5 -foot setback. The adjoining property at 2192 Hillview Road also has a drivewaywith a 3.5 - foot setback. Discussion: The Zoning Code states that the Planning Commission may issue a variance to provide relief to the property owner in those cases where the Code imposes "practical difficulties" to the property owner in the use of the property owner's land. This is true for all variance requests. 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. A variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist: The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. The zoning code requires minimum building setbacks for aesthetics and to provide separation and some sense of privacy between neighbors. There are many older driveways in the community that do not satisfy the current setback requirements. When these driveways are reconstructed, our policy is that the new driveway be brought into compliance with the City Code. In some cases, compliance is not easily achieved. While compliance is possible in this case, a reduced setback would certainly not be inharmonious with the regulations, given that the adjoining driveway is also set back 3.5 feet from the property line. 2200 Hillview Road Variance Report February 3, 2016 Page 2 b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not specify setback criteria, but it does support improvements to properties. The request would not appear to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The driveway itself is a permitted use and is otherwise compliant with the city code but for the reduced setback. The reduced setback requested after -the -fact is not an unreasonable request. d: Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. There are no unique circumstances pertaining to this property as they may relate to the location of the driveway, except that both driveways (the subject driveway and the adjoining driveway) both have a reduced setback. There is no record of previous variances or allowances granted. One could assert that the circumstances do not result from the actions of the property owners. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood consists of smaller lots with smaller homes and narrow driveways. The requested variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and matches up nicely with the adjoining driveway. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties, The 1.5 -foot variance is the minimum variance needed in order to keep the newly installed driveway in place. g. The Planning Commission may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood, and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. There are no conditions which would seem to be directly related to this request; as such, staff would not recommend imposing any conditions. 2200 Hillview Road Variance Report February 3, 2096 Page 3 Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, this application requires a public hearing. Staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property and a notice was published in the Sun Focus newspaper on Friday, January 22, 2016. Staff has not received any feedback in response to the variance request, as of Friday, January 29, 2016. Recommendation: After taking testimony from staff, the applicant, the property owners and affected neighbors, the Commission may take any of the following actions below related to the requests. Staff recommends approval of this variance. Approval of the Variance as requested. Staff has prepared Resolution 1041-16 that approves the variance if the Commission chooses this action. 2. Choose to deny the variance. If the Commission chooses this option-, Staff would need direction from the Planning Commission to prepare a resolution of denial with findings of fact to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide that there is need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60 -day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, James Ericson City Administrator Attachments: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial View 4. Site Plan 5. Google Street View Photo 6. Resolution 1041-16 Planning Application Vif" FIXI"� DEVEC�csPU3 ?,rnl o C� -Aln f of iii y'r ���• NA- P L,I NIII N X k I rS !^FI''�'LXCA�7 , _ 0 1 cs. ',4nty rt.-«QEt ?C) dKkoE i1r d'$ V:Elc&wp F"E`. 552-92 (766) 717-4029, l c'2z (762) 717-4019 S sCce.%naeurtdS-voce. nnin.as Please Type or Print information - Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Nana of Applicant • `r(' `, c. ; r_ -: , t ;: - _. zc;-^Wcr4. +,# fc,.� �. ,+�> Address ,, : r,r_. r, ; ,,,_,: _ Gt/s - < u Stale yip t — Home L c ll s ; Fa C -1 -nail ' ntei,'e-St but PWOVC-E V (Check appropriate hot) El Owner of Propertq ❑Contract For D ---Id owner Cl Lessee, Operator, 1`42nager LlRgreemcnttoftchase Other Z -� €'dw NI"c- O RpPlIcaeiasa,. andifyDes ars; not F.''?'-- oii ne Of efle pu igfue' zy' 'plou www- tFE��2 -�i'�J e3L=left ry tr2v�7;"Bf" 01'F ?iFiICSVIOY Y'e'fi'Sd7 [Fe tiU1112Cp to be e�d'tIEE%�'n`rdb �'F','b$'"�ef'sFHE �EiEdpx tJbr:�°rfti Ei�fi�l£c 'F:'+'f.�E3•-E�Y�'(�f ��G"€�"x'P3&•i€trBa FYlfit.4€�sr'c`"t`7e5'w�i`+f�38C'.-s^✓e°tPFi lam!" Address or General Location Legal Description }c P:'oi�ettY 3dantificaiion ;` (PSN ") r: $ s , • ,' c..,;, -a _ 141- of Acres %• � �'� Current Zoning N vee of ljppHr„'at.Ju6B € 6��€E reora'iL F:IE� l i'urlc §dlr_. Uri -3 --es). Page t nC2 Comr rehensive Plan Rm !ldrnen 1 `5oc, 1 FezonmgSGG _j Major Subdivision 1 6700 1 Minor Sobdivi.' - ---._ l Planned UnitDevelopment (Pt lu) I 1 PUD Anal neat r 1 a»0 j X750 _ 00 'R-1, R-2 X200; all others $400 { ConurLioionaUse Perrlfi/Rn7endn7enl interin-r. Use PG'Tri"lit/(-`rit4ndnlC'ni °j Variance Flntnmisaati e Variance I R-1, R-2 x700; all others x•5400 Ft .l, R -c 100 _j, j Pxt Arnendrnern zoning -oce x 40D 1, ; ext Rm .nclment other G1. Code _ __. ,00 �l Develop (review/5it-e Plan ('review1%I-OC) !Wetland Alteration Permit _ 1 - R 7 R-7 1�200; all others x;350 �.� — 1I +1Je'tiGnd 6u =er per Eagn3enS V>acaEiun _ R P-7 530; all others 100 _ Minor }ubd tS0; Plat � 100 _ - n �00 J i P<-sp oval of Minor Subdivision or Plat I - [mina Pevie.v ca C L District Pro _. _ pox d lls ( Page t nC2 Applilic-a ion fees zarre inion- of unda bgle. Present {LUSS.` VA ProperL ��-'�� r 1' i l � 1i��r:� ----- Lift � PropertyCibssficationa ❑ Abstiact lK Torrens Descirip- ion of Pr oposai (attach additional supporting documentation if necessary) W �7�� � ` C � T _•e=� r c..:. !' L i i G f t '- F�`�- � L t - OC • �. ! �.1 =' t -C c-.' �. -- -� 0 i o CA.! I Y MY/OUR SIGNATURE ON THIS APP�ICON, I HEREBY DECLAP PE. THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURAI tt. Please PAo'te: Application fees are nonrefundable. Applicant's are responsible for all costs in excess of the application fee incurred by the City in the processing of this application. Such excess fees are to be paid upon receipt of statement from the City of Mounds Vievd. Excess fees may include, but shall not be. limited to, photocopy costs, staff time, and fees for planning consultants, attorneys and engineers. In some cases, a deposit may be required in advance to cover any anticipated excess costs associated with this application. (If a deposit is required, the applicant shall remain responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the application fee and deposit amount.) I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I have read all of the information listed in the Planning Application and fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. Name of Applicant Signature of Applic. Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) Signature of Propeity Owner Address of Ovnn�r Phone Number of Owner a`! = '� 2!, E-mail of Owner 'LL; i%i.^ ,..,r4_•C; CZ -r_ Date of Submittal! j ? _ ? / f z" Date of Acceptance; 6.o -day Emile 120 -day limit: Planning Case No(s) _l h-- /' C t=' ! Assigned to: Fees Paid: Account i 'h ck[Ogedit # Re i�it•#F _ Application: _,1 % ?L?l 1?ark Dedication: .^ _ ---- ----- Other: Total: --- — Page 2 of -2 Zoning Map N Detail Area * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View D Si! Plan Lsw a/[ � «?C r ®° JLJ Ll � Photo MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1041-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A REDUCED DRIVEWAY SETBACK AT 2200 HILLVIEW ROAD; PLANNING CASE VR2016-001 WHEREAS, applicant Jim Cigelski, representing property owners Joe and Gina Diekman, has applied for a variance to permit a driveway to have a 3.5 -foot setback from the east property line; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 2200 Hillview Road is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Lot 3, Block 6, Pinewood Terrace PIN 05-30-23-43-0003 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial View 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Site Plan 6. Staff Report WHEREAS, Section 1104.01 Subd. 4a(1) of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that driveways shall be set back at least five feet; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow the driveway to have a three and a half (3.5) foot setback; 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, Resolution 1041-16 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing regarding this request on February 3, 2016; 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, that 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 practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 2200 Hillview Road, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding setbacks is to create physical separation between improvements for safety, aesthetics and a sense of privacy for the property owners. The new driveway is in the same spot as the previous driveway and will have the same setback as the adjoining property's driveway. 2. The variance is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is improving the property. The driveway itself is a permitted use and is otherwise compliant with the city code but for the reduced setback. The reduced setback requested after -the -fact is not an unreasonable request given the pre-existing conditions. 4. The circumstances associated with this request do not result from the actions of the property owners. The driveway was replaced in the same location as the original driveway, matching the setback of the driveway adjacent to the subject property. 5. There will be no change to the existing character of the neighborhood since the driveways have been existing for decades. The new driveway is an improvement to the neighborhood. 6. The variance for a three and a half foot setback is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant's practical difficulty. 7. While the Planning Commission may impose reasonable conditions as may be necessary to comply with city standards and to minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood, none are suggested in this case. Resolution 1041-16 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of Jim Cigelski, representing Joe and Gina Diekman, property owners of 2200 Hillview Road, to allow a driveway to have a three and a half (3.5) foot setback. Adopted this 3rd day of February, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chair /GritIX.�M James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Feb 17, 2016 0 0 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA February 17, 2016 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business (none) 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. Planning Case: M12016-001 Minor Subdivision Applicant: Terry Buchanan Owners: Kayak Properties, Inc. Address: 7800 Edgewood Rd 6. Other Planning Activity A. Consideration of Res 1042-16, a Resolution updating the Planning & Zoning Commission Bylaws. B. Consideration of Res 1044-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a code amendment to Chapter 1120 of the Zoning Code, pertaining to PUD's. 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 8. Approval of Minutes: February 3, 2016 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, March 2, 2016 B. Wednesday, March 16, 2016 10. Meeting Conclusion City of Mounds View Staff Report Item No: 5A Meeting Date: February 17, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Item Title/Subject: Resolution 1043-16, Consideration of a Minor Subdivision at 7800 Eastwood Rd; Planning Case M12016-001 Introduction: The applicant, Terry Buchanan, has requested a minor subdivision to divide the lot at 7800 Eastwood Road into Parcel A (27,653 sq ft) and Parcel B (13,972 sq ft). The existing home will remain on Parcel A, while Parcel B is intended to be sold. Discussion: A Minor Subdivision is a division of land less than two acres in size in which no more than one additional parcel or lot is created. 7800 Eastwood Rd currently has a house and attached garage on the property. The house is on the north side of the lot, and will remain after the subdivision. The property is zoned R-1 Single -Family Residential. The Comprehensive Plan guides the property for Single -Family Detached residential. Surrounding uses include single- family residential to the north and east, and multi -family (Silver Lake Commons) to the southwest. 'fable I Lot Dimensions (R-1 Dist, Interior lot) Zoning Code, Chapter 1104.01, Solid 3(a): [summarized] The minimum front setback is 30' unless the homes on the block are all setback more than 30', in which case the home closest to the street represents the prevailing setback for that block (e.g. 55' in this case). Required Existing Proposed Parcel A Lot Area 11,000 sq ft 41,817 sq ft 27,653 sq ft 0.25 ac 0.96 ac 0.63 ac Lot Width 75' 270' 113' Front Setback 55' 63' 63' Side Setback 10' house 43' (north side) 43' (north side) 5' garage 80' (approx., south side) 5.5' (south side) Rear Setback 30' 90' (approx. 90' (approx.) Parcel B Lot Area: 11,000 sq ft NIA 13,972 sq ft 0.25 ac 0.32 ac Lot Width 75' 156' Front Setback 55" 55' Side Setback 10' house 10' 5' garage 5' Rear Setback 30' 30' Zoning Code, Chapter 1104.01, Solid 3(a): [summarized] The minimum front setback is 30' unless the homes on the block are all setback more than 30', in which case the home closest to the street represents the prevailing setback for that block (e.g. 55' in this case). 7800 Eastwood Rd Minor Subdivision Staff Report February 17, 2016 Within the R-1 District, driveways are required to be set back a minimum of 5' from the side property line (curb opening requires a minimum of 3' from side property line). The existing driveway encroaches onto Parcel B. The applicant proposes to relocate the driveway and curb opening to comply with setbacks. Park Dedication Requirements Subdivisions of land are subject to park dedication requirements consistent with Chapter 1204 of the City Code. Staff suggests the park dedication fee be based only on the land value of the new vacant lot (Parcel B) since there has been a house at 7800 Eastwood Rd since 1949. For minor subdivisions, the park dedication fee is typically 5% of the current year market value as determined by Ramsey County. In this case for 2015, the land value per square foot is $1.55 X 13,972 sq ft = $21,656 X 5% = $1,082 park dedication fee. The City Council will make the final determination on the park dedication fee amount. This fee must be paid prior to the City giving the applicant the approved documentation for recording with Ramsey County. Easements With most subdivisions, the City requires the owner to dedicate drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the lot (10' front & rear, 5' side). Parcel B includes a larger easement in the rear of the property to accommodate surface water drainage. Public Notice No public notice is required for a minor subdivision. Summary The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property located at 7800 Edgewood Dr. into two parcels. All minimum City requirements will be met. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Minor Subdivision contingent upon complying with the conditions in Resolution 1043-16. Respectfully submitted, ;in pealdAC�P Planner Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Map 3. Site Photos 4. Certificate of Survey 5. Resolution 1043-16 7800 Eastwood Rd Minor Subdivision Staff Report February J.7, 2016 Zoning Map (7800 Eastwood Rd (outlined in red); R1 Single Family Residential) 7901 7900C14 7900 7801 Cq civ yuU HILLVIEW -.4-ROAD CO IID rte' 17886Io 7891 w 0 7880' 7895 7890 78 V7 N N 7876 r 7885 78661 7867 7870 78 Z —2 z 7877 78541 7851 7860 78 7870 7850 78 > 7863 7$42' 7841 0 78300 7840 7 CY 7851 p 7 78201 7815 7790 O 7 �1. >r 7810; a 78D 7809 7770' Z 1 7 7801 7764 w 77 B-2 w 7767 77£0 77 7761 7750 77 °L _ 7755 7730 77 7745 7 110 77 no 7715 LO ED H 2 r„ r') Cn ii} 11r - t--r-uu PVP,' r " NLOhln fl 0 lois lt7 �.�_.. `� PCUrW U?LO (Parcels not designated with a Zoning District are Zoned R-1, Single -Family Residential) 7800 Eastwood Rd Minor Subdivision Staff Report February 17, 2016 Aerial Map: 7800 Eastwood Rd (highlighted in red) 161, iiq • n 1 t \� �... it .��_�� I( i, ,.I' a y �. 2,1 it •M3 u ]I 7800 Eastwood Rd Minor Subdivision Staff Report February 17, 2016 Site Photos (7800 Eastwood Rd), Feb 10, 2016. Photo by Staff. Photo of Parcel A (looking west) from shared property line with Parcel B. Photo of Parcel B (looking NW) from SE corner of lot. r 4IWJ Photo of Parcel B (looking NW) from SE corner of lot. CERTIFICUE OF SURVEY (SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS) FOR: TERRY BUCHANAN PROPERTY ADDRESS: #7800 EASTWOOD ROAD, MOUNDS VIEW, MN P.I.D.40L-30.23.44.0050 SHOWING PROPOSED LOT SPLIT ®9}+a s11� 1/2° IRON PIPE 9\J 9Sa0 A• 0\31 J I O 88 -��1 9\S6� NR8'21'S1 E- "r aJ 9\29 9\\� 19\a•e \\ I ol, 308.36 (308.3-Plat) 9125 •' 91109 \9\32 M—X -911%— .. ., J1Y"I� 4"%9W—.—}{,9,':G %9 \p? to / ....� ............... 9,h ,a \ a '' aa: r aa''z91ps ITot \ +� .' 1. I _ x9\\0 %9\pS qp9 ,9 \p, 910, 3---- z s sP� 63. �- \ J Parcel "A" Iw e 91.5 9;+.a 27,653± sq.ff, ? i p x ns % }c 0.63 acres ... s 1 9 Pg y\p� No - U-1912 91 \ `9�6 fiY > I od IJ n "".., 0 GAR... \o ° ° 91 JO iXX d a 91° �' ,"o \ .,.. .1 91 al p EL R1an 1 / Pt \—.— .T/0.-66 1 t." . CUT TO DE ,V— i . , i1 ee02f5f 91P9 _ _:In t p, 910 O RELOCATED • . m ( L 910.\ S�cE , 9 l N t.t. p'l0 '° I\0. ido 4 ut to 910° 91} 6e foalro m / \ msox,9w f3 I U) or a' ft. / N91arce� °x FEET / ,x1 91a_ 13,972± ft µ 1(IN inc4=4olE 0.32 atljye9 ♦__65 '� NORTH 911 \(a'-.fTs\4P (D9\0I \ X9\ ° Q 1 ' 9\�OHj09111V I 0'0 $ , PIM 91aa I • t l a\9 9 01' ZONING/SETBACI(/DEVELOPMENT INFO. // \ I'_ --e6- --+I - PROPERTY ZONED Rt HOWEVER IT ABUTS R4, R3 AND \ \ `` 9\° i OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS. \ - Rt MINIMUM PROPERTY AREA = 11,000 SOFT.-- "WhereI °p0e - MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK = 30' HOWEVER v 9rv� pws r)ia�+°° buildings in existence on lots within the some F. block on the same side of the street have front yard E NUT D FIF setbacks different from those required, the minimum (0I kk n Soy Gro. = I front yard setback for any new principal buildings shall be I 'T the minimum front yard setback in existence for any one LEGEND / ypa lot. In no case shall the front yard setback be less than I I thirty feet (30) 0 DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND I - MINIMUM LOT WIDTH = 75' X DENOTES EXISTING FENCE xioll2DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. 0 DENOTES CONCRETE BENCHMARK DENOTES BITUMINOUS BASIS FOR ELEVATIONME : NAVD 88(VIA REAL TIGPS 9 DENOTES BUILDING SETBACK LINE (TO BE MEASUREMENTSUTILIZMIG MINNESOTA VERIFIED & APPROVED BY CITY) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VRS NETWORK) DENOTES UTILITY POLE BASIS FOR HEARINGS: NAD8T(1996)(VIA REAL TIME ® DENOTES UTILITY BOX GPS MEASUREMENTS UTILITIZMG MINNESOTA DENOTES FIRE HYDRANT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VRS NETWORK). —m,.— DENOTES OVERHEAD WIRE rev. 02/11/16, city comments rev. 02/09/16, city comments EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION I hereby certify that this survey, plan Lot 77, SPRING LAKE PARI( HILL VIEW, Ramsey County, or report was prepared by me or Minnesota. under my direct supervision and that I NOTES am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of - NOTE: BOUNDARY SHOWN SUBJECT TO REVISION. Minnesota. - CITY TO VERIFY ALL BUILDINGS ELEVATIONS AND SETBACKS. f'�F7--4J - Bearing's shown are on assumed datum. ERIC R. VICKARYOUS - Field survey conducted on 12/22/15. Date:Jon.,27th 22016 Reg. No. 44125 - This survey was prepared without the benefit of titlework. Easement, appurtenances and encumbrances CRE LAND SURVEYING , , Berving Twin CRISS Metro "" may exist In addition to those shown hereon. This _ III A763-458-2997 area and beyo nd survey is subject to revision upon receipt of a title acrelandsurve Gag Om Insurance commitment or attorneys title opinion. ail. - Curb shots taken at top and back of curb, JOB 415600 CI\Users\Eric\DneDrlve\CAD-ID\15600pp-MndsVles\ds9\15600pp.drv, B/IVB016 10147,30 AM CST UMAMATE OF SURVEY (SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS) FOR: TERRY BUCHANAN PROPERTY ADDRESS: #7800 EASTWOOD ROAD, MOUNDS VIEW, MN P.I.D.#06.30-23-44-0050 SHOWING PROPOSED LOT SPLIT — EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 77, SPRING LAKE PARK HILL WEW. Ramsey County, Minnesota. NORTH N 0 I N88°21'51"E , I nl,z 308.36 (Joe.J-plop x_x _.—.—.--------- 777 ----- .—.—.m%e_. 1 mon = 40n. Parcel "A 27,653: q.ft 0.63 acres D .9".6 1/2` IRON PIPE NE comer of Lot 7._7777771/7 GAR. PROPOSED PARCEL "A" PROPERTY DESCRITTION/' 'N I I I I I I I i I Q I j0 i - I— .v,,..... . t. t1 I Minnesota, which Iles northerly of the following described line and Its (f� .13' of a' nom 'B'_______7, '-'{III < Prof. line Commencing at the northeast comer of said Lot 77; thence South 00 ft. p1 W degrees 40 minutes 10 seconds East (assumed bearing) along the east O 01 I o 1' IRON/aA EO j d p 0.0 (O,7�pps» HYD.. 912 Nv.=e59.1 seconds West a distance of 178.65 feet to the southwesterly line of said I'� j I That part of Lot 77, SPRING LAKE PARK HILL VIEW, Ramsey County, /�_\ i -- --ee-- -- Minnesota, which Iles northerly of the following described line and Its westerly extension: fs e�La Commencing at the northeast comer of said Lot 77; thence South 00 degrees 40 minutes 10 seconds East (assumed bearing) along the east 01 I line of said Lot 77 a distance of 113.58 feet to the point of beginning, : 1' IRON/aA aP NUT III E of the line to be described; thence South 88 degrees 21 minutes 51 `• (O,7�pps» HYD.. 912 51 I seconds West a distance of 178.65 feet to the southwesterly line of said Lot 77 and said line there terminating. Subject to an easement for public drainage and utility purposes over, under and across the north 5.00 feet, the east 10.00 feet, south 5.00 feet and the southwesterly 10.00 feet of the above described property. PROPOSED PARCEL "B" PROPERTY DESCRIPTION That part of Lot 77, SPRING LAKE PARK HILL VIEW, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which Iles southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of sold Lot 77; thence South 00 degrees 40 minutes 10 seconds East (assumed bearing) along the east line of said Lot 77 a distance of 113.58 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described, sold point to be hereinafter referred to as "Point A"; thence South 88 degrees 21 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 178.65 feet to the southwesterly line of said Lot 77 and sold line there terminating. Subject to an easement for public drainage and utility purposes over, under and across the north 5.00 feet, the east 10.00 feet, and the southwesterly 5.00 feet of the above described property. And subject to an easement for drainage and utility purposes over, under and across that part of the above described property which Iles westerly of east 114.04 feet thereof. rev. 02/11/16, city comments rev. 02/09/16, city comments I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of ACRE LAND SURVEYING ; ; area and beyo Minnesota. Seft41� TWn Cities Metro _ tld rr ••.III ERIC R. R. VIC 763-458-2987 acrelandaurveycag ell. o Dole: den. 27th. 2016 Reg. No. 44125 JOB 415600 10 11 12 13 14 is P\Users\Frlc\DneDrlve\CAD-1D\15600pp-NndsVlew\dw9\15600pp.dwg 2/11/2016 10,47,30 AM CST @11 WWRTA15F-' •.•'.. RESOLUTIONNO. 1043-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA •- �r • • _tr1 a •r }•�r • r & Berr WHEREAS, Terry Buchanan has requested approval of a minor subdivision to split 7800 Eastwood Road into two parcels; and, WHEREAS, the property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally - described as: Lot 77, Spring Lake Park Hill View, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 06.30.23.44.0050 WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to subdivide 7800 Eastwood Rd into two lots; the north lot will include the existing house, and the south lot will be vacant, intended for single-family residential; and, 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, in accordance with Section 1204.02, Subd. 4 of the Municipal Code, a park dedication fee will be required, with the amount to be determined by the City Council, based on the 2015 Ramsey County assessed market land value. NOW, THEREFORE, RE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the minor subdivision of 7800 Eastwood Rd. subject to the following stipulations: 1. The Applicant shall complete any and all requirements after final review of the Certificate of Survey and title commitment by the City Attorney. Resolution 1040-16 Page 2 2, The Applicant shall arrange to amend the Certificate of Survey if any changes are required by Ramsey County. 3. The Applicant shall pay to the City, a park dedication fee and all other fees associated with this subdivision request. 4. The Applicant shall realign the driveway and curb opening on Parcel A, compliant with City Code 1121.09, Subd 5 "Curb Cuts and Driveway Openings", and restore the south side yard as lawn at the time the driveway is realigned/replaced. 5. The Applicant shall agree to the dedication of drainage and utility easements as shown on the Certificate of Survey. 6. The Applicant shall have 6 months from final approval to file proper documentation with Ramsey County, including new deeds and easement documents, and furnish proof of such recording to the City. If such action is not accomplished by the date so indicated, this minor subdivision approval shall be considered null and void. NOW, THEREFORE 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 17h day of February, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW high Item No: 6A Meeting Date: February 17, 2016 Type of Business: Other Planning Activitv City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Review the Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws Introduction: The Planning Commission's Bylaws state that the Commission shall review the Bylaws on an annual basis, at the first regular meeting in February. The Commissioner reviewed the Bylaws on February 3, 2016, and requested additional review regarding Section 10C, Ex Parte Contacts. Discussion: Staff requested that The City Attorney review the "Ex Parte Contact" language, which has not changed in twenty years, to determine if revisions could be made to "soften" the tone without losing the intent of the section. The intent of the section is simply to provide assurances that requests before the Commission are discussed and considered at the meeting in a public, open forum, rather than commissioners making decisions based on information unknown to other commissioners, or the public, for that matter. The City Attorney has prepared recommended changes to the Ex Parte Contact language which the Commission may find suitable. In addition, the Bylaws were amended to reflect current staffing by removing references to the Community Development Director. Recommendation: Review the revised Bylaws for the Planning Commission. If the Commission finds the proposed changes acceptable, a resolution can be acted upon to effectuate the changes. Sincerely, ,_.1 GwI2R James Ericson City Administrator Attachments Resolution 1042-16 Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws TESOLUTION NO. 1042-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION ADOPTING REVISIONS TO THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BYLAWS 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 a review of the Bylaws and has determined that a minor revision is needed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Bylaws for the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be revised as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and thatthe Bylaws as shown in ExhibitA supersede previous adopted versions of the Bylaws. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these revised Bylaws shall be kept on file with the City Administrator and the Community Development Department, and shall be forwarded to the City Council for its information. 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 17th day of February, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson James Ericson Community Development Director EXHIBIT A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISS11ON BYLAWS (Revised January 24, 2007) AUTHORITY: The Bylaws of the Mounds View Planning 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 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 shall govern. (Forpurposes of simplicity, the Planning and Zoning Commission may hereinafter be referred to as the Planning Commission or the Commission.) 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 members of the Planning and Zoning Commission appointed as voting members, and shall be placed on file with the CitySle*l Administrator and the Community Development Department. Acopy of the bylaws shall 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 Commission 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 City Administrator, PireEtoi- Ilii gemmunity ^evelep -ieRt, 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 shall 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 shall elect a vice -chairperson each year at its first meeting in January, following the procedure in Section IV.B.3. 3. Election Procedure: For each office, the chairperson shall 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 Commission 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 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 shall be elected. 4. Assumption of Duties: The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall assume office at the first meeting in February of each year. 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 meetings of the Planning Commission, and shall have the authority to add or cancel regular meetings and to call special meetings as provided in Section VI. The Chair shall have the authority to redirect public comment unrelated to the Commission's business to the most appropriate City commission or to the City Council. 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 members present shall elect a temporary chairperson to preside over the meeting. Page 2 V. COUNCIL LIAISON: The City Council may 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 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 Planning Commission in the absence of the Council Liaison. VI. MEETINGS A. TYPES OF MEETINGS; SCHEDULE: The annual meeting schedule of the Commission shall 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 Planning Commission, 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 matters not requiring a vote of the Commission. 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 Councilor other commissions. Special meetings can be proposed by any Commission member or at the request of the City Administrator, or designated staff liaison -PireptAt of Com ity Development, yet must be approved by a majority vote of the Commission. Emergency Special Meetings. Emergency special meetings can be called via written notice to the City Administrator, or designated staff liaison, pirp terofr-om by the Chairperson or two Commission members, or by the City Administrator, or designated staff liaison Oireeter-ef GemmunityDevelspHiei:it. (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 the Planning Commission.) The City Administrator, or designated staff liaison, Pirenfor ^f r R-FAWRHRity Develepmeiit shall post and mail a notice 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 priorto a special meeting. Page 3 5. Cancellation of Meetings: Regular or special meetings may be canceled by the chairperson or City Administrator, or designated staff liaison, DiFeFter P, om ,it„ =at 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 designee, shall conduct the election. Open Meeting Law: Meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the State of Minnesota Open Meeting Law (Minn. Statutes 471.705). 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 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 meeting. Minutes shall be approved by motion. Approved minutes 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 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 n;zpt@F o Community Development Department which may be reviewed from time to time as needed. VI I. 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. Page 4 VIII. 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. IX. 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 City Administrator, or designated staff liaison 13H- Gt of Community Developmart upon the member's resignation or termination of appointment. X. CONDUCT OF MEMBERS A. ATTENDANCE: Commission members shall advise the designated Staff member or the Commission chairperson of an anticipated absence from any regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Any member absent from three consecutive regularly scheduled meetings or more than six regularly scheduled 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 OF INTEREST. - General Standard: No Commissioner shall be appointed with private or personal interests likely to conflict with the general public interest. If any person appointed to the Commission shall 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 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 greaterthan 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. Page 6 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 calls 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 iFaPpre Hate arld better suited for Commission meetings and Planning Commission Practice is that all testimony needs to be offered at the hearing for such matter to ensure a fair hearing for all parties. !^ ^" qlher Planning Commissioners should 4ibGeui age syehG911t Gtb alld she 'd avoid expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case outside of Commission meetings. When ex parte contacts occur, the Planning Commissioner is responsible for notifying the ity Demme^` � appropriate City staff and for r••• conveying the substance of the any ex Parte communication to other Commission members at the next commission meeting at which the matter discussed is under consideration. No decision by a Planning Commissioner ATTEST: Gary Stevenson, Chairperson James Ericson, City Administrator Page 6 Revision History: February 17 2016 January 24, 2007 September 1, 2004 February 21, 2001 February 2, 2000 March 5, 1997 February 3, 1993 October 1990 Item No: 613 Meeting Date: Feb 17, 2016 Type of Business: Special Planning Case 199-16 luNns tvy env MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Re: Resolution 1044-16, Recommendation approval of a Text Amendment to Zoning Code 1120.03, Subd 3(b) Mixed Use Planned Unit Development; Minimum Project Size Date: Feb 17, 2016 Discussion: The Zoning Code requires Mixed -Use Planned Unit Developments (PUD) to have a minimum project size of 5 acres. Staff is recommending this be changed to 4 acres in order to accommodate smaller developments. Zoning Code 1119 thru 1120 regulates PUD's. The purpose of permitting PUD's is "to provide for the integration and coordination of land parcels as well as the combination of varying types of residential, commercial and industrial uses." In laymen's terms, a PUD is a type of development that exceeds minimum standards in some areas, but not in others. It is a type of development that is "outside the box" of typical developments. PUD's are permitted within a PUD zoning district. There are three types of PUD's. In order to rezone a property to PUD, the ordinance requires a minimum "project size" (not parcel size) of: . Residential: 3 acres (2 acres, if Senior Housing) Commercial/Industrial: 5 acres Mixed Use: 5 acres The City of Mounds View acquired land at the south intersection of Co Rd 10 and Greenfield Ave. and has been marketing the land (4.25 acres, including Greenfield Ave. ROW) for redevelopment. A developer has approached the City for a multi -family residential project (The Flats at Crossroad Pointe) on a portion of the property. The remaining property could be redeveloped as commercial or mixed-use. A Mixed -Use PUD would be appropriate for this project, if complying with the minimum project size. Recommendation: Staff recommends amending Zoning Code 1120.03, Subd 3(b) to allow Mixed Use PUD's a minimum of 5 4 acres in project size, as included in the attached resolution. Item No: 613 Meeting Date: Feb 17, 2016 Type of Business: Special Planning Case 199-16 Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments 1. Zoning Map 2. Resolution 1044-16 Item No: 6B Meeting Date: Feb 17, 2016 Type of Business: Special Planning Case 199-16 D L A I N C N E W B R I G II T 0 N Ar - -;- I\ I �I oYeW .., E]5 SP 9313 i9� lJ � �"/F-fl lel Illi LAKES/OPEN WATER 6L UNIMPROVED ROAD zC>N1Nc I LEM,. ..-� Lvw¢ nArvo cwnr c[; uonw. u-5 .. p) � o I [..I ullUt 4{ ,. o'oIUL eIISL.[a5 a T51M1 R[zlaUl�ut �.w n P-5 • i . not/o}ilcc ![ � e -I !I[IoxaSnllSoo Luin:[55 pY mlli[PtuhY. q[ n[A1Nx1j! IptltRVA[IMI I.r.v IWf t�eGEe Ax x � 0lirll4�z lJ � �"/F-fl lel Illi LAKES/OPEN WATER 6L UNIMPROVED ROAD zC>N1Nc I MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1044-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 1120 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE PERTAINING TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE 199-16 WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that amendments be made to the City Code relating to Planned Unit Developments; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission agrees with the City Staff recommendation that the minimum project size for Mixed -Use Planned Unit Developments be decreased from five (5) acres to four (4) acres; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Title 1120 of the Mounds View City Code by deleting theTl--, language and adding the underlined text as follows: 1120.03: SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS: Subd. 3. Mixed Use Planned Unit Development: b. Minimum Project Size: The tract of land for which a mixed use PUD is proposed shall not contain less than ,r " four 4 acres. WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that an amendment to the City Code is warranted and justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of amendments to Title 1120 of the Mounds View City Code as defined herein. 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 17th day of February, 2016. Resolution 1044-16 Page 2 Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) DRAFT PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting February 3,2016 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for February 3, 2016. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners French, Klander (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), Klebsch, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: City Administrator Jim Ericson; Planner .Ton Sevald; and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. Index to Minutes Page VR2016-001 Variance Request for a Reduced Driveway Setback 2 Review the Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws 3 Approval of Minutes 4 3. Special Order of Business None. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases Mounds View Planning Commission February 3, 2016 Regular Meeting Page 2 A. VR2016-001 Variance Request for a Reduced Driveway Setback Applicant: .Tames Cigelski, The Asphalt Company Owners: Joe and Gina Dielcman Address: 2200 Hillview Road City Administrator Ericson stated the applicant, Jim Cigelski, representing property owners Joe and Gina Dickman, is requesting approval of a variance for a reduced driveway setback at 2200 Hillview Road. The applicant replaced the Dickman's driveway in 2015 and was told after the work had been completed that the driveway was too close to the property line by a foot and a half. Staff noted the required setback is five feet. Mr. Cigelski contends that the driveway was replaced in the same place as the original driveway. A review of historical aerial overlays would seem to support this statement. Rather than remove part of the driveway, the applicant and the owners are requesting a variance to allow the driveway to remain in place as is. The previous driveway appears to have been located with a 3.5 -foot setback. It was noted the adjoining property at 2192 Hillview Road also has a driveway with a 3.5 -foot setback. Staff reviewed the variance criteria in detail and recommended the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and approve the variance as requested. Chair Stevenson questioned why a public hearing was required. City Administrator Ericson stated Minnesota State Statutes establishes when public hearings are required. He explained variances require public hearings as it allows neighboring property owners a chance to voice concerns based on the requested deviation from City Code. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Klebsch asked if the neighboring property owner would be required to obtain a variance. City Administrator Ericson stated a variance would not be required unless the driveway was replaced. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned how the City found out about the driveway situation. City Administrator Ericson reported the driveway work was completed by the contractor prior to receiving a permit from the City. Chair Stevenson encouraged all contractors and residents to obtain a permit with the City prior to completing any work. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 1041-16, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance for a Reduced Driveway Setback at 2200 Hillview Road; Planning Case No. VR2016-001. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review the Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws February 3, 2016 Page 3 City Administrator Ericson reviewed the Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws with the Commission. He noted one change would be made to the bylaws regarding ex parte contacts. He discussed the language change in detail and explained the intent was to have all decisions made by the Commission to be done at meetings. He believed the language was a bit heavy- handed at this time and was in favor of the City Attorney revising the verbiage to be more in line with the times. Chair Stevenson stated in his 20 years of service on the Planning Commission he has only received a handful of calls. City Administrator Ericson asked if the Commission had any other comments or concerns regarding the bylaws. There were no additional comments. 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity City Administrator Ericson provided an overview on upcoming planning cases. He discussed the proposed market rate housing that was proposed to be located on the Crossroad Pointe property. B. Staff Updates City Administrator Ericson introduced the newly hired planner Jon Sevald to the Planning Commission. Planner Sevald explained he has been a planner for the past 13 years. He encouraged the Conrnissioners to ask him questions regarding upcoming cases and staff reports. Mr. Sevald looked forward to working with this group. C. Council Updates Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council_ He discussed the preliminary Development Agreement that had been reached with The Beard Group for the Crossroads Pointe property. He noted Police Chief Kinney announced his retirement on Monday after serving the City for 30 years. He explained the City would now have to be advertising and searching for a new Police Chief. He reported an outside recruiting Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 3, 2016 Page 4 firm would be assisting the City with this process. It was noted the Council would not be pursuing organized garbage collection. D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 8. Approval of Minutes January 6, 2016. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Klebsch. To approve the Minutes of the January 6, 2016 regular Planning Commission meeting. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, February 17, 2016 B. Wednesday, March 2, 2016 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson City Administrator Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. E 0 Ll 0 0 9 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA March 2, 2016 -- 7:00 P.M. The March 2, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting has been Canceled The next scheduled meeting is Wednesday, March 16, 2016, 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA March 16, 2016 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business (none) 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. Planning Case: CU2016-001 Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Garden City, LLC Owners: Moundsview Square Associates, LLC. Address: 2523 Co Rd 10 B. Planning Case: IU2016-001 Interim Use Permit Applicant: Anderson Companies, LLP Owners: Anderson Companies, LLP Address: 2200 Co Rd 10 6. Other Planning Activity A. Consideration of Res 1042-16, a Resolution updating the Planning & Zoning Commission Bylaws. 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity B. Staff Updates • Workshop: New Resources for Comprehensive Plans Monday, March 28th 6:00 PM — 8:30 PM Ramsey County Public Works Center, 1425 Paul Kirkwold Dr. Arden Hills C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 8. Approval of Minutes: February 17, 2016 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, April 6, 2016 B. Wednesday, April 20, 2016 10. Meeting Conclusion Item No: 5A 016 MOUNDS VIEW yp Meeting Date: March U 16- V1�IlJJ il.:.yV T e of Business: Planning Case CU2016-001 City of Mounds View Staff' Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Item Title/Subject: Resolution 1045-16, Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit at 2523 Co Rd 10; Planning Case CU2016-001 Introduction The applicant, Camillo Ogando (Garden City LLC), has requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a temporary garden center in the parking lot of the Mounds View Square shopping center. The seasonal garden center operation would be similar to what has been conducted at this location in previous years. Discussion In 1996, a CUP was approved for a temporary garden center on this property for Linder's Greenhouses (Res. No. 4894), and again in 1999 (Res. No. 5314). The 1999 CUP was to have no expiration date as long as the applicant complied with permit conditions, and submitted an annual plan to the City for administrative review. This permit was in compliance annually until the use was discontinued after the 2014 season. Because the CUP was discontinued for a period of one or more years, the 1999 CUP becomes null and void (Zoning Code 1125.01, Subd 3(f). Any new use must comply with current zoning requirements. The garden center is proposed to be located in the center parking lot as it has in previous years. Utilities (water & electricity) will be provided by the shopping center. Retail sales will include annuals, perennials, and hanging baskets. The operation will be set up on or after April 1St, and will be dismantled by mid-August. Operating hours will be 7:00 AM — 8:00 PM, seven days per week and will employ between two and four persons. The garden center will be located within a 36'X 154' area, and enclosed by a 4' fence. The temporary greenhouse is 21'X 84' (see the Applicant's Narrative). Analysis Zoning Code 1115.04, Subd 2. Outdoor sales as an accessory use "Open or outdoor service, sale and rental as an accessory use ... ... for a period greater than ten (10) days" is permitted as a Conditional Use within the B-4 district with the following requirements: a. Outside service, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to thirty percent (30%) of the gross floor area of the principal use. The gross floor area of the principal use (shopping center) is 105,378 sq ft. The temporary garden center will include an area of 5,544 sq ft (5% of the gross floor area of the principal use). b. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting residential district in compliance with subdivision 1103.08(1) through (5). The garden center will be enclosed by a temporary 4' split rail fence, and is not abutting a residential area. The fence will be in compliance with the Zoning Code. c. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right of way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Section 1103.09 No exterior lighting is proposed. d. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. The sales area will be on the asphalt parking lot. e. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01, Subd 1(e) [Adverse Effects] of this [ordinance] are considered satisfactorily met. (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides this parcel as Community Commercial. (2) The geographical area involved. The sales area will be located within the shopping center's parking lot, in a commercial area. (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. The temporary garden center is anticipated to have no effect on property values, nor depreciate the area. (4) The character of the surrounding area. The area is dominated by commercial -retail businesses. The proposed temporary garden center is consistent with this use. (5) The demonstrated need for such use. A similar temporary garden center operated at this location from 1996 through 2014. and therefore demonstrates a need for such use. Zoning Code 1125.01 Subd 1(g). Findings of Fact 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make a finding of fact and recommend such actions or conditions relating to the request as it deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Title. Such recommendation shall be in writing and accompanied by the report and recommendation of the City Staff. Recommended findings of fact are included in the attached Planning Commission Resolution 1045-16. Zoning Code 1125.01, Subd 1(i). Public Hearing Upon receiving the report and recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City staff, the City Council shall hold a public hearing in compliance with Minn. Stat. §462.357, Subd 3 and shall make a recorded finding of fact and shall impose any conditions it considers necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. A Public Hearing will be held by the City Council on March 28, 2016, as required by ordinance. Notification was published in the Sun Focus on March 11, 2016, and will be mailed to property owners within 350' of the property. Zoninq Code 1125.01, Subd 3(b). Criteria for Granting Conditional Use Permits In granting a conditional use permit, the City Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan and upon the health, safety and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. Among other things, the City Council shall make the following findings where applicable: (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. The proposed temporary garden center will not create an excessive burden on existing public facilities and services. (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 proposed temporary garden center is located over 500' from the nearest residential use, and is predominately screened from residences by the shopping center building. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The proposed temporary garden center is consistent with the previously permitted temporary garden center which operated at this location for 18 years (1996 — 2014), and will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. (4) 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 proposed temporary garden center will serve a need of the community. (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. The proposed temporary garden center will be consistent with the Zoning Code and the B-4 district. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The proposed temporary garden center is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. The proposed temporary garden center is not anticipated to cause traffic hazards or congestion. The use will generate minimal traffic (applicant estimates 5-10 customers at one time), and is located in an area of the parking lot which should not interfere with internal traffic patterns. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Existing utilities are sufficient to serve the proposed use. Zoning Code 1125.01 Subd 3(c). Additional Conditions In permitting a new conditional use or the alteration of an existing conditional use, the City Council may impose, in addition to these standards and requirements expressly specified by this Title, additional conditions which the City Council considers necessary to protect the best interest of the surrounding area or the community as a whole. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Increasing the required lot size or yard dimension. (2) Limiting the height, size or location of buildings. (3) Controlling the location and number of vehicle access points. (4) Increasing the street width. (5) Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces. (6) Limiting the number, size, location or lighting of signs. (7) Requiring diking, fencing, screening, landscaping or other facilities to protect adjacent and nearby property. (8) Designating sites for open space. It is Staffs opinion that the proposed use will not require any conditions beyond the standards within the Ordinance. Summary The applicant, Garden City, LLC, has requested a CUP for Open or Outdoor Sales as an Accessory Use to operate a temporary garden center in the parking lot of the Mounds View Square shopping center. The garden center will operate annually, April — August. A similar use operated from this location, 1996 — 2014. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit contingent upon complying with the conditions in Resolution 1045-16. The Planning Commission is requested to consider the following options: 1. Resolution 1045-16, approving the Conditional Use Permit is attached if the Commission chooses this action. 2. The Planning Commission may choose to deny the Conditional Use Permit. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of the 60 -day requirements (Deadline: April 18, 2016), the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, 449-',Q Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments 1. Applicant's Narrative 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Map 4. Site Photos 6. Resolution 1045-16 Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Dear Jon Sevald; r - (I r-.1.-: -. Febaruary Please accept this letter as ackolechment that I want to operate a Garden City Flower Mart at the Mouds View Square Shopping Center, located in Hwy 10 and Long Lake Road Mound View, MN 55112. I am enclosing some photos and information about my Flower Marts. I have been in the Flower Mart industry for the last twelve years with Linder's Greenhouses as a Operations Manager in the Flower Mart.Division. Linder's, unfortunately, went out of business in 2013 and, as a result, I decided to open my own Flower Mart Company. I purchased twelve of their Flower Marts structures. In Spring 2015, I opened my first Flower Mart in the City of Roseville at tine Rosedale Shopping Center. The response we have had from our customers and nearby businesses has been excellent. Our concept in marketing and presentation has received numerous compliments from customers and others within the garden center industry. ABOUT GARDEN CITY: Garden City is a two year old Company and has been selling high quality flower and vegetable plants, perennials and nursery stock from local growers. Some specialty items are from out of state, During the last two years we have developed a "Flower Mart" plan to better serve our costumers in different communities throughout the Twin Cities. In 2015, we opened our first location in the City of Roseville. During our season we sold all types of annuals, perennials, hanging baskets and other products for use in the home garden. (we do not sale any bulls materials in the Flower Marts). Because we work with high quality local growers, many gardeners asked me to open a Flower Mart in the Mounds View area to supply their planting needs and they also like the connection I have with Linder's Greenhouses as a former employee . For 2016, we plan to have a total of four Flower Marts around the Twin Cities which will allow us to better serve our customers. It is also an opportunity for neighboring business owners to provide their customers with quality flower and vegetable plants conveniently nearby. Our customers have given us a tremendous welcome and look forward to our returning each spring. We take great pride in our "Flower Marts" and are proud to display our name on them and carefully sign them to identify ourselves. The photos show our "Flower Marts" at our location in Roseville for you to see how we look. We are very proud of our reputation and do everything possible to be the best in this market. THE MARKET: We feel that the Mounds View Square Shopping Center location may be an excellent place to locate a Garden City "Flower Mart". This could be an opportunity to serve our customers in the community with a nearby convenient shopping location where they can buy quality plant materials fiom local Twhn Cities growers. We are experienced in this kind of operation and feel that we are doing an excellent service for our customers and our surrounding communities. LOCATION: The "Flower Mart" itself is 84 feet long and 21 feet wide and 12 feet high (1764 Sq Feet) The area needed is typically 154 feet long by 36 feet wide in one end and 36 feet in the other. This size includes the garden center itself and the patio areas connected to the Flower Mart. We will locate in a place that is some distance from the front of the other businesses and out of the main stream of traffic, both pedestrian and vehicular. We want to give the Flower Mart visibility to the public without obstructing the visibility of the other neighboring businesses, and at the same time have good visibility in order to attract customers into the lot. And we choice this location in the parking lot also ( as shown in the site Plan) because is convenience to unload the delivery trucks with out interfere we the Shopping Center daily operations. This is the same spot that linder's Greenhouses uses for many years. TRAFFIC: With regard to vehicle traffic, the "Flower Mart" is placed in the selected location in order to keep any traffic disruption to a minimum. The patio areas at the front, side and back serve to protect the "Flower Mart" fi•orr vehicles and let the drivers see around the garden center. The patio fence is about 4 it high and surrounds the "Flower Mart" on three sides. This design was used at our "Flower Mart" this year and we did not have any problems with vehicle movement. We feel that this is a safe way to deal with vehicles. Placed in this manner, vehicles cannot park adjacent to the "Flower Mart". The circulation of vehicles in the parking lot will not be adversely affected by the "Flower Mart" due to its location in the lot. PARKING: We have designed the "Flower Mart" as we did because we feel that this is the most professional design and uses the available space to its maximum potential. It has been our experience that the traffic and parking in the lots shared by the "Flower Mart" is not affected due to the sharing of customers with our property owner. We bring in many customers but they are easily handled by the size of the lots we occupy. We do not want to create a congestive atmosphere for our customers 1101' any neighboring businesses. The "Flower Mart" generates business activity which varies during the business day with the most activity occurring in late afternoon and evening. There is also business activity occurring on the weekends with the most on Saturdays, Having done this type of operation this year, it would be safe to say that the average amount in the "Flower Mart" at any one time is about five to six customers. The maximum amount of customers may be up to ten. There are certainly times when 10 special sales occur that higher levels of activity may occur, but we have never seen so much that a problem has occurred in relation to the amount of cars or pedestrian traffic. THE 'FLOWER MART": The "Flower Mart" itself is 84 feet long and 21 feet wide and 12 feet high (1764 Sq Fect)It has two exits, one in each end of the greenhouse, exit signs are also posted and fire extinguishers. There are patio/display areas in the front, side and rear of the "Flower Mart". The entire size is 154 feet long by 36 feet wide in one end and 36feet in the othes . See the attached drawing. The size and configuration can be adjusted somewhat in order to meet the available space. This is the same location that Linder's used to occupy prior to 2013, for ten years. The "Flower Mart" itself is a high quality greenhouse structure which sits on the pavement and is held down with an internal system which uses water for ballast recommended by the manufacture It is a commercially made unit, which is manufactured by a Minnesota company (Poly -Tex, located in Castle Rock, MN). It is a very good looking structure which we have used for many years. ADVERTISING: Garden City has established an advertising program that is mostly done through our 16,000 email list. For 2016, we are planning to advertise in a couple of local magazines and other mailings to convey our message. We make extensive efforts to bring in customers so we can be successful as well as all other merchants. SIGNAGE: The signage for a typical "Flower Mart" is shown on the drawing and pictures. This is what we believe to be an excellent signage plan. We have tried to design the appearance of our stores to be not only eye catching but professional looking as well. We are very conscious of how we look and do business. We would comply with the current sign requirements of the City Of Mounds View. UTILITIES: Our only utility requirements are reasonable access to water for the plants and 110 volt electricity (on 24 hours) which runs the cash register and other small items in the "Flower Mart". This power typically comes from a light pole in the lot nearest the "Flower Mart", in this case it comes from the billboard located next to the Flower Mart. Water is the other utility we need. This is needed to care for the plant material at the "Flower Mart". The source of the water is located in the irrigation system of the property in an outdoor spickct. We only need the equivalent of a standard gardening hose to water the plant material. TRASH AND WASTE COLECTION. Garden City takes away all discarded material (Compost), trash and unnecessary items daily. The Flower Mart have a Two 45 Gall containers one for trash and the other for compost, this are store inside of the Flower Mart. Empty plastic containers are also store inside. A supervisor goes daily to the Flower Mart to collect this Items in one of our vehicles . We strive to maintain a clean and professional appearance at all times. THE SPRING SELLING SEASON: The selling season to be from April 1 through August 15 (weather dependent). We typically begin preparations to set up the Flower Mart around the second week in April . We request the necessary time to build the "Flower Mart" before the season begins. We fust deliver the necessary equipment to the location and then begin setting -up the "Flower Mart" which takes around 8 hours to build when the weather is permissible. The plastic covering we use for the Flower Mart is a reinforced flame retardant plastic. When the season is finished the "Flower Mart" is taken down and totally removed on the closing day of the season. We totally clean and sweep the location in the parking lot so that once we are gone, there is no evidence of our having been there. OUR HOURS: Our hours are 7:00 AM until 8:00 PM weekdays and 7:00 AM until 8:00 PM on most weekends. We typically have two to three employees during weekdays and three to four during weekends. We are open seven days a week during the season. The "Flower Mail" is closely supervised by myself and the store Manager who keep it stocked and operating cleanly and efficiently. Also, we don't use or sell any pesticides in the Flower Mart. We want our employees and costumers to be working and shopping in a safe environment. We make every attempt to employ persons from the connnuuity. I have tried to provide all of the information about Garden City as well as answer all the questions you might have, If you have any other questions or concerns you can reach me at any time on my cellular telephone at 612-363-2084 or email caiTilo@gardencityinii.com Sincerely, Camilo Reyes Owner 612 363 2084 12 COUNTY ROAD 1 mioo v.v.o. (1019) WEE'B I � 1 I II Wh 0 �" I W µ � a � � i axro4n onus oaoaor uouonn g u3 e k LL � " 1 I I I I I J 2 19 1 B ib'! Y 15 14 13 12 11 10 VVV I aoas q 21 11,7(q AF 0 / YI .000 &F. —. l V ! I I I I Id �i a`IlFaOIA FA O 2b sr9jfi\ I! Iv 1/,ao&F. / 'PYLON SION i WARl0`$ !� dl WYfEeL GAMES I2a i1 1 Aw-',I:; II �1 I!II !!Ilu 0 'ro aro a` a�FFnT �wv�,e�a. r`nraa�vil SCALE IN FEET Ir, 0 25 50 100 200 .3�-� ,,. k • : tr�+� 0 m N �U 15 m � cl• 15 m IF 17 18 Zoning Map W45 e0=,� hhhh W42 0045 W52 W51 W25 402 6119 5� 902 903] sm - W35 W15 3 W25 9019 901, 8000 9021 no Ott 9009 9009 I e00p 8005 901, )995 °004 7991 )900)941 7990 1990 nit? )975_)970 7979 7980 ]969 7990 7! )999 ] 959 ]999 NMR 7959 qq 7949 7970 7945 7959 79M _. 7999 7951 70'U _ MW _ _ _ _.Y910 Y915 1014 7930 M17 ]DI] 7935 HILLVIEW nF 79W ]901 ]900 R N a 7900 J901 RIl1V EW �7 767496 W1 N 995 7801 SILVER VIEW -2 & 708 H h n N 9-2 703° >ns1 >aa7 R-4 hhhh M1h0 j�w��.. nw wm �r 8031 8038 0015 m 8-2 �hR- W27 M71. 0019 �0- �. nt 773 7735 W01 8010 ¢ 8011 I e00p 8005 _ WE 7903 77 ] 72 71 7977 7981 7990 7960 7985 t79]0 ]692 7690 7951 7981 7975 R-2 PUB Y6' 7968 7951 7954 u &B )8 1054 f 7944 7993 1915 HILLVIEW )636 7945 1934 7931 7930 7991 PARK 7900 R-4 rens @ 7801 SILVER VIEW -2 & 708 H h n N 148° n48 703° PARK _ "- 7W 78 nOjnU 7055 5 mIR... 7W 7532 ALaL7 -_ )W0 9 o ry 7z5�2z" C751 ]8517n s�. `hi 193 752 ]ai)1 8019 8016 "'_Uro wm ooa 8031 8038 0015 8024 W27 M71. 0019 �0- �. W01 8010 ¢ 8011 I e00p 8005 _ WE 7903 1990 7977 7981 7990 7960 7985 t79]0 7951 7981 7975 , 711W 7971 7968 7951 7954 1955 f 7944 7993 1915 HILLVIEW 7945 1934 7931 7930 7991 PARK 7900 � rens 7801 ° JB9D 708 H h 7859 703° ]878 7875 78 nOjnU 7055 5 )552 ) ALaL7 -_ )W0 7861 ) C751 ]8517n J410 193 752 ]ai)1 753) Iflib )6W iea9 )W3 783 705 ))00 7501 _.161, - = E nn7027 ]Dt �7 7817 7821 7801 77N n97 7800 7001 t gn q�mnn Y � v 25i )695 -tt N R54 7687 )96 8-4 ]61 R Jeb �R-4 8-2 N N w �0 R-4 GNj} CIT HAL h ° R-4 a-_ 5eO I�h4S0 1pO� n PUD 50 M1y� $394 M1� 10 2523 Co Rd 10 (Mounds View Square) is zoned B-4, Regional Business (Note: all areas not designated on map is zoned R-1, Single -Family Residential). 19 Aerial Map )),) 12526�III -25'liy 25J5 r 2551 2565. I i I11 r k a"?n;_j 2GJ9 d CwntyRned I W _ w� n r.��y /- h. ` it 25O `. :- � � f•. ..1 11611*. � • h A. . i 169 \ yII 4 iI654 ' IT t f q 26 i � I' \ fit! ..1 2653. s 20 1525: Site Photos sign. Photo taken Feb 24, 2016 by J.Sevald. Feb 24, 2016 by J.Sevald. 21 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1045-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY GARDEN CENTER LOCATED AT 2523 COUNTY ROAD 10 (MOUNDS VIEW SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER); PLANNING CASE NO. CU2016-001 WHEREAS, Garden City, LLC, represented by Camillo Reyes Ogando, has applied for a Conditional Use Permit for the "temporary garden center" at the Mounds View Square Shopping Center, located at 2523 County Road 10; and, WHEREAS, the applicant, Garden City, LLC, is a tenant of Moundsview Square Associates, LLC, the property owner; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned B-4, Regional Business, and has a Comprehensive Plan future Land Use Map designation of Community Commercial; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code allows outdoor sales as an accessory use for a period greater than ten days (e.g. temporary garden center) in the B-4 district by Conditional Use Permit; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the zoning requirements associated with the temporary garden center in the B-4 district and find that all conditions are satisfied by this request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact about the Conditional Use Permit request: 1. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan. 2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Zoning Code. 3. The Planning Commission has considered possible adverse effects of the proposed use, and has judged them to be minimal. 4. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the temporary garden center. 22 Resolution 1045-16 Page 2 of 3 5. The site has adequate parking area available to meet the demands of the temporary garden center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a temporary garden center at the Mounds View Square Shopping Center, located at 2523 County Road 10, with conditions as follows: 1. The temporary garden center shall not be erected for more than 6 -months per calendar year (April 1 — September 30). 2. Days and hours of operation shall be limited to seven days per week, 7:00 AM — 8:00 PM. 3. The location of the temporary garden center shall be limited to the 36' X 154' area of the parking lot as indicated on the applicant's narrative, date stamped February 18, 2016 (generally, on the parking lot between Co Rd 10 and the monument sign). 4. The temporary garden center shall meet all provisions of the Fire Code, and the applicant shall apply for and receive annual fire permits issued by the Fire Marshal, and receive a satisfactory inspection after the temporary greenhouse is assembled each year. 5. The temporary greenhouse structure must meet the building code. The structure and the site shall be maintained in good condition, and refuse shall be properly contained and disposed of regularly. The owner or operator shall correct deficiencies as soon as practicable. 6. All signage shall comply with Chapter 1008; Signs and Billboards. Sign permits are required. 7. The City may review the Conditional Use Permit at any time if problems arise that would necessitate revision or termination of the permit. 8. The Conditional Use Permit will become null and void if the property owner fails to meet the provisions of the permit, if the structure is removed for more than a one-year period, or if the property undergoes a change of ownership. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council before approval of the minutes. Adopted this 161h day of March, 2016. 23 Resolution 1045-16 Page 3 of 3 ATTEST: (SEAL) Gary Stevenson, Chairperson James Ericson, City Administrator 24 Item No: 5B MT 717 LSAT Meeting Date: March 16, 2016 OUNDS VII .�'V Type of Business: Planning Case IU2016-001 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Item Title/Subject: Resolution 1046-16, Consideration of an Interim Use Permit at 2200 Co Rd 10; Planning Case IU2016-001 Introduction In 2004, The Mermaid Entertainment & Event Center installed a 40' X 105' tent structure, located on a patio between the hotel and bowling alley. The tent is used seasonally as a banquette hall. The structure is permanent while the tent fabric is put up in the spring and taken down in the fall. An Interim Use Permit (IUP) was issued for the tent in 2005, 2010, and 2011. Each IUP expired after five years, or if ownership changed, such was the case in 2011. The applicant, Michael Anderson (Anderson Companies, LLP) is now applying for a similar IUP to continue the use of the tent. Discussion The property is located at 2200 Co Rd 10 (west intersection of Co Rd 10 & Co Rd H). Surrounding uses include office -warehouse to the north (Fastenal, Mounds View Chiropractic, Scout Shop, Abbey Carpet), Rice Creek to the south, and manufacturing and office -warehouse to the west (Pettibone, Mounds View Business Park). The nearest residential area is the Towns Edge Mobile Home Park, about 600' to the south. The wooded area along Rice Creek serves as a buffer between the homes and The Mermaid complex. The Comprehensive Plan guides this property as "Regional Commercial". The property is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). Use of the tent is considered an Interim Use as a "Temporary Tent and/or Membrane Structure." The process of reviewing IUP's is the same as CUP's. The Planning Commission may consider if a similar 5 -year or longer permit is warranted. The conditions included within the resolution are the same as in previous years (e.g. 5 -year expiration). Analysis Below are listed applicable sections of the Zoning Code, and an analysis of how the application complies with these requirements. Zoning Code 1112.055, Subd 1 Temporary Tents and/or Membrane Structures a. The tent or membrane structure shall comply with all provisions of the Fire Code and receive an annual fire permit issued by the Fire Marshal. An annual Fire Permit and inspection is required as a condition of the IUP. 25 b. The property owner shall annually apply for a Zoning Permit, the duration of which cannot exceed 180 days. A condition of the resolution limits the use of the tent to no more than 180 days. The annual Fire Permit will include the dates that the tent is in use, and therefore an annual Zoning Permit is not necessary in this case because it would be duplicative of the Fire Permit. c. Adequate parking to accommodate the occupancy shall be provided at a ratio of one (1) parking space per forty (40) square feet of tent area. (The City Council may waive the parking requirement if it can be shown that the site has sufficient existing parking capacity.) The tent is 4,200 sq ft in size, requiring 105 parking spaces. Staff estimates that existing parking includes 393 spaces in front of The Mermaid (749 parking spaces combined for The Mermaid and Americlnn). d. The structure may not be located in or on a parking lot displacing parking stalls, unless it can be shown that an adequate amount of parking remains. The tent structure is located on a patio, and does not displace parking. e. The tent or membrane structure shall be subject to same building setbacks as the principal building on the lot. No tent or membrane structure shall be allowed instead of or without a principal building. The tent is setback about 190' from the ROW, and is almost aligned with the front fagade of the hotel. f. The tent ormembrane structure shall be limited in size to five thousand (5,000) square feet or ten percent (10%) of the principal buildings' square footage, whichever is less. The tent measures 40'X 105' (4,200 sq ft). Finished sq ft area of the building is 56,280 sq ft (excludes hotel). The tent is 7% of the area of the principal building. g. The membrane or cover shall be constructed of a durable reinforced material to withstand wind and snowloads. The tent membrane is supported by a permanent structure. h. The structure shall be anchored to the ground. (Added, Ord. 735, 5-10-04) The structure is permanently anchored to the ground. i. The tent or membrane structure shall be maintained in a good condition. Deficiencies shall be corrected as soon as practicable. j. The IUP can be reviewed at any time by the City if problems arise which would necessitate revision or termination of the IUP. k. The IUP would become null and void if the property owner fails to comply with the provisions of the permit or if the structure is removed for more than a one (1) year period, or if the property undergoes a change of ownership. 26 L Exceptions: (1) Tents or Membrane structures erected for periods that do not exceed one (1) week shall not require an interim use permit, however a zoning permit and fire permit are required regardless of the time frame. (2) To eliminate duplication of review, when a use (e.g., outdoor sales or storage) would otherwise require a conditional use permit, an interim use permit shall not be required if a tent or membrane structure is involved and is addressed as part of the CUP. Zoning Code 1125.01 Subd 3(b) Criteria for granting Conditional Use Permits b. Criteria for Granting Conditional Use Permits: (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. Staff is not aware of any burden onto public facilities, associated with use of the tent. (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 nearest residential area is the Towns Edge Terrance mobile home park , about 600' to the south, and is screened from The Mermaid by a wooded area along Rice Creek. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The tent is not viewable from residential properties. (4) 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 tent has been in use since 2004, and serves a need as a banquette facility. (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. The property is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD), and intended for varying types of land uses. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Comprehensive Plan guides this property for Regional Commercial. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. The continued use of the tent should not increase current traffic congestion. 27 (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The continued use of the tent should not impact existing site conditions. Public Hearing A Public Hearing will be held by the City Council on March 28, 2016, as required by ordinance. Notification was published in the Sun Focus on March 11, 2016, and will be mailed to property owners within 350' of the property. Summary The applicant, Anderson Companies, LLP (dba The Mermaid) has requested an Interim Use Permit (IUP) to continue use of the 40'X 105' tent for banquettes. The tent includes a permanent structure with a fabric membrane that is installed seasonally. The tent will be used no more than 6 months out of the year, and has been in use since 2004. The City previously approved IUP's in 2005, 2010, and 2011, each expiring after five years or if ownership changed. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the IUP conditioned upon required items in the resolution. The Planning Commission is requested to consider the following options: 1. Resolution 1046-16, approving the Interim Use Permit is attached if the Commission chooses this action. 2. The Planning Commission may choose to deny the Interim Use Permit. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60 -day requirements (Deadline: April 23, 2016), the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, 4a'- 41 W�'V/' Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments 1. Applicant's Narrative 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Map 4. Site Plan Site Photos Resolution 1046-16 28 Applicant's Narrative, Mar 3, 2016 The Mermaid Tent • Established in 2002 • Approximately 4,050 sq. ft. • Fully climate controlled • Located in between the Hotel & the Mermaid • Available from May through October • Seating at round tables for up to 220 Guests • High ceiling is draped with white chiffon and soft lights • Carpeted floor • Dance floor • Full restrooms located across sidewalk off Atlantis Ballroom The space is ideal for ceremonies and weddings as well as social events. In 2015 we had 37 ceremonies/receptions and 22 social events. W. -HUHIRE B—V PLID Zoning Map IM S It ,we R-5 T Et -f, E TB'a..:E V!.ALE H�wE I -A4 LACKE6 LIEF.. Property is zoned PUD (Note: unless otherwise designated, all areas are R-1) 30 W n, 1 7' Aerial Mz 31 Site Plan 4MA Site Photos 33 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1046-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY TENT AND/OR MEMBRANE STRUCTURE, LOCATED AT 2200 COUNTY ROAD 10 (THE MERMAID ENTERTAINMENT & EVENT CENTER); PLANNING CASE NO. IU2016-001 WHEREAS, Anderson Companies, LLP, represented by Michael Anderson, has applied for an Interim Use Permit for a temporary tent and/or membrane structure at The Mermaid Entertainment & Event Center, located at 2200 County Road 10; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, and has a Comprehensive Plan future Land Use Map designation of Regional Commercial; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code allows temporary tents and/or membrane structures in the PUD district by Interim Use Permit; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the zoning requirements associated with the temporary tent and/or membrane structure in the PUD district and finds that all conditions are satisfied by this request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact about the Interim Use Permit request: 1. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan. 2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Zoning Code. 3. The Planning Commission has considered possible adverse effects of the proposed use, and has judged them to be minimal. 4. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the temporary tent and/or membrane structure. 5. The site has adequate parking area available to meet the demands of the temporary tent and/or membrane structure. 34 Resolution 1046-16 Page 2 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the Interim Use Permit for a temporary tent and/or membrane structure at 2200 County Road 10 (The Mermaid Entertainment & Event Center), with conditions as follows: 1. The tent and/or membrane structure shall meet all provisions of the Fire Code and the applicant shall apply for and receive annual Fire Permits issued by the Fire Marshal and receive a satisfactory inspection after the tent is assembled each year. 2. The tent and/or membrane structure must meet the building code and not be erected for more than 180 days in a calendar year. 3. The tent framework and membrane covering shall be maintained in a good condition. The owner or operator shall correct deficiencies as soon as practical. 4. The City may review the Interim Use Permit at any time if problems arise that would necessitate revision or termination of the permit. 5. The Interim Use Permit will become null and void if the property owner fails to meet the provisions of the permit, if the structure is removed for more than a one- year period, or if the property undergoes a change of ownership. 6. The Interim Use Permit shall expire five years from the date of City Council approval of the IUP. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council before approval of the minutes. Adopted this 16th day of March, 2016. ATTEST: (SEAL) Gary Stevenson, Chairperson James Ericson, City Administrator 35 Mo[n�ms V[Sv Item No: 6A Meeting Date: March 16, 2016 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity .ity of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Item Title/Subject: Review the Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws Introduction: The Planning Commission's Bylaws state that the Commission shall review the Bylaws on an annual basis, at the first regular meeting in February. The Commissioners reviewed the Bylaws on February 3rd and February 17`h, 2016, and requested additional review regarding Section 10C, Ex Parte Contacts. Discussion: The Planning Commission reviewed suggestions by Staff and the City Attorney, and made a number of suggestions to amend and simplify Section 10C regarding Ex Parte Contacts. The overall attempt of this section is to encourage Planning Commissioners when confronted outside of meetings about an upcoming planning case, to redirect that person to communicate their opinions at the Planning Commission meeting, or the Public Hearing, so that all Commissioners may hear what that person has to say. Staff has made another attempt at simplifying the language while maintaining its legal purpose. In addition, the Bylaws were amended to reflect current staffing by removing references to the Community Development Director. Recommendation: Review the revised Bylaws for the Planning Commission. If the Commission finds the proposed changes acceptable, a resolution can be acted upon to effectuate the changes. Respectfully submitted, 440.. �V��fr�` Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments Resolution 1042-16 Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws 36 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1042-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION ADOPTING REVISIONS TO THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BYLAWS 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 a review of the Bylaws and has determined that a minor revision is needed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Bylaws for the Planning and Zoning Commission 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 Administrator and the Community Development Department, and shall be forwarded to the City Council for its information. 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 March, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson James Ericson City Administrator 37 EXHIBIT A CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BYLAWS (Revised January 24, 2007) AUTHORITY: The Bylaws of the Mounds View Planning 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 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 shall govern. (For purposes of simplicity, the Planning and Zoning Commission may hereinafter be referred to as the Planning Commission or the Commission.) 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 members of the Planning and Zoning Commission appointed as voting members, and shall be placed on file with the CityQerlc-Administrator and the Community Development Department. Acopy of the bylaws shall 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 Commission 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 City Administrator, Develepme t, or his or her designee, shall act as the recording secretary for the Commission for purpose of preparing meeting minutes. 38 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 shall 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. Vice -Chairperson: The Planning Commission shall elect a vice -chairperson each year at its first meeting in January, following the procedure in Section IV.B.3. Election Procedure: For each office, the chairperson shall 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 Commission 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 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 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 IV.B. C. DUTIES OF OFFICERS: The chairperson shall preside over the meetings of the Planning Commission, and shall have the authority to add or cancel regular meetings and to call special meetings as provided in Section VI. The Chair shall have the authority to redirect public comment unrelated to the Commission's business to the most appropriate City commission or to the City Council. 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 members present shall elect a temporary chairperson to preside over the meeting. Page 2 39 V. COUNCIL LIAISON: The City Council may 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 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 Planning Commission in the absence of the Council Liaison. VI. MEETINGS A. TYPES OF MEETINGS, SCHEDULE: The annual meeting schedule of the Commission shall 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 Planning Commission, 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 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 City Administrator, or designated staff liaison yet must be approved by a majority vote of the Commission. 4. Emergency Special Meetings. Emergency special meetings can be called via written notice to the City Administrator, or designated staff liaison, QiFeetoF of Community Developm by the Chairperson or two Commission members, or by the City Administrator, or designated staff liaison Difester of (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 the Planning Commission.) The City Administrator, or designated staff liaison, Development shall post and mail a notice 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. P%e 3 5. Cancellation of Meetings: Regular or special meetings may be canceled by the chairperson or City Administrator, or designated staff liaison, O;FeGtor a 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 chairfrom among those members present prior to the commencement of business. The election shall follow the procedures set forth in Section IV.13.3, 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. Statutes 471.705). 3. 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 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 meeting. Minutes shall be approved by motion. Approved minutes shall be the official record of the business conducted and actions taken bythe 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 DireGtnr n Community Development Department which may be reviewed from time to time as needed. VII. 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. Page 4 41 VIII. 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. IX. 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 City Administrator, or designated staff liaison 1*eGter of G,,m ty Development upon the member's resignation or termination of appointment. f:�dd�17�L�3d[9]:1i41=1d11-1=1 A. ATTENDANCE: Commission members shall advise the designated Staff member or the Commission chairperson of an anticipated absence from any regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Any member absent from three consecutive regularly scheduled meetings or more than six regularly scheduled 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 OF INTEREST. - 1. General Standard: No Commissioner shall be appointed with private or personal interests likely to conflict with the general public interest. If any person appointed to the Commission shall 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 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. Pige 5 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 may include meetings communications with project PFO;ene nts applicants, supporters and opponents., Fesident6 r ert„..,.,ner and Git'zen6 sepaFate t.,.m Commission femm telenhnne Galls nr letter,; .uh'nh attempt to influenGe a Gemco',. n n'nn A atter wh'nh .w: II he subject to the c Gommis ner's ..etvse cr.r� ATTEST: 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 GORtaGt and communication and all testimony needs to be offered at the hearing to ensure a fair hearing for all parties. The intent is for each Planning Commissioner to In all otheF Planning Commissioners should ands—#eukl-avoid expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case outside of Commission meetings. When ex parte contacts occur, the Planning Commissioner is responsible for notifying the Community Development DiFeGter, appropriate City staff and for conveying the substance of tfle any ex parte communication to other Commission members at the next commission meeting at which the matter discussed is under consideration. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson James Ericson, City Administrator Page 6 43 Revision History: March 16. 2016 January 24, 2007 September 1, 2004 February 21, 2001 February 2, 2000 March 5, 1997 February 3, 1993 October 1990 DRAFT PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting February 17,2016 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for February 17, 2016. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners French, Klander, Klebsch, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: City Administrator Jim Ericson, Planner Jonathan Sevald and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. Index to Minutes MI2016-001 Minor Subdivision Page Pi Consideration of Res. 1042-16, A Resolution updating the Planning 3 & Zoning Commission Bylaws Consideration of Res. 1044-16, A Resolution recommending approval of a 3 code amendment to Chapter 1120 of the Zoning Code, pertaining to PUD's Approval of Minutes 3. Special Order of Business None. 44 1 Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. S. Planning Cases A. MI2016-001 Minor Subdivision Applicant: Terry Buchanan Owners: Kayak Properties, Inc. Address: 7800 Eastwood Road February 17, 2016 Page 2 Planner Sevald stated the applicant, Terry Buchanan, has requested a minor subdivision to divide the lot at 7800 Eastwood Road into Parcel A and Parcel B. The existing home will remain on Parcel A, while Parcel B is intended to be sold. He reviewed the City's minor subdivision requirements in furtber detail. Staff recommended the Planning Commission consider the information and approve the minor subdivision as requested. Chair Stevenson asked who would cover the expense of the two curb cuts. Planner Sevald explained the expense would be covered by the applicant. Chair Stevenson commented this was an odd shaped lot and he appreciated the creativity that went into proposed subdivision. Commissioner Klebsch questioned how long the applicant would have to complete the subdivision. Planner Sevald indicated the minor subdivision would have to be recorded in six months. Commissioner Schiltgen requested further information on park dedication fees. Planner Sevald defined how the City charged park dedication fees noting it was based on land value. City Administrator Ericson advised that park dedication fees assisted the City in paying for City parks and park improvements as density increases through new development. Commissioner Love considered the lot split to be in -fill development. She believed the City would benefit from completing a master plan to address the green space needs within the City. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 1043-16, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision 7800 Eastwood Road; Planning Case No. MI2016-001. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 45 Motion carried. DRAFT Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 6. Other Planning Activity February 17, 2016 Page 3 A. Consideration of Resolution 1042-16, a Resolution updating the Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws. City Administrator Ericson explained the Planning Commission's Bylaws state that the Commission shall review the Bylaws on an annual basis, at the first regular meeting in February. It was noted the Commission reviewed the bylaws on February 3`d and requested additional review regarding Section IOC, regarding "Ex Parte Contacts". It was noted staff requested comment from the City Attorney regarding this matter. Staff reviewed the revised language from the City Attorney and recommended approval of the bylaws as amended. Chair Stevenson discussed a grammatical concern he had with the new Ex Parte language and recommended the seven lines of new language be broken into two sentences. Commissioner Klebsch supported the intent of the new language as is, but that she could also support breaking the sentence into two for readability purposes, and for the ease of the public in reading and understanding the Planning Commission's bylaws. Chair Stevenson indicated the new language could remain as is, but that the reference to a first hearing be changed to read Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Love suggested the sentence following be written in the positive instead of the negative. She suggested this sentence read: Planning Commissioners shall confine their opinions regarding the merits of Planning Cases to the Planning Commission meetings. Commissioner Rundle supported the bylaws with the proposed language amendments. Commissioner Klander believed the last sentence in Section l OC was a repeat of what has already been said and was therefore unnecessary. City Administrator Ericson reported he would make the proposed language changes and have the Commission review the bylaws again in March. The Commission supported this recommendation. B. Consideration of Resolution 1044-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a code amendment to Chapter 1120 of the Zoning Code, pertaining to PUD's. 46 f:: 1 Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 17,2016 Page 4 Planner Sevald stated the Zoning Code requires a Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (PUD) to have a minimum project size of five (5) acres. Staff is recommending this be changed to four (4) acres in order to accommodate smaller developments. He discussed the City's Zoning Code regarding PUD's in further detail and recommended the Commission amend Zoning Code 1120.03, Subd 3(b) to allow Mixed Use PUD's to be a minimum of four (4) acres in project size. Commissioner Klander questioned how this matter would proceed if the Planning Commission did not offer their support. Planner Sevald indicated the Planning Commission was a recommending body to the City Council. He explained the City Council would make the final determination regarding the proposed code amendment. He reported if the City Council were to deny the change, the City Code language would remain as is. Commissioner Klander stated he was reluctant to support the proposed change given this was being done for one specific project. He understood the City Council has been working with a developer on the Crossroad Pointe project, however, he felt he did not have enough information regarding the project to make a decision on the proposed code amendment. Chair Stevenson discussed the City's history in developing and redeveloping properties in the City of Mounds View. He did not believe there would be a large impact on the future of the City if the project size for Mixed Use PUD's was changed from five (5) acres to four (4) acres. Based on the City's history, he fully supported the proposed code amendment. Commissioner Schiltgen agreed. City Administrator Ericson reported that the change to four (4) acres would be an average of the sizes allowed for residential and commercial PUD's. Commissioner Love asked if the City has considered acquiring enough additional acreage to make Crossroad Pointe a five (5) acre PUD. She then questioned if PUD's were allowed to have variances. City Administrator Ericson indicated there was no additional property adjacent to the Crossroad Pointe site that could be acquired by the City. He commented an adjoining property could be written into the vision for the site, but he did not support the City moving in this direction. He reported a PUD variance was not an option as there was no hardship or practical difficulties. Commissioner Klebsch stated she did not have enough background information on the request and did not understand why five (5) acres was selected to begin with. She questioned how a decrease by one (1) acre would impact future PUD developments. City Administrator Ericson suggested that the five (5) acre project size was likely selected given the fact the City was smaller in size with smaller parcels. He discussed how PUD's have developed in the past. 47 DRAFT Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 17,2016 Page 5 Chair Stevenson did not anticipate the City would have very many PUD's to consider given the fact there was not a large number of vacant five (5) acre parcels in the community. He was comfortable with the proposed code amendment. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner French. To approve Resolution 1044-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a code amendment to Chapter 1120 of the Zoning Code, pertaining to PUD's. Ayes — 7 Reports Nays — 0 A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity Planner Sevald indicated he had not upcoming Planning Cases at this time. B. Staff Updates Planner Sevald had no update from staff. C. Council Updates Motion carried. Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He reported Gordy and Paul Fedor had been appointed Citizens of the Year. He indicated the Fedors would be recognized at the upcoming Town Hall meeting. He explained the Area I Street Improvement Project was sent out for bid. It was noted Area I would be completed over two years, given the size and scope of the project. He commented Police Chief Kinney has announced his retirement and the Council has amended the job description and authorized the hiring. D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 8. Approval of Minutes February 3, 2016. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Klebsch/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the Minutes of the February 3, 2016 regular Planning Commission meetings as presented. 48 DRAFT Mounds View Planning Commission February 17, 2016 Regular Meeting Page 6 Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, March 2, 2016 B. Wednesday, March 16, 2016 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson City Administrator Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 MOUNnS1V FW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA April 20, 2016 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business (none) 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases (none) 6. Other Planning Activity A. Resolution 1047-16, Recommending approval of a Text Amendment to Zoning Code 1102, Definitions, and 1106.03 Accessory Uses 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 8. Approval of Minutes: March 16, 2016 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, May 4, 2016 B. Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10. Meeting Conclusion Item No: 6A Meeting Date: April 20, 2016 Type of Business: Special Planning Case SP -200-16 MOu1vDs VIEW MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Re: Resolution 1047-16, Recommending approval of a Text Amendment to Zoning Code 1102.02, Definitions, and 1106.03 Accessory Uses Date: April 20, 2016 Introduction Accessory Buildings include any structure other than the home or principal building. This includes open carports and enclosed private garages. The Zoning Code regulates the placement, size, and appearance of Accessory Buildings based on what zoning district the property is located in. Recently, the City has taken enforcement action on carports (Accessory Buildings) which violate the Zoning Code, but some of the ordinance text is unclear if the intent is to permit Accessory Buildings with "metal" sided exteriors. Discussion This topic was previously discussed in 2000, 2009, and 2014 specific to allowing Accessory Buildings with tarp -like exteriors. In 2014, the Council decided to continue to prohibit their use. The City Council discussed this item at their March 7, 2016 Work Session. The Council's consensus is to continue to prohibit structures composed of tarp -like exterior materials, and to amend the Zoning Code to clarify the use of Carports for the storage of motor vehicles, and to prohibit their use for storage of miscellaneous household items, creating a nuisance. The Zoning Code provides definitions for Accessory Buildings, Carports, and Private Garages. Because carports and garages are accessory buildings, but have different restrictions, clarification is needed to the text. Selected Sections of the Zoning Code: Zoning Code 1102.02, Subd 1 Accessory Building or Use: A subordinate building or use which is located on the same lot on which the main building or use is situated and which is reasonably necessary and incidental to the conduct of the primary use of such building or main use. Zoninq Code 1102.02, Subd 14 Carport: Space for the housing or storage of motor vehicles and enclosed on not more than two (2) sides. Zoning Code 1102, Subd. 51 Garage, Private: A detached accessory building or portion of the principal building, including a carport, which is used for storing vehicles. Zoning Code 1106.03, Subd 1 rR-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 districts): Accessory Buildings: Accessory buildings, which for these purposes shall include garages, tool houses, carports, sheds and similar buildings for storage of domestic supply and noncommercial recreational equipment, whether attached or detached. Zoning Code 1106.03, Subd 1(g) rR-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 districtsl: Accessory 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. The City does not allow cloth, canvas, plastic sheets and tarps or similar materials as primary exterior materials on accessory buildings (except for green houses). Zoning Code 1106.03, Subd 1(i) rR-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 districtsl: The roof of al/ accessory buildings exceeding two hundred fifty (250) square feet in size shall: (1) Match or be similar to the character and style of the roof of the principal structure. (2) Have a pitch or slope of at least 2-12. Summary The intent of this text amendment is to clarify the allowable use of Carports for the storage of motor vehicles, ATV's, and trailers. Motor Vehicles include self-propelled vehicles legal for use on public roads. Trailers include trailered items, such as boats or other equipment contained within the trailer. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the text amendment to clarify permitted uses of a Carport. The most significant changes are that a carport may be enclosed on three sides (vs. two); is limited to the storage of operable vehicles and trailers (not miscellaneous items); and its roof is not required to be similar in character to the principal building. Respectfully, ��O Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments Photo Examples Resolution 1047-16 �Aw - 0 NMT-- , taimww fw dr� -j -.4• 3 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1047-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 1100 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE PERTAINING TO CARPORTS AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE 200-16 WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that amendments be made to the City Code relating to Carports and Accessory buildings; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission agrees with City Staff's recommendation that the definition of Carports, and that permitted Accessory Uses are to be amended for clarity; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Title 1100 of the Mounds View City Code by deleting the trick fi language and adding the underlined text as follows: 1102.02: DEFINITIONS: Subd. 1. ACCESSORY BUILDING OR USE: A subordinate building or use which is located on the same lot on which the main building or use is situated and which is reasonably necessary and incidental to the conduct of the primary use of such building or main use. Subd. 15. CARPORT: Space feF the housiRg ar storage Gf r, OtOF VANGieS 2Rd R-Rsl OR not more than twe "` sides An accessory building utilized only for the covered parking or storage of operable motor vehicles, all -terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and trailers, open on one or more sides. Subd. 51. GARAGE, PRIVATE: An enclosed detached accessory building or portion of the principal building, jRGI6idiRg a GaFp94, which is used for storing vehicles. 1106.03: ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in an R-1 District: (1988 Code §40.10) Subd 1. Accessory Buildings, including garages, carports, tool houses and sheds, whether attached or detaches. g. Accessory 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. The City does not allow cloth, canvas, plastic sheets and tarps or similar materials as primary exterior materials on accessory buildings (except for green houses). The exterior finish of Carports may include sheet ribbed or corrugated metal, fiberglass or polycarbonate panels and shall remain open on one or more sides. (Ord. 664, 8-14-00; Ord. 828, 10-8-09) The roof of all accessory buildings (excluding carports) exceeding two hundred fifty (250) square feet in size shall: (Added, Ord. 828, 10-8-09) (1) Match or be similar to the character and style of the roof of the principal structure. (Added, Ord. 828, 10-8-09) (2) Have a pitch or slope of at least 2-12. (Added, Ord. 828, 10-8-09) WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that an amendment to the City Code is warranted and justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of amendments to Title 1120 of the Mounds View City Code as defined herein. 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 20th day of April, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting March 16, 2016 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for March 16, 2016. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners French, Klebsch, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Klander. Also Present: City Administrator Jim Ericson and Planner Jonathan Sevald. Index to Minutes Page CU2016-001 Conditional Use Permit 2 IIJ2016-001 Interim Use Permit 2 Consideration of Resolution 1042-16, a Resolution updating the 3 Planning & Zoning Commission Bylaws Approval of Minutes 4 3. Special Order of Business None. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. Mounds View Planning Commission March 16, 2016 Regular Meeting Page 2 5. Planning Cases A. Planning Case: Applicant: Owners: Address: CU2016-001 Conditional Use Permit Garden City, LLC Moundsview Square Associates, LLC 2523 County Road 10 Planner Sevald stated the applicant, Camillo Ogando (Garden City LLC), has requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a temporary garden center in the parking lot of the Mounds View Square shopping center at 2523 County Road 10. The seasonal garden center operation would be similar to what has been conducted at this location in previous years. Staff reviewed the request in detail and recommended the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit with conditions. Commissioner Schiltgen asked if the property owner supported the proposed request. Planner Sevald reported the property owner has signed off on the request. Chair Stevenson thanked staff for the thorough report and site map. He recommended the City update the map of Moundsview Square. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Love. To approve Resolution 1045- 16, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit at 2523 County Road 10; Planning Case No. CU2016-001. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. B. Planning Case: IU2016-001 Interim Use Permit Applicant: Anderson Companies, LLP Owners: Anderson Companies, LLP Address: 2200 County Road 10 Planner Sevald stated in 2004, The Mermaid Entertainment & Event Center installed a 40' x 105' tent structure, located on a patio between the hotel and bowling alley. The tent is used seasonally as a banquette hall. The structure is permanent while the tent fabric is put tip in the spring and taken down in the fall. An Interim Use Permit (NP) was issued for the tent in 2005, 2010, and 2011. Each IUP expired after five years, or if ownership changed, such was the case in 2011. The applicant, Michael Anderson (Anderson Companies, LLP) is now applying for a similar IUP to continue the use of the tent. Planner Sevald explained the property is located at 2200 Cc Rd 10 (west corner of Co Rd 10 & Co Rd H). Surrounding uses include office -warehouse to the north (Fastenal, Mounds View Chiropractic, Scout Shop, Abbey Carpet), Rice Creek to the south, and manufacturing and office -warehouse to the west (Pettibone, Mounds View Business Park). The nearest residential Mounds View Planning Commission March 16, 2016 Regular Meeting Page 3 area is the Towns Edge Mobile Home Park, about 600' to the south. The wooded area along Rice Creek serves as a buffer between the homes and The Mermaid complex. Planner Sevald reported the Comprehensive Plan guides this property as "Regional Commercial". The property is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). Use of the tent is considered an Interim Use as a "Temporary Tent and/or Membrane Structure." The process of reviewing IUP's is the same as CUP's. The Planning Commission may consider if a similar 5 - year or longer permit is warranted. The conditions included within the resolution are the same as in previous years (e.g. 5 -year expiration). Staff recommended the Planning Commission approve the Interim Use Permit with conditions. Chair Stevenson understood the tent requires an inspection from the Fire Marshall. He stated he was inclined to keep the Interim Use Permit as is and keep it renewable every five years. Commissioner Love asked if the applicant had to complete a full application process every five years. Planner Sevald reported this was the case. Commissioner Love supported extending the permit length to seven years. Planner Sevald defined the intent of an Interim Use Permit. Chair Stevenson believed that the five-year permit length was generous given the fact the City originally required Interim Use Permits to be applied for on a yearly basis. Commissioner Schiltgen also supported the five-year permit length. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 1046-16, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Interim Use Permit at 2200 County Road 10; Planning Case No. IU2016-001. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review the Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws Planner Sevald informed the Commission that the Planning Commission reviewed suggestions by Staff and the City Attorney, and made a number of suggestions to amend and simplify Section I OC regarding "Ex Parte Contacts". The overall attempt of this section is to encourage Planning Commissioners when confronted outside of meetings about an upcoming planning case, to redirect that person to communicate their opinions at the Planning Commission meeting, or the Public Hearing, so that all Commissioners may hear what that person has to say. The amended language was read in full for the Planning Commission. It was noted staff has attempted to simplify the language while maintaining its legal purpose. In addition, the Bylaws were amended Mounds View Planning Commission March 16, 2016 Regular Meeting Page 4 to reflect current staffing by removing references to the Community Development Director. Staff requested the Planning Commission review the amended bylaws and recommend approval. Commissioner Love offered a change to the following sentence: The intent is for Planning Commissioners to make their decisions based on the same information provided to all Planning Commissioners. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Love/Commissioner Klebsch. To approve Resolution 1042-16, a Resolution Adopting Revision to the Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws as amended. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity Planner Sevald discussed upcoming planning cases noting the Commission would be discussing carports in April. B. Staff Updates Planner Sevald provided the Commission with an update from staff. He noted a workshop titled New Resources for Comprehensive Plans would be held on Monday, March 28th from 6:00 to 8:30 p.m. at the Ramsey County Public Works Center. C. Council Updates Planner Sevald provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He reported a space needs analysis was reviewed for the Public Works Facility. He stated the Council approved a minor subdivision at 7800 Eastwood Road. He indicated the Council was continuing conversations about the renaming of County Road 10 to Mounds View Boulevard. It was noted this matter would be discussed at the upcoming Town Mall meeting. D. Planning Commissioner Reports Chair Stevenson encouraged all to attend the Town Hall meeting, which would be held on Monday, March 21, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. at Mounds View City Hall. 8. Approval of Minutes February 17, 2016. Mounds View Planning Commission March 16, 2016 Regular Meeting Page 5 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the Minutes of the February 17, 2016 regular Planning Commission meetings as presented. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, April 6, 2016 B. Wednesday, April 20, 2016 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Sevald Planner Transcribed by: IIeidi Guenther Tin¢eSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 11 • • MOUN G VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA May 4, 2016 -- 7:00 P.M. The May 4, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting has been Canceled The next scheduled meeting is Wednesday, May 18, 2016, 7:00 PM i 0 0 l3ul C_ M5UNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA May 18, 2016 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business (none) 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. Consider Resolution 1048-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Dynamic Display Sign at 2848 Co Rd 1-12; Planning Case MU2016-001 (CU2016-002). B. PUBLIC HEARING Consider Resolution 1049-16, a Resolution approving a Variance for a ground sign encroaching within the 30' sight triangle, and less than 15' setback from a property line, to be located at 2848 Co Rd 1-12; Planning Case MU2016-001 (VR2016-002). C. PUBLIC HEARING Consider Resolution 1050-16, a Resolution denying a Variance for use of non -amber colors on a Ground Sign with a Dynamic Display, to be located at 2848 Cc Rd 1-12; Planning Case MU2016-001 (VR2016-003). D. Consider Resolution 1051-16, A Resolution approving an extension of a Variance for reduced driveway setbacks at 5338-5340 Raymond Ave; Planning Case VR2011-002. 6. Other Planning Activity A. (none) 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 8. Approval of Minutes: April 20, 2016 Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, June 1, 2016 B. Wednesday, June 15, 2016 10. Meeting Conclusion f Item No: 5A Meeting Date: May 18, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case MU2016-001 MOv1vnS VIEW MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Re: Consider Resolution 1048-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Dynamic Display Sign at 2848 Co Rd H2; Planning Case MU2016-001 (CU2016-002) Date: May 18, 2016 Introduction Messiah Lutheran Church would like to replace their existing 8' X 4' ground sign at the corner of Co Rd H2 and Knollwood Dr. with an 8'X 5' multi -colored Dynamic Display sign at the same location. The existing sign encroaches into the 30' sight triangle, anc is therefore a non -conforming structure. Dynamic Display signs are a permitted use in the B-2, B-3, B-4, and Commercial PUD districts (Section 1008.10, Subd 9(c)(1). Such signs for schools, churches, places of worship or other institutional uses require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in other districts (Section 1008.10, Subd 9(c)(2). Further, if within a residential district, such signs are limited to the use of amber colored lights (Section 1008.10, Subd 9(c)(2)(b). Messiah Lutheran Church has applied for three permits (CUP; Variance to setback; and Variance for non -amber color). The permits may be discussed together, but must be acted upon separately (separate Public Hearings). The City Council will conduct the Public Hearing for the CUP. The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, will conduct the Public Hearings for the Variances. Discussion A Dynamic Display sign features an animated message area using an internal lighting source (e.g. LED, LCD, CRT, Plasma). Within Mounds View, Dynamic Display signs (excluding billboards) may be found at: CVS Holiday Station City Hall McDonald's The Mermaid Walgreens Super America Cenex Abby Carpet Sysco Item No: 5A Meeting Date: May 18, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case MU2016-001 Analysis A dynamic display may be incorporated into a ground, pylon, or wall sign, or billboard. Dynamic Display signs are regulated extensively under Section 1008.10, Subd 9 of the City Code, and are included as an attachment. The following are applicable restrictions for a ground sign with a dynamic display in the R-1 district for a school, church, place of worship or other institutional use: Maximum sign size: 100 sq ft' Proposed sign size: 8' X 5'-2" 41.3 sq ft • No ground sign shall exceed 40 sq ft if within 100' of any single-family residence (nearest single-family residence is about 174' away, and nearest two-family residence is about 124' away). • The dynamic display portion of the sign shall not exceed 50% of the total sign area (50% is proposed). • The sign message shall not change more frequently than 4 second increments. • The sign message shall not flash, blink, or move, and shall not include any video images, nor shall the sign create a traffic hazard. • The sign brightness is limited to 7,500 Nits during daytime hours; and 500 Nits during nighttime hours. • The sign shall have an ambient light monitor, automatically adjusting brightness based on light conditions. If malfunctioning, the sign must include an automatic shut-off, or will freeze the sign image. A condition of CUP approval is that the applicant obtains a Sign Permit, complying with all applicable city code regulations. A Public Hearing Notice was published in the New Brighton/Mounds View Sun Focus on May 13, 2016, and mailed to property owners within 350' of the subject property. Summary Messiah Lutheran Church proposes to replace their existing ground sign at the corner of Co Rd H2 and Knollwood Dr. with a new ground sign featuring a multi -colored Dynamic Display, requiring (1) CUP for a Dynamic Display in a non -business district; (2) Variance to locate the sign within the 30' sight triangle setback and less than 15' setback from a property line; and (3) Variance to allow a non -amber color on the dynamic display. This project may be discussed as one conversation. However, each application requires a separate Public Hearing, and separate action (approval/denial). ' Section 1008.11, Subd 1(b) Item No: 5A Meeting Date: May 18, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case MU2016-001 Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 1048-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Dynamic Display Sign at 2848 Co Rd 1-12; Planning Case MU2016-001 (CU2016-002). The Planning Commission is requested to consider the following options: Resolution 1048-16, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit as attached, if the Commission chooses this action. 2. The Planning Commission may choose to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of the 60 - day requirements (Deadline: June 15, 2016), the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully, A0, 01Q� Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments: Application and submitted material Section 1008.10, Subd 9 (Dynamic Display Signs) Location Map Site Photos Resolution 1048-16 APR v 5 2016 COMMUNITYDEVEILOPMENTDEPARTMENT M l S VISPLANNIING APPLICATION 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 (763) 717-4020 * Fax (753) 717-4019 pewmits@ci.mounds-view.mn.us Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information/� Name of Applicant /� ua.,k X/0.'t 5 Worl< # Address y=' Z NE city /J/—'ne state "1N Zip $-'- Home # Cell # 6/2 - 3.-6 - 78 r1X Fax # E-mail 1ecV,VLLL' aenfl, cow7 - Interest in Property (check appropriate box) ❑owner of Property El Contract for Deed Owner ❑Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑Agreement to Purchase NJother !r6n)0^ Pasro/ App/icantsmustprovide evidence ofinterestin propedyat the time of application, and ifyou are not the owner of the property, you must either provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consentto the Fling ofthisapplicadon orthe propertyownermustsign thisapplication for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location Z Fril f 112, ilio .Adr Legal Description La,l4e~i C4^/ -c4 ' Property Identification # (PIN #) 07. 30. 2 3. 3 /. o oSZ # of Acres -7-0 ?- 00 Current Zoning k - oa Type of Application (Please check the appropriate boxes): M_U;7)0) (tr -DDJ W !�v etirvLc`'.�C{i5' C: vv� ,,lL `a� dL' •,n���2 �Lr�, •v�v-� 1 jL .;r) i;' '(IIC.GL Lti N� L/jV G'r'i�1v v� b—, riga yr Comprehensive Plan Amendment 500 Rezonin 500 Maier Subdivision 700 Minor Subdivision 350 Planned Unit Development PUD 750 PUD Amendment 400 Conditional Use Permit/Amendment R-1 R-2 200• all others 400 Interim Use Permit/Amendment 400 Variance R-1 R-2 200• all others 400 Administrative Variance R-1 R-2 100 Text Amendment Zoning Code 400 Text Amendment Other Ci Code 300 Develo Review/Site Plan Review 400 Wetland Alteration Permit R-1 R-2 200• all others 350 Wetland Buffer Permit R-1 R-2 30• all others 100 Easement Vacation 250 Re -approval of Minor Subdivision or Plat Minor Subd. 50• Plat 100 Zoning Review of B-1 District Proposed Use 200 Page 1 of 2 ILJ AppflccaCr an fees are non-refundable. Present Use of Property C o � � nn r' l y (f h , GA Property Classification ❑ Abstract ©� Torrens Description of Proposal (attach additional supporting documentation If necessary) Linu Ll 1.4t %+ Pe Al—" _'_- eun.....i. l:.,n ...:aa. n-/..__.�.. .✓.'r l�.. "e if s4 1- yu ft ire a>/pP & 04, eoo s, BY MY/OUR SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Please Note; Application fees are nonrefundable, Applicants are responsible for all costs in excess of the application fee incurred by the City in the processing of this application. Such excess fees are to be paid upon receipt of statement from the City of Mounds View. Excess fees may include, but shall not be limited to, photocopy costs, staff time, and fees for planning consultants, attorneys and engineers. In some cases, a deposit may be required in advance to cover any anticipated excess costs associated with this application. (If a deposit is required, the applicant shall remain responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the application fee and deposit amount.) I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I have read all of the information listed in the Planning Application and fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. Name of Applicant (typed/printed) /(N/�^ 4 /\ to tom; 01< Signature of Applicant 40,C__ .G Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) Signature of Property Owner Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner '76 3 - -7S'V ^ i ') JT E-mail of Owner e ev kk+j- cdrnsn , co.j rva vrraa.c we UNLi: Date of Submittal 60 -day Limit Planning Case No(s) Fees Paid: Application: Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: Date of Acceptance: 120 -day limit: Assigned to: Account # Check/Credit # Receipt # Page 2 of 2 Address O� 7 8 �o an ¢ /2y� N Z Date Owner O��ers;c,% Lk7•r�gn C9 r�i )guilder _S-'L�ns AN.$ ]grief Description of ]Proposed Construction1 �S0. 41N SAM. G cLt + slj '7 ;4 W, eoc4i.oj or'� -Lr G4rr4n� s�h Building] Permit No. ♦ Show all existing buildings/structures located on the property 4 Show all proposed construction ♦ Indicate distance from proposed structure(s) to all property lines A Indicate distance of proposed structure(s) to existing structures 0 Show sheet location(s) and name(s) CALL It I I BEFORE YOU DIG71 IT'S FREE, AND IT'S THE LAW! City of Mounds View Community Development Department ^-yermitsOci.mounds-view.mmus 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 4- (763) 717-4070, Fax (763) 717-4019 This colored sketch Is provided as an example of color. There is no exact match hehveen Ink and paint. Signs Plus does not guarantee such. @ COPYRIGHT 2016, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, REPRODUCTION EXPRESSLY PRORICITED This colored sketch is provided as an example of color. Thea Is no exact match between Ink and point, Signs Plus does not guarantee such. ®COPYRIGRT2Dt6, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, REPRODUCTION EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED 1008.10 1008.10 Subd. 8. Home Occupation Signs: e R-1 - and R-5 residential zoning districts, a sign not to exceed one (1) square foot ' Rowed to be displayed provided such sign is attached to the house or garage the operty on which the home occupation takes place, (Ord. 679, 5-29-01) Subd. 9. Dynamic Display Signs: a. The City allows noncommercial dynamic display signs wherever the City allows commercial dynamic display signs. Such signs are subject to the same standards and total maximum allowances per site or building of each sign type specified in this Chapter. b. Standards for all dynamic display signs: (1) The messages, content and images on all such displays shall not flash or blink. (2) No person or contractor shall install a dynamic display sign that because of its position, shape, movement or color, interferes with the proper functioning of a traffic sign, signal or that constitutes a traffic hazard. (3) All dynamic display signs shall have ambient light monitors and shall, at all times, allow such monitors to automatically adjust the brightness level of the sign based on light conditions. (4) The manufacturers, owners and operators of dynamic display signs must design and equip such signs with a fully functional monitoring off switch system that automatically shuts the sign off or will freeze the device or sign in one (1) position; if a malfunction occurs. The signs and displays also must be equipped with a means to shut off or discontinue the display if it malfunctions. The sign owner or operator must stop or shut off the dynamic display within one (1) hour or as soon as reasonably possible of the City notification that the sign is not meeting the standards of this Section of Chapter. City of Mounds View 1008.10 1008.10 (5) Any dynamic display sign capable of accessing and utilizing MN Amber Alert technology shall display such messages as they are made available by the MN Dept, of Public Safety or other responsible agency. (6) All dynamic display signs shall meet the following brightness standards: (a) No sign shall be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility and no sign shall exceed 500 Nits (candelas per square meter) at night and 7,500 Nits (candelas per square meter) during the day. (b) No sign shall be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a motor vehicle driver with average eyesight nor shall such a sign interfere with the driver's operation of a motor vehicle in any way or manner. (c) No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal. (d) The person owning or controlling a sign with a dynamic display shall adjust the sign to meet the brightness standards according to the City's instructions. The sign owner or operator shall adjust the sign within one (1) hour or as soon as reasonably possible upon notice of non- compliance from the City. (e) All dynamic display signs installed after December 31, 2008, shall be equipped and operated with an ambient light monitor or a mechanism that automatically adjusts the brightness level of the sign in response to light conditions. These signs also shall be equipped with a means to turn off immediately the display or lighting if the sign malfimctions, and the sign owner or operator must turn off the sign or lighting within one (1) hour or as soon as reasonably possible after the City notifies the owner or operator that the sign is not meeting the standards of this Section or Chapter. City of Mounds Not, 1008.10 1008.10 (f) Subsequent to November 1, 2011, no dynamic display sign shall have the capacity to operate in excess of 7,500 Nits (candelas per square meter). The lamp wattage and luminance level in Nits (candelas per square meter) shall be provided at the time of permit application. Dynamic display sign permit applications must also include a certification from the owner or operator of the sign stating that the sign shall at all times be operated in accordance with City codes. (g) In addition to the brightness standards required above, dynamic display signs shall meet the City's lighting requirements as listed in Section 1103.09 (Glare) of the City Code. C, In addition to all other standards of this chapter, the City allows on-site dynamic display signs subject to the following additional conditions: (1) Such signs may be located only in the Limited Business (B-2), Highway Business (B-3), Regional Business (B-4) or Commercial Planned Unit Developments (PUD's) zoning districts. (2) Notwithstanding subsection 1 above, such signs may be located on the sites of schools, churches, places of worship or other institutional land uses, subject to the following additional conditions: (a) City Council approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) as outlined in Section 1106.04 and Section 1125.01, subdivision 3 of the City Code. (b) Dynamic display signs in residentially zoned districts must utilize amber color lights. (c) Such signs shall not cause glare, disturbance or other problems to any residential properties or land uses. City of Mounds New 1008.10 1008.10 (3) The owner or operator of a dynamic display sign shall control and display the primary or background images and messages on the sign so they maintain each display for a minimum of four (4) seconds. (4) Dynamic display signage shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet of the sign area. (5) Such signs may only display and advertise information about products, events, persons, institutions, activities, businesses, services, or subjects that are located on the premises or on the site or only to provide public service or community service information. (6) Such signs must meet all other City location and setback requirements. d. The City allows off-site dynamic display signs subject to Section 1008.10. subdivision 6 (Billboards) of the City's Code, the above-mentioned standards for all dynamic display signs, and the following operational standards and additional conditions: (1) The images and messages displayed on the billboard must be static and each display must be maintained for a minimum of eight (8) seconds. The transition from one (1) static display to another roust be instantaneous and without any special effects or videos. (2) Only billboard faces located adjacent to Interstate 35W and more than 1,000 feet from any residentially zoned property in the City of Mounds View may be retrofit to a dynamic display, and only subsequent to a building permit issued by the City. One hundred percent (100%) of the sign face may be used for dynamic display. (3) Public Safety. If City staff determines that a dynamic display sign is not being operated pursuant to this Chapter due to its location or display capabilities, City staff can require the sign owner or operator to modify the sign after the City notifies the property owner or operator about the operational issues. (Ord. 816, 1-22-09; Ord. 864, 11-3-I1; Ord. 872, 6-7-12; Ord. 887, 6-9-14) City ofYlomids View Item No: 5A Meeting Date: May 18, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case MU2016-001 Item No: 5A Meeting Date: May 18, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case MU2016-001 Site Photos (April 19, 2016) Figure 4: photo taken from Co Rd H2, looking SW. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1048-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DYNAMIC DISPLAY SIGN LOCATED AT 2848 Co Rd H2 (MESSIAH LUTHERAN CHURCH); PLANNING CASE NO. MU2016-001 (CU2016-002) WHEREAS, Messiah Lutheran Church, represented by Kurt Klaus, has applied for a Conditional Use Permit for a Dynamic Display sign at Messiah Lutheran Church, located at 2848 Co Rd 1-12; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-1, Single -Family Residential, and has a Comprehensive Plan future Land Use Map designation of Church; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code allows Dynamic Display signs to be located on the sites of schools, churches, places of worship or other institutional land uses, not zoned B-2, B-3, B-4, or Commercial PUD, subject to a Conditional Use Permit; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the zoning requirements associated with the Dynamic Display Sign in the R-1 district, and find that all conditions are satisfied by this request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact about the Conditional Use Permit request: 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. 2. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. 3. The use, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. 4. 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 Resolution 1048-16 Page 2 of 3 use. 5. The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. 7. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a Dynamic Display sign at the Messiah Lutheran Church, located at 2848 County Road H2, with conditions as follows: 1. The applicant shall obtain a sign permit for a Ground Sign with a Dynamic Display, and comply with all requirements as stipulated in the City Code, Section 1008.09 (General Location, Design and Construction Standards); and Section 1008.10, Subd 9 (Dynamic Display Signs). Such requirements include, but are not limited to the following: A. The maximum height shall be 8'. B. The maximum sign area shall be consistent with the plans submitted by the applicant, dated April 15, 2016, and May 4, 2016 (about 41.3 sq ft), unless located within 100' of a single-family residence, in which case the maximum sign area shall be 40 sq ft. C. The dynamic display area shall be a maximum of 50% of the total sign area. D. The dynamic display message shall not flash, blink, or move and shall not include any video images or content. E. The dynamic display message shall not change more frequently than four second increments. F. The dynamic display sign shall have an ambient light monitor and shall automatically adjust the brightness level of the sign based on light conditions. G. The dynamic display sign shall have a monitoring system, able to automatically freeze the message or turn the message off, if malfunctioning. H. The dynamic display sign shall not exceed 7,500 Nits during daytime hours, and 500 Nits during nighttime hours, and shall not interfere with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device, or signal; and shall not impair the vision of a motor vehicle driver with average eyesight. Resolution 1048-16 Page 3 of 3 I. The dynamic display sign shall not cause glare, disturbance or other problems to any residential properties or land uses. 2. The location of the Dynamic Display sign shall comply with City Code, unless a Variance is approved to encroach into yard setbacks. 3. The color of the Dynamic Display sign shall be amber, unless a Variance is approved for non -amber colors. 4. The City may review the Conditional Use Permit at any time if problems arise that would necessitate revision or termination of the permit. 5. The Conditional Use Permit will become null and void if the property owner fails to meet the provisions of the permit, or if the structure is removed for more than a one-year period. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council before approval of the minutes. Adopted this 18th day of May, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: May 18, 2016 MOT cmc V T7—W Type of Business: Planning Case MU2016-001 MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Re: Consider Resolution 1049-16, a Resolution approving a Variance for a ground sign encroaching within the 30' sight triangle, and less than 15' setback from a property line, to be located at 2848 Co Rd 112; Planning Case MU2016-001 (VR2016-002). Date: May 18, 2016 Introduction Messiah Lutheran Church would like to replace their existing 8'X 4' ground sign at the corner of Co Rd H2 and Knollwood Dr. with an 8'X 5' multi -colored Dynamic Display sign at the same location. The existing sign encroaches into the 30' sight triangle, and is less than 15' setback from a property line (approximately 14' from Knollwood Dr. ROW), and is therefore a non -conforming structure. Messiah Lutheran Church has applied for three permits: (1) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Dynamic Display Sign in a non -business district; (2) Variance to setback; and (3) Variance for non -amber color. The permits may be discussed together, but must be acted upon separately (separate Public Hearings). The City Council will conduct the Public Hearing for the CUP. The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, will conduct the Public Hearings for the Variances. Discussion Signs must be setback a minimum of 15' from the property line, and cannot be within the sight triangle of a street intersection. The sight triangle is an area, 30' from intersecting property lines.' About half of the existing sign is within the sight triangle. The proposed ground sign with a dynamic display would be in the same location. The property line is about 19' from the Co Rd H2 curb, and about 16' from the Knollwood Dr. curb. ' City Code, Section 1008.10, Subd 1(b) Analysis A Variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist2 (Staff's analysis in italics): A. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. The general intent of the City Code regarding setbacks is to create physical separation between improvements for safety, and aesthetics. The proposed ground sign will be in the same location as the existing ground sign, and will have the same setback from property lines. B. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The location of the ground sign with a dynamic display has no bearing on the Comprehensive Plan. C. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. Ground Signs for Churches are a permitted use within the R-1 district, according to Section 1008. 11, Subd 1(b) of the Mounds View Municipal Code, compliant with minimum setback requirements. Replacing the old ground sign with a new ground sign in the same location is a reasonable use of the property. D. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The existing ground sign face is 8' in width, and is proposed to be replaced by a ground sign of the same width, in the same location. The location of the existing ground sign does not pose a safety hazard to motorized or pedestrian traffic. The intersection of Cc Rd H2 and Knollwood Dr. is at the top of a hill, and includes a 4 -way stop sign. Vehicle drivers stopped at the stop sign have sufficient view of on -coming traffic, despite the ground sign encroachment into the 30' sight triangle setback, and into the 15' setback from Knollwood Dr. E. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed location of the ground sign will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, as there has been a ground sign in the same location for many years. 2 City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 2 F. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The variance request is the minimum that would alleviate practical difficulties. G. The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be direly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. The ground sign to be installed shall not encroach any further into the 30' sight triangle, nor any further into the setback from Knollwood Dr. (14) than the current ground sign. A Public Hearing Notice was published in the New Brighton / Mounds View Sun Focus on April 29, 2016, and mailed to property owners within 350' of the subject property. Summary Messiah Lutheran Church proposes to replace their existing ground sign at the corner of Co Rd H2 and Knollwood Dr. with a new ground sign featuring a multi -colored Dynamic Display, requiring (1) CUP for a Dynamic Display in a non -business district; (2) Variance to locate the sign within the 30' sight triangle setback, and less than 15' from a property line; and (3) Variance to allow a non -amber color on the dynamic display. This project may be discussed as one conversation. However, each application requires a separate Public Hearing, and separate action (approval/denial). Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 1049-16, a Resolution approving a Variance for a ground sign encroaching within the 30' sight triangle, and less than 15' setback from a property line, to be located at 2848 Co Rd H2; Planning Case MU2016-001 (VR2016-002). The Planning Commission is requested to consider the following options: Resolution 1049-16, approving the Variance as attached, if the Commission chooses this action. The Planning Commission may choose to deny the Variance. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of the 60 - day requirements (Deadline: June 15, 2016), the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully, 40,41Q� Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments: Application and submitted material Zoning Map Location Map Site Photos Resolution 1049-16 APR � 5 2086 ��//��' ��** AdOAL �C®QJMUNIITYDEVELOPINENTDEPARTMENT PLANNING APPLICATION 240Il County Road Il®, Mounds View, MN 55IlIl2 (763) 717-402O * Pax (763) 717-4019 permits@chmounds-vienn . mus Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form Appilcaanit Information Name of Applicant Work # Address 'Y&(/.7 /Z'/t4 LN NE' City /1/a%ne State M'y Zip ,fryy% Home # Cell # 6/2 - 3.-6 - 78 yd Fax # Mfn, coy' Interest in Property (check appropriate box) ❑Owner of Property ❑ ,Contract for Deed Owner El Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑Agreement to Purchase IJOther Seg )0^ at{or App/icantsmustprovide evidence ofinterestin propertyatthe time of application, and ifyou are not the owner of the property, you must either provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the tiling of this application or the propertyownermustsign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/ Proposal Address or General Location 60K^:/N Legal Description LN7l'{frw.n CU", 17 7, Property Identification # (PIN #) 07. 30. 2.3. 3/. 005'Z- # 0SZ# of Acres 7. O Z 00 Current Zoning 4-/ opl Type of Application (please check the appropriate boxes): 3z3 /nu 2,011 -a�J 5- Comprehensive Plan Amendment 500 Rezonin 500 Ma'or Subdivision 700 Minor Subdivision 350 Planned Unit Development PUD 750 PUD Amendment 400 Conditional Use Permit/Amendment R-1 R-2 200• all others 400 Interim Use Permit/Amendment 400 Variance R-1 R-2 200; all others 400 Administrative Variance R-1 R-2 100 Text Amendment Zoning Code 400 Text Amendment Other City Code 300 Develop Review/Site Plan Review 400 Wetland Alteration Permit R-1 R-2 200• all others 350 Wetland Buffer Permit R-1 R-2 30• all others 100 Easement Vacation 250 Re -approval of Minor Subdivision or Plat Minor Subd, 50• Plat 100 Zoning Review of B-1 District Proposed Use 200 Page 1 of 2 LJ AppRation foes are non-refundaNe. Present Use of Property Property Classification CoN'i /•1 w/II i�N �"'�^�'G� ❑ Abstract (� Torrens Description of Proposal (attach additional supporting documentation If necessary) I�115510- /',Ee f re/o/ce pwi 4uPrc44- Syti w:/A4 wnwti:c �'r//wy Wr w /✓ /'k Jo '< !n dpi. r..s� /oe.>t'•-� ...✓ ejFd BY MY/OUR SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Please Note: Application fees are nonrefundable. Applicants are responsible for all costs in excess of the application fee incurred by the City in the processing of this application. Such excess fees are to be paid upon receipt of statement from the City of Mounds View. Excess fees may include, but shall not be limited to, photocopy costs, staff time, and fees for planning consultants, attorneys and engineers. In some cases, a deposit may be required in advance to cover any anticipated excess costs associated with this application. (If a deposit is required, the applicant shall remain responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the application fee and deposit amount.) I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I have read all of the information listed in the Planning Application and fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. l/t� Name of Applicant(typed/printed) (u/�P l oltlf �Sej p`�t�O' Signature of Applicant /�— Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) Signature of Property Owner Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner -76..- -791 y E-mail of Owner ocev kA. . (2�s'a cra.� .Y: Date of Submittal 60 -day Limit Planning Case No Fees Paid: Application: Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: Date of Acceptance: 120 -day limit: Assigned to: Account # Check/Credit # Receipt # Page 2 of 2 From: Kurt Klaus To: Jon Sevald Subject: RE: sign CUP & Varlances Date: Tuesday, Aprll 19, 2016 2:56:03 PM Attachments: Imaae001.ono Thanks Jon, I will just answer one by one. a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) We desire to be in harmony with the purposes of this Title and the city of Mounds View. b. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) The goal of this sign and the variances are to produce a sign that would be a benefit to the neighborhood and the city of Mounds View, while removing an old dilapidated sign and other temporary signs that are used for special occasions. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Location Variance: The signs current location has not caused a problem in the past and our intent is that would continue not to cause any problem. Color Variance: We plan to use the sign with taste and understanding that people live in the area. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the some zone or vicinity and resuitfrom lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Location Variance: The current location of the sign has a very large concrete slab that will be very hard and expensive to remove. We would then incur the large cost of pouring a new slab. For that reason we would like to have a variance to keep it where it is. We would be willing to remove two of the trees by the sign to open up the sight line. We also believe that part of the reason the sign is closer to the road is that the road was widened a few years ago. Color Variance: There is nothing that would fit this requirement only that the church 3 blocks down the road to the west has one and many of the signs in Mounds View; including the city sign, are color. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9- 22-11) Location Variance: This would allow everything to stay the some. Color Variance: This would change the black letters on the sign to color ones that change themselves but other than that there would be no change. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Location Variance: The issue is economic but it is also a matter of having to dig up the whole front yard of the church, move underground sprinklers and move any other underground utilities that run near the sign. Color Variance: The desire to go to color is not an economic one and more of a desire to be the most effective in getting the message out to the community. The desire would also be to replace the color signs that we have used for special occasions. g. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Christ's servant and yours, Pastor Kurt Klaus Messiah Lutheran Church Mounds View, MN (763)-784-1786 Notice: The information contained in this electronic mail message and any attachment is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipients. This message and any attachments may constitute a pastoral communication, or other privileged communication and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering It to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify me by electronic mail (reyklaus(amsn cam). Thank you. From: Jon Sevald [mallto:jon.sevald@ci.mounds-view.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 11:31 AM To: 'Kurt Klaus' Subject: sign CUP & Variances Kurt, I will be reviewing your CUP/Variance applications today or tomorrow, and will provide you with a more formal review letter. In case It's later rather than sooner, something I will need is an explanation for the variance requests. Please review the Zoning Ordinance below, and submit an explanation addressing items a -g (specifically c -f) for each separate variance application. If you have any questions, please feel free to call or email. Thanks, Jon Zoning Ordinance, Section 1125.02 Subd. 2. Criteria for Granting Variances: A variance to the provisions of the Zoning Code may be issued by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, or in the case of an administrative variance, by the Director of Community Development as explained in Section 1125.02, subdivision 6, to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of property owner's land. Practical d fficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlightfor solar energy systems. No variances shall be granted that would allow any use that is not allowed in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. A variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist: (Amended, Ord. 725, 2-9-04, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) b. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the some zone or vicinity and resultfrom lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not resultfrom the actions of the applicant. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9- 22-11) f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) g. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the Intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Jon Sevald, AICP Planner 763.717.4022 w 1763.717.4019 f 2401 County Road 101 Mounds View I MN 155112 www.d,mQunds:Aew.mn.us PLOTPLAN ZCDate y�/!r�/6 I)%dJJ�ary Lw�1emow^ ��^� Builder 1,,9ns AN .3 Brief Description of Proposed Construction -Z-4 Sicy i4 -14- &C, tai Cahlnet/Leg: 95-801 Dunmooic 18mm.40x 141 (LED Cabinet Black) Goal Bol Lines Cheraeler chere°arun Sign Face: 403W White Bize In ar Llne DATE ID Letters: 470G Green t 5 4.4 z4 LED Letters: RGB 4 5.7 1a Draft: 403W While 3 T'ez 14 PRINTNAME z.D s Fanta: Trojan Pic _ t 24.e 4 Mascot/Symbol: 8128729 MascottSymbol Colors: DIgUaI G SIGNATURE Other:.`Er AFA.0 SIGNATURE IS BINDNG UPON BOTH PABOES This colored sketch is provided as an example of color. There Is no exact match helween Inkand paint. Signs Plus does not guarantee such.®COPYRIGHT 2010, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, REPRODUCTION EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED This colored sketch Is provided as an example of calor. There Is no exact match between Ink and paint, Signs Plus dues not guarantee such. 0 COPYRIGHT 2016, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, REPRODUCTION EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED -§I I I 1_7 1 .. 1 7469 N 7485 r � ` 7440 7474 7445 7435 ZONING DISTRICTS 7434 7405 -R-1 7417 7381 LIMITED BUSINESS 7382 7385 B-3 7350 R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 734 L7347 3S R-4 73 �1 INDUSTRIAL R-5 RI PF PUBLIC FACILITIES 75011, 4 Zoning Map LEGEND ZONING DISTRICTS -R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL B-2 LIMITED BUSINESS R-2 SINGLE & TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL B-3 HIGHWAY BUSINESS R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL B-4 REGIONAL BUSINESS R-4 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1-1 INDUSTRIAL R-5 MOBILE HOME PF PUBLIC FACILITIES R-0 RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT B-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS CRP CONSERVANCY, RECREATION & PRESERVATION AREAS NOT LABELED ARE R-1 DISTRICTS l 30' Sight Triangle Setback FFF Figure 1: 30' sight triangle setback drawn in blue. Site Photos Figure 2: photo taken from the H2 & Knollwood Dr., looking SE. (April 19, 2016) Figure 4: photo taken from Co Rd H2, looking SW. (April 19, 2016) Resolution 1049-16 Page ] of 3 Ii§1;611PI111 STAI47AU ANNI.[Keii]i41J1I619RIi!I RESOLUTION NO. 1049-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A REDUCED SIGN SETBACK AT 2848 Co Rd 1-12; PLANNING CASE MU2016-001 (VR2016-002) WHEREAS, applicant Kurt Klaus, representing Messiah Lutheran Church, has applied for a variance to replace the existing ground sign with a new ground sign in the same location, within the 30' sight triangle of Co Rd H2 and Knollwood Dr.; and with a 14' setback from the west property line; and WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 2848 Co Rd H2 is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Lots 4 Thru Lot 8, Lots 19 & 20 & Lot 28, Knollwood Park PIN 07-30-23-31-0052 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Staff Report 2. Application, Site Plan, Elevation Plan 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial View 5. Site Photos Whereas, Section 1008.10, Subd 1(b) of the Mounds View City Code indicates that no part of a ground sign shall be nearer than 15' to any perimeter lot line nor located within a 30' sight triangle on any property abutting two intersecting street right- of-ways; and, Whereas, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow a ground sign to have a 14' setback from a perimeter lot line, and within a 30' sight triangle abutting two intersecting street right-of-ways; 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 city code requirements impose 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, Resolution 1049-16 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly -noted public hearing regarding this request on May 18, 2016; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subd 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, that the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subd 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 2848 Co Rd H2, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: The general intent of the City Code regarding setbacks is to create physical separation between improvements for safety, and aesthetics. The proposed ground sign will be in the same location as the existing ground sign, and will have the same setback from property lines. 2. The variance is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Ground Signs for Churches are a permitted use within the R-1 district, according to Section 1008.11, Subd 1(b) of the Mounds View Municipal Code, compliant with minimum setback requirements. Replacing the existing ground sign with a new ground sign in the same location is a reasonable use of the property. 4. The existing ground sign face is 8' in width, and is proposed to be replaced by a ground sign of the same width, in the same location. The location of the existing ground sign does not pose a safety hazard to motorized or pedestrian traffic. The intersection of Co Rd H2 and Knollwood Dr. is at the top of a hill, and includes a 4 -way stop sign. Vehicle drivers stopped at the stop sign have sufficient view of on -coming traffic, despite the ground sign encroachment into the 30' sight triangle setback, and into the 15' setback from Knollwood Dr. 5. The proposed location of the ground sign will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, as there has been a ground sign in the same location for many years. 6. The Planning Commission may impose conditions upon the premises benefited by the variance as may be necessary to comply with the Mounds View Municipal Code, according to Section 1125.02, Subd 2(g). As such, the ground sign to be installed shall not encroach any further into the 30' sight triangle, nor any further into the setback from Knollwood Dr. (14') than the current ground sign. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of Kurt Klaus, representing Messiah Lutheran Church, of 2848 Co Rd H2, to allow a ground Resolution 1049-16 Page 3 of 3 sign to encroach into the 30' sight triangle, and a 14' setback from the Knollwood Drive right-of-way. Approval of this Variance is contingent upon the City Council's approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Dynamic Display Sign to be located on the subject property, in a non -business district. Adopted this 18th day of May, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 5C Meeting Date: May 18, 2016 MOT cmtV 7��T Type of Business: Planning Case MU2016-001 MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Re: Consider Resolution 1050-16, a Resolution denying a Variance for use of non -amber colors on a Ground Sign with a Dynamic Display, to be located at 2848 Co Rd H2; Planning Case MU2016-001 (VR2016-003). Date: May 18, 2016 Introduction Messiah Lutheran Church would like to replace their existing 8' X 4' ground sign at the corner of Co Rd H2 and Knollwood Dr. with an 8'X 5' multi -colored Dynamic Display sign at the same location. Dynamic Display signs in residential zoned districts must utilize amber colored lights.' Messiah Lutheran Church has applied for three permits: (1) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Dynamic Display Sign in a non -business district; (2) Variance to setback; and (3) Variance for non -amber color. The permits may be discussed together, but must be acted upon separately (separate Public Hearings). The City Council will conduct the Public Hearing for the CUP. The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, will conduct the Public Hearings for the Variances. Discussion The City Code was amended in 2011, regarding Dynamic Display signs (Ord. 864). The amendment dealt with Billboards, the frequency of message changes; sign brightness; broadcasting of Amber Alerts; and the restricted use of the color amber in non0-business districts, because amber is a softer color. The applicant has submitted two sign plans, one utilizing an amber dynamic display area, and one multi -colored. Staff is recommending denial of the Variance for a lack of a hardship. It is Staff's opinion that the dynamic display sign can effectively communicate messages without the use of multiple colors. ' City Code, Section 1008.10, Subd 9(c)(2)(b) If the Planning Commission agrees with the applicant that dynamic display signs utilizing multiple colors should be permitted in non -business districts, Staff recommends that the Ordinance be amended, rather than a Variance approved for a single property. Analysis A Variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances existz (Staff's analysis in italics): A. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. The intent of Section 1008. 10, Subd 9(c)(2)(b) of the City Code is to permit the use of Dynamic Display signs by schools, churches, places of worship or other institutional uses, in non -business districts, only if the color amber is used. The intent of only allowing the color amber is because it is a softer color than others, and is less obtrusive to residents. Amber was considered by the City Council in their adoption of Ordinance 864, amending Section 1008. 10, Subd 9 of the City Code, and is discussed in the Oct. 24, 2011 City Council Minutes. B. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; Chapter 3; Goals and Policies (Residential); Goal 1: "Preserve the identity and maintain and improve the quality and appearance of existing neighborhoods." Policy m: "Protect residential developments from adverse environmental impacts, including noise, air, and visual pollution." The use of non -amber colors by Dynamic Display signs in residential areas, contributes to visual pollution, adversely impacting the enjoyment of residential property. C. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. Section 1008, 10, Subd 9(c)(2)(b) of the City Code permits the use of a Dynamic Display sign by churches in non -business districts through a Conditional Use Permit, and prohibits the use of non -amber colors on the dynamic display. The applicant's proposed use of non -amber colors is unreasonable because the sign may function without the use of multiple colors. D. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other 2 City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 2 properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. There are no unique circumstances to the property related to color usage of the dynamic display sign. E. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The usage of non -amber colors by the dynamic display sign would alter the essential character of the neighborhood because of adverse visual pollution. F. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The variance requested to permit the use of non -amber colors on the Dynamic Display Sign exceeds the minimum required for the practical usage of such a sign located in a residential area. Such a sign may use different shades of amber to convey variety in its message. G. The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be direly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. The variance request fails to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty, related to the use of non -amber colors on the Dynamic Display. Further, if the intent is to permit non -amber colors, the appropriate means to do so is through an Ordinance Amendment, rather than a Variance. A Public Hearing Notice was published in the New Brighton / Mounds View Sun Focus on April 29, 2016, and mailed to property owners within 350' of the subject property. Summary Messiah Lutheran Church proposes to replace their existing ground sign at the corner of Co Rd H2 and Knollwood Dr. with a new ground sign featuring a multi -colored Dynamic Display, requiring (1) CUP for a Dynamic Display in a non -business district; (2) Variance to locate the sign within the 30' sight triangle setback, and less than 15' from a property line; and (3) Variance to allow a non -amber color on the dynamic display. This project may be discussed as one conversation. However, each application requires a separate Public Hearing, and separate action (approval/denial). Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 1050-16, a Resolution denying a Variance for the use of non -amber colors on a Dynamic Display Sign, to be located at 2848 Co Rd H2, Planning Case MU2016-001 (VR2016-003). The Planning Commission is requested to consider the following options: Resolution 1050-16, denying the Variance as attached, if the Commission chooses this action. 2. The Planning Commission may choose to approve the Variance. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of approval with findings of fact appropriate to support the approval. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of the 60 - day requirements (Deadline: June 15, 2016), the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully, ��CIQ� Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments: Application and submitted material Zoning Map Location Map Site Photos Resolution 1050-16 APR 15 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ® S i�Il�N� PLANNING APPLICATION X401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 (763) 717-4020 * Fax (763) 717-4019 permfts@cl.mounds-v1ew.mn.us Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information Name of Applicant 4'._ �_ Work Address ZVt' LN NZS' Clty i/.v'nr Home # Cell # 6/2 - 3S-6 - _2KV'r Fax #_ E-mail /✓?cvk/awt LOMB+. coM Interest in Property/ (check appropriate box) El Owner of Property El Agreement to Purchase # W7-791 -1?94 State MW zip rr yy9 El contract for Deed Owner ❑Lessee, Operator, Manager 216ther r6n)c ` to%fla ' App/icantsmustprovide evidence ofinterestin properiyatthe time of application, and ifyon are not the owner of the property, you must either provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consentto the filing ofthisapp/icadon orthe propertyonvermustsign this application for it to he accepted. Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location Z �y Co.,�><N �✓ �Z %y%�nr/f �'�✓ Legal Description Lcd4trwn C4N� C h Property Identiflcation # (PIN #) 07. 30. 2-3.3/. o o5Z # of Acres 7.O Z 00 Current Zoning 9-/ 0� �Type of Application (Please check the appropriate boxes): 13'0 LL L (�i1vN der 11 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 500 Rezonin 500 Major Subdivision 700 Minor Subdivision 350 Planned Unit Development PUD 750 PUD Amendment 400 Conditional Use Permit/Amendment R-1 R-2 200• all others 400 Interim use Permit/Amendment 400 Variance R-1 R-2 200• all others 400 Administrative Variance R-1 R-2 100 Text Amendment zoning Code 400 Text Amendment Other City Code 300 Develop Review/Site Plan Review 400 Wetland Alteration Permit R-1 R-2 200• all others 350 Wetland Buffer Permit R-1 R-2 30• all others 100 Easement Vacation 250 Re -approval of Minor Subdivision or Plat Minor Subd. 50• Plat 100 Zonin Review of B -i District Pro osed Use 200 Page 1 of 2 Application fees are non-refundable. Present Use of Property Property Classification C NUJ 144 C/r N�C'A ❑ Abstract 2 Torrens Description of Proposal (attach additional supporting documentation If necessary) 1'�165510. LV /e/ /%k. V. i`eg.+e s>< wy reance +/0 6e.!// ,'1 .n 14. s.+c /oe. /,:-1 ...✓ lo i 46/.e V. "xe C -/.p T. BY MY/OUR SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Please Note: Application fees are nonrefundable. Applicants are responsible for all costs in excess of the application fee incurred by the City in the processing of this application. Such excess fees are to be paid upon receipt of statement from the City of Mounds View. Excess fees may include, but shall not be limited to, photocopy costs, staff time, and fees for planning consultants, attorneys and engineers. In some cases, a deposit may be required in advance to cover any anticipated excess costs associated with this application. (If a deposit is required, the applicant shall remain responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the application fee and deposit amount.) I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I have read all of the information listed in the Planning Application and fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. Name of Applicant(typed/printed) K4e4- Kj4Lk; Signature of Applicant G� Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) Signature of Property Owner Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner '76.0` -7}i°V- /,,J'4G E-mail of Owner co' -1 Date of Submittal _ 60 -day Limit Planning Case No(s) Application: Park Dedication Deposits: Other: Total: Date of Acceptance: 120 -day limit: Assigned to: Fees Paid: Account # Check/Credit # Receipt # Page 2 of 2 From: To: Jon 5evald Subject: RE: sign CUP & Variances Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2:56:03 PM Attachments: imaae001.ona Thanks Jon, I will Just answer one by one. a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) We desire to be in harmony with the purposes of this Title and the city of Mounds View. b. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) The goal of this sign and the variances are to produce a sign that would be a benefit to the neighborhood and the city of Mounds View, while removing an old dilapidated sign and other temporary signs that are used for special occasions. :. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Location Variance: The signs current location has not caused a problem in the past and our intent is that would continue not to cause any problem. Color Variance: We plan to use the sign with taste and understanding that people live in the area. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and resultfrom lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Location Variance: The current location of the sign has a very large concrete slab that will be very hard and expensive to remove. We would then incur the large cost of pouring a new slab. For that reason we would like to have a variance to keep it where it is. We would be willing to remove two of the trees by the sign to open up the sight line. We also believe that part of the reason the sign is closer to the road is that the road was widened a few years ago. Color Variance: There is nothing that would fit this requirement only that the church 3 blocks down the road to the west has one and many of the signs in Mounds View, including the city sign, are color. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9- 22-11) Location Variance: This would allow everything to stay the some. Color Variance: This would change the black letters on the sign to color ones that change themselves but other than that there would be no change. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Location Variance: The issue is economic but it is also a matter of having to dig up the whole front yard of the church, move underground sprinklers and move any other underground utilities that run near the sign. Color Variance: The desire to go to color is not an economic one and more of a desire to be the most effective in getting the message out to the community. The desire would also be to replace the colorsigns that we have used forspecial occasions. g. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Christ's servant and yours, Pastor Kurt Klaus Messiah Lutheran Church Mounds View, MN (763)-784-1786 Notice: The information contained in this electronic mail message and any attachment is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipients. This message and any attachments may constitute a pastoral communication, or other privileged communication and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the Intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message and any attachments Is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify me by electronic mail (revklausra�msn.com). Thank you. From: Jon Sevald[mallto:jon.sevald@ci.mounds-view.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 11:31 AM To: 'Kurt Klaus' Subject: sign CUP & Variances Kurt, I will be reviewing your CUP/Variance applications today or tomorrow, and will provide you with a more formal review letter. In case it's later rather than sooner, something I will need is an explanation for the variance requests. Please review the Zoning Ordinance below, and submit an explanation addressing items a -g (specifically c -f) for each separate variance application. If you have any questions, please feel free to call or email. Thanks, Jon Zoning Ordinance, Section 1125.02 Subd. 2. Criteria for Granting Variances: A variance to the provisions of the Zoning Code may be issued by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, or in the case of an administrative variance, by the Director of Community Development as explained in Section 1125.02, subdivision 6, to provide relief to the landowner In those cases where the Code imposes practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of property owner's land. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlightfor solar energy systems. No variances shall be granted that would allow any use that is not allowed in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. A variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist: (Amended, Ord. 725, 2-9-04, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) b. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not resultfrom the actions of the applicant. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) . e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9- 22-11) f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) g. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Jon Sevald, AICP Planner 763.717.4022 w 1763.717.4019 f 2401 County Road 101 Mounds View I MN 155112 www.cLrnound5-view,nnn.us Address 28y8 (foti�¢ PLOTPLAN L Date Y / /00//6 i �%atl,a 4 /—ti1%ia"^6 4 Builder—Illy-n-5 aS Brief Description of Proposed Construction a 4�U G -r,64 594 Building Permit No. ♦ Show all existing buildings/structures located on the property ♦ Show all proposed construction ♦ Indicate distance from proposed structure(s) to all property lines ♦ Indicate distance of proposed structure(s) to existing structures ♦ Show street location(s) and name(s) CALL 811 BEFORE YOU DIG! IT'S FREE, AND IT'S THE 1411'! City of Mounds View Community Development Department - permits ci.mounds-view.mmus 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 N (763) 717-4020, Fax (763) 717-4019 This colored sketch is provided as an example of color. There Is no exact match Nehmen Ink and paint Signs Plus does not guarantee such.®COPYNIOHI 2016, ALL Xnillls nesnlcveu, nnrnuuuuI mn enrnsaeu MUM Ini¢u This colored sketch is provided as an example of color. There is no exact match between Ink and paint. Signs Plus does not guarantee such.® COPYRIGHT 2016, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, REPRODUCTION EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED 1%4 F255 Zoning Map LEGEND ZONING DISTRICTS -R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 3-2 LIMITED BUSINESS R-2 SINGLE & TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 8-3 HIGHWAY BUSINESS R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 8-4 REGIONAL BUSINESS R-4 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1-1 INDUSTRIAL R-5 MOBILE HOME PF PUBLIC FACILITIES R-0 RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT B-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS CRP CONSERVANCY. RECREATION & PRESERVATION • AREAS NOT LABELED ARE R-1 DISTRICTS 30' Si ht Triangle Setback l� Figure 1: 30' sight triangle setback drawn in blue. Site Photos Figure 2: photo taken from the NW corner & Knollwood Dr., looking SE. (April 19, 2016) Figure 4: photo taken from Co Rd H2, looking SW. (April 19, 2016) Mounds View City Council October 24, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 6 App ing an Amendment to the Billboard Lease on Medtronic Property. Council Mem tigney had several comments on the lease agreement and advised make a number of c ctions. He did not feel the share of profits was being divide and for this reason would n upport the motion. Ayes — 3 Nays —1 (Stigney),I Motion carried Council Member Gunn recommended a portion e revenues gained by this billboard be earmarked for the City's new canine unit. anee Dr for Beer indicated this would not be necessary as the Council has placed em into the 2012 bu and funds would be allotted for the canine unit. Mayor Flahe rcated the Council has discussed the canine unit at a work se n and did not feel a g mechanism should be decided this evening. City Administrator F.ricso gested > tie discussed at a future meeting with a formal Resolution. He indicated the Police Chie as prepared to bring a Resolution to the Council at their November 14u' meeting. E. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 864, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal Code regarding Dynamic Display Signs. City Administrator Ericson indicated the first reading of this Ordinance was completed on September 26a'. He explained the hold time for on-site dynamic signs within City Code was set at ten seconds and it was recommended the hold time be reduced to four seconds. Another discussion point for consideration was the brightness of dynamic display signs. He recommended 500 nits at night and 7500 nits during the day. The night display was more of a concern than during daytime hours. City Administrator Ericson stated that dynamic display billboards would only be located along the 35W corridor and would need to be 1,000 feet from any residential neighborhood. This would ensure that no single family homes would be viewing the glow of a dynamic display billboard. The differences between onsite and offsite display signs were discussed He indicated the use of dynamic displays signs at churches, schools, or businesses within a residential district would be required to have amber light. Staff recommended approval of the Ordinance revising Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal Code regarding dynamic display signs. Council Member Hull felt the use of a dynamic display sign at neighborhood businesses could be disruptive to the adjacent neighborhood. City Administrator Ericson commented the dynamic displays in neighborhoods could be addressed separately through a Zoning Code amendment. W. McCarver stated the 1,000 foot requirement from a residential neighborhood could affect the north face of the billboard on Program Avenue. He indicated the south side of the billboard could be converted without affecting the residential district. Mounds View City Council October 24, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 7 City Administrator Ericson explained the language could be modified to read that billboards facing residential properties could not be converted to dynamic display signs. The Council was in favor of this recommendation. Finance Director Beer recommended the nits within the Ordinance be corrected before publication. MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Hull. To Waive the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance 864, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal Code regarding Dynamic Display Signs with corrections being made on Page 4, Number 2 and Page 2, Number 6A. Council Member Stigney recommended the Ordinance read, "the sign shall not flash, blink or move" to ensure that billboards were not moving. He expressed concern with the maximum nits of 7,500 for daytime hours. Other cities had used 5,000 nits for daytime use and recommended the Council make this within the Ordinance amendment. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Stigney/Hull. To reduce the daytime nit value to 5,000 within Ordinance 864. Council Member Gunn questioned the difference between 5,000 and 7,500 nits for dynamic display boards. Council Member Stigney explained that other cities had a limit of 5,000 and did not feel the 7,500 was necessary. City Administrator Ericson commented that several cities do have a 5,000 limit, while others have no daytime limitation at all. Council Member Hull asked what Clear Channel anticipated the daytime nits to be for the sign. Mr. McCarver stated the sign would be running between 4,000-5,000 during the day but could exceed that at times depending on the strength of the sunlight. He explained that it would benefit Clear Channel to run at a lower nit level for power consumption reasons, which was the plan. However, with the varying weather in Minnesota required the level to go upwards to 7,500 nits. Council Member Stigney indicated that based on Mr. McCarver's comments the 5,000 nits was acceptable. Mr. McCarver stated that 5,000 may work on other regions of'the country, but he could not operate at that level every day of the year, given the varying weather in Minnesota. Council Member Stigney disagreed with the 7,500 nit level within the Ordinance AMENDMENT VOTE: Ayes —1 Nays — 3 (Flaherty, Hull and Gunn) Motion failed. j` Council Member Stigney expressed concern with the use of dynamic display signs in residential Mounds View City Council October 24, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 8 neighborhoods. City Administrator Ericson clarified that these dynamic display signs could only be amber in color. Council Member Stigney recommended the display hold time within Item 5 should be eight seconds. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Stigney/Hull. A motion to change the display hold time within Item 5 from four seconds to eight seconds. City Administrator Ericson indicated the Council could be more restrictive to the hold time on display signs in residential areas. Mayor Flaherty stated that eight seconds was not quick enough for people to read display signs where the four seconds did. This current language would provide increased safety throughout the City. Council Member Gunn agreed. AMENDMENT VOTE: Ayes —1 Nays — 3 (Flaherty, Hull and Gunn) Motion failed. Council Member Stigney stated he was opposed to light trespassing onto private property. This was the standard across the country. He recommended the City address the size requirements for dynamic display signs. He did not want to see 50 square foot dynamic display signs throughout the City. City Administrator Ericson reviewed the current language with the Council. Mayor Flaherty recommended that the language read the signs could be 30% of one dimension and 70% of the other dimension. City Administrator Ericson indicated the dynamic portion of a sign could be no more than 50% of a total sign size. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Stigney. That no more than 25 square feet of sign area be allowed to be used for dynamic display. The motion failed for lack of second. City Attorney Riggs reviewed the section of the City Code addressing trespassing light. He stated this issue was addressed within the Code and would have to be enforced by the City. ROLL CALL: Hull/Stigney/Gunn/Flaherty. Ayes — 3 Nays —1 (Stigney) Motion carried. F. Resolution 7846, AutQ4zXg the Issuance of a . General Obligation' ' Resolution 1050-16 Page 1 of 3 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1050-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR USE OF NON -AMBER COLORS ON A GROUND SIGN WITH A DYNMAIC DISPLAY, AT 2848 Co Rd H2; PLANNING CASE MU2016-001 (VR2016-003) WHEREAS, applicant Kurt Klaus, representing Messiah Lutheran Church, has applied for a variance to use non -amber colors on a ground sign with a dynamic display; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 2848 Co Rd H2 is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Lots 4 Thru Lot 8,lots 19 & 20 & Lot 28, Knollwood Park PIN 07-30-23-31-0052 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Staff Report 2. Application, 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial View 5. Site Photos 6. Oct 24, 201' Site Plan, Elevation Plan City Council Minutes Whereas, Section 1008.10, Subd. 9(c)(2))(b) of the Mounds View City Code states that "Dynamic display signs in residentially zoned districts must utilize amber color lights'; and, Whereas, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow the use of non -amber colors in the dynamic display sign; 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 city code requirements impose 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, Resolution 1050-16 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly -noted public hearing regarding this request on May 18, 2016; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subd 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, that the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subd 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are not satisfied and finds there to be insufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 2848 Co Rd H2, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: The intent of Section 1008.10, Subd 9(c)(2)(b) of the City Code is to permit the use of Dynamic Display signs by schools, churches, places of worship or other institutional uses, in non -business districts, only if the color amber is used. The intent of only allowing the color amber is because it is a softer color than others, and is less obtrusive to residents. Amber was considered by the City Council in their adoption of Ordinance 864, amending Section 1008.10, Subd 9 of the City Code, and is discussed in the Oct. 24, 2011 City Council Minutes. The request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; Chapter 3; Goals and Policies (Residential); Goal 1: "Preserve the identity and maintain and improve the quality and appearance of existing neighborhoods." Policy m: "Protect residential developments from adverse environmental impacts, including noise, air, and visual pollution." The use of non -amber colors by Dynamic Display signs in residential areas, contributes to visual pollution, adversely impacting the enjoyment of residential property. 3. Section 1008.10, Subd 9(c)(2)(b) of the City Code permits the use of a Dynamic Display sign by churches in non -business districts through a Conditional Use Permit, and prohibits the use of non -amber colors on the dynamic display. The applicant's proposed use of non -amber colors is unreasonable because the sign may function without the use of multiple colors. 4. There are no unique circumstances to the property related to color usage of the dynamic display sign. 5. The variance requested to permit the use of non -amber colors on the Dynamic Display Sign exceeds the minimum required for the practical usage of such a Resolution 1050-16 Page 3 of 3 sign located in a residential area. Such a sign may use different shades of amber to convey variety in its message. 6. The variance request fails to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty, related to the use of non -amber colors on the Dynamic Display. Further, if the intent is to permit non -amber colors, the appropriate means to do so is through an Ordinance Amendment, rather than a Variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, denies the variance request of Kurt Klaus, representing Messiah Lutheran Church, of 2848 Co Rd H2, to allow the use of non - amber colors on a Dynamic Display Sign. Adopted this 18th day of May, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 5D Meeting Date: May 18, 2016 MO= cmc VIEW Type of Business: Planninq Case VR2011-002 MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Re: Consider Resolution 1051-16, A Resolution Approving a Variance Extension Request for reduced driveway setbacks at 5338-5340 Raymond Avenue; Planning Case VR2011-002 Date: May 18, 2016 Introduction In 2011, the applicant, Michael Kinyon was granted a variance for a 1' side yard setback for two driveways at a duplex. A condition of the variance is that the driveways be completed within one year. The applicant received a one-year extension in 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. The applicant is requesting an additional one-year extension to the variance. Discussion The applicant owns a number of duplexes on Raymond Ave. that included gravel driveways. During a 2011 street reconstruction project, the property owner had the driveways widened, requiring variances to the side yard setbacks. These properties include: 5330 & 5332 Raymond Ave. (Res. 938-11) 5338 & 5340 Raymond Ave. (Res. 939-11) 5344 & 5346 Raymond Ave. (Res. 940-11) 5372 & 5374 Raymond Ave. (Res. 941-11) 5380 & 5382 Raymond Ave. (Res. 942-11) These properties are narrow and had no garages. The owner has made improvements to each property (except the subject property), including constructing attached single - car garages, and two -car wide driveways. The subject property; 5338 & 5340 Raymond Ave., received a variance for V side yard setbacks for both driveways. Analysis Consistent with Section 1125.02, Subd. 5 of the City Code, the approved variance for the subject property states that; "If within one year after granting the variance, the work as permitted by the variance has not been completed, then such variance shall become null and void unless an extension of time has been requested by the applicant and granted by the Planning Commission. Such extension shall be requested by the applicant in writing, and submitted to the City at least 30 days before the expiration of the original variance." Summary On June 1, 2011, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 939-11, approving a Variance to allow for driveways with a 1' setback from the side property lines of a duplex located at 5338 & 5340 Raymond Ave. The Planning Commission approved one-year extensions to this variance in 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. The applicant has requested an additional one-year extension of this Variance. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 1051-16, a Resolution approving a one-year extension for the reduced driveway setback variance at 5338-5340 Raymond Ave. Respectfully, Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments: Application and submitted material Resolution 939-11 (approved June 1, 2011) Zoning Map Location Map Site Photo Resolution 1051-16 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MOUNDS t T7��r PLANNING APPLICATION �/iL�V 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 (763) 717-4020 * Fax (763) 717-4019 permits@ci.mounds-view.mn.us Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information I 9H/;i - 'v AIV Name of Applicant Mr. Michael P. Mayan Pp 2226 Bevmas Cir. Work # Address Red Wing, MN 55066 _ it State Zip Home #/- .11-.1.P.9-3'.S��J Cell # Fax # E-mail /%)i c AfU,44f Ca /Ive Interest in Property/(check appropriate box) Owner of Property ❑Contract for Deed Owner ❑Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑Agreement to Purchase ❑Other Applicants mustprovide evidence of interest in propertyat the time ofapplicadon, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must either provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing ofthis application or the propertyownermustsign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/ Proposal Address or General Location Legal Description Property Identification # (PIN # of Acres -7 -- / Current Zoning Type of Application (Please check the appropriate boxes): J Comprehensive Plan Amendment $500 Rezoning 500 Ma'or Subdivision t700 Minor Subdivision $3S0 Planned Unit Development PUD $750 PUD Amendment 400 Conditional Use Permit/Amendment R-1 R-2 200; all others 400 Interim Use Permit Amendment 400 Variance R-1 R-2 200• all others 400 Administrative Variance R-1 R-2 100 Text Amendment Zoning Code 400 Text Amendment Other City Code 300 Develop Review Site Plan Review 400 Wetland Alteration Permit R-1 R-2 200• all others 350 Wetland Buffer Permit R-1 R-2 $30• all others $100 Easement Vacation 250 Re -approval of Minor Subdivision or Plat Minor Subd. 50• Plat 100 Zoning Review of B-1 District Proposed Use 200 Page 1 of 2 F � SIN ty. Application fees are non-refundable. Present Use of Property Property Classification .Z WAbstract of Proposal (attach additional if e. ❑ Torrens BY MY/OUR SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Please Note: Application fees are nonrefundable. Applicants are responsible for all costs in excess of the application fee incurred by the City in the processing of this application. Such excess fees are to be paid upon receipt of statement from the City of Mounds View. Excess fees may include, but shall not be limited to, photocopy costs, staff time, and fees for planning consultants, attorneys and engineers. In some cases, a deposit may be required in advance to cover any anticipated excess costs associated with this application. (If a deposit is required, the applicant shall remain responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the application fee and deposit amount.) I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I have read all of the information listed in the Planning Application and fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. I Name of Applicant (typed/printed) 11 c / N Signature of Applicant Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) Signature of Property Owner Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner y S E-mail of Owner FOR OFFICE Date of Submittal _ 60 -day Limit Planning Case No(s) Fees Paid: Application: Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: Date of Acceptance: 120 -day limit: Assigned to: Account # Check/Credit # Receipt # Page 2 of 2 /dn - ) i S r`arRn41/(< a �o Qax.n �N� I MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 939-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR ONE -FOOT DRIVEWAY SETBACKS AT 5338 & 5340 RAYMOND AVENUE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2011-002 WHEREAS, the applicant, Michael Kinyon, has applied for a variance to allow for driveways with a one -foot setback from the side property lines of a duplex located at 5338 & 5340 Raymond Avenue; and, WHEREAS, 5338 & 5340 Raymond Avenue is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Norseman 1'f Addition, Lot 7, Block 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 08-30-23-14-0007 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Proposed Site Plan 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial View 4. Photographic Documentation 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, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing regarding this request on June 1, 2011; 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 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 5338 & 5340 Raymond Avenue, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: a I . Circumstances apply to this property in that the duplex is located on only a 100 foot wide lot with a steep grade drop to the backyard, making it difficult to place a garage in the rear yard and be able to access it with a driveway. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would limit the applicant's ability to have a two car wide driveway in order to provide enough parking spaces for the tenants. 3. The applicant did not build this duplex, and intends only to substantially improve the property. 4. Granting this variance would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege in that the lot size is a pre-existing condition. 5. The one (1) foot variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant's hardship. 6. Granting a variance to allow for a driveway with a one foot setback would not be detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code in that due to lack of parking space, some of the tenants are parking closer to the property lines now and causing no adverse impacts. 7. Granting the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjoining property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of Michael Kinyon, to allow for driveways with a one -foot setback at 5338 & 5340 Raymond Avenue subject to the following: 1. If within one year after granting the variance, the work as permitted by the variance has not been completed, then such variance shall become null and void unless an extension of time has been requested by the applicant and granted by the Planning Commission. Such extension shall be requested by the applicant in writing, and submitted to the City at least 30 days before the expiration of the original variance. Adopted this VT day of June, 2011. Gary Stevensg , Chair ATTEST: JaNw�_ � James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) J Zoning Map �- LEGEND ZONING DISTRICTS •R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 8-2 LIMITED BUSINESS R-2 SINGLE k TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL B-3 HIGHWAY BUSINESS R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 8-4 REGIONAL BUSINESS R-4 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1-1 INDUSTRIAL R-5 MOBILE HOME PF PUBLIC FACILITIES R-0 RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT B-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS CRP CONSERVANCY, RECREATION B PRESERVATION • AREAS NOT LABELED ARE R -i DISTRICTS ro 1, A NA El 1�i till t 71 PIP MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1051-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE FOR REDUCED DRIVEWAY SETBACKS AT 5338-5340 RAYMOND AVENUE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. VR2011-002 WHEREAS, Kinyon Properties, represented by Mike Kinyon, applied for a variance to allow for driveways with a one -foot setback from the side property lines of a duplex located at 5338 - 5340 Raymond Avenue; and, WHEREAS, 5338 - 5340 Raymond Avenue is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Norseman 15t Addition, Lot 7, Block 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 08-30-23-14-0007 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 939-11, approving the variance on June 1, 2011, and approved one-year extensions on June 6, 2012, June 5, 2013, June 4, 2014, and June 3, 2015, and; WHEREAS, the resolution of approval states that if within one year after granting the variance or appeal, the work as permitted by the variance has not been completed, then such variance shall become null and void unless an extension of time has been requested by the applicant and granted by the Planning Commission, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated the new driveways will not be completed within the allowed timeframe and has requested another one-year extension of the variance consistent with the provisions of Resolution 939-11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission approves a one-year extension to complete the driveways. Adopted this 18th day of May, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) -DRAFT - PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 20, 2016 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:02 p.m. for April 20, 2016. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners French, Klander, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Klebsch. Also Present: Planner Jon Sevald and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. Index to Minutes Page Resolution 1047-16, Recommending approval of a Text Amendment to 2 Zoning Code 1102, Definitions and 1106.03 Accessory Uses Approval of Minutes 4 3. Special Order of Business None. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases None. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 6. Other Planning Activity April 20, 2016 Page 2 A. Resolution 1047-16, Recommending approval of a Text Amendment to Zoning Code 1102, Definitions and 1106.03 Accessory Uses Planner Sevald informed the Commission that accessory buildings include any structure other than the home or principal building. This includes open carports and enclosed private garages. The Zoning Code regulates the placement, size, and appearance of Accessory Buildings based on what zoning district the property is located in. Recently, the City has taken enforcement action on carports (Accessory Buildings) which violate the Zoning Code, but some of the ordinance text is unclear if the intent is to permit Accessory Buildings with "metal' sided exteriors. The most significant changes are that a carport may be enclosed on three sides (vs. two); is limited to the storage of operable vehicles and trailers (not miscellaneous items); and its roof is not required to be similar in character to the principal building. Staff recommends approval of the text amendment to clarify permitted uses of a Carport. Chair Stevenson questioned why carport violations have occurred. Planner Sevald explained the City has been addressing carports covered in tarps or the accumulation of miscellaneous items within the carport. He reviewed several examples of carports that were allowed in the City. Commissioner Klander questioned if the proposed text amendment would clarify between a temporary and permanent carport. Planner Sevald explained staff viewed carports as an accessory structure and must be screwed down [properly anchored]. Commissioner Klander requested further information on the permitting process. Planner Sevald discussed the permitting process noting the carport would have to comply with City setbacks and applicable building codes. Commissioner Klander asked if the surface under the carport had to be improved. Planner Sevald reported the surface had to be concrete, asphalt, pavers, or gravel (up to 300 square feet). Further discussion ensued regarding the pitch of the roof on carports. Commissioner Love expressed concern with the language addressing flat roofs. Planner Sevald clarified if a homeowner with a flat roof wanted to build a detached accessory structure, the roof on the accessory structure will not be flat. Commissioner Klander stated he could support a homeowner with a flat roof having a garage with a flat roof in order for the two building styles to match. Chair Stevenson did not recall any houses in Mounds View having a flat roof and believed this was a non -issue. He asked if any of the Commissioners supported allowing flat roof carports. He was inclined to support the language as is. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 20, 2016 Page 3 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Klander. To Adopt Resolution 1047-16, Recommending Approval Of An Amendment To Title 1100 Of The Mounds View City Code Pertaining To Carports And Accessory Buildings; Special Planning Case 200-16. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity Planner Sevald discussed upcoming planning cases. He noted a local church was requesting a dynamic display sign permit with variances. This would be reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 18`h. B. Staff Updates Planner Sevald provided the Commission with an update from staff. He noted the developer was working on plans for Crossroads Pointe and have expanded the project to include the entire 4.25 acres. He indicated a neighborhood meeting at the Community Center would be held on Wednesday, April 27th from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. for the Area I reconstruction project. Residents with questions regarding this project were encouraged to contact City Hall. He provided comment on the recent comprehensive planning workshop the Commissioners attended at Ramsey County. C. Council Updates Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He discussed the number of bee keeping licenses that had been considered by the Council. He noted the Council approved the temporary greenhouse conditional use permit, and interim use permit for the Mermaid. He reported the PUD minimum size requirement was changed from five to four acres. He explained trail segments 6 and 11 would be bid and completed in 2016. Council Member Meehlhause stated a cost share plan was approved with Ramsey County for the County Road I concrete rehabilitation project. It was noted the temporary signal would be made permanent through this project. Further discussion ensued regarding the Area I Street Improvement Project. He indicated the Council approved a one-year moratorium on new off - sale liquor licenses. I -Ie then provided the Commission with details on the most recent off -sale liquor license request. He reported Areba Bite Latin Food restaurant would be opening shortly in the former KFC building. Council Member Meehlhause comment on the local programming that was being provided on CTV. There was a growing concern to have more Irondale and Mounds View sporting events. The library was encouraged to promote its events on CTV as well. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 20, 2016 Page 4 Council Member Meehlhause discussed a meeting he attended with Ramsey County officials regarding the renaming of County Highway 10 to Mounds View Boulevard. He believed the meeting was quite positive. He was encouraged by the fact the name change may be possible in several years when the 1-35W MaPASS project was completed. Council Member Meehlhause invited the Planning Commissioners to attend a retirement social for Police Chief Kinney on Friday, April 29th from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. D. Planning Commissioner Reports Commissioner Love reviewed a flyer regarding the Urban Farmer's Almanac. She encouraged the Commissioner to consider attending this event. She hoped Mounds View could continue to evolve in order to become a community that was fun and interesting to live in. 8. Approval of Minutes March 16, 2016. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Love/Commissioner Rundle. To approve the Minutes of the March 16, 2016 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, May 4, 2016 B. Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald Planner Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther, TinieSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 0 MOUMlls VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 1, 2016 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business (none) 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. Consider Resolution 1052-16, a Resolution recommending approval of an C amendment of City Code, Section 1008.10, Subd 9(c)(2)(b), relating to colored lights in Dynamic Display Signs. B. PUBLIC HEARING (continued) Consider Resolution 1050-16, a Resolution approving/denying a Variance for use of non -amber colors on a Ground Sign with a Dynamic Display, to be located at 2848 Co Rd H2; Planning Case MU2016-001 (VR2016-003). 6. Other Planning Activity A. Presentation; Craig Swalchick, Housing & Code Enforcement Inspector. B. Discussion; Accessory Dwelling Units C. Discussion; Brew Pubs D. Discussion; Demographics 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 8. Approval of Minutes: May 18, 2016 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, June 15, 2016 B. Wednesday, July 6, 2016 10. Meeting Conclusion m7� 77��TTItem No: 5A 0imS VIEW Meeting Date: June 1. 2016 Type of Business: Special Planning Case 201-16 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Item Title/Subject: Consider Resolution 1052-16, a Resolution recommending approval of an amendment of City Code, Section 1008.10, Subd 9(c)(2)(b), relating to colored lights in Dynamic Display Signs. Date: June 1, 2016 Introduction During the May 18, 2016 Planning Commission, discussion was held regarding the color of lights used in Dynamic Display Signs in residentially zoned areas. The Commission directed Staff to prepare an Ordinance amendment removing the requirement that lights be limited to the color "amber". This topic was discussed by the City Council on May 23, 2016, whose consensus was to proceed with the amendment. Discussion Dynamic Display Signs (animated digital signs) are a permitted use in the B-2, B-3, B-4, and Commercial PUD districts. Such signs may be used by schools, churches, places of worship or other institutional uses in residentially zoned districts, through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). A restriction is that such signs in residentially zoned districts utilize "amber" colored lights. When the City Code was amended in 2011, the thought was that amber is a less obtrusive color, and that the use of multi -colored lights may create a nuisance onto residences. Currently, there are no Dynamic Display Signs located in residential districts in which to compare. During the May 18, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission considered a Variance application by Messiah Lutheran Church to use non -amber colored lights in a Dynamic Display Sign. The Commission's discussion included that Dynamic Display Signs have been in use for several years, and that people have gotten use to them. Thus, if the City permits their use in residentially zoned districts (with a CUP), the color of the lights is not an issue. An amendment to a Zoning Ordinance requires a Public Hearing.' Because signs are regulated under Title 1000 (Building and Development Regulations), and not Title 1100 (Zoning) a Public Hearing is not required. However, a notice will be mailed to residential property owners within 350' of applicable schools and churches, notifying them of the June 13th City Council's consideration of this amendment. ' Minn. Statute §462.357, Subd 3 Item No: 5A Meeting Date: June 1, 2016 Type of Business: Special Planning Case 201-16 Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 1052-16, a Resolution recommending approval of an amendment of City Code, Section 1008.10, Subd 9(c)(2)(b), relating to colored lights in Dynamic Display Signs. Respectfully, pp�� Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments 1. Resolution 1052-16 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1062-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 1000 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE PERTAINING TO THE USE OF COLORED LIGHTS IN DYNAMIC DISPLAY SIGNS; MOUNDS VIEW SPECIAL PLANNING CASE NO. SP -201-16 WHEREAS, Dynamic Display Signs are regulated under Title 1000 (Building and Development Regulations) of the Mounds View City Code; and, WHEREAS, Dynamic Display Signs may be located in residentially zoned districts, on the sites of schools, churches, places of worship or other intuitional land uses, subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Such signs must utilize amber colored lights; and, WHEREAS, City Staff has recommended that an amendment be made to the City Code relating to the use of colored lights in Dynamic Display Signs; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission agrees with City Staff's recommendation that colored lights in Dynamic Display Signs be permitted; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Title 1000 of the Mounds View City Code by deleting the striGken language and adding the underlined text as follows: 1008.10 SPECIFIC SIGN TYPE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS Subd. 9 Dynamic Display Signs: C. In addition to all other standards of this chapter, the City allows on-site dynamic display signs subject to the following additional conditions: (2) Notwithstanding subsection 1 above, such signs may be located on the sites of schools, churches, places of worship or other institutional land uses, subject to the following additional conditions: (a) City Council approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) as outlined in Section 1106.04 and Section 1125.01, subdivision 3 of the City Code. arnb@F 6919F lights: (e) (b) Such signs shall not cause glare, disturbance or other problems to any residential properties or land uses. WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that an amendment to the City Code is warranted and justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of amendments to Title 1008 of the Mounds View City Code as defined herein. 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 15t day of June, 2016, Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) M77�T j Item No: 56 OUNDS ` EW Meeting Date: June 1, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case MU2016-001 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Item Title/Subject: PUBLIC HEARING (continued) Consider Resolution 1050-16, a Resolution approving/denying a Variance for use of non -amber colors on a Ground Sign with a Dynamic Display, to be located at 2848 Co Rd H2; Planning Case MU2016-001 (VR2016-003). Date: June 1, 2016 Introduction Messiah Lutheran Church would like to replace their existing 8'X 4' ground sign at the corner of Co Rd H2 and Knollwood Dr. with an 8'X 5' ground sign, to include a multi- colored Dynamic Display on the lower half of the sign. The new sign would be at the same location. The applicant has applied for three permits; (1) a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Dynamic Display Sign for use by a school, church, place of worship or other institutional land use in a residentially zoned district; (2) a Variance to allow the sign to encroach into the 30' sight triangle from two intersecting streets, and to encroach into the 15' setback from Knollwood Dr.; and (3) a Variance to allow non -amber colored lights on a Dynamic Display Sign in a residentially zoned district, The City Council approved the CUP on May 23, 2016. The Planning Commission approved the Variance to setbacks on May 18, 2016, and tabled the Variance for sign color until June 1, 2016, directing Staff to prepare a City Code Amendment allowing . multi -colored lights, and to seek input from the City Council. The Council discussed this topic on May 23`d, and was agreeable with the Commission to pursue an amendment to the City Code. Discussion The City Code was amended in 2011, allowing only amber colored lights on Dynamic Display Signs in residential zones. The intent was that amber is a less obtrusive color. There are no Dynamic Display Signs in residential districts within Mounds View for comparison. During the May 18th Planning Commission meeting, discussion included that if Dynamic Display Signs are allowed in residentially zoned districts, the color of the lights should Item No: 513 Meeting Date: June 1, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case MU2016-001 not make a difference. The consensus of the Commission was to allow multi -colored lights through a Variance, or by amending the City Code. If the Commission's intention is to allow the Church to utilize multi -colored lights on the Dynamic Display Sign, the question is whether to allow this by approving a Variance for such use, or amending the City Code such that a Variance is not necessary. If by Variance, the Planning Commission's approval of the Variance ends the process. If by amending the City Code, the Commission could continue the Public Hearing until a future date. The City would then extend its 60 -day review of the application to 120 -days, and the City Council could consider a City Code amendment at its June 13th meeting. If approved, the amendment would not take affect for 30 -days. Applicable Sections of the City Code Title 1000: Building and Development Regulations Section 1008.10: Specific Sign Type Standards and Requirements Subd. 9: Dynamic Display Signs c. In addition to all other standards of this chapter, the City allows on-site dynamic display signs subject to the following additional conditions: 2. Notwithstanding subsection 1 above, such signs may be located on the sites of schools, churches, places of worship or other institutional land uses, subject to the following additional conditions: b. Dynamic display signs in residentially zoned districts must utilize amber color lights. Analysis A Variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist' A. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. B. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. 1 City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 2 Item No: 5B Meeting Date: June 1, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case MU2016-001 D. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. E. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. F. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. G. The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Attached, are two versions of Resolution 1050-16, approving or denying the Variance. A Public Hearing Notice was published in the New Brighton / Mounds View Sun Focus on April 29, 2016, and mailed to property owners within 350' of the subject property. Staff received one phone call from a resident on Knollwood Dr. who had no opposition to the proposed sign. Summary Messiah Lutheran Church would like to replace their existing 8' X 4' ground sign at the corner of Co Rd H2 and Knollwood Dr. with an 8'X 5' ground sign, to include a multi- colored Dynamic Display on the lower half of the sign. Use of non -amber colored lights requires a Variance. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 1050-16, a Resolution denying a Variance for the use of non -amber colors on a Dynamic Display Sign, to be located at 2848 Co Rd H2, Planning Case MU2016-001 (VR2016-003). It is Staff's opinion that if the intent is to allow multi -colored lights on a Dynamic Display Sign, it would be more appropriate to amend the City Code, rather than approve the Variance. The Planning Commission is requested to continue the Public Hearing, and consider the following options: Item No: 5B Meeting Date: June 1, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case MU2016-001 Resolution 1050-16, approving the Variance as attached; 2. Resolution 1050-16, denying the Variance as attached; 3. Continue to Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of the 60 -day requirements (Deadline: June 15, 2016), the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully, C:�' 01Q� Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments: Application and submitted material Zoning Map Location Map Site Photos Resolution 1050-16 APPROVING the Variance Resolution 1050-16 DENYING the Variance AR �5US, Tg�q� G7®N�Ngi QUNRTV DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT mo—S V1IJ�d9 PLANNING APPLICATION uNoX40 1, cCounty Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 (763) 717-4020 020 * Fax (763) 717-4019 pea-m!ts@c11.mounds-v1ew.Mn.us Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant nnffonmation Name of Applicant /&,' I- XA."S' Worl<# 767-71y�1-/7!l6 Address yrs y3 /Z I/ N 1'E' City /'�%n° State r%N zip r y y9 Home # Cell # 6lz — 3 S-6 - 78yd Fax # E -mall i�evk/, ys VOMJ�7. coM Unterest in Property (check appropriate box) El Owner of Property �❑CCoontract for Deed Owner El Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑Agreement to Purchase Ll Other App/icantsmustprovide evidence ofinterestin propedyat the Nme ofapplication, and ifyou are not the owner of the property, you must either provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consentto the filing ofthis applicaflan orthe property ownerinustsiga this application for itW.he accepted. Property Description/proposal Address or General Location Z �� ��"^�N �� �Z /y%.+n�f / iH✓ Legal Description Property Identification # (PIN #) 07. 30. 2.3. 3/. OOSZ #of Acres 7.OO Current Zoning Type of Application (please check the appropriate boxes): !Ir.'a:)I'L -m ;z r�9 C. J• 'l �/iV G�l Lvv� r )Q1 o 1513 a -7 ( a Com rehensive Plan Amendment 500 Rezonin 500 Major Subdivision 700 Minor Subdivision 350 Planned Unit Development PUD 750 PUD Amendment 400 Conditional Use Permit/Amendment R-1 R-2 200 all others 400 Interim Use Permit Amendment 400 Variance R-1 R-2 200• all others 400 Administrative Variance R-1 R-2 100 Text Amendment Zoning Code 400 Text Amendment Other City Code 300 Develop Review/Site Plan Review 400 Wetland Alteration Permit R-1 R-2 200• all others 350 Wetland Buffer Permit R-1 R-2 30• all others 100 Easement Vacation 250 Re -approval of Minor Subdivision or Plat Minor Subd. 50• Plat 100 Zoning Review of B-1 District Proposed Use 200 Page 1 of 2 Application fees are non-relfundableo Present Use of property Property Classification Co'n'n -i fV v (f h. C.4 ❑ Abstract R Torrens Description of proposal (attach additional supporting documentation If necessary) ^ S a A Wow/r/ I. -A, /' re*0/..ce ow/ cuppen-/- .syn &,;A 4 r%y.. "c 4(,(14V /'ke do ^egars{ c. ✓w�ranca A. fo itg6/r (- rrfr ca/o/` & {dr L¢'O s, BY MY/OUR SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Please Note: Application fees are nonrefundable. Applicants are responsible for all costs in excess of the application fee incurred by the City in the processing of this application. Such excess fees are to be paid upon receipt of statement from the City of Mounds View. Excess fees may include, but shall not be limited to, photocopy costs, staff time, and fees for planning consultants, attorneys and engineers. In some cases, a deposit may be required in advance to cover any anticipated excess costs associated with this application. (If a deposit is required, the applicant shall remain responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the application fee and deposit amount.) I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I have read all of the information listed in the Planning Application and fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. y Name of Applicant(typed/printed) /(Ko"l Signature of Applicant kz— Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) Signature of Property Owner Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner F V E-mail of Owner kev 4/ .Jr (2Msll, cv.. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Date of Submittal 60 -day Limit Planning Case No Fees paid: Application: Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: Date of Acceptance: 120 -day limit: Assigned to: Account # Check/Credit # Receipt # Page 2 of 2 Z8y8 Coin Z ➢Date 4/ 71/6 piiars,'a b Lk/+ierlw., a"�6 4 Builderscyn s P/as Brief Description ofProposed Construction -7--S-A/0-1) ,- a/v'C c/fp�y L// , --7-- ,� !Q� �oLn�ju/�Lnrlc{'(�i .1 �9h Building Permit No. 0 Show all existing buildings/structures located on the property ♦ Show all proposed construction 4 Indicate distance from proposed structure(s) to all property lines ® Indicate distance of proposed structure(s) to existing structures o Show street location(s) and name(s) CALL 111 I BEFORE YOU OUR IT'S FREE, AND IT'S THE LAW City of Mounds View Community Development Department N Dermits0d,mounds-view.mn.us 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 N (763) 717-4020, Fax (763) 717-4019 CabinaULeg: 95-801 Dumnodlc 16 mm -40x 144 (LEI) CabinerBlackJ Character sol y qor Lines chem bra DATE sign Face: 403W Whlfe Sl:e In nr.lne ID Letters: 4700 Omen 6 4.4 2A LED Letters: ROB ' - 4 5.7 ie 1e PRINT NAME Dial: 403W While 2 12,0 Ponta: Wan Pro 1 24,6 4 MescoUSymboi:#128729 Mascotisymbol Colors: Wggal MM SIGNATURE Other: "erl.�, A FAX SIONATUBEISBSIOINB UPON BOT#PARTIES This celoled akaich Is provided as an example olcclor. There Is no exact match between Word paint. Sl0ns Plus does nogivarealee such.® COPYRIGHT2016, ALLRIGHTS RESERVED, REPRODUCTION EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED This colored sketch Is provided as an example of color. There Is no exact march between Ink and paint Signs Pius does not Buaranleesuch. ®COPYRIGHT 2016, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, REPRODUCTION EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED From: Kurt Klaus To: ]on SCYdI� subjech. RE: sign CUP & Variances Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2:56:03 PM Attachments: Imaoe001.ona Thanks Jon, I will just answer one by one. a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and Intent of this Title. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) We desire to be in harmony with the purposes of this Title and the city of Mounds View. b. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) The goal of this sign and the variances are to produce a sign that would be a benefit to the neighborhood and the city of Mounds View, while removing an old dilapidated sign and other temporary signs that ore used forspecial occasions. c. The applicant proposes to use the property In a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. (Amended, Ord. 861,9-22-11) Location Variance: The signs current location has not caused a problem in the past and out, intent is that would continue not to cause any problem. Color Variance: We plan to use the sign with taste and understanding that people Jive in the area. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties In the some zone or vicinity and resultfrom lotslze or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not resultfrom the actions of the appllcan. t. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Location Variance: The current location of the sign has a very large concrete slab that will be very hard and expensive to remove. We would then incur the large cost of pouring a new slob. For that reason we would like to hove a variance to keep it where it is. We would be willing to remove two of the trees by the sign to open up the sight line. We also believe that part of the reason the sign 1s closer to the road is that the road was widened a few years ago. Color Variance: There is nothing that would fit this requirement only that the church 3 blocks down the road to the west has one and many of the signs in Mounds View, including the city sign, are color. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9- 22-11) Location Variance: This would allow everything to stay the same. Color Variance: This would change the black letters on the sign to color ones that change themselves but other than that there would be no change. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Location variance: The issue is economic but It is also a matter of having to dig up the whole front yard of the church, move underground sprinklers and move any other underground utilities that run near the sign. Color Variance: The desire to go to color is not on economic one and more of a desire to be the most effective in getting the message out to the community. The desire would also be to replace the color signs that we have used forspecial occasions. g. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the Intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Christ's servant and yours, Pastor Kurt Klaus Messiah Lutheran Church Mounds View, MN (763)-784-1786 Notice: The Information contained In this electronic mail message and any attachment is Intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipients. This message and any attachments may constitute a pastoral communication, or other privileged communication and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the Intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message and any attachments Is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify me by electronic mail (Leyklauj@msn.com). Thank you. From: ]on Sevald [mailto:Jon.sevald@cl.mounds-view.mn.usJ Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 11:31 AM To: 'Kurt Klaus' Subject: sign CUP & Variances Ku rt, I will be reviewing your CUP/Variance applications today or tomorrow, and will provide you with a more formal review letter. In case it's later rather than sooner, something I will need is an explanation for the variance requests. Please review the Zoning Ordinance below, and submit an explanation addressing items a -g (specifically c -f) for each separate variance application. If you have any questions, please feel free to call or email. Thanks, Jon Zoning Ordinance, Section 1125.02 Subd. 2. Criteria for Granting Variances: A variance to the provisions of the Zoning Code may be issued by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, or in the case of an administrative variance, by the Director of Community Development as explained in Section 1125.02, subdivision 6, to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code Imposes practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of property owner's land. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlightforsolar energysystems. No variances shall be granted that would allow any use that Is not allowed in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. A variance may be granted only In the event that all of the following circumstances exist: (Amended, Ord. 725, 2-9-04, Ord. 851, 9-22-11) a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and Intent of this Title. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) b. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) c. The applicant proposes to use the property In a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and resultfrom lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. (Amended, Ord. 861,9-22-11) . e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9- 22-11) f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) g. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties In the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Jon Sevald, AICP Planner 763.717.4022 w 1763.717.4019 f 2401 County Road 101 Mounds View I MN 155112 www.ci.[ngunds:vdew.rnn.us 1008.10 Subd. 8. Home Occupation Signs: " not to exceed one (1) square foot attached to the house or garage place. (Ord. 679, 5-29-01) loos.lo R-1 - and R-5 residential zoning districts, a sign Mowed to be displayed provided such sign is the operty on which the home occupation takes Subd. 9. Dynamic Display Signs: a. The City allows noncommercial dynamic display signs wherever the City allows commercial dynamic display signs. Such signs are subject to the same standards and total maximum allowances per site or building of each sign type specified in this Chapter. b. Standards for all dynamic display signs: (1) The messages, content and images on all such displays shall not flash or blink. (2) No person or contractor shall install a dynamic display sign that because of its position, shape, movement or color, interferes with the proper functioning of a traffic sign, signal or that constitutes a traffic hazard. (3) All dynamic display signs shall have ambient light monitors and shall, at all times, allow such monitors to automatically adjust the brightness level of the sign based on light conditions. (4) The manufacturers, owners and operators of dynamic display signs must design and equip such signs with a fully functional monitoring off switch system that automatically shuts the sign off or will freeze the device or sign in one (1) position; if a malfunction occurs. The signs and displays also must be equipped with a means to shut off or discontinue the display if it malfunctions. The sign owner or operator must stop or shut off the dynamic display within one (1) hour or as soon as reasonably possible of the City notification that the sign is not meeting the standards of this Section of Chapter. City of Mounds View 1008.10 (5) Any dynamic display sign capable of accessing and utilizing MN Amber Alert technology shall display such messages as they are made available by the MN Dept. of Public Safety or other responsible agency. (6) All dynamic display signs shall meet the following brightness standards: (a) No sign shall be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility and no sign shall exceed 500 Nits (candelas per square meter) at night and 7,500 Nits (candelas per square meter) during the day. (b) No sign shall be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a motor vehicle driver with average eyesight nor shall such a sign interfere with the driver's operation of a motor vehicle in any way or manner. (c) No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal. (d) The person owning or controlling a sign with a dynamic display shall adjust the sign to meet the brightness standards according to the City's instructions. The sign owner or operator shall adjust the sign within one (1) hour or as soon as reasonably possible upon notice of non- compliance from the City. (e) All dynamic display signs installed after December 31, 2008, shall be equipped and operated with an ambient light monitor or a mechanism that automatically adjusts the brightness level of the sign in response to light conditions. These signs also shall be equipped with a means to turn off immediately the display or lighting if the sign malfunctions, and the sign owner or operator must turn off the sign or lighting within one (1) hour or as soon as reasonably possible after the City notifies the owner or operator that the sign is not meeting the standards of this Section or Chapter. 04, of Mounds View 1008.10 1008.10 (f) Subsequent to November 1, 2011, no dynamic display sign shall have the capacity to operate in excess of 7,500 Nits (candelas per square meter). The lamp wattage and luminance level in Nits (candelas per square meter) shall be provided at the time of permit application. Dynamic display sign permit applications must also include a certification from the owner or operator of the sign stating that the sign shall at all times be operated in accordance with City codes. (g) In addition to the brightness standards required above, dynamic display signs shall meet the City's lighting requirements as listed in Section 1103.09 (Glare) of the City Code. C. In addition to all other standards of this chapter, the City allows on-site dynamic display signs subject to the following additional conditions: (1) Such signs may be located only in the Limited Business (B-2), Highway Business (B-3), Regional Business (B-4) or Commercial Planned Unit Developments (PUD's) zoning districts. (2) Notwithstanding subsection 1 above, such signs may be located on the sites of schools, churches, places of worship or other institutional land uses, subject to the following additional conditions: (a) City Council approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) as outlined in Section 1106.04 and Section 1125.01, subdivision 3 of the City Code. (b) Dynamic display signs in residentially zoned districts must utilize amber color lights. . (c) Such signs shall not cause glare, disturbance or other problems to any residential properties or land uses. Ci[y of Mounds View 1008.10 1008.10 (3) The owner or operator of a dynamic display sign shall control and display the primary or background images and messages on the sign so they maintain each display for a minimum of four (4) seconds. (4) Dynamic display signage shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet of the sign area. (5) Such signs may only display and advertise information about products, events, persons, institutions, activities, businesses, services, or subjects that are located on the premises or on the site or only to provide public service or community service information. (6) Such signs must meet all other City location and setback requirements. d. The City allows off-site dynamic display signs subject to Section 1008.10; subdivision 6 (Billboards) of the City's Code, the above-mentioned standards for all dynamic display signs, and the following operational standards and additional conditions: (1) The images and messages displayed on the billboard must be static and each display must be maintained for a minimum of eight (8) seconds. The transition from one (1) static display to another must be instantaneous and without any special effects or videos. (2) Only billboard faces located adjacent to Interstate 35W and more than 1,000 feet from any residentially zoned property in the City of Mounds View may be retrofit to a dynamic display, and only subsequent to a building permit issued by the City. One hundred percent (100%) of the sign face may be used for dynamic display. (3) Public Safety. If City staff determines that a dynamic display sign is not being operated pursuant to this Chapter due to its location or display capabilities, City staff can require the sign owner or operator to modify the sign after tie City notifies the property owner or operator about the operational issues. (Ord. 816, 1-22-09; Ord. 864, 11-3-11; Ord. 872, 6-7-12; Ord. 887, 6-9-14) City gflklounds New J I I- ,, I I tJ 17455 fl Item No: 5B Meeting Date: June 1, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case MU2016-001 Zoning Map E-•_, 7488 n 50 49 n 7471747 BRONI 7451 17456 6 7435 LEGEND 7434 rr'� 7234 r 7228 +R-1 7409 7405 7188 7172 7412 B-3 7150 9-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL B-4 7495 7,331 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL _- 7382 7346 7385 PF - 7380 7375 7347 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT B-1 34 7379 r33 - AREAS NOT LABELED ARE R-1 DISTRICTS X732 31 gl iu H na AIN .. 7215 719 7191 II R-4 to 71888 700� N Proposed Ground Sign with a Dynamic Display LEGEND N 7234 r 7228 +R-1 7300 0-2 7188 7172 SINGLE k TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - B-3 7150 9-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL B-4 REGIONAL BUSINESS H na AIN .. 7215 719 7191 II R-4 to 71888 700� N Proposed Ground Sign with a Dynamic Display LEGEND ZONING DISTRICTS +R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 0-2 LIMITED BUSINESS R-2 SINGLE k TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - B-3 HIGHWAY BUSINESS 9-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL B-4 REGIONAL BUSINESS R-4 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1-1 INDUSTRIAL R-5 MOBILE HOME PF PUBLIC FACILITIES R-0 RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT B-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS CRP CONSERVANCY, RECREATION k PRESERVATION - AREAS NOT LABELED ARE R-1 DISTRICTS Item No: 513 Meeting Date: June 1, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case MU2016-001 Figure 1 Sight location sign would encroach upon the sight triangle. Item No: 56 Meeting Date: June 1, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case MU2016-001 Figure 3 photo taken from the NW corner of Co Rd H2 2016) & Knollwood Dr., looking SE. (Photo taken April 19, Figure 4 photo taken from Knollwood Dr., looking East toward Co Rd H2. The blue car is stopped at a stop sign. (Photo taken May 12, 2016) Figure 5 photo taken from Co Rd H2, looking West. (Photo taken April 19, 2016) Resolution 1050-16 Page 1 of 3 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1050-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR USE OF NON -AMBER COLORS ON A GROUND SIGN WITH A DYNAMIC DISPLAY AT 2848 COUNTY ROAD H2; PLANNING CASE MU2016-001 (VR2016-003) WHEREAS, applicant Kurt Klaus, representing Messiah Lutheran Church, has applied for a variance to use non -amber colors on a ground sign with a dynamic display; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 2848 Co Rd H2 is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Lots 4 Thru Lot 8, lots 19 & 20 & Lot 28, Knollwood Park PIN 07-30-23-31-0052 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Staff Report 2. Application, Site Plan, Elevation Plan 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial View 5. Site Photos Whereas, Section 1008.10, Subd. 9(c)(2)(b) of the Mounds View City Code states that "Dynamic display signs in residentially zoned districts must utilize amber color lights"; and, Whereas, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow the use of non -amber colors in the dynamic display sign; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the City Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the City Code requirements impose 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 duly -noted public hearing regarding Resolution 1050-16 Page 2 of 3 this request on May 18, 2016, and continued the Hearing on June 1, 2016; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subd 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 City Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subd 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 2848 Co Rd H2, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. The Variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. 2. The Variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Transportation Goals & Policies); Goal 1. Identify the improvements necessary to ensure the continued safety and convenience of the transportation system for movement by all modes. Policy g. Establish and enforce standards and controls for business and advertising signage and lighting to prevent driver distraction and potential hazards. The sign is proposed to be located at an intersection with a four-way stop sign. The Planning Commission finds that the color of lights used in a Dynamic Display Sign at this location should not distract drivers, nor create a potential hazard. The City Code sufficiently prohibits the use of distracting signs, thus color alone, is not a factor. 3. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, not permitted by Section 1008. 10, Subd 9(c)(2)(b) of the City Code. The Planning Commission finds that the use of non -amber colors on the Dynamic Display sign is a reasonable use. 4. The Planning Commission finds that unique circumstances exist on the property, necessitating the use of non -amber colored lights on the Dynamic Display Sign. 5. The Variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The Planning Commission finds that use of non -amber colors on the Dynamic Display Sign will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 6. The Variance requested is the minimum Variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. The Planning Commission finds that the use of all colors on the Dynamic Display Sign would alleviate practical difficulties. Resolution 1050-16 Page 3 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the Variance request of Kurt Klaus, representing Messiah Lutheran Church, of 2848 Co Rd H2, to allow the use of non -amber colors on a Dynamic Display Sign in a residentially zoned district. Adopted this 1St day of June, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Resolution 1050-16 Pagel of3 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1050-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR USE OF NON -AMBER COLORS ON A GROUND SIGN WITH A DYNAMIC DISPLAY, AT 2848 COUNTY ROAD H2; PLANNING CASE MU2016-001 (VR2016-003), WHEREAS, applicant Kurt Klaus, representing Messiah Lutheran Church, has applied for a variance to use non -amber colors on a ground sign with a dynamic display; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 2848 Co Rd H2 is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Lots 4 Thru Lot 8, lots 19 & 20 & Lot 28, Knollwood Park PIN 07-30-23-31-0052 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Staff Report 2. Application, Site Plan, Elevation Plan 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial View 5. Site Photos Whereas, Section 1008.10, Subd. 9(c)(2)(b) of the Mounds View City Code states that "Dynamic display signs in residentially zoned districts must utilize amber color lights'; and, Whereas, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow the use of non -amber colors in the dynamic display sign; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the City Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the City Code requirements impose 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 duly -noted public hearing regarding Resolution 1050-16 Page 2 of 3 this request on May 18, 2016, and continued the Hearing on June 1, 2016; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subd 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 City Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subd 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are not satisfied and finds there to be insufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 2848 Co Rd H2, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: The intent of Section 1008.10, Subd 9(c)(2)(b) of the City Code is to permit the use of Dynamic Display signs by schools, churches, places of worship or other institutional uses, in non -business districts, only if the color amber is used. The intent of only allowing the color amber is because it is a softer color than others, and is less obtrusive to residents. Amber was considered by the City Council in their adoption of Ordinance 864, amending Section 1008.10, Subd 9 of the City Code, and is discussed in the Oct. 24, 2011 City Council Minutes. The request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; Chapter 3; Goals and Policies (Residential); Goal 1: "Preserve the identity and maintain and improve the quality and appearance of existing neighborhoods." Policy m: "Protect residential developments from adverse environmental impacts, including noise, air, and visual pollution." The use of non -amber colors by Dynamic Display signs in residential areas, contributes to visual pollution, adversely impacting the enjoyment of residential property. 3. Section 1008.10, Subd 9(c)(2)(b) of the City Code permits the use of a Dynamic Display sign by churches in non -business districts through a Conditional Use Permit, and prohibits the use of non -amber colors on the Dynamic Display. The applicant's proposed use of non -amber colors is unreasonable because the sign may function without the use of multiple colors. 4. There are no unique circumstances to the property related to color usage of the dynamic display sign. 5. The variance requested to permit the use of non -amber colors on the Dynamic Display Sign exceeds the minimum required for the practical usage of such a sign located in a residential area. Such a sign may use different shades of Resolution 1050-16 Page 3 of 3 amber to convey variety in its message. 6. The variance request fails to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty, related to the use of non -amber colors on the Dynamic Display. Further, if the intent is to permit non -amber colors, the appropriate means to do so is through an Ordinance Amendment, rather than a Variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, denies the Variance request of Kurt Klaus, representing Messiah Lutheran Church, of 2848 Co Rd H2, to allow the use of non - amber colors on a Dynamic Display Sign in a residentially zoned district. Adopted this 1St day of June, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) 1 of Mounds View Staff Item No: 6A Meeting Date: June 1, 2016 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Item Title/Subject: Presentation of Housing & Code Enforcement Introduction As requested by a Commissioner, Craig Swalchick, Housing & Code Enforcement Inspector will provide a brief presentation of the City's enforcement program. Recommendation The Commission is encouraged to ask questions. Respectfully submitted, C)ilio� 41 Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Movlvns VIEW of Mounds View Staff Item No: 6B Meeting Date: June 1, 2016 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Date: June 1, 2016 Item Title/Subject: Discussion; Accessory Dwelling Units Introduction During the May City Council Work Session, a resident requested that the City consider allowing an apartment above an attached garage within the R-1 Single Family Residential District. The Council directed Staff to investigate further. Staff presented a report at the May 23`d Council meeting for discussion, and the Council directed the Planning Commission to consider this topic. Discussion Specific to the question asked, it is Staff's interpretation of the City Code' that an apartment above a garage which is to be occupied by a person or family unrelated to the home's occupants, is a "Second -Family Dwelling", which is not permitted in the R-1 Single -Family Residential District. The City Code does allow up to two boarders in a single-family home, if there is a common entrance, and the kitchen and living areas are accessible by all occupants. In this example, the home continues to function as a Single -Family Dwelling. Accessory apartments are commonly referred to as an "Accessory Dwelling Unit" (ADU). Staff surveyed 18 area cities if they allow ADU's, and if so, how they are regulated. Of the ten cities who responded, four allow something similar to an ADU, summarized below: Hugo: Permits ADU's in a detached garage for occupation by a family member, caretaker, or employee (or similar). The ADU cannot be rented as a second dwelling unit. New Brighton: Permits "Separate living quarters for domestic servants employed on the premises provided that the premises contains a minimum area equal to two ordinary minimum sized lots in this district" , (i.e. the lot must be at least twice the size of the minimum lot size). 1 City Code, Section 1102.02, Subd 43; Dwelling, Two -Family Unit, and Subd 44; Dwelling Unit Roseville: Permits ADU's. Either the single-family home or the ADU must be occupied by the property owner. The ADU may have a maximum of one bedroom and two occupants. The ADU requires one additional off-street parking space. The ADU may include a Home Occupation. The ADU shall be a minimum of 300 sq ft in size, and a maximum of 650 sq ft, or 75% of the single-family home area. A rental registration and an ADU permit are required. Prior to permitting, the City notifies neighbors within 100', providing 7 days to submit comments to the City. The City may place conditions upon the ADU permit. If non- compliant, the ADU permit may be revoked, providing a 60 -day notice. Upon revocation, the ADU may only be occupied by family members. An ADU permit expires with a change in ownership. Shoreview: Permits ADU's (referred to as an "accessory apartment"). ADU must be attached to a Home at least 850 sq ft in size. The ADU shall be 500 — 850 sq ft in size, and no larger than 30% of the building's total floor area. The ADU may have up to two bedrooms. The property must have at least three off-street parking spaces, two of which must be enclosed. The Home shall be owner occupied. The ADU may be administratively approved. Included in the Attachments, please find: (1) Minneapolis' ADU handout & application; and, (2) a Bloomington Staff Report which provides a comprehensive discussion of ADU's. As with many zoning topics, regulating ADU's can be complicated. Things to consider: 1. Should ADU's be allowed as a Permitted, Conditional, or Interim use in R-1 (or continue to be prohibited)? 2. Should ADU's be required to be attached to the House, or allowed to be detached (e.g. apartment above a detached garage)? 3. Should the property owner be required to occupy the Home? 4. Should there be a minimum and maximum size of an ADU? Summary Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are similar to an apartment within a single-family home, or within an accessory building. Currently, ADU's are not permitted in the R-1 District. The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission discuss this topic. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide Staff with direction if to proceed with developing a City Code amendment, allowing ADU's, or creating a list of questions for Staff to research for a future Planning Commission meeting. Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments City of Minneapolis — Handout - Accessory Dwelling Units City of Bloomington — Staff Report (portion thereof), — ADU Standards (May 7, 2009) Community Planning and Economic Development Development Services Division Minneapolis 250 South 4th Street, Room 300 City of Lakes Minneapolis MN 55415-1316 612-673-3000 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WHAT IS AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU)? In Minneapolis, an Accessory Dwelling Unit, or ADU, is defined as a room or set of rooms with its own cooking, sleeping, and sanitation facilities, and which Is located on the same lot as a single- or two-family home. The ADU must be smaller in area compared to the main dwelling to which it is accessory. CAN I ESTABLISH AN ADU ON MY PROPERTY? ADUs are permitted on lots where single- and two-family homes are allowed as a permitted or conditional residential use throughout the City. In addition, the property owner must reside in either the main house or in the ADU as their primary residence. This restriction must be recorded on the deed. If your home is located in a Residence, Office Residence, Commercial, or Downtown zoning district, or is located within the Industrial Living Overlay District, you may be able to establish up to one ADU on your property. To verify the zoning of your property, please visit http://www.cl.minneapolls.mn.us/propertyinfo/­ or call 311. WHAT ARE THE THREE TYPES OF ADUS? There are three primary ADU types: internal, attached, and detached. An internal ADU is located within the walls of an existing or newly constructed home, while an attached ADU would be located in a separate addition to an existing home. An ADU can also take the form of a "detached" freestanding structure on the same lot as a principal dwelling unit. Interior ADU: attic or basement �i Il l 1, _�► Detached ADU Attached ADU For reasonable accommodations or alternative formats please contact 311 at 612-673-3000. People who are deaf or hard of hearing can use a relay service to call 311 at 612-673-3000. TTY users call 612-673-2157 or 612-673-2626. Para asistencia 612-673-2700- Rau kev pab 612-673-2800 - Hadli aad Caawimaad u baahantahay 612-673-3500. Revised August 2015 O u 0 Ol c F a o N v E c O c O m v m O 2 U ry y v o c v 00 10na Y m C o H o v a m o o C p a E >`i 2 a E v c cr x m E w Z v 3 v 0 D v w p 0 mQ na o c v O o c w it i+ G Q J a m o a ps O w .p ._ 0 N Q H H v m w h¢= w u E � v E ° H c b N c v a p� m ry L 'a ° 3 W w 6 v •° c L m'^ W p Y df a y y a s D Q o t O d N O V W N W M as Q 0 z o o O O v L W W ' $ c .c C 7 +L.• i. C O v E E � Et5 M 0 E ¢ N n 6 aL.• Q N M m M Vt +L• ¢ N v` N v o ro di w > > ? o L c � O N v E c O � O m v m O 2 U ry y v o c v 00 10na Y m C o J E T m U a m 0 N I N � N C p � q C H o v a E x m E w Z v 3 v 0 D v o Q Q J a m o a O v c H v m w h¢= w u E � v E ° H c b N c W w 6 y W p Y U 3 D Q o t O V W N W M as z o o y J E T m U a m 0 N I N CITY OF �1^i BLOOMINGTON MINNESOTA Request for Council Action COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City Code Amendment - Accessory Dwelling Unit Standards HEARINGS/PUBLIC INPUT I MMA Item 3 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Request: REQUEST City of Bloomington May 7, 2009 Case IOOOOA-09 City Code Amendments — Accessory Dwelling Unit Standards Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are defined as an "attached residential living unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons separate from a main unit on the same parcel." The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed this issue during discussions regarding the Housing Element of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update in July 2007. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan recommends adopting standards permitting ADUs. Creating an ADU ordinance is part of the Planning Division's 2009 adopted Work Plan. The Planning Commission will be requested to provide input and make a recommendation on the proposed ADU standards. A draft ordinance is included with this agenda item. An overview of the ordinance purpose, proposed standards, and proposed approval processes will be provided with the staff report for this item. CHRONOLOGY Planning Commission Meeting: 2/12/09 — Study meeting discussion. City Council Meeting: 3/30/09 — Study meeting discussion. Planning Commission Meeting: 5/7/09 — Public hearing on amendments to the City Code for Accessory Dwelling Unit Standards QUALITY SERVICES - AFFORDABLE PRICE rn_00i (12104) Case 10000A-09 Page 3.1 Accessory Dwelling Standards Item 3 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: City of Bloomington Request: Ordinance to create Accessory Dwelling Unit standards, thereby amending Chapters 14, 19, and 21 of the City Code PROPOSAL Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are defined as an "attached residential living unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons separate from a main unit on the same parcel." They are designed to be small, self-contained living units that have their own kitchen area, bedroom, and bathroom space. The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed this issue during discussions regarding the Housing Element of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update in July 2007. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan recommends adopting standards permitting ADUs. Creating an ADU ordinance is part of the Planning Division's 2009 adopted Work Plan. Based on input from City staff, a literature review, Planning Commissioners and City Council members staff has prepared a draft ordinance that would regulate the standards and regulations of ADUs. ANALYSIS ADUs have been recognized around the country as a strategy to increase the amount of affordable housing in a community and assist homeowners with mortgage and ownership costs without requiring City funding. These types of units exist as a middle ground between two-family dwellings and the renting of rooms to boarders. They provide a low -impact way for a community to expand its range of housing choices. The most common reasons cited for allowing ADUs are: I . to expand the supply of affordable housing for both owners and renters in the community; 2. to provide a means for homeowners, particularly the elderly, to obtain extra income, security, companionship, and service; 3. to make more efficient use of existing housing stock and infrastructure; and 4. to provide a mix of housing that responds to changing family needs. Source: wwtv.mrsc.oig/Publications/textaduaspx Except for two-family dwellings, City Code prohibits more than one dwelling unit per lot in single- family residential zoning districts; ADUs are not permitted per the current Zoning Code. The renting of rooms to not more than two roomers in a single-family dwelling is a permitted accessory use in the R-1, R -IA, and RS -1. Property owners who rent rooms in a single-family home must apply for a yearly rental license, which requires a fee (currently $82) and inspection conducted by the Environmental Health Division. Creating an ADU ordinance is not expected to drastically increase the amount of affordable housing in Bloomington. It is intended to provide another tool in the `housing toolbox' and support the Report to the Planning Commission May 7, 2009 Planning and Economic Development Division Case 10000A-09 Accessory Dwelling Unit Standards Page 3.2 Comprehensive Plan Housing Element goals to "Support the provision of affordable housing" and "Strive for housing that serves residents at each stage of their lives." Bloomington's average household size fell during every decennial census period since 1960; from 4.2 in 1960 to 2.3 in 2000. In addition to falling household size, Bloomington is also home to an aging population. From 1960 to 2000, the percentage of residents over the age of 65 rose from 3% to 16%. ADUs can provide an opportunity for independent, multi -generational living as well as additional revenue for elderly residents living alone. FREQUENTLY ASICED QUESTIONS Would someone be allowed to construct an apartment over a detached garage? No, ADUs would only be permitted if attached to the four season living space of the primary dwelling. What are the benefits of owning an ADU? Tenants can provide financial security to homeowners. ADUs can also help meet a family need to independently house family members of all ages (such as college -aged children or elderly parents) on- site. Could I create an ADU on my lot and still rent out rooms in my house? No. The proposed standards allow only one rental license per lot. Currently, renting out rooms in a single-family dwelling requires a rental license. Owners would need to choose between renting out rooms in their home and creating an ADU. Will ADUs create a parhingproblem? Residents interested in creating an ADU must meet the parking requirement for a single-family home before an ADU can be considered. The parking requirement for a single-family home requires four off-street spaces, two of which are within a garage or an area that could be occupied by a garage. Homeowners with a single -car garage and no other parking areas would be unable to create an ADU. Could someone construct a large ADU addition in the rear of their house? Any additions or renovations required to construct an ADU must meet current Zoning Building Code standards, and impervious surface limits. The amount of lot coverage, building setbacks, height restrictions and other regulations will remain the same. One of the proposed standards is to limit the maximum size of the ADU to less than 960 square feet or no more than 33% of the gross living area of the house (including the ADU), whichever is less. Are there home types that are more easily converted than others? Split level and ranch style houses are good candidates for conversion. Other home features that may lend themselves to adding an ADU include walk -out basements, two-story homes, and larger homes. Report to the Planning Commission May 7, 2009 Division of City Planning Case IOOOOA-09 Accessory Dwelling Unit Standards STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS Approval process Page 3.3 Renting rooms in a single-family home to no more than two roomers is a permitted accessory use. Staff recommends treating ADUs that meet proposed standards in the same manner, as a permitted accessory use. Creating a more onerous process for ADUs could lead to situations where homeowners go to great lengths to present the appearance of a roomer situation when it fact the created area shares more characteristics with an ADU. A public hearing process could also create a situation in which the public assumes the city has a higher level of discretion that it actually has. As a permitted accessory use, ADUs would be subject to review by the Planning, Building and Inspection, and Environmental Health Divisions. ADUs created by building additions would be subject to existing setback, lot coverage, exterior materials, and other applicable City Code regulations. Applicants requesting a variance to any of these standards, such as a setback variance, would be subject to City Council approval. Location and size The proposed ordinance allows ADUs only in the R-1 or RS -1 residential zoning districts. The R -IA zoning district contains homes not connected to municipal sanitary sewer service, which would not meet the proposed requirement that homes with ADUs must be connected to sanitary sewer and water service. ADUs would not be permitted on sites with less than 11,000 square feet. 11,000 square feet is the minimum site size for a single-family home. % of total residential parcels in R-1 and RS -1 Zoning Districts by size <7,000 sq. ft. .5% 7 —11,000 sq. ft. 16.2% 11 — 15,000 sq. ft. 32.4% > 15,000 sq. ft. 50.9% ADUs must be attached to four season living space or located within a single-family home. ADUs are not permitted in conjunction with two-family dwellings, townhomes, or multiple -family dwellings. ADUs would not be permitted in detached garages or structures. Staff believes allowing ADUs in detached structures does not promote the appearance of a single-family home and would be more difficult, if not impossible, to convert back to single-family living space once the ADU is no longer in use. The minimum size for an ADU is 300 square feet and the maximum size must not exceed 960 square feet. The minimum floor area for a two-family dwelling is 960 square feet; the upper maximum of 960 is used to not confuse an ADU with a two-family home. Report to the Planning Commission May 7, 2009 Division of City Planning Case 10000A-09 Accessory Dwelling Unit Standards Occupancy Occupancy in an ADU is limited to two persons an ADU with two occupants would be very Homeowners who rent out an approved ADU required to obtain an annual rental license. Parking Page 3.4 . Staff feels the impacts of a single-family home with similar to a single-family home with two roomers. to occupants other than family members would be The minimum single-family parking standards (four off-street spaces, two of which are within a garage or an area that could be occupied by a garage) must be met before an ADU can be created. Homes with a single -car garage that lack space to construct an additional off -sheet spaces would not be able to create an ADU. Appearance ADUs and associated single-family dwelling units must clearly be designed and constructed to maintain the outward appearance of one single-family dwelling. Both the primary and accessory dwelling unit must meet current Minnesota State Building Code provisions, including but not limited to fire resistance and sound insulation standards between units. ADU Example An example of a recently constructed ADU in Savannah, Georgia is included with this staff report and labeled Appendix A. Included is a site plan and photos of the ADU. The 776 square foot ADU attached to the rear elevation of a 2,545 square foot single-family ranch -style home would meet the standards in the proposed ordinance. Metro Comparison Of the 10 largest communities in the region, three allow ADUs while several other metro cities permit ADUs with varying standards and approval process (see Appendix B). The majority of these cities reported they have processed very few ADU applications in the past several years. RECOMMENDATION In Case 10000A-09, staff recommends approval of an ordinance that would amend the City Code standards for Accessory Dwelling Units. FAPlanning\PC\Reports\Reports 2009\10000A-09 Report to the Planning Commission May 7, 2009 Division of City Planning \ i / SG0S FDRGH (120 S l p) / /r PSloal'NCA. / UIOde•AYY i6 wA1'b6L / m wws A•c+. r mlaae'mCt Fs wwe• I/// //A rs lwe• l /6'r ��, � � myY4 A•a.l I/// 1 ec wnl'Arcu / J eloasNci. / HID AOOITIai!'y� / z swesY.LLtm A¢gem max.Vtla Ni / PORGII ADDITIDN I - Iw�a'A,, vuus®er�nHs d>or� s2 I \ ADDITION wllx'A,xx. / f Aualnro 1I�RR�i�ti1n��VPOMMx1� w e-n»+u I . i i FFL o 13,04' AMSL Fs wia /FD�WK / -- m1139'AMSL x•wosan as sr _. _________ I/ mass' AU L. nW aw'ws; @WAY D/EXI5T'S i ,__ ____DECK TBEF ueM1YK-1 Fi .4 EJ(ISTUNr I 024' 2 M) PAM aarlsax +3 �' / wa'rcx�Uo errs' li ®15A�4'AWL i I // oreelro lmlvreeu ;' V/ I � p � / - wlalsloawK � 1 < I j ! I t'nlx4a•Yl1W%CCW'. I ekB 4-6a8»lapo of 4- of \ . " I I canxn®awcwwa eFogIflWE1LMATBabEc EXI5TIN GE R£51DEN! fnr ncs. eannwt MAs a I ELEVATED MOD FRAME 0W 6TDitY / FFL®13,41'AML ISWAM FOOT akod6m GL YLiTgtiKll6i1. 67,6 'AM a• 0.4v e9poa V6a' nwwsm wau�Amsas m� aAK Wl t1ft IISTNJm o ,Fx Im Aa'n e 915Y V LLD 0 e ao Uw e my / ,16A a Sao P!!tn EX5na5tt/rKlwrLarSPlbF f 'AM a• 0.4v Pe*pW.tD trAimA vm V6a' nwwsm wau�Amsas m� awrosn rmu�rcws+ese spm u' Aesul Im Aa'n v9ex SITE 1'L.Ai EG.LL81'•la.o• m Vol i; _.,° Vol i; deck connec ADU and primary dwelling unit G ';�-•;,,iii. Entrance ~ - 0.k . �•jyy�y' �.yd _ i k9,3;h ,S l .y f •'"�+. - � �.'��, fir, V Entrance ~ - 0.k . �•jyy�y' �.yd _ i APPENDIX B Metro Comparison Of the 10 largest communities in the region, three allow ADUs (Table 1). Several other metrc cities permit ADUs with varying standards and approval process (Table 2). The majority of these cities reported they have processed very few ADU applications in the past several years. MIT= Approval process Standards -city Minneapolis Conditional Use • Within Ventura Village district only. Permit St. Paul Conditional Use • ADU must have originally been built as a carriage Permit house dwelling to house domestic employees. • Applicant shall obtain a petition signed by 2/3rds of property owners within 100 ft. Brooklyn Park Not permitted Plymouth Permitted in new • Must be located over attached or detached garages subdivisions a Must be built at same time of principal structure • No more than 1 ADU per lot • Owner occupancy required in either the ADU or primary unit • Rental license required for ADU • 2 off-street parking spaces required • ADU shall not exceed 1,000 sq. ft. Ea an Not permitted Coon Rapids Not permitted Eden Prairie Not permitted Burnsville Not ermitted Ma le Grove Not permitted -Woodbury Not permitted APPENDIX B Table 2 City Approval Standards process Apple Valley Conditional use e min. lot size 40,000 sq. ft. permit • ADU shall not be less than 300 ft. • Owner occupancy required in either the ADU or primary unit • Must be attached • No more than I ADU per parcel • No more than 3 persons and 2 bedrooms Chanhassen Temporary f Must demonstrate need based on disability, age, or variance financial hardship to receive the variance • Dwelling must have appearance of a single-family home including the maintenance of one driveway and entrance Long Lake Conditional use • Lot must be at least twice the min. lot size required by permit code • ADUs cannot exceed 900 sq. ft. • Only 1 ADU allowed per lot • Must be rented to relatives of the principal unit • 2 off-street parking spaces required Minnetonka Conditional use . Only 1 ADU per dwelling permit • Owner occupancy required in either the ADU or primary unit • ADU must not have no more than 35% of the gross living area of the house or 950 sq. ft., whichever is less Stillwater Y Min. lot size based on the residential zoning district • May be attached to the principal unit or located in a detached structure • Max size is 800 sq. ft. White Bear Lake Conditional use . Owner occupancy required in the primary unit permit • ADUs shall not be smaller than 200 sq. ft. nor exceed 880 sq. ft. or 40% of the habitable area of the principal unit, whichever is less MOUNDS VIEW of Mounds View Staff Item No: 6C Meeting Date: June 1, 2016 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Item Title/Subject: Discussion; Brew Pubs Date: June 1, 2016 Introduction The 2011 Surly Bill permitted small breweries to sell alcohol on-site to consumers, whereas previously, breweries were strictly manufacturing facilities. This contributed to the popularity of craft brewing, and has resulted in dozens of micro -breweries popping up across the state. Interest has been expressed in establishing such a business in Mounds View, but first, the City must allow them by Ordinance. Discussion Liquor licenses include eight categories: - Off -sale intoxicating liquor - Off -sale wine - Liquor permits - On -sale intoxicating liquor - On -sale wine - Situations where no license is required - 3.2% malt liquor, strong - Micro -distilleries beer authorizations, and brew pubs For the purposes of this Discussion, we will focus on Brew Pubs. Brew Pubs must obtain a license from the State and the City. Brew Pubs are limited to manufacturing and sales of no more than 3,500 barrels per year, of which off -sales are limited to 500 barrels. In other words, the intent is that the majority of beer produced is to be consumed on-site. Brew Pubs are a combination of retail sales and manufacturing, and may or may not include food sales. Referring to the City Code, restaurants and off -sale liquor sales are permitted in the B-2 district (CUP required if more than 24 seats); B-3, and B-4 districts, and a Conditional Use in the PUD districts. In general, the County Road 10 commercial corridor is a mix of B-3, B-4, and PUD districts, with some exceptions. Item No: 6C Meeting Date: June 1, 2016 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity If considering amending the City Code to allow Brew Pubs, items to consider include: 1. What are the appropriate Zoning District(s)? 2. Should outdoor seating be permitted? 3. Should live music be permitted? 4. Are there non -compatible land uses in which Brew Pubs should be setback from? Staff recommends that the Commission discuss Brew Pubs in general terms, and provide Staff direction if the City Code should be amended to allow Brew Pubs. Respectfully, Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments Article — Tap Talk: Barley John's Brewpub In New Brighton, CBS News (May 12, 2015) CBS Minnesota Tap Talk: Barley John's Brewpub In New Brighton By Bole Premo May 12, 2015 11:01 AM By Cole Premo Over the last five years, the craft brewery movement has grown exponentially in Minnesota. The Associated Press says licensing records show two-thirds of Minnesota breweries have opened just since 2010. So, we decided to help you — and your livers — keep up with the taproom trend by stopping by some of these Twin Cities brewhouses. This time, we headed to Barley John's Brewpub. Just north of Minneapolis stashed away in its "oasis" of New Brighton, you'll find a quaint little brewpub bearing the name of Barley John's. The brewpub's beer, however, packs quite a bigger punch. In March of 2000, nutrition/biology-inclined John Moore and his wife, Laura Subak, a nurse, founded the brewpub. The gears for the business started turning years before, when Moore was introduced to home brewing. "I was at Pillsbury as a consumer respondent with a nutrition degree and a buddy of mine, a biologist, was home brewing beer. (Meanwhile,) I'm going to Surdyk's and spending half my paycheck getting craft beer, and I go to his place and his beer is better than the beer I was buying!" Moore said. Moore's thirst for brewing beer only grew from there. "Soon, five gallons of all grain isn't enough and we're figuring out how to do 15 gallons, because all our buddies were drinking our beers ... and it just continues to roll," he said. After leaving Pillsbury, Moore began honing his skills, brewing for District Brewing and James Page Brewing— both of which are now closed. He also completed coursework at the Siebel Institute of Brewing Science. After acquiring all his skills, however, brewing jobs were hard to come by in the late -90s. "I knew the head brewer at Strohs in St. Paul and a guy at Landmark. Both of them said 'yeah, we could probably get you a job. Now's not a good time.' And sure enough, three months after, Strohs shut down and moved down to La Crosse, and then Landmark was on the skids," Moore said. Not finding work, the couple decided to have the work come to them! Moore and his wife soon started writing a business plan. And with the help of Subak's nursing job funds keeping them afloat, the brewpub was born. Oh ... and two kids were born around that time, too, just to keep them on their toes. Now, Barley John's serves customers uncompromisingly rich brews (some hit the 11-12 percent alcohol mark!), along with fresh food featuring produce from their garden. "If you're going to make beer from scratch, you gotta make the food from scratch too," Moore said. So, what was your initial vision for the business? Laura: At that time (early stages), we didn't know if we were gonna do a brewpub or a brewery. We actually started in our sunroom and it took us four years from conception to opening up this place. The brewery vs. brewpub was because we like food, and food is as important as the beer. So that was a clear decision there. John: The (liquor store) shelves were bursting (back in 1999) kinda like they are now to the point that there was so much selection, so we were like, "if we do a brewpub, they'll be the attraction of the food as well versus a brewery where we're fighting for shelf space with no name recognition." Laura: The success point of it all has to do with the people that come here and how we make them feel. We hoped that this is a place where someone might, you know, 'pop the question', come back here every year for their anniversary ... have special memories. And that's exactly what happened. It's a place where if you stop coming, you're missed. Why move to New Brighton? Up here, you know, it's a little more laid back. People come up here with their dogs, the kids, there's a recreational fire place ... It's less hipster I guess (smiles). Were there any obstacles with the brewpub? Not for the brewpub. In fact, the city of New Brighton was extremely helpful in the get -go. They're still a good city to work with. Tell me a little bit about your philosophy for your beers. John: The Wild Brunette ... when I was working at James Page, they had a wild rice boch. It was something silly, like 2 percent wild rice. And I'm like, "at least get enough where you can taste the wild rice." Have some character present. So that was one that was for sure going to happen. I also really liked porters, so 1 researched porters ... IPAs were even hot back then, so that was a gimme. The Little Barley (Bitter), which is a British -style bitter, was actually supposed to be a pale mild, but it was the first beer brewed on the system and the efficiencies were higher then estimated. So we checked the ABV and all that kind of stuff and it wasn't a pale mild, it was more of bitter. That's named after our first child, who was called Little Barley when he was in Laura's womb! Laura: Rosie, our daughter who is 14, has Rosie's Old Ale. I have the Wild Brunette, but there's no beer named after you (John) ... yet. John: I was once asked to lower the alcohol in some of my beers, but I was like "you know, I could do that, but the beer that they have will be less memorable. It will be less like what I've made that beer to be." So, it's like: if I fail it's going to be on my own terms. It's going to be because I'm making this beer the way I think it should be made. How's your relationship with other breweries? Laura: The Minnesota Craft Brewers Guild is very popular. That's gotten much bigger. When we first started, we were able to host the Minnesota Brewers Guild party here and I remember there was only, you know, 20 people. But that was 15 years ago. How many breweries or brewpubs were here in Minnesota? 15? Not many and now there are so many. They just had their gathering at Surly, the big complex. We pretty much know the old time brewers. What's it like running a business as a married couple? Laura: Well, when we first opened up the business, we were here quite a bit. That became challenging because there were too many cooks in the kitchen... we had heated discussions about this and that ... I'm a nurse, cover the insurance and house bills, which was critical at the very beginning. Then two kids ... so I kind of just stepped back and said, "you go ahead, baby." That was an important thing, because then I was there as a consult, not decision maker. It made much more sense and went more smoothly. After that, piece of cake. Sometimes he forgets to talk to me about certain things, he's got a lot on his plate. But we have a cool relationship and a lot of support with the kids. That's huge. Without my parents being able to watch the kids and the balance, it would have been a nightmare. We had a lot going for US. Having a business that's stressful taxes a marriage, but we were very blessed to not have any of that happen. Do your kids help out with the business? Laura: Oh yeah they do. Oh my gosh. They help out in the garden. Every summer. They've had their summer jobs for two years in a row. Nick wants to start in the kitchen. They're up here a lot. How has it been observing the changes in the brewing industry? John: Back when we started, trying to get a bourbon barrel was as simple as calling the distributor and saying, "yo, throw one on the truck!" They literallyjust fell into your lap. Sometimes it cost you a little dough and a lot of the times you could get them for free. But now you gotta get into a bloody waiting list— even with people you used to get barrels from 1 They're like, "ah well we're booked up." Which is one side. Just the notoriety and acceptance of craft beer not only in the marketplace, but among people you know. I mean, we into the game, but when you'd go to a party ... we'd be the geeks with the two six-packs and you'd have the rest of them with two 24 -packs ... now beer drinking is a bit more focused on the quality of the product. Future ambitions/goals? John: Yes. Evolution. You either stay vital or continue to create an environment that continues to grow, I guess, or it becomes stagnant. Not that you have to grow per say, but you have to continue to improve efficiency in what you got going on. Efficiency might not be the right word, but you gotta keep it intact with the times. There's a patio to be worked on eventually. We expect to have it torn out and paved —those plans still exist. Final note: John recently separated from the pub in December 2014 and it is now completely owned by Laura. The decision was made because John will be opening up a brewery. "It is important that I am no longer considered an owner of the pub," he said. "It was the only way to keep the brewpub open and open a brewery." Address: 781 Old Hwy 8 SW, New Brighton, MN 55112 MOUNDS VIEW of Mounds View Staff Item No: 6D Meeting Date: June 1, 2016 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Item Title/Subject: Discussion; Demographics Introduction During the May 18, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, there was brief discussion of the changing demographics in Mounds View. The Commission requested to continue this discussion. Discussion Attached, please find two charts depicting nativity and place of birth, provided by the 2010-2014 American Community Survey (US Census Bureau). Additionally, please find a 2015 report; Minnesota On The Move from the MN State Demographic Center. The Report includes helpful maps, graphs, and charts for easy skimming. Recommendation If the Commission wishes to discuss further, and would like additional information, please direct Staff of what information would be helpful. Respectfully submitted, 40.'-41 ` Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments 1. Sex by Age by Nativity and Citizenship Status, Mounds View (2010-2014 American Community Survey) 2. Places of Birth in the United States, Mounds View (2010-2014 American Community Survey) 3. Minnesota On The Move: Migration Patterns & Implications. Minnesota State Demographic Center, 2015. N N q q u�j h N N H M M 01 h M M b N O m H H H 4 Q N n n b N N H M H N H H ti 'y ~ V N w Jmi3 {a uiPieyy *.:.:. `o O F d;e W1;53 N ei M d N r O 1� O m N O> DJ O W O N I� N n O O O m d' ul m N n "i, L ioJ13 {o weieyy N N H H M.11 H .QY N� N H M H �Qi H �Qi m Po N M N o < < < E ;53 o m o 0 0 0 o m o m m o 0 0 o a o. m m o m i - a3ewils3 m �n000 0 o ry moo ry o.+o 000o. o. - i. . -.� m n 6m � 1e.�-•-•-•ti m m w A ry W W ro N b P N „"�„ry N n M b b M a4ewils3 h n m.-. T N N O .i O N r N.-� m V' mNm.ai m m .NiH w V N M mo O vl N v ➢ N n n n N N H N n N h n n N h ti n n 'a+Po JmJ3 io uiP)eW .Qv �Qi < .Q -I < .Q-1 < Em000 _ a;ewils3 ooin m .no m oo.o m m v moon c mmoo 0 Q V N O Q M M M M N O N O� N N __o m Q Q a;ewils3 �m.Ni N ti m.y �+ti on .-+Q Nin o�nn ry.o mrry om N timry Nm �.n n �n n b N n M N b n h bM^ O1i 1 m Q -I ry 'Q -I m O O 4 O ioii3 {o weieW ` U 3 O m N N O O O .➢ .n m N N O 1� a0 .4 d' n ajewps] 'I O O N N V V~ O O ul N N O •O N d' O N - a;PWl;53 C vl V tmvl N m O O W M �n v v ✓i v 'u 7i'w -o o a � « o >v m z z c m z z > v m z z c m m z z z v z° cT 0 m � m' vq ajewpq TPF ulsievq { \C \^t _m 0110 osD-1x148 Minnesota On The Move: Migration Patterns & Implications ,44��nun Minnesota State Demographic Center I January 2015 1 mn.gov/demography �Ilnnesata Purpose The Commissioner of Administration, as part of strategic planning, is to issue an annual report to the Governor and chairs and ranking minority members of the State Senate and House of Representatives committees with jurisdiction on state government finance, that provides demographic information to assist public and elected officials with long-term management decisions. This report, prepared by the MN State Demographic Center, focuses upon the increasingly important role that migration will play in population change in Minnesota, and potential implications, to fulfill the expectations of Minnesota State Statutes 4A.01 and 4A.1 I. Page 12 19L6 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER = )ANUARY2015 Minnesota On The Move: Migration Patterns & Implications Executive Summary Minnesota is entering a new demographic era, when the three components of population change—births, deaths and migration—will change in their relative influence. Within the next three decades, the number of births in Minnesota will be eclipsed by the number of deaths—for the first time in our state's history. When that occurs, by the early 2040s, if our state is to experience any population growth at all, it will necessarily be from migration. Over these same coming decades, the Baby Boomer generation will continue to exit the labor force, and overall labor force growth will slow nearly to a halt. Thus, our state will experience a heightened need for migration to grow at all, but especially to shore up its labor force needs. Given this rising importance of migration to our state, this report examines the patterns and net movement of people in and out of Minnesota. Importantly, we find that: • Between 1991 and 2001, Minnesota's domestic (state -to -state) net migration was consistently positive. However, each year following 2001, Minnesota has lost more people to other U.S. states than it has gained. Recent estimates put domestic net losses at approximately 7,000 to 12,000 people per year. • Despite these domestic losses, even greater numbers of arriving international residents—including foreign students and work VISA holders, refugees, and other immigrants—have resulted in sustained positive overall migration. • Each year of the past two decades, Minnesota has gained more people than it has lost to other places. However in the 1990s, migration added more than 15,000 people on average each year from migration, while annual gains have fallen below 9,000 on average each year since 2000. • The likelihood of moving, both in and out of Minnesota, peaks in the late teens and early 20s, and then tapers gradually into older adulthood. However, net losses to domestic migration are seen among three segments of Minnesotans: age 18-24 (about 9,300 lost annually), age 35-39 (about 1,500 lost annually), and age 60-69 (about 2,200 lost annually). • While 21,000 young adults move to Minnesota each year to attend college or graduate school, even greater numbers of students (29,000) leave the state each year. In fact, two-thirds of Minnesota's total annual domestic net loss is due to Minnesota students leaving for higher education, and far fewer return in the post -college years. Thus, retaining more of our college -bound young adults at in-state institutions may be a key strategy to long-term population retention and labor force development. Compared to other Midwestern states (excepting oil -rich outlier North Dakota), Minnesota competes favorably in terms of overall positive net migration. But considering the reversal of domestic migration to a net outflow more than a decade ago, and given our state's near-term labor force challenges with the Boomers' retirement, additional attention to our migration situation is warranted. More than 100,000 people come to Minnesota from other states each year, and an even greater number leave Minnesota for other states. These sizeable flows of people present an opportunity to change the migration equation to better benefit our state. Minnesota should work to stem and reverse domestic losses, redouble efforts to attract and integrate new residents, especially young adults, and seek to retain its current resident population. Page 13 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER = JANUARY2015 Introduction Like others all across the nation, many Minnesotans are on the move. Throughout their lives, they move in and around the state, throughout the states, and occasionally abroad. They change addresses for job prospects or educational opportunities, to reunite with family or friends, or to seek out amenities they desire. Some residents leave and boomerang back. Some leave and never look back. The continuous, dynamic patterns of migration also brings many new residents, workers, cultures, and influences into our state people seeking to construct a better life, however that is personally defined. Minnesota's population is a composite of home-grown residents and transplants from other states and destinations around the world. This report examines these many currents of migration, highlighting implications and suggesting opportunities to retain and attract additional people, to build our labor force and secure a strong economic future. Why Does Migration Matter To Minnesota? Understanding the patterns of people moving in and out of our state is critical for leaders seeking to prepare Minnesota for its future. Minnesota is entering a new demographic era, where the three components of population change—births, deaths and migration—will change in their relative influence. Our labor force and population growth will slow dramatically, and migration's impact will become far more prominent. Figure 1: Historical and Projected Growth In Minnesota's Labor Force, Ages I6+, Annual Average, 1980-2039 Source: U.S. Cen , Bureau, decennial census. MN State Demographic Center vrelemen.. Over the coming decades, the Baby Boomer generation will continue to exit Minnesota's labor force, and while the labor force they leave behind will still grow, that growth will be very modest. In the 1990s our state's labor force gained about 40,000 new net participants each year; however, we project that through the remainder of the present decade (the 2010s), our labor force will grow by only about 8,000 people annuallyJ Between 2020 and 2030, we project further slowing, with just 4,000 people annually enlarging the labor force—one-tenth the size of the expansion during the 1990s (see Figure 1).Minnesota will experience a heightened need for migration to strengthen our labor force as the largest birth cohort in history leaves its working years behind. Over the next 15 years, Minnesota will see more people moving out of the workforce and into retirement than in the last six decades combined. At present, the major driver of Minnesota's population growth is "natural change," defined as the number of births occurring over and above the deaths. Most recently, Minnesota's population increased by 0.6% from 2013 to 2014, and by 2.9% since the date of the 2010 Census. Since then, Minnesota has added about 153,200 residents. The majority of this growth—about four out of each five people added—is due to natural increase, while the remaining one is due to positive net migration. Page 14 ,�d^"esota �MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER = JANUARY2015 Minn — As the numerous members of Minnesota's Baby Boomer generation' move into the later seasons of their lives, mortality rates and totals will rise. According to our projectionsi', within the next three decades, the number of births in Minnesota will be eclipsed by the number of deaths—for the first time in our state's history (see Figure 2). When that occurs, by the early 2040s, if our state is to experience any population growth at all, it will necessarily be from migration. Absent positive net migration at that time, the prospect of a declining population base would mean reduced consumer spending and tax revenues, with the attendant challenges to maintaining economic growth and fulfilling public priorities. Given this confluence of demographic and economic factors, migration will be increasingly important to Minnesota's future. Figure 2: Minnesota's Projected Net Migration And Natural Change, 2015-2065 35,000 - - - - - - --- - 30,000 -- 25,000 - - --- -- - 20,000 -, - --- - - 15,000 Natural Change (Births -Deaths) - - - --- --- - � Net Migration 10,000 - - 5,000 --_ -- ---- 0 N O N O N O N O N O N -5,000 O'— N N N N N N N N N N N Source: MN Sate Dem.,r phk Cenner p-J-d.n, Does Minnesota Gain Or Lose People Because Of Migration? Over the past two decades, Minnesota has consistently gained more people than it has lost to other places. In the 1990s Minnesota gained an average of 15,500 people each year due to migration (See Figure 3). Since 2000, gains have been much slower, dipping to just 2,000 during the Great Recessionz and the years immediately following (2008-2010). In the most recent period, net gains from migration have picked up again, averaging about 6,000 people per year between 2011 and 2014, though still much lower gains than those experienced in the 1990s. These overall net figures are the result of considerable volumes of individuals moving both into and out of the state, and the majority of this movement is offsetting. However, examining the characteristics of these many currents of migration is revealing. I The Baby Boomer generation is defined as individuals born in years 1946 to 1964. In 2015, the Boomers will be between 50 (prior to their birthdays) and 69 years old. 1 2 According to the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research, the latest U.S, recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009. aser Page 15"9 LMIN STATE DEMOG RAPHIC CENTER = JANUARY2015 Domestic and International Migration It is helpful to break the population figures from migration into its two component parts: domestic migration— occurring between Minnesota and other U.S, states—and international migration—between Minnesota and other countries outside the U.S. The impetus for moving may differ in important ways between the two groups, and each tells a different story for Minnesota's migration patterns in recent years. Figure 3: Total Net Migration for Minnesota, 1990-2014 (Annual Average Within Time Period) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Populadon Estlmates Program. Note: 2000 data were interpolared. As Figure 4 shows, between 1991 and 2001 Minnesota s domestic net migration was consistently positive. During the 1990s, the state experienced low unemployment rates compared with the U.S. overall, and this may help explain why it attracted more people from around the U.S. However, since 2002, Minnesota's has consistently lost more people to other U.S. states than it has gained, despite experiencing strong relative economic indicators again in the past several years. (Since 2009, Minnesota's annual unemployment rate has been 1.2 to 2.5 percentage points lower than the U.S. as a whole)ill. Figure 4: Minnesota's Net Migration, By International And Domestic Components, 1991-2014 25,000 -- "" AK A 20,000 15,000 10,000 ir 5,000 0 -5,000 -10,000 to P P P P N P P P P O O O O O O O O O Co (n P P N (1� P P P O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O _ N N N N N N N N International Net Domestic Net —Total Net Migration Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program. Note: Data for 2009-2010 was unavailable and so interpolated. Page 16 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JAWARY2015 International migration tells a different story, with Minnesota being a long sought-after destination for immigrants of many varying backgrounds. Over the past two and a half decades, Minnesota's net international migration has been unfailingly positive. The total number of people the state gained from other countries averaged about 6,000 annually during the 1990s, and rose considerably during the 2000s and up to the present. Since 2010, the number of people Minnesota gained, on net, from other countries has averaged 12,000 annually. The growth in international migration has more than compensated for the recent losses the state has experienced to other states. However, our domestic losses continue to dampen the overall positive impact of migration on population growth, and raise many questions about what may be responsible for the trend. Migration Patterns: Comparison With Other States Since 2010 A net loss of people to other states is not unusual for states located in the Midwest region3 of the U.S. Between the 2010 Census count and the 2014 population estimate4, North Dakota and South Dakota were the only Midwestern states to experience positive rates of domestic migration, while Minnesota and the other nine states in the region saw domestic losses (see Table 1). North Dakota added more than 43,000 residents relocating from other states, while South Dakota received about 12,000 new domestic migrants. However, due to its significant off -setting international arrivals, Minnesota ranked second only to oil -rich North Dakota in total net migration, edging out South Dakota despite its domestic magnetism. Table I: Net Migration, Midwestern States, April 1, 2010 -July I, 2014 State Total International Domestic North Dakota 48,900 5,500 43,300 Minnesota 31,100 56,200 -25,200 South Dakota 18,000 6,000 12,100 Iowa 16,900 21,400 -4,600 Nebraska 10,000 15,500 -5,400 Indiana 1 8,400 42,000 -33,600 Missouri -81000 35,500 -43,500 Wisconsin -11,300 26,100 -37,400 Kansas -15,300 24,900 -40,200 Ohio -51,000 71,100 -122,000 Michigan -72,700 80,500 -153,200 Illinois -190,100 128,800 -319,000 source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 Population Esomates. None: Domestic plus Innernadonal issues may not equal canals dua no rudnd'ms and a' i esidoal:'the insula of cone oiling county ,opulasions m the nadonal population for 6. entire set of ertimate,. Setting aside the two Dakotas, Minnesota's observed pattern of negative domestic migration, but positive international migration since 2010 holds for all other states in the Midwest. Illinois is the most extreme case on both counts, losing about 319,000 domestic migrants, while gaining nearly 129,000 residents from international destinations since the last decennial Census. (Put together, this resulted in total out -migration from Illinois of more than 190,000 residents, the greatest reduction in population from migration among all states.) In sum, the Midwest states lost about 729,000 domestic residents during the past four years, while gaining about 513,000 from international migration, for a total net loss of 215,000 residents total from migration. 3 The Census Bureau defines the "Midwest region" as comprising the following 12 states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin. We have adopted this definition throughout this report 4 The reference data of the 2010 Census is April I, while the reference date of the 2014 population estimate is July I. Page 17 y- MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER W JANUARY2015 The larger picture of migration throughout the nation shows that states in the Souths were the largest magnets for domestic migration, tallying 1.4 million new net domestic arrivals since 2010, followed by states in the West6, which added close to a quarter of a million residents from other states. An equal or greater number of international migrants also sought out states in those regions. Since the 2010 Census, existing population behemoths Florida and Texas each have added more than 900,000 new residents from migration, with sizeable shares from both domestic and international populations. (While North Dakota's 43,000 domestic migrants led the Midwest, Florida and Texas each added more than 10 times that figure.) Despite experiencing about 189,000 domestic losses, California proved such a popular destination for international arrivals that it ranked 31d in positive overall net migration, adding about 460,000 residents since 2010. Following Texas and Florida—the states most likely to be listed in a domestic mover's new address— ranked North Carolina, Colorado, Arizona, and South Carolina. Each attracted 100,000 or more transplants from other states since 2010 (plus tens of thousands of new international residents). These major shifts in U.S. population have broad implications—for the economy, politics, and beyond. It is helpful to understand Minnesota's place in the larger picture of U.S. migration, and seek to strengthen our hand where possible. If not, our present ranking of 21 at most populous state may be at risk in the years to come. Colorado and South Carolina, the 22nd and 24th largest states respectively, are both excelling at attracting residents through migration in far greater numbers than Minnesota. Figure 5: Total Net Migration, By State, April I, 2010 -July I, 2014 e� )1 Total Migration (Net) W 200,000 920,000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 Population Estimates. Nora: Domestic plus insermdonal figures may no, equal smals due m rounding and a "residual." she result of os nu ollin, ouoq populations to the national population for the enure ser ofooksones. For interactivemap online, see: hapllmn.goy/admi demographylmap-viz-galle,ylvaran-on-she-move maps-migration-by-stare-2010-2014.isp 5 The Census Bureau defines the "South region" as including the following states (and the District of Columbia): Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. 6 The Census Bureau defines the "West region" as including the following states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. The remaining states (not appearing in the Midwest, South, or West regions) make up the "Northeast region." Page 1Bisaa MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER = JANUARY 2015 Figure 6: Domestic Net Migration, By State, April[, 2010- July 1, 2014 Domestic Migration (Net) y000 565,000 Source. U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 Population Eseima ss. Noce: Domestic he monsutional ggures may not equal roofs due to rounding and a "residual," the result Rono-olling county populations to the national population for rhe entire set of estimates. For interactive map online, zee: http/Imn.gov/admin/demography/naa a-Vl1ery/viz-mn-on-the -move-maps-migradonli,state-2010-2014.1sp Figure 7: International Net Migration, By State, April[, 2010 -July[, 2014 mal Migration (Net) 650,000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 Population Estimates. Note: Domestic plus international figm es n,ay not equal mnls due to rounding and a "residual," the result of convolling oumy populations to the nonoral population for she entire ser of estimates. For Interactive map online, see: httpl/mn.gov/adMn/demography/mapviz-gallery/viz-mn-omrhe-move-maps-naigratiomby-state-2010 2014.Isp Page 19 nla� MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY2015 Migration In Minnesota: One Hundred Thousand Come And Go Each Year While the netted -out numbers shed light on how domestic and international migration impact the Minnesota s overall population growth, they do not describe the overall volume of people passing through the state in a typical year. Indeed, the relatively small size of net gains masks a tremendous amount of total migration occurring into and out of Minnesota each year. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey suggest that between 2008 and 2012, there were about 101,000 people each year who moved to Minnesota from another state and about 24,000 who moved to Minnesota from another country. During the same time period, about 113,000 people left Minnesota each year for other states in the U.S.7 In addition, another group left Minnesota for a country outside the U.S.; however, estimates of international out -migrants are not available from this data source.8 Figure 8: Minnesota s Annual Average Domestic Migration Flows, 2008-2012 Source: IPUMS version of U.S. Census Bureau's 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Tabubuons by MN State Demographic Center. These sizeable numbers of individuals who are making relocation choices also present Minnesota leaders with an opportunity to influence their decision-making regarding the costs and benefits of moving. To do so, we would need to know more about who is choosing to leave Minnesota as well as relocate here, and at what period of their lives. The next section further explores these questions. Origins Of Minnesota's New Arrivals Versus Minnesota's Recent Leavers Each year, about 125,000 people move to Minnesota from another state or country. Of all our state's newcomers in recent years, 19% moved from another country, 28% moved from one of the four states that T The American Community Survey (ACS) data estimates yield a higher net loss from migration (12,000 annual average during the 2008-2012 period) than the Population Estimates data cited earlier in this paper (7,000 annual average during those same years) for Minnesota. While the exact figure is unknown, this section employs the American Community Survey data as it yields additional insights about the characteristics of migrants. a The U.S. Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program suggests that the net gain from international migration was about 10,000 people during this time period, which would suggest an outflow of about 14,000 Minnesota residents to other countries each year. Pagello i0^� MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY 2015 shares a border with Minnesota (North or South Dakota, Iowa, or Wisconsin), and 53% moved from a state that does not share a border with Minnesota. More than one-quarter of newcomers (28%) were Minnesota - born residents, returning after a spell away. Half were born in another state, while just under one-quarter were born outside of the United States. At the same time, about 1 13,000 people left Minnesota for another state in the U.S. (see Figure 8). Many do not go far: the most common destination for recent leavers is Wisconsin (16% of all out -migrants), followed by North Dakota (12% of all out -migrants). The next most common destinations include the "Sun Belt" states of Arizona (06) and Texas (6%), along with our southern neighbor, Iowa (6%). Recent leavers were almost equally likely to be Minnesota -born (44%) as born in another U.S. state (46%). In addition, about I in 10 individuals leaving Minnesota for another state was born outside of the U.S. Figure 9: Characteristics Of Minnesota's Recent Arrivals And Leavers, At A Glance. Source: IPUMS version of U.S. Censuz Bm eau'x 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Tabuhd.o , by MN Seoe Demographic Cemer. Pagel11 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER = JANUARY2015 Migration Patterns By Age: Young Minnesotans Are Most Likely To Be Footloose A person's age greatly influences the likelihood that he or she will relocate, both within and outside the state. One might expect that the ages often associated with two prominent transitions in life, leaving for college and retirement, would yield a high degree of mobility (moving of any type) and migration (moving across state or national lines) among Minnesotans. However, this is true of only the former group—the young adults. Among all age groups, the likelihood of moving within the state is actually the lowest among 65- to 74 -year-old residents, with only about 3% swapping Minnesota homes in the course of a year (see Figure 10). And while this group does exhibit some degree of domestic migration, the likelihood of moving out of state is low and somewhat offset by newcomers of the same age. On average, 1.0% of 65- to 74 -year-olds leave Minnesota each year for another state, while an average of 0.8% percent of this age group arrived in Minnesota from another state in the past year. Curiously, the 60- to 64 -year-old cohort exhibits slightly higher out -migration (I. I%) and slightly lower in -migration (0.6%) than that group. Yet because those early 60-somethings9 contain entirely Baby Boomers, they are much more numerous than the group following them; consequently these percentages translate into greater numbers of people coming and going. Figure 10: Percent of Minnesota Residents Moving Within Minnesota, or Migrating In Or Out Of Minnesota, By Single Year of Age, 2008-2012 35% 30% 25% 20% Moved Within MN Moved To MN From Another State IS% Leh MN For Another State Moved To MN From Abroad 10% 5% 0% 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 AGE Somee: IPUMS version of U.S. Cemu. Bureau's 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Tabulations by MN Sam Demopaphlc Censer. Looking across the age spectrum, young adults in their late teens and 20s are the demographic most responsible for Minnesota s mobility and migration patterns. As Figure 10 shows, 30 percent or more of Minnesotans age 19-25 makes a change of address inside of Minnesota, generally leaving the home of their parent(s), often in exchange for a residence and community associated with their pursuit of post -secondary education or training, or entrance into the labor market. This mobility is to be expected as a natural part of the life course. 9 During years 2008-2012, the years of the dataset used for this analysis. Page 112 "i^ 1 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER _ JANUARY 2015 However, it is the interstate migration pattern of these young adults that is particularly interesting and concerning. Because the gap between out -migrants and in -migrants yawns the widest among our young adult populations (see Figures I I and 12), the result is that they are driving more net out -migration than any other age group. Figure 11: State -to -State Migration By 5 -Year Age Groups, Minnesota, 2008-2012 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 Ofr qQ O\ q 9 Otip ry9 Oqp qb9 ) �p`e1 O 0. 'IV O!,0. yb9 O^A y1a �a �0x ti N` a° a q� q b b 1 1 OO AGE Source: IPUMSverskm of U.S. Census Bureaus 2000-2012 American Communit,Survey. Tabuladons by MN Sete Demographic Center. Noteabers indiatea 90% confidence interval around the estimates. Figure 12: State -to -State Migration Among Young Adults By Single Year Of Age, Minnesota, 2008-2012 ■ In -migration ■ Out -migration Source, IPUMS venlou of U S. Census Bureau's 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Tabulations by MN State Demographic Center. Note: I -bars indicate a 90% confidence interval around the estimates. c Page 113 ,�t dater MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER � JANUARY2015 As we have seen, the likelihood of moving across state lines peaks in the late teens and early 20s, and then tapers gradually into older adulthood. However, after accounting for all movement in and out, we find Figure 13: Age Groups With Net Losses From Migration To Other States, By Average Annual Number Of People Lost, Minnesota, 2008-2012 -3,600 18 -3,000 19 -2,600 20-24 us -1,500 35-39 -1,400 60-64 -900 65-69 Sowee: IPUMS version of LLS. Census Bureau's 2008-2012 American Co,nmunIq Survey. Tabulations by MN sere Demographic Cenver. The Great Migration Of College Students statistically significant net losses of residents to domestic migration among three segments of Minnesotans: those age 18-24 (about 9,300 lost annually), age 35-39 (about 1,500 lost annually), and age 60-69 (about 2,200 lost annually) (see Figure 13). Over the past five years then, these losses sum to more than 65,000 Minnesotans who have out -migrated in these few age groups. If we are to focus our attention most precisely, the greatest losses occur among Minnesota's 18- and 19- year-olds—more than 3,000 apiece each year, or half of the total annual net domestic loss that Minnesota experiences all together. Among 18- and 19 -year-olds, MN has lost a net of more than 33,000 people in the past five years. Many, but not all of these migrants, are college -bound. Of all the people migrating in and out of Minnesota in any given year, a large segment is made up of students moving to attend college or graduate school (see Figures 14 and 15). About one-fifth of Minnesota's new arrivals and one-fourth of our new leavers are students of higher education. While our data source, the American Community Survey, does not directly ask respondents why they moved to another state, we can estimate students by identifying those who moved in the past year and are currently enrolled in post -secondary school. 10 Figure 14: Annual Leavers From Minnesota, By Age Group And Student Status, 2008-2012 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 ■ Undergrad or Graduate Student 5,000 p �ps • Not a Student )s 4 \h \q tip ryA 'yA ,hF A9 yA hq P p9 '�A 'D P ya 4V 1.64 10` ^s,,41 O AGE Somze: IPUMS version of U.S. Census Bureau's 2008-2012 Amerlan Community Survey. Tabuiazions by MN Save Demogrephic Center. to "Students' were identified in the data as those who began attending school within the year following their move, who are under age 50. These individuals are presumed to have moved for the purpose of attending higher education. UP Page 114nnes 1 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY 2015 Figure 15: Annual Arrivals To Minnesota, By Age Group And Student Status, 2008-2012 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 ■ Undergrad or Graduate Student ■ Not a Student 5,000 p yq \h \q ryA ,vy ryq .fp• .yo• .5K pt� yo• yK P b AV AV QP Source: PUNS version of U.S. Cen... 8weauS 2008- 2012 American Community Survey. Tabuhdl by MN S.,. D.m,.,W Cemer. A sizable share of Minnesota's total net loss of residents to other states is explained by those who move away for post -secondary school. While about 21,000 people move to Minnesota each year and then attend college or graduate school, about 29,000 students leave the state for this reason each year (see Figure 16). Thus, fully two- thirds of the Minnesota's total net loss of 12,000 residents per year is attributable to college and graduate students (see Figure 17). While some numbers of these students return later in their lives as non- students, the data suggest that the numbers returning are far less than those exiting Minnesota during their college years.I I Indeed, the move to college or graduate school may be temporary, with young people moving back home after graduation; it may be an interim stop until they move somewhere new after college; or the state where students earn their degree may become the place they remain for many years after graduating. Higher educational institutions create many opportunities to "anchor" former students near them—through connections to internships and the local job market, the establishment of friendships and partners in the community, and the exposure to local amenities or cultural offerings to which students may grow attached. A share of our out -migrating young adults return to Minnesota at some point. However, for the sake of our future labor force, it is important to understand the important role that higher our Figure 16: People Moving To and From Minnesota Each Year, By Student Status, 2008-2012 ■ Not a Student ■ Undergrad or Graduate Student 84,000 29,000 Leavers From IMM■ MN 80,000 21,000 Arrivals In MN Source: IPUMS version of U.S. Cznaus Bureaus 2008-2012 American Comm.Mtr Survey. Tabulaaiune by MN Sate Demographic Cenaer. 11 Our data source only allows for cross-sectional analysis of age groups at single points in time, not longitudinal analysis of the migration of individual students in and out of the state over a period of years. Additional research on this topic is warranted to uncover a clearer picture of the likelihood and timing of young peoples' return to Minnesota following out -migration. Page 115 "�MBa� MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER s JANUARY 2015 educational institutions play in retaining young adults and attracting new residents to the state. The top destinations of Minnesota's out -migrating students can all be reached on one tank of gas. The majority of all Minnesota -leaving students (55%) are attending college or graduate school at a state contiguous with Minnesota (North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa or Wisconsin), while 6 in 10 of Minnesota s out -bound students attend school one of these states or Illinois. Wisconsin and North Dakota receive the lion's share of our college -bound exodus, or about 6,000 students annually apiece (see Figure 18). The high likelihood that students who are leaving are landing at Midwestern destinations implies that climate is not likely the chief consideration of these students and their families when selecting school. It raises the question of whether the colleges and universities at our Midwestern peer states are more favorable than Minnesota s higher education institutions on the basis of cost or financial aid, as well as if selectivity or other admissions -related factors may be responsible. Figure 17: Minnesota's Domestic Net Losses Each Year, By Student Status, 2008-2012 n „menean a.nmmunu, a—sy. Tabulations by MN State Demographic Cenwr. Of course, a far greater number of Minnesota's high school graduates attend in-state colleges and universities than these numbers who leave. But, because this report is concerned with migration, and Minnesota loses more college -bound students than it gains from other states, attending to this outflow is necessary, as it is contracting Minnesota's labor force pipeline at a time when we need it most. Figure 18: Minnesota's Annual Out -Migrating College or Graduate Students, By Most Common Destination States, 2008-2012 6,200 51800 2,600 1,600 1,300 1,100 700 600 600 600 600 600 Soo 500 s�o 'p, .a0 os 00 c 6o 1s`h4OS!P < q`Jc oc 0\o \o <e O �¢ot ,tf3 QSTo G�o s m Source- IPUMS version of U.S. Census Bureau's 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Tabulaulonv by MN Snee Demographic Cense, Page 116 - � MISSTATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER Ve JANUARY2015 Figure 19: Annual Rate Of Students Arriving For College Or Graduate School, Per 1,000 State Residents, By Receiving State, 2008-2012 North Dakota 13.0 Rhode Island 1 12.2 Vermont 11.8 Delaware 8.9 Wyoming 8.4 Utah 7.4 Idaho 6.9 Massachusetts 6.8 Montana 6.6 New Hampshire 6.6 Colorado 6.3 South Dakota 6.0 Alaska 6.0 Iowa 5.9 West Virginia 5.6 Hawaii 5.5 Maryland 5.3 Virginia 5.3 Kansas 5.0 Oregon 5.0 South Carolina 5.0 Maine 4.9 Connecticut 4.7 Pennsylvania 4.7 New Mexico 4.7 Nebraska 4.6 Arizona 4.5 Missouri 4.4 Alabama 4.1 North Carolina 4.0 Minnesota 4.0 Mississippi 3.9 Indiana 3.8 Oklahoma 3.8 Tennessee 3.8 Nevada 3.8 Wisconsin 3.8 Arkansas 3.7 Washington 3.7 New York 3.5 Georgia 3.4 Kentucky 3.4 Illinois 3.2 Ohio 3.0 Florida 2.6 Louisiana 2.6 Michigan 2.3 Texas 2.3 Newfersey 2.0 California 1.9 Source: RUMS version of U.S. Census Bureau's 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Tabulations by MN Scare Demographle Censer. This raises the question: Across the U.S., which states are magnets for arriving college students? Figure 19 reveals that, relative to population size, North Dakota emerges as the strongest magnet for students raised in other states (with the exception of the District of Columbia). For every 1,000 people living in North Dakota, 13 of them are college students who graduated high school elsewhere. For Minnesota, the comparable figure is 4 students. Thus, improving our attraction rate for college -bound students raised outside of Minnesota's boundaries is another strategy that holds promise for improving the eventual number of well- educated labor force entrants in Minnesota. To recap, while about 21,000 young adults move to Minnesota each year to attend college or graduate school, even greater numbers of students (29,000) leave the state each year. In fact, two-thirds of Minnesota's total statewide annual domestic net loss is due to Minnesota students leaving for higher education, and far fewer return in the post - college years. Thus, retaining more of our college -bound young adults at in-state institutions as well as attracting additional numbers from outside our borders may be key strategies for Minnesota's long-term population retention and labor force development. Page 117 'dr� MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER _ JAUUARY2015 In -migration Of International Migrants Much of this report has focused upon the net domestic losses from migration that Minnesota has experienced since 2001. However, the international component of the migration equation has been consistently positive for Minnesota during all the years of our analysis, since 1991. But which foreign sending countries are these new Minnesotans leaving? And why are these migrants choosing Minnesota above all others as their new home? Figure 20: Annual Recent International Arrivals To Minnesota, By Country Or Region Of Prior Residence, 2008-2012 India2,000 Eastern Africa 1,700 Mexico 1,600 China 1,500 Western Africa 1,300 Africa, region not specified 700 Asia, region not specified 900 Another country/World Region 14,500 Source: IPUMS version of US. Census bureau's 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Tabulavions by MN Snce Demographic Ceres, While we cannot fully answer these questions without directly asking our immigrant populations, the data set does allow us to sketch out the basic characteristics of these international in -migrants who relocated to Minnesota. Approximately 24,000 immigrants from other countries have arrived in Minnesota in each of the past five years. These arriving international residents include foreign students and work VISA holders, refugees and asylees, children of international adoption, and other types of immigrants, broadly defined—although the data do not allow a precise breakdown of these groups of arrivals. While Minnesota receives its new residents from numerous places around the globe, the limitations of the survey that created our primary data set do not allow us to examine countries for many of the smaller population groups. Among countries we can examine, India (2,000 annual arrivals), Mexico (1,600 arrivals), and China (1,500 arrivals) emerge as the most likely sending countries for new Minnesota residents from foreign destinations—accounting for more than one-fifth of the total arrivals (see Figure 20). Countries in both Eastern and Western Africa were responsible for sending Minnesota more than 1,000 arrivals from each region. About 700 additional Africans arrived in Minnesota but didn't indicate the country they had left. Examining all international arrivals by age, we find that about I in 5 international arrivals was under age 18, another I in 5 was age 18-24, while about 3 in 5 were age 25 or older. The high concentration in the 18- to Figure 21: Highest Level Of Education Completed By Recent International Arrivals to Minnesota, Age 25+, 2008.2012 TJ_ TW TW Graduate/Professional Degree 11W 11W Bachelor's Degree TWTMAssociate's Degree or Some College TW H.S. Diploma/GED Less than H.S. Diploma 30% Source: IPUMS version of U.S. Crunn, Bureau's 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Tabuladon by MN Stave Demogaphic Cerner. Page 118 " MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY2015 24 -age groups likely reflects many of the foreign students enrolled in Minnesota college and university settings. Considering the approximately 13,600 annual international arrivals who are age 25 or older, they are most likely to hold a bachelor's degree as their highest level of education (30%), while an additional I S% of them hold a graduate or professional degree (see Figure 21). This likely reflects some of the international workers arriving in Minnesota via the H -I B VISA program for highly skilled workers in certain occupations, for which a bachelor's degree is typically a prerequisite". Retention Of Out -Bound Residents Policymakers and other leaders concerned with Minnesota's migration situation may find it easier to retain current Minnesota residents than attract additional transplants (although this is a worthwhile pursuit as well). Figure 22 shows recent leavers by age and by enrollment in college or graduate school (repeated from earlier in this report), while Figure 23 shows recent leavers (who are not currently students in college or graduate school) by age and household income (split into three equal groups among the entire Minnesota population). Of interest, the greatest numbers of leavers who are in the top third of the income distribution are found in their 30s (about 5,400 leavers) and those 0-19 (5,600, presumably including many children of the first group, plus college -bound teens from higher -income households). As noted before, about 29,000 students leave Minnesota for higher education (with 8,000 fewer students entering our state for this reason). Figure 22: Annual Leavers From Minnesota, By Age Group And Student Status, 2008-2012 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 ■ Undergrad or Graduate Student 5,000 ■ Not a Student hQ \O\ \y N oryM yry9 Ooh y�9 O,A �A9 OyM �y9 ObA ��F O^p y^q O 0ya 'L 'Y '9 '9 P P P h h b b 1 A 0 AGE Source: IPUMS verxion .(U.S. Can,.z Rw,.'s 2808-2012Am H -n Community S.I.I. TaW.flone by MN Sine D,m ,hk Cencer. Examining the racial background of out -migrants, we find that non -Hispanic Whites represent 79% of all those leaving, followed by non -Hispanic Asian (7%) and non -Hispanic Black (0.) residents (see Figure 24). These shares of leavers by race and ethnicity closely approximate the distribution in Minnesota's general population, with the exceptions that non -Hispanic Whites are slightly less likely to leave than we might expect (given their share of the general population, 83%), while non -Hispanic Asians are slightly more likely to leave than we might expect (given their share of the general population, 4%). Other groups are leaving the state roughly proportionally. Page 119 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY2015 FiMure 23: Annual Leavers From Minnesota. By Aee And Income Groups, Non -Students Only, 2008-2012 Note: "Lower; "'Mlddlz' and "Higher" income greops represent, the entire household income distribution in Minnesota distributed in,. three equal -sized parts. Strategies to retain these various out -bound Minnesotans should be informed by these data and tailored to the unique groups of leavers. Stemming the tide of out -migrants may also require additional research into their motivations for exiting Minnesota—to fashion effective responses based upon what might intent them to stay. Figure 24: Share Of Leavers From Minnesota, By Race/Ethnicity, Compared to Minnesota Population, 2008-2012 Leavers From Minnesota, By Race/Ethnicity I% ■American Indian NH ■Asian NH ■ Black NH ■ Hispanic ■ Multimcial or other NH ■ White NH Minnesota Population, By Race/Ethnicity 1% Source: [PUNS version of U.S. Censor Re, emu i 2008-M 12 American Community Survey. Tabulations by MN Soce Demographic Center. Neer' NW Indimtex non -Hispanic. Page 120 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHICCENTER a JANUARY 2015 Conclusion The residents of Minnesota today are not the same ones as yesterday, nor tomorrow. The composition of our state is being continually transformed by demographic changes—births, deaths, and migration. Minnesota is entering a new demographic era, where migration's relative influence on our total population will rise. According to our projections, by the early 2040s, if our state is to experience any population growth at all, it will necessarily be from migration. Over these same coming decades, the Baby Boomer generation will continue to exit the labor force, and overall labor force growth will slow nearly to a halt. Thus, our state will experience a heightened need for migration to grow at all, but especially to shore up its labor force needs. While Minnesota has experienced decades of continuous net in -migration from international arrivals, net losses from state -to - state migration have been observed since 2001. More than 100,000 people come to Minnesota from other states each year, and an even greater number leave Minnesota for other states. These sizeable flows of people present an opportunity to change the migration equation to better benefit our state. Minnesota leaders should work to stem and reverse domestic losses, redouble efforts to attract and integrate new residents, especially young adults, and seek to retain its current resident population. Positive migration is key to fueling our economy and maintaining a high quality of living in Minnesota in the years to come. Page 121'JL � MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY2015 Endnotes ' MN State Demographic Center, "Minnesota's labor force participation projections by age and gender from 2010-2045,' available at: http9/mn.gov/adminldemography/data-by-topic/population-data/our-projections) a MN State Demographic Center projections featured in "In the shadow of the Boomers: Minnesota's labor force outlook," available at: http•//mn.gov/admin/images/in-the-shadow-of-the-boomers-labor-force-outlook-msdc-dec2013.pdf n MN Department of Employment and Economic Development. Local Area Unemployment Statistics tool, available at https:llapps.deed.state.mn.us/Imi/taus/Default.aspx :, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, "Understanding H I -B Requirements," available at: http://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guidelh-I b-specialty- occupationlundersanding-h-I b -requirements Note About IPUMS, Our Primary Data Source Numerous figures in this report cite IPUMS version of the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey. IPUMS refers to the Integrated Public Use Microdaa Series. Microdaa are anonymous individual record data that allow for custom tabulations such as were necessary to compile this report. The complete citation for IPUMS is: Steven Ruggles, J. Trent Alexander, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Matthew B. Schroeder, and Matthew Sobek. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2010. Note About "Snowbirds" Minnesota is home to some number of"snowbirds," individuals who leave for all or a portion of the winter months to live in warmer areas, but who maintain a residence in Minnesota. Typically snowbirds are retired and still spend the majority of their year residing in Minnesota. Furthermore, snowbirds are not "migrating" in the way we have characterized migration in this repor5 i.e., taking up new residence in another state with the intent to any. At this time, the U.S. Census Bureau does not have a reliable method to estimate the size of Minnesoa's snowbird population. However, our primary data source, the American Community Survey, asks respondents about their current residence and residence one year ago. Because the American Community Survey is a year-round survey, the majority of Minnesota snowbirds are likely responding while in Minnesota, while a smaller share who receive the survey during the winter months while they are away are likely appearing in their temporary state of residence. However, some degree of Minnesota's in- and out -migration among older adults may be overstated due to those who left one year but not the previous or the next year, resulting in the appearance of having migrated. For Additional Information Please contact the MN State Demographic Center at demography.helpline@smte.mn.us. This report was prepared by Susan Brower and And! Egbert. Page 122 tiMN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY2015 -DRAFT - PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 18, 2016 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for May 18, 2016. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners French, Klebsch, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Klander Also Present: Planner Jon Sevald, City Administrator Jim Ericson, and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. Index to Minutes Page CU2016-002 Conditional Use Permit for a Dynamic Display Sign 2 VR2016-002 Variance for a ground sign encroaching within the 30' 2 sight triangle, and less than 15' setback from a property line VR2016-003 Variance for use of non -amber colors on a Ground Sign 3 with a Dynamic Display VR2011-002 Variance Extension for Reduced Driveway Setback 5 Approval of Minutes 3. Special Order of Business None. 7 Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. May 18, 2016 Page 2 5. Planning Cases A. Resolution 1048-16, Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Dynamic Display Sign at 2848 County Road 112; Planning Case MU2016-001 (CU2016-002) Planner Sevald stated Messiah Lutheran Church would like to replace their existing 8' X 4' ground sign at the corner of Co Rd H2 and Knollwood Dr. with an 8'X 5' multi -colored Dynamic Display sign at the same location. The existing sign encroaches into the 30' sight triangle, and is therefore a non -conforming structure. The Church has applied for three permits; a CUP for the Dynamic Display Sign; a Variance to setbacks; and a Variance to use non -amber colored lights on the sign. Each request requires a separate action. Staff reviewed the request in further detail and recommended the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit as requested. Commissioner French questioned if staff had received any inquiries from the public regarding the sign request. Planner Sevald indicated he had received a call and the resident requested information on how the church would be changing its sign. Commissioner Love supported the Planning Commission taking action on the Conditional Use Permit and setback variance this evening. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Love/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 1048- 16, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Dynamic Display Sign at 2848 County Road 112; Planning Case No. MU2016-001 (CU2016-002). Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. B. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Resolution 1049-16, a Resolution approving a Variance for a ground sign encroaching within the 30' sight triangle, and less than 15' setback from a property line, to be located at 2848 County Road 112; Planning Case MU2016-001 (VR2016-002) Planner Sevald stated Messiah Lutheran Church would like to replace their existing 8' X 4' ground sign at the corner of Co Rd H2 and Knollwood Drive with an 8' X 5' multi -colored Dynamic Display sign at the same location. The existing sign encroaches into the 30' sight triangle, and is less than 15' setback from a property line (approximately 14' from Knollwood Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 18, 2016 Page 3 Drive ROW), and is therefore a non -conforming structure. Staff recommended the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and approve the variance as requested. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolution 1049-16, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance for a ground sign encroaching within the 30' sight triangle, and less than 15' setback from a property line at 2848 County Road H2; Planning Case No. MU2016-001 (VR2016-002). Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. C. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Resolution 1050-16, a Resolution denying a Variance for use of non -amber colors on a Ground Sign with a Dynamic Display, to be located at 2848 County Road 112; Planning Case MU2016-001 (VR2016-003) Planner Sevald stated Messiah Lutheran Church would like to replace their existing 8' X 4' ground sign at the corner of Co Rd H2 and Knollwood Dr. with an 8' X 5' multi -colored Dynamic Display sign at the same location. Dynamic Display signs in residential zoned districts must utilize amber colored lights as per City Code. Staff reviewed the request in detail with the Commission noting all current dynamic display signs were for businesses along County Road 10 He recommended the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and deny the variance as the request lacked hardship. Another option available to the Planning Commission would be to amend the City Ordinance. Chair Stevenson asked what colors would be allowed within the dynamic display sign. Planner Sevald explained Messiah Lutheran Church was requesting a full color sign within a residential zoning district. Staff reviewed an example of an amber only display sign. He explained how dynamic display signs were required to have an ambient light monitor to adjust for proper day and night lighting. Commissioner Klebsch questioned why the City would want to limit the church to an amber sign. She believed that these signs have come a long way and wanted to see the church be able to maximize their investment in a dynamic display sign. Planner Sevald reported the intention of City Code was to allow only amber colored lights on a dynamic display sign in residential areas as this was less intrusive. Commissioner Klebsch inquired if dynamic display signs could be placed on a residential lot. Planner Sevald explained dynamic display signs were only allowed for businesses, churches and schools. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 18, 2016 Page 4 Commissioner Klebsch believed the proposed sign was a major improvement over the existing sign. Chair Stevenson feared that approving this request could lead to additional dynamic display signs within residential neighborhoods. Planner Sevald commented that if the City Code was amended, future full-color dynamic display requests would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a Conditional Use Permit on a case by case basis. Chair Stevenson stated he would support a full-color sign at this location. Commissioner Rundle agreed. Commissioner French believed the sign would be distracting and should not be allowed in a residential neighborhood. Commissioner Klebsch also supported the sign at this location given the fact it was not an extremely busy street. Planner Sevald recommended the Planning Commission not approve a variance for Messiah Lutheran Church regarding the non -amber colors, but rather that the City Code be amended. He suggested the matter be tabled in order to allow the City to draft an Ordinance amendment. He provided further comment on the 60 -day approval time limit. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. Kirk Klaus, Pastor at Messiah Lutheran Church, thanked the Commission for their consideration and noted he was present to take comments or questions. Chair Stevenson appreciated all of the effort from the applicant that had gone into this request. Commissioner Love questioned if an amber sign had the same technology as a colored sign. Pastor Klaus discussed how the technology differed between the two signs. Chair Stevenson asked if the sign would have a concrete base. Pastor Klaus indicated the sign would have two yards of concrete as its base. Commissioner Schiltgen inquired why the church was requesting a full color sign. Pastor Klaus indicated the existing sign was of poor quality and believed the new sign would be a huge improvement. The new sign would allow for better communication with the public and all banners for special events could be eliminated. City Administrator Ericson commented on how the fill -color dynamic display sign would complement the full-color static sign. For this reason, he recommended the Planning Commission direct staff to draft an amendment to the City Code in order to allow the full-color sign. Chair Stevenson was in favor of tabling action on this item versus denying the variance request. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 18, 2016 Page 5 Commissioner Klebsch agreed and asked how this would impact the church. Pastor Klaus stated this would simply delay the churches order of the sign. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Chair Stevenson requested further information on how long it would take to amend City Code in order to allow for a full-color sign at the church. Planner Sevald reviewed the timeline noting if all goes accordingly, the project could be approved by the end of June. Further discussion ensued regarding the criteria that must be met in order to approve a variance. City Administrator Ericson recommended that the item not be tabled but that staff be directed to draft a City Code amendment. Chair Stevenson still supported tabling action on the request in order to receive feedback from the City Council. Commissioner Klebsch was in agreement. Planner Sevald reported if the Commission were to direct staff to prepare a code amendment, this would come back to the Planning Commission on June l" MOTION/SECOND: Chair Stevenson/Commissioner Klebsch. To table action on the Variance for the use of non -amber colors on a Dynamic Display Sign at 2848 County Road H2 to the June 1, 2016 Planning Commission meeting; Planning Case No. MU2016-001 (VR2016-003). Ayes— 5 Nay— 1 (French opposed) Motion carried. Chair Stevenson recommended the Planning Commission direct staff to draft an Ordinance amendment to allow non -amber signs on church property within a residential neighborhood. MOTION/SECOND: Chair Stevenson/Commissioner Rundle. To direct staff to draft an Ordinance amendment to allow non -amber signs on church property within a residential neighborhood. Ayes — 5 Nay — 1 (French opposed) Motion carried. D. Consider Resolution 1051-16, a Resolution approving an extension of a Variance for reduced driveway setbacks at 5338-5340 Raymond Avenue; Planning Case VR2011-002 Planner Sevald stated in 2011, the applicant, Michael Kinyon was granted a variance for a 1' side yard setback for two driveways at a duplex. A condition of the variance is that the driveways be completed within one year. The applicant received a one-year extension in 2012, 2013, 2014, and Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 18, 2016 Page 6 2015. The applicant is requesting an additional one-year extension to the variance. He reported the applicant owns a number of duplexes on Raymond Avenue that included gravel driveways. During a 2011 street reconstruction project, the property owner had the driveways widened, requiring variances to the side yard setbacks. These properties include: 5330 & 5332 Raymond Avenue (Res. 938-11) 5338 & 5340 Raymond Avenue (Res. 939-11) 5344 & 5346 Raymond Avenue (Res. 940-11) 5372 & 5374 Raymond Avenue (Res. 941-11) 5380 & 5382 Raymond Avenue (Res. 942-11) Planner Sevald explained these properties are narrow and had no garages. The owner has made improvements to each property (except the subject property), including constructing attached single car garages, and two -car wide driveways. The subject property; 5338 & 5340 Raymond Ave., received a variance for V side yard setbacks for both driveways. Staff reviewed the request in further detail and recommended the Planning Commission approve the variance extension as requested. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Chair Stevenson. To approve Resolution 1051- 16, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a One -Year Extension for the reduced driveway setback Variance at 5338-5340 Raymond Avenue; Planning Case No. VR2011-002. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 6. Other Planning Activity None. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity Planner Sevald discussed upcoming planning cases, noting the Commission would be discussing brew pubs, micro -distilleries and micro -breweries. B. Staff Updates Planner Sevald provided the Commission with an update from staff. C. Council Updates Mounds View Planning Commission May 18, 2016 Regular Meeting Page 7 Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He discussed the number of beekeeping licenses that had been approved by the Council. He commented on the City's 2015 audit and explained the Council approved the 2017 budget timeline. He noted he was able to attend Fire Chief Nyle Zikinund's retirement party and noted Chief Zikmund would be running for Anoka County Commissioner. He reviewed the plans for the new public works facility and the grant received from Twin Cities Gateway. D. Planning Commissioner Reports Commissioner Love suggested the Commission discuss the City's population at their next meeting. 8. Approval of Minutes April 20, 2016. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Love. To approve the Minutes of the April 20, 2016 regular Planning Commission meetings as presented. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, June 1, 2016 B. Wednesday, June 15, 2016 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald Planner Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 0 0 E • Edi PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 15, 2016 -- 7:00 P.M. The June 15, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting has been The next scheduled meeting is Wednesday, July 6, 2016, 7:00 PM 0 0 0 lAl MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 6, 2016 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business (none) 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. Consider Resolution 1053-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a Text Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Chapters 1102, 1113, 1114, 1115, and 1116 relating to breweries, brewpubs, micro -distilleries, taprooms, and cocktail rooms. B. Consider Resolution 1054-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a Text Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Chapters 1102, 1103, and 1106 relating to Accessory Dwelling Units. 6. Other Planning Activity A. (none) 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 8. Approval of Minutes: June 1, 2016 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, July 20, 2016 B. Wednesday, August 6, 2016 10. Meeting Conclusion Item No: 5A Meeting Date: July 6. 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case SP -194-15 MOUNDS VIEW MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Re: Consider Resolution 1053-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a Text Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Chapters 1102, 1113, 1114, 1115, and 1116 relating to breweries, brew pubs, micro -distilleries, taprooms, and cocktail rooms. Date: July 6, 2016 Introduction In recent years, a number of taprooms have opened in Minneapolis and St. Paul, and more locally in Lino Lakes and Anoka. There are plans for taprooms in Blaine and Coon Rapids as well. In order for one to open in Mounds View, the Zoning Code must be amended to allow the location; and the City's Liquor Licensing Code must be amended to regulate on -sale and off -sale of beer and alcohol. This proposed amendment only addresses the zoning part. The City Council will act on the liquor licensing separately. Discussion State laws were changed in 2011 (Surley Bill) to allow small breweries to sell alcohol to consumers, on and off the premises. Since then, a number of micro -breweries with taprooms have sprung up around the Twin Cities. A "brew pub" is a restaurant that manufactures their own beer. A "micro -brewery" or "micro -distillery" is a manufacturer of a limited quantity of alcohol, and may have a taproom or cocktail room on or adjunct to the manufacturing that acts as a bar. Over the past year, Mounds View has received inquiries about allowing a micro -brewery with a taproom. The City Code does not specifically permit this use, and therefore it is prohibited. The Planning Commission previously discussed this topic on April 15, 2015, and June 1, 2016, indicating a preference to allow brew pubs (brewery & restaurant), and micro -breweries with a taproom (bar) in the B-3 and B-4 districts. Amending the City Code to allow this type of use involves an amendment to the City's zoning regulations, and City liquor licensing regulations. The licensing ordinance is much more complex. Once Staff drafts the licensing requirements, this and the zoning amendment will be brought to the City Council. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: July 6, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case SP -194-15 Bold highlight = proposed P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use (CUP) Summary The proposed City Code amendment would allow brew pubs to be located in any district that a restaurant is allowed, and a micro -brewery or micro -distillery (with taproom/cocktail room) to be located anywhere a bar is allowed. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 1053-16, a Resolution recommending approval of an amendment to City Code, Chapters 1102 (Definitions); 1113 (B-2 Limited Business District); 1114 (B-3 Highway Business District); 1115 (B-4 Regional Business District); and 1116 (1-1 Industrial District), to allow breweries, brew pubs, micro -distilleries, and taprooms/cocktail rooms. W W E o c J m h W W w � O p O W C C N C N Y D L L O O] m 4o W i L O W V C l0 d Z 2 5 c ~ 0 a m m m m Brewery, Micro P P P C Brewery, National P C Brewery, Regional P C Brew Pub P P P C Liquor, off -sale P P P C Manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging or C C treatment of cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and food products Microdistillery P P P C Restaurants, cafes, tea rooms, taverns, on -sale and off- P P C sale liquor Restaurant (max 24 seats & 2,000sf. No drive-thru) P P P C Restaurant (more than 24 seats or 2,000sf. No drive- C C thru). Drive-in and convenience food establishments C C Taproom/Cocktail Room P P P C P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use (CUP) Summary The proposed City Code amendment would allow brew pubs to be located in any district that a restaurant is allowed, and a micro -brewery or micro -distillery (with taproom/cocktail room) to be located anywhere a bar is allowed. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 1053-16, a Resolution recommending approval of an amendment to City Code, Chapters 1102 (Definitions); 1113 (B-2 Limited Business District); 1114 (B-3 Highway Business District); 1115 (B-4 Regional Business District); and 1116 (1-1 Industrial District), to allow breweries, brew pubs, micro -distilleries, and taprooms/cocktail rooms. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: July 6 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case SP -194-15 Respectfully, C:�'eQ� Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments Resolution 1053-16 Zoning Map MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMP RESOLUTION NO. 1053-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 1100 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE PERTAINING TO BREWERIES, BREWPUBS, MICRODISTILLERIES, TAPROOMS, AND COCKTAIL ROOMS; PLANNING CASE: SP -194-15 WHEREAS, City Staff has recommended that amendments be made to the zoning code related to malt liquor manufacturing; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission agrees with the City Staff recommendation to allow breweries, brew pubs, microdistilleries, taprooms, and cocktailrooms. WHEREAS, City Staff has amended Chapter 1102; 1113; 1114; 1115; and 1116 of the Mounds View Municipal Code by adding the underlined material and deleting the strieken material as follows (footnotes are for reference, and not for publication): Chapter 1102: Zoning Rules and Definitions Section1102.02: Definitions Subd. Brewery, Micro: A facility with a capacity to manufacture less than 15,000 barrels of alcoholic and nonalcoholic malt liquor a M. This definition does not include a brew pub.' Subd. Brewery, National: A facility with a capacity to manufacture over 250,000 barrels of alcoholic and nonalcoholic malt liquor a year. This definition does not include a brew pub? Subd. Brewery, Reeional: A facility with a capacity to manufacture between 15,000 and 249,999 barrels of alcoholic and nonalcoholic malt liquor a year. This definition does not include a brew pub .3 Subd Brew pub: A brewer who also holds one or more retail on -sale licenses and who manufactures fewer than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor in a year, at any one licensed premises, the entire production of which is solely for City of Anoka, Chapter 74; Article 1. Section 74-2 (Brewery, Micro) 2 City of Anoka, Chapter 74; Article 1. Section 74-2 (Brewery, National) a City of Anoka, Chapter 74; Article 1. Section 74-2 (Brewery, Regional) consumption on tap on any licensed premises owned by the brewer, or for off -sale from those licensed premises as permitted.' Subd. Distilled Spirits: Ethyl alcohol, hvdrated oxide of ethyl, spirits of wine, whiskey, rum, brandy, gin, and other distilled spirts, including all dilutions and mixtures thereof, for non -industrial use.' Subd. Micro -distillery: A distillery operated within the state producing premium, distilled spirts in total quantity not to exceed 40,000 proof gallons in a calendar vear.6 Subd. Taproom: An area on the premises of or adjacent to one brewery location owned by the brewer that allows the on -sale of malt liquor produced by the brewer for consumption. Such use shall be accessory to the primary use of a national, regional or micro -brewery and may be a restaurant. Chapter 1113: B-2, Limited Business District Section 1113.02: Permitted Uses Subd 2. Restaurants, cafes and tea rooms, and brew pubs with a maximum of twenty four (24) seats and two thousand (2,000) square feet in floor area. The restaurant shall not include drivethru and/or window pick-up services or the serving of food to patrons in their vehicles. Section 1113.04 Conditional Uses Subd 10. Restaurants, cafes_apA tea rooms, and brew pubs with more than twenty four (24) seats and/or two thousand (2,000) square feet of floor area. The restaurant shall not include drive-thru and/or window pick-up services or the serving of food to patrons in their vehicles. Chapter 1114: B-3, Highway Business District Section1114.02: Permitted Uses All permitted uses as allowed in a B-2 Limited Business District. Micro -Brewery with Taproom Micro -distillery with tasting room/cocktail room MN Stat §340A.101, Subd 3a (Brew pub). s City Code Section 502.01, Subd 7 (Distilled Spirits). City of Anoka, Chapter 74; Article 1. Section 74-2 (Distilled spirits) e MN Stat §340A.101, Subd 17a (Microdistillery) 7 City of Anoka, Chapter 74; Article 1. Section 74-2 (Taproom) Chapter 1115: B-4, Regional Business District Section1115.02: Permitted Uses All permitted uses as allowed in a B-3 District. Chapter 1116: I-1, Industrial District Section 1116.02: Permitted Uses: The following are permitted uses in an I-1 District: Micro BreweryRegional BreweryNational BreweryMicro-distillery(with Taproom Tasting Room. and/or Cocktail Rooml WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that an amendment to the City Code is warranted and justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of amendments to Title 1100 of the Mounds View City Code as defined herein. 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 6s' day of July, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: July 6, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case SP -202-16 MOUNDS VIEW MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Re: Consider Resolution 1054-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a Text Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Chapters 1102, 1103, and 1106 relating to Accessory Dwelling Units. Date: July 6, 2016 Introduction Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are similar to an apartment on the same lot as a single-family home. An ADU may be attached to, or detached from the home. Examples include a basement apartment, an apartment above a garage, or a standalone building in the backyard. This topic was discussed by the City Council on May 9, 2016, and by the Planning Commission on June 1, 2016. Discussion Currently, Accessory Dwelling Units are prohibited in all districts. Staff has occasionally received inquiries if ADU's are permitted, specifically above garages and as temporary structures. It is not uncommon for a bedroom of a single-family home to be rented, as long as all occupants have open -access to all areas of the home. In this example, it is still a single-family dwelling. There is little difference between an ADU and a duplex or twin -home, except by name. As drafted, ADU's would be a permitted use in the R-1 District as an accessory use, whereas a two-family dwelling is not permitted in the R-1 District. If permitted, the intention is that ADU's would be subordinate in appearance to the single-family home. A means to accomplish this is by limiting the ADU's size Se.g. maximum of 800 sq ft). However, if the ADU is located in a basement or a 2" floor, then limiting the size of the ADU does not serve a purpose. The ADU could be the same size as the floor area above or below it (i.e.'/z the size of the house). A number of cities allow ADU's as a permitted use, or as a CUP. There are differences in the minimum lot size, and in the minimum and maximum ADU size. Some cities limit the number of occupants of an ADU, although this can be difficult to enforce. Many cities prohibit detached ADU's. Item No: 56 Meeting Date: July 6, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case SP -202-16 Summary Accessory Dwelling Units are one solution to providing housing diversity in neighborhoods. ADU occupants are likely to include adult children, elderly parents, college students, personal caretakers, and other residents. ADU's may provide extra income to property owners, and allow multi -generational families to live separately under one roof. However, the only difference between an ADU and a duplex is its appearance. Appearance can be subjectively interpreted. If the ordinance is amended, consideration must be given as to how the City will administer and enforce ADU requirements. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and discuss the draft ordinance amendment, and provide Staff with direction if to proceed as -is, or to amend as needed. Respectfully, p� Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments Summary of other ADU Ordinances ADU Example Floorplans Article: St. Paul considers `granny flats' as affordable housing option along Green Line Resolution 1054-16 Item No: 5B Meeting Date: July 6 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case SP -202-16 SUMMARY OF OTHER ADU ORDINANCES AARP Model: (Includes optimal, favorable, and minimal provisions. Provisions listed below are in no particular preference). Permitted use or Interim Use (IUP). If permitted use, then notify neighbors. If neighbors object, then require administrative hearing. If still objection, then require IUP. IUP expires after 5 -years, or if ADU no longer in compliance. One ADU per residential lot. If detached ADU, then lot must meet minimum lot size for that zoning district. Homeowner must live in either the primary home or ADU. Require a deed restriction that ADU must comply with ordinance. Minimum ADU size: 300 sq ft. Maximum size: 800 sq ft, or 40% of the primary home, whichever is less. Maximum of two bedrooms. ADU, or entrance shall not be in front of the home, or face the front street. The ADU cannot be subdivided from the lot. Require one additional parking space for ADU. Apple Valley CUP. Minimum lot size: 40,000 sq ft (about 1 -acre). Property owner must live on property. Min size 300 sq ft, max size 40% of home. ADU must be attached to home. Max of 3 ADU's within '/z mile radius. Bloomington: Permitted use. Lot must comply with minimum lot size, parking spaces for single-family home. ADU cannot have separate utilities. ADU shall be attached to the primary home, but cannot be accessible to the home (no common door). The design of the ADU must avoid the appearance of a second dwelling (must look like a part of the single-family home). Minimum size 300 sq ft, maximum size 960 sq ft, or 1/3 of the floor area of the primary home (whichever is smaller). Maximum of two bedrooms and two persons. Chanhassen: Permitted with Variance for temporary use (age, disability, financial hardship). Eagan: Permitted use. Property owner must live on property. Min size: 300 sq ft, max 960 sq ft or 1/3 of home area. ADU must be attached to home. Max 2 occupants. Farmington: CUP. Max size of 1,800 sq ft. Hugo: Permitted use. ADU in detached garage for occupation by a family member, caretaker, or employee (or similar). The ADU cannot be rented as a second dwelling unit. Item No: 5B Meeting Date: July 6 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case SP -202-16 Inver Grove Heights Permitted. Minimum lot size: 1 -acre. Min ADU size: 250 sq ft, max: 1,000 sq ft. Long Lake: Permitted. Property owner must occupy the home. ADU shall not be rented. Minneapolis: CUP. Detached ADU: minimum size: 300 sq ft., maximum size: 676 sq ft, or 10% of lot area, and not greater than 1,000 sq ft (includes any garage stalls). Attached ADU: minimum size 300 sq ft, maximum size: 800 sq ft. ADU cannot be more than one-story. Stairways must be enclosed. Owner must occupy the home or the ADU, if not, the ADU must be converted into a non -dwelling (no kitchen or bathroom). Owner must record covenant, restricting use of the property to comply with ordinance (serves as notice to next owner). ADU does not require additional parking. Minnetonka: CUP (accessory apartments). Home or ADU must be owner occupied. Maximum size: 950 sq ft, or 35% of home's sq ft. (ADU may be larger, if approved by City Council). New Brighton: Permitted use, as "Separate living quarters for domestic servants employed on the premises provided that the premises contains a minimum area equal to two ordinary minimum sized lots in this district" , (i.e. the lot must be at least twice the size of the minimum lot size). Plymouth: Permitted use. ADU must be built at same time as house (no addition). ADU limited to above garage only. Max size: 1,000 sq ft. Richfield: Permitted use. Min size: 300 sq ft, max size: 800 sq ft, not to exceed home area. Roseville: Permitted use. Either the single-family home or the ADU must be occupied by the property owner. The ADU may have a maximum of one bedroom and two occupants. The ADU requires one additional off-street parking space. The ADU may include a Home Occupation. The ADU shall be a minimum of 300 sq ft in size, and a maximum of 650 sq ft, or 75% of the single-family home area. A rental registration and an ADU permit are required. Prior to permitting, the City notifies neighbors within 100', providing 7 days to submit comments to the City. The City may place conditions upon the ADU permit. If non-compliant, the ADU permit may be revoked, providing a 60 -day notice. Upon revocation, the ADU may only be occupied by family members. An ADU permit expires with a change in ownership. Item No: 5B Meeting Date: July 6, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case SP -202-16 Shoreview: Permits use (referred to as an "accessory apartment"). ADU must be attached to a Home at least 850 sq ft in size. The ADU shall be 500 — 850 sq ft in size, and no larger than 30% of the building's total floor area. The ADU may have up to two bedrooms. The property must have at least three off-street parking spaces, two of which must be enclosed. The Home shall be owner occupied. The ADU may be administratively approved. St. Paul: CUP, limited to conversion of Carriage House for employees. Considering allowing ADU's as a permitted use within Yz mile of west University Ave, associated with the LRT Green Line. Draft ordinance: One ADU per lot. Max size: 800 sq ft. If the ADU is within a home, the home must not be less than 1,000 sq ft, then ADU may be up to 1/3 the size of the home. Total occupants of home & ADU = one "housekeeping unit" (family + 2 non -family members). Property owner must live in the home or ADU, and record a covenant enforcing ADU regulations, prior to the City issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for the ADU. White Bear Lake: Permit use (home accessory apartment) with a CUP. Owner must live in the home (not ADU). Maximum size: 880 sf, or 40% of home, which ever less. ADU can be attached or detached. 7/1/2016 n Li I�lpl j -j T j - i , Interior Attached ADUs ADU _Varlelies.png (963x765) Attached ADU Ivia Addition) Detached ADU hUly./Istreets.mruWp-contentluploads/2014/10/ADU Varieties.pr)g 1/1 CI 11 D '711T, a Detached ADU hUly./Istreets.mruWp-contentluploads/2014/10/ADU Varieties.pr)g 1/1 ADU, detached 342 sq ft —1 L _ wRlrax p_ICNl11LIIL fy-1 4WOND FL_O,OR PLAN wxvLxuoLc f�1tNONoop I 6 lINE 6)xp 1 RMA I.em/E I Cl l J 1 a ,xN [xrxr C FIRST FLOOR PIAN _ -. __i fy-1 4WOND FL_O,OR PLAN ADU above Garage 800 sq ft I ROOF II 18KITCHEN 10' X 7'6" 1 00 «, R LIVING ROOMI BEDROOM 19'X 12' 11'6" X 10'3" ROOF 6130/2016 Lennar-Delan AnchorNextGen-floorplanl-Ir.jpg(533x750) LOGGIA Ol I I I NOOK PRIVATE L 1S' -9"00!.T' BEDROOM closet I 12'-3". 13•-2" i LIVING ROOM Fa lel t ?iJ TH IQICHEN Mr i HI NETTE L__ ENT'i1Y 2 -BAY GARAGE 2M" a 20•-3 L PRIVATE COURTYARD LIVLVGROO\i 1s-u••azr-o" i 1 -BAY GARAGE A -PL) htlp:!/summerlin.com/upload/propertiesl2651flwrplans/Lennar-Delano AnchuNextGernflwrplanl-lrjpg 1/1 613012016 FAj-)E = ADU lennar-ravenna.jpg (609x529) OPTIONAL DLrK B IV I M VAM MING MASTER AMU I 11 4" W I 11nif 7 1AA5'GAMr.E I, L FAj-)E = ADU lennar-ravenna.jpg (609x529) Lennar Ravenna Next -Gen htip:lAasvegasrealtor.larissaswany.cml,vp-wntentlupioadsl2Ol6lO2Aennar-ravennajpg 1/1 OPTIONAL DLrK B IV It Q 1. 4 MASTER TirlDROOM I 11 4" W I 7 Lennar Ravenna Next -Gen htip:lAasvegasrealtor.larissaswany.cml,vp-wntentlupioadsl2Ol6lO2Aennar-ravennajpg 1/1 7/1/2016 Sl. Paul considers 'granny flats' as affordable housing option along Green Line- StarTribune.com ST. PAUL St. Paul considers 'granny flats' as affordable housing option along Green Line By Jessle Van Berkel (http://www.startribune com/Jessie-van-borkel/280701532/) Star irlbune JUNE a, 2016—11:16PM Mother-in-law apartments —secondary units often built alongside, inside or in the backyard of a home—could pop up along the Green Line in St. Paul. City Council members are considering whether to allow construction of those "accessory dwelling units" within a half -mile of the light rail line. Community members and city officials said the units could create more affordable housing and provide homes for seniors who want to age in their neighborhood but not maintain a large house, "When you have a transit line, you want to have density that is supportive of transit ridership. And we have a lot of single family homes in that area, and we want to - maintain those established neighborhoods," Senior Planner Jamie Radel said, noting that accessory units balance those desires. Minneapolis approved accessory units in 2014, and many suburbs also allow them. The units appear to be growing in popularity in cities and inner -ring suburbs over the past decade, Radel said. St. Paul currently has strict Hiles about such units. It only allows carriage houses, defined as an accessory unit above a detached garage, in certain districts when specific conditions are met. For several years, the city has been looking into allowing various types of accessory units along the Green Line, within a half -mile of University Avenue between Emerald Street and Marion Street—essentially from the city's western edge to the Capitol area. Some community councils have expressed interest in allowing the units citywide or beyond the proposed area, Radel said. Whether to take a broader look at the issue is up to the City Council, she said. Council Member Dai Thao, whose ward includes much of the area that would be affected, said he needs more time to analyze the issue and has not decided whether he will support the ordinance, which was given a second reading this week. The City Council will hold a public hearing on the accessory dwelling plan Wednesday. Neighborhood concerns Accessory units have been particularly controversial in the St. Anthony Park neighborhood near the University of Minnesota's St. Paul campus. Some residents feared the units would change the neighborhood's character, said Phil Carlson, who led a task force that looked into the issue. The group was evenly split between supporters and opponents, he said. Linda Foster, who lives in St. Anthony Park opposed the units. At a Planning Commission hearing on the topic, she said accessory units can be "the kiss of death for a neighborhood." The first generation of people to own the units may keep it up, but after that the accessory dwellings can deteriorate, she said. People were also concerned about the addition of renters and loss of on -street parking space, said Suyapa Miranda, executive director of the St. Anthony Park Community Council. "It's an affluent neighborhood," she said (hllp://stmedia.staddbune.mm/Images/ows_14568814179321 A*40" LAMSNY An eastbound Green Line train passed through St. Paul at the 10th Street Station. St. Paul City Council members are considering whether to... hitp:IMv .stwtribme.com/St-paul-considers-granny-flats-as-affordable-housing-option-alonMree linel382309671/ 1/2 7/1/2016 St. Paul considers 'granny flats' as affordable housing option along Green Line - StarTribune.com "And then really thinking about what the neighborhood looks like, and does it fit with the neighborhood and what the current style is? And a lot of people's understanding is no." Despite concerns, the community council voted in support of the proposed city ordinance allowing accessory units. 'I7le units could help reduce per capita energy use, make some large homes more useful and provide housing needed for seniors, Suyapa wrote in a letter to the City Council. She said the units would offer lower-cost housing to people who otherwise would not be able to afford to live in the neighborhood. Jessle.Vanaerkel@stadrlbuaa.m hffp:/hwrv+.startribune,com/st-paul-considers-granny-flats-as-affordabl&housing-option-along-grwn-Iine/382309871/ 2/2 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMA RESOLUTION NO. 1054-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 1100 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE PERTAINING TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS; PLANNING CASE: SP -202-16 WHEREAS, City Staff has recommended that amendments be made to the zoning code related to accessory dwelling units; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission agrees with the City Staff recommendation to allow Accessory Dwelling Units; and WHEREAS, City Staff has amended Chapter 1102; 1103; and 1106 of the Mounds View Municipal Code by adding the underlined material and deleting the strielien material as follows (footnotes are for reference, and not for publication): Chapter 1102: Zoning Rules and Definitions Secfion1102.02: Definitions: The following words and terms, wherever they occur in this Code, shall be defined as follows: Subd. 42. DWELLING, SINGLE-FAMILY: A detached dwelling unit designed exclusively for occupancy by one (1) family. Subd. 43. DWELLING, TWO-FAMILY: A dwelling designed exclusively for occupancy by two (2) families living independently of each other, also lmown as double bungalow, duplex, side-by-side two (2) -family dwellings, An Accessory Dwelling Unit is not a Two -Family Dwelling. Subd DWELLING UNIT ACCESSORY: a dwelling unit that is located on the same lot as a single-family dwelling to which it is accessory, and that is subordinate in area to the principal dwelling.' 1103.02: DWELLING UNIT RESTRICTIONS: Subd. 1. No cellar, garage, tent, recreational vehicle, travel trailer or accessory building shall at any time be used as an independent residence or dwelling unit, temporarily or City of Minneapolis, Section 520.160 (Definitions, Accessory Dwelling Unit) permanently, except as permitted pursuant to Section 1106.03, Subd 2 (Accessory Dwelling Units). Chapter 1106: R-1, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Section 1106.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in an R-1 District: Subd. 1. Single-family detached dwellings. a. Each applicant for a building permit to construct any principle dwellings sball be required to provide off-street parldng spaces for at least two (2) automobiles per family in addition to any garage spaces to be used. Section 1106.03: Accessory Uses: The following are permitted accessory uses in an R-1 District. Subd 2. Accessory Dwelling Unit: In addition to the minimum standards of Accessory Buildings, the followingshall hall app1Y a. One Accessory Dwelling Unit may be located on a lot occupied by a single-family ( home. The lot must comply with minimum dimensional standards. The Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not be subdivided from the single-family home. The Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be located on a permanent foundation. b. The Single -Family Home or the Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be occupied by the property owner. The property shall be homesteaded.2 C. The Accessory Dwelling Unit may be attached to the single-family home, or be part of a detached accessory building. d. An Accessory Dwelling Unit shall have a minimum area of 300 sq ft. If an Accessory Dwelling Unit is added onto the single-family home or is within an Accessory Building (i.e. garage loft), then the maximum area shall be 800 sq R. If area equal to the floor area above or below it. Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be incorporated into the character of the single - 2 If "Relative Homestead", the property owner would not live on the property. If the intent is to require the property owner to live on the property, Chapter 1012 (Rental Dwelling License) will need to be amended to require the owner to sign an affidavit stating that they live on the property a minimum of 183 days per year (more than 6 months). family home and shall not have the appearance of two separate dwellings. Appearance shall be interpreted by the Zoning Administrator. f A minimum of one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for the Accessory Dwelling Unit. g Accessory Dwelling Units shall be licensed as a rental dwelling, and comply with Chapter 1012 (Rental Dwelling License). h Each dwelling shall maintain a unique address (e.g. 2401A & 2401B Mounds View Blvd..' WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that an amendment to the City Code is warranted and justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of amendments to Title 1100 of the Mounds View City Code as defined herein. 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 60' day of July, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) 3 This should be removed from Chapter 1100 (Zoning), and added to Chapter 1012 (Rental Dwelling License). N:_ CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 1, 2016 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for June 1, 2016. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners French, Klander, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Klebsch. Also Present: Planner Jon Sevald and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. Index to Minutes Page Consider a Resolution recommending approval of an amendment of City 2 Code, Section 1008.10, Subd 9(c)(2)(b), relating to colored lights in Dynamic Display Signs Consider a Resolution approving/denying a Variance for use of non -amber 2 colors on a Ground Sign with a Dynamic Display at 2848 County Road H2 Presentation; Craig Swalchick, Housing & Code Enforcement Inspector 3 Discussion; Accessory Dwelling Units 4 Discussion; Brew Pubs 6 Discussion; Demographics 7 Approval of Minutes 3. Special Order of Business None. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases A. Consider Resolution 1052-16, a Resolution recommending approval of an amendment of City Code, Section 1008.10, Subd 9(c)(2)(b), relating to colored lights in Dynamic Display Signs Planner Sevald explained the Commission reviewed a request for a full-color dynamic display sign for Messiah Lutheran Church at their last meeting. Rather than denying the request or approving a variance, direction was given to staff to draft a City Code amendment to allow full- color dynamic display signs for schools, churches and institutions in the R-1 zoning district through the conditional use permit process. Staff recommended the Planning Commission approve the amendment to City Code as requested. Chair Stevenson asked if a public hearing was required for this request. Planner Sevald reported this portion of the City Code did not require a public hearing. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 1052-16, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Amendment to City Code, Section 1008. 10, Subd 9(c)(2)(b), relating to colored lights in Dynamic Display Signs. Ayes — 5 Nays —1 (French) Motion carried. B. PUBLIC HEARING (continued) Consider Resolution 1050-16, a Resolution approving/denying a Variance for use of non -amber colors on a Ground Sign with a Dynamic Display, to be located at 2848 County Road 112; Planning Case MU2016-001(VR2016-003) Planner Sevald requested the Planning Commission consider a variance for a non -amber colored ground sign with dynamic display at 2848 County Road H2 for the Messiah Lutheran Church. He discussed the Ordinance process that would be followed for the Code amendment regarding dynamic display signs in the R-1 zoning district noting the Ordinance would not be in effect until the end of July. Staff recommended the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and deny the variance request due to the fact the applicant had no practical difficulty. He understood that the denial would delay the sign installation, but supported this action as it would allow the Code amendment to be enacted prior to the sign being constructed. Commissioner Schiltgen requested further information on how staff defines practical difficulty. Planner Sevald defined practical difficulty for the Commission. -DRAFT - Commissioner Klander understood the application was received on April 15th. He asked how much the applicant paid for their request. Planner Sevald reported this was the case and noted that the applicant paid $200 for each conditional use permit and each of the variance requests. Commissioner Love believed the new sign would improve the aesthetics of the property and would eliminate the need for banners. She wondered if this spoke to the practicality of the issue. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m Commissioner Schiltgen asked if a 30 -day delay would make a difference in the sign construction. Kurt Klaus, Pastor of Messiah Lutheran Church, reported the sign vendor has been very patient with the church and has locked in a price. He stated the only hardship was that his parishioners were very excited for it to be completed. Commissioner Schiltgen supported staff's recommendation to deny the variance request. He was in favor of the church waiting for 30 days to construct the sign after the City Code amendment was in place. Commissioner Klander wanted to see the $200 variance fee refunded to the church given the fact the City Code amendment nullified the variance request. Commissioner Rundle supported the variance as requested. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Klander. To approve Resolution 1050-16, a Resolution Approving of a Variance for use of non -amber colors on a Ground Sign with a Dynamic Display, to be located at 2848 County Road 112; Planning Case No. VR2016- 003. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried 6. Other Planning Activity A. Presentation; Craig Swalchick, Housing & Code Enforcement Inspector Planner Sevald explained the Commission had requested an update from staff on how the City manages code enforcement issues. He reported he invited Housing and Code Enforcement Inspector Craig Swalchick to the meeting in order to provide the Commission with further information on this topic. Housing and Code Enforcement Inspector Swalchick introduced himself to the Commission and discussed the work he does on behalf of the City of Mounds View noting he began his work with the City in 2010. He commented on the positive impacts that were being made over the past six DRAFT - years. He indicated the City has 1,776 rental units which he oversaw along with housing and code enforcement issues. Housing and Code Enforcement Inspector Swalchick reported he spent three days a week conducting rental inspections and the other two days of each week addressing code enforcement issues. He indicated the City had both a proactive and reactive code enforcement policy, which assisted in keeping properties in compliance with City Code while reducing neighborhood tensions. He further discussion the benefits of proactive code enforcement. Housing and Code Enforcement Inspector Swalchick reviewed the steps followed by staff for code enforcements issues. He provided further comment on the process for conducting City -Code nuisance and abatements. He stated staff would rather work with the community and its residents on code enforcement issues rather than writing an administrative citation. He thanked the Commission for their time and asked if they had any comments or questions. Chair Stevenson thanked Mr. Swalchick for his thorough report. B. Discussion; Accessory Dwelling Units Planner Sevald stated in May the Council discussed a request to allow a resident to have an accessory dwelling unit/apartment above their garage. He noted the Zoning Code currently does not allow for accessory dwelling units in the R-1 zoning district. He reviewed zoning information from neighboring communities and noted this issue was growing in popularity. He requested the Commission discuss this topic and provide feedback to staff on how to proceed. Chair Stevenson thanked staff for all of the supplementary information regarding accessory dwelling units. He questioned what a temporary variance was, as was allowed in the City of Chanhassen. Planner Sevald was uncertain and guessed this was something specific to Chanhassen City Code. He anticipated that a temporary variance was similar to an interim use permit. Chair Stevenson questioned where the City of Mounds View fit into all of this. Planner Sevald reported Mounds View does not allow accessory dwelling units, but the City Council was requesting the Planning Commission to consider it. Chair Stevenson suggested the Commission discuss if these types of living units should be allowed, and if they could have a full kitchen. He understood there was a concern with these units having a separate entrance as well. He believed both of these issues should be further discussed by the Commission. Planner Sevald believed it was fairly common for a home to have something that resembled a second kitchen, perhaps in a basement. He discussed how separate entrances and limited access to the entire building created concerns. NNODW Commissioner Schiltgen asked what cities did not allow accessory dwelling units. Plannei Sevald stated Fridley, Blaine, Coon Rapids, and Spring Lake Park do not allow ADU's. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned the cost difference between a CUP and a temporary CUP. Planner Sevald reported the cost for a permit was based on the amount of staff time needed to administer the permit. Commissioner Schiltgen inquired if ADU's would be permitted more readily by communities in the metro area in the future given the fact the population was aging. Planner Sevald anticipated this could change, however, he was uncertain as to how many communities would jump on board. Chair Stevenson asked if ADU's were mother-in-law units or were they separate units for rent. Planner Sevald explained that ADU's would be considered both. Further discussion ensued regarding ADU's versus mother-in-law suites, along with how entrance was gained to each of these units. Commissioner Rundle requested further information on how the City would enforce ADU's. Housing and Code Enforcement Inspector Swalchick stated there were issues with duplexes and single family units with renting to non -familial members. He explained another concern with these units was that fire and police had to be able to respond to these units and needed to have a proper address. Chair Stevenson asked if it would be easier to allow ADU's versus people renting out their basements/garage space to non -familial members. Housing and Code Enforcement Inspector Swalchick believed that owner -occupied properties were better maintained than rental units. He was not against ADU's but believed the main issue came down to who was maintaining and looking after the properly. He was in favor of the ADU's needing a license and inspection. Commissioner Klander questioned if the tiny homes would fall within the ADU requirements. Planner Sevald provided further comment on the new legislation that would allow tiny homes/ health care dwellings for six months to one year on a residential property. He reported the City Council would be opting out of this legislation and was not interested in allowing tiny houses. Planner Sevald requested direction from the Planning Commission on how to proceed. Chair Stevenson was in favor of the ADU's being owner occupied. He believed that Mounds View lots sizes were sufficient to allow for an ADU. Commissioner Schiltgen supported the ADU language from Minnetonka and White Bear Lake, requiring the units to be owner occupied. Chair Stevenson requested staff draft an ADU code amendment and bring this back to the Planning Commission at a future meeting. C. Discussion; Brew Pubs Planner Sevald explained this topic was discussed by the Connnission a year ago. He commented on the Su ley bill noting microbreweries now were allowed to sell beer onsite. He indicated if the Commission was interested in allowing brew pubs in Mounds View, a zoning code and licensing procedure would have to be approved by the City. He requested feedback from the Commission on brew pubs and if this use should be allowed in Mounds View. Commissioner Love stated she recently visited her son in San Diego where she had the pleasure to visit Liberty Station. She did not believe it would be necessary to limit brew pubs to the Highway 10 corridor. Chair Stevenson questioned where other communities were allowing brew pubs. Planner Sevald stated this varies from community to community. He reported they were commonly allowed in small downtown areas and industrial parks. He explained that brew pubs were mostly viewed to be retail, but also had some manufacturing. Chair Stevenson asked if brew pubs most closely aligned with the B-2, B-3 and B-4 zoning districts. Planner Sevald commented smaller restaurants (24 seats) were allowed in the B-2 zoning district as a conditional use, but were a permitted use in the B-3 and B-4 zoning districts. Further discussion ensued regarding the amount of beer that a microbrewery could brew on a monthly basis. Chair Stevenson believed that a brewery would want to be located in a space that would allow for success and not be too restrictive on the number of seats or parking. Commissioner Love questioned if food would be allowed for the brew pubs. She supported the City allowing food at brew pubs. Planner Sevald stated this could be allowed if the brew pub had a commercial kitchen and proper licensing through the State. Commissioner Klander was in favor of allowing brew pubs in the B-2, B-3 and B-4 zoning districts. He inquired if the City would have to require microbreweries to have food. Planner Sevald indicated there were numerous types of brew pubs and microbrewery licenses with the State, some allowed for food, while others did not. He recommended that the City of Mounds View not require food, but that this decision be made by the license holder. Commissioner Klander agreed with staff's recommendation and wanted the Zoning Code language to be broad enough that food would be allowed, but not required by the City. Commissioner Rundle supported brew pubs being located in the B-3 and B-4 zoning districts. Commissioner French agreed with this suggestion. Chair Stevenson requested the Commission review a City zoning map. Planner Sevald reviewed the City. zoning map with the Commission noting the B-2, B-3 and B-4 zoning districts. - DRAFT - Chair Stevenson was in favor of allowing brew pubs in the B-3 and B-4 zoning districts. The Planning Commission recommended staff draft a zoning text amendment that would allow brew pubs in the B-3 and B-4 zoning districts. D. Discussion; Demographics Planner Sevald discussed the changing demographics within the City of Mounds View. He reviewed several tables of migration information with the Commission from the State of Minnesota. Chair Stevenson thanked Planner Sevald for bringing this information forward to the Commission. He was pleased that the State of Minnesota was still growing as a State and was investigating its demographic future. Commissioner Love was intrigued by the conclusion from the report and wondered how Mounds View could work to attract young adults and young families. Chair Stevenson believed this could be accomplished by offering more amenities to residents, along with having a great school system. Commissioner Love agreed that the City's school district had a good reputation for drawing families to the community. 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity Planner Sevald discussed upcoming planning cases. B. Staff Updates Planner Sevald provided the Commission with an update from staff. He reported the County Road H bridge would be demolished this weekend, which would lead to the closure of 1-35W. He then provided the Commission with a legislative update regarding temporary healthcare dwellings and the fence law. C. Council Updates Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He noted the Council approved a liquor license for the site formerly known as Sam's Market. He provided further comment on the City's moratorium on new liquor licenses. He noted the Council recently dissolved the Streets and Utility Commission. He thanked all of the DRAFT - City residents that served with this group. He briefly described the contract that was signed with Xcel Energy for the solar panels on City Hall and the Cormnunity Center. Lastly, he was pleased to report that the Council adopted the fust reading of an Ordinance that would rename County Highway 10 to Mounds View Boulevard. D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 8. Approval of Minutes May 18, 2016. Chair Stevenson requested a change on Page 5, noting Commission Schiltgen opposed the motion and not Commission French. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Love. To approve the Minutes of the May 18, 2016 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, June 15, 2016 B. Wednesday, July 6, 2016 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald, Planner Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 0 C 0 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 20, 2016 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business (none) 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. Consider Resolution 1054-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a Text Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Chapters 1102, 1103, and 1106 relating to Accessory Dwelling Units. 6. Other Planning Activity A. (none) 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 8. Approval of Minutes: July 6, 2016 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, August 3, 2016 B. Wednesday, August 17, 2016 10. Meeting Conclusion Item No: 5A Meeting Date: July 20, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case SP -202-16 Movlvns WOW MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Re: Consider Resolution 1054-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a Text Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Chapters 1102, 1103, and 1106 relating to Accessory Dwelling Units. Date: July 20, 2016 Introduction Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are similar to an apartment on the same lot as a single-family home. An ADU may be attached to, or detached from the home. Examples include a basement apartment, an apartment above an attached garage, or a standalone building in the backyard. Currently, ADU's are prohibited in all districts. Staff occasionally receive inquiries if they are permitted. This topic was discussed by the City Council on May 9, 2016, and by the Planning Commission on June 15t and July 6th, 2016. Discussion At the July 6th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission's consensus included: Permitted Use: If the ADU is located within an existing home and does not require physical alteration of the home's exterior, other than doors or windows. Examples include; conversion of a basement, second floor, area above an attached garage, or if the home was originally constructed with an ADU. Conditional Use: If the ADU is located within an addition onto a home or accessory building requiring physical alteration of the building's exterior. Examples include ar addition onto a home, garage, or a standalone ADU. Owner Occupied: Either the home or the ADU must be homesteaded and occupied by the homeowner a majority of the year. It is possible that the property may be "Relative Homestead", meaning that it is occupied by a relative of the homeowner rather than the homeowner themselves. In Minneapolis, to counter this loophole, the City requires that the homeowner record a Item No: 5A Meeting Date: July 20, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case SP -202-16 covenant stating that the homeowner will occupy the property, ensuring the intent of the ordinance is followed, and shall notify any future owner of the same (via the covenant). If not owner occupied, the ADU must be made non -livable (i.e. toilet or sink, etc. is removed). However, it is Staffs opinion that a covenant would not be necessary in Mounds View. If a violation occurs, the City would treat it similar to any other ordinance violation (potential of a misdemeanor). Other: R-1 District: Accessory Dwelling Units would only be allowed in the R-1 Single -Family Residential District. This is because two-family dwellings (i.e. duplexes) are permitted in the R-2, R-3, and R-4 districts. Setbacks: Within the R-1 District, ADU's must be setback a minimum of 10' from the side and rear property lines (an accessory building is 5'). If an existing accessory building with a 5' setback is converted into an ADU, that portion of the ADU must be setback a minimum of 10', and the excess 5' cannot be livable area. Parking: Single -Family and Two -Family dwellings are required to provide a minimum of two off-street parking spaces per unit (multi -family dwellings must be provided with 2.5 spaces per unit). Under the draft ordinance, a Single -Family Home with an ADU would be required to provide a minimum of three off-street parking spaces (2 for the house, and 1 for the ADU). Rental Dwelling License: As with all residential rental properties, a Rental Dwelling License will be required. Exception; "A rental dwelling license is not required for residences occupied by the owner where no more than two (2) sleeping rooms are rented and the renters have access to the entire residence, or for residences occupied only by the owner's children or parents." (City Code, Section 1012.03, Subd 1(b). If a rental license is required, the City will inspect the ADU every other year for compliance with Building & Development Regulations (City Code, Title 1000). The annual fee is $375 the first year, and $60 each year thereafter. The $375 fee may be reduced to $100, if the homeowner attends a rental housing workshop, or contracts with a management company to manage the ADU. The Homeowner (landlord) cannot discriminate against renters or rental applicants. Exceptions; If the ADU is attached to the home and the ADU renter has access to it (i.e. internal door), the homeowner can discriminate based on sex, marital status, public assistance, sexual orientation, or disability (Minn Stat §363A.21, Subd 1(2). For example, if the home is owned and occupied by a single elderly lady, she may choose to rent only to an unmarried woman. This exception would not apply to detached ADU's, or attached ADU's with no internal access to the attached home. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: July 20, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case SP -202-16 Height: The intent is for ADU's to comply with maximum height standards in the R-1 District; 45' (or 2Yz stories) if attached to the home, and 18' if detached. Thus, an ADU is not likely to be located above a detached garage. Height is measured from the ground to the peak. In Minneapolis, the maximum accessory building height is 20' from ground to mid -roof, and 25' to peak. Frequency: Staff inquired with the cities of Bloomington, Chanhassen, Farmington, Minneapolis, Plymouth, Richfield, Roseville, Shoreview and White Bear Lake as to how frequently an ADU has been permitted in their communities. Most communities responded that no ADU's have been built. A few have averaged one ADU per year. Richfield had a number of illegal ADU's become legal, but no new ADU's. In contrast, Minneapolis has approved 50 ADU's during the past 1Yz years that they've been allowed. Staff anticipates that there will be a number of inquiries made if ADU's are allowed in Mounds View (as is current), but few permits applied for, similar to other suburb's experience. Summary Accessory Dwelling Units are one solution to providing housing diversity in neighborhoods. ADU occupants are likely to include adult children, elderly parents, college students, personal caretakers, and other residents. ADU's may provide extra income to property owners, and allow multi -generational families to live separately under one roof. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 1054-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a Text Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Chapters 1102, 1103, and 1106 relating to Accessory Dwelling Units. Respectfully, 4�;� Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments Resolution 1054-16 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1054-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 1100 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE PERTAINING TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS; PLANNING CASE: SP -202-16 WHEREAS, City Staff has recommended that amendments be made to the zoning code related to accessory dwelling units; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission agrees with the City Staff recommendation to allow Accessory Dwelling Units; and WHEREAS, City Staff has amended Chapter 1102; 1103; and 1106 of the Mounds View Municipal Code by adding the underlined material and deleting the striekea material as follows (Footnotes are for reference, and not for publication): Chapter 1102: Zoning Rules and Definitions Seetion1102.02: Definitions: The following words and terms, wherever they occur in this Code, shall be defined as follows: Subd. 42. DWELLING, SINGLE-FAMILY: A detached dwelling unit designed exclusively for occupancy by one (1) family. Subd. 43. DWELLING, TWO-FAMILY: A dwelling designed exclusively for occupancy by two (2) families living independently of each other, also known as double bungalow, duplex, side-by-side two (2) -family dwellings. An Accessory Dwelling Unit is not a Two -Family Dwelling, Subd. DWELLING UNIT, ACCESSORY: a dwelling unit that is located on the same lot as a single-family dwelling to which it is accessory to, and that is subordinate in area to the principal dwelling . -I 1103.02: DWELLING UNIT RESTRICTIONS: Subd. 1. No cellar, garage, tent, recreational vehicle, travel trailer or accessory building shall at any time be used as an independent residence or dwelling unit, temporarily or ' City of Minneapolis, Section 520.160 (Definitions, Accessory Divelling Unit) permanently, except as permitted pursuant to Section 1106.03, Subd 10 (Accessory Dwelling Units). Chapter 1106: R-1, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Section 1106.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in an R-1 District: Subd. 1. Single-family detached dwellings. a. Each applicant for a building permit to construct any principle dwellings shall be required to provide off-street parking spaces for at least two (2) automobiles per family in addition to any garage spaces to be used. Section 1106.03: ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in an R-1 District. Subd 10. Accessory Dwelllne Unit (Internal): a. One Accessory Dwelling Unit may be located on a lot occupied by a single-famil home (principal dwelling). The lot must comply with minimum dimensional standards. The Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be located within the existing single- family home, and shall not require any exterior modifications to the existinghome, excluding doors and windows. Figure 1: Accessory Dwelling Unit (Internal Unit) b. The Single -Family Home or the Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be occupied by the property owner. The property shall be homesteaded. C. An internal Accessory Dwelling Unit shall have a minimum gross floor area of 300 sq ft, and a maximum gross floor area not to exceed the area of the floor above or below it. d. A minimum of one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for the Accessory Dwelling Unit. e. Accessory Dwelling Units shall be licensed as a rental dwelling, and comply with Chapter 1012 (Rental Dwelling License). Section 1106.04: CONDITIONAL 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. 9 Accessory Dwelling Unit (Addition or External): a. One Accessory Dwelling Unit may be located on a lot occupied by a single-family home. The lot must comply with minimum dimensional standards. The Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be located within an addition onto an existing single-family home, or in a detached building. Figure 2: Accessory Dwelling Unit (Exterior Additinn) Figure 3: Accessory Dwelling unit (Detached Unit) b. The Single -Family Home or the Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be occupied by the property owner. The property shall be homesteaded. C. An Accessory Dwelling Unit shall have a minimum gross floor area of 300 sq ft and a maximum gross floor area of 800 sq ft. d. The exterior design of the Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be consistent with the character of the single-family home, and shall not have the appearance of two separate dwellings. e. A minimum of one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for the Accessory Dwelling Unit. f Accessory Dwelling Units shall be licensed as a rental dwelling, and comply with Chapter 1012 (Rental Dwelling License). g. If the Accessory Dwelling Unit is detached from the single-family home, then it shall comply with all applicable Accessory Building requirements. WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that an amendment to the City Code is warranted and justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of amendments to Title 1100 of the Mounds View City Code as defined herein. 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 20th day of July, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) -DRAFT - PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 6, 2016 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for July 6, 2016. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners French, Klander, Klebsch, Love, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Rundle and Schiltgen Also Present: Planner Jon Sevald and Council Member Gary Meehlhause Index to Minutes Page Resolution 1053-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a Text Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code relating to breweries, brewpubs, micro -distilleries, taprooms and cocktail rooms Resolution 1054-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a Text Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code relating to Accessory Dwelling Units Approval of Minutes Special Order of Business None. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. July 6, 2016 Page 2 5. Planning Cases A. Consider Resolution 1053-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a Text Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Chapters 1102, 1113, 1114, 1115, and 1116 relating to breweries, brewpubs, micro -distilleries, taprooms and cocktail rooms Planner Sevald stated in recent years, a number of taprooms have opened in Minneapolis and St. Paul, and more locally in Lino Lakes and Anoka. He provided further comment on the Surly Bill. He explained there are plans for taprooms in Blaine and Coon Rapids as well. In order for one to open in Mounds View, the Zoning Code must be amended to allow the location; and the City's Liquor Licensing Code must be amended to regulate on -sale and off -sale of beer and alcohol. It was noted the proposed amendment only addresses the zoning portion and that the City Council will act on the liquor licensing separately. Staff reviewed the code amendment in further detail and recommended approval. Chair Stevenson requested staff further define the differences between a brewery, brewpub, micro -distillery, taproom and cocktail room. Planner Sevald defined each of these uses in further detail. Chair Stevenson believed it was important for the City to clearly define the differences between each use. He commended staff for providing a clear distinction between each use. Commissioner Klander appreciated the greater understanding between the different uses as well. He asked if taprooms would offer off -sale. Planner Sevald stated this would depend on their liquor license and was not a zoning issue. Commissioner Love suggested the taproom language be amended to read the sale of malt liquor which would omit any off -sale or on -sale reference. Further discussion ensued regarding the function and definition of a taproom. Commissioner Klebsch asked if this Ordinance amendment opens the door to breweries of all sizes. Planner Sevald stated this was the case. Commissioner Klebsch explained she would be more comfortable with the size being limited for potential breweries, brewpubs and taprooms in order to keep a large national brewer out of Mounds View. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 6, 2016 Page 3 Chair Stevenson suggested the term micro -brewery be used within the Ordinance amendment as this would limit breweries to 15,000 barrels in a calendar year. Commissioner Klebsch questioned what the City's SAC and WAC fees would be for micro - breweries. Planner Sevald reported he had not considered these fees and would speak with the Public Works Department about this further. Chair Stevenson stated this was a good point given the recent water issues that have impacted communities surrounding Mounds View. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Klebsch/Commissioner French. To approve Resolution 1053-16, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Text Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Chapters 1102, 1113, 1114, 1115, and 1116 relating to breweries, brewpubs, micro -distilleries, taprooms and cocktail rooms. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. B. Consider Resolution 1054-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a Text Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Chapters 1102, 1103 and 1106 relating to Accessory Dwelling Units Planner Sevald stated Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are similar to an apartment on the same lot as a single-family home. An ADU may be attached to, or detached from the home. Examples include a basement apartment, an apartment above a garage or a standalone building in the backyard. This topic was discussed by the City Council on May 9, 2016 and by the Planning Commission on June 1, 2016. Staff reviewed the discussion held by both groups, along with the proposed text amendment and requested the Commission approve the proposed code amendment for ADU's. Chair Stevenson asked how owner -occupied units would be addressed. Planner Sevald understood this was a concern. He believed that most residents would not oppose family members living in an apartment unit within a single-family home. However, if the unit were to be rented out to a non -family member, this would be concerning. He stated the Commission could require the property to be homesteaded, or family -homesteaded. Commissioner Klebsch questioned the percentage of homeowners versus renters in Mounds View. Planner Sevald was uncertain of this percentage. He estimated the City had around 1,000 rental units. Chair Stevenson discussed the ADU requirements for the properties surrounding his cabin. He asked if additional parking would be required for those with an ADU. Planner Sevald explained one additional parking stall would be required. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 6, 2016 Page 4 Chair Stevenson did not believe 50% of a home should be able to be used for an ADU. He recommended this percentage not be over 30%. Commissioner Klebsch wanted to see additional language added to the text amendment to ensure the aesthetics of the building could be controlled. She suggested that if abasement was turned into an ADU, no additional square footage could be added to the basement level. Planner Sevald provided further clarification on the existing language in the text amendment. Further discussion ensued regarding additions to homes with ADU's. Planner Sevald questioned if ADU's should be a permitted or conditional use. Chair Stevenson supported the ADU's being a permitted use that could be managed by staff. Commissioner French stated he would want to be notified if his neighbors were constructing a detached ADU on their property. Chair Stevenson believed this was a good point. He suggested that attached ADU's be a permitted use and that detached ADU's be a conditional use. Planner Sevald stated this could be pursued by staff. Commissioner Klander questioned if the City would require ADU's to have the same appearance as the existing home. Planner Sevald explained the City would require the ADU to match the character of the single-family home. Commissioner Klebsch supported detached ADU's being a conditional use. She indicated she would want to know if her neighbors were planning to add onto their home or garage in order to have renters, especially if these units could be 10 feet from property lines. Commissioner Klander asked how the ADU's would be licensed with the City. Planner Sevald described the rental licensing procedure and noted he could report back at the next meeting with further details. Commissioner Klander suggested the owner -occupied language be removed and that ADU's be required to be homesteaded. Commissioner Love questioned if properties could be rezoned to R-2 if the homeowners did not want to live in the home. Planner Sevald stated this was a possibility, however the rezoning would have to be justified. Commissioner Love inquired if a large detached garage addition would be allowed for a homeowner with a small home. Planner Sevald discussed the City's detached garage requirements. Planner Sevald reviewed a number of scenarios regarding ADU's within homes and garages. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 6, 2016 Page 5 There was Commission consensus to allow ADU's on second story, third story or in a basement as a permitted use so long as there were no structural changes. Discussion ensued regarding exterior stairwells. Commissioner Klander believed that if the unit required a building permit, the neighbors should be notified regarding the ADU. Planner Sevald questioned if an ADU should be a permitted or conditional use for new construction homes with a detached garage with an apartment unit. Chair Stevenson did not believe that this should be a conditional use since the home would be constructed in this manner. Commissioner Klebsch agreed stating the ADU would be a part of the original footprint of the home and garage. Commissioner Love encouraged the City to keep aesthetics in mind for this code amendment. Planner Sevald thanked the Commission for all of the input. He stated he would revise the text amendment and report back at a future meeting. 6. Other Planning Activity None. 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity Planner Sevald discussed upcoming planning cases. B. Staff Updates Planner Sevald provided the Commission with an update from staff. He noted over 500 homes were without power from the recent storm. He hoped this number would decrease quickly as time goes on. C. Council Updates Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He commented on the Comprehensive Plan task force that would be created to assist with updating this document. He noted the Council would begin the 2017 budgeting process in Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 6, 2016 Page 6 August. He reported the Council was discussing a change in Council salaries stating their pay has not changed since 2003. He reviewed the proposed new pay rates. He explained the Community Center would be getting a new sign that would match the City Hall sign. He reported Nathan Harder was hired as the City's Police Chief and would begin serving the City in mid-August. He described the name changes coming for Highway Avenue and County Highway 10. He discussed the plans for the Crossroad Pointe redevelopment project. D. Planning Commissioner Reports Commissioner Klebsch explained she has accepted an appointment to the Minnesota Council of Latino Affairs and believed that this would not pose any conflict of interest with serving on the Planning Commission. Chair Stevenson congratulated Commissioner Klebsch. 8. Approval of Minutes June 1, 2016. Commissioner Klebsch requested a change on Page 8 changing Commission to Commissioner. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Love/Commissioner Klander. To approve the Minutes of the June 1, 2016 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, July 20, 2016 B. August 6, 2016 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald, Planner Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 0 0 MOMDARNEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA August 3, 2016 -- 7:00 P.M. The August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting has been Canceled The next scheduled meeting is Wednesday, August 17, 2016, 7:00 PM 0 • 0 IAI MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA August 17, 2016 -- 7:00 P.M. The August 17, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting has been Canceled The next scheduled meeting is Wednesday, September 7, 2016, 7:00 PM Sep 7, 2016 IkA MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA September 7, 2016 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business (none) 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. Consider Resolution 1055-16, a resolution approving a Variance for a 30' front yard setback at 7790 Eastwood Rd; Planning Case VR2016-04 6. Other Planning Activity A. (none) 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 8. Approval of Minutes: July 20, 2016 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, September 21, 2016 B. Wednesday, October 5, 2016 10. Meeting Conclusion Item No: 5A 016 MQ,—NDS vrL W Type Meeting Date: Sept 7, R20 ViVL li:.yy T e of Business: Planning Case VR2016-04 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Item Title/Subject: Consider Resolution 1055-16, a resolution approving a Variance for a 30' front yard setback at 7790 Eastwood Rd; Planning Case VR2016-04 Introduction The applicant (Value Homes, LLC) is requesting a Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 54' to 30' to construct a single-family home at 7790 Eastwood Rd. The minimum front yard setback in the R-1 district is 30' unless homes on the same side of the street have a greater setback (54' in this case). The request is due to the hardship of a private drainage easement reducing the buildable area of the lot. Discussion The property at 7800 Eastwood Rd was subdivided into two lots in March, 2016. The north lot includes an existing home, and the south lot is the subject property (7790 Eastwood Rd). After the subdivision was approved, the developer conducted a Title Search, which revealed two private easements: (1) a 10' wide sidewalk easement in the SE corner of the lot; and (2) a 30' wide surface drainage & storm water easement along the south property line. The two easements are for the adjacent property, Silver Lake Commons apartments. As part of Silver Lake Common's Development Review in 1997, the City required the apartment owner to obtain a drainage easement from 7800 Eastwood Rd. At that time, there was concern that expansion of the apartments would negatively affect the natural drainage flow from properties north of the apartments (1940 aerial photo suggests a drainage ditch flowed through these properties). An easement was obtained, but a storm water retention pond was never constructed within the easement, nor was a sidewalk. Prior to the Title Search, neither the developer nor the current property owner (Value Homes) knew about the easements. Due to the private drainage easement and the 54' front yard building setback requirement, the buildable area of the lot is significantly reduced. Planning Case VR2016-04 September 7, 2016 Page 2 Analysis City Code, Title 1100, Chapter 1104, Section 1104.01, Subdivision 3(a): Yard Requirements; Where principal buildings in existence on lots within the same block on the same side of the street have front yard setbacks different from those required, the minimum front yard setback for any new principal buildings shall be the minimum front yard setback in existence for any one lot. In no case shall the front yard setback be less than thirty feet (309. For purposes of this subsection a, a block shall be defined as that group of lots lying along a street between the two closest intersecting streets, except that where the length of the street frontage between the two intersecting streets is greater than fourteen hundred feet (1, 400), the block shall be the lots within six hundred and fifty feet (650) on either side of the lot in question, or to an intersecting street whichever is less. Homes on this side of the street are set back between about 54' and 60'. The adjacent home (7800 Eastwood Rd) is set back 59'. If the Variance were approved, the proposed home may look inconsistent because of the shallower front yard, but the 30' front yard setback would be consistent with minimum requirements elsewhere in the R-1 District. City Code, Title 1100, Chapter 1125, Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 includes the seven criteria for granting Variances. A Variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. b. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Planning Case VR2016-04 September 7, 2016 Page 3 f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. g. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Staff's analysis of the seven criteria is listed in Resolution 1055-16. In summary, the practical difficulty (criteria c & d) is that the private 30' wide drainage easement significantly reduces the buildable area of the lot. The private easement was created by an agreement between the adjacent Silver Lake Commons Apartments owner (MSP Real Estate) and the previous owner of the subject property (Mary Larson) in 1997 in response to the City's approval of a Site Plan Review for the expansion of the apartments. If the Variance is approved, the front yard setback would be reduced from 54' to 30'. The proposed home would have a front yard depth about half that of other homes on the same side of the street (criteria e), but would still comply with the minimum 30' front yard setback found elsewhere in the R-1 District (criteria f). Other options are for the owner to choose an alternative floor plan that would fit within the lot's buildable area. The buildable area as -is measures approximately 64' wide X 58' deep, and is triangularly shaped. After the developer (Kayak Properties) of the 2016 subdivision conducted the Title Search revealing the easement, the developer contacted the owners of Silver Lake Commons Apartments (Mounds View Family Housing), requesting that they vacate the private easement, which they chose not to do. Public Comments A Public Hearing Notice was published in the New Brighton / Mounds View Sun Focus on August 19, 2016, and mailed to property owners within 350' of the subject property. Staff received an email from a resident opposed to the Variance because the proposed home with a reduced setback would look out of place, and because the existing wooded front yard blocks noise and lights from properties along Mounds View Blvd (Co Rd 10). Planning Case VR2016-04 September 7, 2016 Page 4 Summary The applicant is requesting a Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 54' to 30', to construct a new home. The property includes a 30'X 172' private drainage easement along the south property line. The lot's buildable area is limited due to the private drainage easement and larger front yard building setback. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Variance contingent upon complying with the conditions in Resolution 1055-16. It is Staff's opinion that the Variance request is reasonable considering that the location of the private drainage easement greatly reduces the buildable area of the lot. The Planning Commission is requested to consider the following options: 1. Resolution 1055-16, approving the Variance is attached if the Commission chooses this action. 2. The Planning Commission may choose to deny the Variance. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of the 60 -day requirements (Deadline: September 23, 2016) the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, 40... 4V�ar/` Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photo of Neighborhood with front yard building setbacks (approximate to roofline) 3. Site Photos 4. Email from Lon Stigney, 7841 Eastwood Rd 5. Resolution 1055-16 6. Applicant's Narrative (with Certificate of Survey) Planning Case VR2016-04 September 7, 2016 Page 5 Zoninq Map 7891 i N I N 7880 rris 1' J r; 7885 X870 7866 } 7877 R-2 7854 1863 ..- 7842 7840 18f!) 7830 7851 7770 -- d1F4 7767 7820 �Br 7750 7755 1 7745 7810 B-1 n rnp 1800 u�o �6 1 h RMICA rris 1' J r; 7867 X870 1851 +'K60 R-2 7850 7841 ..- R-3 7840 18f!) 7790 7809 7770 7801 d1F4 7767 7760 7761 7750 7755 7730 7745 7710 B-1 n rnp 7715 u�o c6 LEGEND ZONING DISTRICTS •R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL B-2 LIMITED BUSINESS R-2 SINGLE & TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 0-3 HIGHWAY BUSINESS R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL B-4 REGIONAL BUSINESS R-4 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1-1 INDUSTRIAL R -S MOBILE HOME PF PUBLIC FACILITIES R -O RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT B-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS CRP CONSERVANCY, RECREATION & PRESERVATION • AREAS NOT LABELED ARE R-1 DISTRICTS Planning Case VR2016-04 September 7, 2016 Page 6 Aerial Photo of Neighborhood with front yard building setbacks (approximate to roofline) o• Ffl- i�A 5� Planning Case VR2016-04 September 7, 2016 Page 7 Site Photos Figure 1: Eastwood Rd, looking south from 7800 Eastwood Rd (fence at right). Red line Is approximately in front of subject property, 7790 Eastwood Rd (8-29-2016) Value Homes Pro L R�nomuion 1.1806 Aberdeen St NE, Suite 100, Blaine, I'VIN 55445 Cell: (612) 48i-7841 Office: (763) 205-0056 July 22, 2016 Property: 7790 Eastwood Road, Mounds View, MN 55112 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A Variance for the Minimum 30' Front setback in the R-1 District is required due to a private easement in order to build a very modest Split Level Home with a 38' 8" wide and 23' 8" long Foundation. As stated in the email attached; the seller of this lot has made every effort to get the owner of the neighboring Apartment building to vacate the unused private easement however they will not cooperate. As stated by Jon Sevald in the email attached; if a variance were approved to allow a 30' setback, the house would fit without encroaching into the easement. This variance meets the criteria of the attached ordinance 1125.02 Subd. 2. a - g. The following supporting documentation is attached: 1) Copy of the Certificate of Survey Highlightingthe part of the home which encroaches into the private easement due to the 55' front setback. 2) Copy of the Blueprints 3) Email Chain with the seller's (Terry Buchanan — Kayak Properties) full explanation describing his efforts to vacate the private easement & 1on Sevald's (AICP, Planner, City of Mounds View) explanation of the Variance Application process. 4) Copy of the City of Mounds View Ordinance Highlighting 1125.02 Subd. 2. a. —g. Sincerely, Eric 011estad Value Homes LLC Chief Executive Manager FOR: Eric 011estad x9119 9119 `x P A O / ✓. t 1 , \9a9x:;7 II 1♦ '- 91\i ll PROPERTY ADDRESS: #7)(xx EASTWOOD ROAD, MOUNDS VIEW, MN P.I.D.#06-30-23-44-???? av ? 9916 \la J o '1 I - CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY HOUSE DIMENSIONS, AND SEWER qN� =MaeI sI e., cc Q BE 0.5 FEET LOWER THAN THE FINISHED GRADE AT THE 6 is .1011.2 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. W 41- I p . wp V 1 � 119... ... -':91� x 11F6 O ,6IWB\�=xY } all veo ay w .•dreposed sod T�- O , all- '• I 237 73' - .5 course lookout. a.a. t; I v♦\ PROPOSED ELEVAITONS addition to those shown hereon. This survey is subject to GARAGE FLOOR = 912.1 1' IRDN Ljhft (0.7' F151J ° 1-- !; r oL ,6.00 LOWEST FLOOR - 909.3 EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION to line: sloe �a5. 911.6 Q__ A-----11A 9\1A - r-------------------- jz- 1 -)NEED 7D Si HW3E i 2) VERIFY DRIVEWAY ON Hjir/SE TO i 3) NEED To VERIFY 30' EASEMENT 1O SOUTH HAS BEEN VACATEDI Y 301L NORTH NOTES - Field survey conducted on xxxxx 61MI6 T11`I RIN®iD.a INVrR99.1 NUT nRE size] - BEARING'S SHOWN ARE ON ASSUMED DATUM. - CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY HOUSE DIMENSIONS, AND SEWER qN� C - FINISHED GRADE 10 FEET FROM PROPOSED BUILDING SHALL LEGEND BE 0.5 FEET LOWER THAN THE FINISHED GRADE AT THE C92. DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVADON. lir .1011.2 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. W 41- I p . wp V 1 � 4Y 9 DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND FINAL DRIVEWAY DESIGN AND LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED BY --- . - CITY TO VERIFY ALL BUILDINGS ELEVATIONS AND SETBACKS. O� SaDOC NO 1=d11E61rr pER- .5 course lookout. a.a. t; I v♦\ PROPOSED ELEVAITONS addition to those shown hereon. This survey is subject to GARAGE FLOOR = 912.1 1' IRDN Ljhft (0.7' F151J ° , 1 host attorneys title opinion. LOWEST FLOOR - 909.3 EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 61MI6 T11`I RIN®iD.a INVrR99.1 NUT nRE size] - BEARING'S SHOWN ARE ON ASSUMED DATUM. - CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY HOUSE DIMENSIONS, AND SEWER AND BASEMENT DEPTHS. - FINISHED GRADE 10 FEET FROM PROPOSED BUILDING SHALL LEGEND BE 0.5 FEET LOWER THAN THE FINISHED GRADE AT THE C92. DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVADON. BUILDING. .1011.2 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. - FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS ARE TO FINISHED SURFACE / DENOTES DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE WITH TURF ESTABLISHMENT. N DENOTES METAL SPIRE - DRIVEWAYS ARE SHOWN FOR GRAPHIC PURPOSES ONLY. 9 DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND FINAL DRIVEWAY DESIGN AND LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR - CITY TO VERIFY ALL BUILDINGS ELEVATIONS AND SETBACKS. - This survey was prepared without the benefit of tltlework, .5 course lookout. Easement, appurtenances and encumbrances may exist in PROPOSED ELEVAITONS addition to those shown hereon. This survey is subject to GARAGE FLOOR = 912.1 revision upon receipt of a title insurance commitment or TOP OF BLOCK - 912.5 attorneys title opinion. LOWEST FLOOR - 909.3 EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION That part of Lot 77, SPRING LAKE PARK HILL NEW, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lies southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of sold Lot 77; thence South 00 degrees 40 minutes 10 seconds East (assumed bearing) along the east line of said Lot 77 a distance of 113.58 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described, said point to be hereinafter referred to as "Point A"; thence South 88 degrees 21 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 178.65 feet to the southwesterly line of sold Lot 77 and sold line there terminating. Subject to an easement for public drainage and utility purposes over, under and across the north 5.00 feet, the east 10.00 feat, and the southwesterly 10.00 feet of the above described property. And subject to an easement for drainage and utility purposes over, under and across that part of the above described property which Iles westerly of east 114.04 feet thereof. I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I can a duly Registered Land Surveyor under me law. of the State of ACRE LAND SURVEYING 1 t Minn...to. - area and beyond Tvdn Cities Metro r �lll Y Y 763458-2997 acrelandaurve Cmg 15 o Date: Mav xx. 2015 Reg, No. 44125 JOB #16294HS is C,\Users\Erle\UneOrlve\CAD-1D\16294hs-MndsVW-Eric\dwa\16294hs-MndsVw-Erledwa 5/14/2016 92951 AM CDT c Value Homes Prn pent' Alnrrng unem c+ Rennr nrbrn I i I:i f i r rifle i r l nS )q',:V July 28, 2016 Property: 7790 Eastwood Road, Mounds View, MN 55112 To Whom it may concern. My name is Eric 011estad. I am the owner of Value Homes LLC. Value Homes specializes in acquiring lots and building single family homes on those lots to be sold as finished new construction homes in the Twin Cities Metro Area. Here are some of the projects we have completed in the last few years: 3973 Hayes St NE, Columbia Heights 4320 Madison St NE, Columbia Heights 4522 5th St NE, Columbia Heights 3830 Noble Ave N, Robbinsdale 13573 2121h Ave NW, Elk River 1731169th Ave NE, Ham Lake 6812 Aldrich Ave N, Brooklyn Center 10712 Kyle Ave N, Brooklyn Park 10718 Kyle Ave N, Brooklyn Park 3701 Buchanan St NE, Columbia Heights 3705 Buchanan St NE, Columbia Heights 16386 Inca St NW, Andover 1016 42'/: Ave NE, Columbia Heights 8857 Baltimore St NE, Blaine 2081 Palm St, Lino Lakes 1100 Vera St N, Champlin I purchased the lot at 7790 Eastwood Rd, Mounds View with the intention of building a modest Bi -Level Split home and selling it as a completed new construction Single Family Residence. I have repeated this particular home plan many times with great results. It offers home buyers the ability to purchase a 4 bedroom, 2 bath, attached 2 car garage High Efficiency home with Premium Building Materials and finishes at an affordable price. Some of the features of the home are Triple Pane Windows, Poured Concrete Foundation, High Efficiency Furnace, DuraStrand Subfloors, Radon Mitigation System & Sump Pump Included, Gas Stove, Gas Water Heater, Gas Dryer Hookup, Air to Air Exchanger, De -Humidifier and a Vented Microwave. Before I purchased the lot I was told by the seller that there was an unused 30' easement that would not affect the building of the home as the easement would be vacated. The seller of this lot has made every effort to get the owner of the neighboring Apartment building to vacate the unused private easement however they will not cooperate. As stated by Jon Sevald in the email attached; if a variance were approved to allow a 30' setback, the house would fit without encroaching into the easement. The following is an explanation on why this variance meets the criteria of the attached ordinance 1125.02 Subd. 2. a — g: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Response - This variance is definitely in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title as this will be a Residential Single Family Home. b. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (Amended, Ord. 861,9-22-11) Response - This variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan as this new home will give new people or a new family the opportunity to become new citizens of Mounds View and offer them the ability to get involved in the community helping Mounds View reach many of its goals. This home will drastically improve the appearance of the community by turning a vacant lot into a beautiful new residence with a brand new Single Family Home. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Response — Due to the unused private easement a modest single family home will not fit on the lot unless a variance for the minimum 30' front setback is granted. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Response —This property is a unique Triangle Shape. The circumstance is one of a kind in Mounds View as there is an unused private 30' Easement along the south lot line. Approving this variance will not only make it possible for a modest single family home to be built on this lot; it will also drastically improve the backyard giving the new home owner a much safer area for outdoor activities versus the front yard along Eastwood Road. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Response —The variance is not altering the essential character of the neighborhood as it is only improving the character of the neighborhood by allowing a nice new home to be built on the lot. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. (Amended, Ord. 861,9-22-11) Response —As noted in the attached Certificate of Survey; allowing the 30' front setback would allow the home to be moved 25' closer to the front lot line towards Eastwood Road which would be the minimum amount of room needed so that the new home does not encroach into the unused private easement. g. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Response — I believe that the impact created by the variance is a positive impact and a benefit to the neighborhood. Sincerely, Eric 011estad Value Homes LLC Chief Executive Manager From: surrey, Lon To: ]on sevald Subject: VR2016-004 Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 3:41:57 PM Dearjon, My home address is 7841 Eastwood Road which falls within the 350 feet of this proposed variance. Me and my wife are against this proposal for a variety of reasons. First we would hate to see the buffer of trees that are there presently be removed for they deaden the noise from highway 10 and also block the lights from the nearby housing project. But the main reason is that we believe that this variance for this project would be way to cramped between the two existing properties and way out of place of the present street view that now exists. The code that is in place is there for this very reason. It should not be tweaked to help a particular party who subdivided a parcel of property in the hopes that the city would change the code for their own financial gain down the road. We ourselves own a double property lot like others here in Mounds View. Because of this the city has a nice wooded feel too it that makes Mounds View an very enjoyable place to live. We believe this variance would open the door for others to do the same. Especially outside builders or a new property owner who would just want to make a quick buck by selling of odd acreages and attempting to squeeze other houses in other deemed inappropriate areas. Sincerely, Lon Stigney TR Director Cornerstone Assisted Living & Memory Care 3750 Lawndale Lane N I Plymouth, MN 55446 763.550.0333 fax: 763.390.1888 elim care CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential client information. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you're not the addressee or the employee or agent responsible to deliver this e-mail to its intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, distribution, disclosure, copying or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Elim Care, Inc. Providing Senior Housing and Healthcare in the Spirit of Christ's Love MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1055-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 30 -FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A NEW HOME AT 7790 EASTWOOD RD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2016-04 WHEREAS, property owner, Value Homes, LLC, has applied for a variance to allow a house to encroach approximately 24' into the required 54' front yard setback at 7790 Eastwood Rd; and, WHEREAS, 7790 Eastwood Rd is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: That part of Lot 77, SPRING LAKE PARK HILL VIEW, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lies southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 77; thence South 00 degrees 40 minutes 10 seconds East (assumed bearing) along the east line of said Lot 77 a distance of 113.58 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described, said point to be hereafter referred to as `Point A'; thence South 88 degrees 21 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 178.65 feet to the southwesterly line of said Lot 77 and said line there terminating. Subject to an easement for public drainage and utility purposes over, under and across the north 5.00 feet, the east 10.00 feet, and the southwesterly 10.00 feet of the above described property. And subject to an easement for drainage and utility purposes over, under and across that part of the above described property which lies westerly of east 114.04 feet thereof. PIN: 06-30-23-44-0077 WHEREAS, City Code Title 1100, Chapter 1104, Section 1104.01, Subdivision 3(a) states; Where principal buildings in existence on lots within the same block on the same side of the street have front yard setbacks different from those required, the minimum front yard setback for any new principal buildings shall be the minimum front yard setback in existence for any one lot. In no case shall the front yard setback be less than thirty feet (30). For purposes of this subsection a, a block Resolution 1055-16 September 7, 2016 Page 2 shall be defined as that group of lots lying along a street between the two closest intersecting streets, except that where the length of the street frontage between the two intersecting streets is greater than fourteen hundred feet (1,400), the block shall be the lots within six hundred and fifty feet (650) on either side of the lot in question, or to an intersecting street whichever is less. WHEREAS, the 7700 block of Eastwood Rd is approximately 1,400' in length, and the principle building on the same block and same side of the street with the smallest front yard setback measures approximately 54' (7880 Eastwood Rd, based on 1991 building plan, Permit #91-218), and thus the minimum front yard setback for all lots on the west side of this block, including the subject property, is 54'; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Views 3. Site Photos 4. Staff Report 5. Applicant's Narrative and Certificate of Survey 6. Resident Comments 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, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing regarding this request on September 7, 2016; 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 that 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 practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 7790 Eastwood Rd, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 1055-16 September 7, 2016 Page 3 The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code regarding front yard building setbacks is to provide a sense of privacy and separation between the building and the public right-of-way. The proposed home to be located on the subject property will maintain a 30' front yard setback, consistent with minimum standards elsewhere in the R-1 district. 2. The Variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (2010); Goal 4: "Encourage residential infill and redevelopment that supports the City's housing goals and maintains residential character." The parent property (7800 Eastwood Rd) was subdivided into two lots in March 2016, creating the subject property (7790 Eastwood Rd), with the intent of constructing a new home. 3. The applicant (Value Homes, LLC) proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner for a single-family residence. 4. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from circumstances over which the property owner had no control. The current property owner (Value Homes) and immediate past owner/developer (Kayak Properties) were not aware of the private 30' wide drainage easement at the time the property was subdivided in 2016. The private drainage easement is unique to this property. 5. The Variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback from 54' to 30' will result in a front yard half the depth as others on the west side of Eastwood Rd. However, a reduced setback will allow construction of a vacant lot for a new single-family home, maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood. 6. The Variance request is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties created by the private 30' wide drainage easement. The Applicant's Narrative includes a Certificate of Survey, dated "May XX, 2016", which shows a proposed home encroaching 26' feet into the private easement (24' foundation + 2' overhang). A Variance reducing the front yard setback from 54' to 30' will still leave a 2' encroachment into the private easement, thus, the home plan will need to be adjusted to avoid any encroachment into this easement. 7. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary. Such conditions are included below: The applicant (Value Homes, LLC) shall clearly disclose to the purchaser of the to -be constructed home that there exists two private easements along the south side yard property line for; (1) a 10' wide sidewalk (Doc. No. 1172686); and (2) a 30' wide drainage area (Doc. No. 1172687). Resolution 1036-15 September 7, 2016 Page 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the Variance request of Value Homes, LLC, for a reduced front yard setback from 54' to 30' at the property located at 7790 Eastwood Rd, subject to the following: 1. The applicant (Value Homes, LLC) shall clearly disclose to the purchaser of the to -be constructed home that there exists two private easements along the south side yard property line for; (1) a 10' wide sidewalk (Doc. No. 1172686); and (2) a 30' wide drainage area (Doc. No. 1172687). 2. If within one year after granting the variance, the work as permitted by the variance has not begun, then such variance shall become null and void unless an extension of time has been requested by the applicant and granted by the Planning Commission. Such extension shall be requested by the applicant in writing, and submitted to the City at least 30 days before the expiration of the original variance. Adopted this 7th day of September, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) I_-.'i�Ai I.. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 20, 2016 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for July 20, 2016, 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners French, Klander, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen and Stevenson Absent and Excused: Commissioner Klebsch Also Present: Planner Jon Sevald and Council Member Gary Meehlhause Index to Minutes Page Resolution 1054-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a Text 2 Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code Chapters 1102, 1103 And 1106 relating to Accessory Dwelling Units Approval of Minutes 4 3. Special Order of Business None. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. Mounds View Planning Commission July 20, 2016 Regular Meeting Page 2 5. Planning Cases A. Consider Resolution 1055-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a Text Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Chapters 1102, 1103, and 1106 relating to Accessory Dwelling Units. Planner Sevald requested the Council consider a text amendment to the City's Municipal Code regarding accessory dwelling units. He provided comment on the discussion held at the Planning Commission meeting on July 6th regarding this topic and noted staff had revised the code per their discussion. It was noted an accessory use would be permitted if located within a single- family residential home and would be a conditional use if made an addition to an existing home or would be placed within/above a garage or accessory structure. The proposed licensing procedure that would be followed by the City was discussed. Staff reviewed the text amendment in further detail with the Commission and recommended approval. Chair Stevenson questioned how staff would define "most of the year". Planner Sevald reported that a home was considered homesteaded if the homeowners lived on the property for six months and one day. Commissioner Schiltgen discussed the dwelling license fees. Planner Sevald reviewed the proposed fees and reductions that would be offered to trained property owners. Commissioner Klander requested comment from staff on how the accessory unit could not be viewed as a separate dwelling. Planner Sevald discussed this language further and noted accessory units were to match the primary home architecturally. He provided further comment on how external accessory units would be reviewed by staff. Commissioner Klander recommended this language be removed from the text amendment in order to remove any confusion. Planner Sevald requested the language remain as is as this would require all future accessory units to match the primary home. Chair Stevenson supported the language as recommended by staff. Commissioner Rundle commented on the number of garages the Commission has approved that could support an apartment on the second level. Commissioner Klander suggested the language be altered to read the dwelling unit shall have the appearance of one property. Commissioner French understood Commissioner Klander's concerns. Further discussion ensued regarding an ADU's dependence on the primary structure. Chair Stevenson suggested the language be amended to read the site shall be one unified property. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 20, 2016 Page 3 Commissioner Klander supported this recommendation. He wanted to see the exterior design and the hardscape of an ADU match the primary structure. City Administrator Ericson commented on the intent of the language. He suggested the language under Item D be amended to read accessory dwelling units shall be consistent with the primary structure yet shall be subordinate to the principle structure. The Commission supported this recommendation. Commissioner Love asked if an 18 -foot garage height was too limiting. She did not want to see garages with flat roofs and suggested the maximum roof height be increased in order to allow ADU's within the second story of a garage. Chair Stevenson reviewed the City's current height restrictions for garages. He believed that garages in excess of 20 feet were not consistent with Mounds View neighborhoods. Commissioner Schiltgen did not anticipate that ADU's would be a very large issue in the City of Mounds View. He stated he did not have a detached garage, but if he could, he would want it to be taller than 18 feet. He asked if the City could consider a variance to the 18 -foot height limit. Chair Stevenson questioned how the City could make exceptions, considering the fact that a number of garages have been approved at the 18 -foot height limit. He recommended that the rules remain the same and that residents make requests above and beyond 18 -feet through the variance procedure. Planner Sevald reviewed the variance approval process noting a resident would have to show a practical difficulty. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner French. To approve Resolution 1054-16, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Text Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Chapters 1102, 1103, and 1106 relating to Accessory Dwelling Units, as amended above. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 6. Other Planning Activity None. 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity Planner Sevald stated he had no pending planning cases. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting B. Staff Updates July 20, 2016 Page 4 Planner Sevald provided the Commission with an update frons staff. He explained a number of residents have been asking for further information on County Road I. It was noted this project would be completed in August. He reviewed the estimated water usage of a number of area microbreweries in response to a question asked by the Conunission during the July 6ch Planning Commission meeting. C. Council Updates Council Member Meeblhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He reported the City Council opted out of the State legislation regarding family health care dwellings due to code enforcement concerns. He appreciated the work the Commission was doing on the accessory dwelling unit Ordinance text amendment. He indicated the Council approved an environmental assessment of the Public Works Facility and additional funding for the 2016 sanitary sewer rehabilitation project. Lastly, he noted the Council approved the installation of cable for security cameras at City Hall. D. Planning Commissioner Reports r" Commissioner Love commented on the City's Comprehensive Plan update. She stated she was interested in learning how Mounds View was becoming more diverse. She reviewed information from the school district on the numerous languages being spoken in the community's homes. She believed there was a serious concern with the mental health issues that the public schools were having to deal with. 8. Approval of Minutes July 6, 2016. Commissioner Love requested a change on Page 4 asking that the word detached be removed from her comment. Chau Stevenson requested a change on Page 6 noting he offered congratulations to Commissioner Klebsch on behalf of the Commission. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Love. To approve the Minutes of the July 6, 2016 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting A. Wednesday, August 3, 2016 B. August 17, 2016 10. Adjournment July 20, 2016 Page 5 There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald Planner Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 171 0 1 MOVNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA September 21, 2016 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business(none) 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. (Continued Public Hearing) Consider Resolution 1055-16, a resolution approving/denying a Variance for a 30' front yard setback at 7790 Eastwood Rd; Planning Case VR2016-04 B Consider Resolution 1056-16, a resolution recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat of Steil Addition, Planning Case MA2016-01 6. Other Planning Activity A. Planning Commission Quorum 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 8. Approval of Minutes: July 20, 2016 September 7, 2016 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, October 5, 2016 B. Wednesday, October 19, 2016 10, Meeting Conclusion Item No: 5A M016 OT 71�TijS VTL'[AT Type Meeting Date: Sept 21, 201 lJ1*4D 1L1 Y T e of Business: Planning Case VR2016-04 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Item Title/Subject: Continued Public Hearing: Consider Resolution 1055-16, a resolution approving/denying a Variance for a 30' front yard setback at 7790 Eastwood Rd; Planning Case VR2016-04 Introduction The applicant (Value Homes, LLC) is requesting a Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 54' to 30' to construct a single-family home at 7790 Eastwood Rd. The minimum front yard setback in the R-1 district is 30' unless homes on the same side of the street have a greater setback (54' in this case). The request is due to the hardship of a private drainage easement reducing the developable area of the lot. The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on September 7, 2016, but a quorum (2/3's, or 5 of 7 members) was not present to approve a Variance. The Public Hearing was tabled. Discussion The property at 7800 Eastwood Rd was subdivided into two lots in March, 2016. The north lot includes an existing home, and the south lot is the subject property (7790 Eastwood Rd). After the subdivision was approved, the developer conducted a Title Search, which revealed two private easements: (1) a 10' wide sidewalk easement in the SE corner of the lot; and (2) a 30' wide surface drainage & storm water easement along the south property line. The two easements are for the adjacent property, Silver Lake Commons apartments. As part of Silver Lake Common's Development Review in 1997, the City required the apartment owner to obtain a drainage easement from 7800 Eastwood Rd. At that time, there was concern that expansion of the apartments would negatively affect the natural drainage flow from properties north of the apartments (1940 aerial photo suggests a drainage ditch flowed through these properties). An easement was obtained, but a storm water retention pond was never constructed within the easement, nor was a sidewalk. Planning Case VR2016-04 September 21, 2016 Page 2 Prior to the Title Search, neither the developer nor the current property owner (Value Homes) knew about the easements. For a Minor Subdivision, a Title Search is not required prior to plat approval, but prior to recording the plat at Ramsey County (City Code, Section 1202.01, Subd 2(b). Due to the private drainage easement and the 54' front yard building setback requirement, the developable area of the lot is significantly reduced. Analysis City Code, Title 1100, Chapter 1104, Section 1104.01, Subdivision 3(a): Yard Requirements; Where principal buildings in existence on lots within the same block on the same side of the street have front yard setbacks different from those required, the minimum front yard setback for any new principal buildings shall be the minimum front yard setback in existence for any one lot. In no case shall the front yard setback be less than thirty feet (309. For purposes of this subsection a, a block shall be defined as that group of lots lying along a street between the two closest intersecting streets, except that where the length of the street frontage between the two intersecting streets is greater than fourteen hundred feet (1,400), the block shall be the lots within six hundred and fifty feet (650) on either side of the lot in question, or to an intersecting street whichever is less. Homes on the west side of the street are set back between about 54' and 60'. The adjacent home (7800 Eastwood Rd) is set back 59'. If the Variance were approved, the proposed home may look inconsistent because of the shallower front yard, but the 30' front yard setback would be consistent with minimum requirements elsewhere in the R-' District. On the east side of the street, homes are set back between about 45' and 77'. City Code, Title 1100, Chapter 1125, Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 includes the seven criteria for granting Variances. A Variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. b. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. Planning Case VR2016-04 September 21, 2016 Page 3 d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. g. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Staff's analysis of the seven criteria is listed in Resolution 1055-16. In summary, the practical difficulty (criteria c & d) is that the private 30' wide drainage easement significantly reduces the developable area of the lot. The private easement was created by an agreement between the adjacent Silver Lake Commons Apartments owner (MSP Real Estate) and the previous owner of the subject property (Mary Larson) in 1997 in response to the City's approval of a Site Plan Review for the expansion of the apartments. Although the private easement is a result of the City's requirement of the apartment's owner, the City has no authority to require that the easement be changed or vacated. If the Variance is approved, the front yard setback would be reduced from 54' to 30'. The proposed home would have a front yard depth about half that of other homes on the same side of the street (criteria e), but would still comply with the minimum 30' front yard setback found elsewhere in the R-1 District (criteria f). If the Variance is denied, the owner could choose an alternative floor plan that would fit within the lot's developable area. The developable area as -is, measures approximately 64' wide X 58' deep, and is triangularly shaped. After the developer (Kayak Properties) of the 2016 subdivision conducted the Title Search revealing the easement, the developer contacted the owners of Silver Lake Commons Apartments (Mounds View Family Housing), requesting that they vacate the private easement, which they chose not to do. Planning Case VR2016-04 September 21, 2016 Page 4 Public Comments A Public Hearing Notice was published in the New Brighton / Mounds View Sun Focus on August 19, 2016, and mailed to 31 property owners within 350' of the subject property. Staff received an email from a resident on Eastwood Rd opposed to the Variance because the proposed home with a reduced setback would look out of place, and because the existing wooded yard blocks noise and lights from properties along Mounds View Blvd (Co Rd 10). During the September 7th Public Hearing, one resident on Sunnyside Rd spoke in opposition to the Variance because the reduced front yard setback would not be in-line with surrounding homes, and was opposed to the removal of trees on the lot. The subject property is heavily wooded. City Code, Chapter 1127 includes regulations for Tree Preservation and Landscaping. The City Code encourages, but does not require the preservation of "high value' and "specimen" trees within the R-1 Single - Family Residential district. Summary The applicant is requesting a Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 54' to 30', to construct a new home. The property includes a 30'X 172' private drainage easement along the south property line. The lot's developable area is limited due to the private drainage easement and larger front yard building setback. Recommendation Staff request that the Planning Commission un -table the Public Hearing, and accept public comments. Staff recommends approval of the Variance contingent upon complying with the conditions in Resolution 1055-16. It is Staff's opinion that the Variance request is reasonable considering that the location of the private drainage easement greatly reduces the developable area of the lot. The Planning Commission is requested to consider the following options: 1. Resolution 1055-16, approving the Variance is attached if the Commission chooses this action. Planning Case VR2016-04 September 21, 2016 Page 5 2. The Planning Commission may choose to deny the Variance. An alternative Resolution 1055-16 is attached, supporting denial. The Planning Commission may choose to take no action. Because of the 60 -Day requirements, (Deadline: September 23, 2016), if no action is taken, the Variance would be inadvertently approved , unless the applicant agreed to waive their right to a decision within the original 60 -Day review period. Respectfully submitted, 40... rJ` Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photo of Neighborhood with front yard building setbacks (approximate to roofline) 3. Site Photos 4. Email from Lon Stigney, 7841 Eastwood Rd 5. Resolution 1055-16 (APPROVAL) 6. Resolution 1055-16 (DENIAL) 7. Applicant's Narrative (with Certificate of Survey) Planning Case VR2016-04 September 21, 2016 Page 6 8 p 713911 N z 16 N j7B80- 7885 B-2 75 R-2 10N7_ 13-3 787 7866 7861 - 7870 7863 REGIONAL BUSINESS 7854 7851 1-1 j 7842 7850 PF - Zoning Map RVMU N j7B80- ri B-2 75 R-2 17890 13-3 HIGHWAY BUSINESS 7866 7861 - 7870 8-4 REGIONAL BUSINESS 7854 1!?!.1 7860 1-1 ' 7842 7850 PF - R-0 7841 PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 7830 S 7840 CRP CONSERVANCY, RECREATION k PRESERVATION 7820 0 AREAS NOT LABELED ARE R -I DISTRICTS 7790 C 781 ; -- - 7809 7770 7800 7764 4+ R-4 7801 - . W ` 7yti 7767 7760 � R7 7761 7750 7730 7745 7710 r7715 to 1174 N LEGEND ZONING DISTRICTS -R-I SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL B-2 LIMITED BUSINESS R-2 SINOLE k TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 13-3 HIGHWAY BUSINESS R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 8-4 REGIONAL BUSINESS R-4 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1-1 INDUSTRIAL R-5 MOBILE HOME PF PUBLIC FACILITIES R-0 RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT B -I NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS CRP CONSERVANCY, RECREATION k PRESERVATION AREAS NOT LABELED ARE R -I DISTRICTS r go Talaf fi0 i --Y - _ �iolel 5955 go Planning Case VR2016-04 September 21, 2016 Page 8 Site Photos Figure 1: Eastwood Rd, looking south from 7800 Eastwood Rd (fence at right). Red line is approximately in front of subject property, 7790 Eastwood Rd (8-29-2016) Figure 2: Eastwood Rd looking north. Red line is approximate front of subject property, 7790 Eastwood Rd. (8-29-2016) From: Stionev Lon To: ]on Seval Subject: VR2016-004 Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 3:41:57 PM Dear Jon, My home address is 7841 Eastwood Road which falls within the 350 feet of this proposed variance. Me and my wife are against this proposal for a variety of reasons. First we would hate to see the buffer of trees that are there presently be removed for they deaden the noise from highway 10 and also block the lights from the nearby housing project. But the main reason is that we believe that this variance for this project would be way to cramped between the two existing properties and way out of place of the present street view that now exists. The code that is in place is there for this very reason. It should not be tweaked to help a particular party who subdivided a parcel of property in the hopes that the city would change the code for their own financial gain down the road. We ourselves own a double property lot like others here in Mounds View. Because of this the city has a nice wooded feel too it that makes Mounds View an very enjoyable place to live. We believe this variance would open the door for others to do the same. Especially outside builders or a new property owner who would just want to make a quick buck by selling of odd acreages and attempting to squeeze other houses in other deemed inappropriate areas. Sincerely, Lon Stigney TR Director Cornerstone Assisted Living & Memory Care 3750 Lawndale Lane N I Plymouth, MN 55446 763.550.0333 fax: 763.390.1888 elirn care CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential client information. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you're not the addressee or the employee or agent responsible to deliver this e-mail to its intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, distribution, disclosure, copying or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Elim Care, Inc. Providing Senior Housing and Healthcare in the Spirit of Christ's Love MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1055-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 30 -FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A NEW HOME AT 7790 EASTWOOD RD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2016-04 WHEREAS, property owner, Value Homes, LLC, has applied for a variance to allow a house to encroach approximately 24' into the required 54' front yard setback at 7790 Eastwood Rd; and, WHEREAS, 7790 Eastwood Rd is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: That part of Lot 77, SPRING LAKE PARK HILL VIEW, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lies southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 77; thence South 00 degrees 40 minutes 10 seconds East (assumed bearing) along the east line of said Lot 77 a distance of 113.58 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described, said point to be hereafter referred to as "Point A'; thence South 88 degrees 21 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 178.65 feet to the southwesterly line of said Lot 77 and said line there terminating. Subject to an easement for public drainage and utility purposes over, under and across the north 5.00 feet, the east 10.00 feet, and the southwesterly 10.00 feet of the above described property. And subject to an easement for drainage and utility purposes over, under and across that part of the above described property which lies westerly of east 114.04 feet thereof. PIN: 06-30-23-44-0077 WHEREAS, City Code Title 1100, Chapter 1104, Section 1104.01, Subdivision 3(a) states; Where principal buildings in existence on lots within the same block on the same side of the street have front yard setbacks different from those required, the minimum front yard setback for any new principal buildings shall be the minimum front yard setback in existence for any one lot. In no case shall the front yard setback be less than thirty feet (30). For purposes of this subsection a, a block Resolution 1055-16 September 21, 2016 Page 2 shall be defined as that group of lots lying along a street between the two closest intersecting streets, except that where the length of the street frontage between the two intersecting streets is greater than fourteen hundred feet (9,400'), the block shall be the lots within six hundred and fifty feet (650) on either side of the lot in question, or to an intersecting street whichever is less. WHEREAS, the 7700 block of Eastwood Rd is approximately 1,400' in length, and the principle building on the same block and same side of the street with the smallest front yard setback measures approximately 54' (7880 Eastwood Rd, based on 1991 building plan, Permit #91-218), and thus the minimum front yard setback for all lots on the west side of this block, including the subject property, is 54'; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Views 3. Site Photos 4. Staff Report 5. Applicant's Narrative and Certificate of Survey 6. Resident Comments 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, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing regarding this request on September 7, 2016 and continued on September 21, 2016; 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 that 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 practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 7790 Eastwood Rd, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 1055-16 September 21, 2016 Page 3 1. The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code regarding front yard building setbacks is to provide a sense of privacy and separation between the building and the public right-of-way. The proposed home to be located on the subject property will maintain a 30' front yard setback, consistent with minimum standards elsewhere in the R-1 district. 2. The Variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (2010); Goal 4: "Encourage residential infill and redevelopment that supports the City's housing goals and maintains residential character." The parent property (7800 Eastwood Rd) was subdivided into two lots in March 2016, creating the subject property (7790 Eastwood Rd), with the intent of constructing a new home. 3. The applicant (Value Homes, LLC) proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner for a single-family residence. 4. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from circumstances over which the property owner had no control. The current property owner (Value Homes) and immediate past owner/developer (Kayak Properties) were not aware of the private 30' wide drainage easement at the time the property was subdivided in 2016. The private drainage easement is unique to this property. 5. The Variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback from 54' to 30' will result in a front yard half the depth as others on the west side of Eastwood Rd. However, a reduced setback will allow construction of a vacant lot for a new single-family home, maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood. 6. The Variance request is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties created by the private 30' wide drainage easement. The Applicant's Narrative includes a Certificate of Survey, dated "May XX, 2016", which shows a proposed home encroaching 26' feet into the private easement (24' foundation + 2' overhang). A Variance reducing the front yard setback from 54' to 30' will still leave a 2' encroachment into the private easement, thus, the home plan will need to be adjusted to avoid any encroachment into this easement. 7. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary. Such conditions are included below: The applicant (Value Homes, LLC) shall clearly disclose to the purchaser of the to -be constructed home that there exists two private easements along the south side yard property line for; (1) a 10' wide sidewalk (Doc. No. 1172686); and (2) a 30' wide drainage area (Doc. No. 1172687). Resolution 1036-15 September 21, 2016 Page 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the Variance request of Value Homes, LLC, for a reduced front yard setback from 54' to 30' at the property located at 7790 Eastwood Rd, subject to the following: 1. The applicant (Value Homes, LLC) shall clearly disclose to the purchaser of the to -be constructed home that there exists two private easements along the south side yard property line for; (1) a 10' wide sidewalk (Doc. No. 1172686); and (2) a 30' wide drainage area (Doc. No. 1172687). 2. If within one year after granting the variance, the work as permitted by the variance has not begun, then such variance shall become null and void unless an extension of time has been requested by the applicant and granted by the Planning Commission. Such extension shall be requested by the applicant in writing, and submitted to the City at least 30 days before the expiration of the original variance. Adopted this 21st day of September, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1055-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 30 -FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A NEW HOME AT 7790 EASTWOOD RD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2016-04 WHEREAS, property owner, Value Homes, LLC, has applied for a variance to allow a house to encroach approximately 24' into the required 54' front yard setback at 7790 Eastwood Rd; and, WHEREAS, 7790 Eastwood Rd is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: That part of Lot 77, SPRING LAKE PARK HILL VIEW, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lies southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 77; thence South 00 degrees 40 minutes 10 seconds East (assumed bearing) along the east line of said Lot 77 a distance of 113.58 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described, said point to be hereafter referred to as "Point A", thence South 88 degrees 21 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 178.65 feet to the southwesterly line of said Lot 77 and said line there terminating. Subject to an easement for public drainage and utility purposes over, under and across the north 5.00 feet, the east 10.00 feet, and the southwesterly 10.00 feet of the above described property. And subject to an easement for drainage and utility purposes over, under and across that part of the above described property which lies westerly of east 114.04 feet thereof. PIN: 06-30-23-44-0077 WHEREAS, City Code Title 1100, Chapter 1104, Section 1104.01, Subdivision 3(a) states; Where principal buildings in existence on lots within the same block on the same side of the street have front yard setbacks different from those required, the minimum front yard setback for any new principal buildings shall be the minimum front yard setback in existence for any one lot. In no case shall the front yard setback be less than thirty feet (30). For purposes of this subsection a, a block Resolution 1055-16 September 21, 2016 Page 2 shall be defined as that group of lots lying along a street between the two closest intersecting streets, except that where the length of the street frontage between the two intersecting streets is greater than fourteen hundred feet (1,400), the block shall be the lots within six hundred and fifty feet (650) on either side of the lot in question, or to an intersecting street whichever is less. WHEREAS, the 7700 block of Eastwood Rd is approximately 1,400' in length, and the principle building on the same block and same side of the street with the smallest front yard setback measures approximately 54' (7880 Eastwood Rd, based on 1991 building plan, Permit #91-218), and thus the minimum front yard setback for all lots on the west side of this block, including the subject property, is 54'; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Views 3. Site Photos 4. Staff Report 5. Applicant's Narrative and Certificate of Survey 6. Resident Comments 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, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing regarding this request on September 7, 2016 and continued on September 21, 2016; 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 that 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 NOT satisfied and finds there to be insufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 7790 Eastwood Rd, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 1055-16 September 21, 2016 Page 3 The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code regarding front yard building setbacks is to provide a sense of privacy and separation between the building and the public right-of-way. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed 30' minimum front yard building setback within the R-1 district is in harmony with the City Code. 2. The Variance request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (2010); Goal 1: Preserve the identity and maintain and improve the quality and appearance of existing neighborhoods. h. The City will consider the subdivision of existing large lot single- family residential lots on a case-by-case basis. The City will use such reviews to ensure that new development is consistent with city needs and compatible with surrounding development. The City approved the Minor Subdivision of 7800 Eastwood Rd in 2016 (i.e. large single-family lot), creating two lots including the subject property (7790 Eastwood Rd), with a front yard setback consistent with residential lots on the west side of the block, and consistent with the City Code, and the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission has determined that the developable area of the lot is sufficient in size for a single-family home. Further, it is the applicant's responsibility to design a house plan that will fit within that developable area of the lot. 3. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner for a single- family residence. 4. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from circumstances over which the property owner had no control. The current property owner (Value Homes, LLC) and immediate past owner/developer (Kayak Properties) were not aware of the private 30' wide drainage easement at the time the property was subdivided in 2016. The private drainage easement is unique to this property. The Variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback from 54' to 30' will result in a front yard about half the depth as others on the west side of Eastwood Rd. The reduced setback is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. 6. The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed house plan (plan dated May 10, 2016) is the only house plan that could be built on the lot, and therefore has not exhausted all possibilities for fitting a single-family home on the lot without encroaching into the private drainage easement, and in compliance with Resolution 1036-15 September 21, 2016 Page 4 the minimum Floor Area Per Dwelling requirements (City Code, Chapter 1100, Section 1104.02); Subd. 4. Minimum Floor Area Per Dwelling Unit: a. Single -Family Dwellings: The minimum first floor area for each welling unit type shall be as follows: (1) One (1) story dwelling 960 square feet (2) Two (2) story dwelling 780 square feet NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, denies the Variance request of Value Homes, LLC, for a reduced front yard setback from 54' to 30' at the property located at 7790 Eastwood Rd. Adopted this 215t day of September, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) s� Value Homes Property Mnnng anent 'u Ren ovniion 11606 Aberdeer, St N"e, Suite 7.0(), Olaine, MN 55449 Celli (612) 481-7641 Office: (763) 2055-005C July 22, 2016 Property: 7790 Eastwood Road, Mounds View, MN 55112 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A Variance for the Minimum 30' Front setback in the R-1 District is required due to a private easement in order to build a very modest Split Level Home with a 38'8" wide and 23' 8" long Foundation. As stated in the email attached; the seller of this lot has made every effort to get the owner of the neighboring Apartment building to vacate the unused private easement however they will not cooperate. As stated by Jon Sevald in the email attached; if a variance were approved to allow a 30' setback, the house would fit without encroaching into the easement. This variance meets the criteria of the attached ordinance 1125.02 Subd. 2. a - g. The following supporting documentation is attached: 1) Copy of the Certificate of Survey Highlighting the part of the home which encroaches into the private easement due to the 55' front setback. 2) Copy of the Blueprints 3) Email Chain with the seller's (Terry Buchanan — Kayak Properties) full explanation describing his efforts to vacate the private easement & Jon Sevald's (AICP, Planner,. City of Mounds View) explanation of the Variance Application process, 4) Copy of the City of Mounds View Ordinance Highlighting 1125.02 Subd. 2. a. —g. Sincerely, Eric 011estad Value Homes LLC Chief Executive Manager uEN 17 ORM ff 901INT PROPERTY ADDRESS: #7x1D( EASTWOOD ROAD, MOUNDS VIEW, MN FOR: Eric 011esfad P.I.D.#06-30-23-44-???? NORTH y w slv� 03> vLL°90a / jj( � _, 311E 91pP i O A iil.p x qi0.] 4:7_ _ reloBTf e;Ddvoway 911. N Propoead I i 11919.9 1.. /Lt CNB 1- 2.3R-73' . 9UPx, , I N ye 1 3� g 1Ga. . dt b zoo x�.�•-`�\"Y^�-•I \{ B 0� S - spate 11.6 9,\P 910+ ) 10 4 I Inks-Sw\ - 55 1-�'J 915 ...'..:'4 •�f��. �. t� f o r,� •v,91°n I �-- x9\1\�i� ✓J I® TO STAKE HOUSE / _\°°-- - r v , OIN DRIVEWAY ON HPUSE TO W - 1. TH t. I® TO VERIFY 30' EASEMENT 3!!! HAS BEEN VACA701 -- .------------------ W 10.01p RIM'910.0 -INV.=899.1 3 ..wDp4 N4417711eBePER-`•`Y] 1 � 1 .r 1 • 1 ( IN FEET) \\ P "Or "HE 1 inch = 301L �\ 1" IRON VA qp \0A ro• • 81291 (0.7' T) I / I NOTES - Field survey conducted on xxxxx - BEARING'S SHOWN ARE ON ASSUMED DATUM. - CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY HOUSE DIMENSIONS, AND SEWER AND BASEMENT DEPTHS. LEGEND - FINISHED GRADE 10 FEET FROM PROPOSED BUILDING SHALL BE 0.5 FEET LOWER THAN THE FINISHED GRADE AT THE sz. DENOTES PROPOSED a VATION. BUILDING. x1011.2 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. - FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS ARE TO FINISHED SURFACE / DENOTES DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE WITH TURF ESTABLISHMENT. D DENOTES METAL SPIE - DRIVEWAYS ARE SHOWN FOR GRAPHIC PURPOSES ONLY. a DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND FINAL DRIVEWAY DESIGN AND LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR - CITY TO VERIFY ALL BUILDINGS ELEVATIONS AND SETBACKS. - This survey was prepared without the benefit of titlework, r5 course lookout* Easement, appurtenances and encumbrances may exist in PIZOPOSDDELBVA77ONS addition to those shown hereon. This survey Is subject to 76ARAGE FLOOR - 912.1 revision upon receipt of a title insurance commitment or TOP OF BLOCK = 912,5 attorneys title opinion, LOWEST FLOOR - 909,3 EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION That part of Lot 77, SPRING LAKE PARK HILL VIEW, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which Ilea southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of sold Lot 77; thence South 00 degrees 40 minutes 10 seconds East (assumed bearing) along the east line of sold Lot 77 a distance of 113.58 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described, said point to be hereinafter referred to as "Point A"; thence South 88 degrees 21 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 178.65 feet to the southwesterly line of sold Lot 77 and sold line there terminating. Subject to an easement for public drainage and utility purposes over, under and across the north 5.00 feet, the east 10.00 feet, and the southwesterly 10.00 feet of the above describedproperty. And subject to an easement for drainage and utility purposes over, under and across that port of the above described property which lies westerly of east 114:04 feet thereof. I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or - under my direct supervls19n and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the law. of the State at ACRE LAND SURVEYING r , Minnesota. Serving TWin lea Metro _ area end beyond r �I II 763-455-2997 acrelandsurve (mgmall. o Date: Mav xx. 2076 Reg. No. 41,125 JOB #16294HS C4Users\Eric\One9rlve\CAD-ID\16294h,14ndsVe-Erlc\dwB\16294hs-HndsVw-Erlc.dne 5/14/2016 929-51 AN CDT '�6 Value Homes 14npr ip Munngem.on 'u Arn mau inn I ]MR; Ahs ,deen Sf NE, 51111e 100, Blaine, NIiN 5511 Ia LIA: (61')4317841 Office: (7631205-61)56 July 28, 2016 Property: 7790 Eastwood Road, Mounds View, MN 55112 To Whom it may concern. My name is Eric Cllestad. I am the owner of Value Homes LLC, Value Homes specializes in acquiring lots and building single family homes on those lots to be sold as finished new construction homes in the Twin Cities Metro Area. Here are some of the projects we have completed in the last few years: 3973 Hayes St NE, Columbia Heights 4320 Madison St NE, Columbia Heights 4522 5th St NE, Columbia Heights 3830 Noble Ave N, Robbinsdale 13573 2121h Ave NW, Elk River 1731 169th Ave NE, Ham Lake 6812 Aldrich Ave N, Brooklyn Center 10712 Kyle Ave N, Brooklyn Park 10718 Kyle Ave N, Brooklyn Park 3701 Buchanan St NE, Columbia Heights 3705 Buchanan St NE, Columbia Heights 16386 Inca St NW, Andover 1016 42 % Ave NE, Columbia Heights 8857 Baltimore St NE, Blaine 2081 Palm St, Lino Lakes 1100 Vera St N, Champlin I purchased the lot at 7790 Eastwood Rd, Mounds View with the Intention of building a modest Bi -Level Split home and selling It as a completed new construction Single Family Residence. I have repeated this particular home plan many times with great results. It offers home buyers the ability to purchase a 4 bedroom, 2 bath, attached 2 car garage High Efficiency home with Premium Building Materials and finishes at an affordable price. Some of the features of the home are Triple Pane Windows, Poured Concrete Foundation, High Efficiency Furnace, Durastrand Subfloors, Radon Mitigation System & Sump Pump Included, Gas Stove, Gas Water Heater, Gas Dryer Hookup, Air to Air Exchanger, De -Humidifier and a Vented Microwave. Before I purchased the lot I was told by the seller that there was an unused 30' easement that would not affect the building of the home as the easement would be vacated. The seller of this lot has made every effort to get the owner of the neighboring Apartment building to vacate the unused private easement however they will not cooperate. As stated by Jon Sevald In the email attached; if a variance were approved to allow a 30' setback, the house would fit without encroaching into the easement. The following is an explanation on why this variance meets the criteria of the attached ordinance 1125.02 Subd. 2. a — g: a. The variance Is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Response - This variance is definitely in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title as this will be a Residential Single Family Home. b. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Response - This variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan as this new home will give new people or a new family the opportunity to become new citizens of Mounds View and offer them the ability to get involved in the community helping Mounds View reach many of Its goals. This home will drastically improve the appearance of the community by turning a vacant lot into a beautiful new residence with a brand new Single Family Home. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Response — Due to the unused private easement a modest single family home will not fit on the lot unless a variance for the minimum 30' front setback is granted. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Response —This property is a unique Triangle Shape. The circumstance is one of a kind In Mounds View as there is an unused private 30' Easement along the south lot line. Approving this variance will not only make it possible for a modest single family home to be built on this lot; it will also drastically improve the backyard giving the new home owner a much safer area for outdoor activities versus the front yard along Eastwood Road. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Response —The variance is not altering the essential character of the neighborhood as it is only improvingthe character of the neighborhood by allowing a nice new home to be built on the lot. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. (Amended, Ord. 861,9-22-11) Response —As noted in the attached Certificate of Survey; allowing the 30' front setback would allow the home to be moved 25' closer to the front lot line towards Eastwood Road which would be the minimum amount of room needed so that the new home does not encroach into the unused private easement. g. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may Impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Response— I believe that the impact created by the variance is a positive impact and a benefit to the neighborhood. Sincerely, Eric 011estad Value Homes LLC Chief Executive Manager Item No: 5B MMOM7�T Meeting Date: Sept 21, 2016 OUNDS VIEW Type of Business: Planning Case MA2016-001 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Item Title/Subject: Consider Resolution 1056-16, a resolution recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat of Steil Addition, Planning Case MA2016-001 Introduction The applicants, Tim and Kelly Steil, own two adjacent properties that back up to each other. The Steil's are requesting to move the common property line, thereby increasing the size of their back yard at their residence at 7255 Hidden Hollow Ct. No new lots or roads will be created. Because the two lots involved exceed 2 -acres combined, a Major Subdivision is required. Discussion This block on Co Rd H2 is characterized by deep wooded lots. 2940 Co Rd H2 (Lot 33 of Knollwood Park) was platted in 1940, and the home built in 1958. The lot is 1.55 acres in size. 7255 Hidden Hollow Ct (Lot 4, Block 1 of Hidden Hollow) was platted in 2005, and the home built in 2006. The lot is 0.69 acres in size. The area to be added from proposed Lot 1 onto Lot 2 is heavily wooded. The common property line is approximately where a foot trail is located. Lot 2 includes a ravine about 90' wide, separating the home from the newly added wooded area. An accessory building could be built in the wooded area, but it may be impractical (not impossible) to provide vehicular access from Hidden Hollow Ct. across the ravine. The SE corner of Lot 2 includes a 30' Highway and Utility easement. The City will retain this easement for access to an existing storm water pond. Lots 1 and 2 include driveways that encroach into the 5' side yard setback, and are non- conforming. Planning Case MA2016-001 September 21, 2016 Page 2 Analysis Existing Zoning: R-1 Single -Family Residential Comprehensive Plan designation: Single -Family Detached Minimum Dimensions Proposed Dimensions Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot Size: 11,000 sf 31,120 sf 65,z Lot Width: 75' 104' 85'* * dimensions variable City Code, Title 1200, Chapter 1202 addresses subdivisions and procedures. Preliminary Plats are to be recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, and approved by the City Council (Public Hearing). Final Plats are reviewed and approved by the City Council. The Preliminary Plat and Final Plat have been reviewed by Community Development and Public Works staff, and found to be consistent with City Code requirements and the Comprehensive Plan. The City Attorney will review the Certificate of Title and submit a plat opinion prior to approval of the Final Plat by the City Council. A Developers Agreement is not necessary because no new lots will be created, nor will new public infrastructure be installed. Summary The applicant's own two adjacent residential lots on Hidden Hollow Ct, and Co Rd H2, and propose to move the common property line, increasing the size of the back yard of their residence on Hidden Hollow Ct. No new lots will be created. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat contingent upon complying with the conditions in Resolution 1056-16. The Planning Commission is requested to consider the following options: Resolution 1056-16, approving the Preliminary Plat is attached if the Commission chooses this action. Planning Case MA2016-001 September 21, 2016 Page 3 2. The Planning Commission may choose to deny the Preliminary Plat. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of the 120 -day requirements (Deadline: January 7, 2017) the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully subm��iQQttedd, AV 44Q W` Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments 1. Preliminary Plat (Jul 8, 2016), Final Plat 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Map 4. Site Photos Resolution 1056-16 to original plat. '-- •-- Icated on the final plot. 1/2 Inch Iron Pipe Monument Found and Marked 16456 Ual.0 Oth.rriea Shorn Caaareto Curb With Curh Cut - Orel nage and fililI y Ea..m.nt, to ba Dedicated - Drainaga and Utility Ea..oanl. Exleting and Nol Being -- Re-Dedicot.d an Thi. Plat Water no in \ S ... I.: - Woler Stop - Fire Hydrant Sanitary Seer\Sarei o., Ft.. Direction Store S..er, Catch Barin Fla. Of ... Ilan 161'E Ruriad Natural Gar Main a+D2 7g ij I o. Overhead Pore. ME Bar1rd"llY. hono \ Common Ica l ton Lino =$' ?'' n� ry Significant Tree Located - M-Mapi.: A-Aeh: ew "'I.�o BE - Rox Elder: B- Birch 8 2 Ft. Contour Line Ex l.I ing Spm El oval ton Bar Of I..lnoae Surf... yI, •`15 BB-t=y\''ea/� Concr.to surface s s F m _ _ O COUNTY ROAD H m a ` "111..9 or THE 511/4, SEC. ]r T.)o, I'm to original plat. '-- •-- Icated on the final plot. 1/2 Inch Iron Pipe Monument Found and Marked 16456 Ual.0 Oth.rriea Shorn Caaareto Curb With Curh Cut - Orel nage and fililI y Ea..m.nt, to ba Dedicated - Drainaga and Utility Ea..oanl. Exleting and Nol Being -- Re-Dedicot.d an Thi. Plat Water no in \ S ... I.: - Woler Stop - Fire Hydrant Sanitary Seer\Sarei o., Ft.. Direction Store S..er, Catch Barin Fla. Of ... Ilan 161'E Ruriad Natural Gar Main a+D2 7g ij I o. Overhead Pore. ME Bar1rd"llY. hono \ Common Ica l ton Lino =$' ?'' n� ry Significant Tree Located - M-Mapi.: A-Aeh: ew "'I.�o BE - Rox Elder: B- Birch 8 2 Ft. Contour Line Ex l.I ing Spm El oval ton Bar Of I..lnoae Surf... yI, •`15 BB-t=y\''ea/� Concr.to surface s s KNOWALL BY THESE dNie theaC iimofh� uadrsVie s�ne unit of fladndl. Sl alondf Mln msoiaownen of the following property s y o y y, a Los 4, Block 1, HIDDEN HOLLOW and Lot 33, KNOLLWOOD PARK: foreveruthe dirainage tadbatsIrsyyedjeodnlla n:d he:,STEILhiDDplot, ITIION and do hereby dsdicos. to the p.61 I. far public use Ihi,itaess whereoof,a sold Timothy J. Stailaand Kelly L Sssll, husband and wife, have =eased have presents to be signed y STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing J9 $let luoadt Kelly L.n51. l9=husband=and aif.. Notary Public, Min.—to My Commission Expires I, Randy L. Kurth, Licensed Land Surveyor, do hereby certify. shm I have ur d or di ro=Cly sun... !.ad the ur Rim I property described on Ihir plot: red this plat or diram ly r pervi.edhe praparatien othis plan Ihat IM1ia 3 tale In Feet Plet I. a correct r. re,.nlatian of th enhountury survey that 11 mhemm ical data and labels ar car =Cly d.rlgna,ed en tis nlet: that ell manam.nls depicted o shlr plat have been ... Ily that II so ,,ante Ind lamed a this plot .III bo stem fly .t • thin en r that ell voter boon dartos and vet land. n s detiaad i Midnihhiaa fo,ubli=S act Foa'. 5�0y. Snddl baled of Ihi sdX of Cha .urveyar s ==rifficor. aro .horn and labeled on Chi. plot: 80 120 °a pu .aye a s s a p ic day of 2— , Randy L. Kurth, Land Surveyor Mlnmzota Licenr. No. 20270 STATE OF MINNESOTA ORMNTMD L23E15rASSUM DI TO OF COUNTY OF Th. foregoing Certificcaete •vLaaknawuledged before mo thi 2 , by Readyb,Kurth, a L used. adSrveyor. 1RNSNp4ENLSS KED U156UE NOW. INCH BY 14 INCH IRON PIPE r AND "BUD WITH LICENSE r IRON uo1AWEAT day of Notary Public, Minnesota My Comm, ulon E.p,res CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW We do hereby ce llfy shot yyn the day of 2 the city Counall of the Cit%9 of Mo9acti View R03. w5u dun ZY.haram bee nnfulpf 2l owed this plat. Also, thea. ndilianr of Minnes ma St. to Clerk/Treasurer Department of Property Records and Revenue Pun uanl to Minneeola Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 9, taresme v 2 ble in the year s61, been paid.dey wf pursuant to Minnesota 5tutes, Section 2]2,1there are o d 2 _ a the land herein deacrib.d delinquent o taxes and lraatfer entered Dopar Ivan, of Property Ra car ds and Re ve as. By Deputy County Surveyor Punuonl to Miss... In S,atotes, Sam ion 383A.42, this plat is approved this day of 2 Craig W. Hinzman, L.S. Ramsay County 5 ... cyar REGISTRAR OF TITLES, COUNTY OF RAMSEY. STATE OF MINNESOTA I he by certify thus this plat of STEIL ADDITION • . filed in the office of she Begisvar f Titles far public record Pn Chi. _ day f 20_ as c oak _.M. sad .a. duly f, led in Book of plate, age a Document Number Deputy Registrar of Titles URVEYING, INC. Planning Case MA2016-001 'September 21, 2016 Page 6 Zoning Map 1 I. - -- 7425 7430 7435 7434 7415 _ - -- — 7409 7415 7406 7405 7412 7405 -- 0 — 7380 a 7381 7382 7395 I' 7385 _ - _ 7375 _- 7350 to 7365 7360 O 7375 7365 T _ j 7347 3 # 7373 34 3295 33 732 Z 327 W la V) ^ 0 0 31 T�1 HS n' 1 0 0 317 M S o M I'I 0 M 0 M N �' �' N N N N 315 Gp N Q m 1 14 rF 7290 }{ m N N N N N :v ry NOM _ '7280 `.- �l- V 7285 0 7270 a -- . 3:7275- _ o 0 n n 7260 -- 7265 7234 HI = o It In N N n In 7255 7226 0 In N + I J ^ r -- - 7200 7215 T -_ 7188 7191 7161 7172 7149 I 7150 jl� o�NoM M In M rn125 0" GO V. � I`1 WOODPILE C D$D O N n r4T oo a � N N 7100 709 v' v1 O o n O M Ki N 709! - 8 708 1 -- 7092 '`� . YIT I I —11�7096 3:R _-_ _ , LEGEND ZONING DISTRICTS -R-I SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 0-2 LIMITED BUSINESS R-2 SINGLE k TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL B -S HIGHWAY BUSINESS R-0 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL B-4 REGIONAL BUSINESS 0-4 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1-1 INDUSTRIAL R-5 MOBILE IIOME PF PUBLIC FACILITIES R -O NESIOENIIAL/OFME PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT B-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS ` GRP CONSERVANCY, RECREATION It PRESERVATION • AREAS NOT LABELED ARE R-1 DISTRICTS +r •.-9 ipri� r'.�y�-.. '�I Mi - ������� __ - �,�,_ e._._ - - - " �- .. .. �� � � IU�, (� _ :-� :.�__-b _� w -- - a��: ' .. ., _ �. ,T_ _ __. ®� s F • �'lXA 0 'j =£ N MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOULTION 1056-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "STEIL ADDITION"; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MA2016-001 WHEREAS, Timothy Steil and Kelly Steil has requested approval of a preliminary plat for a major subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the above described lands are zoned R-1 Single Family Residential, guided for Detached Single -Family residential, and legally described as: Lot 33, Knollowod Park PIN: 07-30-23-32-0001 And; Lot 4, Block 1, Hidden Hollow PIN: 07-30-23-32-0026 WHEREAS, the proposed Preliminary. Plat would create two developable parcels from two parcels (no net increase in lots); and, WHEREAS, the Community Development and Public Works staff have reviewed the Preliminary Plat and finds that it satisfies the minimum subdivision requirements as articulated in Titles 1100 and 1200 of the Mounds View Municipal Code and complies with county platting requirements; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd 3, the subdivision is not subject to a Park Dedication Fee; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Staff Report 2. Preliminary Plat (dated Jul 8, 2016) 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial Map 5. Site Photos Planning Commission Resolution 1056-16 September 21, 2016 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat of "Steil Addition" consisting of two lots, and submitted by Timothy and Kelly Steil, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall satisfy all requirements made by the City Attorney as stated in the plat opinion. 2. The applicant shall pay all City costs, including those of the City Attorney. NOW, THEREFORE, 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 17th day of September, 2014. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MOMS VfE_W of Mounds View Staff Item No: 6A Meeting Date: Sept 21, 2016 Type of Business: Other Planning Activitv To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Item Title/Subject: Planning Commission Quorum Introduction At the September 7th Planning Commission meeting, there was not a quorum present to approve a Variance. Staff was a little caught off guard, which warrants a review of what is quorum for what actions. Discussion City Code, Title 400 establishes Boards and Commissions, including: • Planning and Zoning Commission • Board of Adjustment and Appeals • Human Rights Commission • Police Civil Service Commission • Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission • Mounds View Festivities Commission • Economic Development Commission The Board of Adjustments and Appeals consists of the Planning Commission members'. By the Numbers: 7 Total members of the Planning Commission 2. The Chair and all members have equal voting privileges. 4 Quorum3 needed for the Planning Commission to "recommend" action to the City Council (City Council takes final action for approval/denial), or take any other action on a non -Variance item. ' City Code, Section 402.01 z City Code, Section 401.02, Subd 1 3 City Code, Section 401.06, Subd 5 Planning Commission Item 6A September 21, 2016 Page 2 FYI: The City Council must have a 4/5's vote for approval of a Rezoning from residential to commercial/industria14, and a 3/5's vote for all other action on a recommendation by the Planning Commission.5 5 Quorum (i.e. 2/3's of the "full" Planning Commissions) needed for the Board of Adjustment to approve a variance. 2/3,S /3s Planning Commission meetings must end at or before 11:00 PM, unless 2/3's of the members present agree to extend the meeting .7 If a quorum is not present: If a quorum is not present, the Planning Commission cannot conduct official business, such as conducting a Public Hearing, recommend action to the City Council, or approve an appeal or variance, or approve meeting minutes. If a quorum is not present, the Planning Commission can still convene an advertised public meeting and accept public testimony for the record (not a Public Hearing). In this case, the Chair, Vice -Chair, or a member agreed upon by those members present (if Chair & Vice -Chair are absent) conducts the meeting .8 A scheduled meeting may be canceled by the Chair, City Administrator or designee, there is no business, no quorum, or in case of inclement weather. If canceled, notification will be given to the Commissioners and posted as required by State Statutes. Recommendation No action is necessary. As always, Staff requests that if a Commissioner knows that they will be absent or late to a meeting, that they contact Staff or the Chair, prior to the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald, AICP Planner 4 MN Statute §462.357, Subd 2(b) 5 City Code, Section 1125.01, Subd 1p) 6 City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 4(f) Planning Commission Bylaws, Section VI C(3) a Planning Commission Bylaws, Section IV (C) -DRAFT - PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 20, 2016 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for July 20, 2016. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners French, Klander, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen and Stevenson Absent and Excused: Commissioner Klebsch Also Present: Planner Jon Sevald and Council Member Gary Meehlhause Index to Minutes Page Resolution 1054-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a Text 2 Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code Chapters 1102, 1103 And 1106 relating to Accessory Dwelling Units Approval of Minutes 4 3. Special Order of Business None. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 5. Planning Cases July 20, 2016 Page 2 A. Consider Resolution 1055-16, a Resolution recommending approval of a Text Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Chapters 1102, 1103, and 1106 relating to Accessory Dwelling Units. Planner Sevald requested the Council consider a text amendment to the City's Municipal Code regarding accessory dwelling units. He provided comment on the discussion held at the Planning Commission meeting on July 6th regarding this topic and noted staff had revised the code per their discussion. It was noted an accessory use would be permitted if located within a single- family residential home and would be a conditional use if made an addition to an existing home or would be placed within/above a garage or accessory structure. The proposed licensing procedure that would be followed by the City was discussed. Staff reviewed the text amendment in further detail with the Commission and recommended approval. Chair Stevenson questioned how staff would define "most of the year". Planner Sevald reported that a home was considered homesteaded if the homeowners lived on the property for six months and one day. Commissioner Schiltgen discussed the dwelling license fees. Planner Sevald reviewed the proposed fees and reductions that would be offered to trained property owners. Commissioner Klander requested comment from staff on how the accessory unit could not be viewed as a separate dwelling. Planner Sevald discussed this language further and noted accessory units were to match the primary home architecturally. He provided further comment on how external accessory units would be reviewed by staff. Commissioner Klander recommended this language be removed from the text amendment in order to remove any confusion. Planner Sevald requested the language remain as is as this would require all future accessory units to match the primary home. Chair Stevenson supported the language as recommended by staff. Commissioner Rundle commented on the number of garages the Commission has approved that could support an apartment on the second level. Commissioner Klander suggested the language be altered to read the dwelling unit shall have the appearance of one property. Commissioner French understood Commissioner Klander's concerns. Further discussion ensued regarding an ADU's dependence on the primary structure. Chair Stevenson suggested the language be amended to read the site shall be one unified property. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 20, 2016 Page 3 Commissioner HIander supported this recommendation. He wanted to see the exterior design and the hardscape of an ADU match the primary structure. City Administrator Ericson commented on the intent of the language. He suggested the language under Item D be amended to read accessory dwelling units shall be consistent with the primary structure yet shall be subordinate to the principle structure. The Commission supported this recommendation. Commissioner Love asked if an 18 -foot garage height was too limiting. She did not want to see garages with flat roofs and suggested the maximum roof height be increased in order to allow ADU's within the second story of a garage. Chair Stevenson reviewed the City's current height restrictions for garages. He believed that garages in excess of 20 feet were not consistent with Mounds View neighborhoods. Commissioner Schiltgen did not anticipate that ADU's would be a very large issue in the City of Mounds View. He stated he did not have a detached garage, but if he could, he would want it to be taller than 18 feet. He asked if the City could consider a variance to the 18 -foot height limit. Chair Stevenson questioned how the City could make exceptions, considering the fact that a number of garages have been approved at the 18 -foot height limit. He recommended that the rules remain the same and that residents make requests above and beyond 18 -feet through the variance procedure. Planner Sevald reviewed the variance approval process noting a resident would have to show a practical difficulty. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner French. To approve Resolution 1054-16, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Text Amendment to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Chapters 1102, 1103, and 1106 relating to Accessory Dwelling Units, as amended above. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Other Planning Activity r2alLal 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity Planner Sevald stated he had no pending planning cases. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting B. Staff Updates July 20, 2016 Page 4 Planner Sevald provided the Commission with an update from staff. He explained a number of residents have been asking for further information on County Road I. It was noted this project would be completed in August. He reviewed the estimated water usage of a number of area microbreweries in response to a question asked by the Commission during the July 6th Planning Commission meeting. C. Council Updates Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He reported the City Council opted out of the State legislation regarding family health care dwellings due to code enforcement concerns. He appreciated the work the Commission was doing on the accessory dwelling unit Ordinance text amendment. He indicated the Council approved an environmental assessment of the Public Works Facility and additional funding for the 2016 sanitary sewer rehabilitation project. Lastly, he noted the Council approved the installation of cable for security cameras at City Hall. D. Planning Commissioner Reports Commissioner Love commented on the City's Comprehensive Plan update. She stated she was interested in learning how Mounds View was becoming more diverse. She reviewed information from the school district on the numerous languages being spoken in the community's homes. She believed there was a serious concern with the mental health issues that the public schools were having to deal with. 8. Approval of Minutes July 6, 2016. Commissioner Love requested a change on Page 4 asking that the word detached be removed from her comment. Chair Stevenson requested a change on Page 6 noting he offered congratulations to Commissioner Klebsch on behalf of the Commission. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Love. To approve the Minutes of the July 6, 2016 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: Mounds View Planning Commission July 20, 2016 Regular Meeting Page 5 A. Wednesday, August 3, 2016 B. August 17, 2016 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald Planner Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. -DRAFT - PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 7, 2016 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Love at 7:00 p.m. for September 7, 2016. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners French, KJebsch, Love, and Schiltgen. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Klander, Rundle and Stevenson. Also Present: Planner Jon Sevald and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. Index to Minutes Page VR2016-04 Variance Request for a 30' front yard setback Approval of Minutes 4 3. Special Order of Business None. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. S. Planning Cases A. Consider Resolution 1055-16, a Resolution approving a Variance for a 30' front yard setback at 7790 Eastwood Road; Planning Case VR2016-04 Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 7, 2016 Page 2 Planner Sevald stated the applicant (Value Homes, LLC) is requesting a Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 54' to 30' to construct a single-family home at 7790 Eastwood Road. The minimum front yard setback in the R-1 district is 30' unless homes on the same side of the street have a greater setback (54' in this case). The request is due to the hardship of a private drainage easement reducing the buildable area of the lot. He reported staff received one comment from a neighbor who opposed the variance request. Staffs discussed the request in further detail, and recommended that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and approve the variance as requested. Commissioner French asked if the City had any control over the easement. Planner Sevald explained the easement was a private matter between two property owners. Commissioner Klebsch questioned how many neighbors were notified. Planner Sevald estimated that 30 residents were notified for the variance request. Vice Chair Love opened the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. Eric Olestad, applicant, 4716 123`d Lane NE in Blaine, explained he purchases lots and builds spec homes throughout the north metro. He indicated he worked to build his homes with a high level of quality while keeping them affordable. He stated when he originally purchased this lot he believed the easement would go away, which was not the case. He appreciated staff's assistance with this matter stating he was working to save as many trees as possible. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned the price of the new home. Mr. Olestad anticipated the house would be $269,000 to $299,000. Commissioner Klebsch asked how many square feet the new home would have. Mr. Olestad estimated the home would have approximately 2,000 square feet. Marissa Raiz, 7851 Sunnyside, explained her home abuts this property. She requested the variance not be approved. She feared that the existing wooded lot was too small for the proposed home. She indicated she would be disappointed to see all of the existing trees removed to make room for a new home and did not believe the proposed setbacks were keeping in line with the surrounding homes. Mr. Olestad reviewed the setbacks for the adjacent homes. Vice Chair Love understood this was a private lot and Mr. Olestad did have the right to remove his trees. She asked for further comments from the Commission. Planner Sevald reported the Commission would not be able to approve the variance this evening given the fact only four members were in attendance and the vote required a two-thirds vote of the full Commission. He stated the variance could be denied or continued to the next Planning Commission meeting, which would be held on September 21" Mounds View Planning Commission September 7, 2016 Regular Meeting Page 3 Vice Chair Love closed the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. Commissioner Klebsch discussed private property owners' rights but also sympathized with the adjacent property owners and their concern for the trees. She appreciated the concerns raised this evening regarding the loss of trees. Commissioner French agreed with Commissioner Klebsch and recommended the matter be tabled to the September 21St meeting. Commissioner Schiltgen supported the request and was disappointed that the Commission could not take action on the request this evening. Planner Sevald discussed the review timeline for this Planning Case and noted this item would be approved on September 23`d if no action was taken by that date. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Klebsch/Commissioner French, To Table Action on Planning Case No. VR2016-004 to the September 21, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Schiltgen stated again for the record that he supported the variance. Ayes — 3 6. Other Planning Activity None. 7. Reports Nay —1 (Schiltgen) Motion carried. A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity Planner Sevald discussed upcoming planning cases. Commissioner Klebsch excused herself from the meeting. B. Staff Updates Planner Sevald provided the Commission with an update from staff. He reported staff was working to retool the City's website. He discussed a training opportunity for the Planning Commissioners which would be held on Thursday, October 20t . C. Council Updates Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 7, 2016 Page 4 Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He explained the Council had signed a contract with a consultant to assist the City with updating its antiquated website. I Ie discussed the progress being made on the design of the new Public Works facility. He indicated the Council was also addressing the childcare provider at the Community Center. IIe was proud to report Police Chief Nate Harder was sworn in at the Council's last meeting. He reported the Council was working with MnDOT to ensure a sound wall was constructed along US Highway 10 across from Medtronic as part of the I35W MnPASS project. Residents in the LaPort neighborhood would be voting on this matter at an upcoming neighborhood meeting. He was proud of the fact that County Highway 10 in Mounds View had been changed on Google Maps to Mounds View Boulevard. D. Planning Commissioner Reports i e in 8. Approval of Minutes The Commission did not have a quorum to take action on the Planning Commission minutes from July 20, 2016. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, September 21, 2016 B. Wednesday, October 5, 2016 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chair Love adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald Planner Transcribed by: IIeidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 0 0 0 MouNIS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA October 5, 2016 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business(none) 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. (Continued) Consider Resolution 1055-16, a resolution approving/denying a Variance for a 30' front yard setback at 7790 Eastwood Rd; Planning Case VR2016-04 6. Other Planning Activity A. (None) 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 8. Approval of Minutes: September 21, 2016 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, October 19, 2016 B. Wednesday, November 2, 2016 10. Meeting Conclusion Item No: 5A MOT TATnS V7L't�T Meeting Date: Oct 5, 2016 U1�IlJ ll:TT Type of Business: Planning Case VR2016-04 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Item Title/Subject: Continued: Consider Resolution 1055-16, a resolution approving/denying a Variance for a 30' front yard setback at 7790 Eastwood Rd; Planning Case VR2016-04 Introduction The applicant (Value Homes, LLC) is requesting a Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 54' to 30' to construct a single-family home at 7790 Eastwood Rd. The minimum front yard setback in the R-1 district is 30' unless homes on the same side of the street have a greater setback (54' in this case). The request is due to the hardship of a private drainage easement reducing the developable area of the lot. The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on September 7, 2016, and continued the Hearing on September 21, 2016, taking no action. Discussion The property at 7800 Eastwood Rd was subdivided into two lots in March, 2016. The north lot includes an existing home, and the south lot is the subject property (7790 Eastwood Rd). After the subdivision was approved, the developer conducted a Title Search, which revealed two private easements: (1) a 10' wide sidewalk easement in the SE corner of the lot; and (2) a 30' wide surface drainage & storm water easement along the south property line. The two easements are for the adjacent property, Silver Lake Commons apartments. As part of Silver Lake Common's Development Review in 1997, the City required the apartment owner to obtain a drainage easement from 7800 Eastwood Rd. At that time, there was concern that expansion of the apartments would negatively affect the natural drainage flow from properties north of the apartments (1940 aerial photo suggests a drainage ditch flowed through these properties). An easement was obtained, but a storm water retention pond was never constructed within the easement, nor was a sidewalk. Planning Case VR2016-04 October 5, 2016 Page 2 Prior to the Title Search, neither the developer nor the current property owner (Value Homes) knew about the easements. For a Minor Subdivision, a Title Search is not required prior to plat approval, but prior to recording the plat at Ramsey County (City Code, Section 1202.01, Subd 2(b). Due to the private drainage easement and the 54' front yard building setback requirement, the developable area of the lot is significantly reduced. Analysis City Code, Title 1100, Chapter 1104, Section 1104.01, Subdivision 3(a): Yard Requirements; Where principal buildings in existence on lots within the same block on the same side of the street have front yard setbacks different from those required, the minimum front yard setback for any new principal buildings shall be the minimum front yard setback in existence for any one lot. In no case shall the front yard setback be less than thirty feet (30'). For purposes of this subsection a, a block shall be defined as that group of lots lying along a street between the two closest intersecting streets, except that where the length of the street frontage between the two intersecting streets is greater than fourteen hundred feet (1, 400), the block shall be the lots within six hundred and fifty feet (650) on either side of the lot in question, or to an intersecting street whichever is less. Homes on the west side of the street are set back between about 54' and 60'. The adjacent home (7800 Eastwood Rd) is set back 59'. If the Variance were approved, the proposed home may look inconsistent because of the shallower front yard, but the 30' front yard setback would be consistent with minimum requirements elsewhere in the R-1 District. On the east side of the street, homes are set back between about 45' and 77'. City Code, Title 1100, Chapter 1125, Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 includes the seven criteria for granting Variances. A Variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. b. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. Planning Case VR2016-04 October 5, 2016 Page 3 d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. g. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Staff's analysis of the seven criteria is listed in Resolution 1055-16. In summary, the practical difficulty (criteria c & d) is that the private 30' wide drainage easement significantly reduces the developable area of the lot. The private easement was created by an agreement between the adjacent Silver Lake Commons Apartments owner (MSP Real Estate) and the previous owner of the subject property (Mary Larson) in 1997 in response to the City's approval of a Site Plan Review for the expansion of the apartments. Although the private easement is a result of the City's requirement of the apartment's owner, the City has no authority to require that the easement be changed or vacated. If the Variance is approved, the front yard setback would be reduced from 54' to 30'. The proposed home would have a front yard depth about half that of other homes on the same side of the street (criteria e), but would still comply with the minimum 30' front yard setback found elsewhere in the R-1 District (criteria f). If the Variance is denied, the owner could choose an alternative floor plan that would fit within the lot's developable area. The developable area as -is, measures approximately 64' wide X 58' deep, and is triangularly shaped. After the developer (Kayak Properties) of the 2016 subdivision conducted the Title Search revealing the easement, the developer contacted the owners of Silver Lake Commons Apartments (Mounds View Family Housing), requesting that they vacate the private easement, which they chose not to do. Planning Case VR2016-04 October 5, 2016 Page 4 Public Comments A Public Hearing Notice was published in the New Brighton / Mounds View Sun Focus on August 19, 2016, and mailed to 31 property owners within 350' of the subject property. Staff received an email from a resident on Eastwood Rd opposed to the Variance because the proposed home with a reduced setback would look out of place, and because the existing wooded yard blocks noise and lights from properties along Mounds View Blvd (Co Rd 10). During the September 7th Public Hearing, one resident on Sunnyside Rd spoke in opposition to the Variance because the reduced front yard setback would not be in-line with surrounding homes, and was opposed to the removal of trees on the lot. The subject property is heavily wooded. City Code, Chapter 1127 includes regulations for Tree Preservation and Landscaping. The City Code encourages, but does not require the preservation of "high value" and "specimen" trees within the R-1 Single - Family Residential district. Summary The applicant is requesting a Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 54' to 30', to construct a new home. The property includes a 30' X 172' private drainage easement along the south property line. The lot's developable area is limited due to the private drainage easement and larger front yard building setback. Recommendation Staff request that the Planning Commission further discuss the application, and take action. A Public Hearing was conducted on Sept. 7th and Sept 21't. It is the Chair's discretion whether to accept additional comments from the public. Staff recommends approval of the Variance contingent upon complying with the conditions in Resolution 1055-16. It is Staff's opinion that the Variance request is reasonable considering that the location of the private drainage easement greatly reduces the developable area of the lot. The Planning Commission is requested to consider the following options: Planning Case VR2016-04 October 5, 2016 Page 5 1. Resolution 1055-16, approving the Variance is attached if the Commission chooses this action. A 5/7's vote is required (2/3's of the full Commission). 2. The Planning Commission may choose to deny the Variance. An alternative Resolution 1055-16 is attached, supporting denial. A majority vote is required, assuming a quorum is present (quorum = 4/7's of full Commission). 3. The Planning Commission may choose to table the request, stating its reason. The City has administratively extended its review of the application from 60 -Days to 120 - Days (Nov 25, 2016), consistent with MN Statute §15.99, Subd 3(f). MN Statute §15.99, Subd 2(b): "When a vote on a resolution or properly made motion to approve a request fails for any reason, the failure shall constitute a denial of the request provided that those voting against the motion state on the record the reasons why they oppose the request. A denial of a request because of a failure to approve a resolution or motion does not preclude an immediate submission of a same or similar request." Respectfully submitted, Av... 01Q� Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photo of Neighborhood with front yard building setbacks (approximate to roofline) 3. Site Photos 4. Email from Lon Stigney, 7841 Eastwood Rd 5. Resolution 1055-16 (APPROVAL) 6. Resolution 1055-16 (DENIAL) 7. Applicant's Narrative (with Certificate of Survey) 1 City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 4(f) Planning Case VR2016-04 October 5, 2016 Page 6 Zoning Map L96 E 7 891 N - BI l 18 l 5 7790 I CQ 7801 (n _ 7760 .� 77.50 7F.si5 7 Ju 7'7'45 77W 8-4 7854 ' 7715-- I-1 INDUSTRIAL R -S MOBILE HOME /863 7842 R-0 RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE PUD 7030 8-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS 79511 F 7810 R-4 R _ ;H<<I RUM" i' 7890 7 _ 7'8c704 LEGEND 7840 18 l 5 7790 7809 7770 7801 "1764 77'67 7760 7761 77.50 7755 7730 7'7'45 77W 8-4 REGIONAL BUSINESS ' 7715-- I-1 INDUSTRIAL LEGEND ZONING DISTRICTS +R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL B-2 LIMITED BUSINESS R-2 SINGLE ✓r TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 0-3 HIGHWAY BUSINESS R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 8-4 REGIONAL BUSINESS R-4 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL I-1 INDUSTRIAL R -S MOBILE HOME PF PUBLIC FACILITIES R-0 RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 8-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS CRP CONSERVANCY, RECREATION & PRESERVATION " AREAS NOT LABELED ARE R-1 DISTRICTS Planning Case VR2016-04 October 5, 2016 Page 7 Aerial Photo of Neighborhood with front yard building setbacks (approximate to roofline) fL _ Planning Case VR2016-04 October 5, 2016 Page 8 Site Photos Figure 1: Eastwood Rd, looking south from 7800 Eastwood Rd (fence at right). Red line is approximately in front of subject property, 7790 Eastwood Rd (8-29-2016) Figw From: Stoney, Lon To: Son Sevald Subject: VR2016-004 Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 3:41:57 PM Dear Jon, My home address is 7841 Eastwood Road which falls within the 350 feet of this proposed variance. Me and my wife are against this proposal for a variety of reasons. First we would hate to see the buffer of trees that are there presently be removed for they deaden the noise from highway 10 and also block the lights from the nearby housing project. But the main reason is that we believe that this variance for this project would be way to cramped between the two existing properties and way out of place of the present street view that now exists. The code that is in place is there for this very reason. It should not be tweaked to help a particular party who subdivided a parcel of property in the hopes that the city would change the code for their own financial gain down the road. We ourselves own a double property lot like others here in Mounds View. Because of this the city has a nice wooded feel too it that makes Mounds View an very enjoyable place to live. We believe this variance would open the door for others to do the same. Especially outside builders or a new property owner who would just want to make a quick buck by selling of odd acreages and attempting to squeeze other houses in other deemed inappropriate areas. Sincerely, Lon Stigney TR Director Cornerstone Assisted Living & Memory Care 3750 Lawndale Lane N I Plymouth, MN 55446 763.550.0333 fax: 763.390.1888 elim care CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential client information. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you're not the addressee or the employee or agent responsible to deliver this e-mail to its intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, distribution, disclosure, copying or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Elim Care, Inc. Providing Senior Housing and Healthcare in the Spirit of Christ's Love MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1055-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 30 -FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A NEW HOME AT 7790 EASTWOOD RD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2016-04 WHEREAS, property owner, Value Homes, LLC, has applied for a variance to allow a house to encroach approximately 24' into the required 54' front yard setback at 7790 Eastwood Rd; and, WHEREAS, 7790 Eastwood Rd is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: That part of Lot 77, SPRING LAKE PARK HILL VIEW, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lies southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 77; thence South 00 degrees 40 minutes 10 seconds East (assumed bearing) along the east line of said Lot 77 a distance of 113.58 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described, said point to be hereafter referred to as "Point A'- thence South 88 degrees 21 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 178.65 feet to the southwesterly line of said Lot 77 and said line there terminating. Subject to an easement for public drainage and utility purposes over, under and across the north 5.00 feet, the east 10.00 feet, and the southwesterly 10.00 feet of the above described property. And subject to an easement for drainage and utility purposes over, under and across that part of the above described property which lies westerly of east 114.04 feet thereof. PIN: 06-30-23-44-0077 WHEREAS, City Code Title 1100, Chapter 1104, Section 1104.01, Subdivision 3(a) states; Where principal buildings in existence on lots within the same block on the same side of the street have front yard setbacks different from those required, the minimum front yard setback for any new principal buildings shall be the minimum front yard setback in existence for any one lot. In no case shall the front yard setback be less than thirty feet (30). For purposes of this subsection a, a block Resolution 1055-16 October 5, 2016 Page 2 shall be defined as that group of lots lying along a street between the two closest intersecting streets, except that where the length of the street frontage between the two intersecting streets is greater than fourteen hundred feet (1,400), the block shall be the lots within six hundred and fifty feet (650) on either side of the lot in question, or to an intersecting street whichever is less. WHEREAS, the 7700 block of Eastwood Rd is approximately 1,400' in length, and the principle building on the same block and same side of the street with the smallest front yard setback measures approximately 54' (7880 Eastwood Rd, based on 1991 building plan, Permit #91-218), and thus the minimum front yard setback for all lots on the west side of this block, including the subject property, is 54'; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Views 3. Site Photos 4. Staff Report 5. Applicant's Narrative and Certificate of Survey 6. Resident Comments 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, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing regarding this request on September 7, 2016 and continued on September 21, 2016; 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 that 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 practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 7790 Eastwood Rd, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 1055-16 October 5, 2016 Page 3 1. The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code regarding front yard building setbacks is to provide a sense of privacy and separation between the building and the public right-of-way. The proposed home to be located on the subject property will maintain a 30' front yard setback, consistent with minimum standards elsewhere in the R-1 district. 2. The Variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (2010); Goal 4: "Encourage residential infill and redevelopment that supports the City's housing goals and maintains residential character" The parent property (7800 Eastwood Rd) was subdivided into two lots in March 2016, creating the subject property (7790 Eastwood Rd), with the intent of constructing a new home. 3. The applicant (Value Homes, LLC) proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner for a single-family residence. 4. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from circumstances over which the property owner had no control. The current property owner (Value Homes) and immediate past owner/developer (Kayak Properties) were not aware of the private 30' wide drainage easement at the time the property was subdivided in 2016. The private drainage easement is unique to this property. 5. The Variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback from 54' to 30' will result in a front yard half the depth as others on the west side of Eastwood Rd. However, a reduced setback will allow construction of a vacant lot for a new single-family home, maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood. 6. The Variance request is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties created by the private 30' wide drainage easement. The Applicant's Narrative includes a Certificate of Survey, dated "May XX, 2016", which shows a proposed home encroaching 26' feet into the private easement (24' foundation + 2' overhang). A Variance reducing the front yard setback from 54' to 30' will still leave a 2' encroachment into the private easement, thus, the home plan will need to be adjusted to avoid any encroachment into this easement. 7. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary. Such conditions are included below: The applicant (Value Homes, LLC) shall clearly disclose to the purchaser of the to -be constructed home that there exists two private easements along the south side yard property line for; (1) a 10' wide sidewalk (Doc. No. 1172686); and (2) a 30' wide drainage area (Doc. No. 1172687). Resolution 1036-15 October 5, 2016 Page 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the Variance request of Value Homes, LLC, for a reduced front yard setback from 54' to 30' at the property located at 7790 Eastwood Rd, subject to the following: 1. The applicant (Value Homes, LLC) shall clearly disclose to the purchaser of the to -be constructed home that there exists two private easements along the south side yard property line for; (1) a 10' wide sidewalk (Doc. No. 1172686); and (2) a 30' wide drainage area (Doc. No. 1172687). 2. If within one year after granting the variance, the work as permitted by the variance has not begun, then such variance shall become null and void unless an extension of time has been requested by the applicant and granted by the Planning Commission. Such extension shall be requested by the applicant in writing, and submitted to the City at least 30 days before the expiration of the original variance. Adopted this 5th day of October, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1055-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 30 -FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A NEW HOME AT 7790 EASTWOOD RD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2016-04 WHEREAS, property owner, Value Homes, LLC, has applied for a variance to allow a house to encroach approximately 24' into the required 54' front yard setback at 7790 Eastwood Rd; and, WHEREAS, 7790 Eastwood Rd is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: That part of Lot 77, SPRING LAKE PARK HILL VIEW, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lies southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 77; thence South 00 degrees 40 minutes 10 seconds East (assumed bearing) along the east line of said Lot 77 a distance of 113.58 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described, said point to be hereafter referred to as "Point A"; thence South 88 degrees 21 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 178.65 feet to the southwesterly line of said Lot 77 and said line there terminating. Subject to an easement for public drainage and utility purposes over, under and across the north 5.00 feet, the east 10.00 feet, and the southwesterly 10.00 feet of the above described property. And subject to an easement for drainage and utility purposes over, under and across that part of the above described property which lies westerly of east 114.04 feet thereof. PIN: 06-30-23-44-0077 WHEREAS, City Code Title 1100, Chapter 1104, Section 1104.01, Subdivision 3(a) states; Where principal buildings in existence on lots within the same block on the same side of the street have front yard setbacks different from those required, the minimum front yard setback for any new principal buildings shall be the minimum front yard setback in existence for any one lot. In no case shall the front yard setback be less than thirty feet (30'). For purposes of this subsection a, a block Resolution 1055-16 October 5, 2016 Page 2 shall be defined as that group of lots lying along a street between the two closest intersecting streets, except that where the length of the street frontage between the two intersecting streets is greater than fourteen hundred feet (1,400), the block shall be the lots within six hundred and fifty feet (650) on either side of the lot in question, or to an intersecting street whichever is less. WHEREAS, the 7700 block of Eastwood Rd is approximately 1,400' in length, and the principle building on the same block and same side of the street with the smallest front yard setback measures approximately 54' (7880 Eastwood Rd, based on 1991 building plan, Permit #91-218), and thus the minimum front yard setback for all lots on the west side of this block, including the subject property, is 54'; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Views 3. Site Photos 4. Staff Report 5. Applicant's Narrative and Certificate of Survey 6. Resident Comments 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, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing regarding this request on September 7, 2016 and continued on September 21, 2016; 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 that 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 NOT satisfied and finds there to be insufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 7790 Eastwood Rd, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 1055-16 October 5, 2016 Page 3 1. The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code regarding front yard building setbacks is to provide a sense of privacy and separation between the building and the public right-of-way. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed 30' minimum front yard building setback within the R-1 district is in harmony with the City Code. 2. The Variance request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (2010); Goal 1: Preserve the identity and maintain and improve the quality and appearance of existing neighborhoods. h. The City will consider the subdivision of existing large lot single- family residential lots on a case-by-case basis. The City will use such reviews to ensure that new development is consistent with city needs and compatible with surrounding development. The City approved the Minor Subdivision of 7800 Eastwood Rd in 2016 (i.e. large single-family lot), creating two lots including the subject property (7790 Eastwood Rd), with a front yard setback consistent with residential lots on the west side of the block, and consistent with the City Code, and the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission has determined that the developable area of the lot is sufficient in size for a single-family home. Further, it is the applicant's responsibility to design a house plan that will fit within that developable area of the lot. 3. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner for a single- family residence. 4. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from circumstances over which the property owner had no control. The current property owner (Value Homes, LLC) and immediate past owner/developer (Kayak Properties) were not aware of the private 30' wide drainage easement at the time the property was subdivided in 2016. The private drainage easement is unique to this property. 5. The Variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback from 54' to 30' will result in a front yard about half the depth as others on the west side of Eastwood Rd. The reduced setback is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. 6. The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed house plan (plan dated May 10, 2016) is the only house plan that could be built on the lot, and therefore has not exhausted all possibilities for fitting a single-family home on the lot without encroaching into the private drainage easement, and in compliance with Resolution 1036-15 October 5, 2016 Page 4 the minimum Floor Area Per Dwelling requirements (City Code, Chapter 1100, Section 1104.02); Subd. 4. Minimum Floor Area Per Dwelling Unit: a. Single -Family Dwellings: The minimum first floor area for each dwelling unit type shall be as follows: (1) One (1) story dwelling 960 square feet (2) Two (2) story dwelling 780 square feet The applicant proposes a split -entry home with an upper level (first floor) measuring 1,027 sq ft in area, and a lower level measuring 926 sq ft in area (plans dated, May 10, 2016). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, denies the Variance request of Value Homes, LLC, for a reduced front yard setback from 54' to 30' at the property located at 7790 Eastwood Rd. Adopted this 5th day of October, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Value Homes Rropn�y Manngeumni L Rmiovn�lm� L180F Ab.=.Moen St N , SuIN 100, Blaine, NIN 55419 Cell: (612)44+f -7,A1, uifice: (763)205-U(jS(-. July 22, 2016 Property; 7790 Eastwood Road, Mounds View, MN 55112 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A Variance for the Minimum 30' Front setback in the R-1 District is required due to a private easement In order to build a very modest Split Level Home with a 38'8" wide and 23' 8" long Foundation. As stated In the email attached; the seller of this lot has made every effort to get the owner of the neighboring Apartment building to vacate the unused private easement however they will not cooperate. As stated by Jon Sevald in the email attached; if a variance were approved to allow a 30'setback, the house would fit without encroaching into the easement. This variance meets the criteria of the attached ordinance 1125.02 Subd. 2. a - g. The following supporting documentation is attached: 1) Copy of the Certificate of Survey Highlighting the part of the home which encroaches into the private easement due to the 55' front setback. 2) Copy of the Blueprints 3) Email Chain with the seller's (Terry Buchanan — Kayak Properties) full explanation describing his efforts to vacate the private easement & Jon Sevald's (AICP, Planner,. City of Mounds View) explanation of the Variance Application process. 4) Copy of the City of Mounds View Ordinance Highlighting 1125.02 Subd. 2. a. —g. Sincerely, r � Eric 011estad Value Homes LLC Chief Executive Manager i FOR: Eric 011estad %9aP \;V"4/4a gel T` .PPA, , I j I PROPERTY ADDRESS: #7n(x EASTWOOD ROAD, MOUNDS VIEW, MN P,I.D.#06-30-23.44-???? 9 I I 9\a 9 I I+i,a jj < 4 I Q I y g11A a%aa y� W 910 910] �I dwtl lU� O IiA • �� w •, a�oa�n e_ e _ _m +jam -` h\eo n jk� O I 19. eAf I arlvewsy O I PrPP"a9d 1 I 5S�,.(b e9H ' xb'YYl^fn+l an W I `e%e 91 A 91\P a\Pe • "7 � 9t 1'x'•.1 911} 1 ,n,,;•��l�Q .1 .1� ro oz's �Ja 2) MIFF DRIVEWAY ON HPOSE TO j 0) NF ) TO VERIFY 30' FA£ndkNT TO SOIn.HAS eEEN VAQAlE01 p •� � I SIaas, IHV.�H99.1 as Minnesota' f� -f area and ( IN T=) 763-45B-2997 a( I loch a son, JOD #16294HS L U ' x " s NORTH NOTES - Field survey conducted on xxxxx - BEARING'S SHOWN ARE ON ASSUMED DATUM. - CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY HOUSE DIMENSIONS, AND SEWER AND BASEMENT DEPTHS. - FINISHED GRADE 10 FEET FROM PROPOSED BUILDING SHALL BE 0.5 FEET LOWER THAN THE FINISHED GRADE AT THE BUILDING. - FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS ARE TO FINISHED SURFACE WITH TURF ESTABLISHMENT. - DRIVEWAYS ARE SHOWN FOR GRAPHIC PURPOSES ONLY. FINAL DRIVEWAY DESIGN AND LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR - CITY TO VERIFY ALL BUILDINGS ELEVATIONS AND SETBACKS. - This survey Was prepared without the benefit of Utlework. Easement, appurtenances and encumbrances may exist In addition to those shownhereon. This survey Is subject to revision upon receipt of a title insurance commitment or attorneys title opinion. I j m0.pPt®®n\V -ii"� p •� � I IHV.�H99.1 LAND Minnesota' lBerl4fl� Twin ® area and ?M". VICKARYOUS 763-45B-2997 a( D.Us Mav sx 2018 Reg. No, 44125 JOD #16294HS L U ' x " s oal9Rrs\Eric\Onegrive\CAD-ID\I6294hs-NadsVly-Ellc\da9\16294hs-NndsVa-Erlc,dan 5/14/2016 929-51 AN CUT FNr '• HIIJSHB6Afn-` 1 p .. FOI,V106, 910J 9\V} I" IRON AR 9� u}j op nor nnE ro.. 91291 (O.7-FA3 ) • IPA/ LEGE,M 92. DENOTES PROPOSED EIEVATON. a1on.2 DENOTES EMSTNO F1EyATON. ,� DENOTES DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE N DENOM METAL SPIKE • DENIOWS IRON MONUMENT FOUND 45 course lookout- PROPOSL+DRLBVATTONS GARAGE FLOOR = 912.1 TOP OF BLOCK - 912.5 LOWEST FLOOR - 909.3 That part of Lot 77, SPRING LAKE PARI( HILL NEW, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which Iles southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of sold Lot 77; thence South DO degrees 40 minutes 10 seconds East (assumed bearing) along the east line of sold Lot 77 a distance of 113.58 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described, sold point to be hereinafter referred to as "Point A"; thence South 88 degrees 21 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 178,65 fact to the southwesterly line of sold Lot 77 and Bold line there torminating. Subject to on easement for public drainage and utllity purposes over, under and across the north 5,00 feet, the east 10.00 feet, and the southwesterly 1D.00 feet of the above described pproperty. And subleot to an easement for drainage and utility purposes over, under and across that part of the above descrlba property whlc lies westerly of east 114:04 feet thereof. I hereby certify that thle survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct evp.rvi.lan and !hot I um u duly Registered Land Surveyor ander the Iowa of the state of�CRE LAND Minnesota' lBerl4fl� Twin ® area and ?M". VICKARYOUS 763-45B-2997 a( D.Us Mav sx 2018 Reg. No, 44125 JOD #16294HS L U ' x " s oal9Rrs\Eric\Onegrive\CAD-ID\I6294hs-NadsVly-Ellc\da9\16294hs-NndsVa-Erlc,dan 5/14/2016 929-51 AN CUT Value Homes Yr�perp• inF.•mes l.' A: nnnntlan 1 1806 .4b•It, 1sm SL NE, Shite 1110, Blaine• ibh455d 14 null: (ia2)43L7S4t Offica: 17i;3Ro5-OUSh July 28, 2016 Property: 7790 Eastwood Road, Mounds View, MN 55112 To Whom It may concern. My name Is Eric 011estad. I am the owner of Value Homes LLC, Value Homes specializes in acquiring lots and building single family homes on those lots to be sold as finished new construction homes in the Twin Cities Metro Area. Here are some of the projects we have completed in the last few years: 3973 Hayes St NE, Columbia Heights 4320 Madison St NE, Columbia Heights 4522 5th St NE, Columbia Heights 3830 Noble Ave N, Robbinsdale 13573 2121h Ave NW, Elk River 1731169th Ave NE, Ham Lake 6812 Aldrich Ave N, Brooklyn Center 10712 Kyle Ave N, Brooklyn Park 10718 Kyle Ave N, Brooklyn Park 3701 Buchanan St NE, Columbia Heights 3705 Buchanan St NE, Columbia Heights 16386 Inca St NW, Andover 1016 42 %Ave NE, Columbia Heights 8857 Baltimore St NE, Blaine 2081 Palm St, Lino Lakes 1100 Vera St N, Champlin I purchased the lot at 7790 Eastwood Rd, Mounds View with the Intention of building a modest BI -Level Split home and selling it as a completed new construction Single Family Residence.. I have repeated this particular home plan many times with great results. It offers home buyers the ability to purchase a 4 bedroom, 2 bath, attached 2 car garage High Efficiency home with Premium Building Materials and finishes at an affordable price. Some of the features of the home are Triple Pane Windows, Poured Concrete Foundation, High Efficiency Furnace, DuraStrand Subfloors, Radon Mitigation System & Sump Pump Included, Gas Stove, Gas Water Heater, Gas Dryer Hookup, Air to Air Exchanger, De -Humidifier and a Vented Microwave. Before I purchased the lot I was told by the seller that there was an unused 30' easement that would not affect the building of the home as the easement would be vacated. The seller of this lot has made every effort to get the owner of the neighboring Apartment building to vacate the unused private easement howeverthey will not cooperate. As stated by Jon Sevald In the email attached; If a variance were approved to allow a 30'setback, the house would fit without encroaching Into the easement. The following Is an explanation on why this variance meets the criteria of the attached ordinance 1125.02 Subd. 2. a —g: a. The variance Is In harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Response -This variance is definitely in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title as this will be a Residential Single Family Home. b. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (Amended, Ord. 861,9-22-11) Response - This variance Is consistent with the comprehensive plan as this new home will give new people or a newfamily the opportunityto become new citizens of Mounds View and offerthem the abilityto get involved in the community helping Mounds View reach many of its goals. This home will drastically Improve the appearance of the community by turning a vacant lot into a beautiful new residence with a brand new Single Family Home. c. The applicant proposes to use the property Ina reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. (Amended, Ord. 861,9-22-11) Response— Due to the unused private easement a modest single family home will not fit on the lot unless a variance forthe minimum 30' front setback is granted, d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other .circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Response—This property is a unique Triangle Shape. The circumstance is one of a kind In Mounds View as there is an unused private 30' Easement along the south lot line. Approving this variance will not only make it possible for a modest single family home to be built on this lot; It will also drastically improve the backyard giving the new home owner a much safer area for outdoor activities versus the front yard along Eastwood Road. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Response—The variance Is not alteringthe essential character of the neighborhood as It is only improvingthe character of the neighborhood by allowing a nice new home to be built on the lot. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Response—As noted in the attached Certificate of Survey, allowing the 30' front setbackwould allow the home to be moved 25' closerto the front lot line towards Eastwood Road which would be the minimum amount of room needed so that the new home does not encroach into the unused private easement. g. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may Impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established bythis Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties In the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. (Amended, Ord. 861, 9-22-11) Response— I believe that the impact created by the variance is a positive Impact and a benefit to the neighborhood. Sincerely, Eric 011estad Value Homes LLC Chief Executive Manager -DRAFT - PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 21, 2016 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for September 21, 2016. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners French, Klander, Klebsch, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Love and Rundle. Also Present: Planner Jon Sevald and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. Index to Minutes Page VR2016-004 Variance Request for a 30' Front Yard Setback 2 MA2016-001 Preliminary Plat Request for Steil Addition 4 Planning Commission Quorum 4 Approval of Minutes 5 3. Special Order of Business None. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. -DRAFT - 5. Planning Cases A. Continued Public Hearing: Consider Resolution 1055-16, a Resolution approving/denying a Variance for a 30' front yard setback at 7790 Eastwood Road; Planning Case VR2016-004 Chair Stevenson removed this item from the table. Planner Sevald stated the applicant (Value Homes, LLC) is requesting a Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 54' to 30' to construct a single-family home at 7790 Eastwood Road. The minimum front yard setback in the R-1 district is 30' unless homes on the same side of the street have a greater setback (54' in this case). The request is due to the hardship of a private drainage easement reducing the developable area of the lot. It was noted the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on September 7, 2016 but a quorum (2/3's or 5 of 7 members) was not present to approve a Variance and therefore the Public Hearing was tabled. Staff reviewed the request in further detail and recommended the Commission close the public hearing and approve the variance with conditions. Chair Stevenson understood this home was at the end of the block and not in the middle. He asked if the 30' setback was the minimum. Eric Olestad, Value Homes, LLC, stated if the setback was more than 30' the home would have to have a tuck under garage and the price of the home would increase. He then reviewed a map of the lot noting the location of the proposed driveway and home. He explained that if the 54' setback was required he would not be able to build a home on the site. Chair Stevenson questioned what the unique circumstances were on this lot. Mr. Olestad discussed the easement on the property and explained the easement would not be going away. Commissioner Klebsch asked if a smaller house could be built on the property. Mr. Olestad indicated if a smaller house was built, it would potentially become a rental. Chair Stevenson encouraged the applicant to save as many trees on the lot as possible and inquired how many trees would be lost. Mr. Olestad reviewed the trees that would be saved in order to keep the lot wooded and private. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Klander. To approve Resolution 1055-16, a Resolution Approving of a Variance for a 30' Front Yard Setback at 7790 Eastwood Road; Planning Case No. VR2016-004. Ayes — 3 Nays — 2 (Klebsch, French) Motion failed. Commissioner Klebsch asked if the Planning Commission should make a motion to deny the Variance request. Planner Sevald requested the Planning Commission proceed in this manner. -DRAFT- MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Chair Stevenson. To Table Action on the Variance for a 30' Front Yard Setback at 7790 Eastwood Road; Planning Case No. VR2016-004 to the October 5, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting. Ayes — 2 Nays — 3 (Klebsch, Klander and French) Motion failed. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Klebsch/Commissioner French. To approve Resolution 1055-16, a Resolution Denying of a Variance for a 30' Front Yard Setback at 7790 Eastwood Road; Planning Case No. VR2016-004. Commissioner Schiltgen expressed frustration that the Planning Commission did not have a full complement of the Planning Commission to take action on this item. Commissioner Klebsch did not believe Items E and F were being met with the variance request. She wanted to respect the comments presented by the neighbors on this block and believed the variance request could be minimized. Ayes — 2 Nays — 3 (Stevenson, Schiltgen and Klander) Motion failed. Mr. Olestad discussed how his plans for the home would have to change noting the price would have to increase dramatically if the 54 -foot increase was required. He stated he was only proposing to build a 2,000 square foot home. He provided further comment on the concerns expressed by the neighbors. Commissioner Schiltgen requested further information on the 60 -day rule. Planner Sevald explained State Statute would allow the City to extend this request from 60 days to 120 days in order for the Commission to review the matter again in October with a full membership of the Planning Commission. Chair Stevenson questioned how the Commission should proceed at this time. City Administrator Ericson explained the Commission has taken no action either for or against the Variance at this time due to the fact none of the votes have passed. He stated it wouldn't be inappropriate for the Commission to reconsider tabling action on the Variance. Commissioner Schiltgen supported the Variance being tabled and wished staff had proposed the 120 days from the start of the meeting. City Administrator Ericson commented the Planning Commission could elect to take no action on the Variance and this direction would be forwarded to the City Council as such. He recommended that the item be extended to 120 days in order for proper action to be taken on the matter. Chair Stevenson supported the Commission taking no action on this item and recommended the item be extended to 120 days. Mr. Olestad offered a final comment to the Commission stating his proposed home would be in alignment with the other homes on the street and only the garage would be slightly forward. Chair Stevenson questioned if the Planning Commission required any additional information from staff prior to October 5t1'. No additional information was requested. Staff was directed to bring this item back to the Planning Commission on October Stn B. Consider Resolution 1056-16, a Resolution recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat of Steil Addition; Planning Case MA2016-001 Planner Sevald stated the applicants Tim and Kelly Steil own two adjacent properties that back up to each other. The Steil's are requesting to move the common property line, thereby increasing the size of their backyard at their residence at 7255 Hidden Hollow Court. No new lots or roads will be created. Because the two lots involved exceed 2 -acres combined, a Major Subdivision is required. Staff reviewed the request in further detail and recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request. Tim Steil, 7255 Hidden Hollow Court, thanked the Commission for considering his request. Chair Stevenson questioned if a park dedication fee would be required. Planner Sevald explained park dedication fees are only due if a new lot was created. This did not apply with the Steil's request. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Klebsch/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolution 1056-16, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Major Subdivision at 7255 Hidden Hollow Court; Planning Case No. MA2016-001. Ayes —5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 6. Other Planning Activity A. Planning Commission Quorum Planner Sevald stated at the September 7th Planning Commission meeting, there was not a quorum present to approve a Variance. Staff reviewed the City's quorum and voting requirements in detail with the Commission. 1;: 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity Planner Sevald discussed upcoming planning cases. B. Staff Updates Planner Sevald provided the Commission with an update from staff. He invited the Commissioners to attend an upcoming planning workshop in St. Paul. He reported former Planning Commission member Jean Miller had passed away. C. Council Updates Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He discussed the proposed HRA levy and noted a preliminary property tax levy had been approved. He provided comment on the MNPASS project and sound walls being proposed for I-35 W. He invited the Commission to attend the candidate forum on Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at City Hall at 6:00 p.m. He encouraged the public to participate in Northeast Youth and Family Services; A Taste of Northeast fundraiser on "Thursday, October 6th from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at Vadnais Heights Commons. He reported on Sunday, October 9th the Festival in the Park would be holding a Craft Fair at the Mounds View Community Center from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. He noted the Mounds View Lion's would be holding their Annual Spaghetti Dinner on Thursday, October 13th from 4:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the VFW in Spring Lake Park. Lastly, he noted the YMCA's Fall Family Festival would be held at the Community Center on Saturday, October 29th from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 8. Approval of Minutes July 20, 2016. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Klander/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the Minutes of the July 20, 2016 regular Planning Commission meetings as presented. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. September 7, 2016. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Klander/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the Minutes of the September 7, 2016 regular Planning Commission meetings as presented. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, October 5, 2016 B. Wednesday, October 19, 2016 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald Planner Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Of Site Secretarial, Inc. • r 0 MounmS tE—W PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA October 19, 2016 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business (none) 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. Consider Resolution 1057-16, approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized garage; and (Public Hearing) consider Resolution 1058-16 a Variance to the side yard setback at 7715 Eastwood Rd; Planning Case MU2016-002 B. Resolution 1059-16, Review of a Preliminary Administrative Variance at 7801 Eastwood Rd; Planning Case AV2016-001 6. Other Planning Activity A, (None) 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 8. Approval of Minutes: October 5, 2016 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, November 2, 2016 B. Wednesday, November 16, 2016 10. Meeting Conclusion Item No: 5A MOT TATfIS VrL_WT Type Meeting Date: Oct 1 M 20 1 UlVIJ 1J.:.1'T T e of Business: Planning Case MU2016-002 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Item Title/Subject: Consider Resolution 1057-16, approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized garage; and (Public Hearing) consider Resolution 1058-16, a Variance to the side yard setback at 7715 Eastwood Rd; Planning Case MU2016-002 Introduction The applicant, Cindy Brown, has applied for a building permit to add a second floor onto the home and an addition onto the existing two -car attached garage. The garage addition will exceed the maximum size permitted for an accessory building, unless a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is approved. Additionally, the existing garage is setback 4'-6" from the side yard property line, whereas a minimum of 5' is required. The proposed garage addition would continue this 6" encroachment, requiring a Variance. Variances are approved/denied by the Planning Commission. Conditional Use Permits are reviewed by the Planning Commission, and approved/denied by the City Council Analysis: Conditional Use Permit Maximum Existing Proposed Attached Garage 952 sq ft 667 sq ft 1,227 sq ft Detached Garage 308 308 Detached Shed 98 98 TOTAL 1,800 sq ft 1,073 sq ft 1,633 sq ft The following criteria shall be considered, when applicable: 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. 1 City Code, Section 1106.03, Subd 1(c) 2 City Code, Section 1125.01, Subd 3 Planning Case MU2016-002 October 19, 2019 Page 2 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. 3. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. 4. 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. 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. 6. The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 7. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. 8. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Analysis: Variance Required Existing Proposed Front yard setback: 30' 75' 51' North side yard setback: 5' garage 4'-6" garage 4'-6" garage 10' house N/A 10' house South side yard setback 30' house about 15' about 15' Rear yard setback 30' about 124' about 124' * The existing home is set back about 15' from the south side yard property line, whereas 30' is required for a corner lot. Because the second floor addition will not further encroach into the setback than what is existing, a Variance is not required for the second floor addition. Between this property and Co Rd I is a 25' wide St. Paul waterworks right-of-way. The home is about 40' from the Co Rd I right-of-way. The Planning Commission may grant a Variance only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist3: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. b. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. C. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code, 3 City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 2 Planning Case MU2016-002 October 19, 2019 Page 3 d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. g. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Staff's analysis of how the requested Conditional Use Permit and Variance comply with the City Code, may be found in the attached Resolutions. Summary The applicant has requested (1) a Conditional Use Permit for a 1,227 sq ft oversized garage; and (2) a Variance to allow the garage addition to encroach 6" into the side yard setback. A Public Hearing notice was published in the New Brighton -Mounds View Sun Focus on Sept 30, 2016, and mailed to property owners within 350' of the subject property. Recommendation Staff recommends Resolution 1057-16, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit, and Resolution 1058-16 approving the Variance. It is Staff's opinion that the Conditional Use Permit request is consistent with the City Code. Further, it is Staff's opinion that the practical difficulty supporting the Variance is that a previous owner constructed the attached garage 6" too close to the side yard property line. If the garage addition were to continue this 6" encroachment, it would not negatively affect the neighborhood's character, considering the existing attached garage has had this encroachment since its construction in 1975. The Planning Commission is requested to consider the following options, including conducting a Public Hearing for the Variance request: Planning Case MU2016-002 October 19, 2019 Page 4 1. Resolution 1057-16, recommending approval the Conditional Use Permit is attached, if the Commission chooses this action. Resolution 1058-16 approving the Variance is attached, if the Commission chooses this action. 2. The Planning Commission may choose to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit; and/or deny the Variance. If the Commission chooses these options, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial(s). 3. Table the request(s). If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of the 60 -day requirements (Deadline: Nov 27, 2016 the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments 1. Applicant's Narrative 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Map 4. Site Photos 6. Resolution 1057-16 (Conditional Use Permit) 7. Resolution 1058-16 (Variance) Planning Case MU2016-002 October 19, 2019 Page 5 Applicant's Narrative JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG EP OCT NOV DEC 01 02 01 Of 0 OG 07 /AV 09 10 /1 12 1.4 /f 1i 16 17 /R 19 20 2/ 22 21 2-f S 20 0 2s 29 ;i0 .11 7'715 t-Rsr- - SEP 2 7 2016 - Q, PcS (Wrr F12,r3 Avd iAiq A q dlaI4«nA, 5y vorw � 4d _{ H e Ex;S lr n /s rr P tu+ J nSa 4� CCw.,e, �Co -�M.o- �pirly, I.a,�.e.v.1e. u9mwl� I..tILe -60- - - G-->o-a 4•-c,^ Foo (6Q -- b.-mvU &mt A to rs p�.�� , W z C6 4,t- f N � ba. A. Ij G ose r � 4-1 .t ?fp( ' 1 - o ... D. A-, 4nr P8 L,.n;q�e— Gtrcww�.Sf,,,,,. AA� >i4pvl�. 4o -iitU;S_ (�p,,rl.a =c o��w-�r�afu�m-i�3 � -ic-:.a �t�i8'nbocltioxi, l Can' b4NAq_\.c,.,�e,S Planning Case MU2016-002 October 19, 2019 Page 6 Applicant's Narrative JANFEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG l_Y OCT NOV DEC 01 02 LY 01 4 IM 07 (Al 00 10 I1 12 L7 14 15 X 17 13 19 20 21 22 $7 L? 25 20 0 23 2J 30 .1I SEP -2-7-2016 Planning Case MU2016-002 October 19, 2019 Page 7 Applicant's Narrative Planning Case MU2016-002 October 19, 2019 Page 8 Zoning Map 78911 N rb 7BE 7885 7870 las 7877 7841 785 7863 784 7790 783 7851 - 7764 782 �l 781 r 780 �h R-4 7745 7895 N 7890 7867 7870 78,51 7860 7841 7850 - 7840 7815 7790 71109 7770 7801 7764 7767 7760 7761 7750 7755 7730 7745 7710 n __:T o N 7715 I AREAS NOT LABELED ARE R-1 DISTRICTS t--1-.ESDEEDD In to LEI In NEV NN Ln N L UNITED BUSINESS HIGHWAY BUSINESS REGIONAL BUSINESS INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONSERVANCY, RECREATION & PRESERVATION LEGEND ZONING DISTRICTS •R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL B-2 R-2 SINGLE k TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL B-3 R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL B-4 R-4 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1-I R-5 MOBILE HOME PF R-0 RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE PUD 0-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS CRP I AREAS NOT LABELED ARE R-1 DISTRICTS t--1-.ESDEEDD In to LEI In NEV NN Ln N L UNITED BUSINESS HIGHWAY BUSINESS REGIONAL BUSINESS INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONSERVANCY, RECREATION & PRESERVATION Planning Case MU2016-002 October 19, 2019 Page 9 Aerial Map t � i Al 4 t lo ACE RESOLUTION No. 1057-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING TO EXCEED 952 SQ FT IN AREA FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7715 EASTWOOD RD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE MU2016-002 WHEREAS, property owners Cynthia Brown and Terry Brown have requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an addition onto the attached garage, such that the combined area would be 1,227 sq ft in area. The property is located at 7715 Eastwood Rd, Mounds View, MN, legally described as: Lot 49 of Spring Lake Park Hill View PID: 06-30-23-44-0029 WHEREAS, the above-described lands are zoned R-1, Single -Family Residential, and designated Detached Single -Family Residential in the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code, Section 1106.03, Subd 1(c) prohibits any accessory building in an R-1 District from exceeding 952 sq ft in area, except by Conditional Use Permit; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code, Section 1106.03, Subd 1(a) permits every R-1 zoned property improved with a single-family dwelling, a maximum of 1,800 sq ft of combined accessory building area. The property will have accessory buildings with a combined area of 1,633 sq ft, including the attached garage addition; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Applicant's Narrative 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Map 4. Site Photos WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission Finds that the request complies with the Mounds View City Code Section 1106.04, Subd 6 regarding Accessory Buildings exceeding 952 sq ft in area; and, Resolution 1057-16 October 19, 2016 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council will hold an advertised Public Hearing on October 24, 2016 for the Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.01, Subd 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the City Council is to review a standard set of criteria when considering a Conditional Use Permit, including making Findings; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.01, Subd 3(b) are satisfied and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. The oversized attached garage 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. 2. The oversized attached garage 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. 3. The oversized garage and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. 4. The oversized garage, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. 5. The oversized garage 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. 6. The oversized garage is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 7. The oversized garage will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. 8. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission does herby recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Building in excess of 952 sq ft in area, submitted by property owners Cynthia Brown and Terry Brown, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall obtain a building permit for the garage addition, and shall construct the garage according to Building Code, and consistent with plans dated Sept 20, 2016. 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 permit was granted; the Conditional Use Permit shall be considered null and void. Resolution 1057-16 October 19, 2016 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, 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 19`h day of October, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) RESOLUTION No. 1058-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ATTACHED GARAGE TO BE SET BACK FOUR FEET — SIX INCHES FROM THE SIDE YARD PROPERTY LINE, WHEREAS FIVE FEET IS REQUIRED, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7715 EASTWOOD RD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE MU2016-002 WHEREAS, property owners Cynthia Brown and Terry Brown have proposed an addition onto an existing attached garage which currently encroaches six inches into the side yard setback. The garage addition would continue this encroachment. The property is located at 7715 Eastwood Rd, Mounds View, MN, legally described as: Lot 49 of Spring Lake Park Hill View PID: 06-30-23-44-0029 WHEREAS, the above-described lands are zoned R-1, Single -Family Residential, and designated Detached Single -Family Residential in the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code, Section 1104.01, Subd 4(b) requires accessory buildings to maintain a minimum five foot setback from side yard property lines; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Applicants' Narrative 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Map 4. Site Photos 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 impose 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 an advertised public hearing regarding this request on October 19, 2016; and, Resolution 1058-16 October 19, 2016 Page 2 WHEREAS, according to the Mounds View City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 2, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria that must be satisfied in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subd 2 of the Mounds View City Code are satisfied, and finds there to be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 7715 Eastwood Rd, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Code. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan: Goal 2: Maintain and upgrade the existing housing stock of the City Policies: b. Use housing projects to promote economic development and tax base expansion. Goal 4: Encourage residential infill and redevelopment that supports the City's housing goals and maintains residential character. The applicants propose to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the City Code. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of the Mounds View City Code has had no control. The unique circumstances are that the attached garage was constructed in 1975 by a previous owner (Permit # 75- 266), and located 4'-6" from the side yard property line. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood 6. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. 7. The Planning Commission may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by the City Code or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Such conditions shall include: Resolution 1058-16 October 19, 2016 Page 3 a. The applicant shall obtain a building permit for the garage addition, and shall construct the garage according to Building Code, and consistent with plans dated Sept 20, 2016. Adopted this 19`h day of October, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MOUNAS VIEW of Mounds View Staff Item No: 5B Meeting Date: Oct 19, 2016 Type of Business: Planning Case AV2016-001 To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Item Title/Subject: Resolution 1059-16, Review of a Preliminary Administrative Variance at 7801 Eastwood Rd; Planning Case AV16-001 Introduction The applicant, Chad Born of Born Construction, has applied for an Administrative Variance to construct a 5'X 5' covered front stoop (porch) for property located at 7801 Eastwood Rd. The stoop is to replace an existing concrete stoop (no roof), and will be set back 40' from the front property line, whereas a minimum 45' is required. Discussion An Administrative Variance may be granted by the Community Development Director (City Administrator) if the property is zoned R-1 or R-2, and the request is: (1) within 25% of minimum City Code requirements and does not result in a setback of less than 5'; or (2) the request is related to a pre-existing non -conforming driveway. Additionally, the Administrative Variance request must comply with the seven criteria for granting a Variance, as stipulated in City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 2 (see attached Resolution #1059-16). The City Code allows the Community Development Director to "preliminarily" approve an Administrative Variance, providing notice to adjacent property owners, and upon review by the Planning Commission. A Public Hearing is not required. Administrative Variances are relatively rare. The last case was in 2008. Analysis The property is zoned R-1 Single -Family Residential. Within the R-1 District, the minimum front yard setback is 30', unless homes on the same side of the street have a greater setback, then the minimum setback shall be equal to the home with the smallest front yard setback. According to Ramsey County aerial photos (2015), homes on this side of the street are setback approximately 45'— 77', thus the minimum front yard building setback on this side of the street is 45'. The Administrative Variance request is to allow a 40' setback. This setback requirement is not applicable to non -covered stoops, in which the stoop does not exceed the height of the ground floor of the home (excluding handrails).2 ` City Code, Section 1104.01, Subd 3(a) 2 City Code, Section 1104.02, Subd 5(c) Planning Case VA2016-001 October 19, 2019 Page 2 An Administrative Variance may be granted for an encroachment up to 25% of City Code requirements3. Twenty-five percent of 45' is 11'-4". The request is for a 5' encroachment, thus, the request is consistent with City Code. Notice of this meeting was mailed to the seven adjacent property owners, as required by City Code .4 Summary The applicant requests to replace the concrete stoop (stairs) with a 5' X 5' covered stoop (front porch), which would encroach 5' into the front yard setback. The home is set back about 45' from the front property line, and is the nearest home to the edge of the right-of- way, thus the minimum setback on this block, and on this side of Eastwood Rd is 45'. Recommendation Staff recommends review of the Administrative Variance contingent upon complying with the conditions in Resolution 1059-16. The Planning Commission is requested to consider the following options: Resolution 1059-16, approving the review of the Administrative Variance is attached if the Commission chooses this action. 2. The Planning Commission may choose to deny the Administrative Variance. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff would direct the applicant to apply for a formal Variance. Respectfully submitted, –A— M9 — Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments 1. Site Photos 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Map 4. Resolution 1059-16 s City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 6(a)(1) City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 6(b) Planning Case VA2016-001 October 19, 2019 Page 3 Site Photo 2X IU o".L'5 6X �c ycwr 6k,"IIts Figure 2: Porch (stoop) detail, submitted by contractor Planning Case VA2016-001 October 19, 2019 Page 4 Zoning Map 7891 (w4 N 788C 7885 7881 786.6 7877 7841 7454 7863 7842 7840 7830 7851 --- 7790 7809 7801 7767 782C �! 781C PF 7750 7755 7800 R-4 ,-b R-4 7745 7895 LEGEND 7890 7870 7867 7881 •R-1 7860 7841 R-2 7850 1-3 7840 7815 B-4 7790 7809 7801 7767 I-1 7770 7764 7760 7781 PF 7750 7755 PUD 7730 7745 CRP 7710 7715 • AREAS NOT LABELED ANE 9-1 DISTRICTS r-1- in LO N 8 I LIMITED BUSINESS HIGHWAY BUSINESS REGIONAL BUSINESS INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC FACIUTIES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONSERVANCY, RECREATION F PRESERVATION LEGEND ZONING DISTRICTS •R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL B-2 R-2 SINGLE k TWO GAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1-3 R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL B-4 R -A HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL I-1 R -S MOBILE HOME PF R-0 RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE PUD B-1 NEIOHBORNOOD BUSINESS CRP • AREAS NOT LABELED ANE 9-1 DISTRICTS r-1- in LO N 8 I LIMITED BUSINESS HIGHWAY BUSINESS REGIONAL BUSINESS INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC FACIUTIES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONSERVANCY, RECREATION F PRESERVATION Ean WD l m 5 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1059-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FORTY FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A COVERED STOOP AT 7801 EASTWOOD RD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE AV2016-01 WHEREAS, the applicant, Chad Born (Born Carpentry, LLC), on behalf of property owners, Erica Edgeton and Chad Edgeton, has applied for an Administrative Variance to allow a covered stoop to encroach 5' into the required 45' front yard setback at 7801 Eastwood Rd; and, WHEREAS, 7801 Eastwood Rd is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Lot 52, of Spring Lake Park Hill View PIN: 06-30-23-44-0034 WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code, Section 1104.01, Subdivision 3(a) states; Where principal buildings in existence on lots within the same block on the same side of the street have front yard setbacks different from those required the minimum front yard setback for any new principal buildings shall be the minimum front yard setback in existence for any one lot. In no case shall the front yard setback be less than thirty feet (30). For purposes of this subsection a, a block shall be defined as that group of lots lying along a street between the two closest intersecting streets, except that where the length of the street frontage between the two intersecting streets is greater than fourteen hundred,feet (1,400 ), the block shall be the lots within six hundred and fifty feet (650 on either side of the lot in question, or to an intersecting street whichever is less. WHEREAS, the 7700 block of Eastwood Rd is approximately 1,400' in length, and the principal building on the same block and same side of the street with the smallest front yard setback measures approximately 45' (7801 Eastwood Rd, based on 2015 Ramsey County aerial photo), and thus the minimum front yard setback for all lots on the east side of this block, including the subject property, is 45'; and, WHEREAS, the proposed covered front stoop would encroach 5' into the required 45' front yard setback; and, Resolution 1059-16 October 19, 2016 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 6 permits the Community Development Director (City Administrator) to approve an Administrative Variance if the subject property is zoned R-1 or R-2; and the variance is within 25% of the required setback, and not less than 5' from a property line; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-1, and the proposed 5' setback encroachment is 11% of the minimum 45' front yard setback; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the City of Mounds View City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 6(b), the Community Development Director has reviewed the variance request, and finds that it is consistent with the variance criteria listed in the City Code Section 1125.02, Subd 2: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Code. b. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan: Goal 2: Maintain and upgrade the existing housing stock of the City Policies: b. Use housing projects to promote economic development and tax base expansion. Goal 4: Encourage residential infill and redevelopment that supports the City's housing goals and maintains residential character. C. The applicant's proposed covered front stoop is a reasonable use of the property, not permitted by the City Code because of the front yard setback encroachment. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The home was built in 1962, and is set back closer to the street than other homes on the same side of the block. If other homes had been built at the minimum required 30' front yard setback, the greater 45' setback would not be applicable, and a variance for the covered stoop would not be necessary. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The addition of the covered front stoop onto the home will enhance the character of the home, and the neighborhood. f The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The 5' X 5' covered front stoop is not excessively large. Resolution 1059-16 October 19, 2016 Page 3 g. The Planning Commission may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Such conditions shall include: The applicants shall construct the covered stoop according to Building Code (Permit 2016-00722), and consistent with drawings presented in the Staff Report. WHEREAS, in accordance with the City of Mounds View City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 6(b), notice of the Planning Commission's review of this Administrative Variance was mailed to seven adjacent property owners of the subject property on Oct 4, 2016; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Views 3. Site Photos 4. Staff Report NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the Administrative Variance request, and agrees with Staff's findings and approval of the Administrative Variance subject to the following condition: The applicant shall construct the covered stoop according to Building Code (Permit 2016-00722), and consistent with drawings presented in the Staff Report. 2. If within one year after granting the Administrative Variance, the work as permitted by the variance has not begun, then such variance shall become null and void unless an extension of time has been requested by the applicant and granted by the Planning Commission. Such extension shall be requested by the applicant in writing, and submitted to the City at least 30 days before the expiration of the original variance. Resolution 1059-16 October 19, 2016 Page 4 Adopted this 19th day of October, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) IBM-sm PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 5, 2016 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for October 5, 2016. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners French, Klander, Klebsch, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Planner Jon Sevald and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. Index to Minutes Page VR2016-04 Variance Request for a 30' Front Yard Setback 1 Approval of Minutes 5 3. Special Order of Business None. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. S. Planning Cases A. (Continued) Consider Resolution 1055-16, a Resolution approving/denying a Variance for a 30' front yard setback at 7790 Eastwood Road; Planning Case VR2016-04 Planner Sevald stated the applicant (Value Homes, LLC) is requesting a Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 54' to 30' to construct a single-family home at 7790 Eastwood Road. The minimum front yard setback in the R-1 district is 30' unless homes on the same side of the street have a greater setback (54' in this case). The request is due to the hardship of a private drainage easement reducing the developable area of the lot. The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on September 7, 2016, and continued the Hearing to September 21, 2016, taking no action. Planner Sevald explained the property at 7800 Eastwood Road was subdivided into two lots in March, 2016. The north lot includes an existing home, and the south lot is the subject property (7790 Eastwood Road). After the subdivision was approved, the developer conducted a Title Search, which revealed two private easements: (1) a 10' wide sidewalk easement in the SE corner of the lot; and (2) a 30' wide surface drainage & storm water easement along the south property line. Planner Sevald indicated the two easements are for the adjacent property, Silver Lake Commons apartments. As part of Silver Lake Common's Development Review in 1997, the City required the apartment owner to obtain a drainage easement from 7800 Eastwood Road. At that time, there was concern that expansion of the apartments would negatively affect the natural drainage flow from properties north of the apartments (1940 aerial photo suggests a drainage ditch flowed through these properties). An easement was obtained, but a storm water retention pond was never constructed within the easement, nor was a sidewalk. Planner Sevald reported prior to the Title Search, neither the developer nor the current property owner (Value Homes) knew about the easements. For a Minor Subdivision, a Title Search is not required prior to plat approval, but prior to recording the plat at Ramsey County (City Code, Section 1202.01, Subd 2(b). Due to the private drainage easement and the 54' front yard building setback requirement, the developable area of the lot is significantly reduced. Staff recommends approval of the Variance contingent upon complying with the conditions in Resolution 1055-16. It is Staff's opinion that the Variance request is reasonable considering that the location of the private drainage easement greatly reduces the developable area of the lot. Chair Stevenson saw no reason to hold another Public Hearing given the fact there were no neighbors in attendance. Chair Stevenson recalled the concerns of the neighbors as discussed at the previous meetings and reviewed the shape of the subject lot noting the easements on site. He requested staff review the developable area of the lot. Planner Sevald outlined the developable area on the survey, and reviewed it with the Planning Commission. -DRAFT - Chair Stevenson expressed concern with the fact the developer was proposing to build a rental unit if the variance was not approved. He suggested that if a home was built on this property that it be more in synch with the surrounding properties and not be a rental. Commissioner Love asked if the proposed home would be two levels. Erik 011estad, Value Homes, LLC, discussed the home he was proposing to build on the property at 7790 Eastwood Road. He commented on the trees that would be lost. It was noted the house would be in alignment with the setback requirements, however the garage would not be Commissioner Schiltgen questioned if the private easement has been discussed between the property owner and the adjacent property. Mr. 011estad did not anticipate this issue would be resolved with the adjacent property owner. Commissioner Klebsch stated her concerns were still the same and had not been addressed. She appreciated a buffer of trees would remain in place, but did not understand why there was only two ways to build on this lot. She believed there were more options for the site. For this reason, she would not support the variance request. Mr. 011estad expressed frustration with the way the Planning Commission had managed his request and was disappointed with the fact that he has had to come back to three meetings in order for the Commission to make a decision on his request. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 1055-16, a Resolution Approving of a Variance to Allow a 30 -Foot Front Yard Setback for a New Home at 7790 Eastwood Road; Planning Case No. VR2016-04. Commissioner Klander asked why the developer was not aware of the easement on the site. Planner Sevald described the differences between a major and minor subdivision and explained the developer was not required to complete a title search prior to plat approval, but prior to the plat being recorded. Commissioner Klander questioned when the drainage easement was put in place. Planner Sevald reported this took place in 1997. He noted this was a private easement between two property owners. Commissioner Love believed it was unfortunate the developer did not find out about the easement until after purchasing the property. Ayes — 4 Nays — 3 (French, Klebsch, Love) Motion failed. Planner Sevald requested comments, for the record, from those that opposed the Variance. Commissioner Love believed the Variance did not meet Letter E stating the essential character of the neighborhood would be impacted by the proposed variance. Commissioner Klebsch added that Letter F was not being met either. DRAFT - Commissioner French believed that a smaller home would fit on the site and found no hardship with the property. 6. Other Planning Activity None. 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity Planner Sevald discussed upcoming planning cases. B. Staff Updates Planner Sevald provided the Commission with a handout on Roberts Rules of Order and affordable housing requirements. Commissioner Klebsch thanked staff for the information. She appreciated how staff provided information on affordable housing on a regional level. C. Council Updates Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He commented on the City's water quality and its treatment plants. He discussed the recent meeting held by the Charter Commission and noted the Council has been working on the 2017 budget and tax levy. He explained the Council approved an EDA and HRA tax levy for 2017. He was pleased to report the City would be receiving two sound walls in conjunction with the I -35W MnPASS project. He discussed the recent candidate forum. Council Member Meehlhause encouraged everyone to visit the Festival in the Park Craft Fair at the Community Center on Sunday, October 9th. He invited the public to attend the Mounds View Lion's Annual Spaghetti Dinner at the VFW in Spring Lake Park on Thursday, October 13th from 4:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. He indicated the Mounds View Lions would be holding a Waffle Breakfast on Saturday, October 291h at the Community Center from 8:30 to 11:30 a.m. and invited families to stick around to attend the Fall Family Festival. D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 8. Approval of Minutes -DRAFT - September 21, 2016. Commissioner Klander requested the applicant's last name be spelled corrected. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Klebsch. To approve the Minutes of the September 21, 2016 regular Planning Commission meetings as amended. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, October 19, 2016 B. Wednesday, November 2, 2016 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald Planner Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 0 0 0 FA n �J 0 MOvrms VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA November 16, 2016 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business (none) 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Nol Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. Resolution 1060-16, Consideration of a recommendation for approval of a Development Review of the Public Works Facility expansion, for property at 2466 Bronson Dr. (Planning Case MU2016-003). Public Hearing to consider Resolution 1061-16, approval of a Variance to reduce the front yard setback for a parking lot at 2466 Bronson Dr.; Resolution 1062-16, Consideration of a recommendation for approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Open and Outdoor Storage as an Accessory Use for property at 2466 Bronson Dr.; Resolution 1063-16, Consideration of a recommendation for approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the Storage of Flammable Liquids Over 800 gallons Above Ground for property at 2466 Bronson Dr. 6. Other Planning Activity A. (None) 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 8. Approval of Minutes: October 5, 2016 October 19, 2016 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, December 7, 2016 B. Wednesday, December 21, 2016 10. Meeting Conclusion Item No: 5A mils, It MW Type Date: November 16, 2016 MOT V1ViJ LyV T e of Business: Planning Case MU2016-003 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Item Title/Subject: - Resolution 1060-16, consider a recommendation of approval of a Development Review of the Public Works Facility expansion, for property at 2466 Bronson Dr. - Public Hearing to consider Resolution 1061-16, approval of a Variance to reduce the front yard setback for a parking lot; - Resolution 1062-16, consider a recommendation for approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Open and Outdoor Storage as an Accessory Use; - Resolution 1063-16, consider a recommendation for approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the Storage of Flammable Liquids over 800 gallons Above Ground. Introduction The City will be replacing its Public Works Facility in 2017 at the location of the current facility at 2466 Bronson Dr. A Development Review is required of the Site Plan (e.g. parking, landscaping, lighting, etc.). The proposed facility will require a Variance to reduce the front yard setback for a parking lot; a Conditional Use Permit for outside storage; and a Conditional Use Permit for above ground fuel tanks. The existing use of outside storage and above ground fuel tanks are non -conforming uses, thus, any expansion requires that they conform to current regulations. Discussion The Public Works Facility is located along Bronson Dr. on the north side of City Hall Park. The maintenance building was constructed in the mid -1960's, and an addition built in 1987. Originally used by the Police Department, Public Works moved in when the current City Hall and Police Department were built. The existing Public Works facility includes a number of buildings. Only the Maintenance building (12,256 sq ft existing), Cold Storage / Salt Storage building (4,800 sq ft existing) will be replaced. The new Maintenance Building will be 34,773 sq ft, and the Salt Storage Shed will be 1,600 sq ft. The new facility will be constructed in phases, allowing continued operation of the existing facility during construction. Planning Case MU2016-003 November 16, 2016 Page 2 Analysis: Development Review The Development Review process includes a review of the proposed site plan, building appearance, landscaping, and parking plans. The review allows the City Council to reduce landscaping and parking by 15%, under certain conditions. ZONING Existing Zoning: 1-1 Industrial Existing Comprehensive Plan: Institutional The existing and proposed buildings are classified as "Governmental and public utility building and structures", which is a permitted use in the 1-1 District.' Adjacent zoning and land use: Zoning Existing Land Use North: R-4 High -Density Residential Duplexes & Quadplexes East: 1-1 Industrial Public Works (water reservoir) South B-3 Highway Business City Hall Park (ballfield) West: B-3 Highway Business Retail (former Snyders) The County Road 10 Overlay District2 applies to all properties within 200' of Mounds View Blvd (Co Rd 10), unless the underlying district is zoned 1-1 Industrial. The Overlay District includes additional requirements, such as building facades consisting of a minimum of 50% masonry and a minimum of 15% of the site preserved as open space. Within the 1-1 Industrial District, there are no requirements for a building's exterior appearance. BUILDING FACADE The proposed building facade appearance is compliant with City Code. In general, the Maintenance Building is divided into three parts; office (masonry), cold -storage (metal panels), and maintenance garage (pre -fabricated masonry). Together, the building's fagade materials will consist of: North East South West (Bronson Dr) (MV Blvd) Concrete Wall Panel 36% 49% 68% 45% Metal Wall Panel 45% 41% 17% 26% Glazing (windows) 16% 4% 12% 28% Burnished Block - Insulated Block 3% i City Code, Section 1116.02 City Code 1129 1% 1% 6% 2% - Planning Case MU2016-003 November 16, 2016 Page 3 The Salt Shed will consist of three walls, including an 8' concrete lower wall, and cedar paneling above, ranging in height from 7' to 14'. Building height will be 35'4" for the Maintenance Building, and 21'- 9'/" for the Salt Storage Shed. The 1-1 District allows 3 -story buildings (+ 10' for rooftop equipment). BUILDING SETBACKS Proposed building setbacks are compliant with City Code (Variance is needed for north parking lot). Minimum Setbacks: Front Yard (north) Side Yard (west) Required Proposed Required Proposed Building(s) 40' 70'-2" 20' 64' Parking/driveway 40' 13'-2" 5' 16'-6" A_10IZ.YGL\Wli110 Most of the existing trees along Mounds View Blvd. will be removed and replaced with a storm -water retention basin. Existing trees along the ballfield fence will remain. The facility will be enclosed by an 8' tall chain-link fence (8' decorative wall in NE area). A fence in excess of 4' within the front yard requires approval by the City Council as part of a Development Review or Conditional Use Permit (the property has two front yards; Bronson Dr. and Mounds View Blvd). Proposed landscaping is compliant with City Code. Landscaping outside of the fence will include a row of over -story trees, in addition to shrubbery and ornamental trees in areas near pedestrian traffic, such as along Bronson Dr., the ballfield, trail along Mounds View Blvd., and adjacent to the former Snyder's drive-thru. Trees and shrubs will be mixed in variety. The over -story trees when planted will be 6' in height, and will grow 40'— 60' at maturity. Shrubbery along Bronson Dr. and other pedestrian areas will be 2' in height when planted, and will grow 3' at maturity. Sod will be installed near the administration office and along Bronson Dr. Other areas will be seeded. The amount of landscaping required is based on the building's size. The City Code allows landscaping to be reduced by 15% when located in the 1-1 District.3 3 City Code, Section 1127.05, Subd 3(e) Planning Case MU2016-003 November 16, 2016 Page 4 Minimum Landscaping: Min Req (with 15% reduction) Proposed Over -story deciduous tree 15 15 Over -story coniferous tree 15 15 Ornamental tree 15 15 Understory shrub 99 99 PARKING Parking as proposed is compliant with City Code, with the exception of the front yard setback along Bronson Dr. (40' required, 13'-2" proposed). The number of parking stalls may be reduced by 15% if approved by the City Council as part of a Development Review, contingent upon providing "proof of parking". The applicant proposes to provide proof of parking in the lot along Bronson Dr. This area will be preserved as a grass lawn. Specific to off-street parking requirements4, Staff has interpreted the Public Works Facility to be an "Office Building" and a "Warehouse'. Minimum Parking: Required with 15% Reduction Propose Office Building 27 stalls 23 stalls Warehouse 16 stalls 14 stalls TOTAL 43 stalls 37 stalls 38 stalls The parking lot along Bronson Dr. will include an unmarked paved area that could accommodate an additional 13 stalls, if striped. Required parking for office space is based on the size of the office floor area. Required parking for a Warehouse is based on the number of employees. EXTERIOR LIGHTING Exterior lighting as proposed is compliant with City Code. Light fixtures are required to be down -cast. Maximum required brightness is 0.4 foot-candles measured at a residential property line, and 1.0 foot-candles measured at the middle of a public street. The lighting plan does not indicate brightness at these locations, but does along the facility's property line, which ranges from 0.0 to 0.9 foot-candles. SIGNAGE No signage is proposed at this time. Any signage will need to comply with the City Code, and will be reviewed and approved administratively. City Code, Section 1121.13 Planning Case MU2016-003 November 16, 2016 Page 5 Analysis: Variance (Setback for Parking Lot) The minimum front yard setback for a parking lot in the 1-1 District is 40'. The applicant is requesting a Variance to reduce the setback to 13'-2" along Bronson Dr. This parking lot will serve vehicle maintenance garage bays. Because of the triangular shape of the site, alternatives are: (1) eliminate this parking lot, which would require a variance to reduce the number of stalls; or (2) replace the ballfield with a parking lot. This parking lot when not used for parking, will allow for maneuvering in and out of maintenance bays. The City Code includes seven criteria to be reviewed when considering a Variance. Staff's analysis of these criteria is included in Resolution 1061-16. In summary, the practical difficulty is that in order to comply with the parking lot setback requirements by flipping the building (and parking) orientation north -south, instead of east -west, would require the removal of the adjacent ballfield, thereby creating a detriment to the City's park system. Analysis: Conditional Use Permit (Outside Storage) Within the 1-1 District, a Conditional Use Permit is required for "Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use" .5 Outdoor Storage will be located: (1) south of the Salt Storage Building (mulch and gravel bins); and (2) south of the Maintenance Building (plow attachments, trailers, park equipment, misc. items). Outside storage must be screened by a solid fence or wall.6 The concrete mulch/gravel bins will be fenced, and screened by an 8' decretive wall along a portion of Bronson Dr.. The outside storage area south of the Maintenance Building will be screened from Mounds View Blvd. by trees (Black Hill Spruce, Scots Pine, Hawthorn). These trees will be 6' in height when planted, and grow to a height of 20' (Hawthorn) and 50' (pine trees). Analysis: Conditional Use Permit (Above Ground Fuel Tanks) Within the 1-1 District, a Conditional Use Permit is required for the "Storage of flammable liquids over 800 gallons above ground,.? The existing underground fuel tank will be removed, while the existing above ground tank will be moved to the southeast corn of the site, and a second tank added. Each tank will be 3,000 gallons. The City Code includes a set of criteria to be considered when reviewing a Conditional Use Permit. Staff's analysis of these criteria is included in Resolution 1062-16 (outside storage), and Resolution 1063-16 (above ground fuel tanks). s City Code, Section 1116.04, Subd 1 e City Code, Section 1103.08, Subd 6(b) City Code, Section 1116.04, Subd 9 Planning Case MU2016-003 November 16, 2016 Page 6 Summary The City will be replacing its Public Works Maintenance Building, Cold Storage, and Salt Shed with a new Maintenance Building and Salt Shed. The Facility will include screened outside storage of equipment and materials, and above ground fuel tanks, both requiring Conditional Use Permits. A Variance is necessary to reduce the setback for the north parking lot. Construction drawings are not complete, thus there may be changes to the building and site plans. However, this will not affect the applicable zoning permits. A Public Hearing notice for the Variance was published in the New Brighton -Mounds View Sun Focus on November 4, 2016, and mailed to property owners within 350' of the subject property, and to residents along Bronson Dr. across the street from the Public Works Facility. Staff received one phone call from the owner of Carmike Cinemas Wynnsong 15 (theater), who is supportive of the requests. Recommendation The Planning Commission is requested to consider the following options, including conducting a Public Hearing for the Variance request: 1. Resolution 1060-16, recommending approval of the Development Review; Resolution 1061-16, approving a Variance to reduce the front yard setback for a parking lot; Resolution 1062-16, recommending approval for a Conditional Use Permit for Open and Outdoor Storage as an Accessory Use; Resolution 1063-16, recommending approval for a Conditional Use Permit for the Storage of Flammable Liquids over 800 gallons Above Ground 2. The Planning Commission may choose to deny the Variance, and/or recommend to deny approval of the Development Review, and/or Conditional Use Permit(s). If the Commission chooses these options, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution(s) of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial(s). 3. Table the request(s). If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because both the applicant and grantor are the City, the City would administratively extend its 60 -day review period to 120 -days, to avoid an inadvertent approval by violating the 60 -Day review deadline (December 4, 2016). Planning Case MU2016-003 November 16, 2016 Page 7 Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Map 3. Site Photos 4. Resolution 1060-16 Development Review 5. Resolution 1061-16 Variance (front yard setback for parking lot) 6. Resolution 1062-16 Conditional Use Permit (outside storage) 7. Resolution 1063-16 Conditional Use Permit (above ground fuel tanks) 8. Applicant's Narrative (plan drawings) Planning Case MU2016-003 November 16, 2016 Page 8 n—z ZONING MAP n—i • AREAS NOT LABELED ARE R-1 DISTRICTS R-7 LIMITED BUSINESS HIGHWAY BUSINESS REGIONAL BUSINESS INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONSERVANCY, RECREATION & PRESERVATION LEGEND ZONING DISTRICTS •R -I SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL B-2 R-2 SINGLE h TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 0-3 R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL B -L R -A HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R-5 MOBILE HOME PF R-0 RESIDENTWL/OFFICE PUD 0-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS CRP • AREAS NOT LABELED ARE R-1 DISTRICTS R-7 LIMITED BUSINESS HIGHWAY BUSINESS REGIONAL BUSINESS INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONSERVANCY, RECREATION & PRESERVATION Planning Case MU2016-003 November 16, 2016 Page 9 AERIAL PHOTO Planning Case MU2016-003 November 16, 2016 Page 10 SITE PHOTOS Figure 1: Aerial photo (Google Maps) Figure 2: Bronson Dr, looking east, at NW corner of Maintenance Bldg. (Google Street View) Figure 3: Bronson Dr, looking west at NE corner of Maintenance Bldg parking lot (Google Street View) RESOLUTION No. 1060-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2466 BRONSON DR. (PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY); MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE MU2016-003 WHEREAS, the property owner, the City of Mounds View has requested approval of a Development Review to construct a new Public Works Facility. The property is located at 2466 Bronson Dr., Mounds View, MN, and legally described as: Lot 1, Block I of Mounds View City Hall Addition PID: 08-30-23-22-0042 WHEREAS, the above-described lands are zoned 1-1, Industrial, and designated as Institutional in the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code, Section 1103.08, Subd 3(a) permits the City Council to approve fencing up to ninety six inches (96") in height in a front yard to satisfy a buffer or screening condition of a development review or conditional use permit; and, WHEREAS, the subject property has a front yard located along Bronson Dr. and along Mounds View Blvd., and the property owner proposes to construct a fence, ninety-six inch (96") in height around the perimeter of the Public Works Facility, for security and screening purposes; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code, Section 1121.14 permits the City Council to approve a fifteen percent (15%) reduction in required parking, if proof of parking is provided, including preserving this area as undeveloped land; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is required to provide a minimum of 43 parking stalls, reduced to 37 parking stalls, and proposes to provide 38 parking stalls and proof of parking for a total of 60 parking stalls. The proof of parking area will be reserved as an undeveloped area; and, Resolution 1060-16 November 16, 2016 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code, Section 1127.06, Subd 3(e) permits the City Council to approve a fifteen percent (15%) reduction in landscaping requirements if the property is located in the I-1 District; and, WHEREAS, the property is located in the I-1 District, and the landscape plan, dated December 12, 2016 has been reviewed by City Staff, and found to be compliant with City Code, Section 1127.05 regarding minimum landscaping requirements; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Staff Report 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Map 4. Site Photos 5. Applicant's Narrative (plan drawings, dated Dec. 12, 2016, received Nov 7, 2016) WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission agrees with Staff's analysis of the Site Plan, and finds that the request complies with the Mounds View City Code, Section 1103.08, Subd 3 (Fencing); and Section 1121.14 (Reduced Parking); and Section 1127.05 (Landscaping); and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of a Development Review for property located at 2466 Bronson Dr., subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant may construct a fence not to exceed ninety-six inches (96") in height for screening and security, in a location consistent with the site plan, dated December 12, 2016. 2. The applicant shall construct a minimum of thirty-seven (37) parking stalls, and reserve a minimum of six (6) additional parking stalls as an undevelopable area, consistent with the site plan, dated December 12, 2016. 3. The applicant shall install landscaping consistent with the site plan, dated December 12, 2016. NOW THEREFORE, 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 16th day of November, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) RESOLUTION No. 1061-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM FORTY FEET TO THIRTEEN FEET — TWO INCHES, FOR A PARKING LOT, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2466 BRONSON DR. (PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY); MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE MU2016-003 WHEREAS, the property owner, the City of Mounds View, has requested approval of a Variance to reduce the front yard setback for a parking lot, from 40' to 13'-2". The property is located at 2466 Bronson Dr., Mounds View, MN, and legally described as: Lot 1, Block 1 of Mounds View City Hall Addition PID: 08-30-23-22-0042 WHEREAS, the above-described lands are zoned I-1, Industrial, and designated as Institutional in the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View City Code, Section 1104.01, Subd 4(c)(3)(a) requires a minimum front yard setback of 40' for parking areas in the I-1 District; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has requested to reduce the front yard setback from 40' to 13'-2" for a parking lot to be located along Bronson Dr.; and, WHREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Staff Report 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Map 4. Site Photos 5. Applicant's Narrative (plan drawings, dated Dec. 12, 2016, received Nov 7, 2016) WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission held a duly -noticed Public Hearing regarding this request on November 16, 2016; and, Resolution 1061-16 November 16, 2016 Page 2 WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 2 provides criteria for granting a Variance to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of the property owner's land. A Variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subd 2 are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient practical difficulty with regards to the property located at 2466 Bronson Dr., and makes the following findings of fact to its decision: a. The Variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. Finding: The Variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Code. b. The Variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; Finding: The Variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (2010); General Land Use Goal 4: Prevent development or redevelopment that does not have a sufficient level of supportive and service facilities (utilities, parking, access, etc.). Policy a. Ensure that the intensification of land use activity and development would have sufficient corresponding increase in related supportive and service facilities such as parks, off-street parking, loading, surface water management, etc. The requested Variance is specific to the proposed parking lot and undevelopable land to be reserved for proof of parking along Bronson Dr. An alternative to the requested Variance is to locate this parking lot on land currently occupied by City Hall Park. If park facilities were to be displaced, it would not be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Public Works Facility expansion, and its associated parking lot, is necessary to provide adequate public services to the community. C. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. Resolution 1061-16 November 16, 2016 Page 3 Finding: The use of the front yard for a parking lot on this property is a reasonable use, not permitted by the City of Mounds View City Code, Section 1104.01, Subd 4(c)(3)(a), regarding minimum parking lot setbacks. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property, which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Finding: The unique circumstances include the civic uses of this property, including the Public Works Facility, City Hall, and City Hall Park. Because of the limited availability of land, the least impact to parkland is to locate the parking lot within the Public Works Facility's front yard along Bronson Dr., requiring the Variance to the front yard setback. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Finding: The existing character of the neighborhood includes the use of this property as a Public Works Facility, including an existing parking lot that is set back 20' from the front property line (Bronson Dr.). The proposed parking lot to be set back 13'-2" from the property line will include additional landscape buffering that will enhance the appearance of the facility from neighboring residential uses. f The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical dififtulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Finding: The variance requested for a reduced parking lot setback is the minimum which would alleviate the practical difficulties of complying with the minimum number of parking stalls required by City Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the Variance request of the City of Mounds View (property owner) to reduce the front yard setback from 40' to 13'-2" along Bronson Dr. for property at 2466 Bronson Dr., subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall construct the parking lot in compliance with the Mounds View City Code, and consistent with plans dated December 12, 2016, received November 7, 2016. Resolution 1061-16 November 16, 2016 Page 4 Adopted this 16Th day of November, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) RESOLUTION No. 1062-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE AS AN ACCESSORY USE, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2466 BRONSON DR. (PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY); MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE MU2016-003 WHEREAS, the property owner, the City of Mounds View, has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit for open and outdoor storage as an accessory use. The property is located at 2466 Bronson Dr., Mounds View, MN, and legally described as: Lot 1, Block 1 of Mounds View City Hall Addition PID: 08-30-23-22-0042 WHEREAS, the above-described lands are zoned I-1, Industrial, and designated as Institutional in the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code, Section 1116.04, Subd 1 permits Open and Outdoor Storage as an Accessory Use within the I-1 District, with a Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Staff Report 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Map 4. Site Photos 5. Applicant's Narrative (plan drawings, dated Dec. 12, 2016, received Nov 7, 2016) WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council will hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing regarding this request on November 28, 2016; and, WHEREAS, according to the Mounds View City Code, Section 1125.01, Subd 3, the City Council is to review a standard set of criteria when considering a Conditional Use Permit, including making Findings; and, Resolution 1062-16 November 16, 2016 Page 2 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.01, Subd 3(b) are satisfied and makes the following Findings of Fact related to its decision: 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. Finding: The open and outdoor storage areas will have no burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities. 2. The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening ji-om 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. Finding: The open and outdoor storage areas will be screened from adjacent residentially zoned areas along Bronson Dr. by a solid decretive wall, the Public Works Maintenance building itself, and Salt Storage shed. Additional screening will include an 8' tall chain- link fence around the perimeter of the site. Additional screening will be proved by trees and shrubs. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. Finding: The proposed Public Works Facility expansion will improve the appearance of the existing facility. 4. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs oj'the City and to the existing land use. Finding: The need for open and outdoor storage at the Public Works Facility is necessary for the operation of the City. 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. Finding: The use of open and outdoor storage is consistent with the I-1 Zoning District, and with City Code, Section 1116.04, Subd I (Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use in the I-1 District). Resolution 1062-16 November 16, 2016 Page 3 6. The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Finding: The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan: Goal 2: The City will ensure that industrial development is compatible with adjacent land uses and that any such projects preserve desirable environmental features and natural amenities. Policy a. Industrial development most adequately provide for storm water drainage and surface water management. Policy b: The City will require buffering to protect adjacent and nearby residential neighborhoods from industrial land uses. Policy C. Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential land arses by industrial land arses. The open and outdoor storage areas will be located in about the same area as the current outdoor storage areas within the Public Works Facility. Storm water runoff from the open and outdoor storage areas will drain into a storm water retention pond adjacent to the facility, to be approved by the Public Works Director. The open and outdoor storage areas will be buffered from adjacent residential neighborhoods by vegetation (trees and shrubs), approved as part of a Development Review. Traffic generated by the Public Works Facility will access Bronson Dr. No additional traffic is expected from the Public Works Facility expansion. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. Finding: The open and outdoor storage area will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. 8. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Finding: Adequate drainage will be provided for the outside storage area by a storm water retention pond, to be approved by the Public Works Director. Utilities and access roads specific for this request (open and outside storage area) is not applicable. Resolution 1062-16 November 16, 2016 Page 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, recommends approval of a Conditional Use Permit for open and outdoor storage as an accessory use, as requested by the City of Mounds View (property owner) for property at 2466 Bronson Dr., subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall construct the open and outdoor storage areas in compliance with the Mounds View City Code, and consistent with plans dated December 12, 2016, received November 7, 2016. NOW THEREFORE, 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 16th day of November, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) RESOLUTION No. 1063-I6 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE STORAGE OF FLAMMABLE LIQUIEDS OVER 800 GALLONS ABOVE GROUND, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2466 BRONSON DR. (PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY); MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE MU2016-003 WHEREAS, the property owner, the City of Mounds View, has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the storage of flammable liquids over 800 gallons above ground. The property is located at 2466 Bronson Dr., Mounds View, MN, and legally described as: Lot 1, Block 1 of Mounds View City Hall Addition PID: 08-30-23-22-0042 WHEREAS, the above-described lands are zoned I-1, Industrial, and designated as Institutional in the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code, Section 1116.04, Subd 9 permits the storage of flammable liquids over 800 gallons above ground, with a Conditional Use Permit; and, WHEREAS, the applicant, the City of Mounds View, has requested a Conditional Use Permit to allow two (2) 3,000 gallon above ground fuel tanks; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Staff Report 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Map 4. Site Photos 5. Applicant's Narrative (plan drawings, dated Dec. 12, 2016, received Nov 7, 2016) WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council will hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing regarding this request on November 28, 2016; and, Resolution 1063-16 November 16, 2016 Page 2 WHEREAS, according to the Mounds View City Code, Section 1125.01, Subd 3, the City Council is to review a standard set of criteria when considering a Conditional Use Permit, including making Findings; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.01, Subd 3(b) are satisfied and makes the following Findings of Fact related to its decision: The use will not create an excessive burden on existingparks, schools, streets and other public.facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. Finding: The above ground fuel tanks will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets, and other public facilities and 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 Finding: The above ground fuel tanks will be located approximately 260' from the nearest residential property, and will be screened from residential properties by a solid decretive wall, the Public Works Maintenance building or Salt Storage shed, and by an 8' opaque fence and vegetation (trees and shrubs), approved through a Development Review. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. Finding: The two above ground fuel tanks will have an appearance similar to the existing above ground fuel tank on the property. 4. 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. Finding: The use of the above ground fuel tanks is related to the overall need of the Public Works Department in its service to the community. 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. Resolution 1063-16 November 16, 2016 Page 3 Finding: The use of the above ground fuel tanks is consistent with the I-1 Zoning District, and with City Code, Section 1116.04, Subd 9 (Storage of flammable liquids over 800 gallons above ground) within the I-1 District. 6. The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Finding: The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan: Goal 2: The City will ensure that industrial development is compatible with adjacent land uses and that any such projects preserve desirable environmental features and natural amenities. Policy b: The City will require buffering to protect adjacent and nearby residential neighborhoods from industrial land uses. The above ground fuel tanks will be buffered from the nearby residential neighborhood by an opaque fence, trees and shrubs approved through a Development Review, and by the placement of the Public Works Maintenance Building and Salt Storage Shed. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. Finding: The above ground fuel tanks will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. 8. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be Provided. Finding: Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities specific to the above ground fuel tanks is currently provided, or will be provided as part of the overall Public Works Facility expansion. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, recommends approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the storage of flammable liquids over 800 gallons above ground (two 3,000 gallon fuel tanks), as requested by the City of Mounds View (property owner) for property at 2466 Bronson Dr., subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall locate the above ground fuel tanks in compliance with the Mounds View City Code, and consistent with plans dated December 12, 2016, received November 7, 2016. Resolution 1063-16 November 16, 2016 Page 4 NOW THEREFORE, 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 16th day of November, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) ' TEL ARCHITECTS, LTD. 1'. BRONSON MME '� o'as�•� :.w�u� ss�m NORTH WEST OFFICE CORNER OFFICE ENTRY SITE ENTRY AT BRONSON DRIVE BRONSON DRIVE LANDSCAPE ELEVATION MOUNDS VIEW PUBLIC WORKS . u _ Gat> J• hl- � / _ � § , w .; y x _a_zm GCS ]\;k. d ! » Upi}pnl}sUp ai1`sy�ainMv o Lo gas aoj ION X �..• •. Vv/g N ,, .��,r,,.., M3IA SONnoW do ALIO t n.Mill w $ w 0 0 dL0 \ o �" mo ( »N � G a - x __ __a?DH \ -DRAFT - PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 5, 2016 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for October 5, 2016. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners French, Klander, Klebsch, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Planner Jon Sevald and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. Index to Minutes Page VR2016-04 Variance Request for a 30' Front Yard Setback 1 Approval of Minutes 6 3. Special Order of Business None. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2016 Regular Meeting Page 2 A. (Continued) Consider Resolution 1055-16, a Resolution approving/denying a Variance for a 30' front yard setback at 7790 Eastwood Road; Planning Case VR2016-04 Planner Sevald stated the applicant (Value Homes, LLC) is requesting a Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 54' to 30' to construct a single-family home at 7790 Eastwood Road. The minimum front yard setback in the R-1 district is 30' unless homes on the same side of the street have a greater setback (54' in this case). The request is due to the hardship of a private drainage easement reducing the developable area of the lot. The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on September 7, 2016, and continued the Hearing to September 21, 2016, taking no action. Planner Sevald explained the property at 7800 Eastwood Road was subdivided into two lots in March, 2016. The north lot includes an existing home, and the south lot is the subject property (7790 Eastwood Road). After the subdivision was approved, the developer conducted a Title Search, which revealed two private easements: (1) a 10' wide sidewalk easement in the SE corner of the lot; and (2) a 30' wide surface drainage & storm water easement along the south property line. Planner Sevald indicated the two easements are for the adjacent property, Silver Lake Commons apartments. As part of Silver Lake Common's Development Review in 1997, the City required the apartment owner to obtain a drainage easement from 7800 Eastwood Road. At that time, there was concern that expansion of the apartments would negatively affect the natural drainage flow from properties north of the apartments (1940 aerial photo suggests a drainage ditch flowed through these properties). An easement was obtained, but a storm water retention pond was never constructed within the easement, nor was a sidewalk. Planner Sevald reported prior to the Title Search, neither the developer nor the current property owner (Value Homes) knew about the easements. For a Minor Subdivision, a Title Search is not required prior to plat approval, but prior to recording the plat at Ramsey County (City Code, Section 1202.01, Subd 2(b). Due to the private drainage easement and the 54' front yard building setback requirement, the developable area of the lot is significantly reduced. Staff recommends approval of the Variance contingent upon complying with the conditions in Resolution 1055-16. It is Staff's opinion that the Variance request is reasonable considering that the location of the private drainage easement greatly reduces the developable area of the lot. Planner Sevald reviewed the seven criteria to be considered in granting a variance, stating that the Public Hearing has been opened and closed, and that it is up to the Chair if to accept comments from the public. Chair Stevenson stated that there are several questions with this case, and stated that he saw no reason to hold another Public Hearing given the fact there were no neighbors in attendance. Chair Stevenson recalled the concerns of the neighbors as discussed at the previous meetings and reviewed the shape of the subject lot noting the easements on site. He requested staff review the Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2016 Regular Meeting Page 3 developable area of the lot. Planner Sevald outlined the developable area on the survey, and reviewed it with the Planning Commission. Chair Stevenson expressed concern with losing the trees as a buffer to County Road 10, and the current 54' front yard setback, stating that the builder had indicated that no matter what, he could still build. Planner Sevald stated that the current lot is developable, but that the size of a house would be reduced. Chair Stevenson stated that the applicant explained previously how a home could be built within the reduced setback area, and expressed concern that this would be a rental unit, and was concerned that the treed buffer area would go away. He reviewed the size of the proposed home. Commissioner Love asked if the proposed home would be two levels. Erik 011estad, Value Homes, LLC, discussed the home he was proposing to build on the property at 7790 Eastwood Road. He commented on the trees that would be lost. Mr. 011estad questioned Commissioner Klebsch what was the goal of being against the variance. Chair Stevenson asked what is the footprint of the proposed home. Mr. 011estad referenced Commissioner Klebsch's previously stated concern that the variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Mr. 011estad displayed a photograph of a home in Blaine, similar to the one proposed to be built, stating that the house would be in- line with the 54' setback, but the attached garage would stick out in front of neighboring homes. Mr. 011estad then displayed photos of the interior of the home. Mr. 011estad displayed drawings of an alternative home plan that could fit on the lot without a variance, and described its appearance as not being in sync with the neighborhood. Mr. 011estad stated that the proposed home if granted a variance, did go with the characteristics of the neighborhood. He stated something is going to be built, and preferred to build the propose home. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned if the private easement has been discussed between the property owner and the adjacent property. Mr. 011estad reviewed conversations between himself and City Staff regarding reducing or revoking the easement. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned if the adjacent owners had discussed a price. Mr. 011estad responded, no, and that it was difficult to communicate with the owners. Mr. 011estad did not anticipate this issue would be resolved with the adjacent property owner. Chair Stevenson commented about the amount of trees in the easement area, and that the trees would serve as a buffer between the house and the apartments. Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2016 Regular Meeting Page 4 Commissioner Klebsch stated her concerns were still the same and had not been addressed. She appreciated a buffer of trees would remain in place, but did not understand why there was only two ways to build on this lot. She believed there were more options for the site. For this reason, she would not support the variance request. Mr. 011estad offered to sell the lot to Commissioner Klebsch. Commissioner Klebsch stated that was an inappropriate comment. Commissioner Schiltgen stated his agreement that it was inappropriate. Mr. 011estad expressed the difficulty with building on this lot, and his frustration with the way the Planning Commission had managed his request and was disappointed with the fact that he has had to come back to three meetings in order for the Commission to make a decision on his request. Chair Stevenson stated that the Commission has to look at what they want for this City, and asked if there was a motion. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 1055-16, a Resolution Approving of a Variance to Allow a 30 -Foot Front Yard Setback for a New Home at 7790 Eastwood Road; Planning Case No. VR2016-04. Commissioner Klander asked why the developer was not aware of the easement on the site. Planner Sevald described the differences between a major and minor subdivision and explained the developer was not required to complete a title search prior to plat approval, but prior to the plat being recorded. Commissioner Klander questioned when the drainage easement was put in place. Planner Sevald reported this took place in 1997. Commissioner Klander noted this was a private easement between two property owners, and asked if the City had any role. Planner Sevald affirmed that this is a private easement between two property owners. Commissioner Love believed it was unfortunate the developer did not find out about the easement until after purchasing the property. Chair Stevenson restated the motion. Ayes — 4 Nays — 3 (French, Klebsch, Love) Motion failed. Planner Sevald stated that five votes are needed to approve a variance, and reviewed the process if the applicant chose to appeal the Planning Commission's action. The Commission discussed the process further. Planner Sevald quoted a State Statute regarding when a motion for approval of a resolution fails, and requested comments, for the record, from those that opposed the Variance as Findings for Denial of the variance. Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2016 Regular Meeting Page 5 Chair Stevenson requested that those Commissioners who voted against the motion, state their reasons. Commissioner Love believed the Variance did not meet Item E stating that the variance would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Klebsch added that Item F was not being met. Commissioner French believed that a smaller home would fit on the site and found no hardship with the property. 6. Other Planning Activity None. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity Planner Sevald discussed upcoming planning cases. B. Staff Updates Planner Sevald provided the Commission with a handout on Roberts Rules of Order and affordable housing requirements. Commissioner Klebsch thanked staff for the information. She appreciated how staff provided information on affordable housing on a regional level. C. Council Updates Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He commented on the City's water quality and its treatment plants. He discussed the recent meeting held by the Charter Commission and noted the Council has been working on the 2017 budget and tax levy. He explained the Council approved an EDA and HRA tax levy for 2017. He was pleased to report the City would be receiving two sound walls in conjunction with the I -35W MnPASS project. He discussed the recent candidate forum. Council Member Meehlhause encouraged everyone to visit the Festival in the Park Craft Fair at the Community Center on Sunday, October 9th. He invited the public to attend the Mounds View Lion's Annual Spaghetti Dinner at the VFW in Spring Lake Park on Thursday, October 13th from 4:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. He indicated the Mounds View Lions would be holding a Waffle Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2016 Regular Meeting Page 6 Breakfast on Saturday, October 29°i at the Community Center from 8:30 to 11:30 a.m. and invited families to stick around to attend the Fall Family Festival. D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 8. Approval of Minutes September 21, 2016. Commissioner Klander requested the applicant's last name be spelled corrected. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Klebsch. To approve the Minutes of the September 21, 2016 regular Planning Commission meetings as amended. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, October 19, 2016 B. Wednesday, November 2, 2016 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald Planner Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off' Site Secretarial, Inc. -DRAFT - PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 19, 2016 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Love at 7:00 p.m. for October 19, 2016. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners French, Klander, Klebsch, Love, and Rundle. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Schiltgen and Stevenson. Also Present: Planner Jon Sevald and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. Index to Minutes Page Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage 2 Review of a Preliminary Administrative Variance 3 Approval of Minutes 4 3. Special Order of Business None. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 5. Planning Cases October 19, 2016 Page 2 A. Consider Resolution 1057-16, recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized garage; and (Public Hearing) consider Resolution 1058-16 a Variance to the side yard setback at 7715 Eastwood Road; Planning Case MU2016-002 Planner Sevald stated the applicant, Cindy Brown, has applied for a building permit to add a second floor onto the home and an addition onto the existing two -car attached garage. The garage addition will exceed the maximum size permitted for an accessory building, unless a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is approved. Additionally, the existing garage is setback 4P-6" from the side yard property line, whereas a minimum of 5' is required. The proposed garage addition would continue this 6" encroachment, requiring a Variance. Staff reviewed the conditional use permit and variance requests in detail with the Commission and recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional use permit, and hold a public hearing and approve the variance, as requested. Commissioner Klander asked if the garage would be moving closer to the side yard setback. Planner Sevald reported the garage would remain four feet six inches from the side property line. Vice Chair Love opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. Commissioner Klander questioned if the space above the garage would be used for living space or for garage storage. Planner Sevald explained this space would be used as living space. Commissioner Klander asked if the City received any feedback from the neighbors regarding the variance and conditional use permit request. Planner Sevald indicated he received no comments from the neighbors. Cindy Brown, 7715 Eastwood Road, stated she spoke with her neighbors regarding the addition and they were not opposed to the addition. Commissioner Klebsch inquired when the addition would be completed. Ms. Brown anticipated the addition would be completed by December 15 t. Vice Chair Love closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Klander. To approve Resolution 1057-16, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized garage at 7715 Eastwood Road; Planning Case No. MU2016-002. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting October 19, 2016 Page 3 MOTION/SECOND: _ Commissioner Klander/Commissioner Klebsch. To approve Resolution 1058-16, a Resolution Approving a Variance for a Reduced Side Yard Setback at 7715 Eastwood Road; Planning Case No. MU2016-002. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. B. Resolution 1059-16, Review of a Preliminary Administrative Variance at 7801 Eastwood Road; Planning Case AV2016-001 Planner Sevald stated the applicant, Chad Born of Born Construction, has applied for an Administrative Variance to construct a 5' X 5' covered front stoop (porch) for property located at 7801 Eastwood Road. The stoop is to replace an existing concrete stoop (no roof), and will be set back 40' from the front property line, whereas a minimum 45' is required. Staff recommended the Planning Commission approve the administrative variance as requested. Vice Chair Love asked if all administrative variances were required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Planner Sevald stated this was the case. Commissioner Klebsch questioned why an administrative variance was being requested instead of a regular variance. Planner Sevald explained this was based on staff s recommendation. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Klebsch. To approve Resolution 1059-16, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Administrative Variance for a Forty Foot Front Yard Setback for a Covered Stoop at 7801 Eastwood Road; Planning Case No. VR2016- 001. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 6. Other Planning Activity None. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity Planner Sevald discussed upcoming planning cases noting the Commission would be reviewing a request for the Public Works building expansion. B. Staff Updates Mounds View Planning Commission October 19, 2016 Regular Meeting Page 4 Planner Sevald provided the Commission with an update from staff. It was noted the City was seeking a developer for the Crossroad Pointe redevelopment site. C. Council Updates Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He reported a building alteration and maintenance contract was approved for the Community Center. He discussed the alterations that would occur for the Random Park shelter. D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. S. Approval of Minutes October 5, 2016 Commissioner Klebsch expressed concern with the way the developer's comments had not been entered into the minutes. She requested staff address this matter to ensure that the developer's comments were made a part of the public record. Planner Sevald recommended approval of the minutes be delayed in order to allow staff time to review the meeting and have these comments added into the minutes. Commissioner Klander stated he had this same concern and was pleased that staff would be adding in the developer's comments. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, November 2, 2016 B. Wednesday, November 16, 2016 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chair Love adjourned the meeting at 7:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Jon Sevald Planner Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver OffSite Secretarial, Inc. October 19, 2016 Page 5 • 0 Molmis ViE-v PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA December 21, 2016 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business (none) 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. (None) 6. Other Planning Activity A. Resolution 1064-16, a Resolution Approving 2017 Planning Commission meeting dates. 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity i. Jan 4 Appointment of Chairperson, Vice -Chairperson ii Feb 1 Review of Planning Commission Bylaws B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 8. Approval of Minutes: November 16, 2016 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, January 4, 2017 B. Wednesday, January 18, 2017 10. Meeting Conclusion MOUNDS VIEW of Mounds View Staff Item No: 6A Meeting Date: Dec 21, 2016 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Item Title/Subject: Resolution 1064-16, Approving 2017 Planning Commission meeting dates. Introduction The Mounds View City Code requires that the Planning Commission set its regular meeting schedule for the following year. Historically, these meetings are held on the First and Third Wednesday of the month. Staff has reviewed the 2017 Federal Holiday Schedule, to include the following: Monday January 2, 2017 Monday January 16, 2017 Monday February 20, 2017 Monday May 29, 2017 Tuesday July 4, 2017 Monday September 4, 2017 Monday October 9, 2017 Friday November 10, 2017 Thursday November 23, 2017 Monday December 25, 2017 New Year's Day (observed) Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. Washington's Birthday Memorial Day Independence Day Labor Day Columbus Day Veterans Day (observed) Thanksgiving Day Christmas Day Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold its 2017 Regular Meetings on the First and Third Wednesday of the month, at 7:00 PM, with the specific dates listed in Resolution 1064-16. Respectfully submitted, 9+ Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments 1. 2017 Calendar 2. Resolution 1064-16 2017 Calendar January March April June July August I October I I November I I December I RESOLUTION No. 1064-16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION SCHEDULING THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATES AND TIMES FOR THE YEAR 2017. WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View City Code, Section 401.06, Subd 2 states that Regular meetings shall be held for the purposes of convening public hearings and conducting business which requires a vote of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission shall hold at least one (1) regular meeting each month on a day and at a time and a place which the Commission shall fix by resolution; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has historically held its regular meetings on the first and third Wednesday of the month, at 7:00 PM; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission will hold its Regular Meetings on the following dates, at 7:00 PM: Wednesday January 4, 2017 Wednesday July 5, 2017 Wednesday January 18, 2017 Wednesday July 19, 2017 Wednesday February 1, 2017 Wednesday August 2, 2017 Wednesday February 15, 2017 Wednesday August 16, 2017 Wednesday March 1, 2017 Wednesday September 6, 2017 Wednesday March 15, 2017 Wednesday September 20, 2017 Wednesday April 5, 2017 Wednesday October 4, 2017 Wednesday April 19, 2017 Wednesday October 18, 2017 Wednesday May 3, 2017 Wednesday November 1, 2017 Wednesday May 17, 2017 Wednesday November 15, 2017 Wednesday June 7, 2017 Wednesday December 6, 2017 Wednesday June 21, 2017 Wednesday December 20, 2017 Adopted this 21" day of December, 2016. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) DRAFT PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 16, 2016 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for November 16, 2016. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners French, Klander, Klebsch, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Planner Jon Sevald and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. Lidex to Minutes Page Development Review for the Public Works Facility Expansion: 2 Variance to reduce the front yard setback for a parking lot, Conditional Use Permit for Open and Outdoor Storage as an Accessory Use and Conditional Use Permit for the Storage of Flammable Liquids over 800 Gallons above ground at 2466 Bronson Drive Approval of Minutes 3. Special Order of Business None. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 7 Mounds View Planning Commission November 16, 2016 Regular Meeting Page 2 5. Planning Cases A. Resolution 1060-16, Consideration of a Recommendation for approval of a Development Review of the Public Works Facility expansion for property at 2466 Bronson Drive (Planning Case MU2016-003). Planner Sevald stated the City will be replacing its Public Works Facility in 2017 at the location of the current facility at 2466 Bronson Drive. A Development Review is required of the Site Plan (e.g. parking, landscaping, lighting, etc.). The proposed facility will require a Variance to reduce the front yard setback for a parking lot; a Conditional Use Permit for outside storage; and a Conditional Use Permit for above ground fuel tanks. Planner Sevald reported the Public Works Facility is located along Bronson Drive on the north side of City Hall Park. The maintenance building was constructed in the mid -1960's, and an addition was built in 1987. Originally used by the Police Department, Public Works moved in when the current City Hall and Police Department were built. The existing Public Works facility includes a number of buildings. Only the Maintenance building (12,256 sq. ft. existing), Cold Storage/Salt Storage building (4,800 sq. ft. existing) will be replaced. The new Maintenance Building will be 34,773 sq. ft., and the Salt Storage Shed will be 1,600 sq. ft. The new facility will be constructed in phases, allowing continued operation of the existing facility during construction. The parking requirements for the new facility was reviewed in detail. Staff provided further comment on the Development Review and recommended approval. Chair Stevenson asked for comment from Public Works Director Erickson on the new Public Works facility. Public Works Director Erickson thanked the Commission for their time and thanked Planner Sevald for his thorough staff report. He reviewed pictures from inside the current Public Works Facility to note its cramped condition. Photographs of items being stored outdoors was commented on, along with the location of the existing fuel tank. He then discussed the new facility that would be constructed. Staff anticipated construction would take 14 to 16 months to complete. Commissioner Love questioned if the new facility would have a sidewalk. Public Works Director Erickson reported no sidewalk was being proposed, but the trail would remain in place. Commissioner Love requested further comment on the landscaping plan. Public Works Director Erickson reviewed the landscaping plan in further detail. Commissioner Love inquired if the Public Works Facility office would be open to the public. Public Works Director Erickson indicated this would be apublic office. Mounds View Planning Commission November 16, 2016 Regular Meeting Page 3 Commissioner Love asked if the retention pond would be an inviting area for walkers along the trail. Public Works Director Erickson reported this pond area would be used more for infiltration than for standing water. Commissioner Love questioned when construction would begin. Public Works Director Erickson stated construction would begin in the spring of 2017. Commissioner Klebsch inquired if the adjacent soccer fields would be impacted. Public Works Director Erickson explained the soccer fields would not be impacted through this project. Commissioner Klebsch asked if the baseball field would be unusable if the retention pond was full of water. Public Works Director Erickson commented the intent of the retention pond was to only have water standing in this area for three days. He did not anticipate the retention pond would impact the baseball fields in any manner. Commissioner Klander questioned how many public works employees would be working out of the new facility on a daily basis. Public Works Director Erickson stated there would be 10 to 12 Public Works employees working out of the new facility. Commissioner Klander inquired why the Public Works Facility would have up to 60 parking stalls. Planner Sevald commented on the City's parking requirements for warehouse/office buildings. Further discussion ensued regarding the parking needs and traffic that would be flowing through the Public Works Facility. Commissioner Klander asked if a letter was sent to adjacent property owners. Planner Sevald reported staff had sent about 60 Public Hearing notices to neighboring property owners, and residents along Bronson Dr. Commissioner Klander questioned when plans were drawn up for the Public Works Facility. Public Works Director Erickson stated staff began wonting on the plans in May and believed the plans would be complete in early 2017. Commissioner Klander asked if the City had considered another location for the salt storage. Public Works Director Erickson commented staff has not considered another location due to the fact this was an operational function for Public Works. Commissioner Klander inquired if the individuals that designed the building was aware of the City's 40 -foot setback requirement. Planner Sevald explained that even if the parking lot were eliminated along this side of the building, a variance would still be needed for a paved area to get vehicles in and out of the Public Works Facility. Commissioner Klebsch requested further information regarding the height of the trees that would be planted along Bronson Drive. Planner Sevald reviewed the tree species with the Commission and noted the trees would grow to approximately 20 to 25 feet in height. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting November 16, 2016 Page 4 Commissioner Klebsch recommended the shrubs be removed from this area and that a hedge be planted in its place to assist with providing additional screening of the fence. She believed this would assist with addressing the setback issue. Public Works Director Erickson stated staff could look into this further. Commissioner Love suggested arborvitae be considered for the hedge. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner French. To approve Resolution 1060-16, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Development Review for the property located at 2466 Bronson Drive; Planning Case No. MU2016-003. Commissioner Klebsch asked why a stormwater retention pond was being added. Public Work Director Erickson explained this was a requirement from the watershed district. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 1061-16, approval of a Variance to reduce the front yard setback for a parking lot at 2466 Bronson Drive Planner Sevald stated the minimum front yard setback for a parking lot in the 1-1 District is 40'. The applicant is requesting a Variance to reduce the setback to 13'-2" along Bronson Drive. It was noted this parking lot will serve vehicle maintenance garage bays. Because of the triangular shape of the site, alternatives are: (1) eliminate this parking lot, which would require a variance to reduce the number of stalls; or (2) replace the ballfield with a parking lot. This parking lot when not used for parking, will allow for maneuvering in and out of maintenance bays. Planner Sevald reported City Code includes seven criteria to be reviewed when considering a Variance. Staffs analysis of these criteria is included in Resolution 1061-16. In summary, the practical difficulty is that in order to comply with the parking lot setback requirements by flipping the building (and parking) orientation north -south, instead of east -west, would require the removal of the adjacent ballfield, thereby creating a detriment to the City's park system. Staff reviewed the Variance requirements in further detail and recommended the Commission hold a public hearing and recommend approval. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. Commissioner Schiltgen asked if staff received any comment from the public regarding the variance request. Planner Sevald reported he only received one response from the public, that being from the movie theater. Commissioner Klander believed the variance request put the Commission in a tough spot given the fact the City was the applicant. He was not satisfied that the City has worked to minimize the impact of the variance. However, he also did not want the City to incur additional expenses to modify the plans. IIe stated that he could support the plans if additional buffering was provided along Bronson Drive as suggested by the Commission. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. November 16, 2016 Page 5 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Love/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolution 1061-16, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance to reduce the front yard setback for a parking lot at 2466 Bronson Drive; Planning Case No. MU2016-003. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Resolution 1062-16, Consideration of a recommendation for approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Open and Outdoor Storage as an Accessory Use for property at 2466 Bronson Drive. Planner Sevald stated within the I-1 District, a Conditional Use Permit is required for "Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use". It was noted outdoor storage will be located: (1) south of the Salt Storage Building (mulch and gravel bins); and (2) south of the Maintenance Building (plow attachments, trailers, park equipment, mise. items). Outside storage must be screened by a solid fence or wall. The concrete mulch/gravel bins will be fenced, and screened by an 8' decretive wall along a portion of Bronson Drive. The outside storage area south of the Maintenance Building will be screened from Mounds View Boulevard by trees (Black Hill Spruce, Scots Pine, Hawthorn). These trees will be 6' in height when planted, and grow to a height of 20' (Hawthorn) and 50' (pine trees). Staff reviewed the request in further detail and recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit for open and outdoor storage as an accessory use. Commissioner Klebsch requested Public Works staff not park vehicles and equipment in plain view of the baseball field spectators. Public Works Director Erickson stated an opaque fence could be considered for this diagonal length. Commissioner Schiltgen asked if there would be a great deal of equipment still being stored outdoors after the new facility was constructed. Public Works Director Erickson indicated several trailers and other miscellaneous playground/sports equipment would still be parked outdoors. Commissioner Klebsch questioned if the City would be held accountable if this outdoor storage area were to get out of hand. Public Works Director Erickson stated the City would be held accountable for this space. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Klebsch. To approve Resolution 1062-16, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Open and Outdoor Storage as an Accessory Use; Planning Case No. MU2016-003. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission November 16, 2016 Regular Meeting Page 6 Resolution 1063-16, Consideration of a recommendation for approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the Storage of Flammable Liquids Over 800 Gallons Above Ground for property at 2466 Bronson Drive. Planner Sevald stated Within the 1-1 District, a Conditional Use Permit is required for the "Storage of flammable liquids over 800 gallons above ground". The existing underground fuel tank will be removed, while the existing above ground tank will be moved to the southeast corner of the site, and a second tank added. Each tank will be 3,000 gallons. The City Code includes a set of criteria to be considered when reviewing a Conditional Use Permit. Staff's analysis of these criteria is included in Resolution 1062-16 (outside storage), and Resolution 1063-16 (above ground fuel tanks). Staff reviewed the request in further detail and recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Storage of Flammable Liquids. Commissioner Love asked what type of mitigation would be needed to remove the existing underground storage tank:. Public Works Director Erickson explained the tank would be removed and any type of soil mitigation would be completed, as necessary. He stated he would know more once the tank was removed from the ground. Commissioner Klander asked if a Phase I or Phase II environmental study was completed for this project. Public Works Director Erickson stated he would have to investigate if this was completed previously. Commissioner Klebsch requested staff correct the spelling of liquids on the Resolution. MOTION/SECOND: Chair Stevenson/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 1063-16, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the Storage of Flammable Liquids over 800 Gallons Above Ground; Planning Case No. MU2016-003. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried 6. Other Planning Activity None. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity Planner Sevald discussed the new plans for Crossroad Pointe with the Commission. It was noted this property was approximately 4 acres in size, between the two properties. Further discussion ensued regarding a potential pocket neighborhood for this site. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting B. Staff Updates November 16, 2016 Page 7 Planner Sevald provided the Commission with an update from staff. He reported Value Homes was working to draft new plans for their property on Eastwood Road that would not require a variance. C. Council Updates Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He discussed the Crossroad Pointe project noting The Beard Group could not pull together the necessary financing which has led the City to pursue new options. He reported the Council has been reviewing the financing and project plans for the new Public Works Facility at their recent meetings. He noted the new building would be financed through bonds. He commented on the recent contribution Bethlehem Baptist made to the City and described how these funds would benefit the entire community. He explained the City Council would be holding a Truth in Taxation meeting on December 6th at 6:00 p.m. D. Planning Commissioner Reports Chair Stevenson invited all to attend the Mounds View Lions Club Waffle Breakfast at Edgewood Middle School on Sunday, December 4th from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 8. Approval of Minutes October 5, 2016. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Love/Commissioner Klander. To approve the Minutes of the October 5, 2016 regular Planning Commission meetings as presented. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. October 19, 2016. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Klebsch/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the Minutes of the October 19, 2016 regular Planning Commission meetings as presented. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, December 7, 2016 Mounds View Planning Commission November 16, 2016 Regular Meeting Page 8 B. Wednesday, December 21, 2016 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald Planner Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. P e 0