Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 Planning Commission PacketsM S VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 5, 2011 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business A. Oath of Office for re -appointed Commissioner B. Election of Officers — Chair and Vice -Chair 4. Approval of Minutes: A. November 17, 2010 5. 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.) 6. Planning Cases None 7. Other Planning Activity A. Resolution 936-11, B-2, Limited Business Zoning District Amendments B. Review Bylaws 8: Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. January 19, 2011 B. February2, 2011 9. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. December 15, 2010 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion edu . City of Mounds View Staff Report Item No: 6A Meeting Date: January 5 2011 Type of Business: Other Planning Activitv To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Amending Chapter 1113 by Adding More Permitted and Conditional Uses to the B-2, Limited Business Zoning District At the December 15, 2010 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed the recommended amendments to the allowed and conditional uses in the B-2 zoning code. The Planning Commission agreed to the changes, and made a motion to approve the amendments. Staff has now drafted a resolution for the Commission to act on in support of the amendments to Chapter 1113 of the Zoning Code. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 936-11, amending Chapter 1113, B-2 Zoning District, in the Mounds View Zoning Code. Sincerely, CAkwal(-. Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments 1. Resolution 936-11 It [oil]�I-11PAVIATirl11wi0l&lff� CC] RESOLUTION NO. 93611 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 1113 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE TO ADD ADDITIONAL PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES TO THE B-2, LIMITED BUSINESS, ZONING DISTRICT; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE 174-10 WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that more types of uses be added to the B- 2, Limited Business District, Chapter 1113, of the Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission agrees with the City Staff recommendation to add more types of uses to the B-2, Limited Business District, Chapter 1113, of the Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Chapter 1113 of the Mounds View Zoning Code by deleting thesE:asken language and adding the underlined text as follows: Chapter 1113.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a B-2 District: All permitted uses as allowed in a B-1 Neighborhood Business District Subd. 2. Retail: Limited retail uses which have, as the principle use, sales with warehousing or display secondary to that use. Adult establishment as defined and regulated in Chapter 513 of the Municipal Code. (Ord. 574, 5-13-96) All permitted uses as allowed in the B-1 Neighborhood Business Districts. Antique shop. Art and school supplies. Auto accessory or motor vehicle parts store with no repairs, installations or service work done on any motor vehicles on site, and with no outside sales or storage. Bakery goods and baking of goods for retail sales on the premises. Bicycle sales and repair. Books or stationery stores. Res 936-11 Page 2 Camera and photographic supplies. Candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts and soft drinks. Coin and philatelic stores. Costume, clothes rental. Delicatessen. Drugstore. Fabric store. Florist shop. Frozen food store but not including a locker plant. Furniture showroom without warehousing. Furriers when conducted only for retail trade on premises. Gift or novelty store. Hardware store. Hobby store, including handicraft classes but not to exceed fifteen (15) students. Ice sales with storage not to exceed five (5) tons. Jewelry stores and watch repair. Leather goods and luggage stores. Liquor, off -sale. Meat market but not including processing for a locker plant. Office supplies and equipment. Plumbing, television, radio, electrical sales and such repair as are accessory use to the retail establishments permitted within this District. Record/music shops. Res 936-11 Page 3 Restaurant cafe and tea room with a maximum of 24 seats and 2.000 square feet in 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. Rugs, carpet, tile, paint and wallpaper sales. Shoe stores. Small appliance sales and service. Sporting goods store. Tailor shops. Toy stores. Video rental, sales and service. Wearing apparel. (Ord. 452, 2-27-89; Ord. 487, 6-25-90) 1113.04: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a B-2 District (requiring a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title): Subd 10 Restaurants cafes and tea rooms with more than 24 seats and/or 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. WHEREAS, amending the Zoning Code to add more types of permitted uses in the B-2, Limited Business, district will further the purpose of the zoning district, would better serve the public and would clarify the zoning requirements; and, 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 an amendment to Chapter 1113 of the Mounds View Zoning Code to add more permitted uses as defined herein. Res 936-11 Page 4 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 5`h day of January, 2011. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: Kenneth Roberts, Community Development Director (SEAL) of Mounds View ,Staff Item No: 0 Meeting Date: January 5 2011 Type of Business: Commission Business To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate 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. Discussion: The Planning Commission should review the attached Bylaws. Staff is not proposing any changes to the Bylaws. The Planning Commission reviewed and slightly amended the Bylaws 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, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachment 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.) II. ADOPTION OF BYLAWS; REVIEW AND AMENDMENT: A. ADOPTIONAND 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. IV. OFFICERS A. OFFICERS NAMED: The officers of the Planning Commission shall consist of a chairperson and vice -chairperson. The Commission may create and fill such other offices from its members, as it may determine, to transact Commission business. In addition, the Director of Community Development, or his or her designee, shall act as the recording secretary for the Commission for purpose of preparing meeting minutes. City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 2 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. 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. 3. Special Meetings: From time to time, special meetings may be called in order to process significant caseloads, to review works in progress such as comprehensive plan updates or municipal code revisions, or to undertake a retreat or strategic planning session, either amongst itself or in the company of the City Council or other commissions. Special meetings can be proposed by any Commission member or at the request of the Director of Community Development, 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 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 in accordance with State Statutes. Planning Commission members shall be City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 4 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 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.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 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. VII. INFORMATIONAL PACKETS: Each Commissioner shall receive a staff report, plans City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 5 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. 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 Ken Roberts, Community Development Director Revision History: January24, 2007 September 1, 2004 February 21, 2001 February 2, 2000 March 5, 1997 February 3, 1993 October 1990 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting December 15, 2010 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. December 15, 2010. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Miller and Smith. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller Index to Minutes Page B-2, Limited Business Zoning District Amendments 2 3. Approval of Minutes November 3, 2010 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Meehlhause. To approve the minutes of the November 3, 2010 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 5. Planning Cases None. 6. Other Planning Activity December 15, 2010 Page 2 A. B-2, Limited Business Zoning District Amendments Planning Associate Heller stated that after the last Planning Commission meeting, City Staff discussed with the City Council the idea of adding more permitted and conditional uses to the 13- 2 zoning district, including restaurants. The City Council was supportive of the ideas and directed staff to precede with the zoning code amendments. She indicated the amendments include adding the permitted uses of a small restaurant with a maximum of 24 seats and 2,000 square feet in floor area, and auto accessory or parts store with no repairs. The conditional use added would be restaurants with more than 24 seats and/or 2,000 square feet in floor area with no drive thru or pick up window. Chair Stevenson questioned if the corvette accessory shop in Silver View Plaza is in compliance with the zoning code. Planning Associate Heller indicated that the tenant had done a lot of remodeling work to the space before the City was aware of the construction or that a new tenant was moving in. They had not applied for a building permit, which is usually when City Staff learns about new tenants, nor had the property owner asked the City if that use was allowed before leasing the space. Motion from Chair Stevenson to support the amended code as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Meehlhause. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. January 5, 2011 B. January 19, 2011 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:11 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission December 1S, 2010 Regular Meeting Page 3 (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Ken Roberts Community Development Director Transcribed by: Barbara Suciu TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. M®UNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA March 16, 2011 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: December 15, 2010 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. IU2011-001 Interim Use Permit for a Temporary Tent at the Mermaid Applicant: Mike Anderson, Mermaid Acquisition Group, Inc. Address: 2200 County Highway 10 6. Other Planning Activity None 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. April 6, 2011 B. April 20, 2011 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. January 5, 2010 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion of Mounds View Staff Item No: 5A Meeting Date: March 16 2011 Type of Business: Action To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of an Interim Use Permit for a Temporary Outdoor Membrane Structure Introduction: The Mermaid Acquisition Group, represented by Mike Anderson, has applied to the City for an Interim Use Permit (IUP) to install a temporary outdoor membrane structure (a tent) at the Mermaid. The Mermaid Acquisition Group is part of Anderson Companies, a 30 -year old Woodbury -based business that owns several other bowling alleys in Minnesota. Background: In 2003, after the completion of the Americlnn Hotel and the renovation of their existing facility, the Mermaid erected a temporary outdoor membrane structure for banquets, receptions and other events. When the Mermaid first installed the tent the City did not have any zoning regulations to address such a structure. As is typically the case in Zoning Codes, the absence of an allowance or an approved land use constitutes a disallowance. In 2004, the City adopted new provisions for temporary tent structures in business zoned districts, and created an Interim Use Permit (IUP). In March 2005 and again in 2010 the City Council approved a 5 -year Interim Use Permit for the Mermaid's owner (Dan Hall) to have the temporary tent. As of 2011, the Mermaid has new owners, and the current resolution of approval for the IUP states that the approval is void if the ownership changes. Discussion: The process for reviewing and approving an interim use permit (IUP) for a temporary outdoor membrane structure is the same as the process for considering a conditional use permit. That process includes staff scheduling a public hearing and sending notices to property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel. The specific requirements of the approval process (from the City Code) are: 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 is required for this temporary structure. At the time of fire permit application, the fire marshal will review the application and tent material information, and conduct an inspection post erection. Mermaid IUP Report Page 2 2. The property owner shall annually apply for a Zoning Permit, the duration of which cannot exceed 180 days. The temporary tent can only be erected for a maximum of 180 days per year as stated in the International Building Code. The City and the State consider a structure in use for longer than 180 days a permanent building that would need to meet all building and fire codes. 3. Adequate parking to accommodate the occupancy shall be provided at a ratio of one parking space per 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 Mermaid's overall parking demands are satisfied with the available parking and thus the City does not need to require any additional parking this time. 4. 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 is and has been located in a courtyard area that is separate from the parking lot. The Mermaid's tent structure is anchored to a concrete pad so the placement is the same every year and does not violate any setbacks. 5. 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 does not encroach into any required setback area. 6. The tent or membrane structure shall be limited in size to 5,000 square feet or 10 percent of the principal buildings' square footage, whichever is less. The tent is 4,200 square feet and is much less than ten percent of the Mermaid floor area. 7. The membrane or cover shall be constructed of a durable reinforced material to withstand wind and snowloads. There have been no problems with the tent's reinforced membrane cover to date. The membrane is removed during winter months. 8. The structure shall be anchored to the ground. The tent structure is anchored to the ground as the Code requires. 9. The tent or membrane structure shall be maintained in a good condition. Deficiencies shall be corrected as soon as practicable. Staff has included this condition in the resolution recommending approval. Mermaid 1UP Report Page 3 10.The IUP can be reviewed at any time by the City if problems arise which would necessitate revision or termination of the IUP. Staff has included this condition in the resolution. 11.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-year period, or if the property undergoes a change of ownership. Again, staff has included this condition in the resolution. Chapter 1125 Considerations: Ordinance 735 indicates that the City may review an IUP application for a tent similarly to a conditional use permit as articulated in Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code. The chapter requires the Planning Commission to review and address any potential adverse effects that include, but are not limited to, relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use. Staff has listed each of these potential adverse effects below along with responses. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. Having an outdoor temporary membrane structure at the Mermaid would not be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, which guides this parcel as regional commercial planned unit development. The Geographical Area Involved. The applicant's property is part of a nine -acre site with a variety of land uses. The general topography of the site is gently sloping to the south with little variation. The stormwater from the site is routed to a regional stormwater pond west of the Mermaid on the north side of County Road H. Depreciation. Staff is not aware of any property depreciation because of the tent's existence. The Character of the Surrounding Area. The site is prominently located at the corner of County Road 10 and County Road H. The tent, however, is located within a courtyard area and is screened from all sides but the front by the Mermaid and Americlnn buildings. All of the uses in the general area are commercial or retail with the exception of the Rice Creek Corridor and Ramsey County open space to the south. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant has indicated there is a need for the tent because he is better able to serve his clientele and attract different types of events by having the tent available. The tent has been successful for the Mermaid for over seven years. Mermaid iUP Report Page 3 Summary: The Mermaid has installed the tent in previous years without any issue from a zoning perspective while satisfying all of the ordinance and code requirements. City staff believes the City could approve the request for the same five year time period as has been done in the past, as the owner and operator satisfy all the annual conditions. Due to the new ownership, the Planning Commission may want to consider a shorter time period to make sure there are no problems. The Anderson Companies are not new to owning this type of business and City Staff does not anticipate any issues with their use of the tent at the Mermaid. Recommendation: Review the request for the Interim Use Permit to allow an outdoor temporary membrane structure in the courtyard area at the Mermaid Entertainment and Event Center. Staff is recommending approval of Resolution 937-11, which is attached for your consideration. If the Commission needs more information before taking action, the Commission may table the request pending receipt of the information. Heidi Heller Planning Associate This is a photo of the tent framework without the membrane cover Zoning Map J 4F ZV 529¢g28� INt IAli 5294 21 F- 5208 iI q I N' N I iI q I N I NI NI `528 5288528 528 The Mermaid Site Plan MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 937-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY OUTDOOR MEMBRANE STRUCTURE AT THE MERMAID LOCATED AT 2200 COUNTY HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. IU2011-001 WHEREAS, the Mermaid Acquisition Group, represented by Mike Anderson, has applied for an interim use permit for a temporary outdoor membrane structure (temporary tent) at the Mermaid, located at 2200 County Highway 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 PUD; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code allows temporary outdoor tent structures in commercial districts by interim use permit; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the zoning requirements associated with temporary tents in commercial districts 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. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Zoning Code. 3. The size of the structure is within permitted allowances and meets setback provisions. 4. There have been no complaints filed with the City about the use of the tent in the previous years. 5. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the temporary outdoor structure. 6. The site has adequate parking area available to meet the demands of the temporary structure. Resolution 937-11 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the interim use permit for an outdoor temporary tent structure at the Mermaid with conditions as follows: 1. The tent 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 tent is assembled each year. 2. The tent 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 practicable. 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends that the permit approval shall remain in force for a period of five years from the date of City Council approval as the conditions above and those of the Zoning Code remain satisfied. 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, 2011. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: Kenneth Roberts, Community Development Director (SEAL) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting January 5,2011 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. January 5, 2011. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Stevenson, Cramblit, Meehlhause, Rundle, Schiltgen and Smith Absent and Excused: Commissioner Miller Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes B-2, Limited Business District, Zoning Code Amendments Review Bylaws 3. Special Order of Business A. Oath of Office for new Commissioners Planning Associate Heller administered the oath of office to Planning Commissioner Rundle. B. Election of Officers — Chair and Vice -Chair Planning Associate Heller indicated the Planning Commission needed to vote on a Chair and Vice -Chair for 2011. Commissioner Meehlhause nominated Gary Stevenson for Chair of the Planning Commission. Seconded by Commissioner Cramblit. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting January 5, 2011 Page 2 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Meehlhause/Commissioner Cramblit. To appoint Gary Stevenson as Chair of the Planning Commission. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Commissioner Cramblit nominated Gary Meehlhause as Vice -Chair of the Planning Commission. Seconded by Commissioner Schiltgen. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Schiltgen. To appoint Gary Meehlhause as Vice -Chair of the Planning Commission. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 4. Approval of Minutes November 17, 2010 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the minutes of the November 17, 2010 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases None. 6. Other Planning Activity A. Resolution 936-11; B-2, Limited Business Zoning District Amendments Planning Associate Heller stated at the December 15, 2010 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed the recommended amendments to the allowed and conditional uses in the B-2 zoning code. The Planning Commission agreed to the additions and made a motion of support for the proposed amendments to Chapter 1113 of the Zoning Code. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting January 5, 2011 Page 3 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Meehlhause. To approve Resolution 936-11; An amendment to Chapter 1113 of the Mounds View Zoning code to add Additional Permitted and Conditional Uses to the B-2, Limited Business, Zoning District, Special Planning Case 174-10. B. Review Bylaws Planning Associate Heller stated the Planning Commission must review the bylaws annually and make any amendments they see fit. She added staff doesn't propose any changes Commissioner Meehlhause questioned if the City Council appoints a liaison to the Planning Commission. Planning Associate Heller stated she did not think there was a designated liaison to the Planning Commission, but would find out and get back to the Commissioners. The Commission agreed to adopt the bylaws as they stand. 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. January 19, 2011 B. February 2, 2011 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:12 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Ken Roberts Community Development Director Transcribed by: Barbara Suciu TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 4] MOUNDS?�,VIEtN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA May 18, 2011 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 3. Approval of Minutes: January 5, 2011 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. Discuss Current City Code about Driveways and Parking Areas 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. June 1, 2011 B. June 15, 2011 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. March 16, 2011 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion M6U_NDitSVVfE_W Xv of Mounds View 5taff Item No: 6A Meeting Date: May 18, 2011 Type of Business: Discussion To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Discussion about Driveways and Parking Areas in Single -Family Residential Areas Introduction: Permits for replacement driveways or driveway expansions are one of the common permits issued every year, and parking off an improved surface is one of the most common code enforcement problems. City staff was discussing some of the specific parking problems that occur and decided to talk to the Planning Commission about what the current regulations are for driveways and parking areas, and if any changes are recommended. Discussion: Many properties in Mounds View have narrow driveways and/or more than two vehicles. The City receives many complaints about and finds many vehicles parked off the driveway in the grass. After repeated driving over the same grass area, eventually it turns into a dirt patch and is not attractive. Several years ago, the City decided to allow up to 300 square feet of gravel parking areas as a more affordable option for homeowners to expand their driveways or add additional parking in the side or back yard. Most cities have driveway width and setback regulations, even if they do not require a permit for one. The most common side setback requirement is five feet. No cities require more than five feet (other than in a very low density residential district) and only a couple cities allow less than that. The Mounds View City Code currently regulates driveways and parking areas with these restrictions: ® Driveway curb cuts (the opening at the street) may not be more than 24 feet wide ® Driveways may be the width of the garage plus 12 feet, or 35 feet wide, whichever is greater ® Driveways must have a hard surface - asphalt, concrete, pavers ® Up to 300 square feet of gravel may be used as a parking area ® Driveways and parking areas must have a side yard setback of at least 5 feet ® If an accessory building is to be utilized for the storage of frequently used vehicles, it shall be serviced by an improved driveway (1106.03 subd. 1h) ® All vehicles must be parked on a hard surface (exception: trailers with weight classifications of A or B (0-3,000 pounds) may be parked on the grass) ® All new construction homes must install a hard surface driveway. Existing gravel driveways can be maintained, but not expanded in size. Single-family properties are allowed to have 1 curb cut. Over the years, some property owners have created a second curb cut. The second curb cuts are being eliminated when the street is reconstructed unless it can be shown that the second access has been in place for many years. Driveway Discussion May 18, 2011 Page 2 Items for Planning Commission to Discuss: A driveway can be expanded or a separate parking area can be constructed in the side or back yard, as long as it fits within the dimension and setback requirements. The idea for the separate parking area is to allow the storage of seldom -moved vehicles or trailers to be stored on the property without taking up space on the driveway. One of the problems that City Staff sees is a separate parking area in the backyard that is not connected to the driveway and is being accessed regularly. One particular problem property is located on a corner, and a vehicle is driving over the curb daily to park on a gravel patch in the backyard. Staff recommends adding language to the City Code that would require a hard surface driveway installed up to a parking area if used frequently. • Should additional parking areas be allowed only if they are adjacent to the driveway? • Should the parking area be required to be accessible from the driveway, even if it is not adjacent to the driveway? • Should there be a limit on how much of the property is a hard surface? The code currently only limits the percentage of building coverage in the rear yard (20%). • If a property has a gravel driveway, should a hard surface driveway be required if a new oversize garage is built? Recommendation: The Planning Commission should discuss the current driveway and parking area regulations and possibly make recommendations for code amendments. Sincerely, Qiyd&4_�' Heidi Heller Planning Associate PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting March 16, 2011 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. March 16, 2011. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Rundle, Schiltgen, Stevenson, Smith and Miller. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Cramblit and Meehlhause. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller and Community Development Director Roberts. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 IU2011-001 Interim use Permit for a Temporary Tent at the Mermaid Applicant: Mike Anderson, Mermaid Acquisition Group 2 3. Approval of Minutes December 15, 2010 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Smith. To approve the minutes of the December 15, 2010 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes — 4 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases March 16, 2011 Page 2 A. IU2011-001— Interim Use Permit for a Temporary Tent at the Mermaid Applicant: Mike Anderson, Mermaid Acquisition Group, Inc. Address: 2200 County Highway 10 Planning Associate Heller stated the process for reviewing and approving an interim use permit (IUP) for a temporary outdoor membrane structure is the same as the process for considering a conditional use permit. In 2004, 2005 and again in 2010 the City Council approved an Interim Use Permit for the Mermaid to have a temporary tent. As of 2011, the Mermaid has new owners, and the resolution of approval for the IUP states that the approval is void if the ownership changes. An annual fire permit is required for this temporary structure. As a part of this permit process, the fire marshal will review the application and tent material information, and conduct an inspection post erection. She added the tent may be erected for up to 180 days per the state building code. Chair Stevenson stated originally the IUP permits were renewed annually and after the first year of renewal it was amended to renew every five years. Dan Hall, previous owner of the Mermaid, stated the City Council initiated the five-year renewal after they saw that there were no problems with the tent. Mike Anderson of Anderson Properties, new owner of the Mermaid, introduced himself and indicated he would like to continue to use the tent for events and banquets. Commission Schiltgen asked about the inspections of the tent. Planning Associate Heller stated that the property owner must apply for a fire permit every year before installing the tent, and then the Fire Marshal/Building Official would inspect the tent after it was erected and before it could be used for any events. Commissioner Miller arrived at the meeting at 7:15pm. Commissioner Schiltgen suggested approving the resolution for a shorter term than the five years. Chair Stevenson asked about the five-year period and the fallback for the City if there were issues. Mounds View Planning Commission March 16, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 3 Planning Associate Heller stated there is language in the resolution allowing the City review the interim use permit at any time if problems arise that could necessitate revision or termination of the interim use permit. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 937-11 Recommending Approval of an Interim Use Permit for a Temporary Outdoor Membrane Structure at the Mermaid located at 2200 County Highway 10; Planning Case IU2011-001 Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Planning Associate Heller stated this case would go before the City Council on March 28t" 6. Other Planning Activity None. 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. April 6, 2011 B. April 20, 2011 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:18 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, James Ericson City Administrator Transcribed by: Barbara Suciu TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. MOUNDS VI -W PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 1, 2011 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: March 16, 2011 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. VR2011-001 Variance for Reduced Driveway Setbacks Address: 5330-5332 Raymond Avenue Applicant: Michael Kinyon, owner B. VR2011-002 Variance for Reduced Driveway Setbacks Address: 5338-5340 Raymond Avenue Applicant: Michael Kinyon, owner C. VR2011-003 Variance for Reduced Driveway Setbacks Address: 5344-5346 Raymond Avenue Applicant: Michael Kinyon, owner D. VR2011-004 Variance for Reduced Driveway Setbacks Address: 5372-5374 Raymond Avenue Applicant: Michael Kinyon, owner E. VR2011-005 Variance for Reduced Driveway Setbacks Address: 5380-5382 Raymond Avenue Applicant: Michael Kinyon, owner F. PA2011-001 PUD Amendment to Allow Recreational Uses in the Mounds View Business Park South Address: 2280-2298 Woodale (Buildings H -1-J) Applicant: Scott Nagel, Zero Gravity Trampoline Park 6. Other Planning Activity ,1" 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. June 1, 2011 B. June 15, 2011 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION Review Minutes: a. May 18, 2011 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion 1 City of Mounds View Staff f?eport Item No: 5A -5E Meeting Date: June T2011 Type of Business: Public Hearing To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Variance Requests to allow for one and three foot driveway setbacks at 5330-5332, 5338- 5340, 5344-5346, 5372-5374 and 5380-5382 Raymond Avenue; Planning Cases VR2011-001 to VR2011-005 Introduction: The applicant, property owner, Michael Kinyon, is requesting variances to permit the new driveways at five of his side-by-side duplexes to have one and three foot setbacks from the north and south property lines. Mr. Kinyon will be adding attached garages to the rest of his duplexes, one on each end of the building, along with new driveways to replace the existing gravel. The lots are all 100 feet wide so only a single car garage will fit, but the owner would like to make the driveways wide enough for two cars to park next to each other. Many of their tenants have more than one vehicle, and with the current narrow driveways, they either park or drive off the driveway, or they have to move cars around when someone is leaving. Since there is no overnight parking on the streets in Mounds View, all vehicles must be in the driveways. The east side of Raymond Avenue has 14 side-by-side duplexes on identical 100 foot wide lots which causes issues when owners want to add additional space or more than a one car wide driveway to these properties. The applicant, Mr. Kinyon, owns ten of the duplexes on Raymond Avenue and received variances for reduced driveway setbacks in 1995 and 2008 when he added garages to his other duplexes on the block. Another duplex owner on this block received a reduced setback variance in order to add living space closerthan 10 feet to the property line. Due to the lots being rather narrow for side-by-side style duplexes, the applicant is requesting to place the driveways one foot or three feet from the property lines. City Code requires that all driveways be at least five feet from the property line without a variance. Discussion: Mr. Kinyon has applied for all five variances now because the City is reconstructing Raymond Avenue this year, which includes installing new curbs and driveway aprons. Mr. Kinyon will not have all five garages and remodels completed for approximately five years, but he would like to have the wider driveway aprons installed during the street project rather than tearing up the new curbs later to widen the curb cut. The City Code states that a variance approval becomes void if the work is not complete within one year, but the applicant may request an extension from the Planning Commission. Mr. Kinyon will likely be asking for extensions in the future unless he is able to install all of the driveways before the garages are built. Planning Cases VR2011-001 to 005 June 1, 2011 Staff Report Page 2 As with any variance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The extraordinary circumstances which apply to these properties are that a 100 foot wide lot is somewhat narrow for a rambler style duplex. The lots are all walk -outs so the grade drops significantly at the back of the house which would make it very difficult to put garages behind the duplexes and be able to access them with a driveway. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district, as most other property owners are able to have at least a decent sized one car wide driveway. C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant is not responsible for the conditions which have prompted him to apply for a variance. Mr. Kinyon purchased the duplexes after they were built. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Granting this variance would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege in that other property owners are able to have two car wide driveways. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The variances requested are the minimum that would be necessary in order to have a driveway wide enough for two cars to park next to each other. Planning Cases VR2011-001 to 005 June 1, 2011 Staff Report Page 3 The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Given the circumstances, granting the variance requests may not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The driveways will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjoining properties. Public Hearing: As with any variance application, a public hearing is required. Notices were mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the applicant's properties. Staff spoke to one neighbor who is happy to see the wider driveways so the tenants don't park in the grass. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission may take one of the following actions related to the request: Approve the variances as requested. There are five resolutions attached for action if the Commission so chooses. 2. Deny the requested variances. The Commission should direct staff to draft resolutions of denial with findings appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the requests. 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 requests until such information has been provided. Respectfully Submitted By Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Location map showing the 5 duplexes 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Photo 4. Proposed Site Plans 5. Photographic Documentation 6. Resolutions 938-11 through 942-11 LOCATION MAP The 5 duplexes are highlighted in red I w .M6 \ 110.1 µM1y eR�`• \ Itttl lus3 1 filttll,[4 IM� \\ � :A34 6ll2 IMB 5141 SYU lH1 _ INI ' �y 5 ]MJ Qib S,d5 � Iq] I, myR 10.8 i 5JS5 S:3+J S]ia � y}9 IPfI ' Mounds View x" I - JV95YE1Y 1(Cfl Mobile Home Park m}a w:z i wit SJ6) SYE SJOJ If1K x SH4 IAO 14:1 »n ,I 1,M n9 $ Iml Ivx IPb S\HI I fat} A'f5, ]pJ, IJ C!) I I 53i) f114 431] I 5]Y, .635 I' ' em IGxI sm s]_n ssn I mn xri �i � ao:o 1 Slte .Gt] I IMN SF]] afa SlY)gill 2G]A ' IGIi 1016 ]R6 ' M 29i5 ' M ] Will 3)•] 51:4 l0,] 'GIA I mif� ZONING MAP 1 N * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential A � VIP r 4^' � ® r � 3 ml� Site Plan for 5330-5332 Raymond Avenue q N' -fit u� u��---e--- I I New New i S�aiva�nya �as�n�I garage garage x New I New Driveway Driveway Site Plan for 5338-5340 Raymond Avenue New I ark i LIQ C —_ f New Driveway ..._.._...... Sia�R(JA11y� �o UdScltt�u�--' I ,Qcd�60�1s N 6s _I �J j61 New 1� Ar Site Plan for 5344-5346 Raymond Avenue I New i garage New Driveway S�aiknrJn1ya �o Qas�oz/N`� �}erJ�'Q4A/S N �S Site Plan for 5372-5374 Raymond Avenue P New garage y7e New l� 5 garage w 71-1 New garage New Driveway New Driveway � / Ale ' Q H 3° New Driveway 3° Site Plan for 5380-5382 Raymond Avenue tNwrage 31 New Driveway R,1,y1,94,se) hil , f sQ W//" // pp JJ p New O Od 5<0),,A UcJiPJAYJ`� garage 4J j New Driveway 7� J qu I —..Zsar- ---® -- .5, - .. -•; "SFr.-�..�... ,..- _ .. 9 s� cQgr t. � -•' ; i.ILI a � � �1'i '�,• HiQ r w v '..I;' .���_.. •,j+uz i II Ali' i UI — �—r yJ r� Iv..l•'_• u. — 7'� +R �r q^n e,.. t. � -•' ; i.ILI TIT L. - Awn. \7 . f e. # 4./\y. y. �> z1 4 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 938-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR ONE -FOOT DRIVEWAY SETBACKS AT 5330 & 5332 RAYMOND AVENUE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2011-001 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 5330 & 5332 Raymond Avenue; and, WHEREAS, 5330 & 5332 Raymond Avenue is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Norseman IstAddition, Lot 8, Block 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 08-30-23-14-0008 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 5330 & 5332 Raymond Avenue, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Res. 938-11 Page 2 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. 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 5330 & 5332 Raymond Avenue subject to the following: If within one year after granting the variance, the work as permitted by the variance has not been completed, then such variance shall be come 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 1St day of June, 2011 Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) 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 1st 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: Res. 939-11 Page 2 1. 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. 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: If within one year after granting the variance, the work as permitted by the variance has not been completed, then such variance shall be come 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 Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 940-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR ONE -FOOT DRIVEWAY SETBACKS AT 5344 & 5346 RAYMOND AVENUE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2011-003 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 5344 & 5346 Raymond Avenue; and, WHEREAS, 5344 & 5346 Raymond Avenue is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Norseman 1st Addition, Lot 6, Block 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 08-30-23-14-0006 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 5344 & 5346 Raymond Avenue, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Res. 940-11 Pace 2. 1. 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. 3 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 5344 & 5346 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 be come 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 15t day of June, 2011. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 941-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A THREE-FOOT DRIVEWAY SETBACK AT 5372 RAYMOND AVENUE AND A ONE -FOOT DRIVEWAY SETBACK AT 5374 RAYMOND AVENUE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2011-004 WHEREAS, the applicant, Michael Kinyon, has applied for a variance to allow for driveways with a three-foot setback from the side property lines at 5372 Raymond Avenue and a one -foot setback from the property line at 5374 Raymond Avenue; and, WHEREAS, 5372 & 5374 Raymond Avenue is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Norseman Vt Addition, Lot 2, Block 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 08-30-23-14-0002 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 5372 & 5374 Raymond Avenue, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Res. 941-11 Pagel 1. 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 and three (3) 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 or three 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 three-foot setback at 5372 Raymond Avenue and a one -foot setback at 5374 Raymond Avenue subject to the following: If within one year after granting the variance, the work as permitted by the variance has not been completed, then such variance shall be come 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 1s� day of June, 2011. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 942-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR THREE-FOOT DRIVEWAY SETBACKS AT 5380 & 5382 RAYMOND AVENUE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2011-005 WHEREAS, the applicant, Michael Kinyon, has applied for a variance to allow for driveways with a three-foot setback from the side property lines of a duplex located at 5380 & 5382 Raymond Avenue; and, WHEREAS, 5380 & 5382 Raymond Avenue is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Norseman 15t Addition, Lot 1, Block 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 08-30-23-11-0024 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 5380 & 5382 Raymond Avenue, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Res. 942-11 Page 2 1. 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 three (3) foot variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant's hardship. 6. Granting a variance to allow for a driveway with a three-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 three-foot setback at 5380 & 5382 Raymond Avenue subject to the following: If within one year after granting the variance, the work as permitted by the variance has not been completed, then such variance shall be come 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 15t day of June, 2011. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MOUND77�T Item No: 5F S VIEW Meeting Date: June 1, 2011 Type of Business: Action City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of an Amendment to the Mounds View Business Park South Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Allow Indoor Recreational Uses; Planning Case PA2011-001 Introduction: Scott Nagel, representing "Zero Gravity Trampoline Park," has applied for an amendment to the Mounds View Business Park South Planned Unit Development (PUD). This 17 -acre PUD, located on the southeast corner of County Road 10 and Woodale Drive, has three large buildings with a total of 270,000 square feet of space. The south business park was developed for manufacturing, assembly, warehouse storage and office uses. Mr. Nagel is requesting an amendment to the PUD so that he can open a trampoline park business in one of the buildings. Discussion: The City approved the Mounds View Business Park South PUD in 1989. The buildings have been full or close to full for many years. Medtronic leased a lot of space in buildings Hand J for a distribution center until they recently relocated the facility to Ten nesee. Homeshield, a wood trim and moldings business, currently leases two-thirds of Building I. With the requested amendment, the applicant would lease about 25,000 square feet in Building H. About half of the space would be covered with trampolines and trampoline related products. They also plan to build some offices and party rooms. It is not uncommon for this type of recreational use to be located in business parks. There is another trampoline park located in an industrial area in Plymouth. Gymnastics and virtual golf are other common recreational uses that are typically found in business parks because of the big open spaces and high ceilings in these buildings. The recreational businesses are open primarily during late afternoons, evenings and weekends, so the parking needs for the recreational businesses would likely not interfere with the daytime weekday parking needs of the other businesses. Staff is proposing to add the more general term "Indoor Recreational Uses" to the PUD, rather than being specific to a trampoline park. The Business Park South has 426 parking spaces. The applicant expects to typically use between 15 and 40 parking spaces, and up to 50 spaces during their busiest times on the weekends. Planning Case PA2011-001 Staff Report Page 2 Amendment Process: An amendment to a Planned Unit Development is processed as would an amendment to an approved Conditional Use Permit, which is to say that the procedural requirements of Section 1125 of the Zoning Code would be followed. Section 1125 requires that the Planning Commission and City Council review the request, taking into consideration any and all potential adverse effects of the proposed amendment. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan: Mounds View's adopted Comprehensive Plan identifies the Mounds View Business Park South PUD site as Light Industrial/Light Industrial PUD which is defined as being flex industrial centers and a mix of office, light industrial and commercial uses within single or multiple structures. The proposed recreational uses would be consistent with the Comp Plan. The geographical area involved: The south business park is bordered by County Road 10 and Woodale Drive on two sides. The Highway 10 Business Center, the Mermaid, Pettibone Builders Equipment, and Central Sandblasting border on the east and south sides, and Edgewood Middle School property borders on the west side. Neighborhood Impact: The neighborhood should not be impacted by adding indoor recreational uses to this business park. Traffic studies were done before the site was developed, and the majority of traffic for the park enters and exits onto Woodale Drive, very close to County Road 10 where there is a stoplight. Woodale Drive was constructed to handle the traffic that is generated by this business park. When Medtronic's distribution facility was operating here, there was a lot of truck traffic in and out of this business park. Any traffic for the recreational uses will be less of a neighborhood impact than a distribution center. The character of the surrounding area: All of the neighboring uses are commercial or light industrial with the exception of the north side of Woodale Drive. There is a single family neighborhood about one block west of this business park. Directly across Woodale Drive from the business park are five R-1 zoned properties that are planned for future redevelopment, but staff does not expect that any low density residential would be built there. The demonstrated need for such use: The applicant anticipates that there is a market for this type of business in Mounds View. Since there are very few trampoline parks in the Twin Cities, this specific business would likely draw customers from all over the metro area. Recreational businesses appear to be a complimentary use in light industrial and business parks and have worked well in many other cities. It appears that amending the PUD to allow for recreational uses would have no adverse impacts and would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff supports the amendment to allow indoor recreational uses in the Mounds View Business Park South. Planning Case PA2011-001 Staff Report Page 3 Recommendation: The Planning Commission may take one of the following actions related to the PUD Amendment request: 1. Recommend approval of the PUD Amendment as requested. Resolution 943-11 is attached for your consideration if you should choose this option. 2. Recommend denial of the request. To consider this option, the Commission will need to direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact to support the denial recommendation. 3. Table action on the request. This option would be appropriate if the Planning Commission should need additional information or more input before a decision can be made. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Letter and building space information from Applicant 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Views 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Resolution 943-11 Information from applicant about proposed trampoline park business Additional Information for P.U.D. Amendment Zero Gravity Summary: In recent years jumping on trampolines has evolved from jumping in backyards to world class indoor trampoline parks. These parks incorporate dodge ball, foam pit jumping, and open jump courts in a safe kid friendly environment, It is my intention to bring this growing indoor commercial recreational use to the City of Mounds View in a first class facility. The facility will be named "Zero Gravity Trampoline Park' and will be a great outlet for adolescents as well as a fun place for the younger kids to spend birthdays and special events. In addition we also hope to incorporate toddler/parent classes geared towards low impact exercise. Party rooms will be built into the demised premises by retrofitting and possibly building more finished space which would allow for both birthday parties and corporate events. Operation Details: We plan on leasing 25,488 square feet (See attached Exhibit A) at 2298 Wooddale Drive referred to as Mounds View Business Park South. Roughly half the rented square feet will be covered with trampolines and trampoline related products as described above. Hours of operation are expected to be 4:00pm - 9:00pm Monday through Thursday, 4:00pm - 11:00pm Friday and I0:00arn - 9:00pm on weekends Through my research and visitations of other trampoline parks with similar square feet in other markets across the nation I have determined that Zero Gravity will typically need between 15 and 40 parking stalls and I expect our parking requirements on our busiest days (weekends) should not exceed 50 stalls. It is our intention to be a great neighbor to the other future tenants in the current vacant building and not to interfere with their parking as our hours of operation are mostly after typical business hours. As depicted on Exhibit A the building provides 426 parking spaces or about 5.48 per thousand. Internally we plan oil remodeling the current finished area to accommodate new office, party rooms, and adequate rest room facilities all in compliance with applicable building codes. Zoning Map R-4 EDGEWOOD JR. HIGH SCHOOL l 5100 J PUD r % RICE CREEr` M * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View Single-family residential Edgewood School property Hwy 10 Bus. Center (Abbey Carpet bldg) I'YI IIF The Mermaid & t Americlnn ' y' Central Sandblast Pettibone P G 1 i4 I t tit r � 14', .,� ��: » : � . �, : � . <�: � y� � � � �� � .. _.���> .� �< � \`_ � � .m�:� � x:�y���� d\<> 2�� . � . . .. / ..� 2xy , \� � \��\� � ©�t.,.. � y y� �. .. w� � .� :� ��«�:� .^^����� .. - . ma . 6?.. 2 . < . . . y�. � ®..v . �. . « ». � � - « . «, � .. =a �<9:«� �.©�i�}��� . , .: �� \ �^ MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 943-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK SOUTH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTTO ALLOW INDOOR RECREATIONAL USES MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE PA2011-001 WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council approved Mounds View Business Park South Planned Unit Development (PUD) in July 1989 for manufacturing, assembly, warehouse storage and office uses; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Business Park South PUD currently does not allow recreational uses; and, WHEREAS, the properties located at 2260-2298 Woodale Drive, legally described as: Unit 2 in Condominium No. 296, Mounds View Business Park South PINS 08-30-23-43-0019 and 08-30-23-43-0021 WHEREAS, the applicant and property owner wish to amend the PUD by allowing "indoor recreational uses" in this business park; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this request and has examined the potential adverse effects that could result from such an amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following finding of fact related to this request: 1. The Mounds View Business Park South is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). 2. Two of the buildings in the Business Park South are almost vacant, and as such, a potential tenant and the property owner have requested an amendment to the PUD to allow recreational uses. 3. The Land Use Map from the City's Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Light Industrial Planned Unit Development. Resolution 943-11 Page 2 4. The Mounds View Business Park South is within the City's primary commercial corridor and as such, vacant buildings are not desirable. 5. The Mounds View Business Park South consists of three very large buildings on 17 acres that are surrounded by retail, commercial and industrial uses. 6. There do not appear to be any adverse effects associated with this proposed amendment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings of fact, does hereby recommend that the Mounds View Business Park South Planned Unit Development (PUD) be amended to allow indoor recreational uses; and, 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 1St day of June, 2011. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 18, 2011 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. May 18, 2011. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Miller, Rundle, Schiltgen, Stevenson and Smith Absent and Excused: None Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller Index to Minutes Approval of Minutes Discuss Current City Code about Driveways and Parking Areas Discuss Procedure for Additional Use Requests in Planned Unit Development Areas 3. Approval of Minutes January 5, 2011 Page 1 2 3 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Meehlhause. To approve the minutes of the January 5, 2011 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission May 18, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 2 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases None. 6. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss Current City Code about Driveways and Parking Areas Planning Associate Heller stated that one of the most common building permits and code enforcement issues is related to driveways and parking. She reviewed the current zoning regulations for driveways and said that Mounds View is one of few cities that still allow gravel driveways. Resident can maintain their existing gravel driveway but cannot expand a gravel driveway. Although several years ago the City began allowing residents to install up to 300 square feet of a gravel parking area for parking large vehicles such as campers and boats. She indicated a common complaint the City receives is about vehicles parked in the grass. Small boats and trailers can be parked off an improved surface, but all other vehicles must be on a hard surface. The City only allows one curb cut per lot. She stated staff recommends amending the City Code to add language requiring parking areas that not adjacent to the driveway, but are accessed on a regular basis, must have a hard surface driveway that connects to the primary driveway. Planning Associate Heller stated that the Commission could consider requiring that a hard surface driveway be installed as a condition when approving conditional use permits for oversize garages. She stated that due to the large expense, and particularly with the current poor economy, the City should not require that all gravel driveways be improved. There was discussion regarding if or when to require residents to upgrade to a hard surface driveway. Chair Stevenson stated that he felt if residents can afford to build an oversize garage, they should also have a hard surface driveway. He added he feels that there should not be a requirement to install a hard surface driveway. He stated it is not allowed for residents to be driving over a curb to access a parking area. Commissioner Cramblit questioned if the City could require a hard surface driveway when a house sells. Planning Associate Heller stated that over the last few years, many property owners have been replacing or installing new driveways after their street has been reconstructed. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 18, 2011 Page 3 Commissioner Cramblit questioned what the process was for residents to have two curb cuts. Planning Associate Heller stated that a variance would be required to add a second curb cut. The City Council has received a few requests from property owners to keep their existing second curb cut when their street is reconstructed. She stated that if the curb cut has been in existence for many years, and the location is approved by the Public Works Department, the owner may be allowed to keep it, but is responsible for the cost of the second driveway apron. Chair Stevenson encouraged Staff to draft language that prohibits residents from driving over the curbs. Commissioner Smith questioned if the resident would receive a citation for violating the code. Planning Associate Heller confirmed that the resident would receive a citation, but that City Staff tries to get compliance before issuing the citation. B. Discuss Procedure for Additional Use Requests in Planned Unit Development Areas Planning Associate Heller stated there are several properties within Mounds View that are zoned PUD. She stated the more recent PUD developments include a PUD Agreement that spells out the specific uses and details related to that PUD, but the older PUD sites don't have these written documents. She indicated that staff has received a planning request to allow a recreational use in one of the older PUD developments that doesn't have the PUD agreement. She stated the Planning Commission will review the PUD amendment and the resolution will be the documentation instead of the PUD agreement. She indicated that since there are very few requests for PUD amendments, staff wanted to go through this process prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. Chair Stevenson stated along with the amendment to the PUD, there also may be a need to change the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Associate Heller stated she would check on what the land use language is in the Comprehensive Plan for this area. 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. June 1, 2011 B. June 15, 2011 Mounds View Planning Commission May 18, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 4 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, James Ericson City Administrator Transcribed by: Barbara Suciu TimeSaver OffSite Secretarial, Inc. IAI MOUNDS VIEvv PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 6, 2011 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: May 18, 2011 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. CM2011-001 Outdoor Storage Conditional Use Permit Amendment Address: 2159 Mustang Drive Applicant: Bauer Welding, Doug Bauer, owner 6. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss Proposed Driveway and Parking Area City Code Amendments 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. July 20, 2011 B. August 3, 2011 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. June 1, 2011 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion MUMS ��T S MOUNDS VI�YV Item N®: 11 Meeting Date: July 6, 2011 Type of Business: Action City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit Amendment for Bauer Welding, 2159 Mustang Drive; Planning Case CM2011-001 Introduction: The applicant, Doug Bauer, owner of Bauer Welding & Metal Fabricators, is requesting approval of an amendment to an existing conditional use permit. In August 2004, a conditional use permit to allow outdoor storage was approved for this property. The applicant constructed a 50'x 80' paved area on the north side of the building to store pallets, empty reusable containers and finished products for shipping. One of the conditions of the CUP approval was that the gravel driveway leading from the parking lot to the storage area be improved with a hard surface within three years. Mr. Bauer is requesting that this condition be removed from his CUP. Discussion: Bauer Welding was started in 1946 and has been in Mounds View at the current location since 1977. The property is zoned 1-1, Industrial and is located on Mustang Drive in the city's industrial park, although this business is adjacent to the Skyline Motel property on the east side and the Towns Edge Manufactured Home Park on the north side. The applicant applied for the outdoor storage area in 2004 because the business was doing well and running out of space to store the pallets and containers inside. When stored inside of a building, the pallets and containers must be stacked low and spread out to avoid creating afire hazard. This requires a large amount of space for storage and Bauer Welding and Fabrication needed that space for production area. At the time of the CUP application, Mr. Bauer anticipated that the proposed storage area would be used temporarily until a permanent addition to the building could be constructed, which he estimated would be within two or three years. By 2007, the economy was quickly declining and so were sales for Bauer Welding. City staff administratively approved two-year extensions for the driveway improvement requirement in 2007 and 2009. After the second extension, City Staff informed Mr. Bauer that he would need to apply for an amendment to his CUP if he still did not want to improve the driveway. Mr. Bauer still anticipates that he will expand the building in the future, and prefers not to spend money on paving when the driveway would be removed with the building addition. The outdoor storage area is located 40 feet from the east (side) lot line and about 300 feet from the north (rear) property line. Section 1104.01 requires a twenty (20) foot side setback and a forty (40) foot rear setback, which the proposed storage area satisfies. The driveway is accessed from the north end of the parking lot on the west side of the building, and is not visible from the street. Bauer Welding CUP Amendment Report July o 2011 Page 2 CUP Considerations: Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the expansion and City support of existing businesses within Mounds View. 2159 Mustang Drive is designated as light industrial and the proposed storage area is not inconsistent with the Comp Plan. The Geographical Area Involved. The applicant's business is located on Mustang Drive. The proposed storage space is not out of place for this industrial area and is not visible to any other properties. Depreciation. The driveway has remained unpaved for seven years and does not appear to have caused depreciation of the subject property or the surrounding properties. All of the industrial businesses within this area have things outside, and most are trucking companies with many trucks and trailers parked outside. The Character of the Surrounding Area. This part of the City is mostly an Industrial area. There is a manufactured home community to the north of the property, however, a natural vegetative buffer separates the properties. In addition, roughly 300 feet separate the driveway and storage area from the manufactured home community. The Skyline Motel is adjacent to this property on the east side. The businesses to the west and south are trucking companies. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant has indicated that he needs the additional outdoor storage area, but does not feel that paving the driveway is necessary since it is not visible from the street and will be removed when the building is expanded. Recommendations: Based on the above analysis, amending the conditional use permit to remove the condition requiring the driveway to have a hard surface should have no adverse impacts. Staff supports this conditional use permit amendment. Aftertaking testimony from staff and the applicant, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: Recommend approval of the conditional use permit amendment. Resolution 944-11 is attached if the Commission chooses this action. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit amendment. If the Planning Commission selects 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, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Bauer Welding CUP Amendment Repoli Juhv 6, 2011 Page 3 Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Statement from Applicant 4. Photos 5. CUP Resolution 6319 — August 2004 6. Planning Commission Resolution 944-11 Zoning Map Properties not bearing a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View I Driveway &+ Storage Area 1, w 1 I AL 'I ti 1 11 ! 1 4 y A�'1_A144 4� Towns Edge Mobile Home P JrrJJ U 11�1161i X, AA r -"VPA 'Vall 4rd. oll J Driveway & 4 I OK4 I' .'ti Storage Area Skyline Motel Midwest Motor t moo' Express - trucking Bauer Welding 1. d 70-1 Bio(Clean - w. Mobile 1 Truck Wash Ij P 2F. , 4 F - 471s ONO All ........................ AN Ilk lf" 1 k 4L -Y7 i F. 11 Vitran - trucking Midway Industrial Supply Co. jp� F4 P Ilf, 471s ONO All ........................ AN Ilk lf" Statement Applicant Description of Proposal (attach additional supporting documentation if necessary) To apply for a Conditional Use PermillAmendmenl allowing Bauer to rotaln tho use of a class 5 driveway that is located on the Norah end of Bauefs properly accessing a paved storage pad also located on the north end of the property. Please note that the driveway In question is located away from any public roads or access and is not visible front any other properly. Please seethe attached photos. Bauer has the ability to add an additional 40,000 SQ FT of manufacturing area where the outside storage area and access driveway is located. Future plans are to expand to the North that would eliminate any need for the outsido storage or access driveway. This all depends on the state of the economy. -fir 1 i � 1 1 ' - � y 1 ��. � ,L+ - .yip • 1 �+. '� � �.: -,.. .. - A 2004 CUP RESOLUTION NO. 6319 Resolution CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT PAVED OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA AT 2159 MUSTANG DRIVE; PLANNING CASE NO. CU2004-003 WHEREAS, Douglas Bauer has applied for a conditional use permit to allow for outdoor storage; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 2159 Mustang Drive, is zoned 1-1, Industrial, and is legally described as follows: Lot 4, Block 1 Mounds View Industrial Park Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows open and outdoor storage as an accessory use in Industrial districts; and, WHEREAS, the proposed storage area is to be located outside, thus necessitating t application of a conditional use permit; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map C. Location Map d. Photographic Documentation e. Proposed Site Plan f. Staff Report g. Planning Commission Resolution 767-04 WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the conditional use permit request on Monday, August 9, 2004; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code requires that the City Council consider the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and shall consider the relationship between the proposed conditional use and the Comprehensive plan and consider the impacts of the use supported by findings of relevant fact. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request: 1. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the expansion of existing businesses within Mounds View. Resolution 6319 Page 2 2. The proposed storage area would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved and the size of the subject property which is able to accommodate the storage area. 3. The proposed storage area would not depreciate the surrounding area, would not cause an undue burden on city facilities or utilities and would not cause congestion or pose a traffic hazard. 4. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed storage area. 5. The Mounds View Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted a resolution in support of the conditional use permit request on July 21, 2004. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves the conditional use permit for a 4,000 square foot paved outdoor storage area at 2159 Mustang Drive, with conditions as follows: 1. The proposed gravel driveway shall only be permitted for three years, at which time it must be constructed as a permanent improved driveway. 2. The outdoor storage shall be limited to shipping materials and shall not be used for the storage of hazardous materials. Should the use change for which the permit was granted; the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. 3. The storage area shall be constructed as shown on the site plan date-stamped June 22, 2004. Adopted this 9th day of August, 2004. Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 944-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT OF INSTALLING A PERMANENT IMPROVED SURFACE ON THE OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA DRIVEWAY AT BAUER WELDING, 2159 MUSTANG DRIVE; PLANNING CASE CM2011-001 WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council approved Resolution 6319 for a conditional use permit for an outdoor storage area at Bauer Welding on August 9, 2004; and, WHEREAS, Bauer Welding & Metal Fabricators, located at 2159 Mustang Drive is zoned 1-1, Industrial; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows outdoor storage areas in 1-1 zoning districts; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has requested that the condition of requiring the storage area driveway be improved with a hard surface be removed; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this request and has examined the potential adverse effects that could result from such an amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following finding of fact related to this request: The lot in question, 2159 Mustang.Drive, is zoned 1-1, Industrial. 2. The Future Land Use Map from the City's Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Light Industrial. 3. Bauer Welding is within the City's industrial park and as such, outdoor storage is not out of character for the surrounding area and the storage area driveway is not visible from the street. 4. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that the gravel driveway is not causing problems with surrounding properties, as it has been in the current condition for seven years and the City has not received any complaints. Resolution 944-11 Page 2 5. The approval of this conditional use permit amendment would not change the nature of the business operating on this site, and should have no affects on the surrounding area. 6. There does not appear to be any adverse effects associated with this proposed conditional use permit amendment for Bauer Welding. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit amendment for Bauer Welding to remove the condition stating "the gravel driveway shall only be permitted for three years, at which time it must be constructed as a permanent improved driveway." 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 6th day of July, 2011. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) -111011 - - ;itv of Mounds View Staff Item No: 6A Meeting Date: July 6, 2011 Type of Business: Discussion To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Discussion about Driveways and Parking Areas in Single -Family Residential Areas Introduction Permits for replacement driveways or driveway expansions are one of the common permits issued every year, and parking off an improved surface is one of the most common code enforcement problems. City staff was discussing some of the specific parking problems that occur and decided to talk to the Planning Commission about what the current regulations are for driveways and parking areas, and if any changes are recommended. Discussion The Planning Commission discussed the current City Code requirements for driveways and parking areas at the May 18, 2011 meeting and made suggestions for changes to the code. Several years ago, the City decided to allow up to 300 square feet of gravel parking area as a more affordable option for homeowners to expand their driveways or add additional parking in the side or back yard. The City Code does not require that this parking area be connected to the driveway. City Staff is proposing a code amendment that would address this. Proposed Code Amendment Chapter 1121.09 Subd. 7. Surfacing: All areas, as allowed in subdivision 1104.01(4) of this Title, to be utilized for parking space and driveways shall be surfaced with a permanent improved surface material as defined in Section 1102.02 of this Chapter, suitable to control dust, drainage and erosion, meeting the requirements of Section 902.03 of this Code except as follows: A gravel surface material meeting the specifications of Section 902.03, subdivision 5 of this Code may be used for parking areas in an R-1 or R-2 District not to exceed three hundred (300) square feet or, if to be used as a parking surface for an RV, the minimum area that would encompass the wheel -base area of one (1) recreational vehicle. If any parking area detached frorn the driveway is utilized for frequently used vehicles, it shall be serviced by an improved driveway that connects to the primary driveway. Plans for surfacing and drainage of driveways and stalls for five (5) or more vehicles shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review, and the final drainage plan must receive the Director of Public Works/City Engineer's written approval. (Ord. 524, 2-22-93; Ord. 620, 7-27-98; Ord. 640, 10-11-99; Ord. 642, 1-10-00) Driveway Discussion July 6, 2011 Page 2 The Planning Commission also agreed that if a conditional use permit is approved for an oversize garage, the driveway should be required to have a hard surface. This can be one of the conditions added to the resolution for the conditional use permit if necessary. Recommendation: The Planning Commission should discuss the current driveway and parking area regulations and the proposed code amendment. Sincerely, Heidi Heller Planning Associate PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 1, 2011 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. June 1, 2011. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Miller, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Rundle and Smith. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Index to Minutes Approval of Minutes VR2011-001. Variance for Reduced Driveway Setbacks VR2011-002. Variance for Reduced Driveway Setbacks VR2011-003. Variance for Reduced Driveway Setbacks VR2011-004. Variance for Reduced Driveway Setbacks VR2011-005. Variance for Reduced Driveway Setbacks PA2011-001. PUD Amendment to Allow Recreational Uses in the Mounds View Business Park South 3. Approval of Minutes March 16, 2011. Page 1 2 3 3 4 4 k MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the Minutes of the March 16, 2011 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases June 1, 2011 Page 2 A. Consideration of Variance Requests to allow for one -foot driveway setbacks at 5330 and 5332 Raymond Avenue; Planning Case VR2011-001 Planning Associate Heller explained the applicant, property owner, Michael Kinyon, is requesting variances to permit the new driveways at five of his side-by-side duplexes to have one or three foot setbacks from the north and south property lines. Mr. Kinyon will be adding attached garages to the rest of his duplexes, one on each end of the building, along with new driveways to replace the existing gravel. The lots are all 100 feet wide so only a single car garage will fit, but the owner would like to make the driveways wide enough for two cars to park next to each other. Most of the tenants have more than one vehicle, and with the current narrow driveways, they either park or drive off the driveway, or they have to move cars around when someone is leaving. Since there is no overnight parking on the streets in Mounds View, all vehicles must be in the driveways. Associate Heller stated the east side of Raymond Avenue has 14 side-by-side duplexes on identical 100 foot wide lots which causes issues when owners want to add additional space or more than a one car wide driveway to these properties. The applicant, Mr. Kinyon, owns ten of the duplexes on Raymond Avenue and received variances for reduced driveway setbacks in 1995 and 2008 when he added garages to his other duplexes on the block. Another duplex owner on this block received a reduced setback variance in order to add living space closer than 10 feet to the property line. Due to the lots being rather narrow for side-by-side style duplexes, the applicant is requesting to place the driveways one foot or three feet from the property lines. City Code requires that all driveways be at least five feet from the property line without a variance. The request is being made in conjunction with the street improvement project. This would assure that the proper sized aprons are installed to align with each new driveway. Associate Heller indicated the City was responsible for reviewing the practical difficulty of each request. Staff notified all surrounding properties of the variance request and no input was received. Chair Stevenson expressed concern about the protection of the lift station. He questioned if the lot located at 5374 had enough space for a driveway given its close proximity to the lift station in front of the house. Associate Heller stated this address would have the narrowest driveway and would run within two feet of the lift station. She noted that a guardrail surrounds two sides of the equipment and would offer protection, but that she would ask the Public Works staff if they felt something additional needed to be installed. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 1, 2011 Page 3 Commissioner Schiltgen questioned if there had been any concerns with the lift station in the past. Associate Heller noted she would speak with public works regarding this concern but stated she was not aware of any issues, and the lift station has been there for many years. She noted a bollard could be placed between the new driveway and the building. Commissioner Schiltgen asked if the building schedule was known for the future garages. Bob Yentsch, property manager for Kinyon Properties, stated this was uncertain but that they did hope to start one of the garages this summer. Commissioner Schiltgen inquired how long the applicant had to complete the garages before the variance expired. Associate Heller stated the City Code states that if the work that the variance was granted for is not completed within one year, the approval becomes void. She indicated that the applicant can apply for an extension before the variance expires. She stated that in this case, the City is willing to work with Mr. Kinyon because of the unique circumstances with Raymond Avenue being reconstructed and the changes being done to ten of his curb cuts. The extension request would come before the Planning Commission for approval. She noted if the variance were to expire, the applicant could simply reapply. She stated that she had spoken to the applicant who said that he may install the driveways before the garages are built. Commissioner Miller requested a minor language change on each resolution. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Miller. To approve Resolution 938-11, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a one -foot Driveway Setbacks at 5330 and 5332 Raymond Avenue; Planning Case No. VR2011-001. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. B. Consideration of Variance Requests to allow for one foot driveway setbacks at 5338 and 5340 Raymond Avenue; Planning Case VR2011-002 Associate Heller provided information on this request in Item 5A. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 1, 2011 Page 4 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Miller. To approve Resolution 939-11, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance for one -foot Driveway Setbacks at 5338 and 5340 Raymond Avenue; Planning Case No. VR2011-002. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. C. Consideration of Variance Requests to allow for one foot driveway setbacks at 5344 and 5346 Raymond Avenue; Planning Case VR2011-003 Associate Heller provided information on this request in Item A. 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 Meehlhause/Commissioner Miller. To approve Resolution 940-11,.a Resolution Recommending Approval of a one -foot Driveway Setbacks at 5344 and 5346 Raymond Avenue; Planning Case No. VR2011-003. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. D. Consideration of Variance Requests to allow for one and three foot driveway setbacks at 5372 and 5374 Raymond Avenue; Planning Case VR2011-004 Associate Heller provided information on this request in Item A. Commissioner Schiltgen requested again that staff speak with public works regarding the lift station. Associate Heller stated she would speak with public works and report back to the Commission if there were any concerns. She noted that conditions could be added to the driveway approval if necessary. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolution 941-11, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a three foot Driveway Setback at 5372 Raymond Avenue and a one -foot Driveway Setback at 5374 Raymond Avenue; Planning Case No. VR2011-004. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 1, 2011 Page 5 E. Consideration of Variance Requests to allow for three foot driveway setbacks 5380-5382 Raymond Avenue; Planning Cases VR2011-005 Associate Heller provided information on this request in Item A. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Stevenson/Commissioner Meehlhause. To approve Resolution 942-11, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a three-foot Driveway Setback at 5380 and 5382 Raymond Avenue; Planning Case No. VR2011-005. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. F. PA2011-001 Consideration of an Amendment to the Mounds View Business Park South Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Allow Indoor Recreational Uses; Planning Case PA2011-001 Planning Associate Heller indicated Scott Nagel, representing "Zero Gravity Trampoline Park," has applied for an amendment to the Mounds View Business Park South Planned Unit Development (PUD). This 17 -acre PUD, located on the southeast corner of County Road 10 and Wooddale Drive, has three large buildings with a total of 270,000 square feet of space. The south business park was developed for manufacturing, assembly, warehouse storage and office uses. Mr. Nagel is requesting an amendment to the PUD so that he can open a trampoline park business in one of the buildings. The amendment would broaden the scope to allow for indoor recreational uses within the South Business Park PUD. Virtual golf simulators and gymnastics are other similar recreational type businesses often found in industrial parks because of the large spaces and high ceilings found in these buildings. Associate Heller reviewed the alignment of this use with the Comprehensive Plan. City Staff was in favor with the amendment and felt the proposed use coincided with Mounds View's Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Miller expressed concern about potential injuries with a trampoline park. Associate Heller stated this was an existing concept and the applicant would have proper management onsite along with insurance. Chair Stevenson questioned why the applicant was choosing the middle of a building and not an end space. Scott Nagel, the applicant, explained Bays 1-3 had potential tenants at this time and the leasing company offered Bays 4-7 to him. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Chair Stevenson asked how noise issues would be addressed. June 1, 2011 Page 6 Mr. Nagel stated there would be an interior fire wall on each side of the space, and did not foresee this being an issue. He explained that other trampoline parks operated well without any noise concerns. Commissioner Miller inquired if medical personnel would be on site during all hours of operation. Mr. Nagel indicated there would be 12-15 staff members on site during business hours. The site would be well monitored by staff. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned if the proposed business would be similar to the trampoline facility in Plymouth, Minnesota. Mr. Nagel stated it would be very similar. The site would also have a padded jumping pit and two dodge ball courts. He explained that there were only 20 facilities of this kind in the country and was a growing business. Commissioner Meehlhause felt this would be a great use for the space. Chair Stevenson asked the timeline for the project. Mr. Nagel estimated the site could be built out and ready for use by Fall of 2011. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Meehlhause/Commissioner Cramblit. To approve Resolution 943-11, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Amendment to the Mounds View Business Park South Planned Unit Development to Allow Indoor Recreational Uses; Planning Case No. PA2011-001. Ayes — 5 6. Other Planning Activity None. Nays — 0 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. June 15, 2011 B. July 6, 2011 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 1, 2011 Page 7 There being no farther business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 20, 2011 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: June 1, 2011 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. VR2011-006 Variance for a Reduced Rear Yard Setback Address: 8088 Sunnyside Road Applicant: Gordon & Cynthia Druvenga 6. Other Planning Activity A. Code Amendment for Chapter 1121.09 B. City Code & Zoning Code Amendments for Variances 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. August 3, 2011 B. August 17, 2011 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. July 6, 2011 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion MOUNDS VIEW City of Mounds View Staff Report Item No: 5A Meeting Date: July 20, 2011 Type of Business: Public Hearing To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Variance Request to allow for a Reduced Rear Yard Setback at 8088 Sunnyside Road; Planning Case VR2011-006 Introduction: The property owners, Gordy and Cynthia Druvenga, are requesting a variance to permit an addition to their house at 8088 Sunnyside Road to encroach two feet into the required 30 - foot rear yard setback. The Druvengas want to build a 14'x 28' addition with a family room and main floor laundry on the back of their house. Discussion: The Druvenga's house is a rambler style built in 1952 on the southwest corner of Sunnyside Road and Sherwood Road. All of the lots on this block of Sunnyside are 231 feet deep except for the applicant's lot, which is 146 feet deep. Because of the deeper lots, all the homes, including the applicant's, were built with large front setbacks of about 76 feet (city code requires a minimum 30 foot front setback). 8088 Sunnyside was then subdivided and the rear 85 feet used to create a lot fronting Sherwood Road (this house was built in 1964). Because of the lot split, the applicant's property has a much smaller backyard than the rest of the homes on the block. The Druvengas bought their house in 1988 and like the neighborhood, butwant more space. Rather than move to a larger house, they are choosing to expand their existing home with a new family room and main floor laundry. The current layout of the house is such that it only makes sense to put the addition on the back of the house. Since this property only has a 42 foot deep backyard, there is not much room to expand the house and still meet the setback requirement. The applicant's backyard is adjacent to the west neighbor's garage, the south neighbor's garage and two sheds, and Sherwood Road. A row of tall bushes screens the Druvenga's backyard from Sherwood Road. Variance Criteria Review: As with any variance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: Planning Case VR2011--006 July 20, 2011 Staff Report Page 2 a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The extraordinary circumstances which apply to this property are that a 76 foot front setback is much larger than normal, and this lot is 85 feet shorter in depth than the rest of the lots on the block, yet has the same deep front setback. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation would not deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district, as most other properties do not have this large of a front setback causing the backyard to be only 42 feet deep. C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicants are not responsible for the conditions which have prompted them to apply for a variance. The applicant's purchased the property after the house was built and the property subdivided. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Granting this variance would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege in that most other property owners could easily build additions on the rear of their homes and meet the 30 foot rear setback requirement. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The two -foot variance requested is the minimum that would be necessary in order to add the desired square footage and features to the house. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Given the circumstances, granting the variance request may not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title. Planning Case VR2011-006 July 20, 2099 Staff Report Page 3 g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The rear addition would not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjoining properties. Public Hearing: As with any variance application, a public hearing is required. Notices were mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the applicant's properties. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission may take one of the following actions related to the request: Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 945-11 is attached for action if the Commission so chooses. 2. Deny the requested variance. The Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings 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. Respectfully Submitted By CM--� Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photo 3. Proposed Site Plans 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Resolution 945-11 00 g 8080 8071 N N ZONING MAP -'1 8032 8025 8070 808 UIUU 8060 8075 DR R 8040 7970 8025 7954 7901 7940 7930 8028 - Y¢ 8015 8175 ��^�^ 8005 8160 7966 8171 to LO 7975 7970 6165 00 7960 W N Ln Ln N M N 0 7955 7956 8155 S� 8150 h 8165 N n N N 8145 Si�roSib 8145 14�N 8135 S S� �S� 8140 8141 A 8125 8130 813 N 8111 r- 812 to N to N W N N N N S ERWOOD R 00 g 8080 8071 N N 8039 � 8032 8025 8070 808 8006 8060 8075 7979 8045 8040 7970 8025 7954 7901 7940 7930 8028 - Y¢ 8015 7980 8005 8016 7966 7985 8004 7945 7975 7970 7935 7965 7960 W N Ln Ln N M N 0 7955 7956 7933 7950 h N n N N 7900 7735 8081 N n 8088 8071 N,806fy 8050 8059 8039 8042 8032 8025 8018 8009 8006 7981 7990 7979 7980 7959 7970 7949 7954 7901 7940 7930 7900 0 o: 8075 00 It N 0 N O o 8099 8071 8071 8068 8055 8060 8065 8045 8052 8051 8033 8040 8035 8011 8000 8021 8011 7981 7990 7989 7969 7980 7979 7965 7966 7969 7959 7945 7946 7927 7935 7930 7917 W N Ln Ln N M N 7800 7901 r u HILLVIEW N N 7886 tp 7891 N 7880 7895 N 7876 z 7885 7866 7867 B_2 -3 7877 7854 7851 7870 ryA 7863 7842 7841 49 7851 78300 O —34 5 7820 � 7815 Highway 10 ti^ Sx� 781 a N Si3i 7800 7809 * Properties not 1^� B-2 �b R-4 7801 indicated with a 7767 designation are zoned 7761 R-1, Single Family Residential 7755 7745 7715 Aerial View of 8088 Sunnyside Road aSTr RJL�191�-1.�SI��i I .T•� l,4 . Mph :� Aerial View of 8088 Sunnyside Road is 3 Addition Plan for 8088 Sunnyside Road MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 945-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A TWENTY EIGHT FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK AT 8088 SUNNYSIDE ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2011-006 WHEREAS, property owners, Gordon and Cynthia Druvenga, have applied for a variance to allow a house addition to encroach two feet into the required 30 foot rear yard setback at 8088 Sunnyside Road; and, WHEREAS, 8088 Sunnyside Road is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as follows: Spring Lake Park Hill View, Except the West 85 feet of Lot 96, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 06-30-23-42-0015 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Proposed Site and Addition Plans 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Views 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 July 20, 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 8088 Sunnyside Road, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Fres. 945-1 Pace 2 Circumstances apply to this property in that the house was built on the lot in 1952 with a deep front setback, and the rear of the lot was then split off. The house placement and subdivision makes it difficult to any add living space to the house and meet required setbacks without a variance. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would limit the applicants' ability to expand their house. 3. The applicants did not build this house or subdivide the lot, and intend only to substantially improve the property. 4. Granting this variance would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege in that where the house was built on the lot and the size of the property are pre-existing conditions. The two (2) foot variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicants' practical difficulty. 6. Granting a variance to allow for a house addition with a two -foot rear setback would not be detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code in that few properties have a larger front yard than back yard. Granting the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjoining properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of Gordon and Cynthia Druvenga, to allow a living space addition to have a 28 -foot rear setback at 8088 Sunnyside Road subject to the following: If within one year after granting the variance, the work as permitted by the variance has not been completed, then such variance shall be come 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 20th day of July, 2011. Gary Meehlhause, Vice -Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) 1 of Mounds View Staff Item No: 6A Meeting Date: July 20, 2011 Type of Business: Action To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Proposed Code Amendment — Chapter 1121.09 Introduction: After the discussion about driveways and parking areas at the May 18 and July 6, 2011 Planning Commission meetings, staff has prepared a city code amendment for the Commission to review and take action on. Discussion: Staff requests that the Planning Commission see the attached resolution to review the proposed language change. The change is indicated by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text. Recommendation: The Planning Commission should review the proposed zoning code amendment and recommend changes or act on attached Resolution 946-11. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 946-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 1121.09 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE TO ADDRESS ACCESSING DETACHED PARKING AREAS WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that a requirement for accessing detached parking areas frequently be specifically addressed in Chapter 1121.09 Subd. 7 of the Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Chapter 1121.09 Subd. 7 of the Mounds View Zoning Code by deleting the striGken language and adding the underlined text as follows: Chapter 1121.09 Subd. 7. Surfacing: All areas, as allowed in subdivision 1104.01(4) of this Title, to be utilized for parking space and driveways shall be surfaced with a permanent improved surface material as defined in Section 1102.02 of this Chapter, suitable to control dust, drainage and erosion, meeting the requirements of Section 902.03 of this Code except as follows: A gravel surface material meeting the specifications of Section 902.03, subdivision 5 of this Code may be used for parking areas in an R-1 or R-2 District not to exceed three hundred (300) square feet or, if to be used as a parking surface for an RV, the minimum area that would encompass the wheel -base area of one (1) recreational vehicle. If any parking area detached from the driveway is utilized for frequently used vehicles it shall be serviced by an improved driveway that connects to, and is accessed only by, the primary driveway. Plans for surfacing and drainage of driveways and stalls forfive (5) or more vehicles shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review, and the final drainage plan must receive the Director of Public Works/City Engineer's written approval. WHEREAS, amending the Zoning Code to address accessing detached parking areas will serve to clarify the zoning requirements; and, 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 an amendment to Chapter 1121.09 Subd. 7 of the Mounds View Zoning Code to address accessing detached parking areas as defined herein. Resolution 946-11 Page 2 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, 2011. Gary Meehlhause, Vice -Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 6B MO�J �+ t tEW Meeting Date: July 20, 2011 V L��Y Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Proposed Code Amendments for Variance Language Introduction: In May 2011, Governor Dayton signed the state code changes made by the Minnesota Legislature about the wording used for variances. The Mounds View City Attorney has recommended that the City amend the City Code and Zoning Code to be consistent with the state language. Discussion: During the 2011 Legislative Session, a proposal to change state code language regarding variances was proposed by the League of Minnesota Cities and supported by many cities in Minnesota. These changes were proposed after a ruling about a variance case was made by the Minnesota Supreme Court. A few years ago, the City of Minnetonka approved a variance and an opposing neighbor sued the city. The lower courts all ruled in favor of the City of Minnetonka. The neighbor was adamantly against the variance and appealed the case all the way to the Minnesota State Supreme Court. The Supreme Court made a surprising ruling stating that the City was in error and should not have approved the variance based on the literal interpretation of the variance language. The Supreme Court specifically referred to the meaning of the word "hardship." The primary change to the variance language is removing the word "hardship," and replacing it with "practical difficulty." Staff requests that the Planning Commission see the attached draft ordinance to review the proposed language change. The changes are indicated by deleting the sf 4ekea language and adding the underlined text. Recommendation: The Planning Commission should review the proposed City Code and Zoning Code amendments, take testimony from staff and hold the public hearing. Resolution 947-11 is attached for the Commission to take action on. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 947-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 1100, CHAPTERS 1102 AND 1125 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE AND AMENDING TITLE 1000, CHAPTER 1008 AND TITLE 1200, CHAPTER 1205 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE REGARDING VARIANCES WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that the Mounds View City Code and Zoning Code language for variances be amended to be consistent with the 2011 adopted state code variance language; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Chapters 1102 and 1125 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Chapter 1008 and 1205 of the Mounds View City Code by deleting the .stricken language and adding the underlined text as follows: Title 1100, Chapter 1102, Section 1102.02, subdivision 124 of the Mounds View Zoning Code: Subd. 124. VARIANCE. The waiving by Board action of the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship practical difficulties because of physical unique circumstances uefque related to the individual property under consideration. Title 1100, Chapter 1125, Section 1125.02, subdivisions 2 and 6 of the Mounds View Zoning Code: 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 undue hardship Aar practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of the property owner's land. Practical difficulties include but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. No use variances niay shall be issued r property is located. A variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist: since the effective date hereof have had R GOR494 the general purposes and intent of this Title. Res 947-11 Page 2 c. That the speGial GORditiGRG OF GiFOUrnstaRGes de not result ftem the aetions of the applicant The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. iLIUM 1161" e. That the YaFianee requested Is th !Ge whooh would alleviate the variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. f. The 'n M w .. Gwould not he materially detrimental to the n� Irnene of this Title nr to n other nrenerty in the same zone The variance requested is the minimum variance constitute practical difficulties. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such restrictionsconditions 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 Subd. 6. Administrative Variance Process: a. Types: Property owners seeking relief from the Zoning Code may request an administrative variance, provided that the property is zoned R-1 or R-2 and either of the following is applicable: (1) The request concerns setbacks; the variance amount is within twenty-five percent (25%) of code requirements; and approval of the variance does not result in a setback of less than five feet (5); and Res 947-11 Page 3 (2) tThe request is related to a pre-existing, non -conforming driveway or curb cut. b. Review Procedures: The Director of Community Development will review administrative variance requests. In order to be approved, the variance request must meet the hardship criteria as stated in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2. If hafdship is evident all of the criteria are met and approval is granted, the adjacent property owners must be notified by mail of the preliminary approval and allowed ten (10) days to respond to the decision. Absent any opposition from adjacent property owners, the Planning Commission shall review the administrative variance request at the following regularly scheduled meeting. c. Denial and Appeals: If the Director chooses to deny a request, or if either the adjacent neighbors or the Planning Commission disagrees with administrative approval of a variance request, the request is denied administratively and the applicant may choose to request a formal variance from the Planning Commission. d. Fees: Administrative variance fees are set according to the fee schedule adopted by City Council resolution. Title 1000, Chapter 1008, Section 1108.16, subdivision 1 of the Mounds View City Code: Subd. 1. A variance to the provisions of Chapter 1008 may be considered by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes use hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner. Applications shall be submitted and reviewed in the same manner as indicated in Chapter 1125 of the Mounds View Zoning Code. Title 1200, Chapter 1205, Section 1205.02 of the Mounds City Code: 1205.02: VARIANCES: The Council may grant a variance of these subdivision regulations in any particular case where the subdivider can show that, by reason of unique circumstances relating to a specific lot, the strict compliance with these regulations GOU'd sa se an exGeptieRal and undue imposes unusual hardship on the enjaymeRt of a substantial prepeFtsueh relief may be granted without detriment to the publiG welfare and y right,- ided, the intent and purpose ^f this Chapter. to the subdivider in the use of his or her land. Unusual hardship includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. A variance may be granted only if the Council finds that all of the following circumstances exist: Subd 1. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. Res 947-11 Page 4 Subd. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 3. The subdivider proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by these regulations or the City Zoning Ordinance. Subd.4. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape. topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of these regulations has had no control. That the unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Subd. 5. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Subd. 6. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the unusual hardship. Economic conditions alone do not constitute unusual hardship. Subd. 7. The Council may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by the he 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. WHEREAS, amending the Zoning Code and City Code to be consistent with state code will serve to clarify the zoning requirements; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that amendments to the Zoning Code and City Code are warranted and justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of amendments to Chapters 1102 and 1125 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Chapter 1008 and 1205 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, 2011. Gary Meehlhause, Vice -Chairperson r,4111r*1n James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 6, 2011 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. on July 6, 2011. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Miller, Rundle, Schiltgen, Stevenson and Smith. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes I CM2011-001. Consideration of an Outdoor Storage Conditional Use 2 Permit Amendment Discuss Proposed Driveway and Parking Area City Code Amendments 3 3. Approval of Minutes May 18, 2011. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the Minutes of the May 18, 2011 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases July 6, 2011 Page 2 A. CM2011-001 Consideration of an Outdoor Storage Conditional Use Permit Amendment Address: 2159 Mustang Drive Applicant: Bauer Welding, Doug Bauer, owner Planning Associate Heller explained that Doug Bauer, owner of Bauer Welding & Metal Fabrication was requesting approval of an amendment to an existing conditional use permit (CUP). In August 2004, a conditional use permit was approved to allow outdoor storage on this property. The applicant constructed a 50' x 80' paved area on the north side of the building. One of the conditions of the CUP approval was that the gravel driveway leading from the parking lot to the storage area be improved with a hard surface within three years. City staff administratively approved two-year extensions in 2007 and 2009, but informed Mr. Bauer that he would need to amend the CUP after the last extension expired. Mr. Bauer has now requested the condition that the driveway be improved with a hard surface be removed from his CUP. Doug Bauer, Bauer Welding & Metal Fabrication, explained to the Commission the materials fabricated in his shop and the type of things that are stored outside. He indicated that he still hopes to expand the building and remove the outdoor storage area and driveway in the future. Chair Stevenson questioned if a certain type of gravel had to be placed on the driveway as it was located in an industrial zone. Planning Associate Heller noted that the City Code requires a minimum of a Class 2 gravel be used for outdoor storage areas. Bauer Welding constructed the driveway with the appropriate type of material. Staff had no objections with the driveway remaining as is, and has not received any complaints since it was added over six years ago. Commissioner Cramblit was in favor of allowing the driveway to remain gravel as this would allow for easier expansion of the site in the future. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Meehlhause/Commissioner Cramblit. To approve Resolution 944-11, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to remove the requirement of installing a permanent improved surface on the outdoor storage area driveway at Bauer Welding & Metal Fabrication at 2159 Mustang Drive; Planning Case No. CM2011-001. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 6. Other Planning Activity July 6, 2011 Page 3 A. Discuss Proposed Driveway and Parking Area City Code Amendments Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that permits for replacement driveways or driveway expansions are one of the most common permits issued every year, and parking off an improved surface is one of the most common code enforcement problems. The Planning Commission discussed the current City Code requirements for driveways and parking areas at the May 18"' meeting. Staff presented a code amendment to the Commission. Chair Stevenson questioned if a gravel area could be added adjacent to a hard surface. Associate Heller stated that up to 300 square feet of gravel area can be added adjacent to a driveway if it has a five foot setback. Recreational vehicles were not the majority of the City's parking concerns. The Commission was in favor of the recommended code amendment and asked that staff bring it back for formal action. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. July 20, 2011 B. August 3, 2011 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Associate Planner Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA September 21, 2011 --7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: July 6, 2011 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. VR 2011-007 Variance Request to Allow a Second Curb Cut and Driveway in an R-1, Single Family Residential District Address: 6939 Pleasant View Drive Applicant: Lois Lestina 6. Other Planning Activity None 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. October 5, 2011 B. October 19, 2011 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. July 20, 2011 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 20, 2011 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Meehlhause at 7:02 p.m. for July 20, 2011. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Miller, and Schiltgen. Absent and Excused: Chairperson Stevenson; Commissioners Rundle and Smith. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 VR2011-006. Consideration of a Variance for a Reduced Rear Yard Setback 2 Code Amendment for Chapter 1121.09 3 City Code & Zoning Code Amendments for Variance 3 3. Approval of Minutes June 1, 2011. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Miller. To approve the Minutes of the June 1, 2011 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. 9 None. Ayes — 4 Nays — 0 Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 5. Planning Cases July 20, 2011 Page 2 A. VR2011-006 Consideration of a Variance for a Reduced Rear Yard Setback at 8088 Sunnyside Road Planning Associate Heller indicated the applicants, Gordy and Cynthia Druvenga, at 8088 Sunnyside Road are requesting a rear yard setback variance to allow for an addition to the back of their house. The property layout was unique in that the lot depth was 146 feet but this block of Sunnyside has large front setbacks since all the other lots are 85 feet deeper. This large front setback left the backyard only 42 feet deep. The homeowners want to build a 14' x 28' addition to the rear of the house. Mr. Druvenga has spoken to the adjacent property owner to the west and the neighbor submitted a letter in support of the variance. City staff reviewed the variance approval guidelines with the Commission and recommended approval of a variance allowing for up to a four -foot encroachment into the required 30 -foot rear yard setback. Commissioner Miller questioned what the addition to the home would add. Associate Heller stated the homeowner would add a family room, laundry room on the main floor and a deck to the rear of the house. She further reviewed the site plan with the Commission. Gordy Druvenga, 8088 Sunnyside Road, explained he has lived at his property for 22+ years. He enjoys the neighborhood and the proposed addition would allow him to remain in the property through retirement. Mr. Druvenga requested the Commission support the four -foot variance. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if any utility lines would be affected by the construction to the rear of the property. Mr. Druvenga stated the overhead power lines are not in the way of an addition, but underground sewer or water pipes may need to be dealt with depending on where they connect to the house. Vice Chair Meehlhause opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. There were no comments from the public. Vice Chair Meehlhause closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned the timeframe the applicant had to build before the variance would expire. Associate Heller indicated the variance would expire in one year, but the homeowner could request an extension before the one year expires. Mounds View Planning Commission July 20, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 3 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolution 945-11, a Resolution Approving of a Four Foot Variance or Twenty -Six Foot Rear Yard Setback at 8088 Sunnyside Road; Planning Case No. VR2011-006. Commissioner Miller clarified a grammatical correction to be made to the Resolution. Ayes — 4 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 6. Other Planning Activity A. Code Amendment for Chapter 1121.09 Associate Heller stated this was the formal action for the detached parking code amendment as discussed at a previous Planning Commission meeting. This would add language to the code stating that a detached parking area that is used frequently, it must be serviced by an improved driveway connected to the primary driveway. Staff recommended the Commission approve the Resolution as presented. Vice Chair Meehlhause read the Resolution revisions aloud for the record. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Miller. To approve Resolution 946-11, Approving to an Amendment to City Code Chapter 1121.09, to Address Accessing Detached Parking Areas. Ayes — 4 Nays — 0 B. City Code & Zoning Code Amendments for Variances Motion carried. Associate Heller informed the Commission that the proposed changes to the City Code regarding variances were in response to the recent State code language changes. She indicated the variance language in the State code has removed the word hardship and replaced it with "practical difficulty." With this change, the Mounds View City Code will be consistent with the updated State language. The City Attorney submitted these proposed changes and City Staff recommends approval of the Code amendments. Vice Chair Meehlhause opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. There were no comments from the public. Vice Chair Meehlhause closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned if most cities were revising their variance language to coincide with the State's language. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Associate Heller stated this was the case. July 20, 2011 Page 4 Vice Chair Meehlhause indicated he felt the new language was easier to understand. Commissioner Miller asked how administrative variances were handled. Associate Heller indicated administrative variances are simpler and do not require a public hearing, although only a few cases will qualify for an administrative variance. Instead of a public hearing, only immediately adjacent property owners are notified of the request and the Planning Commission reviews the request. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Miller. To approve Resolution 947-11, A Resolution Recommending Amendments to the City Code to Address Variances. Ayes — 4 Nays — 0 Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. August 3, 2011 S. August 17, 2011 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session Motion carried. There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chair Meehlhause adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Associate Planner Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. tv _ _7�Try Item No: 5A Ma NDIEW Meeting Date: September 21 2011 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of /Mounds blow Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Variance to allow a Second Curb Cut and Driveway at 6939 Pleasant View Drive; Planning Case VR11-007 Introduction: The applicant, Lois Lestina, property owner of 6939 Pleasant View Drive, is requesting a variance to allow a second curb cut and driveway to remain on her property. The City Code allows one curb cut on each R-1, Single Family Residential zoned property without a variance. Discussion: The house at 6939 Pleasant View Drive was built in 1940, and Lois Lestina has lived here for over 35 years. The property is 100 feet wide and 450 feet deep, but the rear half of the property is mostly wetland and not easily accessible due to a steep hill. The house was built about fifteen feet from the south property line, and originally had a small garage behind the house that was likely built on the south property line. The original driveway is very close to the south property line so that it could run next to the house and access the garage in the rear yard. In 1993, the Lestinas removed the old garage, and built a new two -car garage on the other side of the house, ten feet from the north property line and 26 -feet away from the house. They also installed a second gravel driveway leading to the new garage. As with many of the roads in Mounds View, the street had no curbs, so residents could easily move or add curb cuts and driveways. The Lestinas continued to use both driveways until 2010 when Pleasant View Drive was reconstructed and curbs were added. Early in 2010, the Public Works Department mailed property owner, Lois Lestina, a letter, stating that her property had two driveways and that she must contact the City if she wants to keep the second curb cut. Ms. Lestina did not contact the City before the street was reconstructed, and as a result, only one curb cut was installed on the driveway that leads to the garage and she lost access to the south driveway. Ms. Lestina has applied for a variance because she wants to be able to use the south driveway again. That driveway leads right up to the house, and she has physical limitations that make it difficult for her to get around, particularly in the winter. The north driveway does not come nearly as close to the house and is not as convenient. The Zoning Code states that "single-family uses shall be limited to one curb cut access per property unless, upon application for a variance of this restriction, the Planning Commission finds that it is in the interest of public safety to waive such" (Chapter 1121.09 Subd. 5e). City Staff has informed Ms. Lestina that if the Planning Commission were to approve a variance for the second curb cut, she would have one-year to install a hard surface driveway and new curb cut that meets the required five-foot setback. Lestina 2°" Driveway Variance Report Senternber29, 2099 Page 2 For the Planning Commission to act favorably toward this application, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. 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. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property, which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The only thing exceptional or unusual about this property is that the house, original garage and driveway were all placed on the far south side of the property. In order for the property owner to build a new garage that had better vehicle access and met setback requirements, it had to be put on the north side of the house. Even if the new garage had been placed closer to the house, the original driveway really would not have been able to be utilized to access this garage (there would have only been one curb cut then). The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by otherproperties in the same district under the terms of this Title. While it is true that some lots do have two curb cuts, there are not many of them, especially on interior lots. It is more common to have two curb cuts on a corner lot. It is even less common to see properties with two completely separate driveways. Staff feels that limiting the applicant to one curb cut would not be depriving her of something commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant may not be responsible for the placement of the house and original driveway, but she owned the property when the existing garage and north driveway were built, and was responsible for where they were placed. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Even considering that other lots have two curb cuts, staff believes that granting this variance would be a conference of special privilege to the applicant that would typically be denied to other residential. properties. Lestina god Driveway Variance Report Septemher2l, 2011 Page 3 e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. Adding the second curb cut is the minimum variance possible to alleviate what the applicant has stated is her hardship. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Granting the variance request may or may not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The second curb cut and driveway would not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjoining properties. 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 applicant's property and a notice was published in the Sun Focus newspaper on Thursday, September 8, 2011. Recommendation: Staff recommends holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and the public. The Commission may take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. An approval version of Resolution 948-11 is attached for action if the Commission so chooses. 2. Deny the requested variance. A denial version of Resolution 948-11 is attached for action if the Commission so chooses. 3. Table the request. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide there is a need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Respectfully Submitted By, UhLut l� Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photos 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Resolution 948-11 (Approval & Denial versions) 'f t D 7188 7191 7172 7151 7150 0 � odINMI NN7100 NJ(\N j - -- N N 2940 O 0 N 2932 coUna s 7090 7074 DR N � W 00 70951 N N i N 7039 N N LrR WOODCREST pp pp N d U d d M N N N N ED 0 N C 695_ 7161 6953 d 7149 6951 7137 r. rn $ $ N 7125 Z M N C's o M O 10 M 6939 i N M 694 6945 o O M 6928 00 O O 0 ` t0 p M ro 7092 M roi M 70820 7095 F 7072 7069 R I p6900 6917 I 7054 7057 -- D 7034 7041 N (14 L 7o2s > 702 E y 7006 7011 69 1 6986 7 I a 6970 Z t D 7188 7191 7172 7151 7150 0 � odINMI NN7100 NJ(\N j - -- N N 2940 O 0 N 2932 coUna s 7090 7074 DR N � W 00 70951 N N i N 7039 N N LrR WOODCREST pp pp N d U d d M N N N N ED 0 N C 695_ 6953 d 0 695 N 6951 CD N 694 0 6939 i N 694 6945 6928 29 ` 69�2 N •.'. N N p6900 6917 O d N N (14 NEW BRIGHTON * properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single ramily Residential Aerial View � r Fid d ✓� IN — i x North driveway' Garage t.. The aerial photos were taken in 2008, before this street was reconstructed. Photographic Documentation This driveway is hard to seenow(it runs next to the fence) because of the small amount of gravel and grass growth due to lack of use for the past year, and new sod was put in the boulevard after the street was completed. APPROVAL MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION VERSION RESOLUTION NO. 948-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA .-...�-.. �...�.. .- c 111 iii a a•..0 P11 i- �- - - II WHEREAS, the applicant, Lois Lestina, property owner of 6939 Pleasant View Drive, has applied for a variance to allow a second curb cut and driveway on her property; and, WHEREAS, 6939 Pleasant View Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family REsidential, and is legally described as follows: Knollwood Park, Lot 73, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 07-30-23-33-0029 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Photographic Documentation 4. 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 September 21, 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, RE 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 6939 Pleasant View Drive, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 948-11 Page 2 Circumstances apply to this property in that the house and original driveway were placed at the far south side of the property in 1940, and this driveway has existed and been used since that time. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would limit the applicant's ability to park a vehicle very close to the house. 3. The applicant had no control over the placement of the house and original garage and driveway. 4. Granting this variance would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege in that there are other properties in the city that have two curb cuts. The two curb cuts that were on the property from 1993 to 2010 would have continued to exist today if the applicant's street wasn't reconstructed in 2010. 5. The second curb cut and driveway is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant's hardship. 6. Granting a variance to allow a second curb cut and driveway would not be detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code, in that non -conforming uses may j continue to exist. The two curb cuts and driveways existed for 18 years and did not appear to cause any adverse impacts 7. Granting the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjoining properties. NOVO, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of Lois Lestina, property owner of 6939 Pleasant View Drive, to allow a second curb cut and driveway to remain on the south side of the property, subject to the following: 1. The south driveway must have a hard surface and new curb cut installed within one year of the date of this approval. Adopted this 21st day of September, 2011. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. [01 F61A •• ■ -. • - ; -- • • j ■' kyj— a t ■ri kvim . a . 1 11 WHEREAS, the applicant, Lois Lestina, property owner of 6939 Pleasant View Drive, has applied for a variance to allow a second curb cut and driveway on her property; and, WHEREAS, 6939 Pleasant View Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family REsidential, and is legally described as follows: Knollwood Park, Lot 73, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 07-30-23-33-0029 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 5. Zoning Map 6. Aerial View 7. Photographic Documentation 8. 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 September 21, 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 all of the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are not satisfied, and finds there notto be sufficient hardship with regard to the property located at 6939 Pleasant View Drive, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 948-11 Paye 2 1. The only exceptional circumstances that apply to this property is that the house and original driveway were placed at the far south side of the property in 1940. The property is otherwise unexceptional with no special conditions or limitations to its use. Section 1121.09 Subdivision 5e of the Zoning Code states that single-family lots shall be limited to one curb cut per property unless it is in the interest of public safety to waive such. There are no public safety issues with this property that would cause the owner to need two curb cuts. 3. The applicant had no control over the placement of the house and original garage and driveway, but has since built the existing garage and north driveway. The 26 - foot distance between the house and north driveway is the result of the applicant. 4. Granting this variance would confer upon the applicant a special privilege not typically enjoyed by others in the same zoning district. 5. Granting a variance for a second curb cut would be detrimental to the purpose of the Title as there appears to be little or no hardship associated with the request. The applicant could easily expand the north driveway to bring it closer to the house. 6. Granting the variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code or to other property in the R-1, Single -Family Residential zoning district. 7. Granting the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjoining properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, denies the variance request of Lois Lestina, property owner of 6939 Pleasant View Drive, to allow a second curb cut and driveway to remain on the south side of the property. Adopted this 21St day of September, 2011. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) tk MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA October 5, 2011 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: July 20, 2011 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. M12011-001 Minor Subdivision of 7337 Spring Lake Road Address: 6939 Pleasant View Drive Applicant: Gary Voltin and Bonnie Hagel (Personal Representatives of the Estate of the Owners) i B. VR2008-005 Re -approval of Variances for the Select Senior Living Development Address: NW Corner of County Road 10 & Groveland Road Applicant: Joel Larson, Select Senior Living, Lake Elmo, MN 6. Other Planning Activity None 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. October 19, 2011 B. November 2, 2011 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. September 21, 2011 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion Mons ViEvv rite of Mounds View Staff Item No: 5_A Meeting Date: October Type of Business: Buses Mounds View Planning Commission To: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate From: Consideration of the Minor iase M 20111 1001 f 7337 Spring Item TitlelSubj ect: Lake Road; Planning el, are the property owners of Introduction: represent by Gary Voltin and Bonnie Hag bought this property in The Voltin Family, p Their parents, Edmund and Helen VolUa d Bonnie are the of a and Gary cit app 7337 Spring Lake Road. are requesting Y representatives for the estate. They 1g48. Both Edmund and Helen are now deceas appointed personal replit the property into two lots. and a minor subdivision to sp final house Shows the Thep p ell peace s have submitted a Certificate of Survey that proposed subdivision willp create a north lot that will have the original south lot that is vacant proposed new lots. Discussion: dinarily a division of land less than two acres in area in which no A minor subdivision is or Comprehensive Plan designatesparcels is 715 more than one additional lot is created. rner lots must be a The lot is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and the Comp 01 residential. The minimum lot width for interior residential area for low density of area is 11,000 square fes a {able whnd � h shows he dimensions for the feet and the minimum lot square feet. Belowi adjustment: 100 feet wide and 12, parcels before and as a result of the proposed After n- coPt 1 Lot Dimen Before N Oa Area S . Feet 1 Lot Dimension 11,008 square feet square feet 102.5' x 107.4 7337 Spring Lake 285, X 0 17,462 square feet 265' x 107' Road 162.6' x 107.4' New Vacant lot NIA standards. As this table shows, the proposed lots will meet or exceed all city pose a challenge when building a lot will probably be purchased with the intention of the owners building a The new vacantCode setback requirements could p revaiose setbacks en both County The City er front' p laced in the northeast new house. uirements will put Lake Road, a new house would have to se p tion for the owners new house on this lot. Because of the lar Road H2 and Spring There is an op but it does appear there still are many and orientation of a new house. his lot will have corner 2 the lot, but still meet a 30 foot rear setback. These e is ac some limits on the size to apply for a variance to allow reduced setbacks' rather than behind the house. options for house styles that could be built on ids lot without a variance. p ace in the front and side y most of its lawn space 7337S Labe Rd Subdivision Staff Report October 5, 2011 Page 2 Park Dedication Subdivisions of land are subject to Of the City Code. Staff suggests park dedication the new v ggests the requirements consistent with Chapter 1204 vacant lot since there has been Park dedication fee be based only on the land value of minor subdivisions the park dedication fee is t o deter a house at 7337 Spring Lake Road since 1944. For mined by Ramsey County. typically 5 /o of the current year market value as x fermi sq feet = $ey Co yIn this case for2011the land value the final determination on the 5% - $2,916 per square foot is make City givingpark dedication fee amount dedication fee. The City Council will make the applicant the approved documentation for recordin This fee must a paid prior t the Eases 9 with Ramsey County. With every subdivision of land, the City re easements around the quires the owner to perimeter of the lot. The city standard easements ran en foot wide along the front of the lot shown on the certificate and five-foot wide on each side of the lots. rtificate of survey and will be dedicated b Public These easements are Notice. Y separate recorded documents. No pub ,c onl t e is required for a minor subdivision w tot is property owners s nce there o be created. In this c seVesta ffff t Ypically alerts residents in Y be an additional home b mailed notices to adjacent Summar . built in the neighborhood. The proposed subdivision will simply split the minimum city requirements are met with this request. and create one new parcel. All Recommendation: quest. Because the proposed subdivision satisfies all city code re approval of Resolution s949- ubdivision i resolution a Lake Road, with stipulations, requirements, Staff is recommending approving the minor subdivision of 7337 Spring Respectfully Submitted By, � l� L&t� Heidi Heller Planning Associate ttachAttachments- Zoning 1• Zoning Map 2• Aerial Map 3, Resolution 949-11 4. Certificate of Survey t Zoning Map 0 7545 1 7525 7538 W 754 Y 7515 M 0 7545 7540 Y m 7532 750 N 7500 � N N N 52 7530 M M M M DRIVE 7522 BRONSON _ 7490 7485 ro 501 n I M N O 7474 7489 °' N 49 N N N` a0 00 00 i M M M 7465 7474 7471747 BRONSON �w > 7457 7462 54 7456 N O 0 7444 it 7451 II 7447 7448 7445 - 7 p N N N 7430 7415 7442 7435 7434 �. 7440 7425 7409 7408 II 7415 740 7405 7412 � 7405 7400 7382 7395 7380 a 7381 7390 7385 II 7375 N 7365 7360 0 7375 7350 7350 IZ 7365 7347 34 J 7373 2 7344 732 4 32 Z 327 M 325 N a0 7338 w la rn M Ln Fn rl 33 M m 7317 01 00 00 N 7310 d' M r0 O O N m N 315 M M M M M `M 0* J 00ypp o NO N w CO O Go 000 N NO 7290 N N M Q M M M 7280 Ov 7285 72E a o 7270 3 o O 7275 I N n n 7260 1 7265 O w r 7234 K O HIDDEN p NLn7255 7226 r n � 7200 7215 719 7188 7191 R-4 71E 71 a+ MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 949-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE MINOR SUBDIVISION OF 7337 SPRING LAKE ROAD, REQUESTED BY GARY VOLTIN AND BONITA HAGEL, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE EDMUND VOLTIN ESTATE; PLANNING CASE NO. M12011-001 WHEREAS, GaryVoltin and Bonita Hagel, personal representatives forthe estate of the decedent, property owner Edmund Voltin, have requested approval of a minor subdivision of 7337 Spring Lake Road, a property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally -described as: Lot 90, Spring Lake Park Knolls, Ramsey County, Minnesota, except the north 100.00 feet thereof PIN 07-30-23-23-0036. WHEREAS, the Applicants propose to subdivide 7337 Spring Lake Road into two lots; the north lot will include the existing house, and the south lot will be vacant; 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 Applicants request for a minor subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, 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 2011 Ramsey County assessed market land value. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that 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. Resolution 949-11 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the minor subdivision of 7337 Spring Lake Road subject to the following stipulations: 1. The Applicants shall complete any and all requirements after final review of the Certificate of Survey and title commitment by the City Attorney. 2. The Applicants shall arrange to amend the Certificate of Survey if any changes are required by Ramsey County. 3. The Applicants shall pay to the City, a park dedication fee and all other fees associated with this subdivision request. 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 5th day of October, 2011. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Z 3 E h C O a O a a N M M N W im 0 N uj W CL. w CL W CO3 LIMO ma cc La W La -C N c W m n F+ Q a)a N Y Q a y• - O JG O Q a) ?� L E" m C C.7 T LO N y In •�+ L O -gyp 'a � {F W' +tC U j Nw Z 7t y N off CL a �OL30 4.0 OO+ o��U Z T + LO c > N N O N N N C 0 O F4 N 0) N N O w C N O N N N N 'al N W w E E N LO a O I� O) o_ "- 4) p U ,� d) W�Wzd) In -) � p O +.C+ N _j - . aa) a N UA ryCO OJ 3N O O C... OU C a00 II �04 c � O 0 N 03 O a l a) a ++ 0 p L O Q) d) N • U .0 u' W Y N •i 7 N 0 a ay C c N' a w .✓ a 4) N d' C (NA 'a N N L Q C t ca N C C O N W % N w _p xgo a) )IUllUlo .b• rn s x d s 6 m ZT'S9Z r. N m yy d 19701d d xsx Of ��� J ^IqI, KK I Go U 0 ��"/ SI m mY N .n. d �' O N o 1) d d a s tP,N a pyo m i ao a 9U - N� d 3snOH 'X3 w 6 z� s'9 n o O M C N 0 0 I o doo)s y� � �~ I d_ N dmr4i0 dZ T X m/ 0 % NN d m WN C LLPa N L N� (� U) rnQ Y),cli � m w 0I Q �5'-------- 4 -- --0 & z -- 'od 'L �I -_oo o z ----- N --� _ s X N — _ LU I a ZT s9Z l9'Z91 Od ro ' X pO a Z C i aU Q I LU yI dii O U- `o w O' y I N to W LLI � I IV) W I d Gzl I O ° m, x m 0 O a rn, `o W J - O Z O = L, U) 0 U) K U j H H LJ LLJ D D J W M N LLL W O O m¢ 0 0 r Li O �F (=j m1=H U W h Z Z J U w w O m N U O W W OU m UI U1 N W U! W (n U) UI U) (f) T O 000 O 00000 0 zzzzzzzzZ z W W W WW W W W W W LJ 0 coo 0 coon 0 0 O N • o © O 3 X 0 X i I I I N N 6 d Mx a ( a \a i a 10 d u X I m, I I I I yI dY d� I O N g vi azo ¢ N Q to 0 O WOW UJ O WM_ M ¢ z �a5 O N UI O ¢ Q :3 N O =wO �w v cc Feaaz C O U 0 O O¢N v) O U1 �r z n =¢NF _a fr ¢ d W 02� lL mU¢W I I I I T V C 0 UIT N N� O w O O ci O Z Y m0 K c CL =0 gaw W O W Z (L (n O d oc O) c om J dN_ N ,t E� d O Oz N N d a� O O ,-� N �'D N N R U a N M rl N N N m m, my W LLI IV) W m. Gzl F- 0 d a x rn, o m mu ar ry m m, mJ pY r Y N W J - O Z O = L, U) 0 U) K U j H H LJ LLJ D D J W M N LLL W O O m¢ 0 0 r Li O �F (=j m1=H U W h Z Z J U w w O m N U O W W OU m UI U1 N W U! W (n U) UI U) (f) T O 000 O 00000 0 zzzzzzzzZ z W W W WW W W W W W LJ 0 coo 0 coon 0 0 O N • o © O 3 X 0 X i I I I N N 6 d Mx a ( a \a i a 10 d u X I m, I I I I yI dY d� I O N g vi azo ¢ N Q to 0 O WOW UJ O WM_ M ¢ z �a5 O N UI O ¢ Q :3 N O =wO �w v cc Feaaz C O U 0 O O¢N v) O U1 �r z n =¢NF _a fr ¢ d W 02� lL mU¢W I I I I T V C 0 UIT N N� O w O O ci O Z Y m0 K c CL =0 gaw W O W Z (L (n O d oc O) c om J dN_ N ,t E� d O Oz N N d a� O O ,-� N �'D N N R U a N M rl N N N m City of Mounds View Staff Item No: 5B Meeting Date: October 5, 2011 Type of Business: Action To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Resolution 950-11, Reapprove Variances for the Select Senior Living Development at Highway 10 & Groveland Road Introduction: On August 20, 2008, the Planning Commission passed Resolution 892-08, which approved variances for the Select Senior Living development. The four variances were necessary due to the size of the project and that it was senior housing, which the code did not address well. After this project, the City Council amended the City Code to make it easier for the City to approve senior housing projects, including not needing variances. Discussion: As you know, the Select Senior Living project has not yet moved forward due to problems with securing financing. The applicant has been continuously working over the last three years to complete the project, but for reasons beyond his control, the project has not yet began. Per the City Code, an applicant has one year to complete the work permitted by the variance or the approval is void. The code also states that the Planning Commission can grant an extension of time up to another year. Due to the shakeup within the banking industry, Select Senior Living was not able to start the project within the allowed time and their variance approval became void. The Planning Commission approved Resolution 934- 10 on October 6, 2010 reapproving the variances, and that approval is now expiring. Select Senior Living, represented by Joel Larson, has submitted a letter asking that all of the planning requests be re -approved for another one year. Recommendations: Staff requests that the Planning Commission pass Resolution 950-11, reapproving the Select Senior Living variance requests. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Letter from Applicant requesting extension 2. Resolution 950-11 SELECT SENIOR LIVING OF MOUNDS VIEW, LLC. 12415 — 55' Street N. Lake Elmo MN 55042 Ph: (651) 439-2414 Fax: (651) 439-3254 September 20, 2011 Ms. Heidi Heller, Planning Associate CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View MN 55112 Re: Assisted living project Highway 10 & Groveland Dear Ms. Heller: Unfortunately, Select Senior Living of Mounds View, LLC finds it necessary to once again request a re -approval of the final plat and development agreement for its senior care facility to be constructed at Highway 10 and Groveland Avenue. We are still waiting for the bond market to correct its self before the bonds can be sold. We do not have any good news on the bond market at this time and need to wait for the market to change. We have also started working on a new finance option with a hedge fund to finance this project and will hear within the next 30 days if they will move forward with financing. We are anxiously waiting to start construction. Based on these changed circumstances, we respectfully request that re -approval of the final plat and development agreement for this project be added to the City Council agenda for its September or October meeting. We have made no changes to the project as originally conceived and as approved in October 2008 and the demand for assisted living facilities within the City has not changed. Again we feel the project is a good project and would like to start it as soon as the market changes and the bonds are sold. If you have any questions, please contact me at (651) 439-2414 (office), (651) 248-6785 (cell) or by email at Ilarson(c�selectcompanies.ngt. We look forward to finally bringing this project to fruition. Sincerely, Joel Larson, Chief Manager MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 950-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RE -APPROVING VARIANCES TO ALLOW FOR INCREASED SITE DENSITY, REDUCED UNIT SIZES, REDUCED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND TO ALLOW ROOF OVERHANG AND BUILDING SETBACK ENCROACHMENTS AT THE SELECT SENIOR LIVING DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOCATED AT 2865 COUNTY HIGHWAY 10 AND 7980 & 8020 GROVELAND ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2008-005 WHEREAS, the applicant, Select Senior Living, has applied for the following variances for a new 96 -unit senior housing development to be located at 2865 County Highway 10 and 7980 & 8020 Groveland Road: 1. Increased Site Density, 2. Reduced minimum unit sizes, 3. Reduced number of parking spaces, 4. To allow a two foot roof overhang encroachment and a 4-6 foot structure encroachment into the building setback, WHEREAS, the properties at 2865 County Highway 10 and 7980 & 8020 Groveland Road are zoned R-4, High Density Residential, and are legally described as: Lot 49, Auditor's Subdivision Number 89, Subject to a 5 foot strip easement along the rear line for public utility use, Ramsey County, Minnesota (PIN 06-30-23-31-0030) And, That part of Lot 48, Auditors Subdivision Number 89 lying South of the North 300 feet front and rear thereof, except that portion taken for the highway right of way purposes. Subject to restrictions contained in Document Number 238161, Ramsey County, Minnesota (PIN 06-30-23-31-0029) And, The South 150 feet of the North 300 feet, front and rear of Lot 48, Auditors Subdivision Number 89, including any portion of any street or alley adjacent thereto, vacated or to be vacated, together with all road privileges, easements and appurtenances thereto attached, Ramsey County, Minnesota (PIN 06-30-23-31-0028) WHEREAS, Section 1104.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code requires multiple family developments to have a minimum lot area per dwelling unit of 2,500 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a senior housing development proposal with a lot area per dwelling unit of 1,148 square feet, due to the smaller unit sizes; and, Resolution 950-11 Page 2 WHEREAS, Section 1104.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code requires one bedroom multiple family units have a minimum floor area of 630 square feet and two bedroom units to have a minimum of 750 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting approval for studio and one bedroom units that have floor areas of 432 to 716 square feet; and, WHEREAS, Section 1121.13 of the Mounds View Zoning Code requires multiple family properties (independent living units) to provide 2 '/2 parking spaces per unit and the assisted living and memory care provide 1 space for every 3 beds plus 1 space for every staff member on the largest shift; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code would require this development to provide 112 total parking stalls and the applicant is requesting a variance to provide 27 fewer stalls than required by the zoning code - 76 constructed parking stalls and 9 proof of parking stalls, which the City of Mounds View may require the applicant to construct at any time the City determines they are necessary; and, WHEREAS, Section 1104.01 of the Mounds View Zoning Code allows for up to a two foot encroachment for roof overhangs, and Section 1109.04 states that the side yard building setback for R-4 zoned senior congregate living is 40 feet, which is double the normal R-4 minimum side setback requirement; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has designed a three story residential style senior housing building with hipped roofs that have a four foot overhang that would encroach two feet into the building setback on the west and east sides of the north wing, and a small section of the building footprint that would extend four and six feet into the large building setback; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents about this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Proposed Site Plans 3. Staff Report WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's control; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held Wednesday, August 20, 2008, about this variance request; and, WHEREAS, on August 20, 2008, the Mounds View Planning Commission approved Resolution 892-08 which approved the variances for the "Select Senior Living" development; and, Resolution 950-11 Page 3 WHEREAS, the applicant was not able to complete the work permitted by variances within the required one year due to issues beyond their control, which caused the variance approval to become null and void; 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, all of which must be satisfied, in order for the city to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact related to this request: 1. The property is now zoned R-4, High Density Residential. 2. The extraordinary circumstances surrounding this property are the unique lot size and shape and the type of housing. At the time of the planning application submittal, the city code did not clearly accommodate the proposed housing. The side -yard building setback for senior housing is double what is required of any other multiple family housing developments. 3. Granting the variances would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege in that all property owners are able to apply for a variance to improve the function or appearance of their property. Denying the requests would limit the applicant's ability to redevelop the property. 4. The special conditions or circumstances necessitating the variance request do not result from the actions of the applicant. At the time of the planning application submittal, the city had not yet addressed in the city code some of the unique characteristics of assisted living and memory care housing that made it difficult for the applicant to avoid needing variances. 5. The applicant believes that permitting the property to have the requested increased density, reduced unit sizes, reduced parking and encroach into the building setbacks is the minimum variance, as it allows for a well designed project with new housing options for Mounds View residents and fits the architectural characteristics of a residential neighborhood. 6. Granting these variances would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Code since the city is in the process of amending the code to address most of these issues. 7. The proposed variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Resolution 950-11 Page 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above identified finding of facts, does hereby re -approve the variances originally approved on August 20, 2008 by Resolution 892-08 to increase the site density, reduce the minimum unit sizes, reduce the total number of parking spaces to 76 constructed and 9 proof of parking stalls from the required 112 spaces, and allow a two foot roof overhang to encroach and a four to six foot structure encroachment into the building setbacks for the proposed 96 -unit Select Senior Living development located at 2865 County Highway 10 and 7980 & 8020 Groveland Road. Adopted this 5th day of October, 2011. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 21, 2011 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 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, 2011. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Rundle, Schiltgen, Stevenson and Smith. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Miller. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes I VR2011-007. Consideration of a Variance Request to Allow a Second 2 Curb Cut and Driveway in an R-1, Single Family Residential District 3. Approval of Minutes July 6, 2011. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the Minutes of the July 6, 2011 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes — 6 Nays 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission September 21, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 2 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases A. VR2011-007 Consideration of a Variance Request to Allow a Second Curb Cut and Driveway in an R-1, Single Family Residential District at 6939 Pleasant View Drive Associate Planner Heller indicated the Planning Commission is being asked to consider a variance request to allow a second curb cut and driveway at 6939 Pleasant View Drive. Staff indicated the lot was 100 feet wide and 450 feet deep. The existing home was built in 1940, and was placed approximately 15 feet from the south property line. City Code allows one curb cut on each R-1, Single Family Residential zoned property without a variance. Associate Heller explained the property has had two driveways since 1993 when the old garage was removed and a new two -car garage was built on the other side of the house, ten feet from the north property line. A second driveway leading to the new garage was added. The street had no curbs at the time, so the Lestinas continued to use both driveways until 2010 when Pleasant View Drive was reconstructed and curbs were added. Associate Heller stated in early 2010, in preparation for the street project, the Public Works Department mailed Ms. Lestina a letter stating that her property had two driveways, and that she must contact the City if she wants to keep the second curb cut. Ms. Lestina did not contact the City before the street was reconstructed, and as a result, only one curb cut was installed on the driveway that leads to the garage, and access to the south driveway was lost. Associate Heller noted Ms. Lestina has now applied for a variance because she wants to be able to use the south driveway again. This driveway leads right up to the house, and she has physical limitations that make it difficult for her to get around. City Staff has informed Ms. Lestina that if the Planning Commission were to approve a variance for a second curb cut, she would have one- year to install a hard surface driveway and new curb cut that meets the required five-foot setback. Staff was available for comments from the Commission. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Commissioner Schiltgen asked what action the applicant took in 2010 to keep the second curb cut. Mr. Bill Lestina indicated he attended the City street project meeting in the spring of 2010. He filled out an application to keep the second curb cut and it was not accepted. His family got busy Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 21, 2011 Page 3 with other things and before long, the curb was completed across his south driveway. Mr. Lestina noted the south driveway has been used for the past 35 years and should be grandfathered in. He said that they still use this driveway and requested that the Commission approve the second curb cut to assist with access to his home. Commissioner Cramblit indicated the Mounds View City Code only allows for one curb cut. Mr. Lestina understood this to be City Code, but felt because the south driveway had been in use for 35 years, they should be allowed to keep it. Commissioner Cramblit encouraged the applicant to cease driving over the city curb as this could cause damage and it would be the property owner's expense to fix it. He explained that when the new garage and driveway was built in 1993, the south driveway was forfeited. He encouraged the homeowner to instead expand the northern driveway to bring it closer to the home, with an asphalt walking path or parking area. Ms. Lois Lestina described her health concerns over the past year and indicated that closer access to the home was crucial at this time. Chair Stevenson stated an improved "T" section off the north driveway would be an option which would offer closer access to the home. Associate Heller showed a drawing as to how this could be done on the site. Mr. Lestina questioned if the southern driveway could be grandfathered in, according to City Code, Commissioner Cramblit explained that once the old garage was demolished, the homeowner forfeited the driveway in this location. A new garage was built, and a driveway now serviced the garage on the north side. Mr. Lestina indicated the driveway to the south offered access directly to the house, while the north driveway accessed the garage. Chair Stevenson stated according to City Code, the relocation of the garage relocated the driveway. In addition, the south driveway was too close to the property line and needed to be at least five feet from the line. Ms. Lestina reviewed a land survey with the Commission. She indicated there were two feet of property in question. Ms. Lestina was upset with the discrepancy as the neighboring property placed a planter along the presumed property line. Chair Stevenson encouraged the property owner to resolve this issue with City Staff, as it was not what was being discussed at this time. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 21, 2011 Page 4 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Smith. To Approve Resolution 948-11, a Resolution Denying a Variance to Allow a Second Curb Cut and Driveway in an R-1 Single Family Residential District at 6939 Pleasant View Drive; Planning Case No. VR2011- 007. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 6. Other Planning Activity None. 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. October 5, 2011 B. October 19, 2011 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Associate Planner Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA November 2, 2011 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: September 21, 2011 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. Discuss Zoning Code Amendment to Allow Outdoor Vending Kiosks in Commercial Zoning Districts 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. November 16, 2011 B. December 7, 2011 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. October 5, 2011 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion Item No: 6A Meeting Date: November 2 2011 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item TitlelSubject: Discuss Code Amendment to Allow Vending Kiosks Outside of Retail and Restaurant Businesses Introduction: Video rental stores are no longer in existence due to technology and the internet. But another trend for renting videos has appeared in the last few years — the "Redbox". These are fully automated vending "kiosks" that are about the size of a food vending machine and disperse dvd movies or video games to rent. These "Redboxes" are located inside or outside, and so far seem to only be located at specific McDonalds, Walgreens, Cub Foods, Rainbow Foods,Festival Foods, Byerly's and Holiday gas stations. Discussion: Over the last few years, McDonald's and Walgreens have asked if they could place a Redbox outside their business in Mounds View. The City Code does not address this type of outdoor use, which means that it is not allowed. City staff has told both McDonald's and Walgreens that they could not have one outside, but they would be allowed inside the business. McDonalds does have a Redbox inside the restaurant. Recently the Holiday gas station in Mounds View installed a Redbox outside of their store (they did not ask the City if it was allowed), and Walgreens has requested a PUD Amendment to allow a Redbox at their store (Walgreens is zoned PUD). By doing a 55112 zip code search online for a Redbox location, it shows there are several in every city surrounding Mounds View. The current zoning code does not address vending kiosks, or anything similar. Other cities deal with these kiosks differently. Some simply allow them with no permits and others require special use permits. Staff feels that these kiosks would likely not cause issues if they were allowed. The machines use 12 square feet of ground space, are placed on the sidewalk next to the building so they are not removing parking spaces, and customers are only parking for a few minutes. The Commission should discuss if they feel this type of outdoor use should be added to the zoning code, and if so, should it be an allowed accessory use or a conditional use in business districts. Zoning Code Discussion Novemher2, 2099 Page 2 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss vending kiosks, and if or how they could be allowed, and in what zoning districts. If the Commission decides to move forward with a code amendment, staff would draft the proposed language and bring it back for review at the next Planning Commission meeting. Sincerely, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments Redbox information � ! ona ƒ \ ! ! ! \ § § \ � 4! )) § C3 �/!/!| ! ona ƒ \ ! DVD RENTALS 4 pernight $1 DVD $1 RENTALS SUNSCREEN WT iSd rs 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 5, 2011 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 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, 2011. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Miller and Smith. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 MI2011-001. Consideration of a Minor Subdivision of 7337 Spring 2 Lake Road VR2008-005. Consideration of a Re -approval of Variances for the 2 Select Senior Living Development 3. Approval of Minutes July 20, 2011. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Meehlhause. To approve the Minutes of the July 20, 2011 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 2 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases A. MI2011-001 Consideration of a Minor Subdivision of 7337 Spring Lake Road Associate Planner Heller explained the Voltin Family is the property owner of 7337 Spring Lake Road, and are requesting City approval of a minor subdivision to split the property into two lots. The proposed subdivision would create a north lot that would have the original house and a south lot that is vacant. The applicants have submitted a Certificate of Survey that shows the proposed new lots. Associate Heller stated the lot was zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and the Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low density residential. The new vacant lot would likely be purchased with the intent of building a new home. She then discussed the prevailing setbacks on the lot and where a home would have to be positioned on the parcel in order to meet the City Code. The proposed subdivision meets all City Code requirements and Staff recommends approval of Resolution 949-11, approving the minor subdivision of 7337 Spring Lake Road. Chair Stevenson questioned if the property owners were aware that park dedication fees would need to be paid. Associate Heller stated they were aware of the fee, and staff is recommending that the amount be based on the square footage of the new lot only. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Meehlhause/Commissioner Cramblit. To approve Resolution 949-11, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision of 7337 Spring Lake Road; Planning Case No. MI2011-001. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. B. VR2008-005 Consideration of Re -approval of Variances for the Select Senior Living Development Associate Planner Heller explained Joel Larson, representing Select Senior Living, has submitted a letter asking that all of the planning requests for the Select Senior Living development be reapproved again for one year. She noted on August 20, 2008, the original request was approved granting four variances for the development. The project has not yet moved forward due to financial reasons, but the applicant continues to work on getting the project funded. Per the City Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 3 Code, an applicant has one year to complete the work permitted by the variance or the applicant may file for an extension. Associate Heller recommended the Commission pass Resolution 950-11 reapproving the Select Senior Living variance requests. Commissioner Meehlhause questioned if the City collected additional fees for each variance re - approval process. Associate Heller stated there were no additional fees charged by the City for variance re - approval requests, but that there was a recent change to the City Code that adds a fee for subdivision reapprovals. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned if there was a limit to the number of times this item could be reapproved. Associate Heller indicated the Commission and Council could opt to not reapprove the planning requests, but City Codes allows for the item to be reapproved indefinitely or until the applicant allows the variances to lapse. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Meehlhause. To approve Resolution 950-11, a Resolution Recommending Re -Approval of the Variance Requests for Select Senior Living; Planning Case No. VR2008-005. 6. None. Ayes — 5 Other Planning Activity Nays — 0 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. October 19, 2011 B. November 2, 2011 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session October 5, 2011 Page 4 There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:18 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Associate Planner Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA November 16, 2011 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: October 5, 2011 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. CU2011-001 Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage Address: 4825 Mustang Circle Applicant: Tyson Trucking (D and A Development) 6. Other Planning Activity A. Proposed Zoning Code Amendment to Allow Outdoor DVD Vending Kiosks in Commercial Zoning Districts B. Discuss City Code Amendment to Allow Massage Therapy as a Home Based Business 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. December 7, 2011 B. December 21, 2011 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. November 2, 2011 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion Item No: 5A Meeting ®ate: November 16 2011 Type of Business: Commission Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage at The Tyson Companies, 4825 Mustang Circle; Planning Case CU2011-001 Introduction: The applicant, Dale Tellers, with The Tyson Companies, is requesting city approval of a conditional use permit to have outdoor storage on their property located ay 4825 Mustang Circle. Tyson Companies is a trucking and warehouse business that has been located in Mounds View for many years. They are proposing to use an asphalt area on the west side of their building for outdoor storage. This property is zoned industrial, and the City Code allows outdoor storage as a conditional use in industrial districts. City Code Requirements: Section 1116.04 (Conditional Uses in the 1-1 zoninq district) Subd. 1: Open or outdoor storage as an accessory use. Section 1125.01, Subd. 1e: The Planning Commission is required to review the possible adverse effects of a requested conditional use. Section 1125.01, Subd. 1g: This section of the City Code states that the Planning Commission shall make findings of fact and recommend such actions or conditions relating to the request as it deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code and forward such findings to the City Council. Discussion: The Tyson Companies are finding that their trucking business has slowed, but have also found opportunities for more business using outdoor storage. Along with trucking, The Tyson Companies are also a warehouse business that stores products inside their large building before shipping it out. Since they do not have as many semi trailers parked on the west side of the building anymore, there is now space outside for other things. They have found opportunities for contracts to store products outside, such as building and construction materials. Tyson CUP Report November 16, 2011 Paye 2 [411][04071-117, Chap • . Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address any potential adverse effects which include, but are not limited to, relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use. I have addressed each of these potential adverse effects below. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages existing businesses to remain and grow in the city. The City has zoned The Tyson Companies property 1-1, Industrial, and it is primarily surrounded by other industrial uses. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit as requested, the CUP would be in line with the Comprehensive Plan "Industrial" land use designation for this area. The Location and Character of the Surrounding Area. The Tyson Companies is located in the City's industrial park on Mustang Circle. This business is primarily surrounded by other industrial uses, with the exception of a manufactured home park adjacent on the north side of the property and Ramsey County/Long Lake Regional Park open land on the west side. The applicant is proposing to use some of the asphalt area on the west side of the building for the outdoor storage. Depreciation. The proposed outdoor storage added to this already heavy -use type business should not have an adverse affect on surrounding properties, even though the property is next to a manufactured home park. Both The Tyson Companies and the manufactured home park have existed as is for over 30 years. The area proposed for the storage has had semi trailers parked there for many years, so changing to stacks of products on pallets would not be much different. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. With the downturn in the economy, many companies are looking at other ways to expand or diversify their business in order to survive. The Tyson Companies is no different and are doing the same thing. They have a very large property and even without the reduction in their trucking business, outdoor storage at this location should not cause any problems. Summary: The Tyson Companies would like to utilize their large property for additional business and be able to offer outdoor storage to customers. The area they would store the product is only visible to the few manufactured homes that are directly next to Tyson's property. The area has been used for parking semi -trailers for many years, and would simply include some stacked product. Tyson CUP Raped November 16, 2011 Page 3 Recommendation: City staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit as requested. Staff has prepared Resolution 951-11, approving the conditional use permit if the Commission chooses this action. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photo 3. Site Photo 4. Resolution 951-11 Zoning Map * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential eo k Ic E�Fa_.-" _ �.Y, �I1 r •z r �. r#®, J tC .r � Rr.j� h o I ){ .�'r ,. -'rt' t 4 r'�✓"�1 u i�.,.. I �.. ,I tl4ve n. t1 .fe r n rl tr er 1 m_ �'+ I. li r rY/ehl I- pv� 4 F �.. 1 q. V i — r ems. .�.`a- ��l .4A - Ki � Irv' r P ,w a * `• (y�t�� �f`• � pF tf 51 I ♦'t ������ilil ��� III ��y�� 1'ISIJ � � I � r �-1R ' T :1 �•r � r3 , •�I li i , � � '. 1 �., 1 Ir ij S.§. Ma.. 4 aNf S 9�. IP r '7fF• I ._ q Y-�`d 3'T I � f � r ,7 l �B n. t �" ° �_ '� e' S I � t` � � -.�' a� ❖zrcF 1 �3� � 1 t l� t It ' ?. Townsedge Terrace ManA Home Park :rztg � .w I-1 y • II p.- k "tK 6t~I.:.rl �" '-�riHd �� 9'1 rtr .fir i4f�n i_L t 1•. Sdi X93i�. F°Rai n lt'b ti 7-F: ,Ili -. .r, x ` w <<r f• {,ifyiv.Tyson 1,{:4'�< �`%th�'� �a�n��'iq`a'�=rdr f 1 ,I` �i��Ir��i�pl'��'•�� � }3�•'l°��,>� '1 yrG yFyr r111 i�N4 y, � i 7 e �g `` '• 1 �y �¢} irz QiY�rl�ftl.z� ' izfi E; �•' Imo. ;. .r �5y Fy1-f f -� ��!�Cy�ir'hY '. y t '�'� f`d �21v'�� 9 flt�A t. e.l vk ! i• storage area Outdoor storage area would be located behind the warehouse building "OR ar g- r Ira 9 J r1kWA41M.Ul• COUNTYRAMSEY CIRCLE;ALLOW OUTDOOR STORAGE AT THE TYSON COMPANIES AT 4825 MUSTANG a CASE 1 —001 WHEREAS, property owner D & A Development (The Tyson Companies), has applied for a conditional use permit to outdoor storage on their property; and, WHEREAS, the subject properties, located at 4825 Mustang Circle, are zoned 1-1, Industrial, and legally described as follows: Mounds View Industrial Park, No. 3, Block 1, Lot 4 PIN 17-30-23-13-0006 Mounds View Industrial Park, No. 3, Block 1, Lot 5, Subject to Easements PIN 17-30-23-13-0007 Mounds View Industrial Park, No. 3, Block 1, Lot 6, Subject to Easements PIN 17-30-23-13-0008 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows outdoor storage in Industrial zoning districts; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents about this proposal: Staff Report Zoning Map Aerial Photo NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request: 1. The proposed outdoor storage meets the requirements as outlined in Chapters 1116 and 1125 of the Zoning Code. ' 2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the outdoor storage would be a type of land use that is consistent with the "Industrial" land use designation for the applicant's property. Resolution 951-11 Page 2 3. The outdoor storage would not be out of place given the existing character of the surrounding area. 4. The proposed outdoor storage should not depreciate the neighboring properties. 5. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists. NOW, THEREFORE, RE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the outdoor storage, with conditions as follows: 1. The Planning Commission or the City Council may review this Conditional Use Permit if any problems develop or if there are any changes to the operation that the City deems substantial enough to warrant such a review. NOW THEREFORE, RE 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 November, 2011. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) 9911J] 1 e of Mounds View Staff Item No: 6A Meeting Date: November 16, 2011 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Proposed Code Amendment to Allow Outdoor Vending Kiosks at Retail and Restaurant Businesses Introduction: Video rental stores are no longer in existence due to technology and the internet. But another trend for renting videos has appeared in the last few years — the "Redbox". These are fully automated vending "kiosks" that disperse dvd movies or video games to rent. Over the last few years, a couple of businesses have asked the City if they could install a Red box outside their building. The City took the position that they were not allowed since they were not addressed in the zoning code. Staff now feels that due to the popularity of these kiosks, and that one business in the City has already installed one, a code amendment to address them should be considered. Discussion: At the November 2, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, Staff asked the Commission to discuss how outdoor vending kiosks should be addressed. The Commission decided that the zoning code should be amended to allow these kiosks as a conditional use in commercial districts, including commercial Planned Unit Developments, but only at retail stores and restaurants. Because the Zoning Code is written in such a way that the uses build on each zoning district (the uses allowed in B-1 are allowed in the B-2, B-3 and B-4 districts), Staff is proposing to add the following language to the B-1 district chapter, which would then carry over to the other zoning districts. The proposed language to be added to Chapter 1112 of the Zoning Code reads as follows: Coning Code Discussion November 96, 2011 Page 2 Chapter 1112, B-1 Neighborhood Business District Subdivision 1112.04: Conditional Uses: Subd. 7. Outdoor Vending Kiosks; provided that: a. The kiosks shall use only electronic forms of payment. b. Only movies and video games may be rented from the kiosk. c. May be placed only at retail stores, motor fuel stations and restaurants. d. Only one business on each property may install outdoor vending kiosks. e. The kiosk shall be placed immediately adjacent to the host businesses building. No loss of parking or interference with the flow of traffic shall occur due to the placement of a vending kiosk. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and comment on the proposed language additional for outdoor vending kiosks. Sincerely, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments Resolution 952-11 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 952-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 1112 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE TO ADD A CONDITIONAL USE TO THE B-1, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, ZONING DISTRICT; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE 182-11 WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that a conditional use be added to the B-1, Neighborhood Business District, Chapter 1112, of the Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission agrees with the City Staff recommendation to add another conditional use to the B-1, Neighborhood Business District, Chapter 1112, of the Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Chapter 1112 of the Mounds View Zoning Code by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text as follows: 1112.04: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a B-1 District (requiring a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title): Subd. 7. Outdoor Vendinq Kiosks; provided that: f. The kiosks shall use only electronic forms of payment. g. Only movies and video games may be rented from the kiosk. h. May be placed only at retail stores, motor fuel stations and restaurants. i. Only one business on each property may install outdoor vending kiosks. j. The kiosk shall be placed immediately adjacent to the host businesses building., No loss of parking or interference with the flow of traffic shall occur due to the placement of a vending kiosk. WHEREAS, amending the Zoning Code to add another conditional use in the B-1, Neighborhood Business, district will further the purpose of the zoning district, would better serve the public and would clarify the zoning requirements; and, Res 952-11 Page 2 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 an amendment to Chapter 1112 of the Mounds View Zoning Code to add another conditional use 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 16th day of November, 2011. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) 613 D40UU D7S MEMeeting Item No: Date: November 16. 201111 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Discuss Code Amendment to Allow Therapeutic Massage as a Permitted Home Occupation Introduction: At the City Council's meeting on October 24, 2011, resident Mary Jo Howell asked the Council whether it would be willing to amend the City Code to be more permissive toward allowance of "massage therapy" as a home based business in Mounds View. The City Council then discussed the idea at their work session on November 7, 2011. The City Council now supports amending the City Code, and has asked that the Planning Commission take on how this should be accomplished. Discussion: Massage Therapy is a licensed business activity in Mounds View. The regulations pertaining to massage therapy can be found in Chapter 514 of the Mounds City Code, originally adopted in 1996 via Ordinance 583. There are many licensing and zoning requirements associated with such a business and they are expressly permitted only in the 132, 63 & 64 commercial business zoning districts. Such a use is not permitted in a residential zone or as a home-based business, as indicated in Section 514.10, Subd. 2, regarding locations ineligible for a therapeutic massage license. This clause reads, "A therapeutic massage enterprise may not be licensed if the location of such enterprise is not in conformance with Title 1100 of the Mounds View Municipal Code." Staff requested information from other communities as to their allowance of massage therapy as a home occupation. Ten communities responded that the activity was allowed or permitted, although most required some sort of license or conditional use permit. The Planning Commission has been directed by the City Council to review the existing City Code and recommend the best way to make amendments that will allow therapeutic massage as a home based business. Currently all massage therapists must receive an annual license from the City. As you can see in Chapter 514.06, there is an extensive amount of information required from the applicant, and this license requirement would not change. Therapeutic Massage Code Amendment Report November 16, 2011 Page 2 Here are suggested ways to accomplish the change: Amend Chapter 514.10 Subd.2 to state that a therapeutic massage business may be located in a residential home. This would be the simplest way to accomplish the change. Choose to allow therapeutic massage in residential districts only as a conditional use. Chapter 1106.04 of the R-1, Single Family Residential Zoning Code would be amended to include Therapeutic massage under conditional uses. This may sound like a good way to put some controls on this home based business, but realistically may not be necessary. A very thorough background check is done on the therapists, and it is highly unlikely that this type of business would cause the kind of problems in the neighborhood that is typically addressed through a conditional use permit. There are already requirements in Chapter 1106.03 Subd. 3 for Home Based Occupations so any parking or nuisance problems can simply be handled by the existing City Code. Recommendation: The Planning Commission should discuss how to amend the City Code to allow Therapeutic Massage as a home based business. Respectfully submitted, Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Municipal Survey regarding Massage Therapy as a Home Occupation 2. Mounds View City Code Chapter 514 Massage Therapy as a Home Occupation — Survey Results City dditionalInformation Arden Hills Yes Requires a business license and a Conditional Use Permit Blaine Yes Blaine does not license massage therapy businesses, and so long as it satisfies general home occupation requirements, it would be permitted. Brainerd Yes Requires a home business license. Champlin Yes Champlin has a specific license for home based massage businesses which combines the otherwise separate business/therapist licenses into one. There have not been any problems with the licensed home based businesses. Eagan No Licenses shall be granted only for operation on fixed premises which must be located in a commercial or industrial district as established by the zoning chapter. Falcon Heights Yes They are required to get a home occupation license as well as the regular massa a therapy licenses. Fridley No Fridley does not permit home based massage therapy. Ham Lake Yes, by Therapists must be certified by the National Certification Board for CUP Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork (NCBTMB), or have passed the MBLEx examination given by the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards, or be a member in the American Massage Therapy Association (AMTA) or Associated Bodywork and Massage Professionals ABMP . Hours of operation limited to 8 am to 10 pm. Mendota Heights No Massage therapy not a permitted home business. New Brighton NO Under the licensing section there are very specific requirements for offering massage therapy in a residential district. One of the limitations is that the property CANNOT be used for residential purposes. So by definition one cannot have a home-based massage business. Richfield Yes The therapist must be certified by the National Certification Board for Therapy Massage and Bodywork or by the Massage and Bodywork Licensing Examination. Shakopee Yes Shakopee allows massage therapy as a home occupation, so long as the business meets the criteria for a home occupation set forth in the City's zoning code. The definition of "home occupation" is very broad, and includes "Any gainful occupation or profession engaged in by an occupant." Shakopee does not license massage therapists. Shoreview NO Massage Therapy only allowed at commercial establishments licensed for massage therapy Stillwater Yes The City of Stillwater allows state licensed massage therapy as a home occupation in its residential districts. If the home occupation is a single practitioner business, and is practiced only by the resident, an administratively issued permit is all that is required. One other person may be employed in the home business if it meets a number of conditions and would then require a Special Use Permit. White Bear Lake Yes Massage Therapy requires a "special home occupation permit" which is similar to and processed the same as a conditional use permit, but does not run with the land. They charge less than a CUP for the application fee $100 versus $400). 514.01 SECTION: 514.01: 514.02: 514.03: 514.04: 514.05: 514.06: 514.07: 514.08: 514.09: 514.10: 514.11: 514.12: 514.13: 514.14: 514.15: 514.16: 514.17: 514.01 514.01 CHAPTER 514 THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE Findings Definitions License Required Exemptions General Rule License Application Application and Investigation Fees Application Verification and Consideration Persons Ineligible for License Locations Ineligible for Therapeutic Massage Enterprise License General License Restrictions Restrictions Regarding Sanitation and Health License Term: Renewals Suspension: Revocation Temporary Therapist License Hours of Operation Violations and Penalties FINDINGS. It is found and determined that: a. Persons who have recognized and standardized training in therapeutic massage, health and hygiene provide a legitimate and necessary service to the general public; b. Health and sanitation regulations governing therapeutic massage enterprises and massage therapists will minimize the risk of the spread of communicable diseases and promote health and sanitation; c. License qualifications for therapeutic massage enterprises and massage therapists will minimize the risk that such businesses and persons may facilitate prostitution and other criminal activity in the city; and d. Massage services provided by persons without recognized and standardized training in massage can endanger citizens by facilitating the spread of communicable diseases, by exposing citizens to unhealthy and unsanitary conditions, and by increasing the risk of personal injury. City of Mounds View 514.02 514.02 (Rev. 4/09) 514.02: DEFINITIONS: The terms defined in this Section have the meanings given them. Subd. 1. "Clean" means the absence of dirt, grease, rubbish, garbage and other offensive, unsightly or extraneous matter. Subd. 2. "In good repair" means free of corrosion, breaks, cracks, chips, pitting, excessive wear and tear, leaks, obstructions and similar defects. Subd. 3. "Massage" means the rubbing, stroking, kneading, tapping or rolling of the body of another person with the hands for the purpose of physical fitness, health-care referral, relaxation and for no other purpose. Subd. 4. "Operate" means to own, manage or conduct, or to have control, charge or custody over. Subd. 5. "Recognized school' means any school or institution of learning which has for its purpose the teaching of the theory, method, profession or work of a massage therapist that requires a resident course of study that requires not less than seventy (70) hours before the student is issued a diploma or certificate of graduation. If the school or institution is located in the United States, it must have current membership in good standing in the American Massage and Therapy Association or other recognized professional massage organization. If the school or learning institution is located outside of the United States, the applicant must provide the City with decipherable documentation that shows that he or she attended a school or learning institution that is equivalent to attending a school or learning institution in the United States in both its course of study and diploma or graduation requirements. Schools offering a correspondence course not requiring actual physical attendance of class shall not be deemed a recognized school. (Added, Ord. 817, 4-2-09) Subd. 6. "Therapeutic massage enterprise" means a place of business providing massage services to the public for consideration: the term does not include a hospital, sanitarium, rest home, nursing home, boarding home or other institution for the hospitalization or care of other human beings duty licensed under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, sections 144.50 through 144.69. (Amended, Ord. 817, 4-2-09) Subd. 7. "Therapeutic massage therapist" means a person who practices or administers massage to the public for consideration. (Amended, Ord. 817, 4-2-09) Subd. 8. "In the City" means physical presence as well as telephone referrals such as phone -a -massage operations in which the business premises, although not physically located within the City, serves as a point of assignment of employees who respond to requests for services in the City. (Amended, Ord. 817, 4-2-09) City of Mounds View 514.03 514.03: LICENSE REQUIRED: 514.06 (Rev. 4/09) Subd. 1. Therapeutic Massage Enterprise: It is unlawful to operate, offer, engage in or carry on massage services in the City without a therapeutic massage enterprise license. Subd. 2. Therapeutic massage therapist license: It is unlawful to practice, administer or provide massage services in the City without a therapeutic massage therapist license. 514.04: EXEMPTIONS: A therapeutic massage enterprise license or therapeutic massage therapist license is not required for the following persons and places: a. Persons licensed by the state to practice medicine, surgery, osteopathy, chiropractic, physical therapy or podiatry, provided that the massage is administered in the regular course of the medical treatment not provided as part of a separate and distinct massage business; b. Persons licensed by the state as beauty culturists or barbers, provided the persons do not hold themselves out as giving massage treatments and provided that massage by beauty culturists is limited to the head, hand, neck and feet and the massage by barbers is limited to the head and neck; c. Persons working solely under the direction and control of a person duly licensed by the state to practice medicine, surgery, osteopathy, chiropractic, physical therapy or podiatry; d. Places licensed or operating as a hospital, nursing home, hospice, sanitarium or group home established for hospitalization or medical care; and e. Athletic coaches, directors and trainers employed by public or private schools. 514.05: GENERAL RULE: The owner or operator of a licensed therapeutic massage enterprise may employ only licensed therapeutic massage therapists to provide massage services. The owner or operator of a licensed therapeutic massage enterprise need not be licensed as a therapeutic massage therapist unless that owner or operator personally provides massage services. 514.06: LICENSE APPLICATION: Subd. 1. Therapeutic Massage Enterprise: The application for a therapeutic massage enterprise license must contain the following information: a. For all applicants: City of Mounds View 514.06 514.06 (Rev. 4/09) (1) Whether the applicant is an individual, corporation, partnership or other form of organization; (2) The legal description of the premises to be licensed together with a plan of the area showing dimensions, location of buildings, street access and parking facilities; (3) The floor number, street number and rooms where the massage services are to be conducted; (4) Whether all real estate and personal property taxes that are due and payable for the premises to be licensed have been paid, and if not, the years and amounts that are unpaid; (5) If the application is for premises either planned or under construction or undergoing substantial alteration, the application must be accompanied by preliminary plans showing the design of the proposed premises; if the plans for design are on file with the building inspector, no plans need be submitted; (6) The name and street address of the business if it is to be conducted under a designation, name or style other than the name of the applicant, and a certified copy of the certificate required by Minnesota Statutes, section 333.02; (7) Other information that the City Council may require. b. For applicants who are individuals: (1) The name and date of birth of the applicant and the applicant's residence address; (Amended, Ord. 817,4-2-09) (2) If the applicant has ever used or been known by a name other than the applicant's name, and if so, the name or names and information concerning the dates and places where used; (3) Residence addresses of the applicant during five (5) years preceding the date of application; (4) The type, name and location of every business or occupation the applicant has been engaged in during the preceding five (5) years; (5) Names and addresses of the applicant's employers for the preceding five (5) years; (6) If the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony, crime or violation of an ordinance other than a minor traffic offense; if so, the applicant must furnish information as to the time, place and offense involved in the convictions; City of Mounds View 514.06 514.06 (Rev. 4/09) (7) If the applicant has ever been engaged in the operation of massage services; if so, the applicant must furnish information as to the name, place and length of time of the involvement in such activity. c. For applicants that are partnerships: (1) The names and addresses of general and limited partners and the information concerning each general partner described in subdivision lb of this Section; (2) The managing partners must be designated, and the interest of each general and limited partner in the business must be disclosed; (3) A true copy of the partnership agreement must be submitted with the application, and if the partnership is required to file a certificate as to a trade name under Minnesota Statutes, Section 333.02, a certified copy of that certificate must be submitted. The license if issued will be in the name of the partnership. d. For applicants that are corporations: (1) The name of the organization, and if incorporated, the state of incorporation; (2) A true copy of the certificate of incorporation, and, if a foreign corporation, certificate of authority as described in Minnesota Statutes, Section 303.02; (3) The name of the general manager, corporate officers, proprietor, and other person in charge of the premises to be licensed, and the information about those persons described in subdivision lb; (4) A list of the persons who own or have a controlling interest in the corporation or organization or who are officers of the corporation or organization, together with their addresses and the information regarding such persons described in subdivision lb of this Section. Subd. 2. Therapeutic Massage Therapist: An application for a therapeutic massage therapist license must contain the following information: a. The applicant's name and address; b. The applicants current employer; c. The applicants employers for the previous five (5) years, including employer's name, address and dates of employment; CityofMounds View 514.06 514.07 (Rev. 4/09) d. The applicant's residence address for the previous five (5) years; e. The applicant's social security number, date of birth, home telephone number, weight, height, color of eyes and color of hair; f. If the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony, crime or violation of an ordinance other than a minor traffic offense and, if so, the time, place and offense involved in the convictions; g. If the applicant has ever used or been known by a name other than the applicant's name, and if so, the name or names and information concerning dates and places where used; h. Evidence that the applicant: (1) Has legal work status in the United States; (Added, Ord. 817, 4-2-09) (2) Has a diploma or certificate of graduation from a recognized school; (Added, Ord. 817,4-2-09) (3) Has current insurance coverage with liability limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) for professional liability in the practice of massage; (Amended, Ord. 817, 4- 2-09) (4) Is affiliated with, employed by or owns a therapeutic massage enterprise licensed by the City; (Amended, Ord. 817, 4-2-09) (5) In addition to the seventy (70) hours of resident study, applicant must complete at least four hundred (400) hours of certified therapeutic massage training as part of earning a diploma or certificate from a recognized school; (Amended, Ord. 817, 4-2-09) (6) Has at least one (1) year of experience practicing massage therapy as established by an affidavit. (Amended, Ord. 817, 4-2-09) i. Other information that the City Council may require. 514.07: APPLICATION AND INVESTIGATION FEES: The fees for a massage enterprise and therapist licenses are set forth from time to time by City Council resolution. An investigation fee will be charged for therapeutic massage enterprise licenses. An application for either license must be accompanied by payment in full of the required license and investigation fees, if applicable. City of Mounds View 514.08 514.10 (Rev. 5/10) 514.08: APPLICATION VERIFICATION AND CONSIDERATION: Subd. 1. Therapeutic Massage Enterprise License: The City Administrator must verify the information supplied on the license application and investigate the background, including the criminal background, of the applicant to assure compliance with this Section. Within ninety (90) days of receipt of a complete application and fee for a therapeutic massage enterprise license, the City Administrator must make a written recommendation to the City Council as to issuance or non -issuance of the license. The City Council may order additional investigation if it deems it necessary, but must grant or deny the application within one hundred twenty (120) days of receipt by the City Administrator of the complete application and required fees. (Amended, Ord. 844,5-20-10) Subd. 2. Therapeutic Massage Therapist License: Within ninety (90) days of receipt of a complete application and fee for a therapeutic massage therapist license, the City Administrator must grant or deny the application. Notice will be sent to the applicant upon a denial informing the applicant of the right to appeal to the City Council within twenty (20) days. If an appeal is properly made, the matter will be placed on the next available City Council agenda. (Amended, Ord. 844,5-20-10) 514.09: PERSONS INELIGIBLE TO HOLD A LICENSE: (Amended, Ord. 817,4-2-09) Subd. 1. Therapeutic Massage Enterprise License: A therapeutic massage enterprise license may not be issued to or held by an individual who: (Amended, Ord. 817, 4-2-09) a. Is a minor; (Amended, Ord. 817, 4-2-09) b. Has been convicted of any crime directly related to the occupation licensed as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 364.03, subdivision 2, and who has not shown competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to perform the duties and responsibilities of a licensee as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, Section 364.03, subdivision 3; (Amended, Ord. 817,4-2-09) c. Is not of good moral character or repute; d. Is not the real party in interest of the enterprise; e. Has misrepresented or falsified information on the license application. Subd. 2. Therapeutic Massage Therapist License: A therapeutic massage therapist license may not be issued to or held by a person who could not qualify for a therapeutic massage enterprise license or who is not (i) affiliated with, (ii) employed by or (iii) does not hold, a therapeutic massage enterprise license. (Amended, Ord. 817, 4-2-09) 514.10 City of Mounds View 514.11 (Rev. 5/10) 514.10: LOCATIONS INELIGIBLE FOR THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE ENTERPRISE LICENSE: Subd. 1. A therapeutic massage enterprise may not be licensed if the enterprise is located on property on which taxes, assessments or other financial claims to the state, county, school district or City are due and delinquent. In the event a suit has been commenced under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 278.01-278.13, questioning the amount or validity of taxes, the City Council may on application waive strict compliance with this provision; no waiver may be granted, however, for taxes or any portion thereof, which remain unpaid for a period exceeding one (1) year after becoming due. Subd. 2. Zoning Compliance: A therapeutic massage enterprise may not be licensed if the location of such enterprise is not in conformance with Title 1100 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. 514.11: GENERAL LICENSE RESTRICTIONS: Subd. 1. Posting: A therapeutic massage enterprise license issued must be posted in a conspicuous place on the premises for which it is used. A person licensed as a therapeutic massage therapist must have in possession a copy of the license when therapeutic massage services are being rendered. Subd. 2. Area: A therapeutic massage enterprise license is effective only for the compact and contiguous space specified in the approved license application. If the licensed premises is enlarged, altered or extended, the licensee must inform the City Administrator. A licensed therapeutic massage therapist may perform on-site massage at a business, public gathering, private home. or other site not on the therapeutic massage enterprise premises. (Amended, Ord. 844, 5-20-10) Subd. 3. Transfer: The license issued is for the person or the premises named on the approved license application. Transfer of a license from place to place or from person to person is not permitted. Subd. 4. Coverings: The therapist must require that the person who is receiving the massage will at all times have that person's breasts, buttocks, anus and genitals covered with nontransparent material or clothing. A therapist performing massage must have the therapist's breasts, buttocks, anus and genitals covered with a non -transparent material or clothing. Subd. 5. Prohibited Massage: A therapist may not intentionally massage or offer to massage the penis, scrotum, mons veneris, vulva or vaginal area of a person. City of Mounds View 514.12 514.13 (Rev. 5110) 514.12: RESTRICTIONS REGARDING SANITATION AND HEALTH: Subd. 1. A therapeutic massage enterprise must be equipped with adequate and conveniently located toilet rooms for the accommodation of its employees and patrons. The toilet room must be well ventilated by natural or mechanical methods and be enclosed with a door. The toilet room must be kept clean and in good repair and be fully and adequately illuminated. Subd. 2. A therapeutic massage enterprise must provide single -service disposal paper or clean linens to cover the table, chair, furniture or area on which the patron receives the massage. If the table, chair or furniture on which a patron receives the massage is made of material impervious to moisture, such table, chair or furniture must be sanitized after each massage. Subd. 3. The therapeutic massage therapist must wash the therapist's hands and arms with water and soap, anti -bacterial scrubs, alcohol or other disinfectants prior to and following each massage service performed. Subd. 4. Massage tables, chairs or furniture on which the patron receives the massage must have surfaces that can be readily disinfected after each massage. Subd. 5. Rooms in a therapeutic massage enterprise must be fully and adequately illuminated. Subd. 6. A therapeutic massage enterprise must have a janitor's closet that provides for the storage of cleaning supplies. Subd. 7. Therapeutic massage enterprises must provide adequate refuse receptacles that must be emptied as required by this code. Subd. 8. Therapeutic massage enterprises must be maintained in good repair and sanitary condition. Subd. 9. Therapeutic massage enterprises must comply with the requirements of the Minnesota Indoor Clean Air Act. Subd. 10. A therapeutic massage enterprise must take reasonable steps to prevent the spread of infections and communicable diseases on the licensed premises. Subd. 11. Massage therapists must wear clean clothing when performing massage services. 514.13: LICENSE TERM; RENEWALS: Licenses expire annually on December 31. The license fee will be prorated in thirty (30) day increments for licenses issued after June 30. The City Administrator must prepare an application form for the renewal of a license requiring information that he or she determines necessary for consideration of the renewal. The renewal application must be made no later than November 30. (Amended, Ord. 817,4-2-09; Ord. 844,5-20-10) City of Mounds View 514.14 514.17 (Rev. 5110) 514.14: SUSPENSION; REVOCATION: A license granted under this Section may be suspended or revoked by the City Council by resolution upon notice and public hearing for any violation of this Chapter, a conviction of any crime directly related to the therapeutic massage occupation unless competent evidence can be shown of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to perform the duties of the occupation as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 364.03 or any fraud, misrepresentations or incorrect statement in the license application or in the course of operating or conducting business. (Amended, Ord. 817, 4-2-09) 514.15: TEMPORARY THERAPIST LICENSE: Subd. 1. The City Administrator may issue a temporary therapeutic massage therapist license as provided in this subsection. (Amended, Ord. 844, 5-20-10) Subd. 2. A temporary massage therapist license may be issued to a person who: a. Is qualified to hold a massage therapist license under this Section; b. Has completed the required application and paid the license fee at least seven (7) days prior to the effective date of the license. Subd. 3. A temporary license is effective for four (4) consecutive days. A person may not be issued more than three (3) temporary licenses in any period of three hundred sixty (360) consecutive days. Subd. 4. All other provisions of this Section apply to temporary licenses. 514.16: HOURS OF OPERATION: A licensed therapeutic massage enterprise may not operate for business between the hours of nine o'clock (9:00) p.m. and seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. 514.17: VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as provided in Section 104.01 of this Code. (Ord. 583, 9-23-96) City of Mounds View PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 2, 2011 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 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 2, 2011. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Miller, Rundle, Schiltgen, Stevenson and Smith. Absent and Excused: None. S Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes I Discuss Zoning Code Amendment to Allow Outdoor Vending Kiosks 2 in Commercial Zoning Districts 3. Approval of Minutes September 21, 2011. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Meehlhause. To approve the Minutes of the September 21, 2011 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission November 2, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 2 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases None. 6. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss Zoning Code Amendment to Allow Outdoor Vending Kiosks in Commercial Zoning Districts Associate Planner Heller requested the Commission discuss the possibility of a zoning code amendment to allow for outdoor vending kiosks in commercial zoning districts. She explained that McDonald's and Walgreens have requested to place a Redbox outside their storefronts. The Zoning Code does not currently allow for outdoor vending. Staff completed a search and all neighboring communities have Redbox vending units located in their city. Planner Heller stated as technology continues to change, the City may need to continue to make code amendments. The code was originally written 50 years ago and does not address these issues. Staff requested the Commission discuss the possibility of outdoor vending kiosks and provide specific direction to Staff on how to proceed. She recommended that vending kiosks only be allowed in commercial zoning districts. Chair Stevenson questioned if there was any current City Code that would address the Redbox vending kiosks. Planner Heller indicated the Code discusses temporary outdoor sales, but nothing long term. She explained outdoor storage is allowed through a conditional use permit in the Zoning Code, but that does not exactly define what these vending kiosks are. Chair Stevenson indicated gas stations are currently allowed to have outdoor sales of propane tanks and bags of ice. He felt the Redbox units were a similar function. Commissioner Meehlhause asked why the Redbox unit needed to be outdoors. Planner Heller stated if the unit were housed inside the store it may take away valuable sales floor space and access to the Redbox would be limited to only during business hours. Chair Stevenson felt the Commission needed to address this issue within the Code to assure that outdoor kiosks did not become over used throughout the City. He indicated the City could then limit the square footage allowed. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting November 2, 2011 Page 3 Commissioner Cramblit suggested the vending kiosks be allowed through a conditional use permit. Planner Heller stated the conditional use permit process would allow the City to approve each unit on a case by case basis. Commissioner Cramblit inquired if Walgreens would own the Redbox machine. Planner Heller stated the equipment would be owned and maintained by Redbox. The unit would be leased by Walgreens. Commissioner Meehlhause requested the language within the code amendment be specific to limit the outdoor vending kiosks to only renting DVD's and video games. Planner Heller agreed that the language should be specific. Commissioner Schiltgen cautioned the Commission from allowing the units to be placed outside any commercial business in the City. He felt the language within the Code needed to be very descriptive and suggested the units be limited to retail uses. Chair Stevenson suggested that only vending machines that use credit cards be allowed in order to reduce the likelihood of vandalism. He questioned how the Commission would approve a location for two units. Planner Heller indicated this could be discussed through the conditional use permit process and each case would have to be reviewed based on space available. Planner Heller thanked the Commission for their input on this topic this evening. She explained that she would present the Commission with the Zoning Code Amendment language at an upcoming meeting. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. November 16, 2011 B. December 7, 2011 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. November 2, 2011 Page 4 MOUNDtfftf EW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA December 7, 2011 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: November 2, 2011 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. VR2011-008 Consideration of a Variance to Allow a Detached Accessory Building to Exceed the Maximum Height Limit Address: 8027 Woodlawn Drive l Applicant: Tim Downing B. M12011-002 Consideration of a Minor Subdivision Address: 2565 Sherwood Road (adjacent north side vacant parcel) Applicant: Bob & Mary Pearson 6. Other Planning Activity A. Set 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule B. Review 2012 Planning Commissioner Applications 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. December 21, 2011 B. January 4, 2012 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. November 16, 2011 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion MQU-NDS V Tf Item No: 11 V Meeting Date: December 7, 2011 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Variance to allow a Detached Accessory Building to Exceed the Maximum Height Limit at 8027 Woodlawn Drive; Planning Case VRI 1-008 Introduction: The applicant, Tim Downing, property owner of 8027 variance to allow the height of his detached accessory height limit of 18 feet. Mr. Downing has built a second feet 10 inches tall. Discussion: Woodlawn Drive, is requesting a building to exceed the maximum garage on his property that is 22 In October 2007, the applicant was issued a building permit to construct a detached accessory building on his property. The building plans submitted were for a typical style, single story, 936 square foot detached garage. At the time the permit was issued, the Zoning Code height limit was 15 feet as measured midway between the peak and the eave. Mr. Downing's garage plans showed a height of 11 feet at the midway point, which met the current zoning code. In November 2009 the Zoning Code was amended, and the height limit for accessory buildings was changed to 18 feet at the highest point. Mr. Downing did not start work on the garage for a long time, and the City Building Official granted several extensions for his building permit in order to keep the permit "active" until he had time to start construction. Per the building code, a building permit will stay active as long as some construction work is being done at least every 6 months. If after 6 months no work has been done, the permit will expire. The applicant may submit a written request for an extension of their permit, which the Building Official may grant at their discretion. A footing inspection for the garage was finally done by the City building inspector on August 31, 2010, and the floor slab was poured the next week. After that, the City did not receive any requests from Mr. Downing for more inspections. In late August 2011, Staff became aware that a 2 -story garage had been constructed on the applicant's property. After reviewing the permit application, staff saw that the garage Mr. Downing built was very different from the plans he had submitted in 2007. The Building Official attempted to contact Mr. Downing in late August 2011, and again in September after receiving no response to the first letter. In early October 2011, staff finally spoke with Mr. Downing and he submitted a drawing of the as -built garage showing the garage height to the peak was 22 feet 10 inches. At that time, staff informed him that he would need to either reduce the height of the garage or apply for a variance. Mr. Downing chose to apply for a variance. Downing Garage Height Variance Report December 7, 2011 Page 2 The Zoning Code states that the Planning Commission may issue 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. 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: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. The zoning code limits the height of buildings in order to maintain visual consistency throughout neighborhoods. Accessory buildings in particular have these limitations so they do not exceed the height of the house, and to limit the uses that could occur in a larger building. This garage is not taller than the house, and will provide more indoor storage for the applicant. b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. While the Comprehensive Plan does not specify design or size criteria for buildings, it does support improvements to and the maintenance of properties. One might say that the applicant has built a "better than standard" looking garage because of the added design features of windows and dormers. C. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The applicant owns many things that would be stored in a large garage. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to otherproperties 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. This property does not have any unique features other than it is a larger lot. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant's neighborhood consists of large, almost one acre size lots, and the applicant has a 2 -story house, so the height of the garage is compatible with the house, and the overall garage size does not feel overwhelming to the property or the neighborhood. The second garage is behind the front line of both adjacent neighbor's home and garage. Downing Garage Height Variance report December 7, 2011 Page 3 f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The 4'10" height variance is the minimum variance needed to alleviate the practical difficulties since the garage is already built. 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. The applicant has not finished the exterior of the accessory building. A new/modified building perm it for the as -built structure has not yet been approved by the Building Official. If a variance is granted, staff would recommend imposing conditions of deadlines for receiving Building Official plan approval for the as -built garage, issuance and payment for the modified building permit, along with a deadline for completing the exterior finish of the garage. 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 applicant's property and a notice was published in the Sun Focus newspaper on Thursday, November 24, 2011. Staff received one phone call from the property owner of 8005 Woodlawn Drive on November 28, 2011. He is the neighbor immediately adjacent to the south. He is not in favor of allowing the applicant to disregard the city rules and exceed the height limit for the detached garage. The neighbor indicated that the applicant has also expanded the front garage without a permit, and there is still no finished exterior surface on the expanded area walls after at least 3 years. The neighbor has concerns about the overall maintenance of the property, particularly the several vehicles, trailers and farm equipment that are in the backyard and parking off the driveway in the grass. Downing Garage Height Variance Report December 7, 2011 Page 4 Recommendation: Staff recommends holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and the public. The Commission may take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. An approval version of Resolution 955-11 is attached for action if the Commission so chooses. 2. Deny the requested variance. A denial version of Resolution 955-11 is attached for action if the Commission so chooses. 3. Table the request. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide there is a need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Respectfully Submitted By, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photos 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Drawing of Garage 5. Letter from Applicant, Tim Downing 6. Resolution 955-11 (Approval & Denial versions) ZONING MAP 8140 8132 N I N 18101 L0 ko N LLVI EW PARK 8145 8135 8132 8121 8126 „1 8101 N n I.? 8071 8041 8035 8011 7977 7975 7955 7945 -T�, NIN 8080 8070 7984 7980 .rr0 SHERWOOD 8085I Co N 140 GREENF N N N 7941 0 7937 8130 0 8133 8123 8120 7921 79 79 8070 8051 N 79 6110 W N 801 8005 SHERWOOD 8085I Co N 8088 GREENF N N N 7941 8081 7937 79 7933 7929 79 79 80 79 7921 79 79 8070 8051 7909 7905 79 8044 8027 801 8005 ,:� N 801 7989 7988 7971 N N 7968 7953 N 7948 7931 7930 to N rn to I r LO N N to 7875 N 7869 N 8121 a 18,011 1 ROAD 00 8095N 8075 I N 1 GREENF p N N 7945 79 7941 79 7937 79 7933 7929 79 79 7925 79 7921 79 79 7917 7913 79 7909 7905 79 791 co � w 7864 786 p N N ..: ..: .: co O co v O 88 7889 7888 N 1 dt M It W N d Co O d N N N N ,:� N N N N N N 7858 7853 7878 7875 7868 7869 7860 0 7852 7855 78707857 7861 78540 785 78467841 7836 3 x 7845 7840 0 784 7840 7829 'T aJ 7847 7840 W 7817 7820 0 7833 7832 7837 7830 7800 7809 781 3 7815 7827 7820782 7780 7801 _ _ - _78067817 781 * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential all "Oki - I m � 1 � �� �'' �� _ � 1 i 1 -_ T � �� a ,�„ � I H I_ it IIIII� I _ ���'I���� ����I�� I �I i N�`� �� 1, , ... �� q Wyk Drawing of front of as -built garage 0 Y n H oI _ Letter from Applicant Tim Downing 8027 Woodlawn Dr. Mounds View, MN 55112 ph 612-590-5534 City of Mounds View 2401 Hwy 10 MoundsView MN 56112-1499 Dear Kathy Osmonson, 1 apologize for taking liberties with regards to the construction of my garage. My original intent was to construct exactly according to plans but one thing led to another. ordered one extra truss to give me a little lattitude on where I might locate a stairway. At some point I figured out with an extra truss there were enough to make 2 girder trusses (tripled) with a 8ft spread and hand frame in between for possible future dormers on each side. I stopped in one day to ask you or Don about this Idea and Jeremiah was the only Inspector type person around. I showed him a drawing and explained what I wanted to do and he said he thought it would be ok. Once I set the trusses and started sheeting, I realized it would be quite a lot of extra work and cost if t didn't build the dormers at the same time. I know this is where t most definitely should have come in and asked you about this. For various reasons I went ahead with construction. 1) 1 was afraid you would say no, 2)1 had no work at this point and extra time to build the dormers, 3) The stairway fit very nicely into the dormer area, 4) the prospect of more drawing and paperwork was not appealing, and 6) In the past I haven't had very good luck obtaining engineering or various projects. bought my lumber at Menards and my roof trusses at Emmerich Wood. I will first try to get engineering from Emmerich. I will also supply you with as built plans and a variance application shortly. Also, this is the first letter 1 have received regarding this Issue, in your letter dated September 30th, 2011, you mentioned a previous letter? Thank you with your patience with my project. Sincerely, Tim Downing Letter from Applicant a .9Q i`fE,J RECEIVED DEC X 21011 �/ �l A1,14- 9" Grr`rllcc rJda�/�'Y�jyrY�-f 'r° icj '�'< r/rte C i�7'ti X314/�Rq/ �oa� uJ9s��. S , ?A-4 b� h�-F�, - APPROVAL MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION VERSION RESOLUTION NO. 955-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 22 FOOT 10 INCH TALL DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING AT 8027 WOODLAWN DRIVE; PLANNING CASE VR2011-008 WHEREAS, the applicant, Tim Downing, property owner of 8027 Woodlawn Drive, has applied for a variance to allow a 22 foot 10 inch tall garage on his property; and, WHEREAS, 8027 Woodlawn Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as: Woodlawn Terrace, Lot 24, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 05-30-23-32-0033 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Photographic Documentation 4. 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 restricts 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 December 7, 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 thereto be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 8027 Woodlawn Drive, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 955-11 Page 2 1. The garage does not exceed the height of the house and is intended to provide enough indoor storage for the amount of items that the applicant owns. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant has added a significant improvement to his property and can store more items indoors. The applicant owns several vehicles, trailers and other equipment that could be stored indoors. He will be able to maintain his property by being able to store most or all of his items inside. 4. The applicant's lot is almost an acre in size, which is larger than most in the city. 5. The tall garage does not appear to be an overwhelming size for the neighborhood or the applicant's property. 6. The 4'10" variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant's practical difficulty since the structure is already built. 7. The Planning Commission may impose conditions upon the premises as may be necessary to comply with city standards and to minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood. These conditions are as follows: a. The applicant must receive approval from the Building Official for a new building permit for the garage as it is actually built. b. The applicant must pay the additional permit fees for the new building permit. c. The applicant must complete the exterior of the garage by April 1, 2012. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of Tim Downing, property owner of 8027 Woodlawn Drive, to allow one 22 foot 10 inch tall garage, subject to the conditions stated above in Item 7. Adopted this 7t" day of December, 2011. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) DENIAL MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION VERSION RESOLUTION NO. 955-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY BUILDING TO EXCEED THE 18 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AT 8027 WOODLAWN DRIVE; PLANNING CASE VR2011-008 WHEREAS, the applicant, Tim Downing, property owner of 8027 Woodlawn Drive, has applied for a variance to allow a 22 foot 10 inch tall garage on his property; and, WHEREAS, 8027 Woodlawn Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as: Woodlawn Terrace, Lot 24, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 05-30-23-32-0033 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Photographic Documentation 4. 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 restricts 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 December 7, 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 all of the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are not satisfied, and finds there notto be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 8027 Woodlawn Drive, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 955-11 Page 2 The Zoning Code has established regulations for accessory building height in order to maintain visual consistency in the neighborhood, and to prevent accessory buildings from being taller or overshadow the house on the property. The applicant did not follow his submitted and City approved building plans, and did not follow City Code regulations. 2. The variance may not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, although the Comprehensive Plan would not encourage property owners to not follow City Code regulations. The applicant may intend to use the property and garage in a reasonable manner, but has not demonstrated that there is a true "practical difficulty' associated with this property that would warrant allowing a garage to exceed the Zoning Code height limit. 4. There are no unique circumstances that apply to this property. The need to apply for a variance is the direct result of actions by the property owner. 5. Granting a variance to allow a taller garage may not alter the character of this particular neighborhood since the lots are large. 6. The variance requested is the minimum variance needed since the garage is already built. 7. The Planning Commission may impose conditions upon the premises as may be necessaryto comply with city standards and to minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, denies the variance request of Tim Downing, property owner of 8027 Woodlawn Drive, to allow a garage to exceed the 18 foot accessory building height limit. Adopted this 7th day of December, 2011. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MOV UNDS ! _r�1L�Y AT Item 5B Meeting Date: December? 7, 2011 Type of Business: Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of the Minor Subdivision of a Vacant Lot Adjacent to 2565 Sherwood Road; Planning Case M12011-002 Introduction: Bob & Mary Pearson have applied for a minor subdivision to subdivide a vacant lot they own adjacent to their property at 2565 Sherwood Road. The lot is not for development purposes, but has simply been additional backyard area for the Pearsons since they purchased it in 2000. Their neighbor, Joe Holl, at 2573 Sherwood would now like to buy the west half of this vacant lot, also for more backyard space. The proposed subdivision will create two vacant lots. The applicants have submitted a Certificate of Survey that shows the subdivision. Discussion: A minor subdivision is ordinarily a division of land less than two acres in area in which no more than one additional lot is created. The lot is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and the Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low density residential. The minimum lot width for interior residential parcels is 75 feet and the minimum lot area is 11,000 square feet, and corner lots must be a minimum of 100 feet wide and 12,500 square feet. Below is a table which shows the dimensions for the parcels before and as a result of the proposed adjustment: As this table shows, the proposed lots will meet or exceed all city standards. At this point, neither lot is planned for development. The east lot that the Pearsons will own is land -locked. The new lot that Mr. Holl will own does have Greenwood Drive right- of-way on the west side, so could have street frontage at some point. A few years ago when the housing market was good, some developers had been attempting to assemble land in this area, and planned to construct Greenwood Drive for the development's access road. The new lot that Mr. Holl will own does meet the City's size standards for a "buildable lot" if Greenwood Drive were to be built. Before After Area Sq. Feet / Lot Dimension Area Sq. feet / Lot Dimension Pearson owned lot 29,904 square feet 11,365 square feet 299'x 10' 113.65' x 100' Holl owned lot N/A 18,539 square feet 185.39'x 100' As this table shows, the proposed lots will meet or exceed all city standards. At this point, neither lot is planned for development. The east lot that the Pearsons will own is land -locked. The new lot that Mr. Holl will own does have Greenwood Drive right- of-way on the west side, so could have street frontage at some point. A few years ago when the housing market was good, some developers had been attempting to assemble land in this area, and planned to construct Greenwood Drive for the development's access road. The new lot that Mr. Holl will own does meet the City's size standards for a "buildable lot" if Greenwood Drive were to be built. Pearson Subdivision Staff Report December 7, 2011 Page 2 Park Dedication Requirements. Subdivisions of land are subjectto parkdedication requirements consistentwith Chapter 1204 of the City Code. When the subdivided parcels are not going to be developed, Staff typically recommends that the park dedication fee not be required. Since there are no current plans for development of the lots, staff is recommending that the park dedication fee not be required at this time. However, the west lot is technically "buildable" because of the existing platted road right-of-way frontage. Staff is including a condition in the resolution stating that if a house is ever built on either of these lots, a park dedication fee will be required as part of the building permit application. Easements. With most subdivisions, the City requires the owner to dedicate drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the lot. Since there will be no construction occurring, staff is not requiring that these easements be added at this time. There are currently existing easements shown on the survey that will remain in place. Public Notice. No public notice is required for a minor subdivision. Summary. The proposed subdivision will simply split the vacant property and create one new parcel. All minimum city requirements are met with this request. The new property line was placed so that the Pearon's shed has the required minimum 5 foot setback. Recommendation: Because the proposed subdivision satisfies all city code requirements, Staff is recommending approval of Resolution 954-11, a resolution approving the minor subdivision of a vacant lot owned by Bob & Mary Pearson, adjacent to 2565 Sherwood Road. Respectfully Submitted By, UI IJ-tt.0 Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Map 3. Resolution 954-11 4. Certificate of Survey I Zoning Map � L83 to N N N N H180 ® 8205 8193 8185 8160 8171 8165 8150 8145 8140° 8141 8242 O M ,n 8260 Z ---- 8232 N N N 8250 J O 8271 rd n Avenue 8247 c(o I 8239 !C-4L(C-04 N N N N N 823 - 8225 8224 8212 8217 "" " i (0I "to (0N (D N N (0 to3 00 LO LO J N N :..� N N N SHERWOOD ROAD00 0 to O o H8071 N N N N an=Q on�n COD 8206 8205 8200 8150 ,,8, - o 8145 8140 ® 8135 A132 8121 /810 8101 8085 N N 8086 8085 Qn�o _-- • Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential • Areas shown with red dots are City roadway easements Aerial Map 4 New property line if J1. 2565 - Pearson TV -Holl2573 IIS Greenwood Drive right- of-way easement area fel MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 954-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF THE VACANT LOT OWNED BY ROBERT AND MARY PEARSON, ADJACENT TO 2565 SHERWOOD ROAD; PLANNING CASE NO. M12011-002 WHEREAS, Robert and Mary Pearson have requested approval of a minor subdivision of a vacant lot they own adjacent to their property at 2565 Sherwood Road, a property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally -described as: The Westerly 299.00 feet of the Easterly 528.66 feet of the North 100.00 feet of the South 262.00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 30 North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 06-30-23-14-0071 WHEREAS, the Applicants propose to subdivide this vacant lot into two lots; Robert and Mary Pearson will remain the owners of the east lot, and intend to sell the west lot; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Applicants 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 Applicants request for a minor subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, since both parcels are planned to remain vacant open space and no additional homes built as part of this subdivision, a park dedication fee is not required with this subdivision application; and, WHEREAS, if in the future, a new house is constructed on either of these vacant parcels, a park dedication fee, based on five percent of the Ramsey County assessed market land value (of the year current at the time of building permit application), will be required before a building permit is issued. Resolution 954-11 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Applicants shall have 6 months from final approval to file proper documentation with Ramsey County, including newdeeds, 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 FURTHER RESOLVED thatthe Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of a minor subdivision of the vacant lot owned by Robert & Mary Pearson, adjacent to their property at 2565 Sherwood Road, subject to the following stipulations: 1. The Applicants shall complete any and all requirements after final review of the Certificate of Survey and title commitment by the City Attorney. 2. The Applicants shall arrange to amend the Certificate of Survey if any changes are required by Ramsey County. 3. The Applicants are responsible for reimbursing the City of all fees associated with this subdivision request. 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 7th day of December, 2011. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) 1 C rawo0 { M„9f,44.ODN s` FT E6Qolol WoOU y ��m�dimi .z (Yin im I- €6 Z 'tlx.1 '9 'oag to ay) )o )uawnuory � F)uno0 Faswoa __� SZ ~In °wro f£ P -M I CZ 'N '0£ '1 '9 'oaS J- ,'II i oo K I I dx9£16v.00s; I I Si - WOOL i rl I 1 a O v RI u mw � waoafna�ooa pl Iwwlj o 9� 9 I 6z e. (Iii °°..y Sys I I II 1 C rawo0 { M„9f,44.ODN s` FT E6Qolol WoOU y ��m�dimi .z (Yin im I- €6 Z 'tlx.1 '9 'oag to ay) )o )uawnuory � F)uno0 Faswoa __� SZ ~In °wro f£ P -M I 1ti 0 ,'II i oo e I I Si i N I—f-0 iZ a 7 N t'I Ma9C.1V o00N II u y j j 1ti 0 I I Si i N I—f-0 iZ a O v VVf',y 3t u mw _ o 9� 9 Aag d W O O °°..y Sys sE go 5e f9K H x�pcean x g` a m I O I rUi_°Pu^eX l_IF J a�i Pllwwaco3 i a \I� I 00 .�9 0 33 S o 3§ O IP _ .% $T= LoIooL Mn9Elfi, r QOOMN99?J9 I 3 ) O -0 -d , oxzsa .tea .ate ' Y N h -1 volaBln119ed vo) )uawoco3 F �� IM P T N� # 4 O I M„SO.S4.00N fZ 'N '0£ 1 '9 'oa5 10 4/13N 041 to cull — _T 'M--- fZ 'a68 bL '9 'aag r o to 1a1uap ay) )oD 'uawnuoyy uml )so0 F)uno0 Faswoy _�� n �S99 c Y 9 O�a-. 5 i fi yy 3 v Z ZeZfZo s w� w-�wza o_d�5 9- `_E5 p I—f-0 m a a ou° VVf',y 3t u mw !my{ p n„ -H o 9� 9 Aag °°..y Sys sE go 5e w x g` w joz- 00 00 .�9 0 33 S o 3§ w� w-�wza o_d�5 9- `_E5 p I—f-0 w W00 pz 00 00 .% $T= � N • O ) �' E Y L w� w-�wza o_d�5 9- `_E5 EM Item No: 6A Meeting Date: December 7, 2011 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Subject: Consideration of Resolution 953-11, Establishing the Planning Commission's 2012 Meeting Schedule. Introduction: The Planning Commission establishes its meeting schedule each year by resolution. Discussion: The meeting schedule proposed for 2012 represents the usual first and third Wednesday of every month with the exception of July, which will need to be adjusted to account for Independence Day. The first Wednesday in July is July 4th. Typically in the past when this has happened, the meetings were shifted that month to the 2"d and 4th Wednesdays. This is not possible to do now because the Charter Commission meets on the 2nd Wednesday. The options to deal with this holiday is to (a) only hold only one meeting in July or (b) shift the meeting to either Tuesday, July 3`d or Thursday, July 5t". Staff would recommend going with option B, shifting the meeting to Tuesday or Thursday. That way there is a meeting scheduled if necessary, but it can be cancelled if there are no planning cases. There do not appear to be any other conflicts with holidays that would fall midweek with the exception of November 21 st, which is the day before Thanksgiving. If there are no planning cases for consideration during that time, the meeting could be cancelled. Recommendation: Discuss options for dealing with the first July meeting and Approve Resolution 953-11, a resolution establishing the 2012 meeting schedule of the Planning Commission. The schedule attached has been drafted with the first July meeting changed to Tuesday, July 3`d, but this may be amended based on Commission direction Respectfully submitted, sp i `� v JJIU . Heidi Heller Planning Associate MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 953-11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE 2012 MEETING SCHEDULE OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission intends to hold two regular meetings per month during the year 2012; and, WHEREAS, with the exception of July, the Planning Commission will meet on the first and third Wednesdays of each month, or as amended; and, WHEREAS, the schedule of meeting dates shall be established and posted to provide an orderly system for use by the Planning Commission, staff and general public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Exhibit 1, attached hereto, is the Planning Commission's official meeting schedule for the year 2012. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that if the Planning Commission is required to or desires to hold special or emergency meetings, such meetings will be held in accordance with State law, Code requirements and Commission Bylaws. Adopted this 7th day of December, 2011 Gary Stevenson Chairperson ATTEST James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) EXHIBIT 1. 2012 MEETING SCHEDULE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 4 January 18 February 1 February 15 March 7 March 21 April 4 April 18 May 2 May 16 June 6 June 20 July 3 (Tuesday) July 18 August 1 August 15 September 5 September 19 October 3 October 17 November 7 November 21 December 5 December 19 Item No: 613 T TRT NDr Meeting Date: December 7, 2011 MOUS VI1-YY Type of Business: Other Planning Activity City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Planning Commission Term Expirations and New Applications Review The term of three Planning Commission members — Gary Stevenson, Gary Meehlhause and Jean Miller - expire at the end of the year. The City advertised the vacancies, with applications due on November 10, 2011. Staff received applications from all three current Commissioners for another term. No other applications for the Planning Commission were received by the City. The Planning Commission will review the applications at the December 7, 2011 meeting, and the City Council will make the official appointments on December 12, 2011. Sincerely, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Planning Application from Gary Stevenson 2. Planning Application from Gary Meehlhause 3. Planning Application from Jean Miller Board/Commission Applif Full Name (Please print): City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Phone 763-717-4000 Fax 763-717-4019 www.ei.mounds-view.mn.us Home Phone: 7� `7 7z'3 G ",>, {7 Work Phone: Cell Phone: Years lived in Mounds View: f� yam' r1 Address: ?.A u+ Email address: Qualifications you want to have the Mayor and City Council Consider: Skills and Interests:_/jcCvt l Employment, Occupation or other Experience: ;11<<sr`r?r� /)3(17:-C= C, / i+% o6� /l/- -51- Memberships, Accomplishments or Other Qualifications: Please state your reason for wanting to serve with this group: _� r' , , c i� o k r�,' I er/7rt-S `f' 12ei'/q '-, .7�,./-_..EY /W."11.E!✓S tliCu).. +Zrltf .}CI v ' v i� lj Signature: cLe>.,.4� , F �_--`r' ®ate: )/<<V • /17 e 61// (Your response to any of the above inquiries may be continued on the back of this form and you may attach any other material that you would want the Mayor and City Council to consider.) The City of Mounds View is committed to the policy that all persons shall have access to Its programs, facilities and employment without regard for race, creed, color, sex, age, national origin or handicap, 09_3-0.11 A0 :S0 1J :R91% City of Mounds View 2401 County Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 763-717-4000 Application forAdvisory Commissions and Committees Group(s) applied for: Full Name (Please Pri Work Phone: 763 18-Y 7336 Work/Cell Phone: .3K 413** Address, Years at this address:_ p E-mail Address: .>Tcfl,P, (r- M a Skills and Interests: Years you have lived in Mounds View: ,3_'� Experience and Qualifications Employment, Occupation or Other Relevant Experience; 15aIP Memberships, Accomplishments or Other Qualifications: Please state your reason for w nting to serve with this group: & O, 5e0l/c. N Signature: Date: (Your response to any of the above Inquiries may be continued on the back of this form and you may attach other information that you would like the City Council to consider.) The City of Mounds Illew Is committed to the policy that all persons shall have access to its programs, Facilities and employment without regard for race, ethnicity, sex, age or phys/caf abilities. f'd 8£97981£9L s,uosueneaS e60:80 6f bZ deS -11 AO1=19 IN City of Mounds View 2401 County Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 763-717-4000 Application for Advisory Commissions and Committees Group(s) applied for: /:�^/OfJ�C' Full Name (Please Print): �.�Y'7�f✓/��� ;.� LsS 141ar♦ePhone.��la��755'�"�'ld`.��' Wo ell Phon : 7Cp �--�'�� 'kgs �f' Address: _75-<&Pe� ezt� Years at this addressL--Z?G3 %z Years you have lived in Mounds View&_%., E-mail Address: /? 7 <`�— �' �,' t S X20� Experience and Qualifications Skills and Interests: Employment, Occupation or Other Relevant Experience: Memberships, Accomplishments or Other Qualifications: Please state your reason for wanting to serve with this group: Signature;?_ X12 Date: v (Your response to any of the above inquiries may be continued on the back of this form and you may attach other information that you would like the City Council to consider.) The City of Mounds View is committed to the policy that all persons shell have access to its programs, facilities and employment without regard forrace, ethnicity, sex, age orphysical abilities. Jisalioia i:sr i€latieoa oaasal uci�aatitl( Wcit .atl�lito mt Gary i`feelllhaamo "I' saal<j 1i3ictrsts: The ilmo rer one (-cols of my Rro is iriy f1ladly, After my fsinily, racy hobbies and itater"Is are follocJing sports at rho prof4mional, collefm and saris School fevels, tao;nie ptgj(, :ts including majiltaining, my holne and yard to the b@St of rq aOitilies, my allt liiOflilCS, readilig (.>[)Offfi 2il)013t ibchiJly and Sl)Oi iS, 1}ai'ilClifarly 1D10.•vyySPh3GS, CO[I0(`tivZ ofa (Pre -1970) 31}OM colkwor Cal -alis, and involved Jta ll1)eirF�" y COtttanufli.ty, Deforo my retil'evomt; at tJ;e profies9iollal feveJ at.ttiy plat -t' Of Clelployrncllt, any YCCOga3.t7.Cd sJcl IS, 63/ C(illea 11B9 and inarlagorriant: vvere plaili.74rag, convulinicalioll., implaruentat'ion, andthe ability to ()"aliig a ;group ofindividuals toggoillar a8 a t'cal-H tO wovk tOWal'dS 9ccoTnpt'shing a Corti atmi goal that islet the el jtctiver; of the k3tishtess. 'nim aytiBeLtt.g ficctaaatiuen oa't9ae¢'ci ®fie ce 1 retired b danzrait'y, 2011. after having tvol'ked at Deluxe Corpor,'tiion for 36-1/2 years. For almost half of my career', .l r poale d to the "Vice -N3 ,sidetat responsible :for Detux',s manufacturing ot;eratiosls. My.job lithe fol' tike hast sUvcril yaars +,vas Ptircip'll Project iN9arsiger, 111(1 tic;/ rmponsibjities iaduded sti'atcgic platau:iag, yeasty budget plamliuu, atld project znanageittent. SKY inaliat of and I d-volopM the manlifict ing phlit Ifoor rciaioll 1111 stiateay that Deluxe irnplcislented in 2009 and 2010. Wo were 11,90 iatvolved in the development ,<anci e,eC!kioof plan! ptt cedwith aitaltal orde1' Maim pr«jecions vhichianucbaiing u resulfod in Dolt= ieclucirtg its rul"bei• of matu actL)aistg faci(itiee from 41 in 1996 to 6 hi'2011. ft9y project manager responsibii +ies itavoJved ma 01- rnatlttfaotnl ing prc�jert iiaitiati'vas that (Jevc coped alad iriapJeztaoirtasl ne.v teclh•tologss;s and procer 808 hit() at( matitif'actcning; opeeatioiwa This r eponsibility inCltadetf ntanat 1119 Projects with bud( rangii)K f -Oln $ 10 Lniltion to $ 25 million. hi. 2007, t led the, project initiative that chaatiged thc; ShiPRIClu of check orders in a :3 diriietlsional box via USPS Siandard A nwil. proceas (colaunonly .resumed to is bull: milia) 10 a :fleet package -vi=a USPS Automation FIMS Pnatflri„ prOC"S. This 44 0-09 change acrd the i1Ltp1elttcniat:ion. of a. hilly automated cherlc fuffithl-gent process has resulted hi hefts c avoicliiig over 1.00 iivllion in USJ'S delivot=/ Charges, This ohmage was one of the major project initiativos highlightcd ist .D ftixe;s 2008 Axisiu al Report. Cvl'c;tta&it;iesFai�1, rios:o filsllsnie'wt®e dlaer aiala6ia aflons: .iia addiiion to 364.1/2 years of wvot'k t)r rie:nce in the Business w(mid, 1 graduated alag-na Carn iaaacJe in 1974 firom, Calif on caistory. ria ;3tt to i�niversid}, Northridge Will) a Il aeI)elo.r of Arts caegi'ee ill I all, ASO a 'Totn•ed° ceraitied Prolect Manager or PMP ( rolieci: t��e<'ttde �eLnBi'.t PrOf:P,SSiO9aad). [ have keen a member of file is/lowadp view Planttstig COO1lTdPSiO51 .siaica Jtlnuaay, 20 )- , as ad rie, vett kis the COimitissiou'S v; c-ohair I el'wll 612011, 11€a r„ 1)eell a membet' of the Phounds Victy 1,,,connr€aic 17ev lol>tzi rtt LottanYis;siola siuce.Febtarary, ZQQf). 1 Sc r-%/e(t "" €'lle ('.arnffaiS$3U%t'S Vico-ch .ft' in '2008,EIY;fi €Ys"1S tllc Chair Persian in 2009 and 2010. 1 solved oil the City of i Aovnd3 il"W'42008 /'20€ 9C�' !� o otYYpr a taSit Platl T"ask .l)t'ce wl ich helped the ciiy staff and City Council update the city's comprelfansi'vo Platz as 1-oquired by file Moteopoiiia" Cou aril. 1 a1lso ,assisted wimh iheMoUnds View Fe, tivat in NIc;; nark cat'.>hoj-, in 2()11. T'te Tit staYia' , ol:ti read>caR #off•<l�aldas I Uty'VO aataan soa t c or�6:ii dliis fl: cl have livers in A✓tctira 9 thew for atlanost 27 }yea€,s, and we <aae the or gina1 ocvrte%s or ()or 1pt;el e in Ihe, Silver Lake; tvlood, dc�veloptnetkt. tlJe la the i' €isecl our clYfic?ref€ in this ov ie.„a <'€n<1 the lvlo'€ands View c omn.m atfy, and we r5es€(1 to r,outinue fiv-hig in olir home as long as SVC ai, e capable. fn the c arty 200o.,, Is 110a1CO'd tO 13rds rutti'oment aad a I2}tllrc with clilidi.'f,'n 110 lonset' residing at hone, involved in the cota5rnllnRY mat T have lived in for 0-1- yom—,! at the tiiYai; and i iamw living in for the rernainder' of eny .life hecarne ail interest that I !=."a €tett to }rrzt'sue. The 1 .'ity, COnr€YnSSronS that were mml ,al)Pciihng t0 m1LY� e Flea'P, tt"O Plall6Con]rlttiSlon aild tit,,Eco%€Uralic; Davelopinent C'oinnais,ion. T'iteae oonucaiSsiaras' rale hest fit the :,aper iN:tee float .T. haave had tri l.lte Business world., They provided an c.xccgQal opportunity to hecOYfir, involved with the 1 (Ula duvolopment (l€€action f0.a' the C~tly, and the tna€SIfP.€Y87tGai of standar(l.5 that were ah'01(ly established, I took the oppoittltijty to apply the Plaminr C'oinlrnl9S.lora w11 u53 at aitY1'Or'tUY3ZtG of enLl� a]'Orie in .iuly, 2003. 1 believe .my prolessiolYai experience and flow fly years of axperienco as a Planning Conan?” ioller have l)ositioned me well to ob Qct€vely analyze the ',aS s l)l-Oogltt fht'tlt by citti stat%; and to re;tclt dOCAMS that are in the best int la -Vis of the City overall and the applicant when possible. I'vc enjoyed the time I`ve spent on the Cor€antiSsioil, ,and have ynioye(t working Cvitlt til other oulshuldin g individuals who have 'served, 'There:lbre Pin re -applying for the Planati t1,) CSU%%]r. Ci.Ssic)ii. ,so T call conth"le to bf, ialvolvrd in my cotnrnla€ily and continuo expe"'Ouc'€ng the l,ei:solial saiisfiac;tion and enjoy'in-mi that f9Yis e'xpe.denoe has pro'vieled. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 16, 2011 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 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, 2011. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Miller, Rundle, Schiltgen, Stevenson and Smith. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Helier. Index to Minutes Approval of Minutes CU2011-001. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage Proposed Zoning Code Amendment to Allow Outdoor Vending Kiosks in Commercial Zoning Districts Discuss City Code Amendment to Allow Massage Therapy as a Home Based Business 3. Approval of Minutes October 5, 2011. Page MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the Minutes of the October 5, 2011 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting November 16, 2011 Page 2 Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases A. CU2011-001 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage Planning Associate Heller requested the Commission consider a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow outdoor storage for The Tyson Companies located at 4825 Mustang Circle. Tyson Companies is a trucking and warehouse business that has been located in Mounds View for many years. The property is zoned industrial and outdoor storage is a conditional use in industrial districts. Associate Heller indicated the Tyson Companies would like to utilize their large property for additional business and be able to offer outdoor storage to customers. The storage area would only be visible to a few manufactured homes that are directly next to Tyson's property. The area has been used for parking semi -trailers for many years, and would now simply include some stacked product. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit as requested. Chair Stevenson questioned how tall the outdoor storage would be stacked. Dale Tellers, representing The Tyson Companies, stated they had considered a contract for storing double high pallets of shingles that would have been about 8 feet tall. He stated that the height would depend on what the product was being stored. Chair Stevenson suggested the outdoor storage not exceed the building height. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if there were OSHA standards regarding storage height. Mr. Tellers stated safety would be a primary consideration and he would not want any products damaged or falling since their company is responsible for the product while it was on their property. Associate Heller stated fire code may regulate some products, as well as the manufacturer putting limits on how much they want stacked on top of each other. Commissioner Meehlhause questioned how long the outdoor storage products would be stored on site. Mr. Tellers noted the intent was to have the products sit four to five months before clearing out. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting November 16, 2011 Page 3 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolution 951-11, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Tyson Trucking (D and A Development) at 4825 Mustang Circle; Planning Case No. CU2011-001. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 6. Other Planning Activity A. Proposed Zoning Code Amendment to Allow Outdoor Vending Kiosks in Commercial Zoning Districts Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission this item was discussed at the November 2, 2011 Planning meeting. Staff has received a few requests from local businesses requesting to install Redbox kiosks. At this time, the City Code does not allow for outdoor vending kiosks. Associate Heller indicated Walgreens has spoken with the City over the past several months seeking a Code Amendment to allow for this use. The Commission decided that the zoning code should be amended to allow these kiosks as a conditional use in commercial districts, including commercial PUD's, but only at retail stores and restaurants. Associate Heller reviewed Chapter 1112, B-1 Neighborhood Business District, Subdivision 1112.04 with the Commission. She stated that this new language would be added to the B-1 district conditional uses since the zoning code builds on each chapter. Staff recommends that the Commission review and comment on the proposed language for the outdoor vending kiosks. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if hotels should be permitted to offer these vending kiosks. Chair Stevenson stated this would not be necessary since hotel TV's offered movie rentals. Associate Heller added that two of the hotels within the City are very close to McDonalds, which currently has a Redbox inside the restaurant. Commissioner Smith questioned if the number of kiosks should be limited to two per site. Associate Heller stated the number of kiosks allowed would be specified in each Resolution on a case-by-case basis. Staff and the Planning Commission would need to review the outdoor space available for each applicant. Applicants can also request a CUP amendment if they want to add a second kiosk later on. Chair Stevenson inquired if the Police Department had been contacted regarding this issue. Associate Heller explained she did not bring this to the Police Department as these vending kiosks are becoming more common and there would be no cash inside the machine. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting November 16, 2011 Page 4 Commissioner Rundle stated the Redbox units were usually well lit and placed outside of reputable businesses. Chair Stevenson thanked Staff for including the requirement of "not impacting the flow of traffic" in the proposed zoning code language. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 952-11, a Resolution Amending Chapter 1112 of the Mounds View Zoning Code to Allow for Outdoor Vending Kiosks in Commercial Zoning Districts. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. B. Discuss City Code Amendment to Allow Massage Therapy as a Home Based Business Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that at the October 24, 2011 City Council meeting, a resident asked the Council if massage therapy could be considered as a home based business in the City of Mounds View. The City Council discussed the idea at their work session on November 7th. The City Council supports amending the City Code and has asked that the Planning Commission discuss how this should be accomplished. Associate Heller explained that currently the City Code only allows massage therapy in at least the B-2 zoning district and a city business license is required. An extensive amount of information is required from massage therapists in order to be issued an annual city license. Staff checked other community city codes and most require a license or conditional use permit to allow massage therapy as a home based business. Associate Heller indicated the easiest way to allow massage therapy as a home based business would be to amend Chapter 514. 10, and state that therapeutic massage may be located in residential zoning districts. The Commission could also choose to allow massage therapy in residential districts as a conditional use. This would require an amendment to Chapter 1106.04 of the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning Code, adding therapeutic massage as a conditional use. This option would allow for greater control on this home based business, however, this may not be necessary, given the lengthy background check process already completed. She requested the Commission discuss the proposed zoning amendment options and direct Staff on how to proceed. Chair Stevenson questioned how the City would complete a renewal for these business licenses, and are site visits done as part of the licensing process. Associate Heller stated no site visits were currently being done for any business licenses. The Assistant City Administrator processes the business license applications every year, does a background check if necessary, and updates the City's records prior to issuing a license. Associate Heller indicated the City could possibly complete onsite visits. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting November 16, 2011 Page 5 Commissioner Cramblit asked if this use would be allowed in an apartment or townhome unit. Associate Heller stated this would have to reviewed to see if the City could limit the types of residential housing this particular home-based business could be located in. She indicated some rental housing may include language in the leases regarding home-based businesses. Commissioner Schiltgen felt this type of use needed to be more restricted as there is no State licensing available for massage therapy. Commissioner Smith suggested requiring that each business owner prove they are a licensed massage therapist. Commissioner Schiltgen inquired if there was a fee for the business license. Associate Heller stated there are fees for every business license. She was uncertain of the amount for massage therapists but estimated it to be at least $100. Chair Stevenson was more comfortable with the conditional use permit for massage therapy businesses at a reduced planning application rate. He felt this process allowed the City greater means to regulate the use. Commissioner Smith questioned if additional employees would be allowed in the home based business for massage therapists. Associate Heller noted this was addressed in the City Code section about home businesses. Commissioner Miller asked if in-home visits were currently allowed. Associate Heller stated a massage therapist could do in-home visits. Chair Stevenson supported allowing massage therapy as a home based business with either a special use permit or a conditional use permit. The Commission agreed with this recommendation. Associate Heller stated she would look into other cities Special Use Permits in more detail and determine the best option and bring this back to the Commission at a future meeting. 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. December 7, 2011 B. December 21, 2011 Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session November 16, 2011 Page 6 There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.