Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015 Planning Commission Packets0 E a 0 0 0 i PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 21, 2015 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business A. Oath of Office for Commissioners B. Election of Officers — Chair and Vice -Chair 4. Approval of Minutes: November 19, 2014 5. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 6. Planning Cases A. None 7. Other Planning Activity A. None 8. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, February 4, 2015 B. Wednesday, February 18, 2015 9. Review Minutes: A. December 3, 2014 10. Staff Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases 11. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner's Reports 12. Meeting Conclusion PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting December 3, 2014 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 December 3, 2014. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Birken, Elofson, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Carvelli-Yu. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 Discuss Proposed Code Amendment for I-1, Industrial Zoning District Uses 2 Discuss Proposed Code Amendments to Title 1100 for Renewable Energy 2 Systems Set 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule 3 3. Approval of Minutes October 1, 2014. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Love/Commissioner Birken. To approve the Minutes of the October 1, 2014 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 3, 2014 Page 2 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases None. 6. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss Proposed Code Amendment for I-1, Industrial Zoning District Uses Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that at the November 19, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, Staff and the Commission discussed adding additional uses to the industrial district zoning code. The Commission was supportive of adding medical supply and pharmacy to the allowed uses, particularly to accommodate businesses that currently exist in industrial zoned properties. The Commission also felt it was appropriate to change some current conditional uses to be allowed uses. She reviewed the proposed changes to the City Code in further detail with the Commission and requested comment on how to proceed. Commissioner Love did not believe that daycare centers belonged in industrial parks. Associate Heller reported daycare centers required many conditions in order to be located in any business or industrial districts. Chair Stevenson asked if the pawnshop allowance would be impacted by the proposed code amendment. Associate Heller indicated the pawnshop would not be impacted by this code amendment because there is a pawnshop overlay district. Motion/Second: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Schiltgen. To Adopt Resolution 1017- 14, Recommending Approval of Amendments to Chapter 1116 of the Mounds View City Code About Industrial Zoning District Uses; Special Planning Case 191-14. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. B. Discuss Proposed Code Amendments to Title 1100 for Renewable Energy Systems Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that in 2013, Ordinance 883 was passed which created completely new requirements in the City Code about renewable energy systems. Mounds View Planning Commission December 3, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 3 There were several areas throughout the code that referred to solar and wind turbines, and not all of them were changed in Ordinance 883. Solar energy and wind generator systems are still listed as conditional uses in all the business zoning districts, and geothermal systems are not listed at all. Staff is proposing Resolution 1019-14, which makes the suggested changes to the residential and business zoning districts so it is consistent with the new renewable energy requirements in Chapter 1128. Motion/Second: Commissioner Love/Commissioner Elofson. To Adopt Resolution 1019-14, Recommending Approval of Amendments to Title 1100 of the Mounds View City Code About Renewable Energy; Special Planning Case 188-13. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. C. Set 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule Planning Associate Heller explained the Planning Commission establishes its meeting schedule each year by Resolution. The meeting schedule proposed for 2015 represents the usual first and third Wednesday of every month. There are no conflicts with holidays next year. Staff recommended the Commission discuss the meeting dates and approve Resolution 1018-14, establishing the 2015 meeting schedule of the Planning Commission, Commissioner Love questioned how the City handled meeting cancellations. Associate Heller discussed the notification procedure for Planning Commission meetings. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Birken. To Adopt Resolution 1018-14, Establishing the 2015 Meeting Schedule of the Planning Commission. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. December 17, 2014 B. January 7, 2015 8. Review Minutes: A. November 19, 2014 The Commission discussed the November 19, 2014 meeting minutes. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 9. Staff Updates A. Upcoming Planning Cases December 3, 2014 Page 4 Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases and development activity in the City. She noted all Commission member appointments would be made by the Council at their next meeting. She stated on Tuesday, December 9t' from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. at the Ramsey County Public Works Building there would be a TCAAP Open House for the County Road H/Highway 10/3 5 W Interchange. She explained that staff has continued to market the Crossroad Pointe property. Chair Stevenson recommended Brian attend a future Planning Commission meeting. 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Commissioner Love explained she spoke with Police Chief Kinney regarding a potential neighborhood meeting to discuss police and resident relations. 11. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 0 0 0 0 0 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA February 4, 2015 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: December 3, 2014 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. None 6. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss Potential Code Amendment about Fish Houses 7. Review Minutes: A. January 21, 2015 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, February 18, 2015 B. Wednesday, March 4, 2015 10. Adjourn MOUNDS VIEW of Mounds View Staff Item No: 6A Meeting Date: February 4 2015 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Fish Houses in Residential District Discussion and Possible Code Amendment A resident sent in a request to amend the City Code relating to parking of fish houses in residential districts. He is requesting that the code be amended to allow drop axle fish houses to be in the front yard area of properties longer than 24 hours. The City Council briefly discussed this and is supportive of being more permissive of fish houses being kept on properties. Staff feels that to only allow certain types of fish houses, and then try to distinguish between the styles and/or condition of fish houses, would be very difficult. A simpler option may be to allow them to be kept on properties with no time limit during the ice fishing season. There is no start date for fish houses, but the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources requires fish houses to be off most lakes by March 16 (Minnesota lakes on the Canadian border can have fish houses until March 31). The City Code relating to fish houses reads: Chapter 607 Nuisances 607.06: OUTSIDE PARKING AND STORAGE: Subd.. 1. Declaration Of Nuisance: The outside parking and storage on residentially -zoned property of vehicles, materials, supplies or equipment not customarily used for residential purposes in violation of the requirements set forth below is declared to be a public nuisance because it: a) obstructs views on streets and private property, b) creates cluttered and otherwise unsightly areas, c) introduces commercial advertising signs into areas where commercial advertising signs are otherwise prohibited, d) decreases adjoining landowners and occupants' enjoyment of their property and neighborhood, and e) otherwise adversely affects property values and neighborhood patterns. (Ord. 694, 3-11-02) Subd. 2. Unlawful Parking And Storage: (Ord. 694, 3-11-02) a. No person may place, store, or allow the placement or storage of ice fish houses, skateboard ramps, play houses, or other similar nonpermanent structures outside continuously for longer than twenty four (24) hours in the front -yard area of residentially -zoned property. Recommendation Discuss possible code amendments relating to fish houses. Sincerely, Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Resident letter 2. Photos of fish Mounds View houses in January 7, 2015 JIM Ericson, City Administrator City of Mounds View 2401 County Road 10 Mounds View, MN 551124499 Clear Mr. Ericson: I am writing to request the City Council to consider an amendment to City ordinance 607.06, Subd. 2a which states in part: "No person may place or store ice fish houses.., continuously for longer than 24 hours in the front -yard area of residentially -zoned property" to exclude drop -axle fish houses. These drop -axle fish houses are comparable to tow -behind campers, They can be used year round as sleeping campers. They are permanently built on a drop -axle trailer and licensed by the state of Minnesota to be towed by a vehicle on Minnesota roads. We do not leave our fish house on the lake when we are not fishing due to vandalism and would like to be able to tow it home and put on our driveway until the next trip out to the take. Currently, because of the above -referenced ordinance, we cannot park it on the driveway for more than 24 hours. These drop -axle fish houses are something new in the fast few years and were not available at the time 1 am sure this ordinance was written and the ordinance should be updated to exclude this type of fish house from the ordinance. I have enclosed a picture of the fish house and also the license sticker from the State of Minnesota. Thank you to you and the City Council for your consideration in this matter, Sincerely, Donald Scott Pearson Martha Susan Pearson 8475 Sunnyside Road Mounds View, MN 55112 763-786-6489 Enc. F ? wo Fr 017 Att, s� WkIVA- Al -- a t- _.4 — ey w. La 144 f ,` Ap -, 4 mm� r 8 a w PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting January 21, 2015 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 January 21, 2015. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Birken, Carvelli-Yu, Elofson, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Index to Minutes Page Special Order of Business I Approval of Minutes 2 3. Special Order of Business A. Oath of Office for Commissioners Planning Associate Heller administered the Oath of Office for Commissioner Julianne Love, Commissioner Jessica Birken and Chair Gary Stevenson. B. Election of Officers — Chair and Vice -Chair Planning Associate Heller requested the Planning Commissioner elect a Chair and Vice -Chair for 2015. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Schiltgen. To elect Gary Stevenson the Chair of the Planning Commission for 2015. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting January 21, 2015 Page 2 Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Birken. To elect Cindy Carvelli- Yu the Vice -Chair of the Planning Commission for 2015. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 4. Approval of Minutes November 19, 2014. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Birken/Commissioner Elofson. To approve the Minutes of the November 19, 2014 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 5. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 6. Planning Cases None. 7. Other Planning Activity None. 8. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. February 4, 2015 B. February 18, 2015 9. Review Minutes: A. December 3, 2014 The Commission discussed the December 3, 2014 meeting minutes. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 10. Staff Updates A. Upcoming Planning Cases January 21, 2015 Page 3 Planning Associate FIeller discussed upcoming planning cases noting the Commission would be discussing a code amendment in February regarding fish houses. She noted the Annual Home and Garden Show would be held on February 28t" this year. She reported BioLife was planning to open their new building by August and the Bel Rae Senior Housing building would be opening in the spring. 11. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Councilmember Meehlhause provided the Commission with a report on the actions taking place at the Council level. He explained the Council was now reviewing applications for Citizen of the Year. He noted the Council authorized a feasibility study for the rehabilitation of Mustang Drive and Circle. In addition, the Council authorized engineering design and preparation for the Silver View Park trail. He discussed a grant the City applied for that would assist with energy improvements at both City Hall and the Community Center. 12. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 16 Feb ];�, 2015 0 0 ' ' 1 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA February 18, 2015 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: January 21, 2015 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. None 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review Code Amendment for Fish Houses B. Discuss a Potential Code Amendment to Allow Columbariums C. Discuss a Potential Code Amendment to Allow Brew Pubs D. Review Bylaws 7. Review Minutes: A. February 4, 2015 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, March 4, 2015 B. Wednesday, March 18, 2015 10. Adjourn 1 of Mounds View Staff Item No: 6A Meeting Date: February 18, 2015 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Code Amendment for Fish Houses in Residential Districts A resident sent in a request to amend the City Code relating to parking of fish houses in residential districts. He is requesting that the code be amended to allow drop axle fish houses to be in the front yard area of properties longer than 24 hours. The City Council is supportive of being more permissive of fish houses being kept on properties and asked the Planning Commission to discuss and make a recommendation. The Planning Commission discussed this in great length at the February 4, 2015 meeting, and decided to allow only "drop axle style" fish houses to be stored for any length of time on residential properties. Staff is suggesting that a definition of drop axle fish house also be added to the code. Staff has drafted a resolution with the proposed language. Recommendation Review Resolution 1020-15 with a proposed code amendment relating to fish houses. Sincerely, Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Attachment: 1. Resolution 1020-15 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1020-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 607 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE ABOUT FISH HOUSE STORAGE; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE 192-15 WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that amendments be made to the nuisance code relating to outside storage of fish houses; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission agrees with the City Staff recommendation to allow drop -axle style fish houses to be placed or stored in the front - yard area of residential districts for any length of time; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Chapter 1116, Section 1116.02 of the Mounds View City Code by deleting the rstrirken language and adding the underlined text as follows: 607.01: RULES AND DEFINITIONS Subd. 22 Drop Axle Fish House: A drop axle or drop down ice fish house is one that is built on a frame that would be considered ground level loading It would be made with a solid metal frame utilizing U shaped axles where the wheel hubs attach to the upward tips of the U and the leaf springs attach to the lower horizontal portion This will allow the platform to be movable between a lower position and a raised position Each Drop down style fish house must meet state statute for a trailer and be licensed appropriately. 607.06: OUTSIDE PARKING AND STORAGE: Subd. 2. Unlawful Parking And Storage: (Ord. 694, 3-11-02) a. No person may place, store, or allow the placement or storage of non -drop axle ice fish houses, skateboard ramps, play houses, or other similar nonpermanent structures outside continuously for longer than twenty four (24) hours in the front -yard area of residentially -zoned property. WHEREAS, amending the City Code to allow more uses in industrial zoning districts would better serve the public and support businesses; and, Resolution 1020-15 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 amendments to Section 1116 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 18th day of February, 2015. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item N°. 66 18 2p15 Meeting pate. er plannn Activi Type of Business pth S ViEw taff Mounds View S f Columbarium planning CO prlann ng Ass° Jon SS mendment to Allow a e P' columbarium MWould and Heidi Helaerpossible Cod barium an cuss to inquire if a Colum {or their pis City adding a barium g ect: tl contactedJtas considering , co110 {eet long and TftlelSubj ember recen y, arch installe abO W res it in cremation ch sidering ,ounds view church Member The1are now that would s n store urns• con on the church any Chu ec oeo structures y0o�o o{ deatare needed tOode address allowed ember said m on report that ore than laces City church e e coStrome rep more that more nor does the D11anY funeral irons• it 1s understaridab etenes urns (1.e. have any cem et tall. burial, $O o{ tvierjr standing than a does not currently Public storage either free ather roduce columbaria Rounds View bariums usually p aria can Many ern Colum the respectful and cool ma ufacturers p mod ,em lot or s a large truc Structures a place for cited reMal,ulidinge church banum�eceased's crem another to the cemetery built into p colurrl mausoleum ° d brought baric are UT ho r Par, °{ a site w cases, Colum d Roseville. units, Or p entirely off- In other ca o{ Shoreview an that are built ve columbaria. the cities crematoria tra the planners in construct ation from 01 St odilia t0 ined "ere is inform roached by The C pu City Attorney - deter h re efore o, the City was app Coumbariums a quasi does r quire Sit°enat e Shoreview'• including tion 1s Code the impacts it1 A couple of yonrthe propep Y a Church g d strict. C1sr to assess to ga e a cemetery etery owned ed residential Zoning review process sonable resincolumbariums not that a cem detac the intent °f tCity eStabis dress a etenes or permittedP\an review - d allows the ecif Cally a. {or us Mons• for guildng d uses an not sp territoN ess, opera rased adjoinrrnpgacts. OUT Went" ed does -This was new ana9ement, site more concerns any standards stornlwater m call there were are any address ire 3p00 screout r evme eNo and la1n s r her than the g °lumbariums whlch includeand pabout 1 e� 1 slfe for the rho urnslconotstuee favorslencO r kns the c the poria regarding d a public review processcapacity of and the not lust niches for crem each witha Catholic chute 'graves Shoreview used St 11 eve is had to COW bariumaves.U63So there cal In Was an mp°dant consideration• traditional g tradWOn hands p Staff Report Cool""age 2 n7endment to A//0141 a Co/urnb anum Shoreview continued: City Code approach wa$°es not incl and to ask th to apply the de provisions aches ut nst, impactsch t0 develop setbacks t Ogulatin nit elo tbacks the °emeteries or tailed at the noise and tr Aerating rules proposed columbaria urch. affic/parking r City review raves and strut Roseville: here is current/ address con Y one wall wi We have no deem them tospecific lar) Meet our accessory accessouage in °ur zoning ory buildinrequire med tpermittedd ordinance ggha ing colu Reco piscummendation min mbariums, Possible such a structure code amendments relating to a columb Sincerely, anum. �e Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Attachments 1. Ph-columbaria sirnilar to what is proposed in Mounds View r' � � + / � _ ;� v � �W � i,� \ ,�� � . 1�. L�� tK ti.1 s�r , "y+ ��� � ���'"Y y�ir� i � 21-51r�t r rf� i � A�� '�y� e��r•��n�P' � Y -.1C rL Lr .1'. ,� L �� � ' I�IY." erf� S �� � � ` t:1 � � r ' s _r� �4 r /i �� ti �� 4 / � � SIV' � L t R. r ks i _ �I / I F/;.! � ati � *t o �'- � 1 � `•'� i:: c. _ sY�`/Yi � � \g��7�aj/ � L' `pry 5 �`4�8� Li ., ... y _._ ._ � � _ , - f � i1 - � �. m � • Y — '� .— - p,.,. ., ' r : y�,, .. 4 .. f.' �{, at s C t Pi�� - '- �� o .nbr� - i of Mounds View Staff Item No: 6C Meeting Date: February 18, 2015 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Discuss a Possible Code Amendment to Allow Brew Pubs or Taprooms The City Council discussed allowing businesses like brewpubs or taprooms in the City since they are becoming very popular after the State of Minnesota loosened up regulations relating to these types of businesses. The City Council is open to allowing these types of uses and has asked the Planning Commission to discuss this. A new taproom, Hammerheart Brewing (www hammerheartbrewing.com) recently opened in Lino Lakes, and Minneapolis and St. Paul have several, with more in the works. Currently the Mounds View Zoning Code does not address brewpubs, taprooms or any type of brewery, therefore none of them are allowed. Below is part of an article from the Pioneer Press describing brewpubs and taprooms and the rules in Minnesota. The three -tiered system in Minnesota saw some loosening in 2011, when legislation known as the "Surly Bill" was signed into law. The legislation allowed breweries to open taprooms, which serve beer on site, and helped pave the way for Surly Brewing Co.'s $20 million brewery underway in Minneapolis. Moore, however, said the legislation was not a boost to brewpubs, which could already serve beer on site. But brewpubs do have some advantages over taprooms. Taprooms are limited to selling the beer made on site, whereas brewpubs can serve liquor, wine and beer made elsewhere. Brewpub owners can also open multiple locations, but breweries are limited to one taproom, said Schwarz, who is CEO and co-owner of Lift Bridge Brewing Co. in Stillwater. Lift Bridge opened a taproom following passage of the Surly Bill. Recommendation Discuss possible code amendments relating to brewpubs and taprooms. Sincerely, Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Star Tribune article about the 2011 "Surley Bill" Dayton signs law allowing beer sales at breweries Blog Post by: Eric Roper May 24, 2011 - 6:31 PM It's a happy day for hoppy beer fans in Minnesota. Hours after the Legislature adjourned without a budget agreement, Gov. Mark Dayton signed into law what has been dubbed the "Surly bill" around Capitol hallways. The legislation allows the Brooklyn Center -based Surly Brewing Co. to serve pints of their beer at a proposed $20 million "destination brewery." Minnesota breweries were not allowed to serve pints of their beer on site because of a "three-tier" system that strictly separated the roles of alcohol manufacturers, distributors and retailers. Soon brewers can apply for a license to do just that, as long as their municipality decides to offer it. The Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association, the state's most powerful liquor lobby, initially fought the proposal to protect that three-tier system. Surly hired its own lobbyists to advocate on their behalf and mobilized a grassroots network of supporters known as "Surly nation." "That's really what made the difference I think, is that people contacted their legislators and they listened," said Omar Ansari, owner of Surly Brewing Co. The MLBA eventually softened their stance after lawmakers agreed to limit the law only to brewers producing less than 250,000 barrels a year, essentially excluding major national brands. The proposed brewery will include a restaurant, beer garden, bar, events center and rooftop terrace. The company has not decided where it will be located, though it will likely be in the metro area. Ansari said he was holding off on most of the planning until the law passed. He met with an architect for the first time on Monday. For Ansari, what began as a straightforward proposal morphed into the three-month effort that opened his eyes to the inner workings of politics. "What I've really learned is I really don't want to go back up there and ask for anything else anytime soon," Ansari said with a laugh. © 2015 Star Tribune i i I of Mounds View Staff Item No: 5D Meeting Date: February 18 2015 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity 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 last time the Planning Commission amended the Bylaws was in January of 2007. The last change was about the number of absences a commissioner may have in a given year. Recommendation: Adopt the Bylaws for the Planning Commission. If the Commission does not make any amendments or modifications to the Bylaws, then the Commission may readopt them by motion. Sincerely, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachment Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws EXHIBIT A CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BYLAWS (Revised January 24, 2007) AUTHORITY: The Bylaws of the Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission (Bylaws) are established in accordance with the Mounds View Municipal Code Section 401.06. Subd. 7 "The Commission shall adopt bylaws for its governance and for the transaction of its business." Where there is a conflict between the provisions of the Bylaws and the provisions of the City Charter and the Municipal Code, the provisions of the City Charter and the Municipal Code shall govern. (For purposes of simplicity, the Planning and Zoning Commission may hereinafter be referred to as the Planning Commission or the Commission.) ADOPTION OF BYLAWS; REVIEW AND AMENDMENT: A. 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 B. ELECTIONS; TERMS Page 2 1. 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 City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning. Commission - Bylaws in accordance with State Statutes. Planning Commission members shall be notified by telephone and in writing, if possible, at least seven days prior to a special meeting. Cancellation of Meetings: Regular or special meetings may be canceled by the chairperson or Community Development Director in the event that there are no items of business requiring the attention of the Commission, or for lack of a quorum, or in response to inclement weather or for any other good and sufficient reason. Members of the Commission shall be notified by telephone of any meeting cancellation. A notice of the meeting cancellation shall be posted as required by State Statutes. B. QUORUM: A majority of the number of voting members appointed to the Commission shall constitute a quorum. C. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS, ADJOURNMENT 1. Meeting Chairperson: If neither the chairperson nor the vice chairperson is present to conduct a meeting of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission may elect a meeting chairfrom among those members present prior to the commencement of business. The election shall follow the procedures set forth in Section IV.B.3, except that the Community Development Director, or his or her designee, shall conduct the election. 2. Open Meeting Law: Meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the State of Minnesota Open Meeting Law (Minn. Statutes 471.705). Adjournment: Meetings shall adjourn at or before 11:00 p.m. unless a two- thirds majority of the members present agree to extend the time of adjournment. If there is no objection, the Chairperson may declare the meeting adjourned without the necessity of a motion or vote by the Commission. D. MINUTES: Minutes shall be recorded for regular meetings and each commission member shall receive a copy of the unapproved minutes for review and approval at a succeeding meeting. Minutes shall be approved by motion. Approved minutes shall be the official record of the business conducted and actions taken by the Planning Commission. Commission members may request copies of approved minutes after they have been corrected, if necessary, and signed as approved. Copies of the approved minutes shall be filed with the Community Development Department. Unapproved minutes shall be clearly marked "DRAFT'; approved minutes shall be marked "APPROVED". A policy statement regarding the content and format of the minutes shall be on file with the Director of Community Development which may be reviewed from time to time as needed. City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 5 VII. INFORMATIONAL PACKETS: Each Commissioner shall receive a staff report, plans and additional information, as appropriate, for each item placed on the agenda for any regular or special meeting. The Commission packet should be delivered at least four days prior to the meeting. Each Commissioner is responsible for reviewing the material within the packet prior to the meeting. VIII. PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS: Advice from, consultation with, and/or requests for review by the City Attorney, City Engineer, City Planning Agency, or other paid consultants shall be in accordance with the Municipal Code, Section 401.07. IX. SUPPLEMENTARY PUBLICATIONS: All Commission members shall receive a copy of the Mounds View Municipal Code and a copy of the Municipal Comprehensive Plan as well as other materials provided by the City Council or City Staff. These materials shall be retained by each commission member and returned to the Community Development Director upon the member's resignation or termination of appointment. X. CONDUCT OF MEMBERS A. ATTENDANCE: Commission members shall advise the designated Staff member or the Commission chairperson of an anticipated absence from any regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Any member absent from three consecutive regularly scheduled meetings or more than six regularly scheduled meetings per year without the consent of the Commission shall be deemed to have vacated the office, and such vacancy shall be filled by the City Council pursuant to Section 401.03, Subd. 1. A leave of absence may be granted by the consent of the Commission. B. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.• General Standard: No Commissioner shall be appointed with private or personal interests likely to conflict with the general public interest. If any person appointed to the Commission shall find that their private or personal interests are involved in any matter coming before the Commission, they shall disqualify themselves from taking part in any discussion or action on the matter; alternatively, they may be disqualified by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the Commissioners in attendance. 2. Conflict Due to Economic Interests: A Commissioner has a conflict of interest if, in his or her discharge of official duties, would be required to take an action or make a decision that would substantially affect the Commissioner's financial interests or those of an associated business, unless the effect on the Commissioner is no greater than on other members of the Commissioner's business classification, profession, or occupation. In the event a conflict of interest exists with respect to a particular matter before the Commission, the Commissioner shall disqualify himself or herself from taking part in any discussion or action on the matter. C. EX PARTE CONTACTS: Ex parte contacts are contacts between individuals seeking to influence the.decisions of the Planning Commission and individual Commission members outside the meeting forum. Such contacts include meetings with project proponents, residents, property owners, and citizens separate from Commission meetings, communication between Commission members outside the meeting forum, telephone calls or letters which attempt to influence a Commissioner's opinion on a matter which will be subject to the Commissioner's vote. When the Planning Commission is involved in a matter which is to be heard and decided by the Commission (e.g. variances), Planning Commissioners shall indicate to the person contacting them that such contact is inappropriate and all testimony needs to be offered at the hearing to ensure a fair hearing for all parties. In all other cases, Planning Commissioners should discourage such contacts and should avoid expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case. When ex parte contacts occur, the Planning Commissioner is responsible for notifying the Community Development Director, and for conveying the substance of the communication at the next commission meeting at which the matter discussed is under consideration. ATTEST: Gary Stevenson, Chairperson James Ericson, City Administrator Revision History' January 24;20071 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 February 4, 2015 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 February 4, 2015. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Birken, Carvelli-Yu, Elofson, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Love. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes Discuss Potential Code Amendment about Fish Houses 3. Approval of Minutes December 3, 2014. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Carvelli-Yu/Commissioner Birken. To approve the Minutes of the December 3, 2014 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 5. Planning Cases None. 6. Other Planning Activity February 4, 2015 Page 2 A. Discuss Potential Code Amendment about Fish Houses Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that a resident sent in a request to amend the City Code relating to parking of fish houses in residential districts. He is requesting that the code be amended to allow drop axle fish houses to be in the front yard area of properties longer than 24 hours. The City Council briefly discussed this and is supportive of being more permissive of fish houses being kept on properties. Staff feels that to only allow certain types of fish houses, and then try to distinguish between the styles and/or condition of fish houses, would be very difficult. A simpler option may be to allow them to be kept on properties with no time limit during the ice fishing season. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has no start date for fish houses to go out on lakes, but they require fish houses to be off most lakes by March 16 (Minnesota lakes on the Canadian border can have fish houses until March 31). Staff reviewed City Code in detail with the Commission and requested comment. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned how the City would manage the situation if large amounts of snow fell in April. Associate Heller anticipated that the City would work with homeowners on a case by case basis if this situation were to arise. Commissioner Rundle asked how the City would address this situation if the fish houses were used all summer for camping. Associate Heller believed this situation would have to be further discussed by staff. Chair Stevenson did not support having fish houses in front yards all summer long. He suggested fish houses only be allowed longer than 24 hours in driveways from November 15th through April 15th Bob Horbul, 8382 Knollwood, explained he owns a drop axle wheelhouse fish house. He commented that he stores his fish house in his back yard during the summer months. He discussed how fish houses were being made now to serve as RV's in the summer months. Commissioner Birken did not want to see inappropriate or obscene paintings on the exterior of fish houses. Associate Heller explained that anything obscene that is painted on the exterior could be addressed by the City through its nuisance code. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 4, 2015 Page 3 Commissioner Schiltgen questioned how many fish houses staff believed were being stored in the City. Associate Heller commented that the majority were on lakes at this time. Commissioner Rundle estimated that the City had at least 20-30 fish houses. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu expressed concern that this situation could turn into shipping containers being used as fish houses and she did not want to see those stored in front yards at any time of the year in the City. She recommended staff be specific with the code to define what would and would not be allowed. She suggested the term drop axle be placed in the code. Chair Stevenson agreed the language needed to be tightened up, however, he understood that if the code was made too strict it would be difficult for staff to enforce. Al Hanson, 2832 Ardan Avenue, asked how a pull behind camper was regulated by City Code. Associate Heller stated campers could be parked in a residential driveway at any time of the year. Further discussion ensued regarding the differences between traditional/homemade fish houses compared to drop axle fish houses. Martha Pearson, 8475 Sunnyside, understood that the City did not want junky fish houses being stored in front yards. However, she was in favor of allowing more freedom for residents to be able to store units in their front yard. She discussed how people were now using fish houses as campers in the summer months and for ice fishing through the winter months. Scott Pearson, 8475 Sunnyside, discussed his striped orange fish house, noting it was painted this color for safety purposes while parked on a lake. Mr. Horbul explained that drop axle fish houses are built on a steel frame and are structurally more sound. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu asked how long drop axle fish houses have been being manufactured. Commissioner Rundle estimated that this type of fish house has been manufactured for the past five for six years. Commissioner Birken recommended the term "drop axle" be written in the code amendment. Chair Stevenson suggested the City Code read that 24 hour storage was allowed for all non -drop axle fish houses and year round storage would be allowed for drop axle fish house units. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 4, 2015 Page 4 Mrs. Pearson explained that fish houses are often broken into, which led her and her husband to store their fish house in their driveway rather than on the lake when not in use. Commissioner Elofson expressed concern that the City would be discriminating against residents that don't own a more expensive type fish house. Commissioner Schiltgen explained that residents could still have non drop axle fish houses, however, they could not be stored on the driveway for more than 24 hours. Commissioner Birken commented that this code amendment would assist with protecting property values. Mrs. Pearson indicated the new fish houses should be viewed in the same manner as a camper, Chair Stevenson thanked the residents present for their input. He believed that the Commission was going about the code amendment in the correct manner. The Commission agreed. 7. Review Minutes: A. January 21, 2015 The Commission discussed the January 21, 2015 meeting minutes. No changes were made. 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases. She noted the Commission may be reviewing a variance for sign height at a future meeting. B. Staff Updates Planning Associate Heller explained the Town Hall meeting would be held on Monday, March 30th from 6:00 to 8:30 p.m. i Mounds View Planning Commission February 4, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 5 Council Updates Councilmember Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He encouraged residents to submit their candidates for Resident of the Year. C. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, February 18, 2015 B. Wednesday, March 4, 2015 10. Adjournment There being no fiuther business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 0 J E PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA March 18, 2015 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: February 4, 2015 4, Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2015-001 Variance Request to Exceed Allowed Ground Sign Height Applicant: George Winiecki, WIN Insurance Agency Address: 2704 County Road 10 6. Other Planning Activity A. Planning Commission Public Service Announcement Volunteer (Oral Report) B. Discuss a Code Amendment to Allow Columbaria 7. Review Minutes: A. February 18, 2015 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, April 1, 2015 B. Wednesday, April 15, 2015 10. Adjourn Item No: 5A MMOUNDS /�O7 n►��+ v�L't�T Meeting Date: March 18, 2015 �. NDS L.�V 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 4.5 foot Variance to Allow a 20.5 Foot Tall Ground Sign at 2704 County Road 10; Planning Case VR2015- 001 Introduction: The applicant, George Winiecki, owner of 2704 County Road 10, is requesting a variance to allow the existing ground sign to be expanded 4.5 feet, to 20.5 feet tall. The Zoning Code indicates that no ground sign in a business district may exceed 16 feet in height. Discussion: According to the Municipal Code, Section 1008.09, Subdivision 3, ground signs are limited to a height of no more than 16 feet without a variance. The applicant owns the building at 2704 County Road 10 and operates his insurance agency here. He also rents some of the building to a few different tenants who have their business information on the sign. Mr. Winiecki has an existing ground sign that is 16.5 feet tall with a brick base. He wants to reconfigure the sign panels and possibly add an electronic sign. Since his ground sign meets the current sign code in regards to it already having masonry on it, Mr. Winiecki can change more than just the panels on his sign. He intends to keep the existing brick base and the sign frame, and just change the sizes of the individual businesses sign panels. He feels that in order to best meet his and his tenant's sign needs, the ground sign should be four feet taller. The applicant's sign is currently 104 square feet, within the allowed 200 square feet. The sign could instead be widened and then would not need a variance. The cost to change the sign base and frame in order to support a wider sign is high, and the applicant has chosen to apply for a height variance instead. Variance Considerations: For the City to approve this variance, as with any variance request, there needs to be 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 (the Planning Commission) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. The City has set these criteria 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 and a staff comment about each are as follows: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. The property at 2704 County Road 10 is a commercial property that fronts the main commercial corridor through the city, which is not unique. The sign code was amended in 2013 to lower the height limits of all the ground signs in business and industrial zoning districts down to 16 feet in order to improve the aesthetics of the County Road 10 corridor. 2704 County Road 10 Variance Report March 18, 2015 Page 2 b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. While the Comprehensive Plan does not specify signage criteria for businesses, it does support improvements to, and the success of the City's businesses. The installation of more signage is typically helpful to the success of a business. The Comprehensive Plan does focus on improvements to the County Road 10 corridor, and taller signs is not one of the things the City feels is visually appealing. C. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The applicant is asking for the additional ground signage in order for the business to be more visible to potential customers, and to help new customers find his location. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The somewhat unique circumstance of this building is that it looks like a residential property rather than a business, so the tenants rely on the ground sign to attract and direct customers to their location. The building was originally constructed and used by a home builder for their office. It was not built by the applicant. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. A 4 -foot height expansion may not alter the character of the neighborhood since it is entirely a commercial area along the County Road 10 corridor where every business has a ground sign of varying heights. The adjacent business has a 6 foot tall monument style sign and the other side of the subject property is a wooded area. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The applicant feels that a 4.5 -foot variance is the minimum variance needed to meet his business signage needs. There is another option to expand the sign square footage that doesn't require a variance, but it's much more expensive to make the sign wider rather than taller. 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. Staff does not have any suggested conditions. 2704 County Road 10 Variance Report March 18, 2015 Page 3 Based upon the review of the above criteria, it appears to staff that the requested variance does not satisfy the practical difficulty threshold as the basis for the variance request is primarily for financial reasons. Staff has drafted resolutions of both denial and approval for the Commission to consider. Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, a public hearing is required. City staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of 2704 County Road 10. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and any neighbors, the Commission should take one of the following actions: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 1021-15 (approval version) is attached for the Commission's approval if they so choose. 2. Deny the requested variance. Resolution 1021-15 (denial version) is attached for the Commission's approval if they so choose. J 3. Table the request. If the Commission needs more information before making a decision or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can table the request until they are provided such information. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photo 3. Drawing of Proposed Sign Expansion 4. Letter from Applicant 5. Photographic Documentation 6. Resolution 1021-15 ZONING MAP 1O V N N N 790Q 67729 7728c3 7723 N 7718 7715 0 7710 7711 C 3 R-4 769w 7685 _ 7692 7690 7aa7 N 768'e J U7 N N N i 7900 79( " Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential 789 78E 78E 78e 780 780 776 776 77; 774 771 N 7860 7850 L78 N 780 7786 7781 9 778 - — 7773 9 7770 7771 9 77F.n _. 7767 1O V N N N 790Q 67729 7728c3 7723 N 7718 7715 0 7710 7711 C 3 R-4 769w 7685 _ 7692 7690 7aa7 N 768'e J U7 N N N i 7900 79( " Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential 789 78E 78E 78e 780 780 776 776 77; 774 771 N Aerial View JN. .l A'Ki , ,!!?�,�",•.,. �r '�•% D` Au ' ;;'. Burger King mit W N � i ..f , C�..N✓ / i" County Road 10` •., _ iN gyp... tik. .,i ti sT - A a 41E• F' �. 2704 County .� rvs;'. Road 10 sign - tti � rI y a Technical Life Care Holiday Gas c- Site plan from Applicant brick Sign base - �b ck ri 31 wide 31 tall x 8' de Existing sign is a total of 16.5 feet tall — it has a 3 foot tall by 8 foot wide brick base, and a 6 inch space separates the base from the sign frame. The sign copy area is 13 feet tall by 8 feet wide. Proposed expansion 4' tall x 8' wide Sir copy a7rrea 13' tall x 8' wide W1 ji brick Sign base - �b ck ri 31 wide 31 tall x 8' de Existing sign is a total of 16.5 feet tall — it has a 3 foot tall by 8 foot wide brick base, and a 6 inch space separates the base from the sign frame. The sign copy area is 13 feet tall by 8 feet wide. Letter from Applicant Insurance Agency, 2704 County Rd. 10, Mounds View, Minnesota n c' o 763/780-5600 55112 a 763/780-0461 FAX 2/4/2015 City of Mounds View, My name is George Winiecki. I have been operating an insurance agency in Mounds View for over 30 years. I would like to add onto myv existing sign. Currently the sign stands approximately 1614 feet. I would like to add around Meet of height. Please see attached diagrams. The reason for this is, I have new tenants in the building that would like to display their business name. Also, new sign technology is available to showcase what a business does. In the past I was allowed 20 feet in height. The sign height has since been changed to 16 feet. I am surrounded by other businesses that have much taller and broader signs than mine. Due to my location, 1 will not visually affect any adjacent property. Signage is very important to any business on County Road 10. Please take all of this into consideration and grant me approval. I have been a good steward in this community. I would gladly answer any questions you may have. Thank you, HOW E $ AUTO INSURANCE SAYE$$ CALL GARY C. DAHLE ATTORNEY AT LAW 780-8390 IMF.,r�1 mm a y it f .r as © 1 xsceaxce wm AOENCY m All =DenialMOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1021-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A 4.5 -FOOT HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR A GROUND SIGN AT 2704 COUNTY ROAD 10; PLANNING CASE VR2015-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, George Winiecki, owner of 2704 County Road 10, has applied for 4.5 -foot variance to allow a 20.5 -foot tall ground sign; and, WHEREAS, 2704 County Road 10 is zoned B-2, Limited Business, and is legally described as follows: NELY 275 FT OF PART OF SE'/ LYING SWLY OF CL OF HWY NO 10 AND BET 2 PAR LINES RUN SWLY AT RA FROM SD CL AND FROM POINTS MEASURED THEREON 765.9 FT AND 865.9 FT NW FROM S LINE OF SD Y4 (SUBJ TO HWY) IN SEC 6, TN 30, RN 23 PIN: 06-30-23-43-0011 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Site Plan 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial View 4. Staff Report 5. Photographic Documentation WHEREAS, Section 1008.09 of the Sign Code indicates that the maximum height for ground signs in a business zoning district is 16 feet; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a 4.5 foot variance to allow a 20.5 foot tall ground sign; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's control; and, Resolution 1021-15 Page 2 i WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing regarding this request on March 18, 2015; 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 not satisfied and finds there to be insufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 2704 County Road 10, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding signage limits is for aesthetic reasons, and the sign code was recently amended to lower sign height limits for this specific reason. 2. The Comprehensive Plan focuses on improvements to the County Road 10 corridor, and even thought the applicant is trying to keep the business successful with the additional signage, allowing taller signs is not part of the desired look of the corridor. 3. The applicant is requesting this variance because the building now has additional tenants who need their business information on the sign. 4. The property is part of the County Road 10 commercial corridor and has no unique circumstances that cause a practical difficulty. The sign could be made wider and would not need a variance, but the applicant does not want to do that because of the high cost. 5. The additional sign height would make the applicant's ground sign that much taller and inconsistent with the adjacent business's 6 foot tall monument sign. 6. The variance requested is the minimum variance the applicant feels is required to provide the suitable amount of signage for his and his tenants businesses, and alleviate the applicant's practical difficulty. 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. Resolution 1021-15 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, denies the 4.5 foot variance request of property owner, George Winiecki, to allow a 20.5 foot tall ground sign at 2704 County Road 10. Adopted this 18th day of March, 2015. ATTEST: (SEAL) Gary Stevenson, Chair James Ericson, City Administrator Approval MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION Version RESOLUTION NO. 1021-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A 4.5 -FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE GROUND SIGN AT 2704 COUNTY ROAD 10 TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMIT; PLANNING CASE VR2015-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, George Winiecki, owner of 2704 County Road 10, has applied for a 4.5 -foot variance to allow a 20.5 -foot tall ground sign; and, WHEREAS, 2704 County Road 10 is zoned B-2, Limited Business, and is legally described as follows: NELY 275 FT OF PART OF SE'/4 LYING SWLY OF CL OF HWY NO 10 AND BET 2 PAR LINES RUN SWLY AT RA FROM SID CL AND OPOINTS FT AND 86 9 FT NW FROM S LINE OF SD Y4 (SUBJTO HWY IN SEC 6, TNREON 9 30, RN 23 PIN: 06-30-23-43-0011 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 6. Site Plan 7. Zoning Map 8. Aerial View 9. Staff Report 10. Photographic Documentation WHEREAS, Section 1008.09 of the Sign Code indicates that the maximum height for ground signs in a business zoning district is 16 feet; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow a 20.5 foot tall ground sign; and. WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's control; and, Resolution 1021-15 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing regarding this request on March 18, 2015; 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 thatthe criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 2704 County Road 10, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 8. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding signage limits is for aesthetic reasons. The requested additional signage still meets the general purpose and intent of the zoning code. 9. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is trying to keep the business successful. 10. The applicant is requesting this variance because the building now has additional tenants who need their business information on the sign. 11. The unique feature of this property is the style of the building as it looks like a house rather than an office building and signage is very important to direct new and existing customers to the building. 12.The additional sign height will not alter the existing commercial character of the neighborhood. 13. The variance requested is the minimum variance the applicant feels is required to provide the suitable amount of signage and alleviate the applicant's practical difficulty. 14. 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. Resolution 1021-15 Page 3 7 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of George Winiecki, property owner, to allow a 20.5 foot tall ground sign at 2704 County Road 10. Adopted this 18th day of March, 2015. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Mourns Vt�v of Mounds View Staff item No: 6B Meeting Date: March 18, 2015 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate item Title/Subject: Review Code Amendment to Allow a Columbarium on Religious Institution Properties A Mounds View church member recently contacted the City to inquire if a columbarium would be allowed on the church property. Due to the large increase in cremations rather than burials, it is understandable that more places are needed to store urns. Mounds View does not currently have any cemeteries, nor does the City Code address cemeteries or columbaria. The Planning Commission discussed columbaria on church properties, and the Commission was supportive of adding language to the zoning code to allow columbaria. The Commission decided to consider a columbarium an allowed accessory use to a church and base the regulations from the accessory building requirements. Staff recommends also adding a definition of a columbarium to the zoning code. The Planning Commission requested that a permit be required for the installation of columbaria in order for staff to review the proposal and site plan. Staff will amend the fee schedule to add the permit fees in. Recommendation Review Resolution 1022-15 with the proposed language for a code amendment relating to a columbarium. Sincerely, Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Resolution 1022-15 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1022-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 1100, CHAPTERS 1102 AND 1106 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE TO ALLOW COLUMBARIA AT RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE 193-15 WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that amendments be made to the zoning code relating to columbaria at religious institutions; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission agrees with the City Staff recommendation to allow columbaria on the properties of religious institutions as an accessory use; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Chapter 1102.02 and Chapter 1106.03 of the Mounds View City Code by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text as follows: 1102.02: DEFINITIONS: The following words and terms, wherever they occur in this Code, shall be defined as follows: Subd. 17. COLUMBARIUM: A place for the usually public storage urns holding a deceased's cremated remains. Columbaria can be either free standing units or Part of a mausoleum or another building 1106.03: ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in an R-1 District: Subd. 8. Columbarium as an accessory use to a religious institution such as churches chapels temples and synagogues; subject to the following conditions (a) Must not be constructed of brick (b) The combined square footage of all accessory buildings including columbaria, shall not exceed 1,800 square feet (c) Columbaria shall only be placed in a side yard or rear yard area Resolution 1022-15 Page 2 (d) Columbaria shall have a minimum side yard and rear yard setback of five (5) feet. (e) Columbaria height shall not exceed eighteen (18') feet or that of the principal structure whichever is less. (f) If the religious institution ceases operation, all urns and remains must be removed from the property within three (3) months of the institution's closing. WHEREAS, amending the City Code to allow columbaria as an accessory use at religious institutions in residential zoning districts would better serve the public; 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 amendments to Sections 1102.02 and 1106.03 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 18" day of March, 2015. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting February 18, 2015 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 February 18, 2015. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Elofson, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Birken and Carvelli-Yu. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 Review Code Amendment for Fish Houses 2 Discuss a Potential Code Amendment to Allow Columbariums 3 Discuss a Potential Code Amendment to Allow Brew Pubs 4 Review Bylaws 4 3. Approval of Minutes January 21, 2015. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the Minutes of the January 21, 2015 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 18, 2015 Page 2 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases None. 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review Code Amendment for Fish Houses Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that a resident sent in a request to amend the City Code relating to parking of fish houses in residential districts. He is requesting that the code be amended to allow drop axle fish houses to be in the font yard area of properties longer than 24 hours. The City Council is supportive of being more permissive of fish houses being kept on properties and asked the Planning Commission to discuss and make a recommendation. Associate Heller explained that the Planning Commission discussed this in great length at the February 4, 2015 meeting, and decided to allow only "drop axle style" fish houses to be stored for any length of time on residential properties. Staff is suggesting that a definition of drop axle fish house also be added to the code. Staff reviewed the drafted a resolution with the proposed language. She requested the Commission review Resolution 1020-15 with a proposed code amendment relating to fish houses and provide staff with direction on how to proceed. Chair Stevenson supported the proposed language from staff. Commissioner Love stated she has never been bothered by a fish house being placed in a front yard in all her years of living in Mounds View. She believed that homeowners should be allowed to have 10 days to store any fish house in their driveway. Discussion ensued regarding the aesthetic concerns of having a fish house or children's play equipment in a front yard. Commissioner Schiltgen supported the code amendment language. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Elofson. To adopt Resolution 1020- 15, approving a Code Amendment to Chapter 607 of the Mounds View City Code regarding Fish House Storage. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 18,2015 Page 3 B. Discuss a Potential Code Amendment to Allow Columbaria Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that a Mounds View church member recently contacted the City to inquire if a columbarium would be allowed on the church property. Their church was considering adding a columbarium and the church member said many churches are now considering installing a columbarium for their patrons. They are considering one or two structures that would be about 10 feet long and 6 feet tall. Many funeral homes report that more than 50% of deaths now result in cremation rather than a burial, so it is understandable that more places are needed to store urns. Mounds View does not currently have any cemeteries, nor does the City Code address cemeteries or columbaria. Associate Heller explained that a columbarium is a place for the respectful and usually public storage of cinerary urns (i.e. urns holding a deceased's cremated remains). Today's columbaria can be either freestanding units, or part of a mausoleum or another building. Some manufacturers produce columbaria that are built entirely off-site and brought to the cemetery by a large truck. Many modern crematoria have columbaria. In other cases, columbaria are built into church structures. She discussed the matter in further detail and requested comment from the Commission. Chair Stevenson stated he had only seen columbaria as part of a cemetery. He had concerns with a columbarium being added to a church and then the church leaving the community. Associate Heller stated that language could be added to address this concern. Commissioner Love suggested that if a church were to move out of the community, it could be required that the columbarium also be removed. Associate Heller believed that family members would want to pick up the urns prior to them being moved out of the City. Council Liaison Meehlhause suggested a conditional use permit be required for the columbarium. Associate Heller did not recommend a conditional use permit be required as this would be an expense for the church and would also require a public hearing and is more review than needed for this use. Chair Stevenson wanted to be assured that a structure was built in a pleasing manner that met the City's building requirements. Commissioner Schiltgen agreed and wanted to see staff review plans prior to being built. Further discussion ensued regarding the preferred building materials for columbaria. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 18, 2015 Page 4 The Commission was in favor of allowing columbariums in churches, be built out of solid stone, and be considered an accessory building. Associate Heller explained this would be a starting place for the City Code and could be amended in the future. C. Discuss a Potential Code Amendment to Allow Brew Pubs Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that the City Council discussed allowing businesses like brew -pubs or taprooms in the City since they are becoming very popular after the State of Minnesota loosened up regulations relating to these types of businesses. The City Council is open to allowing these types of uses and has asked the Planning Commission to discuss this. A new taproom, Harmnerheart Brewing (www.hammerheartbrewing.com) recently opened in Lino Lakes, and Minneapolis and St. Paul have several, with more in the works. Currently the Mounds View Zoning Code does not address brewpubs, taprooms or any type of brewery, therefore none of them are allowed. Staff requested the Commission discuss this matter and provide staff with direction on how to proceed. Commissioner Elofson questioned if a brew pub would be successful in Mounds View. Associate Heller stated that most brew pubs have been locating in Minneapolis and St. Paul. She discussed how a taproom may work in the City if industrial space were made available. Commissioner Love expressed concern with the amount of water a brewery or brew pub would be using. Associate Heller explained that State mandates would limit the number of barrels that could be made on a yearly basis. She did not believe that water usage would be a concern. Commissioner Schlitgen supported bringing a brew pub to Mounds View. He believed this would be a unique amenity for the City. Commissioner Rundle was in favor of allowing a brew pub or taproom and brewery as well. Commissioner Love suggested that wine making also be considered. The Commission recommended staff proceed with a code amendment to allow breweries, taprooms, brew pubs or wineries in the City of Mounds View. D. Review Bylaws Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that the Planning Commission's Bylaws state that the Commission shall review the Bylaws on an annual basis. She explained that the last Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 18,2015 Page 5 time the Planning Commission amended the Bylaws was in January of 2007. The last change was about the number of absences a commissioner may have in a given year. Staff recommended that the Commission adopt the Bylaws for the Planning Commission. Commissioner Love asked about reviewing the minutes in a timelier manner. Associate Heller discussed the process used for approving Commission minutes. She explained that a service was hired to complete the minutes on a monthly basis. Commissioner Schiltgen commented that there have been very few changes made to the minutes over the past six months. Chair Stevenson believed that the current system worked well and saved on paper. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Love. To approve the Bylaws for the Planning Commission with no changes. Ayes — 5 7. Review Minutes: i A. February 4, 2015 Nays — 0 The Commission discussed the February 4, 2015 meeting minutes. 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases Motion carried. Planning Associate Heller explained no planning cases have been applied for at this time. B. Staff Updates Planning Associate Heller provided the Commission with a staff update. She discussed the Bel Rae and BioLife projects. She noted the City newsletter would be sent out next week. C. Council Updates Councilmember Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He commented how the City was working on a code amendment to improve its recycling program. He explained that the Citizen of the Year nominee requirements may be amended to include those individuals who work in the community. He indicated the Town Hall meeting would be held on Monday, March 30th at 6:00 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, March 4, 2015 B. Wednesday, March 18, 2015 10. Adjournment February 18, 2015 Page 6 There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. L s 0 0 0 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA April 15, 2015 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: February 18, 2015 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases None 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review Application for Planning Commission Vacancy B. Discuss Proposed Code Amendments to Allow Brewpubs, Taprooms, Microbreweries, and Breweries 7. Review Minutes: A. March 18, 2015 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, May 6, 2015 B. Wednesday, May 20, 2015 10. Adjourn 111611PI 1 of Mounds View Staff Item No: 6A Meeting Date: April 15, 2015 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Review Application for Planning Commission Vacancy Commissioner Cindy Carvelli-Yu is resigning from the Planning Commission. The remaining time of Cindy's three year term needs to be filled. The City advertised the vacancy, with applications due on March 20, 2015. Staff received one application. The Planning Commission should review the application and meet the candidate who has been invited to the meeting. A ballot vote will be conducted and the results of the vote will be the recommendation that the Planning Commission submits to the City Council, who could make an official appointment on April 27, 2015. Sincerely, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachment: 1. Application from Therese Kieffer 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: Planning Commission Pull Name (Please Print): Therese Kieffer Work Phone: Work/Cell Phone: (6511214-5180 Address: 5447 Landmark Circle Mounds View MN 55112 Years at this address: 1 Years you have lived in Mounds View: 1 E-mail Address: theresekiefferCo)email com Experience and Qualifications Skills and Interests: My background includes experience with real estate and mortgage regulations, as well as land use/zoning- Employment, Occupation or Other Relevant Experience: I am currently employed with Wolters Kluwer as a content development attorney for their residential mortgage transaction products, Past experience includes collateral underwriting with Wells Fargo, and legal work on zoning regulations and eminent domain litigation. Memberships, Accomplishments or Other Qualifications: Hennepin County Bar Association, Minnesota State Bar Association Please state your reason for wanting to serve with this group: My husband and I intend to raise our family in this city. We love the mix of residential options available, their proximity to commercial opportunities, the numerous parks and trails, and, of course, the excellent Mounds View school district (which served two of my sisters). As a member of the planning commission, I intend to use my familiarity with regulations and land use plans to continue implementing the vision set out in the city's Comprehensive Plan, particularly the goal of ensuring a city that accommodates residents at all seasons of life, Signature: o%/�t�i�G Date: 6c,ti,r_' �Vo 20 i (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 shall have access to its programs, facilities and employment without regard for race, ethnicity, sex, age orphysical abilities. MOUNDS VIEW of Mounds View Staff Item No: 6B Meeting Date: April 15 2015 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Discuss a Code Amendment to Allow Brewpubs, Taprooms, Microbreweries and Breweries At the April 6, 2015 Council Worksession, the City Council discussed allowing businesses like brewpubs or taprooms in the City since they are becoming very popular after the State of Minnesota loosened up regulations relating to these types of businesses. The Council is supportive of allowing any type of brewing businesses — brewpub, taproom, microbrewery and brewery. The City Code for liquor licensing will also need to be amended to accommodate these particular types of businesses, along with some additional definitions. Staff has drafted a resolution with the proposed uses added to the B-2, B-3 and 1-1 zoning districts. There are different definitions, rules and state licensing for each type of liquor manufacturing business. Here are general definitions for each: Brewpub is a restaurant that produces its own beer for onsite and growler sales, while also selling spirits and the beer of others. Brewpubs can serve their own beer -- and the beer and liquor of other companies -- to patrons, but they cannot can, bottle, or keg their beer to sell to bars, restaurants, and stores. - Brewery is a facility that produces beer for distribution to bars and restaurants and can operate a taproom that sells only their own beer onsite. It takes a separate license to own a brewpub or a brewery and an individual in Minnesota cannot get both. - Microbrewery is a state licensed facility and may brew no more than 20,000 barrels of its own brands of malt liquor annually. - Taproom is a state licensed brewer permitting the on -sale consumption of malt liquor produced by the brewer for consumption on the premises of a brewery or an abutting property in common ownership of the brewer, which may include the sales of malt liquor produced and packaged at the brewery for off premises consumption as allowed by Minnesota Statutes. Recommendation Discuss the proposed City Code amendments relating to malt liquor brewing businesses. Sincerely, Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Resolution 1023-15 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1023-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 1100, CHAPTERS 1113, 1114 AND 1116 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE TO ALLOW BREWPUBS, MICROBREWERIES, BREWERIES AND TAPROOMS IN BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE 193-15 WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that amendments be made to the zoning code relating to malt liquor manufacturing; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission agrees with the City Staff recommendation to allow brewpubs, taprooms, microbreweries and breweries in the City; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Chapter 1102.02 and Chapter 1106.03 of the Mounds View City Code by deleting the 6tfisken language and adding the underlined text as follows: 1113.01: PURPOSE: The purpose of the B-2, Limited Business District is to provide for low intensity, retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or services are furnished. The uses allowed in this District are to provide goods and services on a limited community market scale and located in areas which are well served by collector or arterial street facilities at the edge of residential districts. 1113.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a B-2 District: Subd. 2. Retail: Limited retail uses which have, as the principle use, sales with warehousing or display secondary to that use. Restaurant, cafe, brewpub and tea room with a maximum of twenty four (24) seats and two thousand (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. 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, brewpubs and tea rooms with more than twenty four (24) seats and/or two thousand (2,000) square feet of floor area. The restaurant shall not include drive-thru and/or window pick-up services or the serving of food to patrons in their vehicles. Resolution 1023-15 Page 2 1114.01: PURPOSE: The purpose of the B-3, Highway Business District is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. (1988 Code §40.18) 1114.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a B-3 District: Microbrewery Taprooms 1116.01: PURPOSE: The purpose of the 1-1, Industrial District is to provide for the establishment of warehousing and industrial development and use. (1988 Code §40.20) 1116.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in an 1-1 District: Microbrewery Brewery Taprooms WHEREAS, amending the City Code to allow brewpubs, microbreweries, breweries and taprooms in business and industrial zoning districts would better serve the public; 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 amendments to Title 1100 of the Mounds View Zoning 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 15th day of April, 2015. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting March 18, 2015 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 March 18, 2015. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Birken, Cal -velli -Yu, Elofson, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Love. j Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes VR2015-001 Variance Request to Exceed Allowed Ground Sign Height Planning Commission Public Service Announcement Volunteer 3 (Oral Report) Discuss a Code Amendment to Allow Columbaria 3. Approval of Minutes February 4, 2015. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Carvelli-Yu/Commissioner Elofson. To approve the Minutes of the February 4, 2015 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes — 6 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 18, 2015 Page 2 A. VR2015-001 Variance Request to Exceed Allowed Ground Sign Height Applicant: George Winiecki, WIN Insurance Agency Address: 2704 County Road 10 Planning Associate Heller indicated the applicant, George Winiecki, owner of 2704 County Road 10, is requesting a variance to allow the existing ground sign to be expanded 4.5 feet, to 20.5 feet tall. The Zoning Code indicates that no ground sign in a business district may exceed 16 feet in height. She stated according to the Municipal Code, Section 1008.09, Subdivision 3, ground signs are limited to a height of no more than 16 feet without a variance. The applicant owns the building at 2704 County Road 10 and operates his insurance agency here. He also rents some of the building to a few different tenants who have their business information on the sign. Associate Heller reported that Mr. Winiecki has an existing ground sign that is 16.5 feet tall with a brick base. He wants to reconfigure the sign panels and possibly add an electronic sign. Since his ground sign meets the current sign code in regards to it already having masonry on it, Mr. Winiecki can change more than just the panels on his sign. He intends to keep the existing brick base and expand the sign frame taller, and just change the sizes of the individual businesses sign panels. He feels that in order to best meet his and his tenant's sign needs, the ground sign should be four feet taller. The applicant's sign is currently 104 square feet, within the allowed 200 square feet. The sign could instead be widened and then would not need a variance. The cost to change the sign base and frame in order to support a wider sign is high, and the applicant has chosen to apply for a height variance instead. It was noted staff does not support the request. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. George Winiecki, the applicant, read a statement to the Commission noting it was his choice to request a sign change. He provided comment on the importance of company logos and brand recognition. He discussed the benefit of working with a local insurance agent along with the numerous products he provided. He advised how small businesses were under attack and then reviewed a mock-up of the new ground sign. He respectfully requested that the Commission consider approving his sign request in order for him to further his business and the businesses within his building. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu asked if the current ground sign was lit. Mr. Winiecki reported that the sign was lit, but that several bulbs were in need of replacement. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission March 18, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 3 Associate Heller reviewed the options available to the Commission. Commissioner Elofson supported the sign variance request based on the fact Mr. Winiecki has been in the community for the past 30 years. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Elofson/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolution 1021-15, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance to Exceed Allowed Ground Sign Height; Planning Case No. VR2015-001. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 6. Other Planning Activity A. Planning Commission Public Service Announcement Volunteer (Oral Report) Assistant City Administrator Crane provided the Commission with information on the City's newly established volunteer program. She noted the City received a $2,000 grant for this program, which would assist staff in reaching out to the community. She was now in need of assistance in creating a script for a public service announcement and asked if any Commissioners were interested in helping her. Commissioner Schiltgen explained he would be willing to assist with the script but was not interested in being on camera. Chair Stevenson indicated he would be willing to be on camera so long as his schedule allowed. Commissioner Elofson and Commissioner Birken were also interested in assisting with the script. B. Discuss a Code Amendment to Allow Columbaria Planning Associate Heller explained a Mounds View church member recently contacted the City to inquire if a columbarium would be allowed on the church property. Due to the large increase in cremations rather than burials, it is understandable that more places are needed to store urns. Mounds View does not currently have any cemeteries, nor does the City Code address cemeteries or columbaria. Associate Heller noted the Planning Commission discussed columbaria on church properties, and the Commission was supportive of adding language to the zoning code to allow columbaria. The Commission decided to consider a columbarium an allowed accessory use to a church and base the regulations from the accessory building requirements. Staff recommends also adding a definition of a columbarium to the zoning code. The Planning Commission requested that a Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 18, 2015 Page 4 permit be required for the installation of columbaria in order for staff to review the proposal and site plan. Staff will amend the fee schedule to add the zoning permit fee. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Code amendment to allow Columbaria. Commissioner Rundle was in favor of having the columbaria located close to the principle structure. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu asked if the code language should include further specifications on the preferred building materials. She wanted to insure that the structure was weather proof. Further discussion ensued regarding columbaria building materials. The Commission did not want to see columbaria built out of brick if under 200 square feet. Commissioner Birken discussed the term "closing" and suggested this word be changed. Associate Heller suggested this language be amended to read: within three months of the institution vacating the property. The Commission supported the recommendation. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Birken. To approve Resolution 1022-15, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Amendment to Title 1100, Chapters 1102 and 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code to Allow Columbaria at Religious Institutions; Special Planning Case 193-15. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 7. Review Minutes: A. February 18, 2015 The Commission discussed the February 18, 2015 meeting minutes. No changes were suggested. 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Heller explained she did not have any upcoming planning cases. B. Staff Updates Planning Associate Heller noted the Town Hall Meeting would be held on Monday, March 30th at City Hall at 6:00 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting C. Council Updates March 18, 2015 Page 5 Councilmember Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He discussed the City Council's goals for the coming year and noted the Council wanted to enhance the relationship between the Police and Fire Departments and the general public. He congratulated Theresa Cermak on being selected the Mounds View Citizen of the Year. D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, April 1, 2015 B. Wednesday, April 15, 2015 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. MOUNDS- PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA May 6, 2015 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business A. Oath of Office for Commissioner Therese Kieffer 4. Approval of Minutes: March 18, 2015 5. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 6. Planning Cases None 7. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss Proposed Code Amendment for Christmas Tree Sales B. Discuss Proposed Code Amendment for Temporary Outdoor Food Sales C. Code Amendment for Religious Institutions Language 8. Review Minutes: A. April 15, 2015 9. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 10. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, May 20, 2015 B. Wednesday, June 3, 2015 11. Adjourn MoUNns VIEW of Mounds View Staff Item No: 7A Meeting Date: May 6 2015 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Discuss Proposed Code Amendment for Christmas Tree Sales The City of Mounds View requires business licenses for Transient Merchants, which includes Christmas Tree Sales. The transient merchants must also comply with the zoning code, which requires a conditional use permit for outdoor sales for more than 10 days. The Mounds View Zoning Code that would be applicable to 30 days of Christmas tree sales is Chapter 1112.03 (B-1, Neighborhood Business): 1114.04: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a B-3 District (requiring a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title): Subd. 5. Open or outdoor service, sale and rental as a principal or accessory use and including sales in or from motorized vehicles, trailers or wagons for a period greater than ten (10) days; (Amended, Ord. 733, 5-10-04) a. Outside services, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to thirty percent (30%) of the gross floor area of the principal use. b. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring identical uses or an abutting R District in compliance with subdivisions 1103.08(1) through (5) of this Title. c. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right of way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with sections 1103.08 and 1103.09 of this Title. d. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. e. The open or outdoor service, sale or rental use does not take up parking space as required for conformity of this Title. f. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. Christmas Tree Sales Staff Report May 6, 2015 Page 2 There has been a Christmas tree sales business operating in Mounds View on commercial properties for many years. Staff recently researched what 12 other metro cities require for Christmas tree sales. All of the cities allow Christmas tree sales and none requires a conditional use permit for this use. All the cities simply require an annual permit or license, and most allow the applications to be approved by city staff (3 cities required the City Council to approve the license or permit). Staff recommends that the City Code be amended to better accommodate Christmas tree sale businesses. Since this is a business that only operates for approximately 30 days each year, staff feels that requiring a conditional use permit is unnecessary. Staff suggests that the City Code be amended to add Christmas Tree Sales as a new business license type to Title 500, Business License Regulations, and simply require an annual business license for this type of business. The City Council will determine what the annual fee should be, but staff suggests it be the same as the 1 -month permit fee for peddlers/transient merchants/solicitors which is currently $204.00. Recommendation Review Resolution 1025-15 with the proposed language for a code amendment adding Christmas tree sales as a new business license. Sincerely, Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Resolution 1025-15 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1025-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 500 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE TO ADD CHRISTMAS TREE SALES AS A NEW BUSINESS LICENSE; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE 196-15 WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that amendments be made to the City Code relating to Christmas tree sales; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission agrees with the City Staff recommendation that requirements specifically for Christmas tree sales should be added; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Title 500 of the Mounds View City Code by deleting the stfisken language and adding the underlined text as follows: TITLE 500 BUSINESS LICENSE REGULATIONS Subject Chapter General Liquor Provisions ................................................... 501 502 Intoxicating Liquor................................................................ 503 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor .................................................. Solicitors And Transient Merchants ..................... 504 Peddlers, 505 Restaurants......................................................................... Amusement Devices And Centers ....................................... 506 BowlingAlleys...................................................................... 507 Rides, Carnivals And Circuses............................................508 509 GasolineStations................................................................. 510 New And Used Car Dealers ................................................ Recuperative Homes And Half -Way Houses ......................511 Cigarette And Tobacco Products ......................................... 512 513 Adult Establishments........................................................... 514 Therapeutic Massage......................................................... Tattoo, Body Piercing, Body Branding, Body ...................... 515 Scarring and Body Painting Establishments Pawnshops (Added, Ord. 712, 11-10-03) ............................ 516 (Intentionally Left Blank) ...................................................... 517 Regulating Lawful Gambling (Added, Ord. 835, 4-1-10) ... Christmas Trees ................................................... .519 Resolution 1025-15 Page 2 CHAPTER 519 CHRISTMAS TREES SECTION: 519.01: Definitions 519.02: License Required 519.03 Application 519.04: License Fees 519.05: Restrictions of Sale 519.06: Licenses Not Transferable 519.07: License Expiration and Site Clean Up 519.08: Violation of Provisions 519.01: DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this Chapter, the terms defined in this Section have the meaning given to them herein Subd. 1. Christmas Trees: Shall be defined as natural trees used for decoration at holida time. 519.02: LICENSE REQUIRED: No person shall directly or indirectly sell Christmas trees at retail in the City without first obtaining a license from the City Administrator. 519.03: APPLICATION: Eve applicant for such a license shall file an application with the City Administrator. The application shall be on a form supplied by the City Administrator and shall contain the full name and address of the applicant, address and property owners name of where said business is to be carried on and such other information as the application form may require Such license may contain reasonable restrictions on the operation of the business 519.04: LICENSE FEES: The annual license fee shall be established by resolution of the City Council and must be paid to the City at the time that the application is filed 519.05: RESTRICTIONS OF SALE: Christmas tree lots shall only be located in business zoned districts 519.06: LICENSES NOT TRANSFERABLE: Licenses issued pursuant to this article shall not be transferable 519.07: LICENSE EXPIRATION AND SITE CLEAN UP: A license issued pursuant to this article shall expire on January fifteenth following the date of granting By such dateve the premises described in the application must be cleaned up and unsold trees removed. If the premises are not so cleaned up the City may cause the premises to tr cleaned ve and charge the cost to the applicant Resolution 1025-15 Page 3 519.08: VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS: Any person violating any provision of this Chapter shall be quilt of a misdemeanor. In addition the license provided for in Section 519.02 of this Chapter may be revoked by the Council upon due notice. WHEREAS, amending the City Code to add requirements specifically for Christmas tree sales in business zoning districts would better serve the public; 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 amendments to Title 500 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 6th day of May, 2015. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MOU—ND s VIEW of Mounds view Staff Item No: 7B Meeting Date: May 6 2015 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Discuss Proposed Code Amendment for Temporary Outdoor Food Sales The City of Mounds View requires business licenses for Transient Merchants, and the licenses can be issued for up to one year. There haven't been many merchants over the years that have temporarily sold things in the city — it's typically only been a seafood company that will sell from their truck for one or two days a few times a year. Two years ago, a food truck owner applied for a transient merchant license. Since they are selling prepared food, they also must get a license from the Ramsey County Department of Health, which is in effect for 21 days at a single location. The Mounds View Zoning Code that is applicable to this type of temporary use is Chapter 1112.03 (B-1, Neighborhood Business): 1112.03: ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a B-1 District: Subd. 5. Temporary open or outdoor services, sales and rental as an accessory use and including sales in or from motorized vehicles, trailers, or wagons, subject to the following: (Added, Ord. 735, 5-10-04) a. The activity shall not continue for a period greater than ten (10) consecutive days or for more than three (3) ten (10) day periods per year. Permit periods must be separated by a minimum of thirty (30) days. (Added, Ord. 733, 5- 10-04) b. Notwithstanding Article 13, Section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution, a permit issued by the City shall be obtained prior to commencing the activity. (Added, Ord. 733, 5-10-04) C. A permit will not be issued without the written consent of the property owner. (Added, Ord. 733-5-10-04) d. The sales area shall be grassed or surfaced to control dust. (Added, Ord. 733, 5-10-04) e. The activity shall not take up parking space as required for conformity of this Title. (Added, Ord. 733, 5-10-04) f. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Sections 1103.08 and 1103.09 of this Title. (Added, Ord. 733, 5-10-04) Temporary Outdoor Food Sales Staff Report May 6, 2015 Page 2 The food truck has been operating in Mounds View business parking lots for the last two summers, but they were switching locations every 10 days in order to comply with the zoning code time limit. The county food truck license is applicable for 21 days in the same location so it became confusing for them to comply with both sets of rules and time limits. Currently if a merchant wants to have temporary outdoor sales for more than 10 days, a conditional use permit is required for each location where the sales would occur. Staff recommends that the Zoning Code be amended to better accommodate temporary outdoor food sales, and to be consistent with state and county food truck permit timelines. The food truck has been successful in Mounds View and a code amendment would make it easier for them to operate here. Staff suggests that the code amendment be specific to temporary outdoor food sales rather than any type of sales so that we don't get other types of vendors selling in parking lots for long periods of time. Recommendation Review Resolution 1024-15 with the proposed language for a code amendment adding specific regulations for temporary outdoor food sales. Sincerely, Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Resolution 1024-15 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1024-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 1100, CHAPTER 1112 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE TO ADD REQUIREMENTS FOR TEMPORARY OUTDOOR FOOD SALES; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE 195-15 WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that amendments be made to the zoning code relating to temporary outdoor food sales; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission agrees with the City Staff recommendation that requirements specifically for temporary outdoor food sales should be added; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Chapter 1112.03 of the Mounds View City Code by deleting the ,;trir en language and adding the underlined text as follows: 1112.03: ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a B-1 District: Subd 7 Temporary outdoor food sales as an accessory use and including sales in or from motorized vehicles trailers or wagons subiect to the following: a The activity shall not continue on the same property for a period greater than twenty-one (21) consecutive days. b Notwithstanding Article 13 Section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution, a license issued by the City shall be obtained prior to commencing the activity. C. A permit will not be issued without the written consent of the property owner. d The sales area shall be grassed or surfaced to control dust. e The activity shall not take up parking space as required for conformity of this Title. f All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Sections 1103.08 and 1103.09 of this Title. Resolution 1024-15 Page 2 WHEREAS, amending the City Code to add requirements specifically for temporary outdoor food sales in business zoning districts would better serve the public; 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 amendments to Sections 1112.03 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 6th day of May, 2015. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW of Mounds View Staff Item No: 7C Meeting Date: May 6 2015 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Discuss Proposed Code Amendment for Language about Religious Institutions The City Attorney suggested that the City Code be amended to remove language pertaining to religious institutions. In several areas of the Zoning Code where religious institutions are described as a use, the language also includes "such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues." The City Attorney recommends that this list of examples be removed so that the Code isn't inadvertently excluding a type of religious institution that isn't on this list. There are also a couple places in the code where only the word "church" is used, so the amendment also includes changing church to religious institution. Recommendation Review Resolution 1026-15, amending the City Code to be more general when describing religious institutions. Sincerely, Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Resolution 1026-15 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1026-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLES 1000 and 1100 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE TO REMOVE LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE 197-15 WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that amendments be made to the City Code relating to religious institutions; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission agrees with the City Staff recommendation that the list of examples of religious institutions should be removed; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Title 1000 of the Mounds View City Code by deleting the same-„ language and adding the underlined text as follows: 1008.11 MISCELLANEOUS SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS AND PROVISIONS Subd. 1. Signage Allowances for Specific Land Uses: Public or semi public recreational buildings and neighborhood and community centers; public and private education institutions limited to elementary, middle and senior high schools; religious institutions, ;nursing homes, senior assisted living facilities and commercial day care facilities; may be allowed the following signage: WHEREAS, City staff has amended Title 1100 of the Mounds View City Code by deleting the stria„"; language and adding the underlined text as follows: 1106.04: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an R-1 District (requiring a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title): Subd. 1. Public or semi-public recreational buildings and neighborhood or community centers, public and private educational institutions limited to elementary, junior high and senior high schools and religious institutions, provided, that: Resolution 1026-15 Page 2 h. Day care center, group nursery or adult day care operating as a secondary or accessory use in a public or semi-public recreational building, neighborhood or community center, public and private educational institution limited to elementary, junior high and senior high schools, and religious institutions, ___ha ^h, rrhec synagogues; subject to the following conditions: 1110.04: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an R-5 District (requiring a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title): Subd. 1. Improvement, enlargement, extension or alteration of an existing mobile home park. Subd. 2. Public or semi-public recreational buildings and neighborhood or community centers; public and private educational institutions limited to elementary, junior high and senior high schools; and religious institution_, suG as ^h' r^heo Ghana temples Rd G, Rageg jos; provided, that: 1114.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a B-3 District: Public or semi-public recreational buildings and neighborhood or community centers, public and private educational institutions limited to elementary, junior high and senior high schools and religious institution (Ord. 617, 6-8-98) 1121.08: CALCULATING SPACE: Subd. 1. Fractions of Space: When determining the number of off-street parking spaces results in a fraction, each fraction of one-half (1/2) or more shall constitute another space. Subd. 2. Places of Assembly: In stadiums, sports arenas, des religious institutions and other places of public assembly in which patrons or spectators occupy benches, pews or other similar seating facilities, each twenty two inches (22") of such seating facilities shall be counted as one (1) seat for the purpose of determining requirements. 1121.13: SCHEDULE OF OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS: The following minimum number of off-street parking spaces shall be provided and maintained by ownership, easement and/or lease for and during the life of the respective uses hereinafter set forth: Resolution 1026-15 Page 3 Church Religious Institution, theater, auditorium At least one (1) parking space for each four (4) seats, based on the design capacity of the main assembly hall. Facilities, as may be provided in conjunction with such buildings or uses, shall be subject to additional requirements which are imposed by this Title. 1121.15: JOINT FACILITIES AND DRIVEWAYS: Subd. 1. Joint Facilities: (2) Up to fifty percent (50%) of the off-street parking facilities required for any use specified under subdivision 1b4 below as primary daytime uses may be supplied by the parking facilities provided by the following: nighttime or Sunday uses, auditoriums incidental to a public or parochial school, shurshes religious institutions, bowling alley, dance hall, theaters, bar or restaurant. WHEREAS, amending the City Code to remove examples of types of religious institutions would better serve the public; 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 amendments to Titles 1000 and 1100 of the Mounds View City Code as defined herein. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 6th day of May, 2015. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 15, 2015 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 April 15, 2015. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Birken, Carvelli-Yu, Elofson, Rundle, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Love and Schiltgen. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes I Review Application for Planning Commission Vacancy 2 Discuss Proposed Code Amendments to Allow Brewpubs, Taprooms, 2 Microbreweries, and Breweries 3. Approval of Minutes February 18, 2015. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Carvelli-Yu/Commissioner Birken. To approve the Minutes of the February 18, 2015 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. 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 None. 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review Application for Planning Commission Vacancy April 15, 2015 Page 2 Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that Commissioner Cindy Carvelli-Yu is resigning from the Planning Commission. The remaining time of Cindy's three-year term needs to be filled. The City advertised the vacancy, with applications due on March 20, 2015. Staff received one application. The Planning Commission should review the application and meet the candidate who has been invited to the meeting. A ballot vote will be conducted and the results of the vote will be the recommendation that the Planning Commission submits to the City Council, who could make an official appointment on April 27, 2015. Therese Keifer introduced herself to the Commission. She explained she lived in Landmark Estates. She enjoys living in this community with her husband and 19 -month-old son. She looked forward to seeing how the Highway 10 corridor continued to develop. Commissioner Birken believed that Ms. Keifer was highly qualified to serve on the Planning Commission. A ballot vote was conducted and the Commission unanimously recommended the City Council appoint Therese Keifer to the Planning Commission. B. Discuss Proposed Code Amendments to Allow Brewpubs, Taprooms, Microbreweries, and Breweries Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that at the April 6, 2015 Council Worksession, the City Council discussed allowing businesses like brewpubs or taprooms in the City since they are becoming very popular after the State of Minnesota loosened regulations relating to these types of businesses. The Council is supportive of allowing any type of brewing businesses — brewpub, taproom, microbrewery and brewery. The City Code for liquor licensing will also need to be amended to accommodate these particular types of businesses, along with some additional definitions. Staff reviewed these definitions in detail with the Commission and requested feedback on the code amendments. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 15, 2015 Page 3 Commissioner Carvelli-Yu recommended outdoor seating restrictions be considered for properties near residential homes. Further discussion ensued regarding outdoor patios. Commissioner Birken stated this concern could be addressed under the liquor license permit as well. Associate Heller suggested that staff could add a condition that any taproom and brewpub with an outdoor patio within X amount of feet from a residential property will have restrictions, like earlier hours for the outdoor service. She commented that another way to address this concern would be to have an outdoor enhancement stipulation. The Commission supported this recommendation. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Elofson. To approve Resolution No. 1023-15, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Amendment to Title 1100, Chapters 1113, 1114 and 1116 of the Mounds View Zoning Code to Allow Brewpubs, Microbreweries, Breweries and Taprooms in the Business and Industrial Districts; Special Planning Case No. 193-15. Ayes — 5 7. Review Minutes: A. March 18, 2015 Nays — 0 The Commission discussed the March 18, 2015 meeting minutes. 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases Motion carried. Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases. She reported the Planning Commission would be meeting on May 61h B. Staff Updates Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases. She explained there would be a Ribbon Cutting Ceremony for the Bel Rae Senior Living facility on Monday, May 11th at 4:00 p.m. She encouraged the Planning Commission to attend this event. She noted that 20 units within this new building have already been leased. She commented the BioLife project construction continues and will be open by September 2015. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting C. Council Updates April 15, 2015 Page 4 Councilmember Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council and discussed the construction projects planned for this summer. He discussed the Town Hall meeting as well. D. Planning Commissioner Reports Chair Stevenson wished Commissioner Carvelli-Yu well and thanked her for her service to the City on the Planning Commission. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, May 6, 2015 B. Wednesday, May 20, 2015 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver OffSite Secretarial, Inc. 0 0 MOUNDS VIEW r PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA May 20, 2015 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 1a. Special Order of Business: Elect Vice -Chair 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: April 15, 2015 UPDATED 5-20-2015 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2015-002 Variance Request to Allow a Driveway Curb Cut to Exceed 24 Feet Wide Applicant: Robert Horbul Address: 8382 Knollwood Drive B. VR2015-003 Variance Request to Allow a Driveway with a 2 -foot Setback Applicant: James Anderson Address: 7930 Sunnyside Road C. VR2015-004 Variance Request to Allow a Garage with a 3 -foot Setback Applicant: Michael & Andrea Shoup Address: 8330 Groveland Road 6. Other Planning Activity None 7. Review Minutes: A. May 6, 2015 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, June 3, 2015 B. Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10. Adjourn MOUNDS VIEW of Mounds View Staff Item No: 5A Meeting Date: May 20, 2015 Type of Business: Planning Case To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing - Consideration of a Variance to Allow Driveway Cur Cut to Exceed 24 Feet at 8382 Knollwood Drive; Planning Case VR2015-002 Introduction: The applicant, Robert Horbul, is requesting approval of a variance to allow the driveway curb cut to exceed 24 -feet at his property at 8382 Knollwood Drive. The applicant's entire driveway, including the curb cut, is currently 34 feet wide. This property is on a street that is being reconstructed this year. As the streets have been reconstructed, the City is installing the new curb cut aprons so that they comply with the Zoning Code requirements. The new aprons are installed with a 5 -foot setback and a maximum of 24 feet wide. The applicant's existing concrete driveway was installed 34 feet wide in 1977 when the house was built and has remained this way ever since. It does comply with the required side yard setback. City staff sent the applicant a letter stating that his driveway was non -conforming, and that the new apron would be installed 24 feet wide instead of matching to his existing width. The Zoning Code allows driveway curb cuts for single family homes to be a maximum of 24 feet wide, so the applicant has requested a variance for a curb cut to exceed the allowed width. Discusssion: There was no zoning permit issued when the driveway was installed, and there was no variance granted allowing the driveway to be 34 feet wide. Had the builder applied for a permit, he would have been informed that the driveway was not allowed to be 34 feet wide at the street. The driveway itself can be wider — it's only the curb cut opening that is limited to 24 feet. When Knollwood Drive is completed, the applicantwants his new driveway apron to be installed 34 feet wide. 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 driveway openings for traffic safety reasons, and for neighborhood aesthetics. Staff feels that limiting the applicant to a 24 foot wide curb cut would not be depriving him of something commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. 8382 Knollwood Drive Variance Report May 20, 2015 Page 2 b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not address this specific of an issue, but traffic safety and management is an important function for the City. By limiting the curb cut width, less vehicles can be parked next each other near the street which improves visibility when exiting out of a driveway and the streets are safer. Keeping driveway openings smaller, and consistent in size betters the aesthetics of the neighborhood. C. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The driveway is the same width as the 3 -car garage. The applicant is requesting to keep the curb cut 34 feet wide for easier access to all three garage stalls. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. There are no unique circumstances that apply to this property. The applicant did not build this house or install the driveway. He purchased the house with the existing driveway in 1989. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood The applicant's neighborhood consists of larger sized lots. The driveway would remain as it has since 1977 and would not change the character of the neighborhood. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The 10 -foot variance is the minimum variance needed in order for the driveway apron to remain the same width as the rest of the driveway. 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. Staff has no suggestions for conditions for the variance request. The Planning Commission may add conditions as they see applicable. 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 Friday, May 8, 2015. Staff has not received any comments or questions as of May 15, 2015. 7930 Sunnyside Road Variance Report May 20, 2095 Page 3 Recommendation: After taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission may take any of the following actions below related to the requests. Staff recommends denial of this variance. 1. Deny the variance as requested. Staff has prepared Resolution 1027-15 that denies the variance if the Commission chooses this action. 2. Choose to approve the variance. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff would need direction from the Planning Commission to prepare a resolution of approval with findings of fact to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide that there is need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60 -day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, cmu&t-� Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Narrative from applicant 4. Photo 5. Resolution 1027-15 Zoning Map IN L 85TH AVE. — — NE M M NI M N M M CO — 498493 - 49 8499 CO _ ,.Oj Co N 8490 .r 8491 N O 8494 • 848 8485 8484 8489 8480 m 8481 00 m 8480 8477 8480 8479 8484 8462 8481 8468 8469 8474 8470 8465 8470 8471 8474 845 845 0 c 847 8469 8460 846 8460 8454 8481 r> 8480 8463 8456 8461 8460 845 8454 8455 845 9459 8450 8455 8456 8444 8441 8442 8449 844 8445 8444 8440 8441 8434 8431 8436 8439 8431 8432 8431 8444 842 8421 8430 8425 8430 8429 8438 8432 8419 8424 8425 8434 84128411 8478 8421 8424 8423 8426 8415 8400 8415 8420 8402 0 8401 8419 8419 8420 8409 - 8392 8392 839 8406 8407 84 N 8415 8414401 8384 8401 8406 8390 8389 8394 84 840 09 8408 39 m rn 837 8389 8400 • 8386 8387 8 1 840 8 7 8398 N ,h� 8379 8380 8380 83 1 8388 37 8380 8385 8 7 838 37 i, m 8365 8372 8370 5: 8371 8374 83 8372 8378 n w 836 8. 4368 71 8368 6366 • 836 8371 8360 8351 834 8365 8354 8345 6364 8360 8363 8360 835 9 8347 8360 8344 8351 8348 8335 8340 8350 8355 834 8358 8341 8343 9342 8340 8345 8338 8334 $ 8336 8334 8325 8312 8330 6335 8336 8325 8330 8333 8335 8332 8315 8300 8330 8333 8322 8305 8290 8320 8325 8310 8.315 8316 8315 8322 p 8321 8325 8300 — � 8285 8280 8311 8308 Y 831 • 8300 8305 8312 8297 8298 8301 GROVELAND 8275 8270 8265 8260 8284 8285 8290 8289 8280 8285 PARK 8255 8250 8280 8275 8281 8250 8261 "' 8240 8270 8265 8230 8241 m 00 N m° d 8270 8265 N N ARDAN N N N N 8230 8260 8255 8248 mo N o o a •: •:' m .r m 8250 a- 8245 N N N N N CO 00 824 TOO m o 00 w m v 9220 CL .:.' N N N N N N N N ' 8240 P 8233 822 8245 8206 8210 82 8227 823 8213 8210 8217 8202 m a v 201 879 S 8201 8198 8205 N N N N 2 22 8177 9191 8192 O 820 DR 14 8200 N n 9209 pp N I^ 9123 8180 9175 8160 m N N 8200 N rN N 814 `►7-2 �'+� 8160 8148 ORT 8167 N N n 8138 m NR ro m CO' 814; * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential -'-L Narrative from Applicant Opening point: This variance asks for nothing more than to retain the curb width and driveway width that was originally built with house in 1977 and later purchased with in late 1989 by me. When I purchased this property in 1989, I knew I needed a large garage with a large resonably level driveway for boats, campers and my other outdoor activities. Three single doors looked like a good match. Years later needs for more indoor storage became evident. I then proceeded for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for rear garage expansion. The purpose of this was to store less in the driveway and protect things from the weather. This was done in 2006 as Resolution 6836 and a copy is with this letter. At this time there are three trailers in the building. Current time: Receive letter for street reconstruction and intent to change curb opening to code conformance, A visit to the Planing Associate proved to be useless to either one of us, so the Variance is the process to proceed with. The problem and circumstances: The three single doors look good and add charater to the structure but they do present some problems that are not really easily seen, The fact that 1 am moving trailers in for storage and out for use brings this out. The finished opening is 8 feet 8 inches. Current AM trailer limit is tip to 102 inches or 8 feet 6 inches in width. My utility trailer is a fidl 8 feet width and my Wheel house is at Met 6inch. With a fall size truck add the trailer and truck lenght the need for romp is needed to line things up. Truck plus boat = 43 feet Truck plus utility =38 feet Truck plus Wheelhouse = 42 feet You only have one inch on each side of the tires for the wheelhouse and 4 inches on the utility trailer or you hit the garage. I need the width of the driveway to safely back these units in for storage. The room to get the truck and trailer in perfect ailignment is easily seen . The fact that these things come home after dark only makes this more important. Impact to owner: The variance forni some what states that Ecomnic loss is not generally considered a hard ship but: I spent considerable time and money on the addition of the garage to store things off the driveway and see no plus side to a smaller curb cut. It would limit my ability to store to some degree. The driveway fits with the Three door design and I am sure it would be a negative to the property value if changed. Driveway facts: Driveway is the same size it was when built. The entire width was poured at the same time. ' There are no cuts,exspansion strips or divisions in the width. The date of 1977 is still scribed in it. I contacted the original owner of the proprty and this is how it was built, The light posts are still as they were built on each side of the drive. This ends the (suggestion) that the driveway was enlarged. r Narrative from Applicant Con't Points of intrest: The driveway in no way,shape or form alters the character of the nieghborhood because it was here when the neighborhood was built. It has been here 38 years with no issues. With the width, t can quickly get out of the road and keep the road Safe for everyone. No day time parking would be gained as there is a hydrett to the north of the drive. If (lie drive was left at current width, the 3 fool wings could be left off to make it look much the same as as a 24 foot with 3 foot wings on each side. Cost: Owner would pay for any additional costs of the concrete and work,from what is extra, up to replacing the entire section the city tears out with my own contractor. Zero cost to city or taxpayers. Any questions by city staff, can a directed to me. Bob Horbul 786-763-1275 )z-& - MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1027-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR A CURB CUT TO EXCEED 24 -FEET WIDE AT 8382 KNOLLWOOD DRIVE; PLANNING CASE VR2015-002 WHEREAS, the applicant, Robert Horbul, property owner of 8382 Knollwood Drive, has applied for a variance to allow the curb cut on his property to be 34 feet wide; and, WHEREAS, 8382 Knollwood Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Lot 7, Block2, Gustafson's Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN: 06-30-23-21-0095 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 May 20, 2015; 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 not to be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 8382 Knollwood Drive, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 1027-15 Page 2 Section 1121.09 Subdivision 5b of the Zoning Code states that single-family lots shall be limited to one 24 -foot wide curb cut per property. There are no issues with this property that would cause the owner to need a wider curb cut. Limiting the applicant to a 24 foot wide curb cut would not be depriving him of something commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. 2. The Comprehensive Plan supports good traffic management for safer vehicle movements on streets. Limiting the width of access points onto a street is one of the ways that the City accomplishes this. Keeping curb cut widths consistent helps with neighborhood aesthetics. 3. Curb cuts for single-family homes that exceed 24 feet are rare and not desired by the City for safety and aesthetic reasons. 4. There are no unique circumstances for this property. The applicant wants to keep the wider curb cut for easier access to the garage. 5. The other single-family properties in the neighborhood with curb cuts that exceed 24 feet will also be corrected when the new aprons are installed, and 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. 6. Allowing the 34 foot wide curb cut is the minimum variance possible to alleviate what the applicant has stated is his difficulty in needing a curb cut 10 feet wider than what the Zoning Code allows. 7. There are no conditions recommended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, denies the variance request of Robert Horbul, property owner of 8382 Knollwood Drive, to allow a 34 foot wide curb cut on his property. Adopted this 20th day of May, 2015. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MOiJNDtSVVt Item 15 Meeting Date: May 20,, 2 2015 Type of Business: Planning Case City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing - Consideration of a Variance for a Reduced Driveway Setback at 7930 Sunnyside Road; Planning Case VR2015-003 Introduction: The applicant, James Anderson, is requesting approval of a variance for a reduced driveway setback on his property at 7930 Sunnyside Road. The applicant's driveway runs next to the house to access the detached garage which is behind the house. The applicant is replacing the entire driveway and is requesting that it be allowed to stay in the same location, which has a 2 - foot setback. The Zoning Code requires a 5 -foot setback, so the applicant has requested a variance for a reduced driveway setback. Discusssion: The 11 -foot wide driveway currently runs next to the house in order to access the detached garage behind the house. The applicant is in the process of replacing the entire driveway. In order to have enough room to drive next to the house, the applicant would like the driveway to remain at 11 feet wide with a 2 -foot setback. 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 requires minimum driveway setbacks for aesthetics and to provide separation and some sense of privacy between neighbors. Mounds View has many older homes that had detached garages added after the home was built. These garages were typically placed behind the house because there wasn't enough room next to the house. Now years later when the driveways need to be replaced, they don't meet the current zoning code, but there often isn't an option to bring the driveway into compliance and still maintain its usability. b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not specify setback criteria, but it does support improvements to properties. 7930 Sunnyside Road Variance Report May 20, 2015 Page 2 C. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The property owner's detached garage is behind the house and used for space to park vehicles inside and for storage. The applicant is requesting to keep the driveway that is just wide enough to be able to safely drive past the house. The entire length of the driveway would have the 2 foot setback so that it's a straight driveway leading to the garage. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. This house was originally built in 1953 with an attached garage. In 1971, the owner remodeled the single -car attached garage into a family room, and the following year built the existing two -car detached garage behind the house. At that time, the Village of Mounds View allowed the driveway to be installed with the reduced setback with the neighboring property owner's consent. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant's neighborhood consists of larger sized lots. The new concrete driveway will be a nice improvement to the property and would only improve the look of the property from the street. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The 3 -foot variance is the minimum variance needed in orderto have a driveway wide enough to safely drive past the house. 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 orto reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood, and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Staff has no suggestions for conditions for the variance request. The Planning Commission may add conditions as they see applicable. 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 Friday, May 8, 2015. Staff has not received any comments or questions as of May 15, 2015. 7930 Sunnyside Road Variance Report May 20, 2095 Page 3 Recommendation: After taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission may take any of the following actions below related to the requests. Staff recommends approval of this variance. Approval of the Variance as requested. Staff has prepared Resolution 1028-15 that approves the variance if the Commission chooses this action. 2. Choose to deny the variance. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff would need direction from the Planning Commission to prepare a resolution of denial with findings of fact to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide that there is need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60 -day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. i Respectfully submitted, Uhj � Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Views 3. Narrative from applicant 4. Photos 5. Site Plan 6. Resolution 1028-15 Zoning Map MUM 8032 802 8026r7985 8025 8016 8016 8009 8000 7990 7990 7980 8004 798 7960 795 7934 7932 7� 7970 7965 7960 7955 7956 7933 7950 LO N N N 7900 IMA 0U71 (I 770 �, 14`' �1 ou�a 8032 0 8033 8025 8018 8011 8009 8006 7981 7979 7990 7980 7981 7969 7959*004 7966 7949 7770 7901 7927 7764 7930 7917 rn N 7900 L M6 ti County Road 10 �ry ti^ ti^ UD N B-2 80401 18035 8000 0 8021 7690 8011 7990 7989 o: 7979 7840 7980 7966 7969 7770 7946 7927 7764 7930 7917 rn N 7900 7901 N N B-2 F 7980 7960 7940 7!8995 UW N 7690 7867 7870 7851 7841 7860 7850 7840 7815 7790 7809 7770 7801 7764 7767 7760 7750 7730 7761 7755 7745 7710 n— c" N (D 7715 r+n 0)LO * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential boa Narrative from Applicant April 30th 2015 I am requesting a variance for replacement of an existing driveway on the property located at 7930 Sunnyside Rd. Mounds view, MN 55112. The driveway is currently 11 feet wide and has a 2 foot setback from the property line with 7940 Sunnyside Rd. The garage is located behind the house so the only access to the garage is between the two houses. James and Debra Anderson �� _ ♦ .'��': �.�?' � I hx� � •�`' .. `- tom[" drivewayNew 1 i View of front of prope Y would have same ... ... �p foot side yard l„7 ' r i+F� ..f�✓. u� -A y • �'_ 2 {n r [Site ' / 1 Ale—lk,(� M MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1028-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A THREE-FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A DRIVEWAY AT 7930 SUNNYSIDE ROAD; PLANNING CASE VR2015-003 WHEREAS, property owner James Anderson, has applied for a three-foot (3') setback variance to allow the driveway that leads around the house to the garage in the backyard to have a reduced setback; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 7930 Sunnyside Road is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: South ''Y2 of Lot 102, Spring Lake Park Hill View, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN: 06-30-23-42-0042 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, Section 1104.01 Subd. 4c(1 a) of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that driveways shall be set back at least five feet (5); and, WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow a driveway to have a two (2) foot setback; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's control; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing regarding this request on May 20, 2015; 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. Resolution 1028-15 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 7930 Sunnyside Road, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding setbacks is to create physical separation between driveways for aesthetics and a sense of privacy for the property owners. The new driveway will be in the same location as it has been for over 40 years. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is improving the property. 3. The applicant is requesting this variance because the driveway will run past the house that only has a setback of 13 feet, and in order to have a 11 foot wide drive aisle past the house, the driveway setback will be 2 feet. 4. This property has had a detached garage with the existing driveway location for 40 years. The driveway location was approved when it was installed in 1972, and the applicant wants to be able to maintain a useable driveway width since it runs right next to the house. 5. There will be little change to the existing character of the neighborhood since the driveway will be in the same location. The new driveway will be an improvement to the neighborhood. 6. The 3 -foot variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant's practical difficulty since that is what the zoning code requires for driveway setbacks. 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of James Anderson, owner of 7930 Sunnyside Road, to allow a driveway to have a two (2) foot setback. Adopted this 20th day of May, 2015. ATTEST: Gary Stevenson, Chair James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW 71ty of Mounds View Staff Item No: 5C Meeting Date: May 20 2015 Type of Business: Planning Case To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing - Consideration of a Variance for a Reduced Garage Setback at 8330 Groveland Road; Planning Case VR2015-004 Introduction: The f variance for a reduced The applicants, Michael and Andrea Shoup, are requesting approvaloa garage setback on their property at 8330 Groveland Road. The applicant's purchased this property in August 2014 and a month later the detached garage burned down. The applicants are in the process of building a new detached garage, and would like to rebuild the garage next to the house instead of in the backyard where it was. The proposed detached garage is 24'x 24' with a 5 foot walkway between the house and garage. This proposal would put the garage about 3 feet from the side property line. The Zoning Code requires a 5 foot side and rear setback for accessory buildings, so the applicants have requested a variance for a reduced garage setback. Discusssion: The previous detached garage was in the backyard and there is also an in -ground swimming poo behind the house, which left very little open grass area in the backyard. The applicants are building a new garage and would like to make the property more livable by placing the garage next to the house. This would give the family better access to the garage and open up half of the backyard for grassed play area. They would like to leave a 5 foot walkway between the house and garage so there is enough room to go between the front and back yards. The garage would then have a 3 foot setback from the south property line. The property that is directly adjacent to the new garage is a 1.55 acre City -owned parcel that is almost entirely wetland. 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 requires minimum building setbacks for aesthetics and to provide separation and some sense of privacy between neighbors. Years ago it was common to build a detached garage in the backyard after the home was built. Homes are now builtwith attached garages and open backyards are important spaces for families. The variance will allow the property to become more practical and livable for residents. 8330 Groveland Road Variance Repod May 20, 2015 Page 2 b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, The Comprehensive Plan does not specify setback criteria, but it does support improvements to properties. C. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The applicants are requesting to place the garage next to the house, which is a location that works better for the family, and makes the property more usable and updated. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant detached garage was added in 1973 and the swimming pool was installed in 2000, This house was originally built in 1959 and was placed about 130 feet back from the street. The essentially took up most of the remaining backyard area. which e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant's neighborhood consists of half -acre sized lots, and the applicant's house has wooded area screening the front yard. The new garage will be a nice improvement to the property and would not be very visible from the street. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The 2 -foot variance is the minimum variance needed in order to have a 2 -car garage and a walkway space between the house and garage wide enough to be usable. 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. A wetland buffer permit will be required with the building permit. The Planning Commission may add other conditions as they see applicable. 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 Friday, May 8, 2015. Staff has received one comment in support of the variance request as of May 15, 2015. 8330 Groveland Road Variance Report May 20, 2015 Page 3 Recommendation: After taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission may take any of the following actions below related to the requests. Staff recommends approval of this variance. 1. Approval of the Variance as requested. Staff has prepared Resolution 1029-15 that approves the variance if the Commission chooses this action. 2. Choose to deny the variance. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff would need direction from the Planning Commission to prepare a resolution of denial with findings of fact to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide that there is need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60 -day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, Um� Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Views 3. Site Plan 4. Narrative from applicant 5. Photos 6. Comment from neighbor 7. Resolution 1029-15 Zoning Map S18 94L1 II 8424- 8423 8426 8415 I 840( 8419 84_19 _- _ A 8420 8409 I--,- - 8407 WO 8415 8414 8401/ i0 8384 00S94 8403 8408 8409 8408 39 7 \,837F 8391 I 8406 84018398 ORO LANA �!;1. S80 8387 8391 8388 837: 8382- 8381 8378 373 00174 �836f 8383 8372 8371 8368 jr 8369V°0 8360 368 C - -- 8371 8368 8351 f 834 8365 8354 560 8351 W 8359 � _ 8360 344 8346 8347 _. 34 ---8358 8,341 8343 8342 8335 8334 0 -&3 ._ 8334 - -- --- S36 _e O - 335 8332 8325 8330 O 83 3 3,8330 333 � 8322 s1 831 - d1 6 5 8322 p 832 8325 8300 8311 8308 Y 831 i 02 8297 8298 8301 GROVELAND 98 8289 8280 8285 PARK _-- -- _ 8281 8250 8261 h !70 8265 I 8230 8241 N N 31,1 N - ARDAN t46 O N N N N N N N �, 8724,N I �) N N 4 - _ .. 71 P 8415 8420 11 8415 8401 8406 8405 8389 8400 8379 8379 8380 i 8373 8365 8372 8367 83558368 �I 8359 8345 8364 8345 8340 8331 8335 8325 8312 8315 8315 8300 8303 8305 1 8290 8295 8285 ) 8280 8287 8275 8270 0 8281 _ 8265 ( 8260 a _ - 8273_ 8255 �gy 8250 8267 LO r �I 8240 8261 �n rn N N N N 8230 8255 t�D D R 8220 ?28 to 82458206 N 8210 - 8227 -.- !10 0 8198 8205 N N N ! 8217 y. �20( �. C _ - N 6191 8192 8203/. 8208 DR 00 W IuO r'� -w V- 6175 6160 ao 18000 00 CrN N N 8146 8148 p LAPORT rn 60 -1 1 58 8161 N ON) 8138 C7 ro 004 ao l 0 000 I. _ 8142 567 H� f N ,. -..... ., ...... N N� N N N WOOD PLACE 2863 ®� 8141 0 0 0 0 1 8132 8127 8136 11 1 co � f _ 0 d, `� o �BSQI 811 to LI n rn ) r, rn 1/1 f �LO F aF M * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential 8175 8165 8155 8145 8135 812518' Aerial View Yellow lines outline the new driveway location N Site Plan Narrative from Applicant Application for Variance for 8330 Groveland Road, Mounds View Mn 55112 Property Owners: Andrea & Michael Shoup Description of Proposal: We are seeking to rebuild a detached garage that was lost to a fire in September of 2014. The goal is to rebuild a 24 x 24 detached garage on the south side of the house. Design elements would be consistent with our house, inclusive of a 4/12 pitch, siding to match house and shakes across the front gable. Aerial maps show our lot dimensions to be a 100 feet wide. With 5 foot setbacks from the property line, we would be unable to construct the garage in the remaining space and maintain a 5 foot setback. Therefore, we are seeking a variance to allow us to build with a 3-4 foot setback from our property line, which borders the wetland. A white privacy gate would be installed between the garage and the house, with a 5 foot wide paver walkway installed between garage and house. An existing shed and basketball hoop would be demolished and sod would be laid to the rear of the house where the old garage was. *Rational for Variance Request* Since we have the opportunity to rebuild our garage, we would like to move it forward to be flush with the house in order to allow us to accomplish three things. a. Installation of a privacy fence. We have an in -ground pool in the back yard that upon purchasing the home in August of 2014, was not fully-enclosed/fenced. In order to meet city compliance codes and insurance demands upon moving in, we installed a 4 foot chain link fence that extended from the garage, underneath the deck, and up to our house (6 foot was not an option because it had to fit under our deck). This was the only way to entirely secure the pool, given the current garage/deck/house landscaping structures in place. Moving the garage up would allow us to remove the 4 foot chain link fence and replace it with a 6 foot gate that we feel makes our home and community safer for not only our family, but also for those with children in the neighborhood. We have already discovered that our 4 year old, and neighbor children, can easily scale the 4 foot fence, which doesn't provide for a secure buffer to our pool. b. Turnaround space in driveway. There seems to be a fair amount of traffic on Groveland Road in part due to through traffic from County J and highway 10. In addition, there are frequently pedestrians walking/biking in front of our house. With the previous location of the garage, we had to back our vehicles out of the driveway, which was very difficult due to given the heavy foliage at the end of the driveway due to the wetland and as well as landscaping in our yard. If able to move the garage forward, we would be able to better utilize a parking pad in front of the new garage for a turnaround area. Currently, this space is not easily accessible for a turnaround space because of a shed structure that was placed there by the previous owner (note: this shed is approximately 1 foot from the property line). This shed would be demolished during the rebuild. c. The vast majority of our "backyard" is currently taken up by the previous garage, pool, fire pit, and large shed, all of which were built by the previous owners. Moving the garage up would allow us to have a fenced in back yard for our kids to play safety in, and have enough room to construct a swing set. Currently there isn't enough room to bring in a swing set. Narrative from Applicant Con't 2. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. The variance will allow for us to complete the rebuild process in a way that is increases safety for our community. 3. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Urban Design Goal: "The City will strive to improve the appearance of the community, maintain compatible land uses and encourage a sensitive integration among activities, man-made facilities and the natural environment' We maintain that bringing the garage forward will improve the appearance of our dwelling, and thus the overall feel of our neighborhood/community. We understand that thoughtful consideration must be given to the preservation of natural environments, such as the wetland our home borders. The new garage plan we are proposing in no way compromises the integrity of the wetland and would instead, shift traffic flow to the walkway between our house and garage, away from the wetland. There was no division otherwise between our property and the wetland with the previous garage placement. 4. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. We will use our garage in a reasonable manner. 5. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties In the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the action of the applicant. See Rational for Request. 6. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The character of the neighborhood would remain unchanged as a result of moving the garage forward, but would rather enhance the aesthetics of the property and create a safer community by having our pool fully protected with a privacy fence, as well as increased visibility for driving onto Groveland. 7. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. We've designed the placement of garage to be 3-4 feet from our property line (exact placement will be better determined once shed is removed), which would allow for us to build a standard 24 x 24 garage. Comment from Neighbor From: Cami.Mueller To: Heidi Heller Cc: mueller4dc@)cimail.com Subject: 8330 Groveland Rd public hearing 5/20/15 Date: Friday, May 15, 2015 10:27:34 AM Hi Heidi, As you know, within a few weeks of moving into the neighborhood, our new neighbors at 8330 had a fire which completely destroyed their garage and everything in it. Dan & I are not able to attend the public hearing on May 20th, but wanted you to know we are in complete support of their plans to replace their garage. Please grant the variance Michael & Andrea are seeking. Thanks, Carol A. Mueller Daniel M. Mueller 8343 Groveland Rd MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1029-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A TWO FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY AT 8330 GROVELAND ROAD; PLANNING CASE VR2015-004 WHEREAS, property owners, Michael and Andrea Shoup, have applied for a two foot (2) setback variance to allow a garage and driveway to have a 3 -foot setback from the south property line; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 8330 Groveland Road is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, Subject to Roads and Easements, Except the West 211.60 feet of the South 100 Feet of Lot 43, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN: 06-30-23-21-0058 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, Section 1104.01 Subd. 4a(1) of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that accessory buildings and driveways shall be set back at least five feet (5'); and, WHEREAS, the applicants have applied for a variance to allow a garage and driveway to have a three (3) foot setback; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's control; and, Resolution 1029-15 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing regarding this request on May 20, 2015; 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 practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 8330 Groveland Road, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding setbacks is to create physical separation between garages for safety, aesthetics and a sense of privacy for the property owners. The new garage will not be next any residential properties as it is directly adjacent to a large parcel that is a city -owned wetland area. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is improving the property. 3. The applicant is requesting this variance because the garage will be next to the house, and in order to have a wide enough walkway between the house and garage, the garage setback will be 3 feet. The driveway setback variance is so it will line up with the garage. 4. This property has a very large front setback, and there was very little open grass area in the backyard with the old garage and pool taking up most of the backyard. This variance will make the property more livable. 5. There will be no change to the existing character of the neighborhood since the garage will not be very visible from the street. The new garage will be an improvement to the neighborhood. 6. The 2 foot variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant's practical difficulty since that is what the zoning code requires for garage and driveway setbacks. 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. Resolution 1029-15 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of Michael and Andrea Shoup, owners of 8330 Groveland Road, to allow a garage to have a three (3) foot setback. Adopted this 20th day of May, 2015. Paul Schiltgen, Vice Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 6, 2015 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for May 6, 2015 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Elofson, Kieffer, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Birken. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller, Councilmember Meehlhause. 3. Special Order of Business A. Oath of Office for Commissioner Therese Kieffer Planning Associate Heller administered the Oath of Office to newly appointed Planning Commissioner Therese Kieffer. Index to Minutes Approval of Minutes Page Discuss Proposed Code Amendment for Christmas Tree Sales 2 Discuss Proposed Code Amendment for Temporary Outdoor Food Sales 3 Code Amendment for Religious Institutions Language 4. Approval of Minutes March 18, 2015. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 6, 2015 Page 2 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the Minutes of the March 18, 2015 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 5. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 6. Planning Cases None. 7. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss Proposed Code Amendment for Christmas Tree Sales Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that there has been a Christmas tree sales business operating in Mounds View on commercial properties for many years. Staff recently researched what 12 other metro cities require for Christmas tree sales. All of the cities allow Christmas tree sales and none requires a conditional use permit for this use. All the cities simply require an annual permit or license, and most allow the applications to be approved by city staff (3 cities required the City Council to approve the license or permit). Associate Heller recommends that the City Code be amended to better accommodate Christmas tree sale businesses. Since this is a business that only operates for approximately 30 days each year, staff feels that requiring a conditional use permit is unnecessary. Staff suggests that the City Code be amended to add Christmas Tree Sales as a new business license type to Title 500, Business License Regulations, and simply require an annual business license for this type of business. The City Council will determine what the annual fee should be, but staff suggests it be the same as the 1 -month permit fee for peddlers/transient merchants/solicitors, which is currently $204.00. Staff requested feedback from the Commission on the proposed code amendment. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Love/Commissioner Elofson. To approve Resolution No. 1025-15, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Amendment to Title 500 of the Mounds View City Code to Add Clu•istmas Tree Sales as a New Business License; Special Planning Case No. 196-15. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 6, 2015 Page 3 B. Discuss Proposed Code Amendment for Temporary Outdoor Food Sales Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that a food truck has been operating in Mounds View business parking lots for the last two summers, but they were switching locations every 10 days in order to comply with the zoning code time limit. The county food truck license is applicable for 21 days in the same location so it became confusing for them to comply with both sets of rules and time limits. Currently if a merchant wants to have temporary outdoor sales for more than 10 days, a conditional use permit is required for each location where the sales would occur. Associate Heller recommends that the Zoning Code be amended to better accommodate temporary outdoor food sales, and to be consistent with state and county food truck permit timelines. The food truck has been successful in Mounds View and a code amendment would make it easier for them to operate here. Staff suggests that the code amendment be specific to temporary outdoor food sales rather than any type of sales so that we don't get other types of vendors selling in parking lots for long periods of time. Staff requested feedback from the Commission on the proposed code amendment. Chair Stevenson asked how the food truck was going to not take up parking spaces. Associate Heller reported that parking has not been a concern from the current locations the food truck has chosen to park. She explained that if parking became a concern, staff would address this issue. Commissioner Love questioned how staff counted the consecutive days. Associate Heller indicated the code would allow for outdoor food sales to be located on a site for no more than 21 consecutive days. Commissioner Kieffer discussed the Ramsey County food truck requirements. She questioned if the City should add the Minnesota Department of Health rules and regulations into the City's code. Associate Heller discussed the City's current permitting process and understood that the City does not approve any temporary food sales permits without a valid license from the County Health Department. She commented that the City could make adjustments to the code if concerns were to arise. Chair Stevenson supported the proposed code amendment and believed it was in the City's best interest to regulate temporary outdoor food sales. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Kieffer. To approve Resolution No. 1024-15, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Amendment to Title 1100, Chapter 1112 of the Mounds View Zoning Code to Add Requirements for Temporary Outdoor Food Sales; Special Planning Case No. 195-15. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 C. Code Amendment for Religious Institutions Language May 6, 2015 Page 4 Motion carried. Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that the City Attorney suggested that the City Code be amended to remove language pertaining to religious institutions. In several areas of the Zoning Code where religious institutions are described as a use, the language also includes "such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues." The City Attorney recommends that this list of examples be removed so that the Code isn't inadvertently excluding a type of religious institution that isn't on this list. There are also a couple places in the code where only the word "church" is used, so the amendment also includes changing church to religious institution. Staff requested the Commission review the proposed code amendment. MOTION/SECOND: Chair Stevenson/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution No. 1026-15, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Amendment to Title 1000 and 1100 of the Mounds View City Code to Review Language Pertaining to Religious Institutions; Special Planning Case No. 197-15. Ayes — 6 8. Review Minutes: A. April 15, 2015 Nays — 0 The Commission discussed the April 15, 2015 meeting minutes. 9. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases Motion carried. Planning Associate Heller explained the Commission would be reviewing three variance requests at the May 20th meeting. B. Staff Updates Planning Associate Heller provided the Commission with an update from staff. She discussed the minor changes that were made to the Columbaria code amendment. She reported that the City hired a new Public Works Director and he would begin working on June 1st. The 2015 street improvement project would begin next week. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Council Updates May 6, 2015 Page 5 Councilmember Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He thanked Commissioner Kieffer for her willingness to serve on the Planning Commission. He discussed the goals of the Council for 2015, noting the Police Department's relationship with the community was being addressed by both the City and the County. He reviewed a recent discussion that was held with Community Partners for Youth (CPY). It was noted the Council was discussing the potential of allowing residents to have chickens. He explained the Council was current reviewing the five-year capital improvements plan. He reported that the Council was going to consider City-wide garbage collection. C. Planning Commissioner Reports Commissioner Love wanted to see the City work on enhancing relations between the Police Department and Mounds View residents. She presented the Commission with a handout and discussed the options available from the Topsfreld Organization. She believed that Mounds View would benefit from holding community engagement conversations. She explained that she discussed this matter with Police Chief Kinney and inquired if the Planning Commission was supportive of this program. Planning Associate Heller suggested that this initiative not be solely from the Planning Commission either. She recommended that this be a resident led initiative with the support of the City. Councilmember Meehlhause was in favor of the Mounds View volunteer organization pursuing this initiative further. He suggested Commissioner Love speak further with Assistant City Administrator Crane regarding this initiative. Associate Heller indicated she would email the full document to the Commissioners to review further. The Commissioners could then consider how to move forward and implement the initiative. Chair Stevenson stated the Bel Rae would have a Ribbon Cutting Ceremony on Monday, May I It" at 4:00 p.m. He invited the entire Planning Commission to attend this event. 10. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, May 20, 2015 B. Wednesday, June 3, 2015 Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 11. Adjournment May 6, 2015 Page 6 There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 0 0 0 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 3, 2015 -- 7:00 P.M.. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: May 6, 2015 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2011-002 Variance Extension Request for Reduced Driveway Setbacks Applicant: Mike Kinyon, Kinyon Properties Address: 5338-5340 Raymond Avenue 6. Other Planning Activity None 7. Review Minutes: A. May 20, 2015 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, June 17, 2015 B. Wednesday, July 1, 2015 10. Adjourn M MOVNnS VIEW City of Mounds View Staff Report Item No: 5A Meeting Date: June 3, 2015 Type of Business: Planning Case To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Variance Extension Request for reduced driveway setbacks at 5338-5340 Raymond Avenue; Planning Case VR2011-002 Introduction: In June 2011, property owner, Michael Kinyon, was granted 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 has been 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 is installing new driveways that are wide enough for two cars to park next to each other. Many 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. 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. Mr. Kinyon owns ten of the duplexes on Raymond Avenue and received variances in 1995 and 2008 for reduced driveway setbacks when he added garages to those duplexes on the same block. Discussion: Mr. Kinyon applied for all five properties driveway variances in 2011 because the City was reconstructing Raymond Avenue that year, which included installing new curbs and driveway aprons. Mr. Kinyon knew he would not have all five garages and remodels completed for approximately five years, but wanted 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 was granted 1 -year extensions in 2012, 2013 and 2014, and is now asking for the variance on the last of the properties to be extended for another year. The Planning Commission was supportive of granting the extensions as long as Mr. Kinyon continues to make progress on installing the driveways. He has fully remodeled two of the buildings (including new driveways), installed driveways on a third property in 2012 and has a permit to do another full remodel and driveways this year. That would leave only one of the five properties without the new driveways until 2016. Planning Case VR 11-002 June 3, 2015 Staff Report Page 2 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a one-year extension for the reduced driveway setback variance at 5338-5340 Raymond Avenue. Respectfully Submitted By Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Extension request from applicant 2. Location map 3. Aerial Photo 4. Proposed Site Plan 5. Photographic Documentation 6. Resolution 1030-15 Extension Request from Applicant May 13, 2015 KINYON PROPERTIES 2226 Bevans Circle • Red Wing, MN 55066-3901 Phone & Fax: 651-388-8531 Heidi Heller City of Mounds View 2401 County Road 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 heidi.heller(a)ci.mounds-view.mn.us Ref: Request for an extension on Variance Resolutions 964 & 967-12 dated June 1, 2012 Dear Heidi, In 20111 applied for five set back variances so I could have double aprons installed at the time Raymond Avenue was rebuilt. In 2012, we rehabbed 5344-5346 Raymond including the installation of two 20' wide concrete driveways. We also installed two 20' wide concrete driveways at 5330-5332 Raymond. In 2013, we rehabbed 5372-74 Raymond Av. with concrete driveways. We were unable to do the rehab on 5380-5382 last year, but the contractor has submitted the plans to the city and they have been approved. He plans to pick up the building permit and start work in the next few weeks. Do I need another extension on this building? I am currently working on plans to rehab 5338-5340. If all goes well, that work will probably start in 2016. Hopefully I can have some more time on these two variances. Whatever time extension the Planning Commission can give me would be appreciated. Sincerely yours, Michael Kinyon, Owner Apts\MV\ PC Req, for Var. Ext. 2015-05-13 LOCATION MAP The 5 duplexes that received variances in 2011 are highlighted in red o s n N' `, YR'I 111t 1 WC it.y5 I2 �\ day �Ir 4M L00103 I a ,ma l{4 6>➢P R ia>J '1 3P Imt pN —B9tli4(H CA ssr: Iwo ]92e s3e1 ua ax+ 3w] Ia3 `�i 'Kj0 an si6o s:h usa Mounds View NVI,.]9 YLN I Mobile Home Park Y�L1 3]10 �n 1md 301ti 1031 1]ii @ � ?Sii y11n •. tan 5316 In.a ss3 �I sss] S3s Soy 5316 .4 .1 !'3!C mzt 1 sw wv 55]l �,LS 5�3 IC21 — rao 3A1 53v 533J SiJp nlA w3o x5c mst fit' IatY I In19 � _ _ U}l tiW 513330:A 30]] ' { IO3S IV 16 1� 3niE 20.ti A ffltl 'v]10 1 IOIJ. 16N 1413 1x11 Aerial View of the 5 Raymond Avenue duplexes that were granted variances Site Plan for 5338-5340 Raymond vy l - — �ew ;JA s i3as�n `� garage eoiRlyj 4S w New Driveway �. s�F '�- - it •� 1 w. -. - n# MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1030-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE FOR REDUCED DRIVEWAY SETBACKS AT 5338-5340 RAYMOND AVENUE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. VR2011-002 WHEREAS, Kinyon Properties, represented by Mike Kinyon, applied for a variance to allow for driveways with a one -foot setback from the side property lines of a duplex located at 5338 - 5340 Raymond Avenue; and, WHEREAS, 5338 - 5340 Raymond Avenue is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Norseman 15t Addition, Lot 7, Block 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 08-30-23-14-0007 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 939-11, approving the variance on June 1, 2011, and approved one-year extensions on June 6, 2012, June 5, 2013 and June 4, 2014 and; WHEREAS, the resolution of approval states that if within one year after granting the variance or appeal, the work as permitted by the variance has not been completed, then such variance shall become null and void unless an extension of time has been requested by the applicant and granted by the Planning Commission, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated the new driveways will not be completed within the allowed timeframe and has requested another one-year extension of the variance consistent with the provisions of Resolution 939-11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission approves a one-year extension to complete the driveways. Adopted this 3`d day of June, 2015. Paul Schiltgen, Vice Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 20, 2015 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Planning Associate Heller at 7:00 p.m. for May 20, 2015. IA. Elect Vice Chair Planning Associate Heller requested the Planning Commission elect a Vice Chair for the Planning Commission for 2015. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Love/Commissioner Birken. To elect Paul Schiltgen as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission for 2015. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Birken, Elofson, Kieffer, Love, Rundle, and Schiltgen. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Stevenson. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller and Council Member Gary Meehlhause Index to Minutes Page Elect Vice Chair Approval of Minutes 2 VR2015-002 Variance Request to Allow a Driveway Curb Cut to Exceed 2 24 Feet Wide VR2015-003 Variance Request to Allow a Driveway with a 2 -foot Setback 4 VR2015-004 Variance Request to Allow a Garage with a 3 -foot Setback 4 Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 3. Approval of Minutes April 15, 2015. May 20, 2015 Page 2 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Elofson. To approve the Minutes of the April 15, 2015 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases Motion carried. A. VR2015-002 Variance Request to Allow a Driveway Curb Cut to Exceed 24 Feet Wide Applicant: Robert Horbul Address: 8382 Knollwood Drive Planning Associate Heller indicated the applicant, Robert Horbul, is requesting approval of a variance to allow the driveway curb cut to exceed 24 -feet at his property at 8382 Knollwood Drive. The applicant's entire driveway, including the curb cut, is currently 34 feet wide. This property is on a street that is being reconstructed this year. As the streets have been reconstructed, the City is installing the new curb cut aprons so that they comply with the Zoning Code requirements. The new aprons are installed with a 5 -foot setback and a maximum of 24 feet wide. The applicant's existing concrete driveway was installed 34 feet wide in 1977 when the house was built and has remained this way ever since. It does comply with the required side yard setback. City staff sent the applicant a letter stating that his driveway was non -conforming, and that the new apron would be installed 24 feet wide instead of matching to his existing width. The Zoning Code allows driveway curb cuts for single-family homes to be a maximum of 24 feet wide, so the applicant has requested a variance for a curb cut to exceed the allowed width. Staff discussed the matter further with the Commission and recommended denial of the variance request. Vice Chair Schiltgen opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Robert Horbul, 8382 Knollwood Drive, provided the Planning Commission with a copy of Resolution 6836 from the City of Mounds View, which approved a conditional use permit for his oversized garage. He discussed the size of his garage further along with the items being stored in the garage. He indicated he has several trailers and a fish house stored in his garage. He requested the City allow him to keep his driveway at its existing width. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 20, 2015 Page 3 Comrnissioner Birken explained that Mr. Horbul had a very nice home and she appreciated the fact that Mr. Horbul stored his recreational toys within his oversized garage. She discussed the City's variance law and believed that the request did not meet all of the variance requirements. Mr. Horbul commented that the driveway was original since 1977 and he was simply requesting that the driveway width remain as is. Associate Heller reported that driveway width requirements have always been limited by the City, first to 22 feet and then 24 feet. Commissioner Love believed that the variance criteria were open to interpretation. It was her opinion that traffic safety would not be compromised if the driveway was to remain 34 feet wide. In addition, she thought the driveway width would not negatively impact the aesthetics of the neighborhood. She explained that the unique circumstances could be construed to be the fact that the property owner purchased the home with the existing driveway width and curb cut. Vice Chair Schiltgen understood the safety concerns, but questioned how much traffic was moving along Knollwood Drive. Mr. Horbul discussed the traffic along Knollwood Drive stating the traffic speed was increasing. Commissioner Kieffer questioned the length of Mr. Horbul's driveway. Mr. Horbul was uncertain. Commissioner Birken believed that the variance criteria was not being met in Mr. Horbul's request and explained that all other residents in Mounds View were able to back their trailers and fish houses into their garage with a 24 -foot wide apron. Vice Chair Schiltgen agreed. Mr. Horbul reiterated that he was not asking for anymore apron than he already had. He simply wanted the apron put back to the same condition it was when he purchased his home. George Grone, 8424 Knollwood Drive, did not believe that Mr. Horbul's driveway looked out of place. He recommended that the driveway and apron be allowed to remain as is. Vice Chair Schiltgen closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Elofson/Commissioner Birken. To approve Resolution 1027-15, a Resolution Recommending Denial of a Variance for a Curb Cut to Exceed 24 -Feet Wide at 8382 Knollwood Drive; Planning Case No. VR2015-002. Ayes — 4 Nays — 2 (Kieffer and Love) Motion carried. B. VR2015-003 Variance Request to Allow a Driveway with a 2 -Foot Setback Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Applicant: James Anderson Address: 7930 Sunnyside Road May 20, 2015 Page 4 Planning Associate Heller indicated the applicant, James Anderson, is requesting approval of a variance for a reduced driveway setback on his property at 7930 Sunnyside Road. The applicant's driveway runs next to the house to access the detached garage, which is behind the house. The applicant is replacing the entire driveway and is requesting that it be allowed to stay in the same location, which has a 2 -foot setback. The Zoning Code requires a 5 -foot setback, so the applicant has requested a variance for a reduced driveway setback. Staff discussed the matter further with the Commission and recommended approval of the variance request. Vice Chair Schiltgen opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. James Anderson, 7930 Sunnyside Road, explained he purchased his home from his father. He discussed the driveway improvements he was planning and requested the Commission allow a driveway with a 2 -foot setback. Vice Chair Schiltgen questioned how much space there was between the house and parked cats on the driveway. Mr. Anderson estimated there was about three feet of space. Commissioner Birken supported the request and believed that all variance requirements were being met. Vice Chair Schiltgen closed the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Love. To approve Resolution 1028- 15, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Three -Foot Setback Variance for a Driveway at 7930 Sunnyside Road; Planning Case No. VR2015-003. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. C. VR2015-004 Variance Request to Allow a Garage with a 3 -foot Setback Applicant: Michael and Andrea Shoup Address: 8330 Groveland Road Planning Associate Heller indicated the applicants, Michael and Andrea Shoup, are requesting approval of a variance for a reduced garage setback on their property at 8330 Groveland Road. The applicants purchased this property in August 2014 and a month later the detached garage burned down. The applicants are in the process of building a new detached garage, and would like to rebuild the garage next to the house instead of in the backyard where it was. The proposed detached garage is 24' x 24' with a 5 -foot walkway between the house and garage. This proposal would put the garage about 3 feet from the side property line. The Zoning Code requires a 5 foot side and rear setback for accessory buildings, so the applicants have requested a variance for a Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 20, 2015 Page 5 reduced garage setback. Staff reviewed the matter further with the Commission and recommended approval of the variance request. Vice Chair Schiltgen opened the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. Andrea Shoup, 8330 Groveland Road, thanked the Commission for considering her variance request. Vice Chair Schiltgen closed the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Elofson. To approve Resolution 1029-15, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Two -Foot Setback Variance for a Garage at 8330 Groveland Road; Planning Case No. VR2015-004. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 6. Other Planning Activity None. 7. Review Minutes: A. May 6, 2015 The Commission discussed the January 21, 2015 meeting minutes. 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases, noting the case that would be discussed on June 3rd. She explained that a local church has requested that the recently passed ordinance be amended to allow brick on columbaria and requested feedback from the Commission on this matter. Commissioner Elofson supported this request. Commissioner Rundle feared that brick would not be properly maintained over time and for this reason, he recommended that the ordinance not be changed. Commissioner Birken discussed the tuck pointing that would be required on brick columbaria. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 20, 2015 Page 6 Vice Chair Schiltgen thought that the brick matching the principle structure looked nice but he questioned how the Council felt about having brick on columbaria. Associate Heller explained that the Council had previously supported the Commission's recommendation. The Commission was in favor of keeping the eolumbaria language as is. B. Staff Updates Planning Associate Heller provided the Commission with an update fiom staff. C. Council Updates Councilmember Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update fiom the City Council. D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, June 3, 2015 B. Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chair Schiltgen adjourned the meeting at 8:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. n u 0 0 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 17, 2015 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes May 20, 2015 4, Citizens Requests and Comments RelatingtfulPlanning and me d address ninor g records Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, g You 5. Planning Cases None 6. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss Code Amendment to Allow Additional Exterior Materials on Columbaria at Religious Institutions 7. Review Minutes A. June 3, 2015 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 9, Next Planning Commission Meetings A. Wednesday, July 1, 2015 B. Wednesday, July 15, 2015 10. Adjourn MEWf ds View staff Item 2p15 Meeting pat plannn17Activit Type of Business: ofher — of Moun on the n terials planning Commiss. Associate ernes to Allow Additional a planning prop Heidi Heller' rnendment sous Institution Review COd o umbaria on Religious M, ect: Exterior 0f C gue to .0 TitlelSubl at churches, urns_ Bari needed t0 store ce 899 that allows Colum address laces are a did not ents for tl adopted Ordahan burials, more place City Code uirem Council recen Y cremation ratherCemeteries, an and add somehe exterior of the he City crem allow brick On was passed se in Currently have any cnotally a t° allow The Ordinance to :he large increa s ins Il ds View does not was added to p IOng term• that Is planning (Which is Nloun Ian ssion maintained Church their building,Staff mot columbaria, ,The planning CommmMon it not being Mounds View ainst Pana. brick. The since Iedlto allow brick exteow it is com Colum of Concen t allow eXterior les of how along columbaria ° of that did the end ortive of m with language Ike to put brick on be ae ation and Cooun pf is sup added bronze as would that the ore inform s also bang iven m The City Colum has requested and were g at church bar, Staff has brick, and members columbaria Of Colum With the Church brick on the exteriors the to use matching to allow prick 0n ent relating to an amendment material- code amendm an allowed eXterior m language for a osed endation 1 15 with the prop bar a. ReCom e"I" uti00 103 "eXterior of Colum Review aterial, On the allowed m Sincerely, 1-leidi Associate Heller, Planning columbaria w�•eickh ofcolumbaria.o0m) p hachme, 1. photos of brick on Z Resolution 1031'15 711w AC fv."F11 Wgi F Wgi F Y — .IN WN ONO Ww" `ab }y s: 1 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1031-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 1100, CHAPTER 1106 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL EXTERIOR MATERIALS ON COLUMBARIA AT RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE 193-15 WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that amendments be made to the zoning code relating to materials on the exterior of columbaria; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission agrees with the City Staff recommendation to allow brick and bronze on columbaria on the properties of religious institutions; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Chapter 1106.03 of the Mounds View City Code by deleting the striGken language and adding the underlined text as follows: 1106.03: ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in an R-1 District: Subd. 8. Columbarium as an accessory use to a religious institution; subject to the following conditions: (a) The religious institution must own the property on which the columbarium is placed. (b) The exterior of the columbaria must be solid stone, brick, bronze, stainless steel or aluminum. (c) The combined square footage of all accessory buildings, including columbaria, shall not exceed 1,800 square feet. (d) Columbaria shall only be placed in a side yard or rear yard area. (e) Columbaria shall have a minimum side yard and rear yard setback of five (5') feet. (f) Columbaria height shall not exceed eighteen (18') feet or that of the principal structure, whichever is less. (g) If the religious institution ceases operation, all urns and remains must be removed from the property within three (3) months. Resolution 1031-15 Page 2 WHEREAS, amending the City Code to allow additional materials on the exterior of columbaria at religious institutions would better serve the public; 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 amendments to Chapter 1106.03 of the Mounds View City Code as defined herein. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 17th day of June, 2015, Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 3, 2015 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Schiltgen at 7:00 p.m. for June 3, 2015. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Elofson, Kieffer, Rundle, and Schiltgen. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Birken, Love and Stevenson. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 VR2011-002 Consideration of Variance Extension for Reduced 2 Driveway Setbacks 3. Approval of Minutes May 6, 2015. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Kieffer. To approve the Minutes of the May 6, 2015 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes — 4 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases Mounds View Planning Commission June 3, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 2 A. VR2011-002 Variance Extension for Reduced Driveway Setbacks Applicant: Mike Kinyon, Kinyon Properties Address: 5338-5340 Raymond Avenue Planning Associate Heller indicated in June 2011, property owner, Michael Kinyon, was granted 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 has been adding attached garages to the duplexes, one on each end of the building, along with new wider driveways to replace the existing narrow gravel driveways. The lots are all 100 feet wide so only a single car garage will fit, but the owner is installing new driveways that are wide enough for two cars to park next to each other. Many of the tenants have more than one vehicle, and 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 explained that 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 more than a one car wide driveway to these properties. Mr. Kinyon owns 10 of the 14 duplexes and received variances in 1995 and 2008 for reduced driveway setbacks when he added garages to some of the buildings. She reviewed the request in further detail and recommended the Commission approve a one-year extension for the reduced driveway setback variance at 5338-5340 Raymond Avenue. Commissioner Kieffer questioned if it was possible for the Commission to extend the Variance for more than one year. Associate Heller reported that City Code only allows up to a one-year extension. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Elofson. To approve Resolution 1030-15, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance Extension for Reduced Driveway Setbacks; Planning Case No. VR2011-002. Ayes — 4 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 6. Other Planning Activity None. 7. Review Minutes: A. May 20, 2015 The Commission discussed the May 20, 2015 meeting minutes. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases June 3, 2015 Page 3 Planning Associate Heller stated there are no upcoming planning cases at this time and noted the Commission would be holding the June 17, 2015 meeting to discuss columbaria building materials. B. Staff Updates Planning Associate Heller provided the Commission with an update from staff. C. Council Updates Councilmember Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, June 17, 2015 B. Wednesday, July 1, 2015 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chair Schiltgen adjourned the meeting at 7:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. E n E �J n U L MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA August 5, 2015 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes June 3, 2015 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases None 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review Planning Commissioner Applications 7. Review Minutes A. June 17, 2015 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings A. Wednesday, August 19, 2015 B. Wednesday, September 2, 2015 10. Adjourn u • r of Mounds View Staff Item No: 6A Meeting Date: August 5 2015 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Review Applications for Planning Commission Vacancy Commissioner Jessica Birken is resigning from the Planning Commission. The remaining time of Jessica's three year term needs to be filled. The City advertised the vacancy, with applications due on July 31, 2015. Staff received two applications. The Planning Commission should review the applications and meet the candidates who have been invited to the meeting. A ballot vote will be conducted and the results of the vote will be the recommendation that the Planning Commission submits to the City Council, who could make an official appointment on August 10, 2015. Sincerely, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachment: 1. Application from Justin Klander 2. Application from Gary Quick 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: Full Name (Please Print): Work Phone: w 5 - S 5>7 -7Y 9 Work/Cell Phone: �301"e Address: P5S'Y eS <hlZ�- ,i/CDce vats Ui'Et-j Years at this address: O Years you have lived in Mounds View: E-mail Address: b4i/Icle✓ra) t � 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: Signare: �L/ " "✓ `— Date: d-7 (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 shall have access to its programs, facilities and employment without regard for race, ethnicity, sex, age or physical abilities. Experience and Qualifications Skills and Interests: Policy development and analysis; State and federal legislative advocacy; Marketing and public relations; Conflict resolution and mediation; Financial planning and management Employment, Occupation or Other Relevant Experience: Advancement Officer, Bemidji State University Foundation, March 2015 — Current Executive Director, MN State College Student Association, September 2005 — March 2015 Northeast Regional Business and Marketing Representative, MN Department of Employment and Economic Development, June 2001 — August 2005 Memberships, Accomplishments or Other Qualifications: Past civic engagement: Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Foundation Board; Bemidji State University Alumni Association Board; Economic Development of Minnesota; Rotary Club International Please state your reason for wanting to serve this group: I've been looking at opportunities to become more involved in our city over the past few years and I feel the Planning Commission will be a good fit for my interests, skills, and experience. As a Commissioner, 1 will use my policy development and analysis experience to assist in advising the City Council on important issues and requests from residents. I have facilitated many public forums and discussions on contentious issues and enjoyed the challenge of creating a welcoming environment that allowed individuals to feel heard. I am particularly eager to work with the City's Comprehensive Plan and assist in shaping the future of Mounds View. Over my past 8 years as a resident I have found our city to be a welcoming, responsive, and safe community. I look forward to building upon this strong foundation as we look and plan for the future. 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: Full Name (Please Print) 5 Work Phonel Work/ el, hone: J � Address: k33� ��C7 �e� Y I I,Gkt ✓S r )� Years at this address: Years you have lived in Mounds View: E-mail Address: Skills and Interests: Experience and Qualifications Employment, Occupation or Other Relevant Experience: Memberships, Accomplishments or OtherQualifications: In v d ��,d �c'w�i�� Z C ov � GZvwc�, j Please state your reason for wanting to serve with this group: V'�K�"�`�O �-e%E r/✓1/'A-1'v�-`�-7t1 ,Q.o'-vbwu_� � � �u-c,��' �—' Signature: Date: (Your response to ahy 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 shall have access to its programs, facilities and employment without regard ferrate, ethnicity, sex, age or physical abilities. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 17, 2015 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for June 17, 2015. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Birken, Elofson, Kieffer, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 Discuss Code Amendment to Allow Additional Exterior Materials on 2 Columbaria at Religious Institutions 3. Approval of Minutes May 20, 2015. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Birken. To approve the Minutes of the May 20, 2015 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. 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 None. 6. Other Planning Activity June 17, 2015 Page 2 A. Discuss Code Amendment to Allow Additional Exterior Materials on Columbaria at Religious Institutions Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that the City Council recently adopted Ordinance 899 that allows columbaria at churches. Due to the large increase in cremations rather than burials, more places are needed to store urns. Mounds View does not currently have any cemeteries, and the City Code did not address columbaria, so language was added to specifically allow and add some requirements for columbaria. The Planning Commission did not want to allow brick on the exterior of the columbaria out of concern for it not being maintained long- term. The ordinance was passed with language that did not allow brick. The Mounds View church that is planning to install columbaria would like to put brick on the exterior since it will be against their building, which is brick, and has requested that the ordinance be amended to allow brick exteriors. Staff met with the church members and were given more information and examples of how it is common to use matching brick on the columbaria at churches. The City Council is supportive of making an amendment to allow brick on the exteriors of columbaria. Staff has also added bronze as an allowed exterior material. She requested the Council adopt a Resolution approving the proposed Code amendments. Commissioner Elofson feared that the use of precious metals on the columbaria would increase vandalism. Associate Heller did not believe this would be a concern as the bronze would be part of the columbaria construction and not something that could be easily removed. Commissioner Love asked if churches on corner lots would have a difficult time locating a columbaria on their site. Associate Heller discussed how setbacks within the code would allow for columbaria to be located only in rear or side yards. She explained that churches on corner lots would have to request a variance. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 17, 2015 Page 3 Chair Stevenson was inclined to leave the staff recommended language as is. He did not want to see columbaria at the front of churches along streets and roadways. If there was a problem with placing the columbaria, the code could always be amended again. Commissioner Birken asked if the columbaria would be considered an accessory structure. Associate Heller stated this was the case. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Elofson. To approve Resolution 1031-15, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Amendment to Title 1100, Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code to Allow Additional Exterior Materials on Columbaria at Religious Institutions; Special Planning Case No. 193-15. Ayes — 7 Review Minutes: A. June 3, 2015 Nays — 0 Motion carried. The Commission discussed the June 3, 2015 meeting minutes. No changes were made. 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases. It was noted the July 1, 2015 Planning Commission meeting may be cancelled. B. Staff Updates Planning Associate Heller provided the Commission with an update fiom staff. She stated Bel Rae Senior Living would be holding an Open House on Saturday, June 20th from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. C. Council Updates Planning Associate Heller provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, July 1, 2015 B. Wednesday, July 15, 2015 10. Adjournment June 17, 2015 Page 4 There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA August 19, 2015 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business /GW 67f - Ii;IFaTt*[ • 1u•g T 4. Approval of Minutes June 17, 2015 5. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 6. Planning Cases A. VR2015-006 Variance to Allow a 6 -foot Fence in a Front Yard Applicant: Bobby & Kara Dahlberg Address: 5107 Greenwood Drive B. CU2015-001 Conditional Use Permit for a 1,176 Square Foot Oversize Garage VR2015-005 Variance for a Garage that Exceeds 35 Feet Wide Applicant: Curt Olson Address: 5405 Quincy Street 7. Other Planning Activity A. None 8. Review Minutes A. August 5, 2015 9. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 10. Next Planning Commission Meetings i A. Wednesday, September 2, 2015 B. Wednesday, September 16, 2015 11. Adjourn i1 MouivnS VIEW City of Mounds View Staff Item No: 6A Meeting Date: August 19, 2015 Type of Business: Planning Case To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of a Variance to Allow a Six -Foot Tall Fence in the Front Yard of 5107 Greenwood Drive; Planning Case VR2015-006 Introduction: The applicants, Bobby and Kara Dahlberg, are requesting a variance to install a 6 -foot tall fence in the "second front yard" of their corner lot located at 5107 Greenwood Drive. The property is located at the northwest corner of Greenwood Drive and Woodcrest Drive. Since two streets border corner lots, they have two front yards. As such, the City Code requirement for front yard applies to two sides of the property, which means that corner lots to have additional limitations. The Zoning Code indicates that no fence in front of the front line of a building in a residential district may exceed four feet in height. The applicants recently purchased this house and would prefer to have a 6 -foot tall wood fence for screening and safety for their kids and pets from Woodcrest Drive, and thus has applied for the variance. Discussion: According to the Municipal Code, Section 1103.08, Subdivision 3, fences of a height greater than 48 inches (4 feet) are not allowed in the front yard of a property without a variance. The Zoning Code also establishes a sight triangle that limits all obstructions within the area at the corner of intersections, measured thirty (30) feet from the point where the property lines meet at the intersection of two streets. The proposed fence would not be located within the sight triangle. Variance Considerations: For the City to approve this variance, as with any variance request, there needs to be demonstrated practical difficulty associated with the propertythat makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. The City has set these criteria 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 and a staff comment about each are as follows: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. The property at 5107 Greenwood Drive is a corner lot, which is not in itself unique; however, the applicant seeks permission to have a 6 -foot tall fence for the purpose of privacy and screening from busy Woodcrest Drive. Woodcrest is the only through east - west street for this large residential area of the City and has quite a bit of traffic, particularly during morning and evening rush hour times as motorists use it to avoid the busier county roads. The taller fence would provide privacy and security for this property. 5107 Greenwood Variance Report August 19, 2015 Page 2 b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, The Comprehensive Plan supports improvements to properties. The applicant, owning a corner lot, is at a disadvantage to improve the property as other homeowners might because the property has two front yards. Every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and livability of their property. C. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The applicant cannot control the fact that their property is a corner lot with two front setbacks. The corner lots are much more restricted by the City Code and many times the resident's use and privacy of the property is limited because of these restrictions. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that most property owners do not have to work with these setback constraints. The City has approved similar variances for taller fences in front yard areas of corner lots that are along busier streets. When the applicant's house was built, the builder placed it close to the north end of the property in order to give more separation from County Road H. The house has a 15 foot side setback on the north side and approximately a 65 foot setback from the south property line. A big portion of this home's backyard is considered the front yard according to the City Code. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed fence will be setback about 16 feet from the edge of the Woodcrest pavement so it should not impact sight lines, include the view for vehicles going south from Greenwood Drive and turning onto Woodcrest. There are other homes in the neighborhood that have been granted variances for 6 -foot tall fences in their front yards due to how busy a few of the streets are. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The two foot variance is the minimum variance needed since the Zoning Code limits front yard fence heights to four feet. 5107 Greenwood Variance Report August 19, 2015 Page 3 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 otherproperties in the neighborhood, and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Staff does not have any suggested conditions. Based upon the review of the above criteria, it appears to staff that the requested variance does satisfy the practical difficulty threshold. Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, a public hearing is required. City staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of 5107 Greenwood Drive. On August 7, 2015, Staff talked to Bob Everett at 2600 Woodcrest who said he was in favor of this request. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and any neighbors, the Commission should take one of the following actions: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 1034-15 is attached for the Commission's approval if they so choose. 2. Deny the requested variance. To move forward with this option, the Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If the Commission needs more information before making a decision or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can table the request until they are provided such information. Respectfully submitted, UVIXULL-, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photo 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Corner Lot Fence Diagram 5. Resolution 1034-15 ZONING MAP County Road H2 7295 B-1 ze s 51 51 5 719 5 R-4 51 � 1 5159 PARK _—_------__-_ ---- - —{ County Road H 5093 5071 5069 5067 52 52 5: 5046 505 5046 of I ry 1 n n 506 5030 5031 L Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential n daa io a a♦ w a.r♦ n ry N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 5093 5071 5069 5067 52 52 5: 5046 505 5046 of I ry 1 n n 506 5030 5031 L Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View Per City Code- only the RED line area can have a fence more than 4 -feet tall without a variance. The YELLOW lines are where the applicant is requesting a variance to install a 6 -foot tall privacy fence. 11 Aerial View 4mmN I Woodcrest Drive Graanwnnd nrive City Code Permitted Fence Location for Corner Lots r------------------------ ........................ Fence Heights: ----- 8'orless " NOTES: ........................ 4' or less (See 1 — 3 above) Chain Link Garage Front Line of House 111--�Front Only chain link fences 4' tall or less are Line of House allowed within 30' of a property corner \ r' formed by two street right of ways. �y Street Frontage 30' 'I k, m t6 C O LL a> W .b U) 30' a S�"Jl F C 4W �3 p f 'a 1� I Y� IJ li a MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1034-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A SIX-FOOT TALL FENCE IN THE SOUTH FRONT YARD OF 5107 GREENWOOD DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2015-006 WHEREAS, the applicants, Bobby & Kara Dahlberg, have applied for a variance to allow a six-foot tall fence in the south front yard of their property at 5107 Greenwood Drive; and, WHEREAS, 5107 Greenwood Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as follows: Lot 6, Block 2, Clint's Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota 07-30-23-44-0018 WHEREAS, Section 1103.08 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the maximum height of a fence in a front yard four feet (4'); and, WHEREAS, the applicants have applied for a variance to allow a six foot (6) fence in the front yard abutting Woodcrest Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents about this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photo 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 public hearing on Wednesday, September 18, 2013, about this variance request; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria that must be satisfied in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings related to this request: Resolution 1034-15 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 5107 Greenwood Drive, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding limited fence heights in front yards is to not close off the front of the property from the visual openness of the street, but yet still allow a fence for safety and some sense of privacy for the property owners. This becomes difficult is on corner lots, particularly lots that front a busy street, where the property owners really want the privacy due to the high traffic along one of their front yards. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is improving the property. 3. The applicant is requesting this variance because the front yard height limitations would preclude having a fence tall enough to provide security, screening and buffering from busy Woodcrest Drive. 4. The unique feature of this property is that it is a corner lot which creates two front yards, and the house was built close to the north side of the lot so the south front yard is large. 5. There are other properties in the neighborhood that have a 6 -foot tall fence in the front yard and have not changed the existing neighborhood character or caused visibility problems for traffic. 6. The 2 -foot variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant's practical difficulty since the Zoning Code limits front yard fence heights to four feet. 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, does hereby approve the variance request for a six-foot tall fence in the south front yard of 5107 Greenwood Drive. Adopted this 1 gch day of August, 2015. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MO= �mS Z TT��T Item , 2 6B lJ1ViJ �/iL.�V Meeting Date: August 19, 2015 Type of Business: Planning Case City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for an Oversized Garage at 5405 Quincy Street; Planning Cases CU2015-001 and VR2015-005 Introduction: The applicant, property owner Curt Olson, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit and variance to construct an oversize attached garage on his property at 5405 Quincy Street. The applicant is going to demolish the existing damaged 22' x 22' (484 square feet) detached garage and build a new 28'x 42' detached garage (1,176 square feet) in the same location. The applicant has submitted plans for a garage larger and wider than what the City Code allows as a permitted use. The City limits the size of accessory buildings, whether attached or detached from the house, to a maximum of 952 square feet. Any building larger than 952 square feet must get City approval of a conditional use permit. The garage the applicant is proposing would be 1,176 square feet. The Code also limits the width of garages that exceed 952 square feet to no more than 35 feet. The proposed garage would be 42 feet wide. Requirements: Section 1106.03, Subd. 1: This part of the Code limits the height of an accessory building, the number of accessory buildings, the backyard coverage ratio of accessory buildings and specifies roof style and pitch. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for garages exceeding 952 square feet. Section 1106.04, Subd. 6: This part of the Code enumerates the conditions for garages exceeding 952 square feet. The garage must be permanent, be uniform in appearance with the home, not exceed 35 feet in width, and not exceed 1,800 square feet of total accessory building area on the lot. Section 1125.01, Subd. 1: The Planning Commission is required to review the possible adverse effects of the requested conditional use. Discussion: The request fora Conditional Use Permit to construct the 1,176 square foot garage satisfies the requirements as stated in Section 1106.03 and 1106.04, Subdivision 6 of the Mounds View Zoning Code. The proposed garage would meet all City setback, height and accessory building coverage requirements. The applicants' property is 0.29 acres (75'x 188'). The City Code limits backyard building coverage to 20% of the yard area. The new garage would cover approximately 12.5% of the backyard area. 5405 Quincy Street CUP & VR Request August 19, 2015 Page 2 The City Code also specifies that the roof for all accessory buildings exceeding 250 square feet, shall match or be similar to the character and style of the roof of the principal structure, and have a pitch or slope of at least 2-12, but no steeper than 12-12. CUP Considerations: Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address any potential adverse effects of a conditional use that include, but are not limited to, the 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 addressed each of these potential adverse effects below. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as low-density residential, as well as the surrounding area. The Comp Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. With this project, the applicant would be creating more garage space for storage. Such additional storage would be a benefit to the property and to the neighborhood. The Geographical Area Involved. The applicants' home is located on the corner of Quincy Street and Bronson Drive, in a single-family residential neighborhood with a lot of trees. The house faces Quincy Street, but the garage accesses Bronson Drive. Depreciation. The proposed garage would benefit the subject property both in a practical sense by providing additional on site, indoor parking and storage, as well as in an economic sense, as the addition would increase the "value" of the property. Increased property values are a benefit to everyone. The Character of the Surrounding Area. The applicants neighborhood is entirely single-family residential. The homes in this area are a variety of styles with a lot of wooded areas, and the lot sizes vary. Because of the layout of the property and the garage facing the wide side of the lot, the new garage would be 42 feet wide facing the street and 28 feet deep. This isn't a typical layout of garages, but it doesn't seem that it would be out of place. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant is proposing a 1,176 square foot garage that would allow for more indoor storage, along with vehicle parking. Variance Discusssion The applicant's property is a corner lot that is 75' x 188'. The Zoning Code requires corner lot dimensions to be a minimum of 100'x 100' so this is a non -conforming lot. The garage has to be placed on the lot accessing the side street, Bronson Drive, because the lot isn't wide enough for a garage and the house to face Quincy Street. Most oversize garages could be placed on the lot with the narrower side as the front, but since this lot is only 75 feet wide, there isn't enough room for the garage to meet the front and rear setbacks if it were placed with the 28 foot side as the front (facing Bronson). 5405 Quincy Street CUP & VR Request August 19, 2015 Page 3 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 has a maximum width for oversize garages (over 952 square feet) for aesthetics, but does not have a width limit for garages that are less than 952 square feet. The property owner would place the garage with the narrower side as the front if it would fit on the lot. b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not specify criteria for building size or aesthetics, but it does support improvements to properties. C. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The property owner must replace the damaged garage, and needs more garage space to park vehicles and for storage. The garage itself is allowed as a conditional use, it only has to be turned sideways in order to meet setback requirements. 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. Typically a large garage will always be placed on the lot with the narrower side as the front. Since this is a corner lot, and it does not meet the required minimum dimensions of at least 100 feet by 100 feet, it makes it difficult to place accessory structures on the property and meet all City Code requirements. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood The applicant's neighborhood consists of a variety of lot sizes and is quite wooded. The new garage will be wider facing Bronson Drive than the existing garage, and only a few feet of the garage will be visible from the Quincy Street side. 5405 Quincy Street CUP & VR Request August 19, 2015 Page 4 f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The 7 foot variance is the minimum variance needed since the Zoning Code limits oversize garage width to 35 feet. 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. Staff has no suggestions for conditions for the variance request. The Planning Commission may add conditions as they see applicable. 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. Staff received a phone call on August 7, 2015 from the property owners at 2210 Bronson Drive who stated that they were in support of this new garage. Recommendation: After taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission may take any of the following actions below related to the requests. Staff recommends approval of this conditional use permit and variance. 1. Recommend approval of the CUP as requested. Staff has prepared Resolution 1032-15 that approves the conditional use permit if the Commission chooses this action. 2. Approval of the Variance as requested. Staff has prepared Resolution 1033-15 that approves the variance if the Commission chooses this action. 3. Choose to deny the conditional use permit or variance. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff would need direction from the Planning Commission to prepare a resolution of denial with findings of fact to support the denial. 4. Table one or both of the requests. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide that there is need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60 -day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. 5405 Quincy Street CUP & VR Request August 19, 2015 Page 5 Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Views 3. Photos 4. Resolution 1032-15 (Conditional Use Permit) 5. Resolution 1033-15 (Variance) 3 Zoning Map 1 to N N N County Road I N 5511 5512 5511 N 5472 5503 OW 5504 5505 5499 PINEWOOD 4 1 5493 5494 5493 SCHOOL 479 5485 5486 5485 550D L . R-2 473 5475 5478 54751 LLI 467 5464 5467 H 5463 6466 Q 463 .. 5459 455 5456 44 _nth s ,A 5453 � 5447 543 ��� S �`� 5447 W 5441 S AAs 5439 M M Z . 433 5433 N N N N N N M N 5425 542A?� 5419 ^ N N N N 5415 5414 r i r7 N" 0 5413 0 v 10 N 5405 5406 N N N N N5405 N N N N N N Bronson I D—RlW— 5480 5 5474 5 5468 5 5462 5 5454 5 5446 O O 5440 10 5434 5 5426 N 5420 5421 5414 NN 5406 N �- M- 000 N 10 O N N O O 10 N N NN N NN N N N46 0 00 N N 5377 5366 5357 5.354 L N N N N N N CNV N N N N N� C.�N N N N N 53z4LAMBERT N N N N N N N N N PARK N W Lo n N 2 (n N N N N N ' 0" ON N N N aN N N MN I N 1 N 5386 538' 5380 537'. 5372 537 5364 536. 5358 535' 5352 535 X32 z 5324 532 531 5316 531 530 U 5308 530 <n 0 Z D O M R-5 * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential ROD r ^+ sx K � a STOPAA 4T• �� ot �.Rn@ F i kb: i�iiJ 6 r I r t 1p��.— VII y= �� ot �.Rn@ F i kb: i�iiJ 6 r I r t 1p��.— VII Ai v 7,. ��v7w ,ytC .'�4+�' �` °yy �CIi •.t nPti �' / : Y� + Yy v F ,:�, r �, uti � � � � � '.s v r' i" y4z7r • ++ ;ri � . i - "Nr cq L" �d TM t - � ''�y •''^ �, z '' _ r ., :. a �. 1 a J+ r MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION i RESOLUTION NO. 1032-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A 1,176 SQUARE -FOOT GARAGE AT 5405 QUINCY STREET; PLANNING CASE CU2015-001 WHEREAS, property owner, Curt Olson, has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,176 square foot garage; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 5405 Quincy Street, is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: South 75 Feet of Lot 12, Block 1, Spring Lake Park Highlands, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN: 08-30-23-12-0016 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,800 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the proposed garage would be 1,176 square feet, thus requiring City approval of a conditional use permit; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Site plan 4. Photographic documentation 5. Staff Report 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 oversized 1,176 square foot garage satisfies the zoning requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code. 2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. Resolution 1032-15 Page 2 3. The proposed garage would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved. 4. The proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood. 5. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed oversized garage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the 1,176 square foot garage, with conditions as follows: 1. The garage shall not be used for commercial purposes, living space or other uses not allowed within the R-1 Single -Family Residential district or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted; the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. 2. The new garage shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the existing house. 3. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) shall become null and void if the work for which the CUP was granted is not completed within one year from the date of approval unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the City Council. 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 19th day of August, 2015. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1033-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A SEVEN (7) FOOT GARAGE WIDTH VARIANCE FOR AN OVERSIZE GARAGE AT 5405 QUINCY STREET; PLANNING CASE VR2015-005 WHEREAS, property owner Curt Olson, has applied for a seven (7) foot oversize garage width variance to allow the garage to be 42 feet wide; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 5405 Quincy Street is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: South 75 Feet of Lot 12, Block 1, Spring Lake Park Highlands, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN: 08-30-23-12-0016 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, Section 1106.04 Subd. 6d of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that for accessory buildings exceeding 952 square feet, the width of the building cannot exceed 35 feet; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow a 1,176 square foot garage to be 42 feet wide; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's control; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing regarding this request on August 19, 2015; 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. Resolution 1033-15 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds thereto be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 5405 Quincy Street, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding garage width for oversize garages is for aesthetics in order to minimize the amount of the building visible, and to keep the look of the garage from the street as normal size as possible. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is improving the property and adding more indoor storage. The applicant is requesting this variance because the property is a corner lot that does not meet the minimum 100 foot x 100 foot dimensions. The lot is only 75 feet wide and a garage must access the side street and must be placed with the wider side as the front since the lot isn't deep enough for a longer garage to meet setbacks. 4. The unique feature of this property is that it is a corner lot that is narrower than the City Code requires, which only allows an oversize garage to be placed with the wider side as the front. 5. There will be little change to the existing character of the neighborhood since the rear of the lot has large trees which will help screen the garage. 6. The 7 -foot variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant's practical difficulty since that is what the zoning code limits for garage widths. 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of Curt Olson, property owner of 5405 Quincy Street, to allow a 42 -foot wide oversize garage. Adopted this 19th day of August, 2015. Gary Stevenson, Chair James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting August 5, 2015 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for August 5, 2015. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Birken, Kieffer, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Elofson. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 Review Planning Commissioner Applications 2 3. Approval of Minutes June 3, 2015. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Birken/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the Minutes of the June 3, 2015 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. Mounds View Planning Commission August 5, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 2 5. Planning Cases None. 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review Planning Commissioner Applications Planning Associate Heller reported Commissioner Jessica Birken is resigning from the Planning Commission. The remaining time of Jessica's three-year term needs to be filled. The City advertised the vacancy, with applications due on July 31, 2015. Staff received two applications, one from Justin Klander and the other from Gary Quick. She requested the Commission review the applications and conduct a ballot vote. She reported the results of the vote will be the recommendation that the Planning Commission submits to the City Council, who could make an official appointment on August 10, 2015 After completing the ballot vote there was a tie. Chair Stevenson suggested that this recommendation be passed along to the City Council as is given the fact the final decision remained with the Council. Commissioner Birken suggested staff to speak with the candidates encouraging each to attend the next City Council meeting. Review Minutes: A. June 17, 2015 The Commission discussed the June 17, 2015 meeting minutes. No changes were made. 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases. B. Staff Updates Planning Associate Heller provided the Commission with an update from staff. She noted the Festival in the Park would be held on Saturday, August 22 d. She reported that the BioLife building was now complete. She explained that chickens and ducks were now allowed in the Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 5, 2015 Page 3 City of Mounds View and discussed the City's new annual licensing procedure. She provided comment on a recent apartment tour the Council, Commission members and staff took. Commissioner Schiltgen explained he also attended the tour. Chair Stevenson stated that the biggest concern for the Crossroad Pointe property was how to address underground parking. Further discussion ensued regarding the tour along with the 5 Central apartment complex in Osseo, Minnesota. Commissioner Love was in favor of having some retail mixed into the Crossroad Pointe site. She was impressed by the 5 Central property in Osseo. C. Council Updates Planning Associate Heller provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. She discussed the preliminary plans for County Road H and TCAAP. She reported the County Road H bridge over I -35W would be reconstructed to manage the higher level of traffic. D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, August 19, 2015 B. Wednesday, September 2, 2015 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther, TimeSaver Off'Site Secretarial, Inc. 0 0 0 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA September 2, 2015 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business A. Oath of Office for Commissioner Justin Klander 4. Approval of Minutes August 5, 2015 5. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 6. Planning Cases A. VR2015-007 Variance to Allow a 4 -foot Encroachment into the Front Yard Applicant: Jerome Buchanan Address: 5231 Irondale Road 7. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss a Code Amendment to Allow Fences Taller Than 4 -Feet in Front Yards of Corner Lots 8. Review Minutes A. August 19, 2015 9. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 10. Next Planning Commission Meetings A. Wednesday, September 16, 2015 B. Wednesday, October 7, 2015 11. Adjourn Item No: 6A MOT TA DS VI_Aj Meeting Date: September 2, 2015 v� ��J L Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing –Consideration of a Variance to Allow a Reduced Front Yard Setback for a Roof Extension at 5231 Irondale Road; Planning Case VR2015-007 Introduction: Jerome Buchanan, property owner of 5231 Irondale Road, has requested a variance to construct a roof extension off the front of his home to cover the front steps four feet closer to the street than the existing building. All of the homes fronting Irondale Road on this block are set back the same distance -30 feet from the property line. The variance requested is to encroach four feet into the front setback. Discussion: Setback requirements are addressed in Section 1104.01 of the Zoning Code. Each zoning district is listed with the corresponding front, side and rear setbacks. In an R-1, Single Family Residential district, the typical setbacks are as follows: Front, 30 feet; Side, 10 feet; and Rear, 30 feet. It is noted that sheds and garages, attached or detached, can have side and rear setbacks of 5 feet. The applicant wants to build a 12 -foot wide by 4 -feet deep roof to cover the front steps. A front stoop or deck is considered an allowable encroachment into a front setback, provided it does not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure. The steps extend four feet into the front yard. Awnings, eves and other roof extensions are also allowed as an encroachment, however they are limited to no more than a two -foot encroachment. Thus, the variance of an additional two feet is requested. Variance Considerations: For the City to approve this variance, as with any variance request, there needs to be 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 (the Planning Commission) review a set of specified criteria foreach application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. The City has set these criteria 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 and a staff comment about each are as follows: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. The property at 5231 Irondale Road is a minimum size lot, and the applicantwould like to add a 4 -foot roof extension to cover the front entry for the purpose of protecting the doorway from weather and eliminating the water, and ultimately ice, that comes off the roof and builds up on the front steps. The property owner is limited, however, in that their home and the homes adjacent to them were constructed at the minimum 30 -foot setback. 5239 Irondale Variance Repod September 2, 2015 Page 2 b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan supports improvements to properties. The applicant, owning a smaller lot, is at a disadvantage to improve the property as other homeowners might because the house was placed with the minimum front setback. Every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and livability of their property. C. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The applicant only wants to improve the look of the house and to stop the water and ice from pouring onto the front steps which causes safety issues. Because of the smaller lot and minimum setback, expansion and reinvestment becomes more of a challenge. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The circumstances are not a result of actions by the property owner. The house is a rambler style and the front half of the roofline slopes towards the front yard, so all the water and snow runs off the roof right in front of the front door and onto the steps. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that many property owners do not have to work with these setback constraints. The City has approved similar variances to allow roof extensions for covered front stoops to encroach into front setbacks. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed roof extension should add curb appeal to the house, which would benefit the neighborhood. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The two -foot variance is the minimum variance needed since the Zoning Code minimum front setback is 30 feet and allows only a two -foot encroachment. Anything less than a 4 -foot roof extension will not keep the water and ice completely off of the front steps. 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 otherproperties in the neighborhood, and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Staff suggests that a condition be added to give a deadline for the completion of this project, such as 1 -year from the date of permit issuance. There have been concerns from neighbors that exterior construction projects on this property are not completed in a timely manner. 5231 Irondale Variance Report September 2, 2015 Page 3 Based upon the review of the above criteria, it appears to staff that the requested variance does satisfy the practical difficulty threshold. Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, a public hearing is required. City staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of 5231 Irondale Road. Staff has received two emails from neighbors stating that they are in favor of improvements to the property and have no issues with the requested roof extension, but are concerned with how long exterior projects at this property are left uncompleted, and the condition of the yard. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the property owner and affected neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 1035-15 is attached for the Commission's approval if that is the chosen course of action. 2. Deny the requested variance. To move forward with this option, the Commission should direct staff 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 however to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully Submitted By, WYJ1&4--, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photo 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Site Plan 5. Photo of an Example of the Proposed Roof Extension 6. Proposed Site Plan 7. Public Hearing Comments Received by Email 8. Resolution 1035-15 Zoning Map 51 5121 5091 508 507 508 Z 5081 O 505 505 5092 N N 5093 N 508 5071 5069 5067 5074 5084 5060 50S 74 N !!2 N S M N N N 5048 I , loip L Al v .- r Y, ¢Y � IF i Looking south across the front house line 17h n The 4 -foot roof extension wrap �o _ would cover the front steps w m that protrude 4 feet out from the house T„ The 4 -foot roof extension would cover the front steps that protrude 4 feet out from the house Looking north across the front house line y fry �J Rte; �ow w� "rr Proposed Site Plan T �ry i Public Hearing Comments Received by Email COMMENT #1 1 Hi Heidi, We received the Notice of Public Hearing regarding the property at 5231 Irondale Road, reference wanting to build a 12' wide X 4' deep roof over the front steps of the residence. I have some questions and wondered if you can answer them for me. Will the structure over the front steps of the residence be a pitched structure? Will it be equally proportioned over the door/step area? Will there be a timeframe to complete the structure? And what is that? This residence currently has a unfinished attached garage, unfinished roof/siding on the attached garage — which has been sitting this way for almost two years. I understand whatever permit he originally had has now expired. One contractor has quit working for the owner of 5231 Irondale Rd. And currently it doesn't look like there is any contractor involved. My concern is that any future projects approved by the City of Mounds View for 5231 will also never be finished. For 20 years the owner of 5231 has not completed any work to completion on that house. This house has become an "eye sore'. When it rains the owner puts 4 X 8 sheets of plywood up against the front of his house so water does not get into the basement. The landscaping in the front of the house is well below grade which causes water to leak in the basement. The owner has also been spraying "roundup" on the grass areas alongside his garage. So now there is nothing there but awful looking soil that is saturated with the chemical "roundup". We don't want to continue to have this house under construction and never finished, it makes the whole neighborhood look bad. I am unable to attend the hearing but would appreciate any information you would be able to provide me. Thanks. COMMENT #2 Hello Heidi and the Mounds View Planning Commission, I hope this email finds you well. I received the Public Hearing notice of the variance request for 5231 Irondale Road regarding reduced front yard setback so a roof can be added over the front steps. First, we are thrilled that Mr. Buchanan wants to make improvements to his home. The addition of the roof line will add significant "curb appeal" and add to his property value. I do have a concern however about the existing construction project at the property that is in process. A connected garage addition was added to the house and has been sitting unfinished for well over 12 months (even over the winter). No siding or shingles have been added and it's been in a very "rough state" for a while now. There is concern that this next project will also enter a perpetual state of construction build. I would like to see the variance approved, with the following conditions. 1. That the first garage project be shingled, sided with doors and windows prior to this variance being granted. 2. If the requested variance is tied to the garage project, like a new roof being added to the remainder of the house, then I would like the variance granted with a complete project timeline deadline included as a stipulation of the variance. I am looking forward to the seeing the completed project but there is concern in the neighborhood that the unfinished condition and length of the project is becoming a neighborhood eyesore. Thank You for your consideration of this request. Cindy Carvelli-Yu MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1035-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A TWO -FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FOUR -FOOT ROOF EXTENSION INTO THE FRONT -YARD SETBACK AT 5231 IRONDALE ROAD; PLANNING CASE NO. VR2015-007 WHEREAS, the applicant, Jerome Buchanan, has applied for a two -foot variance to allow a four -foot roof extension encroaching into the front -yard setback at 52311rondale Road; and, WHEREAS, Section 1104.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the minimum front setback for a principal building is 30 feet unless the prevailing setback for existing structures exceeds 30 feet, in which case the prevailing set back IS the minimum setback; and, WHEREAS, Section 1104.01, Subd. 5a of the Zoning Code lists features such as awnings, eves, gutters and cornices which are allowed to encroach within the required setbacks, so long as said features do not project more than two feet into a yard; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a variance to construct a four -foot roof extension to cover the front steps off the front of his home; 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 makes the following finding of facts related to this request: The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding setbacks is to create physical separation between homes for aesthetics and give a consistent look to the neighborhood. The requested reduced front yard setback will be minimal and not impede on any neighbor's privacy. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is improving the property by adding curb appeal and making the front entry safer and more usable. 3. The applicant is requesting this variance to prevent water and snow from coming off of the roof right in front of the main entry and onto the steps causing safety issues. Resolution 1035-15 Page 2 4. The home on this property has a roofline that slopes towards the front yard and a short roof overhang, which allows snow and ice to build up on the front steps. The roof extension would add curb appeal to the home, so there could be a benefit to the existing character of the neighborhood. 6. The 2 -foot front yard setback variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant's practical difficulty and be able to cover the front steps. 7. The Planning Commission may impose conditions upon the premises as maybe necessary to comply with city standards and to minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above identified finding of facts, does hereby approve the two - foot variance request to allow a four -foot roof extension to cover the steps attached to the front of the applicant's home at 5231 Irondale Road, subject to the following restriction: 1. The roof extension must be completed within 1 year from the date of the permit being issued. Adopted this 2nd day of September, 2015. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 7A Meeting Date: September 2 2015 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 Proposed Code Amendment for Fences Discussion: The Planning Commission has received, and approved, several variances over the last few years allowing a 6 -foot or 8 -foot fence in the second front yard of corner lots. Commissioners have mentioned that maybe the zoning code should be amended to allow for these taller fences since they are always approved. Another variance request for a 6 -foot fence was approved at the last Planning Commission meeting on August 19, 2015, and at that time, again it was mentioned that there should be discussion to amend the code. The Commissioners in attendance all agreed, and asked staff to add this code amendment discussion to the next meeting agenda. The Zoning Code allows fences up to 4 -feet tall in any part of a property. Fences that are tallerthan 4 -feet are only allowed behind the front line of the house (the Zoning Code allows fences up to 8 -feet tall). Properties that are on corners have two front yards and therefore are much more limited in where they can put a taller fence. Property owners want the taller fences for privacy and safety, and the Planning Commission has been very understanding of this and approved every fence height variance request. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and discuss the information, and provide staff with direction about the proposed amendment. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. City Code Chapter 1103.08: Fencing, Screening and Landscaping 2. Diagram showing allowed fence height locations Existing Zoning Code regulations 1103.08: FENCING, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING: Subd. 1. Height: No fence shall exceed eight feet (8') in height, and in the case of grade separation, such as the division of properties by a retaining wall, the height shall be determined on the basis of measurement from the average point between the highest and lowest grade. Subd. 2. Intersections: No fences, structures or planting of trees or shrubs shall be permitted within thirty feet (30) of any corner formed by the intersection of street property lines or the right of way of a railway intersecting a street, except properly constructed chain link fences. Such chain link fences shall not exceed forty eight inches (48") in height from the grade level at the lot line and shall have openings in the wire mesh of not less than one and five-eighths inches (1-5/8") nor more than two and one-fourth inches (2-1/4"). Such fences may follow the lot line to the lot corner. The thirty feet (30) restriction noted above shall consist of the triangle formed by connecting the two (2) points on intersecting lot lines that are each thirty feet (30) fiom the lot corner. Subd. 3. Location: a. Except as provided in subdivision 2 above, fences not to exceed forty eight inches (48") in height may be located on any part of a lot. Fences not to exceed ninety six inches (96") in height may be erected on any part of a lot behind the front line of the principal building. The City Council may require or approve fencing up to ninety six inches (96") in height in a front yard to satisfy a buffer or screening condition of a development review or conditional use permit. (Ord. 658, 8-14-00) b. A fence or retaining wall shall be installed on the applicant's property. The fence or retaining wall shall not be installed directly over the property line but shall not otherwise be subject to a setback requirement. (Ord. 773, 8-14-06). City Code Permitted Fence Location for Corner Lots r-------------_.—.__.------- ...................... Fence Heights: ----- 8'orless I * NOTES' ........................ 4' or less (See 1 — 3 above) Chain Link I I I� ( I Garage I I I Front Line of House Front /'� Only chain link fences 4'tall or less are Line of allowed within 30' of a property corner ` 30' House formed by two street right of ways. y Street Frontage 30' PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting August 19, 2015 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Schiltgen at 7:01 p.m. for August 19, 2015. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Elofson, Kieffer, Love, Rundle, and Schiltgen. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Stevenson and Klander (excused). Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Meller and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. 3. Special Order of Business A. Oath of Office for Commissioner Justin Klander This item was postponed to the September 2, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 VR2015-006 Variance to Allow a 6 -Foot Fence in a Front Yard 2 CU2015-001 Conditional Use Permit for a 1,176 Square Foot 3 Oversize Garage VR2015-005 Variance for a Garage that Exceeds 35 Feet Wide 4. Approval of Minutes June 17, 2015. Mounds View Planning Commission August 19, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 2 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Elofson. To approve the Minutes of the June 17, 2015 regular Planning Conur ission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 5. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 6. Planning Cases A. VR2015-006 Variance to Allow a 6 -foot Fence in a Front Yard Applicant: Bobby & Kara Dahlberg Address: 5107 Greenwood Drive Planning Associate Heller indicated the applicants, Bobby and Kara Dahlberg, are requesting a variance to install a 6 -foot tall fence in the "second front yard" of their corner lot located at 5107 Greenwood Drive. The property is located at the northwest corner of Greenwood Drive and Woodcrest Drive. Since two streets border corner lots, they have two front yards. As such, the City Code requirement for front yard applies to two sides of the property, which means that corner lots have additional limitations. The Zoning Code indicates that no fence in front of the front line of a building in a residential district may exceed four feet in height. The applicants recently purchased this house and would prefer to have a 6 -foot tall wood fence for screening and safety for their kids and pets from Woodcrest Drive, and thus has applied for the variance. Associate Heller stated according to the Municipal Code, Section 1103.08, Subdivision 3, fences of a height greater than 48 inches (4 feet) are not allowed in the front yard of a property without a variance. The Zoning Code also establishes a sight triangle that limits all obstructions within the area at the corner of intersections, measured thirty (30) feet from the point where the property lines meet at the intersection of two streets. The proposed fence would not be located within the sight triangle. Staff recommended the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and approve the variance as requested. Vice Chair Schiltgen opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Vice Chair Schiltgen questioned if the applicants would be installing a wood fence. Bob Dahlberg, 5107 Greenwood Drive, explained he moved into his home four months ago and would be professionally installing a cedar wooden fence. Commissioner Elofson supported the variance request. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 19, 2015 Page 3 Commissioner Love was in favor of the City rewriting the City Code to allow taller fences as this would eliminate the variance request process. Associate Heller supported this recommendation and stated it would be added to next meeting agenda for discussion. Vice Chair Schiltgen closed the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Kieffer. To approve Resolution 1034-15, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance to Allow for a Six -Foot Tall Fence in the South Front Yard of 5107 Greenwood Drive; Planning Case No. VR2015-006. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. B. CU2015-001 Conditional Use Permit for a 1,176 Square Foot Oversize Garage VR2015-005 Variance for a Garage that Exceeds 35 Feet Wide Applicant: Curt Olson Address: 5405 Quincy Street Planning Associate Heller indicated the applicant, property owner Curt Olson, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit and variance to construct an oversize attached garage on his property at 5405 Quincy Street. The applicant is going to demolish the existing damaged 22' x 22' (484 square feet) detached garage and build a new 28' x 42' detached garage (1,176 square feet) in the same location. Associate Heller reported the applicant has submitted plans for a garage larger and wider than what the City Code allows as a permitted use. The City limits the size of accessory buildings, whether attached or detached from the house, to a maximum of 952 square feet. Any building larger than 952 square feet must get City approval of a conditional use permit. The garage the applicant is proposing would be 1,176 square feet. The Code also limits the width of garages that exceed 952 square feet to no more than 35 feet. The proposed garage would be 42 feet wide. Staff discussed the request further and recommended approval of the variance and conditional use permit. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Elofson questioned why the applicant was requesting a 42' wide garage. Curt Olson, 5405 Quincy Street, explained that this would allow him to have two 16' wide garage doors. He reported the garage would only be used for storage and would not house a business. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 19, 2015 Page 4 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Elofson/Conunissioner Love. To approve Resolution 1032-15, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a 1,176 Square -Foot Garage at 5405 Quincy Street; Planning Case No. CU2015-001. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Kieffer. To approve Resolution 1033-15, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Seven (7) Foot Garage Width Variance for an Oversize Garage at 5405 Quincy Street; Planning Case No. VR2015-005. Ayes — 5 7. Other Planning Activity None. 8. Review Minutes: A. August 5, 2015 Nays — 0 The Commission discussed the August 5, 2015 meeting minutes. 9. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases Motion carried. Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases noting the Commission would be meeting on September 2, 2015. B. Staff Updates Planning Associate Heller provided the Commission with an update from staff. She encouraged all to participate in Festival in the Park on Saturday, August 22, 2015. C. Council Updates Councilmember Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He discussed the plans for County Road H and TCAAP, noting County Road H would be reconstructed and two roundabouts would be installed. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 10. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, September 2, 2015 B. Wednesday, September 16, 2015 11. Adjournment August 19, 2015 Page 5 There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chair Schiltgen adjourned the meeting at 7:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. L 0 Ll PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA October 7, 2015 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes August 19, 2015 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2015-008 Variance to Allow a Reduced Side Yard Setback for Living Space and to Allow an Addition and Garage to Expand on the Non -Conforming Front Setback Applicant: Jason & Sarah French Address: 2474 County Road H2 6. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss Proposed Code Amendment to Allow Fences Taller Than 4 -Feet in Front Yards of Corner Lots 7. Review Minutes A. September 2, 2015 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings A. Wednesday, October 21, 2015 B. Wednesday, November 4, 2015 10. Adjourn _ Item No: 5A MOT 7AT11C VVfEW Meeting Date: October 7, 2615 V1�I1JJ • 1.:.�V Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Title/Subject: Public Hearing - Consideration of Variance Request to allow for Reduced Front and Side Yard Setbacks at 2474 County Road H2; Planning Case VR2015-008 Introduction: The property owner, Jason French, is requesting a variance to permit a garage and living space addition to his house at 2474 County Road H2 to encroach five feet into the required ten -foot side yard setback. The variance is also requesting that the new garage be allowed to have the same front setback as the house, which is less than the minimum required. The owners want to build a new attached garage and expand the second floor of the house over the garage. The new garage and second floor would have a five foot side yard setback, which is acceptable for the garage, but the living space setback requirement is ten feet. The addition area would also be brought forward slightly to match the existing front line of the house. Discussion: The French's house is a small 1 '/2 story style with a detached 1 -car garage thatwas built in 1950 on a 0.35 acre corner lot. This property has a non -conforming lot width and front setbacks on both street frontage sides: Minimum corner lot dimensions are 100 feet by 100 feet—the applicant's property is 74 feet wide by 208 feet deep; Minimum front setbacks for structures is 30 feet from the property line —the house on this property is setback 19.8 feet from the County Road H2 side and 9.4 feet from the Irondale Road side. The applicants like their neighborhood and want to improve the functionality and livability of their home by building an addition with an attached 2 -car garage and expanding the second floor of the house over the garage. The current garage is setback 6 feet from the side property line and the new garage would be set back 5 feet in order to maximize the amount of room next to the house. Needed square footage can be added to the main floor by placing the garage at the 5 foot setback, but structurally and aesthetically, it doesn't make sense to have the second floor 5 -feet narrower than the first floor so that it can have a 10 -foot living space setback. The front setback for the house is non -conforming at 19.8 feet rather than the required 30 feet. The Zoning Code allows non -conforming structures to remain as -is and be maintained, but the non -conformity cannot be expanded on without a variance. The non -conformity for this property would increase since the new addition/garage would increase the footprint at the reduced house setback. Planning Case VR2015-008 October 7, 2015 Staff Report Page 2 Variance Criteria Review: 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 requires minimum structure setbacks for aesthetics and to provide separation and some sense of privacy between neighbors. The variance will not bring the addition and garage any closer to the property line than what is already allowed for the garage. Aesthetically and structurally it makes more sense to have the second floor living area be the same width as the space below. The non -conformity of the front setback will only increase by the added square footage, not by lessor of a setback. The addition will match the current front setback of the house. The existing garage also has a non -conforming front setback, but it is slightly further back than the house. b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not specify setback criteria or non -conformities, but it does support improvements to properties and maintaining the housing stock values. This addition would be an improvement in the livability and functionality of this home, along with increased curb appeal and property value. C. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The applicants want to improve their property with a two -car garage and additional living space. Because of the constraints of the setbacks and the narrow width of the lot, it's very difficult to construct any additions on this property without a variance. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. This property was subdivided in such a way that created a narrow lot corner lot, and the house was built with two non -conforming front setbacks. These issues make it difficult to add more square footage to the small house. The applicants purchased the property as -is and did not cause the unique circumstances. Planning Case VR2015-008 October 7, 2015 Staff Report Page 3 e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The new addition and overall home improvements will have a positive effect on the look of the property from the street, and increase property values. The addition will only be one foot closer to the east neighbor than the existing garage is. The movie theater and an office building are across the street from this property and are screened by wooded areas. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The 5 -foot variance for a living space setback is the minimum variance needed since that is what the Zoning Code requires for living space setback, and the addition and garage will expand the non -conforming front setback. 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. 1 Staff has no suggestions for conditions for the variance request. The Planning Commission may add conditions as they see applicable. 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 September 25, 2014. Staff has not received any comments or questions as of October 2, 2015. 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: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 1036-15 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. y 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. Planning Case VR2015-008 October 7, 2015 Staff Report Page 4 Respectfully Submitted By Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photos 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Survey 5. Proposed Site Plans 6. Resolution 1036-15 ZONING MAP ' R-4 Gti� h� ep �kti W `t' n R-4 --`!- �6 tia Carmike — vMovie Theater PUO n + aJ ry� u� N io O IF X00 N CD 10 i 1 s26Q N A� 5262 u p CITY B-3 HAL 5394 B-3 e .5.� ss N 5244 524' n 531' N N N Q 523E 524. N N 5214 523 V NN linin 752& 5266 N )MOE N 523 5N Y `e a 4NVN 'O 522 N a r N NAv� N Ul -0- ' Lo in v N n 512 N 521 513 N N" 5179 CITY B-3 HAL 5394 B-3 e .5.� ss 1 CI FARVIFW AV 5214 521 d a 72752111 N N Ntp N ¢04 531' N N N N N N N N N 752& 5266 N N N 5N rn a ut n N N � r N NAv� 1 CI FARVIFW AV 5214 521 d a 72752111 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N B-3 ti� ti' 925309 5284 F 5229 Wk52OO 521^ 520 - 5144 515 WOODALE N DR N 513 514 N 18 N N N N u� rn 0 ut n eee����777777 � N N N Ul -0- 512 N 513 N N" 5179 B-3 ti� ti' 925309 5284 F 5229 Wk52OO 521^ 520 - 5144 515 WOODALE DR 513 514 18 N 518 _ W 5132 5141 512 513 p � 5170 5179 5120 512 N 51605169 05108 511 5115140 __ 5159 5149 EDGEW00D N 0 5109 51301 5139 JR. HIGH c ^^ * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family LTJ '-ANF- 111111101,0%... -, 76 F t -!�s . '' �t}� View from -Road r ",a 1 1 / i\ _ a\ k V House is from west • Ifeet setback Y (`1 property lineM Survey for 2474 County Road H2 overlayed with Addition I I ..9at4 aa�.o. r�-«x I I I I u% � M%vel I � 54: lsiva!� I I I I I I ( I I I I u% � I 2 i� I I I I w�, I I I �� I I � 4 ��� _J I �� o f ; 'J f �n i �e v s h1T'�Nht 3NIA5[x3 _ I ea�v I � � I v I I I I I ( I � �� � I y.n �:m I K �, e .. I � I �, I I I �} ( I I I I I L--- ---� I I J4 [oil] � I INSTJ I A4TA U A_1010110 [rZ410] ITtl d,1tl 6%'i [*7 ki RESOLUTION NO. 1036-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FIVE-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR LIVING SPACE AND ALLOW AN ADDITION AND GARAGE TO MATCH THE EXISTING HOUSE 19.8 FOOT FRONT SETBACK AT 2474 COUNTY ROAD H2; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2015-008 WHEREAS, property owner, Jason French, has applied for a variance to allow a house addition to encroach five feet into the required 10 foot side yard setback at 2474 County Road 1-12; and, WHEREAS, 2474 County Road H2 is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as follows: Lot 8, Block 1, Clear View Addition, Except the Southerly 80 feet thereof. Ramsey County, Minnesota, PIN: 08-30-23-32-0108 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 October 7, 2015; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria that must be satisfied in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 2474 County Road H2, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 1036-15 Page 2 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding building setbacks is to give some sense of privacy and separation for the property owners and their neighbors. The proposed garage and living space addition would still maintain the required 5 -foot garage setback. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicants are improving the property. 3. The applicants are requesting this variance because their limited yard width and non- conforming setbacks will not allow any living space additions. 4. The unique feature of this property is that it is a narrow corner lot with existing non- conforming setbacks on two sides. 5. The addition will change the look of the front of the property for the better. This addition will be a nice improvement to the property and for the neighborhood. 6. The 5 -foot side yard living space variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant's practical difficulty since the Zoning Code requires a minimum 10 foot rear yard setback. The new garage and addition will be 3.2 feet closer to the front than the current garage in order to be in line with the house, and will expand on the existing non -conforming front setback. 7. The Planning Commission may impose conditions upon the premises as maybe necessary to 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, approves the variance request of Jason French, to allow a living space addition to have a 5 -foot side yard setback, and allow the addition and new garage to have the same non -conforming front setback as the existing house at 2474 County Road H2 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 7th day of October, 2015. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) L_ Item No: 6A M�T NDDS VIL'w Meeting Date: October 7. 2015 v� �� Type of Business: Other Planninq Activity City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Review Proposed Code Amendment for Fence Height on Corner Lots; Special Planning Case SP -198-15 Discussion: At the September 2, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission discussed allowing 6 -foot or 8 -foot fences in the second front yard of corner lots. The Zoning Code currently allows fences up to 4 -feet tall in any part of a property. Fences that are taller than 4 -feet are only allowed behind the front line of the house (the Zoning Code allows fences up to 8 -feet tall). Properties that are on corners have two front yards and therefore are limited in where they can put a taller fence. Property owners want the taller fences for privacy and safety, and the Planning Commission has been very understanding of this and approved every fence height variance request. Commissioners have suggested that the zoning code should be amended to allow for these taller fences since there have been several variance requests for taller fences and they are always approved. The Planning Commission agreed that it's time to amend the zoning code to allow for over 4 - foot tall fences on corner lots. The Commission suggested allowing up to a 6 -foot fence in the second front yard of a corner lot with at least a 1 foot setback on the street frontage side. A fence taller than six feet on a corner lot would still need to go through the variance process. Staff has made some additional amendment suggestions to this section based on issues that have come up: - Specified that no plantings, not just trees and shrubs, over 30 -inches tall are allowed in the 30 -foot sight triangle at intersections, - No fence or wall may interfere with natural drainage, - Public or semi-public properties may have fences up to 8 -feet tall in any yard area. Staff Report — Fence Code Amendments October 7, 2015 Page 2 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed code amendment language. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Diagram showing allowed fence height locations with proposed amendment 2. Resolution 1036-15 City Code Permitted Fence Location for Corner Lots ------------------------- ..... _.--- —...� Fence Heights: — — — — — 8' or less 1' setback • NOTES: ........................ 4' or less (See 1 — 3 above) Chain Link Garage *��Front Line of House :..................................... Only chain link fences 4' tall or less are allowed within 30' of a property corner 30' formed by two street right of ways. .......................................................................'•::::::::::::::::::::::::::::H Street Frontage 30' Red lines demonstrate the code change to allow a 6 foot fence on corner lots. or less o) Front Line of �N c House o I' ULN Only chain link fences 4' tall or less are allowed within 30' of a property corner 30' formed by two street right of ways. .......................................................................'•::::::::::::::::::::::::::::H Street Frontage 30' Red lines demonstrate the code change to allow a 6 foot fence on corner lots. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1036-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 1103 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE PERTAINING TO FENCING; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE 198-15 WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that amendments be made to the City Code relating to fences; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission agrees with the City Staff recommendation that the allowed height of fences on corner lots be increased; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Title 1100 of the Mounds View City Code by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text as follows: 1103.08: FENCING, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING: Subd. 1. Height: No fence shall exceed eight feet (8') in height, and in the case of grade separation, such as the division of properties by a retaining wall, the height shall be determined on the basis of measurement from the average point between the highest and lowest grade. Subd. 2. Intersections: No structures or plantings 30 -inches or more in height, or fences, qtr- mh-rag nr ..panting of trees or shrubs shall be permitted within thirty feet (30') of any corner formed by the intersection of street property lines or the right of way of a railway intersecting a street, except properly constructed chain link fences. Such chain link fences shall not exceed forty eight inches (48") in height from the grade level at the lot line and shall have openings in the wire mesh of not less than one and five-eighths inches (1-5/8") nor more than two and one-fourth inches (2-1/4"). Such fences may follow the lot line to the lot corner. The thirty feet (30') restriction noted above shall consist of the triangle formed by connecting the two (2) points on intersecting lot lines that are each thirty feet (30) from the lot corner. Subd. 3. Location: a. Except as provided in subdivision 2 above, fences not to exceed forty eight inches (48") in height may be located on any part of a lot. Fences not to exceed ninety six inches (96") in height may be erected on any part of a lot behind the front line of the principal building. The City Council may require or approve fencing up to ninety six inches (96") in height in a front yard to satisfy a buffer or screening condition of a development review or conditional use permit. (Ord. 658, 8-14-00) Resolution 1036-15 Page 2 b. A fence or retaining wall shall be installed on the applicant's property. The fence or retaining wall shall not be installed directly over the property line but shall not otherwise be subject to a setback requirement, except as provided in Subdivision 3c below. (Ord. 773, 8-14-06). c. Fences on corner lots whose side yard abuts a roadway may be 6 feet in height beginning at the front building line of the principle structure, provided that the fence has a minimum 1 -foot setback from the property line abutting the roadway. Subd. 4. Landscaping Required: In all zoning districts, the lot area remaining after providing for off-street parking, off-street loading, sidewalks, driveway, building site and/or other requirements shall be planted and maintained in grass, sodding, shrubs or other acceptable vegetation or treatment generally used in landscaping. The requirements of Chapter 1127.05 must be met for all new developments in the R-3, R-4, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, 1-1 and PUD districts. (Amended, Ord. 785,12-10-07) Subd. 5. Surface of Fences: Any fence shall be so constructed that the surface facing adjoining properties or public rights of way shall be of finished construction. Subd. 6. No fence or wall shall obstruct natural drainage. Subd. 7. Fences on public and semi-public properties may be erected in any yard to a height of eight (8) feet. WHEREAS, amending the City Code to increase fence height on corner lots, clarify that fences and walls shall not obstruct drainage and allow fences up to 8 -feet tall on public properties would better serve the public; 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 amendments to Title 1100 of the Mounds View City Code as defined herein. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 7th day of October, 2015. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 2, 2015 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for September 2, 2015. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Elofson, Kieffer, Klander, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. 3. Special Order of Business A. Oath of Office for Commissioner Justin Klander Planning Associate Heller administered the Oath of Office to newly appointed Planning Commission member Justin Klander. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 VR2015-007 Variance to Allow a 4 -foot Encroachment into the Front 2 Yard Discuss a Code Amendment to Allow Fences Taller than 4 -Feet in Front 4 Yards of Corner Lots 4. Approval of Minutes Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 5, 2015. September 2, 2015 Page 2 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the Minutes of the August 5, 2015 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 5. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 6. Planning Cases A. VR2015-007 Variance to Allow a 4 -foot Encroachment into the Front Yard Applicant: Jerome Buchanan Address: 5231 Irondale Road Planning Associate Heller indicated Jerome Buchanan, property owner of 5231 Irondale Road, has requested a variance to construct a roof extension off the front of his home four feet closer to the street than the existing building, to cover the front steps. All of the homes on this block of Irondale Road are set back the same distance -30 feet from the property line. The variance requested is to encroach four feet into the front setback. Associate Heller stated setback requirements are addressed in Section 1104.01 of the Zoning Code. Each zoning district is listed with the corresponding front, side and rear setbacks. In an R- 1, Single Family Residential district, the typical setbacks are as follows: Front, 30 feet; Side, 10 feet; and Rear, 30 feet. It is noted that sheds and garages, attached or detached, can have side and rear setbacks of 5 feet. Associate Heller explained the applicant wants to build a 12 -foot wide by 4 -feet deep roof to cover the front steps. A front stoop or deck is considered an allowable encroachment into a front setback, provided it does not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure. The steps extend four feet into the front yard. Awnings, eves and other roof extensions are also allowed as an encroachment, however they are limited to no more than a two -foot encroachment. Thus, the variance of an additional two feet is requested. Staff reviewed the request in further detail and recommended approval of the 4 -foot encroachment into the front yard. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Tim Miller, 5225 frondale Road, presented the Planning Commission with several photographs. He did not believe the proposed project would improve the site. He explained that the homeowner does not complete projects. He suggested that the homeowner consider placing Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 2, 2015 Page 3 gutters on the house as the water was running of the applicant's roof and was flooding his property. He stated this property was an eyesore in the neighborhood and had a great deal of mold growing on the site, which was impacting his family's well-being. Laura Miller, 5225 Irondale Road, recommended that the applicant consider placing gutters on his house to alleviate the water situation that was now taking place in her backyard and basement. She expressed a great deal of frustration with the poor condition of her neighbor's home and believed the request should not be approved. Mark Matusovic, 5220 Skiba Drive, reported the applicant's garage construction was a big jumbled mess and the construction took entirely way too long. He reported the garage still had no siding at this time. He believed the applicant had too many projects underway that were incomplete and another project should not be taken on. He recalled that this was the first summer in years that the applicant has mowed his lawn. Commissioner Elofson asked if one year would be enough time to complete the proposed project. Associate Heller believed a year should be plenty of time to complete the proposed project. Chair Stevenson questioned how the City would react if the project was not completed in a timely manner. Associate Heller stated that a fine would be first assessed against the property owner, and continued non -completion would lead to a court citation. Commissioner Schiltgen inquired what action the City was taking on the incomplete garage. Associate Heller reported that the contractor has now walked away from the project and the City was aware of the situation and monitoring it. Commissioner Schiltgen believed that the applicant's property was in need of major improvement. Commissioner Klander asked if the applicant had any other code violations with the City. Associate Heller was uncertain and stated the site had no junk lying around at this time. Commissioner Klander questioned if the tar paper was sufficient covering for a building. Associate Heller understood that the site had been covered with tar paper since approximately late last fall. She commented that the City was trying to be reasonable and allow the homeowner enough time to complete the project since the contractor walked away. She indicated that the City was working with the homeowner to complete the project. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 2, 2015 Page 4 Chair Stevenson was of the opinion that the City could not deny the request based on the applicant's past. He was in favor of tabling action until the homeowner could be present to provide the Commission with additional information on the property. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Love/Commissioner Klander. To table action on this item to the October 7, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. Ayes — 6 Nays — 1 (Elofson) Motion carried. 7. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss a Code Amendment to Allow Fences Taller than 4 -Feet in Front Yards of Corner Lots Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that the Planning Commission has received, and approved, several variances over the last few years allowing a 6 -foot or 8 -foot fence in the second front yard of corner lots. Commissioners have mentioned that maybe the zoning code should be amended to allow for these taller fences since they are always approved. Another variance request for a 6 -foot fence was approved at the last Planning Commission meeting on August 19, 2015, and at that time, again it was mentioned that there should be discussion to amend the code. The Commissioners in attendance all agreed, and asked staff to add this code amendment discussion to the next meeting agenda. Associate Heller explained the Zoning Code allows fences up to 4 -feet tall in any part of a property. Fences that are taller than 4 -feet are only allowed behind the front line of the house (the Zoning Code allows fences up to 8 -feet tall). Properties that are on corners have two front yards and therefore are much more limited in where they can put a taller fence. Property owners want the taller fences for privacy and safety, and the Planning Commission has been very understanding of this and approved every fence height variance request. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and discuss the information, and provide staff with direction about the proposed amendment. Chair Stevenson believed it was time that the City amended it code. He supported the City allowing up to a six foot fence for a second front yard with requests for taller than six feet still requiring a variance review by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned how many requests the City has had for an eight foot fence on corner lots. Associate Heller recalled only three requests in the past ten years. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 2, 2015 Page 5 Commissioner Kieffer expressed confusion with City Code Section 1102 and asked which lot line was considered to be the designated front yard. Associate Heller discussed this with the Commission and explained how the City interpreted front yards. Chair Stevenson was in favor of staff revising the Code Amendment with the front yard definition being more clearly defined to be discussed at a future Planning Commission meeting. In addition, he supported fence heights being 6 -feet or less in second front yards of corner lots with at least a one -foot setback from the property line on the second street frontage side. The Commissioners all agreed with this recommendation. Staff will bring a resolution with language for this code amendment to the next meeting. 8. Review Minutes: A. August 19, 2015 The Commission discussed the August 19, 2015 meeting minutes. No changes were made. 9. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases. B. Staff Updates Planning Associate Heller provided the Commission with an update from staff. She was pleased to report that the City has eight new homes being built so far this year. C. Council Updates Councilmember Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He noted that the Council approved the first reading of an Ordinance that would allow beekeeping in the City of Mounds View. He discussed the Council's upcoming worksession agenda and noted the 2016 budget was in the works. D. Planning Commissioner Reports Commissioner Love recommended that the Commission approve minutes in a more timely manner. She suggested that a copy of the minutes be provided to the Chair at the meeting in order for the changes to be discussed. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Further discussion ensued regarding the minute approval process. 10. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, September 16, 2015 B. Wednesday, October 7, 2015 11. Adjournment September 2, 2015 Page 6 There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 0 0 M2111"All uy PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA November 4, 2015 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes September 2, 2015 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. CU2015-002 Conditional Use Permit to Allow a 1,239 Square Foot Oversize Garage Applicant: Steven Smith Address: 2443 Hillview Road 3 t 6. Other Planning Activity A. None 7. Review Minutes A. October 7. 2015 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings A. Wednesday, November 18, 2015 B. Wednesday, December 2, 2015 10. Adjourn MOT T �S t TfE • , Item No: 5A UNL �/ �.�1�/ Meeting Date: November4 2015 Type of Business: Planning Case 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 an Oversized Garage at 2443 Hillview Road; Planning Cases CU2015-002 Introduction: The applicant, property owner Steven Smith, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to construct an addition to the existing attached garage on his property at 2443 Hillview Road. The applicant plans to add a 29.5'x 20' addition (590 square feet) to the rear of the existing 29.5'x 22' (649 square feet) garage, which would create an oversize 1,239 square foot garage. The applicant has submitted plans for a garage larger and wider than what the City Code allows as a permitted use. The City limits the size of accessory buildings, whether attached or detached from the house, to a maximum of 952 square feet. Any building larger than 952 square feet must get City approval of a conditional use permit. The garage the applicant is proposing would be 1,239 square feet. Requirements: Section 1106.03, Subd. 1: This part of the Code limits the height of an accessory building, the number of accessory buildings, the backyard coverage ratio of accessory buildings and specifies roof style and pitch. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for garages exceeding 952 square feet. Section 1106.04, Subd. 6: This part of the Code enumerates the conditions for garages exceeding 952 square feet. The garage must be permanent, be uniform in appearance with the home, not exceed 35 feet in width, and not exceed 1,800 square feet of total accessory building area on the lot. Section 1125.01, Subd. 1: The Planning Commission is required to review the possible adverse effects of the requested conditional use. Discussion: The request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct the 1,239 square foot garage satisfies the requirements as stated in Section 1106.03 and 1106.04, Subdivision 6 of the Mounds View Zoning Code. The proposed garage would meet all City setback, height and accessory building coverage requirements. The applicants' property is 0.41 acres (143.57'x 125'). The City Code limits backyard building coverage to 20% of the yard area. The garage addition would cover approximately 7.8% of the backyard area. 2443 Hillview Road CUP Request November 4, 2015 Faye 2 The City Code also specifies that the roof for all accessory buildings exceeding 250 square feet, shall match or be similar to the character and style of the roof of the principal structure, and have a pitch or slope of at least 2-12, but no steeper than 12-12. CUP Considerations: Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address any potential adverse effects of a conditional use that include, but are not limited to, the 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 addressed each of these potential adverse effects below. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as low-density residential, as well as the surrounding area. The Comp Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. With this project, the applicant would be creating more garage space for storage. Such additional storage would be a benefit to the property and to the neighborhood. The Geographical Area Involved. The applicants' home is located on Hillview Road, in an established single-family residential neighborhood. Depreciation. The proposed garage would benefit the subject property both in a practical sense by providing additional on site, indoor parking and storage, as well as in an economic sense, as the addition would increase the "value" of the property. Increased property values area benefit to everyone. The Character of the Surrounding Area. The applicants neighborhood is entirely single-family residential. The homes in this area are a variety of styles with a lot of wooded areas, and the lot sizes vary. The garage will be the same width as it is now so the front appearance of the house will not change. The garage will just extend an additional 20 feet into the backyard. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant is proposing a 1,239 square foot garage that would allow for more indoor storage and workshop space, along with vehicle parking. 2443 Hillview Road CUP Request November 4, 2015 Page 3 Recommendation: After taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission may take any of the following actions below related to the requests. Staff recommends approval of this conditional use permit. 1. Recommend approval of the CUP as requested. Staff has prepared Resolution 1038- 15 that approves the conditional use permit if the Commission chooses this action. 2. Choose to deny the conditional use permit. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff would need direction from the Planning Commission to prepare a resolution of denial with findings of fact to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide that there is need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60 -day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, CMJ&4---, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Views 3. Photos 4. Proposed plan 5. Resolution 1038-15 Zoning Map 7961 7964 7975 7951 7954 7955 HILLVIEw 7945 7901 PARK _. . - 7865 7852 County Road I �- 10 18101 n v> 7846 7829 7835 7840 'O 7800 7817 7809 7805 7780 BOBS N 'N 8086 BOBS N N 7777 7741 7740 7767 7731 7730 7753 2 8071 8072 8071 7 8060 4 8045 8048 8041 2 8031 8038 8035 8019 8030 8001 8010 8011 61 a, 7993 _ 7990 7977 7985 7970 7961 7964 7975 7951 7954 7955 HILLVIEw 7945 7901 PARK _. . - 7865 7852 W g 7853 7841 7855 7846 7829 7835 7840 7815 7800 7817 7809 7805 7780 7801 7801 7760 7797 7751 7750 7787 7777 7741 7740 7767 7731 7730 7753 0' 7721 7720 7741 77: 0 7711 = 7729 771 7700 9 71 N H N N N R-2 R-2 8051 18044 8027 801 8005 801 7989 7988 7971 7958 7953 48 N 7615 771 7741 N 7913 a FA M 6M " Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential m m a Y m m m Amy Amy any m N N N N N N jou m .+ . Aerial View Jac i y_ V vapj 777 / 0� Proposed Site Plan �Iic i. 41, jq� MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1038-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A 1,239 SQUARE -FOOT GARAGE AT 2443 HILLVIEW ROAD; PLANNING CASE CU2015-002 WHEREAS, property owner, Steven Smith, has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,239 square foot garage; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 2443 Hillview Drive, is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Woodlawn Terrace, Except the East 150 feet of Lot 31, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN: 05-30-23-32-0040 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,800 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the proposed garage would be 1,239 square feet, thus requiring City approval of a conditional use permit; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Site plan 4. Photographic documentation 5. Staff Report 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 oversized 1,239 square foot garage satisfies the zoning requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code. 2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. Resolution 1038-15 Page 2 3. The proposed garage would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved. 4. The proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood. 5. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed oversized garage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED thatthe Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit forthe 1,176 square foot garage, with conditions as follows: 1. The garage shall not be used for commercial purposes, living space or other uses not allowed within the R-1 Single -Family Residential district or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted; the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. 2. The new garage shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the existing house. 3. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) shall become null and void if the work for which the CUP was granted is not completed within one year from the date of approval unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the City Council. 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 4th day of November, 2015. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 7, 2015 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for October 7, 2015. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Klander, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Elofson and Kieffer. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 VR2015-008 Variance to Allow a Reduced Side Yard Setback for Living 2 Space and to Allow an Addition and Garage to Expand on the Non -Conforming Front Setback Discuss Proposed Code Amendment to Allow Fences Taller than 3 4 -Feet in Front Yards of Corner Lots 3. Approval of Minutes August 19, 2015. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Love/Commissioner Rundle. To approve the Minutes of the August 19, 2015 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting October 7, 2015 Page 2 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases A. VR2015-008 Variance to Allow a Reduced Side Yard Setback for Living Space and to Allow an Addition and Garage to Expand on the Non - Conforming Front Setback Applicant: Jason and Sarah French Address: 2474 County Road H2 Planning Associate Heller indicated the property owner, Jason French, is requesting a variance to permit a garage and living space addition to his house at 2474 County Road H2 to encroach five feet into the required ten -foot side yard setback. The variance is also requesting that the new garage be allowed to have the same front setback as the house, which is less than the minimum required. The owners want to build a new attached garage and expand the second floor of the house over the garage. The new garage and second floor would have a five-foot side yard setback, which is acceptable for the garage, but the living space setback requirement is ten feet. The addition area would also be brought forward slightly to match the existing front line of the house. Staff discussed the request further and recommended approval of the side and front yard setbacks. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Jason French, 2474 County Road H2, thanked the Commission for considering his request. Chair Stevenson asked how much space there was between the garage and the neighbor's fence; and then from the fence to the neighbor's house. Mr. French estimated there was six feet between the garage and the fence. He guessed that there was approximately 10 feet between the fence and the neighbor's house. Commissioner Rundle and Commissioner Schiltgen supported the proposed improvements. Commissioner Love questioned if the applicant had discussed his plans with the neighbor. Nlr. French commented that he had not spoken to his neighbor. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. Chair Stevenson thanked the applicant for providing the Commission with detailed plans of the site. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting October 7, 2015 Page 3 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiligen/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 1036-15, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance to allow a Five -Foot Side Yard Setback for Living Space and Allow an Addition and Garage to Match the Existing House 19.8 Front Foot Setback at 2474 County Road H2; Planning Case No. VR2015-008. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 6. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss Proposed Code Amendment to Allow Fences Taller Than 4 -Feet in Front Yards of Corner Lots Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that at the September 2, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission discussed allowing 6 -foot or 8 -foot fences in the second front yard of corner lots. The Zoning Code currently allows fences up to 4 -feet tall in any part of a property. Fences that are taller than 4 -feet are only allowed behind the front line of the house (the Zoning Code allows fences up to 8 -feet tall). Properties that are on corners have two front yards and therefore are limited in where they can put a taller fence. Property owners want the taller fences for privacy and safety, and the Planning Commission has been very understanding of this and approved every fence height variance request. Commissioners have suggested that the zoning code should be amended to allow for these taller fences since there have been several variance requests for taller fences and they are always approved. Associate Heller explained the Planning Commission agreed that it's time to amend the zoning code to allow for over 4 -foot tall fences on corner lots. The Commission suggested allowing up to a 6 -foot fence in the second front yard of a corner lot with at least a 1 -foot setback on the street frontage side. A fence taller than six feet on a corner lot would still need to go through the variance process. Staff reviewed the proposed code amendment further and requested feedback from the Commission. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned how tall hedges would be handled by the City. Associate Heller explained that staff regularly drives around the City and when hedges were too high at intersections, property owners were asked to trim them down to improve visibility at intersections. Commissioner Love asked how residents would able to locate their property line. Associate Heller stated City staff assist as much as possible with this and can give homeowners j their property dimensions. She stated if the homeowner could not find the property marker pins on their own, a surveyor would need to be hired. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting October 7, 2015 Page 4 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Klander. To approve Resolution 1037-15, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Amendment to Chapter 1103 of the Mounds View City Code Pertaining to Fencing; Special Planning Case SP -198-15. Commissioner Klander recommended that staff review City Code to see if there are any other front yard fence references that should be amended. Associate Heller stated she would examine this. Commissioner Love questioned why six-foot fences had to be further off the property line. She explained that this requirement would have homeowners losing a great deal of useable square footage in their yards. Associate Heller stated in this case, the recommendation was being made to ensure fences were placed out of the right of way. Commissioner Love suggested that all corner lot fences that abut a street be at least one foot off the property line to keep this requirement consistent. The Commission requested that staff require all fencing on corner lots have one -foot minimum setback from the property line. Associate Heller added this language to the Resolution as Item D. Ayes — 5 Review Minutes: A. September 2, 2015 Nays — 0 Motion carried. The Commission discussed the September 2, 2015 meeting minutes. No changes were made. 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases. B. Staff Updates Planning Associate Heller provided the Commission with an update from staff. She noted the Council will start talking to a developer about the redevelopment of the Crossroads Pointe site. Mounds View Planning Commission October 7, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 5 C. Council Updates Councilmember Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He explained the Council was working on a space needs study for a new public works facility. In addition, the Council accepted a second annual donation from Bethlehem Baptist Church. He provided further comment on the recently approved preliminary tax levy. D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, October 21, 2015 B. Wednesday, November 4, 2015 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 0 Ll 0 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA December 2, 2015 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes October 7, 2015 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) S. Planning Cases A. ZC2015-001 Rezoning from B1, Neighborhood Business, to B2, Limited Business Applicant: Zulfiquar Punjani Address: 2408 County Road I 6. Other Planning Activity A. Set 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule B. Review Planning Commissioner Applications 7. Review Minutes A. November 4, 2015 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings A. Wednesday, December 16, 2015 (?) B. Wednesday, January 6, 2016 10. Adjourn Item No: 5A MO– T DS i fE— T Meeting Date: December 2, 2015 City of Mounds View .Staff Report EMENEF To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Review Rezoning Request from Zulfiquar Punjani, owner of 2408 County Road I, from B-1, Neighborhood Business, to B-2, Limited Business; Planning Case ZC15-001 Introduction: The applicant and property owner, Zulfiquar Punjani, has submitted an application to rezone his property located at 2408 County Road I, previously operated as a neighborhood convenience store, from B-1, Neighborhood Business, to B-2, Limited Business. The property is one of only two commercial properties presently zoned B-1. The other property is located at the southeast corner of County Road H2 and Silver Lake Road. The expressed basis for the requested rezoning would be to allow for the operation of a liquor store on the site. Background: The building at 2408 County Road 10 was constructed in 1973 and has always operated as a neighborhood convenience store, first and for many years as a Tom Thumb, then Sam's Market, and then most recently, Snap Market. The adjoining retail space was originally utilized as a laundromat, then was a thrift store, then a clothing store and most recently is being used as showroom / warehouse space for a wedding vendor. In 2010, the Zoning Code was amended, adding language to the B-1 zoning district to allow for uses "similar" to those explicitly listed if the proposed use would not create a nuisance and if the use would not be noxious or hazardous. The City Council would review uses that are not clearly similar to those listed in this Section for a determination of compatibility. In 2012, the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed a request to allow limited cooking at the Sam's Market to provide hot, fresh foods to customers, similar to the types of foods one might find at a Holiday or SuperAmerica. The Council approved the request but the owners of the business ultimately decided against pursuing the restaurant component. In 2015, the business which had been operating as Snap Market closed and the space has been vacant since: Discussion: Consideration of a rezoning request requires significant review and consideration. The act of amending the Official Zoning Map must satisfy many criteria, not the least of which being consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the neighborhood and adjoining uses. In addition, potential adverse effects shall be taken into consideration. Rezoning Report -2408 County Road I December 2, 2015 Page 2 Regarding the first criteria, the request would not seem to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map, which designates this area as "Neighborhood Commercial", the same designation provided for The Station and Fedor's Market. The existing and requested zoning designations are consistent within a Neighborhood Commercial guided area. In addition to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, other factors should be considered when reviewing a rezoning request, such as compatibility of uses, the geographical area involved, possible depreciation and the demonstrated need forthe uses permitted in the proposed zoning district. A rezoning to a more intensive designation may not be inappropriate if the surrounding uses already bear more intense designations. In the present case, the former Snap Market property is bordered on two sides by roadways, single family homes to the south and east and an office building to the east. Refer to the Zoning map below. 519 7� 6 177114-177211L772 w 77 i � ~ j r— — � -- -- -- �' r, hS527 55265, x','01 77ii 774 O 77A 1 ca a 5 21 552 51 CO -2 RD 7 Snap Market Property 766 PUb 7643 7656 — 7641 76567661 7639 76+4 7651 '7635 7630 7625,' 7'62 7+641 R - 4 761 1' 761 7595,7594i 7631 — Rezoning Report - 2408 County Road I December 2, 2015 Page 3 As the Zoning Map on the previous page indicates, to the immediate east of the subject property, there is a parcel zoned B-3, Highway Business, developed as two-level office space. Also to the immediate east and south, properties are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and improved with single family homes. Further east and across the street to the west, the land is zoned R-3 and R-4 and developed as Higher Density Residential. Across County Road I to the north, the lots are predominately zoned R-1 however one lot on the northwest corner of the intersection is zoned R-2 and developed with a twin home. The zoning review would seem to indicate that higher intensity uses are common in this area and that a rezoning of the subject property from B-1 to B-2 may not be inappropriate. (Other properties zoned B-2 also directly abut single family residential homes, such as Western Bank, Vino and Stogies and ABC Liquors.) Other factors to explore would include the potential traffic impacts as well as the potential increased demand for parking that more intensive uses might create. Traffic (vehicle trips in and out) from the site is historically minimal; customers are drawn from the immediate area, many of whom arrived on foot. Even at full occupancy, traffic and parking has generally not been an issue at the site. If the zoning is changed to B-2 however, it would stand to reason that traffic to the site would increase as would the parking demands. There are presently 21 parking stalls for the two businesses. The parking requirements for a retail establishment are 1 space per 100 feet of retail floor area, plus one space per employee. Working backwards from the existing 21 parking stalls, the site could support 1900 square feet of retail space, assuming two employees. The existing building is 4,800 square feet, however it is not known how much of that is the retail floor space and how much is stockroom, warehouse and office. While it would appear that the rezoning may not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan or the surrounding area, the Planning Commission will need to determine whether the uses permitted in the B-2 district would have the potential to cause adverse effects or depreciate the neighborhood, and whether there is a demonstrated need to justify the rezoning. The applicant indicates a desire to open a liquor store, but the Commission will need to consider any and all other potential uses allowed within the proposed district. Land Use: The "purpose" of the existing B-1, Neighborhood Business district is "to provide for the establishment of local centers for convenient, limited office, retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or services are furnished. These centers are to provide services and goods for the surrounding neighborhoods and are not intended to draw customers from the entire community." The uses permitted on this site as a B-1 property are as follows: • Barbershops • Beauty parlors • Convenience grocery stores (not supermarket type) • Essential services. • Laundromat, self-service washing and drying. • Thrift or second-hand store Rezoning Report - 2408 County Road I December 2, 2015 Page 4 • Retail business for local or neighborhood needs subject to the following limits: - The sale of dry goods, clothing, notions and variety merchandise. - The sale of books, magazines, newspapers, gifts, jewelry, music, stationery or office supplies. • Dry cleaning and laundry receiving and pick-up stations (with no cleaning or pressing done on site). • Florist Shop, Candy and ice cream stores (shall not include drive-through and/orwindow pick-up services). • Tailor shop, dress making, clothing rental store. • Professional and service business offices such as accountant, architect, broker, engineer, attorney, realtor, appraiser, finance agency, insurance agency, investment agency, travel agency, mortgage company. • Medical, dental, chiropractic, counseling or other health-related office or clinic. • Repair store that provides services for the repair of home, garden, yard and personal use appliances, tool or equipment (except for motorized vehicles or gas -powered equipment). The purpose of the B-2, Limited Business district is "to provide for low intensity, retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or services are furnished. The uses allowed in this District are to provide goods and services on a limited community market scale and located in areas which are well served by collector or arterial street facilities at the edge of residential districts." The uses that would be permitted if the property were zoned B-2 are as follows, including those already permitted in the B-1 District: • Bank, savings and loan, savings credit unions and other financial institutions. • Commercial (leased and professional offices). • Copy service but not including printing press or newspaper. • Dry cleaning pick-up and laundry pick-up stations, including incidental repair and assembly but not including processing. • Educational or instructional facilities. • Employment agencies. • Finance companies. • Health and beauty services. • Insurance sales, claims and branch offices. • Locksmith. • Medical and dental offices and clinics. • Public utility collection offices. • Real estate sales. • Shoe repair. • Therapeutic massage, per Chapter 514 of the municipal code. • Travel bureaus, transportation ticket offices. • Adult establishment as defined and regulated in Chapter 513 of the Municipal Code. • 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. Rezoning Report - 2408 County Road I December 2, 2015 Page 5 • Bakery goods and baking of goods for retail sales on the premises. • Bicycle sales and repair. • Books or stationery stores. • 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. • Restaurant, cafe, and tea room with a maximum of twenty four (24) seats and two thousand (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. • Tattoo, Body Piercing, Body Branding, Body Painting or Body Scarring Establishments, per Chapter 515 of the Municipal Code. As can be seen, while there is some overlap in the types of uses between the B-1 and B-2 districts, those allowed in the B-2 district would tend to be busier or draw from a wider area that the immediate neighborhood. The Commission will need to consider whether these uses would be appropriate at the subject property. Rezoning Report - 2408 County Road I December 2, 2015 Page 6 Summary For the Commission to support the requested rezoning, it must find that the request would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, would not depreciate or tend to cause or create adverse impacts to the surrounding properties, would not be incompatible with other uses in the geographical area and find that there is a sufficient, demonstrated need for the uses in the requested district. While the request may not be inconsistent with the Comp Plan and may not be incompatible for the area, it is less clear whether the request would cause adverse effects, whether the need exists for additional B-2 land and whether the small corner lot with limited parking can support the more intense uses permitted in the B-2 district. Recommendation: After reviewing the request and considering the criteria by which amendments to the official zoning map are processed, the Planning Commission may choose one of three actions: 1. Determine that the evidence presented does not support a recommendation of rezoning approval. If that is the case, the Commission may direct staff to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the requested rezoning from B-1 to B-2 for i consideration at the Commission's next meeting. 2. Determine that additional information is needed from staff or the applicant before a decision can be made. If that is the case, the Commission may table the request pending receipt of additional information. (State law requires that action be taken on the request within a certain period of time so action cannot be postponed indefinitely.) 3. Determine that the requested rezoning would be consistent with the comp plan, would not depreciate the neighborhood, would serve a demonstrated need, that the uses would not be inappropriate for the location and that the site can reasonably accommodate off-street parking needs. If that is the case, Staff will prepare a resolution recommending approval of the requested rezoning from B-1 to B-2 for consideration at the Commission's next meeting. Respectfully submitted, James Ericson City Administrator Zoning Map ng 177v7 5 76V R-4 7655 c <D a w c71 N N C� 4 N M N Pup M _ l n i CITY FI LL B-3 1611 7a"10 a45r759 7561175$0 X• 14 7584 L 7535 7521 I y 1 1 N M N Pup 1 a M _ l 7661 765L' R-4 7641 R-4 7631 ; 5445 C% 7521 u� 7$11 - 5401 1 7501 5394 B-3 06 NNUMIUN KNIT 53! 53861 5-9 atm 61, ,mit N �r�l NN yr N N N Nr.N�i I 5414. ; 5476 W5467 5414 1 5415 5406 1 5405 ry N N N 'N (Nil Aerial View 2408 County Road I i 4 a � 0 _ F O d i• � Photographic Documentation J ,n i Photographic Documentation Aw r 0 COMMUNXTY DEVEL®PMEMY DEPARTMENT, - PLANG ZNG APPLICAT90N 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 (763) 717-4O20 * Pax (763) 717-4019 permits@cLmounds-wiew.mmis Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information ( Name of Applicant %L2 ( t mu P, PLA 1 N �U nzrix N 5 Work # 1 x'11- Address a 11� (_ ,n; ti r u2.4 % City. - State � iJ Zip X117 Home # 2. dj� 6 Cell # 61 QL) ';'A `i 22; Fax # E-mail ' I�u � � A-, r,, c0 4-4c 1 Al Q'� �' COM Interest in Property (check appropriate box) 1%116 wrier of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑Lessee, Operator, Manager ElAgreement to Purchase ❑Other Applicants mustprovide evidence ofinterestin properfyatthe time ofapplicadon, andifyou are not the owner of the property, you must either provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application orthepropertyownermustsign this application for it to he accepted, Property Description/ Proposal Address or General Location Legal Description f -O} I , 3 1 �cL-f- Z. Property Identification # (PIN #) 34t - 3o --L3 -- 2(_ o04-7 e #of Acres ol 5W CurrentZoning g-( Type of Application (Please check the appropriate boxes), Comprehensive Plan Amendment 500 Rezoning $500 Maior Subdivision 700 Minor Subdivision 350 Planned'Unit Development PUD $750 PUD Amendment 400 Conditional Use Permit/Amendment R-1 R-2 200; all others 400 Interim Use Permit/Amendment 400 Variance R-1 R-2. 200 all others 400 Administrative Variance R-1 R-2 $100 Text Amendment Zonin `Cade 400 Text Amendment Other city Code 300 Develop Review/Site Plan Review 400 Wetland Alteration Permit I R-1 R-2 $200• all others 350 Wetiand Buffer Permit R -1,R 2 $30° ail others 100 Easement Vacation 250 Re -approval of Minor Subdivision or Plat Minor Subd. 50• Plat 100 Zoning Review of B-1 District Proposed Use1$200 Page 1 of 2 C Present Use of Property C3 2 0 � s 2 --"- Property Classification ❑ Abstract ❑ Torrens Description of Proposal (attach additional supporting documentation if necessary) BY MY/OUR SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Please Note: Application fees are nonrefundable. Applicants are responsible for all costs in excess of the application fee incurred by the City in the processing of this application. Such excess fees are to be paid upon receipt of statement from the City of Mounds View. Excess fees may include, but shall not be limited to, photocopy costs, staff time, and fees for planning consultants, attorneys and engineers. In some cases, a deposit may be required in advance to cover any anticipated excess costs associated with this application. (If a deposit is required, the applicant shall remain responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the application fee and deposit amount.) I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I have read all of the information listed in the Planning Application and fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. Name of Applicant (typed/printed) Signature of Applicant Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) • —i I / RO U L , Ali 7Ut�sA Signature of Property Owner Address of Owner //2z 7 �n.) s 9 /%2 7���r7n c ✓� �U Phone Number of Owner 612- E -mail /ZE-mail of Owner 3-` ✓N% /����i v1)A��/ �}z FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Date of Submittal I I )U -- 16 Date of Acceptance: 60 -day Limit 01 - t 55 -1 In 120 -day limit: Planning Case No(s) zc15 c7DI Assigned to: 6R1c°500 Fees Paid: Account •#' Application: 00 Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: Page 2 of 2 Checic/Credit # Receipt # MOUNDS VIEW of Mounds View Staff Item No: 6A Meeting Date: December 2, 2015 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, City Administrator Subject: Consideration of Resolution 1039-15, Establishing the Planning Commission's 2016 Meeting Schedule. Introduction: The Planning Commission establishes its meeting schedule each year by resolution. Discussion: The meeting schedule proposed for 2016 represents the usual first and third Wednesday of every month. There are no conflicts with holidays next year. Recommendation: Discuss the meeting dates and adjust the schedule. Approve Resolution 1039-15, establishing the 2016 meeting schedule of the Planning Commission. Respectfully submitted, ,J A/VV -eA Zi(Z�t'9t James Ericson City Administrator MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1039-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE 2016 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 2016; and, WHEREAS, 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 2016. 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 2nd day of December, 2015 Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST James Ericson, City Administrator LOW51 EXHIBIT 1. 2016 MEETING SCHEDULE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 6 January 20 February 3 February 17 March 2 March 16 April 6 April 20 May 4 May 18 June 1 June 15 July 6 July 20 August 3 August 17 September 7 September 21 October 5 October 19 November 2 November 16 December 7 December 21 Planning Commission Meeting Dates January S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6® 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 April S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 0 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 July S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 O6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 October S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4(D6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 2016 February S M T W T F S 1 2(D 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 (D 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 May S M T W T F S 1 2 3 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 August S M T W T F S 1 23O 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 (D 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 November S M T W T F S 1 (D3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2223 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 March S M T W T F S 12® 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 (D 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 June S M T W T F S 02 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 (D 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 September S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 67®8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2021 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 December 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 MoL7NDS VIEW of Mounds View Staff Item No: 613 Meeting Date: December 2, 2015 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Planning Commission Term Expiration and New Applications Review The terms of three Planning Commission members --Paul Schiltgen, Therese Kieffer and John Elofson--expire at the end of the year. The City advertised for the vacancies, with applications due by November 20, 2015. Staff received three applications for the Planning Commission—one from current member Paul Schiltgen and two from residents not otherwise or previously involved in city committees, boards or commissions. Staff did not receive applications from Commissioners Elofson or Kieffer. The Planning Commission will review the applications at the December 2, 2015 meeting, and the City Council will make the official appointments on December 14, 2015. Sincerely, James Ericson City Administrator Attachments: _ 1. Planning Commission Application from Paul Schiltgen . 2. Planning Commission Application from Angelica Klebsch 3. Planning Commission Application from Jason French 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: Full Name (Please Print): Work Phone:- 6 - L qU- �Q g (v Work/Cell Phone: �3 (P Address: U 3 S 5 � �,eGCsat4l 06W V r' V_e- Years at this address: q. Email Address: Years you have lived in Mounds View: Y s— Experience and Qualifications Skills and Interests: tNN4%er �w (iJ Y.Ro-eau- a,J,L�S '�eqD rewv� Employment, Occupation or Other Relevant Experience: a 7 Pftil�I�cauf+�,Ul�vtm(,u��ly,a`-�Lco,n-o,v�.i� v�V.P��v,-cZu.9-, f'I��Yti-�rN��l- Memberships,'Accomplishments or Other Qualifications: ® i gz441.b-ei✓ — lai vtn" 6 faL_ /k s o r a h7� r�, tfi v✓eirvch 0, & W vi ,4 , &'j -6v S ty'i�% CICA &,�va �eQ F�PE?oti✓, (�w vws u�lifl�l 120/3 tors l-F"6r 5-„�,,r(awl V ,A1Qj 20 3 aDIS Please stat4our reason for wain to serve with this group: /'ln �Pwua ^v'e�i�e � (/;~ r� v� 6"n LL�tf 1 A cLL0.fre P��, /I/ �� ��e te e, 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 View 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 physical abilities. Medtronic City of Mounds View 2401 County Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 763-717-4000 03:47:31 p.m. 11-20-2015 ill Application for Advisory Commissions and Committees Group(s) applied for: Pja�11V1 n1 C�i�tYhIS51o{rI , P�r1cs recrFattoi? P' / D��'j Full Name (Please Print): w0\5On micho el Frp11 C� Work Phone: 76 3 — 505 — 5-75 o\ Address: a q 7 4 Couni uJ Years at this address: Years you have lived in Mounds View: E-mail Address: JaS�11=M,Fren�h O Gyhail , CD11'I Work/Cell Phone: U 763 -63q -6M3' Experience and Qualifications Skills and Interests: Cons%vCttonlSnowboar'Ji �yt {���yl�j Vitt, �hild��vr Employment, Occupation or Other Relevant Experience: Murry c -F)r fin lasf 11 Pry, W kit or- fh� Colt/mbl�t lfPpy f" 0, ears in Pt btic t,��rICSF Memberships, Accomplishments or Other Qualifications: Please state your reason for wanting to serve withis group: T q(�V v� in /'&/'Z�s (t"G./ �tv�c� eve POO wvrj bAc L/I vii ly✓ Walk d�j �ccr1 t9 KP�� �'ti city Jr`¢. 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.) i - 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, ethnicity, sex, age or physical abilities. Received Time Nov. 20, 2015 3:48PM No. 2589 MOiJNnSVIEw 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: Full Name (Please Print): Planning Commission Paul Schiltgen Work Phone: 612-414-1325 Work/Cell Phone: 612-414-1325 Address: 7807 Bona Rd, Mounds View Years at this address: 8 years Years you have lived in Mounds View: 8 years E-mail Address: Skills and Interests: paschiltgen@aol.com Experience and Qualifications I am very interested serving my community and representing the Citizens of Mounds View. have great leadership skills, great listening and empathy qualities that can help represent the community well. Employment, Occupation or Other Relevant Experience: I currently am a Software Sale Representative with JAMF Software in Minneapolis, MN. I have served 2 terms on the Mounds View Planning Commission ( 2 Years as the Vice Chair,) and 1 Term on the Streets Committee Memberships, Accomplishments or Other Qualifications: Current member of of the Planning Commission and the Streets Committee. Please state your reason for wanting to serve with this group: As a citizen of Mounds View, I am interested in the well being and future of the community for our residents and want to be an active leader in making sure the City continues to grow and evolve and be eat place for our residents to raise a family and be part of a community. r� Signature: 4k- 42�i . Sc1t i-- Date: 1 I — I 1- (Your response to any of the above inquiries may be continued on the back of this form and you may attach other ...formation. ±hat would the CityGouncil 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, ethnicity, sex, age or physical abilities. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 4, 2015 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for November 4, 2015. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Elofson, Klander, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Kieffer. Also Present: City Administrator Jim Ericson and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 CU2015-002 Conditional Use Permit to Allow a 1,239 Square Foot 2 Oversize Garage 3. Approval of Minutes September 2, 2015. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Elofson. To approve the Minutes of the September 2, 2015 regular Planning Commission meetings as presented. Ayes — 6 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 November 4, 2015 Page 2 A. CU2015-002 Conditional Use Permit to Allow a 1,239 Square Foot Oversize Garage Applicant: Steven Smith Address: 2443 Hillview Road City Administrator Ericson indicated Steven Smith was requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a 1,239 square foot oversize garage on his property at 2443 Hillview Road. He explained the applicant was proposing to expand the rear of the garage and would not be encroaching on the side yard setback. Staff reviewed the request in further detail, requested the Planning Commission hold a Public Hearing and recommended approval. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Chair Stevenson asked what the proposed roofline would be in relation to the current house. Steven Smith, 2443 Hillview Road, explained the hipped roolline would remain at the same angles and would not be higher than the existing house. Chair Stevenson questioned if the addition to the garage was at a minimum. Mr. Smith indicated he would like to store an antique car and four -wheeler in the garage expansion along with providing a small work area. Commissioner Schiltgen asked if the rear elevation of the garage would have a garage door. Mr. Smith commented he was proposing to have a nine -foot garage door. Chair Stevenson did not see any objections to the request and did not believe sight lines would be impacted by the proposed garage expansion. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Klander. To approve Resolution 1038-15, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Conditional Use Permit to Allow for a 1,239 Square -Foot Garage at 2443 Hillview Road; Planning Case No. CU2015-002. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 6. Other Planning Activity None. 7. Review Minutes: A. October 7, 2015 The Commission discussed the October 7, 2015 meeting minutes. 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases November 4, 2015 Page 3 City Administrator Ericson explained staff had no upcoming planning cases at this time. B. Staff Updates City Administrator Ericson provided the Commission with an update from staff. He discussed the potential redevelopment options with The Beard Group for Crossroad Point. C. Council Updates Councilmember Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He discussed the recent improvements made to Mustang Drive and Mustang Circle. He reported staff has posted for the City Planner position and noted how the hiring process would continue. He reviewed the items that were discussed by the City Council at their November 2nd worksession meeting and provided comment on the great work being completed by Northeast Youth and Family Services (NYFS). D. Planning Commissioner Reports Chair Stevenson discussed the Abiding Savior property in his neighborhood and was pleased with how the new homes were developing. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, November 18, 2015 B. Wednesday, December 2, 2015 Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 10. Adjournment November 4, 2015 Page 4 There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, )a/VtA� James Ericson City Administrator Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 0 0 0 0 E 0 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA December 16, 2015 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes November 4, 2015 December 2, 2015 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. ZC2015-001 Rezoning from B1, Neighborhood Business, to B2, Limited Business Applicant: Zulfiquar Punjani Address: 2408 County Road I 6. Other Planning Activity (none) 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases (none) B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 8. Next Scheduled Planning Commission Meetings A. Wednesday, January 6, 2016 B. Wednesday, January 20, 2016 9. Adjourn PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 4, 2015 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for November 4, 2015. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Elofson, Klander, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Kieffer. Also Present: City Administrator Jim Ericson and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. f Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 CU2015-002 Conditional Use Permit to Allow a 1,239 Square Foot 2 Oversize Garage 3. Approval of Minutes September 2, 2015. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Elofson. To approve the Minutes of the September 2, 2015 regular Planning Commission meetings as presented. Ayes — 6 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 November 4, 2015 Page 2 A. CU2015-002 Conditional Use Permit to Allow a 1,239 Square Foot Oversize Garage Applicant: Steven Smith Address: 2443 Hillview Road City Administrator Ericson indicated Steven Smith was requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a 1,239 square foot oversize garage on his property at 2443 Hillview Road. He explained the applicant was proposing to expand the rear of the garage and would not be encroaching on the side yard setback. Staff reviewed the request in further detail, requested the Planning Commission hold a Public Hearing and recommended approval. Cham Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Chair Stevenson asked what the proposed roofline would be in relation to the current house. Steven Smith, 2443 Hillview Road, explained the hipped roofline would remain at the same angles and would not be higher than the existing house. Chair Stevenson questioned if the addition to the garage was at a minimum. Mr. Smith indicated he would like to store an antique car and four -wheeler in the garage expansion along with providing a small work area. Commissioner Schiltgen asked if the rear elevation of the garage would have a garage door. Mr. Smith commented he was proposing to have a nine -foot garage door. Chair Stevenson did not see any objections to the request and did not believe sight lines would be impacted by the proposed garage expansion. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Klander. To approve Resolution 1038-15, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Conditional Use Permit to Allow for a 1,239 Square -Foot Garage at 2443 Hillview Road; Planning Case No. CU2015-002. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission November 4, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 3 6. Other Planning Activity None. 7. Review Minutes: A. October 7, 2015 The Commission discussed the October 7, 2015 meeting minutes. 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases City Administrator Ericson explained staff had no upcoming planning cases at this time. B. Staff Updates City Administrator Ericson provided the Commission with an update from staff. He discussed the potential redevelopment options with The Beard Group for Crossroad Point. C. Council Updates Councihnember Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He discussed the recent improvements made to Mustang Drive and Mustang Circle. He reported staff has posted for the City Planner position and noted how the hiring process would continue. He reviewed the items that were discussed by the City Council at their November 2nd worksession meeting and provided comment on the great work being completed by Northeast Youth and Family Services (NYFS). D. Planning Commissioner Reports Chair Stevenson discussed the Abiding Savior property in his neighborhood and was pleased with how the new homes were developing. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, November 18, 2015 B. Wednesday, December 2, 2015 Mounds View Planning Commission November 4, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 4 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James Ericson City Administrator Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting December 2, 2015 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for December 2, 2015. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Kieffer, Klander, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Elofson Also Present: City Administrator Ericson and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 ZC2015-001 Rezoning from Bl, Neighborhood Business, to B2, 2 Limited Business Set 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule 3 Review Planning Commissioner Applications 3. Approval of Minutes October 7, 2015. 4 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Rundle. To approve the Minutes of the October 7, 2015 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly presented. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 2, 2015 Page 2 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases A. ZC2015-001 Rezoning from Bl, Neighborhood Business to B2, Limited Business Applicant: Zulfiquar Punjani Address: 2408 County Road I City Administrator Ericson indicated the applicant, Zulfiquar Punjani, was requesting a rezoning of the property at 2408 County Road I, previously Sam's Market. He discussed the history of the property and indicated the applicant was proposing to use the site more intensely. He reported there was talk of converting the space to a liquor store. He encouraged the Planning Commission to consider each of the uses allowed within the B-2 zoning district, while also considering the City's Comprehensive Plan, along with any adverse effects or depreciation of rezoning the property. He then noted the zoning on the adjacent properties. He reviewed the intent of both the B-1 and B-2 zoning districts. Staff recommended the Planning Commission discuss the request and either approve or deny the rezoning. Chair Stevenson questioned what the Planning Commission saw as the future for this property and if B-2 was a proper fit for this site. He believed B-2 was a proper fit. Commissioner Kieffer wanted to know if the property owner could find a B-1 user for this property. City Administrator Ericson stated he has not been in communication with anyone proposing to use the site in a B-1 manner. Chair Stevenson asked if the site had enough parking to support a more intense use. City Administrator Ericson reported more parking stalls could be added if required by a future use. He anticipated this would be a self-regulating issue. Councilmember Schiltgen questioned what portion of the property would be rezoned. City Administrator Ericson clarified that the applicant was proposing to rezone the entire parcel. However, he commented that if the property were rezoned, the entire building could be turned into a liquor store in the future. Commissioner Love inquired when the Comprehensive Plan would be updated. City Administrator Ericson explained the Comprehensive Plan was slated for updates in 2018. Further discussion ensued regarding the City's vision for the County Road I corridor. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 2, 2015 Page 3 Chair Stevenson asked if the property owner has been approached by someone interested in using the site as something other than a B-1 use. Julio Punjani, owner of the property, explained he has owned this property for the past 15 years. He discussed the rental history of the site and noted the wedding business would remain as is. He believed if a liquor store were to locate on the property, it would be within the smaller portion of the building. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned if parking has been a concern on the site. Mr. Punjani commented parking was not a concern for the property. Commissioner Love expressed concern with the types of uses that could locate within the B-2 zoning district. Chair Stevenson reported that the applicant would have to request approval for a liquor license from the City Council, prior to opening. Chair Stevenson questioned how the Commission wanted to proceed. Commissioner Schiltgen supported the proposed rezoning. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Rundle. To recommend staff draft a Resolution supporting the proposed rezoning of the property at 2408 County Road I from B-1, Neighborhood Business to B-2, Limited Business. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Abstain — 1 (Love) Motion carried. 6. Other Planning Activity A. Set 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule City Administrator Ericson requested the Planning Commission adopt a meeting schedule for 2016. He reported there were no holidays that interfered with the proposed lst and 3`d Wednesday schedule. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Love/Commissioner Rundle. To Adopt Resolution 1039- 15, establishing the 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. B. Review Planning Commissioner Applications City Administrator Ericson requested the Commissioners review applications for the retiring seats on the Planning Commission. He explained that Commissioner Kieffer, Commissioner Elofson and Commissioner Schiltgen's seats were expiring. He reported the City received an Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 2, 2015 Page 4 application from Commission Schiltgen and two other members of the community, Angelica Klebsch and Jason French. He introduced the new candidates to the Planning Commission. Angelica Klebsch introduced herself to the Commissioners. She noted she has been a resident of Mounds View for the past 4'/2 years. She indicated she has two small children and works in Economic Development for the City of Brooklyn Park She looked forward to serving in her community. Jason French introduced himself further to the Commission. He explained he grew up in Mounds View and returned to the community after he was married. He reported he works at MedTronic and was looking forward to becoming more involved in the City. City Administrator Ericson thanked Therese Kieffer and John Elofson for their service to the City on the Planning Commission. There was consensus of the Planning Commission to recommend the City Council appoint Angelica Klebsch, Jason French and Paul Schiltgen to the Planning Commission. 7. Review Minutes: A. November 4, 2015 The Commission discussed the.November 4, 2015 meeting minutes. 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases City Administrator Ericson discussed upcoming planning cases and anticipated the Planning Commission would be holding its December 16'h meeting. B. Staff Updates City Administrator Ericson provided the Commission with an update from staff. FIe reported the City received 30 applications for the planner position. Staff was now reviewing the applications to find the top five candidates to interview. He anticipated that interviews would not be held until January 2016. It was his hope that someone would be hired in February. C. Council Updates Councilmember Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He indicated the Council recently approved the CentuiyLink franchise agreement. He noted the City would be conducting a brief survey of 400 residents regarding organized trash Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 2, 2015 Page 5 collection. He explained the EDA recently considered a proposal from The Beard Group for the Crossroad Pointe property. D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, December 16, 2015 B. Wednesday, January 6, 2016 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson City Administrator Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. MOUNDS VIEW City of Mounds View Staff Report Item No: 5A Meeting Date: December 16, 2015 To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Review Rezoning Request from Zulfiquar Punjani, owner of 2408 County Road I, from B-1, Neighborhood Business, to B-2, Limited Business; Planning Case ZC15-001 Introduction: The applicant and property owner, Zulfiquar Punjani, has submitted an application to rezone his property located at 2408 County Road I, previously operated as a neighborhood convenience store, from B-1, Neighborhood Business, to B-2, Limited Business. The property is one of only two commercial properties presently zoned B-1. The other property is located at the southeast corner of County Road H2 and Silver Lake Road. The expressed basis for the requested rezoning would be to allow for the operation of a liquor store on the site. The Planninq Commission reviewed this request at its meeting on December 2, 2015. After reviewing the staff report and hearing from the property owner, the Commission expressed an opinion that the request would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive plan and would not be out of character considering the surrounding uses. After considering the other criteria for amending the City's official zoning map, the Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution recommending approval of the requested rezoning of the property. Background: The building at 2408 County Road 10 was constructed in 1973 and has always operated as a neighborhood convenience store, first and for many years as a Tom Thumb, then Sam's Market, and then most recently, Snap Market. The adjoining retail space was originally utilized as a laundromat, then was a thrift store, then a clothing store and most recently is being used as showroom / warehouse space for a wedding vendor. In 2010, the Zoning Code was amended, adding language to the B-1 zoning district to allow for uses "similar" to those explicitly listed if the proposed use would not create a nuisance and if the use would not be noxious or hazardous. The City Council would review uses that are not clearly similar to those listed in this Section for a determination of compatibility. In 2012, the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed a request to allow limited cooking at the Sam's Market to provide hot, fresh foods to customers, similar to the types of foods one might find at a Holiday or SuperAmerica. The Council approved the request but the owners of the business ultimately decided against pursuing the restaurant component. In 2015, the business which had been operating as Snap Market closed and the space has been vacant since. Rezoning Report - 2408 County Road I December 16, 2015 Page 2 Discussion: Consideration of a rezoning request requires significant review and consideration. The act of amending the Official Zoning Map must satisfy many criteria, not the least of which being consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the neighborhood and adjoining uses. In addition, potential adverse effects shall be taken into consideration. Regarding the first criteria, the request would not seem to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map, which designates this area as "Neighborhood Commercial", the same designation provided for The Station, Fedor's Market, Cars Bike Shop and the office building next door to the subject property. In addition to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, other factors should be considered when reviewing a rezoning request, such as compatibility of uses, the geographical area involved, possible depreciation and the demonstrated need forthe uses permitted in the proposed zoning district. A rezoning to a more intensive designation may not be inappropriate if the surrounding uses already bear more intense designations. Regarding the subject property, there is a parcel zoned B-3, Highway Business, developed as two-level office space adjacent to the east. Also to the immediate east and south, properties are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and improved with single family homes. Across the street to the west, the land is zoned R-3 and R-4 and developed as Higher Density Residential. Across County Road I to the north, the lots are predominately zoned R-1 however one lot on the northwest corner of the intersection is zoned R-2 and developed with a twin home. The zoning review would seem to indicate that higher intensity uses are common in this area and that a rezoning of the subject property from B-1 to B-2 may not be inappropriate. (Other properties zoned B-2 also directly abut single family residential homes, such as Western Bank, Vino and Stogies and ABC Liquors.) Other factors to explore would include the potential traffic impacts as well as the potential increased demand for parking that more intensive uses might create. Traffic (vehicle trips in and out) from the site is historically minimal; customers are drawn from the immediate area, many of whom arrived on foot. Even at full occupancy, traffic and parking has generally not been an issue at the site. If the zoning is changed to B-2 however, it would stand to reason that traffic to the site would increase as would the parking demands. There are presently 21 parking stalls for the two businesses. The parking requirements for a retail establishment are 1 space per 100 feet of retail floor area, plus one space per employee. Working backwards from the existing 21 parking stalls, the site could support 1900 square feet of retail space, assuming two employees. The existing building is 4,800 square feet, however it is not known how much of that is the retail floor space and how much is stockroom, warehouse and office. While it would appear that the rezoning may not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan or the surrounding area, the Planning Commission will need to determine whether the uses permitted in the B-2 district would have the potential to cause adverse effects or depreciate the neighborhood, and whether there is a demonstrated need to justify the rezoning. The applicant indicates a desire to open a liquor store, but the Commission will need to consider any and all other potential uses allowed within the proposed district. Rezoning Report - 2408 County Road I December 2, 2015 Page 3 MTIR MT The "purpose" of the existing B-1, Neighborhood Business district is "to provide for the establishment of local centers for convenient, limited office, retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or services are furnished. These centers are to provide services and goods for the surrounding neighborhoods and are not intended to draw customers from the entire community." The stated purpose of the B-2, Limited Business district is "to provide forlow intensity, retail orservice outlets which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or services are furnished. The uses allowed in this District are to provide goods and services on a limited community market scale and located in areas which are well served by collector or arterial street facilities at the edge of residential districts." The uses that would be permitted in the B-2 district include those already permitted in the B-1 District. While there is some overlap in the types of uses between the B-1 and B-2 districts, those allowed in the B-2 district would tend to be busier or draw from a wider area than the immediate neighborhood. The Commission will need to consider whether these uses would be appropriate at the subject property. Summary For the Commission to support the requested rezoning, it must find that the request would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, would not depreciate ortend to cause or create adverse impacts to the surrounding properties, would not be incompatible with other uses in the geographical area and find that there is a sufficient, demonstrated need for the uses in the requested district. The Planning Commission considered these issues at its December 2, 2015, meeting and provided direction to staff to prepare a resolution supporting the request. Recommendation: Based on the direction provided at the December 2 2015 Planning Commission meeting, staff has prepared Resolution 1039-15 recommending approval of the requested rezoning of the property at 2408 County Road I from B-1 Neighborhood Business, to B-2, Limited Business along with findings of fact in support of the recommendation determining that the requested rezoning would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, would not depreciate the neighborhood would not be out of character for the area would serve a demonstrated need and that the uses would not be inappropriate for the location. Respectfully submitted, J 6A -1w Eow� James Ericson City Administrator Zoning Map 7710 [���,['7721772 w 7713 � 774 d' ,O 7701 N �i -2 17 iry _N n 'ij'"i ri SA � O N V N N �-1 u. o 6� RD m ¢�jn.rm N y1N N ry i v 51 1 5480 g 547£1 5474 473 5466 5467 5462 5440 r, t4 � I 5429 N fJ H 5,171 PUU 5419 5406 I 5gfi5 N H 7651 � 765)' 7641 R-4 R -A [7 76131 5445 _ V1 7531 "r�21 7 a u> U �7501 5401 m ¢�jn.rm N y1N N ry i v 51 1 5480 g 547£1 5474 473 5466 5467 5462 5440 5426 5429 5420 5,171 5414 5419 5406 I 5gfi5 [7 V1 U a 5366 Lake �J L 11LIJ i�.r-r' L uJI— u . ■mm��m v W NEW BRIGHTON city 4 iilauoul: (dei Ca ca�a�:inr�»�m1a; n Future Land Use BLAINE {Y►111 Ili A, I 11 ,�1, 1111/11/1 ;T, [>rIIL- 1 1 i 0 m u NEW BRIGHTON 5v yeFamTj O-"@-5F0(ll773AC-`A.5X) UPMIMustl-LIIIH.4AC-02'd w$r4eFam3YAtla " SFA(03AC 27%) Ly111M$RW-U-PUD 135 o AL Li'» -Wu Fahy -MF IP',6 AG U%j -Hvv11Mu9iiN-HIIb33AG 3AY) QI J Home PY-MR (0IAC 21:) -P tNiE-W(A2.SAC 10%) .Wg TOM W— H. (3)AC-.) ®C6 M-CH(33.3AC 1.1X) Cam C——A CC IIB3AC-OPS) -Lv' OF (35 pC-02X) I_ JR:B'un.H C..A OWloor-P R< - SRO UX5 AC -95X) F;SBR-PCO^>!Commemil-RCFUO(135AC-00%) QN6aorSp R --SG (53 AC -03X) WLACFSt CpdMwn4Yew HPM1vnyConanimu-HC 11SSAC-0.P%) W O .5 O.iH SMAC -2.5.51 P'KF" RanmyCv_My -CRs.pFC a3.8pC-35S) -Psssvo Cyan 3yce- OSP I60.P AG-QSI DAR Maa3 Uu-MUYUD MT3AC. I6%)QWJ.ed WHnda Rnemhar, 2CM city 4 iilauoul: (dei Ca ca�a�:inr�»�m1a; n Future Land Use BLAINE {Y►111 Ili A, I 11 ,�1, 1111/11/1 ;T, [>rIIL- 1 1 i 0 m u NEW BRIGHTON Aerial View 2408 County Road I Photographic Documentation Photographic Documentation COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENY DEPARTMENT PLANN$NG APPIL.,ITCA` ZON 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 (763) 717-4020 * Fax (763) 717-4019 permits@ci.mounds-aiemr.mn.us Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information oI L� Name of Applicant o n," 1 ;, r i Work # r Address ,_�J1 i r� t 1_ City li a ti' _(t� Statp V� K Zip x`,11 Home # Cell # Fax # E-mail Interest in Property (check appropriate box) :i, owner of Property ❑Agreement to Purchase El contract for Deed Owner ❑Other ❑Lessee, Operator, Manager Applicants mustprovide evidence ofinterestin propertyat the time of application, andifyou are not the owner of the properly, you must either provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application or the property owner mustsign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/ Proposal Address or General Location - -'T_i ^' IT, Legal Description j Property Identification # (PIN #) U ` ? — 2 7 - 21 - DO Lf # of Acres U $ 5 Current Zoning 13.3 Type of Application (Please checic the appropriate boxes); Page I oft Comprehensive Plan Amendment 500 Rezoning $500 Major Subdivision $700 Minor Subdivision 350 Planned Unit Developl?ient (PUD) 1$750 PUD Amendment 400 Conditional Use Permit/Amendment R-1,_ R-2. 200; all others 400 Interim Use Permit/Amendment $400 Variance R-1 R-2 $200; all others t4OO Administrative Variance R-1 R-2_$100_ Text Amendment,Zoning_Code .400 Text Amendmeni� Uther City Code 300 Develop Review/Site Plan Review -- $400 Wetland Alteration Permit R-1, R-2$200; all others $350 Wetland Buffer Permit R-1 R-2 $30; all others $100 Easement Vacation 250 Re -approval of Minor Subdivision or Plat Minor Subd. $501 Plat '100 Zoniny Review of B-1 District Proposed Use $200 _ Page I oft Present Use of Propertyf"-'-- Property Classification ❑ Abstract ❑ Torrens Description of Proposal (attach additional supporting documentation if necessary) BY MY/OUR SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Please Note: Application fees are nonrefundable. Applicants are responsible for all costs in excess of the application fee incurred by the City in the processing of this application. Such excess fees are to be paid upon receipt of statement from the City of Mounds View. Excess fees may include, but shall not be limited to, photocopy costs, staff time, and fees for planning consultants, attorneys and engineers. In some cases, a deposit may be required in advance to cover any anticipated excess costs associated with this application. (If a deposit is required, the applicant shall remain responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the application fee and deposit amount.) I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I have read all of the information listed in the Planning Application and fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. Name of Applicant (typed/printed) Signature of Applicant Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) F (N t t -r2, J" ( Ui jj j A N1 Signature of Property Owner — Address of Owner G � ; z� - NJ id 1�/L I l'o; �'� c> n') A Phone Number of Owner C� /2'- `? >t `: ' ' - > / E-mail of Owner J ' / )t/.� ✓ i}�t_Ji — FOR OFFICE USF ONLY; Date of Submittal i I Ito - I aj Date of Acceptance: I - 1 I 1 `i 60 -day Limit v 1 („ 120 -day limit: Planning Case No(s) _"Z C- i 1701_— Assigned to: C _'+C su Fees Paid: Application: Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: _—_— Total: Account # Checic/Credit # Receipt # Page 2 of 2 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1040-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST TO REZONE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2408 COUNTY ROAD I FROM B-1, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, TO B-2, LIMITED BUSINESS; PLANNING CASE ZC15-001 WHEREAS, Zulfiquar Punjani, the applicant and property owner, has applied for a rezoning request of the property located at 2408 County Road 1, from B-1, Neighborhood Business, to B-2, Limited Business. The property is legally described as: Lot 1, Block 3, Greenfield Plat 2; PIN: 08-30-23-21-0047 WHEREAS, 2408 County Road I is currently zoned B-1, Neighborhood Business; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Future Land Use Map 4. Location Map 5. Site Photos 6. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Planning Commission met to review this request on December 2, 2015, and again on December 16, 2015; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed permitted uses within Chapters 1112 and 1113 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to the B-1 and B-2 zoning districts; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has considered the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan relative to this request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the possible adverse effects of this proposed rezoning request as required by the Mounds View Zoning Code: Resolution 1039-15 Page 2 1. The current zoning of the lot is B-1, Neighborhood Business. The requested zoning of the lot is B-2. Limited Business. 2. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the subject parcel as Neighborhood Commercial. 3. The proposed rezoning would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposed rezoning would not be incompatible with the surrounding uses. 5. The proposed rezoning would not appear to depreciate the neighborhood. 6. The proposed rezoning would not be expected to create any adverse effects to the surrounding area. 7. The applicant has demonstrated that a need exists for the uses in the requested zoning district. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above findings, the information and documents regarding the proposed rezoning, the staff report and the testimony of the applicant, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the rezoning request made by Zulfiquar Punjani. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 16th day of December, 2015. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson Attest: James Ericson, City Administrator (Seal) y Considerations for Alcohol Outlet Density The Community Preventive Services Task Force of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services* report on Alcohol Outlet Density found that greater outlet density is associated with increased alcohol consumption and related harms such as unintentional injuries, crime and violence. They recommend limiting alcohol outlet density through the use of regulatory authority, including zoning. Here is a summary of that report: used upon a systematic review of more than 88 scientific papers, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services concluded that "greater outlet density is associated with increased al- cohol consumption and related harms,"' Specific findings included: Slate and local alcohol outlet density -related policy changes that increase alcohol outlet density and alcohol availability (including allowing sales of new beverages) can significantly increase alco- hol consumption and related problems; Privatizing alcohol sales in Control States (ad- ditional description of Control States can be found in the section on "off -pre miso locations" below) increases the number of retail alcohol establishments; Re -monopolization, or when governments regain monopoly control over the retail sale of alcohol, decreases alcohol availability by reducing the number of alcohol outlets; • Bans on alcohol sales (e.g, studies of dry coun- ties) can substantially reduce excessive alcohol consumption and related harms, although their effectiveness is dependent on the availability of alcohol in surrounding areas. Based on these findings, the Task Force made the following formal recommendation:" "..,the''ask Force found sufficient evidence of a positive association between outlet density and ex- cessive alcohol consumption and related harm to recommend limiting alcohol outlet density through the use of regulatory authority (e.g., licensing and zoning) as a means of reducing or controlling ex- cessive alcohol consumption and related barns." (Taken from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, "Regulating Alcohol Outlet Density: Action Guide" htt ://www.cam .or * doeshesearch-to- ractiee/ lace/alcohol-outlet-densit /outlet- density-stratepizer-nov-2011 pdf) * The Community Services Task Force was established in 1996 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to identify population health interventions that are scientifically proven to save lives, increase lifespans, and improve quality of life. The Task Force produces recommendations to help inform the decision malting of federal, state, and local health departments, other government agencies, communities, healthcare providers, employers, schools and research organizations.) Liquor Store Density* 2010 Political unit Liquor store density Ramsey County 1.5 liquor stores/10,000 people Anoka County 1.1 liquor stores/10,000 people Hennepin County 1.4 liquor stores/10,000 people Minnesota as a whole 1.8 liquor stores/10,000 people Mounds View (calculated) We have 3 stores now. If we assume a population of 12,300**, the liquor store density is... 2.4 liquor stores/10,000 people Mounds View (calculated) If we increase to 4 stores with a population of 12,300, the liquor store density will be... 3.3 liquor stores/10,000 people *http://www.countvheaIthrankings ore/app/minnesota/2010/rankings/ramsey/county/outcom es/overall/snapshot **Metropolitan Council Population Forecast for Mounds View 2020, 2015 update