Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 Planning Commission PacketsMOUNDS VIEW e PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 18, 2012 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business A. Oath of Office for re -appointed Commissioners B. Election of Officers — Chair and Vice -Chair 4. Approval of Minutes: November 16, 2011 5. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 6. Planning Cases None 7. Other Planning Activity A. Continue Discussion on a City Code Amendment to Allow Massage Therapy as a Home Based Business B. Discuss updated language for Chapter 1121.09 Code Amendment 8. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. February 1, 2012 B. February 15, 2012 9. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. December 7, 2011 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion �AT Item No: 6A _® __ND S' WYY Meeting Date: January 18 2012 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Discuss Code Amendment to Allow Therapeutic Massage as a Permitted Home Occupation Introduction: At a City Council meeting in October, a resident asked the Council whether they would be willing to amend the City Code to be more permissive toward allowance of "massage therapy" as a home based business in Mounds View. The City Council then discussed the idea at their November work session. The City Council supports amending the City Code, and has asked that the Planning Commission take on how this should be accomplished. Discussion: Massage Therapy is a licensed business activity in Mounds View. The regulations pertaining to massage therapy can be found in Chapter 514 of the Mounds City Code, originally adopted in 1996 via Ordinance 583. There are many licensing and zoning requirements associated with such a business and they are expressly permitted only in the B2, B3 & B4 commercial business zoning districts. Such a use is not permitted in a residential zone or as a home-based business, as indicated in Section 514.10, Subd. 2, regarding locations ineligible for a therapeutic massage license. This clause reads, "A therapeutic massage enterprise may not be licensed if the location of such enterprise is not in conformance with Title 1100 of the Mounds View Municipal Code." At the December 7, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission discussed options about how to amend the City Code to allow massage therapy as a home based business. The Commission felt that the use should not simply be allowed, but that some sort of city action should be taken to permit this business use in a residential district. The Commission decided that a conditional use permit seemed to be the best way to accomplish this. They felt it was important to notify the neighborhood about the business activity, and the required public hearing for a CUP would accomplish that. When reviewing other cities allowances for massage therapy in residential districts, the Commission was interested in the "special home occupation permit" that the City of White Bear Lake uses, and asked staff to find more information. After reviewing the White Bear Lake special home occupation permit process and talking with the Planner, staff feels this might be a good option for Mounds View. It will accomplish what the Planning Commission wants to through the conditional use process, yet the application fee is less and the permit does not run with the land and is not transferrable like a typical CUP. The applicant would also have to renew the special home occupation permit on a regular basis — White Bear Lake requires that it be renewed the first time after one year, and then every three years. Therapeutic Massage Code Amendment Report January 18, 2012 Page 2 Staff has included a draft example of zoning code language that would add a "Special Home Occupation Permit." This proposed zoning code addition has been sent to the City Attorney to review in order to make sure it doesn't contradict any existing Code language. An annual city business license for massage therapists will still be required. The special permit would only apply if the therapist wants to operate the business from their home. Discussion points: ® What residential zoning districts should home based massage therapy be allowed in? All of them? Only R-1 and R-2? ® Should the business hours of operation be limited? ® If the applicant does not own the property where they would be operating the business, should they be required to provide a letter of permission from the property owner? Recommendation: The Planning Commission should review and discuss the Special Home Occupation Permit information. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Example language for a Special Home Occupation and Permit EXAMPLE LANGUAGE FOR A SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION AND PERMIT SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION: All massage therapists intending to provide massage services in a residential zoning district shall be required to apply for a "special home occupation permit' which shall be applied for, processed and reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Section 1125.01 Subd. 3 (Conditional Use) Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to provide a means through the establishment of specific standards and procedures by which special or customarily "more sensitive" home occupations can be conducted in residential neighborhoods without jeopardizing the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood. Subd. 1. Procedures and Permits. a. Declaration of Conditions. The Planning Commission and City Council may impose such conditions on the granting of a special home occupation permit as may be necessary to carry out the purpose and provisions of this Section. b. Effect of Permit. A "special home occupation permit' may be issued for a period of one (1) year after which the permit may be reissued for periods of up to three (3) years each. Each application for permit renewal shall, however, be processed in accordance with the procedural requirements of the initial "special home occupation permit'. c. Transferability. Permits shall not run with the land and shall not be transferable. d. Lapse of Special Home Occupation Permit by Nonuse. Whenever within one (1) year after granting a permit the use as permitted by the permit shall not have been initiated, then such permit shall become null and void unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the City Council. Such extension shall be requested in writing and filed with the Zoning Administrator at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the original permit. There shall be no charge for the filing of such petition. The request for extension shall state facts showing a good faith attempt to initiate the use. Such petition shall be presented to the City Council for a decision. e. Reconsideration. Whenever an application for a permit has been considered and denied by the City Council, a similar application for a permit affecting substantially the same property shall not be considered again by the Planning Commission or City Council for at least six (6) months from the date of its denial unless a decision to reconsider such matter is made by a majority vote of the City Council. f. Renewal of Permits. An applicant shall not have a vested right to a permit renewal by reason of having obtained a previous permit. The previous granting of a permit shall not constitute a precedent or basis for the renewal of a permit. g. General Provisions. No special home occupations shall be allowed which: 1. Involves employees other than persons residing on the premises; 2. Involves alteration or construction features not customarily found in dwellings; 3. Has an exterior display or sign in excess of one (1) square foot. Such sign, for identification purposes only, shall be located on either the principal structure or garage; 4. Generates any on -street parking. All vehicles associated with a home occupation shall be parked off-street and in compliance with the City's parking requirements; 5. Operates in a structure deemed by the Building Official as unsafe or "not fit for habitation" and; 6. Results in violation of the provisions of Chapter 607, Nuisances, of the Municipal Code. h. Inspection. The City of Mounds View hereby reserves the right upon issuing any home occupation permit to inspect the premises in which the occupation is being conducted to insure compliance with the provisions of this Section or any conditions additionally imposed. of Mounds View Staff Item No: 6B Meeting Date: January 18, 2012 Type of Business: Action To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Proposed Code Amendment — Chapter 1121.09 Introduction: After the discussion about driveways and parking areas in July, the Planning Commission approved an addition into the zoning code regarding accessing parking areas that are separate from the driveway. Staff has revisited the language, and reworded and expanded on it. Staff has prepared anew resolution for the Commission to review and take action on. Discussion: Staff requests that the Planning Commission review the updated language. The change is indicated in the resolution by deleting the stric� language and adding the underlined text. Previously approved language: If any parking area detached from the driveway is utilized for frequently used vehicles, it shall be serviced by an improved driveway that connects to, and is accessed only by, the primary driveway. Updated language suggestion: All areas used regularly for the parking of a vehicle or vehicles shall be serviced by an improved driveway adjoining to the property's primary driveway. Access to separate parking areas shall be achieved only from the property's approved curb cut opening at the street. Regularly accessing parking areas by other means or locations shall be prohibited. Recommendation: The Planning Commission should review the updated zoning code amendment and recommend changes or act on attached Resolution 956-12. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 956-12 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 1121.09 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE TO ADDRESS ACCESSING DETACHED PARKING AREAS WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that a requirement for accessing detached parking areas frequently be specifically addressed in Chapter 1121.09 Subd. 7 of the Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Chapter 1121.09 Subd. 7 of the Mounds View Zoning Code by deleting the strricken language and adding the underlined text as follows: Chapter 1121.09 Subd. 7. Surfacing: All areas, as allowed in subdivision 1104.01(4) of this Title, to be utilized for parking space and driveways shall be surfaced with a permanent improved surface material as defined in Section 1102.02 of this Chapter, suitable to control dust, drainage and erosion, meeting the requirements of Section 902.03 of this Code except as follows: A gravel surface material meeting the specifications of Section 902.03, subdivision 5 of this Code may be used for parking areas in an R-1 or R-2 District not to exceed three hundred (300) square feet or, if to be used as a parking surface for an RV, the minimum area that would encompass the wheel -base area of one (1) recreational vehicle. All areas used regularly for the parking of a vehicle or vehicles shall be serviced by an improved driveway adioining to the property's primary driveway. Access to separate parking areas shall be achieved only from the Property's approved curb cut opening at the street. Regularly accessing parking areas by other means or locations shall be prohibited. Plans for surfacing and drainage of driveways and stalls for five (5) or more vehicles shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review, and the final drainage plan must receive the Director of Public Works/City Engineer's written approval. WHEREAS, amending the Zoning Code to address accessing detached parking areas will serve to clarify the zoning requirements; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that an amendment to the City Code is warranted and justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of an amendment to Chapter 1121.09 Subd. 7 of the Mounds View Zoning Code to address accessing detached parking areas as defined herein. Pesolution 356-12 Page 2 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 18`" day of January, 2012. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting December 7, 2011 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for December 7, 2011. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Miller, Rundle, Schiltgen, Stevenson and Smith. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes I VR2011-008. Consideration of a Variance to Allow a Detached 2 Accessory Building to Exceed the Maximum Height Limit MI2011-002. Consideration of a Minor Subdivision 5 Set 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule 6 Review 2012 Planning Commissioner Applications 7 3. Approval of Minutes November 2, 2011. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Smith. To approve the Minutes of the November 2, 2011 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission December 7, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 2 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases A. VR2011-008 Consideration of a Variance to Allow a Detached Accessory Building to Exceed the Maximum Height Limit at 8027 Woodlawn Drive for Tim Downing Planning Associate Heller explained the Commission was to consider a variance request to allow a detached accessory building (garage) to exceed the maximum height limit at 8027 Woodlawn Drive. This was an after the fact variance as the garage has been constructed. Associate Heller explained in 2007, the applicant applied for a building permit for a single story garage. City staff approved the plans and the permit was issued in October 2007. However, the garage was not built right away and several time extensions were given for the building permit. In November 2009, the zoning code was changed to limit the height of accessory buildings to 18 feet. Work on the garage finally started in August 2010 and it was mostly completed by mid - 2011. Other than a footing inspection on August 31, 2010, no other building inspections had been requested by the applicant. City Staff was not aware the garage had been built until it was almost done. The garage that was built is two -stories tall and does not meet the previously approved plans or the current zoning code. Associate Heller stated the garage was being used for storage and the size of the garage is not necessarily out of place on the larger lot. She presented the Commission with several photographs of the garage and discussed City zoning code regulations. The current City Code states that garages were not to exceed 18 feet and the garage was 22 feet 10 inches tall. The Commission would need to review the variance request through the City's new variance language and discuss if there is a practical difficulty. She reviewed several conditions if the Commission were to approve the variance. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Commissioner Cramblit asked why windows were placed on three sides of the garage, if it was only being used for storage. Tim Downing, 8027 Woodlawn Drive, indicated he is a contractor, and had several leftover windows and decided to use them on the building. Commissioner Cramblitquestioned the need for the second story garage door. Mr. Downing stated this made it easier to bring items in to the second floor for storage. Mounds View Planning Commission December 7, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 3 Commissioner Cramblit inquired how the original existing detached garage would be used now. Mr. Downing explained it was his intent to demolish this building and build an attached garage in the future. Commissioner Miller asked when the project would be completed. Mr. Downing noted he did not currently have a timeline. Commissioner Cramblit questioned if the homeowner was aware of the City's new zoning code prior to constructing the garage. Mr. Downing noted he was somewhat aware there was a change and spoke with the City about a Cambria roof. He explained the original garage was exactly the same minus the dormers and with a 10/12 pitch. He built the garage with a 12 pitch roof to allow for additional head room. He stated he spoke with the building inspector about the roof height and a comment was made that the height "would not be measured" by staff. For this reason, he went ahead with the 12 pitch roof and ordered the different trusses in August 2010. Commissioner Schiltgen indicated the garage constructed was a long way off from the original plans approved for the building permit. Chair Stevenson stated the City Code in place at the time of actual construction limits accessory structures to be no higher than 18 feet. He questioned how the City dealt with new construction using "green" or "used" building materials. Associate Heller stated this area of the international building code was changing with the push towards green building. The building official typically allows "used" building materials as long as they are in good condition and the original structural integrity is still in place. She noted the building official would have more information on this issue. Chair Stevenson commented City staff approved a building permit for a design that was then not followed by the homeowner. He questioned if the plans would have been approved if resubmitted. Associate Heller stated the revised plans would not have been approved by staff as the height exceeds City Code. Chair Stevenson expressed concern with this case and stated he would not have been in favor of approving this variance request if submitted prior to construction. He did not see the property as being unusual and therefore, the construction of a garage this tall would not have been allowed. Chair Stevenson stated that he did not support the variance request before the Commission this evening. Doug Less, owner of 7984 Woodlawn Drive, explained he lived on WoodlaWn Drive from July of 1987 to April of 2007. He planned to tear down the house and build a new home and large Mounds View Planning Commission December 7, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 4 garage. He turned in the original set of drawings to the City and the City did not accept the plans as the garage size exceeded 1,800 square feet. The plans were then revised to reduce the garage size to meet the City's standards. After submitting the second set of plans, he was told the home needed to be completed first before the accessory structure could be built. And tonight he learned the height requirements for garages have now changed. Mr. Less expressed frustration that this garage exceeded the height limitations and allowable square footage, and in addition, there was no driveway to the structure. He was upset with the mess created by the homeowner. He recommended that the second story be removed from this structure. Joanna Carlson, 8051 Woodlawn Drive, stated she did not object to the size of the garage as it allowed for necessary storage. However, if this variance were approved, it could steamroll into a problem in the future and set precedence. Christy Downing, 8027 Woodlawn Drive, understood the City should not make exceptions. She indicated her husband was working with building inspector Don on the garage, and perhaps he did not understand the issues that would be created by exceeding the height. Ms. Downing explained that her husband did not knowingly defy the City and its code. Jerry Espeseth, 8005 Woodlawn Drive, indicated the garage was well built, however Mr. Downing did not follow City Code. He stated his property value was down approximately 35% and the large garage structure was not helping. He requested additional screening be added if the Commission allowed for the variance. Mr. Downing commented there were three garages with larger footprints than his within 200 feet of his property. He stated the height allowed the building to block the Medtronic building. He felt the garage should be considered a story and a half and not a two story. He stated that several of his neighbors were not in compliance for issues on their property, but he was not bringing them before the City. Mr. Downing noted he had approval from Staff for a similar garage and requested the structure be allowed to remain. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Associate Heller reviewed the two versions of resolutions before the Commission this evening. Chair Stevenson reviewed the resolution in detail commenting he did not see this property as being unique. He indicated the property owner could have improved his property by adding an accessory structure that met the City's requirements. For that reason, he did not feel the Commission could approve this variance. Commissioner Cramblit agreed stating the garage should have followed the original plans submitted and approved by staff. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 7, 2011 Page 5 Commissioner Schiltgen noted the timeframe from the original building plans submission to the actual construction was really drawn out. Changes were made to the City Code during that time and better communication should have been done by the City. For this reason, the variance should be discussed further by the Commission. Chair Stevenson commented the Commission's decision could be appealed to the City Council. The Commission was being asked to review the practical difficulty and compliance with the Zoning Code. He indicated that when construction began in 2010, the height limit in the Zoning Code had already been changed, and the homeowner was not in compliance with the current Code. For that reason, he would not vote in favor of the variance. Commissioner Smith questioned if the Commission could approve this structure as a primary garage instead of a secondary. Chair Stevenson stated this wasn't something that could be done. Commissioner Meehlhause asked how many building inspections should have been completed on this garage by the City. Associate Heller stated there should have been at least a footing inspection, framing inspection and final inspection. Also, electrical, mechanical or plumbing inspections, if applicable. She noted there were typically only three to four inspections on a garage. She explained that the City only completed a footing inspection on this garage. The homeowner did not contact the City for any other inspections. Commissioner Cramblit indicated the 18 foot height restriction was created by the City to assure there would be no living space above a garage. With the size of the garage, its dormers and windows, the space could easily be converted to an apartment. Chair Stevenson questioned how the Commission would like to proceed with the variance. Commissioner Cramblit felt the Commission had enough information to take action on the variance this evening and the item did not need to be tabled. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Chair Stevenson. To Approve Resolution 955- 11, a Resolution Denying a Variance to Allow a Detached Accessory Building to Exceed the Maximum Height Limit; Planning Case No. VR2011-008. Commissioner Schiltgen was conflicted with the denial of the variance as the City could have communicated better with the homeowner. Chair Stevenson stated if the applicant had followed the original plans, he would not have needed a variance. However, he changed the plans and built the garage without coming back to the City for approval. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 7, 2011 Page 6 Commissioner Meehlhause noted the existing garage did not reflect the original plans and his main concern was the excessive height. Commissioner Smith asked if the homeowner had to follow the building codes from 2007 or 2010. Associate Heller stated the code existing in 2010 would have to be followed as this was the time construction began by the homeowner. Commissioner Miller noted the applicant could appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the Council. Ayes — 6 Nays — I (Schiltgen) Motion carried. B. MI2011-002 Consideration of a Minor Subdivision at 2565 Sherwood Road for Bob & Mary Pearson Planning Associate Heller indicated the Commission was being asked to consider a minor subdivision of a vacant lot adjacent to 2565 Sherwood Road. Bob and Mary Pearson live at 2565 Sherwood Road and purchased the vacant property adjacent to the north about ten years ago. She reviewed the location of the subdivision stating their neighbor would like to purchase a portion of the vacant parcel to have a bigger backyard and build a garage. However, City Code does not allow a garage to be built on a parcel without a primary structure. If the neighbor were to combine the lots officially through Ramsey County, which would give them a single PIN number (then an accessory structure would be allowed. Associate Heller recommended that park dedication fees for this subdivision be captured only if a home were built on the site. Accessory buildings would have to be removed if the parcels were ever "disconnected" from each other. Chair Stevenson noted Parcel B was landlocked and could not be built on. Associate Heller stated Parcel A could be built on as it had access to existing road right-of-way to the west, and Parcel B could possibly be part of a larger redevelopment project, but park dedication fees would then be captured through the platting process. Commissioner Smith questioned what the park dedication fees would be. Associate Heller stated park dedication fees would be 5% of the County assessed value of the land. Commissioner Miller commented that at this point in time, neither lot had any plans for development. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 7, 2011 Page 7 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Meehlhause/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 954-11, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision of a vacant lot owned by Bob and Mary Pearson, adjacent to 2565 Sherwood Road; Planning Case No. MI2011-002. Ayes — 7 6. Other Planning Activity Nays — 0 A. Set 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule Motion carried. Planning Associate Heller requested the Commission establish its meeting schedule for 2012. The meeting schedule proposed for 2012 represents the usual first and third Wednesday of every month with the exception of July, which will need to be adjusted to account for Independence Day. She recommended the Commission have a tentative date held on July 3`d or 5th and cancel the meeting if no cases were before the Commission. Chair Stevenson recommended the meeting be changed from July 3`d or 5th to July l Otn Commissioner Cramblit stated the meeting could be cancelled if there were no planning cases. Chair Stevenson noted a special meeting could be called if needed by the Commission. Associate Heller stated she did not see any problems with cancelling the July 4th meeting and rescheduling the meeting to July 10tH MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolution 953-11, a Resolution Establishing the 2012 Meeting Schedule of the Planning Commission as discussed above. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 B. Review 2012 Planning Commissioner Applications Motion carried. Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that the term of three Planning Commission members — Gary Stevenson, Gary Meehlhause and Jean Miller - expire at the end of the year. The City advertised the vacancies, with applications due on November 10, 2011. Staff received applications from all three current Commissioners for another term. No other applications for the Planning Commission were received by the City. She requested the Commission review the applications and make a recommendation to the Council. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 7, 2011 Page 8 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Rundle. To recommend the City Council reappoint Gary Stevenson, Gary Meehlhause and Jean Miller to the Planning Commission in 2012. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. December 21, 2011 B. January 4, 2012 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session Motion carried. There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:36 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. UV wfjkzll� � PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA March 7, 2012 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: December 7, 2011 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases None 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review Proposed City Code Amendment to Allow Massage Therapy as a Home Based Business B. Chapter 1121.09 Code Amendment about Detached Parking Areas 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. March 21, 2012 B. April 4, 2012 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. January 18, 2012 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion Item No: 6A Meeting Date: March 7, 2012 51 oType of Business: Discussion �u�s vi�vv City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Discuss Code Amendment to Allow Therapeutic Massage as a Permitted Home Occupation Introduction: At a City Council meeting in October, a resident asked the Council whether they would be willing to amend the City Code to be more permissive toward allowance of "massage therapy" as a home based business in Mounds View. The City Council then discussed the idea at their November work session. The City Council supports amending the City Code, and has asked that the Planning Commission take on how this should be accomplished. Discussion: Massage Therapy is a licensed business activity in Mounds View. The regulations pertaining to massage therapy can be found in Chapter 514 of the Mounds City Code, originally adopted in 1996 via Ordinance 583. There are many licensing and zoning requirements associated with such a business and they are expressly permitted only in the B2, B3 & B4 commercial business zoning districts. Such a use is not permitted in a residential zone or as a home- based business, as indicated in Section 514.10, Subd. 2, regarding locations ineligible for a therapeutic massage license. This clause reads, A therapeutic massage enterprise may not be licensed if the location of such enterprise is not in conformance with Title 1100 of the Mounds View Municipal Code." At the December 7, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission discussed options about how to amend the City Code to allow massage therapy as a home based business. The Commission felt that the use should not simply be allowed, but that some sort of city action should be taken to permit this business use in a residential district. The Commission decided that a conditional use permit seemed to be the best way to accomplish this. They felt it was important to notify the neighborhood about the business activity, and the required public hearing for a CUP would accomplish that. When reviewing other cities allowances for massage therapy in residential districts, the Commission was interested in the "special home occupation permit" that the City of White Bear Lake uses, and asked staff to find more information. Staff reviewed White Bear Lake's special home occupation permit process and discussed the idea with the Planning Commission. The Commission opted to not create a new special home occupation permit process for one type of business. After more discussion, the Commission decided that a public notification process and requiring approval from the property owner (if the massage therapist does not own the property), should be sufficient. Therapeutic Massage Code Amendment Report March 7, 2012 Page 2 The Planning Commission felt strongly about notifying the neighborhood if someone was going to run a massage therapy business in a residential district. They did not feel that an actual public hearing was necessary, but rather simply mail a notification to property owners within 350 feet. The Commission also discussed allowing a 10 -day period to take comments from residents regarding the notification, and if there were any protests to the massage therapy business the City Council would review the proposal. The Commission did not want to prevent anyone from being able to operate a massage therapy business in their home, no matter what type of housing they lived in, so they chose not to limit the business to certain residential zoning districts. Although, if the applicant does not own the property they where live and intend to operate the business, the Commission recommends that a letter of approval from the property owner must be submitted to the City. Staff suggests amending Chapter 1106.03 Subd. 3 Home Occupations and adding the two requirements specific for massage therapy by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text as follows: Chapter 1103.03 Subd. 3. Home Occupations: The regulation of home occupations within residential structures is intended to ensure that the occupational use is clearly accessory or secondary to the principal dwelling use and that compatibility with surrounding residential uses is maintained. No home occupation shall be allowed which: a. Involves employees other than persons residing on the premises; b. Involves alteration or construction features not customarily found in dwellings; c. Has an exterior display or sign in excess of one (1) square foot. Such sign, for identification purposes only, shall be located on either the principal structure or garage. Any sign existing prior to December 29, 1972, shall not be enlarged but may be continued at the size and location upon such date, except as hereinafter specified or subsequently amended. Any sign erected after December 29, 1972, but priorto the effective date hereof shall come into compliance herewith by April 1, 1983; d. Involves exterior storage of equipment or materials; e. Generates any on -street parking. All vehicles associated with a home occupation shall be parked off-street and in compliance with the City's parking requirements; f. Results in violation of the provisions of Chapter 607, Nuisances, of the Municipal Code; and, g. Involves activity visible from the public streets. h. Day Care Center, group nursery or adult day care operating as a secondary of 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, such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues; subjectto the following conditions: Therapeutic Massage Code Amendment Report March 7, 2012 Page 3 (a) No overnight facilities are provided for the persons served. The individuals shall be transported to and from the facility daily. (b) All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall meet the requirements of the Mounds View Sign Code. (c) The distance between any outdoor play yard for a day care center or group nursery and the Highway 10 right-of-way line shall be a minimum of two hundred feet (200'), except as provided in Section 1123.02, subdivision 1c. (d) No day care center or group nursery shall be permitted where the distance from the property line for the day care center or group nursery to a premise requiring a liquor license, as provided in Section 502 of the Municipal Code, or a license for an adult establishment, as provided in Section 513 of the Municipal Code, is five hundred feet (500') or less, except that the five hundred (500) foot requirement shall not apply to any liquor establishment receiving at least sixty percent (60%) of its annual gross sales revenue from the sale of food. (e) The operator shall secure all necessary Ramsey County or State of Minnesota licenses and approvals. Recommendation: The Planning Commission should review and discuss the suggested code amendment to allow massage therapy as a home based business. The City Council will be discussing this at the Monday, March 5, 2012 Work Session so Staff will have feedback from the Council to share at the Planning Commission meeting. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Chapter 514 Therapeutic Massage 514.01 CHAPTER 514 SECTION: 514.01: Findings 514.02: Definitions 514.03: License Required 514.04: Exemptions 514.05: General Rule 514.06: License Application 514.07: Application and Investigation Fees 514.08: Application Verification and Consideration 514.09: Persons Ineligible for License 514.10: Locations Ineligible for Therapeutic Massage Enterprise License 514.11: General License Restrictions 514.12: Restrictions Regarding Sanitation and Health 514.13: License Term: Renewals 514.14: Suspension: Revocation 514.15: Temporary Therapist License 514.16: Hours of Operation 514.17: Violations and Penalties 514.01: FINDINGS. It is found and determined that: 514.01 a. Persons who have recognized and standardized training in therapeutic massage, health and hygiene provide a legitimate and necessary service to the general public; b. Health and sanitation regulations governing therapeutic massage enterprises and massage therapists will minimize the risk of the spread of communicable diseases and promote health and sanitation; c. License qualifications for therapeutic massage enterprises and massage therapists will minimize the risk that such businesses and persons may facilitate prostitution and other criminal activity in the city; and d. Massage services provided by persons without recognized and standardized training in massage can endanger citizens by facilitating the spread of communicable diseases, by exposing citizens to unhealthy and unsanitary conditions, and by increasing the risk of personal injury. City of Mounds View 514.02 514.02 (Rev. 4/09) 514.02: iDEFINITIONS: The terms defined in this Section have the meanings given them. Subd. 1. "Clean" means the absence of dirt, grease, rubbish, garbage and other offensive, unsightly or extraneous matter. Subd. 2. "ht good repair" means free of corrosion, breaks, cracks, chips, pitting, excessive wear and tear, leaks, obstructions and similar defects. Subd. 3. "Massage" means the rubbing, stroking, kneading, tapping or rolling of the body of another person with the hands for the purpose of physical fitness, health-care referral, relaxation and for no other purpose. Subd. 4. "Operate" means to own, manage or conduct, or to have control, charge or custody over. Subd. 5. "Recognized school" means any school or institution of learning which has for its purpose the teaching of the theory, method, profession or work of a massage therapist that requires a resident course of study that requires not less than seventy (70) hours before the student is issued a diploma or certificate of graduation. If the school or institution is located in the United States, it must have current membership in good standing in the American Massage and Therapy Association or other recognized professional massage organization. If the school or learning institution is located outside of the United States, the applicant must provide the City with decipherable documentation that shows that he or she attended a school or learning institution that is equivalent to attending a school or learning institution in the United States in both its course of study and diploma or graduation requirements. Schools offering a correspondence course not requiring actual physical attendance of class shall not be deemed a recognized school. (Added, Ord. 817, 4-2-09) Subd. 6. "Therapeutic massage enterprise" means a place of business providing massage services to the public for consideration: the term does not include a hospital, sanitarium, rest home, nursing home, boarding home or other institution for the hospitalization or care of other human beings duly licensed under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, sections 144.50 through 144.69. (Amended, Ord. 817,4-2-09) Subd. 7. "Therapeutic massage therapist" means a person who practices or administers massage to the public for consideration. (Amended, Ord. 817, 4-2-09) Subd. 8. "In the City" means physical presence as well as telephone referrals such as phone -a -massage operations in which the business premises, although not physically located within the City, serves as a point of assignment of employees who respond to requests for services in the City. (Amended, Ord. 817, 4-2-09) City of Mounds View 514.03 1 ► t �GpI "In pill 514.06 (Rev. 4/09) Subd. 1. Therapeutic Massage Enterprise: It is unlawful to operate, offer, engage in or carry on massage services in the City without a therapeutic massage enterprise license. Subd. 2. Therapeutic massage therapist license: It is unlawful to practice, administer or provide massage services in the City without a therapeutic massage therapist license. 514.04: EXEMPTI®NS: A therapeutic massage enterprise license or therapeutic massage therapist license is not required for the following persons and places: a. Persons licensed by the state to practice medicine, surgery, osteopathy, chiropractic, physical therapy or podiatry, provided that the massage is administered in the regular course of the medical treatment not provided as part of a separate and distinct massage business; b. Persons licensed by the state as beauty culturists or barbers, provided the persons do not hold themselves out as giving massage treatments and provided that massage by beauty culturists is limited to the head, hand, neck and feet and the massage by barbers is limited to the head and neck, c. Persons working solely under the direction and control of a person duly licensed by the state to practice medicine, surgery, osteopathy, chiropractic, physical therapy or podiatry; d. Places licensed or operating as a hospital, nursing home, hospice, sanitarium or group home established for hospitalization or medical care; and e. Athletic coaches, directors and trainers employed by public or private schools. 514.05: GENERAL RULE: The owner or operator of a licensed therapeutic massage enterprise may employ only licensed therapeutic massage therapists to provide massage services. The owner or operator of a licensed therapeutic massage enterprise need not be licensed as a therapeutic massage therapist unless that owner or operator personally provides massage services. 514.06: LICENSE APPLICATI®N: Subd. 1. Therapeutic Massage Enterprise: The application for a therapeutic massage enterprise license must contain the following information: a. For all applicants: City of Mounds View 514.06 514.06 (Rev. 4/09) (1) Whether the applicant is an individual, corporation, partnership or other form of organization; (2) The legal description of the premises to be licensed together with a plan of the area showing dimensions, location of buildings, street access and parking facilities; (3) The floor number, street number and rooms where the massage services are to be conducted; (4) Whether all real estate and personal property taxes that are due and payable for the premises to be licensed have been paid, and if not, the years and amounts that are unpaid; (5) If the application is for premises either planned or under construction or undergoing substantial alteration, the application must be accompanied by preliminary plans showing the design of the proposed premises; if the plans for design are on file with the building inspector, no plans need be submitted; (6) The name and street address of the business if it is to be conducted under a designation, name or style other than the name of the applicant, and a certified copy of the certificate required by Minnesota Statutes, section 333.02; (7) Other information that the City Council may require. b. For applicants who are individuals: (1) The name and date of birth of the applicant and the applicant's residence address; (Amended, Ord. 917,4-2-09) (2) If the applicant has ever used or been ]mown by a name other than the applicant's name, and if so, the name or names and information concerning the dates and places where used; (3) Residence addresses of the applicant during five (5) years preceding the date of application; (4) The type, name and location of every business or occupation the applicant has been engaged in during the preceding five (5) years; (5) Names and addresses of the applicant's employers for the preceding five (5) years; (6) If the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony, crime or violation of an ordinance other than a minor traffic offense; if so, the applicant must furnish information as to the time, place and offense involved in the convictions; City of Mounds Yew 514.06 514.06 (Rev. 4/09) (7) If the applicant has ever been engaged in the operation of massage services; if so, the applicant must furnish information as to the name, place and length of time of the involvement in such activity. c. For applicants that are partnerships: (1) The names and addresses of general and limited partners and the information concerning each general partner described in subdivision lb of this Section; (2) The managing partners must be designated, and the interest of each general and limited partner in the business must be disclosed; (3) A true copy of the partnership agreement must be submitted with the application, and if the partnership is required to file a certificate as to a trade name under Minnesota Statutes, Section 333.02, a certified copy of that certificate must be submitted. The license if issued will be in the name of the partnership. d. For applicants that are corporations: (1) The name of the organization, and if incorporated, the state of incorporation; (2) A true copy of the certificate of incorporation, and, if a foreign corporation, a certificate of authority as described in Minnesota Statutes, Section 303.02; (3) The name of the general manager, corporate officers, proprietor, and other person in charge of the premises to be licensed, and the information about those persons described in subdivision lb; (4) A list of the persons who own or have a controlling interest in the corporation or organization or who are officers of the corporation or organization, together with their addresses and the information regarding such persons described in subdivision lb of this Section.. Subd. 2. Therapeutic Massage Therapist: An application for a therapeutic massage therapist license must contain the following information: a. The applicant's name and address; b. The applicant's current employer; c. The applicant's employers for the previous five (5) years, including employer's name, address and dates of employment; City ofMounds View 514.06 514.07 (Rev. 4/09) d. The applicant's residence address for the previous five (5) years; e. The applicant's social security number, date of birth, home telephone number, weight, height, color of eyes and color of hair; f If the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony, crime or violation of an ordinance other than a minor traffic offense and, if so, the time, place and offense involved in the convictions; g. If the applicant has ever used or been known by a name other than the applicant's name, and if so, the name or names and information concerning dates and places where used; h. Evidence that the applicant: (1) Has legal work status in the United States; (Added, Ord. 817, 4-2-09) (2) Has a diploma or certificate of graduation from a recognized school; (Added, Ord. 817,4-2-09) (3) Has current insurance coverage with liability limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) for professional liability in the practice of massage; (Amended, Ord. 817, 4- 2-09) (4) Is affiliated with, employed by or owns a therapeutic massage enterprise licensed by the City; (Amended, Ord. 817, 4-2-09) (5) In addition to the seventy (70) hours of resident study, applicant must complete at least four hundred (400) hours of certified therapeutic massage training as part of earning a diploma or certificate from a recognized school; (Amended, Ord. 817, 4-2-09) (6) Has at least one (1) year of experience practicing massage therapy as established by an affidavit. (Amended, Ord. 817, 4-2-09) i. Other information that the City Council may require. 514.07: APPLICATION AND INVESTIGATION FEES: The fees for a massage enterprise and therapist licenses are set forth from time to time by City Council resolution. An investigation fee will be charged for therapeutic massage enterprise licenses. An application for either license must be accompanied by payment in full of the required license and investigation fees, if applicable. City of Mounds View 514.08 514. 10 (Rev. 5/10) Subd. 1. Therapeutic Massage Enterprise License: The City Administrator must verify the information supplied on the license application and investigate the background, including the criminal background, of the applicant to assure compliance with this Section. Within ninety (90) days of receipt of a complete application and fee for a therapeutic massage enterprise license, the City Administrator must make a written recommendation to the City Council as to issuance or non -issuance of the license. The City Council may order additional investigation if it deems it necessary, but must grant or deny the application within one hundred twenty (120) days of receipt by the City Administrator of the complete application and required fees. (Amended, Ord. 844, 5-20-10) Subd. 2. Therapeutic Massage Therapist License: Within ninety (90) days of receipt of a complete application and fee for a therapeutic massage therapist license, the City Administrator must grant or deny the application. Notice will be sent to the applicant upon a denial informing the applicant of the right to appeal to the City Council within twenty (20) days. If an appeal is properly made, the matter will be placed on the next available City Council agenda. (Amended, Ord. 844, 5-20-10) 514.09: PERSONS INELIGIBLE TO HOLD A LICENSE: (Amended, Ord. 817,4-2-09) Subd. 1. Therapeutic Massage Enterprise License: A therapeutic massage enterprise license may not be issued to or held by an individual who: (Amended, Ord. 817, 4-2-09) a. Is a minor; (Amended, Ord. 817,4-2-09) b. Has been convicted of any crime directly related to the occupation licensed as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 364.03, subdivision 2, and who has not shown competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness _ to perform the duties and responsibilities of a licensee as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, Section 364.03, subdivision 3; (Amended, Ord. 917,4-2-09) c. Is not of good moral character or repute; d. Is not the real party in interest of the enterprise; e. Has misrepresented or falsified information on the license application. Subd. 2. Therapeutic Massage Therapist License: A therapeutic massage therapist license may not be issued to or held by a person who could not qualify for a therapeutic massage enterprise license or who is not (i) affiliated with, (ii) employed by or (iii) does not hold, a therapeutic massage enterprise license. (Amended, Ord. 817, 4-2-09) 514.10 City of Mounds View 514.11 (Rev. 5/10) 514.10: LOCATIONS INELIGIBLE FOR THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE ENTERPRISE LICENSE: Subd. 1. A therapeutic massage enterprise may not be licensed if the enterprise is located on property on which taxes, assessments or other financial claims to the state, county, school district or City are due and delinquent. In the event a suit has been commenced under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 278.01-278.13, questioning the amount or validity of taxes, the City Council may on application waive strict compliance with this provision; no waiver may be granted, however, for taxes or any portion thereof, which remain unpaid for a period exceeding one (1) year after becoming due. Subd. 2. Zoning Compliance: A therapeutic massage enterprise may not be licensed if the location of such enterprise is not in conformance with Title 1100 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. 514.11: GENERAL. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS: Subd. 1. Posting: A therapeutic massage enterprise license issued must be posted in a conspicuous place on the premises for which it is used. A person licensed as a therapeutic massage therapist must have in possession a copy of the license when therapeutic massage services are being rendered. Subd. 2. Area: A therapeutic massage enterprise license is effective only for the compact and contiguous space specified in the approved license application. If the licensed premises is enlarged, altered or extended, the licensee must inform the City Administrator. A licensed therapeutic massage therapist may perform on-site massage at a business, public gathering, private home. or other site not on the therapeutic massage enterprise premises. (Amended, Ord. 844, 5-20-10) Subd. 3. Transfer: The license issued is for the person or the premises named on the approved license application. Transfer of a license from place to place or fi-om person to person is not permitted. Subd. 4. Coverings: The therapist must require that the person who is receiving the massage will at all times have that person's breasts, buttocks, anus and genitals covered with nontransparent material or clothing. A therapist performing massage must have the therapist's breasts, buttocks, anus and genitals covered with a non -transparent material or clothing. Subd. 5. Prohibited Massage: A therapist may not intentionally massage or offer to massage the penis, scrotum, mons veneris, vulva or vaginal area of a person. City of Mounds View 514.12 514.13 (Rev. 5/10) 514.12: RESTRICTIONS REGARDING SANITATION ANIS BEALTH: Subd. 1. A therapeutic massage enterprise must be equipped with adequate and conveniently located toilet rooms for the accommodation of its employees and patrons. The toilet room must be well ventilated by natural or mechanical methods and be enclosed with a door. The toilet room must be kept clean and in good repair and be fully and adequately illuminated. Subd. 2. A therapeutic massage enterprise must provide single -service disposal paper or clean linens to cover the table, chair, furniture or area on which the patron receives the massage. If the table, chair or furniture on which a patron receives the massage is made of material impervious to moisture, such table, chair or furniture must be sanitized after each massage. Subd. 3. The therapeutic massage therapist must wash the therapist's hands and arms with water and soap, anti -bacterial scrubs, alcohol or other disinfectants prior to and following each massage service performed. Subd. 4. Massage tables, chairs or furniture on which the patron receives the massage must have surfaces that can be readily disinfected after each massage. Subd. 5. Rooms in a therapeutic massage enterprise must be fully and adequately illuminated. Subd. 6. A therapeutic massage enterprise must have a janitor's closet that provides for the storage of cleaning supplies. Subd. 7. Therapeutic massage enterprises must provide adequate refuse receptacles that must be emptied as required by this code. Subd. 8. Therapeutic massage enterprises must be maintained in good repair and sanitary condition. Subd. 9. Therapeutic massage enterprises must comply with the requirements of the Minnesota Indoor Clean Air Act. Subd. 10. A therapeutic massage enterprise must take reasonable steps to prevent the spread of infections and communicable diseases on the licensed premises. Subd. 11. Massage therapists must wear clean clothing when performing massage services. 514.13: LICENSE TERM; RENEWALS: Licenses expire annually on December 31. The license fee will be prorated in thirty (30) day increments for licenses issued after June 30. The City Administrator must prepare an application form for the renewal of a license requiring information that he or she determines necessary for consideration of the renewal. The renewal application must be made no later than November 30. (Arnended, Ord. 817, 4-2-09; Ord. 844, 5-20-10) City of Mounds View 514.14 514.17 (Rev. 5110) 514.14: SUSPENSION; REVOCATION: A license granted under this Section may be suspended or revolted by the City Council by resolution upon notice and public hearing for any violation of this Chapter, a conviction of any crime directly related to the therapeutic massage occupation unless competent evidence can be shown of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to perforin the duties of the occupation as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 364.03 or any fraud, misrepresentations or incorrect statement in the license application or in the course of operating or conducting business. (Amended, Ord. 817, 4-2-09) 514.15: TEMIPORARY THERAPIST LICENSE: Subd. 1. The City Administrator may issue a temporary therapeutic massage therapist license as provided in this subsection. (Amended, Ord. 844, 5-20-10) Subd. 2. A temporary massage therapist license may be issued to a person who: a. Is qualified to hold a massage therapist license under this Section; b. Has completed the required application and paid the license fee at least seven (7) days prior to the effective date of the license. Subd. 3. A temporary license is effective for four (4) consecutive days. A person may not be issued more than three (3) temporary licenses in any period of three hundred sixty (360) consecutive days. Subd. 4. All other provisions of this Section apply to temporary licenses. 514.16: HOURS OF OPERATION: A licensed therapeutic massage enterprise may not operate for business between the hours of nine o'clock (9:00) p.m. and seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. 514.17: VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as provided in Section 104.01 of this Code. (Ord. 583, 9-23-96) City of Mounds View of Mounds View Staff Item No: 613 Meeting ®ate: March 7, 2012 Type of Business: Action To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Proposed Code Amendment — Chapter 1121.09 Introduction: After the discussion about driveways and parking areas in July, the Planning Commission approved an addition into the zoning code regarding accessing parking areas that are separate from the driveway. Staff has revisited the language, and reworded and expanded on it. Staff has prepared a new resolution for the Commission to review and take action on. Discussion: Staff requests that the Planning Commission review the updated language. Based on the discussion at the January 18, 2012, Planning Commission meeting, and the Commissions concern with the readability of Section 7, staff has added "subsection a" for the new additional language. The change is indicated in the resolution by deleting the strlc n language and adding the underlined text. Previously approved language: If any parking area detached from the driveway is utilized for frequently used vehicles, it shall be serviced by an improved driveway that connects to, and is accessed only by, the primary driveway. Updated language suggestion: All areas used regularly for the parking of a vehicle or vehicles shall be serviced by an improved driveway adjoining to the property's primary driveway. Access to separate parking areas shall be achieved only from the property's approved curb cut opening at the street. Regularly accessing parking areas by other means or locations shall be prohibited. Recommendation: The Planning Commission should review the updated zoning code amendment and recommend changes or act on attached Resolution 956-12. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 956-12 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 1121.09 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE TO ADDRESS ACCESSING DETACHED PARKING AREAS WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that a requirementfor accessing detached parking areas frequently be specifically addressed in Chapter 1121.09 Subd. 7 of the Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Chapter 1121.09 Subd. 7 of the Mounds View Zoning Code by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text as follows: Chapter 1121.09 Subd. 7. Surfacing: All areas, as allowed in subdivision 1104.01(4) of this Title, to be utilized for parking space and driveways shall be surfaced with a permanent improved surface material as defined in Section 1102.02 of this Chapter, suitable to control dust, drainage and erosion, meeting the requirements of Section 902.03 of this Code except as follows: A gravel surface material meeting the specifications of Section 902.03, subdivision 5 of this Code may be used for parking areas in an R-1 or R-2 District not to exceed three hundred (300) square feet or, if to be used as a parking surface for an RV, the minimum area that would encompass the wheel -base area of one (1) recreational vehicle. Plans for surfacing and drainage of driveways and stalls for five (5) or more vehicles shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review, and the final drainage plan must receive the Director of Public Works/City Engineer's written approval. a. All areas used regularly for the parking of a vehicle or vehicles shall be serviced by an improved driveway adjoining to the property's primarV driveway. Access to separate parking areas shall be achieved only from the property's approved curb cut opening at the street. Regularly accessing parking areas by other means or locations shall be prohibited. WHEREAS, amending the Zoning Code to address accessing detached parking areas will serve to clarify the zoning requirements; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that an amendment to the City Code is warranted and justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of an amendment to Chapter 1121.09 Subd. 7 of the Mounds View Zoning Code to address accessing detached parking areas as defined herein. Resolution 9 6-I2 Page 2 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 18tday of February, 2012. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting January 18,2012 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 18, 2012. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Miller, Rundle, Schiltgen, Stevenson and Smith. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Index to Minutes Page Special Order of Business 1 Election of Officers 2 Approval of Minutes 2 Discussion on a City Code Amendment to Allow Massage Therapy As a Home Based Business 2 Discuss Updated Language for Chapter 1121.08 Code Amendment 4 4. Special Order of Business A. Oath of Office for Re -Appointed Commissioners Planning Associate Heller administered the Oath of Office to reappoint Planning Commissioners Gary Meehlhause, Gary Stevenson and Jean Miller. B. Election of Officers — Chair and Vice -Chair Commissioner Meehlhause nominated Gary Stevenson as the Chair of the Planning Commission. Chair Stevenson accepted this nomination. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting January 18, 2012 Page 2 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Meehlhause/Commissioner Smith. To elect Gary Stevenson as the Chair of the Planning Commission for 2012. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Commissioner Cramblit nominated Gary Meehlhause as the Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Meehlhause accepted this nomination. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Rundle. To elect Gary Meehlhause as the Vice -Chair of the Planning Commission for 2012. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 4. Approval of Minutes November 16, 2011. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the Minutes of the November 16, 2011 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 5. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 6. Planning Cases None. 7. Other Planning Activity Motion carried. A. Continue Discussion on a City Code Amendment to Allow Massage Therapy as a Home Based Business Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that at a previous meeting the Commission discussed a Code Amendment that would allow massage therapy as a home based business. She explained that at this time, City Code requires massage therapy to take place in a B-2 or higher zoning district. The Council received a request from a Mounds View resident who is a massage therapist to allow this as a home business. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting January 18, 2012 Page 3 Associate Heller indicated the Planning Commission was not comfortable with allowing this use in residential zoning districts without a public hearing and notification to neighboring properties. She reviewed how the City of White Bear Lake handles massage therapy in residential homes through a Special Home Occupation Permit that uses the conditional use permit process. She stated a similar Special Home Occupation Permit process could be created by the City, but the approval would not be recorded with Ramsey County or run with the land like a typical conditional use permit does. She recommended that the Special Home Occupation Permits be reviewed on a regular basis. She indicated the proposed permit process would require a public hearing as desired by the Planning Commission. Chair Stevenson questioned if the changes needed for City Code Chapter 514 regarding massage therapy would require an amendment. Associate Heller indicated that several sections of the City Code would likely need to be amended to add this new permit process. Chair Stevenson was in favor of the massage therapy use with notification to the neighbors, but without holding a formal public hearing. He indicated this would make neighbors aware of the home occupation. Associate Heller stated a 10 -day comment period could be allowed to give neighbors a chance to object or provide comments to City Staff. She indicated any issues could be brought to the Council's attention prior to approval. Chair Stevenson asked if massage therapy would be allowed in all residential properties. Associate Heller explained the Commission would have to decide if massage therapy should be allowed in single-family homes, duplexes, manufactured homes, rental properties, apartments, townhomes, etc. She was comfortable with allowing massage therapy in all residential zoning districts so long as the applicant receives approval from the property owner, if the applicant is not the owner. Commissioner Cramblit did not want to limit residents who live in rental property. Chair Stevenson questioned if the hours of operation should be limited. Commissioner Meehlhause did not feel the hours of operation for this service needed to be limited. Associate Heller agreed stating it would be difficult to enforce hours of operation limitations. Chair Stevenson directed Staff make the necessary revisions to the proposed City Code amendment and bring the information back to the Commission for further discussion. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting January 18, 2012 Page 4 B. Discuss updated language for Chapter 1121.08 Code Amendment Planning Associate Heller discussed the Chapter 1121.09 proposed code amendments with the Commission, She indicated parking areas that are detached from the driveway was becoming a concern. City Staff was recommending that if the detached parking area is being utilized on a regular basis, it should be serviced by an improved driveway that connects to the original driveway, and is only accessed by the original driveway curb cut. This code amendment is to assure that residents were not driving over curbs to access separate parking areas. Chair Stevenson questioned why the existing code language was limiting parking areas to five or more vehicles. Associate Heller indicated the code was actually stating that if a property owner was planning to install a parking lot with marked parking stalls, then a City review of the plans must be done. It was not limiting typical residential driveway parking. She noted this was more applicable for four-plexes or other larger rental housing buildings. Chair Stevenson asked if the Commission had to take action on the Resolution this evening. Associate Heller stated the information could be reviewed and discussed, and action could take place at a future meeting if the Commission chooses. Chair Stevenson suggested the section addressing surfacing and drainage be made a separate paragraph and further clarified. The Commission agreed with this recommendation. Chair Stevenson requested staff make the discussed changes and bring the Resolution back at a future meeting for action. 8. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. February 1, 2012 B. February 15,2012 9. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission January 18, 2012 Regular Meeting Page 5 (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA March 21, 2012 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: January 18, 2011 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2012-001: Variance Request to Allow an Accessory Building to Exceed 30% of the Principal Structure Size on a Business Zoned Property Address: 2975 County Road 10 Applicant: Bill Lloyd, owner of BHL Services, Inc. 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review Proposed City Code Amendment to Allow Massage Therapy as a Home Based Business 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. April 4, 2012 B. April 18, 2012 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. March 7, 2012 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion Item 5A MOUNDtSVVf L'YV Meeting Date: March 21, 2012 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Variance to allow a Detached Accessory Building to Exceed the Maximum Size Limit at 2975 County Road 10; Planning Case VR2012-001 Introduction: The applicant, Bill Lloyd, owner of BHL Services, Inc. has a purchase agreement for the property at 2975 County Road 10. Mr. Lloyd wants to move his construction management business into the building, but needs a garage for secure storage of supplies and vehicles. He is requesting a variance to allow the size of the detached accessory building to exceed the maximum size limit of 30 percent of the floor space of the principal use. Discussion: The property at 2975 County Road 10 is zoned B-3, Highway Business, and 0.58 acres in size. The 1,421 square foot building was built in 1959 and has been used for auto -related businesses, most recently as a Thrifty Car Rental. The building currently has two garage bays, but the applicant would remodel the entire building into office space and move his construction management business to this location. He is currently renting a storage garage and has a vehicle and two trailers that he wants stored indoors for security and property attractiveness. The Zoning Code states in Chapter 1112.03: Accessory Uses: The following are permitted accessory uses in a B-1 District: Subd. 1. Commercial or business buildings and structures for a use accessory to the principal use, but such use shall not exceed 30 percent of the gross floor space of the principal use. The existing building at 2975 County Road 10 is 1,421 square feet. Based on this, the Zoning Code would only allow a 426 square foot garage on this site. Mr. Lloyd wants to build a 728 square feet (26'x28') garage, which would be 51 percent of the floor space of the building. This commercial property is on the corner of County Road 10 and Spring Lake Road, and is surrounded by single and two-family residences. 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 maybe granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist: 2975 County Road 10 Garage Size Variance Report March 21, 2012 Page 2 a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. The zoning code limits the size of accessory buildings to a percentage of the primary use floor space on commercial properties because the main buildings are typically large structures that are several thousand square feet in size, which would then allow big accessory buildings. The variance would be in harmony with the general purpose of the regulations in limiting potentially very large accessory buildings since the applicant is only proposing a 728 square foot, 3 -car size garage. b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. While the Comprehensive Plan does not specify design or size criteria for buildings, it does support business growth, and improvements to and the maintenance of properties. The applicant plans to greatly improve the existing building, construct a storage building so there will be little to no outside storage, and bring new jobs to the City. The Future Land Use plan for this property designates it as Neighborhood Commercial, with professional offices being one of the suggested uses. C. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The applicant wants to store supplies and the few company vehicles indoors for security and aesthetics for the neighborhood. The applicant's proposed garage is no bigger than what is currently allowed on residential properties. 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 1,421 square foot building is very small for a commercial building and limits what can be added to the property. The applicant is not responsible for the size of the building. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The properties adjacent to 2975 County Road 10 consist of single and two-family residential homes. The parcel was developed in 1959 as commercial property and has been used for various auto -related businesses. The applicant will be remodeling the building into only office space, which is a better fit in a residential area than the previous gas station, car dealer, auto repair and car rental businesses. The property is large enough for a detached garage and can meet the required larger setbacks since it is commercial property adjacent to residential property. 2975 County Road 10 Garage Size Variance Report March 21, 2012 Page 3 f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The 21 percent variance is the minimum needed to alleviate the practical difficulties since that is the size garage necessary to fit the vehicle and trailers the applicant plans to store inside. g. The Planning Commission may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood, and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. The submitted drawing of the garage shows it to have a similar or matching exterior to the remodeled main building. The two sides of the garage that would be visible from the streets show a cast stone veneer on the bottom, which matches the main building. Staff has included this information as a condition in the resolution. Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, this application requires a public hearing. Staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property and a notice was published in the Sun Focus newspaper on Thursday, March 8, 2012. Staff has not received any comments as of March 16, 2012. Recommendation: Staff recommends holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and the public. The Commission may take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. An approval version of Resolution 957-12 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. 3. Table the request. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide there is a need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Respectfully Submitted By, (AL Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photos 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Elevations of Garage & Remodeled Office Building 5. Resolution 957-12 ZONING MAP 8270 a 8265 ' 8260 8255 8248 Z 0)_8_250 a 8245 0' C-' 1 8240 PLE4_ 8233 8228(n 8245 82Zz 8213 8235 --- 8210 8217 819 c 8201 22 14 8177 8191 8200 --- ARDAN N N 00 N N 824 8206N 8227 8202 8198 8205 8123 8180 8175 ti R-2 8160tg 8161 rn N ^o 003 N N s H PLACE ?' o E B-3 8 41 m o N O ` �I CD �� 8 31 N m N N N N 0 8111 N M - N \ N CDN B-3 lal \ �c0& 0 ZI II N I li I 8192 8160 8148 8138 8132 8110 8106 8100 1 160 1 140 R-4 y c a C f jp% M I N N N * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential e° I 1 4 , I - lk Ik • n a , ry 7 Site Plan 0 0 0 Elevation of Remodeled Main Building A# U z NEI z Elevation of New Garage inl FLOOR PLAN xu , WEST ELEVATION XI -21 a-,,,.«' SOUTH ELEVATION xv EAST ELEVATION x 4 NORTH ELEVATION x LL inl FLOOR PLAN xu , WEST ELEVATION XI -21 a-,,,.«' SOUTH ELEVATION xv EAST ELEVATION x 4 NORTH ELEVATION x MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 957-12 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING TO EXCEED THE ALLOWED SIZE AT 2975 COUNTY ROAD 10; PLANNING CASE VR2012-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, Bill Lloyd, has a purchase agreement for the property at 2975 County Road 10, and has applied for a variance to allow a detached garage on the property to exceed 30 percent of the gross floor space of the principal use; and, WHEREAS, 2975 County Road 10 is zoned B-3, Highway Business, and legally described as: AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 89, SUBJECT TO RD; THE E 166 FT OF PART NEWLY OF HWY OF LOT 13, RAMSEY COUNTY, MN PIN 06-30-23-23-0045 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Building Elevations 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 restricts the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's control; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing regarding this request on March 21, 2012; 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 2975 County Road 10, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 957-12 Page 2 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code is to limit commercial properties from constructing very large accessory buildings. Granting the variance would be in harmony with the purpose of the code. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is significantly improving the entire property and can store company vehicles indoors. 3. The applicant's business has a truck and two trailers and some supplies that could be stored indoors for security and aesthetics. He is a conscientious business owner located in a residential neighborhood, and wants the property to look nice by being able to store vehicles and supplies inside. 4. The commercial building on this lot is quite small which limits the ability to build a garage big enough for more than one vehicle. The property is zoned B-3, Highway Business which is a higher intensity use. 5. The detached garage is no bigger than other garages in the entirely residential neighborhood, and the existing building will be remodeled which will greatly enhance the neighborhood. The new office use would be a much better fit in the residential neighborhood than the auto -related uses that have been on this site since 1959. 6. The 21 percent variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant's practical difficulty and be able to store the few vehicles that the applicant's company owns. 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 Bill Lloyd, for the property located at 2975 County Road 10, to allow a 728 square foot detached garage, subject to the following condition: a. The applicant will construct the garage with matching exterior color and/or finish as the principal building. Adopted this 218t day of March, 2012. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) item No: 6A Meeting ®ate: March 21 2012 Type of Business: Action To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Code Amendment to Allow Therapeutic Massage as a Permitted Home Occupation Introduction: At a City Council meeting in October, a resident asked the Council whether they would be willing to amend the City Code to be more permissive toward allowance of "massage therapy" as a home based business in Mounds View. The City Council then discussed the idea at their November work session. The City Council supports amending the City Code, and has asked that the Planning Commission take on how this should be accomplished. Discussion: Massage Therapy is a licensed business activity in Mounds View. The regulations pertaining to massage therapy can be found in Chapter 514 of the Mounds City Code, originally adopted in 1996 via Ordinance 583. There are many licensing and zoning requirements associated with such a business and they are expressly permitted only in the 132, B3 & B4 commercial business zoning districts. Such a use is not permitted in a residential zone or as a home- based business, as indicated in Section 514.10, Subd. 2, regarding locations ineligible for a therapeutic massage license. This clause reads, "A therapeutic massage enterprise may not be licensed if the location of such enterprise is not in conformance with Title 1100 of the Mounds View Municipal Code." The Planning Commission has discussed several options about howto amend the City Code to allow massage therapy as a home based business. The Commission finally agreed that the only additional requirement should be approval from the property owner if the massage therapist is not the property owner of the home where they live and will conduct the business. Since there are no requirements for any other type of home occupations, the Commission felt that massage therapy should not be singled out. Recommendation: The Planning Commission should review and discuss Resolution 958-12 with the suggested code amendment language to allow massage therapy as a home based business. Respectfully submitted, (AL-� Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Resolution 958-12 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 958-12 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 514 AND 1106 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE TO ALLOW MASSAGE THERAPY AS A HOME OCCUPATION; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE 184-11 WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that massage therapy be allowed as a Home Occupation; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission agrees with the City Staff recommendation to allow massage therapy as a home occupation; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Chapter 514 of the Mounds View Zoning Code by deleting the strinken language and adding the underlined text as follows: 514.06: LICENSE APPLICATION: Subd. 1. Therapeutic Massage Enterprise: The application for a therapeutic massage enterprise license must contain the following information: a. For all applicants: (7) Written consent of property owner, if applicant is NOT the property owner. (8) Other information that the City Council may require. 514.10: LOCATIONS INELIGIBLE FOR THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE ENTERPRISE LICENSE Subd. 2. Zoning Compliance: A therapeutic massage enterprise may not be licensed if the location of such enterprise is not in conformance with Title 1100 of the Mounds View Municipal Code.1 1 See also Section 1106.03. Res 95842 2 Page 2 WHEREAS, City staff has amended Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text as follows: 1106.03: ACCESSORY USES: Subd. 3. Home Occupations: The regulation of home occupations within residential structures is intended to ensure that the occupational use is clearly accessory or secondary to the principal dwelling use and that compatibility with surrounding residential uses is maintained. No home occupation shall be allowed which: i. Massage Therapy, subject to the requirements of Chapter 514 WHEREAS, amending the City Code to allow massage therapy as a home occupation would better serve the public and would clarify the zoning requirements; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that an amendment to the City Code is warranted and justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of amendments to Chapters 514 and 1106 of the Mounds View City Code to allow massage therapy as a home occupation 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 21St day of March, 2012. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) PROCEEDINGS OF THE Y OF MOUVIEW NDS VIEW NING COMMISSION RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting March 7, 2012 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Meehlhause at 7:00 p.m. for March 7, 2012. 2. Roll Call Member_ s Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Miller, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Smith. Absent and Excused: Chair Stevenson. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Page Index to Minutes Approval of Minutes Review Proposed City Code Amendment to Allow Massage Therapy as a Home Based Business Chapter 1121.09 Code Amendment about Detached Parking Areas 3, Approval of Minutes December 7, 2011. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Miller. To approve the Minutes of Commission meeting as slightly amended. the December 7, 2011 regular Planning Motion carried. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 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 March 7, 2012 Page 2 A. Review Proposed City Code Amendment to Allow Massage Therapy as a Home Based Business Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that this was discussed with the Council at the Worksession on Monday evening. The Planning Commission was in favor of a public notification process and the Council initially agreed. Staff had some concerns with the public notification process as this would single out massage therapy home businesses. She indicated the City Attorney was going to review the suggested amendment language on this matter as well. Associate Heller stated because of the concerns with the public notification process for only massage therapy, the Council may not support the Planning Commission's recommendation. Instead, staff was recommending that the only requirement for massage therapy as home occupations be an approval from the property owner if the therapist does not own the property where they live and would operate the business. Staff would create a form to be signed by the property owner that must be submitted to the City in order to have the city license be issued. She requested the Planning Commission discuss the matter further and provide comment to staff. Commissioner Cramblit supported Staff's recommendation. Vice Chair Meehlhause stated the original thought with the public notification was to make neighbors aware of the home business. Associate Heller understood, but she wanted to caution the Planning Commission from Proceeding with this requirement as no other type of home business required a public notification process. Vice Chair Meehlhause asked if a city license was required for this home occupation. Associate Heller stated this was the case, and the annual license process with the City was very extensive. Vice Chair Meehlhause questioned what other types of home based businesses were located in the City. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 7, 2012 Page 3 Associate Heller indicated there were home daycares, landscaping businesses, beauticians, barbers, tax preparers, stump removals, home electronic repairs, etc. Vice Chair Meehlhause asked if the Commission was comfortable with removing the public notification process for home based massage therapy businesses. Commission Rundle was in favor of Staff's recommendation and felt the public notification process could be eliminated. Vice Chair Meehlhause stated if the massage therapist was not the property owner, he was in favor of the City receiving approval from the property owner. The Planning Commission agreed with this suggestion. Associate Heller thanked the Commission for their input and noted Staff would draft formal language and bring it back to the Planning Commission for action. B. Chapter 1121.09 Code Amendment about Detached Parking Areas Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that at the last meeting, the Commission was not comfortable with the large paragraph within Chapter 1121.09. She reviewed the revisions made with the Commission and requested the Commission approve Resolution 956-12. Vice Chair Meehlhause requested Staff again review the revisions to Chapter 1121.09. Associate Heller explained the code amendment addressed detached parking in residential areas requiring that frequently used detached parking areas have an improved surface. Commissioner Cramblit indicated the revisions were well done. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Smith. To Approve Resolution 956-12, Recommending Approval of an Amendment to Chapter 1121.09 of the Mounds View Zoning Code to Address Accessing Detached Parking Areas. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. March 21, 2012 B. April 4, 2012 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 7, 2012 Page 4 There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA April 18, 2012 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: March 7, 2012 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2012-001: Variance Request to Allow an Accessory Building to Exceed the Allowed Height of 15 feet as Measured at the Midpoint of the Roof (Pre - Nov 2009 Zoning Code) Address: 8027 Woodlawn Drive Applicant: Tim & Christy Downing 6. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss Code Amendment for Dynamic Display Signs 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. May 2, 2012 B. May 16, 2012 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. March 21, 2012 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion Ft. tt -� �C VIEW M®N--5 I. l'ity of Mounds View ,Staff Item No: 5A Meeting ®ate: A riles 1� 2 Type of Business: PublicHearin Commission To: Heidi Heller, Planning Mounds View Planning Associate Detached Accessory From: Consideration of a Variance to allow 7 Woodlawn a Item TitletSubject: to Exceed the Maximum Height Limit at 802 Building Drive; Planning Case VRI 1-008 uest in December 2011 and the City Council also Intr®dam Commission denied this req the Council rescinded their denial and asked The Planning Since then, nest again under different zoning erarit for the garage has been i open" since it was denied the variance in March 201 licant should use the that the Planning Commission review this variance req Council have decided that the applicant, Tim Downing, requirements. City Staff and the ven that the (City lding p permit was issued. The app issued in 2007,requesting a variance to allow the height of his Zoning Code that was in effect when his . ht limit of 15 feet as measured at the property owner of 8027 Woodlaxc Drive, is req Code in effect in 2007). Mr_ Downing has detached accessory building to exceed the maximum heig midpoint. midpoint between the eave and the peak (Zoning built a second garage on his property that is 15 feet 9 inches tall at the permit to construct a detached accessory Disci applicant was issued a building p typical style, single story, 936 The building plans submitted were for a t the Zoning Code height limit ►n October 2007, the app permit was issued, s garage building on his property. At the time the ara e. between the peak and the eave. Mr. Downing de. square foot detached g 9 point, which met the current zoning was 15 feet as measured midway Building Official plans showed.a height of 15 feet at the midway p time, and the City arae for a long the permit "active until he Mr. Downing did not start work is the garage in order to kee permit will stay active as long code, a building p The applicant may submit a granted several extensions for his rbuilding he b glding g months. rant b their had time to start construction. done at least every Official may g as some construction work is being ermit, which the Building written request for an extension of their p ector on August discretion. the City building insp did not receive any A footing inspection for the garage was finally done byhat, the Staff became aware poured the next week. After gust 20111ty After 31, 2010, and the floor slab for more inspections. In late Aug licant's property. requests from Mr. Downing beenara e Mr. Downing built was different. from that a 2 -story garage with dorm staff saw that the gtrucgted on the contact Mr. Downng in reviewing the permit application, The Building Official o resp again in September after receiving no response to the first letter. the plans he had submitted in 2007. late August 2011, and Dowfaiaag Garage helghz April 13, 2012 Variance Repor<' Page 2 In early October 2011, staff finally spoke with Mr. Downing and he submitted a drawing In earl/ garage showing the staff informed him that he would garage height oheitheh educe the height e midpoint was 15 f the9 aches. °f the variance. Mr. Downing chose to a At that time, apply for a variance. garage or apply for a The pre -November 2009 Zonin not clear in explaining exactly where to pertaining to accessory defined the height as: measure to determine then "height." height aprevious height." The confusing and previous code Building Height: Building level or from the aversground height is level be measured from the average established curb of the cornice of a flat roof, to thedeck lin ohe bauildin line g of the highest g ' whichever is higher, to the top gable on a pitched or hi mansard roof, and to the hipped roof. mean distance The Zoning Code states that the Planning to the landowner in those cases where ng commission ode imposes ma owner in the use of theY issue a variance ties o provide relief statutes t property owner's land. This is trueforvcal daririance requests. quire that the governing bort the pCOpedY and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in y review a set of specified criteria for each a State 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code, application of the following circumstances exist: A variance may be granted only in the event that a# a• The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. The zoning code limits the height of buildings in order to maintain visual consist throughout neighborhoods. ency they do not exceed the height of they buildings in larger buildin particular have these limitations so g• This and to limit the uses that could occur in a storage for thea garage is not taller than the house, ,and will provide more indoor b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive P/an. While the Comprehensive Plan does not specify design or size criteria for buildings, does support improvements to and the maintenance of properties. C. Thea it applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable this Title or the City Code. manner not permitted by The applicant owns many things that would be stored in a large g d. Unique circumstances a g garage. same zone apply to the properly from which do not a circumstances over,whrch the owand ner of the %t size or apply to otherproperties sha e, p pertres in the has had no control The uh propeny since the enactmenthof this Title applicant. unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the This property does not have any unique features other than it is a larger lot. Downing Garage Height Variance Report April 18, 2012 Page 3 e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant's neighborhood consists of large, almost one acre size lots, and the applicant has a 2 -story house, so the height and roof pitch of the garage is compatible with the house, and the overall garage size does not feel overwhelming to the property or the neighborhood. The second garage is behind the front line of both adjacent neighbor's home and garage. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The 9 inch height variance is the minimum variance needed to alleviate the practical difficulties since the garage is already built. g. The Planning Commission may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood, and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. The applicant has not finished the exterior of the accessory building. A new/modified building permit for the as -built structure has not yet been approved by the Building Official. If a variance is granted, staff would recommend imposing conditions of deadlines for receiving Building Official plan approval for the as -built garage, issuance and payment for the modified building permit, along with a deadline for completing the exterior finish of the garage. Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, this application requires a public hearing. Staff again mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of the applicant's property and a notice was published in the Sun Focus newspaper on Thursday, April 5, 2012. Staff received one phone call from the property owner of 2442 Sherwood Road on April 5, 2011. He is in favor of allowing the applicant to leave the garage as is. Several neighbors have spoken at the previous Planning Commission and City Council meetings about this case. Most of them have no problem with the garage itself, but a few felt that Mr. Downing should have followed the City rules. Downing Garage Height Variance Report April 18, 2012 Page 4 Recommendation: Staff recommends holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and the public. The Commission may take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 959-12 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. 3. Table the request. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide there is a need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Respectfully Submitted By, U v Icx-LtX/(� Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photos 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Drawing of Garage 5. Letter from Applicant, Tim Downing 6. Resolution 959-12 8140 8132 8145 L 8135 8132 8121 8030 Q N N A8104 8101 to N 180861 18085 t5u"I 18071 ;�-f 8046 L 8041 8038 8035 8030 Q N N 8010 W 8011 7990 '0 7977 7970 8070 8 7964 0� 7975 NIN 80801 8070 79841 5MI k7955 7944 LLVIEW J 6)5 7934 PARKm n '• o7900 8133 rLn8123 SHERWOOD 0I N 140 d N 8130 0 8141 _ 8085 L W N N 8088 N N (N_ -_ - 8081 8070 8 8051 8044 8027 801 8005 801 7988 7989 7971 7968 7953 7948 7930 7931 N N N N N ROAD 0 809 N i B07 N ; 7945 79 7941 79 7937 79 7933 79 7929 79 7925 79 7921 79 W 7917 79 y 7913 79 Q 7909 79 7905 791 wouuea 1©�cl 7 to O a 0 N M N O � ... O O v N 7864 786 N Lo ._: u) to 88 7889 7888N N N N N N N 7858 7853 7878 7875 7868 7869 7860 0 7855 7852 W 7870 7861 785 7857 785 — 7846 Y 7841 7836 7845 7840 0 784r aJ 7847 7840 -- W 7840 7829 - 7837 7830 7825 = ' 7817 7820 7833 7832 -- 7800 - O --- - 7827 782 _.� 7809 - _ 781 3 7815 781 --- 7780 7801 7806 7817 7760 7797 �_ 7806 78D1 7 7807 .. 77A7 7 -VM -9-A * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential ,. •E�>it`��Ijly 1j i r t s, r r 1 \ 1 - 1'I ili Iii ._ A f r• 12 V f� O�II VIII • • � 1 `R _ • •. .• �a Yom. Drawing of front of as -built garage a r1 l^ J � I 0 E�4' e rl .n C 3 Letter from Applucant Tim Downing 8027 Woodlawn Dr. Mounds View, MN 55112 ph 612-590-5534 City of Mounds View 2401 Hwy 10 MoundsView MN 55112-1499 Dear Kathy Osmonson, I apologize for taking liberties with regards to the construction of my garage. My original Intent was to construct exactly according to plans but one thing led to another. I ordered one extra truss to give me a little lattitude on where I might locate a stairway, At same point I figured out with an extra truss there were enough to make 2 girder trusses (tripled) with a 8ft spread and hand frame in between for possible future dormers on each side. I stopped in one day to ask you or Don about this idea and Jeremiah was the only inspector type person around. I showed him a drawing and explained what I wanted to do and he said he thought it would be ok. Once I set the trusses and started sheeting, I realized it would be quite a lot of extra work and cost if I didn't build the dormers at the same time. I know this is where I most definitely should have come in and asked you about this. For various reasons I went ahead with construction. 1)1 was afraid you would say no, 2)1 had no work at this point and extra time to build the dormers, 3) The stairway fit very nicely into the dormer area, 4) the prospect of more drawing and paperwork was not appealing, and 5) In the past I haven't had very good luck obtaining engineering or various projects. I bought my lumber at Menards and my roof trusses at Emmerich Wood. I will first tryto get engineering from Emmerich. I will also supply you with as built plans and a variance application shortly. Also, this is the first letter I have received regarding this issue. In your letter dated September 30th, 2011, you mentioned a previous letter? Thank you with your patience with my project. Sincerely, Tim Downing Letter from Applicant -G402 G,�yol�yc✓s�/ a€Je . RECEIVEQ CEC X 21011 �j 17 56 s .q mak. 7 • i X7� //j� ,L%�t 11 G/�. / YI �F/'^'� /✓/A f MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. - - - ACCESSORY BUILDING AT 127 WOODLAWN DRIVE; PLANNING CASE 2 11 WHEREAS, the applicant, Tim Downing, property owner of 8027 Woodlawn Drive, has applied for a nine (9) inch height variance for a detached garage; and, WHEREAS, 8027 Woodlawn Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as: Woodlawn Terrace, Lot 24, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 05-30-23-32-0033 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Staff Report WHEREAS, the City Council and City Staff decided that the applicant should use the height requirements for accessory buildings that were in effect when the applicant's building permit for the garage was issued in 2007; 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 restricts the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's control; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing regarding this request on April 18, 2012; 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 955-11 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 8027 Woodlawn Drive, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. The garage does not exceed the height of the house and is intended to provide enough indoor storage for the amount of items that the applicant owns. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant has added a significant improvement to his property and can store more items indoors. 3. The applicant owns several vehicles, trailers and other equipment that could be stored indoors. He will be able to maintain his property by being able to store most or all of his items inside. 4. The applicant's lot is almost an acre in size, which is larger than most in the city. 5. The taller garage does not appear to be an overwhelming size for the neighborhood or the applicant's property. 6. The nine (9) inch variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant's practical difficulty since the structure is already built. 7. The Planning Commission may impose conditions upon the premises as may be necessary to comply with city standards and to minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of Tim Downing, property owner of 8027 Woodlawn Drive, to allow a nine (9) inch height variance for the garage, subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant must receive approval from the Building Official for a new building permit for the garage as it is actually built by July 1, 2012. b. The applicant must pay the additional permit fees for the new building permit by July 1, 2012. c. The applicant must complete the exterior of the garage by October 1, 2012. Adopted this 18th day of April, 2012. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) -t t; Meeting ate: April 2012Item No: 6A MoVIDSIWE Type of business:Discussion/Action City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Discussion about Amending Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Pertaining to Dynamic Display Signs Introduction: The City amended its sign code on January 12, 2009 to include operational requirements and conditions for the use of dynamic display signage with the adoption of Ordinance 816. The code has since been amended to make additional changes after the dynamic sign code was put into effect. Staff is proposing another amendment. Discussion: Prior to the adoption of the ordinance regulating dynamic signs in 2009, these types of signs were not specifically addressed in the City Code, and were allowed just as other types of signs. With the new technology that was allowing dynamic displays to become more affordable and common for businesses, and the conversion of billboards to electronic signs, the City Council felt they needed to put some regulations on these types of signs. The sign code was amended to add a section specifically for dynamic signs. A local business would like to install a dynamic sign on their building as a wall sign. City Staff reviewed the sign code and it states that "dynamic display signs are allowed on on-site free standing or ground signs." The City Council discussed this issue at their April 9, 2012 meeting and decided that when the new dynamic display language was added to the City Code, there was no intention of specifically not allowing dynamic displays as wall signs. The City Council asked that the Planning Commission discuss amending the Code to remove the language stating what type of signs that dynamic displays can be located on. Staff has suggested amendments for the Planning Commission to review and discuss. The changes are shown by deleting the Gtpimken language and adding the underlined text as follows: Section 1008.10 Subd. 9. Dynamic Display Signs: a. The City allows noncommercial dynamic display signs wherever the City allows commercial dynamic display signs. Such signs are subject to the same standards and total maximum allowances per site or building of each sign type specified in this Chapter. b. Standards for all dynamic display signs: (1) The images and messages displayed on the sign must be static, complete in themselves, without continuation in content to any other sign. The messages, content and images on all such displays shall not flash or blink and shall not include any video images or content. (2) No person or contractor shall install a dynamic display sign that because of its position, shape, movement or color, interferes with the proper functioning of a traffic sign, signal or that constitutes a traffic hazard. Dynamic Display Code Amendment April 18, 2012 Paye 2 (3) All dynamic display signs shall have ambient light monitors and shall, at all times, allow such monitors to automatically adjust the brightness level of the sign based on light conditions. (4) The manufacturers, owners and operators of dynamic display signs must design and equip such signs with a fully functional monitoring off switch system that automatically shuts the sign off or will freeze the device or sign in one (1) position; if a malfunction occurs. The signs and displays also must be equipped with a means to shut off or discontinue the display if it malfunctions. The sign owner or operator must stop or shut off the dynamic display within one (1) hour or as soon as reasonably possible of the City notification that the sign is not meeting the standards of this Section of Chapter. (5) Any dynamic display sign capable of accessing and utilizing MN Amber Alert technology shall display such messages as they are made available by the MN Dept. of Public Safety or other responsible agency. (6) All dynamic display signs shall meet the following brightness standards: (a) No sign shall be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility and no sign shall exceed 500 Nits (candelas per square meter) during the day and 7,500 Nits (candelas per square meter) at night. (b) No sign shall be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a motor vehicle driver with average eyesight nor shall such a sign interfere with the driver's operation of a motor vehicle in any way or manner. (c) No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal. (d) The person owning or controlling a sign with a dynamic display shall adjust the sign to meet the brightness standards according to the City's instructions. The sign owner or operator shall adjust the sign within one (1) hour or as soon as reasonably possible upon notice of non-compliance from the City. (e) All dynamic display signs installed after December 31, 2008, shall be equipped and operated with an ambient light monitor or a mechanism that automatically adjusts the brightness level of the sign in response to light conditions. These signs also shall be equipped with a means to turn off immediately the display or lighting if the sign malfunctions, and the sign owner or operator must turn off the sign or lighting within one (1) hour or as soon as reasonably possible after the City notifies the owner or operator that the sign is not meeting the standards of this Section or Chapter. (f) Subsequent to November 1, 2011, no dynamic display sign shall have the capacity to operate in excess of 7,500 Nits (candelas per square meter). The lamp wattage and luminance level in Nits (candelas per square meter) shall be provided at the time of permit application. Dynamic display sign permit applications must also include a certification from the owner or operator of the sign stating that the sign shall at all times be operated in accordance with City codes. Dynamic Display Code Amendment April 18, 2012 Page 3 (g) In addition to the brightness standards required above, dynamic display signs shall meet the City's lighting requirements as listed in Section 1103.09 (Glare) of the City Code. c. In addition to all other standards of this chapter, the City allows on-site dynamic display signs an on site freestanding er gFound signs stA�jeet to Seetieft 1008. 10, subdivision 1 (Ground Signs) of the City Code, t above mentioned standards for all dynamic display signs—,and subject to the following additional conditions: (1) Such signs may be located only in the Limited Business (B-2), Highway Business (B-3), Regional Business (B-4) or Commercial Planned Unit Developments (PUD's) zoning districts. (2) Notwithstanding subsection 1 above, such signs may be located on the sites of schools, churches, places of worship or other institutional land uses, subject to the following additional conditions: (a) City Council approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) as outlined in Section 1106.04 and Section 1125.01, subdivision 3 of the City Code. (b) Dynamic display signs in residentially zoned districts must utilize amber color lights. (c) Such signs shall not cause glare, disturbance or other problems to any residential properties or land uses. (3) The owner or operator of a dynamic display sign shall control and display the primary or background images and messages on the sign so they maintain each display for a minimum of four (4) seconds. The City allews images, messages of eenteiA on sueh signs that are sta4ie, with seeendai-7y ef aeeesser-y animation of meyv,effient that fleats in, eiit, er aeress the prifflafy message er these that ha-ve so transitions. (4) The City allows dyiiamie displays as patt of Et peffflanet4 fteestanding et: gretind sign, enly if the Dynamic display signage shall not exceed paft ef the sign earaprises ne mere thEffi fifty (50) square feet of the sign area or fifty percent (50%) of the total square footage of said sign face, whichever is less. (5) Such signs may only display and advertise information about products, events, persons, institutions, activities, businesses, services, or subjects that are located on the premises or on the site or only to provide public service or community service information. (6) Such signs must meet all other City location and setback requirements. d. The City allows off-site dynamic display signs subject to Section 1008. 10, subdivision 6 (Billboards) of the City's Code, the above-mentioned standards for all dynamic display signs, and the following operational standards and additional conditions: (1) The images and messages displayed on the billboard must be static and each display must be maintained for a minimum of eight (8) seconds. The transition from one (1) static display to another must be instantaneous and without any special effects or videos. Dynamic Display Code Amendment April 18, 2012 Page 4 (2) Only billboards located adjacent to Interstate 35W not less than 1,000 feet from any residentially zoned property in the City of Mounds View may be retrofit to a dynamic display, and only subsequent to a building permit issued by the City. One hundred percent (100%) of the sign face maybe used for dynamic display (3) Public Safety. If City staff determines that a dynamic display sign is not being operated pursuant to this Chapter due to its location or display capabilities, City staff can require the sign owner or operator to modify the sign after the City notifies the property owner or operator about the operational issues. Recommendation: The Planning Commission should review and discuss the proposed amendments to City Code Chapter 1008 relating to dynamic signs. There is a resolution attached if the Commission is comfortable taking action. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachment: 1. Resolution 960-12 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 960-12 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 1008 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE ABOUT DYNAMIC DISPLAY SIGNS; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE 185-12 WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that amendments be made to the sign code relating to dynamic displays; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission agrees with the City Staff recommendation to remove language limiting what type of signs that dynamic displays are allowed on; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Chapter 1000, Section 1008.10 of the Mounds View City Code by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text as follows: Section 1008.10 Subd. 9. Dynamic Display Signs: following additional conditions: (1) Such signs maybe located only in the Limited Business (B-2), Highway Business (B- 3), Regional Business (B-4) or Commercial Planned Unit Developments (PUD's) zoning districts. (2) Notwithstanding subsection 1 above, such signs may be located on the sites of schools, churches, places of worship or other institutional land uses, subject to the following additional conditions: (a) City Council approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) as outlined in Section 1106.04 and Section 1125.01, subdivision 3 of the City Code. (b) Dynamic display signs in residentially zoned districts must utilize amber color lights. (c) Such signs shall not cause glare, disturbance or other problems to any residential properties or land uses. Res 960-12 Page 2 (3) The owner or operator of a dynamic display sign shall control and display the primary or background images and messages on the sign so they maintain each display for a minimum of four (4) seconds. The City allows images, messages or content on such signs that are statiG, with secondary or aesesseFy animatieR 9F movement that fleats , , OF these that have soft trans ffio (4) The City allows dynamic displays as part ef a permaneRt fteestanding GF ground sign, only if the Dynamic display signage shall not exceed paFt of the sign Gornprises no mage than fifty (50) square feet of the sign area or fifty percent (50%) of the total square footage of said sign face, whichever is less. WHEREAS, amending the City Code to allow dynamic displays on all types of signs would better serve the public and would clarify the zoning requirements; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that an amendment to the City Code is warranted and justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of amendments to Section 1008 of the Mounds View City Code as defined herein. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 18th day of April, 2012. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson k1111l*1N James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting March 21, 2012 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Vice -Chair Meehlhause at 7:00 p.m. for March 21, 2012. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Miller, Schiltgen, and Smith. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Rundle and Stevenson. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes VR2012-001. Consideration of a Variance Request to Allow an 2 Accessory Building to Exceed 30% of the Principal Structure Size on a Business Zoned Property Review Proposed City Code Amendment to Allow Massage Therapy As Home Based Business 3. Approval of Minutes January 18, 2012. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the Minutes of the January 18, 2012 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 21, 2012 Page 2 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases A. VR2012-001 Consideration of a Variance Request to allow an Accessory Building to Exceed 30% of the Principal Structure Size on a Business Zoned Property — Bill Lloyd — BHI, Services, Inc. — 2975 County Road 10 Planning Associate Heller indicated the applicant, Bill Lloyd, owner of BHI. Services, Inc. has a purchase agreement for the property at 2975 County Road 10. Staff discussed the past uses of the site, noting the property was built in 1959. Mr. Lloyd wants to purchase the building and move his construction management there, but needs a garage for secure storage of supplies and vehicles. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the size of the detached accessory building to exceed the maximum size limit of 30% of the floor space of the principal use. Associate Heller stated the existing building at 2975 County Road 10 was 1,421 square feet in size. Based on this, the Zoning Code would only allow for a 426 square foot garage on this site. She reviewed the proposed improvements for the site, noting the existing dumpster enclosure would be removed. Mr. Lloyd has requested to build a 728 square foot garage (26'x 28'), which would be 51% of the floor space of the building. Associate Heller explained the Planning Commission may issue a variance to provide relief to the landowner. She commented the commercial property at 2975 County Road 10 was unique as it was less than half the size of most commercial sites in the City. Staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property and a notice was published in the Sun Focus newspaper. She had not received any comments to date. Vice -Chair Meehlhause opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Vice -Chair Meehlhause closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Commissioner Cramblit questioned if the back side garage doors would remain. Bill Lloyd, the applicant, stated they would be removed, as the entire building would be converted into office space. Commissioner Cramblit asked if the proposed garage could be attached to the existing building. Mr. Lloyd stated there was a great deal more expense if the garages were tied into the existing building. He then provided further information to the Commission on his business and clientele. He noted he was a licensed contractor in over 40 states. He stated nine new high-quality jobs would be brought to the city through his business. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 21, 2012 Page 3 Vice -Chair Meehlhause indicated the jobs were great, but the improvements to the building would also benefit the community. Commissioner Miller inquired if the small shed would remain. Mr. Lloyd stated the shed would be removed from the site. He discussed how the rear area of the building would be improved along with the fencing. Commissioner Schiltgen asked if the purchase of the building was finalized. Mr. Lloyd stated all terms were agreed upon pending the approval of a variance from the City. He noted a Phase I environmental review would also have to be completed per required by the bank. Vice -Chair Meehlhause noted the proposed garage was 26' x 28' with two garage doors. He questioned if the company's two trailers and pick-up truck would fit into the garage. Mr. Lloyd stated the two trailers aren't very big (6' x 12') and have been out of town on sites for the last nine months. He indicated the trailers are usually at construction sites for material storage. He wants the garage this particular size so that the truck and trailer could be backed into to the building and left connected. Vice -Chair Meehlhause asked which side of the garage the garage doors would be located. Mr. Lloyd commented the doors would be located on the east side of the garage, facing the parking lot. He indicated the garage was positioned at an angle to match the way the existing building sits on the site. The garage would be covered with brick to match the principal structure. He noted he would be spending approximately $100,000 to improve the existing structure and build the detached garage. He anticipated the improvements would take about five weeks to complete. Commissioner Miller was pleased with the proposed improvements Vice -Chair Meehlhause inquired if the Commission should reference removal of the existing storage building and trash area. Associate Heller stated this could be added to the resolution if the Commission felt it was necessary. Commissioner Cramblit felt this would be addressed through the construction of the new garage and remodeling of the main building, and not necessary to state in the resolution. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 21, 2012 Page 4 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolution 957-12, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance to allow an Accessory Building to Exceed 30% of the Principal Structure Size on a Business Zoned Property for Bill Lloyd, BHL Services, Inc. at 2975 County Road 10; Planning Case No. VR2012-001. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review Proposed City Code Amendment to Allow Massage Therapy as a Home Based Business Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that at a City Council meeting in October, a resident asked the Council whether they would be willing to amend the City Code to allow massage therapy as a home based business in Mounds View. The City Council discussed the idea at their November work session. The Council supports amending the City Code, and asked that the Planning Commission make a recommendation. Associate Heller explained the Planning Commission has discussed several options about how to amend the City Code to allow massage therapy as a home based business and agreed that the only additional requirement should be approval from the property owner if the massage therapist is not the property owner. Staff will create a form for this approval, which will be submitted with the business license. She then reviewed the proposed Resolution and recommended approval. Vice -Chair Meehlhause questioned if a homeowner could start a car repair business in its garage. Associate Heller stated this is not typically the kind of home based business that the City would encourage, but if the work was completed inside a garage and had no outdoor storage or noise, it may not be a problem. However, if the City received complaints, then staff would investigate and possibly stop the business from operating at the home. Commissioner Smith supported the Resolution and the Code Amendment language change. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Smith/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolution 958-12, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Code Amendment language change to allow Massage Therapy as a Home Based Business. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission March 21, 2012 Regular Meeting Page 5 Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. April 4, 2012 B. April 18, 2012 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice -Chair Meehlhause adjourned the meeting at 7:52 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther ThneSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA May 2, 2012 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: March 21, 2012 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2012-002 and VR2012-003: Variance Requests to Allow Adjacent Driveways to Remain with Zero Setbacks Address: 5045 Eastwood Road Applicant: Blaine & Mary Fyksen 6. Other Planning Activity None 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. May 16, 2012 B. June 6. 2012 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. April 18, 2012 Address: 5046 Rainbow Lane Applicant: Gordon & Marilyn Davis AGENDA SESSION 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion Mr �T Item No: 5A OUNDS VIEW Meeting Date: May 2 2012 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Variance to allow Driveways with Zero Setbacks at 5045 Eastwood Road & 5046 Rainbow Lane; Planning Cases VR2012-002 and VR2012-003 Introduction: The applicants, Blaine & Mary Fyksen, property owners of 5045 Eastwood Road, and Gordon & Marilyn Davis, property owners of 5046 Rainbow Lane, are requesting variances to allow their driveways to remain combined. The City Code requires a five foot setback for driveways without a variance. Discussion: 5045 Eastwood Road and 5046 Rainbow Lane are corner lots and both homes were built in 1955. The homes have detached garages located next to each other that access County Road H. The Davis' driveway is mostly concrete and the Fyksen's is asphalt. They have been combined together with no separation for many years. Both owners are going to replace the driveways since they are in poor condition, but driveways must be brought into compliance with current Zoning Code requirements when replaced. The Fyksens and the Davis' want the driveways to remain combined because they are then able to turn vehicles around and drive forward out of the driveway rather than backing onto County Road H. Sunnyside Elementary School is on County Road H, almost across the street from the Davis' house. County Road H is a fairly busy road, particularly during the morning and evening rush hours and school start and ending times. It is difficult and dangerous to back out of any driveways onto County Road H. It is even hard to stop on County Road H, then back into the driveways because of the amount of traffic and pedestrians in the area. According to the submitted site plan, the property owners are proposing to leave a fourfoot separation at the top section of the driveways, and would only connect approximately the bottom half of the driveways. 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: 5045 Eastwood & 5046 Rainbow Driveway Variances Report May 2, 2012 Page 2 a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. The zoning code requires driveway and parking setbacks for aesthetics and to provide separation and some sense of privacy between neighbors. The zoning code primarily deals with aesthetics and size limitations, not safety. b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. While the Comprehensive Plan does not specify design criteria for properties does support improvements to and the maintenance of properties. C. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable mannernot permitted by this Title or the City Code. The applicants are asking for the driveways to remain combined for safety reasons. 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. The unique feature of these lots is the amount of vehicle and pedestrian traffic on County Road H, and their close proximity to an elementary school. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The driveways have been combined for many years, so there will be no change to the existing character of the neighborhood. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The 5 foot variance is the minimum variance needed since that is what the Zoning Code requires for a driveway setback. 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. Zoning permits will be required for the additional asphalt area that connects the driveways together. 5045 Eastwood & 5046 Rainbow Driveway Variances Repod May 2, 2012 Page 3 As with any requested variance, this application requires a public hearing. Staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of the applicant's property and a notice was published in the Sun Focus newspaper on Thursday, April 19, 2012. Recommendation: Staff recommends holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and the public. The Commission may take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variances as requested. Resolutions 961-12 and 962-12 are attached for action if the Commission so chooses. 2. Deny the requested variances. The Commission should direct staff to draft resolutions of denial with findings appropriate to support the denials. 3. Table the request. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide there is a need for more discussion, the Commission ? can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Respectfully /Submitted By, � v I'�jl Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photos 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Statement from Applicants 5. Proposed Site Plan 6. Resolution 961-12 7. Resolution 962-12 t Z©NNG M J aZuu --- ---- z DR 5148 5201 5148 5149 5148 5149 8 51485175 WOODALE DR 51 t 5149 --- 5165 5152 5155 515 515 51 5140 5141 5140 5141 5140 5141 5140 - - Y 51 - 5155 514 5141 514 514 g 5132 513 5132 --- g 5132 5133 5132 5133 a 5145 0 __ 51 3 5124 5125 © 5124 5125 5124 512 5124 �.� 5132 5135 513 513 51 5135 5116 5117 5116 5117 5116 5197 5116 5125 5128 5131 512 512 51 g Z 5109 5108 5109 -� 5118 5115 5114 511 51 3 S 5108 5109 5108 5108 5115 LO — y� 5100 5101N 5100 5101 5100 5101 5105 5108 5107 5106 51( 150921 50911 5079 5071 50 50911 150921 509 5071 ,5 505 504 504 5054 5053 5054 505 505�'N 5046 5045 5046 50 5 5046 5045 — — — ` County Road H to 12 L 5091 50! i61508 085 508 508 50 65 101150790— -- 0 507 72 5071 O 0 5068 506 50 — 3 Z 50 56 5065 W 5062 5061 OJ 30 5059 � 5056 505 54 5053 5 4 P 5051 bL 46 5045— a 50 * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential I Aerial View School 146 Rainbow garage i driveway r � Statement from i • p April 10'x', 2011 o: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Blaine and Mary ryl<sen at 5045 Eastwood Rd. /Gordon and Marilyn Davis at 5046 Rainbow Lane Re: Variance for the modification of both replacement driveway setbacks. The current driveways for these addresses are intersected with County Rd H and have been joined as one for the past 50 years with no separation between the 2. This has allowed both residents to turn aground at the end of these driveways in order to enter onto County Rd H in a forward motion. Due to the many years of population growth with both Sunnyside Elementary School, Medtronic and other local businesses, backing out onto this County Road at this point in time would become very difficult and possibly dangerous. Both neighbors agree that a separation is in the best interest of both residents and that a better curb appeal would result from this separation. At the same time, each resident would be protected from the potential of future neighbors parking on the other neighbors drive, should someone decide to sell or move. We are asking however, for a driveway variance from current codes that we are allowed to join these driveways near the ends once again in order to allow a safe turn around. This will allow each resident to enter onto County H in a forward motion, just as in the past. We have noticed that numerous drives have been designed this same way on Silver Lake Rd and I<nollwood Ave, which in fact looks appealing and allows a high degree of convenience and safety for those residents. Finally, it should also be noted that the Mounds View Police Department normally posts an officer in both the A.M. and P.Ivl. in this specific area in order to help slow traffic down for the safety of the kids going to and from school. This is a huge benefit and one that we are sure offers some peace of mind by parents of their children walking to school. Please see the attached plan and contact us with any questions you may have Best regards, Blaine and Mary Fyksen Gordy and Marilyn Davie Proposed Si! Pan w ` \ \ � ... . � � / 2 c a d�. , a V! I WHEREAS, the applicants, Blaine and Mary Fyksen, property owners of 5045 Eastwood Road, have applied for a variance to allow their driveway to have zero setback; and, WHEREAS, 5045 Eastwood Road is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Twelve Oaks, Lot 8, Block 3, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 07-30-23-44-0075 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 2, 2012; 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 5045 Eastwood Road, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 561-12 Page 2 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code is create physical separation between driveways for aesthetics and a sense of privacy for the property owners. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is improving the property. 3. The applicant's are requesting this variance only for safety reasons, which are not often addressed by the zoning code. 4. The unique feature of this property is the high amount of vehicle and pedestrian traffic on County Road H, and its close proximity to an elementary school. 5. The driveways have been combined with zero setbacks for many years, so there will be no change to the existing character of the neighborhood. 6. The 5 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 Blaine and Mary Fyksen, property owners of 5045 Eastwood Road, to allow a driveway to have a zero setback, subject to the following: 1. The applicants must receive a zoning permit for the entire driveway area prior to its replacement. Adopted this 2nd day of May, 2012. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) • A �' # 11MIM97, RESOLUTION • 0WA9100911WILD COUNTYOF ROFS WHEREAS, the applicants, Gordon and Marilyn Davis; property owners of 5046 Rainbow Lane, have applied for a variance to allow their driveway to have zero setback; and, WHEREAS, 5046 Rainbow Lane is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Twelve Oaks, Lot 9, Block 3, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 07-30-23-44-0076 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 2, 2012; 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, HE 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 5046 Rainbow Lane, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 962-12 Page 2 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code is create physical separation between driveways for aesthetics and a sense of privacy for the property owners. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is improving the property. 3. The applicant's are requesting this variance only for safety reasons, which are not often addressed by the zoning code. 4. The unique feature of this property is the high amount of vehicle and pedestrian traffic on County Road H, and its close proximity to an elementary school. 5. The driveways have been combined with zero setbacks for many years, so there will be no change to the existing character of the neighborhood. 6. The 5 foot variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant's practical difficulty since that is what the zoning code requires fordriveway 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 Gordon and Marilyn Davis, property owners of 5046 Rainbow Lane, to allow a driveway to have a zero setback, subject to the following: 1. The applicants must receive a zoning permit for the entire driveway area prior to its replacement. Adopted this 2nd day of May, 2012. 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 18, 2012 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for April 18, 2012. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Miller, Rundle, Schiltgen, Stevenson and Smith. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes VR2012-001. Consideration of a Variance Request to Allow an 2 Accessory Building to Exceed the Allowed Height of 15 feet Discuss Code Amendment for Dynamic Display Signs 3 3. Approval of Minutes March 7, 2012. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Rundle. To approve the Minutes of the March 7, 2012 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission April 18, 2012 Regular Meeting Page 2 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases A. VR2012-001 Consideration of a Variance Request to Allow an Accessory Building to Exceed the Allowed Height of 15 feet as Measured at the Midpoint of the Roof (Pre -November 2009 Zoning Code) Planning Associate Heller indicated the Planning Commission was being asked to reconsider a variance to allow an accessory building to exceed the allowed height of 15 feet at 8027 Woodlawn Drive. The Planning Commission and City Council both denied this variance. The City Council has rescinded their denial and decided that the applicant should adhere to the zoning code that was in effect in 2007 when the building permit was issued. She explained the applicant built a garage slightly different than the plans submitted to the City. The applicant took several years to complete the building and therefore following under a previous City Code. Associate Heller commented the applicant did add dormers to the garage which would be addressed by the building official and a modified permit would have to be issued and paid for. However, this was not the issue being discussed this evening. Associate Heller stated the applicant was requesting a 9 inch variance which differed greatly from the previously requested 5 foot variance. She explained that the several comments received from the neighbors generally supported the garage. Commissioner Cramblit noted the 12:12 pitch of the garage does not match the house. Tim Downing, 8027 Woodlawn Drive, explained that the older portion of the home does match the 12:12 pitch, but the newer portion does not. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Tom Carlson, 8051 Woodlawn Drive, supported the Downing's and their detached garage. He did not object to the height or size of the garage. Dan Larson, 8046 Woodlawn Drive, did not object to the garage. He felt it blended in fairly well given its location and the size of the Downing's lot. Commissioner Cramblit asked if the applicant said at the previous Planning Commission meeting that the old garage would be torn down. Mr. Downing stated this was not the case. His long term plan was to build a new attached garage in the place of the old front garage. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 18, 2012 Page 3 Commissioner Meehlhause asked if the new garage would be used to store vehicles, and if so, how is it going to be accessed. Mr. Downing stated the front garage has a door on the front and back and he is able to drive through his current garage into the backyard for vehicle storage. The new front garage would be moved over so there was room to drive around the side of the garage to reach the backyard. Commissioner Meehlhause stated driving through the yard on a regular basis to the rear garage would require an improved driving surface. Commissioner Meehlhause questioned if the applicant was aware of the conditions for approval within the Resolution. Mr. Downing stated he did not have the exact dates, but was aware staff had created conditions for approval. Associate Heller reviewed the conditions and deadline dates with Mr. Downing. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Meehlhause/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolution 959-12, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Nine (9) Inch Height Variance for a Detached Accessory Building at 8027 Woodlawn Drive; Planning Case No. VR2012-001. Chair Stevenson requested the three conditions for approval be read aloud for the record. Associate Heller read the conditions. 1. The applicant must receive approval from the Building Official for anew building permit for the garage as it is actually built by July 1, 2012. 2. The applicant must pay the additional permit fees for the new building permit by July 1, 2012. 3. The applicant must complete the exterior of the garage by October 1, 2012. Ayes — 6 6. Other Planning Activity Nays — 1 (Cramblit) Motion carried. A. Discuss Code Amendment to Dynamic Display Signs Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that in 2009 the City added a section for dynamic display signs into the sign code. She explained that the code was again in need of an amendment. She noted a business in Mounds View wants a dynamic display wall sign since they do not have a ground sign. The current sign code specifically states that dynamic display signs Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 18, 2012 Page 4 can be located on ground and freestanding signs. The intent of the City Council when adopting the current code was not to disallow dynamic display signs on buildings. Associate Heller reviewed the language changes with the Commission and recommended approval of Resolution 960-12 if the Commission was comfortable with what staff proposed. Chair Stevenson questioned if the code was inconsistent since there were two different sign time lengths, four or eight seconds. Associate Heller stated billboards had to be eight seconds and all other signs were four seconds. She indicated the building sign would have a four second time limit. Chair Stevenson did not object to any of the changes presented by staff. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 960-12, a Resolution Recommending Approval of Amendments to Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View City Code about Dynamic Display Signs; Special Planning Case No. 185-12. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. May 2, 2012 B. May 16, 2012 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:32 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. MOUNdtIEW REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 6, 2012 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: April 18, 2012 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2011-001, VR2011-002, VR2011-003, VR2011-004, VR2011-005: Reduced Driveway Setback Variance Extension Requests Applicant: Mike Kinyon Addresses: 5330-5332 Raymond Avenue 5338-5340 Raymond Avenue 5344-5346 Raymond Avenue 5372-5374 Raymond Avenue 5380-5382 Raymond Avenue 6. Other Planning Activity None 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. June 20, 2012 B. TUESDAY, July 10, 2012 (WEEK & DAY CHANGE) 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session 9, 1. Review Minutes: a. May 2, 2012 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion Mot DOTS VIEW City of Mounds View Staff Report Item No: 5A -5E Meeting Date: June 6, 2012 Type of Business: Action To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Variance Extension Requests for reduced driveway setbacks at 5330-5332, 5338-5340, 5344-5346, 5372-5374 and 5380- 5382 Raymond Avenue; Planning Cases VR2011-001 to VR2011-005 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 will be adding attached garages to the rest of his duplexes, one on each end of the building, along with new driveways to replace the existing gravel. The lots are all 100 feet wide so only a single car garage will fit, but the owner 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 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 is now asking for the variances to be extended for another year. He intends to remodel one of the buildings this year, and one each year for the next four years. The Planning Commission should also discuss if there is willingness to continue to extend these variances each year until the driveways are completed, or if Mr. Kinyon should install all of the driveways before the garages are built. He did indicate that if the Planning Commission was not agreeable to continued extensions, he could install most of the driveway (leaving enough room at the top for the garage and footings construction) Planning Cases VR2011-009 to 005 June 6, 2012 Staff Report Page 2 Recommendation: Staff requests that the Planning Commission pass Resolutions xxxx, approving one-year extensions for the reduced driveway setback variances at 5330-5332, 5338-5340, 5344-5346, 5372-5374 and 5380-5382 Raymond Avenue. Respectfully Submitted By Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Extension request from applicant 2. Location map showing the 5 duplexes 3. Aerial Photo 4. Proposed Site Plans 5. Photographic Documentation 6. Resolutions 9xx-12 through 9xx-12 Extension Request from Applicant May 17, 2012 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 Ref: Request of extension on Variance Resolutions 938 through 942-11 dated June 1, 2011 Dear Heidi, Last year I applied for five set back variances so I could have double aprons installed at the time Raymond Av. was rebuilt. Because of the road construction last fall, we did not attempt to widen the driveways then. It was my plan to start this year. My plans are as follows: • 5344 & 5346 Raymond Av. Twin Home: I have just received quotations to reside the buildings, add garages, and pour 20' wide driveways. I hope to make a contractor decision in the next 10 days. Hopefully they could start within 30 days of an order. I would like to do the driveways (2) on one more building this year. Since I would not be rehabbing the building at that time, i would probably just pour from the new aprons to the sidewalks. This will leave room to excavate for garages at a later date. Hopefully I can have some more time on the other three variances. In an email May of 2011, a time limit of up to 5 years was mentioned. What ever time extension the Planning Commission can give me would be appreciated. Sincerely yours, �Jae4qc �Z Michael Kinyon, owner LOCATION MAP The 5 duplexes are highlighted in red 491 \ m5 '� sl aM'f us9 uf2s 1 pp pp )1 m> aQD T. 7 I'm I I ypn 1M MI sna )w —9weaw:en tan lM9 H lai esef. ' fxlt eras Itla) `j oN1 S1M 6]W e)A alX tlWYVS I Mounds View Mobile Home Park a]II � 61n 53)I 1.1u t>a2 I Iva a)u [02� i Y119 g Tin 5216 IM 10]1 >71B 1011 py2 914 �n 1. LL 019 5144 525) 5151 it Lull f(l) 5311 5]9d 'SNf a3H T� 0]1) Gll0 S]Y L• F �f fs'31 Iuzl T-• mn sz+o s2o uw rI9 m21 YJ:9 .nm I mx1 s21i mu Iwo I my 01L I Solt 029 �I 1012 1 � toll Site Plan for 5330-5332, 5338-5340, 5344-5346 Raymond M6 - - V(/�t/S Lo UdSc dt cRl%i eot MOU 43J S N S w Site Plan for 5372-5374 Raymond Avenue r New New New I -- /,&.'7 -� hew garage M New Driveway y7, 3 ) E New Ne ra e ,,,�// / rJ SII garage CGV. 4,2ff at CA)'I A r�' Ne /%)ounAs Vru1 Dri �25'1� �iiS�2�laJy I i i PJle !rte _ n�u adt1 'r� o - i 3' New NeWivew, Driveway 1 Site Plan for 5380-5382 Raymond Avenue S4Ba %, ,x,3811 New garage 3D New Driveway VV . ��a Uc7,s<u�.d Pv�MS� New garage r - At I 3e New Driveway r .. .. ,mc,.. -. ._ -' '- -ter.:: �+ar',....aM..e,,,_.•�.•„�..-�...._ _.::.._ -:, Rx N IL H + AL .sr..raa"'i _ .-- 0- .sr..raa"'i _ .-- MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 963-12 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE FOR REDUCED DRIVEWAY SETBACKS AT 5330-5332 RAYMOND AVENUE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. VR2011-001 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 5330 - 5332 Raymond Avenue; and, WHEREAS, 5330 - 5332 Raymond Avenue is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Norseman 1St Addition, Lot 8, Block 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 08-30-23-14-0008 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 938-11, approving the variance on June 1, 2011, 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 a one-year extension of the variance consistent with the provisions of Resolution 938-11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission approves a one-year extension to complete the driveways. Adopted this 6th day of June, 2012. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 964-12 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 1st 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; 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 a 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 6th day of June, 2012. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 965-12 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE FOR REDUCED DRIVEWAY SETBACKS AT 5344-5346 RAYMOND AVENUE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. VR2011-003 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 5344 & 5346 Raymond Avenue; and, WHEREAS, 5344 - 5346 Raymond Avenue is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Norseman 1St Addition, Lot 6, Block 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 08-30-23-14-0006 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 940-11, approving the variance on June 1, 2011, 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 a one-year extension of the variance consistent with the provisions of Resolution 940-11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission approves a one-year extension to complete the driveways. Adopted this 6th day of June, 2012. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 966-12 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE FOR REDUCED DRIVEWAY SETBACKS 5372-5374 RAYMOND AVENUE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. VR2011-004 WHEREAS, Kinyon Properties, represented by Mike Kinyon, applied for a variance to allow for a three-foot driveway setback at 5372 Raymond Avenue and a one -foot driveway setback at 5374 Raymond Avenue; and, WHEREAS, 5372 - 5374 Raymond Avenue is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Norseman 16t Addition, Lot 2, Block 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 08-30-23-14-0002 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 941-11, approving the variance on June 1, 2011, 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 a one-year extension of the variance consistent with the provisions of Resolution 941-11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission approves a one-year extension to complete the driveways. Adopted this 6th day of June, 2012. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 967-12 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE FOR REDUCED DRIVEWAY SETBACKS AT 5380 - 5382 RAYMOND AVENUE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. VR2011-005 WHEREAS, Kinyon Properties, represented by Mike Kinyon, applied for a variance to allow for driveways with a three-foot setback from the side property lines of a duplex located at 5380 - 5382 Raymond Avenue; and, WHEREAS, 5380 - 5382 Raymond Avenue is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Norseman 1st Addition, Lot 1, Block 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 08-30-23-11-0024 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 942-11, approving the variance on June 1, 2011, 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 a one-year extension of the variance consistent with the provisions of Resolution 942-11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission approves a one-year extension to complete the driveways. Adopted this 6th day of June, 2012. 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 May 2, 2012 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 May 2, 2012. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Meehlhause, Rundle, Schiltgen, Stevenson and Smith. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Cramblit and Miller. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes VR2012-002 and VR2012-003. Consideration of a Variance Request 2 to Allow Adjacent Driveways to Remain with Zero Setbacks 3. Approval of Minutes March 21, 2012. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Smith. To approve the Minutes of the March 21, 2012 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases May 2, 2012 Page 2 A. VR2012-002 and VR2012-003 Consideration of a Variance Requests to Allow Adjacent Driveways to Remain with Zero Setbacks. Address: 5045 Eastwood Road Address: 5046 Rainbow Lane Applicant: Blaine & Mary Fyksen Applicant: Gordon & Marilyn Davis Planning Associate Heller indicated the applicants are requesting a variance to allow adjacent driveways to remain with zero setbacks. The properties are located at 5045 Eastwood Road and 5046 Rainbow Lane. She reviewed the location of the homes explaining each home has a detached garage located next to each other that access County Road H. Associate Heller explained the driveways are currently combined and have been for the last 50 years. Both driveways are in need of replacement, which would mean they would have to be brought into current code compliance with a 5 -foot setback. However, both property owners are requesting variances in order to keep the driveways combined, although they are planning to separate the driveways near the garages with a four -foot wide area of landscaping. She noted the variances were being requested to assist the homeowners with safety when entering and exiting their driveways. County Road H has become a busy road, and these properties are very close to an elementary school. The property owners want to be able to turn vehicles around in the driveways and drive forward to exit the driveway, rather than backing out onto County Road H. Associate Heller stated this was a public hearing and no comments have been received from neighbors. She commented both property owners were present this evening. Staff recommended the Commission hold a public hearing and adopt the Resolutions. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned what the applicants were proposing to plant in between the driveways. Blaine Fyksen, 5045 Eastwood Road, commented shrubs and grass would be planted to create a separation between the driveways. He explained that Ramsey County would also need to approve the driveway access since they have jurisdiction over County Road H. Mr. Fyksen indicated the new concrete surface would be a great improvement over the current paved surface. Chair Stevenson was pleased that the neighbors were working together on this issue and that the combined driveway offered both families safer access to County Road H. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 2, 2012 Page 3 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Meehlhause/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolutions 961-12 and 962-12, Resolutions Recommending Approval of a Variance to allow adjacent driveways to remain with zero setbacks at 5045 Eastwood Road and 5046 Rainbow Lane; Planning Case No. VR2012-002 and VR2012-003. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 6. Other Planning Activity None. 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. May 16, 2012 B. June 6, 2012 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. M®UNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA August 1, 2012 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: May 2, 2012 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. ZR2012-001: B-1, Neighborhood Business, Zoning Review of an Accessory Use Applicant: Ahmad Muqbil Address: Sam's Market 2408 County Road I 6. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss Acceptability of "Hospice" Uses in the Zoning Code 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. August 15, 2012 B. September 5, 2012 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. June 6, 2012 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion *� `,� Item No: 5A MOUNDS VIEW Meeting Date: August 1. 2012 Type of Business: Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Zoning Review for a Proposed Accessory Use in a B-1, Neighborhood Business, District; Planning Case ZR2012-001 Introduction: Ahmad Muqbil leases space in the building at 2408 County Road I and runs Sam's Market, a small neighborhood convenience grocery store. This property is zoned B-1, Neighborhood Business. Mr. Muqbil is planning to expand the grocery store into the other half of the building, and wants to add a small cooking area (approximately 8'x8') with a grill and fryer in order to sell hot, prepared food, such as burgers and fries. The food will only be sold for take- out, no tables or chairs will be added to the store. In 2010, when the B-1 zoning code was amended, the following statement was added under permitted uses: The City will allow uses similar to those listed above in this Section if the proposed use would not create a nuisance and if the use would not be noxious or hazardous. The City Council shall review uses that are not clearly similar to those listed in this Section for a determination of compatibility. City Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission review the proposed accessory use of a cooking area with a grill and fryer in a convenience grocery store to determine whether it would be an acceptable use at Sam's Market. Discussion: According to the Zoning Code, the purpose of the B-1 district is as follows: The purpose of the 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 property at 2408 County Road I has a building that is about 4,800 square feet and has 21 parking spaces (with room for a few more). The surrounding neighborhood includes single family homes, apartment buildings and an office building that is zoned B-3, Highway Business. Besides a convenience grocery store, the only other food uses that are allowed in a B-1 district are candy and ice cream type stores. The applicant's proposal for a cooking area is only a small area of the store and would not be the primary use of the property. Zoning Review for Sam's Market August 1, 2012 Page 2 The Planning Commission should consider if this proposed use is too dissimilar from other B- 1 permitted uses and would be too intense for this property, or would it be compatible as an accessory use to the grocery store and not disrupt the primarily residential neighborhood? Recommendation: The Commission should review and discuss if the proposed additional take-out food cooking area would be an appropriate use for this property and neighborhood. Staff has prepared Resolution 968-12 that recommends approval of the proposed accessory use at Sam's Market, 2408 County Road I, zoned B-1, Neighborhood Business. Sincerely, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Resolution 968-12 Zoning Map 77101 177091771. 6 7721772 w 7715 - N I� m -- _ n u] a� M - 5527 W55255270_ ro n m N 55260 7701 "� "n N N "� 5521 5520 — M.ETms t 1 CO -2.:=% RD LOQ{ V N I-1 mo 4 v 5474 5473 5468 5467 5462 5463 5454 5455 5446 5441 5440 5441 5434 5433 5420 542- 5414 - -- 541 5406 5405 5366 PUL) M M FNN 7661 N N 7651 7641 R-4 R-4 7631 5445 N 7531 7521 I Q 5401 7511-- 7501 5474 5473 5468 5467 5462 5463 5454 5455 5446 5441 5440 5441 5434 5433 5420 542- 5414 - -- 541 5406 5405 5366 Aerial View of 2408 County Road I ell, 4 Q r t 0 a! O t Eli o jC a SMam's arket <. 1;- mIds s �f 1 s� jar' t ell, 4 Q r t 0 a! O t Eli o jC a SMam's arket <. 1;- mIds s �f 1 s� jar' MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 968-12 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO ALLOW 64 SQUARE FEET OF COOKING AREA IN SAM'S MARKET AT 2408 COUNTY ROAD I, PLANNING CASE ZR2012-001 WHEREAS, Ahmad Muqbil is the operator of Sam's Market, a neighborhood convenience grocery store at 2408 County Road I, a property zoned B-1, Neighborhood Business and legally described as; Greenfield Plat 2, Except the North 10 feet of Lot 1 & Lot 2, Block 3 PIN 08-30-23-21-0047 states: WHEREAS, in addition to the permitted uses listed in the B-1 Zoning Code, the Code The City will allow uses similar to those listed above in this section if the proposed use would not create a nuisance and if the use would not be noxious or hazardous. The City Council shall review uses that are not clearly similar to those listed in this section for a determination of compatibility. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to add a 64 square foot cooking area to be able to sell hot foods inside the convenience grocery store, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that a 64 square foot accessory cooking area in Sam's Market would be a compatible accessory use in the neighborhood grocery store at 2408 County Road I. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 1st day of August, 2012. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) MOMS V DS viEVW Item No: 6A — Meeting Date: Auqust 1, 2012 `type of Business: Discussion City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Discussion about Acceptability of "Hospice" Uses in the Zoning Code Introduction: City staff recently met with representatives of a non-profit that is looking for a site in the north metro area to build a children's respite care and hospice facility. There are currently no children's hospice facilities in Minnesota, and only three of them in the country. They are common in Canada and Europe. Staff reviewed the zoning code to see if and where a facility like this could locate in Mounds View. The zoning code does not specifically address hospice facilities, but does address nursing homes as a conditional use in R-4, High Density Residential, zoning districts. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission discuss how a hospice use could be incorporated into the zoning code. Discussion: Few, if any cities, address hospice facilities in their zoning codes. But most or all cities have provisions for nursing homes. Higher density residential zoning district is typically where most cities zoning codes include nursing homes, including Mounds View's code. The Mounds View R-4 Zoning Code currently states: Chapter 1109.04 Conditional Uses: Subd. 2. Nursing homes and other senior congregate housing, but not including hospitals, sanitariums or similar institutions. A definition of "nursing home" states: Managed care. A licensed facility which provides general long-term nursing care to those who are chronically/Il orunable to handle theirown necessary daily living needs; NHs are staffed by nurses, and have a physician on call. A definition of "hospice" states: A model of care that focuses on relieving symptoms and supporting patients with a life expectancy of six months or less. Hospice involves an interdisciplinary approach to provide medical care, pain management and emotional and spiritual support. The emphasis is on comfort, not curing. It can be provided in the patients home as well as freestanding hospice facilities, hospitals, nursing homes and otherlong-term care facilities. Also Known As: Hospice Care, Palliative Care, End -of -Life Care Hospice Facility Zoning Discussion August 1, 2012 Page 2 The term nursing home is not specific to only elderly people. The Mounds View code was probably written with the intention of nursing homes being used for the elderly, but the general effect to the neighborhood from a nursing home or hospice facility for either elderly or children would be very similar. Neither facility would generate a lot of traffic or noise. _Recommendation: The Planning Commission should discuss the zoning acceptability for hospice uses. Staff is not recommending any code amendments be made at this time. This discussion is simply to help give staff direction if the group decides to look further into finding a site in Mounds View. Sincerely, Qlhjj&t-- Heidi Heller Planning Associate PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 6, 2012 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 June 6, 2012, 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Miller, Rundle, Schiltgen and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Meehlhause and Smith. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes , VR2011-001. Consideration of Reduced Driveway Setback Variance Extension Requests 3. Approval of Minutes April 18, 2012. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the Minutes of the April 18, 2012 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases June 6, 2012 Page 2 A. VR2011-001, VR2011-002, VR2011-003, VR2011-004, VR2011-005: Reduced Driveway Setback Variance Extension Requests Applicant: Mike Kinyon Addresses: 5330-5332 Raymond Avenue 5338-5340 Raymond Avenue 5344-5346 Raymond Avenue 5372-5374 Raymond Avenue 5380-5382 Raymond Avenue Planning Associate Heller explained that in June of 2011, Michael Kinyon was granted variances to permit the new driveways at five of his side-by-side duplexes on Raymond Avenue to have one and three-foot setbacks from the north and south property lines. Mr. Kinyon will be adding attached garages to the rest of his duplexes, one on each end of the building, along with new driveways to replace the existing gravel. The lots are all 100 feet wide so only a single car garage will fit, but the owner is installing new driveways that are wide enough for two cars to park next to each other. Associate Heller indicated that Mr. Kinyon applied for all five 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. 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. Associate Heller commented that Mr. Kinyon was making the request that the variances be extended for another year. He intends to remodel one of the buildings this year, and one each year for the next four years. She requested the Commission discuss this issue and provide comment on if the variances could be extended going into the future. Staff requests that the Planning Commission pass Resolutions approving the one-year extensions for the reduced driveway setback variances for the properties owned by Mr. Kinyon. Commissioner Cramblit questioned when the curb cut would be completed. Associate Heller stated the Raymond Avenue street reconstruction was completed in 2011. Chair Stevenson asked when the garages would be complete. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 6, 2012 Page 3 Associate Heller stated five buildings were complete at this time, there was a recent building permit application for another building, and the remaining would be completed, hopefully one property per year. She felt the Commission would be in favor of allowing the extensions for a couple more years. Chair Stevenson was in favor of having the driveways completed within one year of the garage/remodel of the property. Associate Heller commented that the new driveways were included as part of the remodeling project when the garages were added. Chair Stevenson did not object to the extensions for the next five years. He indicated that if the work�was not being completed in a timely manner, the Planning Commission could review the matter further and reconsider the variance extensions. Commissioner Miller questioned if the extension this evening could be made for five years, instead of one year. Associate Heller stated the City Code only allows for a one year extension and that only four properties would need extensions next year and then three properties the following year. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Cramblit. To approve Resolution 963-12, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a one-year extension for the reduced driveway setback variance at 5330-5332 Raymond Avenue; Planning Case No. VR2011-001. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen /Commissioner Cramblit. To approve Resolution 964-12, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a one-year extension for the reduced driveway setback variance at 5338-5340 Raymond Avenue; Planning Case No. VR2011-002. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen /Commissioner Cramblit. To approve Resolution 965-12, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a one-year extension for the reduced driveway setback variance at 5344-5346 Raymond Avenue; Planning Case No. VR2011-003. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 6, 2012 Page 4 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen /Commissioner Cramblit. To approve Resolution 966-12, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a one-year extension for the reduced driveway setback variance at 5372-5374 Raymond Avenue; Planning Case No. VR2011-004. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen /Commissioner Cramblit. To approve Resolution 967-12, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a one-year extension for the reduced driveway setback variance at 5380-5382 Raymond Avenue; Planning Case No. VR2011-005. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 6. Other Planning Activity None. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. June 20, 2012 B. TUESDAY, July 10, 2012 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session Motion carried. There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver OffSite Secretarial, Inc. MOUNVS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA August 15, 2012 -- 7:00 P.M. I. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: June 6, 2012 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. CU2012-001: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Tire Store and Auto Repair Business Applicant: Tires N' More — Naoufel Soussi Address: 2832 County Road 10 6. Other Planning Activity None 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. September 5, 2012 B. September 19, 2012 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. August 1, 2012 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion of Mounds View Staff Item No: 5A Meeting Date: August 15 2012 Type of Business: Commission Business To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Retail Tire Store and Light Auto Repair Business at 2832 County Road 10; Planning Case CU2012-001 Introduction: The applicant, Naoufel Soussi with Tires N' More, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to operate a retail tire store and auto repair business at 2832 County Road 10. This property is zoned B-3, Highway Business. The applicant has purchased the former "PAK Building" and is planning to open another location of his tire store business in Mounds View. Requirements: Section 1125.01 Subd. 1 e: The Planning Commission is required to review the possible adverse effects of the requested conditional use. Section 1125 01 Subd 1_q. which states that the Planning Commission shall make findings of fact and recommend such actions or conditions relating to the request as it deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code and forward such findings to the City Council. Chapter 1114- B-3 Highway Business District Section 1114.04: Conditional Uses: Subd. 3. Motor fuel station, auto repair, minor and tire battery stores and service; provided, that: a. Regardless of whether the dispensing, sales or offering for sale of motor fuels and/or oil is incidental to the conduct of the use or business, the standards and requirements imposed by this Title for motor fuel stations shall apply. These standards and requirements are, however, in addition to other requirements which are imposed for other uses of the property. b. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. c. The entire site, other than that taken up by a building, structure or plantings, shall be surfaced with a material to control dust, drainage and erosion which is subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. d. A minimum lot area of twenty two thousand five hundred (22,500) square feet and minimum lot dimensions of one hundred fifty feet by one hundred thirty feet (150' x 130) be provided. Tires N' More CUP Report August 15, 2012 Page 2 e. A drainage system, subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer, shall be installed. f. A curb not less than six inches (6") above grade shall separate the public sidewalk from motor vehicle service areas. g. The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct source of light visible from adjacent land in residential use or from the public right of way and shall be in compliance with Section 1103.09 of this Title. h. Wherever fuel pumps are to be installed, pump islands shall be installed. i. At the boundaries of a residential district, a strip of not less than ten feet (10') shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with subdivisions 1103.08(1) through (5) of this Title. j. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot shall be landscaped or covered. k. Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with subdivisions 1103.08(1) through (5) of this Title. I. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement, shall comply with Chapter 1121 of this Title and shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. m. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be minimized and shall be in compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code. n. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. o. No outside storage except as allowed in compliance with subdivision 4 of this Section shall exist. p. No outside sale or service except as allowed in compliance with subdivision 5 of this Section shall exist. q. Sale of products other than those specifically mentioned in this Section shall be subject to the conditional use permit. s. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. Mires N' More CUP Report August 15, 2012 Page 3 Discussion: Naoufel Soussi has purchased the building at 2832 County Road 10 (commonly known as "the PAK building") and plans to open a retail tire store that also offers light automotive repairs. Mr. Soussi's family has owned tire stores since 1998, and the Mounds View store will be their fourth location in the metro area. The building was built in 1965 and has been vacant for over eight years. It was most recently used for a welding and cutting business (The PAK Company) and sales and leasing for a commercial laundry distributor. 2832 County Road 10 is a concrete block, one-story building with a sales/office area in the front and an open workshop area in the rear with two garage doors on the back wall. The applicant plans to open a store named "Tires N' More" that primarily sells tires, but may also offer some auto repair services. CUP will remain in effect indefinitely so long as there are no changes to the operation and there have been no problems or reasons, which would warrant the City Council to re-examine the CUP. CUP Considerations: Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address any potential adverse effects which include, but are not limited to, relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use. Each potential adverse effect is addressed below. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages existing businesses to remain in the city along with the introduction of new businesses within Mounds View when compatible with surrounding uses. 2832 County Road 10 is zoned B-3, Highway Business, and is surrounded by commercial and residential zoning designations and land uses. If the requested conditional use permit were approved, this CUP would be in line with the Comp Plan "Community Commercial" land use designation for this site. The Future Land Use Map planned for the potential redevelopment of this site, along with some of the adjacent properties to the west, and as such, designates this property as a general Mixed Use -PUD. The Location and Character of the Surrounding Area. The property is located on County Road 10, mid -block between Groveland Road and Silver Lake Road. CVS Pharmacy is on the south side and on the north side there is a small commercial building that leases space to a liquor store and the other half is vacant. Steve's Appliance store and a few residential homes are across County Road 10. There are residential properties abutting this property along the west side. All of the traffic for this business will be using County Road 10 for access. This property has been a commercial or light industrial use since it was built in 1965. Since the business is on County Road 10, and both neighboring properties are also a commercial use, the proposed tire store and auto repair business should not be out of place in this location. Depreciation. The building has been vacant and unmaintained for several years. The applicant has repainted the building and will be doing more improvements to the property, including adding new screening along the west side of the building where the residential homes are. The new retail tire store should result in little, if any, adverse effect upon the surrounding area. I ires N' More CUP Report August 15, 2012 Page 4 - The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant is proposing a retail tire store that also may offer some auto repair services. There are two other businesses in the city that offer auto repair services (35W Auto Repair and Pat's Muffler), and no other businesses that sell only tires. The proposed Tires N' More business will primarily focus on the sale of tires and wheels and the installation services for them. Since there are no businesses in Mounds View that specialize in tire sales, that could presumably mean that this service is needed in the city. Summary: The parking requirements are met as 19 parking spaces are required and a submitted site plan shows there is room for 59 spaces. The lot meets the minimum size and square footage requirements. Water runoff from the site will drain to the stormwater pond on the south side of the property. This pond was built to accommodate drainage for both the applicant's lot and CVS. Staff recommends approval of this conditional use permit. Recommendations: After taking testimony from staff and the property owner, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit. Resolution 969-12 is attached if the Commission chooses this action. 2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit. If the Planning Commission selects this option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60 -day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Views 4, Comprehensive Plan Existing Land Use Map 5. Resolution 969-12 Zoning Map 6. 8080 _ a _N 80 8065 808 4 80h8 NR RN 8070 806 4 68075 806u08040 5 84453 80R-4 8030 8040 a, 8025 to 8020_ 8025 8026 8015 802$ Y to 8016 _ 0 N 798 8000 8005 8016 8005 7990 7985 8004 B ;z 7911'A'7975 7970 0) 6r1 N 7960 7965 7960 p M N N K) 7950 7955 7956 a N — c000 7934 7933 0 I ABC Liquor 7954 4. /vacant 7932 n 00 R-3 1O n N N N 7900 co 791 N _ 00 — 78 N 7860 78 B 7850 782 © drn- CVS `1 N 00 780 7$01 xOAKWOOD DR 7791 o R-4 ��ti o w 7786 7781 7750 `t' 7768 d 7769 778 Q 7758 7759 7770 7771 O ry^ry 7748 7749 7768 W 7767 774 P U D 77380 7739 Q 7729 773 W 773 7728 J 7729 77280 7723 N 773 � 7735 771 p 7719 7718 7715 2 w 7710 Y 000 71 7709 7714 7711 N 70 -� Properties not bearing a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential IJ , Comprehensive Plan - Existing Land Use Map SOURCES: City of Mounds View Ramsey County DNR November, 2008 Ll1__l1L1__LL_ I J L 1 1_J I _Lu -L-J L--_J-- 1i 2832 Cty Kc Rd 10 cc Existing Land Use Designation (Acreage - Percentage) Single Family Detached - SFD (1142.1 AC - 54.8%) Light Industrial - LI (101.8 AC - 4.9%) ® Single Family Attached - SFA (39.7 AC - 1.9%) Heavy Industrial - HI (79.8 AC - 3.8%) - Multiple Family - MF (116.9AC .5.6%) ® Institutional -IN (63.2AC - 3.0%) - Mobile Home Park- MH (79.9 AC - 3.8%) Outdoor SporU Recreation - SRO (78.7 AC - 3.8%) Neighborhood Commercial - NC (4.6 AC - 0.2%) Indoor Sport/ Recreation - SRI (5.2 AC - 0.3%) Community Commercial - CC (30.6 AC -1.5%) - Natural Open Space - OSN (111.6 AC - 5.4%) - Regional Commercial - RC (33.7AC - 1.6%) - Passive Open Space - OSP (42.3 AC - 2.0%) -Highway Convenience -HC(19.3AC-0.9%) -Church -CH(23.8AC-1.1%) - Off -ice - OFC (73.6 AC - 3.5%) - Water/ Wetlands _'Utility - UT (6.9 AC - 0.3%) F-1 Vacant/Undeveloped - VAC (26.5 AC -1.3%) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 969-12 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A TIRE AND AUTO REPAIR STORE AT 2832 COUNTY ROAD 10; PLANNING CASE NO CU2012-001 WHEREAS, Naoufel Soussi with Tires N' More, has applied for a conditional use permit to operate a tire and auto repair store at 2832 County Road 10; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned B-3, Highway Business, and is legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Velmeir CVS Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 06-30-23-34-0086 and 06-30-23-34-0089 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows minor auto repair minor and tire and battery stores and services in B-3 and higher zoning districts; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Site Plan 2. Zoning Map 3. 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 tire and auto repair store meets the requirements as outlined in Chapters 1114 and 1125 of the Zoning Code. 2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the tire and auto repair store use is consistent with the Community Commercial land use designations for this area. 3. The proposed and auto repair store would not be out of place given it is located on County Road 10, which is the main commercial corridor in the City. 4. The proposed tire and auto repair store is located on County Road 10, adjacent to several other commercial businesses, and should not depreciate the neighboring properties. 5. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists Resolution 969-12 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the tire and auto repair store, with conditions as follows: 1. The applicant must install a parking lot with the minimum required number of parking spaces and curbing. The parking lot installation may be done in phases, but must be completed by September 1, 2013. If required, a permit from Rice Creek Watershed District must be approved before the City will issue a permit for the parking lot construction. 2. The applicant must install a privacy fence along the west side of the property to provide screening for the adjacent residentially zoned properties. The fence must be installed by September 1, 2013. 3. This Conditional Use Permit maybe reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council if any problems develop or if there are any changes to the operation deemed substantial enough to warrant such a review, in the estimation of the Community Development Director or the City Council. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED thatthis Conditional Use Permit shall have no expiration date and shall remain in force so long as the conditions agreed upon herein are observed. 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 15th day of August 2012. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: Jim Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting August 1, 2012 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 August 1, 2012. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Miller, Rundle, Schiltgen, Stevenson and Smith. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 ZR2012-001. Consideration of a B-1 Neighborhood Business, Zoning 2 Review of an Accessory Use Discuss Acceptability of "Hospice" Uses in the Zoning Code 3 3. Approval of Minutes May 2, 2012. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Miller. To approve the Minutes of the May 2, 2012 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases August 1, 2012 Page 2 A. ZR2012-001 Consideration of a B-1 Neighborhood Business, Zoning Review of an Accessory Use Address: Sam's Market, 2408 County Road I Applicant: Ahmad Muqbil Planning Associate Heller indicated that when the B-1 zoning code was last amended in 2010, a provision was added to allow City Staff or the City Council to review proposed uses that are not already listed in the Zoning Code for compatibility, rather than amending the zoning code to add more permitted uses. She explained Sam's Market, on the corner of County Road I and Edgewood, was seeking permission to add a cooking area with a grill and fryer to be able to sell hot food for take-out. Staff recommended this area be limited to 64 square feet within the store. City staff felt this additional cooking use should be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. She requested the Commission review the proposed accessory use of a cooking area and selling take-out food in a neighborhood grocery store. Chair Stevenson did not object to the propose use. He proposed a condition restricting the cooking area to only take-out food to assure that tables and chairs were not added to the grocery store; or if tables and chairs were allowed, that the number be limited. Commissioner Smith agreed. Commissioner Meehlhause supported the expanded use and wanted to see the grocery store successful. He suggested the number of chairs within the market be limited to eight. This would allow for patrons to have a place to sit while waiting for their order. Commissioner Rundle was in favor of allowing two tables and six to eight chairs. Commissioner Meehlhause was not concerned that the area would turn into a restaurant. Associate Heller agreed, but was in favor of the suggested condition. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Meehlhause/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolution 968-12, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Proposed Accessory Use at Sam's Market at 2408 County Road 1, zoned B-1, Neighborhood Business limiting the number the number of tables to two and the number of chairs to eight; Planning Case No. ZR2012-001. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission August 1, 2012 Regular Meeting Page 3 6. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss Acceptability of "Hospice" Uses in the Zoning Code Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that City staff recently met with representatives of a non-profit that was looking for a site in the north metro area to build a children's respite care and hospice facility. She explained there are currently no children's hospice facilities in Minnesota, and only three of them in the nation. Staff reviewed the zoning code and the code does not specifically address hospice facilities, but does address nursing homes as a conditional use in the R-4, High Density Residential zoning district. It was noted the use may be less intense than a nursing home since it would likely have less residents. Her only concern with the zoning requirements was with the parking requirements for the proposed use versus a nursing home. Associate Heller requested the Commission discuss how a hospice use could be incorporated into the City's zoning code. Commissioner Miller questioned the age of children that would be serviced in the proposed facility. Associate Heller indicated the hospice facility would be for children from birth through 18. Chair Stevenson was in favor of considering the hospice use within the nursing home section of the zoning code, as this was a conditional use and he felt hospice could be aligned with this same use. Commissioner Cramblit agreed. Commissioner Miller commented she was surprised there was a need for children's hospice. Associate Heller explained that most or all of the costs for respite and hospice care are not reimbursed by health insurance providers or the State, and that was one of the main reasons for the lack of these facilities in the United States. Commissioner Smith indicated it would be great for Mounds View to be the first City in the State of Minnesota to provide this service for families. The Commission agreed. Associate Heller anticipated that the building would be designed to look more residential with a great deal of green space. She explained the developers were interested in the great access Mounds View has to freeways in the metro area. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if TIF funds could be used to assist with acquiring a site for this use. Associate Heller did not anticipate the funds could be used for land acquisition, but could possibly be used for demolition and site preparation expenses. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. August 15, 2012 B. September 5, 2012 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session August 1, 2012 Page 4 There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA September 5, 2012 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: August 1, 2012 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2012-004: Consideration of a Variance for Reduced Parking Lot Setbacks at Tires N' More Applicant: Tires N' More — Naoufel Soussi Address: 2832 County Road 10 6. Other Planning Activity None 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. September 19, 2012 B. October 3. 2012 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. August 15, 2012 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion MT �T Item No: 5A OUNDS VIEW Meeting Date: September 5, 2012 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Variance request to allow reduced parking lot setbacks at Tires N' More, 2832 County Road 10; Planning Case VR2012-004 Introduction: The applicant, Naoufel Soussi, owner of Tires N' More at 2832 County Road 10, will be installing a new parking lot with curb and gutter, and is requesting variances for reduced parking lot setbacks on three sides of the property. The previous owners of the building had originally intended to redevelop the property along with the CVS development and was working with Velmeir (the CVS developer) on improving the parking lot and sharing the County Road 10 driveway access . The applicant's rear parking lot was removed by Velmeir in anticipation of reconstruction that would be done with CVS's parking lot. The previous owner did not sign off on the plans, so Velmeir did not complete the 2832 County Road 10 building's parking lot and it remains uncompleted. Discussion: Mr. Soussi purchased the property at 2832 County Road 10 and will be using the existing building that was built in 1965. This property does not have its own access to County Road 10 and must share access driveways with the adjoining properties. There are driveway and parking easements in place with both the Simon's building at 2840 County Road 10 and the CVS Pharmacy property at 2800 County Road 10. The Tires N' More building is not sitting parallel to County Road 10, so because of this and the angle of the front property line, the front parking lot is small and not safe to have more than one vehicle maneuvering in the front parking lot at a time. Instead, the applicant will primarily use the CVS County Road 10 driveway for access to his business. Customers would enter and exit at the CVS driveway and park in the rear of the Tires N' More building. Customers would then use the sidewalk along the east side of the building to walk to the front door of the store. The building currently has asphalt only in the front and along the west side of the building, and both of these areas are paved up to the property line. The applicant has requested a 5 foot setback for the front parking lot, which would match the 5 foot parking lot setbacks at CVS (they were granted variances for reduced parking lot setbacks). The required and requested parking lot setbacks for this property are *Commercial parking lot setback requirements are larger when abutting residential properties Required Requested Front: 30 feet 5 feet West: 20 feet* 0 feet (for about half of the lot, then it will be 20 feet). East: 5 feet 4 feet and 0 feet Rear: 5 feet Will meet 5 foot setback requirement *Commercial parking lot setback requirements are larger when abutting residential properties Tires N' More Parking Lot Variances Hepori September 5, 2012 Page 2 For the Planning Commission to act favorably toward this application, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. This is true for all variance requests. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. The zoning code requires driveway and parking setbacks for aesthetics and to provide separation and some sense of privacy and security between businesses and neighbors. The zoning code primarily deals with aesthetics and size limitations, not safety. When older, existing buildings need improvements, such as expansions or parking lots, it is often difficult to meet current code requirements. b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. While the Comprehensive Plan does not specify design criteria for properties, it does support improvements to and the maintenance of properties. The installation of a new parking lot will be a large improvement to this property. 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 reduced parking lot setbacks in order to be able to access his property and to limit the traffic in the front parking lot for safety reasons. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to otherproperties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size orshape, 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 unique feature of this property are that the north property line is angled, the building does not sit parallel to County Road 10 and is located closer to the front of the lot, making the front parking lot very small and difficult to maneuver through. The building does not have its own access to County Road 10 and must use the adjoining properties' access driveways. The building has side setbacks of about 14 feet (west side) and 32 feet (east side), which leave limited room to access the rear parking lot. The applicant recently purchased the property and is not responsible for the conditions that have prompted him to apply for a variance. Tires N' More Parking Lot Variances Report Seplernber 5, 2012 Page 3 e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The access driveways from the adjoining parcels have been as is for many years, and there is currently asphalt in the front parking lot up to the property line, so there will be no change to the existing character of the neighborhood. Instead it will be a big improvement to this property and 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 requested variances are the minimum that would be necessary in order for the applicant to be able to access his property and the rear parking lot. 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 orminimize 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. 1. Tires N' More owners must make all possible efforts to prevent customers and employees from using the CVS access to Silver Lake Road. The property owner of 2800 County Road 10 does not give permission for the applicant to use of any more of their property than what is specified in the easement documents. Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, this request necessitated a public hearing. Staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of the applicant's property and staff had a notice published in the Sun Focus newspaper. Staff has been in contact with the attorney representing the property owner of 2800 County Road 10 (CVS does not own the land). They do not want the applicant using any of their property that is not included in the easement agreements. Mr. Soussi will need to modify the original plan and have agreement from CVS's property owner before the City will approve any variances for the east property line. There is a letter from the attorney included in this staff report. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commissioners take testimony from staff and the applicant and open the public hearing. At the time of this report, the applicant is still working on the modified plan and will need to have the adjoining property owner agree to the layout along the shared property line/driveway. This variance application will likely not be ready for action on September 5, 2012, and staff recommends that the Planning Commission move to table this case until the next meeting on September 15, 2012. fires N' More Parking Lot Variances Report Septembers, 2092 Wage d, After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and the public, the Commission may take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Deny the requested variance. The Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings appropriate to support the denial. 2. Table the request. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide there is a need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. CMUr /---� Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Site Plan for parking lot 2. Property & building layout 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial Photos 5. Letter from Diana Wendel, representing the owners of the CVS property PARKING LOT SITE PLAN 9 L/Q&10 ST_ -1 - Front West Side setback request = 0 feet Existing asphalt "Rear west side and south sides will comply with the required setbacks Cal CID TRAFFIC FLOW TO TIRES N' MORE SITE NORTH Front setback request = 5 feet is East Side setback request = 4 feet East Side setback request = 0 feet O DRM PC EQQE:111Ue 1' PROPOSED PARKINGII Kv go, MN 55Y8 LAYOUT Phone: (612) 751 7595 co, 125.02' NORTH 'oAL ��f vrepwea tu: AraiF��Q�M POND--)n,..x,.,+,,, T ZONING MAP $080_ N 66 qa N N N N 8084 808 8060 :80765], 8064 8075 8040 8046 S-3 R-4 8030 8045 - - 8048 8036 8025 m 8020 8025 8026 8015 (w 8016 N 7980 8005 8000 8005 7990 7985 B-3 798 7975 n �� 00 7960 7965 N ,fi N M 7950 7955 04 N - Q N 007934 7933 cW� I ABC Liquor K /vacant 7932 -- _- N R-3 �O N N N Co 791 N C, 7R n 786 N 7'Q. 801 E 8004 7970 B 178501 782 ry$� it ry 7801 YUA OD ao 7769 © a 7791 R-4 ^dry 7781 7750 ry O 7771 ry^ry n 7767_ 77}4 10CPUD 8 7729 773 W c�7 7723 [1 773 7735 773 7715 W -- 71 7711 N 70 with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential o of N N 77680p 780 7758 ry 7801 YUA OD ao 7769 DR 7791 R-4 ^dry 7781 7750 ry O 7771 ry^ry n 7767_ 77}4 10CPUD 8 7729 773 W c�7 7723 [1 773 7735 773 7715 W -- 71 7711 N 70 with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential o of 7786 77680p 778. 7758 7759 7749 7739 7770 7768 -- - 7748 7738 7728 3 p 7729 7728 771 7719 7718 7710 Z Y 7709 not indicated 7710 Properties Aerial View r: I RVr ' Xl'� gCf ..l CVS Pharmacy Letter from Attorney Representing 2800 Cty Rd 10 (CVS) property owners (JK&SK MN, LLC) Sherman & .Howu'd L.L.C. Diamr 07, Wendel Direct Dial Number: (303) 299-8362 C -mail: DWcndcl@NSltermanliorverd.cum VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL, Planning Commission c/o Ms. Heidi Heller Planting Associate City of Mounds View 2,101 Highway 10 Mounds View, INN 55112 licidi.lieller@ci.inotinds-view.iiiii.us ei.mounds-view.um.us ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW 633 SEVENTEENTH STREIiT, SUITE 3000 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 TELLPHONE. (303) 297-2900 FAX: (303) 298-0940 WWW.SHERMANI4IOWARD.COM August 30, 2012 Re: Application by'rires `N More at 2832 County Road 10, Mounds View, Minnesota Ladies and Gentlemen, Reference is made to that certain application for conditional use permit and related documents (the "Development Application") submitted by Naoufe) %ussi and `fires `N More ("TNM") regarding certain approvals to develop and operate a retail tire store and light auto repair business at 2832 County Road 10, Mounds View, Minnesota (Lot I, Block I of Velmcir CVS Addition Plat) (the "TNM Site"). We represent Pe & SK MN, LLC ("JKISK"), the owner of the property located adjacent to the TNM Site, more particularly known as 2800 County Road 10, Mounds View, Minnesota (Lot 2, Block I of Velmeir CVS Addition Plat) and currently operated by CVS Pharmacy (the "CVS Site"). We have reviewed the various Development Application inaterials and submit the following continents for consideration by the Mounds View Planning Commission in its review of these matters: I. Attached are excerpts of the CVS survey prepared in 2005, at the time the CVS Site was acquired by JK/SK, as well an excerpt from the TNM development plan, As you can see from the CVS survey, there is a reciprocal access casement on the CVS Site serving both the CVS Site and the TNM Site --shown cross -hatched in black (page I of the survey excerpt document). A copy of the recorded easement agreement is also enclosed Foryour easy reference. However, the access easement is of limited arca and scope. We do not have an exact distance/length of that easement, but it appears to only extend to a portion of the width of the CVS building, Pursuant to the TNM development plan (page 2 of the survey excerpt document), it appears that'I'NM might intend to use a larger access distance beyond the boundary of the easement. This is mat clear, but to avoid any future problems, JK/SK requests that this be made clear in the developncnt and use of the TNM Site and the access easement by TNM. In reviewing the aerial photographs, there is curbing, but (he curbing doesn't follow the boundary or the casement, making it appear that there is a wirier access area than legally granted. We request that in order to avoid any confusion by patrons of tho TNM Site, upon development, the curbing on the TNM Sherman & Howard L.L.c. Planning Commission City of Mounds View August 30, 2012 Page 2 Site should be extended so that it blocks off/impairs any use of the CVS Site beyond the boundaries of the access easement (see attached marked drawing) to abut the boundary line of the easement, so as to create a physical barrier to customers and actually preventing them from traveling outside of the easement. 2. The request for Variance 3 on the TNM Development Application is written to address cross access and parking. We understand that the City will interpret this request as a request relating to the setback area on the TNM Site and not as a matter affecting cross access and parking between the two landowners, JIUSK and TNM. 3. Another concern is that the patrons of TNM should not use the access/curb cut from Silver take Road, as there is no access casement on that side of the CVS Site for the benefit of the TNM Site, This would result in increased traffic on the CVS Site and potentially dangerous conditions. Thank you For your tinnc and consideration in this matter. Please let us know if you have any questions or if we can provide you with additional information. Very truly yours, Diana M. Wendel DMW/vlh Enclosures O,UNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS OFT Cr Y OF M TY ME TA gAMSEY COIIN INNgegular Meeting August 15, 2012 Mounds View City Hall MN 55112 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, Call to Order eehlhause at 7-00 p•m. or August 15, 2012. L dice Chair M The meeting was called to oxdex by ------------ :- ::'' • exs Cxaxnblit, Meehlhause, Miller, Rundle, and Schiltgen. 2. Roll Call Coxurnissron Members Present: and Smith. d Excused: Commissioners Stevenson Absent an Associate Heidi Heller. Planning Page AIsO� 1 Index to Minutes 2 Approval of Minutes Use Permit for a Tire Consideration of a Conditional 001. uto Repair Business. CU2012- Minor A Store and g, Approval of Minutes missioner. Schiltgen. To appYppe the 2012. meeting as slightly amended. June 6, CxamblitlCom issionex commission m carried. MOTIONISECOND: COQ ular Planning Motion Minutes of the June 6, 2012 reg NaYs_0 Ayes — 5 Mounds View pl Regular Meetinganning Commission q August 15, 2012 Citizens Requests andPage 2 None. C01nments on Items Aot on the Agenda 5. 7Planining Cases ' CU2012_ 001 Consideration ofa Auto Repair Business usiness Conditional nt: Tires N' More _ Use Permit for a Tire Store and Address: 2832 County Naoufel So ty Road l0 ussi Planningil eiate Heller requested for the b Proposing �g at 2832 Co the COnnnission g to use the a tire Road 10. She e consider a conditional use on the Co site as a Lire store xPlained the a Staff noted the Road 10 corridor �d auto re applicant. Naoufel SPermit uss wasuest use does and businesses pair business. She fit into the surroundingwere encouragednoted the site was located Associate Heller further Primarily to grow in this applied for f discussed the °prnmercial nci ho d. of the City. Co parking lot setback parkin ghbor od. been dmmission meetin g lot for this parcel noting variance which will be considered g the a lot on thecloped with the in endo pharmacy store at the PPlicant has also applicant's n of a connected directly adjacent to the applicant's Piamrin Ment. She i p had not been c Parking lot and sh ppl1cant s b g e agree pro e ndicated the °mpleted bee aced access, but wilding had Associate parking lot un ause the previous the Parking Heller co provemoil would °caner did site and the residentia home ented the a greatly improve not sign applicant was proposin the site. along with addition with a prlvac g to install the business al sec y fence. new screening to the and tine stora rtis to the site. She noted The fence would g between the building. The storage is a hazardous she spoke provide better screenin given the ex City will likeuse. For this reason with the Fire Marshal re g pense of a sprinkler sy em. Work with' applicant o sprinklers may nee garding Vice Chair Mee n the timing d to be added hlhause as g tO complete this Task, ked if was still an a Associate Meller cl g1eement the previous Property ro e arified that the Parkin between CVS Place between them owner. She indicad t construction a and this Property. two adjoinin here were recorded shared been between CVS g properties for proper egress and Commissioner Cr access ease and this be co amblit expressed c ingress to mcuts in repleted before the store ingress with the the site. Opened. fire suppression system Associate Heller indicated and recommended this would b mrhended Comm - signer e determined by the Fire this site. Miller questioned what Marshal, type of automotive repairs wouid be completed at Mounds View Planning Commission August 15, 2012 Regular Meeting Page 3 Haythem Soussi, 2637 116th Avenue in Blaine, indicated light automotive repair would include brake and strut work that would be completed at the time of tire replacement. He commented this was a family business and is operated in the same manner as a Tires Plus. Mr. Soussi explained this site would be his fourth location. Vice Chair Meehlhause requested further information on his current tire businesses. Mr. Soussi described his operation stating he specializes in tire replacement for all major tire brands. He stated their business also specializes in custom or specialty wheels and rims, but that one of their other locations is better equipped for that. He indicated his business has creating a niche in this specialty market. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned the location of Mr. Soussi's other businesses. Mr. Soussi explained he had an operation at Dale and University Avenue in St. Paul, off Osborne in Fridley, and on Third and Lake Street in Minneapolis. He commented the first two stores were called Tires for Less, while the third and fourth stores would be called Tires N' More. Commissioner Rundle inquired if there would be any outdoor storage. Mr. Soussi stated there would be no outdoor storage as the site had more than enough space inside the building for storage. Commissioner Cramblit asked if larger vehicles would be serviced at this location. Mr. Soussi explained he would only service cars, SUV's and pickup trucks. Commissioner Miller questioned what the privacy fence would look like. Mr. Naoufel Soussi, 2832 County Road 10, explained the fence would be wooden privacy fence, and would likely be as tall as the City allows. Associate Heller commented the fence could be up to eight feet in height. Commissioner Miller inquired if the applicant had spoken with Rice Creek Watershed District regarding the necessary permits. Associate Heller stated they may not need a permit but that would be reviewed at the next Planning Commission meeting when the parking lot plan is discussed. Vice Chair Meehlhause asked why the variance request was not before the Commission this evening. Associate Heller commented the timing of the variance did not allow for proper public hearing notification to the public and therefore, the issue would be discussed at the September 5th Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 15, 2012 Page 4 meeting. She then reviewed how traffic would flow through the site. Staff noted the pond to the rear of the property was constructed to handle both CVS and the applicant's stormwater runoff. Commissioner Miller recommended the Resolution should state the business would be completing minor auto repair. Associate Heller indicated she would make this change. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 969-12, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Operate a Tire and Minor Auto Repair Store at 2832 County Road 10; Planning Case No. CU2012-001. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 6. Other Planning Activity None. 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. September 5, 2012 B. September 19, 2012 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no farther business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chair Meehlhause adjourned the meeting at 7:47 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA October 3, 2012 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: August 15, 2012 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2012-005: Consideration of a Variance for Reduced Driveway Setback Applicant: Ryan Meyer, JRM Estates, Inc. Address: 8155 Red Oak Drive 6. Other Planning Activity A. Modification to the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project and TIF Districts Nos. 1, 2 and 3 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. September 19, 2012 B. October 3, 2012 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. September 5, 2012 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion MOUNDS ! _f Item No: 5A V Meeting Date: October 3, 2012 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Variance to allow a 4-foot Driveway Setback at 8155 Red Oak Drive; Planning Case VR2012-005 Introduction: The applicant, Ryan Meyer with JRM Estates, Inc., property owner of 8155 Red Oak Drive is requesting a variance to allow the driveway to have a 4 -foot setback. The City Code requires a five foot setback for driveways without a variance. Discussion: 8155 Red Oak Drive is a 51 -foot wide lot with a very small existing home. The City Code requires that interior lots be a minimum of 75 feet wide, but there are a few in the city that are narrower. The applicant recently purchased the property and plans to demolish the existing home and build a new one. There is an existing single car garage on the south side of the lot which the applicant plans to keep and there will be an attached garage on the rear of the home. The applicant would like to keep the driveway in the existing location since it lines up with the existing garage and the new street apron, and there is a large tree that would have to be removed if the driveway were moved further north. Also, since the lot is much narrower than most, in order to meet the setbacks for living space (10 feet) and have a 12 -foot wide driveway, the house is limited to 28 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 requires minimum driveway setbacks for aesthetics and to provide separation and some sense of privacy between neighbors. The required setbacks typically can be met, but this lot is 24 feet narrower than is required which is causing the difficulty. The existing house was built in 1938 and the driveway location has likely existed with a 4 -foot setback since then. b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan supports improvements to properties, and certainly encourages new home construction. 5155 Fled Oak Drive Driveway Variance Report October 3, 2012 Page 2 C. The applicant proposes to use the propertyin a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The applicant is asking for the driveway to remain as it has been for many years, with a 4 -foot setback rather than the required 5 -foot setback. If the lot was the typical 75 feet wide, there would not be a problem meeting the setback. A 12 -foot wide driveway is the minimum width that is desired, particularly since the driveway runs next to the house. 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 unique feature of this lot is how narrow it is. There are only a few properties in the city that are not the required 75 feet wide. The property owner purchased the property with the current dimensions. The owner would also like to keep a large healthy tree that would need to be removed in order to move the driveway further to the north. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. This driveway has been in the same location for many years, so there will be no change to the existing character of the neighborhood. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The 1 foot variance is the minimum variance needed since that is what the Zoning Code requires for a driveway 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. Staff does not have any suggested conditions. A zoning permit must be applied for if the driveway is reconstructed. 8155 Red Oak Drive Driveway Variance Report October 3, 2012 Page 3 Public Hearin As with any requested variance, this application requires a public hearing. Staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of the applicant's property and a notice was published in the Sun Focus newspaper on Thursday, September 20, 2012. Staff has not received any comments as of September 27, 2012. Recommendation: Staff recommends holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and the public. The Commission may take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variances as requested. Resolution 972-12 is attached for action if the Commission so chooses. 2. Deny the requested variances. The Commission should direct staff to draft resolutions of denial with findings appropriate to support the denials. 3. Table the request. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide there is a need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Respectfully Submitted By, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photos 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Statement from Applicants 5. Proposed Site Plan 6. Resolution 972-12 ZONING MAP a OROVELAND ¢ 9275 -I 8270 6281 6270 v7 8271 8270 8 8265 8260 � 8273 8260 8261 6260 PARK 8255 0250 6267 8250 8251 B250 8 .$240 8261 °240 N'' m a 8 Q in N N N rv.i4 9234 6255 ry N N N N N $ ARDAN f AVE 24 m w ago m n n g 0220 -} �N N N ry N IN N N 621° Abiding Savior B. D6 a227 °21t Church 8184 a 98 8205 20 8180 8 92 0 82 8208 J031 DR Z n $ r. m In T v — $175 _ m $�^ 8760 a 60 S m ry ry 8200 �^,� n N 'Nn 14 -- �� -- 8150 4 ]48 LAPORTg 2 B140 138 g86136 8127 8130 813 812 4W 12 5 WOOD 80 10 )0 1 TTIF-W � I 8S I I" 19084 � 8065 8045 8025 8005 tl 8075 9046 8045 8088 8036 0050 8042 8932 8025 8009 8026 8015 a005 7955 7990 8016 ggpp 7959 7990 798q 7975 7940 7965 7 0 7950 7955 7933 7934 7932 8033 8040 Y 8 in v 8011 8000 N N N 80161 a004 1974 a 8081 n IN 8071 8059 8039 8025 o0 n N 8088 8066 0050 8042 8932 8018 8009 8006 7981 7990 7979 7980 7959 7970 7954 7949 7901 7940 7930 7900 71 71 7 7' t D * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential 8t175a t� w N8068 B 8071 8055 8060 B 8045 8052 8 8033 8040 8 8011 8000 8 8 0 7981 7990 0 7 7969 _ 7980 _7 7965 796fi 7 7959 7945 7946 7 7935 7930 7 m 17900 7• 71 71 7 7' t D * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential rt'o l { . ... - ,. IAW r 1�. --.glow .wr� r ® Lo7d. �w ..wrr-- eta �,•. i. 1: _'�'3(-� •..h _� --.glow .wr� r ® Lo7d. �w ..wrr-- Statement from Applicant Description of Proposal: We are planning on tearing down the old house structure leaving the detached one car garage. Building a new home in its place in a new location at the same distance from the street as the neighbor house setbacks. We would like to apply for a variance on the driveway being 5 feet off of the lot line. We would like it to remain at the current location. My reasons are as follows: my existing lot is 51 feet wide with houses on each side, the curb cut is already only 2 feet off of the lot line, there are mature oak trees one in particular that would need to be taken down if the drive was to be moved. If we had to move the driveway to current setback rules this would make my new house extremely narrow, only 25' wide. Attached you will find the lot dimensions and proposed house location and existing garage etc. As well as my HUD and other relating documents stating that now I am the owner of the property as of 8/31/12. Thank you for carefully considering my proposal. Ryan Meyer - President of JRM Estates, Inc. Proposed New House Floorplan — Main Floor 00w 7-Rf.d S Proposed New House Floorplan — Second Floor fle_,- MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 972-12 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A DRIVEWAY WITH A FOUR -FOOT SETBACK AT 8155 RED OAK DRIVE; PLANNING CASE VR2012-005 WHEREAS, the applicant, Ryan Meyer, JRM Estates, Inc., property owner of 8155 Red Oak Drive, has applied for a variance to allow the driveway to have a 4 -foot setback; and, WHEREAS, 8155 Red Oak Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: That part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 30 North, Range 23 West of the Fourth Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point 528 feet East of the West line and 405 feet North of the South line of said Northeast Quarter; thence North parallel with the West line of said Northeast Quarter a distance of 51 feet; thence East parallel with the South line of said Northeast Quarter a distance of 528 feet; thence South parallel with the West line of said Northeast Quarter a distance of 51 feet; thence West parallel with the South line of said Northeast Quarter a distance of 528 feet to the point of beginning, EXCEPT the following described tract of land, to -wit: The East 250 feet of the following: The North 51 feet of the South 456 feet of the East 528 feet of the West 1,056 feet of the Northeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 06-30-23-13-0018 WHEREAS, the Mounds View 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 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 3, 2012; 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 972-12 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 8155 Red Oak Drive, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding setbacks is to create physical separation between driveways for aesthetics and a sense of privacy for the property owners. The requested setback is the same that has existed for many 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 of the narrow lot width, and because the driveway lines up with the existing curb cut apron and leads to the existing garage that is going to remain in place. 4. The unique feature of this property is that it is only 51 feet wide. The City Code requires a minimum width of 75 feet. There are very few properties in the city that are not at least 75 feet wide. 5. The driveway has been in the same location with a 4 -foot setback for many years, so there will be no change to the existing character of the neighborhood. The 1 -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. 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 Ryan Meyer, JRM Estates, Inc., property owner of 8155 Red Oak Drive, to allow a driveway to have a 4 -foot setback, subject to the following: 1. The applicant must receive a zoning permit if the driveway is reconstructed. Adopted this 3`d day of October, 2012. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) It of Mounds View Staff Item No: 6A Meeting Date: October 3, 2012 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Modification to the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project and TIF Districts Nos. 1, 2 and 3 The City is modifying the above referenced project plan and TIF plans in order to identify parcels that the City would like to acquire through the use of tax increment generated from these districts for redevelopment purposes. It should be noted that the City is not increasing the budgetary authority in the TIF plans and/or expanding the boundaries of the TIF districts. Since many of the parcels identified for acquisition are located outside of the TIF districts, but within the development project, the City is required to go through the entire public hearing process, as if it were creating a new TIF district. As part of that process, the Planning Commission needs to make the determination that the development plan (acquisition of these parcels for redevelopment) conforms to the general development and redevelopment of the City as described in the Comprehensive Plan for the City. By approval of the resolution, the Planning Commission concurs that the potential redevelopment of various sites within the City meets the objectives in the Comprehensive Plan. A map illustrating the identified parcels will be presented at the meeting. Sincerely, uhd�t� Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Mounds View Economic Development Project Map 2. Resolution 971-12 3. Modification to the Tax Increment Redevelopment Plans for Tax Increment District No. 1 4. Modification to the Tax Increment Redevelopment Plans for Tax Increment District No. 2 5. Modification to the Tax Increment Redevelopment Plans for Tax Increment District No. 3 Mounds View Economic Development Project R L A I, E I MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING RESOLUTION NO. 971-12 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE PROJECT PLAN FOR THE MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, AND 3 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the Mounds View Economic Development Authority and the City of Mounds View have proposed to adopt a Modification to the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project (the "Project Plan Modification") and Modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (the "TIF Plan Modifications") therein (the Project Plan Modification and the TIF Plan Modifications are referred to collectively herein as the "Modifications") and have submitted the Modifications to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.027 and 469.126, and WHEREAS, the TIF Plan Modifications are being completed to authorize the City and the Economic Development Authority to acquire parcels within the Mounds View Economic Development Project area. WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Modifications to determine their conformity with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Modifications conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. Adopted this 3rd day of October, 2012. Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) As of September 25, 2012 Draftfor Planning Commission Modification to the Tax Increment Redevelopment Plans for Tax Increment District No. 1, (a redevelopment district) within the Mounds View Economic Development Project Mounds View Economic Development Authority City of Mounds View Ramsey County State of Minnesota Originally Adopted: September 22, 1986 Modification No. 1 Adopted: January 11, 1988 Modification No. 2 Adopted: June 12, 1989 Modification No. 3 Adopted: March 26, 1990 Modification No. 4 Adopted: May 9, 1994 Modification No. 5 Adopted: April 14, 1997 Modification No. 6 Adopted: August 14, 2000 Modification No. 7 Adopted: November 13, 2000 Modification No. 8 Adopted: June 28, 2004 Modification No. 9 Public Hearing Date: October 8, 2012 0 FREERS Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105 651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehiers-inc.com Tax Increment Redevelopment District No.1 Finance Plan INTRODUCTION (AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 2000) The following is a modification to the Tax Increment Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan") for Tax Increment District No. 1. Generally, there are no substantive modifications to the Tax Increment Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1. The purpose of the modification is to attempt to bring the Plan into compliance with the Office of the State Auditor requirements as they are understood at this point in time. The following subsections are being modified in an attempt to clarify the Plan and clarify and restate the budgets in the office of the State Auditor's required format. (AS MODIFIED OCTOBER 8, 2012) Tax Increment Redevelopment District No. 1 is being modified by the City Council to authorize acquisition of parcels within the Mounds View Economic Development Project. The EDA and the City desire to continue redevelopment and development of blighted, foreclosed and underdeveloped property in the City. New redevelopment opportunities have arisen in areas located outside of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 and within Mounds View Economic Development Project area. The proposed redevelopments will allow the City to acquire, rehabilitate, and/or demolish existing residential and commercial units, relocate existing businesses and residents, make necessary site improvements and resell the rehabilitated homes and/or vacant residential or commercial lots for development and allow the City to make necessary public improvements to roadways, sidewalks and utilities as required. A. Statutory Authority The City of Mounds View is authorized to establish a tax increment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.71-78. (AS MODIFIED JUNE 1989) The City of Mounds View is authorized to modify a tax increment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.174 to 469.179. B. Statement of Objectives See Part I, Section F, Subsection I of this report. City of Mounds View TIF District No. 1 Modification 1 111 a g e C. Development Program 1. Description of Development Activities The development program will consist of a 231,000 square foot office/service center, 481,000 square foot warehouse and 4,000 square foot restaurant. As such, a four -phased construction buildout of new commercial/industrial development approximating 716,000 square feet will commence in 1987. The developer will be assisted with a portion of the public improvement costs in addition to land acquisition costs through tax increments generated as a result of these developments. 2. Development Activities Covered by Contracts There are no development activities under contract at the present time. 3. Other Development Not Under Contract Reasonably Expected to Occur in the Proj ect As a part of the City's overall revitalization program within the redevelopment district, the development program provides for future new construction of other commercial/industrial projects within the development district area. The future development would be dependent upon the availability of public funds. 4. Also, see Part 1, Section F of this report. (AS MODIFIED JUNE 12, 1989) Description of Development Activities The development program will consist of 270,000 square feet of high quality light industrial facilities with the flexibility of use for manufacturing, assembly, warehouse storage and office. As such, a multi -phased construction buildout of new commercial/industrial development approximating 175,000 square feet will commence in 1989 and the remainder in the following phases. The developer will be assisted with public improvement costs in addition to land acquisition costs through tax increments generated as a result of these developments. 2. Development Activities Covered by Contracts There are no development activities under contract at the present time in the proposed Mounds View Business Park South. 3. Other Development Not Under Contract Reasonably Expected to Occur in the Proj ect As a part of the City's overall revitalization program within the redevelopment district, the development program provides for future new construction of other commercial/industrial projects within the development district area. The future development would be dependent upon the availability of public funds. City of Mounds View TIF District No. I Modification 2 111 a g c (AS MODIFIED MARCH 26, 1990) 1. Description of Development Activities The development program will consist of 326,000 square feet of high quality light industrial facilities with the flexibility of use of manufacturing, assembly, warehouse storage and office. As such, a multi -phased construction build out of new commercial industrial development approximating 150,000 square feet will commence in 1990 and the remainder of the following phases. The developer has been assisted with public improvements costs in addition to land acquisition costs through tax increments generated as a result of these developments. It has also been proposed to develop a scatter site rehabilitation program utilizing tax increment for this district. Objective would include but not be limited to the acquisition of substandard buildings that are economically feasible to rehabilitate or acquisition of substandard residential buildings that are not feasible for rehabilitation, clear the structures and provide the site for new construction. The program could be expanded to smaller commercial locations within the Municipal Development District. A more detailed program will be developed when sufficient tax increments are available. No properties have been identified at this time. 2. Development Activities Covered by Contracts There are no development activities under contract at the present time in the proposed Mounds View Business Park, Third Addition. D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District The tax increment financing district encompasses the parcels in the redevelopment district identified in Appendix C. (AS MODIFIED ON OCTOBER 8,2 012) See Appendix "A" of this report for a list of the property located in the Tax Increment District. E. Classification of the Tax Increment Financing District The City Council of the City of Mounds View, Minnesota, in determining the need for a tax increment financing district in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71-273.78 inclusive, finds that the district to be established is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.73, Subdivision 10. It has been determined that 15 of the parcels in the district (71 percent) are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or other improvements and 27 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard and an additional 40 percent of the buildings are found to require substantial renovation or clearance in order to remove such existing conditions as: inadequate street layout, incompatible uses or land use relationships, overcrowding of buildings on the land, City of Mounds View TIF District No. I Modification 3 1 P a g e excessive dwelling unit density, obsolete buildings not suitable for improvement or conversion, or other identified hazards to health, safety and general well-being of the community. The 15 structures on the 21 parcels of land constituting the redevelopment district have been investigated by consultants. Four of the 15 buildings are deteriorated and structurally substandard to a degree requiring clearance and 6 other structures are found to require substantial renovation in order to remove such existing conditions as: inadequate street layout, incompatible uses or land use relationships, overcrowding of buildings on the land, excessive dwelling unit density, obsolete buildings not suitable for improvement or conversion, or other identified hazards to the health, safety and general well-being of the community. Thus, the tax increment financing district appears to meet the statutory requirements of a redevelopment district and will henceforth be referred to as a redevelopment tax increment financing district. The parcels that have been used to establish eligibility as a redevelopment tax increment financing district are listed in Appendix C. (AS MODIFIED JUNE 12, 1989) The City Council of the City of Mounds View, Minnesota, in determining the need for a tax increment financing district and modification in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174-469.179 inclusive, finds that the district to be modified is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.174, Subdivision 10. It has been determined that 18 of the parcels in the district (72 percent) are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or other improvements and 22 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard and an additional 44 percent of the buildings are found to require substantial renovation or clearance in order to remove such existing conditions as: inadequate street layout, incompatible uses or land use relationships, overcrowding of buildings on the land, excessive dwelling unit density, obsolete buildings not suitable for improvement or conversion, or other identified hazards to health, safety and general well- being of the community. The 18 structures on the 25 parcels of land constituting the redevelopment district have been investigated by consultants. Four of the 18 buildings are deteriorated and structurally substandard to a degree requiring clearance and 8 other structures are found to require substantial renovation in order to remove such existing conditions as: inadequate street layout, incompatible uses or land use relationships, overcrowding of buildings on the land, excessive dwelling unit density, obsolete buildings not suitable for improvement or conversion, or other identified hazards to the health, safety and general well-being of the community. Thus, the modified tax increment financing district appears to meet the statutory requirements of a redevelopment district and will henceforth be referred to as a modified redevelopment tax increment financing district. The parcels that have been used to establish eligibility as a redevelopment tax increment financing district are listed in Appendix C. (AS MODIFIED MARCH 26, 199 0) The City Council of the City of Mounds View, Minnesota, in determining the need for a tax increment financing district in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174- 469.179 inclusive, finds that the district to be established is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.174, Subdivision 10. It has been determined that 7 of the parcels in the district (70 percent) are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or City of Mounds View TIF District No. 1 Modification 4 1 P a g e other improvements and 28 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard and an additional 71 percent of the buildings are found to require substantial renovation or clearance in order to remove such existing conditions as: inadequate street layout, incompatible uses or land use relationships, overcrowding of buildings on the land, excessive dwelling unit density, obsolete buildings not suitable for improvement or conversion, or other identified hazards to health, safety and general well-being of the community. The 7 structures on the 10 parcels of land constituting the redevelopment district have been investigated by consultants. Two of the 7 buildings are deteriorated and structurally substandard to a degree requiring clearance and 5 other structures are found to require substantial renovation in order to remove such existing conditions as: inadequate street layout, incompatible uses or land use relationships, overcrowding of buildings on the land, excessive dwelling unit density, obsolete buildings not suitable for improvement or conversion, or other identified hazards to the health, safety and general well-being of the community. Thus, the tax increment financing district appears to meet the statutory requirements of a redevelopment district and will henceforth be referred to as a redevelopment tax increment financing district. The parcels that have been used to establish eligibility as a redevelopment tax increment financing district are listed in Appendix C. F. Parcels in Acquisition I Properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the City in order to accomplish one or more of the following: remove, prevent, or reduce blight, blighting factors, causes of blight, or the spread of blight and deterioration; to eliminate unhealthful, unsafe, and unsanitary structures and conditions; reduce traffic hazards; provide land for needed public streets, utilities, and facilities; remove incompatible land use, eliminate obsolete or detrimental uses; assemble land for redevelopment; carry out clearance and/or, redevelopment to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. 2 There are three properties identified for acquisition by the City at the present time. (Refer to Appendix C). (AS D1ODIFIED JUNE 12, 1989) 2. There are four properties identified for acquisition by the City. (Refer to Appendix C) (AS MODIFIEDIVL4RCH26, 1990) Properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the City in order to accomplish one or more of the following: remove, prevent, or reduce blight, blighting factors, causes of blight, or the spread of blight and deterioration; to eliminate unhealthful, unsafe, and unsanitary structures and conditions; reduce traffic hazards; provide land for needed public streets, utilities, and facilities; remove incompatible land use, eliminate obsolete or detrimental uses; assemble land for redevelopment, carry out clearance and/or, City of Mounds View TIF District No. 1 Modification 5 1 P a g e. redevelopment to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. 2 There are four properties identified for acquisition by the City at the present time. (Refer to Appendix Q. In addition, the following property within the existing Municipal Development District No. 2 is being proposed for acquisition: Roberts Offten, 2400 County Road H2 (AS MODIFIED OCTOBER 8, 2012) It is anticipated that the EDA or City will acquire and reconvey parcels located outside of the District but located within the Mounds View Economic Development Project, including interior and adjacent street rights of way, as identified below: 08-30-23-12-0068 1 06-30-23-41-0057 08-30-23-12-0052 05-30-23-23-0020 06-30-23-14-0032 06-30-23-14-0023 06-30-23-13-0029 06-30-23-13-0030 07-30-23-43-0088 08-30-23-13-0003 08-30-23-13-0006 07-30-23-21-0017 07-30-23-21-0018 07-30-23-22-0035 07-30-23-23-0002 07-30-23-23-0003 08-30-23-14-0032 08-30-23-14-0034 08-30-23-14-0042 08-30-23-14-0047 08-30-23-14-0046 08-30-23-43-0004 06-30-23-41-0070 06-30-23-14-0011 06-30-23-14-0002 06-30-23-14-0018 06-30-23-14-0017 06-30-23-14-0027 06-30-23-14-0061 06-30-23-14-0083 05-30-23-31-0056 05-30-23-32-0041 05-30-23-32-0049 05-30-23-23-0043 05-30-23-23-0052 06-30-23-42-0058 06-30-23-31-0009 06-30-23-31-0007 06-30-23-42-0064 06-30-23-31-0005 06-30-23-31-0003 06-30-23-34-0062 06-30-23-31-0015 06-30-23-31-0043 06-30-23-31-0030 06-30-23-31-0031 06-30-23-31-0173 06-30-23-31-0033 06-30-23-23-0018 08-30-23-44-0008 O8-30-23-44-0007 05-30-23-41-0006 05-30-23-41-0002 05-30-23-44-0008 05-30-23-42-0057 06-30-23-44-0063 06-30-23-44-0017 06-30-23-41-0039 06-30-23-44-0040 06-30-23-41-0041 06-30-23-42-0072 06-30-23-43-0030 06-30-23-42-0054 06-30-23-44-0001 06-30-23-41-0012 06-30-23-41-0010 05-30-23-32-0010 06-30-23-41-0009 06-30-23-41-0008 05-30-23-32-0006 06-30-23-41-0003 05-30-23-32-0004 06-30-23-41-0001 06-30-23-14-0045 06-30-23-14-0069 OS -30-23-23-0028 06-30-23-14-0059 05-30-23-23-0029 06-30-23-14-0034 05-30-23-23-0031 06-30-23-11-0068 06-30-23-11-0035 06-30-23-11-0037 06-30-23-11-0092 06-30-23-12-0008 06-30-23-14-0002 06-30-23-12-0078 06-30-23-12-0082 06-30-23-12-0081 06-30-23-12-0116 06-30-23-14-0068 06-30-23-14-0076 06-30-23-14-0075 06-30-23-14-0048 06-30-23-41-0026 06-30-23-14-0014 06-30-23-14-0012 06-30-23-31-0022 06-30-23-24-0022 07-30-23-24-0038 07-30-23-24-0039 07-30-23-23-0019 07-30-23-23-0034 07-30-23-23-0033 07-30-23-23-0031 07-30-23-23-0029 07-30-23-23-0028 City of Mounds View TIF District No. 1 Modification 6 111 a g e 08-30-23-43-0012 1 06-30-23-42-0068 1 06-30-23-42-0057 08-30-23-33-0062 08-30-23-33-0060 07-30-23-34-0047 07-30-23-34-0046 07-30-23-34-0045 07-30-23-33-0014 08-30-23-24-0021 08-30-23-31-0005 08-30-23-32-0004 08-30-23-32-0006 08-30-23-32-0005 08-30-23-32-0007 08-30-23-32-0111 08-30-23-32-0108 08-30-23-32-0072 08-30-23-32-0107 07-30-23-31-0002 07-30-23-31-0004 07-30-23-24-0017 07-30-23-31-0025 07-30-23-24-0016 07-30-23-31-0026 07-30-23-31-0027 07-30-23-31-0028 07-30-23-32-0001 07-30-23-23-0015 07-30-23-23-0014 07-30-23-23-0013 07-30-23-23-0012 08-30-23-12-0050 08-30-23-12-0051 05-30-23-34-0063 08-30-23-21-0047 08-30-23-22-0007 08-30-23-22-0008 08-30-23-21-0039 06-30-23-14-0019 06-30-23-14-0073 06-30-23-44-0027 06-30-23-44-0011 06-30-23-44-0019 06-30-23-44-0016 06-30-23-41-0038 06-30-23-41-0036 06-30-23-41-0035 06-30-23-41-0015 06-30-23-41-0033 06-30-23-41-0019 06-30-23-41-0029 06-30-23-41-0028 06-30-23-41-0024 06-30-23-11-0017 07-30-23-24-0024 07-30-23-24-0005 07-30-23-21-0023 06-30-23-34-0080 06-30-23-34-0033 06-30-23-34-0016 06-30-23-34-0025 06-30-23-31-0042 06-30-23-31-0029 06-30-23-31-0016 06-30-23-31-0028 06-30-23-31-0017 06-30-23-31-0027 06-30-23-31-0026 06-30-23-31-0242 06-30-23-31-0019 06-30-23-31-0024 06-30-23-31-0007 08-30-23-33-0025 08-30-23-24-0013 08-30-23-12-0076 07-30-23-34-0033 07-30-23-34-0044 07-30-23-34-0016 07-30-23-34-0005 07-30-23-34-0004 07-30-23-34-0013 07-30-23-34-0003 07-30-23-34-0002 07-30-23-31-0040 07-30-23-31-0049 07-30-23-31-0013 07-30-23-31-0012 07-30-23-31-0033 07-30-23-31-0032 07-30-23-31-0031 07-30-23-31-0010 07-30-23-31-0030 07-30-23-31-0029 07-30-23-24-0018 07-30-23-24-0019 07-30-23-24-0031 07-30-23-24-0030 07-30-23-24-0028 07-30-23-24-0011 07-30-23-24-0056 07-30-23-21-0049 07-30-23-21-0050 07-30-23-21-0061 07-30-23-21-0036 07-30-23-21-0055 07-30-23-21-0056 06-30-23-21-0077 08-30-23-13-0062 06-30-23-11-0090 06-30-23-11-0034 06-30-23-12-0039 06-30-23-12-0080 06-30-23-14-0001 06-30-23-21-0111 05-30-23-44-0026 05-30-23-44-0091 08-30-23-31-0061 17-30-23-14-0005 17-30-23-14-0004 17-30-23-14-0003 17-30-23-14-0002 17-30-23-14-0001 07-30-23-33-0015 07-30-23-33-0013 07-30-23-33-0029 07-30-23-33-0012 07-30-23-33-0011 07-30-23-33-0028 07-30-23-33-0010 07-30-23-33-0027 07-30-23-33-0025 07-30-23-33-0007 07-30-23-33-0006 07-30-23-33-0004 07-30-23-33-0003 07-30-23-33-0001 07-30-23-33-0020 07-30-23-22-0032 07-30-23-22-0031 07-30-23-22-0030 06-30-23-23-0021 06-30-23-23-0038 06-30-23-22-0085 08-30-23-44-0009 08-30-23-14-0065 City or Mounds View TIP District No. 1 Modification 07-30-23-22-0007 07-30-23-22-0023 07-30-23-22-0024 06-30-23-34-0055 06-30-23-33-0001 06-30-23-23-0006 06-30-23-24-0071 06-30-23-23-0008 06-30-23-24-0070 06-30-23-23-0009 06-30-23-23-0010 06-30-23-23-0027 06-30-23-22-0022 06-30-23-22-0021 06-30-23-22-0020 06-30-23-22-0016 06-30-23-22-0026 06-30-23-22-0091 06-30-23-22-0086 06-30-23-22-0077 08-30-23-24-0028 08-30-23-24-0043 07-30-23-42-0057 06-30-23-43-0117 06-30-23-42-0028 06-30-23-42-0005 05-30-23-44-0058 05-30-23-44-0059 05-30-23-44-0066 05-30-23-43-0064 05-30-23-43-0057 08-30-23-32-0049 08-30-23-32-0048 08-30-23-32-0043 07-30-23-31-0020 07-30-23-31-0019 07-30-23-32-0015 7 1 P a g e 08-30-23-22-0040 05-30-23-33-0017 05-30-23-33-0098 06-30-23-44-0069 06-30-23-34-0010 07-30-23-22-0039 07-30-23-22-0027 07-30-23-22-0028 07-30-23-22-0029 06-30-23-22-0080 06-30-23-22-0089 06-30-23-22-0102 07-30-23-41-0140 06-30-23-44-0029 06-30-23-44-0030 06-30-23-44-0032 06-30-23-44-0050 06-30-23-44-0049 06-30-23-44-0048 06-30-23-44-0038 06-30-23-44-0041 05-30-23-32-0032 06-30-23-31-0105 06-30-23-21-0104 06-30-23-21-0022 06-30-23-21-0026 06-30-23-21-0034 06-30-23-21-0036 06-30-23-21-0037 08-30-23-31-0070 08-30-23-42-0013 08-30-23-42-0005 08-30-23-42-0004 08-30-23-42-0003 08-30-23-31-0075 08-30-23-31-0069 08-30-23-31-0071 08-30-23-22-0039 '.. 06-30-23-43-0016 06-30-23-43-0028 '.. 06-30-23-43-0029 06-30-23-34-0001 06-30-23-31-0014 05-30-23-23-0048 08-30-23-13-0028 08-30-23-13-0036 08-30-23-13-0065 05-30-23-24-0017 05-30-23-24-0041 05-30-23-24-0043 06-30-23-13-0048 06-30-23-13-0052 06-30-23-13-0054 06-30-23-24-0018 06-30-23-24-0022 06-30-23-31-0021 07-30-23-44-0115 08-30-23-33-0048 08-30-23-32-0075 08-30-23-32-0074 06-30-23-44-0059 05-30-23-33-0011 05-30-23-33-0010 05-30-23-33-0009 05-30-23-33-0007 05-30-23-23-0036 08-30-23-14-0066 05-30-23-41-0018 05-30-23-41-0016 08-30-23-14-0029 06-30-23-12-0101 06-30-23-42-0055 06-30-23-42-0053 06-30-23-42-0030 06-30-23-42-0032 06-30-23-42-0034 06-30-23-42-0035 06-30-23-42-0044 06-30-23-13-0018 06-30-23-13-0045 06-30-23-12-0022 06-30-23-12-0018 06-30-23-12-0120 06-30-23-12-0103 06-30-23-12-0107 06-30-23-12-0122 06-30-23-12-0037 05-30-23-23-0049 07-30-23-32-0013 07-30-23-32-0012 07-30-23-32-0011 07-30-23-32-0018'. 07-30-23-34-0035 07-30-23-43-0055 07-30-23-34-0055 07-30-23-34-0008 05-30-23-23-0021 05-30-23-23-0022 05-30-23-23-0023 05-30-23-23-0024 05-30-23-23-0025 05-30-23-23-0034 05-30-23-23-0035 05-30-23-32-0017 05-30-23-32-0038 05-30-23-32-0036 05-30-23-32-0022 05-30-23-32-0023 05-30-23-32-0026 06-30-23-14-0066 Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the EDA or City only in order to accomplish one or more of the following: carry out land acquisition; demolition of structures; rehabilitation of housing and commercial units; relocation; construction of new residential and commercial units; site improvements; storm sewer improvements; roadway improvements, provide land for needed public streets, sidewalks, alley ways, utilities and facilities to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The EDA or City may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs. G. Estimate of Costs The estimate of public costs associated with the tax increment financing redevelopment district are outlined in the line item budget in Appendix E. The amount of capitalized interest identified in the budget will be equal to an amount sufficient to pay interest on the bonds from the date of issue until the date of collection of sufficient tax increment revenue to meet scheduled interest payments when due, but not exceeding 3 years as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475. Predicting capitalized City of Mounds View TIF District No. I Modification 8 1 P a g e interest prior to issuance is extremely difficult as it is a function of interest rates, construction schedules and tax timing; therefore, the given figure is only an estimate of capitalized interest and is subject to change. (AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 13,2000) The budget history and estimate of authorized public costs associated with the tax increment financing redevelopment district are outlined in the line item budget in Appendix B. H. Estimated Amount of Loan/Bonded Indebtedness An estimate of the amount of bonded indebtedness is expected to be $6,650,000. The term of the issue is 15 years including 3 years of capitalized interest and the interest rate is expected to be 10.5 percent. The amount of capitalized interest is estimated to be in a range of $2,100,000 to $2,300,000. (AS MODIFIED JUNE 12,1989) An estimate of the amount of bonded indebtedness is expected to range between $2,300,000 and $2,500,000. The term of the issue is 14 years including 3 years of capitalized interest. The amount of capitalized interest is estimated to be in a range of $400,000 to $425,000. (AS MODIFIED MARCH 26, 1990) An estimate of the amount of bonded indebtedness is expected to range between $3,200,000 and $4,250,000. The term of the issue is 12 years including 3 years of capitalized interest. The amount of capitalized interest is estimated to be in a range of $600,000 to $700,000. (AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 13, 2000) The City reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the Modified Plan. The projects have been financed by bond issues, inter -fund loans and transfers. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed $36,000,000 without a modification to the Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. I. Sources of Revenue Several sources of revenue may be used to finance public costs associated with the development projects in the municipal development district including tax increment financing, special assessments, small cities development and federal grant funds. Tax increment financing refers to a funding technique that utilizes increases in assessed valuation and the property taxes attributed to new development to finance, or assist in the financing of public development costs. The office/service center, warehouse, and restaurant City of Mounds View TLP' District No. I Modification 9 1 P 21 g c project is expected to be fully assessed beginning in 1988 for Stage I, 1989 for Stage II, 1990 for Stage III, and 1991 for Stage IV. The development will generate an annual tax increment of $1,052,520 at full assessment upon completion of all four stages of development. A partial tax increment may be received: in 1989 based upon a partial assessment of the developments should the projects be less than 100% completed on January 2, 1988. (AS MODIFIED JUNE 12,1989) Several sources of revenue may be used to finance public costs associated with the development projects in the municipal development district including tax increment financing, special assessments, earned interest and undesignated municipal funds. Tax increment financing refers to a funding technique that utilizes increases in assessed valuation and the property taxes attributed to new development to finance, or assist in the financing of public development costs. The office/light manufacturing and warehouse project is expected to be fully assessed beginning in 1990 for Stage 1, 1991 for Stage II, and 1992 for any remainder. The development will generate an annual tax increment in the range of $330,000 to $380,000 at full assessment upon completion of all three stages of development. A partial tax increment may be received in 1991 based upon a partial assessment of the developments should the projects be less than 100% completed on January 2, 1990. (AS MODIFIED MARCH26, 1990) Several sources of revenue may be used to finance public costs associated with the development projects in the municipal development district including tax increment financing, special assessments, small cities development and federal grant funds. Tax increment financing refers to a funding technique that utilizes increases in assessed valuation and the property taxes attributed to new development to finance, or assist in the financing of public development costs. The office/light manufacturing and warehouse project is expected to be fully assessed beginning in 1992 for Stage I, 1993 for Stage II and 1994 for any remainder. The development will generate an annual tax increment in the area of $450,000 at full assessment of all three stages of development. A partial tax increment may be received in 1992 based upon partial assessment of the developments should the projects be less than 100% completed on January 2, 1991. (AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 13, 2000) Several sources of revenue may be used to finance public costs associated with the development projects in the municipal development district including tax increment financing, special assessments, earned interest, general property taxes state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the developer and investment income, and undesignated municipal funds. Appendix E includes a detailed estimate of the Sources of Revenue being authorized for the District. City of Mounds View TIF District No. 1 Modification 10 111 o g e J. Original Assessed Value Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, Subdivision 1 and Section 273.76, Subdivision 1, the Original Assessed Value (OAV) for the City of Mounds View tax increment financing redevelopment district is based on the value placed on the property by the County Assessor in 1985.* This assessed value is $2,416,086. Each year the Office of the County Auditor will measure the amount of increase or decrease in the total assessed value of the tax increment redevelopment district to calculate the tax increment payable to the Mounds View redevelopment district fund. In any year in which there is an increase in total assessed valuation in the tax increment redevelopment district above the adjusted original assessed value, a tax increment will be payable. In any year in which the total assessed valuation in the tax increment financing redevelopment district declines below the original assessed valuation, no assessed valuation will be captured and no tax increment will be payable. The County Auditor shall certify in each year after the date the Original Assessed Value was certified, the amount the OAV has increased or decreased as a result of: change in tax exempt status of property; reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; change due to stipulations, adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements. *(The figures contained herein are based upon 1985 payable 1986 original assessed values). (AS MODIFIED JUNE 12, 1989) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 1 and Section 467.177, Subdivision 1, the Original Tax Capacity Value (OTV) for the City of Mounds View tax increment financing redevelopment district Modification No. I is based on the value placed on the property by the County Assessor in 1988. This tax capacity value is $26,154. Each year the Office of the County Auditor will measure the amount of increase or decrease in the total assessed value of the tax increment redevelopment district to calculate the tax increment payable to the Mounds View redevelopment district fund. In any year in which there is an increase in total assessed valuation in the tax increment redevelopment district above the adjusted original assessed value, a tax increment will be payable. In any year in which the total assessed valuation in the tax increment financing redevelopment district declines below the original assessed valuation, no assessed valuation will be captured and no tax increment will be payable. Effective with requests for certification for new districts filed after May 1, 1988, the County Auditor is to certify the original tax capacity rate as well as the original tax capacity for the base year of anew district. This provision does not apply for districts established on or before May 1, 1988 or to the expanded portion of such districts even if the expansion is City of Mounds View TIP District No. I Modification 11 111 a e e after May 1, 1988. Therefore, this provision does not apply to this modification. *(The figures contained herein are based upon 1988 payable 1989 original assessed values). (AS MODIFIED MARCH 26, 1990) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 1 and Section 467.177, Subdivision 1, the Original Tax Capacity Value (OTV) for the City of Mounds View tax increment financing redevelopment district Modification No. 2 is based on the value placed on the property by the County Assessor in 1989. This tax capacity value is $21,322. Each year the Office of the County Auditor will measure the amount of increase or decrease in the total assessed value of the tax increment redevelopment district to calculate the tax increment payable to the Mounds View redevelopment district fund. In any year in which there is an increase in total assessed valuation in the tax increment redevelopment district above the adjusted original assessed value, a tax increment will be payable. In any year in which the total assessed valuation in the tax increment financing redevelopment district declines below the original assessed valuation, no assessed valuation will be captured and no tax increment will be payable. K. Estimated Captured Assessed Value Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, Subdivision 1 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.76, Subdivision 2, the estimated Captured Assessed Value (CAV) of the tax increment financing redevelopment district will annually approximate $10,516,892 as a result of the project. This amount will be captured for up to twenty-five years or until the project debt is retired. The City requests 100 percent of the available increase in assessed value for repayment of debt and current expenditures. (AS MODIFIED JUNE 12, 1989) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 1 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 2, the estimated Captured Tax Capacity Value (CTV) of the tax increment financing redevelopment district Modification No. 2 will annually range approximate $360,000 to $420,000 as a result of the project. This amount will be captured for the remaining life of the District. (AS MODIFIED MARCH 26, 1990) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 1 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 2, the estimated Captured Tax Capacity Value (CTV) of the tax increment financing redevelopment district Modification No. 2 will annually approximate $450,000 as a result of the project. This amount will be captured for the remaining life of the District. L. Duration of the District Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision 1, the duration of the tax increment district within the Development District must be indicated within the finance plan. The duration of the tax increment district will be 25 years from the date of receipt of City of Mounds View TIF District No. 1 Modification 121 P a g e the first tax increment. Thus, it is estimated that the tax increment district, including any modifications to the finance plan for subsequent phases or other ,changes, would terminate in year 2014. (AS MODIFIED JUNE 12, 1989) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 1, the duration of the tax increment district within the Development District must be indicated within the finance plan. The duration of the tax increment district will be 25 years from the date of receipt of the first tax increment. Thus, it is estimated that the tax increment district, including any modifications to the finance plan for subsequent phases or other modifications would terminate in year 2014. (AS MODIFIED OCTOBER 8, 2012) Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. lb, the duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the City (a total of 26 years of tax increment). The date of receipt by the City of the first tax increment was 1988. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after December 31, 2013, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. M. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The impact of the loss of tax dollars represented as tax increments is estimated below for each taxing jurisdiction. This estimate is based on the existing redevelopment proposals and does not include the possible tax increments derived from any other future development, mill changes, or inflation factors. Total Assessed Value Tax Increment Finance District 1/2/85 Total $2,416,086 Latest Assessed Value of Each Government Body: % of District to Total City of Mounds View $68,429,189 3.531 County of Ramsey $3,292,017,989 .073 School District 4621 $557,331,065 .434 Spec. Ind. School Dist. #916 $1,509,476,825 .160 Other: Metro Transit $3,292,017,989 .073 Met Council $3,292,017,989 .073 Rice Creek Watershed $712,270,757 .339 Mosquito Control $3,292,017,989 .073 City of Mounds View TIF District No. 1 Modification 13 111 a g c County Library $1,543,703,251 .157 Considering all the districts, it can be seen from the above that the city will have over 96% and the school and county districts will have over 99% of each respective district available for normal growth of tax base or valuation. Applying the percentage of the total mill rate in 1986 levied by each taxing jurisdiction to the projected mill rate and the estimated tax increment received reveals the annual loss of tax dollars by each taxing jurisdiction as listed in the table below assuming development would occur without public assistance. The finance plan indicates we anticipate a tax increment at build out as follows: Captured Assessed Tax Increment Valuation Received Tax Increment Finance District $10,516,892 $1,052,520 Based on the current mill rate, the estimated taxes received would be as follows for the taxing bodies: The following table represents the additional mills that would have to be levied to compensate for the loss of tax dollars in estimated tax increments for each taxing jurisdiction. The tax increments derived from the redevelopment project alluded to in the tax increment district would not be available to any of the taxing jurisdictions were it not for public intervention by the City. Although the increases in assessed value due to development will not be available for the application of the mill levy for the duration of the tax increment financing district, this new assessed -value could eventually permit a mill levy decrease. If it could be assumed that the captured assessed value was available for each taxing jurisdiction, the non -receipt of tax dollars represented as tax increments may be determined. This -determination is facilitated by estimating how much the mill levy for property outside of the tax increment financing district would have to be increased to raise the same amount of .tax dollars in each taxing jurisdiction that would be available if the projects occurred without the assistance of the City. City of Mounds View TIF District No. I Modification 14 111 a g e Mills Percent Tax Increment City of Mounds View 13.876 13.9% $145,932 County of Ramsey 31.867 31.8% 335,142 School District #621 47.069 47.0% 495,019 Spec. Ind. School Dist. 1.160 1.2% 12,200 #916 Other 6.107 6.1% 64,227 Total 100.79 100.0% $1,052,520 The following table represents the additional mills that would have to be levied to compensate for the loss of tax dollars in estimated tax increments for each taxing jurisdiction. The tax increments derived from the redevelopment project alluded to in the tax increment district would not be available to any of the taxing jurisdictions were it not for public intervention by the City. Although the increases in assessed value due to development will not be available for the application of the mill levy for the duration of the tax increment financing district, this new assessed -value could eventually permit a mill levy decrease. If it could be assumed that the captured assessed value was available for each taxing jurisdiction, the non -receipt of tax dollars represented as tax increments may be determined. This -determination is facilitated by estimating how much the mill levy for property outside of the tax increment financing district would have to be increased to raise the same amount of .tax dollars in each taxing jurisdiction that would be available if the projects occurred without the assistance of the City. City of Mounds View TIF District No. I Modification 14 111 a g e *Tax htcrement District assessed valuation subtracted. (AS MODIFIED JUNE 12, 1989) The impact of the use of tax dollars represented as tax increments for project costs is estimated below for each taxing jurisdiction. This estimate is based on the existing development proposals and does not include the possible tax increments derived from any other future development, rate changes, inflation factors, or other Tax Increment Districts. Tests: The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction would have occurred without the modification of the Tax Increment Financing District. If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the impact is $0 to other entities. Notwithstanding the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdiction is $0 due to the fact that the financing would not have occurred without the assistance of the City, the following estimated impact of Tax Increment Financing District Modification No. 1 would be as follows if Test No. 1 (the "but for" test) was not met. Tax Capacity Value Tax Increment Finance 1/2/87 Total District Modification No. I Latest Tax Canacitv Value of Each Government Bod $26,154 Adjusted* Assessed Required Mills Tax Increment County of Ramsey Value School District 73,831,323 .0354 City of Mounds $66,013,103 2.211 145,932 View County of 3,289,601,903 0.102 335,142 Ramsey School District 554,914,979 0.892 495,019 #621 Spec. Ind. 1,507,060,739 0.008 12,200 School Dist. #916 Other 3,289,601,903 0.020 64,227 *Tax htcrement District assessed valuation subtracted. (AS MODIFIED JUNE 12, 1989) The impact of the use of tax dollars represented as tax increments for project costs is estimated below for each taxing jurisdiction. This estimate is based on the existing development proposals and does not include the possible tax increments derived from any other future development, rate changes, inflation factors, or other Tax Increment Districts. Tests: The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction would have occurred without the modification of the Tax Increment Financing District. If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the impact is $0 to other entities. Notwithstanding the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdiction is $0 due to the fact that the financing would not have occurred without the assistance of the City, the following estimated impact of Tax Increment Financing District Modification No. 1 would be as follows if Test No. 1 (the "but for" test) was not met. Tax Capacity Value Tax Increment Finance 1/2/87 Total District Modification No. I Latest Tax Canacitv Value of Each Government Bod $26,154 Considering the above taxing jurisdictions, it can be seen that the City, School and County Districts will have over 96% of each respective district available for normal growth of tax base or valuation from this tax increment district modification. Applying the percentage of the total tax capacity rate in 1989 levied by the above taxing jurisdictions to the projected City of Mounds View TIF District No. I Modification 15 111 a g e % of District to Total City of Mounds View 7,306,281 .3579 County of Ramsey 404,538,860 .0065 School District 73,831,323 .0354 Considering the above taxing jurisdictions, it can be seen that the City, School and County Districts will have over 96% of each respective district available for normal growth of tax base or valuation from this tax increment district modification. Applying the percentage of the total tax capacity rate in 1989 levied by the above taxing jurisdictions to the projected City of Mounds View TIF District No. I Modification 15 111 a g e tax capacity rate and the estimated tax increment received reveals the amoral use of tax dollars for project costs as it affects each taxing jurisdiction. Anticipating atax increment at build out as described in Appendix E, Section II, "Tax Increment Estimate," and utilizing the current tax capacity rate, the estimated taxes received would be as follows for the taxing bodies: Tax Increment Finance District Captured Tax Capacity Tax* Increment $416,450 $380,000 Based on the current tax capacity rate, the estimated taxes received would be as follows for the taxing bodies: *On high end of $330,000 to $380,000 range. Modification Tax Entity Tax Capacity Rate Percent Increment City 10.621 11.58 44,004 County 28.380 30.97 117,686 School District 46.168' 50.37 191,406 Other 6.477 7.08 26,904 TOTAL 91.6462 100.00% $380,000 Confirmed 4.051 tax capacity rate referendum. A tax capacity rate of 87.595 may be used to estimate tax increment, if the fiscal consultant determines the project is eligible. 2. A frozen original tax capacity rate is not applicable to pre -May 1, 1988 districts since the district was approved in February of 1988 and certified prior to May 1, 1988. The following table represents the additional mills that would have to be levied to compensate for the loss of tax dollars in estimated tax increments for each taxing jurisdiction. The tax increments derived from the redevelopment project alluded to in the tax increment district would not be available to any of the taxing jurisdictions were it not for public intervention by the City. Although the increases in tax capacity value due to development will not be available for the application of the tax capacity rate for the duration of the tax increment financing district, this new tax capacity value could eventually permit a tax capacity rate decrease. If it could be assumed that the captured tax capacity value was available for each taxing jurisdiction, the non -receipt of tax dollars represented as tax increments may be determined. This determination is facilitated by estimating how much the tax capacity rate for property outside of the tax increment financing district would have to be increased to raise the same amount of tax dollars in each taxing jurisdiction that would be available if the projects occurred WITHOUT T14E. ASSISTANCE OF THE CITY. City of Mounds View TIF District No. 1 Modification 16 (F a g c (AS MODIFIED MARCH 26, 1990) The impact of the use of tax dollars represented as tax increments for project costs is estimated below for each taxing jurisdiction. This estimate is based on the existing development proposals and does not include the possible tax increments derived from any other future development, rate changes, inflation factors, or other Tax Increment Districts. Tests: The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction would have occurred without the modification of the Tax Increment Financing District. If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the impact is $0 to other entities. Notwithstanding the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdiction is $0 due to the fact that the financing would not have occurred without the assistance of the City, the following estimated impact of Tax Increment Financing District Modification No. 2 would be as follows if Test No. 1 (the "but for" test) was not met. Tax Capacity Value Tax Increment Finance 1/2/89 Total District Modification No. 2 Latest Tax Capacity Value of Each Government Bed $21,322 Considering the above taxing jurisdictions, it can be seen that the City, School and County Districts will have over 96% of each respective district available for normal growth of tax base or valuation from this tax increment district modification. Applying the percentage of the total tax capacity rate in 1989 levied by the above taxing jurisdictions to the projected tax capacity rate and the estimated tax increment received reveals the annual use of tax dollars for project costs as it affects each taxing jurisdiction. Anticipating a tax increment at build out as described in Appendix E, Section 11, "Tax Increment Estimate," and utilizing the current tax capacity rate, the estimated taxes received would be as follows for the taxing bodies: Tax Increment Finance District Captured Tax Capacity Tax* Increment $487,478 $450,000 Based on the current tax capacity rate, the estimated taxes received would be as follows for the taxing bodies: City of Mounds View TIF District No. I Modification 17 1 F a g c % of District to Total City of Mounds View 7,306,281 .2918 County of Ramsey 404,538,860 .0052 School District 73,831,323 .0288 Considering the above taxing jurisdictions, it can be seen that the City, School and County Districts will have over 96% of each respective district available for normal growth of tax base or valuation from this tax increment district modification. Applying the percentage of the total tax capacity rate in 1989 levied by the above taxing jurisdictions to the projected tax capacity rate and the estimated tax increment received reveals the annual use of tax dollars for project costs as it affects each taxing jurisdiction. Anticipating a tax increment at build out as described in Appendix E, Section 11, "Tax Increment Estimate," and utilizing the current tax capacity rate, the estimated taxes received would be as follows for the taxing bodies: Tax Increment Finance District Captured Tax Capacity Tax* Increment $487,478 $450,000 Based on the current tax capacity rate, the estimated taxes received would be as follows for the taxing bodies: City of Mounds View TIF District No. I Modification 17 1 F a g c 1. Confirmed 4.051 tax capacity rate referendum. A tax capacity rate of 87.595 may be used to estimate tax increment, if the fiscal consultant determines the project is eligible. 2. A frozen original tax capacity rate is not applicable to pre -May 1, 1988 districts since the district was approved in February of 1988 and certified prior to May 1, 1988. * Payable 1990 not available as of 1/25/90 The following table represents the additional mills that would have to be levied to compensate for the loss of tax dollars in estimated tax increments for each taxing jurisdiction. The tax increments derived from the redevelopment project alluded to in the tax increment district would not be available to any of the taxing jurisdictions were it not for public intervention by the City. Although the increases in tax capacity value due to development will not be available for the application of the tax capacity rate for the duration of the tax increment financing district, this new tax capacity value could eventually permit a tax capacity rate decrease. If it could be assumed that the captured tax capacity value was available for each taxing jurisdiction, the non -receipt of tax dollars represented as tax increments may be determined. This determination is facilitated by estimating Trow much the tax capacity rate for properly outside of the tax increment financing district would have to be increased to raise the same amount of tax dollars in each taxing jurisdiction that would be available if the projects occurred WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF THE CITY. Adjusted Tax' Required Tax Without F.D. Modification Tax Entity Tax Capacity Rate Percent Increment 52,110 City 10.621 11.58 52,110 County 28.380 30.97 139,365 School District 46.168' 50.37 226,665 Other 6.477 7.08 31,860 TOTAL 91.6462 100.00% $450,000 1. Confirmed 4.051 tax capacity rate referendum. A tax capacity rate of 87.595 may be used to estimate tax increment, if the fiscal consultant determines the project is eligible. 2. A frozen original tax capacity rate is not applicable to pre -May 1, 1988 districts since the district was approved in February of 1988 and certified prior to May 1, 1988. * Payable 1990 not available as of 1/25/90 The following table represents the additional mills that would have to be levied to compensate for the loss of tax dollars in estimated tax increments for each taxing jurisdiction. The tax increments derived from the redevelopment project alluded to in the tax increment district would not be available to any of the taxing jurisdictions were it not for public intervention by the City. Although the increases in tax capacity value due to development will not be available for the application of the tax capacity rate for the duration of the tax increment financing district, this new tax capacity value could eventually permit a tax capacity rate decrease. If it could be assumed that the captured tax capacity value was available for each taxing jurisdiction, the non -receipt of tax dollars represented as tax increments may be determined. This determination is facilitated by estimating Trow much the tax capacity rate for properly outside of the tax increment financing district would have to be increased to raise the same amount of tax dollars in each taxing jurisdiction that would be available if the projects occurred WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF THE CITY. Adjusted Tax' Required Tax Without F.D. Capacity Value Capacity Rate Contributions City 7,280,127 .7157 52,110 County 404,512,706 .0344 139,365 School District 73,805,169 .0371 226,665 t Tax Increment District Tax Capacity Value Subtracted N. Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, Subdivision 4, any reduction or City of Mounds View TIF District No. I Modification 18 1 P a g e enlargement of the geographic area of the project or tax increment financing district, increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination or capitalized interest on debt if that determination was not a pail of the original plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized, increase in the portion of the captured assessed value to be retained by the City, increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures or designation of additional property to be acquired by the authority shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original plan. The geographic area of a tax increment financing district may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original assessed value by the county auditor. The tax increment financing redevelopment district may therefore be expanded until 1991. (AS MODIFIED JUNE 12, 1989) In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 4, any reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the project or tax increment financing district, increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination or capitalized interest on debt if that determination was not a pail of the original plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized, increase in the portion of the captured assessed value to be retained by the City, increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures or designation of additional property to be acquired by the authority shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original plan. The geographic area of a tax increment financing district may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original assessed value by the county auditor. The tax increment financing redevelopment district may therefore be expanded until 1991. O. Limitation on Administrative Expenses In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdivision 13 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision 3, administrative expenses means all expenditures of an authority other than amounts paid for the purchase of land or amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the district, relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the district or amounts used to pay interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to Section 273.77. Administrative expenses includes amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. No tax increment shall be used to pay any' administrative expenses for a project which exceed ten percent of the total tax increment expenditures authorized by the tax increment financing plan or the total tax increment expenditures for the project, whichever is less. (AS MODIFIED JUNE 12, 1989) In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 13 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 3, administrative expenses means all expenditures of an authority other than amounts paid for the purchase of land or amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and City of Mounds View TIF District No. I Modification 19 1 P a g e engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the district, relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the district or amounts used to pay interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to Section 273.77. Administrative expenses includes amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. No tax increment shall be used to pay any' administrative expenses for a project which exceed ten percent of the total tax increment expenditures authorized by the tax increment financing plan or the total tax increment expenditures for the project, whichever is less. P. Limitation on Duration of Tax Increment Financing Districts Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision 1, "no tax increment shall be paid to an authority three years from the date of certification by the County Auditor unless within the three-year period (1) bonds have been issued pursuant to Section 273.77 or in aid of a project pursuant to any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to Chapter 474, prior to the effective date of the Act; or (2) the authority has acquired property within the district; or (3) the authority has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within the district... "The City must therefore issue bonds, or acquire property, or construct or cause public improvements to be constructed by 1989 or the Office of the County Auditor may dissolve the tax increment financing district. (AS MODIFIED JUNE 12, 1989) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 1, "no tax increment shall be paid to an authority three years from the date of certification by the County Auditor unless within the three-year period (1) bonds have been issued pursuant to Section 469.178 or in aid of a project pursuant to any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to Chapter 474, prior to the effective date of the Act; or (2) the authority has acquired property within the district; or (3) the authority has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within the district... "The City must therefore issue bonds, or acquire property, or construct or cause public improvements to be constructed by 1989 or the Office of the County Auditor may dissolve the tax increment financing district. Q. Limitation on Qualification of Property in Tax Increment District Not Subject to Improvement Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.75, Subdivision 6, "if, after four years from the date of certification of the original assessed value of the tax increment financing district..., no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of parcel or other site preparation including improvement of a street adjacent to a property but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel and the original assessed value of that parcel shall be excluded from the original assessed value of the tax increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site City of Mounds View TIF District No. I Modification 20 1 P a g e preparation on that parcel including improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in, accordance with the tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor in the annual disclosure report that the activity has commenced. The county auditor shall certify the assessed value thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original assessed value of the tax increment financing district. (AS MODIFIED JUNE 12, 1989) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.176, Subdivision 6, "if, after four years from the date of certification of the original assessed value of the tax increment financing district..., no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of parcel or other site preparation including improvement of a street adjacent to a property but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel and the original assessed value of that parcel shall be excluded from the original assessed value of the tax increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel including improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in, accordance with the tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor in the annual disclosure report that the activity has commenced. The county auditor shall certify the assessed value thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original assessed value of the tax increment financing district. R. Limitation on the Use of Tax Increment All revenues derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the tax increment financing plan. The revenues shall be used to finance or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 472A. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No revenues derived from tax increment shall be used for the construction or renovation of a municipally owned building used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of the municipality; this provision shall not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure, a commons area used as a public park or a facility used for social, recreational or conference purposes and not primarily for conducting the business of the municipality. (AS MODIFIED JUNE 12, 1989) All revenues derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the tax increment financing plan. The revenues shall be used to finance or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No revenues derived from tax increment shall be used for the construction or renovation of a municipally owned building used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of the municipality; this provision shall not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure, a commons area used as a public park or a facility used for social, recreational or conference purposes and not primarily for conducting the business of the municipality. City of Mounds Viery TIF District No. I Modification 21 111 a g e S. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.76, Subdivision 4, the City has reviewed and searched the properties to be included in the tax increment financing redevelopment district and found no properties for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the tax increment financing plan by the city. If the building permit had been issued within the 18 month period preceding approval of the tax increment financing plan by the city, the county auditor shall increase the original assessed value of the district by the assessed valuation of the improvements for which the building permit was issued, excluding the assessed valuation of improvements for which a building permit was issued during the three month period immediately preceding said approval of the tax increment financing plan, as certified by the assessor. (AS MODIFIED JUNE 12, 1989) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.177, Subdivision 4, the City has reviewed and searched the properties to be included in the tax increment financing redevelopment district and found no properties for which building permits have been issued immediately preceding approval of the tax increment financing plan by the city. The county auditor shall increase the original tax capacity value of the district by the tax capacity valuation of the improvements for which building permit was issued. T. Excess Tax Increments Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision 2, in any year in which the tax increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the tax increment plan, including the amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.6 1, Subdivision 3, the City shall use the excess amount to: 1. prepay the outstanding bonds; 2. discharge the pledge of tax increment therefore; 3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bond; 4, repay any loans including interest on these loans; or 5. return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their mill rate. (AS MODIFIED JUNE 12, 1989) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 2, in any year in which the tax increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the tax increment plan, including the amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.6 1, Subdivision 3, the City shall use the excess amount to: City of Mounds View TIF District No. 1 Modification 22 111 a g e I . prepay the outstanding bonds; 2. discharge the pledge of tax increment therefore; 3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bond; 4. repay any loans including interest on these loans; or 5. return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their tax capacity rate. U. Requirement for Agreements with the Developer Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.75, Subdivision 5, no more that 25 percent by acreage of the property to be acquired by the City in the redevelopment district shall be owned by the City as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to Section 273.77 without the City having prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, concluded an agreement for the development of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the City should the development not be completed. (AS MODIFIED JUNE 12, 1989) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.176, Subdivision 5, no more that 25 percent by acreage of the property to be acquired by the City in the redevelopment district shall be owned by the City as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to Section 273.77 without the City having prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, concluded an agreement for the development of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the City should the development not be completed. V. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.76, Subdivision 8, the City may, upon entering into a development agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.75, Subdivision 5, enter into an agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the tax increment financing district which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the tax increment redevelopment district. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the county assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and 50 long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the assessor may certify the minimum market value agreement. (AS MODIFIED JUNE 12, 1989) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.176, Subdivision 8, the City may, upon entering into a development agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.177, City or Mounds View TIF District No. 1 Modification 23111 a g c Subdivision 5, enter into an agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the tax increment financing district which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the tax increment redevelopment district. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the county assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and 50 long as the minimum market value contained in the tax capacity agreement appears in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the assessor may certify the minimum market value agreement. W. Administration of the Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment District and Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account Administration of the tax increment financing redevelopment district will be handled by the Office of the City Clerk -Administrator. The tax increment received as a result of increases in the assessed value of the tax increment financing redevelopment district will be maintained in a special account separate from all other municipal accounts and expended only upon sanctioned municipal .activities identified in the finance plan. (AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 13, 2000) Administration of the tax increment financing redevelopment district will be handles by the City of Mounds View's E.D.A. Executive Director. Consistent with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 5, requiring that "Tax increment received with respect to any district shall be segregated by the authority in a special account or accounts on its official books and records or as otherwise established by resolution of the authority to be held by a trustee or trustees for the benefit of holders of the bond," the EDA will account for all increment for all increment from the Tax Increment Districts in one or more accounts and subaccounts, including the ability where deemed appropriate to establish one or more accounts for the proper accounting and implementation of the Tax increment Financing Districts and the portion of the Project to be financed directly or indirectly with tax increment. The right to make appropriate transfers in and out of such accounts is hereby reserved, along with the right to make both external and internal interest bearing borrowings, whether long term or short term, including transfers from other City or EDA funds to cash flow tax increment obligations and other legitimate expenditures. X. Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.14, Subdivision 6, an authority must file an animal disclosure report for all tax increment financing districts. The report shall be filed with the school board, county board, and governing body of the municipality, if the authority is not the municipality, and the State Auditor. The report shall include the following information: City of Mounds View TIP District No. I Modification 24 111 a g c 1. The original assessed value of the district; 2. The captured assessed value of the district, including the amount of any captured assessed value shared with other taxing districts; 3. The outstanding principal amount of bonds issued or other loans incurred to finance project costs in the district; 4. For the reporting period and for the duration of the district, the amount budgeted under the tax increment financing plan, and the actual amount expended for, at least, the following categories: (A) Acquisition of land and buildings through condemnation or purchase; (B) Site improvements or preparation costs; (C) Installation of public utilities or other public improvements; (D) Administrative costs, including the allocated cost of the authority; 5. For properties sold to developers, the total cost of the property to the authority and the price paid by the developer; 6. The amount of tax exempt obligations, other than those reported under clause (3), that were issued on behalf of private entities for facilities located in the district. The annual disclosure report is designed to be a two-way medium of information dissemination for both the Office of the County Auditor and the City. Should the auditor want additional information from the City regarding its tax increment financing activities, such information should be requested prior to submission of the amoral disclosure report by the City. Similarly, the city council may utilize the annual disclosure report as a means for requesting information from the Office of the County Auditor. Additionally, the city must annually publish a statement in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality showing the tax increment received and expended in that year, the original assessed value, the captured assessed value, amount of outstanding bonded indebtedness and any additional information the city deems necessary. (AS MODIFIED JUNE 12, 1989) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 5, an authority must file an annual disclosure report for all tax increment financing districts. The report shall be filed with the school boatel, county board, and governing body of the municipality, if the authority is not the municipality, and the State Auditor. The report shall include the following information: 1. The original tax capacity value of the district; City of Mounds View 'flF,DistrictNo. 1 Modification 25111 a g e 2. The captured tax capacity value of the district, including the amount of any captured tax capacity value shared with other taxing districts; The outstanding principal amount of bonds issued or other loans incurred to finance project costs in the district; 4. For the reporting period and for the duration of the district, the amount budgeted under the tax increment financing plan, and the actual amount expended for, at least, the following categories: (A) Acquisition of land and buildings through condemnation or purchase; (B) Site improvements or preparation costs; (C) Installation of public utilities or other public improvements; (D) Administrative costs, including the allocated cost of the authority; For properties sold to developers, the total cost of the property to the authority and the price paid by the developer; 6. The amount of tax exempt obligations, other than those reported under clause (3), that were issued on behalf of private entities for facilities located in the district. Additionally, the city must annually publish a statement in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality showing the tax increment received and expended in that year, the original tax capacity value, the captured tax capacity value, amount of outstanding bonded indebtedness and any additional information the city deems necessary. Y. Assumptions It was necessary to make certain assumptions regarding income, costs and timing of the tax increment redevelopment district. These assumptions are based on discussions with city and county staff and city planning consultants. Z. Municipal Findings Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, Subdivision 3, before or at the time of approval of the tax increment financing plan, the municipality shall make the following findings and shall set forth in writing the reasons and supporting facts for each determination: 1. The proposed development or redevelopment, in the opinion of the city, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary since the developers could not construct and operate the redevelopment project without the necessary public improvements to service the City of Mounds View TIF District No. 1 Modification 26 1 P a g e sites and without the use of tax increments to assist with the financing of the public improvements, the developers would not have constructed these developments in the City; and 2. The tax increment financing plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development by private enterprise as it will enable the City to provide the necessary public improvements to service the Redevelopment sites; thereby encouraging redevelopment in the area. The tax increment financing plan conforms to the general plan for the development of the city as a whole as it will result in the construction of a connnercial/industrial development including an office/service facility, warehouse and restaurant, thereby encouraging other new commercial facilities and retention of business in the city. 1. The tax increment district to be established is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdivision 10 in which the conditions described in Part 11, Section E, of this plan exist. (AS MODIFIED JUNE 12, 1989) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3, before or at the time of approval of the tax increment financing plan, the municipality shall make the following findings and shall set forth in writing the reasons and supporting facts for each determination: The proposed development or redevelopment, in the opinion of the city, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary since the developers could not construct and operate the redevelopment project without the necessary public improvements to service the sites and without the use of tax increments to assist with the financing of the public improvements, the developers would not have constructed these developments in the City; and 2. The tax increment financing plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development by private enterprise as it will enable the City to provide the necessary public improvements to service the Redevelopment sites; thereby encouraging redevelopment in the area. The tax increment financing plan conforms to the general plan for the development of the city as a whole as it will result in the conshuction of a commercial/industrial development including an office/service facility, warehouse and restaurant, thereby encouraging other new cornnercial facilities and retention of business in the city. 4. The tax increment district to be established is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10 in which the conditions described in Part Il, Section E, of this plan exist. City of Mounds View TIF District No. I Modification 27 111 a g c. (AS MODIFIED JUNE 12, 1989) ZZ. Fiscal Disparities Treatment The City elected the method of tax increment computation pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 3, clause (a), consequently, the district and Modification No. 1 shall continue with the election to spread the fiscal disparities contribution outside the tax increment district. (AS MODIFIED MARCH 26, 1990) The City elected the method of tax increment computation pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 3, clause (a), consequently, the district and Modification No. 2 shall continue with the election to spread the fiscal disparities contribution outside the tax increment district. City of Mounds View TIF District No. I Modification 28 1 Pei g c APPENDIX A MAP 1 MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. I City of Mounds View TIF District No. I Modification 29111 o g e APPENDIX B MAP EXISTING LAND USE See original TIF Plan dated September 22, 1986. City of Mounds View TIP District No. 1 Modification 30 1 P a g e APPENDIX C MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT and TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT PARCELS S 1/2, Spot. 8, T'wn. 30, Rn. 23 Statistics 1985 Original Assessed Value = $2,416,086 Total Parcels = 21 Total occupied parcels = 15 (71%); 70% required Blighted parcels= 4 (27%); 20% required Blighted parcels = 6 (40?6); 30`.5 required Parcels to Be Acquired - 3 City of Mounds View TIP District No. 1 Modification 31 P a i; e Lot, Blight P.I.N. A.V. Bldg. 20/30 Acq. Owner 31-0003-1 S 19,608 Bldg. No No — 31-0002-8 159,315 Bldg. No No — 31-0001-5 28,552 Lot Na No — 42-0001-1 68,440 Lot No Yes Waste 42-0002-4 17,600 Lot No Yes Waste 41-0001-4 283,920 Lot No Yes Pinecrest 42-0004-0 13,637 Bldg. 30 No — 42-0005-3 14,884 Bldg. 30 No - 42 -0006-6 12,013 Bldg. 30 No — 43-0001-8 13,463 Bldg. 30 No — 44-0006-0 11,376 Bldg. 20 No — 44-0011-2 512,130 Bldg. No No 44-0009-9 7,224 Lot No No — 44-0008-6 89,045 Bldg. 20 No — 44-0007-3 46,814 Bldg. No Na d- 43-0009-2 44,075 Bldg. 20 No -- 43-0007-6 533,660 Bldg. No No — 43-0006-3 25,866 Lot No No — r` 43-0003-4 346,610 Bldg, 30 No n- 43-0005-0 83,592 Bldg. 20 No — 43-0004-7 104,262 Bldg. 30 No — Statistics 1985 Original Assessed Value = $2,416,086 Total Parcels = 21 Total occupied parcels = 15 (71%); 70% required Blighted parcels= 4 (27%); 20% required Blighted parcels = 6 (40?6); 30`.5 required Parcels to Be Acquired - 3 City of Mounds View TIP District No. 1 Modification 31 P a i; e (AS MODIFIED JUNE 12, 1989) A. F,XISTING S 112, Sect. 8, Two. 30, Rn. 23 Lot, Blight P.I.N. A.V. Bldg- 211130 Alec. Owner 31-0003-1 $ 10,606 Bldg. No No — 31-0002-8 159,315 Bldg. No No 31-0001-5 28,552 Lot No No -- - 42-00011 68,440 Lot No Yes Waste 42-0002-4 17,600 Lot No Yes Waste 41-0001-4 283,920 Lot No Yes Pinecrest 42-0004-0 13,637 Bldg. 30 No -42-0005-3 14,884 Bldg. 30 No 42-0006-6 12,013 Bldg. 30 No 43-0061-8 13,463 Bldg, 30 No -- 44-00060 11,376 Bldg. 20 No -_ 44-0011-2 512,130 Bldg. No No - -44-0009-9 7,224 Lot No No - 44-0008-6 69,045 Bldg. 20 No 44=0007-3 46,814 Bldg. No No -_ -430009-2 44,075 Bldg. 20 No -- - 43-0007`6 533,660 Bldg. No No -- 43-0006-3 25,866 Lot No No — 43-0003-4* 346,610 Bldg. 30 No — 43-0005-0 83,592 Bldg. 20 No -- 43-0004-7 104,262 Bldg. 30 No "Now 43-0014 (part of replat) B. MODIFICATION NO. 1 Tax Lot, Blight P.1.N. Capacity Bldg. 20/30 Accl Owner 24-0021-1 4682 Bldg, 30 No Waste 43-0013-1 3864 Lot: No Yes Everest 744-0004-4 15262' Hldg. No No Inter. Corp. 31-0068-8 2944 Bldg. 30 No Christensen STATISTICS 1985 Original Assessed Value = $2,416,086 1988 Original Tax Capacity = $26,154 Total Parcels = 25 Total occupied parcels = 18 (72%) 70% required Blighted parcels= 4 (22%); 20% required Blighted parcels = 8 (44%); 30% required Acquisition parcels = 4 City of Mounds View TIF District No. 1 Modification 32 1 P u g c Z. PARCELS TO BE ADDED A3 PART JF MODrVICATION NO. t Tax P.I.N. Capacity Type Taxpayer Brie- —Lomi .. 08-30-23-24-0021-L (Oeeupied) 08-30-23-43-0013-1 (Vacant) (Phase 11) 08-30-23-44-0004-4 (Occupied) 1,689 Res R.H. Waste Blk 4 Lot 21 2,993 Com 2345 Cty Rd lit Pinewood Terrace 2 3,864 Vac Herbst 2299 Cty Rd H That part lying N of a Line 958.59 Ft N of do Part W 5 Line of SW 1/4 of BE 1/4 of See 8 Tn 30 Rn 23 of Lot 2 Blk 1 15,262 Com Interstate Corp Rik 3 Lot 1 2201 Hwy 10 Programmed Land 1 08-30-23-31-0088-8 2,346 Res Christensen SubjtoSth10/62OverNEly (Occupied) 2310 Hwy 10 75 ft the E 223 Ft of Part of NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 Sly of Cl of Sd Sth In Sec 8 Tn 30 Rn 23 Original Assessed Value and Tax Capacity Estimate of Phase If Construction Site (Will be Mounds View Business Park 3rd Addn) 08-30-23-43-0013 Added as part of this Modification No. 1 To be certified 'Pax Capacity $3,864 08-30-23-42-0006 Certified as part of Original Plan on 11/14/86, Dist. 075 1985 Market Value = $07,700 x 2.17% Estimated Tax Capacity $1,425 08-30-23-43-0001 Certified as part of Original Plan on 11/14/86, Dist. $`75 1985 Market Value = $70,700 Estimated Tax Capacity $1,476 + 67 = $1,543 08-30-23-43-0014 Certified as part of Original Plan on 11/14/88, Dist. k75 As 08-30-23-43-0003 1985 Market Value = $136,300 Estimated Tax Capacity $7,156 (Herbst Replat) 1985 Market Value = $827,000 Assessed Value $346,610 TOTAL. ESTIMATED TAX CAPACITY OF PHASE T'NO BUILDING SITE $14,000 (ROUNDED) City of Mounds View 'rIF District No. 1 Modification 33 111 a g e (AS MODIFIED MARCH 26, 1990) A. EXISTING 8 1/2, Sect. 8, Twn. 30, Rn. 23 STATISTICS 1985 Original Assessed Value = $2,416,086 1988 Original Tax Capacity = $26,154 Total Parcels = 25 Total occupied parcels = 1S (72%) 70'% required Blighted parcels= 4 (22%)I 20% required Blighted parcels = 8 (44%)I 30% required Acquisition parcels = 4 City of Mounds View TIF District No. 1 Modification 341 P a g c Lot, Blight P.I.N. A.V. Bldg. 20/36 Aeg• Owner 31-00031 $ 19,608 Bldg, No No -- 31-0002-8 159,315 Bldg. No No -- 31-0061-5 28,552 Lot No No - -- 4300031 68,440 Lot No Yes Waste 42-0002-4 17,800 Let No Yes Waste 41-0001-4 283,920 Lot No Yes Pineerest, 42-00040 13,637 Bldg. 30 No -- 42-0005-3 14,884 Bldg. 30 No -- 42-0006-6 12,013 Bldg. 30 No -- 43-0001-8 13,463 Bldg. 30 No -- 44-0006-0 11,376 Bldg. 20 No =� 44-0011-2 512,130 Bldg. No No -- 44-0009-9 7,224 Lot No No -- 44-0008-6 69,045 Bldg. 20 No -- 44-0007-3 48,814 Bldg. No No �- 43-0009-2 44,075 Bldg. 20 No -- 43-0007-6 533,660 Bldg. No No -- 43-0006-3 25,866 Lot No No -� 43-0003-4" 346,610 Bldg. 30 Na -- 43-0005-0 $3,592 Bldg. 20 No -- 43-0004-7 104,262 Bldg. 30 No -- *Now 43-0014 (part of replat) B. MODIFICATION NO. 1 Tax Lot, Blight P.I.N. Capacity B..ldg, 7.0/30 AM Owner 24-0021-1 4682 Bldg, 30 No Waste 43-0013-1 3864 Lot No Yes Everest 44-0004-4 16262 Bldg. No No Inter. Corp. 31-0088-8 2346 Bldg. 30 No Christensen STATISTICS 1985 Original Assessed Value = $2,416,086 1988 Original Tax Capacity = $26,154 Total Parcels = 25 Total occupied parcels = 1S (72%) 70'% required Blighted parcels= 4 (22%)I 20% required Blighted parcels = 8 (44%)I 30% required Acquisition parcels = 4 City of Mounds View TIF District No. 1 Modification 341 P a g c C. PARCEL$ TO BE ADDED AS PART OF MODIFICATION NO, I Tax P, I. N. Capacity Type Texonyer Brief Leal n8-30-23-24®0021-1 1,689 Res R.H. Waste Blk 4 Lot 21 (Occupied) 2,993 Com 234$ Cty Rd H2 Pinewood Terrace 2 03-30-23-43-0013-1 3,884 Vac Herbst That part lying N of a (Vacant) (Phase 11) 2299 Cty Rd It Line 958.59 Ft N of do Part W S Line of SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Sec 8 Tn 30 Rn 23 of Lot 2 Bik 1 08-30-23-44-0004-4 15,262 Com Interstate Corp Blk 3 Lot I (Occupied) 2201 Hwy 10 Programmed Land 1 08-30-23-31-0068-8 2,340 Res Christensen SubjtoSth10/62Over NEly (Occupied) 2310 Hwy 10 75 ft the E 223 Et of Part of NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 Sly of Cl of Sd Sth In Sec 8 Tn 30 Rn 23 Original Assessed Value and Tax Capacity Estimate of Phase Il Construction Site (Will he Mounds View Business Park 3rd Addn) 08-30-23-43-0013 Added as part of this Modification No. I To be certified Tax Capacity $3,864 08-30-23.42-0006 Certified as part of Original Plan on 11/14/86, Dist. 475 1985 Market Value = $67,700 x 2.17% Estimated Tax Capacity $1,425 08-30-23-43-0001 Certified as part of Original Plan on 11/14/86, Dist. #75 1985 Market Value = $70,700 Estimated Tax Capacity $1,476 r 67 = $1,543 08-30-23-43-0014 Certified as part of Original Plan on 11/14/86, Dist. 475 As 08-30-23-43-0003 1985 Market Value = $196,300 Estimated Tax Capacity $7,156 (Herbst Replat) 1985 Market Value = $827,000 Assessed Value $346,610 TOTAL ESTIMATED TAX CAPACITY OF PHASE TWO BUILDING SITE $14,000 (ROUNDED) City of Mounds View TIF District No. I Modification 35 1 P a g e D. MODIFICATION NO. 2 Tax Lot, Blight P.LN. Ca ecit Bldg. 20(30 Ac _ Owner 06-30-23-44-0002 3,224 Lot -- X 08-30-23-44-0012 3,943 Lot -- X 06-30-2344-0014 210 Lot -- X 06-30-23-31-0034 1,092 Bldg 20 No 06-30-23-31-0033 4,135 Bldg 30 No 06-30-23-31-0031 2,132 Bldg 20 No 0630-23-31-0030 1,479 Bldg 30 No 06-30-23-31-0029 2,009 Bldg 30 No 06-30-23-31-0025 1,591 Bldg 30 No 06-30-23-44-0051 1,504 Bldg 30 No STATISTICS Madit'ieation No. 2 1969 original Tax Capacity = $21,522 Total Parcels = 10 Total Occupied Parcels � 7 (70%) 20% Blighted Parcels = 2 (29%) 30% Blighted Parcels= 5 (71%) (AS MODIFIED SEPTEMBER 13, 2004) Everest Everest Everest Parcel number 06.30.23.44.0051 shall be eliminated from TIE District No. 1. (AS MODIFIED OCTOBER 8, 2012) TIF District No. I consists of the following parcels: 063023240084 j 083023310075 083023420010 083023430022 063023240085 j 083023310076 083023420011 083023430023 063023310028 083023410005 083023420012 083023430024 063023310029 j 083023410008 I 083023420013 083023430024 063023310030 ( 083023410011 j 083023430004 083023430025 063023310031 083023410013 083023430010 083023430025 063023310174 083023420001 083023430012 083023430036 063023310237 j 083023420004 083023430019 083023430037 083023240021 j 083023420005 ! 083023430020 083023440004 083023240021 083023420009 083023430021 083023440007 083023440008 083023440009 083023440011 083023440015 083023440017 City of Mounds View TIF District No. I Modification 36 1 P a g e RWWN►1b11t:U ESTIMATE OF TAX INCREMENT AND BONDING 1. TAX INCREMENT ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS - Two to tbrea year buildout of a $7.2 million dollar development consisting of 270,000 S.F. of Office, Manufacturing and Warehouse - Approximate value of construction per year starting In, --1990 for Stage 1, taxes payable 1991 - $2,880,000 to $4,680,000 --1991 for Stage 11, taxes payable 1992 - $2,160,000 to $2,520,000 --1992 for Stage III, taxes payable 1993 - $21160,000 to $1,300,000 - Average tax per square foot estimated by comparable development at $1.25 to $1.46. - Tax Capacity Rate (1988/1989) at 91.645 - Tax Capacity Ratio at 6.05 if. BOND ESTIMATE* - Approximate annual payment at full buildout = $330,000 to $380,900 - Interest rate on taxable general obligation bond estimated at 10% - Interest rate on exempt general cbligatlon bond estimated at 7.1% - Term limited to 14 years, 11 year amortization and 3 years of capitalized interest - Gross Bond Range of $2,300,000 to $2,500,000 'To be finalized by Springsted Inc. City of Mounds View TIF District No. 1 Modification 371 P a S e (AS MODIFIED JUNE 12, 1989) ESTIMATE OF TAR INCITEMENT AND BONDING i. TAX INCREMENT ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS - Two to three year buildout of a $7.2 million dollar development consisting of 270,000 S.F. of Office, Manufacturing and Warehouse Approximate value of construction per year starting int --1990 for Stage 1, taxes payable 1991 - $2,880,000 to $4,680,000 --1991 for Stage It, taxes payable 1992 - $2,160,000 to $2,520,000 --1992 for Stage III, taxes payable 1993 - $2,160,000 to $.1,100,000 - Average tax per square foot estimated by comparable development at $1.25 to $1.46. Tax Capacity Rate (1988/1989) at 91.646 Tax Capacity Ratio at 5.05 Il. BOND ESTIMATE* - Approximate annual payment at full buildout = $330,000 to $380,000 - Interest rate on taxable general obligation bond estimated at 10% - Interest rate on exempt general obligation bond estimated at 7.1% - Term limited to 14 years, It year amortization and 3 years of capitalized interest - Gross Band Range of $2,300,000 to $2,500,000 *To be finalized by Springsted-lne. City of Mounds View TIF District No. I Modification 381 P a k c (AS MODIFIED MARCH 26, 1990) City of Mounds View TIF District No. 1 Modification 39111 a g C Tax Per Square Foot._... Proposed Buildings l.25 - 1.50 Building "M 97,000 S.F. Ist Floor --- - 145,500 15,000 S.F. Mezzanine 18,760 - --- Building "i." 53,000 S.F. Ist Floor --- - 79,500 Building I'M" 38,000 S.F. Ist Floor _-- , 57,000 5,700 S.F. Mezzanine 7,125 - --- Building "N" 103,000 S.F. Ist Floor --- - 154,500 15,000 S.F. Mezzanine 18,750 - --- Subtotals 326,000 S.F. 44,625 436,500 TOTAL ESTIMATED TAXES (AOT TI) S481,125 City of Mounds View TIF District No. 1 Modification 39111 a g C BUILDINGS * Capitalized interest City of Mounds View TIF District No. 1 Modification 40 1 P a g c K L M N Total Base. Tax L M N Total Payment Capacity Estimate 91633 9,633 8,840 7,377 35,483 New Tax Capacity 178,532 86,413 69,701 188,715 522,961 Captured 'Pax 12 + 3 12 + 3 12 + 3 -- Bond Capacity 168,899 76,780 60,861 180,938 487,418 X 92% x 92% x 92% x 92% x 9296 x 92% Tax Increment 155,387 70,637 55,993 166,463 448,479 * Capitalized interest City of Mounds View TIF District No. 1 Modification 40 1 P a g c BOND CAPACITY i K L M N Total Payment 155,000 70,000 56,000 156,000 447,000 % = 9% 9% 9% 9% �- Term = 12 + 3ci* 12 + 3 12 + 3 12 + 3 -- Bond 1,110,000 500,000 400,000 1,188,000 3,198,000 Net (after ci) 890,000 400,000 320,000 950,000 2,560,000 * Capitalized interest City of Mounds View TIF District No. 1 Modification 40 1 P a g c APPENDIX E Estimated Budget Land Acquisition and Public Improvements' Legal/Bonding, Discounts Administration Contingencies Capitalised Interest 4,200,000 $ 4,630,000 100,000 176,000 90,000 100,000 30,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 2.100.000 2.300.000 $ 6,650,000 $ 7,300,000 s Public Improvement costs are initially estimated to be $1,426,532 and land aequisition costs to be $2,622,466. City of Mounds View TIF District No. I Modification 41 111 e g c (AS MODIFIED JUNE 12, 1989) A. ORIGINAL BUDGET Estimated Budget RANGE Land Acquisition $4,000,000 $4,000,000 Public Improvements $ 260,000 $ 000,000 Legal/Honding $ 501000 $ 60,000 Discounts $ 140,000 $ 150,000 Administration $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Contingencies $ 50,000 $ 501000 Capitalized interest $2,100,000 $2,300,.000 TOTAL $ 6,650,000 $ 7,300,000 s Budget to be refined as part of Development Agreement and receipt of all estimates for cacti line item, B. MODIFIGATION NO, 1 .`� Adds the following budget items for Mounds View Business Park South PHASEIRANGE Land Acquisition $1,320,830 - $1,400,000 Public Improvements 510,000 - 540,000 Legal/Bonding/Discounts 74,000 - 80,000 Administration 00,000 - 90,000 Contingencies 20,000 - 20,000 Capitalized Interest 400,000 - 425,000 $2,414,830 - $2,555,000 City of Mounds View TIP District No. 1 Modification 42 1 P a g e TAIL INCREMENT ESTIMATE RANGE Computation of Tax Increment Values as of: 1/2/1990 1/2/1991 New Market Value Cumulative Market Value Tax Capacity Ratio (x) Tax Capacity Less Original Tax Capacity Captured Tax Capacity Tax Capacity Rate (x) Captured Tax Increment Values as of: New Market Value Cumulative Market Value Tax Capacity Ratio (x) Tax Capacity Less Original Tax Capacity Captured Tax Capacity Tax Capacity Rate (x) Captured Tax Increment. 2,880,000 2,880,000 0.0520 149,760 ®„ 11,620 138,740 0.01646 127,150 1/2/1990 4,680,000 4,680,000 0.0505 236,340 11,020 225,320 0.91G46 206,497 2,160,000 5,040,00 6.0515 259,550 11,020 248,540 0.91646 227,777 1/2/1991 2,520,000 7,200,000 0.0505 363,000 11,020 352,500 6.91646 323,125 1/2/1992 and Beyond 2,160,000 7,200,000 0.0515 370,800 11,020 359,780 0.91646 329,724 1/2/1992 and Beyond 1,100,000 8,300,000 0.0505 419,150 11,020 408,130 0.91646 374,034 Note; Fiscal disparities contributions are being made front outside the district. City of Mounds View TIF District No. I Modification 43 111 a K e (AS MODIFIED MARCH 26, 1990) C. MODIFICATION NO. 2 Adds the following budget items for Mounds View Business Park Projects and upgrading of Highway 10 corridor. * To be financed with tax increments from years 2002 to 2012 This budget Is in addition to the original budget and modification budget. City of Mounds View TIF District No. 1 Modification 44 111 u g c RANGF. Acquisitton/Relocation $ 450,000 - $ 500,000 Public Improvements Cliffton Drive/Program Avenue 501000 - 100,000 Community Center 11500,000 - 2,000,000 Highway 10 Upgrade 250,000 -. 500,000 Scattered Site Program 000,000 - 700,000 Capitalized Interest 0 - 0 Contingency 200,000 - 250,000 Administration 150,000 - 200,000 TOTAL $0,200,000 - $4,250,000* * To be financed with tax increments from years 2002 to 2012 This budget Is in addition to the original budget and modification budget. City of Mounds View TIF District No. 1 Modification 44 111 u g c (AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 13, 2000) Mounds View E.D.A. APPENDIX B TAX INCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.3 Budget History and Estimate of Project Costs Miller Project Combbudget Add Dist#4 Add Dist#1 Confirmation 11/08/00 Prepared by: Ehlers & Associates City o[Mounds View TIF District No. 1 Modification 45111 a g c 02/22/88 03/13/89 0 09 94 09 14/97 08/74/00 Su total 11/13/00 11 Tax Increment $15,418,000 $6,708,000 $22,126,000 $22,126,000 $22,126,000 Interest on invested $0 $0 Bond Proceeds $4,140_,000 $5,930,000 $28,075,000 $4,290,000 $3,205,819 $35,570,819 $35,570,819 Loans Proceeds $4.290,000 $3,205,879 $7,495,819 $7,495,819 Real estate sales $0 $0 Special assessments $0 $0 . Other Revenue & Increm nts $38,787,400 $4 2 000 $4,705,819 $47,763,219 $4],]63,219 $0 $0 $D $o _ $0 $0 !Transfers $30,465,400 $4,290=0 $4,705,819 $39,461,219 $39,461,219 Total Sources $19,558,000 $12,638,000 $119,433,800 $17,160,000 $15,823,276 $152,41],076 $152,417,076 �Land/bld soil aurec_i_io_n_ $1,800,000 $9,715,000 $2,419,369 $1,736,]00 $13,871,069 $13,871,069 'Site prep _$1,300,000 $700,000 $220,506 $920,506 $920,506 .Utilities $1,800,000 $3,180,000 $698,80] $3,878,807 $3,878,807 'Parking $0 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Streets _ $500,000 _ $500,000 Park --- — -- _ $0 _$500,000 $0 $0 'Social $1,430,000 $1,430,000 $4,860,000 $4_,860,000 $4,86,0000 Interest reduction $0 $0 $0 'Bontl principal $4,140,000 $5,930,000 $28,075,000 $4,290,000 $3,205,819 $35,570,619 $35,5]0,819 Bond interest $4,176,000 $1,528,000 $20,868,400 $1,500,000 $22,368,400 $22,368,400 Loan principal $0 $4,290,0_0.0_ $7,495,819 $7,495,819 Loan interest $0 __$_3,205_,819 $0 $0 _ Admin $60,000 $595,000 $390,000 $100,000 $1,085,000 $1,085,000 ;Other $0 $0 $0 __ Bond discounts _ $175,000 $175,000 $175,000 Renovation $0 $1,110,125 $433,992 $1,544,117 $1,544,117 Contingencies $150,000 $150,000 $300:000 $300,000 $300,000 Project Costs $20,000,000 _ _ $20,000,000 $20,000,000 Demolitlon $0 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 Soil Correction $0 $126,320 $126,320 $126,320 out $30,965,400 $4,290,000 $4,705,819 $39,461,219 $39,461,219 DTmnslers Total Uses $11,256,000 $12,638,000 $119,433,800 $17,160,000 $15,823,276 $152,417,076 152,417,076 Sources-Uses $8,302000 $0 _ $0 _ $0 $0 $0 $011 11/08/00 Prepared by: Ehlers & Associates City o[Mounds View TIF District No. 1 Modification 45111 a g c APPENDIX F CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 The Council has, pursuant to part 1, Section G, of the Development program, designated the Clerk -Administrator of the City to serve as Administrator of the maintenance se the Development motion off public imp ovemeentsor Development rand activities (jean ed [by the Tax increment Financing District No. 1 within Development District No. 2 Ml�nnesota5_tatutes 5472A.09 and 5472A.10. ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS The Administrator will administer the Development Program pursuant to the provisions of Section bject2t 1 uch rules andolimitatiioonsr st may besAdminiado tedy nt ub a the P he/she may. governing body, be granted the following powers: (a) to acquire property or easements through negotiation; (b) to enter into operating contracts on behalf of the municipality for operation of any of the facilities authorized to be constructed under the terms of sections 472A.01 to 472A.13; (c) to lease_ Spec to private individuals or corporations within the buildings constructed under the terms or sections 472A.01 to 472A.13; (d) to lease or sail land and to lease or sell air rights over structures constructed under the authority of sections 472A.01 to 472A.13; (e) to enter into contracts Co. construction of the several facilities or portion thereof authorized under sections 472A.01 to 472A.13; (() certify to the governing body of the municipality for that uired by acquisition quisi n, iothroug ise inert requiredfori moperty tation cannot of the e theDe elogment a plamen Program, f the municipality the amount (g) certify to the governing body o of funds, if any, which must be raised through sale of bonds to finance the Program far Development District No. 2; (h) apply for grants (rom, the United States of America; (i) apply for grants from other sources." City of Mounds View TIP District No. I Modification 46 111 a g e (c) increase the portion of captured assessed value to be retained by the City; (d) increase the total estimated tax increment expenditures; or (e) designate additional property to be acquired by the City. Minnesota Statutes 5273.74, subd. 4- L On or before July 1 of each year, the Administratoe`shall submit to the Ramsey County Board, all affected school boards, and to the Office of the Minnesota State Auditor a report of the status of each Tax increment Financing District No. I in Development District No. 2. The information to be included In the report is given In the model form attached hereto as Appendix C. 5. An annual statement showing the tax increment received and expended In that year, the original assessed value, the captured assessed value, the amount of outstanding bonded indebtedness and any additional inrormation the City deems necessary shall be published in the official newspapers of the City. Minnesota Statutes, 5273.74, subd. 5 and other information pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 5273.74, subd. 6. 9. All revenues derived from each Tax Increment Financing District shall be used in accordance with the Tax increment Financing Plan. The revenues shall be used for the following purposes: - 1. to pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance R project, 2. to finance or otherwise pay the capital and administration costs of Development District No. 2 pursuant to the. Develop[nent District Act; 3. to accumulate and maintain a reserve in a special development account for the payment of the principal of and interest on bonds Issued to finance a pcojecta, I. to pay for project costs as identified, and S. to finance or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in Section 273.75, Subd. 4, of the Tex Increment Financing Act. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limits. Minnasota Statutes, 5273.75, Subd. 4. 10. in the year in which the tax increments exceed the Amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the Tax Increment Financing Plan, including the amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.6t, Subd.3, the City shall use the excess amount to: 1. prepay any outstanding bonds; 2. discharge the pledge of tax Increment therefor; City of Mounds View TIF District No. I Modification 47 111 a g e commenced, and the County Auditor shall certify the assessed value thereof as most recently certified by the Commissioner of Revenue and add it to the original assessed value of the Tax Increment Financing District. For purposes of this subdivision. "parcel" means a tract or plat or land established an a single unit for purposes of assessment. A list will be maintained by the Building Inspector of the City to document all building permits issued within the district for private redevelopment, Including alterations, additions, new construction and demolition. tZ. The tax Increments received with respect to the Tax Increment Financing district shall be segregated by the City in a special account or accounts an its official books and records or as otherwise established by resolution of the City to be held by a trustee or trustees for the benefit or holders of the bonds. Minnesota Statutes, 5278.76, Subd. S. City of Mounds View TLP District No. 1 Modification 48 1 P a g c As of September 25, 2012 Draft for Planning Commission Modification to the Tax Increment Redevelopment Plans for Tax Increment District No. 2, (a redevelopment district) within the Mounds View Economic Development Project Mounds View Economic Development Authority City of Mounds View Ramsey County State of Minnesota Originally Adopted: February 22, 1988 Modification No. 1 Adopted: May 9, 1994 Modification No. 2 Adopted: April 14, 1997 Modification No. 3 Adopted: August 14, 2000 Modification No. 4 Adopted: November 13, 2000 Modification No. 5 Adopted: June 28, 2004 Modification No. 9 Public Hearing Date: October 8, 2012 1= Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105 651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com Tax Increment Redevelopment District Finance Plan #2 INTRODUCTION (AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 13, 2000) The following is a modification to the Tax Increment Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan") for Tax Increment District No.2. Generally, there are no substantive modification sto the Tax Increment Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2. The purpose of the modification is to attempt to bring the Plan into compliance with the office of the State Auditor requirements as they are understood at this point in time. The following subsections are being modified in an attempt to clarify the Plan and clarify and restate the budgets in the Office of the State Auditor's required format. (AS MODIFIED OCTOBER 8, 2012) Tax Increment Redevelopment District No. 2 is being modified by the City Council to authorize acquisition of parcels within the Mounds View Economic Development Project. The EDA and the City desire to continue redevelopment and development of blighted, foreclosed and underdeveloped property in the City. New redevelopment opportunities have arisen in areas located outside of Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 and within Mounds View Economic Development Project area. The proposed redevelopments will allow the City to acquire, rehabilitate, and/or demolish existing residential and commercial units, relocate existing businesses and residents, make necessary site improvements and resell the rehabilitated homes and/or vacant residential or commercial lots for development and allow the City to make necessary public improvements to roadways, sidewalks and utilities as required. A. Statutory Authority The City of Mounds View is authorized to establish a tax increment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 -469.179. B. Statement of Objectives See Section F, Part I of the original Development Program. C. Development Program 1. Description of Development Activities See Appendix "B" 2. Development Activities Covered by Contracts City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification l I P a g e See Appendix "B" Other Development Not Under Contract Reasonably Expected to Occur in the Project See Appendix "B" D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District. See Appendix "A" of this report for a list of property to be included in the proposed Tax Increment District. A map revealing the location of the tax increment parcels within the redevelopment project area is provided in Appendix "A". (AS MODIFIED ON OCTOBER 8, 2012) See Appendix "A" of this report for a list of the property located in the Tax Increment District. E. Classification of the Tax Increment Financing District The City Council of the City of Moundsview, Minnesota, in determining the need for a tax increment financing district in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 - 469.179, inclusive, finds that the district to be established is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(3). Please refer to Appendix "C" of this plan for eligibility statistics. The tax increment financing district appears to meet the statutory requirements of a redevelopment district and will henceforth be referred to as a redevelopment tax increment financing district. The parcels that have been used to establish eligibility as a redevelopment tax increment financing district have been listed in Appendix "F" of this plan. F. Parcels in Acquisition Properties identified for acquisition may be acquired by the City in order to accomplish one or more of the following: remove, prevent, or reduce blight, blighting factors, causes of blight, or the spread of blight and deterioration; to eliminate unhealthful, unsafe, and unsanitary structures and conditions; reduce traffic hazards; provide land for needed public streets, utilities, and facilities; remove incompatible land use, correct soil problems, eliminate obsolete or detrimental uses; assemble land for redevelopment; carry out clearance and/or redevelopment to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. 2. Properties so identified include the following parcels: City of Mounds Vicw TIF District No.2 Modification 2 1 P a g e See Appendix "F", Acquisition Parcels 3. Conditional Acquisition Parcels may be acquired by the City should they become necessary for future redevelopment with the condition that there is sufficient tax increment to finance the costs associated with the acquisition of these parcels. See Appendix "F" for conditional acquisition parcels. (AS MODIFIED OCTOBER 8, 2012) It is anticipated that the EDA or City will acquire and reconvey parcels located outside of the District but located within the Mounds View Economic Development Project, including interior and adjacent street rights of way, as identified below: 08-30-23-12-0068 06-30-23-41-0057 06-30-23-34-0062 06-30-23-44-0001 06-30-23-12-0008 08-30-23-12-0048 06-30-23-41-0050 06-30-23-31-0015 05-30-23-33-0004 06-30-23-14-0002 08-30-23-12-0052 06-30-23-41-0070 06-30-23-31-0043 06-30-23-41-0012 06-30-23-12-0078 05-30-23-23-0020 06-30-23-14-0011 06-30-23-31-0030 06-30-23-41-0010 06-30-23-12-0082 06-30-23-14-0032 06-30-23-14-0002 06-30-23-31-0031 05-30-23-32-0010 06-30-23-12-0081 06-30-23-14-0023 06-30-23-14-0018 06-30-23-31-0173 06-30-23-41-0009 06-30-23-12-0116 06-30-23-13-0029 06-30-23-14-0017 06-30-23-31-0033 06-30-23-41-0008 06-30-23-14-0068 06-30-23-13-0030 06-30-23-14-0016 06-30-23-31-0174 06-30-23-41-0007 05-30-23-23-0037 08-30-23-11-0003 06-30-23-14-0020 06-30-23-23-0045 05-30-23-32-0007 05-30-23-23-0038 08-30-23-11-0005 06-30-23-14-0052 06-30-23-23-0018 06-30-23-41-0004 06-30-23-14-0076 07-30-23-43-0088 06-30-23-14-0027 08-30-23-44-0008 05-30-23-32-0006 06-30-23-14-0075 08-30-23-13-0003 06-30-23-14-0061 08-30-23-44-0007 06-30-23-41-0003 06-30-23-14-0048 08-30-23-13-0006 06-30-23-14-0083 05-30-23-41-0006 05-30-23-32-0004 06-30-23-41-0026 07-30-23-21-0017 05-30-23-31-0056 05-30-23-41-0002 06-30-23-41-0001 06-30-23-14-0014 07-30-23-21-0018 05-30-23-32-0041 05-30-23-44-0008 06-30-23-14-0045 06-30-23-14-0012 07-30-23-21-0045 05-30-23-32-0042 05-30-23-44-0009 05-30-23-23-0056 06-30-23-13-0020 07-30-23-22-0014 05-30-23-32-0043 05-30-23-43-0004 05-30-23-23-0058 06-30-23-42-0039 07-30-23-23-0001 05-30-23-32-0045 05-30-23-42-0057 06-30-23-14-0069 06-30-23-31-0022 City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 3 1 P a g e 07-30-23-22-0035 05-30-23-32-0049 06-30-23-44-0063 05-30-23-23-0028 06-30-23-24-0022 07-30-23-23-0002 05-30-23-23-0043 06-30-23-44-0017 06-30-23-14-0059 07-30-23-24-0038 07-30-23-23-0003 05-30-23-23-0052 06-30-23-41-0039 05-30-23-23-0029 07-30-23-24-0039 08-30-23-14-0032 06-30-23-42-0058 06-30-23-44-0040 06-30-23-14-0034 07-30-23-23-0019 08-30-23-14-0034 06-30-23-31-0009 06-30-23-41-0041 05-30-23-23-0031 07-30-23-23-0034 08-30-23-14-0042 06-30-23-42-0061 06-30-23-44-0043 05-30-23-23-0032 07-30-23-23-0020 08-30-23-14-0045 06-30-23-31-0007 06-30-23-43-0022 06-30-23-11-0068 07-30-23-23-0033 08-30-23-14-0047 06-30-23-42-0064 06-30-23-42-0072 06-30-23-11-0035 07-30-23-23-0031 08-30-23-14-0046 06-30-23-31-0005 06-30-23-43-0030 06-30-23-11-0037 07-30-23-23-0029 08-30-23-43-0004 06-30-23-31-0003 06-30-23-42-0054 06-30-23-11-0092 07-30-23-23-0028 08-30-23-43-0012 06-30-23-42-0068 06-30-23-42-0057 06-30-23-11-0090 07-30-23-22-0007 08-30-23-33-0071 06-30-23-31-0002 06-30-23-42-0056 06-30-23-11-0034 07-30-23-22-0023 08-30-23-33-0065 06-30-23-42-0070 08-30-23-33-0025 06-30-23-12-0039 07-30-23-22-0024 08-30-23-33-0062 08-30-23-21-0039 08-30-23-24-0013 06-30-23-12-0080 06-30-23-34-0055 08-30-23-33-0060 06-30-23-14-0019 08-30-23-12-0076 06-30-23-14-0001 06-30-23-33-0001 07-30-23-34-0047 06-30-23-14-0073 07-30-23-34-0033 06-30-23-21-0111 06-30-23-23-0006 07-30-23-34-0046 06-30-23-44-0027 07-30-23-340044 07-30-23-42-0070 06-30-23-23-0007 07-30-23-34-0045 06-30-23-440011 07-30-23-34-0043 07-30-23-11-0031 06-30-23-23-0041 07-30-23-34-0034 06-30-23-44-0018 07-30-23-34-0042 17-30-23-14-0009 06-30-23-24-0071 07-30-23-33-0036 06-30-23-44-0013 07-30-23-34-0016 05-30-23-44-0026 06-30-23-23-0008 07-30-23-33-0014 06-30-23-44-0019 07-30-23-34-0005 05-30-23-44-0091 06-30-23-24-0070 08-30-23-24-0021 06-30-23-44-0016 07-30-23-340004 08-30-23-31-0061 06-30-23-23-0009 08-30-23-31-0005 06-30-23-41-0038 07-30-23-34-0013 17-30-23-14-0005 06-30-23-23-0010 08-30-23-32-0004 08-30-23-32-0006 08-30-23-32-0005 06-30-23-41-0036 06-30-23-41-0035 06-30-23-41-0015 07-30-23-34-0003 07-30-23-34-0002 07-30-23-31-0040 17-30-23-14-0004 17-30-23-14-0003 17-30-23-140002 06-30-23-24-0049 06-30-23-23-0027 06-30-23-22-0022 City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 4 1 P a g e 08-30-23-32-0007 08-30-23-32-0111 08-30-23-32-0108 08-30-23-32-0072 08-30-23-32-0107 07-30-23-31-0002 07-30-23-31-0004 07-30-23-24-0017 07-30-23-31-0025 07-30-23-24-0016 07-30-23-31-0026 07-30-23-31-0027 07-30-23-31-0028 07-30-23-32-0001 07-30-23-23-0015 07-30-23-23-0014 07-30-23-23-0013 07-30-23-23-0012 08-30-23-12-0050 08-30-23-12-0051 05-30-23-34-0063 08-30-23-21-0047 08-30-23-22-0007 08-30-23-22-0008 08-30-23-22-0040 05-30-23-33-0017 05-30-23-33-0098 06-30-23-41-0033 06-30-23-41-0019 06-30-23-41-0029 06-30-23-41-0028 06-30-23-41-0024 06-30-23-11-0017 07-30-23-24-0024 07-30-23-24-0005 07-30-23-21-0023 06-30-23-34-0080 06-30-23-34-0033 06-30-23-34-0016 06-30-23-34-0025 06-30-23-31-0042 06-30-23-31-0029 06-30-23-31-0016 06-30-23-31-0028 06-30-23-31-0017 06-30-23-31-0027 06-30-23-31-0026 06-30-23-31-0242 06-30-23-31-0019 06-30-23-31-0024 06-30-23-31-0007 06-30-23-31-0105 06-30-23-21-0104 06-30-23-21-0022 07-30-23-31-0049 07-30-23-31-0013 07-30-23-31-0012 07-30-23-31-0033 07-30-23-31-0032 07-30-23-31-0031 07-30-23-31-0010 07-30-23-31-0030 07-30-23-31-0029 07-30-23-24-0018 07-30-23-24-0019 07-30-23-24-0031 07-30-23-24-0030 07-30-23-24-0028 07-30-23-24-0011 07-30-23-24-0056 07-30-23-21-0049 07-30-23-21-0050 07-30-23-21-0061 07-30-23-21-0036 07-30-23-21-0055 07-30-23-21-0056 06-30-23-21-0077 08-30-23-13-0062 08-30-23-13-0028 08-30-23-13-0036 08-30-23-13-0065 17-30-23-14-0001 07-30-23-33-0015 07-30-23-33-0013 07-30-23-33-0029 07-30-23-33-0012 07-30-23-33-0011 07-30-23-33-0028 07-30-23-33-0010 07-30-23-33-0027 07-30-23-33-0025 07-30-23-33-0007 07-30-23-33-0006 07-30-23-33-0004 07-30-23-33-0003 07-30-23-33-0001 07-30-23-33-0020 07-30-23-22-0032 07-30-23-22-0031 07-30-23-22-0030 06-30-23-23-0021 06-30-23-23-0038 06-30-23-22-0085 08-30-23-44-0009 08-30-23-14-0065 08-30-23-14-0066 05-30-23-41-0018 05-30-23-41-0016 06-30-23-22-0021 06-30-23-22-0020 06-30-23-22-0016 06-30-23-22-0026 06-30-23-22-0091 06-30-23-22-0086 06-30-23-22-0077 08-30-23-24-0028 08-30-23-24-0043 07-30-23-42-0057 06-30-23-43-0117 06-30-23-42-0028 06-30-23-42-0005 05-30-23-44-0058 05-30-23-44-0059 05-30-23-44-0066 05-30-23-43-0064 05-30-23-43-0057 08-30-23-32-0049 08-30-23-32-0048 08-30-23-32-0043 07-30-23-31-0020 07-30-23-31-0019 07-30-23-32-0015 07-30-23-32-0013 07-30-23-32-0012 07-30-23-32-0011 City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 5 1 P a g e 06-30-23-44-0069 06-30-23-34-0010 07-30-23-22-0039 07-30-23-22-0027 07-30-23-22-0028 07-30-23-22-0029 06-30-23-22-0080 06-30-23-22-0089 06-30-23-22-0102 07-30-23-41-0140 06-30-23-44-0029 06-30-23-44-0030 06-30-23-44-0032 06-30-23-44-0050 06-30-23-44-0049 06-30-23-44-0048 06-30-23-44-0038 06-30-23-44-0041 05-30-23-32-0032 06-30-23-21-0026 '.. 06-30-23-21-0034 06-30-23-21-0036 06-30-23-21-0037 08-30-23-31-0070 08-30-23-42-0013 08-30-23-42-0005 08-30-23-42-0004 08-30-23-42-0003 08-30-23-31-0075 08-30-23-31-0069 08-30-23-31-0071 08-30-23-22-0039 06-30-23-43-0016 06-30-23-43-0028 06-30-23-43-0029 06-30-23-34-0001 06-30-23-31-0014 05-30-23-23-0048 05-30-23-24-0017 05-30-23-24-0041 05-30-23-24-0043 06-30-23-13-0048 06-30-23-13-0052 06-30-23-13-0054 06-30-23-24-0018 06-30-23-24-0022 06-30-23-31-0021 07-30-23-44-0115 08-30-23-33-0048 08-30-23-32-0075 08-30-23-32-0074 06-30-23-44-0059 05-30-23-33-0011 05-30-23-33-0010 05-30-23-33-0009 05-30-23-33-0007 05-30-23-23-0036 08-30-23-14-0029 06-30-23-12-0101 06-30-23-42-0055 06-30-23-42-0053 06-30-23-42-0030 06-30-23-42-0032 06-30-23-42-0034 06-30-23-42-0035 06-30-23-42-0044 06-30-23-13-0018 06-30-23-13-0045 06-30-23-12-0022 06-30-23-12-0018 06-30-23-12-0120 06-30-23-12-0103 06-30-23-12-0107 06-30-23-12-0122 06-30-23-12-0037 05-30-23-23-0049 07-30-23-32-0018 07-30-23-34-0035 07-30-23-43-0055 07-30-23-340055 07-30-23-340008 05-30-23-23-0021 05-30-23-23-0022 05-30-23-23-0023 05-30-23-23-0024 05-30-23-23-0025 05-30-23-23-0034 05-30-23-23-0035 05-30-23-32-0017 05-30-23-32-0038 05-30-23-32-0036 05-30-23-32-0022 05-30-23-32-0023 05-30-23-32-0026 06-30-23-14-0066 Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the EDA or City only in order to accomplish one or more of the following: carry out land acquisition; demolition of structures; rehabilitation of housing and commercial units; relocation; construction of new residential and commercial units; site improvements; storm sewer improvements; roadway improvements, provide land for needed public streets, sidewalks, alley ways, utilities and facilities to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The EDA or City may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs. City of Mounds View TIP District No. 2 Modification 6 1 P a g e G. Estimate of Costs The public costs associated with this project are outlined hi Appendix "D", Project Costs. It is expected that the public costs will be financed by the City. (AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 13, 2000) The budget history and estimate of authorized public costs associated with this project are outlined in Appendix "D", Estimate of Project Costs. H. Estimated Amount of Indebtedness See Appendix "D" of this Plan. (AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 13, 2000) The City reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the Modified Plan. The projects have been financed by bond issues, inter -fund loans and transfers. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed $36,000,000 without a modification to the Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. See Appendix B of this Plan. Sources of Revenue The principle source of revenue to be used to finance public costs associated with the projects in the redevelopment project is tax increment financing. Tax increment financing refers to a funding technique that utilizes increases in assessed valuation and the property taxes attributed to new development to finance, or assist in the financing of public development costs. See Appendix "E" for Revenue Projections. The City may from time to time utilize other revenue sources to finance public costs. (AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 13, 2000) The principle source of revenue to be used to finance public costs associated with the projects in the redevelopment project is tax increment financing. The City reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Modification to the Municipal Development District Plan and the Modified Plan, including, but not limited to, general property taxes, state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the developer, investment income, and undesignated municipal funds to pay for the estimated public costs. Appendix B includes a detailed estimate of the Sources of Revenue being authorized for the District. City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 7 1 P a g e J. Original Assessed Value Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 1 and Section 469.177, Subdivision 1, the Original Assessed Value (OAV) for the City of Moundsview tax increment financing redevelopment district is based on the value placed on the property by the County Assessor in 1987. This assessed value is $710,000. Each year the Office of the County Auditor will measure the amount of increase or decrease in the total assessed value of the tax increment redevelopment district to calculate the tax increment payable to the redevelopment district fund. In any year in which there is an increase in total assessed valuation in the tax increment redevelopment district above the adjusted original assessed value, a tax increment will be payable. In any year in which the total assessed valuation in the tax increment financing redevelopment district declines below the original assessed valuation, no assessed valuation will be captured and no tax increment will be payable. The County Auditor shall certify in each year after the date the Original Assessed Value was certified, the amount the OAV has increased or decreased as a result of: change in tax exempt status of property; 2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. change due to stipulations, adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements. K. Estimated Captured Assessed Value Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 1 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 2, the estimated present value of Captured Assessed Value (CAV) of the tax increment financing redevelopment district, with all phases completed, will annually approximate $1,122,200 to $1,447,000. This amount may be captured in phases (see Appendix "E") for up to twenty-five years or until the debt is retired. L. Duration of the District Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 1, the duration of the tax increment district within the Development District must be indicated within the finance plan. The duration of the tax increment district will be 25 years from the date of receipt of the first tax increment, including any modifications to the finance plan for subsequent phases or other changes. (AS MODIFIED OCTOBER 8, 2012) Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. lb, the duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the City (a total of 26 years of tax increment). The date of receipt by the City of the first tax increment was 1990. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 8 1 P a g e would terminate after December 31, 2015, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. M. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The impact of the loss of tax dollars represented as tax increments is estimated below for each taxing jurisdiction. This estimate is based on the existing redevelopment proposals and does not include the possible tax increments derived from any other future development, mill changes, or inflation factors. Total Assessed Value Tax Increment Finance District 1/2/87 Total $710,000 Latest Assessed Value of Each Government Body: % of District to Total Ramsey County $3,315,892,299 .0021 School district #621 $605,174,784 .1170 City ofMoundsview $59,887,551 1.1860 Considering all the districts, it can be seen from the above that the school and county districts will have over 99% of each respective district available for normal growth of tax base or valuation. Applying the percentage of the total mill rate estimate in 1988 levied by each taxing jurisdiction to the projected mill rate and the estimated tax increment received reveals the annual loss of tax dollars by each taxing jurisdiction as listed in the table below ASSUMING DEVELOPMENT WOULD OCCUR WITHOUT PUBLIC ASSISTANCE. The finance plan indicates an anticipated tax increment at build out as follows: Captured Assessed Tax Increment Valuation Received Tax Increment Finance District $1,447,000 $169,300 Based on an estimated mill rate, the estimated taxes received would be as follows for the taxing bodies: City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 9 1 P a g e Mills Percent Tax Increment City 16.742 14.3% $24.210 County 33.730 28.8 48,758 School District 59.076 50.5 85,496 Other7.378 6_4 10.836 Total 116.926 100.00% $169,300 City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 9 1 P a g e The following table represents the additional mills that would have to be levied to compensate for the loss of tax dollars in estimated tax increments for each taxing jurisdiction. The tax increments derived from the development alluded to in the tax increment district would not be available to any of the taxing jurisdictions were it not for public intervention by the City. Although the increases in assessed value due to development will not be available for the application of the mill levy for the duration of the tax increment financing district, this new assessed value could eventually permit a mill levy decrease. If it could be assumed that the captured assessed value was available for each taxing jurisdiction, the non -receipt of tax dollars represented as tax increments may be determined. This determination is facilitated by estimating how much the mill levy for property outside of the tax increment financing district would have to be increased to raise the same amount of tax dollars in each taxing jurisdiction that would be available if the projects occurred WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF THE CITY. *Tax Increment District assessed valuation subtracted N. Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 4, any reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the project or tax increment financing district, increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination or capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized, increase in the portion of the captured assessed value to be retained by the City, increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures or designation of additional property to be acquired by the authority shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original plan. The geographic area of a tax increment financing district may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original assessed value by the county auditor. The tax increment financing redevelopment district may therefore be expanded until 1993. O. Limitation on Administrative Expenses In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 14 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 3, administrative expenses means all expenditures of an authority other than amounts paid for the purchase of land or amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering set -vices, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the district, relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the district or amounts used to pay interest on, fiord a reserve for, or City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 10 1 P a g e Adiusted* Assessed Required Mills Without F.D. Value Contribution School District $604,464,784 .141 85,496 County $3,315,182,299 .015 48,758 City $59,177,551 .409 24,210 *Tax Increment District assessed valuation subtracted N. Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 4, any reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the project or tax increment financing district, increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination or capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized, increase in the portion of the captured assessed value to be retained by the City, increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures or designation of additional property to be acquired by the authority shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original plan. The geographic area of a tax increment financing district may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original assessed value by the county auditor. The tax increment financing redevelopment district may therefore be expanded until 1993. O. Limitation on Administrative Expenses In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 14 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 3, administrative expenses means all expenditures of an authority other than amounts paid for the purchase of land or amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering set -vices, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the district, relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the district or amounts used to pay interest on, fiord a reserve for, or City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 10 1 P a g e sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to Section 469.178. Administrative expenses includes amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. No tax increment shall be used to pay any administrative expenses for a project which exceed ten percent of the total tax increment expenditures authorized by the tax increment financing plan or the total tax increment expenditures for the project, whichever is less. P. Limitation on Duration of Tax Increment Financing Districts Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.176, Subdivision 1, "no tax increment shall be paid to an authority ... three years from the date of certification ... by the County Auditor ... unless within the three-year period (1) bonds have been issued pursuant to Section 469.178 or in aid of a project pursuant to any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.152 through 469.165, prior to August 1, 1979; or (2) the authority has acquired property within the district; or (3) the authority has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within the district ... a The City must therefore issue bonds, or acquire property, or construct or cause public improvements to be constructed by 1991 or the Office of the County Auditor may dissolve the tax increment financing district. Q. Limitation on Qualification of Property in Tax Increment District Not Subject to Improvement Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.176, Subdivision 6, "if, after four years from the date of certification of the original assessed value of the tax increment financing district, no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of parcel or other site preparation including improvement of a street adjacent to a property but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment. financing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel and the original assessed value of that parcel shall be excluded from the original assessed value of the tax increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel including improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor in the aminal disclosure report that the activity has commenced. The county auditor shall certify the assessed value thereof as most recently certified by the com rnissioner of revenue and add it to the original assessed value of the tax increment financing district. R. Limitation on the Use of Tax Increment All revenues derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the tax increment financing plan. The revenues shall be used to finance or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No revenues derived from tax increment shall be used for the construction or renovation of a municipal owned building used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of the municipality; this provision shall not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 111 P a g e renovation of a parking structure, a commons area used as a public park or a facility used for social, recreational or conference purposes and not primarily for conducting the business of the municipality. S. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.177, Subdivision 4, the City has reviewed and searched the properties to be included in the tax increment financing redevelopment district and found no properties for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the tax increment financing plan by the city. If the building permit had been issued within the 18 month period preceding approval of the tax increment financing plan by the city, the county auditor shall increase the original assessed value of the district by the assessed valuation of the improvements for which the building permit was issued, EXCLUDING THE ASSESSED VALUATION OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED DURING THE THREE MONTH PERIOD IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING SAID APPROVAL OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN BY THE CITY COUNCIL. T. Excess Tax Increments Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 2, in any year in which the tax increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the tax increment plan, including the amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.6 1, Subdivision 3, the City shall use the excess amount to: 1. prepay the outstanding bonds; 2. discharge the pledge of tax increment therefore; 3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bond; 4. repay any loans including interest on these loans; or 5. return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their mill rate. U. Requirement for Agreements with the Developer Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(3), no parcel shall be included within a redevelopment district pursuant to this paragraph unless the authority has concluded an agreement for the development of at least 50% of the acreage having the unusual soil or terrain deficiencies which agreement provides recourse for the City should the development not be completed. V. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.177, Subdivision 8, the City may, upon entering into a development agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.176, Subdivision 5, enter into an agreement in recordable form with the developer of property City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 12 1 P a g e within the tax increment financing district which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the tax increment redevelopment district. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the county assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the assessor may certify the minimum market value agreement. W. Administration of the Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment District and Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account Administration of the tax increment financing redevelopment district will be handled by the Office of the City Manager. The tax increment received as a result of increases in the assessed value of the tax increment financing redevelopment district will be maintained in a special account separate from all other municipal accounts and expended only upon sanctioned municipal activities identified in the finance plan. (AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 13, 2000) Administration of the tax increment financing redevelopment district will be handled by the City of Mounds View's E.D.A. Executive Director. Consistent with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 5, requiring that "tax increment received with respect to any district shall be segregated by the authority in a special account or accounts on its official books and records or as otherwise established by resolution of the authority to be held by a trustee or trustees for the benefit of holders of the bond," the EDA will account for all increment for all increment from the Tax Increment Districts in one or more accounts for the proper accounting and implementation of the Tax increment Financing Districts and the portion of the Project to be financed directly or indirectly with tax increment. The right to make appropriate transfers in and out of such accounts is hereby reserved, along with the right to make both external and internal interest bearing borrowings, whether long term or short term, including transfers from other city or EDA funds to cash flow tax increment obligations and other legitimate expenditures. X. Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 5, an authority must file an annual disclosure report for all tax increment financing districts. The report shall be filed with the school board, county board and the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development. The report shall include the following information: 1. The original assessed value of the district; 2. The captured assessed value of the district including the amount of any captured assessed value shared with other taxing districts; City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 13 1 P a g e 3. The outstanding principal amount of bonds issued or other loans insured to finance project costs in the district; 4. For the reporting period and for the duration of the district, the amount budgeted under the tax increment financing plan, and the actual amount expended for, at least, the following categories: a. Acquisition of land and buildings through condemnation or purchase; b. Site improvements or preparation costs; C. Installation of public utilities or other public improvements; d. Administrative costs, including the allocated cost of the authority. 5. For properties sold to developers, the total cost of the property to the authority and the price paid by the developer; 6. The amount of tax exempt obligations, other than those reported under clause (3), that were issued on behalf of private entities for facilities located in the district. Y. Assumptions It was necessary to make certain assumptions regarding income, costs and timing of the tax increment redevelopment district. These assumptions are based on discussions with city officials and developers. Z. Municipal Findings Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3, before or at the time of approval of the tax increment financing plan, the municipality shall make the following findings and shall set forth the reasons and supporting information for the determination (see Appendix B): 1. The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary since the developers could not construct the improvements without the use of tax increments to assist with the financing of soil correction; and 2. The tax increment financing plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development by private enterprise as it will enable the City to provide a suitable site, via soil correction for development; thereby encouraging development in the area. 3. The tax increment financing plan conforms to the general plan for the development of the city as a whole. 4. The tax increment district to be established is a redevelopment district pursuant to City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 14 1 Page Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10 in which the conditions described in Section E of this plan exist. ZZ. Fiscal Disparities Treatment The City will elect the method of tax increment computation pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 3, clause (a), consequently, the district shall be created with the election to spread the fiscal disparities contribution outside the tax increment district. City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 15 1 P a g e APPENDIX A PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NO. 07-30-23-12-0011-4 07-30-23-12-0010-1 07-30-23-12-0012-0 06-30-23-43-0010-8 06-30-23-43-0011-1 06-30-23-43-0002-7 06-30-23-43-0003-0 06-30-23-43-0004-3 06-30-23-43-0005-6 06-30-23-43-0006-9 06-30-23-43-0007-2 06-30-23-43-0008-5 06-30-23-43-0009-8 06-30-23-43-0001 06-30-23-34-0001-2 06-30-23-34-0003-8 06-30-23-34-0004-1 06-30-23-34-0005-4 06-30-23-34-0008-3 06-30-23-34-0010-6 06-30-23-34-0011-9 06-30-23-34-0012-2 06-30-23-34-0013-5 06-30-23-34-0014-8 06-30-23-34-0016-4 06-30-23-34-0017-7 06-30-23-34-0018-0 06-30-23-34-0019-3 06-30-23-34-0061-4 06-30-23-34-0062-7 City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 16 1 P a g e (AS MODIFIED SEPTEMBER 13, 2004) The following parcels were eliminated from TIF District No. 2 by Resolution Number 6341: Property ID Number Street Address Git 06.30.23.43.0042 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE 9101 :i Mounds View 06.30.23.43.0043 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #102 Mounds View -...i 06.30.23.43.0044 06.30.23.43.0045 7735 Sliver Lake Rd NE i1103 ;Mounds View 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #104 Mounds View 06.30,23.43.0046 --- - 06.30.2--3.43.0047 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #105 Mounds View 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #106 Mounds View 06.30.23.43.0048 Silver Lake Rd NE 9107 Mounds View _ 06.30.23.43.0049 _7735 .-- 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #108 Mounds View _ 06.30.23.43.0050 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE 4109 Mounds View 06,30.23.43.0051 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #110 Mounds View 06.30.23.43.0052 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #111 7735 Sliver Lake Rd NE #112 Mounds View 06.30.23.43.0053 06.30-25.41(M-4 Mounds View 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #116 Mounds View 05,3023.43.0055 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #117 Mounds View 06.30.23.43.6056- 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #118 Mounds View 06.3023.43.0057 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #119 Mounds View 06,30.23,43.0058 06.30.23 43A059 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #120 Mounds View 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #121 Mounds View 06,30.23.43.0050 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #122 Mounds View 06,30- i3,43 J666 Silver Lake Rd NE #123 Mounds View 06.3023.43.0062 --6613 - 06,30.23 43.0063 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #124 Mounds View 7735Silver Lake Rd NE #125 Mounds View 06.30.23.43.0064 17735 Silver Lake Rd NE #126 Mounds View 06.30.23,43.0066 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #127 Mounds View 06.30.23.43.0066 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #201 Mounds View 06.30.23.43.0067 06.30,23.43,0068 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #202 Mounds View (7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #203 Mounds View i 06.30.23,43.0069 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #204 Mounds View 06.30.23,43.0070 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE 0205 Mounds View 06.30.23.43.0071 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #206 _II Mounds View 06.30,23.43.0072 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE 11207 Mounds View 06.30.23.43.0073 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #208 S Mounds View 06.30.23.43.0074 06.30.23 43.0075 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #209 Mounds View ,T 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #210 q Mounds View l Mounds View 06,30,23.43.0076 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #211 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE 11215 06.30,23.43.0077 Mounds View 06.30.23.43-0078 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #216 Mounds View Mounds View 06.30.23.43.0079 06.30.23.43.0080 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #217 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #218 Mounds View - M30.23.43,0081 06 ,30,23,43-0082 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE 9219 Mounds View 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #220 Mounds View Mounds View 0630,23.43.0083 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #221 06,30.23.43.0084 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #222 Mounds View City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 17 1 P a g e 06.30.23.43.0085 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #223 ' Mounds View Mounds View 06.30.23.43.0080 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #224 _ _ 06.30.23.43.0087 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #225 Mounds View 05.30.23.43.0088 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE 4226 Mounds View 06.3023.43.0089 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #227 Mounds View Mounds View 06.30.23A3.0090 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #212 06.30.23.43.0091 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #301 Mounds View 06.30.23.43.0092 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #302 _ Mounds View_ 06.30.23.43.0093 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #303 Mounds View i 06.30.23.43.0094 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #304 Mounds View 06.30.23.43.095 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #305 Mounds View 06.30.23.43.OD96 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #306 Mounds View 06.30.23A3.0097 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE {7307 Mounds View 06.30.23.43.0098 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #308 Mounds View 06.3023.43.0099 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #309 Mounds View _ 06.30.23.43.0100 7735 Sliver Lake Rd NE #310 Mounds View 06 30.23 43.0101 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #311 Mounds View 06.30.23.43.0102 17735 Silver Lake Rd NE #315 Mounds View 06.30.23.43.0103 ( 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #316 1 Mounds View 06.30.23.43.0104 9 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #317 I Mounds View _ 06.30.23.43.0105 17735 Silver Lake Rd NE #318 ; Mounds View 06.30.23.43.0106 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #319 i Mounds View 00.30,23.43.0107 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #320 ' Mounds View 06.30.23.43.0108 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #321 Mounds View 06.30.23.43.0109 06,30,23,43,0110 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #322 Ntounds View 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #323 Mounds View 06.30.23.43.0111 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #324 Mounds View 06.30.23.43.0112 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE 9325 Mounds View 06.30.23.43.0113 7735 Silver lake Rd NE 9326 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE #327 Mounds View 06.30.23.43.0114 Mounds View -66-,3613-43,01 15 7735 Silver Lake Rd NE 9312 Mounds View 06.36.23.43.0038 2732-5OmtjHQ-6;aY 10 Mounds View 06.30.23.43 00,39 2720 Hic hway 10 NE _ Mounds View 05.30.23.34.0011 Groveland Rd Mounds View 06.30.23.34.0012 _7711 7715 Groveland Rd Mounds View 06.3023.34.0013 7723 Groveland Rd Mounds View 06.30.23.34.0014 06.30.23 i4.00761 7729 Groveland Rd Mounds View _ Mounds View 7730 Silver Lake Rd 06.30.2134.0077 7720 Sliver Lake Rd Mounds View 06.30.23,34.0080 f' 7767 Groveland Rd Mounds View City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 18 1 P a g e (AS MODIFIED OCTOBER 8, 2012) The following parcels are located within TIF District No. 2: 063023340010 063023340016 063023340017 063023340018 063023340061 063023340062 063023340066 063023340066 063023340078 063023340089 063023340091 063023430011 063023430040 073023120002 073023120002 073023120010 073023120011 City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 19 1 P a g e Mounds View TIF Districts CITY OF NOTE: The Mounds View Economic Development Project Boundaries are Coterminous with the Corporate Boundaries of the City of Mounds View. Fria Name: City of Mounds View TIP District No. 2 Modification 20 1 P a g e APPENDIX B DISTRICT STATUS The "Highway 10 Corridor" Municipal Development District was conceived in 1985 on the basis of the physical and economic relationships to the various projects and land uses both proposed and existing. Also, by upgrading the corridor, a new image will evolve that will complement the short and long range goals of the City's various plans. The visual impact in itself will be a benefit to the citizens of Mounds View as well as other passing through the community via Highway 10. The case is made for this concept via the co -dependence of the various land uses within and without all three districts. The flow of jobs to the industrial park form the residential, the commercial to support the residential and industrial while providing improved recreational facilities to compliment all three land uses. Creating several tax increment districts assures the long term financing of the upgrading of the corridor. By providing nucleus of development within the districts, unassisted private development will be more likely to develop alongside of the districts. The initial investment of tax increments into these areas will be crucial to the success of this undertaking. Current Projects This plan proposes to assist 100,000 square feet of commercial space. The type of assistance will be the traditional use of tax increments that includes public improvements as well as land assembly. While creating new construction, a considerable amount of blight can be eliminated both economically and visually. Without the assistance, the development could not afford the cost of assembly with or without buildings. Current Contracts There are no contracts that the City has entered into at this time with any developers within the tax increment district. However, the City is currently negotiating with a developer for a proposed 100,000 square foot cotmnercial center. City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 211 P a g e APPENDIX C ELIGIBILITY District Statistics There are 30 tax increment parcels within the proposed tax increment district. -- 70%, or 21 parcels must be occupied by buildings. -- 21 parcels, or 7096 are occupied by buildings. Of the 21 parcels, 20% or 4 must be structurally substandard requiring substantial renovation to be standard. -- 4 parcels, or 20% are blighted in the above form. -- Of the 21 parcels, 30% or 6 must and have been found to require substantial renovation or clearance in order to remove such existing conditions as: incompatible uses or land use relationships, overcrowding of buildings on the land, excessive dwelling unit density, obsolete buildings not suitable for improvement or conversion, or other identified hazards to the health, safety and general well being of the community. See Appendix "(111 for designation of blight. The properties designated as blighted will be encouraged to rehabilitate when financially feasible or may from time to time be acquired on a voluntary basis for redevelopment assuming there are adequate funds and tax increments. No properties have been identified for definite acquisition at this time except the excess highway taking. The plan may be amended to permit additional acquisitions, but must proceed via a public hearing. City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 22 1 P a g e STRIP/ANCHOR PROJECT Acquisition Assistance - Capitalized Interest Legal/Bonding Discounts Administration APPENDIX D PROJECT COSTS RANGE $ 540,000 - $ 715,000 280,000 - 335,000 20,000 - 30,000 20,000 - 25,000 25,000 - 25,000 - Public Improvements 50,000 - 50,000 TOTAL $ 915,000 - $1,180,000 This is an estimated budget that will be refined as part of a development agreement and receipt of all estimates for each line item. City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 23 1 P a g e (AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 13, 2000) Mounds View E.D.A. TAX INCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 Budget History and Estimate of Project Costs Hwy 10 Proj Budget Add Dist #4 Add Dist 411 Confirmation .....d o.,.i t,Andalnatin 11/08/00 Prepared by: Ehlers & Associates City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 24 1 P a g e 02/22/88 05/09/94 04/14/97 06/14/00 11/13/00 Tax Increment $4,401,800 $4,401,800 _ $4,401,800 Interest oninvested $0 Bond Proceeds $1,180,000 __ $28,075,000 $4,290,000 $3,205,819 $35,570,819 Loans Proceeds $4,290,000 $3,205,819 $7,495,819 Real estate sales $0 Special assessments Other Revenue & Increments _ _ $56,491,600 $4,290,000 $4,705,819 $0 $65,487,419 $0 —$0 $0 Transfers $56,491,600 $4,290,000 $4,705,819 $65,487,419 Total Sources $5,581,800 $145,460,000 $17.160.0001 $15,823,276 $178,443,276 Land/bldg Site prep $715,00_0 $9,715,000 $2,419,369 $1,736,700 $700,000 $220,506 $13,871,069 $920,506 Utilities $50,000 $3,180,000 $698,807 $3,878 Parking Streets $0 $150,000 $50.0,000 - $150,807 $150,000 $500,000 Park _ $0 _ _ $0 Social $4,860,000 _ _$4,860,000 Interest reduction _ $0 $0 Bond principal Bond interest $1,180,000 $1,186,600 $28,075,000 $4,290,000 $3,205,019 $20,868,400 _ $1,500,000 $35,570,819 $22,368,400 Loan principal Loan interest $0 $4,290,000 $3,205_,819 $0 $7,495,819 $0 Admin $55,000 $39 $595,000 0,000 _ $100,000 $1 ,085,000 Other $o $0 Bond discounts $25,000 $175,000 $175,000 Renovation $0 $1,110,125 $433,992 $1,544,117 Congingencies Project Costs Demolition $300,000 $20,000,000 $0 _ _ $110,000 _ $300,000 $20,000,000 $110,000 Soil Correc_t_ion _ $0 $126,320 $126,320 Transfers. Total Uses _ _ 3,211,600 $56,491,600 $4,290,000 $4,705 819 14_5,460,000 $17,1.60,000 $15,823,276 $65,487,419 178,4_4_3,276 Sources -Uses $2,370200 $0 $0 $0 $0 11/08/00 Prepared by: Ehlers & Associates City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 24 1 P a g e APPENDIX E ESTIMATE OF TAX INCREMENTS - Dale Jones Proposal - 40,000 SF Strip Mall - 60,000 SF Anchor Super Market - Estimated Taxes per square foot range $1.47 to $1.85 - Tax Range from $147,000 to $185,000 Annual at Buildout. - Original Assessed Value of Site = $134,200 - Estimated Tax on Original Assessed Value ® $15,700 - Tax Inerement Range = $131,300 to $169,300 BONDING CAPACITY - 12 Year Amortiztion - 3 Year Capitalized Interest - Total 15 Year Bond - Interest hate at 9.5% Taxable - Bond Range from $915,000 -to $1,180,000 (Rounded) City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 25 1 P a g e Effig"►1U"ID DATA SUMMARY See original TIF Plan dated February 22, 1988. City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 26 1 P a g e APPENDIX G [RUINI 11Y(OL61 See original TIF Plan dated February 22, 1988. City of Mounds View TIF District No. 2 Modification 27 1 P a g e As of September 25, 2012 Draft for Planning Commission Modification to the Tax Increment Redevelopment Plans for Tax Increment District No. 3, (a redevelopment district) within the Mounds View Economic Development Project MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Originally Adopted: February 22, 1988 Modification No. 1 Adopted: March 13, 1989 Modification No. 2 Adopted: May 9, 1994 Modification No. 3 Adopted: April 14, 1997 Modification No. 4 Adopted: August 14, 2000 Modification No. 5 Adopted: November 13, 2000 Modification No. 6 Adopted: August 22, 2005 Modification No. 7 Adopted: February 13, 2006 Modification No. 8 Public Hearing Date: October 8, 2012 is s Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105 651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com Tax Increment Redevelopment District Finance Plan #3 (AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 13, 2000) The following is a modification to the Tax Increment Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan") for Tax Increment District No. 2. Generally, there are no substantive modifications to the Tax Increment Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3. The purpose of the modification is to attempt to bring the Plan into compliance with the Office of the State Auditor requirements as they are understood at this point in time. The following subsections are being modified in an attempt to clarify the Plan and clarify and restate the budgets in the office of the State Auditor's required format. (AS MODIFIED OCTOBER 8, 2012) Tax Increment Redevelopment District No. 3 is being modified by the City Council to authorize acquisition of parcels within the Mounds View Economic Development Project. The EDA and the City desire to continue redevelopment and development of blighted, foreclosed and underdeveloped property in the City. New redevelopment opportunities have arisen in areas located outside of Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 and within Mounds View Economic Development Project area. The proposed redevelopments will allow the City to acquire, rehabilitate, and/or demolish existing residential and commercial units, relocate existing businesses and residents, make necessary site improvements and resell the rehabilitated homes and/or vacant residential or commercial lots for development and allow the City to make necessary public improvements to roadways, sidewalks and utilities as required. A. Statutory Authority The City of Mounds View is authorized to modify a tax increment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 -469.179. B. Statement of Objectives See Section C of the Development Program, Part 1. C. Development Program 1. Description of Development Activities See Appendix "B" 2. Development Activities Covered by Contracts See Appendix "B" City of Mounds View TIP District No. 3 Modification 1 I P a g c 3. Other Development Not Under Contract Reasonably Expected to Occur in the Project See Appendix "B" 4. Also, see Section B of the Development Program, Part I. D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District. See Appendix "A" of this report for a list of property included in the existing Tax Increment District. A map revealing the location of the tax increment parcels within the redevelopment project area is provided in Appendix "A". (AS MODIFIED ON OCTOBER 8, 2012) See Appendix "A" of this report for a list of the property located in the Tax Increment District. E. Classification of the Tax Increment Financing District The City Council of the City of Mounds View, Minnesota, in determining the need for a tax increment financing district in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 - 469.179, inclusive, finds that the district to be established is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(3). Please refer to Appendix "C" of this plan for eligibility rational. The tax increment financing district appears to meet the statutory requirements of a redevelopment district and will henceforth be referred to as a redevelopment tax increment financing district. The parcels that have been used to establish eligibility as a redevelopment tax increment financing district have been listed in Appendix "F" of this plan. F. Parcels in Acquisition Properties identified for acquisition may be acquired by the City in order to accomplish one or more of the following: remove, prevent, or reduce blight, blighting factors, causes of blight, or the spread of blight and deterioration; to eliminate unhealthful, unsafe, and unsanitary structures and conditions; reduce traffic hazards; provide land for needed public streets, utilities, and facilities; remove incompatible land use, correct soil problems, eliminate obsolete or detrimental uses; assemble land for redevelopment; carry out clearance and/or redevelopment to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. 2. Properties so identified include the following parcels: State of Minnesota Excess Taking Doc. 1632844-5 City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 2 1 P a g c 3. Conditional Acquisition Parcels may be acquired by the City should they become necessary for future redevelopment with the condition that there is sufficient tax increment to finance the costs associated with the acquisition of these parcels. See Appendix "F" for conditional acquisition parcels. (AS MODIFIED OCTOBER 8, 2012) It is anticipated that the EDA or City will acquire and reconvey parcels located outside of the District but located within the Mounds View Economic Development Project, including interior and adjacent street rights of way, as identified below: 08-30-23-12-0068 06-30-23-41-0057 06-30-23-34-0062 06-30-23-44-0001 06-30-23-12-0008 08-30-23-12-0048 06-30-23-41-0050 06-30-23-31-0015 05-30-23-33-0004 06-30-23-14-0002 08-30-23-12-0052 06-30-23-41-0070 06-30-23-31-0043 06-30-23-41-0012 06-30-23-12-0078 05-30-23-23-0020 06-30-23-14-0011 06-30-23-31-0030 06-30-23-41-0010 06-30-23-12-0082 06-30-23-14-0032 06-30-23-14-0002 06-30-23-31-0031 05-30-23-32-0010 06-30-23-12-0081 06-30-23-14-0023 06-30-23-14-0018 06-30-23-31-0173 06-30-23-41-0009 06-30-23-12-0116 06-30-23-13-0029 06-30-23-14-0017 06-30-23-31-0033 06-30-23-41-0008 06-30-23-14-0068 06-30-23-13-0030 06-30-23-14-0016 06-30-23-31-0174 06-30-23-41-0007 05-30-23-23-0037 08-30-23-11-0003 06-30-23-14-0020 06-30-23-23-0045 05-30-23-32-0007 05-30-23-23-0038 08-30-23-11-0005 06-30-23-14-0052 06-30-23-23-0018 06-30-23-41-0004 06-30-23-14-0076 07-30-23-43-0088 06-30-23-14-0027 08-30-23-44-0008 05-30-23-32-0006 06-30-23-14-0075 08-30-23-13-0003 06-30-23-14-0061 08-30-23-44-0007 06-30-23-41-0003 06-30-23-14-0048 08-30-23-13-0006 06-30-23-14-0083 05-30-23-41-0006 05-30-23-32-0004 06-30-23-41-0026 07-30-23-21-0017 05-30-23-31-0056 05-30-23-41-0002 06-30-23-41-0001 06-30-23-14-0014 07-30-23-21-0018 05-30-23-32-0041 05-30-23-44-0008 06-30-23-14-0045 06-30-23-14-0012 07-30-23-21-0045 05-30-23-32-0042 05-30-23-44-0009 05-30-23-23-0056 06-30-23-13-0020 07-30-23-22-0014 05-30-23-32-0043 05-30-23-43-0004 05-30-23-23-0058 06-30-23-42-0039 07-30-23-23-0001 05-30-23-32-0045 05-30-23-42-0057 06-30-23-14-0069 06-30-23-31-0022 07-30-23-22-0035 05-30-23-32-0049 06-30-23-44-0063 05-30-23-23-0028 06-30-23-24-0022 07-30-23-23-0002 05-30-23-23-0043 06-30-23-44-0017 06-30-23-14-0059 07-30-23-24-0038 07-30-23-23-0003 05-30-23-23-0052 06-30-23-41-0039 05-30-23-23-0029 07-30-23-24-0039 08-30-23-14-0032 06-30-23-42-0058 06-30-23-44-0040 06-30-23-14-0034 07-30-23-23-0019 08-30-23-14-0034 06-30-23-31-0009 06-30-23-41-0041 05-30-23-23-0031 07-30-23-23-0034 08-30-23-14-0042 06-30-23-42-0061 06-30-23-44-0043 05-30-23-23-0032 07-30-23-23-0020 08-30-23-14-0045 06-30-23-31-0007 06-30-23-43-0022 06-30-23-11-0068 07-30-23-23-0033 City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 3 1 P a g c 08-30-23-14-0047 06-30-23-42-0064 06-30-23-42-0072 06-30-23-I1-0035 07-30-23-23-0031 08-30-23-14-0046 06-30-23-31-0005 06-30-23-43-0030 06-30-23-11-0037 07-30-23-23-0029 08-30-23-43-0004 06-30-23-31-0003 06-30-23-42-0054 06-30-23-11-0092 07-30-23-23-0028 08-30-23-43-0012 06-30-23-42-0068 06-30-23-42-0057 06-30-23-11-0090 07-30-23-22-0007 08-30-23-33-0071 06-30-23-31-0002 06-30-23-42-0056 06-30-23-11-0034 07-30-23-22-0023 08-30-23-33-0065 06-30-23-42-0070 08-30-23-33-0025 06-30-23-12-0039 07-30-23-22-0024 08-30-23-33-0062 08-30-23-21-0039 08-30-23-24-0013 06-30-23-12-0080 06-30-23-34-0055 08-30-23-33-0060 06-30-23-14-0019 08-30-23-12-0076 06-30-23-14-0001 06-30-23-33-0001 07-30-23-34-0047 06-30-23-14-0073 07-30-23-34-0033 06-30-23-21-0111 06-30-23-23-0006 07-30-23-34-0046 06-30-23-44-0627 07-30-23-34-0044 07-30-23-42-0070 06-30-23-23-0007 07-30-23-34-0045 06-30-23-44-0011 07-30-23-34-0043 07-30-23-11-0031 06-30-23-23-0041 07-30-23-34-0034 06-30-23-44-0018 07-30-23-34-0042 17-30-23-14-0009 06-30-23-24-0071 07-30-23-33-0036 06-30-23-44-0013 07-30-23-34-0016 05-30-23-44-0026 06-30-23-23-0008 07-30-23-33-0014 06-30-23-44-0019 07-30-23-34-0005 05-30-23-44-0091 06-30-23-24-0070 08-30-23-24-0021 06-30-23-44-0016 07-30-23-34-0004 08-30-23-31-0061 06-30-23-23-0009 08-30-23-31-0005 06-30-23-41-0038 07-30-23-34-0013 17-30-23-14-0005 06-30-23-23-0010 08-30-23-32-0004 06-30-23-41-0036 07-30-23-34-0003 17-30-23-14-0004 06-30-23-24-0049 08-30-23-32-0006 06-30-23-41-0035 07-30-23-34-0002 17-30-23-14-0003 06-30-23-23-0027 08-30-23-32-0005 06-30-23-41-0015 07-30-23-31-0040 17-30-23-14-0002 06-30-23-22-0022 08-30-23-32-0007 06-30-23-41-0033 07-30-23-31-0049 17-30-23-14-0001 06-30-23-22-0021 08-30-23-32-0111 06-30-23-41-0019 07-30-23-31-0013 07-30-23-33-0015 06-30-23-22-0020 08-30-23-32-0108 06-30-23-41-0029 07-30-23-31-0012 07-30-23-33-0013 06-30-23-22-0016 08-30-23-32-0072 06-30-23-41-0028 07-30-23-31-0033 07-30-23-33-0029 06-30-23-22-0026 08-30-23-32-0107 06-30-23-41-0024 07-30-23-31-0032 07-30-23-33-0012 06-30-23-22-0091 07-30-23-31-0002 06-30-23-11-0017 07-30-23-31-0031 07-30-23-33-0011 06-30-23-22-0086 07-30-23-31-0004 07-30-23-24-0024 07-30-23-31-0010 07-30-23-33-0028 06-30-23-22-0077 07-30-23-24-0017 07-30-23-24-0005 07-30-23-31-0030 07-30-23-33-0010 08-30-23-24-0028 07-30-23-31-0025 07-30-23-21-0023 07-30-23-31-0029 07-30-23-33-0027 08-30-23-24-0043 07-30-23-24-0016 06-30-23-34-0080 07-30-23-24-0018 07-30-23-33-0025 07-30-23-42-0057 07-30-23-31-0026 06-30-23-34-0033 07-30-23-24-0019 07-30-23-33-0007 06-30-23-43-0117 07-30-23-31-0027 06-30-23-34-0016 07-30-23-24-0031 07-30-23-33-0006 06-30-23-42-0028 07-30-23-31-0028 06-30-23-34-0025 07-30-23-24-0030 07-30-23-33-0004 06-30-23-42-0005 07-30-23-32-0001 06-30-23-31-0042 07-30-23-24-0028 07-30-23-33-0003 05-30-23-44-0058 07-30-23-23-0015 06-30-23-31-0029 07-30-23-24-0011 07-30-23-33-0001 05-30-23-44-0059 07-30-23-23-0014 06-30-23-31-0016 07-30-23-24-0056 07-30-23-33-0020 05-30-23-44-0066 07-30-23-23-0013 06-30-23-31-0028 07-30-23-21-0049 07-30-23-22-0032 05-30-23-43-0064 City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 4 1 P a g e 07-30-23-23-0012 06-30-23-31-0017 07-30-23-21-0050 07-30-23-22-0031 05-30-23-43-0057 08-30-23-12-0050 06-30-23-31-0027 07-30-23-21-0061 07-30-23-22-0030 08-30-23-32-0049 08-30-23-12-0051 06-30-23-31-0026 07-30-23-21-0036 06-30-23-23-0021 08-30-23-32-0048 05-30-23-34-0063 06-30-23-31-0242 07-30-23-21-0055 06-30-23-23-0038 08-30-23-32-0043 08-30-23-21-0047 06-30-23-31-0019 07-30-23-21-0056 06-30-23-22-0085 07-30-23-31-0020 08-30-23-22-0007 06-30-23-31-0024 06-30-23-21-0077 08-30-23-44-0009 07-30-23-31-0019 08-30-23-22-0008 06-30-23-31-0007 08-30-23-13-0062 08-30-23-14-0065 07-30-23-32-0015 08-30-23-22-0040 06-30-23-31-0105 08-30-23-13-0028 08-30-23-14-0066 07-30-23-32-0013 05-30-23-33-0017 06-30-23-21-0104 08-30-23-13-0036 05-30-23-41-0018 07-30-23-32-0012 05-30-23-33-0098 06-30-23-21-0022 08-30-23-13-0065 05-30-23-41-0016 07-30-23-32-0011 06-30-23-44-0069 06-30-23-21-0026 05-30-23-24-0017 08-30-23-14-0029 07-30-23-32-0018 06-30-23-34-0010 06-30-23-21-0034 05-30-23-24-0041 06-30-23-12-0101 07-30-23-34-0035 07-30-23-22-0039 06-30-23-21-0036 05-30-23-24-0043 06-30-23-42-0055 07-30-23-43-0055 07-30-23-22-0027 06-30-23-21-0037 06-30-23-13-0048 06-30-23-42-0053 07-30-23-34-0055 07-30-23-22-0028 08-30-23-31-0070 06-30-23-13-0052 06-30-23-42-0030 07-30-23-34-0008 07-30-23-22-0029 08-30-23-42-0013 06-30-23-13-0054 06-30-23-42-0032 05-30-23-23-0021 06-30-23-22-0080 08-30-23-42-0005 06-30-23-24-0018 06-30-23-42-0034 05-30-23-23-0022 06-30-23-22-0089 08-30-23-42-0004 06-30-23-24-0022 06-30-23-42-0035 05-30-23-23-0023 06-30-23-22-0102 08-30-23-42-0003 06-30-23-31-0021 06-30-23-42-0044 05-30-23-23-0024 07-30-23-41-0140 08-30-23-31-0075 07-30-23-44-0115 06-30-23-13-0018 05-30-23-23-0025 06-30-23-44-0029 08-30-23-31-0069 08-30-23-33-0048 06-30-23-13-0045 05-30-23-23-0034 06-30-23-44-0030 08-30-23-31-0071 08-30-23-32-0075 06-30-23-12-0022 05-30-23-23-0035 06-30-23-44-0032 08-30-23-22-0039 08-30-23-32-0074 06-30-23-12-0018 05-30-23-32-0017 06-30-23-44-0050 06-30-23-43-0016 06-30-23-44-0059 06-30-23-12-0120 05-30-23-32-0038 06-30-23-44-0049 06-30-23-43-0028 05-30-23-33-0011 06-30-23-12-0103 05-30-23-32-0036 06-30-23-44-0048 06-30-23-43-0029 05-30-23-33-0010 06-30-23-12-0107 05-30-23-32-0022 06-30-23-44-0038 06-30-23-34-0001 05-30-23-33-0009 06-30-23-12-0122 05-30-23-32-0023 06-30-23-44-0041 06-30-23-31-0014 05-30-23-33-0007 06-30-23-12-0037 05-30-23-32-0026 05-30-23-32-0032 05-30-23-23-0048 05-30-23-23-0036 05-30-23-23-0049 06-30-23-14-0066 Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the EDA or City only in order to accomplish one or more of the following: carry out land acquisition; demolition of structures; rehabilitation of housing and commercial units; relocation; construction of new residential and commercial units; site improvements; storm sewer improvements; roadway improvements, provide land for needed public streets, sidewalks, alley ways, utilities and facilities to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The EDA or City may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 5 1 P 9 g e objectives of this TIF Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs. G. Estimate of Costs The public costs associated with this project are outlined in Appendix "D", Project Costs. It is expected that the public costs will be financed by the City. (AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 13, 2000) The budget history and estimate of authorized public costs associated with this project are outlined in Appendix "D", Budget History and Estimate of Project Costs. H. Estimated Amount of Indebtedness See Appendix "D" of this Plan. I. Sources of Revenue The principle source of revenue to be used to finance public costs associated with the projects in the redevelopment project is tax increment financing. Tax increment financing refers to a funding technique that utilizes increases in tax capacity valuation and the properly taxes attributed to new development to finance, or assist in the financing of public development costs. See Appendix "E" for Revenue Projections. The City may from time to time utilize other revenue sources to finance public costs. (AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 13, 2000) The principal source of revenue to be used to finance public costs associated with the projects in the redevelopment project is tax increment financing. The City reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Modification to the Municipal Development District Plan and the Modified Plan, including, but not limited to, general property taxes, state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the developer, investment income, and undesignated municipal funds to pay for the estimated public costs. Appendix D includes a detailed estimate of the Sources of Revenue being authorized for the District. J. Original Tax Capacity Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 1 and Section 469.177, Subdivision 1, the Original Assessed Capacity (OAC) for the City of Mounds View tax increment financing redevelopment district 93 is based on the value placed on the property by the County Assessor in 1987. This assessed value is $86,246. Each year the Office of the County Auditor will measure the amount of increase or decrease in the total assessed value of the tax increment redevelopment district to calculate the tax increment payable to the redevelopment district fund. In any year in which there is an increase in total assessed valuation, no assessed valuation in the tax increment redevelopment district above the adjusted original assessed value, a tax increment will be payable. In any year in which the City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 6 111 a g e total assessed valuation in the tax increment financing redevelopment district declines below the original assessed valuation, no assessed valuation will be captured and no tax increment will be payable. The County Auditor shall certify in each year after the date the Original Assessed Value was certified, the amount the OAV has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. change in tax exempt status of property; 2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. change due to stipulations, adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements. (AS MODIFIED MARCH 26, 1989) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision I and Section 469.177, Subdivision 1, the Original Tax Capacity (OTC) for the City of Mounds View tax increment financing redevelopment district #3 is based on the value placed on the property by the County Assessor in 1987. This tax capacity is $9,369. Each year the Office of the County Auditor will measure the amount of increase or decrease in the total tax capacity of the tax increment redevelopment district to calculate the tax increment payable to the redevelopment district fund. hi any year in which there is an increase in total tax capacity in the tax increment redevelopment district above the adjusted original tax capacity, a tax increment will be payable. In any year in which the total tax capacity in the tax increment financing redevelopment district declines below the original tax capacity, no tax capacity will be captured and no tax increment will be payable. The County Auditor shall certify in each year after the date the Original Tax Capacity was certified, the amount the OTC has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. change in tax exempt status of property; 2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. change due to stipulations, adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements. K. Estimated Captured Tax Capacity Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 1 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 2, the estimated present value of Captured Assessed Value (CAV) of the tax increment financing redevelopment district, with all phases completed, will annually approximate $5,068,376. This amount will be captured in phases (see Appendix "E") for up to twenty-five years or until the debt is retired. City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 7 1 P a g e (AS MODIFIED MARCH 26, 1989) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 1 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 2, the estimated value of Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) for Phase I of the tax increment financing redevelopment district will annually approximate $295,000 while Phase II is estimated at $236,000. This amount will be captured in phases (see Appendix "E") for up to twenty-five years or until the debt is retired for Phase I and all Phase II costs have been amortized. L. Duration of the District Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 1, the duration of the tax increment district within the Development District must be indicated within the finance plan. The duration of the tax increment district will be 25 years from the date of receipt of the first tax increment, including any modifications to the finance plan for subsequent phases or other changes. (AS MODIFIED OCTOBER 8, 2012) Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b, the duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the City (a total of 26 years of tax increment). The date of receipt by the City of the first tax increment was 1989. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after December 31, 2014, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. M. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The impact of the use of tax dollars represented as tax increments for project costs is estimated below for each taxing jurisdiction. This estimate is based on the existing development proposals and does not include the possible tax increments derived from any other future development, mill changes, or inflation factors. Total Assessed Value Tax Increment Finance District 1/2/87 Total $ 86,240 Latest Assessed Value of Each Government Body: % or District to Total Ramsey County $3,315892,299 .0026 School District $605,174,784 .0142 City of Mounds View $59,887,551 .1440 Considering all the districts, it can be seen from the above that the school and county City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 81 P a g c districts will have over 99% of each respective district available for normal growth of tax base or valuation. Applying the percentage of the total mill rate estimate in 1988 levied by each taxing jurisdiction to the project3ed mill rate and the estimated tax increment received reveals the annual loss of tax dollars by each taxing jurisdiction as listed in the table below ASSUMING DEVELOPMENT WOULD OCCUR WITHOUT PUBLIC ASSISTANCE. The finance plan indicates an anticipated tax increment at build out as follows: Tax Increment Finance District ##3 Captured Tax Increment Assessed Received Valuation $5,068,376 $593,000 Based on an estimated mill rate, the estimated taxes received would be as follows for the taxing bodies: The following table represents the additional mills that would have to be levied to compensate for the loss of tax dollars in estimated tax increments for each taxing jurisdiction. The tax increments derived from the development alluded to in the tax increment district would not be available to any of the taxing jurisdictions were it not for public intervention by the City. Although the increases in assessed value due to development will not be available for the application of the mill levy for the duration of the tax increment financing district, this new assessed value could eventually permit a mill levy decrease. If it could be assumed that the captured assessed value was available for each taxing jurisdiction, the non -receipt of tax dollars represented as tax increments may be determined. This determination is facilitated by estimating how much the mill levy for property outside of the tax increment financing district would have to be increased to raise the same amount of tax dollars in each taxing jurisdiction that would be available if the projects occurred WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF THE CITY. Mills Percent Tax Increment City 16.742 14.3 84,799 County 33.730 28.8 170,784 School District 59.076 50.5 299,465 Other 7.378 6_4 37.952 Total 116.926 100.00 593,000 The following table represents the additional mills that would have to be levied to compensate for the loss of tax dollars in estimated tax increments for each taxing jurisdiction. The tax increments derived from the development alluded to in the tax increment district would not be available to any of the taxing jurisdictions were it not for public intervention by the City. Although the increases in assessed value due to development will not be available for the application of the mill levy for the duration of the tax increment financing district, this new assessed value could eventually permit a mill levy decrease. If it could be assumed that the captured assessed value was available for each taxing jurisdiction, the non -receipt of tax dollars represented as tax increments may be determined. This determination is facilitated by estimating how much the mill levy for property outside of the tax increment financing district would have to be increased to raise the same amount of tax dollars in each taxing jurisdiction that would be available if the projects occurred WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF THE CITY. *Tax Increment District assessed valuation subtracted. City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 91 P a g c Adjusted*Assessed Required Without F.D. Value Mills Contribution School District $604,464,784 .495 299,465 County $3,315,182,299 .052 170,784 City $59,177,551 1.432 84,799 *Tax Increment District assessed valuation subtracted. City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 91 P a g c (AS MODIFIED MARCH 13, 1989) The impact of the use of tax dollars represented as tax increments for project costs is estimated below for each taxing jurisdiction. This estimate is based on the existing development proposals and does not include the possible tax increments derived from any other future development, rate changes, inflation factors, or Tax Increment District Nos. 1 and 2. Tests: The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction would have occurred without the creation of Tax Increment Financing District No.3. If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the impact is $0 to other entities. Notwithstanding the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdiction is $0 due to the fact that the financing would not have occurred without the assistance of the City, the following estimated impact of Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 would be as follows if Test No. I (the "but for" test) was not met. Total Tax Capacity Value Tax Increment Finance District No. 3 1/2/87 Total $9,369 Latest Tax Capacity Value of Each Government Bodes % of District to Total City of Mounds View 7,306,281 .1282 County of Ramsey 404,538,860 .0023 School District 73,831,323 .0127 Considering the above taxing jurisdictions, it can be seen that the City, School and County Districts will have over 99% of each respective district available for normal growth of tax base or valuation from this tax increment district. Applying the percentage of the total tax capacity rate in 1989 levied by the above taxing jurisdictions to the projected tax capacity rate and the estimated tax increment received reveals the amoral use of tax dollars for project costs as it affects each taxing jurisdiction. Anticipating a tax increment at build out as described in Appendix E, Section 11, "Tax Increment Estimate," and utilizing the current tax capacity rate, the estimated taxes received would be as follows for the taxing bodies: Captured Tax Tax Increment Capacity Phase I Tax Increment Finance District $295,031 $258,400 City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 10 111 a g c Based on the current tax capacity rate, the estimated taxes received would be as follows for the taxing bodies: Entily Tax Capacity Rate Percent Phase I Tax Increment Capacity Rat Contributions City 10.621 11.58 29,922 County 28.380 30.97 80,026 School District 46.168' 50.37 130,156 Other 6.477 7.08 18,296 TOTAL 91.646' 100.00% $258,400 Confirmed 4.051 tax capacity rate referendum. A tax capacity rate of 87.595 may be used to estimate tax increment. 2. A frozen original tax capacity rate is not applicable to pre -May 1, 1988 districts since the district was approved in February of 1988 and certified prior to May 1, 1988. The following tables represent the additional tax capacity rates that would have to be levied to compensate for the loss of dollars in estimated tax increments for each jurisdiction. The tax increments derived from the development alluded to in the tax increment district would not be available to any of the jurisdictions were it not for public intervention by the City. Although the increases in tax capacity value due to development will not be "available for the application of the tax capacity rate for the duration of the tax increment financing district, this new tax capacity value could eventually permit a tax capacity rate decrease. If it could be assumed that the captured tax capacity value was available for each jurisdiction, the nonreceipt of dollars represented as tax increments may be determined. This determination is facilitated by estimating how much the tax capacity rate for property outside of the tax increment financing district would have to be increased to raise the same amount of dollars in each jurisdiction that would be available if the projects occurred WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF THE CITY. Adjusted Tax' Required Tax Without F.D. Capacity Value Capacity Rat Contributions City $7,219,661 .4145 $29,992 County $404,452,240 .0198 80,026 School District $73,744,703 .1765 130,156 1. Tax Increment District Tax Capacity Valuation Subtracted. N. Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 4, any reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the project or tax increment financing district, increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination or capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized, increase in the portion of the captured tax capacity to be retained by the City, increase in total estimated City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 11 I P a g e tax increment expenditures or designation of additional properly to be acquired by the authority shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original plan. The geographic area of a tax increment financing district may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original tax capacity by the county auditor. The tax increment financing redevelopment district may therefore be expanded until 1993. O. Limitation on Administrative Expenses In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 14 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 3, administrative expenses means all expenditures of an authority other than amounts paid for the purchase of land or amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the district, relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the district or amounts used to pay interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to Section 469.178. Administrative expenses includes amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. No tax increment shall be used to pay any administrative expenses for a project which exceed ten percent of the total tax increment expenditures authorized by the tax increment financing plan or the total tax increment expenditures for the project, whichever is less. P. Limitation on Duration of Tax Increment Financing Districts Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 1, "no tax increment shall be paid to an authority... three years from the date of certification... by the County Auditor... unless within the three-year period (1) bonds have been issued pursuant to Section 469.178 or in aid of a project pursuant to any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.165, prior to August 1, 1979; or (2) the authority has acquired property within the district; or (3) the authority has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within the district..." The City must therefore issue bonds, or acquire property, or construct or cause public improvements to be constructed by 1991 or the Office of the County Auditor may dissolve the tax increment financing district. Q. Limitation on Qualification of Property in Tax Increment District Not Subject to Improvement Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.176, Subdivision 6, "if, after four years from the date of certification of the original assessed value of the tax increment financing district..., no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of parcel or other site preparation including improvement of a street adjacent to a property but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel and the original assessed value of that parcel shall be excluded from the original assessed value of the tax increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 12 1 P a g e or other site preparation on that parcel including improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor in the annual disclosure report that the activity has commenced. The county auditor shall certify the assessed value thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original assessed value of the tax increment financing district. R. Limitation on the Use of Tax Increment All revenues derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the tax increment financing plan. The revenues shall be used to finance or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs pursuant Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No revenues derived from tax increment shall be used for the construction or renovation of a municipal owned building used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of the municipality; this provision shall not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure, a commons area used as a public park or a facility used for social, recreational or conference purposes and not primarily for conducting the business of the municipality. S. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.177, Subdivision 4, the City has reviewed and searched the properties to be included in the tax increment financing redevelopment district and found no properties for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the tax increment financing plan by the city. If the building permit had been issued within the 18 month period preceding approval of the tax increment financing plan by the city, the county auditor shall increase the original assessed value of the district by the assessed valuation of the improvements for which the building permit was issued, EXCLUDING THE ASSESSED VALUATION OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED DURING THE THREE MONTH PERIOD IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING SAID APPROVAL OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN BY THE CITY COUNCIL. T. Excess Tax Increments Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 2, in any year in which the tax increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the tax increment plan, including the amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3, the City shall use the excess amount to: Prepay the outstanding bonds; 2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment therefore; 3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bond; City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 13 1 P it g c 4. Repay any loans including interest on these loans; or 5. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions to proportion to their mill rate. U. Requirement for Agreements with the Developer Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(3), no parcel shall be included within a redevelopment district pursuant to this paragraph unless the authority has concluded an agreement for the development of at least 50% of the acreage having the unusual soil or terrain deficiencies which agreement provides recourse for the City should the development not be completed. V. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 8, the City may, upon entering into a development agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.176, Subdivision 5, enter into an agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the tax increment financing district which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the tax increment redevelopment district. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the county assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the assessor may certify the minimum market value agreement. W. Administration of the Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment District and Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account Administration of the tax increment financing redevelopment district will be handled by the Office of the Clerk -Administrator. The tax increment received as a result of increases in the assessed value of the tax increment financing redevelopment district will be maintained in a special account separate from all other municipal accounts and expended only upon sanctioned municipal activities identified in the finance plan. (AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 13, 2000) Administration of the tax increment financing redevelopment district will be handled by the City of Mounds View's E.D.A. Executive Director. Consistent with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 5, requiring that "tax increment received with respect to any district shall be segregated by the authority in a special account or accounts on its official books and records or as otherwise established by resolution of the authority to be held by a trustee or trustees for the benefit of holders City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 14 11' a g c of the bond," the EDA will account for all increment from the Tax increment Districts in one or more accounts and subaccounts, including the ability where deemed appropriate to establish one or more accounts for the proper accounting and implementation of the Tax increment Financing Districts and the portion of the Project to be financing directly or indirectly with tax increment. The right to make appropriate transfers in and out of such accounts is hereby reserved, along with the right to make both external and internal interest bearing borrowings, whether long term or short tern, including transfers from other city or EDA funds to cash flow tax increment obligations and other legitimate expenditures. X. Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 5, an authority must file an annual disclosure report for all tax increment financing districts. The report shall be filed with the school board, county board and the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development. The report shall include the following information: I. The original assessed value of the district; 2. The captured assessed value of the district, including the amount of any captured assessed value shared with other taxing districts; 3. The outstanding principal amount or bonds issued or other loans insured to finance project costs in the district; 4. For the reporting period and for the duration of the district, the amount budgeted under the tax increment financing plan, and the actual amount expended for, at least, the following categories: a. Acquisition of land and buildings through condemnation or purchase; b. Site improvements or preparation costs; C. Installation of public utilities or other public improvements; d. Administrative costs, including the allocated cost of the authority. For properties sold to developers, the total cost of the property to the authority and the price paid by the developer; Y. Assumptions City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 15 1 P a e c It was necessary to make certain assumptions regarding income, costs and timing of the tax increment redevelopment district. These assumptions are based on discussions with city officials and developers. Z. Municipal Findings Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3, before or at the time of approval of the tax increment financing plan, the municipality shall make the following findings and shall set forth the reasons and supporting information for the determination (see Appendix B): 1. The proposed development or redevelopment, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonable foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary since the developers could not construct the improvements without the use of tax increments to assist with the financing of soil correction; and 2. The tax increment financing plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound of the City as a whole, for the development by private enterprise as it will enable the City to provide a suitable site, via soil correction for development; thereby encouraging development in the area. 3. The tax increment financing plan conforms to the general plan for the development of the city as a whole. 4. The tax increment district to be established is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10 in which the conditions described in Section E of this plan exist. ZZ. Fiscal Disparities Treatment The City will elect the method of tax increment computation pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.177, Subdivision 3, clause (a), consequently, the district shall be created with the election to spread the fiscal disparities contribution outside the tax increment district. City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 161 P a g e APPENDIX A LIST OF PROPERTY IN PROPOSED TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 3 PRORERTY IDENTIFICATION NO. 05-30-23-21-0001-5 05-30-23-22-0001-2 06-30-23-11-00027 (AS MODIFIED AUGUST 22, 2005) The following parcels are being decertified from TIF District No. 3 to be included in TIF District No. 5: 05-30-23-21-0005 05-30-23-21-0006 (AS MODIFIED OCTOBER 8, 2012) The following parcels are located within TIF District No. 3: 05-30-23-21-0002 05-30-23-21-0007 05-30-23-21-0011 05-30-23-21-0012 05-30-23-22-0009 City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 171 P a g e City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 18 111 a g c APPENDIX B DISTRICT STATUS See original TIF Plan dated February 22, 1988 and the modification to the TIF Plan dated March 13. 1989. City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 191 P u g e APPENDIX C ELIGIBILITY It is proposed that the tax increment district is a redevelopment district under the blighted land provisions of the law. The basis of this finding originates with the Braun Report, Titled "Wetland Evaluation", Miller Industrial Park, September 1983. The Report indicates that the vast majority of the evaluated area has soil, water or other conditions requiring correcting before buildings can be built,. It would appear that the 80 percent rule is met as well as the cost to cure. The basis for the finding of blight is that the cost of the land plus the cost to correct the soil is higher cost per unit of land that a similar unit of land within the City without any problems. The land has remained undeveloped after the studies for nearly five years. Considering that other industrial development has proceeded within the City, the cost factor would be the logical reasoning for non -development of the proposed industrial/commercial park. Therefore, based on the Braun Report and the extra costs required to correct the soil, the tax increment district will be defined a redevelopment district in this plan. City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 20 111 a g e APPENDIX D PROJECT COSTS MILLER INDUSTRIAL PARK RANOR Araqufslrlan/SoI1 COrrectlon Aralstance $ 900,000 - $1,300,380 City Costs 40,0011 - 80,000 RLCRP.ATIONAt, PROJECT Gulf Course Development $1,070,000 $1,430,000 C014TINC:EPtC[[:5 100,000 - 150,000 CAPITALIZEDINTLRE T 975,000 1,7,00,000 TOTAL $3,385,000 - $4,140,000 1SOND CAPACITY (Tex (norernunt. Estimake from Appendix "E°) - 9.5% ltttnl'RSt, 12 )rear Amort! ,...ion 3 Year Capitolized Interest Not - .AVter Capitalized htterust Phusel :$ 6111,000 phacet( ^u30,000 - 770,000 Phase 111 770,000 - 965,000 Phase P/ 201);000 - 460,000 Totn,l plet Bond Proceeds (hounded) $2,•110,000 - $2,940,0Oii City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 21 1 P a g c (AS MODIFIED MARCH 13, 1989) SYSCO/Continental Mounds View Project RANGE Project Costs $1,363,100 - $1,800,000 Capitalized Interest 312,000 - Bond Discount 26,400 -- Costs of Issuance 24,500 - City Development Costs - 24,000 Plan Preparation 10,000 - City Administeation(P.D.) 200,000 - 250,000 RECREATIONAL PROJECT Golf Course Development $1,370,000 - $1,430,000 WATER SYSTEM UPGRADE 1,700,000 - 1,800,000 CONTINGENCIES 100,000 - 150,000 CAPITALIZED INTEREST 350,000 - 500,000 TOTAL $5,480,000 - $5,930,000 BOND CAPACITY (Tax Increment Estimate from Appendix "E") Total Issue phase I (SYSCO) $1,700,000 - $1,850,000 Phase ll(Water & Recreational) 3,780,000 - 4,080.000 Total issue Range (Rounded) $5,480,000 - $5,930,000 City of Mounds View "PIP District No. 3 Modification 22 1 P a g e (AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 13, 2000) City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 23 1 P a e e APPENDIX E ESTIMATE OF TAX INCREMENTS 17$TIMATL'• Op TAX INCREMENTS PHA19V I 60,000 SF Manufacturing/Warchouse u 75,000 38,000 S1+Office/Retail $ 40,000 - v 6ifi,tl00 PHASP [I 70,000 uC Manufacturiug(Y7arehouse $ 85,000 105,000 34,I100 SP Office/Retail $ 42,000 - '> 50,000 PHASE HI 70,000 SI? Manufacturing/4Yurchausu $ 85,000 - $ 105,ows 56,000 SF OiLlee/Rntall $ 0,(IUO $ 90,000 PHASE IV '10,000 L P1a.e,faetnrinr,•/`.Jarrhousc £ 40,000 - $ c; 'goo 3z,000 air affi(Witolen $ 40,000 48,888 The mix of the development will depend on t[,e sueeess of the, mir, in the Everest Project presently underway. TOTALS - 230,000 ManufacturineYWarehouse - 260,000 Olfico/Retail $465,000 to $593,000 'Pax Increments at Buildout. City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 24 1 P a g c (AS MODIFIED MARCH 13, 1989) ESTIMATE OF TAX INCREMENTS PHASE I Range 250,000 SF Office/Warehouse $ 240,000 - $ 260,000 PHASE II 200,000 SF Office/Warehouse $ 160,000 - $ 220,000, TOTALS $ 420,000 - $ 460,000 The City fiscal consultant calculated that the $5,900,000 market value for the Phase 1 250,000 square foot project would produce a tax capacity of $304,000 for taxes payable 1991 and $302,000 for taxes payable in 1992. After converting the original market value of the district to tax capacity ($215,000 to $9,369) and subtracting from the estimate, a captured tax capacity of $295,031 for payable 1991 and $292,631 payable in 1992 was determined. An adjustment was made to the tax capacity rate for LS.D. referendum levy resulting in an estimated tax Increment range of approximately $252,000 to $254,000 annually. This tax increment estimate was used to determine an estimated bond size of $1,760,000 for project Phase I costs. Phase II costs will be financed with either a bond or a "pay- as-you-go" from tax increments produced by Phase 11 increments. City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 25 1 Y a g c 261Pagc (AS MODIFIED MARCH 13, 1989) APPENDIX F Property Assessed Occupied/ DATA SUMMARY Value Vacant A_ Cq Property Assessed Occupied/ V X Lot Soil id, c�ntifiention Value Vncant ACS Typ B IfOt 05-30 SS -21-000L-5 $2.5,320 v x Lot Soil 05-30-23-22-0001-7. 40,000 v Y Lot Soll 06-30-23-43-0001 l?. 07.0 v -- Lot Soil TOTAI $86,240 District No. 3 Modification ACC = PavcLN in Conditional Acquisition 261Pagc (AS MODIFIED MARCH 13, 1989) Property Assessed Occupied/ Identification Value Vacant A_ Cq Type H1_ i�,ht 05-30-23-21-0001-5 $25,320 V X Lot Soil 05-30-23-22-0001-2 46,000 V x Lot Soil 06-30-23-43-0001 12,920 V X Lot Soil TOTAL $86,240 ACQ = Parcels in Acquisition City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 261Pagc APPENDIX G r��yivar�i�r>;y See original TIF Plan dated February 22, 1988 and the modification to the TIF Plan dated March 13, 1989. City of Mounds View TIF District No. 3 Modification 27 1 P a g e PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 5, 2012 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for September 5, 2012. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Miller, Rundle, Schiltgen, Stevenson and Smith. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes I VR2012-004. Consideration of a Variance for Reduced Parking Lot 2 Setbacks at Tires N' More 3. Approval of Minutes August 1, 2012. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Rundle. To approve the Minutes of the August 1, 2012 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 5, 2012 Page 2 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda 5. Planning Cases A. VR2012-004 Consideration of a Variance for Reduced Parking Lot Setbacks at Tires N' More Applicant: Tires N' More — Naoufel Soussi Address: 2832 County Road 10 Planning Associate Heller indicated Naoufel Soussi with Tires N' More at 2832 County Road 10 would be installing a new parking lot with curb and gutter. The applicant is requesting variances for reduced parking lot setbacks on three sides of the property. The previous owners of the building had originally intended to redevelop the property along with the CVS development in 2005, and were working with Velmeir (the CVS developer) on improving the parking lot and sharing the County Road 10 driveway access. Associate Heller explained the applicant's rear parking lot was removed by Velmeir in anticipation of reconstruction that would be done with CVS's parking lot. The previous owner did not sign off on the plans, so Velmeir did not complete the 2832 County Road 10 building's parking lot and it remains uncompleted. Associate Heller commented Mr. Soussi purchased the property at 2832 County Road 10 and will be using the existing building, which does not have its own access to County Road 10. There are driveway and parking easements in place with both the Simon's building at 2840 County Road 10 and CVS at 2800 County Road 10. Associate Heller stated the Tires N' More building is not sitting parallel to County Road 10, which means there is an angle to the front property line. The front parking lot is quite small and not safe to have more than one vehicle maneuvering at a time. The applicant will primarily use the CVS County Road 10 driveway for access to the business. Customers would enter and exit from this location and park in the rear of the building. Customers would then use the sidewalk along the east side of the building to walk to the front door of the store. She discussed the location of the storm pond on the site noting the pond served both Tires N' More and CVS. Associate Heller explained that the building currently has asphalt only in the front and along the west side of the building, and both of these areas are paved up to the property line. The applicant has requested a five (5) foot setback for the front parking lot, which would match the five (5) foot parking lot setbacks at CVS. Staff reviewed the requested setbacks in further detail with the Commission for each side of the property. Associate Heller stated that staff has been in contact with the attorney representing the property owner of 2800 County Road 10 JK & SK MN, LLC. JK & SK MN, LLC does not want the applicant using any of their property that is not included in the easement agreements. Mr. Soussi will need to modify the original plan and have agreement from JK & SK MN, LLC before the Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 5, 2012 Page 3 City will approve any variances for the east property line. She recommended the Commission discuss the item in detail, open the Public Hearing and table the item until to the September 19, 2012 meeting where further information will be available on the modified plan between Tires N' More and CVS. Commissioner Cramblit was in favor of a zero lot line and a retaining wall along the front of the east side rather than have a small island. Naoufel Soussi, 2832 County Road 10, stated this may benefit the property and a small retaining wall could be built to separate the properties. Associate Heller reviewed several photos of the site with the Commission. Commissioner Meehlhause questioned if access to the site would be confusing given the numerous access points to the site. He suggested the traffic flow in from one side and exit from the other. Associate Heller commented directional signs would be needed to direct customers to the rear of the building. Mr. Soussi discussed the layout of his Fridley location stating it was similar to this site noting directional signs would assist in directing clients to the entrance. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if the parking in the front should be eliminated all together. Mr. Soussi noted parking in the front would be very short term. Commissioner Smith inquired how many customers were anticipated to be onsite at any given time. Mr. Soussi stated at most there may be six cars during a busy time, but on average two to three cars. He noted the employees would be parking in the rear of the building. Commissioner Miller questioned how many people would be employed at this location. Mr. Soussi stated there would be five employees at the Mounds View Tires N' More. Commissioner Smith recommended the exiting traffic from the Tires N' More property only be allowed to make a left to assure that traffic went directly to County Road 10 and not behind the CVS building to Silver Lake Road. The Commission agreed with this suggestion. Chair Stevenson understood CVS's concerns with traffic flowing through their parking lot to Silver Lake Road. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 5, 2012 Page 4 Associate Heller commented the City could not regulate the flow of traffic through the parking lot. Chair Stevenson questioned the likelihood of having the modified plans completed by the September 19th meeting. Associate Heller stated that Mr. Soussi was willing to revise his plans but it would likely take until at least the October 3`d meeting to get the modified plan and hear back from the adjacent owner's representative. Chair Stevenson recommended the applicant consider putting a retaining wall between the two properties on the east property line which would allow the driveway along the east side of the building to be wider. Associate Heller indicated this could be considered through the new plans. She noted the retaining wall may be a concern in the winter months for plow trucks. Commissioner Cramblit did not object to the requested setbacks. Commissioner Meehlhause questioned where the trash receptacles would be located. Mr. Soussi described the general proposed location in the rear of the building. He commented the exact area would be finalized after the parking lot issues were resolved, and the dumpster enclosure built after the parking lot is constructed. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Chair Stevenson recommended the Commission table action on the item and hold the public hearing open to the September 19, 2012 meeting or whenever this was brought back to the Commission. MOTION/SECOND: Chair Stevenson/Commissioner Cramblit. To table the Tires N' More request to the September 19, 2012 Planning Commission meeting or until the modified plans were ready for review. Planning Case No. VR2012-004. Ayes — 7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 6. Other Planning Activity None. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. September 19, 2012 B. October 3, 2012 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session September 5, 2012 Page 5 There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:41 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA November 7, 2012 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: September 5, 2012 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. PA2012-001: Consideration of an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development Agreement to Reduce the County Road 10 Setback Requirement Applicant: Apple Tree Dental Address: 2442 County Road 10 6. Other Planning Activity None 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. November 21, 2012 B. December 5, 2012 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. October 3, 2012 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion MOTAT Item No: 5A L DS VIEW Meeting Date: November? 2012 Type of Business: Action City of Mounds View .Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of an Amendment to the O'Neil Property Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement to Reduce the Highway 10 Setback Requirement for 2442 Highway 10; Planning Case PA2012-001 Introduction: Apple Tree Dental has a purchase agreement to buy the currently vacant building at 2442 Highway 10, on the southeast corner of Highway 10 and Long Lake Road. This property is zoned PUD, and is part of the O'Neil Property Planned Unit Development. Apple Tree plans to open a comprehensive dental clinic and house their corporate offices in Mounds View. They will be doing an extensive interior build -out, and need to make two additions to the exterior of the building. One of the changes to the exterior includes adding a stair tower to the middle of the northeast wall of the building (the Highway 10 side). This addition would encroach into the 30 foot setback from Highway 10 that is required in the PUD Agreement. Apple Tree Dental is requesting an amendment to the PUD Agreement to reduce the setback requirement to 20 feet. Discussion: The O'Neil Property PUD is a large development that includes the 2442 Highway 10 office building, Wynnsong movie theater, the small retail mall next to the theater, and the office building at 2408 Highway 10, next to Moe's Restaurant. It also originally included another parcel that is now Moe's parking lot. The City approved the O'Neil Property PUD in 1998, and since then there have been challenges with determining the right uses, vacancies and foreclosure. The 2442 Highway 10 property is considered Parcel Ain the development, and there have been other PUD amendments for this parcel. This parcel was originally designated for a restaurant use. When attracting a restaurant wasn't successful, the developer requested an amendment in 2003 to allow office use, and the current office building was constructed. After construction, the office building remained vacant until 2006 when the business "Let's Get Graphic" showed interest, but they needed a large garage. Another PUD amendment was done to allow accessory buildings, and print production and fabrication businesses. The attached garage was then constructed on the building and Let's Get Graphic moved in. They moved out a few years later, the building went into foreclosure and has been vacant ever since. The building at 2442 Highway 10 is setback 30 feet from the northeast property line (Highway 10 side), which is the required setback per the PUD Agreement. Apple Tree Dental is proposing to move the existing staircase that is currently in the middle of the building to the side of the building in a new stair tower that extends out from the side of the building. The exterior dimensions of the stair tower are 22 feet wide by 10 feet deep. This addition would then give the building a setback of 20 feet. City staff recommends that the trail be shifted over a few feet where it runs next to the stair tower to put some space between the building and the asphalt. Planning Case PA2012-001 Staff Report Page 2 Amendment Process: An amendment to a Planned Unit Development is processed as would an amendment to an approved Conditional Use Permit, which is to say that the procedural requirements of Section 1125 of the Zoning Code would be followed. Section 1125 requires that the Planning Commission and City Council review the request, taking into consideration any and all potential adverse effects of the proposed amendment. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan: Mounds View's adopted Comprehensive Plan existing and future land use maps identify the O'Neil Property PUD parcels as Regional Commercial which is defined as being land use principally for the provision of goods and services with a primary service area of 10 or more miles. The proposed dental/medical and office use would be consistent with the Comp Plan. The geographical area involved: 2442 Highway 10 is bordered by County Road 10 and Long Lake Road on two sides. The Wynnsong movie theater and adjacent retail center borders on the south side, Wildwood Manor senior housing building is across Long Lake Road to the west, and the now vacant former Snyder's store is across Highway 10. The character of the surrounding area: All of the neighboring uses are commercial or multi -family, but no buildings are immediately adjacent to 2442 Highway 10. This building is somewhat isolated in that the immediate surrounding areas are mostly wooded. There is a large distance between this building and the movie theater and retail center, that is wooded and wetland. The Wildwood Manor property across the street is also heavily treed, giving privacy to their building. Neighborhood Impact: The neighborhood should not be impacted by reducing the required setback. The main impact will be to the trail that runs parallel to Highway 10, right next to the building at 2442 Highway 10. The new stair tower would be very close (only a couple of feet) away from the trail. The demonstrated need for such use: The applicant knows that there is a market for dental clinics in Mounds View and the surrounding area. Apple Tree Dental also provides unique dental services (mobile dentistry and surgical options) that are not offered by other dental clinics, and this particular building is a great fit for them because of the climate -controlled attached garage for their trucks and mobile equipment. It appears that amending the PUD to reduce the setback from Highway 10 from 30 feet to 20 feet to allow for an addition to the building should have little to no adverse impacts, and would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff supports the amendment to reduce the Highway 10 setback to 20 feet for the property at 2442 Highway 10. Planning Case PA2012-001 Staff Report Page 3 Recommendation: The Planning Commission should take one of the following actions related to the PUD Amendment request: 1. Recommend approval of the PUD Amendment as requested. Resolution 973-12 is attached for your consideration if you should choose this option. 2. Recommend denial of the request. To consider this option, the Commission will need to direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact to support the denial recommendation. 3. Table action on the request. This option would be appropriate if the Planning Commission should need additional information or more input before a decision can be made. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Site Plan 5. Resolution 973-12 Zoning Map o ' 7611761 n n n n 763,s� 761 W 7595 759 7581 7580 ^� o 7565 7564to f �� by yryh N N N N 7551755.. i I®' to M 7535 753 i N N 7521 752 f ° N ^ 7505 7504 Nto 00 l O N N ' R®4 �' N CITY HALL �'' o 'o ,000 o u`Oi ryh txti ®3 5394 04 Y rG-1 MDQ o 1� ryrp "x P U LnL N N m N PUD o00 in hyo ry O N N O O R®4to B® ry�o N N'� F� �.�.,,.P ':-.m a�. .,—^r, ,. .:,9.w:,,. _.; �. ,. _' �a . ,N_ .. , �_��a4,'z'�•,:�-�3,:`�,.w��� -��:.�'.,.�,. �'-����.�-^*'r's� * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View Photo — Highway 10 Side of Building New stair tower would be built where the white door is, and extend out 10 feet away from the building (to the edge of the asphalt trail). The trail will have to be shifted over a few feet where it runs next to the stair tower. �-- y Am��d�v .�.. .. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 973-12 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE O'NEIL PROPERTY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REDUCE THE HIGHWAY 10 SETBACK TO 20 FEET AT 2442 HIGHWAY 10; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE PA2012-001 WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council approved the 26 -acre O'Neil Property Planned Unit Development (PUD) in May 1998 for the development of a movie theater, retail, restaurant, office and parking uses; and, WHEREAS, the O'Neil Property PUD currently requires a minimum 30 foot setback from Highway 10 for buildings and parking areas; and, WHEREAS, the property located at 2442 Highway 10, is legally described as: Lot 1, Block 2, Anthony Properties Addition PIN 08-30-23-23-0007 WHEREAS, the applicant and property owner wish to amend the PUD by reducing the Highway 10 required setback to 20 feet for the property at 2442 Highway 10 (Parcel A); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this request and has examined the potential adverse effects that could result from such an amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following finding of fact related to this request: 1. The property at 2442 Highway 10 is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). 2. The building at 2442 Highway 10 has been vacant for much of its existence, and as such, a potential tenant has requested an amendment to the PUD to allow a reduced Highway 10 setback in order to make the interior of the building work better for their needs. 3. The Existing and Future Land Use Maps from the City's Comprehensive Plan designates this PUD area as Regional Commercial. Resolution 973-12 Page 2 4. The building at 2442 Highway 10 is within the City's primary commercial corridor and as such, vacant buildings are not desirable. 5. The property at 2442 Highway 10 consists of a two-story office building on approximately three acres that is surrounded by, retail, commercial and multi- family uses. 6. There do not appear to be any adverse effects associated with this proposed amendment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings of fact, does hereby recommend that the O'Neil Property Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement be amended to reduce the Highway 10 setback requirement for the property at 2442 Highway 10 (Parcel A) to 20 feet; and, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 7th day of November, 2012. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 3, 2012 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for October 3, 2012. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Miller, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Smith. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 VR2012-005. Consideration of a Variance for Reduced Driveway 2 Setback Discuss Modification to the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic 4 Development Project and TIF Districts Nos. 1, 2 and 3 3. Approval of Minutes August 15, 2012. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Miller. To approve the Minutes of the August 15, 2012 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting October 3, 2012 Page 2 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases A. VR2012-005 Consideration of a Variance for Reduced Driveway Setback Applicant: Ryan Meyer, JRM Estates, Inc. Address: 8155 Red Oak Drive Planning Associate Heller indicated the applicant, Ryan Meyer, the property owner of 8155 Red Oak Drive is requesting a variance to allow the driveway to have a 2/2 -foot setback. It was noted City Code requires that interior lots be 75 feet wide but the subject property is only 51 feet wide. The existing house was built in 1938 and the driveway location has likely existed with a less than 5 -foot setback since that time. The applicant recently purchased the property and plans to demolish the existing home and rebuild, but keep the existing detached garage. Associate Heller explained City Code requires a five-foot setback for driveways without a variance. She then discussed the variance review criteria in detail. Staff recommends the Commission hold a public hearing and approve the variance as requested. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Chair Stevenson asked if the driveway beyond the fence would move in or remain as is. Ryan Meyer, 8155 Red Oak Drive, explained his intention would be to make the driveway 10 feet in width from the street to the new garage. He stated the block retaining wall on the south side of the driveway would remain in place. Chair Stevenson questioned where the new home would sit on the lot. Mr. Meyer indicated the new home would align more closely with the other homes and would be pulled closer to the street. He reviewed the proposed floor plan with the Commission in further detail. Commissioner Meehlhause inquired how the old garage would be refinished. Mr. Meyer stated he would repaint the existing structure to match the new home. Aren Mahlum, 8145 Red Oak Drive, expressed concern with how cars would maneuver out of the new garage if the existing garage remains on the property. He explained it was his intention to extend his white picket fence along the property line. Another concern would be where the snow would be pushed in the winter months. He suggested the driveway remain as is with the 4 - foot setback. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting October 3, 2012 Page 3 Mr. Meyer commented there was 11 feet from the front of the garage to the side of the house, in addition to the 10 -foot driveway. It was his opinion this was enough space to allow for a car to maneuver out of the garage without driving on the neighboring property. He commented the snow removal could be a hassle, but not much different than it has been in the past. Commissioner Cramblit did not feel the snow removal was a concern, as the new homeowner would have to work through these issues. He suggested a retaining wall or some sort of barrier be placed between the two properties to assure the neighbor's fence was not hit. Commissioner Miller asked why this lot was narrower than the surrounding properties. Mrs. Mahlum explained the lot used to have a detached garage for the home she lives in next door, but was split off and sold. Mr. Mahlum suggested the existing garage be replaced or resided as it was in tough condition. This would assure the structure matched the new home more closely. Commissioner Meehlhause asked for the minimum driveway width standards. Associate Heller stated the City did not have a minimum driveway width. Commissioner Meehlhause questioned if the Commission could consider an eight -foot driveway instead of the 10 foot width. Mr. Meyer indicated this may be an option, however, with snow in the winter months, the extra width would be essential. He did not want the new owner to have concerns entering and exiting the property. He stated the new driveway would also align with the current curb cut. Chair Stevenson did not object to having a 4 -foot setback from the south lot line in the front yard. Mr. Meyer reviewed the lot layout saying he was hoping to save an existing maple tree. He stated if the retaining wall was to remain in place, he would have to cut into the bank supporting the tree. Commissioner Meehlhause suggested the applicant consider a nine -foot driveway width as a compromise. Commissioner Cramblit and Chair Stevenson agreed with this recommendation. Chair Stevenson stated he would be in favor of the driveway being no closer than three feet to the property line, which would allow for a two -foot variance. Commissioner Cramblit agreed with this suggestion. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting October 3, 2012 Page 4 Commissioner Miller asked if the neighbors were in favor with this recommendation. Mrs. Mahlum commented this was not an ideal situation and perhaps a different home design would resolve the situation. Commissioner Cramblit indicated the extension of the retaining wall would assure that cars were not driving into the neighbor's fence. Chair Stevenson suggested the existing retaining wall remain, but that it not be required the entire length of the driveway to the garage. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Miller. To approve Resolution 972-12, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance allowing for a Three Foot Driveway Setback; Planning Case No. VR2012-005. Ayes — 6 6. Other Planning Activity Nays — 0 Motion carried. A. Modification to the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project and TIF Districts Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that the City is modifying the Mounds View Economic Development Project and TIF Districts Nos. 1, 2 and 3, in order to identify parcels that the City would like to acquire through the use of tax increment generated from these districts for redevelopment. The City has created a list of potential redevelopment properties which was discussed in detail with the Commission. It was noted the expansion of this list would provide for greater flexibility for redevelopment in the future. Staff recommended approval of the proposed modifications. Chair Stevenson asked how many more properties were added to the newly revised list. Associate Heller estimated that an additional 250 properties were added to the new list. Commissioner Meehlhause questioned how many properties were removed from the list. Associate Heller explained that through development and demolition of some properties, approximately one-third of the properties on the original list were removed. She noted some of the properties were vacant or landlocked. Chair Stevenson was thanked staff for spending time to review each property in the City. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting October 3, 2012 Page 5 Commissioner Meehlhause was pleased with the expansion of this list as it would provide for greater flexibility to redevelopment these properties. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Meehlhause/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolution 971-12, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Modifications to the Project Plan for the Mounds Vice Economic Development Project and TIF Districts 1, 2 and 3. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. October 17, 2012 B. November 7, 2012 S. Adjournment to Agenda Session Motion carried. There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:04 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. WIND ftIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA December 5, 2012 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: October 3, 2012 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases None 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review Planning Commissioner Applications B. Set 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. December 19, 2012 B. January 2, 2013 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes a. November 7, 2012 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion AM Item No: 6A MT 77�7T1� I' Meeting Date: December 5, 2012 OUNDS VIEW Type of Business: Other Planning Activity City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Planning Commission Term Expirations and New Applications Review The term of three Planning Commission members — Paul Schiltgen, Holly Smith and Keith Cramblit - expire at the end of the year. The remaining two years of Gary Meehlhause's term will also need to be filled since he was elected to the City Council starting in January. The City advertised the vacancies, with applications due on November 26, 2012. Staff received applications from two current Commissioners for another term, and two other applications for the Planning Commission were received by the City. The Planning Commission will review the applications at the December 5, 2012 meeting, and the City Council will make the official appointments on December 10, 2012. Sincerely, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Planning Application from Paul Schiltgen 2. Planning Application from Holly Smith 3. Planning Application from John Elofson 4. Planning Application from Cindy Carvelli-Yu City of Mounds View 2401 County Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 763-7174000 Application for Advisory Commissions and Committees Group(s) applied for: Planning Commission Full Name (Please Print): Paul Schiltgen Work Phone: 651-244-2356 Work/Cell Phone: 612-414-1325 Address: 7807 Bona Rd, Mounds View, MN 55112 Years at this address: 5 Years Years you have lived in Mounds View: 5 Years E-mail Address: paschiltgen@aol.com Experience and Qualifications Skills and Interests: Relationship building and management. Employment, Occupation or Other Relevant Experience: Thomson Reuters sr. Sales Representative. Selling Legal Products and Solutions to Local and Municipal Government agencies in CO, IA, KS, NE, NM, NV. Memberships, Accomplishments or Other Qualifications: Current Member of Mounds View Planning Commission Please state your reason for wanting to serve with this group: I would like to continue my service to Mounds View and help where needed the community. Signature: ^ ` Date: '3 O -Z.CO ( 2 - (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. 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): 1 t4A LM Work Phone: O GE- -7+U 1 Doi Work/Cell Phone: Address: -1-7b0 si l uiw U, jM lel t nds Vt UA-)1On 'ice 112 Years at this address: S Years you have lived in Mounds View: �• S E-mail Address: 1 lD) ���� 11/1 t t l (jVViGt f i�J✓tfl Experience and Qualifications Skills and Interests: I oin- j [4w P ab o- joa& t2 6 pyb�tssiwwd a--nol hnnk W2 K"t, I "a j 0f'9 ao-64e, Employment, Occupation or Other Relevant Experience: RUJ . 0 CAV -e. + Inc. Memberships, Accomplishments or Other Qualifications: t'vc 1��+� logit (t�iwrYilulea- �w 3�Y5. l � ePlas"at.Pve"yW`nw(olus�onLPr vWan �in2�g t1t0y�er-vi e �nit�hJ�t'hT�g�roup: Fz-E vrgct-+�t ��ns, la I � VAAt- �kb- chit b �nv a. -,oi bait nj 'iaWl vee (a } (n as i s . G�611w� //✓1 ; %%- 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 orphysical abilities. MOUNDS ,VIEW 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: P2 fir` °i 14 Full Name (Please Print): tiA -� L Ff Ry Lo '-f ° N Work Phone: 76 3 - `ir S 6 -- 3 t 1 / Work/Cell Phone: Address: S'26o Lang %�1 76� -`f,'6 -Z0I Years at this address: 6 I e ,, rJ' Years you have lived in Mounds View:3�e�<-r E-mail Address: 1e16,1e)o.Pson ) ygkas COP -1 Experience and Qualifications Skills and Interests: Employment, Occupation or Other Relevant Experience: V, i 1-e � I 10,-TeJ` 1%_P' \,L e -- OJY Cc�rvi'e� Memberships, Accomplishments or Other Qualifications: Please state your reason for wanting to serve with this group: ��As1 I TO gR+ 1v^va( �j in -Fh:3 Com. r /n14 -y Signature:/G— 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. F City of Mounds Vie'V 2401 County Highway 10 Niounds View, MN 55112 763-717-4060 Application for Advisory Commissions and Committees 'iarnup(s) applied for_ Planning Commission Full Name (Please Print): Cindy Carvell! -Yu Work Phone-. 692-973-2255 Work[Celi Phone: 651-260-2726 ,address: 5255 Irwindale Road 11901,nds VIGIV Years nt this address: 16 Years you have lived h1 Mounds Vdew_ 16 E -M911 Address,'_ Carveili,yuP_gmaH.Com Experience and Qualifications It ils .and In�erests: Currency, Iam In tyro uct development ata majorfinancial institution. My role Includes market research, Industrytrends, program deployment and project management. I also am active in many voIunteer organizations including Cath aIic Charities, St.:Paui Festival and Heritage Foundation along with several others. I Participate an tWO teams in both Womens and Co -t Vlley hall nlpj ni91it, Occupation or other Relevant Experience: I have significant experience in product development, web marketing and project management. I also chaired the 211fl4Ice Palace in which P•worked closely %with city and civic groups to manage traffic plans, emergency plans,and cro-ved control. tOemberships, Accomplishments or0therQualification s: University -of Minnesota: English Major, Caralon School of Business Fundamentals of Marketing courar-Work, Board Chair of the Saint Paul Festival .and Heritage Foundation, Festival Chair of the St. Paul Winter Carnival.4pera#ions Chair of the 211f14 Ice Palace. Please state your reason for wanting to serve with. "this groLup: Living in Mounds View as achild and refurning as an adult in fiiP.lGgivea me a vested interested in the future of the city and ifs residents. I work'.kell In groups, conflict resolution and creative thinking. Being a part of this Commission'%vould give me theopportJnityto sltands on Nteith thecityand ifs future. Signature: ! / ( pate:, (Your response to any of Etre above- intlutr es may Ibe continued on the back of 4hls form end You may :attach other rinfiormation that you would Eike the City Council to consider.) rhe Cify of 1,4ounds 'Jiety is coillmWed ro the p,.ricy thaf aff Persons shalt have access to Ifs programs, faciMY?s andemotayment 101pbout regani 6orrace, ethniNpj, sex, age arphyakad aCi Nes. of Mounds View Staff Item No: 613 Meeting Date: December 5, 2012 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Subject: Consideration of Resolution 974-12, Establishing the Planning Commission's 2013 Meeting Schedule. Introduction: The Planning Commission establishes its meeting schedule each year by resolution. Discussion: The meeting schedule proposed for 2013 represents the usual first and third Wednesday of every month. There does not appear to be any conflicts with holidays next year. Recommendation: Approve Resolution 974-12, establishing the 2013 meeting schedule of the Planning Commission. Respectfully submitted, Uhj&4--� Heidi Heller Planning Associate MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 974-12 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE 2013 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 2013; 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 2013. 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 5th day of December, 2012 Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) EXHIBIT 1. 2013 MEETING SCHEDULE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 2 January 16 February 6 February 20 March 6 March 20 April 3 April 17 May 1 May 15 June 5 June 19 July 3 July 17 August 7 August 21 September 4 September 18 October 2 October 16 November 6 November 20 December 4 December 18 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 7, 2012 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for November 7, 2012. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Miller, Rundle, Stevenson and Smith. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Schiltgen (excused). Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes PA2012-001. Consideration of an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development Agreement to Reduce the Highway 10 Setback Requirement 3. Approval of Minutes September 5, 2012. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Miller. To approve the Minutes of the September 5, 2012 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting November 7, 2012 Page 2 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases A. PA2012-001 Consideration of an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development Agreement to Reduce the Highway 10 Setback Requirement Applicant: Apple Tree Dental Address: 2442 County Road 10 Planning Associate Heller indicated Apple Tree Dental has a purchase agreement to buy the currently vacant building at 2442 Highway 10, on the southeast corner of Highway 10 and Long Lake Road. This property is zoned PUD and is part of the large O'Neil Property PUD. Apple Tree plans to open a comprehensive dental clinic and house their corporate offices in Mounds View. Extensive changes are proposed to be made to the interior of the building, along with a small addition to the exterior of building, which would encroach into the 30 foot setback from Highway 10. Apple Tree Dental is requesting an amendment to the PUD Agreement to reduce the setback requirement to 20 feet. Associate Heller reviewed the PUD Agreement standards noting the proposed amendment would reduce the Highway 10 setback from 30 feet to 20 feet to allow for an addition to the building, which would have little to no adverse impact and would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She also discussed the trail alignment on this property, and indicated that it would need to be shifted over a few feet where it runs next to the building. Staff supported the amendment to reduce the Highway 10 setback to 20 feet for the property at 2442 Highway 10. Chair Stevenson asked if moving the trail along Highway 10 would be the responsibility of the developer. Associate Heller explained this would be the case. Chair Stevenson requested a new tree be replanted on this property due to the fact a large tree would likely be lost through the proposed building expansion. Donovan Nelson, architect with HGA, commented this property was a great amenity due to the number of trees and wetland onsite. He explained he was working with a landscape architect for the project. Commissioner Cramblit questioned if the site had enough handicap parking spaces. Associate Heller indicated three parking spaces would be lost with the building expansion and the handicap parking requirements would be reviewed by the building inspector. Mounds View Planning Commission November 7, 2012 Regular Meeting Page 3 Dr. Michael Helgeson, CEO of Apple Tree Dental, thanked the Planning Commission for considering his request this evening. Dr. Helgeson noted Apple Tree Dental has been in operation for the past 27 years. He discussed the mobile dental programs offered by Apple Tree Dental, noting these units worked to meet the dental needs of the elderly, disabled and young children. He reviewed further the proposed expansion to the front of the building noting the expanded vestibule would accommodate those in wheelchairs while expanding the elevator to hold a full sized gurney. It was noted executive offices would be located on the second floor of the building. Dr. Helgeson commented the building was a great fit for Apple Tree Dental. Commissioner Smith questioned the amount of investment that was being made in the building. Dr. Helgeson stated he was proposing to invest $4.5 million in the purchase and build -out for the building and another $1.7 million for dental equipment. Commissioner Cramblit inquired if the Coon Rapids location would remain in operation. Dr. Helgeson explained the Coon Rapids location would remain open, along with all their other sites. Mr. Nelson reviewed the proposed elevations with the Commission. Commissioner Miller noted this would be a great addition to the City of Mounds View. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Meehlhause/Commissioner Smith. To approve Resolution 973-12, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a PUD Amendment; Planning Case No. PA2012-001. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 6. Other Planning Activity Associate Heller commented the Tires N More variance request would be discussed by the Commission at the December 5, 2012 meeting. She noted the Commission would also be reviewing Commissioner applications at the December 5th meeting as the group would need three or four new members in January. Associate Heller explained the Coventry Senior Living project was beginning. She discussed the new Coventry Senior Living building in Maplewood, and encouraged the Commission to visit this site as it was similar in size and scale to the proposed project in Mounds View. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. November 21, 2012 B. December 5, 2012 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session November 7, 2012 Page 4 There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:42 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.